Konuya cevap cer

Mesaj

<blockquote data-quote="nourathar" data-source="post: 85271" data-attributes="member: 2319">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 &quot;Sazende&quot;, 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 <a href="https://divanmakam.com/forum/pesrev-gazi-giray-han-tatar-hicaz-zirgule.42049/" target="_blank">this page</a> 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 &quot;Türk Musikisinde Makamlar&quot; 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 <a href="https://divanmakam.com/forum/pesrev-rasit-efendi-neyzen-arazbar.40829/" target="_blank">this one</a>, which is also taken from Chamlı Selim.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nourathar, post: 85271, member: 2319"] 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 [URL='https://divanmakam.com/forum/pesrev-gazi-giray-han-tatar-hicaz-zirgule.42049/']this page[/URL] 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 [URL='https://divanmakam.com/forum/pesrev-rasit-efendi-neyzen-arazbar.40829/']this one[/URL], which is also taken from Chamlı Selim. [/QUOTE]

Kullanıcı Doğrulaması