UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara
The Theory and Praxis of Makam in Classical Turkish Music 1910-2010
A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor in Philosophy in Music
by
Eric Bernard Ederer
Committee in charge: Professor Scott Marcus, Chair Professor Dolores Hsu Professor Dwight Reynolds Professor Münir Nurettin Beken
September 2011
The Theory and Praxis of Makam in Classical Turkish Music 1910-2010 Copyright © 2011 by Eric Bernard Ederer
iii
CURRICULUM VITAE OF ERIC BERNARD EDERER September 2011 EDUCATION Ph.D. Ethnomusicology, University of California, Santa Barbara, September 2011 M.A. Ethnomusicology, University of California, Santa Barbara, January 2007 B.A. Music Composition, UC Santa Barbara, June 1996 A.A. Spanish, Santa Barbara City College, June 1994 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT 2007: Associate Teacher, Department of Music, University of California, Santa Barbara, World Music 2003-2008: Teaching Assistant, Department of Music, University of California, Santa Barbara, World Music, Music and Pop Culture in America 2003-2008: Oud Instructor for UCSB Middle East Ensemble (unpaid) 2003-2008: Music Transcriber for UCSB Middle East Ensemble (unpaid) PUBLICATIONS “Cümbüş as Instrument of the Other in Modern Turkey” in Porte Akademik: 4 Aylık Müzik ve Dans Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. 1, no. 1: Müzikte Temsil ve Müziksel Temsil. Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey (October 2010) “İstanbul’un Cümbüş Sadâsı – Istanbul’s Voice of Revelry,” chapter in Bizans’tan Günümüze İstanbul Musikileri – Music of Istanbul from the Byzantine Empire to the Present, Istanbul: Yeditepe University (in press) Definitions of the musical instruments “Cümbüş,” “Yaylı Tanbur,” and “Lâvta” in The New Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments. Oxford: Oxford Universty Press (in press) “The Cümbüş as Instrument of the Other in Modern Turkey” Master’s Thesis, January 2007
iv
PRESENTATIONS “(Re-)Constructions of Ottoman-ness in Today’s Classical Turkish Music World” Society for Ethnomusicology Conference, Los Angeles, November 2010 “Music of the Eastern Mediterranean,” Fall 2010, Linfield College, McMinnville, OR “Music and Advertising,” presentation for the class Music and Popular Culture in America Fall 2006, Winter 2007, UCSB “Lutes of the Silk Road,” (contributor) as part of visiting Silk Road Project exhibition, UCSB, March 2007 “Music of the Sephardic Jews” presentation for the class Jews Among the Nations Spring 2007, for the class World Music Spring 2005 and for the class Religion and Western Civilization II: Medieval Winter 2004, Winter 2005, UCSB “Hollywood as Music Culture” presentation for the class World Music Spring 2004, Fall 2004, Winter 2005, Spring 2005, UCSB “Greek Music: Smyrneika and Rebetika” presentation for the class Music of the Balkans Fall 2005, UCSB “Imaginings of Ancient Greece in Twentieth Century Music,” Society for Ethnomusicology Southern California Chapter, UC Santa Barbara February 2008 “Dueling Multiculturalisms and Musical ‘Con-Fusion’ in Modern Turkey: the Recontextualization of an Instrument of Otherness,” Society for Ethnomusicology Conference, Honolulu, HI, October 2006 “Dueling Multiculturalisms and Musical ‘Con-Fusion’ in Modern Turkey: the Recontextualization of an Instrument of Otherness,” Society for Ethnomusicology Southern California Chapter Conference, San Diego, CA, March 2006 “Cümbüş as Instrument of the Other in Modern Turkey,” International Conference on Musical Representation/Representation in Music, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, October 2005 Translation from the Spanish of: Wilde, Guillermo. 2007. “Toward A Political Anthropology Of Mission Sound: Paraguay In The 17th And 18th Centuries” in Music and Politics vol. II, 2007
v
AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS Fulbright-Hays Dissertation Fellowship, Fall 2008 American Research Institute in Turkey Dissertation Fellowship, Winter 2008 (declined) UCSB Music Affiliates Menk Fellowship 2008-2009 Excellence in Performance: Ethnomusicology, UCSB Music Dept., 2007 and 2003 Sarkis Tchejeyan Memorial Fellowship, June 2007 and June 2002
vi
ABSTRACT
The Theory and Praxis of Makam in Classical Turkish Music 1910-2010 by Eric Bernard Ederer By comparing current solo “improvisations” (taksim-s), recordings of such performances from the earlier part of the period studied (1910-2010), and the official classical Turkish music theory as formulated in textbooks of the twentieth century, this study firstly determines the differences between what performers do and what theorists say that performers do in regard to defining the Turkish makam (melodic mode) system. This information, gathered during forty-two weeks of Fulbright-Hays sponsored field research in Istanbul, Turkey in 2008 and 2009, is then used to elucidate an independent, previously unwritten “performers’ theory” for Turkish makam music. The “principles of melodic movement (and modulation)” so derived are distinct from that aspect of makam theory that is characterized by makam definition per se (a subject that is the focus of virtually all twentieth-century Turkish makam theory texts). Two levels of such “principles” are discerned: the first— “principles of cins conjunction”—charts out every makam-evoking conjunction from all the possible combinations of trichords, tetrachords and pentachords (“cins-es”) recognized in the performers’ theory and arranges the results in a “cins constellation” for each individual cins, showing each makam that may be evoked by moving from
vii
that cins up or down into any of its allowable neighbor cins-es. The second level of “principle”—“principles of motivity”—concern the means by which melodies are moved forward (whether or not in the context of modulation). They consist of: a pivot between two makam-iterations that share one cins at the same level; a shift in emphasis within a makam’s tonal structure showing a new makam “existing inside” another makam; a direct change of cins at the same level; and, chromaticism in makam-s with diatonic tonal structures. As a whole these “principles of melodic movement” formalize a performer-oriented perspective upon Turkish makam music analogous to the theory of “functional harmony” in Western art music; they present a radically different way of understanding makam music than both traditional and current theoretical models, and yet work in parallel to these, altering without making them obsolete.
viii
To the memory of my mother, Patsy Ruth “Patricia” Goff Burns Ederer.
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Coming at the end of a long and weary road, the “acknowledgments section” is always a difficult one for me; it is literally the last part of a piece to write and yet many of the first people to have helped me bring this work into being I have not seen in years—some are no longer with us, even. Add to this inevitable relational speedbumps, the worry that I will surely forget to thank someone I really should have, and the fact that, for whatever reason, I become embarrassed when giving thanks—the better deserved the worse—and it is easy for me to say that the 600-some pages before you were quite simple to compose in comparison. Nonetheless it is, of course, only with an enormous amount of support that a project such as this one can have been created, and many sincere thanks are due.
Firstly I am grateful to the music artists, theorists, and historians who shared with me their time and heart and enthusiasm for this project; if I have managed to make a statement with the work it is only because of their immense contribution and care. From the beginning I had hoped to make this text a framework for their voices; I now hope the conclusions may voice an adequate response on my part, a gratitude linking us through the music we all love so well. This group of research consultants consists of: Agnès Agopian, Bülent Aksoy, Vasfi Akyol, Murat Aydemir, Göksel Baktagir, Ahmet Nuri Benli, Şehvar Beşiroğlu, Furkan Bilgi, Mehmet Emin Bitmez, İhsan Cansever, Necati Çelik, Ünal Ensari, Emre Erdal, Sinan Erdemsel, “Erkin,” Furkan
x
Esiroğlu, Selim Güler, Selçuk Gürez, Eymen Gürtan, Firuz Akın Han, Bilen Işıktaş, Şükrü Kabacı, Nurullah Kanık, Kemal Karaöz, Baki Kemancı, Osman Kırklıkçı, Turgut Özefer, Aslıhan Özel, Özer Özel, İhsan Özgen, Erdem Özkıvanç, Hasan Şendil, Murat Salim Tokaç, Yurdal Tokcan, Ahmet Toz, Yavuz Yektay, Volkan Yılmaz, and Zeki Yılmaz. If it should seem that an alphabetical list of such length loses a bit of its sincerity in the medium, let me say that I am looking forward, by and by, to thanking each soul personally (and may it be soon)—until then, çok teşekkür ederim, hocalarım. I would also thank here all those who offered to work with me on the project but for so many reasons we never found the right time to meet again— next time we will, inşallah!
Among those research consultants whose efforts are not as obvious in the text I would thank all my cohorts in the Molla Eşref group for their acceptance, support, and friendship, and especially for including me in the weekly practicum where we played ayin-s at the Nasuhi Mehmet Efendi Dergâhı in Üsküdar—an incomparable experience and one I miss often; the many helpful graduate students at the Turkish Music State Conservatory and the Center for Advanced Studies in Music within Istanbul Technical University, fearlessly led by friend and fellow ethnomusicologist Şehvar Beşiroğlu along with such teaching lights as İhsan Özgen, Mehmet Emin Bitmez, and Belma Kurtişoğlu; the incredibly helpful people at music bookstore and publisher Pan Kitabevi in Istanbul. For their considerable contributions and support both in the field and afterward I thank fellow Turkish music oriented
xi
ethnomusicologists Denise Gill, Eliot Bates (and wife Ladi), Sonya Seeman, John Morgan O’Connell, and Karl Signell—it is exciting to be able to build up our little corner of the field together. In the same vein, I would like to acknowledge that classical Turkish music enthusiast Phaedon Sinis invented the idea of the video clip of a taksim performance with the artist’s analysis as subtitles before I did; although I did not get the idea from him, it is only fair to note that his first use of it preceded mine by a couple of years (and what a good idea it was!). I am grateful to him and to many other friends interested in the work who kept my spirits up simply by keeping in touch to ask how it was going and to assure me they really do want a copy when it is done, and here (though I am bound to disappoint someone by omission) I am happy to mention in no particular order Mary Hofer Farris, Bob Beer, Nicolas Royer, Nicolas Elias, Tristan Driessens, Ranin Kazemi, Vjeran Kursar, Jerry Fugate, David and Delpha Reihs, Michael Beach, Sipko den Boer, Molly at Molly’s Café in Galata... if you think you belong on this list but do not appear on it, write me; I’ll thank you personally! Also, many thanks to my fellow graduate students in the UCSB music department, and to Kelly Morse Johnson, who helped me find my way around an Arabic dictionary in time of need.
I also thank the Roberta Buffett Center for International and Comparative Studies and the Keyman Family Program in Modern Turkish Studies at Northwestern University for making me a research fellow there during the 2009-2010 school year while I wrote. Of course the anonymous cherubim connecting me to the Fulbright-Hays
xii
Fellowship that largely supported the operational aspects of the research deserve my high thanks and praise though I cannot know who they were. I am also happy to thank the Music Department and Graduate Division at the University of California, Santa Barbara for their support.
I am also quite happy effusively to thank here the members of my dissertation committee: Dolores Hsu, Dwight Reynolds, Münir Beken, and Scott Marcus. If ever there were an ideal balance in my mind between the ideas of “free reign” on one end and “fine tuning” on another I think we reached it! I hope the work is a thing we will be glad forever to have our names upon, and I thank you for shaping it such that it should be so.
Finally I thank my family: my father Bernie, brother Greg, and especially my mother, Pat, who held on through a final illness until the day after I returned from the research, just long enough say goodbye. I also thank my partner Dr. Andrea Fishman for her amazing patience, support, and love throughout the process, which I hope to return over long years.
xiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Front matter.....................................................................................................................i CV.................................................................................................................................iv Abstract........................................................................................................................vii Dedication.....................................................................................................................ix Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................x Table of Contents.......................................................................................................xiv List of Figures.............................................................................................................xix Pronunciation Guide..................................................................................................xxv Preliminary Definitions.............................................................................................xxvi The terms “makam” and “taksim”................................................................xxvi On theory and praxis...................................................................................xxviii On “improvisation”........................................................................................xxx Preface.....................................................................................................................xxxii Aim of the study.........................................................................................xxxiii Outline of the dissertation............................................................................xxxv Author’s qualifications...............................................................................xxxvi Chapter I: Methods, Methodology, Sources, and Parameters........................................1 Research methods used......................................................................................1 Primary sources..................................................................................................5 Secondary sources............................................................................................10 Parameters of the study....................................................................................13 On the term “classical”....................................................................................14 Genres reciprocating influence with classical Turkish music..........................16 On informants in regard to “mastery”..............................................................18 Instruments represented in the study................................................................19 On the periodization “1910-2010”...................................................................20 Geographic location of the research................................................................20 Relations between the author and the informants............................................22 Chapter II: A Brief History of Makam and Taksim in Turkey....................................25 Proto-makam music: Bronze Age through the Selçuk period.........................25 Makam music in the Ottoman period...............................................................29 xiv
Makam music in the Early Republic................................................................34 Birth and early characteristics of the taksim genre..........................................40 On subsidiary modal entities in taksim............................................................47 Taksim’s effect on new makam creation.........................................................48 On seyir............................................................................................................49 On current characteristics of taksim performance...........................................51 Chapter III: Issues in Turkish Music Theory Since 1910............................................58 Political pressures upon a newly conceived music theory...............................58 A return to the concerns of the Systematists....................................................59 Intervals............................................................................................................61 The term “perde”.............................................................................................67 Current theorists on intonation issues..............................................................69 The Töre-Karadeniz system.............................................................................73 Makam Structure, Classification, and “Cins”: Trichords, Tetrachords, Pentachords, and Octave Scales in KTM Theory............................................77 “Complete” tetrachords and pentachords, and the trichord.............................78 Non-repetition at the octave.............................................................................78 Placement of the dominant (güçlü)..................................................................82 Two definitions for “basit” makam-s...............................................................83 Notation............................................................................................................85 In regard to the “basic (natural) scale”............................................................86 Current theorists on the “basic scale”..............................................................91 False parallels between language and music reforms......................................93 Chapter Conclusion..........................................................................................95 Chapter IV: Current Performers’ Views on Makam Theory, Taksim, and the State of the Art................................................................................................99 Performers on Makam Theory and its Texts....................................................99 Changes in Classical Turkish Music 1910-2010...........................................113 Loss Narrative and the End of Empire...........................................................123 Changes in Playing Techniques.....................................................................131 Changes in Instrument Sound and Construction............................................135 Performers and Educators on Taksim............................................................137 On Çeşni, Cins, Seyir, and Principles of Melodic Movement.......................148 Chapter Conclusion........................................................................................159 Chapter V: Makam Praxis Since 1910.......................................................................162 The Cins-es According to Arel......................................................................164 Basic characteristics of makam-s...................................................................167 Key to the transcriptions................................................................................170 Tanburi Cemil Bey’s “Rast Taksim”.............................................................173 Mesut Cemil Bey’s “Rast Taksim”................................................................178 Melody versus cins-oriented applications of makam in taksim.....................181 xv
Agnès Agopian’s “Rast Taksim 1”................................................................184 A “species” modulation.................................................................................184 Agnès Agopian’s “Rast Taksim 2”................................................................186 A “pivot” modulation.....................................................................................188 New terms for the pitch-levels of cins-es......................................................192 A “direct” modulation....................................................................................194 Quotation as principle of melodic movement................................................196 Makam system’s openness to new combinations..........................................198 The problem of “hüzzam”..............................................................................201 A proposed solution to the hüzzam problem.................................................209 Consolidation (of principles shown above)...................................................210 On the “holistic” nature of the makam system..............................................215 Implications of “makam loss” on this “holistic system”...............................218 Chapter Conclusion........................................................................................219 Working around Arelian theory.....................................................................224 Intonation and Notation.................................................................................225 Makam Identity and Construction.................................................................226 The Basic Scale..............................................................................................228 Basic, Transposed, and Compound Makam Categories................................230 Chapter VI: Cins Conjunctions within the Principles of Melodic Movement....................................................................................................234 The Cins-es According to Current Praxis......................................................236 Cins Conjunctions..........................................................................................239 Summary of the cins conjunctions and their use in the first level of “principle of melodic movement”..................................................................248 The Constellations of Cins-es........................................................................250 The “pre-cadential flat 5” gesture and the kürdi pentachord.........................253 Chapter VII: The Principles Applied.........................................................................261 The aspects of the taksim recordings analyzed..............................................261 Types of Cins Change....................................................................................264 Significance of cins change in terms of evoking a new makam....................265 On Direct Cins Changes at the Same Level...................................................266 Two situations in which these occur..............................................................267 On Pivot-type Cins Changes..........................................................................269 Whether or not new makam’s seyir was followed.........................................270 Hierarchical changes in pivot tones...............................................................270 On Species- and Quote-type Cins Changes...................................................271 On “Unique” Cins Combinations...................................................................273 On “Ambiguous Combinations”....................................................................275 On Cins Changes in Relation to Modulation.................................................274 Chromatic Runs.............................................................................................278 “Pre-Cadential Flat-5” Gestures....................................................................279 xvi
Tally of taksim-s with (or without) modulation.............................................280 Chapter Summary..........................................................................................280 The Poetic Strategies of Confirming, Delaying, and Deceiving....................285 Expansion of Beken’s and Signell’s concept.................................................286 Application of these strategies to the taksim analyses...................................287 Conclusion.................................................................................................................291 Appendix A: List of Informants and Their Contributions.........................................323 Appendix B: Makam-s Represented in the Original Recordings...............................328 Appendix C: Makam-s Listed in Özkan, Yılmaz, Karadeniz, and the State’s “Rarely Used Makam-s”..........................................................................335 Appendix D: Theory Text Samples...........................................................................338 Appendix E: Photographs of the Instruments Represented in the Study...................354 Appendix F: Intervals, Note Names, and “Ahenk-s” in the Standard Turkish System..........................................................................................................362 Ahenk.............................................................................................................363 Intervals and Note Names..............................................................................366 Intervals..........................................................................................................368 Note Names....................................................................................................369 Appendix G: On Rast and Çargâh.............................................................................372 Appendix H: The Hüzzam Tetrachord.......................................................................385 Appendix I: Cins Constellations by Name.................................................................393 Appendix J: Makam Definitions................................................................................402 Makam Families by Page Number.................................................................406 Rast Family....................................................................................................409 Uşşak Family.................................................................................................418 Segâh Family.................................................................................................433 Buselik Family...............................................................................................442 Kürdi Family..................................................................................................447 Acem Aşiran Family......................................................................................455 Hicaz Family..................................................................................................458 Nikriz Family.................................................................................................468 A Note on Species Relations Between Makam-s..........................................470
xvii
Appendix K: Analyses of the Recorded Taksim-s.....................................................474 Appendix L: DVDs of the Taksim-s..........................................................................565 List of the taksim-s.........................................................................................565 Glossary.....................................................................................................................571 Bibliography..............................................................................................................596 Discography...............................................................................................................612
xviii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: table showing the tally of taksim-s recorded..................................................3 Figure 2: the cins-es according to Arel......................................................................165 Figure 3: transcription key.........................................................................................170 Figure 4: Rast taksim, Tanburi Cemil Bey................................................................173 Figure 5: Rast taksim, Mesut Cemil Bey...................................................................178 Figure 6: Rast taksim 1, Agnès Agopian...................................................................184 Figure 7: Rast taksim 2, Agnès Agopian...................................................................186 Figure 8: two modulations effected by pivots............................................................188 Figure 9: Agopian Rast taksim 2 depicted in grids....................................................193 Figure 10: Agopian Rast taksim 2, modulation in Hüzzam.......................................201 Figure 11: the cins-es according to current praxis.....................................................236 Figure 12: cins conjunctions: pentachord + tetrachord..............................................243 Figure 13: cins conjunctions: tetrachord + pentachord..............................................244 Figure 14: cins conjunctions: trichord + tetrachord...................................................245 Figure 15: cins conjunctions: tetrachord + trichord...................................................246 Figure 16: cins conjunctions: trichord + pentachord.................................................247 Figure 17: cins conjunctions: trichord + trichord......................................................248 Figure 18: constellation of Rast-5..............................................................................252 Figure 19: constellation of Uşşak-5...........................................................................252 Figure 20: constellation of Pençgâh-5.......................................................................253
xix
Figure 21: constellation of Buselik-5.........................................................................253 Figure 22: constellation of Kürdi-5............................................................................253 Figure 23: constellation of Çargâh-5.........................................................................254 Figure 24: constellation of Hicaz-5............................................................................255 Figure 25: constellation of Nikriz-5...........................................................................255 Figure 26: constellation of Rast-4..............................................................................256 Figure 27: constellation of Uşşak-4...........................................................................256 Figure 28: constellation of Hüzzam-4........................................................................257 Figure 29: constellation of Buselik-4.........................................................................257 Figure 30: constellation of Kürdi-4............................................................................257 Figure 31: constellation of Çargâh-4.........................................................................258 Figure 32: constellation of Hicaz-4............................................................................258 Figure 33: constellation of Rast-3..............................................................................259 Figure 34: constellation of Uşşak-3...........................................................................259 Figure 35: constellation of Segâh-3...........................................................................259 Figure 36: constellation of Müstear-3........................................................................259 Figure 37: constellation of Buselik-3.........................................................................260 Figure 38: constellation of Kürdi-3............................................................................260 Figure 39: cins changes involved in modulations......................................................276 Figure 40: cins changes not (clearly) involved in modulations.................................277 Figure 41: Rast according to Arel..............................................................................339 Figure 42: Rast according to Özkan...........................................................................344
xx
Figure 43: Acemli Rast according to Özkan..............................................................344 Figure 44: Uşşak within Rast according to Özkan.....................................................345 Figure 45: Segâh according to Özkan........................................................................345 Figure 46: Rast on yegâh according to Özkan...........................................................346 Figure 47: Rast as bottom-heavy according to Özkan...............................................346 Figure 48: upon the upper tonic of Rast according to Özkan....................................347 Figure 49: old Rast according to Kutluğ....................................................................348 Figure 50: intermediary Rast according to Kutluğ....................................................349 Figure 51: Arel’s Rast according to Kutluğ...............................................................350 Figure 52: Rast according to Yılmaz.........................................................................352 Figure 53: beneath the tonic in Rast according to Yılmaz.........................................352 Figure 54: Acemli Rast according to Yılmaz............................................................353 Figure 55: Tanbur......................................................................................................354 Figure 56: 2 Ney-s.....................................................................................................355 Figure 57: Kemençe...................................................................................................356 Figure 58: Ud.............................................................................................................357 Figure 59: Kanun.......................................................................................................358 Figure 60: Klarnet (Clarinet).....................................................................................359 Figure 61: Keman (Violin).........................................................................................360 Figure 62: Yaylı Tanbur.............................................................................................361 Figure 63: Ahenk-s according to Ayangil..................................................................365 Figure 64: division of the whole tone into nine koma-s............................................367
xxi
Figure 65: intervals of classical Turkish music.........................................................368 Figure 66: note names of classical Turkish music................................................369-71 Figure 67: eighteenth-century Persian and Turkish note names................................376 Figure 68: constellation of rast-5 (2).........................................................................393 Figure 69: constellation of rast-4 (2).........................................................................394 Figure 70: constellation of rast-3 (2).........................................................................394 Figure 71: constellation of uşşak-5 (2)......................................................................395 Figure 72: constellation of uşşak-4 (2)......................................................................395 Figure 73: constellation of uşşak-3 (2)......................................................................396 Figure 74: constellation of segâh-3 (2)......................................................................396 Figure 75: constellation of müstear-3 (2)...................................................................396 Figure 76: constellation of pençgâh-5 (2)..................................................................397 Figure 77: constellation of hüzzam-4 (2)...................................................................397 Figure 78: constellation of buselik-5 (2)....................................................................397 Figure 79: constellation of buselik-4 (2)....................................................................398 Figure 80: constellation of buselik-3 (2)....................................................................398 Figure 81: constellation of kürdi-3 (2).......................................................................398 Figure 82: constellation of kürdi-4 (2).......................................................................399 Figure 83: constellation of kürdi-3 (2).......................................................................399 Figure 84: constellation of çargâh-5 (2).....................................................................399 Figure 85: constellation of çargâh-4 (2).....................................................................400 Figure 86: constellation of hicaz-5 (2).......................................................................400
xxii
Figure 87: constellation of hicaz-4 (2).......................................................................401 Figure 88: constellation of nikriz-5 (2)......................................................................401 Figure 89: Rast...........................................................................................................409 Figure 90: Neva..........................................................................................................412 Figure 91: Rast on yegâh...........................................................................................412 Figure 92: Basit Suzinak............................................................................................414 Figure 93: Nişaburek..................................................................................................414 Figure 94: Uşşak........................................................................................................418 Figure 95: Neva (2)....................................................................................................420 Figure 96: Acem........................................................................................................421 Figure 97: Karcığar....................................................................................................423 Figure 98: Nişabur.....................................................................................................426 Figure 99: Hüseyni.....................................................................................................427 Figure 100: Saba........................................................................................................430 Figure 101: Segâh (1).................................................................................................433 Figure 102: Segâh (2).................................................................................................433 Figure 103: Hüzzam...................................................................................................436 Figure 104: Irak..........................................................................................................437 Figure 105: Müstear (1).............................................................................................439 Figure 106: Müstear (2).............................................................................................439 Figure 107: Buselik (1)..............................................................................................442 Figure 108: Buselik (2)..............................................................................................442
xxiii
Figure 109: Nihavend (1)...........................................................................................443 Figure 110: Nihavend (2)...........................................................................................443 Figure 111: Kürdi.......................................................................................................447 Figure 112: Kürdili Hicazkâr (1)...............................................................................449 Figure 113: Kürdili Hicazkâr (2)...............................................................................449 Figure 114: Acem Aşiran...........................................................................................455 Figure 115: Hicaz.......................................................................................................460 Figure 116: Hümayun................................................................................................460 Figure 117: Uzzal.......................................................................................................461 Figure 118: Zirgüleli Hicaz........................................................................................462 Figure 119: Hicazkâr..................................................................................................463 Figure 120: Nikriz (1)................................................................................................468 Figure 121: Nikriz (2)................................................................................................468 Figure 122: Nev’eser..................................................................................................469
xxiv
PRONUNCIATION GUIDE The Turkish language has been written in a variation of the Latin alphabet since 1928 and the pronunciations of the consonants may be considered, for our purposes, identical to those of the same letters in English, with the following exceptions: C, c Ç, ç G, g Ğ, ğ J, j S, s Ş, ş
sounds like the “j” in judge sounds like the “ch” in church sounds always like the “g” in get (never “soft” as in gin) is silent but extends the preceding vowel sounds like the “s” in measure sounds always like the “s” in simple (never “voiced” as in is) sounds like the “sh” in share
The eight vowels in Turkish are as follows, and their given pronunciations are approximately those of a hypothetical standard dialect: A, a sounding like “a” in father E, e sounding like “e” in fed I, ı sounding like “uh,” e.g., in the second syllable of nation İ, i sounding somewhere between the “i” of machine and the “i” of bit O, o sounding like “o” in no Ö, ö sounding like “eu” in the French peu (i.e., setting the lips as if to say ooh and pronouncing the second syllable of nation) U, u sounding like the “oo” in pool Ü, ü sounding like “ü” in the German über (i.e., setting the lips as if to say ooh and pronouncing the “i” in machine) The vowel a with a caret over it (â) is pronounced with a slight “y” sound before it (e.g. kâr sounds like kyar); other vowels may also carry such a caret but their pronunciation remains unchanged. Since information in the appendices and bibliography are given alphabetically according to the Turkish alphabet, I will reproduce its order here: ABCÇDEFGĞHIİJKLMNOÖPRSŞTUÜVYZ
xxv
PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS
Throughout this text the following conventions will be used to distinguish three categories of concept that use the same or overlapping nomenclature: •
the name of a makam (see definition below) is represented with an initial capital letter, e.g., “Hicaz” refers to the Hicaz makam
•
the names of individual tones are in lower case and italicized, e.g., “hicaz” refers to the tone named hicaz
•
the names of tetrachords, pentachords, characteristic motifs or other sub-units of makam are unmarked, e.g., a reference to the “hicaz tetrachord”
Furthermore, although there is a glossary of terms starting on page 571, the two terms makam and taksim are so fundamental to all that follows that I will give basic definitions of them here: •
a makam (fr. Arabic maqām, “place.” Arabic plural maqāmāt, Turkish plural makamlar; in this document the plural will be presented as “makam-s”) is a kind of melodic mode; a subset of rules regarding the choice of permissibly playable tones and a player’s treatment of them (in terms of melodic direction, order of importance regarding emphasis, tonal inflection, etc.), drawn from a larger system of acceptable tones (that is, a general scale) in order to create a
xxvi
distinct modal identity.1 Every piece of classical Turkish music—whether “improvised” or pre-composed—is describable in terms of its makam(-s), indeed most pieces have the name of their makam in their titles (e.g., a “Rast Saz Semaisi”—Rast being a makam and saz semaisi a compositional form— or a “Rast taksimi”). A makam is, in effect, a heuristic device for creating (or analyzing, or in some senses appreciating) the structure of a piece of classical Turkish music.2 o each makam has a specific, normative tonic (durak [Turkish, lit. “stop”] or karar [Arab, lit. “decision,” “resting point,” “resolution”]); the makam may be referred to as being “in its place” (Turkish: yerinde,3 e.g., Rast makam “on” the tone rast [i.e., using rast as the tonic]) or if in transposition, as being “on” another named tone (e.g., “Rast on dügâh,” Turkish: dügâhta rast; see Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 33); see Appendix F for a list of named tones in the system
1
A greater level of detail will be explained throughout this text, and 80 specific makam-s are defined in Appendix J. See also Marcus 1989a: 323-6 and 438-713 regarding the defining characteristics of a maqām in an Eastern Arab understanding. One small but significant point I must make here regards the importance of rhythmic cycles (usûl-s) in classical Turkish music; because the taksim genre is generally unmetered, avoiding prolonged repeated rhythmic figures, the emphasis on this study is on makam. However no education in this music would be considered complete without a thorough grounding in the rules of both makam and usûl (see Bektaş 2005 passim, O’Connell 2000: 120 fn. 5; also Wright 2000: 389, cf. Marcus 2002: 89). 2 See Chapter I of this document regarding the potentially contentious use of the term “classical” in reference to this music, and regarding my justification for using the term. 3 May also be yerinden, “from its place”; see Ayangil 2008: 439 (parenthetically, for whom “yerinde/n” is short for “bolahenk yerinde/n” (see Appendix F regarding “bolahenk” and other transposition schemes; see also Shiloah 1981: 40 and Feldman 1996: 198 regarding makam-s being settled on particular notes at least since the fifteenth century).
xxvii
o music created using the rules of makam may be referred to as being in “the makam system,” in “the Turkish music system,” or even simply as “makam [music]” 4 •
a taksim (fr. Arabic taqsīm, “division, distribution.” Arabic plural taqāsīm,5 Turkish plural taksimler; in this document the plural will be presented as “taksim-s”) is a genre consisting of an extemporaneous performance (“improvisation,” see below) played on an instrument (its vocal equivalent being called gazel or kaside; see Feldman 1993: 8, O’Connell 2003) by a performer who has previously learned the intricacies of the makam system in ways to be elaborated in this text. A performer creates a taksim within a makam or moving from one makam to another; one level of the aesthetic judgment of a taksim consists in assessing the performer’s skill in demonstrating knowledge of the makam(-s) used, including the relations between makam-s that make modulations appropriate (i.e., successfully achieving beauty within established convention), however temporary such a modulation may be.
Lastly I wish to provide brief explanations of what I mean by the terms “theory” and “praxis” as used in the title. The first of these is perhaps the more straightforward as it directly parallels the Western and other “music theories” with which most readers 4
See also Tsuge 1972 regarding other maqām/makam/mugham musics in the world; cf. Touma 1971, and Yarman in Bayhan 2008: 141-2 arguing for referring to variations of a single “makam music.” 5 Scott Marcus notes that in Eastern Arab usage the plural taqāsīm is used as both singular and plural in reference to this genre (1993b, where see also his definition of the genre in an Eastern Arab understanding). This is not the case in Turkey.
xxviii
will already be familiar, that is, it refers to a body of knowledge dealing with the ways in which a music system (here, the Turkish version of the “makam system”) works. People—music theorists, performers, aficionados, et al.—employ classical Turkish music theory to represent normative abstract models of the elements and parameters that constitute the system, such as acceptable pitches and their interval relationships, the construction and use of modal entities and rhythmic cycles, etc.6 The second term, “praxis,” is a rarer word in English and may ring of something obscure and complicated but simply means the enactment of a theory or skill—the application of an abstract principle in practice. A taksim is a form of praxis of principles drawn from the body of makam theory, that is, the enactment of (a delimited subsection of) makam (theory) in the moment of performance.7 When I refer in this document to “performance practice(s),” I intend it to mean this praxis and/or performance techniques (which are not an expression of theory), but not to this praxis alone.
6
The traditional and normative term for theory in Turkish is nazariyat (or nazariye, fr. Arabic nazariya); this was the term used by my informants. Note, however, that some current Turkish music theorists, such as Zeren and Sayan (e.g., in Bayhan 2008: 22-3 and 71 respectively) prefer the word kuram, ascribing to it the implication of scientifically derived results, which have at times been lacking in traditional nazariyat (cf. Ertan 2007: 35-52, Wright 2000: 11). 7 The paradigm is from Aristotle, who posited that human beings participate in three basic kinds of activity: theoria (witnessing and contemplation; theory), poiesis (creating something durable), and praxis (practical application); it could be argued that pre-performance composition falls into the category of praxis rather than poiesis—that it, too, is an enactment of (makam) theory—but I prefer to maintain the in-the-moment-activity sense of “praxis,” obviating the need to qualify taksim as “performance praxis,” or some such unwieldy construction. Parenthetically, for Aristotle, praxis “…depends on a kind of WISDOM that is not purely intellectual and that must be developed through experience” (Becker 2001 s.v. Praxis); I believe the great majority of my informants for this project would agree with this in regard to taksim. (The term “praxis” is also used in several social sciences in reference to [a certain application of] Marxian theory, but no such connection is intended here.)
xxix
This leads me to say a few words about the idea of “improvisation,” which some writers have found problematic (whether or not they continue to use the term; see Racy 2000, Nettl 2008, Arnon 2008, Hulse 2008). For instance Feldman prefers the term “performance-generated” to “improvised” in regard to taksim, fearing that the latter term may carry imprecise and pejorative implications (1993: 25, fn. 8). I do use the term “improvisation” occasionally in regard to classical Turkish music, and I trust that the presumably few and specialized readers of this dissertation will understand that I mean it without pejorative implication when I do,8 but more importantly I would point out that understanding taksim as the praxis of makam obviates the need to bring improvisation into the discussion at all; taksim is simply the real-time enactment of certain theoretical principles.9 This is not merely a convenient way of avoiding the problem of what improvisation is; I would contend that there is an experiential difference between a spontaneous artistic performance that may incidentally be informed or qualified by abstract theoretical principles (a certain kind of improvisation), and the (nearly?) synchronous mind-body recollection of principles applied as a generative device for creating a performance (as is taksim).
8
If after reading this dissertation the reader should find my intention regarding the word unclear, please refer to the caveats in Feldman’s note on “performance-generation” (1993: 25, fn. 8), and to Racy 2000 (passim), with which I generally agree. 9 Cf. Feldman 1993: 22 on taksim as “a vehicle for expressing seyir [melodic shape] and modulation within the makam system” (see Chapter II here for a finer definition of “seyir,” and regarding the importance of modulation in taksim). See also Chapter III fn. 50 and Chapter IV fn. 41 herein for instances of what I consider improvisation in the performance of taksim-s that lie outside of the praxis of a theory.
xxx
In the classical Turkish music world this is also understood as a defining aesthetic principle; a spontaneous performance that does not express the rules of makam theory is labeled “doğaçlama” (improvisation) and not “taksim.” We may compare this with a typical jazz improvisation, which might ostensibly be in a key, such as B flat major, but whose aesthetic success depends on the strategic inclusion of at least some of the 5 tones outside of that key.10 That is to say that, rather than “expressing B flat majorness,” the improvisation’s success depends to some extent upon creatively deconstructing the key (even though deviations may be explained in terms of the key, e.g., a “flat 3rd” or “sharp 4th”). A taksim requires greater constraint than this; one of its goals must be to properly define the makam it is in and to maintain that definition throughout, and to treat internal modulations similarly—it is not enough that it merely be “improvised.”
10
This example does not even include “free jazz” improvisation, in which such traditional structural constraints as “key” may be completely absent.
xxxi
PREFACE
In our music, we tend to go to the theorists with debates on makams. The issue is continually looked at through the abstract window of theory, and often enough, that of one particular theoretician. However, it is the performer who removes the makam from the realm of abstraction and breathes life into it. If a theory book could be written with an eye focused directly on performance, it would shed a very new light on the discussion of makams. (Bülent Aksoy 2006: 52) Classical Turkish music, like the medieval Islamic art music from which it is descended (see Chapter II)—and perhaps like “classical” musics, generally—has throughout its existence consisted in an active and constant interaction between a body of formal, structure-oriented theory (often documented in writing, even if usually transmitted orally) and applied (but scarcely documented) performance practices (see Sawa 1989, Signell 2008: 1-8).1 The present study does not seek to dispense with or ignore “music theory”—it rather depends upon it—but the problem that Dr. Aksoy’s remarks above allude to resides in the fact that classical Turkish music theory as it currently appears in canonical textbooks (e.g., Ezgi 1935-53, Arel 1968 [1943], Yılmaz 2007 [1973], Karadeniz 1983, Özkan 1984, Kutluğ 2000, et al.) is the product of a certain kind of modernization project. This project took Western European techniques, musical literacy, and pedagogical goals and applied them to a music that had many characteristics which on the one hand might have been better served by a more culturally organic systematization (see O’Connell 2008; cf. Yekta
1
As mentioned in a footnote in the previous section, a problematizing of the term “classical” in the sense used here will be presented in Chapter I.
xxxii
1922, Karadeniz 1983, Bayhan 2008), and on the other hand took little more interest in accounting for applied performance practices than preceding theories had done (Aksoy, p.c. 2/4/09; see also Ayangil 2008: 402, 415, and Wright 2000: 30).
The aim of the present study is to make explicit the understandings of “makam theory” as employed by practicing musicians as they apply it to their own creative activity in the genre of taksim. By extension (or recursion), these understandings are also the basis of these performers’ analyses of pre-composed pieces, and represent the knowledge of makam that they transmit to their students, whether primarily through oral or written means.2 In short this work is primarily a comparison between what musician-composers have been doing and what prominent theorists have been saying these musician-composers are doing (or what they should be doing) throughout the period defined. My hypothesis is that the differences amount to an unwritten, performance-oriented body of “theory,” and I use recordings of taksim-s from throughout this period as examples of literal but non-verbal explications of that theory. By systematically analyzing these taksim-s and comparing them with the verbal descriptions of current performers, and with the “official” textbook music theory, my goal is to present—apparently for the first time in one document—a formalized interpretation of this performance-based “theory” in a verbal format.3
2
Normally an unequal combination of both, there being greater emphasis on texts in conservatories and greater emphasis on learning through supervised playing in private lessons. 3 I should say that this is “for the first time” regarding Turkish makam music: Scott Marcus has done much work on this subject in regard to Eastern Arab maqām (see 1989a: 755-76, and particularly 1992). Although this dissertation is not itself a comparative project, the considerable differences
xxxiii
These are presented as a system of “principles of melodic movement (and modulation)” based on: a performance-oriented reckoning of possible cins-es (trichords, tetrachords and pentachords); the acceptable conjunction of these from all their possible combinations; and several strategies for moving a melody along cins by cins.
Implicitly there runs through the theory-versus-practice dialogue a particular history of the changes in both theoretical conceptualizations of makam, and performance practices in the taksim genre that, beyond merely reflecting the one hundred-year period from which our taksim examples are drawn, extends to the seventeenthcentury invention of the taksim genre in the Ottoman court, and in some respects even further back in the history of maqām-based musics. A secondary goal of this work is to make explicit such a historical narrative.4
My hope is that this document will be found useful to the classical Turkish music establishment and interested ethnomusicologists alike, as well as to makam music enthusiasts and composers outside of Turkey, for whom even basic (much less extensive) practical guides to understanding current Turkish makam theory and praxis have been gravely lacking in languages other than Turkish.5 With this in mind, in between our findings should start an interesting conversation in the greater world of maqām-music theorists. 4 Again there is a parallel with Dr. Marcus’s work (e.g., see 1989a: 12-67 and 1989b passim), though I have not sought here to demarcate formal “periods” of theory as he did. 5 Partial exceptions would be the dissertations of ethnomusicologists Karl Signell (1973) and Frederick W. Stubbs (1994)—though neither of them intended therein to document the makam-s of the system
xxxiv
addition to the information presented throughout this document, Appendix J is organized such that it may serve as a sort of primer in Turkish makam definitions, given the caveats that such definitions are limited, might be interpreted differently by different artists and theorists (as will be shown throughout the main body of the text), and that the proper application of this knowledge requires extensive study with one or more master teachers/performers.
An outline of the dissertation follows: Chapter I consists of an explication of the methods, methodology, sources and parameters I used in the creation of the study; Chapter II gives a brief history of makam music and the taksim genre from roughly the eighth century CE to its more recent (and finally, current) Turkish iteration; Chapter III reviews how current classical Turkish music theory came into being, and elaborates certain of its problematic issues; Chapter IV frames the ideas of current performers on music theory, the taksim genre, and the state of the art in their own voices; in Chapter V we begin to analyze taksim-s from throughout the period 19102010 in terms of current music theory, and to formulate performer-oriented explanations for phenomena that exist in practice but not in current theory; Chapter VI further extrapolates performer-oriented understandings of the makam system and reformulates those related to melodic movement at the level of the cins6 into abstract
extensively; non-scholarly attempts such as Parfitt 2004; and the recently released bilingual (Turkish and English) pedagogical software “Mus2okur” (which I have not reviewed; see http://www.musiki.org/index.htm [accessed 10/12/10]). See Chapter I regarding Aydemir 2010. 6 The term “cins” refers collectively to tone-structures of three, four, or five tones; they form a kind of basic “building blocks” for the makam system (see Chapter III).
xxxv
“principles of melodic movement”;7 in Chapter VII I show how these abstract principles also emerge from an analysis of one hundred video-recorded examples of taksim-s made for this project,8 and investigate concurrences and divergences between the three main objects of the study (current music theory, makam praxis in the taksim genre, and performers’ understandings and interpretations of these); and finally we end with a Conclusion regarding the study, followed by several Appendices.
Although in the main body of this text I utilize terminology from makam theory that would appear to presume of the reader a certain amount of previous makam knowledge, it is hoped that the incidental explanations and, especially, the information in the glossary and appendices will ultimately leave no such reference unexplained (or at least indiscernible); readers less familiar with the concepts and terminology of Turkish makam music may wish to look over the glossary and appropriate appendices ahead of reading the main text.
Before proceeding to the first chapter I should say a few words about my qualifications for undertaking this research, and the interests that led me to achieve them. Although I began playing guitar as a child, coming to a few years of studying
7
As will be seen, these are distinct from that aspect of makam theory that is characterized by makam definition per se—a subject that is the focus of virtually all twentieth-century Turkish makam theory texts, as well as a central part of all classical Turkish music education, whether in conservatories or in oral meşk education. 8 These are further explained in Chapter I, and appear whole as Appendix L, a set of 8 DVDs.
xxxvi
classical technique and repertoire on that instrument in private lessons with Antonio López around the age of eighteen, my music education was non-academic until 1996, when I completed (at the age of thirty) a bachelor’s degree in music composition in the College of Creative Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. During that phase of my education I was privileged to study not only with my main teachers, Leslie Hogan and Jeremy Haladyna but also occasionally with the late Lou Harrison, who was among the pioneering twentieth-century Western composers interested in improvised, non-Western, ancient, and modal musics. He was particularly drawn to work in “microtonal” intervals, that is, tuning systems other than the twelve-tone equal temperament that has been the de facto standard of European-derived musics since at least the mid-nineteenth century. While he and my other teachers were encouraging about my desire to explore such music, there was very little written material available to a four-year college student seeking detailed examples or models of how it might be made.9
The following five years, though they included moderate successes as a composer for film trailers, saw me largely moving away from academia and the formal study of music, but around 2000 I was invited to join Mesógeios, a band playing earlytwentieth-century rembétika and smyrnéika music. At the time I was the only nonGreek player in the group, and the music—new to me—was framed as “Greek 9
I do not remember having heard at that time of John Chalmers’ 1991 Division of the Tetrachord (though it seems likely that at least one of these esteemed teachers would have mentioned it to me); I wonder if I would be writing this today had I done so—and if so, whether I would have written it ten years ago or not at all.
xxxvii
music,” though I would later learn of broader, multicultural origins for these genres in the makam-based musics of the Ottoman Empire. It was clear to me that the discrepancies of intonation between those instruments having twelve fixed, equally tempered pitches (guitar, bouzouki) and those without fixed pitches (voice, oud, violin) were not accidental or the result of poor skill, and yet I was not able to elicit from my band mates a systematic explanation of what was going on in terms of the intonation.
In the summer of 2001 I unwittingly took a further step in the direction of makambased music when I bought a Turkish cümbüş—a kind of fretless twelve-string lute (see Ederer 2007)—simply to experiment with. At the time I had no intention of learning Turkish music—in fact I was unaware that I had ever heard any—but a friend of mine who played in the UCSB Middle East Ensemble, run by ethnomusicologist Scott Marcus, invited me to come join them to learn some music appropriate to the instrument. Indeed I found both the group experience and the varied musics we played very attractive, and not least as a composer; finally I was learning not one but several ways of playing microtonal modal musics with an improvisational component. (Ironically, of course, the Ensemble had also been there when I was a composition student, but I had let it slip beneath my radar.)
Over the next year my involvement with makam musics deepened: I began studying oud (Turkish ud, Arabic `ud—fretless precursor to the European lute) as well as
xxxviii
Eastern Arab maqām theory with Dr. Marcus, and I assisted in a series of recording sessions with visiting Turkish ud-ist Necati Çelik. I was able to begin taking lessons with him also, attending the first of several summer music camps in Mendocino, and by the end of that year, 2002, I had been accepted in the UCSB graduate program in ethnomusicology. I was fortunate that Turkish language classes—which can be offered a bit sporadically at UCSB—were indeed offered that first year, at the end of which I took a two-month intensive language course at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul; during that time I was also able to continue ud and makam lessons with Mr. Çelik. After a year Dr. Marcus asked me to be the ud tutor for the Middle East Ensemble, a volunteer position I held for the next five years as I worked through my coursework, continuing lessons in maqām with Dr. Marcus and performances with Mesógeios, with the Sephardic band Flor de Kanela, and with the Middle East Ensemble (for which I was also transcribing a great deal of music from recordings).
In those summers when I could manage it I would return to Mendocino to take more lessons with Necati bey, as well as with other ud instructors such as Haig Manookian, Sinan Erdemsel and Naser Musa. In the late summer of 2005 I returned to Istanbul for five months to undertake research on the cümbüş for my master’s thesis (The Cümbüş as Instrument of the Other in Modern Turkey), continuing my music lessons with Necati bey and expanding my contacts among Istanbul musicians. Finally, having completed my master’s thesis, doctoral coursework (including Dr. Marcus’s class in maqām, whose final exam mimicked that given to students about to graduate from the
xxxix
conservatory in Cairo), and oral exams—and having been awarded a Fulbright-Hays Dissertation Fellowship for the project you are reading—I undertook the ten months of research in Istanbul that resulted in this dissertation.
Although the results have come out quite differently, those who have read Dr. Marcus’s dissertation (Arab Music Theory in the Modern Period, UCLA 1989) and other works,10 will notice several parallels to it in this work: explications of the historical grounding for current practices, the comparison of theoretical and practical understandings of the maqām/makam system, an emphasis on the importance of modulation (especially in the taqāsīm/taksim genre), and a formalization of performance-based rules regarding such modulation. This is of course not coincidental, and the explicit acknowledgment of (not to mention gratitude for) his influence upon the research presented below is due and well deserved.
10
Particularly 1989b and 1992 (see Chapter I and Bibliography).
xl
CHAPTER I: METHODS, METHODOLOGY, SOURCES, AND PARAMETERS
The fieldwork I undertook for this project occurred in Istanbul, Turkey over a continuous forty-two week period from November 8, 2008 to August 26, 2009.1 In order to gather the information necessary to complete this study, the fieldwork focused on acquiring information from four primary sources: 1) recordings of taksim performances that I made myself (video and audio; see accompanying DVDs, listed as Appendix L); 2) professional and archival recordings of taksim performances from throughout the period studied (see Discography and Chapter V); 3) Turkish-language texts on makam theory and the art of taksim that have been available in Turkey and used in a variety of pedagogical contexts, and, of great importance; 4) the interpretations and analyses of the previous three sources given by performers themselves, and by music theory and music history professors in several Istanbul conservatories and universities.
The latter of these primary sources was important to the study because I wanted as much as possible for the interpretations and representations of the material to be those of the taksim performers and makam theorists themselves, and not a superimposition of my own analysis. This was particularly desired in regard to the analyses of the oneon-one live-recorded taksim performances; my method of recording and preparing these follows: 1
This research was accomplished with the generous funding from a Fulbright-Hays Fellowship, and the support of the UCSB Music Department, and the Graduate Division of UCSB.
1
•
Having arranged an appointment with a performer ahead of time, I would make video recordings of taksim performances
•
Either immediately afterward or at a later appointment I would meet with the performer to review the video recordings and solicit his or her analyses of the taksim-s in terms of makam theory, at which time I would activate an audio recording device such that both the music from the video and the performer’s analysis of it were recorded synchronously. (Very often I would follow this with a recorded interview immediately after.)
•
Later, having transcribed the recorded analysis (as prose) and marked timing points for the music, I would create a video “clip” of each taksim performance with the analysis running below it as subtitles (see the accompanying DVDs IIV)
•
Whenever feasible I subsequently showed the clips to the performer in order to make any corrections to the analyses, and to gain assurance that each gave an accurate representation of his or her interpretation
In order to represent recorded taksim examples graphically in this text I have also made simplified notations of a few of them to present here; unfortunately I was not able to have the performers check or approve these transcriptions, but I have made every effort that they accurately reflect the analyses that they gave for their respective clips.
2
In all I returned to the United States with forty-two such video recordings, in which twelve performers analyzed their own taksim-s, as well as another fifty-eight videos of taksim performances—mainly from live concerts, and representing another twentytwo musicians—for which I was unable to obtain the artists’ analyses,2 and whose taksim-s I have analyzed myself as a supplementary source of information. This “primary source” is thus represented by one hundred performances by thirty-four artists, parsed by performance medium in figure 1, below. (I have listed the artists’ names along with their instruments, etc., in Appendix A):
Instrument
Players
Taksim-s (total)
Taksim-s with artist’s analysis
Taksim-s with my analysis
Ud 5 20 11 (2 players) 9 (3 players) Kanun 6 16 7 (2 players) 9 (4 players) Tanbur 5 23 11 (2 players) 12 (3 players) Kemençe 5 8 1 (1 player) 7 (4 players) Ney 5 14 3 (1 player) 11 (4 players) Yaylı Tanbur 4 11 8 (3 players) 3 (1 player) Violin 4 6 1 (1 player) 5 (3 players) Clarinet 1 1 0 1 (1 player) Voice 1 1 0 1 (1 singer) Totals 34* 100 42 (12 players = 35%) 58 (22* players = 65%) Figure 1. *NB: two performers made taksim-s on two separate instruments (tanbur/yaylı tanbur, and yaylı tanbur/violin); they are each counted here under both of their respective instruments, but not separately in the total, therefore this chart represents thirty-four performers although the “total” here 3 adds up to thirty-six. (See photographs of the instruments in Appendix E.) 2
In some cases this was because I could not arrange to analyze them with the performer afterward, and in others because when we met they preferred to record “fresh” taksim-s one-on-one in the manner described above; in some of the latter cases also we could not arrange to meet later for their analysis. From among the thirty-four performers recorded I was unable to meet and converse with only seven (whose performances form a total of eight taksim-s and one gazel, all in a concert setting; see Appendix A). 3 The gender distribution of my sample was 91% males (31 performers) to 9% females (3 performers). Without being able to survey the total number of classical Turkish music performers in Istanbul as to gender, I have no basis for saying definitively that this is a representative distribution; most of the performers I asked about it opined that it was at least approximately accurate. However, one (female) informant opined that female performers might make up as much as 25% of all musicians (and 40% of all kanun players), an estimate possibly meant to include singers—a higher percentage of whom are
3
I gained other information through recorded interviews (audio only) of both performers and theorists—which categories in some cases overlapped—including though not limited to: •
analyses of early taksim recordings in terms of (their interpretation of) makam theory
•
detailed critiques of the aforementioned theory texts
•
opinions on the worth and place in the overall art form of these theory texts (both generally and in regard to specific texts)
•
personal conceptualizations and applications of makam theory explicitly at odds with or absent from the theory presented in (at least some of) the common theory texts
•
ideas about changes in makam theory and taksim performance practices over the period in question, particularly in regard to three factors: o changes in recording technology and mass mediation o the involvement of the state in classical Turkish music and its institutions during the Republican Period, and o the influence of certain commonly lionized master performers4
•
how the performer him/herself learned makam theory and to perform taksim
female, compared to instrumentalists, though singers form a category of musician effectively not represented in this study—plus current conservatory students (A. Agopian, p.c. 6/19/09). The latter is another group whose gender distribution numbers I do not know for sure, but whose female students seemed to me (based on frequent visits to several conservatories) easily to represent at least 25-30% of current music students. 4 Those readers seeking more information on the influence of such performers will find it in Eliot Bates’s 2010 Music in Turkey: Experiencing Music, Expressing Culture.
4
•
the importance of learning established repertoire to acquiring knowledge of both makam theory and taksim performance
•
the importance of listening to and/or imitating recordings of past masters to acquiring knowledge of both makam theory and taksim performance
The Turkish makam theory (and theory-oriented) texts I used as primary sources are the following (in chronological order): •
Rauf Yekta (1871-1935): “La Musique Turque,” (“Turkish Music”) in the Encyclopedie de la musique et dictionnaire du Conservatoire (Lavignac), (Premiere partie) of 1922 (originally written in 1913) o widely (if vaguely) “known about” among musicians and theorists, though not wholly translated into Turkish and therefore not as widely read (see Chapter III) o seen as being a revolutionary, scientifically framed improvement/update of the normative Systematist-based understanding of makam music fundamentals5 o but seen also as having been updated/outdated by the work of H.S. Arel, particularly as regards the intonation of formally recognized
5
The “Systematist School” is the name given to a movement in “Arab/Persian/Islamic” music theory founded by Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Urmawī ca. 1250 CE. It was the first such theory that attempted to describe systematically such aspects of the music as the intervals in the general and basic scales, the construction of modes in terms of tetrachords and pentachords, the hierarchies of modal entities, the prominence of certain tones within modes, etc.; it largely formed the basis of all maqām-oriented theory until perhaps the nineteenth century (see Farmer 2001 [1929], Wright 1978, and Chapter II below).
5
tones, the “fundamental scale,” and the music’s notation scheme (see Chapter III) •
Hüseyin Sadettin Arel (1880-1955): Türk Musikisi Nazariyatı Dersleri (“Turkish Music Theory Lessons”) originally compiled 1943-1948 o a compilation of lessons given at the Istanbul Municipal Conservatory; originally distributed as a series in the magazine Mûsıkî Mecmuası, but only published in collected form in 1968 (reprinted in 1991). Though copies of the text itself have been largely inaccessible through most of its existence, the contents nonetheless form the backbone of nearly all Turkish makam theory since the 1940s (see Öztuna in Arel 1991 [1943-48: VII-VIII], Akdoğu in same p. IX-XIV, and Chapter III below)
•
Suphi Ezgi (1869-1962): Amelî ve Nazarî Türk Musikisi (“Applied and Theoretical Turkish Music”), vol.s I-V, originally written 1933-1953 o Ezgi (along with S.M. Uzdilek [1891-1967]) worked closely with Arel—in fact the system is widely known as the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek (or A-E-U) system. Though the older Ezgi is seen as less influential than Arel regarding the theory itself, this work—more widely distributed in print than Arel’s—helped spread the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek system, helping eventually to make it normative
6
•
Ekrem Karadeniz (1904-1981): Türk Musikisinin Nazariye ve Esasları (“Turkish Music’s Theory and Foundations”) published 1983 (posthumously; begun in 1965) o the only significant (published) dissenter from the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek camp (other than Yekta) o in a sense returns to some of the ideas Yekta had put forth (especially regarding intonation, and the “fundamental scale”), but also introduces other tones, an interval measurement system of “cents” (parallel to Alexander Ellis’s), and the idea that Turkish music uses 41 tones drawn from 106-tone equal temperament o the text is heavily influenced by the author’s teacher Abdülkadir Töre (1873-1946), whom he credits for the entire system in the foreword— the system is sometimes referred to as “Töre-Karadeniz”—but the book itself, published a year after his death, is his own (see Chapter III)
•
İsmail Hakkı Özkan (1941-2010): Türk Mûsıkîsi Nazariyatı ve Usûlleri (“Turkish Music Theory and Rhythmic Cycles”) of 1984 o for the most part a reiteration of Arel’s system, but with some novel refinements o as a descriptive catalogue of some 128 makam-s (and all the major rhythmic cycles), and despite numerous widely recognized flaws, this
7
is a very popular reference book; if one’s teacher says, “you can look up the details in the book,” he or she is likely referring to this book •
Onur Akdoğu (1947-2007): Taksim: Nedir, Nasıl Yapılır? (“Taksim: What is it, How is it Done?”) of 1989 (herein “1989a”) o not a theory book per se, but relies on Arel’s version of theory to explain the art of taksim o neither widely read nor well regarded, it is nonetheless virtually the only book written on (Turkish) taksim
•
Zeki Yılmaz:6 Türk Mûsıkîsi Dersleri (“Turkish Music Lessons”) of 1973 (though here the 2007 edition was used) o again reframes the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek system o like the Özkan above, it presents the details of a large number of makam-s (52), but is regarded as simpler, more practical, and easier to use as a textbook in lessons (and for self-guided study)
•
Mutlu Torun (1942-): Ud Metodu: Gelenekle Geleceğe (“Ud Method: To the Future with the Tradition”) of 2000 o also not a theory book per se, but a popular exemplar of supplemental instrument method books framed in terms of (Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek) makam theory o widely used as a textbook for ud (a fretless lute) students in conservatories
6
I do not know the year of his birth, but he is currently living.
8
•
Yakup Fikret Kutluğ (d. 2000): Türk Musikisinde Makamlar (“Makam-s in Turkish Music”) of 2000 o printed in a once-only (and quite expensive) limited edition run; eight volumes with two CDs covering some 219 makam-s and including 600 notated examples, its rarity is inversely proportional to its high reputation, particularly among conservatory teachers (who may have greater access to it than others through their institutions’ libraries) o it is historical in approach, explaining the changes in conceptualizations of makam theory over centuries; although the author was a student of Arel’s he takes into account the analytical concerns of both the Yekta and Töre-Karadeniz systems (as well as those of the medieval Systematists) o uniquely, presents makam-s in such a way as to explain different versions of them through time (e.g., “makam X was played thus in the eighteenth century, then composer Y added this to it in the 1870s…”)
this makes it also a useful text for taksim performers wishing to learn the appropriate form of a makam in preparation for making taksim-s in the context of surrounding repertoire (e.g., a taksim in the eighteenth-century version of a makam to be used to introduce a piece of music from the eighteenth century)
9
•
Gülçin Yahya (1966-): Ünlü Virtüoz Yorgo Bacanos’un Ud Taksimleri: Taksim Notları, Analiz ve Yorumlar (“Ud Taksim-s of the Famous Virtuoso Yorgo Bacanos: Taksim Notations, Analysis and Interpretations”) of 2002 o again not a theory text per se, but a dissertation-turned-book using the framework of the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek system to analyze the taksim-s of a single performer, ud legend Yorgo Bacanos (1900-1977)7 o introduces a structure-level form of analytic notation for taksim-s o takes into account many details of the artist’s performance practices, but does not mention that its subject was not trained academically and might have had a very different “theoretical” understanding of what and how he was playing
My main secondary sources for this project were: •
Several works by my dissertation advisor Scott Marcus, upon which certain aspects of my current research are closely modeled: o his own dissertation, Arab Music Theory in the Modern Period (UCLA, herein “1989a”) o “The Interface Between Theory and Practice: Intonation in Arab Music” (in Asian Music, vol. XXIV, no. 2, Spring/Summer 1993— herein “1993a”)
7
Note that there is a similar work on the taqāsīm of Egyptian `ud player Riyad al-Sinbati (d. 1981) by Kareem Roustom (2006).
10
o “Modulation in Arab Music: Documenting Oral Concepts, Performance Rules and Strategies” (in Ethnomusicology, Vol. 36, No. 2 [Spring – Summer, 1992], pp. 171-195; herein “1992”) o “Solo Improvisation (Taqâsîm) in Arab Music” (in The Middle East Studies Association Bulletin July 1993; herein “1993b”) o “Rhythmic Modes in Middle Eastern Music” (in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6, 2002, pp. 89-93. New York: Routledge; herein “2002a”) o “The Periodization of Modern Arab Music Theory: Continuity and Change in the Definition of the Maqāmāt” (in The Pacific Review of Ethnomusicology, UCLA, vol. V, 1989, pp. 35-49; herein “1989b.”) o “The Eastern Arab System of Melodic Modes in Theory and Practice: A Case Study of Maqam Bayyati” (in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6, 2002 pp. 33-44. New York: Routledge; herein “2002b”) o Music in Egypt (2007, Oxford University Press, World Music Series)
•
The collected proceedings of the “Problems and Solutions for Practice and Theory in Turkish Music” International Invited Congress at Istanbul Technical University (March 04-06, 2008—released April 2009, herein referred to as “Bayhan 2008”)
11
•
Both as an article in the above text, and in conversation with its two authors, a currently emerging theory on “confirming, delaying, and deceptive elements in Turkish improvisations” developed by Münir Nurettin Beken in conjunction with Karl Signell
In addition I consulted the following texts regarding technical issues: Yılmaz Öztuna’s Büyük Türk Musikisi Ansiklopedisi 1-2.; several writings by John Morgan O’Connell; Karl Signell’s and Frederick W. Stubbs’s dissertations on classical Turkish music, and Ozan Yarman’s on intonation issues in classical Turkish music. For historical context I also consulted various works by Walter Feldman, Owen Wright, Cinuçen Tanrıkorur, Bülent Aksoy, Cem Behar, Yılmaz Öztuna, Selim Deringil, Ruhi Ayangil, and Eugenia Popescu-Judetz.
There are additionally three newly published texts whose existence I discovered too late to incorporate into this study but that I assume to be pertinent to the subject at hand: Eugenia Popescu-Judetz’s A Summary Catalogue of the Turkish Makams, Nail Yavuzoğlu’s Türk Müziğinde Makamlar ve Seyir Özellikleri (“Makam-s and Characteristics of Melodic Pathways in Turkish Music”), and Murat Aydemir’s Turkish Music Makam Guide, all published in 2010 by Pan Yayıncılık, Istanbul. Popescu-Judetz’s own description of the first of these on the publisher’s website makes the text appear to be a historical overview rather than a practitioner’s guide, whereas the other two would seem to treat the subject from a more contemporary and practical standpoint. Aydemir’s text is the only of these that I have seen firsthand;
12
like the other two texts its newness alone means that it cannot have been influential upon the subjects and informants of the present research,8 however the fact that this book, which includes two CDs of recorded examples, presents sixty current makam definitions from a performer’s point of view in the English language (apparently for the first time ever) makes it uniquely useful to makam enthusiasts unable to read in the Turkish language.9
PARAMETERS OF THE STUDY
Because there are overlapping uses of performance techniques and nomenclature within the whole sphere of Turkish musics I need here to clarify exactly what sort of music we will be examining. All of the sound examples of performances as well as all of the theoretical texts are intended to fall within the categorical realm of “classical Turkish music” (klasik Türk mûsıkisî/musikisi/müziği—subsequently often referred to by the abbreviation KTM in this text).
8
Except inchoate in Aydemir himself, whom see on DVD 1 tracks 10-12 and DVD 2 tracks 13-15, and quoted in Chapter IV, below. 9 Or rather it may have been said to be unique in these qualities until the publication of this dissertation, whose Appendix J is in some ways like the descriptive parts of Aydemir’s work. His recordings differ from those I present here as Appendix L (8 DVDs) in that he has given particular focus on presenting each makam’s characteristic “çeşni-s” (which he has had translated as “flavors”— see Chapter IV below). I have not communicated with Mr. Aydemir since leaving Turkey in August of 2009, nor had I heard of the development of his book before Scott Marcus handed me a copy of it on April 26, 2011; any resemblance between it and Appendix J of this dissertation (which was first delivered to committee members Scott Marcus, Dolores Hsu, and Dwight Reynolds via e-mail on December 2, 2009) is apparently coincidental, that is, it cannot have been the result of either author’s knowledge of the other’s post-August 2009 work (though it is true that he and I had spoken twice of collaborating on such a text).
13
The term “classical” is a Western import and requires some deconstruction here. It appears to have been applied to this music only in Republican times (i.e., some time after 1923, see Chapter II), before which it was generally referred to as “saray musıkîsî” (“palace music”) in Ottoman Turkish and as “(the Ottoman/Turkish iteration of) Oriental music” in European languages (e.g., from at least Fonton [d. 1793] through Yekta [d. 1935]).10 Between the evaporation of court patronage for the music and the early Republican support for the spread of Western “classical” music,11 defenders of “palace music” seem to have applied the term “klasik” to that tradition in order to distance it from the old regime and to make it appear parallel in sophistication to Western “classical” music. The use of the term “müzik” (“müziği” in the compound adjectival form) rather than the traditional “musıkî/musiki” (“musıkîsî/musikisi” in their compound adjectival forms) is a further mark of Westernization, the former term mimicking the French and German pronunciation of the (originally Greek) term.12
10
See Neubauer 1985-6 and Yekta 1922 (1913) respectively. However we must note that while the term “Oriental music” mostly did serve to cover specifically religious music also, the Ottoman terms “dini musıkî” (“religious music”) or “tasavvuf musıikîsî” (“Sufi music”) would probably have been kept distinct from inclusion in the term “saray musıkîsi” (“palace music”) even when that music was performed at court. 11 To the detriment of “palace music,” see Chapters II and III; the early Republic supported only three kinds of music in the new nation state: Western “classical” music, Anatolian and Turko-Thracian folk music, and the mixture of the two in the “nationalist” manner of Bartók, Kodaly, et al. “Saray musıkîsî” was to be eradicated. 12 The music has also been called “Turkish classical music” (Türk klasik müziği/musıkisi/musikisi/TKM), or “Turkish art music” (Türk sanat müziği/TSM, e.g., see Signell 2008: 1, O’Connell 2000: 125-6, Gill 2006: 28), or rarely “traditional Turkish art music” (geleneksel Türk sanat müziği/GTSM, see Sarı in Bayhan 2008: 205) or “traditional Turkish makam music” (geleneksel Türk makam müziği/GTMM, according to Daloğlu, q.v. in Bayhan 2008: 283; see also Yarman in Bayhan 2008: 141-2), both in Turkey and in ethnomusicological literature.
14
In any case the adoption of the term “classical” does not refer here to a discrete period in music history, as the term (sometimes) does in Western art music (i.e., roughly 1750-1820), it is not intended to recall ancient Rome or Greece as foundational (as European Renaissance and Enlightenment use of the term does), nor is its “classical” designation meant to imply the music’s confinement to the maintenance of a canonical repertoire (although that function is also included within the KTM music culture)—the taksim genre alone would disqualify such a definition. See footnote 12 for names other than “klasik Türk müziği” applied to this music, but I was advised by several of my informants to call it this; several of them made the subtle (and perhaps newly conceived) distinction that it was not a “classical” music that happened to be Turkish, but rather a Turkish music that is “classical.” They also pointed out that the next most popular alternative term Türk sanat müziği (“Turkish art music”) is often used to refer specifically to a lighter, “pop” version of makam music and was therefore inappropriate (see also Gill 2006: 29).
In this text I have respected these informants’ rhetorical distinctions without insisting upon them, except for consistency’s sake in this document, and therefore refer to the music in question as “classical Turkish music” (or “KTM”). The polemical deconstruction of the term “classical” in recent ethnomusicological literature has perhaps been less intense in studies of Turkish musics than in, say, Indian and Indonesian musics (where post-colonial interpretations are more appropriate); still, see Signell 1980 passim, and Feldman 1991: 74 regarding ideas about what is
15
“classical” about “classical Turkish music,” and Powers 1980 (esp. 11-12) for a list of criteria that qualify a music as a “Great Tradition” parallel to what the Western intellectual tradition calls “classical.”13 In any case let me reiterate that the term “klasik Türk musıkîsî” (or “musikisi,” or “müziği”) is a designation commonly used among my informants (and among other musicians in the same tradition, and its aficionados) as well as in Turkish-language texts that I used in this study, and that the music thus referred to is the intended field of study in this dissertation.
In choosing my informants it has been necessary also to define KTM’s close musical neighbors—musics that to some degree reciprocate influence with it, and yet also define its borders. The two main musics in this category are regional folk (halk) musics (see Markoff 2002) and urban popular musics in makam (certain genres of which span the same period as this study; see O’Connell 2002, Stokes 2002 and 1992, Karakayalı 2002, Beken 1998; see also Signell 2008: 10).14 In their function as contributors to KTM, folk musics have generally provided genre-forms (e.g., longa, zeybek, mandıra, oyun havaları, the fourth hane of a saz semaisi being in 7/8 et al. time, etc.) and playing techniques (particularly for ud and kemençe), while urban popular forms have been the breeding grounds for occasionally borrowed stylistic inflections (especially those conceived of as “Western/romantic,” “Gypsy,” and 13
I must note, however, that he opined therein that no Middle Eastern music (including Turkish music) conformed to all his criteria; in contrast I interpret KTM as in conformity with them. 14 Mevlevi religious music, particularly in the form of ayin-s (the music of the “whirling dervish” ceremonies) and ilahi-s (hymns), has been for centuries so integrated into the KTM tradition (see Signell 2008: 5 and 12-18, Erguner 2005, Feldman 1996) that I will not treat it here as separate, although only two of the recorded examples are specifically in the context of an ayin/sema ceremony (see DVDs 5/50 and 8/77).
16
“Arab” in origin; see Signell 2008: 11, Ayangil 2008: 441-3) and the playing techniques associated with them (arpeggios, harmonized parts, driving rhythms, metered taksim-s, etc.). In their function as delimiters of the KTM tradition they are often used rhetorically in criticisms of musicians perceived to be straying from core aesthetic principles, usually in the form of ad hominem epithets such as köylü (villager, bumpkin; see Ederer 2007), çingene (a disparaging term for Romany/“Gypsy” (ibid., see also Seeman 2002) and “piyasa musician”—one whose career is in the marketplace, the implication being that they are “in it for the money” and not to preserve and enrich the art form (see Beken 1998, Stokes 1992, Gill 2006: 82-9). While it may be said that certain of my informants in some ways and at some times participate in these other musical realms (and certain of them criticize each other for such participation, even cautioning me in some cases to exclude other specific informants from the study on that basis), all informants have undergone some formal education in the makam system, whether from school/university/conservatory or in a one-on-one, orally transmitted meşk tradition,15 or both, and identify themselves as “classical musicians.”
15
Meşk, from the Arabic mashq, refers to a model example of calligraphy that a master would write in charcoal, etc., over which a student would then write in ink with a reed pen (Dwight Reynolds, p.c. by e-mail 6/5/2011); metonymically it came to mean “practice, repetition” in the Ottoman language and, later, in modern Turkish. It is the name for the traditional oral/aural transmission of makam music; such an education is usually centered upon a student’s memorization and constantly refined performance of exemplary repertoire under a master’s close supervision. Often lasting a dozen years before the student “graduates,” the relationship between master and student—and therefore the “meşk” between them—is in a sense lifelong. For detailed information on meşk, see Behar 2006 (1998), O’Connell 2000: 120 fn. 5, Gill 2006.
17
Another (and similarly locally contentious) factor in my choice of informants revolved around the issue of “mastery.” Whereas much of the scholarly literature (e.g., Signell, Stubbs, Yahya, Akkoç, Yarman, et al.) focuses on the work of a very few established and broadly recognized “masters” of the tradition, my intention here was not to represent or reify a category of “best” musicians (as deserving as certain artists may be of special attention); it was rather to represent the knowledge and application of makam theory in the taksim genre by serious musicians in as wide a range of representation as an engaged and attentive listener may have heard in Istanbul during the ten months I researched there, given the above-mentioned qualifications regarding a broadly mutually-defined fidelity to the KTM tradition— that is to say that, despite conflicting rivalries and tastes, all participants would likely agree that all the others are “legitimate” musicians in the makam music tradition. Several of them are recognized masters, most are well known in the KTM world, but some are simply working musicians without particular acclaim. Most of them concertize regularly (or did before retirement); some consider themselves primarily professional musicians, others primarily as teachers, and a few (whose main source of income is not performing—particularly instrument makers and those whose musical lives revolve around Sufi religious practices) consider themselves semi-professionals or even dedicated amateurs (see Feldman 1996: 501, cf. Nettl 2005: 180, 227). A list of all their names and contributions to this project may be found in Appendix A.
18
I must also say a few words about the instruments represented in this study, and explain the virtual absence in it of the sung “improvisational” genres (gazel, kaside, etc.; see Feldman 1993, O’Connell 2003). My original intent had been to record only performers on the five most common classical instruments—ney, tanbur, (“classical”) kemençe, kanun, and ud (see photographs in Appendix E)—and to include classical “improvised” singing equally among them. To the instruments, however, I came to add yaylı (bowed) tanbur, violin (keman), and in one instance, clarinet (klarnet), all of which are associated with a lighter, cabaret-oriented form of classical music (and probably therefore are considered marginal amongst strictly classical performers), because I found players who knew makam well and made taksim-s on them often as sophisticated as the other instrumentalists’ examples.16 As for singers, after the fifth or sixth time being told that “no-one really sings gazel/kaside anymore,” or that all the singers of them are retired, or even having my invitation to record them humbly declined by several singers who apparently, at times, do sing them, I decided that a study of improvised singing in classical Turkish music should be the province of a separate and dedicated research (which, due to the advanced age of its apparently few remaining exponents, ought to be undertaken soon, if at all; see O’Connell 2003), and I excluded it from the present study.17 Nonetheless, for reference one recorded example, in the context of a “light classical” concert, is provided on the accompanying DVD (DVD 8/84). 16
Many of the performers of these more marginal instruments also play a more conventionally classical instrument, but decided for whatever reason to record for me on the former. 17 Pace Bektaş (2005: 1), Ayangil (2008: 441-4) et al., for whom classical Turkish music is “essentially” vocal in nature.
19
A further delimiter on the research is the time period in question. In a tidier world I would have liked to use the sort of periodization that fits nicely in a title, for instance “the twentieth century,” or “the Republican Period” but while both of those are mostly covered herein, all of my live recordings are necessarily from slightly later than the twentieth century, and many of the major shapers of today’s makam theory and taksim performance practices slightly precede the Republican Period. Some Turkish theorists and music historians refer to this time period as “modern,” but apart from the term’s unbounded vagueness it carries also some hefty European Enlightenment baggage, and is sometimes used in Turkey to refer to particular compositional and performative sub-styles of KTM. Since my samples begin with the earliest mass-produced recordings (of 1910, in the Ottoman Empire), and because virtually every aspect of both makam theory and taksim practice has been subject to mass mediation, it would also be accurate to say that this study encompasses “the age of mechanical reproduction,” but since my focus is not on the effects of mass culture per se, and does not draw on Walter Benjamin’s famous critique employing that phrase, I have resisted its powerful cuteness and chosen to settle on the more prosaic yet accurate “1910 to 2010,” representing the period between Tanburi Cemil Bey’s earliest commercial recording with the Blumenthal/Odeon label and the year in which I finished the data-gathering aspect of the project.
It needs also to be noted that, although many of the musicians involved in this research came originally from—and may have been musically educated in—other
20
parts of the country, my fieldwork was conducted entirely in the city of Istanbul. On various occasions a certain sub-set of my informants expressed to me the opinion that “classical Turkish music” is and always has been in effect really only the music of this city, but despite the logic and even appeal of their arguments (which appear to be implicitly reified in the works of other ethnomusicologists, such as Signell and Stubbs; see also Feldman 1996: 504-5 fn. 1 and 8), that appears to be a narrative in the minority among practitioners of the art today, even within Istanbul, despite the city’s current centrality to KTM performance, recording and broadcast.18 The reasons my fieldwork was confined to this city are more practical in nature; firstly it is because my time was limited such that getting sufficient recordings in Istanbul— which is without dispute (local or otherwise) the current center of classical Turkish music—prevented extended research trips to other cities (e.g., Konya, Ankara, Izmir, Edirne, Bursa, et al.—and it is certainly an urban musical phenomenon), and secondly because of the widespread opinion—including among performers from these other major urban centers—that there is no significantly divergent school of makam theory or taksim praxis to what is typically found in Istanbul itself.19 I would be supportive nonetheless of further research on the classical Turkish music scenes in those cities, and mean no disrespect to the hundreds of no doubt perfectly qualified and talented musicians therein, but for this study it would have been both impracticable and unnecessary. 18
That is to say that most players think of the music as more broadly “Ottoman” or “Turkish” rather than associated specifically with Istanbul (or any other specific place, for that matter). 19 But see comments by Ü. Ensari and A.N. Benli in Chapter IV regarding regional “accents” in playing styles.
21
Finally, there is an issue we might frame as “the ethnographic interface” issue, that of how I came meet the people with whom I worked on this research, of how I presented myself and the project to them, and how we seemed to understand each other. With the exception of one person, everyone I worked with initially was someone I had known for several years from previous projects. Some of them I knew as teachers, others as academic or performance colleagues; all of them I already considered friends. I was subsequently introduced by them to other would-be informants, and later these others introduced me to yet newer acquaintances, and so on; that is to say that there was no “cold calling” to find informants.20 As a result, some sort of reputation, recommendation, or at least tacit approval would seem to have preceded me before each instance of fieldwork itself was undertaken. Altogether I thus met about 70 persons who formed my pool of potential informants; finally the 34 performers whose taksim-s are recorded here are simply those whose schedules and mine synchronized sufficiently to make that aspect of the research come together. But even this sample seems to me both large enough and random enough that I have no reason to think that any school of thought regarding the subject went unrepresented (though there are several musicians I regret not having worked with), despite having met them all through chains of mutual acquaintance. I am reminded by Münir Beken, however, that there is inherently a kind of filtering process—both in my ultimate selections of research consultants and in each artists’ self-selection—in favor of the
20
Dr. Bülent Aksoy, to whom I introduced myself after a talk he gave at an Istanbul cultural foundation (having first read work of his on classical Turkish music in 2005), was the one newly met informant in the study to whom I was not introduced by a mutual acquaintance.
22
sort of person who would likely respond to questions about music theory in the rhetorical terms framed by conservatory-oriented theory; he noted that it would be possible to find performers of the same or similar repertoire whose main venues of expression were bars, mosques, and synagogues (for instance) whose rhetorical frame might well differ (p.c. 6/6/11).
I presented the project to all potential informants as an investigation of performers’ knowledge of makam (specifically as applied in taksim-s), making clear that I thought that such knowledge is an important and valid resource for understanding how the Turkish makam system works, and pointing out that much of this information appeared to be absent in the understandings of the makam system presented in music theory texts of the twentieth century. I framed my desire to work with them as an invitation to add their voices to a more accurate representation of Turkish makam than had yet been documented, and one that had the potential eventually to lead to the reform of the “official” theory. Many of my informants went to college, and may be academics and/or teach graduate students themselves, and most of them clearly did not overestimate the ability of a doctoral dissertation to change a field of study overnight; I hope I made as much clear also to those I invited to participate in the study who are not involved in academia. Still, the feedback among nearly all of the musicians with whom I spoke about the project was not merely positive, but often quite enthusiastic and hopeful. Many performers unfortunately not presented here initially agreed to participate but could not do so due to the exigencies of life as a
23
professional musician in Istanbul, but the musicians who do appear here were explicit about their understanding of the nature of the project, of its potential “reform” aspect (and yet also of the limited influence a dissertation might have), of my appreciation of their agency, and of me as an “agent of their agency.”
Having given previously the definitions of makam and taksim, we will now move to Chapter II to take a look at their central place in the history of classical Turkish music.
24
CHAPTER II: A BRIEF HISTORY OF MAKAM AND TAKSİM IN TURKEY
MAKAM As for the deepest antiquity of the music that would become the makam tradition we can say little; although it is clear that there were highly developed musical systems throughout the ancient Near East and Mesopotamia from at least the fourth millennium BCE (see Dumbrill 2008a, b and c; Franklin 2007 and in press, Kilmer 1971, Farmer in Wellesz 1957), the gap in historical records of any continuity between the last iterations of these and the earliest references to foundational preIslamic art music traditions is yet to be filled or explained.1 Documents from the Abbasid court at Baghdad—such as those by Yaḥyā ibn ‘Alī al-Munajjim (ninth century) and Abu l-Faraj al-Iṣfahāni (ninth century, through whose Kitāb al-Aghānī we have information on yet earlier musicians, such as Yūnus al-Kātib [eighth century]; see Shiloah 1981: 29, Farmer 1929, Wright 1966, Wiet 1971)—serve as our earliest sources of information regarding the modal system that would be developed from eight aṣābi` (“fingers”) modes into what we know as the maqāmāt or makam-s.2
1
Except elliptically by way of supposed ancient Greek influence (e.g., in Sachs 1943, Feldman 1991: 90; cf. Franklin in press, Farmer 1929: 48-62 and 1957: 250-1). Cf. Feldman 1991: 110, and see also Shiloah 1981: 26 and 29, Ertan 2007: 34. Wright discusses evidence for a certain pre-Islamic music but seems to frame it as a specifically Arab music in Mesopotamia rather than as possibly a Mesopotamian music having roots previous to or separate from the arrival of Arabs in the area (see 1966: 42-5). 2 Such transformation occurred over centuries by way of the twelve shudūd or parda-s and six awāzāt (primary and secondary “melodic modes,” respectively) of Ṣafīuddīn’s time (subsequently to include tertiary shu`ab), to later angham and alḥān (here, something like “melody types”), and only later to the now more ubiquitous maqāmāt, see Shiloah 1981: 32, Feldman 1996:197 and 219-20, see also Ertan 2007: 39. Note During’s opinion that “aṣābe‘” [sic] was merely what the Arabs called the Sassanian Persian “dasātīn” (lit. “necks”) modes (1994b).
25
The term “maqām” was apparently only first applied to this musical system in the late thirteenth century,3 but the system had been developed continuously as the basis of a pan-Islamic court music—theorized as the `ilm al-mūsīqī (“science of music”), with practiced variants heard from Western China to Portugal—by the time the Selçuks had established themselves as the first Turkic and Islamic dynasty in Anatolia in the eleventh century. Not long before, the Selçuks had left their home steppes near the Aral Sea to conquer Khorasan and Greater Persia (including much of modern-day Iraq), setting up a capital at Isfahan where in a short time they had intensified their adoption of Persian high culture, and politically co-opted the (already quite Persianate) `Abbasid caliphate at Baghdad, and from this time they established the modal music described (at least theoretically) in the `ilm al-mūsīqī as their official court music (see Hodgson 1974, Canfield 1991, Wiet 1971). From this time the Selçuks (and afterward, their Timurid successors in the east) set up the cultural, religious, political and musical models upon which their Ottoman successors in Anatolia would later pattern the style of their dynasty (see Feldman 1996: 39-44 and 494).
This “science of music” (that is, the theoretical development of this court music) benefitted from the intellectual fervor present in early `Abbasid Baghdad. This was 3
In Iran, according to Neubauer, in 1300 CE; later in Turkey, though not in the Arab world before the eighteenth century (2000: 324); cf. Shiloah 1981: 34-5 regarding the term’s use in ibn al-Akfānī and al-Khaṭīb al-Irbilī ca. 1329 in what is today northern Iraq (possibly what Neubauer meant by “Iran”), but whose works are taken to distinguish a “Persian” revision of Ṣafīuddīn’s shudūd. Cf. Kutluğ (2000: vol. I, p. 73) who claims Abdülkadir Merâgî (1360-1435) as the first to use the term “maqām” in a musical sense; Feldman has the term in wide use in the Islamic world “…since the 15th or 16th centuries,” 1996: 15, 198-9. See also Marcus 1989a: 326-7 for still other references.
26
the center of medieval Islamic high culture and not only had a thriving music scene (see al-Munajjim, al-Iṣfahāni in Farmer 1929, Wright 1966) but was at times the locus of prodigious translations of Sassanian and ancient Greek texts into Arabic (see Gutas 1998 passim, Farmer 1930 passim). Of the latter, texts on the theory of music by such lights as Pythagoras, Aristoxenus, Aristotle, Euclid, Nichomachus, and Ptolemy are understood to have been highly influential upon Islamic music theoristphilosophers such as al-Kindī (d. 873), al-Fārābī (d. 950), ibn Sinā (d. 1037), and Ṣafī al-Dīn (Ṣafīuddīn) Urmawī (Turkish: Safiyüddin Urmevi; d. 1294) (see Farmer 1930: 325).
In order to avoid a string of ungainly footnotes here, let me briefly interrupt the historical narrative to add a few thoughts on the above theorists, their contributions, and modern scholarship regarding the music at this point. Firstly I wish to point out that, at least in the writings of their time and place, there was little effort to distinguish these scholars by what we would call “ethnicity.” Particularly in the Turko-Persian tradition, Islam was attributed a universal nature, people were generally socially identified by their religion rather than by language or geography (though their surnames may be ethnonymic or indicate a regional affiliation), and language use followed a division of labor not strictly reflecting native origin: Arabic was generally used for science, religious subjects, and jurisprudence; Persian was the language of literature, poetry, and high society; and Turkish was used in the administration of the military (see Canfield 1991, Ikram 1964, Ertan 2007: 53 fn. 5).
27
We, too, might have passed over the issue of these individuals’ ethnicity except that later claims regarding the “Turkishness” of certain of them—particularly al-Fārābī, Ṣafīuddīn, and the fourteenth and fifteenth century composer Abdülkadir Merâgî— will figure in the history of makam music in Republican Turkey (see Feldman 1991: 94-5, Ertan 2007: 35 and 53 fn. 10, and below). As for their specific contributions to music theory, I will leave these to be explained as they become pertinent to this study, but suffice it to say here that especially al-Fārābī’s application of ancient Greek terminology and Pythagorean mathematics to the music, and Ṣafīuddīn’s definitions and arrangement of the tones to be used, and his foundation of the “Systematist School” of music theory (see Chapter I, fn. 5), set the theoretical boundaries of later makam musics as they would persist into the Ottoman musical sphere, with a few significant alterations,4 between the thirteenth and nineteenth centuries, with continuing relevance to this day.
In regard to modern scholarship of the last hundred years or so (at least in European languages) concerning proto-“maqām” music, I only wish to point out that although such “early Islamic music” has usually been presented under the rubric of “Arab music,”5 certain factors recommend against thinking of it strictly as such,6 and we 4
E.g., see Shiloah 1981: 35 regarding fourteenth-century revisions to Ṣafīuddīn’s classifications of shudūd and awāzāt, Feldman 2007-9 on the nineteenth-century expansion of the tonal system. See also Wright 2000: 10-11, Ertan 2007: 53 fn. 11; Marcus 1993: 39. 5 Arab music was, after all, the subject of most of these scholars’ work, e.g., D’Erlanger, Colangettes, Farmer, Shiloah, Racy, Shehadi, Touma, Sawa, et al. 6 For instance the confluence of: the lack of evidence for a “pre-Islamic” Arab music tradition approaching the sophistication of even the earliest iteration of the “’Islamic’ Great Tradition” (Shiloah 1995: 2-3, 20), including a consistent rhetoric in Arab sources regarding the simplicity (in fact the
28
may preface our return to the historical narrative by noting that the Selçuks, Timurids, and early Ottomans considered it specifically to be a Persian iteration of a “universal” music tradition (see Feldman 1996: 494).7
As the Isfahan-centered Selçuk Empire disintegrated over the twelfth century its power base was moved to the Sultanate of Rum in central Anatolia, where their ruling élite continued to patronize the Turko-Persian cultural tradition (and its music) until shortly after the mid-thirteenth-century Mongol invasions. The disintegration of Mongol sovereignty in the area soon thereafter resulted in the power vacuum that opened the way for Osman to establish the eponymous Ottoman (Osmanlı) dynasty there in the early 1300s. As mentioned, the Ottomans initially patterned their imperial
musical “inferiority”) of “pre-Islamic” Arab music in terms of the music they learned in Baghdad (ibid.); ample acknowledgment of Arabs “borrowing” Mesopotamian and Persian musics to refine their own (ibid.: 1-2, 6-8, and 20-21); in the early Islamic period in Arabia proper “…most of the musicians belonged to the conquered nations… most were Persians” (ibid.: 11-12); the fact that the first four hundred years of Islamic-era development of the music occur on the site of Mesopotamian musical traditions the earliest iterations of whose theory, tunings, modes, instruments, etc., not only bear remarkable resemblance to those employed in the “Great Tradition” but were documented continuously for centuries beginning as early as 3100 BCE (though unfortunately not well documented in the centuries just previous to the Arab invasion; see Dumbrill 2008:a, b, and c; Crickmore 2008, 2009a and 2009b; Franklin 2002 and 2007)—that is, some 3,800 years before Arabic-speaking people arrived in the area (Versteegh 1997: 94); once within the Islamic period there is much documentation of Persian and (later) Turkish influence upon Arab music and yet relatively little in the other direction (see Feldman 1996: 25, 220, and 37-194, cf. Neubauer 2000). Pace Colangettes and the valiant Farmer (see Shiloah 1981: 8, and Farmer 1929, esp. Ch. 3; 1940). I do not mean to say that the scholars mentioned here and in the previous footnote claim the music as exclusively Arab (for instance, see Shiloah 1981: 20 fn. 2, and 26 [but cf. 1995: xv]; Wright 1978: 2 and 9; cf. Ertan 2007: 34); only that it is in texts on Arab music where most material on the “early-Islamic-era” iteration of this music is to be found, which an incautious reader might mistake as a reason to discount documented non-Arab influences and/or to overestimate Arab influence upon other branches (see also Farhat 1990: 4). 7 Rhetoric regarding non-Turkish elements of the heritage of classical Turkish music does not today point as directly toward Persia (see Chapter IV) but we may note that this understanding appears to have been normative throughout pre-Republican times, for instance as expressed by the Ottoman Empire’s (and subsequently, Turkey’s) first modern musicologist Rauf Yekta “…il serait nécessaire d’admettre qu’il existe des différences essentielles entre la musique arabe et la musique turco-persane” (1922 [1913]: 2947).
29
style on that of the Selçuk’s version of the Turko-Persian tradition, and patronized the arts accordingly, at first drawing on musicians and theorists from the neighboring Timurid and Safavid courts (Aksoy 2005).8 Feldman (1990) posits the late-sixteenth century as the point marking the formation of the characteristic social organization of Ottoman music, and he divides the music’s history into four periods demarcated below.9 It is clear from treatises of the time, especially Cantemir’s Kitâb-i `İlmü’l Mûsiki ‘ala Vechü’l Ḥurûfat (“The Book of the Science of Music According to Lettered Notation”) of 1700, that the first period marks the emergence of an Ottoman music culture distinct from Persian court music (whether by “Persian” we mean Safavid or Timurid; see Feldman 1996: 494, Popescu-Judetz 1999: 9):10
Four Major Periods of Ottoman Music History (selon Feldman) 1580-1700—A structure emerges in which three levels of participation in courtly music are present: 1) at court itself, in which instruction, composition and performance are supported through official palace service—this included many
8
Feldman places particular emphasis on sources idealizing the court of Turko-Mongol Timurid sultan Husein Bayqara of Herat (present-day Afghanistan) as the fifteenth-century model for the patronage of music and (Persian language) poetry particularly (i.e., directly rather than through Selçuk influence, see 1996: 39-47), followed by a shift toward imitating the Safavid Persian court in the sixteenth century (ibid.: 494). Although after 1453 the Ottoman capital and cultural center would be Konstantiniyye (that is Constantinople, later called “Istanbul”), the cities of Söğüt (1302-1326), Bursa (1326-1365), and Edirne (1365-1453) had each previously served as capital of the Empire. 9 The history presented here under those sections draws heavily from Feldman’s 1990 Grove/Oxford Music Online article “Ottoman music,” though only direct quotations are specifically cited. See the same article for information on notable composers and performers, changes in the instrumentarium at court, and for developments in and of various Ottoman music genres. 10 Feldman calls this work by Cantemir (about which more appears below), “[the locus of] the most influential theory of Ottoman music” (1990), but notes that “Ottoman Turks never fully accepted the historical uniqueness of their musical repertoire or of their musical structure…” 1991: 105, and see below. Note that Cantemir is known in Turkey as “Kantemiroğlu” (i.e., “son of Kantemir”).
30
foreign experts (whether volunteer, captured, or given as presents from other courts), 2) amateur musicians among the bureaucratic élite, and 3) specialists in religious music and recitation: hafiz-es (who have memorized and can recite the Qur`ān), müezzin-s (who recite the five-times-daily call to prayer), dervish zakir-s (i.e., performers of the Sufi zikr ritual), and neyzen-s (masters of the ney flute, associated with Mevlevi mysticism). “Towards the end of the period free urban musicians, including non-Muslims, were hired by the court, while the role of foreign experts declined” (Feldman 1990).11 The şarkı song form was introduced, as were the cyclical suite genre fasıl, and the similar ayin (used in the Mevlevi “whirling dervish” ceremony, known by the same name or as sema`), and it is from the end of this period that we have the first mention of taksim (about which more below), which was the featured part of the new fasıl-i sazende or “instrumental suite,” comprising taksim(-s), a peşrev, and a saz semaisi.12 Mevlevi lodges (tekke-s) became an important site of musical transmission throughout the Empire during this period (see Neubauer and Doubleday 2007-9).
1700-1780—Ottoman music’s greatest period of change and development, especially during the vaunted Tulip Age (1703–30) under Ahmed III. Feldman notes, “There was a great increase in the number of urban musicians, including non-Muslims, 11
See also Feldman 2001 passim, and 1991: 90 and 100 on the prominent role of non-Muslim minority musicians in Ottoman music throughout its history. 12 Feldman also notes that “[A] similar composed cycle for the synagogue was first composed in Edirne, from where it was spread to other Ottoman cities by Jewish composers such as Avtalyon (d c1570) and Aharon Hamon (d c1690)” (ibid.). It may be of interest to note that this and the above genres all still exist in some form today.
31
indicating a wide acceptance of makam art music by much of the urban middle class” (ibid.).13 Mevlevi şeyh Kutb-u Nay Osman Dede, the Armenian tanbur player Harutin, and Moldavian Prince Dimitrie Cantemir (about whom more below) all invented systems of musical notation,14 and the latter is noted for revolutionizing the composition of the peşrev, breaking down its smaller subdivisions and “allowing more developed connections between successive sections of the melody” (ibid.). Furthermore the tempos of compositions were decreased and melodies became longer, more dense and intricate, and the subsidiary modes (such as terkib-s, see below) were used from this time as nominal modes, blurring the distinction between them and the “primary modes,” the makam-s. This period is also marked by the increasing interaction between Greek Orthodox cantors, the Mevlevi dervishes and the Ottoman court.
1780-1876—A pivotal period in Ottoman music; it began with the reign of Selim III (r. 1789-1808), himself a notable composer and inventor of new makam-s, who surrounded himself with musical virtuosi including his teacher Tanburi İsak (from 13
I would note that there was not a “middle class” as we know it today, but two groups that would become one in the early Republican era: the aforementioned “bureaucratic élite” (including minor nobility), and the merchant class, which from the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 until the 1950s consisted largely of the urban non-Muslim minorities: Greek, Armenian, Jewish, Genoese and Venetian (see O’Connell 2000: 122 fn 8; Kinross 1977: 112-22; Shaw 1976: 59-98). 14 It must be noted that none of these systems of notation (nor the personal one of Ali Ufki in the 1650s) came into widespread use, nor was any notation used during performance in Ottoman music before the late-nineteenth century (Wright 1992a: xi; see also Signell 2008: 2-3). Whatever their value at the time, however, we owe the preservation of hundreds of pieces to those who did use these systems to transcribe the contemporary repertoire, which also included pieces from earlier times, and which—the transmission of repertoire having traditionally been oral/aural—might otherwise have disappeared. See Chapter III, and Ayangil 2008 passim for a history of Western notation in Turkish music.
32
Istanbul’s Sephardic Jewish community), the founder of one of the two traditional tanbur-playing styles extant today.15 “The general scale made a definitive shift from the medieval Iranian 17-note system with neutral (2·5 comma) tones, to a broader system featuring single comma tones,” and “[T]he distinction formerly made between independent (makam) and subsidiary (terkib) modal entities was abandoned, leading to the “open-ended” modal system of modern Turkish and (Ottoman) Arab music, with many new terkib-s [sic: makam-s?] being invented” (ibid.).16 But Selim was overthrown and assassinated by a Janissary rebellion led by his cousin Mustafa IV in 1807-8, who was himself almost immediately overthrown and assassinated by his half-brother Mahmud II (r. 1808-1839; see Kinross 1977: 433-7). Mahmud was quite reform minded, and Western Europe was the source of his models for modernization, including in music. In 1828 he brought Giuseppe Donizetti (d. 1856, brother of the Italian composer Gaetano Donizetti) to serve as Instructor General of Imperial Ottoman Music, heralding the decline of Ottoman makam music at court in favor of opera, chamber music, and marches (see Aracı 2002 passim, Deringil 1993: 6-9, O’Connell 2000: 119-20),17 though he himself did compose Ottoman şarkı-s and was a patron of Mevlevi composer İsmail Dede Efendi (Feldman 2001). Mahmud’s son and successor Abdülmecid (r. 1839-1861), an even more ardent reformer, kept 15
See Feldman 2001 regarding other sultan composers. See also Gill 2006: 30-4 regarding this period. In referring to this “open-ended” system Feldman is referencing Powers (see Powers 1980: 427), meaning by it that new makam-s, free from a hierarchy of modal entities, can be invented and accepted into the system (see also Feldman 1996: 219). 17 The latter genre we may view ironically, since European marching bands had developed directly from the mehter of the Janissaries, which Mahmud abolished (and massacred) in 1826 (Kinross 1977: 456-8; Shaw 1977: 20-1). Donizetti’s immediate predecessor (1826-1828) appears to have been a certain Frenchman known as Monsieur Manguel (see Ayangil 2008: 415). 16
33
Donizetti at court, and after the composer’s death hired another Italian musician, Callisto Guatelli, to replace him, both men having been given the highest non-noble rank of Paşa (Abdüldmecid was apparently “passionate about opera,” see Aracı 2002: 54, Deringil 1993: 9). Abdülmecid’s (brother and) successor, Abdülaziz (r. 18611876) was a renown pianist and composer of Western classical music (though he also wrote şarkı-s, see Feldman 2001). Makam music was maintained in Mevlevi circles, and in secular classical music the aforementioned şarkı song form became dominant, especially following the lead of prolific şarkı composer Hacı Arif Bey (1831-1885); although şarkı-s are composed within the makam system, they are the Ottoman musical form most similar to Western art song (which may have contributed to their popularity). But there were also attempts at “harmonizing” makam music in Western tertian harmony and otherwise fitting it to the Western music theory and techniques brought by Donizetti and Guatelli (O’Connell 2000: 120; Ayangil 2008: 401-2; Gill 2006: 30-4).
1876-Present Day—Court patronage for makam music having atrophied (see Pennanen 2004: 3-7, Ayangil 2008: 401-2, Feldman 1996: 15-18), classical musicians of the day split into two factions: those aligning themselves with the more musically conservative dervish orders (such as did Rauf Yekta Bey, the founder of modern Turkish musicology) and those who found an audience in the wine-houses (meyhanes) and nightclubs (gazino-s) owned by members of the urban Greek and Armenian minorities (see Feldman 1990, Ederer 2005, Beken 1998, O’Connell 2000: 120 and
34
136; see also Tekelioğlu 2001: 95-7, Aksoy 2002). The meyhane/gazino musicians were largely successful because they fused courtly music with contemporary popular urban music in a way that greatly added to the sophistication of the latter, though, from the point of view of the dervish-oriented musicians, tarnished and threatened the former in the process.18 Feldman notes of this period, “The musical roles of minority groups had begun to change by the mid-19th century. However, on the whole musicians from minority groups found more scope in the gazinos for their activities, as they lacked the support of either the dervish orders or high bureaucratic positions” (1990; see also Aksoy 2002).19 The major instrumental composers of the time were Refik Fersan (1883–1965), and especially his tanbur teacher Tanburi Cemil Bey (1873–1916), the latter of whom made such a great impression upon the art of taksim that we will deal with him specifically in later chapters (see Chapters IV and V).
One area in which both factions of musicians would come to participate was in music education. A private conservatory called the Dâr’ülelhân (House of Melodies) was established on the European side of Istanbul in 1914, teaching both Ottoman and Western musics; its organization was taken over by the Municipality of Istanbul in 1923, which renamed it the İstanbul Belediye Konservatuvarı (Istanbul Municipality
18
But Feldman notes that, “Şevki Bey (1860–91), while at first a performer at the court, contributed a considerable repertory of şarkı for the gazino which were later claimed by classical musicians” (1990). 19 Here Feldman is referring to Greek, Armenian and Jewish musicians, but from the 1960s onward gazino and other club/cabaret music increasingly became the domain of Romany (“Gypsy”) instrumentalists (Ederer 2005, Seeman 2002, Beken 1998); this type of music is now known as fasıl, named for the cyclical suite genre which, over this period, came to consist of a peşrev, several şarkı-s, and a saz semaisi played in a “Gypsy” style and not necessarily all in the same makam (see Signell 2008: 12, 18, and 113-5, Feldman 1991: 75-7 and 89-90; see also Chapter I [pp. 16-17] above).
35
Conservatory) in 1926; this was incorporated into İstanbul Üniversitesi in 1986 as the Devlet Konservatuvarı (State Conservatory), ten years after the foundation of the first federally sanctioned conservatory of the Republican era, the Türk Musikîsi Devlet Konservatuvarı (Turkish Music State Conservatory) within İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi in 1976 (see İstanbul Ü./anon.; Ayangil 2008: 418-22; Gill 2006: 71-7). In a parallel course, another conservatory called the Anadolu Musiki Cemiyeti (Anatolia Music Society) was opened on the Asian side of the city, changing its name to Darülfeyz-i Musiki Cemiyeti (House of Abundance Music Society) the following year, and incorporating with the municipality in 1923 to become the Üsküdar Musiki Cemiyeti, still in existence (see Üsküdar MC/anon., O’Connell 2000: 127 fn. 11).20 The other main medium in which we see both factions of musicians participating (though not often together) is that of electronic recordings. Hundreds of 78 rpm records (taş plak in Turkish) exist of major performers from around 1910 onward, meant for sale as entertainment, but for us documenting the music of an Empire about to end (see Ünlü 2004).21
As disruptive for makam music as was the end of court patronage, and the end of the Empire itself after many years of war, it had yet to contend with the active attempts to extinguish it that would form part of the early Republican agenda to modernize and 20
For more on transformations of early Republican music education institutions see Tekelioğlu 2001: 95, Ayangil 2008: 418. 21 The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire is a long and complicated tale that I will not attempt to retell here, but suffice it to say that after losing a series of wars, it ceased to be an imperial monarchy in November of 1922, then to be a state in July of 1923. After a successful war of independence on the part of what remained of the Ottoman army, the Republic of Turkey was officially proclaimed on October 29, 1923 (see Kinross 1977, Shaw 1977, Deringil 1993).
36
“Turkify” the nation. The Republic’s first president, Mustafa Kemal (later given the surname “Atatürk”), wanting to eradicate what he saw as a hotbed of reactionary politics, shut all the Sufi tekke-s (“lodges”) and medrese-s (religious schools) in 19245, resulting in the severe curtailment of the traditional musical transmission undertaken by Mevlevi and other orders (which is why they became so involved in the secular institutions of music education mentioned above; see O’Connell 2000: 134, Ergüner 2005, Signell 2008: 12, Tekelioğlu 2001: 95). Ideologically fuelled by the nationalist writings of sociologist Ziya Gökalp, nationalists attacked Ottoman music (now called “classical Turkish music” by its defenders; cf. Gill 2006: 39, Feldman 1996: 16) as being insufficiently Turkish (see Gökalp 1918, Berkes 1959, Feldman 1991: 98-100, Ederer 2005: 121, O’Connell 2000: 122; also Ertan 2007: 33, Tekelioğlu 2001: 94, 105). Their arguments partook variously of the ideas that the music’s origins were: Greek (i.e., from Pythagoras, or the Byzantine Church, or both); Arab or Persian; polluted by the contributions of its many well known Greek, Armenian, Moldavian and Jewish composers; or merely that its status as “Islamic music” placed it in a pre-modern and anti-nationalist category (see Feldman 1991: 85; Ayangil 2008: 401-2). These arguments appeared plausible since, …prior to the twentieth century, the Ottoman Turks never fully accepted the historical uniqueness of their musical repertoire or of their musical structure, preferring to balance the particularism of history with the generalism of myth. They persisted in viewing an early fifteenth century Azerbaijani [i.e., Abdülkadir Merâgî] as the “founder” of their own music, despite the evident gap which separated the modes, compositional genres, and performance practices of his time and place and theirs. When the absurdity of describing current musical practices on the basis of fifteenth century theory was pointed out by Cantemir in 1700, Turkish musicians accepted the new musical theory, while simultaneously retaining the mythological lineage of their music. The 37
Turkish lineage of music saw the Muslims as the heirs of Pythagoras and the other Greek philosophers, an attitude which they shared with many European travellers [sic] in the eighteenth century (Fonton/Martin 1751; Bohlman: 150). In order for the Turks to consider themselves part of the Great Tradition, it was essential for them to minimize the degree of musical originality which they had demonstrated between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, and which had led them in certain directions which were somewhat different than the other members of this tradition. (Feldman 1991: 105) Musicologist and Mevlevi dervish Rauf Yekta was apparently able to answer the first wave of such nationalist criticisms22 (e.g., Necib Asım Bey’s 1893 articles in the newspaper İkdam, Halil Bedii Bey’s virulent opposition to “alaturka” music, and Zeki Bey’s call to eliminate “quarter-tones” in Turkish makam music in favor of the “universal” Western system; see Feldman 1991: 98-101, O’Connell 2000: 127-8, Tekelioğlu 2001 passim, Ayangil 2008: 420, Gill 2006: 41 and 73). But twenty years later a new and more organized wave of attacks came, to which neither Yekta nor his erstwhile partner Dr. Suphi Ezgi responded (Feldman 1991: 98-101).23 The official state radio company (which had a broadcast monopoly until 1994, see Ederer 2005: 131, Tekelioğlu 2001: 105) banned classical Turkish music from broadcast in 1934 and much of 1935 (see Tekelioğlu 2001: 105, Shaw 1977: 384-8, Kinross 1969: 439), 22
This despite Yekta’s thoughts on the music’s origins: “According to the monograph of Raûf Yektâ Bey entitled Türk Müziğ̆i (The Turkish Music) written in 1913, the Turkish scale was the diatonic major scale that Fârâbî had taken from the Ancient Greeks and which had been preserved without any change by Arabic, Persian and Turkish theorist and musicians” (Ayangil 2008: 423). Cf. Yarman 2007: 19-23. See also two of Yekta’s responses to critics in Yarman 2007: 139-44, and a heated exchange on the subject between him and the westernizing composer Osman Zeki Üngör (ibid.: 145-52). 23 In their defense, Feldman notes that they were rather busy; he credits Yekta with transcribing for the first time “[V]irtually the entire vocal repertoire of the period preceding him” from his teacher Zekâi Dede, taught him orally by his master, İsmail Dede Efendi (d. 1846); Ezgi was similarly transcribing “the bulk of the instrumental repertoire known today” coming through the lineage of Tanburi İsak (d. 1814) through Oskiyam (d. 1870?) to “several musicians of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,” (ibid.: 87-9). Considering the dissolution of the oral tradition after the closing of the Mevlevi tekke-s these must be considered acts of major importance in terms of preserving the repertoire known and played today.
38
and “[A] complete ban was put on monophonic music education (that is Ottomanoriginated Turkish music) in public and private schools in 1927” (Tekelioğlu 2001: 95; see also Yarman 2007: 12-15, 138). Conservatories focused their curricula on Western music (İstanbul Ü./anon., O’Connell 2000: 127 fn. 11 and 130 fn. 12 and 133), but interest in classical Turkish music continued (see Ergüner 2005, Feldman 1991: 100-1).
It fell finally to musicologist Hüseyin Sadettin Arel to understand the nature of the attacks and answer them effectively in his 1940 book Türk Musikisi Kimindir? (“Whose is Turkish Music?”), in which he combines his “scientific and modern” restructuring of classical Turkish music theory (which would make him to this day the dominant music theorist) and a reimagining of the music’s mythos, in which “authentic” Central Asian Turkic folk melodies formed the melodic basis of makam music,24 and a panoply of the music’s early theorists—including the aforementioned al-Fārābī (now “Farabi”), Safiyüddin Urmevi, and Abdülkadir Merâgî—are presented as ethnically Turkish (Feldman 1991: 100-1, O’Connell 2000: 123-4; see also Arel in Yarman 2007: 153-4).25 Arel seems to have won the argument: in 1943 he was appointed director of the İstanbul Belediye Konservatuvarı, his theory became the standard in Turkish music education (see Chapter III), his mythos (whatever its
24
As Feldman notes, there was not much evidence to support this, but therefore not enough to dispute it either (ibid.: 101). See also Signell 2008: 150 on Arel giving the impression that there is no difference between Turkish folk and classical musics (and cf. Markoff 2002). 25 Cf. Farhat 1990: 4-5, where, conceding the possible Turkishness of Fārābī, he claims “Safiaddin” and “Marāqi” as Persians.
39
factual accuracy) is widely repeated (ibid., Signell 2008: 7-8, Yarman 2007: 16-8), the state came to found its own classical Turkish music ensembles (e.g., the Ankara Radyo Korosu 1938, İstanbul Radyo Korosu 1943, İstanbul Devlet Klasik Türk Müziği Korosu 1976), and as noted above, instruction in classical Turkish music became part of the state university curriculum in 1976.26 Feldman notes that it was only from 1976, and especially after 1980, that the dominant official rejection of this “Ottoman” music for ideological reasons began to change (1996: 16). Now we will turn our attention back to the late seventeenth century to examine the history of taksim, specifically.
TAKSİM
Moldavian prince, polymath, and sometime Ottoman courtly hostage Dimitrie Cantemir’s music treatise Kitâb-i `İlmü’l Mûsiki ‘ala Vechü’l Ḥurûfat (“The Book of the Science of Music According to Lettered Notation”) from around the year 1700 is a landmark in several respects, though we will only deal with a few of them here.27 In it he is the first commentator on the music of the Ottoman court to demonstrate that— as evidenced by major changes in genre, instrumentation, and modes, as well as by 26
For more recent official support of makam-based musics, see Stokes 1997: 682, where he asserts, “Nostalgia [i.e., for Ottoman cultural forms] is now a matter of state policy.” Ayangil also details many of the struggles between “traditional” and “modernizing” musicians of these times in regard to the adoption of Western notation (2008: 416-22). 27 For analytical transcriptions of music in the text in modern Western notation, along with commentary on aspects not dealt with here, such as his notation system, rhythmic cycles, tones in use in his time, etc., see Wright 1992a and 2000. For a modern Turkish translation of the original, see Tura 2001. On the man himself, see Popescu-Judetz 1999. Note that Cantemir is known in Turkey as “Kantemiroğlu.”
40
differences in general performance and pedagogical technique from those of contemporary students of Iranian musicians formerly at court)—it was clearly no longer the “Persian music” his contemporaries were used to calling it, that is, that it had become a uniquely Ottoman music (Feldman 1993: 11-13, 21 and 1996: 494; Popescu-Judetz 1999: 9).28 But for our purposes this text is most important for containing the first mention in the Muslim world—and the first full description, with a transcribed example—of the then rather new taksim genre, which subject forms the centerpiece of the text (ibid.: 8).29
Feldman (1993: 3) notes that there seem to have been a few genres of unmetered, at least partially improvised music in the Islamic music world before the sixteenth century (e.g., nashîd, istihlâl) but that taksim as a genre (using the same term whether sung or played) seems to have emerged in the early seventeenth-century Ottoman court, possibly derived from the aforementioned genres and/or from the tajwīd/tecvid form of Qur‘anic recitation and/or from the (metered, pre-composed but mainly pedagogical) kâr-i natik (sung) and küll-i külliyât peşrev (instrumental) genres (ibid.: 17-23;30 see also Feldman 1996: 276-7 and 495-6, and Signell 2008: 121-4).
