335

 A COLLECTIVE BIOGRAPHY STUDY OF MUSICIANS:

PATTERNS, NETWORKS AND MUSIC AS A “PROFESSION”

IN THE LATE OTTOMAN ERA AND THE EARLY REPUBLICAN

Y

This dissertation focuses on the musicians of Istanbul who experienced the

transitional period from the late Ottoman to the Early Republican years in Turkey.

By focusing on their career trajectories, the thesis seeks to understand the ways in

which musicians responded to broader socio-political changes.

The thesis offers a wide range of quantitative analyses that were generated in IBM

SPSS Statistics 23.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). The thesis explores the

geographical origins, birth dates, family backgrounds, education patterns, language

proficiency, occupational distribution with a view to bring the common as well as

the distinct features of musicians under investigation to light.

The study gives emphasis to the musicians’ mobility in Istanbul in order to enhance

the geographical understanding of music. The frequency analysis enabled this study

to identify the most frequented neighborhoods by musicians as well as the musical

interactions among the neighborhoods. Gephi, which is software to visualize social

connections, was used to show the most musically connected neighborhoods to

understand how the urban music was generated at the local level.

By addressing the issue of music education, the thesis aimed to show that musicians

were not monolithic but diverse and reflected different values about music. Many

modes of learning music lead to the formation of different musical identities. For

v

the majority of musicians, it was perceived as part of the urban culture, and thereby

they built a non-professional (non-profit) relationship with it.

The dissertation pays particular attention to the emergence of music schools after

1909 and the radio broadcasts in 1927 to uncover the interactions between state

policies and music. The study perceives the role of these two institutions as a

turning point in music in terms of the transition from plurality in music-tradition to

cultural uniformity, the emergence of music as a “profession”, the re-organization

of musicians’ social status, and the remaking of women in music.

Keywords: Ottoman, Istanbul, musician, social history

vi

ÖZ

GEÇ OSMANLI VE ERKEN CUMHURİYET DÖNEMLERİNDE

İSTANBULLU MÜZİSYENLERİN SOSYAL PROFİL ANALİZİ:

SOSYAL AĞLAR VE BİR “MESLEK” OLARAK MÜZİK

Öner, Onur.

Tarih Doktora Programı

Tez Danışmanı: Prof. L. Cem Behar

Ocak 2019, 288 sayfa

Bu tez Geç Dönem Osmanlı Devleti’nden Erken Cumhuriyet’e uzanan bir zaman

diliminde İstanbul’da yaşamış olan bir grup müzisyeni konu edinmiştir.

Müzisyenlerin tanığı oldukları sosyo-politik ve kültürel değişimlere verdikleri

tepkileri analiz etmek tezin öncelikli meselelerinden birisidir.

Tez odağına aldığı 257 müzisyenin sosyal profillerini ortaya çıkarmak için SPSS veri

analiz yazılımı üzerinden çok sayıda niceliksel analize başvurmaktadır. Müzisyenlerin

coğrafi dağılımları, ailelerinin sosyo-ekonomik durumu, eğitim düzeyleri ve

meslekleri sahip oldukları benzerlikler ve farklılıkları tartışmak için bir zemin

oluşturmaktadır.

Bu çalışma İstanbul’un söz konusu zaman aralığındaki müzik haritasını oluşturmaya

çalışmıştır. Müzisyenlerin şehir içerisindeki hareketliliği tespit etmek için başvurulan

yoğunluk analiz metodu, mekân ve müzik arasındaki ilişkiler ağını ortaya çıkarmak

içindir. Gephi yazılımı kullanılarak ortaya çıkarılan ağ analizleri, müziğin en yoğun

olarak duyulduğu daireler (ilçeler) ve bunların birbirleriyle müzik üzerinden

kurdukları ilişki biçimlerini anlamamıza yardımcı olmaktadır. Dairelerde bulunan

tiyatrolar, gazinolar, tavernalar, semaî kahveleri, kıraathâneler, tekkeler,

müzisyenlerin evleri ve meşk toplantılarının niceliksel analizleri şehir müziğinin yerel

düzeyde nasıl üretildiğini göstermektedir.

vii

Birbirinden farklı müzik eğitim süreçlerine odaklanmak müzisyenlerin aslında

yekpare bir yapıda değerlendirilmemeleri gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Müzisyen

olma süreçleri müzikal kimliklerini de şekillendirmekteydi. Analiz edilen

müzisyenlerin önemli bir kısmı için müzik sahip oldukları şehir kültürünün bir

parçası; tamamlayıcısıydı ve müzikle kurdukları ilişki biçimi de kâr odaklı değildi.

Fakat 20. yüzyılın başlangıcıyla hızlanan politik krizler müzisyenlerin hayatında

büyük değişimlere neden olacaktı. Bu çalışma politik değişimlerin müzikteki

izdüşümlerini müzik okulları (1909 ertesi) ve radyo yayıncılığı (1927) üzerinden

göstermeye çalışmaktadır. Müzik tarihi için köşe taşları olarak düşündüğüm bu iki

kurum, imparatorluk müziğine has çeşitlilikten yeknesaklığa adım, müziğin

profesyonelleşmeye ve müzisyenliğin sosyal statü kazanmaya başlaması ve müzik

içerisinde değişen kadın rolleri gibi pek çok açıdan tartışmaya açılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı, İstanbul, müzisyen, sosyal tarih

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Numerous people made this work possible. Many academics, musicians and friends

have contributed to this dissertation but some deserve special mention for their

invaluable support, guidance and encouragement. Firstly, I would like to express my

special thanks and appreciation to my PhD supervisor Prof. Cem Behar, who has

encouraged me to work on this interdisciplinary project all along. Without his

guidance, this dissertation would not have been written. His studies in Ottoman

music have inspired me to write a thesis on the social history of music. Moreover, I

have truly benefited from his profound knowledge not only in Ottoman music

history, but also in demography. Otherwise, the author of this thesis whose

familiarity with statistics was limited would probably have gotten lost in the

numbers throughout this research project.

I would like to thank Prof. Abdulhamit Kırmızı for what I have learned from him

throughout my past seven years at Sehir University. His immense interest on

historical biographies and endeavor to employ them in his works helped me to

formulate this thesis, which substantially based on the musicians’ biographies. His

academic advice and critics were extremely important. I thank him for being a

constant source of encouragement.

I would like to thank all the members of the History Department at Şehir University

who introduced me to many of the issues in the field of Ottoman studies and

provided a global perspective to approach Ottoman history, society and culture. I

would always remember the classes held by Prof. Engin Deniz Akarlı whose

expertise, enthusiasim in teaching and critical approach taught me a lot about

history writing. Moreover, his clarifications and suggestions were valuable at the

initial stages of this thesis. I would also like to thank Asst. Prof. Yunus Uğur, who is

also one of the members of the thesis committee, and Assoc. Prof. Abdurrahman

Atçıl for their crucial feedbacks throughout my graduate studies and at different

stages of this research.

ix

Three years project on the non-Muslim official functionaries in the late Ottoman

era, which was conducted by Abdulhamit Kırmızı, and supported by TÜBİTAK (No.

113K156) between 2013 and 2016, was a milestone for my academic career. This

project introduced me to statistical data analysis and SPSS (The Statistical Package

for the Statistical Analysis). I would like to extend my special thanks to Ayşe

Hümeyra Tüysüz, who also took in the same research project, for the practical

advices on using the SPSS. I am also grateful to Asst. Prof. Zübeyir Nişancı and Asst.

Prof. Reyyan Bilge, two members of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences

at Şehir University, and Abdul Basit Adeel, a PhD candidate in Political Sciences at

Binghamton University, who have generously provided assistance when I was

grappling with data analysis in SPSS.

I thank to two other members of the thesis committee, Assoc. Prof. M. Erdem

Kabadayı at Koç University and Assoc. Prof. O. Güneş Ayas at Yıldız University, for

their significant contributions.

My warm thanks go to Zeynep Eroğlu, Zeynep Elif Öztaner and Hande Güçyılmaz

from the Center for Urban Studies at Sehir University, who drew the historical maps

in the thesis. I would also like to thank Büşra Parça Küçükkgöz and Halit Topçu from

the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Sehir University for their

technical support and assistance throughout the course of this thesis.

I would like to express my gratitude to the staff of many archives, research

institutions, and libraries: Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri (BOA), İslam Araştırmaları

Merkezi (İSAM), İstanbul Şehir University Library, İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü,

and İBB Atatürk Kitaplığı.

I have to express my sincere gratitude to Asst. Prof. Deborah Rohr, the author of the

book, The Careers of British Musicians, 1750-1850, A Profession of Artisans, which I

have read over and over again throughout my thesis research.

x

I will always remember the academic and moral support of Prof. Georgios Ploumidis

during my MA Thesis in Ioannina University, Greece between 2007 and 2009. He

was probably the first person to persuade me for an academic future.

Old friends afforded constant moral support, which was decisive to complete this

dissertation. I am genuinely indebted to Asst. Prof. Muzaffer Şenel, Asst. Prof.

Yakoob Ahmed, Eymen Gürtan, Ertuğrul İnanç, Ahmet Emre Polat, Ubeydullah

Kısacık, Savaş Yelkenci and İsmail Hakkı Kumbasar. Over the past several years, I

have enjoyed the friendship of my colleagues. I cordially thank to Mustafa Batman,

Hümeyra Bostan, Emine Öztaner, Büşranur Kocaer, Cankat Kaplan, Fikri Çiçek, M.

Akif Berber, Fikriye Karaman and Ayşegül Çimen.

Lastly, all the members of my extended family were always with me and supported

my academic pursuit. I thank to my brother Olgun, mother Rukiye and father Hasan

Öner. I am deeply grateful to my wife Gülfer whose love, understanding and

patience were vitally important. My two daughters, Yasemin Nur and Süreyya Elif,

were born during my PhD dissertation and have been our source of joy. They were

the source of my motivation to write this thesis; thereby this dissertation is truly

dedicated to them.

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ......................................................................................................................... iv

Öz .................................................................................................................................. vi

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................ xiv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xvii

List of Photos .............................................................................................................. xvii

List of Maps ................................................................................................................. xix

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... xx

CHAPTERS

1.INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Thesis Subject and Research Question ............................................................... 1

1.2. Historical Framework .......................................................................................... 4

1.3. Terminological Framework ................................................................................. 7

1.4. Methodological Framework .............................................................................. 12

1.5. Key Sources ....................................................................................................... 16

1.5.1. The Assessment of İbnülemin’s Hoş Sadâ...................................................... 21

1.6. Thesis Structure ................................................................................................. 25

2.HISTORIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 27

2.1. Scholarship on the Late Ottoman Music ........................................................... 27

2.1.1. Literature on the Nationalization of Ottoman Music .................................... 28

2.1.2. Emphasis on Non-Muslim Presence in Music Literature ............................... 31

2.2. What Do the Biographical Dictionaries of Past Mean for Collective Biography

Studies? .................................................................................................................... 34

2.2.1. The Biographical Turn and Its Influence on Collective Biography Study ....... 36

2.3. Literature Review on Some Collective Biography Studies in the History of

Music ........................................................................................................................ 39

3.THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF MUSICIANS ....................................................................... 44

3.1. Age Composition Characteristics ...................................................................... 44

3.2. Geographical Origins ......................................................................................... 49

3.3. Education Patterns ............................................................................................ 55

3.3.1. Primary Education ...................................................................................... 56

3.3.2. Secondary Education .................................................................................. 57

3.3.3. Higher Education ........................................................................................ 61

3.3.4. Private Tutorage ......................................................................................... 65

xii

3.3.5. Learning a Language................................................................................... 69

3.4. Occupational Continuity.................................................................................... 73

3.5. Musicians’ Profession ........................................................................................ 81

3.6. Musicians’ Career Paths in the Ottoman Bureaucracy ..................................... 86

3.6.1. Education Records of Musicians in the Ottoman State Service ................. 88

3.6.2. Career Patterns of Musicians in the Ottoman State Service ..................... 92

3.7. Causes of Mortality ........................................................................................... 96

3.8. Lives Struck by Poverty ..................................................................................... 99

3.9. Conclusion .......................................................................................................103

4.MUSIC AND GEOGRAPHY: MUSICIANS ON THE MOVE ...........................................105

4.1. The Musical Setting of Istanbul .......................................................................105

4.2. Eyüp: The Sense of Locality .............................................................................118

4.3. Üsküdar: The Composite Structure .................................................................122

4.4. Beyoğlu or an Essential Tour from Pera to Galata ..........................................134

4.5. Fatih: The Musical Stronghold of the City .......................................................147

4.6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................162

5.CULTIVATING MUSIC ...............................................................................................167

5.1. Distribution Based on Musical Instrument .....................................................167

5.2. The Age of Music Education ............................................................................176

5.3. Non-Muslim Musicians and Music Education .................................................187

5.3.1. Musical Specialty Questioned .................................................................188

5.3.2. Who Teaches Whom Among the Non-Muslim Musicians? .....................193

5.4. Social Analysis of Muslim Musicians ...............................................................195

5.4.1. Debating the Religious Character of Music through Sheikh Cemaleddin

Efendi (1870-1937) .............................................................................................196

5.4.2. Musicians with Religious School Education and Reciters of Qur’an ........201

5.5. A Sociocultural Analysis of Musicians with Sufi Affiliation .............................206

5.5.1. Mevlevî Musicians Reconsidered .............................................................207

5.5.2. The Sufi Impact on the Music Education .................................................208

5.5.3. A Brief Social History of Ney and the Players...........................................212

5.6. Hamparsum Knowledge Among Musicians ....................................................216

5.7. Exploring Musicians’ Networks: Who Teaches Whom? .................................221

5.8. Conclusion .......................................................................................................227

6.RECONSIDERING CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN MUSIC THROUGH THE CAREER

PATHS OF MUSICIANS ................................................................................................229

6.1. Interpreting the Career Changes.....................................................................229

xiii

6.1.1. Change in Career Patterns Towards Music ..............................................230

6.1.2. The Consistent Musicians ........................................................................234

6.2. The Social Basis of the Music Schools .............................................................238

6.3. Radio Broadcast: An Opportunity or Threat to Ottoman Music? ...................244

7.CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................251

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................258

APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................278

A. The Full List Of Musicians Under Study (names are listed in date of birth order)278

VITA ............................................................................................................................287

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Birth dates by periods……………………………………………………………………………46

Table 3.2. Death dates by periods………………………………………………………………………….46

Table 3.3. Age composition of musicians, 1906……………………………………………………..48

Table 3.4. Musicians’ birthplaces…………………………………………………………………………..50

Table 3.5. Non-Istanbul born musicians – If resided in Istanbul……………………………..52

Table 3.6. Fathers’ occupation - Fathers settled in Istanbul……………………………………55

Table 3.7. Primary (ibtidâî) school attendance……………………………………………………….57

Table 3.8. Lower secondary (rüşdî) school attendance…………………………………………..58

Table 3.9. Upper secondary (idadî and sultanî) school attendance………………………..60

Table 3.10. The list of attended schools…………………………………………………………………63

Table 3.11. Father occupations compared to children’s higher education……………..64

Table 3.12. Privately taught musicians’ family profile…………………………………………….67

Table 3.13. Subjects of tutorage…………………………………………………………………………….68

Table 3.14. Most popular languages………………………………………………………………………70

Table 3.15. Other language combinations……………………………………………………………..72

Table 3.16. Occupations of fathers………………………………………………………………………..74

Table 3.17. Fathers’ occupations – income source of children……………………………….75

Table 3.18. Fathers’ occupations – Education level of children………………………………78

Table 3.19. Musicians’ principal source of income…………………………………………………83

Table 3.20. Musicians with multiple income sources……………………………………………..84

Table 3.21. Fathers’ income source compared to offspring’s…………………………………86

Table 3.22. Official functionaries’ birthplaces………………………………………………………..88

Table 3.23. Official’s education levels compared to overall statistics…………………….89

Table 3.24. Civil officials’ language familiarity……………………………………………………….90

Table 3.25. Ministries of first appointments………………………………………………………….95

Table 3.26. Causes of mortality……………………………………………………………………………..98

Table 4.1. The districts in which musicians have resided most…………………………….106

Table 4.2. Locations of musicians’ activities…………………………………………………………110

Table 4.3. Locations of musicians’ activities recorded in the city…………………………112

Table 4.4. Musicians’ living quarters and the location of

xv

musical activities in number………………………………………………………………………………..113

Table 4.5. Musical events of musicians in the district they resided………………………115

Table 4.6. The Sufi affiliation in certain districts…………………………………………………..118

Table 4.7. The density of local involvement as compared to

total activities in districts…………………………………………………………………………………….123

Table 4.8. Musicians’ local music activities

compared to the outside activities………………………………………………………………………125

Table 4.9. The real income source of Üsküdar’s musicians…………………………………..127

Table 4.10. Places in which music was performed in Üsküdar

between 1895-1916…………………………………………………………………………………………….130

Table 4.11. Overall musical activities in the city…………………………………………………..137

Table 4.12. A list of places where music was performed at Beyoğlu

between 1895 and 1916………………………………………………………………………………………142

Table 4.13. Birthplaces of musicians who resided in Fatih……………………………………148

Table 4.14. Income sources of musicians who resided in Fatih…………………………….149

Table 4.15. Musicians with multiple income sources who resided in Fatih…………..150

Table 4.16. The occupational continuity………………………………………………………………154

Table 4.17. Affiliation to a Sufi order among the musicians of Fatih…………………….156

Table 4.18. Places in which music was held in Fatih

between 1895 and 1916………………………………………………………………………………………158

Table 5.1. Musical specialty…………………………………………………………………………………168

Table 5.2. Oud combined with other instruments……………………………………………….171

Table 5.3. The chief income source of oud and violin players………………………………172

Table 5.4. Pianists’ family background…………………………………………………………………175

Table 5.5. Age of music education……………………………………………………………………….177

Table 5.6. Family impact among the age categories…………………………………………….178

Table 5.7. Private tutorage distributed to age categories…………………………………….178

Table 5.8. Types of learning in the earlier than 10 years of age……………………………180

Table 5.9. Birthplace compared to age categories……………………………………………….183

Table 5.10. Instrumental distribution to age categories (by frequency)……………….186

Table 5.11. Instrumental distribution among the non-Muslim musicians…………….188

Table 5.12. The chief source of income for Muslim and

xvi

non-Muslim musicians…………………………………………………………………………………………190

Table 5.13. Fathers’ professions of Muslim and

non-Muslim musicians compared………………………………………………………………………..191

Table 5.14. Musical specialty compared to source of income………………………………192

Table 5.15. Religious functionaries who instructed music……………………………………198

Table 5.16. Profession of reciters’ fathers……………………………………………………………202

Table 5.17. Main income source of reciters…………………………………………………………204

Table 5.18. Reciters’ musical specialty…………………………………………………………………205

Table 5.19. Sufi involvement distributed to orders………………………………………………206

Table 5.20. Music education types among Sufi musicians……………………………………209

Table 5.21. Musical specialty among Sufi musicians…………………………………………….210

Table 5.22. Musical specialty among Moi group………………………………………………….211

Table 5.23. Profession of ney players’ fathers……………………………………………………..213

Table 5.24. Income source of ney players…………………………………………………………….215

Table 5.25. Most popular music teachers…………………………………………………………….222

Table 6.1. Career changes towards music……………………………………………………………230

Table 6.2. Continuity observed among the occupational groups………………………….235

Table 6.3. Musicians’ distribution between Istanbul and Ankara radios………………246

xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. The network map of musicians under study..............................................2

Figure 1.2. The proportion of the biographical material adequacy…………………………20

Figure 3.1. Histogram of birthdate distribution……………………………………………………..45

Figure 3.2. Histogram of death date distribution……………………………………………………45

Figure 3.3. Complete distribution of educational outcomes…………………………………..62

Figure 3.4. Language frequency……………………………………………………………………………..72

Figure 3.5. Age of death composition…………………………………………………………………….99

Figure 4.1. Residential centers of musicians in Istanbul……………………………………….114

Figure 4.2. Performance centers in Istanbul…………………………………………………………115

Figure 4.3. Comparison of local and visiting musicians’ participation

in Kadıköy and Eyüp…………………………………………………………………………………………….121

Figure 4.4. The activity directions of Üsküdar’s musicians……………………………………124

Figure 4.5. The location of musicians who made music in the Beyoğlu district…….138

Figure 4.6. The activity map of musicians to Fatih and

from Faith to other district…………………………………………………………………………………..147

Figure 5.1. Musical sources of Sheikh Cemal Efendi and his students…………………..199

Figure 5.2. İsmail Hakkı Bey’s (1865-1927) teaching network………………………………223

Figure 5.3. Ahmet Irsoy’s (1869-1943) teaching network…………………………………….224

Figure 5.4. Zekai Dede’s (1824-1897) teaching network………………………………………224

Figure 5.5. Cemil Bey’s (1872-1916) teaching network…………………………………………225

Figure 5.6. Rauf Yekta Bey’s (1871-1935) teaching network…………………………………225

Figure 5.7. Hacı Kiramî Efendi’s (1840-1909) teaching network……………………………226

Figure 5.8. Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede’s (1853-1911) teaching network………………….226

Figure 5.9. Leon Hanciyan’s (1860-1947) teaching network…………………………………227

xviii

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 1.1. A group of musicians from the late Ottoman Istanbul………………………….19

Photo 4.1. Bahariye Mevlevî Lodge in Eyüp

at the beginning of the twentieth century……………………………………………………………120

Photo 4.2.The Sweet Waters of Kağıthane, Abdullah Fréres, ca. 1890…………………132

Photo 4.3. Sheikh Ataullah Dede posed with his dervishes

in front of Galata Mevlevî Lodge at Beyoğlu before 1910…………………………………….140

Photo 4.4. Violinist Bülbülî Salih Efendi (d. 1923)…………………………………………………144

Photo 4.5. Refik Fersan, Cemil Bey and Musa Süreyya in 1914…………………………….152

Photo 4.6. A general view of Direklerarası Street

at Fatih in the Late Ottoman Istanbul………………………………………………………………….160

Photo 5.1. Santurî Ziya Bey (1868-1952) posed with his daughter……………………….179

Photo 5.2. The members of the Şark Musikî Cemiyeti………………………………………….185

Photo 5.3. Ercüment Batanay (1927-2004) posed with tanbur

adjusted to his age………………………………………………………………………………………………187

Photo 5.4. Sheikh Cemal Efendi of Kasımpaşa (1870-1937)………………………………….197

Photo 5.5. Ney, the principal instrument of Mevlevî music………………………………….212

Photo 5.6. Leon Hanciyan (1860-1947, on the left)

poses with Hamparsum notation…………………………………………………………………………221

Photo 6.1. The musicians of Anadolu Music School, 1920……………………………………232

Photo 6.2. İsmail Hakkı Bey (1865-1927) and his Musikî-i Osmanî School…………….242

Photo 6.3. Musicians of Istanbul radio in the early period……………………………………248

xix

LIST OF MAPS

Map 4.1. Frequency map for Istanbul’s musical setting……………………………………….117

Map 4.2. Tentative arrangements of musical places at Direklerarası……………………161

xx

ABBREVIATIONS

BOA : Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi

DİA : Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi

Ed. : Editor

Gephi : The Open Graph Viz Platform

ibid. : In the same source

MEB : Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı

MOI : More than one income source

Moi : More than one instrument player

NPI : Not playing an instrument

NSL : No second language

SPSS : IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences)

Trans. : Translator

TRT : Turkish Radio and Television

TTK : Türk Tarih Kurumu

Unknown : Not available data

Note: Abbreviations for the primary sources are provided in the Bibliography.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Thesis Subject and Research Question

The study will exclusively deal with musicians, who individually as well as

collectively have generated an imperial culture, namely the Ottoman music. In

other words, the thesis will not investigate the history of music but the history of

musicians. Because they were part of the cultural life during the late Ottoman era

and many of them experienced the process of the cultural reordering in the Early

Republican period. Therefore, in order to contribute to the social history of music,

some issues appear to be highly significant and would be at the center throughout

the study: The social aspects of the lives of musicians (singers, instrumentalists and

above all, composers), the interaction of musicians (network analysis, see Figure

1.1.) and the ways they adapt to social change they went through.

The collective biography analysis will be applied to 257 musicians gathered from a

number of historical sources. The sources that the study relies on will be discussed

in detail in this chapter. Methodologically, the study will apply quantitative analysis

to to reveal the social profiles of musicians. The statistical outcomes will be

supported by the individual life stories to better grasp the typical as well as atypical

features generated by musicians. The thesis will heavily rely upon computer-based

programs for this purpose: IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 (Statistical Package for Social

Sciences) for the quantitative analysis and Gephi to visualize the social networks of

musicians. The historical maps will be instrumental to explore the musical setting of

Istanbul at the turn of the twentieth century. Yet the visual power of photography

would be instrumental to further reinforce the narrative. I will critically discuss their

methodological advantages as well as their limits in this chapter.

2

Figure 1.1. The network map of musicians under study

Figure 1.1 illustrates the social networks of 257 musicians under study and may be

regarded as a glimpse of the musicians’ milieu in Istanbul. Transmitting musical

knowledge to one another interconnected them. The principal reason of applying

collective biography analysis is to explore this immense interaction among the

musicians.

On the part of the musicians’ social profile, the thesis will focus on a range of issues,

including family background, the way they were raised and educated, occupational

continuity, age composition characteristics, and the real sources of income.

Although historical sources rarely mention the financial gains out of music, they still

provided insights –albeit implicitly, into the financial state of musicians. The thesis

considers this critical since it argues that music could hardly be described as a

profession given the limited financial opportunities music has provided. I argue that

music was a part of the overall urban culture in the late nineteenth century Istanbul

and hence it cannot be considered in professional terms. Musicians’ social profile

analysis confirms the argument that the significant number of them did not derive

3

income out of music and revealed the diverse socioeconomic backgrounds that

musicians had.

The study will emphasize how musicians struggled against economic hurdles by

highlighting ups and downs in their careers. I consider the financial conditions that

musicians had in their lifetime as reliable indicators for their socio-economic status.

Although musician biographies contribute significantly to the problem, it seems that

the topic has not yet drawn scholarly attention.

Geographically, the thesis will explore Istanbul through musical activities. The

central question is to what extent the overall urban music is shaped in the

neighborhoods of the city. While forming the urban music of Istanbul collectively,

did they reveal characteristic differences at the local level? Maps and visualizations

through Gephi (I will elaborate on the program in the “methodological framework”

section) will support statistical analysis measuring the musical activities as well as

the interactions among neighborhoods of the city. The geographical approach to

music will hopefully bring new understanding tothe issue and will provide novel

perspectives into the Ottoman urban studies as well.

How to become a musician in the late Ottoman Istanbul is another question that

the study seeks to adress. Exploring the cultivation of music through more

frequented and less common training models, the issue will also underscore the

interactions between the Muslim and non-Muslim musicians. I argue that the

imperial music has been refined with the contributions of innumerable people with

various ethno-religious backgrounds. The involvement of Muslim and non-Muslim

musicians in the music education process will be linked to the broader argument

that it will allow us to consider the everyday interactions between different

religious groups in Istanbul from a musical perspective.

Yet the thesis will call into question the Ottoman bureaucracy from a musical

perspective since the majority of musicians were official functionaries. I argue that

they did not resort to the government jobs to resolve their economic problems. In

4

fact, the reverse seems to be the case. Based on the biographical accounts of

musicians who served in the public offices, I would argue that the bureaucratic

culture and music were inseparable, and they were part and parcel of the Ottoman

urban culture. The social as well as the musical side of the argument will be further

developed in the relevant chapters.

1.2. Historical Framework

The context and the structure of the Ottoman music witnessed changes that paved

the way to the emergence of the new organizations from the turn of the twentieth

century all the way to the Early Republican years. Even if it is not in the sense that

Adorno describes, the music industry was about to create itself in Istanbul.1 In other

words, music in Istanbul was steadily becoming a profession and hence the

musicians as professionals. The musicians who constituted the research data

predominantly lived in these time periods and experienced the sociocultural

change.

Particularly at the beginnings of the twentieth century, music schools were opened.

Various amateur choruses emerged in different districts of Istanbul, most of which

were related to those music schools.2 With the emergence of music schools music

began to create itself novel spaces, a wider audience and new types of patronage,

which meant that musicians depended less and less on the older patterns of

1 Adorno’s writings on popular culture and culture industry suggests that any product of

popular culture that ranges from film making to music production primarily aimed to

entertain the mass consumers in the late capitalism. The artistic forms are light, easy to

digest by masses and subject to the profit-making concerns and political power. Therefore,

one of the main goals of the culture industry is to make profit, "Culture Industry:

Enlightenment as Mass Deception", Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of

Enlightenment, Continuum, New York, 2002, 1-34.

2 Dârü’t-Talîm-i Musikî (1912), Dârü’l-Bedayî (1914), Dârü’l-Feyz-i Musikî (1915), Dârü’l-

Elhân (1917), Şark Musikî Cemiyeti (1918), Türk Musikîsi Ocağı (1923), Gülşen-i Musikî

(1925), Süleymaniye Musikî Mektebi (1927). These largely privately held music schools not

only provided music education, indeed helped the expansion of public concerts. Certainly a

new space for Ottoman music, Güntekin Oransay, “Cumhuriyetin İlk Elli Yılında Geleneksel

Sanat Musikimiz”, Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Cilt VI, İletişim, İstanbul, 1983.

5

support. In other words, music and hence musicians now began to be supported by

public. However, it did not essentially mean the new totally replaced the older

ones, but the old types were clearly in a downturn trend.3

Even though the publishing of sheet music in the form of fasıl, and in separate

sheets began by the last quarter of the nineteenth century. It became more popular

by the turn of the century in parallel to the growth of the publishing sector.4 The

dissemination of sheet music should not only be considered within the increased

commercialization of music. It was critical for the Ottoman music due to the fact

that the training process was overwhelmingly relied on memory from the very

beginning, which faced the threat of staff notation.5 The time period also witnessed

an increased interest in musical researches and polemical articles, which were

published in journals and daily news.6

3 Mes’ud Cemil, Tanburi Cemil Bey’in Hayatı, (ed. Uğur Derman), Kubbealtı, İstanbul, (Third

Edition) 2012. The memoir explicitly indicates the older types of artistic patronage in the

life account of Cemil Bey (1872-1916). However, the expansion of the novel financial

support mechanisms were more and more apparent in terms of public concert series,

employment in the music schools and making contracts with record companies.

4 İsmet Süleyman Yayını Fasıl Defteri (1875), Notacı Emin Fasıl Defterleri (1876), Mahzen-i

Esrar-ı Musıkî (1897), Udî Halil Bey’s Fasıl Defterleri (1901), Şamlı Selim Fasıl Dizisi (1901),

(1910), İskender Kutmanî Fasıl Derfterleri (1915), Arşak Çömlekciyan Fasıl Defterleri (1924),

Onnik Zadoryan Fasıl Defterleri (1926), Güntekin Oransay, “Türkiye'de Defter ve Dergi

Biçiminde Fasıl Yayınları (1875-1976)”, Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 22,

1978; pp. 277-295; “Cumhuriyetin İlk Elli Yılında Geleneksel Sanat Musikimiz”, Cumhuriyet

Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Issue 6, İletişim, İstanbul, 1983, 1496-1509; Gönül Paçacı,

Osmanlı Müziğini Okumak (Neşriyât-ı Musıki), T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanığı Yayını,

İstanbul, 2010, pp. 217-309; “Notacı Hacı Emin Efendi”, Dârülelhan Mecmuası, İÜ OMAR,

2017, İstanbul, pp. 23-37.

5 Cem Behar, Aşk Olmayınca Meşk Olmaz: Geleneksel Osmanlı/Türk Müziğinde Öğretim ve

İntikal, YKY, Sixth Edition, İstanbul, 2016.

6 Âhenk (1908), Dârü’l-Elhân (1925), Nota (1933), Türk Musikîsi Dergisi (1947), Musikî

Mecmuası (1952), Musikî ve Nota (1969), Güntekin Oransay, “Cumhuriyetin İlk Elli Yılında

Geleneksel Sanat Musikimiz”, p. 255-56; Bora Keskiner, “Arap Harfli Türkçe Süreli Yayınlarda

Türk Musikisi Teorisi Bibliyografyası”, TALİD, Vol. 7, No. 14, 2009, pp. 377-378. Also see

footnotes 5 and 8, above.

6

The impact of sound recording, the phonograph, should also be noted since there is

an abundant literature about it.7 Rauf Yekta Bey (1871-1935) described the way the

phonograph companies operated in Istanbul in the beginning of the twentieth

century, and the value of musical reproduction through the new technology. He

underlined the interest of ordinary people for phonographs, and the coming of new

record companies one after the other from the Western countries. What he

criticized was the repertoire chosen by these companies. He considered the

overwhelming majority of recorded pieces had no value (âsâr-ı mübtezel), and were

played by incapable musicians, and thus did not represent the classical (sic)

Ottoman music.8 His rather elegant stance against the operational ways of record

companies is noteworthy, however, his expression acknowledges the commercial

success of those companies. The business, while creating job opportunities for

musicians would also widen the musical audience.9 The list of important events in

the history of music should also include the foundation of state radio in Istanbul

(1927) and Ankara (1938). However, the thesis approaches cautiously to the statesponsored

radio not on the ground that it broadcasted music to wider audience but

7 Pekka Gronow, “The Record Industry Comes to the Orient”, Ethnomusicology, Vol. 25, No.

2, 1981, pp. 251-284; John Morgan O’Connell, “Song Cycle: the Life and Death of the

Turkish Gazel: A Review Essay”, Ethnomusicology, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2003, pp. 399-414; Cemal

Ünlü, Git Zaman Gel Zaman, Pan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2004; Peter Wicke, The Art of

Phonography: Sound, Technology and Music, (trans. from German by Derek B. Scott), The

Ashgate Research Companion to Popular Musicology, (ed. Derek B. Scott), Ashgate, 2009, p.

147-168; Peter Wicke, “The Art of Phonography: Sound, Technology and Music”, (trans.

from German by Derek B. Scott), The Ashgate Research Companion to Popular Musicology,

(ed. Derek B. Scott), Ashgate, 2009, pp. 147-168; Aristomenis Kaliviotis, İzmir Rumlarının

Müziği 1900-1922: Eğlence, Müzik Dükkânları, Plak Kayıtları, Yılmaz Okyay (trans.), YKY,

İstanbul, 2013.

8 Rauf Yekta, “Gramofon ve Mûsıkî-i Osmânî”, İkdam, No. 4223, 13 Muharrem 1324 (9

March 1906).

9 The Gramophone Co recorded the first phonographs in Istanbul, May 1900. It had a great

impact on the making and listening of music. Yet many musicians developed recording

careers with the outset of sound recording industry. However, this innovation was largely

related to advances in the recording technology and barely to the internal dynamics of the

Ottoman state. First experimental recordings was done in 1877 by Edison and the

innovation had to wait two more decades for worldwide market sales, Cemal Ünlü, Git

Zaman Gel Zaman: fonograf – gramofon – taş plak, p. 138-156.

7

more on institutional grounds that it attempted to impose cultural uniformity on

music and thus musicians. I will elaborate on this point further in the sixth chapter.

Eventually, the thesis will evaluate the weight of those events in the history of

Ottoman music. It will question to what extent the musicians were affected by

those changes that they have experienced. In other words, the collective biography

analysis of musicians will seek to answer whether there is a valid ground to consider

all those events as turning points in the history of Ottoman music.

1.3. Terminological Framework

For the sake of clarity, it has to be stated that in this study the “Ottoman cultural

life” should not necessarily be associated with the high/elite culture or the Ottoman

court. I do not undervalue the noble patrons of the arts. On the part of the musical

patronage, the Ottoman court occasionally held music in high esteem. For instance,

the literature praises the favor of Selim III (r. 1789-1807) to music and musicians at

the beginning of the nineteenth century.10 However, music was also held in various

places and different contexts in the Ottoman realm. In fact, Western music concerts

and opera were frequently performed in the palace and in Pera from 1830s onward,

on which there is a growing scholarly interest.11 Yet, the overemphasis on palace

10 On the Selim III’s music and courtly patronage, see Rauf Yektâ, "Selîm-i Sâlis Mûsıkîşinâs",

Yeni Mecmua, sy. 16 (İstanbul 1917), pp. 309-312; Şevket Gavsî, “Sultan Selim-i Sâlis”,

Peyam, Kişisel Arşivlerde İstanbul Belleği, Taha Toros Arşivi, 001511371006; Ferid Ruşen

Kam, “Selim III”, Radyo Mecmûası, C. 5, No. 49, Ankara, 1949; The recent historiography has

not yet provided a new perspective on the musician sultan and his courtly support to music,

see M. Fatih Salgar, III. Selim Hayatı-Sanatı-Eserleri, Ötüken Neşriyet, İstanbul 2001; Kâşif

Yılmaz, III. Selim (İlhâmî): Hayatı, Edebî Kişiliği ve Dîvânın Tenkitli Metni, Trakya Üniversitesi

Rektörlüğü Yayınları, No. 52, Edirne, 2001, pp. CXLIV-CLXV; Mehmet Güntekin, “Dâhi Bir

Sanatkâr”, III. Selim: İki Asrın Dönemecinde İstanbul, Coşkun Yılmaz (ed.), Avrupa Kültür

Başkenti Yayını, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 197-207; Ferdi Koç, “Musicians Educated at the Music

School of Sultan III. Selim”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 174, 2015, pp.

2166– 2173.

11 Mahmut Ragıp Kösemihal’s monography on the relations between Ottoman court and

Western music is still a valuable source, Türkiye – Avrupa Musiki Münasebetleri (1600-

1875), Vol. 1, İstanbul Nümune Matbaası, 1939, see particularly the third chapter, pp. 95-

157; Vedat Kosal, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Klasik Batı Müziği”, Osmanlı, Vol. 10, Gülen

Eren (ed.), Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara, 1999, pp. 639-652; Emre Aracı, Donizetti Paşa:

Osmanlı Sarayının İtalyan Maestrosu, YKY Yayınları, İstanbul, 2006; Naum Tiyatrosu; 19

Yüzyıl İstanbul'unun İtalyan Operası, YKY Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010; “Piyanist Hünkâr: Sultan

V. Murad ve Ailesinin Avrupaî Müzik Kültürü”, Türkiye’de Müzik Kültürü Kongresi Bildirileri,

8

would severely weaken the inclusiveness of this thesis, and would subordinate the

value of other private and public settings, mekâns, in which music was performed.

These were dervish lodges, again not necessarily the Mevlevî ones, the house

gatherings, coffee houses, music halls, theatres and so on.12 Therefore, there is no

need for a taxonomic hierarchy in-between. Last but not least, for the time period

on which this dissertation will partly dwell, the Ottoman court played a quite

insignificant role in terms of patronage relations to music.13

How to describe this music is a highly debated topic in the Ottoman cultural

historiography. This issue needs to be touched upon in order to provide justification

for the term I will use throughout this thesis. There is a vast array of phrases in

literature, which I will briefly mention -albeit it is not the chief concern of this study.

The most popular ones were Enderûn Musikîsi, Saray Musikîsi, Dîvân Musikîsi (they

all associate music with noble culture, which imply that it was the music of a

particular group of people and did not belong to ordinary people), Bizans Musikîsi

(Byzantine music), Meyhane Musikîsi (tavern music), Ekalliyet Musikîsi (music of

non-Muslims), Teksesli Musikî (monophonic music, implying primitiveness versus

polyphonic Western music). Politically and culturally loaded phrases used by

Oğuz Elbaş, Mehmet Kalpaklı, Okan Murat Öztürk (eds.), Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayınları,

İstanbul, 2011, pp. 403-408; Ömer Eğecioğlu, Müzisyen Strausslar ve Osmanlı Hanedanı,

YKY Yayınları, İstanbul, 2012.

12 Cemal Kafadar emphasizes the inclusiveness of the “Ottoman” identity in terms of

elements that formed it. He suggests that being an Ottoman should not be merely

attributed to being a member of the Porte and the elite circles. The interests based on

either economic, political or cultural factors, were not merely shared within a restricted

group of people but with numerous others, “The Ottomans and Europe”, Handbook of

European History 1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, Thomas A.

Brady Jr, Heiko A. Oberman, James D. Tracy (eds.), Vol. I, William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, Michigan, 1994, p. 619-20.

13Abdülhamid II rather enjoyed to listen Western music and preferred opera performances.

He even got constructed a theater house in the compound of the Yıldız Palace in 1889,

where the members of the royal family and even the foreign dignataries were invited to

watch the performances alongside the Sultan, see Fatih Akyüz, “II. Abdülhamid’in Modern

Eğlencesi: Yıldız Tiyatrosu”, II. Abdülhamid: Modernleşme Sürecinde İstanbul, Coşkun Yılmaz

(ed.), İstanbul 2010 Avrupa Kültür Başkenti Yayını, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 447-454; see also

Mahmut Ragıp Gazimihal’s Türkiye – Avrupa Musiki Münasebetleri on the Abdülhamid II

and music, pp. 147-156.

9

different parties within different contexts in the first two decades of the twentieth

century and continued to be discussed vehemently in the Early Republican era.14

The discourse implied that this music was produced by the Ottoman cultural

institutions, and was only meaningful in this distinctive atmosphere. Therefore,

republican cultural establishment had to give way to its novel artistic inspirations on

music. In this fashion, the terms mentioned above bore negative connotations, and

mainly served to deprecate this music and its practitioners.15 Interestingly, the term

“court” was associated with another traditional music called gagaku, the old

Japanese music, which the recent scholarship further questions its authenticity.16

Sanat Müziği (Art Music) or Türk Sanat Müziği (Turkish Art Music) was the more

14 The articles below indicate the controversial debates on the Ottoman music at the time

period in question, Necîb Âsım, “Türk Mûsikîsi”, Mâlûmât, 5 Teşrin-i Evvel 1313 [1897], sy.

103, p. 1065, quoted from Faysal Arpaguş, “Mâlûmât” Mecmuası’nın 1-500 Sayılarında Yer

Alan Türk Mûsikîsi ile İlgili Makâleler, MA Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, SBE, İstanbul, 2004;

Süleyman Cevad, “Rauf Yektâ Bey ile Mülâkat, Dergah Mecmûası, 5 Teşrînisâni 1338, No.

38, pp. 19-22; Halil Bedii, “Millî Musıkîmiz”, Dârülelhân, No. 3, Sene 1, 1 Haziran 1340;

Musa Süreyya, “Savtî Musıki”, Dârülelhân, No. 5, Sene 1, 1 Şubat 1341; Rauf Yektâ Bey,

“Musıkimiz Aleyhine Yanlış Fikirler”, Vakit, 1 Mart 1926; “Türk Musıkisi Müzeye

Kaldırılamaz” Vakit, 24 Mart 1926; Musa Süreyya, “Necati Bey Merhum ve Musıkî

Tedrisatı”, Musıki Bahsi Köşesi, Milliyet, 10 Kanunusâni, 1929, p. 4; Ziya Gökalp,

Türkçülüğün Esasları, Mehmet Kaplan (ed.), MEB Yayınları, İstanbul, 1970, pp. 33-34, 145-

147.

15 Peyami Safa’s inteviews held with fiftheen intellectuals and artists mirror the

contemporary cultural pluralities on the Ottoman music. The interviews were published in

Cumhuriyet newspaper in episodes during December 1932. I am indebted to Prof. Cem

Behar for letting me know about it. Mesud Cemil states the undervaluation of Ottoman

music in the republican elite circles of 1930s, see Mesud Cemil’le Bir Konuşma, 20. Asır, Vol.

2, No. 28, 21 February 1953, quoted from Cemal Ünlü, Git Zaman Gel Zaman: fonograf –

gramofon – taş plak, pp. 540-44.

16 The history of this music goes back to the ceremony of Buddhist monks performed in the

memory of Prince Shotokou (574-622) in the mid-seventh century. Only by the mid-tenth

century the Palace performed and developed this music in the Imperial Music Office.

Historically, main part of the original ceremony has not survived to this day due to the

constant warfare periods in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In the period of Meiji

restoration in 1868, it was revived again after generations but mostly as a re-construct of

the late nineteenth century systematization in the Japanese music. Yet, the Meiji

bureaucracy made it more bound to imperial institution and to Shinto in order to reduce its

association with Buddhism, which was considered as a foreign religion, Steven G. Nelson,

“Court and religious music (1): history of gagaku and shõmyõ”, The Ashgate Research

Companion to Japanese Music, Alison McQueen Tokita and David W. Hughes (ed.), Ashgate,

2008, pp. 35-48.

10

recent description and it is even in popular use today. From 1920s onward, Sadettin

Arel’s overemphasis on the Turkish character of the Ottoman music and his

endeavor to prove that there are no historical links with either Byzantine or Arabic

musical cultures provided the intellectual basis the republican period needed. In his

re-construction, he had to relegate the non-Muslims’ role into an inferior position.

Arel’s schema was in parallel to the mainstream nationalist historical understanding

of the Ottoman past and thus was happily accepted by the cultural elite of the

period.17

This thesis will seek to explore the social background of musicians –composers,

singers, instrumentalists, and teacher - in order to come up with a more

comprehensive term to define this music. Did these people belong to a particular

social class with similar family backgrounds and educational patterns or did socially

detached individuals constitute musicians? Searching adequate answers to these

questions will help to develop more reliable terminology about music. Paying

attention to all terms and their connotations indicated above, I argue that the term

(urban) “Ottoman music” (mûsikî-i Osmanî) seems more representative to others.

The “urban” indicates its multiple sources/traditions, which were gradually refined

chiefly in Istanbul; the contribution of some other urban centers, such as Edirne,

Bursa, İzmir and Manisa, in the Ottoman Empire was limited.18 The term, without

dictating any hierarchical disposition, will include the older patterns of patronage –

courtly, aristocratic- and new spaces of music, as well as individuals of distinct social

17 Hüseyin Saadettin Arel published his well-known study, “Türk Musikisi Kimindir?” in his

own journal, Türklük: Milliyetçi Kültür Mecmuası, İstanbul (lasted 15 issues in 1939-40), in

episodes. The articles re-published in Musıki Mecmuası, İstanbul, owned by Laika Karabey

between 16th (1 June 1949) and 52th issues (1 June 1952) in an extended form. The book

version published in 1969, Türk Musikisi Kimindir?, Türk Musikisini Araştırma ve

Değerlendirme Komisyonu Yayınları, İstanbul, 1969; the formative basis of this study is

revealed in his conference paper, “Türk Musikisi Üzerine Birinci Konferans”, İstanbul, 1927,

quoted from Cumhuriyet’in Sesleri, Gönül Paçacı (ed.), Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul,

1999, pp. 108-113.

18 My research findings based on the quantitative analysis underpins the argument, which I

will share in the following chapters. A polemical article on the subject matter, see Bülent

Aksoy, “Orta Doğu Klasik Musikîsinin Bir Merkezi; İstanbul”, Osmanlı, Vol. 10, Yeni Türkiye

Yayınları, Ankara, 1999, p. 801-813.

11

classes such as people of high rank and title, official functionaries, traders,

dervishes, and artisans as the participants of it.

Last but not least, a critically vital issue is the word “musicians”. Who would

constitute the musician group that I will construct? Were they professional or

amateur musicians, and which criteria would separate one from other in the

Ottoman context? If one thinks about the social structure of music at the turn of the

twentieth century, one would see the complex matrix of activities that makes it

difficult for neat definitions. On the financial side, my sampling showed that the

overwhelming majority of Ottoman musicians were “amateurs” who did not

essentially engage in music as a paid occupation and had to perform other jobs in

order to support themselves and their families. Amongst the musicians there were

many official functionaries, dervishes, artisans, merchants, etc. Interestingly, the

same issue is at stake regarding the late nineteenth century English musicians.

Paula Gillet argues that a very small group of musicians were professionals, whose

musical careers fundamentally depended on the larger amateur musician circles.

The author points out that both groups shared more or less the same music space

and their positions were interchangeable. 19 Albeit the musical opportunities

gradually increased in the first two decades of the twentieth century, still only a

small amount of Ottoman musicians could solely depend on music for a living. And

for this reason, the study did not consider economical aspects as a criterion while

constructing the musician sample. The primary criterion is related to music and is

based on musical production. In other words, the sampling merely included

musicians who composed music. The thesis took Es’ad Efendi (1685-1753) as a role

model who clearly prioritized composers while constructing the only biographical

dictionary on the eighteenth century Ottoman musicians.20 Indeed, my musician

19Paula Gillet, “Ambivalent Friendships: Music-lovers, Amateurs, and Professional Musicians

in the Late Nineteenth Century”, Music and British Culture, 1785-1914 (Essays in honour of

Cyril Ehrlich), Christina Bashford and Leanne Langley (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2000,

pp. 321-340.

20 Sadettin Nüzhet Ergun refers the publishing of Veled Çelebi (İzbudak) in episodes in the

Mekteb Mecmuası in 1893, which appears as the first reproduction of the text in the

nineteenth century, see, Türk Musikisi Antolojisi: Dinî Eserler, 2 Vol., İstanbul Üniversitesi

12

group contains a wide array of people from well-known ones to “insignificant”

members of the Ottoman music culture and I will seek to avoid establishing a

hierarchical order amongst them. The issue will be discussed in more detail when

the key sources of this research are introduced.

1.4. Methodological Framework

My methodology would be to conduct a prosopographic (according to the ancient

historians), or collective biography analysis (more recent usage of the term by social

historians) on a group of musicians, who contributed to the Ottoman music during

the late Ottoman Istanbul.

The collective biography study or prosopography is a historical research method in

order to reveal common characteristics of a particular group of people within a

particular historical context. The constructed group of people, more or less

distinctive in the society, may belong to the same profession, as musicians in our

case, or be members of any union, fraternity, party, team, etc. It is to be noted that,

since the biographical data is methodologically vital, the definition of a targeted

group is a challenging task for the social historians. Once the research initiative

identifies the group to be focused upon, there starts the process of collecting any

sort of relevant biographical information. The next phase is to prepare a set of

questions to be asked to the members of the group. A kind of questionnaire will be

used to obtain information on each individual’s family background, educational

qualifications, religion, profession, financial situation, and so on. The idea here is to

present an intelligible picture of the group on the one hand, and indicate the typical

and exceptional sides of individuals on the other. In other words, prosopography

Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 1942-43, pp. 788-89; Hüseyin Sadeddin Arel published

the text in episodes, Türk Bestekârlarının Tercemeihalleri, Musiki Mecmuası, Volumes 9-24

(November 1948 – February 1950); Hakkı Tekin, Şeyhülislam Esad Efendi ve Atrabü'l-Asar fi

Tezkiret-i Urefail-Edvar, MA Thesis, Erciyes Üniversitesi, SBE, İslam Tarihi ve Sanatları

Anabilim Dalı, Kayseri, 1993; Muhammet Nur Doğan, “Esad Efendi, Ebûishakzâde”, TDVİA,

pp. 338-340; The most recent publication belongs to Cem Behar, who explored the text by

adopting a collective biography research strategy. I will write more on the text in the latter

part of this paper, Şeyhülislam'ın Müziği: 18. Yüzyılda Osmanlı/Türk Musikisi ve Şeyhülislam

Es'ad Efendi'nin Atrabü'l-Âsâr'ı, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.

13

primarily underlines the similarities and the differences within the targeted group

of people.21

Since the collective biography analysis entails a large amount of biographical data,

the group members have to be well recorded and documented either by the state

archives or by individuals themselves. Correspondingly, if the questionnaire is not

filled sufficiently due to the lack of biographical data, this would cause a misleading

account, called dark number. Therefore, the representativeness of the selected

people would be questioned. Stone underlines that the people of lower strata in a

given society are usually poorly documented. Hence, it naturally explains why the

overwhelming majority of the prosopographical analyses deal with the elite/high

status people.22

The problem of “too much historical emphasis” on certain individuals at the

expense of people with a minimum historical record within the constructed group is

another issue. The plenty of historical accounts on some particular ones, like

autobiographies, biographies, reported speeches, different sort of official or

privately kept records and visual sources, would lead a more profound

understanding of their individual’s inner world and the limits of interaction with the

world outside. However, these accounts may easily dominate the historical

narrative. Awareness on this problem, may serve to the development of wellbalanced

narrative on the collective biography study.23

The study has to take into consideration the existing secondary literature and

properly use it as a complement to the biographical accounts at hand. More

importantly, the study should provide insights for historical actors’ motivations

behind their actions and choices. Therefore, the figures would only become

21 Lawrence Stone, “Prosopography”, Daedalus, 100/1 (1971), pp. 46-47.

22 ibid, pp. 58-59.

23 Krista Cowman, “Collective Biography”, Simon Gunn and Lucy Faire (ed.), Research

Methods for History, Edinburgh University Press, 2012, pp. 83-100, see pp. 94-95.

14

meaningful in the light of the family backgrounds, social conditions and the

networks within the group as well as in terms of the group’s relations with the

outside world. Put differently, the right strategy appears as combining the

quantitative and qualitative methods in a well-prepared prosopographical

framework.24

The critical issue for the collective biography is setting the criteria for selection of

the group members. How does the compiler decide to include or exclude someone

into the group and therefore make him/her focus of analysis is an important

question. The criteria for selection would vary and depend on many conditions,

from personal affiliation to intellectual bias and from political to the economical

circumstances or sometimes the combination of all these factors. In any case, it is

hard to say that any collective biographical work equally and fairly approached its

subject matter.

The thesis has benefited extensively from IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 (Statistical

Package for Social Sciences). To do that, I gathered the biographical material of 257

musicians and organized a questionnaire (a set of standart questions). Answers

derived from the questionnaire were entered into the SPSS to transform the data

into the quantitative form. In between, I prepared the syntax (formulas) necessary

for the programme. Regarding the time schedule of the thesis, selecting musicians’

biographies, processing 257 biographies through questionnaire and running the

data into SPPS in order to transform it into quantitative data took two years after

the comprehensive exam.

Methodologically, I applied more comprehensive and flexible categories, which

helped to increase the possibility of analyzing rather more complex life patterns. I

underlined the most common patterns but did not overlook the individual life

stories that revealed reverse directions as compared to conventional patterns.

24 Verboven Koenraad, Miriam Carlier, and Jan Dumolyn, “A Short Manual to the Art of

Prosopography”, Prosopography Approaches and Applications. A Handbook, (ed.) K. S. B.

Keats-Rohan, The University of Oxford, 2007, pp. 35-70, see p. 47.

15

Indeed, I underscored the musicians who could not be placed into one category. For

example, when the study statistically analyzed the occupational distribution or main

source of income, the multiple ones were grouped in a separate category and hence

were treated accordingly.

The outcomes generated by SPSS predominantly indicated in the form of table and

rarely through the chart. However, some outcomes needed an alternative way of

display due to the difficulty of following the numbers. To avoid complexity of

numbers, I benefited from a visual program that runs in parallel with the

mechanism of SPSS. It is called Gephi, which is an open-source and free platform

(see gephi.org) that explores and visualizes all kinds of social relations and maps

these connections. The program did not only help to better exhibit the quantitative

results but also provided new perspectives for the study. As I became more familiar

with the program, I realized that following the interaction of musicians or

transmitting of musical knowledge in between musician community would be easier

and the results would be exhibited in more appropriate ways. History projects that

applied the programme provided novel thinking ways to social networks of targeted

groups.25

25 See some of the related web sites dealing with the social network analysis as part of their

research projects,

Vizualizing Historical Networks, Center for History and Economics, Harvard University,

http://histecon.fas.harvard.edu/visualizing/index.html (accessed on 1 September 2018).

Matthew Jockers, Computing and Visualizing the 19th-Century Literary Genome, Stanford

University, 2012,

http://www.dh2012.uni-hamburg.de/conference/programme/abstracts/computing-andvisualizing-

the-19th-century-literary-genome/ (accessed on 20 October 2018).

Mapping the Republic of Letters, Stanford Humanities Center, Stanford University,

http://republicofletters.stanford.edu/casestudies/voltairepub.html (accessed on 20

October 2018).

Maximilian Schich, Mapping Notes And Nodes: Building A Multi-Layered Network For A

History Of The Cultural Industry,

http://dh2015.org/abstracts/xml/HEUVEL_Charles_van_den_Mapping_Notes_And_Nodes_

_B/HEUVEL_Charles_van_den_Mapping_Notes_And_Nodes__Buildin.html (accessed on 28

October 2018).

16

The photography will be another visual tool of the thesis. Discussion of the history

of photography as a product of modernity and its popularity in the late Ottoman

Istanbul26 is beyond the scope of this thesis, but it has to be briefly mentioned that

only recently historians have realized the historical significance of photography and

its visual contribution to the historical studies of the late Ottoman period.27 Hence,

photography for this study is not a supplement to the arguments but an

independent historical source that brings its own narrative.

Eventually, all these methodological approaches will be fundamental for this thesis,

which argues that the social profile analysis of musicians will shed some light on the

internal workings of a past culture as well as its place and role in society. An indepth

investigation into the musicians’ career paths, including the ups and downs in

their careers over time, will show how this group of people in society absorbed the

broader socio-cultural change they faced. The survival strategies of musicians will

not only tell about the complexities of individual experiences, but will also provide a

rare insight into the level of continuity and change in the music culture from the

late nineteenth to the Early Republican years.

1.5. Key Sources

To bring together musicians’ biographical material is not an easy task as biographies

are dispersed in various historical sources. For this reason, credit has to be given to

four books, which assembled musician biographies and provide sources for

collective biography studies. The thesis largely relied on these four books:

26 Engin Çizgen, Photography in the Ottoman Empire, 1839-1919, Haşet, İstanbul, 1987;

Bahattin Öztuncay, James Robertson: Pioneer of Photography in the Ottom”na Empire,

Eren, 1992; Bahattin Öztuncay, Vasilaki Kargopulo: Hazret-i Padişâhî’nin Serfotoğrafı, BOS,

İstanbul, 2000.

27 Camera Ottomana: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Fotoğraf ve Modernite, 1840-1940,

Zeynep Çelik and Edhem Eldem (ed.), KÜY, İstanbul, 2015; Edhem Eldem, “The Search for an

Ottoman Vernacular Photography”, in The Indigenous Lens: Early Photography in the Near

and Middle East, Markuss Ritter and Staci Gem Scheiwiller (eds.), De Gruyter GmbH,

Berlin/Boston, 2018, pp. 29-56.

17

İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal’s Hoş Sadâ,28 Mustafa Rona’s 50 Yıllık Türk Musıkisi,29

Sadettin Nüzhet Ergun’s Türk Musikisi Antolojisi30 and Suphi Ezgi’s Nazarî ve Amelî

Türk Musikisi.31 Although their reliability, their representativeness and approaches

are open to question in terms of the modern historiographical standards, a

collective biography study cannot still ignore their contributions. When I will

critically discuss the book of İbnülemin, I will also emphasize its intertextuality with

other biographical sources in the following section.

Apart from the dictionaries of musicians, which merely gathered the biographies

without the purpose of conducting a group analysis, this study will attempt to

identify and interpret the patterns generated by musicians. Apart from Cem Behar’s

collective biographical analysis on the Es’ad Efendi’s dictionary of musicians, there

has not yet been a study to fully apply the methodology in the Ottoman music

history. To be noted that, Cem Behar’s analysis relied on a biographical dictionary,

which did Es’ad Efendi compile it. However, this study reveals a more complex

structure regarding the assembling mechanism.

For the most part, my group of musicians will coincide with the musicians in these

four books, however, I will add names that were, for one reason or another,

excluded in these collective biography books. Considering the number of musicians

in those dictionaries, this thesis will study 257 musicians’ biographies. In the

appendix, I will provide a full list of those 257 musicians together with the

birthplaces, the dates of birth and death. Meanwhile, İbnülemin’s book collected

158 musician biographies, whereas Rona had 181. The number issue is a critical one

28 İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal, Hoş Sadâ: Son Asır Türk Musıkişinasları, Türkiye İş Bankası

Kültür Yayınları, Maarif Basımevi, İstanbul, 1958.

29 Mustafa Rona, 50 Yıllık Türk Musıkisi: Bestekârları, Besteleri Güftelerile, 2. Edition, Türkiye

Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1960.

30 Sadettin Nüzhet Ergun, Türk Musikisi Antolojisi: Dinî Eserler, 2 Vol., İstanbul Üniversitesi

Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 1942-43.

31 Doktor Suphi (Ezgi), Nazarî ve Amelî Türk Musikisi, İstanbul Konservatuarı Yayını, İstanbul,

5 Vol., 1933-1953.

18

for the collective biography analysis. There are two types of methodological

approaches in general, which I will discuss in more detail in the historiography part

with the examples from Ottoman and non-Ottoman studies. In brief, one deals with

all the members of the targeted group, whereas the latter forms a sampling to show

what the whole is like. The first is often applied to the groups whose complete

number is precisely defined and recorded. The sampling method, on the other

hand, seems more appropriate for the groups whose overall populace could not be

estimated in the light of the historical sources. Therefore, it would not be wrong to

say that the number of 257 is largely the consequence of available historical data

that I mentioned above. Hopefully, the research findings will provide a glimpse of

the musicians’ social environment in Istanbul from the Late Ottoman to the Early

Republican years.

The study has relied on Ottoman official personal records (Sicill-i Ahvâl) to reinforce

the musicians’ biographies that served in the public offices. The Ministry of Interior

(Dahiliye Nezâreti) produced these biographies for the officials who were in state

service between 1879 and 1914. The official material consisted of 51,698

biographies in total. These sources contain a range of valuable data, including birth

date, birthplace, education record, language skill, and the detailed report of career

trajectory. Indeed, these accounts bear the detailed reports of investigations into

the malpractices and abuse of power, a valuable source for social historians for the

period. Nevertheless, these primary sources are available for the musicians who

served as government officials, which roughly makes one third of the musicians

under study. On the part of the secondary sources, most of the biographies were

supported by alternative sources such as books and journals for the biographical

material they contained.32

32 The books are the selection of the whole, which I will fully list them in the bibliography:

İbrahim Alâettin Gövsa, Türk Meşhurları Ansiklopedisi, Yenigün Neşriyat, İstanbul, 1945;

Musiki Mecmuası (journal), Hüseyin Sadeddin Arel (ed.), İleri Türk Musikisi Konservatuarı

Derneği Yayını, İstanbul, 1948; Χρίστος Τσιαμούλης, Παύλος Ερευνίδης, Ρωμηοί συνθέτες

της Πόλης (17ος-20ός αι.) [The Rum Composers of Istanbul (from 17th to 20th centuries)],

Εκδόσεις Δόμος, Αθήνα, 1998; M. Nazmi Özalp, Türk Mûsikîsi Tarihi, Vol. 2, MEB, İstanbul,

2000; Kevork Pamukciyan, Biyografileriyle Ermeniler / Ermeni Kaynaklarından Tarihe

Katkılar-IV, Aras Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2003; Türk Sanat Müziğinde Ermeni Besteciler, Nazar

19

The number of female musicians among the musicians under investigation is 23,

which the number makes 8.9 % of the total. All these female musicians were

Muslim. Regarding the religious distribution among the 257 musicians under study,

the number of Muslim musicians was 229 (89.1 %), alongside 21 Armenians (8.2 %),

four Greek Orthodox Christians (1.6 %), and three Jewish musicians (1.2 %).

Considering the performers of Istanbul during the early twentieth century, perhaps

the number of non-Muslims should have been more than the study asserted.33 As

mentioned previously, the under-representation is largely due to their inadequate

presence in the contemporary sources and partly due to the shortcomings of the

conventional historiography of music. The picture below, for instance, illustrates

this argument. The biographical material on the first three non-Muslim musicians

(Ovakim, Hakanik and Karakaş) was so inadequate that even though one can

encounter their names often in the contemporary sources, I could not include them

in my sampling.

Özsahakyan (ed.), Avrupa Kültür Başkenti Yayını, İstanbul, 2010.

33 Münir Nurettin Beken, “Ethnicity and Identity in Music – A Case Study: Professional

Musicians in Istanbul”, Manifold Identities: Studies on Music and Minorities, Ursula

Hemetek, Gerda Lechleitner, Inna Naroditskaya and Anna Czekanowska (eds.), Cambridge

Scholars Press, London, 2004, pp. 182-183; Ruşen Kam, “İnce Saz Takımları”, Radyo

Mecmuası, Vol. 1, Issue 12, Ankara, 15 Sonteşrîn 1942, pp. 16-24; Ruhi Kalender,

“Yüzyılımızın Başlarında İstanbul’un Musiki Hayatı”, AÜİFD, XXIII (1978), pp. 414-437; Burak

Çetintaş, “İncesaz Takımları Üzerine Birkaç Söz ve Şinasi Akbatu’nun Kaleminden “60 Yıl

Önce İstanbul’da İncesaz Takımları”, Musikişinas, BÜTMK, Vol. 11, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 207-

243; Χρίστος Τσιαμούλης, Παύλος Ερευνίδης, Ρωμηοί συνθέτες της Πόλης (17ος-20ός αι.)

