A STUDY OF FRET POSITIONS OF TANBUR BASED ON AUTOMATIC

ESTIMATES FROM AUDIO RECORDINGS

Gedik, Ali C., Dept. of Electrical and Electronics Eng., Izmir Institute of Technology, a.cenkgedik@musicstudies.org
Bozkurt, Baris, Dept. of Electrical and Electronics Eng., Izmir Institute of Technology, barisbozkurt@iyte.edu.tr
Cirak, Cem, State Conservatory of Turkish Music, Ege University, cemcirak@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT

Background in music theory

Tanbur (or tambur) is the common name of long-necked, fretted, plucked lutes of the Middle East and Central Asia [1]. The
studies of the earliest theorists such as Al-Fārābī (d 950) and Safī al-dīn (d 1294) based on the fretting of tanbur for the
description of tuning systems show the importance of tanbur in traditional art musics of this wide geographical region. The
first analytical study on tanbur kebir türki (‘great Turkish tanbur’) which forms a basis for the theory and practice of
traditional Turkish art music (TTAM) was presented by Dimitrie Cantemir (1673–1723) in his treatise, Edvar-i musiki
(‘Textbook of music’) [2]. Therefore there is a strong relationship between the fretting of tanbur and the tuning system of
TTAM. However due to the divergence of theory and practice in TTAM [3] the fret positions of tanbur is still an open topic
of research: there exists no agreed standard among theoreticians, musicians and instrument makers. Since early 20th Century,
various tuning theories have been proposed in Turkey [4] with varying number of pitches used in an octave: 24, 29, 41, 53,
79, etc. Today, the number of frets still varies due to personal choice and instrumental tractates provide alternative fret
locations according to this or that musician [5].
Background in computing
The first computational study on tanbur is presented by [6]. However this study focuses on the acoustic features of tanbur
rather than fretting. An automatic analysis method for the tuning analysis of traditional Turkish art music (TTAM) recordings
is recently presented by [7]. The algorithms applied in tuning analysis are as follows: pitch frequency analysis pitch
histogram computation, histogram alignment and histogram template construction on large audio databases containing
recordings with non-standard tuning frequencies. These algorithms have been successfully used to study theory-practice
mismatches in TTAM [4].
Aims
Primarily we present an automatic analysis method that can estimate fret positions of a tanbur given a collection of
recordings. We also study the problem of fret positions by comparing the estimated fret locations to those specified in the
literature.
Main Contribution
We first discuss the importance of the instrument with all of its appearances in music: the theory, practice and production.
We summarize the literature of tanbur fretting and show that there is an important lack of reliable information in the domain.
We finally introduce a method for estimation of fret placements from audio recordings and show via tests that the method is
reliable.
Implications
The presented algorithm is potentially applicable in tuning studies and research on tanbur education and production.

