Ottoman music.

Ottoman music may be defined as the dominant music of those urban areas of the Ottoman Empire (1389–1918) where Turkish was the secular literary language of the Muslim population; primarily in Istanbul, Edirne, Izmir, Thessaloniki and, until the later 18th century, the cities of south-east Anatolia. Elsewhere genres of Ottoman music were supported by certain social classes in a predominantly non-Ottoman musical environment, for example in Cairo, Baghdad, Belgrade and Sarajevo. Ottoman music emerged in the late 16th century (almost two centuries after the appearance of the Empire) and has continued in some form up to the present day. With the creation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, it was redefined as ‘Turkish classical music’ within the new state (see Turkey, §§I, III and IV). Sources for Ottoman music are unique among West Asian maqām musics as they contain musical notation and a theory based mainly on practice, enabling the music to be discussed historically. All the composers mentioned in this article are associated with surviving repertory. However, most of the repertory has been transmitted orally and the task of analysing it using the musical principles found in the notated documents is still in its infancy.

1. 1580–1700.

2. 1700–80.

3. 1780–1876.

4. 1876–present day.

5. Form and rhythmic cycles.

6. Non-classical genres.

WALTER ZEV FELDMAN

Ottoman music

1. 1580–1700.

During this formative period the characteristic social organization of Ottoman music was put in place: a combination of state support of musical instruction; composition and performance through official palace service; the attraction or capture of foreign experts; musical amateurism among the bureaucratic élite; and the participation of clerical musical experts (hafiz, müezzin), dervish zakirs and neyzens. Towards the end of the period free urban musicians, including non-Muslims, were hired by the court, while the role of foreign experts declined. The prestigious Mevlevi dervish order moved its focus to the capital, Istanbul, and began creating a mystical art music that exerted a strong influence on the urban élite. The reigns of Murad IV (1623–40) and Mehmed IV (1648–87) saw significant musical developments through the practices of musicians such as Koca Osman, Sütcüzade Isa (d 1628), Küçük Imam Mehmed (d 1674) and Hafiz Post (d 1694). The roles of vocal and instrumental performers were strictly differentiated; vocalists did not perform to their own accompaniment. The profession of composer was highly prized and not necessarily dependent on vocal ability, with instrumental composers being far less prolific than vocal.

A new cyclical genre (fasıl) was formed around the murabba, a formerly popular form which used Turkish texts, the kâr, a local development of the Timurid era, and the semai, a vocal form derived from Turkish Sufi ecstatic hymns and dance. The şarkı, a genre that entered informal court music in the mid-17th century, had similar origins but used shorter rhythmic cycles.

A parallel creation was the Mevlevi dervish ceremony (ayin) in a separate cyclical format, usually by a single composer. Their first named composer was Mustafa Dede (d 1683) who lived in Edirne. However, by the end of this period most new composition was centred on Istanbul. The Mevlevi lodges became major centres of musical teaching throughout the area of Ottoman rule (see Islamic religious music).

The large, and previously dominant, medieval Iranian ensemble of ud (Arabic ‘ūd) and kopuz lutes and the mugni (psaltery) and çeng (harp) was replaced by a smaller ensemble which included the tanbur (long-necked lute) and the ney (a flute associated with the dervish orders). Instrumental music principally comprised the prelude peşrev, derived from the Timurid pishrow. Major peşrev composers include Hasan Can (d 1567), the Crimean Khan Gazi Giray (1554–1607), Mıskali Solakzade (d 1658), Sultan Murad IV (1623–40) and, towards the end of this period, the Greek Tanburi Angeli (d ?1690).

An important development was that of an improvisatory form for both voice and instruments, the taksim (Arabic taqsīm), featuring flowing rhythm, codified melodic progressions (seyir) and modulation. The term taksim began to be employed in this sense during the early 17th century and was gradually adopted in both the Balkan and Arab provinces of the empire. The taksim became the centre of the new instrumental suite, the fasıl-i sazende, featuring several taksim, a peşrev and a semaisi. A similar composed cycle for the synagogue was first composed in Edirne, from where it was spread to other Ottoman cities by Jewish composers such as Avtalyon (d c1570) and Aharon Hamon (d c1690).

