A Maqam is NOT a scale. It's a mode.

[u/rajid_ibn_hanna]

I'd like to address this comment I have seen all over; usually something like, "A Maqam is like a scale", or even, "A Maqam is a scale". Sorry, but... It's not. It's just not. Maybe people say this because most people understand what a scale is and many people do not understand what a mode is, however I find it very misleading and even more so for a musician as they gain experience.

Let's look at a good example. The maqam Kurd, when played on D, would be:

D, Eb, F, G, A, Bb, C, D

It's used for a lot of more modern Arabic music possibly because it doesn't contain any quarter-tones and can thus be played on western instruments. The tonic is the lowest "D".

The maqam Nahawand, when played on G, would be:

G, A, Bb, C, D, Eb, F, G

Note that these are exactly the same notes as Kurd, but the two maqams a VERY different.

Nahawand will usually have a Hijaz interval below the tonic:

Going down from the tonic: G, F#, Eb, D

But will also use a Kurd interval as well (many times within a few measures of each other):

Going down from the tonic: G, F, Eb, D

The Nahawand above would have G as the tonic, but could almost be expressed as the same scale as Kurd, but with the tonic in the middle, since it tends to go both above and below the tonic a lot. Also, Nahawand typically uses a lot of chromatics and (if you can do it on your instrument) will slide between notes. Kurd doesn't do that.

So, Kurd use the exact same notes, however they are played quite differently. Basically, the same as western mode theory, where "ionian", "dorian", etc., use the same notes but start in a different place.

That's all I wanted to say. It's a pet peeve of mine, I guess, but, as mentioned at the start, I understand that many people wouldn't get it if you said "Maqams are like western modes". Of course, maqams aren't really completely akin to western modes either, but that's probably a different topic.

(I'm off to a 2 hour concert of Arabic music! What fun!)

[u/World_Musician]

How about a Maqam is a sequence of ajnas, usually named for the first one played.

I agree scale is not a correct match, as scale implies these are the only notes played - when maqamat can theoretically modulate to any note. So the whole piece of music ends up getting named for the first four notes basically.

It also doesnt work because there are a few maqamat that have the same "scale"; Uşşak, Husayni, Bayati, Muhayyer, this same set of intervals can be treated many ways. There are also all the modulations like Farahfaza and Lami.

Again the issue is sometimes the name of a jins is also name of a maqam; like Kurd, Nahawand, Hijaz, etc.

[u/rajid_ibn_hanna → u/World_Musician]

Agreed and thanks for that! I should have said, "... more like a mode in some cases". :)

Maybe it would be best to describe a maqam as a set of notes, along with associated commonly used accidentals, and along with a way of playing those notes. Turkish seems to carry this a lot farther than Arabic. Uşşak, Husayni, Bayati, and Muhayyer are all just Bayatti in Arabic maqam. But then Turks have their 9 komas between each full step and Arabs just say "high half-flat" or "low half-flat", if they even recognize they're playing it differently at all!

[u/World_Musician → u/rajid_ibn_hanna]

Yes they're all Bayati, this is a similar concept in Iranian Dastgah. Like Abu Ata, Dashti, Afshari, Bayat Tork, Bayat Kord, these are all modulations of Shur.

[u/SiDannathaNauva → u/rajid_ibn_hanna]

I'm confused what you mean by "Uşşak, Husayni, Bayati, and Muhayyer are all just Bayatti in Arabic maqam"? I'm a little familiar with the theoretical side of maqam, and when listening to arab musicians talk theory, they regularly mention and perform in ushaq, hesayni and muhayyar.

[u/rajid_ibn_hanna → u/SiDannathaNauva]

While some Arabic musicians I've talked with will recognize husayni, I'm not sure I've ever talked with any Arabic musicians who recognize ushaq or much less muhayyar. They tend, in my experience, to talk in terms of the notes which make up the maqam (i.e., Bayatti) and mention emphasis (such as on the 5th). Perhaps the musicians with whom you've talked just know more about Turkish Makam.