28
Whatever the causal relationship, if any, this seems to have coincided with a general trend among the Ottomans to “re-Turkify” court culture, using the (nonetheless quite Persianized) Ottoman language, for instance, rather than Persian proper, a move that apparently shocked the still highly Persianized (and Turkic) Mughals in India (see Titley 1983: 159). 29 It must be noted that although Cantemir most often uses the word “taksim,” he also uses, and notes the use among other musicians, of the term nağme (an otherwise generic term for melody, or even for makam) for the same phenomenon (Feldman 1993: 24 fn. 7). 30 Feldman also notes: “[T]here is good reason to believe that the concept of genre, which developed in the late 16th to early 17th century and which remained in place thereafter for over three centuries,
41
Whatever its derivation, the earliest known reference to the word “taksim” (in a musical sense—it is the normal Arabic and Ottoman word for “division” or “distribution”) is to be found in fifteenth-century Turkish mecmua anthologies with the meaning “a section setting the first verse block” (Wright 1992b: 316), only appearing clearly with the meaning that we attribute it today in a kaside poem by Ottoman poet Neşâtî in 1638 (Feldman 1993: 7; see also 1996: 274-6 and 280).
Although the genres that Feldman mentions as precedent to the taksim appear to have been chosen by him on the basis of their use of modulation as well as “performancegeneration,” there is every reason to suspect that some form of performancegenerated, non-modulating (i.e., single-makam) prelude existed to introduce or intercede between pre-composed pieces of repertoire in a single makam before the invention of the taksim as a modulation-oriented, standalone genre. Today the term “taksim” may refer to either a single-makam or modulatory performance, as well as to one that either introduces (or bridges) pre-composed repertoire or stands alone as an independent genre.31 But as Cantemir describes it, the main characteristics of the original taksim are that it was: enshrined the secularization of the central genre of religious music, the Qur‘ānic chant, in the form of the taksîm improvisation” (1996: 23). 31 Several informants mentioned to me the idea that “taksim” had historically been called “âğâz,” “agaze,” or “âğâze” (Persian “beginning, commencement”), and although Feldman does not note it, there are several uses of this term in his 1993 Ottoman Sources on the Development of the Taksîm that may be interpreted as pointing toward a non-modulating, pre-taksim, musical introduction using that name (see pp. 14, 18, 19, 23; but cf. Doğrusöz n.d. on other historical musical understandings of âğâze). I have to wonder if a distinction between repertoire-dependent, single-makam introductory “taksim-s” and independent, modulation-oriented “taksim-s”—a distinction assumed by Cantemir (see below), unmentioned by Feldman, and subsumed today under the overall definition of “taksim”—was once manifest as a distinction between “âğâze” and “taksim,” respectively.
42
•
unmetered
•
unaccompanied (except perhaps by a drone on the tonic)
•
performance-generated (i.e., that it neither be pre-composed nor quote precomposed pieces)
•
demonstrates a codified melodic direction and a hierarchy of tones (see below in regard to “seyir”)
•
and—receiving the most emphasis—that it serves as a medium for showing “consonant” (hiss-i ünsiyyet) modulations (ibid.: 5-6 and 1996: 278, Cantemir Ch. 7 in Wright 2000: 375-88, cf. Marcus 1989a: 755-776 and 1992 regarding modulation in Arab music)32
Feldman notes that what Ottoman repertoire we know of up to that time—including the three-hundred fifty some pieces Cantemir notated himself in the same text—had very little modulation in it; excepting the aforementioned and relatively rare küll-i külliyât peşrev and kâr-i nâtik song form.33 Additionally, only the third hane (section) of an ordinary peşrev might show a limited amount of it (1993: 6, 16). Modulation, in Feldman’s reading of Cantemir, was essentially the domain—and in some sense also the raison d’être—of taksim.
32
Feldman notes these (excepting the quality “unaccompanied”) as the defining characteristics of taksim in “modern Turko-Arabian” music (1996: 276), but see Chapter IV herein regarding the use of melodic material learned from pre-composed repertoire in Turkish taksim-s today. 33 Feldman also mentions in this regard the older Persian/Transoxanian kolliyât, probable ancestor of the kâr-i nâtik (ibid.: 20).
43
Here I must take a moment to explain what is meant by “modulation” in this case. Clear in the prose and examples of Cantemir (e.g., see quote in Feldman 1993: 18), modulation here refers to the use—within the context of a performance demonstrating a single makam—of makam-s other than the main one and/or (especially) terkib-s (subsidiary melodic modes or modal fragments) before returning to the main makam to finish the performance. Feldman notes that Cantemir had no specific word for modulation (other than for the kind that was also a transposition, şedd),34 and that the modern Turkish word for it, geçki, seems to be an invention of the twentieth century (ibid.: 15).35 Herein, I think, lies part of the possible confusion; the word geçki does indeed now mean a modulation of the sort Cantemir described, but when the synonym geçiş (both words coming from the root geç, “(to) pass”) qualifies the word taksim— i.e., a geçiş taksimi (or, rarely, a geçki taksimi)—its meaning is that of a different sense of the English word “modulation”; this refers to a taksim that begins in one makam and ends in another. This is a practice that was apparently unknown in Cantemir’s time.36
34
But note Wright (1992a: xxv) on the term terkīb-i intiķāl (“transitional sub-mode”) in reference to modulations in a subsection of pre-composed peşrev-s; Feldman does not seem to interpret it as linked to modulation, specifically (see 1993: 12). 35 The word also appears in the forms “keçki” and “ğeçki” in early-twentieth-century texts, see Ezgi 1935-53: 282. 36 Feldman notes this period as remarkable for the introduction of new cyclical suite genres (fasıl-s), which by definition begin and end in the same makam. He especially points out the fasıl-i sazende (“instrumental suite”), which was apparently the main vehicle for the art of taksim for hundreds of years (ibid.: 5, 14, 17, and especially 22, where he credits taksim as the catalyst for the creation of the instrumental fasıl). There is no evidence in Cantemir’s work for the practice of beginning in one makam and ending in another. The distinction between the two kinds of modulation is seemingly a matter of confusion in Feldman 1993: 14-15.
44
It is quite possible that the concept of a modulation of the “geçiş” sort was invented in the late-nineteenth or early-twentieth century, when many of the performance traditions regarding the fasıl suites were abandoned or reconfigured (see Signell 2008: 113-5, Feldman 1991: 76; cf. Ayangil 2008: 412).37 For clarity’s sake in this dissertation I will refer to geçki-s either by that term or as “internal modulations,” and for taksim-s that begin in one makam and end in another I will use the Turkish term “geçiş (taksimi).”
Finally, on the subject of modulation in taksim, Cantemir gave examples of what he considered to be the ideal taksim (although he noted that only one or two musicians could perform it, Cantemir VII: 63/Feldman 1993: 18-9): the taksîm-i nağme-i külliyât-i nağamât (“taksim of the melody/makam of the compendium of melodies/makam-s”) or taksîm-i küllî (“compendium taksim”38)—taksim-s that run through the entirety of the makam system; the eighteenth-century French dragoman (diplomatic interpreter) Charles Fonton noted that such taksim-s could last for “whole hours” (ibid.: 15, 21). For Cantemir this was the apex of the art of taksim, and an index of a musician’s knowledge of the system; it apparently served as a goal for all musicians (ibid.: 18). A comprehensive understanding of the techniques for making
37
I should say that I heard many “old fashioned” fasıl-s performed, both vocal and instrumental, during my ten months’ research, but the term “fasıl-i sazende” (and its Modern Turkish version “sazende faslı”) is virtually unused, even among musicians aware of its history (probably because the word fasıl is now associated with cabaret music, see O’Connell 2005). An exception is the 2008 İstanbul Sazendeleri CD Sazende Faslı – 1, the music on which nods to the classic format without reproducing it (cf. Feldman 1991: 76). 38 These are Feldman’s translations of the phrases; Marcus would prefer to substitute the word “entirety” for the word “compendium” above (p.c. December 2010).
45
modulations seems therefore to have been a crucial component of musicianship at the time.
Regarding the spread of the taksim genre throughout the Middle East there seems to be a lacuna in the literature (Feldman 1993: 1 [and footnotes 3 and 6], 4; 1996: 278), though after noting that it was not accepted in the Maghreb or Transoxania Feldman states, “[I]n Syria and Egypt it came to co-exist with the cyclical waslah, but by the later 19th century it became increasingly dominant over the composed forms” (1993: 10, cf. 1996: 512 fn. 93). Cantemir noted the differences between seventeenth-century Ottoman and Persian “taksim-s” (ibid.: 11, and see Farhat 1990: 19-20), and most writers on Arab taqāsīm are vague on the subject, focusing on its undisputed importance since the early-twentieth century without pinning down an origin story (e.g., Racy 2000, Shiloah 1981).39 However, it is clear that there were developments of the taksim genre closely following Cantemir’s time that had important implications for the Ottoman art of makam as a whole, and it is possible that these understandings of makam spread outward from Istanbul along with the genre in subsequent centuries. Whether or not that is the case, I would like to ask the reader to note that it is only from the late seventeenth century that we are able to see the dynamic “feedback” relationship between the definitions of makam (and moreover, of specific makam-s) and the practice of taksim, a genre apparently disproportionately influential in this
39
Marcus notes that taqāsīm are no longer featured in art music performance in the Eastern Arab musical sphere, and with some exceptions have not been for some twenty years or more (p.c. December 2010).
46
regard, and to recall that this dynamic is essentially—ever respecting the agency of the art’s active performers and theorists—one of the main subjects of this dissertation.
One aspect of our late-seventeenth-century examples that I wish to discuss is the use of the subsidiary modal units known as terkib-s (from the Arabic for “compound,” “combination”) and their gradual absorption (and transformation) into normative makam-s.40 As will be remembered from the previous descriptions of melodic modes of medieval theory, there had traditionally been a hierarchical distinction made between “primary” modes (e.g., the twelve shudūd or parda-s) and “subsidiary” ones (e.g., the six awāzāt). These seem to have been continually re-imagined and developed to suit local variants and nomenclature,41 but the hierarchical principle remained intact; it was manifest in the music of the seventeenth-century Ottoman court mainly as (primary) “makam-s” and (subsidiary) “terkib-s.”42 But here a new 40
Cf. tarākīb in Arab music, Shiloah 1981: 36-40; Marcus 1989a: 785 fn. 1. E.g. see Shiloah 1981: 35 regarding ibn al-Akfānī and al-Khaṭīb al-Irbilī; Feldman 1993: 19 on Merâgî’s six âvâz and twenty-four sho`ba; Farhat 1990: 20-1 regarding later Persian versions (which he nonetheless daringly discards here). See also Simms 2004 regarding such hierarchies in modern Iraqi maqām music. Regarding varied nomenclature (though not modal hierarchy) cf. Mashāqa’s quite diminutive alḥān (Smith 1847, Ronzevalle 1899), and the aforementioned âğâze in Kirşehirli’s fifteenth-century Kitab-ı Edvâr (Doğrusöz n.d.). 42 This is how Cantemir described the system; see Feldman 1996: 238-4 on other writers’ terms for the hierarchical units. Terkib-s, at least in this seventeenth-century Ottoman context, seem to have been short melodic fragments or pitch-sets that were thought to be lacking in certain (unspecified) qualities that categorically distinguished makam-s (perhaps sufficient tones in common with the basic scale, rules regarding melodic movement, a sufficient number of pitches, etc.). One aspect that did not remain in the hierarchical system (for Cantemir, at least) was the number of modes and sub-modes; rather than a neat accounting such as “12x and 6y,” there appear to be a profusion of seventeenthcentury Ottoman makam-s and terkib-s, though their exact number seems elusive. In one place Cantemir transcribed a taksim of his that supposedly went through the whole system, covering “thirty six makams and terkîbs” [sic] (plus two transpositions; Feldman 1993: 15, but how many are makam-s and how many terkib-s is not clear here); later Feldman counts forty-three such entities in a “küll-i külliyât melody” (a kind of pre-composed peşrev? Ibid: 19), but notes that if we were to have only Cantemir’s Collection (i.e., that part of his treatise comprising transcriptions of contemporary 41
47
twist arises; Cantemir indicates (both explicitly and in his hundreds of transcriptions) that the terkib-s were used mainly in taksim-s; some only sparingly and others not at all in the composed repertoire.43 We must note that this raises questions about how old these terkib-s were, and about their actual relationship to previous kinds of “subsidiary modes,” and furthermore, if they were very old and yet do not appear in the composed repertoire of previous centuries, does this not imply the previous existence of an “improvised” genre in which they were used and therefore remembered? Feldman opines, “The taksîm did not exist in the 15th and earlier 16th century, so the terkîb systems must have functioned more directly in composition at that time” (1996: 262). And yet they do not appear prominently in the notated repertoire, either; how and why, then, were they used or even remembered before their deployment in taksim-s in the seventeenth century?44
However these questions come to be resolved, it is certain that the eighteenth century is remarkable in the history of Ottoman music for the sudden proliferation of new
repertoire) we would think the music of the time consisted only of the nineteen makam-s and nine terkib-s represented (ibid.: 16). Wright puts the total in Cantemir 1700 at as high as 90 modal entities (2000: 29). 43 See Feldman 1993: 3, 16, 22 and 1996: 235, 288-94; also 1993: 12 regarding the term “terkib” used in the different sense of a subsection of a peşrev (cf. Wright 1992a: xxv), and 13 where Cantemir uses it in describing Persian pedagogy, in which it has the meaning akin to today’s “guše” (cf. Farhat 1990: 22). 44 There is the possibility that such terkib-s had been tucked away in as-yet undiscovered theory treatises, but there is stronger evidence that musicians of the fifteenth through nineteenth centuries were not very attentive to such literature, anyway (see Appendix G). I infer from Feldman above that the most likely hiding place were the aforementioned “pedagogical” küll-i külliyât peşrev and kâr-i nâtik song forms, though these were apparently relatively rare.
48
makam-s, especially of mürekkeb (“compound”) makam-s,45 for the disappearance of the hierarchical distinction “terkib” (and other equivalents, see Feldman 1996: 23844) and for internal modulation becoming normative in most makam-s, and newly included in pre-composed repertoire, all of which Feldman claims certainly to have been the effect of (ever-increasing) taksim performance upon pre-performance composition, upon definitions of particular makam-s, and upon Ottoman makam music generally (1993: 17, 22-3).
Apparently yet another novelty of Cantemir’s time is the concept referred to today as “seyir” (Arabic “walk, motion, procession” via Persian as “journey” or “progress”), which in the current musical sense refers to a complex of codified instructions regarding melodic movement and a hierarchy of pitches (and in the case of mürekkeb makam-s, of requisite internal modulations) that are applied to each makam (see Signell 2008: 48-65). Feldman claims that “Cantemir’s treatise is the earliest source for the codified melodic progression, called seyir (“progress”) in later Turkish music” (1993: 6) and writes, “The term [seyir] came into use in the late eighteenth century, but the concept seems to have become established during the course of the seventeenth century” (ibid.: 4; see also 1996: 255-8), though Wright, citing D’Erlanger, asserts that “the first mention of a scale with a specific direction and contour in Arabian music occurs in the eleventh century, and the second in the 45
“Mürekkeb” is from the same Arabic root as terkib, rakkaba, “to combine.” Compound makam-s (i.e., makam-s formed by combining several pre-existing makam-s) had existed since at least since the thirteenth century, and apparently had a similar function; cf. Shiloah on that time: “The category of murakkabāt allows for the expansion of the category of principal and secondary modes and offers diverse possibilities for transformation within the system” (1981: 33-4).
49
thirteenth” (1966: 36), and Shiloah speculates that something like it may have been inherent even in the definitions of the shudūd of Ṣafīuddīn’s time (1981: 32, but cf. Feldman 1996: 257-8).46 In any case, for Cantemir (who applied the terms hükm [“domain”] and hareket [“movement”] to his descriptions of this phenomenon) it appears to be something intrinsic to his understanding of Ottoman—but not contemporary Persian—music (Feldman 1993: 4, 1996: 262-7).
In his 1996 work Feldman describes seyir as an attribute only of modal entities per se, but in his 1993 piece on taksim he had, I think unintentionally, opened an interesting question as to seyir’s primary affiliation in Cantemir’s time: in certain parts of his 1993 Ottoman Sources on the Development of the Taksîm he describes it in such a way that it implies that seyir was an attribute of taksim but not yet of makam-s per se (pp. 3, 4, 9, 22), while in other parts it seems to be an attribute of makam-s (and therefore of taksim; pp. 6, 9, 17). If the first of these is correct then it follows that the origin of today’s state of the art—in which each makam is considered to have its own seyir —would have developed from the agreed-upon codification of “seyir-s” invented by taksim performers. However, if the second is correct—and even if there were something like “seyir” associated with individual makam-s previous to the seventeenth century—the demonstrated influence of taksim on makam-s vis à vis 46
I do not know whether Feldman knew of and simply disagreed with the cited Wright and Shiloah works (he had cited many of their other works in his 1996 book, but not those), however, he wrote, “Not only was Cantemir the first writer in Turkey (or elsewhere in the Middle East) to create a term for melodic progression, his treatise contains the earliest written seyirs. As noted by During (1988:160), the characteristic elements of seyir were never mentioned by Safi al-Din Urmawî, or by the other Systematists” (1996: 257).
50
repertoire creation (mentioned above and clearly seen in the treatises of Hızır Ağa and Abdülbaki Nasir Dede in the eighteenth century, and Haşim Bey in the nineteenth century, ibid.: 17, 22) still meant that seyir-s subsequently had to be expanded or revised. That is to say, if one starts playing or composing in a makam that has a certain seyir but then (internally) modulates to another makam that has a different seyir, and subsequently to yet others, then the overall seyir of a makam for which such internal modulations became normative would presumably call for a rethinking of its basic seyir.47 This would in any case result in the same effect: newly created seyir-s in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries associated with specific makams.48 Feldman has this to say about modern taksim and seyir in his 1993 conclusion: The taksîm genre as it is known in the twentieth century, both in its Turkish and Arab forms is essentially a vehicle for the expression of melodic progressions (seyir) and modulation within the makam system. The nearly simultaneous appearance in seventeenth century Turkish sources of the taksîm genre and the terminology for expressing seyir, as well as an increasingly 47
As we shall see in later chapters, however, today seyir is often disregarded during modulations. Regarding this phenomenon in terms of the evidence Cantemir has provided, Feldman on the one hand remarks upon the stability of seyir-s from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries (though giving only the oldest, best established makam-s as examples, 1996: 237) yet on the other hand notes that “the [terkib-s qua] compounds often display peculiarities of melodic movement which cannot be explained by any of their constituent modal elements,” (ibid.: 238), and that frequent alterations in (pitches and) melodic movements characterize (one type of) the new compound modes (ibid.: 241). He also notes, “The more elaborate [post-seventeenth-century] melodic progressions could not be expressed without a more fixed position for terkîbs which emphasized different tonal centers and melodic movements” (ibid.: 261). 48 Parenthetically, an Arab sense of maqām definition also relies on the concept of seyir (see maqām definitions in D’Erlanger 1949 beginning p. 118; see also Marcus 2007: 23-39 [regarding maqām Rast] and 2002b especially pp. 40-2 [regarding maqām Bayyāti]); however from a Turkish perspective current Eastern Arab maqām music would appear to have lost or rejected many seyir-s and therefore many maqām-s. For instance both I and several Turkish musicians I know have noticed that Arab musicians generally identify as “maqām Bayyāti” the following Turkish makam-s: Uşşak, Beyati, Basit Isfahan, Neva, Tahir, Gülizar and Hüseyni, and perhaps even Muhayyer—the differences between these mainly amounting to differences of seyir—while makam-s Uzzal and Hümayun are similarly lumped in with “maqām Ḥijāz” (D’Erlanger 1949: 228-304 [maqām-s on the note “re”] gives us the resources to report these as “lost or rejected” rather than never-existent in Arab maqām music; see also Marcus 2002b: 40 regarding Mashāqa noting such a confusion in Syian maqām in the 1880s).
51
developed practical application of seyir in composition, suggest that the development of codified melodic progressions had a major effect on the creation of taksîm. (ibid.: 22)
While the latter part of the statement is no doubt true, the idea that the taksim genre is currently “essentially a vehicle for the expression of … seyir” (and modulation) may depend on the level of specificity an artist gives the definition of the term “seyir”; as we shall see in Chapter IV, many musicians perform taksim-s using an apparently simplified understanding of seyir such that it consists only of the information regarding whether a makam begins around its tonic, upper tonic, or dominant tone before traveling eventually to rest on the tonic—hardly enough information to fulfill Feldman’s expectations here. Compound makam-s (i.e., those with required internal modulations) necessarily have more complex melodic paths though they, too, may merely be assigned a single “melodic direction” in accord with this simple paradigm. Furthermore, taksim-s today may not necessarily involve any sort of modulation; if both seyir and modulation may be reduced to their minimal expression in today’s taksim-s, then what are we to make of Feldman’s assertion? Let us now take a closer look at the taksim genre and its performance contexts in the current classical Turkish music world, with an eye toward at least understanding the conditions under which we may evaluate the importance of such aspects as seyir and modulation to the genre.
I should make clear first that, while making good taksim-s is a highly valued skill and is in some sense a primary mark of musical competence, there are no musicians who
52
perform only taksim; the mainstay of performance, whether professional or amateur, consists of giving interpretations of a fairly fixed (if also quite broad) repertoire, usually presented heterophonically in group settings. Taksim-s made in public performances are generally short (lasting around 1-2 minutes) and occur either as an introduction to a piece of repertoire in the same makam (called a giriş [“entry”] taksim, or if played—always on a ney flute—to introduce a Mevlevi ayin, a baş [“head”] taksim (also around 1-2 minutes in length, though possibly longer). They may also be used to connect two pieces of pre-composed repertoire; if these pieces are in the same makam it is called an ara (“between”) taksim, but if the pieces are in different makam-s the taksim is a geçiş (“passing, modulation”) taksim.
In less formal concerts, especially those including arrangements of folk tunes (türkü, etc.), a mid-song, metered taksim (i.e., one accompanied by percussion and/or instrumentalists playing an ostinato pattern) might also be found, and here it is more likely than usual that more than one performer will give a taksim, one after the other (though generally not more than 3 persons total), before returning to the original piece. In the mid-twentieth century, artists such as Niyazi Sayın, Necdet Yaşar, and İhsan Özgen revived the müşterek (“cooperative, common”) taksim in which two or more performers “share” the taksim in turns between performers. A similar sort, the beraber (“together”) taksim, in which players perform simultaneously, was essentially another mid-twentieth-century experiment in counterpoint, but did not
53
catch on (İ. Özgen, p.c. 5/27/09).49 Standalone solo taksim-s, usually longer than the above-described ones but not often exceeding 10 minutes, are more often played in the private domain, i.e., amongst groups of musicians for each other’s enjoyment, and for students and invited aficionados (cf. Signell 2008: 13); such taksim-s may appear on performers’ commercial albums, but rarely in public performances.
As the voices of current performers will tell us in Chapter IV, the ability to make a fine taksim is the pride of every KTM instrumentalist, and the genre serves as a medium for showing off one’s own performance technique and makam knowledge, as well as for evaluating those characteristics in other performers. Although the art of making a taksim is not explicitly taught in either conservatory or the oral/aural pedagogies, every music student is expected to listen closely to many taksim-s by acknowledged masters (both live and on recordings), learning to analyze them “on the fly” and to memorize what they are able to in order to incorporate the techniques heard into their own taksim-s. But performers are also aware of what would seem to be a “feedback loop” between KTM audiences and the performance and recording venues for taksim-s that has gradually caused problems regarding taksim performance over the course of the twentieth century: perhaps beginning with the 3- to 3-and-ahalf-minute time limitation of the 78 rpm record, there has been a tendency for the programmers of radio shows (and later, television shows) as well as the organizers of public concerts to place ever increasing limits upon the duration of taksim
49
See also B. Aksoy 2004, in which he claims that Mesut Cemil Bey invented the beraber taksim.
54
performances, such that even the one or two minutes taksim-s mentioned above are sometimes cut to perhaps thirty seconds. In fact, if we include verbal introductions to pieces and suites, which often exceed introductory taksim-s in length, the position of the taksim in such venues is not even secondary to pre-composed repertoire, but tertiary to it. For the most part, players would prefer the freedom to play longer taksim-s if they feel it is appropriate in the moment, but as ud-ist Necati Çelik put it to me: [Today] the general listener [dinleyici; also “audience member”] thinks 3 minutes is long enough, four is a little long, five minutes is much too long. So it’s very important for me to try to get in as much as I can in three minutes. (P.c. 06/04/09) That is to say, audience members’ expectations are seen by performers to have been (adversely) shaped by their interactions with music through mass media and repertoire-oriented concert programming such that the aforementioned sort of tenminute-long taksim-s that performers may play for each other in private (or that may appear on a CD, given an indulgent record producer) is intolerably long. This longer length of taksim is thought by many performers once to have been the norm for taksim-s, or perhaps even an abbreviated length for them—indeed there is a traditional but now little performed sort of taksim, the fihrist (“index”) taksim that in length and number of modulations can be quite like the taksîm-i küllî mentioned in Cantemir.50 But although this foreshortening of the publicly played taksim is
50
See Çimenli 2005 in the Discography for several recorded examples of fihrist taksim-s. This type of taksim is characterized by a great many modulations, as though creating an “index” or “list” of makam-s, returning finally to the original makam. It differs from Cantemir’s taksîm-i küllî in that there
55
generally framed as a loss, it may not be the worst: there is a general sense among today’s performers that audiences have gradually also become less discerning about the details of makam knowledge over the last century. This is often said by performers to have resulted not only in a lessening of the audience’s ability to enjoy taksim-s—to know a good one from a bad or mediocre one—but to have led younger players to focus on spectacular playing techniques at the expense of all but a few popularly favored makam-s, and even of the subtler details of these, including more elaborate seyir-s and appropriate modulations. Overall, although taksim is still a vital genre, it is also for many performers the locus of several worrying ideas of loss in the classical Turkish music tradition (which is explored at length in Chapter IV).
This brings us to the conclusion of this chapter, which I would like to end by recalling the historical importance of taksim as a catalytic force acting upon the makam system as a whole, spurring in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a profusion of new makam-s, modulatory possibilities, and concomitantly complex repertoire. I would also like to draw a parallel between: 1) the ideas regarding seyir mentioned above in the context of a taksim that modulates through the whole makam system; and, 2) my earlier proposed conception of taksim performance as the praxis of Turkish makam theory. In Chapters V and VI we will be able to compare these early ideals of taksim with the praxis of the period between 1910 and 2010, but first we will examine in
is no attempt to play literally all the makam-s (which are much greater in number now than they were in 1700).
56
detail what music theorists have had to say during those hundred years about makam—though, as Feldman noted, they said very little about taksim (1993: 1).
57
CHAPTER III: ISSUES IN TURKISH MUSIC THEORY SINCE 1910 As mentioned in the Preface and in Chapter II, the “official,” written theory of classical Turkish music in the twentieth century has been a creative project ever beset by pressures to “modernize” in line with Western European models (see O’Connell 2008, Bayhan 2008, Tekelioğlu 2001, Ayangil 2008). I will not expand much on the politics of the struggle in this chapter, but while reviewing the content of the theory presented here, we must keep in mind that it was formulated in response not only to the history and state of the art (which a theory ideally might be), but also to these specific extra-musical pressures.1
One aspect of the advent of contemporary theory, however, must be remarked upon in this regard: that it was created—under government pressure—in order to provide a new pedagogy suitable to training in the newly instituted Western-style conservatory system, that is, effectively to replace the traditional oral/aural model of transmission known as meşk (here “practice, repetition”; see Chapter I, fn. 14; see also Behar 1998, Gill 2006).2 This change in educational venue meant that the information that
1
Cf. Marcus 1989a: 795-800 regarding descriptive, prescriptive and speculative aspects of (maqām) theory, and their application to Eastern Arab maqām theory of the twentieth century; cf. d’Erlanger 1949: 1. 2 The meşk system being, of course, the means by which all of the early twentieth-century theorists had learned makam music. See also Ayangil 2008: 402 and 416 on late nineteenth-century performers’ struggles to preserve meşk in the face of the spreading use of Western notation. Cf. Osman Zeki Üngör’s 1926 anti-meşk rant in Yarman (2007a: 145-7). See also Gill 2006: 76 and 81. See also Marcus 1989a: 123-157 and 790 on changes in both theory and pedagogy in early twentieth-century Egyptian music. In fact the whole issue might be re-framed in the context of a drive to make literacy— perforce of a Western-shaped sort—a tool by which to vanquish traditional oral/aural culture, a subject unfortunately beyond the scope of this study.
58
previously might have been learned in an apprenticeship lasting decades needed to be fit into a three-to-five-year, classroom-oriented curriculum. After the nationalismoriented criticisms of makam music given in the previous chapter, the most popular complaint about it seems to have been that makam theory was too complex for students to learn (see Tekelioğlu 2001: 100-103; cf. Marcus 1989a: 143-5 and 790). Obviously it had not been so difficult that the music was ever abandoned at any point over the previous centuries, but with the exigencies of the new pedagogy the music theorists of the early twentieth century strove for an unprecedented level of simplification and standardization. As we shall see, these are issues with which current theorists are still dealing,3 but let us first look at the creators of today’s normative music theory.
Wright notes a break regarding content and format in theory treatises by the end of the fifteenth century (Wright 2000: 10-11; see also Feldman 1996: 20-9). Previous to this they had mainly consisted of restatements or refinements of Ṣafīuddīn’s intervals, tetrachord structures, and modes described in alphabetic (properly “abjadic”—see below) notation; afterward these were abandoned in favor of repertoire collections (if often only of lyrics) and note-by-note prose descriptions of the melodic movements of the modes (Wright 2000: 10-11; see also Feldman 1996: 506 fn. 25, Yarman 2007b: 3
See especially Sarı in Bayhan 2008: 205-223, who seems to think the remedy has been worse than the ailment, and Ayangil 2008: 444-5 on problems yet to be solved, and 420 regarding simplification of the theory inherent in applying Western notation to Turkish music. See also Daloğlu in Bayhan 2008: 275-292, and Chapter IV on current performers’ ideas on the subject. Cf. Özkan 1984: 14 “There is no use in either simplifying or complicating the rules of an art to an excessive degree” (Bir sana’atın kurallarını aşırı derecede basitleştirmekte de, zorlaştırmakta da fayda yoktur).
59
44, Akdoğu 1989b, Ayangil 2008: 405; cf. Mashāqa in Ronzevalle 1899). Just before the twentieth-century theorists we will concentrate on, Haşim Bey’s 1852 Mecmu’ayı Kârha ve Nakşha ve Şarkiyyat (reprinted as Haşim Bey Mecmuası in 1864)—just the sort of song (lyrics) collection containing word-by-word descriptions of makam-s that Wright describes—appears to have been the most widely read theory-oriented text in the Ottoman music world (Akdoğu 1989b, see also Wright 1990: 237).4 Akdoğu here also notes that Haşim Bey included for the first time a comparison between Ottoman and Western “notes” (i.e., intonation systems), and writes that despite the text’s mistakes and misunderstandings regarding that subject, it filled a certain (rhetorical) need (see also Yarman 2007a: 7). Perhaps this is an early indication of the pressures upon Turkish musicians to formally define makam music in terms of Western standards; in any case it seems to have heralded an interest in redefining exactly those aspects of the music that Ṣafīuddīn’s “Systematist School” had emphasized between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries: interval sizes, tetrachordal entities, and descriptions of makam-s in musical notation (at this point, variations of European staff notation; see below, and Ayangil 2008 passim; see also Feldman 1996: 201, cf. Marcus 1989a: 790). These were the concerns of the theorists who laid out the fundaments of today’s music theory: Rauf Yekta Bey (1871-1935), Dr. Suphi Ezgi (1869-1962), and Hüseyin Sadettin Arel (1880-1955, with the assistance of physics professor Salih Murad Uzdilek, 1891-1967), as well as the less 4
Though see Ayangil 2008: 402, and Uslu (no date) regarding the blossoming of late nineteenth/early twentieth-century “educational guides devoted to teaching makam theory and solmisation.” Yekta noted that before his first publication (in 1898) “musical literature did not exist to speak of” (1922 [1913]: 2982). Note that Feldman asserts that Haşim Bey “…plagiarized much of [Cantemir’s] treatise” for the 1864 work (1996: 32).
60
influential Abdülkadir Töre (1873-1946) by way of his student Ekrem Karadeniz (1904-1981). We will approach their contributions—and afterward, current theorists’ revisions of them—thematically according to these aspects of theory.
INTERVALS
Excepting the break mentioned above, one of the most persistent features of music theory treatises, whether in the eighth century or the twenty-first, has been the attempt to fix the tones that the makam system uses, and to explain and justify their relationships—their “intervals”—in a logical form. The reason for continually renewing this endeavor is another persistent aspect of makam music: the fact that the majority of actual performers in any given period seem never to have accepted the theorists’ interval designations literally as a delimiting factor of their total note choices (see Sawa 1989, cf. Sayan, Sarı, and Yener in Bayhan 2008, Marcus 1989a: 161-240 and 1993a). In fact it appears as though historically it was simply understood that music theory, as a branch of knowledge informed by philosophy and mathematics, existed in a domain of the ideal (which often allowed music treatises to include speculations about astrology, cosmology, ethics, medicine, etc.; see Ertan 2007: 34-5; Crickmore 2009b: 53; Marcus 1989a: 797), while the note choices of actual musicians existed in another, more practical domain, one that tolerated a great deal of variation and idiosyncrasy. From time to time the divergence between them would come under critique, and when it grew great (and there being no practical way
61
to enforce musicians’ conformity to theory) a theorist would arise to adjust the theory somewhat in order to justify (or perhaps hoping to rectify) performance practice (see Sawa 1989, Tura 1988, Öztürk in Bayhan 2008: 89-138).5
It may be seen as within a continuation of this trend that composer, ney and tanbur player, and musicologist Rauf Yekta explained the tones and intervals of classical Turkish music in his entry on Turkish music for Lavignac’s 1922 Encyclopédie de la musique et dictionnaire du Conservatoire.6 Initially writing against the assertion of Belgian (comparative) musicologist François-Joseph Fétis that Turkish music— supposedly like Persian music—utilized a 17-tone scale (and also against unnamed critics in Turkey asserting that the music used the Arab 24-tone equal temperament),7 5
In this dialogue it is not always easy to tell who is positioning himself as primarily a theorist and who as primarily a performer (though many were both): compare (ninth-century) al-Fārābī, “Those things that a theorist has put forward, if they should clash with the practices and applications of performers and musicians, are wrong; these theorists are in error, and are not performers” (in Tura 1988: 74) with (seventeenth-century) Cantemir’s contempt for the too-practical “theorists” of his day (see Wright 2000: 12), with (twenty-first-century) Ayangil on unreconciled versions of intervals being at the root of the issues vexing the adoption of Western notation (2008: 414). 6 Originally written (in French) in 1913; Akdoğu (1989b) notes that it was translated into Ottoman in 1924, unfortunately just before the Republican alphabet and language reforms, and that as a result of its linguistic inaccessibility it was never widely read in Turkey. Yekta’s influence came mainly as a result of his work as the head of the Committee of Establishment and Classification (Tesbît ve Tasnîf Kurulu) of the Dâr’ülelhân (and later of the İstanbul Belediyesi Konservatuvarı), overseeing scientific research and publishing from 1926 until his death in 1935 (Ayangil 2008: 422-4, Yarman 2007a: 15, Feldman 1996: 220). 7 It would seem that Yekta—who at some point had apparently translated Ṣafīuddīn’s two major works (see Öztuna in Arel 1991 [1943-48]: VII)—had misunderstood Ṣafīuddīn’s 17-tone division of the octave (see Yarman 2007a: 44-7); Yekta attributes the notion of 17 tones to a misreading of a diagram on the part of European theorists (Yekta 1922 [1913]: 2972). As for the charges regarding the “Arab 24-tone Equal Temperament,” these critics made such assertions from an ideological standpoint in opposition to KTM generally (see Yarman 2007a: 14, and in Bayhan 2008: 142); it is not clear that 24tET was at that time the standard in the Arab music world: compare Mashāqa (in Ronzevalle 1899) with Marcus 1993a and 1989a: 161-240 and 820-31. Note that Yekta did not explicate the entire 17tone scale described by Fétis (against which he was arguing, above), but Rouanet (also in Lavignac 1922, see pp. 2715 and 2739) described it as “15 one-third-tones and two demi-tones,” i.e., five whole tones that are each divided into three equal parts, and another whole tone divided equally into two
62
Yekta laid out the system as a 24-tone, unequal, untempered scale that had been used by all European and “Oriental” musics since ancient times and was first theorized by Pythagoras in the sixth century BCE. He asserted that the music theory was based on this Pythagorean tuning using the reference pitch yegâh (D),8 however he also noted—and described his understanding of the system in terms of—alternative, nonPythagorean “approximate values” for certain basic interval sizes,9 stating that “oriental theorists” accept these simpler ratios in favor of the “actual” (“juste”) Pythagorean ones. This would leave the impression that while claiming an “actual” connection to Pythagorean theory, Turkish music theorists generally understood a system that is effectively a just intonation with at least a “limit of 5” (apparently by schismatic substitution; see Yekta 1922: 2947-50, Wright 1990: 233).10 Yekta further
parts. Yekta however, presumed Fétis was referring (erroneously) to a system with “commas” (1922 [1913]: 2949 fn. 1), in which the interval “sol to la” had 9 commas and “la to si” had 7. 8 According to Yarman (2007a: 34), Yekta’s version was derived by a variant of the Pythagorean method, measuring out 9 perfect fifths upward and 14 downward from the reference tone yegâh (D). 9 E.g., 10:9 instead of 65536:59049 and 16:15 instead of 2187:2048 (1922 [1913]: 2949), and 5:4 instead of 8561:8192 (ibid.: 2962). 10 (See Glossary for an explanation of just intonation—“limit” here means the highest prime number by which either factor in a ratio of vibration may be divided.) Yekta never employs the terms “just intonation” (“intonation [/gamme] naturelle” in French) or “schismatic substitution”—in fact we must caution the reader that he uses the term “juste” several times to indicate “actual,” that is, Pythagorean, intervals, in opposition to those we recognize as “just” in this sense. Yekta gives (and excuses) these just intonation alternatives several times in this work; a clear example appears on page 2948, fn 3: “Je tiens à rappeler pour le moment à mes lecteurs que les théoriciens orientaux ont accepté les valeur 9/10 et 15/16 comme valeurs approximatives du ton mineur et du demi-ton majeur: pour leurs valeurs réelles, ils ont désigné les valeurs 59049/65536 et 2048/2187.” See a similar statement regarding the “major 3rd” on p. 2962, and a chart of all the (5-limit just intonation) tones for KTM with which he ends his article on p. 3064, stating “J’ai dû mettre de coté, provisoirement, le system basé sur la conservation des intervalles justes [i.e., Pythagorean].” See also Yarman 2007a: 34 (on Yekta’s scale; cf. Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 69), 44-5 (on Ṣafīuddīn’s scale), and 15 fn. ii, from which: “It is understood that, Yekta gained the rudiments on maqam theory – which would later lead to his systematization of the 24-tone tuning – from the Sheiks of Bahariye, Galata and Yenikapı Mevlevihanes: Hüseyin Fahrettin Dede Effendi, Ataullah Dede Effendi, and Celâlettin Dede Effendi respectively, who, we are told, were themselves excelling musicians of Turkish Maqam Music” (see also Akdoğu in Arel 1991 [1943-48]: X).
63
asserted that this system was refined by the (“Turkish”) music theorist Farabi (i.e., alFārābī, 872-950 CE), and was adamant that the system was in no way an equal temperament (“En premier lieu, j’ai senti l’obligation de rejeter la gamme dite à tempérament égal…” Yekta 1922: 3064), and therefore argued against the division of a whole step into 9 (equal) commas, which inexplicably and without citation he attributed to practicing European musicians (ibid.: 2964).11 (Despite this, the division of a whole tone into 9 equal commas would become, through the later Arel camp, normative in KTM, as it is today.) Yekta gained support for his interpretation of the intervals in KTM from the imperial physicist Salih Zeki Bey (ibid.: 2983-4).
The personal and professional relationships between Rauf Yekta, Suphi Ezgi and Sadettin Arel seem to have been complex;12 certainly they knew each other and each other’s works well, worked together at the Dâr’ülelhân and its successor institution the İstanbul Konservatuvarı (which would be called the İstanbul Belediyesi Konservatuvarı from 1944), and agreed broadly on the goal of coming up with a new
11
Yekta later gives an 1885 quote from C. Saint-Saëns: “Nous calculons et connaissons les commas ou neuvièmes de ton, mais nous ne les utilisons pas; les demi-tons suffisent à notre organization” (p. 2970); the question remains—whence did Saint-Saëns get the idea? 12 Most of what is written concentrates on their differences and disagreements, though Kutluğ describes them in passing as “close friends” (yakın arkadaşlar; 2000: 436). Yekta thanks his “friend… H. Saadeddin” in his Lavignac article (1922 [1913]: 2995 fn. 2). Akdoğu (1989b and in Arel 1991 [1943-48]: XI) have Arel publishing first (in 1910, though without much acceptance), later joining the senior Ezgi and Yekta, who themselves soon split over disagreements about makam structure and the base scale (see below), Ezgi becoming a follower of the younger Arel. Other writers (e.g., Ayangil 2008, Yarman 2007a) see Yekta as ever primary, with the (unequal) Arel-Ezgi partnership deriving its main ideas from Yekta but unable to spread their “reformulated (to refrain from saying ‘plagiarized’)” version (as Yarman would have it, 2007a: 16, see also Yavuzoğlu in Bayhan 2008: 161-182) until after Yekta’s death in 1935. Having read the theory texts of all three men I must say I am unable to distinguish what exactly Dr. Ezgi’s unique contributions may have been, whereas those by Yekta and Arel are clear, as presented here.
64
theory, and of saving classical Turkish music from its institutionalized opposition, but there were also disagreements between them regarding intervals and other aspects of music theory. Arel (supported by Ezgi, and later also by the physics professor Salih Murad Uzdilek, who measured intervals and calculated their ratios for the project) proposed and propagated a system that, despite his defense of it as not at all derived from the ancient Greeks, consists of 24 purely Pythagorean intervals, derived from 12 perfect fourths and 11 perfect fifths upward from a reference pitch (kaba çargâh, written C, sounding the G below) (Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 40-1).13 While Arel did not mention the issue of equal temperament in KTM, by advocating the ratio of 81:80 as the (“practical”) size of the comma (as opposed to the “Pythagorean” comma, ibid.: 9 and see footnote) he implicitly prepared future theory to accept the division of the whole step into nine equal (Holdrian) commas,14 indicating an equal temperament with 53 commas to the octave, which, though an inexact fit with the Pythagorean
13
NB: Yarman (2007a: 33) characterizes this scale material as derived from 11 perfect fifths upward and 12 downward. 14 The idea of a (musical) “comma” comes originally from Pythagorean theory, but rather than Pythagoras’ comma of 23.46 cents (i.e., 23.46% of a tempered half-step), here the Holdrian comma (Holder koması) of 22.64 cents is used (1200 cents ÷ 53 commas); this is understood as an approximation of the 81:80 “syntonic comma” of 21.5 cents; see Yarman 2007b: 58, Özkan 1984, cf. Yavuzoğlu no date. William Holder was a seventeenth-century English music theorist who wrote on 53-tone equal temperament and devised this special “comma” to denote one step in 53-tET. I have heard this unit, and the term “Holder koması” used amongst Turkish theorists and theory teachers, but I do not recall seeing it used in a theory text (other than a research paper, e.g., in Gedik, Bozkurt and Savacı 2008). Note that Arel does not use the comma as a unit of measurement except to designate the size of a single interval (koma or fazla), i.e., he does not say that the interval called “bakiyye” is “4 commas wide,” etc., though all his given intervals are so measurable. Also note that Arel is using 81:80 as a practical compromise; he gives the “true” (i.e., “Pythagorean”) comma size as 531441/524288 (1991 [1943-48]: 9); note also that the implicit substitution of the Holdrian comma for the syntonic comma is a further compromise, one that I have not seen appearing in theory texts before Özkan 1984 (and there only implicitly, see pp. 36-7 and 56).
65
intervals chosen, are apparently deemed close enough (see Yarman 2007a: 37-8).15 Arel’s interpretation of the 24 tones and their intonation values became a cornerstone of today’s standard theory,16 and probably due to his success as a pedagogue in this embattled field his theory started to become widespread after Yekta’s death in 1935, becoming the standard perhaps by the mid-1940s. Challenges to his system were few, largely unsuccessful, and often expressed only privately.17
But in terms of common practice, Arel’s system was a gross simplification (or an idealized representation) of the total tonal repertoire in use, and recently the system’s inadequacies have become the subject of debate in a more public forum. In March of 2008 the Turkish Music State Conservatory at Istanbul Technical University (the country’s premier school for KTM) hosted an international congress with the aim of rectifying the disparities between theory and practice, and whose proceedings have been published (in both Turkish and English) as Türk Müziğinde Uygulama-Kuram Sorunları ve Çözümleri—Problems and Solutions for Practice and Theory in Turkish 15
Curiously there seems to be a downplaying of the fact that the system is an equal temperament; I could not find the term in Arel’s main publication (1991 [1943-48]) or in Ezgi’s (1935-53), and in Özkan’s 1984 popular-if-flawed (see Akdoğu 1989b, cf. Yavuzoğlu in Bayhan 2008) Arel-based theory text, the author presents the system as in opposition to the (Western) “tempered system,” without explicitly mentioning that they are both equal temperaments (pp. 65-7). Özkan seemed to be understanding “equal temperament” as meaning that all possible equally-sized intervals must be shown for the system to be in an equal temperament; it is as though the black keys of the piano did not exist, yet theorists were not ready to recognize that the white keys are still tempered in 12-tET (because there are not 12 of them, equally distanced). Yarman notes that, due to the ubiquitous use of imported Western tuning devices among kanun makers in Turkey, there is in effect also a 72-tET system in use, if only for that instrument (2007a: 2 and in Bayhan 2008: 145). 16 The theory is usually referred to as either the Arel or Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek (A-E-U) system; Yarman, insisting on giving Yekta his due, calls it the “Yekta-Arel-Ezgi school” (2007a: 41). I will refer to it below mainly as “Arelian theory.” 17 See Wright 1990: 224-5; cf. criticisms of Arel in Tura 1988: 58, 119-57, and below. See also Gedik et al. 2008: 3.
66
Music (herein referred to as “Bayhan 2008”). Although the title implies a balance between the two aspects, only one participant (M. Ayhan Zeren, pp. 21-46) explicitly advocates that performers be prepared to change anything in their performance (interval choices, though in response to an as yet undeveloped theory). The other twelve presentations are concerned mainly with description rather than prescription (or at least presume that their proposed remedies accurately reflect actual practice), that is, they seek to change the theory in response to current performance practices. The theory to be changed, of course, is the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek system, and the introductory remarks by Berköz (pp. 15-17) make clear that rectifying its inadequacies is the main reason for holding the congress. Of the thirteen papers presented, ten of them address the intonation issue—that is, the choice of tones and intervals—directly.
Before presenting their critiques and solutions, I must point out a rhetorical problem in Turkish musical terminology: there are several words for “tone” or “pitch” that are often used interchangeably but which have different semantic implications. Ton or (more often) ses (literally “tone” and “sound” or “voice,” respectively) refer to specific frequency of sound; perde (“fret” or “position”) refers literally to a position on an instrument but metonymically for the name of a tone or position, whose pitch may vary. Unlike Western music’s 12 pitches whose “names” run through the alphabet from A through G, repeating at the octave, each of the accepted 24-peroctave tones/perde-s of KTM (as well as others used but left out of Arel’s theory) has
67
a traditional name, which changes in each octave (see Appendix F). The crux of the intonation issue is that in practice (both traditionally and currently) certain “perde-s” represent fixed pitches while others refer to any pitch within a certain range between nearest fixed ones.
Let us take the perde named segâh as an example: in the makam Rast, the tonic tone rast is a perde with a fixed pitch represented as G, and its third degree is segâh, a perde represented as B one-comma-flat (Bq). Now, whatever fixed pitch is assigned segâh by theory,18 even within the makam Rast the “perde” segâh may at times be played slightly flatter, and it is understood by all makam performers and theorists alike that in the makam Beyati segâh (now serving as the second degree) is flatter than in Rast, and that in the makam Uşşak it is played even lower, and lower still in descending passages, and yet the name of the perde remains segâh and—whatever its frequency—is still represented as Bq in the A-E-U system. There are several such tones, some (as mentioned previously) named as perde-s by performers but ignored by Arel’s theory.19 The implication can be quite serious: Signell mentions that wide discrepancies in the interpretations of one of these unrecognized perde-s, “saba,”
18
I am refraining here from supplying frequency ratios for the following tones as even “official” ones are bound to be contentious (and I, like most performers, gained my sense of intonation from years of playing and listening rather than years of measuring and calculating); Yarman has both Arel’s and Yekta’s segâh as the Pythagorean 8192:6561 from rast (2007a: 30-40), but understanding that Yekta accepted it in practice as (the slightly flatter) 5:4. For other variants of segâh (and other perde-s) in ratio form see Yarman 2007a, Akkoç 2002 and 2008, Karaosmanoğlu 2004. See also Feldman 1996: 206-17 regarding the historic instability of the named tones (with special attention on segâh) in makam music. 19 In fact some performers call the “lowered segâh” tone “uşşak” (see Chapter IV and Appendix F), which name does not appear in the theory.
68
seem to have been the reason for the Istanbul Municipality Conservatory Performance Ensemble’s discontinuation of all repertoire in the makam Saba (2008 [1973]: 45, cf. Wright 1990: 232 fn. 37).
In the ten papers presented in Bayhan 2008 that address the intonation issue, the following solutions or comments were offered: •
M. Ayhan Zeren, Selçuk University (pp. 21-46) o a new theory based on the “scientific investigation” of the intervals must be made
but it may leave in currently used notes “that no-one is disturbed by”
o the theory cannot be based on the performances of a few past masters o performers must change their intonation to fit this theory •
Can Akkoç, Institute of Applied Mathematics, ODTÜ Ankara (pp. 47-54) o the theory should be based on the performances of a few past masters o some perde-s should be understood as “pitch clusters” rather than discrete pitches
complains that Western ideals (inherent in Arel’s theory) impose a “particle” idea on “wave” phenomenon
•
Ruhi Ayangil, Yıldız University (pp. 55-69) o proposes a 16-tone per octave system based on the late-nineteenthcentury notation of Emin Efendi
69
o fix all musical instruments so that they all produce the same pitches •
Erol Sayan İTÜ/TMDK (pp. 71-88) o there should not be any indefinite pitches
but there can be 3-comma-wide “glissando zones”
24 tones is unacceptable •
he notes that performers and teachers actually use whatever they like rather than Arel’s theory: 53 tones, 41 tones, 36 tones, 30 tones, 18 tones…
•
recommends his own system of “30 sounds [tones] and 29 non-equal gaps [intervals]”
•
Okan Murat Öztürk, 19 Mayıs Ü. Devlet Konservatuvarı (pp. 89-138) o however it is worked out, the theory should unify classical and folk systems [which currently differ, see Markoff 2002]
•
Ozan Yarman, İTÜ TMDK (doctoral student) (pp. 139-160) o presents his own 79 tones to use out of a 159-tone Equal Temperament system (NB: 159-tET being three times the resolution of 53-tET)
•
Nail Yavuzoğlu, İTÜ TMDK (pp. 161-182) o divide the semi-tone into 8 equal parts rather than 9
•
Ayhan Sarı, Fine Arts General Directorate, Ministry of Culture and Tourism (pp. 205-223) o unify classical and folk systems
70
o theorists like the sound of their own voices shouting “Eureka!” while performers move on beyond the concerns of the theorists
therefore it does not matter how or whether the theory is revised
•
Sabri Yener, Erciyes & Ordu Universities (pp. 250-274) o the current 53-tET theory is fine because performers will do whatever they do whether or not it conforms to a theory
•
Yavuz Daloğlu, 9 Eylül State Conservatory (pp. 275-292) o (his main issue lies elsewhere, but notes that “53 tones or 79 has nothing to do with the tradition”)
At least in terms of the issue of intonation, this dizzying array of approaches to “correcting” the “deficiencies” of Arel’s theory shows varying degrees of responsiveness to performers’ understandings and practices: Ayangil, Sayan, Yarman and Yavuzoğlu each present their own abstract systems having no clear reference to performers’ praxis or preferences while Zeren’s is principally abstract but he is willing to add to his system a few pitches desired by performers even if they do not fit the mathematics of his model; Akkoç on the other hand is wholly responsive to performers’ concerns, while Öztürk, Sarı, Yener, and Daloğlu seem non-committal as to the source of a solution, voicing other conditions and concerns. The only clear consensus is that there is something missing in the Arelian presentation of the tones in use, and even that is not a problem for Sarı or Yener, who claim that performers do
71
what they do regardless of the details of a theory, so there is no need for a reform.
The congress (and the text) ends with a list of six resolutions (see below), rather vaguely worded, two of which seem to bear on the intonation issue: 1) “After evaluating the tone system models produced as directly related to the theme of the congress in wider platforms, reflection of them onto education and applications in our art institutions”20 (which I take to mean “we need to define the intervals and teach them uniformly”) and 6) “Considering the solutions of problems in an integrating approach that encompasses the common principles of Turkish music”21 (which I take to mean constructing a theory that can represent classical, folk, and other Turkish makam musics in one go).22
Whether or not their resolutions are put in place, the fact that such a congress was held at all is revealing: it shows that music theorists are engaged with, and at least in part responsive to, current performance practices rather than simply buttressing a loyalty to Arel’s theory, or to theory per se. Yet we must see the congress and its publication as representing a particular subject position within the Turkish music world; the congress is also an attempt to maintain the relevance of an institutionalized 20
Their translation of, “Bu kongrenin teması ile doğrudan ilintili olarak üretilmiş olan ses sistemi modellerinin daha geniş platformlarda değerlendirilerek öğretime ve sanat kurumlarımızdaki uygulamalara yansıtılması.” (See below for a list of all six resolutions.) 21 Their translation of, “Sorunların çözümüne Türk müziğinin ortak ilkelerini kapsayan bütüncül bir yaklaşımla bakılması olarak belirleniştir.” 22 To readers interested in current research on KTM intonation issues I would recommend Yarman 2007a, Akkoç 2002 and 2008, Karaosmanoğlu 2004, and works by Gedik, Bozkurt, and Savacı (whose 2008 paper see in the Bibliography).
72
pedagogy that on the one hand was at the forefront of the battle to save the music from the early Republic’s Westernizing zeal, and on the other hand achieved success by being absorbed by the state education apparatus on the basis of Arel’s simplified and Westernized theory. But implicitly the congress—and especially Sarı and Yener, the two authors who say that specific reforms of the intervals do not matter since performers continue their idiosyncratic practices as they choose—are inverting the “makam music is too difficult” argument noted at the beginning of this chapter; a hundred years later it turns out to be the “simplified” theory that has proved too difficult, while the knowledge embedded in performances practices, in all their varied complexity, have remained, apparently sustained through the meşk practices that conservatory education was expected to replace.23 It must be noted (before we move along to the promised alternatives to Arel, then onward to issues of makam structure and notation), that despite claims from within the conservatory that meşk is dead (see Chapter IV, and Gill 2006), private study with an acknowledged master outside the conservatory system (that is, engagement in a kind of “meşk”) was instituted as a required part of conservatory education in the late 1990s.24
23
See Ayangil in Bayhan 2008: 59, “Most musicians who are practicing today, are not trained in school…” Presumably they are learning through [faulty?] meşk practices. (I do not know that this is true, especially in the KTM world, but that he should think so seems to reveal an institutional defensiveness.) To be fair, it may not be that the Arel system per se is “too difficult,” but that students are expected to learn it in addition to all they would have learned anyway—much of it contradictory to Arel—had a new theory never been invented. 24 I have not been able to confirm the official reason for this requirement, but I have heard as rumor that it was added because graduating students were being criticized—and denied professional opportunities—by senior musicians because they were perceived as not having learned the “real” details of the music. See also Gill 2006: 77; see also Yavuzoğlu in Bayhan 2008: 179 regarding meşk being alive and working well.
73
Aside from those mentioned above in Bayhan, only one other intonation system has garnered any significant attention during the twentieth century: that of Abdülkadir Töre (1873-1946) as refined and presented by his student Ekrem Karadeniz (19041981).25 Like all the modern-era theories mentioned, it is posited by its author as being the true representation of the music as practiced, and consistent with the tradition.26 In order to elucidate this theory Karadeniz created a system of “Turkish cents,” a parallelism to Alexander Ellis’ measurement of intervals by “cents,” but rather than the 100¢-per (tempered) half-tone/1,200¢-per octave gradation of Ellis, Karadeniz divided an octave into 10,600 “Turkish cents,”27 and then presented the intervals taught him by Töre as measured (or rather parsed—there seems to have been no actual measurement) in their terms. There are 7 sizes of interval (as there are in Arel’s system; see Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 3-16, and Appendix F below), 5 of which are the same size and have the same names as Arel’s,28 and though this system can be mapped onto 53-tone equal temperament conception of the comma (if we include the “half-comma” as a unit of measurement), it differs also in choosing 41 tones per 25
Akdoğu, Ayangil, and Yarman all note that Gültekin Oransay (1930-1989) also recommended a 29tone system without developing or promoting it fully (see Akdoğu in Arel 1991 [1943-48]: XII, Ayangil 2008: 436-7, Yarman 2007a: 75-8); also, Yavuz Yektay, music theorist and grandson of Rauf Yekta, has attempted to revive the Yekta system (with some revision), as yet without much success (p.c. 2/16/09; see also Yektay 2009). Certain other post-Arel tonal arrangements are properly notation systems rather than intonational ones; see Ayangil 2008: 429-34, and below. 26 John Morgan O’Connell notes that Töre had earlier in the century published a violin method in which his system is not exactly that represented by Karadeniz (p.c. 2/26/2010), but I was unable to obtain a copy of this document to make a comparison. 27 200 cents per Holdrian comma x 53 commas per octave = 10,600 cents. 28 Arel’s system includes intervals for an augmented second (of 12-14 commas) and a 3-comma “eksik bakiye” (which nonetheless has no sign), which are absent in Töre-Karadeniz (see Arel 1991 [194348]: 3-16, Karadeniz 1983: 10, and Appendix F below). Conversely Töre-Karadeniz adds two intervals not found in Arel; one of 1.5 commas (irhâ) and one of 2.5 commas (sagîr) (see Karadeniz 1983: 10, Ayangil 2008: 433-7, cf. Yarman 2007a: 78-85).
74
octave from a 106-tone equal temperament (i.e., twice as fine a resolution as 53-tET, having 106 “half-[Holdrian-]commas” of 100 “Turkish cents” each).29 The TöreKaradeniz system also has several parallels with Yekta’s (see below), one of which is intervals implicitly in just intonation (with a “limit” of 31 rather than Yekta’s 5—note that neither of them used the term “just intonation”), and where Yekta qualified them as being merely a matter of practice (i.e., he preferred to explain theory in terms of Pythagorean intervals, see Wright 1990: 233) Karadeniz makes them normative.30 The Töre-Karadeniz system appears whole only in a single book, Türk Mûsikîsinin Nazariye ve Esasları (“Turkish Music’s Theory and Essentials”), begun by Karadeniz in 1965 but published posthumously in 1983. Yarman calls it “…the most comprehensive system for Turkish Maqam Music thus far encountered” (that is, before his own; see 2007a: 82), and Ayangil describes it glowingly before asserting that it “found favour in the twentieth century” (2008: 433).31 Before giving my impression of the favor it found, I should say that Karadeniz’s accomplishment in this
29
Note that Karadeniz’s smallest single interval is the koma; there is none named for a “half-comma” per se (see Karadeniz 1983: 10, Ayangil 2008: 434). 30 Karadeniz gave only the sizes of his 7 intervals in terms of ratios, which indicate a 31-limit just intonation system (31-limit meaning that the ratios’ numbers contain no prime-number factors larger than 31) (see Karadeniz 1983: 10). Scott Marcus notes that this system would seem to be at odds with the cent-oriented paradigm also given—they would appear to be two separate “explanations” of what Karadeniz presents as the same intervallic material (p.c. Jan. 2011). It should be noted that “Pythagorean tuning,” a term often thought of as being in opposition to just intonation, is itself a 3limit just intonation (Scott Marcus, p.c.). Oddly, Karadeniz “explains” the relationship of Western and Turkish intervals as though the former were a just intonation rather than 12-tone equal temperament (1983: 10), as had Yekta, regarding European monophonic (but not polyphonic) music (1922 [1913]: passim, e.g., 2966); see also Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 69. To be clear, normative Western classical music has used a theory explained as exclusively in 12-tone equal temperament for around a century, and as in a variety of other temperaments—to the exclusion of a whole-system just intonation—during the previous four centuries (see Jorgensen 1991). 31 See also M. Bardakçı’s forward to Karadeniz 1983: “…the last and true heir of the Systematist School” and, “…the best theory of our time.”
75
regard is all the more remarkable for his never having been either a professional musician or an academic; in 1944, after being blinded in an car accident while working in the countryside as a lawyer for the state tobacco monopoly, Karadeniz became a bookseller in Istanbul’s Beyazit Sahaflar (a traditional bookseller’s market), and learned music in his off hours as a dedicated amateur by way of a long meşk apprenticeship with Töre (with whom he had begun studying in 1933). The book evidently had a single, small print run, being out of print since 1983.32 But despite its rarity many of the musicians I know—and, touchingly, a great many of the booksellers I met—have at least perused a copy, and regard Karadeniz very highly, though I met no-one who actually applies his theory to their practice or understanding of the music.
Yarman (2007a: 82-5) and Ayangil (2008: 436) give various problems with the TöreKaradeniz theory to explain its lack of success (mostly regarding issues of notation and transposition), but these seem no worse than those attending Arel’s theory, and one cannot help wondering whether, given better timing and institutional connections, Karadeniz’s system (or as he always insisted, Töre’s system—see Karadeniz 1983: VI-XIV) might have become the normative theory for classical Turkish music.33
32
It took me 7 months of searching to find a copy for sale, and there was none to be had in Istanbul; finally a copy was found and sent to me from a rare book dealer in Izmir. But I saw copies on the bookshelves of several performers, and in the library of the Nasuhi Mehmet Efendi Dergâhı (a Sufi “tekke” where weekly rehearsals of Mevlevi ayin-s are held; see DVD 5/50 and 8/77). 33 Perhaps particularly since Abdülkadir Töre came to Istanbul originally from “Kaşgar, Turkistan” (today in China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region), a point that could have been employed favorably in the Turkish ethno-nationalist arguments mentioned in Chapter II.
76
MAKAM STRUCTURE, CLASSIFICATION, AND “CİNS”: TRICHORDS, TETRACHORDS, PENTACHORDS, AND OCTAVE SCALES IN KTM THEORY
Since al-Fārābī (d. 950 CE) wrote his Kitāb al-Mūsīqī al-Kabīr (“The Great Book of Music”) theorists of (proto-)maqām musics have employed ancient Greek terminology in their analyses (see Farmer 1978 (1930): 62-71), often including the concept of the tetrachord, a delineation of intervals appearing within the span of a perfect fourth. The structures of modal entities (shudud/maqāmāt/shu`ab/terkib, etc.) were traditionally described in terms of combinations of tetrachords (Turkish cins, from Arabic jins, from Greek γένος), but in Turkey by the early twentieth century the idea that the core scalar material of makam-s was composed of combinations of tetrachords (dörtlü-s) and pentachords (beşli-s, a delineation of intervals appearing within the span of a perfect fifth—both being “cins”) became prevalent.34 Despite the fact that many makam-s do not repeat at the octave (i.e., they use tetrachords and pentachords above and below the central 7-tone “scale” whose cins-es differ from those in this core “scale”), Arel and Ezgi insisted on a level of 34
See Feldman 1996: 220. The earliest reference I have seen to pentachords in Turkish music is in Yekta 1922 (1913); though he claims therein that the ancient Greeks used them (p. 2995) it is unclear whether or not he actually originated them himself, at least as applied to KTM. Shiloah implies that they had once been in use even earlier than the thirteenth century, when Ṣafīuddīn employed them (1981: 31; see also Shiloah 1981: 33, and Wright 1978). The modern Turkish description of makam constructions in terms of one tetrachord and one pentachord seems to be at least partly a refinement of the conception of the scalar aspect of a makam as an octave scale (see Akdoğu 1989b). Traditionally (and in modern Arab maqām theory, see Marcus 1989a: 271-316 [especially 275-80]) this was expressed instead by describing two tetrachords plus a whole tone, which could appear between the cins-es (making the tetrachords “disjunct”) or above the higher one (making them “conjunct,” i.e., the highest tone of the lower tetrachord is also the lowest tone of the upper tetrachord); the combination of one tetrachord and one pentachord (in either order) spans an octave on its own, obviating that distinction (or rather, they are all “conjunct,” without needing an extra whole tone to reach the upper octave; see Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 66).
77
simplification in which they portrayed non-compound makam-s as octave-bound entities consisting only of one tetrachord and one pentachord (see Arel 1991 [194348]: 17-24, Ezgi 1933: 32-48, Akdoğu 1989b, Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 66; cf. Marcus 1989a: 512-537 regarding non-repetition at the octave in Eastern Arab maqām)—not that melodies could not exceed an octave’s range,35 but that no cins-es other than these two were needed to define a makam’s melodic material, regardless of octave. Yekta disagreed with them, asserting that makam-s often need a tetrachord or pentachord differing in quality from the two found in the central octave to appear above or below that central octave. As explained in a quote from Yekta in Akdoğu 1989b where the latter is making Yekta’s position on this point clear: Among the Turks even though the majority of makam-s [are established on] an interval of a fourth equivalent to a tetrachord AS THEY ARE very often ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISHED, they are also established on an interval of a fifth equivalent to a pentachord [i.e., the lower cins of a makam’s central octave may either be a tetrachord or a pentachord]. In practice merely this fourth and fifth have not been SATISFACTORY and,36 with the purpose of adorning the melody, have been completed/complemented, according to the octave [i.e., differing in different octaves] and the situation, by adding a [new] fifth or a 35
As mentioned in Chapter II, Ezgi and Yekta themselves transcribed nearly the entirety of the known classical and Mevlevi repertoire of their time, which transcriptions are still in use; it cannot have escaped their attention that the range of an octave if often exceeded in performance. 36 There appears to be a leap of logic here that is belied by both source texts (i.e., Yekta 1922 [1913] and Akdoğu 1989b): in this context “this [mere] fourth and fifth” that have “not been satisfactory” can only refer to the normative “tetrachord + pentachord” or “pentachord + tetrachord conjunctions” from which the central octave material of makam-s are constructed, as he (and Arel and Ezgi) understood it. It is as though there were missing from this quote a sentence explaining this. It is clear from Yekta’s presentation of historical makam constructions and of the makam-s he himself presented in 1922 (1913) that he did not believe there was a time when makam-s consisted of a single tetrachord or pentachord, or that it was possible to construct makam-s merely from two tetrachords or two pentachords (these being the implications of the literal quote). The context in which Akdoğu presented the above quote also clearly presumes that a qualitative expansion above and/or below the Arelian “tetrachord + pentachord” or “pentachord + tetrachord” construction is what Yekta meant by this quote. It is also clear that when he subsequently says, “by adding a [new] fourth or a fifth,” he means adding a different cins than one would expect by merely repeating a “scale” at its octaves—otherwise (since there was no potential reader of this quote who would not be familiar with repertoire that surpassed an octave’s range) there is no reason to make the point.
78
fourth. In this way every makam in Turkish Music finds itself in a form having the addition of a tetrachord or pentachord. (Akdoğu 1989b)37 Apparently this was one of the three major issues over which Yekta split from Arel and Ezgi (ibid.; the other two issues are treated below). Presumably part of Arel’s choosing this representation of makam-s (which became a normative aspect of KTM theory) was the aforementioned strategy of simplifying music theory and causing it to appear parallel to Western music theory. Both Karadeniz and Kutluğ (also giving no reason) went even further and dispensed with cins-es altogether, assigning each makam its own octave scale identity (Karadeniz 1983: 64-155; Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 105-530).38
But the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek model, by imposing upon all makam-s this tetrachord + pentachord (or pentachord + tetrachord) octave scale definition, also created for itself several new problems regarding makam classification. One such problem is that there are numerous makam-s whose lower “cins” has widely been understood as consisting of only three tones, and several “cins-es” that span the interval of a diminished fourth. 37
My translation of “Türklerde, her ne kadar makamların çoğu tetrakorda muadil olan dörtlü aralığın üzerine çok defa ESASLI SURETLE KURULDUKLARI GİBİ, pentakorda muadil olan beşli aralığın üzerine de kurulmuşlardır. Tatbikatta yalnız bu dörtlü ve beşli ile İKTİFA edilmemiş ve nağmeyi süslemek gayesi ile sekizliye, duruma göre bir beşli veya bir dörtlü ilave edilerek tamamlanmıştır. Bu suretle Türk Musikisinin makamlarının her biri, bir dörtlü veya beşlinin ilavesiyle şekil bulur.” (See also Yekta 1922 [1913]: 2995). Kutluğ had apparently not read this, as he reported Yekta as advocating only disjunct tetrachords plus an internal whole tone as the way to span an octave (2000: vol. I, p. 65; compare this with Yekta’s own descriptions of 30 makam-s, 1922 [1913]: 2997-3010). Akdoğu, who more often agreed with Arel’s interpretations of theory over Yekta’s, nontheless refered to this as “setting the system on a road to repair” (in Arel 1991 [1943-48]: XI). 38 Kutluğ does give the tetrachord/pentachord combinations for his 18 “basic makam-s,” by way of explaining how Yekta and Arel presented them (2000: 143-205), but only sporadically for the other 201 makam-s in his book, though some cins-es he does give there are unorthodox (e.g. “nevruz” [see 2000: 388] and “nigâr” [ibid: 389]).
79
The lack of three-tone units (i.e., “trichords”) in Arelian theory make the former case impossible to explain in those terms. Furthermore, a point of Arelian theory is that “complete” makam-s—exemplified by the system’s 13 basit (basic) makam-s (see Appendix B)—are constructed only of “complete” tetrachords and pentachords (i.e., those having only perfect fourths and fifths; see Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 17-27). Therefore those makam-s that the theory comprehends as using a diminished fourth must now be qualified as “incomplete”—literally diğer “other,” or eksik “diminished”—although historically there seems never to have been a reason for thinking of them as such.
Were the “incomplete” cins structures employed in only obscure makam-s there presumably would not be much reason for opposition to or confusion around the classification system, but in practice there is little correspondence between the system’s 13 “basic” makam-s and those most employed by performers; for instance, in the 100 taksim that I recorded for this study (whose makam-s were chosen by their performers, see Appendix B), 7 of the 13 “basic makam-s” were never used as the main makam,39 (though 41 taksim-s were made in the remaining 6 [“complete”] “basic makam-s”). When we compare this with the 19 taksim performances made in 11 “incomplete” makam-s we see that the Arelian ideas of “basic” and “complete” makam-s do not correspond to an implied superior status in terms of how they are
39
Some of them, however, appeared briefly as internal modulations (see Appendix K).
80
used in performance (see Appendix B).40
One partial solution to this makam-classification issue was hinted at (but not employed) by A-E-U theorist İsmail Hakkı Özkan in his 1984 Türk Mûsıkîsi Nazariyatı ve Usûlleri: trichords (“üçlü-s”), that is, the recognition of a unit of three consecutive tones (see pp. 46-7). This would be consistent with many performers’ conception (see Chapter IV), except that rather than presenting those “incomplete” makam-s that might use them as being composed of a trichord plus some other cinses, Özkan completely ignores his own recognition of trichords and presents these makam-s in Arel’s terms of tetrachords and pentachords (e.g., Segâh p. 276, Irak p. 445, Bestenigâr p. 453, and many others; cf. Arel 1991 [1943-48]: p. 293, p. 179, p. 185, etc.) as Ezgi had done before him (1933: 32-39, Segâh p. 87, Hüzzam p. 127, etc.) and Yılmaz after (2007 [1973]: 80-230).41 But the trichord seems not merely to be an idea that no-one has bothered to develop: fellow A-E-U theorist Onur Akdoğu publicly criticized Özkan for even bringing up the idea that Arel’s theory should
40
If we include brief internal modulations (which at times amounted to no more than 3 or 4 tones; see Appendix L/DVDs passim), all but one of the “13 basic makam-s”—Neva—were represented in some fashion in the recordings. It should be noted that although these 13 makam-s are still taught as the only “basic” ones at the Turkish Music State Conservatory (TMDK, where I audited the introductory makam course), Arel actually gave another four makam-s as implicitly “basic” in this sense (1991 [1943-48]: 45, 48, 50, 52); Kutluğ posits 18 “basic makam-s” (2000: vol. I, pp. 7-8) and Özkan expands this to 19 (1984: 8). Karadeniz has them all beat: 57 of the 199 makam-s he presented are categorized as “basic” (the other 142 being bileşik, “compound,” see 1983: XVII-XXI). See also Feldman 1996: 229-54 on compound modal entities from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries. 41 One oddity here is that Özkan refers to trichords, tetrachords, and pentachords together not as “cinses,” but by the word çeşni (literally “a taste, sample,” in the sense of what a person is offering when they ask if you would like to try the cake they are eating; see Özkan 1984: 41 and 46). We will explore other musical meanings of this very multiply interpretable term in later chapters. NB: Shiloah, referring to the use of “ajnas” (= cins-es) in Ṣafīuddīn’s Kitāb al-Adwār defines them as “small collections of three to five adjacent pitches,” i.e., trichords, tetrachords, and pentachords (1981: 33).
81
include trichords (1989b and in Arel 1991 [1943-48]: XIV).
One reason for the importance of the issue concerns concepts regarding the “dominant” tone of every makam. As mentioned in this text’s section on preliminary definitions (page xxvi-xxviii), part of a makam’s definition includes a hierarchy of tones. After the tonic (durak or karar), and in some cases the “entry tone” (giriş), the most prominent tone is the dominant (güçlü, lit. “strong one”).42 Although, curiously, in theory texts “güçlü” generally goes undefined—there is no definition of it in Ezgi, Karadeniz, Özkan or Yılmaz—there is a widespread idea (made explicit in Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 27; see also Kutluğ 2000: 84) that the dominant occurs where the two cins-es of a makam’s central octave overlap (thereby making it either the fourth or fifth degree of the makam’s “scale”).43 That is, the highest tone of the lower cins, being the same as the lowest tone of the upper cins, is where the güçlü resides. This is borne out in the overwhelming majority of makam examples (for instance there is no case where the bottom cins is a tetrachord and its dominant is the fifth degree or viceversa),44 and, significantly, this would be the case for virtually all makam-s if the
42
See Chapters IV and VI for ideas regarding multiple dominants in some makam-s. Ezgi (1933) first mentions the dominant on p. 48 only to point out that there is a difference between a makam and a mere scale, and on p. 49 to say that the dominant is the (perfect) 4th or 5th degree from the tonic; otherwise he simply gives the dominant tone in each individual makam’s descriptions (pp. 50-270)—without special mention where the dominant is a tone other than the 4th or 5th degree (e.g., see p. 87)—as do the other authors mentioned; on p. 282, however, in regard to making modulations, Ezgi notes the dominant—again exclusively as a makam’s 4th or 5th degree—as a kind of pivot point. 44 Though Yekta in fact did describe some makam-s thus; see his descriptions of Rast (1922 [1913]: 2997), Eviç (ibid.: 2998), Acem Aşiran (ibid.: 2999), and Hicazkâr (ibid.: 3000). 43
82
concept of a trichord cins were accepted (as, amongst many performers, it is).45 In fact, though it has been ignored by theorists ever since, Yekta stated “the dominant of Turkish modes is often their fifth, but not always, and this rule admits exceptions; there are very characteristic modes whose dominant is the fourth, and others whose dominant is a third from their tonic” (1922 [1913]: 2995). We might note (as mentioned in footnote 41) that according to Shiloah “ajnas,” i.e., cins-es, had meant for Ṣafīuddīn “small collections of three to five adjacent pitches” [1981: 33], and further, that despite Arel’s usual insistence on the dominant being the tone conjoining tetrachord and pentachord (1991 [1943-8]: 27, 33), his definitions of many of those makam-s that performers today think of as including a trichord indeed give the third degree as the dominant (e.g., ibid.: Segâh p. 293, Müstear p. 296, Hüzzam p. 298, Nişabur p. 305; and implicitly in notated examples of compound makam-s that include these, and like makam-s for which he names no dominant, e.g., Lâle-Gül p. 145, Irak p. 179-81, Bestenigâr p. 185, Segâh-Mâye p. 300, etc.).46
Another classification problem arises from the fact that Arel’s theory uses the term “basit makam” (basic or simple makam) to define another, entirely different category 45
Exceptions regarding placement of the dominant might be: the makam Evcara, whose güçlü is posited as the 8th degree (Yılmaz 2007: 151, Özkan 1984: 246) if not the expected 5th (as in Ezgi 1933: 250); and the makam Ferahnak, whose güçlü may be the 8th degree (Yılmaz 2007: 173) or the expected 3rd (Ezgi 1933: 256) or both (Özkan 1984: 478). See also the makam descriptions in Appendix J, especially those of compound makam-s, whose construction may complicate the placement of the dominant. 46 Arel gives no reason for this, but on p. 27 notes that one of the things that makes the tetrachord (Saba) and pentachords (Segâh, Hüzzam, Ferahnak) that constitute the scales of these makam-s “incomplete” is that they do not have their dominants on the fourth or fifth degree. He does not mention the coincidence of their all having the third degree as dominant, or the fact that the concepts of a Saba tetrachord or Segâh, Hüzzam, or Ferahnak pentachords are new introductions of his own design.
83
of makam from that mentioned earlier. All makam-s in the A-E-U system are classified as either basit (“basic, simple” whether or not they are one of the “13 basic makam-s”), mürekkeb or bileşik (compound), or şed (also spelled şedd, “transposition,” i.e., of one of the other sorts). This double use of the term “basic” is a confusing aspect of the theory because many of these “basic” makam-s, due to stereotyped internal modulations, are treated de facto as “compound” ones.47 Furthermore, most performers make a clear distinction between transpositions of makam-s and all of the—for them distinct—makam-s that A-E-U theory classifies as “transpositions” (see Chapter IV).
Although these issues around the composition of cins-es and their deployment in makam classifications seem to be at the root of conflicting concepts of makam definition (see Chapter IV), acceptance of the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek solution seems to be a settled matter among today’s theorists: none of the thirteen participants in the aforementioned 2008 “theory and practice” congress mentioned any such issue, nor do more recently published music theory texts (e.g., Karadeniz 1983, Özkan 1984 except as noted, Kutluğ 2000, Yılmaz 2007 [1973]). In other words, at least among current theorists, it is issues of intonation that merit theoretical remedies, not issues of makam classification or of scalar analysis in terms of cins-es.
47
See Özkan 1984; cf. Akdoğu 1989b and in Arel 1991 [1943-48]: XIV, who, even more forcefully than before, excoriated Özkan for presenting (or “developing”) makam-s in this way—i.e., acknowledging normative internal modulations—explaining that this was terrible for music education in the conservatory and engendered a widespread fear of music theory among those wanting to learn the music.
84
NOTATION
Compared with other Asian or Near Eastern music traditions, classical Turkish music has an unusually long and detailed history of musical notation (see Feldman 1996: 20). Most Turkish music historians and theorists would begin this history from the abjadic cipher notations of Ṣafīuddīn Urmawī (1216-1294) and Abdülkadir Merâgî (1360-1435) (e.g., Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 26, Özkan 1984: 20; see also Signell 2008: 2-3).48 There are Ottoman edvar-s (music treatises, often including notated repertoire in abjadic notation) from the late fifteenth century (Feldman 1991: 94-5, Ertan 2007: 35), and several new notation systems were invented from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries,49 though notation was apparently not used during performance or in practical pedagogy until the nineteenth century (Wright 1992a: xi; Signell 2008: 2-3; Ayangil 2008: 401-4). Part of the reason that notation was not used in this way is likely that a major part of the music’s poetics (and aesthetics) is its heterophony, that is, the idea that each player must play a unique version of a melody, rather than all playing the same thing (as in Western classical music). There has therefore been no reason for, or perhaps even a possibility of notating, a definitive version of the sort deemed a requirement in the West; even today’s notated repertoire pieces are 48
Ebced is the modern Turkish version of abjad, a pronunciation of the first four letters of the original Arabic “alphabet,” abjadic notation being one in which Arabic letters are used to represent musical tones (see Yarman 2007b passim). In accord with the definition by linguist Peter T. Daniels the main difference between an alphabet and an abjad is that the former has separate signs for all of its vowels and the latter relies on separate diacritic marks to show vowel sounds (if a writing sample shows them at all) (1996: 4). 49 E.g., those of Ali Ufki (see Ayangil 2008: 403-11), Dimitrie Cantemir (see Wright 1992a and 2000), Hamparsum Limoncıyan (see Karamahmutoğlu 2009); for examples of foreign visitors’ notations see Ayangil 2008: 412-14.
85
understood as models from which each player will create his or her own version.50
Western notation was first applied to KTM (expressly for use in performance and pedagogy) in 1828, and over the next hundred years became the music’s standard form of notation (Ayangil 2008: 401-3, 414-5). However, between the aforementioned issues regarding intonation and the inherent limitations of taking a notation system designed to represent 12 equally tempered tones and imposing it upon a system of 24 tones of various unequal intervals, it was (and remains) a problematic endeavor (ibid., passim, esp. p. 415).51 While notation per se has little bearing on the subject of taksim, certain “solutions” to these problems have indeed left significant marks upon performers’ understandings of the makam system. As in this chapter’s previous sections we will begin by looking at how the early twentieth century’s major theorists treated the subject, and end with critiques and suggested remedies of early twenty-first century theorists.
Rauf Yekta apparently was not a great fan of Western staff notation and had created his own notation system, but, recognizing that introducing it would be going against
50
This indeed is an “improvisatory” aspect of KTM; rather than the praxis of a performance theory, it is the medium in which an individual’s artistry is developed and shown off. Note that I have framed it above in terms of heterophony, but this dynamic is the same for solo interpretations of pieces as well, i.e., no performer would consciously play a piece the same way twice, even if ostensibly reading from a score. I have read only one theorist lament that modern notated scores cannot represent this aspect of performance practice (A. Sarı in Bayhan 2008: 205-223), in the context of the notation system’s imprecision being a limitation on the spread of KTM abroad, though he did not advocate abandoning heterophony or personal interpretation as a remedy. 51 Arel acknowledged this very issue, but seemed to think that his system was the remedy (1991 [1943-48]: 64).
86
too strong a pro-Western tide, came up with a modification of the Western system, which under his leadership of the Dâr’ülelhân and İstanbul Belediye Konservatuvarı was used in all their publications until his death in 1935 (Ayangil 2008: 419). Although he had taken the note yegâh (written D, today sounding the “A” a perfect fourth below it)52 as his basis for determining the intervals used in KTM, he accepted the traditional assignment of the makam Rast as the basis for the music’s main, “natural” scale. For Yekta—following the Systematists (see Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, pp. 67-8 and 160), Cantemir (see Wright 2000: 17-8) and apparently in common with Töre and Karadeniz (see Karadeniz 1983: 7-15 and Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 69)—Rast was in effect a transposition of an older version of the makam based on the tone yegâh which had been transposed up by a perfect fourth in the fifteenth century (see Appendix G). This makes Yekta’s understanding of Rast (in today’s “spelling”): G A Bq c d eq f g in which the sign “q” (“koma bemol” or “one comma flat,” see Appendix F) signifies that the tone it modifies sounds one comma flatter than the tone represented by the unmodified letter.53 It is worth noting that although it is clear from Yekta’s description of the makam Rast that he understood the tone “fs” as being important in 52
See Yekta 1922: 2986; see also Ayangil 2008: 417 and 438-41, and Appendix F here, regarding the cause of (if not really a reason for) this transposition. 53 See Appendix F for a full explanation of the intervals and accidental signs currently used in KTM. As in our earlier discussion of intonation it is difficult here to pinpoint exactly which variation of the “perde” is intended by these signs. Yekta understood the interval from G to B as being in a relationship of 8561:8192 in a Pythagorean interpretation of the theory but as being “approximated” in practice as a 5:4 relationship (1922 [1913]: 2962). Similarly he saw the relationship between G and e here as either the Pythagorean 32768:19683 or the “approximate” 5:3 (ibid.: 2986). In today’s parlance we would say that “B ” means “B one comma flat,” and that “e ” means “e one comma flat,” but we must note that Yekta did not use the comma as a unit for measuring other intervals, and that he therefore would not have thought of these tones in that way.
q
q
q
q
87
the execution of the makam, he understood Rast’s normative seventh degree to be the “f” shown above (see 1922 [1913]: 2997. NB: Kutluğ asserts that the 7th degree has been understood as being fs in ascending passages since at least “the time of Sultan Murad II” [r. 1421-1451]; see Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 160).
Since Yekta considered this the “natural” scale, it followed that it should be written on the staff without accidentals, its “signature” looking like that of C major in the West but with different values for the lines and spaces, however Arel and Ezgi argued with him over this—advocating the scale of a makam other than Rast as the music’s main one (see below)—as well as over the intervals of the makam Rast’s scale.54 I have treated the issue of definitions for Rast makam separately in Appendix G, to which I invite the reader, but continuing the present narrative; apparently Yekta, Ezgi, and Arel came to a compromise, as evidenced in publications of repertoire such as İstanbul Konservatuvarı Neşriyatı Mevlevi Âyinleri (Yekta 1931), in which Rast remains the main scale, but is notated with only one accidental (fs, see p.52), Rast’s 6th degree having been changed from dik hisar (eq in today’s notation, e|/ in Yekta’s notation) to hüseyni (e, one comma higher), and the previously incidental seventh degree (fs) definitively replacing the “minor seventh” (f) as normative.55 Curiously
54
See Akdoğu 1989b regarding the argument between Yekta and Arel-Ezgi per se, and Yarman 2007a: 39-40 for the problems arising from Yekta’s system, of which the argument presumably consisted; as previously mentioned, Akdoğu (1989b and in Arel 1991 [1943-48]: XI) has these three differences—makam-s as octave scales, the main scale, and the “natural” notes of the staff—as the causes for the split between the two camps. 55 I have found no explicit reference to this change of Rast’s tones in their writings. Arel wrote as though he had forgotten or never known Yekta’s version of Rast’s 6th degree (see 1991 [1943-48]: 63,
88
the makam Segâh—whose intervals had historically been the same as those of Rast’s (though starting on its 3rd degree)—kept the “e|/” (see Yekta 1931: 328 and 1922: 3000).
Eight years after Yekta’s death, Arel became head of the İstanbul Konservatuvarı (with Dr. Ezgi as the head of the Committee of Establishment and Classification, see Ayangil 2008: 425; the name of the institution was changed to İstanbul Belediye Konservatuvarı the following year, 1944), and there he implemented his own system of notation, which rather radically dispensed with Rast as the main scale, replacing it with what amounts to an invented makam, “Çargâh,” identical to the (written) C major scale of the West, making the lines and spaces on the staff correspond exactly to Western notation. Owen Wright explores the issue of this “makam” at length in his “Çargâh in Turkish Classical Music: History Versus Theory” (1990: 224-444), to which I direct the reader rather than rehearse its details here, but suffice it to say that there had once been a makam called Çargâh, which had changed over the centuries (without ever having been equivalent to the Western major diatonic scale), and which and Akdoğu in same, pp. X-XI). The same “e ” note is still the 6th degree of the Töre-Karadeniz version of Rast (the system’s main scale), albeit under the name “hisârek,” (see Karadeniz 1983: 85-6). Note also that Yarman uses this tone in his descending version of the Acemli Rast makam’s scalar material (2007a: 117). Kutluğ (2000: vol. I, p. 161) explains the technicalities of the issue at length and comes down firmly on the Arel side of the argument, but ultimately his justification for it is simply that this is the correct way of performing Rast (which, of course, is also the Töre-Karadeniz and Yekta assertion, but with the other tone/scale/makam structure). On the next page Kutluğ quotes Cantemir’s description of Rast, which mentions that its upper range may reach the tone “tiz hüseyni”; Kutluğ is not using this as an argument for hüseyni (i.e., an octave below tiz hüseyni) being in the scale (which he has already established), and it is not clear that the intonation that Cantemir assumed is the same as that used today (see Wright 2000: 17-8), but this might imply that at least since the seventeenth century the (or “a”) note called hüseyni has been normative in the makam Rast (as Feldman would also have it, see 1996: 213-6). See Appendix G for further ideas on the subject.
q
89
had been, by the early twentieth century, virtually forgotten. Arel appropriated the name, claimed to have rediscovered it as the diatonic scale (i.e., one constructed of only whole steps and half steps) in KTM,56 applied it to the notation system as explained, and he and Ezgi wrote a few compositions in it to legitimize the new makam.57 (See further details regarding “Çargâh makam” also in Appendix G.) While the new makam never caught on per se, the notation system built around it did, and it has served as the main system for representing classical Turkish music (of all periods) since the late 1930s.58
As with other aspects of the A-E-U theory, criticism of this notation was for decades rather reserved, teachers, performers and theorists finding ways of working around its 56
The diatonic scale from the written note C, that is; two makam-s, certainly well known at the time— Acem Aşiran and a version of Mahur—have diatonic structures with a “major” 3rd degree, but Arel needed one that would not require accidentals on the Western staff, as both Acem Aşiran (on F) and Mahur (on G) do. Yekta had noted that the equivalent of the European major scale was the makam Acem Aşiran (1922 [1913]: 2948). 57 Incidentally this positioned the makam Buselik (formerly “Puselik,” the makam always listed second—right after Çargâh—among the Arelian “13 basic makam-s”) as the “relative minor” of Çargâh. Although Buselik is a legitimate makam of long standing, it has not in recent centuries been as popular as the similarly structured Nihavend (cf. Arab “maqām Nahāwand”), played a whole step lower (on written G, therefore requiring accidentals in Arel’s notation), but which since Arel’s theory became hegemonic has been considered a transposition of Buselik. 58 Note that Ezgi (1933: 19) gives several accidental signs not currently in use while Arel’s, only slightly stylized, are the normative signs today (1991 [1943-48]: 10). It is also worth noting that while the signs “ ” and “ ” are drawn directly from European notation, neither of these theorists point out explicitly that they signify different intervals in KTM than in Western music (see Appendix F, and Özkan 1984: 36-7). As the name of a pentachord/tetrachord, “çargâh” has become the standard name for what in the Arab world is called `ajam or jahārkāh. Yekta did not give names for his pentachords/tetrachords per se, but referred to the makam Acem Aşiran as the analogue of the Western major scale (1922: 2948), while Kutluğ refers to these cins-es as “nigâr” (see 2000 vol. I, pp. 298-302). A propos of the reference to music of all periods, I would note that of the theory texts named here, only Kutluğ 2000 treats each makam in its historical context, that is, notes during what period the definition of a makam changed (as evidenced in notated repertoire). Although Kutluğ showed a preference for his teacher Arel’s analysis, he is also the only of these authors to explain in detail and compare the interpretations of early Systematists, Yekta, and Töre-Karadeniz systems as well as that of Arel, Ezgi and Uzdilek.
e
s
90
limitations in regard to representing the aforementioned perde-s, but recently theorists have voiced opposition, or at least desire for reform. Ayangil (2008: 44-5) neatly lists many of the A-E-U notation system’s problems (many of which are intimately entwined with intonation issues detailed above) and several quite diverse solutions that have been recommended recently. Additionally, 6 of the 13 presenters in the aforementioned Istanbul Technical University-sponsored “theory and practice” congress comment on notation. Their recommendations in Bayhan 2008 include: leaving it alone (Sarı pp. 205-223—again because performers will interpret any notation according to their own idiosyncrasies anyway); re-introducing long-forgotten late Ottoman notation systems such as Hamparsum’s (Akkoç pp. 47-54) or Emin Efendi’s (Ayangil pp. 55-69); scrapping the Arel notation and—after having decided on the intervals actually to represent—introduce new accidentals (Yarman pp. 139160); choosing different sets of accidentals to be able more accurately to represent the music of different historical periods (Daloğlu pp. 275-292), and; keeping the accidentals but figuring out how to further minimize their number to ease having separate parts for each instrument (and for a conductor; Sayan pp. 71-88).59 In the end the congress did not decide upon a new notation system to replace Arel’s, but did give the following “suggestions for solution”: 1/ After evaluating the tone systems models produced as directly related to the theme of the congress in wider platforms, reflection of them onto education and applications in our art institutions. (Bu kongrenin teması ile doğrudan ilintili üretilmiş olan ses sistemi modellerinin daha geniş platformlarda
59
Currently all players (and conductors, in the rare situations where there are any) read from the same version of a score, regardless of transposition issues associated with specific instruments.
91
değerlendirilerek öğretime ve sanat kurumlarımızdaki uygulamalara yansıtılması.) 2/ Instead of taking the main makam as Çargâh as in “Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek”, taking and accepting it as Rast. (Ana makamın, “Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek”te olduğu gibi Çargah yerine, Rast olması ve bu dizinin kabul edilmesi.) 3/ Taking A4/La = 440 Hz diapason as basis which is the standard that comes along with the correspondence with the European notes. (Avrupa notası ile uyumun beraberinde getirdiği standart A4/La = 440 hz diyapazonun esas alınması.) 4/ Providing the unity in notation. (Notasyonda birliğin sağlanması.) 5/ Historical continuity and the update of tradition. (Tarihsel devamlılık ve geleneğin güncellenmesi.) 6/ Considering the solution of problems in an integrating approach that encompasses the common principles of Turkish music. (Sorunların çözümüne Türk müziğinin ortak ilkelerini kapsayan bütüncül bir yaklaşımla bakılması olarak belirlenmiştir.) (Bayhan 2008: 296-7) Furthermore, Sayan suggests calling (Arel’s) “Çargâh” Çağdaş Makamı (“Contemporary Makam”) and restoring the name Çargâh to the last historical iteration of it before Arel, a transposition of Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh.60 I take suggestion 3—let La = A 440—to mean that the new notation system to come should be written at pitch rather than in the “bolahenk” transposition (KTM scores are now normally transposed a perfect fourth higher than they sound; see Appendix F, Sayan in Bayhan 2008: 71-88, and Ayangil 2008: 438-41). We will get a chance to hear current taksim performers’ ideas regarding theory and notation in Chapter IV.
60
Though, as mentioned, many performers would likely consider it a distinct makam rather than a transposition, which would simply be referred to as “Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh.” He does not address the question of whether the “çargâh tetrachord/pentachord” would retain its nomenclature.
92
It seems to me that there may have been, at least from the late nineteenth/early twentieth century’s zealous search for Western models as tools of modernization, a false parallel drawn between alphabet reform and Western musical notation. The Ottoman language had been written in a version of the Arabic abjad throughout the duration of the empire (and in pre-Ottoman Turkish languages since the Turks’ conversion to Islam in the tenth through thirteenth centuries), despite the fact that many of the sounds in the Ottoman (and also in the modern Turkish) language are poorly represented by the Arabic signs (see Korkmaz 1998). As it turns out, the variation of the Latin alphabet officially adopted for modern Turkish by the Republic in November of 1928 is very well suited to representing its sounds, and this (in conjunction with the first concerted effort at mass education) is credited with helping raise the literacy rate from 20% to today’s 90% (ibid.). But in choosing Western staff notation to represent the sounds of classical Turkish music, this logic may have gone awry; while it is very probably true that the rate of musical literacy has risen dramatically among musicians over the period during which Western notation and mass education have been adopted, given all that we have read above it would be difficult to argue that Western-style notation better suits the sounds of the musical “language” than had an indigenous system such as Hamparsum notation (though it is true that, unmodified, this notation requires previous knowledge of the makam system to correctly interpret the signs).61
61
For instance traditional Hamparsum notation lacks signs to inflect certain tones; the correct inflection is implicit in (knowledge of) the makam, which is always named. A performer reading a piece—if he or she knows the makam—therefore knows how to interpret the signs correctly; a lack of
93
In any case, if expectations about the Western-style notation system per se have fallen away, residual ones remain in their shape. For instance in the question-and-answer session following Dr. Nail Yavuzoğlu’s presentation at the İTÜ theory-practice congress, he laments that everyone knows who (North Indian classical musician) Ravi Shankar is but no-one (outside Turkey) can name a classical Turkish musician; while recognizing that there may be many reasons for this, he attributes some of the failure of Turkish music to become more widespread in the world to stagnation in questions of theory and notation (see Bayhan 2008: 177-81). Ironically, of course, North Indian classical music, whether in India or abroad, relies almost entirely on what we have called “meşk” for its transmission, neither precise notation nor theory-text study being prominent in its pedagogy.
Before concluding this chapter, I direct the reader to Appendix D, which consists of recapitulations of the entries on the makam Rast as they appear in the theory texts mentioned above, i.e., those of Arel 1991 (1943-48), Ezgi 1933, Karadeniz 1983, Özkan 1984, Kutluğ 2000, and Yılmaz 2007 (1973). These are typical of the entries each author gives for every makam they describe. The opinions of several informants as to what is left out of these texts, and/or what should be altered for or added to an “ideal” theory book, can be found in Chapter IV. Additionally, I would again mention that the discussion of the disagreements between Yekta and Arel regarding the scalar
such knowledge would lead to an incorrect “reading” (and performance) of the text. See Ayangil 2008: 445, Akkoç in Bayhan 2008: 51 regarding recommendations of a return to Hamparsum notation. See also Gill 2006: 60.
94
material of makam-s Rast and Çargâh continues in Appendix G, below.
CHAPTER CONCLUSION
As we have seen, the invention of current classical Turkish music theory has been fraught with problems and disagreements of both a technical and political nature (and perhaps it would not be wholly inappropriate to infer that to some degree the word “personal” could be joined to that list). The theory is a conjunction of a return to the theoretical concerns of Ṣafīuddīn’s Systematist School and a society-wide experiment in the Westernization-as-modernization paradigm. In some senses the project (in which term I include both published theories—widespread or not—and arguments raised by critiques of them) has given interested readers more information with which to clarify the technical aspects of KTM than anything since Cantemir’s treatise of 1700, and there is no doubt that the “Yekta-Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek” system, for all its flaws, has been the framework for a new system of makam pedagogy that has successfully supplemented (rather than replaced) traditional oral/aural learning for most of a century; as Yavuzoğlu put it: Would we be here if it were not for Arel? Would this conservatory exist? Would there be [music] education? Yes, [it is true that] there is not one tanbur or kanun that can be physically linked with [tuned in accord with] the system of Arel.62 No matter … one way or another, the Arel system is the basis of this
62
This refers to the phenomenon, mentioned earlier in this chapter, that certain of the tones in Arel’s system are de facto not used, while there are several other tones that are universally used but that are not recognized by the theory. The instruments he mentions are fixed-pitch instruments tuned in accord with practice rather than with Arelian theory.
95
education. It provided the continuity of this music.63 (In Bayhan 2008: 180) He goes on to say, “My problem is different. My concern is that it should be systematic from now on.” It is clear from the preceding talk that by this he means that all the intervals used in the music should be accurately representable in the theory and its notation, and there was little disagreement about that principle from his colleagues. A desire within the conservatories for a “systematically” unified theory suited to a unified pedagogy is self evident in the proceedings of the congress as well. But in matters concerning the alignment of theory and practice, the example of Arel—and for that matter of all the theorists of makam musics before him—may show us that being “systematic” is never quite enough to fully capture the subtleties involved in the performers’ application of the “rules” as they understand them; Arel was nothing if not systematic, and in a sense his system got the music only as far as this 2008 congress. Even a meşk education (which Yavuzoğlu here acknowledges as a pedagogy alive and well, p. 179) is in its own way systematic. There are so many elements for the teachers to identify and analyze and translate into a teachable system, and yet current students’ time and attention is more concentrated than ever before. It must be acknowledged that both teaching and learning the music are daunting tasks indeed.
63
Their translation of, “Bugün Arel olmasaydı biz burada olur muyduk? Bu konservatuar olur muydu? Eğitim olur muydu? Evet Arel sistemiyle fiziksel olarak bağlanan bir tane tanbur yoktur. Bir tane çakılan kanun da yoktur. Ama Arel sistemi bu eğitimin temelidir. Ne olursa olsun, öyle ya da böyle. Bu müziğin devamını sağlamıştır.”
96
Knowing that these concerns are on the minds of educators, it always struck me as curious that taksim is treated for the most part as a singularity; it is very seldom used as a resource in theoretical analysis (though see Signell/Beken, and Akkoç in Bayhan 2008), and is not in any way (much less “systematically”) taught, either in conservatory education or in meşk. Karl Signell elucidated (and endorsed) the means by which taksim is learned thus: “I think memorizing repertoire by ear is useful, as is memorizing taksims (but not writing them down). Then suddenly one day, the student wakes up like Pinocchio and plays a real taksim without thinking” (p.c. via e-mail, 10/16/09). We will see many reiterations of this story in Chapter IV. Only one theorist has written a whole book about taksim, Onur Akdoğu’s 1989(a) Taksim: Nedir, Nasıl Yapılır? (“Taksim: What is it, How is it Done?”), which is little known and not highly regarded.64 Even though taksim requires a very refined understanding of “makam theory” to produce, current theory does not at all address how it is done.
We will recall from Chapter II that taksim was an engine for innovation and a defining medium for making modulations at the genre’s inception in the midseventeenth century (when a taksim might last an hour or more and pointedly excluded “quotations” from pre-composed repertoire). It seems to me that it had to have been some sort of systematically comprehensible if unwritten “theory” that composers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries used to turn these taksim-
64
My sense of discretion regarding the relatively small world of classical Turkish music dissuades me from naming the book’s detractors, but two music publishers, a music historian, and the single performer I met who had seen the book all dismissed it as a thing not to be taken seriously.
97
making practices into the explosion of novelty in the repertoire, makam-s, and modulatory practices that are characteristic of those two centuries. It is an ironic inversion, of course, that today’s performers learn not an articulated theory of modulation and other taksim-making practices (which both their theory and pedagogical methods—even in the oral/aural realm—reject), but rather they are simply asked to mimic the very eighteenth- and nineteenth-century repertoire that was created by taksim-playing composers who rejected (rather than emulated) the confines of the pre-composed repertoire of their own times (see Chapter II). Although today it is apparently applied with less vigor than it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a sense of personal agency in regard to the right to interpret and express the details of makam music in unorthodox ways in the taksim genre is quite alive among performers today; it currently constitutes a part of the overall classical Turkish music culture that is considered both traditional and vital. In the next chapter we will hear examples of my taksim-performing informants’ individual ideas about the theories elucidated in this chapter, about what the greatest changes to the music have been since 1910, and about the state of the classical Turkish music culture generally.
98
CHAPTER IV: CURRENT PERFORMERS’ VIEWS ON MAKAM THEORY, TAKSİM, AND THE STATE OF THE ART In this chapter we will hear from current performers and professional music teachers on their understandings of Arelian music theory, on various aspects of the art of taksim, and on the state of the classical Turkish music culture, generally. Though I shall be pointing out the specific information I wish to highlight in the quotes below, many of these are extended slightly beyond the subject in order to show the context in which a given respondent conceived his or her response.
PERFORMERS ON MAKAM THEORY AND ITS TEXTS
I should clarify first that most professional musicians give lessons to students (though they may or may not charge for these lessons), and the “common language” of musical rhetoric, whether simply communicating amongst each other or as used in instruction, is the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek system, which they nonetheless often revise according to their own interpretations at some point during a student’s advancement. This is as true in a current conservatory education as it is in private lessons. While aspects of other theorists’ ideas may be widely (if often not very deeply) known—for instance those of Yekta and Karadeniz—the A-E-U system is generally quite well known, and is used as the basis from which the fundamental concepts of the music are defined and deviations from them are noted. And as A.J. Racy has pointed out, in contrast to the Arab music world, classical Turkish musicians are generally prepared
99
to talk in great detail about the theoretical aspects of their art, “as though they carried makam theory around with them in a briefcase” (from Scott Marcus, p.c. 9/24/09). Their critiques of the A-E-U system are therefore based on the confluences and contradictions discovered personally and in communication with each other during the simultaneous applications of the A-E-U rhetoric and their own sense of a proper understanding of makam music. This provides the setting for the section below: responses to the questions, “What aspects of makam are not found in the theory texts, how are current makam theory texts now used, and what would you put in an ‘ideal’ theory textbook?” Turkish music’s most important features, so far, up to 2009, have not been written in a theory book. There is not a book on the music that I’ve played. There isn’t a theory book on the music that Cinuçen Tanrıkorur, Necdet Yaşar, or [Tanburi] Cemil Bey played! You, as an American, have no [access to] information, but even though you can read written notes well, and learn technique, there is no good writing on Turkish music. And just [learning] from what there is, you can’t learn to play… because you have to learn from a master. (Professional ud-ist Necati Çelik, p.c. 6/4/09)1 Here is encapsulated perhaps the most typical attitude toward music theory texts among experienced teachers and performing musicians today: that they are inconsistent with performance practices, particularly as to the notated representation of tones in use, and are insufficient to demonstrate the makam system without correction and elaboration by a master. The same artist had been a little more specific on the subject when he told me: When they wrote the books what they wrote are rules [kurallar], but that’s not it; that’s only rules. Maybe those who know the details find not writing about 1
All of the quotations in this chapter were originally recorded in Turkish and then translated by me into English, unless otherwise noted.
100
them easier. But when I teach my students I teach details that can’t be found in the writings, and there are many kinds. But I show them [what they need to learn]. Meşk is what is needed here.2 (P.c. 12/1/08) Such an opinion is very widespread in the KTM world, among both teachers and students. As upcoming professional ney player Selçuk Gürez put it: You definitely have to have a master-student relationship to learn this music; it’s not in the books. (P.c. 1/7/09) Inherently there resides in these answers a low expectation regarding textbook theory, and a privileging of the oral tradition it was apparently intended to displace. Over the course of this chapter we will see how such attitudes culminate in a general lack of interest in calling for a reform of Arelian theory, despite many complaints about it.
Speaking more specifically about the deficiencies of current book theory, Yıldız University lecturer and tanbur player Özer Özel disagreed with the standard Arelian representations of a makam’s dominant while conceding a grudging support for İsmail Hakkı Özkan’s 1984 Türk Mûsıkîsi Nazariyatı ve Usûlleri, the single most popular KTM reference text (though it follows the Arelian understanding of placing the dominant): The idea that “every makam has its dominant where a pentachord and tetrachord meet,” that’s just politics. The people who wrote the theory books, they were barely musicians. It’s more like philosophy. Özkan is “the most used theory book,” but it’s full of deficiencies; the makam signatures are wrong and misleading, though the examples he uses are good except in that regard. And the part on usûl-s [rhythmic cycles] is very good. But the
2
See Gill 2006 passim regarding conflicting ideas about whether (and how) “meşk” is currently practiced.
101
dominant is where you first emphasize a tone; it’s not where a tetrachord and a pentachord meet.3 (P.c. 3/18/09) There were similar criticisms of the way Arelian theory presents the idea of makam transpositions (şed-s); we may recall from Chapter III that there are several distinctly named makam-s that, by virtue of sharing the same interval structure with other makam-s, were deemed by Arel to be transpositions of the latter rather than makam-s in their own right.4 Arel was wrong when he labeled so many makam-s as “şed-s” [transpositions] of other makam-s—if it’s a transposition, call it by the name of the original makam “on (the new note)”—those that have their own names are their own makam-s, regardless of similarities with others. (Necati Çelik, p.c. 5/11/09; cf. Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 317) Mr. Çelik is here saying that, for instance, although Arel understood Nihavend makam (on concert D/rast) to be merely a transposition of Buselik makam (on concert E/dügâh), while it is possible to play “Buselik on (concert D/) rast,” that is not truly the same makam as Nihavend proper—each is a distinct makam, wherever the “scale” is placed. I found a general consensus for this idea: if a makam has its own name, it should therefore be considered to have some distinguishing characteristics from merely structurally similar makam-s.5
3
I found Arel’s formula for locating the dominant widely criticized, but would note that no other informant shared with me Mr. Özel’s particular understanding of the dominant. 4 Arel named fourteen such entities, to be precise; see Appendix J. 5 There is an example in the DVDs (Appendix L) intended to show just this sort of difference: Mehmet Emin Bitmez’s taksim-s in Nişaburek (DVD 3/25) and Rast on dügâh (DVD 3/27)—the artist made the latter to show the makam’s difference from the former, though it must be noted that Arel did not in this case consider either to be a transposition of the other (apparently because he considered Nişaburek to be a compound makam; see “Compound Makam-s on dügâh” Arel 1943-48 [1968]: 220)—they are otherwise similar makam-s with different tonics. Parenthetically, Marcus also deals with this issue in regard to Eastern Arab maqām (1989a: 348-353).
102
For some artists it is not the merely technical aspects of the art that ought to be better represented in theory text books: Arel doesn’t say nearly enough about makam-s’ characteristics, and neither did any of his followers, for instance that one version of a tone is used when rising, and another when falling.6 Also, theory books should compare Turkish practice and theory with those of the Arabs and Persians, acknowledging their influence upon each other. But above all, the feeling is missing—each makam has a feeling that must be expressed or it won’t work—that should be in a theory book. The technical part—tetrachords and pentachords—is just part of it; they have to have meaning as well. (Professional kanun player and private teacher Agnès Agopian, p.c. 6/19/09)7 Here there is a disappointment not only in the Arelian representation of technical aspects of the system, but in theorists’ avoidance of affective characteristics she feels are inherent in makam definitions. Ms. Agopian was also concerned about knowledge of the makam system being deliberately excluded from theory texts: Yes, theory books are necessary, though it’s like taking single frames out of a film. An important aspect to change is that it [book theory] shouldn’t hide anything; the culture of masters jealously guarding any details about makam, or for simplicity’s sake ignoring them, I mean, a master’s best material, should end. The not-very-detailed theory books come from a heritage of jealous teachers who didn’t want to share their best and didn’t want you to learn from a book what you might learn from them instead, so they wouldn’t lose power and prestige. (Ibid.) It is difficult to say how such a phenomenon may have effected the works of Yekta, Ezgi, and Arel in particular.8 However, it is true that the level of detail in typical theory books did not increase dramatically over the course of twentieth century, and furthermore it cannot be denied that teachers of the tradition (whether or not they 6
See more on this phenomenon (as cazibe/“gravity”), and on theory texts in regard to such intonation issues below. 7 This interview was conducted in English. 8 Though we may note that Yekta himself commented on the reticence of masters to reveal certain material “for fear that it would be misinterpreted by lesser musicians” (1922 [1913]: 2978).
103
refer to their teaching work as “meşk”) derive prestige and authority in no small part not only from knowing the theory that is present in the books—all classical makam musicians must be fluent in that—but in proportion to their ability to recall, pass on, and apply in performance as much orally transmitted arcana about the system as possible. This is especially true regarding special characteristics of individual makam-s, which are precisely the aspects of the Turkish makam system that have never yet appeared in a theory textbook.
From the point of view of the state-sponsored institutional education system—which, we will remember from Chapters II and III, was created under the assumption that it would replace the meşk tradition—this lack of detail in music theory textbooks would seem not to be an issue of hiding information versus making it explicit, but rather simply a pragmatic pedagogical solution. We may see it expressed as such in this response to a question on the inadequacy of theory texts given by Şehvar Beşiroğlu, kanun player and department chair in musicology of Istanbul Technical University Turkish Music State Conservatory (İTÜ/TMDK):9 It is problematic, especially İsmail Hakkı Özkan’s book; there are so many details, it’s not for the beginner. Everyone… before, there were no books! But if you look at Arel’s lesson book, it’s easier. To learn the makam-s. He explained very basically and very easily. But his students, Şefik Gürmeriç and İsmail Özkan—very complicated, and you can’t [learn makam from them]. (P.c. 1/30/09) Here, she is on the one hand acknowledging the insufficiency of current theory books in terms of the total knowledge a music student needs to learn, while on the other 9
This interview was conducted in English.
