Resources / Theory / Turkish makam vs Arabic maqam

Turkish makam vs Arabic maqam

Related traditions, commonly conflated, materially different. An app that merges them produces a system that belongs to neither.

Summary of differences

The pitch difference is audible

Established The clearest case is the neutral third in Rast.

• Turkish AEU: 17 commas ≈ 385 ¢
• Arabic notation: 3½ quarter-tones = 350 ¢
• 12-TET major third: 400 ¢

A 35-cent gap between the two traditions is well above the threshold of perception — roughly a third of a semitone. Turkish Rast leans toward the Western major third; Egyptian Rast sits noticeably lower and flatter.

Practice Real performance in both traditions varies around these figures, and Arabic practice varies more, because Arabic notation is more explicitly an approximation.

Regional variation within Arabic practice

Established Egyptian, Syrian/Aleppine, Iraqi, and Turkish-influenced Ottoman Arabic practices differ in the tuning of the neutral degrees. Aleppo is generally described as preserving a more Ottoman-inflected intonation; Egyptian practice is often described as flatter in the neutral pitches.

Uncertain Precise measured figures per region — I have not verified specific cent values from measurement studies and should not invent them. This is a research task before the app can claim regional variants (see 07-research/open-questions.md).

The transposition trap

Established Turkish notation uses a transposing convention. The perde rast is written as G regardless of the instrument's actual sounding pitch, and the ahenk (pitch level) determines where that actually sounds. Different instruments and different ahenk names shift the sounding pitch substantially.

Consequence for the app: written pitch and sounding pitch must be separate fields. This already caused confusion in the tuning research — Turkish sources give the classical oud as Fa♯–Si–Mi–La–Re–Sol, which a tuner will read roughly a fourth lower. Both statements are correct; they're in different reference frames.

Shared repertoire, divergent readings

Roman/Romani and Balkan musicians move between these systems fluidly, and much of the Aegean and Thracian repertoire exists in both Turkish and Greek versions with different intonation. This is a feature of the music, not a problem to resolve — but it means "the correct tuning of this tune" is often not a well-formed question.

Design recommendation

Do not build a unified Makam record with one pitch set. Build:

Makam
  └── variants[]
        ├── turkish-aeu       (theory)
        ├── turkish-practice  (measured)
        ├── egyptian
        ├── syrian
        └── iraqi

Let the user A/B them. The difference between Turkish and Egyptian Rast, heard back to back on a drone, teaches more in ten seconds than a page of explanation.

Sources

• Karl Signell, Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music (Seattle: Asian Music Publications, 1977; repr. Da Capo Press) — Turkish AEU theory and the ahenk transposition system
• Ozan Yarman, "79-Tone Tuning & Theory for Turkish Maqam Music" (PhD dissertation, Istanbul Technical University Turkish Music State Conservatory, 2008) — comma-precise comparison of Turkish theoretical intervals against Arabic quarter-tone notation
• Scott L. Marcus, Music in Egypt: Experiencing Music, Expressing Culture (Oxford University Press, 2006) — Egyptian maqam Rast tuning and regional Arabic practice
• Johnny Farraj and Sami Abu Shumays, Inside Arabic Music: Arabic Maqam Performance and Theory in the 20th Century (Oxford University Press, 2019) — regional variation across Egyptian, Syrian/Aleppine, and Iraqi maqam schools
• Walter Feldman, Music of the Ottoman Court: Makam, Composition and the Early Ottoman Instrumental Repertoire (Intercultural Music Studies vol. 10, Berlin, 1996) — shared Ottoman-Arab historical background
• Owen Wright, The Modal System of Arab and Persian Music, A.D. 1250–1300 (London Oriental Series 28, Oxford University Press, 1978) — the common theoretical root of the two traditions before they diverged