Abstract

Among the thousands of musicians who regularly perform music from the repertoire of the Ottoman
courts many select as an example of the complex Makam Evcara, the composition by a woman
musician of the harem, the Saz semaisi of Dilhayat Kalfa (1710-1780). In order to explain why this
composition is regarded as exemplary, I first look at the widely accepted theoretical structure of the
makam Evcara . It is classed by many Turkish musicians and theorists as a, transposed makam, a
transposition of the makam Zirguleli Hicaz. However, in structure it seems to function more like what
Turkish musicians refer to as a combined Makam, meaning that it is itself made up or two or more
component makams. In analyzing the structure, I first look at the component makams of Evcara, these
are Mustear and Segah and Hicaz. I then look at the other compositions in Evcara dating from
approximately the same period and map out the balance of dominant to component makams in each. I
then consider a more holistic view of the Makam that may have been more prevalent at the time when
it first appeared. Following upon this I look at the composition in detail, examining the balance and
duration of the components and their placement in the scheme of the entire composition and at the
various elements of the composition that delineate and present the makam. These are the use and
placement of repeated melodic sequence patterns, the relationship of the composed melody to the
fixed and given rhythmic pattern (usul) and the manner in which both fixed and free elements of the
given form, the saz semaisi, contribute to the overall presentation of Evcara in this composition.

The Evcara Saz semaisi of Dilhayat Kalfa as it Exemplifies Turkish Makam Usage
after the Ottoman Golden Age
The Saz Semaisi in the Makam Evcara composed by Dilhayat Kalfa (-) presents interesting problems. It
is regarded by numerous contemporary Turkish musicians as an exceptional composition in many
respects, not the least of which is that it is by a woman composer. It is frequently performed although
it is not one of the most often heard compositions in the repertoire. Although it is in the Makam
Evcara, many musicians say that it is in fact not a good example of the makam. The question is why is
this considered an exceptionally good composition when it does not appear to follow the normally
strict rules of the specific Evcara Makam structure?

Turkish Classical Music, often called Türk Sanat Musikisi in Turkish, is recognized as a tradition growing
out the music of the court of the Ottoman Empire and from the Mevlevi Hane, the mystic sufi houses
that developed and sustained a music tradition parallel but distinct from that of the court. The great
body of several thousand compositions is regularly practiced and performed by a large number of
musicians in Turkey today and this repertoire is regarded much like the radif of Persian music in Iran, as
a vast complex tradition that is not so much defined by any single work, but in the cohesiveness and
integrity of the entire body.

An important key to the structure of this music is the system of Makam, similar to but distinct from the
Persian system of Dasgah and gushe. Each composition in the repertoire is created in one makam or
another and certain compositions are regarded as good examples of particular makams. Yet certain
other compositions are highly regarded for their form or integrity even while they may not particularly
best exemplify the character of the makam in question. Thus while all compositions in the Ottoman
tradition are in some makam or another, some may not be considered good examples of the makam
 and some may be regarded as very good compositions in spite of not being regarded as good examples
of the makam.

This somewhat puzzling proposition becomes clearer when we remember that for many Turkish
musician, the makam, any makam, is defined by the entirely of all the extant compositions in that
makam that survive in the entire repertoire. It is not possible with certainty to know exactly how many
compositions exist in the Turkish Sanat Musikisi repertoire but certainly close to 10,000 thousand at
the minimum. While many are recent compositions dating from the 20th Century, more than half date
from the days of the Ottoman Sultanate. In this light then a commonly played makam like Hicaz
comprises hundreds of surviving examples offering a great range of compositions which can serve to
define the makam. Others such as Evcara have a smaller existing body of compositions, have fewer
compositions in them, less than two hundred, thus offering a narrower range of examples by which to
define it and in the case of Evcara, the largest number of these were composed in the 20th century.
Nevertheless several of the existing compositions in Evcara are quite old and a good number by some
of the most eminent and respected composers of the tradition such as Selim III and Dede Efendi.

The surviving repertoire of the Ottoman period of Turkish culture is one of the richest existing
traditions of the Middle East today. There are in regular practice perhaps some 10,000 compositions
the largest number of which is well over one hundred years old and ranging over a long period of time.
While historically considered by some to be a period of decline or stagnation for the Ottoman Empire,
the period from the late 17th to the early 19th centuries encompasses some of the clearest and most
complex iterations of the music of the Sultanate.

Within the world of Turkish classical music today there is a clear distinction between the old court fas¹l,
a suite of some 5 of 6 compositions, and the newer late 19th and 20th C fas¹l made up of several
ºark¹’s(song type) with an instrumental prelude and a closing instrumental piece or pieces. The old court
fas¹l was based on a formula beginning with an instrumental prelude, the peºrev, including a few songs
in classic forms; one or two beste, one a»ir semai and one yürük semai and closing with an instrumental
composition, the saz semaisi. Hundreds of compositions had been composed in this form before
composers began turning to the newer style of fas¹l. Hoca Mehmed Zekai Dede (1825-1897) is generally
said to be the last composer who could compose in the old court style satisfactorily. In the age of the
newer styled fas¹l, the older compositions continued to be played individually and sometimes the entire
suite as well. In this context this older part of the tradition lives on, performed and admired by many
Turkish musicians of today

While many Turkish musicians like to think of the repertoire as one continuous set of compositions all in
the same musical language, in fact, there are important breaks. The very oldest parts of the repertoire
seem almost unconnected to the later tradition. One of the best early documented periods comes in
the 17 and early 18th centuries. Two foreigners, Ali Ufki (Wojciech Bobowski) (1610-1675), a captured
and then converted Pole serving in the Ottoman court and Dimitrie Cantemir (Turkish: Kantemiro»lu)
(1673—1723), a Moldavian prince held hostage by the Sultanate for 20 years, have each left fifty years
apart a collection of music in notation that survives today as the oldest clearly documentable source of
Ottoman Court music. Most of the rest of the early repertoire survived in carefully preserved oral
tradition. The early written sources of Cantemir and Ali Ufki have been thoroughly studied and the music
therein has recently been recorded in excellent carefully documented reconstructions. However,
because of differences in instrumentation, in the treatment of the melodic/modal system, makam, and
certainly in the method of performance, the repertoire of these old collections, in spite of being still
played today from time to time, represents a distinct musical practice from what is generally known
today. The style of performance as well as the interpretation of the makam system of the late 18th to
early 19th centuries appears to have much stronger connections to the present performance of the
Ottoman court repertoire.