Close links between the music of the court and the Anatolian Turkish musical tradition made their mark on the emerging Ottoman music. The Anatolian makam Hüseyni (Kürdi) became the predominant modal species at the court along with popular local rhythmic cycles such as düyek (eight beats), devr-i kebir (14 beats), devr-i revan (14 beats), evfer (nine beats) and semai (six beats).

Ottoman music

2. 1700–80.

It was during this time that Ottoman music went through its greatest period of change and development. There was a great increase in the number of urban musicians, including non-Muslims, indicating a wide acceptance of makam art music by much of the urban middle class.

The beginning of the period saw the vocal compositions of Buhurizade Itri (d 1711/12), an urbanite associated with the Mevlevi order, including his kar in makam Neva, his ayin in makam Segah and his na‘at in makam Rast, all extant today; the compositions of Seyyid Nuh of Diyarbekır (d 1714); those of Kutb-u Nay Osman Dede (1652–1730), a Mevlevi sheikh who composed a miraciye, an ayin in makam Irak and invented a system of musical notation; and Prince Dimitrie Cantemir (1673–1723), the son of the voyvod (ruler) of Moldavia, a tanbur player who revolutionized the composition of the peşrev, invented a system of notation and created the most influential theory of Ottoman music.

The Tulip Age (1703–30) under Ahmed III witnessed an extraordinary collection of musical talent at the court. Notable figures included Ebu-Bekir Aga (1685–1759); Enfi Hasan Aga (1670–1729); Ibrahim Aga (d 1740); Kara Ismail Aga (d 1724); Şeyhülislam Esad Efendi (1685–1753), a cleric, poet, lexicographer and the author of a biographical dictionary of musicians; Mustafa Çavuş (d ?1745) who developed the şarkı song, which was by now accepted by the court; and Tabi Mustafa (1705–?1770). Later the music was dominated by composers such as the Jewish tanbur player Haham Musi (Faro, d ?1770), the Greek violinist Corci and the Greek church-singer Zaharya Efendi. Also notable was the Armenian tanbur player Harutin, who wrote a musical treatise which included a system of notation.

During this period the tempos of both vocal and instrumental compositions began to slow and melodies became tonally more dense, leading to longer and more intricate melodic lines. In the peşrev small subdivisions of the composition were broken down, allowing more developed connections between successive sections of the melody. The older instrumental semai in six beats was gradually replaced by the new semai in ten. In addition, melodic progression, seyir, dominated the composition from beginning to end. In terms of mode, compositions began to employ the subsidiary terkibs as well as the independent makams as their nominal mode.

There was a great deal of interaction between Greek Orthodox cantors, the Mevlevi dervishes and the Ottoman court. Both neo-Byzantine and Ottoman musics display evidence of interaction, as can be seen in the careers and compositions of Zaharya Efendi and Petros the Peloponnesian (1730–77).

The instrumental ensembles of this time were divided between a large outdoor ensemble and a smaller concert ensemble. The outdoor ensemble featured several neys, miskals (panpipes), tanburs, kemanche or rebab (Iranian spike fiddle), santur and percussion. In contrast the concert ensemble was led by the ney and tanbur, with miskal, rebab and a single percussion instrument. By the middle of the period the rebab shared place with the European viola d'amore (sine kemani). The kanun (Arabic qānūn) had its metal strings replaced with those of gut and was largely replaced at court by the santur, one of the oldest Ottoman instruments (the kanun became a mainly female instrument). The concerts of the court became formalized as the fasıl-i meclis (from Arabic majlis: ‘assembly’).

Ottoman music

3. 1780–1876.

