HISTORY & SPACES

Music evolves over time, and this is especially true for oral musical traditions. We often tend to think of the long-standing modal traditions of the East, such as Ottoman music, as static and rather conservative forms. In reality, change has always been an integral part of them.

Consider, for example, that Tanburi Cemil Bey (1873–1916), whom we often regard as a guardian of the old tradition due to being one of the first to record music on the phonograph, was himself a great innovator! Self-taught on the tanbur, he introduced a new playing technique that differed from that of the dominant tanbur “school” of his time. This school was rooted in a lineage tracing back to the Jewish Tanburi Isak Fresco (1745–1814) and had itself incorporated change and renewal from one generation to the next. Musically erudite, Cemil Bey had studied makam theory, Western notation, and Hampartsum notation. In addition to the tanbur, he played the piano, the lavta, the cello, the yaylı tanbur, and folk instruments such as the zurna and the saz. Cemil Bey, along with his teacher kemençeci Vasil (Vasilakis), is credited with establishing the lyra in the orchestra of Ottoman urban music—yet another example of musical innovation.

Despite the remarkable progress made in research over the past decades, we are still unable to accurately trace the historical trajectory of Ottoman music. For example, we do not yet know how the oral tradition, which takes us back to the 19th century, connects with the written sources that date back to the mid-17th century. However, it is certain that the Ottoman-Turkish music that has reached us through oral tradition reflects only fragments of its older forms. It is also clear that musical change was neither linear nor universal; rather, it was multifaceted, occurring at different speeds and in various ways. Periods of relative stabilization were followed by periods of intensified transformation—indeed, as previously mentioned, the 17th century was one such era of significant change.

Over its long lifespan, parts of the repertoire were renewed, new forms, musical instruments, and ways of organizing the repertoire were established. Some makam were forgotten, others emerged, while in some cases, the modal identity and intervallic relationships changed. Certain composers retained their timeless value, others faded into obscurity, and for some, compositions were even attributed posthumously. After a certain point, the repertoire appears to have been stylistically enriched, and the lineages of transmission multiplied. Researchers have also documented the transformation of some instrumental compositions through structural changes, processes of melodic development, and even the slowing down or elongation of rhythmic cycles.

To formulate convincing theories about historical change in Ottoman urban music, the sources available to us play a crucial role. There are many types of written sources: theoretical treatises and books on music theory, collections of song lyrics, official records of musical activities at the Palace, archival sources from non-Muslim communities, and scattered biographical information found in various literary texts and other documents. Important visual sources include miniature paintings, which, along with images—and written descriptions—by European travelers, shed light on musicians, on musical instruments, their combinations, and the contexts of their performance throughout Ottoman history.

A valuable category of sources is also musical collections containing notated music. Various notation systems have been used over time to document the oral tradition, ranging from the Byzantine neumes of Greek Orthodox chanters and the Hampartsum notation developed by Armenians to modified forms of European notation, such as the one found in the Mecmûa-i Sâz ü Söz (“Collection of Instrumental and Vocal Compositions”) by the Polish-born musician and palace dragoman Ali Ufki (Wojciech Bobowski) in the mid-17th century. Additionally, alphabetic notation systems, such as those in the musical collections of Nayi Osman Dede and Dimitrie Kantemir in the late 17th century, were also used. Some of these notation systems originate from earlier phases of Middle Eastern music history. In the context of Ottoman urban music, they mainly cover the period from the 17th to the early 20th century, when the European staff notation was established, with certain conventions adapted to the specific characteristics of Ottoman urban music. The comparative study of these sources can shed light—at least partially—on obscure aspects and periods of musical history for which we lack sufficient documentation.

In recent decades, new sources have come to light, and research has flourished, laying the foundations for new historiographical models. Music history has become more in-depth and interdisciplinary, as it approaches music as part of broader social phenomena and is enriched by transnational and cross-disciplinary dialogue. It is more inclusive, as it examines sources in multiple languages—not only Turkish, Greek, or Armenian—and focuses on local practices, intercommunal relations, gaps, silences, and turning points. Finally, it is a more sober history: it questions official, national musical narratives that previously prioritized certain characteristics over others, selectively emphasized the contributions of one group over others, and did not always take written and visual evidence into serious consideration.