Figure one. An example of Cantemir’s alphabetic notation. After Popescu-Judetz.

The period from 1481 to 1566 is described as the Ottoman Golden Age, it being the period of great
expansion and conquest, as well as a period of great developments in art and architecture. While there
was very important musical activity during this period, it was not reliably documented and it is in the
periods following during which perhaps the greatest part of the Ottoman court music repertoire was
created and which Turkish musicians of today regard as the most important body of the tradition. Later,
in the late 19th Century and into the early 20th Century the composing of songs and instrumental pieces
in the old court fas¹l or suite fashion gave way to the newer style of fas¹l in which the emphasis was on
a greater number of songs in the newer ºark¹ style. The period from the late 17th to the early 19th
centuries saw the development of the Ottoman court music style at its clearest definition. That
repertoire of compositions today continues to define the Turkish classical music performance practice.

The study of the music that originated during this classic period (late 17th to early 19th) and is still
actively performed today presents certain clear challenges. Much of the early music from this period
was transmitted orally until Hamparsun notation was developed in the late 18th Century. At the same
time the repertoire seems to have undergone a gradual standardization. Although there have been
changes in performance practice since the late 18th Century, most Turkish musicians performing music
of the Ottoman period think of the current practice as the strongly connected and based in the tradition
of the late 17th to early 19th Centuries. Thus while we are studying a music which was, in this particular
case, created in the late 17th century, it was standardized, to what degree we cannot ascertain, and then
absorbed into the larger tradition and then no doubt subjected to gradual modification until the present
time. Nevertheless, what we have available for study is the music as is it performed today based on a
notated version from the late 18th century.

The Ottoman Court Ensemble

Changes in the instrumental group used to play the music of the court have been gradual but
continuous until the present day. Certain instruments came and then went out of fashion. Various wind
insaruments, lutes, bowed and plucked have fallen out of use and new additions have been made. The
dominant instruments during much of the period here in question have been the end blown flute, ney,
and the long necked lute, the tanbur. Other instruments have been added and are now standard, the
lute, ud and the plucked trapezoidal zither, qanun. Until the early 20th century a bowed spike fiddle,
rebab was in common use but in recent times it has been completed replaced by the Turkish folk
instrument, the kemançe. For the oldest parts of the repertoire, those compositions most associated
with the Ottoman Court, the small timpani, kudüm are the sole percussion instruments.

The ensemble playing is basic heterophony with each instrument playing the main melody but each
adding slight embellishment characteristic for that particular instrument. What one hears in the
ensemble in the main melody played simultaneously on several different instruments with very slight
individual inflections and with the kudüm steadily marking out the simple usul pattern without
variation. All Turkish music compositions from the Ottoman period are set in a fixed rhythmic pattern,
called usul. Hundreds of these usul patterns exist and are in regular use, often with several separate
usul patterns in the same fixed meter.

It is interesting that in the currently understood Ottoman music tradition, the kudüm plays a set of
variant usul patterns called velvele. These are somewhat more complex patterns yet basd on the basic
usul of the composition. In performance the kudüm plays the velvele pattern, however, the singers
and the instrumentalists usually conceptualize only the basic usul pattern when rehearsing or
practicing alone even though the kudüm would always play the velvele variant in actually performance.
Thus for any saz semaisi in the 10 beat usul pattern, aksak semai, the kudüm would play the following
velvele pattern. Those saz semaisi which in the fourth hane change to yürük semai would use for
following velvele variant.

Figure Two: Basic Usul patterns and kudüm velvele pattern for aksak semai and yürük semai.

While it is possible that there was much more improvisation of individual parts in former times than is
permitted today, we have only present practice to go by. In the case of the percussion one can well
imagine that some degree of improvisation, however, simple, on the basic usul patterns probably took
place, today in the performance of the old style fas¹l the kudüm player stays very close to the simple
notated usul pattern.

Makam System

Makam is a system of melodic organization that creates a hierarchy of tones and patterns, chromatic
alternations, ascending and descending formulae that define distinctly each of the thousands of
makams in the Turkish system. In theory the Turkish system draws on a potential of 22 different
pitches, but in practice even more are commonly used. Turkish musicians may play compositions set in
any number of these makam, however it is in the process of composition, now rare, or improvisation,
in a taksim, a free rhythm instroduction to a composition, that the musicians shows his knowledge of
the makam. Most Turkish musicians can improvise a taksim in several makam, perhaps 30 or 40. Only a
few master musicians can readily create taksims in the hundreds of known makam. Many of these
more complex makam are a balanced blend of several other makams and the manner in which these
sub makams are introduced and balanced against the whole is challenging and relies on a vast memory
of the repertoire to accurately create an improvisation that preserves and demonstrates the nature of
the makam.

The Makam system in use during this epoch of the Ottoman Sultanate developed in a manner different
from its Persian roots. Rather than following the path that led to the contemporary Persian system of a
complex of small and large melodic fragments (Gushe) grouped into larger melodic units (Dastgah),
Ottoman practice began evolving a system in which two or more basic makams, sometimes several,
were combined into a single new makam. Nettl describes the system thus:
“The radif is presented as a series of twelve modes, or dastgahs, each with a series of melodies
attached to it. Each dastgah is also said to have a basic scale. Initially, a dastgah is ordinarily presented as
comprised of a group of melodies – gushes – each of which is regarded as equally capable of producing
music.” (Nettl. Pg. 21)

Pre 1700, Ottoman music has a system of makams and terkibs, which were in some way more
fragmentary than the main Makams. Before long these terkibs evolved and were treated as makams
themselves and some were further combined into new makams. By the late 17th Century the early
division of basic makams, on the main pitches of the system, and the numerous terkibs, more complex
and many with only a few compositions in them had begun to evolve to the point where they began to
look much like the makam system as we understand it today (Feldman. Pg.253).

Interpretation of makam in the Ottoman Empire appears to have been holistic and was based on the
incorporation of the entire body of compositions in each makam for definition. In 1921 the Turkish
musicologist Rauf Yekta Bey(1871-1935) published an important work on Turkish music, entitled “La
Musique Turque” that appeared in Lavingac’s Encyclopedie de la musique et dictionnaire du
Conservatoire. While this stands as the first substantial work on Turkish music in a Western language,
it also appears to represent a unique and original interpretation of Makam by its author. Rauf Yekta
Bey’s exposition of the Turkish music system is strong, based in tracing the roots of this system back to
ancient Greek models and emphasizes precise mathematical models of intervals structure. In Yekta
Bey’s description he emphasizes the pentachord and tetrachord components of each makam. It is a
step further form this to the Sadettin Arel (1880-1955) tracing of the component pentachords and
tetrachord into separate makams and fragments of them. Soon complex makams are explained as
being made up of component makams, that is, fragments of existing makams are shown in
combination to define these makam. While this view of makam is not in itself antithetical to the view
that each makam, even the complex ones, as an integrated entity, gradually the clarity and logical of
Yekta Bey’s theory was taken up by others, most notably, Sadettin Arel and quickly became the
established theory of Makam, eventually also adopted by performing musicians themselves.