[The Rum Composers of Istanbul (from 17th to 20th centuries)], Εκδόσεις Δόμος, Αθήνα,

1998, pp. 32-40.

20

Photo 1.1. A group of musicians from the late Ottoman Istanbul

Form left to right, Tanburî Ovakim, hanende Hakanik, hanende Karakaş, kanunî (sic)

Tatyos and kanunî Şemsi,

Source: Ruşen Kam, “İnce Saz Takımları”, Radyo Mecmuası, Vol. 1, Issue 12, Ankara,

15 Sonteşrîn 1942.

Figure 1.2. The proportion of the biographical material adequacy

21

Figure 1.2 shows the names of gazino musicians in the contemporary daily news

and portrays the availability of their biographical material. The visual indicates the

limits of studying Ottoman music history through biographical accounts. For the

most of the musicians above, I could not reach anything but their names during the

course of my research. Besides, I even had to exclude some musicians in the “exist”

network partly due to incomplete biographical data and partly owing to the doubts

about source authenticity.

1.5.1. The Assessment of İbnülemin’s Hoş Sadâ

To explain in brief the reason why I will only discuss the book of İbnülemin in more

detail is that the way it collected musician biographies was in parallel with the way

Sadettin Nüzhet Ergun organized his dictionary. In other words, İbnülemin wrote

about the musicians in his environment, the musicians who were in the official

service just like him and the musicians that he personally knew, whom I will discuss

in further detail below. The case of Ergun was very similar to that. Since Ergun was a

Sufi sheikh, he overwhelmingly collected musician biographies that belonged to the

Sufi circles of Istanbul. Nevertheless, my study did not benefit from Ergun’s book as

much as it did from İbnülemin due to the fact that Ergun provided limited

biographical material. The book of Ergun, on the other hand, is a valuable source to

uncover the social networks of musicians as well as the interactions between

innumerable Sufi lodges in Istanbul. Mustafa Rona’s book interacts explicitly with

the İbnülemin’s Hoş Sada, whereas the primary aim of Suphi Ezgi was to write the

music theory. However, the book still included musician biographies, albeit to a

limited extent.

İbnülemin’s book, Hoş Sadâ, in many respects overlaps with the scholarly critics

against the historical biographies underlined above.34 Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar’s

foreword to the book frankly stated that whatever the subject matter of his books

was, the reader would strongly feel that it is İbnülemin himself that he was writing

about. Put differently, he was the chief actor in his narratives, in which events were

34 İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal, Hoş Sadâ: Son Asır Türk Musıkişinasları.

22

reconstructed around his character. Yet, attributing importance to someone solely

depended on his personal opinions.35

The question of who wrote this book is a reasonable one when one learns the story

about the compilation process of the book. İbnülemin could not finish his book, Hoş

Sadâ. When he died in 1957, he had sent only the one third of the book to the

publishing house. More precisely, he entered the data of only forty-one musicians

out of hundred and fifty-eight musicians for the collection. Hasan Âli Yücel states

that he together with İbnülemin’s son-in-law worked three days in the house

İbnülemin in order to gather the missing material. Amidst thousands of notes and

papers they did not find much but pieces of information on a bunch of musicians.

The relevant material collected in his house was later delivered to Avni Aktunç.36 It

is hard to say if Aktunç completed the book with his own notes. Aktunç did not

write anything about the process, therefore, it can be assumed that he basically

classified the material and made it ready for the present book. Nevertheless, there

is kind of a clue in the words of Hasan Âli Yücel. According to his statement, when

seeking the missing material after İbnülemin’s death they found only a single page

on Dede. His words explicitly indicated his disappointment: “Dedeye ancak bir

sahifelik yazı vardı. Lâkin Dede bir sahifelik mi idi?”37 Despite that, the “Dede

Efendi” entry is the longest one written for a musician in the book, which reaches

up to almost forty pages (pp. 133-170). When one considers the average number of

pages devoted to each entry, about two, one evidently thinks that Aktunç felt free

to put extra material into the book.

To construct musician biographies, İbnülemin mainly applied to Rauf Yekta’s Esatiz-i

Elhân, Nüzhet Ergun’s Türk Musıkisi Antolojisi, Subhi Ezgi’s Amelî ve Nazarî Türk

35 Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar, “İbnül Emin Mahmut Kemal’e Dair”, Hoş Sadâ: Son Asır Türk

Musıkişinasları, pp. XLVII-LV.

36 Hasan Âli Yücel, “Üstad İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal”, Hoş Sadâ: Son Asır Türk

Musıkişinasları, pp. XXX-XXXIV.

37 Hasan Âli Yücel, “Üstad İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal”, Hoş Sadâ, p. XXXIII.

23

Musıkisi, and Mustafa Rona’s Elli Yıllık Türk. Indeed, he praised the Armenian priest

Aris Dakes Hisarlıyan for his book on the history of the Armenian notation system,

which also included certain Armenian musicians’ life stories. Finally, he emphasized

some biographical material published in various journals and newspapers on

cultural life and music.38

Reading the biographies one after another, one realizes that he used a very

unsystematic and complicated reference system. İbnülemin sometimes addressed a

lost source, sometimes a person who died long ago who gave him the information

orally. In many places in the text he uses the expression “from my own notes”, and

pays attention to well-circled rumours on musicians (like how one ended up in

alcoholism or economic obstacles faced by musicians, etc.). The rather long entries

were supported with the combination of all these sources. Furthermore, he

resorted to journals, daily papers and books by giving full reference to author, date

and number, etc. Official documents, such as salnames, records of payments from

palace to musicians, and sicill-i ahval records were frequently referred to. His

accounts were supported by many different sources; he occasionally found

discrepancies between them and noted this problem. Another frequent way of

gathering information was to ask musicians to write on their life stories expressed

in their own words. He published the ones who had sent the requested material but

one never knows if there are omissions. Taking all these reservations into

consideration, the reference system he used appears problematic in terms of the

academic reference standards of today.

After all, the accounts on his contemporaries give the idea that he wrote more

confidently and used more references from journals and newspapers. Furthermore,

he personally knew the majority of his contemporaries and was aware of their

musical ability. However, this paved the way to the same problem: His personal

opinion many times were equipped with unreasonable judgments about a person,

group, organization, etc. The main criterion was precisely formulated in his words:

38 İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal, Hoş Sadâ: pp. 12-13

24

“He always treated me with high respect”, (hakkımda hürmet-i kâmilede

bulunurdu).

İbnülemin stated that his book focused mainly on composers, instrumentalists, and

hanendes (naathâns, durakçıs, and âyinhans). He did not mention any criterion for

being a good musician, such as “a musician has to compose”, or “an instrumentalist

has to play this or that piece”. However, he was impressed by a broad repertoire of

a musician, whether he was a singer (hânende) or an instrumentalist. The talent in

performing an improvisation (taksim) was another measure for deciding about the

quality of a musician. The musician portraits show that whether they were hafız,

hanende or instrumentalist, they were primarily composers. To note that, no

priority was explicitly set in the classification of the musicians, such as Muslim

musicians, Christian ones, Sufis, the musicians of palace/Pashas or in terms of

musical specialization; the composers, hafızs, and instrument players.

Even though the subtitle of the book is problematic, Son Asır Türk Musıkişinasları, it

covers 16 non-Muslim musicians’ biographies out of 158. There are obviously many

other non-Muslims that were excluded from the collection (see Figure 1.2).

However, it is important to see that the book did not have a full-fledged notion of

Turkifying the Ottoman music. Furthermore, he did not hesitate to indicate non-

Muslim musicians as the teachers of Muslim musicians or vice-versa. The cultural

interaction between the musicians that belonged to different religions was

expressed without bias. On the other hand, the book well presented the Sufi

musicians’ life stories, which formed the critical part of the Ottoman music, with

plenty of biographical material.

The musician stories in the book reveal the close relation between bureaucracy and

music, which appears as one promising research subject. A noticeable amount of

musicians who held other professions, all served in various government offices. The

career patterns of those musicians were somehow similar to each other. The aim

was to serve in Istanbul rather than being assigned to provincial posts. If they were

assigned to provincial posts, they either sought ways for a change of office (tahvil,

25

nakil, becayiş) or simply resigned and held other jobs. Living in Istanbul was

essential for musicians for being in the musical circles.

1.6. Thesis Structure

This first intrductory chapter deals with the thesis question, terminological and

methodological concerns and the thesis structure. The second chapter is devoted to

historiographical debates on music. Yet the second chapter will critically discuss the

collective biography studies produced by Ottoman historians.

The third chapter will interpret the biographical data to explore the social

background of musicians by underlining the common characteristics as well as their

distinctive features. I will present statistical analysis on many issues such as

birthplaces, places of residence, fathers’ professions, religions and ethnicities of

musicians, education patterns, language skills, age compositions in the form of

tables and charts. Economic challenges such as the limited job opportunities as well

as the financial insecurities of musicians will be discussed to understand the social

world in which musicians lived. The chapter will also focus on the Ottoman

bureaucracy to understand why musicians’ career choices noticeably inclined to it.

May the situation be regarded as a model of patronage? The discussion is critical to

grasp how music was perceived in the late Ottoman urban society, of which the

government officials were the significant parts.

The fourth chapter will deal with the relation between music and the city. The

reason why the geographical approach will particularly focus on Istanbul but not

other cities is because Istanbul was the main center of music. Secondly, the

availability of data about the musicians in Istanbul determined the focus. Based on

the statistical data about the residences of musicians and the musical activities

throughout Istanbul, I will discuss whether any of the city’s neighborhoods

possessed a particular musical identity. Indeed, by emphasizing the musical

interaction among the neighborhoods and the network of musicians, my aim is to

draw the musical map of Istanbul.

26

The fifth chapter will focus on various forms of music education. The relationship

between the age of learning and models of training will be explored to understand

the stages to become a musician. Indeed, the chapter will question the musical

integration between Muslim and non-Muslim musicians, particularly during the

process of music education. The religious character of music will be debated by

focusing on the networks of musicians with upper level religious school education,

the reciters of Qur’an and the musicians from various Sufi orders. The dissemination

and the usage of Hamparsum notation is another issue analyzed in the chapter.

Finally, the last section will reveal the most prominent sources of musical

knowledge in Istanbul from the late Ottoman to the Early Republican years through

the network analysis by Gephi.

The sixth chapter will follow the career paths of musicians towards the Early

Republican era. The aim of the chapter is to revisit change and continuity in music

through a new approach. The reorganization of the Ottoman bureaucracy in 1909

will be interpreted within the musical context. The sociological basis of the music

schools and the emergence of radio in 1927 will be dealt with, as the statistical

evidence reveal that musicians were connected to these institutions in many ways.

Addresing the roles music schools and radio played in music will provide insights

into the paths that musicians and hence the Ottoman music navigated. Finally, The

chapter will attempt to integrate a gender-perspective into the research to better

analyze the changing roles of women in music after the turn of the century.

The final chapter will evaluate the research findings in order to emphasize the ways

in which the thesis contributes to the social history of Istanbul in the late Ottoman

period and in the Early Republican years.

27

CHAPTER 2

HISTORIOGRAPHY

2.1. Scholarship on the Late Ottoman Music

The period after the turn of the twentieth century is distinguished from the

previous ones, by opening new music spaces and bringing in new problems. What is

promising about the recent literature is it treats music as a socio-cultural issue, and

pays particular attention to its practitioners within the perception that these

changes might be indicated and interpreted through the individual lives. Yet, not

many in number, it is the growing interest of the recent scholarship to grasp the

sweeping changes, which a positivist musicological approach seems incapable to

analyze.39

Cem Behar mainly focuses, among other issues, on the oral transmission of music,

meşk, to emphasize not only the traditional aspect of it but to better understand

the social relations in the Ottoman music world. He focused on the value system of

musicians, the possibility of transmitting the musical knowledge from one person to

other and from one generation to another, and how the aesthetical canons were

established historically through the process of meşk in the Ottoman music.40 The

39 The positivist musicology clearly emphasized the verifiable sources. Manuscripts were

discovered in the archives and were decoded. The musical output of a composer was

considered independent, as it had no interaction with the socio-cultural world in which it

was produced, and was treated purely as a esthetic matter, David Beard and Kenneth

Gloag, Musicology: The Key Concepts, Routledge, USA, 2005, pp. 102-3. Many studies and

critical publications fall into this musicological approach on Ottoman music, see Şükrü Elçin,

Ali Ufkî: Hayatı, eserleri ve Mecmuâ-i Sâz-ı Söz, Milli Eğitim Basımevi, Ankara, 1976;

Kantemiroğlu, Kitabu 'İlmi'l-Musiki 'ala vechi'l-Hurufat, Musikiyi harflerle tesbit ve icra

ilminin kitabı, Yalçın Tura, (ed.) 2 Vol., YKY, İstanbul, 2001; Nâsır Abdülbâki Dede, Tedkîk ü

Tahkîk, İnceleme ve Gerçeği Araştırma, Yalçın Tura (ed.), Pan Yayıncılık, 2006; Emrah

Hatipoğlu, “Mevlevihâneler Döneminde Bestelendiği Tespit Edilmiş 46 Ayinin Makâm ve

Geçki Açısından Tahlili”, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Asst. Prof. Bayram Akdoğan

(Superviser), Ankara Üniversitesi, SBE, İslâm Tarihi ve Sanatları Anabilim Dalı (Türk Din

Musıkisi), Ankara, 2010.

40 Cem Behar, Aşk Olmadan Meşk Olmaz: Geleneksel Osmanlı/Türk Müziğinde Öğretim ve

İntikal, YKY, İstanbul, Third Edition, 2006; “Text and Memory in Ottoman/Turkish Musical

Tradition”, Ottoman Intimacies, Balkan Musical Realities, Risto Pekka Pennanen, Panagiotis

28

perspective put forth in his studies had impact on younger scholars. Poulos, for

instance, investigates the transmission issue during the Early Republican era and in

modern Turkey while stressing the tension with secularization and Westernization

processes. He asserts that the Ottoman musical heritage was not marginalized in

modern Turkey, and rather situated itself in an “in-between” space through the

state institutions such as the radio and television (TRT), conservatoires, and musical

gatherings in the houses of urban people.41

2.1.1. Literature on the Nationalization of Ottoman Music

Walter Feldman points out that two main opposite parties dominated the musical

discourse in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Rauf Yekta Bey (1871-

1935) and Ziya Gökalp (1876-1924) were the most active members in two opposite

parties.42 Though the political discourse on music is beyond the scope of this study,

one has to touch upon it, at least briefly, since the substantial amount of debates

until 1960s, related with tradition/modernity, religion/secularization, and

Eastern/Western dichotomies, had an impact on their thoughts. Yekta initially dealt

purely with musicological issues such as collecting repertoire, analysis of modes and

rhythms, and writing up musicians’ biographies. However, he soon was pulled into

the polemical field due to critical assaults on the Ottoman music.43

C. Poulos, Aspasia Thedosiou (ed.), The Finnish Institute of Athens, Vol. XIX, Helsinki, 2013,

pp. 3-16.

41 Panagiotis C. Poulos, “Rethinking Orality in Turkish Classical Music: A Genealogy of

Contemporary Musical Assemblages”, Middle Eastern Journal of Culture and

Communication, Vol. 4, Brill, 2011, pp. 164-183, “Private Spaces, Public Concerns: Music

House-gatherings in Istanbul from the late Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic”,

lectured in ARIT (The American Research Institute in Turkey), Istanbul, 23 September 2013.

42 Walter Feldman, “Cultural Authority and Authenticity in the Turkish Repertoire”, Asian

Music, Vol. 22, No. 1, (Autumn, 1990 – Winter, 1991), p. 96.

43 Rauf Yekta Bey was a prolific writer. Thanks to the couple of MA thesis which listed his

articles published in various journals and newspapers, it is easier to access to the majority

of his writings, see Muhammed Ali Çergel, “Rauf Yektâ Bey’in İkdam Gazetesi’nde

Neşredilen Türk Mûsikîsi Konulu Makaleleri”, MA Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, SBE,

İstanbul, 2007; Hüseyin Özdemir, “Rauf Yektâ Bey'in Resimli Gazete, Yeni Ses ve Vakit

Gazetelerinde Mûsikî İle İlgili Makalelerinin İncelenmesi”, MA Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi,

SBE, İstanbul, 2010; Mehmet Öncel, “Rauf Yektâ Bey'in Ati, Yeni Mecmûa, Resimli Kitap ve

Şehbâl Adlı Mecmûalarda Mûsikî İle İlgili Makalelerinin İncelenmesi”, MA Thesis, Marmara

29

On the other side, Gökalp was a sociologist, who did not have the technical

expertise on music. He built his sociological analysis on the tension between

civilization and culture. In his formulation, the Eastern civilization to which the

Ottomans attribute their roots belonged to the Byzantine not to Islam. Therefore,

he made a distinction between Turks and Ottomans. He perceived the Ottomans as

the ruling elites, and Turks as the commoners. The entire cultural heritage

cultivated in the Ottoman court was hybrid, outdated, and not essentially Turkish.

In terms of music, Gökalp slightly mentioned about its Byzantine, Arabic

associations and highlighted its Eastern feature, however, he was not musically

qualified enough to substantiate his arguments. Without any structural base, he

suggested the rural music of Anatolian people reflected the true Turkish identity

and it has to be technically supported by the Western music standards. His

sociology was helpful to establish new cultural codes, which the newly founded

Turkish republic badly needed.44

Today a considerable amount of scholars still deal with the Turkish state’s music

reforms. The nationalization process, attempts to create a national music, searching

for pan-Turkish links in the Ottoman music, the ways in which the musical heritage

was dealt with in the national-state are frequently debated issues by post-modern

cultural historians, musicologists, and sociologists. Füsun Üstel investigates the

political discourse created by the state’s embedded intellectuals in the 1920s and

Üniversitesi, SBE, İstanbul, 2010; Süleyman Erguner, Rauf Yektâ Bey: neyzen – müzikolog –

bestekâr, Kitabevi, 2003, İstanbul ; Bora Keskiner’s cataloque is also helpful to researchers,

“Arap Harfli Türkçe Süreli Yayınlarda Türk Musikisi Teorisi Bibliyografyası”, TALİD, Vol. 7, No.

14, 2009, pp. 375-415.

44 Ziya Gökalp, Türkçülüğün Esasları, Mehmet Kaplan (ed.), MEB Yayınları, İstanbul, 1970,

pp. 39, 45, 33-34, 145-147; Gökalp’s theoretical and practical basis critisized by musicologist

Mahmut Ragıp Gazimihal. For more on his views, see “İlimde Sathîliğin Mahzûrları”,

Mahmut Râgıp Gâzimihal'den Seçme Müzik Makaleleri-II (Türk Harf İnkılâbı Öncesi),

Bahattin Kahraman (ed.), Müzik Eğitimi Yayınları, Ankara, 2014, pp. 27-38. On Rauf Yekta

Bey’s response to Ziya Gökalp, see “Ziya Gökalp Bey ve Millî Musikimiz Hakkındaki Fikirleri III-

III, Servet-i Fünûn, Nos. 1480-81-82, 1340/1925, quoted from İsmail Akçay, Musıki

Tarihimizden Belgeler, İstanbul, 1948, pp. 41-48; Cem Behar, “Ziya Gökalp ve Türk

Musıkisinde Modernleşme/Sentez Arayışları”, Musıkiden Müziğe: Osmanlı/Türk Müziği:

Gelenek ve Modernlik, YKY, İstanbul, (Second Edition) 2008, pp. 271-279.

30

1930s. She stresses that the pillar of the palace was replaced by the state, and the

state’s impact on cultural institutions became deeper with the explicit assistance of

the Republican elites to the state policies in the cultural realm.45

O’Connell focuses on the establishment of the new musical institution in Istanbul,

the Fine Arts Academy (Güzel Sanatlar Akademisi) in 1926. He seeks to comprehend

the way in which the state designed to change the aesthetic preferences through

the motivation of modernization. The institution’s curriculum was heavily equipped

with Western methods of music education and did not have room for Ottoman

music. The author considers the process as the state enforcement to control the

Turkish musical taste. He uses Bourdieu’s doxa concept (accepted discourse of the

dominant structure) to analyze the Kemalist cultural policy. O’Connell points out

that the doxa, dominated by the orthodox views, is also open to heterodox attacks

who wanted to expand the limits of doxa. He contends that Arel’s attempts of

Turkification of Ottoman music, formulated in the dominant republican discourse,

was truly a heterodox attack in order to be heard in the established discourse.46

Ayhan Erol refers to another concept of Bourdieu, the symbolic violence, to

examine the state intervention in music. He underlines that since the Turkish state

adopted “top-down modernization”, music came under the strict supervision of

political elites. The state monopoly on music was constructed either by the

proscription of the traditional music education in the state schools in 1924, or by

the establishment of the state sponsored cultural institutions that promoted

Western music culture such as the foundation of the Fine Arts Academy (Güzel

Sanatlar Akademisi) in 1926 and the radio broadcast in 1927. Indeed, the

elimination of dervish lodges in 1925, which used to be transmission centers of

45 Füsun Üstel, 1920’li ve 30’lu Yıllarda “Milli Musiki” ve “Musıki İnkılabı”, Defter, Metis

Yayınları, İstanbul, No. 22, 1994, pp. 41-53.

46 John Morgan O'Connell, “Fine Art, Fine Music: Controlling Turkish Taste at the Fine Arts

Academy in 1926”, Yearbook for Traditional Music, Vol. 32 (2000), pp. 117-142.

31

musical knowledge, is also interpreted by Erol as the proper forms of symbolic

violence to create national music taste/culture.47

Güneş Ayas’s book, based on his PhD dissertation, is the most recent study so far,

which investigates the impact of the Turkish music reform with Bourdieu’s

theoretical approach. He stresses the very tension between the state policies and

the musicians. The author focuses on the career patterns of certain musicians in

order to show how they responded to the ongoing “othering” practices of the state.

Different forms of survival strategies ranging from benefiting from Western

methods of music teaching to concert performances, and from musicological

researches to adapting Turkish names by non-Muslim musicians provided a basis for

Ayas’s narrative. Ayas concludes that the more the musicians struggled and thus

sought new tactics against the modernization process, the more Ottoman music’s

basis was undermined, which eventually transformed the Ottoman music into

“Turkish Art Music”.48

2.1.2. Emphasis on Non-Muslim Presence in Music Literature

Growing literature on non-Muslim presence in the Ottoman music appears as the

promising facet of the Ottoman cultural historiography, which has long been

sidelined by the mainstream scholarship.

Merih Erol’s book situates the musical discourse at the center, and seeks to find out

how the on-going Westernization and modernization processes affected particularly

the Greek Orthodox community of Istanbul in the second half of the nineteenth

century. She interprets the disputes and conflicts of the Greek elite on their cultural

identity, their historical roots like Byzantine and Greekness and their engagement

47 Ayhan Erol, “Music, Power and Symbolic Violence: The Turkish State’s Music Policies

During the Early Republican Period”, European Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 15, 2012, pp.

35–52.

48 Güneş Ayas, Mûsiki İnkılâbı’nın Sosyolojisi: Klasik Türk Müziği Geleneğinde Süreklilik ve

Değişim, Doğu Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2014; see my review of the book, Insight Turkey, Vol. 17,

No. 1, 2015, p. 243.

32

with the Byzantine music of the Orthodox Patriarchate. Her narrative stresses the

cleavages inside the educated Greek elites of Istanbul, which is efficiently revealed

through the musical discourse. The very contribution of her study is indicating that

the Greek Orthodox community of Constantinople was not a monolithical structure.

It was composed of various parties with complex and conflicting interests.49

Kerovpyan and Yılmaz’s book on the Armenian contribution to the Ottoman music is

noteworthy. The book deals with the general history of Armenian Church music

within the Ottoman context, the Armenian notation system (khaz), music education

methods in terms of memory and transmission, and the interactions with the

Ottoman music. Particularly the section on how the notation system of

Hampartzum Limonciyan (1768-1839), with which the considerable part of the

repertoire was written, led to a conflict within the Armenian Church enriches the

historical knowledge on the Ottoman music. The authors argue that certain

Armenian musicians, who were actively engaged in Ottoman music, were either

omitted or their images were distorted in the mainstream narratives of Turkish

music history. Frequently referred contemporary Armenian literature, many of

which were published in Istanbul at the turn of twentieth century, clearly deal the

reconsiderations on Armenian musicians’ biographical accounts, which the Turkish

historiography contained.50

Krikor Çulhayan (1868-1938)’s biography in the book, which deliberately overlaps

with the phases the Ottoman music underwent, gives evidence that historical

narrative based on biography might offer novel perspectives on past. Due to the

49Merih Erol, Greek Orthodox Music in Istanbul: Nation and Community in the Era of

Reform, Indiana University Press, 2015; see also some of her related publications, “Music

and the Nation in Greek and Turkish Contexts (19th – early 20th c.): A paradigm of cultural

transfers”, Startseitei, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2011, pp. 165-175; “The "Musical Question" and the

Educated Elite of Greek Orthodox Society in Late Nineteenth-Century Constantinople”,

Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, May 2014, pp. 133-163.

50 Aram Kerovpyan and Altuğ Yılmaz, Klasik Osmanlı Müziği ve Ermeniler, Surp Pırgiç Ermeni

Hastanesi Vakfı Kültür Yayınları, 2010.

33

particular interest of my study with biographical material, I will touch on the issue in

the following pages.51

O’Connell discusses the limits of the religious and national tolerance during the

Early Republican period against the Jewish musicians as the participants of Ottoman

music. The article focuses on the live performance of a Jewish cantor and composer,

İzak Algazi (1889-1950) in Atatürk’s residence in İstanbul, Dolmabahçe Palace. The

author compares Hafız Yaşar (1885-1966)’s memoirs, who was also at the residence

at that night, with Abraham Galanté (1873-1961)’s representation of the same

event. Both narratives seem to prioritize their own goals. Hafız Yaşar judges Algazi’s

use of language during his gazel performance, his way of singing at the top of his

voice, which he claims to be more appropriate for a gazino than a presidential

audience. The critics of Yaşar indicate that new style of musical performance with a

Western style concert dress is more preferred in performing Turkish music from

now on. Galanté, who was supporting the modernizing reforms of Atatürk and the

idea of Jewish participation into the Turkish republic, considered the event as an

opportunity in terms of cultural integration.52

Maureen Jackson’s published doctoral thesis draws special attention to the

Maftirim music of Ottoman Jews. Even though only the first two chapters deal with

Jewish musicians in the late Ottoman period, the study helps to fill the lacunae in

the mainstream Ottoman cultural history. The historical journey of the Jewish

religious music from the late Ottoman era to the present day Turkey, and the

synagogue as the sacred place of musical transmission, where the Maftirim

repertoire is held, remains at the center throughout the book. The author attaches

importance to the cultural interactions between the Jewish musicians and their

Muslim, Armenian and Greek counterparts. A couple of Jewish religious and nonreligious

musicians’ biographies Hayim Moşe Becerano (1846-1931), Nesim Sevilya

51 ibid, pp. 129-133.

52 John Morgan O’Connell, “A Staged Fright: Musical Hybridity and Religious Intolerance in

Turkey 1923-38”, Twentieth Century Music, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011, pp. 3-28.

34

(1856-1949), and Mısırlı İbrahim Efendi (1878-1948) are vital for Jackson’s narrative,

through which she establishes a historical basis for the Maftirim music. Jackson’s

biographies reveal the way certain Jewish musicians oriented themselves to the

new circumstances, in which music becomes more and more popular and thus it

evolves into a product that is consumed more broadly than ever.53

2.2. What Do the Biographical Dictionaries of Past Mean for Collective Biography

Studies?

The historical significance of constructing biographical dictionaries is a debated

issue among the modern historians. Why have historians compiled these

dictionaries in the past? Were they state sponsored projects or were they product

of mere individual interest, or the combination of both at a certain degree?

Agirreazkuenaga and Urquijo point out that nation states needed to create their

heroic past with their great men that will provide the historical depth for new sociocultural

trends and forms. Therefore, the national biographical dictionaries served

to produce the national identity and generate national pride. It appears that there

are two main types of dictionaries. The first one is supported by the state and

played a role in the nation-building process. Swiss, Dutch, Austrian and German

models mainly followed that path. On the other hand, the Anglophone model,

which had an impact on the American, Australian, and New Zeland dictionaries, was

largely financed by individuals. To make it clearer, one may not call them collective

biography works but rather the collections of biographies in massive volumes, on

which the historians applied the collective biography analysis techniques. For this

reason most of the collective biography studies focused on influential group of

people, the elites, who occupied the top political positions.54

53 Maureen Jackson, Mixing Musics: Turkish Jewry and the Urban Landscape of a Sacred

Song, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 2013.

54 Joseba Agirreazkuenaga and Mikel Urquijo, “Collective Biography and Europe’s Cultural

Legacy”, The European Legacy, Vol. 20:4, 2015, pp. 380-381.

35

Leanne Langley sought to find out the motivation behind the first dictionary of

British musicians published in 1824. She considered the period between 1815 and

1837 in England as the pervasive sense of uncertainty in terms of Britishness. There

was ambivalence over national identity, citizenship and civil liberty, in which

musicians were among the other groups to claim recognition in this period. She

argued that John Sainsbury’s Dictionary of Musicians (1824, London) and the Royal

Academy of Music (RAM) founded in 1822 were intimately related manifestations

to promote British music and musicians against the frequent visits of Italian

musicians to London. Yet, it was an enterprise of a businessman, John Davis

Sainsbury (died c. 1862), who might probably be alert to an emerging market.55

The huge project of replacing the Victorian Dictionary of National Biography (DNB)

with the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB), which was published

between 2004 and 2007, offers new perspectives to the history discipline and

benefits from technological advancements such as online archives. The DNB had

biographical material on 38,652 people whereas the ODNB has 55,828 individual

entries. The extended material surely meant the inclusion of new people (over

16,000 new lives, the entries on women trebled and foreigners who played a role in

British life were included) but the interesting thing is that roughly 63 per cent of old

lives were revised and rewritten, considering the latest updates in history discipline.

Regarding the purpose, ODNB stated in its introduction, it is difficult to promote a

single outlook due to around 10,000 contributors (DNB had only 653 writers). The

text claims that it neither carries the idea of national honour anymore, nor the

moral message. Furthermore, the text was put on-line in order to be updated and

extended steadily, which shows the relations between history writing and

technological advancement.56 These historical dictionaries are invaluable sources,

55 Leanne Langley, “Sainsbury’s Dictionary, the Royal Academy of Music, and the Rhetoric of

Patriotism”, Music and British Culture, 1785-1914: essays in honour of Cyril Ehrlich, Oxford:

OUP, 2000, pp. 65-71.

56 Keith Thomas, Changing Conceptions of National Biography: the Oxford DNB in Historical

Perspective, The Leslie Stephen Special Lecture, Cambridge, delivered in 1 October 2004,

pp. 34-37; James Raven, “The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: Dictionary or

36

which were filled up with biographical materials and were ready to be analyzed

within the collective biography research techniques by the social historians of post-

World War I, as Stone mentioned.57

The post-modern challenge to the discipline of history offered a profound change in

terms of understanding the past societies and interpreting the historical “facts”.

Particularly the reassessment of auto/biographical accounts, giving more space to

individual experiences and to the “linked lives” are the most recent methodological

fashions that is called the “biographical turn”, the impact of which is noticeable in

the Oxford DNB.

2.2.1. The Biographical Turn and Its Influence on Collective Biography Study

The recent biographical interest in history writing is not mainly based on the life

story of an individual but also add vigorously his/her social setting into the

narrative. Even though the individual actions in the life story take priority over any

other mattter, the historical explanation of the social environment entails a closer

look into the groups, of which he/she was a part. Therefore, the individual becomes

more intelligible within the group portrait.58 Cowman underlines the notion of

collectivity in biography to avoid reproducing conventional life stories. Human

beings get involved in a wide range of activities in their lifetime and interact with

people on a daily basis. For this reason, a well-grounded biographical narrative

should fairly mirror the linked lives or the social circles of the person under study

such as family, kinship relations, close friends, classmates, professional partners,

etc.59 Agirreazkuenaga and Urquijo consider this research methodology applicable

in collective biography analysis.

Encyclopedia?”, The Historical Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4, December 2007, pp. 991-1006, see p.

993.

57 Lawrence Stone, “Prosopography”, p. 49.

58 Alastair J. Shephard, “Biography and Mentalité History: Discovering a Relationship”,

Fukuoka University Review of Commercial Sciences, No. 49, 1992, pp. 6-7.

59 Krista Cowman, “Collective Biography”, p. 91-92.

37

The research will embrace quantitative and qualitative analysis in order to produce

a “larger microbiographical study”.60

I will now briefly touch upon the issue of biographical turn to see what it brings to

the fore. As mentioned above, it is the decisive shift in the social sciences to

promote the idea that societies and cultures might be understood through the

individual agency. Rustin argues that François Furet’s study, Interpreting the French

Revolution, in 1978, was a noteworthy analysis of events, which rejected the

Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution and highlighted the role of the

individuals with its distinct discourse. The recognition of individual agency and

stressing the individual survival strategies that create meaning as well as identity in

the life are the key elements for the “biographical turn”.61 Investigating the link

between individual agency and wider social structures, both in the past and in the

present, would help to reveal the social policy and power relations in the society.

The constructed life stories, on the other, are central to postmodern debates, which

concomitantly make it more complex for historians. E. M. Bruner suggests that the

“life lived”, the “life experienced”, and the “life told” are essentially different things:

“A life lived is what actually happens. A life as experienced consists of

the images, feelings, sentiments, desires, thoughts, and meanings known

to the person whose life it is... A life as told, a life history, is a narrative,

influenced by the cultural conventions of telling, by the audience, and by

the social context.”62

60 Joseba Agirreazkuenaga & Mikel Urquijo, “Collective Biography and Europe’s Cultural

Legacy”, p. 381.

61 Michael Rustin, “Reflections on the Biographical Turn in Social Science,” The Turn to

Biographical Methods in Social Science: comparative issues and examples, Tom Wengraf,

Prue Chamberlayne and Joanna Bornat (ed.), Routledge, 2000, pp. 48-49.

62 E. M. Bruner, “The Opening up of Anthropology”, Text, Play, and Story: the construction

and reconstruction of self and society, E. M. Bruner (ed.), Washington, DC: The American

Ethnological Society, 1984, p. 7, quoted from J. Amos Hatch and Richard Wisniewski, “Life

History and Narrative: Questions, Issues, and Exemplary Works”, Life History and Narrative,

The Falmer Press, London, Washington, D. C., 1995, p. 129.

38

Kenyon explains the reasons for storytelling in the interrelated aspects of human

life (structural, social, ethic, and interpersonal), which the historian should

acknowledge in order to interpret the text in different contexts.63 According to

Jerome Bruner, autonomy and commitment are two features of self-making

narrative. The genre balances the autonomy that allows the social actor to choose

freely, and the commitment, which indicate the dependence to family, friends and

institutions. The author considers the life writing as the struggle to balance these

two entities.64

Deliberately or not, development towards a certain goal, the retrospective

teleology, in the most of the auto/biographical life accounts is noticeable, which the

postmodern critic is acutely aware of. If the primary actor or the author of the text

became a famous artist, a prosperous businessman or a successful professional, all

the past events are placed in the narrative towards that goal. Put differently,

uncertainty, discontinuity, crises and sudden interruptions experienced in the

lifetime lose ground in the integration process of the past and thus, the life-story

chooses the most appropriate stages in the past to provide consistency.65

The arrangement of events in order of occurrence is like a straitjacket, which

imposes restrictions to auto/biographical expressions. A. Kırmızı underlines that

chronology or locating historical events in time imposes limits on the genre, but at

the same time is the glue that sticks the story together.

63 Gary M. Kenyon, “The Meaning/Value of Personal Storytelling”, Aging and Biography:

Explorations in Adult Development, Gary M. Kenyon and Jan Erik Ruth (eds.), New York:

Springer, 1996, p. 22.

64 Jerome Bruner, “Self-making Narratives”, Autobiographical Memory and the Construction

of a Narrative Self, Robyn Fivush and Catherine A. Haden (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc., Publishers, New Jersey, London, 2003, p. 218.

65 Jens Brockmeier, “From the End to the Beginning: Retrospective Teleology in

Autobiography”, Narrative and Identity, Jens Brockmeier and Donal Carbaugh (ed.), John

Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001, Amsterdam, pp. 251-52.

39

In fact, it is the chronology, which arranges life into tidy patterns. In doing so, the

arbitrariness of life is deliberately reduced to a coherent whole.66

Terzioğlu traces the biographical interest in the Ottoman historiography. As history

discipline largely falls behind the recent debates in social sciences, so does the

Ottoman historiography. According to Terzioğlu, Ottoman historians have long

considered the diaries, memoirs and letters as a data source and thus produced

many “classical” biographies. Nevertheless, the new approaches attempt to explain

how he/she under study was represented through the narrative as well as the way

the narrative was constructed. Albeit rather slowly, the biographical turn arouses

attention and makes progress among the Ottoman scholars.67

2.3. Literature Review on Some Collective Biography Studies in the History of

Music

Collective biography analysis are more often applied to groups whose beginning

and end might be estimated statistically. The presence of data and access to

biographical record is vital as well. Therefore, it is reasonable that the methodology

is predominantly applied to official functionaries, either military or civil, of a certain

state. Even though few in number, there are studies exploring the musicians by

employing the collective biographical analyses.

Cyril Ehrlich’s book, The Music Profession in Britain since the Eighteenth Century,

which deals with musicians as social actors and focuses on their struggle to gain a

professional status in the society from the late eighteenth century to the post-

World War I, is considered a seminal work in English social history. The narrative is

based on the review of state and private records, newspapers, memoirs and

different sort of historical accounts on music and highlighted the socio-political

66 Abdulhamit Kırmızı, “Oto/Biyografik Vebal: Tutarlılık ve Kronoloji Sorunları”, Otur Baştan

Yaz Beni: Oto/Biyografiye Taze Bakışlar, Abdulhamit Kırmızı (ed.), Küre Yayınları, İstanbul,

2012, pp. 11-27, particularly pp. 23-27.

67 Derin Terzioğlu, “Tarihi İnsanlı Yazmak: Bir Tarih Anlatı Türü Olarak Biyografi ve Osmanlı

Tarihyazıcılığı”, Cogito, No. 29, 2001, pp. 284-295.

40

changes in the British society and the musicians’ confrontations in return. The book

raises questions on how they received music education, how they made a living and

their employment patterns in the business to portray the English musical world in

the period under study. The author considers certain issues critical to explain the

transformation of music and musicians. The headings are: the difficulty in

controlling unqualified people’s entry into the music market that gave rise to mass

unemployment, the expansion of musical instrument manufacturing that produced

cheap instruments, the increased circulation of sheet music, the competition with

American musicians, particularly by the turn of the twentieth century, the arrival of

electrical recording, broadcasting and the diminishing of silent cinema, in which

musicians were performing live music. Much of the narrative is a sad one with a

hardly optimistic conclusion. Ehrlich indicates that the life of a musician was not an

easy one and it is also difficult to precisely define the term “professional musician”

within the British context. The musicians’ desire for a social status equal to that of

lawyers and doctors proved to be irrational. Even though the economic conditions

of musicians have improved over time, the best status they could achieve was

roughly the same with service workers, as indicated in the official annual income

statistics.68

The book of Dave Russell, Popular Music in England, 1840-1914, attempted to

analyze the main patterns of popular music in England between 1840 and 1914, in

which musician stories help us follow the processes in music that he defined as

expansion, diversification and nationalization. The book could not be considered as

a collective biography study; however, it is partly influenced by Ehrlich’s study

mentioned above, which revisits similar themes with new perspectives. The author

claims that there was clearly a huge expansion in all branches of music during the

late nineteenth century. In terms of diversification, many new institutes of musical

education, music journals, and musical societies emerged by 1900. Here the

similarities with the Ottoman case are striking. Russell states that the

68 Cyril Ehrlich, The Music Profession in Britain since the Eighteenth Century: A Social

History, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1985.

41

nationalization (similar and unified musical taste) developed but it should not be

exaggerated. The strong regional variations existed in different parts of the country.

The musical industry invested more in cities and large towns, whereas communitybased

music (choir and bands) was pervasive in the provinces. The English music

hall industry played a great role to popularize the English music. However, the stage

was not entirely devoted to music. Acrobats, comics, strongmen, pantomime, dogs,

birds and baboons shared the (same) stage with music. In the socio-economical

level, the author believes that the industrialization brought major changes to music.

By 1881, almost half of the English population moved to live in cities and bigger

towns. The growth of the lower middle classes, clerks, the commercial traveler and

associated occupational groups contributed to the musical life. They

organized brass bands, choirs and musical societies. Between 1876 and 1896, real

wages increased by 66 percent, which means the working class had an increased

economic capacity for musical enjoyment. Concerts with lower ticket prices and

countrywide tours of musicians reached the lower middle and upper working class

audience. By the 1890s, the music industry annually sold some 14 million tickets in

England. Finally, Russell’s narrative on the comprehensive social history of the

English popular music culture between 1840 and 1914 has been criticized by

historians for its “progressive” approach in analyzing the processes before the

emergence and expansion of the popular music.69

Deborah Rohr’s collective biography study, The Careers and Social Status of British

Musicians, 1750-1850, deals with roughly over 6,000 musicians (1750-1850) that

were mostly traced from the Royal Society of Musicians’ archives. She puts the daily

activities of musicians at the center of her narrative and explains the geographical

and social origins, education methods, and common characteristics in the

musicians’ career paths, their economic situation and the struggle to gain a social

status in society. Rohr raises questions on why they wanted to be a musician. She

claims that there is a combination of factors that range from following the family

69 Dave Russell, Popular Music in England, 1840-1914 (Music and Society), Mcgill-Queens

University Press, 1987.

42

tradition to talent, and from the hope of becoming rich to unanticipated economic

hardships (particularly for the upper class members). The narrative asserts that the

marriage meant a sort of upward social mobility for English musicians, who sought

wealthy or titled family members. Regarding the patronage relationships,

musicians’ career reveals complex web of financial arrangements ranging from

classical types (royal, aristocratic, church, municipal) to more professional ones

(giving concert, playing in the music halls, teaching music). To discuss the economic

situation of musicians, Rohr conducted an income survey of different professions

like artisans and laborers in the period under investigation. She states that even the

ones who performed for the highest salaries could do so temporarily and could not

establish a regular lifetime earning from music. The more pervasive patterns were

low earnings and irregular job opportunities. Apart from the economic obstacles

faced by musicians, the cultural perceptions on music and musicians were also the

underlying causes to prevent musicians to gain a social status and respect in the

English society. Rohr states that music was perceived as not having any serious

purpose. It was about entertainment and pleasure, thus was associated with

immorality. Musicians, on the other hand, mainly belonged to the lower classes,

who were poorly educated, “inferior” individuals. Yet, music was fundamentally a

feminine art and was likely to destroy manly virtues. For Rohr, such beliefs together

with the insufficient income significantly undermined musicians’ chances of

achieving middle class social and professional status. She concludes that musicians

showed uneven advances of different groups. Teachers and some performers

obtained higher positions in the society, whereas the overwhelming majority

earned the minimal income needed for subsistence.70

Cem Behar studied on the Es’ad Efendi’s text, which collected 97 Ottoman musician

biographies from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. According to

Behar, the Ottoman music only after the mid-seventeenth century became

recognizable technically and aesthetically, and thus separated itself from the

70 Deborah Rohr, The Careers and Social Status of British Musicians, 1750-1850, A

Profession of Artisans, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2004.

43

antecedent tradition. Thereby, Es’ad Efendi’s collection provides historical evidence

for the assertion. The text’s major disadvantage is its limited representativeness.

Apart from the quantitative inadequacy, the biographies merely belong to

composers and singers, hanende. Since the sub-title of the text is Tezkire-i

Hânendegân-ı Esâd Efendi, instrumentalists’ exclusion is acceptable. However,

absence of non-Muslim musicians constitutes a problem for the text. Es’ad Efendi

does not provide much information about his musicians. The birthplace, the place

of residence, the period in which he became known as a musician (the name of the

Sultan), and finally their profession were entered to each biography. The text

reveals that Istanbul was the center of musical activities. Sixty-three out of 99

musicians lived and made music in Istanbul. The musicians were engaged in various

professions such as artisans, traders, official scribes, and palace servants. Dervishes

and the members of the ulema were also among the musicians. Only two musicians

were official palace musicians, or at least served in the palace for a time period as a

musician, which indicates that the palace only occasionally gave financial support to

music. The backbone of musical activity was not courtly patronage. Music was an

amateur activity and so were the musicians. The principle, based upon which Es’ad

Efendi judged the musicians, was the quality they produced through their artistic

pursuits. Being wealthy or having an elite family background was not surely the

point of reference for his musicians. In other words, they had to be approved by the

musicians rather than the audience.71

71 Cem Behar, Şeyhülislam'ın Müziği: 18. Yüzyılda Osmanlı/Türk Musikisi ve Şeyhülislam

Es'ad Efendi'nin Atrabü'l-Âsâr'ı, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.

44

CHAPTER 3

THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF MUSICIANS

The chapter will be based on the demographic analysis of musicians, which seeks to

explore their social position in society. To describe them beyond their musical

output, the chapter will approach musicians through a handful of perspectives,

including geographical background, educational characteristics, occupational

continuity, sources of income, age compositions, and causes of mortality. Some will

address the issues related to the social status of musicians, while some other will

enhance our understanding of their intellectual and cultural worlds. The part will

underscore any biographical data that would contribute to the principal aim of the

thesis, albeit its influence on the formation of musical character is open to

argument. To identify the educational profile, for instance, non-musical education

level and language skills will be discussed. Based on the statistical outcome, the

limits of music as the chief source of income will be debated, which will help to

consider music as a profession or not at the turn of the twentieth century. Along

the same lines, the musicians in the sampling were predominantly concentrated in

the civil offices as a profession. The chapter will evaluate the meaning of this finding

from a cultural perspective to emphasize the intersecting spaces of music and the

burecratic culture. Indeed, identifying the causes of mortality will provide highlights

into the living conditions of musicians prior to their death and thus will contribute

differently to the question of musicians’ social status. I believe that this “beyond the

music” investigation will be instrumental to see how adaptable they were to

sweeping changes during and after the late Ottoman period.

3.1. Age Composition Characteristics

The study does not restrict the time period deliberately, because the chief concern

is to assemble musicians, whose larger part experienced the late Ottoman and the

subsequent Early Republican years (until 1930). The majority of the musicians under

research satisfy the criteria. The part will display the dates of birth and death of

musicians through a variety of line graphics and tables.

45

Figure 3.1. Histogram of birthdate distribution

Figure 3.2. Histogram of death date distribution

In parallel with two histogram graphs above, the study, on the one hand, included

some musicians who were born in the second decade of the nineteenth century (as

the earliest birth date) and some that remained alive until very recently, on the

other, albeit they are minor in number compared to the bulk of the sample. The

important part of the musicians is well suited to the purpose of the study. The next

table combines the musicians’ birth dates according to time periods to display

alternatively the overall distribution.

6

111111

2

5

222

11

22

1

33

222

1

3

111

22

11

8

5

3

4

66

4

22

444

1

5

6

1

8

10

222

6

9

2

3

6

3

8

1

2

3

6

3

9

2

6

7

44

3

1

7

2

7

1

5

1

unknown

1830

1835

1841

1847

1850

1855

1858

1861

1864

1867

1870

1873

1876

1879

1882

1885

1888

1891

1894

1898

1901

1904

1907

1910

1913

Frequency

18

1221111111122123212111

4

2

4

12

5

21

4

2233

1

44

221

7

1

8

3

5

3

1

4

23

7

4

2

4

21

8

22

5

3455

32

6

4

2

5

1

8

21222

4

222111

32122121

unknown

1896

1901

1907

1911

1917

1922

1926

1930

1936

1940

1945

1949

1953

1957

1961

1965

1969

1974

1978

1982

1987

1992

1999

Frequency

46

Table 3.1. Birth dates by periods

Born

Between Frequenct Percent

1820-1849 23 9

1850-1899 162 62.2

1900-1918 66 26.5

Unknown 6 2.3

TOTAL 257 100.0

As emphasized above, the majority of the musicians’ birth dates concentrated at

the middle (88.7 %) will have more power to affect the outcomes and support the

arguments throughout the thesis rather than the ones assembled at two edges.72

Table 3.2. Death dates by periods

Died

Between Frequency Percent

1891-1908 17 6.6

1909-1950 97 37.7

After 1951 125 48.7

Unknown 18 7

TOTAL 257 100.0

Grouping musicians’ death dates by periods reveal that nearly half of them lived

throughout the second half of the twentieth century. This period, however, is

beyond the scope of the thesis due to the changing social conditions, in which the

diversities belonging to the imperial past faded away and steadily a standard

musician type was created. Therefore, the thesis will concentrate on the first half of

72 Cem Behar prepared the Life Expectancy map for Istanbul based on the statistical data of

1300 (1882-83) and 1322 (1904-5) population censuses. The Brass method which Behar

applied, is based on the use of paternal and maternal orphanood statistics. Owing to the

shortcomings of the necessary dataset, the life expactancy figures for musicians cannnot be

estimated. See, Cem Behar, “An Estimate of Adult Mortality in Istanbul in the Second Half

of the Nineteenth Century, Dünü ve Bugünüyle Toplum ve Ekonomi, Issue 4, October 1994,

İstanbul, pp. 95-105.

47

those musicians’ life stories rather than their later years that they experienced the

years after 1950s, which the reasoning behind it was already debated in the

introduction part. The issue, however, might also be debated through the age

composition of musicians. Given the musicians’ birth interval that almost makes a

century, one may question whether grouping the musicians in accordance with

their birth dates would shed light on meaningful differences or not. Though the

study does not aim to make a comparison based on two generations of musicians,

the reasons should be explained. Firstly, due to the main scope of the study, which

is to identify and analyze the ways musicians responded to the socio-cultural

changes, the large number of my grouping was born in the same period, in the

second half of the nineteenth century, and thus such a comparison would not yield

meaningful outcomes. Secondly, in order to do that, the issue of periodization

needs to be well defined. The issue is a highly contested one among scholars since

the schemes of periodization depends on the historian’s personal reorganization of

the past. The practice of periodization entails historian to regard some events

relatively more critical or characteristic than others, and indeed their impact should

be traceable during the defined period.73

The study views some of the historical ruptures in music more significant than

others. These emerged at about the turn of the twentieth century all the way to the

Early Republican years. Since I have discussed the issue in the introduction section

in detail, I will briefly touch upon them. These events were the opening and

expansion of music schools in Istanbul, the beginning of sound recording

(phonographs, gramophones), developments in publishing sheet music, and music

journals as a sign of increased researches and debates on music. The list should also

include the foundation of state radio in Istanbul and Ankara, in 1927 and 1928,

respectively. Hence all these factors support the opinion that a generation-based

comparison of musicians would not be helpful to address the issues the study works

on.

73 A critique on the emergence of dividing the past into stages and its attachment with the

ideas, including civilization and progress, see Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient,

Medieval & Modern, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994, pp. 205-215.

48

Table 3.3. Age composition of musicians, 1906

Age Interval Frequency Female Male Percent

0-5 28 6 22 10.9

6-10 20 3 17 7.8

11-15 13 1 12 5.1

16-20 21 1 20 7.8

21-25 25 - 25 9.7

26-30 15 1 14 5.4

31-35 21 - 21 8.2

36-40 16 - 16 6.2

41-45 6 - 6 2.3

46-50 9 - 9 3.5

51-55 7 - 7 2.7

56-60 6 1 5 2.3

61-65 5 - 5 1.9

66-70 4 - 4 1.6

Died 15 - 15 5.8

Unborn 31 10 21 12.1

Unknown 15 - 15 5.8

TOTAL 257 23 234 100.0

Comparing the age composition of musicians with the general population figures,

which derived from 1897 census, indicate similar trends before the ages reach to

40. 0-20 age group’s proportion amongst the musician group was 31.6 %, while in

the overall population it was 37.5 %. The group between the ages 20-40 constituted

29.5 % of musicians, while it was 32.3 % of the general population. For the ages

between 40-60, the proportions were 10.8 % among the musicians and 20.4 in total.

Ages grouped as “60 and over” constituted 3.5 % of the musicians, and 9.8 % of the

total population. The irregularities between two sets are mainly related to the

random variation of my sampling. Another reason is that my sampling contains a

49

number of unborn and died ones, together with the musicians whose ages could

not be defined. Plus, there is a ten years of interval between two sets of figures.74

3.2. Geographical Origins

I distributed the birthplaces of the 257 musicians under investigation in parallel

with the Ottoman vilâyet system, which was valid between 1895-1908. The empire

was then officially divided into thirty vilâyets, which were later reduced to twenty

nine due to the changes related to the political situation of Crete (Girid) in 1898,

which henceforth would be an autonomous province.75 The total population figures

were derived from 1903 census, which was completed in three years and hence was

known as 1905-1906 census. According to it, the Empire’s population was

20,884,630.76

74 The population statistics were taken from two researches both based on the Ottoman

census in 1897, Tevfik Güran, Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlk İstatistik Yıllığı, 1897, Tarihi İstatistikler

Dizisi, Vol. 5, T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, Ankara, 1997, pp. 26-29 and Cem

Behar, “Osmanlı Nüfus İstatistikleri ve 1831 Sonrası Modernleşmesi”, Osmanlı Devleti’nde

Bilgi ve İstatistik, Halil İnalcık and Şevket Pamuk (eds.), T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik

Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2000, p. 174.

75 Abdulhamit Kırmızı, Abdülhamid’in Valileri: Osmanlı Vilayet İdaresi 1895-1908, Second

Edition, Klasik, İstanbul, 2008, pp. 13-15.

76 Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun ve Türkiye’nin Nüfusu, 1500-1927, Cem Behar (ed.),

Historical Statistics Series, Vol. 2, T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, Ankara, 1996,

p. 55. For the purpose of Regulation of Population Registration (Sicill-i Nüfus Nizamnâmesi),

which was put into effect right after the Ottoman-Russian war and the Treaty of Berlin in

1878, and the brief explanations on the subsequent modifications at the Department of the

Census (Nüfus-u Umumi İdaresi), see Stanford J. Shaw, “The Ottoman Census System and

Population, 1831-1914”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, Oct.

1978, pp. 330-334.

50

Table 3.4. Musicians’ birthplaces

Vilâyet Frequency Percent Ottoman Population

İstanbul 186 72.4 864,662

Selanik 11 4.3 921,359

Edirne 6 2.3 1,133,796

Hüdavendigâr (Bursa) 6 2.3 1,691,277

Aydın 6 2.3 1,727,581

Konya 4 1.6 1,249,277

Sivas 4 1.6 1,194,372

Beyrut 3 1.2 562,719

Kastamonu 3 1.2 1,121,516

Outside Ottoman territory 7 2.7

Unknown 3 1.2

Other vilâyets 18 6.9

Hâlep 2 867,679

Trabzon 2 1,342,778

Biga (Karesi) 2 186,455

İzmid 2 290,517

Adana 1 504,396

Cezayir-i Bahr-i Sefîd 2 364,234

Erzurum 1 675,855

Hicaz 1

Mamûret-ul-Azîz 1 473,324

Musul 1 161,748

Suriye 1 478,775

Yanya 1 516,766

Yemen 1

TOTAL 257 100

To be noted that the percentages in the Table 3.4 show the proportions among all

musicians, not the proportions among overall population figures. Yet, Table 3.4

does not show the precise birthplaces of musicians. For instance, one who was born

in Amasya sancak will inevitably appear in Sivas vilâyet. But the dataset stores the

names of cities, towns and villages that were recorded as birthplaces if necessary.

The table indicates the significance of Istanbul as the geographical origin of

musicians that lived during the late Ottoman period, though the strikingly high

percentage of Istanbul born musicians (72.4 %) may be criticized for

51

overrepresentation at the expense of others. The distribution of overall population

of Istanbul in 1885 according to the birthplaces, however, shows that the trend

goes in opposite direction as the proportion of Istanbul-born people was 45 %,

whereas the elsewhere born were 55 %.77

Therefore, it might be suggested that musicians were generally from more stable

population. The difference between my sampling and the general population should

partly be related with the relationship between arts and socioeconomic positions in

the society. As anticipated, allocating budget to arts would not take priority over

more pivotal concerns for the newcomers of the city. It could be explained in a

more music-oriented way. According to Es’ad Efendi’s (1685-1753) biographical

dictionary of musicians, the association of music and musicians with Istanbul has

already been established since the beginning of the eighteenth century.78 Even at

that time the city could not be compared to the rest of the empire, it retained its

domination during the late Ottoman period. According to an anecdote told by

İbnülemin, Hacı Arif Bey (1831-1885) heard adolescent Bimen Şen (1873-1942)

during a liturgy in the Armenian Church of Bursa and immediately told him to move

to Istanbul to benefit from his musical talent (…isti’dadından hayır görmek

istiyorsan İstanbul’a git). His statement was not only about preventing him from

wasting his talent, but also leaves no room for doubt about the musical significance

of Istanbul.

The minor presence of musicians from different cities is credible. Salonika,

Hüdavendigâr, Edirne and Aydın provinces, which the last province territorially

included the city of Izmir, were significant urban centers, and well connected to the

capital in terms of commerce and culture. Albeit small in number, these urban

centers did supply the Ottoman music with new musicians. I intentionally use the

word “supply” because the outcome below shows that nearly all non-Istanbul born

77 Stanford J. Shaw, “The Population of Istanbul in the 19th Century”, International Journal

of Middle East Studies, Vol. 10, 1979, p. 270.

78 Cem Behar, Şeyhülislam'ın Müziği: 18. Yüzyılda Osmanlı/Türk Musikisi ve Şeyhülislam

Es'ad Efendi'nin Atrabü'l-Âsâr'ı, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 142-153.

52

musicians moved to and resided in the capital. Table 5 better portrays the trend and

indicates the number of non-Istanbul born musicians who immigrated to the

capital.

Table 3.5. Non-Istanbul born musicians – If resided in Istanbul (cross tabulation)

Vilâyet Frequency Resided in Istanbul Unknown

Selanik 11 9 1

Edirne 6 5 1

Hüdavendigâr 6 6

Aydın 6 3

Konya 4 3 1

Sivas 4 3

Beyrut 3 3

Kastamonu 3 3

Outside Ottoman territory 7 7

Unknown 3 2 1

Other vilâyets 18

Hâlep 2 2

Trabzon 2 2

Biga (Karesi) 2 2

İzmid 2 2

Adana 1 1

Cezayir-i Bahr-i Sefîd 1 1

Erzurum 1 - 1

Girit 1 1

Hicaz 1 1

Mamûret-ul-Azîz 1 1

Musul 1 1

Suriye 1 1

Yanya 1 1

Yemen 1 1

TOTAL 71 61 5

Consequently, the significance of Istanbul becomes more and more clear with the

statistical data. The outcome shows that 61 out of 71 musicians left their places and

53

established a life in the capital, whereas only a minor group of non-Istanbul born

musicians (n = 5) remained in their birthplaces. 79 The overall percentage

dramatically reaches up to 96.1% that covers both the Istanbul born and the non-

Istanbul born musicians who resided in the capital. One may argue the credibility of

the research based on the significant proportion of Istanbul-born musicians, which

might influence the analyses and hence may result in risking the research findings.

The argument would be credible if only the non Istanbul-born ones would not have

moved to capital in such great numbers and would have continued to live where

they were born or elsewhere. As demonstrated, the outcome provides evidence for

the centrality of Istanbul in a study that would deal with the social aspects of music

and musicians’ biographies. To explain the reasoning behind this, the subsequent

chapter will be related to the interactions between city and musicians.

Unfortunately, one can hardly encounter the internal immigration stories of those

61 fathers; it is such a rare data in the biographies. However, a closer look into

Konya born musicians’ life accounts may be helpful to understand the motivations.

Marko Çolakoğlu (1896-1957) belonged to the Rum community of Konya (Karaman),

whose family moved to Istanbul for unknown reasons when he was a child. His

primary music education began in the Orthodox Patriarchate at Phanar, Fener. A

female musician, Bedriye Hoşgör, was born in 1896. For some unknown reasons

again, her family moved to the capital when she was still a child. There she had the

chance to be privately educated by Cemil Bey (1872-1916)80 and Nevres Bey (1873-

1931). The same pattern is visible in the life story of Sedat Öztoprak (1890-1942). In

1890, he was born in Konya as his father was then the Chief Execution Judge of that

city. The father was appointed to Istanbul once he completed his middle education.

There he would find many opportunities to advance his musical skills. The fourth

79 Those names are Cemal Efendi, Hasan Güler, Rakım Elkutlu, Ömer Altuğ and İzak Elgazi.

Although these names were in Istanbul periodically, they have lived most of their lives in

the places they were born.

80 There is a debate on the precise birth year of Cemil Bey among the music historians. My

date is derived from his personal register record, which was officially kept by the Ottoman

Ministery of Interior, According to it, his birth date was on 17 September 1872, 1289 senesi

şehr-i Recebinin on dördünde, 5 Eylül sene 1288, see DH.SAID, 43-343/174.

54

one was an Armenian, İstepan Gedik (1886-1970), whose biographical data is less

complete to support the argument.

Similarly, all roads lead to Istanbul for the Beirut born musicians indeed. However,

the biographies reveal that none of them had family roots from Beirut. Kemal

Niyazi Seyhun was born in 1885 in Acre sanjak of Beirut province because his father,

Niyazi Bey, served as the district governor (kaymakam) there. His family moved

back to the capital due to his father’s assignment to a new post. Kemal Niyazi

studied at Galatasaray Sultanî and pursued a musical career. İhsan Raif Hanım

(1877-1926), whose father was Köse Mehmed Raif Pasha (d. 1911), was born in

Beirut because her father then was the governor of the city. She did not only

compose music but was also a prolific poet, who published her poems in journals

and books. The last Beirut born musician was Zeki Duygulu (b. 1907-1974). Like

other Beirut born musicians, his father served in the Excise Tax Department

(Rüsumât Emaneti) at Beirut in 1907. Zeki Duygulu as a professional musician,

wandered from Istanbul, Ankara to Izmir throughout his life.

Table 3.6 is designed to highlight the professions of non-Istanbul born fathers to

explain the issue from a different perspective. The official functionary, religious

functionary, and military categories can be defined as official jobs, and their shift of

location was probably related to official assignments. Indeed, sheikh/dervish group

might be added into this category, whose movements from one lodge to another

depended on the permission (icazetnâme) given by the authorities of the order.

Therefore, one can argue that the appointment into a new post or place was a

determining factor for 27 fathers’ movement to Istanbul. Other professions

(musicians, artisans, merchants) may be classified as independent or lesserindependent

ones, that they were certainly freer to create business opportunities in

a new market. Given the large percentage of unknown group (n = 20, one-third of

the group), one cannot advance further on the issue.

55

Table 3.6. Fathers’ occupation - Fathers settled in Istanbul (cross tabulation)

Occupation of Fathers Number of Families

Who Settled in Istanbul

Official Functionary 11

Religious Functionary 5

Teacher 2

Military 5

Sheikh/Dervish 4

Musician 3

Artisan 6

Merchant 1

Solicitor 1

Other 3

Unknown 20

TOTAL 61

In fact, immigrations were not music related, but the capital had much more to

offer to their children in terms of musical opportunities. The small number of music

teachers, the lack of music schools, in particular, as well as of a non-dynamic

musical atmosphere, in general, characterized the provinces, whereas the capital

was beyond comparison. Given the musical significance of Istanbul, the subsequent

chapter will concentrate on the interactions between the city and the musicians.

3.3. Education Patterns

This part will analyze the educational level of musicians to further explore the

musicians’ socio-cultural profiles. It will highlight the types of schools that musicians

mostly preferred, the role of the private tutorage, and their language skills.

Therefore, the part will discuss merely the non-musical educational behaviors, as

the processes of musical cultivation are the subject matter of the fifth chapter.

56

It is debatable whether any person needs non-musical education to make music.

Yet it is open to question to assume that it essentially improves the musical output.

Nevertheless, exploring the educational patterns will enhance the quality of the

thesis that seeks to analyze the social aspects of music, and hence concentrates

more on the social status of musicians. In other words, to analyze the musicians’

social status, each biographical data is worth to be analyzed even if its direct effect

on his/her musical formation is debatable.

