Sohbet Soru The Modern Intonation System of Turkish Classical Music

[ZaphodB]

Hello, everyone. I am a maqam music aficionado and a Turkish oud player. I was wondering if anyone could help elucidate a certain issue I've been wondering about or point me to relevant sources on the matter.

I've recently finished reading Walter Feldman's book Music of the Ottoman Court. It's a very interesting account of Ottoman court music history starting from the earliest extant records up until the 19th century, but save for a brief chapter, it doesn't address the evolution of the old system to the modern one during the 19th century. What I'm referring to as the old system is what was described by Dimitrie Cantemir or Abdülbaki Nasır Dede. The peculiarity of this system compared to the modern one is the use of the Segâh note as the second degree of makam Hicaz (Uzzâl), as well as the Segâh note apparently being a singular, fixed pitch. Cantemir described Uzzâl as a makam that uses only one secondary (altered) scale degree, as compared to the "fundamental scale". His fundamental scale was the scale of makam Rast, and the "independent makams" were all diatonic modes of this scale which did not alter any of its notes. Examples are Irak, Dügâh/Hüseyni, Segâh, etc. For Cantemir, thus, Uzzâl and Rast use the same Segâh note.

This is not particularly strange if one considers modern Iranian music, where the second degree of dastgah Shur (Uşşak) is both conceptually and in practice the same as the second degree of dastgah Homayun (Hicaz), but it does pose a challenge for interpreting old Ottoman pieces and differentiating between styles. While according to Feldman none of the theorists in the span of several centuries between Abd Al-Qadir al-Maraghi and Rauf Yekta made attempts to mathematically describe the intonation system and the size of the intervals in terms of ratios, there seems to be no evidence in any of their treatises that different flavors of the neutral (mücennep) intervals were tied to different maqams, or that there was a practice of retuning the Segâh note depending on its role in the maqam. This leads many to conclude that it was the same singular pitch with a neutral inflection, like in modern Iran. Bezmârâ Ensemble applied this system most consistently in their Enderun'da bir Polonyalı album, to an interesting result. Conversely, modern Turkish classical music uses up to 5 different flavors of the mücennep, which aren't accounted for in the AEU system. Different instruments provide different possibilities: the lavta is usually fretted for 3 or 4 mücenneps, the tanbur for 4, and the kanun can produce 5 distinct pitches.

If we step outside the Ottoman court and into the Fanar, an important clue to this development may be hiding in the Great Theory of Music by Archbishop Chrysanthos of Madytos. Completed by 1816, this book was an important part of the Byzantine chant method reform. Chrysanthos resurrected the old genera classification of Ancient Greek music, whereby scales and tetrachords could be diatonic, chromatic and enharmonic. What's curious is that Chrysanthos used the Turkish tanbur to measure the intervals of the Byzantine diatonic scale, starting from the lowest note Di (Yegâh), and his ratio for the Vou (Segâh) note perfectly matches the one used almost a millennium earlier by Farabi for Wusta Zalzal. This can not only be potentially illuminating with regards to how the Turkish tanbur was fretted in 1816, but also serves as a reminder to how closely related the two idioms are, whereby the Byzantine diatonic scale conformed to the fundamental scale of Ottoman music to such a degree that the tanbur could be used to describe it.

But what's really curious is that Chrysanthos sees what would be analogous to Hicaz completely differently. Instead of a mere alteration of one note of the diatonic scale, he describes the "chromatic scale" with completely different intervals and microsteps. Here, the second degree is actually closer to bakiye or the small mücennep, which is in greater conformity with the modern Hicaz. Feldman states that the first time a change in this regard was registered by an Ottoman theorist was a treatise by Haşim Bey from 1864, where the Kürdi note was listed as the second degree of makam Hicaz instead of Segâh. But it probably started earlier, and this makes me wonder how the music of Dede Efendi, Selim III or Dilhayat Kalfa actually sounded in their days. Was there already a difference between küçük mücennep and büyük mücennep at that time? Makam Evcârâ, for example, and many pieces from that era would probably sound quite awkward to modern ears with the old system. Can this incredible elaboration, with a flexible Segâh and many different inflections of the mücennep, be traced back to a specific period and development, and do we know which composer's music belongs to which "style"?

