Maqam Traditions

between Theory and

Contemporary Music Making

Joint Symposium of the ICTM Study Groups "MAQAM" and "Music

the Arab World", Ankara, December 2014

Collection of papers

Edited by Jürgen Eisner and Gisa Jahnichen, and Cenk Güray

30.Y İL
 Pan Yayıncılık: 201
Table of Contents
Preface iii
Fayzulla Muzaffarovich Karomatov t ix
ISBN 978-605-9646-09-3
Şuraya Agayeva 1
Some Issues Concerning Musical Performance Observed in the
©Pan Yayıncılık, 2016 Treatise 'Maqasid al-Adwar' by Mahmoud bin Abdulaziz Maraghi
Sertifika No: 10907
Fazlı Arslan 11
Who Was the First Musicologist to Use the Term Maqam?
Sanubar Baghirova 17
Birinci Baskı: Ağustos 2016
Mugham as the Art of Music Performance and Music-making
First Edition: August 2016
Hakan Cevher 25
Two European Figures in the Ottoman Scene of Music: Albert
Bobowski and Dimitrie Cantemir
Yildirim Beyazit University Conservatory for Turkish Music
Alexander Djumaev 31
This book is published with the support of the Yildirim Beyazit University
Comission of Scientific Research Projects via the project 'joint Symposium of the 1CTM The Shashmaqam in the Cultural Life of Bukhara: Centers of
Study Groups on Maqam and Music in Arab World' with the number 1693. Performing and Listening from the 18th to the Beginning of the 20th
Century
For further information: Please contact Cenk Güray via cenk.guray@gmail.com, cguray@ybu.edu.tr

Jean During 49
We wish to express our deepest gratitudes to the General Directorate of Fine Arts of Turkish Ministry of
Kashmiri Sufyâna Kalâm in the Light of Middle-Asian Sources
Culture and Tourism and TURKSOY (International Organization for Turkic Culture) for their important
supports regarding the organization of the symposium. Tamila Dzhani-Zade 63
The Maqam-Idea by 'Ajam ian People and its Reflection in
Musicological Researches Reported in Russian

Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith I. Haug 79

Baskı: Pasifik Ofset Alî Ufukî's Notational Technique: Its Development,
Cihangir Mah. Güvercin Cad. Baha îş Merkezi, Systematization and Practices
A Blok, No: 3/1 34310 Avcılar - İstanbul
Jiiigen Eisner 105
Tel. (0212) 412 17 77 • info@pasifikofset.com.tr
Maqam Principle and Maqam Practice
Sertifika No: 12027
Süleyman Erguner 125
Maqam Structures in the Fihrist Taksim(s) of
Neyzen Emin Efendi
Pan Yayıncılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti.
Barbaros Bulvarı 18/4 Beşiktaş 34353 İstanbul
Tel. (0212) 261 80 72 - 227 56 75 • Faks (0212) 227 56 74
www.pankitap.com
Tamila Dzhani-zade
Neubauer Eckhard (2006/2007). Zwolf dastgah. Eine Persische Handschrift
aus dem 19. Jahrhundert mit Angaben zum musikalischen Vortrag der
Elegie auf den Tod des Mârtyrers Hosein b.'Alîb. Abltaleb von
Mohtasam Kasanı. Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen
Wissenschaften. Bd. 17. Frankfurt am Main: Institut für Geschichte der
Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universitât, 301- 372.
SeydTs Book on Music. A 15-th Century Turkish Discourse. Translated,
Annotated and Edited by Eugenia Popescu-Judetz in Collaboration
with Eckhard Neubauer. Ed. by Fuat Sezgin. The Science of Music in
Islam. Vol. 6. Institut for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science at the
Johann Wolfgang Goethe University. Frankfurt am Main, 2004.
Shahnazarova N.G. (1983). Muzyka Vostoka i Muzyka Zapada. Tipy
muzykal'nogo professionalizma. Moskva: Muzyka.
Şükrullah Ahmed Oğlu (2011). Şükrullah'in Risalesi ve 15. Yüzyıl Şark
Musikisi Nazariyatı, Açılamak, Tenkidli ve Tıpkıbasım Murat Bardakçı.
Istanbul: Pan Yaymeılık.
Hassan, Sheherazade Qassim (2008)*. Terminology, Concepts and
Classification of the Iraqi Maqam. Intercultural Comparison ofMaqdm and
Related Phenomena, Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the ICTM Study
Group "maqam" Samarkand, 26-30 August 2001. Berlin: trafo 2008, 103-
116,
Tamburisi Arutin (1968). Rukovodstvo po vostochnoj musyke. Perevod s
tureckogo i kommentarii N.K. Tagmizyana. Erevan: Akademiya nauk
Arm.SSR.
Turna H.H. (1980). Makam. Improvizacionnaja forma. Muzyka narodov Azii
i Afriki. Redaktör i sostaviteT V.S. Vinogradov. Vypusk 3. Moskva:
Sovetskij kompozitor, 415-421.
Vinogradov V.S. (1982) Klassicheskie tradicii iranskoj musyki. Moskva:
Sovetskij kompozitor.
Wright O. (1978). The Modal System o f Arab and Persian Music A.D. 1250 -
1300. London Oriental Series. Vol. 28. Oxford University Press.
Zöhrabov R.F (1991). Muğam. Bakı: Azârnâşr.
78
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith I. Haug
Alî Ufukî's Notational Technique: Its Development,
Systematization and Practices1
Alî Ufukî's collections of notation are an invaluable treasure of mid­
seventeenth century Ottoman music, covering a wide range of
instrumental and vocal genres. Bom as Albert Bobowski around 1610 in
then-Polish Lwow,2* the bicultural musician and interpreter is a crucial
witness for Ottoman music history, as his two manuscripts are the oldest
among the extant collections of Ottoman music notations. In . an
environment where music was practiced and transmitted orally, he had to
develop his own method to record Ottoman melodies on paper. His
bicuiturality enabled him to combine European and Ottoman concepts in
writing music.
This paper attempts to trace the development of Alî Ufukî's notational
technique, comparing different versions of pieces, interpreting the
(changing) features of notation and making use of Alî Ufukî's marginal
comments as views into his day-to-day efforts of creating a meaningful
and viable system. Uncovering this system, if it really exists, is important
to more accurately infer the performance practice of the time from Alî
Ufukî's notations. Considering the abundance of material in his collections,
a full comprehension of his notational technique requires a systematic
analysis of melodies and their comparison with those in the later
collections of Ottoman music. This paper, which is rather a preliminary
effort to map the basic elements of Alî Ufukî's notation, will examine his
notational practices regarding the fundamental concepts of music, such as
pitch, modality/tonality, melody, and rhythm. The main focus will be on
the instrumental repertoire as it is generally more consistent and provided
with more information on makâm and usûl and because it can to a
considerable extent be compared with alternative versions in the
collections of Demetrius Cantemir and Mustafa Kevserî Efendi.
1 Concerning the contribution of Judith I. Haug, this paper is part of the DFG project HA
5933/3 "Ottoman and European Music in 'Alî Ufukî's Compendium (c. 1640): analysis,
interpretation, (trans-) cultural context".
2 For a biographical overview see Behar, Cem (2005). Musikiden Müziğe - Osmanlt/Türk
Müziği: Gelenek ve Modernlik. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 17-56.
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith I. Haug
Comparison of Alî Ufukî's notations with contemporaneous theoretical
sources of Ottoman music is not easy as the mid-17th century is poor in
theoretical production and Alî Ufukî's environment can thus hardly be
reconstructed. Demetrius Cantemir's Kitabu 'İlmi'1-Mûsîkî ‘ala Vechi'l-
Hurûfât (Edvar),3 to which musicologists customarily recur, was written
about two generations later and may not necessarily correspond with the
state of the art during Alî Ufukî's time. The most relevant theoretical
information illuminating his notations thus appear to be his own marginal
notes, which, unfortunately, are not too frequent and do not cover a broad
range of topics. For example, while his notes yield some insights into the
usûl practice, there are far less remarks on makam theory and related issues.
In interpreting Alî Ufukî's musical output, contemporaneous
developments in European music must also be kept in mind, for he
acquired his first and obviously quite advanced musical training in early
17th-century Europe, subsequently building on this foundation. The very
concept of notation itself, of fixing and transmitting repertoire in written
form, was after all a European concept at that time. A bimusical person
such as Alî Ufukî could easily import it from his native culture and adapt it
during his enculturation process to his second, Ottoman culture.
1) Sources
Before commencing the analyses, a short overview of the manuscripts
considered is due. The two main sources are Alî Ufukî's large notation
collections, the untitled F-Pbn Turc 292 ("Paris manuscript") and the
Mecmû'a-i Saz u Söz GB-Lbl Sloane 3114 ("London manuscript"). These two
manuscripts are widely different in character. The Paris manuscript4
consists of 313 leaves taken out of an originally larger loose-leaf collection.
It is undated and seems to have been composed over a longer extent of
time, some of its contents probably reaching back to Alî Ufukî's early days
as a musician in training.5 Being a sort of transcultural mixture between an
Ottoman mecmua and a European notebook, it comprises not only
Ottoman music but also European compositions, notes on music theory
and performance, poems and personal notes as well as medical and
3 İstanbul, Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Kütüphanesi 100.
4 Retrieved from http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btvlb84150086 (11.10.2010). See Behar, Cem
(2008). Saklı Mecmua. Ali Ufki'nin Bibliotheque Nationale de France'takt [Turc 292] Yazması.
İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. A critical edition is forthcoming by Judith I. Haug.
5 Bobowski, Albert (Alî Ufukî) (1667). Serai Enderum, Vienna: Kümer, 76f.
80
Alî Ufukî’s Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices
culinary recipes in diverse languages. The London manuscript titled
Mecmû’a-i Sâz u Söz,6 on the other hand, contains notations of Ottoman
music exclusively (instrumental and vocal, courtly, religious, urban and
folk) on 300 pages, carefully arranged according to makam, while including
some poetry and prose texts in Ottoman Turkish and Arabic. Compared to
the Paris manuscript, it is far more homogenous and its layout shows
conscious planning.
Until recently, researchers of Ottoman music assumed that Turc 292 was
the draft copy of Sloane 3114. In his monograph on the former, Cem Behar
has rightly concluded that it is not a mere draft but a source in its own
right.7 Even though some pages of it clearly show features of a sketch and
the two manuscripts considerably overlap with each other in terms of
repertoire, Turc 292 includes some other material that is not found in
Sloane 3114.
Apart from these two manuscripts, the partial translation of the Genevan
Psalter, F-Pbn Suppl. Turc 472,8 will only be adduced in passing as the
notated melodies are European and have been copied from a printed
source without being altered. In addition to the comparison between Alî
Ufukî's two large collections, two other significant sources from the 18th
century will be consulted, namely Demetrius Cantemir's Edvar and the
Kevserî Mecmûası.9
6 Facsimile: Elçin, Şükrü (Ed.) (1976). 'Alî Ufkî: Hayatı, eserleri ve Mecmû'a-i Sâz ii Söz.
Tıpkıbasım. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi. Edition: Cevher, M. Hakan (Ed.) (2003). Hazâ
mecmûa-i sâz ii söz. Çeviriyazım - inceleme. İzmir: M. Hakan Cevher.
7 For this discussion see Behar (2008), 27-32.
8 Behar, Cem (1990). Ali Ufkî ve Mezmurlar. Istanbul: Pan. Haug, Judith I. (2010). Der Genfer
Psalter in den Niederlanden, Deutschland, England und dem Osmanischen Reich (16.-18.
Jahrhundert). Tutzing: Schneider, 481-578.
9 Mustafa Kevserî Efendi. Mecmû'a. Ankara, Milli Kütüphane, M fl994 A 4941 (microfilm).
For an overview, see, Mehmet Uğur Ekinci (2012). The Kevseri Mecmûası Unveiled:
Exploring an Eighteenth-Century Collection of Ottoman Music. Journal o f the Royal Asiatic
Society (Third Series), 22(2), 199-225. An annotated transcription of the notations by
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci is forthcoming.
81
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith I, Hang
2) Notational Systems
In Alî Ufukî's manuscripts, we encounter three ways of writing music,
which are employed with widely differing frequency. The first is a letter-
based notation comparable to those of Safi al-Din101and Cantemir. In this
method, Alî Uftıkî shows the pitches by writing their full name and their
duration by placing European note heads above each. This type of notation
appears only in a single instance (Turc 292, f. 313r/404v).u Alî Ufukî may
have developed it as a simple and straightforward notational technique
specifically for Ottoman music; yet for some reason he abandoned it and
preferred European-style techniques.
Secondly, there are a few occurrences of Italian lute tablature, which uses
numerals for the frets, starting with zero for the open string. Tablatures for
five- and six-course lutes are encountered a few times in Turc 292, whereas
there is only an isolated instance of tablature in Sloane 3114 (f. 175r). In
these tablatures, Alî Ufukî records Ottoman music melodies with a rather
simple polyphonization. His use of tablgture leads to the assumption that
Alî Ufukî, as a child and youth in Poland, had learned to play the lute,
which at that time had not yet been replaced by keyboard instruments as
the main instrument for domestic music-making.
Alî Ufukî's main notational technique falls into the third category, i.e.,
European-style staff notation. Instead of using this notation as it is, he
employed it in a personalized way so as to reflect the peculiarities of
Ottoman music. His writing visibly goes through various stages of
experimentation and development, and it is clear that he consciously and
continuously worked on creating a meaningful system. Building on the
fundamentals of 17th-century European notation, i.e., five-line staff with
clef, "time" (usûl) signature and "key" (makam) designation, accidentals or
alteration signs, repeats, navigation markers, fermatas and custodes,12 he
adapted it to the requirements of Ottoman music as he perceived them. He
modified som e symbols and invented new ones. He also switched the
10 Wright, Owen (1978). The Modal System o f Arab and Persian Music, A.D. 1250-1300. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 219-231.
11 The pages of Turc 292 have a double foliation because at least two different countings
exist in the manuscript.
12 Custodes ("guards") are small flourishes at the end of a staff designating the pitch on
which the melody will continue on the next staff.
82
Alî Ufukî’s Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices
reading direction of the music from dextrograde to sinistrograde. This
standardization process can be traced: While a large number of
dextrograde vocal and instrumental pieces are found in the Paris
manuscript - i.e., 50% of the instrumental and 22,18% of the vocal
repertoire ~, the London collection, whose song texts are exclusively
