Medieval Perso-Arabic Music Theory

There are lots of old medieval manuscripts about medieval modal music. We're going to start by talking about medieval modes as presented by Safi al-Din al-Urmawi, who lived like 700 years ago, and then we'll correct them a little bit with information from Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi, who lived just after Safi.

The 13th century musician Safi al-Din al-Urmawi (Safi al-Din born in Urmia, sometimes spelled Safiaddin Ormavi or Safiuddin Urmavi) used the Pythagorean spiral to analyze the musical modes of his time. In particular, he used an extended 17-tone spiral of fifths to analyze middle eastern neutral intervals, as well as the usual chromatic ones. Even in the time of Safi al-Din, it was recognized that this 17-tone Pythagorean scale was too simple of a model to accurately describe the frequency ratios used in practice in middle eastern music, but Safi al-Din wrote more than his critics did and is better remembered. 

We have some have knowledge about what the practical frequency ratios of medieval music really were from texts by lutenists describing the geometry of their fretting and fingering, and from measurements of old instruments, but we'll start here with the Pythagorean analysis. The Pythagorean analysis provides a different, historically important perspective on maqam music, and I'm taking any data that I can get. Also, we'll use this Pythagorean analysis (and its schismatic reinterpretation) to analyze Turkish makams later, so this will be good practice.

: The Spiral

Safi al-Din al-Urmawi wrote a book called Kitab al-Adwār that outlined a system with 17 tones per octave for analyzing middle eastern modal music. Here are his 17 tones:

Rank 2 interval name = Coordinates in (P5, P8) basis # Just tuning

-

d9 = (-12, 8) # 1048576/531441

d6 = (-11, 7) # 262144/177147

d3 = (-10, 6) # 65536/59049

d7 = (-9, 6) # 32768/19683

d4 = (-8, 5) # 8192/6561

d8 = (-7, 5) # 4096/2187

d5 = (-6, 4) # 1024/729

m2 = (-5, 3) # 256/243

m6 = (-4, 3) # 128/81

m3 = (-3, 2) # 32/27

m7 = (-2, 2) # 16/9

P4 = (-1, 1) # 4/3

P1 = (0, 0) # 1/1

P5 = (1, 0) # 3/2

M2 = (2, -1) # 9/8

M6 = (3, -1) # 27/16

M3 = (4, -2) # 81/64

They're all 3-limit ratios. It's just a segment of the Pythagorean spiral, so I've used rank-2 / Pythagorean interval names. Here's his tone collection in ascending order, sorted by tuning, with the octave added in as a closer:

P1 = (0, 0) # 1/1

m2 = (-5, 3) # 256/243

d3 = (-10, 6) # 65536/59049

M2 = (2, -1) # 9/8

m3 = (-3, 2) # 32/27

d4 = (-8, 5) # 8192/6561

M3 = (4, -2) # 81/64

P4 = (-1, 1) # 4/3

d5 = (-6, 4) # 1024/729

d6 = (-11, 7) # 262144/177147

P5 = (1, 0) # 3/2

m6 = (-4, 3) # 128/81

d7 = (-9, 6) # 32768/19683

M6 = (3, -1) # 27/16

m7 = (-2, 2) # 16/9

d8 = (-7, 5) # 4096/2187

d9 = (-12, 8) # 1048576/531441

P8 = (0, 1) # 2/1

You can see that, relative to a chromatic scale, he extended farther in the P4 direction of minor and diminished intervals and didn't extend along the P5 direction into augmented intervals. When you sort his tone collection by increasing frequency ratio, you can see that successive tones are separated by either the "Pythagorean limma", i.e. the minor second with a tuned value of 256/243, or "Pythagorean comma", i.e. the augmented zeroth with a tuned value of 531441/524288.

You might have noticed that this 17-tone scale has no major seventh, M7. If we perform a cyclic permutation to start on the P4 as our tonic, then we get our usual chromatic scale (including a M7) and the non-chromatic diminished intervals basically stay the same: the only difference is that the d9 becomes the Pythagorean M7.