 

[orkun zafer özgelen]

Hey ZaphodB,
By the 18. century sources, the reason of the usage of Segâh pitch in Uzzal or Hicaz makams for second degree is because of the Ney. Because we can also hear dik Kürdi or Kürdi pitchs from the same hole where we get the Segâh pitch. Furthermore, when we can talk about Turkish makam music we have to consider what time and what term as other music cultures. In Turkish makam music pitches can be moved and changed according to the melodic movement in piece. It is said that Hicaz makam in old times were a little bit different comparing to present time and the augmented interval in Hicaz was smaller and now we use it larger. Maybe one of the reasons was integrated western music instruments like the Piano, klarnet etc. to Turkish makam music by the modernism. So shifting music culture is also another impact. However we can still hear that small augmented interval in Hüzzam makam that there is a Hicaz çeşni in Neva pitch according to the Arel-Ezgi system. But it is also changed by the melodic movement.

 

[Sadikkara]

I just checked the examplles from Iran, I dont think Homayun's second degree is sharp as segah neither in practice; its quite same with us. Like this one. If you have an example recording, I would like to hear it. Thanks for the topic and discussion

 

[ZaphodB]

Hi @Sadikkara,

Thank you for your response. The recording you linked is an example of a more Western/Turkish intonation of Homayun, which is certainly used, especially in more modern Iranian music. However, I believe it to be an outlier in terms of classical music.

Have a look at this video demonstrating the dastgah on a setar with standard fretting. Note that the first perde on the instrument is actually Segâh: Iranian traditional music apparently has no need for any kind of Kürdi note in the first position. What we'd call Hicaz çeşnisi in Turkish music is always played with a neutral mücennep in Iranian traditional music. This also goes for Hicaz çeşnisi on Hüseyni, which uses Eviç.

In order to have a proper Hicaz effect, it may be best for the inflection of Segâh to be a bit on the flat side, close to Uşşak perdesi. But this low note is also used for dastgah Segah, which means that this mode sounds completely different from the Turkish makam.


Here's an example of a Khorasani folk song played on the dutar which evidences the same intonation in modern folk music:

 

[Sadikkara]

First fret on this setar or the second video; we would not call it Segah for Turkish music. It woud be perde Uşşak. Like the second degree of hicaz on Hüzzam or Karcığar in practice, not Arel Nazariyat.

In these videos Hicaz can be heard by scale or melodic movement Seyir. When it comes to sound it is Hicaz. You may show us how it is used in Segah in Iranian music so that your point would be clear. I see your point, that what they use is clearly sharper but in result not sounding completey or even quite distinct for Hicaz. That is what we do for some pieces as well. I put a pic below showing the moment he uses same perde on this Hicaz hümayun saz semai. Ironically its called Hicaz Hümayun

Also setar players might use the back (flatter sounding) side of the fret itself, which we do all the time.

 

[ZaphodB]

Yes, I mentioned that the fret is a little on the flatter side, close to Uşşak perdesi, which helps retain the Hicaz feeling. I wrote "Segâh" for the sake of universal clarity, because it's the only term recognized in the Arel-Ezgi system.

The point is that Iranian classical music doesn't differentiate between the various shades of the mücennep and tie those shades to different modes (dastgahs). Instead of Dik Kürdi, Uşşak, Segâh, Dik Segâh etc., there is only one note. This one note may be tuned in various ways, but the tuning discrepancies aren't semantically significant. There's no need to retune the note when modulating to a different mode.