written in Arabic letters, contains only sinistrograde notation. Apparently,
having experimented in the Paris manuscript writing music in two
alternative directions, Ali Ufukî standardized his notation in the London
manuscript, where he used the Arabic alphabet only, as sinistrograde,
arguably for a more convenient reading of vocal pieces.
3) Alî Ufukî's Handling of Major Concepts
a) Clef /key /transposition
In European music writing, clefs designate how a notated pitch is meant to
sound. From the seventeenth-century European point of view, the notation
starts at a concrete given pitch, choosing a clef that requires as few ledger
lines and accidentals as possible.13 For this reason, the number of possible
clefs is large, but there are typical combinations in polyphonic music and
some clefs are usually employed for certain voices, instruments and their
combinations. Alî Ufukî is aware of the whole range of c, f and g clefs14
current in 17th-century Europe, but he uses them with varying frequency.
While the overwhelming majority of pieces in all three manuscripts are
notated in the cl clef and its typographic variant (see below), other clefs
exist as exceptions or probably as traces of experiment subsequently
discarded. Some others only appear in connection with the European
pieces copied into Turc 292 from printed sources and thus have no
relevance for the Ottoman repertoire.
It would be a major step to deduce reliably whether the choice of a certain
clef by Alî Ufukî corresponded to the actual sounding pitch of the recorded
13 For the history of the clef in Western, notation see Hiley, David (n.d.): Clef (i). In Grove
Music Online. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordmusiconlme.com
/subscriber/article/grove/music/05927.
14 There are three types of clefs designating the pitches c (do), f (fa) and g (sol); the number
designates the line on which they are positioned, starting with the lowermost line. Today;
the g2 clef ("violin clef") and the f4 clef ("bass clef") are most common. The last remnant
of the earlier range is the viola's c3 clef.
83
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith I. Haug
music and thus enable a more faithful recreation in the sense of
historically-informed performance practice. However, making such an
inference is problematic even in the context of European music. This is
because, in the European music of the time, the sounding pitch (and the
tuning) differed according to voice register or instrument, genre and
region. Taking Italy as a logical example - because Alî Ufukî obviously had
an Italian-influenced training -, for singers a' was 415 Hz while
instruments such as violins and organs were based on a'=464 Hz or a'=440
Hz.15 In secular music, which was not bound by the fixed pitch of an organ,
the notion of absolute pitch had little relevance for performers; since the
notated pitches first and foremost represented scale degrees and thus had a
relative, not an absolute meaning.16 Furthermore, the question whether
there was a clef transposition system effective in sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century Europe and what it exactly sounded like is still a
matter of contention: It seems as though the so-called chiavette ("little
clefs") transposition system meant that vocal pieces written in high clefs
(starting with g2 for the top voice) were supposed to be transposed down a
fourth or fifth when played by instruments such as lute or organ.17 As we
do not know to what extent Alî Ufukî perceived those rules as applicable to
Ottoman music, comparisons to European practices do not yield apparent
and solid results that could directly facilitate the interpretation of Alî
Ufukî's notations.
There are a few instances in the Paris manuscript where Alî Ufukî wrote
the same piece in alternative keys.18 Yet, it appears that at some stage he
decided to adopt a single key and write the rest of the pieces in this
manuscript and almost all the pieces in the London manuscript in it. In this
key, Alî Ufukî takes the scale degree râst as equivalent to c and the scale of
makâm Râst as equivalent to the c-major scale in the sense that they present
the unaltered, "tamâm" pitches of the respective system. This
15 Haynes, Bruce & Cooke, Peter (n.d.) Pitch. In Grove Music Online. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40883.
16 Mendel, Arthur (1948). Pitch in the 16th and Early 17th Centuries. Musical Quarterly 34(1),
28-45, 34(2), 199-221,34(3), 336-364. 34(4), 575-593,28f.
17 Parrott, Andrew (2012). High Clefs and Down-to-earth Transposition: A Brief Defence of
Monteverdi. Early Music. 40(1), 81-86. Barbieri, Patrizio (1991). "Chiavette" and Modal
Transposition in Italian Practice (c. 1500-1837). Recercare Rivista per to studio e la pratica della
m uska antica 3, 5-80.
18 See, for instance, Turc 292, f. 5r/22r-4v/21v & f. 186r/344r; f. 94v/248v-95r/249r & f.
194v/352v.
84
Alî Ufukîs Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices
standardization has theoretical and practical connotations: The pitch c has
served as the pivotal note in the European tonal system, since the
hexachord based on c (hexachordum naturale) had become the point of
reference after Guido of Arezzo, who first employed the letter c as a clef.19
Similarly, the perde râst and the makam associated with it were central in the
theory of Middle Eastern music. In contrast with Cantemir's consideration
of Hüseynî as the central, "most auspicious and dignified" makam,20 earlier
theorists had regarded Râst as the "mother of all makâms".21 The cl clef was
also a quite practical selection for standardization; as by using this key, Alî
Ufukî was able not only to avoid ledger lines for the fairly large range
between acem aşiran and tîz segâh, but also to write many of the most
commonly used makamlar, such as Râst, Hüseynî, Nevâ, Muhayyer, Segâh,
and Mahûr, without a "key signature".
During the seventeenth century, the cl clef was commonly used in Europe
for soprano voices, violins, flutes and other high-pitched instruments. Alî
Ufukî's preference of this clef, which roughly corresponds to ahenk Sipürde
today, does not necessarily indicate that it was a commonly preferred key
among musicians, however. A number of sources from the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, including Alî Ufukî's Paris manuscript, clearly show
that transposition was a widely used practice in Ottoman music.22 His
standardization, therefore, while offering consistency throughout his
notations, conceals which keys were more commonly used during his time.
The other clefs Alî Ufukî sporadically uses in the extant material provide
no more solid ground for deductions concerning the sounding pitch.
Rather, he appears to have used them for practical purposes. The c2 clef,
19 Hirschberg, Jehoash (n.d.). Hexachord. In Grove M u sk Online. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/12963. Fallows, David
(n.d.). Middle C. In Grove Music Online. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/artide/grove/music/18620.
211 Tura, Yalçın, ed. (2001). Demetrius Cantemir, Kitdbu ‘ttmi'l-Mustla ‘a id vechi'THurufdl.
Musikîyi Harflerle Tesbiî ve icra ilminin Kitabı. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. 2 vols. Vol. 1,
63.
21 See, for example, Popescu-Judetz, Eugenia, and Neubauer, Eckhard (Eds.) (2004). SeydVs
Book on M usk: A 15th Century Turkish Discourse. Frankfurt am Main: Institute for the
History of Arabic-Islamic Science at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, 31.
22 See Turc 292, f. 134r/288r; Tura (Ed.) (2001), Vol.l, 42-43, 98-101, 138-141, 156-157; Kevseri
Mecmuası, ff. 28v-31v; Fonton, Charles (1751): Essai sur la musique orientate comparee a la
musique europeenne, Bibliotheque Nationale de France, MS Français, Nouvelles acquisitions,
no. 4023,97-98,120-121.
85
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith /. Haug
for example, appears in Turc 292 on f. 308v/407r for the murabba " Seninle
fahr iderem send[en] Vzghe iarim iok" / "Seninle fahr ederim senden özge yârim
yok". Comparison with the parallel version in Sloane 3114, f. 115v, which
has a cl clef, shows that râst equals c' also in this case, as pitches are the
same and the piece is placed in fasti Râst. Arguably, the c2 clef was chosen
to avoid ledger lines. The same piece appears again on f. 125v with the
single occurrence of a ze clef on the first line. It is headed "Râst" and closes
in the second space. Consequently, the ze clef would mark yegâh.
Nevertheless, since such instances are exceptions, we have to conclude that
Alî Ufukî was intent to standardize the clef, probably quite early on.
A gl clef - a clef predominantly used in French violin and flute music23 -
can be found on Turc 292, f. 5r/22r (Hünkâr Peşrevi). This is an altogether
different case from the one described above and singular in the extant
material: If we assume that râst equals c', consequently g' equals neva, and
the piece would end on the perde eve. But if we assume that the clef here is
itself meant to designate the central pitch, râst, not in relation to c but on its
own accord, then the final of the piece is segâh, which makes sense if we
assume that the peşrev was transposed by a fourth as its parallel versions
(Turc 292, f. 186r/344r and Sloane 3114, f. 134v) are designated as makam
Irak and both end on b = ırâk. As far as a chronology can be established in
Turc 292, f. 5r/22r probably belongs to a very early stage, though.
Evidences for this are highly exceptional notational practices, titles,
subtitles and section headings in Latin characters or clumsily written
Ottoman words with spelling errors, as well as the dextrograde notation.
Therefore, f.5r/22r does not contradict our claim that Alî Ufukî began to
standardize the clef and transposition early on.
That said, as mentioned above, there are a few exceptional cases in Sloane
3114, in which he used a different key. Among these cases, there are two
instances where the selection of the gl clef is obviously to avoid too many
ledger lines (ff. 117v and 125v), while the use of c3 clef in another instance
(a semaî in an unidentified makam on f. 30r) is difficult to explain. Also the
peculiarity in a particular Zencîr Peşrev should not go unmentioned: While
its Paris version (ff. 136r/290r-135v/289v) has the regular cl clef, the
London version (f. 117v) features a hitherto inexplicable sign composed of
the Arabic characters he, mim and he.
Alî Ufukîs Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices
Concerning its typographic shape, the cl clef was at some point replaced
hy the ciml clef, probably because Alî Ufukî considered the Arabic letter
cim as the equivalent of the Latin letter c. While we can never be sure that a
given page from the Paris manuscript was definitely completed before the
London manuscript was begun, as they may very well have been written
simultaneously at least in part, the development of the ciml clef is visible
in Turc 292, where it occurs only once (f. 231 v). It is not fully implemented
in Sloane 3114, though; especially in the vocal repertoire the Western c-
shape keeps occurring. What we know is that the cim clef must have been
invented before 1665 as it appears (non-exclusively) in the Psalter on which
Alî Ufukî worked during the first half of that year.24
The motivation for changing the symbols can be inferred by looking at
other features of notation, for example the alteration signs and usûl
designations. They also point in the direction that Alî Ufukî made efforts to
eliminate some European-looking elements and replacing them with what
he conceived as Ottoman equivalents or self-invented signs. However, he
did not completely Ottoman-ize his notation in Sloane 3114, as observable
in his continued use of Arabic letter cim (standing for c) for râst, instead of,
say, the letter ra. Nor did he use, as mentioned above, his clef system
coherently in the London collection; as a small number of pieces were
notated with the European cl clef and 144 pieces without a clef at all. By
tendency, he was more careful with instrumental than with vocal
compositions.
b) Makam and pitch
Concerning assessable information on makam, considerable differences can
be observed between the Paris and London collections.25*Turc 292, being a
loose-leaf collection bound at a later time, is not ordered in fasıllar. Further,
many pieces - especially in the vocal repertoire - do not carry any
information on makam. Another issue is that, in contrast to the topic of usûl
(see below), there are almost no statements on makam that can be directly
interpreted. As accidentals and makâm designations ("key signatures"),
24 See Haug (2010), 573f.
25 The Psalter, on the other hand, is a special case as its melodies were taken over from a
European source without modification and assigned to the makamlar that Alî Ufukî
perceived as matching or equivalent.
87
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith I. Haug Alî Ufukî s Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices

European symbols and their mirror inversions are used almost exclusively r) Melodic detail and ornamentation
(flat, sharp and natural). Generally, accidentals tend to appear more
frequently than in the London manuscript; that is, an accidental that exists
In Alî Ufukî's collections, multiple versions of a number of pieces can be
in the Paris version of a composition may be omitted or skipped in the encountered. Two alternative explanations can be put forward for melodic
London version.26 discrepancies among versions: they might be reflecting different
performances by different musicians on different instruments with their
Sloane 3114, on the other hand, is a planned, orderly collection arranged in
respective features of rendition, or simply a deliberate editing on the part
fasıllar (albeit with a few exceptions). As accidentals, Alî Ufukî employs the
of Alî Ufukî. The fact that Sloane 3114 is an elaborate and orderly collection
sharp, sometimes reduced to a short horizontal line or two parallel lines,
of music may lead one to accept the latter. In other words, if a piece is
and the b-flat, which is usually converted into a ba-flat, using the Arabic
recorded differently in the Paris and London manuscripts, the one in the
letter ba instead of the Latin b, - following the same logic as in the case of
London manuscript should be the edited, and therefore more accurate,
the clef. Sharp and flat are also used to neutralize each other. That the b-flat
version. On the other hand, the former explanation can also be valid due to
and its Arabic-letter version indicate an identical degree of pitch alteration
two particular reasons. First, in Ottoman music, which was performed and
is understood from the fact that they are not consistently used, meaning a
transmitted without written notation, compositions were by no means
"normal" b-flat can appear in sinistrograde notation. This may be
fixed; on the contrary, embellishing the main melody with subtle and
explained by cursoriness or habit on the part of Alî Ufukî. Although the
fitting musical fragments was considered a sign of mastery.29 Second, the
European b-flat does keep occurring in the London manuscript, the ba-flat
staff notation of the time can hardly be classified as descriptive.30 Even
is the alteration sign that Alî Ufukî used most frequently. In rare instances,
though in early seventeenth-century Europe, notating, and thus
he uses a reverted b-flat as well, for no obvious reason.27 prescribing, ornamentation slowly came into use as Renaissance-style
diminution made way for the fixed ornaments still in use today (e.g. trills,
When accidentals appear, they are often cautionary or designate larger
mordents or turns),31 composers still expected singers and instrumental
modulations (e.g., at the beginning of a third hâne). This phenomenon can
performers to embellish a given melodic line, even in polyphonic contexts.
be observed in all of his three musical manuscripts, but most frequently in
Theoretical treatises of the time repeatedly warn against the loss of good
Turc 292. A possible explanation for this is that Alî Ufukî, at the point when
taste and moderation,32 which is a sure sign for the prevalence of
he started Sloane 3114, had gained much more experience and confidence
(excessive) ornamentation. Consequently, it can be claimed that Alî Ufukî
concerning theory, practice and notational technique, compared to his first
was familiar with this notion of individual, creative performance and a
steps that can be traced in some layers of Turc 292. He probably trusted
certain degree of difference between notation and execution
that he himself, or any Ottoman musician who may play or sing from the
complementing a general understanding of a composition as a fixed work.
manuscript, for that matter, would know how to treat certain pitches in a
given makam. For instance, a typical case for such cautionary accidentals is
Concluding whether Alî Ufukî's notations are descriptive or prescriptive
the sixth perde in makam Hüseynî, which is usually eve but can also be
requires a detailed analysis of all pieces with multiple versions. By
played as acem according to the seyir context. Apart from the many
occurrences all over Turc 292, examples can be conveniently found in
Sloane 3114, (e.g., f. llr), as well as in the Psalter (Psalm 8, Psalm 10).28 29 Fonton (1751), 78.