M7 = (5, -2) # 243/128

If we don't perform the cyclic permutation, then Safi al-Din's scale has more of mixolydian feel.

Intervals and pitches live in 1-to-1 correspondence, so let's find pitches over C that correspond to the 17-tone system. If we do the cyclic permutation, then we have the usual chromatic pitch classes,

(C, Db, D, Eb, E, F, Gb, G, Ab, A, Bb, B)

and the five additional notes of 

(Ebb, Fb, Abb, Bbb, Cb).

The full set is ordered like this if we assume just / Pythgorean tuning for the rank-2 intervals:

[C, Db, Ebb, D, Eb, Fb, E, F, Gb, Abb, G, Ab, Bbb, A, Bb, Cb, B, C]

Now, I think we must say that al-Urmawi's contribution to music theory is an early description of makams/maqamat using Pythagorean tuning, and not the development of this 17-tone system in particular, because this is still just a Pythagorean spiral, taken verbatim from Pythagoras who lived 1700 years before, and cutting the spiral off at 17 tones doesn't really make al-Urmawi an innovator. There's no new math here. But there is data.

:: The Pythagorean Modes Of Safi al-Din

`Ussaq/'Ushshāq:

[P1, AcM2, AcM3, P4, P5, AcM6, Grm7, P8] # [1/1, 9/8, 81/64, 4/3, 3/2, 27/16, 16/9, 2/1] _ [0, 204, 408, 498, 702, 906, 996, 1200] cents

[M2, M2, m2, M2, M2, m2, M2] # [9/8, 9/8, 256/243, 9/8, 9/8, 256/243, 9/8]

Nawā:

[P1, AcM2, Grm3, P4, P5, Grm6, Grm7, P8] # [1/1, 9/8, 32/27, 4/3, 3/2, 128/81, 16/9, 2/1] _ [0, 204, 294, 498, 702, 792, 996, 1200] cents

[M2, m2, M2, M2, m2, M2, M2] # [9/8, 256/243, 9/8, 9/8, 256/243, 9/8, 9/8]

Abu Salik/Busalik:

[P1, Grm2, Grm3, P4, GrGrd5, Grm6, Grm7, P8] # [1/1, 256/243, 32/27, 4/3, 1024/729, 128/81, 16/9, 2/1] _ [0, 90, 294, 498, 588, 792, 996, 1200] cents

[m2, M2, M2, m2, M2, M2, M2] # [256/243, 9/8, 9/8, 256/243, 9/8, 9/8, 9/8]

Rāst:

[P1, AcM2, GrGrd4, P4, P5, GrGrGrd7, Grm7, P8] # [1/1, 9/8, 8192/6561, 4/3, 3/2, 32768/19683, 16/9, 2/1] _ [0, 204, 384, 498, 702, 882, 996, 1200] cents

[M2, d3, A1, M2, d3, A1, M2] # [9/8, 65536/59049, 2187/2048, 9/8, 65536/59049, 2187/2048, 9/8]

`Irāq:

[P1, GrGrGrd3, GrGrd4, P4, GrGrGrd6, GrGrGrd7, Grm7, GrGrGrd9, P8] # [1/1, 65536/59049, 8192/6561, 4/3, 262144/177147, 32768/19683, 16/9, 1048576/531441, 2/1] _ [0, 180, 384, 498, 678, 882, 996, 1177, 1200] cents

[d3, M2, A1, d3, M2, A1, d3, A0] # [65536/59049, 9/8, 2187/2048, 65536/59049, 9/8, 2187/2048, 65536/59049, 531441/524288]

Isfahān:

[P1, AcM2, GrGrd4, P4, P5, GrGrGrd7, Grm7, GrGrGrd9, P8] # [1/1, 9/8, 8192/6561, 4/3, 3/2, 32768/19683, 16/9, 1048576/531441, 2/1] _ [0, 204, 384, 498, 702, 882, 996, 1177, 1200] cents