This was apparently also true of Ottoman music until some point in the 19th century. What I'm curious about is if this new aesthetic direction can be traced back to a specific decade or individual musician(s). I wonder whether the intonation of Selim III and Dede Efendi was closer to the modern one, or to Nasır Dede, whose system prescribes Segâh as the second degree of Hicaz. Perhaps it changed during their lifetimes. In 1864, Hicaz was described as using the Kürdi note (not Dik Kürdi) for the first time.

You can see that the same note is being used as in Homayun in this demonstration of dastgah Segah on the setar from the same teacher:


This is dastgah Segah on the tar:

 

[Sadikkara]

I think if the perdes' werent mathematically explained; we cannot know the answer. Only reason we know what Hicaz is what we play today, is by the tradition.

The rest is speculation, like saying it was todays' segah being 2nd degree of Hicaz as well for ottoman music before 19th century. Or that it has changed in somewhere in 19th century. I will share older records with you that in Iran it was similar to us before. So I can conclude by myself that they made reforms. My argument would be stronger. However, its only speculation. I dont believe in this.

Iran comparisions are always orientalist, yet Iran had many reforms facing towards west or old times. There is no repertoire of Iran classical music from even 19th century nor variety of Terkibs like us. Comparisions are not scientific by this way and even funny. I recommend you to stay a bit distant to western scientists regarding Turkish music, because what they say is not usually what they know or understand.

Amongst the huge repertoire of harder, new and more sensitive maqams being understandable in books and or transferred with oral tradition in Turkish music, Hicaz is very simple and easy to transfer to next generations as it is. That is why we are more likely to accept it being because of the Nays' capabilities like @orkun zafer özgelen explained.

I searched deeper and found recordings from 1906-1933 from Iran, using Kürdi and Dik Kürdis in Hicaz. Which depicts a much different picture than Feldman I guess. Who says Homayun is the equavalent of Hicaz in Turkish music? I dont think such knowledge exist in any book, its maybe Bayat-e Isfahan(Homayun) or whatever, I dont know this music
1) 2) 3)

 

[ZaphodB]

Hi @Sadikkara. Thanks for the reference recordings. Check with this recording of the same performer on the same instrument in avaz Shur (Hüseyni). It uses the same 2nd degree as your examples in Chahargah (Zirgüleli Hicaz) and Homayun (Hicaz). Note that while these modes are not equivalent between Turkish and Iranian music, they are related and can be compared.

Indeed, the perdes weren't mathematically explained by any Muslim theorist since Maraghi and until Yekta, at least not to my knowledge. There is however the Great Theory of Music, finished in 1816, where Archbishop Chrysanthos gave exact interval measurements for the diatonic scale/fundamental scale of Byzantine and Ottoman music, likely based on the tanbur. The ratios point to a neutral inflection of Segâh and Irak/Eviç, whereby these notes are a full quartertone flat, like in modern Arab or Iranian music, or Turkish folk music.

There is also the apparent fact that none of the writers evidenced the practice of lowering or sharpening of these notes in particular makams or contexts. This, along with many other clues, lead some to the conclusion that the old tone system likely resembled the one in Iran today.

Your accusation of Orientalism is completely unfounded. A single glance at Ottoman records will reveal the abundance and relevance of Iranian-born musicians at the court during the 15th and 16th centuries, and even in the 17th century. Not to mention the general interconnectedness between Iranian and Ottoman music, evidenced in the very names of the notes, maqams, or the Iranian origin of the primary instrumental genre of Ottoman music (the pishrow), among many other things.

When the Turkish Bezmârâ Ensemble decided to perform Segâh this way, I doubt their only reference was speculation by Western authors:

That Segâh perdesi was used as the 2nd in Hicaz is not speculation. Please refer to Dimitrie Cantemir's Kitab-ı ilmu'l musiki ala vechi'l-hurufat:

and Nasır Dede's Tedkik ü Tahkik, both of which can be found here on the forum:

While Nasır Dede was a ney player and his choice of Segâh in Hicaz could be explained by the fact that the same hole is used for both Segâh and Dik Kürdi, Cantemir based his system on the tanbur, which he considered the perfect instrument. One would expect him to account for a lower Segâh perdesi in Uzzâl, if one was used. That there was a change in theory by the middle of the 19th century is, once again, not speculation. The change from Segâh to Kürdi in makam Hicaz has been documented in Haşim Bey's treatise from 1864. I'm merely curious whether there is more information or clues about how and when exactly the practice started changing.