104
hand praising the simpler of these texts over the more complex, implicitly leaving the missing details to an oral transmission imparted by teachers, in this case from within the Westernized pedagogy of the state-sponsored conservatory (and therefore not referred to as “meşk”).10
Returning to specifics, several informants noted the lack of information on modulation in music theory texts: Of course [modulation] is not in the books. How to get from one place to another, what’s inside there. In the broadest sense, as a repository of things to know, yes, they [theory books] are necessary. But to be useful at the conservatory, it needs to be very [much more] broad. (Professional ney player and private teacher Ahmet Toz, p.c. 6/18/09) Though I will later show that Mr. Toz recognizes a describable means of remedying this lack, here he does not mention it. In contrast, Necati Çelik speaks of “rules” as the missing factor, regarding modulation, in theory books: Going from one makam to another, there are hidden [or “secret”; gizli] rules, rules that are not written. So, to go from Hicaz makam to Uşşak makam— going to Uzzal, going to Hüseyni, going to…—these are not written in books. There is a way [to modulate], and students learn it but it’s not in a book. (Necati Çelik, p.c. 12/1/08)
It must be noted that Arel’s class notes from 1943-48 (published in 1968 yet even now sparsely distributed) indeed do mention modulation, though his descriptions are quite general and abstract (see pp. 127-40), and Akdoğu’s text on taksim (1989a), though treating the subject, is even less “user friendly.” Perhaps because the 10
We shall see below another quote from Dr. Beşiroğlu explicating a detailed method of such a transmission in terms of learning to make taksim-s; a method usually absent from normative “meşk.”
105
modulatory aspect of the makam system has never been formally systematized in theory, and therefore has apparently from time out of mind been the province of the oral tradition, complaints about the lack of information on modulation in such music theory texts were not common among my informants. Much more so were complaints regarding the Arelian system’s inadequacy to deal with the actual tones and intervals in use, and with their representation in the accepted notation: Our notation system is not sufficient. I would even say, we can write a poem, but the feeling of the poet, we can not write. There’s a poet, Mehmet Rağıp Ersoy, for instance [he very quickly recites a line of poetry, in a monotone, devoid of emotion]; that’s what he wrote. It’s correct [recites more], but as a poem… [recites again in a slow, deep, modulated voice conveying emotion]. It’s a different thing, that’s what it deserves. You know what I mean?” (Necati Çelik, p.c. 6/4/09) If this answer is itself rather poetic, he was also quite ready to give technical examples of the same issue; in two previous meetings he had also given the following comments on the subject: Even though the theory books we have on hand give the notes, the tones we really use we can’t write. Because there are insufficient signs for them. Like in Hüzzam there’s between mi bemol [here, “e-4-commas flat,” as the perde hisar] and fa diyez [“f-4-commas sharp,” as the perde eviç] [counts up in groups of 4 koma-s] there are supposedly [i.e., according to theory] 12 commas. “Supposedly.” But actually, in performance, from the mi going up is nine commas [i.e., from hisar to an unnamed tone three commas flatter than eviç].11 Since many intervals are like that, you need good ears, one needs to listen well. Learning that from a good teacher is needed. (Necati Çelik, p.c. 12/1/08)
11
It would seem to me that in fact many players play Hüzzam using the interval from “e 1-commaflat” (dik hisar) to eviç (but cf. Signell 2007: 74), a 9-comma interval that can be written in the A-E-U system, though no theory book describes the makam’s tones in this way; also note that there is no named tetrachord d-e -f -g in the A-E-U system (see Chapter VI and Appendix H).
q s
106
I present the above quote particularly because in the next chapter we will look specifically at contested definitions of the tones in Hüzzam. Similarly we will revisit the next quote’s idea of cazibe in future chapters: Even when you’re playing in Uşşak, when you do the final cadence that note gets quite low. It does “cazibe” [gravity, charm, attractiveness]. Cazibe; it pulls you down, some notes. For example, in Uşşak, the second note, when you go to the tonic, it’s flatter than normal. Sometimes [with] eviç or acem notes, it’s the same thing. When you go in ascending melodies it’s sharper. When they come descending, flatter. We call it “cazibe”: iniş cazibesi, çıkış cazibesi [“falling gravity, rising gravity”]. (Necati Çelik, p.c. 1/16/09) Although he was referring here to the alteration of a single perde (that is, contextually choosing different pitch variations for a “perde” whose name does not change by varying its pitch), in fact another common gesture attributed to “cazibe” would simply exchange, for instance, the perde eviç for the perde acem in an ascending passage and acem for eviç in a descending one (see Chapter VII and Appendix K).The same sort of discrepancy exists between written notes in scores and the pitches performers know to be correct in their stead, as was explained by retired professional yaylı tanbur player Ahmet Nuri Benli: Now, look—theory can’t get the feeling—I depend on my instrument… if you’re listening while you’re playing, you’ll play right. Sometimes, in the middle of a piece the notes [notated score] will say one thing but you know it has to be inflected, so you play the right perde [i.e., not the one on the page]. That’s how we play. (P.c. 6/4/09)
In regard to the tones required by Arelian theory, I noted to Mr. Benli that the fret for dik geveşt was missing from his yaylı tanbur (for more about which, see below). He replied: 107
Oh, dik geveşt! In my whole life… in one thousand pieces you’ll find it in one place. You can just do it with your finger [places a finger on a fret], then [pulls the string to sharpen the tone]. There’s also dik mahur; in theory’s account it’s there, but in reality it’s not there. I’ve never come across the need for those perde-s [NB both “frets” and “tones”]. (Ibid.) The implicit critiques of theory books here being firstly that they describe the existence of tones even though they are practically useless, and secondly that they fail to point out performance-oriented workarounds. Continuing his reply to encompass a broader regard of music theory, Mr. Benli remarked, a little tongue-in-cheek: Now, let me say, theory is one thing, performance is another. I mean, our theory, since the old days it’s been needed, but—we used to say, “nazariyat ekşitir; fasariyat ” [“theory is sour; nonsense talk” or “the sour thing about theory is shmeory”]. That’s perhaps a lowly way to put it, but... If you’re sitting at home and you want to know, “how does this makam go?” it [theory, in a book] explains, it does explain. (Ibid.)
In answer to our first question—“What aspects of makam are not found in the theory texts?”—we have seen critiques given in terms of: general inconsistency with performance practices; poor notational capabilities; lack of information on modulation; incorrect information regarding the placement of the dominant; incorrect information about transpositions; lack of important affective information characteristic of particular makam-s; discrepancies from practice regarding the use of certain tones, and the intonational variations of others; and even a critique that such “knowledge” is shaped to privilege masters’ hiding information rather than exposing the reader to it freely.
108
Though his dismissal of the practical application of music theory was made in jest, Mr. Benli’s last response does lead us into our second question, “how are current makam theory texts now used?” The answers to this were mainly of two sorts, depending on whether the respondent was primarily, like Mr. Benli, a player, for instance: [Theory books are] Like dictionaries, sure. It’s like a guide, or something to help you remember. But you already know it, from listening. (Professional multi-instrumentalist Sinan Erdemsel, p.c. 12/11/08) or primarily an educator, for instance: For the basics you teach the Arel system because there is no other system yet. If there is somebody up to teaching a new system, he can try, but now it’s the Arel system. We are putting our ideas also in the Arel system, our explanation of the makam-s, and we are defining the makam-s [in accord with his theory], but after that, when you are coming to the analytical level, we should use textbooks to compare historically different versions of each makam … the one book for comparing the centuries is Fikret Kutluğ [2000 Türk Musikisinde Makamlar]. … Yes, these are the uses of theory books: comparing and analyzing. I think. And this is important for the academics. For performers, they don’t think about that, mostly. It doesn’t matter for them, but for teaching I think you need that. (Şehvar Beşiroğlu, p.c. 1/30/09)12 In both cases, the Arelian theory available in current music theory texts is regarded as basic and provisional, mainly used for reference. I should say that, although not very widespread, there is some crossover between the practical and historical approaches noted above; for instance historical information on the differences between makam definitions as they changed over centuries (e.g., like that found in the Kutluğ text mentioned above) is used by some performers when they are called upon to play taksim-s in the context of centuries-old repertoire, in order that the taksim be
12
This interview was conducted in English.
109
appropriate to the makam definition displayed in the repertoire. This is perhaps most noticeable among players in “historically informed performance” ensembles such as Bezmara and Lâlezar, who play older repertoire on reproductions of period instruments.
The quotes above have addressed two of our original three questions, “What aspects of makam are not found in the theory texts, how are current makam theory texts now used, and what would you put in an ‘ideal’ theory textbook?” Some of the answers to the third question are inherent in those given to the previous two; presumably any new text would address such items as: insufficient accidental signs, information on modulation, intonational variations and their deployment in “gravity” (cazibe) maneuvers, tones used by performers but not recognized by Arelian theory (and vice versa: tones recognized but never used), information on emotional or other affects associated with particular makam-s, an expanded historical background for each makam, as well as the basic Arelian information on tetrachords and pentachords, seyir, etc., that form the musician’s common vocabulary. Most of my interviewees in fact had no other specific recommendations, that is, the most popular answer to the question “what would you put in an ‘ideal’ theory textbook?” was simply that there was no pressing need to make such a reform of the texts; as alluded to earlier, performers use them mainly as reference materials and teachers know what sort of things to add and alter verbally during lessons (whether or not this process is referred to as “meşk”), so a revision of music theory texts is not generally considered an
110
immediately important endeavor. Implicitly the assumption would appear to be that even greatly improved music theory texts would not be used differently than current ones are used today, that is, that theory texts have never been primarily used for detailed and direct teaching and learning (for instance in the manner we usually infer from the word “textbook”), and that the function of such texts likely would not change despite improvements.13 However, there were a few responses, all from teachers who also perform, and who would prefer improved music theory texts: The theory book I would write would just be analyses of traditional repertoire. Repertoire is where you find all the theory; it’s how you learn to improvise. Throw out tetrachords, pentachords, scales; they’re just something theoristphilosophers use, not something practical. Some makam-s have no such thing, anyway; Segâh, Saba. Saba doesn’t even reach the octave—it has no scale, and many makam-s don’t repeat the same tones at the octave; they don’t have “scales.” But if there are pentachords and tetrachords, then there must be an uşşak pentachord, and no hüseyni anything [i.e., cins type].14 (Yıldız University lecturer and professional tanbur player Özer Özel, p.c. 3/18/09) Here we see several important points: that repertoire is the more true repository of theory than current theory texts; that repertoire is also the source for information a student needs to learn to improvise (i.e., to make taksim-s); that there is a willingness to understand makam structures outside of cins-oriented descriptions; and that the Arelian insistence on makam-s not repeating at their octaves is contrary to the proper understanding of certain makam-s. A similar privileging of established repertoire was
13
We must nonetheless contrast this attitude with the aforementioned enthusiasm with which informants universally approached participating in my research as an opportunity to have their voices, as performers, included in a dialogue about reforming classical Turkish music theory. 14 Whereas for all other tetrachords and pentachords in the A-E-U system their name is shared (i.e., there is a “rast tetrachord” and a “rast pentachord,” the latter being an upward extension of the former by a whole tone), there is the singular case of uşşak—a tetrachord only—the upward extension of which by a whole tone is called the “hüseyni pentachord” (there being conversely no “hüseyni tetrachord”) (see Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 22).
111
expressed by neyzen Ahmet Toz, though he was even more specific about the type of repertoire to use as exemplary: My exemplar is instead [of Arelian theory] the Mevlevi ayin, in terms of [seeing a makam’s] possibilities. It’s necessary for [learning] all the possibilities. Where does theory begin? If I analyze a piece by a great composer, all the elements I need are there. That’s theory. But at this moment, the kind of theory that’s in books is the theory of songs [şarkı]; its forms are short. As a composer I can write songs all day, but real works are something else. (P.c. 6/18/09) Here he is at once extolling the “theory” to be found in ayin-s, specifically, and drawing a parallel between the supposed simplicity of Arelian theory and that of the popular “şarkı” song genre (generally considered much less sophisticated than the ayin).
Şehvar Beşiroğlu approached the idea of writing a music theory book by first placing each makam into one of three makam families—Rast, Hicaz, and Buselik—in accord with shared tonal material (as well as having a separate category for compound makam-s; p.c., 1/30/09). The concept here is to facilitate learning each individual makam in relation to a network of closely related makam-s. We shall see such an understanding explored in following chapters of this dissertation through the idea of “species relationships” between makam-s; such relationships existing between the makam-s in which performers chose to play taksim-s for the recordings found in Appendix L are also explicitly detailed at the end of Appendix J.15
15
Note, however, that within the latter appendix I have initially categorized makam-s according to a different conception of their “familiar” relationships.
112
We see then that among those who did answer how they themselves would write a theory book, the main differences from current theory texts were: privileging analysis of traditional repertoire, and reorganizing the definitions of makam-s into “families.” When we have also seen, beginning in the next chapter and throughout the rest of this study, how performers use A-E-U rhetoric in analyzing their taksim-s, we will know this striking contrast: that current performers “speak” (literally, that is, describe makam in terms of) Arelian theory as a fluent language, but they place their faith for the music’s survival in a separate oral tradition beyond the limits of the theory’s faults, and whose texts are traditional repertoire rather than even the prospect of an improved theory text.
CHANGES IN CLASSICAL TURKISH MUSIC 1910-2010
In the next section performers give their opinions on what they considered to be important changes in the KTM world over the last one hundred years. I have categorized these subjects as treating: mass media and the taksim genre, the loss of makam-s, and changes in pedagogy. The first opinions concern issues around mass mediation: Well, starting with [Tanburi] Cemil Bey, on early recordings, the time was limited. For instance on taş plak-s [78 rpm records] there were only three minutes.16 Cemil Bey, in those three minutes, had to make both beautiful melodies and show the makam well. Because Cemil Bey was a great master, he did this very well. After that, on radio and television, the time got even shorter; one to three minutes. Making an Uşşak taksim in a minute, to show 16
Actually, on average, these 78 rpm recordings were 3 and a half minutes in length, see Chapter V.
113
clearly the whole makam, they try to do a one, one-and-a-half-minute Uşşak taksim. Therefore the typical one became smaller. It became broken/spoiled [bozulmuş]. The ability to do a relaxed [rahat], free [serbest] taksim was lost. Now very few people can make a long taksim. (Necati Çelik, p.c. 1/12/09) This comment is ostensibly concerned only with the length of a taksim performance, as is the next one, which Şehvar Beşiroğlu gave when I mentioned hour-long taksim-s such as the küll-i külliyat described in Cantemir: You can’t do that on TV! Not even on a CD [laughing]. It would take too many CDs to properly play all the makam-s’ definitions. (P.c. 1/30/09) Yet implicitly the issue of the taksim’s diminishing length concerns also the quality of the performance—that is, the praxis—of the makam demonstrated in the taksim, as was indicated more specifically in the following quotes: And the fact they [ensemble directors, et al.] can tell you also, “you can do a three minute taksim,” well… so, you’re obliged to be concentrated and make something very concentrated. And all of that makes you have a certain kind of taksim. (Agnès Agopian, p.c. 6/19/09)17 And more specifically: Yes, taksim-s have been getting shorter since records, then radio and television. And all the special characteristics of makam-s are simplified—the TRT performers actually sound like the theory books! Too much so.18 (Selçuk Gürez, p.c. 1/7/09) Between the perceived simplification of the makam system in Arelian theory and the pressure to simplify the praxis of makam-s inherent in these foreshortened taksim-s, there is a general sense that the maintenance of the traditional Turkish makam system 17
This interview was made in English. TRT, the government-run Turkish Radio and Television, has its own KTM ensembles and, having had a monopoly on all broadcasting in Turkey until 1994, was largely responsible for shaping programming and a uniform style of performance practices over the period of this study (see Gill 2006: 68-70, and Feldman 1996: 16 especially regarding the idea that in a sense, state-sponsored radio replaced court patronage [cf. Signell 1980: 166]).
18
114
has been in a beleaguered state over the course of the one hundred year period in question. We shall be hearing more on a common “state of loss” narrative in KTM culture below, but one aspect of it pertinent to the comments above regarding the effects of mass mediation is the concern that progressively fewer and fewer makam-s are commonly played over recent decades, and that this threatens to result in a permanent loss of makam-s: Well, of course the old players knew many more makam-s than we use today. There might’ve been a thousand. (Ahmet Nuri Benli, p.c. 6/4/09) And similarly: They’re reduced by half. I mean, what remains? Hicaz, Uşşak, Rast, Segâh. Hüzzam. Nihavend, Buselik. And various combined [i.e., compound] makams. There used to be known and used many more… (İTÜ/TMDK lecturer and retired professional kemençe, ‘cello, and tanbur player İhsan Özgen, p.c. 5/27/09) However, the causes of these concerns are not only changes in mass media and concert programming; in the following two quotes we see the concern extended to both pedagogical issues and to a diminished audience participation as well: If you do [merely] four years of education you don’t know [complex, old/rare makam-s like] Muhayyer-Sümbüle. Of course you start with the basic ones because you start with Arel’s [system], so you know most of the basic ones. You know some others like Segâh, Hüzzam, because those are really very well known, but in four years you don’t have the time to go through all of those. Second, you don’t have an audience. That wants it. Because if you have meraklı [curious] people who really, who go to fasıl places and who desire something really fine, refined and elegant and this kind of thing, then you will not do [play] Hicaz again. You will do something more... [interesting, like] Beyati-Araban; if you do, it has another taste. (Agnès Agopian, p.c. 6/19/09)19
19
This interview was made in English.
115
Below we will see opinions on the reasons for the lack or loss of audience interest, but Ms. Agopian is first laying at least some of the blame for makam loss upon the Western-style academic pedagogy, through which she did not pass, having learned mainly from a single teacher in an oral transmission. Immediate below is a similar lament by a lecturer at the country’s leading conservatory: It’s a bad situation, things are slowly being lost. They [students, the younger generation] don’t know makam-s, it’s hard to explain to them; you have to learn detail, you have to play them [makam-s] a lot. You have to learn from older, important musicians, but they [students] don’t do meşk—meşk is finished. So they play Uşşak and Hicaz and that’s it. What can I say? (İTÜ/TMDK lecturer and professional ud-ist Mehmet Emin Bitmez, p.c. 6/3/09) But, predictably, he does not blame the academy for the loss; the implication is that he would be happy to share the details with his students—in effect to “do meşk” within the academy—if only the students would attend to such a level of detail. Continuing, this artist described the situation as extending beyond the taksim genre into the state of the art generally, and specifically to new composition: No-one’s composing, no-one creates new musical pieces. Therefore they don’t know. In order to understand it’s necessary to try/work [çalışmak]—how does a makam work? A piece tells you. There are many examples, I’ll tell you, that the kids don’t play. “Here: Hicaz” [i.e., they offer only Hicaz makam]. It’s cold.20 [They play] Evcara, a lot of Hüseyni—because other makam-s, there is culture in them, but in these it’s just the market [piyasa, i.e., music played merely for commerce]. It’s easy. Or musicians, they play a lot of popular pieces in these makam-s and they don’t learn the nice [hoş] ones, so they don’t know. We play them; I play them always. But other musicians… for instance we made a concert; Suz-i Dilara, Ferahnak, Yegâh, Şedd Araban, then Beyati, Beyati-Araban [i.e., makam-s he considers rare]. Sazkâr—we did 20
The metaphor of temperature is widely used by musicians to refer to emotional affect; “cold” means it does not move a listener or meet his/her approval (see also Beken 2003: 2). Conversely, the aforementioned act of adjusting a perde’s pitch in performance (usually by lowering it slightly) is also referred to as “warming” that tone (bir sesi ısındırmak).
116
both taksim-s and [pre-composed] works. People said, “Ah, [Sazkâr makam is] very interesting. A little like Rast, but more interesting.” Sometimes [we play in makam] Bestenigâr—a very nice one. You have to practice these. Some people do, but for instance [names a certain popular player and his group] don’t play them. It’s not right. Because everyone gets used to Uşşak, Hicaz, Uşşak, Hicaz—then when you play them one of these [rarer makam-s] they think, “Oh, that’s a cold makam.” It’s not good. But it’s necessary to play [more complex makam-s] all the time. Putting them in their [audiences’] ears. You went to these Altunizade [a concert hall] concerts; they know when they come to these concerts they’ll hear different makam-s, in their characteristic compositions. Yes; these audiences want them. (Ibid.) Here, amongst more faith in the traditional repertoire, we see some blame for makam loss placed upon the popular music market, though in the end there is a confirmation that at least some of the general audience members do still value the rare and tasteful. (Though it will take the rest of this dissertation for me to arrive at it properly, I will be showing in the Conclusion a contradiction in the combination of expectations shown above in saying that “no-one composes” in one breath and “repertoire tells you how a makam works” in the next.)
This concern regarding the aforementioned loss of makam-s is widespread among KTM musicians—even Arel was predicting the demise of many (mostly still extant) makam-s in the 1940s (1943-48 [1968]: 315-6). However, the fact that the performers who recorded taksim-s for this project were able to randomly choose the fifty-three makam-s that appear in them in a sense belies that fear.21 Although it is true that this number represents perhaps a quarter of all makam-s ever known in the Turkish
21
Note, however, that twelve of these fifty-three makam-s were only employed in internal modulations, i.e., without full exposition of the makam-s per se (see Appendices B and K).
117
cultural sphere,22 it would be difficult to say whether there was ever a time when all of them were in concurrent use; it would require further study to verify, but it would seem to me more likely that between the limits of human memory, the rising and falling of particular makam-s in popular taste, and the relative fluidity of makam definitions (e.g., leading to mergers of formerly distinct makam-s, etc.) it has probably been normative for there to be roughly thirty to sixty makam-s concurrently in common use at any given time, with an (also) ever changing pool of “rare makams” maintained at the periphery of orally transmitted knowledge (though in many cases recorded in writing).23
In any case we will note that the issue of makam loss is very often entwined in my informants’ rhetoric with the idea of a loss of details about specific makam-s. The following excerpt from an interview with Necati Çelik on June 4, 2009 exemplifies such concerns; note the implicit critiques of the academy and of the Arelian presentation of makam-s in terms of one pentachord and one tetrachord, as well as complaints of inattentive students as culpable parties to the loss of makam-s and their details:
22
Fikret Kutluğ—considered by many theorists to be the most historically complete chronicler/theorist of Turkish makam—gave the details for 219 makam-s (the earliest of which ostensibly date from the mid-thirteenth century CE) in his 2000 magnum opus. However note that Gedik et al. (2008: 4) report that Öztuna (2006) claims that there have been approximately 600 makam-s, that details (other than a name) exist for 333 of them, and that 70% of (all? Currently played?) repertoire consists of only 20 makam-s. (I have not seen the text to which they are referring.) 23 Such writings, whether as theory books or edvar-s (song collections), etc., exist covering virtually all periods of Islamic-era maqām/makam music (see Kutluğ 2000; Wright 1978, 1992a, 1992b, and 2000; Ertan 2007). These are precisely the texts one would compare to verify, refine or refute my assertion here (a project beyond the scope of the present research).
118
EE: So, compared to earlier times, what do people not know now; what sort of thing is being lost? NÇ: It’s deficient. Little details are always being lost. Both makam details… a little earlier I said something, about modulating from one makam to another. You get a group of students together and, for instance “in Acem Aşiran you go to Saba, in Acem you don’t” isn’t the sort of thing that is being taught. EE: Therefore the students play wrongly? NÇ: It’s not wrongly [yanlış], it’s a deficiency [eksik]. Well, yes, always when they play, they play wrongly, yes. It’s this deficiency—they don’t know it’s wrong. Turkish music is being completely lost [kankaybediyor]. We are also losing makam-s. I’m now 53, going on 54, I’ve been playing for 40 years. I’ve been very lucky; I had very good teachers, I’ve gotten to talk with Turkey’s greatest masters. We have conversations, just like you and I have been talking for a year, I and Aydan [a student, also in the room] for a year—this is like lessons. That’s meşk. The thing about meşk is, if you have a question you can ask and we can clarify it. EE: So in the conservatory, because it’s done in classes, they’re just learning from the books, “this is the tetrachord, this is the pentachord…”? NÇ: Of course, of course! As theory only. What do they say about Rast makam? “Rast pentachord and a rast tetrachord; the tonic is rast; on neva you make a…” that’s not the makam! That’s not Rast! It’s possible to put Nişabur into it, but it’s not written anywhere, how will they learn that? Like, what can you do in the meyan [development] section of Rast? That’s also important. Really, it comes down to rast tetrachord rast pentachord is not Rast. … Today young players say, “small details don’t matter.” So it’s getting impossible to explain the difference between, for instance, Uşşak and Beyati, or Hicaz and Uzzal (though Hicaz may have moments of Uzzal in it).24 They learn and then think that knowing “one tetrachord plus one pentachord” is enough, but there are 99 other things to know about a makam. … Over the years there’s this kind of problem; “what’s the difference between Uşşak and Beyati? What’s the difference between Isfahan and Beyati? These have the same tetrachords and pentachords, so why are they different makam-s?” It all gets played like Uşşak. That’s probably how it is with the Arabs, isn’t it? EE: [I name six or seven Turkish makam-s and explain that Arab maqām musicians I know call them all simply “Bayyāti.”] 24
As explained in Appendix J, there are numerous makam-s that are ostensibly quite similar (such as those pairings mentioned above), being distinguished in praxis by sometimes quite subtle details.
119
NÇ: Hm. It’s not agreeable [hoş], of course. It might be this; you go to the fruit seller and there’s all kinds of fruit there: apples, pears, oranges, tangerines—they’re all together—there are bananas. If you just think “fruit,” it’s all there, but if it’s in a single pile you can’t distinguish. If there’s a separate box for bananas, a separate box for apples, a separate box for oranges… it’s like that. It’s not all mixed together. Such fluidity in the distinctions between makam-s is not without historical precedent,25 but aside from the implications of this phenomenon regarding the loss of individual makam-s, there is also a perceived danger to the richness of the makam system as a whole: There used to be known and used many more [makam-s], and they were “constructive”—they told you about their structure. Now, makam, how shall I say it? Various makam-s give you details, information, knowledge. Thinking about them, you develop your mind. Because of this development, production and performance must be different. The performance is different than before. Because not knowing the details of the broader makam possibilities makes playing even the few that people now “know” less rich than it was in the past. (İhsan Özgen, p.c. 5/27/09)26 The interconnectivity of makam-s within the whole of the makam system is a concept we shall explore further in following chapters but we can see here the issue of a threat to such systemic integrity implicit in the widespread loss of makam-s—if the fullpotential richness of any single makam depends upon its relations to (potentially all) other makam-s, then the richness of each makam is diminished by the disappearance of any other. A drastic loss of makam-s or of makam details threatens to spiral into a
25
We may cite as examples the barely distinguishable historical differences between the “distinct makam-s” named Araban, Beyati-Araban, and Karcığar on the one hand (see Kutluğ 2000, Vol. I, pp. 384, 357-9, and 186 respectively) and such a phenomenon as a single makam name covering several variations that might otherwise be counted as unique makam-s (e.g., three versions of the makam “Mahur,” ibid.: 438-41). 26 This portion of this interview was conducted in English.
120
compression of the whole system into only a few makam-s, whose details relate only to each other.
Wrapping up this section (on mass media and the taksim genre, the loss of makam-s, and changes in pedagogy over the period of study), the following quotes move us from the perceived losses of makam-s and makam details themselves to criticisms about changes in pedagogy to which some informants attributed such losses. Now, in a normal school education, with 15, 20, 30, 40 students in a class, as in the conservatory, the teacher explains something and they all leave class. What did this one learn, what did that one learn? Who knows? Who understood what? Maybe a student has a question but can’t ask it, because the time has passed. Therefore, it’s not as relaxed as with meşk; meşk is one teacher with one or a few students explaining it directly. A student can ask many questions. Now that’s gone. There’s no direct directing [i.e., teachers cannot be direct and know what each student needs]. There’s no chance for that in school, for the student. The teacher doesn’t at all know who knows what and who’s missing what. Therefore, the breaking of the meşk system— learning certain things is necessary—of course merely in the theory, in the books, it’s not in there! (Necati Çelik, p.c. 6/4/09) In a sense this is a criticism of the (government-sponsored, academic) treatment of KTM as a commodity subjected to a mass media-style pedagogy; inherently the problem would seem to be an artificial need to push 15, 20, 30, 40 students through a uniform system despite its inability actually to educate. The remedy is the preindustrial, pre-modern, small-scale oral tradition. The following critique by Agnès Agopian also sounds this theme, and draws it toward the subject of our next section, the narrative of loss and nostalgia in the classical Turkish music world: AA: It’s not only learning dörtlü-beşli [tetrachord-pentachord], it’s “I play some songs, now I can do it. I can listen to what the others have done and I can do it.” Except it’s a long process. It’s like making nice food, it’s a 121
different way of cooking. It needs to be on the fire for a lot of time. And then, and then… EE: And that’s why you think that, partly because of the institutionalized educational system, that they’re not learning to make good taksim-s by way of learning repertoire? AA: Yes; my idea is that… all the things that were at the beginning of the century have been completely, how do you say? Finished, I mean, completely. EE: Gone. AA: Yeah. First of all the way of teaching. EE: Meşk. AA: Yes, meşk. Second; to get this experience of taksim you need the scene, you need to be on stage, you need radio, you need cemiyet [associations, gatherings], you need private meetings, and an audience, of course. Yes! And then there’s another element, which is that the way with meşk, the way to educate the students, is to give him the elements to think. You know, you’re not just an interpreter, you’re someone creating. You’re a creator, you’re creating something. You’re putting things in the pieces that are not written. You’re making taksim, you’re thinking about the music. And this was made at the beginning [of the twentieth century], but now no, because if you say, “in 4 years you’re a musician,”—no, you’re not. This philosophy of life, especially if you go for half an hour or three quarters of an hour for a lesson, it’s impossible to give it. And so the whole process is down from all the elements [each of the elements of the music culture has been debased]. (Agnès Agopian, p.c. 6/19/09 [conducted in English]) Here the concern is a society-wide collapse of the infrastructure needed to sustain the music culture, coupled with the loss of the kind of education system that encourages personal creativity on the part of the artist. This description will serve as a bridge to our next subject: the widely circulating narrative regarding “things lost since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.”
122
LOSS NARRATIVE AND THE END OF THE EMPIRE
A general nostalgia for the culture (if rarely for the monarchic politics) of Ottoman times, repressed by the Republican agenda to modernize Turkey by looking to Western Europe for models of progress, has been noted by political scientists and historians (for instance Çınar 2005, and Bozdağlıoğlu 2003) as well as by ethnomusicologists such as Signell (1977, 1980), Feldman (1991, 1996), Stokes (1997, 1992), O’Connell (2005, 2002a), and Gill (2006).27 This nostalgia is perhaps particularly strong in the city of Istanbul, and more particularly among persons whose families have lived in the city for many generations. As mentioned in Chapter III, classical Turkish music has been at times a site of contention between traditional culture and a more strictly Westward and future-looking view of Turkish society, and it is hardly surprising that there exists among some classical musicians a discourse of nostalgia and loss that both interweaves with the earlier-mentioned “losses” within the music culture (e.g., of meşk, the number of makam-s in use, makam details, length of taksim-s, etc.) and moves out beyond them to form a general narrative of classical Turkish music culture as a beleaguered bastion of refined taste and authentic heritage currently undervalued in society at large and in danger of perdition.
In fact, the idea that this music would disappear within a generation seems to have been a commonplace in the culture’s rhetoric for several generations, now (see
27
See especially Gill 2006: 48 regarding “performing Ottomanness.”
123
Signell 1980: 167, And 1984: 222-3, Feldman 1996: 16, Gill 2006: 97-103); I have heard the same prediction many times in the last ten years, myself.28 The apparent exaggeration of the rumors of its death notwithstanding, several informants had something to say about loss in and of classical Turkish music that they couched within the narrative of nostalgia regarding a lost Ottoman culture. It must be noted, however, that this narrative is mainly being used as a medium for voicing criticisms regarding the official Republican opposition to (or later, a perceived co-option of) KTM, or regarding events that have taken place since the founding of the Republic (in 1923) generally, rather than as an endorsement of empire, monarchy, or şeriat (Muslim law, i.e., as civil law), or, despite a wide range of political views amongst musicians, as a wholesale opposition to the (secular, democratic, economically liberal) Republic.
For instance one version of this narrative was told me by neyzen-s Eymen Gürtan and Selçuk Gürez. Both from longstanding Istanbul families, they participate with perhaps 20 other instrumentalists and singers in a weekly study and practice session centered on mastering the ayin genre—the music for the Mevlevi sema or “whirling dervish ceremony.” This group meets at the Nasuhi Mehmet Efendi Dergâh, a centuries-old Sufi “tekke” in the Üsküdar section of Istanbul;29 the group very graciously accepted
28
Ethnomusicologist Denise Gill, who will be mentioning it in her upcoming dissertation “May God Increase Your Pain”: Turkish Classical Music, Gender, Subjectivities, and the Cultural Politics of Melancholy, alerts me that this idea has been circulating for at least two hundred years (p.c. 6/8/11). 29 A dergâh is the tomb of a saintly Muslim—this one being that of Nasuhi Mehmet (1648-1718), the founder of the Nasuhi branch of the Cerrahi order of Sufism—although it had been a “tekke” (Sufi
124
me in their ranks, and I played lâvta with them weekly from January of 2009 until my departure from Turkey in late August the same year.
The narrative that Gürtan and Gürez shared with me laments a “loss of culture” over the last century in such a way as to conflate Ottoman heritage with the culture of the city of Istanbul itself. In fact one hour-long conversation with them (of 1/7/09, which I must condense here, rather than quote) began with the idea that classical Turkish music is the music not of Turkey, nor of the Turkish people, but of Istanbul. It had been created as a synthesis of Turkish, Byzantine, Arab, and Persian musics, and performed, enjoyed and maintained continuously over the centuries by a multicultural urban Ottoman society consisting of Greek and Armenian Christians, and Jews (mainly Sephardic, but also Romaniote, Karaite and Ashkenazi) as well as the dominant Muslim majority (especially by the Mevlevi and other Sufis).30 All of these people, they explained, played music together, attended each others’ festivals and ceremonies (both religious and secular), and shared in a unique culture—including poetry, literature, cuisine, architecture, calligraphy and decorative arts, as well as music. When, over the course of the twentieth century and for a variety of reasons, Istanbul’s minority communities greatly diminished, and simultaneously the city’s “lodge”) in previous centuries, officially all Sufi tekke-s had been shut down by the government in 1924-5 and it was not legal to refer to it officially as such. 30 We may note here that while there is a rhetorical recognition of historic interactivity with Arab maqām music and especially of the heavy initial influence of Persian court music on early Ottoman makam music, these are treated in this discourse as relics of the pre-Cantemir period (ca. 1300-1700), as opposed to the more recently active roles of the Turkish, Greek, Armenian and Jewish participants in the music culture. The Persian influence remains most conspicuously in Mevlevi religious hymns that use the (Persian language) poetry of thirteenth-century mystic poet Celal ud-Din Rumi as lyrics (despite the fact that very few musicians or audience members understand the language).
125
population swelled from around 1 million to the current count of around 20 million— a huge majority of them being “unsophisticated villagers” come from the countryside (and by now, their descendants)—then traditional Istanbul culture was broken. Only a few hundred people such as themselves are keeping it alive at all. Such was their lament.
They, and several other musicians at different times, remarked that they regarded me—whom in this context they saw as a cosmopolitan, multilingual, Jewish scholar deeply involved in classical Ottoman/Turkish music, playing ayin-s weekly in a Sufi tekke and living an assimilated life in one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods (Üsküdar)—as more an Istanbulite than many of their own neighbors. For my own part, especially regarding my involvement with the Nasuhi Mehmet Dergâhı/tekke, I felt as though the musicians were discursively dusting off a long unused chair and saying, “Come in, we’ve been expecting your return!”—I feel that my being Jewish, particularly, was a major factor in such an acceptance; it enhanced their multicultural discourse about the group’s activity and the “lost” culture it re-imagined. A couple of diaspora-Armenian musician friends living in Istanbul whom I invited to the group were equally welcome. It must be admitted that we were all in some sense performing a mutually-supporting vision of the traditionally multicultural Istanbul we wanted to live in; other Istanbul-s, so to speak, could easily be found right around the corner that might not be as ideal.
126
This traditional multiculturalism was something the group generally viewed as a characteristic of Ottoman, as well as Istanbul, culture (though it must be noted that the shifts in demographics that caused the lamented state might well have also occurred had the Empire persisted), and the loss of it was seen as at the root of the impoverishment of classical Turkish music. Gürtan added that the general loss of old Istanbul culture led to a diminishing of educated listeners, and of music education, and that “advancements” in instrumental techniques (q.v. below) have been well received by the new audiences because they are unable to tell if the artist’s makam knowledge is good or bad, and therefore whether a taksim was clever or simplistic, conservative or innovative.
Below is another example of the “loss narrative,” but this time from a performer who did not believe in the authenticity of cultural continuity that was inherent in the attitude of the men (and occasionally, women) participating in the Nasuhi Mehmet Efendi ayin group:31 Agnès Agopian: Well, especially Turkish music is very… volatile? Is that how you say it? If you don’t play it, the tradition goes away. EE: Vulnerable? AA: Vulnerable? No it’s not what I mean. It goes away very fast. Like, you… for instance the Mevlevi tradition now is gone. EE: There are still a few tekke-s where they do ayin-s and sema. AA: Yes, but for me it’s not [real], because at that time [i.e., in preRepublican times] “tekke” meant very intellectual. High level education, high 31
This interview was conducted in English.
127
level people. They were… they knew of course how to write, they were hatat [calligraphers], they were composing poems, they were playing music, they were talking together and living together and, yeah, philosophy and a very high rank style of living, and… thinkers. And now, of course they do it [perform the Mevlevi “whirling dervish” ceremony], but it’s technique [that they teach and study]. It’s not… and it’s not only the players. The dancers. The dancers maybe, but the players are not [participating in traditional culture]. Because the players are not at all… they’re playing other things and they’re coming [to the tekke] for it [to play ayin-s for the “whirling dervish” ceremony] and because they know the notes [i.e., notation; metonymically, the repertoire] they play the notes and then they go home, and this is it. And for me it’s not real. It is a way of life that’s lost. I think it’s the same thing for gazino [old-fashioned nightclub (see Beken 1998)]. Now you have very few people that can play fasıl correctly, because you don’t have gazino anymore. (P.c. 6/19/09) Here the loss is framed as practically irrecoverable, but worse still, the tradition’s tormenters have not yet disappeared; later she added: Well, I suppose you know very well that this music is the image of the old regime and that it cannot be promoted… they were openly saying, writing in all the papers, “we have three kinds of music you have to promote: folk music, Western music and the mix of them.” And this is very clear, and there’s no place for it [classical music]. But they succeeded, huh? They’ve been murdering it very well! (Ibid.) She also saw the negative effects of the imposition of modernity manifest in changes in audience participation, and in artists’ motivation: And then, you have no audience and no stage. Because… for instance, I‘ve seen people gathering in homes and making fasıl who play for three hours, five hours. Now that’s impossible. Now no-one has the time or patience to listen to music for 5 hours at a time—after ten minutes they’re looking at their watches and thinking about the next thing they have to do—much less 5 hours in the same or similar makam-s, as in a fasıl [see also Signell 2007: 18]. The fast pace of modern life doesn’t allow it. And the way that now they’re becoming professionals in that way… they need money and they’re running after money, and that everything that is not money is… you know? And this is also very bad, because where is the music, then? So the whole thing is… the whole cycle is broken. (Ibid.)
128
Here the systemic collapse of the music culture’s infrastructure is shown as interacting with the general losses accompanying “the modern condition.” Such laments are quite common; in the following one, the resulting general aporia is extended to teachers and players in the tradition: Now everybody wants everything fast and easy. They [today’s students] don’t learn the value of service. They don’t even read books. And the masters have been lost. Teachers don’t even know what to teach their students. It’s not terrible—there are good tanbur players today. But they can’t agree with each other, they don’t know what to show. (Ahmet Nuri Benli, p.c. 6/4/09)
More generally, there would also seem to be a kind of lack of confidence regarding present players’ ability to live up to the examples of the masters of the earlier part of our period: The old masters were dying out by the 1950s, then there was a gap that was filled by people making a new style of taksim: Necdet Yaşar, Niyazi Sayın, Cinuçen Tanrıkorur, later İhsan Özgen—and this was a major change. Today there are few people to fill the shoes of these masters. The younger generation, including myself,32 isn’t as outstanding as they were in the last generations. (Professional ud-ist and composer Osman Kırklıkçı, p.c. 2/19/09) However, it is not merely greatness that is perceive as missing, but even individual identity: Players used to want to develop their own üslup or tavır [personal style], but not now… you used to be able to tell who a player was on a recording after just a few seconds, but now you have to look on the CD to see who it is.33 (Necati Çelik, p.c. 5/11/09)
32
I would guess that Mr. Kırklıkçı is in his late 40s or early 50s, as are the other members of “the younger generation” whom he mentioned subsequently. 33 To be clear, I would note that I very much doubt that Mr. Çelik, who parenthetically is of the same “generation” as Mr. Kırklıkçı, meant that he personally has not shaped a distinctive sound; he is here referring to the generation after his own.
129
Understanding these sentiments as laments over changes in a broader cultural field than the music culture alone, we may note that many classical Turkish musicians demonstrate a conservationist-minded affiliation with Turkey’s Ottoman past through their rhetoric (outright claims to legacy, continued complaints about the way early Republicanism attempted to abolish their music and culture), in language choices (e.g., by using institutionally discouraged Ottoman language terms and proverbs, and by studying or claiming to study the [defunct] Ottoman language), by staging concerts in conjunction with displays of other traditional arts (especially calligraphy, paper marbling, shadow puppet theater, and Ottoman language poetry), and by religious affiliation with once-banned Sufi sects (especially the Mevlevi, Cerrahi, and Bektaşi orders), including participation in Sema (“whirling dervish”) rituals and to a lesser extent music therapy (darüşşifa) groups. Whether used merely to shape an aesthetic and poetic sense, as a strategy for protesting general changes of the twentieth century, or as an enactment of a non-Westernizing, alternative form of modernity, selectively nostalgizing Ottoman-ness is a normative activity in today’s classical Turkish music culture.
Continuing within the subject of changes in the KTM world of the last one hundred years, but moving back toward the technically musical, the next section deals with performers’ ideas on changes in playing techniques, and in the sound and physical construction of music instruments.
130
CHANGES IN PLAYING TECHNIQUES
Our first quote on this subject imputes a causal relationship between a growing preference for spectacular technique and the aforementioned loss of makam-s: Whereas the art itself used to be about how few phrases one could use to encapsulate the essence of the makam performed, recently it has become about technical proficiency, flash: technique has been the focus, with a loss of makam knowledge. There are hundreds of people who can do a Hicaz or Hüseyni taksim, but very few who can play a good Pesendide or Rahat-ül Ervah.34 (Semi-professional ney player and private teacher Eymen Gürtan, p.c. 3/10/09) Similarly: The fact that technique was just, I would say, 50-50; was just half of playing… of course, you develop the technique—if you have no technique you cannot play. But this was just half of it. Because with technique [only] you couldn’t do anything. But now it’s not the same thing. Now, technique has… when I hear some… especially with kanun, when I hear some taksim-s, I think that they’re taking me—the audience—for an exercise trial. They do an exercise [verbally imitates a fast “dika-dika-dika-dika” kanun phrase], and then again, in case I’m a little bit stupid [dika-dika etc.], and then again, a third time to say that, “you see; it’s difficult and I can do it!” And there is no melody in it, there’s nothing, there’s no link with the makam. (Agnès Agopian, p.c. 6/19/09)35 Below, a more nuanced view of the same phenomenon marks a change in performers’ poetic approach: The “sentence structure” changed from long ones to short. The style [üslup] and mannerisms/expression [ifade] changed—previously players had been more disciplined and “normative” [i.e., conservative], taking from compositions, but later their approach became speculative, exploratory. They [in older times] looked at the normative frame, the makam-s’ melodic specialties, and their understanding of the main frame[work] of the basic 34
Hicaz and Hüseyni being relatively common and simple makam-s and Pesendide and Rahat-ül Ervah being relatively rare and complex ones. 35 This interview was conducted in English.
131
makam, more or less the same; they all copied from each other… they obeyed the rules. Nowadays, interpretation is basic. Their interpretations used to be more sophisticated, more refined and impressive. Now the details are disappearing. According to detail, expression is maybe different. … Because the details are lost, the playing is more expressive. Technique-oriented. (İhsan Özgen, p.c. 5/27/09)36 This seems to imply a “feedback loop” between the aforementioned loss of makam details and the proliferation of virtuosity for its own sake. But the playing technique for ud, for instance, has noticeably become slower paced over the same period. At one point during an interview with ud-ist Necati Çelik I remarked that the “old fashioned” style of ud playing—that is, the style found on 78 rpm recordings from the early part of the twentieth century—featured faster and more constant picking than today’s style, and I wondered aloud if they generally made more modulations then than now. Certainly they made more modulations before. Everything has changed. The whole style has changed. By playing slowly [as is common now] you take your time with each part and there’s a completely different style of expression. But the reason ud-ists on old recordings play so many notes so fast is because of the time restriction of the medium; they probably played in a more relaxed way when not recording. (P.c. 6/4/09)
I have also heard that the nature of early recording technology favored constant, relatively fast playing because the resonance of the ud’s upper harmonics and the duration of its long notes were severely attenuated in the medium; changes in both recording media and in ud-s themselves (see below) have likely contributed to the slower, perhaps more introspective ud style generally favored today. But, 36
This interview was conducted in both Turkish and English.
132
remembering Mr. Çelik’s earlier-quoted remarks regarding time constraints upon taksim-s, we must understand that the overall situation he is describing is one in which—for ud-ists, at least—taksim playing is at once more slowly done than in earlier times, and is given less time than had traditionally been given for their execution, a result of which is fewer modulations, and therefore implicitly less complex taksim-s. Another time he had commented: There are poets, and there are novelists. A poet, in four lines, can write as much as a book. So how does a poet do it with these limitations? [Tanburi] Cemil Bey, in three minutes, put three hours worth of music in a taksim. Since not everyone can do that, it’s broken/spoiled [bozulmuş]. Am I clear? It’s hard to do a long taksim. It’s like writing a novel. A novelist can describe a whole scene in detail. A poet is more concentrated. I don’t mean that one can’t make a good short taksim, but the art of making long ones has been lost. (P.c. 1/12/09) Here the loss narrative is so pervasive that, regardless of revised playing techniques apparently aimed at increased subtlety of expression, there is no other escape from the loss and the conditions causing it but genius, and that too is in the past. Several performers felt that there had previously been more focus on crafting structured melodic lines in taksim-s than is generally heard today, as when Ahmet Toz spoke to me of “little stories” that used to appear in taksim melodies, but that are no longer heard (p.c. 6/18/09). Below Agnès Agopian tells a similar tale but emphasizes that it was thus regardless of a player’s technical capabilities: And there is something else, too, which for me is basic, it’s… at that time [early-twentieth century] they were making taksim-s out of songs.37 So it was a kind of… it was the beginning of the process of composing. So you have 37
This interview was conducted in English. I believe from the context that she meant to say “songs out of taksim-s” rather than “taksim-s out of songs,” however see remarks on quotations from established repertoire appearing in taksim-s below, and in Chapters V and VI.
133
melodies in the taksim… not now. They were thinking about, “OK, we have learned this and that, and now, what is the [meaning of a] makam for us?” And they’d play, it’s like a song, like, you have melodies and things, and it’s not [a] virtuosity show, it’s just, what… with my technique, what can I say, what can I do? And then you have melodies, and from those melodies they were composing. They were taking some of them and composing, it’s a cycle that never ends. (p.c. 6/19/09) Again, this is a critique of an attitude that seems to treat playing technique as a replacement for “meaningful” musical production rather than as a means of enhancing it.
Before moving onward to a section on the effects of changes in musical instruments, I would make note that some of the artists’ comments on changes in playing technique were framed as pertaining to specific instruments: And virtuosity makes them think that technique is the aim and not the way to achieve something more important. If you listen to, for instance… kanun is a very good example, because from the beginning of the [twentieth] century ‘til now it’s a different instrument. Because kanun was not a very virtuosic instrument, but you would do lots of things. They had a certain [limited] technique, and through this technique they would do things that now they don’t. Now they can’t even think about it. (Agnès Agopian, p.c. 6/19/09)38 And similarly: On an ud, compared to a ney, you can play a lot more sentences. Ney plays a lot fewer. Because it’s made for longer tones, and wants to sing in the most meaningful and voice-like way. It wants to convey meaning. Therefore it always says less than a plucked instrument. But it says more valuable things, the ney. … The ney and the kemençe both have long tones. Even the tanbur, when you pluck it, it rings. It can play both [a drone] accompaniment and the melody, so it has that advantage. After that, the kemençe is more advantaged than the ney, then the ney, then other instruments. (Ahmet Toz, p.c. 6/18/09)
38
This interview was conducted in English.
134
Other changes in playing style were attributed to changes in the instruments themselves, which is the subject of the next brief section:
CHANGES IN INSTRUMENT SOUND AND CONSTRUCTION
To me the biggest change was that the instruments started to sound like themselves. The ney doesn’t even try to play like a tanbur, now, doesn’t play tanbur melodies. The kemençe doesn’t do ud melodies. Like [ud-ist] Mehmet Bitmez plays very ud-like melodies. … Every instrument used to take the same stereotypes [beylik-s; stereotyped melodic fragments (see below)] from other instruments. They took all the [same] understandings/interpretations [anlayışlar]. (Ney player Ahmet Toz, p.c. 6/18/09) Here is perhaps a curiously refreshing relief from the earlier theme of constant loss— a change that is actually framed in positive terms! The ud seems particularly to have done well for itself: I can say this about the ud; they now make them to have a longer sound [i.e., more sustain], more like a tanbur, despite having a short neck—55 centimeters—so now they have a long sound [hums a long time on one tone]. Resonance. In the old times ud-s had a shorter resonance period, so it was necessary to play a lot more with the plectrum. Today, plucking once, you can make a little melody [using just the fingering hand]. The sound, the frequencies, still ring. Therefore there was a change in the style [üslup]. The first to do this was Cinuçen Tanrıkorur. He, being a lover of tanbur and of Cemil Bey, played the ud such that it would sound like the tanbur. Therefore he needed a longer resonance, like the tanbur whose long neck gives it a much longer sound. He started to ask ud makers, “how can we make this shortnecked instrument have a longer sound?” Cinuçen Tanrıkorur mixed ud and tanbur styles and came out with a new feel. So, because of this ud-ists didn’t play any longer using the plectrum so much as in olden times, now it’s more of the color of running water.39 (Ud player Necati Çelik, p.c. 6/4/09)
39
To hear this difference, compare earlier recordings on Kalan Records’ 2004 Türk Müziği Ustaları: Ud to the later ones in the same collection by Tanrıkorur (CD 2, tracks 19-21). NB: Stanley Sadie considered this development to be older than indicated here; see 2000 s.v. “`Ud.”
135
Ironically, however, the tanbur-s that such ud-s and ud playing techniques were modeled on have apparently themselves undergone their own development in exactly the opposite direction (providing us a return to the familiar strains of the loss narrative): Tanbur construction was changed; thinner tops ruined the sound. Now the sound is thin, “wah-wah” instead of “tuuung”—it’s become cold. So tanbur picking went from many notes for each stroke [i.e., the fretting fingers played several tones for each pluck] to one note per stroke. Also, in the old times a pick was a millimeter and a half thick. Ercüment [Batanay, his teacher] used 1 or 2. Nowadays they play with 5 millimeters thick. Today they play with too thick a pick, and their position is too high. And now they [tanbur-s] come with too many frets, also—Ercüment would just cut them off until there were 24 rather than 31 or 55 or whatever. Tanburi Cemil Bey had 27 frets, and others then followed him, but he was a master; how are you going to make 55 frets sound better than he did 27? (Yaylı tanbur player Ahmet Nuri Benli, p.c. 6/4/09) For the most part classical instruments otherwise remained as they had been over the period, though it is notable that Arel is credited with having invented the four-course kemençe, and a family of these in four sizes, apparently to match the Western string quartet (there is still some rivalry between enthusiasts of the two types). Moving away altogether from the theme of “change” and on toward the subject of performers’ and educators’ thoughts on the taksim genre itself, the following section presents quotes on what taksim means for these performers, and how they learned to make them.
136
PERFORMERS AND EDUCATORS ON TAKSİM
The following section is perhaps less focused than those above because while the subject was of great interest for ethnographically contextualizing the research, the prompt I gave performers—simply to “tell me about taksim”—was very broad. The responses that came back turned out to concern: different sorts of taksim; what kind of musical material can be in one; the genre’s place in KTM; whether the genre has decreased in importance over the period; what makes a “modern taksim,” and what makes an “ugly” one; taksim in regard to certain specific makam-s; regional “accents” in playing taksim-s; and how performers learned initially to play taksim. Quotes reflecting these concerns—some of them a bit long in order to show the context of a train of thought on a subject—follow: A taksim is both artistic and an improvisation, and—always!—it is a lesson. A lesson for [other] people who want to play. Everything that can be done is in a good one, so it’s a lesson. Therefore where a taksim is played is important. For instance, when you’re starting a peşrev [prelude in a suite], it [i.e., a taksim before the prelude] can be a little different, but when you’re playing a peşrev for a Mevlevi ayin it can’t be different [i.e., have modulations not found within the coming peşrev]. A taksim changes always according to the piece it introduces. But is there a logic to it? There is. As a ney player I’ve introduced many ayin-s thus; everyone knows they need to [refer to, quote, or otherwise be in accord with the upcoming piece] but not everyone can do it. Even more important, in the smallest of phrases, the most miniature melodies are hidden. In a Nihavend taksim, a dance could be hidden, a zeybek [kind of folk dance tune] could be hidden. One doesn’t say, “it’s a zeybek,” they don’t literally play a zeybek, but in a taksim that can also be there. The most crazy things. That thought is there, in the architecture of the taksim. A makam’s being in Uşşak, as you know, should end on La, dügâh, but sometimes it ends somewhere else. One might not agree with that, but Dede Efendi’s music also has that. … But because people put in so many influences in their taksim-s today, unfortunately, now it just becomes showing off. If they can do 137
something with their instrument, they try to. But just one mini movement, one tiny phrase, going from one sound to another, in a moment can move a taksim forward. (Ahmet Toz, p.c. 6/18/09) Here what shines through is the idea that a taksim should be both suitable to and responsive to the repertoire surrounding it (though of course a taksim may also stand apart from repertoire). I noted in conversation with Agnès Agopian that before this research trip I had not realized the importance of repertoire to taksim making, nor the centrality of it in musicians’ minds compared to the taksim genre, which I had seen as central to the art form. She agreed that taksim is the “heart” of KTM, and opined that “taksim is more important in Arab and Persian music”: Turkish music is now, and always was, the most Westernized or Westerninfluenced of the “Oriental musics,” and therefore taksim is less important than repertoire. By the late-nineteenth century, after Donizetti [see Chapter II], it is no longer a court music; already by 1910 taksim was not so important. Because Tanburi Cemil Bey was a genius at it, so people asked him to play them—and of course taksim is the musician’s pride! When Western music lost improvisation it affected Ottoman music’s privileging of it, too; it being a court tradition [had] strengthened the importance of taksim. We only have so many recordings of taksim-s from around 1910 because there were a few geniuses at it. This comment was the only one I heard making any sort of link between Western music and the taksim genre. When I wondered aloud why “improvisation” may have ended in European art music but continued in Ottoman then Turkish art music, she took the position that it was the normative state in a living music and, giving context to the widespread worry that “no-one is composing in classical Turkish music,” noted: Improvisation stopped in the West not because Beethoven and Liszt wrote out their cadenze, but from the time performer-composers stopped playing their
138
own material—when the concert norm went from “Bach plus Mozart plus me” to just a museum of other people’s old pieces. (P.c. 6/19/09)40
While Ms. Agopian saw a trend in which the taksim genre had been continually diminishing in importance to the music culture as a whole, Şehvar Beşiroğlu expressed a different view on the subject; in response to my question “has the importance of taksim diminished [over the last 100-150 years]?” she answered: No, for me it is the opposite. After Cemil Bey, especially, because he marks the coming of the instrumental virtuoso. The idea of what a virtuoso is in Turkish music and how to make such [taksim-s] on our instruments. Tanburi Cemil Bey, and the others—[ud-ists] Yorgo Bacanos and Şerif Muhiddin Targan, or [neyzen] Niyazi Sayın—these kinds of persons ... also, for a virtuoso, you are limited by the repertoire [in terms of] showing virtuosity, because the repertoire, you know, is not very complicated. There are some complicated pieces, like very new pieces; [twentieth-century composers] Reşit Aysu, Ferit Anlar… yes, maybe two composers, but not very many. Now there’s [current composer and kanun player] Göksel Baktagir or some other composers’ pieces. But the old repertoire, especially the instrumental pieces, are very limited for showing virtuosity. Taksim is a way to show your ability on the instrument. Yes, but for me it’s the opposite; before Cemil Bey it was not as important, maybe they were equal, or maybe the repertoire was more important. But after Cemil Bey taksim is now very important. It’s true that there is less time for them on TV, radio, concert programs. But you can make up for it on CDs. (P.c. 1/30/09)41 Here again appears the idea of the central importance of the canonical repertoire but, newly, as something whose very simplicity invites the taksim to rise in prominence. The question of the taksim genre’s prominence or importance cannot be answered except in terms of change from previous standards, and the period of reference therefore changes the answer; it seems to be much diminished from the hour-long
40 41
This interview was conducted in English. This interview was conducted in English.
139
excursions described in Cantemir and Fonton (see Chapter II), but perhaps it has indeed found better favor in the past 100 to 150 years than it had recently before.
Semi-retired kemençe and tanbur master İhsan Özgen, who is known as both a faithful interpreter of the traditional style and as one of the major innovators of KTM in the twentieth century commented not on changes in the esteem of the taksim genre, but on the indigenous provenance of the changes that constitute a “modern” taksim: For me “modern” means “non-normative.” In my opinion “modernity” is a Western concept. They made it for themselves, according to their social needs, so what might be called “modern” taksim-s may be simply contemporary, but actually according to our own aesthetic, not necessarily Westernized. (P.c. 3/30/09) This reminded me of a remark neyzen Eymen Gürtan made upon the relative conservatism informing the classical Turkish music culture: Europe and the West look to the future as an open, empty space while the East looks at the future, then looks behind for guidance, takes a step, looks back again... (P.c. 3/10/09)
I am reminded by this to mention that, unlike in Western classical music of the last century and more, there has been virtually no interest among classical Turkish musicians in experimenting with the music’s fundaments. Whereas Western art music over that period was virtually a playground for incorporating into the traditional aesthetic all manner of sound that had previously been considered ugly—through extreme chromaticism, atonality and serialism; polymodality; found sound, mechanical and electronic noise; static timbres and minimalism; newly created
140
“synthetic” instruments and the destruction or unorthodox use of conventional instruments in performance, etc.—classical Turkish music still adheres to an aesthetic that values classical ideas of beauty and rejects that which reflects classical ideas of what is ugly. This will be an important factor in understanding “acceptable” and “unacceptable” combinations of cins-es to be presented in Chapter VI, but at this point we may merely note that part of the caution expressed in the last two quotes regarding modernity and change come out of a position grounded in such a conservative aesthetic.
Following this thought, I asked Necati Çelik during a conversation about the contrasts and balances between traditional and newer influences upon taksim, “what would make a taksim ugly or unacceptable?” Firstly, it’s a matter of taste—virtually anything could work in the right setting, or maybe you’d like it despite it being strange. For instance [seventeenth-century composer] Benli Hasan Ağa wrote a Rast Peşrev that starts with a nişabur çeşni—totally strange; it uses two notes outside of the scale—buselik and nim hicaz. No-one else ever tried it, but it works. Or for instance during [the holy month of] Ramazan there’s customarily a set of prayers sung/read in Acem Aşiran,42 followed by ilahi-s [Sufi hymns] in that makam, then another set in Eviç—quite distant [a modulation], a strange transition, but you come to expect and even like it. But any change that is shocking—like cold water poured over you on a hot day—that’s ugly. Like modulations that don’t belong to the makam. For example, in Acem Aşiran ninety-nine percent of the time there’s a modulation to Saba—even though the books don’t say so—but in Acem there is almost never one; if you put one there it will likely go badly, because it makes the performer look like s/he 42
Note that in some Islamic societies the question of whether or not music is legitimate or permissible has resulted in the rhetorical segregation of secular “singing” and liturgical or otherwise religious “recitation” (which might, to a person unfamiliar with the conventions, appear very much like singing). But in Turkey—where this polemic has nearly always been resolved in music’s favor—such a distinction is in any case blurred by the fact that in Turkish the verb “to sing,” whatever the context, is expressed either by the verb söylemek (literally “to say”) or by okumak (“to read”).
141
doesn’t know what s/he’s doing, and presumes that the audience doesn’t, either. (P.c. 5/11/09) Eymen Gürtan gave me a similar answer to the same question, stating that a taksim or modulation is ugly when it disturbs the feeling established in the makam, particularly if it surprises the listener “as though pulling away a warm blanket quickly” (p.c. 6/14/10).43
Moving on to look at performers’ ideas regarding the suitability of certain makam-s for making taksim-s, the following artists reflected on ways in which they think of certain makam-s specifically: There can’t be a classical set [takım] in Nihavend. Because it’s a song [şarkı] makam. Therefore a Nihavend taksim is required to be light [hafif olmak zorundadır]. You know what I mean? According to the repertoire. According to the way it’s used in the repertoire, that’s how you make a taksim in a makam. Hicaz: anything can be in there. There’s no problem. Any kind of set can be made. Light songs can also be played. But it can’t be in Nihavend. It can’t be in Yegâh. There can’t be a classical set in Yegâh. In the middle of Yegâh makam, it can be changeable, right? Anything comes. You can make Buselik, Hicaz, Uşşak, Rast on dügâh, all of them come in. (Ahmet Toz, p.c. 6/18/09) We see here again the concern for playing taksim-s in accord with surrounding and associated repertoire, but beyond that, and this artist’s opinions of these specific makam-s, the quote is interesting in its implication that a makam that is particularly welcoming of internal modulations in a taksim is therefore one that disqualifies as being “classical.” We may contrast this to Cantemir’s description of the original taksim genre as basically requiring such a makam to act as the framework for all
43
Note in both examples the aforementioned metaphor of coldness as negative.
142
other makam-s (and other modal entities; see Chapter II). Let us contrast this against a description by Agnès Agopian about the Ur-classical makam Rast: My teacher [Aram Kerovpian, a student of Sadettin Öktenay] taught me that Rast is like an old man. He’s seen everything and knows everyone by name; any makam can be inside Rast. And it moves peacefully, deliberately, dignified. And when he sits down—when you make the cadence—you lower the third degree, segâh, very gently—not like in Uşşak—like it’s the end of the day for this tired old fellow. (P.c. 6/19/09)44 Here not only do we see a wonderful sort of affective understanding of a specific makam (and a fine example of the “cazibe” effect on intonation that we learned of earlier in this chapter), but it would seem that the makam’s openness to internal modulations is precisely part of what makes it the “classic” it is.
For a view on the distinction between makam-s in this regard, the following quote by retired professional violinist Ünal Ensari on the makam Hicaz is notable for several reasons: for pointing out that some makam-s are “broad” (need little modulation to satisfy) while others are “narrow” (i.e., benefit from modulation, and perhaps may not even stand on their own as makam-s per se); for noting that some makam-s are better suited to accepting modulations than others; and finally as an example of a player very experienced in the art of taksim imagining aloud appropriate connections (that is, modulatory possibilities) between makam-s. In this respect he is verbalizing the sort of choices that all taksim performers make spontaneously when executing a taksim.
44
This interview was conducted in English.
143
Hicaz is a broad [geniş] makam. It’s not necessary to go to other makam-s. You can do it in the meyan [development section of a taksim], if you want; you could go to Şehnaz. You could open up Nişaburek, you could play like Rast all the way down to yegâh, but… Hicaz is so broad that there is no need. But if you want to you can. If you want to pass to other makam-s, you can. Like when I went to Eviç, I could have opened Evcara. From there I could have gone to Hüzzam, and from there to Segâh, or Tiz Segâh. Or Nişaburek. There are many makam-s you can go to. Mahur. You can turn to Nikriz. You can do all of these. But Hicaz makam is a broad makam. Some others are not, they’re narrow [dar]. Like Kürdi is very broad; but Arazbar, or Müstear makam, it’s narrow; you can’t do anything with it. After playing it you have to go to another makam. Hicaz, Uşşak, Segâh, Hüzzam, these are broad… Rast. Before exhausting Rast you can have played a long time already. There’s no need. While making a taksim, for instance a Hicaz taksim, it isn’t right to go to another makam before showing Hicaz properly. Same with Rast. But in the meyan, after showing the makam, you can go to another. I mean, going to other makam-s in the meyan is correct. That’s after playing Hicaz’s meyan. If you want to make a longer taksim, you go to other makam-s in the meyan, but then return to Hicaz. (P.c. 1/16/09) Mr. Ensari also mentioned that there is a way of playing Hicaz that is called “İstanbul Hicazı”; Hicaz, that is, “with an Istanbul accent” (though he did not elaborate on what that meant). This reminded me of a comment by yaylı tanbur player Ahmet Nuri Benli, who, after hearing a recording I had made of a taksim by another yaylı tanbur player, said “he plays with an accent… where is he from?” I told him that the other player was from a certain region in the south-east of Turkey. “Ah, that’s why,” he replied, with a bit of disdain in his voice; “You can turn it off now.” Later in that conversation, he mentioned that the makam Kürdili Hicazkâr is an “Istanbul makam”; “It can’t be played except in the Istanbul way, with the Istanbul prosody.”
Continuing with artists’ ideas of specific makam-s in terms of making taksim-s, Necati Çelik noted:
144
Neva [makam] is little used because it’s barren [kısır], like a poor person [fakir gibi]. And for example when you play Evcara, in the beginning there is some Müstear. Otherwise you cannot make Evcara. But Müstear alone is barren. (P.c. 12/1/08) Though this quote may mean little to a reader who has not yet heard these makam-s, I would note that in the 100 taksim-s presented in the DVDs of Appendix L, Neva makam indeed does not appear at all, Evcara does not appear without some Müstear, and Müstear appears only once alone, after having been (con-)fused by the performer with another makam.
Some players felt that certain makam-s were better or worse for certain instruments. For instance for me, on a ney, the makam Muhayyer-Kürdi is not very nice. But Pesendide is good for it. (Selçuk Gürez, p.c. 1/7/09) And similarly: If the transposition is very easy, they are all good [for the kanun], but the mandal system [levers that change the strings’ pitches] is … it gets in trouble, on the kanun. Like in yıldız akort [transposed an octave higher than normal; see Appendix F] you can play, but there’s not enough mandal-s for Saba or Bestenigâr. (Şehvar Beşiroğlu, p.c. 1/30/09) Hoping we would make some shared (müşterek) taksim recordings with neyzen Salih Bilgin, tanbur player Murat Aydemir was considering makam-s to play, and noted that Bestenigâr, Saba, and Evcara are particularly good for ney, but that ney players don’t like Hicazkâr (p.c. 2/5/09). Generally, however, musicians are willing and able to play any makam they know, and to sight-read repertoire in any makam presented them, whether known or not. As to individual artists’ preferences (which may or may not correspond to ease of playing on their respective instruments), I would note that
145
all of the makam-s in the 42 recorded taksim-s in Appendix L for which performers gave their own analysis were chosen by the performers themselves.
I would note that makam-s are sometimes described by singers and other performers during the introductory patter before songs in a staged program in ways such as, “a makam dear to us,” “a rare but beautiful makam,” or these from a concert by singer Aylin Şengün Tasçı: “They say there are two kinds of makam: Kürdili Hicazkâr, and all the rest,” and “The next piece is in Muhayyer-Kürdi, a fine makam for love songs.” This would indicate that such performers believe that the audience is relating to a knowledge of makam-s at least on that level, or perhaps these are educational moments whereby the performer hopes to create such associations. There is also a movement, headed by Dr. Rahmi Oruç Güvenç and his group “Tumata,” to revive a very old (if probably always somewhat obscure) Ottoman tradition of music therapy, wherein specific healing powers are attributed to certain makam-s. Although some performers I met thought such therapy possibly effective (and certain of them played in such groups, whether or not they believed in its effectiveness), I found neither widespread faith in this traditional music therapy nor any knowledge of the specific makam attributes claimed by promoters of this camp (for which see http://www.tumata.com/icerik.aspx?pageName=tr_makamlar.html).
On the subject of how the performers in this study learned to make taksim-s there was a great deal of unanimity among them; each artist related that she or he had learned
146
by listening to and memorizing established repertoire (accounted the most important factor of learning to make good taksim-s) and others’ taksim-s; copying the playing of taksim recordings (especially those of Tanburi Cemil Bey, and of key players of their own instruments); and consulting their teachers, and sometimes theory books, as to details of specific makam-s. All but one reported that their teachers never taught taksim specifically, nor, as teachers, do they do so themselves. The exception to this was kanun player Şehvar Beşiroğlu, current chair of the musicology department of Turkey’s most prestigious conservatory (the Türk Musikîsi Devlet Konservatuvarı at İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi): ŞB: First there’s instrumental technique, and basic theory, then learning pieces. Basic makam-s and basic taksim-s without modulations; play tunes, and then create your own version. First he [her teacher, kanun player Erol Deran] showed us how to make this kind of taksim because, he told me, there are so many taksim styles. EE: So, they were explicit; your teachers said, “yes, this is how… now we’re going to learn to make a taksim? ŞB: Yeah. EE: Many other performers I asked said, “oh, no; my teacher never mentioned taksim.” ŞB: Huh! EE: They learned, but it wasn’t so explicit. ŞB: Yeah, we very much studied, with Erol Deran, the taksim. EE: Now, did you learn in the university setting? ŞB: Yeah. Not in the beginning. Because in the beginning was just exercises, for technique, to learn makam-s. But after five or six years he started to teach taksim. And also at that time we listened to Tanburi Cemil Bey, Mesut Cemil,
147
the other kanun players like Ahmet Yatman, Kanuni Hacı Arif Bey’s taksim-s or their performances. And also it’s very useful to imitate their… EE: Did you memorize a whole… ŞB: Yeah, Tanburi Cemil Bey’s taksim-s especially we memorized. Each year we… no, each period… in one year two taksim-s we studied with him. We transcribed… not exactly transcribed, but for… using makam-s’ understanding [i.e., made sketch-transcriptions for analysis]. Like this kind of introduction [plays on the kanun] for [the makam] Şedd Araban, is Tanburi Cemil Bey’s [plays it again]. This is Tanburi Cemil Bey’s taksim. EE: So you just incorporate that into your own melodies? ŞB: Yeah. Also, learning repertoire is very important. (P.c. 1/30/09)45
Presumably she teaches her students in the same way in which she learned, though I did not hear of so explicit a method of teaching taksim from other teachers, even at the institution where she is the department chair.
ON ÇEŞNİ, CİNS, SEYİR, AND PRINCIPLES OF MELODIC MOVEMENT
Perhaps surprisingly, each of the first three Turkish terms in the above rubric, which are both common and essential terms in the rhetoric of classical Turkish music, is interpreted in multiple ways by performers and theorists alike, such that, like certain of the perde-s of the general scale, each is made to represent a range of possible meanings rather than any certainly fixed one. Leaving aside for a moment the fourth concept (“principles of melodic movement”), I will attempt to give a listing of their
45
This interview was conducted in English.
148
various definitions before presenting informants’ ideas employing them, in order that we may have at least a palette from which to draw in interpreting what they have had to say.
Çeşni literally means “a taste” or “a sample” of something, and it generally covers any melodic material that can identify a particular makam as such.46 In this sense the most succinct definition was given to me by Özer Özel, who called çeşni “the smallest melodic concept conveying the explanatory [identifying] power of a makam” (makamı anlatma kudretine sahip en ufak melodi tasarımı; p.c. 3/18/09).47 The problem is that the term is by some performers used to convey the more specific idea of stereotyped melodies or melodic fragments (which others might instead call a motif, or beylik [“stereotype”]), and by still others to convey the more general idea of a modulation (which might also be called a geçki [“passing, modulation”]).
Depending on any given performer’s strictness of adherence to all of these terms— that is, çeşni, motif/beylik, and geçki—that person’s understanding of çeşni alone may be understood precisely (if, indeed, it is intended to be understood precisely). Examples of informants’ use of these terms follow. 46
I must note here that it is John Morgan O’Connell’s opinion that the term “çeşni,” with a musical sense, was introduced only in the late twentieth century, by tanbur player Necdet Yaşar (b. 1930) (p.c. 2/26/2010). 47 Shiloah, without identifying a term for the phenomenon, notes that (perhaps since the thirteenth century) a “major characteristic” of the modal system that would become makam is that “[I]n many cases one genus [cins] is sufficient to give the feeling of a given mode” (1981: 38). I inferred from the way Özel used the term “çeşni” in conversation that he thought it need not show all the notes of a cins, or that it could even cross between two cins-es without showing all the tones of either; the point of a çeşni is not that it delineate cins-es, but that it recall a specific makam.
149
Well, each makam has its çeşni-s, its little motifs, but—the best çeşni-s are like this; in any food, there either is salt or there isn’t. You can’t tell by looking, but tasting it you can tell. If there isn’t any, you know that, too. Çeşni-s are that sort of thing. For instance with 2 or 3 notes you can remember a makam, for instance [sings a seven tone çeşni], that’s Saba, everywhere [i.e., inside any makam] it’s Saba. [Sings it again.] That’s all there is to it! [“Bitti!”] To know Saba, that is enough. To know Rast makam it’s not necessary to show the whole scale. Just between the tones rast and acem, if you use Rast’s çeşni-s, the rast atmosphere is called forth. (Necati Çelik, p.c. 12/1/08) Extending the salt simile, he noted that nowadays some people misuse çeşni-s: When cooking you can’t just say “now I’ll add some white powder”—you have to know if it needs sugar or salt, and how much, and when. For instance in Hicazkâr there is a [pre-cadential] move in which the flattened 5th [degree] is used—it should occur only in that makam, but now it is used in any kind of Hicaz, not just “Zirgüleli” types. Also, in Şevk’evza there’s a lot of [Zirgüleli] Hicaz from çargâh, but people now go below it to dügâh and play Saba çeşnis—this is wrong; it’s not Saba, there. Saying that every makam has such çeşni-s, he explains how performers learn them: These çeşni-s, we learn from works, from the repertoire. Very often any çeşni you want to learn can be found in a work. For example at the beginning of a Hüseyni peşrev [sings a short melody]. This means “Hüseyni.” There’s another one, the Hicaz peşrev by Refik Fersan, [sings]. That’s Hicaz. You understand immediately. This kind of thing, when one is making a taksim, one can be more free. … You have to learn the old repertoire to know how especially lesser-used makam-s really are put together. But even… I have an idea of Rast, but did Merâgî have the same idea of it? We don’t know. But we have some of his pieces, so we study those. … Little melodies like that [from the repertoire] can be a makam’s çeşni-s. But for instance the Saba one [sings it again] is so well known, and it’s in every kind of piece, that you have to play it.
Ahmet Toz, reserving the term “çeşni” for a broader sense of showing a new makam, used the term beylik (“stereotype”) for the above concept: Beylik is essentially fasıl aranağme-s [instrumental breaks in songs in a suite] that everyone uses [sings one]. If you wish, you can play all of them from every piece. This is a beylik. One knows them from familiarity [with 150
repertoire]. Today too many phrases of already-known pieces are used. On the one hand it’s a [source of] richness, but at the same time something has been emptied by it. Every instrument took the same ones, and from other instruments. They took all the [same] understandings/interpretations [anlayışlar]. I’ll say one more thing: in very small phrases commonly used, there are explaining stories [anlatılan hikâyeler—stories that explain]. There are pure little stories of the city [Istanbul] in them. Stories of old times. Today there aren’t [i.e., new ones of that sort are no longer being created]. (P.c. 6/18/09). Here is a rare critique of the “overuse” of the repertoire as a model; it is not clear how one would distinguish a newly created “story” of the sort described—or how older ones might be distinguished apart from their association with songs about the city, etc.
Murat Aydemir used the term “çeşni” in regard to a whole makam in a way that recalls the terkib (a type of “subsidiary modal entity”) of Cantemir’s time: MA: Isfahan is a small makam; it’s like a çeşni. If you’re anywhere in the Uşşak family and you play [sings a brief melody], it could become Isfahan. EE: Like a spice? MA: Yes, like a spice. (P.c. 5/15/09) He also made a distinction when he briefly played a tone outside the makam he was playing in: “This is just a nağme (“melody, tune”); a çeşni happens at the level where one is calling out a makam, whereas a nağme is just a person adding spice” (ibid.).48
48
Yaylı tanbur player Ahmet Nuri Benli made a similar comment when analyzing a brief flurry of “out” tones in a taksim he had made, saying he was “only playing the instrument” there, making an improvisation (doğaçlama) but not expressing a makam (see DVD 4/36, ca. 9:50-10:04). Such moments were both rare and brief in the recordings made for this project (though see Chapter VI regarding moments of chromaticism in certain makam-s).
151
When explaining my methodology for this project to Özer Özel before we recorded together, I showed him a video clip of another performer’s taksim (whose analysis I had included in subtitles; see Appendix L/DVDs I-IV passim). He told me that everywhere I (that is, the other performer) had put “modulation” (geçki) I should instead put the term “çeşni” (p.c. 12/16/08). Later, I made a version of the clip with his suggestions and showed it to Şehvar Beşiroğlu (she not being the clip’s performer): “No, those are modulations, not çeşni-s” (which for her are short, stereotyped melodies). Telling her the story, she recommended that she, Mr. Özel and I all sit down and have a conversation about it, but unfortunately we never found the opportunity (p.c. 1/30/09).49 At a later meeting, he noted that a suspended cadence (asma karar) that he had made in a taksim was “çeşni-less” (çeşnisiz), and that there were times in a taksim in which showing a çeşni must be avoided (p.c. 3/18/09). Furthermore, he remarked that “some makam-s, such as Nihavend, don’t have çeşnis.”
This confirmed an analysis by Sinan Erdemsel of a Nihavend taksim he had made (see DVD 4/20), though his sense of çeşni differed from that of Özer Özel’s; in conversation Mr. Erdemsel did not understand the way I was using the word “çeşni” (as a stereotyped melodic fragment), and did not really respond to the term “motif” in that regard, either (his term for which was küçük nağme, “a little melody”).
49
NB: analyses of the taksim-s on the DVDs appear in (translations of) the terms given by their own performers.
152
EE: For instance whenever we play Hüseyni we do [I sing a typical opening Hicaz motif]… sorry, that’s Hicaz… I mean a little… motif. Don’t we call that a çeşni? SE: Ah, motif. Hmm. A çeşni is like when we modulate to another makam. Çeşni-s are geçki-s (modulations). EE: Ah, OK. Every makam has one or two of these motifs, though, don’t they? I don’t know if every one has… but are there any in Nihavend? SE: Specific little melodies that we use? There isn’t such a thing, really. Other than what we did [i.e., what he had just played for me]. You play what you want. (P.c. 12/1/08) Most confusing, and fortunately unique, is the theorist İsmail Hakkı Özkan’s use of the term “çeşni” to mean what we have referred to as “cins,” i.e., that broader category that includes pentachords, tetrachords, and trichords (1984: 46). A definition for the term cins is not so much at issue as it is now very seldom used— musicians speak of tetrachords (dörtlü-s), pentachords (beşli-s) and perhaps of trichords (üçlü-s) particularly, without need of the more general “cins,” so the question of which of these may be included in the term does not often arise (see also Feldman 1996: 222).50 The issue is rather with interpretations of these particular concepts, that is, whether one accepts all the tetrachords and pentachords as defined by Arel et al., or rather understands certain tone-structures as properly consisting of a trichord and some other cins or cins-es, and if so, what are these others? The most convenient way to span an octave from a trichord would be to add to it a conjunct hexachord, but I heard from my informants no mention of a “hexachord” unit (though
50
NB: these terms—dörtlü, beşli, and üçlü—are also the normative terms for the intervals “fourth, fifth, and third” respectively.
153
the word that would logically be employed for it, altılı, is the common term for the interval of a sixth). A performer’s choice of what follows a trichord in the construction of a makam’s scalar aspect may therefore be informative as to his or her acceptance of the octave as a delimiter in the definition of makam-s generally.
But apart from what has already been mentioned in this chapter about these cins-es, informants did not offer much critique; Necati Çelik opined that, “This idea of tetrachord-pentachord has broken the concept of makam” (p.c. 5/11/09), but his solution was simply to study with a master rather than to replace the theory and its terminology with something new. Ahmet Toz expressed a common alternative to Arel’s conception when he stated, “There’s no Hüzzam pentachord. It’s Hicaz [makam] and a segâh trichord [below it]” (p.c. 6/18/09).51 Şehvar Beşiroğlu noted that the “diatonic major pentachord” used to be called nigâr, but Arel called it çargâh (p.c. 1/30/09).52 I would note that in Dr. Beşiroğlu’s introductory makam classes at the conservatory, whereas normally a makam is introduced and its structure explained in terms of its cins-es and basic seyir (see below), followed by a great deal of sight singing of pieces in that makam and afterward analyzing the pieces phrase by phrase,
51
See Chapter V and Appendix H regarding a different concept of what should appear above the segâh trichord in Hüzzam. 52 Note that Kutluğ, despite being a faithful student of Arel’s, uses the term “nigâr” (as a cins name) in this older way in his 2000 theory text, returning the name “Çargâh” to a historical makam now connected with Saba (pp. 150-1 and 298-302; cf. Wright 1990).
154
when Arel’s Çargâh makam was introduced (as the first makam in the system), no repertoire was even looked at, and the lesson passed directly to Rast makam.53
The term seyir—literally “path” or “progress”—may be used as generally as to mean only whether a makam is:
•
“ascending” (çıkıcı, i.e., beginning its melodic movement at or around the tonic, moving upward toward the upper tonic, and returning to the tonic)
•
“descending” (inici, i.e., beginning at/around the upper octave of the tonic and moving toward the tonic)
•
or either “descending-ascending” (inici-çıkıcı) or “ascending-descending” (çıkıcı-inici), both beginning around the dominant and moving mostly in the lower or upper region, respectively, before reaching the upper octave of the tonic and falling to the tonic.
This is the most common way in which A-E-U based theory books use the term, though both Arel’s (1991 [1943-48]) and Özkan’s (1984) also include prose descriptions of each makam’s melodic movement through the hierarchy of tones. But “seyir” may instead be used as specifically as to mean a brief melody that succinctly outlines the minimal melodic expectations of a makam, such as those “seyir-s” Rauf
53
Class of 2/10/09; later, on 3/31/09, the (pre-Arel) makam Çargâh was introduced as a member of the Hicaz family, i.e., as Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh.
155
Yekta notated in his 1922 (1913) Lavignac article, or those given in Yılmaz 2007 (1973), or those that Arel called “örnek özler” (“exemplary essences”) in his 1991 (1943-48) text.
There is also an overall ABA “seyir” (or bünye, “structure”) to every normative taksim (regardless of the makam shown) consisting of a zemin (“ground”) section in which the makam’s basic “seyir” is shown, followed by a meyan (or miyan: “center, space between”) section in which the makam is “developed” by means of internal modulations, followed by a return to the “ground.”54 The seyir-s of compound (mürekkeb or bileşik) makam-s include their necessary “internal modulations,” while the seyir-s of makam-s not considered compound but whose internal modulations are very frequently stereotyped do not include these. In any case, a makam’s seyir must minimally be some sort of abstract heuristic model of its melodic movement that includes a hierarchy of tones that receive focus either by serving as a center for melodic movement (as usually do the durak or karar, “tonic,” and güçlü, “dominant”), or as a temporary resting point (as for asma karar-s, “suspended cadences”) before the final cadence (karar, literally “decision”).
The term “seyir” is usually used by performers in such a way that the context will determine the level of specificity meant, though “seyir” with Yekta and Yılmaz’s
54
İhsan Özgen noted to me that before about the 1940s there was a different structure for taksim-s, fairly strictly kept to and reflecting the structure of the şarkı song form: zemin (ground), nakarat (refrain), meyan (middle), nakarat (refrain) (p.c. 5/27/09; see also Özkan 1984: 86-8).
156
meaning of a condensed melody was frowned on (for instance Eymen Gürtan advised me that I must not ask performers to “play a makam’s seyir” in order to compare it to their more complex taksim-s in the same makam). Otherwise, in my conversations with informants, only Özer Özel mentioned seyir in an unconventional way, while debunking the idea of a makam’s dominant necessarily being where cins-es join: For instance in Rast, the dominant is rast, listen [sings beginning of Merâgî’s Rast Nakış Beste]—the same with Hüseyni makam, same with Muhayyer makam [sings in Muhayyer]. What note does everyone give? Doing that makam, you have to go right to muhayyer, of course. If not, you’re in Hüseyni. That’s the seyir. You may explain seyir, but this is really what seyir must mean. (P.c. 3/18/09) In other words, knowing where immediately to begin a taksim in a makam is sufficient to know that makam’s seyir (given also that all makam’s eventually end on the tonic).
The fourth term given in the rubric of this section, “principles of melodic movement,” is not a common one in KTM rhetoric. Only one informant spoke explicitly of prensip-s (“principles”); Ahmet Toz, responding to a question about the “rules” (kural-s) of makam-s given in theory books, said, “There are no rules; there are principles. For instance wherever you have a buselik [trichord/tetrachord/pentachord/çeşni] you can develop a hicaz beneath it” (p.c. 6/18/09). Similarly, wherever there is a hicaz tetrahchord there is commonly found a rast pentachord above or below it. I later asked Mehmet Bitmez what he thought of this idea of “principles,” and after thinking about it for a moment he said that he agreed, adding, “for instance there’s a place in every makam for Saba” (p.c. 6/18/09). 157
Later still I mentioned these ideas to Agnès Agopian, who also agreed (though she had some reservations about such a liberal application of Saba).55
At this point I am able to refine for the reader the hypothesis to which I will be subjecting the taksim recordings analyzed in the next two chapters: it is that such principles—widely understood by performers yet largely unarticulated and nowhere addressed in the theoretical literature—are used to govern, at the level of the cins, both modulation (within and between makam-s), and melodic movement that is secondary to a makam’s seyir (e.g., in taksim-s in a single makam, even in moments without internal modulation). I believe that an explication of such principles, coupled with an understanding of a makam’s çeşni-s and seyir, may suffice as the materials with which to formalize a kind of performance-oriented grammar for analyzing (and if desired, for creating, and even for learning to create) taksim-s and other kinds of composition, and to some extent may be used in explaining some of the finer points of definitions of makam-s as they are understood by performers. The concept of “principles of melodic movement (at the level of the cins)” will therefore be dealt with in greater detail in the next two chapters.
55
She noted that applying Saba to certain makam-s would cause them to lose their identity, e.g., a main difference between Isfahan and Isfahanek is that the latter must have it, therefore the former should not; see also Necati Çelik’s comment above regarding the same condition between Acem and Acem Aşiran. However, note that the issue at hand is not what may be done with Saba particularly, but rather which modulatory combinations are avoided because they may obscure the main makam’s identity beyond recognition, perhaps by evoking different, unintended makam-s.
158
CHAPTER CONCLUSION
We have heard in this chapter current performers’ uses, contestations, and “corrections” of the official classical Turkish music theory presented in the previous chapter, and also some of the ways in which these musicians maintain, create and perpetuate their own understandings of the Turkish makam system and of the music culture’s history. We might note a tendency to ground alternative conceptions (some of which may in fact be unprecedented innovations) in narratives of tradition, drawing on centuries of repertoire, in oral traditions passed down from master to student, and in the examples of great performers such as Tanburi Cemil Bey as learned through the medium of 78 rpm records (and more recently, published cassettes and CDs reproducing them). It is also clear that while the ideological aspects of this pervasive conservatism and nostalgia make for a creative tension between expressions of modernity and tradition in the lives of performers, amateurs, teachers, and audiences, from an aesthetic point of view it serves to maintain a self-consciously tradition-oriented music culture and sound; the music’s parameters are those that encourage “classically beautiful” expression, if at the expense of experimentation. In fact it may be at least partially due to such a conservative attitude that there is a reluctance on the part of even acknowledged master musicians to attempt creating new fixed-composition repertoire today; the widely acknowledged state of the art is that there are few top notch composers today (as has been considered the case, with rare exceptions, since Tanburi Cemil Bey died in 1916). The main creative outlet
159
today is the taksim genre, and that is approached largely by way of an aesthetically conservative interpretation of makam definitions and combinations (see Chapters V and VI), and approached as a relatively short form (from mere seconds to perhaps ten minutes in duration—which compare to the “hours” of taksim in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries described in Chapter II).
Yet despite a widespread fear amongst performers for the current vitality of classical Turkish music, it appears (at least to me) not to be in quite the moribund state sometimes claimed for it. Although I have no access to the statistical information to confirm it, it seems quite plausible that there are as many or more musicians today (amateur and professional, singers and instrumentalists) as ever there have been in any period of the music’s history. As to mature performers’ concerns of losses in makam knowledge among the younger generation as expressed above, I can only say that while I personally share their preferences for the complex, detailed, and rare in Turkish makam music, I must also wonder what sort of opinions performers in Cantemir’s time would have had in regard to subsequent performer-composers now considered masters, or for that matter what the previous generation had thought of Cantemir and his peers. A casual perusal of the first volume of Fikret Kutluğ’s 2000 makam history-cum-theory text is enough to see that a certain fluidity in makam definitions is hardly a new phenomenon. In other words, change per se is not necessarily loss; but we must note that if ever there were an ideal period in which the possibilities for recording the minutest details of the art for later recovery—whether
160
in notation, sound and video recordings, or scholarship—it would seem that we are in it, and taking full advantage of the media that may serve as resources for future generations. This, combined with the conservative ethos of the music culture as a whole, seems to me to be a recipe for renewal rather than for loss.
Not coincidentally, in the next chapter we will begin examining some of the taksim-s from early twentieth-century recordings. It must be remembered that the earliest of these performers—who, in the ears of current taksim performers, are the most influential ones upon their sense of makam as applied in the taksim genre—learned makam and the art of taksim largely without the aid of the works of the theorists whom we met in Chapter III.56 As we pass from these to recordings of current performers’ taksim-s we will be better able to hear how official theory and notation— as well as these early recordings themselves—have affected performers’ thinking and performance, both as a result of institutionalized education and via access to unprecedented amounts of recordings and pre-composed repertoire—the latter newly notated, and for the first time ever, fixed in standardized versions.
56
Though some of them seem to have been familiar enough with the works to disagree with them; e.g., see Ayangil 2008: 420 regarding a dispute between Tanburi Cemil Bey and Rauf Yekta Bey.
161
CHAPTER V: MAKAM PRAXIS SINCE 1910
Stories—perhaps legends—of the early recording industry in Turkey, and particularly of the relationship between the Orfeon/Odeon Company’s Blumenthal brothers and Tanburi Cemil Bey, circulate amongst current KTM musicians like fresh gossip: about the brothers begging outside Cemil’s house for him to come to the studio, bringing him baskets of fresh fruit and bottles of other refreshments; how he was often too drunk to play well, but recorded anyway; about the notebooks in which he approved or disapproved of his recordings—all released in any case, after his death— and even of written out plans of taksim modulations; of the terrible heat in the recording room, the artists seated in their coattails in front of the giant cone, a producer tugging on the tails to let the artist know that the three minutes plus of the 10 inch, 78 rpm record was coming to a close. I met several musicians who have antique gramophones and record collections to play upon them, and there is at least one shop deep in the bowels of the Covered Bazaar in the old city where an elderly gentleman sells and repairs the machines for these aficionados. Whether in such a direct medium or through cassettes—or more recently, CDs and MP3s—recordings of master musicians from the early part of the twentieth century are a normative part of a KTM musician’s musical diet, serving as standards of excellence and as sources for learning to make taksim-s.1
1
There are also many recordings of songs and other pre-composed repertoire, but a large portion of these recordings are taksim-s and gazel-s—these are the most highly valued by today’s KTM musicians.
162
Although Edison’s earliest phonograph cylinder was invented in 1877, the first commercially distributed recordings of music from the Ottoman Empire appear around 1910 (which is why that year marks the beginning of the period of this study). I urge Turkish-speaking readers interested in the early recording industry and its later spread to Ottoman Turkey to read Cemal Ünlü’s 1991 Git Zaman Gel Zaman (“Once Upon a Time,” literally “Go, Time; Come, Time”), but in the present chapter we will be examining several taksim-s from among these recordings rather than delving into the social context in which they were created.
In this chapter we shall be looking primarily at four examples of taksim recordings spanning three generations of players. The nature of the material to analyze in them is such that each new example is in some way more complex than the previous one, and since it may be easy to lose sight of the overall arc of the chapter when zooming in on an issue specific to a later example, I wish to give the reader a brief description of the journey ahead of time. The chapter proceeds thus: analysis of a Rast taksim by Tanburi Cemil Bey (no date, 1910s); analysis of a Rast taksim by Mesut Cemil Bey (no date, late 1930s or early 1940s); analysis of a Rast taksim by Agnès Agopian (June 2009) having no modulation; analysis of a Rast taksim by the same artist on the same day, but with modulations; analysis of the specific details of these modulations; a close look at a problematic makam (called “Hüzzam”) that appears in one of Agopian’s modulations; a comparison of eight other artists’ treatment of that makam in previously made recordings from throughout our period; a return to the remaining
163
modulations in the second Agopian taksim; a consolidation of the information gleaned from the analyses of the above four taksim-s; a comparison of this information with Arelian theory and a note on the historicity of cins-oriented understandings of the makam system; and finally four specific issues of disagreement between current performers’ understandings and Arelian theory. We begin with the explanation of terms, and a key to the signs used in the transcriptions.
THE CİNS-ES ACCORDING TO AREL
Before looking at the recorded examples of taksim-s we will need to establish a vocabulary for a musicological analysis of them. We have seen in previous chapters the concepts of seyir (stereotyped melodic movement) and of a hierarchy of tones, and I have explained that an understanding of the cins-es (“genera”—pentachords, tetrachords, and trichords) are key to a makam’s definition, and to identifying modulations. At this point I will present the cins-es in use in current classical Turkish music as given by Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek theory; as we move through analyses of recorded examples we will be in a position to refine these according to performeroriented definitions.
164
Cins
Written
Sounds
çargâh (4, 5) CDEFG GG AA BB C D buselik (4, 5) AB cde E Fd G A B kürdi (4, 5) A Be c d e EFGAB rast (4, 5) G A Bq c d D E Fs G A uşşak (4; hüseyni 5) A Bq c d e E Fs G A B hicaz (4, 5) A B w cs d e E Fa G s A B saba (4) segâh (5) hüzzam (5) nikriz (5) pençgâh (5) ferahnak (5)
A B q c dw B q c d eq fs B q c d ew fs G A B w cs d G A B cs d F s G A B cs
E Fs G A w Fs G A B q cs F s G A B w cs D E Fa Gs A D E Fd Gs A Cs D E Fd Gs
Intervals (in commas)2 9+9+4+9 9+4+9+9 4+9+9+9 9+8+5+9 8+5+9+9 5+12+5+9 8+5+5 5+9+8+9 5+9+5+12 9+5+12+5 9+9+8+5 5+9+9+8
Figure 2: the cins-es according to Arel.
Arel separated these into the two categories shown above: the first six cins-es are categorized as “basic,” being distinguished by having both a perfect fifth and a perfect fourth from the tonic,3 while the latter six are supposed to lack one of these (1991 [1943-48]: 17-27), though the “segâh pentachord” would seem not to lack
2
Note that unlike common practice today, Arel did not measure intervals in commas; he gave ratios of vibration for the sizes of intervals which he called koma 521441:524288 (≈ 23.46¢ or, practically, 81:80 ≈ 21.5¢) (q / a), eksik bakiyye 134217728:129140163 (≈ 66.8¢ or, practically, 25:24 ≈ 70.6¢; no signs), bakiyye 256:243 ≈ 90.2¢ (w / s), küçük mücennep 2187:2048 ≈ 113.7¢ (e / d), büyük mücennep 65536:59049 ≈ 180.4¢ (r / f), tanini 9:8 ≈ 204¢ (ee /g), plus the artık ikili (no signs; sometimes 3 bakiyye, sometimes 3 bakiyye + 1 koma) (1991 [1943-48]: 8), which terms are understood today as representing 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 12-13 commas respectively (see Özkan 1984: 39, and Appendix F). 3 Note that Arel did not use the term “cins” for these interval structures. Once in his lesson book he gave the direct Turkish translations for the terms “tetrachord” (“teldört”—quotation marks his also; literally “stringfour”) and “pentachord” (“telbeş,” lit. “stringfive”—both apparently neologisms, today unused), but he did so only to note that the normative terminology he had chosen to use throughout the theory (and text), does not distinguish between these—i.e., four- and five-tone entities within the span of the intervals of a fourth and fifth, respectively—and the normative terms for those intervals themselves, i.e., “fourth” and “fifth” (1991 [1943-48]: 17 fn. 3). As a result, even today the term dörtlü means both “interval of a fourth” and “tetrachord,” and beşli means both “interval of a fifth” and “pentachord.”
165
either of these features.4 Makam-s characterized as “basic” in Arel’s theory qualify as such on the basis of their being formed by the conjunction of two “basic” cins-es.5 Note that the latter six cins-es,6 termed diğer (“other”) or eksik (“deficient, diminished”), occur in only one form each, i.e., as either a tetrachord, or as a pentachord, but not as both.7 Finally note that while all of the “basic” cins-es occur in the forms of both a tetrachord and a pentachord (i.e., a tetrachord extended by a whole tone), there are separate names only for the uşşak tetrachord and its extension as a pentachord, hüseyni.8 Not that it has passed into current theory or affects the common understanding today, but it is interesting to know that Arel expressed that it was scales—not makam-s—that are what we build of these cins-es (ibid.: 17), and 4
Özkan notes this discrepancy, and also that there is a “diminished” (or “deficient”—eksik) version of the pentachord, having f instead of f (1984: 47), something Arel did not include.
5
z
s
Arel claimed thirteen makam-s as “basic”—Çargâh, Buselik, Kürdi, Rast, Uşşak, Hicaz, Hümayun, Uzzal, Zengüle/Zirgüle, Hüseyni, Neva, Karcığar, and (Basit) Suzinak—but in his enumeration of these he also pointed out four makam-s having such “basic” structures but differing in seyir: Beyati (like Uşşak but beginning around the dominant), Tahir (like Neva but descending), Muhayyer (like Hüseyni but descending) and Şehnaz Buselik (like Buselik but beginning around the dominant and having a hicaz tetrachord rather than a kürdi tetrachord as the normative upper cins) (1991 [1943-48]: 43-60). 6 The Arelian theorist Özkan added 5 more cins-es to this group: the müstear pentachord (B c d e f ), the diminished müstear pentachord (B c d e f ), the ferahnak pentachord (F G A B c ), the diminished ferahnak pentachord (F G A B c ), and the nişabur pentachord (B c d e f) (1984: 47-9).
q s
q s
7
s
z
s
z
s
s
s
Note that a point of confusion arises in Arel’s scheme in that there are only three categories for makam-s: basic, compound, and transpositions. Makam-s that do not qualify as “basic” must therefore be categorized as one of the others (or practically, as compounds, and possibly their transpositions). We shall see that it seems as though even during Arel’s lifetime, certain makam-s that contain “other” cins-es were not necessarily considered compounds; that Arel’s scheme demanded he describe them as such may explain why certain taksim-s recorded previous to the ascendancy of Arel’s theory apply different (i.e., non-compound) definitions of their makam-s than do taksim-s recorded by people educated using Arel’s definitions. 8 I.e., there is neither an uşşak pentachord nor a hüseyni tetrachord (ibid.: 22, fn. 5). Nor is there any explanation for such a distinction, as far as I could tell, even at the level of a folk tale. I would also point out here that if the artificial nature of “Çargâh” were not apparent from other features (see Chapter III and Appendix G), the fact that this supposedly most basic cins occurs so far below the range of all the others—and at the unusual distance of a tritone from the next closest root, no less— would seem to signal it. It is similarly curious that it should start on kaba çargâh/middle C rather than on the perde for which it is named, çargâh.
166
that scales are what have a tonic and dominant (ibid.: 27); that seems to be the rationale for having distinct names for uşşak and hüseyni cins-es,9 though it leaves unexplained why the hicaz family of makam-s—Hicaz, Hümayun, Uzzal, and Zirgüle, the scales of the former pair having the fourth degree as dominant and those of the latter pair the fifth degree—are based upon a tetrachord or pentachord with a single name (hicaz).10
We are now close to having a vocabulary of elements with which to define a makam—and therefore to define modulations within and between makam-s as well; in addition to the cins-es listed above, the following terms (some of which we have previously seen) are also needed: •
seyir—stereotyped melodic direction o including an order of necessary internal modulations within compound makam-s
•
a hierarchy of tones o durak—tonic
tiz durak—upper tonic
9
Though seemingly not much of a “rationale,” this is Arel’s explanation: “You would think from the Uşşak fourth that we would call this an ‘Uşşak fifth.’ But as will be explained later, because the makam Uşşak has its dominant on the fourth, and Hüseyni has its on the fifth, it is instead called the ‘Hüseyni fifth.’ ” (1991 [1943-48]: 22, fn 5). 10 Perhaps stranger still, unlike the tone hüseyni in relation to the makam Hüseyni, no makam in the Hicaz family contains the tone for which they are named (hicaz), but rather they contain the tone nim hicaz (apparently formerly called uzzal, see Feldman 1996: 197, 208-9).
167
o güçlü—dominant11
ikinci güçlü—“second dominant”
o yeden—leading tone; the tone a half-step (4 commas) below the tonic
tam yeden—subtonic; the tone a whole step (9 commas) below the tonic
•
karar—cadence12 o yarım karar—half cadence o asma karar—suspended cadence
I would also like to add to these the concept formulated by Münir Nurettin Beken (1998, and elaborated with Karl Signell, q.v. in Bayhan 2008) that melodic movement in makam music (and in taksim-s particularly) is shaped by three poetic strategies: confirming a makam’s identity, delaying such a confirmation, and deceiving the listener as to the makam’s identity. The central framework of these authors’ research 11
In any piece of makam music the dominant—the most important tone defining a makam’s structure after the tonic—must be shown by extended play on that tone and by melodic movement centered around it, and by occasional “suspended cadences” upon it (see below). It is most often a makam’s dominant that serves as either the tonic or dominant of a new makam in modulations. “Second dominants” and even “third dominants” are fairly common in a makam; these are tones that one may expect to hear/play with an emphasis similar in kind to—but to a lesser degree than—the first dominant; they do not function in the manner of “secondary dominants” in classical Western music, one leading to the next and at a fixed interval distance. Dominants are most often the point of conjunction of two cins-es but are not so necessarily and must be learned specifically for each makam; unlike in Western music they are not always a perfect fifth up from the tonic. 12 The word karar—in everyday Turkish literally “decision”—is sometimes also used to refer to the tonic (which is always the last tone played in a taksim). It implies a final cadence, though it might not be the last one of a taksim or piece of music (particularly in a compound makam, displaying one makam after another). Its function is to confirm (“decide”) a makam’s identity. The “half cadence” (yarım karar) occurs on the dominant and should refrain for that moment from showing tones outside the makam; the “suspended cadence” (asma karar) occurs on a secondary (etc.) dominant and may “open” a modulation or otherwise display tones outside the makam (selon Aydemir 2010: 26-7).
168
on this topic is the definition of the nominal makam of a taksim, but it seems to me that the three strategies are also integral to making (and recognizing) successful modulations. (This subject will be elaborated upon in Chapter VII.)
Finally before presenting examples, I need to explain the specialized transcription method with which I will present them. The focus of the transcriptions is the structure of the taksim represented, reflecting the terms and concepts we have seen above. By showing the passage of time in 10-second increments beneath the staff we will be freeing the variety of notehead types for the representation of only the structural importance of tones rather than their duration. Examples are transcribed at the standard KTM transposition level considered appropriate for the nominal makam; “makam signatures” (donanım; analogous to “key signatures”)—as standardized by Arel et al.—also reflect this. Accidental signs (see Appendix F) last the duration of the line unless otherwise changed. Note that in the case of the video recordings I made of current performers, there are two sets of timing; one showing actual elapsed time (“Time”) and the other the time displayed on the recording (i.e., beginning after the title of the video clip has passed; “DVD”). When referring to points in time in these transcriptions I will use the “DVD time” in order to facilitate the reader’s ability to follow the transcription while watching the corresponding video. Below is a key to the signs to be used in these transcriptions.
169
Figure 3: transcription key.
1. whole note: represents the tonic (in any octave) of the nominal makam (and of modulated-to makam-s that share the same tonic); this sign may represent a single, continuous tone or several iterations of that tone, but otherwise no significant melodic movement away from that tone (after the tonic has been shown, when it is being used merely as a passing tone it is usually represented as a “small notehead,” q.v. below) 2. hollow diamond: represents the dominant tone (in any octave) of the nominal makam (and of makam-s modulated to that share the same dominant) when its function as a dominant is being emphasized; this sign may represent a single, continuous tone or several iterations of that tone, but otherwise no significant melodic movement away from that tone 3. solid notehead: represents a tone, neither the tonic nor dominant, upon which special emphasis is placed in the performance; may de facto indicate a “second dominant,” etc. 4. small notehead: represents any tone not otherwise distinguished in emphasis
170
5. whole note stroke: represents the tonic of a makam to which the taksim has modulated when the new makam’s tonic is not the same as the nominal makam’s 6. hollow diamond stroke: represents the dominant of a makam (in any octave) to which the taksim has modulated when the new makam’s dominant is not the same as the nominal makam’s. (After this new dominant has been shown, when it is being used merely as a passing tone it may be represented as a “small notehead,” q.v. above.) 7. downward vertical arrow: represents the performer’s deliberate flattening of a tone (i.e., use of a flatter version of the notated perde)13 8. upward vertical arrow: represents the performer’s deliberate sharpening of a tone; practically, this is nearly always a return to the normative version of a perde following a flattening shown by the above-mentioned sign14 9. downward diagonal arrow: represents a glissando or “slide” downward between two notated tones 10. upward diagonal arrow: represents a glissando or “slide” upward between two notated tones 11. comma: represents a pause, i.e., a punctuational silence
13
For clarity’s sake let me reiterate that the measurement of intervals was not part of this research project. For practical purposes we might imagine that this flattening (and the sharpening represented by the next sign on the list above) is generally by one to two commas; the recordings are available for researchers wishing to establish for themselves greater specificity. 14 The exception would be the D w in Saba, which some performers sharpen by about a comma (see Signell 2008 [1973]: 45, cf. Wright 1990: 232 fn. 37).
171
12. grey line: represents melodic movement between two non-adjacent tones, respecting any accidental signs affecting the intermediary tones; this movement is usually stepwise but might not be (two tones not connected by a grey line indicate an interval step or leap) 13. makam name in brackets: this marks a change in cins and the new makam associated with it; we may generally call this a modulation to the makam named15
Having all of the above-mentioned terms, concepts, and notation conventions at our disposal we can now take a look at our first recorded examples. Let us begin by comparing a few taksim performances in the makam Rast, starting with one by Tanburi Cemil Bey (1873-1916) (hear Traditional Crossroads 1994: 2/5 “Rast Taksim”):16
15
However note that, as mentioned in Chapter IV, some current performers identified such cinschanges using terms other than “geçki” (modulation), preferring for example “çeşni.” Some taksim transcriptions therefore have such designations even when it is reckoned by its performer as having no modulations. 16 Unfortunately none of the sources I found for the taksim-s from the earlier part of the twentieth century (see Discography) give precise dates for their recordings, even as to the year. I therefore use the chronology of the artists’ lives and biographical material included in liner notes of the recordings and in Ünlü 2004 as a rough guide to the sequence of recordings. In each example below, each artist presented is assumed on the basis of these criteria to have recorded the sample taksim at a later date than the previous exemplar.
172
Figure 4: Rast taksim, Tanburi Cemil Bey.
Now, of course, we do not have Tanburi Cemil Bey’s own analysis of this (or any other) taksim, so in analyzing this particular taksim we can only make assumptions about his understanding of the makam Rast as he chose to apply it here. The seyir of the makam begins as both the theorists we have read about and today’s performers
173
understand it; centered around the tonic without exceeding the limits of the dominant on either side of it (see below; cf. Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 47; Özkan 1984: 115); this phrase alone—and especially the melodic gesture at ca. :08-:17 (marked as “1”)—is sufficient to confirm for the listener that the makam is Rast. The second phrase (ca. :20-:43, marked as “2”) appears to be an exposition of the main scalar material, cadencing on the tonic, and here we may note two things: •
that it does so with only minimal emphasis of the dominant (until around 0:49), and
•
that the seventh degree (f z) is a minor seventh from the tonic
Both of these features may be regarded as significant; the first because it seems better to support the notion of the makam as an octave scale rather than as a collection of cins-es that are explored more or less sequentially (see Ezgi, Özkan in Appendix D, cf. Karadeniz ibid.; cf. also other Rast taksim-s below). The second—Cemil’s deployment of f z /acem as the seventh degree—is significant not so much in this phrase per se, but because it appears from its introduction here onward as the norm, whether ascending or descending, contrary to Arelian theory and later praxis; the f s /eviç shows up only for a few moments ca. 1:14-1:15 (“4”), ca. 1:35-1:47 (“5”), and ca. 2:53-4 (“9”)(see especially Karadeniz, Özkan, Kutluğ in Appendix D, and taksims below; Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 47; Özkan 1984: 115; see also Appendix G). Whereas current theory might encourage the explanation that there are two varieties of upper tetrachord being used here (a rast tetrachord on d/neva when the f s /eviç is used, and
174
a buselik tetrachord on d/neva when f z /acem is used), the way Cemil Bey treated these elements in this taksim does not suggest that he was considering it in those terms. In fact for the first twenty seconds it would seem as though he had a rast tetrachord rather than a rast pentachord in mind as the lower cins.
The third phrase (ca. :44-1:10, marked “3”) establishes the dominant (d/neva),17 and the fourth phrase (ca. 1:12-1:43, marked “4”) uses the dominant as a place from which to make a “suspended cadence” (asma karar) on the tone Bq /segâh, as Rast’s “second dominant,” prominently including segâh’s characteristic leading tone, As /kürdi.18 I count a fifth phrase as defined between ca. 1:44 and 2:06 (“6”), in which an emphasis on a stepwise motion downward from dominant to tonic is achieved by the technically difficult and stylistically novel double-stops in parallel fourths.19 This is followed without pause by a sixth phrase (ca. 2:07-2:33, “7”) in which melodic gestures exploiting the upper octave are echoed in the lower, ending with a descent to the lower dominant and a cadence on an energized rast, leading to the seventh phrase 17
Note that Özer Özel, lecturer in music theory at Yıldız University would contend firstly that Rast’s dominant is rast, and that Cemil Bey had established it in the first phrase (p.c. 3/18/09). I take the b’ ca. 1:05 to be an error, although a brief show of the “flat 3rd” is not unusual in Rast. 18 This phenomenon of a perde having its own “leading tone” 4 commas below it is particular to B /segâh (and its octave equivalents, e.g., b /tiz segâh), F /ırak (and its octave equivalents, e.g., f /eviç), especially in makam-s who have one of these as the tonic, and on their equivalent perde-s in transpositions (e.g., Segâh, Müstear, Hüzzam, Irak, Eviç, et al.; also as the third degree of any rast cins). This melodic gesture is associated with the makam Segâh; performers often refer to it as a segâh çeşnisi, “a taste of Segâh.” 19 At about the red asterisk’s position in time, there is a passing b in the first of these sequences; this is because the frets of Cemil Bey’s tanbur has that tone as the perfect fourth below e in his melody, and the one-finger “barre” technique he used for executing this passage simply requires the “mistake.” I would guess that the following e is unintentional, corrected ca. 2 seconds later by the appearance of e .
e
q
q
s
s
z
z
e
z
175
(ca. 2:33-3:07, “8”), a recapitulation of the taksim: •
displaying the octave scale (now including f s ascending and f z descending)
•
a rise to the dominant, showing it off with the special double-stop technique shown earlier
•
showing the tones below the tonic and then above the upper tonic (again showing f s ascending and f z descending)
•
a descent to the tonic, and further to the dominant below it, before the final cadence, echoing the opening phrase o including the return of a typical rast “çeşni” leaping from the low dominant to the 3rd degree then descending stepwise to the tonic (q.v. at ca.: :08-:12, :39-:40, and 3:04-3:06)
One aspect of this taksim we may note (to contrast especially with Rast taksim-s we will see below) is its lack of modulations; all of the tones and cins-es unaccounted for by the makam’s signature (donanım, analogous to a “key signature”)—excluding supposed errors—are well within commonly understood definitions of Rast, at least currently, and we have no reason to presume otherwise regarding the makam’s definition in Cemil Bey’s time. That is, this would appear to be Tanburi Cemil Bey’s definition/praxis of a pure (i.e., modulation-free) Rast makam. The normative threepart “zemin-meyan-zemin” structure of a taksim (see Chapter IV) can be interpreted here as: •
zemin (ground; demonstrating the makam’s characteristics): ca. :00-:43
176
•
meyan (center; room for freer play/modulations): ca. :43-2:34
•
return to the zemin/ground: ca. 2:34-3:07
though I would say that this taksim also shows a very typical division of the meyan into two parts (which is not expressed by the phrase “zemin-meyan-zemin”): one in which the area of the dominant is explored (and if there are modulations, they usually begin then, and from that area)—here, ca. :43-2:06—followed by an exploration of the upper octave (of any modulations, then/or of the original makam) before returning to the “zemin”—here, ca. 2:06-2:33. Let us now compare the above taksim with a Rast taksim by Tanburi Cemil Bey’s son Mesut Cemil Bey, literally a generation later (hear “Viyolonsel ile rast taksim” on Kalan Mesut Cemil (1902-1963), 2004: 1/16).20
20
We must note that although Mesut Cemil did learn kemençe as a child with his father, the latter passed away when Mesut Cemil was 14; his musical education proceeded partly under students of his father, and partly in Western music in Germany, but he is noted as having a style unlike his father’s; more conservative and reflecting the school of Tanburi İsak (d. 1814) (Aksoy 2004). Notable recordings of Rast taksim-s, presumed recorded between these two performers and that are commercially available (and which were studied for this research) include: Mısırlı İbrahim Efendi (1872-1933), ud, “Rast Taksim” Türk Müziği Ustaları - Ud Kalan 2004: 2/2; Neşet Bey (d. 1930), ud (or neşetkâr?), “Rast Taksim” ibid.: 2/6; Haydar Tatlıyay (1890-1963), violin “Rast Taksim” Kemanî Haydar Tatlıyay Kalan 2001: 6; Yorgo Bacanos (1900-1977), ud “Rast Taksim I” and “Rast Taksim II” Türk Müziği Ustaları - Ud Kalan 2004: 1/13 and 14. Similar recordings presumed recorded after this Mesut Cemil taksim include: Vedia Tunççekiç (1914-1983), kemençe, “Rast Taksim” Türk Müziği Ustaları - Kemençe Kalan 2005: 2/15, and Cüneyd Orhon (1926-2006), kemençe, “Rast Taksim” ibid.: 2/21.