30 For the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive notation, see Seeger, Charles
(1958). Prescriptive and Descriptive Music-Writing. The Musical Quarterly 44(2), 184-195.
26 For instance, compare the melodies in Turc 292, f. 167v/311v with Sloane 3114, f. 71r; and
31 Paulsmeier, Karin (2012). Notationskunde 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Basel: Schwabe. 2 Vols.
in Turc 292, f. 170r/314r with Sloane 3114, f. 14v. Vol. 1, 152f.
27 Cf. Uludemir, Muammer (1991). Mecmûa-i Sâz ü Söz (Nota Çevirileri): Semailer. İzmir: (n.p.),
32 For an overview of the discourse see Collins, Timothy A. (2001). "Reactions against the
xiii.
Virtuoso." Instrumental Ornamentation Practices and the Stile Modemo. International
28 Haug (2010), 512-520. Review o f the Aesthetics and Sociology o f Music 32,137-152.

88 89
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith /. Hang A lî Ufukî’s Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices

comparing a few, we are making an attempt for preliminary inference.

While traces of deliberate editing - not of spontaneous corrections such as
wrong pitches overwritten on the spot - are difficult to point out with
certainty, there are still bits of evidence that Alî Ufukî reflected on how to
transcribe the melody in its "best" form possible. For instance, while
writing a vocal piece (Turc 292, f. 87v/241), he includes two alternative
versions for the close of the zemin, and marks the first as "il piu bel" ("the
most beautiful"). Elsewhere, he notes that a melody is played in two
alternative ways (Turc 292, f. 293v/361r). These instances indicate that Alî
Ufukî, as the transcriber, had to select among the extant versions of
melodies. Apparently in some cases his selection depended on his personal
aesthetic taste, while in other cases he preferred one among equals.

A peşrev in makam Bayâtî can be another example of possible edition by Alî

Ufukî (Figure l).33 In the Paris variant of the piece, the first two measures
involve more melodic detail than in the London one. Yet, the rest of the
piece is recorded in both versions almost identically in terms of melodic
detail. Arguably, in the beginning of the Paris variant Alî Ufukî attempted
to reflect the actual performance, but, possibly because the ornamentations
were rather facultative and extemporaneous, he soon gave up and
followed the main line of melody instead. In the London variant, he may
have done this from the very beginning. Spontaneity of performance in
Ottoman music may have made Alî Ufukî prefer convenience over
precision, just as what Cantemir later did by using larger "meters" in
notating the majority of pieces in the Edvar.34 This possibility is supported
by the existence of many pieces in Alî Ufukî's and Cantemir's collections
corresponding to each other in terms of melodic density (see Figure 2). 1: Bayâtî Peşrev, hâne 1 and mülâzitne (Turc 292, f,295v/14ûr; S lo a n e 3114,
F ig u re
f.70v). For a m o re convenient re a d in g a n d comparison, scores are transposed to
the standard key and pitch s y ste m used today. Abbreviations: n re p e at; r d:
rep eat with a different ending.

33 All transcriptions are by Mehmet Uğur Ekinci.

34 Ekinci (2012), 220-221. Meter (vezin) is a concept in Cantemir notation denoting the
number of unit values within one cycle. Cantemir employs three degrees of meter, i.e.,
large, small and the smallest. The smaller the meter is, the easier it is to record melodic
fragments with small note values.

90 91
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith I. Haııg
Fâhte 2- Hâne
A copied from the former. However, as seen in the examples above, some
Miilâzitne
Figure 2: Hüseynî Peşrev, comparison of hâne 1 and beginning of the miilâzime
(VI: Turc 292, ff. 129v/283v-131r/285r; V2&V3: Turc 292, f. 218r/375v and with
negligible differences Sloane 3114, ff. 25v-26r; Cantemir, Edvâr II, pp. 15-16, no.
24.) For a more convenient reading and comparison, scores are written in the
standard key and pitch system used today. 1: an extra crotchet d is inscribed.
92
Alî Ufukî’s Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices
Nevertheless, while Example 2 could illustrate how Alî Ufukî and
Cantemir plainly wrote a melody that was probably performed in a much
more elaborate way, the high degree of concordance among the versions
makes one think that the ornamentations in performance should not be too
extensive to blur the main line. As Cantemir did not know how Alî Ufukî
had written this piece, both of them simplifying an ornamented melody in
such a similar way would be too much of a coincidence. Therefore, even if
Alî Ufukî's notations display selective features of melody, they still should
not be considerably distant from what he heard.
As mentioned before, many earlier researchers have assumed that the Paris
manuscript is the draft of the London one. The fact that a number of vocal
pieces in the Paris manuscript are crossed out and they exist identically or
almost identically in the London one corroborates that the latter were
pieces are transcribed in the Paris manuscript fairly differently from the
London version. According to the "draft" assumption, the variants in the
latter should be more reliable than their earlier versions. The comparison
of the variants of a peşrev in makam Irak (Figure 3) clearly shows that this is
not true at all.
In the excerpt above, it is observable that both the Paris and London
versions of the piece partially match with the Cantemir and Kevserî
variants of the piece. Correspondences between the Alî Ufukî versions and
the others are observed in different parts of the piece, though. For instance,
in the first measure the melody in the Paris version is close to the variant in
the Edvâr, and that in the London version is close to the variant in the
Kevserî Mecmûası. In the second measure, this is the other way round -V I
matches with the Kevserî variant and V2 with the Cantemir one. We infer
that commonly acknowledged, alternative renditions of a single melodic
fragment could coexist. Therefore, if a piece is transcribed differently in the
Paris and London collections, it is not necessarily because Alî Ufukî had
miswritten the melody in the former and had to edit it in the latter, but
because the melody could be played in either way. In other words, the
London version of a piece cannot be readily assumed to be the "fair copy"
of its Paris version.
93
 Alî. UfukVs Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices

A Turkish folk song (Tiirki) transcribed by Ali Ufukî happens to have been
included in a roughly contemporaneous European source by an Italian
traveller in the Ottoman Empire.35 The comparison of these can shed light
on the possibilities of interpretation (Figure 4).

A GEP Nü D( AH DEN V GUP GHE URS !N D1 SC

BER SO İIA 1M DURUM TUR NA Î.F.R TUR NA LF.R TUR NA l.ER HEY KAN LY TUR

BİR Si'. LAM VCR ME SKİN TUR NA Ui i.CK

Figure 4: Turkish folk song, "Aceh ne diyardan", comparison (Turc 292, f.250r/46v;
Donado, Appendix). For a more convenient reading and comparison, scores are
transposed to the standard key and pitch system used today. 1: missing note.

The two versions have both overlapping and distinct features. Ali Ufukî's
version is more complete, as Donado does not include the refrain. While
Alî Ufukî equates râst with c', Donado's rast corresponds to g'.
Consequently, his notation closes on a' and does not employ an alteration
sign. The reason may be that the latter reflects an actual performance while
Alî Ufukî fixed his pitch for standardization purposes. Alternatively, two
performances in different voice registers may also account for the variance.

Figure 3: Irak Peşrev- comparison of the beginning of hâne 1 (VI: lu re 292, fi.
I36v 138*; V2: Slo-me 3114, ri. I40v-141r Cantemh, Erlvâs II, pp 21-22, no. 34;
Ke"'seo Mecmûasg £k l?.8v-129t, no. 362.) For i more convenient reading and
comparison scores are wuttee in ebe standard kej and pilri system used irwiay
As regards unit values, Alî Ufukî prefers the minim (half note) whereas
Donado the semiminim (quarter note). In mid-17th century Europe, rales
regarding the selection of a certain basic unit in relation to the tactus (basic
* beat) were not strict anymore as Renaissance notions of mathematical
,» proportion gradually came out of use, and the value only roughly pointed.
33 Donado, Giovanni Battista (1638). Delia Letteratura dei Turchi, Venice: Poletti, Appendix.
Reprinted in Aksoy, Bülent (2003). Avrupah Gezginlerin Gözüyle OsmanlIlarda Musiki,
İstanbul: Pan, 291.

94 95
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith l. Haug
into the direction of an intended performance speed.36 Therefore the
different choices of Alî Ufukî and Donado do not allow straightforward
conclusions in the sense of double or half tempo. Slight variations in the
speed of the transcribed performance combined with personal feeling or
custom could well have made the difference.
Regarding the melody, while the Alî Ufukî version is congruent with the
usûl throughout, the Donado version starts with a rather unconvincing
anacrusis, which appears to be an error, attributable perhaps to Donado's
unfamiliarity with Turkish music. Nevertheless, except for this, the melody
in the two versions does not show significant differences. This is a strong
implication that Alî Ufukî's notations are not a mere skeleton but close to
the actual performance. In other words, it is safe to conclude that in the
scale of absolute descriptive and absolute prescriptive, his notations fall
closer to the former.
d) Usûl
Some marginal notes and notational features in Turc 292 can be interpreted
as traces of learning the usûller, being extremely valuable as they allow
insights into how Alî Ufukî actually conceived and performed a certain
rhythmic entity. On f. 95v/249v, for example, he employs a combined
European-Ottoman strategy to define usûller Sofyân and Semaî - düm-tek
syllables, European values and mensural-derived symbols. Consequently
the notation contains information about the exact values and the drum
stroke pattern. In larger usûller, sometimes segmentation lines appear
(examples can be found on f.3v/20v and in the above-mentioned Hüseynî
Peşrev). They were obviously added subsequently as they cross existing
elements of notation and were most probably drawn to facilitate counting
(and perhaps performance), but do not sufficiently prove that larger usûller
were actually understood as made up of smaller units.
The absence of usûl descriptions and segmentation lines in Sloane 3114
indicates that Alî Ufukî had acquired considerable command of the usûller
by the time he started it. Correspondingly, the usûl designation system
shows perceptible changes between Turc 292 and Sloane 3114 with a clear
36 Houle, George (1987). Meter in Music, 1600-1800. Performance, Perception, and Notation.
Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 32ff.
96
Ah Ufukis Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices
trajectory towards standardization. We have to keep in mind, though, that
not every piece, not even in the London manuscript, has an usûl
designation, be it verbal in the sense of a title or marginal note or a sign of
whatever kind. This holds true especially for the vocal repertoire, courtly
and folk.37
In Turc 292, designations derived from European late mensural notation
such as the tempus imperfectum diminutum (a stroked half circle, still in use
today as alia breve) or the proportio sesquialtera (written as a fraction 3/2)
prevail. A main problem is presented by the fact that those symbols can
appear in combination with varying verbal statements of usûl, different
rhythmical structures and basic units of counting. Their interpretation
remains difficult concerning the interpretation of usûl as well as the actual
performance speed.
In Sloane 3114, on the other hand, especially in the courtly instrumental
repertoire, a clear tendency towards standardization and the development
of a sign system without precedent and connotation are discernible. Except
for the numeral "3", neither of the symbols - circles with Arabic numerals,
and triangles - are connected to European concepts. In two instances, the
self-invented signs "already" appear in the Paris manuscript (ff. 231v and
286r/371r).
It may be a tentative but appropriate conclusion that Alî Ufukî wanted to
develop a self-reliant sign system not derived from European models.
Could this point to an intended Ottoman audience, for whom European-
derived symbols would be meaningless? Or was Alî Ufukî simply
discontent with what he had achieved in Turc 292? Yet even in Sloane 3114,
the system is neither fully implemented, nor it is free of exceptions and
contradictions.
e) Unit value and tempo
In both the Paris and the London manuscripts the occurring basic units of
counting are minim and semiminim with a tendency towards the minim,
whereas in rare cases the semibreve (whole note) also appears. A
Cf. Feza Tansuğ's contribution to the present volume concerning unmetered folk songs in
Alı Ufukî's coilections.
97
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith /. Hang A lî Ufukî's Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices

comparison of parallel versions of instrumental pieces in. Alî Ufukî's two

notation collections does not provide a uniform picture that would help
understand the motivation of his choices. The unit values preferred for
some usûller such as Semaî and Darb-ı Fetih show a tendency towards
standardization in Sloane 3114,38 while, for example, the unit value used in
usul Berefşân is "already" stable in Turc 292. In the London manuscript,
Semaî and the long usûller Darb-ı Fetih, Hâvî and Sakîl settle at the
semiminim, Berefşân, Fâhte and Devr-i Kebîr at the minim. For a number
of other usûller including Düyek, Çenber, Hafif and Muhammes, the
question of basic unit remains open to discussion as statistics do not yield a
clear result.

Taking together the general knowledge on the contemporaneous

performance practice in Europe and the preferred unit values in the
London manuscript, Owen Wright has suggested tempo bands for each
usûl employed in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. For
Wright, Alî Ufukî's preference of the semiminim as the unit value of a
certain usûl may be indicating that that cycle was performed relatively
faster than the usûller he wrote with minim as the unit value.39 Our
observation that the preferred unit values are more uniform in the London
collection than in the Paris one might be considered as a sign for Alî
Ufukî's intention to handle the usûl-tempo connection more consistently in
the London collection. On the other hand, the occurrence of inconsistencies
in a number of usûller such as Çenber and Düyek makes this connection
somewhat dubious. It is also difficult to explain why Darb-ı Fetih and
Semaî, i.e., the longest and the shortest of the usûller encountered in AM
Ufukî's collections, share the same unit value whereas many of the
medium-sized usûller differ among each other.

38 See, for instance, the copies of Darb-ı Fetih peşrevs in Turc 292, f. 180r/325r & Sloane 3114,
f. 148v; Turc 292, f. 276r/355r & Sloane 3114, f. 119r; Turc 292, f. 286v/371v & Sloane 3114, f.
89r; and the copies of a semm in Turc 292, f. 235r/413v & Sloane 3114, f. 66r.

39 Wright, Owen (2000). Demetrius Cantemir: The Collection o f Notations Volume 2: Commentary.
Aldershot: Ashgate, 524-526.