[M2, d3, A1, M2, d3, A1, d3, A0] # [9/8, 65536/59049, 2187/2048, 9/8, 65536/59049, 2187/2048, 65536/59049, 531441/524288]

Zirāfkand:

[P1, GrGrGrd3, Grm3, P4, GrGrGrd6, Grm6, GrGrGrd7, GrGrd8, P8] # [1/1, 65536/59049, 32/27, 4/3, 262144/177147, 128/81, 32768/19683, 4096/2187, 2/1] _ [0, 180, 294, 498, 678, 792, 882, 1086, 1200] cents

[d3, A1, M2, d3, A1, m2, M2, A1] # [65536/59049, 2187/2048, 9/8, 65536/59049, 2187/2048, 256/243, 9/8, 2187/2048]

Buzurg/Buzurk:

[P1, GrGrGrd3, GrGrd4, P4, GrGrGrd6, P5, AcM6, GrGrd8, P8] # [1/1, 65536/59049, 8192/6561, 4/3, 262144/177147, 3/2, 27/16, 4096/2187, 2/1] _ [0, 180, 384, 498, 678, 702, 906, 1086, 1200] cents

[d3, M2, A1, d3, A0, M2, d3, A1] # [65536/59049, 9/8, 2187/2048, 65536/59049, 531441/524288, 9/8, 65536/59049, 2187/2048]

Zangulah/Zankulā/Zangulā:

[P1, AcM2, GrGrd4, P4, GrGrGrd6, GrGrGrd7, Grm7, P8] # [1/1, 9/8, 8192/6561, 4/3, 262144/177147, 32768/19683, 16/9, 2/1] _ [0, 204, 384, 498, 678, 882, 996, 1200] cents

[M2, d3, A1, d3, M2, A1, M2] # [M2, d3, A1, d3, M2, A1, M2] # [9/8, 65536/59049, 2187/2048, 65536/59049, 9/8, 2187/2048, 9/8]

Rāhawi/Rāhavi:

[P1, GrGrGrd3, GrGrd4, P4, GrGrGrd6, Grm6, Grm7, P8] # [1/1, 65536/59049, 8192/6561, 4/3, 262144/177147, 128/81, 16/9, 2/1] _ [0, 180, 384, 498, 678, 792, 996, 1200] cents

[d3, M2, A1, d3, A1, M2, M2] # [65536/59049, 9/8, 2187/2048, 65536/59049, 2187/2048, 9/8, 9/8]

Husaini/Husayni:

[P1, GrGrGrd3, Grm3, P4, GrGrGrd6, Grm6, Grm7, P8] # [1/1, 65536/59049, 32/27, 4/3, 262144/177147, 128/81, 16/9, 2/1] _ [0, 180, 294, 498, 678, 792, 996, 1200] cents

[d3, A1, M2, d3, A1, M2, M2] # [65536/59049, 2187/2048, 9/8, 65536/59049, 2187/2048, 9/8, 9/8]

Higazi/Hejazi:

[P1, GrGrGrd3, Grm3, P4, GrGrGrd6, GrGrGrd7, Grm7, P8] # [1/1, 65536/59049, 32/27, 4/3, 262144/177147, 32768/19683, 16/9, 2/1] _ [0, 180, 294, 498, 678, 882, 996, 1200] cents

[d3, A1, M2, d3, M2, A1, M2] # [65536/59049, 2187/2048, 9/8, 65536/59049, 9/8, 2187/2048, 9/8]

I confess, I'm no student of Medieval Arabic and haven't verified these modes against historical sources; I calculated these modes from a compressed form I found in a scala file with no attribution, possibly authored by someone at the Huygens-Fokker Foundation.

I used rank-2 names for the relative intervals because I got tired of looking at grave/acute accidentals, but I left the absolute intervals in their rank-3 forms to show just how silly these modes are.