and includes the description of various tanburs of their

1. INTRODUCTION time. It is accepted that the oldest tanbur description that
resembles most to the tanbur performed in traditional
Tanbur (or tambur) is the common name of long-necked,
Turkish art music (TTAM) today is given by Dimitrie
fretted, plucked lutes of the Middle East and Central Asia
Cantemir (1673–1723) who was also respected as a master
[1]. Manuscripts of the theorists such as Al-Fārābī (d 950)
of the instrument of his time [2]. A comparison of tanbur
and Safī al-dīn (d 1294) are considered as common sources
drawn by Cantemir and tanbur performed today is
for the theory of traditional art musics of the Middle East
presented in Figure 1. The first analytical study which
forms a basis for the theory and practice of traditional
Turkish art music (TTAM) is also presented by Cantemir
in his treatise, Edvar-i musiki (‘Textbook of music’) [2].
a) b)
Figure 1. Tanbur in TTAM: a) the drawing of Cantemir
(1673–1723) [8] and b) today [6].
The interest of theorists on tanbur continues in the 20th
century. The founder of the “modern” theory of TTAM,
Rauf Yekta Bey whose article on TTAM was published in
the Encyclopedie le da Musique et Dictionaire du
Conservatoire in 1922 was also a tanbur player. In his
article he discusses the tuning theory of TTAM based on
tanbur and underlines the importance of the instrument:
Tanbur is the most beloved instrument of Turks.
While old Arabian and Iranian writers consider ud
as the most perfect instrument, Turkish writers
consider tanbur holding such an honor. For a
comparison, it can be said that the tanbur plays
the similar role which piano plays for Western
composers. Similarly, most of the Turkish
composers are tanbur players, also. [19]
Rauf Yekta Bey together with the most prominent tanbur
player Mesut Cemil represented Turkey in The Congress of
Arab Music held in Cairo in 1932 [9]. Cemil also
performed in the congress which was recorded by the
recording committee of the congress. The congress was a
historical turning point toward standardizing the theory and
practice of traditional art musics of the Arabian geography.
Yekta and Cemil, as members of the musical scale
committee, rejected the proposal of some Egyptian
members on the use of equal-tempered quarter-tone scales,
for its inappropriateness in measuring the Near Eastern
pitch [9]. As reported by Racy, “tanbur was favored by
some committee members for its rich and enchanting
sound, and because its fretted long neck was useful for
devising a standard theoretical scale.” [9].
Although ud and kanun started to dominate the genre
by displacing tanbur to a degree in 1900s [10], tanbur
preserves its central role in education and performance of
the genre at least in certain circles such as few private
educational institutions, state conservatories, vocal and
instrumental ensembles of state TV and radios, and
amateur choruses where the tradition survived. Therefore,
while it is more likely to hear and see ud and kanun
performances then tanbur performances in more
popularized discourses of the genre in private TV, radios
and concerts, tanbur is still indispensably performed in all
forms of the genre, either vocal or instrumental in those
rather restricted circles in Turkey, today.
However, the most prominent and respected performers
of TTAM are considered as tanbur players such as Tanburi
Cemil Bey, Mesut Cemil, Necdet Yaşar, Ercüment
Batanay, Đzzettin Öke, Fahrettin Çimenli, etc in any circle
of the genre. Furthermore tanbur still preserves its central
role in theoretical writings also, today. Recently Yavuzoglu
[11] proposed a new tuning system for the genre and
applied the system on a tanbur which was also performed
in a recent conference on TTAM after the presentation of
the proposed theory.
Consequently, the tanbur occupies a distinctive place in
education, performance and theory of TTAM both
historically and currently. However this is the point where
the tanbur also stands at the center of various problems
about the genre in the 20th century. These problems mainly
result from the divergence of theory and practice in
TTAM. Although the divergence of theory and practice is
an historical fact of the genre, the appearance of this fact as
a problem occurs due to the westernization and
nationalization of TTAM in the 20th century [3].
Historically, practice and theory have a loose relation
where the former is based on oral tradition and the letter is
rather a combination of speculation and a musicological
scientific method. While the theory was rather based on
verbal descriptive information, theorists in the 20th century
intended to formulate the theory based on more analytical
approaches using a terminology similar to western music
theory, such as scale degrees, tetrachords, pentachords, etc.
Therefore a new discourse started to dominate the
genre especially after the institutionalization of the TTAM
by the state conservatories and ensembles: “the theory
should generate practice” [12]. The theory of Arel-Ezgi-
Uzdilek became the official theory of TTAM by the
foundation of state conservatory of TTAM in 1976. The
outcome of the institutionalization of TTAM both in
education and performance is the appreciation of theory
more seriously by the performers than ever before.
However this consequence did not solve the problem of
divergence but generates new discourses among the
musicians, resulting the description of practice with respect
to theory.
On the one hand, performance of certain pitches which
contradict with the theory are defined with respect to
theory by using a terminology such as “a little higher”, “a
little lower” or “minus a comma” [13]. As stated in [3]:
“although the performances diverge from the theory, the
Arel theory is highly respected among performers, and they
hesitate to contradict the theory when the pitch intervals of
Figure 2. A transcription of a composition written on the
their performances are measured by musicologists1.”
western staff notation adapted to TTAM. [14]
On the other hand, the theorists observing the
divergence of the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek theory and practice,
Our study for the computational analysis of fret
proposed new theories which target converging the theory
placements estimated from audio recordings mainly consist