Musical periodization is inherently a challenging and risky endeavor. In attempting to describe turning points, we often neglect continuities, prioritize certain elements over others, and ultimately oversimplify complex social and musical realities. Broadly speaking, however, scholars today generally accept that from the 14th to the 16th century, a more or less shared musical tradition existed across the Islamic centers of the Middle East. The 17th century marks the decisive period in which Ottoman music acquires its distinct Ottoman characteristics. This is followed by a long phase of development during the 18th and 19th centuries, which some researchers further subdivide into specific periods. Finally, the late 19th century is widely regarded as the beginning of a period of decline, as palace patronage gradually diminished. With the establishment of the Turkish Republic in the 1920s, the Mevlevi Dervish lodges (tekkes), another central patron of Ottoman music, came under scrutiny as part of the state’s new political agenda.

Dance of the Dervishes inside a Tekke
(Engraving by William Hogarth, in Aubry de La Mottraye, Travels throughout Europe, Asia and into Part of Africa, London, 1724, vol. I).
The Met, PD
The Ottoman military band Mehter
(Painting by Arif Pasha, 1839, National Library, Ankara).
Wikimedia Commons, PD

Ottoman music flourished at the crossroads of the secular and the sacred. Its primary centers of performance and transmission were, on the one hand, the Palace, and on the other, the Mevlevi Dervish order and other Sunni brotherhoods that were historically active in Istanbul and beyond.

The Palace stood as a paramount institution of artistic patronage throughout the ages. Ottoman music, in particular, held a place of distinction within the imperial court. Over time, intricate structures were established to support musical activity and education, catering to a wide array of musicians: singers, instrumentalists, and composers; musicians devoted to religious or secular traditions; enslaved men and women as well as free artists; Muslims and non-Muslims; residents of Istanbul, Ottomans, and foreigners alike. Employment relationships varied accordingly. During the reigns of Sultan patrons with a deep love for music, Ottoman music evolved and flourished. Murad IV (1623–1640) himself composed renowned instrumental and vocal works, later recorded in musical anthologies. Selim III (1789–1808) gathered the finest musicians of his time at the palace, fostering musical creativity, theoretical study, and the development of new notational systems.

The imperial registers preserve a wealth of information on the palace orchestras, the musicians who served in them over time, the musical instruments they played, and the wages they received. Visual depictions and textual accounts from eyewitnesses—both Ottoman and European—provide glimpses into the diverse occasions and forms of musical expression within the Palace. A typical Ottoman music concert, for instance, followed the structure of the fasıl suite: a specific sequence of vocal and instrumental forms, compositions, and improvisations, all within the same makam. Until its dissolution in the early 19th century, the Janissary Mehter military band also stood as a key institution of Ottoman musical patronage. Primarily an outdoor ensemble, it was composed of zurnas, trumpets, and percussion instruments. Yet, despite the differences in instrumentation, there was a notable degree of commonality in repertoire, composers, and musical networks.

The place and role of music in society has long been a contentious issue among Islamic jurists, much as it has been within the Church. The centuries-old debate within orthodox Islam regarding the purpose and legitimacy of music led, in certain historical and geographical contexts, to prohibitions against its practice. Nevertheless, vocal and instrumental music, often intertwined with poetry and dance, took on a central role in Sufism—the mystical branch of Islam that emerged as early as the 13th century. Sufi orders imbued music with a mystical essence and granted it a prominent place in their rituals: musical performance and listening became fundamental vehicles for attaining divine knowledge and fostering love for the sacred.

Each Sufi order cultivated its own musical idioms, shaped by the cultural background and geographical region in which it was established. Ottoman urban music became most closely associated with the Mevlevi Dervishes. This order was founded by the direct descendants of the mystical poet Jalal ud-Din/ Celaleddin Rumi (1207–1273) in Konya, the city where he lived and passed away, before expanding to Istanbul. Music in the sema (from the Arabic samāʿ, meaning “listening”)—the sacred ritual of the Mevlevi order—shared many characteristics with Ottoman court music: adherence to the modal system of makam and the rhythmic system of usul, common musical forms and compositions, and a structured performance framework known as ayin (which, however, differed in identity and purpose from the secular fasıl suite). The ritual also emphasized certain musical instruments, notably the ney, the quintessential instrument of the Mevlevi Dervishes, as well as the kudüm and the tanbur. Yet despite these similarities, Mevlevi music diverged from courtly Ottoman music in other ways, serving distinct needs: listening, in this context, was a spiritual process—one that nurtured the soul by facilitating communion with the divine.
 