177
Figure 5: Rast taksim, Mesut Cemil Bey.
This taksim could conceivably be taken as one in the makam Mahur (an iteration of which is a version of Rast that descends from its upper tonic), but it is labeled as Rast, seems more like his version of Rast than his version of Mahur,21 and I suspect the fact that it falls an octave below the tone rast is simply because, on the violoncello, he had the extra octave available do so.22
21
Compare his Rast taksim on “Rehavî peşrev ve tanburla rast taksim” Mesut Cemil (1902-1963), Kalan 2004: 1/13 with his Mahur taksim introducing “Mahur Beste (Eyyubi Bekir Ağa)” Mesut Cemil (1902-1963) Volume I Early Recordings Golden Horn 2000: 3. 22 Again note that the notation, as with all KTM notation, is written in the treble clef, with rast as the G above middle C, regardless of instrumentation. Here I have treated the taksim as if it is in its
178
Here the zemin-meyan-zemin partition is fairly clear (i.e., :00 to :48 + :48 to 1:01 + 1:01 to 1:45); the lack of an upper octave section probably follows from the midtaksim octave switch, which effectively recontextualizes the normative tonic as the new upper tonic after ca. 1:14. Allowing for the octave switch, the seyir is typically Rast’s; at first bottom heavy, moving slowly toward the dominant—though like his father’s taksim, seemingly at first confined within a tetrachord rather than a pentachord—indeed these may be evidence that at least Rast makam was conceived of as two disjunct rast tetrachords, rather than a conjunct rast pentachord and rast tetrachord; we must note that Yekta had portrayed it thus (1922 [1913]: 2997). The taksim then goes beyond this limit to show the upper tonic before returning to the tonic, but there is very little emphasis on d/neva as the dominant—this would be a good example of Özer Özel’s conception of the perde rast as both the tonic and the dominant of Rast makam (see Chapter IV). The “flat 7th degree” (f z /acem) occurs only once—typically descending after a rise using f s /eviç—but does so during what would seem to be a modulation, i.e., not as a part of Rast makam per se.
The modulation (if that is what this is; see below) in the meyan section, lasting ca. :48-1:00, may be interpreted in two ways: in the first, the modulation is to Nikriz makam and lasts ca. :48-:58 before returning directly to Rast, in which case the tone preceded by the red asterisk should be interpreted as B w /dik kürdi; in the second interpretation there are two brief modulations, first a “taste” of Nihavend (effectively normative octave up to ca. 1:14, after which it has simply moved whole an octave lower. Were it in Mahur makam, the whole taksim should be transposed an octave higher.
179
consisting of the quite normal brief use of the flat third degree, as mentioned in fn. 17 above—in which case the marked tone should be interpreted as B e /kürdi) followed by a short phrase in Müstear makam, returning to Rast at ca. 1:01. Sonically, the tone in question is being used in two slow glissandi and perhaps both its identity and the identity of the modulation(s) is intentionally vague.23
This sort of ambiguity is an example of what I mean when I propose to apply Beken’s and Signell’s analysis of “confirming-delaying-deceiving” techniques to modulatory passages (see Beken 1998, and Signell in Bayhan 2008); either of the above interpretations would be considered appropriate within Rast, but exactly which one it is remains unclear—the listener is being delayed from a resolution in Rast, but deceived as to how the delay is achieved. In fact, it is possible to understand this brief meyan section as having no modulation at all; it may simply be seen as having certain “delaying” melodic gestures that are commonly done when performing in Rast—a brief show of the minor third, a sharp fourth degree tonicizing the dominant, a “major” seventh (fs/eviç) rising replaced by a “minor” seventh (f/acem) falling, a tonicizing of the second dominant Bq /segâh with its “leading tone” (As /kürdi)—all incidentally performed at once in a sequence that happens to recall other makam
23
I take it as high enough to be B w/dik kürdi, incidentally, but much experience listening to performers interpret modulations leads me to believe that most of them would likely interpret the makam modulations by the melodic gesture(s) first and only afterward judge the intended version of an ambiguous tone (e.g., whether the above perde is kürdi or dik kürdi), rather than vice versa.
180
possibilities.24
In any case, we have in Mesut Cemil Bey a second example of a performer whose sense of makam definition was not formed by an education in the new rules of theory.25 As in his father’s taksim above, the idea of a scalar concept rather than of a modular set of cins-es seems to inform his understanding of the makam Rast (though there appears to be a subtle showing of a rast tetrachord, rather than pentachord, up from the tonic), and it is unclear whether the “modulation” here indicates a sense of changes in cins; in these aspects at least these two taksim-s do not seem to reflect an understanding of makam definition or of modulation very like that of Arel’s.
Stepping slightly aside for a moment to provide the reader a path to further illuminating information on the subject, I need to note the fact that ethnomusicologists in the twenty-first century of course “cite” written texts without providing copies of the texts themselves, and yet are restrained from doing the same with audio recordings. This strikes me as something of a field-wide failure of imagination, but nonetheless, for the more curious reader I have marked in the Discography examples of taksim recordings too numerous to analyze in depth here; they are all from the early twentieth-century recordings, that is, by artists whose 24
This seems to be Beken’s idea of the techniques of delaying and deceiving, i.e., they occur in a context without actual modulation (Beken 1998; also indicated in a personal communication with K. Signell 10/16/09), but see Chapter VII in which I explain how I have interpreted these “poetic strategies” slightly differently than its original authors in order to accommodate modulation. 25 We know that he had worked with Rauf Yekta Bey—the two had together constituted Turkey’s delegation to the 1932 Cairo Congress on Arab Music (Aksoy 2004)—but by the time of their association he had long been an accomplished musician in his own right.
181
education was undertaken before the cins-oriented theory in Yekta (1913/1922), Ezgi (1933-53) and Arel (1943-48/1968) became the widespread norm in makam pedagogy that it would become by the mid-1940s (see Chapter III). The first of three categories of these recordings consists of taksim-s that I interpret as demonstrating a “scalar” or perhaps “characteristic melody” sense of a makam’s definition-in-praxis (that is, rather than a cins-oriented one) by putting track numbers in [brackets] with a single asterisk (*). 53 such examples are so marked. The second category, conversely, show examples from the same era that I interpret as demonstrating a cins-oriented conception of makam definitions; these are placed in brackets with two asterisks (**) in the Discography—23 such examples are so marked. And the third category consists of taksim-s that I heard as mixing the two understandings in the same taksim; these are marked with 3 asterisks (***)(13 examples). The above observations are not a comprehensive analysis, but rather an invitation to one; since I am able neither to analyze nor “cite” them here, any inference we may draw from the observations alone regarding the understanding of makam-s in terms of cins-es, belonging to performers’ educated before the spread of Arel et al.’s cins-oriented theory, must remain inconclusive. But a researcher desiring to clarify the concept—perhaps even the present reader—may find these recordings useful for the task.
It is possible to hear in today’s taksim/praxis iterations of makam definitions both as scalar, melody-oriented gestures largely ignoring the boundaries of the makam-s’ constituent cins-es (for instance hear Eymen Gürtan’s “Beyati Taksim,” DVD 1/7),
182
and as melodic gestures that outline cins-es more explicitly (for instance hear Mehmet Emin Bitmez’s “Nişabur Taksim” DVD 2/24), but it would seem from the 100 taksim recordings presented on the accompanying DVDs (q.v.) that the latter type is now the more common, and certainly the performers I recorded for this project preferred to give their analyses in terms of conjunct cins-es (as reflected in the 42 taksim-s with their analysis as subtitles, q.v. in Appendix K and on the taksim-s of DVDs 1-4), only occasionally preferring to describe aspects of their taksim-s in terms of “little melodies,” “a taste of such and such makam,” etc. Certainly cins-es are rarely played as though disjunct (see Appendix K).
In the two examples examined closely so far, we have been working under the disadvantage of not having at hand the interpretations of the taksim-s’ performers themselves; let us look now at two Rast taksim-s that I recorded specifically for this project, and whose moment-by-moment analysis was given by the artist who created them. Both taksim-s are by kanun player Agnès Agopian, who was kind enough to record one “simple” version of Rast (i.e., without modulations) and one with several modulations (“geçki-s”)—see DVD 1/1:
183
Figure 6: Rast taksim 1, Agnès Agopian.
First we may note that the seyir for our Rast taksim-s has been fairly consistent so far (and compare the vagueness of descriptions of it in theory texts; see Appendix D), even including familiar “çeşni-s” such as the previously mentioned leap from the lower dominant to the third degree and subsequent fall to the tonic—here it is heard not only ca. :20-23 and ca. 1:57-2:00, but foreshadowed in the leap of a sixth from G/rast to e/hüseyni in the very beginning, and even inverted in the final cadence.
Also familiar is the now more assiduously applied idea of using f s/eviç when ascending to the upper tonic (and beyond) and f z/acem when descending from it (which occurs several times ca. 1:20-1:47), and notice how she applies this 184
principle—which we have seen described as an example of cazibe (“gravity”) by Necati Çelik in Chapter IV—to a subtler degree also to the lower octave leading tone (F s/ırak, right after :20) and to the third degree (B q/segâh, after :58; a perfect fourth from the leading tone, and the second dominant of the makam). For this artist, it is this flexibility within the definition of Rast’s tones that allows the evocation of the other makam-s shown here (Uşşak and Segâh) without thinking of them as modulations; she treats them as though they are species, or “modes” in the Western “church modes” sense.26 More precisely, she notes that these makam-s “exist within Rast” (p.c. 6/19/09). Since she did not mention the c s at ca. 1:21, presumably she intended it not as a modulation (e.g., to Müstear; one of the possibilities we saw in Mesut Cemil’s Rast taksim) but as a normal tonicization of the dominant, i.e., not meant to evoke another makam to the point of identifying a departure from Rast—a Bekensian deception, perhaps. Nothing described in this paragraph is mentioned by Arel in his delineation of the makam Rast (see Arel (1991 [1943-48]: 47, also in Appendix D), or in his explanation of scale or modulation (1991 [1943-48]: 28-34 and 127-41).
26
Not that the Western “church modes” (i.e., Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian and Locrian) were used in this fashion; only that they are constituted of the cycle of tones of a single scale, each beginning on the various separate tones. Theorists from Ṣafīuddīn to at least Cantemir indeed did appear to understand primary modes in this way—note that the normative name for “music theory text” had long been “(Kitāb al-) Edvâr” (“[Book of] Cycles,” (i.e., of octave species; see Feldman 1996: 195-259). To be clear, this comparison is mine; Agnès Agopian did not mention medieval modes of any kind. There is also a rarely performed, religious, “improvised” song genre called the perde kaldırma (or perde kaldırması, “fret resting”) in which each step of a scale becomes in turn the tonic of a new makam/species, though (currently) it does not require strict fidelity to the scale material, i.e., certain kinds of temporary modulations are allowed. (It is generally known amongst musicians, though I only recall one informant mentioning it in regard to taksim [A. Toz p.c. 6/18/09].)
185
Figure 7: Rast taksim 2, Agnès Agopian.
186
In her second, more complex version of Rast, the same artist uses the “species” concept of nested makam-s right in the opening zemin—she reported that in the section ca. 2:24-2:34 she was playing while “thinking of” Uşşak on aşiran and Rehavi, rather than modulating.27 (Note that the particular rast çeşni we have heard so often before, and which is the opening gesture here and following “Rehavi,” is itself enough to identify the overall makam as Rast.) Perhaps knowing that she will be making many modulations in this taksim, she arrives at the meyan section relatively quickly, “opening up” the area of the dominant around 2:56.28 Although she will make several momentary returns to Rast between modulations, we should note that from the first modulation ca. 3:05 to around 4:25 (about two thirds through the whole taksim) there is no showing of the Rast makam per se as inhabiting an octavespanning scale. The delineation of the makam into conjunct cins-es, as in the taksim-s we have seen from the early-twentieth century, is also not very prominent until the appearance of modulations, in which cins-es may be seen to play a crucial role. Let us examine closely the first set of modulations: Rast(Basit) SuzinakZirgüleli SuzinakNikrizRast (ca. 3:05-3:38).
27
It is possible that she meant that the Uşşak passage was also part of Rehavi makam (see Appendix J s.v. “Rehavi”). 28 Current performers often refer to affecting a modulation—or even merely concentrating on a dominant tone—using the word “to open” (açmak), e.g., “Hüseyni açtım orada,” (“I opened Hüseyni/hüseyni, there”). Scott Marcus has asked me to note: “…her leap from rast to segâh in a phrase going to neva—here at 2:53 and at 3:02, and in the previous “simple” taksim at 1:12—clearly this leap is part of her understanding of the makam (as it is in eastern Arab music).”
187
Figure 8: two modulations effected by pivots.
Beneath this transcription are notations of the cins-structures that are used in this set of modulations. We see firstly that the entities Ms. Agopian names as the subjects of the modulations are makam-s, that is, they are not mere cins-es, or an ordered series of accidental tones or melodic gestures indigenous to Rast, as we might have interpreted previously seen “modulations”; they are explicitly described with the names of makam-s: •
(Basit) Suzinak: rast-5 + hicaz-4 29
•
Zirgüleli Suzinak: hicaz-5 (and occasionally rast-5) + hicaz-4
•
Nikriz: nikriz-5 + rast-4 (usual when ascending) or buselik-4 (usual when
29
For simplicity’s sake I will refer to specific cins-es with a hyphenated shorthand gloss giving the cins’ name and size, for instance “segâh-3” refers to a segâh trichord, “rast-4” refers to a rast tetrachord, “hicaz-5” refers to a hicaz pentachord, etc. The first given in a pairing conjoined by “+” is the lower in pitch, i.e., the lower cins of the central octave of a makam.
188
descending) •
Rast: rast-5 + rast-4 (usual when ascending) or buselik-4 (usual when descending)
Furthermore, these are makam-s that share certain characteristics: pentachords as the bottom cins of the central octave and tetrachords as the top ones; a tonic of G and a dominant of d; and certain specific cins-es. One thing each of the modulated-to makam-s also share with each other—but not with their host, Rast—is seyir: they are all “descending-ascending” (inici-çıkıcı) makam-s, that is, they must begin from their dominant, descend toward the tonic, then show some of their upper tetrachord before falling to cadence on the tonic (whereas, as we have seen, Rast is “ascending” [inici]; it rises from tonic area to upper tonic area and returns).
And indeed it is this confluence of characteristics that make this string of modulations possible (or rather, aesthetically desirable): the first modulation is accomplished by arriving at the common dominant—for Rast it is the place from which to “open” modulations, and for Suzinak it is the place from which to begin its seyir. The artist could have interpreted this as “Hicaz on neva,” or as “Araban” (a somewhat archaic makam beginning with a hicaz tetrachord or pentachord on neva),30 but she is
30
Araban makam seems to have been teetering on the brink of obscurity for some time, now (if less so in transpositions and compound makam-s, such as Beyati-Araban, Araban-Kürdi and Şedd Araban). It properly should have a hicaz-5 conjoined to a kürdi-4, but since this combination of cins-es does not occur in the currently accepted members-in-good-standing of the Hicaz family (Hicaz, Hümayun, Uzzal, and Zirgüle), there is sometimes confusion as to whether it requires a tetrachord or pentachord
189
specifically trying to evoke Suzinak, whose lower pentachord (a rast-5) the audience already has firmly in its ears. The passage then to Zirgüleli Suzinak occurs by a descent to the common tonic by way of switching Rast’s bottom cins, the rast-5, for Zirgüleli Suzinak’s hicaz-5. We must note that this can only have worked through the auspices of an intermediary makam such as Suzinak; simply changing a rast-5 into a hicaz-5 in makam Rast’s lower cins might sound strange, abrupt and out of context;31 in short, it is more likely to be considered an inappropriate modulation (regarding which see Chapter IV). Specifically we may say that this modulation “works” because of a knowledge (or minimally, an unconscious familiarity, on the parts of both the player and the discerning audience member) that Zirgüleli Suzinak is “the other Suzinak,” and/or that changing the lower rast-5 is appropriate because of this use first of the rast-5 as a pivot-cins between Rast and Suzinak, then the hicaz-4 on neva as a pivot-cins common to both Suzinak and Zirgüleli Suzinak:
•
makam:
Rast
Suzinak
•
upper cins:
rast-4 hicaz-4 -
hicaz-4
•
lower cins:
rast-5 -
hicaz-5
rast-5
Zirgüleli Suzinak
Zirgüleli Suzinak is then made to return to its dominant (still neva), which for that makam is an appropriate place from which to open a modulation, and which as the lower cins (see Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 384, Özkan 1984: 309-11). Performers nowadays may refer to any hicaz-type constructions on neva as “Araban.” See Appendix J s.v. “Araban.” 31 Cf. Marcus 1992:183-184 where the issue of modulation and relative maqām proximity is discussed with respective to Eastern Arab modal practice.
190
conveniently also serves as the dominant for the “descending-ascending” makam Nikriz.
Nikriz may be considered appropriate here for a number of reasons; firstly because it is a common modulation within Rast (and seems to have been earlier in the century, as in Mesut Cemil Bey’s taksim above, whether or not “cins” was a concern in a performer’s application of the makam), and also because it is a descending-ascending makam whose dominant is shared with Zirgüleli Suzinak, and because it shares the two upper cins-es with the host makam (i.e., both it and Rast have a rast-4 on neva ascending and a buselik-4 on neva descending), but I suspect it is also desirable because Nikriz has as a “species” within it the hicaz tetrachord A Bw cs d, acting as a kind of transposed echo of the two hicaz cins-es we have just heard on d/neva and G/rast in the context of Zirgüleli Suzinak. The following return to Rast—a reminder of the host makam that is common in taksim-s with many modulations (though not a requirement)—is effected simply by switching the nikriz-5 for the rast-5 in the lower cins: such direct changes in the lower cins are often considered too abrupt, but they are usually considered more effective in makam-s whose tonic is rast—perhaps particularly in Rast itself—and is here made gentler by beginning the change from the common dominant, from which we have already just heard several cins changes.32
32
Direct changes in the lower cins level in modes on A/dügâh would seem more often to occur when evoking a compound makam requiring such a change, such as Dügâh or Isfahan (see Appendices J and K).
191
Below are the modulations of this taksim represented as changes of cins in a series of grids with vertical columns and horizontal rows. The first four cells down the first column contain the Turkish terms “tiz” (upper), “açan” (opening), “kök” (root), and “destek” (supporting). These are terms I am applying, myself, to the levels of the cins-es. So far in describing makam-s in terms of cins-es we have only mentioned conjunctions of two of them, for instance above when I showed Rast as “rast-5 + rast-4.” I mentioned in Chapter III that this is deemed sufficient in Arel’s (simplified) theory, and that Yekta felt rather that each makam had at least one other conjoined cins than the two in the central octave (page 78-9). But the additional factors that some makam-s do not repeat their central cins-es at the octave, and that taksim-s regularly span the two octaves between DD (yegâh) and d’ (tiz neva)—making modulations at any level—caused me to want to show all movement of cins over the whole range of play. Since no standardized terminology exists for describing these levels, I am introducing these terms (tiz, açan, kök, and destek): •
the “kök/root” level is the “lower” cins in the central octave (e.g., the “rast-5” in the Arelian “rast-5 + rast-4”)
•
the “açan/opening” level is the “upper” cins of the central octave (so called because it is generally where modulations are “opened”—e.g., the “rast-4” in the last example)
•
the “destek/supporting” level is the cins occurring below the tonic
•
the “tiz/upper” level is the cins above the upper tonic. The resulting makam-s (as interpreted by the artist) run along the bottom row. Cins-names in
192
parentheses represent incomplete cins-es (i.e., not all the tones in it were played) named on the merit of the performer’s designation of the makam.
Note that in this system of representing taksim-s, which is used extensively in the analyses of the 100 taksim-s made for this study (see Appendix K and Chapter VII) these “level-names” are always relative to the presently named makam, which levels may differ from those of the nominal makam (that is, the makam in which the taksim began). The grids below and in Appendix K always maintain the levels of the nominal makam; when there is a need to refer to the levels of a modulated-to makam whose levels differ from those of the nominal makam, the switch is noted beneath the appropriate grid (for instance see the modulation to “Karcığar on neva” in the third grid below).33 Agnès Agopian, Rast Taksim 2 (4:20), DVD 1, track 1, #2 Tiz Açan Kök Destek Makam
Tiz Açan Kök Destek Makam
rast-5 rast-4 Rast
buselik-4
Nikriz
uşşak-4 Uşşak
(rast-4) nikriz-5
rast-4 Rehavi
(rast-4) rast-5
hicaz-4
Rast
Suzinak
hicaz-5 Zirgüleli Suzinak
rast-5
pençgâh-5
(rast-5) rast-4 müstear-3
Rast
Pençgâh
Müstear
(buselik-4)
33
uşşak-4 Uşşak
As will be explained in Chapter VI, the capacity to make such shifts is a crucial aspect of the ability to modulate through the makam system.
193
Tiz Açan
segâh-3
uşşak-4
(rast-4)
hicaz (-5) (uşşak-4)
çargâh-5 on acem * uşşak-4
Kök rast-5 Destek (rast-4) Makam Rast (Tiz) Segâh (Tiz) Uşşak Karcığar on neva Acem (*NB: Acem is a compound makam whose conjunctions are a bit “crooked”: it is essentially a çargâh-5 on f/acem that falls to become Beyati [i.e., an uşşak-4], but there is a buffer of three tones between the dominant [d/neva] and the root of the upper “Çargâh”—a buselik trichord, in effect—composed of the tones d e f.) (NB: when in “Karcığar on neva” the “levels” have de facto switched such that the uşşak-4 is the kök/root level of that makam, and the hicaz-5 is its açan/opening level.) Tiz Açan Kök uşşak-5** Destek Makam (** i.e., “hüseyni-5”)
hicaz-5
(rast-4) uşşak-4
Karcığar
rast-4
uşşak-5 Hüseyni
rast-5 Rast
Tiz buselik (-3) Açan hüzzam-4*** (rast-4) buselik-4 Kök segâh-3 rast-5 (rast-5) Destek rast-4 Makam Hüzzam Rast (Rast) (***The E here would normally be written, and probably interpreted, as a “high E ”; this interpretation of the written E (as it appears throughout the Hüzzam modulation) is the author’s rather than the artist’s. See below for an explanation of the “hüzzam-4.”) Figure 9: Agopian Rast taksim 2 depicted in grids.
q
w
q
Continuing where we left off in this taksim, we can see that the next set of modulations (ca. 3:38-4:17) moves from Rast through Pençgâh, Müstear, and Uşşak before returning to Rast. On the face of it: •
Rast (G A Bq c d + d e …) passes via a direct change of cins at the kök/root level to
•
Pençgâh ([G A] Bz cs d + d e …), which passes via a direct change of cins at the same level to
•
Müstear (Bq cs d + d e fs g + g a …), which passes via a direct change of cins
194
at the same level to •
Uşşak (A Bq c d + d e …), which moves back to Rast as one of its internal “species”
Generally direct modulations at the kök-cins level are spoken of as the kind most likely to make an “ugly” or “shocking” transition of the sort Necati Çelik and Eymen Gürtan spoke of in Chapter IV (though there are certain compound makam-s that require such a move—see Chapter VI fn. 4—and we will see in Chapter VII and Appendix K that nineteen percent of the cins changes made in taksim-s recorded for this study are of this kind). At least here the tonic tones change to form a kind of melodic sequence appropriate to the host makam (GBq AG), while the dominant (d) remains common to the modulated-to makam-s. But I think there is another factor at work in this sequence of modulations: although Ms. Agopian did not say as much, it may be seen altogether as a single modulation to the compound makam Pençgâh (or more precisely, Pençgâh-ı Zâid; see Appendix J s.v. “Pençgâh”), whose necessary internal makam-entities/modulations are described by Özkan (1984: 421) as: •
Isfahan o itself a compound with a direct kök-level cins change between an uşşak-4 (A Bq c d) and a nişabur-4 (A Bz cs d)
•
(with a buselik-5 in the açan-cins range above these)
a Rast pentachord on dügâh
195
o (A B cs d e) •
a Pençgâh pentachord 34 o (G A B cs d)
•
Rast and/or Acemli Rast “in its place” o Rast (G A Bq c d + d e fs g) o Acemli Rast (G A Bq c d + d e f g) 35
And while it is true that in theory-book descriptions neither Pençgâh nor Isfahan contain Müstear, we can see from such pieces in the canonical repertoire as Tanburi Cemil Bey’s Isfahan Saz Semaisi (TRT 2006: 126-7) that the makam Isfahan may interact extensively with Müstear.36
This brings up a new issue: as seen in Chapters III and IV, the main way in which performers (purport to) learn to make taksim-s is by mimicking established repertoire (though presumably after having mastered Arel’s grammar of makam construction in terms of tetrachords and pentachords). We might therefore expect to find many 34
Curiously, Arel—who introduced the pençgâh pentachord in his enumeration of “other” (non-basic) cins-es (1991 [1943-8]: 26)—did not employ it in his description of the makam Pençgâh (ibid.: 211), practically speaking the only place where it could have been used. 35 “Acemli Rast” (lit. “Rast with [the perde] acem”) is often used as a designation for Rast when it uses acem instead of eviç, but there has been some debate over whether or not it should refer to a makam separate from Rast proper (see Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 160-4). 36 Or at least Müstear-like gestures. It is possible, however, that this transcription is in error—several pages earlier there is a peşrev in Isfahan, also by Tanbur Cemil Bey, that contains no such gestures (ibid.: 122), and it is bereft of the tone B (expected in Isfahan). This raises the questions: a) is only one version correct (and if so, which)? and b) if an understanding of the makam were widely learned from the piece in the former transcription—published by the official, government-sponsored national music authority—and widely applied thus in their taksim-s, could it become the norm even if it would in earlier times have been considered in error?
z
196
phrases and modulations of taksim-s directly quoting or paraphrasing this repertoire. I must say however that on the one hand, as often as I asked performers to point out such phrases in their own taksim-s I was told that they could not identify them specifically,37 and on the other hand, to analyze each phrase in each taksim I recorded or found in the early recordings in a comparison to each phrase in the canonical repertoire was simply beyond the scope of this project, and it is only incidentally that I am able occasionally to reference concurrences of this sort. Minimally, however, we can say that among the types of “principles” that explain the appropriateness of particular modulations—such as we have seen in regard to shared cins-es, dominants, and seyir-s, for instance—one of them must be the principle that a modulation can be made in a taksim merely because it evokes a similar one well known from the canonical repertoire; i.e., one that is iconic of established practice and that therefore need not demonstrate other principles (though it is highly likely that such repertoire has become canonical, at least in part, precisely because it conforms to an aesthetic embedded in those principles).
Returning to the analysis of Agnès Agopian’s second Rast taksim, the next set of 37
Şehvar Beşiroğlu in her Zavil taksim (see DVD 1/6) pointed out to me her “quotation” of Selim III’s Pesendide Saz Semaisi (see TRT 2001b: 192), but otherwise most performers were not so explicit. A near exception was Murat Aydemir’s pointing out a modulation he had picked up from Tanburi Cemil Bey, but this seems to have been from a taksim recording rather than a pre-composed piece (p.c. 5/15/09). On the same occasion, however, I had heard him criticize another performer’s taksim in Pençgâh, saying that the makam does not really modulate at all in the meyan section (whereas this performer had modulated to Nikriz, there). But when I pointed out that both Dede Salih Efendi’s Pençgâh Peşrevi (TRT 2001b: 186) and Cantemir’s Pençgâh Saz Semaisi (ibid.: 189) make such modulations to Nikriz he conceded on those grounds that this performer’s modulation had been appropriate. We might even argue that in Ms. Agopian’s taksim above, the preceding section modulating from Nikriz to Rast is in that sense a foreshadowing of the Pençgâh modulation to come, as though it were returning to Pençgâh from its meyan section.
197
modulations runs: Rast(Tiz) Segâh(Tiz) UşşakKarcığar on nevaAcemKarcığarHüseyniRast.38 The first two transitions are of the “species” variety (i.e., she considers Segâh and Uşşak to exist inside Rast). The next move, from •
Uşşak (as the tetrachord a bq c’ d’) to
•
Karcığar on neva (as [f+] its açan-level cins g a w bq c’) o (the central octave of Karcığar consists of uşşak-4 + hicaz-5)
is effected by way of lowering the root of the first makam in the sequence (Uşşak on a/muhayyer) in a kind of glissando to become the diminished 5th degree of the modulated-to makam (a w). This would seem to be a very rare sort of modulation; it certainly does not happen often enough to derive from it a “principle of melodic movement.” Because the “Karcığar” phrase ends on f/acem, I personally would have interpreted this not as Karcığar on neva but as Nikriz on acem (and this also makes more sense to me as the place from which to make the next move, to the makam Acem), but regardless, that also would have been a strange or at least rare transition. As far as I am aware it does not come from a piece in the canonical repertoire or from a famous taksim recording; it would appear to be the artist’s own invention.39 And not only did she find it a satisfying and appropriate transition, I would add that for my part I do as well—such a judgment is always subjective, but I would suggest that this is a good example of a “principle” that is no principle at all: that the system is open to 38
The term “tiz” here signifies “played an octave higher than normal/in the upper octave.” It must be noted, however, that there are compound makam-s whose normal seyir demands just such a sudden drop of a whole step (e.g., see Murat Aydemir’s “Muhayyer-Sümbüle Taksim,” DVD 2/14)— it is possible that this move is a sort of mimicry of that dynamic.
39
198
invention, and as long as it is well received, such a new gesture may become one of a particular performer’s signature melodic gestures, and may even become part of a makam’s normative repertoire of internal moves; such an effect was cited by Murat Aydemir, in whose Gerdaniye-to-Gülizar taksim (DVD 1/12) he had put a moment of Hicaz on e/hüseyni, saying to me afterward that this was an addition to the makam Gerdaniye by Tanburi Cemil Bey, making it “tam Gerdaniye,” “a perfect Gerdaniye” (p.c. 5/15/09).
Continuing with the Rast taksim, the above modulation lands on f/acem, the initial dominant of the makam of the same name: Acem—a compound makam that begins with a çargâh-5 on f/acem (f g a b e c) then becomes the makam Beyati (A Bq c d + d e f g).40 The modulation from Karcığar on neva (or for that matter, from Nikriz on acem) to Acem seems also to be a continuation of the free-form gesture of this set of modulations so far, that is, except for using the tone acem as a pivot tone between the two makam-s, there is no immediate connection between them (e.g., they share no common cins or dominant, they are not part of a known compound makam, do not commonly appear together in canonical repertoire, etc.). Furthermore, the artist’s treatment of Acem is idiosyncratic in that it emphasizes the fifth degree from the tonic—e/hüseyni—rather than the d/neva that Arelian textbooks report as the
40
We may note Acem as one of the most outstanding exceptions to the idea that makam-s always consist of conjunct cins-es with the conjunct tone as the dominant, there being the interval of a minor 3rd between the bottom tone of the top cins (f) and the upper tone of the bottom cins (d), which is the makam’s second dominant. It might be better represented as: uşşak-4 + buselik-3 + çargâh-3 (or even çargâh-5).
199
dominant (see Özkan 1984: 315, and Arel 1991 [1943-8]: 232). But using e/hüseyni instead sets up two things in this set of modulations: it foreshadows the coming of Hüseyni makam (ca. 5:17), but more importantly it allows her to echo the earlier gesture from Uşşak to Karcığar on neva—made by way of a glissando fall of 4 comma-s—repeating it by a glissando from e/hüseyni to e w/hisar, thus entering Karcığar “in its place” (on A/dügâh)—a melodic gesture that would be normative in the makam Beyati, which is supposed to be the lower part of the compound Acem (though she has chosen to threaten its identity as Beyati—by introducing that dominant-like e/hüseyni—in order to accomplish this).
This is followed by a similar blurring of the separation between Uşşak-family makam-s—the placement of whose dominant at either d/neva or e/hüseyni is usually a major distinguishing factor—by immediately modulating from Karcığar (A Bq c d + d ew fs g a) to Hüseyni (A Bq c d e + e fs g a), and then, as seen earlier, treating this makam family as “existing inside” (or as a “species” of) Rast makam, it returns to Rast at ca. 5:38. Overall, this set of modulations seems to exemplify the freedom of the artist to experiment with novel combinations of cins-es during the spontaneous composition of a taksim.41
41
An argument could be made that this freedom transgresses the idea of the “praxis of makam theory” that I have posited as a definition for taksim, but I see it as only being effective within the framework of the makam system, i.e., using its “vocabulary” (if slightly tweaking its “grammar”); its dependence on the makam system as a whole, for me, still distinguishes it from “improvisation” in the broader sense discussed under “Preliminary Definitions,” though this would seem to be the edge of that distinction.
200
There then occurs a final modulation before the brief return to the zemin and final cadence in Rast. This last modulation is found between ca. 5:50 and 6:14 and is in the makam Hüzzam:42
Figure 10: Agopian Rast taksim 2, modulation in Hüzzam.
As it happens, Hüzzam is going to open up a whole new can of worms, so to speak, but let us begin by positing that the artist has brought us from Rast to Hüzzam by way of one of two previously encountered principles: a) by microtonally lowering a single tone (e to eq↓) in a normative cin-s of the nominal makam, i.e., as though what is to come “exists inside” Rast; or b) by presuming a commonality in the kök-level cins while changing the açan-level cins, from a rast-4 (d e fs g) to a hicaz-4 with a microtonally high 2nd degree (d e w↑ fs g). Since we can see that it returns to Rast ca. 6:15 by a reversal of whatever is happening here, our final issue in this taksim is “what is meant by Hüzzam?”
42
I take it from the expression on her face at ca. 5:52 that the b e—marked by a red asterisk in the transcription—was unintended, but she subsequently treats it as appropriate to Hüzzam at this part of its seyir.
201
Indeed, that is not an easy thing to answer. Among the twelve performers I recorded for this project who gave their own analysis for their 42 taksim-s, only three played in Hüzzam—once each, and always as a minor modulation within another makam—and each of them had a different definition for the intervals in question. Firstly it is clear that in practice there is a segâh trichord used as the kök-level cins,43 and some sort of tetrachord above that based on the dominant d/neva;44 the defining question is what tones constitute this tetrachord? All three informants agreed that the second cins of Hüzzam required at least one tone that does not appear in Arel’s theory, and each varies it in terms of the two inner tones in an Arelian definition of a hicaz-4 on d/neva (d e w fs g): •
Agnès Agopian: the second degree is high while the third degree remains the same o d e w↑ f s g
•
Necati Çelik (see Chapter IV and “Rast Taksim” DVD 3/30 ca. 2:39-4:05): the second degree remains e w but the third degree must be lowered by 2 commas (f s↓) o d e w f s↓ g
•
Murat Aydemir (see “Suzinak Taksim” DVD 2/15): the second degree must
43
This was stated explicitly by several performer-informants (see Chapter IV) and should be evident by its deployment in the transcription above; this already runs counter to Arel’s idea of a hüzzam pentachord as the bottom cins of the central octave, but we will look more closely at his concept of the makam below. 44 What goes above this tetrachord is also a debatable matter; a safe bet among these performers seems to be some form of rast cins (trichord or pentachord) on g/gerdaniye when rising or showing the upper tonic and some form of buselik cins (trichord or pentachord) on g/gerdaniye when remaining around the second dominant g/gerdaniye.
202
be higher and the third degree must be lower than in a hicaz tetrachord o d e w ↑ f s↓ g
Before looking more closely at these examples, and at Hüzzam taksim-s from the earlier part of the twentieth century, let us clarify what Arel’s definition of the makam Hüzzam was. He described Hüzzam as an ascending makam consisting of a hüzzam pentachord on Bq/segâh (Bq c d e w f s) conjoined to a hicaz tetrachord on f s/eviç (f s g a s bq), and whose dominant is the third degree, d/neva (1991 [1943-48]: 298). He adds, “However, as with Segâh makam, when playing in the upper area of Hüzzam, in place of the hicaz tetrachord many times a buselik tetrachord or pentachord is seen in use” (ibid.). We must note that he can only mean a buselik cins from g/gerdaniye, not literally in place of the hicaz-4 on f s/eviç (which appears neither in recordings nor repertoire—including the two notated examples he gave).45
Of the taksim-s mentioned above, all 3 performers treated the makam as though it were Hicaz on d/neva (hicaz-4 + rast-5 alternating with hicaz-4 + buselik-5) that falls through a segâh-3 on (and to) segâh, but with a non-hicaz intonation of their own definition in the açan cins-level; only Necati Çelik’s version included—in a purposefully distinguished meyan section—a passage in Arel’s Hicaz on f s/eviç.
45
This alone seems to me to be evidence that his cins construction for Hüzzam makam—and particularly for the never-before-theorized “hüzzam pentachord”—is an artificial novelty. For a later Arelian take on Hüzzam, see Özkan’s implausibly complex 10-component compound version, which nonetheless partakes of Arel’s hüzzam-5 (1984: 288-93).
203
Below I would like to compare both Arel’s definition and these current performers’ versions of Hüzzam with several taksim-s in Hüzzam from the early-twentieth century, but first I wish to mention another makam that may quietly be playing a part here: its name is Rahat-ül Ervah, and it may be described as, at first, recombinations of Hicaz (A Bq cs d + d e fs g a), Hümayun (A Bq cs d + d e f g a), and Uzzal (A Bq cs d e + e fs↓ g a) according to one’s taste,46 which toward the end of the piece or taksim comes to a final cadence on Fs/ırak through a segâh trichord (possibly playing a bit in the lower area of the makam Irak). One occasionally hears Rahat-ül Ervah described in passing as a transposition of Hüzzam a perfect fourth down, but in more discerning conversation the differences become clear, mainly that Rahat-ül Ervah does not alter the intonation of the hicaz cins-es within it (as Hüzzam does, if we are even to think of it as an alteration of a hicaz cins at all; see below), and that the segâh trichord appears only after extensive exploration of the Hicaz-family makam-s mentioned (whereas in Hüzzam the root and its trichord are shown earlier and more often). As we will see, there nonetheless appears occasionally to be confusion of the two makam-s in performance.
In fact, in my own reckoning I would say that the aspects that make Necati Çelik’s example here (within “Rast Taksim” DVD 3/30, ca. 2:39-4:05) not Rahat-ül Ervah on Bq/segâh are the intonation he mentioned and the addition of the meyan passage in Hicaz on f s/eviç. In contrast, both Agnès Agopian’s and Murat Aydemir’s versions, 46
See Appendix J for more detailed descriptions of these makam-s.
204
while demonstrating their own non-hicaz cins-es, show the tonic and its segâh-3 early (i.e., not only at the end of the “Hüzzam” passage).
Below is a list of recordings of taksim-s in Hüzzam from throughout the twentieth century (presumably in chronological order), marked as to the characteristics noted above; all but the last two performers are presumed to have completed their music education previous to Arel’s theory becoming normative: o Tanburi Cemil Bey (1873-1916), “Hüzzam Taksim (Violonsel ile)” ‘cello, Tanburi Cemil Bey Vol.s IV and V Traditional Crossroads 1995: 1/1 uses both hicaz-4 and a higher “e w” and lower “f s” continually exchanging them (with the smallest interval between them ca. 2:45) not treated like Rahat-ül Ervah ca. 2:17- 2:33 (in the meyan) he does play a few moments of hicaz-4 on f s/eviç among other very chromatic playing moves to buselik on g/gerdaniye final melodic gesture: • octave rise from Bq/segâh using hicaz-4 on d/neva • descends using uşşak-4 on d/neva ca. 3:27 o (note the unusual reversal of “rise with a higher perde version, fall with a lower one/cazibe”— the e w rises to eq↓ during a descent) • ends with expected movement around segâh-3
205
o Nevres Bey (1873-1937), “Hüzzam Taksim” ud, Türk Müziği Ustaları – Ud Kalan 2004c: 1/5 Hicaz on d/neva falls to segâh-3 ≈ Rahat-ül Ervah on Bq/segâh (it is possible that this recording is actually Rahat-ül Ervah mislabeled)47 never hicaz-4 on f s/eviç o Fahri Kopuz (1885-1968), ud, “Hüzzam” Türk Müziği Ustaları – Ud Kalan 2004c: 1/16 segâh-3 + hicaz-4 on d/neva (falls to Bq/segâh relatively fast, i.e., not like Rahat-ül Ervah) falls as far as rast through a rast-3 (i.e. not as Arel implies, with the hicaz-4 on f s/eviç repeated an octave below); then later through a hicaz-4 to Fs/ırak per Arel’s description of makam Segâh at the meyan section, a rast-5 on g/gerdaniye (contra Arel) using f/acem, an Arazbar or “Beyati-on-neva” çeşni [?] Perhaps Buselik-on-neva [?] stop on c/çargâh (as though it were the 2nd degree of Evcara/Zirgüleli Hicaz on Bq/segâh—falls to Fs/ırak in a hicaz4 per Arel’s description of Segâh) a Buselik çeşni “in its place” an Irak çeşni modulates to Rahat-ül Ervah “in its place” repeats “as though 2nd of Evcara/Zirgüleli Hicaz” gesture noted above but a 4th lower (to Cs/kaba nim hicaz) repeats the above Buselik çeşni a 4th lower than before (on aşiran) repeats Rahat-ül Ervah a 4th below where it was noted above modulates to Hümayun on E/aşiran sneaks f s/eviç in, a rast-4 on d/neva, a hint of cf/dik hicaz, then makes a run up from G/rast in Suzinak, lands on d/neva 47
Mislabeling of the archival recordings is indeed an issue, though usually one having to do with a misreading of the original Ottoman language label; for instance it is clear enough that Tanburi Cemil Bey’s “Eviç Taksim” on Traditional Crossroads 1994 Tanburi Cemil Bey is actually in the makam Evcara—since there is such a thing as an “ara” taksim (one played between two pieces of repertoire in the same makam), the label probably read “Evcara Taksimi” but was taken as “Eviç Ara Taksimi” when translated. Older master musicians are familiar with the discrepancies (and therefore, for instance, do not believe that Eviç was once played the way Evcara is played now, etc.), and they pass the lore of such corrections onto their students, but it is possible that younger players who do not have some form of meşk relationship with an experienced master are not learning the corrections, or the differences between such mislabeled makam-s and the recordings’ true makam-s.
206
modulates to Hümayun on d/neva return to Hüzzam as segâh-3 + hicaz-4 never hicaz-4 on f s/eviç
o Şerif İçli (1899-1956), ud, “Hüzzam Taksim” Türk Müziği Ustaları – Ud Kalan 2004c: 2/12 basically Rahat-ül Ervah (emphasizes gerdaniye as Hicaz’ dominant) • ending on segâh, if it is intended to be Segâh—it is possible that this recording is actually Rahat-ül Ervah mislabeled) never hicaz-4 on f s/eviç o Ruşen Kam (1902-1981), kemençe, “Ara Taksimi (Hüzzam)” Türk Müziği Ustaları – Kemençe Kalan 2005: 2/3 uses both eq/dik hisar (especially when rising) and e w/hisar (i.e., a hicaz-4) on d/neva, but never hicaz-4 on f s/eviç o Vecihe Daryal Osmanoğlu (1908-1970), kemençe, “Hüzzam Kanun Taksimi” Türk Müziği Ustaları – Kemençe Kalan 2005: 2/1 like Hümayun on neva (i.e., d ew f s g + g a be [c]; the dominant is d/neva) falls often to Bq/segâh (i.e., not like Rahat-ül Ervah) never hicaz-4 on f s/eviç o Cinuçen Tanrıkorur (1938-2000), ud, “Hüzzam Taksim” on Türk Müziği Ustaları – Ud Kalan 2004c: 2/20 the “eq” type is often so high that this seems as though it could be a taksim in Segâh rather than Hüzzam much of the time emphasizes areas around the tonic (Bq/segâh), dominant (d/neva), 2nd dominant (g/gerdaniye), and again tonic in turn, but does not appear very cins-oriented never hicaz-4 on f s/eviç
207
o Niyazi Sayın (1927-present), ney, Sufi Music of Turkish, vol. 8: Sadâ Mega Müzik 2001: 4 begins as though it were Rast, lands on neva with a little gesture using c s/nim hicaz (Müstear [?] ca. :43) the 6th degree becomes e w/hisar; another use of c s/nim hicaz (Zirgüleli Hicaz on neva [?]) 6th becomes e z/hüseyni; rast-4 on d/neva ca. 1:15 falls from c’/tiz çargâh to g/gerdaniye through a rast4, then g/gerdaniye to c/çargâh through a nikriz-5 an Arazbar or “Beyati-on-neva” çeşni falls from b e/sümbüle to c/çargâh to land on d/neva as though in Araban/Hümayun-on-neva but the 6th degree is a little higher than in a hicaz-4 descends from bq/tiz segâh to c/çargâh in Pençgâh-on-çargâh rises from d/neva in a hicaz-4, falls using a higher version of “e,” with a stop on A/dügâh from G/rast ascends through a rast-5 then to a high e w↑/hisar and falls through a segâh-3 to cadence on Bq/segâh. never hicaz-4 on f s/eviç
Among our sample of 11 recordings of Hüzzam we find: •
6 that require at least one altered tone (e w↑ or f s↓, i.e., that cannot be accurately written in the Arel system) in the açan cins-level (from d/neva to g/gerdaniye) but no hicaz-4 proper o 1 of which taksim-s resembles Rahat-ül Ervah
•
3 that at times require at least one altered tone there, but at other times also use a hicaz-4 on d/neva o none of which resembles Rahat-ül Ervah
•
4 that use only a hicaz-4 on d/neva o 3 of which taksim-s resembles Rahat-ül Ervah
•
2 renditions of the makam (those by Tanburi Cemil Bey and Necati Çelik) 208
containing Arel’s hicaz-4 on f s/eviç, although in both cases this was performed in the meyan section, where one would expect a modulation rather than a further definition of the makam itself, and in one case amongst very ambiguous chromatic material
I wish to conclude the analysis of Agnès Agopian’s second Rast taksim with this overview of the issues raised by these divergent interpretations of Hüzzam. I do so by way of a transition to a consolidation of the material so far presented in Chapter V, which will include suggestions for modifying certain items in the “grammar” of Arelian music theory to better reflect the understandings of makam-s, and modulations between makam-s, that performers over the period 1910-2010 have expressed in their application (i.e., putting into praxis) of them in the 12 taksim-s we have examined in some detail so far in this chapter.48 The first such suggestion regards the constitution of Hüzzam, but unlike those that will follow, the basis for making this suggestion is not to be found in the material within this chapter alone; I therefore have provided a detailed justification and explanation for it in Appendix H, which I hope the reader will peruse after finishing this chapter.
The first suggestion is simply this: to introduce a cins replacing Arel’s “hüzzam pentachord” (Bq c d e w f s), to consist only of a tetrachord form and to be written (as long as Arel’s notation scheme remains) “d eq f s g” and to refer to it as a “hüzzam 48
That is, the eight taksim-s in Hüzzam directly above, and four taksim-s in Rast before them.
209
tetrachord,” for use in the makam-s Hüzzam, Segâh, and Müstear (as well as in compounds including these, and in certain historical interpretations of Rast, Yegâh, and Araban; see Appendix H) with the understanding that the perde-s here represented as “eq/hisar” and “f s/eviç” may be inflected according to taste by the performer in the same manner as is found in the similarly “misspelled” tones “d w” in Saba and “Bq” in the Uşşak family of makam-s. In addition to reviving what apparently had been a valid cins historically (ibid.), it would seem to me to offer performers a more realistic representation of their praxis of these makam-s, and possibly also serve as a device for maintaining the separate identities of Hüzzam and Rahat-ül Ervah, if such a preservation is desired.
CONSOLIDATION
Although the sample of taksim-s thus far presented has been relatively small,49 the details we have gleaned from it are sufficient to form a framework for a performergenerated music theory, further details of which we will be able to demonstrate in Chapter VI (drawing on the analyses of our 100 taksim recordings, presented in Appendix K).
Firstly we may note that there are two main concerns in the making of a taksim: 49
101 makam-s were examined in total in this chapter: 89 were cited in comparisons regarding melody-oriented versus cin-s-oriented taksim-s (see Discography); 8 were described in detail using only prose; 4 were fully transcribed and analyzed in prose.
210
defining the nominal makam, and effecting appropriate modulations to other makams. The first of these depends on such factors as demonstrating melodic gestures associated specifically with the makam; establishing the makam’s characteristic melodic direction (seyir); sequentially and with proportionate emphasis demonstrating the hierarchy of tonic, dominant, and other makam-defining tones; and demonstrating makam-specific intonation (and/or an idiosyncratic flexibility of intonation).50 It does not seem to require strict attention to delineating the makam’s constituent cins-es, though it would seem that this has become more common a factor than it was at the beginning of the twentieth century (presumably due to Arel’s emphasis on octave scales consisting of conjoined pentachords and tetrachords).
The second concern of taksim making—effecting appropriate modulations—does indeed seem to require a focus upon the cins-es, at least among current performers. For whatever reason, the extant early phonograph recordings of taksim-s remain mostly in their nominal makam, many having nothing that could be called even vaguely a modulation. Let us for the moment defer speculation regarding the possible reasons for this, but we may recall from Chapter II—if Cantemir is to be trusted—that at the inception of the taksim genre its whole raison d’être was to show modulations; there was no point in making a “taksim” in a single makam. We must assume this implies that brief, single-makam introductions to and between pieces were not
50
Karl Signell lists 5 criteria for identifying a discrete makam: scale, melodic direction, characteristic modulations, stereotyped melodies, tessitura (2008 [1977/1985]: 137; cf. Marcus 1989a: 323-6 and 438-713 regarding such criteria for Eastern Arab maqām).
211
considered part of the taksim genre per se at that time.51 Even today we hear from academic music researchers such as Dr. Can Akkoç (a participant in the “theory vs. practice” congress cited so often in Chapter III): “Requesting a pure improvisation from a master musician that does not delve into other maqams could be viewed as absurd, almost like handcuffing the performer.” (In Bayhan 2008: 50, fn. 8) However throughout our period, and perhaps for some time before it, the singlemakam “taksim” has been quite normal; whether the apparent importance of the cinses to the current sense of modulation results from the early-twentieth-century theorists’ newfound focus on them (and particularly Arel’s, since these became part of musicians’ normative vocabulary) is difficult to tell. But from one of the earliest taksim recordings featuring extensive modulation—the above-mentioned Hüzzam ud taksim by Fahri Kopuz (1885-1968)—we can see that modulations effected by extensive chains of makam-s that share a common cins were put to good effect then,52 and by the 1960s it seems to be a normative practice.53
This leads us to a review of what I have earlier referred to as “principles of melodic movement” as seen in our example taksim-s. I would reiterate firstly that the term “principles” used in regard to makam construction and modulation came to me from 51
The reader will recall from that chapter my speculation regarding a performance-generated, repertoire-dependent, non-modulating sort of prelude/interlude, perhaps corresponding at some period with the term “agaze/âğâze” (Persian, “commencement”). 52 Despite inadequate dating we may presume (from his life-dates, and from the sound quality and length of the recording) that this recording is from the era before the extensive use of the 12 inch, 78 rpm record, i.e., from the late 1930s or before. 53 Hear for instance Yorgo Bacanos’s “Rast Taksim II” on Türk Müziği Ustaları—Ud Kalan 2004c: 1/14 or Haydar Tatlıyay’s “Rast Taksim” on Haydar Tatlıyay Kalan 2001: 6.
212
neyzen Ahmet Toz (see Chapter IV), but that his meaning of it referred to specific permissible conjunctions of cins-es within the system, with the understanding that each of these carries the power to imply or evoke other makam-s without necessarily delineating the whole of the modulated-to makam. This sort of “principle” will be the main subject of the following chapter, but those we have seen so far in this chapter are more directly concerned with the dynamics of modulation, and work at a different operational level, to wit: •
modulations often occur between makam-s that share a cins at the same level, which is used as a pivot from which to change an adjacent cins
•
modulations may be facilitated by exploiting common dominants o and by taking the dominant of one of the makam-s as the tonic of the other
a modulation may be further facilitated by exploiting the seyir of the modulated-to makam from a hierarchically important tone, e.g.: •
an ascending-descending or descending-ascending makam introduced from its dominant, which is also the dominant of the host or previous makam
•
a descending makam introduced from its upper tonic, which is also the upper tonic of the previous makam
•
a descending makam introduced from its upper tonic, which is the dominant of the previous makam (whose
213
kök-level cins acts as the açan-level cins of the modulated-to makam) •
a descending-ascending or ascending-descending makam introduced from the upper tonic of a makam which is acting as the dominant of the modulated-to makam (thereby shifting the cins levels)
•
etc.—any such recontextualization of a hierarchically important tone by deploying the second makam’s seyir upon it may be used as a pivot between two makam-s
•
a certain kind of modulation (which need not be thought of as such) may be achieved by treating tones other than the tonic or dominants of the first makam as the tonic or dominants of the modulated-to makam while maintaining the scalar integrity, in the manner of a melodic “species” o “maintaining scalar integrity” here may require including a flexible interpretation of the intonation of certain perde-s in the makam’s main scale (as we saw the treatment of Uşşak above as “existing inside” Rast)
•
that the system is open to inventive ways of connecting cins-es
•
that a modulation can be made that evokes a similar modulation found in the canonical repertoire, or in older taksim recordings (regardless of its adherence to principles such as those listed, though it is likely to have achieved that status by way of employing such principles)
214
We will be able to hear these principles at work also in further taksim examples from this study. Before that, I would like to introduce a few, more general characteristics of the makam system that we may derive from the taksim-s we have seen so far, having to do with the issue of the interdependence of individual makam-s within the system.
One of the reasons I chose Rast as the first makam to examine is that it is widely considered to be a makam well suited to welcoming many makam-s inside it as modulations (see Chapter IV), and indeed two of the longest and most complex taksim-s I recorded for this project were in Rast: Necati Çelik playing ud (12 minutes, 22 modulations, 20 makam-s represented; see DVD 3/30) and Ahmet Nuri Benli playing yaylı tanbur (11 minutes, 20 modulations, 15 makam-s represented; see DVD 4/36).54 So if we may take these two taksim-s, and add to it Agnès Agopian’s second Rast taksim above, as on one level “representing the makam Rast,” in just these three examples alone 31 discrete makam-s other than Rast appear (not including “mere” transpositions).
Even though each makam may be evaluated in terms of its propensity for welcoming other makam-s inside it in this way, the makam system as a whole exists on the premise that, given a proper understanding of how to get from one makam to the next, it is possible to reach any makam from any other makam despite a plethora of 54
For number of modulations the nearest match was Mehmet Emin Bitmez’s ud rendition of the makam Acem Aşiran: 10 minutes, 22 modulations, 14 makam-s represented; see DVD 2/21. (Compound makam-s were here counted by their constituent elements, since “modulations” were required between these. Transpositions were not here counted as separate makam-s.)
215
aesthetic criteria capable of rendering many combinations incompatible if approached directly.55 From a certain point of view we can understand the theory books mentioned in this study as tending to portray the makam system as a kind of inventory of individual, rule-governed makam-s, but the interconnectivity demonstrated in the Rast taksim-s cited (and many others; see Chapter VII and DVDs passim)—bolstered by the high value that performers have placed on knowing the intricate details of making successful modulations and on the ability to apply them in taksim-s—makes of the makam system a kind of “holism,” such that not only is the whole greater than the sum of its parts, but like a holograph, each part may be seen to contain within it all the other parts of the whole.56 That is, every makam is capable of serving as a framing device for showing, potentially, every other makam. Such an idea is not made explicit in the Turkish theory texts we have reviewed above (i.e., Yekta, Ezgi, Arel, Töre/Karadeniz, Özkan, Kutluğ, Yılmaz et al.), but often mentioned by teaching performers, and is evident in taksim-s with extensive modulation.57 Thinking of this dynamic only in terms of the taksim genre, we will recall again that 55
See similar ideas expressed for Eastern Arab music in Marcus 1992: 175. We will explore these criteria in the next chapter. Generally, I intend to show that, for most current performers, a knowledge of getting from one makam to the next is largely founded upon understanding how to properly exploit makam connections at the level of the cins. 56 At least this is so at the level of the makam and “upward” (i.e., if not at the level of the cins). The word “holism” was introduced to the English language by philosopher Jan C. Smuts to mean “[T]he tendency in nature to form wholes that are greater than the sum of the parts through creative evolution” (Smuts 1926). I see a parallel with the makam system, even though it is of course human choices that create it, such that we must substitute the ideas of “nature” and “evolution” with others like “culture” and “development” in their respective places. 57 See DVD 1/1 (A. Agopian), 1/9 (E. Gürtan), 2/19 (Ö. Özel), 2/21 (M. Bitmez), 3/30 (N. Çelik), and 4/37 (A. Benli) especially, each of whose performers (among several others) shared this idea with me in interviews. Again, see a similar idea expressed for eastern Arab music in Marcus 1992: 175.
216
in Cantemir’s time the highest goal of a performing musician was to be able to create taksim-s that indeed went through the entirety of the system, returning to an original nominal makam (the küll-i külliyat taksim, see Chapter II). There still exists such a sort of taksim—the fihrist (“index” or “list”) taksim, though it is exceedingly rare today (but hear Fahrettin Çimenli, KAF Müzik 2005: Disk 1 Tracks 2 and 7, and Disk 2 Track 2); it was probably the first victim of the time limitations of early phonograph recording, and of the subsequent decisions to limit the length of taksim-s in radio and concert programming (see Chapter II). I assume that it is this holistic characteristic of the makam system that made İhsan Özgen (and others) so lament the “loss” of detailed makam knowledge among younger players (see Chapter IV). Let me reprint his quote: They’re reduced by half [the number of makam-s in use today]. I mean, what remains? Hicaz, Uşşak, Rast, Segâh. Hüzzam. Nihavend, Buselik. And various combined makam-s. There used to be known and used many more, and they were “constructive”—they told you about their structure. Now, makam, how shall I say it? Various makam-s give you details, information, knowledge. Thinking about them, you develop your mind. Because of this development, production and performance must be different. The performance is different than before. Because not knowing the details of the broader makam possibilities makes playing even the few that people now “know” less rich than it was in the past. (İhsan Özgen, p.c. 5/27/09)
217
And let us set alongside this the previously given quote by Can Akkoç: “Requesting a pure improvisation from a master musician that does not delve into other maqams could be viewed as absurd, almost like handcuffing the performer.” (In Bayhan 2008: 50, fn. 8) In a sense the individual makam-s exist—at least for the purposes of the taksim genre—to serve the whole, to give the diversity of the system a context and a framework, and while each makam has its own identity, each also has the potential at any moment to evoke any of its close relations (e.g., through the aforementioned “principles of melodic movement,” showing common properties at the level of the cins and hierarchically important tones), thereby making a taksim into a kind of portrait of relations, a selective “family reunion” of sorts. In the hands of the competent taksim performer, all the emotional characteristics attributed to individual makam-s (see performers’ comments about which in Chapter IV) may be put into relationship one with another to highlight the relative tensions and harmonies imagined in their various relations. The loss of makam diversity among currently younger players (and of the characteristic details of the remaining makam-s) that İhsan Özgen et al., lament can be seen in this light as a drastic impoverishment of the system as a whole, like a community after a plague or mass emigration. Even if the youngest generation of performers is able to play Rast to the satisfaction of its definition as given in theory books, if they were not to learn also how to include in it, for instance, at least some of the 31 other makam-s we have seen in the three Rast taksim-s mentioned above, then Rast itself becomes impoverished.
218
CHAPTER CONCLUSION
In this chapter we have seen examples from the three main objects of this study side by side: taksim praxis from the early part of the period, taksim praxis from current performers, and Arelian theory. Let us conclude the chapter by comparing them each with the other. Firstly we may recall several changes in performance practices in the taksim genre over the period as noted by current performers in Chapter IV, mainly changes in style: borrowings from Western musics such as arpeggios and double stops,58 and to a lesser extent pentatonicism apparently from Eastern musics;59 for some instruments, such as the kanun, a growing interest in virtuosity,60 while for others, such as the ney and ud, a lessening of virtuosic flash in favor of a slower, more exploratory style leaning into their instruments’ timbral possibilities.61
In this chapter we have also seen an apparent increase in the conceptualization of makam-s as the conjunction of distinctly defined cins-es, overshadowing the freer use of makam-defining melodic gestures of a more scalar nature, though both are present in current makam praxis (and both were present in the early recordings). It would be 58
Hear Yorgo Bacanos on Türk Müziği Ustaları – Ud Kalan 2004c: 1/14, Turgut Özefer DVD 5/42 and 5/43. 59 P.c. İhsan Özgen (3/30/09), whom hear on Remembrances of Ottoman Composers Golden Horn 1998: 1 (and with his analysis on DVD 4/A1). 60 Compare Artaki Candan on Lâle-Nerkis Hanımlar Kalan 1998: 1/11 with Erdem Özkıvanç DVD 5/44. 61 Hear Niyazi Sayın on Sadâ Mega Müzik 2001: 1; compare Udi Nevres Türk Müziği Ustaları – Ud Kalan 2004c: 1/2 with Cinuçen Tanrıkorur (ibid.: 2/19). We may note Walter Feldman’s opinion that a truly classical style of ud playing was only (re-)invented in the twentieth century by such players as Rüstü Eriç and Cinuçen Tanrıkorur, the instrument having disappeared from the classical instrumentarium ca. 1650-1850 and played mainly in a light/popular style ca. 1850-1950 (1996: 518).
219
tempting to make a case that before Yekta, Ezgi and Arel revived makam theory by structuring it in terms of cins-es there had been no cins-oriented theory as a “performers’ theory” in the oral meşk tradition,62 and that the acceptance (or imposition) of Arelian theory as the normative, institutionalized pedagogical standard by the mid-1940s caused subsequently educated performers to understand and interpret makam-s in terms of cins-es, which they would not otherwise have done. If such were definitely the case we could say that those differences arising between current performers’ understandings of the makam system and Arelian theory that are couched in terms of cins-es result from their having accepted the concept of cins-es from Arel et al., in the first place.
We could also then refer to Yekta’s and Arel’s use of cins-oriented theory as basically a reimagining of the makam system based on medieval Arabic language texts employing the ancient Greek terminology of tetrachords,63 and not a reflection of contemporary performance practices. It does not seem to me possible at this time to present such a clear case, because there would appear to be taksim-s amongst the early recordings mentioned toward the beginning of this chapter (and marked with two or three asterisks in the Discography) that show an understanding of cins-
62
Though clearly there had not been such a conception in the recent centuries’ written tradition, for instance see Haşim Bey 1852 and 1864. 63 Note that Yekta referred to both such medieval theorists (e.g., Al-Fārāb, al-Kindī, and Ṣafīuddīn) as well as to ancient Greek music theorists (such as Pythagoras and Aristoxenos) in his major work on theory (1922 [1913]), but that Arel—who was trying to make the music appear as Turkish as possible to suit the nationalist ideology of his day (see Chapter III)—did not refer to any historical precedent in his theory text (1991 [1943-48]), except to (falsely) claim a Turko-centric provenance for his concept of the “Çargâh scale” (see Appendix G).
220
conjunctions in makam definitions on the part of their performers (though we can only speculate as to its provenance or prominence in an oral tradition). For all we know, given only the data I have been able to present here, it is possible that Yekta and Arel used the idea because it was already present in contemporary performers’ musical rhetoric.64 Regardless, it must be said that particularly the Arelian presentation of makam-s as constructed of the conjoined tetrachords and pentachords he devised has so pervaded the KTM music culture that it is difficult to find performers who do not conceive of makam-s as “naturally” constructed in terms of conjoined cins-es—even contestations of their details are configured in similar terms seemingly in order to fit into Arelian theory.65
Still, it is worthwhile noting for future research the presence of what may be hints of cins-oriented thinking in early twentieth-century taksim recordings, with the idea of tracking down a source for current performers’ contestations of Arelian theory in mind.66 Here we may note that it is clear there has not been a time after the appearance of taksim-s in phonograph recordings when students did not imitate them
64
After all, if a primary reason for creating a new theory for classical Turkish music was to modernize-qua-Westernize it (including simplifications to suit the new pedagogy; see Chapter III), as seems definitely to be the case with Arel’s version, he presumably could have accomplished that much better with mere scales, an idea he merges with cins-constructions for unknown reasons (1991 [194348]:17-34), perhaps because it was already considered an indispensable element of the understanding of makam-s. 65 Even so, we must recall from Chapter I Münir Beken’s note that there are iterations of Turkish makam music just on the margins of the classical world—for instance as played in restaurants and bars, and as “recited” in the call to prayer in mosques—whose performers might be less inclined to use Arelian rhetoric in their descriptions of what they do. 66 For instance the seeming use of “trichords” as a cins in Hüzzam, Segâh, Rahat-ül Ervah et al. makam-s—and to what would such a thing be attached if not to some other kind of cins?
221
as models (see Ünlü 2004, Chapter IV above) from which to learn the “[performers’] theory” of which their own taksim-s are the praxis. This at least accounts for the earlier-mentioned phenomenon of a novel çeşni or modulation coming into the normative praxis of a particular makam due to its invention and performance by a well respected artist such as Tanburi Cemil Bey. These recordings are de facto part of the oral/aural transmission that runs in parallel with Arelian theory—as shown in previous chapters it is not the case that this pre-Arelian, pre-phonograph oral tradition has yet died out, as diminished as it may be from a traditional meşk education. It also must be remembered that the single most important model for learning to make taksim-s today (which is de facto the praxis of a “[performers’] theory”) is supposedly mimicry of established repertoire. My study does not include repertoire as a repository of theory, but if some or any if this repertoire can be interpreted as reflecting some concept of cins structure for makam-s (and I strongly suspect that we could find such examples), then this would also help us understand the confluence of factors that lead Yekta, Ezgi, and Arel to formulate a cins-oriented understanding of makam structure in their works.67
Overall it must be said that the “definitions” of makam-s themselves, as made manifest in the taksim genre, have not changed significantly over the hundred year period of this study; makam-s in even the earliest recordings are easily identified by
67
We must note, however, that Yekta and Ezgi themselves are credited with the transcription of nearly all the repertoire in play today (barring maybe 5 or 6 later composers’ work)—any study of these materials must also keep in mind how these men’s ideas may have affected their transcriptions.
222
today’s performers and aficionados—especially by such (non-cins-oriented) melodic gestures as the leap of a 6th from the low-octave dominant falling a 3rd to the tonic so often played in our Rast examples at the beginning of this chapter—and (as noted in Chapter IV) performers today are conscious of traditional makam definitions and pride themselves on reproducing makam-s in ways they assume would have been understood by the earlier performers.68
Comparing the makam praxis of our period with Arelian theory, we must recall firstly that it is not merely Arel’s theory specifically that may reflect (or not) earlier praxis and shape (or not) current praxis, but rather that this theory appeared in the context of quite drastic changes in pedagogical norms within the whole of the music culture during this period. If we may posit at least the later end of Arel’s 1943-1948 Turkish Music Theory Lessons as a marker of his theory having been accepted as the normative music theory, then we may describe the differences in education between a) the artists whose recorded taksim-s we have looked at above, and b) even the most senior of my current informants: the older pedagogical world consisted in decadeslong, one-on-one and small group lessons between a master and his or her students, usually with little or no reliance on written texts or repertoire, learning by rote pieces that were understood not to have definitive versions, and the theoretical underpinnings of which apparently had a different understanding of the role of cins-es 68
Experiments that radically alter the traditional understandings of makam praxis, such as İhsan Özgen’s “Beyond Makam” (Golden Horn 1999: 1) are extremely rare, and even in this case he seems to presume that the listener will understand the normative aesthetic enough to know both that and why this performance deviates from it (see his analysis of the piece on DVD 4/A1).
223
in makam definition and/or were linked more closely to characteristic melodic gestures than to formulaic conjunctions of cins-es (see Behar 2008 [2005], Gill 2006). My informants, on the other hand, were raised in a pedagogical world in which a music education—though in many cases supplemented by less stringent or regular meşk-like lessons with senior musicians—consists of learning literacy at a very early stage (along with its attendant focus on text-learning and canonized repertoire in fixed versions), by sitting in different classrooms for an hour or two at a time several days a week for four or five years, with different teachers for different subjects, all discussing their subjects (generation after generation) using the same standardized— and simplified, Arelian—vocabulary, grammar of cins-es, notation, intonation, and solfège.69
It is perhaps, then, the greater surprise that the understandings of makam-s and of the makam system as a whole (as demonstrated in current praxis in the taksim genre, at least) have changed so little over this turbulent period; subtracting the changes attributed to mere style, or to the limitations of mass media, the main change appears to be a greater emphasis on the construction of makam-s in terms of cins-es (whose definitions by Arel are nonetheless often a matter of contestation). And herein would appear to lie the rub: Arel’s theory seems to have been successful in providing a kind of standardized language for the Turkish makam system, but its success as a medium 69
Solfège is much used among KTM musicians, but as it is “fixed do” (representing the written “bolahenk” transposition rather than sounding tones) and consists of only seven syllables to represent (at least) 24 tones, it strikes me as a problematic imposition, though I never heard a Turkish musician complain about it.
224
for transmitting the makam tradition is in large part thanks to individual performers’ creating their own “dialects” of it, that is, it is the capacity of Arel’s simplified concepts to contain basic meanings without breaking under the performers’ unwillingness to deploy them literally that gives his theory the staying power it has maintained over these 70-some years.70 We have seen both in the taksim examples above and in prose in the previous chapter many of the details of these current performers’ contestations and re-imaginings of Arel’s theory; let us summarize four categories of them here generally, in simple dialectical formulae, each consisting of: a particular issue, how Arelian theory deals with it, and a performer-oriented synthesis (followed, if required, by a note on unresolved aspects of the issue):
Intonation and Notation •
Issue: intonation in the music is flexible (i.e., interpretable in multiple ways by different performers in different melodic contexts) and has partaken at times of at least 33 nameable tones (see Wright 1992a, Bayhan 2008)
•
Arel: there are 24 tones only, all named and presentable in the Arelian notation system (1991 [1943-48]:1, 35)
•
Performers: intonation is multiply interpretable but performers learn to sightread and sing solfège using Arelian terms while sonically altering them,71 with a commonly understood standard regarding which signs and syllables refer to
70
Cf. Marcus 1993:50 on a similar issue in eastern Arab maqām music in regard to intonation theory. As noted in previous chapters, some performers do instead use alternate names for pitches that fall between Arel’s.
71
225
which intended perde-s (e.g., the lowered segâh in makam Beyati is understood to be represented by the syllable “si,” by the name segâh, and by the sign “Bq” rather than “Bw” or “Ad” etc.) o Unresolved: discrepancies such as we have seen regarding the intonation in Hüzzam; even though performers largely reject Arel’s understanding of its “hüzzam pentachord,” their explanation of the unaccountably-intoned part of it in terms of Arel’s hicaz tetrachord may unintentionally influence performers to confound Hüzzam with Rahat-ül Ervah (which indeed does require a hicaz cins in that position, though the whole makam is transposed a perfect fourth lower)
Makam Identity and Construction •
Issue: individual makam-s had apparently long been identified by melodic criteria—seyir (sometimes represented as short melodies), hierarchical tones, characteristic gestures preserved in repertoire, special intonation issues, etc.— but not consistently by cins-constructions 72
•
Arel: all makam-s are constructed of seven-tone octave scales consisting of the conjunction of one tetrachord and one pentachord (1991 [1943-48]: 1734); other aspects of makam definition are either presented in simplified form
72
We will recall from Chapter III that explanations of the makam-s in terms of cins-es had been practically non-existent (at least in texts) between the fifteenth century and Yekta’s explanation (see Yekta 1922 [1913], which compare with Haşim Bey 1852).
226
(e.g., seyir = ascending, descending or ascending-descending; the dominant is simply where the conjunction of cins-es is found) or excluded (characteristic melodic gestures, accidental tones, and intonation issues, for instance, are absent in the theory and its texts) •
Performers: performers have fully taken on the conception of makam-s as consisting of conjunct cins-es, but may use the idea to interpret makam-s in terms other than what Arel described o following Rauf Yekta, it is understood that many makam-s’ cinsstructures do not repeat at the octave, requiring more than two cins-es to present all the defining tones of a makam (which incidentally delegitimizes the Arelian concept of a “makam’s [octave] scale”) o while it is a good rule of thumb that a makam’s dominant is likely to occur where the two central cins-es conjoin, this is not always the case: care to learn the true dominant must be taken when learning a new makam 73
on the other hand, many performers reverse-engineer this Arelian rule, taking makam-s whose third degree is dominant (e.g., Segâh, Müstear, Hüzzam, Irak, Bestenigâr, Rahat-ül Ervah, etc.) and describe them with the lower cins of the central octave (the “kök” cins) as a trichord, thereby deconstructing the pentachord and tetrachord (and their
73
Furthermore, some performers may have idiosyncratic interpretations of which tones are the dominant, second dominant, etc.; see Chapter IV.
227
conjunction) with which Arel had defined the makam o performers are expected to learn the more subtle aspects of seyir and characteristic melodic gestures by listening to and performing canonical repertoire, and those of intonation by listening to acknowledged masters (whether in live performance, as private students, or from recordings)—this, and all attributions of affect, ethos, and emotion to specific makam-s are understood to be outside the realm of Arelian theory
The Basic Scale •
Issue: it would appear that there had traditionally been a “basic scale” for makam musics, and that it was used to generate the primary modes (“makams,” as opposed to secondary entities such as “terkib-s” and “şu’be-s,” etc.) in the manner of “species” as we have seen in this chapter (see Feldman 1996: 195-259 74); its tones were apparently once in the structure “G A Bq c d eq f g” but more recently have been understood as “G A Bq c d e f s g” (see Appendix G)
•
Arel: the scale of the “makam Çargâh”—“C D E F G A B c,” which is conveniently identical to the Western “C Major” scale—is the only possible “basic scale” for classical Turkish Music (1991 [1943-48]: 61-4)
74
Note that there has not always been agreement about what the “basic” species/makam of this scale was: Yekta, Karadeniz, Kutluğ and the theorists in Bayhan 2008 take it as the makam Rast (formerly called Yegâh), while Cantemir assumed it to be the makam Hüseyni, and did not feel he had to argue the point against contemporary opinion (as he did other points; see Feldman 1996: 195; 1993).
228
•
Performers: since there is no longer a recognized hierarchy of modal entities (i.e., since the terkib-s, şu’be-s etc., became full “makam-s” starting in the seventeenth century; see Chapter II), there is no real need to designate a “basic scale” except for historical understanding, and for its implication regarding the “natural” (i.e., unmarked) notes in the Western-style staff notation; it is widely understood that Arel invented and promoted what he called “Çargâh” for extra-musical reasons, and that Rast (currently understood as G A Bq c d + d e f s g) is really the “basic scale” o Unresolved: it would seem from the conclusion of the “theory vs. practice” congress mentioned in Chapter III (i.e., Bayhan 2008) that today’s academic authorities intend to restore Rast as the “basic scale,” but this leaves open the question of what the cins-type going by the name “çargâh” should be called—performers today realize that there is no real music in the “Çargâh makam” yet are happy to refer to “çargâh pentachords and tetrachords.” Kutluğ has recommended an apparently historical alternative: nigâr, though I have never heard a performer use that term and rather doubt it will catch on 75
75
Nor is there any reason to think that current performers will prefer to use the Arab maqām name for the cins, “`ajam/acem,” since the makam Acem is thought of as part of the Uşşak makam family in Turkey (though Acem Aşiran—essentially the Arab maqām `Ajam—would be a logical candidate, as would “mahur,” after the makam of the same name).
229
Basic, Transposed, and Compound Makam Categories •
Issue: over the centuries the categories for different kinds of makam-s have varied greatly
•
Arel: “basic makam-s” are basic because they are constructed of the “basic pentachords and tetrachords,” which have both a perfect fourth and a perfect fifth up from the tonic (1991 [1943-48]: 17-34, 43); transpositions of makam-s are nothing more than that—they are not separate makam-s in their own right even though certain of them have their own names (ibid.: 317-56); all those makam-s not categorized as basic or transposed are categorized as “compound”
•
Performers: generally, performers have no problem with the designation of Arel’s “basic” makam-s as “basic” (though I would think that if the theory were to include trichords they would also be happy to include several more makam-s under that category); although there is certainly such a phenomenon as playing a makam in a transposition, for most performers, if a makam has its own name, it must be a distinct makam and not a transposition of another makam (see Chapter IV)—to confuse them is to risk, for instance, playing Hüzzam as though it were Rahat-ül Ervah; finally, to performers, a compound makam is not so called because it fails to qualify for another category, but because it is composed of more than one distinct makam o Unresolved: Arel’s refusal to admit of any cins but the tetrachords and pentachords he listed (see above), and his insistence on every makam’s
230
being constructed of nothing other than one combination of one pentachord and one tetrachord each has created a generation of performers for whom it is not always clear whether or why a makam is really a compound; for instance it should be clear from the repertoire at least that the makam Saba has historically been a compound of the makam that used to be called Çargâh (whose scale resembles that of Zirgüleli Hicaz but on c/çargâh) that falls through an uşşak trichord on A/dügâh—Arel insisted that its lower cins is a “saba tetrachord” (A Bq c d w) not conjunct with but overlapping a hicaz-5 on çargâh, even though in discussing its seyir he describes and even notates it as “Hicaz Zirgüle scale on Çargâh,” then (on a separate staff) falling through the three lowest tones of the “Uşşak scale on Dügâh”—in any case, we must note that this makam is classified as “compound” by Arel simply because its lower cins does not have a perfect fourth up from the tonic (see 1991 [1943-48]: 24). The makam Yegâh is classified as a compound (ibid.: 150) even though historically it must have been the first among the primary modes of the basic scale (see Appendix G), and Hüzzam, if the proper cins-es for it had been accepted, might not be considered a compound at all; this is the case for several much used makam-s
Overall we see that the imposition of Arel’s theory on that which was apparently a
231
performer-driven understanding of makam before the mid-twentieth century has left quite an impression on performers today, and it can hardly be denied that it solved certain of the problems Arel meant it to solve: it apparently simplified music theory to the point where it could efficiently fit the new, European-style pedagogy, making Turkish classical music theory for the first time in centuries appear systematic and scientific in a “politically correct” Western way, even physically resembling Western music on the page (and sonically so, by way of fixing repertoire in single versions on that page). To repeat a quote we saw in Chapter III: Would we be here if it were not for Arel? Would this conservatory exist? Would there be [music] education? Yes, [it is true that] there is not one tanbur or kanun that can be physically linked with [tuned in accord with] the system of Arel. No matter … one way or another, the Arel system is the basis of this education. It provided the continuity of this music.76 (Nail Yavuzoğlu in Bayhan 2008: 180) And yet the impression Arel’s theory has made and continues to make only serves to transmit the music from generation to generation to the extent that it can be fused by each of those generations with an oral tradition existing outside its bounds, a performance-oriented “theory”—a describable praxis, really—and one from which we are here trying to extrapolate the unwritten principles of current classical Turkish makam music that both depend on Arel’s vocabulary and grammar of cins-es, yet reshape them in order to preserve both an earlier sense of the heritage and the right of an artist’s individual interpretation. In the next chapter we will look in greater detail 76
Their translation of, “Bugün Arel olmasaydı biz burada olur muyduk? Bu konservatuar olur muydu? Eğitim olur muydu? Evet Arel sistemiyle fiziksel olarak bağlanan bir tane tanbur yoktur. Bir tane çakılan kanun da yoktur. Ama Arel sistemi bu eğitimin temelidir. Ne olursa olsun, öyle ya da böyle. Bu müziğin devamını sağlamıştır.”
232
at the workings of this synthesized “performer’s theory,” and at the constitution of what may not be played that renders the potential for “beauty” in that which may be played.
233
CHAPTER VI: CİNS CONJUNTIONS WITHIN THE PRINCIPLES OF MELODIC MOVEMENT Let me begin this chapter by stating as a claim a point that I had presented as a kind of inference in previous chapters: that makam definition per se is based on one set of criteria, and the means by which one makam may move to another rests on a different set of principles. In Chapter IV we saw this idea implied by several performers, specifically as comments regarding the deficiencies of Arelian theory to address makam definition while—rather than faulting Arel et al. for not addressing modulation—explaining that learning the relationships between makam-s for use in taksim-s depends on the one hand upon a body of knowledge available only through experienced masters, and on the other upon finding them fossilized within the canonical repertoire.
I make this claim explicit here for two reasons: firstly to address the widespread opinion amongst KTM performers and enthusiasts that the whole of the makam system is too complex, intimate, detailed, and idiosyncratic to be systematized in a theory of principles, whether by Arel or anyone else, and that at least some oral/aural training is necessary to learn the makam system well, and that this state of pedagogy is both traditional and desirable. In this regard I make the distinction between makam definition and “principles of melodic movement” (particularly regarding modulation, but not limited to it) in order to state my agreement about these opinions and yet to qualify this agreement: I would say that, at least up to this point, the issue of defining
234
the necessary characteristics of each makam has been very inadequately addressed in theory texts (and I am agnostic on the point of whether or not it ever could be done to general satisfaction), but as for the means by which modulations are made between makam-s, and also regarding melodic movement not necessarily governed by a makam’s seyir, I see in the taksim-s analyzed for this study—and especially in the rhetoric used by today’s performers in elucidating their understanding of the modulations they make—reason to believe that this aspect of the makam system can indeed be explained by means of relatively simple principles. That it has not been so described before may be attributable to the fact that no-one—whether theorist or performer—has tried to do so, preferring to assign such knowledge to the realm of the oral/aural tradition.1
As for makam definitions; since there has not been published a text explicating Turkish makam theory in a language other than Turkish,2 I have included in Appendix J information comparable to that found in current Turkish music theory texts, describing in rudimentary terms the 53 makam-s appearing in the video recordings made for this study (and a few others as well). This information must be understood to be at its most basic, and if used for learning makam theory, should
1
The only text approaching a comprehensive explanation of modulation in taksim is the late Dr. Onur Akdoğu’s 1989(a) Taksim: Nedir, Nasıl Yapılır? (“Taksim: What is it, How is it Made?”), but by general consensus it is understood as an effort that fell far short of its goal. I have read it and agree with the consensus. 2 As this dissertation was in its final stages of revision, the publication in 2010 of Murat Aydemir’s Turkish Music Makam Guide (Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık) was brought to my attention; it does indeed explain the basics of Turkish makam music, including 60 makam definitions, at about the same level of detail as Özkan 1984, for the first time in the English language.
235
supplement rather than replace lessons with a qualified teacher, close listening to repertoire and taksim-s, and learning to play canonical repertoire. The rest of this chapter, and essentially the rest of the dissertation, concerns the modulatory and relational aspects of the Turkish makam system.
THE CİNS-ES ACCORDING TO CURRENT PRAXIS
The first thing we must do in order to proceed toward the “principles of melodic movement at the level of the cins” is to lay out the redefinition of Arel’s cins-es (see Chapter V) as derived from current performers’ analyses of their taksim-s (see DVDs 1-4 (passim), Chapters IV and V): Cins
Written
rast- (3, 4, 5) uşşak- (3, 4, 5)
G A Bq c d A Bq c d e
segâh- (3) müstear- (3) pençgâh- (5) hüzzam- (4)
Bq c d B q cs d G A B cs d d eq fs g
Fs G A Fs G s A D E Fd Gs A A B q cs d
buselik- (3, 4, 5) kürdi- (3, 4, 5) çargâh- (4, 5)
ABcde A Be c d e cdefg
E Fd G A B EFGAB GABcd
hicaz- (4, 5)
A B w cs d e
E Fa G s A B
nikriz- (5)
Sounds
Intervals (in commas) D E Fs G A 9+8+5+9 E Fs G A B 8+5+9+9 [or 7+6+9+9 or even 6.5+6.5+9+9]
G A B w cs d
D E Fd Gs A
Figure 11: the cins-es according to current praxis.
236
5+9 9+5 9+9+8+5 8+9+5 [or 6.5+9+6.5] 9+4+9+9 4+9+9+9 9+9+4+9 5+12+5+9 [or 4+13+5+9] 9+5+12+9 [or 9+4+13+5+9]
The differences between these and Arel’s cins-es are few but significant: •
Trichords added o trichords do not exist in Arel’s theory, and their inclusion in it has even been discouraged (see Chapter III) o their inclusion allows re-thinking the constitution of certain makam-s
•
New cins-es added o the hüzzam tetrachord and the segâh and müstear trichords have been added
•
Cins-es removed o taken away from the system are Arel’s pentachords “segâh,” “hüzzam,” and “ferahnak,” and the tetrachord “saba,” because they do not accurately reflect the construction of the makam-s for which they are named (q.v. in Appendix J and below)
taken away, not from Arel but from Özkan (1984: 49), is any kind of cins for nişabur (which is better represented with an uşşak trichord on buselik)
o note that, following the recommendation of Özer Özel (see Chapter IV), the “hüseyni pentachord” will be represented below by the gloss “uşşak-5” •
(Note that the “pençgâh-5” appears in Arel and Özkan but was never used in their makam descriptions—even for the makam Pençgâh—but because it is now used by performers it remains in the list of cins-es above)
237
Accounted for in one sentence, the newly added items are: the rast-3, uşşak-3, segâh3, müstear-3, buselik-3, kürdi-3 and the hüzzam-4.
The cins-es in the above table (fig. 11) have been defined in terms of commas, and it will be noted that certain of them have alternative intonational versions (all of which must be taken as approximate): •
as noted in Chapter III, the 2nd degree of the uşşak cins is consistently slightly lowered in makam-s such as Beyati, and slightly lower still in makam-s such as Uşşak and Hüseyni (see Appendix J).3 The only case in which it is expected to remain as literally notated is when serving in a trichord as the kök cins of Nişabur makam
•
(see Appendix H regarding the intonational possibilities of the hüzzam tetrachord)
•
it turns out that, using only the 24 tones accepted by Arelian theory, it is not possible to properly “spell” the “12-comma-wide” augmented second needed in hicaz and nikriz cins-es in every possible transposition; there are transpositions in which a “13-comma-wide” augmented second must be used instead (and for that reason both sizes of hicaz and nikriz cins-es are given above, though those with 12-comma-wide) augmented seconds are considered “more correct” (see Özkan 1984: 39)
3
Note that the same tone, when serving as the 3rd degree of Rast (i.e., in a rast cins), may also be slightly lowered in cadential gestures, though this is not a consistent enough practice to give the cins an “alternative intonation.”
238
CİNS CONJUNCTIONS
Because a modulation is essentially the evocation of another makam—usually without offering as full a “definition” of the modulated-to makam as was given of the host makam (as we saw demonstrated in Chapter V)—we will benefit from understanding which combinations of cins-es, moving one to another across conjunctions, are enough to evoke specific makam-s.4 This was the sense in which Ahmet Toz described his understanding of the “principles” of classical Turkish music (see Chapter IV). Let me take a moment to clarify the distinction between moments of single-makam definition and moments of modulation between makam-s that permits this “makam evoking” potential of any cins conjunction. As stated at the beginning of this chapter, makam definition per se is based on one set of criteria, and the means by which one makam may move to another rests on a different set of principles. Makam definitions may be glossed as “a set of tones, and a set of rules regarding how to show them in performance (seyir, hierarchy of tones, characteristic melodic gestures, etc.),” and there are two situations in which the demonstration of the full makam definition is necessary: when a performance or composition is in only a single makam, and when a makam is the “nominal” or “host” makam inside of which modulations are made before returning to the original/nominal/host makam, 4
Note that there are also a few makam-s whose definition include a direct switching between two cinses at the same—kök—level, on the same tonic. These are so few, in fact, that we may name here those that are not totally obscure: Isfahan, Isfahanek, Dügâh, Mahur, Pençgâh, and Pesendide (see Appendix J, and Özkan 1984). There are also a few oddities—all of them compounds—that de facto require disjunct cins-es (e.g., see Muhayyer-Sümbüle, Acem, Arazbar, Arazbar-Buselik, Vech-i Arazbar, Tarzı Nevin et al., in Özkan 1984) and other compounds whose definitions rely on the “species” principle (e.g., Segâh Mâye, Dügâh Mâye; ibid.).
239
that is, when it is acting as a frame in which modulation occurs. For that matter, performances and compositions that begin in one makam and end in a different makam—for instance in a geciş taksim—also require full definitions of both beginning and ending makam-s, whether or not there are intervening modulations to other makam-s.
But as we have seen in Chapter V, and will see in great detail in Chapter VII, in the course of modulation the aspects of a makam’s definition that are not attributed to its scalar aspect—its seyir, hierarchy of tones, characteristic melodic gestures, etc.—are often abandoned when “evoking” the modulated-to makam; we may even safely say that the minimum information having the power to evoke a makam identity in a modulatory situation consists of merely that aspect of the makam that is a “set of tones.” As we may see in the analyses of the 100 taksim-s made for this study (in Appendix K), there was no occasion in them on which a modulation was effected by suddenly changing all of the “scalar material” of one makam at once—modulation occurs by changing one cins at a time, and by the new relation that that cins is in with those adjacent cins-es that did not change. In other words, the minimum makamidentifying material is the conjunction of two cins-es, and the association of that cins conjunction with a makam. The seyir, etc. of the modulated-to makam may be used, but it need not be.
240
A thorough investigation of all the possible combinations of two conjoined cins-es will show us not only which combinations are associated with specific makam-s, but those that are never used in any makam. This information is never referred to specifically, either in theory or by performers, but it is clear both from makam praxis in taksim-s and in the canonical repertoire that the cins-conjunctions in actual use are quite limited compared to the total of possibilities. That is to say, there is much that must not be played for the music to be aesthetically acceptable; a sort of invisible landscape of untreadable ground through which the composer must weave a path by way of acceptable cins-combinations and makam evocations. As noted previously regarding KTM’s essentially conservative aesthetic/poetics, that which is considered ugly is not regarded as a viable compositional option; those cins-combinations that never occur in makam definitions (though it is possible that they were combined in times beyond current memory) fall within the realm of the shocking and ugly.
Below are the one-to-one conjunctions of the cins-es explained above. The makam-s named include all 53 played in the recordings made for this study, as well as certain others either closely related or too common to leave out. The conjunctions may occur between any two adjacent cins-levels (i.e., destek-kök, kök-açan or açan-tiz), but because the kök-açan conjunction is the one most closely associated with a makam’s definition, these are marked by bold type. The cins-es in the (vertical) columns are the lower in the conjunction, i.e., those lower in pitch, while those in (horizontal) rows are above them (higher in pitch). Cells filled with black represent cins
241
conjunctions unused in makam-s, while those filled with grey show makam-s (whose names are preceded by the sign “±”) in which the cins conjunction in question is a possibility (or which may be considered close enough to the definition to approximate it, i.e., one could “fake it”),5 but which is not sufficient to clearly evoke the makam specifically—being somewhat tenuous, they are not marked in bold type even when occurring in the kök-açan level conjunction. Makam-s whose names appear without the sign “±” are those specifically evoked by the cins conjunction, the association being made more strongly and/or immediately in those marked in bold type.6
5
There are situations, for instance in the heat of fast consecutive modulations, when cins-es that differ very little from each other (e.g., a rast cins and a çargâh cins, which differ only in that one tone is different by one comma) may be played in the other’s stead, that is “faking” the cins and therefore the implied conjunction, But if a performer were to play the cins slowly and clearly, the conjunction that was “faked” in the fast situation would not by itself evoke a makam. 6 Six grids are shown according to cins conjunctions in use; a possible seventh—having pentachords below and trichords above—does not occur, nor do any tetrachord + tetrachord or pentachord + pentachord conjunctions (though see Özkan 1984: 430, 501, and 506 for the incidental possibility of the latter in the rare makam-s Büzürk, Buselik Aşiran, and Aşiran Zemzeme respectively). Also implicitly excluded are all combinations that might have consisted of unused cins-es, such as a “hicaz trichord” or “nikriz tetrachord,” etc.
242
Pentachords + Tetrachords: Tetrachords→ rast uşşak hüzzam buselik Pentachords↓ rast 1 2 3 4 uşşak (hüseyni) 7 pençgâh 10 11 buselik 12 kürdi çargâh 16 17 hicaz 19 nikriz 22 23 Figure 12: cins conjunctions: pentachord + tetrachord.
kürdi
çargâh
hicaz
5
6 9
8 13 15
14 18
20
21 24
1. Rast, Rehavi, Nişaburek, Gerdaniye, ±Mahur, ±Yegâh; ±Zavil, ±Suz-i Dilara, ±Pençgâh, ±Pesendide; 2. Yegâh, Uşşak, Neva, Tahir, Beyati, ±Arazbar, ±Arazbar Buselik, ±Isfahan; 3. ±Yegâh; 4. (Acemli) Rast, Gerdaniye; 5. Mahur; 6. Hicaz, Hümayun, Basit Suzinak, ±Zirgüleli Suzinak, ±Arazbar, ±Arazbar Buselik; 7. Hüseyni, Muhayyer, Gülizar, Gerdaniye, Karcığar, ±Arazbar, ±Arazbar Buselik; 8. ±Hüseyni, ±Muhayyer, ±Gülizar; 9. Hisar, ±Hisar Buselik; 10. ± Pençgâh; 11. Pençgâh, Pesendide; 12. ±Buselik, ±Nihavend, ±Sultani Yegâh, ±Ruhnüvaz, ±Ferahfeza; 13. Buselik, Nihavend, Sultani Yegâh, Ruhnüvaz, ±Ferahfeza; 14. Buselik, Nihavend, Sultani Yegâh, Ruhnüvaz, ±Ferahfeza; 15. ±Kürdili Hicazkâr, ±Muhayyer Kürdi, ±Acem Kürdi, ±Muhayyer Sümbüle (and other “-Kürdi” compounds); 16. ±Mahur; 17. ±Mahur; 18. Mahur, Acem Aşiran, (“Çargâh”); 19. Uzzal; 20. Araban;7 21. Zirgüle, Şehnaz, Suz-i Dil, Zirgüleli Suzinak, Hicazkâr, Şedd Araban, Evcara, Suz-i Dil, ±Kürdili Hicazkâr; 22. Nikriz, ±Şevk’efza, ±Acem Aşiran; 23. Nikriz, ±Şevk’efza, ±Acem Aşiran; 24. Nev’eser, Reng-i Dil.
Total: 56 possible / 24 used (16 definitive/8 merely possible)
7
8
/ 32 unused
This is how Araban is commonly understood today; a more historically accurate version might instead have a “hüzzam-5” instead of a hicaz-5 in this position (see Appendices H and J). 8 “Definitive” in this context means “makam-defining.”
243
Tetrachords + Pentachords Pentachords→ rast uşşak pençgâh buselik Tetrachords↓ (hüseyni) rast 1 2 3 uşşak 7 8 hüzzam 11 12 buselik 12 13 14 kürdi 17 18 çargâh 20 21 22 hicaz 24 25 Figure 13: cins conjunctions: tetrachord + pentachord.
kürdi
çargâh
hicaz
nikriz
4
5 10
6
15
16 19
9
23 26
27
28
1. Rast, Rehavi, Nişaburek, ±Gerdaniye, ±Mahur, ±Yegâh; ±Zavil, ±Suz-i Dilara, ±Pençgâh, ±Pesendide; 2. ±Hüseyni, ±Gerdaniye; 3. ±Pençgâh, ±Pesendide; 4. ±Mahur; 5. Hümayun, ±Saba, ±Araban, ±Arazbar, ±Arazbar Buselik; 6. ±Nikriz, ±Nev’eser; 7. Neva, Tahir, ±Uşşak, ±Beyati, ±Arazbar, ±Arazbar Buselik; 8. Uşşak, Beyati, Arazbar, Arazbar Buselik, ±Acem, ±Buselik, ±Nihavend, ±Sultani Yegâh, ±Ruhnüvaz, ±Ferahfeza; 9. ±Muhayyer Kürdi; 10. Karcığar, ±BeyatiAraban, ±Araban, ±Arazbar, ±Arazbar Buselik; 11. ±Hüzzam; 12. ±Araban, ±Hüzzam, ±Yegâh; 13. ±Pençgâh; 14. Buselik; 15. ±Mahur; 16. Araban Buselik; 17. ±Hüseyni, ±Muhayyer, ±Gerdaniye; 18. Kürdi, Aşk’efza, Ferahnüma, ±Muhayyer Kürdi, ±Acem Kürdi; 19. Araban Kürdi; 20. ±Suz-i Dilara; 21. ±Pençgâh, ±Pesendide; 22. ±Mahur; 23. Mahur; 24. Hicaz, Basit Suzinak; 25. Hümayun, ±Arazbar, ±Arazbar Buselik; 26. ± Acem Aşiran; 27. ±Zirgüle, ±Şehnaz, ±Suz-i Dil, ±Zirgüleli Suzinak, ±Hicazkâr, ±Şedd Araban, ±Evcara, ±Suz-i Dil, ±Kürdili Hicazkâr; 28. Nev’eser, Reng-i Dil.
Total: 56 possible / 29 used (14 definitive/15 merely possible) / 27 unused
244
Trichords + Tetrachords Tetrachords→ rast uşşak hüzzam Trichords↓ rast uşşak segâh 2 3 4 müstear 7 8 9 buselik kürdi Figure 14: cins conjunctions: trichord + tetrachord.
buselik
kürdi
1 5 10
çargâh
hicaz
6 11
1. Nişabur, ±Pençgâh; 2. Ferahnak; 3. Segâh, Irak, ±Eviç; 4. Hüzzam, Segâh; 5. ±Ferahnak; 6. Rahat-ül Ervah, ±Hüzzam; 7. ±Rast, ±Pesendide; 8. Müstear, ±Evcara; 9. Müstear; 10. ±Müstear, ±Pençgâh, ±Pesendide; 11. ±Pençgâh, ±Pesendide.
Total: 42 possible / 11 used (7 definitive/4 merely possible) / 31 unused
245
Tetrachords + Trichords Trichords→ rast uşşak segâh Tetrachords↓ rast 1 uşşak hüzzam 3 buselik 5 kürdi çargâh hicaz 7 8 Figure 15: cins conjunctions: tetrachord + trichord.
müstear
buselik
kürdi
2 4 6 9
1. ±Müstear; 2. Acem, ±Uşşak, ±Beyati, ±Arazbar, ±Arazbar Buselik; 3. Hüzzam; 4. ± Hüzzam; 5. ±Müstear; 6. Acem Kürdi; 7. ±Rahat-ül Ervah; 8. ±Dügâh; 9. ±Evcara, ±Revnaknüma.
Total: 42 possible / 9 used (4 definitive/5 merely possible) / 33 unused
246
Trichords + Pentachords Pentachords→ rast uşşak pençgâh buselik Trichords↓ rast uşşak 1 2 segâh müstear buselik kürdi Figure 16: cins conjunctions: trichord + pentachord.
kürdi
çargâh
hicaz
nikriz
3 4 5 6
1. ±Arazbar, ±Arazbar Buselik; 2. Nişabur; 3. Saba, ±Bestenigâr, ±Dügâh; 4. Rahat-ül Ervah, ± Hüzzam; 5. Acem, Acem Buselik, ±Ferahfeza; 6. Saba Zemzeme, Muhayyer Sümbüle, ±Acem Aşiran.
Total: 48 possible / 6 used (5 definitive/1 merely possible) / 42 unused
247
Trichords + Trichords Trichords→ rast uşşak segâh Trichords↓ rast 1 uşşak segâh 1 2 müstear 3 buselik kürdi Figure 17: cins conjunctions: trichord + trichord.
müstear
buselik
kürdi
3
1. ±Segâh, ±Irak, ±Eviç; 2. Bestenigâr; 3. ±Eviç, ±Sultani Yegâh.
Total: 18 possible / 3 used (1 definitive/2 merely possible) / 15 unused
The grand total: of 262 possible cins conjunctions, 180 of them (69%) are never used in a makam definition at all.9 Of the 82 (31%) that are used in makam-s, 35 (or 13%) qualify as possible iterations within certain makam-s but do not, in and of themselves, recall specific makam-s. The remaining 47 cins conjunctions (18% of the total possible), with their ability to signal specific makam-s without having to formally define them as one would the host makam—with, in many cases, one conjunction able to signal multiple, by definition related makam-s—serve as the muscles of the makam system, the engine of modulatory movement.
9
At least they do not appear in the 128 makam-s described in full in Özkan 1984, or in the same makam-s described in Kutluğ 2000 (though it is possible that some appear in the additional 91 [archaic and/or very obscure] makam-s given there). Conversely, the number of makam-s partaking of the above cins conjunctions are greater than those listed, which were chosen only from among the 53 makam-s played in the recordings made for this study and a few others I thought too common or closely related to these to exclude.
248
At this level, the “principles of melodic movement,” as originally suggested to me by performers,10 consist simply of the full collection of these conjunctions laid out as sets of permissible movements between cins-es, for example, “from any buselik-5 it is permissible to move upward into a conjunct kürdi-4.” Then we may make a collection of all the other acceptable upward moves from a buselik-5 (in this case, that it is also possible to move upward into a hicaz-4 or uşşak-4). Then we may also make a collection of permissible downward moves from a buselik-5: to uşşak-3 and -4, buselik-4, kürdi-4, hicaz-4 (as well as hüzzam-4 and çargâh-4, as options that nonetheless do not appear in any makam’s definition). We have thus defined a kind of constellation of possible moves around any given buselik pentachord (able to evoke, in this case, 13 discrete makam-s, counting only the “definitive” cins conjunctions). And each of the cins-es connected to this buselik-5 has its own constellation of acceptable, makam-evoking cins conjunctions, and so on, forming an interconnected network for the whole of that aspect of the makam system governing modulation (e.g., as opposed to single-makam definition—though we shall see in Chapter VII that much use is made of these relationships even when no modulation is made). Below, we shall define a “constellation” (my term) such as just described for each viable cins in the Turkish makam system, and in the next chapter we shall review in their light the 100 taksim-s recorded for this study.
10
In Chapter IV I had mentioned the input of Ahmet Toz, Mehmet Emin Bitmez, and Agnès Agopian, to which I can add a subsequent conversation on the subject with Eymen Gürtan (p.c. 6/14/2010).
249
THE CONSTELLATIONS OF CİNS-ES
Below will appear the “constellations” just mentioned, but before presenting them I wish to point out that when speaking above of upward or downward movement into a conjunct cins—or indeed even of the switching of cins while remaining at the same level, which we have seen previously—we are speaking only of the aspect of adjacent (or overlapping) cins-es, that is, as separate from the aspect of seyir. I have explained that a performer may evoke a makam by demonstrating a cins conjunction closely associated with it whether or not the upward or downward movement of the move coincides with the seyir of that makam per se;11 this is one of the reasons we may say that makam definition in modulation is not as strict as it is when dealing with a single or host makam. Even within a single-makam performance, after the seyir has been clarified in the initial “zemin” section melodic movement becomes considerably more free (see Chapter VII). A performer’s decisions about which of a cins’ conjoined partners to move to may (or may not) be influenced by ideas regarding the seyir of the makam-to-be-modulated-to, but since modulations de facto occur in the “meyan” section of a taksim, there would seem to be a transference of that state to each of the modulated-to makam-s, that is, they may themselves be treated as though they had
11
We have seen adjacent examples of both of these in Agnès Agopian’s second Rast taksim in Chapter V: when she moves from Rast to Suzinak at (DVD 1/1) 3:07 she deploys Suzinak’s descending-ascending seyir, but then when she moves from Suzinak to Zirgüleli Suzinak at 3:17 she deploys a descending seyir. This makam could thereby be interpreted as Hicazkâr instead of Zirgüleli Suzinak; the artist was able to label it as Zirgüleli Suzinak precisely because, in this modulatory situation, adherence to the new makam’s seyir is not necessary.
250
already been properly “defined” and are at that moment in their own meyan section, having less restriction upon melodic movement.
Note that in the figures demonstrating “constellations” around each cins, the makam-s that may be evoked by the move are given below the conjoined cins. Again, grayedout text represents cins-es that are possible or “fake-able” in a makam, but that are not definitive of any one in particular, that is, to hear such a combination would likely not immediately bring the makam-s there listed to mind. Also as above, the “more or less” sign (“±”) before a makam name indicates a possibility unlikely to be the first to leap to mind upon hearing the two cins-es one after the other.
251
PENTACHORD CONSTELLATIONS
Figure 18: constellation of Rast-5.
Figure 19: constellation of Uşşak-5.
252
Figure 20: constellation of Pençgâh-5.
Figure 21: constellation of Buselik-5.
Figure 22: Constellation of Kürdi-5.
Note that the kürdi pentachord per se does not exist in any makam’s definition—the makam Kürdi and its “transpositions” (e.g., Aşk’efza, Ferahnüma), for instance, all have a kürdi-4 in the kök position, and in all makam-s where it appears in the açan
253
position it is also as a tetrachord—but for whatever reason, when it occurs in the many compound makam-s ending in “-Kürdi” or “-Zemzeme”—and often enough also in Kürdili Hicazkâr (see DVD1/4, 2/19, 4/39, 5/43, 6/57, 6/58)—the kürdi cins in that kök position may be treated as a pentachord, especially in final cadences. Perhaps this kürdi-5 type is connected with a pre-cadential “flat 5th” melodic gesture also associated with this combination (and with Zirgüleli Hicaz and its “transpositions”) – after playing that diminished fifth tone, the “normal,” perfect 5th degree from the tonic is often played to restore the original scale material, coincidentally making the cins in question appear as a pentachord rather than its normative tetrachord.
Figure 23: constellation of Çargâh-5.
254
Figure 24: constellation of Hicaz-5.
Figure 25: Constellation of Nikriz-5.
255
TETRACHORD CONSTELLATIONS
Figure 26: constellation of Rast-4.
Figure 27: constellation of Uşşak-4.
256
Figure 28: constellation of Hüzzam-4.
Figure 29: constellation of Buselik-4.
Figure 30: constellation of Kürdi-4.
257
Figure 31: constellation of Çargâh-4.
Figure 32: constellation of Hicaz-4.
258
TRICHORD CONSTELLATIONS
Figure 33: constellation of Rast-3.
Figure 34: constellation of Uşşak-3.
Figure 35: constellation of Segâh-3.
Figure 36: constellation of Müstear-3.
259
Figure 37: constellation of Buselik-3.
Figure 38: constellation of Kürdi-3.
For the convenience of comparing these “constellations” organized by name rather than number (e.g., all the kürdi cins-es one after another, rather than all the tetrachords one after another), see Appendix I. In the next chapter we shall see how the abstract principles outlined in Chapters V and VI are made manifest in the taksims recorded for this study.
260
CHAPTER VII: THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED
In this chapter we will be looking at the manifestation of the previously articulated “principles of melodic movement” in the 100 taksim-s recorded for this project (the data for which are represented in Appendix K), and conversely, looking for patterns in these taksim-s that might be generalized into other such “principles.” I wish to make clear that even in the former case it is not a matter of comparing some abstracted principles to examples of practice in order to ascertain whether there is concurrence between them, i.e., to prove that the principles are valid (which would be a circular argument in any case); we must recall that it is the taksim-s themselves that are necessarily the “correct answers” to the question of how performers understand makam theory. Our task in this chapter is to articulate those “answers” verbally, and to compare them to performers’ rhetoric as presented in Chapter IV, and especially with the verbal descriptions given by those performers who analyzed their own 42 taksim-s,1 in order to refine a formalized presentation of the principles themselves (which we may then compare to Arelian theory).
The analyses (see Appendix K) consist of representations in each taksim of the following information:
1
These are given in subtitles in each of the taksim videos on DVDs 1 through 4.
261
•
each makam named in the analysis (in the 42 taksim-s analyzed by their performers, and as I interpreted those in the remaining 58 taksim-s)
•
each change of cins o and whether it implies a change of makam
•
cins change qualities: o direct change at the same cins level
and implicitly whether it is associated with a makam’s definition (e.g., Rast makam may de facto have both a rast-4 and a buselik-4 in the upper/“açan” cins level—see Appendix J) or instead with a modulation to (or at least evocation of) another makam
o pivot (using a cins shared by two makam-s)
whether the tone where the pivot begins is hierarchically important in both makam-s (e.g., the tonic, dominant, second dominant, etc. NB: it is not necessarily the same in both makam-s)
whether the modulated-to makam’s seyir is deployed directly after the pivot
o species (i.e., modulation made to a makam whose scalar material “exists inside” the previously shown makam) o quote from known repertoire
262
o “unique-p” (both unique and possible: a cins combination that does not evoke a specific makam, but that is consistent with the cins conjunctions shown as valid in Chapter VI; the “p” indicates that the cins conjunction is possible according to those tables) o “unique-i” (unique but impossible: a cins combination that does not evoke a specific makam and is also inconsistent with the cins conjunctions shown as valid in Chapter VI; the “i” indicates that the cins conjunction is impossible according to those tables)
Additionally I will point out other patterns in the data as they come up. Before giving an accounting of the categories listed above I must make a note on the methodology of how the number of cins changes was arrived at: once a makam has been established, further movement within that makam that does not include a direct change of cins at the same level is not counted as a new change (i.e., in terms of a previously named makam), since it is normative in the (newly) current makam. There being much latitude for movement within any given makam, the total number of cins changes is therefore not the same as the number of columns in which the name of a new cins occurs in Appendix K. All other changes of cins have been counted and categorized. I have thus reckoned the total changes of cins in the 100 taksim-s recorded at 699 in number.
263
Here follows the accounting of cins-change categories derived from the data in Appendix K, with analytical commentary provided after each larger section of information: TYPES OF CİNS CHANGE •
• • • • • •
•
direct 421 (60%) o at the tiz level 84 (12%) o at the açan level 189 (27%) o at the kök level 135 (19%) o at the destek level 13 (2%)2 3 o by octave leap 3 (.4%) pivot 126 (18%) species 84 (12%) quote 0 [3 = .4%] o (2 counted as another kind of cins change) o (1 not functioning in a change of cins, therefore not counted) unique-i 13 (2%) o (1 not functioning in a change but counted above) o (see list of these combinations below) unique-p 4 (.6%) [7 = 1%] o (3 counted in a combination below but not above) o (see list of these combinations below) ambiguous combinations4 o pivot/species 9 (2%) o pivot/unique-p 3 (.4%) o pivot/unique-i 5 (.7%) o unique-i/quote 1 (.14%) o direct/unique-i 1 (.14%) o direct/species 4 (.6%) o direct/quote 1 (.14%) o direct/pivot 1 (.14%) “Z” or “Y” below5 23 (3%)
2
We must note that 10 of these occur at moments when the “destek/support” level has de facto become the “kök/root” level of a newly modulated-to makam. In that sense there were only 3 (.4%) at this level and 145 (21%) at the kök level. 3 “Octave leap” here means that rather than traversing conjunct cins-es, the melody progressed by simply continuing play one octave higher (or rarely, lower) than it had been a moment before. 4 This signifies that these cins changes could be interpreted as either or both of the designated change types.
