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 one-on-one live-recorded taksim performances; my method of recording and preparing these follows:
1This 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.
• 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 I-IV)
• 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.
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 twenty-two 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 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 adds up to thirty-six.3 (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).
3The 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
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.
4Those 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.
• 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
5The “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).
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
• 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
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
6I do not know the year of his birth, but he is currently living.
• 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)
• 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”)
7Note that there is a similar work on the taqāsīm of Egyptian `ud player Riyad al-Sinbati (d. 1981) by Kareem Roustom (2006).
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”)
• 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;
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).
8Except inchoate in Aydemir himself, whom see on DVD 1 tracks 10-12 and DVD 2 tracks 13-15, and quoted in Chapter IV, below.
9Or 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).
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
10See 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.
11To 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.
12The 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
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