Many Mevlevi dervishes were simultaneously active musicians and composers of Ottoman court music, playing a significant role in its development. The dervish lodges (tekke) served as key centers of patronage, repertoire transmission, and dissemination of music throughout the Ottoman territories. It is no coincidence that the meşksystem of musical apprenticeship remained particularly strong in the genealogies of neyzen (ney players), even after the establishment of the Turkish Republic.

This unique environment of cultural osmosis, in which Ottoman urban music flourished, not only connected the Palace with the dervish lodges but also intertwined with the liturgical traditions of non-Muslim ethno-religious communities such as the Rum, Armenians, and Jews. For instance, the renowned 18th-century cantor and composer Petros Peloponnesios (see Petraki) was highly esteemed in the circles of the Mevlevi dervishes, whom he frequently visited—some sources even suggest he was initiated into their order. Within the Jewish ethno-religious communities of major Ottoman cities, alongside the synagogue’s liturgical traditions, para-liturgical musical practices emerged in close connection with Ottoman music. Vocal ensembles such as the Maftirim of Edirne, for example, adapted both old and new compositions of Ottoman urban music to Hebrew religious poetry, which was performed during religious gatherings in homes and synagogues.

Kanun (Turkey, late 19th century).
The Crosby Brown Collection of Musical Instruments, 1889.
The Met, PD

 

Already in the 18th century, as part of the broader opening of the Ottoman court to urban life, Ottoman urban music began to extend beyond the confines of the Palace and the dervish lodges, spreading into the city’s public spaces. The 19th century, a period of significant administrative, economic, and social transformations under the Tanzimat reforms (1839–1876), saw the further expansion of the public sphere and the culture of entertainment in public venues. Simultaneously, Ottoman music gradually became marginalized at the Palace. Court-supported musicians sought new opportunities in the meyhane (taverns) and gazino (night entertainment venues) of Pera, Galata, and other central districts of Istanbul, often operated by Rum and Armenians. These venues became melting pots where people from diverse ethno-religious, cultural, and social backgrounds converged. Music, too, embraced hybridity and innovation: the Ottoman musical repertoire interacted with folk songs and dance tunes from the Balkans and Anatolia, as well as European melodies. A new form of fasıl suite emerged, and instruments such as the ud (which had previously fallen into disuse), the kemençe, and the kanun became central to the urban ensemble. These venues nurtured outstanding musicians from different backgrounds—Rum, Armenians, Ottoman Turks, and Roma—alongside itinerant musicians from Europe and the Arab provinces of the empire.

The significance of these urban music venues grew even further with the establishment of the Turkish Republic in the 1920s and the closure of the Mevlevi dervish lodges, the other major traditional patronage institution of Ottoman urban music. The hostile stance of the early Turkish state toward Ottoman cultural heritage triggered new developments and transformations. In particular, Ottoman music underwent a process of “classicization,” modeled after European art music. Its theoretical framework was systematized, and a normative repertoire was solidified through the publication of collections and the institutionalization of Western staff notation.

In the 20th century, Ottoman-Turkish music found new performance contexts and venues, such as radio, concert halls, recording studios, and television. At the same time, long-standing practices like the periodic private music-literary gatherings (meclis), which had a strong performative and commensal dimension, continued to exist. In Greece, Ottoman urban music persisted as lived memory in the performance practices of Christian refugees, while Greek musical life was enriched by musicians who had previously been active in the music centers of Istanbul and Smyrna. Since the 1980s, Ottoman-Turkish music has experienced revivals and has been cultivated as the “art music of Istanbul,” with Rum (Greek Orthodox) composers playing a leading role. Today, the educational environment of music schools and university departments, the transnational framework of music workshops, musical travels, concerts, and the relationships formed on both sides of the Aegean reflect something of the intercultural exchange that was at the heart of Ottoman urban music.

Sources