Tonic and dominant

[Lazos]

Just a couple of quick points after perusing this thread:

1. The modal musical world is vast. I tend to use the term "modal" globally to refer to everything from Byzantine church modes to Turkish and Arabic makam/maqam, Indian raga as well as modality expressed in many other traditional music associated with particular cultures and modality in Western pop, jazz and classical.

2. However, modal music to me really refers to those types of music in the world that do not rely on a relationship to functional harmony ever. They are primarily melodic and modulation occurs in a melodic sense. In the above examples, Western music incorporating "modality" is the only kind that seeks a relationship to harmony. All others are independent of any consideration of a Western concept of harmony. This doesn't necessarily mean that all true modal music is drone based. It is just independent of any consideration of harmony as it is used in Western music.

3. Murat Aydemir in his book "Turkish Makam Music Guide" uses the word "tonic" liberally to describe the primary (and ending note) of a makam. We don't have to get caught up in semantics here. And by the way, in the Turkish system, the "dominant" can be the fifth, the fourth, or even the third of a scale, and in Aydemir's book, the translator sometimes uses the word "powerful" and other times "dominant" to refer to this note. Bit of relative thinking for you there.

[fmr]

Some comments regarding your post:

1. I very much agree with the statement "The modal musical world is vast" if understood correctly, i.e., that it covers several universes that may have some elements in common but are, in reality, different.

2. "Modal music refers to those types of music ... that do not rely on a relationship to functional harmony ever". You do realize that atonal music could fit this definition? And serial too? Doesn't fit, IMO.

3. I don't know the turkish culture or music enough to make any statement at all regarding the "maqam". However, I know and understand what "dominant" and "tonic" mean, and they only have a meaning related to the tonal system. Using these terms outside that reality only contributes to the confusion. I understand that, in this globalized world, where everything is "merchadised", anyone who writes anything wants to appeal to as much a broader audience as possible, therefore, use terms that he/she thinks are more "understandable". But I bet that there is a better term for those notes in Turkey (I doubt turkish use "tonic" or "dominant" to name those notes), and he should use them, instead of the misinforming and confusioning (although more "familiar") terms.

We live in an era of "absolute relativism", where people tend to mix everything, and make everything irrelevant. I very much respect and try to preserve differences. I love mixes, but mixes can only happen if there is something to mix in the first place. If all we remain with are "cocktails" of mixed things, there will be difficult to create anything really genuine, and the world will be a poor place.

Besides, another sign of times is the "celebration of ignorance" as several philosophers and thinkers have been pointing. People tend to despise anything that resembles any kind of culture that is not "pop" culture. I very much oppose to that too. I don't care if something is "old", or "academic". I have the deepest respect for the masters of the past, no matter how old they are, as I also have respect for the masters of the presents, whenever I think they deserve.

[Lazos]

Regarding 2. Yep, I realise I should have more tightly defined that as atonal and other non-modal types of music would fit given my comment. So: modal music is normally devoid of Western harmonic considerations and is melodically focussed. It also tends to be heterophonic in actual played structure. It tends to use a canon of melody types in composition and improvisation, scalar and modular in building its structure. And I'm sure there are exceptions to all this as well.

I am not an expert in Turkish music and culture either. I did study with master tanbur player Sadun Aksüt in Istanbul and so have travelled there a few times. I've been studying bowed tanbur for about eight years so, I do know a bit about that system and a bit about the culture. The Turkish word "güçlü" means "strong", and it is indeed a musical interpolation to call it a "dominant", but the English word "dominant" means pretty much what the concept is in Turkish thinking; it's the most dominant (strong) note of the scale after the "tonic" sometimes played much more than the tonic. Remember, one just has to be open minded enough to dump all the trappings of what "dominant" means harmonically in Western concepts. Many Turkish musicians would certainly equate the word tonic with their conception of the word "durak" which means a "stop" or "halt". However much one can cloud the issue with semantics of harmony, it refers to the same thing: the key and ending note of the scale. Using the word "dominant" or "tonic" in this context is not incorrect, because you are not misinforming if everyone is paying attention to the root meaning of the words and just getting on with the actual music making.