3.3.1. Primary Education

According to 1897 census, the Ottoman state had 34.843 primary schools, of which

28.615 (82.1 %) were for Muslims. 5.982 (17.2 %) belonged to non-Muslim

Ottomans, while 246 (0.7 %) to foreigners (ecnebi), which means that they were not

Ottoman subjects. The number of Muslim primary schools in Istanbul was 263 with

19.792 students in total. 81

Table 3.7 indicates the level of primary school education and includes both the

Muslims and non-Muslims. Though the non-Muslims (n = 28 in total) had their first

education overwhelmingly at their own community (cemaat) schools, the data did

not separate state-run schools and non-Muslim community schools at the primary

level.82

81 Tevfik Güran, Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlk İstatistik Yıllığı, 1897, Tarihi İstatistikler Dizisi, Vol. 5,

T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, Ankara, 1997, pp. 98 and 110; Cem Behar,

“Osmanlı Nüfus İstatistikleri ve 1831 Sonrası Modernleşmesi”, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bilgi ve

İstatistik, Halil İnalcık and Şevket Pamuk (eds.), T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü,

Ankara, 2000, p. 169.

82 The years of education in the Muslim primary schools differed according to the

geographical location. It lasted three years in Istanbul, whereas it was four years in the

provinces between 1891 and 1908. The curriculum included learning the alphabet, reading

Qur’an, learning the principles of Islam (ilmihal), Ottoman Turkish language, orthography,

Ottoman history, Ottoman geography, arithmetic, and calligraphy, Bayram Kodaman,

Abdülhamid Devri Eğitim Sistemi, TTK, Ankara, 1999, pp. 85-88.

57

Table 3.7. Primary (ibtidâî) school attendance

Frequency Percent

Yes 211 82.1

No 2 0.8

Other 7 2.7

Unknown 37 14.4

TOTAL 257 100.0

The difference between “no” and “unknown” categories needs to be explained. The

“no” group included two musicians who have not received primary education for

sure. Yet the situation for the 37 musicians in the unknown category is open to

interpretation. They might have received primary education; however, their

educational record could not be identified. In fact, their education history is

recorded as unknown in the middle and higher education columns as well, which

might imply that they have not received primary education. Even so I did not place

them into the “no” variable unless the biographical accounts stated it precisely.

Therefore, the possibility remains open. The only exceptional case in the “unknown

musicians” category is Ahmet Celaleddin Efendi (1853-1946), the Sheikh of Gelibolu

and Üsküdar Mevlevî lodges, whose educational background is unidentified until his

higher education in the Al-Azhar at Cairo. Therefore, it is a clear evidence for his

primary education. Seven people that were placed in the other category did not

receive public education but were educated by private tutors. Furthermore, a

number of people that were educated in the public schools also had private tutors

whose cases I will soon touch upon.

3.3.2. Secondary Education

The study divides the Ottoman mass education at the secondary level into two

comprehensive categories. The lower secondary education corresponds to the rüşdî

schools, while the upper level points to idadî and sultanî schools. To reiterate, both

levels are considered to be within the secondary education.

58

The data derived from 1897 census indicates that 1187 (rüşdî) schools provided

lower secondary level education throughout the empire. The number of Muslim

schools was 426 (35.9 %); 687 (57.9 %) belonged to non-Muslim communities, while

74 (6.2 %) were owned by foreigners. Istanbul had 29 (rüşdî) schools with 4.776

students in total; however, the number did not include non-Muslim community

schools.83

Seven musicians continued to receive education privately as it was at the primary

level. Three more whose education carried out in the palace (mûzîka-i hümâyûn)

are included. The proportion of continuity among musicians from primary level

education to lower secondary is still high, even considering the sharp decrease in

number between primary and rüşdî schools, (see Table 3.8).

Table 3.8. Lower secondary (rüşdî) school attendance84

Frequency Percent

Yes 161 62.6

No 17 6.6

Other 10 3.9

Unknown 69 26.8

TOTAL 257 100.0

83 Tevfik Güran, Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlk İstatistik Yıllığı, 1897, pp. 98 and 109; Cem Behar,

“Osmanlı Nüfus İstatistikleri ve 1831 Sonrası Modernleşmesi”, p. 169.

84 The existence of rüşdiye schools was a matter of debate among the Ottoman authorities.

Mehmed Said Pasha (d. 1914) was the governer of Hüdavendigâr vilâyet in 1878. He

witnessed that despite the allocation of state funding to rüşdiye schools, participation at

the local level was far less than expected. He proposed that the state make the local people

pay for the expenses; so that, the local awareness would increase. The Pasha submitted

another petition to Abdulhamid in 1888. His plan was to extend the primary education to

six years, and then let the students pass directly to higher education without even spending

a day in rüşdiye. His idea was to transform the rüşdiye schools into three year occupational

schools. Abdulhamid did not accept Said Pasha’s plan and continued to fund the rüşdiyes

for several years more. The situation was bizarre: In 1892, these schools were merged with

idadî schools, while in practice the rüşdiyes did not come to an end, see Selçuk Akşin Somel,

The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire 1839-1908: Islamization,

Autocracy and Discipline, Brill, Leiden, 2001, p. 161; Bayram Kodaman, Abdülhamid Devri

Eğitim Sistemi, pp. 107-114.

59

Eventually, 164 musicians (three palace-educated in the other category included)

out of the 211 who received primary education continued their education in the

next stage, and the overall proportion makes 77.7 % in total.

The number of upper secondary schools operated in the empire was 189, of which

56 (29.6 %) were state-sponsored schools. The non-Muslim communities had 70

schools (37.1 %), whereas 63 (33.3 %) were under the responsibility of the

foreigners.85

Tracing the educational continuity, 92 musicians further stayed in public education

out of 161 musicians who completed the lower secondary education, a proportion

of 57.1 %. Indeed, biographical accounts recorded 11 new cases in the upper

secondary education whose lower secondary education was unknown. That is how

the number reached 103 in total (40.1 %), (see Table 3.9). By keeping out the 101

musicians in the unknown category from the total population, the reasoning behind

it already pointed out, the final number of musicians that eventually completed

upper secondary education becomes 156, which the amount is equivalent to 60.7 %

in total.

People, who attended a certain school but did not complete it, are always placed in

the “no” category. For example, Tevfik Kolaylı (1879-1953) could not regularly

attend the classes in the (idadî) school in Izmir due to his health problems, and did

not receive the diploma (şehadetnâme). Thus, I coded him to his previous school.

85 Tevfik Güran, Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlk İstatistik Yıllığı, 1897, pp. 98 and 108; Cem Behar,

“Osmanlı Nüfus İstatistikleri ve 1831 Sonrası Modernleşmesi”, p. 169.

60

Table 3.9. Upper secondary (idadî and sultanî) school attendance86

Frequency Percent

Yes 103 40.1

No 46 17.9

Other 7 2.7

Unknown 101 39.13

TOTAL 257 100.0

The dataset reveals that certain schools attracted more attention than others. Vefa

Secondary School at Fatih, for instance, was mostly preferred among the musicians.

Sixteen musicians received education in that school, which was followed by

Galatasaray at Beyoğlu with thirteen students. Seven students were educated in

the Orphanage School (Dârüşşafaka) at Fatih, which was the third mostly preferred

school. Within the musical perspective, these schools were critical for the musical

development of the pupils, who who had chance to learn music from significant

music teachers.

At the secondary level, 13 families’ offspring received education in the foreign

schools. These schools were mainly French (Catholic) and so was the language of

education. Some of those schools were located in the city, namely Saint-Benoît,

Saint-Gabriel, Frères (des écoles Chrétiennes), Notre Dame de Sion, and some were

in remote provinces, such as the French schools in Beirut, Cairo and Yemen. Three

out of four musicians who were educated in these provinces were the children of

official functionaries. The case of Kemal Emin Bara (1876-1956) was typical for

official functionary families. He was born in Istanbul but had to complete his

86 There were two types of idadî education; seven years of boarding (leylî) schools and five

years of day (neharî) schools. The extention of idadi education was related to the

Regulation of Public Education of 1869 (Maârif-i Umûmiyye Nizamnâmesi). The regulation

stipulated the opening of one sultanî in each province. The plan did not succeed; only a

handful of provinces such as Girid and Suriye had sultanî schools. Thereby, the Ottoman

authorities extended the idadî education to seven years to meet a particular need. Both

Ergin and Kodaman provided a detailed version of the idadî school curriculum, see Osman

Ergin, Türk Maarif Tarihi, Vol. 3, Eser Matbaası, İstanbul, 1977, pp. 930-31; Bayram

Kodaman, Abdülhamid Devri Eğitim Sistemi, pp. 143-44.

61

secondary education in Yemen and Beirut due to his father’s official assignments.

His language skills, however, became his main source of income in Istanbul, as he

taught French in state schools and translated pieces from French literature

throughout his life. But Nurettin Cemil Sangan’s (1900-1979) life narrative differs

from the families of government officials. He was the son of Cemil Bey (Şekerci,

1867-1928). After his retirement from Imperial Music Academy (mûzîka-i hümâyûn),

in 1911, Abbas Hilmi Paşa (1874-1944) invited Cemil Bey to Cairo. The place

eventually became a permanent residence for the family where his son graduated

from a French school.

3.3.3. Higher Education

Higher education outcomes that were derived from occupational schools and

universities indicate that 78 musicians were enrolled in total (30.3 %), (see Table

3.10). The number of cases that were fully recorded from primary school to

university is 48, which means that other 30 musicians’ educational records were

fragmented. The situation reveals the gaps in the biographies, particularly in

educational issues. Figure 3 provides the general educational condition of musicians

from primary school to the university level. Musicians who achieved a university

degree were almost a quarter of the total number of musicians. Yet the outcome

needs cautious interpretation given the unmeasured number of people, whose

educational records could have an impact on the proportions.

62

Figure 3.3. Complete distribution of educational outcomes

Though 78 musicians enrolled to these schools, not all have received a diploma. The

amount of incomplete students was 16. Therefore, 62 students eventually

graduated from their schools, 24.1 % of the total. The list below shows the number

of musicians who attended to higher educational institutions, musicians’ most

frequented schools, as well as the number of students with higher education

degree.

62

103

161

211

257

24,1

40,1

62,6

82,1

100

Total Primary Secondary 1Secondary 2 Higher

Education Completed

percent

Frequency

63

Table 3.10. The list of attended schools

School Names

Attendance Completed

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Imperial School of Law

[Mekteb-i Hukuk]

16 6.2 14 5.4

Civil Service School

[Mekteb-i Mülkiye]

10 3.9 9 3.5

Imperial Civilian School of

Medicine

[Mekteb-i Mülkiye-i Tıbbiye]

7 2.7 4 1.5

Imperial Ottoman University

[Dârülfünûn-u Osmanî]

5 1.9 5 1.9

Civil Engineering School

[Hendese-i Mülkiye]

4 1.6 4 1.6

Imperial Trade and Agricultural

School [Ticaret ve Ziraat Mektebi]

3 1.2 2 0.8

School of Fine Arts

[Mekteb-i Sanayi-i Nefise]

1 .4 1 .4

War Academy

[Harbiye Mektebi]

1 .4 0

Universities abroad 5 1.6 3 1.2

Other87 26 10.1 20 7.8

No 179 69.7 195 75.9

TOTAL 257 100.0 257 100.0

Exploring the social background of those 78 families whose children applied to

higher education and making comparisons with the families whose children did not

receive university education might provide deeper insights into the matter, (see

Table 3.11).

87 A comprehensive list of schools that musicians attended is not essential for the analysis.

However, providing a few names will give an idea: Occupational Accounting School, Istanbul

Trade School, Female School of Art, Dersaadet Language School, Female Teacher School,

and so on.

64

Table 3.11. Father occupations compared to children’s higher education (cross

tabulation)

F_OCCUP H_EDU Total

Yes No Unknown

Musician Count 2 9 0 11

% within 18.2% 81.8% 0.0% 100.0%

Official

Functionary

Count 27 43 3 73

% within 37.0% 58.9% 4.1% 100.0%

Religious

Functionaries

Count 7 21 0 28

% within 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Teacher Count 3 3 0 6

% within 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Military Count 7 14 2 23

% within 30.4% 60.9% 8.7% 100.0%

Note: Table included certain occupations.

The reason why I give combinations of selected occupations is that some numbers

did not come out as expected and need to be treated carefully. The overall situation

of higher education indicates a negative trend for almost each occupation, with the

exception of teacher fathers, almost half of whose children received higher

education. I pay particular attention to the official functionary families, as their

number is strikingly low in proportion. How to explain the situation? Their offspring

is expected to be better educated. But an upside down trend is apparent. The

proportions are even wider for the children of religious functionary and military

groups, who might also be regarded as members of the literate classes in the

Ottoman society. Following the career paths of 27 children would provide an extra

insight. As anticipated, the majority of these people sought bureaucratic careers (n

= 12 with 44.4 %) or they were specialized in the fields that they have received

higher education (three teachers (11.1 %), two doctors (7.4 %), and three engineers

(11.1 %)). The cases of 43 musicians who did not receive higher education,

however, are challenging. Music was the main source of income for nine of them

(20.9 %), whereas two became journalists (4.7 %), but 23 succeeded in finding a

post in the bureaucracy (53.5 %).

65

Before accounting for this high amount, I will also look into the professions of

religious functionaries’ and military fathers’ offspring. All the religious functionaries

(n = 7) who had higher education served in the public offices. But nine out of 21

children (43.2 %) who did not get university education were also able to find a job in

the Ottoman bureaucracy, whereas only three (14.3 %) continued the occupational

tradition. Military fathers’ six children out of seven with university education were

distributed evenly among bureaucracy, medicine and music (two for each, 28.6 % in

each). Typical in cases with no high education, five out of 14 children served in the

public offices (35.7 %), which shared the bigger proportion with five who chose to

be a musician (35.7 %). The rest was distributed among other occupations.

Though the experiences emerging from each narrative might be diverse; a trend

emerges from the outcomes that higher education was not the point of attraction

for the majority of families with a certain degree of intellectual background. Even

the positive effect of higher education could not all be neglected particularly

considering the cases of religious functionaries, it might be suggested that it was

not so vital and decisive for a bureaucratic career. Addressing the channels of

bureaucratic recruit is not the aim of the thesis; nevertheless, broad range of

factors could have played a role in it, including a network of friends and nepotism.

3.3.4. Private Tutorage

Construction of state schools in the distant corners of empire, adoption of Western

methods, centralized curriculums and standard textbooks are evidences of rapid

state expansion into the mass education in the Hamidian period. Nevertheless,

Fortna stresses that such an approach, demarcated by cultural dualism, bears

considerable risks and leads to understanding the issue in terms of “secular” or

“Western”. A more balanced evaluation of the late Ottoman mass education should

also highlight the priority given to Islamic values to revitalize the Islamic and

Ottoman basis of the empire, as well as the various types of education taken by the

great variety of students no matter how efficiently the system was controlled from

66

the center.88 From a musical perspective, the late Ottoman musician biographies

reflected the imperial diversity that would soon be overcome by more

homogeneous models in the course of nation building. The private tutorage

(muallim-i mahsus) was one example of the imperial pluralities. But how did it

function in the Ottoman daily life? Did it work as an alternative model of school

education or was it connected to it? Addressing these issues will provide insights

into the educational aim of private teaching and lead to a closer look into the social

status of families that hired private tutors for their offspring.

In fact, studies dealt with the Hamidian educational policy provides enormous

statistical data regarding the number of schools, teachers, and students. What I

have not encountered is data corresponding to private tutorage. Therefore, the

practice of it -albeit not commonly- among my sampling cannot be viewed with

overall trends.

Yet the gender segregation was not the issue of the private tutorage. Only five out

of 23 women (21.7 %) in the sampling were instructed through it, so attending

state-run institutions was more common in the Hamidian era.89 Though it was more

frequent in the Hamidian period, schooling girls was in practice since Tanzimat’s

educational reforms.

In terms of situating the private tutorage within the mass education, statistical

outcome reveals that the majority attended mass education. The number of

musicians, for instance, who also joined public school, was 20 (66.7 %) against

seven (23.3 %), with three unknown cases. The amount for the lower middle

education was 16 (53.3 %) against nine (30 %), with five unknown cases. In the

highest level of education, nine musicians who were educated privately had

university education (30 %) while 21 did not (70 %).

88 Benjamin J. Fortna, Imperial Classroom: Islam, the State, and Education in the Late

Ottoman Empire, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, pp. 202-247.

89 François Georgion, Sultan Abdülhamid, Ali Berktay (trans.), İletişim, Third Edition,

İstanbul, 2015, pp. 347-348.

67

However, there was not such a case of direct access to university without getting

public education in the lower levels.

All those 30 musicians were Muslims with a diverse social background, (see Table

3.12). The statistical table, nevertheless, brings to the forefront two types of family

profiles. Families in official service (43.3 %) and religious functionaries (30 %) that

served either in mosques or in Sufi lodges.

Table 3.12. Privately taught musicians’ family profile

Occupation

Frequency Percent

Official Func. 13 43.3

Religious Func. 4 13.3

Teacher 1 3.3

Sheikh 5 16.7

Artisan 1 3.3

Writer 1 3.3

Military 1 3.3

Unknown 4 13.3

TOTAL 30 100.0

Focusing more onto the official functionary families, it becomes apparent that the

private tutorage was a practice widely applied by the people who had means and

higher social status. Six of them hold the title of Pasha, almost all the highest-ranks

in the sampling. One was in the close circle of Abdulhamid, Mabeynci Faik Bey, and

another held a senior position in the Ministry of Finance (Maliye Nezâreti). One

military doctor and three officials served in the less important positions relatively

but not moderate at all.

On the question of being elite, it was characteristic for non-official families as well.

Abdülkadir Bey’s father, Seyyid Yakub Han, was an immigrant with a notable family

background originating from Kashgar. Nuri Şeyda Bey’s father, Hafız Efendi,

belonged to the artisan class but he was a warden (kethüda). Religious functionary

68

families were indeed elites of their social class. Şerif Muhiddin’s father, Şerif Ali

Haydar was the sharif of Mecca (descendant of the Prophet through his daughter).

One was the professor of religion with a title of chief judge (kadıasker) while others

functioned as imam in the distinguished mosques of Istanbul. Sufi sheikhs

overwhelmingly belonged to the Mevlevî order who led the distinguished Mevlevî

lodges at Istanbul, including Yenikapı and Beşiktaş.

According to Table 3.13, it is apparent that the private tutorage overwhelmingly

concentrated on two fields: regular subjects and language learning. Language

learning was the leading subject matter of tutorage. Considering the centralized

curriculum at the primary level state schools, regular subjects were precisely

equivalent to primary education. The topics taught in these schools were

mentioned previously. It yet included basic religious knowledge (mebadi-i ulûm-ı

diniyye).

Table 3.13. Subjects of tutorage

Subject Frequency Percent

Regular subjects 5 16.6

Language 15 50.0

Memorization of Qur’an 2 6.7

Regular subjects with

language

8 26.7

TOTAL 30 100.0

As the general condition of language learning among musicians will be dealt soon, I

will very brief touch on the issue here. The most preferred language was Persian by

15 musicians out of 23; followed by 13 musicians in Arabic and French by 10. It has

to be noted that, the number of musicians exceeds the total number (n = 23) due to

cases of learning more than one language. Only eight musicians (36.6 %) attempted

to learn one language, while the rest were involved in multiple languages. One case

was placed into the unknown category.

69

Seven out of 13 cases (53.8 %) who was privately educated on regular subjects did

not ever attend primary and secondary level of school education, but four were

enrolled to primary state schools (30.8 %). Indeed, out of these 13 cases, only two

received higher education. Even though the numbers of sampling is small to draw a

conclusion, it nevertheless would not be wrong to say that the private education

operated as an alternative model to the Ottoman mass education particularly at the

primary level for the families of higher social status.

Two musicians were instructed privately in order to memorize the Qur’an.

However, the task was achieved in one case. Ahmet Irsoy (1869-1943), the son of

Zekai Dede (1824-1897), specifically was instructed (kıraat-i seb‘a, aşere, and takrîb)

by Süleyman Efendi who was the imam of Humbarahane Mosque on the shores of

the Golden Horn and hence became a hafiz. The incomplete one was Kemal Batanay

(1893-1981), who attended to a religious school at Fatih, Dârü’l-hilâfeti’l-aliyye,90

but, quitted without graduating.

3.3.5. Learning a Language

The thesis considers non-Muslims as native speakers of the dominant language of

their respective community unless stated otherwise. Thus, the number of

Armenian, Greek or Ladino Spanish languages virtually corresponds to the non-

Muslims in the sampling. Given the situation that not a single biographical account

has mentioned difficulties in communication experienced when using the Ottoman

Turkish language, the study tends to treat it as the standard language for all.

The language statistics are not about proficiency. If only the level is stated explicitly

in biographical accounts, which was a rare situation, it has to be taken as familiarity

at best. Fortna defines the funding shortage and problems in teachers’ training, as

the main reason behind the poor preparation of students for higher education.91 His

assessment supports the way I approach the capacity of language skills in general. It

90 Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Dârü’l-Hilâfeti’l-Aliyye Medresesi” DİA, Vol. 8, 1993, pp. 507-508.

91 Benjamin J. Fortna, Imperial Classroom, p. 116.

70

could presumably be stated that privately taught musicians were better trained and

hence were more skilled in language than the pupils of the state-owned schools.

Table 3.14 is designed to indicate each instructed language together with language

combinations among musicians. In the table Arabic, Persian and French appear as

predominant languages, each of which had distinct cultural undertones.

Table 3.14. Most popular languages

Language Type Frequency Percent

Arabic 3 1.2

Persian 3 1.2

French 31 12.1

Armenian 19 7.4

Greek 7 2.7

German 3 1.2

English 1 .4

Ladino Spanish 3 1.2

NSL 44 17.1

Unknown 93 36.2

Language Combinations

Arabic and Persian 18 7.0

Arabic and French 3 1.2

Persian and French 4 1.6

Arabic, Persian, French 15 5.8

Other 10 4.0

TOTAL 257 100.0

Though Arabic played a central part in the religious school education, medreses,

which was taught regularly in the primary and secondary levels together with

Persian. It was partially due to the fact that a great part of the grammatical

structure and the vocabulary of the Ottoman Turkish were derived from these

languages. Yet culturally, these languages were considered to be fundamental for

cultivated Ottomans.92 French language also became part of this essentiality by the

92 Benjamin C. Fortna, “Education and Autobiography at the End of the Ottoman Empire”,

Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 41, No. 1, Mar., 2001, pp. 26-30.

71

Tanzimat’s educational reforms and continued to be so in the Hamidian period. The

Regulation of Public Education introduced the French language as an elective course

at the lower secondary level (rüşdiye) curriculum in 1869. The course nevertheless

could be offered only in the more central schools due to insufficient state funding.

In 1880, it became a compulsory course in the secondary education with a view to

provide the latest developments and trends in commerce, agriculture and industry

to students.93 Therefore, culturally speaking, the French language was substantially

associated with the “West rooted” modernization process and meant to be more

secular.94 NSL category points to 44 musicians without any language skills for sure

(17.1 %), which the definition clearly separates it from 93 musicians placed into

unknown category (36.2 %), whose language issue could not be identified and left a

possibility behind.

Table 3.14 also shows the number of multilingual musicians, which means they had

familiarity with more than one language apart from Ottoman Turkish. Their

proportion was 19.6 %, which also contained the language combinations recorded

into other category. The main reason of grouping some musicians under “other” is

their undersized proportion. Table 3.15 brings to the forefront the combinations

that were mostly made up by three dominant languages, namely as Arabic, Persian,

and French.

93 Selçuk Akşin Somel, The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire 1839-

1908, p. 175.

94 Interestingly, the non-Muslim community leaders considered Galatasaray Sultanî

exaggaretedly Western-oriented and propagated against their community members’

involvement in this school saying that it advocated a secular worldview, İlber Ortaylı,

İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı, İletişim, Fifteenth Edition, İstanbul, 2003, pp. 191-192.

72

Table 3.15. Other language combinations

Language Type Frequency Percent

Arabic, Persian, Armenian 1 .4

French and Armenian 1 .4

French and German 1 .4

Persian, French, English 1 .4

Persian and German 1 .4

Arabic, Persian, French, Greek 1 .4

Arabic, Persian, French and German 1 .4

Arabic, Persian, French and English 1 .4

Arabic, French, English and Italian 1 .4

Arabic, Persian, French, Armenian and

Greek

1 .4

TOTAL 10 4.0

To find out the precise numbers of languages studied by musicians, I totaled the

multiple ones in the previous table. Additionally, Figure 3.4 would indicate the total

number of each language. Apart from the place of ruling languages, the chart

presents how “insignificant” were other Western languages in the intellectual world

of Ottomans, the reasons of which is not the subject matter of this study.

Figure 3.4. Language frequency

45

47

61

22

9

6

4

3

1

Arabic

Persian

French

Armenian

Greek

German

English

Ladino Spanish

Italian

73

3.4. Occupational Continuity

Having information about the fathers’ occupations is decisive for building

arguments on the social backgrounds of musicians. In fact, the study asked the

same question about the mothers and relatives but these variables have not

produced satisfactory results. Even the names of mothers are missing in many

biographical accounts. This kind of rare data could be found in cases where the

mother belonged to a family with a high social status. Suphi Ziya Özbekkan’s (1887-

1966) mother, Ayşe Behiye Hanım, for instance, was the daughter of Abdüllatif

Suphi Pasha (d. 1866). Osman Nihat Akın’s (1905-1959) mother’s name is known

because Rasime Hanım was Ahmet Rasim’s (1864-1932) daughter. Furthermore,

most of the mothers seemed to have no profession or it was omitted from the

accounts at best. For that reason, fathers’ occupations prove to be essential and

valuable to understand the social milieu in which musicians were born (see Table

3.16).

74

Table 3.16. Occupations of fathers

Occupation Frequency Percent

Official Functionary 73 28.4

Religious Functionary 28 10.9

Military 23 8.9

Sheikh/dervish 16 6.2

Artisan 15 5.8

Musician 11 4.3

Teacher 6 2.3

Merchant 3 1.2

Doctor/Pharmacist/Chemist 2 0.8

Writer 1 0.4

Solicitor 1 0.4

Other 8 3.1

Captain 2

Laborer 2

Farmer 1

Mültezim 1

Odabaşı 1

Lower Court,

Bidâyet, member 1

Unknown 70 27.2

TOTAL 257 100

At first sight, the outcome uncovers the musicians’ heterogeneous social

backgrounds. It basically means that many different layers of society shared the

musical knowledge in the late Ottoman period and therefore music could not be

associated with a particular group of people or class. Making a brief touch on the

musicians of previous generation further encourages the situation. Seyyid Abdi

Efendi’s (Basmacı, 1788-1856) father, Halil Efendi was a qadi. The well-known Hacı

Arif Bey’s (1831-1884) father served as a scribe at the religious court of Eyüp.

Dellalzâde İsmail Efendi’s (1797-1869) father, as anticipated from the epithet, dellâl,

was a middleman who bought goods from producers and sold to consumers or

retailers. Three of them spend years as palace musicians, performed for royal

people and instructed music to pupils in the Imperial Music Academy (mûzîka-i

hümâyûn). The list of musicians whose family backgrounds reveal the diversity

75

could easily be expanded for the previous generation. Nevertheless, if we had a

historical study to explore collectively the social basis of musicians who belonged to

the first half of the nineteenth century, it would be possible to follow the trends of

continuity and change for the whole century and even beyond.

Returning back to the table, a high proportion of musicians were born into families

whose professional careers evolved in the Ottoman bureaucracy (more than a

quarter, n = 73). Even though the group includes a few upper-class families, a

considerable amount pursued middle or lower-status official careers. The study also

recorded their offices precisely. Based on that outcome, musicians by and large

were born into the ordinary, middle-rank families. Since the bureaucratic trend

would also continue for the offspring, that is what the variable on the income

sources of musicians tells, the embedment of music into the Ottoman bureaucratic

life deserves an elaborate interpretation.

The cross-tabulation table below shows the interrelation between some selected

occupations held by fathers and children to grasp the continuity and change from

one generation to another.

Table 3.17. Fathers’ occupations – income source of children (cross tabulation)

Fathers’

occupations

Income sources of children

Music

Official

Func.

Religious

Func.

Sheikhs

Artisan

Other

TOTAL

Religious

Functionaries

3 15 4 1 5 28

Sheikhs/derv. 4 3 6 3 16

Artisan 5 5 2 3 15

Musician 9 1 1 11

TOTAL 21 24 6 6 4 9 70

Note: The table contains selected professions for both fathers and the offspring.

76

Probably the first thing regarding the table makes clear is the advancement of

musicians whose main source of income was music. In one generation, the number

almost doubled from 11 to 22. The situation indicates the growing of the career

opportunities in music, which I will elaborate upon in the sixth chapter.

The sheikhs/dervishes variable reveals a solid family tradition in terms of

professional continuity. Sons replaced the sheikh fathers in the lodges, however,

many would experience the abolishment of Sufi lodges in 1925. Therefore, those six

sons in the table, who were officially accepted as sheikhs, also had to struggle to

create a new life. The state intervention was devastating but it seems that they

were able to overcome it. Previous sheikhs and dervishes largely survived in the

music industry, and they did not have to start from scratch. For example, Gavsi

Baykara (1902-1967) was born in the Yenikapı Mevlevî lodge. He was a member of a

sheikh family, whose grandfather was sheikh Mehmed Celaleddin Dede (d. 1908).

His father, sheikh Mehmed Abdülbâki Baykara (1883-1935) 95 was a natural

successor of the post and was still the sheikh of the same lodge when he

experienced the abolishment of the Mevlevî order. Thereby, Gavsi never had the

chance to become an official sheikh in the order. Despite his education, he received

a high-school diploma from Galatasaray Sultanî and having skill in Arabic, Persian,

French and Greek, he preferred to be in the music industry after 1925. Selfconfident

about his musical ability, played in the Istanbul music market (piyasa);

organized concerts, recorded music for different companies, composed music for

the early Turkish movies and taught ney in the Istanbul Municipal Conservatory. All

these musical activities were nevertheless not on a regular basis and so were the

fees he received. As time went by, his career trajectory seemed to turn downward.

The job opportunities were narrowed, and could not provide enough income. In a

95 After 1925, Bâki Dede worked in a wide range of non-regular duties, from being a

member of a commission that classify libraries, to working as a record-keeper in the

Republican People’s Party and from teaching Persian in the Literature Faculty at the

Istanbul University, to teaching literature at the Bakırköy Armenian High School (Bezezyan),

see Ahmet Baki Haksever, “XX. Yüzyılda Üç Mevlevi Şeyhi: Veled Çelebi, Abdülbaki Baykara,

Ahmet Remzi Akyürek”, Tasavvuf, special issue dedicated to Mevlâna, No. 14, Ankara, 2005,

pp. 395-96.

77

society without an unemployment compensation system to support impoverished

musicians, or a Sufi lodge to resort to with confidence, his health had deteriorated

too. He eventually suffered a stroke and died in extreme poverty in 1967.96

The adjective “musician” used before fathers, points to music as a primary source of

income. Eleven fathers were actively involved in music as performers and offered

private lessons to supplement their income. The musician category also contains

music teachers in the state schools. The cross-tabulation table above displays the

strong family tradition in music. The statistical outcome indicates that nine children

out of 11 musician fathers chose to make music professionally. It appears that the

children of musician fathers were encouraged to perform music. The family

influence and free music training as well as the fathers’ established business

connections should be noted. All these factors combined with the aptitude for

music seemed to design the career-paths. For example, Yorgo Bacanos (1900-1977)

could hardly complete the secondary school because of his enthusiasm for music.

His father taught him to play the oud when he was five years old and he was not

even twelve years old when he began to play oud in the fasils together with his

father Haralambos (1860-1915) and uncle Anastas (d. 1939).97

Theoretically, employing children weakens their chance to obtain education.

However, other ten musicians’ school report cards may explain if there is a negative

correlation between music and standard (non-musical) education. Table 3.18 will

indicate other professions to make this comparison. The table covers only the

middle education (rüşdî and idadî) levels to grasp the patterns. The reason why I

exclude the primary (sıbyan) and higher education (âlî) is that musicians by and

large completed the former, and ony minor group continued to the latter.

96 M. Nazmi Özalp, Türk Mûsikîsi Tarihi, Vol. 2, MEB, İstanbul, 2000, p. 291; Interview with

Niyazi Sayın at his house in Üsküdar (May 2016).

97 Χρίστος Τσιαμούλης, Παύλος Ερευνίδης, Ρωμηοί συνθέτες της Πόλης (17ος-20ός αι.)

[The Rum Composers of Istanbul (from 17th to 20th centuries)], Εκδόσεις Δόμος, Αθήνα,

1998, pp. 39-40.

78

Table 3.18. Fathers’ occupations – Education level of children (cross tabulation)

Fathers’

occupations Rüşdî İdadî TOTAL

Musician 5 (45 %) 3 (27 %) 11

Official Func. 52 (71 %) 35 (48 %) 73

Rel. Func. 19 (68 %) 8 (29 %) 28

Sheikh/derv. 9 (56 %) 3 (19 %) 16

Military 17 (74 %) 12 (52 %) 23

Teacher 5 (83 %) 3 (60 %) 6

Artisan 7 (47 %) 4 (27 %) 15

The outcome points that the percentages for the musician fathers’ offspring are in

parallel with the artisan category but not so strikingly lower than other groups. I

assume that the idea of considering each occupation in its own inner world will help

to understand the issue better. Musicians that followed the fathers’ footsteps in

bureaucracy had to at least complete middle education to gain a desk in an official

bureau. The situation was more or less the same for religious functionaries’

offspring. Since a separate chapter will elaborate on the types of musical education,

suffice here is to say that musicians by and large were trained as apprentices and

learned their trade from a skilled employer. In their cases that was mostly father,

mother or a close relative. Without restricting the learning model into that, they

were also trained in the house gatherings and learned by watching other musicians

play. They also attended music schools and listened to other musicians’ recordings.

The religious functionaries included predominantly imam, hatib, and muezzin.

Though small in number, qadi, naib and religious school teachers (müderris) are also

inside the group. Yet the variable contained non-Muslim religious functionaries,

such as an Armenian priest, an Armenian Church chorist (muganni) and a Jewish

cantor. The religious functionaries and the Sufi fathers’ proportions (n = 16) are

acceptable but the outcomes still require analysis. Very much in the same vein with

the Sufi fathers, their families lived in a world of profound musical intensity. As

music was a part of their world, their children developed an early interest in music

79

and grew up in an atmosphere to excel at music. Why their children did not

continue the family tradition like the kids of the musician fathers and chose to seek

career opportunities primarily in official service is a question, which is beyond the

scope of this thesis’s interests.

Another interesting point is that more than half of the musician fathers are non-

Muslims (n = 6). Oud player Hapet Efendi’s (1850-1922) father was a clarinet player

and Bacanos’s father was a lute (lavta) player. The high proportion of non-Muslim

fathers who pursued career in music is significant because the study relied on 257

people in total, only 28 of whom were non-Muslims.

Twenty-three fathers who served in the military were largely middle-rank officers

except a few. The father of Sabiha Tekad (b. 1911) was a colonel, the highest in

military rank we have in our sample. Others were commanders and lieutenants.

Military father’s deep engagement with music is noteworthy. Cevdet Çağla (1902-

1988) and Mebruke Çağla’s (1904-1982) father, Eşref Bey, who was the governor of

a provincial district (kaymakam), regularly held fasıls and gathered musicians at

home. Musa Süreyya (1884-1932) and Fatma Nihal Erkutun’s (1906-1989) father,

Asım Bey (1851-1929), was a military fireman who taught music when he was exiled

to Amasya and was forced to live there for almost twenty years. The father of

Salahaddin Demirtaş (1912-1997), known as Salâhî Dede, was a naval officer and a

Sufi dervish who frequented Mevlevî and Uşşakî lodges in the Kasımpaşa district

together with his son.

The proportion of female musicians whose fathers served in military is worth

mentioning (n = 6), since the study contains 23 female musicians, which the number

makes 8.9 % of the total. The occupational continuity between fathers and offspring

seemed apparently weakest in the military group since not even a single child

adopted a military career, however, high number of female children should be

taken into account. The outcome indicates that eight musicians’ primary source of

income was music, followed by five who were employed in government jobs and

two were doctors.

80

On the part of the 15 artisan fathers, many of whom were shopkeepers, the

situation reflected the social and economic status of musicians. Barbers, carpenters,

sellers in market, caffé-house owners, and gardeners constituted a social group,

which can be considered as lower-middle class. In terms of continuity, the children

of artisan fathers were not so determined to continue the family tradition than the

offspring of the Sufi and musician fathers’ groups. Therefore, the children of

artisans either became a member of the Ottoman bureaucracy or sought musical

employment rather than follow in their fathers’ footsteps. I suppose the issue is

partly related with the social meaning of professions, rather than mere financial

factors.

Presumably, the engagement with music professionally or to pursue a bureaucratic

career were more promising in terms of upward social mobility. However, such a

thesis may oversimplify the problem, because some individual accounts reveal

contrasting stories. Artaki Terziyan’s (1885-1948) father did run a barbershop in

Salonika, and wanted his son to complete his education. Being aware of Artaki’s

aptitude for music, he was afraid that he would be a musician (…oğlumun çalgıcı

olmasından korkuyorum). Soon his father sent him to Istanbul to study medicine. In

spite of strong parental objection, Artaki deliberately left the Imperial Civil School of

Medicine (Mekteb-i Tıbbiye-i Mülkiye-i Şâhâne) for music. Elsewhere, there is a

different story. Behlül Efendi’s father was a stallholder (pazarcı) in Üsküdar. Once

he completed his middle education (rüşdiye), his moderate bureaucratic career

began in the Ministry of Navy (Bahriye Nezâreti). Meanwhile, he made a name for

himself owing to God-given voice. He was often invited to distinguished house

gatherings, meşk. Behlül Efendi (d. 1895) continued to hold more than one hat until

his retirement from office. He gained respect and recognition through music more

than he probably could in bureaucracy but surely much more than being a

stallholder.

Consequently, the individual life stories show that the perception of music varied

according to the social status of people. Thus defining what really motivated them

for music is still demanding. Keeping financial profit at bay, financial insecurities

81

appearing to be more widespread, music provided social advancement; admiration,

recognition and popularity particularly for people socially lower in status. For

people of upper classes the motivation for learning music was rather different. It

was acknowledged as a part of the culture, necessary for cultivation and taste.

However, some cases pointed to the fact that their musical knowledge would turn

out to be the means of support in the difficult times they were to experience. I will

soon deal with the issue in more detail.

3.5. Musicians’ Profession

The title might seem confusing, however, the term “profession” is used to

emphasize the real income source of musicians. As mentioned above, the thesis

underscores the line between making music and earning money out of it. The

statement nevertheless does not mean musicians could not gain a living through

music. In fact, the research findings indicate that a considerable number depended

on music to get by. To call someone a musician, the sole criteria the thesis relied

upon was if she/he composed music. Questioning the ways in which they

economically survived points to another diverse and complicated situation indeed.

Why musicians could not make a living out of the art they performed at the end of

the nineteenth century? There could be many economical and political factors

behind it. It is likely that music was not yet enough to provide them with regular

income because of its limited market conditions in general. But the cultural

viewpoint tells a different story. In the light of biographical accounts, it appears that

some musicians did not approach music as a source of income anyway. Therefore,

such a question might hinder us to understand how actually the music was

perceived and performed. Or perhaps both factors need to be considered critically.

Providing examples from a remote past might be helpful to understand the

relationship between music and its economy. How was then the situation for the

earlier generations? The predominant model was occupational diversity or were the

musicians more “professional” than their counterparts that lived in the late

Ottoman period? The earliest example, which might also be considered as the

unique one, to analyze musicians’ real source of income, could be found in

82

Şeyhülislam Es’ad Efendi’s dictionary of musicians. The source was written between

1728-1730 and thus included musicians from the early eighteen centuries. Despite

the fact that Behar questioned its representativeness partly due to the lack of non-

Muslim and female musicians and prioritization of composers at the expense of

singers, his prosopographical analysis reveals the diverse occupational distribution

among the musicians. The biographical dictionary identified 75 musicians’

occupation out of 97. According to it, not more than 10 % of musicians’ chief source

of income was music. The musician group was involved in various professions,

including state officers, religious functionaries, artisans and members of Sufi orders.

The outcome clearly points to the fact that musicians were predominantly nonprofessional

and hence did not receive a regular income out of music. Yet it brings

to the forefront the diverse sociological basis of music at the turn of the eighteenth

century.98

Table 3.19 shows that things seem to have changed almost two centuries after

Es’ad Efendi reported about musicians. Musicians that constituted the sampling

continued to come from a number of different occupations. It appears that the art

was accessible to people from any segment of society as it was before. Besides, it

shows that more and more musicians gained a living by music than their

counterparts lived in the beginning of the eighteenth century. When the four

musicians placed in the “more than one income” group is added, the proportion

reaches up to 33.6 %, which is incomparable with 10 % in the text of Es’ad Efendi.

98 Cem Behar, Şeyhülislam'ın Müziği, pp. 158-163.

83

Table 3.19. Musicians’ principal source of income

Income Source Frequency Percent

Official functionary 83 32.3

Music 81 31.5

Religious functionary 13 5.1

Teacher (non-music) 11 4.3

Sheikh/Dervish 11 4.3

Artisan 6 2.3

Self-employed 7 2.7

Doctor, Pharmacist 5 1.9

Engineer 5 1.9

Writer, Journalist 4 1.6

Other99 13 5.1

Unknown 8 3.1

MOI 10 4.0

TOTAL 257 100.0

Another distinction was the type of musical employment between the musicians of

Es’ad Efendi and the musicians under study. The professional musicians that Behar

mentions predominantly belonged to palace and served as palace musicians. It was

then the predominant model or probably the only one to make a living out of music.

However, the majority of the professional musicians indicated in the table above

represent just the opposite case. The palace supported musicians shrunk in

number, whereas the significant amount of them earned income through a range of

activities that were carried out “outside the palace”, including providing private

tutorage, engaging to music schools, organizing concerts, recording music, and so

on. The outcome points their proportion almost over 90 %. That clearly points the

changing conditions in the music world as the musical activities expanded and

became more diverse in the late Ottoman period. In other words, the growing

music market made new opportunities available. But at the same time the result

expresses even further reduced role of traditional patronage relationships and the

99 Other category includes one military, three merchants and three solicitors. The group

also contains six people of wealth, whose biographies provide no work record at all.

84

far-limited impact of palace. As mentioned previously, this dramatic shift, which I

call as the emergence of public patronage would open unprecedented channels but

also would introduce new problems to musicians. The chapter will continue to

discuss the impact of change on musicians’ lives.

The MOI (more than one income source) group includes people with multiple

professions, (see Table 3.20). The reason why I gather two occupations holders

under one category is to prevent complicating the table with minor results and not

to distract attention from the main patterns. These occupations in most cases did

not overlap with each other. The rule was once the person either resigned or

quitted the job, involved with the second one. Therefore, I decided to present it in

that way to not to miss any information given in the biographies.

Table 3.20. Musicians with multiple income sources

Source of Income Frequency Percent

Music-Teacher 1 0.4

Music-Artisan 1 0.4

Music-Doctor 1 0.4

Music-Other 1 0.4

Official Func.-Solicitor 2 0.8

Official Func.-Freelance 1 0.4

Religious Func.-Teacher 1 0.4

Religious Func.-Artisan 2 0.8

TOTAL 10 4.0

Rather than dealing with the mainstream groups here (because I will deal with

official functionaries in the subsequent part), I will touch on the life stories of minor

occupational groups. For example, there are five engineers whose occupational

choices should be regarded as more distant from music.100 What made these

100 Yekta Akınci (1905-1980), Ali Galip Alnar (1890-1951), Mehmet Fehmi Tokay (1889-

1959), Sabri Süha Ansen (1908-1990), and İsmail Baha Sürelsan (1912-1998).

85

mechanical, agricultural and civil engineers end up in music? A number of parallel

features could be emphasized in their narratives, like fathers of three were state

officers, two were born elsewhere but all grew up in Istanbul. Three of them

actually graduated from the same school: The Ottoman School of Civil Engineering

(Hendese-i Mülkiye Mektebi) and all continued steadily with the jobs on which they

professionally educated. Three engineers performed in the Istanbul radio and so on.

But the most common and relative part is how they were educated musically.

Except Sabri Süha Ansen who learned to play violin in a music school, Dârü’t-Talîm-i

Musikî, they all grew up at a home in which music was heard regularly. Either their

father or mother were fond of music, played an instrument and regularly invited

musicians to their home for musical gathering, musikî meclisi.

Though I did not add all the occupational groups but only the most frequent ones,

Table 3.21 provides a general insight into the occupational continuity and changes

in two generations. Musician fathers’ children retained the family tradition to a

great extent, whose underlying factors, such as hereditary musical skill, free music

instruction, easy procurement of musical instrument, and established business

networks, would be dealt in a separate chapter. It appears that the highest

occupational discontinuity was experienced in the military and artisan classes,

whose children sought career opportunities mainly in music and state service.

Interestingly, even though both are considered to be religion-based occupations,

there was not any relocation from Sufis to religious functionary class. The

subsequent part will elaborate on the second largest professional group, namely

the government officials.

86

Table 3.21. Fathers’ income source compared to offspring’s (cross tabulation)

Fathers

Offspring

Music Official

Func.

Religious

Func.

Artisan Sheikh/

Dervish

Military

Music

(n = 11)

9 1

Official Func.

(n = 73)

14 37 1 2

Religious

Func.

(n = 28)

4 10 6 1

Sheikh/Derv.

(n = 16)

4 3 6

Artisan

(n = 15)

5 5 2 3

Military

(n = 23)

8 5 1 3

Note: Table included certain occupations.

3.6. Musicians’ Career Paths in the Ottoman Bureaucracy

As stated before, there has been a solid pattern in the Es’ad Dede’s musician

dictionary that music was not the primary source of income and musicians

predominantly had professions other than music (see “Musician’s Profession” part).

This pattern emerges in my sample as well. Why my sample of musicians did not

concentrated on the financial side of music is partially related with it. If I would

have to attach priority to the musicians whose income was derived from music, the

study would automatically eliminate the two third of the musicians in the sampling

and hence it would lead to a misleading conclusion. The research findings also show

that musicians that earned money out of music steadily increased in number from

the beginning of the eighteenth century to the late Ottoman period. Only less than

10 % of the Es’ad Dede’s musicians made a living out of music, whereas it is slightly

the largest group in my sampling with 33.6 % (see Table 3.17). The causes of this

change will be discussed in detail in the sixth chapter.

To interpret the connections between bureaucracy and music in the late Ottoman

Istanbul, a detailed examination of the official functionaries is necessary since they

87

constituted the largest part of the “unpaid” musicians.101 According to the statistical

outcome, musicians who served as civil officials constitute the largest group in the

sampling. Table 19 indicates that 83 musicians were officials, making 32.3 % of the

total. Three more should be added from “more than one occupation” group, which

eventually makes 86 officials (33.4 %). In fact, the situation was not different at all

one generation ago. Seventy-three fathers were civil servants that make 28.4 % of

the total (see Table 3.16). As stated before, two occupations revealed strong

continuity from fathers to sons. One was musicians with nine out of 11 fathers (81.8

%) and official functionaries with 37 out of 73 fathers (50.7 %).

Table 3.22 clearly points out that civil officials were mainly born in Istanbul. To

compare it to the birthplace figures of Istanbul in the overall musician population

(72.4 %, see Table 4), the ratio even exceeds it. The birthplace proportions for other

occupations lead to Istanbul as well. 67.1 % of musicians, 69.2 % of religious

functionaries, and 77.8 % of Sufis were born in the city. Indeed, the outcome has

already showed that a significant number of non-Istanbul born musicians moved to

Istanbul in the early ages of their life. Thus, the proportion of musicians that grew

up in Istanbul reach up to 96.1 % in total. The trend runs in parallel to a great extent

for the official functionaries. All the rest of the civil officials that were born outside

of the city (n = 10) later on were moved to and resided in Istanbul.

101 It is noteworthy that the part will excessively benefit from the offical personnel registers

of the Ministry of Interior (under the title BOA, DH.SAİD). Nevertheless, these official

records do not provide any information about their engagement with music. Two

biographical accounts about the same person’s life, one an official record and the other

written by a third-person, do not overlap except the principal parts, including birth place,

birth date, the name of father, so on. The only exceptional case is the official biography of

Kazım Bey (Uz, 1873-1943), in which there is information about music since he wrote books

on music and on the Persian language and needed to obtain official licence to publish,

“…Lügatçe-i Istılahat-ı Musikiyye ve Musikî Istılahatı ve Edvar ve Musikî ve Sualli Cevaplı

Kavaid-i Farisî nam Türkçe eserlerini Maarif Nezaret-i Celilesi'nin dört kıta ruhsat-ı

resmiyesiyle tevarih-i muhtelifede tabʻ ve neşr ettirmiştir…”, BOA, DH.SAİD, 110-23 (13).

88

Table 3.22. Official functionaries’ birthplaces

Vilâyet Frequency Percent

İstanbul 75 87

Edirne 2 2.32

Hâlep 2 2.32

Hüdavendigâr (Bursa) 1 1.16

Aydın 1 1.16

Girit 1 1.16

Outside Ottoman territory 3 3.48

Unknown 1 1.16

TOTAL 86 100

As mentioned above, 50.7 % of the official functionaries’ fathers were civil servants.

What was the occupation of other half part then? According to the research

findings, only one father was musician. 14 % of fathers were religious functionaries;

equal number of fathers was either worker in a skilled trade or belonged to military

class (5.8 % for each). 3.5 % were Sufi sheikhs, and 7 % percent were distributed to

other professions. The occupations of 18 civil servants’ fathers were unknown (20.9

%).

3.6.1. Education Records of Musicians in the Ottoman State Service

Regarding the education levels of official functionaries, I paid particular attention to

the children of literate classes, including official functionaries, religious

functionaries, and the members of the military. The expected outcome was that

their children would be well educated. The biographical accounts reveal that the

trend was other way around. It was not they but the children of less-educated

families that showed more interest in getting higher level of education. What was

equally suprising was the career paths of civil officials’ children. Statistically, 58.9 %

did not receive higher education (n = 43), however, more than half of them could

still be employed in the Ottoman bureaucracy. I argue that the higher level of

education was not needed in their cases. They received education as much as the

89

job (official post) required and a considerable number of them served in the public

offices.

Table 3.23 shows that there are differences between the two sets of numbers;

however, the trends are not contrary to each other. The higher concentration of the

official functionaries both on the secondary and higher levels of education is

reasonable. Although I stated previously that children of the literate classes poorly

received higher level of education, there is not any discrepancy between my words

and the outcome above. The occupational continuity for the children who were

coming from official functionary families was only 50.7 %, which helps to explain

the situation.

Table 3.23. Official’s education levels compared to overall statistics

School

Officials Total

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Primary 81 94.2 211 82.2

Secondary 1

(rüşdî)

73 84.9 161 62.6

Secondary 2

(idadî)

39 45.3 103 40.1

Higher 31 36 62 24.1

Regarding the higher education institutions, some schools were clearly more

popular among those 31 state functionaries. Eight officials were educated in the

School of Law (Mekteb-i Hukuk), whereas seven in the School of Administration

(Mekteb-i Mülkiye). Only two were from the School of Trade and Agricultural

(Ticaret ve Ziraat Mektebi). Three officials received education in the School of

Medicine (Mekteb-i Tıbbiye-i Mülkiye), Civil Engineering School (Hendese-i Mülkiye),

and War Academy (Harbiye Mektebi). “Other” category included 11 government

officials that received higher education from a number of different schools.102

102 Some of these schools were Dersaadet Language School, Ottoman University

(Dârülfünûn-ı Osmânî), Istanbul Trade School, and School of Teacher Education.

90

Regarding the higher education degree holders in the musician sampling, 78

musicians attended but 62 succeded in graduating (79.5 %). The proportion for the

officials was analogous to that. Twenty-three out of 31 officials completed the

education and hence received a diploma (74.2 %).

The statistical outcome regarding the private tutorage indicates only 15 official

functionaries (17.5 %). The proportion is slightly higher than the overall ratio, which

was 12 % (see Table 3.13). Language learning was the most popular subject of

private learning, which was chosen by seven officials. Three officials taught regular

subjects, which were analogous to primary level of education, whereas other three

were taught privately on the same two subjects.

Table 3.24. Civil officials’ language familiarity

Language Type Frequency Percent

Arabic 2 2.3

Persian 1 1.2

French 17 19.8

English 1 1.2

NSL 20 23.3

Unknown 25 29.1

Language Combinations

Arabic and Persian 7 8.1

Arabic and French 1 1.2

Persian and French 2 2.3

Arabic, Persian, French 7 8.1

Persian, French, English, German 1 1.2

Arabic, Persian, French, Indian 1 1.2

Arabic, Persian, French, Greek,

Armenian

1 1.2

TOTAL 86 100.0

I will not mention the cultural codes of each language, since it was discussed in the

“Learning a Language” part. Once the language combinations are totaled, the

precise amount of each language emerges. Therefore, three languages were the

91

most popular among the official functionaries and ran parallel to the general

patterns, (see Table 3.24). Twenty-eight officials were familiar with the French

language. Twenty officials knew Persian, while 19 were familiar with the Arabic

language. Abdülkadir Töre (1872-1945) should be noted not only for his knowledge

on several languages, but being the only one among the musicians with his

familiarity with the Indian language (probably Urdu). He was descended from an

Amir family and his family immigrated to Istanbul from Kasghar when he was a

child.103

The reason why Armenian, Greek and Ladino, which were spoken languages in the

Ottoman state, did not appear in the statistics is directly related to the fact that

there was not any non-Muslim in the official functionary group.104 The only official,

who was familiar with Greek and Armenian, was Mehmed Nuri Şeyda Bey (1866-

1901).105 Interestingly, neither Rona nor İbnülemin mentioned Greek and Armenian

among the languages Nuri Şeyda was familiar with. He was a graduate of Military

School at the secondary level (Askerî Rüşdiye) and did not continue to higher

education. According to his biographical material in the Rona’s book, he was a self-

103 “Evvela mekatib-i müteaddidde ve muahharen muallim-i mahsusdan Arabî ve Farsî ve

Türkçe ve hesab ve tarih ve coğrafya fünun-u müdevven ile bir mikdar İngilizce ve Fransızca

talim etmişdir Farisî ve Türkçe tekellüm ve kitâbet eder Hind lisanına âşinadır”, BOA,

DH.SAİD, 32-73 (38).

104 The overwhelming existence of Muslims in the group of officials was largely owing to

the inadequate biographical material of the non-Muslim musicians in general. Vitali Efendi

(d. 1935), for instance, was a kanun player who served in the Ministry of Post and

Telegraphs for many years. I spent hours in the Prime Minister’s Ottoman Archieves to find

out his personal register, which turned out to be an inconclusive effort. Available parts of

his life story was so fragmented that I could not include him into the musician sampling.

Despite that, the proportion of non-Muslims employed in the late Ottoman officialdom in

general was substantially positive compared to minority members in other bureaucraciest,

see the collective biography studies of Abdulhamit Kırmızı, which I stated in the

bibliography.

105 “Muallim-i mahsustan okumuştur Arabî ve Farisîye âşinadır Türkçe okur yazar ve

Ermenice ve Rumca ve Fransızca tekellüm ve kitâbet eder”, DH.SAİD, 45-117 (60). For a

discussion on the various definitions of language proficiency in the Ottoman official

records, see Olivier Bouquet, Sultanın Paşaları (1839-1909), pp. 297-337.

92

taught multilingual, kendi kendine çalışarak tahsilini ilerletmiştir.106 In fact, apart

from being an official, he was a writer, who published a history book (Mücmel

Tarih-i Enbiya, Cihan Matbaası, İstanbul, 1310) and wrote polemical articles on

music to daily news, İkdâm (1894-1928). He was working on a biographical

dictionary on the nineteenth century musicians, Tezkire-i Musikîşinasân, but could

not live long enough to complete it.

3.6.2. Career Patterns of Musicians in the Ottoman State Service

Based on the years of entering the state service, 40 officials were identified out of

86. The earliest date of first appointment is 1847, while the latest is 1920. Indeed,

three officials’ first appointments were in the Early Republican years: 1925, 1932

and 1936. Ten officials entered the service between 1847 and 1871, whereas the

majority’s first appointment date was between 1880 and 1903 (75 %).

Statistics on the first appointed city of the officers reveal that they predominantly

entered the government jobs in Istanbul. Seventy-five out of 86 officials began to

work in Istanbul, which makes 87 % in the total. Six officials were distributed among

Hüdavendigar, Ankara, Aydın and Tuna provinces in their first appointments.

Biographical accounts did not mention the first appointed city of five officials.

It appears that more than half of the official functionaries did not leave Istanbul

during their professional careers. Regarding the last place of appointment, the

outcome points out Istanbul again. Fourty-eight out of 54 officials ended their

official career in Istanbul (56 %). More common way of departure was retirement.

İsmail Fethi [Fennî] Bey (1856-1926) was an accountant in the Ministry of the

Interior (Dâhiliye Nezâreti) when he retired on 13 July 1909.107 The departure from

the job might be so suden as in the case of Mustafa Nuri Bey (Menapirzâde, 1841-

106 Mustafa Rona, 50 Yıllık Türk Musıkisi, pp. 236-237; İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal, Hoş

Sadâ, p. 73.

107 “Müşarünileyhin 1327 senesi Cemaziyelahiresinin on dokuzunda 24 Haziran sene 1325

2196 kuruş maaşla tekaüdü icra edilmiştir” BOA, DH.SAİD, 26-381 (193).

93

1906).108 Mehmed İzzet Efendi (1861-1894) was another similar case. He was only

33 years old when he died on 13 September 1894. Since his date of first entry to

official service was on 20 March 1890, he could work in the Dersaadet Post Office

for only three years and nine months.109

Lemi Atlı was dismissed in December 1908 due to an official order, which was called

tensikat.110 It was a huge operation in the Ottoman bureaucracy to decrease the

number of official functionaries right after the Second Constitutional era in 1908. In

fact, it was more about undermining the dominance of officials who were thought

to be pro-Hamidian.111

Kazım Uz’s case (1873-1943) is a good example of dismissal, as another way of

departure from the service encountered in the personnel registers. He entered into

the civil service when he was 19 years old. His career trajectory included working as

an accountant in the Ministry of Post and Telegraphs (Posta ve Telgraf Nezâreti) for

a year. He resumed his official career in the Imperial Music School due to an official

order in July 1893, bâ-irade-i seniyye-i hazret-i padişahi musika-i hümâyûn'a nakl ve

neferlik ile kaydolunarak. However, he did not last long and resigned from his duty

in March 1895, the reason of which was unknown, hizmet-i mezkûreden istifâen

108 “Müşarünileyh 1324 senesi Cemaziyelevvelinin yirmi beşinde irtihal-i dârü'l-beka eylediği

Hazine-i Hassa-i Şahane Sicil Şubesi'nin 3 Eylül sene 1322 tarihli vukuat pusulasında beyan

kılınmıştır”, BOA, DH.SAİD, 25-101 (53).

109 “Mumaileyhin maaşı 1312 senesi Rebiülevvel onikisinde 140 guruşa iblağ edilmiş ve şehri

mezkûrun yirmi dördündünde vefat etmişdir”, BOA, DH.SAİD, 65-249 (126).

110 “326 senesi Zilkadenin on dokuzunda memuriyetinin lağvından dolayı kadro haricinde

kalıp devletçe müttehiz karara tevfîkan ol-vakt tahsis kılınan 1500 guruş maaşı 327 senesi

Recebinin yirmi yedisinden itibaren tensikât kanununa tevfîkan 685 guruşa tenzil etmişdir”,

BOA, DH.SAİD, 169-427 (215).

111 About the motivations behind the law and its drastic impact on the Ottoman

bureaucracy, see Erkan Tural, “II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi’nde Devletin Restorasyonu

Bağlamında 1909 Teşkilat ve Tensikat Kanunu”, Prof. Ergün Aybars (Superviser),

Unpublished PhD Thesis, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, AİİTE, İzmir, 2006; Abdulhamit Kırmızı,

“Meşrutiyette İstibdat Kadroları: 1908 İhtilalinin Bürokraside Tasfiye ve İkame Kabiliyeti”,

100. Yılında Jön Türk Devrimi, Sina Akşin, Sarp Balcı, Barış Ünlü (eds,) Türkiye İş Bankası

Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 333-355.

94

infikâk eylemiş. Weirdly, the next phase in his career began in the Ministry of

Finance (Mâliye Nezâreti) in January 1896, but as a teacher in the public schools. His

teaching career seemed to expand to many fields. Taught accounting, geography,

the Ottoman language and Persian in the Topkapı Rüşdî School until Septepber

1898. A month later he was assigned to the Correspondence Office of the Ministry

of Finance (Mâliye Nezâret-i Celilesi Mektubî Kalemi). From November 1900 on, he

was additionaly and voluntarily employed as a teacher of mechanics and algebra at

the school of which he was a graduate, ilâveten fahrî olarak Dârüşşafaka

Mektebi'nin sekizinci sınıf fenn-i mihanik ve altıncı sınıf ilm-i cebir dersleri muallîm

muavinliklerinde bulunduğu ve mâh-ı mezkûrun on birinde 1 Eylül sene 1318 [14

September 1902] yine fahrî olarak mekteb-i mezbûrun altıncı sınıf ilm-i cebir

muallîmliğine tayin… In March 1906, he was appointed as mümeyyiz in the Office of

Personal Registeries of the Ministry of Finance, Mâliye Nezâret-i celilesi Sicill-i Ahvâl

Şubesi mümeyyizliğine bi't-terfi resm-i tahlifi icrâ… In September 1909, he was

transferred to a highly prestigious position with a stipend more than the double of

what he was earning before: The inspector of Rüşdî Schools. Nevertheless, he

remained only two months in the position due to an assignment, which ordered him

to investigate the provincial secondary schools. The record did not list the places he

was expected to visit but it was clear that he did not want to leave Istanbul.

Eventually, he was dismissed from his official career due to his disobedience in

November 1909.112

As evident seen in the case of Kazım Uz, the shift between ministries during the

professional career was not a rare practice in the Ottoman officialdom during the

Hamidian period. Since the civil officials’ flow between government departments is

not the subject matter of the thesis, I will not further elaborate on similar

situations. Table 3.25 will indicate in which ministries they were first appointed to.

112 “şehr-i mezkûrun on yedisinde [1327 Şevval] 19 Teşrinievvel sene 1325 müfettişlik

vazife-i asliyesinden dolayı taşraya iʻzamı mukarrer iken istinkâf eylemesine mebni

memuriyetinden infisâl ettirildiği”, BOA, DH.SAİD, 110-23 (13).

95

Table 3.25. Ministries of first appointments

Ministry Frequency Percent

Ministry of Post and Telegraphs (Posta ve Telgraf

Nezâreti)

7 8.1

Municipalities (Belediye) 1 1.2

Ministry of Finance (Mâliye Nezâreti) 8 9.3

Foreign Ministry (Hâriciye Nezâreti) 5 5.8

Ministry of the Interior (Dâhiliye Nezâreti) 7 8.1

Ministry of Justice (Adliye ve Mezâhib Nezâreti) 9 10.5

Customs Administration (Rusûmât Emaneti) 6 7.0

Ministry of Education (Maarif Nezâreti) 3 3.5

Public Debt Administration (Duyûn-i Umumiye

İdâresi)

1 1.2

Imperial Office of Land Registry (Defter-i Hakanî) 2 2.3

Ministry of Public Works and Trade

(Nâfia ve Ticâret Nezâreti)

4 4.7

Ministry of Forest, Mines & Agriculture

(Orman ve Meâdin ve Ziraat Nezâreti)

1 1.2

Ministry of Police (Zabtiye Nezâreti) 1 1.2

Ministry of the Imperial Treasury

(Hazine-i Hâssa-i Şâhâne Nezâreti)

2 2.3

Ministry of Military Affairs (Bâb-ı Seraskeri) 6 7.0

Ministry of Naval Affairs (Bahriye Nezâreti) 5 5.8

Imperial Music Academy (Mûzîka-i Hümâyûn) 2 2.3

Regie Company (Reji Şirketi) 1 1.2

Republican Period113 12 13.9

Other 2 2.3

Unknown 1 1.2

TOTAL 86 100

Two musicians in the “other” group were Fahri Bey (Kopuz, 1885-1968) and Rauf

Yekta Bey (1871-1935). Fahri Bey entered the office in the Council of State (Şûrâ-yı

Devlet) in 1903. After serving only six months, he was transferred to the office in

the Ministry of Military Affairs (Bâb-ı Seraskeri, which was transformed into the

Harbiye Nezâreti on 22 July 1908). There he served until the end of the World War I.