In this view these combined makams, as defined by Arel and others, were each in themselves complex
paths made up of other existing Makams, through which the melodies of compositions, or later
improvisations, (taksim) moved, from one melodic cluster and tonal center to another before reaching
the final cadence point. Some, such as the Makam Sevkefza, attributed to the Sultan Selim III, a prolific
composer and creator of new makams before he became Sultan, would be described as going through
five separate makams or fragments of them before reaching the final cadence point. The sequence
and pattern of progress through the sub makams is flexible and fluid. Looking at the range of surviving
compositions in Sevkefza from the time of Selim III until recently, there is considerable variety in the
balance and duration of the component makams. Some compositions in these combined makams vary
so much from the present theoretical ideal as to question their connection to the makam with which it
is labeled. Turkish musicians say that if the particular composition finds favor and seems to work
musically its deviation from the standard Makam structure to which it belongs is regarded as less
important.

Many makams from this period have an implied pattern of balance between the various component
makams that in effect dictates the relative amount of time spent on each component. This can also be
considered a pattern created by resting on different tonal centers during the course of the exposition
of composition. Certainly the amount of time spent on each component makam is determined by the
fixed notated composition. However, there is a balance of emphasis and often also a patterns of steps
to be followed in the order and presentation of the component makams. Some makams, such as
Sevkefza, go slowly stepwise through four or five distinct component makams before reaching the
makam on which the finalis occurs. Certain other makams, Nuhüft and Büzürk, once popular in the
court, for example rest heavily on one of the component makams for so much time before reaching the
main makam that forms the cadential pattern that the illusion is that one is in the component makam.
Only at the very last does the composition resolve on the final makam. One can imagine how listening
to the entire set of six or seven compositions in a fas¹l suite, that the listener would knowing from the
first composition that the final makam for each would be different from what was being heard for most
of the time would be different, one would have a sense of suspension. Given the importance of this
type of makam and its appearance in so many compositions from this period it well may have been one
of the sources of listening pleasures in the court. In the context of formality and the gravity and
solemnity of the Ottoman court, this deliberate playing with the suspension of time is in keeping with
the calm and elegance of the court style.

Evcara

In the currently established theory as defined by Arel and those who followed the makam Evcara is
classed ºed makam, or a transposed makam. In its structure and in the descriptions of that structure it
behaves like what is called a combined makam (mürekkeb or bileºik makam). This is by far the broad
view of contemporary Turkish musicians and theorists. Evcara is less complex than many other makam
dating from this same period. In practice combined makams are those which are made up of two or
more component makams. The concluding makam is most important. As the Turkish musician, Necati
Çelik has said, “the most important note in the makam is the last one you hear.” As with many of these
makams dating from this period compositions in the makam Evcara are still regularly performed in
 Turkey today. One composition in Evcara that is heard with some degree of regularity is the Saz
semaisi composed by Dilhayat Kalfa (1710-1780). Dilhayat Kalfa was a woman living in the harim of the
Sultan and was regarded as an important teacher and composer. Her rank as a kalfa, indicates her
status in the harem as a leader, or teacher, an individual of some responsibly and status and skill. Of
the hundreds of compositions that she is said to have composed, unfortunately only a very few
survived in notation. As became the common practice of composers by the late 18th century, she
composed a set of two instrumental pieces as part of the larger court fas¹l , a suite of songs. She
composed two compositions in Evcara, a peºrev (opening composition of the fas¹l ) and a saz semaisi
(the last and closing composition).

Although some Turkish references attribute the makam Evcara to the Sultan Selim III, the existence of
these two compositions of Dilhayat Kalfa suggest otherwise. Dilhayat Kalfa was 51 years senior to Selim
and although he would have been 19 years old at the time of her death and as a young prince residing in
the harim may have had some access to her as a musician and teacher, it seems less likely that as a
youth of 17, 18, or 19, that he would have created a new makam and that she in her last years would
have heard it and created this set of compositions in the makam. It is of course, possible but it seems
unlikely. What appears more likely is that later historians thought it more fitting to attribute the creation
of the Makam Evcara to the sultan rather than the harem woman (Feldman-pg. 71). Although the
harem was forbidden to all males except the Sultan, the younger princes and the eunuchs of the court,
male musicians, placed sitting in a position where they could not see the women, or blindfolded, were
sometimes invited to participate in music performances in the harem with one of the eunuchs close by
to be sure that they did not try to peek from beneath their blindfolds.

Compositions from previous periods as well as new compositions during the earlier Ottoman times were
retained primarily in memory although some form of letter or alphabet notation may have been in use.
The composer and theoretician, Dimitrie Cantemir (Kantemiro»lu) (1673—1723), himself claimed to
have invented the first notation system for Turkish music and it appears in his writings of 1700. There is
an even earlier collection of Ottoman music in modified Western notation by the Polish Ali Ufki
(Wojciech Bobowski) (1610-1675), who served at the court for some 20 twenty years. These two very
early collections of music separated by 50 years still show many congruities in spite of minor differences.
However they also represent a music practice different in many regards from the continuity of the
practice which dates from the following period of Dilhayat Kalfa and Selim III and their contemporaries.
This music was retained either in simple alphabetic notation or in memory until the Turkish Armenian
composer and theorist, Hamparsun (Limonciyan, Hamparsum (1768 -1839), devised a notation system
for Ottoman music and many, perhaps all of the extant compositions from this time were preserved by
Hamparsun in his notation system. This notation system gave the exact pitch names, some indication of
the rhythm and gave the rhythmic pattern or usul in which the composition was set. This combination of
elements, while not adequate to give a good description of a performance, served as a memory aid to
those who knew the system and served to preserve much of the Ottoman repertoire down until the
days when in the late Ottoman period, when Western music notation was first introduced and into the
time of the Republic when a modified form of Western notation became standard. This modified
Western system with special accidental signs for the microtonal pitches is the standard for Turkish music
notation today.