I recognise the value in preservation of traditional elements. This is why I seek to be inspired by old traditions such as the Ottoman art music. I actively play that music as well as original material inspired by it and other traditions new and old. The truly living ones are always evolving, of course. I think that relativistic thinking is certainly helpful in this context as well, as too rigidly conceptualising terms leads to just debating the terms themselves. The masters of the present and past alike would probably agree. I support and believe in the rigour of academic thought and method, but only as it opens doors of possibility.

[Tricky-Loops]

I am not an expert in Turkish music and culture either. I did study with master tanbur player Sadun Aksüt in Istanbul and so have travelled there a few times. I've been studying bowed tanbur for about eight years so, I do know a bit about that system and a bit about the culture. The Turkish word "güçlü" means "strong", and it is indeed a musical interpolation to call it a "dominant", but the English word "dominant" means pretty much what the concept is in Turkish thinking; it's the most dominant (strong) note of the scale after the "tonic" sometimes played much more than the tonic. Remember, one just has to be open minded enough to dump all the trappings of what "dominant" means harmonically in Western concepts. Many Turkish musicians would certainly equate the word tonic with their conception of the word "durak" which means a "stop" or "halt". However much one can cloud the issue with semantics of harmony, it refers to the same thing: the key and ending note of the scale. Using the word "dominant" or "tonic" in this context is not incorrect, because you are not misinforming if everyone is paying attention to the root meaning of the words and just getting on with the actual music making.

Just jumping in because I LOVE Turkish music!! Is there some simple introduction to (how to make) Turkish music without studying at the university? I only want to make some (simple) oriental-like electronic sounds...

[Lazos]

I am not an expert in Turkish music and culture either. I did study with master tanbur player Sadun Aksüt in Istanbul and so have travelled there a few times. I've been studying bowed tanbur for about eight years so, I do know a bit about that system and a bit about the culture. The Turkish word "güçlü" means "strong", and it is indeed a musical interpolation to call it a "dominant", but the English word "dominant" means pretty much what the concept is in Turkish thinking; it's the most dominant (strong) note of the scale after the "tonic" sometimes played much more than the tonic. Remember, one just has to be open minded enough to dump all the trappings of what "dominant" means harmonically in Western concepts. Many Turkish musicians would certainly equate the word tonic with their conception of the word "durak" which means a "stop" or "halt". However much one can cloud the issue with semantics of harmony, it refers to the same thing: the key and ending note of the scale. Using the word "dominant" or "tonic" in this context is not incorrect, because you are not misinforming if everyone is paying attention to the root meaning of the words and just getting on with the actual music making.

Just jumping in because I LOVE Turkish music!! Is there some simple introduction to (how to make) Turkish music without studying at the university? I only want to make some (simple) oriental-like electronic sounds...

Yep, Murat Aydemir's "Turkish Music Makam Guide" is the best intro in English that I've found. While a bit dated, there is also Karl Signell's published dissertation "Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music". But if you only want to make some "simple oriental-like electronic sounds" you probably don't need either. All debates on authenticity aside, just get something like Kontakt or MOTU's Ethno Instrument, find the sounds you are looking for, and then browse their library of scales. I'd say, though that Aydemir's book would give you a good overview so that you have an idea about Turkish music specifically, if that's your desire, and then you'd at least have a clue what you were doing in terms of that tradition's modes. Hope this helps.

[kimik]

Okay,

I've written this out several times and each time something happened and I didn't complete it.

Here goes.
Firstly a song can have more then one key. But usually it's limited to two. They often occur either during the turnaround (in jazz) or in a different section (progression) of the song such as the bridge.

There is a very good reason why one would want to resolve to the I chord or the V Chord. And that is resolution. A progression has a beginning middle and end. Ending a progression on the V or I chord defines that the progression has ended. Where by you have the option of repeating the progression or going to a different progression. Such as going from the verse to the chorus or vice versa.


If you are constantly moving ouside of the key you are losing focus. It meanders and the further away you move the harder it gets to draw a conclusion.

If you want to work in a different key then C I fully advise doing that. But work in the different key from beginning to end. Or atleast section your keys so they aren't an endless stream of non repeating chords.


