Demetrius Cantemir: The Collection of Notations

Volume 2: Commentary

Owen Wright

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351569880
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Music

The substantial collection of notations of seventeenth-century Ottoman instrumental music made by Demetrius Cantemir is both a record of compositions of considerable intrinsic interest and a historical document of vital importance, representing as it does one of the most comprehensive accounts of any Middle Eastern repertoire before the widespread adoption of Western notation in the twentieth century. This volume contains a commentary to the edition of Cantemir's notations prepared by the same author. The introductory section provides a context for the collection, giving a biographical sketch of its compiler and relating it to the theoretical treatise it accompanies. This is followed by a substantial analysis of modal structures which examines each makam individually and then attempts to make progressively wider generalizations. The projection of melody onto the various rhythmic cycles is next examined, with particular attention being paid to the various formulaic elements which constitute much of the compositional language of the period. A final section shifts to a more diachronic perspective, surveying internal evidence for historical change and for the survival of earlier styles.

Mode

2.1 Approaches

Various strategies may be thought appropriate in examining such a large body of material. It would be both logical and intuitively attractive, for example, to adhere at least initially to Cantemir's own categorizations and definitions on the assumption that, even if not all of equal standing, they serve to demarcate various areas of the repertoire that would repay separate scrutiny. But an equally good case could be made for deliberately setting them aside and subjecting the unsorted mass of notations to a particular pre-selected technique of analysis, one therefore potentially capable, if not of cultural neutrality, then at least of consistency of application. A third possibility would be a form of compromise balancing a possible loss of rigour against a possible gain in sensitivity by attempting some measure of synthesis, or at least productive interweaving, of emic and etic approaches. Again, might it be more illuminating to consider modes in groups, or individually? And in either case where would it be most useful to start—with the modes deemed by Cantemir to be the most significant, normally those which provide the greatest number of examples (no fewer that 49 compositions in the case of hüseyni), or with those of evidently lesser significance where the amount of material to consider is small, in some cases, indeed, consisting of no more than a single brief representation in a modulatory sequence?

The approach adopted here is, in general, to attempt to outline the main characteristics of each mode separately, beginning with those offering the smallest amount of material, and subjecting the section(s) or piece(s) in which it occurs to a single simple process of analysis. However, scrutiny of the corpus will not proceed in a wholly automatic sequence, for the order will be inflected in order to take into account a number of obvious derivational relationships, so that some modes will be considered in pairs or small groups. These will normally be similar to, or identical with, the groupings established by Cantemir. His larger-scale categories, however, are based in part on criteria not always relevant to the form of analysis being undertaken here, and in the present section they will be ignored. On the other hand, the descriptive material provided in the edvār for a great many individual modes must be regarded both as a valuable control and as representing a particularly significant emic perception of structure, one, indeed, that may on occasion foreground features barely discernible in the notations or liable to be differently interpreted. It must be deemed, therefore, a vital adjunct to any analysis and will always be taken into consideration.

In the first stage analysis will not usually be taken beyond the level of the individual mode. Consideration of such matters as modulatory practice and structural relationships between modes, whether in closely related small groups or on a broader scale, will be deferred to a later section. Less easy to disentangle are aspects of rhythm and form that impinge upon modal articulation, but as far as possible such features will also be dealt with separately, as will aspects of compositional strategy that are not mode-specific, such as cadences. Separate consideration will also be given to the appropriateness of the concept of system in relation to the range of modal structures recorded by Cantemir, and to an evaluation of the adequacy of Cantemir's own categorizations.

As noted, discussion will begin with those modes presenting the fewest readily identifiable examples. This approach suffers from the obvious logical disadvantage that in the initial stages generalization about individual modes is either impossible or extremely difficult. But at the same time it has the practical advantage of allowing certain analytical issues that arise to be introduced in a more gradual fashion than would be possible if the attempt were made to digest all at once the vast amount of material presented by one of the more populous modes. For these, an initial assumption will be that the corpus for each is homogeneous in the sense that whatever traits might, at least hypothetically, characterize the output of a particular composer, and whatever stylistic differences might eventually be discerned between earlier and later works, all the pieces in that mode will conform to certain general norms of pitch organization and melodic articulation which will constitute its late seventeenth-century grammar. In those cases where the assumption breaks down, questions of historical development and categorization arise, but these will be addressed in a later section. Cantemir's own descriptions will not be allowed to influence procedure in the first stage of analysis but, as the discussion of the first mode will already make clear, they may raise fundamental questions about what further stages of abstraction are appropriate.

As a preliminary step, however, we may refer briefly to Cantemir's segmentation of the mode stock. The intention here is not to evaluate the various criteria adduced as potential analytical tools but simply, given that the membership of each category is specified, to use this material as a check on the range of mode names supplied by the notations, hoping thereby to arrive at a closer approximation to the total number in use. From the headings for each piece we may form an initial view of the extreme variations in importance, that is, in frequency of occurrence, between modes: thus of the total of 345 compositions over half are accounted for by a mere six modes, and 298 by the most common 20, leaving the remaining 49 pieces to be divided between no fewer than 27 others, some of which were evidently marginal. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude from this that the combined figure of 47 modes represents the ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Dedication
• Prelude
• Mode
• Rhythm
• Appendix
• List of works consulted
• Errata
• Indexes