to practice. These theories which proposed various
of two phases: analysis of pitch frequency information and
numbers of pitches for an octave such as 24, 29, 41, 53, 79
mapping the pitch information to the fretboard of the
etc., were considered and computationally evaluated by
tanbur as fret placements.
[4].
The method for the first phase of the study is already
As a result, reflection of the divergence problem on
developed by Bozkurt [7] and successfully applied in a
tanbur can be summarized as follows: While the theory
number of recent studies [4, 15]. In this algorithm, pitch
dictates standardization in practice, there is almost no
information is represented as pitch-frequency histograms
standardization in any appearance of tanbur in practice.
and the tonic for each piece is estimated by an automatic
This can be listed more specifically under three headings:
tonic detection algorithm based on histogram template
i. Production: The dimensions of the sound box and the
matching. Finally pitch interval values are obtained from
neck, and the number of frets and their placements can
the pitch-frequency histogram aligned to the tonic.
vary due to each instrument maker.
However the second phase of the study, mapping pitch
ii. Performance: Once a player owns a tanbur from the
interval values to the fretboard of the tanbur, bears
instrument maker, the player reorganizes the number of
challenging problems. Firstly, there is no source about the
frets and their placements according to personal choices.
calculation of fret placements in tanbur, except tables for
iii. Education: Although TTAM is historically based on
fixed string lengths according to this or that musician [5].
an oral tradition called meşk, as a result of modernization
The literature is mainly based on western fretted string
processes education demonstrates a hybrid structure, based
instruments [16, 17, 18]. The few studies on non-western
on both meşk and written sources, today. Textbooks consist
fretted string instruments such as sitar, vina [20], Iraqian
of theoretical information and, exercises and compositions
long necked lute [21] etc. do not consider the fret
written on western staff notation adapted to TTAM2
placement problems such as fret compensation. Mostly the
according to the theory (see Figure 2) are used even in
fret placement of tanbur is given as a table with measured
amateur choruses as well as in conservatories. Master
distances between frets and nut or bridge in the literature
musicians as lecturers continue to perform with students
on TTAM. However this information is unreliable since
within the context of meşk. However due to the divergence
neither the height of the strings measured from the nut and
of theory and practice, the pitches at the notations do not
bridge is given nor the problems of fret placement in
match exactly with the performed pitches.
fretted string instruments is taken into account. The most
Consequently our study, estimation of fret placements
comprehensive study on tanbur lists fret locations directly
from audio recordings, proposes solutions to these three
computed by applying the theoretical intervals on the string
problems for tanbur. The calculation of fret placements of
length [22]. The only computational study on tanbur is also
master tanbur players clearly supplies useful information
far from dealing with fret placement of tanbur but presents
for the production, performance and education of tanbur
the acoustic analysis of the instrument [6].
instrument. However it should be noted that our study does
Consequently we present here a method for the
not intend to constitute any standardizations in any of these
automatic estimation of fret placements of tanbur from the
practices of tanbur.
audio recordings for the first time. Firstly we measured the
string length, the height of the strings measured from the
1
nut and distances of each fret from the nut of a tanbur and
Karl Signell and M. Kemal Karaosmanoğlu (quoted from Can Akkoç)
recorded a number of performances of a tanbur player with
shared their measurement experiences with foremost
performers.(personal communication with Signell and Karaosmanoğlu, 6- the same tanbur. After applying the automatic pitch-
8 March 2008, Đstanbul) frequency analysis to the recordings and comparing the
2
The main difference of the notation staff used in TTAM and western automatic fret mapping results to the actual fret placements
music is the eight additional accidentals in TTAM notation.
measured, we have calculated parameters of the fret role in both theory and practice. Firstly the number of
placements including the fret compensations. pitches in TTAM is still subject to discussions which lead
to the question about the number of frets to be used in a
2. TANBUR IN THEORY AND PRACTICE tanbur. Yekta presents 49 frets (for two octaves) for a
tanbur which is explicitly related with the tuning system he
2.1. Morphology of tanbur
proposed as 24 pitch intervals within an octave. Similarly,
There are various tanburs with different dimensions
the tanbur with 98 frets presented by Yavuzoğlu [11] is the
specified by the string length (distance between the bridge
application of his tuning system with 48 pitch intervals
and the nut) such as 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, and 112
within an octave.
cm tanburs [23]. All other dimensions of the tanbur are
determined by certain ratios reference to the string length
in production. For example the ratio of the string length to
the length of the fretboard is 4/3. The most common tanbur
dimension used today is the tanbur with 104 cm string
length and 78 cm length fretboard [22]. The frets along the
fretboard cover a range of two octaves.
The frontal and lateral views of tanbur performed in
TTAM today are presented in Figure 1.b and Figure 3
respectively. The quasi-hemispheric soundbox is made of
thin slices with 3 mm thickness, 3-4 cm width and 55-60
cm length. The number of slices depends on the
dimensions of the tanbur [22]. Slices are made of hard Figure 3. Cross section of tanbur performed in Turkey,
woods such as ebony, rosewood, pearwood, walnut and today [6].
cherry. The soundboard usually consists of 2 thin pieces
cut from spruce with 1.80-2 mm thickness. Rosewood or
juniper is used for the bridge and originally tortoise shell is