What might be termed the ‘first classical period’ culminated in the music of the court of Selim III (1789–1808). Selim was a notable composer and patron of music who gathered around him a group of virtuosi such as Tanburi Isak Fresco (d 1814), the founder of the existing tanbur style and also one of the foremost composers of both instrumental and vocal music; the Moldavian violinist Miron; Santuri Hüseyin; the Greek composer Ilya (d 1799); the Armenian composer Baba Hamparsum (1768–1839); Musahhib Numan Aga (1750–1834), father of Zeki Mehmed Aga (1776–1846); Sadık Aga (1757–1815); Sadullah Aga (d 1801); and Şakir Aga (1779–1840). Mevlevi musicians received a great deal of patronage, including the composers Abdürrahman Şeyda Dede, Abdülbaki Nasır Dede (1765–1821) and Künhi Abdürrahim Dede (1769–1831). Both Abdülbaki Dede and the Armenian Hamparsum created new systems of notation.

The end of the reign of Selim III witnessed the beginning of the career of Ismail Dede Efendi (1778–1846), which reached its zenith under Mahmud II (1808–39). Ismail Dede, a Mevlevi dervish, produced compositions in all the forms then available, setting the compositional norms which remained standard throughout the remainder of this period.

Apart from Ismail Dede, major vocal composers of the 19th century include Dellalzade Ismail (1797–1869), Kazasker Mustafa Izzet (1801–76), Ser-Müezzin Rifat Bey (1820–88), Zekai Dede (1825–96), Haci Faik Bey (1831–91), Bolahenk Nuri Bey (1834–1910), Ismail Hakkı Bey (1866–1927) and Tanburi Ali of Izmir (1836–1902). Important composers of instrumental music are Tanburi Büyük Osman Bey (1816–85) and Serneyzen Yusuf Paşa (1821–84).

During the 19th century the changes overtaking Ottoman society – beginning with the destruction of the Janissary corps (1826), the Tanzimat reforms (after 1839) and the general military and economic weakening of the empire – had the effect of inhibiting the development of Ottoman music.

Ottoman music in the 19th century was characterized by processes of rhythmic retardation and melodic elaboration which led to a five-fold decrease in tempo and a corresponding increase in melodic density compared to 1650. In addition all rhythmic cycles (usul) were doubled; for example devr-i kebir in 14 beats now had 28, muhammes and hafıf in 16 beats now had 32 and sakil in 24 beats now had 48.

The general scale made a definitive shift from the medieval Iranian 17-note system with neutral (2·5 comma) tones, to a broader system featuring single comma tones. The distinction formerly made between independent (makam) and subsidiary (terkib) modal entities was abandoned, leading to the ‘open-ended’ modal system of modern Turkish and (Ottoman) Arab music, with many new terkibs being invented. The Hüseyni makam became less characteristic of art music with the augmented 2nd species (known variously as Hicaz, Uzzal, Araban or Şehnaz) assuming a prominent role.

By the mid-19th century the peşrev had adopted a four-section (hane) structure, with significant modulations between each section. The mülazime (or long ritornello) of the older peşrev was replaced by the shorter teslim. In the ensemble the ney had replaced all other flutes, the viola d'amore had replaced the keman, a new form of santur with an increased range had assumed a major melodic role with the tanbur and ney retaining their prominent positions. Within 50 years this new santur had been replaced by another version, introduced by Moldavian klezmorim (see Jewish music, §IV, 3(ii)).

Ottoman music

4. 1876–present day.

The accession of Sultan Abdulhamid II (1876–1908) marked the decline of Ottoman court music. The music was dominated by the şarki, especially following Haci Arif Bey (1831–85), and various forms of Western music. Other than the emergence of the more ‘serious’ şarkı using the doubled ‘heavy’ (agir) forms of the usuls aksak (in nine beats) and aksak semai (in ten beats) there were no substantial formal developments. Major composers of şarkı other than Haci Arif Bey were Asdik Asadur Hamamcıyan (1840–1913) and Rahmi Bey (1865–1924).