The Sultan Selim III left a body of well over one hundred of his own compositions. He also created a
number of original makams which are still very much in use in the Turkish Ottoman music world of
today. Apparently all or most of this music activity occurred when he had not yet ascended to the
throne. As sultan he was faced with great challenges. He attempted a very far reaching set of reforms
and attempted to curtail the great power of the Janissaries. So strong was this mercenary force in the
Ottoman Empire that they joined with forces who opposed the reforms and help to depose him and
eventually assassinate him just as another movement was gathering to return him to the throne. (Lewis.
Pg 31.).During his reign he expressed concern that there was no satisfactory method for preserving the
great body of music that survived and he encouraged Hamparsun to develop the notation system which
Hamparsun later used to notate almost of the existing repertoire of the time.

Figure Three. Limonciyan, Hamparsum (1768/1839)

Figure Four. Ecvara Saz semaisi of Dilhayat Kalfa in Hamparsun notation

In the current popular view, the scale and component makam structure of Evcara is as follows:

Figure Five.

Turkish pitch names are unique to each pitch and thus the octaves of the same pitch each have
different names. The tonal system of Turkish music comprises in theory, 22 pitches to the octave
although in practice certain makams require the use of even more pitches than the 22 basic ones.
Without going into the details of Turkish pitch generation, let us here only point out that the interval
structure is quite different from what the Western notation might suggest. There are different species
of whole tone and semi tones.

The interval structure of Evcara is thus as follows:

Figure 6. Evcara and component Makams in kommas and Cents.

Once again, in the currently established Yekta/Arel theory, the Makam Evcara is thought to consist of a
main component, the makam Hicaz on the pitch Irak. In fact, this is specifically the Zirgule variant of
Hicaz on Irak. This portion of the Makam Evcara, that is Hicaz on Irak, can be thought of as the main
component of the makam. Two other makams form the components in Evcara and they both usually
appear in fragmentary form. It is worth noting that Yekta in his description of Evcara does not show
these two sub makams of Evcara but instead presents Evcara as having a range of notes and melodic
tonal centers. In the current standard theory the two component makams are the Makam Müstear on
the pitch Evic and the Makam Segah on the pitch Evic. The Makam Müstear in itself rests on the pitch
Segah and also frequently introduces the Makam Segah on Segah as well as Müstear on Segah.. This
occurs easily by substituting the pitch Nim Hicaz (C#) for the pitch çargah (C natural). In Evcara this same
change from Makam Müstear on Evic to Makam Segah on Evic occurs be substituting gerdaniye (g
natural) for the pitch ºehnaz (g#). Here are two short examples of this as it occurs in Makam Müstear:
Figure 7. Makam Mustear

The two surviving instrumental compositions in Evcara by Dilhayat Kalfa are highly regarded by many
Turkish musicians today with the saz semaisi being a particular favorite. Evcara is described as a makam
that is basically the makam Hicaz on the pitch Irak (low F#), a fourth lower than dügah, which is the
finalis pitch of Hicaz. It’s name however, emphasizes its
dependence on the higher F#,Evic. The characteristic melodic movement begins on higher portion of the
makam. The broad pattern is to begin on the high Evic and after a bit, move down to Hicaz, C# before
finally resolving on the lower F#, Irak.

In addition, if we choose to follow the current Turkish theory, the two component makams in Evcara,
Müstear on Evic (high F#) and Segah on Evic appear in figure 5. Thus the characteristic of Makam Evcara
is that the two component makams center on the high F#(Evic) and the main lower register rests on
Hicaz on Irak(lower F#). However, Evcara is not precisely an exact transposition of the makam Hicaz
onto the pitch Irak. In Hicaz the third step is 12 kommas rather than 13. Signell aptly suggests that this is
simply because in the Turkish music system there is no available pitch at 12 kommas above Rast so that
they simply used Kürdi.(Signell. Pg.139). Since often times and in certain makams microtonal
adjustments are made in performance, the use of Kürdi as the third step in Evcara suggests the modified
transposition was valued as such and no further modification was required. Although this pitch structure
for Evcara is in general use today, it is interesting that Ekrem Karadeniz in his encyclopedic Türk
Musikisinin Nazariye ve Esaslar¹, describes Evcara (Evicara) as a basic makam and places it on the pitch
Geveºt rather than Irak)(Karadeniz, pg. 84). No other authority uses this interpretation of Evcara and
Turkish musicians today only use Evcara on Irak so Karadeniz must be taken as a unique and unusual
interpretation.

The balance of component makam to the dominant makam, in this case Hicaz, or Hicaz on Irak, is
variable. If we compare the two compositions of Dilhayat Kalfa in Evcara, the Peºrev and Saz semaisi we
note marked differences. In terms of percentage of use the saz semaisi and Peºrev are noticeably
different. There is no Segah on Evic at all in the Peºrev. While this shows a clear inconsistency, when we
add the beste (song form) in Evcara composed by Selim III, we find almost no Müstear and considerably
more Segah. Meanwhile the beste composed in Evcara by Seyyid Ahmed A»a uses no Segah at all, like
the Dilhayat Kalfa Peºrev. Some established and respected Turkish musicians say that the Saz Semasi of
Dilhayat Kalfa is not a good example of Evcara which raises a question since she was evidentally the
creator of this makam. And while many say that the later vocal music better defines Evcara, this earliest
definition of Evcara remains significant. Taken together however, the works of Kalfa and Selim III would
suggest that the Segah and Mustear on Evic are less defining of the makam than a general high melodic
movement on Evic.

Figure 8.
Figure 9. Evcara Makam Usage

According to the Yekta, Arel theory, Kalfa’s manifestation of Evcara does not seem to be a good
example, given the very momentary introduction of Segah on Evic in the Saz semaisi and the complete
absence of it in the pesrev. The fact that all evidence points to Kalfa as the original creator of Evcara
makes it clear that Evcara changed soon after her time and that the current more standard
interpretation of Evcara is drawn from these later standards manifest in works as early as those of Selim
III and Dede Efendi. Musicians in Turkey today would generally define Evcara by the later compositions,
those of Dede Efendi and Selim III and later. Most noticeably the stronger use of ºehnaz (g#) in the
upper register and beginning of the piece becomes standardized in the later compostions. Some
musicians say that the Dilhayat Kalfa saz semaisi is a great composition but not a good example of
Evcara, when it might be better to say that here is the older and original Evcara that later changed and
became standardized later. The seeming disparity between current theory and Kalfa’s composition
reduces somewhat if we look at Evcara in terms of a seyir, an abstracted melodic formula, instead of the
more sharply delineated component makam theory.