used for the plectrum which is replaced by synthetic
materials today. Finally the fretboard is made of ebony or
juniper and the frets are made of nylon. The frets wounded
on the fretboard are 0.4 - 0.6 mm wide.
Either 7 or 8 strings are used at the instrument as pairs Figure 4. The tuning of the tanbur as couple of strings
and tuned as shown in Figure 4. However the tuning of the [22].
first pair can be changed when transposition is necessary.
Traditionally only the string couple tuned as yegah is used However none of the theoretical proposals for tanbur
to play the melody of a composition or improvisation and are applied in practice. The theory of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek
the other string pairs function as resonators or to supply the (AEU) which is considered as the official theory of TTAM
tonic during improvisations. If 7 strings are used at the is simply the predecessor of the theory presented by Yekta.
tanbur, then the 4th pair is reduced to one string. However it is not possible to find a tanbur with 49 frets in
Two kinds of strings are used at tanbur today: plain steel Turkey, today. Furthermore, the number of frets used by
strings and yellowish strings made of brass, copper and one of the most notable tanbur players, Necdet Yaşar is 65.
bronze or mixture of them. The diameter and the kind of Although the increase in the number of frets is explained
the strings in millimeter are as follows: plain steel 1st pair by the need of transposition, there is no standard also to
strings (D) - 0.3, yellowish 2nd pair strings - 0.4, plain steel meet this need. Therefore, it is also possible to find tanburs
3rd pair strings – 0.3, yellowish 4th pair strings – 0.5. The with 56 frets.
tension of the strings applied on the tanbur is around 75-80 Besides the problem of the number of frets, fret
kg. but this tension is subject to changes due to the placement is another crucial point where the practice
transposition applied. diverges from theory. In production, the commonly applied
methodology is to use templates drawn on sheets which
2.2. Fretting problems of tanbur mark the fret placements on tanbur (every producer has his
template). These templates are either derived from
As stated in the Introduction, the main difficulty about theoretical information or specific to this or that instrument
tanbur fretting raises due to the divergence of theory and maker. However there is no reliable scientific source about
practice in TTAM. Therefore the problem is not specific to the procedure of producing these templates.
an instrument. However, tanbur stands at the center of the Table 1 presents the pitch interval values as frequency
discussions about this divergence problem due to its central ratios and the fret placements of a tanbur with 1064 mm
string length given by Yekta [19]. Only the first 25 frets are mismatch is understandable to a degree. However we
given in the table to save space. The next 24 frets are observe similar problems in comparatively very recent
simply the octave shift of the first 25 frets which can be documents like the unique book on tanbur making written
simply found by applying the frequency ratios. by a tanbur maker, Cafer Açın [23] as presented in Table 2.
Consequently the frequency ratios reflects the tuning Table 3 presents three fretting systems1 given for a
theory proposed by Yekta which supplies the pitch interval tanbur with 104 cm string length (given by tanbur maker
values used as official theoretical information as a result of Cafer Açın (CA)2 in [23]): fret locations of the tanbur of
AEU theory. Necdet Yaşar (NY) (a master of the instrument), the theory
of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek (AEU) and Cafer Açın’s fretting
Fret Distance Pitch Names system. Therefore Table 3 reflects available information in
No Frequency Ratios to Bridge the literature on tanbur frettings for a respected
(mm) Turkish Western performance (NY), the official theory (AEU) and the
1 1/1 1064 YEGÂH D production (CA) in charge.
2 256/243 1009.97 Nim Pest Hisar The same mismatch of Yekta’s values (the double
3 2187/2048 996.38 Pest Hisar octave fret being at exactly one quarter of the string length)
4 65536/59049 958.69 Dik Pest Hisar also holds true for the two fretting systems, CA and NY.
5 9/8 945.78 HÜSEYNĐAŞĐRAN E The two systems exactly fit to the theoretical fretting of
6 32/27 897.75 Acemaşiran Yekta, except the additional frets used for the need of
7 19683/16384 885.67 Dik Acemaşiran transpositions as can be observed from the Table 2.
8 8192/6561 852.17 ARAK Furthermore it is also clear from the same table that the
9 81/64 840.70 Geveşt
tuning system of AEU is exactly the same with the system
of Yekta.
10 2097152/1594323 808.89 Dik Geveşt
Consequently, it can be said that the fret measures
11 4/3 798 RAST G
presented in the rather limited literature, referring to the
12 1024/729 757.48 Nim Zengûle
tanbur of a master player and presented by a master maker
13 729/512 747.29 Zengûle are simply the application of the AEU/Yekta tuning system
14 262144/177147 719.02 Dik Zengûle to a tanbur with a given string length which is far from the
15 3/2 709.34 DÜGÂH A actual practical fret measures. Therefore it is clear that the
16 128/81 673.32 Kürdî reliability of literature is questionable. Consequently a
17 6561/4096 664.26 Dik Kürdî tanbur player has to move the frets to find the “correct”
18 32768/19683 639.13 SEGÂH fret placements after owning a tanbur, almost without any
19 27/16 630.52 Puselik guidance from the theory or instrument maker, today.
20 8388608/4782969 606.67 Dik Puselik There is a crucial need for reliable measurement tools to
21 16/9 598.5 ÇARGÂH C
help this process.
22 4096/2187 568.11 Nim Hicaz
3. A COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH TO STUDY
23 243/128 560.47 Hicaz
THE FRET PLACEMENTS OF TANBUR
24 1048576/531441 539.26 Dik Hicaz
25 2/1 532 NEVA D In this section, we first compare the fretting systems
specified in literature to actual measurements on a tanbur.
Table 1. The pitch interval values and the fret placements Then we describe our method to detect fret locations from
of a tanbur with 1064 mm string length given by Yekta recordings. Further we present the fret location estimates
[19]. obtained from recordings using the same tanbur.