I don't encourage you that all your songs sound the same and always start on the root and resolve to the root or fifth. That's fine for somethings like the blues but not for others. I also don't advise doing what I did way back when which is stock up on "Modern Chord Progressions" works because they rarely if ever are actually found exactly as described in actual songs. Although they do usually have different keys for the progression type books which will get you out of trying to play everything in C. I do advise taking lessons. When starting out on the keys some chords are harder to shape then others. It makes moving between them a little difficult for people who have never sat down with a teacher. A teacher will show you how to get the most out of the chords and make them feel at least a bit more natural. The more familiar you are with all chords the more likely you will be at exploring them. Again (I think I've said this) the best way to learn is by learning songs. Where you get to see and hear the progression in action as well as develop the skills to recreate it.


Now lets talk about Key Function.
There are both common and uncommon subsitutions you can use for a chord. The structure of the chord may not exactly fit into the key structure. But does fit the key overall.

A classic example of this is in the blues (although many many styles use chord alteration and subsitution)

The Key of C = CDEFGAB
Major blues in the key of C has three fundamental chords C7, F7 and G7
The only chord that actually makes the perfect fit for the key of C is G7
C7 is spelled C E G Bb. Bb is not found in the key of C
F7 is spelled F A c Eb. Eb is not in the key of C either.
But because the primary chords C,F,G are all major(dominant) it is considered in the key of C when you play a blues progression in the key of C

So now you have your first harmonic variations that while don't cookie cutter fit into the key of C they are rooted enough to call it the key of C.

Lets take a look at two common 12 bar progressions. The first resolves to the I chord and the second resolves to the V chord.
Example 1


Example 2


What do you play over that? Well the C7 arpeggio will work on a lot of it.
So will the mixolydian C scale as it has a dominant7. So will the major pentatonic scale. So will the minor pentatonic scale. So will the blues scale. Of these options the blues scale is the most harsh The C blues scale is C-Eb-F-F#-G-Bb. It is the harshness of the blues scale against the C7 chord that gives it character. Many blues, rock, country, disco, pop and hundreds of other styles mix and match the scale "licks" play a little bit from one scale and try to play a little bit of an overlapping scale/lick from another.
This can create a "bittersweet" sound. You don't have to mix and match you can simply work out one of these scales against the chord. The one thing you wouldn't want to play is a C major scale (even though the key is still C) Against the C7 chord. Try it if you are up for experimentation but don't expect great results.


Generally when playing the blues the first 8 bars the melody is based on the root chord. It doesn't change when moving to the 4 chord. this creates a little bit of self resolving tension. The turn around is considered the last 4 measures of a 12 bar blues where the chord movement turns around and heads back to the beginning. In the turn around you do want to align your melodic ideas with the harmonic content. This is one "type" of modal playing. match your melody to the supporting chord rather then focusing on the key.



In the first example the progression resolves to the 1 chord. In the blues this is a signal that the exact same thing is going to be repeated like one line of verse to another verse. When the progression ends on the V chord instead of the 1 it's a signal that something is going to change like going from the verse to the chorus or the chorus to the solo.


Now you'll notice a "passing chord" in example 2 the Ab7 chord does not belong to the key of C it's just a little jump that makes the V chord stand out a little. Passing chords by there nature are "transitory" though not "transitional" Transitory means it's only there for a little bit and it's used to connect with the key chord. Passing chords are generally either a half step below or above the target chord. You don't want to "hang" on a passing chord you always want to move to the key chord from the passing chord. Too many passing chords in a progression and it will go to mush in a non blues settings. So you want to use passing chords with discretion.


In jazz there is this thing called tritone substitution. It is when you substitute any Dominant7 chord (though usually the V7) with a chord that is a flattened 5th above it. So if you are playing a G7 chord in the key of C you can substitute a C#7 chord. Actually you can substitute any chord that contains the 3rd and the 7th of the dominant 7th. Again use caution. You don't want to do it all the time and you do want to transition back to the key.


That's not all.
A progression can be anywhere between two measures and 32 measures long. the longer it is the more important it is to return to a base (such as the I or V chord) However that doesn't mean you can't simply ramble around on two chords for awhile. Or even one. There is this concept called "Vamping" A vamp is when there isn't a chord progression it's just one chord repeated over and over again (all though it's nice to "cap" it with a different chord at the end) When you are playing a vamp. Especially when the 3rd isn't expressed you can work thru different modes. If you are holding down a power chord such as C ergo CGC it isn't defined as major or minor. this means your definition comes from your melodic lines not the chord structure. It's a good way to work out your modes playing scales and licks yet altering them to fit the mode. The thing is you want it structured that 1. it always returns to the original mode you started with. 2 that the duration of each mode is equally long. So if you play 4 measures in ionian mode. you don't hop around and only play one measure in phrygian then two in mixolydian then hop back. It also give you a chance to work out your "other scale/modes" such as your pentatonics, and modes from the harmonic and melodic minor. It's a very "jazz fusion" thing and can take awhile to develop.

