You are on page 1of 18

Transcribing Maqamat in the 21st Century

By Mili Leitner

Anthropology of Music, University of Chicago


Spring 2015
Professor Travis Jackson

Transcribing Maqamat in the 21st Century

Transcriptionhas long been considered universally applicable and universally requisite to


ethnomusicological methodology (Ellingson 1992:110)
Today it is not transcription but fieldwork that constitutes ethnomusicology (Cooley/Barz
2008:62)
Introduction
This paper will consider how the major issues of musical transcription pertain to post-2000
literature on maqamat. I begin with a brief explanation of maqamat, before considering four
interconnected themes that emerge from the texts being reviewed: purpose, representation,
method, and training. These are discussed using examples from recent maqam literature, as well as
important precedents within the genre. Some topics are stated explicitly as subheadings, but their
interwoven nature has led me to comment upon some in the context of other discussions, in
order to illuminate some other point in hand. I also comment upon notation one cannot have
transcription without notation, after all (Ellingson 1992:153) - and how notational style choice
aligns with scholars disciplinary affiliations.
To contextualize this study within the Music disciplines more broadly, I will consider how maqam
transcription scholarship fits within trends in Ethnomusicology, and compare this to the
methodologys use within other Music sub-disciplines such as Music Theory, Music Perception,
and Music Cognition. This will allow consideration of whether the approach to transcription
found in recent literature is the norm or the exception within Ethnomusicological disciplinary
trends, and whether Ethnomusicological studies of maqam are at odds or in line with scholarship
on this genre in other Music sub-disciplines. For example, I will consider the question of whether
recent maqam scholarship is in line with Ethnomusicologys post-1980s tendency away from
studying musical objects in favor of Anthropological and Sociological influenced work.
By organizing my comments around interdisciplinary divides and expectations, I hope also to
illuminate paradigms within Ethnomusicological scholarship, and will make tentative suggestions
in my conclusion as to how such paradigms might shift through an increase in cross-disciplinary
collaboration, resulting in the facilitation of new methods of transcription and analysis in maqam
scholarship.

Maqamat
Maqamat (singular: maqam) are the many interrelated modal systems used in traditional music
from Persia/Iran, Turkey, Central Asia and Arab nations. The various maqam traditions are
referred to by local variants of this term, such as makam (Turkey), shashmaqam (Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan) and dastgah (Persia), with the exception of the Arabic system, which simply goes by
maqam. These modal systems encompass musical aspects such as the tuning system, scale, affect,
structural melodic organization, and pitch contour. Performances are improvised within the
structure provided by the maqam. In some cases a larger structure exists for organizing the
complete repertory of the musical tradition, such as the radif (Persia) or mukam (East Turkistan;
Uyghur territory of China); as in the latter case these collections of melodic outlines may bear the
same name as their modal system.
While maqam refers specifically to the Arab tradition, it can be used to refer to maqamic traditions
as a super-national whole; it is in this context that I use the term, referring specifically to the local
variants where appropriate. I opt to conflate these distinct musical systems because in terms of
transcription, the many maqam traditions have been subject to the same treatment by Western
and indigenous scholars, most importantly in the near-universal application of Western staff
notation by both the former and the latter for at least the past century.
Maqamat have been the subject of indigenous theoretical musical investigation for over 700 years.
Keogh states, [a]rticulating the connection between music theory and practice has for many
centuries been the subject of intellectual enquiry concerning the musical practices associated with
maqam; there remains a divide between theory and practice in both Western
Ethnomusicological and indigenous theoretical understandings of maqamat. As transcription is
central to theory, and (traditionally, in Ethnomusicology,) to analyzing musical practice, this
paper will review whether and how it is currently being used to this end.