Dismissing all Western writers without having read or assessed their work as an expert is extremely narrow-minded. Feldman has had extensive experience with present-day Turkish classical music, being a performer himself. He has interviewed, performed alongside and otherwise worked with many masters of Turkish music. He often referred to information provided by master Necdet Yaşar in his book about court music, and he took lessons from Fatih Salgar, the director of the State Turkish Music Chorus. What he wrote on the topic at hand is in no way controversial to anyone except those who want to defend a certain nationalist viewpoint on history. I am not interested in any such discussion. Therefore, I'd highly appreciate input which relates to my original question: can the modern intonation system of Turkish classical music be traced back to a certain decade or individual musician(s), and, more generally, is there any information on the evolution of this system, whether it be speculation or a historical account?

 

[Sadikkara]

I have no business with nationalism, I love my culture thats normal.

I think after the 19th min. it will be enough for any musician to evaluate his music abilities.
Problem is that he makes some comments as if its the reality, which misleads. I appriciate you looking for evidence for these. I will explain what I say.

It doesnt use the "same note" with 3 records I shared; obviously you are a beginner. This Shur recording is unrelated and against your argument. Yet its makam hüseyni-aşiran regarding its seyir but doesnt include same çeşnis.

You say that perde would be the same but since you dont know much about playing I assume its what you heard from others.

This is why, "what they say is not what they usually know or understand". So try to keep your knowledge of perde for yourself.

Yet where is my medal for finding a proper Hicaz from Iranian music? This small thing is quite important and did they miss it? Its for you to answer.

If you insist that these two music cultures was not different for a long while, which is what they defend as owen wrigth and feldman. You need Iranian perde system books and songs from 20th cent. backwards. That is why I told you no repertoire exists and no subject to be compared. This is not about nationalism. This unexisting stuff are the things that Feldman tried to speculate about persian music, using Turkish sources. His own thoughts, commenting on 19th or older centuries' Turkish and persian music. Which from the Turkish side is funny.

If you still find his opinions meaningful, I challenge you to answer, what are his sources when comparing 19th or backwards Iran and Turkish music regarding, perde, maqams, repertoire and so on?

This is inappropriate regarding science and also orientalist regarding mixing asian cultures by stereotyping not based on an existing source.

There was no such interaction after 16th century; the effect of Iranian music is almost vanished from repertoire. We have hunderds of hand written mecmuas, showing only minimal amount. I did not read a number but it must be way under 1-2%. As a result, 50-60 persian pieces reached to today I guess.

I have great respect for their music, I dont try to downsize these two in one; thats the orientalism O. Wright and Feldman does. There is no old repertoire in Iran. Its scientifically most appropriate thing than guessing a perde for 1000s of pieces of Hicaz repertoire and comparing it with todays setar videos or with old records, yet incorrect, anachronistic examples. You may use a sound mapping alghorithm and see it for yourself for the videos I shared.

If I would be nationalist, why would I show you more similarities in btw Iran and us from the past? You are clearly stuck with what you learned from the books and not ready for studying these music genres.

The other issue about Chrisantos is nothing new I believe, same with older calculations for perde tayini, its a music system definition not perde tutorial. If so where are the rest of perdes we need for all maqams of that day?

There is no other fretted instrument for classical music rather than Tanbur. Kanun, Ney, Oud etc.. was fretless. So segah are much more likely to be always considered to be an area of 3-4 perdes. Tanbur was on the minority side with it needing movable frets and so on.

