Soru Which Peşrev Is This ?

[nourathar]

Slowly I am working my way through the "Sazende" book, and I am trying to figure out which pieces are included, not being able to read the Ottoman script. After some looking around, this peşrev remains a mystery to me, mainly because I don't recognize the makam.
Is it Nişaburek ? The seyir seems to be different, so probably not ? And it doesn't correspond to any peşrev I can find in Nişaburek.
If any of the venerable members of this forum could shine their light on this, I would be very grateful !

 

[Faruk İnan]

Zirgüle Peşrevi, Tatar'ın

Peşrev - Gazi Giray Han (Tatar) - Hicaz (Zirgüle)

 

[nourathar]

Thank you so much !
That is interesting, and no wonder I didn't understand, when buselik is notated instead of hicaz, and muhammes instead of sakil ! Those very old pieces are anyway different, so even with different notation I would probably not have recognized.

 

[Faruk İnan]

You're welcome.

 

[nourathar]

This is certainly a strange and ignorant remark, but I have to admit that the piece seems a bit more satisfying with buselik instead of hicaz.
When did Zirgüle become Zirgüleli Hicaz ?

 

[Derûnhân]

We discussed this internally. Myself is not capable of to make any conclusions, so I asked our group. And to our surprise we are undecided. We can't say for sure which makam it is actually. We agree with you. There seems to be something odd with this piece as it doesn't fit the usual understanding.

 

[Levent Çelik]

There must be a mistake in the note.

Its melodic structure and course do not match either Buselik or Nişaburek makams.

Faruk Inan showed the note above. However, more accurate detection can be made if other notes are reached.

 

[nourathar]

Ofcourse a copying error could be a reason for the buselik instead of hicaz in this notation, and that is what I thought at first: it would be the most logical. But on the other hand I am impressed by the quality of the notations that I have seen so far in this book, it is from "Sazende", published by Chamlı Selim, I don't have a date, but I would say somewhere between 1910 and 1920.

Additionally, both versions that are on this page seem to be note-for-note identical with the version published by Chamlı Selim: the version that is hand-written by Cüneyd Kosal also has buselik instead of hicaz and seems to be really exactly the same in all respects. The printed one I think is from "Türk Musikisinde Makamlar" by Yakub Fikret Kutluğ and he made some changes in the accidentals, but not in the actual notes.

So the fact that all versions are without differences makes me think that perhaps the version published by Chamlı Selim is the only source available ? There are other lesser-known peşrevs where that seems to be the case, like for example this one, which is also taken from Chamlı Selim.