Literature Review
Transcriptions Purpose, Past and Present
Ethnomusicologists have engaged in transcription of non-Western musics for as long as the
discipline has existed. Ellingson offers an explanation for the earliest reasons scholars gave for

this practice, stating that it was seen to provide objectively quantifiable and analyzable data that
furnished a solid base for ethnomusicologys claim to scientific validity (1992:110).
Today, with notions such as objective data and scientificism being thoroughly out of fashion in
Ethnomusicology (which often finds itself situated within humanities departments), one searches
for new justifications for transcription relevant to current trends within the discipline. With an
increasingly critical outlook on the usefulness of transcription, which was rejected during the
Ethnomusicological crisis of representation in the 1990s, one must ask: What is the purpose of
transcription? What does it offer the Ethnomusicologist? And as Simms (2003:5) asks, referring
specifically to his own attempts to transcribe Iraqi maqam, [w]hy transcribe music that inevitably
eludes the quantitative confines of notation? These questions are critical because they shape the
methodologies and representative styles that the scholar chooses for her work during the process
of transcription.
Regardless, transcription certainly has lost its central place within the discipline that it once held.
Cooley and Barz state that [t]oday it is not transcription but fieldwork that
constitutes ethnomusicology (2008:62). Indeed, if the discipline defines itself by what it does,
this is undisputedly true. Institutions of higher education routinely offer courses in field methods
and implicitly require fieldwork as part of any Masters or Doctoral dissertation. By contrast, a
survey of the graduate school curricula of twenty well-regarded schools in Canada, USA and UK
illustrated that transcription holds no such position, being a required course at but three of these
institutions, and a compulsory element of qualifying exams at just one. Further, none of these
institutions actually use the word transcription in their course titles, but instead employ the
methodology under the guise of modal analysis (University of Chicago) or laboratory
methods (UCLA). This in itself is telling; in the first case transcription is put to use to serve a
broader goal of musical analysis, in the second it is just one methodology amongst many, no
longer worthy of its historically elevated status, just as Cooley and Barz so rightly claim. Clearly
the disciplines perspective on transcription has transformed from a century ago when
Hornbostel/Abraham claimed that [w]riting down melodies in notation is essential (1909:1),
and even from Lists 1979 assertion that For a study to be ethnomusicological the scholar must
transcribe the music (1979:1).
And yet, in 21st century maqam literature, transcription appears to be put to use in almost every
scholarly study. This suggests that maqam scholarship is somewhat at odds within
Ethnomusicology at large. My colleagues, all of whom have some experience in listening to and
analyzing maqam, suggested during discussions I shared with them concerning this issue that the
genres scholarship is lagging behind the mainstream of Ethnomusicology in its methodology;

however I question whether this is necessarily the case. Perhaps instead, maqam scholars have
continued to see value in transcription, and refused to follow disciplinary fashions in favor of
doing good work using methodologies that serve their goals. I suggest two key reasons that
maqam scholars might offer for their continuing attribution of value to transcription.
The first, espoused by Tenzer, is that the goal of transcription is the experience of transcription
in itself (2006:8). Nettl (2005) supports this, stating as his third of five reasons for doing
transcription that the pleasure gained from the act of transcription is a worthy end-goal, because
it is fun and gives the Ethnomusicologist a sense of ownership over their subject of study.
(Whether ownership over another peoples music is something to be desired is certainly
debatable.) Interestingly, Nettl appears to be invested in transcription for the sake of the
researchers personal gain, than seeing it as useful for productive scholarship per se; his other
justifications for doing transcription include its historical status within the discipline (which can
be illustrated with Ellingsons comment that [t]ranscriptionhas long been considered
universally applicable and universally requisite to ethnomusicological methodology 1992:110)
and its use to prove an Ethnomusicologists competence. These may serve the scholar and the
discipline, but they do not serve the music, nor a readers understanding of it. The latter is
addressed by the last two purposes given by Nettl, firstly that transcription shows a respect of
real music through the labor required in transcription (echoed by Tenzer: [When]
peopleanalyze others music, it is usually motivated by respect (2006:10)) thus demonstrating
the importance of cross-cultural respect to the reader, and secondly that the Ethnomusicologist
may choose what is significant through making her own transcriptions. Significance is a key
concept touched upon by Hood (1971:55), and in the introductions to the volumes edited by
Tenzer (2006) and Roeder/Tenzer (2011). Further comments on this will be offered under the
discussion of method later in this paper.
I have failed to find the viewpoint that transcriptions purpose is to serve the Ethnomusicologist
or the discipline stated explicitly within maqam literature, although Nettls generalist writing is
surely based to some extent upon his extensive personal experiences transcribing and analyzing
radif. Transcription may be an enjoyable experience for some (and I count myself amongst that
number), but certainly I know many fine Ethnomusicologists who would disagree with this view.
Further, this argument is based on a subjective opinion, and one which is completely inadequate
in justifying transcription at worst, it does the methodology a disservice, framing it as a useless
and indulgent hobby, which surely is not how Ethnomusicologists would want to represent their
work in times when funding is hard to come by!