98 99
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith I. Haug
In early seventeenth-century European music, verbal tempo indications
slowly came into use. They added a dimension of expression and character
to the existing time signatures40 and drew attention to a deviation from the
common tempo ordinario, which is usually estimated at 72 beats per minute
and connected to the human pulse by some earlier and contemporaneous
theorists.41 In Turc 292, Alî Ufukî uses such tempo designations - "presto"
and "grave" - only very rarely and only in connection with vocal music (f.
196r/354r and f. 25bisr/153r). They are also linked to emotional contents:
The Italian "grave", just like the Turkish "ağır", means not only slow in
speed but also heavy, serious or ponderous. The remark "pesante"
("heavy") above the vocal semaî "Eij bughiunfiade mj kiiar agiar benim jciun"
/ "Ey bugün şadım ki yâr ağlar benim içün" on f.88r/242r points into a similar
direction.
4) Conclusions
There are two main caveats in evaluating Ali Ufukî's notational technique.
First, the early seventeenth century is a period of fundamental change in
European music concerning theory and practice, as well as the sign system
and its interpretation. It is thus difficult to determine which kind of theory
Alî Ufukî had learned and what the foundations he built upon looked like
in detail. The groups of European pieces that can be found in the Paris
collection as well as the entire Psalter are copied from existing sources, so
they do not offer direct insights into his personal views on notation.
Second, any chronology between Sloane 3114 and Turc 292, as well as
internally for Turc 292 must be tentative. Since the Paris manuscript is a
collection of loose leaves bound after Alî Ufukî's death, it does not seem
possible to chronologically track the standardization of his notation, while
some stages of experiment could have been lost.
Despite these ambiguities, there is enough evidence to claim that Alî
Ufukî's notational technique underwent a process of development and
40 Paulsmeier (2012), 235ff.
41 Gaffurio, Franchino (1496). Practica musice. Milan: Ioannes Petrus de Lomatio. Book III.
Retrieved from http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/tml/15th/GAFPM3_TEXT.html. Machatius,
Franz Jochen (1977). Die Tempi in der Musik um 1600. Fortıuirken und Auflösung einer
Tradition. Laaber: Laaber, 18.
100
Alî Ufukî’s Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices
maturation. When Alî Ufukî came to İstanbul he was alien to Ottoman
music- As he learned it, he wanted to write the melodies, but since there
was no method of notation used by his contemporaries, he had to develop
his own way to transcribe the music. Despite a couple of other trials, he
settled with the European staff notation, and as a result of some
experimentation he modified it so as to accommodate the peculiarities of
Ottoman music. Traces of his experimentations toward a system are found
in his Paris manuscript. The notations in the London manuscript,
especially the more neatly-written instrumental pieces, exhibit a fairly
standardized and consistent system of notation. In the process of
systematization, the symbols he used became largely detached from
European models, while their general concepts such as "time signature"
remain effective.
Although the notation reaches a higher consistency in Sloane 3114, the
versions in this collection do not necessarily represent a "definitive" or
"better" version of those in Turc 292. The comparison of the Alî Ufukî,
Cantemir and Kevserî versions of the Irak Peşrev has clearly shown that
melodic fragments could be played in more than one way, and, more
importantly, alternative renditions of a melodic fragment were beyond
spontaneous or haphazard creations; they could be adopted by a number
of musicians and transmitted through decades. The correspondences
among these versions support our findings from other evidence in Alî
Ufukî's collections that his notations are more descriptive than prescriptive
- which, essentially, is grounded in the nature of Ottoman music -, even
though he occasionally resorted to editing for efficient inscription.
Therefore, the categorical designation of Turc 292 as the "draft" and Sloane
3114 as the "fair copy" should be avoided. Each one of the multiple
versions of pieces in the two collections has its own value as an alternative
rendition.
References
Aksoy, Bülent (2003). Avrupalı Gezginlerin Gözüyle OsmanlIlarda Musiki,
İstanbul: Pan.
Barbieri, Patrizio (1991). "Chiavette" and Modal Transposition in Italian
Practice (c. 1500-1837). Recercare Rivista per lo studio e la pratica della
musica antica 3, 5-80.
101
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith 1. Haııg
Behar, Cem (1990). Ali Ufkî ve Mezmurlar. İstanbul: Pan.
Behar, Cem (2005). Musikiden Müziğe - Osmanlı/Türk Müziği: Gelenek ve
Modernlik. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Behar, Cem (2008). Saklı Mecmua. Ali Ufki'nin Bibliotheque Nationale de
France’taki [Turc 292] Yazması. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Bobowski, Albert (Alî Ufukî) (1667). Serai Endenim, Vienna: Kürner.
Bobowski, Albert (Alî Ufukî). [Notation collection/notebook], Bibliotheque
Nationale de France, Paris, MS Turc 292. Retrieved from
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btvlb84150086 (11.10.2010).
Bobowski, Albert (Alî Ufukî). [Psalter], Bibliotheque Nationale de France,
Paris, MS Supplement Turc 472.
Bobowski, Albert (Alî Ufukî). Mecmü'a-i Saz ü Söz, British Library,
London, MS Sloane 3114.
Cantemir, Demetrius. Kitaba 'İlmi'l-Mûsikî ‘ala Vechi'l-Hurûfât [Edvâr],
Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Kütüphanesi, İstanbul, MS 100.
Cevher, M. Hakan (Ed.). (2003). Hazâ mecmûa-i saz ü söz. Çeviriyazım -
inceleme. İzmir: M. Hakan Cevher.
Collins, Timothy A. (2001). "Reactions against the Virtuoso." Instrumental
Ornamentation Practices and the Stile Moderno. International Review of
the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music 32,137-152.
Donado, Giovanni Battista (1688). Della Letteratura dei Turchi, Venice:
Poletti.
Ekinci, Mehmet Uğur (2012). The Kevseri Mecmûası Unveiled: Exploring
an Eighteenth-Century Collection of Ottoman Music. Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society (Third Series), 22(2), 199-225.
Elçin, Şükrü (Ed.) (1976). 'Alî Ufkî: Hayatı, eserleri ve Mecmu'a-i Sâz ü Söz.
Tıpkıbasım. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
102
Alî Ufukî s Notational Technique: Its Development, Systematization and Practices
Fallows, David (n.d.). Middle C. In Grove Music Online. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/186
20 .
Fonton, Charles (1751). Essai sur la musique orientale compares a la musique
europeenne, Bibliotheque Nationale de France, MS Français, Nouvelles
acquisitions, no. 4023.
Gaffurio, Franchino (1496). Practica musice. Milan: Ioannes Petrus de
Lomatio. Book III, f.ddiijr. Retrieved from http://www.chmt!.
indiana.edu/tml/15th/GAFPM3_TEXT.html.
Hang, Judith I. (2010). Der Genfer Psalter in den Niederlanden, Deutschland,
England und dem Osmanischen Reich (16.-18. Jahrhundert). Tutzing:
Schneider.
Haynes, Bruce & Cooke, Peter (n.d.) Pitch. In Grove Music Online. Retrieved
from
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/408
83.
Hiley, David (n.d.): Clef (i). In Grove Music Online. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/artide/grove/music/059
27.
Hirschberg, Jehoash (n.d.). Hexachord. In Grove Music Online. Retrieved
from
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/129
63.
Houle, George (1987). Meter in Music, 1600-1800. Performance, Perception,
and Notation. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Machatius, Franz Jochen (1977). Die Tempi in der Musik urn 1600. Fortwirken
und Auflösung einer Tradition. Laaber: Laaber.
Mendel, Arthur (1948). Pitch in the 16th and Early 17th Centuries. Musical
Quarterly 34(1), 28-45, 34(2), 199-221, 34(3), 336-364. 34(4), 575-593.
Mustafa Kevserî Efendi. Mecmû'a, Milli Kütüphane, Ankara, Mfl994 A 4941
(microfilm).
103
Mehmet Uğur Ekinci & Judith I. Hang
Parrott, Andrew (2012). High Clefs and Down-to-earth Transposition: A
Brief Defence of Monteverdi. Early Music 40(1), 81-86.
Paulsmeier, Karin (2012). Notationskunde 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Basel:
Schwabe. 2 vols.
Popescu-Judetz, Eugenia, and Neubauer, Eckhard (Eds.) (2004). SeydVs
Book on Music: A 15th Century Turkish Discourse. Frankfurt am Main:
Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science at the Johann
Wolfgang Goethe University.
Seeger, Charles (1958). Prescriptive and Descriptive Music-Writing. The
Musical Quarterly 44(2), 184-195.
Tura, Yalçın (Ed.) (2001). Demetrius Cantemir, Kitdbu llmi'TMusikf 'ala
vechi'THurufdl. Musikiyi Harflerle Teshil ve Tera İlminin Kitabı. İstanbul:
Yapı Kredi Yayınları. 2 vols.
Uludemir, Muammer (1991). Mecmûa-i Sâz ü Söz (Nota Çevirileri): Semailer.
İzmir: (n.p.).
Wright, Owen (1978). The Modal System o f Arab and Persian Music, A.D.
1250-1300. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, Owen (2000). Demetrius Cantemir: The Collection of Notations Volume
2: Commentary. Aldershot: Ashgate.
104
Jürgen Eisner
Maqam Principle and Maqam Practice
Music productions connected with the maqam principle epitomize various
phases, degrees, and courses of development of a special system of musical
thinking and utterance. The reference to the maqam is beneficial since it is
founded on the most complex level of development of the relevant musical
type of production, which embraces the other phenomena in the process of
thinking. The concept of maqam has, to a certain extent, developed to be a
common keyword for the art music of the Orient. It covers quite a lot of
relational or similar issues (e.g. Sasmaqom, Muqam, Mugâm, Maqam Iraqi,
lahn, nagham, tab', awaz, dastgih, su'ba, sadd respectively, and even
sometimes phenomena without names1). In its abstractness, the distinct
maqam definition includes all phenomena existing since the early forms and
goes beyond it2. This enables us to gain an in-depth insight to the different
regional music developments and traditions as well as of their historical
links.
As the most general term, the maqam principle aims at complexes of tonal-
melodic features in different dimensions respectively. These features
epitomize groups of notes in abundance within a distinct spatial frame that
are particularly filled and arranged in terms of intervals and with distinct
tonal-melodic functions. They are highly moldable and capable of
development. Their potentiality is variously extended and open to
development and differentiation in accordance with the individual
attributes. This also refers to the range of the functional relationships. The
tonal-melodic functions also comprise various possibilities of junctions.
These are basically focussed on the technology of assembling (Montage-
Technik) and provide the starting points for melodic and formal
developments. They range from simple, intervally fixed melody tendencies
and turns, up to very complex, intricate melodic structures and formal
combinations.
With its small-scale complexes of tonal-melodic characteristics, the maqam
principle refers to the conception of music production that was already
practiced by early Arab musicians and worked out by theorists picking up
1 Eisner (1989), Sakata (1989), During (1992 and 1997).
2 The peculiar generalization of the scientific term and its abstractness should always be
considered. It identifies features that bring together similar phenomena, but not this one.