The Fifth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony ...

38
Münir Nurettin Beken
This became an issue during the early decades of the Turkish Republic and certain musicologists started producing
the “correct” versions. Some versions, however, remained personal. This may be observed in the first section (hane)
of the Hüseyni Saz Semaisi by Kemani Tatyos Efendi as Udi Hirant (1901-1977) played in a recording (ex. 2). Hirant
interprets this section twice with the same unique variation, which is distinct from all available scores.
Heterophony
Analysis of Cemil Bey’s and Nevres Bey’s performance of Kemani Tatyos Efendi’s Saz Semaisi suggests two
kinds of relationships in the composition:
1. Performance of the agreed specifics of a composition, which confirms the identity of a composition (collective
memory);
2. Performance against these specifics of the composition, which regardless of whether they are pre-composed
or improvised, shows the artistic creativity of the performers (variation).
<strong>The</strong> resulting musical texture is a complex heterophony between the kemence and the ud. While the two
performers meet at certain points in the composition, they frequently differ from each other.
Virtual Heterophony
If we assume that contemporary published scores are representations of the collective memory, Udi Hirant’s
solo performance also shows a great deal of variation and personalized versions different from the collective memory.
At this point, one may ask why he is playing these variations if there is no second player. Perhaps an answer to
this question lies in the performer’s desire to create a different kind of musical texture between the performer and
the collective memory. While this virtual heterophony is inaudible to a stranger, it offers pleasure to the initiated
minds of both the performer and the audience. In fact, even today, such variations may incite verbal comments in
solo performances.
<strong>The</strong>refore, my analysis of Udi Hirant’s performance of the Saz Semaisi suggests two similar kinds of rel–
ationships in the composition:
1. Performance of agreed specifics of a composition which confirms the identity of a composition (collective
memory);
2. Performance against these specifics of the composition, which shows the artistic creativity of the performer
(variation) and his desire to contribute to the virtual heterophony.
Conclusions
One may further suggest that even in the performances of Cemil Bey and Nevres Bey, the collective memory
of a musical composition comprises a third melodic line, and that artists’ creative impulses work around the
collective memory, not the line created by the other performer. <strong>The</strong>refore, the resulting texture occurs as a somewhat
uncontrolled realization of a heterophonic possibility.
Notes
1 Implied harmonic progressions in special circumstances, such as Alberti-bass or compound melody, will be left for another study in order
to keep the focus of this particular study intact
2 Among others, Walter Feldman, Owen Wright, Yalçın Tura, and Cem Behar are worth mentioning.
Generally, instrumental compositions from the Turkish Classical Music repertoire, such as pesrev-s and saz semaisi-s, have been written
for non-specific instrumentation