There are also other both common and less common substitutions. By now you prolly know your relative major/minor stuff like substitution an Am for a Cmajor. To me that's not really a sub but I digress.
In jazz any minor7 chord can be substituted (though usually the vi chord) with a dominant 7 Ergo Am7 becomes A7. If you spend any time studying chord progressions you'll find this a lot especially in I-VI7-ii7-V7 progressions.

In pop there is less of a concentration/concern with making everything a 7 chord. The bigger the chord the less of an impact it can have. Sometimes you just want chords that cut to the chase. Hence the popularity (not only in rock) of "power chords" where there is no 3rd present and therefore lends it self to ambiguity. You can also apply some (not all) parallel motion to a chord progression Such as C-D-E-D notice all major chords. Or A(m)-G-F-F
or one of my favorites i7-bVII - bVI7 -V7 (walk don't run by the ventures and Stray Cat Strut) You can run split parallels such as E-D-A-G (notice all major chords) You can build chord progressions by using the minor or major pentatonic scale where every interval becomes a chord building block ala Eric Clapton, the beatles and others. Take a look at the verse for Back in the ussr http://www.azchords.com/b/beatles-tabs- ... 00936.html
A-C-D-C

And there are countless methods and examples I could point out. But it's not about what I want nor is it about what others have done (though you are free to borrow an idea if you like it) It's about what you want to do once you find them. Resolving to the 1 or V chord is a fine idea if you want to go there but there are plenty of options out there. And the more you explore actual music by performing it the more open you will be to those ideas.


One of the things I got locked into when I first started playing was that If I read somewhere about something I would take it as an absolute. Music Theory at it's best is about expanding the realms of possibilities not narrowing them. If you are so afraid you'll make a mistake or it won't sound write because it doesn't fit the original criteria you are in the wrong medium.

Which feeds back to...learning songs. Learning songs deconstructs rudimentary theory which can inhibit more then expand one's talent. It exposes theory for what it is, Just an idea that you can draw upon or put to the side. As well it demonstrates different theories at work under different circumstances. Learning a song is intimate, intellectual (which is the smallest part) physical and aural because you are listening to how things sound together rather then just reading about it. It strengthens muscle memory which makes learning new shapes, patterns, chords and keys easier not harder. It also reinforces the value of time, timing and meter. The heart of rock and roll is the beat. Not just rock and roll all styles have a feel. And most of that comes down to how things are played not just what is being played. The more you play songs of others and try to emulate them the more you will develop on both an emotive sense. It builds confidence in playing not detracts from playing. It also gives you devices (rhythmic, harmonic, melodic) that you can recreate or modify to suit your own playing. All the great songwriters and many a lesser one have learned thru imitation. By learning the techniques and methods that others have used in the past. They might not have covered the song on an mp3 or a record but they learned by playing songs. Not by reading theory alone or by simply messing around till something came up.

best post I've ever read on kvr. period. also the most pointless thread ever as a whole, but still kind of informative

[tapper mike]

blush:

Thanks

[Tricky-Loops]

Just jumping in because I LOVE Turkish music!! Is there some simple introduction to (how to make) Turkish music without studying at the university? I only want to make some (simple) oriental-like electronic sounds...

Yep, Murat Aydemir's "Turkish Music Makam Guide" is the best intro in English that I've found. While a bit dated, there is also Karl Signell's published dissertation "Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music". But if you only want to make some "simple oriental-like electronic sounds" you probably don't need either. All debates on authenticity aside, just get something like Kontakt or MOTU's Ethno Instrument, find the sounds you are looking for, and then browse their library of scales. I'd say, though that Aydemir's book would give you a good overview so that you have an idea about Turkish music specifically, if that's your desire, and then you'd at least have a clue what you were doing in terms of that tradition's modes. Hope this helps.

Thanks! I'll look into them...
But how can I make Turkish music on a synthesizer? Do I have to use a microtonal file? Which one should I use? (There are more than 2,000 Scala files.) Or can I adjust the frequencies of notes in my REAPER DAW?