The creation of a new hybrid of court and popular music in the gazino clubs owned by Greeks and Armenians attracted some court musicians while alienating others. The early 20th century saw a rift between the more popular trends and the strictly classical school of music, led mainly by Mevlevi dervishes such as Rauf Yekta Bey, the founder of modern Turkish musicology. Şevki Bey (1860–91), while at first a performer at the court, contributed a considerable repertory of şarkı for the gazino which were later claimed by classical musicians. Other famous composers for the gazino were the Istanbul Greek Kemençeci Nikolaki (d ?1915); the brothers Lavtacı Zivanis/Civan Kiryazis (d 1910), Lautacı Andon Kiryazis (d 1925) and Lautacı Hristo Kiryazis (b 1914); the Bursa Armenian Bimen Şen Dergazaryan (1873–1943); the Thessaloniki Armenian Kanuni Artaki Candan/Terziyan (1885–1948); Dramalı Udi Hasan Güler (b 1896); and Misirli Udi Ibrahim (Udi Avram, 1872–1933), an Egyptian-Jewish ud player who composed in the Turkish style.

Early in the 20th century a number of composers, such as Zeki Arif Ataergin (1896–1964), Lemi Atlı (1869–1945) and Subhi Ziya Özbekkan (1887–1966), continued to develop the şarki, especially those in the agir usul. Sadettin Kaynak (1895–1961) developed a lighter, more popular style. Mevlevi composers of the period included Rauf Yekta Bey (1871–1935), Ahmet Avni Konuk (1871–1938) and Zekai-zade Ahmet Irsoy (1869–1943). The major instrumental composers were Tanburi cemil bey (1873–1916) and Refik Fersan (1883–1965).

The musical roles of minority groups had begun to change by the mid-19th century. Armenians such as Kuyumcu Oskiyam (1780–?1870), the student of Tanburi Isak, and Nikogos Taşciyan (1836–85), the student of Ismail Dede and Dellalzade, were excellent performers and composers of Ottoman music. There were schools of Ottoman Hebrew music in Edirne, Thessaloniki, Istanbul and Izmir. The last composers to come from these were Santo Şikiar of Izmir and Moshe Cordova of Istanbul. The foremost cantor from the schools was Isak al-Gazi (1889–1950) of Izmir. Haham Nesim Sivilya (d ?1920) also composed in the classical style. However, on the whole musicians from minority groups found more scope in the gazinos for their activities, as they lacked the support of either the dervish orders or high bureaucratic positions.

After 1918 the instrumentation of Ottoman music changed radically. The ud was reintroduced from Syria and accepted as a classical instrument, the use of the tanbur was somewhat restricted, the kanun had been reintroduced by the Egyptian Kanuni Ömer (d ?1900) and had risen to a dominant position, the Greek lira was adopted as the kemençe, replacing the Western violin, and the santur fell into disuse. The ney was gradually restricted to its original Mevlevi context and was often replaced in secular music by the clarinet.

Ottoman music

5. Form and rhythmic cycles.

The courtly vocal repertory was divided between genres which used long and short usul. The former group consisted only of the beste and sometimes the kâr (which used both long and short usul); the latter consisted of the various forms of nakş and semai. The nakş and semai showed a close connection between the rhythmic cycle and the poetic metre; no such connection was evident in the beste and the kâr. By the later 18th century the expansion of the usul system had led to a radical break not only between melodic structure and poetic metre (which had already occurred in the 17th century), but between melody and usul as well.

The structure of the fasıl (cyclical genre) of the later 17th century is shown in Table 1a. By the second half of the 18th century the order and composition of the fasıl had changed, showing an expansion of the Turkish compositional forms and less use of the Iranian forms kâr and nakş (see Table 1b). In the first half of the 17th century the murabba had contributed to the development of the dominant fasıl. By the latter half of the century the murabba itself had become known as the beste (or murabba beste). From the 17th century to the late 19th it dominated the fasıl, becoming the most characteristically Ottoman form. The beste allowed the fullest scope for the deployment of complex usul, and melodic and modal development.