Simms, in his thorough reflexive commentary on his own experience transcribing the Iraqi
maqam, posits a commonly held view amongst Ethnomusicologists regarding the purpose of
transcription, which rejects Tenzer and Nettls viewpoints in favor of seeing transcription as a
means to a greater end:
For those who can read notation I believe that it makes certain structural features
more readily apparent and discernable, allows for certain comparative and analytical
observations outside the flow of time, facilitates the memory of musical materials,
and can help one locate and follow the series of events that occur in a long
performance. Some benefits only go to the transcriber Transcription increases the
speed and volume of musical transmission compared to traditional oral means,
differing radically in both quality (i.e., it is less accurate) and quantity (places a larger
repertoire at ones fingertips. [It] has the potential to deepen our understanding of
various levels of musical structure (2003:5)
Based upon the literature reviewed in this paper, Simms position seems to be representative of
Ethnomusicologists, past and present. Most often, their transcriptions are contextualized by
analysis of the music, in some cases to illuminate a point about the relationship between
individual performances and the piece (e.g., Gerson-Kiwi 1963), in other cases to give weight
to a point about extra-musical cultural behavior (e.g., Shelemey 1998), and occasionally seemingly
to simply make a peoples musical practices more widely known and understood in their own
right, without external referents or a desire to make a generalizable point (e.g., Kligman 2009).

Notational Systems: Precedents and Implications


As previously stated, the explanation offered by Simms that the purpose of transcription is its
ability to aid in further analysis of a work or a musical culture more generally, is the most
commonly evoked reason for transcription in the literature reviewed for this paper. This is linked
closely to the transcribers choice of notational system. It is worth noting at this point that
notation and transcription are closely related but not the same; notation is the system used to
refer to sounds, whereas transcription is the representation of sounds using notation. Since
transcription is contingent upon notation (Ellingson 1992:153), I will discuss notation first.
Beyond facilitating analysis of a particular work, transcription can enable a better understanding
of a musical culture in general. This is most evident in transcriptions that are made using native
notation. Ellingson points out that some notational systems index cultural values, such as the

Newar mantra notation, which references cosmological beliefs (1992:163). He is implicitly


arguing against transcribing using Western notation for a musical culture that does not itself
employ this convention, since in this act of translation some information is lost.
These observations do not appear to have direct relevance for maqam scholarship, for which
Western notation has been used since its intonation was standardized at the turn of the 20th
century, ultimately a result of al-Farabis Arab tone system proposed as early as the 9th century.
Further, Middle Eastern art and traditional musics have long interacted with Western classical
music, suggesting that a shared notation system is no more an imperialist imposition than the
Wests borrowing and adaptation of Oriental musical instruments (such as the rebab, derived
from the Morin khuur (horsehead fiddle) which became the violin on its arrival in Northern Italy
in the 16th century) is appropriation of that cultures products. If [a]ll established systems of
notation have developed in response to the particular requirements of the tradition they serve
(Hood 1971:62), then surely maqam should be transcribed using Western staff notation, since this
is the system that has been used by local musicians since well before Ethnomusicologists began
attempting to represent maqam to Western readers. Nettl appears to endorse this, stating that
Western notation is being adopted by musical cultures throughout the worldand it has
become (e.g., in Iran) a reasonably adequate prescriptive system, and this is leading to a kind of
vindication of Western notation for purposes of transcription (2005:90). By vindication, he
refers to the tendency for Ethnomusicologists to critique our intellectual ancestors, and to
disparage methods that might be the aftermath of Eurocentricism, which the discipline attempts
to avoid in favor of cultural relativism. Nettl thus suggests that if a people adopts Western
notation for its own indigenous use, Western scholars are justified in their use of the same
notation system when they transcribe that musical tradition. By so doing they are, after all, using
the current authentic local notational style.
However, alternative notation systems have been suggested for maqamat by indigenous theorists
and performers, including Safi al-Dins (13th century) and Ekrem Karadenizs (20th century)
systems, which had seventeen and 41 notes per octave respectively (Puchowski 2008:872). These
substitutes for conventional Western staff notation are intended to rectify a significant problem
that emerges from the use of this system for transcribing maqam, that regional intonation
differences cannot only be represented on a Western staff, since they require microtonal
notations not facilitated by having quarter-notes as the smallest pitch value (i.e., a 24 note scale).
Gerson-Kiwis work on Persian radif (1963) is a good reflection of this deficiency; she states that
she only transcribed performances with stable tone relations, by which she means those that
adhere to an equal-tempered 24 note scale (11). This had the effect of excluding performs outside
of the Tehran tradition from her work, since only Tehranians performed the canonized,