It may be best to regard the makam theory of Arel, et al., as an analytic and pedagogical tool rather than
as an intrinsic explanation of the makam as it was conceptualized during the first hundred or so years
after its creation. Arel’s definition of several complex makams as bir It is evident that this division of
complex makams into sub or component makams did not exist during the period in which Evcara and
many other of these complex makams were created. The essence of any makam would lie in the entirety
of all compositions in it and if it were necessary to teach someone the essence of a makam a short
improvised melody showing the basic movement and indicating the tonal relationships would have
more likely been used. These short melodic fragments, called seyir, continue in use today and are good
and clear definitions of each makam structure.

Given that in the time of the first appearance of compositions in the Makam Evcara, this view of
composite makams was most likely unknown, such makams would have taught and explained in terms
of a seyir. Although no seyir for Evcara survivies from that time, since these seyir were likely created on
the spot as needed for demonstration and only the compositions in each makam survive. The
contemporary Turkish composer and musicologist, Münir Nurettin Beken has created a seyir based on
his own interpretation of the makam.

Figure 10. Evcara Seyir after Beken

Beken’s seyir does not conflict significantly with the Yecta/Arel interpretation. One could look for the
classic sub components here as well. In their recent article on Makam, Beken and Signell suggest that a
more effective way to look at makam is to view it in terms of broad tonal movment and strategic points
of emphasis and rest. (Beken, Signell 2006). In this light, thus we see Evcara as beginning around Evic,
the high F#, moving eventually to a mid point resting place on Hicaz (C#) before eventually moving down
to the lower Irak(F#).
Rauf Yekta Bey in his exposition of Turkish music (Lavingac 1922) gives a short semai of his own creation,
apparently, as an example of the melodic tendencies of Evcara, which can also serve as an example of
the seyir of Evcara.

Figure 11. Evcara Semai, after Yekta Bey

Viewing these two seyirs in broad terms and avoiding the Arel/Yekta view of Evcara as a ºed makam or
even a bileºik makam, they both indicate that Evcara hovers around the upper f#, Evic. In truth the name
Evcara (Evic- ara) means “around Evic or on Evic. In this upper nucleus it moves up from Evic as far as
muhayyer (a) and touching barely on tiz Segah (b)(1) and sometimes using sehnaz (g#). It usually leaps
up to gerdaniye (a) and then moves stepwise back down to Evic (f#) sometimes touching on tiz Segah (B)
and touching on gerdaniye (g) in passing during descent. Moving further down it temporarily moves
around Hicaz (c#) before gradually lowering to Irak (F#). In Münir Nurettin Beken’s seyir for Evcara most
of the activity(the first eight measures) centers on Evic (high F#), the middle transitional section (5
measures) centers on Hicaz(C#) and the last four measures rest on Irak (low F#).
In both examples, Beken’s seyir and Yekta’s Semai, most of the example is built around Evic (F#) with
less centered on Hicaz(C#) and even less on the final Irak(f#). The finalis on Irak has a clear inherent
emphasis being the last note to be heard. So in these two exemplary manifestations of Evcara the initial
and longest activity is on Evic(high F#) with a transitory pause or secondary emphasis on Hicaz(C#)
before a quick descent and closing on Irak (low f#). Not only do both the seyirs, Beken and Yekta, move
from Evic to Hicaz and to Irak, but the proportion of time spent on each is roughly equivalent. Half or
more of the time is in the beginning Evic, roughly a quarter of the time in the middle section on Hicaz
and the final Irak section is only about one to two percent of the time.In fact, Beken has suggested in
conversation, that the middle section of Evcara in this case has more the feeling of Makam Nikriz on the
pitch segah rather than makam Hicaz on the pitch hicaz.

Ex 12. Melodic movement in the Saz semaisi of Dilhayat Kalfa

If we look at melodic movement in the composition and analyze each section we note distinctions that
are less evident in the seyir. Remembering that the 4th Hane is longer than the other sections of the
piece and that the teslim is repeated after every section and also closes the compostion, besides the
expected emphasis on high F#(Evic) and the finalis low F#(Irak), the pattern also show strong emphasis
on d(Neva) and b(Segah) throughout but emphasized by the numerous repetitions of the teslim.

Dilhayat Kalfa’s Saz semaisi follows the pattern that is standard for all saz semaisi, four Hane sections
followed by a repetition of the same teslim section after each Hane all of which are set in the same usul,
rhythmic pattern, except the fourth Hane which is always in a contrasting, usually triple meter.

In general, saz semasi use shorter usul patterns than the presrevs. In this case the usul for all but the 4th
Hane is the very frequently used aksak semai in ten beats. In the current Turkish notation system
adapted from Western notation, these shorter usuls are written as measures. In the case of Aksak
Semai, it is a measure of 10 beats, 10/8. The teslim section is in 4 ten beat aksak semai usul cycles that
can be repeated once each time the teslim is played. The different Hanes use varying numbers of usuls.
The first Hane is made up of nine aksak semai usuls. The second Hane comprises ten aksak semai usuls.
The third Hane consists of eight usul. The fourth Hane in yürük semai (6/8) comprises 32 usuls. Even
given that the usul unit is shorter, 6 as contrrasted with 10, the fourth Hane is considerably longer than
the others in this composition.

The earliest examples of Saz semaisi consist of this four Hane alternating with the teslim structure and
with the fourth Hane in a rhythmic pattern in six or nine beats. It is possible that perhaps even before
Cantemir, the desire to expand the notated instrumental portion of the fas¹l led to the addition of this
new instrumental type. It is interesting that from the earliest examples of saz semaisi, this four Hane
structure is evident and seems to reflect or be based upon the last two vocal compositions in the fas¹l .
That is the Agir semai, usually in 10 beats and the Yuruk semai, usually in six beats. Thus the saz semaisi
nicely completes the old court fas¹l by closing it with a repetition of the rhythmic patterns, although
with different melodic patterns, of the last two songs in the cycle, the a»ir semai and the yürük semai.

1st Hane: Nine Aksak Semai usul (of 10 beats)

The first Hane begins on Evic (F#). The second and third measures descend but not to the finalis Irak
(low F#) and only to nim Hicaz (C#) giving the temporary feeling perhaps of resting on nim Hicaz. The 4th
and 5th measures return to Evic (F#). The 6th to 9th measures descend until the finalis on Irak (low F#).
There is an interesting use of melodic sequences throughout this composition. The first appears in
measures 1 and 2 and the modified repetition three steps lower in measures 3 and 4.