264
•
“W” below
3 (.4%)
Total: 699
Significance of cins changes in terms of defining or evoking a makam: • • • •
W [a new makam is evoked6] 388 (55%) o [a new makam is evoked by a change of seyir or non-species note focus rather than by a cins change7] 3 (.4%) X [a cins change occurs without altering the makam’s definition] 270 (39%) Y [a new makam is evoked by adding a new cins below the tonic8] 18 (2.5%) o [all of which are counted in the ‘“Z” or “Y” below’ category of cins change substitute above] Z [ambiguous as to whether a change of makam is intended] 23 (3%) o [of which 5 require accounting under the ‘“Z” or “Y” below’ cins change substitute above—see footnote 5] 5 (.7%)
Total: 699
Note that where these statistics are applied below I list those that are “ambiguous” separately; these are the cins changes that appear in dichotomies such as “pivot/species,” “direct/quote,” etc., meaning that it is possible to interpret them as either sort of move. The point of presenting them separately is to show that there is a range of possible answers regarding how many of each kind of cins change occurred,
5
The categories “W,” “X,” “Y,” and “Z” (which see above) pertain to qualities independent of the given “cins change types” above, yet there are several instances in which they de facto substitute for a cins change type, and so are counted here. 6 This excludes cases in which a new makam is evoked by adding a new cins below the tonic (see “Y” below). 7 These are already counted both in the 388 “W” types, and in the aforementioned ‘“W” below’ type of substitute cins change. 8 This occurs normally in several compound makam-s such as Saba, Bestenigâr, Rahat-ül Ervah, et al.; until the new cins is added below it must be assumed by the listener that the taksim is in a different makam, i.e., the new cins clarifies the compound.
265
those without the “ambiguous” categories being the more conservative, and those where they are added being the maximum interpretable.
On Direct Cins Changes at the Same Level I must say that the prominence of the first item on the above tally—direct changes of cins at the same level, constituting some 60% of all cins changes—came to me as something of a surprise; it seems to me that at least rhetorically many musicians treat the idea of direct cins changes at the same level as potentially the sort most likely to result in “shocking” or “cold” (i.e., unwanted) juxtapositions,9 and I had therefore expected the percentage of them to be much lower. This is especially true for those at the kök/root level—constituting 19% of this type—since these are so intimately connected with a makam’s identity (see a note about which below). Perhaps I overestimated what I thought I was understanding in conversation on the subject, or perhaps the talk about it exaggerates the likelihood of such a move to result in “cold” modulations, or it is possible that these examples are so expertly done that the performers knew that the effect would not be “cold,” or indeed that some of them can be considered “cold.” The truth is probably some combination of all of these. In any case, among the more general uses of this cins change type (to be parsed below), there seem to be two distinct situations in which such direct cins changes at the same level occur in our examples: 9
What Racy and others labeled as “sudden” modulations in Marcus 1992: 178.
266
•
when demonstrating the affect described in Chapter IV as “cazibe” (gravity); most of these appeared in the same recurring gesture: by rising with either a rast-4 or an uşşak-4 on a dominant tone, and falling (respectively) with a buselik-4 or a kürdi-4 o it must be noted that the particular gesture above demonstrating “cazibe” is often referred to by performers simply as “rising with eviç and falling with acem,” rather than associated with particular cins structures (though these are well understood)—this gesture occurred at least 65 times,10 and the closely related “çargâh-4 rising/buselik-4 falling” gesture occurred another 6 times
•
in compound makam-s that require a switch between two cins-es at the kök level (such as Isfahan, Dügâh, Pençgâh, and Pesendide)—this phenomenon was counted 33 times11
Direct cins changes at the same level are otherwise best understood in terms of their functionality as “confirming, delaying or deceptive” melodic gestures, which will be explained below. Regarding this sort of cins change in the kök/root level, I want to note that at a certain point I was compiling a list of the actual cins-es exchanged (e.g., asking questions such as, “how many times was a hicaz-5 exchanged, at the same 10
Note in Appendix K that there are several instances where I noted repetitions of the gesture but did not count them precisely. Note also that the term “cazibe” may refer to the alteration of a single perde’s pitch rather than the alternation between two perde-s discussed here (see Chapter IV). 11 It seems to have occurred another 4 times that were not counted because the artists interpreted the “modulations” differently.
267
level, for a buselik-5?” ). Although I did not complete the list for every level, I did do so for the kök/root level,12 and want here to note a few characteristics that, it seems to me, were also present in such cins changes at other levels: •
that a slight majority of such changes (54%) were between cins-es of the same size (i.e., pentachords that changed into other pentachords rather than into a tetrachord or trichord, etc.; 46% did change to a cins of a different size)
•
that among these, 82% of the changes occurred inside the span of the first cins, for example, if two pentachords were bounded by the tones D and A, then most of the direct changes of cins of this sort would consist of alterations of one or more of the E-, F- and G-type tones rather than of the D or A themselves
•
that while it was most common that direct cins changes at the same level ended in a cins with the same root tone as the cins from which it had changed, 33% of them (at the kök/root level, at least) changed root tone
12
I ceased making the list when I realized that the distribution of possibilities was quite broad (i.e., not restricted to only certain cins-es moving to certain others over and over again), and that the absence of any such possibilities would tell us nothing about their viability (only about their frequency in this notcomprehensive study). In any case, I had finished listing those for the kök/root level before abandoning the project, and am stating here that at first glance, they did not appear to be remarkably different in quality from those at other levels (though it is possible that a thorough listing would yield other conclusions).
268
On Pivot-type Cins Changes The next type of cins change listed above is the pivot type, whose function as a “principle of melodic movement” was explained in Chapter V. There were 126 of these, or approximately 18% of all changes of cins. Adding another 18 possible pivots that are found in the “ambiguous combinations” category, we may note that the pivot is employed as a tactic nearly as often within a makam’s definition (66 times, or 46%) as it is to move between makam-s (78 times, or 54%). However, of the former group 26 occur in compound makam-s requiring (internal) modulation, so perhaps the split is better interpreted as 40 pivot-type changes not in the context of modulation (28% of pivot-type cins changes) and 104 in the context of a modulation (72%).13
On a subject related to the pivot-type cins change, we may note that the data yield the following information:
13
To clarify with an abstract example, let us posit a compound makam that first begins with a makam whose central octave is “pentachord X + tetrachord Y,” and that what makes it a compound is that it changes into a makam whose central octave is “pentachord Z + tetrachord Y,” and let us say that the change is made using tetrachord Y as a pivot. In this case we may count the change of cins as being “within the makam’s definition” (i.e., not a modulation) by virtue of the fact that it is a compound makam that requires the move. But if it is the case that the very same change may be effected when not in the context of that compound (or some other compound), then we would instead see the same pivot as part of a modulation between the makam-s. I am suggesting above that it is perhaps more useful to an overall understanding of “the pivot” to count these cins changes occurring in compound makam-s as modulations, even though their being “within the (compound) makam’s definition” obscures that.
269
Number of times the new makam’s seyir was deployed from a pivot tone:14 • •
33 (an additional 2 ambiguously)
Pivot tones used to transfer tone hierarchy between makam-s (in order of frequency) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
dominantdominant: tonictonic: dominanttonic: secondary dominanttonic: tonicdominant: upper tonicdominant: dominantupper tonic: tonicsecondary dominant: tonicupper tonic: secondary dominantupper tonic: upper tonicupper tonic: upper tonictonic: sub-tonictonic: secondary dominantdominant: secondary dominant secondary dominant: upper tonicsecondary dominant:
18 10 6 6 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Let us note the totals of the two categories above in terms of the 144 cins changes in which pivot tones can have been used (represented by the “pivot,” “pivot/species,” “pivot/unique-i,” “pivot/unique-p,” and “direct/pivot” cins change categories above):
14
We saw examples of this phenomenon in the analysis of Agnès Agopian’s second Rast taksim in Chapter V when Rast modulated to (Basit) Suzinak (DVD 1/1 3:07); Suzinak’s seyir is descendingascending and therefore begins in its “açan” cins, a hicaz-4 on d/neva, which is also that makam’s dominant. That same tone is also the dominant of the makam from which the pivot-effected modulation was made—Rast—though the “açan cins” of that makam was a rast-4 on d/neva. Here I am saying simply that d/neva is the “pivot tone” and that the modulated-to makam uses it as a place from which to express its (descending-ascending) seyir. (It might instead have passed quickly through the hicaz-4 to rest upon g/gerdaniye, ignoring the seyir, for instance.) To use this example to clarify the information in the next column: the pivot tone had been a dominant in the first makam (Rast) and remained the dominant of the second makam (Basit Suzinak), which is depicted “dominantdominant.”
270
•
seyir-s followed: 35 (i.e., in approximately 24% of pivots)
•
pivot tones used: 55 (i.e., in approximately 38% of pivots)
If we are to count these as kinds of “principles of melodic movement” (as we did in Chapter V) then we must also acknowledge that they are currently only utilized as often as this. As mentioned in Chapters V and VI, the evocation of a makam in a modulation may be effected without showing the full seyir of the modulated-to makam; in a sense using pivot tones in this way is kind of a “luxury item”—not technically necessary and perhaps easily going unnoticed by many listeners, though potentially adding a level of sophistication to a taksim.
On Species- and Quote-type Cins Changes The next sort of cins change in the tally is of the “species” variety, that is, changes of cins that occur simply by shifting focus onto certain tones in the scalar material without changing that material itself.15 There were 84 clear examples of this (12% of all cins changes), and another 13 in the ambiguous “pivot-species” and “directspecies” subcategories combined (2.6%, for a total of 14.6% of all cins changes). Although this is a relatively small number, the species-type cins change is a tactic that
15
Except microtonally in ways considered consistent with alternative definitions of the perde-s in question (see Chapters III, IV and V, and Appendix J).
271
pulls its weight and then some; as we shall see below, it counts for about 17% of all modulations in our sample.
The quote-type cins change—that is, the use of quotations from pre-composed repertoire and well known taksim recordings—is a category that we must analyze here in a circumspect way for two reasons: first because it is quite possible that there are musical quotations made in the taksim-s that I did not recognize as such (and/or that were not pointed out by the artists in their analyses), and second because it would seem that such quotes as noted in our sample recordings do not function independently, that is, those noted are either functioning in the capacity of some other principle that we have seen,16 or they are acting as a kind of melodic ornament without referring to or evoking a new makam. A separate study focused on such quotations in taksim-s might yield a more insightful way of categorizing them, but given the sample presented here we must conservatively say that quotations—in which category I have included gestures “like” those found in early taksim recordings (such as Murat Aydemir’s use of Tanburi Cemil Bey’s “addition” to the makam Gerdaniye, see Chapter V and Appendix K)—are an accepted part of making taksim-s
16
Presumably this is because the original composer was following the same principles we are tracking here.
272
in the twenty-first century,17 but do not constitute a “principle” per se, either in the definition of a makam or in modulations between them.
On “Unique” Cins Combinations The “unique cins combinations” category is divided into two parts: 1) those conjunctions that are considered possible (or, minimally, “fake-able”) in accord with the conjunctions listed in Chapter VI yet which are not capable of evoking a specific makam per se (labeled “unique-p”), and 2) those that are considered impossible conjunctions in terms of the conjunctions listed in Chapter VI (q.v.). Below are listed all of these combinations found in the recorded taksim-s (including those counted under “ambiguous combinations” in the original tally, above); numbers in the column on the right indicate the number of times each was used: •
•
unique possible o kürdi-5 + kürdi-4 o nikriz-5 + çargâh-4 o uşşak-3 + rast-3 o pençgâh-5 + çargâh-4 o rast-5 + uşşak-4 o buselik-5 + uşşak-4 unique impossible o buselik-5 + rast-4 o buselik-5 + d – e – f – g – ae o buselik-5 + rast-5 o hicaz-5 + buselik-5 o kürdi-3 + rast-5 o kürdi-5 + uşşak-4
2 1 1 1 1 1
17
2 1 1 2 1 1
We will recall from Cantemir’s descriptions of the taksim in the seventeenth century, given in Chapter II, that this was not always the case.
273
o o o o o o o o
kürdi-5 + uşşak-4 1 nikriz-5 + uşşak-4 2 (in the same taksim) uşşak-3 + segâh-3 1 pençgâh-5 + hicaz-4 1 rast-4 + buselik-5 1 (or 2) rast-5 + kürdi-4 1 (or 2)18 disjunct rast-5 + hicaz-4 (or conjunct rast-5 + nikriz-5) 1 hicaz-4 + hicaz-4 (or could be “faking” nikriz-4 + hicaz-4) 1
Total: 25
It was not among my primary research tasks to track precisely the total number of cins conjunctions deployed in the takism-s recorded (which, with many cins-es merely being implied, and counting a total for each level at each moment in each taksim, would be difficult to ascertain in any case; see Appendix K), but I estimate that they cannot have been fewer than around 900, and perhaps can have reached nearly twice that number. In any case, that there are only 25 such aberrations—and only 18 of them in the “impossible” category (see Chapter VI)—these “unique cins conjunctions” would indeed seem to be the “exceptions that prove the rule” regarding the “invisible landscape” of unused cins conjunctions discussed in Chapter VI.19 As we shall see below, their function in effecting modulations is miniscule (being used in around 2.75% of all modulations).
On “Ambiguous Combinations” 18
There was one instance in which it is ambiguous as to whether the conjunction is functionally “rast4 + buselik-5” or “rast-5 + kürdi-4.” 19 If my low estimate is correct, the total number of “unique cins combinations” cannot have exceeded 2.7% of all cins conjunctions.
274
The final set of cins change types in the tally above consists of cins changes that may be interpreted as either one of two previously described types. There was a total of 25 of this kind, accounting for 7% of all modulations, but these are not really unique types of cins change per se and no “principle” can be derived from them—it is only the possibility of interpreting them differently that keeps them from belonging to one or another of the already established types.
ON CİNS CHANGES IN RELATION TO MODULATION In the review of cins-change data above, the context for describing the various cinschange types was the overall number of cins changes made in the recorded taksim-s. In the two graphs immediately below we can instead see how these specific types were deployed in terms of whether or not they were used to effect a modulation. Cases in which it is ambiguous as to whether there was a modulation are counted as not being involved in a modulation.
275
direct species pivot added cins below pivot/species direct/species unique-i pivot/unique-i seyir/focus change unique-p pivot/uniquep uniquei/quote quote direct/uniquei direct/quote direct/pivot Total:
number resulting in modulations 230 70 64 18
% of all modulations
% of its own change type
% of all cins changes
56% 17% 16.5% 4%
55% 83% 51% 100%
33% 10% 9% 2.5%
8 4 4 3 3
2% 1% 1% 0.75% 0.75%
89% 100% 31% 60% 100%
1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%
2 1
0.5% 0.25%
50% 33%
0.3% 0.2%
1
0.25%
100%
0.2%
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 408
0 0
0 0
0 0 58%
Figure 39: cins changes involved in modulations.
276
direct pivot species unique-i ambiguous “Z”* pivot/uniquep pivot/unique-i unique-p direct/quote direct/pivot direct/uniquei pivot/species added cins below (“Y”) unique-pambiguous quote uniquei/quote direct/species Total:
number not resulting in modulations 191 62 14 9 5
% of its own change type
% of all cins changes
45% 49% 17% 69% 22%
27% 9% 2% 1.3% 1%
2
66%
0.3%
2 2 1 1 1
40% 50% 100% 100% 100%
0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
1 0
11% 0
0.2% 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 291
0
0 42%
(* “Z” represents a category of cins changes in which it is not clear that a modulation was intended, regardless of change type used—18 of the 23 “Z” types were already included in the tallies of other categories.) Figure 40: cins changes not (clearly) involved in modulations.
277
CHROMATIC RUNS
Chromatic melodic movement (i.e., melodic movement by adjacent “4-comma” semitones) occurred in the following contexts (the number to the right indicating how many times): • • • • • • • • • • • • •
in Nihavend in Pesendide in Hicazkâr [but going into Nihavend] in Hicazkâr in Kürdili Hicazkâr [from tiz buselik-5 to kürdi-4] in Mahur in Segâh [going into Mahur] in Acem Aşiran in Rast [but on açan buselik-5] in Şehnaz [but on açan buselik-5] in Uşşak [but on açan buselik-5] in Nev’eser in Hüseyni
7 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total: 20
Under particular circumstances such chromatic melodic gestures may have been counted as a sort of cins change substitute, but generally, since there is no “chromatic cins,” they are independent of makam definitions per se (and are often described by players as “merely playing the instrument,” or “improvisation” [doğaçlama]). However, it must be noted that the great majority of chromatic moments—17 of the 20 here—happen in or moving toward “diatonic” scalar material (i.e., that constructed only of 9-comma whole steps and 4-comma half steps) e.g., Nihavend, Buselik, Kürdi, Mahur (and the aspect of Mahur within Pesendide) and Acem Aşiran. Dr.
278
Scott Marcus has pointed out this phenomenon to me in regard to Eastern Arab maqām practices stating that they are a possible characteristic feature of the Nahawand and Kurd tetrachords, though I have never heard it explicitly noted by Turkish musicians.20 Perhaps despite the relative rarity of chromaticism in our examples (even within most of the diatonic makam-s performed) we may make room for a potential new “principle of melodic movement”: that makam-s whose scalar material is diatonic are especially open to chromaticism, and that chromaticism may therefore be used in a melodic gesture modulating to a makam with diatonic scalar material. “PRE-CADENTIAL FLAT-5” GESTURES
• • • • •
in Muhayyer-Sümbüle in Hicazkâr in Muhayyer-Kürdi in Nihavend in Saba (on aşiran)
1 2 times 2 [+ 2 more times, in the same taksim] 1 1
Total: 9
As in the case of chromaticism, this melodic gesture is not part of a cins-based makam change per se, yet occurs only in association with certain types of makam. As mentioned in Chapter IV and elsewhere, we see that except for the one occurrence of this gesture in Nihavend, it is associated with constructions of the Zirgüleli Hicaz
20
See this matter discussed in Marcus 1989: 616.
279
type, and with compound makam-s ending with Kürdi (q.v. in Appendix J; see also a discussion of this phenomenon in Eastern Arab maqām in Marcus 1989: 617).
TAKSIM-S WITH (OR WITHOUT) MODULATION
• • •
without modulation according to the artist: 15 without modulation according to the author: an additional 23 with modulation: 62
I mention the above information only to contrast the 38% of taksim-s made for this project (at the beginning of the twenty-first century) ostensibly having no modulation to the seventeenth-century concept of a taksim requiring modulation (see Chapter II).
CHAPTER SUMMARY The “principles of melodic movement” are techniques for moving a melody forward in time through an implicit “landscape” of acceptable and unacceptable cins-es and cins-conjunctions (see Chapter VI). An established vocabulary of cins conjunctions— when deployed with other identifying features—evoke specific makam-s (see Chapter V and Appendix J regarding makam definition); this must be done formally for the first makam shown in a performance (and generally also for the last one, if it differs from the opening makam), but subsequent modulations may use abbreviated references to makam-s without formally “defining” them. Although some performers define the idea of “çeşni” (“a taste”) such that a gesture even smaller than a full cins
280
may identify a makam,21 in an Arelian conception a minimum relationship of two cins-es in conjunction is needed to clearly identify a specific makam (noting that there are a few compound makam-s in which a direct change of cins at the same level may suffice to evoke a makam, e.g., Isfahan, Dügâh, Pençgâh, Pesendide, q.v. in Appendix J).
Melodic movement at the level of the cins occurs by deploying a limited number of these techniques or “principles”; aside from aberrations or coincidences (shown above under the categories “unique-p,” “unique-i,” and “quote”) and the relatively rare “modulation by change of seyir only” (a sub-category of “W” above) and “modulation by adding a cins below the tonic compound” (category “Y” above), there are three such principles; these were employed in 90% of the work of melodic movement in our taksim examples: the pivot, the species, and the direct cins change at the same level:22 •
The pivots played were relatively few (18% of all cins changes) but they were reliably employed as a means of making modulations (72% of the pivots were used in modulation, and 16.5% of all modulations were pivots)
21
For instance see Özer Özel’s comments on the subject in Chapter IV. To briefly recall information given above regarding the other 10% of melodic movement: the total number of “unique” cins changes came to no more than an estimated 2.7% of all cins changes and a mere 2.75% of all modulations; 2 of the 3 noted “quotes” were counted under other change types, and one had no functionality in its taksim; there were only 3 modulations by “change of seyir or tonal focus”; and there were 18 instances of modulation by adding a cins below a former tonic (all of which occurred in compound makam-s whose definitions required such a gesture). Together these constituted 10% of the melodic movement in our examples.
22
281
o Modulations in which the seyir of the new makam was directly employed in a pivot: 35 (i.e., in approximately 24% of pivots)23 o Hierarchically significant pivot tones in pivots: 55 (i.e., in approximately 38% of pivots—most of these were either dominant to dominant, or tonic to tonic)24
These two phenomena associated with the pivot are perhaps a sort of “luxury item”; they have the potential to enrich the subtle complexity of a taksim (or other composition) but are seldom used, and perhaps seldom noted by general audiences
•
The species type (at 12% of all cins changes) is also not very often used, but 83% of those used were made to effect a modulation (accounting for 17% of all modulations)
•
Direct cins changes at the same level were both the most often employed single type of cins change (at 60% of all cins changes), and also constituted the most often used technique for effecting modulations (56% of them); they were especially utilized in the following two situations (as well as others to be explained below): o 1) In a melodic affect associated with the term “cazibe” (“gravity”), especially the sort that may be described by performers as “rising with eviç and falling with acem” (since these, in the açan level of several
23
For instance as we saw in Agnès Agopian’s second Rast taksim (DVD 1/1 ca. 3:07) when moving from Rast to (Basit) Suzinak, q.v. in Chapter V. 24 Again, as was heard in Agopian DVD 1/1 (see footnotes 23 and 14 above).
282
often played makam-s, are de facto where the gesture most often occurs)
rhetorically, at least, discussions in terms of note names may dissociate the gesture from concepts of cins structure, though the cins-es implied by the particular makam would certainly be readily understood by any performer
this may also be taken as evidence that certain makam definitions de facto have more than one possible cins in the açan level (contra Arel’s 2-cins conjunction definitions; see more below)25
o 2) In compound makam-s that require a switch between two cins-es at the kök level, the examples in our taksim recordings being Isfahan, Dügâh, Pençgâh, and Pesendide (see definitions of which in Appendix J)
Since these “principles” are not only the techniques by which melodic movement is made generally, but are the only means used to effect modulations, we might think of them also as “principles of modulation,”26 though they are not exclusively so: we will recall that 58% of all cins changes—that is, of all melodic movement—in our 25
Scott Marcus has noted that this is a normative understanding of certain Eastern Arab maqām-s such as Rast, Bayyāti, and Ḥijāz, i.e., that they are each understood to have three different but normative “tops” (i.e., “açan cins-es”; p.c. 2011). 26 Cf. Marcus 1992 regarding “rules of modulation” in (Eastern) Arab maqām music.
283
examples clearly resulted in modulations, while a sizable 42% of them did not; all, however, used the same “principles,” in varied distribution patterns. The evidence in our recorded taksim examples suggests that the issue of how these principles intersect with modulation is as simple as those numbers indicate; the fact that we are able to distinguish “makam definition” and “modulation” as two domains within the makam system does not mean that the “principles of melodic movement” as a whole are associated solely with one or the other, nor for that matter that certain principles are applied to better effect in one domain while other principles better serve the other domain. Still, it may be useful, if only for didactic purposes, to think of them as “principles of modulation” when teaching or learning how to modulate within the makam system.
Below we shall look at these three techniques for moving the melody along—the pivot, the species and the direct cins change at the same level—in terms of strategic poetic functions of the sort suggested by Beken and Signell (1989b and in Bayhan 2008), but first there are two other melodic affects in our examples beside these cinschange types to review: chromaticism and the “pre-cadential flat-5” gesture. Both of these, however, would seem to be so closely related to specific melodic circumstances that if they are to be included as “principles of melodic movement (and of modulation)” then it must be in a circumscribed manner for both:
284
•
Chromaticism is most likely to appear in (or moving toward) “diatonic” makam-s, i.e., those whose scalar material is made solely of intervals of a 9comma “whole step” and a 4-comma “half step” o It is therefore a useful technique for approaching a modulation to such a makam
•
The “pre-cadential flat-5” gesture is associated with the ending phrases in makam-s with o a Zirgüleli Hicaz construction (i.e., hicaz-5 + hicaz-4), and o compound makam-s ending in “-Kürdi” (or “-Zemzeme”)
its appearance elsewhere is apparently erroneous (see remarks made by Necati Çelik in Chapter IV)
The Poetic Strategies of Confirming, Delaying, and Deceiving The “confirming, delaying and deceptive elements in Turkish improvisations” described by Beken and Signell (1989b) are what I am here referring to as “poetic strategies”; they are three parts of a simple but powerful concept for understanding and classifying any given melodic gesture in terms of its functionality within a taksim. Beken and Signell describe the three poetic strategies thus: 1. confirming (strengthen the listener’s identification of a specific makam…) 2. delaying (suspends makam identification) 3. deceptive (steers the identification away from the nominal makam) (1989b)
285
These definitions use the nominal makam—the makam in which the taksim began (and usually the one in which it ends)—as the point of reference; a “delaying” melodic gesture is one that suspends the identification only of the nominal makam, and a “deceptive” gesture is one that strays from the definition of the same. This paradigm does not address modulation per se (other than to classify it as a “deceptive” move, in terms of the nominal makam). Since modulation forms such a large and important part of what we have been looking at here, and because the insight into melodic functionality that these poetic strategies provide is so useful, I have expanded the meanings of the three terms for the purposes of addressing modulation in our analysis of the “principles of melodic movement” as follows: •
“confirming” here describes melodic moves made in order to confirm a makam’s identity, whether it be the nominal (or “host”) makam or a modulated-to makam o this can be accomplished by a melody fulfilling the exigencies of the makam’s seyir, or by delivering a makam-specific melodic gesture, or minimally by displaying a conjunction of two cins-es associated with a particular makam’s (Arelian) definition
•
“delaying” here describes a change of cins that is neither itself a modulation nor obviously confirmable as part of the most recently confirmed makam o one example of this occurs when there is de facto more than one cins available in a given level of a makam’s definition (contrary to the standard Arelian two-cins conjunction)—for instance it could be
286
argued that the makam Rast may have both a buselik-4 and a rast-4 in the açan level; this is what makes the ostensibly “cazibe”-oriented “rises with eviç and falls with acem” gesture viable in Rast (and in several other makam-s) and yet not a modulation per se o in a sense “delaying” may also describe simply playing in a single makam without altering the identifying cins-es (and providing that any “species” movement is not considered modulatory); in this sense— seemingly one shared by Beken and Signell—it is a cadence that is being delayed rather than further makam-identifying melodic material •
“deceptive” describes a change of cins that suggests a modulation (e.g., by a direct cins change at the same level to a cins not associated with the most recently confirmed makam), but one that is not immediately confirmed (e.g., by a makam-identifying melodic gesture or adjacent/conjunct cins)—it deceives as to whether or not it has modulated rather than by straying from the previously confirmed makam’s cins material per se—it may in fact return to the most recently confirmed makam
Given these provisional refinements to Beken’s and Signell’s concept, we may say the following about the three main “principles of melodic movement” in their terms: •
“Pivots” are implicitly “confirming” because, whether or not a pivot has effected a modulation, the minimum Arelian two-cins conjunction that
287
identifies the makam (and on which the pivot depends) will have been made explicit •
“Species” gestures in the recorded taksim-s were used with all three poetic strategies, though most often to confirm new modulations o 70% of the species type cins changes that were explicitly involved in a modulation were “confirming” o 30% of the species type cins changes that were explicitly involved in a modulation were “deceptive” o of the (merely 14) species moves that were counted as not involving modulation, closer examination showed that 9 (64%) of these were involved in internal modulations in compound makam-s that the artists did not mention as modulations, and these were also all “confirming”
the remaining 5 species moves—those that were not involved with a modulation at all—were used for “delaying”
•
“Direct cins changes at the same level” were also used in all three strategies but these must be looked at more closely: o “directs” resulting in a modulation: 230
followed by a confirming conjunction of the new makam: 132
not so followed (being therefore deceptive): 98
o “directs” not resulting in modulations: 191
followed by a confirming conjunction of the most recently confirmed makam (being therefore confirming): 73
288
not so followed (being therefore delaying): 118
From this analysis we can further extrapolate the following information: % of that are confirming that are delaying that are deceptive
pivot 100%
species 69%
direct 49%
0 0
25% 6%
23% 28%
This shows that most melodic movement in our examples was functionally doing the work of confirming a makam’s identity (whether it was that of the host/nominal makam or that of a modulated-to makam). Delaying techniques took up the next largest amount of effort, with deceptive movement receiving the least focus. Furthermore: % of that are direct that are pivots that are species
confirming 53% 32% 15%
delaying 96% 0 4%
deceptive 82% 0 18%
This shows us that direct cins changes at the same level is the single most employed technique used for effecting any of the three poetic strategies, while pivots are by nature effective only in confirming a makam’s identity, and species were perhaps preferred for deceptive movement, then in confirming, if very little for delaying confirmation of makam identity.
289
This effectively concludes our review of the data derived from analyses of the recorded taksim examples, their parsing and explanation as “principles of melodic movement” (and de facto, as “principles of modulation” as well), and the explanation of how these interact with the “poetic strategies” of confirming, delaying and deceiving (as modified from the studies by Beken and Signell). Of course it must be noted that all of the numbers and percentages presented above have been manipulated out of the sum total of one hundred taksim-s made by thirty-four individuals; any particular artist may have used these strategies in different combinations to different effect (see Appendix K). It is probable that patterns for each individual player could be mapped out, and it might even be possible to detect patterns according to instrument, or to the relative ages of performers, or using other criteria. In attempting to reduce the total changes of cins into a formalized and general set of “principles of melodic movement” such a compression of individual style has been necessary, but I hope that both the performances on the accompanying DVDs and the analyses in Appendix K may serve also to provide the reader with material for appreciating the details of individual artistic expression in the taksim examples. Following this chapter is the conclusion of the dissertation.
290
CONCLUSION
The music that we know today as “makam music” appears to have originated in the eastern end of the Fertile Crescent as the establishment of a small set of melodic modes whose interval structure was at some point determined by their placement on a “basic scale,” that is, as “octave species” of that scale.1 A second, less highly esteemed category of modes was then developed by changing (at least) one tone of any of these primary modes in accord with a greater “general scale” (of which the “basic scale” was a seven-tone selection). Eventually yet a third tier of melodic gestures was designated for entities combining tones from the basic and general scales apparently less methodically than those in the first two categories; these were not considered proper modes per se, and it is not perfectly clear how or in what contexts these were used.2
1
How early one wishes to date the beginning of its development may depend on how one chooses to conceive of the music: a musical tradition fitting this description is evident as early as the fourth millennium BCE, with explicit descriptions of intonation and the construction of scales/modes from the early-second millennium (perhaps using the same “basic scale” as Yekta, et al., presumed the early Systematists did; see Dumbrill 2008 [1997] a, b, and c [though cf. Crickmore 2008: 333]—also note the coincidence that the Babylonian name for this scale (or tuning), “išartum,” has the same meanings as the Persian term “rast” [“right, correct, straight, fitting”]). Though local texts in later centuries become sparse it would appear that this system was replicated and modified by sixth- and fifth-century BCE Greeks, for which there are abundant records (see Franklin 2007 and 2002; West 1992); if we mean to define an “Islamic [-era] art music,” we may begin with the seventh-century CE descriptions of music in the `Abbasid court at Baghdad by al-Munajjim (see Wright 1966); a music whose primary modal elements are described by the term “makam” dates from around 1300 CE (also in [then Persiancontrolled] Iraq; see Neubauer 2000, cf. Shiloah 1981: 34-5). 2 See Wright 1978, 1995; Feldman 1993.
291
There have been several centuries-long periods during which music theorists have explained various aspects of the “makam” system (and given other information on the music cultures employing it)—sometimes in minute, systematized detail—and there have been comparably long intermittent periods when little or nothing about the music itself was written; on many subjects regarding makam music we are left merely to infer exactly how an earlier understanding of the system was developed into a later one. In the realm of classical Ottoman makam music we are fortunate that in the seventeenth century—in the midst of the most recent period of general theoretical inactivity—two musicians at court (one of them Polish, incidentally, followed 50 years later by a Moldavian) applied their own idiosyncratic notation systems to documenting the contemporary repertoire, some of it reputed to be quite old.3 This body of evidence—and in the case of the Moldavian Cantemir’s treatise, considerable theoretical and technical information as well—provides at least some understanding of the modal entities as they existed at that time; to the extent that some of the repertoire was indeed old, and provided that it had been remembered and notated accurately, it may also be a cross section of musical understandings as they developed over several centuries. It is especially pertinent to us that in this, the earliest modern
3
The musicians being Wojciech “Ali Ufki” Bobowski and Dimitrie Cantemir respectively. There is no way to verify the provenance of pieces attributed to such historical persons as Plato, Ṣafīuddīn, and Fārābī, nor even with certainty some of those attributed to later (more likely) composers such as Merâgî and Gazi Giray Han, but such attributions at least tell us something about how seventeenthcentury musicians thought about their repertoire, and perhaps in the cases of pieces attributed to ancient figures we may assume they are at least old enough that no-one in recent generations of the oral transmission had been able to remember their introduction into the repertoire (i.e., their actual composers).
292
makam repertoire preserved in writing, there appears to have been employed almost no modulation.4
Single-mode, spontaneously generated (perhaps “improvised”) introductions and interludes to established repertoire would seem to predate the creation of the taksim genre that was first described by Cantemir in 1700. For the time being I refer to this type of performance as an agaze (which may also be expressed as ağaze)—Persian for “commencement”—even though it may be a less than precise usage, and for some periods an anachronistic one. In any case, the taksim genre itself appears to have been invented around the early- to mid-seventeenth century as a medium for transforming the spontaneously generated “agaze” into A) a genre that could either be performed independently of established repertoire, or used in the manner of an “agaze,” that is, to introduce or connect pre-composed pieces of the repertoire, and; B) necessarily included modulations from one modal entity to others. Taksim was apparently a medium in which the aesthetics/poetics of the day were deployed to combine modal entities while eventually coming to blur the hierarchy that separated primary, secondary and tertiary modal categories. By 1700 the ideal taksim was apparently one that modulated through all the known modal elements (apparently regardless of “hierarchy”). It is also worth noting that Cantemir makes clear that it was not allowed to quote or imitate pre-composed repertoire in the taksim genre. 4
Apparently it existed only in certain pedagogical genres, and briefly in the third section (hane) in the 4-part peşrev genre (see Feldman 1993: 3 and 1996: 276-7; and Chapter II above).
293
We should also note that in Cantemir’s time the instrumentarium of courtly music had recently changed, welcoming among other instruments the (fretted, long-necked) tanbur at the expense of the (unfretted, short-necked) ud, and that—perhaps not coincidentally—whereas previous Systematist music theory had admitted 17 tones in the general scale, Cantemir describes the 16 basic and 17 secondary “perde-s” per octave on his tanbur, for a total of 33 perde-s (Feldman 1996: 202; the implication being that before the long-necked, precisely fretted tanbur became the main stringed instrument at court, theorists could not have so precisely divided the octave into the newly appearing perde-s). While it is not clear how or when the extra tones had been added, they leave the implication of a continual expansion of the definitions of modal entities from some undetermined time after the thirteenth century (though possibly much more recently). By the mid-eighteenth century a plethora of new modal combinations created by performer-composers for deployment in the taksim genre were taking form as new modes—some of them compounds of previously known modes, but also some simply using newly developed interval combinations—many of which have appeared as staple modal material for the pre-composed repertoire since that time as well. It is from this period that the hierarchy between modal types definitively disappears; all “modal entities” are since then called “makam-s,” and are treated as independent modes (though some may de facto be used only rarely on their own, appearing as internal modulations in compound makam-s, apparently as the subsidiary “terkib-s/şube-s” had once been used; see below).
294
Despite written sources from the eighteenth century to the twentieth showing little interest in a systematic makam theory in the Turkish cultural sphere—whether to maintain a traditional system or to develop one in accord with the praxis of the day— two things about how the makam system had been transformed since the invention of the taksim genre are clear from both the written repertoire and the framework given by the early-twentieth-century theorists: firstly that the proliferation of modal entities qualifying as “makam-s” reinforced the maintenance of mode-distinguishing rules of performance that became part of the definition of each makam (melodic path, a hierarchy of tones, characteristic melodic gestures, tessitura, characteristic internal modulations, special intonations, etc.). Whereas the available literature is not clear about how early the standardization of such elements of praxis occurred, by the time the early-twentieth-century creators of current makam theory explained the system, this way of defining makam-s was not only normative, but “music theory texts” came to consist mainly of descriptions of makam-s in these terms (reinventing and defining a vocabulary of elements with which to make such definitions—tetrachords and pentachords, a standardized general scale, notation conventions, etc.; see examples in Appendix D).
The second thing that had obviously changed about the makam system since the invention of the taksim genre (and apparently in response to it) was the way in which modal elements could be combined, either fleetingly in a taksim or in a pre-composed
295
piece, or to create new compound makam-s. Modulation had apparently previously been very rare in both spontaneously generated composition and in pre-composed repertoire, and it is perhaps precisely because of the sudden confusion of modal combinations that were generated in abundance between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries that theorists were not able to get a handle on a systematic description of how makam music “worked” (whereas previous to the inclusion of modulation it was understood to “work” by simply applying the exigencies of a makam’s definitions to composition); the old definitions of hierarchical distinctions between modal elements had disappeared, the “basic scale” was no longer seen as the generator of makam-s (i.e., it ceased to serve a function except as a traditional concept)—even to the point that Yekta and Arel could argue about what the tones constituting it were; and the “agaze”—previously the de facto medium in which a makam’s definition could be applied purely (i.e., independent of lyrics, meter, repertoire, modulation)—was absorbed into the (modulation-oriented) taksim genre.5
However, despite the twentieth-century theorists’ revival of such concepts as formally defining makam-s and the need for a “basic scale” (though now for the purpose of establishing how to use Western notation), no theory was created to explain systematically how the conventions of modulation that developed between the
5
As Feldman noted, almost all of the repertoire played in the twentieth century (most of it composed in the previous two centuries) contains some modulation, only “giriş” (introductory) and “ara” (interlude) taksim-s—i.e., those types I have referred to as former “agaze-s”—possibly being without any modulation (1977: 66 and 1993: 16-7).
296
seventeenth and twentieth centuries work. Perhaps their having developed a theory with the ability to describe the complexities of compound makam-s seemed sufficient without expanding beyond the paradigm that theory should consist basically of a description of the elements of the system and then definitions of makam-s in their terms;6 perhaps the Westernized-qua-modernized theory they needed to create in order to fit the new pedagogy (which, under official pressure from the Republic, necessarily shunned the traditional oral/aural transmission) simply could not bear all the detail and still be useful.7 Meanwhile the surviving oral/aural tradition came to concentrate on making expedient compromises with the new system: learning the new vocabulary of makam theory, altering the new theory to suit their own idiosyncratic understandings, adopting music literacy and using it to access the newly “fixed” repertoire (if with adjustments).8 We must recall that more repertoire than ever before had suddenly become available to each performer via this standardized and assiduously applied musical literacy—students used to have to learn pieces one-on-
6
All twentieth-century theory texts take care to categorize and describe compound makam-s; see Arel 1991 (1943-8), Yılmaz 2007 (1973), and especially Kutluğ 2000 and Özkan 1984. 7 Detail, for instance, regarding how to effect modulations, an aspect of the makam system that had never been described by theorists but that would seem, some 300 years after Cantemir, to merit attention. Of course, although such an expansion of the theory would have added greatly to the amount of information to pass on to students in the new pedagogy, there is no reason to believe that the early twentieth-century theorists intended to develop an explication of modulation yet declined to do so in order to make institutional music education simpler; the issue is simply not dealt with at all. 8 That is to say, repertoire transcribed and distributed in newly definitive versions, in contrast to the traditional situation in which each piece—memorized by a master and passed by him or her to students orally—had as many subtly idiosyncratic versions as there were masters to pass it along.
297
one from their master(s), and any repertoire that the master did not know, a student would not learn.9
But understanding how to play taksim-s and to make appropriate modulations became (or perhaps had already long been) the province of each student’s own individual initiative. In addition to learning Arelian theory and musical literacy (and the adjustments to these dictated by their teachers), each student is tasked with memorizing a great deal of pre-composed repertoire, comparing pieces in the same makam in order to extract the “essential” (i.e., obviously reappearing) elements, and listening closely to taksim-s made by their teachers, other senior performers, and in recordings of past masters. By periodically imitating these before their teachers and altering their understandings of “how taksim is done” in response to the teachers’ feedback they are expected to become competent at making taksim-s, and at understanding how modulations occur in the makam system. But even this feedback is deliberately unsystematic—teachers emphatically do not teach taksim; they seem not to want that aspect of the art to become systematized in such a way as to remove the personal, human element (and parenthetically, perhaps to threaten their own position in the oral/aural meşk tradition). However, as with the limitations of a dependence on the pre-literacy-era master, a student who does not learn sufficient
9
Barring, that is, an extraordinary memory for serendipitously heard performances. Even those who could read Hamparsum notation did not have access to large sources of notated repertoire, and there are many stories of masters refusing to pass along repertoire because they did not think their students worthy, or feared that it would be stolen or misused (see Chapter IV).
298
repertoire in a given makam will not feel able to make a taksim in that makam, or to modulate to or through it. One well known, acknowledged master told me that he would not play taksim-s in a certain little-played but not particularly obscure makam because he felt he did not know it well enough—and if such an expert will not play a given makam or teach it (even though there are descriptions of it in theory books, and available notated repertoire), how will the next generation of students learn to make creative use of it?
Currently—at the beginning of the twenty-first century—performers and theorists alike recognize that the discrepancies between official theory and praxis are broad enough that it has become a burden on current students and possibly a discouragement to new students, and therefore to the continuance of the art itself.10 Meanwhile the system as a whole appears to become more simplified and less sophisticated with each generation (at least to many of my informants, as shown in Chapter IV); composition is a nearly stagnant sector of the art and taksim-s are reduced in duration, complexity and modal variety (ibid.); the single-makam “agaze” has simply been absorbed into the taksim genre and relies on the repertoire for makam definition—or from another point of view, taksim may be on its way to becoming no more than what had once been “agaze,” any modulations de facto being 10
Although I presented no informant quotes on the subject in Chapter IV, I can say that such concerns were either implicitly or explicitly conveyed to me as part of the first conversations I had with each of my informants regarding this project; their express desire to ameliorate the situation was largely the reason for their participation in the research, and for the ease with which I was able to undertake it. As for theorists on the subject, see the 13 speakers in Bayhan 2008, and Akdoğu 1989b.
299
internal to the makam’s definition and stereotyped in the pre-composed literature. By relying on students’ self-guided study and a dependence on canonical repertoire for the transmission of how taksim-s are made—to the point of literally quoting phrases as part of a makam’s de facto definition—and thereby perpetuating an unsystematic understanding of how modulations are effected, the state of the art has been reversed from the dynamism begun in the seventeenth century: whereas Cantemir had made it clear that a taksim could not quote pre-composed repertoire, it is now repertoire that current students have to mimic in order to learn to make taksim-s—repertoire that itself was the result of an explosion of creativity expressed through the taksim genre by performer-composers unwilling to stay within the limitations of their own contemporary repertoire.
Musicians today are of course personally invested in keeping classical Turkish music alive (and continually express fears that it will not outlast their own generation). But it seems to me that their hopes are not merely that it will survive as a museum piece, confined to repeating past repertoire; that is presumably why the taksim genre still exists, and why there is a hope that composition will again become a more lively sector of the art form. As mentioned in Chapter IV, there is a reflexive conservatism that has protected classical Turkish music not merely from extinction but also from incorporating such “modern” experiments as atonality, noise, serialism, polymodality (or even polyphony), static timbres, minimalism, etc. As effective as this has proved
300
in regard to the maintenance of what is considered a traditional aesthetic, this attitude also maintains a pedagogical situation in which the activity of learning those aspects of the makam system concerning how melodic movement is effected has not changed (i.e., “been modernized”) apparently since the seventeenth century; neither Arelian theory nor the masters and their meşk are considered responsible for this transmission, but it is left simply to the chance that students—who by definition are the least experienced listeners and analysts of the music—will be able to extract this information from repertoire and recordings. Perhaps a formalization of those aspects would be enough to lead to a review of the viability of the seventeenth-century idea of taksim as a medium in which to experiment with the system’s most basic (and traditional) elements, in which to learn and to apply the principles informing individual makam-s and—especially—their relationships to each other, stimulating new composition in a traditional way without being forced to rely on the mimicry of past repertoire (as deserving of appreciation as it may be).
When I invited the performers and theorists whose input appears in this study to participate in the research, I clearly framed the overall project as a way for them to give voice to an understanding of the makam system as they employed it as performers and teachers, and particularly as spontaneous composers in the taksim genre; the idea that the information they gave could be used collectively to reform the current music theory was explicitly shared between us as a possibility. Some of their
301
responses were given verbally and some appear as the taksim-s themselves. In this dissertation I have gathered their “explanations” of how the makam system works and, concentrating on the aspect of it concerned with melodic movement and modulation, I have extracted and formalized a set of “principles” from them. These must be understood as being distinct from that aspect of makam theory that is characterized by makam definition per se—a subject that is the focus of virtually all twentieth-century Turkish makam theory texts, as well as a central part of all KTM education, whether in conservatories or meşk. In a sense it is also therefore separate from the whole endeavor of Arelian theory, though it runs in parallel with it, and uses a basically Arelian rhetoric of conjoined cins-es. It is also separate from arguments regarding proper intonation and the general scale; though it would seem that this is the area where current theorists are putting most of their attention (see Bayhan 2008), these “principles of melodic movement” should apply in whatever scheme they may choose.11 Furthermore it must be said that other researchers might look at the very same material (which, being included in the DVDs of Appendix L, all are welcome to do) and find yet other useful patterns in the data.
11
For my part, I see this as a non-issue in terms of the workings of the makam system. Intonation choices, like color choices for a painter, are properly the province of the individual performer; a stroll through any museum will allow us to agree upon a broad interpretation of the name “red” without defining it as “corresponding to a vibration of ~480-405 terahertz,” or some such technical analysis. Both listeners and performers understand not merely from the intonation of a tone itself but from its context within a melodic passage a tone’s intended perde/color, without feeling perturbed by its alignment with or variance from a standard measurement of such a perde out of context. If additional symbols and perde names are needed to adjust Arelian notation, that should be quite an easy change to effect, but I doubt that restricting everyone’s tone choices—except subtly, as a means for assuring that instruments are capable of being played in tune with each other—will ultimately bring a desirable result (cf. “desired results” regarding intonational definitions in Bayhan 2008 passim).
302
I was initially surprised that what I discerned in the raw data of my informants’ responses was a way of understanding the techniques of creating appropriate melodic movement, and especially a way of describing the methods by which modulation is achieved. Nor do I think that my informants would have predicted exactly that result. The original goal had been simply to compare three objects of study—taksim recordings from the early-twentieth century, taksim-s as practiced today, and twentieth-century music theory as presented in texts—to see how they differed and how they were similar, and to provide information with which to adjust Arelian theory, that it be in better accord with twenty-first-century makam praxis. But in fact there is little to adjust; beside stylistic factors, makam praxis in taksim-s seems to have changed little between 1910 and 2010, other than there apparently being a greater emphasis now on the definition of specific cins-regions of a makam rather than the more freely moving melodic style of makam exposition of the recent past.12 The theory itself has been demonstrated to adequately if imperfectly represent many aspects of the music that its creators chose to focus on. Setting aside issues of notation, the basic scale, and interval definition of the general scale, the main changes to standard Arelian theory suggested by the information gathered for this study would consist of the following:
12
And perhaps there is some hint that disjunct tetrachords formed the central scalar material of makam-s rather than the later, Arelian conjunction of tetrachord and pentachord. Presumably this shift is due to the effect of the inclusion in normative pedagogy of the Arelian insistence on each makam’s basic structure consisting of one tetrachord and one pentachord (conjoined in either order). If so it is a clear case of (abstract, novel) theory shaping established practice (and thereby also praxis).
303
•
accepting that the scalar material of many makam-s consists of more than one pentachord and one conjoined tetrachord (and their repetition at the octaves)
•
accepting the trichord (üçlü) as a cins type and re-defining those makam-s that have been shown here to be widely understood as employing them (see Appendix J) o which implies that the central scalar material for some makam-s will consist of three conjunct cins-es rather than the currently mandated two
•
the creation and use of a “hüzzam tetrachord” to be used as described in Appendix H
•
the explicit recognition that the point of conjunction between the central cinses is not necessarily the dominant of the makam o but parenthetically noticing that it usually is, and when it is not, the dominant is inevitably either the tonic or upper tonic instead. (Such information is already noted in specific individual makam descriptions in standard texts, though the recognition of trichords will alter the way some of these are expressed.)
•
recognize that there are (at least) two ways of describing how makam-s are constructed: o 1) in terms of conjunct cins-es
e.g., Acem makam can be understood as “uşşak-4 + buselik-3 + çargâh-5”
304
note that there is no overlap of cins-es here, but for compound makam-s we may also describe a structure as
o 2) overlapping cins-constructions
e.g., Acem makam can be understood as “play ‘Çargâh’ on acem,13 then play Buselik on neva, then play Beyati”
o both descriptions are valid, each presenting a different emphasis on performance information; together they may be a synthesis of the apparently older “melodic gesture” sense of makam definition seen in the early taksim recordings and the Arelian emphasis on conjunct cins regions (see Chapter V) •
optionally, for consistency’s sake, using the term “uşşak pentachord” for what is now called the “hüseyni pentachord”—it would not seem as though standardizing this will make the makam Hüseyni disappear, nor does there seem to be an important story connected to the current distinction (i.e., the term “hüseyni pentachord” has neither a musical function nor an extra-musical one)
As we saw in Chapter IV many performers would also prefer that the makam definitions found in standard music theory textbooks include more detailed information than they do, some of it technical (e.g., regarding special intonation
13
Or “Acem Aşiran (on acem),” if in fact there is no such thing as a (diatonic) “Çargâh makam.”
305
issues, habitual internal modulations, characteristic phrases, etc.) and some more “literary” (prose descriptions of a makam’s moods and characteristics, different historical versions, relations with other makam-s, etc.), and a few notated or even recorded examples of each makam would be appreciated by some, also. But there is nothing inherent in Arelian theory that causes authors of music theory texts to make such omissions, and altogether this study did not result in more radical answers regarding the Yekta-Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek theory complex per se.
What I drew from the study was instead a set of organizing principles regarding the makam system that are neither described by current theory nor implicitly alien to it; they are simply an aspect of the system that had not been described as a whole before, apparently for three reasons: •
because the (pre-seventeenth-century) models that twentieth-century theorists had for what a systematic “makam theory” should look like had been written previous to the period when modulation and compound makam-s—and the profusion of new relationships they engendered at the level of the cins and of the mode—became the norm
•
because the creators of the current theory were under pressure to simplify the representation of the system in order to fit the new, Western-style pedagogy, and
306
•
because masters still teaching in a meşk environment felt that these details were on the one hand too manifold and complex to formalize systematically and on the other hand fell properly within the domain of a personal mastery (part of which includes knowing when an individual student is ready to learn such specific details—not something that one should be able simply to pick out of a book)
While I am sympathetic to the concerns of those teachers keeping the oral tradition alive, it would seem to me that the “principles of melodic movement (and modulation)” elucidated in this study are an aspect of classical Turkish music theory that students specifically, and likely these teachers as well, may benefit from seeing compiled in a more formalized way—they were expressed, after all, in today’s teachers’ own “voices,” as it were (i.e., through their taksim-s, through the analyses of these that they gave, and as information conveyed in interviews). That such a presentation of the principles may also prove suitable for the pedagogical methods of today’s conservatories makes them in a sense a gift from the oral tradition to the literate one—at the least we can say that it is a response to the latter’s Arelian conceptions of the theory. In any case, a music theory that explicitly recognizes that makam-s, through compound forms and modulatory possibilities developed since Cantemir’s time, mix together in varied and specific ways (and must not mix in other such ways) would seem to be about three hundred years overdue. To reinforce this
307
idea I would like to present what I see as the potential importance of the formalization of these principles by way of an analogy with a similar development in Western art music.
Between about the ninth century CE and the seventeenth century CE in central Europe, the concept of the music of the day (and the theory describing it) centered around the primacy of individual melodies. Over that period, the music turned from monophonic—that is, all performers performing the same melody—to polyphonic— where multiple melodies were performed simultaneously. The theory describing the proper way to create this music was therefore concerned with the principles of voiceleading that would cause the multiple melodies sounding together to conform to the aesthetics of the day. But by the end of that period, composers and music theorists came up with a new way of looking at the same material: they now shifted their analysis from the relations between several simultaneous melodies to a focus on discrete moments of time within a piece of music, and instead of analyzing each melody horizontally, they began analyzing the relations of the notes “vertically” in these discrete moments and designating the resulting “harmony” in terms of chords. Although ostensibly they were still creating the same music, this new way of understanding “how the system works”—which is referred to now as a theory of “functional harmony,” of how different kinds of chords move from one to the next—
308
radically changed the possibilities available to composers, who need not have, and indeed did not cease to create melodies to work along with the new chords.
Now, let us compare this to the situation in Turkish makam music. Over roughly the same period, between the ninth and seventeenth centuries CE, there had been developed theoretical conceptions of the music for which descriptions of the elements of intervals (and at times also of cins-es) and their use in the descriptions of individual makam-s was sufficient to explain how music was made; a performer needed to know only how to put into praxis the already well formulated theoretical definitions of the makam-s. But as a result of the invention of the taksim genre and its introduction of extensive modulation, the makam system itself was radically altered. And yet even through the twentieth century the theoretical paradigm of describing the entirety of the system in the old terms of intervals, cins-es, etc., and then giving lists of makam definitions (even those these were expanded to show internal modulations and compound makam-s) ignored the innovations of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries. By the twentieth century, what can only once have been a deep understanding of modulation has instead been replaced by a mimicry of canonical repertoire as the source for learning how to make taksim, and therefore of understanding how the system works. I am suggesting that the performer-oriented music theory formalized in this dissertation as “principles of melodic movement and modulation” is analogous to the development of that which we call “functional
309
harmony” in Western art music. It has the same potential to provide musicians a systematic way of expanding their creative possibilities simply by looking at what they are already doing from another perspective, and yet it runs in parallel with the (currently Arelian) theory; there is no need to radically alter the existing paradigm in order to add this new point of view.
The Turkish makam system today, then, can be likened to a community of personalities (or for that matter to a palette of colors, or to the sum of ingredients in a cookbook). There are the cins-es and their conjunctions—acceptable and unacceptable, as shown in Chapter VI; certain combinations of these become the bases of makam-s (and we may reckon a sort of “familial” relationship between makam-s that end with the same cins).14 Each makam is more than the sum of its intervals by virtue of: a melodic path, a hierarchy of tones, characteristic melodic gestures, tessitura, characteristic internal modulations, special intonations, etc. To many makam-s have also accrued characteristic phrases/“çeşni-s”—these also serve to identify discrete makam-s; when making “giriş” and “ara” taksim-s (introductory and interlude taksim-s respectively—the “agaze” of old) then these makamidentifying attributions combined (perhaps along with some “delaying” strategies, see below) are sufficient to make a “taksim” in one makam.
14
See Marcus’ discussion of the Arab fasila system, 1989: 289-93 and 368-425.
310
In parallel to this there is the realm of modulation, including the internal modulations required of compound makam-s. Compound (mürekkep or bileşik) makam-s appear to have existed before the invention of the taksim genre and the explosion of new compound makam-s that it engendered in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries— the older mürekkep makam-s seem to have consisted of primary modes (makam-s) to which secondary etc., modal material (terkib-s, şube-s etc.) were added. The compound makam-s of today, mainly created in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in effect treat whole makam-s (when used internally in modulations) as “secondary modal entities” temporarily. In this way every modal entity is treatable as a makam, which (after an initial definition in performance) can serve as a framework for showing its relation to virtually every other modal entity by modulation in conformity with the acceptable cins conjunctions. Conversely every modal entity may also serve in the manner in which secondary modal entities (e.g., terkib-s, şube-s, etc.) once did, that is, as distinct modal entities that (in the context of modulation) do not require full exposition (of seyir, hierarchical tones, etc.); they may be treated temporarily as lesser entities than “whole” makam-s.
Both aspects of the system—identifying makam-s and moving between makam-s— are mediated by melodic movement, “horizontally” through time, of course, and also “vertically” through variations in pitch. Using the previously identified cins-es (groups of 3, 4 or 5 pitches, see Chapter VI) we saw that this most basic level of
311
“principle of melodic movement” is entwined with the concept of makam identity, that is, that there are acceptable conjunctions of cins-es (and importantly to the aesthetic, many more such conjunctions that are not acceptable—69% of the total possible), and that certain conjunctions (18% of the total) are ascribed the capacity to evoke specific makam-s even in the absence of seyir, hierarchical tones, etc. (ibid.; the remaining 13% of cins conjunctions are possible but do not evoke makam-s per se). This information yields three dynamics in the Turkish makam system: •
1) the fact that there are restrictions upon playing 82% of the possible cins conjunctions due to their estrangement from acceptable makam-s reminds us that the aesthetic that informs the sense of beauty in classical Turkish music exists in a kind of “invisible landscape”—or more precisely, an “intolerable soundscape” of sonic ugliness that must be traversed but not entered during every performance and composition—this makes even more poignant the distinction between “the praxis of makam theory in taksim performance” and “improvisation” as it is often more liberally conceived (i.e., as being able to cross or ignore the boundaries of specific scalar or modal definitions)
•
2) revealed are the many “principles of melodic movement/modulation” as they were first suggested to me by performers, that is, principles of the sort that teach “above or below any hicaz tetrachord a conjunct rast pentachord may be developed”—these essentially determine what sort of “vertical” melodic movement is possible
312
•
3) this is the arena in which we see that, just as all melodic modal entities came to be “makam-s” in the eighteenth century, all of today’s “makam-s” can also function (in modulations and compound makam-s) as “terkib-s” apparently once had done, that is, to appear as namable modal entities evoked merely by the association of two cins-es in conjunction15
In order to distinguish this sort of “principle,” let us specify these as “principles of cins conjunction” within the greater category of “principles of melodic movement [and modulation].” (These might be rendered in Turkish “cins birleşme prensipleri” and “nağme tahriği [ve geçki] prensipleri” respectively.)
As we saw in Chapters V and VII, a second sort of “principle of melodic movement and modulation” governs motion, and we may therefore similarly distinguish them as “principles of motivity” (perhaps “hareket kuvvet prensipleri” in Turkish). Allowing that 10% of the cins-level melodic movement in the taksim-s made for this study was
15
I must note that I am not here giving the traditional definition of “terkib” (about which see below); I am only saying that functionally there is a parallel between the old secondary and tertiary modal entities and the way in which today non-nominal makam-s may be evoked in compound makam-s and in modulations. Additionally I might point out that there are makam-s today that are so seldom used by themselves (but that appear often in modulations) that they might be considered “secondary modal elements”—Isfahan, Müstear, Araban, Arazbar and Neva were so described to me by performers (see Chapter IV), and I am sure more could be found comparing Appendices J and L. Cf. Wright 1990: 231, fn. 33: “Cantemir's definition of terkibs (edvar: 20) is articulated in terms of limited ambitus (terkīb oldur ki āvāz bir kaç perdenin üzerinde hareket edūb) and association with a number of makams (ve bir kaç makāmın yerlerine uğrayub geçer) with which they have the final in common (karārgāına varub ve anda karār-ı istirāhati eyleyüb).”
313
unorthodox, not rising to the level of principle,16 we have seen three main principles responsible for moving melodies forward: •
the pivot o in which the commonality of a cins shared by two makam-s* is used to move from one makam to another, as an adjacent (not shared) cins is altered to suit the second makam
(*or within one makam that de facto has alternative cins-es in one level)
•
the species o in which the tones and intervals within a makam’s structure remain,17 but a newly placed emphasis on one or more different hierarchically important tones causes the impression of the appearance of another makam
•
the direct cins change at the same level o in which one cins is exchanged for another in the same level, directly
although there were many varieties (see Chapter VII), the most common sort would appear to involve two cins-es of the same
16
To briefly recall information given in Chapter VII regarding this 10% of melodic movement: the total number of “unique” cins changes came to no more than an estimated 2.7% of all cins changes and a mere 2.75% of all modulations; 2 of the 3 noted “quotes” were counted under other change types, and one had no functionality in its taksim; there were only 3 modulations by “change of seyir or tonal focus”; and there were 18 instances of modulation by adding a cins below a former tonic (all of which occurred in compound makam-s whose definitions required such a gesture). Together these constituted 10% of the melodic movement in our examples. 17 Or in which some tones are altered microtonally in accord with a performer’s understanding of a spectrum of those perde-s’ possible inflections (see Chapter IV).
314
size (i.e., trichord, tetrachord, or pentachord), sharing the same root tone, in which the change consisted of altering one or more of the internal tones of the cins (rather than either of the two tones forming the boundary of the cins) There was in our taksim examples a wide variety of uses and combinations for each of these three techniques, 58% of them resulting in (declared) modulations and 42% (interpreted as) occurring within a given single makam’s definition (see Chapter VII).
In effect the two types of “principles of melodic movement and modulation” given above—those of cins conjunction and those of motivity—are two aspects of the means by which melodic movement occurs in the Turkish makam system, the bones and the muscle, as it were. The context of all such movement is a “world” populated by makam-s, each being ascribed a unique character (which is synthesized for expression in the aspect of the system concerned with defining and identifying individual makam-s), in which the possibilities for showing the relations between any given makam-s is negotiated through modulation. Despite there existing a plethora of aesthetic criteria that prevent many direct juxtapositions of makam-s,18 the “familial” system of relations between makam-s—that is, the inevitability of many makam-s sharing cins material at the same levels—makes it possible to wend one’s way in
18
Although several hints were given by performers in Chapter IV as to what makes certain such juxtapositions “cold” or unacceptable, it was regrettably beyond the scope of the present study to examine the phenomenon systematically.
315
performance from any makam to any other, always within the framework of the nominal or “host” makam. In this way the Turkish makam system may be described as a kind of holism, in which each part (at least at the level of the makam and makam combinations, if not at the level of cins-es and intervals) can be seen to relate to each other part, as well as to the whole.
If the aesthetic goals of making taksim-s and other forms of composition may be seen as partaking of the above-mentioned factors—of clearly identifying a host makam, and possibly of using it as a framework for showing relations with other makam-s by making modulations within it (likely evoking each new makam-s in a manner analogous to an archaic “secondary modal entity” rather than by formally defining it19)—then we may also speak of strategies for conditioning melodic movement in the pursuit of those goals. In order to characterize such strategies, I have taken the paradigm of “confirming, delaying and deceptive elements in Turkish improvisations” elucidated by Beken and Signell (see 1989b) and expanded each term slightly that together they might accommodate the modulatory aspect of the makam system (which was not addressed in the study in which these authors introduced the concepts). Thus “confirming” came to describe melodic moves made in order to confirm a makam’s identity, whether it be the nominal (or “host”) makam or a modulated-to makam; “delaying” came to describe a change of cins that is neither 19
We must also always recall that the Turkish makam system has since at least Cantemir’s time been an “open-ended” one, in Powers’ sense that new makam-s—and particularly compound makam-s— may be created and absorbed as normative by the system (1980: 427).
316
itself a modulation nor obviously confirmable as part of the most recently confirmed makam; and “deceptive” came to describe a change of cins that suggests a modulation, but one that is not immediately confirmed—it deceives as to whether or not it has modulated rather than by straying from the previously confirmed makam’s cins material per se.
Given these provisional refinements to Beken’s and Signell’s concept, we were able to say the following about the three main “principles of melodic movement” in their terms: that “pivots” are implicitly “confirming” because, whether or not a pivot has effected a modulation, the minimum Arelian two-cins conjunction that identifies the makam (and on which the pivot depends) will have been made explicit; that “species” gestures in the recorded taksim-s were used with all three poetic strategies, though most often to confirm new modulations; and that “direct cins changes at the same level” were also used in all three strategies but these must be looked at more closely: o “directs” resulting in a modulation: 230
followed by a confirming conjunction of the new makam: 132
not so followed (being therefore deceptive): 98
o “directs” not resulting in modulations: 191
followed by a confirming conjunction of the most recently confirmed makam (being therefore confirming): 73
not so followed (being therefore delaying): 118
317
From an analysis of this material we were able to determine that most melodic movement (in our examples) was functionally doing the work of confirming a makam’s identity (whether it was that of the host/nominal makam or that of a modulated-to makam). Delaying techniques took up the next largest amount of effort, with deceptive movement receiving the least focus.20
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Effectively we have seen in the previous twenty-five pages of this Conclusion a review of each of the elements presented separately in the various chapters: a historical overview of the Turkish makam system; the effects of a governmentsponsored Westernization-qua-modernization campaign on what would become current “Arelian” music theory; detailed responses to this theory by current performers at personal as well as technical levels, in both verbal descriptions and in the praxis of makam in the taksim genre; a recognition that in terms of the theoretical conceptions of individual makam-s and their structures and modulatory capacities there does not seem to be a great difference between the earliest performers for whom 20
Furthermore we saw that “direct cins changes at the same level” were the single most employed technique used for effecting any of the three poetic strategies, while pivots are by nature effective only in confirming a makam’s identity, and species were perhaps preferred for deceptive movement, then in confirming, if very little for delaying confirmation of makam identity.
318
we have taksim recordings (beginning in 1910), current performers, and performers recorded in between—the greatest (non-stylistic) difference appearing to be a tendency in the earlier period to treat the boundaries of individual cins-es more fluidly than current performers do (de facto resulting in a style more oriented around melodic gestures thought characteristic of the makam than around the definitions of makam-s in terms of conjunct cins-es); and finally an elucidation of the “principles of melodic movement (and modulation)” themselves, as interpreted and formalized from analyses of the 100 taksim-s made specifically for this study by 34 different performers.
Before concluding, I feel that I should also make explicit several ways in which this information—specifically the modifications to Arelian theory and the “principles”— could be made useful. However, I prefer not to go directly from here to there without traversing the subject of whether it is appropriate for me to advocate, in an ethnomusicology dissertation, a change in the current status quo of the subject I have been studying. As an ethnomusicologist it is necessary for me to remind myself and my readers that it could be considered stepping beyond the bounds of my professional “place” to make such suggestions; in recent times the goals and methods of ethnomusicology have included observing Others and gathering information about certain of their cultural practices in as “objective” a way as possible (if with an ever decreasing faith in the possibility of actual objectivity at all in such circumstances,
319
and perhaps as human beings generally). But there have been periods in our discipline during which the idea that we are allowed to use the information we gather and analyze to advocate changing the cultural behaviors of the people we have studied was considered antiquated at best (or perhaps better suited to the realms of sociology or political activism), and potentially tending toward the destructive, oppressive, and “colonial” at worst. I nonetheless am indeed advocating certain changes based on my research. Alongside the fact that the field has newly embraced a growing understanding of “applied ethnomusicology,” with an expanding sense of engaged interactivity on the part of the ethnomusicologist, I have “on my side,” if you will, the fact that I and the people with whom I worked on this project were in explicit agreement about the potential of this information to ameliorate deficiencies perceived (independently by each of us) to exist in the current theoretical model. In that sense I would be remiss not to advocate for the remedial potency of the information they provided, as I implicitly promised I would do. In any case, I admit that in part it is as a player, a composer, a fan, and a student of classical Turkish music and not merely as an ethnomusicologist that I advocate that the findings of this study be considered for inclusion in a revision of current classical Turkish music theory.
Furthermore, if it is to remain the case that “no-one teaches how to make taksim-s,” I would think that a resourceful student would be able to apply the “principles” to their analyses of taksim-s (live or recorded) in ways that provide a structural understanding
320
of the system inherent in those taksim-s better than simply memorizing and imitating them does.21 Conversely, the principles may be applied to the planning of possibilities to be executed in taksim-s—for instance writing out chains of pivots, and exploring movement between species—thus removing some of the guesswork in the trial-anderror process of learning to make taksim-s.22 It is my opinion that this sort of interactivity with the taksim genre is the sort of thing likely to be able to remedy the oft-lamented losses of makam variety, compound makam-s, and vitality in composition in classical Turkish makam music. I base this opinion on the assumption that what caused the eighteenth-through-nineteenth-century explosion of new makams—especially compound makam-s—new modulations, and new composition was not a reliance on previous repertoire as a source for models, nor on a version of music theory that defined discrete makam-s without saying anything about their relationships (which is arguably analogous to today’s situation), but was rather based on a deep and detailed understanding of the relationships between makam-s and of the means of moving fluidly between them.23
21
For instance see the accompanying DVDs, which compare to the analyses in Appendix K. To those who might claim this to be “cheating”—by knowing anything of what one might play in a taksim—I give the example of Tanburi Cemil Bey; Eymen Gürtan recounted to me that he has seen such planned taksim-s in the master’s handwriting in the collection of master neyzen Niyazi Sayın. In any case, the knowledge is still in the realm of structural possibilities, as is that already needed to make a taksim. 23 Of course traditional repertoire should continue to be studied, for many reasons, but there is the question: if the whole repertoire were lost and forgotten today, would the understanding of the makam system now in students’ minds be sufficient to recreate pieces of equal sophistication? If the answer is “no,” then how can we expect any sophisticated new composition, even having the traditional repertoire on hand? 22
321
We began this dissertation with a quote from music historian Bülent Aksoy, reproduced below: In our music, we tend to go to the theorists with debates on makams. The issue is continually looked at through the abstract window of theory, and often enough, that of one particular theoretician. However, it is the performer who removes the makam from the realm of abstraction and breathes life into it. If a theory book could be written with an eye focused directly on performance, it would shed a very new light on the discussion of makams. (2006)
I would like to conclude this text by stating my hope that the study within it has brought us a step or two in the direction of elucidating a theory for classical Turkish music that synthesizes the best of both academic methodology and of practical knowledge of the subject available today.
322
APPENDIX A: LIST OF INFORMANTS AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS Immediately below are the performers—listed alphabetically under their instruments—who made the taksim-s recorded for this project (see Appendix L/DVDs); the main makam-s and timings of their taksim-s appear under their names. Those who analyzed their own taksim-s for the project are marked by an asterisk (*); those with whom I did not meet at all are marked by a dagger (†). Below this list is another of interviewees with whom I also met outside the context of recording taksim-s. Clarinet (Klarnet): Şükrü Kabacı † • Muhayyer-Kürdi 1:18 Kanun: Agnès Agopian * • Rast 1:58 • Rast 4:14 • Beyati-Araban 1:24 • Hicaz to Nihavend geçiş 2:52 Göksel Baktagir • Hüseyni 1:00 Şehvar Beşiroğlu * • Kürdili Hicazkâr to Bestenigâr geçiş 4:20 • Rast 1:41 • Zavil 2:00 Turgut Özefer • Hüseyni 5:32 • Kürdili Hicazkâr 2:13 Erdem Özkıvanç • Nihavend 1:59 • Hüseyni 0:52
323
“Erkin” (surname unknown) † • Suzinak 0:47 • Rast 1:34 • Segâh 1:36 • Nihavend 0:40 Kemençe: Furkan Bilgi • Hicazkâr 1:27 • Hicaz 1:17 Emre Erdal • Segâh 1:47 Selim Güler † • Segâh 1:00 (audio only) • Nihavend 1:00 İhsan Özgen * • “Beyond Makams” (avant-garde) 3:46 (audio only) Aslıhan Özel • Suzinak 0:47 • Hümayun 2:18 Ney: Eymen Gürtan * • Beyati 4:32 • Nihavend 2:42 • Suz-i Dilara to Nihavend 5:45 • Acem Aşiran 2:02 • Pençgâh to Sultani Yegâh 9:07 Kemal Karaöz • Hüseyni 1:33 Nurullah Kanık • Basit Suzinak 1:47 • Dügâh 3:26 • Hümayun 1:02
324
Ahmet Toz • Uşşak to Hicaz geçiş 4:43 • Segâh 4:13 • Rast 4:16 • Rast 1:30 Volkan Yılmaz † • Nev’eser 1:00
Tanbur: Murat Aydemir * • Arazbar-Buselik 2:09 • Bayati-Araban 1:21 • Gerdaniye to Gülizar geçiş 2:13 • Isfahan 1:25 • Muhayyer-Sümbüle 1:19 • Suzinak 2:17 Furkan Esiroğlu • Kürdili Hicazkâr 2:04 Firuz Akın Han (see also under Yaylı Tanbur) • Kürdili Hicazkâr 1:23 • Nev’eser to Şedd Araban geçiş 3:43 • Nikriz to Rast geçiş 2:48 Özer Özel * • Bayati 2:59 • Suz-i Dilara to Kürdili Hicazkâr geçiş 5:15 • Hicazkâr 2:26 • Suz-i Dilara 2:47 • Uşşak 1:41 • Basit Suzinak 1:00 • Nihavend 0:56 • Bestenigâr 1:52 • Hüseyni 1:52 • Segâh 1:35 • Müstear :50 • Hümayun 1:25 Murat Salim Tokaç • Pesendide 3:46
325
Ud: Mehmet Emin Bitmez * • Acem Aşiran 10:37 • Evcara to Ferahnak geçiş 3:37 • Eviç to Evcara geçiş 7:19 • Nişabur 2:07 • Nişaburek 3:53 • Pençgâh 3:28 • Rast (on dügâh) 3:22 • Rast (zemin only) 3:34 • Hicaz 5:42 • Hicazkâr 3:05 • Uşşak 4:56 Necati • • • • •
Çelik * Bestenigâr 3:18 Muhayyer 4:52 Rast 12:01 Şevk’efza 2:26 Hüseyni 0:57
Bilen Işıktaş • Uşşak 3:40 • Şedd Araban to Sultani Yegâh geçiş 4:30 Osman Kırklıkçı • Şevk’efza 4:53 Yurdal Tokcan • Muhayyer-Kürdi 1:34 Violin (Keman): Ünal Ensari * • Hicaz 4:13 Sinan Erdemsel (see also under Yaylı Tanbur) • Rast 2:10 Hasan Şendil † • Beyati to Hüseyni 5:45 • Mahur 3:23 Baki Kemancı † • Acem-Kürdi 1:32 • Muhayyer-Kürdi 3:16 326
Voice (Ses): İhsan Cansever † • Beyati to Hüseyni 5:45 Yaylı Tanbur: Vasfi Akyol * • Hicaz 3:53 • Nihavend 2:31 • Rast to Hüseyni-on-rast geçiş 3:11 Ahmet Nuri Benli * • Rast 11:06 • Uşşak 10:31 • Acem Aşiran 2:14 Sinan Erdemsel * • Acem Aşiran 5:04 • Kürdili Hicazkâr 3:04 • Nihavend 3:33 Firuz Akın Han • Hicaz 3:01 • Hüseyni 3:30
Interviews (apart from those associated with the above performances): Bülent Aksoy Şehvar Beşiroğlu Mehmet Emin Bitmez Necati Çelik Ünal Ensari Sinan Erdemsel Selçuk Gürez Eymen Gürtan Kemal Karaöz Özer Özel İhsan Özgen Ahmet Toz Yavuz Yektay (Yekta) Zeki Yılmaz
327
APPENDIX B: MAKAM-S REPRESENTED IN THE 2009 RECORDINGS The makam-s played in the 42 performer-analyzed taksim-s made specifically for this study were chosen by the performers themselves, just moments before their taksim performances. (Of course, the 58 taksim-s made in concerts were chosen in accord with the surrounding repertoire, and often by someone other than the performer). Performers were given only the request that one makam be “much used” (çok kullanılan), one be “little-used” (az kullanılan), that one taksim be a modulation (geçiş) from any makam to any other, and that they tell me if a makam were “relatively new.” Although not every performer complied precisely with the requests, the makam-s used in all taksim-s in this study are listed below in terms of these categories:
“Much-used”: Hicaz* (7 taksim-s made), Hicazkâr (3), Hümayun* (3), Hüseyni* (11), Kürdili Hicazkâr (also “relatively new,” 6), Muhayyer (1), Nihavend (9), Rast* (13), Segâh† (5), Uşşak* (5) [Total: 63] “Little used”: Acem Aşiran (4), Acem-Kürdi (1), Arazbar-Buselik (1), Basit Suzinak* (4), Bestenigâr † (3), Beyati (4), Beyati-Araban (2), Dügâh † (1), Eviç † (1), Evcara (2), Ferahfeza (1), Ferahnak† (1), Gerdaniye (1), Gülizar (2), Isfahan (1), Mahur (1), Muhayyer-Kürdi (also “relatively new,” 3), Muhayyer-Sümbüle (1), Müstear † (1), Nev’eser † (2), Nikriz † (1), Nişabur † (1), Nişaburek (1), Pençgâh † (2), Pesendide † (1), Sultani Yegâh (1), Suz-i Dilara (3), Şedd Araban (2), Şevk’efza (2), Zavil (1), Zirgüleli Suzinak (1) [Total: 53] Note that although there was a total of 100 taksim-s, the performance count above comes to 116; this is because I have counted both the beginning and ending makam-s
328
in geçiş taksim-s (both of which need to be well articulated for a successful taksim).1 Makam-s that fall into the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek system’s category of “basic” (in the sense of having both tetrachords that span a perfect 4th and pentachords that span a perfect 5th interval) are marked with an asterisk (*); those with cins-es that Arel considered “incomplete” are marked with a dagger (†). It is further interesting to note that the makam Basit Suzinak is at once one of A-E-U theory’s “13 basic makam-s” and is considered “little used” (and that another, Neva, was never used at all). As mentioned in Chapter III, only six of these thirteen were used as the nominal makam of a taksim. Both convenient and instructively, there was no crossover in performers’ categorizations of makam-s as much-used, little-used or relatively new, despite there being no standardized reference for these categories.2
I now question whether the category “relatively new” is useful; the point of asking was to see if performers relied less on motifs and modulations found in the repertoire when playing in makam-s with (presumably) a smaller catalogue of pre-composed pieces, but there is plenty of repertoire in the two makam-s designated as “relatively new” (Muhayyer-Kürdi and Kürdili Hicazkâr, both being over 100 years old, see Kutluğ 2000), and performers playing these makam-s treated them no differently than others they played.
1
Additionally there are such makam-s, listed below, that appeared in taksim-s for which no analysis was given. 2 Appendix C contains a list of makam-s considered little-used by the Turkish Republic’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism for the purposes of a composition competition in 2005, but it is not widely known or used as a reference.
329
Below, the same makam-s are listed in order of the frequency with which they were played.
Makam-s used in taksim-s recorded by the author, Istanbul 2009 (by frequency): Again, this list includes each endpoint of a geçiş taksim, but excludes internal modulations (which see below). The term müşterek refers to group taksim-s, that is, more than one player played during the session, one after the other (were they to play simultaneously, it would be called a beraber [“together”] taksim, though I recorded none of these); the “2 x 2 müşterek” next to Hüseyni, below, indicates that of the 9 taksim-s counted in that makam, 4 of them occurred in group taksim-s—2 pairs of 2 performers each. The “4 müşterek” next to Basit Suzinak means that in a single sitting, 4 players each performed their own Basit Suzinak taksim one after the other. Rast Hüseyni Nihavend Hicaz Kürdili Hicazkâr Segâh Uşşak Acem Aşiran Basit Suzinak Beyati Bestenigâr Hicazkâr Hümayun Muhayyer-Kürdi Suz-i Dilara Beyati-Araban Evcara Gülizar Nev’eser
13 11 9 7 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
[2 müşterek + 1 (1 partner played Muhayyer-Kürdi)] [2 müşterek + 1 (1 partner played Nev’eser)]
[2 müşterek] [4 müşterek]
[2 müşterek]
[1 müşterek (partner played Nihavend)] 330
Pençgâh Şedd Araban Şevk’efza Acem-Kürdi Arazbar-Buselik Dügâh Eviç Ferahfeza Ferahnak Gerdaniye Isfahan Mahur Muhayyer Muhayyer-Sümbüle Müstear Nikriz Nişabur Nişaburek Pesendide Sultani Yegâh Zavil Zirgüleli Suzinak
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Forty-one “whole” makam-s are represented. Note that Marcus reported that there were about 12 maqāmāt in the core repertoire in use in Cairo (1989a: 334) but that while the total number of known maqāmāt might range from 70 to 100 (ibid.: 316), the true number of them was difficult to ascertain precisely (see ibid.: Chapter VIII [330-361]); Signell (2007 [1973]) gave 60 to 70 as the number of makam-s in use in Istanbul in the early 1970s; Wright (2000: 29) puts the total at as high as 90 modal entities in Cantemir’s time (ca. 1700); Yekta reported “upward of 90” in 1913 (1922 [1913]: 3010).3
3
Readers interested in historical trends in the popularity/frequency of use of makam-s might compare the above list with Feldman 1996: 234-5 Table II-7 (“Frequency in the use of modal entities”) and II-8 (“Frequency of makams in modern Turkish music after Türk Müsikisi Ansiklopedisi [Öztuna, 1969-
331
Makam-s used in internal modulations: Makam-s marked by an asterisk (*) were used in internal modulations only; the rest also appeared as the main makam of at least one taksim. There are twelve of the former kind, bringing the total number of makam-s recorded during this project to fifty-three. Acem* Acem-Kürdi Araban-Kürdi* Basit Suzinak Beyati Bestenigâr Buselik* Çargâh* Dügâh Evcara Eviç Ferahfeza Ferahnak Hicaz Hümayun Hüseyni Hüzzam* Isfahan Karcığar* Kürdi* Mahur Muhayyer Müstear Nev’eser Nihavend Nikriz Pesendide Rast Rehavi* Saba* Segâh 76]”). Regarding the most popular makam-s (i.e., primary modes) of the seventeenth century as garnered from Cantemir, Feldman lists: Hüseyni, Rast, Irak, Nevâ, and Segâh; of the modes using secondary perde-s the most popular were then: Beyâtî, Sabâ, Acem, and Uzzal (ibid.: 197).
332
Sultani Yegâh Şehnaz* Şevk’efza Uşşak Uzzal* Zirgüleli Hicaz* Modulations (geçiş/“external”) Made: Geçiş (Modulatory) Taksim-s: • Suz-i Dilara to Kürdili Hicazkâr [little-used to relatively new; unrelated/same tonic] • Suz-i Dilara to Nihavend [little-used to much-used] • Rast to Hüseyni-on-rast [much-used to transposition of much-used; slightly related/same tonic (artificially)] • Gerdaniye to Gülizar [little-used to little-used/related/same tonic] • Şedd Araban to Sultani Yegâh [little-used to little-used/slightly related/same tonic] • Uşşak to Hicaz [much-used to much-used/same tonic] • Uşşak to Hüseyni [much-used to much-used/closely related/same tonic] • Hicaz to Nihavend [much-used to much-used/slightly related/different tonic] • Evcara to Ferahnak [little-used to little-used/related/same tonic] • Eviç to Evcara [little-used to little-used/related/same tonic] • Kürdili Hicazkâr to Bestenigâr [relatively new to little-used; quite unrelated/diff. tonic] • Nev’eser to Şedd Araban [little-used to little-used/related/different tonic] • Nikriz to Rast [little-used to much-used/related/same tonic] • Şedd Araban to Sultani Yegâh [little-used to little-used/related/same tonic] • Pençgâh to Sultani Yegâh [little-used to little-used/unrelated] • Beyati to Hüseyni [much used to much used/related/same tonic] • NB: 2 performers made complex taksim-s intended as geçiş, but ended up in the same makam they started in, saying, “well, just stop anywhere and it’s a geçiş.”
333
Context (note that these are not all mutually exclusive categories): • Standalone (unmetered) 56 • Mid-song/Solo metered 8 • Group metered 6 • Baş/Giriş 31 • Geçiş 13 • Ara 0 • Fihrist 0 • Müşterek 16 • Beraber 0 • Gazel/Kaside 1 Venue: • Private • Concert • Mevlevi Ayin/Sema • Lesson
52 45 2 1
Canonical Arelian “13 Basic Makam-s” Used as Main Makam-s in Taksim-s: Çargâh 0 Buselik 0 Kürdi 0 Rast 13 Uşşak 5 Hicaz 7 Hümayun 3 Uzzal 0 Zirgüle 0 Hüseyni 10 Suzinak (Basit) 4 Neva 0 (not even as internal modulation) Karcığar 0
334
APPENDIX C: MAKAM-S LISTED IN AREL, YILMAZ, ÖZKAN, KARADENİZ, AND STATE’S “RARELY USED MAKAM-S” Below are listed the 233 makam-s for which definitions are given in four music theory texts—Arel 1991 (1943-48), Yılmaz 2007 (1973), Özkan 1984, and Karadeniz 2000—and also a list of “little-used” makam-s so defined by the Turkish Republic’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı; TCKTB) for purposes of a composition competition in 2005 (TCKTB Az Kullanılan Makam ve Usûllerde Beste Yarışması: “TCKTB Competition for Songs in Little Used Makam-s and Usûl-s”). Note that all are given with their own spelling conventions. Italicized names mark makam-s that appeared among the taksim-s recorded for this study as an internal modulation; bold names mark those that appeared as the main makam of a taksim recorded for this study; underlined names mark the canonical “13 basic makam-s” of the A-E-U system.
Arel: Acem, Acem-Aşiran, Acem-Bûselik, Acem-Kürdî, Acemli Yegâh, Anberefşan, Arazbar, Arazbar-Bûselik, Aşk-Efzâ, Aşiran-Zemzeme, Beyatî, BeyatîAraban, Beyatî-Araban-Bûselik, Beyatî-Bûselik, Beste-Isfahan, Bestenigâr, Bûselik, Bûselik-Aşiran, Büzürk, Çargâh, Dilkeş-Haveran, Dilkeşide, Dügâh, Dügâh-Bûselik, Eski Sipihr, Evçârâ, Eviç, Eviç-Bûselik, Ferahfezâh, Ferahnâk, Ferahnümâ, Gerdaniye, Gerdaniye-Bûselik, Güldeste, Gülizar/Hüseyni-Gülizar, Heftgâh, Hicaz, Hicaz-Bûselik, Hicazkâr, Hisar, Hisar-Bûselik, Hümayun, Hüseyni, Hüseyni-Aşiran, Hüzzam, Hüzzam-ı Cedid, Irak, Isfahan, Isfahanek, Karcığar, Kûçek, Kürdî, Kürdîli Hicazkâr, Lâle-Gül, Mahur, Mahur-Bûselik, Mâye I/DügâhMâye, Mâye II/Segâh-Mâye, Muhayyer, Muhayyer-Bûselik, Muhayyer-Kürdî, Müstear, Nevâ, Nevâ-Bûselik, Nevâ-Kürdî, Neveser, Nihavend, Nihavend-i Kebir, Nikriz, Nişabur, Nişaburek, Nühüft, Pençgâh, Pesendide, Rahatfezâ, Rahatülervah, Rast, Rehavi, Revnaknümâ, Ruhnevaz, Ruy-i-Irak, Sabâ, Sabâ-Aşiran, Sabâ-Bûselik, Sabâ-Zemzeme, Sazkâr, Segâh, Sultani Irak, Sultani Segâh, Sultani Yegâh, Suzidil, Suzidilârâ, Suzinâk, Sünbüle, Şedaraban, Şehnaz, Şehnaz Bûselik, Şerefnümâ, Şevk-Âver, Şevk-Efzâ, Şevkidil, Şevk-u Tarab I, Şevk-u Tarab II, Şivenümâ, Tahir, 335
Tahir-Bûselik, Tarz-ı Cedid, Tarz-ı Nevin, Uşşak, Uzzâl, Vechiarazbar, Yegâh, Yeni Sipihr, Zavil, Zengüle/Zirgüle, Zirefkend, Zirgüleli Suzinâk Yılmaz: Acem, Acem Aşiran, Acem Kürdi, Bayati, Bayati Araban, Bestenigâr, Buselik, Çargâh, Dügâh, Evcara, Evc (Eviç), Ferahfeza, Ferahnak, Hicaz, Hicazkâr, Hisar Buselik, Hümayun, Hüseyni, Hüzzam, Irak, Isfahan, Karcığar, Kürdi, Kürdili Hicazkâr, Mahur, Muhayyer, Muhayyer Kürdi, Müstear, Neva, Nev’eser, Nihavend, Nikriz, Nişaburek, Rast, Saba, Sazkâr, Segâh, Sultaniyegâh, Suz-i Dil, Suz-i Dilara, Suzinak (Basit), Şedd Araban, Şehnaz, Şehnaz Buselik, Şevk-efza, Tahir, Tahir Buselik, Uşşak, Uzzal, Zavil, Zirgüleli Hicaz, Zirgüleli Suzinak. Özkan: Acem, Acem Aşîrân, Acem’li Yegâh, Acem Kürdî, Anber-efşân, Arazbâr, {Aşîrân Mâye}, Aşîrân Zemzeme, Aşk’efzâ, {Bahr-i Nâzik}, Basit Isfahan, Basit Şehnaz Bûselik, Basit Sûz’nak, {Bend-i Hisar}, Beste-Isfahân, Bestenigâr, Beyâtî, Beyâtî Arabân, {Bezm-i Tarab}, Bûselik, Bûselik Aşîrân, Büzürk, Can-fezâ, {CihârAgâzîn}, Çargâh, {Çargâh Gerdâniye}, Dilkeş-Hâverân, Dilkeşîde, {Dil-rübâ}, Dügâh, {Dügâh-ı Hicaz}, Dügâh Mâye, Evcârâ, {Evc-Hûzî/Eviç-Hûzî}, Eviç, {EviçIsfahân}, {Eviç-Mâye}, {Eviç-Muhâlif}, {Eviç-Nihâvendî}, Ferahfezâ, Ferahnâk, Ferahnümâ, Gerdâniye, Güldeste, Gülizâr, Gülizâr/Hüseynî Gülizâr (Mürekkeb), {Gülzâr}, Hicaz, Hicaz Aşîrân/Râhat-fezâ/Hicaz-ı Muhâlif, {Hicâzeyn}, {HicazIrâk}, {Hicâzî Uşşak}, Hicazkâr, {Hicaz Zemzeme}, Hisâr, Hisâr Bûselik, {HûzîAşîrân}, {Hûzî/Uşşak Hûzî}, Hümâyün, Hüseynî, Hüseynî Aşîrân, Hüzzâm, Hüzzâm-ı Cedîd, Irâk, Isfahan (Mürekkeb), Isfahânek, Karcığar, Kûçek, Kürdî, Kürdî’li Hicazkâr, Kürdî’li Hicazkâr (Mürekkeb), Lâlegül, Mâhûr (Şed), Mâhûr (Mürekkeb), Muhayyer, Muhayyer Sünbüle, Müstear, Nevâ, Nev’eser, Nihâvend, Nihâvend-i Kebîr, Nikrîz, Nişâbûr, Nişâbûrek, Nühüft, Pençgâh-i Asıl, Pençgâh-i Zâid, Pesendîde, Râst, Râhatü’l-Ervâh, Rehâvî, Reng-i Dil, Revnak-nümâ, Ruhnüvâz, Rûy-i Irâk, Sabâ, Sabâ Aşîrân, Sâzkâr, Segâh, Segâh Mâye, {Selmek}, Sipihr (New), Sipihr (Old), Sultânî Irâk, Sultânî Segâh, Sultânî Yegâh, Sûz-i Dil, Sûz-i Dilârâ, Şedd-i Arabân, Şehnâz, {Şehnâz-Hâverân}, Şerefnümâ, Şevk-i Dil, Şevk-âver, Şevk’efza, Şevk-i Tarab, Şîve-nümâ, Tâhir, Tarz-ı Cedîd, Tarz-ı Nevîn, Uşşak, Uzzâl, Vech-i Arazbâr, Yegâh, Zâvil, Zîrefkend, Zîrgûle’li Hicaz, Zîrgûle’li Suz’nak. Karadeniz: Acem, Acem Aşiran, Acem Bûselik, Acem Dilfirib, Acem Kürdî, Acem Murassâ, Acem Tarab, Âheng-i Tarab, Anberefşan, Araban (I & II), Araban Kürdî, Araban Uşşak, Arak, Arak Aşîran, Arazbar, Arazbar Bûselik, Aşkefzâ, Baba Tâhir, Bahrinâzik, Bayâti (I & II), Bayâtî Araban, Bayâtî Araban Bûselik, Bayâtî Bûselik, Bayâtî Can Kurtaran, Bend-i Hisar, Beste Isfahân, Bestenigâr, Bûselik Aşîran, Büzürk, Bûselik, Canfezâ, Cihar Ağâzin, Çargâh [NB: not Arel’s version], Dalpâre Uşşak, Dertli Uşşak, Dilnişîn, Dilkeş Hâverân, Dilkeşîde, Dügâh, Dügâh Bûselik, Dügâh Dilküşâ, Evicârâ, Eviç, Eviç Bûselik, Eviç Hûzî, Ferahfezâ, Ferahnak, Ferahnümâ, Gerdâniye, Gerdâniye Aşîran, Gerdâniye Bûselik, Gerdâniye Kürdî, Gonca-ı Rânâ, Güldeste, Gülizâr, Gülzâr, Gülşen-i Vefâ, Heftgâh, Hicaz, Hicaz 336
Acemî, Hicaz Arak, Hicaz Aşîran, Hicaz Bûselik, Hicazkâr, Hicaz Karabatak, Hicazkâr Bûselik, Hicazkâr-ı Kadîm, Hicaz Rûmî, Hicaz Sebzezâr, Hicaz Şehsuvar, Hicaz Zengûle, Hisar, Hisar Aşîran, Hisar Bûselik, Hûzî, Hümâyun, Hümâyûn Rûy-i Arak, Hümâyûn Sultanî, Hümâyun Zengûle, Hüseynî, Hüseynî Aşîran, Hüseynî Bûselik, Hüseynî Kürdî, Hüseynî Zemzeme, Hüzzam, Isfahân (I & II), Isfahânek, Kara Dügâh, Karcığar, Kûçek, Kürdî, Kürdili Hicazkâr, Mâhur, Mâhur Bûselik, Mâverâünnehr, Mâye, Mâye Aşîran, Mâye Segâh, Muhâlif Uşşak, Muhayyer, Muhayyer Bûselik, Muhayyer Kürdî, Muhayyer Sünbüle, Muhayyer Zengûle, Müberka`, Müsteâr, Nârefte, Necid Hüseynî, Nevâ, Nevâ Bûselik, Nevâ Kürdî, Nev’eser, Nevruz, Nigâr, Nihâvend, Nihâvend-i Kebir, Nihâvend-i Rûmî, Nikriz, Nişâbur, Nişâburek, Nühüft, Ömer Horasanî Bayâtî, Pençgâh, Pençgâh-ı Asıl, Pesendîde, Râhatfezâ, Rahatülervâh, Rast, Rast Aşîran, Rast Hâverân, Rast-ı Cedîd, Rast Güldevri, Rast Lâlezâr, Rast Mâye, Rast Menekşezâr, Rast Mevc-i Deryâ, Rast Murassâ, Rast Muzaffer, Rehâvî, Rengidil, Revnaknümâ, Ruhnüvaz, Rûy-i Arak, Sabâ, Sabâ Aşîran, Sabâ Bûselik, Sabâ Perîşan, Sabâ Zemzeme, Sâzkâr, Sâzkâr Mâye, Segâh, Segâh Araban, Segâh Karabatak, Selmek, Sipihr, Sultanî Arak, Sultanî Eviç, Sultanî Hicaz, Sultânî Segâh, Sultânî Yegâh, Sûzidil, Sûzidilârâ, Sûzinâk (I & II), Sûzinâk Karabatak, Şahnaz, Şahnâz Bûselik, Şahnaz Hâverân, Şedaraban, Şeref Hamidî, Şerefnümâ, Şevkâver, Şevkefzâ, Şevk-i Cedîd, Şevk-i Dil, Şevk-i Serab, Şevk-i Tarab, Şîvenümâ, Tâhir, Tâhir Bûselik, Tâhir Karcığar, Tâhir Gerdâniye, Tarzı Cedîd, Tarz-ı Nevin, Tavr-ı Mâhur, Tebriz, Tebriz Hâverân, Uşşak, Uşşak Renk Gerdâniye, Uşşak Renk Hicaz, Uzzal, Vech-i Arazbar, Vech-i Dügâh, Vech-i Hüseynî, Vech-i Şahnâz, Yegâh, Zâvil, Zengûle, Zevk-i Dil, Zevk-i Tarab, Zirefken, Zirkeşîde. Turkish Republic’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism (TCKTB)’s 2005 “Rarely Used” makam-s: 1. Acem-bûselik, - Arazbar, - Arazbar-bûselik, - Beste Isfahan, - Bûselik-aşîran, 2. Büzürg, 3. Cân-fezâ, 4. Dilkeşîde, 5. Dilnişîn, 6. Hisar, 7. Hisar-vech-i Şehnâz, Hisar vech-i şehnaz çember peşrev [sic], -Hisar vech-i Şehnaz saz semai [sic], 8. Hûzî, 9. Kûçek, - Lâle-gül, 10. Mâhur-bûselik, 11. Maverâü’n-nehir, 12. Mâye, 13. Muhayyer-sünbule, 14. Nevrûz, 15. Nigâr, 16. Nişâbur, 17. Nühüft, 18. Pençgâh (in asl and zâid versions), 19. Pesendîde, 20. Peyk-i Safâ, 21. Rahat-fezâ, 22. Rahat-ü’l-Ervâh, 23. Rehâvî, 24. Reng-i dil, 25. Revnaknümâ, 26. Ruhnevâz, 27. Rûy-i Irak, 28. Sabâ-bûselik, 29. Sabâ-zemzeme, 30. Sazkâr, 31. Selmek, 32. Sipihr (in old and new versions), 33. Sultânî Irak, 34. Sûz-i dilârâ, 35. Şerefnümâ, 36. Şevk ü Tarab, 37. Şevk-i dil, 38. Şîvenümâ, 39. Tarz-ı Cedîd, 40. Tarz-ı Cihân, 41. Tarz-ı Nevîn, 42. Tebriz, 43. Vech-i arazbar, 44. Zevk-ü Tarab, 45. Zirefkend.
337
APPENDIX D: THEORY TEXT SAMPLES
Following are translations of the entries in Arel 1991 (1943-48), Ezgi 1933, Karadeniz 1983, Özkan 1984, Kutluğ 2000, and Yılmaz 2007 (1973) describing the makam Rast. These examples may be taken as typical of each authors’ style of makam definition, and generally reflect the way each makam described by an author is presented in his text. See Chapter IV regarding the sorts of makam details that informants note are not represented in theory texts. Translation from the Turkish (in which all were written) is mine.
338
Arel (1991 [1943-48]: 47) [Appears as the fourth makam, after Çargâh, Buselik, and Kürdi. It begins with the following prose description.] Rast makam is ascending. Its scale is in the form 4 + IV; that is a Rast fifth [pentachord] with a Rast fourth [tetrachord] added to its top side. The intervals of the scale from bottom to top are arranged “T K S T + T K S” and from top to bottom are arranged “S K T + T K S T.” [4] The place where the fifth and the fourth conjoin (the fifth degree) has the duty as the dominant. The makam’s essential position is on the perde Rast. When writing the notes of Rast the signature takes for the “Si” one comma flat and for “Fa” on the fifth line a bakiyye [four-comma] sharp. This is Rast makam’s scale:
Figure 41: Rast according to Arel.
As shown by the lines, the notes have eight “niseb-i şerif” [“sacred measures” (see 29-31)]: one perfect octave, four perfect fifths, and three perfect fourths. [an 8-measure example of Rast follows.]
4
These letters, also used in some examples below, represent interval sizes; see p. 368 for the full list of these.
339
Ezgi (1933: 54-7) [Appears as the second makam, right after Çargâh. It begins with the following prose description.] There is much gentle unity in the makam Rast. This makam’s tones’ [nağmelerin] names from low to high are rast, dügâh, segâh, çarigâh, neva, hüseynî, evic, gerdaniye; as for note names they are sol, lâ, si one fazla [comma] flat, do, re, mi, bakiyye [four-comma] sharp fa, sol. As was seen on the chart [in a previous chapter], from the low end there’s a complete rast pentachord upon which is added a complete rast tetrachord. The dominant tone [küçlü nağme] is the fifth (neva - re). This makam is ascending. The beginning is made either from the first, rast, or the fifth, neva, in the low pentachord, then there is made a cadence on the first or the fifth and perhaps even the third degree; after traveling about the upper tetrachord it rests on the tonic. A repose on the seventh leading tone gives the cadence a generous feeling. The eight tones which together form the Rast scale have these intervals, one from the next, (1) whole step 9/8 (2) large mücennep 65536/59049 [8-comma] (3) small mücennep 2187/2048 [5-comma] (4) whole step, (5) whole step, (6) large mücennep, (7) small mücennep. The intervals from the tonic are (1) whole step, (2) large third 8192/6561 (3) perfect fourth 4/3 (4) perfect fifth 3/2 (5) sixth 27/16 (6) seventh 4096/2187 (7) whole octave 2/1. Rehavî makam, being a showing of yegâh after a rast melody [lahn] is written in existing works at hand and in witnessed Turkish language song-cycle books. Its scale is none other than rast’s and it is outside science and logic to accept it as a separate makam. As we wanted to write the rast scale in its position, it is necessary to set it down as upward right from the çarigâh scale’s fifth tone; because of this, according to the intervals of rast, we change the accidentals from those of çarigâh: between Rast’s first and second tones there is a whole tone, and between çarigâh’s fifth and sixth tones is also a whole step, so it does not need an accidental; there being a large mücennep between rast’s second and third tones, but a whole step interval between çarigâh’s sixth and seventh we need to use a one fazla flat accidental to show the large mücennep; between rast’s third and fourth is a small mücennep, and between çarigâh’s seventh and eighth, and this accidental sign shows also the small mücennep difference; there is a whole step between rast’s fourth and fifth tones, and a whole step between çarigâh’s first and second degrees, so no sign is needed; between rast’s fifth and sixth tones there is a whole step as there is between çarigâh’s 340
second and third tones so there is no accidental; the interval between rast’s sixth and seventh is a large mücennep, so since there is a bakiyye [4-comma] interval between çarigâh’s third and fourth tones it is necessary to put a bakiyye sharp on its fourth degree; there is a small mücennep interval between rast’s seventh and eighth tones and a whole tone between çarigâh’s fourth and fifth tones, so the accidental we last put also shows this small mücennep; according to these words, by putting on the staff a bakiyye sharp on çarigâh’s fourth tone and a fazla flat on its seventh tone we have written rast in its right position. In common and natural scales, while proclaiming rast’s flat and sharp signs, agreeable, performable transpositions are written: [This is followed by staff notation of 18 transpositions of Rast (5 of them actually have two written versions, so this is Rast from 13 different tones; NB: Nişabur is shown with its own name where the others are called “Rast on…”)]
[This is followed by a notated song in Rast, followed by the lyrics and a biographical note on its composer, “Şakir ağa”]
341
Karadeniz (1983: 85-6) [Makam-s are presented in order of their tonics, moving upward from yegâh; Rast is number 14.]
This makam has been known and used as the mother makam in Turkish music since long ago; we are also taking its scale as the mother scale. Because in our book we are presenting makam-s that explain their seyir-s according to their tonics, from low to high, we are explaining the mother Rast scale here. A portion of music experts have taken the Çargâh makam and scale as essential. Nevertheless, as we have also said in Chapter I, Çargâh makam’s structure has not the characteristics of a mother scale. ENTRY AND CADENCE: Rast makam usually begins with a ditty [terennüm] from Rast or a nearby perde. Many composers also entered this makam by way of Segâh or Nevâ perde-s, also. Though it is preferred to start with the Rast perde due to its appropriateness for a required ascent, there is no objection to starting from any tone in the Rast scale; however the ending tone is the Rast perde. SCALE: This makam uses two different scales, ascending and descending. The difference between the two is that ascending the perde Eviç is used, and descending the perde Acem is used in its stead. A portion of music experts consider the descending version, which they call “Acemli Rast,” to be a separate makam. However there is no such makam. Rast makam without exception uses Eviç in its scale ascending, and Acem in its scale descending. Some musicians also use the perde Hüseyni in the place of Hisârek, but if we will only look at the makam’s seyir and çeşni we will see that Hüseynî is inappropriate—as we have shown in our scale—and the necessity of using the perde Hisârek will clearly be explained. [There follow two tables showing the perde names in the two Rast scales (one ascending, one descending) with the interval, cent, and frequency values between them.]
[There follow four tables showing all of the fourths, fifths, seconds, and thirds between the tones in the “Rast Scale.”] 342
It is seen that after most seconds, fourths, and fifths, the intervals of a third are given importance. SEYIR AND ÇEŞNİ: Rast makam begins with a ditty from the Rast perde or another appropriate perde, first traveling about in the area as high as the perde Neva. [NB: avoidance of the term “pentachord.”] Returning often to the Rast perde and making short stops on it, after bringing forth çeşni belonging to the makam and traveling about the scale’s perde-s, returning in the same fashion, a cadence on the Rast perde is given. In the course of its seyir, a stop is made on the Neva perde. A portion of music experts show the Arak [Irak] perde and from there descend to the Yegâh perde before rising again to the cadence on Rast. Showing the makam’s çeşni and the Rast perde in all their majesty, with a short stop on the Neva perde, is what it comes to be. [There follows a note pointing to a notated example, a Rast Peşrevi by Buhûrîzâde Mustafa Itrî, found on pp. 310-1]
343
Özkan (1984: 115-9) [Appears after Çargâh, Buselik, and Kürdi (i.e., the “basic makam-s” having diatonic cins-es). It begins with an alphabetical list of the makam’s attributes. Note that Özkan uses the term “çeşni” for cins-es: trichords, tetrachords, and pentachords.]
a-its Tonic: it is the Râst perde b-its Seyir: it is Ascending c-its Scale: It comes to be a Râst pentachord to which is added at Nevâ a Râst tetrachord (Râst pentachord + Râst tetrachord at the 5th degree).
Figure 42: Rast according to Özkan.
This scale, especially in descending melodies sometimes exchanges the bakiyye [4-comma] sharp fa (Eviç) for fa natural Acem Perde. In this case a Bûselik çeşni on Neva comes to replace the Râst çeşni. This shows a new-like scale. This scale with a Râst pentachord to which is added a Bûselik tetrachord is called the Acemli Râst scale.
Figure 43: Acemli Rast according to Özkan.
344
d-its Dominant: the place where the pentachord and tetrachord join, the Nevâ perde. e-its Suspended Cadence Perde-s: 1-A whole step above the Râst çeşni there is an Uşşak çeşni. Making use of this closeness, a suspended cadence in Uşşak is made.
Figure 44: Uşşak within Rast according to Özkan.
2-Up to our day, making a suspended cadence on the perde Segâh was only thought of as [playing] a Segâh çeşni. A suspended cadence can also be made on it. [NB: both recognition and erasure of Segâh (by substituting Ferahnak, whose 4th degree is hüseyni rather than dik hisar) and the older Rast (whose sixth degree was once apparently this tone).]
Figure 45: Segâh according to Özkan.
Doubtlessly, if it is desired, a suspended cadence on Segâh using the needed Nim Hisar can be made. Otherwise, it can be just a Segâh trichord. Beside these, a place for a suspended cadence is the perde Yegâh. In the development
345
stage a suspended cadence using a Râst çeşni on Yegâh can be made. A stop in Uşşak or Nişabur on Hüseynî Aşîrân can also be made.
Figure 46: Rast on yegâh according to Özkan.
f-its Key Signature: A comma flat for Si and a bakiyye [4-comma] sharp for Fa are used. g-The names of the perde-s in T.M. [Turkish Music]: Râst, Dügâh, Segâh, Çargâh, Nevâ, Hüseynî, Eviç or Acem, Gerdâniye. h-its Leading Tone: it is on the perde on the first bakiyye sharp interval fa Irak. ı-its Development: Râst is an ascending and serious-minded [ağır başlı] makam. Because of this its development is from the lower end, below the tonic. It is made by falling down to Yegâh (re).
Figure 47: Rast as bottom-heavy according to Özkan.
Essentially Râst is not developed in the upper region. But though it be rare, if a melody should go above the upper tonic it is known what tones are needed. Because of this the development of the upper area is necessary. That is done thus: The Râst pentachord found on the tonic perde is transferred to the upper tonic.
346
Figure 48: upon the upper tonic of Rast according to Özkan.
i-Seyir: It begins its path [seyir] with a development from the tonic, around the tonic of the scale, and moving downward from there. Traveling around in various ways it makes a half cadence on the Nevâ perde. At this point or before or after hanging cadences are shown on the needed places. Afterward, moving throughout the whole scale or even developing it more, and a final cadence is made, usually showing the leading tone. [This is followed by 18 transpositions of Rast (5 of them are duplicates with alternate “key” signatures—NB: Rast on Dügâh is so called, distinguishing it from Nişaburek, cf. Ezgi above). Following this there is a list of 11 tones on which transpositions of Rast are not made “because the intervals are not appropriate.”]
[This is followed by the notation for a piece in Rast, “Râst Kâr-ı Muhteşem” attributed to Abdülkadir Meragî]
347
Kutluğ (2000: vol. I, pp. 160-4) [Appears after Çargâh, Buselik, and Kürdi.]
Even today some musicians accept the Rast scale [as primary], and the Rast makam born from it, fixing it as the mother scale as had the Systematists (for whom it was one of the twelve “edvâr-ı meşhure” makam-s), and Rauf Yekta’s system. In Safiyüddin’s Kitâbü’l Edvâr, Mevlânâ Mübarek Şah’s Şerhü’l-Edvâr, and Abdülkdair’s Câmi’ü’l-Elhan, Rast makam is founded on the perde Yegâh and was a mirror of the makam we today call Yegâh. Its scale’s schema is thus:
Figure 49: Old Rast according to Kutluğ.
A makam known before the foundation of the Systematist school, Rast was amongst the most played and demanded makam-s of the era, along with such makam-s as Uşşak, Beyatî, Irak, Buselik. Although no piece in Rast composed in those times survives to today, we have at hand the compositions from Rast by Abdülkadir’s Düyek Kâr-ı Muhteşem, Sofyan Nakış Beste and others, as well as semai-s. The notations we have today are written from the perde Rast. However in Abdülkadir’s Câmi’ü’lElhan the Rast makam begins from Yegâh. This makes for an interesting problem. Let’s take a look at it: Before the foundation of the Systematist school, musicians constructed Rast on Yegâh and counted the five tones up from it thus: Kaba Re: Yegâh, Kaba Mi: Dügâh, Kaba Fa sharp: Segâh, Sol: Çargâh, and Lâ: Pençgâh. We know from the enlightening books of Hızır bin Abdullah and Bedr-i Dilşad from the time of Sultan Murad II [r. 1421-1451] that Rast, counted among the 12 makam-s, was transferred from Yegâh to the Rast perde and its scale was given thus:
348
Figure 50: intermediary Rast according to Kutluğ.
Still, these two musicologists changed the names of Rast scale’s Şeşgâh, Heftgâh and Heştgâh perde-s to Hüseyni, Eviç and Gerdaniye. At this time Hızır bin Abdullah also changed the names of Nevâ to Yegâh Isfahanı, Hüseynî to Dügâh, Eviç to Segâh Hisar and Gerdaniye to Yegâh. After transferring the Rast scale to the Rast perde, the Acem perde was transformed into and accounted as the Eviç perde [i.e., changed the seventh degree from a whole step to a “4-comma sharp” leading tone]; in our opinion here is the reason supporting this: In order to complete the Systematist school’s octave (devri) it is necessary to apply the rule tetrachord-whole tone-tetrachord. In this way the Eviç perde took its place in the upper tetrachord. If, not applying this formula, it were necessary to use the Systematist school’s Rast founded on Yegâh [reaching the octave] by a tetrachord and from it upward a pentachord, a difficulty arises. In this case, the Hüseynî perde would be lowered a bit, and would come to be the Dik Hisar perde. Because in this transformation Dik Hisar would be the symmetric equivalent of the Segâh perde. Some of our musicians, transferring this scale to Rast, accept Rast makam as having this form. M. Ekrem Karadeniz, in his book named Türk Musıkisinin Nazariye ve Esasları, along with the Eviç perde, use the Hisarek (Dik Hisar) perde and have a sign [accidental] for it. For our part, we cannot agree with that view because the melodies made by lowering the Hüseyni perde establish no concordance either with Rast makam’s scale or its çeşni. Only when Acem is used descending straight to Rast can the role of a Rast pentachord on Çargâh be explained. After the founding of the Systematist school, the Rast makam scale as transferred to Rast in the time of Sultan Murad II is the Rast we perform today. The Arel system, without touching this scale or the character of its tones, gives to the bottom area a Rast pentachord and forms the scale in this form:
349
Figure 51: Arel’s Rast according to Kutluğ.