113 The “republican period” category consisted of 12 musicians whose professional careers

evolved in the republican institutions due to their birthdates that were largely after 1900s.

96

He resigned from the office on his own will in 1918. Afterwards he devoted all his

life to music. Rauf Yekta Bey (1871-1935) was the second musician in the group

whose official career began in 1883 in the Imperial Council (Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn). It

seems that when his personal register was written he was still in office. The last

entry to his register was on 5 September 1909, which informs that his professional

status was elavated to a higher position with an increase in the salary.114 Yet his

official career continued until 1922 in the same office.

Eventually, more than two third of musicians in my sampling had other occupations

than music calls for an alternative perspective to reconsider music as a profession. I

argue that music was part of the Ottoman urban culture and it was not perceived as

a profession particularly among the official functionaries. Otherwise it would not be

possible to understand the internal working of music in the late Ottoman Istanbul,

whose significant part of members engaged with it on an unpaid basis. I believe that

even the term “amateur” might be used, but only to emphasize the musicians’

limited financial gain from music rather than implying that they did not have the

necessary skills or expertise of the art. Above all, I suggest that the difference

between “professional” and “amateur” musicians under study manifested itself in

the perception of music and hence in the musical output. I will further develop the

argument in the following chapters.

3.7. Causes of Mortality

A variety of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, ethnic origins, sex and age

compositions, high-risk periods like wartimes, epidemics, environmental

catastrophes such as dry periods, floods and many other circumstances may be the

origin of death. Yet sometimes not a single factor but a combination of factors may

lead to it. Therefore, as anticipated, the death rates for a given society might

change over time either in an upward or downward trend according to the

114 “327 senesi Şabanının on dokuzunda 23 Ağustos sene 1325 icra kılınan tensikâtta iki bin

kuruş maaşla kalem-i mezkûr mümeyyizliğine terfi edildiği salifü'z-zikr müzekkerede beyân

kılınmıştır”, BOA, DH.SAİD, 46-285 (144).

97

improvements or deteriorations in socioeconomic conditions. Yet technological

advancement in medicine and more investments in public health policies are other

influential factors that lead to change in mortality rates. Given the plenty of forces,

there was not a standard list of the causes of mortality and hence demographers

have constructed many different models to grasp the patterns of mortality.115

Determining the cause of death is a challenging task even for experts.116

My previous variable model categorized the deaths into the two general ones:

Natural and age associated (premature) deaths. My aim was to divide and examine

the cases of death according to that. The point of demarcation was the ages

between 60 or 65 and after. Nevertheless, the validity of this approach is in

question by recent epidemiological studies. Though to the association of aging with

the serious chronic diseases is credited, it stresses the difference between

association and causation. Therefore, the assumed age-associated diseases should

be reconsidered because they can be prevented and even reversed.117 In parallel

with the argument, I reorganized the dataset and concentrated on the causes of

death rather than the age as a parameter. Additionally, Figure 3.5 will provide raw

data on the composition of death dates.

Regarding the causes of death among my group of musicians, the proportion of

those whose cause of death is definable makes 30 % in total. Giving the large

proportion of unknown category, it would not be reasonable to draw conclusions

115 Ian Bowen, Economics and Demography, Routledge, 2012, pp. 22-37.

116 An elderly, for instance, may have died due to a combination of health problems leaving

an uncertainty behind in terms of identifying the factor that actually led directly to death. It

might also be the case that many factors together contributed to the fatal outcome.

Therefore, it is an issue of great complexity, see Monica Pace, Eric Jougla, Barbara Leitner,

Jan Kardaun, Torsten Schelhase, Anne Gro Pedersen, Peter Ocko, and Gleb Denisson,

“Causes of Death Statistics – People over 65”, Online Publication, September 2017,

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/

index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65 (accessed on 29

June 2018).

117 Luigi Fontana, “Modulating Human Aging and Age-Associated Diseases”, Biochim

Biophys Acta, 1790 (10), 2009 Oct., pp. 1133-1138.

98

on the issue. Despite the raw data’s shortcomings, Table 3.26 still provides insights

into the trends of death among musicians.

Table 3.26. Causes of mortality

Category Frequency Percent

Ischaemic Heart

Disease

41 16.0

Respiratory Diseases 8 3.1

Cancer 6 2.3

Diabetes 4 1.6

Accident 3 1.2

Alcoholism 5 1.9

Suicide 1 0.4

Other118 9

3.5

Unknown 180 70.0

TOTAL 257 100.0

The category of Ischaemic Heart Disease, also known as coronary heart disease, was

linked directly to the circulatory system. The group accounted for forty-one deaths

(16 %), which makes it the most common cause of mortality among musicians.

Heart attack, stroke and brain (cerebral) hemorrhage comprised the group. The

category of respiratory diseases is the second most common cause of death among

musicians (3.1 %). They are defined as chronic lower respiratory diseases that cause

difficulty in breathing and are usually connected to allergic reaction, including as

asthma, influenza, bronchitis, typhoid, pneumonia, and tuberculosis.

Deaths resulting from alcoholism, various types of accidents and suicide have been

regarded as external causes of death. Alcoholism, for example, is not a medically

118 The other category includes nine deaths resulted from dysentery (two cases), cholera,

and yellow bile. Two musicians could not recover from surgery and died soon after. One

was related with the appendicitis, another was not defined. Though the accounts did not

mention the origins of, two musicians were disabled by illness and were house bounds.

99

recognized cause of death but rather the health problems caused by it is taken into

consideration. It is regarded as one of the ways of intentional self-harm together

with suicide and hence the cases are subject to psychological research.

Figure 3.5. Age of death composition

The median age of death for the musician population under study was 71. The

youngest date of death was 30, while the oldest musician age was 96. The most

frequent ages of death were 75 and 76. Twelve and 11 musicians have died at these

ages respectively. The rarest ages for death were 30 and 96 , which were also in

parallel with the yougest and oldest ages of death.

3.8. Lives Struck by Poverty

It is true that the biographical accounts did not contain rich data on the medical

(technical) origins of death and hence did not leave much space to deal analytically

with the patterns. But a cautious reading of biographies brings other issues to the

forefront. These might provide important insights into the social and economic

positions of musicians in the late Ottoman society. 119 Though unintended,

119 My argument on the death as a social phenomenon differs distinctly from the

anthropological approach, which questions the socially constructed meanings of death and

analyses the diverse forms of death rituals that provides insights into the complexities of

death, rebirth and the religious beliefs, Death on the Move: Managing Narratives, Silences

and Constraints in a Trans-National Perspective, Philip J. Havik, José Mapril and Clara

Saraiva (eds.), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK, 2018; Taming Time, Timing Death: Social

1121111121

33323

55

3

9

2

67

4

2

554

6

98

10

7

4

9

3

1211

8

6

9

66

434

1

5

3

6

1

3

1

3

111

23

30

33

36

43

46

49

51

53

55

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

93

95

Unknown

Frequency

100

biographical accounts highlighted the musicians’ latter years while describing the

conditions prior to death. Expressions such as “she/he died in isolation”, “passed

away due to lack of care”, or “so destitute the musician was that could not even

afford medical care”, are not infrequent. Yet a number of musicians have died as

nursing home residents, the situation appears to be another indicator of social

isolation and the state of severe poverty. Alcohol dependence was another

frequent factor that had a role in a number of musicians’ death.

Leon Hanciyan (1860-1947) is a typical case. He became impoverished during the

older ages after having a long period of musical success and popularity. He officially

instructed musicians in the palace and the members of the notable families. His

fragmented biographical account did not reveal the factors that contributed to his

downward trend in music, and why he could not cope with it. All we know is that he

spent years previous to his death in the Mental Hospital in Bakırköy, where his life

eventually ended in poverty and misery.

The devastated life stories were more than a few and were not peculiar to people

who solely depended on music. Hafız Aziz Efendi (1856-1923) was the imam of the

Ortaköy Mosque. He was taught music by Zekai Dede and Aziz Efendi and was

acknowledged by his immense repertoire among musicians. He taught music to

many at his mosque, also at numerous Sufi lodges. Though little was known about

his life after the retirement, he became fully destitute to the extent that İbnülemin

could not believe the circulating stories about him begging in the streets until he

eyewitnessesed it one night in the Çemberlitaş neighborhood, “kameti iki kat olarak

sokaklarda dolaşırdı…Çenberli taşın dibinde çömelüb istiane ettiğini görerek

fevkalâde müteessir oldum”. Yet the case implies that the monthly payment made

by the state for the pensioners was either not regular or too meager for economic

survival.

Technologies and Ritual, Dorthe Refslund Christensen and Rane Willerslev (eds.),

Routledge: Lodon, New York, 2016.

101

Mahmud Aziz Bey (1870-1929) was another state officer whose father was a

renowned musician, Tanburi Ali Efendi (1836-1890), the second imam of Sultan

Abdülaziz. A musician by blood, he played tanbur like his father. According to his

personal register, he was employed by the Ministry of Trade and Public Works

(Nafia ve Ticaret Nezâreti) on May 24, 1892. His last record belongs to September

22, 1909, which reports that his stipend was raised to 800 piastre.120 The reason

why the record ends after that is practically related with the date of issue. When his

personal record was written in 1909, he was still working. İbnülemin’s statements

for the period between 1909 and 1929 are both inadequate and inconsistent. He

mentions that the Agricultural Bank moved to Ankara but he did not, so he was

dismissed in 1909. In fact, the move was during the War of Independence. Due to

the political conditions in Istanbul, the gold deposits of the bank were secretly

brought to Ankara and the bank ceased to operate in Istanbul. It is probable that he

was dismissed in 1909, because of the general reduction (tensikât) in the Ottoman

bureaucracy right after the Second Constitutional era in 1908. Meanwhile, the

house of his father’s friend where he was residing was destroyed by fire. The date

of the fire is again unknown. Following this, Mahmud Aziz Bey disappeared from the

social network and he eventually was found dead suffering from hunger in 1929.

Kanunî Mehmet Bey (1859-1927) is another story of suffering and a rare example of

musicians whose different life stages, transition points and struggle to adapt to new

situations are detectable in his biographical narrative. He was dismissed from the

Imperial Music Academy (mûzîka-i hümâyûn) in 1909. The next step was the critical

decision to seek a career beyond music, because he believed that it would not

provide more than basic necessities. He first sold his instrument, and later his house

in order to procure financial resource. He moved to Adana as the base of his

(unknown) business activities, but the adventure did not last long for Mehmet Bey.

He had to return back to Istanbul due to his unsuccessful economic activities, which

eventually forced him to continue with a state pension. Soon after, he was

employed as a cleaner (hademe) in a state school through the network of an old

120 BOA, DH.SAİD, 59-399 (201).

102

friend. The work was not sustainable for various reasons, including the difficulty of

the work and the workfellows’ insulting behaviors. Thus he soon left the job. It

seems that the conditions in the last stage of his life was beyond his control. In the

state of severe poverty he resorted to one of his music student’s house, where he

eventually died in 1927.

A handful of cases indicate that the destitution was not a rare phenomenon among

musicians. Even more musicians might be added to the list of those who lived below

the acceptable living standards. The musicians who went through hard times were

from every corner of life, including previous state officers, official palace musicians,

musicians by profession, and so on. The causes of musicians’ deteriorating socioeconomic

conditions were many and complex. Some of these cases seem to be

related to the disruption of the established networks of musicians based on the

imperial order. It has to be emphasized that innumerable well-to-do families or

political notables regulated the financial support of musicians during the Hamidian

era, whereas the role of the palace in this mechanism was negligible. These

connections collapsed due to political changes, which drastically affected the social

milieu of certain musicians. The alterations are well depicted in the life accounts of

Cemil Bey (1872-1916) and Refik Fersan (1893-1965). I call the process an external

force, which was beyond their control.

But cases such as Kel Ali Bey (1831-1899) require an alternative analysis because

poverty hit him well before the aforementioned socio-political changes had taken

place. As a palace musician, he experienced an impoverished life after retirement.

He could barely sustain himself through irregular music classes at a coffee house in

Kadıköy.

Given the complexity of the issue, I suggest that the larger portion of the problem

was related to the lack of future planning. It was an internal factor, which might be

confronted with personal capacity and initiative. It seems that they thought that the

advantages they acquired from music would regularly continue and failed to plan

for old age. Put differently, once the financial challenges emerged, many musicians

103

were unequipped to deal with the situation. Nevertheless, the case of Faize Hanım

(1894-1954) shows that severe poverty did not only hit men but was also shared by

female musicians. It seems that the situation was not peculiar to the Ottoman

musicians; many English musicians were also beset with financial challenges. The

problem seemed to be overcome, at least partially, through musical charity

organizations whose history goes back to the eighteenth century. The Royal Society

of Musicians (RSM), the first musician charity society in England that was founded

by more than 200 people in 1738, the majority of whom were musicians, with

money received from benefit concerts, donations from nobles and from the public.

Similar benefit societies followed the footsteps of RSM in England throughout the

nineteenth century to assist both male and female musicians and their families.121 It

is true that such corresponding organizations were heavily needed in Istanbul as

well. Altough the individual cases show that the chances of survival for the Ottoman

musicians who ran into difficulties were very low, they did not fully surrender to the

problems they faced. There were sings of collective acting. I will discuss the issue in

more detail in order to explore the social basis of the music schools in the sixth

chapter.

3.9. Conclusion

The debate on the demographic characteristics of musicians throughout the chapter

sought to underscore certain characteristics. The empire’s vast territories clarified

the position of Istanbul as being the center of music production, as it was in the

previous century. The concentration of non-Istanbul born musicians in the city

further supported the argument. The study treated musicians’ educational record

as a way to assess their intellectual depth. The statistical data revealed that the

musicians were not illiterate and received as much education as others. The

imperial diversity in educational matters was apparent in the musicians’ life

narratives, even though the era witnessed the rapid standardization of mass

education. The principal aim of tracing the occupational continuity was to

121 Deborah Rohr, The Careers and Social Status of British Musicians, 1750-1850, A

Profession of Artisans, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2004, pp. 157-158;

http://www.royalsocietyofmusicians.org/ (accessed on 6 July 2018).

104

understand how music was regarded as a professional occupation. Music was highly

preferred by the offspring of musician, Sufi and artisan fathers, whereas it was

limited among children of the families in the state service and religious

functionaries. My interpretation was that music had more to offer to people with

lower social status and income and it might be understood in terms of social

advancement, recognition and popularity. However, it is more likely that it meant

unpredictable future with financial insecurities and irregular job vacancies for

others. My second explanation was related with the perception of music. It seems

that music for many of the musicians in the sampling was internalized as part of the

urban identity and not considered to be profitable. The bulk of the musicians in the

sampling, including official or religious functionaries, military officers, teachers

(non-music), traders and workers in a skilled trade that were engaged in music

unprofessionally confirm my argument. The musician life stories that ended up in

crisis and severe poverty indicated two aspects of musicians. One was that, as a

chief source of income, music was still a difficult choice for one to survive in the late

Ottoman period, even though more and more musical opportunities emerged in the

music market. Secondly, the rapid social changes during and after the late Ottoman

era caused a breakdown in the conventional networks of musicians, some of whom

were unable to adapt to new conditions.

105

CHAPTER 4

MUSIC AND GEOGRAPHY: MUSICIANS ON THE MOVE

While the previous chapter explored the demographic trends of musicians, the

principal aim of this chapter is to portray the musical setting in Istanbul by focusing

more on each district.122 The chapter will analyze the geographical distribution of

the musicians in the city to reveal the center(s) of musical activities. The directions

of musician mobility and the level of local participation to the musical events will be

interpreted to uncover these centers. Yet the districts will highlight the musical

advantages and the obstacles they had, with a view to relate the musical

institutions, house gatherings, meşks, private music classes, and the types of

musical employments to the locations of musicians in the city. The part will

additionally use the network analysis program called Gephi and historical maps to

better visualize the frequency of musical activities throughout the city. In other

words, by seeking links between the locations of musicians and the distribution of

musical activities, the chapter will attempt to explore the musical interactions

among districts as well as the musical characters of each neighborhood.

4.1. The Musical Setting of Istanbul

The statistical outcome on the residence-based distribution of musicians defined

173 musicians’ living places, which is 72.2 % in total. The unknown group comprised

122 The complicated history of administrative system in Istanbul calls for a brief explanation.

Şehremâneti was founded in 1855 to deal with the city’s infrastructure and facilities such as

roads and buildings. Istanbul was divided administratively into fourteen

districts/municipalities (devâir) in 1868. Ergin underlined that the divisions of the city

changed many times in the late Ottoman period. In 1877, the city was divided into twenty

districts. Only three years later, in 1880, the districts in Istanbul were reduced to ten,

whereas in 1912 Istanbul consisted of nine municipalities. My categorization is based on

the fourteen districts of 1868, since the later divisions reduced the number of districts and

unified many smaller residential areas under more central ones: Eyüp joins Fatih,

Kasımpaşa went to Beyoğlu, and Beykoz to Üsküdar. See Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûrı

Belediyye, Vol. 3, İBB Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, İstanbul, 1995, pp. 1269, 1346,

1422-27 and 1443; Tarkan Oktay, Osmanlı’da Büyükşehir Belediye Yönetimi: İstanbul

Şehremaneti, Yeditepe, İstanbul, 2011, pp. 35 and 125; İlber Ortaylı, “Belediye”, Vol. 5, DİA,

1992, p. 400.

106

69 musicians (27.4 %), however, from which 40 were born and lived in Istanbul. In

fact, the only missing element is where they were precisely located in the city;

therefore, the lack of data consequently leads them into the unknown group. Albeit

they resided in the city, the analysis will exclude those 69 and will be based on the

musicians whose districts were clearly stated in the biographical accounts.

Table 4.1. The districts in which musicians have resided most123

Districts Areas Covered Frequency Percent Total Population

1th Daire (Yenikapı, Unkapanı, Süleymaniye) 4 1.6 151,933

2nd Daire (Fatih) 84 33.3 114,545

3rd Daire (Yedikule) 3 1.2 123,037

4th Daire (Eyüp) 10 4

5th Daire (Kasımpaşa) 5 2

6th Daire (Kurtulus, Beyoglu, Macka) 8 3.2 231,293

7th Daire (Beşiktaş, Şişli, Mecidiyeköy) 18 7.1 70,767

8th Daire (Tarabya, İstinye) 1 0.4 13,850

9th Daire (Büyükdere, Sarıyer, Rumelifeneri) 2 0.8 14,645

Anatolian Part

10th Daire (Beykoz) 6 2.4 29,158

11th Daire (Çengelköy, Beylerbeyi) 7 2.8

12th Daire (Üsküdar) 27 10.7 95,667

13th Daire (Kadıköy, Erenköy, Bostancı) 8 3.2 22,796

14th Daire (Adalar)124 - -

Unknown 69 27.4

TOTAL 252 100 867,537

123 Due to the continuous changes of administirative structure of Istanbul discussed above,

the population figures partially cover the districts of 1868. Eyüp and Kasımpaşa as the forth

and fifth administrative units, for instance, disappeared completely in the 1885 order of

districts and unified with more central ones. Given the complexity of the issue, I will still

give the population figures of each districts based on 1885 census, Osmanlı

İmparatorluğu’nun ve Türkiye’nin Nüfusu, 1500-1927, Cem Behar (ed.), Historical Statistics

Series, Vol. 2, T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, Ankara, 1996, p. 75.

124 The population figures for the Islands quoted from Vital Cuinet. The data, as Behar

mentions, that his numbers were derived from 1885 census. According to that, islands had

10,553 people (Büyükada with 5,960, Heybeli 2,895, Kınalı 398, and Burgaz 1,250) in total,

Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun ve Türkiye’nin Nüfusu, 1500-1927, Cem Behar (ed.), p. 72.

107

Forty-eight musicians lived in the Anatolian part (19.1 %), whereas 125 resided on

the other side of the Bosporus (53.5 %). The historical accounts underline the

capital’s inadequate transportation conditions not in between the opposite

directions but also nearby districts throughout the nineteenth century. Ortaylı

states that the movement was not easy from one point to another in the city; a visit

from Aksaray to Çengelköy entailed an overnight stay.125 According to Behar, the

move between places within the city was a matter of adventure and that meant a

day travel even towards the end of the nineteenth century. The author argues that

people living in different districts of the city were relatively disconnected from each

other, which ultimately instigated the local solidarity at the expense of a common

city identity.126 Though the authors focused on different issues, the way they

portrayed the city make sense from the standpoint of music. When İbnülemin

mentioned his house gatherings, he emphasized the musicians whose houses were

not in the near distance, usually stayed overnight at his home, …semti uzak

olanlarla beraber beytûtet edilirdi.127 It is not to mean that they stayed just because

they could not move in the middle of the night. The musical gatherings were a kind

of social activity that necessarily involved eating, drinking and chatting alongside

the music for long hours. They all contributed to the result.

The other factor, which helped to underpin the argument, was the security risks in

the city especially after sunset. The problem seemed to limit the city dwellers’

movement and was one of the reasons why musicians frequently stayed overnight

in the houses, at where the mesk sessions were organized. For example, Hafız Sami

(1874-1943) after a mesk gathering in Eyüp, refused to stay overnight despite the

strong objection of the host. Even though he was accompanied by an armed guard,

125 İlber Ortaylı, İstanbul’dan Sayfalar, Turkuaz Kitap, İstanbul, 2008, p. 18.

126 Cem Behar, “Kasap İlyas Mahallesi: İstanbul’un Bir Mahallesinin Sosyal ve Demografik

Portresi: 1546-1885”, İstanbul Araştırmaları, No. 4, İstanbul Araştırmaları Merkezi, İBB,

2000, p. 16.

127 İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal, Hoş Sadâ: Son Asır Türk Musıkişinasları, Türkiye İş

Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Maarif Basımevi, İstanbul, 1958. p. 114.

108

the nighttime journey towards Fatih, where his home was, interrupted by two

armed men at the Edirnekapı Cemetery.128

Some musicians’ daily routines seem to be well-organized when one considers the

insufficient transportation infrastructure of the city. Emin Yazıcı (1881-1945), for

instance, was used to welcome his musician friends and students at his home in the

Tophane neighborhood throughout his life. In addition to that, he visited the Galata

Mevlevî lodge on a regular basis, which was at a walking distance from his home.

There he was musically educated by kudümzenbaşı Raif Dede (d.?) and later became

the leading ney player (serneyzen) in the Galata Mevlevî lodge before the Sufî

lodges were officially closed in 1925. The only exception was teaching ney in the

Dâr’ül-Elhân Conservatory in Fatih for a short time.129 There are other musicians

whose musical practices were mainly concentrated within close distances to their

homes. Ali Rıza Şengel (Eyyübî, 1878-1953) was born in the Eyüp district, where

most of his musical activities took place. He held music classes at home, frequented

the Kadirî and Rıfaî lodges of Eyüp and founded the Eyüp branch of Musikî-i Osmanî

with a group of musicians where he also taught music between 1922-1927.130

The other side of the coin is that a significant number of musicians under study

require us to approach the arguments above with some reservation. The musicians

rushed around the city’s musical activities. In fact, musicians’ capability of reaching

different spots of the city for music probably became possible by the swift advance

in city transportation during the latter part of the century. Tekeli’s study underlines

three decisive dates on this issue: The beginning of sea-transportation in the city

with the Şirket-i Hayriye company, which was founded in 1851 and signaled the

growing of the sea traffic in Bosporus. Five years later, two ships crossed the city

128 Sadi Yaver Ataman, Mehmed Sadi Bey, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, Ankara, 1987,

pp. 40-41.

129 Halil Can, “Edebileşen Dehalarımız: Emin Dede”, Türk Musikisi Dergisi, No. 4, 1947,

İstanbul, pp. 2,3 and 23; No. 5, pp. 4,5 and 20.

130 Salih Dizer, “Alaturka musiki üstadlarımız: Eyyübî Ali Rıza ile bir konuşma”, Taha Toros

Archive, No. 001511093006, İstanbul Şehir Üniversitesi.

109

eight times a day on the Eminönü-Üsküdar line. In the 1880s, the company’s daily

transportation capacity reached 25.000 people, and roughly to 49.000 in 1912.

These numbers included all the routes the company ran; a broad network between

the opposite directions as well as the circuits to the residential districts alongside

the two shores of Bosporus. Tekeli’s second phase focused on the land-traffic. The

beginning of horse-drawn trams in the first half of the 1870s, which initially ran only

in two directions (Azapkapı to Beşiktaş and Eminönü to Aksaray) and transported

more than 17.000 people daily. A new tramline was opened in 1881, which

connecting Karaköy to Şişli via Cadde-i Kebir, Taksim and Pangaltı. A shift occurred

in 1911; the trams pulled by horses were hereafter powered by electricity. Together

with the line in the Asian part (Üsküdar, Kısıklı to Alemdağ), the trams were carrying

more than 30.000 people each day in the same year. The last stage began with the

functioning of railroad in the city. In 1875, the railroad with seven stops connected

Küçükçekmece district to Sirkeci via Makriköy.131

The pattern of mobile musicians is apparent in the life story of Nasibin Mehmed

Yürü (1882-1953). He was born and lived in Kanlıca in the Beykoz district. As an

active piyasa musician, he constantly played oud and sang in Memduh Efendi’s

(1868-1938) fasıl groups. His existence in the music market was recorded in the

historical accounts, particularly in daily papers. He performed at the Fevziye Coffee

House in the Şehzadebaşı neighborhood (within the Fatih district), at the Kılburnu

Casino in the Fener neighborhood and at the Arif’s Coffee House in the Sultanahmet

neighborhood. Another mobile musician was Hasan Sabri Bey (1868-1922), oud

player who was born and lived in the Üsküdar district. At a very young age he

entered the service in the Ministry of Education (Maârif Nezâreti). After long years

in the same office, he was forced to retire due to the general reduction of state

131 İlhan Tekeli, İstanbul ve Ankara İçin Kent İçi Ulaşım Tarihi Yazıları, Tarih Vakfı Yurt

Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 22-37. Zeynep Çelik’s narrative provides a detailed

examination of public transportation networks in the city during the period under study.

According to Çelik, the overall effort of the Ottoman authorities to advance the

transportation facilities in the city underpinned the idea of “civilized” and “Westernized”

society, Zeynep Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the

Nineteenth Century”, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1986, pp. 82-

103.

110

functionaries (tensikât) in 1909. Shortly after leaving public office, he sought to put

his sidelined career back on track. He offered private music lessons at home and

began to regularly visit Şehzadebaşı neighborhood at the Fatih district, where the

Dârü’t-Talîm-i Musikî of Fahri Kopuz (1885-1968) was located. The school operated

three days a week and provided a platform for live concerts from 1912 onward.132

Hasan Sabri Bey worked there as a music teacher and performed in the live

concerts. Another oud player was Sami Bey (1867-1939) who was born and lived in

the Aksaray district. His music-teaching career was, however, on the other side of

Bosporus. He taught music in the Musikî-i Osmanî in Kadıköy and People’s House

(Halkevi) in Kızıltoprak during the Early Republican period.

Tables 4.2 and 4.3 will demonstrate the musicians’ pattern of behavior particularly

in terms of mobility and daily routines. The outcomes will provide a comprehensive

perspective upon the directions of musical movements in the city, the interactions

between the neighborhoods and ultimately will shed light on the musical character

of certain districts. I believe that the meticulously designed tables will display the

patterns and promote novel questions on the musical setting of the city.

Table 4.2. Locations of musicians’ activities

District

Areas Covered

Frequency

Percent

1th Daire Yenikapı, Unkapanı, Süleymaniye 1 .4

2nd Daire Fatih 45 17.5

4th Daire Eyüp 7 2.7

5th Daire Kasımpaşa - -

6th Daire Kurtulus, Beyoglu, Macka 46 17.9

7th Daire Beşiktaş, Şişli, Mecidiyeköy 1 .4

8th Daire Tarabya, İstinye 1 .4

9th Daire Sarıyer, Rumelifeneri 2 .8

132 Güntekin Oransay, “Cumhuriyetin İlk Elli Yılında Geleneksel Sanat Musikimiz”, Ankara

Üniversitesi İlâhiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, No. 117, Ankara, 1973, pp. 244-245; Nuri Özcan,

“Dârütta’lîm-i Mûsiki”, DİA, Vol. 9, 1994, pp. 9-10.

111

Table 4.2. Continued

10th Daire Beykoz 1 .4

11th Daire Çengelköy, Beylerbeyi 2 .8

12th Daire Üsküdar 8 3.1

13th Daire Kadıköy, Erenköy, Bostancı 4 1.6

Musicians that were active in more than one district

2th and 6th 31 12.1

6th and 9th 10 3.9

2, 4, and 6 8 3.1

2th and 4th 7 2.7

2th and 13th 6 2.3

6th and 13th 4 1.6

2th and 12th 3 1.2

1th and 2nd Daires 2 .8

7th and 10th 2 .8

2, 6, and 9 2 .8

2, 6, and 12 2 .8

2, 6, and 13 2 .8

6th and 7th 1 .4

2th and 10th 1 .4

6th and 12th 1 .4

9th and 12th 1 .4

12th and 13th 1 .4

2, 4, and 5 1 .4

2, 4, and 12 1 .4

1th and 4th 1 .4

2, 12, and 13 1 .4

2, 6, 9, and 12 1 .4

Outside Istanbul 15 5.8

Unknown 32 12.5

TOTAL 257 100.0

A few comments seem necessary to read and interpret the figures better. The first

eleven rows, where the names of the areas covered by districts stated, represent

112

the musicians whose activities were limited to only one district. The second part of

the table that begins right after the row “musicians that were active in more than

one district” indicates the frequency of musicians whose musical activities extended

over at least into two districts. Therefore, the outcome clearly indicates the

musicians’ mobility in the city. In accordance with the finding 45.9 % of musicians

concentrated their musical activities within the borders of one district, in fact,

almost always the one where they lived. 35.8 %, on the other, constantly changed

locations and frequented different districts for musical opportunities.

Table 4.3, which has to be considered together with Table 4.2, will be based on the

same outcome. I will only make minor changes by adding the figures in the multiple

rows to districts to which they belonged in order to refine the data. The aim here is

to highlight the principal districts regarding the musical concentration.

Table 4.3. Locations of musicians’ activities recorded in the city (multiples added)

District Areas Covered Frequency Percent

1. Daire Yenikapı, Unkapanı, Süleymaniye 4 1.2

2. Daire Fatih 106 31.7

4. Daire Eyüp 25 7.4

5. Daire Kasımpaşa 3 0.9

6. Daire Kurtulus, Beyoglu, Macka 102 30.5

7. Daire Beşiktaş, Şişli, Mecidiyeköy 4 1.2

8. Daire Tarabya, İstinye 1 0.3

9. Daire Sarıyer, Rumelifeneri 17 5.9

10. Daire Beykoz 2 0.6

11. Daire Çengelköy, Beylerbeyi 2 0.6

12. Daire Üsküdar 18 5.4

13. Daire Kadıköy, Erenköy, Bostancı 18 5.4

Unknown 32 9.6

TOTAL 334 100.0

The outcomes, in the first place, reveal the way the musical opportunities were

dispersed among the most parts of the city. However, one can observe the unequal

113

relationship between music and each district. Certain districts dominated the

musical activities more than others. They were Fatih, Eyüp and Galata/Beyoğlu in

the Istanbul side of the city; and Üsküdar together with Kadıköy on the Anatolian

side. My plan is to treat some of these districts separately to explore the musical

traffic of the city. To bring the analysis to a required state, I organized a

comprehensive table, in which I will compare musicians’ living places to the

locations of their activities.

Table 4.4. Musicians’ living quarters and the location of musical activities in number

(cross tabulation)

Musicians’

Districts

The Location of Musical Activities (frequency)

1.Yenikapı

2.Fatih

3.Yedikule

4.Eyüp

5.Kasımpaşa

6.Beyoğlu

7.Beşiktaş

8.Tarabya

9.Sarıyer

10.Beykoz

11.Çengelköy

12.Üsküdar

13.Kadıköy

Outside

Unknown

TOTAL

Yenikapı 2 2 1 5

Fatih 2 59 7 26 2 2 1 6 2 9 116

Yedikule 2 1 1 4

Eyüp 1 3 8 2 1 15

Kasımpaşa 3 1 2 2 8

Beyoğlu 3 1 7 1 12

Beşiktaş 6 2 12 2 3 1 1 2 29

Tarabya 1 1 1 3

Sarıyer 1 1 1 3

Beykoz 3 4 1 1 1 10

Çengel

köy

2 2 2 2 8

Üsküdar 11 2 11 3 1 13 2 1 1 45

Kadıköy 4 3 3 1 11

Unknown 1 7 4 28 1 6 3 4 6 16 76

TOTAL 4 106 25 3 102 4 1 17 2 2 18 18 11 32 345

Table 4.4 contributes extra features to the issue in such a way to complete the

required information. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 defined the frequency of activities

happening in the districts. Table 1 has already showed the distribution of musician

population among the districts. It was yet difficult to establish a relationship

between these statistical outcomes. In order to fill that gap I organized the last

table. It will simply associate the musicians’ living places to the locations of their

musical activities. Put differently, the study will reveal, for instance, where the two

Sarıyer (9th Daire) born musicians’ activities took place. Or it will be possible to

114

check the percentages of locations from where the musicians have poured into the

Fatih district (2nd Daire).

A few explanations seem necessary in order to easily read and interpret the Table

4.4. The rows, which start with the name of each district written in bold, indicate

the musicians’ living places in the city, while the columns are designed to show the

frequency of musical activities carried out in each district. The point at which the

lines intersect, display both the number of activities happening at each district

(columns) and the density of participation by the musicians of each district (rows).

By considering the figures in Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4 together, it is possible to define

the musical setting of the city in terms of residential and performance centers of

musicians. Fatih (n = 84, 33.3 %) and Beşiktaş (n = 18, 7.1 %) in the old part of the

city and Üsküdar (n = 27, 10.7) in the Anatolian part were the residential centers of

musicians (see Figure 4.1). On the other hand, Fatih (n = 106, 31.7 %) and Beyoğlu

(n = 102, 30.5 %) were the areas where the majority of the musical activities

concentrated (see Figure 4.2). A third category could be created based on the two

for the Fatih district as both the residential and the performance centers of

Istanbul.

Figure 4.1. Residential centers of musicians in Istanbul

Fatih

33%

Beşiktaş

7%

Üsküdar

10%

Other

21%

Unknown

27%

Outside

2%

Districts

115

Figure 4.2. Performance centers in Istanbul

In a different perspective, I will concentrate on the concept of locality based on the

statistical outcomes of Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.133 I organized the next table to give

an idea about different sort of perspectives these tables may provide to the study.

Table 4.5. Musical events of musicians in the district they resided (cross tabulation)

District Musicians’ Local Participation Musician

Population

Fatih 59 (70 %) 84

Eyüp 8 (80 %) 10

Beyoğlu 7 (87.5 %) 8

Üsküdar 13 (48 %) 27

Kadıköy 3 (37.5%) 8

Note: The district of Beşiktaş may also be added to the list since 12 out of 18 (67%)

were musically active in the 6th Daire that included the Beyoğlu, Kurtuluş and Maçka

areas, which were at a close distance.

133 The study perceives the concept of “locality” to be totally music-oriented. Thereby, the

term locality will refer to the musical activities in the neighborhoods, rather than dealing

with the local color of music practices (stylistic differences). Issues such as mobility and the

interaction of musicians will be discussed within the context of locality.

Fatih

29%

Beyoğlu

28%

Unknown

9%

Other

34%

Districts

116

Moreover, the way of seeing the statistical outcomes would set the stage for

observing the musicians’ pattern of behavior at the local level and will help to

understand how promising was the musical potential at each district. The musical

potential means to explore the variety of musical activities as they were recorded in

the sources, with which the outcome would provide a basis to argue whether one

may attribute a musical character to a district. In other words, it would test the

reliability of arguments, such as Üsküdar (12th Daire) seemed to produce

overwhelmingly religious or tekke-based music, whereas music for entertainment

dominated the Beyoğlu or Sarıyer district. Starting with Eyüp, my plan is to

separately deal with certain neighborhoods to identify the typical and uncommon

traits, as well as to reveal the musical interactions between neighborhoods.

117

Map 4.1. Frequency map for Istanbul’s musical setting

Source: The map is preperad by Necib Bey in 1918. ArcGIS version 10.2 and Adobe

Illustrator CS6 were used to visualize the musical activity frequencies throughout

the city.

118

4.2. Eyüp: The Sense of Locality

Musicians who resided in Eyüp (n = 10) indicate a distinct character to a certain

extent that may be described as homogenous. First, they were all male and

Muslims. To be noted that, the study does not claim neither non-Muslim nor female

musicians have not lived in the Eyüp district. Simply put, all the non-Muslim and

female musicians the study focused on were born elsewhere. Another distinction

was the Sufi involvement,134 which appeared far more frequent compared to other

districts. Seven out of ten musicians in the Eyüp district were connected to a Sufi

order (70 %), (see Table 4.6). The particular one was the Mevlevî order: four

musicians were among its members. The comparison with other districts will reveal

how high the percentage was regarding the Sufi connection.

Table 4.6. The Sufi affiliation in certain districts (cross tabulation)

Districts Sufi musicians Non-Muslims Unknown135 Total

Fatih 25 (30.0 %) 4 55 84

Beşiktaş 5 (28.0 %) 5 5 18

Üsküdar 10 (37 %) 1 16 27

The way the district was constructed may provide an explanation to the high

percentage of Sufi attachment. In fact, Eyüp district was similar to Fatih and

Üsküdar districts in terms of its religious atmosphere, the dominant religious

architecture and particularly the numerous Sufi lodges,136 all of which have seemed

134 The term “Sufi involvement” embraces a number of narratives from being a member of

a Sufi order (Sheikh, dervish) to occasionally visiting a lodge (muhibbân). Yet, the degree of

affinity is beyond the scope of this study.

135 I tend to interpret the unknown category as closer to the negative answer. The reason is

that adherence to a Sufi order is a comprehensive issue that gradually affects and puts

marks on almost all aspects of life, which is more or less traceable. Musicians with Sufi

connection, for instance, almost always compose hymns devoted to the order’s most

influential characters as a way to manifest their devotion. The way I interpret the unknown

category is valid only for this issue and not applicable to other variables.

136 Regarding the complete list of Sufi lodges that functioned at Eyüp, their impact on the

local culture, as well as the interaction among the numerous lodges in the neighborhood,

see Nuran Çetin, “Eyüp Tekkeleri”, Assoc. Prof. Safi Arpaguş (Superviser), Unpublished PhD

119

to influence the social life and gave the areas its character. The religious

architecture takes precedence over any other issue in Artan’s article that focuses on

historical Eyüp. She states that the neighborhood was surrounded with numerous

works of Mimar Sinan (d. 1588) that virtually made an impact on the formation of

social identity.137 Sufi lodges were another facet of the religious life in the Eyüp

district, many of which functioned until 1925.138

The biographical accounts of musicians underpin the idea that religion was an

influential factor on music and thus shaped the musical practices. It is now time to

analyze a couple of individual life narratives to find out how determining was the

locality and religious music culture in the neighborhood.

Zeki Dede (1824-1897) composed music for Mevlevî rites (ayîn-i şerif), also

numerous hymns. Besides, he taught music at the Ebusuud Efendi Primary School in

Eyüp. His son Ahmet Irsoy (1869-1943) became a hafız in the Eyüp Mosque and

served as imam-hatip both in the Cedid Ali Paşa and Hasib Efendi Tekkesi Mosques

of Eyüp. Following the footprints of his father, he became a member of the Mevlevî

order and attended the ceremonies at the Bahariye Mevlevî lodge in Eyüp as a

kudümzenbaşı.

Thesis, SBE, Temel İslam Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı, Tasavvuf Bilim Dalı, Marmara Üniversitesi,

İstanbul, 2012, pp. 395-415 and appendix.

137 Tülay Artan, “Eyüp”, DİA, Vol. 12, 1995, pp. 4-6.

138 Mustafa Kara provides a list, whose author is unknown, of 260 lodges that functioned in

the late Ottoman Istanbul according to the orders they were bound to: “Asitâne-i Aliyye’de

ve Bilâd-ı Selâse’de Kāin El’an Mevcûd ve Muhterik Olmuş Tekkelerin İsim ve Şöhretleri ve

Mukābele-i Şerîfe Günleri Beyân Olunur”, Din Hayât Sanat Açısından Tekkeler ve Zâviyeler,

Dergâh, İstanbul, 1980, pp. 424-435.

120

Photo 4.1. Bahariye Mevlevî Lodge in Eyüp at the beginning of the twentieth

century

Source: M. Baha Tanman, “Musiki Tarihimizde Önemli Yeri Olan Bahariye

Mevlevihânesi’nin Tarihçesi ve Sosyokültürel Çevresi”, Dârülelhan Mecmuası, İÜ

OMAR, İstanbul, 2017, p. 15.

I already mentioned Eyyübî Ali Rıza Şengel (1878-1953), whose musical character

was formed by Rufaî and the Kadirî orders in the Eyüp district. In fact, the study

included his father as another Eyüp-born musician. Served as a scribe in the Excise

Tax Department (Rüsûmat Emaneti) and Ministry for Imperial Religious Foundations

(Evkaf Nezâreti), respectively, Mehmed Cemal Efendi (1847-1916) learned music

from Sheikh Rıza Efendi of Hatuniye lodge in Eyüp and Zekaî Dede. He seemed to

never break off the relations with the Sufi circles, as he became the zâkirbaşı139 at

the Sertarikzâde and Hatuniye lodges in Eyüp and Nureddin Cerrâhî lodge in Fatih.

The fact that his son continued to hold the post of zakirbaşı reveals the continuity

of roughly half-a-century family tradition. Besides, he tirelessly wrote (notated) the

music performed in the Sufi lodges. Sadeddin Heper (1899-1980) was another Eyüp

born Mevlevî musician. His father was a religious functionary in the Eyüp Sultan

Mosque. His home was next door to Ahmet Irsoy, who taught him Mevlevî music.

He also benefited from nayî Hakkı Dede (? - d. 1918) at the Bahariye Mevlevî lodge

in Eyüp. Being a scribe in the Ministry of Finance (Mâliye Nezâreti) until 1946 did

not prevent him from retaining close ties with the Mevlevî culture: composed

139 Similar to the function of a maestro in an orchestra, he conducts the audience in the

course of a zikr ceremony in the Sufi lodges.

121

hymns, Mevlevî rites and was one of the main actors in the revival of the Mevlevî

ceremonies in the first half of the 1950s.140

Two main clusters in Figure 4.3, one on the right and one on the left, depict

precisely the situation in both districts.

Figure 4.3. Comparison of local and visiting musicians’ participation in Kadıköy and

Eyüp

Kadıköy is comparable to Eyüp due to their similar musical frequencies. Eyüp had 25

overall activities, eight of which belonged to the local musicians (32 %), whereas

Kadıköy’s musicians were engaged in only three of 18 activities in their own

neighborhood (16.6 %). The visual additionally presents visiting musicians’ districts

through which one may observe the musical interaction in the city.

140 Yavuz Selim Ağaoğlu, Neyzen Selami Bertuğ’un Anılarından Belgelerle Hazret-i

Mevlâna’yı Anma Törenleri (1942-1974), Kültür A.Ş., Konya, 2013; Particularly to the role of

Sadeddin Heper for the Mevlevî rituals’ re-organization after about thirty years of

interruption, see Burcu Sağlam, “Türk Müziğinin Hafızası: Saadeddin Heper”, Musikişinas,

No. 14, İstanbul, 2015, pp. 46-93.

122

All in all, musicians of Eyüp were not so monolithic. The aferomentioned local

occasion and the dominant Sufi/religious features did not principally shape all the

Eyüp-born ones’ music career. Albeit a few, there were musicians, namely as Kadri

Şençalar (1912-1989) and Muzaffer İlkar (1910-1987), whose life experiences

revealed distinct characters from the musicians stated above. Having said that,

analyses based on the statistical outcomes cannot be blind to the widespread

inclinations, though the study acknowledges disparate life patterns. The hegemony

of the religious music underlined by the vigorous Sufi tradition was one solid

pattern for the Eyüp district. The other typicality was the strong sense of locality. A

sizeable number of musicians have maintained firm cultural ties with the

neighborhood. Both factors were critical in shaping the musical output. Tables 4.4

and 4.5 elaborate on the issue from different perspectives. Comparing Kadıköy, for

instance, with Eyüp in terms of musicians’ strong ties with their local environment

additionally support the assertion.

4.3. Üsküdar: The Composite Structure

The demographic structure of the district reflected the imperial plurality. In 1914,

Üsküdar had a little over 90,000 inhabitants, of which 64 % were Muslims, 20 %

were Armenians, 13 % Greek Orthodox and less than 3 % were Jews.141

The musicians of Üsküdar display two noticeable features in the outcome of Table

4.4 In terms of locality, the study counted overall eighteen musical activities in the

district. The local musicians participated to thirteen (67 %) of them. As has been

already discussed in the section above regarding the Eyüp district and displayed

through Table 4.5, there also appears a strong sense of locality, which means mainly

local participation in the musical events. Yet, these outcomes have to be supported

by additional data. It is true that the strong sense of locality is visible for the

musicians of Üsküdar in Table 4.7.

141 M. Hanefi Bostan, “Üsküdar”, DİA, Vol. 42, 2012, p. 367.

123

Table 4.7. The density of local involvement as compared to total activities in

districts (cross tabulation)

District The Frequency of Local Involvement Activities in Total

Üsküdar 13 (72 %) 18 (100.0 %)

Fatih 59 (56 %) 106 (100.0 %)

Eyüp 8 (32%) 25 (100.0 %)

Kadıköy 3 (17 %) 18 (100.0 %)

Interestingly, the proportion of Eyüp was somehow reduced to 32 % in the same

table, though the study previously underlined the local vein in the Eyüp district (see

Table 4.5). There is not a mistake of reading the outcomes; the reason that is

testing the effect of different independent variables on the dependent variable in a

dataset may produce conflicting outcomes on the very same issue. None of the

outcomes is misleading; simply they highlight the different aspects of it. Table 4.5

searched for the percentage of local involvement in the musical events within the

overall musician population. Besides, the purpose of Table 4.7 is to define the

density of local involvement to the total activities in a district. The requirement

necessarily counts all the activities carried out and thus the local initiative shrinks. It

is the effect of other districts’ musicians. Eventually, Table 4.7 may be interpreted in

a way to stress how intense the interaction was in Eyüp, whereas the district of

Üsküdar was to a large extent isolated due to the rare appearance of musicians

from elsewhere.

The Gephi will provide one visual perspective to the issue, through which the study

will be able to see the precise directions of each individual musician who resided in

Üsküdar. Figure 4.4 visualizes the musical network, which provides a clear picture of

individual practices. The circles in red refer to the districts (see Table 4.1). The 2nd

Daire is Fatih, 6th is Beyoğlu and 12th is Üsküdar neighborhoods. The green and blue

circles symbolize the musicians. The program automatically sets the dimensions of

circles in accordance with the frequency response. The visualization is an alternative

124

display of the Üsküdar row in Table 4.4; however, presents the movements of

individuals in further detail. For example, it portrays that Salim Bey paid visits to 2dh,

3rd and 12th districts, whereas Emin Ongan frequented to 6th and 12th districts.

Figure 4.4. The activity directions of Üsküdar’s musicians

The visualization of the musical network provides a clear picture of individual

practices. The circles in red refer to the districts (see Table 4.1). The 2nd Daire is

Fatih, 6th is Beyoğlu and 12th is Üsküdar neighborhoods. The green and blue circles

symbolize the musicians. The program automatically sets the dimensions of circles

in accordance with the frequency response. The visualization is an alternative

display of the Üsküdar row in the Table 4; however, presents the movements of

individuals in further detail. For example, it portrays that Salim Bey paid visits to 2dh,

3rd and 12th districts, whereas Emin Ongan frequented to 6th and 12th districts.

From the standpoint of Üsküdar’s musicians, the term isolation still needs

reconsideration. It is true that Üsküdar did not generally welcome musicians of

other districts as we see in the Tables 4.4 and 4.7, and the local musicians ultimately

125

dominated the musical events. The statement does not necessarily mean that the

musicians of Üsküdar were hesitant to move outside. Rather, they frequented other

districts in much higher percentages than they participated in local events. In fact,

Üsküdar’s musicians were the most mobile musicians of all. Table 4.8 will first

highlight the percentages of local participation (local), later the frequency of the

same musicians who joined the events beyond the borders of their neighborhoods

(elsewhere) and finally the overall number of musical activities at certain districts.

Indeed, Table 4.8 is designed to indicate the behavior patterns of musicians who

resided in Fatih, Eyüp and Beyoğlu districts, which are very similar.

Table 4.8. Musicians’ local music activities compared to the outside activities

(cross tabulation)

Musicians’ Participation

Districts

Local Elsewhere Unknown Total

Fatih 59 (51 %) 48 (41 %) 9 (8 %) 116

Eyüp 8 (53 %) 7 (47 %) 15

Beyoğlu 7 (58 %) 5 (42 %) 12

Üsküdar 13 (28.9 %) 31 (68.9 %) 1 (2.2 %) 45

Kadıköy 3 (27.2 %) 7 (63.7 %) 1 (9.1) 11

They were part of the musical events both at the local level and elsewhere almost in

similar proportions. The musicians of Üsküdar and Kadıköy, whose musical

directions were towards other districts in greater proportions, maintained the

opposite position. The statements, while strongly entailing uniformity in the

behavior patterns, do not say much about the factors behind this. Outlining the

patterns is one of the principal aims of this study, yet the complex and many-sided

individual life narratives, which simply generate those patterns, are also extremely

important. Even though Fatih, Eyüp and Beyoğlu revealed similar types of behavior,

the biographical accounts emphasize the local nuances and the variety of

motivations for behaving in a particular way.

126

Although Table 4.6 indicated ten Sufi musicians for Üsküdar; there is not a

discrepancy between the two sets of figures; as the footnote 134 clarified the

degree of affinity. The Sufis may also be added to the music-based group as music

was inherent in the profession. İhsan İyisan (1873-1946), for instance, was inside

the Sufi musician group, but his life was not reducible to one category. He was born

and grew up in the Nalçacı Halil Efendi Sufi lodge (the Şabaniyye branch of Halvetî

order) in Üsküdar, where his musical character developed. He held the post of

sheikh in the very same lodge between 1910 and 1925 after his father and older

brother passed away. Meanwhile, he served in the Imperial Office of Land Registry

(Defter-i Hakanî) for a short time; however, the official records do not tell much

about it. Hence, what we know about his other employment is less than complete.

İyisan is included into the Sufi group not just because we have limited information

about his career, but also the bureaucratic milieu was, at best, of minor importance

in his life. Said Özok (1855-1945) is another case in point. He was born in the Saffetî

Paşa lodge in Üsküdar. His father was the sheikh of the lodge, and had succeeded to

his father. He is not in the Sufi group due to his more profound involvement in

official service. Özok has served for more than forty years in the Ministry of Military

Affairs (Bâb-ı Seraskeri, it was renamed as Harbiye Nezâreti in 1908) and thus his life

accounts contain more related material. Reducing them into one category seems to

flatten the peculiarities; however, I would use these rich life samples in the related

arguments. Aziz Dede (1835? -1905) was a Üsküdar based ney player, whose

mobility frequency resembled very much to the pattern of the music-based ones’

group. His musical map tells that he constantly participated in the musical events

throughout the city, being the ser-nayî of three Mevlevî lodges, namely Üsküdar,

Galata (Kulekapısı) in Beyoğlu and Bahariye in Eyüp (Figure 4.3).

The aim of questioning the real income source of musicians is to connect it to a

range of issues, such as the musicians’ mobility, differentiation in music spaces and

their approaches to music. The latter is related to the financial aspect of music,

however the way the question is asked implies the perception of music by

musicians.

127

Two main camps come to the fore in Table 4.9. First, musicians for whom music was

not the chief source of income were Ottoman civil servants. To compare the

occupational distribution among the 10 musicians of Eyüp, only two musicians

earned money out of music, while three were state officials and two were religious

functionaries. The other three were a teacher, a Sheikh, and a merchant.

Table 4.9. The real income source of Üsküdar’s musicians

Frequency Percent

Music 6 22.2

Official Functionary 8 29.6

Religious Functionaries 1 3.7

Teacher (non-music) 1 3.7

Sheikh/Dervish 3 11.1

Doctor, Pharmacist 2 7.4

Engineer 1 3.7

Solicitor 1 3.7

Other 3 11.1

Unknown 1 3.7

TOTAL 27 100.0

In fact, the characteristic, which is clearly seen in Table 4.9 that deals merely with

Üsküdar, principally encompasses almost all aspects of this study. In more general

terms, musicians under study have generated two principal categories; musicians

whose main or primary source of income is music and the musicians who did not

earn a living out of music. Musicians who served in the government posts were

overwhelmingly represented in the latter group. Claiming that the second group

never received money is not possible, the matter is whether they solely depended

on music or not.

In the process of categorizing musicians’ behaviors, I observed certain differences

but also similarities in terms of musical practices particularly between Üsküdar’s

musicians whose chief source of income was music and musicians that served in

public offices. Bestenigâr Ziya Bey (1877-1923), who retired from the the Ministry of

128

Military Affairs in 1916, worked as a music teacher at the Şark Music School,

Üsküdar Music School and in Dâr’ül-Elhân Conservatory. Besides, he offered private

classes to the members of prosperous families, as he was known as hoca due to his

active involvement in music teaching. One encounters his name in many musician

biographies as a regular attendant of musical gatherings, meşks, in various

locations. I have already mentioned Hasan Sabri Bey’s name (1868-1922), when

discussing musicians’ mobility in the city. However, now I will discuss his musical

activities. Shortly after retiring from the Ministry of Education (Maârif Nezâreti) in

1909, music became his focal point. He offered private music teaching and taught

music in the Dârü’t-Talîm-i Musikî in Fatih. Lemi Atlı (1870-1945) is another

musician case from bureaucracy. He served for almost twenty years in the Ministry

of Interior (Dahiliye Nezâreti), Ministry of Police (Zabtiye Nezâreti), and also worked

for Takvim-i Vekâyi’, which was a state funded newspaper, until his retirement in

1908. The biographical accounts do not provide much information about the latter

part of his life, particularly on the period from his retirement to his death in 1945.

All we know is he taught music at the Şark Music School in Kadıköy for a short while

and continued to attend musical gatherings at various neighborhoods.142

There were Üsküdar’s musicians whose sole income was derived from music. Amâ

Nazım Bey (1884-1920) was a lifetime music teacher, who worked at many schools.

He taught music at the Musikî-i Osmanî School in Fatih between 1910-1912 and

Dârü’t-Talîm-i Musikî School from 1912 onwards. Yet he was the founder and the

teacher of the İnas Musikî School. Selahaddin Pınar (1902-1960) was one of the

founders of Dârü’l-Feyz-i Musikî School (1918) in Üsküdar. He spent much of his life

performing in music halls (gazinos), yet he signed recording contracts for the songs

he composed. Fuad Sorguç (1904-1970) taught tanbur, played on stage and hence

solely depended on music to get by throughout his life.143

142 Ebubekir Hazım Tepeyran, Canlı Tarihler, No. 6, Türkiye Yayınevi, Ankara, 1947, p. 139.

143 Fuat Sorguç gave an interview about his life and music career. I would like to thank to

Celal Şalçini to provide this audio record.

129

Though we do not know much about whether Pınar has attended any house

gathering, it was a habit for Amâ Nazım Bey and Fuad Sorguç.

Üsküdar’s entertainment places where music was performed among other artistic

forms present a contrast to the way the neighborhood was generally depicted in

literature. In one of his novels, Gürpınar describes the neighborhood as destitute,

ordinary, frozen in time, oriental. Mosques, Sufi lodges, religious schools came to

forefront in such a way that Üsküdar was established for spiritual rather than

material happiness.144 I suppose that the construction of an indivisible and uniform

social structure conceals the neighborhood’s multifaceted character. Furthermore,

describing it in an idealized fashion seemed to have an impact on the scholarship

that emphasizes the religious but particularly the Islamic character of it.145 The

contemporary accounts provide evidences that the neighborhood was socially more

complex and hence had much more to offer than the way it was represented. Even

though Eyüp and Üsküdar had similarities regarding the dominant Sufi lodge-based

music, the latter’s musical atmosphere was much more diverse than Eyüp. In

accordance with the related advertisements compiled by Kalender, Üsküdar’s

entertainment places might be divided into three groups: Theatres, coffee houses

(semaî kahve), and picnic areas (mesire).

144 “… Adım başında minareleri, kubbeleri, damlarıyla gözleri karşılayan hesapsız camiler,

mescitler, tekkeler, medreseler görürsünüz. Hayattan çok ölüme ayrılmış bir memleket...”

Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar, Ölüm Bir Kurtuluş mudur?, Everest Publishing, İstanbul, 2010, p.

41, quoted from Fatih Ordu, “Toplumsal Bir Bellek Olarak Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar'ın

İstanbul'u”, Asst. Prof. Şeyma Büyüksavaş Kuran (Superviser), Unpublished PhD Thesis,

Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, SBE, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı Anabilim Dalı, Samsun, 2013, pp. 126-

27.

145 Articles submitted to Üsküdar Symposiums, which has been organized by Üsküdar

Municipality since 2003 is one good example of it. The majority of the articles that were

published are related with the Ottoman and Islamic heritage of Üsküdar. All the published

articles from the first symposiums to the last one are open to public view, see

http://www.uskudarsempozyumu.com/tr/sempozyum/pages/sempozyum-pdfleri/334

(accessed on 9 November 2017).

130

Table 4.10. Places in which music was performed in Üsküdar between 1895-1916

(quoted from Kalender)

Head Musician District Place Other

Musicians

Tahsin Efendi Üsküdar Not given -

Mehmet Efendi Üsküdar Selimiye, Hamam Coffee House Hanende

Şükrü

Hasan Bey Üsküdar Hayalhâne-i Osmanî Company Kemençeci

Ağabey

Hakkı Efendi Üsküdar Kısıklı Mesiresi (Picnic Area) Arif Efendi

Hasan Bey Üsküdar Bulgurlu Mesiresi -

Şevki Bey Üsküdar Bağlarbaşı Theatre146 -

Şevki Bey Üsküdar Bağlarbaşı Theatre -

Bülbüli Salih Üsküdar Küçük Çamlıca Mesiresi Udi Cemil Bey

Bülbüli Salih Üsküdar Küçük Çamlıca Mesiresi -

No name Üsküdar Bağlarbaşı Theatre -

No name Üsküdar İcadiye, Theatre -

No name Üsküdar Paşakapısı, Millî Osmanî

Theatre

-

No name Üsküdar Paşakapısı, Dilküşâ Theatre -

No name Üsküdar İcadiye, Theatre -

Without claiming that the collected advertisements covered every single music

activity at Üsküdar but it helps to catch a glimpse of it. The initial impression from

advertisements is that the role of music in these programs seemed to be secondary

and complementary. For instance, if the drama was not musical, which combines

songs, dialogues and dance, then music was generally performed during a theatre

interval. Many advertisements explicitly stated that music was performed during

146 For further on the Dilküşâ and Bağlarbaşı (Beyleryan or Beyleroğlu) Theatres, see

Mehmet Nermi Haskan, Yüzyıllar Boyunca Üsküdar, Vol. 3, Üsküdar Municipalilty

Publishing, 2001, pp. 1297-1305.

131

the intervals. However, the theatres were indeed functioning as concert places.

Musicians hired them to perform due to the lack of specifically built spaces for

music performance.147

Regarding the picnic areas (mesire) it seems that visiting those places was one

habitual practice for the city dwellers. First of all, it was seasonal; starting around

May and lasting until the autumn. People frequented open-air spaces for many

reasons, which cannot be merely reduced to leisure activities. The practice might be

defined as one of the means of socialization, in which city dwellers interacted with

others. The literature on these informal gatherings explains the unwritten rules of

it. The determining force seemed to be the social status. The wealthier attended

with an entourage that also included musicians and mostly stayed overnight. Many

of the ordinary dwellers gathered around to follow the display. In fact, these

informal gatherings provided an opportunity for the higher-ranking people to be

seen by the public.148

147 Kadıköy'de Apollon tiyatrosunda ince saz takımınca ahenk. Yöneten: Kemanî Aşkî Efendi

(İkdam 7.5.1914 and 13.5.1914), quoted from Kalender, p. 436.

148 Balıkhane Nazırı Ali Rıza Bey, Eski Zamanlarda İstanbul Hayatı, Ali Rıza Çoruk (ed.),

Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2011, pp. 119-123; Fakiye Özsoysal, Metin Balay, Geleceğe Perde Açan

Gelenek: Geçmişten Günümüze İstanbul Tiyatroları, Vol. III: Anadolu Yakası, YKY, İstanbul,

2011, pp. 253-57; Sermet Muhtar Alus, İstanbul Kazan Ben Kepçe, Necdet Sakaoğlu (ed.),

İletişim, İstanbul, 1995, pp. 185-191.

132

Photo 4.2.The Sweet Waters of Kağıthane, Abdullah Fréres, ca. 1890

Source: Bahattin Öztuncay, Vasilaki Kargopulo: Hazret-i Padişâhî’nin Serfotoğrafı,

BOS, İstanbul, 2000, p. 58.

Abdülhak Şinasi Hisar narrates the culture of following or escorting the people of

importance in the Kağıthane and Göksu streams. Similar to the picnic areas, the

crowd was set in a row right behind the boat of musicians to listen the live

performances. Hisar states that the dignitaries’ derived pleasure and satisfaction

from gathering the best musicians for the public. It seems there was a fierce

competition among the notables to hire the renowned musicians. Another

unwritten rule was that the notable who organized the music event would never

sail with the musicians’ boat but follow them from a distance.149 After all, open-air

organizations could not be restricted to the type explained above. In accordance

with Table 10, which provides details, theatre companies undertook the

149 Abdülhak Şinasi Hisar, Boğaziçi Yalıları, Varlık, İstanbul, 1954, pp. 22-23; Abdülhak Şinasi

Hisar, Boğaziçi Mehtapları, YKY, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 46-49, 66-67. Ahmet Rasim narrates the

gathering of boats behind the musicians and explains it in more detail. However, the boat

trip takes place in the Kağıthane brook, see Dünkü İstanbul’da Hovardalık: Fuhş-i Atik, Arba,

İstanbul, 1987, pp. 61-68.

133

responsibility of the entertainment. The private or company-owned enterprises

were all-inclusive: From hiring the place, employing artists and musicians to

promoting the programs by advertising. It appears that the principal driving force

was theater, whereas music was secondary. Some programs also provided comic

entertainers and acrobats.

Considering those with coffee houses, their programs may be defined as the most

music-oriented. Musicians generally performed fasıl programs without interruption.

It appears that musicians played all year around but the peak was during the month

of Ramadan. Some coffee houses were known for their musical quality. Indeed, the

quality of music was related with the social status of frequenters. In other words,

the more esteemed the clients were, the more renown the musicians.150 Fevziye

Coffee House in Şehzadebaşı, Fatih was a typical example of it. The place functioned

almost as a concert hall at the turn of the twentieth century. The fasıl programs

were performed by respected names, such as Tatyos Efendi, Vasilaki Efendi, Udi

Cemil Bey and Lemi Atlı.151 However, coffee houses were not the property of

musicians. They had to share the space with others. Theatre companies hired them

to meet the public. The performers of the shadow theatre (hayâl-i zıl), public

storytellers (meddâhs) and illusionist (hokkabazes) were also being staged in the

coffee houses. After all, none of these traditional performing ways could be

considered distant artistic forms. They rather benefited from each other and hence

reinforced their artistic outputs. Briefly, music is one of the essentials of the shadow

theatre, in which the person behind the curtain (hayâlî) has to sing pieces both from

“classical” and folk repertoires while narrating the story. Probably, the very same

musicians helped in the musical parts.152

150 Sermet Muhtar Alus, İstanbul Kazan, Ben Kepçe: Eski Kıraathaneler, Akşam, 28 Kanun-ı

evvel 1938, quoted from Reyhan Elmas Keleş, “Sermet Muhtar Alus'un Eserlerinde Sosyal

Meseleler”, Assoc. Prof. Muhammet Gür (Superviser), Unpublished PhD Thesis, Marmara

Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2009, p. 64.

151 Bekir Tosun, “Direklerarası”, DİA, Vol. 9, 1994, pp. 367-68; Salâh Birsel, Kahveler Kitabı,

Koza Yayınları, İstanbul, 1975, pp. 101-119.