Some of these modes are weird in ways besides their use of complex ratios. We might expect that Maqam Hejazi would start with relative steps approximating [m2, A2, m2], since that's what a Hijaz tetrachord is in modern times, but instead the mode starts with Pythagorean versions of [d3, A1, M2], better known as [GrGrGrd3, AcAcA1, AcM2] in rank-3 interval space and above. The mode doesn't even have a repeated tetrachord structure. It's crazy. I guess things have changed a lot in 700 years.

All of Safi Al-Din's tetrachords are either permutations of [M2, M2, m2] or of [M2, d3, A1]. When one of his makams has an interpretation as two tetrachords and a M2, the tetrachords are always "conjuct" meaning they come one after another, leaving space for M2 at the top of the scale. Two of his scales have an extra tone at the top (`Irāq and Isfahān) and two of his scales don't have a tetrachord structure (Zirāfkand and Buzurg/Buzurk), but the rest are moderately well behaved. Here's the breakdown:

`Ussaq/'Ushshāq:

[M2, M2, m2] + [M2, M2, m2] + M2

Nawā:

[M2, m2, M2] [M2, m2, M2] + M2

Abu Salik/Busalik:

[m2, M2, M2] + [m2, M2, M2] + M2

Rāst:

[M2, d3, A1] + [M2, d3, A1] + M2

`Irāq:

[d3, M2, A1] + [d3, M2, A1] + (d3, A0)

Isfahān:

[M2, d3, A1] + [M2, d3, A1] + (d3, A0)

Zirāfkand:

[d3, A1, M2] + [d3, A1, m2, M2, A1]

Buzurg/Buzurk:

[d3, M2, A1] + [d3, A0, M2, d3, A1]

Zangulah/Zankulā/Zangulā:

[M2, d3, A1] + [d3, M2, A1] + M2

Rāhawi/Rāhavi:

[d3, M2, A1] + [d3, A1, M2] + M2

Husaini/Husayni:

[d3, A1, M2] + [d3, A1, M2] + M2

Higazi/Hejazi:

[d3, A1, M2] + [d3, M2, A1] + M2

We can treat d3 and A1 as neutral seconds of course, but there are still some puzzling things here. I've discovered value of having {n1} as a notation for a half sharp unison, which can participate in the following relationships among others:

n1 + n1 = m2

m2 + n1 = n2

n2 + n1 = M2

A1 + n2 = M2 + n1

Although whether any of these relations will actually hold depends on the actual intervals or tunings. When Safi al-Din uses a Pythagorean augmented zeroth, A0, that generally functions as a half sharp neutral unison, n1.

Another middle eastern writer, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi wrote just after Safi al-Din al Urmawi, and provided a different intonation and more data about medieval ajnas and maqamat. Qutb al-Din provided an intonation that had a mix of super-particular ratios and Pythagorean ratios. I've been convinced by the writings of Owen Wright that Qutb al-Din's intonation was not sonically correct at his time (not that the Pythagorean intonation of Safi al-Din was correct either), but that it provides some hints to correct intonation and that his pitch notation was especially valuable, with some modern interpretation. All that in mind, I'm going to present the 12-modes of Safi al-Din in modern pitches and intervals (with "neutral" pseudo intervals) as best as I understand them in the light of Qutb al-Din's corrections.

We start with the main medieval Persian/Arabic tetrachords:

There are three Pythagorean tetrachords:

[M2, M2, m2]: jins 'Ushshaq // Modern jins 'Ajam 

[M2, m2, M2]: jins Nawa // Modern jins Nahawand

[m2, M2, M2]: jins Busalik // Modern jins Kurdi

And there are three tetrachords that mix neutral seconds with a major second:

[M2, n2, n2]: jins Rast // Modern jins Rast

[n2, M2, n2]: jins (Ru-yi) 'Iraq // Modern jins Huseyni or jins 'Iraq, depending on intonation

[n2, n2, M2]: jins Nawruz // Modern jins Bayyati

There are many many more medieval ajnas, but this is a good start.