Figure 13. 1st Hane, measures 1 and 2.

Figure 14. 1st Hane, measures 3 and 4.

The next sequence appears in measures 5 and 6 and the repetitions are compressed into one measure
at measures 7, 8 and again in measure 9.

Figure 15. 1st Hane, measures 5-9 .

Although the motiv is compressed into single measures, the repeated pattern is distinct and clearly
perceivable.

It is noteworthy that the last two measure of the first Hane, measures 8 and 9, are later repeated in the
last two measures of the Teslim and again as the last two measures of the second Hane, a device that
serves to connect these three sections and is reinforced by the repetition of the teslim after each Hane
and with the end of the teslim finally serving as the last phrase of the entire composition.

Teslim

The teslim section of the composition comprises 8 10 beat measures. These 8 measures may be
repeated. It may be that the intention of the composer or the tradition of the era was that the teslim
always be repeated once after each iteration. Current practice however leaves this to the discretion of
the performer or performers and thus often the teslim is heard in only one iteration after each Hane.
This teslim is largely,in the lower range of Evcara, on Hicaz on Irak, but begins higher around Hicaz, C#.
The teslim also makes use of melodic sequences. They appear in measure one and two and in measures
three and four.
Measures one and 2 Measures 3 and 4

Figure 16. Teslim.

2nd Hane: ten aksak Semai usuls(measures of 10)

The second Hane of most peºrevs centers on a different tonal region than the beginning Hane. In
this case the second Hane begins on Irak (low) and maintains an overall ascending melodic pattern. This
rising from the lowest range makes the second Hane distinctive in the entire composition. The melody
begins low on the pitch Irak and steadily moves higher. In measure five it reaches Evic (F#) and then
introducing nim ºehnaz (G#) and remains there through measure 6. The 8th measure introduces a
variation not found elsewhere. The melodic content is not even within any of the component makams
usually associated with Evcara and instead suggests the makam buselik on the pitch Irak. This one
measure seems so uncharacteristic as even to suggest that it may have been a copyist’s error, yet it does
add a spice to the phrase. Then the 2nd Hane ends with the same ending phrase on the Hicaz pattern
ending on low Irak(f#) already established at the end of the first Hane and again at the end of the teslim.

Strong melodic sequences ascend during the second Hane. The ascending pattern can be heard in
measure one and slightly varied in measures two and three. Measure 4 continues ascending but
introduces new melodic material and continues to push ascent. Then it goes down again and closes on
Irak.

Figure 17. Sequenced melody and rising pattern in 2nd Hane.

Teslim

The teslim is stated again after the 2nd Hane. The melodic sequence is heard again and closing formula of
the first and 2nd Hane again in the teslim.

3rd Hane: Eight Aksak Semai usul cycles.

The third Hane begins on high Evic like the first Hane but now continues in the high range as though
returning to the high range gradually attained in the 2nd Hane. The third Hane stays high going up to
ºehnaz(g#) and muhayyer(a) with the entire phrase emphasizing the high range with the note
ºehnaz(g#). The last two measures work down to a cadence which resembles the pattern of the cadence
phrase of the 1st two Hanes and of the teslim. There is a stepwise descent in the opening of the
measures 4,5, and 6 which gives the feeling almost of a melodic sequence before the modified repeat of
the now established cadence pattern.

Figure 18. Descending pattern in measure 4, 5 and 6 of the 3rd Hane.

Teslim (Played once more).

4th Hane. 32 Yürük Semai (6/8) usul cycles

The characteristic change of meter in the fourth Hane of all saz semaisi compositions is here to the most
typical, a meter of 6 (usul: yürük semai). The change occurring in the fourth Hane from the other
sections of the saz semaisi is in the largest number of such composition, from the usul, aksak semai
(10/8) to usul, yürük semai (6/8). Most frequently the fourth Hane also represents the most radical
change in the melodic material.

In this saz semaisi, the 4th Hane begins on Irak and introduces a four measure melodic pattern including
regular sets of triplets. The basic melody remains largely in basic Hicaz pattern on the pitch Irak, the
dominant lower component in Evcara.

The 4th Hane has a unique internal structure not encountered in the other sections. This like the change
of meter suggests that the 4th Hane is treated almost like a separate short composition at the end of the
entire saz semaisi. The 4th Hane begins with a four measure phrase that is repeated in measures 5 to 8
exactly except for each of the last measures. Measure 4 leads to the repetition of the figure and
measure 8 provides a transition to the new melodic material at measure 9. The four-measure phrase at
measure 9 shows the same rhythmic motif as that of the first two phrases with two clear differences;
Measure 9 begins high and moves to introduce ºehnaz (g#) which suggests the opening phrase on the
first Hane. The 10th measure breaks the pattern by repeating the rhythm of measures 1, 5, and 9 rather
than the rhythm of measures 2 and 6. Measures 11 and 12 repeat exactly measures 7 and 8. Here we
have in these three four measure phrases yet another three part melodic sequence. This time instead of
melodic variations that are in step-wise relationship we have three phrases that are internal variants of
each other strongly linked by repeated rhythmic and melodic figures.

The second part of the 4th Hane begins at the 13th measure with very different melodic material
repeated through the four measures until returning to the melodic material of measure 1 through 12 in
measures 17 to 19. This creates an eight measure pattern of two contrasting 4 measure phrases. This
pattern is repeated in measures 20 through 28. The cadence points of each repetition, that is measures
19 and 28 are on the pitch Segah (b) and then move to connect to the pitch of the subsequent phrase,
Evic (f#) in the first case and Segah(b) in the second. Following this repeated 8 measure phrase is a new
four measure phrase using the material made familiar in the first measure of the 4th Hane. Absent the
triplet or 16th note figures of the previous material, this phrase seems to signal a slowing down the by
now inevitable repetition of the teslim.
As to the melodic activity in this second part of the 4th Hane it is interesting that here, in measures 17
and 25, after introducing the pitch ºehnaz (g#) the same measure now introduces gerdaniye (g), for the
only time in the entire composition and give just a suggestion of makam Segah on the pitch Evic, a
strong characteristic of compositions in Evcara in the period after Kalfa. The movement then returns to
the more established use of G#. The first three measures of this second part of the 4th Hane are
repeated and then the melody moves downward to Irak. However, here something of particular interest
occurs. The last two 6/8 measures of the 4th Hane are a repetition of the same material found in the two
measures that end the first and second Hanes as well as the last two measures of the teslim itself.
These two measures thus serve as a preparation for the teslim each time it occurs and by being
repeated in the teslim serve as a preparation for the finalis of the entire composition, since the entire
composition ends with the last teslim. The sole exception to the appearance of the same two measures
preceding each teslim occurs at the end of the third Hane which ends in the mid upper range of the
melody and leads directly to the teslim.