The interesting point in the table is that fret placements are

simply reflections of frequency ratios applied to a tanbur
with 106.4 cm length. In fact it is not practically possible
to have an octave relation (2/1) between the frets yegah
and neva given as 1064 mm and 532 mm with reference to
bridge, due to the change in the length and tension of the
string when pressed by a finger. This mismatch is also
valid for other fret measures.
Since Yekta presented the fret measures in his article 1
which presents the TTAM to the international community Only the frets within the first octave are given to save space.
2
The author is also a lecturer on tanbur making in the oldest school of
for the first time (and he was not a tanbur maker), this TTAM, Đstanbul State Conservatuary of Turkish Music.
 Frequency Fret Distance to Bridge (mm)
Pitch Names
No Ratios
(Yekta) NY AEU CA Turkish Western
1 1/1 104 104 104 YEGÂH D
2 256/243 98.7 98.7 98.7 Nim Pest Hisar
3 2187/2048 97.42 97.42 97.42 Pest Hisar
96.16
95.49 95.54
4 65536/59049 93.67 93.67 93.67 Dik Pest Hisar
5 9/8 92.46 92.45 92.46 HÜSEYNĐAŞĐRAN E
6 32/27 87.74 87.74 87.74 Acemaşiran
7 19683/16384 86.6 86.6 86.6 Dik Acemaşiran
85.48 85.48
84.93 84.93
8 8192/6561 83.27 83.27 83.27 ARAK
9 81/64 82.19 82.19 82.19 Geveşt
10 2097152/1594323 79.02 79.02 79.03 Dik Geveşt
11 4/3 78 78 78 RAST G
12 1024/729 74.03 74.02 74.03 Nim Zengûle
13 729/512 73.06 73.06 73.06 Zengûle
72.12
71.65
14 262144/177147 70.25 70.25 70.25 Dik Zengûle
15 3/2 69.34 69.34 69.34 DÜGÂH A
16 128/81 65.81 65.8 65.81 Kürdî
17 6561/4096 64.95 64.95 64.95 Dik Kürdî
64.11
63.69
18 32768/19683 62.45 62.45 62.45 SEGÂH
19 27/16 61.64 61.64 61.64 Puselik
20 8388608/4782969 59.27 59.27 59.27 Dik Puselik
21 16/9 58.5 58.5 58.5 ÇARGÂH C
57.74
56.99
56.62
22 4096/2187 55.52 55.52 55.52 Nim Hicaz
23 243/128 54.8 54.79 54.8 Hicaz
24 1048576/531441 52.69 52.68 52.68 Dik Hicaz
25 2/1 52 52 52 NEVA D
Table 2. Fret placements given for a tanbur with 104 cm string length (as given in [23]): the tanbur of Necdet Yaşar (NY),
fret locations derived from the theory of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek (AEU) and Cafer Açın’s fretting system. The number of frets for
each fretting system is 65, 24 and 56 respectively. The frequency ratios presented by Yekta is also presented for the
corresponding frets of the 3 fretting systems for comparison. Only the frets within the first octave are given to save space.
Values are given with respect to the bridge. All grey shaded rows are the frets that do not exist in theory. Black shading:
slight differences among the same frets. Dark grey: Additional frets of NY. Light grey: Additional frets of CA and NY.
compared with the given fretting systems. The fret
3.1. The present fretting/tunning system in comparison measures of tanbur used in the experiment can be found in
to measured fret locations on a tanbur Table 3 (indicated in the first column as M). Given the
A well-known young tanbur player, the third author of the string length, it is also easy to find the fret measures of
paper is involved to the study for experimental reasons. AEU system by simply applying the frequency ratios of
The tanbur used in the experiments is measured in terms of Yekta. This fret measures are also given in the table as
fret placements and string length. These measures are AEU.
No M AEU error No M AEU error 3.2. Estimation of fret placements from audio
1 104.7 104.7 0 25 53.2 52.35 0.85 recordings
2 99.8 99.4 0.4 26 50.2 49.7 0.5
3 98.6 98.1 0.5 49.7
96.5 27 49.2 49 0.2 Recently Gedik and Bozkurt [15] comprehensively
4 94.6 94.4 0.2 48.7 discussed the challenges in computational studies on
5 93.8 93.1 0.7 48 TTAM. These problems can be briefly listed as follows:
6 88.9 88.3 0.6 28 47.3 47.2 0.1
Pitches demonstrate distributional characteristics
7 87.8 87.2 0.6 29 44.7 46.5 1.8
86.4 30 44.1 44.2 0.1
instead of fixed frequency values.
85.4 31 43.7 43.6 0.1
There is no reference frequency such as A4 = 440
84.6 43.2 Hz in western music.
8 83.6 83.9 0.3 42.8
There is no reliable theory to consider as a
9 82.7 42.3 reference as in western music
10 79.6 0.3 32 41.7 41.9 0.2
11 79.3 78.5 0.8 33 41.4

