CMO Pitch System for Early Hampartsum Manuscripts

 

In addition to providing a scientific edition critique, one of the aims of the CMO project is, of course, to bring the transcribed musical pieces to life through performance. In addition to the pieces that were not even known to exist until today, different versions of many pieces that exist in the repertoire come to light for the first time with these editions. However, in some of the CMO editions, especially in the transcriptions of the early Hampartsum notebooks, it is noticeable to the reader that we use the accidentals differently from their equivalents in the AEU (Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek) system. In Turkey, where the AEU system is widely adopted, the use of

and

, especially for the Segâh and Irâk pitches, may naturally raise questions in the minds of scholars and musicians. The purpose of this explanation is to explain the reasons for our preference in the pitch system as CMO editors, with both practical and scientific justifications, and thus to enlighten the user.

As it is known, the AEU system, which in theory divides an octave into 24 unequal intervals, is the most widely used in Turkey today. The AEU system includes accidentals with values of 1, 4, 5 and 8 commas and has been adopted and used by its users. However, we had to create a new pitch system table as a result of the requirements arising for the edition of the early Hampartsum notebooks. We found it appropriate to do this by assigning different intervallic values to the same accidentals (with the addition of

) corresponding to the fixed comma values in the AEU system. The main reason for this endeavour is that some of the tertiary pitches between the main and secondary pitches are also represented in some early Hampartsum notebooks. In particular, in three notebooks (TR-Iüne 203-1, TR-Iütae 110, TR-Iboa TRT.MD.d.405), which are thought to be Hampartsum autographs, the pitch alteration sign (namely kisver), which is normally positioned above the pitch sign to make that pitch sharper, is sometimes positioned below to indicate a less sharper value (see Table 1). The reason for making a terminological distinction between secondary and tertiary for pitches not of the main scale is essentially related to the semantic representation of these pitches in Hampartsum notation. For example, it is usually not clearly indicated in the notation whether the

signifies modern theory’s Nîm hisâr or Hisâr pitch, or whether the

signifies Nîm hicâz or Hicâz pitch. It is up to the performer to decide which of these pitches is signalled according to the context of the makâm. However, in some early Hampartsum notebooks, the kisver is placed below the pitch sign, semantically indicating that the pitch to be played is relatively less sharp (see Table 1).

Table 1. Tertiary degrees in Early Hampartsum Manuscripts.

The fact that these tertiary degrees appear only in certain pieces in the aforementioned manuscripts suggests that these degrees are due to transpositions of makâm patterns rather than intonational differences related to melodic direction. In his unpublished treatise written in 1890, which provides brief information on both usûl and Hampartsum notation, Asdik Ağa also transposed the main scale containing the seven main pitches from Yegâh to Nevâ onto each tone of the scale, thus confirming the need for these pitches (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Asdik Ağa’s Transposition Table at TR-Iboa TRT.MD.d.490, p. 41.

Accordingly, for example, when Asdik Aga transposes the tanîni interval between Yegâh and Aşirân onto the Aşirân pitch, he reaches the pitch between Irâk and Geveşt, which he calls Müberkâ (see Table 2). This gives us information about the approx. position of this pitch. However, our goal is not to determine the frequencies of these pitches by mathematical calculations, but to make scholarly transcriptions of the Hampartsum notebooks in which these pitches appear. As can be understood, it is not possible to reflect the pitch between Irâk and Geveşt and the pitch between Segâh and Bûselik in the transcription with the AEU system. In addition, although it is assumed that there is a distance of one comma between the mentioned pairs of pitches according to the AEU system, the fact that there are many examples that this distance was wider in the historical context strengthens the idea that the Segâh and Irâk pitches may have been located in a flatter position, whereas Bûselik and Geveşt may have been located in a sharper position than their current theoritical values in the AEU system.

For example, in his edvar dated to the second half of the 18th century, Kemânî Hızır Ağa (d. ca 1790) mentioned the existence of an extra pitch between Segâh and Buselîk’. When defining the makâm sazkâr, he used the definition ‘Segâh ile Nîm bûselik beynindeki nîm’ (‘the nîm between Segâh and the Nîm buselîk’) for that particular pitch.[1] When defining makâm segâh mâye, this time we see that he used the definition of ‘nîm-i nîm’ (half of the half) for that pitch.[2]

Kantemiroğlu's (1673-1723) descriptions of the secondary pitches, the positions of which change according to the melodic direction, under the title 'İcra-yı hükmı perdeha' ('Realisation of the command of the pitches') in his book 'Kitâbu İlmi'l Mûsıkî alâ vechi'l-Hurûfât' dated to early 18th century, also suggest that the distance between these pairs of pitches was greater than the current theory assumes:

‘Eğer Irâk perdesinden yarım perde yukarıya basarsan adsız bir agaze icra etmiş olursun. Rast perdesinden yarım perde aşağıya basarsan Yeni Rehâvi perdesi icra etmiş olursun…Segâh’dan yukarı çıkarsan Eski Rehâvi perdesini bulursun. Çargâh’dan yarım perde aşağı inersen Bûselik perdesine düşersin. Eğer Çargâh’dan değil de Uzzâl perdesinden gelirsen Bûselik perdesinin yerini Nişâbûr perdesi alır (Tura, 2001, p. 9).[3]

Eng.: 'If you press half a fret up from the Irâk pitch, you will perform an unnamed tune. If you step down half a fret from the Rast pitch, you will have played the New Rehâvi pitch...If you go up from Segâh, you will find the Old Rehâvi pitch. If you go down half a fret from Çargâh, you will fall to the Bûselik pitch. If you come from the Uzzâl pitch instead of Çargâh, the Bûselik pitch will be replaced by the Nişâbûr pitch (Tura, 2001, p. 9).

However, in the section where Kantemiroğlu gives the names and symbols of the frets on the tambur (Tura, 2001, pp. 2-3), he seems to imply that only the names of the secondary pitches vary according to the melodic movement, and that they are located at the same fret on this instrument (just like c sharp and d flat in western system). On the other hand, elsewhere, when talking about secondary degrees, he mentions that they are different pitches by saying ‘tizden nerme varır ise gayr ve nermden tize varır ise gayr sada ve gayr nağme ider’ (‘when going from treble to lower it sounds different and when going from lower to treble it sounds different’ (Tura, 2001, p. 7). As mentioned by Judetz (2002, p. 141), the nîms [secondary degrees] intonated in ascending-descending succession may hold microtonal differences that are perceivable to the performer’s ear but not always accurately expressed in terminology without the aid of mathematics.[4] It should also be noted that the seemingly contradictory part of Kantemiroğlu's statement is likely to be related to the different nature of fretted and fretless instruments..

However, if we reconsider Kantemiroğlu's statements quoted above, the distance between Segâh and Bûselik should have still been larger than one comma. Moreover, the fact that Segâh-Bûselik and Irak-Geveşt pitch pairs appear in succession in many Hampartsum notebooks supports this idea. The first information on the names of tertiary pitches in the context of Hampartsum notation was given by Asdik Ağa. In his treatise, each of these tertiary pitches is given different names (see Table 2).

Table 2. List of all pitches by Asdik Ağa at TR-Iboa TRT.MD.d.490, p. 14.

In his dictionary published in 1893, Muallim Kazım Uz also included almost all the same names that Asdik Ağa used for these pitches. For example, he defined Hisârek as a pitch between Hüseynî and Nevâ (p. 22), Mâvera as a pitch between Dügâh and Segâh, Murâsâ as a pitch between Irâk and Geveşt, and Müberkâ as a pitch between Hüseyni aşirân and Acem aşirân (Uz, 1893, pp. 47-48). For the pitch that Asdik Ağa referred to as Soltor, Uz used the name ‘sol ton’ and made the following explanation (p. 37): ‘It is the pitch called Mâye, which is a flatter Bûselik.’  This shows us that there was an endeavour to represent these tertiary pitches in theory as well as in practice. As mentioned, it is understood from the use of an extra pitch between Segâh and Bûselik, which is called ‘sol ton’ (soltor in Asdik Ağa) and is probably the equivalent of ‘b natural’ in the western pitch system, that the Bûselik pitch actually might had a comparatively sharper pitch value. We see that the term ‘sol ton’ was also used by Hâşim Bey (1815-1868), to define the makâm scales similar to G major scale in western context. The fact that he stated with the expression ‘bu makâm alafrangada isti’mâl olunmaz’ (‘this makâm does not have an equivalent in Western music’) that the makâms that usually contain the Bûselik pitch in their scales do not have equivalents in western music supports that the Bûselik pitch may have been positioned higher than the ‘b’ pitch in Western music. However, we preferred to transcribe the Bûselik pitch as b natural in our editions for practical reasons, as it is a very frequently used pitch.

As a result, the pitch system table given at the top was developed both with the concern of reflecting tertiary degrees in the transcriptions and considering that the distance between some pitches in the 19th century sound system was different from today's theory. Considering that assigning intervalic values to the accidentals is also compatible with the performance practice of Turkish makam music, the editions of TR-Iüne 203-1, TR-Iüne 214-12, TR-Iüne 215-13, TR-Iüne 217-15 and TR-Iam EY_1537 were made according to this system, and the editions of TR-Iütae 110 and TR-Iboa TRT.MD.d.405 are still in progress according to this system.

[1] See p. 159 in Tekin, A. (2015). Türk Mûsikîsinde Nağmeler ve Makamlar. İstanbul: Büyüyenay.

[2] Ibid, p. 165.

[3] Tura, Y. (2001). Kantemiroğlu Edvârı, c. I-II. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

[4] Popescu-Judetz, E. (2002). Tanburî Küçük Artin, A Musical Treatise of the Eighteenth Century. İstanbul: Pan Yayıncılık.