In the beste the melodic line begins at the start and concludes at the end of two usul cycles (or of one cycle in the very long usul). A pause may exist at the end of one cycle, but this is optional. The melodic line may be broken up in a variety of ways which do not necessarily correspond to the heavy (düm) or light (tek) strokes or pauses of the usul pattern. The drum beats form a large-scale cycle (devr) which exists independently of the melodic line, only coinciding at the beginning and end.

As with all forms within the fasıl the beste consists of one melody called the zemin (‘ground’), to which the first, second and fourth lines of verse are set, and the miyan (‘middle’) for the third line. There may also be a section without poetic text, called the terennüm. In the existing repertory beste composed in most of the long usul employ two cycles (devr) of the usul to present the first misra (stich) of the poetic text. If there is a terennüm it also spans two cycles. The same principles apply to the miyanhane. There may be a clear pause following the first cycle. In the case of muhammes or hafif, a single poetic line is extended for 64 beats, necessitating frequent repetition of words or syllables and the insertion of non-textual elements. This drawn-out presentation of the poetic text distinguishes the beste from the kâr and nakş.

In longer usul, such as havi (in 64 beats), the first misra is presented within a single usul cycle (equivalent to two cycles of muhammes), as is the terennüm. There may be a pause half way through the cycle, which may be emphasized by a short instrumental break. In the longest compound usul, such as zencir in 120 beats, the first misra and the terennüm are sung in a single cycle. The first misra is stretched over 60 beats. Although a single poetic line covers the entire hane, the musical line is broken into the constituent segments of the compound usul zencir. There is a pause following each successive usul cycle: çifte düyek (16 beats), fahte (20 beats), çenber (24 beats), devr-i kebir (28 beats) and berefşan (32 beats). In a number of commonly used usul, those in 32 and 28 beats, two cycles produce the same number of beats as a longer cycle and thus the length of the melodic line will be identical.

Ottoman music

6. Non-classical genres.

Many musical genres occupied the space between makam music and popular styles. One of the foremost of these was the ilahi and other hymns sung by the dervish orders (other than the Mevlevi). Although only written down in the early 20th century a considerable repertory survives today, the oldest being by Halveti Zakiri Hasan (d 1622). The branch of the ilahi used in zikr has a distinctive style, adapting elements of both courtly and popular musics to a ritual purpose. Dervish musicians also composed numerous hymns (tevşih: Arabic tawshih) for Islamic holidays. These employed the makam system and used distinctive asymmetrical or long usul. Rubato composition was explored with great sophistication in durak and na‘at (see Islamic religious music). The forms flourished until the economic decline of many Sufi lodges in the early 19th century. They were finally prohibited when the dervish lodges were closed in 1925.

In the secular sphere the music of the mehterhane of the Janissary corps (see Janissary music) and its relative the mehter-i birun blended classical and popular styles and genres. The official mehter represented an old Turkish tradition conferring rank and authority on state officials as well as being a musical encouragement to battle. The repertory of the mehter principally used the peşrev and semai forms arranged in a cycle called nevbet (Iranian naubat; see Naqqārakhāna). By the 18th century some court composers had created peşrev for the mehter. Between 1720 and the 1770s the mehter achieved great popularity in Europe where it influenced new styles of military music.

The popular mehter-i birun was subordinate to the leader (aga) of the Janissaries but its musicians were free and unsalaried. They were employed by the state for public festivities and seem to have largely had a Gypsy personnel. Associated with the mehter-i birun were the boy dancers known as köçekçe and tavşan, usually of non-Muslim origin. In the late 18th century and during the 19th many köçek were Gypsies or Greeks from the island of Chios. They were accompanied by an urban Greek ensemble which contained the lira (Turkish kaba kemençe) and laouto (Turkish kava lavta). The most sought-after dancing troupes performed at the imperial court and also in taverns (meyhane) found mainly in the Christian parts of Istanbul. The dancers wore luxurious costumes and earned a lot of money.