The number of pitch intervals and their values are
74.9 34 39.8 39.8 0 still hot topics of discussion.
12 74.4 74.5 0.1 35 38.1 39.3 1.2 Bozkurt [7] presented a solution to the first problem by
13 73.4 73.5 0.1 36 37.6 37.3 0.3 developing pitch-frequency histogram representation of
72.6 37 36.9 36.8 0.1 TTAM. Related with the second problem, we have shown
72.3 36.3
in our previous publications [7, 15] that automatic tonic
14 70.8 0.2 38 35.6 35.4 0.1
15 70.6 69.8 0.8 39 33.6 34.9 1.3 detection can be very reliably achieved via template
67 40 33.1 33.1 0 matching. In addition, by aligning pitch histograms with
16 66.3 66.3 0 41 32.6 32.7 0.1 respect to tonics, automatic tuning analysis can be reliably
17 65.5 65.4 0.1 32.1 performed for a given collection of recordings. Finally,
64.7 42 31.7 31.5 0.2
instead of unreliable theoretical information, data-driven
63.9 43 30.1 31.0 0.9
18 62.9 62.9 0 44 29 29.9 0.9 models were proposed and succesfully used for the final
19 62 45 28.5 29.5 1.0 two problems [7, 15].
20 59.7 59.7 0 46 27.7 28 0.3 In this study, the algorithms are extended to achieve
21 58.4 58.9 0.5 47 27.6 automatic detection of fret locations. The steps of the
56.9 48 26.5
method applied to audio recordings for the estimation of
56.4 49 26.8 26.2 0.6
22 55.6 55.9 0.3
fret placements are listed below:
23 55 55.2 0.2 1. Representation of a given recording as pitch-
54.4 frequency histogram.
24 53.1 2. Automatic computation of tonic of the given
25 53.2 52.4 0.8
recording by using the pitch-frequency histogram.
3. Mapping the pitch-frequency histogram to the
Table 3. The measured (M) fret placements of the tanbur fretboard of the tanbur using effective string
used in the experiment and the calculated (AEU) fret lengths.
placements from the Yekta system for the tanbur used with a. Pitch-interval values are converted to
104.7 cm string length. Only the frets within the first frequency ratios.
octave are given to save space. Values are given with b. Frequency ratios are applied to a tanbur
respect to the bridge. Grey shading: the frets either do not with given effective string lengths to find
exist in the theory or in practice. the fret locations.
Since the first 2 steps of the method listed above are
The first observation is that although the tanbur used in comprehensively considered in our previous papers, we
the experiment has 56 frets as one of the tanbur type focus only on the 3rd step of the method. The main
reported by Açın [23], most of these frets do not match contribution of this study from the computational point of
with the theoretical system of AEU. Figure 5 presents the view is to assign the string length in an adaptive manner
visual representation of the theory and practice in this (instead of considering it constant throughout the fretboard
sense. Although the figure gives the impression that the as applied in the theoretical approaches) for fret/stretch
practice is almost similar to the theory, it can be seen from compensation purposes. Due to complexity of fret/stretch
the Table 3 that the most important frets of a tanbur, neva, compensation problem, it is a common practice for
rast, dügah, çargah, hüseyni aşiran, hüseyni, gerdaniye, instrument makers to detect the octave fret locations using
muhayyer, tiz çargah and tiz neva considerably diverge harmonics and then compute and effective string length to
from theory with an average of 1cm which is not tolerable be used in computations.
for the fret placements of tanbur.

0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
25 30 35 40
fret distances to nut (cm)
Figure 5. Fret placements of tanbur measured, and derived from the Yekta-AEU system.
We follow a similar approach and use some reference
fret measurements as effective string lengths. These
reference frets are the ones which can be easily tuned by
the tanbur player manually using the harmonics: neva (1st
octave), dügah (1st perfect fifth), muhayyer (2nd perfect
fifth) and tiz neva (2nd octave) with reference to yegah.
Therefore the measured 4 reference frets of a given tanbur
with reference to nut are used as an input to the system. As
a result the algorithm is applied as if there are four fret
regions on tanbur: The four fret regions are the dügah
region (between the frets yegah and dügah), the neva
region (between the frets dügah and neva), the muhayyer
region (between the frets neva and muhayyer) and the tiz
neva region (between the frets muhayyer and tiz neva).
Given a recording and reference fret measures, the fret
estimation algorithm is first applied by using the first
reference fret region and the corresponding effective string
length. Thus the frets which lay within the first reference
fret region are found. Iteratively, the other reference fret
regions and corresponding effective string lengths are used
in the same way and estimated frets are found for each
reference fret region. In summary, each estimated fret
(distances to nut) is checked in order to find the reference
fret region of it. Therefore different effective string lengths