transcribed, standardized version of the radif during the 1960s, whereas those from outside the
capital used regional variants of intonation and dastgahs. Gerson-Kiwis work is representative of
her generational cohort, with Nettl (1987) and Cohen/Katz (2013 NB, a forty year project that
began in 1963) providing further examples of maqam transcriptions. Notably, these scholars all
cite Idelsohn as an influence on their transcription and analysis style, either as direct teacher in
Gerson-Kiwis case, or through sporadic mentorship or scholarly influence for Nettl, Cohen and
Katz. Idelsohns own transcriptions (1914 et al) appear to have served as a precedent for
transcribing maqam during the mid-part of the 20th century.

Reforming Notation: Radical Proposals


While Gerson-Kiwi passes no evaluative comment on the circumstances that came to shape her
musical selections, more recent scholars from both Western and Middle Eastern musical
backgrounds make explicit comment upon the 24-note scales implications for regional
intonation, and propose alternative notation systems to rectify the problem at hand. Pohlits
article (2009) on Turkish makam reports in favor of revitalizing a microtonal system invented by
the 20th century qanun player Weiss, which made it possible to transcribe microtonal difference of
one cent on a Western staff. Weiss invented this intonation system during his PhD studies,
specifically as an attempt to stop the hybridization of distinct traditions with those from
neighboring areas (Pohlit 2009:51). Pohlit also offers a thorough background of the historical
developments of qanun tuning. This helps the reader to understand his proposal as something less
than revolutionary, but actually following in a tradition of creating regionally appropriate notation
systems for transcription. Indeed, Weiss has proposed at least three alternatives to the system for
which Pohlit advocates.
Keogh (2014) proposes another alternative to the 24-note scale, finding himself similarly
dissatisfied with the incompatibility of this standardized system with regional tuning systems.
Unlike Pohlit, Keogh does away with Western staff notation entirely, using it only as a reference
to explain his own notational style. He uses numbers in circles (1-24, corresponding to quartertones) with dots and dashes above and below, which indicate microtonal adjustments to the
quarter tone system.
A more radical proposal comes from Lartillot (2012), who offers up a computerized transcription
system for maqamat. His goal is to undermine a key aspect of traditional Ethnomusicological
transcription, and indeed of all hand-created notation and transcription systems: to show what is
significant about the music in question. Instead, his automated system shows an equal level of

detail at all possible areas of analysis. He also hopes to offer an objective way of dealing with the
discrepancies between individual performances of Arabic maqamat, by creating a mathematical
formula that discards statistical outliers in any given area (he uses intonation as an example) in
order to reveal the piece that emerges from diverse performances.
Published in the Analytical Approaches to World Music journal, Keogh and Polits articles inhabit
interdisciplinary spaces. Pohlit straddles Music Theory and Historical Ethnomusicology, whereas
Keogh draws upon Ethnomusicology, Media Studies and Cultural Studies. Lartillot works in
Music Cognition and Audio Theory. This might go some way to accounting for their relatively
provocative proposals, which sit in stark contrast to maqam literature from journals such as
Ethnomusicology or Music Theory Spectrum.