Little is known of the music which accompanied the dancers until the early 19th century. Several musical suites survive from that period which feature a medley of traditional and newly composed songs in related makam, usually in the aksak (nine beat) usul, derived from Anatolian Turkmen music, which had come to dominate the urban popular music of this period. The suites often ended with a Greek sirtos or a dance of Romanian origin. Some of the suites were in part the work of court composers such as Ismail Dede. Köçek dance disappeared during the reign of Abdülaziz (1861–76).

Both the male and female Greek popular dances of Istanbul survived as a separate category, at times mingling with the köçekçe repertory. The urban Turkish fashion for the sirtos in the mid-19th century and the survival of the hasapikos (Turkish kasap) dance testifies to the existence of this distinct repertory. In Izmir (formerly Smyrna) the working-class Greek repertory was termed Smyrneïka and showed differences from that of Istanbul, notably in the development of the zeibekikos out of the local Turkish zeybek dance (see Greece, §IV, 1(iii)).

The female dancers known as çengi were an old tradition, already documented by the 15th century. They sang and danced, principally accompanied by the çeng (Persian chang: ‘harp’), and were favoured by the palace and the mansions of the wealthy. Their organization survived the decline of the çeng and continued until the mid-19th century.

Probably related stylistically to the çengi were the erotic performances of the cariye women of the Seraglio, documented in many Ottoman paintings. Paintings from the 17th century show an ensemble of the çeng and ud, or çeng, keman, miskal, daire (frame drum) and nakkare (kettledrum), which differed from male ensembles. Earlier depictions also showed the santur. Other sources show male performers on the tanbur and santur, but no çeng. It is known that male musicians instructed the cariyes from at least the 17th century onwards, but it seems unusual that the women were expected to master the classical repertory. One notable exception is Dilhayat Kalfa (d 1780), one of the teachers of the future Selim III and a major composer. Many paintings depict the cariyes playing the bozuk (lute) and by the mid-17th century this instrument was the accompaniment for a variety of popular songs, the türkü, bayati, varsagi and şarkı, used for informal performance both in the city and the court.

Another popular musical institution was the kahve coffee-house, much favoured by the Janissaries. In these popular Turkish music, as well as the hymns (nefes) of the Bektaşi order, was performed; much of the 17th-century repertory was recorded in the anthology of Bobowski (‘Alī Ufkī Bey, d c1675). After the destruction of the Janissary corps in 1826 something of the Bektaşi repertory survived in the semai kahve and the popular urban aşık minstrel suites known as divan and nazire.

During the 17th century, when the empire extended far into Europe, the irregular troops of the border regions played a distinctive levendane repertory on a variety of lutes, mostly related to the kopuz. The name (although not the shape) of these survives in the Romanian cobza, while the mugni seems to have led to the development of the hybrid bandura psaltery in Ukraine.

The gazino fasıl appeared in the late 19th century. This genre preserved the concept of cyclicity but followed the instrumental peşrev in form, with one or two şarkı in the usul agır aksak or agır aksak semai instead of the beste and semai. The remainder of the fasıl consisted of şarkı in gradually accelerating rhythms and tempos, interspersed with vocal and instrumental taksim. The saz semai was often followed by a longa, modelled on the Romanian hora or sirba. As the urban middle class had increasingly less contact with the classical fasıl they began to adopt this nightclub fasıl as a ‘classical’ form.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

W. Bobowski (‘Alī Ufkī Bey): Mecmua-yi saz ü söz [Collection of instrumental and vocal pieces] (MS, F-Pn Turc 292 [müsvedde]; GB-Lbl Sloane 3114); photographic reproduction, Ali Ufkî: hayatı, eserleri ve mecmûa-i sâz ü söz, ed. S. Elçin (Istanbul, 1976)

D. Cantemir: Kitab-i‘ilmu ‘l muziki [Book on the science of music] (MS, Tr-Iü Türkiyât Enstitüsü 2768); Romanian trans., ed. E. Popescu-Judetz (Bucharest, 1973); modern Turkish trans., Y. Tura (Istanbul, 1976)