It can be seen that the makam Rast, in music history, especially after the foundation of the Systematist school, was newly fixed, apart from the Yegâh scale, as the basic scale formation. [A similar narrative continues for another two pages, detailing the descriptions of Rast given by Cantemir, Abdülbaki Nâsir Dede, and Arel; the issue of this makam’s seventh degree being historically acem rather than the current eviç; that although composers have the makam descend as far as yegâh this is used sparingly so as not to confuse it with the makam Yegâh; the importance of the tone segâh as a place for suspended cadences and its use as a point for modulations such as to Segâh Mâye, Dügâh Mâye and Rast Mâye; that the tone çargâh can be used as a stopping place but neva is the makam’s dominant according to Arel and receives more attention, being a point for modulation to, for example, Pençgâh, Sûzinâk, Nikriz and Nihavend; that hüseyni is little used; that the highest tone is gerdaniye and there the “miyan” section {of a piece or taksim} often begins, for instance, using the rast tetrachord below it or modulating to Segâh on tiz segâh, Muhayyer, Tahir, Sünbüle or Nihavend, etc.; that other modulations may be made, such as Uşşak on neva {though that this might account for a former use of hisarek/dik hisar in Rast’s scale is not explored}; that at the final cadence the tone segâh will certainly be played flatter for a while, then
350
return to normal just at the end; that the leading tone ırak will be shown at the final cadence; that Rast’s written signature has the accidentals for segâh and eviç.]
351
Yılmaz (2007 [1973]: 85-7) [Appears after Çargâh and Buselik.] Rast Basit Makam 3 a) Tonic: Rast perde b) Seyir: it is Ascending c) Scale: it comes to be a Rast Pentachord in its place, to which is added a Rast Tetrachord on Neva d) Dominant: it is the Neva perde e) Leading Tone: it is the Irak perde f) Signature: Si (q) Fa (s)
Figure 52: Rast according to Yılmaz.
g) The scale’s path [seyir]: As Rast is an ascending makam it begins around the tonic. The scale is developed around the bottom end. Most times the seyir begins development around these tones. Using the Rast Pentachord a suspended cadence is made on the Neva perde. Afterward it passes to the Rast Tetrachord found on the top end. Although usually the perde Evc is used ascending, Acem is turned to when descending. Again it makes a rest on Neva. Using various tones from the Rast Pentachord in its place, suspended cadences are made, especially on the Segâh perde. The end is made with the tones of the Rast Pentachord, generally with the leading tone.
Figure 53: beneath the tonic in Rast according to Yılmaz.
352
h) Specialties of the makam: Rast makam’s seventh degree is the Evc perde. This perde is used in the seyir when ascending. But this perde is usually not used in a descending seyir. Thus breaking the Rast Tetrachord it becomes Bûselik on Neva. In this form, falling to the tonic, the scale is called Acem’li Rast scale.
Figure 54: Acemli Rast according to Yılmaz.
[This is followed by “Rast makam’s seyir,” a notated sample of Rast 10 measures long.]
[This is followed by the notation of a piece in Rast, “Rast Yürük Semai” by Hafız Post.]
353
APPENDIX E: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INSTRUMENTS REPRESENTED IN THE STUDY
Figure 55: Tanbur.
354
Figure 56: 2 Ney-s.
355
Figure 57: Kemençe.
356
Figure 58: Ud.
357
Figure 59: Kanun.
358
Figure 60: Klarnet (Clarinet). (NB: a G clarinet with Albert/Oehler fingering system; a metal-bodied version is also popular in Turkey.)
359
Figure 61: Keman (Violin).
360
Figure 62: Yaylı Tanbur. Photos of tanbur, ney-s, kemençe, ud, kanun, and violin presented with the kind permission of Ali Tutan of “Türk Mûsikîsi” (http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/index.html). Photo of yaylı tanbur taken by the author; thanks to Mary Hofer Farris for the G clarinet.
361
APPENDIX F: INTERVALS, NOTE NAMES, AND “AHENK-S” IN THE STANDARD TURKISH SYSTEM
The names of notes in the current standard Turkish music system have been represented herein in two ways: at concert pitch, and also in the normative written transposition a perfect fourth higher. This coupling is known as the transposition scheme (ahenk) called “bolahenk.” Written music and solfège are nearly always expressed in this transposition scheme, wherein the tone rast is sounded at D, written as the G above it, and sung as “sol.”5 Ayangil explains how this came to be: The western notes assigned to the Turkish makam pitches by Emin Efendi [Mehmed Emin (d. 1907)] were those that had been selected to fit the pitches in Hamparsum notation by Maestro Donizetti [Giuseppe Donizetti (d. 1856)]. In the determination of these equivalents, one cannot trace a detailed technical method, which would have tried to guard all the requirements of makam music. The determining motive was the transference of the pitches, in use in the makam music system of the day, immediately into western notation in an empirical way. As a result of this transference by Emin Efendi (and of Donizetti), ümmü̈lmakaamat (the major makam/gamme naturelle), that is the Rast makam scale, was transposed one pentachord [sic: tetrachord?6] up, in a way fitting the bolâhenk nısfîye accord system of ney (the flute) and was written from “sol”/g note (the fifth sound in the “do” scale of the western notation) on the second line of the staff. Consequently, Çargah pitch, which is the 4th pitch of the Rast makam scale, corresponded to the “do”/c sound (the first sound in the “do” scale of the western notation). Accordingly, although they seemed to be sharing the same notation, right from the start, there was a
5
Ayangil 2008 gives a full history of Western notation in Turkish music, including explanations of the ahenk-s (438-41), of the origins of today’s normative transposition (415), and alternatives to the standard intonation and notation schemes (429-37). “Standard” here means in regard to classical and other “makam musics”; it must be noted that Turkish folk music theorists have used other terminology and note choices (see Markoff 2002). I must note here that it is John Morgan O’Connell’s opinion that the term “ahenk” (lit. “harmony” or “tuning”), with the sense of “transposition level,” was introduced only in the late-twentieth century by Ruhi Ayangil himself (p.c. 2/26/2010). 6 This would mean that rast sounded at C at that time (as it currently does in Arab maqām music), rather than at D, where it sounds now in KTM; if this was so, neither Ayangil nor any source I have seen explains the when or wherefore of the upward whole tone shift of the entire system.
362
difference of a tetrachord transposition between western music notation and the makam music notation. (Ayangil 2008: 417) In effect, this transposition scheme came “packaged” with the use of Western notation for performance and pedagogical use in 1828 and was well established by the time today’s notation system was developed (see Chapter III).
AHENK-S
Figure 63 below represents the “ahenk-s” (transposition schemes) of KTM as presented in Ayangil 2008: 440. The columns represent the lengths of the ney flutes from whose names the ahenk-s are drawn (the longest one having the lowest sound, the shortest having the highest sound); the lowest rows of each column have the note names associated with the holes in the ney.
The principle is that a person may play a makam at any pitch level (ahenk)—with or without a change in the notation7 —and without it becoming some other makam, that is, playing the makam Buselik a whole step lower does not make it Nihavend, it simply makes it Buselik in the “süpürde” ahenk. Depending on the natural octave transposition of the instrument played, the intervals of these ahenk-s may be inverted, e.g., if a ney player suggests playing a piece in kız ney ahengi, an udist will likely 7
Music specifically intended to be played at a pitch level other than the normative one is occasionally written accordingly—that is, a perfect fourth higher than the new sounding pitch level (e.g., see Çevikoğlu n.d.)—but it is more common that musicians would sight read music written in bolahenk while playing it at the new pitch level.
363
accompany by playing a perfect fourth down from bolahenk rather than a perfect fifth up. Also somewhat misleading is the way players refer to the ahenk-s: süpürde is often called “bir ses” (one tone [down], though technically it is a minor 7th up), kız neyi is referred to as “dört ses” (four tones [down], technically a perfect 5th up), mansur is called “beş ses” (five tones [down], technically a perfect 4th up), etc.
The names of the ahenk-s, spaced apart at 4- and 5-comma “half-steps” (and merely abbreviated in figure 63) are (low to high): •
Bolahenk [e.g., rast sounds at D] o Bolahenk-Davud mabeyni (“between Bolahenk and Davud”) [rast sounds at Ds/Ee]
•
Davud [rast sounds at E]
•
Şah [rast sounds at F] o Şah-Mansur mabeyni [rast sounds at Fs/Ge]
•
Mansur [rast sounds at G, where it is written] o Mansur-‐Kız Neyi mabeyni [rast sounds at Gs/Ae]
•
Kız Neyi [rast sounds at A] o Kız Neyi-Müstahzen mabeyni [rast sounds at As/Be]
•
Müstahzen [rast sounds at B]
•
Süpürde (Mehtabiye) [rast sounds at C] o Süpürde/Mehtabiye-Yıldız/Bolahenk Nısfiye mabeyni [rast sounds at Cs/De]
364
•
Yıldız/Bolahenk Nısfiye [rast sounds at d, an octave higher than bolahenk] Ruhi Ayangil
ˆ Table 8. Ahenks of the Turkish makam music
440
Figure 63: Ahenk-s according to Ayangil (2008: 440).
365
INTERVALS AND NOTE NAMES
Two octaves and a major second are represented here; formerly yegâh (concert A) was considered the lowest note, and the highest one was tiz neva two octaves higher, but the notes below yegâh as far down as kaba çargâh (concert G) were added in the twentieth century, apparently to make the lowest fundamental tone appear as (written) C, apparently with the idea that this made it parallel to a European standard.8 In fact even lower tones are used on some instruments but they are referred to with the name of the closest-octave tone, adding the word kaba (low) before it, e.g., the lowest string of the ud may be tuned to “kaba acemaşiran” when playing in the makam Acem Aşiran.
No exact pitches in terms of register are given because they are always relative to the instrument; an instrument’s lowest tone is taken as the lowest octave equivalent and the rest are named upward accordingly. It is therefore common for groups to play in multiple octaves (see Bayhan 2008, Yavuzoğlu no date regarding this issue).
The actual pitches used are a matter of great debate, especially for those tones officially unrecognized by the system, here represented within
(see Bayhan 2008, Yarman 2007). These especially are chosen by performers rather
8
See Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 1; also Ezgi 1935-53, Yekta 1922; cf. Wright 1992a: xv-xvii for the tones used in Cantemir’s time, which in the transcriptions—but not in his theory treatise—occasionally included one note a whole tone below yegâh; nerm çargâh.
366
idiosyncratically and are only approximated here—performers may speak of “two and a half commas,” for instance, but the smallest unit shown here (and accepted by the “official” Arelian theory) is the comma (koma); each short line in the list of note names below (starting on p. 369) represents one comma, e.g., there are four commas between kaba çargâh and kaba nim hicaz. A few tones are so rarely used that tanbur players do not usually tie frets for them;9 these are marked with an asterisk (*). Current theory represents the system as a 53-tone equal temperament (53-tET) system, that is, the octave is divided into 53 equally-spaced koma-s.10 The whole tone is divided into 9 commas (not all of which are named or employed), thus:
Division of the whole tone into nine koma-s: D
Da
0
1
2
|
|
|
E ee
Er
9
8
7
Ds
Dd
3
4
5
6
|
|
|
|
Ee
Ew
5
4
6
3
Df
Dx
7
8
9
|
|
|
Eq
E
1
0
2
Figure 64: division of the whole tone into nine koma-s.
9
As noted in Chapter IV; conversely they may tie other, unnamed frets to be able to achieve certain transpositions. Note that although the chart on p. 369 begins on the note kaba çargâh, the note yegâh is the open playing string on a tanbur (i.e., its lowest tone). 10 The idea of using a “comma” comes originally from Pythagorean theory, but rather than his comma of 23.46 cents, here the Holdrian comma (Holder koması) of 22.64 cents is used (1200 cents ÷ 53 commas); see Yarman 2007b: 58, Özkan 1987, cf. Yavuzoğlu no date.
367
Note in the chart above that 12-tone equal temperament would put D s/E e at the exact halfway point, at 4.5 commas, that is to say, in KTM these accidental signs represent tones half a comma flatter than they do in Western music notation.
Intervals (aralık-s) are also named and given a letter-symbol: Interval Name (Araliğin adı)
Sharp/Flat (Diyez/Bemol)
koma or fazla
a
eksik bakiye
(none)
bakiye
s
kücük mücenneb
Value in terms of commas (Koma olarak değeri)
Symbol (Simge)
1
F
3
E
w
4
B
d
e
5
S
büyük mücenneb
f
r
8
K
tanîni
x
ee
9
T
artik ikili
(none)
12 - 13
A
q
Figure 65: intervals of classical Turkish music.
368
Note Names: Note name
Concert Pitch (sounding)
Written (up a P4)
kaba çargâh __________ G C kaba nim hicaz __________ G /A C /D kaba hicaz __________ G /A C /D kaba dik hicaz __________ G /A C /D yegâh __________ A D [Open string on the tanbur] kaba nim hisar __________ A /B D /E kaba hisar __________ A /B D /E - <“hüzzam” (written as hisar or dik hisar; possible “unnamed” tanbur fret; may be ½ comma lower)> kaba dik hisar __________ A /B D /E hüseyni aşiran __________ B E acem aşiran __________ C F dik acem aşiran __________ C /D F /G - - ırak __________ C /D F /G geveşt __________ C /D F /G dik geveşt* __________ C /D F /G rast __________ D G nim zirgüle __________ D /E G /A zirgüle __________ D /E G /A - - dik zirgüle __________ D /E G /A dügâh __________ E A kürdi __________ F A /B dik kürdi __________ F /G A /B
s e d w
s e d w
f q
f q
s e d w
s e d w
f q
f q
a r
a r
s e d w
s e d w
f q
f q
s e d w
s e d w
f q
f q
a r
369
s e d w
- <“uşşak” (written as segâh; possible “unnamed” tanbur fret)> - <“beyati” (written as segâh; possible “unnamed” tanbur fret)> segâh __________ F /G A /B buselik __________ F /G B dik buselik* __________ F /G C çargâh __________ G C - (possible unnamed tanbur fret) nim hicaz __________ G /A C /D hicaz __________ G /A C /D - <“saba” (written as hicaz; possible “unnamed” tanbur fret; may be ½ comma higher)> dik hicaz __________ G /A C /D neva __________ A D nim hisar __________ A /B D /E hisar __________ A /B D /E -<“hüzzam” (written as hisar or dik hisar; possible “unnamed” tanbur fret; may be ½ comma lower)> dik hisar __________ A /B D /E hüseyni __________ B E acem __________ C F dik acem __________ C /D F /G eviç __________ C /D F /G mahur __________ C /D F /G dik mahur* __________ C /D F /G gerdaniye __________ D G nim şehnaz __________ D /E G /A şehnaz __________ D /E G /A dik şehnaz* __________ D /E G /A muhayyer __________ E A -
s e d w
f q
f q
q
s e d w
s e d w
f q
f q
s e d w
s e d w
f q
f q
a r
a r
s e d w
s e d w
f q
f q
s e d w
s e d w
f q
f q
370
sümbüle __________ F dik sümbüle __________ F /G - <“tiz uşşak” (written as tiz segâh; possible “unnamed” tanbur fret)> - <“tiz beyati” (written as tiz segâh; possible “unnamed” tanbur fret)> tiz segâh __________ F /G tiz buselik __________ F /G tiz dik buselik* __________ F /G tiz çargâh __________ G tiz nim hicaz __________ G /A tiz hicaz __________ G /A - <“tiz saba” (written as tiz hicaz; possible “unnamed” tanbur fret)> tiz dik hicaz* __________ G /A tiz neva __________ A
a r
A /B A /B
s e d w
A /B B
f q
C C
s e d w
C /D C /D
f q
C /D D
Figure 66: note names of classical Turkish music.
371
s e d w f q
q
s e d w f q
APPENDIX G: ON RAST AND ÇARGÂH
According to Kutluğ’s understanding of the Systematist School (2000: vol. I, p. 160), the original basic scale in makam music appears to have been built upward from the tone yegâh (lit. “first position”) and apparently its structure—written using today’s Turkish accidentals and bolahenk transposition scheme (as are all examples below)— was: yegâh dügâh segâh çargâh pençgâh şeşgâh haftgâh haştgâh (“1st”) (“2nd”) (“3rd”) (“4th”) (“5th”) (“6th”) (“7th”) (“8th”) D E Fs G A Bq c d Note that the names of the tones are literally the (Ottoman pronunciations of the) Persian words “first position,” “second position,” etc., throughout the scale.11
At some point there occurred a transposition of the fundamental scale upward by a perfect fourth, and a renaming of many of its tones; the latter (at least) was understood by Kutluğ (ibid.) and Yekta (1924: 56) to be in the fifteenth century. Their descriptions of exactly how these events occurred are vague, though it seems to have had either to do with the addition of new tones below the previously lowest tone (Kutluğ op. cit. and p. 67), and/or the renaming of tones such that the lowest tone available on certain instruments became consistent with the lowest named tone, yegâh 11
See also in Tura 1988. The use of these names appears to have begun by the late-fouteenth century, though the main Systematist theorists from Ṣafīuddīn through Merâgî used abjadic symbols rather than note names through the early fifteenth century (Feldman 1996: 197-8; see also Shiloah 1981: 37). I am following Feldman in using term “basic scale” to mean a set of tones considered a fundamental, “natural,” most important scale, in contrast to the “general scale,” which includes all pitches recognized by the system (1996: 195).
372
(Yekta op. cit.). I have no clearer information on what actually happened than they had, but the discrepancy regarding the constitution of the makam Rast between Yekta on the one hand and Arel and Ezgi on the other seems to have to do with their conceptions of these events.
Yekta (like Töre and Karadeniz) appears to have thought that originally the fundamental scale consisted of the tones of a makam called “Rast,” which at some time in the past had been a perfect fourth lower (i.e., the scale given above), but came to consist of the following tones:
yegâh dügâh segâh çargâh pençgâh şeşgâh haftgâh haştgâh (“1st”) (“2nd”) (“3rd”) (“4th”) (“5th”) (“6th”) (“7th”) (“8th”) G A Bq c d eq f g
and that at some point by the fifteenth century three tones were added below the tone yegâh:12
X D
Y E
Z Fs
1st G
2nd A
3rd Bq
4th c
5th d
6th eq
7th f
8th g
and that several tones were at that time renamed such that the new lowest tone was called “yegâh,” and the tone formerly known as yegâh was renamed “rast” (Persian
12
More precisely, a new “rast tetrachord”—D E F G—was conjoined to yegâh (G). See Shiloah 1981: 37-8 for a sixteenth-century example of such a downward expansion by al-Ḥaṣkafī (though applying totally unconventional note names).
s
373
“right, straight”; see Shiloah 1981: 37-8), presumably after the makam whose tonic it was: 1st
Y
Z
rast
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
The tones represented above by “Y” and “Z” were given the names “aşiran” and “ırak” respectively and the tones formerly known as “5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th position” eventually came to be called neva, dik hisar, acem, and gerdaniye, respectively (see Appendix F). The tones previously called “2nd position” (dügâh), “3rd position” (segâh), and “4th position” (çargâh) retained their names, despite the confusion this may have occasioned. For Yekta the post-fifteenth-century fundamental scalar material was apparently therefore:
yegâh (“1st”) D
aşiran
ırak
rast
E
F
G
s
dügâh segâh (“2nd”) (“3rd”) A B
q
çargâh (“4th”) c
neva
dik hisar
acem
gerdaniye
d
e
f
g
q
Yekta, then, seems to take the makam Rast of the twentieth century (and its founding scale) as a makam based on the tones above the tone formerly called yegâh and now called rast (G A Bq c d eq f g), and the twentieth-century makam called Yegâh as based on the first seven tones of this “new” scale, i.e.: D E Fs G A Bq c d (both having the same interval structure). Rast’s sixth degree is therefore eq (dik hisar), and its seventh degree, f (acem), is a “minor seventh” from the tonic.
374
Arel and Ezgi, on the other hand, appear to have considered the situation differently. It seems as though they thought that, whether or whenever an additional three low tones/tetrachord had been added in the distant past, the fifteenth-century change in nomenclature resulted only in changing the following: yegâh dügâh segâh çargâh pençgâh şeşgâh haftgâh haştgâh (↑dügâh) (↑segâh) (↑çargâh) (“1st”) (“2nd”) (“3rd”) (“4th”) (“5th”) (“6th”) (“7th”) (“8th”) D E F G A B c d e f g
s
q
s
into: yegâh (“1st”) D
aşiran
ırak
rast
E
F
G
s
dügâh segâh (“2nd”) (“3rd”) A B
q
çargâh (“4th”) c
neva
hüseyni
eviç
gerdaniye
d
e
f
g
s
For them, therefore, the makam Rast consists of the tones with which it is represented today: G A Bq c d e fs g, the 6th and 7th degrees differing from Yekta’s version.13 This configuration is consistent with Cantemir’s understanding of the tones of makam Rast,14 and Feldman notes that both Ezgi and Arel (as well as Yekta, for that matter) had transcribed repertoire from Cantemir’s notations (1996: 217). It is also apparently the basic scale, beginning on rast, as understood by Tanburi Harutin, who had 13
Note that in Akdoğu’s introduction to the 1991 edition of Arel’s (1943-48) Turkish Music Theory Lessons he reports Yekta’s “mother [basic] scale” as “Acemli Rast,” that is, Rast as Arel and Ezgi understood it but with a “minor seventh” degree (i.e., using acem in place of eviç)(p. X). It is unclear where he came upon this idea, which Arel does not mention in that text. 14 It is important to note, however, that Cantemir took the makam Hüseyni (using the same tones but beginning on dügâh) rather than Rast as the main mode built from the basic scale, and did not feel the need to defend this idea from the opinions of his late-seventeenth/early-eighteenth-century contemporaries (as he did on other issues; see Feldman 1996: 195). This may be an indicator of the general decline in theoretical education of the period; even though Ṣafīuddīn had not given Rast a special place among the primary modes in his theory, Shiloah shows that from the fourteenth through eighteenth centuries the note rast and the tones on which the eponymous makam was built were enshrined as central in all the notable theory treatises (except Cantemir’s)(1981: 34-5).
375
traveled from the Ottoman court at Istanbul to live in Iran from 1736 to 1738, and who noted the following differences in the nomenclature of tones between the Turkish and Persian musicians of his day (ibid.: 199):
Persian name pas-panjgâh
Turkish name yegâh
Pitch D
[intermediary tones unnamed] yegâh dügâh segâh çargâh panjgâh şaşgâh haftgâh haştgâh
rast dügâh segâh çargâh nevâ hüseynî evç gerdaniye
G A Bq 15 c d e fs g
Figure 67: eighteenth-century Persian and Turkish note names.
At least from the mid-fifteenth century the reason that the “basic scale” was so important was that it was upon its tones that the primary modes—the makam-s—were situated; modal entities having “non-basic” tones were relegated a lower status and referred to as şu`be, nağme, terkib etc., rather than as “makam-s” (Feldman 1996: 197-8). This was also a period during which the construction of scalar material was understood not as a matter of conjoined genera (“cins-es,” i.e., trichords, tetrachords,
15
It must be noted that the exact intervals represented by the accidental signs herein are unknown: Feldman opines that in the seventeenth century this “B ” would have been 2.5 commas flatter than B, and the “f ” following it would have been 6.5 commas sharper than f (1996: 206-18). Today these signs represent “one comma flat” and “four commas sharp” respectively.
q
s
376
pentachords) but as octave-scale species of the sort known as “church modes” in the West.16 But Arel and Ezgi were not interested in a “basic scale” upon whose tones octave-species modes were generated, or even in preserving a fundamental scale that had served to do so, wanting rather to forge a link between “Western” and “Oriental” music theories by declaring the tones of a certain makam Çargâh to be both identical to the C major scale of the West and the true fundamental basic scale of classical Turkish music. At this point we must say a few words about the elusive “makam Çargâh” beyond what has been explained in Chapter III.
That by the twentieth century there had once been a makam called “Çargâh” was apparently an obscure memory (see Wright 1990: 231), and it was this general ignorance of it that allowed Arel to re-invent “Çargâh”—consisting for him of the diatonic scale C D E F G A B c—as the fundamental scale, not coincidentally mirroring the Western C major scale (ibid.). He apparently did so by looking at (and slightly altering) material from older, out of currency repertoire in Çargâh (ibid.). Wright notes that the earliest such repertoire—that which somewhat resembles what Arel was looking for—dates from the second half of the seventeenth century (ibid.: 225), i.e., at least 150 years after the change in the nomenclature of the tones.17 This 16
I.e., wherein the tones of first mode (Rast) were G A Bq c d e fs g, the tones of the second mode (Dugâh) were A Bq c d e fs g a, the tones of the third mode (Segâh) were Bq c d e f s g a bq, etc., each moving up one tone to cycle through the scalar material seven tones at a time. (NB: the current makam-s named “Dügâh,” “Çargâh,” and “Pençgâh” are vastly different in character from this sort of structure.) 17 Arel’s own justification of Çargâh as the “ana” (“mother,” i.e., basic) scale are rather specious: he claimed it to be “the most suitable scale for the foundation of the structure of all other scales” because it requires no accidentals (1991 [1943-48]: 61, later merely excusing that the European staff notation
377
repertoire, and Arel following it, presumes that Çargâh (again, literally “fourth position”) is the mode built on the fourth tone of the scale belonging to the makam Rast, which tone (since the fifteenth century) is called “çargâh,” represented by the note c above middle C.18
I would like to point out, however, that given the earlier version of the nomenclature: yegâh dügâh segâh çargâh pençgâh şeşgâh haftgâh haştgâh (↑dügâh) (↑segâh) (↑çargâh) (“1st”) (“2nd”) (“3rd”) (“4th”) (“5th”) (“6th”) (“7th”) (“8th”) D E F G A B c d e f g
s
q
s
the original fourth mode, naturally called “Çargâh,” would have had the same scalar material as what Arel called (and what the great majority of Turkish musicians now call) makam Rast. Since a mode called “Rast” was elucidated at least as early as the thirteenth century (e.g., by Ṣafīuddīn, see Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 160)—beginning on
which makes this true was invented entirely outside the context of makam music, pp. 62-3), and because “all of the basic makam-s can be transferred to each of its perde-s” (p. 61, without explaining the value of this novelty). He then resorted to a bait-and-switch maneuver to claim historical grounding for it; in a footnote (number 12) on page 36 he had noted that the fifteenth-century composer Merâgî had written about a makam called Uşşak—different from today’s makam of the same name—that, if it were to exist today, we would call “Kürdîli Çargâh” because of its resemblance to (what he has called) Çargâh but with a “minor 7th” (the tone kürdi, written B ), citing Merâgî as “recommend[ing] that Turks use it, speaking of the correspondence between their temperament and the bold power of this makam,” which was “among the Turks’ most used and beloved makam-s”; then on page 62, referring to that footnote, he offers us this: “[A]s clarified in footnote number 12, we can add to the reasons for taking Çargâh [i.e., with B ] as the mother scale the fact that the makam was by far the most used and beloved makam-s among the Turks of old.” No further arguments are given on Çargâh’s behalf, and though he speculates that the basic scale might once have been considered that of the makam-s Uşşak or Beyatî (p. 63), he never mentions that he is the first person to regard “Çargâh” as the basic scale, nor the idea that any form of the scale of the makam Rast might ever have been so considered. 18 One of the aspects of Çargâh that Arel had to alter was that in its earlier version, as an octavespecies of the basic scale, it had had an augmented 4th degree (c d e f g a b c’). This would today be thought of as a transposition of the makam Pençgâh. (Another major alteration—aside from the octave transposition downward—required ignoring that in more recent times Çargâh’s scale had become a transposition of Zirgüleli Hicaz, see Wright 1990, passim.)
e
z
s
378
q
the tone yegâh and apparently having the structure described by Yekta (ibid.)—and yet in the twentieth century (when, for the first time, a precise and standard notation came into use) the great majority of musicians were ready to accept makam Rast’s tones as being those proceeding from the (post-fifteenth-century) tone rast as explained by Arel and Ezgi, we can say that both camps appear to have been partially right, if influenced by information from two different but far distant eras.
If it is the case that today’s version of makam Rast (or at least its scalar aspect) was originally called Çargâh it may be seen as ironic that Arel sought an “older version of Çargâh” in order to avoid using the tones of Rast as the fundamental scale. In any case, this specific confusion seems to point to a more general one regarding makam definitions that apparently occurred after the fifteenth-century change in tonal nomenclature, evidence for which remains in certain of today’s makam definitions. For instance, whereas for the most part the makam-s that were previously understood as modes built from each tone of the fundamental scale—that is, “species” of it— have disappeared, there are cases such as the current makam Segâh, whose tonal material is commonly given as Bq c d eq f (s) g a(s) bq. Though its normal “place” is in a transposition level indicating its position as the “third species” of the post-fifteenthcentury scale of Rast (thus its name: Segâh = “third position”), and the f s would also seem to belong to the newer interpretation of Rast, the sometime fifth degree (f) and especially the fourth degree (eq) can only be remnants of a “third species” built from the Rast scale of Yekta and the Systematists. This structure of Segâh makam is
379
obscured in current theory books such as Özkan (see 1984: 276) and Yılmaz (see 2007: 226), which describe the makam’s scalar material as compound of a “segâh pentachord” (Bq c d eq f s) below a hicaz tetrachord (f s g as bq) alternating with a “deficient” (eksik) “segâh pentachord” (Bq c d eq f) overlapping an uşşak scale (A Bq c d + d e f s g a), without acknowledging that the idea of a “segâh pentachord” (whether “whole” or “deficient”)—not to mention such a convoluted explanation for Segâh—appears to be an invention of the early-twentieth century (before which no such construction is mentioned).19
Conversely, there is the makam Ferahnak, apparently invented by (or at least in the time of) Abdülkadir Merâgî (1360-1435; see Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 263). The makam itself is a complex compound, but its fundamental scalar material is described by Arel as though having a structure reminiscent of a “third species” of the later Rast scale, but beginning on the third degree of yegâh (i.e., up from Rast’s supposed original “place”): Fs G A B cs d e f s (ibid. p. 266-7, Arel 1991 [1943-48]: 197). But for that matter it may once have been an octave transposition of the sixth species of Yekta’s original scale, instead.
19
The earliest mention of it I have found is in Yekta 1922 (1913): 3000. Note that such a convoluted explanation would be unnecessary if the mode were simply considered a species of the basic scale, as its name so clearly implies it was. Furthermore, an explanation in terms of cins-es that would not cause such confusion would require the recognition of the trichord, which neither Yekta nor Arel were willing to do (see Chapters III and IV, and Appendix J).
380
There is also the current makam Yegâh, whose basic structure is described by Ezgi, and Özkan as a compound of Neva makam (whose basic tones are A Bq c d + d e f s g a) which then falls through a rast pentachord on Yegâh (D E Fs G A) (see Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, p. 213-16 and Özkan 1984: 545; cf. Feldman 1996: 251). This is suspiciously like the supposed older version of Rast; if we arrange the tones as a scale upward from the tone yegâh we see D E Fs G A + A Bq c d, that is, an exact description of the apparent original Systematist/Yekta version of Rast, and the first seven tones of what Arel et al. appeared to have taken as the fundamental scale before the change in nomenclature. It is true that the first recorded appearance of a modal entity called Yegâh comes only in the late eighteenth century (as a “şu`be transposition of the makam Nevâ” according to Feldman),20 and that the makam version current in the generation just before Arel (e.g., in the repertoire of the nineteenth-century composer Dellalzade İsmail Efendi) fit the above description of makam Neva falling through a rast tetrachord to yegâh (see Kutluğ 2000: vol. I, pp. 213-6), but it is the sort of curiosity that may harbor clues about a possible, alternative and forgotten modal identity for this scalar material.21 The makam Nişaburek, though found “in its place” on A/dügâh (A B cs d e + e fd g a/e fd gs a/e fs g a) and despite having a descending-ascending seyir, may actually be a structurally
20
Described by Hızır Ağa (Feldman 1996: 251), although if Kutluğ’s description of Hızır (“bin Abdullah”)’s makam Nevâ is correct (see Kutluğ 2000: vol. I pp. 173-5), it cannot have been simply a transposition without a significant increase in the range of tones below yegâh (for which there is no evidence). 21 It must be noted, however, that Arel himself described the makam Yegâh as a compound consisting of makam Neva followed by the entirety of Rast—as he had defined it—on yegâh (1991 [1943-48]: 150).
381
more accurate reflection of an older version of both Rast and Yegâh (see Özkan 1984: 380, Appendix J, and DVD 3/25).
It might be noted in closing that apart from the late Dr. Fikret Kutluğ and a few academics who peruse his 2000 Türk Musikisinde Makamlar, which I have cited so often here, very few people in the current classical Turkish music world are interested in such questions about a “basic scale,” or in historical changes in (or versions of) makam definitions. Although in recent years there have formed a few groups, such as Lalezar, and the Bezmara Ensemble, that play archaic Ottoman music on period instruments, most performers seem content with the variety of makam possibilities afforded by the Arelian interpretations of the repertoire of the last three centuries, which the education systems, both conservatory and oral/aural, mainly favor. What is being questioned, primarily by music theorists, is the appropriateness of the imposition of Western musical norms (e.g., regarding notation, interval definitions, and pedagogy—see Chapter III, and Bayhan 2008) to classical Turkish music, and here it should be noted that the two main camps that struggled to create the current KTM theory—Yekta’s and Arel’s—had in common an insistence on the essential “sameness” of Western and Eastern musics, though they sought to demonstrate it in radically different ways. The main and often reiterated point of Yekta’s 1922 (1913) article in the Lavignac encyclopedia is that “Oriental” music had correctly interpreted and maintained the true and ancient music theory once common to both Eastern and Western music traditions, and that European musicians should recognize this and
382
abandon the newfangled equal temperament and the limitation of having merely two modes so that East and West could better make beautiful music together. Arel’s creation of the makam “Çargâh” as the major scale-qua-fundamental Turkish scale (and the positioning of Buselik makam as its de facto “relative minor”) show the opposite side of the same ideology; Eastern and Western musics are basically the same, he declares, but it is “Oriental” music that has erred and must be made to reflect the correct theory as held by Western theorists.
At least part of the current critique of the Westernizing influences of Yekta-Arel-Ezgi theory may be a result of the erosion of the aspect of early-Republican nationalist discourse that insisted on establishing this “sameness” with European cultural norms as a strategy for establishing Turkish cultural legitimacy. But in terms of establishing the “fundamental scale” today, there is still a compromise of some sort at work; although theorists have agreed to return the tones of makam Rast to its traditional place as KTM’s fundamental scale (see Chapter III, and Bayhan 2008: 296-7)—as Yekta would have done—those tones consist of Arel’s understanding of the makam Rast rather than the apparently older Yekta/Systematist version. In a sense this does not matter since both Rast-s are apparently historically correct versions, and since there is no push for a scheme categorizing makam-s by their relation to the tones of a “basic scale” in the way there had been (e.g., hierarchically and/or as octave-species, as in Cantemir’s time). Perhaps the great proliferation of new makam-s since such a categorization was last a central idea makes a return to it impractical, anyway. Today
383
simply the act of reclaiming an historic “basic scale” with tones other than those in the European system is a symbolic as well as sonic victory for maintaining the traditional distinctiveness of classical Turkish music.
384
APPENDIX H: THE HÜZZAM TETRACHORD
The material in this appendix is intended to show historically rooted reasons for introducing the “hüzzam tetrachord” (d – eq – f s – g) mentioned in Chapter V. This suggestion comes coupled with another suggestion: that KTM theory abandon the cins that Arel called a “hüzzam pentachord” (Bq – c – d – e w – f s). The practical reasons for both of these changes have been addressed in Chapter V.
Let us begin by clarifying that there appears never to have been a cins named “hüzzam” before Arel named his such. However there has existed a tetrachordal interval structure similar to current performers’ interpretations of the span d – g in the makam Hüzzam; certainly more similar to them than is either the hicaz tetrachord now often used to explain it, or than Arel’s “hüzzam pentachord.” The earliest references I have seen to such a structure are in Kutluğ, first in his descriptions of the earliest versions of Hicaz (2000 Vol I, p. 176-86) and Karcığar (ibid.: 186) where he mentions that Ezgi had “shown” such an arrangement as given by Ṣafīuddīn in his Şerefiye in a scale called “Hicâzi”: A – Bq – c – d – eq – fs – g – a; the second (ibid.: 291) occurs where Kutluğ described the Systematist’s version of the makam Rehavi as having G – Aq – Bq – C as its first four tones. Transposed up a fifth, this tetrachord is d – eq – fs – g, that is, the cins I am proposing. Kutluğ gives no date for these particular “Systematists” but he notes that the Aq in Rehavi had been replaced by A
385
by the time of the reign of Murad IV (d. 1640).22 The earlier interval arrangement, however, did not disappear at that time; Feldman shows that Cantemir understood the first four tones of the makam Uzzal to be the same arrangement: A – Bq – cs – d (Feldman 1996: 208).
Uzzal deserves a short introduction before we move on. In Cantemir’s understanding of the makam system of the seventeenth century, there was a clear hierarchy of modal entities; the first order were the müfred (“independent”) makam-s, consisting only of tones of the “basic scale” (see Appendix G); the next order were makam-s that included one tone outside the basic scale—that tone’s name being taken as the makam’s name;23 following these were mürekkep (“compound”) makam-s and finally terkib-s (ibid.: 196). Uzzal is the name of a makam of the second order, so named because it contains the perde uzzal, which corresponds to the perde known today as cs/nim hicaz; the makam Uzzal—today a lesser-played member of the Hicaz family of makam-s—is apparently the forerunner of that family (ibid.: 208).24 In the seventeenth century, however—uzzal being the only of makam Uzzal’s tones not from the basic scale—the makam’s second degree was segâh, and the scalar aspect of Uzzal (A – Bq – cs – d – e – fs – g – a ) was the same as Hüseyni’s (A – Bq – c – d – e
22
He also noted that Ṣafīuddīn (d. 1294) had referred to what Kutluğ calls the “Sabâ tetrachord” A – Bq – C – Dq as “Rahavî” (ibid.: 333).
23
This is how Cantemir described this category of makam-s, but it must be noted that some of those he listed as being in this category had more than one “na-tam perde”—tones outside the basic scale (ibid.: 195-216). 24 No mention is made there of Ṣafīuddīn’s “Hicâzi scale,” much less of Ezgi’s apparent interpretation of its intervals as mentioned above and in Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, p. 186.
386
– fs – g – a ) except for the one na-tam or “outside” tone (ibid.: 208-9). This arrangement also occurs in Uzzal’s transposed relatives Şehnaz a 5th up, Zengüle a 4th down, and Araban a 4th up (ibid.).
But Feldman also investigated a question regarding the intonation of the second degree here— Bq/segâh—and concluded that rather than the tone that the perde-name represents today,25 it was likely meant to represent at that time a tone 2.5 commas flat, that is, 2.5 commas flatter than B/buselik, 1.5 commas flatter than today’s segâh, and 6.5 commas higher than A/dügâh (ibid.: 206-13). Feldman contends that the same was true of the intonation for the perde eviç, a perfect 5th up from segâh, i.e., that it sounded 1.5 commas flatter than it does today (ibid.: 246). In order to show the relevance of this for the proposed hüzzam tetrachord, we will need to look at it “in its place”—d/neva – eq/dik hisar – fs/eviç – g/gerdaniye—and with respect to two other makam-s of Cantemir’s day, the Uzzal-related makam Araban, and an older version of today’s makam Beyati.
Araban today is a more or less defunct member of the Hicaz family of makam-s; since it was the only member situated “in its place” on d/neva, current players may refer to any formulation of “Hicaz on neva” as “Araban” (see Chapter V, fn. 30; cf. Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 384, and Özkan 1984: 309-11). In any case Feldman shows us
25
Let us follow Rauf Yekta in approximating it as the 5:4 just intonation major 3rd from the perde G/rast, or a 10:9 just intonation “neutral” second from A/dügâh, see Chapter III. This is represented today as “B one comma flat,” that is, one comma flatter than B/buselik.
387
that in Cantemir’s time it was a current makam and apparently corresponded to Uzzal makam transposed a fourth up. Beyati makam is one that is played today, but whereas today’s Beyati shares a scale with Uşşak makam (A – Bq – c – d – e – f – g – a ), in the seventeenth century this was not the case: Beyati was a second-tier makam whose non-basic tone was (predictably) beyati, which today corresponds to eq/dik hisar (Feldman 1996: 216). Feldman notes that “the tetrachord above nevâ is one of the most complex and variable in modern Turkish music” (ibid.), but apparently this is not merely a “modern” situation; while today classical Turkish music theory has no name for any of the tetrachord varieties described in regard to the Hüzzam makam in Chapters IV and V, there were two in Cantemir’s time that might be written with today’s accidentals “d – eq – fs – g”; the one in Araban has its 2nd degree as the “2.5 comma flat” basic scale tone Feldman described, and its 3rd degree as the “non-basic” tone, while the one in Beyati had its second degree as the non-basic tone and its 3rd degree as the “2.5 comma flat” basic scale tone.
So how does Hüzzam makam fit into this? For Cantemir “Hüzzam” was of the lowest order of modal entities, a “terkib” (literally “combination”) which he deemed adequately described thus: “go from neva to hüseyni to neva to uzzal” (ibid.: 246). This looks today like a gesture or “çeşni” from a makam in the Hicaz family—of the 3 tones named, only neva is even in Hüzzam as it came to be understood when the terkib-s were turned into makam-s (see Chapter II). Feldman himself refers to Hüzzam as “…compounded of Segâh and an altered version of Arabân…” (Feldman
388
1996: 239), and in fact refers to an unnamed fret tied today on tanbur-s at approximately 2.5 commas flatter than e/hüseyni which he calls “hüzzam” (ibid.: 214, Table II-5, see also Appendix F).26 The implication is that Feldman’s informant(s) (probably in this case tanbur master Necdet Yaşar) understood the tones spanning d – g in Hüzzam as: d – eq minus 1.5 commas – fs – g (cf. Agnès Agopian’s version in Chapter V and DVD 1/1, ca. 5:47-6:13).
Whatever the intonation was, Hızır Ağa in the mid-1700s used the same description—a compound of Segâh and Araban makam-s—for what he understood to be Hüzzam, and Abdülbaki called this Hüzzam-ı Cedid “New Hüzzam” (ibid.: 246). Kutluğ reports two things that may suggest that the distinction between Hüzzam and the aforementioned makam-s Beyati and Araban—including the intonation of their constituent perde-s—may not have been so clear: first, he mentioned that the compound makam Beyati-Araban was invented by the composer Gazi Giray Han at the end of the sixteenth century; this would seem to indicate either that, at that time, the intonation of the two makam-s was thought identical, or that switching between the two types of intonation in a single makam was considered aesthetically desirable.27 And second, Kutluğ wrote that by the mid-nineteenth century Abdülkadir Nasır Dede was describing this makam thus: “Beyati Araban is, after playing in
26
I would add that I own a lâvta and a bowed tanbur that came with a fret tied in the same position, though I never heard a name given for it. 27 Note that no mention is made of the intonation issues of the supposedly earlier “Hicâzi scale” in Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, p. 186 regarding a forerunner of Karcığar makam.
389
Hüzzam, making a cadence in Beyati” (Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 357-9).28 It would seem from all of this that some combination or compromise between the two intonations given above—those of Beyati (d – eq – fs minus 1.5 commas – g) and of Araban (d – eq minus 1.5 commas – fs – g)—was accepted as appropriate within a single makam, and that whatever this sounded like it was a) used as constituent of Hüzzam and b) not the hicaz tetrachord as known today (d – ew – fs – g), i.e., as it appears inside the Arelian “hüzzam pentachord” (Bq – c – d – ew – fs – g).
But if the Uzzal makam—and later the entire Hicaz family of makam-s apparently derived from it—originally partook of the interval construction “d – eq minus 1.5 commas – fs – g” yet eventually became today’s “d – ew – fs – g” “hicaz tetrachord,” then perhaps it is appropriate to assume that the same change should apply to Hüzzam, and to think of the intervals in Hüzzam as basically a hicaz tetrachord, as performers in this study have done, though often altering it.29 The main argument against such an interpretation is simply today’s practice, that is, the fact that so many performers understand that the span from d to g in Hüzzam is something other than a hicaz tetrachord. We must note this as something they can only have learned through an oral/aural tradition (since no written theory mentions it), and one that also contains a separate understanding of the Hicaz family and its intonational issues. 28
“Beyatî Araban, Hüzzam âğâze idüp Beyatî karar verir.” See also pp. 384-5 regarding Araban makam itself. 29 And indeed we may also ask if this change in Hicaz should be applied to Araban and BeyatiAraban; the reader may wish to compare two taksim-s in the latter makam, by Agnès Agopian and Murat Aydemir (DVD 1/2 and 1/11 respectively), with the moments in Hüzzam mentioned in Chapter V; both Beyati-Araban taksim-s clearly use a hicaz tetrachord to span d – g.
390
Feldman notes: “The system of basic and secondary scale degrees, with the particular names in use since the early 17th century, continued with little change at least until the middle of the 18th century and possibly until the end of the century. The great systemic changes which were occurring on the level of makam and terkib, modulation, transposition, rhythmic expansion, melodic density and compositional structure were not yet reflected in the general scale. This fact suggests that the intonational changes which were then taking place did not disrupt the entire system of the general scale until the beginning of the 19th century. After this time the notes lowered by a single comma (ırha) and notes lowered by four commas (bakîye), i.e. bemol notes raised by a single comma, became standard features of all whole tone intervals, and were institutionalized by a nomenclature (the latter distinguished by the word dîk = high) and by frets on the tanbûr. The originally undifferentiated segâh neutral tone (koron) acquired distinct intonations for (1) the Segâh and Rast family of makams, (2) the ‘Uşşak and Hüseynî family, and (3) the ‘Uzzal/Hicaz family. Transpositions necessitated the filling of empty areas of the general scale. The new forms of the ‘Uşşak and the ‘Uzzal tetrachords (or sections of them) could now be played on almost every basic scale degree.” (1996: 217) This acknowledges that the segâh issue was resolved in three different ways, and as we have seen in the main body of this text, microtonal interpretations of each of the three are common in current performance practice (see Chapters III and IV). Since in all of the examples in Hüzzam that we have seen by current performers the second degree is higher than that of the hicaz tetrachord (ew/hisar), and as far as I can tell the third degree is never as low as fa/dik acem,30 to my mind it simply makes sense to represent these four tones within Hüzzam as the tetrachord “d – eq – f s – g,” with the understanding that the Arelian accidental signs merely get the performer as close as
30
We must note that neither in the quote above nor later in that text does Feldman say what happened to the perde “f s/eviç minus 1.5 commas,” but it would seem from current intonational practices to have risen rather than fallen.
391
possible to a preferred intonation that, for the time being, must be learned (as it already is) by means of oral/aural transmission.31
At this point there remains the question of what to name this tetrachord; Rehavi? Hicâzi? Karcığar? Uzzal? Araban? Beyati?32 These names all deserve a claim upon the cins, for reasons we have seen above, but each of them refers to makam-s that are understood currently as having only cins-es other than the one we are trying to name. Since Hüzzam is the only makam in which the cins in question is generally understood to appear33—and at least on tanbur-s (according to Feldman) there is a fret named for the perde “hüzzam,” I propose calling it the “hüzzam tetrachord.”
31
If it were necessary to speculate as to the range of interpretations, in terms of commas, we might posit the 8-9-5 tetrachord represented literally by the Arelian accidentals at one end, and a 6.5-9-6.5 tetrachord mixing the Araban and Beyati versions of Cantemir’s time at the other (cf. Murat Aydemir’s Suzinak Taksim mentioned in Chapter V and shown whole on DVD 2/15). 32 Indeed if it is to be accepted as representing the proper tones for the makam-s Araban and BeyatiAraban also then we should include the pentachord version “d – eq – f s – g – a” as well; see Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 384, and Özkan 1984: 309-11 on Araban having a central cins-structure of hicaz-5 + kürdi-4, otherwise unused in the Hicaz family. Note that in calculating the possible cins-combinations presented in Chapter VI, I included this hüzzam-4 but not a hüzzam-5; Araban is simply too rare at this time to merit it—the two recordings I made representing Beyati-Araban having used hicaz cins-es. 33 Note however that for purposes of historical re-creation this cins might also prove useful as a rising version “açan level” cins in archaic iterations of Rast and Yegâh (see Appendix G and Chapter II).
392
APPENDIX I: CİNS CONSTELLATIONS BY NAME Rast
Figure 68: constellation of rast-5 (2).
393
Figure 69: constellation of rast-4 (2).
Figure 70: constellation of rast-3 (2).
394
Uşşak
Figure 71: constellation of uşşak-5 (2).
Figure 72: constellation of uşşak-4 (2).
395
Figure 73: constellation of uşşak-3 (2).
Segâh
Figure 74: constellation of segâh-3 (2).
Müstear
Figure 75: constellation of müstear-3 (2).
396
Pençgâh
Figure 76: constellation of pençgâh-5 (2).
Hüzzam
Figure 77: constellation of hüzzam-4 (2).
Buselik
Figure 78: constellation of buselik-5 (2).
397
Figure 79: constellation of buselik-4 (2).
Figure 80: constellation of buselik-3 (2).
Kürdi
Figure 81: constellation of kürdi-3 (2).
398
Figure 82: constellation of kürdi-4 (2).
Figure 83: constellation of kürdi-3 (2).
Çargâh
Figure 84: constellation of çargâh-5 (2).
399
Figure 85: constellation of çargâh-4 (2).
Hicaz
Figure 86: constellation of hicaz-5 (2).
400
Figure 87: constellation of hicaz-4 (2).
Nikriz
Figure 88: constellation of nikriz-5 (2).
401
APPENDIX J: MAKAM DEFINITIONS
This appendix is intended to give a “bare-bones” definition for each of the 53 makams demonstrated by informants during the research for this dissertation, as well as for a few additional makam-s that are closely related to certain of these and/or generally considered too important to omit. It will be remembered from Chapter IV that this sort of abbreviated description of individual makam-s—a staple of twentieth-century KTM theory texts—on the one hand represents a basic level of knowledge without which a musician may not be considered educated in makam, and on the other hand is a form of representing the makam-s that is widely understood as inadequate to capture the full flavor, meaning, character, or definition of any single makam. I wish to clarify that I am not attempting here to improve upon the representations of makam definitions given in Turkish music theory texts (except by couching them in performers’ terms where these have proved more useful than those of the theoreticians); the descriptions below will in fact mostly be in an even more abbreviated form than those normally found in such texts (cf. Appendix D), and are necessarily bereft of the individualized melodic gestures (as discussed in Chapter IV) that are so important to current performers’ sense of a makam’s identification.
The first reason for including this basic information is to make more intelligible the examples presented in the main body of this dissertation, but additionally, because there is to date a dearth of makam descriptions in a language other than Turkish, this
402
appendix-qua-primer is intended to provide that most basic level of knowledge regarding makam definitions in a more accessible language. The previously offered caveat must apply here as well: it is widely accepted in the KTM world that only concentrated study with one or more master musicians, along with much attentive listening to repertoire and taksim-s, is adequate to turn the knowledge here presented into a full education in makam (keeping in mind that the study of rhythmic cycles [usul]—here not treated at all—is also a required element of musicianship, along with the appropriate instrumental and/or vocal training).
The makam-s are grouped below using a concept of “familial” relationships based on shared “root-level” cins-es displayed in the karar (final cadence) in the praxis of the makam. This holds for compound makam-s (to be explained as such in their definitions) as well as for simple ones—the family-defining cins acting in the way a surname does for the purpose of identifying affiliation. Since the cins-es used here for both classification and definition are those derived from performers’ practice (as demonstrated in the main text above), certain makam definitions must be understood as necessarily differing from those in standard KTM theory texts; I will explain such discrepancies as they arise. Note that even at this level of simplicity, there are bound to be people whose interpretations would differ from those presented below.
As elsewhere in this dissertation, music notation is presented in the conventional “bolahenk” transposition scheme, written a perfect fourth higher than sounded (and
403
ignoring octave transpositions particular to the variety of instruments played). Students and scholars of (Eastern, non-Iraqi) Arab maqām may find it useful to transpose the makam definitions a perfect fifth down from where they are notated (and a whole step lower than sounding), taking care to adjust the accidentals accurately. The information given in each makam definition consists of the following, represented on one or more staves: •
the makam’s seyir (melodic direction) in its simplest form: o ascending ↑ (çıkıcı: beginning its melodic movement at or around the tonic, moving upward toward the upper tonic, and returning to the tonic) o descending ↓ (inici: beginning at/around the upper octave of the tonic and moving downward toward the dominant, then the tonic) o ascending/descending ↑↓ (çıkıcı-inici: beginning around the dominant and moving mostly in the upper region before rising to the upper octave of the tonic and falling to the tonic) o descending ascending ↓↑ (inici-çıkıcı: beginning around the dominant and moving mostly in the lower region before rising to the upper octave of the tonic and falling to the tonic)
•
the cins combinations of the makam’s central octave o notice of which cins-es should be played if this combination does not repeat at the octaves will be given in prose below—it may otherwise be assumed that they do, i.e., that the “destek” cins is the same as the
404
“açan” cins, and the “tiz” cins is the same as the “kök” cins (see p. 474) •
the makam’s tonic (represented by a whole note), dominant (represented by a hollow diamond note-head), and if applicable, second dominant, etc. (represented by solid diamond note-heads)
•
the customary “makam signature”—donanım o since these are in accord with Arelian theory, note that they reflect that theory’s concepts of makam definitions and affiliations, which may require adjustments (by way of accidental signs) to reflect a more performance-oriented understanding
Below this in prose will be presented: •
additional information as needed
•
track numbers of taksim-s in the accompanying DVDs in which the makam defined was put into practice
In order to avoid excessive duplication of information, I have written the makam descriptions such that some cross referencing may be necessary to find all the components of many compound makam-s, but all makam-s mentioned in the descriptions will also be presented in this appendix.
One further comment is warranted here, on the spelling of makam names. Most makam names are of Persian or Arabic derivation, by way of the Ottoman language.
405
Since the language reform laws of the early Republic strongly encouraged the abandonment of such “borrowed” and “non-Turkish” vocabulary, the official standardization of Turkish language spelling in the new, Latin-based alphabet was not extended to such terms as constitute the old makam names. There are therefore varieties of certain such names—for instance Beyati and Bayati—and names that are similar but spelled with different conventions, such as Suzinak and Suz-i Dilara (which could have been Suz-i Nak and/or Suzidilara, respectively). In one case I have used two versions consistently (merely following what seemed to me to be more common usage): “Acem Aşiran” makam as distinct from the perde F/“acemaşiran.” Since it is beyond my brief to standardize these names, I have mainly chosen the motley mix of them as given me by the artists themselves, supplemented by spellings in Özkan 1984 when none was specified by the artist. Immediately below is a list of the makam-s presented organized by family.
Rast Family (p. 409) Rast (and Acemli Rast) Rehavi Yegâh Suz-i Dilara Basit Suzinak Nişaburek Pençgâh (Pençgâh-ı Asıl and Pençgâh-ı Zâid) Pesendide
406
Uşşak Family (p. 418) Uşşak (and Dügâh-Maye) Beyati Neva Tahir Acem Beyati-Araban (and early historic Araban) Karcığar Isfahan (Basit Isfahan, Bileşik Isfahan, and Isfahanek) Nişabur Hüseyni Muhayyer Gülizar (Basit Gülizar and Bileşik Gülizar) Gerdaniye (and Selmek, and Dilnişin) Saba Segâh Family (p. 433) Segâh (and Heftgâh, Segâh-Maye) Hüzzam Irak Eviç Ferahnak Müstear Bestenigâr Rahat-ül Ervah Buselik Family (p. 442) Buselik (and Şehnaz-Buselik) Nihavend Sultani Yegâh (and Ruhnüvaz) Ferahfeza Arazbar-Buselik Kürdi Family (p. 447) Kürdi (and Aşk’efza, Ferahnüma) Kürdili Hicazkâr Muhayyer-Kürdi Acem-Kürdi Araban-Kürdi Muhayyer-Sümbüle (and Sümbüle) Saba-Zemzeme
407
Acem Aşiran Family (p. 455) Acem Aşiran (and Çargâh, Şevk’aver) Mahur Zavil Hicaz Family (p. 458) Hicaz Hümayun Uzzal Zirgüleli Hicaz (and Suz-i Dil) Şehnaz Hicazkâr Zirgüleli Suzinak Evcara Araban (late historic) Şedd Araban Dügâh I (traditional) Nikriz Family (p. 468) Nikriz Nev’eser (and Reng-i Dil) Şevk’efza (and historic Çargâh, Şevk-u Tarab) Dügâh II (newer version)
Parethetically we may note here that I have treated each named makam as its own entity, in contrast to the Arelian idea that some named makam-s are really merely transpositions (see Chapter IV, Arel 1943-48 [1968]: 317-56). The following are Arel’s 14 “transpositions”: of “Çargâh”: Acem-Aşiran, Mahur; of Buselik: SultaniYegâh, Ruhnevaz, Nihavend; of Kürdi: Ferahnüma, Aşkevza, Kürdili Hicazkâr; of Zirgüleli Hicaz: Şedaraban, Suzidil, Evçara, Hicazkâr, Zirgüleli Suzinak; of Segâh: Heftgâh.
408
THE MAKAM-S RAST FAMILY Rast
Figure 89: Rast.
(From the Persian “right, correct, straight”; also refers to the perde written “G.”) Rast is often particularly bottom heavy at first, being played in the “kök” and “destek” cins-es quite a bit before moving upward. The third degree is often lowered by a small amount—perhaps one to two commas—when approaching a cadence, and when this tone is the focal point of the melodic movement it often uses an as leading tone (see definition of Segâh, below). An fz is often used in place of the fs when first ascending (i.e., when trying to delay arrival at the upper octave), and when descending from the upper octave. It would appear as though the fz was originally normative in the makam (hear the Rast Nakış attributed to the fifteenth-century composer Abdülkadir Merâgî, assumed to be one of the oldest pieces in the repertoire—it neither uses fs nor reaches the upper octave),34 and the sixth degree is thought by some theorists to have been one comma flatter once (e q ; see Appendix G). Rast’s scale is widely regarded as the basic scale of makam music, and the Rast 34
There is some debate as to whether there really exists an independent “Acemli Rast” makam (Rast with acem, that is, f natural) or whether it is merely Rast that does not use f sharp/eviç (much).
409
makam is in a sense considered the grandfather (of) makam.35 Rast also has a reputation of being welcoming of extensive internal modulation. Like all members of its family, Rast has a rast-4 below the tonic by default. Note typical melodic gestures of Rast given in taksim examples in Chapter V, and hear Rast in the following recordings: DVD 1/1, 1/5, 3/27, 3/30, 3/35, 4/36, 5/45, 6/53, 6.55, 7/66, 7/74. Parenthetically, in Istanbul the second call to prayer of the day (öğle ezanı) is traditionally “recited” in makam Rast (i.e., everyone in the city hears it at least once per day).
Rehavi (Meaning “from Rehav,” present-day Urfa, Turkey.) Rehavi makam is described by Özkan as having two forms, one basic (i.e., simple) and one compound. The first form is nothing other than playing Rast and, before the final cadence, showing a rast tetrachord below the tonic, on yegâh—Özkan also notes that because this is normal also in Rast itself, there really is not a reason to give it the special name “Rehavi” (1984: 440). The compound form consists in mixing the makam-s Rast and Uşşak (and/or Beyati, q.v. below) before showing a rast tetrachord on yegâh and cadencing in Rast. Examples of Rehavi in our taksim recordings can be heard on DVD 1/1. 35
At this point in time it can only be posited as speculation that this is more than figuratively true, but a researcher wishing to make an argument for the deep antiquity of a Rast-like scale may profit by comparing Appendix G above, the just intonation ratios given in, for instance, Yekta 1922 (1913) and Karadeniz 1983 (including those for the archaic “flat” 6th and 7th degrees mentioned above), the cyclical, “octave-species” aspect of early makam (e.g., in Ertan 2007, Feldman 1996: 195-259) and Dumbrill 2008 (1997) a, b, and c regarding the basic “scale” (a tuning, actually) and modal formation in third millennium BCE Mesopotamian musics. Also note that the name of the Babylonian “basic scale” (tuning)—išartum, which may be interpreted as the “archaic” Rast—is literally translatable by the Persian term “rast” (“right, correct, straight”).
410
Yegâh (From the Persian “first position”; also refers to the perde written “D.”) The makam Yegâh is explained today as a compound consisting of the makam Neva (which see under Uşşak Family) followed by/mixed with the makam Rast (or Acemli Rast, q.v. under Rast—in this case employing cz as the “flat” 7th degree) on yegâh: Neva
Figure 90: Neva.
followed by/mixed with
Rast (or Acemli Rast) on yegâh
Figure 91: Rast on yegâh.
There would seem to be reason to suspect that Yegâh (which literally means “first position” in Persian) was once identical with Rast, that is, not a compound (see Appendix G). Like Rast, Yegâh is thought to be particularly open to internal modulations (see Chapter IV). Yegâh was not identified in any of the taksim-s made for this research.
411
Suz-i Dilara (Ottoman for “fire that soothes the heart.”) Suz-i Dilara is a relatively rare compound makam, ascending or descending-ascending in seyir, whose tonic is G/rast and whose dominant is c/çargâh, invented by Sultan Selim III (1761-1808).36 Some would put it in the Rast family and others would put it with Acem Aşiran and Çargâh. In Özkan’s version,37 which we may take as an Arelian interpretation, Suz-i Dilara is a medium for showing what in the West is thought of as closely related major keys (resulting from adding one flat or one sharp to the key signature) and their relative minors; there are two core major scales treated thus: 1. Çargâh-as-C-major with its “neighbor” F major, and their relative minors (A minor and D minor, respectively), and 2. Çargâhon-rast as G major and its neighbor D major, and their relative minors (E minor and B minor). An application of the makam might go: Çargâh as C major to Buselik as A minor to F major (note that he does not mention Acem Aşiran-as-F major) to D minor (often with a hicaz-4 as the upper tetrachord, imitating the Western harmonic minor—this may have a stop on G/rast as a Nikriz gesture) to D major to G major, returning to Çargâh/C major and finally to a cadence in G major. At the very end of his description Özkan notes, however, that players almost always throw Rast in and often end in that makam, and he quotes Rauf Yekta as saying rather that Suz-i Dilara “comes to consist of the contrasting and uniting of makam-s such as Rast, Buselik,
36
Selim III is acredited with the invention of at least the following makam-s (and sometimes others): Isfahanek-i Cedid, Hicazeyn, Şevk-i Dil, Arazbar-Bûselik, Hüseyni-Zemzeme, Rast-ı Cedid, Pesendide, Neva-Kürdi, Gerdaniye-Kürdi, Sûz-i Dilârâ, and Şevk’efzâ (see Akdoğu 1989b). 37 NB: Özkan says this makam may also go by the name Nigâr; cf. Nigâr in Kutluğ 2000 vol. 1, p. 150-1.
412
and Hüseyni” (“Sûzidilara makamı Râst, Bûselik ve Hüseyni gibi yek diğerine mübâvîn (Ayrı, zıt) olan üç makamın birleşmesinden hasıl olmuştur,” 1984: 427),38 which is quite like E. Gürtan’s exposition of the makam (see DVD 1/9).
The other two taksim-s recorded for this project in which Suz-i Dilara is the nominal makam are both by Özer Özel, and they differ considerably from Özkan’s conception of the makam (and, since he purports to have learned the makam from the repertoire, are presumably closer to Selim III’s conception of it than to Özkan’s). For Özel it is definitely in the Rast family, though it stands out among fellow members in that its dominant is c/çargâh, a perfect 4th from the tonic, rather than d/neva at a perfect 5th. Here the makam is basically Rast on G/rast and Çargâh on c/çargâh; when emphasizing the dominant (c/çargâh) that tone has B/buselik instead of segâh as its yeden (leading tone). Özel’s single-makam Suz-i Dilara taksim, intended to serve as a definition of the makam, proceeded thus: Rast, climbing to stop on c/çargâh (with B/buselik leading tone), shows the tone e/hüseyni and plays Uşşak from that tone as the dominant of the makam Hüseyni; shows a “taste” of Nikriz, returns to Rast, falls to show Buselik on D/yegâh (with a half-step leading tone below), another taste of Nikriz, a return to Çargâh/çargâh, again showing Hüseyni/hüseyni, and finally a Rast cadence (though it must keep çargâh as the [upper] dominant). See DVD 2/18 and 2/19.
38
Component makam-s mentioned here (such as Acem Aşiran, Buselik, Nikriz, Hicaz, et al.) are defined under their respective families, below.
413
Basit Suzinak
Figure 92: Basit Suzinak.
(Suz-i nak is Ottoman for “fiery.”) Basit (“basic, simple”) Suzinak is counted as one of Arel’s “13 basic makam-s,” and is usually (but not ubiquitously) the “default” Suzinak, meaning it is unnecessary to say “Basit” to distinguish it from Zirgüleli Suzinak (which see with the Hicaz family). It is frequently used as a brief modulation within Rast, and may itself end in Rast or Acemli Rast. By way of emphasizing variously the makam’s 4th, 3rd, and 2nd degrees Suzinak allows internal modulations to Nikriz-on-çargâh, “Hüzzam” (actually Rahat-ül Ervah-on-segâh; see Chapter V and Appendix H), and Karcığar, respectively, in the manner of “species” of a scale, before a final cadence on rast. See DVD 2/15, 8/82.
Nişaburek
Figure 93: Nişaburek.
(“Little Nişabur” [a Persian city].) Nişaburek is a fairly rare makam whose definition may be glossed as “Rast on dügâh that begins around its dominant (hüseyni),” but more specifically it is often mostly “Acemli Rast” (i.e., with a “flat” 7th degree, in this 414
case g/gerdaniye)—and may sometimes use the subtonic rast as well as the leading tone nim zirgüle (though preferably using the latter when ending). It also differs from Rast in characteristically having an internal modulation to Uşşak on the dominant in the meyan section of a piece/taksim. There is also often a suspended cadence on the 2nd degree, from which a Nişabur çeşni (in this case, showing Uşşak from B/buselik) may be made.39 See DVD 3/25 (which compare to DVD 3/27, a taksim in Rast on dügâh made specifically for comparison).
Pençgâh (Persian “5th position.”) According to Özkan there are two forms of the makam Pençgâh: Pençgâh-ı Asıl (“Essential Pençgâh”) and Pençgâh-ı Zâid (“Extended Pençgâh”). This may be, but I have to say that I have never heard the former, which apparently consists of a descending-ascending mixture of the makam-s Beyati, Neva, Acemli Rast and Rast, ending in the last of these (1984: 418; cf. Selmek makam under “Gerdaniye” in the Uşşak family, below).40 For most performers the word Pençgâh immediately conjures the characteristic (4 comma) sharp fourth degree, without having to qualify it as “zaid,” but there seems to be some confusion about exactly how it is put together. Arel seems to have invented the idea of a pençgâh pentachord (G A B cs d), but did not use it in his description of this—or any— makam, which for him consisted of a mixing of Nişabur (q.v. in the Uşşak family) 39
Note that Özkan refers to the use here of a “nişabur tetrachord,” which is really nothing other than a transposition of an uşşak-4 (1984: 380-2). 40 That is, Özkan’s description of Pençgâh-ı Asıl sounds like an ascending-descending version of Selmek makam.
415
and Rast, ending in the latter (1991 [1943-8]: 26). Özkan actually includes it, sandwiching the “pençgâh-5” between Isfahan (q.v. in the Uşşak family) and (sometimes Acemli) Rast (1984: 421). Operationally, an important distinction to make when playing Pençgâh is to keep two pairings of tones differentiated: B/buselik + cs/nim hicaz (whether as part of Nişabur or of a “pençgâh-5”—often used when ascending) as distinct from Bq/segâh + c/çargâh (as part of Rast, often used descending, and for the final cadence)—at the risk of accidentally playing Müstear (q.v. under the Segâh family). It must be noted, however, that in practice it is at times difficult to be sure of this distinction—that is, there would seem to be a choosing of either Bq/segâh or B/buselik (1 comma, or ca. 22¢ apart) and sticking with it such that one may instead interpret either a de facto switching between a çargâh-5 on G/rast (G A B c d) and a pençgâh-5 (G A B cs d), or between a rast-5 (G A Bq c d) and an unnamed pentachord (G A Bq cs d)—see DVD 5/51 and 7/74.41
One way to look at Pençgâh is as a makam on G/rast that has Isfahan makam (q.v. under the Uşşak family) as a “species” on its second degree. Some feel that Pençgâh should not have any internal modulations, but there is some precedent for including a bit of Nikriz (see below under Nikriz family) in the meyan section (see Chapter V), and note that Mehmet Emin Bitmez modulated briefly to Mahur in his Pençgâh taksim (DVD 3/26), though perhaps this runs the risk of blurring a distinction from Pesendide makam (which see below) and from Zavil (see under Acem Aşiran family). 41
One could also think of that “unnamed pentachord” as a rast-3 conjoined to a müstear-3 instead.
416
Pesendide (Ottoman “enjoyed, chosen.”) Pesendide is a compound makam invented by Sultan Selim III (1761-1808). In the repertoire he left behind in this makam (and as portrayed as part of Zavil makam in DVD 1/6, q.v. also under Acem Aşiran family) it would appear to have a descending seyir, beginning with Pençgâh falling from g/gerdaniye to G/rast, then briefly becoming Nikriz, and cadencing in Rast; thereafter there may come some Nihavend and some Mahur before a final cadence in Rast. Özkan claims it is descending-ascending in seyir and describes it simply thus: “It comes to be a part [i.e., B-cs-d-e-f-g] of the Nişabur scale in its place… to which is added a part of the Buselik scale on neva [d-e-f-g-a-be-c’-d’ – NB: his diagram shows the whole of the “scale”] to which is added the Rast makam or a rast pentachord” (1984: 394). (Note that this sounds unfortunately similar to Arel’s description of Pençgâh, above.) It seems to me that this makam’s closeness to Pençgâh and Zavil makam-s is mitigated in taksim performance by including quotations from well known pieces by Selim III, that is to say that such references themselves to some degree define the makam. See an example in DVD 7/65.
417
UŞŞAK FAMILY Uşşak
Figure 94: Uşşak.
(Archaic plural of aşık, a type of Central Asian bard; former spelling for Uşak Province, western Turkey; may also refer to a tone approximately 2-3 commas flatter than Bq/segâh.) One of the most basic makam-s and the “mother” of a large family of makam-s, Uşşak exists as the second “octave species” of the basic scale (and as such seems at an earlier time to have been called Dügâh, which is today a quite different makam, q.v. below and see Feldman 1996: 195-204). One of its specialties is that it needs to be somewhat bottom heavy, perhaps even more so than Rast—in fact Özer Özel in an interview for this study opined that Uşşak’s true dominant is also its tonic, since that receives the first and most attention, and that neva is really its second dominant. It is normal for Uşşak to remain within the range of an octave above the tonic, and to have a rast-4 conjoined below the tonic (as is normative also for all members of the Uşşak family). Another characteristic is that at times its second degree, segâh, is lower than it is “normatively” (for instance in Rast)—in fact some players refer to a lowered version segâh as “uşşak”—but it must be noted that (unlike in Arab maqām praxis) the normative segâh may also be used in Uşşak, especially when beginning a piece or taksim, when ascending from the tonic, and when making 418
species-type modulations, e.g. to Rast, Segâh, Irak, etc.42 It is possible that the f/acem be displaced briefly by fs/eviç in an ascending passage but it should be done sparingly in order to maintain a distinction from Neva makam. See examples of Uşşak in DVD 2/20, 4/37, 6/56, 7/68, 7/70. Parenthetically, in Istanbul the fifth and last call to prayer of the day (yatsı ezanı) is traditionally “recited” in makam Uşşak (or Beyati, q.v. below—i.e., everyone in the city hears one of these at least once per day).
Bayati/Beyati (Probably from “Bayat,” the name of a Turkoman tribe, but NB Arab maqām has “Bayyāti” “of the boarder”; may also refer to a tone approximately 1-2 commas flatter than Bq/segâh.) Bayati uses the same scalar material as Uşşak excepting, for some interpreters, a version of Bq/segâh that is lower than that found in Rast but higher than that found in Uşşak (see also Feldman 1996: 209-16 regarding a different perde and makam with the name Beyati in the seventeenth century). Beyati also differs from Uşşak in that as an “ascending-descending” makam it must begin around its dominant, d/neva, where much of the melodic focus remains; its range is limited to between G/rast and perhaps c’/tiz çargâh; and a brief show of a hicaz tetrachord on d/neva (which may be interpreted as a modulation to Karcığar makam) is normative. See examples of Bayati in DVD 1/7, 2/16, 8/84. (Note that in Arab maqām the term 42
I will mention here another makam, the rare Dügâh-Maye, which was not named as a makam used in this study but which basically consists of an iteration of Uşşak followed by an iteration of Segâh, returning to Uşşak. (This may be another phenomenon from which to investigate the idea of an “original” Rast scale, see Appendix G, above; note that in today’s understanding, this combination requires altering the perde e/hüseyni to e /dik hisar and back between the two makam-s—it almost certainly did not always.)
q
419
“Bayyāti” generally signifies all the makam-s that in KTM are covered by the Uşşak family, especially Uşşak, Beyati, Neva, Tahir, and Acem, and often Hüseyni, Muhayyer, and Gülizar as well.)
Neva
Figure 95: Neva (2).
(Ottoman from Persian [?] “harmony, a beautiful sound, melody; protecting, covering”; also refers to the perde written “d.”) Despite its absence from the recorded taksim-s made for this study, Neva is traditionally a common makam, and is one of Arel’s canonical 13 “Basic Makam-s.” Özkan notes that there is usually a buselik-4 above the rast-5, effectively making an Acemli Rast from d/neva in the upper register (1984: 168-71; note that like all Uşşak family makam-s there is normally an implicit rast-5 below the tonic). It is possible to replace fs/eviç with f/acem briefly in descending passages, but this move should be made sparingly to maintain Neva’s distinction from Bayati, Uşşak and Isfahan. Similarly, because Neva displays a lot of Rast on d/neva, the tone cs/nim hicaz may be used as a leading tone to the dominant/Rast, but excessive movement between that tone and the makam’s normative 3rd degree, c/çargâh, runs the risk of blurring a distinction from Isfahan.
420
Özkan notes that in addition to brief species-type modulations or suspended cadences on Çargâh, Segâh, and Rast, it is common also to play Eviç (q.v. below under Segâh family) from Neva’s 7th degree, eviç (ibid.).
Tahir (Ottoman “lofty breath/spirit/moment.”) Tahir is the descending version of Neva. No example was played amongst the recorded taksim-s.
Acem
Figure 96: Acem.
(Ottoman from Arabic “non-Arabic speaker,” whence “Persian,” [from which the chiding “greenhorn, inexperienced person, newcomer”]; also refers to the perde written “f z.”) As noted in Chapter V and Appendix K, Acem is an unusual makam in that there are de facto three conjunct cins-es at its core where most makam-s have but two.43 A performance of Acem begins with “Çargâh” on Acem (which we may note is called “`Ajam” in Arab maqām) that then falls through a buselik trichord on d/neva—if desired, using c/snim hicaz as a leading tone—which is de facto now the 43
Note that Özkan describes its scalar material instead as a Çargâh pentachord on acem that modulates to descending Beyati (1984: 315).
421
dominant of Beyati, in which makam it ends. Özkan notes that internal modulations to Hicaz on d/neva and its “species” Nikriz on c/çargâh are normative in Acem (though I am not sure how to interpret his caveat, “Generally it is necessary that Acem not be too radiant,” 1984: 315.44)
Beyati-Araban Kutluğ mentioned that the compound makam Beyati-Araban was invented by the composer Gazi Giray Han at the end of the sixteenth century (2000 Vol. I, pp. 357-9), though his separate entry on Araban makam would seem to describe an original version as the same makam (ibid.: 384; see also Araban below, under Hicaz family), and the earliest understood version of Karcığar makam seems to have had the same scalar material even in Ṣafīuddīn’s time (ibid.: 186).45 See Appendix H and Feldman 1996: 252 regarding these makams’ original intonation—that is, the relationship between Hüzzam and Araban makam-s (both of which see below)—but we may note that Kutluğ also said that by the mid-nineteenth century Abdülkadir Nasır Dede was describing this makam thus: “Beyati Araban is, after playing in Hüzzam, making a cadence in Beyati” (2000 Vol. I, pp. 357-9). Özkan’s understanding is similar (1984: 309-11), but “Araban” is there understood as a kind of Hicaz (in a diagram, Zirgüleli Hicaz on d/neva; later a hicaz-5 + kürdi-4 conjunction otherwise not found in the Hicaz family). We have two examples among our recordings: Agnès Agopian (DVD 1/2) analyzed hers as essentially a descending Karcığar makam (q.v. below), with a 44 45
“Genel olarak Acem makamının fazla parlak olmaması gerekir.” Albeit with the name “Hicâzi.”
422
brief internal modulation to Acem in it; Murat Aydemir (DVD 1/11) analyzed his version of the makam (which he referred to as “Bayati-Araban,” i.e., with the alternate spelling of Beyati) as Araban (a hicaz-5 + kürdi-4 conjunction, alternating with the makam Uzzal: hicaz-5 + uşşak-4) which descends through Bayati, with a brief (species-type) modulation to Nikriz on c/çargâh. Here the Araban aspect is itself descending-ascending in seyir, but since its dominant is also upper tonic of Bayati (a/muhayyer), Bayati-Araban’s overall seyir is enacted as descending.
Karcığar
Figure 97: Karcığar.
Karcığar may in one sense be considered the descending-ascending version of BeyatiAraban (which see above), but this may be anachronistic in that the scalar material above the uşşak-4 in the modern version seems always to have been Uzzal (which see under Hicaz family) rather than Hüzzam or Araban (see Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 1869).46 Moreover, as Özkan pointed out (1984: 176-7), one major characteristic of the
46
Kutluğ notes that Ezgi made a claim for an Araban-like ancestor of Karcığar in a certain “Hicâzi scale” found in Ṣafīuddīn’s Şerefiye, but the fullest early description we have of it as a makam is in Cantemir, whose understanding of it reads like a version if Isfahan (see below) on d/neva (ibid.: 187). Note that Kutluğ also (probably accidentally) misrepresented Yekta’s understanding of Karcığar (ibid.: 188, cf. Yekta 1922 [1913]: 3002—keeping in mind that for Yekta the 3rd line of the Western musical staff represented B /segâh, not B/buselik.)
q
423
performance of Karcığar is the use of suspended cadences on each of the tones of the lower uşşak tetrachord (as well as on the G/rast below the tonic) in order to show the “species” inside the makam, i.e. Uzzal on d/neva, Nikriz on c/çargâh, “Hüzzam” on Bq/segâh (though we may wish to understand Hüzzam differently; see Appendix H, and Hüzzam below), Karcığar proper on A/dügâh, and (Basit) Suzinak on G/rast, ultimately ending on A/dügâh. (Özkan also points out there that the tone bq/tiz segâh is often replaced by be/sümbüle in descending passages.) Parenthetically, this makam is known as “Shuri” in Arab maqām. Karcığar appears as in internal modulation in DVD 1/2, 1/7, 1/12, 2/16, 3/29, 3/30, 4/37, 5/42.
Isfahan (Isfahan is the name of a Persian city.) The Isfahan makam played in a taksim for this study is not in normal discourse qualified by the terms mürekkeb or bileşik (“compound”), but in light of the existence of a Basit (“basic, simple”) Isfahan makam it is specified as such in Arelian theory.47 Kutluğ noted that a makam called Isfahan was one of the Systematists’ 12 “mother” (original, basic) makam-s but that it was then constructed as a rast-5 on D/yegâh (D E Fs G A) conjoined to an “ısfahan
47
Basit Isfahan—seemingly a very rare makam—is described by Özkan as a version of Beyati but even more limited in scope, i.e. without internal modulation to Karcığar, etc., and with a lot of motion between B /segâh and f/acem (1984: 130) ; Kutluğ cites Arel’s definition: Beyati with “a taste of Isfahan, but no Nişabur” (2000 Vol. I, p. 342), though it is unclear what the elliptic “taste of Isfahan” might mean, exactly.
q
424
pentachord” (A Bq c dq e),48 but that eventually it came to be the makam we know today: an alteration between Beyati and a rast-5 on A/dügâh (though not Nişaburek per se) with frequent “tastes” of Nişabur (2000 Vol. I, pp. 341-3; see a definition of Nişabur below). Özkan’s Mürekkeb/Bileşik Isfahan also has no Nişabur—a makam he does not even mention in regard to Isfahan—it is merely a descending-ascending alternation between Rast on dügâh and Beyati or Basit Isfahan (1984: 301-2); for both theorists the makam should not descend below the tonic, and rarely goes above a/muhayyer except in the meyan section, when it may show either an uşşak-4 or kürdi-4 on that tone.
Although none of these theorists include Nişaburek in the definition of Isfahan per se, Kutluğ and Arel mention that it is invariably played as part of the makam, and the only example of Isfahan we have in a taksim made for this study in fact eschews the idea of Rast on A/dügâh altogether and presents the makam solely as alternations between Beyati and Nişabur (Murat Aydemir, DVD 2/13), a definition that works well with the idea of Isfahan being able to exist inside Pençgâh as a “species” (see Pençgâh above).
48
Compare with Saba makam, below. Kutluğ does not give a source for this information, merely stating that “Safiyüddin, Mevalâna Mübarek Şah” and “Abdülkadir [Merâgî]” knew the makam as having that scalar material (p. 341).
425
Though surely it deserves a closer inspection, it would appear that the quite rare compound makam Isfahanek may be effected simply by adding a quick iteration of the makam Saba after playing Isfahan.
Nişabur
Figure 98: Nişabur.
(Nişabur is the name of a Persian City.) The name of this makam appeared attached to un-notated repertoire in collections of song lyrics from at least the late-seventeenth century (see Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, p. 417) but an exact description seems not to have existed before Arel and Ezgi recorded theirs in the twentieth century; Ezgi saw Nişabur as Buselik on d/neva below which was “an un-named trichord” (which Kutluğ nonetheless shows in a graphic as an uşşak-3, yet named “Bûselik Üçlüsü”— buselik trichord), while Arel described the makam as an overlapping of Çargâh makam on f/acem, a kürdi-4 on e/hüseyni, and an uşşak-3 on B/buselik (ibid.). Özkan instead defined a “nişabur-4” and a “nişabur-5”—both of which may be employed here—conjoined below a kürdi-4 and a çargâh-4 on f/acem respectively, all of which
426
alternates with Buselik on d/neva (1984: 273).49 Arel, and Özkan following him, did not allow trichords in makam definitions, but since it would seem from this study that they are de facto part of current performers’ vocabulary of cins-es I am presenting Nişaburek as Dr. Ezgi did (see notated figure above), even though performers in this study did not explain this particular makam in those terms (see an example on DVD 2/24). We might also note that Nişabur is the only member of the Uşşak family not to have A/dügâh as its tonic, and the only one not to have a rast cins below its tonic (here there is only the sub-tonic, A/dügâh), as well as the only member for which the second degree (usually Bq/segâh, here cs/nim hicaz) is actually played as high as it is written (i.e., at approximately a 10:9 relationship from the tonic).50
Hüseyni
Figure 99: Hüseyni.
(Turkish fr. Arabic “of Husayn,” diminutive of the given name Hassan “the Beautiful”; also refers to the perde written “e.”) Whereas the makam-s so far
49
We might note the unusual conjunction of two tetrachords here; it is especially strange since even though there is in effect no such thing as a kürdi-5 (excepting tacitly in an interpretation of Araban, q.v. below), Özkan has defined such a cins (ibid.: 43), which he might have put to good use here. 50 Here I am betraying a preference for just intonation (with at least a limit of 5) in my interpretation of the general scale, but let me reiterate that no interval measurements were made for this study, and performers’ own interpretations may differ from mine.
427
presented as being in the Uşşak family (excepting the singular Nişabur) are often considered derivative of the mother “makam” Uşşak, Hüseyni is generally conceptualized as having an independence from it, that is, of not being derived from Uşşak at all. As mentioned in Chapters IV and VI, even the cins I am calling the “uşşak-5” (following Özer Özel, and the pattern of other cins names) is universally known in Turkey today as the “hüseyni pentachord.” Feldman notes that Cantemir appeared to think of Hüseyni as the primary makam of the Turkish music system (1996: 195). Aside from its distinctive “çeşni-s,” Hüseyni’s main distinctions from Uşşak are the dominant (e/hüseyni rather than d/neva), its seyir (descendingascending rather than ascending), and the normative upper (“açan”) cins (an uşşak-4 rather than a buselik-4, though it is possible in both makam-s to use the tone fs/eviç when ascending to the upper octave and f/acem [often by a glissando from fs/eviç] when descending). Hüseyni is also probably the single most popular mode used in Turkish folk musics, and both repertoire and taksim-s in it may imitate or evoke a folk feel. See examples of Hüseyni in DVD 5/42, 6/62, 7/68, 8/79, 8/80, 8/81, 8/84.
Muhayyer (Ottoman fr. Arabic root hār/hūr “falling down” (though cf. khār/khīr “freely chosen, having an option”); also refers to the perde written “a.”) Muhayyer is essentially the descending version of Hüseyni. It is also found in compounds such as MuhayyerKürdi and Muhayyer-Buselik (which, ostensibly, are to begin in Muhayyer and end with the lower [“kök”] cins of the second makam). See DVD 3/29.
428
Gülizar (Ottoman “rosy cheeked.”) Gülizar is also a derivative of Hüseyni makam. Özkan notes that it is sometimes referred to as “Hüseyni Gülizar” (1984: 166-7), and gives descriptions of two versions: Basit (basic, simple) Gülizar, and Mürekkeb (compound) Gülizar. Basit Gülizar is described as like Muhayyer (i.e., descending) but makes its first cadence on the dominant (e/hüseyni) rather than on a/muhayyer, and is more circumscribed in tessitura—it generally should not rise above c’/tiz çargâh (nor would it seem to fall below G/rast); otherwise it is (described as) a mixture of Hüseyni and Muhayyer. Mürekkeb (or Bileşik) Gülizar is the same, but includes internal modulations to (a descending) Karcığar. In this sense we might draw a kind of parallel with two makam-s we have seen earlier: Beyati is to Uşşak as (Mürekkeb) Gülizar is to Hüseyni (i.e., circumscribed as to tessitura, concentrating on the upper [“açan” cins] and the dominant, modulating internally to Karcığar). See an example of Basit Gülizar on DVD 7/69, and Mürekkeb Gülizar on DVD 1/12.
Gerdaniye ([? A sweet lamb dish.] cf. Arabic Kirdan; also refers to the perde written “g.”) Gerdaniye is a compound makam consisting of a descending version of Rast that modulates to and cadences in Hüseyni. In our sole recorded example (by Murat Aydemir, see DVD 1/12) the artist also included a brief showing of a hicaz-4 on e/hüseyni and attributed this move to Tanburi Cemil Bey, saying that this relatively recent inclusion to the makam made it “perfect” (see Chapter IV). (We might note
429
that this combination itself—a hicaz-4 descending through an uşşak-5—could be interpreted as being Hisar makam, though the artist did not mention it.) Parenthetically, the inverse of Gerdaniye—that is, a makam that begins in Hüseyni then modulates to descending Rast—is called “Selmek”; as noted above under “Pençgâh,” the makam Özkan called “Pençgâh-ı Asıl” would appear to be an ascending-descending version of Selmek makam.51
Saba
Figure 100: Saba.
(Saba [“Sheba”] is the name of a [pleasant] wind [in Yemen?]; may also refer to a tone approximately 1 comma sharper than d w/nim hicaz.) Saba makam is essentially a compound makam that begins with an ascending Zirgüleli Hicaz makam (q.v. under Hicaz family) on c/çargâh (itself formerly known as “Çargâh makam,” see Wright 1990) which then falls through an uşşak trichord “in its place,” i.e., on A/dügâh. See examples as internal modulations in DVD 1/17, 3/28. Parenthetically, in Istanbul the first call to prayer of the day (sabah ezanı) is traditionally “recited” in makam Saba (i.e., everyone in the city hears it at least once per day, quite early in the morning). It 51
Parentheticaly, a descending-ascending version of the same may be thought of as the basis for the very rare Dilnişin makam.
430
is sometimes attributed with evoking a feeling of longing.52 The remaining commentary on this makam regards competing ideas about representing Saba makam.
One issue is the idea of a “saba tetrachord”—Arel seems to have invented this to fit his scheme in which all makam-s are constructed of one pentachord and one tetrachord (though it must be pointed out that the notated diagram he gave in his description instead showed the makam as I have: Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh followed by an uşşak trichord, see 1968 [1943-8]: 247—just as Yekta had also done, see 1922 [1913]: 2998).53 Furthermore, Arel gave e/hüseyni as the 3rd degree of the Zirgüleli Hicaz aspect of the makam, making the augmented second interval characteristic of the Hicaz family a “13-comma wide” version rather than the normative 12-comma wide version of the augmented 2nd.54 As noted in Chapter VI, there are occasions when, due to the limitations of the interface between fixed-pitch instruments and the Arelian notation system, a 13-comma wide augmented 2nd is needed for some transpositions of makam-s in the Hicaz family, but this is not such an occasion; the proper perde in that position should be eq/dik hisar. Although Özkan lists that tone rather than e/hüseyni, he follows the Arelian custom of leaving it out of the makam “signature” (donanım, which see above), and it has become normative in notation to use that “signature” without marking individual instances of eq/dik hisar. This situation—apparently a result of Arelian representations of Saba makam—seems 52
Perhaps because it is perceived as “not reaching its upper octave” (see below). Nonetheless, note the saba-reminiscent “ısfahan-5” (A B c d e) of “the Systematists” in Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, p. 341. 54 Again let me reiterate that Arel did not measure intervals in commas. 53
q q
431
to have resulted in a widespread loss of understanding of Saba as a compound, and therefore of the existence of (Zirgüleli) Hicaz inside of it. There is a concomitant “mystery” as to why the makam does not “reach its upper octave” (that is, a/muhayyer is misconceived as the upper octave of some octave scale on A/dügâh), and confusion about whether or not the meyan section of a taksim should begin on a/muhayyer (compare Saba in DVD 1/17 with that in DVD 3/28), and of what exactly should be the intonations of the perde-s represented here as d w/hicaz and eq/dik hisar (see Signell 2008 [1973]: 45, and Wright 1990: 232 fn. 37). Probably the official “signature” of Saba makam should be changed minimally to Bq eq d w, and better still to Bq eq Aw d w (i.e., that of Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh, giving A/dügâh its natural sign as needed rather than altering a w/şehnaz every time).
432
SEGÂH FAMILY Segâh
Figure 101: Segâh (1).
alternating with
Figure 102: Segâh (2).
(Ottoman via Persian, “third position”; also refers to the perde written “Bq/segâh.”) Please note that the notated diagram above, though presenting the standard “signature” (donanım) for Segâh makam, is a unique representation of the makam’s structure, since (as demonstrated in Chapters III and IV) current theory recognizes neither trichords nor a hüzzam cins of the type used here, and performers’ usage of these is generally not standardized (or even agreed upon).
As explained in Chapter V, Bq/segâh and fs/eviç have “special leading tones” a 4comma interval below,55 in this case As/kürdi and f/acem respectively; the
55
As do their octave equivalents, and any tone acting as the third of a rast-5 or the root of a segâh or müstear cins.
433
characteristic frequent use of these tones—often as replacements for the pitch normally found below—seem to be the cause of an understanding of this makam as having a hicaz-4 on fs/eviç, an understanding made official in the Arelian explanation of the makam’s construction.56 The issue is: if there only exists a “segâh pentachord” to work with (as declared by Yekta 1922 [1913]: 3000; Arel 1968 [1943-8]: 24-6; and Özkan 1984: 276) then to what else could it be attached?57 Having necessarily to be a tetrachord spanning fs to bq there is only one viable alternative to a hicaz-4 (fs g as bq), that being a “segâh tetrachord” (fs g a bq), which none of these theorists accepted. By accepting a segâh trichord and the hüzzam tetrachord (about which see Appendix H) we give ourselves the vocabulary to represent the makam more in accord with an understanding that is more practical (see Chapters IV-VI) and perhaps more traditional.58
Arel, and Özkan thought of Segâh as a compound makam,59 minimally mixing their “segâh-5” with Hicaz on fs/eviç and with an overlapping Uşşak/Beyati on d/neva.60 It 56
It might be instructive to note that in Arab maqām praxis the perde buzrak (= tiz segâh) is never approached directly from muhayyar below it in maqām Sikah (≈ Segâh), but rather by a leap from kirdan (= gerdaniye) (p.c. Scott Marcus). 57 We must note that such “special leading tones” for the same perde-s occur in many makam-s—in fact, apparently regardless of makam—without changing the cins-es that constitute their structure. 58 Note the characteristic use of a /dik sümbüle in Segâh in such time honored pieces as the Segâh Saz Semaisi of Nayi Ozman Dede (d. 1729), the Segâh Saz Semaisi of Kemani Hızır Ağa (d. 1760), the Segâh Peşrev of Neyzen Yusuf Paşa (d.1884) et al.—which is in fact consistent with current taksim praxis—only appears in the 3rd hane (which Feldman suggests as the original area of opening modulation up to the eighteenth century [see 1996: 1, 16], equivalent to the meyan section of a taksim); a /dik sümbüle is there used as a leading tone, neither outlining a hicaz cins nor played in a manner consistent with characteristic melodic movement found in any member of the Hicaz family. 59 Though Yekta did not; for him there was not even f/acem in the definition of Segâh (see 1922 [1913]: 3000).
s
s
434
should be obvious from its name, however, that at least originally it was one of the prototypical non-compound makam-s, an octave species of the original “basic scale” (see Appendix G). If we accept that scale as the one understood by Yekta, Töre, Karadeniz et al. (ibid.)—G A Bq c d eq f g, with the use of fs/eviç in ascending passages since at least the mid-fifteenth century (see Chapter III)—and include the use of “special leading tones” as idiomatic but not structural elements of the makam, then indeed there is no reason to think of Segâh as a compound even today. Since the Arelian simplification of the makam system eradicated the above understanding of Rast, the idea of any form of Rast as the traditional basic scale, and the makamindependence of idiomatic tone alterations such as the “special leading tone” and the “rising/falling cazibe” (not to mention trichords and the possibility of a “hüzzam tetrachord”), perhaps there was no alternative than to consider Segâh a compound.
Still, although I have portrayed an “octave scale” aspect of the makam, it would be appropriate to note that current praxis often minimally extends the upper rast-3 to a rast-5, making of the material shown in the second diagram a de facto Neva makam, which is easily turned into Bayati et al. by fully flattening the bq/tiz segâh to be/sümbüle by “cazibe” (cf. Irak makam, below), and that a “Hicaz on fs/eviç”—in my opinion being the result of conditioning to Arelian theory—does currently appear in taksim-s in Segâh, particularly in the meyan section.
60
See Özkan 1984: 276-8 for even more possibilities.
435
We may note that members of the Segâh family generally have a rast-3 below the tonic by default (which may be obscured by the use of As/kürdi as the “special leading tone” of the tonic). Parenthetically, in Istanbul the fourth call to prayer of the day (akşam ezanı) is traditionally “recited” in makam Segâh (or alternately, Eviç, q.v. below) i.e., everyone in the city hears one of these makam-s at least once per day. Hear examples of Segâh on DVD 5/46, 5/48, 6/54, 6/63, A2.61
Hüzzam
Figure 103: Hüzzam.
(“Hüzzam” may also refer to a tone 1-2 commas flatter than eq/nim hisar) See Appendix H and Chapter V regarding historical understandings of Hüzzam and its internal construction. For our purposes in this section, we may describe Hüzzam as closely akin to Segâh though having a descending-ascending seyir and for the most part refraining from the use of f/acem and having much less (if any) use of “special
61
Note that Both Arel and Yılmaz claimed that the transposition of Segâh to the perde c /nim hicaz is called “Heftgâh” (Arel 1968 [1943-8]: Chapter 12; Yılmaz 2007 [1973] :77). Since this means literally “7th position/mode” and the name nim hicaz is of much later date than the time that the tonic of the basic scale was D/yegâh, a 7th below it, there appears to be an anachronism here. In any case it is an exceedingly rare makam, as is the related “(Segâh-)Maye,” which consists of Segâh, a species-type modulation to Uşşak, and a return to Segâh (see Özkan 1984: 282).
s
436
leading tones” mentioned as characteristic of Segâh above.62 Hear Hüzzam as an internal modulation in DVD 1/1 and 2/15, and compare Cinuçen Tanrıkorur’s Hüzzam taksim on Türk Müziği Ustaları – Ud Kalan 2004c: 2/20.
Irak
Figure 104: Irak.
Irak (named for the country, Iraq; also refers to the perde written “Fs.”) is also very much like Segâh makam (a perfect fourth lower) but without the eq/dik hisar/hüzzam4 aspect (though Özkan mentions this as a possibility; 1984: 446).63 The normative “makam signature” includes fs but it would seem to be there more for the tonic ırak than for eviç; effectively this puts the makam Uşşak atop the segâh trichord, which, though an ascending makam, is often how Irak is played (though unfortunately it did not appear in our recorded examples).
62
Standing as evidence for their independence from particular makam-s is the fact that such “special leading tones” are sometimes explicitly excluded from certain makam-s’ definitions, but (except for the unusual cases of Segâh and Ferahnak (q.v. below) where Arel’s theory clashed with alternative explanations) are never so explicitly included. 63 Remembering that Özkan’s version of Hüzzam has e /hisar rather than e /dik hisar (ibid.). He also mentions on the same page that there may be included a hicaz-4 on C /kaba nim hicaz (cf. Fahri Kopuz’s “Hüzzam taksim” Türk Müziği Ustaları – Ud Kalan 2004c: 1/16, analyzed in Chapter V).
w
q
s
437
Eviç Eviç (Ottoman form of Arabic `auj, “highest, utmost” 64; it also refers to the perde written “fs.”) is often described as the descending version of Irak, though it would appear currently to be much more popular than that makam, and (at least to my ear) more closely resembles a descending version of Segâh (but a perfect fourth lower). Hear an example of Eviç on DVD 2/23. Parenthetically Eviç is sometimes used as the traditional makam in which the 4th daily call to prayer (akşam ezanı) is “recited” in Istanbul (as a replacement for Segâh).
Ferahnak (Ottoman from Persian “spacious.”) Arel viewed Ferahnak as a compound makam (1968 [1943-8]: 26-7, 179), which Özkan elaborated thus: “[Ferahnak] comes to be the adding one to another [in descending order] of a Rast pentachord on Nevâ, a Hicaz tetrachord on Nîm Hicaz, a Ferahnak pentachord on Segâh, a Rast pentachord on Dügâh, and a Ferahnak pentachord on Irak.” (1984: 477)
Both men insisted on the use of a “ferahnak pentachord” (Fs – G – A – B – cs) which, like Segâh above, could only accommodate a hicaz tetrachord from its fifth degree in order to complete Arel’s vision of every makam as an octave scale made of one pentachord conjoined to a tetrachord.
64
Apparently referring to the position of the perde of the same name in the basic scale; it is the highest tone of that scale before reaching the upper octave.
438
The examples made for our study (both by Mehmet Emin Bitmez, see DVD 2/22 and 2/23) appear more to be a descending combinations of: •
segâh-3 on Fs/ırak + rast-3 on A/dügâh +hicaz-4 on cs/nim hicaz and
•
segâh-3 on Fs/ırak + rast-4 on A/dügâh + rast-3 on d/neva
But more succinctly, it is quite like a descending Segâh on ırak (or seemingly, like Eviç) as the “third octave species of the basic scale” when the basic scale (here, as originally, on D/yegâh) is understood as Arel and Ezgi did—with the sixth degree as B/buselik rather than Bq/segâh as Yekta, et al., did (see Appendix G).65
Müstear
Figure 105: Müstear (1).
alternating with
Figure 106: Müstear (2).
65
As members of the basic scale per se, we should understand that buselik is here standing for hüseyni and segâh is standing for dik hisar/hisarek.
439
Müstear (Ottoman from Arabic “borrowed; pen name” [possibly from the root sarra in form 10, “to conceal”]) is described in Özkan as “…consisting of adding from time to time a Müstear pentachord to Segâh makam” (1984: 285). While it is true that performers have described Müstear as “barren” (kısır) and as a makam usually appearing briefly within another makam (e.g., Evcara DVD 2/23, 2/24 and Rast DVD 3/30, 7/74; see Chapter IV; cf. “terkib” described in Chapter II) I would attribute to the scalar material shown above slightly more prominence than to Segâh makam in the overall makeup of Müstear—though I would concur that Segâh may enter into it (though given the definition of Segâh given above rather than Özkan’s), and noting (as Özkan also did, ibid.) that Müstear usually does not ascend as high as Segâh does, perhaps only to its upper octave bq/tiz segâh.66 See an example of Müstear on DVD 6/64.
Bestenigâr (Beste = song, composition; nigâr = that which engraves, a miniature painting.) Bestenigâr is a compound of Saba makam (q.v. above) that ends by falling through a segâh-3 on Fs/ırak; as our examples show it may also include a display of Irak makam itself in cadences on that perde. See DVD 1/4, 3/28, 6/61.
66
Note that Özkan, probably by mistake, left the f out of Müstear’s “signature” (1984: 286-7).
s
440
Rahat-ül Ervah (Ottoman from Arabic Rahat al-Arwah “Repose of the Souls.”) This makam is a compound consisting of combinations of Hicaz, Hümayun and Uzzal (all of which are described under the Hicaz family, below), which then makes its final melodic gestures and cadence by falling through a segâh trichord on Fs/ırak. It does not appear amongst our recorded examples, but see Chapter V and Appendix H, in which its occasional confusion with Hüzzam makam is explained.
441
BUSELIK FAMILY Buselik
Figure 107: Buselik (1).
alternating with
Figure 108: Buselik (2).
Buselik (formerly spelled “Puselik”; refers to the perde written “B z.”) is a relatively rarely played makam that is accorded status above its popularity due to its name being also that of a frequently employed pentachord, and because its basic form’s diatonic structure (which needs no accidentals when notated on the Arelian version of the Western staff) fit Arel’s notion of a “relative minor” type scale to pair with the invented “Çargâh makam” that he posited as the basic scale of Turkish makam music. The only time I heard a taksim played in Buselik it was given an internal modulation to Uşşak on e/hüseyni (the dominant), and Özkan also reported that this is typical of the makam; he also reported as typical an internal modulation to Hicaz on d/neva and to its “species” Nikriz on c/çargâh. The descending version (beginning with the form having a hicaz-4) is called Şehnaz-Buselik. Buselik is also a popular ending for a 442
class of compound makam-s whose names (and performances) end in “-Buselik” (e.g., see Arazbar-Buselik, below). No recorded taksim examples were made in Buselik proper.
Nihavend
Figure 109: Nihavend (1).
alternating with
Figure 110: Nihavend (2).
(Also spelled “Nihavent”; a city in Persia; may refer to a tone one comma flatter than Be/kürdi.) Nihavend is listed in Arelian textbooks as a transposition of Buselik but its much greater popularity (and the perhaps circumstantial evidence that its Arab maqām equivalent, Nahāwand, is the only version in that sphere) makes me wonder about this perception of Buselik’s primacy. Both appear to have long histories but for whatever reason Nihavend is both more often played and less respected; see comments in Chapter IV about the makam having no “çeşni-s” of its own, and of it being a (mere) “song (şarkı) makam,” more suited to restaurant entertainment than
443
for serious works. I would suppose that some of this is due to its deployment as “the minor scale” in musical theater of the “kanto” variety in the late-nineteenth and earlytwentieth century (see Ederer 2007: 57-61), in which imitating Western popular dance music—waltzes, foxtrots, etc.—resulted in the inclusion of such techniques as arpeggios, triadic parallel movement, and chromaticism. Members of the three “diatonic” makam families—Buselik, Acem Aşiran, and Kürdi—are especially prone to such treatment.67 A few artists have told me that (like Buselik) if it does not have a little Uşşak played from the dominant (here d/neva – as on DVD 8/83) then it is not “really” Nihavend. If that is the case, then much of what passes for this makam currently is “not really Nihavend.” Note that members of this family generally have a leading tone 4 commas below the tonic (or 5, implying a hicaz-4 below) though occasionally a subtonic is used instead (implying a kürdi-4). See DVD 1/3, 1/8, 1/9, 3/34, 4/40, 5/44, 8/83, 8/87 for examples in this makam.
Sultani Yegâh (“The sultan’s [version of the makam called] ‘first position.’”) This makam is described as “the descending version of Buselik on the perde Yegâh” (Özkan 1984: 215). See DVD 5/51 for an example. (Parenthetically, the other named “transposition”68 of Buselik beside Nihavend and Sultani Yegâh was invented by the
67
“Diatonic” meaning having scales constructed exclusively of whole tones and half tones. As noted in Chapter IV, most artists reject the Arelian idea that these are mere transpositions; for them if a makam has its own name it cannot be considered a mere transposition, and must have its own distinguishing characteristics, however subtle (although I cannot name those of Sultani Yegâh, specifically).
68
444
theorist Suphi Ezgi; it is played on E/hüseyni aşiran and called “Ruhnüvaz” [“soulrewarding.”])
Ferahfeza (Ottoman for both “leisurely space” and “joy-increasing.”) This is a compound makam consisting of the following (necessarily descending) sequence: a çargâh-5 on f/acemAcem makam (or Acem-Kürdi, see DVD 7/71)Acem Aşiran makamSultani Yegâh makam. In a general sense, the dominant is A/dügâh, but emphasis follows usage in each of the constituent makam-s. See DVD 7/71 for an example.
Arazbar-Buselik Arazbar-Buselik is (predictably) a compound consisting of Arazbar makam that ends with a cadence in Buselik (that is, minimally showing a buselik-5). Since Buselik is described above, this description is really that of the makam Arazbar.69 Performers will occasionally refer to any Uşşak family gesture on the perde d/neva as “Arazbar,” ignoring—as they so often do with “Araban” (qua “Hicaz on d/neva”)—that the makam proper continues to fall through an uşşak tetrachord in its place (i.e., on A/dügâh). In Arab maqām, Arazbar would be called “Bayyātayn”—“Two Bayyati-s,” that is, first Beyati played on d/neva, then played again on A/dügâh.70
69
Arazbar would normally be under the Uşşak family, but as it did not appear outside of this compound I have placed its description here. 70 In Arab maqām practice, however, the notes would read g/nawā and D/dūkāh.
445
This is the basis of the makam, but it is not as simple as that. Our only recorded example of the makam “without modulation” (DVD 1/10, but see also in an internal modulation, DVD 3/30) shows the following sequence: Rast on c/çargâhUşşak on d/nevaRast on c/çargâhHicaz on d/nevaBuselikRast on c/çargâhNikriz on c/çargâhUşşak on d/nevaNikriz on c/çargâhBuselik. Note the “species” relationships between Rast on c/çargâh and Uşşak on d/neva, and between Nikriz on c/çargâh and Hicaz on d/neva. This analysis is more or less in alignment with Özkan’s description of Arazbar: Beyati on d/neva falls to a rast-5 on c/çargâh falls to Beyati proper, with occasional internal modulations to Hicaz on d/neva and/or Nikriz on c/çargâh (which for this Arazbar-Buselik compound ends in Buselik).71
71
Another possible (certainly simpler) way to explain Arazbar would be to describe it as Beyati on d/neva that becomes Karcığar, though I have not heard of such an explanation either from performers or theory texts.
446
KÜRDİ FAMILY Kürdi
Figure 111: Kürdi.
(“Of the Kurds”; also refers to the perde written “Be.”) Kürdi is currently spoken of by performers as though it were a very popular, much used makam, but aside from the kürdi tetrachord’s frequent use in the construction of other makam-s it is not, as far as I have experienced it, played very often. Aside from its use in internal modulations (mostly as a mere cins, see DVD 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/9, 1/11, 2/14, 2/15, 2/19, 2/21, 3/26, 3/29, 3/30, 3/32, 3/34, 4/36, 4/37, 4/39, 4/40, 5/41, 5/42, 5/43, 5/44, 5/51, 6/57, 6/58, 6/59, 7/67, 7/68, 7/69, 7/71, 7/72, 7/73, 7/76, 8/77, 8/79, 8/80, 8/81, 8/82, 8/83, 8/84, 8/85, 8/86, 8/87), or as part of compound makam-s such as AcemKürdi and Muhayyer-Kürdi (q.v. below) no performer chose to record a taksim in it for this study. Özkan notes that it may contain an internal modulation to Nihavend, which is of the species type until that makam’s 6th degree is reached, in which case it must be flattened to ee/nim hisar (1984: 111). He notes there also that Kürdi may be played with an ascending-descending seyir rather than an ascending one. Other makam-s that may be thought of as transpositions of Kürdi are: Aşk’efza (“loveincreasing,” on E/hüseyni aşiran, invented by Dr. Ezgi, see Özkan 1984: 233) and Ferahnüma (“happy view” or “spacious view,” on D/yegâh, invented by H. S. Arel,
447
see Özkan 1984: 234), and one interpretation of Kürdili Hicazkâr (which see below).72
Kürdili Hicazkâr
Figure 112: Kürdili Hicazkâr (1).
sometimes preceded by
Figure 113: Kürdili Hicazkâr (2).
(“‘In the manner of the Ḥijāz’ that has the tone kürdi.”) This makam has two distinct forms. The first is merely a descending version of Kürdi, transposed a whole step down to G/rast (see DVD 5/47). The other is a compound that begins in Hicazkâr (which see under Hicaz family, below) and ends in Kürdi-on-G/rast (usually by iterating the whole makam rather than just by a showing of the bottom cins, as in the “-Buselik” compounds); see examples in DVD 1/4, 2/19, 4/39, 5/43, 6/57, 6/58.
72
Since on the one hand both Arel and Ezgi regarded these as “mere transpositions” (see Arel 1968 [1943-8]: 33, 132, 317) and yet both developed several such transpositions into distinct makam-s in their own right we may note some hypocrisy regarding the subject.
448
This second version of Kürdili Hicazkâr may be the breeding ground of an interesting melodic gesture: the “pre-cadential flat five,” in which, just before the final cadence, a brief stop is made on the tone 4 commas below the fifth degree of the ending makam, usually followed by a descent to the tonic and a rise that reiterates the normative fifth degree before the final cadence. It had been mentioned to me as specifically associated with Zirgüleli types of Hicaz (N. Çelik p.c., in a caveat that it not be used in the praxis of other types of Hicaz),73 but is also common in all forms of compounds ending “-Kürdi.” I suspect that the gesture traveled from the former into the latter by way of Kürdili Hicazkâr because the dominant of Kürdi per se—the ending gesture of both types of this makam—is its 4th degree, which a pre-cadential iteration of variations of the fifth frustrates. I suggest that its normativity in Hicazkâr (as a type of Zirgüleli Hicaz) was in a sense transferred to other “–Kürdi” compounds even when a “pre-cadential flat five” melodic gesture would not appear in the other makam-s per se (e.g., see Muhayyer-Kürdi and Acem-Kürdi below, which compare with Muhayyer and Acem).
Muhayyer-Kürdi As the name implies, this is a compound makam consisting of the makam Muhayyer (q.v. above) which ends with the makam Kürdi. Generally in compounds of this hyphenated or dual type—that is, those that basically consist of two makam-s played
73
Which see below: the Zirgüleli Hicaz type is constructed of a hicaz-5 + a hicaz-4, and has a characteristic leading tone nominally 4 commas below the tonic (G /zirgüle, but in both current practice and theory 5 commas below the tonic—G /nim zirgüle).
d
s
449
one after another—the first makam is played in full but the second makam may be represented by as little as its lower (“kök”) cins (see the description of Kürdili Hicazkâr above). But two of our examples of Muhayyer-Kürdi (on DVD 5/41 and DVD 7/73), as well as such prominent composed pieces as Sadi Işılay’s MuhayyerKürdi Saz Semaisi, use only a kürdi cins in the lower (“kök”) position (seemingly a pentachord, though Kürdi proper has a tetrachord); in fact the example by Şükrü Kabacı (DVD 5/41) treats it simply as Muhayyer’s seyir and note hierarchy with Kürdi’s tones (perhaps as a “descending version of Kürdi,” with emphasis on the 5th degree). (Note in both examples the “pre-cadential flat-fifth” gesture mentioned under Kürdili Hicazkâr, though in both cases the melody continues to descend without reiterating either 4th or 5th degree as dominant.) The third example recorded for this study (DVD 8/80) features two players introducing a piece of music in the makam: the first player seems simply to play Hüseyni (though without the uşşak-4 expected in the açan level), the second seems to play something like a Basit Gülizar using Kürdi’s tones.