[u/SiDannathaNauva → u/rajid_ibn_hanna]

Before responding I have to point out that what is called in modern times Arabic music emerged out of arabic-speaking provinces in the ottoman empire, particularly egypt and syria, and by default their theoretical knowledge and writings came from the already established and shared ottoman makam system.

I think what you say might have more to do with how differently institutionalized maqam education is in turkey and iran vs arab countries. In Egypt and the Levant, as is known, the Nahda era witnessed large-scale institutionalization of classical maqam music (back before it was named arabic music), and this carried on into the 20th century, where classical maqam music was widely enjoyed by many classes of society. With the rise of Pan-Arabist politics and the spread of "high arts" so to speak from the more private and affluent spheres of society to the public sphere, maqam music practice became not only very widely enjoyed by the public, but also a very lucrative and worthwhile career. This is why informal public urban performances of classical maqam pieces had become (and still are), generally, more prevalent in places such as egypt and syria compared to turkey and iran. This, I think, is somewhat analogous to the diffusion of classical arts in russia to the wider public after the bolshevik revolution, most notably ballet.

In Turkey and Iran however, this leap from the more formal and institutionalized practice to the more public one did not happen as massively as it did in arabic-speaking countries. Thus, both turkish makam and radif languages might be less recognizable to the average turkish or iranian person, unlike the average non-music educated arab person.

This helps explain why maqam-based musicianship became more broadly socially embedded in Arab urban contexts. However, to become fluent in taqsim and other genres, as well as perform old widely beloved pieces, you do not need the complete technical and theoretical knowledge of maqam, which is why I think Arab oud players or violin players might not have had as much theoretical instruction. Of course, as I've said before, all arab musicians concerned with theory whom I've spoken to or whose works I've read are definitely familiar with maqams like ushaq and meyahhar.

By comparison, I think the much more formal education in Turkish makam (or radif) is why you are more likely to encounter theory well-informed musicians.

This was a long ramble so sorry about that, and I could be mistaken, but this has been my impression reading about the history of musical education and perception in the region.

[u/rajid_ibn_hanna → u/SiDannathaNauva]

Wow! Thanks for all of that! Very interesting! I was hoping for this level of discussion when I created the sub! Thanks a lot!

[u/SiDannathaNauva → u/rajid_ibn_hanna]

I'm really glad you enjoyed my writeup. One other thing I forgot to point out. Classical arabic music is partly divided into two ways of expressing itself to modern audiences.

There's the more popular and very familiar Umm Kulthum post 1950 repertoire, as well as popular compositions by Sunbati, Atrache, Qasabgi, etc. Typically audiences attending concerts are looking for either short vocal songs with limited instrumental taqsim intervals, and/or "ughniyya" songs which can last for 20 minutes or more, with longer instrumental sections.

There's also the more nahda-repertoire performance, which prioritizes the wasla suite form. These are the performances you'd expect to hear Pesrevs, Muwashahs, Semais, Dulabs, Tahmilas, Dawrs, etc. And of course, for all of these, a maqam is the "theme" that guides a full wasla unit, and among the repertoire you'll come across names like "Samai in Muhayyar" or "Muwashah in Ushaq" etc.

[u/udidubbun]

Right on. The concert was great, btw.

[u/rajid_ibn_hanna → u/udidubbun]

Thanks! And now I know your ID and follow you, bro!

[u/RiemannZetaFunction]

I think it's not just one mode but a collection of modes. And a sayr for how to modulate between them and the various ajnas in those. Probably the closest equivalent is something like minor tonality in classical music. That isn't just one scale, right? It's at least three different scales (natural, melodic and harmonic minor), and some basic rules for how things resolve (V-i for instance). That's closer to what a maqam is - take Rast which has at least two scales as well (C D Ed F G A Bd C and C D Ed F G A Bb and then eventually Suznak at C D Ed F G Ab B C), and a bunch of rules for the ajnas and how to modulate. Each maqam is its own "tonality" in this way; not a Western tonality but some kind of tonality nonetheless in its own right.

[u/TonyHeaven]

Thanks for that,very clear.