Contributions Of Islamic Knowledge to The world

I'd like to offer some observations in support of the position of "pinguin" aka Omar,

First: to a non-musician it may not be at all obvious, but there is an assumption among
many modern musicians that the presence of frets on an instrument implies the use of
modern equal-tempered tuning, which then presents itself as (apparently) a decisive gap between western and eastern musics. However, until the 18th century CE, the frets on fretted instruments were movable. At some point in my recent reading, perhaps from a link in this thread, I read an excerpt from a 15th century CE Spanish/Arab lutenist or guitarist about the necessity of adjusting the frets properly to fit the mode of the melody. This would certainly be necessary in order to play maqams (Arabic and Turkish modes) on an oud with frets. It is also desirable for musicians who want to tune their instruments in older temperaments, and who are not using modern harmonic structures. My feeling is that there were several centuries of transitional practice after fitting frets to the oud, during which there was a gradual increase in the use of the more modern harmonies that now require fixing the frets. 13th and 14th century counterpoint practice does not appear to be a style that would have worked well on a solo lute, although two or three lutes together could certainly play compositions from that period, and to my knowledge there is no solo lute music from that period. There is no printed lute music earlier than the 16th century CE, but some of this 16th Century lute music (Hans Neusidler) is sometimes very much like oud music, having a single melody and using the bass strings as drones. It seems pretty likely (to me as a guitarist who has played some of the lute repertory) that the practice of counterpoint on the lute didn't arise until the 15th century, and that the precursor to that practice would have been the use of organum-like parallel melodies on two strings (again, this is an idea that I found in following the links in your thread.)

2nd point: To me as a guitarist, it is not at all obvious that there is a clear distinction between the guitar, the oud and the lute. The famous medieval Spanish picture showing the "guitarra latina" and the "guitarra morisca" shows that the same word was applied to both instruments, as the guitarra latina is obviously guitar-like and the guitarra morisca is obviously an oud. Given the meaning of the root word "tar" meaning string, and the number-prefixes ektar, dotar, setar, sitar, etc which are common in Persia and India, and the use of the two variants of Greek "kithara" to describe two different stringed instruments neither of which was a modern guitar, and the several European variants such as "cittern" and "gittern" which were applied to round-bodied guitar-like instruments, there is no reason to believe that the word guitar had as specific a meaning in ancient times as it does today. Instead, I believe that it meant generically "stringed instrument". The actual distinction in medieval times was, I believe, between bowed and plucked instruments, and the modern guitar is a hybrid of these: the incurved sides are the remains of the indentations to allow use of the bow. Hence the 16th Century Spanish use of the word "vihuela" and the modern Portuguese word "violao" - both meaning "violin-family-instrument" - for guitar.

3rd: The argument that musical techniques accompanied the transmission of poetic forms from Arab Spain to the Provencal troubadors seems convincing enough to me. To me as a musician there is no reason to doubt that the poetic forms were closely associated with musical forms which would correctly support the metrical structure of the poem. Many ancient schools of poetry from Homer to the Irish bards were apparently intended to be sung, and the musical style would have been transmitted directly with the poetry rather than re-invented afresh with each generation, although obviously it would have evolved just as languages do. So the probability that the descendants of the Ziryab school directly influenced the course of European music through the music of Provencal does not seem far-fetched to me. However, this is just my opinion, of course.

4th: It has always been a puzzle to me why the medieval Catholic system of church modes was so simplistic, when the Arabic / Turkish maqams and the Hindustani raga, both modal systems, are so amazingly complex. My answer has been that the Catholic church (1) needed a really dumbed-down system so that the monks would not have to spend years learning it, and (2) that they regarded music with deep suspicion and were reluctant to allow it to be learned in detail. So I have come to the belief that the early Catholic church actively suppressed musical knowledge just as they did many other areas of inquiry, and that fresh input was probably required from somewhere in order to stimulate the musical development of the late middle ages and Renaissance. (Although the church was a major patron of European art music for centuries, it was always very conservative in its support, never in favor of innovation but reluctantly accepting developments.)

It is an acknowledged fact in India that the northern Hindustani musical style is a hybrid of Hindu and Muslim cultural influences, so again it doesn't seem to me to be terribly unlikely that the same thing occurred on the frontiers of Europe. The existence of the Hindustani solfege syllables Sa - Re - Ga - Ma - Pa - Dha - Ni - Sa are very similar to the European series, and Hindustani music developed in the Mogul courts and began its divergence from the South Indian Karnatic style under the influence of Muslim invasions beginning in the 12th Century CE. (It could be argued that the syllables were introduced by the British invaders much later, but this is to ignore Hindustani musical tradition which traces the existence of specific musical schools back at least to the 16th century CE.)

5: The question of the influence of Turkish music on 18th and 19th century European musicians appears to me to be an entirely separate issue, and it's well documented anyway. It's a completely different set of parameters than the question of Muslim influence in the late middle ages.

6: Regarding the co-existence of the lute, oud and guitar in medieval Spain but not in Renaissance Spain: The lute was the pre-eminent instrument in northern Europe in the sixteenth century, but not in Spain, although it had been present there before. Why? IMO, it was because playing a lute / oud in Spain after 1492 was likely to get a musician burned at the stake on suspicion of being a Muslim. Everybody started playing the vihuela instead - with the exact same tuning and techniques as were used for the LUTE in the rest of Europe! We're looking at the results of a political change here, not a musical change. Over the seven hundred or so years of Muslim presence in Spain, musical styles had as much opportunity to evolve as did language, which evolved considerably. Considering how much music has changed from the time of Luis Milan and Alonso Mudarra to the time of Al DiMeola and Paco de Lucia, there was plenty of time for the style of Ziryab to evolve to the style of Luis Milan. There was also plenty of time for Ziryab's influence to percolate through the rest of Europe along with the transmission of Greek texts translated through the Arabic and so on. Music has the misfortune of being poorly documented - perhaps because of its demotion from a science to an art in Catholic Europe.

Originally posted by gcle2003 ...There are pre-Arab oud/lute-like instruments. But I accept that the lute derived from the oud, converted to Western needs.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 my own site http://www.cleverley.org/translations/spanish/villasandino.html

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by pinguin Agreed.   However, the point about Arabs influencing western music is standing still.   (1) We agree there was some influences in the introduction of new instruments, that become frettered in the west (oud --> lute, for example) Nope. The evidence is that the oud had to be converted to the lute before you could (easily) play European music on it. This shows no Arab influence on European music at all. Music is not determined by the instruments you play it on: if anything it's the other way around: your music determines what instruments you use.   The oud->lute transition is evidence that Arab music did NOT influence European medieval music. (Other wise they could have stuck with the oud.)

Agreed.

I really feel that religion of all sorts has been more of a hindrance than a help in advancing human existence. Individuals have been reponsible for discoveries and advancement, religion has largely been immaterial or as I have said a hindrance, see Galileo e.g. 

Originally posted by Bulldog Gcle2003 There was an influence, it was slight, and it had no permanent effect (apart from the importation of some rhythm instruments into the marching band and the orchestra).   The "Turkish style" was European composers incorporation of their interpretations of Turkish music.

Gcle2003 There was an influence, it was slight, and it had no permanent effect (apart from the importation of some rhythm instruments into the marching band and the orchestra).

Originally posted by pinguin Oh lord! You are going to deny Turkish influences in Europe, now. That would be fun to read. I just watch

Edited by gcle2003 - 11-May-2008 at 15:42

Originally posted by Bulldog "Musical" contribution arguments typically end up in controversy Spanish music regarding instruments definately has some Arab influence for example the flamengo guitar and oud are pretty similar.