We have five medieval modes with parallel conjunct tetrachords, three Pythagorean and two neutral:

Ushshaq: [P1, M2, M3, P4, P5, M6, m7, P8] : [M2, M2, m2] + [M2, M2, m2] + [M2]

Abu Salik: [P1, m2, m3, P4, d5, m6, m7, P8] : [m2, M2, M2] + [m2, M2, M2] + [M2]

Nawa: [P1, M2, m3, P4, P5, m6, m7, P8] : [M2, m2, M2] + [M2, m2, M2] + [M2]

Rast: [P1, M2, n3, P4, P5, n6, m7, P8] : [M2, n2, n2] + [M2, n2, n2] + [M2]

Husayni: [G, Ad, Bb, C, Dd, Eb, F, G] : [n2, n2, M2] + [n2, n2, M2] + [M2]

Two more modes have non-parallel conjunct tetrachords, but are otherwise well behaved. I'll use "n5" to mean "half-flat fifth". The notation is a little ambiguous since P5 doesn't have a major and minor variant for a neutral interval to fall between. That's the downfall of using "neutral" intervals as an intonation-agnostic shorthand instead of using actual intervals.

Rahavi: [P1, n2, n3, P4, n5, m6, m7, P8] : [n2, M2, n2] + [n2, n2, M2] + [M2]

Hejazi: [P1, n2, m3, P4, n5, n6, m7, P8] : [n2, n2, M2] + [n2, M2, n2] + [M2]

Another mode has nine notes instead of eight, but is otherwise not too bad:

Zirafkand: [P1, n2, m3, P4, n5, m6, n6, n7, P8] [n2, n2, M2] [n2, n2, n1, M2, n2]

Now we get into the tricky modes. In the presentations of the medieval maqam 'Iraq that I've seen based Safi al-Din and Qutb al-Din, we start with jins 'Iraq 

[n2, M2, n2]: jins (Ru-yi) 'Iraq // Modern jins Huseyni or jins 'Iraq, depending on intonation

and this is repeated conjunctly. Then the two accounts diverge. In the Safi al-Din account, we end the scale with a Pythagorean [d3, A0], which looks like [n2, n1] when I think about logical reinterpretations of the ridiculous Pythagorean names. In Qutb al-Din, we end maqam 'Iraq with [A1, m2]. Both of these sum to M2, so we're reaching the octave regardless, but there's like a 63 cent difference between a Pythagorean A1 (@ 113 cents) and a Pythagorean d3 (at 180 cents). This is not a subtle difference.

The Qutb al-Din version looks like this:

'Iraq: [P1, n2, n3, P4, n5, n6, m7, M7, P8] : [n2, M2, n2] + [n2, M2, n2] + [A1, m2]

And the Safi al-Din version looks like this:

'Iraq: [P1, n2, n3, P4, n5, n6, m7, n8, P8] : [n2, M2, n2] + [n2, M2, n2] + [n2, n1]

with "n8" standing in for a half flat eighth, not a half sharp one. I don't have much explanation for the difference, but I generally trust Qutb al-Din as the better source - he's more comprehensive, he wrote later, he used Zalzalian seconds instead of Pythagorean diminished thirds. Also it just makes more sense, if you're going to add a tone before the octave, to add the leading tone M7, rather than the neural tone n8.

We get a similar problem with a medieval maqam Isfahan. It either ends in [n2, n1] or [A1, m2]. I'm going to go with Qutb al-Din again and use the chromatic leading tone rather than the neutral tone.

Isfahan: [P1, M2, n3, P4, P5, n6, m7, M7, P8] : [M2, n2, n2] + [M2] + [n2, n2, A1, m2]

This has jins Isfahan in the upper part, which Owen Wright tells us is simply jins Nawruz with an added M3 (or equivalently with the upper M2 relative degree split into A1 and m2).