152 Hayali Küçük Ali, “Eskiden Karagöz Nasıl Oynatılırdı?”, Türk Folklor Araştırmaları Dergisi,

Vol. 6, No. 140, 1961, pp. 2239-2240; Cevdet Kudret provides the list of song-text

134

I suppose that Üsküdar reflected the colorful musical character of the Ottoman

state. Though Gürpınar emphasized the religious Üsküdar, I found the idea that the

neighborhood was pious or as pious as Eyüp is rather controversial since the

outcomes indicate a more varied musical structure. The existence of religious-based

music enhanced by countless Sufi lodges was almost identical for Üsküdar. The

pattern resembled that of Eyüp. Nevertheless, the neighborhood cannot be reduced

to that. It was socially more diverse, which was manifested by vibrant music life:

Sufi circles on the one hand, music schools, theater companies, coffee houses and

outdoor activities, on the other, bore traces both from Eyüp, as well as from

Beyoğlu. Sermet Muhtar Alus and Ahmet Rasim explicitly emphasized this

complexity in their narratives.

4.4. Beyoğlu or an Essential Tour from Pera to Galata

Though Beyoğlu district (6th Daire) at the turn of the twentieth century covers the

areas such as Maçka to Kurtuluş and Tophane to Galata, Pera and particularly

Cadde-i Kebir (Grand Rue de Péra) come to the fore. There are certain reasons

behind this diagnosis. The overall non-Muslim populace, the very existence of the

Western diplomatic agents, the non-Muslim dominated business owners,153 and the

operations of the 6th District through which the area is considered to be the most

Westernized part of the Ottoman Istanbul. 154 In addition to that, abundant

collections (güfte mecmûaları), that contained the songs played in the shadow theatres.

These collections were published after the second half of the nineteenth century, Karagöz,

Bilgi Yayınevi, 1968, p. 60; Cevdet Kudret, Ortaoyunu, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları,

Ankara, 1973, pp. 52-59; Ethem Ruhi Üngör, Karagöz Musikisi, Kültür Bakanlığı, Ankara,

1989; Ethem Ruhi Üngör, “Karagöz Musikisi”, Karagöz Kitabı, Sevengül Sönmez (ed.),

Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2005, pp. 91-97.

153 Naum Duhanî’s detailed depiction of the area covers not only the histories of buildings

but also their inhabitans. Nevertheless, the narrated Beyoğlu was inhabited by people of

wealth and status, Eski İnsanlar Eski Evler: XIX. Yüzyılda Beyoğlu’nun Sosyal Topografisi,

(trans. Cemal Süreyya), Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, 1982.

154 The 6th Municipality of Paris was the source of motivation as well as the role model for

the ways Sixth Municipality of Beyoğlu (founded in 1857) operated. See the list of the works

and services provided by the Municipality of Beyoğlu from the outset, Özdemir Kaptan

(Arkan), Beyoğlu (Kısa geçmişi, argosu), İletişim, İstanbul, 1988, pp. 126-127; Nur Akın, 19.

Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Galata ve Pera, Literatür, İstanbul, 2011, pp. 97-121; related with

the general principals of the Sixth Municipality of Beyoğlu, see Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i

135

historical material related with Pera dominates the historiography, and hence

marginalizes the Muslim dominated parts as well as the more ordinary non-Muslim

inhabitants’ history.155

Beyoğlu underwent serious changes in terms of its architectural and demographic

structures from the last quarter of the nineteenth century to the Early Republican

years. The frequent fires that destroyed the residential areas and the lives of people

was the significant factor conducive to the physical change. Yet, the public

construction plans, which was partially related with fire damages,-paved the way

for opening new roads, the arrangement of older living spaces and the

transformation of cemetaries into green spaces and residential areas. Thereby, the

predominantly wooden-made residences in the district were replaced by brick and

stone (kagir) made buildings. 156 Regarding the demography of the district, the

predominant non-Muslim populace has disseppeared gradually and the structure

has changed in favor of Muslim inhabitans by the turn of the twentieth century.157

Even though non-Muslim residents diminished gradually, the cosmopolitan

atmosphere of the district seemed to remain in place until the late 1920s. Cezar

Umûr-ı Belediyye, Vol. 3, İBB Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, İstanbul, 1995, pp. 1307-

1343.

155 Debates on the changing perceptions towards Beyoğlu from the turn of the twentieth

century to the modern times are discussed by Edhem Eldem, “Ottoman Galata and Pera

Between Myth and Reality”, in From “milieu de mémoire” to “lieu de mémoire”, The

Cultural Memory of Istanbul in the 20th century, Ulrike Tischler (ed.), München: M.

Meidenbauer, 2006, pp. 19-36; In a similar framework, Çağlar Keyder analyses the

perception of Istanbul through the rising elites of High Republican period (1923-1950) lived

in Ankara. The new policy that was fully based on nationalist sentiments regarded the still

multiethnic structure of the city as impure. The city was a remnant of the past that could

still carry the spirit of the generated empire, “The Setting”, in Istanbul: Between the Global

and the Local, Çağlar Keyder (ed.), Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York, 1999,

pp. 3-28.

156 Nur Akın, “Beyoğlu”, Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 2, Kültür Bakanlığı &

Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, 1994, pp. 212-218; 19. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Galata ve Pera, pp. 99,

124-126, and 297-312.

157 According to Cezar, the non-Muslim population has decreased from 190,000 to 127,863,

whereas the number of Muslim inhabitants increased from 125,000 to 145,990 in Beyoğlu

in a period of time from 1886 to 1935, XIX. Yüzyıl Beyoğlusu, Ak, İstanbul, 1991, pp. 357.

136

stated that the decrase of the non-Muslim population in the distrcit started first

with the abolishment of the caputilations by the Treaty of Lozan in 1923. Not only

the foriegners but also their non-Muslim local partners gradually left the city. Yet

the moving of the foreign embassies that were predominantly located in Beyoğlu to

the new capital of the Republic between 1927 and 1929 had an impact on the

cultural transformation of the district. 158

From the standpoint of music, the method of grasping the musical character of the

district through the musicians who resided there is likely to yield poor returns. The

reason is the small number of musicians who resided in the Beyoğlu district. Only

eight musicians lived there. Therefore, the practice of grasping the local vein

through the local musicians’ activities, which I sought for Eyüp and Üsküdar

districts, is not applicable for Beyoğlu. But I suggest that the musicians that poured

from other districts to Beyoğlu for a range of musical activities is fundamental to

understand the musical character of the neighborhood.

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 indicate the flow of musicians into the Beyoğlu district from

elsewhere. Indeed, it is only the Fatih district that slightly superseded Beyoğlu in

terms of overall activities. These two districts are critical to further improve our

knowledge on the late Ottoman music world as they both attracted musicians from

all around the city and were the places of various music organizations. From the

standpoint of the state, these two districts were regarded as first-rate places in the

city in 1908 and thus more tax were imposed to places that provided events such as

theatres and music performances in these two districts.159

158 ibid, pp. 446-447.

159 “Çalgı ve Lu‘biyât Ruhsatiyeleri Tarifesi (Sekizinci madde): “Galata, Beyoğlu ve

Şehzâdebaşı ve yaz mevsiminde Boğaziçi ve Çırçır suyu gibi şerefli mahaller birinci ve bu

yerlere nisbeten şerefi olmayan mahaller ikinci ve ücrâ yerlerdeki kaba çalgıcı esnafı üçüncü

sınıf itibar olunmuştur”, Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, Vol. 4, İBB Kültür

İşleri Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, İstanbul, 1995, pp. 1997-2000.

137

Table 4.11. Overall musical activities in the city

Place of residence Frequency Percent

Fatih 106 31.8

Beyoğlu 102 30.5

Rest (unknowns included) 126 37.7

TOTAL 334 100.0

Eleven (n = 11) activities happened outside Istanbul is not included.

Besides, before dealing with the particular music organizations and performances

held at Beyoğlu, the Gephi visualization will portray the musicians’ locations from

which they mostly frequented the Beyoğlu district. The general rule for the visual is

the more the interaction the bigger the circles. Regarding to the musicians’ mobility

in the city, Beyoğlu welcomed musicians from almost every other neighborhood.

This characteristic only shared with Fatih in similar proportions. Thereby, both

Beyoğlu and Fatih districts lie at the heart of the city music even though both

possessed distinct features. Despite that, many of the features are not comparable,

partly due to the unequal musician populace these two districts possessed (see

Table 4.1).

138

Figure 4.5. The location of musicians who made music in the Beyoğlu district

Musicians of Fatih, Beşiktaş and Üsküdar paid more frequent visits to Beyoğlu

respectively. The precise numbers and frequency are already given in Table 4.4.

With the help of Gephi that additionally visualizes these networks, it becomes easy

to grasp the data. Musicians who visited Beyoğlu under the unknown title are also

the musicians whose precise locations I could not identify.

In terms of music patterns, three types of musical activities appear to be vital in the

Beyoğlu district: Performing music in its innumerable music halls and theatres that

offered singing, dancing, acrobatics and comedy (see Table 4.12). Secondly,

performing religious music mainly in the Galata (Kulekapısı) Mevlevî lodge but also

in other Sufi lodges in the area. Thirdly, the growing industry of the sound

recording, many of the companies operated in the district right after the turn of the

twentieth century. To noted that, Sirkeci and Vezneciler were the alternative

139

centers of sound recording business. 160 There is a scholarly interest in and a

growing literature on the subject matter due to its association with the

technological impact on music, the changing patterns of music consumption, the

expansion of the music market, etc., right after the turn of the twentieth century

(see footnote 7 in Chapter 1). It seems that there was not a clear line of

demarcation between these patterns. Although Sufî in origin, Gavsi Baykara and

Hayri Tümer are two figures whose life stories contained various types of music

makings from radio performances to concerts in abroad and from attending Mevlevî

ceremonies to engaging in the sound recording companies. Sebilci Hüseyin’s (1894-

1975) biography reveals similar patterns: He was a Sufi musician who was raised

and educated by his uncle, Mustafa Hilmi Safî Efendi (1881-1960), the Sheikh of

Uşşakî lodge in Kasımpaşa. When the Sufi lodges were banned in 1925, he got

involved in the music business and hence music provided the income needed for his

subsistence. Performed in Istanbul, Izmir and Ankara for more than two decades,

made sound recordings particularly of a religious music, and was involved actively in

the film industry as a singer.

Nevertheless, not all the Sufi musicians were participants of different types of music

activities stated above. Ataullah Efendi (1842-1910) was born into a sheikh family.

His father, Kudretullah Dede (d. 1872), was the sheikh of Yenikapı Mevlevî lodge.

Ataullah Dede had been the sheikh of the Galata Mevlevî lodge since 1871 when he

died in 1910. Ahmed Celaleddin Dede was assigned to his post and would be the

last official sheikh in the Galata when the Sufi lodges ceased to operate in 1925. The

book called Sonometren, was built on his experiments to explain scientifically the

intervals within the Ottoman makam music. Indeed, it contributed to the studies of

the Committee to Classification and Fixing [of Historical “Turkish” Music], (Tasnif ve

Tesbit Heyeti) which was founded in 1926.161 The committee operated under the

160 Cemal Ünlü, Git Zaman Gel Zaman: fonograf – gramofon – taş plak, p. 90-91; Selçuk

Alimdar, Osmanlı’da Batı Müziği, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 2016, pp. 299-

305.

161 Thierry Zarcone claims that Ataullah Dede’s scientific interests seemed to be related

with his friendly connections with the Anglo-Saxon masons, through which he was

introduced to non-Muslim elites of Pera and Galata. The Bulwar (Masonic) Lodge in Pera

140

Ministry of Education (Maarif Nezâreti) and the aim was to preserve (in staff

notation) the Ottoman music in general but the religious repertoire in particular.162

Photo 4.3. Sheikh Ataullah Dede posed with his dervishes in front of Galata Mevlevî

Lodge at Beyoğlu before 1910

Source: le grand tour II: Constantinoble 1905. Fotografies d’Antoni Amatller a

Turquia, Institut Amattler d’Art Hispanic, 2006, p. 63.

Emin Yazıcı (1881-1945), as another Sufi musician, whose habitual music practices I

already mentioned in terms of geographical placement in the city, resided in the

Tophane part of the Beyoğlu district. His biographical material tells that the Mevlevî

order shaped his musical character in most cases. Mehmet Sabri Bey (Tophaneli)

(1848-1914) was also a Mevlevî dervish. Presumably, he personally knew Emin

was at a close distance to the Mevlevî lodge, “Şeyh Mehmed Ataullah Dede (1842-1910)

and the Mevlevîhâne of Galata: An Intellectual and Spritual Bridge Between the East and

the West”, The Dervishes of Sovereignty – The Sovereignty of Dervishes. The Mevlevî Order

in Istanbul, Ekrem Işın (ed.), Istanbul Researh Institute, 2007, pp. 64.

162 Rauf Yekta, “Mukaddeme”, in Türk Musikisi Klasiklerinden İlahiler, Rauf Yekta Bey,

Zekaizade Ahmet Bey, Ali Rifat Çağatay (eds.), Vol. 1, İstanbul Konservatuarı Neşriyatı,

İstanbul, 1931, pp. III-VIII.

141

Yazıcı since both served in the government jobs –albeit in different offices, both

were Mevlevî dervishes and both again lived in the same neighborhood in the

roughly overlapping time period. Nevertheless, his life accounts reveal that he

regularly attended the Mevlevî ceremonies held at the Bahariye Mevlevî lodge at

Eyüp, rather than the Galata lodge, which the latter was walking distance from his

residence.

Regarding the Beyoğlu’s entertainment places is that they differ clearly from the

ones in Üsküdar. In terms of spaces, where the music was heard, theatres, coffee

houses and picnic areas were common in Üsküdar, whereas music halls and taverns

formed the majority in Beyoğlu. Theaters were common in both neighborhoods.

The theatres, at least for the ones in Beyoğlu, need to be explored further due to

their unrecognizable position. Concordia Theatre, founded in 1871, for instance,

was a complex that extended into a large area on Cadde-i Kebir. It contained two

halls; each was used seasonally. Various groups but mainly the ones with the

repertoire of Italian operetta were on stage. Duhanî states that due to its non-

Ottoman owner, the place was legally untouchable by the local authorities, and in

its inner halls it provided the customers with a range of illicit goods and services like

gambling and drugs. Ironically enough, Concordia would put itself in order in the

course of Ramadan, during which traditional Ottoman theatre (ortaoyunu) and

music were performed. Hasan Efendi and Aşkî Efendi’s fasıl groups, whose names

are indicated in Table 15, probably performed music here during the Ramadan

periods. What’s more, after six years from its closing date, a religious building was

constructed over its ruins in 1912, namely St. Antoine Catholic Church.163

163 Yavuz Pekman, Metin Balay, Geleceğe Perde Açan Gelenek: Geçmişten Günümüze

İstanbul Tiyatroları, Vol. II: Beyoğlu, Şişli, Beşiktaş ve Çevresi, YKY, İstanbul, 2011, pp. 59-62;

Indeed, Sermet Muhtar Alus was amazed with this sharp change, see Sermet Muhtar Alus,

İstanbul Kazan Ben Kepçe, pp. 34-35; Said N. Duhanî, Beyoğlu’nun Adı Pera İken, Nihan Önol

(trans.), Çelik Gülersoy Vakfı, İstanbul Kütüphanesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 1990, p. 71 and p. 75.

Meanwhile, the official website of the church does not mention the anecdote while giving a

detailed account of its own history, http://www.sentantuan.com/kilisemiz/tarih/

142

Table 4.12. A list of places where music was performed at Beyoğlu between 1895

and 1916 (quoted from Kalender)

Head Musician District Place Other Musicians

Zafiraki Beyoğlu Galata Beer House164 -

Hasan Efendi Beyoğlu Concordiya Theatre -

Aşki Efendi Beyoğlu Concordiya Theatre -

Hafız Efendi Beyoğlu Yorgancı Garden -

Anastas Beyoğlu Eftalopos Music Hall Sarı Onnik165

Hacı Karabet

Efendi

Beyoğlu Pangaltı Gülistan

Garden Theatre

-

Bülbülî Salih Beyoğlu Galata Harbour Garden -

Afet Efendi Beyoğlu Pangaltı Afropoli Music Hall Kemanî Lambo166

Anastas Beyoğlu Royal Music Hall Kanunî Şemsi167

Memduh Efendi Beyoğlu Eftalopos Music Hall Udî Afet168

Anastas Beyoğlu Aynalı Music Hall Oseb169

Ethem Efendi Beyoğlu Eftalopos Music Hall Kanunî Şemsi170

164 Galata part was another center of entertainment. Places mainly operated as taverns

with live music, which were generally named as baloz by the frequenters, Metin And,

Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu (1839-1908), Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür

Yayınları, Ankara, 1972, pp. 213-214.

165 Other musicians were Ovik (sic), Lambo, and kanunî Meyhal (sic).

166 Other musicians were kanuni Karnik, lavtacı Mihran, hanende Şetoruk, Aam (sic), Kirkor,

and kemençe Petri Efendi.

167 Other musicians were udi İbrahim, hanende Karakaş, Ahmet, and lavtacı Ojik (sic) Efendi.

168 Other musicians were kanuni Hafız, hanende Mihritad, lavtacı Şairzade Mihran Bey, and

hafız İbrahim Efendi.

169 Other musicians were udi Mısırlı İbrahim, kanuni Nesip, hanende Oseb, and Setrak

Efendi.

170 Other musicians were udi Arşak, hanende Ahmet, Mihritad, lavtacı Ovrik Efendi, and

Emin Efendi.

143

Table 4.12. Continued

Hasan Efendi Beyoğlu Odeon Theatre171 -

Bogos Efendi Beyoğlu The Garden of Municipality -

Unknown Beyoğlu At Cambazhanesi (?) -

Unknown Beyoplu İğneli Music Hall -

Unknown Beyoğlu Odeon Theatre -

Anastas Beyoplu Hamdi Bey Music Hall Udi İbrahim172

Karakin Beyoğlu Tepebaşı Bolu Beer House Kani Efendi

Unknown Beyoğlu Eftalopos Music Hall -

Arşak Efendi

Beyoğlu Music Hall, Galatasaray Aleko173

Anastas Beyoğlu Eftalopos Music Hall Mısırlı

İbrahim174

Anastas Beyoğlu Taksim Café Türk Mısırlı

İbrahim175

My suggestions concerning the entertainment places in Üsküdar are also valid for

Beyoğlu: Neither places nor musicians in the tables can give a complete musical

setting of the district but probably only a glimpse of it. It is likely that many

unknown musicians performed in many other halls, taverns, and theatres. However,

historiography omits the undocumented pieces of life. Violinist Salih Efendi (Bülbülî,

171 Metin And gives a detailed history of the theatre, however, this narrative is mainly based

on dramas and theatre groups rather than musicians who also hired the place to perform

music, Başlangıcından 1983’e Türk Tiyatro Tarihi, İletişim, İstanbul, 1992, p. 93.

172 Other musicians were udi Selim, kanuni Şemsi, karateci (sic) İbrahim, Oseb, Emin, and

lavtacı Hacı Haçik.

173 Other musicians were kanuni Fethi, lavtacı Lambo, hanende Hafız Yaşar, Üsküdarlı Edip,

and Selanikli Emin.

174 Other musicians were Selim, gırnatacı İbrahim, kanuni Şemsi, hanende Karakaş, gırnatacı

İbrahim, Selanikli Emin, Ağapos, Mihritad Efendi, and lavtacı Onnik.

175 Other musicians were kanuni Şemsi, hanende Mithat, Karakaş, Agapos, and Emin Efendi.

144

d. 1923) is a fine example of a model characterized by a busy and active music life in

his time. His music path is traceable through advertisements that he performed in

the coffee houses, music halls, and picnic areas from Üsküdar to Fatih and to

Beyoğlu, recorded violin solos and accompanied to some of Cemil Bey’s recordings.

However, what survived from those were a bunch of fragmented and sketchy pieces

and details. If it had been otherwise, it would be possible to enhance the inner

working of the music sector through this remarkable person.176

Photo 4.4. Violinist Bülbülî Salih Efendi (d. 1923)

Source: Tanburi Cemil Bey Külliyatı, Kalan Müzik, İstanbul, 2016, p.64

It should be noted that musicians related with Beyoğlu had two other features;

teaching music and attending home gatherings, meşk. Not the tutorage but the

home gatherings appears in many life accounts –albeit in different proportions- that

176 The biographical approach to music brings fresh insights and novel perspectives. Bob

Van Der Linden’s study of the reconstruction of Indian music at the turn of the twentieth

century brings the biographical accounts to the core, Music and Empire in Britain and India:

Identity, Internationalism, and Cross-Cultural Communication, Palgrave Studies in Cultural

and Intellectual History Series, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, 2013; John Morgan

O’Connell’s narrative traces the transition period through the life account of Münir

Nureddin Selçuk, Alaturka: Style in Turkish Music (1923-1938), SOAS Musicology Series,

Ashgate, 2013.

145

transcend categories and thus might be defined as a comprehensive school in

music. The pattern seems to have less power only in the musicians of music halls.

Afet (Hapet) Mısırlıyan (1850-1922), whose music career, for instance, spread over

a large area from Istanbul to Cairo. He performed music in Birinci Tavern at

Yüksekkaldırım, Eftalopos Music Hall and Balozcu Miltiyadi's Tavern in Galata. His

life account, after all, does not bear a piece of information whether he attended to

any house gathering at all. A close resemblance should be noted between Afet

Efendi and Ibrahim Efendi (Avram Hayat Levi, 1879-1948) who also traveled for

music form Damascus to Cairo and from Aleppo to Istanbul. Ibrahim Efendi played

oud in Aynalı Tavern and Hamdi Bey’s Music Halls. Both were in Taksim. Similarly,

Avram Efendi’s life story does not particularly refer to information related to house

gatherings. Ahmet Bey of Salonica (1869-1926) was musically educated by the

dervishes of the Salonica Mevlevî lodge and partly by Refik Karasu (d. ?).

Interestingly enough, he arrived in Istanbul in April 1909 as a volunteer in the Army

of Action in order to suppress the rebellion. After the rebellion was put down

successfully in about ten days, he was not so eager to return to his hometown. It

seemed likely that the decision was taken much before he became a participant of

the armed forces. In Istanbul, he performed music with many musicians until 1920

and died in 1926. His name was among the list of musicians who performed in the

Royal and Eftalopos Music Halls at Beyoğlu. His relatively extended biography, in

which Nazmi Özalp’s narrative claims completely a different trajectory after the

1909 event, however, does not mention any house gathering activity at all.

The social profile and musical behavior pattern of Nail Ökte (1884-1963) largely

coincide with musicians that worked in public offices, whose characteristics I

explained in the Üsküdar sub-chapter. Born and living in Cihangir, Ökte was truly

the musician of house gatherings. As a scribe in the State Harbors, his unique

professional involvement with music occurred in his last years when he performed

at the Istanbul radio together with his musician sons, Burhaneddin Ökte (1905-

1973) and İzzeddin Ökte (1910-1991). It is likely that his two sons were the driving

force behind the radio broadcasts. Karnik Germiyan (1872-1947) belonged to the

Armenian community of Beyoğlu and worked as a private accountant. As another

146

prevalent pattern for non-Muslim musicians, he was introduced to music through

the church choir just like Bimen Dergazaryan Şen (1873-1943). Bimen Şen’s father

was an Armenian priest, from whom he received his primary music education. As an

accountant and exchange broker, though he recorded music and rarely appeared to

perform in the concerts, his music world was mainly about attending house

gatherings.

As stated before, Beyoğlu underwent a process of transformation particularly owing

to the municipal authorities that were intent on creating more green areas out of

“dead spaces” to promise new vitality to city dwellers from the last quarter of the

nineteenth century on. The vast area in Tepebaşı, previously shared both by Muslim

and non-Muslim burial grounds, was transformed into a public garden by the

Municipality of Beyoğlu in 1866, and included a concert hall, restaurant, footways,

playground for children and two theatres that operated seasonally. Asdikzâde

Bogos Efendi’s (1872-1945) group performed music in the Garden of Municipality,

Tepebaşı. In 1870, similar open-air arrangement, namely as Taksim Garden, opened

to public under the responsibility of the Municipality of Beyoğlu. None of these

were non-profit initiatives. The ground was turning into something functional

together with a new revenue source for local authorities.177 Nevertheless, historical

accounts provide limited information regarding the musicians who performed in

those commonplaces.

Eventually, following the chronological order in which they occurred, the radio

broadcast in Istanbul should be considered within the different context. The outset

of radio had a great impact on the lives of musicians and hence on music. However,

it began to operate in 1927. Even though it was based in the Beyoğlu district, to

consider radio together with the musical activities that have been carried out since

the turn of the century, will lead to methodological problems. Thereby, sixth

177 Sermet Muhtar Alus, İstanbul Kazan Ben Kepçe, p. 26; Nur Akın, 19. Yüzyılın İkinci

Yarısında Galata ve Pera, pp. 290-292.

147

chapter will particularly discuss the emergence and the impact of radio within the

framework of continuity and change in music in the Early Republican Period.

4.5. Fatih: The Musical Stronghold of the City

The Fatih district deserves to be the music center of the city since the

overwhelming majority of musicians under study resided in the area. The district is

by far the most densely inhabited with 84 musicians. This proportion is about one

third of the total number of musicians the study contains. Thereby, making social

analyses of musicians would yield more meaningful results that would help to

analyze the musical ground of Fatih and hence the city. Indeed, exploring the

mobility of musicians from Fatih to other districts and from others towards Fatih

could be critical to portray the level of the musical interaction in Istanbul.

Figure 4.6. The activity map of musicians to Fatih and from Faith to other district

The cluster above visualizes the centrality of Fatih regarding the movements of

musicians in the city, the frequency and numerical version of which is already given

148

in the Table 4.4. The relation between red circles (edges) and blue (node) displays

the movements of musicians towards the district and hence portrays the centrality

of it. Fatih attracts musicians from almost all over the city. The size of the edges

(red) is almost the same, which means that the number of musicians that regularly

visited Fatih was close to each other. The only exception was Üsküdar, whose edge

appears slightly larger than other reds. Musicians who visited Fatih under the

“unknown” title are also the musicians living in the city but whose precise locations

are undefined. The light yellow edges, on the other hand, symbolize the local

musicians’ movement towards other districts. The most frequented districts were

by far Beyoğlu, followed by Eyüp and Kadıköy, respectively. Since the local

musicians’ (from Fatih) activities in their own neighborhood were already described,

the cluster deliberately leaves out their proportions from the activity map.

Table 4.13 emphasizes the birthplaces of musicians who resided at Fatih, and will

also separate the proportion of the musicians elsewhere born.

Table 4.13. Birthplaces of musicians who resided in Fatih

Musicians’

Districts Frequency Percent

İstanbul 66 78.6

Other vilayets 12 14.4

Outside Ottoman territory 5 6

Unknown 1 1.2

TOTAL 84 100.0

The outcome indicates that, apart from one unknown, only 17 musicians were born

elsewhere and moved to live in Fatih (20.2 %), whereas 66 of them (77.8 %) were

born in the city that is more than three-quarter of all musicians that lived in Fatih.

The outcome is musically important as it declares that those people got their music

trainings in Istanbul. Ahmet Nuri Canaydın (b. 1881) was musically educated at his

home in Aksaray by his elder sister, who was a kanun player. Kazım Uz (1873-1943)

was a student of Zekai Dede at the Dârüşşafaka (Orphanage) School in Fatih. The

149

father of İzzeddin Hümaî Bey (1875-1950) was Kadirî sheikh in Fatih, from whom he

received his music lessons. The various education types reflect the many forms of

music transmission in the late Ottoman Istanbul, which I will discuss the issue in the

subsequent chapter.

Similar to Üsküdar, the real income sources of musicians reveal two chief patterns;

musicians who make a living out of music and musicians whose economical basis

depend on other professions. Those whose income was not derived from music

were overwhelmingly involved in the Ottoman officialdom. From a different

perspective, the outcomes might be read in two chief groups, namely as salaried

and non-salaried jobs. I define the regular or salaried jobs within the institutional

framework, which by and large indicates the ones that operated in the state

machinery, such as any regular position in the bureaucracy, teaching at state

schools or serving as religious functionary through which the official stipend was

received.

Table 4.14. Income sources of musicians who resided in Fatih

Income Source Frequency Percent

Official Functionary 36 42.9

Music 17 20.2

Teacher (non-music) 3 3.6

Sheikh/Dervishe 3 3.6

Religious Functionary 2 2.4

Artisan 4 4.8

Other 7 8.4

Unknown 1 1.2

MOI 11 13.2

TOTAL 84 100.0

The MOI group contained 11 musicians with multiple professions; however, these

occupations, in most cases, did not overlap with each other (see Table 4.15).

150

Table 4.15. Musicians with multiple income sources who resided in Fatih

Sources of income frequency percent

Music- Official 1 1.2

Music-Sheikh 1 1.2

Official-Rel. Fun. 2 2.4

Official-Sheikh 1 1.2

Official-Trader 1 1.2

Rel. Fun.-Teacher 1 1.2

Rel. Fun.-Artisan 1 1.2

Official-Solicitor 2 2.4

Official-Other 1 1.2

TOTAL 11 13.2

Mustafa Nezihî Albayrak (1871-1964), for instance, was a scribe in the Ministry of

Education (Maarif Nezâreti) whose father was a government official indeed. During

the later part of his life, he retired from the official post and became a tea

merchant. Oud player Cemil Bey (Şekerci, 1867-1928) retired from Imperial Music

Academy (mûzîka-i hümâyûn) in 1911 and went to Cairo as a guest of Abbas Hilmi

Paşa (1874-1944) for a short period of time. Nevertheless, he did not return back to

Istanbul and permanently settled down in Cairo. He offered music classes to the

members of the Cairo’s wealthy families. In between, he opened a candy shop. In

fact, he had been an apprentice to a master candy maker in Grand Bazaar of

Istanbul when he was thirteen years of age. After all, Cemil Bey’s case is the only

one in which two jobs are being held coincidentally and both provided financial

support.

Accordingly, the regular (salaried) jobs are clearly ahead of the non-regular ones.

Government officials, teachers and religious functionaries make about the half of

the total number. Additionally, the “MOI” (more than one income source) category

should be counted in the salaried jobs since eight out of 11 jobs were again salaried

jobs. I refer here to the first jobs of those 11 musicians. Memduh İmre (1891-1956)

was a scribe in the Ministry of Military Affairs (Bâb-ı Seraskeri).

151

After retirement, he was actively involved in music as he joined a music school

(Dârü’t-Ta’lim-i Musikî), the school was active between 1912 and 1939. He

performed in the school’s music group, and he also became part of the teaching

staff. Hacı Kiramî Efendi (1840-1909) was a scribe in the Ministry of Military Affairs

(Bâb-ı Seraskeri). His sorrowful life story begins with becoming a personal religious

functionary (mu’addhin) to Mehmed Reşad Efendi (1844-1918) during the reign of

Abdulhamid II. He was petitioned to palace (Yıldız) due to his association with

Mehmed Reşad. Following that, he was disregarded and publicly looked down

upon. Consequently, social isolation destabilized him psychologically and paved the

way to his suicide in 1909. Even though it is unknown how many years he endured

“killing by silence”, he performed in the Sufi lodges to get by. According to

İbnülemin, though this might be an exaggeration, an official was sent to exile only

due to his presence in a Sufi ceremony while Kiramî Efendi performed. After all, I

am inclined to regard music as an irregular profession and these biographical

examples support my opinion.

A fine example to understand how limited the income that one could gain solely out

of music was is the case of Nevres Bey (1873-1937). It would not be wrong to say

that Nevres Bey could not achieve a decent life standard in return for his high

quality of music both as an instrumentalist and a composer. Irregular job

oportunities, such as accompanying Münir Nurettin Selçuk in his concerts, recording

music to foreign companies, and offering music classes to members of upper class

families were prestigious. Yet these were rare occasions and were not sufficient for

him overcome his poor living conditions.

The financial situation of Refik Fersan (1893-1965) was not far from Nevres Bey. His

memoir clearly reveals the family’s vulnerable economic situation, particularly in his

older ages. It could not actually be called a memoir, as a genre, since his accounts

are mostly the exchange of letters written in different periods of time with his

family members and musician friends. The text also includes notes kept in the form

of diary from 1948 to 1965. Bardakçı collected them to publish in a book without

mentioning whether if he left any letter unpublished. Regarding the diary, he

152

underlines that he published parts of it. Refik Fersan’s father suddenly dies in 1894

and his mother finds shelter in her older sister’s house. The house surely provided

them with an upward socioeconomic mobility in terms of wealth, comfort and

material availability. Under the protection of her aunt, Refik Fersan got the best

possible education in the city. He received his education both from Robert College

and Galatasaray. Additionally, the new house of Fersan was the place where artists,

intellectuals and musicians gathered regularly. Mabeynci Faik Bey (1870-1937), the

elder son of the house, provided financial support to many artists, among whom

there was Tanburi Cemil Bey (1872-1916). It was the house of art where Refik

Fersan grew up and became a disciple of Cemil Bey.

Photo 4.5. Refik Fersan, Cemil Bey and Musa Süreyya in 1914 (from left to right)

Source: Mes’ud Cemil, Tanburi Cemil Bey’in Hayatı, (ed. Uğur Derman), Kubbealtı,

İstanbul, (Third Edition) 2012, p.188.

Nevertheless, things were about to change for every person in the Ottoman state,

when the Ottoman revolutionaries took the control of state affairs in July 1908. At

the micro level, it was more than destructive for Refik Fersan and his family. Since

Mabeynci Faik Bey belonged to the close circle of Abdulhamid II, the new political

order meant being the target of accusations. In 1917, Faik Bey secretly left Istanbul

153

for Cairo then for Switzerland, and was able to return to Istanbul only during the

first years of the Republic. Oddly enough, this distinctive life account became the

focus of neither an academic interest nor a biographical study. Though Refik Fersan

became a radio member in the newly founded republic, it seemed that he would

never ever be able to come close to the living standards he had had before. The

deteriorating economic conditions were explicitly voiced in many parts of his letters

and diaries.178 Without overemphasizing the ups and downs Nevres Bey and Refik

Fersan underwent, the biographical accounts tell that a larger part of these two

esteemed musicians’ life was about a struggle to improve poor living conditions.

In terms of professional continuity of Fatih’s musicians, the bureaucratic tradition

predominates over all other occupations. Indeed, the trend of holding governmet

jobs shows a correlation between fathers and sons. According to the proportions

above, 15 out of 25 official functionary fathers’ children sought a career in

bureaucracy (60 %). In the general table, 37 followed the family tradition out of 73

bureaucrat fathers (51 %).

178 From his diary, “Allah’a çok şükür olsun, şu ara cümlemiz sıhhatteyiz. Ben biraz nezleyim.

Yegâne üzüntümüz ise, parasızlık. Hâlâ kömürümüzü alamadık. Gerçi havalar da iyi gidiyor.

16 October 1947.” Refik Bey… Refik Fersan ve Hatıraları, Murat Bardakçı (ed.), Pan, İstanbul,

1995, p. 67. Another passage from a letter written to his son, “… bu paranın beş-altıyüz

lirasını kömüre ve öteberiye sarfetmiş olduğumuzdan eczacı Sâkine hanımdan bir kısmını

borç alarak bir aylık kirayı tamamladık. 9 November 1963, Refik Bey…, p. 29.

154

Table 4.16. The occupational continuity (cross tabulation)

Fathers’

occupations

Income sources of children

Music

Official

Func.

Religious

Func.

Sheikhs

Artisan

Other

TOTAL

Rel. Func. 1 7 1 1 1 1 12

Sheikh/Derv. 2 2 1 5

Off. Func. 4 15 6 25

Artisan 1 3 2 1 7

Musician 2 2

TOTAL 8 27 3 3 2 8 51

Note: The table contains selected professions for both fathers and offspring.

Perhaps the most striking feature in the table is the problem of continuity in the

religious functionaries. Only one out of 12 religious functionaries’ offspring

continued the family profession (8.3 %), but overwhelmingly made their choice for

bureaucracy (58.3 %). The overall pattern is also typical. Only four out of 28

religious functionaries’ children continued with the same profession (14 %), and 15

of them chose the bureaucratic career (54 %). As underlined before, digging for

roots why they did not choose to walk in the same line with their fathers and

sought their main source of income elsewhere, almost always in bureaucracy, is

beyond the research interest of this thesis.

Who were these two sheikhs that walked the same path as their fathers? Mehmed

Celaleddin Dede (1849-1908) held the post of sheikh in the Yenikapı Mevlevî lodge

after his father Osman Selahaddin Dede’s death in 1886. He grew up in this lodge

that typically operated as a music school. He played tanbur and composed a

Mevlevî ceremony in the mode of dügâh. Another Sufi was Nurullah Kılıç (1879-

1975), whose father was the sheikh of Pirî Pasha Sünbülîye lodge (a sub-branch of

Halvetî order). He was musically cultivated by Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede (1853-1911)

and eventually became a ney player. As a sheikh of Merkez Efendi lodge, he was in

155

charge of the ceremonies that took place there, and he also attended to the Sufi

rituals at the Yenikapı and Bahariye Mevlevî lodges.

After all, the individual life stories of Sheikhs question the validity and the social

acceptability of state intervention against the Sufi lodges. Even though the lodges

officially ceased to function after 1925, the decision did not necessarily mean the

abolishment of the social networks among the Sufi circles. What was the social

response of the Sufis to this intrusion? Having said that the tradition was severely

affected, sheikhs still continued to be regarded as sheikhs among the people and so

did dervishes. Moreover, the ceremonies largely persisted in alternative ways,

among which there were the house gatherings. Both the life of Gavsi Baykara and of

Sebilci Hüseyin formed a basis for this claim. They belonged to the Sufi world before

1925; however, the new circumstances directed them into different professions, for

which they relied upon the credentials they possessed from their Sufi background.

They survived due to the fact that they had the ability to adapt their music to the

market expectations. Nurullah Kılıç, for example, lived a half century after the state

decision to close dervish lodges in 1925 and was still regarded to be the last official

sheikh of the Merkez Efendi lodge in his social milieu until his very last breath.179

Table 4.17 indicates that almost one third of musician population in Fatih was

connected to a Sufi order (29.50 % in total). As mentioned before, the idea here is

rather than dealing with how deep their connection was to understand the

relationship between Sufi music culture and their musical output.

179 Even though the interview contains bias and an amount of indoctrination, it still offers a

glimpse of Kılıç family’s Sufi past, see https://odatv.com/bizde-hic-basortulu-yoktu-annemsapka-

takardi-3008151200.html (accessed on 11 June 2018).

156

Table 4.17. Affiliation to a Sufi order among the musicians of Fatih

Sufi order Frequency Percent

Mevlevî 14 16.7

Kadirî 3 3.6

Other Sufi orders180 8 9.2

Non-Muslim 4 4.8

Unknown 55 65.5

TOTAL 84 100.0

The Mevlevî order was by far the leading Sufi order to which the musicians were

affiliated. Some life stories in order to examine the interactions between Sufi

culture and music therefore will come from the Mevlevî musicians. Ahmet Rasim

Bey (1864-1932) received his elementary music education in the Darrüşşafaka

(Orphanage) School. His music teacher at school was Zekai Dede (1824-1897). Yet,

his music class continued in the Bahariye Mevlevî lodge since his teacher was a

frequenter of the lodge. There he also met Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede (1853-1911)

who additionally helped him to deepen his musical knowledge. Interestingly, Kazım

Uz (1873-1943), another Mevlevî musician who resided in Fatih, would pursue

precisely the same order of music education, from Dârüşşafaka to Bahariye lodge

with Zekai Dede. Rauf Yekta Bey (1871-1935) was another product of Mevlevî order

but this time at another lodge, at Yenikapı. He was musically educated by

Celaleddin Dede, for tanbur, and Nayî Cemal, for ney in the lodge. He was a prolific

writer of music, also a musician who attended Mevlevî rites at the Yenikapı and

Galata lodges with his ney. Hayri Tümer (1902-1973) is a solid evidence of continuity

of tradition. He got his primary music education at Vefa Middle School by Kazım Uz,

who was a disciple of Zekai Dede. As one identifies the music education patterns,

the social networks of musicians become more apparent. Furthermore, biographical

accounts provide the ground on which the teachers and teachings methods that

180 Here the situation is, seven Sufi orders (Rufaî, Uşşakî, Halvetî, Sadî, Nakşî, Halidî, and

Bektaşî) have one musician affiliated to. Yet one regularly visited more than one lodge,

hence I placed him in the “affiliation unclear” category.

157

dominated the field. Even though the subject matter is promising, I will not further

discuss it since the issues of the differences and similarities between teaching

methods as well as the genealogic understanding of transmitting the musical

knowledge will be elaborated upon in the following chapter.

The practice of teaching, either privately or in a music school was characteristic

among the musicians who resided in the Fatih district. Mehmed Eşref Efendi (d.

1930), for example, offered private classes at his home in Cerrahpaşa and ran a

music store in Divanyolu Street, Sultanahmet. It is odd that he only accepted

women for his classes. Ahmet Nuri Canaydın (b. 1881) resided at Vefa, where he

regularly organized musical gatherings. He was also among the teaching staff of

Dârü’l-Musikî-i Osmanî, which began to operate in 1908, in the Koska neighborhood

of Aksaray. Another Fatih located musician was Memduh İmre (1891-1956). As

mentioned before, he was under the contract of the German Polidor recording

company. The job did not prevent him from teaching music at the Dârü’t-Ta’lîm-i

Musikî, founded in 1912 by Fahri Kopuz (1885-1968) in the Bayezid neighborhood.

Violin player Abdülkadir Bey’s (Töre, 1872-1945) life was devoted to musicology and

teaching music. His home at Cerrahpaşa operated literally as a music school, and

eventually was transformed into a fully music school in 1918, named Gülşen-i

Musikî. The biographical accounts reveal the situation that the Fatih district was the

place of a large number of music schools that began to function after the first

decade of the twentieth century. The meaning of their presence and their overall

effect on the musical setting of the city will be debated in the Chapters 5 and 6.

The list of places where the music was performed helps to further portray the

musical structure of Fatih. Kalender’s article contained more than 90 musical

activities together with a great number of musicians regarding to the Fatih district.

The very reason of preparing the table is to emphasize the places where music was

performed, so my catalogue mentiones each place once only.

158

Table 4.18. Places in which music was held in Fatih between 1895 and 1916

(quoted from Kalender)

Head Musician District Place Other

Musicians

Şevki Bey Vezneciler Hâne-i Osmanî Company -

Tahsin Efendi Şehzadebaşı Abdurrezzak Theatre -

Memduh Efendi Şehzadebaşı Şehzadebaşı Theatre -

Aşkî Efendi Şehzadebaşı Şark Theatre -

Unknown Şehzadebaşı Ferah Theatre -

Dârü’t-Talîm-i

Musikî

Şehzadebaşı Millet Theatre -

Salim Efendi Sultanahmet The Garden of Municipality

Udi Saim181

Celal Efendi Edirnekapı Beylerbeyi Fountain -

Tatyos Efendi Şehzadebaşı Fevziye Coffee House Udi Afet,

Kanuni Ali Bey

Memduh Efendi Şehzadebaşı İrfan Coffee House -

Tahsin Efendi Şehzadebaşı Şemsi Coffee House -

İbrahim Efendi

(Avram)

Bayezid Merkez Coffee House kemençeci

Ağabey182

Kâtib Salih

Efendi

Şehzadebaşı Ali Çavuş’s Coffee House Violinist Aşki

Efendi

Aşki Efendi Yeşiltulumba,

Aksaray

Dilküşa Coffee House Violinist Aşki

Efendi

Zafiraki Vezneciler Osmanî Coffee House Kanuni

Nesip183

İbrahim Efendi

(Avram)

Divanyolu Arif’s Music Hall His brother

Selim184

Yorgi Efendi Fener Midilli Music Hall -

Aşkî Efendi Hasköy Türkiye Music Hall -

İbrahim Efendi

(Avram)

Fener Serafim’s Music Hall His brother

Selim185

181 Other musicians were kanuni Âmâ Ali, Karakaş Efendi, Ahmet Bey.

182 Other musicians were kemani Harun, kanuni Abduh, hanende Selim, Salomon Efendi.

183 Other musicians were lavtacı Lambo, udi Serkis, hanende Ağopos, Seras, Pol Efendi.

184 Other musicians were kanuni Abdah, Kemani Şükrü.

185 Other musicians were kanuni Abdah, Kemani Harun.

159

Table 4.18. Continued

Unknown Fener Dünya Music Hall -

Bülbülî Salih Fener Kılburnu Music Hall Hanende

Ahmet186

Memduh

Efendi

Fener İskele Music Hall Kanuni Şemsi187

Each neighborhood promoted a street or a specific area at which the majority of

musical activities were held. It was Cadde-i Kebir in Beyoğlu or Bağlarbaşı Street in

Üsküdar where the theatres, music halls and concerts carried on. The counterpart

of it was unquestionably Şehzadebaşı Street in Fatih where the well know

Direklerarası was. Almost all the coffee houses listed above were located on the

street. Regarding the atmosphere, however, there was a considerable difference

between other musically prominent streets and Şehzadebaşı mainly owing to its

location that was/is at the intersection of the major mosques, namely Süleymaniye,

Fatih, and Şehzade. Probably because of that Direklerarası was highly associated

with the Ramadan nights in the nineteenth century Ottoman Istanbul. When

precisely the street started to operate in that way is unknown, however, the

concentration of various forms of artistic performances seemed to have increased

towards the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The time period also refers to

the expansion of local theatre groups’ activities. It is likely that theatre and music

attracted people to the area. Many coffee houses corresponded to that and began

to function as theatres or music halls. Alus stated that the street and hence the area

retained the vitality and dynamism until the end of the 1920s.188

186 Other musicians were Mihran, udi Selim, Hafız Efendi.

187 Other musicians were Karakaş Efendi, Mihran Efendi, Ahmet Bey, Udi Selim.

188 Sermet Muhtar Alus, İstanbul Kazan Ben Kepçe, pp. 101-113; Sermet Muhtar Alus,

“Direklerarasında Ramazan Piyasası”, Tarih ve Toplum, January 1994, Vol. 122 and February

1994, Vol. 130, Taha Toros Archive, No. 001580761010, İstanbul Şehir University; Salâh

Birsel, Kahveler Kitabı, pp. 101-163; Bekir Tosun, “Direklerarası”, 367-368.

160

Photo 4.6. A general view of Direklerarası Street at Fatih in the Late Ottoman

Istanbul

Source: Fakiye Özsoysal, Metin Balay, Geleceğe Perde Açan Gelenek: Geçmişten

Günümüze İstanbul Tiyatroları: Suriçi İstanbul’u, Bakırköy ve Çevresi, Vol. I, YKY,

İstanbul, 2011, p. 37.

The places on the list together with innumerable places where music was

performed, such as music schools, coffee houses and Sufi lodges, produced a

vibrant and dynamic musical climate. This is the reason for the highest

concentrations of musicians who resided in Fatih. The musicians who combined

music with other occupations but particularly with official service is near to one half

for Fatih. Given the distance from many of the state offices might be another

underlying factor.189

189 The geographical setting of the Ottoman administrative mechanism in Istanbul covered

the areas from Sultanahmet to Bayezid throughout the nineteenth century, Yasemin Avcı,

Osmanlı Hükümet Konakları, Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında Devletin Erki ve Temsili,

Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul, 2017, pp. 38-48.

161

Map 4.2. Tentative arrangements of musical places on the Direklerarası and

Çukurçeşme (was renamed Fevziye) Streets at Fatih

Source: https://gis.fatih.bel.tr/webgis/ (accessed in 26 August, 2018).

162

Map 4.2 is taken from German Blues Map of 1914 and it is cropped from the section

of J7 (Feuille No J7) that covers the areas between Bayezid, Sehzadebaşı and

Süleymaniye.190 The map displays the Direklerarası Street in Fatih, where the bulk of

the places with live performances and music schools were concentrated. The

location of some places is tentatively described, such as the Şehzade Theatre or

Dârü’t-Talîm-i Musikî. All we know is both places operated on this street. Another

loosely described location belonged to Dârü’l-Elhân Conservatory, which hired an

estate (konak) on the Fevziye Street. However, the map is more precise in

identifying some others. Fevziye Coffe House operated at the corner of the Fevziye

Street and right at the opposite of the Şehzadebaşı Fountain. Musikî-i Osmanî hired

the second floor of the same estate. The location of Ferah and Millet Theatres were

precisely identified thanks to the map of Jacques Pervititch. Pervititch map also

indicated explicitly the Letafet Apartment, where the music school, Dârü’l-Bedayî-i

Musikî was.

4.6. Conclusion

The chapter, while exposing the musical setting of Istanbul at the turn of the

twentieth century, also underscored the contribution of certain districts to the

overall musical structure. Fatih, Eyüp, Beyoğlu, and Üsküdar, as the main arteries

due to the frequency of inhabited musicians and the musical activities, sustained

the system. In accordance with the quantitative analysis, Fatih, Beşiktaş and

Üsküdar appear to be the main places where the musicians resided (the residential

centers), whereas the districts of Beyoğlu and Fatih emerge as the performance

centers of Istanbul. Nevertheless, Fatih should be considered as residential as well

as performance center of the city.

190 As mentioned above, I used the digital version of the map. It is an open source provided

by Fatih Municipality. Yet, German Blues are published by Istanbul Metropolitan

Municipality in 2006 and 2007, Alman Mavileri: 1913-1914, I. Dünya Savaşı Öncesi İstanbul

Haritaları, İrfan Dağdelen (ed.), İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediye Başkanlığı Kütüphane ve

Müzeler Müdürlüğü, İstanbul, Vols. 1 and 2 in 2006, Vol. 3 in 2007.

163

Focusing more on the city helped indeed to emphasize the pluralities at the local

level, which might alternatively be regarded as the musical characteristics of certain

neighborhoods. Music was largely diffused through theaters, coffee houses, Sufi

lodges and seasonal picnic areas in Üsküdar, whereas music halls, taverns, theatres,

music stores with all kind of musical instruments, recorded music (gramophones)

and sheet music, and the radio broadcast mainly characterized the Beyoğlu district.

Fatih was the place of tradition but also of transformation. House gatherings, Sufi

lodges and the music organizations at the immense coffee houses were part of the

story. What was new was the rapid increase of the number of music schools in the

city, the majority of which were concentrated in Fatih after the turn of the

twentieth century. That was the cornerstone of music in many ways, including the

changes in the educational patterns, the huge expansion of concert giving, and

probably the most critical of all, the transition from private patronage to “public”

patronage, which will be debated in the following two chapters.

Indeed, taking into consideration the biographical accounts in order to explore

music across the city, I observe common features but also divergences:

i. To emphasize first the widespread practices, musicians overwhelmingly shared a

common ground: Musical gatherings, musikî meclisi. Both “professional” and “nonprofessional”

(these terms refer to the financial relationship of music) musicians

met at this common music space. The motivations might be different. It could

happen at the beginning of a music career in order to learn music, or it might be

solely to perform music. Other reason of attendance was socialization, which

suggests that the way the organizations operated was akin to musicians’ union. All

these suggestions point to the multiple layers of these social gatherings.

ii. Another common space was music schools, which expanded rapidly after 1908.

Musicians from both groups were actively involved in these institutions. In fact, the

schools were musician enterprises in most cases. There, music classes were held,

concerts were organized, all of which eventually brought a new energy to music.

However, there was a significant distinction between house gatherings and music

164

schools. The former’s audience was principally musicians or the musician

candidates at best. The places were designed based on musical rather than financial

concerns. The principal target of music schools was to assemble wider group of

people, who had lesser musical credentials. The point was critical for the

contextualization of music.

iii. Offering music teaching either privately or to a group was a well-established

practice among musicians. Regarding the official functionaries, I noticed that

musicians’ lives became more music-oriented immediately after they retired from

office. Music teaching, either privately or in the music schools, was the most

common practice for them to survive. Even though they had a regular retirement

payment, an additional income was needed. The cases of poverty, which I discussed

in the previous chapter, confirm the argument.

iv. Interestingly, non-professional musicians almost never performed in the music

halls even after they retired and music became the focal point of their lives. It

seems that there was a line, which should not be crossed by some musicians. That

music halls were places where alcohol was consumed might be a reason. Another

one could be the commercial purposes through which music halls treated music as a

product to make profit. However, the biographical accounts of Lemi Atlı, Hafız Sami,

Ahmet Rasim reveal that they did not seem to question the issue in terms of being

ethical or moral as they enjoyed listening to live performances in the gazinos. I also

find it questionable whether they disapproved it for the reason that music was

solely performed for entertainment. I disagree with such an elitist approach that

implies too much solemnity and gravity in Ottoman music. Burdening it with rigid

moral codes eventually makes music colorless and uniform in which neither

köçekçes nor the numerous profane songs could be understood. I believe that the

matter was not about whether there was an approval or disapproval. My

understanding of the non-professional musicians’ stance to music halls in general is

more pragmatic rather than ethical. These places had their own unwritten rules.

Music was only a part of the whole business, and other musicians recognized the

situation. They seem to have tried not to exceed the line of demarcation. Besides, it

165

was a matter of network, a kind of business connection, which had been established

among certain musicians. I only encounter the names of these gazino musicians in

the contemporary daily news, many of whose life narratives seldom, if ever, are to

be found in the biographical accounts.

I deliberately made a distinction between the musicians who performed in the

music halls and those who did not. The articles and memoirs related to the musical

atmosphere of the city at the turn of the twentieth century confirm my opinion.

Ruhi Kalender’s article is a fine example. The article scanned one daily paper, İkdâm,

from 1895 to 1916 in order to portray the colorful music life of the city. It reveals a

great variety of information: The names of the musicians, the locations of musical

activities, the places of music institutions as well as private music teachers, and

even the stores at which music scores (fasıl notations) and instruments were

produced and sold.191 The eyewitness accounts of Sermet Muhtar Alus (1887-1952),

which were published in some daily newspapers, but particularly in Akşam, from

1930 to 1940, are other sources that I refer to. Many of his articles were elaborate

explanations of the city’s music life. The majority of his articles were republished

after the second half of the 1990s,192 which seemed to arouse academic interest

indeed.193 Based on these accounts, I encountered only a handful of musicians, such

as Memduh Efendi, Tatyos Efendi, Afet Efendi and Arşak Efendi who exceeded the

191 Ruhi Kalender, “Yüzyılımızın Başlarında İstanbul’un Musiki Hayatı”, AÜİFD, No. XXIII,

1978, pp. 414-437.

192 İstanbul Yazıları, Erol Şadi Erdinç, Faruk Ilıkan (eds.), İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi,

İstanbul, 1994; İstanbul Kazan Ben Kepçe, Necdet Sakaoğlu (ed.), İletişim, İstanbul, 1995;

Masal Olanlar, Nuri Akbayar (ed.), İletişim, İstanbul, 1997; Eski Günlerde, İletişim, İstanbul,

2001; 30 Sene Evvel İstanbul: 1900’lü Yılların Başlarında Şehir Hayatı, Faruk Ilıkan (ed.),

İletişim, İstanbul, 2005.

193 Neslihan Seven, “Sermet Muhtar Alus'un Romanlarında ve Öykülerinde Eski İstanbul”,

MA Thesis, Assoc. Prof. Alâattin Karaca (Superviser), Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van, 2006;

Meral Demiryürek, “Sermet Muhtar Alus: Hayatı – Sanatı - Eserleri”, Unpublished PhD

Thesis, Prof. Şerif Aktaş (Superviser), Gazi Üniversitesi, SBE, Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Anabilim

Dalı, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı Bilim Dalı, Ankara, 2006; Reyhan Elmas Keleş, “Sermet Muhtar

Alus'un Eserlerinde Sosyal Meseleler”, Assoc. Prof. Muhammet Gür (Superviser),

Unpublished PhD Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, SBE, İslam Tarihi ve Sanatları Anabilim Dalı,

İstanbul, 2009.

166

line of demarcation that I emphasized. In other words, they interacted with both

groups’ social networks, which probably was the reason why they left more

historical account. The overwhelming majority of the musicians appear to be

historically silent characters giving voice to them is difficult due to insufficient

evidence.

167

CHAPTER 5

CULTIVATING MUSIC

The aim of this chapter is to reveal the musical characteristics of the targeted group

in order to make a debate on the social meanings behind it. The instrumental

distribution analysis, for instance, will not only provide the proportions for each

instruments or singers, but will pave the way for exploring singers or oud players

socially. Factors such as age and family impact on the musical development will be

instrumental to understand the issue of being a musician in the late Ottoman

period. The chapter will separate the sampling on the religious differences for the

first time to analyze and thus to compare the educational models of Muslims and

non-Muslim musicians. The idea is to observe the level of musical interactions

between the people of different religions, particularly at the initial stages of music

education. On the part of the Muslim musicians, the section will question the

religious ground of music by highlighting the networks that paved to the

dissemination of the religious repertoire in the Ottoman music. Therefore,

musicians with Sufi affiliation, musicians who have received religious education and

particularly the reciters of Qur’an will be the center of interest. Besides, the chapter

will contribute to the debates related with the Hamparsum notation usage at the

turn of the twentieth century by offering quantitative outcomes on the subject

matter. Finally, Gephi visualizations on the educational networks of musicians will

offer a novel way of observing the significant channels (people and styles) in the

late Ottoman Istanbul.

5.1. Distribution Based on Musical Instrument

The debate on the musical skills will highlight the popularity of instruments and the

mostly applied combinations between them. Outcomes will give an insight into the

social aspects of instruments like whether there was a common pattern among

violin practitioners or typicality related with the piano players. The part will also

question the reasons of musicians’ instrument choices and will seek connections

among a range of issues such as inheritance of traits as well as financial benefits.

168

Table 5.1. Musical specialty

Instrument Frequency Percent

Voice 72 28.1

Tanbur 12 4.7

Kanun 13 5.2

Ney 18 7.0

Oud 32 12.5

Kemenche 9 3.6

Violin 26 10.1

Piano 6 2.4

NPI 16 6.2

Other 2 0.8 (79.6 cumulative)

Moi 51 20.4

TOTAL 257 100.0

Two musicians in the other category played clarinet and santur. Yet Moi category

(more than one instrument players) contained eight musicians with other (nongrouped)

instruments, which were santur, lute and clarinet. NPI category that

gathered 16 musicians meant the non-instrumental association, whose situation

should not be considered with unknown category. In fact, the instrumental

distribution table is one of the most representative in the study considering the

general number of unknowns (black holes) in the statistical outcomes presented

previously.

I suppose the more complex one is the singer category, which represents the

biggest group. To put it briefly, the general rule in the Ottoman music education is

to give the sounds correctly by mouth. Thus the instrumental instruction no matter

which one is, almost always comes with the voice practice. The idea here is if one

might respond to the sounds correctly with his mouth then it proves that one has

musical ear, which leads to the next step as seeking these correct sounds in the

instrument. The practice has no difference for the singers at all. İbnülemin describes

in detail the way Dede Efendi taught music to his two eminent students, namely as

Dellalzâde and Zekai Efendi. His method was based on two principles: Hear (musical

169

ear) and store (memorization) it. To underline it, singing correctly and having a

beautiful sound are quite apart from each other. The former expresses that one can

technically learn music and advance in the art, whereas the latter is a God-given

quality. The explanation eventually underlines that each one in the sampling were

able to use voice as expected. The reason why 72 musicians placed in the table as

singers is because they were originally educated to sing and thus gained expertise in

voice. But for the rest (instrumentalists), it came in as a part of the education

package. Given the difficulty of a clear demarcation between singing and playing,

the table, however, is designed to indicate the principal one, either voice or an

instrument. But the things are more precise for instruments in general, if not stated

otherwise. If one played kemenche or kanun, for instance, she/he would not be

associated with ney or violin. The exceptional cases are always minor in number.

Only two musicians were able to play kanun and viola, two again were involved

both with tanbur and viola.

Though oud and tanbur are both stringed instruments and it is possible to sing

while playing, there occurred a gap between the participants of both combinations.

Only one musician both sang and played tanbur, whereas 17 musicians played oud

and sang. The conventional patterns appear clearly in the Moi category regarding

the popularity of oud. The underlying reasons lie in the comparison of these

instruments both technically and practically. From a technical perspective, playing

tanbur while singing is challenging due to its lengthy and fretted fingerboard (neck).

It surely demands more concentration on the instrument, whereas the oud allowed

the instrumentalist to sing along due to its short and fretless neck. Another

technical concern is related with the structures of instruments. The oud is evidently

more durable to pressure, damage, and humidity due to its body form and the type

of woods it is produced from. The fragile form of tanbur, on the other hand, often

creates problems; including the dislocation of neck from its body (sap atma) and

the collapse of its very slim cover (kapak çökmesi). Indeed, oud practically produces

louder sounds, which precisely what was needed for a music predominantly

170

performed together with many instruments and singers.194 Though the economical

part was not mentioned in my sources, picking an oud should be more affordable

for ordinary people. My suggestion is mainly influenced by the current price

differences in the music market, a tanbur is much more expensive than an oud of

the same quality.

The position of oud and tanbur in music was also a matter of historiography.

Historians of music debated the issue in order to explain the contribution of

Kantemir’s (1673-1723) treatise, kitâb-ı ‘ilmü’l mûsikî ‘alâ vechi’l hurufât.195 All in

all, variety of sources might additionally be interpreted to display the significance of

oud in the late Ottoman music world. The instrumental reference books (guide)

were overwhelmingly written on oud.196 Secondly, oud was the mostly encountered

instrument in the fasil music on the list of taverns and the musician groups of

Istanbul. As presented in the previous chapter, the source listed the names of

musicians together with instruments.197 Finally, the early history of sound recording

overwhelmingly carried out by companies, including Colombia, Favorite, Odeon,

194 Fiket Karakaya points to more technical issues but also provides information on its

historical evaluation throughout the ages, “Ud”, DİA, Vol. 42, 2012, pp. 39-41.

195 According to the argument, the text apparently underlined the shift from oud to tanbur

in music, which had been under the theoretical and musical domination of the former

before the beginning of the seventeenth century. The time period also signals the gradual

emergence of Ottoman way in music, tarz-ı Osmânî, and Istanbul as the center of musical

production. Though the date could not be precisely identified but oud regains popularity

after the mid-nineteenth century. My research findings apparently support its triumph over

other instruments at the turn of the twentieth century. Behar stated that its re-emergence

might be related to the importation of the instrument with lute (lavta) from Arabic

provinces and Egypt and the arrival of luthiers from same regions to Istanbul by the midnineteenth

century, Cem Behar, Kan Dolaşımı, Ameliyat ve Musıkî Makamları: Kantemiroğlu

(1673-1723) ve Edvâr’ının Sıra Dışı Müzikal Serüveni, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2017, pp.

160-170; Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, Prens Dimitrie Cantemir: Türk Musıkisi Bestekârı ve

Nazariyatçısı, (Selçuk Alimdar, trans.), Pan, İstanbul, 2000, pp. 36-62.

196 Hafız Mehmed Efendi, Ud Muallimi, İkdam, 18.8.1901, 11.1.1902, 5, 8, and 11. 2. 1902;

Muallim Fahri [Kopuz], Nazarî ve Amelî Ud Dersleri, İstanbul, 1336; Ali Salâhî, Hocasız Ud

Öğrenmek Usûlü, İstanbul, 1336; İlâveli Ud Muallimi, İstanbul 1340; Şerif Muhiddin Targan,

Ud Metodu (ed. Zeki Yılmaz), İstanbul, 1995.

197 Ruhi Kalender, “Yüzyılımızın Başlarında İstanbul’un Musiki Hayatı”, Ankara Üniversitesi

İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Vo. 23, 1978, pp. 414-437.

171

Owner’s Voice (Sahibinin Sesi), The Gramophone (Zonophone), is another

indication. Oud together with violin was the two most popular instruments, either

in solo or in combination, in the early recordings.198 Eventually, it appears that all

these factors played a role in its growing popularity in the late Ottoman musical

world.

The outcome supports this fact given the higher proportion of oud playing among

other instruments and its frequency in the Moi category.

Table 5.2. Oud combined with other instruments

Combinations Frequency Percent

Oud and Voice 17 6.6

Oud and Piano 3 1.2

Oud and Kanun 2 0.8

Oud and Tanbur 1 0.4

Oud and Ney 1 0.4

TOTAL 24 9.4

When 32 oud players are totaled with musicians in the Moi category (means oud

players, n = 24), the proportion reaches 22.2 % at the total. Together with violin

players who are counted as 36 (14 % in total), the overall outcome indicates that

more than one third of the musicians under study concentrated on these two

instruments (36.2 %). The popularity of oud and violin among musicians as well as

the leading role in the music market should also be seen through the related

outcomes.