[jancivil]

We live in an era of "absolute relativism", where people tend to mix everything, and make everything irrelevant.

you're arguing against a pile of straw.

the word "modal" in 2013 for the KVR music theory board can haz a definite meaning. For a person trying to come to terms, it should not be blurred with "the tonal environment". The reason to say eg., 'dorian mode' today is inextricable with 'the relationship of the intervals with the tonic'. "D dorian in C major" is nonsense. You have sought to blur a useful term for a practical musician with an arcane medieval meaning in more than one thread here. That's so ironic you choose this particular rhetorical gesture as if this says something.

I'm rather steeped in musics you know nothing about, and when they use western terms 'tonic', they have no worries about your and JJF's particular pedantic and very nearly purely academic interest or semantics out of your particular concentration. The disagreement per the term 'tonic' only came up after I criticized JJF for insisting one should 'probably not start a composition with a bassline' but be working with chords at the same time, and this was retaliation, reaching to show a term I had wrong. It's pointless waving of a limp dick here.

[jancivil]

I bet that there is a better term for those notes in Turkey (I doubt turkish use "tonic" or "dominant" to name those notes), and he should use them, instead of the misinforming and confusioning (although more "familiar") terms.

I don't think you're going to win any bets. You doubt? You don't know anything about it. Did you even bother to google this?

You require your understanding in the particular area of your interest to have a hegemony of language for things that, for one thing are not centered in the languages you speak but borrow terms. "they only have a meaning" you are familiar with. This is arrogant in more than one way. And the result is these stupid assertions.

I am not steeped in Turkish music... but

I can say with some confidence the term eg., 'dominant' is used to mean something in the architecture of a raga where one is speaking in English. There is of course another term originally (vadi. 'samvadi' will translate to 'subdominant'. These terms are meaningful enough. As it turns out there is no universal requirement such terms meet your approval.).

since your certainty seesm to vacate any impulse of curiosity so you might go for some google here, I shall provide: https://www.google.com/search?q=dominan ... annel=fflb

[jancivil]

I'm never going to be disabused of calling the first note of a scale or mode 'its tonic'. Generally speaking it means the first note of a diatonic scale.

You're ignoring the meaning of the point: does that modal system not rely on what I mean by tonic, and you bloody well know what that is.

Did you ever heard about "tonal functions"? Because the tonic is not "just" the first note of a scale

OH DUH! Do you require a straw man to have said this in order to go on as Captain Obvious here?

Did you ever heard about 'tonal function?/sic
The tonic os the first "degree" if a "tonality". And it has a "function". Thats why it's a "tonal system". A "scale", as I already said, is just a succession of notes (ANY succession of notes). So, you can have a "scale" starting in F and ending in F, or starting in G and ending in G, and be in the key of C Major. The "tonality" is C Major. The "tonic" is C Major. The first note of "that" scale is F or G.

this is so cute! Yes, not only have I heard of it , I have been quite steeped in the practice.
What you have here is a conflation of two terms with the same basic etymology as if it's going to restrict all usage of the derivative term.

(and here we go again with the misleading and ambiguous term "scale").

Who was misled? The meaning of 'scale' becomes vague to you (for the purposes of trying to make some point which I think only you have any clue about)?

In a mode, the most important note is not the Final. It's the "repercusa", or psalm tone, or reciting tone. That's the note around which the melody evolves and develops. The final is just that - the final. And may very well NOT be the note wher it starts, because if you are in the plagal mode, the first note of the mode is not the "final". And this is not academic theory, this is what the practice teaches to those who practice the system.

In a mode in this area of focus you are involved with, that is true. I have only seen two people here that find this so interesting. For a practical musician in 2013, and for some time, the crucial note which determines the very fact of the mode is the 'tonic'. D dorian has the essential central note 'D'. Period. When eg., C becomes the center, it cannot be D dorian. For practical purposes for a practicing musician today. If you require to restrict yourself to medieval liturgical practice, good for you. This is not as relevant as you must think it is.

But, unfortunately for you I happen to know that there has been disagreement for centuries regarding what the actual *practice* was. Particularly the area of musica ficta. This stuff formulates theory quite a bit after-the-fact out of, let's say educated guesses.

[jancivil]

So show how the Ionian mode is "far from" Bilaval Thaat, by an example!