[P1, n2, m3, P4] : [n2, n2, M2] // jins Nawruz // Modern jins Bayyati

[P1, n2, m3, M3, P4] : [n2, n2, A1, m2] // jins Isfahan

If we used Safi al-Din's {n8} tone, then we'd instead have

Isfahan: [P1, M2, n3, P4, P5, n6, m7, n8, P8] : [M2, n2, n2] + [M2] + [n2, n2, n2, n1]

which is very interesting in that his has four neutral intervals in a row. Qutb al-Din's intonation for jins Isfahan is this:

Absolute: [1/1, 13/12, 7/6, 5/4, 4/3]

Relative: [13/12, 14/13, 15/14, 16/15]

It's very nice in terms of numerical aesthetics, and I know multiple modern microtonalists who will tell you that this is the correct intonation of Isfahan, so I guess it's a modern intonation at least, but Owen Wright argues that these frequency ratios were not appropriate when Qutb al-Din published them, and that jins Isfahan is just jins Nawruz with an added major third, and I belive him. Still, even with this nice theoretical intonation of Qutb al-Din, we're closer to [n2, n2, A1, m2] than we are to [n2, n2, n2, n1] or [n2, n2, d3, A0]. In either version, we've got a sound very close to Maqam Rast, but with an extra note at the top and a somewhat different tetrachordal emphasis.

Owen Wright's presentation of maqam Zankula, is very close to that of Safi al-Din's Zankula, only adding in an optional leading tone {M7} between {m7} and {P8}.

Zangula: [P1, M2, n3, P4, n5, n6, m7, (M7), P8] [M2, n2, n2] [n2, M2, n2] [M2 (or A1, m2)]

And now we get to the hardest one of all, maqam Buzurg. The third scale degree can be either M3 or n3. But also, there's a weird tritone between P4 and P5. Owen  Wright / Qutb al-Din just call it C# over G, i.e. an augmented fourth. This splits the M2 between P4 and P5 into [A1, m2]. I'm not sure that this is correct. Let's explore some other intonations.

Safi al-Din uses a Pythagorean diminished sixth, tuned to 262144/177147 at 678 cents, which looks more like a half flat fifth. This is one imperceptible schisma away from a grave fifth, justly tuned to 40/27 at 680 cents, if you want to spell it correctly.

In Qutb al-Din's own intonation, jins Buzurg looks like this:

Absolute: [1/1, 14/13, 16/13, 4/3, 56/39, 3/2]

Relative: [14/13, 8/7, 13/12, 14/13, 117/112]

This has 56/39 as the intermediate tone at 626 cents, a much more reasonable C#, although being 14/13 higher than 4/3, I would still call it a fifth interval, since 14/13 is a second interval. In particular, 56/39 is the just tuning of the recessed-sub-fifth, ReSb5, which is two microtonal unison accidentals down from P5. Anyway, I'm somewhat open to calling the intervals between P4 and P5 either [A1, m2] or [n2, n1], but I suspect some intonation of [n2, n1] is closer, since both Safi al-Din and Qutb al-Din effectively use a n2 over P4 - with Safi al-Din using a Pythagorean d3 as n2, and with Qutb al-Din using a very small n2 and calling it A1. So what shall we use for our middle interval? {A4} like Qutb al-Din? Or {d5} since it's really a fifth over {G}? Or {n5} since that's what is probably is? I don't know! Why do I have to decide? I never wanted to be a medieval Perso-Arabic ethnomusicologist! I just wanted to teach people about five limit just intonation. This is crazy. I'll just do A4. But that still leaves us with two variants, since our third can be either M3 or n3 according to Qutb al-Din.

Buzurg 1: [P1, n2, M3, P4, A4, P5, M6, n7, P8]  : [n2, n2 + A1, m2] [A1, m2] + [M2, n2, n2]

Buzurg 2: [P1, n2, n3, P4, A4, P5, M6, n7, P8]  :[n2, M2, n2] [A1, m2] + [M2, n2, n2]

Safi-al Din uses the second version with a neutral third.