corresponding to each reference fret region are being used
to estimate frets. The details of the algorithm are presented
below:
i. The effective string length, 102.3 cm, corresponding
to the dügah region is used. The frequency ratios are
converted to fret placements for this effective string length
according to the equation below:
ESL
fret E = ESL − , (1)
Rf
fretE : estimated fret placements, ESL : effective string length, Rf : the
frequency ratios
measured
yekta
45 50 55 60 65 70
The resulting fret estimations which lay within the dügah
region (between 0 cm and 34.1 cm) with a margin of 5 cm
toward the bridge, are found as the fret placements for the
first fret region.
ii. The effective string length, 103 cm, corresponding to
the neva region and the equation (1) are used to estimate
the fret placements. The resulting fret estimations which
lay within the neva region (between 34.1 cm+5 cm and
51.5 cm) with a margin of 5 cm toward the, are found as
the fret placements within the second fret region.
iii. The effective string length, 103.65 cm,
corresponding to the muhayyer region is used and the
equation (1) are used to estimate the fret placements. The
resulting fret estimations which lay within the muhayyer
region (between 51.5 cm +5 cm and 69.1 cm) with a
margin of 3 cm toward the bridge are found as the fret
placements within the third fret region.
iv. The effective string length, 103.9 cm, corresponding
to the tiz neva region and the equation (1) is used to
estimate the fret placements. The resulting fret estimations
which lay within the tiz neva region (between 69.1 cm
+5cm and 77.9 cm) with a margin of 1 cm toward the
bridge are found as the fret placements within the third
fret region.
Consequently, the estimated fret placements of a
recording performed by the tanbur are found by
concatenating the estimated frets for each of the four fret
regions.
3.3. Tests
16 improvisational (taksim) performances of the player
from 8 modes (makam) are recorded for the experiment.
As a result we tried to estimate the fret placements of the
tanbur from the 15 recordings and evaluate the success of
system based on the measured values of the fret
placements. The distribution of 15 recordings are as
follows: 2 improvisation/taksim recordings from each
mode/makam hicaz, rast, neva, nihavend, saba, uşşak,
suzinak and one recording from the mode/makam hüseyni.
In order to evaluate the algorithm, the difference of the
estimated fret distances and the measured fret distances are
considered as error. The overall mean error of the
proposed method for the 15 recordings is found as 0.2 cm
where the mean error is also found to be 0.2 cm for each
mode (makam).
In order to demonstrate the success of the algorithm
more clearly the error of our adaptive approach is
compared with the error of the approach where constant
string length is used, as suggested both in theory and
production. In other words the frets are estimated again by
our algorithm but by using the actual string length, 104.7
cm as constant. The overall mean error of the method for
constant string length for the 15 recordings is found as 0.7
cm where the mean error ranges between 0.6 and 0.8 for
the 8 modes (makam). Thus the adaptive approach is found
more successful than the constant string length approach.
Figure 6 enables us to compare visually the two
approaches, constant and adaptive approaches, by
presenting the fret placements estimated from 2 uşşak
recordings in comparison to measured frets. The constant
string length approach and the adaptive string length
approach are presented in Figure 6.a and 6.b., respectively.
The theoretical constant string length approach again fails,
estimation of fret placements for constant string length
0.2
dugah
since the reference frets explicitly do not match the
estimated frets, as can be seen from Figure 6.a.
While the adaptive approach gives very close fret
estimation values, the constant approach does not give
reliable fret estimation values even for the most important
frets, dügah, neva and muhayyer. Consequently, the
theoretical constant string length approach is unreliable
also for the estimation of the fret placements from audio
recordings.
Finally Table 5 enables us to compare the two
approaches numerically by presenting the frets estimated
from the same two uşşak recordings, in comparison to the
fret placements measured. Firstly it is possible to see the
considerable deviation of the most important frets (light
gray shaded) estimated by the theoretical constant string
length approach. Secondly, success of the theoretical
approach is worse for the most frequently used fret region,
the main octave of the tanbur as shown by dark grey
shading. While the mean error of the adaptive approach is
0.15 cm for this region, the mean error of the theoretical
approach is 0.75 cm. Therefore our approach is
considerably better than the constant string length approach
for the most frequently used fret regions of the tanbur.
measured frets
reference frets
neva muhayyer
ussak1