Acem-Kürdi For the same reason mentioned in Muhayyer-Kürdi above, we expect Acem-Kürdi basically to consist of the makam Acem (itself a compound makam, which see under Uşşak family, above), followed by the makam Kürdi or minimally a kürdi cins. Our
450
only recorded example of the makam (DVD 7/76 74) appears very much as though it were Acem Aşiran that ends on its third degree (A/dügâh); the tone Bq/segâh, which appears in Acem but is replaced by Be/kürdi in Kürdi, is altogether absent (NB, in the same way that it was absent in similar performances of Muhayyer-Kürdi).
Araban-Kürdi Araban-Kürdi consists of Araban (whose disputed construction see under the Hicaz family) which then falls through a kürdi-4 on A/dügâh. It appears for a brief moment as an internal modulation on DVD 6/57.
Muhayyer-Sümbüle (Sümbüle = hyacinth.) Sümbüle itself is a now obscure makam that consisted of (what Arel called) “Çargâh” (or at least a çargâh-5) on f/acem that falls to Saba makam.75 It would seem more apparent here than in the other “Muhayyer-” type compounds we have yet seen that the term “Muhayyer” may serve as a trope meaning “descending, from the perde a/muhayyer” rather than as a reference to the makam Muhayyer per se; Muhayyer does not appear at all in Muhayyer-Sümbüle. For that 74
Mehmet Bitmez mentioned an extremely brief moment of Acem-Kürdi in his Acem Aşiran taksim (DVD 2/21) that I suspect he meant to describe as “Saba-Kürdi” (or Saba-Zemzeme) instead. 75 It is probably the extension of this makam downward by another three tones of a çargâh cins to F/acemaşiran that caused the makam Acem Aşiran habitually to have an internal modulation to Saba (sse Acem Aşiran under Acem Aşiran family, below [but see also Şevk-u Tarab, under Şevk’efza, below]). Although I have not counted it in the list of makam-s clearly presented in recordings made for this study, it could be argued that there is a brief moment of Sümbüle as an internal modulation in a Dügâh taksim on DVD 5/52 (q.v.).
451
matter, the fact that it ends in Kürdi (or at least in a kürdi cins) is obscured by its name as well.
Özkan describes three types of Muhayyer-Sümbüle (1984: 369-70): 1. “a portion of Çargâh [diagram shows a pentachord + one tone]” on the perde f/acem falling to Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh, falling through an overlapping “saba tetrachord”76 [i.e., Saba makam] 2. a (Zirgüleli) Hicaz tetrachord on a/muhayyer falling toa çargâh-5 on f/acem falling toSaba makam ending ina kürdi-4 3. “Acemli Hüseyni”77 on d/neva (inside of which exists a çargâh-5 on f/acem) shifting toHümayun (q.v. under Hicaz family) on c/çargâh shifting toSaba (Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh falling through an overlapping “saba tetrachord”) shifting toa “Kürdi trichord”78 Our only recorded example (by Murat Aydemir, DVD 2/14) would seem to be closest to the second sort, though he did not play Saba per se, but rather Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh moving directly to Kürdi (i.e., eschewing Bq/segâh).
76 77
The Arelian “saba-4” is A – B – C – D , though I believe it to be obsolete; see “Saba” above.
q
w
“Acemli Hüseyni” meaning the makam Hüseyni with a “flat” 6th degree—if Hüseyni were “in its place,” that tone would be “acem” (whence “Acemli”), though in this transposition it is the tone b /sümbüle.
e
78
We must note this as one of the very few instances in which a trichord is explicitly admitted into the (otherwise) Arelian description of a makam’s constitution.
452
Saba-Zemzeme (Zemzeme = a well supposedly dug or discovered by the biblical Abraham and his son Ishmael near the Kaaba in Mecca.) The makam Saba-Zemzeme per se was not played in any of our recorded examples,79 but I include it to mention a (small, currently obscure) category of compound makam-s with the ending “-Zemzeme” that also end in a kürdi cins of some kind; apparently “Zemzeme” is a former name of Kürdi makam (see Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 489-99). Saba-Zemzeme in particular is an ascending-descending Zirgüleli Hicaz on f/çargâh that falls through a kürdi-3 instead of the uşşak-3 expected of Saba.
79
Though see a possible very brief iteration of it in Mehmet Emin Bitmez’s Acem Aşiran taksim, DVD 2/21.
453
ACEM AŞIRAN FAMILY
Before presenting the makam-s in this family it must be noted that in current Arelian theory this would be understood as being the “Çargâh family,” since the “makam” that Arel and Ezgi invented as representing the primary diatonic mode with a “major 3rd” up from the root (analogue to the Western C major scale) was called “Çargâh.” As Yekta noted before that invention, Acem Aşiran is the former such “analogue” (1922 [1913]: 2948; see also Appendix G). Since current theorists are in agreement that Çargâh need no longer be considered the “basic scale” of makam music, and it is agreed that there is really no repertoire in such a “makam” (see Chapter III), I am using the pre-Arelian terminology to categorize actually extant makam-s in this family. Acem Aşiran
Figure 114: Acem Aşiran.
(Acem from Arabic `Ajam = “Persian,” [orig. “non-Arabic speaker”]; Aşiran from Arabic `Ushayran = “a companion” from the root `ashara; refers also to the perde written “Fz.”) In its essential form the makam Acem Aşiran is simply the scale shown
454
above, descending from its upper tonic to its tonic,80 which in Arab maqām is referred to as `Ajam.81 However by custom,82 the makam is usually executed as a compound that begins and ends as the makam portrayed in the notation above but with internal modulations to Acem, and to Saba; hear examples on DVD 2/21, 4/38, 5/50, 8/77.
Additionally, when concentrating on the dominant c/çargâh and using the Acem aspect, there is a de facto possibility for including Pençgâh on F/acemaşiran; I have heard this much exploited by some and I have heard it criticized by others, so I would say that there is not currently a consensus as to whether it should be thought part of the makam itself.83 There is also usually a moment when, after playing the Zirgüleli Hicaz aspect of Saba that makam’s leading tone (Bq/segâh, i.e., Saba’s 2nd degree) is overtaken by the “mother scale’s” Be/kürdi 4th degree; this is normally immediately followed by showing d/neva, from which a descent through the “mother scale” to the tonic ensues, but if it does not, there is the potential for a “taste” of Saba-Zemzeme and/or its “species” companion Nikriz on Be/kürdi, though these are best avoided unless a modulation (internal or external) to Şevk’efza is intended. (See definitions for Saba-Zemzeme here above, and for Nikriz and Şevk’efza below under the Nikriz family.)
80
Note that in another, equally valid representation, the upper tonic f/acem can be shown as the “first dominant” and c/çargâh as the “second dominant.” 81 Which contrast with the Turkish makam Acem, above under the Uşşak family. 82 For at least 150 years, judging by a certain famous ayin in the Mevlevi repertoire, see Yekta 1931. 83 Compare the compound makam Şevk’aver, which Özkan has as: Rast on çargâh becomes Nihavend becomes Acem Aşiran (1984: 492-3).
455
Mahur (Persian “rising or sloping ground”; also refers to the perde written “fd”; its musical meaning may originally be cognate with the English word “major.”) Mahur makam is currently portrayed in Arelian theory as a descending “G major scale” ending on G/rast (see Özkan 1984: for which reason its “signature” shows only fd) but it would appear to have been explained otherwise in different eras, firstly as being a descending form of Rast that has fd/mahur rather than fs/eviç (or f/acem) as its 7th degree, sometimes as this but using B/buselik and fd/mahur when ascending and Bq/segâh and fs/eviç when descending, and at times simply as descending Rast (see Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 438-41). Hear an example on DVD 7/75.
Zavil (Ottoman from Arabic Zawil/Zaul “witty, ingenious; hawk.”) The single recorded taksim example that we have in Zavil makam shows a descending mixture of Pesendide, Mahur, and Nikriz makam-s (q.v. herein; see also DVD 1/6). Aydemir has Mahur with an internal modulation to Nikriz (i.e., ending in Mahur) as sufficient (2010: 52).
456
HICAZ FAMILY
(Arabic “Ḥijāz,” a region of the Arabian Peninsula; also refers to the perde written “cd.”) Hicaz is the namesake of a makam family currently having four—perhaps five—basic forms: Hicaz, Hümayun, Uzzal, Zirgüle (aka Zirgüleli Hicaz, aka Zengüle), and a certain interpretation of Araban. It is clear that the original interval arrangement characteristic of this family was quite different form today’s Hicaz (see Appendix H, Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 176-86, Feldman 1996: 208), though some holdover elements may remain in non-classical versions,84 and in the makam-s Hüzzam, Beyati-Araban, and Araban (all described elsewhere in this appendix). The main distinguishing factors between the Hicaz types today (beside individually identifying melodic gestures and seyir-s) are the construction of their scalar material, though it must be noted that the practice of mixing hicaz types, that is, of fluidly modulating from one to the next, is common; in one sense this is an invitation to a discerning listener to follow subtle changes, but it sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish the intended “base” makam, and more experienced musicians complain that less experienced musicians today mix Hicaz types without knowing what they are doing—the potential loss of these distinctions is certainly part of the general “loss anxiety” described in Chapter IV.
84
Originally the second degree was much higher (some version of segâh, in fact) and the third degree apparently lower (the perde “uzzal”); such an arrangement may be found in the “Istanbul Hicazı” mentioned in Chapter IV, in the “Garip [Western/strange/nostalgic] Hicaz” of Romany musicians of Western Turkey, and in the “Garip ayağı” of Anatolian folk music (see Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, p. 527).
457
Part of that problem is that the phenomenon of using fs/eviç when rising and f/acem when falling—which occurs in many makam-s, and may in fact be a makamindependent gesture—takes place in exactly the spot where the basic distinctions are made; perhaps such a confusion is inevitable. Beside this we might note other common characteristics of members of the Hicaz family, for instance that—excepting Zirgüle—they implicitly have a rast cins below the tonic (which allows them to use Nikriz as a “species”) but otherwise tend to repeat at the upper octave by default, and that, parenthetically, no makam in the Hicaz family actually contains the perde named cd/hicaz.85
85
See Kutluğ 2000 Vol I, p. 186 regarding the earliest known reference to a “Hicâzi” makam (also mentioned in Appendix H); see also Feldman 1996: 195-216 regarding both the naming of makam-s for tones, and the seeming origins of today’s Hicaz family of makam-s.
458
Hicaz
Figure 115: Hicaz.
Hicaz proper is distinguished by having a hicaz tetrachord in the bottom (“kök”) cins level and a rast pentachord in the upper (“açan”) cins level. Parenthetically, in Istanbul the third call to prayer of the day (ikindi ezanı) is traditionally “recited” in makam Hicaz (i.e., everyone in the city hears it at least once per day). Hicaz may be heard on DVD 1/3, 3/32, 3/33, 6/56, 8/78, 8/85.
Hümayun
Figure 116: Hümayun.
Hümayun (“Imperial”) is distinguished by having a hicaz tetrachord in the bottom (“kök”) cins level and a buselik pentachord in the upper (“açan”) cins level; Özkan notes that it may be played with a kürdi-4 on a/muhayyer, de facto extending the Buselik-on-d/neva of the makam (1984: 134-5). Hümayun may be heard on DVD 5/49, 8/86.
459
Uzzal
Figure 117: Uzzal.
Uzzal (possibly a Semitic tribal name; see Genesis 10:26-27) is distinguished by having a hicaz pentachord in the lower (“kök”) cins level and an uşşak tetrachord in the upper (“açan”) cins level. “Uzzal” appears to have once been the name of the perde now called cs/nim hicaz, and may have been the progenitor of the Hicaz family as we know it today (see Appendix H). Özkan notes that Uzzal may be played with a buselik-5 conjoined above a/muhayyer, extending the Uşşak-on-e/hüseyni aspect of the makam, and that additionally a hicaz-5 might be conjoined to e/muhayyer in order to show an internal modulation to Karcığar-on-e/hüseyni (1984: 146-7). He also notes the following: “In Uzzâl makam, especially in descending melodies, because Eviç [fs/eviç] is replaced by Acem [f/acem] a new variety of Hicaz results. This is in the form Hicaz pentachord + Kürdî tetrachord. Although not used on its own, in the Hicaz family makam-s, especially in Uzzâl in the course of its path and in other makam-s in which it is a modulation it is used a lot. Having no other name, we might call this Acem’li Uzzâl [Uzzal with acem].” (ibid.) Regarding this, however, see the description of Araban makam, below. Uzzal was named as an internal modulation in DVD 1/2, 1/3, 1/11, 3/32, 3/33, 8/85.
460
Zirgüleli Hicaz
Figure 118: Zirgüleli Hicaz.
Zirgüleli Hicaz (“Hicaz with [the perde] Gd/zirgüle”; both makam and perde have also been called “Zengüle”) is distinguished by its conjunction of two hicaz cins-es, and by its use of the leading tone Gs/nim Zirgüle beneath the tonic (NB: not Gd/zirgüle) implicitly indicating a hicaz-5 in the “destek” level, mirrored by gs/nim şehnaz below the upper tonic. It is not as often played per se as it is in transpositions (or transposed variations) such as Hicazkâr, Zirgüleli Suzinak, Evcara, Şedd Araban (whose descriptions see below), and Suz-i Dil (“fire of the heart,” descending, on E/hüseyni aşiran). All members of this type of Hicaz may use—and would seem to be the original locus of—a particular melodic gesture already mentioned in examples of the Kürdi family: the pre-cadential “flattening” of the fifth degree.86 That this gesture is sometimes played in a performance of one of the other previously mentioned Hicaz types is (at least for Necati Çelik, p.c.) one of the lamented losses of distinguishing boundaries between makam-s—and particularly amongst members of the Hicaz family. (There were no taksim-s recorded for this study in Zirgüleli Hicaz makam.)
86
I would note, however, that it is rarer in the Zirgüleli Hicaz-on-c/çargâh aspect of Saba (though see DVD 5/51 ca. 3:45); perhaps it does not appear there as often because it would not occur near enough to the true final cadence.
461
Şehnaz Şehnaz (Ottoman from Persian “very beautiful”) descends from Hümayun on e/hüseyni through all forms of the Hicaz family in a freely morphing manner. It may appear to be a descending version of Zirgüleli Hicaz (which at times, it indeed may be). Hear an example of Şehnaz within a müşterek Hümayun taksim recorded for this study on DVD 8/86 (and see Özkan 1984:333).
Hicazkâr
Figure 119: Hicazkâr.
Hicazkâr (“in the manner of the Ḥijāz,” i.e., Arab sounding), which we have seen above in the compound Kürdili Hicazkâr, is a descending form of Zirgüleli Hicaz makam based on the tonic perde G/rast. A strictly Arelian explanation might present its (first) dominant as d/neva rather than the upper tonic g/gerdaniye, but Özkan (1984: 240) and Özel (p.c.) assign the above interpretation (perhaps, in part, to distinguish it from Zirgüleli Suzinak, which see below). See DVD 2/17, 5/47, 7/67.
Zirgüleli Suzinak This makam may most easily be described as the descending-ascending version of Hicazkâr. “Normal” (that is “Basit”) Suzinak—the same makam but having a rast-5
462
in place of the hicaz-5 (q.v. under Rast family)—is often used as an internal modulation, though I have not seen that gesture described as part of the makam in any theory text. See DVD 2/15, 8/82.
Evcara Evcara (evc/eviç = Arabic `auj “highest”; ârâ = Persian “ornamenting”: lit. “ornamenting the highest [tone],” fig. “the highest opinion/idea”87) is a descending compound makam consisting of first a show of Segâh and Müstear makam-s (which see above) on fs/eviç, followed by a descent through a transposition of Zirgüleli Hicaz to Fs/ırak. Özkan notes that the Segâh aspect is most often “deficient” (eksik), meaning there is a c’/tiz çargâh above fs/eviç rather than a perfect fifth (c’s/tiz nim hicaz), and that it may substitute bz/tiz buselik for bq/tiz segâh, exchanging Segâh-oneviç for Ferahnak-on-eviç (1984: 246-7). See DVD 2/22, 2/23.
Araban Please see Appendix H for greater historical depth into the definition of Araban makam, and the definitions of Beyati-Araban and Karcığar above for contemporary variant understandings, but as it has been noted in Chapter V, current performers’ first (if often vague) understanding of the term “Araban” is as a referent to (some, or any, sort of) Hicaz on d/neva. Signell listed it as a transposition of Zirgüleli Hicaz 87
“Evcar” also means “a hunter’s ‘blind’” i.e., an object that hides a hunter from his or her prey; there may be a pun in this name, as Evcar’a, meaning “to the hunter’s blind [we go].” We may note also in this (possibly mere) coincidence the makam’s internal modulation to makam Müstear (whose name is possibly from the Arabic root sarra in form 10, “to conceal”).
463
(2008 [1977/1985]: 144) after having earlier described it as “…the three variants of Hicaz, Hicaz-Hümayun, and Zengüle…” (i.e., a mixture of all the Hicaz types except Uzzal, on d/neva, ibid.: 101) but also noted that Araban “…no longer exists except in compounds” (ibid.: 109).88 Kutluğ referred to Araban as “…a rejected and forgotten makam” (2000 Vol. I, pp. 384-5), though he understood that which was rejected as a (presumably older) version of Beyati-Araban or Karcığar.
Still, Kutluğ’s mention of the cins conjunction hicaz-5 + kürdi-4 in regard to Araban (ibid.), as with Özkan’s in reference to Beyati-Araban (1984:309-10, his description of this conjunction as otherwise “nameless” and deserving to be called “Acem’li Uzzal” notwithstanding [see Uzzal above, and 1984: 146-7]) along with current performers usage (see DVD 1/1, 1/3, 1/11, 2/15, 3/32, 4/39, 7/71, 8/82, 8/85, 8/86) causes me to state the case differently. Although there is reason to understand Araban as historically akin to Hüzzam (see Hüzzam and Beyati-Araban above, and Appendix H), it appears also to be understandable currently, both in theory and praxis, as a fifth type of Hicaz, one having the otherwise unusual characteristics of: being “in its place” on d/neva; having a hicaz-5 conjoined to a kürdi-4; and being able to use either a leading tone (cs/nim hicaz, implying a hicaz-4) or sub-tonic (c/çargâh, implying a rast-4) beneath the tonic. It may indeed be rare, vaguely understood, and found mainly in compounds, but Araban cannot in 2010 be said to have been completely “rejected and forgotten.” 88
Özkan also referred to Araban in passing as Zirgüleli Hicaz on d/neva; he has no entry for Araban per se, but included this idea in the description of “Şedd-i Arabân,” (which see below).
464
Şedd Araban Though it literally means “Transposed Araban” (also spelled “Şed Araban,” “Şedd-i Araban,” and “Şedaraban”), it is perhaps more clearly explained as a descending makam whose basic scale material is that of Zirgüleli Hicaz, whose upper tonic is also the (first) dominant, and whose fifth degree is the second dominant. In these respects it would appear very much like a transposition of Hicazkâr a perfect 4th down, but it differs from that makam in that: •
it often has Hümayun makam conjoined to the upper tonic o which de facto places Nev’eser (see under Nikriz family, below) on G/rast as a “species” to which to internally modulate, and
•
as Dr. Signell noted of Araban (see above; also see Özkan 1984: 255-8), it may transform from Zirgüleli Hicaz to Hümayun and/or Hicaz (always on D/yegâh) before returning to Zirgüleli Hicaz (on D/yegâh) for the final cadence
Curiously, this makam, which seems otherwise very open to the Hicaz family, does not appear to include the hicaz-5 + kürdi-4 configuration described in “Araban” above, nor its closest Arel-accepted relative Uzzal. It makes me wonder whether Şedd Araban was once considered a transposition of Şehnaz (which see above) rather than (whatever was considered at the time) Araban. See DVD 6/59, 7/71.
465
Dügâh (I) Dügâh (Persian “second position”; also refers to the perde written “A”) must once have been the name of the second mode built upon the basic scale but exists today in two closely related forms both of which are far removed from any possible original version of the makam (see Feldman 1996: 197, 204, 223-5; Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 372-8). The other currently used version is described under the Nikriz family, below, but the version now considered the more “traditional” consists of a compound makam executed by playing Saba, then turning the root/”kök” cins into a hicaz-5, from which Zirgüleli Hicaz is played, especially within that cins and in a hicaz-4 below the tonic (see Özkan 1984: 347). Some of the examples we have in our recordings treat the “kök” level hicaz-5 as the “tiz” level of a now descending version of the same makam, as a kind of (transposed) Şedd Araban (see DVD 4/36, 4/40); see also DVD 1/7, 1/9, 3/29, 4/37, 4/38, 5/51, 5/52, 7/73.
466
NİKRİZ FAMILY Nikriz
Figure 120: Nikriz (1).
alternating with
Figure 121: Nikriz (2).
Nikriz is possibly more often used as an internal modulation than as a makam performed by itself, but it is by no means obscure. It often appears inside G/rastbased makam-s (see descriptions of Rast, Pesendide, Pençgâh above, and Chapter V) as well as in any iteration of (non-Zirgüleli-type) Hicaz as a “species” relative, and is therefore often utilized to effect modulations between these two categories of makams. By default, members of the Nikriz family have (at least implied) a hicaz-4 below the tonic. See an example of Nikriz in DVD 6/60.
467
Nev’eser
Figure 122: Nev’eser.
(From Arabic Nawā Athar, “new sensation.”) Özkan notes that the hicaz-4 below the tonic creates a de facto Şedd Araban “species” within Nev’eser, and that by using a buselik-5 conjoined above the upper tonic (rather than the normative hicaz-5) it is possible to play Hümayun on d/neva as another internal modulation. See examples in DVD 6/59, 8/87. (Parenthetically, there is a makam that is at least nominally a transposition of Nev’eser—though descending in seyir—on the perde F/acemaşiran, called “Reng-i Dil” [“Color of the Heart”]. Özkan noted that it was “invented by Mühendis Hâlis Bey and … refined by Dr. Subhi Ezgi” [1984: 261].)
Şevk’efza Şevk’efza (“increasing [one’s] taste/pleasure”) is a compound makam consisting of a descending Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh (NB itself once called “Çargâh,” see Chapter III—not to be confused with Saba) which becomes Acem Aşiran and/or Nikriz on F/acemaşiran (or rather, uses a nikriz-5 on that perde; see Özkan 1984: 487). It may either end in the Nikriz aspect or (perhaps more rarely) return to Acem Aşiran and end in that makam. It seems to me that without the Nikriz aspect this would nearly be the even rarer makam Şevk-u Tarab (which Özkan describes as descending Saba
468
[rather than “Old Çargâh”] that becomes Acem Aşiran, ibid.: 483)—a subtle distinction indeed, relying only on the perception of a distinct moment of an uşşak-3 on A/dügâh in otherwise identical scalar material. Note that in the transition between “Old Çargâh” and Acem Aşiran there is also the possibility of playing Pençgâh on F/acemşiran, and for a moment of Saba-Zemzeme, if desired. See DVD 3/31, 7/72.
Dügâh (II) In contrast to the “Dügâh (I)” explained above under the Hicaz family, there is another version—really just an extension (or modification) of the older one—that Özkan claims is less traditional. It consists of the makam Saba, after which the root/”kök” cins is exchanged directly for a hicaz-5, which becomes the upper/ “açan” cins of Nev’eser makam on the perde D/yegâh. See DVD 1/9, 4/36.
A NOTE ON SPECIES RELATIONS BETWEEN MAKAM-S
As explained in Chapters V and VII, certain makam-s may be understood to be in relation to each other—though necessarily crossing the boundaries of “makam families” explained above—due to their shared scalar material, even though they begin on different tonics; in fact they may be said to “exist inside” each other. Below are listed all of the species relationships of the makam-s played in the taksim recordings in Appendix L (the DVDs), arranged by “mother scales” (ana dizileri). Note that the common characterization “mother scale” (ana dizi) presumes heptatonic
469
scalar entities as aspects of makam-s, a standard part of Arelian theory (see Öztuna in Arel 1943-48 [1968]: X-XI; Arel ibid.: 61-5)—note that this idea is not applied to all makam-s (e.g., not to compound makam-s). I have chosen the names of the “Mother Scales” below arbitrarily—each could be named after any of the (non-“partial”) constituent makam-s within each group. All makam-s shown in the taksim-s made for this research project are shown below (those having no species relations being so marked). The caveat “partial” signifies that the two scales in question are not entirely identical but overlap sufficiently to use (as a performer, and to notice as a listener). Note that only makam-s “in their places” and not transpositions are named, though the latter may be used in performance.
“Rast Mother Scale” [NB: also that of Nişaburek (all makam-s below being transposed up 1 whole step)] • First scale degree: Rast, (an iteration of Mahur) • Second scale degree: Hüseyni, Gülizar, Gerdaniye, Muhayyer • Third scale degree: Ferahnak • Fourth scale degree: Pençgâh, (partial: Suz-i Dilara) • Fifth scale degree: Rehavi, Yegâh [NB: this makam did not appear in the recorded taksim-s] [NB: the tonic of both of these makam-s is not actually the fifth scale degree (neva) but an octave below it (yegâh)] • Sixth scale degree: (partial: Nişabur), Hüseyni Aşiran [NB: this makam did not appear in the recorded taksim-s; its tonic is not the sixth scale degree (hüseyni) but an octave below it (aşiran)] • Seventh scale degree: Eviç, Irak [NB: this makam did not appear in the recorded taksim-s; its tonic is not the seventh scale degree (eviç) but an octave below it (ırak)] “Old/Yekta/Karadeniz Rast Mother Scale” • Second scale degree: Arazbar [NB: this makam did not appear in the recorded taksim-s] • Third scale degree: Segâh, Vech-i Arazbar [NB: this makam did not appear in the recorded taksim-s]
470
“Acemli Rast Mother Scale” • First scale degree: Acemli Rast • Second scale degree: Uşşak, Beyati, Acem “Suzinak Mother Scale” • First scale degree: • Second scale dgree: uşşak-3)], Karcığar • Third scale degree: • Fourth scale degree: “Hicaz Mother Scale” • On the subtonic: cins) • First scale degree:
Basit Suzinak Beyati-Araban [≈ Araban (old version, ending on Hüzzam [if the açan-level cins is considered a hicaz-4] Nikriz
Nikriz (with rast-4 as the destek cins, rast-5 as the açan Hicaz, Uzzal
“Hümayun Mother Scale” • On the subtonic: Nikriz (with rast-4 as the destek cins, buselik-5 as the açan cins) • First scale degree: Hümayun “Pençgâh Mother Scale” • First scale degree: Pençgâh, [the Pençgâh aspect of Pesendide], [the Pençgâh aspect of Zavil] • Second scale degree: Isfahan “Acem Aşiran Mother Scale” • First scale degree: Acem Aşiran • Second scale degree: Nihavend, Kürdili Hicazkâr (qua ↓ Kürdi) • Third scale degree: Kürdi, Muhayyer-Kürdi (qua ↓ Kürdi), Acem-Kürdi • Fifth scale degree: (partial: “Çargâh”) • Sixth scale degree: Ferahfeza, Sultani Yegâh [NB: the tonic of both of these makam-s is not actually the sixth scale degree (neva) but an octave below it (yegâh)]
471
“Bestenigâr” 89 • First scale degree: • Third scale degree: • Fifth scale degree:
Bestenigâr Saba “Old Çargâh” (like Hicazkâr on çargâh)
Makam-s used in the recorded taksim-s having no species relations (compound makam-s) Araban-Kürdi Arazbar-Buselik Dügâh Isfahan Muhayyer-Sümbüle Şevk’efza Makam-s used in the recorded taksim-s having no species relations (simple makam-s) Müstear Nev’eser
89
NB: compound makam-s (such as Bestenigâr) do not have “Mother Scales” per se; note that while the makam-s listed below may “exist inside” Bestenigâr as species, the reverse is not true.
472
APPENDIX K: ANALYSES OF THE RECORDED TAKSIM-S
Below are representations of the cins changes in the taksim analyses given by the 12 performers who both recorded for this project and gave their own theoretical interpretations for their taksim-s, followed by representations of the cins changes in the taksim-s that I analyzed myself. These are presented in an extended version of the four-level modulation grid used in Chapter V that I used to show Agnès Agopian’s second Rast taksim. As was the case there, the point of this type of representation is to clearly show all changes of cins, and the makam-s that the performer meant to evoke by those changes (if any). In cases of taksim-s considered by their performers to be without modulations, I still represent any changes of cins in order to show how such changes are part of that performer’s definition of the nominal makam. All told there were 42 taksim-s analyzed by their players, although we have already analyzed two of them in Chapter V (q.v.). The remaining 40 of these are presented alphabetically, first by instrument, and within those groups by performer’s surname. Following these there are similar analyses of the remaining 58 taksim-s on the DVDs, which I have analyzed myself; they are included because although the performeranalyzed taksim-s should be seen as privileged for the purposes of demonstrating a performer-oriented “(music) theory,” principles derived from such analyses must also be demonstrable for any taksim, and this is an opportunity to test such principles on taksim-s made by performers who had no forethought of analyzing them for a researcher.
473
Below is a key to the components of the grids used to represent taksim analyses: tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used (Fig. X)
Again, the terms “tiz,” “açan,” “kök,” and “destek” are my own application of Turkish language terms to describe “cins levels”: •
the kök (“root”) level/cins represents the cins referred to as the “lower pentachord/tetrachord/trichord” in the normative two-cins description of makam-s’ scalar material, e.g., it is the place of the hicaz-4 in the description “the scale of the Hicaz makam consists of a hicaz-4 that has a rast-5 conjoined to its 4th degree”
•
the açan (“opening”) level/cins refers to the cins that is conjoined to the upper tone of the kök cins, i.e., the “rast-5” in the above example
•
the tiz (“upper”) level/cins refers to the cins conjoined to highest tone of the açan cins
•
the destek (“support”) level/cins refers to the cins that is conjoined below the tonic, that is, to the lowest tone of the kök cins
“Change type” in the grids refers to the following sorts of cins changes: •
pivot
474
o changed by way of a conjunct pivot cins shared by two makam-s, for instance drawing on an example presented in Chapter V: tiz açan kök destek makam
rast-4 rast-5
hicaz-4
Rast
Suzinak
change type pivot tone seyir used
hicaz-5
pivot dom-dom yes
Zirgüleli Suzinak pivot dom-dom yes
o both the change from a rast-4 to a hicaz-4 in the açan level and the subsequent change from a rast-5 to a hicaz-5 in the kök level happen by way of a conjunct pivot cins shared by two makam-s (first the rast5 shared between Rast and Suzinak, then the hicaz-4 shared between Suzinak and Zirgüleli Suzinak); to qualify as a pivot both cins changes necessarily involved a change of level as well, that is, the melody went from the rast-5 to the hicaz-4 to the hicaz-590 •
direct o change at the same level without pivoting through a conjunct cins shared by two makam-s:
90
Note that if the first of these “change types” were to say “direct” instead of “pivot” it would indicate that the melody had reached the modulation by passing directly from the rast-4 to the hicaz-4 in the açan level, not from the rast-5 below, as the “pivot” here indicates.
475
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(rast-4) rast-5 Rast
nikriz-5 Nikriz direct
this may occur even if they share a cins (e.g., the rast-4 in the açan level above), but the change is effected without using it as a pivot
o a direct change of cins may occur to show two iterations of a single makam (i.e., where two types of cins at the same level are considered normative/non-modulatory within a makam’s definition): tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
rast-4 rast-5
buselik-4
Rast direct
or: tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
buselik-5 rast-4
uşşak-4
Isfahanek direct
476
•
species o where a cins is considered to exist within another cins or otherwise within the host makam, e.g.: tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
•
(buselik-4) rast-5
(buselik-5) uşşak-4
Rast
Uşşak species
quote o cins change by quoting a figure from known repertoire but not otherwise adhering to other cins change types listed here
•
this generally may be taken as being outside the “principles”
unique-p o a unique cins change that leads to a cins combination that is recognized as “possible” in accord with the playable/not playable combinations shown in Chapter VI
(NB: could be a “quote” type from a piece of repertoire with which I am not familiar)
this generally may be taken as being outside the “principles”
477
•
unique-i o
a unique cins change that leads to a cins combination that is not recognized as “possible” in accord with the playable/not playable combinations shown in Chapter VI
(NB: could be a “quote” type from a piece of repertoire with which I am not familiar)
this generally may be taken as being outside the “principles”
As in Chapter V, any cins-names given in parentheses inside the grids’ cells represent incomplete cins-es (i.e., the presentation of only some of the tones of the presumed cins) which are named on the merit of the performer’s designation of the makam in conjunction with the normative theoretical cins for that makam at that level (see Appendix J). At any given cins level, once a cins is given in the grid it remains the melodic material of that level unless/until named as a different cins.91
The category “pivot tone” in the grids is used to mark the use of a tone as both a pivot point, and a hierarchically important tone in both makam-s. The hierarchically important tone types are abbreviated thus: ton = tonic, u-ton = upper tonic, dom = dominant, 2-dom = secondary dominant. When appropriate, the cells of the grids in
91
As a result of my not repeating this material in each cell there is the possibility that a change of cins occurring at the same level look the same as one where the change occurs between levels. However the information in the “change type” column clarifies this: if the change occurs at the same level (e.g., from a blank cell to one with a named cins) the change type must be “direct,” if it crosses levels it must be one of the other types listed above.
478
the “pivot tone” row show the changing (or unchanged) meaning of the tone in combinations of these abbreviated forms, thus: •
domdom o where the dominant of the first makam is also the dominant of the second, modulated-to makam
•
u-tondom o where the upper tonic of the first makam becomes the dominant of the second, modulated-to makam
•
etc.
The “seyir used” row is for indicating—with the word “yes”—that the modulated-to makam immediately employs its own normative seyir, as though beginning a definition of the makam from the beginning. Practically, it occurs only in conjunction with some sort of “pivot tone” cins change.
479
TAKSİM-S WITH THE ARTISTS’ ANALYSES 1. KANUN (1.1) Agnès Agopian – Beyati-Araban Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 1/2) tiz uşşak-4 (kürdi-4) uşşak-4 kürdi-4 açan (rast-5*) hicaz-5 kök destek makam (Tiz) Uşşak Karcığar (see “***”) change type direct ** direct direct pivot tone u-tondom u-tondom seyir used (* Implicitly there is a rast-5 beneath Uşşak, though the incomplete cins played here may also be thought of as part of the hicaz-5 to come.) (** The switch[es] between an uşşak-4 and a kürdi-4 are normative in a certain treatment of Hicaz family makam-s; here this represents the aspect of Karcığar that is Uzzal/Araban, q.v. in Appendix J.) tiz açan
(çargâh-4 on acem***)
buselik-5 on neva
kök uşşak-4 destek (rast-5) makam (“Beyati”) Beyati change type (****) pivot tone (2-domton) seyir used (*** Probably meant as an internal modulation to “Çargâh” on acem, which can be an aspect of Beyati [or of Acem, or of Acem Aşiran, any of which would explain the b remaining in the tiz cins (i.e., the “kürdi-4” by way of a species transition becomes part of a çargâh-5 on acem)—see Appendix J s.v. Acem]; this makes the exact point of “modulation” vague. Nonetheless this did not form part of the artist’s analysis.) (**** This may be considered a “species” change, if the previous çargâh-4 is accepted.)
e
480
(1.2) Agnès Agopian – Geçiş Taksim from Hicaz to Nihavend (DVD 1/3) tiz açan kök destek makam
(buselik-5**)
(rast-4) rast-5***
segâh-3
hicaz-4 rast-5 Rast on yegâh*
Segâh on eviç change type (direct) species**** pivot tone domdom 2-domton seyir used yes (* The artist called this a “surprise beginning” for Hicaz that she had learned from her teacher, and that it is not meant as Rast proper) (** The artist noted that the buselik-5 was used to keep the melody from reaching the upper octave, but did not here indicate the makam Hümayun [hicaz-4 + buselik-5], i.e., it is still Hicaz [hicaz-4 + rast5].) (*** The rast-5 in the açan position being normative for Hicaz, there is not actually a modulation here, but marking it allows us to better explain the coming change, which is not normative.) (**** of the rast-5) tiz açan
uşşak-4†
Hicaz
kürdi/buselik5††
buselik-5
(rast-4) segâh-3
kök (pençgâh-5) (hicaz-4) destek makam Uzzal Hümayun (Pençgâh†††) Hümayun Evi熆†† change type species direct pivot (direct) pivot/species pivot tone domdom domdom 2-domton seyir used yes yes yes yes yes († Implicitly this makes the kök cins below a hicaz-5) (†† Here is an example of how members of the Hicaz family of makam-s are blurred. In terms of theory, Hümayun must have a buselik-5 on neva as its açan cins, while the previous makam, Uzzal, must have an uşşak-4 on hüseyni in that place; since the F at ca. DVD :57 marks it as Hümayun (or at least as “not Uzzal”), yet the dominant remains E for another few seconds there is de facto the construction hicaz-5 + kürdi-4. This structure is currently unnamed [i.e. has no makam], though it is fairly commonly heard, and appears to have been normative of Araban makam, a “rejected and forgotten” makam [see Kutluğ 2000 vol. I, pp. 384-5] that yet appears in certain compound makam-s [cf. ibid.: 357-9, Özkan 1984: 309].) (††† Not pointed out by the artist.) (†††† Note a moment of ambiguity ca. DVD 1:25 as the “warming” of F to F removes us from Eviç without yet placing us in Hümayun on neva. The change type is marked “pivot/species” in relation to an imagined rast-5 in that position, i.e., rast-5 would be a pivot, and this is a species of that.)
z
s
481
z
tiz açan kök destek makam
buselik-5 hicaz-4
(chromatic) hicaz-5
Hümayun on neva• direct
kürdi-4 buselik-5
Nev’eser
Nihavend
change type pivot pivot (direct) (pivot) pivot tone tondom domdom seyir used yes (• NB: some performers would refer to this—or any iteration of a Hicaz family makam from neva—as Araban [see above], though the artist here did not.) tiz açan kök destek makam
(çargâh-5) (çargâh-4) (çargâh-5)
kürdi-4 buselik-5
(hicaz-5) (Acem Aşiran••) (species) (2-domton)
Nihavend
change type (species) pivot tone (ton2-dom) seyir used (•• This movement [from ca. DVD 2:33 to 2:42] could be interpreted as Acem Aşiran on kürdi, a “species” existent within Nihavend’s scale, though the artist did not point it out as such.)
482
(1.3) Şehvar Beşiroğlu – Geçiş Taksim from Kürdili Hicazkâr to Bestenigâr (DVD 1/4) tiz açan
(hicaz-5) hicaz-4
kök destek makam
(*)
kürdi-4** kürdi-4 hicaz-5
Hicazkâr
(Kürdili Hicazkâr) direct
change type
(buselik5/kürdi-4) kürdi-4/-5 Kürdili Hicazkâr uniquep/pivot
uşşak-4***
unique-i
pivot tone domdom?** seyir used (* The C in use up to ca. DVD :37 is a leading tone, helping to keep the focus in the upper region of this descending makam; the normative (i.e., implied) kök cins is a hicaz-5 on rast, which appears ca. DVD :37.) (** Here is an instance where there is a confusion as to the constitution of Kürdi/kürdi: at ca. DVD 1:08 she is preparing a [completely normal] move to Kürdili Hicazkâr-as-Kürdi on rast, but while the makam Kürdi itself has the 4th degree as dominant, compound makam-s ending in Kürdi de facto most often use the [previous makam’s] fifth degree as the dominant even after the move to Kürdi is made. As a result, there is often a point [such as between ca. DVD 1:08 and ca. 1:24 here] where there are two kürdi tetrachords conjoined. This anomaly is mentioned neither in theory texts nor by performers. Here, Kürdi-on-rast’s proper dominant is not shown as such until ca. 1:24, at which point the artist identified the overall makam as Kürdili Hicazkâr. Again between ca. DVD 1:44 and 2:00 it is unclear which tone [the 5th from the tonic neva or the fourth çargâh] is serving as the dominant.) (*** The momentary uşşak tetrachord at ca. DVD 1:41 is presumably a foreshadowing of the modulation to come, but received no mention by the artist.)
s
tiz açan
(buselik5/kürdi-4)
uşşak-4 (as kök)
hicaz-4
kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
direct
rast-5 on çargâh
hicaz-5 on çargâh
nikriz-5 on kürdi
Uşşak on neva
Basit Suzinak on çargâh
Nikriz on kürdi
direct domton yes
direct
Zirgüleli Suzinak on çargâh direct
species yes
483
tiz açan kök
kürdi-(4 or -5)
(hicaz-4 on gerdaniye) hicaz-5 on çargâh uşşak-3
(rast-3) (uşşak-4) segâh-3 on ırak
destek makam
Kürdili Hicazkâr direct tonton
(rast-5)
segâh-3 on ırak † Bestenigâr
Saba
(Irak ††)
Eviç
change type direct (leap) (pivot) pivot tone u-tondom seyir used yes († Bestenigâr is a compound makam consisting of Saba [itself a compound of uşşak-3 + hicaz-5] that falls through a segâh-3 on ırak; since this segâh-3 is now the proper kök cins, it is moved up one row in the next column.) (†† Technically there is an immediate modulation to the makam Irak, but the artist considered this part of Bestenigâr. The following modulation is to Eviç makam, which is essentially the descending version of Irak; since the Eviç passage could be understood as part of the Irak modulation, the entire passage from ca. 3:19 [“Bestenigâr”] to 3:53 [“Saba”] could be seen as being in Irak makam. NB: the conception of Irak as segâh-3 + uşşak-4 + rast-3 is my own [though derived from common practice conceptions; see Chapter IV and Appendix J].) tiz açan kök
hicaz-5 on çargâh uşşak-3
(rast-3) (uşşak-4) segâh-3 on ırak
destek makam Saba ††† Bestenigâr (Irak ††††) change type direct (pivot) pivot tone seyir used (††† The artist refers to this as a return to Saba but I am maintaining the column structure for Bestenigâr [i.e., kök = segâh-3 on ırak], since it is now clear to the listener that the Saba is part of that compound makam.) (†††† Note that whereas most textbook [and in my experience even oral] definitions of Bestenigâr makam would maintain the Saba/Hicaz on çargâh aspect through the final cadence, the artist views the structure associated with Irak makam as appropriate ending material for Bestenigâr, without mentioning Irak specifically.)
484
(1.4) Şehvar Beşiroğlu – Rast Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 1/5) tiz açan rast-4 kök rast-5 segâh-3* rast-5 (buselik-5) rast-5 destek rast-4 makam Rast (Segâh) (Rast) (Buselik**) (Rast) change type (species) (species) (direct) (direct) pivot tone (2-domton) seyir used (* The a /kürdi leading tone used here is normative in any use of a segâh trichord, and does not imply a change of cins below it; here there is not really a modulation to Segâh, but rather a segâh çeşni— quite normal within Rast.) (** The artist described this also as a “taste” [çeşni] of Buselik rather than as a modulation; she considered the taksim never to have modulated away from Rast.)
s
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(rast-5) buselik-4
direct
(1.5) Şehvar Beşiroğlu – Zavil Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 1/6) tiz açan çargâh-4 buselik-4 çargâh-4 kök pençgâh-5 destek makam Pesendide Mahur** change type direct/quote* pivot pivot tone domdom seyir used yes (* The quote is from Sultan Selim III’s Pesendide Saz Semaisi.) (** Note that it is the çeşni-s [as melodic gestures] at ca. DVD :31 that make it a modulation to Mahur, rather than a change of cins.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
buselik-4
çargâh-4
buselik
nikriz-5
direct
çargâh-5
Nikriz pivot domdom yes
(pivot)
485
direct
Mahur pivot domdom
tiz açan çargâh-4 buselik-4 kök nikriz-5 pençgâh-5 çargâh-5 destek makam Nikriz Pesendide Mahur change type direct unique-p*** pivot pivot pivot pivot tone domdom u-tonu-ton domdom seyir used yes yes (*** This borders on the “not possible” among cins conjunctions, being one of the sort that may be “fake-able,” but never used in the definition of any makam. Since neither Nikriz nor Pençgâh would normally have a çargâh-4 in the açan level the following “pivot” is similarly dubious.)
Note that Zavil is a compound makam in which a mixing of Pesendide, Mahur, and Nikriz makam-s are effected; these being the only makam-s used, the artist considers this taksim to have no (internal) modulations.
2. KEMENÇE (2.1) İhsan Özgen – “Beyond Makam” (DVD 4/A1) The artist’s point in making this avant-garde “taksim” (commercially recorded in 1999) was to deconstruct both the rules and the aesthetic of traditional Turkish makam music. It does so by way of frustrating the very categories that we have been using here to analyze normative taksim-s, and therefore I have not attempted to squeeze an analysis of that sort into the same framework of grids (but please see the artist’s analysis in subtitles on the video clip); we might think of this performance as an example of an “exception that proves the rule(s).” I would note that a successful reception of the piece depends upon the listener’s knowledge of that which is not being played “correctly.”
486
3. NEY (3.1) Eymen Gürtan – Bayati Taksim (DVD 1/7) tiz (hicaz-4) açan (rast-5*) (hicaz-5) (hicaz-5***) kök uşşak-4 uşşak-3 hicaz(-5) destek (rast-5) (hicaz-4) makam Bayati ** Saba Dügâh change type direct direct direct pivot tone domdom tonton tonton seyir used yes yes (* NB: textbook definitions would have a buselik-5 here instead [e.g., see Özkan 1984: 126-7, and “*” in the grid below].) (** This is common gesture in Bayati that is sometimes thought of as a brief internal modulation to Karcığar [see Appendix J] or to Karcığar’s species-relative Nikriz-on-çargâh [see Özkan 1984: 127], though the artist does not mention either of these makam-s in his analysis. [Also see recurrence at ** two grids below.]) (*** Here the hicaz-5 is from Saba’s dominant, c/çargâh, whereas the hicaz-5 just previous was from d/neva a whole step higher. That is, the açan level is here a whole step lower than it was previously.)
tiz açan kök destek makam
uşşak-4 (or 5 ††) rast-5
buselik-5*
uşşak-3 Saba****
uşşak-4 Rast on çargâh unique-p † domton
Bayati
Muhayyer
change type direct “pivot” pivot species pivot tone seyir used yes (**** The artist mentioned this as a return to Saba, though it might also be thought of as a continuation of Dügâh [a compound essentially switching between Saba and Zirgüleli Hicaz]. Incidentally, during the “Dügâh” section the dominant—and therefore the limits of the açan level—temporarily shifted upward by a major 3rd [from çargâh to hüseyni]) († This borders on the “not possible” among cins conjunctions, being one of the sort that may be “fakeable,” but never used in the definition of any makam. The next “pivot” is therefore not actually from any particular makam, but is labeled as such because of the uşşak cins previously used at that level.) (†† In modulating to Muhayyer, the dominant has changed from d/neva to e/hüseyni, therefore implicitly the uşşak cins in the tiz level is now a pentachord rather than a tetrachord, even though we only hear the first 3 tones of the cins.)
487
tiz açan uşşak-4††† buselik-5†††† (hicaz-5**) (buselik-5) kök destek makam Bayati change type pivot direct direct pivot pivot tone seyir used yes (††† Note that this cins begins on the dominant, e/hüseyni.) (†††† Note that the dominant has returned to d/neva, on which tone this cins is based.)
(3.2) Eymen Gürtan – Nihavend Taksim (DVD 1/8) tiz açan kök destek makam
(hicaz-4) rast-5
hicaz-4
uşşak-4
(pençgâh-5)
nikriz-5
*
Uşşak on neva** direct domton
Nikriz on kürdi unique-i
change type unique-i (unique-i) pivot tone domdom seyir used (* The artist did not comment on this unorthodox beginning for Nihavend; it would appear as though it begins as Basit Suzinak, the single tone of the following pençgâh-5 [c /nim hicaz] being used to tonicize d/neva.) (** Even though the artist names this as a transposed makam, I here [and again below] leave it in the açan level rather than transfer it to the kök level; the following modulation similarly frustrates the normative levels but is so brief that I leave it also as described by the cins levels of the host makam.)
s
tiz açan (chromatic) (hicaz-4) buselik-4 kök (chromatic) buselik-5 nikriz-5 buselik-5 destek makam Nihavend Nev’eser Nihavend change type (species***) direct direct pivot pivot tone tonton tonton seyir used yes yes (*** NB: Nihavend is considered a makam that is particularly welcoming of chromaticism; in light of this the “Nikriz on kürdi” just before this may be seen as a chromatic but “species type” gesture from Nihavend’s secondary dominant, e /kürdi.)
e
488
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
uşşak-4
Uşşak on neva direct domton
nikriz-5
buselik-5
Nikriz on kürdi unique-i
Nihavend direct domdom
(3.3) Eymen Gürtan – Suz-i Dilara to Nihavend (DVD 1/9) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
tiz açan kök
rast-5 (rast-4) Rast
nikriz-5
nikriz-5
rast-5
rast-4 uşşak-5
buselik-5
Nikriz direct
Rast direct
Hüseyni species
direct
segâh-3
(uşşak-4)
buselik-4
Segâh on eviç unique-i
Hüseyni species
direct
uşşak-3 (on buselik)
destek makam (Nikriz*) (Nişabur*) change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* The artist did not mention a new makam here.)
489
tiz açan kök destek makam
uşşak-5
(buselik-5) uşşak-4
nikriz-5
Uşşak
Nikriz
(buselik-5) uşşak-4 (rast-5)
(hicaz-5) uşşak-3
Uşşak on neva† direct domton
Saba on neva†† direct tonton
change type (pivot**) species*** direct pivot tone tonton **** seyir used (** If keeping strictly to the analysis of changes in cins type at the same level, this is a “pivot” between the earlier nişabur-3 and the uşşak-4 here—or the uşşak-5 implied at the point when the artist declares Hüseyni—but in practice the prolonged absence of any movement in the kök cins combined with the previous Hüseyni çeşni-s have already “erased” the memory of the nişabur cins and make the appearance of the uşşak cins here seem as though it had not replaced another cins.) (*** Note that the dominant [and therefore the starting tone of the cins-level] changed between Segâh [in which it was segâh], Hüseyni [hüseyni], and Uşşak [neva].) (**** Here the tonic has changed [back] from dügâh to rast; the previous change of tonic was part of a “species” transition, but this one is unusually direct.) († Technically we might shift the “kök level” upward by a P 4th here, but I have left it in terms of the host makam. The dominant here is g/gerdaniye, which is now the lower limit of the tiz cins.) (†† Again a change of dominant and cins-level boundaries: the dominant is the third of the uşşak-3 [f/acem], whence the hicaz-5 begins in the tiz level.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
hicaz-4 (hicaz-5) Dügâh on neva direct tonton
(nikriz-5)
buselik-5
(Nev’eser*)
Nihavend
(pivot) tondom
direct tonton
(buselik-5) kürdi-4 (chromaticism)
(pivot)
4. TANBUR (4.1) Murat Aydemir – Arazbar-Buselik Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 1/10) tiz açan kök destek makam
(buselik-4) rast-5
Rast on çargâh
buselik-5 uşşak-4
(buselik-4) rast-5
Uşşak on neva species
Rast on çargâh species
hicaz-4
Hicaz on neva* direct
buselik-5 (hicaz-4) Buselik
change type pivot tone seyir used (* The artist notes that this may also be understood as Nikriz on çargâh, whereby there would be a nikriz-5 in the açan level
490
tiz açan kök destek makam
(rast-4) rast-5
Rast on çargâh unique-i 2-domton
nikriz-5
uşşak-4
nikriz-5
Nikriz on çargâh direct
Arazbar**
Nikriz on çargâh direct
*** Buselik
change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (** Arazbar is itself a compound makam [see Appendix J], but the term is often used as a shorthand for the simpler “Uşşak on neva,” as it appears here and earlier in the taksim.) (*** The final cadence uses only the buselik-5, with first its subtonic [rast] then its leading tone [nim zirgüle], implying a kürdi-4 changing to a hicaz-4 in the destek cins.)
(4.2) Murat Aydemir – Bayati-Araban Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 1/11) tiz açan kök destek makam
kürdi-4 hicaz-5 (rast-4)
uşşak-4
kürdi-4 nikriz-5
Araban*
Nikriz on çargâh species
(buselik-5) uşşak-4 (rast-5) Bayati
change type direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* Presumably because there is no Arelian conjunction “hicaz-5 + kürdi-4,” the artist describes this as “Hicaz of the Uzzal type” [which it is when there is an uşşak-4 in the tiz cins]; it would once simply have been called “Araban” [see Appendix J].)
491
(4.3) Murat Aydemir – Geçiş Taksim from Gerdaniye to Gülizar (DVD 1/12) tiz açan kök destek makam
(rast-5) rast-4 rast-5 Gerdaniye*
change type
hicaz-4
(uşşak-4) uşşak-5
Hicaz on hüseyni uniquei/quote**
Hüseyni ambiguous***
(uşşak-4) Gerdaniye/Gülizar **** pivot
Karcığar pivot/species
pivot tone seyir used (* This aspect of the compound makam Gerdaniye is manifest as “descending Rast.”) (** This is not literally a quote, but the internal modulation was described by the artist as a gesture played by Tanburi Cemil Bey. NB: here the dominant [and açan level] have shifted up a whole step. In terms of conjoined cins-es, there is at least the appearance of a [unique/impossible] rast-5 + a nikriz-5; it is probably more in line with the artist’s intention to say the two cins-es here are disjunct.) (*** Since there is no such makam entity as “rast-5 + whole-step + hicaz-4” from which to pivot, we cannot call the appearance of the uşşak-5 a pivot; note that there is a construction with uşşak-5 + hicaz4—Hisar makam—but the artist did not mention it here. Note that this melodic gesture ends by stopping on çargâh, ostensibly the 3rd degree of Hüseyni, without explanation in terms of any makam’s structure.) (**** Here begins the aspect of Gerdaniye that descends from g/gerdaniye through Hüseyni makam [where it might have ended, completing Gerdaniye]; technically the whole taksim to this point has been in Gerdaniye. At this very point, however, and merely by re-initiating a descent through Hüseyni but this time from a/muhayyer it has modulated to Gülizar makam, without a change of cins to mark it. Note that this is “Mürekkeb Gülizar” [cf. “Basit Gülizar” on DVD 7/69 and in Appendix J].) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
hicaz-5
pivot
(uşşak-4) uşşak-5
hicaz-5 (uşşak-4)
uşşak-4
Hüseyni species
Karcığar pivot
Hüseyni direct
492
(4.4) Murat Aydemir – Isfahan Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 2/13) tiz açan (buselik-5) kök uşşak-4 uşşak-3* uşşak-4** uşşak-3* uşşak-4** destek (rast-5) makam Bayati Nişabur Bayati Nişabur Bayati change type direct direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* From B/buselik [the previous uşşak-4 having been from A/dügâh]. The artist mentioned only a “çeşni of Nişabur”; while some Arelian theory recognizes a “nişabur tetrachord” and “nişabur pentachord” [see Özkan 1984: 49 and 273] the same theory posits a rast-4 on dügâh in this situation in Isfahan [ibid.: 301 Isfahan]. The “uşşak-3 on B/buselik” solution is something I, myself, am introducing in response to artists’ usage and rhetoric in just this sort of situation [see Chapter VI].) (** From A/dügâh.) tiz çargâh-5 açan buselik-3 kök uşşak-4** uşşak-3* uşşak-4** destek (rast-5) (rast-5) makam Acem*** Bayati Nişabur Bayati change type pivot pivot direct direct pivot tone seyir used (*** As mentioned in Chapter V, fn. 40, Acem has a unique cins-conjunction structure: uşşak-4 [on A/dügâh] + buselik-3 [on d/neva] + çargâh-3 [to reach an octave] or even a çargâh-5 [on f/acem].)
Note that the artist presented the exposition of the above compound makam as though it had no (internal, other-than-constitutive) modulations; I would add, however, that I have not found the showing of Acem makam inside Isfahan in theory text descriptions of the makam (see Appendix J s.v. “Isfahan”).
493
(4.5) Murat Aydemir – Muhayyer-Sümbüle Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 2/14) tiz açan kök destek makam
(hicaz-5) (hicaz-4)
hicaz-4 hicaz-5** (hicaz-4)
Zirgüleli Hicaz on muhayyer*
(çargâh-5)
(Zirgüleli) Hicaz on çargâh direct
“Çargâh on acem”
(e ) kürdi-4
hicaz-5 (hicaz-4)
(e ) kürdi
Kürdi****
(Zirgüleli) Hicaz on çargâh direct
Kürdi
hicaz-5 (hicaz-4) (Zirgüleli) Hicaz on çargâh direct
nikriz-5 Nikriz on kürdi
change type direct*** direct pivot tone seyir used (* This could also be thought of as an iteration of the makam Şehnaz, but the artist expressed it as above [cf. Appendix J s.v. Şehnaz and Özkan 1984: 333].) (** NB: the previous hicaz-4 is on e/hüseyni while this hicaz-5 is on c/çargâh.) (*** NB: this and the previous cins change are not merely “direct” [as indicated], but also occur as leaps between disjunct cins-es; this is very unusual in KTM [though cf. A. Agopian’s Rast Taksim II, analyzed in Chapter V], but apparently such leaps are constitutive of the proper exposition of Muhayyer-Sümbüle.) tiz açan kök destek makam
e
e
change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (**** NB: the conjunction of Zirgüleli Hicaz on çargâh [which used to be called “Çargâh makamı,” and as such exists inside the makam Saba, see Wright 1990] leading to a cadence in Kürdi could be designated as its own makam, Saba-Zemzeme, though the artist did not mention it. Note also the “precadential flat-5” gesture [“(e ,)” also appearing in the final cadence], a single tone in the açan level not associated with an independent cins.)
e
Again, as the exposition of a compound makam, the above taksim was considered by the artist to have no (internal, non-constitutive) modulations; although in the rows designating makam-s in the above grids the name Muhayyer-Sümbüle does not appear, it must be understood that the whole, altogether, form that makam.
494
(4.6) Murat Aydemir – Suzinak Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 2/15) tiz (buselik-5) açan hicaz-4 (nikriz-5**) (rast-4?) buselik-4 kök rast-5 destek makam Araban* Basit Suzinak (Rast***) change type (“species”) pivot direct pivot tone seyir used (* In contrast to the “Araban” that the artist played in ex. 4.2 above, this version is essentially Hümayun on neva [see Appendix J].) (** The artist explained that here, while leaving the hicaz-4 in the açan level, he stopped on çargâh and on segâh to give an impression of Nikriz-on-çargâh and Hüzzam respectively, though not as full modulations (even of the “species” variety), and he noted that these were not really the correct intervals for Hüzzam [see Chapter V and Appendix H]. I wonder if the unexplained rast-like tetrachord that immediately follows was intended as a compensation for this; perhaps it should read “hüzzam-4.”) (*** The artist gave no special explanation of what is happening here, but it would appear to be an iteration of Rast inside Basit Suzinak.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type
buselik-5 rast-4
hicaz-4 (buselik-5 †) (rast-4)
direct
rast-5
direct/uniquei
direct
unique-i
(Basit Suzinak) (pivot)
pivot tone seyir used († This brief show of Nihavend in a Rast family makam is fairly common—it appears to be foreshadowing the buselik cins that follows at the upper octave as part of the Hümayun-on-neva aspect of the host makam. Until that point we would seem still to be in Rast [up until “Basit Suzinak” is marked in parentheses]. The cins change type is direct, occurring in the kök cins, but I have also marked it as “unique-i” because the combination buselik-5 + rast-4 is not found in our “constellations” of makam-recalling cins conjunctions. This is true also of the inversion that occurs two columns over in the tiz level.) tiz açan kök destek makam
uşşak-4 hicaz-5
change type pivot tone seyir used
species
kürdi-4 (rast-4)
hicaz-4
direct
direct
hicaz-5 Zirgüleli Suzinak pivot
direct
495
Note that the artist characterized this taksim as being in the makam “Suzinak” without the qualifiers “Basit” or “Zirgüleli”—it is therefore shown as having “no modulation” (see Appendix J s.v. Suzinak). (4.7) Özer Özel – Bayati Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 2/16) tiz uşşak-4 açan buselik-5 hicaz-5 buselik-5 (rast-5) buselik-5 kök uşşak-4 destek makam Bayati (*) change type direct direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* This very typical “internal modulation” in Bayati may be thought of as a moment of Karcığar makam, though the artist did not mention it as such. Such an interpretation would alter the “change type” here from “direct” to “pivot.”)
(4.8) Özer Özel – Hicazkâr Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 2/17) tiz açan kök destek makam
(buselik-5) hicaz-4 hicaz-5 Hicazkâr
Hümayun on neva
change type pivot tone seyir used
(buselik-4) buselik-5* hicaz-4
(hicaz-4) nikriz-5***
(Hicazkâr**)
(Nev’eser on çargâh) direct
pivot
hicaz-4**** hicaz-5 Hicazkâr species
yes [but no shared pivot tone] (* From çargâh, i.e., cins-level delimiting tone changed by a whole step down. NB: he regards the upper tonic, gerdaniye, as the dominant, not either çargâh or neva.) (** The artist did not explicitly note a shift back to Hicazkâr, but it is clearly no longer Hümayun on neva.) (*** Still from çargâh; the artist did not note a change in cins or makam.) (**** Note the return to using neva as the cins-level delimiting tone.)
496
tiz açan kök destek makam
(buselik-5) hicaz-4
nikriz-5†
Hümayun on neva pivot
(Nikriz on çargâh) species
buselik-5 hicaz-4††
buselik-5 hicaz-4 (hicaz-5)
(rast-5 †††)
change type direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used († From çargâh; the artist did not remark upon his frequent use of çargâh here as indicating a change in cins, dominant, or makam.) (†† As above, the shift between the pentachord + tetrachord and tetrachord + pentachord configurations goes unmentioned by the artist.) (††† This appears to be merely a passing tone.) tiz açan kök destek
buselik-5 nikriz-5†††† (Nikriz on çargâh)
buselik-5• hicaz-4 Hicazkâr
makam change type direct pivot/species direct pivot tone seyir used (†††† As above, there is an emphatic pause on the tone çargâh, but the artist did not mention it as a change from Hümayun on neva.) (• On çargâh. Note a passing use of nim hicaz as a “pre-cadential flat 5th” melodic gesture.)
This taksim is unusual in its fluid crossing between a “pentachord + tetrachord” and a “tetrachord + pentachord” configuration, a dynamic that frustrates both the idea of a clear (secondary) dominant as well as clear categories of cins-change type.
497
(4.9) Özer Özel – Suz-i Dilara Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 2/18) tiz açan kök destek makam
(çargâh-5**)
(buselik-5) uşşak-4***
rast-4*
(çargâh-5) nikriz-5
Suz-i Dilara
Uşşak on hüseyni direct/species
Nikriz****
change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* NB: the artist uses the tone buselik as the “leading tone” to the dominant [çargâh]; it could be argued that this constitutes a switching between a rast-4 and a çargâh-4 as the kök-level cins, though the artist did not explain it thus.) (** The artist explained this as “exploring Rast’s mother scale” up to its [“flat”] 7th degree [acem], and not in terms of a çargâh-4 or -5.) (*** NB: the delimiter of the açan cins here becomes hüseyni, the 6th degree and second dominant. If the overall basic scalar material of Suz-i Dilara is understood as that of Rast [which the artist seems to do, here] it could be argued that the uşşak is a “species” of (an unused) rast-5 on neva. It could also be argued [against the artist’s analysis] that there is an uşşak-5 here rather than an uşşak-5 + the first tone of a buselik-5 in the tiz level.) (**** Note that the appearance of Nikriz [and below] was characterized by the artist as a “taste” [çeşni], and was not seen as a modulation.) iz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
rast-4 (rast-5) Suz-i Dilara direct
hicaz4/nikriz-5
rast-4
Hicaz/Nikriz direct
Suz-i Dilara direct
498
(4.10) Özer Özel – Geçiş Taksim from Suz-i Dilara to Kürdili Hicazkâr (DVD 2/19) tiz açan kök destek makam
(çargâh-5**)
(buselik-5) uşşak-4***
(çargâh-5)
rast-4*
nikriz-5
Suz-i Dilara
Uşşak on hüseyni direct/species
Nikriz****
change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* NB: the artist uses the tone buselik as the “leading tone” to the dominant [çargâh]; it could be argued that this constitutes a switching between a rast-4 and a çargâh-4 as the kök-level cins, though the artist did not explain it thus.) (** The artist explained this as “exploring Rast’s mother scale” up to its [“flat”] 7th degree [acem], and not in terms of a çargâh-4 or -5.) (*** NB: the delimiter of the açan cins here becomes hüseyni, the 6th degree and second dominant. If the overall basic scalar material of Suz-i Dilara is understood as that of Rast [which the artist seems to do, here] it could be argued that the uşşak is a “species” of (an unused) rast-5 on neva. It could also be argued [against the artist’s analysis] that there is an uşşak-5 here rather than an uşşak-5 + the first tone of a buselik-5 in the tiz level.) (**** Note that the appearance of Nikriz [and below] was characterized by the artist as a “taste” [çeşni], and was not seen as a modulation.) tiz açan kök destek makam
rast-4
nikriz-5
Suz-i Dilara
Nikriz
rast-4
(rast-5) (rast-4) [rast-5]
nikriz-5
Rast on gerdaniye pivot†
Nikriz on çargâh direct
change type direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used († NB: The implied change in the kök level cins from a tetrachord to a pentachord makes this not quite a conventional pivot.)
499
tiz açan kök destek makam
(buselik-5) rast-4
uşşak-4
rast-5 on çargâh
rast-5 Rast
buselik-5 on çargâh
kürdi-5†††
Arazbar††
Kürdili Hicazkâr direct
change type direct direct unique-i unique-i pivot tone seyir used (†† The first use of Arazbar was characterized as a “taste” [çeşni] and not as a modulation. Descending thence through a cadence in the rast-5, the artist verbally noted [that the makam we are in at this point is] “Rast,” after which Arazbar is newly opened as a transition toward Kürdili Hicazkâr.) (††† This kürdi-5 [on rast] was left unexplained by the artist; it would be normal per se in Kürdili Hicazkâr [or at least nearly normal—see Appendix L s.v. “Kürdi”], but not in Arazbar. The conjunction “kürdi-5 + uşşak-4” is not among the conjunctions that recall makam-s presented in Chapter VI. Exactly what makam[-s] we are in between here and the later declaration of Kürdili Hicazkâr is unclear.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
kürdi-4
(buselik-4)
(kürdi-4)
direct
direct
kürdi-4
(4.11) Özer Özel – Uşşak Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 2/20) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
buselik-5 uşşak-4 rast-5 Uşşak
500
5. UD (5.1) Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Acem Aşiran Taksim (DVD 2/21) tiz
çargâh-5
açan
(çargâh-4)
kürdi-4 on muhayyer rast-4 on çargâh
çargâh-4
kök destek makam
uşşak-4 on dügâh Acem Aşiran
change type pivot tone
çargâh-5 on acemaşiran çargâh-4
(*) direct
species
direct
Buselik on neva pivot 2domdom
seyir used (* Note that if the taksim were to have stopped here in Uşşak, the overall makam would have been Acem.) tiz açan kök destek makam
uşşak-4 buselik-5
çargâh-5
Uşşak on Acem Aşiran muhayyer change type pivot pivot pivot tone domton ton2-dom seyir used yes yes (** A “taste” of Bestenigâr immediately returning to Saba.) tiz açan
nikriz-5 on kürdi
kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(hicaz-5 on çargâh) (uşşak-3)
nikriz-5 on acemaşiran Nikriz on kürdi direct
hicaz-5 (uşşak-3) Saba
(uşşak-3) **
direct domdom yes
kürdi-4 on acemaşiran
nikriz-5 on acemaşiran
direct
direct
Şevk’efza direct
501
tiz açan kök destek makam
çargâh-4
(buselik-4 on neva)
çargâh-5 on acemaşiran
buselik-5 on yegâh (hicaz-4) Ferahfeza****
Acem Aşiran*** direct tonton
nikriz-5 on yegâh (†)
change type species direct pivot tone seyir used (*** NB: There is some [deliberate] ambiguity here as to the makam, since it is possible for Şevk’efza to end in Acem Aşiran.) (**** Ferahfeza, being a compound of Acem Aşiran moving to Buselik on yegâh [or Sultani Yegâh] can at this point be said to have started earlier, where Acem Aşiran began, though a listener cannot have known it before this point.) († A brief moment explained as a “taste” [çeşni] of Nikriz on yegâh. returning immediately to buselik5/Ferahfeza) tiz açan kök
hicaz-5 on çargâh buselik-5 on yegâh
nikriz-5 on yegâh
buselik-5 on yegâh
uşşak-3
destek (rast-4) makam Şevk’efza†† change type direct direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (†† The artist described this as a return to the Saba aspect of Şevk’efza, but note that it never returns to the Nikriz-on-acemaşiran characteristic of that makam [the only clue being the kaba acemaşiran bass “drop note” against Saba]. Since we have heard Saba before, first as part of Acem Aşiran and then as part of Şevfk’efza it is probably a better fit simply to say that he is using Saba as a “pivot makam” between several compounds that utilize it, for instance the upcoming Bestenigâr [NB: whose destek level will act as its kök cins].) tiz açan
hicaz-4 segâh-3 on eviç
kök destek
uşşak-4 on hüseyni uşşak-5 on dügâh
uşşak-3 on ırak Bestenigâr
makam Segâh on eviç Hüseyni change type pivot tone pivot††† species seyir used yes (††† This is a curious sort of “pivot”: it is literally a repetition of the cadence we have just heard in the “kök” cins an octave higher, but signifying a new makam.)
502
tiz açan kök
hicaz-5 on çargâh uşşak-3 on dügâh
çargâh-4 çargâh-5 on acemaşiran
destek (çargâh-4) makam Saba (††††) Acem Aşiran change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (†††† The artist here noted a “suspended cadence in Acem-Kürdi” but it would seem as though the taksim is at this point merely emphasizing each descending tone of the Acem Aşiran scale [including below the tonic to yegâh] starting from that rest on kürdi; since Acem-Kürdi normally would not have shown Saba, I wonder if he meant that the transition was interpretable as Saba-Kürdi [aka SabaZemzeme].)
(5.2) Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Geçiş Taksim from Evcara to Ferahnak (DVD 2/22) tiz açan kök
müstear-3 on eviç hicaz-4 on nim hicaz hicaz-5 on ırak
*
segâh-3 from eviç
** *** segâh-3 on ırak
destek makam Evcara Ferahnak change type direct pivot pivot tone tonu-ton seyir used (* Conjunct above the müstear-3 are the first 3 tones of a buselik cins of unspecified size. Note that the artist spoke in terms of makam-s and not cins-es here.) (** Conjunct above the segâh-3 is an uşşak-4; again, the artist described this in terms of whole makam rather than as specific cins combinations.) (*** Here there is a confusion of cins levels; see comment below.)
Note that in the moment marked by “***” in the above grid there is a point where the modulation from Evcara to Ferahnak recontextualizes certain tones in such a way as to split the “açan” level into two cins-es: •
Evcara as: o tiz level: müstear-3 [fs gs a] + buselik(-3) [a b c’]
changing to segâh-3 [fs g a] + uşşak-4 [a bq c d] 503
o açan level: hicaz-4 [cs d es fs] o kök level: hicaz-5 [Fs G As Bq cs] to •
Ferahnak as: o tiz level: segâh-3 [fs g a] o açan level: rast-3 [A B cs] + hicaz-4 [cs d es fs] o kök level: segâh-3 [Fs G A]
(5.3) Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Geçiş Taksim from Eviç to Evcara (DVD 2/23) tiz
segâh-3 on eviç rast-3 on neva*
açan
segâh-3 + buselik-4† (**) + rast-4 on dügâh
(***) uşşak-4 on dügâh
kök
rast-3 on dügâh + hicaz-4 on nim hicaz****
segâh-3 on ırak
destek makam Eviç Ferahnak change type direct species/pivot pivot tone seyir used (* note that because the “special leading tone” of the tonic [and upper tonic] f/acem is so characteristic to the makam that the rast-3 with its implicit e/hüseyni is never heard here. Arelian theory explains this tone as the 3rd degree of a hicaz-4 on c /nim hicaz) (** As in the artist’s previous taksim, there is a point where there are two conjunct cins-es in the “açan level,” here: the aforementioned rast-3 on neva above a rast-4 on dügâh.) (*** Only the previous rast-4 changed—the rast-3 on neva was neither referred to nor replaced.) (**** Again, two cins-es fit in this “açan level,” and both have changed from the previous ones: the previous uşşak-4 has been changed via the “species” principle to a rast-3, conjoint to which is now a hicaz-4 on c /nim hicaz, which we may say was arrived at as pivoting from the rast-uşşak “species.”) († Also as in the previous taksim, the “tiz level” too needs to accommodate two cins-es: the segâh-3 is on f /eviç and is below the buselik-4 on the a/muhayyer.)
s
s
s
504
tiz açan
rast-4
buselik-4
rast-5 on neva
buselik-4 on dügâh†††
kök destek makam
uşşak-3 on ırak (††)
Saba on ırak direct
change type pivot pivot direct pivot pivot tone seyir used (†† For a while this would appear to be Rast on yegâh, but ends in a cadence on F /ırak, i.e., in Ferahnak.) (††† As though an “Acemli Rast” on yegâh.)
s
tiz açan
hicaz-5 on dügâh
nikriz-5 on rast
kök destek makam
(rast-5) (rast-4)• (Saba on geveşt††††) direct
nikriz-5 on yegâh
Şevk’efza on yegâh species
(••)
change type direct pivot tone seyir used (†††† The artist has here very stealthily and without mention shifted upward by one comma, which allows him to use open strings, and to make the next modulation—which he has already begun here— without returning directly to F /ırak.) (• This is a mere gesture, common in Şevk’efza.) (•• Here repeats everything in this grid, structurally.)
s
tiz açan kök destek makam
hicaz-5 on dügâh
buselik-5 on dügâh
uşşak-3 on geveşt
uşşak-4 on geveşt
Saba on geveşt••• direct
Uşşak (on geveşt) direct
segâh-3 on ırak Segâh on ırak•••• direct
change type pivot tone seyir used (••• The artist is here still tacitly playing with the fiction that the tonic is F /irak, one comma below F /geveşt, as he will in the next modulation, to “Uşşak (on geveşt).”) (•••• Here the artist has moved the tonic back down one comma, to F /ırak; if the fiction of the previous geveşt moves were taken by the audience as on ırak, we could call this a “species” change.)
s
d
s
505
tiz açan
hüzzam-3 + hicaz-4°
kök
hicaz-4 on nim hicaz hicaz-5 on ırak
destek makam Evcara change type direct pivot tone seyir used (° The artist here makes an octave run, ostensibly in Segâh-on-ırak; if this is so, and Segâh’s 4th degree is a perfect fourth above the tonic [i.e., segâh a P4 above ırak], then we may count the cins above the segâh-3 on ırak as a hüzzam cins—either a hüzzam-3 conjoined to a hicaz-4 on nim hicaz as cited in the grid, or a hüzzam-4 with a rast-3 on neva that incidentally used the “special leading tone” of its 3rd degree instead of its normative 2nd e/hüseyni. I must note however that I would guess the artist would have voiced it as a “segâh pentachord on ırak [F G A B c ] plus a hicaz tetrachord on nim hicaz [c d e f ]” had I asked.)
s
q s
s
ss
(5.4) Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Nişabur Taksim (DVD 2/24) tiz açan
buselik-5 on neva***
kök
“nişabur-5”*
segâh-3
uşşak-3 on buselik
destek makam
Nişabur
Segâh**
Nişabur
(çargâh-4) çargâh-5 on acem
Çargâh on acem species
change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* The artist described the base [kök] cins of this makam as a “nişabur pentachord” [on B/buselik: B c d e f ] which is conjoined to the makam Çargâh on f/acem [f g a b c’ + c’ d’ e’ f’] in the açan level— resulting in an unusual conjunction of two pentachords. But notice that the description of the makam in Appendix J [ q.v.] presents the makam’s scale material instead as an uşşak-3 [B c d] conjoined to a buselik-5 [d e f g a], above which is a kürdi-4 [a b c’ d’]. It is my opinion that the idea of a “nişabur pentachord” only exists due to the Arelian refusal to recognize trichords.) (** Frankly, this does not sound very much like Segâh to me—the tone buselik does not seem to be lowered a comma to the needed segâh, nor are there typical segâh çeşni-s played; the artist seems to be using the idea of Segâh as a way of justifying introducing the tone c/çargâh.) (*** This gesture—clearly outlining a buselik-5 on d/neva, using the three notes below seemingly in support of that run—seems to belie the “nişabur-5” concept of the makam.)
s
e
s
e
506
tiz açan kök
(buselik-5 on neva) segâh-3
uşşak-3 on buselik
destek makam Segâh**** Nişabur† change type direct pivot tone seyir used (**** See note “**” above.) († Here the artist introduces the tone A /kürdi as a “special leading tone”—note that it usually acts thus for B /segâh rather than for B/buselik; although the artist did not say as much, it would appear as though he had gone from Segâh to Müstear rather than directly to Nişabur. The gesture happens once more before restoring the normative sub-tonic “leading tone” [tam yeden] for the final cadence.)
s
q
(5.5) Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Nişaburek Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 3/25) tiz açan kök
(rast-5) buselik-4
rast-4
uşşak-4 on hüseyni
rast-4
rast-5 on dügâh
destek makam Nişaburek change type pivot* species species pivot tone seyir used (* The melody having ascended, then returned, the pivot cins from “Acemli Rast on dügâh” to “Rast on dügâh” is the kök level rast-5.)
(5.6) Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Pençgâh Taksim (DVD 3/26) tiz açan kök
rast-5
**
buselik-4 **
rast-5
(müstear3***)
destek (rast-4) makam Rast/Pençgâh* change type (direct) (direct) (direct) (pivot) pivot tone seyir used (* The artist asserted that Pençgâh begins as Rast.) (** The artist expressed the change in 4th degree here, from c/çargâh to c /nim hicaz—as exactly that, i.e., not in terms of a change of cins.) (*** Here [as in the previous taksim] the artist uses A /kürdi as B /segâh’s “special leading tone”— this gesture, when the 4th degree is c /nim hicaz would normally be associated with the makam Müstear, though the artist did not mention it here.)
s
s
s
507
q
tiz açan kök
rast-4 rast-5
pençgâh5****
buselik
rast-5
destek makam change type (direct) direct direct pivot tone seyir used (**** Here, for the first time, the artist mentioned a “pençgâh pentachord.”) († Rast’s normative ascent with rast-4 and descent with buselik-4.)
direct†
tiz (rast-3) (kürdi-5††) açan çargâh-4 buselik-4 rast-4 (buselik-4) kök rast-5 “pençgâh”†††† rast-5 destek makam Mahur Rast††† change type direct direct direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (†† Unexplained.) (††† Presumably as part of Pençgâh.) (†††† The artist did not again mention a “pençgâh pentachord,” only alternations between Rast and Pençgâh—several of which occur here before the final cadence in Rast.)
(5.7) Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Rast Taksim on dügâh* (DVD 3/27) tiz açan (rast-4) hicaz-4 rast-4 kök rast-5 segâh-3 rast-5 destek makam Rast (**) Segâh Rast change type direct direct species species pivot tone seyir used (*Note that this taksim was made specifically to contrast Rast and Nişaburek—see taksim 5.5 above.) (** This could have been reckoned as Suzinak, but the artist did not do so—note that although it is not unusual that a hicaz-4 appear in Rast, it is unusual for the first cins to show above a rast-5 in Rast to be the hicaz-4.) tiz açan
buselik-4***
rast-4
buselik-4 (***)
kök destek makam change type direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (*** Rast’s normative ascent with rast-4 and descent with buselik-4.)
508
(5.8) Necati Çelik – Bestenigâr Taksim (DVD 3/28) tiz hicaz-5** ** açan uşşak-3 kök ırak-3 ırak-4 destek makam Saba Bestenigâr * (Saba) change type (species) pivot tone seyir used (* It can be interpreted that Bestenigâr here employs the makam Irak as part of its compound, though the artist did not note it, here. It is not clear whether the artist considered this taksim to have “modulations” or if all the appearing makam-s are part of the compound makam Bestenigâr.) (** The appearance of the tones a/muhayyer and b /sümbüle [above the hicaz-5 on c/çargâh] are rare in Saba and would seem to frustrate the understanding of this makam as a compound beginning in Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh and a conjunct uşşak-3 below it [which the artist had conveyed to me on other occasions—NB Bestenigâr is generally considered the extension of this compound by dropping further through a segâh-3 on F /ırak]. However there is a now archaic makam called Sümbüle [“Hyacinth”] that consists of “Çargâh” on f/acem [f g a b c’ + c’ d’ e’ f’] falling through Saba— although the artist did not mention Sümbüle per se, it appears to me that this is what he is playing in this passage, and in the next one marked “**.” It may be the case that this is part of the artist’s concept of Saba per se, or of Bestenigâr per se [but not Saba]—he did not mention it.)
e
s
e
tiz açan
segâh-3 on eviç +uşşak-4 on muhayyer (hicaz-4 on nim hicaz)***
hicaz-5 on çargâh buselik-4 on neva above uşşak-4 on dügâh
(buselik-4 +) müstear-3 (on segâh)****
uşşak-3
kök (uşşak-3) destek (rast-3††) makam Eviç (Müstear) (Saba†) Bestenigâr change type direct direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (*** It is not clear whether there is intended here a hicaz-4 on nim hicaz or rather that the “special leading tone” normative to f /eviç in this makam makes a rast-3 on d/neva with a c /nim hicaz leading tone appear so. There would seem to be a significant stop on nim hicaz but note that the Arelian conception of Eviç does not contain that tone at all [see Appendix J].) (**** The artist described this as a taste of Müstear [as part of Eviç], but note that it could be considered a hüzzam-4 on dügâh. [Note also the compression of cins levels due to the use of conjunct trichords, returning to normal immediately after this].) († As part of Bestenigâr.) (†† Slightly obscured [as it had been an octave higher, see “***”] by F /ırak’s “special leading tone” F/acemaşiran.)
s
s
s
509
(5.9) Necati Çelik – Muhayyer Taksim* (DVD 3/29) tiz
(uşşak-5)
açan kök destek makam
uşşak-4
uşşak-3 + hicaz-5 buselik-4
uşşak-4
uşşak-5 rast-4 Muhayyer
(Hüseyni*)
Saba on muhayyer** direct
change type pivot direct pivot tone seyir used (* NB: the artist played this taksim in the “kız neyi ahengi,” that is, a fourth below the makam’s normative place, however he still referred to normative perde names, i.e., the upper octave perde is referred to as “muhayyer” even though literally it is hüseyni.) (** That is, the aspect of Muhayyer that is Hüseyni [i.e., no modulation is indicated].) (*** I.e., an octave higher than its normal “place”; composed of an uşşak-3 on muhayyer and a hicaz-5 on tiz çargâh.) tiz
(hicaz-5 on muhayyer)
açan
hicaz-5
kök destek makam
uşşak-3 ****
kürdi-4 on muhayyer + buselik(-5) on tiz neva
(hicaz-4 on hüseyni)
Dügâh on muhayyer† direct
Kürdi
uşşak-4
buselik-4
change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (**** Saba “in its place,” echoing the gesture above.) († Again, an octave higher than its normal “place.”) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
buselik-4 (uşşak-5) Muhayyer direct
pivot
510
buselik-5
(hicaz-5)
kürdi-4
(uşşak-4) Karcığar
(5.10) Necati Çelik – Rast Taksim (DVD 3/30) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
buselik-4
rast
uşşak-3 on buselik
rast-4 Rast
tiz açan kök
buselik
rast-5
uşşak-4 on dügâh
destek makam
pivot
direct
(rast-5) çargâh-4*
segâh-3 hicaz-4 on eviç hicaz-5 on segâh
nikriz-5 on rast
destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(buselik-5) hüzzam-4
Hüzzam direct
Mahur
(rast-5)
(buselik-5)
müstear-3
Evcara on (tiz) segâh change type direct direct species** direct pivot tone 2-domu-ton seyir used yes (* May indeed be a rast-4; the artist mentioned Mahur makam without specifying the cins he prefers there. [Historically there are versions of Mahur with either cins, or even both.]) (** i.e., from the rast-5 to the segâh-3 inside it.) tiz açan kök
Nikriz
Isfahan direct
direct
direct
511
(rast-5)
segâh-3 on segâh
pivot
species
tiz
açan
segâh-3 on tiz segâh + buselik (-4) on tiz neva (hicaz-4 on eviç ***)
(buselik-5 on gerdaniye)
(rast-5)
çargâh-4*
kök
(rast-4?) rast-5
uşşak-5 on dügâh
destek makam (Segâh) (?) Mahur Hüseyni change type pivot direct direct species pivot tone domu-ton seyir used yes (*** The artist did not mention Segâh specifically, only that this began the meyan section of Hüzzam. The hicaz-4 cins also was not named by the artist; it is possible to interpret [tiz] segâh’s “special leading tone” as not disrupting a rast-3 below it instead of de facto creating a hicaz cins there.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
tiz açan
uşşak-4
kürdi-4
uşşak-4
kürdi-4
uşşak-4
species
direct
direct
direct
direct
hicaz-4
uşşak-4 on neva
uşşak-5
(buselik-5)
kök destek makam
buselik-5 on dügâh (hicaz-4) Muhayyer
Karcığar****
change type species pivot pivot tone u-tonton seyir used yes (**** The artists noted “within Muhayyer.”)
512
ArazbarBuselik direct
tiz açan
(çargâh-5 on acem) buselik-4
çargâh-4 on çargâh
kök
çargâh-5 on acemaşiran
(buselik-3 on neva) uşşak-4 on dügâh
kürdi-4
destek makam Ferahfeza† Uşşak†† Kürdi ††† change type pivot direct species direct pivot tone tondom seyir used yes († The artist noted this modulation as Acem Aşiran, as an aspect of Ferahfeza.) (†† The artist noted here “the Uşşak/Beyati aspect of Ferahfeza,” but I would note that the gesture, centering on f/acem with a fall and rise through an uşşak-4, could be interpreted as Acem makam, another possible internal modulation of Ferahfeza.) (††† That is, the Kürdi aspect of Ferahfeza.) tiz
çargâh-5 on acem ••
açan kök destek
buselik-5 on yegâh †††† (Ferahfeza)
çargâh-4 on çargâh çargâh-5 on acemaşiran buselik-3 on yegâh •
(hicaz-4)
(hicaz-5 on çargâh) (uşşak-3 on dügâh)
makam Saba change type pivot/species direct pivot••• pivot tone seyir used (†††† Note that this is now the new [if temporary] “kök” level.) (• Note that this column [including the previous kürdi cins] shows the species-switching aspect of Ferahfeza makam; since the artist did not specify the cins-es in use I am dividing them thus, though it could also have been: buselik-5 + kürdi-4 + buselik-3.) (•• The artist reported “Saba” here; this çargâh cins would not fit with that analysis per se, but does fit as part of the Acem Aşiran we saw earlier as part of Ferahfeza. We should probably understand this as a continuation of Ferahfeza.) (••• “Pivot” by way of dipping back down to the hicaz-5, then using its 4th degree [f/acem] as the pivot.)
513
tiz açan
kürdi-4
(kürdi-4°°)
buselik-5 on neva
kök hicaz-4 destek kürdi-4 makam Kürdi •••• Hümayun° change type direct pivot pivot tone seyir used (•••• Presumably as part of Ferahfeza.) (° It is unclear whether the artist understood this as part of Ferahfeza. The pivot occurred through the buselik-5 in the açan level.) (°° The artist did not comment on maintaining this cins at this level, though normally there would be hicaz-4 there in Hümayun.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
rast-4 nikriz-5 on rast
rast-5 rast-4 Rast pivot
Nikriz species subtonton yes
514
(5.11) Necati Çelik – Şevk’efza Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 3/31) tiz açan kök
hicaz-4 (hicaz-5 on çargâh) (hicaz-4)
(nikriz-5 on kürdi)
(nikriz-5 on acemaşiran***)
uşşak-3 on dügâh****
(nikriz-5 on kürdi)
destek makam * ** (Saba) ** change type species direct pivot direct pivot tone seyir used (* The artist notes that the makam “begins as Kürdili Hicazkâr” but this is not strictly the case, as we would expect in that makam to hear a hicaz-4 on d/neva rather than the hicaz-5 on c/çargâh that follows the hicaz cins in the tiz level. At that point we may say that this is a descending-ascending version of Zirgüleli Hicaz on c/çargâh [which, we may note, used to be called “Çargâh makam,” and] which is associated with the makam Saba, though the artist is clear that this is not to be considered Saba.) (** The artist did not mention a change of cins per se here—only that the subtonic [B /kürdi] was being used in place of the leading tone [B /segâh, implied by the “hicaz-4” in the previous “kök” level]—but de facto this opens a nikriz-5 on B /kürdi [which would be considered correct inside Şevk’efza], and we may note parenthetically that had the artist stopped here it would be appropriate to label the taksim “Saba-Zemzeme.”) (*** Note that here there is a shifting of levels; the nikriz-5 on F/acemaşiran would have been in the destek level of Zirgüleli Hicaz on çargâh, but it is now revealed that that makam was in the açan level of Şevk’efza.) (**** Here, the levels have switched back for a moment as Saba proper, which the artist had avoided before, becomes the new focus. The pivot is achieved through a return to the previous [and common] hicaz-5 on çargâh in the açan level.)
e
q
e
tiz açan kök
(nikriz-5 on acemaşiran***)
destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
515
6. VIOLIN (KEMAN) (6.1) Ünal Ensari – Hicaz Taksim [“no modulation”] (DVD 3/32) tiz açan (buselik-5) (rast-5) (buselik-5)* kürdi-4 kök hicaz-4 hicaz-5 destek (rast-5) makam Hicaz (**) change type direct direct species pivot tone seyir used (* The alternation between a rast-5 [when ascending] and a buselik-5 [when descending] occurs 3 or 4 more times here [but I have only counted it once in the final count].) (** The artist did not mention a change of makam/cins here, but makes e/hüseyni the dominant; this would imply a shift to Uzzal makam, however note that the kürdi-4 does not properly occur in Uzzal, but rather in Araban [see Appendix J].) tiz açan
(uşşak-4) uşşak-4***
hicaz-4 (+ 1 tone)
segâh-3 (above rast-3)
rast-5
buselik-5†
kök destek rast-5 makam Eviç**** Hicaz change type direct species direct direct pivot tone seyir used (*** The alternation between a kürdi-4 and an uşşak-4 here is analogous to that between the buselik-4 and rast-4 seen previously—note that they are the same tones—species of each other—simply starting a tone higher. ) (**** The artist characterized this as a “taste” [çeşni] rather than as a modulation [geçki]; notice the species-type climb through rast-uşşak-segâh cins-es.) († Again, for the final ascent and descent there is a rise through the main scale, using a rast-4, and a descent using a buselik-4 in the açan cin-s.)
516
7. YAYLI (BOWED) TANBUR (7.1) Vasfi Akyol – Hicaz Taksim (DVD 3/33) tiz açan (rast-5) (uşşak-4) buselik-5 uşşak-4 kök hicaz-4 hicaz-5* hicaz-4 hicaz-5 uşşak-5 destek makam Hicaz (Uzzal) (Hicaz) (Uzzal) Hüseyni change type species direct direct species pivot tone seyir used (* The artist did not mention a change of makam/cins here; the shift in emphasis from d/neva to e/hüseyni implies another from Hicaz to Uzzal.) tiz açan kök destek makam
buselik-4 on hüseyni rast-5 on dügâh
buselik-5 on dügâh
Rast on dügâh direct
(**)
change type pivot tone seyir used (** Apparently part of Rast on dügâh.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
direct
hicaz-4 Hicaz direct
517
rast-5 on dügah
uşşak-4 (rast-5) Uşşak
direct
direct
(7.2) Vasfi Akyol – Nihavend Taksim (DVD 3/34) tiz açan kök destek makam
kürdi-5 (rast-4) *
kürdi-4 buselik-5 (hicaz-4**) Nihavend
uşşak-4
hicaz-5 on acem uşşak-3
(Hüseyni on neva) direct
(Saba on neva) direct
(kürdi-4)
(Nihavend)
change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* The artist did not indicate any makam other than Nihavend here; note however that not only is a kürdi-5 an unusual opening for Nihavend, but that there is no makam whose kök cins is [explicitly] a kürdi-5.) (** The “hicaz-4” here is merely an implication of the leading tone, as the previous “rast-4” at this level is merely an implication of the subtonic—since there is no default cins beneath a kürdi-5, “rast-4” is a guess at a cins, though apparently only a subtonic [regardless of cins] was intended.)
(7.3) Vasfi Akyol – Geçiş Taksim from Rast to Hüseyni on rast (DVD 3/35) tiz açan kök destek makam
rast-5 (rast-4) Rast
uşşak-4
uşşak-4 uşşak-5
Uşşak on rast* direct
Hüseyni on rast species
(hicaz-5 on acem) uşşak-3
uşşak-4
Saba on neva** species
Hüseyni on rast species/pivot
change type pivot tone seyir used (* In my opinion the second degree at times becomes low enough to call this Kürdi, but the artist did not mention such a shift.) (** Note that there is no recently understood makam consisting of the combination of an uşşak-5 + an uşşak-3, much less with the addition of a hicaz-5 atop this; the modulation here has temporarily made the dominant into a tonic, and has therefore de facto shifted the kök level up to the açan level for this brief moment.)
518
(7.4) Ahmet Nuri Benli – Rast Taksim (DVD 4/36) tiz açan kök
rast-5*
destek makam
(rast-4) Rast
buselik-4 uşşak-3 on buselik
nikriz-5
rast-5
“Isfahan”**
Nikriz
Suz-i Dilara*** direct
Rast
change type pivot direct species pivot tone seyir used (* At first the 3rd degree is so low, this could be taken for a buselik-5; at the end of the taksim the artist remarks that he was “trying for Hicaz and Rast came out”—I think perhaps he meant “trying for Nihavend.” In any case the third degree is made to rise after about 15 seconds, after which we are clearly in Rast.) (** The artist notes reaching the dominant [d/neva] by way of a “taste of Isfahan”; in this case that was represented only by its “nişabur” aspect, effectively the uşşak-3 shown above. The pivot occurs by way of passing through the buselik-4.) (*** In effect, this is a return to Rast; it appears to be the movement from Nikriz to Rast that the artist is calling Suz-i Dilara.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(buselik-5)
hicaz-5
hicaz-4
(chromatic) hicaz-5
“Hicaz on neva” direct
Hicazkâr direct
tiz buselik-5 açan kürdi-4 kök buselik-5 nikriz-5 destek (hicaz-4) makam Nihavend Nev’eser**** change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (**** The artist proclaimed Nev’eser, even though that makam’s açan cins—a hicaz-4 on d/neva—did not appear.)
519
tiz
(buselik-5)
açan kök destek makam
kürdi-4
hicaz-5 (+ [hicaz-4] above) uşşak-3
Nihavend
Saba on neva
change type pivot tone seyir used
direct
direct
hicaz-5
Dügâh on neva direct
Şedd Araban pivot tonu-ton yes
tiz açan hicaz-4 kök buselik-5 (chromatic) rast-5 (buselik-5) destek (hicaz-4) (rast-4) makam Nihavend Rast Nihavend change type pivot/species† direct direct pivot tone seyir used († It can be interpreted as a “species” because of the switch from a pentachord to a tetrachord.) tiz açan
çargâh-5 çargâh-4
(chromatic)
çargâh-4 on acem
kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used tiz açan kök destek makam
çargâh-5 on acemaşiran Mahur direct
Acem Aşiran direct
(buselik-5) (chromatic)
hicaz-4
buselik-4
(Hicaz on neva††) (pivot)
Rast
rast-5 Rast
change type direct (direct) pivot tone seyir used (†† This might be considered Suzinak [as it is here considered regarding the “pivot”] though the artist did not name it as such. The following buselik-5 cins in the tiz level confirms his intention as Hicaz on neva.)
520
tiz açan (chromatic†††) buselik kök rast-5 destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used (††† The artist reported “just playing the instrument.”)
rast-4 rast-5 (rast-4)
(7.5) Ahmet Nuri Benli – Uşşak Taksim (DVD 4/37) tiz açan
(buselik-3) buselik-5
kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
uşşak-4 rast-5 Uşşak
tiz açan
(hicaz-4)
(hicaz-5) uşşak-3 on hüseyni
hicaz-5 (on neva)
hicaz-5 (on çargâh) uşşak-3
Karcığar direct
Saba direct
hicaz-5 (on çargâh) (uşşak-3 on dügâh)
kök destek makam
Saba on hüseyni pivot
Saba
uşşak-3 on ırak Bestenigâr
Saba*
change type direct pivot tone seyir used (* I.e., simply returns to focus on c/çargâh; the artist himself did not mention Bestenigâr by name.) tiz (buselik-5) (chromatic) açan rast-5 hicaz-4** kök (hicaz-5) hicaz-4 destek (hicaz-4) makam Dügâh Hicaz Şehnaz change type direct species/pivot direct pivot tone seyir used (** Note switch from pentachord to tetrachord at this level; implicit in the way the artist named the makam change.)
521
tiz açan kök destek makam
buselik-5 kürdi-4
uşşak-4
MuhayyerKürdi***
Uşşak
(chromatic†)
(Return to Uşşak proper)
change type pivot/unique-i pivot**** pivot tone seyir used (*** At first the artist described this as “like Kürdili Hicazkâr, but not really”; by the time he has cadenced on A/dügâh—including a “pre-cadential flat 5” gesture—it is clear that he has essentially played descending Kürdi, of which Kürdili Hicazkâr is a transposition, and which he then names “Muhayyer Kürdi” [see Appendix J]. The change type is marked as ambiguous since it would appear to be a pivot, but through chromatic material rather than a makam per se.) (**** By way of a return to the shared buselik-5 in the açan level.) († “Just showing off the instrument.” Still Uşşak. NB: this is a full minute and 10 seconds of “improvisation.”)
(7.6) Sinan Erdemsel – Acem Aşiran Taksim (DVD 4/38) tiz (çargâh-5) açan çargâh-4 kök (pençgâh-5*) çargâh-5 destek makam Acem Aşiran Ferahfeza Acem Aşiran Çargâh Ferahfeza change type species species species/direct species/direct pivot tone seyir used (* Like all of the internal modulations so far, this one is of the “species” variety, effectively changing emphasis on tonal centers rather than altering scalar material, but here the perde c/çargâh is given its own leading tone [seemingly B/buselik, though it may be B /segâh]; in the context of the overall makam this might imply a kind of pençgâh-5 beneath it, but since the artist noted a modulation to Çargâh we may assume he intended the leading tone to be part of a çargâh-4 on rast, obviating the idea of the noted pençgâh-5, and making the cins change “species/pivot.”)
q
522
tiz açan
hicaz-4 hicaz-5 on çargâh above uşşak-3 on dügâh
nikriz-5 on çargâh
kök destek makam
Acem Aşiran
Çargâh
Saba
Nikriz on çargâh *** direct
(hicaz5****) (hicaz-4) Dügâh
change type species species species** direct pivot tone seyir used (** Again the issue of c/çargâh’s leading tone returns (now clearly B /segâh), but now it shifts into an uşşak-3 as a “species” of the [merely implied] pençgâh-5. Note the need to portray two cins-es in the açan level.) (*** Technically, since the hicaz-4 in the tiz level was never changed, this could be considered Nev’eser rather than Nikriz, though the artist—who did not return to the tiz level in this phrase—did not mention it. The implication of a “kürdi-3” in the kök level here is really a brief return to the scalar material of Acem Aşiran; Nikriz would normally have [at least the implication of] a hicaz-4 beneath the tonic.) (**** Note that Dügâh—a compound makam consisting of Saba whose kök cins becomes a hicaz-5— is using Acem Aşiran’s B /kürdi to stand for the hicaz-5’s B /dik kürdi.)
q
e
tiz açan kök
çargâh-4 çargâh-5
destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
w
nikriz-5 on F/acemaşiran
çargâh-5
Acem Aşiran
Şevk’efza
Acem Aşiran
Ferahfeza
direct
direct
direct
species
523
Acem Aşiran species
(7.7) Sinan Erdemsel – Kürdili Hicazkâr Taksim (DVD 4/39) tiz açan kök destek makam
hicaz-5 hicaz-4 hicaz-5 (hicaz-4) Hicazkâr
(kürdi-5) kürdi-4 kürdi-5** “Kürdili Hicazkâr”* direct
uşşak-4 (rast-5) Uşşak on neva direct
change type pivot*** pivot tone seyir used (* The artist referred to this by itself as “Kürdili Hicazkâr”; another way to express it might be “the Kürdi-on-rast aspect of Kürdili Hicazkâr.”) (** See Appendix J s.v. “Kürdili Hicazkâr”; this is a special usage of a “kürdi-5.”) (*** This cins-change type may only be considered a pivot if we accept the configuration “hicaz-5 + kürdi-4”—Arelian theory does not, but see Appendix J s.v. “Araban.” Otherwise we must call the change “direct.”) tiz açan kök destek makam
çargâh-5 on nim hisar
(kürdi-4) kürdi-5
Çargâh on nim hisar pivot****
“Kürdili Hicazkâr”* species
change type pivot tone seyir used (**** This is a pivot in the sense that the çargâh-5 can be considered a species of the kürdi-4 normally in the açan level.)
(7.8) Sinan Erdemsel – Nihavend Taksim (DVD 4/40) tiz açan kök destek makam
(buselik-5) kürdi-4
hicaz-5 on acem uşşak-3
(hicaz-5)
buselik-5 Nihavend
Saba on neva
change type pivot tone seyir used
direct
524
Dügâh on neva direct
tiz açan kök
hicaz-4
destek makam
hicaz-5 Şedd Araban
(buselik-5) hicaz-4
nikriz-5
Nihavend
Nikriz
(buselik-5) (kürdi-4 on acem) (buselik-5 on kürdi) Nihavend
Buselik on kürdi direct**
change type pivot pivot/species* direct direct pivot tone tonu-ton seyir used yes (* the hicaz cins makes it a pivot shared with the previous makam; the fact that this is a tetrachord rather than a pentachord makes it a species-type change.) (** The artist called this “Buselik on kürdi” but note that only two tones of the supposed buselik-5 [its first and fifth degrees] cins are shown. It could equally have been interpreted as a çargâh-5 on kürdi, making the next cins change a species-type change.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
kürdi-4 buselik-5 on rast
(chromatic run)
(buselik-5) hicaz-4
Kürdi on neva pivot
Nihavend pivot
525
TAKSİM-S WITH THE AUTHOR’S ANALYSES
8. CLARINET (in G) (KLARNET) (8.1) Şükrü Kabacı – Muhayyer-Kürdi Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 5/41) tiz açan kök destek makam
kürdi-4 buselik-5
(**) kürdi-4 (*)
MuhayyerKürdi
change type pivot tone seyir used (* The artist once uses a 9-comma below subtonic [G/rast, implying a rast-5] and once a 4-comma below leading tone [G /nim zirgüle, implying a less normal hicaz-5].) (** The artist twice plays a “pre-cadential flat five” gesture typical of the makam [q.v. in Appendix J s.v. “Muhayyer-Kürdi”].)
s
9. KANUN (9.1) Turgut Özefer – Hüseyni Taksim (DVD 5/42) tiz açan
uşşak-4
kürdi-4
(uşşak-5) uşşak-4
hicaz-4 (or 5) on neva
kök uşşak-5 destek (uşşak-4) makam Hüseyni Karcığar change type direct direct pivot* pivot tone seyir used (* By way of a fall from the uşşak cins above, despite tetrachord/pentachord confusion.)
526
tiz açan uşşak-4 kürdi-4 uşşak-4**** kök buselik-5 uşşak-5 destek rast-5** hicaz-4*** makam Hüseyni Buselik Hüseyni change type direct direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (** Unusual to have a pentachord below another pentachord, but that was the range of his playing below the tonic.) (*** This gesture briefly has a subtonic below this cins—the whole of which could be interpreted as a nikriz-5, though it did not stop on that tone.) (**** This gesture—rising with an uşşak cins and falling with a buselik one is repeated several times here.) tiz açan kök destek makam
buselik-5 (buselik-5 on neva) kürdi-4 buselik-5 Sultani Yegâh† direct
rast-5
buselik-5
hicaz-4††
Hicaz on neva direct
change type direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used († I.e., Buselik on D/yegâh; this is a quick octave run, leaping immediately back to d/neva.) (†† There is evidently a change from tetrachord to pentachord here, as the 4th degree of the what would normally be a hicaz-5 becomes a tone receiving great emphasis.) tiz açan kök destek
rast-5 uşşak-4 rast-5 on yegâh Yegâh
buselik-5
(kürdi-4) uşşak-5†††
makam Hüseyni change type direct pivot tone seyir used (††† The taksim ends here, then there is applause, after which, to actually introduce the following piece, he plays a quick rise and fall through an uşşak-5 + uşşak-4.)
527
(9.2) Turgut Özefer – Kürdili Hicazkâr Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 5/43) tiz açan kök destek makam
kürdi-4
uşşak-4
direct
direct
kürdi-4 Kürdili Hicazkâr*
change type pivot tone seyir used (* Qua descending Kürdi on rast.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
buselik-4 buselik-5
kürdi-4
direct
(9.4) Erdem Özkıvanç – Nihavend Taksim (DVD 5/44) tiz (buselik-5) nikriz-5 açan kürdi-4 hicaz-4 kök buselik-5 (nikriz-5) buselik-5* destek (hicaz-4) makam Nihavend Nikriz Nihavend change type direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* Here the artist plays a “pre-cadential flat five” gesture normally associated with Zirgüleli Hicaz [see Appendix J s.v. “Zirgüleli Hicaz”].) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(buselik-5) kürdi-4 (buselik-5)
528
(9.5) “Erkin” – Rast Taksim (DVD 5/45) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
tiz açan kök destek makam change type
rast-4
buselik-4 rast-5
Rast
müstear-3
rast-5
Müstear direct
Rast direct
direct
(buselik-5) rast-4
buselik-4
hicaz-4
Suzinak direct
direct
direct
rast-4
Hicaz on neva pivot
?/Rast* pivot/uniquei
pivot tone seyir used (* It is as though there is a pivot from the previous buselik-5, but a rast-4 + buselik-5 combination is not an acceptable combination [see Chapter VI]; by continuing to fall through the rast-5 in the kök level, the taksim has returned to Rast.)
(9.6) “Erkin” – Segâh Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 5/46) tiz
rast-5
(buselik-4 above the rast-5)
açan rast-4 buselik-4 kök segâh-3 destek makam (Mahur?) Segâh* change type pivot tone seyir used (* This taksim is classified as Segâh on the basis of the piece that it introduced being claimed as such by the singer, but it would appear to me to be more like a transposition of Ferahnak, e.g., with a perfect 4th from the tonic and a descending seyir [see Appendix J s.v. Segâh and Ferahnak ].) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
rast-4
direct
529
10. KEMENÇE (10.1) Furkan Bilgi – Hicazkâr Taksim (DVD 5/47) tiz açan kök destek makam
(hicaz-4)
buselik-4
hicaz-5 Hicazkâr
uşşak-3 Saba on aşiran
(hicaz-5) hicaz-4 (*)
Hicazkâr
change type species direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* There is both a chromatic moment and a “pre-cadential flat five” gesture before the final cadence.)
(10.2) Emre Erdal – Segâh Taksim (DVD 5/48) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used (* NB the use of f tiz
(buselik-5) segâh-3 rast-3 Segâh
müstear-3
uşşak-4 segâh-3
Müstear direct
Segâh direct
hüzzam-4*
direct
s/eviç’s “special leading tone” [f/acem] obscures the cins.) segâh-3 on tiz segâh above rast-3 on gerdaniye**
açan uşşak-4 kök segâh-3 destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used (** If the idea of an octave-bound scale structure for the central tonal material is not important, this may be interpreted as a rast-5 on gerdaniye.)
530
(10.3) Selim Güler – Segâh Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 8/A2) tiz açan (uşşak-4) hüzzam-4* kök segâh-3 destek makam Segâh change type direct pivot tone seyir used (* At first obscured by the “special leading tone” of f /eviç.)
uşşak-4
hüzzam-4
direct
direct
s
(10.4) Aslıhan Özel – Hümayun Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 5/49) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
buselik-5
rast-5
buselik
direct
direct
hicaz-4 (rast-5) Hümayun
11. NEY (11.1) Eymen Gürtan – Acem Aşiran (Baş) Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 5/50) tiz
(çargâh-5)
pençgâh-5*
(+çargâh-4 on tiz çargâh)
(+buselik-4 on tiz çargâh)
açan çargâh-4 kök destek makam Acem Aşiran change type direct (**) direct pivot tone seyir used (* The “sharp 4th degree” here [b /tiz segâh] could be thought of as a leading tone to the 5th/dominant, but its use as such generally accompanies an internal modulation to Saba, which does not occur here.) (** “+…” means “above the tiz level.” Here is a possible interpretation of “faking” a cins combination: Pençgâh makam might have a rast-4 here that indeed becomes a buselik-4 later as it descends, as shown; the difference between the çargâh-4 used and the rast-4 that would make this an internal modulation to Pençgâh [from the previous cell’s introduction of that pentachord] is a single comma— “close enough,” as it were.)
q
531
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
çargâh-5
direct
It is worth noting that this taksim—the introduction to a Mevlevi ayin for a “whirling dervish” ceremony (sema)—does not follow the makam’s normal seyir; the artist performs it ascending rather than descending.
(11.2) Eymen Gürtan – Geçiş Taksim from Pençgâh to Sultani Yegâh (DVD 5/51) tiz açan kök destek makam
(rast-4) rast-5 (rast-4) Pençgâh (Rast*)
(hicaz-4) pençgâh-5**
rast-5
pençgâh-5 (Suzinak)
(Pençgâh)
change type direct direct pivot pivot pivot tone seyir used (* I.e., Pençgâh makam, beginning as Rast does.) (** Here—and throughout this taksim—is a case where it is not perfectly clear that the 3rd degree of the pençgâh-5 is not the same as that of the previous rast-5; in theory they are B/buselik in Pençgâh and B /segâh in Rast [see Appendix J s.v. Pençgâh].)
q
tiz açan kök destek
rast-4
buselik-4 rast-5 hicaz-4 on aşiran**** Hicaz on aşiran
makam
hicaz-4 hicaz-5† uşşak-3 Saba on aşiran
change type pivot tone pivot*** pivot direct direct seyir used (*** Because it dipped back into the pençgâh-5, which shares both cins-es in Pençgâh.) (**** NB: with the subtonic below that, implying a rast-5 [impossibly low to reach on this instrument].) († Including a “pre-cadential flat five” gesture.)
532
tiz açan kök destek makam
segâh-3 on nim hicaz buselik-5
(rast-5)
hicaz-4 on aşiran (Dügâh or Hümayun on aşiran ††) direct
Hicaz on aşiran
hüzzam-4 (above uşşak4 on ırak) Eviç?†††
change type pivot direct pivot tone seyir used (†† To move from Saba to Hicaz at the kök level is clearly a “Dügâh gesture,” but it is not clear whether the previous iteration of a hicaz-4 on E/aşiran was intended as Dügâh as well, especially since one would then expect a leading tone rather than a subtonic beneath. Furthermore, the artist proceeds to play the Hümayun type of Hicaz rather than the Zirgüle type required of Dügâh.) (††† This is similarly unclear; the “special leading tones” used below G /nim zirgüle and c /nim hicaz, along with the subtonic of the hüzzam cins (which the first of these obscures), indicate Eviç or some other Segâh-type makam [perhaps Heftgâh in “kız neyi ahengi”], but the unusual seyir and avoidance of a clear tonic frustrates analysis.)
s
tiz açan kök
müstear-3
makam
segâh-3 hicaz-4 on nim zirgüle (hicaz-5 on kaba nim hicaz)
destek
s
Evcara on kaba nim hicaz direct
††††
pençgâh-5 on yegâh
(buselik-4 on dügâh) rast-5 on yegâh
Pençgâh on yegâh
Rast on yegâh
change type pivot direct direct pivot tone seyir used (†††† NB: unusually, does not cadence on—or even reach—its tonic; limitation of instrument’s range?) tiz açan kök
(buselik-5 on neva) (buselik-4 on dügâh)
hicaz-4 on dügâh
destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
hicaz-5 on neva
Sultani Yegâh direct
direct
533
kürdi-4
direct
tiz açan kök destek
buselik-5 on yegâh •
makam change type pivot tone seyir used (• With implied hicaz-4 beneath.)