At this last point in the 4th Hane the figure serves to switch back to the aksak semai rhythm of 10 and
gives the sense of slowing down to the pace of the final teslim where the composition ends. Since this
two measure figure occurs at the end of each teslim repetition and at the end of all but one of the four
Hanes, it has the feeling of being part of the teslim itself and were it not for the fact that it does not
appear at the end of the third Hane one might think of the phrase as actually part of the teslim itself.
However, being absent at the end of the third Hane its absence there adds a bit of imbalance and
intrigue to the form.

Teslim

The last teslim ends the composition.

Summary

Figure 19.

Looking at the weighted scale for the entire Saz semaisi and recognizing the emphasis created by the
numerous repetitions of the teslim, the main tones of the composition differ markedly from those of
later Evcara compositions. Notably the dominance of Segah (b) and Neva (d) differ markedly from the
current standard practice.

Seen in terms of a broader seyir without specific reference to particualr sub component makam the Saz
Semasi shows a general patterns as follows: The first Hane opens on Evic and only moves up to g#,
sehnaz before continuing down to c#, Hicaz in the first two measures. It does much the same in
measures 3-6, however begining on Neva (d) before working up to Evic (f#) and moving back down to
Hicaz (#) but resting on Segah (b). Measures 7-9 move from Segah down to the finalis Irak (F#).

Because the teslim is repeated so many times during the composition, even without the repeats,it
strongly helps to define the composition in the listeners memory. The teslim seems entirely based on
the Irak (low f#). It begins on Neva (d), then in the second measure on Segah (b) and the last two
measures begin on Irak move up to Hicaz and return to end on Irak.

The second Hane begins on Irak (low f#)and moves up stepping through Rast (g), Segah (b) and Neva (d)
to reach Evic (High f#) and from there moves up as high as gerdaniye and remaining around high Evic (f#)
and then moving downwards until it reaches Irak(f#).

The teslim is then heard again.

The third Hane begin on Evic (high F#)and remains largely in the high register hovering on shenaz and
gerdaniye before moving downward to end on Hicaz(c#). The third Hane stands out because of
remaining in the higher register and because until now, the first Hane, the teslim, the second Hane and
the following teslim have all ended on Irak and the third Hane alone has ended on Hicaz (c#) The teslim
follows once again and ends on Irak.

The fourth Hane is distinct in both meter and melodic material. In the first four measures it moves from
Irak up to Neva and back to Irak. In the repeat of this same melodic material in the second four measure
this time it ends by moving up to Evic. In the next 8 measures it remains around evec going up to shenaz
and once touching on g natural, Gerdaniye.

As an example of the makam Evcara, Dilhayat Kalfa’s Saz semaisi differs from both the Arel, et al.
interpretation of Evcara, which is based on compositions of Selim II, Dede effendi and later. It also
deviates from Munir Beken’s seyir, as well as Yekta Bey’s which are also drawn from Evcara based on
compositions after Kalfa’s. The clearest distinction seems to lie in the relative infrequent appearance of
the pitch gerdaniye (g natural) and instead the regular use of shehnaz (g#). Since the lower octave
equivalent of gerdaniye, Rast(g natural) is fundamental to the lower region and the cadential pattern of
Evcara, the use of sehnaz in the upper register is a strong characteristic of Kalfa’s Evcara. Gerdaniye(g
natural) appearing only once briefly in the saz semasi and not at all in Kalfa’s paired peºrev tells us that
to her it did not have the melodic significance that has been later attached to it as evidenced by the
compositions of those who came even immediately after her, namely, Dede Efendi and Selim III. The
other important difference between Kalfa’s Evcara and those that came later lies in the emphasis on
Neva (d) and Segah (b), further underlined by their repeated appearance in the Teslim section. Had
there been other compositions in this older form of Evcara, we might do as has been done by Turkish
musicians for the makam Siphir, to identify an eski sipir(old sipir) and a yeni (new) sipir in spite of the
fact that both are very old.

The fact that so many Turkish musicians cite and perform this saz semaisi as an example of Evcara even
while admitting that it may not be the most characteristic manifestation of Evcara, speaks to the
appreciation of the composition itself. We can only regret that so little of the works of Dilhayat Kalfa
have survived. As it stands the high value given this saz semaisi by contemporary Turkish musicians is a
testament to this earliest iteration of Evcara. It is clear that the character of Evcara changed from the
time of Kalfa and in fact very shortly after her time. That Evcara as it is understood by most Turkish
musicians is based on the later iterations of the makam is also clear. However, the integrity of formal
pattern and flow manifested in the Saz Semasi of Dilhayat Kalfa tell is that this earlier form of Evcara
was in its time complete and well expressed in this composition.

Robert Garfias
Anthropology
UCI
1. Note that throughout all the examples given here the pitch Segah or its upper variant, tiz Segah
is used. In the current Turkish notation this pitch is indicated with the reversed flat accidental
and the pitch is always 204C. lower than Hicaz (C#) and 90 C. above Kürdi (a#).
Note: In this notation only the basic usul patterns for aksak semai and yürük semai are given and not
the specific velvele variant that would be played by the kudüm.
Kanun Ney

Kudüm Ud

Kemançe
Necdet Yaºar: Tanbur

Smaller ensemble of the Necdet Yaºar Ministry of Culture group

References

Arel, Sadeddin. Türk mûsıkı̂si nazariyatı dersleri. Ankara : Kültür Bakanlığı,1991. 368 pp.

Beken, Münir Nurettin and Karl Signell, “The Problematic Nature of Defining a Turkish Makam.” In
Maqam Traditions of Turkic Peoples, Elsner, Jürgen and Jähnichen, Gisa eds in collaboration with
Thomas Ogger and Ildar Kharissov, pp. 204-215. Trafo Verlag, Germany . 2006

Cantemir, Dimitrie. The History of the Ottoman Empire. In Alexandru Dutu and Paul Cernovodeanu,
Dimitrie Cantemir: Historian of South East European and Oriental Civilizations. Bucharest 1973. 360pp.