0.15 ussak2

0.1

0.05
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
fret distances to nut (cm)

estimation of fret placements for effective string lengths measured frets

0.2
reference frets
dugah neva muhayyer
ussak1

0.15 ussak2

0.1

0.05
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
fret distances to nut (cm)
Figure 6. Mapping the fret placements estimated from 2 uşşak performances on the fretboard of tanbur a) theoretical constant
string length approach, b) adaptive effective string lengths approach. Only the main octave performed in TTAM is presented.
 Recording : Uşşak#1 4. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND FUTURE
Meas. Adaptive SL Ref. Constant SL WORK
frets Estimated error frets Estimated error
frets frets In this study we discussed one of the most neglected and
96.5 96.2 0.3 96 0.5 challenging issues in the literature from a music theory and
93.8 93.3 0.5 E1 93.1 0.7 computing perspective: the fret locations of tanbur. We
88.9 88.7 0.2 88.3 0.6 first discussed the importance of the instrument with in
86.4 86.1 0.3 85.7 0.7 various perspectives: the music theory, practice and tanbur
84.6 84.3 0.25 83.8 0.8
79.3 79.1 0.2 G1 78.5 0.8
production. Secondly, we presented the main difficulties
74.9 74.9 0 74.2 0.7 within the context of the divergence of theory and practice.
70.6 70.6 0 A1 69.8 0.8 We summarized the literature of tanbur fretting and
67 66.8 0.2 66 1 showed that there is a lack of reliable information in the
59.7 59.9 0.2 59.1 0.6 domain.
56.9 56.7 0.2 55.9 0.7
We introduced our method for estimation of fret
53.2 53.4 0.2 D1 52.6 0.6
49.7 49.5 0.2 48.6 1.1 placements from audio recordings and presented our test
47.3 47.3 0 E2 46.7 0.6 results which show that the method is indeed reliable. As a
44.7 44.8 0.1 44.2 0.5 result a computational study for the study of tanbur frets is
42.8 42.9 0.1 42.3 0.5 presented for the first time in the literature. Furthermore
39.8 39.9 0.1 39.3 0.5 the current fretting systems proposed in theory and used in
38.1 37.9 0.2 G2 37.3 0.8
37.6 37.3 0.3 36.6 1
production were compared for the first time.
35.6 35.8 0.2 A2 35.1 0.5 However there are various lacks of the study which we
33.6 34 0.4 33.3 0.3 hope to fill out in the future studies. First of all an
Mean error 0.2 0.7 ethnomusicological approach would supply invaluable
contribution for the role of tanbur in performance.
Recor Secondly frets estimated from the recordings of the tanbur
Recording : Uşşak#2 masters could be tested by tanbur players for a more
Meas. Adaptive SL Ref. Constant SL complete evaluation. Nevertheless we hope that our study
frets Estimated error frets Estimated error would pave the way for the colleagues from various
frets frets disciplines interested in tanbur to contribute to the current
93.8 93.3 0.5 E1 93.1 0.7
state-of-art of the research on tanbur.
88.9 88.7 0.2 88.3 0.6
83.6 84 0.4 83.5 0.1 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
79.3 79.1 0.2 G1 78.5 0.8
70.6 70.6 0 A1 69.8 0.8
67 66.8 0.2 66 1
This work is supported by Scientific and Technological
65.5 65.2 0.3 64.5 1 Research Council of Turkey, TUBITAK (Project No:
56.9 56.7 0.2 55.9 1 107E024).
53.2 53.2 0 D1 52.3 0.9
47.3 47.3 0 E2 46.7 0.6 6. REFERENCES
44.7 44.8 0.1 44.2 0.5
39.8 40.1 0.3 42.3 0.5
38.1 37.9 0.2 G2 39.4 0.4 [1] Hassan, S. Q. et al. ''Tanbūr.'' Grove Music Online.
37.6 37.3 0.3 37.3 0.8 Oxford Music Online. 22 Mar. 2009
35.6 35.8 0.2 A2 36.6 1 http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article
33.6 34 0.4 35.1 0.5 /grove/music/52071
Mean error 0.2 0.7
[2] Popescu-Judetz, E. Prens Dimitrie Cantemir, Trans.
Table 5. Measured and estimated placements of frets for 2 S. Alemdar, Pan Yay., Đstanbul, 2000.
uşşak recordings, demostrating the success of adaptive and [3] Gedik, A. C. and Bozkurt, B. ''Evaluation of the
constant string length appproaches. Values are given as Makam Scale Theory of Arel for Music Information
distance to bridge. SL: string length. Light grey shading: Retrieval on Traditional Turkish Art Music''. Journal
the most important frets of the tanbur. Dark grey shading: of New Music Research, (In press).
the most frequently used frets of the tanbur.
[4] Bozkurt, B., Yarman, O., Karaosmanoglu, M.K. and
Akkoc, C. ''Weighing Diverse Theoretical Models On
Turkish Maqam Music Against Pitch Measurements:
A Comparison Of Peaks Automatically Derived From
 Frequency Histograms With Proposed Scale Tones''. [18] Hopkin, B. Musical Instrument Design: Practical
Journal of New Music Research, (In press). Information for Instrument Design. See Sharp Press,
1996.
[5] Akan, E. Tanbur metodu. Çağlar Musiki Yayınları,
Istanbul, 2007. [19] Yekta, R. Türk Musikisi. (Translated from French by
O. Nasuhoğlu ), Pan Yay., Đstanbul, 1986.
[6] Erkut, C. and Välimäki, V. ''Model-Based Sound
Synthesis of Tanbur, a Turkish Long-Necked Lute''. [20] Subramanian, K. S. "An Introduction To The Vina".
Proc. Of the International Conference on Acoustics, Asian Music, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 7-82, Spring, 1985.
Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 2, Istanbul,
[21] Hassan, S. Q. "The Long Necked Lute in Iraq". Asian
Turkey, pp. 769-772, June 5-9, 2000.
Music, Vol. 13, No. 2 (1982), pp. 1-18.
[7] Bozkurt, B. ''An automatic pitch analysis method for
[22] Öksüz, M. A. Türk musikisinde tanbur sazının
Turkish maqam music''. Journal of New Music
gelişimi. Marmara Üniversitesi, PhD thesis, Đstanbul,
Research, 37(1), 1-13, 2008.
1998.
[8] Yarman, O. Kantemir Fontu,
[23] Açın, C. Tanbur Yapım Sanatı ve Sanatçıları. Bilgi
http://www.ozanyarman.com/kantemirfontu.html,
Basımevi, Đstanbul, 2002.
Access date: 15th Sept. 2009.
[9] Racy, A. J. "Historical Worldviews of Early
Ethnomusicologists: An East-West Encounter in
Cairo, 1932," In Ethnomusicology and Modern
Music History, eds. Stephen Blum, Philip V.
Bohlman, and Daniel M. Neuman, p. 68–91, Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1991.
[10] Feldman, W. Z., "Ottoman music". Grove Music
Online. Oxford Music Online.
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article
/grove/music/52169, Access date: 10 Aug. 2009.
[11] Yavuzoğlu, N. 21. Yüzyılda Türk Müziği Teorisi.
Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 2008.
[12] Thomas, A. E. "Intervention and reform of Arab
music in 1932 and beyond". Conference on Music in
the world of Islam, Assilah, 2007.
[13] Marcus, S. "The interface between theory and
practice: Intonation in Arab music". Asian Music,
Vol.24, No.2. pp.39-56, 1993.
[14] Mus2. URL: http://www.musiki.org/, Access date:
15th Sept. 2009.
[15] Gedik, A. C. and Bozkurt, B. "Pitch frequency
histogram based music information retrieval for
Turkish music". Signal Processing,
doi:10.1016/j.sigpro.2009.06.017
[16] Martin, D. "Innovation and the Development of the
Modern Six-String Guitar". The Galpin Society
Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 86-109, Jul., 1998.
[17] Fletcher, N.H. and Rossing, T.D. The Physics of
Musical Instruments. New York: Springer-Verlag,
Second Edition 1998.