So there you have it. The 12 basic maqamat of medieval Perso-Arabic theory.

:: Awazah, Maqam, Shu'bah, Gushah

Lots of medieval authors arranged the 12 basic maqamat of medieval Perso-Arabic theory in different similar ways. I'm going to share an organization scheme from Baqiyai Naini's "Zamzamah-i Vahdat", one of many similar ones shared in "The 12-maqam System and its Similarity with Indian Ragas" by Dilorom Karomat.

Awazah Salmak:

Maqam Isfahan

Shu'bah Nariz

Gushah Jamali

Gushah Ghazal

Shu'bah Nishapurak

Gushah Dugah

Gushah Nihawand

Maqam Zangulah

Shu'bah Chargah

Gushah Malif

Gushah Hairan (=Hazan)

Shu'bah 'Uzzal

Gushah 'Ashiran

Gushah Hayalan

Awazah Gardaniyah:

Maqam 'Ushshaq

Shu'bah Zabil

Gushah Shehri

Gushah Hazan

Shu'bah Auj

Gushah Nigar

Gushah Wisal

Maqam Rast

Shu'bah Mubarqa'

Gushah Hijat

Shu'bah Panjgah

Gushah Zuwalkhams

Awazah Nauruz

Maqam Busalik

Shu'bah Saba

Gushah Ruh Afza

Gushah Tarab angiz

Shu'bah 'Ashiran

Gushah Gariban

Gushah Muta' adil 

Maqam Husaini

Shu'bah Dugah

Gushah Bayat-i Buzurg

Gushah Bayat-i Kurd

Shu'bah Mahaiyar

Gushah Muqarrar

Gushah Dalir

Awazah Gawasht

Maqam Hijaz

Shu'bah Segah

Gushah Bastah Nigar

Gushah Sirafraz

Shu'bah Hisar

Gushah Ruzi-Zari

Gushah Munajat

Maqam Nawa

Shu'bah Nauruz-i Khara

Gushah Gulistan

Gushah Wahai

Shu'bah Mahur

Gushah Nairiz-i Kabir

Gushah Safa

Awazah Maya

Maqam 'Iraq

Shu'bah Rui Mukhalif

Gushah Pehlawi

Gushah 'Itdal

Shu'bah Maghlub

Gushah Muta' adil

Gushah Auj-i Kamal

Maqam Kuchak

Shu'bah Rakab

Gushah Farib

Gushah Ikiyat

Shu'bah Bayati

Gushah Nishat

Gushah Bahar

Awazah Shahnaz:

Maqam Buzurg

Shu'bah Humayun

Gushah Asli

Gushah Zamin

Shu'bah Nuhuft

Gushah Sirat

Gushah Solai Rah

Maqam Rahavi

Shu'bah Nauruz-i 'Arab

Gushah Dibar

Gushah Ghamzadah

Shu'bah Nauruz-i 'Ajam

Gushah Ma'anawi

Gushah Bahri Kamal

It's a big tree. I think the things that are more specific than maqamat are basically melodic motifs. I'm not sure how a Shu'bah differs from a Gushah. But we're going to figure it out. When I search the internet for information about things that might be obscure middle eastern scales, like Nuhuft or Gawasht / Kawasht, I rarely find anything, so when I found a chart that had a ton of these things named, I got excited. Maybe Nuhuft, whatever it is, is related to maqam Buzurg, which might itself be related to maqam Rahavi in that they're both in Awazah Shahnaz. We're going to figure all of this out, I believe it.

:: Sho'bahs

In "Music Making in Iran from the 15th to the Early 20th Century", Amir Hosein Pourjavady gives us descriptions of two Shu'bah / Sho'bah species for each of the 12 classical main maqamat. Pretty handy. They're very melodic - they generally don't just ascend. They are also generally divided into an upper sho'bah and a lower sho'bah.

...