The Ethnomusicological Mainstream


Representatives of North Americas Ethnomusicological mainstream, with regard to transcription
purpose and method, include Kartomi (2004), Kligman (2009), Shelemey (1998), Simms (2003,
2012). By mainstream, I refer to those scholars who appear to have the support of the
discipline, which I measure as recognition by major scholarly societies (e.g., invited keynote
speeches, honorary titles, etc, by SEM, ICTM or BFE), tenure-track job positions, books
published with academically respected publishing houses, and publications in journals with high
readership numbers (e.g. Ethnomusicology; Ethnomusicology Forum). The four scholars cited above all
display significant scholarly success by these measures.
Defining the mainstream is important for two reasons. Firstly, because this group of scholars is
representative of a particular trend in maqam notation and transcription, which (as discussed
earlier) sits at odds with both the majority of current Ethnomusicological scholarship, and with
the radical proposals suggested by Lartillot, Keogh and Polit. Secondly, the fact that this group of
scholars is unusual in comparison to closely related scholarly output suggests that one might need
to consider how and why this has come to be, which becomes a question of disciplinary
paradigms and institutional training (mentioned earlier with reference to the disappearance of
required courses in transcription and analysis).
To illustrate the first issue, one need only look at the style of notation employed by Kartomi,
Kligman, Shelemey and Simms: in stark contrast to the graphics of Lartillot, Keogh and Polit, the
mainstream scholars all employ Western staff notation with very minimal alterations. Hood
(1971) stated that Ethnomusicologists using this notational system tend to meddle with it in

order to demonstrate its inadequacy in representing the sounds being transcribed. Not so, in the
case of these four current Ethnomusicologists. Their transcriptions could easily be mistaken for
Western music, based on visual appearance. The only indication of some deviation from this is
the use of quarter tones to accommodate a 24-note scale, where necessary. This is achieved in a
standardized fashion, following the precedents laid down by Idelson (1914), Gerson-Kiwi (1963),
Nettl (1987), and indeed indigenous maqam in written form, such as Farahanis early 19th century
publication of the radif (precise date of publication unknown) (Nooshin 2015).

Representation Through Transcription


I now turn to another issue that has been long-debated within Ethnomusicology at large:
representation. To illustrate this issues, I look beyond maqam literature to more theoretical writings.
This is not just a matter of understanding maqam scholarships relationship to generalist literature,
but a matter of necessity, since there is a complete lack of explicit reflexivity regarding
transcription within this musical genre. Questions that characterize this issue include: who is
being represented in transcription? Who is the transcription for? In both cases, the potential
answers are the Western-minded ethnographer herself and her (Western, and Western-music
literate colleagues, if you will) readers, or, on the other hand, her interlocutors, and herself as a
participant within that society/culture. Scholars have variously characterized this dialectic as
emic/etic, general/specific (Hood 1971); piece/performance (Hood 1971; Nettl 2005:80-82;
Cooley/Barz 2008:35), prescriptive/descriptive; thoroughness/elegance (Nettl 2005); and means
to an end (Roeder/Tenzer 2011)/end in itself (Nettl 2005; Hood 1971 (to a limited degree)).
Hoods proposal of the G-S line (1971:57) is perhaps the most useful conceptualization of
representative choices in transcription. The major contribution offered by this idea is the use of a
spectrum, rather than two polarized options, in considering representation through transcription.
His proposal can be shown in a diagram:

G
Individual
transcriber

Cultural determinants

The x-axis, labeled cultural determinants, refers to those factors within a cultures musical
tradition that inform how an Ethnographer will choose to represent that music in transcription.
Hood implicitly hypothesizes that some musics intrinsically require more detailed transcription
than others. This is debatable at best, and at worst seems to undermine cultural relativism and
impose subjective value hierarchies upon now-competing musical traditions (with those requiring
more specific transcription being more complex, and therefore more valuable, and the product
of a more developed society a slippery slope indeed). An alternative interpretation is possible, if
one presumes that Hood is referring to the notation systems indigenous to the musical culture in
question. In this case, one might place Western art music at the S end of the spectrum, and radif
at the G end. However, all aurally transmitted musical traditions would end up at the G end,
undermining the notion of a spectrum. Either way, in my analysis his x-axis is flawed.
The y-axis shows an individual Ethnographers tendency towards, as Nettl (2005:82-85) puts it,
either thoroughness (S) or elegance (S). This is an entirely useful idea, which offers a more
nuanced take on representation beyond the various incarnations of the insider/outsider
paradigm. Since Ethnomusicology has done away with this paradigm in its current trend towards
reflexive ethnographic writing, it follows that transcription representation styles should be
understood in a similar way.
The maqam literature reviewed in this essay sits at various points along the y-axis of Hoods G-S
spectrum. This can be displayed (approximately and subjectively) as follows:
Precedents

Ethno. mainstream

Non-mainstream

Farahanis radif (C 19)

Kligman (2009)

Zeranska-Kominek et al (1982)

Shelemey (1998)
Simms/Koushkani (2012)