198 For the list of the oud players in the early history of phonograph recordings, see Pan

Publishing’s online catalogue

http://tasplak.pankitap.com/index.php?pg=1&firma=&katalog_no=&eser=&makam=&yoru

mcu=ud

http://tasplak.pankitap.com/index.php?firma=&katalog_no=&eser=&makam=&yorumcu=k

eman (both accessed on 2 August 2018).

172

I collected different occupations under non-music-based category, which the official

functionaries, as anticipated, held the biggest proportions for two instrumentalists

with 18 (that makes 60 % in the non-music-based, 31.6 % in the total) musicians

among the oud and 10 (62.5 % in the non-music based, 27.7 % in the total)

musicians among the violin players.

Table 5.3. The chief income source of oud and violin players

Income Type Oud Violin

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Music-based 21 37.5 18 50.0

Non Music-based 30 53.5 16 44.5

Unknown 5 8.9 2 5.5

TOTAL 56 100.0 36 100.0

Although the music-based income percentages do not seem strikingly high, I believe

that they are powerful enough to underpin the argument. For example, only five

musicians’ chief source of income was music (22.7 %) within the 22 kanun players,

whereas the number even dropped to four out of 21 for ney players (19.0 %). None

of the instrument in the list comes close to the percentages that oud and violin had.

The only exception seems to be the kemenche. The musical income for kemenche

players was 63.6 %. Nevertheless, the number of players who played the instrument

should be taken into consideration. It was only 11 musicians in total. The statistical

outcomes could also be interpreted to understand the employment of instruments

in the music, which means that some instruments, such as oud, violin and

kemenche, were more visible in the market whose financial gain was critical when

compared with ney and kanun, which were less commercial and unprofitable.

Piano appears to be an interesting case. Kösemihal’s study still the chief historical

study about the beginning of European music in the palace, underlines the

instrument first emerged in Europe around the beginning of the eighteenth century

and did not wait long to circulate particularly in the wealthy households of non173

Muslim families of Istanbul. But its entrance to the palace was a little later, during

the reign of Abdülmecid (1839-1861).199 From that period on, the piano stood firm

in the palace and was used to perform Western rather than Ottoman music. Though

the piano does not belong to Ottoman music, many accounts underlined its limited

presence in the Ottoman music. The instrument even appeared in the Mevlevî

lodges, though on rare occasiones, to accompany Mevlevî rituals. The oldest known

accompaniment of piano to a Mevlevî ritual was in the Galata Mevlevî lodge during

the period of Sheihk Galib Es’ad Dede (d. 1799). According to the biographical

account of Hüseyin Fahreddin Efendi who was the Sheikh of Bahariye Mevlevî lodge

in Eyüp until his death in 1911, he was practicing Western music with his ney,

accompanied by his nephew’s piano. Ahmed Hüsameddin Dede (1839-1900), the

kudümzenbaşı of Yenikapı lodge, was another Mevlevî dervish, who liked to play

peşrevs in the piano during his visits to the house of Mısırlı Halim Paşa (1863-

1921).200 Still, the individual cases were not sufficient to change its marginal place in

music. Therefore, it would not be incorrect to state the piano never became a

mainstream instrument in music and neither for the Ottoman society in general.

199 Mahmut Ragıp Kösemihal, Türkiye – Avrupa Musiki Münasebetleri (1600-1875), Vol. 1,

İstanbul Nümune Matbaası, 1939, pp. 93-94.

200 Mahmut Ragıp Kösemihal, Türkiye – Avrupa Musiki Münasebetleri, p. 94. Sadettin

Nüzhet Ergun provides more detailed biography of Ahmed Hüseyin Dede; Türk Musikisi

Antolojisi: Dinî Eserler, Vol. II, İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul,

1943, pp. 494-495. Meanwhile, Kösemihal reported an interesting event regarding to the

presence of piano in Istanbul, which relates the issue to ney. The author underlines that

Salim Bey (1830-1934) trimmed the length of his instrument in order to accompany the

piano. The passage simply implies the story behind the arrival of mansur ney (its accord

corresponds to piano with A440 Hz) into the Ottoman/music (ibid, p. 94). The statement is

open to contestation. Ali Tan’s doctoral dissertation, which focused on the historical

development of ney and to what extent the instrument responded to the change of sound

intervals from the beginning of the eighteenth century, examined 65 neys held in various

museums and private collections, from 1718 to 1951. The earliest recorded mansur ney

belonged to the first quarter of the eighteenth century, which proves that mansur ney was

already in circulation more than a century ago in the Ottoman Istanbul and hence

Kösemihal is clearly mistaken about his statement, “Ney Açkısının Tarihi ve Teknik Gelişimi”,

Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ass. Prof. M. Nuri Uygun (Superviser), Marmara Üniversitesi, SBE,

İslam Tarihi ve Sanatları Bilim Dalı, İstanbul, 2011, pp. 190-191; For the images of

instruments he had focused on during his dissertation project, see Ali Tan - Mustafa Çıpan,

Ney…, Konya Valiliği, İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü, Konya, 2013. The book, Ney…, provides

the image of Kazasker Mustafa İzzet Efendi’s (1801-1876) mansur ney additionally proves

its much earlier presence in the Ottoman music.

174

The employment of piano in Ottoman and Western musical cultures is not

comparable for different reasons. The place of the piano in the Western music

was/is fundamental,201 while it was tried, not accepted commonly and hence stayed

as an outsider in the Ottoman music largely due to musical concerns. The

instrument simply proved to be inappropriate to sound intervals of the Ottoman

music; also some sounds in the Ottoman music did not exist in piano. Even so, the

historical sound records show that it was still used but without taking the leading

role. Above all, a corresponding piano-centered social analysis could not be done

because of its minor musical role and of the inadequate historical material.

Therefore, based on the 14 pianists in my sampling, questioning their social

background could yield limited results but, still, it might indicate whether they

belonged to upper classes or not, since the instrument was rare, and expensive to

purchase.

It seems that only two fathers shared the lowest social status and income among

the fathers of pianists. The first was a military fireman and musician Giriftzen Asım

Bey (1851-1929) whose children, Fatma Nihal Erkutun (1906-1989) and Musa

Süreyya (1884-1932), played the piano. Another was Leon Hancıyan Efendi (1860-

1947) whose father was a moderate servant (odabaşı) in a state office. What

additionally made their case similar was the fathers’ intimate relationship with

music. They were practitioner musicians. The first was a ney player and later girift (a

201 The piano, nevertheless, had a completely different story in the English case. It was only

around the mid-nineteenth century when the piano became increasingly accessible for

middle-class English people. It was partly economic. The increased level of income rendered

middle class to go more often to the concert halls to listen to performers but also buy

products that were beyond their means previously. Besides, piano manufacturers were

critical in the process of musical commercialization. They produced cheaper and lower

quality forms of the instrument. Even its size was shrunk deliberately to fit into the houses

of middle-class people, which could hardly be called a piano in terms of the musicality and

appearance. From a sociocultural perspective, the widespread acceptance of piano, being

able to attend concerts, availability of piano education for children were indications of

cultural refinement and a way of affiliation with the standards of upper classes. Cyril

Ehrlich, The Piano: A History, Revised Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, pp.

9-27 and 88-107; Derek B. Scott, “Music and Social Class in Victorain London”, Urban

History, No. 29, 1, 2002, pp. 60-73. Interestingly, the cultural aspirations of middle-class

English people of previous century related to piano appear to be quite similar to the social

meaning attributed to it in modern Turkey.

175

similar but a smaller version of ney), while Leon’s father, Nazaret Efendi, played lute

while his mother played oud.

Table 5.4. Pianists’ family background

Frequency Percent

Official Func. 6 40.0

Religious

Func.

1 6.7

Military 3 20.0

Other 1 6.7

Unknown 4 26.7

TOTAL 15 100.0

Fathers of Mualla Anıl (1909-1985) and Osman Nihat Akın’s (1905-1959)

occupations were recorded as unknown, however, with a note that they were from

notable families (eşrafdan) of Manastır and Çorlu respectively. Muhlis Sabahattin

(1889-1947) and Neveser Kökdes’s (1904-1962) father was Hurşit Bey, who was sent

to exile from Istanbul by Abdulhamid II because of his critical position

(başmabeynci) during the reign of Abdulaziz, who preceded him. Leyla (Saz) Hanım’s

(1850-1937) father, Hekim İsmail Pasha (1807-1880), served in the high-ranking

official positions, such as the governor of Girid, Salonica, İzmir and as the Minister

of Trade and Public Works (Nafia ve Ticaret Nezâreti).202 Mustafa Nuri Bey’s

(Menapirzâde, 1841-1906) father was Yusuf Menapir Pasha who served as the

Governor of Maraş. Medenî Aziz Efendi’s (1842-1895) father was an imam in

Medina. When he died during a visit to Damascus, child Aziz was adopted by a

palace servant in Istanbul and grew up in the palace circles. The sad situation after

all would be highly beneficial for him as he would have the opportunity to be

202 The memoir of Leyla Hanım portrays in detail the piano education in the Çırağan Palace.

She even provides the names of royal family members who had proficiency in piano.

Because the thesis discusses the employment of piano in the Ottoman music, whereas the

memoir of Leyla Hanım points deliberately to the presence of Western music in the palace,

her account remains beyond the scope of the thesis, Memoirs of Leyla (Saz) Hanımefendi,

The Imperial Harem of the Sultans: Daily Life at the Çırağan Palace During the 19th Century,

Landon Thomas (trans.), Hil Yayın, İstanbul, 2001, pp. 131-136.

176

musically educated by Kazasker Mustafa İzzet Efendi (1801-1876). Fatma Enise Can

(Elisabeth, 1896-1975) and Emine Fulya Akaydın (Panfilia, 1906-1975) were sisters.

They were of Greek origin and Orthodox Christians who later embraced Islam. Their

family background record is unknown but they both received private piano

education from a certain Oresti Çalapatani, which might be read as a sign of their

economical level.

What might eventually be said related with the pianist musicians is that they

predominantly belonged to notable families who could afford to own a piano and

provide tutorage. Yet it appears that the existence of piano at home attracted the

attention of other members in the family. Six musicians in the group had family

relationship. Another interesting aspect to be underlined is the high number of

female participants, almost half of the pianist population (seven out of 15). Since

the overall number of female musicians in the sampling was 23, such an atypical

gender pattern upon any other instrument could not be the case. The outcome

indicates that female musicians were regularly distributed between other

instruments, with an exception of singing. The outcome shows ten female singers.

But the female concentration on the voice category is far below the piano group. It

is 10 out of 72 musicians (13.8 %), while the amount is beyond comparison for

pianists (46.6 %).

5.2. The Age of Music Education

The part will seek to analyze the relationship between music education and age

groups. What was the general tendency for the onset of music training among the

musicians? Yet it will question whether or not instrumentalists or singers reveal any

particular pattern regarding the age groups. Searching the links between learning

types of music and age combinations will provide an alternative perspective to

further discuss the role of Istanbul in the overall music culture. The argument will

be supported by the statistical results comparing the models of learning between

Istanbul and elsewhere born musicians.

177

Table 5.5. Age of music education

Age Categories Frequency Percent

Earlier than 10 170 66.1

10-15 39 15.2

15-20 14 5.4

Unknown 34 13.2

TOTAL 257 100.0

It might generally be said that biographical accounts of musicians have

shortcomings by modern standards. One is that they do not precisely point the

starting age for music education but give rough information about it. Rather, there

are phrases such as “educated musically when s/he was a child” or “his music

education started in her/his childhood”. Thus, my categories, which have five-years

intervals, are in parallel to the imprecise statements regarding the musicians’

education records.

No matter how vague the descriptions were, the accounts still overemphasized the

music education at early ages (see Table 5.5). 170 musicians were instructed

musically before they reached to the age of 10. It appears the onset of education

after 10 years of age was atypical and considered to be too late probably. The

outcome shows that less than one third received music education after 10 years of

age (20.6 %). Besides, the place where the education took place is reported in most

cases. The musicians were predominantly educated at home. Thus I grouped those,

who learned music at home during the childhood period, under the “earlier than

10” category.

Accounts also emphisize the role of the family in the educational process. For those

whose music education began at home were generally supervised by a family

member, which might be father, mother, older brother/sister, a close relative or a

combination of them. While the family impact was almost a prerequisite for the

musicians grouped in the first category (earlier than 10), the next category

(between 10-15), on the other hand, includes musicians whose families did not get

178

involved in music education. Therefore, whether one was introduced to music

through family and one did not, became one of the criteria through which the age

categories were separated from each other.

Table 5.6. Family impact among the age categories (cross tabulation)

Age Categories Frequency Percent

Earlier than 10 113 95.8

10-15 4 3.4

Unknown 1 0.8

TOTAL 118 100.0

The table above proves how decisively two groups were in contradistiction to each

other regarding to the role of family (see Table 5.6). It could yet be said that music

for those whose involvement did not begin at early ages (apart from the first

category) did not inherit anything from the family and may even be perceived as

“outsiders” to the art. In fact, the criterion that represented those musicians’

education was anything but private tutorage.

Table 5.7. Private tutorage distributed to age categories (cross tabulation)

Age Categories Frequency Percent

Earlier than 10 131 67.5

10-15 32 16.5

15-20 9 4.6

Unknown 22 11.3

TOTAL 194 100.0

The role of the family members that did set the boundaries between first and next

two groups in the previous table could not be the case for private tutorage.

Statistically, 131 musicians out of 170 in the “earlier than 10” group and 32

musicians out of 39 in the “10-15” group have received private tutorage, which

makes 77 % in the former and 82 % in the latter. According to that, the private

179

tutorage model was highly prevalent in both categories. Hence, due to its strong

presence in both categories, the private tutorage could not be regarded as how

characteristic the family association was for the musicians in the “earlier than 10”

and made the distinction decisively with other age groups. Statistically again, family

involvement according to the general table was 113 out of 170 in the “earlier than

10” group (66.5 %), whereas it showed a drastic drop for the next one; only four

musicians received a family advantage out of 39 (10.2 %).

An alternative interpretation regarding the difference between family involvement

and private tutorage might be that the former points to a process in which children

were exposed to music due to the musical atmosphere at home and were

eventually accustomed to it. The same, on the other hand, could not be said for the

latter, which seemed to be a more deliberate attempt, a more personal matter that

demanded more effort clearly.

Photo 5.1. Santurî Ziya Bey (1868-1952) posed with his daughter, Bergüzar

Source: Halil Nadaroğlu, “Santurî Ziya Santur’la Bir Konuşma”, Türk Musikisi Dergisi,

1 Ekim 1948, pp. 24-28.

180

Whatever the case the outcomes revealed that those 170 musicians in the earlier

than 10 group were significantly more advantageous than the rest, as their families

created the appropriate circumstances, which would increase the chances of

success in music. Favorable conditions were innumerable, such as meeting with the

art in the early stages of the life, growing up in a musically dominant environment.

Not needing to struggle to find a music teacher or an instrument and so on. It

seems that they had everything that was needed.

Table 5.8. Types of learning in the earlier than 10 years of age (cross tabulation)

Models Frequency Percent

Family 19 11.2

Tutorage 38 22.3

Mûzîka-i Hümâyûn 8 4.7

Self-taught 4 2.4

Music School 2 1.2

Unknown 1 0.6

Family and Tutorage 80 47

Family-Tutorage-Music School 9 5.2

Family and Music School 5 2.9

Tutorage and Music School 4 2.4

TOTAL 170 100

While the age patterns point to the musicians’ first touch with music, nonetheless,

learning is a process that demands years of endeavor. As reported in many

accounts, it should be enriched by numerous stages of music education, such as

having private tutorage, meeting with musicians, being in house gatherings,

attending activities of music schools, following live performances and even listening

to recorded music. The place of house gatherings among the musicians will be

debated separately, so the table does not count the popularity of it. The table

shows the various forms of learning for each musician without totaling the cases

that had two types to single ones. That would help to identify not only the

181

proportions separately but also the most frequent combinations between the

learning models.

Eighty-nine musicians (52.2 %) combined the most popular two types, namely the

family involvement and private tutorage. It appears that both models functioned

together in order to support one another and enhance the musical output. Astik

Aga’s (Asadur Hamamciyan, 1840-1913) uncle, Mofses Papazyan, was an actor, who

also taught him how to sing. Additionally, he benefited from a music teacher,

Aristakes Hovannesyan. The case reveals how the musical knowledge was inherited

and family transmitted to next generation. Astik Aga taught what he got from his

uncle to his son, Bogos Efendi (Astikzâde, 1872-1945). Another musician who

combined family support with private tutorage was İhsan İyisan (1873-1946), whose

uncle was musician Behlül Efendi (d. 1895). Biographical accounts underlined that

Behlül Efendi and his nephew İhsan İyisan were always closely in touch with Sufi

circles. While Behlül Efendi benefited from Sheikh Osman Dede of Yenikapı, İhsan

İyisan frequented Sünbül Efendi Sufi lodge to be raised by zakirbaşı Sinan Efendi.

Hasan Sabri Bey (1868-1922), the son of a military doctor, learned to play oud from

his mother, Zehra Hanım. A scribe in the Ministry of Education (Maarif Nezâreti), he

was further instructed by Hayık Usta (d.?) and oud player Cemal Bey (d.?).

Self-taught category sounds very strange at first sight. One may assume that

musicians in the group were thoroughly isolated from the culture and pursued

success by self-effort. The suggestion, in fact, is not convincing and only acceptable

in one respect. The category emphasized not the music in general terms but the

instruments that the musicians became an expert of. In fact, they were involved in

music through different ways, either because of their family or by self-interest.

Eventually they picked an instrument and struggled to overcome the technical

issues on their own.

Sedat Öztoprak (1890-1942) learned how to play the oud alone. However, one has

to consider the fact that he regularly followed the Mevlevî ceremonies held in

Konya, the city where he grew up. It is likely that he inspected carefully the tanburî

182

dervishes to grasp the technique while he was enriching his repertoire in general

during the Mevlevî rituals. Naci Tektel (1902-1975) was a self-taught violinist.

However, one should not overlook the impact of his father, a well-known clarinet

player, İbrahim Efendi (d. 1925), on his overall progress in the art. İbrahim Efendi is

a critical figure because it is believed to be he was the musician who introduced the

clarinet to Ottoman music. The biographical accounts of Ömer Altuğ (1905-1965)

did not mention any teacher in his hometown in Sivas. A particular detail,

nevertheless, gives information about his music education. A self-taught tanbur

player, he had listened to the records of Cemil Bey passionately. The life story of

Halûk Recai (1912-1972, although his real name was Haldun Menemencioglu, he

never used it throughout his music career) revealed similar details indeed. Growing

up in a family, whose members were amateur musicians, he was strongly inspired

by Cemil Bey’s music, which directed him to play kemenche. He acquired skill on the

kemenche without a teacher. What these individual cases emphasized is the

process of learning contained a range of models, which truly contributed to each

other. Therefore, the self-taught model of learning music should be understood in

the narrow sense. Finally, being in provinces might also be related to the cases of

self-taught owing to the general scarcity of musicians and hence music culture

outside of Istanbul; nevertheless, this suggestion demands more evidence.

Fourteen musicians in the “15-20” years of age category might be considered as

further marginal due to their late engagement with music. In the light of the

debates related to the importance of family involvement for the offspring’s musical

development in the early ages, the absence of family involvement in this group was

surely a negative factor. The outcome underlined they were coming from families

who were unrelated to art.

Yet one issue, which was emphasized in the self-taught part and considered to be

inapplicable due to the limited number of cases, seems worth to be questioned for

all age groups.

183

Table 5.9. Birthplace compared to age categories (cross tabulation)

Birth Place Earlier than 10 10-15 15-20 unknown

Istanbul 135 22 5 24

Out of Istanbul 33 17 9 9

Unknown 2 - - 1

TOTAL 170 39 14 34

In the light of the quantitative analysis, it is now reasonable to connect the issue of

being outside of Istanbul to the cases of late engagement with music. Table shows

the wide difference between “earlier than 10” and other groups. 79.4 % of

musicians in the first group were born in Istanbul, while the percentage is reduced

to 56.4 in the subsequent one and even dropped to 35.7 in the “15-20” group. The

percentages makes possible to claim that they were latecomers to music partly

owing to the fact that they did not have the musical opportunity as others had

plenty in Istanbul. The conditions were simply unequal. The raw data, which the

argument is based on, indicates that nine musicians were born outside of Istanbul

(in the 15-20 group) but have moved to Istanbul without exception. However, they

all completed primary education in their birthplaces except one, according to their

education records. It was Muhiddin Erev (1884-1952), who was born in the sanjak

of Siroz of Salonica province and completed the primary level at Bayezid. The

number rises up to 3 in the secondary level education. Aziz Efendi (1842-1895)

came from Medina and studied in Üsküdar, while Kemal Niyazi Seyhun (1885-1967)

from Acre sanjak of Beirut province was enrolled to Galatasaray High School. The

educational records show that they did not arrive in Istanbul before 10 years of age,

which also had an impact on their late entrance to music. In fact, the outcomes

confirm the centrality of Istanbul in music from an alternative perspective.

After all, two models of learning were widespread for 14 musicians in the “15-20”

years of age category. Having a private tutor and enrolling to a music school were

distributed almost evenly. Six musicians had only private tutorage, while four

continued only to music schools. Three musicians applied both models, whereas the

184

last one was a self-taught musician. All in all, when the multiple cases were added

together, it comes out as nine musicians taught music privately, seven through

music schools. Ahmed Celal Tokses (1898-1966) was born in Aydın province. He

settled in Istanbul and was enrolled to Dârü’t-Talîm-i Musikî, which began to

operate at Şehzadebaşı in 1912. Şerif İçli (1899-1956) registered to Beşiktaş Music

School in 1921, which was founded by İhsan Aziz Bey (1884-1935) in 1921.

Meanwhile, İhsan Aziz Bey appears to be an enthusiastic figure in organizing

musicians towards profit oriented projects. He was also among the founders of

Musikî-i Osmanî and Dârü’t-Talîm-i Musikî. It might be argued that he understood

well the impact of newly founded educational institutions in music and oriented

quickly towards new opportunities in the expanding music market. Mustafa Çağlar

(1910-1961) first registered to a music school in Balıkesir. Ali Hikmet Ayerdem

(1877-1939) was the founder of the first music school in the area. As a former

Ottoman Pasha, he was appointed as the corps commander to Balıkesir in the newly

founded republic. Since his inauguration in the city started in 1925, the school could

not be opened before it. Çağlar moved to Istanbul in 1931 and was enrolled to

Dârü’t-Talîm-i Musikî. The date is problematic owing to the fact that the school

closed down in 1931. It seems that Çağlar either moved to Istanbul before 1931 or if

the date of arrival was correct then he could only be educated there at best for less

than a year. Muzaffer İlkar’s (1910-1987) music education stated only one type of

education: He registered to the Şark Musikî Cemiyeti in Kadıköy. The school was

founded in 1915 through the cooperative efforts of musicians, including Ali Rıfat

Çağatay (1869-1935), Sami Bey (1876-1939), Bestenigâr Ziya Bey (1877-1927) and

Nuri Duyguer (1877-1963).

185

Photo 5.2. The members of the Şark Musikî Cemiyeti

Ali Rıfat Çağatay sits at the center.

Source: Cem Atabeyoğlu, “Musiki âlemimizden…”, p.21, Taha Toros Archive, No.

001527875006, İstanbul Şehir University.

Music schools from the late Ottoman to the Early Republican years could not only

be restrict to age categories but to be explored from many perspectives. These

institutions were new phenomena, which deliberately provided new spaces to

music but created problems as well. I will deal with them more profoundly while

discussing the change and continuity in a transitional period from empire to nationstate

in the sixth chapter.

The next analysis will seek links between age categories and instrumental

distribution. The idea is to check whether any instrument has specifically

concentrated on an age group or whether or not singers show any particular

pattern for music education.

186

Table 5.10. Instrumental distribution to age categories (by frequency)

Instrument Earlier than

10

10-15 15-20 Unknown TOTAL

Singer 47 13 4 8 72

Tanbur 10 0 1 1 12

Kanun 6 4 0 3 13

Ney 11 4 1 2 18

Oud 19 5 2 6 32

Kemenche 5 2 2 0 9

Violin 19 3 1 3 26

Piano 5 1 0 0 6

NPI203 7 2 0 7 16

Other 0 2 0 0 2

Moi204 41 3 3 4 51

TOTAL 170 39 14 34 257

It is widely believed that the younger the children engage in music the more their

musical potential would develop. It could be argued that this commonly held belief

was apparently practiced in the Ottoman music based on the overall age

distribution outcome (66 %). Besides, the numbers above showing the dominance

of “earlier than 10” over others, further confirm the argument. The majority of

musicians that belonged to any of the instrumental categories were involved in

music in the earliest possible ages. Tanbur is apparently by far leading instrument.

Even though the frequency of tanbur among the age groups may seem odd due to

its lengthy fingerboard, luthiers overcame the problem by producing appropriate

versions for children as well as women, just like the way piano producers solved the

problem in England. Eventually, because the figures in the table seem predictable

203 The NPI category refers to the musicians without instrumental association, as stated

before. The distinction between NPI and singer was explained previously indeed.

204 As anticipated, the far leading combination was voice and oud playing (16 in total). The

rest was allocated evenly between other instruments but was low in numbers. Voice was

almost always one part of the combination. The underlying reason was the significance of

singing in the Ottoman music culture.

187

and yet none of the pattern reveals a kind of atypical response, that leaves not

much to interpret. Perhaps the only thing it underscores is the popularity and hence

the vitality of engagement in music in infancy.

Photo 5.3. Ercüment Batanay (1927-2004) posed with tanbur adjusted to his age

Source: Muhittin Serin, Kemal Batanay, Kubbealtı Neşriyat, İstanbul, 2006, p. 75.

5.3. Non-Muslim Musicians and Music Education

Questioning in particular the music training among the non-Muslim musicians is

reasonable to see the dominant and less significant models of learning as well as to

reconsider the musical relationship between Muslim and non-Muslims. From a

historiographical perspective, encounters seem not to be exceptional and highly

positive. One can assume the Ottoman music world was a kind of mutually built

society. İsmail Hakkı Bey (1865-1927) had knowledge on the Jewish religious

repertoire, who even contributed to it by composing and was one of the music

teachers of Nesim Sevilya (1856-1949).205 Armenian musician Kirkor Çulhayan

(1868-1935) invited his friend Rauf Yekta Bey (1871-1935) to the Armenian Church

in Kumkapı in order to listen to his religious composition in the mode nihavend.

205 Maureen Jackson, Mixing Musics, pp. 32-34.

188

İbrahim Efendi (Avram Hayat Levi, 1879-1948) was actively involved in music as an

oud player, one might even encounter him performing in the music programs

during the Ramadan nights. Pappas examined particularly the intimate relationship

of Tanburi Cemil Bey (1872-1916) with Rum musicians of Istanbul and the

interaction between musicians who belonged to different religions. 206 These

individual cases may be extended easily to emphasize the mutual relationship. The

picture, below, might be interpreted to support the argument, which shows an

ensemble formed by Muslim and non-Muslim musicians.

5.3.1. Musical Specialty Questioned

My sampling might be instrumental to enhance our understanding to what extent

the harmonious relationship expressed in the individual life accounts was reflecting

the general tendencies. As stated previously, the sampling contained 28 non-

Muslim musicians, 21 of whom were Armenian, four belonged to the Greek

Orthodox community and three to Jewish community.

Table 5.11. Instrumental distribution among the non-Muslim musicians

Instrument Frequency

Voice 7

Oud 4

Kanun 2

Kemenche 2

Violin 5

NPI 2

Moi 6

Oud-Voice 4

Violin-Piano 1

Kanun-Kemenche 1

TOTAL 28

206 Miltiadis Pappas, “Tanburi Cemil Bey ve Rum Müzisyenlerin Karşılıklı Etkileşimleri”, in

Tanburi Cemil Bey Sempozyum Bildirileri, Hasan Baran Fırat-Zeynep Yıldız Abbasoğlu (eds.),

Küre Yayınları, İstanbul, 2017, pp. 117-129.

189

The outcome shows the figures for the non-Muslim group run parallel to the

general trends in musical specialty, namely as voice, playing oud and violin.

Interestingly, non-Muslims had a preference neither for the ney nor for the tanbur.

Ney demands a special treatment not only because non-Muslim musicians did not

have a tendency to play it but also for a number of reason. The study will soon

discuss the sociocultural as well as religious aspects of the instrument exclusively.

The reason why non-Muslim musicians did not seek to play tanbur is an open

debate. The argument proposed previously in order to understand the radical

popularity of oud against tanbur might also be helpful to analyze the situation. The

primacy of oud and violin over ney and tanbur in the history of early recordings as

well as in the musician lists who played in the music halls, coffee houses and

theatres at the turn of the twentieth century has to be taken into consideration.

The historical records indicated that tanbur and ney were not preferred mainly by

musicians who performed music in public. I need to emphasize at this point that my

arguments are not exclusively based on the names appeared in the recording

business and the list of musicians published by Kalender. Besides, regarding the

tanbur players, it could not be said that the instrument was entirely excluded from

music market. My sampling contains tanbur players, who derived a living from

music. Another point is my sampling does not entirely consist of musicians who

were active participants of music business. Therefore, the argument about the

insignificant place of tanbur and ney is only relevant to more market oriented

musicians (professionals), and not applicable to the whole. Even so, exploring the

degree of non-Muslim musicians whose chief source of income was music would

provide an explanation to the argument that certain instruments were more

appropriate to the demands of market than others.

Table 5.12 reveals that the percentages of the Muslim and non-Muslim musicians

that regarded music as the main income source are clearly quite the reverse. After

all, results might generate controversy owing to the situation that Muslim musicians

constituted the majority in the sampling, while the non-Muslims formed slightly

more than 10 %.

190

Table 5.12. The chief source of income for Muslim and non-Muslim musicians

Income Type Muslim Non-Muslim

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Music-based 66 28.8 20 71.4

Non Music-based 156 68.1 7 25

Unknown 7 3.1 1 3.6

TOTAL 229 100.0 28 100.0

Without disregarding the dangers of deducing from the disproportionate number of

non-Muslim musicians, it could be argued that the situation, however, is largely due

to the general absence of non-Muslim musicians in the historical sources, which I

have already overemphasized. On the part of the non-Muslim musicians’ outcome

reliability, there seems to be ways to counterbalance and hence to increase the

validity of the results. The method of cross tabulation analysis, which has been

applied throughout the thesis, is one of them. The study revealed the proportions

of musical specialty for the non-Muslims and compared the results with the overall

trends. The comparison yet helped to indicate to what extent the non-Muslims

were typical. In addition to that, instruments that became prominent in the general

table were also in fashion within the non-Muslim group. The results showed that

two categories have run parallel to each other. To further prevent the

disproportionate influence, the second cross-examination would be on the fathers’

occupation. Yet the analysis would be instrumental to interpret the high proportion

of music-based income among the non-Muslim musicians.

191

Table 5.13. Fathers’ professions of Muslim and non-Muslim musicians compared

Income Type Muslim Non-Muslim

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Music-based 5 2.1 6 21.5

Non Music-based 166 72.5 10 35.7

Unknown 58 25.4 12 42.8

TOTAL 229 100.0 28 100.0

The analysis, nevertheless, should not be confused with the role of family in the

educational process. Therefore, the table, above, simply questions the fathers’

profession but not the musical propensity. On the part of the non-Muslim

musicians, the figures above do not strongly suggest music as a family tradition.

However, the high number of Muslim and non-Muslim fathers in the unknown

category should be taken into account. Even the proportions were to be

appropriate to the argument; children’s career choices could not be explained

through fathers’ profession alone. A range of factors, from social to economic

would play a role during the process.

The comparison still indicates two critical points from fathers to the offspring. One

is the upward trend in two generations of non-Muslim family members whose

source of income was music. It advanced from 21.5 % up to 71.4 %. Similar trend is

apparent for Muslim families, whose percentages have risen from 2.1 % to 28.8 % in

one generation. Another is the corresponding proportion of the professions other

than music. The situation was not different at all for Muslim families either.

Statistically speaking, the proportion of professions other than music for Muslim

families was almost equal to each other in two generations, which was 72.5 % for

fathers and 68 % for offspring. What created the difference was music-based

income between fathers and offspring. As mentioned before, the method of

comparing the outcomes with the general patterns is functional to compensate the

potential shortcomings of research findings regarding the non-Muslim musicians.

192

With regards to the music specialty, instruments might indeed be interpreted

through an alternative perspective. It is possible to establish a correlation between

musicians who played certain instruments and the ones who gained a living out of

music. Put differently, instrument-centered quantitative analysis might provide

insights into the characteristics of instruments; also the results might be helpful to

explain why the percentage of professional non-Muslim musicians was so high (71.4

%).

Table 5.14. Musical specialty compared to source of income

Instrument Music Based Non Music-based Unknown TOTAL

Singer 30 72 1 103

Oud 20 32 2 54

Violin 17 17 2 36

Tanbur 7 12 2 21

Ney 4 17 - 21

Kanun 5 17 - 22

TOTAL 83 167 7 257

The reason why the figures for music specialty differed from the general table

presented at the beginning of the chapter is I added up the musicians in the Moi

category to corresponding instrument. Even though the numbers have changed in

the musical specialty classification, however, the musicians in the Moi category

corresponded to general patterns that the majority were singers, oud and violin

players, respectively. Thus the increased numbers of each instrument did not cause

a change in the musical specialty patterns. What is the contribution of figures to the

overall debate is certain instruments were more market oriented than others. 29.1

% of singers gained a living through music, the percentage advanced to 35 % for oud

and peaked to 47.2 % in violin. Although the numbers are not strikingly high, they

could not be overlooked for the thesis, which underlines the different aspects and

features of music and the significance of music practitioners whose source of

income revealed diversity. Music as main source of living was 22 % for kanun,

193

whereas the percentage further dropped to 19 % for ney. Apparently, only tanbur

weakens the argument, which reached to 33 % in terms of income source. Although

explaining the outcome that seems to generate unanticipated results is demanding

but claiming that one argument could explain the story behind every single

instrument is simply unrealistic. The debate on the pianists, for instance, would not

be appropriate to understand the musicians who played ney. Yet my sampling

contains musicians from a range of historical sources, which brings to the forefront

the diverse backgrounds and hence entails different social analysis to explain

musicians.

5.3.2. Who Teaches Whom Among the Non-Muslim Musicians?

On the question of the music training, a general picture of the Non-Muslim

musicians points to the family involvement and community based musical transition

as predominant models. The family association with music or houses in which music

was heard regularly was not a rare phenomenon for the musical cultivation of non-

Muslim children. The part that discussed the types of music learning within the

different age categories pointed to the significance of it.

The community based music learning means musicians were instructed by a teacher

who belonged to the same community. Those hired ones were often an extended

family member or the member of the religious institution, to which they were

attached. Such a self-sufficient model explicitly contradicts the idea of mutual

relationship between musicians from different religions that one may often

encounter in historical accounts. After all, my sampling demonstrates that the

presumed interaction was limited at least in the process of music training.

The father of Ovrik Kazasyan Efendi (1872-1936) was an amateur lute player. The

uncle Kazasyan was the deputy of Patriarch; which shows the role of church in his

musical development. Additionally, Sarı Ovrik Efendi was his lute teacher. Sarkis

Efendi (Suciyan, 1885-1943)’s father, Onnik Ohannes Efendi, played kemenche and

was the person who introduced music to his son. Violinist Aliksan Aga taught him

music. Another Armenian musician, Sahak Hocasar (1889-1946) was trained by

194

Aram Efendi for the violin and learned how to read notation. Izak Elgazi’s (1889-

1950) father was a cantor in Izmir, who sang liturgical music and leaded prayer in

the synagogue. He also benefited musically from Şemtov Şikar (1840-1920) and

Hayim Alazraki. Oud player Hrant Emre Kenkiloğlu’s (1901-1978) father, Garabet

Efendi was a carpenter whose musical knowledge was not mentioned in his

biography. His music teachers were all Armenians; violinist Dikran, violinist Agob

and oud player Kirkor. The trend is apparent among the non-Muslim musicians that

the majority did not learn music from a Muslim teacher.

Apart from the pupils who grew up in a house with music and entirely benefited

from the situation, the children of families whose involvement with music was at

the marginal level if any, had to rely on a music teacher. Thus it was more probable

for those to find a Muslim teacher, however, they indeed sought help from the

community they were the part of. It seems that only a small number of cases

submitted the mentioned interaction but even those life stories showed that it was

not so decisive. Isak Varon (1884-1962) was the scribe in the law office in Salonika

that was owned by well-known Manyasizade Refik Bey (1853-1909). Because Refik

Bey had undertaken the defense of Midhat Pasha at court, he was exiled to Kavala,

Salonika during the reign of Abdulhamid II. The Ottoman general election held in

1908 made him first the deputy of Istanbul, later the Minister of Justice. Apart from

his political identity, Refik Bey was a well-known composer, who taught music to

Isak Varon. However, his biographical accounts pointed to his father’s musical role

before he met with Refik Bey. The story behind the move of Bimen Şen

(Dergazaryan, 1873-1943) from Bursa to Istanbul when he was 13 years of old was

already stated. In Istanbul, he benefited from a group of eminent musicians,

including Hacı Arif Bey, Haci Kiramî Efendi, Nedim Bey, and so on. Above all, his

father, Kasbar Dergazaryan was a priest and Bimen Şen was already a member of

the church choir who sang liturgical music before his involvement with those names

in Istanbul. The short life story of kanun player Nubar Efendi (b. 1885) appears to be

unique in a way that it mentions violinist Âma Ali Efendi as his only music teacher.

195

Biographies emphasized the role of religious institutions in the development of non-

Muslim musicians. A considerable amount of non-Muslims were equipped with

religious music either by listening to choirs in the days of public religious worship or

by participating to religious choirs. Even though Leon Hanciyan (1860-1947) grew

up in the house in which family members were amateur musicians, he was familiar

with the Armenian religious music. Priest Kapriel taught him the notation system

called Hamparsum. Ovrik Efendi (1872-1936), Karnik Garmiryan (1872-1947), Kirkor

Berber (1884-1959), Izak Elgazi (1889-1950), Marko Colakoglu (1896-1957) were

among the musicians that religious music held at the Orthodox Churches and

Synagogues formed the basis of music education and helped to shape their musical

identity.

I argue that a range of historical sources, such as biographies, musical

advertisements, programs of music halls, coffee houses, and theatres but

particularly the photographs of music ensembles lead to a teleological view of the

past due to which many historians of music took for granted that the interaction

was always there. The research results, albeit derived from a small number of non-

Muslim musicians, call into question the reductionist type of historical

understanding by demonstrating that the presumed interaction barely existed

during the process of non-Muslim musicians’ training. The argument, however,

does not provide for the entire music careers, which the interaction seemed to be

more widening for the performers. In order to perceive the overall tendencies, the

situation should be questioned vice versa, from the Muslim side. Therefore, the

subsequent part will analyze the limits of interaction by concentrating more on the

Muslim musicians. The part will indeed look into the role of the corresponding

Muslim religious institutions, such as the mosques and Sufi lodges, during the

musical development of Muslim musicians.

5.4. Social Analysis of Muslim Musicians

Muslim musicians constitute the majority of the sampling. The part will call into

question to what extent religion formed the basis of music through analyzing

musicians whose family backgrounds; education types and musical output

196

manifested more religious colors. Given the difficulty of such a task to explore the

religious character of music, the part will emphasize the patterns produced by

musicians who received religious school education, trained to be a reciter and were

influenced by Sufi music and its culture. The socio-cultural analysis of those

musicians will also provide insights into the social changes they have experienced

particularly in the field of music. The last sub-section will focus on the ney and

musicians of this instrument to its center. Rather than overemphasizing the musical

background of practitioners by questioning the predominant model of music

training and teachers, which would essentially bring Mevlevî lodges to forefront,

the part will approach to ney and its players in a way to explore the social history of

the instrument.

5.4.1. Debating the Religious Character of Music through

Sheikh Cemaleddin Efendi (1870-1937)

The previous part emphasized the vital role of religious music in the course of the

non-Muslim pupils’ musical identity formation. This section will call into question

the influence of religion on the Muslim musicians, as many biographical accounts

provide plenty of details related with the subject matter.

Focusing on the musicians whose fathers were religious functionaries will provide a

basis to the argument. As mentioned before, 28 fathers served in a range of

positions, from religious scholar to imam and from priest to synagogue cantor,

which the study placed them all under the category of religious functionary.

Because the part will particularly discuss the Muslims, three non-Muslims will be

excluded from the analysis. The outcome indicated that 25 fathers were critical for

the musical development of their offspring in two ways: They either personally

trained their children or arranged a tutor from their personal network for the

purpose, which the patterns resembled the music learning process for the non-

Muslims. However, the explanation does not restrict the music education to fathers

but emphasizes the importance of it. The importance of family involvement in the

early ages, also in the part dealt that with the professional continuity. Regarding the

children of religious functionaries’ music education, the outcome clearly supports

197

the argument. Out of 25 Muslim musicians, only three were educated in the

Imperial Music Academy (mûzîka-i hümâyûn). The rest (n = 22) was either trained

within the family, or by a tutor. The educational details show that the tutor was

either a colleague (a religious functionary with a skill in music) or a musician that

father knew personally.

Kadı Fuad Efendi’s (1890-1920) father was Hafız Ahmed Efendi who asked Tanburî

Ali Efendi to train his son. Tanburi Ali Efendi and Cemil Bey personally knew each

other, and often participated in musical house gatherings. It is possible that Fuad

Efendi was introduced to Cemil Bey through Ali Efendi. Similar pattern is apparent

in the course of the Hadi Bey’s (Yeniköylü, d. 1920) musical refinement. His father

was the imam of Tarabya Mosque and a friend of Hasan Efendi (Yeniköylü, 1822-

1910). Hadi Efendi musically benefited from Hasan Efendi whose considerable

repertoire was transmitted from his teacher, İsmail Dede Efendi (1777-1846).207

Sheikh Cemal(eddin) Efendi of Kasımpaşa (1870-1937) is one of the distinctive

characters in the late Ottoman music, whom historiography failed to notice. Cemal

Efendi retained his father’s position as the imam of Küçük Piyale Pasha Mosque in

Kasımpaşa. Being one of the students of Yeniköylü Hasan Efendi ultimately made

him one of the next carriers of İsmail Dede Efendi’s legacy.

Photo 5.4. Sheikh Cemal Efendi of Kasımpaşa (1870-1937)

Source: M. Nazmi Özalp, Türk Mûsikîsi Tarihi, Vol. 2, MEB, İstanbul, 2000, p. 167.

207 Sadettin Nüzhet Ergun provides more detailed biography of Yeniköylü Hasan Efendi

(1822-1910); Türk Musikisi Antolojisi: Dinî Eserler, Vol. II, p. 444.

198

However, even though the musical inheritance made him so special, it is not the

reason of bringing him to the forefront. What makes him even more noteworthy is

his active involvement with music teaching. The outcome indicates 12 musicians

who learned music through one religious functionary. It seems that Cemal Efendi

was one of the popular music teachers of his time.

Table 5.15. Religious functionaries who instructed music

Musician Names Music Teachers

Emin Yazıcı (b. 1945) Cemal Efendi

Vefalı Ali Rıza Bey, (b. 1855) Osman Efendi (Beylerbeyi Mosque)

Kemal Gürses (b. 1882) Cemal Efendi

Kadı Fuad Efendi (1890) his father

Kemal Batanay (b. 1893) Cemal Efendi

Besim Şerif Üstünöz (b. 1893) his father

Sebilci Hüseyin Efendi (b. 1894) Cemal Efendi

Cevdet Kozanoğlu (b. 1896) Cemal Efendi

Mustafa Nafiz Irmak (b. 1904) imam Hafız Aziz (Ortaköy Mosque)

Sadi Hoşses (b. 1910) Cemal Efendi

Sadettin Kaynak (b. 1895) Cemal Efendi

Süleyman Ergüner (b. 1902) Sadettin Kaynak (Sultan Selim Mosque)

Abdulkadir Töre Bey (b. 1904) Hafız Vehbi Efendi

Yeniköylü Hadi Bey (b. ?) his father

Cemal Efendi could not teach music to Vefalı Ali Rıza Bey logically due to the age

gap. He was fifteen years older than Cemal Efendi. The list associated him with

seven musicians. Besides, a broader search in the sampling indicated two more of

his other students: Hulusi Gökmenli (1902-1975) and Salahaddin Demirtaş (1912-

1997), both grew up in the Sufi circles of Istanbul. It should be noted that, Cemal

Efendi was not only an imam but also a Sufi sheikh and a well-known zakirbaşı.

Meanwhile, his mosque in Kasımpaşa also functioned as a Sufi lodge, in which he

was the Sheikh as well as the one who lead the rituals, zikr sessions. The situation

explains how the last two names met with Cemal Efendi and eventually became his

disciples both religiously and musically. Although one would often encounter his

199

name in musicians’ biographies, but particularly in the book of Ergün, he still

remains as a forgotten character in the history of music. His “re-appearance” is

largely due to the employment of network analysis methods.

Figure 5.1. Music sources of Sheikh Cemal Efendi and his students

Figure 5.1 shows Cemal Efendi’s music teachers on the top with brown circles and

the green colored musicians point to his students. Figure 5.1 includes his students

that were in my sampling group, which means that he had more students than it

stated above.

His biographical account revealed that his musical expertise was largely on religious

music. He had proficiency in the musical forms particularly performed in the Sufi

lodges, such as hymns, şugls (religious praise in Arabic) and duraks (a form of

unmeasured hymn, which was sung by a person called durakçı, in a notably slower

rhytm to regulate the gradually increased tempo of the zikr). Indeed, he had a deep

knowledge on the Şazelî way of Sufi rituals, explicitly showing the Sufi order he

belonged to. It seems that Hasan Efendi (1822-1910) was the chief source of his

classical repertoire or the non-religious musical forms (lâ-dinî). The suggestion is

200

critical to understand the types of music transmitted from Cemal Efendi to his

students. Those who learned music from Cemal Efendi and listed above, almost

always had other teachers who were rather more specialized on non-religious

music. Kemal Gürses (1882-1939) studied with Bestenigâr Ziya Bey (1877-1923) and

Hacı Kiramî Efendi (1840-1909), while tanbur player Kemal Batanay (1893-1981)

studied with a number of musicians, including Rauf Yekta Bey (1871-1935) and Refik

Fersan (1893-1965). Oud player Cevdet Kozanoğlu (1896-1986) additionally learned

from Santur Ziya (1868-1952) and Ali Salahi Bey (1878-1945). Sebilci Hüseyin Efendi

(1894-1975) benefited from the non-religious repertoire of Ahmed Efendi of

Salonika (1869-1926) and oud player Abdi Bey (b. 1868).

The presence of several teachers in the course of music education should not be

considered as showing that Cemal Efendi was not an accomplished musician in the

non-religious field and that his students needed more skillful masters. In fact,

studying with multiple teachers was highly a common practice among musicians. If

one were to play tanbur he would not merely engage with a tanbur teacher to

achieve a particular end. He would need musicians who had proficiency in

repertoire or religious/non-religious forms. The above-mentioned musicians

provided a good example of this general rule. Besides, musicians in the sampling

predominantly studied with much more than one teacher; an issue that I will deal

with in more detail by exploring musicians’ networks. A small passage from the

biographical record of ney player Emin Yazıcı (1881-1945) underlines how

comprehensive one had to be in the Ottoman music:

He first learnt Mevlevî rite in the Rast mode from certain Haşim Efendi.

Kudümzenbaşı Raif Dede of Galata Mevlevî lodge taught him more

Mevlevî rites with emphasis on rhythmic structure. Ahmed Celaleddin

Dede (1853-1946), the Sheikh of Üsküdar Mevlevî lodge, taught him a

few more rites. Hobçuzade Ahmed [Gavsi] Efendi (d. 1908)208, the

zakirbaşı of Kadirî lodge at Tophane, trained him on miraciye. He

208 Further information on him and his extended family, whose members continued as the

Sehikh of Kadirî lodge in Tophane for three genertions, see Sadettin Nüzhet Ergun, Türk

Musikisi Antolojisi: Dinî Eserler, Vol. 2, pp. 483-484; Hasan Aksoy, “Mehmed Şâkir Efendi”,

DİA, Vol. 28, 2003, p. 530.

201

continued to study with his brother Hobçuzade Rıza Efendi (d. 1924)

after the death of Ahmed Gavsi Efendi. Bolahenk Nuri Bey (1834-1911)

taught him two Mevlevî rites composed by himself, on the modes of

Buselik and Karcığar. Rauf Yekta Bey (1871-1935) helped him to be

familiar with hamparsum notation and theoretical issues in music, while

Şevket Gavsi (1873-1954) trained him on the Western notation. He was a

student of Sheikh Cemal Efendi particularly on the religious forms.209

The quotation underlines the fact that religious music consisted of innumerable

sub-branches. One should also keep in mind that Emin Yazıcı’s proficiency was in

the instrument of ney, not in voice. From an alternative interpretation, the situation

underscores that it was the contribution of each participant that ultimately made

the Ottoman music culture immensely deep and diversified.

5.4.2. Musicians with Religious School Education and Reciters of Qur’an

The sampling contains a considerable amount of musicians who received religious

school, medrese, education and/or musicians who were educated to become

Qur’an reciters. This particular situation could not be overlooked to analyze the

religious basis of music.

Nine musicians were trained in the religious schools to become a member of the

ilmiyye class. However, six out of nine musicians could not accomplish the task

successfully and left their school without a certificate. Their biographical accounts

did not mention much about the failure stories. Only one out of these six

incomplete students ended up in memorizing the Qur’an hence became a reciter,

hafız. That person was Kemal Batanay (1893-1981), whose case of we saw within a

different context. Ali Rıza Sağman (1890-1965) was the only musician that

succeeded in graduating from Süleymaniye Religious School and he also achieved

the task of memorizing the holy book of Islam.

On the part of the Qur’an reciters, the sampling contains more than a few number

of musicians. As the task did not essentially entailed religious school education, they

209 Sadettin Nüzhet Ergun, Türk Musikisi Antolojisi: Dinî Eserler, Vol. 2, p. 669.

202

predominantly studied under the supervision of an experienced reciter. In addition

to Batanay and Sağman, the study included 26 reciters, a proportion of 11 %. Thus,

social and musical analysis of those is necessary to put their case within the general

picture.

According to Table 5.16 reciters were coming largely from rather more spiritual

families. These religiously more devoted families were religious functionaries and

Sufi families. Interestingly, probably for the first time the outcome does not indicate

any official functionary family background.

Table 5.16. Profession of reciters’ fathers (cross tabulation)

Profession Frequency Percent

Rel. Func. 12 42.9

Teacher 1 3.6

Sheikh/dervish 4 14.3

Artisan 1 3.6

Merchant 1 3.6

Military 3 10.7

Unknown 6 21.4

TOTAL 28 100.0

Regarding the association of family types to the process of education, the family

involvement or influence once more appears as a prominent model of training even

though only a few cases explicitly stated that fathers or close relatives trained the

reciters: Süleyman Hikmetî Efendi, the imam of Cedid Ali Pasha Mosgue in Eyüp,

was the father of Zekai Dede (1824-1897). His father was his calligraphy teacher,

while his uncle, İbrahim Zühdi Efendi, known as Pepe Hoca, was his Qur’an teacher

when he was enrolled in primary school in Eyüp. Mustafa Zeki Çağlarman’s (b. 1900)

father, Raşid Efendi, was a scholar in the Fatih religious school. Rakım Elkutlu (1872-

1948)’s father, Şuayip Efendi, was the imam of Hisar Mosque at İzmir. Nevertheless,

the small amount of fathers who were reported to raise their offspring for the

purpose of being a reciter does not generate controversy. The argument gives

203

emphasis to pervasive religious atmosphere in the family and the professional

networks set by fathers, but not necessarily the direct engagement of fathers. The

network points out, among other advantages, to the case of procuring a teacher

without great effort.

Besides, the study stated previously that out of 28 religious functionary fathers only

four continued with the family tradition and served as religious functionary, which

was a clear downward trend for the profession. The majority’s professional future

was shaped in the bureaucracy by serving in various posts and positions (see Table

3.17). In other words, the proportions told explicitly that children of religious

functionaries did not prefer to follow the footprints of their fathers.

The majority of the reciters came from similar family background (religious

functionaries), which indicates the strong family impact. However, there is not any

inconsistency or contradiction between the outcomes of Table 3.16 and the

outcomes in Table 5.16. They simply analyze two different things: Table 5.14

emphasized the main income sources of children whose fathers were religious

functionaries. Table 5.16 provides figures for the occupation of reciter musicians’

fathers. As mentioned before, being a reciter neither entails to serve officially in the

religious affairs nor restrains one to get engaged in other occupations. Eventually,

when one compares two associated datasets it would not be wrong to interpret the

situation that 12 out of 28 musicians whose fathers were religious functionary, have

learned the principal part of the job, memorizing Qur’an, but only four chose to

continue professionally. The majority (n = 24) sought career opportunities

elsewhere.

How then these reciters made a living is a good question to understand the future

career choices of those 28. Because it seems there is a correlation between them.

204

Table 5.17. Main income source of reciters

Income Source Frequency Percent

Music 3 10.7

Official Functionary 9 32.1

Religious Functionary 9 32.1

Sheikh/Dervish 1 3.6

Artisan 2 7.1

Self-employed 1 3.6

MOI

3 10.8

Rel. func - Teacher 1 3.6

Rel. func - Artisan 1 3.6

Off. Func. – Self emp. 1 3.6

TOTAL 28 100.0

Table 5.17 brings two jobs to the forefront. Religious functionaries would slightly

exceed official functionaries when the jobs in the “more than one income source”

category totaled. It has to be noted that, four out of nine religious functionaries

fathers were also religious functionaries, whose cases were just discussed above.

Briefly, being a reciter occupationally made those closer to be a part of the religious

affairs. Another set of outcome regarding to the chief income source of musicians in

total provides a basis to the argument as well. The study contained 257 musicians,

in which 16 musicians were official religious functionaries (6.3 % in total). Thus nine

out of those 16 were reciters.

Yet the table indicates only three reciter musicians whose main income source was

music: Zekai Dede (1824-1897), Mehmed Esref Efendi (d. 1930), and Hafız Burhan

(1897-1943). Actually, Zekai Dede’s case was more or less the traditional patronage

relation which is a pattern not many musicians in the sampling shared with. He lived

under the artistic patronage of Mustafa Fazıl Pasha (1829-1875) for about twentyfive

years. Mehmed Eşref Efendi owned a music store in Divanyolu Street,

Sultanahmet, where he traded music instruments, printed (sheet) music and held

205

music classes. Hafız Burhan was a significant figure in the music market. He

recorded innumerable songs and gazels for Colombia recording company.210

Eventually, the study discussed to what extent being a reciter had an impact on the

future career choices of reciters. It was surely more helpful to find a position in the

religious affairs and hence it was the predominant pattern among the reciters.

What about the musical advantages of it? It is possible to discuss the issue through

the musical specialty distribution among reciters.

Table 5.18 does not leave much room to analyze the outcomes. The dominant

musical specialty was profoundly related with the background of musicians.

Table 5.18. Reciters’ musical specialty

Instrument Frequency Percent

Voice 18 64.8

Tanbur 2 7.1

Ney 1 3.6

Oud 4 14.3

NPI 2 7.1

Tanbur-Piano 1 3.6

TOTAL 28 100.0

A reciter was essentially a singer whose musical education was decisively focused

on how to use the voice correctly and efficiently. They were already prepared and

trained before entering the music market. That explains the high frequency of voice

at the expense of other instruments. Probably the only interesting case is the one

who played tanbur and piano. He was Medenî Aziz Efendi (1842-1895). He was born

as a son of an imam but was adopted by Abdulmecid’s daugher Fatma Sultan’s

210Online catalogue prepared by Pan Publishing House, Istanbul, lists the Hafız Burhan

recordings:

https://tasplak.pankitap.com/index.php?pg=1&firma=&katalog_no=&eser=&makam=&yor

umcu=haf%C4%B1z%20burhan (accessed on 22 August 2018).

206

household and he was raised in the palace. That explains his engagement with

piano.

The subsequent part will continue to analyze those whose musical character was

mainly shaped by religious music. The section will place the Sufi lodges to its center.

The impact of Sufi institutions to music and musicians raised in the Sufi lodges will

be the main topics of the following section.

5.5. A Sociocultural Analysis of Musicians with Sufi Affiliation

The part together with subsequent sections will particularly focus on two issues:

Analyzing the characteristics of musicians who were affiliated to a Sufi organization

and the Sufi impact on the music education. Indeed, it will pay particular attention

to the Mevlevî order, whose participants constituted the bigger proportion in the

distribution of orders among Sufi musicians.

Table 5.19. Sufi involvement distributed to orders

Mevlevî 40 15.6

Rufaî 10 3.9

Nakşî 2 .8

Hâlidî 1 .4

Kadirî 5 1.9

Halvetî 5 1.9

Ahmediyye, Uşşakî 1 .4

Cemâliyye, Nasuhî 1 .4

Bektaşî 1 .4

Sadî 2 .8

Affiliation unclear

(visiting more than one

lodge)

4 1.6

Other 3 1.2

Unknown 182 70.8

TOTAL 257 100.0

207

The frequencies are based on the clear statements on the Sufi involvement in the

biographies. As mentioned previously, the term includes a wide range of positions,

from being an official member of certain Sufi order to paying visits to a Sufi lodge

irregularly (muhibbân).

Related with the unknown category, it also contained 28 non-Muslim musicians, 11

%. It does not obviously mean that a Non-Muslim would not visit a Sufi lodge; in

fact, there were non-Muslims who frequented the Sufi lodges. However,

biographies of non-Muslim musicians in the sampling did not refer to such an

involvement. The unknown category particularly for this case should be considered

in the negative sense. I pointed the underlying reasons when I analyzed the

musicians that were resided in the Eyüp neighborhood.

According to the results, the Sufi association reaches 29.2 % of the total. Within

these 75 musicians, the Mevlevî order was the predominant one. In fact, the sum of

other orders was smaller than the Mevlevî musicians. The situation entails more

concentration in the Mevlevî order and the musicians who were in a range of ways

affiliated to it.

5.5.1. Mevlevî Musicians Reconsidered

Exploring the family background of musicians in the Mevlevî category reveals that

about one third (32.5 %) of them belonged to families of government officials, while

20 % were born into Sufi families (mostly members of Sheikh families). As to the

statistics on the birthplaces, Istanbul was clearly the main city. It was the birthplace

of 32 Mevlevî musicians, 80 % of the Mevlevî musicians in total. Yet the same

number of musicians received primary education there. Higher education rates in

the group were also considerable: Fourteen musicians (35 %) received higher

education. When the percentages are compared to the overall educational

statistics, one may realize that Mevlevî musicians shared a notable part. Seventyeight

musicians (30.3 %) in the sampling have received higher education, while the

Mevlevî musicians constituted 18 % of it. Interestingly, only two received higher

education in the religious studies. However, none have completed it: They were

208

Nurullah Kılıç (1879-1975) and Gavsi Baykara (1902-1067). The frequency of reciters

was also significant in the group. The study included 28 reciters. Amongst them the

number of Mevlevî musicians was nine that eventually made 32% of the group.

Regarding the cultural contribution of Mevlevî musicians, almost half of the group

was active in writing and publishing on musical and non-musical issues. Seventeen

musicians in the group (42.5 %) published books, wrote articles to journals and

newspapers.

Searching into the occupational distribution, the outcome described the situation

that 42.5 % served in the bureaucracy, while 15 % gained income from musical

activities. Yet the results pointed to four Sufis (10 %), who all passed away before

the state officially closed the Sufi lodges in 1925. Otherwise they would have

searched for an appropriate occupation. The rest of the musicians were religious

functionaries, teachers, artisans, and doctors, more or less represented equally in

the sample. In a broader perspective, questioning 75 musicians’ occupational

distribution in the Sufi group does not generate radical change but represents

similar income trends: 44 % employed in public offices, while 14.7 % financially

supported by music and 12 % made a living through a Sufi lodge. All in all, the socioeconomic

basis of the Sufi organizations might be derived from the occupational

distribution results. The argument is relevant to the Mevlevî order since it

presented similar patterns as well. The order achieved to attract the attention of

musicians from different layers of society and the condition was not contrary at all

given the sociological background of the Ottoman music, which the study

underlines it from different perspectives.

5.5.2. The Sufi Impact on the Music Education

Musicians in the Sufi category did not produce an atypical picture in terms of

training models when the proportions are compared to the general trends. The

family impact and private tutor were apparently two dominant models of learning

within the Sufi musician category:

209

Table 5.20. Music education types among Sufi musicians

Types Frequency Percent

Family 2 2.7

Tutorage 29 38.7

Music School 1 1.3

Self-taught 2 2.7

Mûzîka-i Hümâyûn 2 2.7

Unknown 1 1.2

Combined types

Family and tutorage 32 41.6

Other combinations 6 7.8

TOTAL 75 100.0

In fact, analysis of learning models presented above would be in parallel with the

interpretations on the previously debated musicians. However, focusing more on

the educational details brings one feature to the forefront and it is what would

make the real difference with other categories. The educational records

overemphasize the spot where the music education has taken place: It was the Sufi

lodges but particularly the ones belonging to the Mevlevî order. Fify nine musicians

out of 75 had ties to a Sufi lodge in order to learn music, which is 78.7 % in total.

Mehmet Cemal Efendi (1847-1916) was truly a musician of Sufi production. He was

trained by Sheikh Rıza Efendi of Hatuniye Sufi lodge in Eyüp. Zekai Dede (1824-

1897) also played role in his education process. Yet he studied to learn hamparsum

notation system with ney player Baba Raşid. It was not others but Sufi musicians

who trained him at every stage of his music education. Two stages were critical for

the musical development of Ahmet Rasim Bey (1864-1932). The music classes held

during the elementary level at Darrüşşafaka (Orphanage) School and the musical

atmosphere in the Bahariye Mevlevî lodge, to which he paid visits in his early life.

Zekai Dede was the source as well as the one who linked the two places for Ahmet

Rasim. İzzeddin Hümaî Bey’s (1875-1950) father was a sheikh of Kadirî order in

Fatih. His father and zakirbaşı Mehmed Efendi instructed him musically. The father

210

of Ali Rıza Şengel (Eyyübî, 1878-1953) was zakirbaşı in the Cerrahî lodge in Eyüp and

his uncle was a Sufi sheikh, which shows that extended family networks and the

surrounding community already determined his musical path. Behlül Efendi (d.

1895) was affiliated with Sheikh Osman Selahaddin Dede (1820-1887) of Yenikapı

Mevlevî lodge, where he received music training. When Kazım Uz (1873-1943)

decided to compose a na’t, his music teacher Zekai Dede told him to acquire

knowledge and skill from Behlül Efendi, “na’t ve durağın tavrını bu zattan öğren”.

The attitude particularly declared the authority of Behlül Efendi in certain religious

forms. The relative examples might easily be extended, nevertheless, brief

quotations from biographical accounts demonstrate clearly the significance of Sufi

lodges in the Ottoman music world. Eventually, the research findings lay a solid

foundation to the often-encountered historiographical debate about the

educational function of Sufi lodges.

Focusing more on the Sufi musicians’ instrumental specialty will provide an

alternative perspective to the debate.

Table 5.21. Musical specialty among Sufi musicians

Instrument Frequency Percent

Singer 31 41.3

Ney 16 21.3

Tanbur 1 1.3

Kanun 1 1.3

Oud 3 4.0

Kemenche 1 1.3

Violin 2 2.7

NPI 6 8.0

Moi 14 18.2

TOTAL 75 100.0

The outcome demonstrates that musicians in the Sufi group explicitly concentrated

more on two instruments: The voice and the ney. The oud would follow those when

one totals its frequency in the Moi category. The two instruments were

211

undoubtedly the ones who took the lead in Sufi rituals, particularly in the Mevlevî

ceremonies. However, I do not specifically deal with the music performed in the

lodges. The musicians who learned music in Sufi lodges did not constrain their

musical identity to religious music only. In fact, one encounters references to

musical gatherings playing non-religious repertoire even in the Sufi lodges. Thus,

musicians either Sufi in origin or not would be familiar with all the forms, religious

and non-religious. The musician networks confirm the opinion. As their case has

been discussed before, even the reciters, who were supposed to be the most pious

of all, were in close relation to the teachers who had more proficiency in nonreligious

music, in order to get the relevant repertoire.

Fourteen musicians in the Moi (more than one instrument players) group included

primarily singers and oud players.