Feldman, Walter. Music of the Ottoman Court. Intercultural Music Studies.Berlin:VWB. 1996. 503 pp.

Garfias, Robert. Survivals of Turkish Charateristics in Romanian Musica Lautareasca“. Yearbook for
Traditional Music. 13:97-107. 1981.

Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge:Cambridge University
Pres, 2002. 234pp.

Karadeniz, M. Ekrem. Türk Musikinin Nazariye ve Esaslari. Ankara: Turkiye Iº Bankas¹, N.D. 787 pp.

Koç. Ferdi. Sultan III. Selim Han’in Musiki Eserlerinin Müzikal Analizi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Istanbul:
Marmara Universitesi, 2003. 405pp.

Lewis, Bernard. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. New York:Norton, 1982. 308pp.

Nettl, Bruno.The Radif of Persian Music: Studies of Structure and Cultural Context. Champaign:
Elephant and Cat,1987.161 pp.

Özkan, Ismail Hakki. Türk Musikisi Nazariyati ve Usulleri. Istanbul: Ötüken Neºriyat,1990.688pp.

Öztuna, Y¹lmaz. Büyük Türk Musikisi Ansiklopedisi. Ankara: Kültür Bakanl¹»¹.1990. 2 Vols.

Popescu-Judetz, Eugenia. Dimitrie Cantemir: Cartea ªtiintei Muzicii. Bucharest: Uniunii Compozitorilor,
1973. 152 pp.

Signell, Karl. Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music. Seattle: Asian Music Publications. 1977.
159pp.

Türkiye Radyo Televizyon. (Several thousand sheets of music in modern Turkish musci notation in use
all over Turkey in conservatories and ensembles)

Wright, Owen. The Modal System of Arabic and Persian Music 1250-1300. Oxford University
Press.1978.

Wright, Owen Demitrius Cantemir: The Collection of Notations. London: SOAS, 1992. 734 pp.
Yekta Bey, Rauf. „“Turquie“ in Lavignac and Laurencie, Encyclopedie de la Musique. Paris 1922

Yilmaz, Zeki. Türk Musikisi Dersleri. Istanbul:Kardeºler Matbaasi.1988.

Robert Garfias
Anthropology
UCI
To footnotes:

1.

Today thanks to strong government support of a traditional Turkish music conservatory system, there
are thousands of musicians all over the country who regularly perform music from the vast repertoire
of the Ottoman courts. When asked many of these musicians select as an example of the complex
Makam Evcara, the composition by a woman of the harem, the Saz semaisi of Dilhayat Kalfa (1710-
1780). Her composition in Evcara is the earliest extant example in this Makam and it is strongly
suggested that she created the makam. That soon after her composers such as Selim III(1761-1808)
and Dede Efendi(1778-1846) also created compositions in Evcara that are thought to better exemplify
Evcara would indicate that the conception of Evcara changed soon after Kalfa’s time. Some sources
indicate the Sultan, Selim III as the creator of Evcara, but this seems unlikely. That the connection
between Kalfa and Selim III was close is seen in that there are some twenty years overlap between the
time of Selim’s birth and Kalfa’s death. Althouhg there is as yet no documentation available to support
it, since Selim was a prince in the court it is possible that he would have been allowed access to the
women’s quarters and this would open the possibility that Kalfa might have been one of his teachers.

2.

Turkish musicians of today continue to draw on the great body of works that date from various periods
of the Ottoman Empire. The teaching and the performance of this music is the mainstay of several state
ensembles scattered throughout the county and is the core of the repertoire of a number of
conservatories of music in Turkey, as well as making up the repertoire of numerous soloists and small
ensembles. Many Turkish musicians claim that the tradition they bear goes all the way back to examples
of music of Al Farabi (CA 872-950), Abdulkadir Meragi (1350?-1435) and Gazi Giray Han (1554-1607)
although it seems to be more generally accepted that at least the works attributed to Al Farabi are
actually later creations . There are questions about some of the oldest music in the repertoire. It is
difficult to be certain that changes occurring during the transmission have not affected what survives
today and additionally that the method of performance, also constantly and slowly changing over time
has not separated present current practice from these however highly respected origins.

3.

It is perhaps a good place to mention that the musical life of the Ottoman court was considerably more
diverse and fluid than many may imagine. Certainly the Sultan wielded immense power and was treated
with great respect. One very important observer Prince Dimitrie Cantemir of Moldavia, spent many
years in and near the court, describes the court as a place in which only the Sultan spoke and others
answered only when spoken to by the Sultan. He also says that everyone moved quickly and silently
when they moved and only the Sultan was permitted to move with solemnity and gravity. (Cantemir.
1973. P.158)

4.
The established role of Armenians as merchants, primarily dealing in silk in the Persian Empire continued
in 15th Century Ottoman Empire and this expanded to include Greeks and with fall of Islamic Spain the
Ottoman Empire welcomed many Jews from Spain and Portugal as well as many who were conversos,
forced converts to Christianity. The Ottoman Empire at this time was more religiously tolerant than
most of Europe during the same period. Since Europe was in need of the commerce made possible
through the Ottoman connections through Asia and since Muslim merchants were not readily accepted
in European cities, the role of middlemen was taken up by Jews, Armenians and Greeks. (Goffman. Pg.
15-20). These non Muslim communities while maintaining their own religious centers participated in the
secular life of the Ottoman Empire and many made important contributions to music in the Ottoman
Court as singers, instrumentalists and composers. In this setting many Greek and Armenian composers
were recognized and many of their compositions survive today. One important composer, Tanburi Isak
(Fresko) who was Jewish, was the teacher of the sultan Selim III when he was still a prince. It is said that
when Tanburi Isak entered a room, Sultan Selim III would stand in respect and greet him.

5. ensemble

It is also very likely that as the music styles changed new interpretations and styles of performance
made the use of some instruments unfavorable. Such must have been the case with the angular harp,
çeng, and the pan pipes, m¹skal. Both have today disappeared completely except for recent historical
reconstructions. The harp, once widely played throughout Asia and the Middle East has now
disappeared except for Burma. The panpipes also played even in the great court orchestras of Tang
China and Korea and now vanished except for Romania where they continue and flourish and among
the Roma(Gypsy) musicians they are still known as m¹skal, (Romanian=mîskal- Although the spelling
appears to be different, the pronunciation of this word is the same in Turkish and in Romanian).