I can't, because I don't know anything in Ionian mode. But maybe you do
Be careful though - It must be in "Ionian Mode", not in Major.

I have already gone into detail to show you what I meant. You're deliberately ignoring what I have already clearly demonstrated.


I can actually use it as I pointed out, cf. Bilaval Thaat. So you can't show what's wrong with the term per se. You are sticking to this pointless cherry-picking semantic exercise (and as if a term absolutely must be restricted to your particular understanding of received medieval theory) against all practicality or use.

[coquillo]

You require your understanding in the particular area of your interest to have a hegemony of language for things that, for one thing are not centered in the languages you speak but borrow terms. "they only have a meaning" you are familiar with. This is arrogant in more than one way. And the result is these stupid assertions.

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about there Mrs Civet, but to get back on topic, here's another stupid assertion for you, keys have tonics, chord/modes have roots and they both have dominants.

[Lazos]

Just jumping in because I LOVE Turkish music!! Is there some simple introduction to (how to make) Turkish music without studying at the university? I only want to make some (simple) oriental-like electronic sounds...

Yep, Murat Aydemir's "Turkish Music Makam Guide" is the best intro in English that I've found. While a bit dated, there is also Karl Signell's published dissertation "Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music". But if you only want to make some "simple oriental-like electronic sounds" you probably don't need either. All debates on authenticity aside, just get something like Kontakt or MOTU's Ethno Instrument, find the sounds you are looking for, and then browse their library of scales. I'd say, though that Aydemir's book would give you a good overview so that you have an idea about Turkish music specifically, if that's your desire, and then you'd at least have a clue what you were doing in terms of that tradition's modes. Hope this helps.

Thanks! I'll look into them...
But how can I make Turkish music on a synthesizer? Do I have to use a microtonal file? Which one should I use? (There are more than 2,000 Scala files.) Or can I adjust the frequencies of notes in my REAPER DAW?

I'm not sure of the depth to which you want to go here. If you are looking to create "simple oriental-like sounds", that's not Turkish music, and you don't need any training to make something that sounds "oriental" or "middle eastern". I'm not sure about all the scala files that are free with the program, but I think they all have a root of "C". I believe if you want to change the root (tonic ), you need to mess with them in Scala. If you are in fact, wanting to play "Turkish" music on synthesisers, then you should study the books I mentioned, but much more importantly, take lessons from a musician who actually plays an instrument/sings and is steeped in and knowledgeable about that tradition. Even Aydemir's book doesn't give all the secrets for the 60 or so makamlar that are in his book. It's an overview. Then, after that, learn to program your synth(s) to replicate the intervals in that tradition's music, and so on. Depends on how deep you want to go, my friend. All the theory in the world may just confuse the hell out of you when all you may really need is time with a master musician to clear up concepts that may have been previously confusing.

[Lazos]

By the way, folks, for those that insist on a purely Western definition of what modal music/modes are and what they are not, I urge you to read the following by master musician Ross Daly, who has been studying and playing this stuff for decades (full article linked below):

I myself have spent nearly all of my life working within the realm of what we could broadly refer to as modal music. Specifically, I have worked on musical traditions which make use of modal entities such as maqams, ragas, dastgahs, ayaklar, or dromi. I spent many years reading almost all of the available theoretical and other material in the hope that this would help me to understand these modal systems. I noticed from the very beginning that in all of these writings there were a lot of blanks and that none of them were really of any practical use to anyone who actually wanted to play any of this music. Even though the information contained in these books was usually "correct", it was not really very useful to someone who was interested in actually playing this music. It was only after many years of actually working on these different musical traditions with accomplished masters that I realized that maqams, ragas, etc. are not systems to be "understood" but that they are entities with which ones enters into a state of communion and alignment, and that any attempt to break them down into theoretical systems is by definition futile. Indeed this attempt to approach them analytically as theoretical systems is actually quite old. It has been going on for perhaps thousands of years, yet modal music has persistently and fiercely resisted this approach right up until the present day. So, if this problem exists even in the regions of the world where modal music remains a living tradition, it doesn't take much imagination to see that this same problem is much greater in the Western world which has effectively been out of touch with modality for literally hundreds of years. Ross Daly article on his website

Conference: "Maqam and creation"http://www.rossdaly.gr/en/texts-recomme ... d-creation