Table 5.22. Musical specialty among Moi group

Instrument Frequency Percent

Singer-Kanun 3 4.0

Singer-Oud 5 6.7

Singer-Violin 1 1.3

Kanun-Oud 1 1.3

Kanun-Violin 1 1.3

Ney-Oud 1 1.3

Oud-Piano 1 1.3

Ney-Other 1 1.3

TOTAL 14 18.2

Zekai Dede, who joined the Mevlevî order in his older ages, might be an example of

an opposite case. Therefore, all those individual cases point the general rule in the

Ottoman/music that, no matter which instrument the specialty was, musicians were

to be familiar with all the forms without any restraint. However, the special field

was to demand more time, energy and sacrifice. It was the underlying reason of

studying with multiple teachers, which would essentially help to broaden the

musical knowledge.

212

Indeed, the research findings call for an explanation on ney, which the instrument

demonstrated a huge concentration considering the overall number of ney players

in the sampling. Nineteen out of 21 ney players in the sampling were Sufi affiliated

musicians, 90.4 % of the total.

5.5.3. A Brief Social History of Ney and the Players

To write on ney is in a way undemanding due to extensive literature on the subject.

However, the situation also limits the author because the literature predominantly

and repeatedly underlines its role within the Mevlevî culture.

Photo 5.5. Ney, the principal instrument of Mevlevî music

Source: The photograph was taken by Sébah and Joailler, from Engin Çizgen,

Photography in the Ottoman Empire, 1839-1919, Haşet, İstanbul, 1987, pp. 120-121.

The general consensus on the role of the instrument in the religious music acts as

an impediment in the way of developing alternative approaches to the issue.

Historians of music have not yet produced a biographical study of a ney player to

analyze the social change that the Ottoman music underwent from the late

213

Ottoman to Early Republican periods. Cem Behar’s study on Hayri Tümer (1902-

1973) is still an exception in the field.211 In brief, the author underscored Tümer’s

hesitations to take a more liberal stance towards the changing conditions of music.

Due to the lack of biographical researches, it is still difficult to grasp the impact of

change at the micro level, on the participants of this music who experienced the

time period in question. Thus, given the limitations of literature, the section will

collectively analyze ney players in order to reveal the typical and atypical patterns

they have produced.

Table 5.23. Profession of ney players’ fathers

Profession Frequency Percent

Official Func. 5 23.8

Religious Func. 3 14.3

Teacher 1 4.8

Sheikh/dervish 5 23.8

Military 1 4.8

Unknown 6 28.6

TOTAL 21 100.0

The table indicates that the social background of ney players was not

unconventional, as they were coming either from government officials or Sufi

families. When the percentages are compared to reciters’ fathers there appear

differences. To be noted, reciters and ney players did not overlap with each other,

so comparing both groups will enhance the analysis. Yet why these two groups

consisted of different musicians should be questioned. The fathers’ occupational

distribution shows that reciters were predominantly coming from religious

functionary families (42.9 %). It might be considered that they responded in a more

conservative way towards their offspring and raised them as reciters. For the ney

players, the occupational distribution of fathers does not imply such a pattern.

211 Cem Behar, “Gelenek ve Modernlik Arasında Bir Yirminci Yüzyıl Neyzeni: Hayri Tümer

(1902-1973) ve “Ney Metodu”” in Musikiden Müziğe, Osmanlı/Türk Müziği: Gelenek ve

Modernlik, YKY, Second Edition, 2008, İstanbul, pp. 117-134.

214

Statistical analysis on the birthplace of ney players reveals that 17 out of 21 were

born in Istanbul (81 %), except one who lived in Izmir. Three out of four non-

Istanbul born musicians moved to Istanbul where they received primary education.

Attendance to higher education was significantly high as the results show that nine

out of 21 have received higher education (42.9 %). Three ney players further

studied in religious field but only one succeeded in completing. He was Ahmed

Celaleddin Dede (1853-1946) who studied in the al-Azhar at Cairo.

Questioning the language skills between ney players, reciters, and pianists might

yield results for the argument. Persian and Arabic were most frequent languages

among ney players; each language had seven musicians. Four of them spoke French,

while seven musicians’ language skill was unknown. Given the Mevlevî literature,

which fundamentally relied on Persian, this high frequency is reasonable since the

number slightly exceeds the amount of sheikh families. The proportions for

language skills run in parallel to the reciter’s language patterns. Out of 28 reciters in

total, seven were familiar with Arabic and six with Persian, while only three had the

knowledge of French language (10.7 % in total). Nevertheless, comparing the

figures with pianists might be interesting: French language, for instance, is

dramatically high among the pianists. Seven out of 15 pianists were familiar with

French (46.6 %) while none of them showed interest in Persian. Yet the outcome

shows that only one pianist was familiar with Arabic. Yet, there was not any pianist

that came either from religious functionary or from Sufi families. Although

statistical outcomes on language results and family background alone are not

adequate to classify and hence perceive certain instrument as more traditional or

less modern in the Ottoman music, however, they do provide insights into the

argument.

215

Table 5.24. Income source of ney players

Income Source Frequency Percent

Music 4 19.0

Official Func. 10 47.6

Religious Func. 1 4.8

Sheikh/dervish 4 19.0

Doctor 1 4.8

Military 1 4.8

TOTAL 21 100.0

Official service appeared as the prevailing way of providing income. However, the

argument that associated reciters with religious functionary occupationally cannot

be applied to practitioners of ney. Neither their family background nor the

professional career choices generated characteristics similar to those of reciters.

Based on the research results it might be said that being a reciter was more

influential in the career paths of those than musicians who were affiliated with ney.

The outcome showed four ney players derived income from music at least more

regularly than others. Cemal Efendi (İzmir, 1874-1905), Tevfik Kolaylı (1879-1953),

Gavsi Baykara (1902-1967) and Burhaneddin Ökte (1905-1973). The case of Gavsi

Baykara was already mentioned in the context of the financial insecurities related to

music. One may also question Tevfik Kolaylı who with his life choices challenged the

established rules. No matter how misfit he was, music and thus music-based

income represented him more than anything else. It could not be said that other

musicians never benefited from ney financially, as it was in the case of İhsan Aziz

Bey (1884-1935). He served in the Ottoman bureaucracy for long years and his

music career began immediately after his retirement. Therefore, the study grouped

those according to their primary occupations.

Given the musical homogeneity among the ney players, I still emphasize certain

points. Ney players were taught the ney almost always in a Sufi and mainly in a

Mevlevî lodge. Yenikapı, Bahariye, Galata and Kasımpaşa Mevlevî lodges were

216

frequently stated places of music education in the biographical accounts. Apart

from the highly encountered names such as Aziz Dede (d. 1905) and Hüseyin

Fahreddin Dede (1853-1911), accounts pointed out to the names of Hilmi Dede (d.

1921), Hakkı Dede (d. 1918), Celâl Dede (Hafız Melek), and Halid Dede as ney

teachers of significant musicians.212 Although they were serneyzens of Mevlevî

lodges in Istanbul at the turn of the twentieth century, I could not include them into

the sampling owing to the insufficient biographical material. There was only one

case of self-taught in the group: Hafız Hüsnü Efendi (1858-1919). Rifat Bey (Sermüezzin,

1820-1888) and Hacı Faik Bey (d. 1890) trained him musically in the

Imperial Music Academy (mûzîka-i hümâyûn) on voice.

5.6. Hamparsum Knowledge Among Musicians

The transmission of musical knowledge in the Ottoman music heavily relied on

memory from the very beginning, as stated previously. Although the practice of oral

transmission was the most common model, there were a number of attempts to

develop musical notation from the second part of the seventeenth century on.213

212 Burhaneddin Ökte described elaborately his music education in the Yenikapı Mevlevî

lodge with Hilmi Dede, Celal Dede and Halid Dede, see Burhaneddin Ökte, “Musiki

Âleminde 30 Sene”, Türk Musikisi Dergisi, No. 35, 1950, pp. 10 and 24, No. 36, 1950, pp. 10

and 24.

213 To briefly touch upon the critical figures, a multifaceted palace musician Ali Ufkî (d. circa

1677) recorded on paper more than 500 pieces that belonged to 21 different modes. His

musical notations included a range of musical forms, from song repertoire to instrumental

compositions. However, his (Western-based) musical notation indicated a reverse

direction: from right to left, see the critical publishing of Şükrü Elçin, Ali Ufkî: Hayatı,

Eserleri ve Mecmûa-i Saz ü Söz, MEB, İstanbul, 1976. The Sheikh of Galata Mevlevî lodge,

nayî Osman Dede (d. 1730) and Kantemiroğlu (1673-1723) developed musical notations

similar to one another, both of which were based on Arabic letters, see Kantemiroğlu,

Kitabu 'İlmi'l-Musiki 'ala vechi'l-Hurufat, Musikiyi harflerle tesbit ve icra ilminin kitabı, Yalçın

Tura, (ed.) 2 Vol., YKY, İstanbul, 2001. Only about 70 instrumental pieces that were notated

by Osman Dede survived to today. The grandson of Osman Dede, Abdülbaki Nasır Dede

(1765-1821) developed a musical notation based on the Arabic letters, which again

resembled to Kantemiroğlu to a certain degree. Hrisantos, a member of the Greek-

Orthodox church developed a musical notation on the ancient Byzantine model in around

1820s. Under the support of the Church, the notation of Hrisantos also spread into nonreligious

Greek music (exoteric) and Ottoman music from 1830s on, see Nâsır Abdülbaki

Dede, Tedkîk ü Tahkîk, Yalçın Tura (ed.), Pan, İstanbul, 2006; Eugenaia Popescu –Judetz,

Türk Musiki Kültürünün Anlamları, Bülent Aksoy (trans.), Pan, İstanbul, 2007, p. 49; Cem

Behar, Musikiden Müziğe, pp. 250-252.

217

Nevertheless, none of the aforementioned notation models can compare to musical

notation developed by Hamparsum Limonciyan (1768-1839) in terms of popularity

among musicians.

A member of the Armenian Catholic society of Istanbul and a chorist in the church,

Limonciyan’s model was not entirely innovative but a modified version of the

ancient khaz system, the history of which dates back to ninth century. In fact, the

underlying reason for Hamparsum was to preserve the Armenian Church music as

well as to prevent the further impact of Greek Orthodox music on the Armenian

repertoire. Nevertheless, his colleagues stood against his system on the ground that

their authority on the religious repertoire would be shaken. He overcame the

confrontation by offering classes outside of church and by building connections

with Mevlevî musicians. Kerovpyan stated that he frequented to Beşiktaş Mevlevî

lodge in order to make it known that his notation could be effective on the Ottoman

music. Hence, the system, which was essentially formulated for the Armenian

religious music, overran the ethno-religious boundaries and was gradually spread

into the Ottoman music due to its easy application and simplicity. Towards the last

quarter of the nineteenth century, his notation has also gained ground in the

Armenian Church, however, he was not alive to witness it.214

The recent study of Jacob Olley on the writing culture of music in the late

nineteenth century Istanbul offered fresh insights into the subject matter. Oley did

not only question the emergence of Hamparsum notation in the socio-cultural

context, but also considered its employment both in the Armenian religious

repertoire and in the Ottoman music in general. Yet, his quantitative analysis, which

was based on the 69 manuscripts covering about a century from the early

nineteenth century up to the turn of the twentieth century, is highly relevant to my

thesis. The statistical outcome showed that the Hamparsum notation was used by a

small number of musicians and was not as popular as it was believed to be.

214 Eugenaia Popescu –Judetz, Türk Musiki Kültürünün Anlamları, pp. 50-52; Aram

Keropvyan – Altuğ Yılmaz, Klasik Osmanlı Müziği ve Ermeniler, Surp Pırgiç Ermeni Hastanesi

Vakfı Kültür Yayınları, 2010, pp. 93-106.

218

Statistically, It was lower than 10 % before 1880 and it was likely to become around

25 % for the latter period. He also argued that the Armenian musicians recorded 45

out of 69 manuscripts, 65 % of the total. The situation showed clearly that the

Hamparsum notation was under the Armenian domain, even though the proficiency

among Muslims, particularly among the Mevlevî musicians seemed to rise steadily

towards the end of the nineteenth century.215

My research findings on the popularity of Hamparsum notation among musicians

run parallel to the conclusion of Olley. In fact, my statistical outcome showed that

the percentages were even less than the percentages he has pointed out. Only 31

musicians’ biographies explicitly stated that they knew the notation. It is equal to 12

% of the total.216 Nevertheless, the numbers should be approached with caution

since the statistical anlaysis is based on the biographical material. Barkçin

emphasized the issue in his biographical work on Ahmed Avni Konuk (1868-1938).

His students declared clearly that he did not know how to read musical notation.

Even the author hesitated to comment on whether he was familiar with

Hamparsum or not, due to the fact that all the songs he selected for his song-text

collection, Hanende, were already notated in Hamparsum.217 The biographies of

Abdülkadir Töre (1872-1945) and his disciple Ekrem Karadeniz (1904-1981) who

were deeply concerned with the theoretical aspects of music and even developed

alternative notation model, did not mention anything about the issue. Even so, one

cannot be convinced that they were unfamiliar to it.

The source of knowledge is traceable in some biographies. Mehmed Cemal Efendi

215 Jacob Olley, “Writing Music in Nineteenth-Century Istanbul: Ottoman Armenians and the

Invention of Hampartsum Notation”, Martin Stokes (Superviser), Unpublished PhD Thesis,

King’s College London, 2017, pp. 203-205.

216 Muslim musicians familiar with Hamparsum notation were Ataullah Dede, Celaleddin

Dede, Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede, Rauf Yekta, Cemil Bey, Nevres Bey, Refik Fersan, Sadettin

Heper, Ahmed Irsoy, Emin Yazıcı, Mehmed Cemal Efendi, Suphi Ezgi, Hüseyin Sadettin Arel,

Mustafa Nezihî Albayrak, Fehmi Tokay, Hayri Tümer, and Halil Can.

217 Savaş Ş. Barkçin, Ahmed Avni Konuk: Görünmeyen Umman, Klasik, İstanbul, 2009, pp.

129-130.

219

(1847-1916), the zakirbaşı of Sertarikzâde and Hatuniye lodges in Eyüp and

Nureddin Cerrâhî lodge in Fatih, learned the notation from Baba Raşid. However,

little is known about his life except that he was a palace musician. Yet his affiliation

with the Mevlevî order is unclear, as it was the case for the majority of the ney

players in the sampling. The Hamparsum source of Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede (1853-

1911), the sheikh of Bahariye Mevlevî lodge in Eyüp, was Sheihk Halim Efendi of

Rıfaî order at Kozyatağı.218 Sheikh Halim Efendi (d. 1896) played the tanbur and ney

and Aziz Dede regarded him as the true master of the instrument.219 Rauf Yekta Bey

(1871-1935) benefited from Ataullah Dede (1842-1910) and Celaleddin Dede (1849-

1908), the Sheikhs of Galata and Yenikapı Mevlevî lodges, respectively, on the music

theory and notation systems. Nevertheless, searching one generation prior to find

out who instructed Hamparsum to those two sheikhs remains uncertain.

Rauf Yekta seems to be the main source of Hamparsum training since many of the

musicians’ biographies pointed out his name. Emin Yazıcı (1881-1945), and Fehmi

Tokay (1889-1959) were among those. Ahmed Irsoy (1869-1943) the son of Zekai

Dede (1824-1897), learned Hamparsum from Emin Yazıcı, who was actually his

repertoire teacher. It appears that Emin Yazıcı taught Hamparsum notations to his

ney students, who frequented the Galata Mevlevî lodge before the closure of the

Sufi lodges in 1925: Hayri Tümer (1902-1973) and Halil Can (1905-1973). Mustafa

Nezihî Albayrak (1871-1964), who was related to Dede Efendi through the maternal

side of the family, were taught by Ahmet Irsoy, in Hamparsum notation. Besides, he

developed one musical notation, which he named as the “Stenographic Notation of

M. Nezihî Albayrak”.

Another argument put forward by Olley highlights the Armenian presence on the

production of manuscripts he studied.220 My findings underscore its popularity

218 Nuri Özcan, “Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede”, DİA, Vol. 18, 1998, pp. 546.

219 Nuri Özcan, “Halim Efendi”, DİA, Supplement No. 1, 2016, 522-523.

220 Afet (Hapet) Mısırlıyan published a journal in 1910, Saz ve Söz. To make the public

familiar with the Western type of music notation, the journal published the same

compositions that were written both in Hamparsum and staff notations.220 Arşak Efendi

220

among Armenian musicians and hence support his argument from a different

perspective. Only three out of 21 musicians did not know the notation for sure,

while three biographies were silent about the subject matter. One musician, Hırant

Emre Kenkiloğlu (1901-1978) had been blind since infancy. Eventually, 14 out of 21

musicians were equipped with the Hamparsum notation, which makes 66.6 % in the

Armenian musician group.221

Consequently, two groups were apparently engaged more with Hamparsum

notation. Armenians constituted the first. Their religious music background surely

played a role in that. Most of those were trained in the church choirs since

childhood and hence were accustomed to repertoire that was largely written with

Hamparsum. There were also practical reasons. Many of them made music in

professional terms and offered music classes. It was easy to follow or remember a

composition through Hamparsum notation while performing or teaching. Another

group was Mevlevî musicians. When Hamparsum Limonciyan required his notation

to be known outside the church community, he first visited a Mevlevî lodge. He

probably anticipated that Mevlevîs with an institutional structure, refined music

tradition and advanced writing culture would respect and welcome his system.

Besides, the Mevlevî support would pave the way for the utilization of it in the

wider circle of Muslim musicians. Time proved that he was right. His system

gradually spread among Muslim musicians but particulary within the Sufi circles

during the late Ottoman period. Nevertheless, the popularity should not be

exaggerated due to its limited percentage indicated by statistical results. Olley also

(Çömlekciyan, 1880-1930) published many fasıl series in his music store. Kirkor Çulhayan

Efendi (1868-1938) was even entrusted with the task of notating Jewish religous music

through the reference of Izak Varon (1884-1962), Izak Elgazi (1889-1950) and Moshe (Moiz)

Kordova (1881-1965). Karnik Garmiryan (1872-1947) was a participant of church choir and

learned the Hamparsum notation from his master, Kapril Efendi. His life story corresponds

to Bimen Şen, who was a part of the church choir as well. Thus, the familiarity of Bimen Şen

with the Hamparsum notation is open to debate.

221 Musicians with Hamparsum knowledge were Afet (Hapet) Misirliyan, Arşak Efendi

(Çömlekciyan), Astik Ağa (Asadur Hamamciyan), Bogos Efendi (Asdikzade Hamamciyan),

Hosep Efendi (Ebeyan), Karnik Garmiryan, Kirkor Berber, Kirkor Çulhayan Efendi, Leon

Hanciyan Efendi, Melekzet Efendi (Mustafa Nuri), Nubar Tekyay, Serkis Suciyan, Tatyos

Efendi (Keseryan).

221

pointed out two political events, the diminishing of Armenian community in size

and the closure of the Sufi lodges in 1925, with which I also agree in terms of its

effects.222 In fact, those external factors were not only critical for the decreased

popularity of Hamparsum notation but had more important effects on the

weakening of the Ottoman music culture.

Photo 5.6. Leon Hanciyan (1860-1947, on the left) poses with Hamparsum notation

Source: Aram Kerovpyan and Altuğ Yılmaz, Klasik Osmanlı Müziği ve Ermeniler, Surp

Pırgiç Ermeni Hastanesi Vakfı Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010, p. 106.

5.7. Exploring Musicians’ Networks: Who Teaches Whom?

Given the complexity of the task, the quantitative analysis will not only give an idea

about the most popular music teachers of the time period, but will also show the

predominant styles through which music was transmitted. Among the musician

sampling nine names come to the forefront that were more actively involved with

music education.

222 Jacob Olley, “Writing Music in Nineteenth-Century Istanbul”, pp. 241-242.

222

Table 5.25. Most popular music teachers

Names Student Frequency

İsmail Hakkı Bey (1865-1927) 23

Ahmet Irsoy (1869-1943) 22

Bestenigâr Ziya Bey (1877-1923) 19

Zekai Dede (1824-1897) 18

Tanburi Cemil Bey (1872-1916) 17

Rauf Yekta Bey (1871-1935) 16

Haci Kiramî Efendi (1840-1909) 12

Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede (1853-1911) 11

Leon Hanciyan (1860-1947) 10

Zekai Dede presumably would have more students if he had lived one more decade

more due to the number of musicians in the sampling who were born after 1890s.

When one totals his students with the students of Ahmet Irsoy, his son, it would not

be a misleading statement to say that the family was the most fertile school of

music training from the late Ottoman to the Early Republican periods. Yet the

outcome apparently reveals the increased role of music schools immediately after

the first decade of the twentieth century. Five out of nine musicians on the list

either owned a music school or taught in the music schools.

As stated previously, students might have more than one teacher and it was

actually the case for musicians in general. Thus, the student numbers in Table 25

contained cases of overlapping students, which the Gephi visualizations would

better express those musicians.

Besides, a couple of points should be noted in relation to the problems in the

process of developing educational statistics and visuals for musician networks. The

networks did not include musicians beyond the sampling. For example, Ali Rıfat

Çağatay’s (1869-1935) nephew Hatif Efendi was the student of Cemil Bey. The

network analysis did not mention his name since he was not in the musician

sampling. In other words, the statistical analysis is confined to musicians under

223

study and explores the interactions between them. Another issue is related to the

childhood period of musicians, whose houses welcomed musicians for live

performances. In fact, these cases are not so few as to be overlooked. The amount

of musicians could vary from only a handful to more than ten musicians and even

more. For sure, all these teachers had a role in the musical refinement of the

children at home, and their name could be written to the list of music teachers.

However, to prevent further complexity, the network map visualized the people

whose names stated as the music teacher(s) in the biographical accounts.

Finally, the visuals show the teacher at the center, whose students might be

followed by arrows. Arrows help to locate his teachers and his students in different

directions, which the teachers are generally above and are indicated with same

color. The students are in a variety of color and their circles are in different

dimensions in general. These differences do not mean anything for the particular

network map of certain musician. It actually makes sense for the overall network

map of musician sampling for the various algorithms that were used by Gephi.

Figure 5.2. İsmail Hakkı Bey’s (1865-1927) teaching network

224

Figure 5.3. Ahmet Irsoy’s (1869-1943) teaching network

Figure 5.4. Zekai Dede’s (1824-1897) teaching network

225

Figure 5.5. Cemil Bey’s (1872-1916) teaching network

Figure 5.6. Rauf Yekta Bey’s (1871-1935) teaching network

226

Figure 5.7. Hacı Kiramî Efendi’s (1840-1909) teaching network

Figure 5.8. Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede’s (1853-1911) teaching network

227

Figure 5.9. Leon Hanciyan’s (1860-1947) teaching network

5.8. Conclusion

The outcomes indicated that some instruments were apparently more popular than

others and thus provided evidences to write more on their social history. Practical

reasons could explain the popularity issue to a certain degree but some were more

related to the growing commercialization of music right after the late nineteenth

century. Oud, for instance, was the leading instrument among the musician sample

as well as the most visible instrument in the more and more commercialized music

world. The advertisements for live performances in the music halls, theatres, and

concerts, the documents of record companies all underpinned that. Instrumental

reference books were mainly written on oud. Ney indeed produced enough for a

social history. Outcomes on the players’ music education models revealed that Sufi

lodges were the real center to learn it. Another outcome helped to reveal more on

the lodges is that musicians instructed there were predominantly ney players and

singers, since these are the principal instruments of this kind of music. The place of

religious institutions in the musical development was critical for the non-Muslim

musicians as well. The research findings show that their musical education started

228

in the religious choirs. Interestingly, non-Muslims revealed a more conservative

pattern in that they have barely studied with Muslim teachers, a fact which is likely

to generate controversy with the mainstream historiography. The Gephi analysis on

the overall music education networks brought to the forefront some new names.

Sheikh Cemal Efendi of Kasımpaşa was one of them, on whom historiography has

not produced something serious. But the network maps pointed him as the critical

musician particularly for transmitting the religious repertoire. Yet collective network

analysis highlighted the multiple sources of many musicians, which may contribute

to the future studies that would follow the transmitting of one particular repertoire,

such as focusing on the durak form, a Mevlevî repertoire, or to explore the

Hamparsum chain in the late Ottoman era.

229

CHAPTER 6

RECONSIDERING CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN MUSIC

THROUGH THE CAREER PATHS OF MUSICIANS

The previous chapter has dealt with the models of music training and becoming a

musician in the late Ottoman Istanbul. In other words, the main concern was

musicians’ initial steps to the art. This chapter is in a way designed to keep up with

the point where we have left in the previous chapter. To follow the career paths of

musicians will enhance our understanding regarding the change and continuity in

music from the late Ottoman to the republican period. By following the career

patterns of musicians, the aim is to provide new perspectives to the

historiographical debates regarding the breaks with tradition, modernization as well

as continuity in music. The chapter will pay particular attention to music schools

and state radio through a new perspective with a view to reevaluate their roles in

the process of change in music. Yet, the latter part will question the process of

change from a gender perspective to emphasize the women’s responses to change.

6.1. Interpreting the Career Changes

In order to grasp the change and continuity, I analyzed each musician’s career paths

in the sampling and categorized them accordingly. My categorization is not based

on occupations, which means that one may encounter official functionaries in each

group.223 An official, whose professional career might evolve into music after

retirement from the official post, would be a proper case of change at the turn of

223 The basis of the categorization differs from the classification done by Güneş Ayas. The

aim here is to observe and identify the career changes in the sampling in order to see if the

musical opportunities increased, to what extent the musicians were the participants of the

change and eventually what sort of new patterns they generated in the period under

question. Ayas defined Musa Süreyya (1884-1932), for instance, as a proper example of

musicians who adjusted his stance to justify the Early Republican politics in music and thus

to marginalize Ottoman music. The author’s classification sought to explore changes in the

cultural stance of musicians. Nevertheless, Musa Süreyya is included in the group of

musicians whose career path did not reveal a change over time. See Mûsiki İnkılâbı’nın

Sosyolojisi: Klasik Türk Müziği Geleneğinde Süreklilik ve Değişim, Doğu Kitabevi, İstanbul,

2014, pp. 197-210.

230

the republican era. A musician, on the other hand, who was in the music market

(piyasa) from the beginning of his musical career and continued to do so

throughout his life, would be interpreted in the group of musicians who did not

change the career track.

6.1.1. Change in Career Patterns Towards Music

As mentioned above, the categorization does not point to the number of musicians

whose main source of income was music. It simply shows the ones whose careers

had evolved elsewhere but inclined towards music over time. In other words, the

career changes are observed. It is not possible to precisely set the onset date of

change but based on the biographical accounts one may roughly estimate the time

period. It seems that the change in most cases begins with the end of the first

decade of the twentieth century. To state that, there are exceptional cases but

small in number.

Table 6.1. Career changes towards music

Frequency Percent

Yes 80 31.1

No 174 67.7

Unknown 3 1.2

TOTAL 257 100.0

Social background analysis of those 80 musicians’ brings officials to the forefront

once again. The majority of those who experienced career shifts towards music are

the official functionaries. Forty-two former officials sought career opportunities in

music, 52.6 % of the total. Other professions were distributed evenly among

teachers (3.8 %), religious functionaries (6.3 %), self-employed people (5 %), traders

(3.8 %) artisans (2.5 %), doctors (2.5 %) and so on. The previous occupations of two

cases were in the unknown category.

Dürrü Turan (1885-1960) was in the “yes” group due to his professional career

231

change. He was the son of an official functionary whose father, Saffet Bey, served in

the Ministry of Finance. Turan completed his higher education in the Ottoman

University (Dârülfünûn-ı Osmanî) and taught Turkish literature in the public schools.

In between, he was taught music by a number of musicians, including Mustafa

Servet Efendi (1840-1918) and Cemil Bey (1872-1916). He was in the teaching staff

of the Dâr’ül-Elhân Conservatory in 1917 and when it was re-opened in 1923. The

school was transformed into the Istanbul Municipal Conservatory in 1926. He

played tanbur, taught music and Turkish literature in this institute throughout his

life. Indeed, he was among the first musicians of Istanbul Radio, the broadcast of

which began in 1927. He toured Anatolia with a group of musicians and

musicologists to collect traditional folk music in 1927, which was the practice that

characterized the Early Republican politics in music.

Another musician whose career trajectory was mainly shaped in the Early

Republican period was Emin Ongan (1906-1985). He was born into a military family

in Edirne and completed his education in the Edirne High School (Sultanî). His

professional life began in the Tobacco Monopoly (Tütün İnhisarı) in 1936, from

where he retired in 1951. Although he started to play violin in his early ages, his real

music education has begun only after his graduation from the high school. His

family had moved to Üsküdar and he was enrolled in Dârü'l-Feyz-i Musikî, whose

history was closely linked to that of Emin Ongan. The conditions during the World

War I was troublesome for a music school to keep up with the regular education.

Hence the school was closed, the precise date of the closure is unknown, but it was

re-opened by Atâ Bey (Telgrafçı, d. 1934) in 1920 under the name of Anadolu Music

School.224

224 Nurettin Öztan, “Üsküdar Musıkî Cemiyeti ve kurucusu ATÂ BEY”, Musıkî ve Nota, Vol.

10, Issue. 1, August 1970, pp. 16-19.

232

Photo 6.1. The musicians of Anadolu Music School, 1920

Source: Nurettin Öztan, “Üsküdar Musıkî Cemiyeti ve kurucusu ATÂ BEY”, p. 16

Eventually, the school was re-named as the Üsküdar Musikî Cemiyeti in 1923. It

seems that there is a controversy among historical sources regarding Emin Ongan’s

involvement in the school. His musical career evolved in this school while he still

served in the Tobacco Monopoly. He was first enrolled as a music student, and then

became a teacher and eventually the head of the school. Yet his teaching career

continued in the Istanbul [University] Municipal Conservatory from 1945 on and in

the Istanbul Technical University Conservatory from 1976 on.

Indeed, there were musicians inside the “yes” group, who did not engage in music

teaching either privately or in the music schools but derived income from other

musical practices. Although smaller in number (n = 9), they performed music in

various places, including coffee houses, theatres, music halls and so on.225 Hafız

Hüsnü Efendi (1858-1919) was born into a moderate religious functionary family.

His father, Mehmet Hakkı Efendi, was the imam of the Harem Mosque in Üsküdar.

Hüsnü Efendi was educated in the Imperial Music Academy (mûzîka-i hümayûn)

225 Hafız Hüsnü Efendi (1858-1919), Mehmed İzzet Efendi (1861-1894) Ahmet Bey (Selanikli,

1869-1926), Asdikzâde Bogos Efendi (1872-1945), Ali Rıza Bey (Kaptanzâde, 1881-1934),

Tahsin Karakuş (1892-1959), Hüseyin Efendi (Sebilci, 1894-1975), Marko Çolakoğlu (1896-

1957), Hakkı Derman (1907-1972).

233

whose theachers were Rifat Bey (1820-1888) and Hacı Faik Bey (d. 1890). He was

assigned prestigious positions in the palace, such as teaching to read Qur’an in the

enderûn (Imperial School) and being the second imam of the Hırka-i Şerîf room in

1900. Although the retirement date from the palace could not be determined, his

life account states that he was an active practitioner in the music market. He was a

member of the Hafız Burhan’s (fasıl) group for many years, which was on stage in a

music hall in Şişhane in the Beyoğlu district. Marko Çolakoğlu (1896-1957) was born

into the Rum community of Karaman. After his family moved to Istanbul, he began

to learn music as a disciple of the first cantor (Protopsaltis, başmuganni) Iakovos

Naupliotis (1864-1942) in the Orthodox Patriarchate at Phanar (Fener). He was a

self-employed broker and commissioner. His account does not mention why and

when he changed his career track but he bought a tavern in the Arnavutköy shore,

where he played oud and sang with his (fasıl) group.

İsmail Safa Olcay (1907-1969) presents an interesting case as his career trajectory

ran in the opposite direction. He was born into a low class religious functionary

(vaiz) family in Amasya. In fact, he was quite lucky to meet an important musician

from Istanbul in his hometown. He got his initial training in music by Asım Bey

(1851-1929), who was a political exile to Amasya in the Hamidian era and was

forced to live there for almost twenty years. When Olcay moved to Istanbul after

1921, he worked with Vitali Efendi and Artaki Efendi to play kanun. In Istanbul, he

was a practitioner musician who played violin and kanun in the (fasıl) groups of

Leon Hanciyan and Kemani Serkis. It is likely that he was not satisfied with working

in the music market and was seeking a career opportunity that would allow for

regular working hours with a steady income. Eventually, he found a regular job.

Between 1937 and 1954 he taught making and repairing wooden structures in a

school in Eskişehir, which belonged to the State Railways. Then he was appointed to

a factory in Adapazarı that produced wagons. His biographical account does not

mention that he ever returned to Istanbul close to his death in 1969.

What comes out from the biographical accounts is that former civil servants were

the subjects of the change in most cases. They were musicians by nature and hence

234

shifting to a career in music was not anticipated. However, the aim is to explore

what sort of patterns they produced in their careers that took a new turn. It

appears that many of them concentrated on the music education but particularly

teaching at the music schools. Therefore, there appears to be a connection

between musicians with the official past and the music schools. Moreover, there

are musicians in the “no” category, who associated with the music schools. I argue

that the music schools, in majority a joint enterprise of musicians, stood at the

center of the change in music. I will further develop my argument in the part that

would deal with these institutions’ impact on music and musicians.

6.1.2. The Consistent Musicians

Musicians whose life stories did not show critical track change in the professional

terms formed the “no” group (n = 174). Many of those were “professional”

musicians and were placed in this group, on the ground that their source of income

continued to be based on the art that they were the experts of. Indeed, an artisan,

whose musical world was shaped largely by musical gatherings or within the Sufi

circles and did not seem to change the musical habits, was inside the group of

consistent musicians.

235

Table 6.2. Continuity observed among the occupational groups

Source of Income Frequency Percent

Music Based 74 42.5

Official Functionary 44 25.3

Religious Functionary 8 4.6

Teacher 9 5.2

Sheikh, dervish 7 4.0

Artisan 6 3.4

Doctor, Pharmacist 3 1.7

Engineer 3 1.7

Writer (journalist, etc.) 4 2.3

Self-employed 3 1.7

Other 8 4.6

Unknown 5 2.9

TOTAL 174 100.0

The concentration of musicians in the group is not surprising since I placed

professional musicians here. Among those 30 musicians were strictly bound to the

music market (40.5 %), whereas the proportion was only 11.5 % for the musicians in

the “yes” category.

In fact, what was the main characteristic for those 74 musicians was their lesser

connection with the music schools and hence with teaching music. That was a

significant difference between the musicians that were organized in these two

different groups allowing us to observe the continuity and the change in their

careers. The statistical outcome shows that 72.5 % of musicians in the “yes” group

(58 out of 80), whose career paths shifted to music, were in connection with music

schools in a range of positions, from teaching to performing. The proportion for the

musicians with unchanging career paths dropped sharply to 28 % (49 out of 174). I

will discuss the issue of music schools in more detail in the next part.

236

One of those 30 musicians was violinist Memduh Efendi (1868-1938) who was born

into a musician family in Istanbul and whose father was violinist Emin Aga. He was

part of the music groups performing in the coffee houses and music halls of the city

(see Tables 15 and 22 in the Chapter Four for places where he performed). He

opened a music store in Kapalıçarşı in 1908 in order to sell musical instruments as

well as to offer music classes. Later on, he began to run a tavern in Kadıköy with a

group of musicians. Yet he recorded music for various companies.

Arşak Efendi (Çömlekciyan, 1880-1930) who learned to play violin from the customs

officer Kirkor Çulhayan (1868-1938), performed at music halls and taverns of

Beyoğlu. Yet he owned a music shop, where he sold instruments, wrote and

published fasıl notations and taught music. Similar life pattern was that of the

kanun player Nubar Efendi’s (b. 1885). His musical performances in the taverns,

music halls and coffee house extended over a wider geographical area, from

Istanbul to Cairo and to Baghdad. He eventually settled in Aleppo and ran a tavern

there. Neither the place where he died nor the date is known.

Ahmet Mükerrem Akıncı (1885-1940) was born into a religious functionary family.

His father served in the Davutpaşa Kışla Mosque. After he graduated from Menşe-i

Küttab-ı Askeriye, he entered the official service at the Ministry of Military Affairs. In

between, he voluntarily served in the same mosque after his father’s death. It

seems that he did not receive a proper music education since he was a self-taught

oud player. Only in 1919, he began to study music with kanun player Mehmet Bey,

who was the student of Latif Ağa from the Imperial Music Academy. According to

İbnülemin, his official life ended in 1909. However, his personal record shows that

he was still in the office in September 1911.226 More importantly, his career did not

evolve into a musical career, in opposite to many of the former official

functionaries’ career trajectory that I examined. His musical habits did not change

much as he was connected to the music by musical gatherings. It seems that he did

226 “…şubesi Hesab Kısmı mümeyyizliğinde mumaileyhin müdavim ve hüsnü ahlak

ashabından olduğu tasdik kılınmışdır…13 Eylül 1327”, BOA, DH.SAİD, 183-13 (13).

237

not give up this practice throughout his life. Musicians were gathering in his house

first in Fatih and then in Bostancı after he moved there.

Hadi Bey (Yeniköylü, d. 1920) was a scribe in the Regie Company (Reji Şirketi). His

father was an imam who helped to develop his musical character. In between, he

was taught music by one of Dede Efendi’s (1777-1846) students, Hasan Efendi

(Yeniköylü, 1822-1910). He particularly specialized in the religious music due to his

lifetime affiliation with the Sufi circles of Istanbul. After his official duty ended, the

precise date of which is unknown, he was not employed by one of the music schools

even though he was known for his immense song repertoire, nor did he perform

music in public apart from the Sufi lodges.

The father of Hulusi Gökmenli (1902-1975) was a reciter of Qur’an, which helps to

explain his association with the Sufi milieu of Istanbul. He paid visits to the Tahir

Aga Sufi lodge in Cibali (Fatih), of which Sheikh Cemal Efendi (1870-1937), Kazım Uz

(1873-1943), Kemal Batanay (1893-1981) and Saadeddin Kaynak (1895-1961) were

the avid frequenters. Indeed, he was the student of Sheikh Cemal Efendi. The

classes were held in the Küçük Piyale Pasha Mosque in Kasımpaşa, where Cemal

Efendi served as an imam. He owned a glass factory and ran a shop where he traded

glass in Eminönü. Partly owing to his well-established business on glass and partly to

his affiliation with Sufi circles and hence his attachment to the religious music, he

never performed in the music market. He was nicknamed Camcı Hulusi.

As the story of his life reveals, Cevdet Çağla (1902-1988) seems to be a proper

example due not only to his consistency in music but also his ability to adapt to a

range of new musical opportunities, including recording music, employment in

music schools and membership in Istanbul and Ankara radios. He was born into a

musical family. His mother played the piano and his father organized regular

musical gatherings at home. Antonyadis, who was then the violin teacher of the

Dârü’l-Elhân Conservatory, taught him Western-style violin. In between, he was a

regular student of the Dârü’t-Talîm-i Musikî, where he was employed as a music

teacher for a long time. When the Istanbul radio operated between 1927 and 1938,

238

he was in the first group of musicians to attend the programs. Between 1938 and

1949, he was an Ankara radio musician. He returned to Istanbul with the re-opening

of the radio in 1949 but this time he was there only for six years. Between 1956 and

1959, he was invited as a music teacher to the Baghdad Conservatory with a group

of musicians, including Mesud Cemil (1902-1963).

Eventually, the aim was to define the change in better terms and to see how

comprehensive the change was in music. Based on the statistical outcomes, roughly

one third of the musicians in the sampling whose previous careers had evolved into

other professions, sought financial gain in music. The amount might easily be

interpreted as a growth in the music market. It is noteworthy that slightly more

than half of those newcomers to the music sector were former official

functionaries. The finding has to be further explored, as none of the people

belonging to other occupations entered into music professionally as the officials

did. Therefore, the following part will call into question the music schools and the

officials, who avidly participated in this novel space of music.

6.2. The Social Basis of the Music Schools

Music schools whose number increased rapidly after the first decade of the

twentieth century were totally a new phenomenon for the Ottoman/Turkish music.

The model, which did not exist a generation ago, provided a new understanding on

the process of music training and quickly spread into the musical centers of the city.

Indeed, the cases indicate that this type of organization reached wider areas in the

empire, which meant more people got in touch with music than before.

Furthermore, the music schools provided students with more musical opportunities

under one roof. A high number of musicians and a range of instruments were to be

found in a music school. Such a comfort should be considered serious due to the

often-encountered expressions of musicians regarding the difficulties they

experienced in the course of music training.227 Finally, public concerts organized by

227 Burhaneddin Ökte is a good example of troublesome music training, see Burhanettin

Ökte, “Musiki Âleminde 30 Sene”, Türk Musikisi Dergisi, No. 35, 1950, p. 10.

239

music schools (another novelty) were an effective means to broaden its base, reach

out to more people and bring them into the music community. The outcome, which

is learning music according to the age categories, confirm the argument that the

students of these institutions were coming mainly from the families with a low level

of interest in music, if any. Thus, I called those “outsiders” to the musician

community, due to the fact that they entered into the art late in life as compared to

the majority of musicians (see the relevant outcomes in the Chapter Five).

All these music-related issues are significant to understand the effects of music

schools. The available literature that consisted of memoirs, journal articles, books

and academic studies inform in detail the names of the founders, teaching staff, the

musical activities, music education models, students, so on.228 However, none of

them calls into question the social role they played. A whole new approach to the

music schools will provide an alternative view to the issue. Apart from their musical

contribution, which I pointed above, my question is why did these schools emerge?

In England, for instance, musicians came together to discuss the problems they

faced and to improve their living standards towards the end of the nineteenth

century. The Society of Professional Musicians was founded in 1892 (renamed as

the Incorporated Society of Musicians in 1896), and the Union of Graduates in

Music in 1893. Indeed, similar organizations were opened in the provincial cities of

England. Although they were to provide financial support to deprived musicians, the

real motivation behind these organizations may be summarized under three

headings: obtaining legal recognition (and license), forming musician unions similar

to other professional unions and improving music education. In order to aid

228 Hüsnü Tüzüner, “Gülşenî Musiki Mektebi Hatıralarım”, Türk Musikisi, Vol. 2, Issue 19,

May 1949, p. 7 and Vol. 20, June 1949, p. 6; Laika Karabey, “Şark Musiki Cemiyeti Nasıl

Teşekkül Etti ?”, Musiki Mecmuası, Vol. 60, 1 February 1953, pp. 356-360; Cem Atabeyoğlu,

“Musiki âlemimizden…”, p.21, Taha Toros Archive, No. 001527875006, İstanbul Şehir

University; Güntekin Oransay, “Cumhuriyetin İlk Elli Yılında Geleneksel Sanat Musikimiz”,

Ankara Üniversitesi İlâhiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, No. 117, Ankara, 1973, pp. 227-272; Nuri

Özca, “Dârülmûsikî-i Osmânî”, DİA, Vol. 8, 1993, p. 553; Dârütta’lîm-i Mûsiki”, DİA, Vol. 9,

1994, pp. 9-10; Nuri Güçtekin, “İlk Türk Mûsikî Cemiyeti: Dârülmûsikî-i Osmanî Cemiyeti

(Mektebi) ve Faaliyetleri (1908-1914)”, Rast Müzikoloji Dergisi, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2015, pp. 42-

58.

240

unemployed and elderly musicians, they organized charity concerts, collected

membership dues and sought the economic support of the wealthy people.229 I

argue that the music schools that emerged from the late Ottoman to the Turkish

Republic might be considered in the similar context. It is obvious that they were not

a kind of guild or labor union but were music schools. Although they did not declare

such a mission, the ways they operated allows this study to perceive them as such.

The first characteristic to be underlined was collectivity. The majority of these

schools were a joint enterprise of musicians. Probably the only example of support

given by a patron was Şark Musikî Cemiyeti that was established in 1918 in the

Kadıköy district. The financial support provided by Süreyya Pasha (İlmen, 1874-

1955), albeit for a limited period of time, did not change the fact that the school

was founded by a group of musicians. Due to the projects he designed for the

school, it might be said that the school was not more than a profit-making

enterprise for the Pasha.230 The motivation of financial gain, nevertheless, was not

unique to Şark Musikî Cemiyeti. Almost all the schools that operated in Istanbul

undertook similar paid activities, including public concerts, regular music training,

sheet-music publishing, and contract with record companies.

My approach to these schools as the financially autonomous, collective effort of

musicians as well as a means of support for the employed musicians does not

encompass Dârü’l-Bedayî-i Musikî and Dârü’l-Elhân Conservatory due to the fact

that both were state sponsored projects.

229 Cyril Ehrlich, The Music Profession in Britain since the Eighteenth Century: A Social

History, pp. 126-129; Deborah Rohr, The Careers and Social Status of British Musicians,

1750-1850, pp. 182-183.

230 Laika Karabey’s article elaborately explains the formative period of the school, which

also provides the letter of Süreyya Pasha written on the subject matter, “Şark Musiki

Cemiyeti Nasıl Teşekkül Etti ?”, pp. 356-360.

241

Cemil Pasha (Topuzlu, 1866-1955) established the former as an imperial theatre in

1914, which included music branch and was administrated by Istanbul Municipality,

whereas the Ministry of Education founded the latter in 1917.231

The second significant feature is that the musicians of these schools were mainly

former official functionaries. Such a characteristic, which went unnoticed by the

historiography, is revealed through the social background analysis of musicians.

Although these schools also employed musicians who were never involved in

governmental jobs, it does not undermine the argument. The critical figures of

these schools were former officials. Dârü’l-Musikî-i Osmanî was the first music

school to be opened in Istanbul in 1908. The school was a collective initiative of

musicians, among which the majority was former official functionaries: Hacı Kiramî

Efendi (Ministry of Military Affairs), Kazım Uz (Ministry of Post and Telegraphs and

Ministry of Finance), Santurî Edhem Efendi (Ministry of Finance), Kaşıyarık

Hüsameddin Efendi (mu’addhin in the palace), Ekrem Bey (Ministry of Finance) and

Kanunî Arif Bey (Ministry of Post and Telegraphs). The school was reorganized a

year later and moved to the Fatih district with a new name, Musikî-i Osmanî, and a

new teaching staff, many of whom were again former officials: İsmail Hakkı Bey

(first mu’addhin in the palace), Fahri Bey (Council of State [Şûrâ-yı Devlet], Ministry

of Military Affairs), İzzeddin Hümayî Bey (Ministry of Justice), İhsan Aziz Bey

(Ministry of Justice).

231 Yavuz Daloğlu, [Türk Devrimi’nin] Tiyatro ve Opera Komitesi Raporu, Opus, İstanbul,

2013, pp. 20-22; Erhan Özden, “Arşiv Belgeleriyle Dârülelhan”, Conservatorium, Vol. 5, Issue

1, Istanbul University Press, 2018, pp. 97-130.

242

Photo 6.2. İsmail Hakkı Bey (1865-1927) and his Musikî-i Osmanî School

He sits at the center, poses with the staff and students of his music school, which he

opened it in 1909.

Source: Şehbal, Hüseyin Sadeddin, Vol. 7, 1 Temmuz 1325, İstanbul, p. 134.

One encounters the names of Fahri Bey and İhsan Aziz Bey this time among the

founders of Dârü’t-Talîm-i Musikî in the Fatih district in 1912. There are more

schools revealing the same pattern: Bestenigâr Ziya Bey (1877-1923) was among the

founders of the Şark Musikî Cemiyeti in 1915. He retired from the Ministry of

Military Affairs in 1916. Abdülkadir Bey (Töre, 1872-1945), who was an official in the

Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Foreign Affairs respectively, founded Gülşen-i

Musikî in 1918 in his home at Cerrahpaşa. Following his retirement from the

Ministry of Justice, Ali Salahî Bey (1878-1945) founded Terakki-i Musikî in the Eyüp

district with a group of musicians, among whom there was Fahri Bey (Council of

State [Şûrâ-yı Devlet]). Ata Bey (was nicknamed Telgrafçı, d. 1934) restored the

Dârü'l-Feyz-i Musikî under the name of Üsküdar Musikî Cemiyeti in 1923. Emin

Ongan (Tobacco Monopoly) was another critical figure of the school. As mentioned

before, many of these officials were dismissed due to the reorganization of the

243

Ottoman bureaucracy in 1909 (tensikât) or retired around the time as the music

schools began to increase in number in Istanbul. Thus, the concentration of the

former official functionaries in the music schools could not happen by chance and

should be explained.

Given the official status of these people, being a music teacher was more respected

than playing in the music halls or in the coffee houses, where the musicins had to

work for long and irregular hours. On the one hand, music schools seemed to

provide protection against the tough working conditions of performing music

outside, and integrated them smoothly into the music market, on the other. Table

22 (Fourth Chapter) showed this process of integration, the musicians of these

schools gave public concerts just like the (fasıl) groups of Aşkî Efendi or Tahsin

Efendi in the very same places. But the difference was eye-catching on the ground

that they were on stage as a representative of the schools they were bound to. The

performances were made in the name of schools. The process might be defined in

terms of formalizing an institutional identity that would eventually provide prestige

and status. The photograph of İsmail Hakkı Bey’s Musikî-i Osmanî School (Photo 6.2)

confirms the argument. The uniform clothing, the tidy arrangement of the people

posing for the photographer, and above all the expression of seriousness on faces

convey the messages of authority, order and above all dignity. It seems that İsmail

Hakkı Bey wanted to retain his training from those old days in the Imperial Music

Academy (mûzîka-i hümâyûn).

One alternative way to look at the subject matter is from the statistical perspective.

Table 5.25 explored the most active nine music teachers in the late Ottoman

Istanbul. Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede (1853-1911) was the only one on the list who did

not connect himself to music schools either as a practitioner or as a teacher. His

base was a Sufi lodge. All the rest of the most popular music teachers were either

the founders of one, some were more than one, or actively involved musicians in

the schools that I stated above. Hence it might be interpreted that their popularity

was not about transmitting music better than others but they were simply in a more

advantageous position.

244

The second relevant outcome is that 107 musicians in the sampling were schoolaffiliated

musicians, 42 % of the total. The number of musicians who received music

training in one of those schools was 35, which make 14 % of the total. The

proportion seems insignificant but should not be overlooked given the number of

musicians in the sampling that had received music training before the schools were

established (see “Age Composition Characteristics” in the Third Chapter regarding

the precise amount of younger generation of musicians who were born at the turn

of the twentieth century). The proportion of the school-affiliation for the older

group of musicians, on the other, increases that 72 musicians participated in them

both as a teacher and performer, 28 % of the total.

All in all, my argument was that the dynamics of change in music was strongly

related to the issue of music schools. Thus, the statistical outcomes and social

network analysis of musicians alternatively underestimated the expanded influence

of music schools at the time period in question. I argue that the effect of the music

school-centered change in music stood at the center up to the formation of state

radio in Istanbul (1927-1938) and in Ankara (1938-1949).

6.3. Radio Broadcast: An Opportunity or Threat to Ottoman Music?

The onset of radio broadcasts in Istanbul was in 1927. It is noteworthy that the

radio began to operate quite early when one considers that the first regular

broadcast in the world became possible only in the 1910s.232 According to this

study, music schools triggered the first critical change in music after the turn of the

twentieth century, the underlying reasons and consequences of which were

discussed above. I argue that the second change was the establishment of the state

radio in 1927. Although its influence on music and musicians was not similar to that

of the music schools, it seems that they both dominated gradually the musicians’

world.

232 Studying astronomy and physics at Stanford University, Charles Herrold (1875-1948)

unintentionally discovered the radio broadcast while he was working to improve wireless

telephony in 1909, Gordon Greb and Mike Adams, Charles Herrold, Inventor of Radio

Broadcasting, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, North Carolina, and

London, 2003, pp. 15-18.

245

As mentioned before, the beginning of radio broadcasting marks the time limit of

this thesis. Even though it created a unique platform for music and hence the

musicians, it coincidentally imposed uniformity and undermined plurality. Hence,

the bulk of the musicians in the sampling appeared to be the last generation who

carried the cultural plurality of the imperial ages. Rona’s book, 20. Yüzyıl Türk

Musikisi: Bestekârları ve Besteleri Güftelerile, evidently confirms my argument.233

Why my thesis does not extend the time limit is also related to the issue of state

intervention in music through the cultural policies, the implementation of which

coincided with the onset of radio broadcasts. Cultural historians stated different

opinions regarding the roles the radio played from its emergence to the 1950s.234

However, from the statements of Mesud Cemil, it is clear that particularly the first

period of Istanbul radio (1927-1938) should not be considered within the same

political context as the Ankara radio (1938-1949):

“…at the beginning, our audience seemed to be between 3.000 to 5.000

people. …It might be said that the programs were better in quality [he

compares it to the Ankara Radio]. …The popularity was limited and

233 In fact, the author changed the title of the book, however, it is the expanded version of

his first book, 50 Yıllık Türk Musıkisi and contains about four hundred more pages. The

book’s newly added musicians were born in the first two decades of the twentieth century.

It seems their differences are less than their similarities regarding the career patterns, most

of which ended up in state radios, see Mustafa Rona, 20. Yüzyıl Türk Musikisi: Bestekârları

ve Besteleri Güftelerile, Türkiye Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1970.

234 Meltem Ahıska argues that the transfer of radio to Ankara in 1938 was analogous to that

of making Ankara the capital of the new republic. Symbolically, Istanbul was the center of

extreme Westernization and thus degeneration, also the center of anti-republicans and the

supporters of the Islamist policies. Hence, the authorities of the new order had to keep a

distance with Istanbul. However, the gap between the ideal and the reality was immense

regarding the sociocultural level of Ankara compared to Istanbul. Within this cultural

struggle, the radio was one of the strong instruments to decrease that gap. The author

states that the decision to cease the Istanbul radio until 1949 was a part of that plan.

Meltem Ahıska, Radyonun Sihirli Kapısı: Garbiyatçılık ve Politik Öznellik, Metis, İstanbul,

2005, p. 27-31. Tamer Kütükçü approaches the issue from a rather more musical

perspective as compared to Ahıska. He argues that the Ottoman music found a proper

channel to reach more people than it was possible in the Ottoman era, despite the

unwillingness of the new political elites. The second issue he made a point of was that the

political intervention was very limited, particularly in the Istanbul radio and thus musicians

were selected with respect to the musical talent they had. As a consequence, the standard

of broadcast was praiseworthy thanks to the musicians of fine quality. Tamer Kütükçü,

Radyoculuk Geleneğimiz ve Türk Musikisi, Ötüken, İstanbul, 2012, pp. 51-55.

246

hence we could work with any musician we wanted to without

bureaucratic barriers…”235

What Mesud Cemil implied was that the radio broadcast was not yet an area of

interest for political authorities, and it appears that the logic behind it was to

entertain the public rather than using it as a means of conveying political

propaganda. However, things would turn out to be very different during the Ankara

radio period.

From the standpoint of this thesis, the argument that the radio undermined the

plurality in music is derived from the radio-affiliated musicians’ career tracks. The

system identified 88 radio-affiliated musicians, the majority of whom had similar

social backgrounds and career paths, which I will demonstrate through statistical

outcomes.

Table 6.3. Musicians’ distribution between

Istanbul and Ankara radios

Radio Frequency Percent

Istanbul Radio 48 18.7

Ankara Radio 14 5.4

Both 26 10.1

TOTAL 88 34.2

It is noteworthy that 48 musicians in the sampling have died before the onset of

radio broadcast in 1927. Hence the radio-affiliated musicians make 42 % of the

musicians in the sampling. Regarding the “both” group, Ankara radio started to

operate in the same year the Istanbul radio was closed. Therefore, the majority of

those musicians in the “both” group were transferred to the new radio in Ankara.

Yet five musicians employed in the “Istanbul Radio” group died before the opening

of the Ankara radio in 1938.

235 Ayhan Dinç, “İstanbul Radyosu’nun Öyküsü”, in İstanbul Radyosu: Anılar, Yaşantılar,

Ayhan Dinç, Özden Çankaya, Nail Ekici (eds), YKY, İstanbul, 2000, p. 74.

247

The outcome on the instrument specialty of those 88 musicians shows that voice

took the leading (n = 27), followed by oud and violin (13 for each), ney (n = 8),

kemenche (n = 7), tanbur and kanun (6 for each) and other instruments in smaller

numbers. The proportions run parallel to the outcomes regarding the general

instrumental specialty in the sampling.

The income source of radio-affiliated musicians shows that the largest proportion

belongs to the musicians that made a living by performing music: 58 % were

professional musicians. The former official functionaries’ participation in the radio

was only about 19 %. As stated before, the proportions ran in the opposite direction

for the music schools, in which the majority were former officials and the

association of professional musicians was at an insignificant level. It might be

interpreted that music schools and radio stood at the two different sides of the

change facing one another. Yet in their relationship there was more than meets the

eye. The life stories of the 55 out of 88 radio-affiliated musicians revealed the

connection. They were part of those music schools, either as students, performers

or teaching staff, which makes 62.5 %. More precisely, 26 out of those 55 received

music education in the music schools founded by the former official functionaries

(47 %). The music schools employed the rest as music teachers or as members of

their music groups.

248

Photo 6.3. Musicians of Istanbul radio in the early period

(Standings, left to right) Nevres Bey, Refik Fersan, Ali Rıza Şengel, Mesud Cemil,

Selahattin Demircioğlu.

(Seated, left to right) Hayriye Örs, Vecihe Daryal, Ruşen Ferit Kam

Source: Ayhan Dinç, “İstanbul Radyosu’nun Öyküsü”, p. 73.

A distinctive feature of the radio was the employment of the female musicians, as it

is seen in the Photo 6.3. In fact, defining 23 female musicians’ occupation was a

challenge for me because the majority did not have a definable occupation. As the

biographical accounts revealed, some were born into upper-class families, which

presumably provided them with an income and inherited wealth and they did not

need to work. Leyla (Saz) Hanım’s (1850-1937) father was Hekim İsmail Pasha

(1807-1880), while İhsan Raif Hanım’s (1877-1926) father was Mehmed Raif Pasha

(Köse, 1836-1911). Both Pashas served as ministers in the Trade and Public Works

(Nafia ve Ticaret Nezâreti). Nigâr Galip Hanım (1890-1966) was the granddaughter

of Ahmet Mithat Efendi (1844-1912) and the daughter of Muallim Naci (1849-1893).

The father of Neveser Kökdeş (1904-1962) was in the close circle of Abdulaziz,

başmabeynci Hurşit Bey. She was one of the rare musicians under study who

graduated from a foreign school (Notre Dame de Sion). I have already stated the

249

cases of Faize Ergin (1894-1954) and Fahire Fersan (1900-1997) while discussing the

tragic life story of their father, Mabeynci Faik Bey (1870-1937). In fact, only three

female musicians’ occupations were definable. Nezahat Adula (1901-1959) taught

music, while Mualla Anıl (1909-1985) taught literature in public schools. Sabiha

Tekad (b. 1911) was a civil servant in the Supreme Court. The significant point about

the radio broadcast is that 15 out of 23 females in the sampling participated in the

radio broadcast either as contracted-musicians or as permanent staff (65 %).

Although it provided a safe environment, it was the radio through which women

eventually found a platform to perform music in public and to assert themselves as

musicians.

Consequently, radio functioned differently than music schools in certain ways:

i. The social basis of schools was quite different than the radio in that the former

emerged as collective effort of musicians, whereas the latter was a state-sponsored

project.

ii. The music schools might also be viewed as an attempt to increase the status of

musicians but particularly the music teachers in the Ottoman urban society.

Musicians of those schools derived status but not wealth by formalizing institutional

identity.

iii. Yet the schools provided an open platform for the participants who hoped to

excel at music. The radio was not a school –albeit Ankara radio held classes for a

while but only to the musicians under contract, the space was restricted only to

musicians.

iv. Music schools -albeit more limited, but particularly the radio had a discernable

effect on the careers of women musicians. The integration of female musicians into

music has transformed the field into a more egalitarian one, even though the

decision-making roles in music continued to be held mostly by the male members.

v. More importantly, the radio produced a prototype musician, which eventually

250

became a role model. As employees for the government, they became embedded in

the state organization. The situation, however, was highly different from the case of

the musicians who served in the Ottoman bureaucracy. As I tried to underline by

quantitative and qualitative methods throughout the thesis, music was part of the

Ottoman urban culture and only a small portion of the musicians was earning a life

out of music. With the emergence of state-run institutions, such as the state radio,

the diversity that nourished this culture started to fade away, particularly due to the

professionalization of musicians. It was true that musicians were financially secured

more than ever through state-run institutions, however the amateur spirit started

to lose ground. When the state policies turned against the Ottoman music in the

1930s, the bulk of the musicians were not in a position to oppose the state, since

they were the state functionaries. Sadly, very few of the music schools that

emerged as a result of the collective efforts of musicians after the 1910s, that might

have provided a shelter from the storm, still existed since most of the musicians had

become radio artists.

251

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

This thesis collectively analyzed the musicians who lived during the late Ottoman

and in the Early Republican years, a method of that has not yet been employed for

the time period in question. The aim of gathering a significant amount of musicians

was to reveal their social characteristics. Calling into question what sort of typical

patterns they have generated and to what extent they differed from each other

yielded valuable returns, thanks to which sociocultural complexities have became

discernable.

This study aimed to shed light on the socio-historical basis of the Ottoman urban

music. The family background of musicians demonstrated the social diversity of

musicians. They were born into families of state officials, religious functionaries,

military personnel, Sufi sheikhs, musicians, artisans, traders, laborers and so on.

Another noteworthy aspect was that they were predominantly coming from

average, middle-rank families. These research findings expressed clearly that music

connected many different layers of society in Istanbul. Moreover, the music did not

belong to a particular group of people or class; each member of the musician

community has participated on equal terms. It appears that these characteristics

did not undergo an important change since the time of Es’ad Efendi (d. 1753). It is

noteworthy that, they were probably the last generation of musicians that

maintained this type of plurality of social profile. If I had employed the method to a

group of musicians that were born after the turn of the twentieth century, there

would have been major proportional differences between the musicians who

earned a living out of music and those who did not.

Calling these issues into question was instrumental in understanding whether music

was a profession in the late Ottoman urban society. Notwithstanding that less than

one third of the population of musicians sought career opportunities in music, from

the standpoint of this thesis; it was a profession in the marginal sense. The

252

perspective that I have offered, considered music as a part of the urban culture and

one of the ways to express urban identity. The fact that a greater proportion of

musicians engaged in music on an unpaid basis reinforces this argument.

The study attempted to explore living conditions in order to better understand the

socio-economic position of musicians in society. Scholarship regarding poverty and

social isolation in the Ottoman urban centers does not provide much guidance. Yet,

the study demonstrated that musicians suffering from poverty were not few. It is

noteworthy that most of the destitute musicians were either former official

functionaries or were the members of the Imperial Music Academy. Given the

complexity of the issue, I continued to examine the individual life stories to better

grasp the common problems they faced. It appears that both internal and external

factors were at play. I showed that the socio-political changes the Ottoman state

went through by the turn of the century were traumatic for many musicians. The

majority of the musicians in the official service were dismissed with a meager

retirement income due to the reorganization of the Ottoman bureaucracy in 1909.

It was only in music that they could pursue a career. The study revealed that some

musicians were more fragile when they had to confront financial problems of music,

including unemployment, underemployment, and irregular job vacancies, who

eventually faced poverty in retirement. Some of the former official functionaries, on

the other hand, sought ways to survive, better adapted to change and played a

critical role in transforming the music world.

From a broader perspective, the thesis tried to link the political crises the Ottoman

state experienced after the turn of the century to the changes in music. More

precisely, by approaching the Ottoman bureaucracy from a musical perspective, the

thesis attempted to understand the transformations in music by following the

career paths of civil officials, which predominantly constituted the musicians under

study. From this viewpoint, the members of the bureaucracy were the individuals

who generated the Ottoman urban culture, and also its music.

253

Focusing on the spatial networks of musicians throughout the city was a particular

way of viewing the issue, offering a new understanding on the music performed in

the city and introduced new perspectives to Ottoman urban studies as well. With a

view to identify the habitual practices of musicians and hence to draw the musical

map of the city, geographically definable networks of musicians were visualized

through historical maps and graphics. To do that, the thesis statistically recorded

every single move of musicians mentioned in the biographical accounts. The places

where the music was heard, including places of music classes, music schools, Sufi

lodges as well as the houses where the musical gatherings were carried out. Indeed,

the statistical analysis also covered coffee houses, theatres, music halls, and picnic

areas as the places of musical performances. This frequency analysis produced two

significant outcomes: The first outcome was the neighborhoods where the musical

activities were mostly concentrated. Secondly, the frequency analysis displayed the

musical interactions between neighborhoods.