One hard evidence for perdes being different than writing would be Hamparsum hand written notesheets, he wrote many pieces with half tone/chromatic qualities as well as Turkish perdes before Chrisantos and after Nasır Dede.

For example, Nasır Dedes explanation of Hüzzam which he says, its the "old Hicaz" that is used on Neva. Considering what he means is sharper Mib and flatter Fa# we may say that in his life time Hicaz itself was already different, which is likely to be similar with today.

On the other hand what hamparsum used for Hüzzams' Dik Hisar is just Re#. So did Hüzzam changed twice in 40 year period? I dont think so. Its the writing method problems.

 

[ZaphodB]

I am not interested in entertaining a bad faith discussion. What you've written betrays an agenda to engage in trivial arguments and the adolescent affair of roleplaying an authority to a stranger online. I hope you find someone else to do that with.

 

[orkun zafer özgelen]

While Nasır Dede was a ney player and his choice of Segâh in Hicaz could be explained by the fact that the same hole is used for both Segâh and Dik Kürdi, Cantemir based his system on the tanbur, which he considered the perfect instrument. One would expect him to account for a lower Segâh perdesi in Uzzâl, if one was used. That there was a change in theory by the middle of the 19th century is, once again, not speculation. The change from Segâh to Kürdi in makam Hicaz has been documented in Haşim Bey's treatise from 1864. I'm merely curious whether there is more information or clues about how and when exactly the practice started changing.

You are right. Nasır Dede as a Ney player preferred to explain second degree according to the Ney. But Kantemir as a Tanbur player choosed the same way. However lets not forget he was going to the Mevlevi Tekkes and very close relationships with Mevlevi ones. And in his edvar when he explained the Fasıl group, he placed Tanbur players first line and then Ney players second line. He respected Mevlevi music and Mevlevi figures as we see.
On the other hand, Haşim Bey is the breaking point in the theory. He explained the makams comparing to westerns music modes like: "Rast makam referred to G major". So maybe there was a need to indicate detailed pitches to compare them to tonal music. Because when you show a makam via a mode, you definitely have to play it on the Piano, so maybe because of that Haşim Bey changed the way of explaining pitches. Actually he was a unique character in makam music theory who brought new terms to Turkish music such as çeşni, modes.

 

[Sadikkara]

If you could only be more knowledgable @ZaphodB . There is no color for blind and no sound for deaf. I think your examples showed who roleplayed things about "dik segah". These are very sublte perdes, which I immediately seen what was coming. Please bring me the sources that you claim Feldman used.

 

[ZaphodB]

Thank you for the interesting information, @orkun zafer özgelen.

Come to think of it, your initial remark about the ney being Nasır Dede's reference could by itself account for the fact that he didn't find it necessary to conceptualize and indicate Dik Kürdi as a separate note, even if this flatter inflection was in all likelihood already in use during his time. Perhaps if a tanburi had written a treatise at that time instead, he would have indicated the necessity of moving the Segâh fret up or down for certain makams, or adding an additional Uşşak/Dik Kürdi fret.

The key reason I suspect that something like the küçük mücennep/büyük mücennep distinction of Rauf Yekta and Arel-Ezgi could have already been in effect during the late 18th century lies in the style of Nasır Dede's contemporary and student İsmail Dede. For example, "Yine bir Gülnihal" being performed with the same inflection of Segâh as "Ey büt-i nev eda" wouldn't make sense. The Segâh note in the Rast şarkı needs to be no flatter than the modern intonation, as the melody would sound very awkward in the modern Arab/Iranian intonation, which only use the quartertone flat Segâh.

On the other hand, the Hicaz şarkı can perhaps sound fine with the quartertone flat Segâh as the 2nd and a slightly sharp Uzzâl as the 3rd degree, which the old system seems to imply, but the modern intonation still seems more style-appropriate from the modern-day perspective. I wonder how this particular melody or other Hicaz melodies would be spelled in Hampartsum notation?