Nettl (1987)

Kartomi (2004)

Idelson (1914)
Keogh (2014)
Simms (2003)
Gerson-Kiwi (1963)
Akko et al (2015)
Lartillot (2012)
(Bartok (1940s))

Pohlit (2012)

Hoods concept brings to light some important points of comparison. Pre-21st century literature
on maqam spans the same section of the G-S spectrum as current Ethnomusicological
mainstream on the same genre (the extreme S end example under precedents is by Bartok,
for the sake of comparison). This illustrates the strength of transcription precedents for
contemporary scholars. No maqam literature in these two categories falls at the S end of the
spectrum. By contrast, maqam scholarship coming from other disciplines, such as those studies
published in Analytical Approaches to World Music, falls at the extreme S end of the spectrum. The
diagram from the previous page is repeated below, with short representative excerpts of
transcription style replacing the names of scholars to give a visual impression of the G-S
spectrum (again, approximate and subjective, and a limited selection for the sake of clarity).

Transcription Methodologies
The methodologies used to transcribe music have changed in line with technological innovations
in sound recording and reproduction, from the invention of portable handheld recording
equipment, to new technology allowing recordings to be slowed down to aid the novice
transcriber (as described by Hood 1971, now widely available by way of the downloadable
specialist software Transcribe), to the development of automated computer transcription
software (as used by Lartillot 2012, proposed as early as 1951 by Seeger). Here, at last, we find an
area of some interdisciplinary consensus: the constant striving of Music scholars to put to use the
latest technology to aid their transcription efforts reflects the notion that [w]e should never tire
of improving and changing our methods of work in order to accomplish this task as well as is
humanly possible (Bartok/Lord 1951:20). Recent publications have gone so far as to

recommend that readers enhance the transcriptions on offer with an accompanying CD or


website with mp3 files due to the inadequacy of transcription to capture many aspects of sound,
for example Simms statement that [i]t goes without saying that we are left with a distant and
incomplete shadow of the music itself. When used with the sound recordings, however, these
transcriptions will enhance ones appreciation and understanding of certain melodic, modal, and
formal parameters (Simms 2003:6). Multimedia publications are not yet the norm, but a review
of wider Ethnomusicological literature suggests that using technology to enhance a readers
understanding of music is becoming increasingly common.
And yet, through all the technological progress of the past century, certain methodological issues
remain at the forefront of Ethnomusicologists minds when they set about transcribing music.
One of these is the subjectivity of the transcriber the fact that every individual hears differently
(Hood 1971:9). Ellingson (1992) cites SEMs 1964 symposium and the associated publication of
its proceedings in the journal Ethnomusicology (1964 (2)) as evidence for this. For the symposium,
four Ethnomusicologists were asked to transcribe the same Hukwe song. The efforts of their
labors differed quite remarkably in their notational choices, decisions about what constituted a
factor significant enough to be worth indicating, and explicit commentary on the reasoning
behind their transcription style. This supports Tenzers declaration that [m]usic analysisis
essentially creative (2006:6), and his assertion that the subjective nature of the process
necessarily transforms transcription into an expression of ones personality and/or ideologies.
Roeder/Tenzer, in the introduction to the later edited volume in the same series (2011)
recommend that Ethnomusicologists should not try to avoid this inevitability, but would do well
to make their subjectivities explicit, so that the reader understands the perspective from which
the transcriptions are created. This is reminiscent of trends towards reflexive writing and explicit
statements of positionality in Anthropological type Ethnomusicological writing since the crisis
of the 1980/90s. Transcription theory appears to be behind the times in this regard;
Roeder/Tenzers suggestion is not made without due cause, since there is a complete lack of
commentary by maqam scholars on their methods in the majority of literature on the genre, both
recent and in generations past. (Simms output is the exception to this generality, and might serve
as an example to future Ethnomusicologists.)
Another issue related to transcription methodology that continues to be debated is whether
musical universals exist, what these might be, and whether a universal method can exist for
representing them. The most commonly proposed universal is periodicity (Roeder/Tenzer
2011; Tenzer 2006), that is, temporality, or those musical aspects that might be described as
rhythm, meter, pulse, etc. Maqam literature certainly tends to support the universal need to