(11.3) Nurullah Kanık – Dügâh Taksim (DVD 5/52) tiz
(buselik-4)
açan kök
(hicaz-4)
(+ whole tone above)
hicaz-5 on çargâh uşşak-3 on dügâh (rast-5) Saba*
destek makam (**) (***) change type unique-i direct pivot tone seyir used (* Note that Dügâh is a compound of Saba followed by Zirgüleli Hicaz on dügâh.) (** The artist’s intention as to makam identity is unclear, here; the cins combination hicaz-5 + buselik4 is not one of those that appear in any makam’s definition [see Chapter VI]. It could be interpreted as a disjunct kürdi-4 on a/muhayyer, which would be unusual—especially so early in a taksim—but occasionally Saba will have something unusual from that perde in the meyan section.) (*** The artist’s intention as to makam identity is unclear, here; we would expect a hicaz-5 above the hicaz-4, which could not include this whole tone.) tiz açan kök
çargâh-4 on acem hicaz-5 on dügâh
destek makam (Sümbüle?****) Dügâh change type direct pivot tone seyir used (**** The artist’s intention as to makam identity is unclear, here, but it would be in conformity with the archaic makam Sümbüle [see Appendix J s.v. “Muhayyer-Sümbüle”].)
534
(11.4) Ahmet Toz – Rast Taksim I (DVD 6/53) tiz açan kök (rast-5) (buselik-5) rast-5 nikriz-5 rast-5 destek (rast-4) makam Rast Nikriz Rast** change type direct direct pivot* direct pivot tone seyir used (* The use of the tone d/neva as a common dominant here qualifies this as a pivot even though what the açan cins would be is not established.) (** Here there is a brief single use of the perde c /nim hicaz to tonicize d/neva; it does not seem to be intended to indicate a change of cins.)
s
tiz açan
(rast-5) rast-4
buselik-4
rast-4
segâh-3 on tiz segâh
kök destek makam Segâh**** change type pivot pivot*** species pivot tone seyir used (*** This is a pivot because it occurs by way of passing through the rast-5 in the kök level.) (**** On b /tiz segâh; already at the top of the artist’s/instrument’s range, this “modulation” in effect becomes a quick iteration of Eviç on b /tiz segâh.)
q
q
tiz açan rast-4 buselik-4 kök destek makam change type species pivot † pivot tone seyir used († A pivot by way of passing through the rast-5 in the tiz level.)
535
(11.5) Ahmet Toz – Segâh Taksim (DVD 6/54) tiz
(buselik-5 on gerdaniye)
açan
hüzzam-4 on neva
segâh-3 on tiz segâh above rast-3 on gerdaniye*** (hicaz-4*)
hüzzam-4
kök segâh-3 destek rast-3** makam Segâh change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* More likely the same hüzzam-4 with a lowered 2nd degree; ) (** A quick run with a seemingly very low B /segâh.) (*** The use of b /tiz segâh’s special leading tone at times obscures the rast cins.)
q
q
tiz
buselik-5 on gerdaniye
açan
segâh-3 on nim hicaz hicaz-4 on nim hicaz
kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
tiz açan
hicaz-5 on ırak
direct
Evcara direct
(hüzzam-4 on neva)
(buselik-5) uşşak-4 on neva
kök destek makam Segâh change type direct pivot tone seyir used (**** Or “rast-5.”) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
hicaz-4 on nim hicaz
direct
hüzzam-4
hicaz-4 on nim hicaz
pivot
direct
segâh-3 rast-3**** direct
hüzzam-4
uşşak-4
hüzzam-4
direct
direct
direct
536
(11.6) Ahmet Toz – Rast Taksim II [no modulation] (DVD 6/55) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
rast-4
(buselik-4)
rast-5 (rast-4) Rast direct
(11.7) Ahmet Toz Geçiş Taksim from Uşşak to Hicaz (DVD 6/56) tiz açan buselik-5 hüzzam-4 kök uşşak-4 segâh-3 uşşak-4 destek (rast-5) makam Uşşak Segâh Uşşak change type direct* species pivot tone seyir used (* In terms of the relationships between makam-s it could be considered [or perhaps, historically may have been considered] a species-type change, but it was here effected through a direct cins change.) tiz açan rast-5 buselik-5 rast-5 kök hicaz-4 destek rast-5 makam Hicaz** change type direct pivot pivot pivot tone domdom seyir used yes (** We may think of this either as Hicaz that begins in its “destek” cins [cf. DVD 1/3], or as a brief modulation to Suzinak on yegâh between the Uşşak and the Hicaz, which would then begin in the next row.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type
uşşak-4 buselik-5
(rast-5)
(buselik-5) (uşşak-4)
(***) unique-p
pivot/uniquep
Uşşak direct
pivot tone seyir used (*** Questionable—ostensibly we are still in Hicaz, though this uşşak-4 would not normally appear in the tiz level of Hicaz.)
537
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
rast-5
buselik-5
hicaz-4 Hicaz direct
12. TANBUR (12.1) Furkan Esiroğlu – Kürdili Hicazkâr Taksim (DVD 6/57) tiz açan kök destek makam
buselik-5
hicaz-5
buselik-5
ArabanKürdi direct
Kürdili Hicazkâr direct
kürdi-4 Kürdili Hicazkâr
change type pivot tone seyir used
This taksim is unusual in several respects: in that its seyir is played as ascending, though it should be descending; in its internal modulation to Araban-Kürdi; and in that it is devoid of any Hicazkâr. This last aspect would appear to be a legitimate sort of Kürdili Hicazkâr (see Appendix J) though absent Hicazkâr’s scalar material and seyir, there is the question of why this should not simply be called a Kürdi taksim on G/rast. The answer would seem to be simply because the taksim occurs in the middle of a piece in Kürdili Hicazkâr.
538
(12.2) Firuz Akın Han – Kürdili Hicazkâr Taksim (DVD 6/58) tiz (buselik-5) açan (hicaz-4) (chromatic) kürdi-4 kök (hicaz-5) buselik-5 destek makam * Nihavend change type direct pivot pivot tone seyir used (* Here, the artist begins with what would seem to be Hümayun on d/neva, but that would not normally have a leading tone/hicaz-5 below the hicaz-4; it instead may be interpreted as a descending Nev’eser.) tiz açan kök destek makam
kürdi-4 buselik-5*** kürdi-4 (rast-5) (Kürdi on rast) direct**
change type pivot tone seyir used (** The “direct” change happens by way of a leap upward by an octave.) (*** There being little emphasis on either the fourth or fifth degree, I have parsed these as though it were constructed like Kürdi, i.e., with the tetrachord in the kök level.)
(12.3) Firuz Akın Han – Geçiş Taksim from Nev’eser to Şedd Araban (DVD 6/59) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(nikriz-5) hicaz-4 nikriz-5
rast-4
buselik-4
(chromatic)
rast-5
Nev’eser
Nikriz direct
direct
Rast direct
tiz (rast-5) açan (rast-4) (buselik-5) kök nikriz-5 rast-5 (*) destek makam Nikriz Rast change type direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* Here c /nim hicaz is used to tonicize d/neva; it seems to play on the idea of a nikriz-5 in the kök level without actually deploying it.)
s
539
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(buselik-5) hicaz-4
Suzinak pivot domdom
hicaz-5 (hicaz-4) Zirgüleli Suzinak pivot domdom
kürdi-4
hicaz-4
direct
direct
tiz açan kök destek makam
nikriz-5 hicaz-4 Şedd Araban** change type pivot pivot tone domu-ton seyir used yes (** Note that the “destek” level has become the new kök level at this point. Technically, Şedd Araban requires that its cins-types be switched from the way we see them here, i.e., that the hicaz pentachord be the bottom-most, conjoined above by a hicaz tetrachord.)
(12.4) Firuz Akın Han – Geçiş Taksim from Nikriz to Rast (DVD 6/60) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(buselik-4)
(hicaz-4)
buselik-4
nikriz-5
rast
Nikriz
(Nev’eser) pivot
(Nikriz) direct
Rast pivot
(nikriz-5) buselik-4 nikriz-5 Nikriz direct
nikriz-5
rast-5
nikriz-5
(hicaz-4) rast-5
Nikriz pivot
Rast direct
Nikriz direct
Suzinak direct
540
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(nikriz-5)
(rast-5)
rast-4 rast-5
nikriz-5
Rast direct
Nikriz direct
Rast direct
tiz segâh-3* açan buselik-4 (rast-4) (buselik-4) rast-4 kök destek makam Segâh change type direct direct direct species pivot tone seyir used (* Here there is a “taste” of Segâh, with its “special leading tone”—below it remains the rast-3 with which the segâh-3 makes the previously shown rast-5.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
rast-5 buselik-4 nikriz-5 Rast species
Nikriz pivot
Rast direct
(12.5) Özer Özel – Bestenigâr Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 6/61) tiz hicaz-5 (**) (***) açan uşşak-3 kök segâh-3 destek makam Saba* Bestenigâr change type pivot tone seyir used (* I.e., the Saba aspect of Bestenigâr.) (** It sounds here as though there was part of a rast-4, though that is not in the standard definition of Saba; [part of] the expected hicaz-4 appears at ***.)
541
(12.6) Özer Özel – Hüseyni Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 6/62) tiz (uşşak-5) açan (uşşak-4*) uşşak-4 kök uşşak-5 destek (rast-4) makam change type pivot tone seyir used (* This is the cins expected—since what is played is only the outer tones of the tetrachord, it is an assumption that an uşşak-4 is intended.)
(12.7) Özer Özel – Segâh Taksim (DVD 6/63) tiz açan (hüzzam-4) (uşşak-4) kök segâh-3* destek rast-3 makam Segâh change type direct pivot tone seyir used (* With characteristic “special leading tone” A /kürdi.)
(hüzzam-4)
(uşşak-4)
direct
direct
uşşak-4
(buselik-5)
s
tiz açan
segâh-3 hicaz-4 on eviç**
hüzzam-4
kök müstear-3 destek makam Müstear*** change type direct/pivot pivot direct pivot tone seyir used (** Note how this shifts the “açan level” in our representation, the previous uşşak-4 being on d/neva. It may be thought of as a “pivot” if we consider the tone a /sümbüle to be a “special leading tone” of b /tiz segâh.) (*** See text below.)
s
q
This was an unusual situation: here the singer of the upcoming piece began speaking an introduction to the audience during the Segâh taksim, in which he mentioned that the composition’s makam is Müstear. The taksim ends discretely, the singer speaks a bit more, and subsequently there is a new taksim in Müstear (which nonetheless
542
ends—as Müstear may—in Segâh); that taksim is analyzed separately below, though on the DVD it is continued. (12.8) Özer Özel – Müstear Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 6/64) tiz açan (buselik-5) kök müstear-3 segâh-3* destek makam Müstear (Segâh) change type direct pivot tone seyir used (* With characteristic “special leading tone.”)
müstear-3
segâh-3
(Müstear) direct
(Segâh) direct
As mentioned in the comment on taksim above (q.v.), the first part of the DVD recording is a taksim in Segâh; the analysis here pertains only to the Müstear taksim that follows it.
(12.9) Murat Salim Tokaç – Pesendide Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 7/65) tiz açan rast-4 (buselik-4) kök (nikriz-5*) rast-5 (nikriz-5*) chromatic destek makam Pesendide change type direct pivot (direct) pivot tone seyir used (* At this point only the tone c /nim hicaz, tonicizing the dominant d/neva. The perde f /eviç also has its “special leading tone,” f/acem.)
s
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
s
chromatic rast-5
chromatic
direct
(direct)
buselik-4 rast-5
direct
543
tiz
(rast-5)
(nikriz-5**)
müstear-3 on tiz segâh
rast-5 (on gerdaniye below buselik-4 on tiz neva)***
açan rast-4 kök destek (rast-4) makam change type pivot direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (** Only the first three tones of this cins, which we might instead consider part of a buselik-5.) (*** That is, the descending “rast scale” entire, in the upper octave.) tiz açan kök (nikriz-5****) rast-5 (nikriz-5****) destek makam change type direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (**** Again, merely the c /nim hicaz tonicizing the dominant.)
rast-5
direct
s
This taksim is named as Pesendide because that was the makam of the piece that the artist was introducing, but it could be considered a Rast taksim, with recurring elements that merely hint at the inclusion of Nikriz that would minimally make this Pesendide (see Appendix J); all the elements of a nikriz-5 are shown in the taksim, but the pentachord is never presented whole (see also Chapter VI regarding a more “melodic” than “cins-defining” approach to taksim).
544
13. UD (13.1) Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Rast Taksim (Zemin only) (DVD 7/66) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(rast-5) rast-4
buselik-4
rast-4
pivot
direct
rast-5 rast-4 Rast
This is only the beginning “ground” (zemin) section of a taksim in Rast. From a culturally interesting point of view, he had just finished the zemin and would have gone on to the middle section (meyan) but just then the call to prayer started up; it is considered bad form to play music (even on a radio or television, but certainly live music) during the call to prayer, as it might cause someone to miss hearing it—many concerts are started later than their advertized times so as to avoid interfering with the last call to prayer, and to give worshippers more time to get to the concert afterward. Here it is clear that the artist felt it fortuitous that he had finished his phrase just in time, and we ended the recording there.
(13.2) Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Hicazkâr Taksim (DVD 7/67) tiz açan (hicaz-4) kök (hicaz-5) destek makam Hicazkâr change type pivot tone seyir used (* Reached by way of using one chromatic tone.)
(hicaz-5) hicaz-4 hicaz-5
(buselik-5) kürdi-4*
Nihavend pivot
545
pivot
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(hicaz-5) (hicaz-4) (hicaz-4) Hicazkâr direct
(13.3) Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Geçiş Taksim from Uşşak to Hüseyni (DVD 7/68) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used tiz açan kök destek makam
buselik-5
rast-5
buselik-5
uşşak-4 (rast-5) Uşşak
uşşak-5
direct
uşşak-4
buselik-5
direct
Hüseyni species
rast-5
buselik-5
pivot
direct
uşşak-4
(pivot)
Uşşak direct
(rast-5)
uşşak-5
rast-4 (uşşak-5)
kürdi-4**
(Rast/Gerdaniye/ /Selmek*) direct
uşşak-4
Hüseyni
change type direct pivot direct pivot tone seyir used (* Gerdaniye is a compound makam going from a descending Rast to Hüseyni; Selmek is its inverse, going from Hüseyni to rast. This could be considered any of these, that is. A “taste” of Rast, Gerdaniye, or Selmek.) (** Note that from the point of view of the makam’s definition, Hüseyni should not have a kürdi-4 in the açan level, but that operationally it does have it when f /eviç becomes f/acem in descending passages, such as at the final cadence.)
s
546
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
kürdi-4 uşşak-5
direct
(13.4) Necati Çelik – Gülizar Taksim (DVD 7/69) tiz açan kök
(çargâh-5 on acem) çargâh-4 on çargâh
uşşak-4
kürdi-4**
uşşak-5
destek makam Acem* Gülizar change type species pivot tone seyir used (* It could be interpreted that these melodic gestures are taking place within an “uşşak-5 + kürdi-4” framework, but the opening phrase sounds to me like a quick run through Acem makam without stressing its dominant—this in not usually described as an opening for Gülizar makam in theory texts; we must note that it is a relatively rare makam. Note that this is “Basit Gülizar,” in contrast with “Mürekkeb Gülizar” as seen on DVD 1/12 [see also Appendix J].) (** The characteristic gesture using f /eviç when rising and f/acem when falling—here represented as a direct shift from an uşşak-4 to a kürdi-4 in the açan level—occurred several times before the final cadence.)
s
(13.5) Bilen Işıktaş – Uşşak Taksim (DVD 7/70) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
buselik-5
rast-5
buselik-5
rast-5
direct
direct
direct
uşşak-4 (rast-5) Uşşak
(uşşak-4)
uşşak-4 buselik-5
hicaz-4 on hüseyni uşşak-5 Hisar direct
pivot
547
tiz (uşşak-4*) açan (rast-5) buselik-5 kök uşşak-4 destek makam Uşşak change type direct pivot pivot tone seyir used (* Gives whole makam’s descent from two octaves above the tonic.)
(13.6) Bilen Işıktaş – Geçiş Taksim from Şedd Araban to Ferahfeza (DVD 7/71) tiz
(hicaz-5)
açan kök destek makam
hicaz-4
(buselik-5)
hicaz-5
(buselik-5 on gerdaniye above a hicaz4 on neva)
rast-5 on gerdaniye above a hicaz-4 on neva
(hicaz-4) Şedd Araban
Hicaz on neva* direct
change type direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* Could be considered the Araban of which the greater makam is a şedd (“transposition”); see Appendix J regarding variant interpretations of Araban makam.) tiz
buselik-5 on gerdaniye above a hicaz4 on neva
(kürdi-4 on muhayyer above a hicaz5 on neva*)
açan
(buselik-5 on gerdaniye above a hicaz4 on neva)
? on neva**
buselik-5 on gerdaniye above a kürdi-4 on neva
unique-i
direct
buselik-5 on rast
kök destek makam Nihavend change type direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (** An unclassifiable melodic gesture using d – e – f – g – a .)
e
548
tiz açan kök destek makam
hicaz-5 on neva
buselik-5 on neva
hicaz-4
kürdi-4
hicaz-4 Hümayun on yegâh
Kürdi
change type
pivot/uniquei***
direct
pivot
pivot tone seyir used (*** A quasi-pivot, as though the cins beneath were a pentachord.) tiz
çargâh-5 on acem (+ one whole step)
açan
çargâh-4 on çargâh
kök
çargâh-5 on acemaşiran
destek makam
buselik-3 on neva above a kürdi-4 on dügâh
buselik-5 on rast†† buselik-5 on yegâh
Acem Aşiran (Ferahfeza****) species
AcemKürdi† species
Nihavend
Ferahfeza
change type species pivot tone seyir used (**** The modulation to the compound makam Ferahfeza begins here.) († Distinguishable only by a definitive suspended cadence in Kürdi.) (†† With G/rast’s leading tone, F /ırak.)
s
(13.7) Osman Kırklıkçı – Şevk’efza Taksim (DVD 7/72) tiz açan kök destek makam
hicaz-4 on gerdaniye
(buselik-5 above previous)
hicaz-5 on çargâh* (hicaz-4)
segâh-3 on dik hisar (nikriz-5 on acemaşiran)
Zirgüleli Hicaz on çargâh
Segâh on dik hisar
change type pivot tone species** species seyir used (* The taksim is actually played a minor third down, in “müstahzen ahengi” [see Appendix F] but the perde names remain as though “in its place.”) (** A gesture is played first between f/acem and g /nim şehnaz, then again an octave lower.)
s
549
tiz
(rast-3 above a) hüzzam-4 on gerdaniye
nikriz-5 on acem
(hicaz-4 on gerdaniye)
açan
hicaz-5 on çargâh
(nikriz-5 on kürdi)
kök
nikriz-5 on acemaşiran
destek makam
Nikriz on acem
change type pivot tone seyir used
Zirgüleli Hicaz on çargâh species
direct
tiz
(çargâh-5 on acem)
açan
çargâh-4 on çargâh
Nikriz on acemaşiran
species
direct
uşşak-4
(çargâh-5 on tiz çargâh above uşşak3)
buselik-5 on neva
kök destek makam
Nikriz on kürdi
(hicaz-4 on dügâh) Acem Aşiran
Hümayun
Uşşak on muhayyer direct
change type pivot species direct*** pivot tone seyir used (*** The melodic gesture is specific to Acem Aşiran, but usually played a fourth up; here it is as a foil to the presentation of Saba [also characteristic of Acem Aşiran].)
550
tiz
hicaz-5 on tiz çargâh above uşşak-3
açan kök destek makam
(hicaz-5 on muhayyer)
(çargâh-5 on acem)
(hicaz-4 on hüseyni)
Saba****
Dügâh†
Acem Aşiran
hicaz-5 on çargâh
(buselik-5 on acem)
uşşak-3 on dügâh
nikriz-5 on kürdi
Saba††
Nikriz on kürdi direct
change type direct direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (**** An octave higher than normally. The artist plays even above this, into a hicaz-4 on tiz gerdaniye.) († Also an octave higher than normal.) (†† Now “in its place.”) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(çargâh-5) çargâh-4
(kürdi-4 on dügâh) çargâh-5 on acemaşiran
nikriz-5 on acemaşiran
Kürdi
Acem Aşiran
direct
species
Nikriz on acemaşiran direct
(13.8) Yurdal Tokcan – Muhayyer-Kürdi Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 7/73) tiz açan kök destek makam
kürdi-5 (kürdi-4)
uşşak-4 kürdi-5 (*)
kürdi-4 (**)
MuhayyerKürdi
change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* With subtonic below—it is not clear what cins there would be there, since Kürdi-type makam-s rarely go below their subtonic.) (** Includes “pre-cadential flat-5” gesture, without returning to the normative 5th degree before the final cadence.)
The taksim above may be an example of a particular confusion regarding makam definitions, and of how these are changed historically. As may be deduced from the
551
list of makam-s chosen by performers for making taksim-s, Kürdi makam, though appearing often as a named internal modulation—albeit one that de facto rarely appears as more than one kürdi cins—is itself currently rarely performed as an autonomous makam. It is thus understandable that its characteristic are not fresh in many performer’s minds. Even though as far as I have seen there is no description of a makam—traditional, Arelian or otherwise—whose structure consists of the conjunction of a kürdi-5 and a kürdi-4, it would seem as though Muhayyer-Kürdi once may have meant “the Makam Muhayyer (i.e., descending Hüseyni) that then ends in Kürdi (or at least a kürdi tetrachord)” (see Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, s.v. MuhayyerKürdi) but as this performer shows, now means “Muhayyer’s seyir and tone hierarchy played with Kürdi’s tones, with a moment of uşşak on the fifth degree and a ‘precadential flat 5’ gesture.92” This necessarily displaces Kürdi’s traditional dominant, the 4th degree, and its kürdi-4 + buselik-5 structure, though the actual tones remain the same.
92
The same seems to be true for a certain version of Kürdili Hicazkâr, q.v. in Appendix J, where also see Muhayyer-Kürdi.
552
14. VIOLIN (KEMAN) (14.1) Sinan Erdemsel – Rast Taksim (DVD 7/74) tiz açan kök rast-5 destek rast-4 makam Rast change type pivot tone seyir used (* Through the açan cins.) tiz açan rast-4 kök destek makam change type pivot pivot tone seyir used tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
buselik-4 müstear-3
rast-5
müstear-3
direct
pivot
pivot (*)
rast-5
müstear
rast-5
pivot
pivot*
direct
buselik-4
direct
rast-4
buselik-4
pivot
direct
(14.2) Hasan Şendil – Mahur Taksim (DVD 7/75) tiz
(rast-5*)
segâh-3 on tiz segâh above rast-3
açan rast-4 buselik-4 rast-4 kök rast-5** destek makam Mahur Segâh*** change type direct pivot species pivot tone seyir used (* The idea that these are rast cins-es rather than çargâh cins-es are according only to my ear; see Appendix J and Kutluğ 2000 Vol. I, pp. 438-41.) (** Here clearly with a 3rd degree impossible to justify as belonging to a çargâh cins.) (*** An octave higher than normal.)
553
tiz
(chromatic)
(buseilk-5 on tiz neva above rast-5)
açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
tiz açan kök
direct
Mahur direct
buselik-4
çargâh-5 on çargâh
rast-4
pivot
species
direct
buselik-4 uşşak-3 on buselik
destek
nikriz-5 on rast-5 on rast rast makam Nişabur**** Nikriz† Rast/Mahur change type direct pivot direct direct pivot tone domdom domdom seyir used yes yes (**** In the midst of Mahur/Rast, this could be interpreted as a modulation to Pençgâh.) († Following Mahur/Rast and Nişabur/Pençgâh, this could now be interpreted as Pesendide.)
(14.3) Baki Kemancı – Acem-Kürdi Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 7/76) tiz
açan kök
(çargâh-4 on tiz çargâh above) çargâh-5 on acem çargâh-4 on çargâh pençgâh-5 on kürdi
(çargâh-4 on çargâh) kürdi-3 on dügâh
destek makam Acem Aşiran (*) “Kürdi”** change type species species pivot tone seyir used (* A “fake-able” version of Pençgâh [which would not normally have the implied çargâh-4 on f/acem], but really the same scale as previously, with an emphasis on B /kürdi.) (** In fact rather than “sounding like Kürdi” this comes off as Acem Aşiran that has come to rest on its 3rd degree; perhaps its intended effect.)
e
554
15. YAYLI (BOWED) TANBUR (15.1) Ahmet Nuri Benli – Acem Aşiran Taksim (DVD 8/77) tiz açan
(çargâh-5) çargâh-4 on çargâh
hicaz-4 hicaz-5 on çargâh
kök kürdi-3 uşşak-3 destek (sub-tonic) makam Acem Aşiran * ** Saba change type species pivot pivot pivot tone seyir used (* A suspended cadence; had it ended here we could call this Acem-Kürdi. Kürdi-type makam-s rarely descend below the sub-tonic; it is therefore difficult to apply an implied cins in the destek level— presumably it would be either a buselik or rast pentachord.) (** Though evidently part of the Saba aspect of Acem Aşiran, following Acem-Kürdi it could be interpreted as a move to Saba-Zemzeme.) tiz açan kök destek makam
kürdi-4
(buselik-4) nikriz-5 on acemaşiran
Kürdi***
çargâh-5 (çargâh-4) Acem Aşiran**** direct
Şevk’efza
change type direct direct pivot tone seyir used (*** Presumably as an aspect of Acem Aşiran.) (**** Clearly we are in Acem Aşiran—that this is the concluding taksim of a Mevlevi ayin in that makam should be indication enough—but it must be noted that the nikriz-5 that signals the makam Şevk’efza is usually excluded from Acem Aşiran precisely to keep it distinct from Şevk’efza [which may end in either a nikriz-5 or çargâh-5 on acemaşiran]. In other words, this taksim could be interpreted as Şevk’efza.)
(15.2) Firuz Akın Han – Hicaz Taksim (DVD 8/78) tiz (rast-4*) açan rast-5 (buselik-5) rast-5 kök hicaz-4 destek (rast-5) makam Hicaz change type direct pivot pivot tone seyir used (* A highly unusual cins in this level of Hicaz; the intention as to makam identity here is unclear but would seem to be Rast on neva.)
555
tiz hicaz-4 açan buselik-5 rast-5 buselik-5 rast-5 kök destek makam change type unique-i** direct direct direct pivot tone seyir used (** This could be considered a pivot by way of the upper cins, but through what makam-s exactly is not clear; a buselik cins below a rast one is a combination not found in any makam definition [see Chapter VI].) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
rast-4
buselik-4 (rast-4)
direct
direct
buselik-5
(rast-4)
direct
direct
segâh-3
(uşşak-5) kürdi-4 (on hüseyni)
buselik
pivot
(15.3) Firuz Akın Han – Hüseyni Taksim (DVD 8/79) tiz açan
uşşak-4
kürdi-4 (on hüseyni)
uşşak-4
kök uşşak-5 destek (uşşak-4) makam Hüseyni Segâh on eviç Hüseyni change type direct pivot* species direct pivot tone seyir used (* By way of passing through the kök level cins, though then leaping to the açan level cins.)
556
tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
uşşak-4
kürdi-4
pivot*
direct
16. MÜŞTEREK (MULTIPLE-INSTRUMENT) (16.1) Göksel Baktagir (kanun) – Hüseyni Taksim [no modulation] & Baki Kemancı (violin/keman) – Muhayyer-Kürdi Taksim [no modulation] (DVD 8/80) tiz açan kök destek makam change type
(kürdi-4) uşşak-5 (uşşak-4) Hüseyni *
chromatic*** (uşşak-5)
kürdi-4
**
direct
kürdi-5 (uşşak-4) **** pivot/uniquep
(1:15-2:49†)
pivot tone seyir used (* G. Baktagir playing. Note that the uşşak-4 in the açan cins level, which is in the structural definition of the makam Hüseyni, does not appear in his part of the taksim, nor does it reach the upper octave.) (** B. Kemancı playing.) (*** This moment of chromaticism is a blending of the first three tones of a kürdi-4 and an uşşak-4, i.e.: d - e - f - f - g.) (**** From a structural point of view there is no makam whose “official” definition includes a kürdi-5 + a kürdi-4; it may be that the artist has conceived of this as simply lowering the 2nd degree of the kök level cins for color, though he plays it several times as a cadence with this tone, which is lower than allowable in an uşşak-5. It would seem that he is playing a kind of Basit Gülizar but with the tones of the Kürdi makam.) († Here the band plays the piece these artists have introduced; at ca. 2:49 B. Kemancı has a second, metered taksim.)
s
tiz uşşak-5 açan (uşşak-4) kök destek makam Hüseyni†† change type pivot tone seyir used (†† The artist’s 2nd taksim would appear to be simply Hüseyni, confined to its kök cins, in the upper octave. After this taksim there is a return to the piece in Muhayyer-Kürdi.)
557
(16.2) Kemal Karaöz (ney) [no modulation] & Erdem Özkıvanç (kanun) [no modulation] – Hüseyni Taksim (DVD 8/81) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
uşşak-4
kürdi-4
uşşak-4
kürdi-4
direct
pivot
pivot
uşşak-4
kürdi-4
uşşak-5 (uşşak-4) Hüseyni
tiz açan kök uşşak-5 destek (uşşak-4) makam Hüseyni change type * pivot tone seyir used (* Here begins the second taksim, by E. Özkıvanç.)
pivot
(16.3) “Erkin” (kanun), Özer Özel (tanbur) [no modulation], Aslıhan Özel (kemençe) [no modulation] & Nurullah Kanık – Suzinak Taksim (DVD 8/82) tiz (buselik-5**) (buselik-5**) açan hicaz-4 hicaz-4 kök rast-5 rast-5 destek (rast-4) makam Basit Suzinak Basit Suzinak change type * *** pivot tone seyir used (* Here begins the taksim of “Erkin.”) (** Note that this açan-tiz conjunction is not found in theory book definitions of Suzinak; generally there would be either a [repeat of the lower] rast-5, or a hicaz-5 indicating Mürekkeb Suzinak. Here the thinking seems to be that the makam Hümayun is played on d/neva, which then falls through a rast-5 to cadence. Note that all four players use this conjunction at some point.) (*** Here begins the taksim of Ö. Özel.) tiz açan (rast-4) hicaz-4 kök destek makam change type pivot pivot pivot tone seyir used (**** Here begins the taksim of A. Özel.)
(buselik-5**) hicaz-4 (rast-5) Basit Suzinak ****
558
rast-5 (rast-4)
tiz açan kök destek makam change type
(buselik-5) hicaz-5 (rast-4) Zirgüleli Suzinak †
hicaz-4 (††)
††† rast-5 Basit Suzinak pivot/uniquei
pivot tone seyir used († Here begins the taksim of N. Kanık.) (†† Here the artist twice plays the “leading tone” 4 commas below the dominant, which is the augmented 4th degree of the host makam.) (††† Here the tone f/acem appears for a moment; the implication could either be a buselik-5 on c/çargâh [which is the focus of the gesture—this implies Hümayun on G/rast] or a kürdi-4 on d/neva [implying a kind of Araban on G/rast], neither of which appears in the makam’s “textbook definition” [see Appendix J].) tiz açan buselik-4 kök destek makam (Rast††††) change type pivot pivot tone seyir used (†††† Presumably as a component of Basit Suzinak.)
(16.4) “Erkin” (kanun) [no modulation] & Özer Özel (tanbur) – Nihavend Taksim (DVD 8/83) tiz (buselik-5) açan kürdi-4 kök buselik-5 destek makam Nihavend change type * pivot tone seyir used (* Here begins the taksim by “Erkin.”) (** Here begins the taksim by Ö. Özel.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
uşşak-4
(hicaz-4) (nikriz-5) Nev’eser **
kürdi-4 chromatic hicaz-4 pivot
559
buselik-5
buselik-5 (hicaz-4) Nihavend direct
(16.5) Hasan Şendil (violin/keman) & İhsan Cansever (voice/ses) – Geçiş Taksim and Gazel from Beyati to Hüseyni (DVD 8/84) tiz açan (buselik-5) kök uşşak-4 destek (rast-5) makam Beyati change type * pivot tone seyir used (* Taksim by H. Şendil.) (** Gazel by İ. Cansever.) tiz açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(buselik-5) uşşak-4
uşşak-5
uşşak-4
**
Hüseyni *
uşşak-5
uşşak-4 uşşak-5
uşşak-4 uşşak-5
Hüseyni *
**
uşşak-4
Hüseyni **
kürdi-4
pivot
(16.6) Mehmet Emin Bitmez (ud) & Furkan Bilgi (kemençe) – Hicaz Taksim (DVD 8/85) tiz açan (buselik-5) rast-5 buselik-5 kök hicaz-4 destek rast-5 makam Hicaz** (Hümayun) change type * direct direct pivot tone seyir used (* Here begins the taksim of M.E. Bitmez.) (** Although in a structural sense the first gesture is Hümayun, the quick and long lasting appearance of the rast-5 in the açan cins confirms the intention as Hicaz. As the artist confirmed to me that the taksim was intended to be in Hicaz, modulations to other members of the Hicaz family are here presented in parentheses.) tiz açan kök destek makam
rast-5
kürdi-4 hicaz-5
uşşak-4
(Araban***)
(Uzzal)
(hicaz-5 on gerdaniye) uşşak-3
hicaz-5
Saba on hüseyni species
(Uzzal)
(uşşak-4)
change type direct pivot direct direct pivot tone seyir used (*** See Appendix J s.v. Araban. Note the changing of the dominant from d/neva to e/hüseyni.)
560
tiz açan kök destek makam
uşşak-5
uşşak-4
Hüseyni on hüseyni species
(Uzzal)
hicaz-4
(buselik-5 above hicaz4)
(kürdi-4) hicaz-5 (rast-4) (Araban)
change type species **** pivot tone seyir used (**** Here begins the taksim of F. Bilgi.) († M.E. Bitmez returns to playing—NB: in Hicaz proper.) tiz
açan kök destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used (†† F. Bilgi returns to playing.) tiz açan
buselik-5
(Hümayun) pivot
segâh-3 on eviç
kök
rast-5 hicaz-4
(Hümayun)
(Hicaz)
species
†
rast-5
rast-5
(Hicaz) pivot
(Hicaz) ††
(buselik-4) müstear-3 on eviç
segâh-3 on eviç
pivot
direct
hicaz-4 on nim hicaz
destek makam change type pivot tone seyir used
(buselik-5) hicaz-4
hicaz-5 on ırak Evcara species
tiz açan rast-4 kök nikriz-5 destek makam Nikriz change type species pivot tone seyir used (††† M.E. Bitmez returns to playing.)
rast-4
561
nikriz-5
hicaz-4
Nikriz †††
Hicaz species
tiz açan
kürdi-4
kök destek
hicaz-5
makam
(Araban)
buselik-5 on neva hicaz-4
(Hicaz)
change type direct †††† (species) pivot tone seyir used (†††† F. Bilgi returns to playing.) (• M.E. Bitmez returns to playing.) tiz açan kök destek makam
buselik-5 on yegâh Sultani Yegâh pivot
buselik-5 on yegâh Sultani Yegâh quote•
(buselik-5 on neva) hicaz-4 buselik-5 on yegâh Sultani Yegâh ••
buselik-5 on acemaşiran
change type ••• direct•••• pivot tone seyir used (•• F. Bilgi returns to playing.) (••• M.E. Bitmez returns to playing, mimicking gesture just played by F. Bilgi, stopping on c /nim hicaz. This is repeated, both stopping now on B /dik kürdi.) (•••• Here F. Bilgi is playing. It is unclear where the modulation was intended to go; the taksim was interrupted by an event offstage.)
s
w
(16.7) Nurullah Kanık (ney) & Özer Özel (tanbur) – Hümayun Taksim (DVD 8/86) tiz açan buselik-5 (kürdi-4) *** kök hicaz-4 hicaz-5 rast-5 destek (rast-4) makam Hümayun Araban?** ? change type * species unique-i pivot tone seyir used (* Here begins the taksim of N. Kanık.) (** In official Arelian theory there is no construction hicaz-5 + kürdi-4, but see Appendix J s.v. “Araban.” Similarly there is no conjunction rast-5 + kürdi, as follows this [see Chapter VI].) (*** Here there is a non-makam gesture of two leaps of a perfect 4th followed by a leap of a “major 3rd” altogether from A/dügâh to b/tiz buselik. The implication would be that there is a rast, nikriz, or buselik pentachord in the tiz level, though no more than the first 2 tones are shown.)
562
tiz açan
(hicaz-4) buselik-5 on neva
hicaz-5
hicaz-5
(hicaz-4****)
hicaz-4
kök destek makam Hümayun (Şehnaz) Şehnaz change type direct direct † pivot tone seyir used (**** This may merely be a tonicization of d/neva, but it remains throughout the rest of the taksim, implying a Zirgüleli Hicaz or Şehnaz. Note the change of dominant, and therefore of the limits of the cins level/width.) († Here begins the taksim of Ö. Özel.) tiz açan buselik-5†† kök hicaz-4 destek makam Hümayun change type pivot pivot tone seyir used (†† Again a change in the dominant means a necessary change in the limit and width of the cins level.)
The above taksim is unique among our müşterek examples in that rather than each player simply playing their full taksim (with its definition of the makam anew each time), here the first player left his in a modulation to another makam, with a different dominant than the original, and the second player picked it up from that makam (Şehnaz) and returned it to the original (Hümayun). (16.8) Volkan Yılmaz (ney; Nev’eser Taksim) [no modulation] & Selim Güler (kemençe; Nihavend Taksim) [no modulation] (DVD 8/87) tiz açan hicaz-4 kök nikriz-5 destek makam Nev’eser change type * pivot tone seyir used (* Here begins the taksim of V. Yılmaz.) (** Here begins the taksim of S. Güler.)
(kürdi-4) buselik-5 hicaz-4 Nihavend **
563
APPENDIX L: DVDs OF THE TAKSİM-S
Appendix L itself consists of the eight DVDs accompanying this text. Below is the list of the taksim-s and their artists as they appear on the DVDs. They are ordered alphabetically, first by instrument, then by artist’s last name, then by taksim name.93 The taksim-s are not re-numbered for each DVD; DVD 1 contains “tracks” 1 through 12, DVD 2 contains “tracks” 12-24, etc. The first four DVDs contain recordings of the taksim-s for which the artist him/herself gave an analysis; such analyses appear in subtitles on the movie clips, in the artist’s own terms (though I translated the analyses from Turkish to English). DVDs 5 through 8 contain recordings of taksim-s without such analyses; I analyzed these myself as they appear in Appendix K.94 Subtitled text in white on videos on the first four disks are my translations of the artists’ commentary; text in yellow shows my own supplemental comments.
The videos are available by looking up this dissertation at http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/disexpress.shtml. The files should run on any model of computer, with any operating system, provided it have installed some sort of video viewing software (such as iTunes, QuickTime Player, Video Player, etc.). The largest disk is 2.83 GB. The movie clips range from 30.9 MB to 356.3 MB.
93
Note, however, that the artists’ last names appear first within the title of each movie clip, followed by instrument name and the name of the makam of the taksim. 94 Note that the alphabetizing of these taksim-s begins anew even though their numbering is continued.
564
DVD 1 (Appendix L-1) 1. Agnès Agopian – Kanun – 2 Rast Taksim-s 2. Agnès Agopian – Kanun – Beyati-Araban 3. Agnès Agopian – Kanun – Hicaz to Nihavend Geçiş 4. Şehvar Beşiroğlu – Kanun – Kürdili Hicazkâr to Bestenigâr Geçiş 5. Şehvar Beşiroğlu – Kanun – Rast 6. Şehvar Beşiroğlu – Kanun – Zavil 7. Eymen Gürtan – Ney – Bayati 8. Eymen Gürtan – Ney – Nihavend 9. Eymen Gürtan – Ney – Suz-i Dilara to Nihavend Geçiş 10. Murat Aydemir – Tanbur – Arazbar-Buselik 11. Murat Aydemir – Tanbur – Beyati-Araban 12. Murat Aydemir – Tanbur – Gerdaniye to Gülizar Geçiş
565
DVD 2 (Appendix L-2) 13. Murat Aydemir – Tanbur – Isfahan 14. Murat Aydemir – Tanbur – Muhayyer-Sümbüle 15. Murat Aydemir – Tanbur – Suzinak 16. Özer Özel – Tanbur – Bayati 17. Özer Özel – Tanbur – Hicazkâr 18. Özer Özel – Tanbur – Suz-i Dilara 19. Özer Özel – Tanbur – Suz-i Dilara to Kürdili Hicazkâr Geçiş 20. Özer Özel – Tanbur – Uşşak 21. Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Ud – Acem Aşiran 22. Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Ud – Evcara to Ferahnak Geçiş 23. Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Ud – Eviç to Evcara Geçiş 24. Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Ud – Nişabur
566
DVD 3 (Appendix L-3) 25. Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Ud – Nişaburek 26. Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Ud – Pençgâh 27. Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Ud – Rast on dügâh 28. Necati Çelik – Ud – Bestenigâr 29. Necati Çelik – Ud – Muhayyer 30. Necati Çelik – Ud – Rast 31. Necati Çelik – Ud – Şevk’efza 32. Ünal Ensari – Violin – Hicaz 33. Vasfi Akyol – Yaylı Tanbur – Hicaz 34. Vasfi Akyol – Yaylı Tanbur – Nihavend 35. Vasfi Akyol – Yaylı Tanbur – Rast to Hüseyni on rast Geçiş
567
DVD 4 (Appendix L-4) 36. Ahmet Nuri Benli – Yaylı Tanbur – Rast 37. Ahmet Nuri Benli – Yaylı Tanbur – Uşşak 38. Sinan Erdemsel – Yaylı Tanbur – Acem Aşiran 39. Sinan Erdemsel – Yaylı Tanbur – Kürdili Hicazkâr 40. Sinan Erdemsel – Yaylı Tanbur – Nihavend A1 (audio only) İhsan Özgen – Kemençe – “Beyond Makam”
DVD 5 (Appendix L-5) 41. Şükrü Kabacı – Clarinet – Muhayyer-Kürdi 42. Turgut Özefer – Kanun – Hüseyni 43. Turgut Özefer – Kanun – Kürdili Hicazkâr 44. Erdem Özkıvanç – Kanun – Nihavend 45. Erkin – Kanun – Rast95 46. Erkin – Kanun – Segâh 47. Furkan Bilgi – Kemençe – Hicazkâr 48. Emre Erdal – Kemençe – Segâh 49. Aslıhan Özel – Kemençe – Hümayun 50. Eymen Gürtan – Ney – Acem Aşiran 51. Eymen Gürtan – Ney – Pençgâh to Sultani Yegâh Geçiş 52. Nurullah Kanık – Ney – Dügâh
95
NB: I was unable to track down Erkin’s surname.
568
DVD 6 (Appendix L-6) 53. Ahmet Toz – Ney – Rast I 54. Ahmet Toz – Ney – Segâh 55. Ahmet Toz – Ney – Rast II 56. Ahmet Toz – Ney – Uşşak to Hicaz Geçiş 57. Furkan Esiroğlu – Tanbur – Kürdili Hicazkâr 58. Firuz Akın Han – Tanbur – Kürdili Hicazkâr 59. Firuz Akın Han – Tanbur – Nev’eser to Şedd Araban Geçiş 60. Firuz Akın Han – Tanbur – Nikriz to Rast Geçiş 61. Özer Özel – Tanbur – Bestenigâr 62. Özer Özel – Tanbur – Hüseyni 63. Özer Özel – Tanbur – Segâh 64. Özer Özel – Tanbur – Müstear
DVD 7 (Appendix L-7) 65. Murat Salim Tokaç – Tanbur – Pesendide 66. Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Ud – Rast Zemini 67. Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Ud – Hicazkâr 68. Mehmet Emin Bitmez – Ud – Uşşak to Hüseyni Geçiş 69. Necati Çelik – Ud – Gülizar 70. Bilen Işıktaş – Ud – Uşşak 71. Bilen Işıktaş – Ud – Şedd Araban to Ferahfeza Geçiş
569
72. Osman Kırklıkçı – Ud – Şevk’efza 73. Yurdal Tokcan – Ud – Muhayyer-Kürdi 74. Sinan Erdemsel – Violin – Rast 75. Hasan Şendil – Violin – Mahur 76. Baki Kemancı – Violin – Acem-Kürdi
DVD 8 (Appendix L-8) 77. Ahmet Nuri Benli – Yaylı Tanbur – Acem Aşiran 78. Firuz Akın Han – Yaylı Tanbur – Hicaz 79. Firuz Akın Han – Yaylı Tanbur – Hüseyni 80. Baktagir-Kemancı – Hüseyni and Muhayyer-Kürdi 81. Karaöz-Özkıvanç – Hüseyni 82. Erkin-Özel-Özel-Kanık – Suzinak 83. Erkin-Özel – Nihavend 84. Şendil-Cansever – Beyati to Hüseyni Geçiş 85. Bitmez-Bilgi – Hicaz 86. Kanık-Özel – Hümayun 87. Yılmaz-Güler – Nev’eser and Nihavend A2 (audio only) Selim Güler – Kemençe – Segâh
570
GLOSSARY Abjad. (Ebced in modern Turkish) a pronunciation of the first four letters of the original Arabic “alphabet”; abjadic notation is one in which Arabic letters are used to represent musical tones (see Yarman 2007b passim). Following linguist Peter T. Daniel’s definition, the main difference between an alphabet and an abjad is that the former has separate signs for all of its vowels and the latter relies on separate diacritic marks to show vowel sounds (if a writing sample shows them at all). Ahenk. Literally “harmony, tuning, consonance.” In the sense used in this text (and explained at length in Appendix F, q.v.), it refers to a scheme for naming twelve common transpositions; the ahenk called “bolahenk” is the standard for KTM notation, and sounds a perfect fourth lower than written. Alaturka. From the Italian a la turca, “in the Turkish manner.” A term current in the late Ottoman Empire and early Turkish Republic denoting anything considered old fashioned and in need of modernization by way of Westernization; its antithesis is alafranga, “in the European manner.” It is a term that was applied to KTM by those who wished to eradicate the music in favor of European classical music, Anatolian and Thracian folk tunes, and the mixture of the two, which were considered more “nationalistic” by the reformers who would become hegemonic in the early Republic (see Chapter III). Alḥān. Plural of the Arabic laḥn, “song.” This was one of the medieval names of the “secondary modal entities” described in Chapter II. 571
Angham. Plural of the Arabic naghma, “melody.” This was one of the medieval names of the “secondary modal entities” described in Chapter II. Ara (Taksim). Literally “between” or “space” taksim. A taksim that is performed between two pieces of pre-composed repertoire, all three being in the same makam. Aṣābi`. Literally “fingers” in Arabic. In this text it has been used to stand for the phrase “finger modes,” which was the term used in early medieval Baghdad for the melodic modes in use at the time, that is, the “ancestors” of the makam-s. These modes were described in terms of the placement of a performer’s fingers on the (fretted) neck of a lute. Awāzāt. Arabic version of the Persian “songs,” the plural of awāz/avāz. This was one of the medieval names of the “secondary modal entities” described in Chapter II. It is today applied to such secondary modal entities in classical Persian music (see Farhat 1990). Ayin. A suite form of pieces in the same or closely related makam-s performed during the Mevlevi (and other Sufi) sema ceremony (see “Sema” below; see also DVD 5/50 and 8/77). Basit. “Simple, basic” in Turkish. In this text the word has been used to modify two different types of makam. Firstly, Arel denoted 13 makam-s as “basit” for their being constructed (in his view) of cins-es that were delimited by either a perfect fourth or a perfect fifth—those makam-s are: Çargâh, Buselik, Kürdi, Rast, Uşşak, Hicaz,
572
Hümayun, Uzzal, Zirgüle, Hüseyni, (Basit) Suzinak, Karcığar, and Neva. Secondly, “basit makam-s” are “simple” in contrast to “compound makam-s” (mürekkeb or bileşik makam-s); compound makam-s are made from the combination of simple makam-s. Baş (Taksim). Literally “head” (taksim). This is the name of the taksim, always performed on a ney flute, that introduces the first piece of an Ayin (q.v. above; also see Giriş [Taksim] below). Beraber (Taksim). An experimental form of taksim in which two or more players perform simultaneously, creating a de facto counterpoint of sorts. B. Aksoy claims that Mesut Cemil Bey invented the beraber taksim in the mid-twentieth century (2004). It is currently very rarely heard. Beşli. Literally “having five,” this is the Turkish term used for both the interval of a fifth, and for the pentachord. As a pentachord it is in the category of “Cins” (q.v., below), along with tetrachords (dörtlü-s) and trichords (üçlü-s). Beylik. “Stereotype.” This is one of several terms used to describe melodic gestures associated with particular makam-s (see Chapter IV). Bileşik. “Combined”; used in reference to compound makam-s (see “Mürekkeb,” below). Bolahenk. “Full tuning,” the name of one of twelve transposition schemes (see “Ahenk” above and Appendix F).
573
Cazibe. “Attraction, gravity.” This refers to the tendency in performance to alter the intonation of certain tones in accord with the direction of the melody, such that in ascending phrases the highest normative version of the Perde (q.v. below) is given, while a flatter one is played when the melody is descending. The term may be used to refer either to the alteration of a single perde’s intonation, or to the exchange of one perde for an adjacent one under similar circumstances (see Chapters IV and VII). Cins. Arabic jins, from Greek genos (Latin genus; plurals are ajnas/geni/genera respectively). Units of three tones (specifically called “trichords”), four tones (specifically called “tetrachords”) or five tones (specifically called “pentachords”) that may be combined to make up the note-inventory aspect of a makam. At different times and places throughout the history of Eastern Mediterranean modal music the term has been applied to all three types, or only to tetrachords, or to both tetrachords and pentachords. Modal constructions using cins-es have likewise changed between being conceived as only conjunct (where the upper tone of the lower cins is the same as the lower tone of the upper cins) or as only disjunct (where the upper tone of the lower cins and the lower tone of the upper cins are separated by a whole tone) or as permitting either. Today classical Turkish music theory permits only conjunct cins-es; Arelian theory proposes only tetrachords and pentachords while performers admit certain trichords as well. See Chapter VI regarding the possible “cins conjunctions” and “cins constellations” in current classical Turkish music.
574
Comma. The idea of a (musical) “comma” as a size of interval comes originally from Pythagorean music theory—it is the (tiny) amount by which twelve perfect fifths exceed seven octaves. But rather than Pythagoras’ comma of 531441:524288 or 23.46 cents (i.e., 23.46% of a tempered half-step), in KTM the Holdrian comma (Holder koması) of 22.64 cents is used (1200 cents ÷ 53 commas); this is understood as an approximation of the 81:80 “syntonic comma” of 21.5 cents (see Yarman 2007b: 58, Özkan 1984, cf. Yavuzoğlu no date). William Holder, after whom the Holdrian comma was named, was a seventeenth-century English music theorist who wrote on 53-tone equal temperament and devised this special “comma” to denote one step in 53-tET. Cümbüş. Literally “fun, excitement.” A Turkish 12-stringed (6-course) fretless lutetype instrument with a (banjo-like) skin head. Once associated with the urban nonMuslim minorities (Greek, Armenian, Jewish), and until recently with Turkish Romany (“Gypsy”) players and music, the cümbüş has since around 2000 spread in popularity amongst Turkish performers, though it is not considered an appropriate instrument by the classical Turkish music establishment (but see “Yaylı Tanbur” below). Çeşni. Literally “a taste, a sample,” as in that which is offered when someone proffers a piece of what they are eating or drinking. As seen in Chapter IV, it may refer to a range of more or less exact melodic gestures that evoke a specific makam.
575
Most conservatively it is “the smallest melodic concept conveying the explanatory [identifying] power of a makam.” Çingene. A disparaging Turkish term for Romany (Román/“Gypsy”). It is sometimes applied by classical musicians as an epithet upon other musicians whom they perceive as playing in an unsophisticated or overly commercial manner. Dasātīn. Persian, literally “necks.” The Persian-language term for the medieval pre“makam” modal entities described above under “Aṣābi`.” Doğaçlama. Musical improvisation, outside of the application of makam theory. Donanım. A “makam signature” analogous to a “key signature” in Western music notation, that is, it consists in a set of accidental signs placed on a musical staff to indicate the appropriate form of letter-name note for the specific makam. Dörtlü. Literally “having four,” this is the Turkish term used for both the interval of a fourth, and for the tetrachord. As a tetrachord it is in the category of “Cins” (q.v., above), along with trichords (üçlü-s) and pentachords (beşli-s). Durak. Literally “stop”; the tonic of a makam (see “Karar” below). Equal Temperament. A way of determining a set of musical intervals by dividing an octave into equally “sized” intervals. For instance, Western music is generally in a twelve-tone equal temperament, where there are 12 “semi-tones” (or “half steps”) and each is the same “distance” (i.e., in the same relationship of vibration) to those adjacent in the series of all possible tones. Although the most influential theorists on 576
today’s classical Turkish music theory did not present its inventory of tones in terms of an equal temperament, the popular use of the Comma (which see above) as a unit of measurement, both in theory books and in normal rhetoric among musicians, implies the acceptance of a 53-tone equal temperament. That is, there the octave is de facto divided into 53 equal units, each one being a “(Holdrian) comma” wide. Gazel. (From the Arabic ghazal.) Originally referring to a poetic structure consisting of rhyming couplets and a refrain, each line sharing the same meter, in the context of classical Turkish music “gazel” came to refer to the sung version of a taksim (whether using lyrics derived from such a poem or a repeated word such as “aman” [“mercy”]). That is to say that the sung melody was the spontaneously generated praxis of the makam chosen for the performance. See also Kaside below (from which the poetic form of gazel was apparently originally derived). Geçiş. “Passage, transition.” In a musical context it refers to a modulation, usually of a relatively more enduring sort than described by the term geçki (q.v. below); a geçiş taksimi is a taksim that begins in one makam but ends in another. The most common context for such a taksim is to make a graceful transition between two pieces of precomposed repertoire that are in two different makam-s. Geçki. “Passing.” In a musical context it describes a moment of modulation, usually of a more transitory sort than that described by the term geçiş (q.v. above). Giriş (Taksim). “Entry (Taksim).” A taksim intended to introduce a piece of music, or especially a suite of pieces, by formally demonstrating the makam of the piece or 577
suite. Unlike the similar but more specialized baş taksimi (q.v., above), it may be performed on any instrument. Güçlü. Literally “[the one] having strength,” güçlü in the context of classical Turkish music refers to the dominant tone. As such it may be considered the second most important tone in a makam’s structure, the first being the tonic (see “Karar,” below). If the trichord is accepted as a size of cins, the güçlü is most often the point of conjunction of the two cins-es in the central octave (i.e., of the root/kök and opening/açan level cins-es), although there are several makam-s whose dominant is the “upper tonic,” and one informant in this study shared the very rare opinion that the tonic itself could also serve as the dominant (see Chapter IV). Unlike in Western music, the dominant is not always a perfect fifth upward from the tonic. A makam may also have secondary and even tertiary dominants, but again, unlike in Western music, these are not necessarily in a fixed relationship to each other, and do not necessarily “lead” from one directly to the next. Hafız. A person who has memorized (and can recite from memory) the Qur‘an. Hamparsum Notation. A system of music notation invented by Ottoman-Armenian composer Hamparsum Limoncıyan (1768-1839), apparently derived from an earlier ecclesiastic music notation of the Armenian Apostolic Church (for which Hamparsum notation is currently the standard). It uses 45 symbols derived from the Armenian alphabet to represent 14 pitches per octave over a range of 3 octaves and a minor second, as well as pitch duration, rests, repeats, periods, and stops. Because certain
578
tones and inflections of tones used in classical Turkish music are not precisely represented in this system, a knowledge of the makam-s themselves is required to properly execute repertoire notated in it. Though like other Ottoman-era notation systems it was never used in performance, Limoncıyan apparently transcribed much of the eighteenth-century Ottoman repertoire in a collection of six books (of which two survive), which he presented to Sultan Selim III (see Karamahmutoğlu 2009). There are today both theorists and performers who can read and write in the system, some of whom advocate it as a replacement for the Western staff notation currently in use (see Chapter III and Bayhan 2008). Hane. From the Persian for “inn” (cf. Arabic khana). In the context of classical Turkish music it refers to sections of a pre-composed form such as the saz semaisi (“instrumental listening piece”) and peşrev (introduction), both of which consist in the presentation of a “first hane” followed by a refrain (teslim, literally “delivery”), followed by a “second hane,” then a return to the same refrain (the saz semaisi having 4 hane-s and the peşrev 3 to 6). Feldman notes that until the seventeenth century it was only in the third hane of a peşrev that any modulation appeared in the notated repertoire (excepting certain pedagogical song forms, see Chapter II). Holdrian Comma. (see “Comma,” above.) `Ilm al-Mūsīqī. Arabic “the science of music”; the theorized version of medieval “Islamic” art music. It varied over time and in accord with various authors as to its reflection of music-as-practiced, and often included such concerns as cosmology
579
(“music of the spheres,” astrological connections to melodic modes), emotional and therapeutic affects ascribed to melodic modes, etc. İlahi. A type of Sufi hymn. Just Intonation. Just intonation refers to any musical tuning in which the frequencies (rates of vibration) between any and all pitches (or “tones”) are related by ratios of whole numbers. A “limit” can be placed upon the tone choices in a just intonation tuning by setting a prime number as the highest number by which either factor may be divided, for instance the interval ratio 3:2 (a “perfect fifth”) means that A) the higher tone vibrates 3 times during the same period during which the lower tone vibrates twice, and B) it is a “3-limit” interval by virtue of the factors being divisible only by either 3 or 2 (but not, for instance, by 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, etc.). The interval ratio 13:12 is in “13-limit just intonation,” etc. Given the use of 53-tone equal temperament as a standard in classical Turkish music (see “Equal Temperament,” above), we may say that a 5-limit just intonation is the lowest limit for a just intonation approximating this standard, though early theorists sometimes referred to a (3-limit just intonation) “Pythagorean” tuning as at least theoretically appropriate (see Chapter III). Kanun. The Turkish version of this trapezoidal zither (plucked with tortoise-shell plectra affixed by rings to the index fingers) has 26 triple courses of strings covering 3 octaves (from A2 to E6). The fine tuning of each course is effected by short levers (mandal-s) beneath the strings along the left side of the instrument. Yarman notes
580
(2007a) that by virtue of kanun makers’ practice of dividing each tempered semi-tone into 6 equal parts, today’s kanun-s are de facto tuned in 72-tone Equal Temperament (the only KTM instrument so tuned; see also Appendix E for a photograph). Karar. Literally “decision, resolution,” in the context of classical Turkish music the unqualified term refers either to the tonic itself, or to the final cadence (always upon the tonic). Modified as “yarım karar” (“half cadence”) it refers to a cadence upon the dominant, and as “asma karar” (“suspended cadence”) it refers to a brief cadence on a tone other than tonic or dominant. According to Aydemir 2010, a “half cadence” may not deviate from the tones of the nominal makam, while the “suspended cadence” may do so. Kaside. (From the Arabic qasida, literally “intention.”) Kaside originally referred to an Arab poetic structure consisting of all rhyming lines (often 50 or more) adhering to an elaborate metric scheme. In the context of classical Turkish music, however, “kaside” came to refer to a sung version of a taksim (whether using lyrics derived from such a poem or a repeated word such as “aman” [“mercy”]), although the term “gazel” with the same meaning (q.v. above) was more common. That is to say that the sung melody was the spontaneously generated praxis of the makam chosen for the performance. Kemençe. A short bowed fiddle played upright upon the knee (see a photograph in Appendix E). This instrument may be qualified as the “classical kemençe” (klasik keençesi; sometimes also as armudi kemençe, “pear-shaped kemençe”) to distinguish
581
it from the “kemençe” that is a folk fiddle of the Black Sea region. Fingering of the strings is effected with the fingernails rather than the fingertips. The traditional version has three single courses, while the music theorist H.S. Arel is attributed the invention of the four course kemençe, in four sizes (imitating the string quartet). Koma. (see “Comma,” above.) Longa. Originally an instrumental dance form in Romanian folk music, the longa was adopted into late Ottoman classical music as a lively and virtuosic tune form. (See also “Mandıra” and “Zeybek.”) Makam. From Arabic maqām, “place.” A melodic mode consisting essentially of two parts: A) a set of tones (which can be described in terms of conjoined cins-es), and B) a set of instructions regarding the melodic movement of those tones, including a direction of movement, a hierarchy of prominent tones, a tessitura, characteristic alterations in intonation, characteristic internal modulations, etc. Mandıra. Originally an instrumental dance form in Balkan folk musics, the mandıra was adopted into late Ottoman classical music as a lively and virtuosic tune form. (See also Longa and Zeybek.) Maqām. (See Makam, above.) Medrese. From the Arabic madrasa (“place of learning,” viz Hebrew [beit] midrash). As used in this text it refers to religious schools in the Ottoman Empire, in some of which classical music formed a course of study. All medrese-s were shut down by the
582
early Republican government as part of a plan to modernize/Westernize the Republic, incidentally cutting off this medium of music transmission as well (see also “Tekke,” below). Mehter. A type of ambulatory military musical group having Central Asian roots, forerunner of the Western “marching band” and source of the instrumentarium of Western orchestral percussion section. The mehter performed as part of the Ottoman military organization called Yeniçeri (“Janissaries,” “new troop”), which were shut down (and massacred) in 1828. Meşk. from the Arabic mashq, refers to a model example of calligraphy that a master would write in charcoal, etc., over which a student would then write in ink with a reed pen (Dwight Reynolds, p.c. by e-mail 6/5/2011); metonymically it came to mean “practice, repetition” in the Ottoman language and, later, in modern Turkish. It is the name for the traditional oral/aural transmission of makam music; such an education is usually centered upon a student’s memorization and constantly refined performance of exemplary repertoire under a master’s close supervision. Often lasting a dozen years before the student “graduates,” the relationship between master and student— and therefore the “meşk” between them—is in a sense lifelong. For detailed information on meşk, see Behar 2006 (1998), O’Connell 2000: 120 fn. 5, Gill 2006. Mevlevi. An order of Sufism (see “Sufi,” below) founded by thirteenth-century mystic poet and Islamic jurist Celaluddin Rumi. The Mevlevi order became closely associated with the Ottoman court by the late fourteenth century, which patronage
583
gave the order privileges regarding the transmission of court music. The close association of the order with courtly music on the one hand helped foster the sophistication of religious musical forms such as the ilahi (hymn) and ayin (the music played during the Mevlevi sema “whirling dervish” ceremony), but on the other hand was a source of the disruption in the oral transmission of classical music when the early Republican government destroyed the offices of imperial power and shut down Mevlevi (and other Sufi) tekke-s and medrese-s (q.v. below and above respectively). Meyan. “Center, middle,” referring to a section in a taksim performance—after the makam-identifying Zemin (q.v. below)—in which melodic movement is not as restricted to gestures intended specifically to identify the nominal makam; the meyan often includes internal modulations. Müezzin. One who calls the Muslim community to prayer. Mürekkeb. From the Arabic for “combined, compound” (from the root rakkaba, “to combine,” cf. Terkib, below). In classical Turkish music the word is used to designate compound makam-s, that is, makam-s formed by combining several pre-existing makam-s. (See also the equivalent Turkish-language term Bileşik, above.) Müşterek. Literally “paired, shared.” This term is used to designate a type of taksim in which two or more players (though rarely more than 3 or 4) alternate playing a taksim one after the other, that is in series, not simultaneously (cf. the de facto polyphonic “Beraber Taksim,” above) except to keep a drone for the main player.
584
Müzik/Musıkî/Musiki. (“Müziği/Musıkîsî/Musikisi” in their compound adjectival forms.) All of these terms derive from the ancient Greek µουσική (mousike; “art of the Muses”). The latter two are Ottoman language variations and are currently used when meaning to confer upon the music in question (and probably also upon the speaker’s own sense of culture) a venerable, pre-modern lineage. The variant “müzik/müziği” is in imitation of the same term via the French language and is used to connote a modernist stance toward music and Turkish culture generally; all terms mean the same thing (music)—it is only the usages that convey distinctions. Ney. Literally “reed.” The end-blown (from an angle) reed flute, in Turkey having a fipple (başpare). It has been particularly associated with Celaluddin Rumi and the Mevlevi order of Sufism he founded. It is venerated along with the Tanbur (q.v., below) as one of the two “truly classical” instruments of classical Turkish music. The transposition schemes called “ahenk-s” (q.v. above and in Appendix F) are named after the 12 sizes (and therefore tunings) of ney. Neyzen. A player of the ney (q.v., above). Oyun Havaları. (Thus mentioned in the plural, “dance airs”; singular is oyun havası.) A folk dance form in duple or quadruple meter, it was slowly accepted (or at least mimicked) in the classical Turkish music around the early part of the period of this study (1910-2010) or a little before. Parda. An archaic term for “primary mode” (see Shuddud, below.)
585
Pentachord. A unit of five tones, each a kind of interval of a second from the next, set within the span of a perfect fifth. Pentachords, like tetrachords and trichords, fall under the category of Cins (q.v. above). See also Beşli, above. Perde. “Fret, finger position; curtain.” As used in current classical Turkish music rhetoric, “perde” refers firstly to the physical position required of a performer to produce a named tone, and metonymically to the name of the tone, even though the actual pitch of certain perde-s may be inflected differently in different performance situations. For instance the (variable) perde named segâh (Bq) may be described in terms of its relation to the (stable) perde dügâh (A) as sometimes as low as 13:12 (± 139¢ higher) and sometimes as high as 10:9 (± 182¢ higher), and yet still be referred to as “segâh (Bq).” The perde-s that are de facto most likely to be variable in pitch are (in ascending order): ırak, segâh, dik hisar, eviç, and tiz segâh, most other perde-s being stable in pitch. Peşrev. From the Persian pishrow “introduction, prelude.” A classical instrumental form, formerly used exclusively as a prelude in a suite in the same makam, but currently able to stand alone as a piece. Structurally it consists of 3 to 6 Hane-s (q.v., above) surrounding a refrain (teslim) thus: 1st hane, teslim, 2nd hane, teslim, 3rd hane, teslim—etc., ending with the teslim. According to Feldman’s 1993 reading of Cantemir (1700) the 3rd hane of a peşrev was until the early eighteenth century the only place in the notated repertoire where modulation might be found.
586
Piyasa. “The marketplace.” Classical Turkish musicians refer to music perceived as commercially oriented—as well as to its performers—as belonging to the “piyasa”; it is analogous to the phrase “sold out” in current English. Praxis. The application of the principles of a theory in an ephemeral medium. In its original Aristotelian conception it stands in contrast to theory (contemplating abstract principles) and poiesis (the creation of something enduring). Rembétika. A genre of Greek popular music of the early twentieth century. Saray. Palace. Before adopting the Western term “klasik,” classical Ottoman/Turkish music was often referred to as saray musıkisi, palace or courtly music. Sazende Fasıl. (Literally “instrumentalist suite.”) An instrumental suite consisting of a taksim, a peşrev, and a saz semaisi all in the same makam. Formerly called fasıl-i sazende, in some periods the order of the peşrev and saz semaisi was reversed. Saz Semaisi. A classical instrumental form, formerly used to end a fasıl suite, but currently able to stand alone as an independent piece. Always played in the usul “aksak semai” (in 10/8 time divided 3+2+2+3) structurally it consists of 4 Hane-s (q.v., above) surrounding a refrain (teslim) thus: 1st hane, teslim, 2nd hane, teslim, 3rd hane, teslim, 4th hane, teslim. Traditionally the fourth hane is in a different and faster meter/usul—usually “yürük semai” (in 6/8 or 6/4 time), though occasionally it is in a 7- or 9-beat meter instead.
587
Sema. From the Arabic sema` (literally “listening”), sema is the name for the Mevlevi “whirling dervish” ceremony, the musical suite for which is called ayin. Seyir. Arabic via Persian for “walking, passage, pathway.” In terms of classical Turkish music this may refer to the aspect of a makam’s definition concerning melodic movement, in varying levels of specificity; minimally it may refer to whether a makam’s melodic movement is generally ascending, descending or spending the greatest amount of time in the middle before falling to the tonic (as all of these types do). The term may however also include other aspects of a makam’s definition, such as tessitura, characteristic special intonation issues, characteristic internal modulations, etc.—generally all aspects of a makam’s definition not explicitly covered in its scalar and cins conjunction definitions. Shu`ab (Şu`be, Şube). In some medieval Arabic-language music theory texts this term is used in reference to secondary modal entities (see also Alḥān, Angham, and Awāzāt, above; Terkib, below). Shuddud. In some medieval Arabic-language music theory texts this term is used in reference to primary modal entities, that is, after the time when they had been called Asābi` (q.v., above) but before they were called “maqāmāt” in the early thirteenth century. Note that it is the plural of the term Shed/Şedd (q.v., below); the Persianlanguage term parda (which is the original version of the Ottoman/Turkish word Perde [q.v., above]) was at times used synonymously; the word ṭarā`iḳ was also used for "modes" in al-Iṣfahānī's Kitāb al-Aghānī.
588
Smyrnéika. A genre of popular music associated with the city of Smyrna (İzmir). Originally a multiculturally created music (performed by and for Ottoman Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and Turks), it came to be merged with Rembétika and thus nationalized as a Greek music genre between 1923 and about 1940. Systematist School. The name given to a movement in “Arab/Persian/Islamic” music theory founded by Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Urmawī (“Ṣafīuddīn”) ca. 1250 CE. It was the first such theory that attempted to describe systematically such aspects of the music as the intervals in the general and basic scales, the construction of modes in terms of tetrachords and pentachords, the hierarchies of modal entities, the prominence of certain notes within modes, etc.; it largely formed the basis of all maqām-oriented theory until perhaps the nineteenth century (see Farmer 2001 [1929], Wright 1978, and Chapter II above). Sufi. The adjective associated with the noun “Sufism” (cf. Tasavvuf, below). Sufism is understood by its adherents to be the esoteric, inner, and/or mystical aspect of Islam (as opposed to the aspect concerned with orthodoxy, jurisprudence, social governance, etc.). There are many Sufi “orders” (tarikat), even in Turkey. Not all orders approve of the use of music, especially in conjunction with religious ritual, but historically the most influential in Turkey have been those orders that are also most sympathetic to the “spiritual” use of music: Cerrahi, Bektaşi, Sinani et al, and especially the Mevlevi, in whose hands classical music largely rested (whether inside our outside the royal court) until all Sufi orders were (at least nominally) banned by
589
the early Republic, their properties closed or destroyed. Today many Turks consider themselves Sufis, and some groups meet in historic buildings that had once officially been dergâh-s (tombs of saints and other honored religious persons), Tekke-s (q.v. below), and Medrese-s (q.v., above), however the institutional organization and power of the orders per se is greatly diminished since Ottoman times. Şarkı. (Derived from the Arabic word for “east.”) The şarkı is a light song form, apparently invented in the eighteenth or nineteenth century whose popularity increased during periods of Westernization-qua-modernization, seemingly due to its similarity to the European “art song.” Whether or not the phenomenon was causative, it seems as though as the şarkı came to replace more traditional and formal song forms (such as the kâr and beste) in the fasıl suite, this suite form itself became increasingly less formal and the term fasıl may now even refer to little more than a collection of şarkı-s, mostly but not exclusively in the same makam, perhaps with some instrumental works at the beginning and end (though not necessarily the traditionally expected Peşrev and Saz Semaisi, q.v., above). Şed (also Şedd). “Transposition.” This term seems to have referred to primary modal entities such as those now called “makam-s” in certain medieval Arabic-language music theory texts (see Shuddud, above, which is the plural of shedd/şedd), but in the context of current classical Turkish music it refers only to transpositions. However, there is a difference in usage between Arelian theory and current performers: Arel posited three categories of makam: 1) simple (basit); 2) compound (mürekkeb or
590
bileşik); and, 3) transposed (şedd). Here there is not only the problem of the term “basit makam” being used to designate a separate type of makam (see Basit, above), but also that such “transpositions” must themselves be either “simple” or “compound” as well. Current performers have a simple rule of thumb regarding şedd makam-s: if the makam has its own name, it is a separate makam; if it is referred to by a makam name with the modification “on [tone X]”—where “tone X” is not that makam’s normative “place” (see Yerinde, below) then it is a transposition, whether the makam is simple or compound. So for instance where Arel saw the makam Aşkefza (on E/aşiran) as a transposition of Kürdi (on A/dügâh) because they share a scalar structure but begin on different tones, current performers assume that that there is a difference between Aşk-efza (a distinct makam) and Kürdi-on-E (a transposition of Kürdi). Şeyh. From the Arabic sheikh, “(honored) elder.” The masters of a Sufi order are given this honorific title—as noted in Chapter III, Rauf Yekta (who was himself a Mevlevi dervish—a practicant of the Mevlevi sema or “whirling dervish” ceremony) learned music from the Şeyh-s of prominent Istanbul Tekke-s (q.v., below). Taksim. From the Arabic taqsīm, literally “division, distribution” (see Taqāsīm, below). A spontaneously performed praxis of makam theory played on an instrument (as opposed to sung—see Gazel and Kaside above).
591
Tanbur. A long necked fretted plucked lute, played with a long slender plectrum. Along with the Ney (q.v., above) it is considered one of the two “truly classical” instruments of classical Turkish music. See photograph in Appendix E. Taqāsīm. The purely Arabic term for Taksim (q.v., above). Unlike the Turkish version of the term, in Arabic proper it is the plural (taqāsīm) that stands for the singular (taqsīm). Tasavvuf. “Sufism” (see Sufi, above.) Taş Plak. Literally “stone plaque.” Audio records, today especially referring to 78 rpm records of the early twentieth century. Tekke. A Sufi “lodge,” a meeting place for members of a Sufi order, and the normal location for the practice of sema (the “whirling dervish” ceremony) among those orders that practiced it. Mevlevi tekke-s (as well as those of some other orders) were also the locus of most music education outside of the royal court itself. All tekke-s and Medrese-s (q.v., above) were shut down by the Republican government in 1924 and 1925, incidentally cutting off this medium of music transmission. Terkib. From the Arabic tarākīb “combination” (see also “Mürekkeb,” above). In pre-modern times what are today called “makam-s” were categorized in a hierarchy of primary and secondary (and at times tertiary) modal entities in accord with their scalar similarity to the “basic scale” (see Appendix G). Terkib-s apparently existed to provide variety from the tones of that scale; they were secondary (or perhaps at times
592
tertiary) modal entities apparently having fewer tones than a makam proper and simpler or no “seyir” per se. Feldman’s 1993 reading of Cantemir (1700) indicates that they were used frequently in modulations in the taksim genre, but seldom in precomposed repertoire at that time. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the distinction “terkib” (along with that of the hierarchy of modal elements) was lost in the profuse development of new makam-s, including many compound makam-s that apparently incorporated the old terkib-s. Tetrachord. A unit of four tones, each a kind of interval of a second from the next, set within the span of a perfect fourth. Tetrachords, like pentachords and trichords, fall under the category of Cins (q.v. above). See also Dörtlü, above. Trichord. A unit of three tones, each a kind of interval of a second from the next, set within the span of the interval of a third. Trichords, like pentachords and tetrachords, fall under the category of Cins (q.v. above). See also Üçlü, above. Türkü. A category of folk song, occasionally incorporated into classical performances and performance stylings. Ud. A 6-course unfretted bowl-backed plucked lute. Its Arabic name (al-`ud)— applied to the ancestor of today’s instrument in the seventh century CE—is the source of the name “lute” (and, it may be noted, it is therefore an anachronism to speak of “lutes” existing before that time). Generally they currently have eleven strings, all but the lowest being paired in double courses. It is plucked with a long slender plectrum (mızrap). See a photograph in Appendix E. 593
Usul. Rhythmic cycle, meter. Üçlü. Literally “having four,” this is the Turkish term used for both the interval of a third, and for the trichord. As a trichord it is in the category of Cins (q.v., above), along with tetrachords (dörtlü-s) and pentachords (beşli-s). Yaylı Tanbur. The bowed version of the tanbur (a fretted, long-necked lute; see photographs in Appendix E). The first recorded instance of bowing a (normal) tanbur is attributed to Tanburi Cemil Bey (1873-1916), but the yaylı tanbur—differentiated by having a skin head rather than a wooden one—seems to have been invented by Zeynel Abidin Cümbüş in the 1930s. Although the instrument has been used to play classical music since its invention (see Ederer 2007), it has been closely associated with a “lighter” form of the music as performed in public entertainment houses, and as such is not universally accepted as an appropriate instrument for classical Turkish music. Yeden. “Leading,” i.e., the “leading tone,” a tone 4 or 5 commas below a makam’s tonic tone; a “tam yeden” is the subtonic, i.e., a one whole tone (9 commas) below a makam’s tonic tone. Yerinde. “In its place” (also yerinden, “from its place”), refers to a makam begun from its normative tonic perde—for instance Rast makam is “in its place” beginning on the perde rast (see Appendix J—all makam definitions therein are given “in their places”). A makam played from any other tone is by definition a transposition.
594
Zakir. A person who performs the religious movement ritual called zikr. Zemin. “Ground.” This refers to the beginning and ending sections of a taksim, in which the formal aspects of the nominal makam are shown (i.e., those characteristics explained under Makam, above). In between these sections is the “meyan” (center, middle), a section in which melodic movement is not as restricted to gestures intended specifically to identify the makam (and which often includes internal modulations). Zeybek. An Aegean folk dance and the tune type (in a time signature of 9/4 or 4/4 + 5/4) that accompanies it. Like certain other folk forms such as the Longa (q.v. above), it has been accepted as an influence upon classical Turkish music, including in the taksim genre, if in a veiled manner (see Chapter IV).
595
BIBLIOGRAPHY Akdoğu, Onur. 1989a. Taksim: Nedir, Nasıl Yapılır? Izmir: İhlas A.Ş. İzmir Tesisleri. ——— 1989b. Türk Müziği Bibliyografyası (9. YY - 1928). İzmir: Ege Üniv. TMDK Yayınları. (Also, parts accessed 10/04/09 http://www.neyuretim.com/neykursu-neyzen.asp?id=38) Akkoç, Can. 2008. “Constructing a Theory of Turkish Music Based on Practice by Traditional Masters” in Türk Müziğinde Uygulama-Kuram Sorunları ve Çözümleri/Problems and Solutions for Practice and Theory in Turkish Music (Nevzat Bayhan exec. ed.). Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür A.Ş. Yayınları. ——— 2002. Non-Deterministic Scales Used in Traditional Turkish Music in Journal of New Music Research, vol. XXXI, no. 4. pp. 285-293. Aksoy, Bülent. 2008. Geçmişin Musıki Mirasına Bakışlar. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık. ——— 2006. Liner notes to Türk Müziği Ustaları: Niyazi Sayın ve Necdet Yaşar. Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım Ltd. Şti. ——— 2005. Ottoman Music within the Makam Traditions of Middle-Eastern Art Music: An Overview. Paper delivered at the 10th IRAM Conference, “Contemporary Trends in Musicology and Ethnomusicology,” Skopje, Nov. 2005. (accessed 9/16/09 http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:7ztqGgta4QMJ:mmc.edu.mk/IR AM/Conferences/ContemporarytrendsIV/BAksoy.pdf+ottoman+music+fiftee nth+century&hl=en&gl=us). ——— 2004. Liner notes to CD “Mesut Cemil (1902-1963).” Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım. ——— 2002. The Contributions of Multi-Nationality to Classical Ottoman Music. accessed 2/4/2010 http://www.goldenhorn.com/display.php4?content=library&page=golden_aks oy02.html).
596
——— 1997. “Towards the Definition of the Makam” in: Jürgen Elsner and Risto Pekka Pennanen (eds.), The Structure and Idea of Maqām: Historical Approaches (Tampere: Univ. of Tampere, Dept. of Folk Tradition, 1997), 812. (See also as “The Makam Phenomenon in Ottoman Turkish Music” http://www.turkishmusicportal.org/print.php?id=47&cat=history&lang2=en, accessed 11/15/09) And, Metin. 1984. “Atatürk and the Arts, with Special Reference to Music and Theater” in Atatürk and the Modernization of Turkey. Jacob M. Landau and E. J. Brill, eds. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 215-232. Aracı, Emre. 2002. “Giuseppe Donizetti at the Ottoman Court: A Levantine Life” in The Musical Times, Vol. 143, No. 1880 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 49-56. Arel, H. Sadettin. 1991 (1943-1948). Türk Musıkisi Nazariyatı Dersleri (ed. Onur Akdoğu) Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı/DSİ Basım Evi. (Originally serialized in the magazine Musıki Mecmuası, March 1948-January 1955; first published as a book 1968 Istanbul: Hüsnütabiat Matbaası.) ——— 1969 (1949-1952). Türk Musikisi Kimindir? Serialized in Musiki Mecmuası, June 1949-December 1952. Published in book form under same title, Istanbul: Ministry of Education, 1969. Arnon, Yoram. 2008. “Improvisation as Verbalization: The Use, Function, and Meaning of Pauses in the Turkish Taksim” in Dutch Journal of Music Theory, vol. 13. Ayangil, Ruhi. 2008. “Western Notation in Turkish Music” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland (Third Series), Vol. 18, Issue 4. pp 401-447. Aydemir, Murat. 2010. Turkish Music Makam Guide, ed. and transl. Erman Dirikcan. Istanbul: PAN Yayıncılık. Bates, Eliot. 2010. Music in Turkey: Experiencing Music, Expressing Culture. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bayhan, Nevzat (exec. ed.). 2008. Türk Müziğinde Uygulama-Kuram Sorunları ve Çözümleri/Problems and Solutions for Practice and Theory in Turkish Music. Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür A.Ş. Yayınları. Becker, Lawrence (ed.). 2001. Encyclopedia of Ethics, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge.
597
Behar, Cem. 2008 (2005). Musıkiden Müziğe / Osmanlı Türk Müziği: Gelenek ve Modernlik. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık. ——— 2006 (1998). Aşk Olmayınca Meşk Olmaz: Geleneksel Osmanlı/Türk Müziğinde Öğretim ve İntikal. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Beken, Münir Nurettin. 2003. “Aesthetics and Artistic Criticism at the Turkish Gazino” in Music and Anthropology: Journal of Musical Anthropology of the Mediterranean, No. 8 (also accessed online 2/14/2010 at http://levi.provincia.venezia.it/ma/index/number8/gazino/bek_00.htm). ——— 1998a. Musicians, Audience and Power: The Changing Aesthetics in the Music at the Maksim Gazino of Istanbul. Ph. D. diss., University of Maryland, Baltimore County. ——— and Karl Signell. 1998b. “Confirming, delaying, and deceptive elements in Turkish improvisations” in The maqam traditions of the Turkic peoples: ICTM Study Group "maqam", Proceedings of the 4th Meeting, Istanbul, 18-24 October 1998. ed. by Jürgen Elsner and Yalçın Tura. Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University (see also in Bayhan 2008). Bektaş, Tolga. 2005. “Musical Meters in the Beste Form of Classical Turkish Music” in Asian Music: Project Muse, pp. 1-26. Austin: University of Texas Press. Berkes, Niyazi. 1959. Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization: Selected Essays of Ziya Gökalp. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Bozdağlıoğlu, Yücel. 2003. Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkish Identity: A Constructivist Approach. New York and London: Routledge. Canfield, Robert L. 1991. Turko-Persia in historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cemîl Bey (“Tanbûrî”). 1998 (1901). Rehber-i Mûsikî. Ankara: A. Şevki Öztekin. Chalmers, John. 1991. Divisions of the Tetrachord. Lebanon, New Hampshire: Frog Peak. Crickmore, Leon. 2009a. “The Tonal Systems of Mesopotamia and Ancient Greece: Some Similarities and Differences,” in ARANE 2009, vol. I. London: ICONEA. ——— 2009b. “Harmonic Mythology: Nine Interdisciplinary Research Notes,” in ARANE 2009, vol. I. London: ICONEA.
598
——— 2008. “Musical and Mathematical Context for CBS 1766” in Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Fall 2008), pp. 327-359. Çevikoğlu, Timuçin. n.d. Türk Mûsikîsi’nin Geleneksel Âhenk Sistemi. (Accessed 8/10/10 at http://www.turkmusikisi.com/ahenk_sistemi/index.html). Çınar, Alev. 2005. Modernity, Islam, and Secularism in Turkey. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Daniels, Peter T., et al. eds. 1996. The World's Writing Systems Oxford: Oxford U. Press. Deringil, Selim. 1993. The Invention of Tradition as Public Image in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1808 to 1908 in Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 3-29 (Cambridge University Press). Doğrusöz, Nilgün. n.d. “Kitab-ı Edvâr” in Turkish Classical Music: Theory: Makams. Turkish Music Portal (accessed 8/9/10 at http://www.turkishmusicportal.org/page.php?id=48&lang2=en) ——— 2000. "Geleneksel Türk Müziğinde Makam ve Unsurları" in Osmanlı, c.10, Ankara. ——— 1999. "131 Numaralı Musıki Risalesi Üzerine" in Musıki Mecmuası, no. 466, Istanbul. ——— 1997. AGK 131 Numarada Kayıtlı Risâle-i Musıkideki Makaleler. Thesis, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Dumbrill, Richard. 2008a (1997). “Götterzahlen and Scale Structure” in ICONEA 2008. London: SAS/Univ. of London. ——— 2008b (1997). “The Uruk Lute: Elements of Metrology” in ICONEA 2008. London: SAS/Univ. of London. ——— 2008c (1997). “The Morphology of the Babylonian Scale” in ICONEA 2008. London: SAS/Univ. of London. ——— 2005. The Archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East. Bloomington: Trafford Publishing. During, Jean. 1994a. “Dastgāh” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, 15 December 1994, accessed 4/27/10 at http://www.iranica.com/articles/dastgah.
599
——— 1994b. “Dasātīn” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, 15 December 1994, accessed 8/17/10 at http://www.iranica.com/articles/dastgah. Ederer, Eric. 2007. The Cümbüş as Instrument of “the Other” in Modern Turkey. Master’s thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. Elias, Nicolas. 2008. Lâvta, etude pour un luth d’Istanbul. Master’s thesis, Université Paul Valéry, Montpelier. Ergöz, Hatice Selen. 2007. Türk Müziği Nazariyatı ve Solfeji, Uygulama Kitabı I: Basit Makamlar, Şed Makamlar. Istanbul: Değişim Yayınları. Erguner, Kudsi. 2005. Journeys of a Sufi Musician (trans. fr. French by A. C. Mayers of La fontaine de la séparation). London: SAQI. Erlanger, Baron Rodolphe d’. 1949 (1930-59). La musique arabe, 6 vol. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Ertan, Deniz. 2007. “Cycles and Peripheries: an Ottoman Kitâb el-Edvar” in Asian Music: Project Muse, pp. 31-60. Austin: University of Texas Press. Ezgi, Suphi. 1933-1953. Amelî ve Nazarî Türk Musikisi, vol.s I-V. Istanbul: İstanbul Belediye Konservatuvarı Yayınları (previously published for İstanbul Belediye Konservatuvarı by Milli Mecmua, 1933 (I); KMAZ, 1935 (II); Bankalar, 1938 (III); Alkaya, 1940 (IV) ; Hüsnütabiat, 1953 (V)). Farhat, Hormoz. 1990. The Dastgāh Concept in Persian Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farmer, Henry George. 1957. “Chapter V: The Music of Ancient Mesopotamia” in New Oxford History of Music, vol. I, pp. 228-254, London: Oxford University Press, Amen House. ——— 1965 (1940). The Sources of Arabian Music (Bearsden, 1940); 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1965). ——— 1978 (1930). Historical facts for the Arabian musical influence. New York: Arno Press. ——— 1930. “Greek Theorists of Music in Arabic Translation” in Isis, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Feb. 1930), University of Chicago Press, pp. 325-333. ——— 2001 (1929). A History of Arabian Music to the 13th Century. New Delhi: Goodword Books (2001; first published in London, 1929.) 600
Feldman, Walter. 2002. “Ottoman Turkish Music: Genre and Form” in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6, pp. 113-129. New York: Routledge. ——— 2001. Notes accompanying CD Lalezar - Music of the Sultans, Sufis and Seraglio (vol. III, Minority Composers). New York: Traditional Crossroads. ——— 1996. Music of the Ottoman Court : makam, composition and the early Ottoman instrumental repertoire. Berlin: VWB-Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung. ——— 1993. “Ottoman Sources on the Development of the Taksîm” in Yearbook for Traditional Music, Vol. 25, Musical Processes in Asia and Oceania. (1993), pp. 1-28. ——— 1991. “Cultural Authority and Authenticity in the Turkish Repertoire” in Asian Music, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 93-111. ——— 1990. “Ottoman music” in Grove Music Online/Oxford Music Online (accessed 9/16/09 at http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com s.v. Ottoman music) Franklin, John Curtis. 2007. “The Global Economy of Music in the Ancient Near East” in J. Westenholz (ed.),The Sounds of Music: Instruments from the Ancient World. Jerusalem: Keter Press. ——— (in press). “Ancient Near Eastern Music” in ABC Clio World History Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC Clio. (see link from http://www.kingmixers.com/cv.html, accessed 9/14/09). ——— 2002. “Diatonic Music in Greece: A Reassessment of its Antiquity,” in Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 55, Fasc. 6 (2002), pp. 669-702. Gedik A. C., Bozkurt, B., Savacı, A., 2008. Automatic Makam Classification of Turkish Classical Music Recordings, conference paper, CIM08, 4th Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2-6 July. Gill, Denise. 2006. Performing Meşk: Negotiating the Historical Compositions(s) of Being in Turkish Classical Music. Master’s thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. Gökalp, Ziya. 1918 (2001). Türkleşmek, islamlaşmak, muasirlaşmak (Turkism, Islamism, Secularism; some translations have last word as “Modernism”). Istanbul: Kum Saati Yayınları, 2001.
601
Gutas, Dmitri. 1998. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: the Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early `Abbasid Society. New York: Routledge. Gürmeriç, Şefik. “Türk Musikisi Nazariyatı Notları.” (Copied by Karl Signell from manuscript lecture notes for theory class at Istanbul Conservatory, c 1962.) Haşim Bey. 1852. Mecmua-yi Kârha ve Nakşha ve Şarkiyyat (reprinted in 1864 as Haşim Bey Mecmuası). Istanbul: [?]. Hodgson, Marshall G. S. 1974. The Venture of Islam. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hulse, Brian. 2008. “Improvisation as an Analytic Category” in Dutch Journal of Music Theory, vol. 13. Ikram, S. M. 1964. Muslim Civilization in India. New York: Columbia University Press. İstanbul Ü./anon. (no date). İstanbul Üniversitesi Devlet Konservatuvarı Kuruluş Tarihçesi Ve Amacı (accessed 9/22/09 http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/yuksekokullar/konservatuar/turk/tarihce/tarihce.htm) Jorgensen, Owen. 1991. Tuning. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Karadeniz, Ekrem. 1983 (posthumous; begun 1965). Türk Mûsikîsinin Nazariye ve Esasları. Istanbul: İş Bankası. Karakayalı, Nedim. 2002. “Arabesk” in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6, p. 255-261. New York: Routledge. Karamahmutoğlu, Gülay. 2009. “Hamparsum Limonciyan Ve Nota(Lama) Sistemi” in Müzik ve Bilim Dergisi/Journal of Music and Science, March, Year 1, Number 1. Istanbul: Bahariye Sanat Galerisi Yayınları. Karaosmanoğlu, M. K. 2004. “Türk Musıkisi Perdelerini Ölçüm, Analiz ve Test Teknikleri” presentation to Project for a Piano Capable of Sounding the Traditional Perdes of Turkish Music (delivered 6 May). Faculty of Art & Design, Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul. Accessed 04/15/09 http://www.musiki.org/mkk_vekom_2004_sunum.htm. Kilmer, Anne D. 1971. "The Discovery of an Ancient Mesopotamian Theory of Music" in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.
602
Kinross, Baron Patrick Balfour (“Lord”). 1977. The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire. New York: Harper-Collins/Perennial, p. 433-7. ——— 1969. Ataturk. New York: William Morrow and Co. Konuk, Ahmet Avni. 2007 (? early 20th c.). 119 Makamlı Fihrist-i Makamat (ed. M. Kemal Karaosmanoğlu). Istanbul: Nota Yayıncılık. Korkmaz, Zeynep. 1998. Harf İnkılâbı. (Text of the speech by Prof. Dr. Zeynep on the website of Turkish Language Association, for the 70th anniversary of the Alphabet Reform, delivered at the Dolmabahçe Palace, on September 26, 1998). Accessed 10/27/09 at http://www.tdk.org.tr/zey02.html. Kutluğ, Yakup Fikret. 2000. Türk Musikisinde Makamlar (8 volumes). Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Laborde, Jean Benjamin de. 1780. Essai sur la musique ancienne et moderne. Paris: Ph.-D. Pierres. Marcus, Scott L. 2007. Music in Egypt. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press (World Music Series). ——— 2002a. “Rhythmic Modes in Middle Eastern Music” in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6, pp. 89-93. New York: Routledge. ——— 2002b. “The Eastern Arab System of Melodic Modes in Theory and Practice: A Case Study of Maqam Bayyati” in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6. New York: Routledge. ——— 1993a. “The Interface Between Theory and Practice: Intonation in Arab Music” in Asian Music, vol. XXIV, no. 2, Spring/Summer 1993. ——— 1993b. “Solo Improvisation (Taqâsîm) in Arab Music” in The Middle East Studies Association Bulletin July 1993 (also accessed Nov. 15, 2010 at http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/bulletin/marcus.htm). ——— 1992. “Modulation in Arab Music: Documenting Oral Concepts, Performance Rules and Strategies” in Ethnomusicology, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Spring – Summer, 1992), pp. 171-195. ——— 1989a. Arab Music Theory in the Modern Period. Diss., UCLA.
603
———1989b. “The Periodization of Modern Arab Music Theory: Continuity and Change in the Definition of the Maqāmāt” in The Pacific Review of Ethnomusicology, UCLA, vol. V, pp. 35-49. Markoff, Irene. 2002. “Aspects of Turkish Folk Music Theory” in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6, pp. 77-88. New York: Routledge. Nettl, Bruno. 2008. “On the Concept of Improvisation in the World’s Music – An Informal Talk” in Dutch Journal of Music Theory, vol. 13. ——— 2005. The Study of Ethnomusicology: Thirty-One Issues and Concepts. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Neubauer, Eckhard. 2000. “Glimpses of Arab Music in Ottoman Times from Syrian and Egyptian Sources” in Zeitschrift Für Geschichte Der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften, Vol. XIII. 416 pp. 1999/2000. ——— and Veronica Doubleday. 2007-9. “Islamic religious music” in Grove Music Online/Oxford Music Online (accessed 9/20/09 http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com s.v. Islamic religious music). O’Connell, John Morgan. (In press.) “Alabanda: Brass Bands and Musical Methods in Ottoman Turkey,” in Federico Spinetti (ed.), Giuseppe Donizetti Pascia: Una vita levantina. Traiettorie musicali e storiche tra Italia e Turchia (Bergamo: Fondazione Donizetti, 2009), pp. 32-45. ——— 2008. “Music Theory After the Ottoman Empire: Theorizing the Turkish Makam at the Dawn of the Turkish Republic” as presented to the Society of Music Analysis in Cardiff, Sept. 5, 2008. ——— 2005. “In the Time of Alaturka: Identifying Difference in Musical Discourse” in Ethnomusicology 49:2, pp. 177-205. ——— 2003. “Review: Song Cycle: The Life and Death of the Turkish Gazel: A Review Essay” in Ethnomusicology, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Autumn, 2003), pp. 399414 Urbana: University of Illinois Press on behalf of Society for Ethnomusicology. ——— 2002a. “From Empire to Republic: Vocal Style in Twentieth-Century Turkey” in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6, pp. 781-789. New York: Routledge. ——— 2002b. “Snapshot: Tanburī Cemīl Bey” in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6, pp. 757-9. New York: Routledge. 604
——— 2000. “Fine Art, Fine Music: Controlling Turkish Taste at the Fine Arts Academy in 1926” in Yearbook for Traditional Music 32: 117-42. Özkan, İsmail Hakkı. 1984. Türk Mûsıkîsi Nazariyatı ve Usûlleri. Istanbul: Ötüken Yayıncılık. Öztuna, Yılmaz. 2006. Makam, Türk Musikisi: Akademik Klasik Türk San’at Musikisi’nin Ansiklopedik Sözlüğü. Vol II., Ankara: Orient Yayıncılık. ——— 1991. “Önsöz [Foreword]” in Türk Musıkisi Nazariyatı Dersleri (ed. Onur Akdoğu) Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı/DSİ Basım Evi, pp. VII-VIII. ——— 1990 [1969-1976]. Büyük Türk Musikisi Ansiklopedisi 1-2. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. Parfitt, David. 2004 (2001-2004). Music Theory for the Oud. (Accessed 8/16/10 at http://www.oud.eclipse.co.uk/theory.html) Pennanen, Risto Pekka. 2008. “Lost In Scales: Balkan Folk Music Research And The Ottoman Legacy” in Musicology, 8-2008. ——— 2004. “The Nationalization of Ottoman Popular Music in Greece” in Ethnomusicology 48:1 pp. 1-25 (Winter 2004). ——— 1997 (with Jürgen Elsner, eds.). The Structure and Idea of Maqām: Historical Approaches. Tampere: Univ. of Tampere, Dept. of Folk Tradition. Picken, Laurence E.R. 1975. Folk Musical Instruments of Turkey. London: Oxford U. Press. Popescu-Judetz, Eugenia. 2010. A Summary Catalogue of the Turkish Makams. Istanbul: PAN Yayıncılık. ——— 1999. Prince Dimitrie Cantemir, Theorist and Composer of Turkish Music. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık. ——— 1996. Meanings in Turkish Musical Culture. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık. Powers, Harold, S. 2001 (1980). “Mode” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 16. London: MacMillan; New York: Grove’s Dictionaries. ——— 1980. “Classical Music, Cultural Roots, and Colonial Rule: An Indic Musicologist Looks at the Muslim World” in Asian Music, Vol. 12, No. 1, Symposium on Art Musics in Muslim Nations (1980), pp. 5-39. 605
Racy, Ali Jihad. 2000. “The Many Faces of Improvisation: The Arab Taqāsīm as a Musical Symbol” in Ethnomusicology, Vol. 44, No. 22, pp. 302-320. Recueil des Travaux du Congrès de Musique Arab (anonymous). 1934. Cairo: Imprimerie National, Boulac. Ronzevalle, P.L. 1899. “al-Risalah al-Shihabiyyah fl al-Sina 'ah al- Muslqiyyah li-alDuktur Mikhall Mashaqah” ("The Shihabi Treatise on the Musical Art by the Doctor Mikhall Mashaqah"), in al-Mashriq (Published in 11 installments, starting on p. 146). Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique. Rouanet, M. Jules. 1922. “La Musique Arabe” in Encyclopédie de la musique et dictionnaire du Conservatoire, Premiere partie (A. Lavignac and L. de La Laurence, ed.s), vol. V, pp. 2676-2844. Paris: Librairie Delagrave. Roustom, Kareem James. 2006. A study of six improvisations on the `ud by Riyad alSunbati. Master’s thesis, Tufts University. Sachs, Curt. 1943. The Rise of Music in the Ancient World, East and West. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Sadie, Stanley (ed.). 2000. “`Ud” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. London: Macmillan. Sawa, George. 1989. Music Performance Practice in the Early ‘Abbasid Era 132-320 AH/750-932 AD. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. Saz, Leyla (Hanimefendi). 1994. The Imperial Harem of the Sultans: Daily Life at the Cirağan Palace during the 19th Century: Memoirs of Leyla (Saz) Hanımefendi. Translated by Landon Thomas. Istanbul: PEVA Publications. Schuyler, Philip D. 1990. “Hearts and Minds: Three Attitudes toward Performance Practice and Music Theory in the Yemen Arab Republic” in Ethnomusicology, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 1990) Seeman, Sonia. 2002. “You’re Roman!” Music and Identity in Turkish Roman Communities Ph. D. diss., UCLA. Shaw, Stanford. 1976. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. I Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280-1808. London: Cambridge U. Press. ———1977. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. II Reform, Revolution, and Republic. London: Cambridge U. Press. 606
Shehadi, Fadlou. 1995. Philosophies of Music in Medieval Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Shiloah, Amnon. 1995. Music in the World of Islam. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. ——— 1981. “The Arabic Concept of Mode” in Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 34, No. 1. (Spring, 1981), pp. 19-42. Signell, Karl. 2008 (1977/1985). Makam: Modal Practice In Turkish Art Music. Nokomis, FL: Usul Editions (1977 Providence: Asian Music Publications/1985 Cambridge: Da Capo). ——— 2002. “Contemporary Turkish Makam Practice” in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6, pp. 47-59. New York: Routledge. ——— 1980. “Turkey’s Classical Music, A Class Symbol” in Asian Music 12(1): 164-169. ——— 1976. “The Modernization Process in Two Oriental Music Cultures: Turkish and Japanese” in Asian Music 7(2): 72-102. Simms, Rob. 2004. The Repertoire of Iraqi Maqam. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Smith, Eli. 1847. “A Treatise on Arab Music, Chiefly from a Work by Mikhâil Meshâkah, of Damascus” in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 1, No. 3. (1847), pp. 171+173-217. Smuts, Jan C. 1926. Holism and Evolution. New York: The Macmillan Company. Stokes, Martin. 2002. “Turkish Rock and Pop Music” in The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, vol. 6, pp. 247-55. New York: Routledge. ——— 1997. “Voices and Places: History, Repetition and the Musical Imagination” in The Journal of the Toryal Anthropological Institute, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 637691. ——— 1992. The Arabesk Debate: Music and Musicians in Modern Turkey. London: Oxford U. Press (Oxford Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology ASIN: 0198273673.). Stubbs, Frederick W. 1994. The art and science of taksim: An empirical analysis of traditional improvisation from 20th century Istanbul. PhD. diss., Wesleyan University.
607
Tanrıkorur, Cinuçen. 2004 (posthumous). Türk Müzik Kimliği. Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları. ——— 2003 (posthumous). Müzik, Kültür, Dil. Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları. Targan, Şerif Muhiddin. 1995 (1920). Ud Metodu. Zeki Yılmaz, ed. Istanbul: Zeki Yılmaz. TCKTB (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı). 2005. “Az Kullanılan Makam ve Usûllerde Beste Yarışması” (accessed 9/20/09 http://www.kultur.gov.tr/TR/BelgeGoster.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6A A849816B2EFF3642F2144BBDA75). Tekelioğlu, Orhan. 2001. “Modernizing Reforms and Turkish Music in the 1930s” in Turkish Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring 2001), pp. 93-108. London: Frank Cass. Titley, Norah M. 1983. Persian Miniature Painting and its Influence on the Art of Turkey and India. Austin: University of Texas. Tokuz, Gonca. 2009. Tanburî Necdet Yaşar: Anılar – Dostlar. Istanbul: Brainstorm./BS Reklam Ltd. Şti. Torun, Mutlu. 2000. Ud Metodu: Gelenekle Geleceğe. Istanbul: Çağlar Yayıncılık. Touma, Habib. 1971. “The Maqam Phenomenon: An Improvisation Technique in the Music of the Middle East” in Ethnomusicology 15, p. 38-48. TRT (Türk Radyo Televiziyon). 2006 (2001a). Türk Sanat Müziği Saz Eserleri 1. Ankara: Genel Sekreterlik Basım ve Yayın Müdürlüğü (originally Ankara: TRT Müzik Dairesi Yayınları). ——— 2001b. Türk Sanat Müziği Saz Eserleri 2. Ankara: TRT Müzik Dairesi Yayınları. Tura, Yalçın. 2001. Kantemiroğlu, Kitâbu 'İlmi'l-Mûsiki alâ Vechi'l-Hurûfât, Mûsikiyi Harflerle Tesbit ve İcrâ İlminin Kitabı. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. ——— 1988. Türk Musıkisinin Meseleleri. Istanbul: Kent Basımevi, Pan Yayıncılık. Tsuge, Gen'ichi. 1972. “A note on the Iraqi Maqam,” in Asian Music, IV (1972), pp. 59-66.
608
Uslu, Recep. (no date; 200?). Western Music Theory Works Among the Ottomans, 19th Century. (Accessed 10/04/09 http://www.turkishmusicportal.org/article.php?id=19&lang2=en) Uzdilek, Salih Murat. 1944. İlim ve Musiki ve Türk Musikisi Üzerinde Etütler. Istanbul: Cumhuriyet Matbaası for İstanbul Belediye Konservatuvarı. ——— 1948. “Ord. Prof. Salih Murat Uzdilek’in Ekrem Karadeniz’e Cevabı” in Türk Musikisi Dergisi, no. 6 (April 1948; accessed 10/04/09 http://www.arsiv2007.musikidergisi.net/?p=33). Ünlü, Cemal. 2004. Git Zaman Gel Zaman: Fonograf-Gramofon-Taş Plak. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık. Üsküdar MC/anon. (no date). Tarihçemiz. (accessed 9/22/09 http://www.uskudarmusikicemiyeti.com/tarihce.html) Wellesz, Egon (ed.). 1957 (1999). Ancient and Oriental Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. West, M.L. 1992. Ancient Greek Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wiet, Gaston. 1971. Baghdad: Metropolis of the Abbasid Caliphate. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wright, Owen. 2000. Demetrius Cantemir, The Collection of Notations. Part II: Commentary. Aldershot: Ashgate. ——— 1992a. Demetrius Cantemir, The Collection of Notations. Part I: Text. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. ——— 1992b. Words Without Songs: a Musicological Study of an Early Ottoman Anthology and its Precursors. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. ——— 1990. “Çargâh in Turkish Classical Music: History Versus Theory” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 224444. ——— 1978. The Modal System of Arab and Persian Music 1250-1300. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— 1966. “Ibn al-Munajjim and the Early Arabian Modes” in The Galpin Society Journal, Vol. 19 (Apr. 1966), pp. 27-48. 609
Yahya, Gülçin. 2002. Ünlü Virtüoz Yorgo Bacanos’un ud Taksimleri: Taksim Notları, Analiz ve Yorumlar. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı. Yarman, Ozan. 2007a. 79-tone Tuning & Theory for Turkish Maqam Music (As A Solution To The Non-Conformance Between Current Model And Practice). PhD. diss., Istanbul Technical University. ——— 2007b. “A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music: Abjad Scale & 24-Tone Pythagorean Tuning – 53 Equal Division of the Octave as a Common Grid” in Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies, Fall 2007, vol. 1, issue 2, pp. 43-61. Yavaşça, Alaaddin. (no date; 200?) Turkish Music Movements In The Last Century. Accessed 04/15/09 http://www.turkishmusicportal.org/article.php?id=8&lang2=en. Yavuzoğlu, Nail. 2010. Türk Müziğinde Makamlar ve Seyir Özellikleri. Istanbul: PAN Yayıncılık ——— (no date; 200?) Equal Temperament in Turkish Music. Istanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Türk Musikisi Devlet Konservatuvarı (accessed 10/03/2009 http://www.tdmk.itu.edu.tr/n.pdf) Yekta, Rauf. 1922 (1913). “La Musique Turque,” in Encyclopedie de la musique et dictionnaire du Conservatoire, Premiere partie (A. Lavignac and L. de La Laurence, ed.s), vol. V, pp. 2945-3064. Paris: Librairie Delagrave. ——— 1924. Türk Musikisi Nazariyatı. Istanbul. ——— 1931. (ed.) İstanbul Konservatuvarı Neşriyatı Mevlevi Âyinleri. Istanbul: Evkaf Matbaası. Yektay, Yavuz. 2009. Türk Musikisin'de Doğru Ve Gerçek Bir Ses Sistemi. Accessed 11/10/09 http://www.canlarmeclisi.com/detail.aspx?cntId=53. Yılmaz, Zeki. 2009. Müziğimi Öğreniyorum. Istanbul: Çağlar Mûsıkî Yayınları. ——— 2007 (1973). Türk Mûsıkîsi Dersleri. Istanbul: Çağlar Mûsıkî Yayınları. Zeren, Ayhan. 2003 (1993) Müzik Fiziği. Istanbul: Pan Yayınevi. ——— 1978. Müzikte Ses Sistemleri. Ankara.
610
Zürcher, Erik Jan. 2004. Turkey: a modern history. New York and London: I.B. Tauris.
611
DISCOGRAPHY Note that numbers within [brackets] indicate track numbers; those preceded by a single asterisk (*) indicate that the recordings thereon may be interpreted as demonstrating a “scalar” or “characteristic melody” oriented understanding of the makam’s definition (rather than a cins-oriented one); those preceded by two asterisks (**) may be interpreted as demonstrating a cins-oriented understanding of the makam(-s) performed. Those with three asterisks (***) indicate a mixing of the two. Algazi, İzak. 2004a. Osmanlı-Türk ve Osmanlı-Yahudi Musıkisinin Büyük Sesi İzak Algazi Efendi (ed. Bülent Aksoy). Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım. Cemil (Tanburi Cemil Bey). 2003. Tanburi Cemil Bey, Vol.s 4 & 5. Harold G. Hagopian, ed.) N.Y.: Traditional Crossroads. [*Disk 1: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17; Disk 2: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] ——— 1995. Tanburi Cemil Bey, Vol.s 2 & 3. Harold G. Hagopian, ed.) N.Y.: Traditional Crossroads. [* Disk 1: 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17; Disk 2: 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 15, 16] ——— 1994. Tanburi Cemil Bey (Harold G. Hagopian, ed.) N.Y.: Traditional Crossroads. [*1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8] Çimenli, Fahrettin. 2005. Fahrettin Çimenli: Yaylı Tanbur. Istanbul: KAF Müzik. Fersan, Refik. 2001. Türk Bestekârları Serisi: Refik Fersan. Istanbul: Sony (Türkiye) Müzik ve Sanat A.Ş./“Colombia” Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. İstanbul Sazendeleri. 2008 (?). Sazende Faslı – 1. Istanbul: KAF Müzik. Lale-Nerkis Hanımlar. 1998. Lale-Nerkis Hanımlar (ed. Bülent Aksoy). Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım. Mesut (Mesut Cemil Bey). 2004b. Mesut Cemil (1902-1963) (ed. Bülent Aksoy). Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım. [*Disk 1: 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 15; Disk 2: 1, 3, 5]
612
——— 2000. Mesut Cemil (1902-1963) Volume I Early Recordings (ed. Ercüment G. Aksoy). Golden Horn Records. [*1, 8] [***9, 10] Özgen, İhsan. 1999. Remembrances of Ottoman Composers & Improvisations. Golden Horn Records. ——— 1995. Tanburi Cemil Bey. Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım. ——— 1995. Anatolia: A. Meragi-M. Itri. Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım. ——— 1986. 17 Taksims [provenance unknown; cf. Stubbs 1994] Sayın, Niyazi and Necdet Yaşar. 2006. Niyazi Sayın and Necdet Yaşar. Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım. [*Disk 1: 1, 2] ——— 2001. Sadâ – Niyazi Sayın: Sufi Music of Turkish, Vol. 8. Istanbul: Mega Müzik. ——— 1986. 17 Taksims [Niyazi Sayın only; provenance unknown; cf. Stubbs 1994] Tatlıyay, Haydar. 2001. Kemanî Haydar Tatlıyay (ed. Ethem Ruhi Üngör). Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım. Various. 1997. Gazeller: 78 Devrili Taş Plak Kayıtları (ed. Cemal Ünlü). Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım. Various. 2004c. Türk Müziği Ustaları: Ud (ed. Osman Nuri Özpekel). Istanbul: Kalan Müzik Yapım. [*Disk 2: 6, 7, 11] [** Disk 1: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19; Disk 2: 1,1 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12,2 13, 14, 15, 16] [***Disk 1: {compare 6 and 7 with} 8, 9, 10, 11 {by the same artist}, 13 and 15 {which compare with 14 by the same artist}; Disk 2: 17 {which compare with 16 by the same artist}, 19, 20]
1
Note that this ud taksim by Mısırlı İbrahim Efendi is labeled “Ferahnak” but sounds as though it might better have been labeled Eviç. 2 Note that this ud taksim by Şerif İçli is labeled “Hüzzam” but sounds as though it might better have been labeled Rahat-ül Ervah.
613