Es'ad Efendi (Şeyhülislâm): Atrabü’l asâr fe tezkirati ‘urefâi’l-edvâr (c1725) (MS, Tr-Iü T.Y. 1739)

C. Fonton: Essai sur la musique orientale comparée a la musique européenne (Paris, 1751); ed. E. Neubauer, Zeitschrift für Geschichte der arabischen-islamischen Wissenschaften, iii (1986), 377–424; Eng. trans. in Turkish Music Quarterly, i/2–ii/1 (1988–9)

Abdulbaki Nasir Dede: Tahrîrîye (1794) (MS, Tr-Is Nâfiz Pasa 1.242)

Abdulbaki Nasir Dede: Tetkik ü tahkik (1795) (MS, Tr-Itks Emânet Hazinezi 2.069)

R. Yekta, ed.: Hoca zekâî dede efendi (Istanbul, 1900)

R. Yekta: ‘La musique turque’, EMDC, I/v (1922), 2945–3064

R. Yekta: Mevlevî ayînleri (Istanbul, 1923–39)

R. Yekta: Dârülelhân küliyâti (Istanbul, 1924–30)

R. Yekta: Dede efendi (Istanbul, 1925)

S. Ezgi: Nazarî, amelî türk musikisi, iv (Istanbul, 1953)

H. Sanal: Mehter musikisi [Janissary music] (Istanbul, 1961)

G. Oransay: Die melodische Linie und der Begriff Makam der traditionellen türkischen Kunstmusik vom 15. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Ankara, 1966)

N. Taghmizian, ed.: Rukovodstvo po vostochnoi muzyke [Handbook of oriental music] (Yerevan, 1968) [trans. of untitled Armeno-Turkish music treatise by Harutin]

Y. Öztuna, ed.: Türk musikisi ansiklopedisi (Istanbul, 1971)

K. Signell: Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music (Seattle, 1977)

I.H. Uzunçarşili: ‘Osmanlılar zamanında saraylarda musiki hayatı’ [Musical life in the palaces during the time of the Ottomans], Belleten, no. 161 (1977), 79–114

E. Karadeniz: Türk musikisinin nazariye ve esasları (Ankara, 1984)

O. Wright: ‘Aspects of Historical Change in the Turkish Classical Repertoire’, Musica asiatica, v (1988), 1–108

S. and G.A. Tekin, eds.: The Seyahatname of Evliyâ Çelebi (Cambridge, MA, 1989) [Facsimile edn of parts I and II of TS Bagdat 304]

E. Seroussi: ‘The Turkish makam in the Musical Culture of the Ottoman Jews: Sources and Examples’, Israel Studies in Ethnomusicology, v (1990), 43–68

O. Wright: ‘Çârgâh in Turkish Classical Music: History Versus Theory’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, liii (1990), 224–44

W. Feldman: ‘Cultural Authority and Authenticity in the Turkish Repertoire’, AsM, xxii/1 (1990–91), 73–112

E. Seroussi: ‘The peshrev as a vocal genre in Ottoman Hebrew Sources’, Turkish Music Quarterly, iv/3 (1991), 1–9

W. Feldman: ‘Musical Genres and zikir of the Sunni Tarikats of Istanbul’, The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey, ed. R. Lifchez (Berkeley, 1992), 187–202

O. Wright, ed.: Demetrius Cantemir: the Collection of Notations, Part 1 (London, 1992)

O. Wright: Words Without Songs: a Musicological Study of an Early Ottoman Anthology and its Precursors (London, 1992)

C. Behar: Zaman, mekân ve müzik: klâsik türk musikisinde eǧitim (meşk), icra ve akatarım [Time, place and music: education (practice), performance and transmission] (Istanbul, 1993)

W. Feldman: Music of the Ottoman Court: Makam, Composition and the Early Ottoman Instrumental Repertoire (Berlin, 1996)

C. Behar: Aşk olmayınca meşk olmaz: geleneksel Osmanlı türk müziğinde öğretim ve intikal [Without love there is no practice: teaching and transmission in traditional Ottoman Turkish music] (Istanbul, 1998)