represent periodicity in transcription, despite Western staff notation being woefully inadequate
for this purpose due to its penchant for rigid subdivisions of regular time units. Much of the
literature being reviewed does not indicate periodicity in transcriptions of scales (a tenuous use
of the word, which is not easily culturally transferrable, but is nonetheless the closest English
term for what I describe here). If one expected periodicity to be in universal use, Akko et als
use of different note lengths to represent the relative roles of each note of the scale, such as root,
dominant, and leading note, could be misinterpreted (2015:324).
Until maqam Ethnomusicologists begin to write explicitly about their transcription methodology,
and the reasons behind it, it is difficult to make comparative comments about their work. This
paper has been concerned with asking what the state of the field is, rather than why, since
scholars lack of explanation and justification for their methodologies would relegate the latter to
the realm of pure speculation. One clear trend is that those who are doing this kind of writing
about their maqam transcriptions are the scholars who ultimately propose using an alternative to
Western staff notation. Their reflexivity may be alerting them to the inadequacies of this system,
and the significant [inevitable] distortion (Tenzer 2006:11) that it creates or the reverse may
be true, that they are reflexive in light of their creative proposals, in order to retrospectively
justify them. The meaningful comparison that emerges with regard to methodology, then, is
(perhaps unsurprisingly) the same as when representational strategies were considered earlier in
this paper: Ethnomusicologists versus those from other Music disciplines; implicit following of
precedents versus explicit reflexivity and reform.

Conclusion
Maqam transcription methodology in mainstream Ethnomusicological literature (Idelson 1914;
Gerson-Kiwi 1963; Nettl 1987; Shelemey 1998; Simms 2003; Kartomi 2004; Cohen/Katz 2006;
Kligman 2009; Simms/Koushkani 2012) has changed little in the past century. This can be traced
in large part to the adoption of Western staff notation by indigenous theorists and performers,
resulting from centuries of interactions between Western and Oriental classical music traditions.
The standardization and canonization of maqamic subgenres such as the Persian radif has
reinforced this, since the current generation of both indigenous and Western maqam scholars now
work from precedents that employ Western methods of representing music.
One finds evidence to support this, and to illustrate the strength of scholarly precedents, in the
almost-universal lack of explanation of transcription methodology and representational style
found in post-2000 literature on maqamic traditions (Simms 2003; Kartomi 2004; Kligman 2009;

Simms/Koushkani 2012). Authors have a clear idea of who will read their work, and expect them
to be familiar with the notational system employed, including, for example, how quarter tones are
represented. Similarly, the strength of scholarly precedents appears to have standardized authors
views of what is significant and therefore worth transcribing. This shows that there is general
agreement about for whom these transcriptions are intended, since there is no explicit mention in
any of the literature about transcription priorities, and yet great consistency between the sources
discussed in this paper.
Although interdisciplinary scholars (Lartillot 2012; Pohlit 2012; Keogh 2014; Akko et al 2015),
have put forward some novel proposals for alternative notation systems, these have had no
noticeable impact on Ethnomusicologys North American mainstream at this point in time. This
mainstream appears to sanction a particular kind of maqam literature, as illustrated by the
literature reviewed in this paper, which is at odds with the rest of the disciplines output. While
maqam literature continues to evoke a traditionally musicological style of transcription and
analysis, institutional training in North American graduate programs suggests that these skills
have taken a back seat to Anthropological- and Sociological-based Ethnomusicology. Over the
past decade, the content of the journals such as Ethnomusicology and Ethnomusicology Forum, and
panels at SEM, ICTM, and BFE conferences have reflected this trend, hence the emergence of
the society Analytical Approaches to World Music, which appears to accommodate radicals and
reformists in the field of maqam studies.
It appears then, that transcription of maqam is mediated according to the established disciplinary
boundaries and expectations of the various Music-related fields. A shift in disciplinary paradigms
could be achieved through an increase in interdisciplinary work amongst maqam scholars, and/or
a willingness of disciplinary journals and conferences to give airtime to less disciplinarily
conventional approaches to maqam transcription. This might have the effect of facilitating a more
in-depth musical analysis (from AAWM members approaches), which could inform perspectives
on the cultural significance of music (as espoused by North Americas Ethnomusicological
mainstream). This would have the positive effect of moving Ethnomusicological maqam
scholarship beyond its current century-old methods and into dialogue with current crossdisciplinary discourse.

Bibliography
Akko, Can, William A. Sethares, and M. Kemal Karaosmanolu. 2015. Experiments on the
Relationship between Perde and Seyir in Turkish Makam Music. Music Perception: An
Interdisciplinary Journal 32 (4): 32243.
Cohen, Dalia and Ruth Katz. 2006. Palestinian Arab Music: A Maqam Tradition in Practice. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Cooley, Timothy J and Gregory Barz. 2008. Casting Shadows: Fieldwork is Dead! Long Live
Fieldwork! Introduction. Shadows in the Field. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellingson, Ter. 1992. Transcription and Notation. Ethnomusicology: An Introduction. London:
The Macmillan Press.
Gerson-Kiwi. 1963. The Persian doctrine of Dastga-composition; a phenomenological study in the musical
modes. Tel Aviv: Israel Music Institute.
Hood, Mantle. 1971. The Ethnomusicologist. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Hornbostel, E. M and Otto Abraham. 1909 (1977). Indian Melodies from British Columbia
Recorded on the Phonograph. Hornbostel Opera Omnia. New York: Springer.
Idelsohn, Abraham Z. 1914. Thesaurus of Hebrew Oriental Melodies, Band I. Leipzig: Breitkopf Und
Hartel.
Kartomi, Margaret. 2004. Tracing Routes with Song Trade and Identity through Music, With
Reference to Seven Versions of a Song of Praise Melody. Ethnomusicology Forum 13 (1).
Keogh, Brent. 2014. Between Theory, Representation and Practice of Maqm: Rethinking the
Representation of the Arabic Maqmt. Analytic Approaches to World Music 3 (2).
Kligman, Mark L. 2009. Maqam and Liturgy. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Lartillot, Olivier. 2012. Computational Analysis of Maqam Music: From Audio Transcription to
Musicological Analysis, Everything Is Tightly Intertwined. Acoustics 2012 Hong Kong, 16.

List, George. 1979. Ethnomusicology: A Discipline Defined. Ethnomusicology 23 (1).


Nettl, Bruno. 2005. I Cant Say A Thing Until Ive Seen The Score: Transcription. The Study of
Ethnomusicology: Thirty-one Issues and Concepts. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Nettl, Bruno. 1987. The Radif of Persian Music: Studies of Structure and Cultural Context. Champaign:
Elephant & Cat.
Nooshin, Laudan. 2015. Iranian Classical Music: The Discourses and Practices of Creativity. Farnham:
Ashgate.
Piggot, Francis Taylor. 1893. The Music and Musical Instruments of Japan. London: B. T. Batsford.
Pohlit, Stefan. 2012. Julien Jall Ed-Dine Weiss: A Novel Proposal for the Middle Eastern
Qanun. Analytic Approaches to World Music 2 (1).
Puchowski, Douglas. 2008. The Concise Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume 2. London:
Routledge.
Roeder, John and Michael Tenzer (eds). 2011. Analytical and Cross-Cultural Studies in World Music.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ruwet, Nicholas, and Mark Everist. 1987. Methods of Analysis in Musicology. Music Analysis 6
(1/2): 39, 1136.
Seeger, Charles. 1951. An Instantaneous Music Notator. Journal of the International Folk Music
Council 3: 1036.
Seeger, Charles. 1958. Prescriptive and Descriptive Music-Writing. The Musical Quarterly 44 (2).
Shelemey, Kay Kaufman. 1998. Let Jasmine Rain Down: Song and Remembrance Among Syrian Jews,
Volume 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Simms, Rob. 2003. The Repertoire of Iraqi Maqam. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
Simms, Rob and Amir Koushkani. 2012. The Art of Avaz and Mohammad Reza Shajarian:
Foundations and Contexts. Plymouth: Lexington Books.

Tenzer, Michael (ed). 2006. Analytical Studies in World Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Titon, Jeff, et al (eds). 2008. Worlds of Music: An Introduction to the Music of the Worlds Peoples.
Boston: Cengage Learning.
Touma, Habib Hassan. 1971. The maqam phenomenon: An improvisation technique in the
music of the Middle East. Ethnomusicology 51 (1): 38-48.
Zeranska-Kominek, Slawomira, Beniamin Kostrubiec, and Joanna Wierzejewska. 1982.
Universal Symbols in the Bukharan Shashmaqam. Asian Music 14 (1): 7493

You might also like