The quantitative outcomes showed that Fatih, Beşiktaş and Üsküdar are the

residential, whereas the Beyoğlu and Fatih districts are the performance centers of

Istanbul. The two neighborhoods together almost had half of the recorded musical

activities in Istanbul. However, characteristic differences separated them. What

made Beyoğlu musically significant was the frequency of places for entertainment.

Innumerable music halls, taverns and theatres characterized the district. Indeed,

innumerable music stores, sound recording companies, and the emergence of radio

broadcast in 1927 made the neighborhood even more musical. Yet, the presence of

prominent Sufi lodges, including the Galata Mevlevî lodge and the Tophane Kadirî

lodge, contributed further to the diversity of the area.

The study recorded most of the musical house gatherings in Fatih. It was mainly due

to the fact that musicians predominantly lived in the old city (33.3 %). Sufi lodges in

Fatih were the places, in which religious music was performed continuously, such as

Yenikapı Mevlevî lodge, Nişancı lodge, Nureddin Cerrahî lodge, Sertarikzâde lodge,

and so on. Coffee houses were another characteristic of Fatih, where musicians

gathered to socialize and to perform music. Above all, Fatih seemed to have

254

foreseen the change ahead and responded accordingly. The emergence of music

schools was revolutionary in many ways that set the music on a new path. Most of

these institutions were opened in the neighborhood. Therefore, it would not be

wrong to argue that Fatih stood at the center of the change in music.

On the part of the musical interactions between neighborhoods, Üsküdar was the

place of the most mobile musicians in the sampling. They carried out most of the

local music activities, also frequented even most distant places, such as performing

music in the picnic areas of Sarıyer. Although Eyüp and Üsküdar corresponded to

each other in terms of their religious character, which was disseminated through

the notable religious architecture and dynamic Sufi presence, the latter revealed

more musical diversity. Particularly theatres and theatrical organizations, mainly

concentrated around the Doğancılar and Bağlarbaşı areas that meant more musical

opportunities for musicians.

Exploring the network structures that linked the musicians to one another created

circumstances to open up even the isolated interactions. Above all, the approach

brought an alternative perspective to re-evaluate the existing historical material

and shed light on the issues, many of which were the least-visited in the history of

music.

Firstly, musicians predominantly learned music before the age of 10 and the family

involvement in the process of music education was characteristic for those

musicians. The majority of the rest who learned music when older, were born into

families with a lesser musical interest. The music schools were the main address to

learn music for many of those “outsiders”, which showed clearly that the schools

brought a novel group of people into the music community, thereby music gained a

new ground.

Secondly, contrary to what is commonly tought, the musical interactions between

Muslim and non-Muslim musicians were very limited in the process of music

training. Non-Muslim groups of musicians revealed a very conservative character in

255

that they were almost always educated musically either within the family or

through their religious institutions. Muslim musicians, on the other hand, revealed a

more liberal pattern in music education and had more connections with the non-

Muslim music teachers.

An analysis of the personal connections among musicians, revealed Zekai Dede (d.

1897) and his son Ahmet Irsoy’s (d. 1943) position in music clearly. Based on the

statistical outcomes, it is possible to argue that the family was the most active as

well as fertile transmitter of Ottoman music from the middle of the nineteenth

century to the Republican era. Without failing to notice nevertheless other critically

significant actors. The network analysis revealed alternative names such as Sheikh

Cemal Efendi (d. 1937), who was barely discernible in the music history. He was an

authority particularly in the religious repertoire and played an important role in

transmitting it to younger generations of musicians.

Historiography of Ottoman music has produced a dense literature on the reformulation

of music in the 1930s. Historians have focused on this cultural shift,

which was the nationalization, thereby, the Turkification of music. The novelty of

this thesis is that it puts the music schools at the center of attention. The study

considered their emergence by 1908 as the first critical change in music after the

turn of the century. In accordance with that, the radio broadcast (1927) marked the

second turning point in music for the thesis. Why these institutions were worthy of

re-consideration was that they offered insights into the argument of music as a

“profession” and were instrumental in understanding change and continuity in

music.

The way the study approached the music schools suggested a new perspective in

which more emphasis was given to their socio-historical basis. In contrast to

conventional historiography, I sought to discover the reasons for their emergence.

Based on the statistical findings, the thesis linked the reorganization of the Ottoman

bureaucracy in 1909 with the appearance of the music schools in Istanbul in order

to explain the concentration of the former officials in those schools. More precisely,

256

out of the political crises, music schools emerged as a whole new ground in music. I

have argued that, apart from music training, they functioned to advance the status

of musicians in society. The former officials while integrating gradually to the music

market through the institutional identity of those schools, gained prestige and

status as musicians. Thus, these schools were significant as they represented the

initial steps towards professionalism, which would be achieved fully with the radio

broadcast in Istanbul (1927) and Ankara (1938).

The thesis attempted to shed light on the advantages of radio as well as the

problems it created to better grasp the musicians’ career paths towards

professionalism. From the standpoint of this study, the radio, just as music schools

stood at the center of the transformations in music. Yet, both had a different

impact on music. Under the state protection, music was recognized as a profession

with a regular income and predictable working hours. The positive effect was that

the musicians’ longing for status and respect was fulfilled. On the negative side,

radio deliberately eliminated the differences between musicians and homogenized

them. The uniformity, which gradually became a model for musicians, was

essentially against the idea and practice of music as financially rewarding. The

majority of musicians in the sampling did not build such a relationship with music,

which I emphasized throughout the thesis. In fact, the change defined in the career

paths of musicians should be interpreted as Ottoman music losing ground while

transforming itself into something new. I argued that what was obtained was not

equivalent to what was lost and it could not be recovered. For these reasons, I

considered radio as the second watershed in music history.

Furthermore, the impact of music schools and radio broadcast was also critical from

a gender perspective. Before the emergence of music schools and the radio, the

study regarded “stay-at-home” as a norm for the majority of women musicians. The

most positive effect, as I pointed out, these institutions helped musicians to gain a

proffssional status in society and the increased visibility of women musicians

supported the argument.

257

One of the contributions of this thesis is to emphasize musicians that were largely

forgotten by the historiography. The biographical studies on Bülbülî Salih Efendi (d.

1923), İhsan Aziz Bey (d. 1935), Mabeynci Faik Bey (d. 1937) and Sheikh Cemal

Efendi (d.1937) remain to be written. The thesis pointed out that more biographical

material would enable us to better understand the sociocultural changes in music

and would bring new perspectives to the field. I also have to admit that this

collective biography study would have been more comprehensive, if we had more

biographies particularly on the non-Muslim musicians and musicians who

performed in various music venues of Istanbul.

Eventually, the present thesis offered an unconventional approach to the musicians

that lived from the late Ottoman to the Early Republican years in Istanbul. To

uncover the social history of music, the study attempted to connect the musicians’

responses to changes that the Ottoman state underwent. I hope that this research

will bring about new questions that would lead to new research initiatives and in

this way may have an impact on the future studies dealing with social history in the

late Ottoman period.

258

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

BOA, DH.SAiD, Personal Registeries, Ministry of Interior

(Sicill-i Ahvâl Defterleri, Dahiliye Nezâreti)

3-206 (104) Mahmut Celalettin Bey

10-163 (83) Yusuf Ziya Bey (Paşa)

25-101 (53) Mustafa Nuri Bey

25-181 (93) Ahmet Arif Bey

26-381 (193) İsmail Fethi [Fenni] Bey

28-485 (244) Mehmet Celal Efendi

32-73 (38) Abdülkadir Bey (Töre)

39-31 (17) Hafız Mehmed Şevki Efendi

43-343 (174) Mehmed Cemil Bey

45-117 (60) Mehmet Nuri Bey (Şeyda)

46-285 (144) Mehmed Rauf Yekta Bey

47-153 (78) Abdülaziz Efendi (Medenî)

48-266 (133) Mehmed Azmi Efendi

53-121 (62) Mehmet İzzeddin Bey (Hümaî)

53-333 (168) Ahmet Avni Efendi

59-7 (5) Mehmet Sabri Bey

59-223 (113) Hasan Bey

59-399 (201) Mahmut Aziz Bey

60-105 (54) Mustafa Servet Bey

61-243 (123) Ahmet Cemil Bey

259

65-249 (126) Mehmed İzzet Efendi

71-447 (225) Nuri Bey (Bolahenk)

77-353 (179) Mehmet Servet Efendi

77-473/4 (240) Şemsettin Ziya Bey

89-175 (89) Hüseyin Fahri Efendi

92-139 (71) Mehmet Rahmi Bey

95-147 (75) Hüseyin Sadettin Bey

110-23 (13) Kazım Bey (Uz)

115-253 (128) Mehmet Emin Efendi

115-321 (162) Osman Efendi (Güvenir)

124-103 (53) Hafız Yaşar (Okur)

133-299 (151) Ahmed Nuri Efendi

169-427 (215) Halid Lemi Bey (Atlı)

181-293 (148) Ali Rıza Bey

183-13 (13) Ahmed Mükerrem Efendi

185-124 (125) Mehmed Münir Efendi

195-129 (65) Hafız Mehmed Cemal Efendi

Journals

Şehbal, Hüseyin Sâdeddin, 1-100 Vols., İstanbul, 1325-1330.

Dârülelhân Mecmuası, 1-7 Vols, İstanbul, 1 February 1325-1 February [1]926.

Radyo, Başvekâlet Matbuat U. Müdürlüğü, 93 Vols., Ankara, 1942-1949.

Türk Musikisi Dergisi, Burhaneddin Ökte, Fikret Kutluğ, 1-39 Vols., İstanbul, 1947-

1954.

Musiki Mecmuası, Lâika Karabey, 1-132 Vols, İstanbul, 1948-1959.

Musikî ve Nota, Avni Anıl, 1-35 Vols., İstanbul, 1969-1972.

260

Secondary Sources

Abdülbâki Nâsır Dede, Tedkîk ü Tahkîk, İnceleme ve Gerçeği Araştırma, Yalçın Tura

(ed.), Pan Yayıncılık, 2006.

Adorno, Theodor W., "Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", Max

Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Continuum, New

York, 2002, pp. 1-34.

Agirreazkuenaga, Joseba and Mikel Urquijo, “Collective Biography and Europe’s

Cultural Legacy”, The European Legacy, Vol. 20:4, 2015, pp. 373-388.

Ağaoğlu, Yavuz Selim, Neyzen Selami Bertuğ’un Anılarından Belgelerle Hazret-i

Mevlâna’yı Anma Törenleri (1942-1974), Kültür A.Ş., Konya, 2013.

Ahıska, Meltem, Radyonun Sihirli Kapısı: Garbiyatçılık ve Politik Öznellik, Metis,

İstanbul, 2005.

Ahıskan, Necmi Rıza, "Bebekli Refik Talat Bey", Türk Musikisi Dergisi, Issue 2, No. 22,

p.7.

Akın, Nur,“Beyoğlu”, Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 2, Kültür Bakanlığı

& Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, 1994, pp. 212-218

----------- 19. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Galata ve Pera, Literatür, İstanbul, 2011.

Akiba, Jun, ”The Practice of Writing Curricula Vitae among the Lower Government

Employees in the Late Ottoman Empire: Workers at the Şeyhülislâm’s Office”,

European Journal of Turkish Studies, 6, 2007: http://ejts.revues.org/1503.

Aksoy, Bülent, “Orta Doğu Klasik Musikîsinin Bir Merkezi; İstanbul”, Osmanlı, Vol.

10, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara, 1999, pp. 801-813.

Aksoy, Hasan, “Mehmed Şâkir Efendi”, DİA, Vol. 28, 2003, p. 530.

Aksüt, Sadun, Türk Musikisinin 100 Bestekârı, İnkılâp Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1993.

Akyüz, Fatih, “II. Abdülhamid’in Modern Eğlencesi: Yıldız Tiyatrosu”, II. Abdülhamid:

Modernleşme Sürecinde İstanbul, Coşkun Yılmaz (ed.), İstanbul 2010 Avrupa Kültür

Başkenti Yayını, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 447-454.

Alaettin, İbrahim, Meşhur Adamlar: Hayatları – Eserleri (1889-1949), 4 Vol., Yedigün

Neşriyatı, İstanbul, 1933-1936.

Alimdar, Selçuk, Osmanlı’da Batı Müziği, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları,

İstanbul, 2016.

Alman Mavileri: 1913-1914, I. Dünya Savaşı Öncesi İstanbul Haritaları, İrfan

261

Dağdelen (ed.), İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediye Başkanlığı Kütüphane ve Müzeler

Müdürlüğü, İstanbul, Vols. 1 and 2 in 2006, Vol. 3 in 2007.

Alus, Sermet Muhtar, İstanbul Yazıları, Erol Şadi Erdinç, Faruk Ilıkan (eds.), İstanbul

Büyükşehir Belediyesi, İstanbul, 1994.

------------ İstanbul Kazan Ben Kepçe, Necdet Sakaoğlu (ed.), İletişim, İstanbul, 1995.

------------ Masal Olanlar, Nuri Akbayar (ed.), İletişim, İstanbul, 1997.

------------ Eski Günlerde, İletişim, İstanbul, 2001.

------------ 30 Sene Evvel İstanbul: 1900’lü Yılların Başlarında Şehir Hayatı, Faruk Ilıkan

(ed.), İletişim, İstanbul, 2005.

And, Metin, Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu (1839-1908), Türkiye İş

Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Ankara, 1972.

------------ Başlangıcından 1983’e Türk Tiyatro Tarihi, İletişim, İstanbul, 1992.

Aracı, Emre, Donizetti Paşa: Osmanlı Sarayının İtalyan Maestrosu, YKY Yayınları,

İstanbul, 2006.

------------ Naum Tiyatrosu; 19 Yüzyıl İstanbul'unun İtalyan Operası, YKY Yayınları,

İstanbul, 2010.

Aracı, Emre, “Piyanist Hünkâr: Sultan V. Murad ve Ailesinin Avrupaî Müzik Kültürü”,

Türkiye’de Müzik Kültürü Kongresi Bildirileri, Oğuz Elbaş, Mehmet Kalpaklı, Okan

Murat Öztürk (eds.), Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2011.

Arel, Hüseyin Saadettin, “Türk Musikisi Kimindir?”, Türklük: Milliyetçi Kültür

Mecmuası, İstanbul, 1939-40.

------------ “Türk Bestekârlarının Tercemeihalleri”, Musiki Mecmuası, Volumes 9-24,

Nov. 1948 – Feb. 1950.

------------ Türk Musikisi Kimindir?, Türk Musikisini Araştırma ve Değerlendirne

Komisyonu Yayınları, İstanbul, 1969.

Arpaguş, Faysal “Mâlûmât” Mecmuası’nın 1-500 Sayılarında Yer Alan Türk Mûsikîsi

ile İlgili Makâleler”, MA Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, SBE, İstanbul, 2004.

Artan, Tülay, “Eyüp”, DİA, Vol. 12, 1995, pp. 1-6.

Ataman, Sadi Yaver, Mehmed Sadi Bey, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, Ankara,

1987.

262

Avcı, Yasemin, Osmanlı Hükümet Konakları, Tanzimat Döneminde Kent Mekânında

Devletin Erki ve Temsili, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul, 2017.

Ayas, Güneş, Mûsiki İnkılâbı’nın Sosyolojisi: Klasik Türk Müziği Geleneğinde Süreklilik

ve Değişim, Doğu Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2014.

Balıkhane Nazırı Ali Rıza Bey, Eski Zamanlarda İstanbul Hayatı, Ali Rıza Çoruk (ed.),

Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2011.

Bardakcı, Murat, Refik Bey...Refik Fersan ve Hatıraları, Pan, Istanbul, 1995.

Barkçin, Savaş Ş., Ahmed Avni Konuk: Görünmeyen Umman, Klasik, İstanbul, 2009.

Başara, Erol, ““Saz ve Söz” Dergisinde Yayınlanan İsmail Hakkı Bey’in “Kur’a Marşı”

ve Nevâ’da Rast Makamı”, İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, XII/2, Sivas Cumhuriyet

Üniversitesi, 2008, pp. 261-267.

Bayrak, Orhan M., İstanbul'da Gömülü Meşhur Adamlar (1453-1978), Türkiye Anıtlar

Derneği: İstanbul Şubesi Yayını, İstanbul, 1979.

Beard, David and Kenneth Gloag, Musicology: The Key Concepts, Routledge, USA,

2005.

Bedii, Halil, “Millî Musıkîmiz”, Dârülelhân, No. 3, Sene 1, 1 Haziran 1340.

Behar, Cem, “An Estimate of Adult Mortality in Istanbul in the Second Half of the

Nineteenth Century, Dünü ve Bugünüyle Toplum ve Ekonomi, Issue 4, İstanbul, Oct.

1994, pp. 95-105.

------------ Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun ve Türkiye’nin Nüfusu, 1500-1927, Historical

Statistics Series, Vol. 2, T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, Ankara, 1996.

----------- “Kasap İlyas Mahallesi: İstanbul’un Bir Mahallesinin Sosyal ve Demografik

Portresi: 1546-1885”, İstanbul Araştırmaları, No. 4, İstanbul Araştırmaları Merkezi,

İBB, 2000, pp. 7-110.

------------ Aşk Olmadan Meşk Olmaz: Geleneksel Osmanlı/Türk Müziğinde Öğretim

ve İntikal, YKY, İstanbul, Third Edition, 2006.

----------- “Ziya Gökalp ve Türk Musıkisinde Modernleşme/Sentez Arayışları”,

Musıkiden Müziğe: Osmanlı/Türk Müziği: Gelenek ve Modernlik, YKY, İstanbul,

(Second Edition) 2008, pp. 271-279.

------------ Şeyhülislam'ın Müziği: 18. Yüzyılda Osmanlı/Türk Musikisi ve Şeyhülislam

Es'ad Efendi'nin Atrabü'l-Âsâr'ı, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.

----------- “Text and Memory in Ottoman/Turkish Musical Tradition”, Ottoman

Intimacies, Balkan Musical Realities, Risto Pekka Pennanen, Panagiotis C. Poulos,

263

Aspasia Thedosiou (ed.), The Finnish Institute of Athens, Vol. XIX, Helsinki, 2013, pp.

3-16.

------------ Kan Dolaşımı, Ameliyat ve Musıkî Makamları: Kantemiroğlu (1673-1723)

ve Edvâr’ının Sıra Dışı Müzikal Serüveni, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2017.

Beken, Münir Nurettin, “Ethnicity and Identity in Music – A Case Study: Professional

Musicians in Istanbul”, Manifold Identities: Studies on Music and Minorities, Ursula

Hemetek, Gerda Lechleitner, Inna Naroditskaya and Anna Czekanowska (eds.),

Cambridge Scholars Press, London, 2004, pp. 181-190.

Bestekâr Karnik Garmiryan: Hayatı ve Eserleri, Aras, Istanbul, 2004.

Birsel, Salâh, Kahveler Kitabı, Koza Yayınları, İstanbul, 1975.

Bora, Emine, Klasik Osmanlı Müziğinde Ermeni Bestekârlar, Surp Pırgiç Ermeni

Hastanesi Vakfı, İstanbul, 2010.

Bostan, M. Hanefi, “Üsküdar”, DİA, Vol. 42, 2012, pp. 364-368.

Bowen, Ian, Economics and Demography, Routledge, 2012.

Breisach, Ernst, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval & Modern, The University of

Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994.

Brockmeier, Jens, “From the End to the Beginning: Retrospective Teleology in

Autobiography”, Narrative and Identity, Jens Brockmeier and Donal Carbaugh (ed.),

John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001, Amsterdam, pp. 247-282.

Bruner, Jerome, “Self-making Narratives”, Autobiographical Memory and the

Construction of a Narrative Self, Robyn Fivush and Catherine A. Haden (ed.),

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, New Jersey, London, 2003, pp. 209-

223.

Can, Halil, “Edebileşen Dehalarımız: Emin Dede”, Türk Musikisi Dergisi, No. 4, 1947,

İstanbul, pp. 2,3 and 23; No. 5, pp. 4,5 and 20.

Celepoğlu, Ayşegül, Samih Rifat, Hayatı ve Eserleri: Türk Dil Kurumunun Kurucu

Başkanı, Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, 2008.

Cemil, Mes’ud, Tanburi Cemil Bey’in Hayatı, (ed. Uğur Derman), Kubbealtı, İstanbul,

Third Edition, 2012.

Cevad, Süleyman, “Rauf Yektâ Bey ile Mülâkat, Dergah Mecmûası, 5 Teşrînisâni

1338, No. 38, pp. 19-22.

Cezar, Mustafa, XIX. Yüzyıl Beyoğlusu, Ak, İstanbul, 1991.

264

Christensen, Dorthe Refslund, Rane Willerslev (eds.), Taming Time, Timing Death:

Social Technologies and Ritual, Routledge: Lodon, New York, 2016.

Coşkuner, Hüveyla, İhsan Raif Hanım, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1987,

Ankara.

Cowman, Krista, “Collective Biography”, Simon Gunn and Lucy Faire (ed.), Research

Methods for History, Edinburgh University Press, 2012, pp. 83-100.

Çelik, Zeynep, The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the

Nineteenth Century”, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1986.

Çelik, Zeynep and Edhem Eldem (ed.), Camera Ottomana: Osmanlı

İmparatorluğu’nda Fotoğraf ve Modernite, 1840-1940, KÜY, İstanbul, 2015.

Çergel, Muhammed Ali, “Rauf Yektâ Bey’in İkdam Gazetesi’nde Neşredilen Türk

Mûsikîsi Konulu Makaleleri”, MA Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, SBE, İstanbul, 2007.

Çetin, Nuran, “Eyüp Tekkeleri”, Assoc. Prof. Safi Arpaguş (Superviser), Unpublished

PhD Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, SBE, Temel İslam Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı, Tasavvuf

Bilim Dalı, İstanbul, 2012.

Çetintaş, Burak, “İncesaz Takımları Üzerine Birkaç Söz ve Şinasi Akbatu’nun

Kaleminden “60 Yıl Önce İstanbul’da İncesaz Takımları”, Musikişinas, BÜTMK, Vol.

11, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 207-243.

Çizgen, Engin, Photography in the Ottoman Empire, 1839-1919, Haşet, İstanbul,

1987.

Daloğlu, Yavuz, [Türk Devrimi’nin] Tiyatro ve Opera Komitesi Raporu, Opus, İstanbul,

2013.

Demiryürek, Meral, “Sermet Muhtar Alus: Hayatı – Sanatı - Eserleri”, Unpublished

PhD Thesis, Prof. Şerif Aktaş (Superviser), Gazi Üniversitesi, SBE, Türk Dili ve

Edebiyatı Anabilim Dalı, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı Bilim Dalı, Ankara, 2006.

Dinç, Ayhan, “İstanbul Radyosu’nun Öyküsü”, in İstanbul Radyosu: Anılar, Yaşantılar,

Ayhan Dinç, Özden Çankaya, Nail Ekici (eds), YKY, İstanbul, 2000.

Doğan, Muhammet Nur, “Esad Efendi, Ebûishakzâde”, TDVİA, pp. 338-340.

Doğrusöz, Nilgün & Ali Ergur, Musikinin Asrî Prensi: Ali Rifat Çağatay, Gece Kitağlığı,

Ankara, 2017.

Duhanî, Said N., Beyoğlu’nun Adı Pera İken, Nihan Önol (trans.), Çelik Gülersoy

Vakfı, İstanbul Kütüphanesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 1990.

265

Eğecioğlu, Ömer, Müzisyen Strausslar ve Osmanlı Hanedanı, YKY Yayınları, İstanbul,

2012.

Ehrlich, Cyril, The Music Profession in Britain since the Eighteenth Century: A Social

History, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1985.

------------ The Piano: A History, Revised Edition, Oxford University Press, New York,

2002.

Ekinci, Mehmet Uğur, Kevseri Mecmuası: 18. Yüzyıl Saz Müziği Külliyatı, Omar and

Pan, İstanbul, 2015.

Elçin, Şükrü, Ali Ufkî: Hayatı, eserleri ve Mecmuâ-i Sâz-ı Söz, Milli Eğitim Basımevi,

Ankara, 1976.

Eldem, Edhem, “Ottoman Galata and Pera Between Myth and Reality”, in From

“milieu de mémoire” to “lieu de mémoire”, The Cultural Memory of Istanbul in the

20th century, Ulrike Tischler (ed.), München: M. Meidenbauer, 2006, pp. 19-36.

----------- “The Search for an Ottoman Vernacular Photography”, in The Indigenous

Lens: Early Photography in the Near and Middle East, Markuss Ritter and Staci Gem

Scheiwiller (eds), De Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston, 2018, pp. 29-56.

Ergin, Osman Nuri, Türk Maarif Tarihi, Vol. 3, Eser Matbaası, İstanbul, 1977.

------------ Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, Vol. 3 and 4, İBB Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı

Yayınları, İstanbul, 1995.

Ergun, Sadettin Nüzhet, Samih Rifat: Hayatı ve Eserleri, Sühulet Kütüpanesi, 1934.

------------ Türk Musikisi Antolojisi: Dinî Eserler, 2 Vol., İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat

Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 1942-43.

Erguner, Süleyman, Rauf Yektâ Bey: neyzen – müzikolog – bestekâr, Kitabevi, 2003,

İstanbul.

Ergür, Cumhur Enes, Salahi Dede: Salahaddin Demirtaş Hayatı ve Eserleri - Zakirbaşı

- Kıyamreisi - Bestekar, Kitabevi, Istanbul, 2011.

Erol, Ayhan, “Music, Power and Symbolic Violence: The Turkish State’s Music

Policies During the Early Republican Period”, European Journal of Cultural Studies,

Vol. 15, 2012, pp. 35–52.

Erol, Merih, “Music and the Nation in Greek and Turkish Contexts (19th – early 20th

c.): A paradigm of cultural transfers”, Startseitei, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2011, pp. 165-175.

----------- “The "Musical Question" and the Educated Elite of Greek Orthodox Society

in Late Nineteenth-Century Constantinople”, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Vol.

266

32, No. 1, May 2014, pp. 133-163.

------------ Greek Orthodox Music in Istanbul: Nation and Community in the Era of

Reform, Indiana University Press, 2015.

(Ezgi), Doktor Suphi, Nazarî ve Amelî Türk Musikisi, İstanbul Konservatuarı Yayını,

İstanbul, 5 Vol., 1933-1953.

Feldman, Walter, “Cultural Authority and Authenticity in the Turkish Repertoire”,

Asian Music, Vol. 22, No. 1, (Autumn, 1990 – Winter, 1991), pp. 73-111.

Fontana, Luigi, “Modulating Human Aging and Age-Associated Diseases”, Biochim

Biophys Acta, 1790 (10), 2009 Oct., pp. 1133-1138.

Gâzimihal, Mahmut Râgıp, “İlimde Sathîliğin Mahzûrları”, Mahmut Râgıp

Gâzimihal'den Seçme Müzik Makaleleri-II (Türk Harf İnkılâbı Öncesi), Bahattin

Kahraman (ed.), Müzik Eğitimi Yayınları, Ankara, 2014, pp. 27-38.

Gillet, Paula, “Ambivalent Friendships: Music-lovers, Amateurs, and Professional

Musicians in the Late Nineteenth Century”, Music and British Culture, 1785-1914

(Essays in honour of Cyril Ehrlich), Christina Bashford and Leanne Langley (eds.),

Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 321-340.

Gökalp, Ziya, Türkçülüğün Esasları, Mehmet Kaplan (ed.), MEB Yayınları, İstanbul,

1970.

Gövsa, İbrahim Alâettin, Türk Meşhurları Ansiklopedisi, Yenigün Neşriyat, İstanbul,

1945.

Greb, Gordon and Mike Adams, Charles Herrold, Inventor od Radio Broadcasting,

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, North Carolina, and London,

2003.

Gronow, Pekka, “The Record Industry Comes to the Orient”, Ethnomusicology, Vol.

25, No. 2, 1981, pp. 251-284.

Güçtekin, Nuri, “İlk Türk Mûsikî Cemiyeti: Dârülmûsikî-i Osmanî Cemiyeti (Mektebi)

ve Faaliyetleri (1908-1914)”, Rast Müzikoloji Dergisi, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2015, pp. 42-58.

Güntekin, Mehmet, “Dâhi Bir Sanatkâr”, III. Selim: İki Asrın Dönemecinde İstanbul,

Coşkun Yılmaz (ed.), Avrupa Kültür Başkenti Yayını, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 197-207.

Haksever, Ahmet Baki, “XX. Yüzyılda Üç Mevlevi Şeyhi: Veled Çelebi, Abdülbaki

Baykara, Ahmet Remzi Akyürek”, Tasavvuf, special issue was dedicated to Mevlana,

No. 14, Ankara, 2005, pp. 383-415.

267

Haskan, Mehmet Nermi, Yüzyıllar Boyunca Üsküdar, Vol. 3, Üsküdar Municipalilty

Publishing, 2001, pp. 1297-1305.

Hatch, J. Amos and Richard Wisniewski, “Life History and Narrative: Questions,

Issues, and Exemplary Works”, Life History and Narrative, The Falmer Press, London,

Washington, D. C., 1995, pp. 113-136.

Hatipoğlu, Emrah, “Mevlevihâneler Döneminde Bestelendiği Tespit Edilmiş 46

Ayinin Makâm ve Geçki Açısından Tahlili”, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Asst. Prof.

Bayram Akdoğan (Superviser), Ankara Üniversitesi, SBE, İslâm Tarihi ve Sanatları

Anabilim Dalı (Türk Din Musıkisi), Ankara, 2010.

Havik, Philip J., José Mapril and Clara Saraiva (eds.), Death on the Move: Managing

Narratives, Silences and Constraints in a Trans-National Perspective, Cambridge

Scholars Publishing, UK, 2018.

Hisar, Abdülhak Şinasi, Boğaziçi Yalıları, Varlık, İstanbul, 1954.

------------ Boğaziçi Mehtapları, YKY, İstanbul, 2010.

İnal, İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal, Hoş Sadâ: Son Asır Türk Musıkişinasları, Türkiye İş

Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Maarif Basımevi, İstanbul, 1958.

------------ Son Asır Türk Şairleri (1377/1957), 4 Vol., Third Edition, Dergah Yayınları,

İstanbul, 1988.

Jackson, Maureen, Mixing Musics: Turkish Jewry and the Urban Landscape of a

Sacred Song, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 2013.

Kaliviotis, Aristomenis, İzmir Rumlarının Müziği 1900-1922: Eğlence, Müzik

Dükkânları, Plak Kayıtları, Yılmaz Okyay (trans.), YKY, İstanbul, 2013.

Kafadar, Cemal, “The Ottomans and Europe”, Handbook of European History 1400-

1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, Thomas A. Brady Jr, Heiko A.

Oberman, James D. Tracy (eds.), Vol. I: structures and assertions, William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, Michigan, 1994, pp. 589-635.

Kalaycıoğlu, Rahmi, Türk Musikisi Bestekarları Külliyatı, Vol. 24, Yay Kitabevi,

İstanbul, 1977.

Kalender, Ruhi, “Yüzyılımızın Başlarında İstanbul’un Musiki Hayatı”, AÜİFD, No. XXIII,

1978, pp. 411-444.

Kam, Ruşen, “İnce Saz Takımları”, Radyo Mecmuası, Vol. 1, Issue 12, Ankara, 15

Sonteşrîn 1942, pp. 16-24.

----------- “Selim III”, Radyo Mecmûası, C. 5, No. 49, Ankara, 1949.

268

Karabey, Laika, "Udi Nevres Bey", Musiki Mecmuası, Issue. 13, p. 20.

----------- “Şark Musiki Cemiyeti Nasıl Teşekkül Etti ?”, Musiki Mecmuası, Vol. 60, 1

February 1953, pp. 356-360

Kantemiroğlu, Kitabu 'İlmi'l-Musiki 'ala vechi'l-Hurufat, Musikiyi harflerle tesbit ve

icra ilminin kitabı, Yalçın Tura (ed.) 2 Vol., YKY, İstanbul, 2001.

Kaptan, Özdemir (Arkan), Beyoğlu (Kısa geçmişi, argosu), İletişim, İstanbul, 1988.

Kara, Mustafa, Din Hayât Sanat Açısından Tekkeler ve Zâviyeler, Dergâh, İstanbul,

1980.

Karadeniz, M. Ekrem, Türk Mûsikîsinin Nazariye ve Esasları, Türkiye İş Bankası

Yayınları, 2013.

Karakaya, Fiket, “Ud”, DİA, Vol. 42, 2012, pp. 39-41.

Kaygusuz, Nermin, Muallim İsmail Hakkı Bey ve Mûsıkî Tekâmül Dersleri, İTÜ Vakfı

Yayınları, İstanbul, 2006.

Keith, Thomas, Changing Conceptions of National Biography: the Oxford DNB in

Historical Perspective, Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Keleş, Reyhan Elmas, “Sermet Muhtar Alus'un Eserlerinde Sosyal Meseleler”, Assoc.

Prof. Muhammet Gür (Superviser), Unpublished PhD Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi,

SBE, İslam Tarihi ve Sanatları Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, 2009.

Kemani Sarkis Efendi Suciyan: Hayatı ve Eserleri, Aras Yayınları, İstanbul, 2012.

Kenyon, Gary M., “The Meaning/Value of Personal Storytelling”, Aging and

Biography: Explorations in Adult Development, Gary M. Kenyon and Jan Erik Ruth

(eds.), New York: Springer, 1996, pp. 21-38.

Kerovpyan, Aram and Altuğ Yılmaz, Klasik Osmanlı Müziği ve Ermeniler, Surp Pırgiç

Ermeni Hastanesi Vakfı Kültür Yayınları, 2010.

Keskiner, Bora, “Arap Harfli Türkçe Süreli Yayınlarda Türk Musikisi Teorisi

Bibliyografyası”, TALİD, Vol. 7, No. 14, 2009, pp. 375-415.

Keyder, Çağlar, The Setting”, in Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local, Çağlar

Keyder (ed.), Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York, 1999, pp. 3-28.

Kırmızı, Abdulhamit, “Oto/Biyografik Vebal: Tutarlılık ve Kronoloji Sorunları”, Otur

Baştan Yaz Beni: Oto/Biyografiye Taze Bakışlar, Abdulhamit Kırmızı (ed.), Küre

Yayınları, İstanbul, 2012, pp. 11-27.

269

-------------- “Meşrutiyette İstibdat Kadroları: 1908 İhtilalinin Bürokraside Tasfiye ve

İkame Kabiliyeti”, 100. Yılında Jön Türk Devrimi, Sina Akşin, Sarp Balcı, Barış Ünlü

(eds,) Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 333-355.

Koç, Ferdi, “Musicians Educated at the Music School of Sultan III. Selim”, Procedia -

Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 174, 2015, pp. 2166– 2173.

Kodaman, Bayram, Abdülhamid Devri Eğitim Sistemi, TTK, Ankara, 1999.

Kosal, Vedat, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Klasik Batı Müziği”, Osmanlı, Vol. 10,

Gülen Eren (ed.), Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara, 1999, pp. 639-652.

Kozanoğlu, Cevdet, Radyo Hatıralarım, TRT Müzik Dairesi Yayınları, M. Nazmi Özalp

(ed.), Ankara, 1988.

Kösemihal, Mahmut Ragıp, Türkiye – Avrupa Musiki Münasebetleri (1600-1875), Vol.

1, İstanbul Nümune Matbaası, 1939.

Kudret, Cevdet, Karagöz, Bilgi Yayınevi, 1968.

------------ Ortaoyunu, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Ankara, 1973.

Küçük Ali, Hayali, “Eskiden Karagöz Nasıl Oynatılırdı?”, Türk Folklor Araştırmaları

Dergisi, Vol. 6, No. 140, 1961, pp. 2239-2240.

Küçük, Sezai, Mevlevîliğin Son Yüzyılı, Simurg, İstanbul, 2003.

Kütükçü, Tamer, Radyoculuk Geleneğimiz ve Türk Musikisi, Ötüken, İstanbul, 2012.

Langley, Leanne, “Sainsbury’s Dictionary, the Royal Academy of Music, and the

Rhetoric of Patriotism”, Music and British Culture, 1785-1914: essays in honour of

Cyril Ehrlich, Oxford: OUP, 2000, pp. 65-97.

Linden, Bob Ban Der, Music and Empire in Britain and India: Identity,

Internationalism, and Cross-Cultural Communication, Palgrave Studies in Cultural

and Intellectual History Series, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, 2013.

Merih, Erol, Greek Orthodox Music in Ottoman Istanbul: Nation and Community in

the Era of Reform (Ethnomusicology Multimedia), Indiana University Press, 2015.

Memoirs of Leyla (Saz) Hanımefendi, The Imperial Harem of the Sultans: Daily Life at

the Çırağan Palace During the 19th Century, Landon Thomas (trans.), Hil Yayın,

İstanbul, 2001.

Mevlevi Ayinleri (XXXII), Rauf Yekta Bey, Zekaizade Ahmet Bey, Ali Rifat Çağatay

(eds.), İstanbul Konservatuarı Neşriyatı, İstanbul, 1934.

Mûsıkîde Bir Silsile: Hoca Câhit Gözkân'ın Mûsıkî Mîrâsı, Kütük ve Defterler, Cemil

270

Altınbilek, A. Kırım, and M. H. Gözkân (eds.), 2 Vols., Kubbealtı, İstanbul, 2010.

Nadaroğlu, Halil, "Santuri Ziya Santur'la Bir Konuşma”, Türk Musikisi Dergisi,

İstanbul, 1948, pp. 26-27.

Nelson, Steven G., “Court and religious music (1): history of gagaku and shõmyõ”,

The Ashgate Research Companion to Japanese Music, Alison McQueen Tokita and

David W. Hughes (ed.), Ashgate, 2008, pp. 35-48.

O‘Connell, John Morgan, “Fine Art, Fine Music: Controlling Turkish Taste at the Fine

Arts Academy in 1926”, Yearbook for Traditional Music, Vol. 32 (2000), pp. 117-142.

----------- “A Staged Fright: Musical Hybridity and Religious Intolerance in Turkey

1923-38”, Twentieth Century Music, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011, pp. 3-28.

------------ Münir Nureddin Selçuk, Alaturka: Style in Turkish Music (1923-1938),

SOAS Musicology Series, Ashgate, 2013.

Oktay, Tarkan, Osmanlı’da Büyükşehir Belediye Yönetimi: İstanbul Şehremaneti,

Yeditepe, İstanbul, 2011.

Olley, Jacob, “Writing Music in Nineteenth-Century Istanbul: Ottoman Armenians

and the Invention of Hampartsum Notation”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Prof. Martin

Stokes (Superviser), King’s College London, 2017.

Oransay, Güntekin, “Türkiye'de Defter ve Dergi Biçiminde Fasıl Yayınları (1875-

1976)”, Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Issue 22, 1978, pp. 277-295.

----------- “Cumhuriyetin İlk Elli Yılında Geleneksel Sanat Musikimiz”, Ankara

Üniversitesi İlâhiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, No. 117, Ankara, 1973, pp. 227-272.

Ordu, Fatih, “Toplumsal Bir Bellek Olarak Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar'ın İstanbul'u”,

Unpublished PhD Thesis, Asst. Prof. Şeyma Büyüksavaş Kuran (Superviser), Ondokuz

Mayıs Üniversitesi, SBE, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı Anabilim Dalı, Samsun, 2013.

Ortaylı, İlber, “Belediye”, Vol. 5, DİA, 1992, pp. 398-402.

-----------, İstanbul’dan Sayfalar, Turkuaz Kitap, İstanbul, 2008.

Osman Sevki Uludag: Bir Kultur Savaşcısı, İrem Ela Yılıdızeli (ed.) Pan, Istanbul, 2009.

Ökte, Burhaneddin, “Müsiki Âleminde 30 Sene”, Türk Musikisi Dergisi, Issue. 35,

1950, pp. 10 and 24, Issue. 36, 1950, pp. 10 and 24.

Öncel, Mehmet, “Rauf Yektâ Bey'in Ati, Yeni Mecmûa, Resimli Kitap ve Şehbâl Adlı

Mecmûalarda Mûsikî İle İlgili Makalelerinin İncelenmesi”, MA Thesis, Marmara

Üniversitesi, SBE, İstanbul, 2010.

271

Özalp, M. Nazmi, Türk Mûsikîsi Tarihi, Vol. 2, MEB, İstanbul, 2000.

Özcan, Nuri, "Dağseven, Yusuf", DİA, Vol. 8, 1993, pp. 407-408.

----------- “Dârütta’lîm-i Mûsiki”, DİA, Vol. 9, 1994, pp. 9-10.

----------- "Müştakzâde Edhem Efendi", DİA, Vol. 10, 1994, pp. 417-418.

----------- "Hafız Kemal", DİA, Vol. 15, 1997, pp. 92-93.

----------- “Halim Efendi”, DİA, Supplement No. 1, 2016, 522-523.

----------- “Hüseyin Fahreddin Dede”, DİA, Vol. 18, 1998, pp. 546.

----------- "Mahmud Celaleddin Paşa (Mûsiki)", DİA, Vol. 27, 2003, p. 360.

----------- "Sadettin Heper", DİA, Vol. 17, 1998, pp. 209-210.

Özdemir, Hüseyin, “Rauf Yektâ Bey'in Resimli Gazete, Yeni Ses ve Vakit

Gazetelerinde Mûsikî İle İlgili Makalelerinin İncelenmesi”, MA Thesis, Marmara

Üniversitesi, SBE, İstanbul, 2010.

Özden, Erhan, “Arşiv Belgeleriyle Dârülelhan”, Conservatorium, Vol. 5, Issue 1,

Istanbul University Press, 2018, pp. 97-130.

Özsahakyan, Nazar, Türk Sanat Müziğinde Ermeni Besteciler, Avrupa Kültür Başkenti

Yayını, İstanbul, 2010.

Özsoysal, Fakiye, and Metin Balay, Geleceğe Perde Açan Gelenek: Geçmişten

Günümüze İstanbul Tiyatroları, Vol. III: Anadolu Yakası, YKY, İstanbul, 2011.

Öztan, Nurettin, “Üsküdar Musıkî Cemiyeti ve kurucusu ATÂ BEY”, Musıkî ve Nota,

Vol. 10, Issue. 1, August 1970, pp. 16-19.

Öztuncay, Bahattin, James Robertson: Pioneer of Photography in the Ottomna

Empire, Eren, 1992.

------------ Vasilaki Kargopulo: Hazret-i Padişâhî’nin Serfotoğrafı, BOS, İstanbul, 2000.

Pace, Monica, Eric Jougla, Barbara Leitner, Jan Kardaun, Torsten Schelhase, Anne

Gro Pedersen, Peter Ocko, and Gleb Denisson, “Causes of Death Statistics – People

over 65”, Online Publication, September 2017,

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/

index.php?title=Causes_of_death_statistics_-_people_over_65 (accessed

on 29 June 2018).

Paçacı, Gönül, Cumhuriyet’in Sesleri, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul, 1999.

------------ Osmanlı Müziğini Okumak (Neşriyât-ı Musıki), T.C. Kültür ve Turizm

272

Bakanığı Yayını, İstanbul, 2010.

Pamukciyan, Kevork, Biyografileriyle Ermeniler / Ermeni Kaynaklarından Tarihe

Katkılar-IV, Aras Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2003.

Pappas, Miltiadis, “Tanburi Cemil Bey ve Rum Müzisyenlerin Karşılıklı Etkileşimleri”,

in Tanburi Cemil Bey Sempozyum Bildirileri, Hasan Baran Fırat-Zeynep Yıldız

Abbasoğlu (eds.), Küre Yayınları, İstanbul, 2017, pp. 117-129.

Poulos, Panagiotis C., “Rethinking Orality in Turkish Classical Music: A Genealogy of

Contemporary Musical Assemblages”, Middle Eastern Journal of Culture and

Communication, Vol. 4, Brill, 2011, pp. 164-183.

----------- “Private Spaces, Public Concerns: Music House-gatherings in Istanbul from

the late Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic”, lectured in ARIT (The American

Research Institute in Turkey), Istanbul, 23 September 2013.

Popescu-Judetz, Eugenia, XVIII. Yüzyıl Musıki Yazmalarından Kevserî Mecmuası

Üstüne Karşılaştırmalı Bir İnceleme, Bülent Aksoy, (trans.), Pan, İstanbul, 1998.

------------ Eugenia, Prens Dimitrie Cantemir: Türk Musıkisi Bestekârı ve Nazariyatçısı,

(Selçuk Alimdar, trans.), Pan, İstanbul, 2000.

------------ Türk Musıki Kültürünün Anlamları, Bülent Aksoy (trans.), Pan, İstanbul,

2007,

Rasim, Ahmet, Dünkü İstanbul’da Hovardalık: Fuhş-i Atik, Arba, İstanbul, 1987.

Rustin, Michael, “Reflections on the Biographical Turn in Social Science,” The Turn

to Biographical Methods in Social Science: comparative issues and examples, Tom

Wengraf, Prue Chamberlayne and Joanna Bornat (ed.), Routledge, 2000, pp. 33-52.

Raven, James, “The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: Dictionary oo

Encyclopedia?”, The Historical Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4, December 2007, pp. 991-

1006.

Rona, Mustafa, 50 Yıllık Türk Musıkisi: Bestekârları, Besteleri Güftelerile, 2. Edition,

Türkiye Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1960.

Russell, Dave, Popular Music in England, 1840-1914 (Music and Society), Mcgill-

Queens University Press, 1987.

Salgar, M. Fatih, III. Selim Hayatı-Sanatı-Eserleri, Ötüken Neşriyet, İstanbul, 2001.

Sağlam, Burcu, “Türk Müziğinin Hafızası: Saadeddin Heper”, Musikişinas, No. 14,

İstanbul, 2015, pp. 46-93.

273

Sağman, Ali Riza, Meşhur Hafız Sami Merhum, Ahmet Sait Matbaası, İstanbul, 1947.

Serin, Muhittin, Kemal Batanay, Kubbealtı Neşriyat, İstanbul, 2006.

Seven, Neslihan, “Sermet Muhtar Alus'un Romanlarında ve Öykülerinde Eski

İstanbul”, MA Thesis, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van, 2006.

Seyhun, Vecdi, Santurî Ethem Bey: Hayatı ve Eserleri, Marmara Basımevi, İstanbul,

1948.

Shephard, Alastair J., “Biography and Mentalité History: Discovering a Relationship”,

Fukuoka University Review of Commercial Sciences, No. 49, 1992, pp. 6-21.

Somel, Selçuk Akşin, The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire

1839-1908: Islamization, Autocracy and Discipline, Brill, Leiden, 2001.

Sözer, Vural, “Şengel, (Eyyûbî) Ali Rızâ”, Müzik ve Müzisyenler Ansiklopedisi, Atlas

Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1964, p. 406.

Stone, Lawrence, “Prosopography”, Daedalus, 100/1 (1971), pp. 46-79.

Süreyya, Musa, “Necati Bey Merhum ve Musıkî Tedrisatı”, Musıki Bahsi Köşesi,

Milliyet, 10 Kanunusâni, 1929, p. 4.

----------- “Savtî Musıki”, Dârülelhân, No. 5, Sene 1.1 Şubat 1341.

Sürelsan, İsmail Baha, Ahmet Rasim ve Musiki, Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, Ankara,

1977.

------------ "Mehmet Suphi Ezgi", DİA, Vol. 12, 1995, pp. 51-52.

Tan, Ali, “Ney Açkısının Tarihi ve Teknik Gelişimi”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Assoc.

Prof. M. Nuri Uygun (Superviser), Marmara Üniversitesi, SBE, İslam Tarihi ve

Sanatları Bilim Dalı, İstanbul, 2011.

Tan, Ali - Mustafa Çıpan, Ney…, Konya Valiliği, İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü, Konya,

2013.

Tanpınar, Ahmet Hamdi, “İbnül Emin Mahmut Kemal’e Dair”, Hoş Sadâ: Son Asır

Türk Musıkişinasları, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Maarif Basımevi, İstanbul,

1958, pp. XLVII-LV.

Taşan, Turhan, Kadın Besteciler, Pan Yayınları, İstanbul, 2000.

Tekeli, İlhan, İstanbul ve Ankara İçin Kent İçi Ulaşım Tarihi Yazıları, Tarih Vakfı Yurt

Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.

274

Tekin, Hakkı, “Şeyhülislam Esad Efendi ve Atrabü'l-Asar fi Tezkiret-i Urefail-Edvar”,

MA Thesis, Erciyes Üniversitesi, SBE, İslam Tarihi ve Sanatları Anabilim Dalı, Kayseri,

1993.

Tepeyran, Ebubekir Hazım, Canlı Tarihler, No. 6, Türkiye Yayınevi, Ankara, 1947.

Terzioğlu, Derin, “Tarihi İnsanlı Yazmak: Bir Tarih Anlatı Türü Olarak Biyografi ve

Osmanlı Tarihyazıcılığı”, Cogito, No. 29, 2001, pp. 284-295.

Tosun, Bekir, “Direklerarası”, DİA, Vol. 9, 1994, pp. 367-368.

Τσιαμούλης, Χρίστος, Παύλος Ερευνίδης, Ρωμηοί συνθέτες της Πόλης (17ος-20ός

αι.) [The Rum Composers of Istanbul (from 17th to 20th centuries)], Εκδόσεις Δόμος,

Αθήνα, 1998.

Tural, Erkan, II. “Meşrutiyet Dönemi’nde Devletin Restorasyonu Bağlamında 1909

Teşkilat ve Tensikat Kanunu”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Prof. Ergun Aybars

(Superviser), Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, AİİTE, İzmir, 2006.

Tüzüner, Hüsnü, “Gülşenî Musiki Mektebi Hatıralarım”, Türk Musikisi, Vol. 2, Issue

19, May 1949, p. 7 and Vol. 20, June 1949, p. 6.

Uçman, Abdullah, "Ahmed Celaleddin Dede", DİA, No. 2, 1989, p. 53.

Uslu, Recep, "Neyzen Mahmut Şevket Özdönmez (ö. 1954) ve Türk Müziği

Görüşleri", Eyupsultan Sempozyumu XI, İstanbul, 2011, pp. 103-125.

Uzcan, Nihat, Türk Bestekârları Ansiklopedisi, İtimat Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1978.

Üngör, Ethem Ruhi, Karagöz Musikisi, Kültür Bakanlığı, Ankara, 1989.

------------ “Karagöz Musikisi”, Karagöz Kitabı, Sevengül Sönmez (ed.), Kitabevi,

İstanbul, 2005, pp. 91-97.

Üstel, Füsun, “1920’li ve 30’lu Yıllarda “Milli Musiki” ve “Musıki İnkılabı”, Defter,

Metis Yayınları, İstanbul, No. 22, 1994, pp. 41-53.

Verboven, Koenraad, Miriam Carlier, and Jan Dumolyn, “A Short Manual to the Art

of Prosopography”, Prosopography Approaches and Applications. A Handbook, (ed.)

K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, The University of Oxford, 2007, pp. 35-70.

Yekta, Rauf, “Gramofon ve Mûsıkî-i Osmânî”, İkdam, No. 4223, 13 Muharrem 1324

(9 March 1906).

----------- "Selîm-i Sâlis Mûsıkîşinâs", Yeni Mecmua, No. 16 (İstanbul 1917), pp. 309-

312.

275

----------- “Ziya Gökalp Bey ve Millî Musikimiz Hakkındaki Fikirleri I-II-III, Servet-i

Fünûn, Nos. 1480-81-82, 1340/1925, quoted from İsmail Akçay, Musıki Tarihimizden

Belgeler, İstanbul, 1948, pp. 41-48.

----------- “Musıkimiz Aleyhine Yanlış Fikirler”, Vakit, 1 Mart 1926.

----------- “Türk Musıkisi Müzeye Kaldırılamaz” Vakit, 24 Mart 1926.

----------- “Mukaddeme”, in Türk Musikisi Klasiklerinden İlahiler, Rauf Yekta Bey,

Zekaizade Ahmet Bey, Ali Rifat Çağatay (eds.), Vol. 1, İstanbul Konservatuarı

Neşriyatı, İstanbul, 1931, pp. III-VIII.

Yılmaz, Kâşif, III. Selim (İlhâmî): Hayatı, Edebî Kişiliği ve Dîvânın Tenkitli Metni,

Trakya Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü Yayınları, No. 52, Edirne, 2001.

Wicke, Peter, “The Art of Phonography: Sound, Technology and Music”, (trans. from

German by Derek B. Scott), The Ashgate Research Companion to Popular

Musicology, (ed. Derek B. Scott), Ashgate, 2009, pp. 147-168.

Yücel, Hasan Âli, “Üstad İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal”, Hoş Sadâ: Son Asır Türk

Musıkişinasları, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Maarif Basımevi, İstanbul, 1958,

pp. XXX-XXXIV.

Zarcone, Thierry, Şeyh Mehmed Ataullah Dede (1842-1910) and the Mevlevîhâne of

Galata: An Intellectual and Spritual Bridge Between the East and the West”, The

Dervishes of Sovereignty – The Sovereignty of Dervishes. The Mevlevî Order in

Istanbul, Ekrem Işın (ed.), Istanbul Researh Institute, 2007, pp. 58-75.

A Selected Bibliography on Collective Biography Studies

Akiba, Jun, ”The Practice of Writing Curricula Vitae among the Lower Government

Employees in the Late Ottoman Empire: Workers at the Şeyhülislâm’s Office”,

European Journal of Turkish Studies, 6, 2007: http://ejts.revues.org/1503.

Bouquet, Olivier, “Old Elites in a New Republic: The Reconversion of Ottoman

Bureaucratic Families in Turkey (1909-1939)”, Comperative Studies of South Asia,

Africa and the Middle East, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2011, pp. 588-600.

----------- “The Sultan’s Sons-in-Law: Analysing Ottoman Imperial Damads”, Journal

of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 58, 2015, pp. 327-361.

----------- Sultanın Paşaları (1839-1909), Devrim Çetinkasap (trans.), İş Bankası Kültür

Yayınları, İstanbul, 2016.

Deák, István, Beyond Nationalism: A Social & Political History of the Habsburg

Officer Corps (1848-1908), Oxford University Press, New York, 1990.

276

Demirel, Ahmet, Birinci Meclis’te Muhalefet: İkinci Grup, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul,

(5th edition) 2009.

----------- İlk Meclis’in Vekilleri: Milli Mücadele Döneminde Seçimler, İletişim Yayınları,

İstanbul, 2010.

----------- Tek Partinin İktidarı: Türkiye’de Seçimler ve Siyaset (1923-1946), İletişim

Yayınları, İstanbul, 2013.

Erbay, Halil İbrahim, “Teaching and Learning in the Madrasas of Istanbul during the

Late Ottoman Period”, Prof. Benjamin Fortna (Superviser), Unpublished PhD Thesis,

SOAS, University of London, 2009.

Findley, Carter Vaughn, Ottoman Civil Officialdom: A Social History, Princeton

University Press, New Jersey, 1989.

Godsey, William D., Aristocratic Redoubt, The Austo-Hungarian Foreign Office on

the Eve of the First World War, Purdue University Press, Indiana, 1999.

Güldöşüren, Arzu, “II. Mahmud Dönemi Osmanlı Uleması”, Prof. Ziya Yılmazer

(Superviser), Unpublished PhD Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, SBE, İslam Tarihi ve

Sanatları Anabilim Dalı, İslam Tarihi Bilim Dalı, İstanbul, 2103.

Kırmızı, Abdulhamit, Abdülhamid’in Valileri: Osmanlı Vilayet İdaresi: 1895-1908,

Klasik Yayınları, İstanbul, Second Edition, 2008.

--------- “II. Abdülhamid’in Hıristiyan Memurları”, TBMM Milli Saraylar, İstanbul,

2017, pp. 654-664.

--------- “European Educational Backgrounds of Armenian Officials in the Ottoman

Empire”, in Middle Eastern Christians and Europe: Diasporas – Relations – Antagled

Histories, Andreas Schmoller (ed.), Wien: Lit, 2018, 59-77.

---------“Jews in the Ottoman Civil Bureaucracy”, Berlin: EB-Verlag, forthcoming

2019.

Rohr, Deborah, The Careers of British Musicians, 1750-1850, A Profession of

Artisans, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2004.

Taha Toros Archive, İstanbul Şehir University

Alus, Sermet Muhtar, “Eski Eğlenceler”, Taha Toros Archive, No. 001581223010,

İstanbul Şehir University.

----------- “Direklerarasında Ramazan Piyasası”, Tarih ve Toplum, January 1994, Vol.

122 and February 1994, Vol. 130, Taha Toros Archive, No. 001580761010, İstanbul

Şehir University.

277

Asım, Necib, “Tezkire-i Musikişinasân hakkında bir mütalaâ”, Musâhabe, Taha Toros

Archive, No. 001511372006, İstanbul Şehir University.

Atabeyoğlu, Cem, “Musiki âlemimizden…”, p.21, Taha Toros Archive, No.

001527875006, İstanbul Şehir University.

Dizer, Salih, “Alaturka musiki üstadlarımız: Eyyübî Ali Rıza ile bir konuşma”, Taha

Toros Archive, No. 001511093006, İstanbul Şehir University.

Evci, Haşim, “Eyyubî Ali Rıza Şengel ile mülâkat”, 6 Mart 1950, Taha Toros Archive,

No. 001511144006, İstanbul Şehir University.

Ediboğlu, Baki Süha, “Kabettiğimiz Değerler: Mesut Cemil”, Cumhuriyet, 3 Mart

1963, Taha Toros Archive, No. 001583643010, İstanbul Şehir University.

Gavsî, Şevket, “Sultan Selim-i Sâlis”, Peyam, Taha Toros Archive, No. 001511371006,

İstanbul Şehir University.

Mümtaz S., Semih, “Üstat bestekâr Lem’i bey”, Aralık 1948, Taha Toros Archive, No.

001583654010, İstanbul Şehir University.

278

APPENDICES

A. The Full List Of Musicians Under Study

ID NAME

BIRTH_

PLACE

DATE_

BIRTH

DATE_

DIED

58 Fehmi Efendi (Cerrah) Islimye ? ?

81 Ibrahim Efendi (klarnet) ? ? ?

32 Behlul Efendi Fatih ? 1895

206 Hadi Bey (Yenikoylu) Yenikoy ? 1920

161 Salih Efendi (Kemani, Bulbul) Istanbul ? 1923

196 Mehmed Esref Efendi Istanbul ? 1930

224 Ata Bey Istanbul ? 1934

152 Rifat Bey (Miralay) Istanbul 1820 1896

189 Zekai Dede Eyub 1824 1897

162 Salim Bey Uskudar 1830 1894

11 Ali Bey (Enderunlu, Kel) Tosya 1831 1899

140 Bolahenk Nuri Bey Karagumruk 1834 1911

26 Aziz Dede Uskudar 1835 1905

104 Mahmut Celaleddin Pasa Vefa 1839 1900

170 Mehmet Sadi Bey Cengelkoy 1839 1904

220 Husameddin Efendi (Kasiyarik) Istanbul 1840 ?

61 Haci Kirami Efendi

Mevlevihane

kapi 1840 1909

23

Astik Aga (Asadur

Hamamciyan) Ortakoy 1840 1913

124 Mustafa Servet Bey Istanbul 1840 1918

143 Osman Efendi (Hafiz, Musullu) Musul 1840 1920

123 Mustafa Nuri Bey

Kahramanma

ras 1841 1906

168 Servet Bey (Mustafa) Istanbul 1841 1917

29 Aziz Efendi (Medeni) Medine 1842 1895

279

24 Ataullah Efendi Topkapi 1842 1910

46 Emin Efendi, Notaci Beylerbeyi 1845 1907

183 Vasilaki Efendi Silivri 1845 1907

245

Mehmed Cemal Efendi

(Zakirbasi) Eyup 1847 1916

154

Sabri Bey (Mehmet,

Tophaneli) Istanbul 1848 1914

37 Celaleddin Dede Efendi Topkapi 1849 1908

193 Ziya Yusuf Pasa Istanbul 1849 1929

103 Leyla Hanim (Saz) Istanbul 1850 1937

2 Afet (Hapet) Misirliyan Kumkapi 1850 1922

22 Asim Bey (Giriftzen)

Yenisehir,

Fener 1851 1929

218 Refik Bey (Manyasizade) Istanbul 1853 1910

72 Huseyin Fahreddin Dede Besiktas 1853 1911

219 Ahmed Celaleddin Dede Gelibolu 1853 1946

3 Ahmet Arifi Bey Istanbul 1855 1908

209 Ali Riza Bey (Vefali) Bayezid 1855 1923

51 Edhem Efendi (Santuri) Bayezid 1855 1926

86 Ismail Fenni Ertugrul Tirnova 1856 1926

28 Aziz Efendi (Hafiz) Istanbul 1856 1929

188 Yusuf Efendi (Hafiz) Hanya 1857 1925

115

Melekzet Efendi (Mustafa

Nuri) Istanbul 1857 1937

182 Tatyos Efendi (Keseryan) Ortakoy 1858 1913

79 Husnu Efendi (Enderunlu) Uskudar 1858 1919

107 Mehmet Bey (Kanuni) Beykoz 1859 1927

178 Sevki Bey Fatih 1860 1891

52 Edhem Efendi (Ibrahim) Fatih 1860 1934

102 Leon Hanciyan Efendi Haskoy 1860 1947

91 Izzet Bey Isanbul 1861 1894

280

19 Arif Bey (Kanuni) Istanbul 1862 1911

221 Said Özok Istanbul 1863 1945

147 Rahmi Bey (Mehmet) Istanbul 1864 1924

9 Ahmet Rasim Bey Fatih 1864 1932

41 Cemil Bey (Hanende) Fatih 1865 1926

87 Ismail Hakki (Muallim) Balat 1865 1927

142 Nuri Seyda Bey Istanbul 1866 1901

40 Cemil Bey (Sekerci, udi) Sehzadebasi 1867 1928

116 Memduh Efendi Ayvansaray 1868 1938

63 Hasan Sabri Bey Uskudar 1868 1922

5 Ahmet Avni Bey (Konuk) Istanbul 1868 1938

100 Kirkor Culhayan Efendi Kumkapi 1868 1938

14 Ali Galip Turkkan Istanbul 1868 1949

246 Nuri Korman Ortakoy 1868 1951

62 Hamit Husnu Bey Istanbul 1868 1952

222 Ziya Santur Kanlica 1868 1952

4 Ahmed Bey (Selanikli) Selanik 1869 1926

13 Ali Rifat Cagatay Ayvansaray 1869 1935

6 Ahmet Irsoy Eyub 1869 1943

30 Azmi Bey ? 1869 1944

112 Mehmet Suphi Ezgi Uskudar 1869 1962

27 Aziz Mahmud Bey Istanbul 1870 1929

38 Cemal Efendi (Hafiz) Kasimpasa 1870 1937

101 Lemi Atli Uskudar 1870 1945

149 Rauf Yekta Bey (Mehmet) Aksaray 1871 1935

243 Yusuf Dagseven Uskudar 1871 1945

56 Faiz Kapanci Selanik 1871 1950

110 Mustafa Nezih Albayrak Vefa 1871 1964

42 Cemil Bey (Tanburi) Aksaray 1872 1916

146 Ovrik Efendi (Kazasyan) Kumkapi 1872 1936

1 Abdulkadir Bey (Tore) Kasgar 1872 1945

281

35 Bogos Efendi (Asdikzade) Ortakoy 1872 1945

94 Karnik Garmiryan Beyoglu 1872 1947

148 Rakim Elkutlu Izmir 1872 1948

133 Nevres Bey Malatya 1873 1937

34 Bimen Sen (Dergazaryan) Bursa 1873 1943

95 Kazim Uz Draman 1873 1943

247 İhsan İyisan Uskudar 1873 1946

73 Huseyin Fahri Tanik Lofca 1873 1953

177 Sevket Gavsi (Ozdonmez) Istanbul 1873 1954

169 Servet Yesari (Mehmet) Istanbul 1874 1943

199 Hafiz Sami Filibe 1874 1943

39 Cemal Efendi Izmir 1874 1945

179 Sukru Senozan

Suleymaniye,

Ist. 1874 1954

77 Huseyin Husnu Sonat Selanik 1875 ?

92 Izzettin Humai Bey

Fatih,

Nisanca 1875 1950

98 Kemal Emin Bara Sehzadebasi 1876 1956

163 Sami Bey (Udi) Aksaray 1876 1939

83 İhsan Raif Hanim Beyrut 1877 1926

192 Ziya Bey (Bestenigar) Uskudar 1877 1923

106 Mehmet Baha Pars Bursa 1877 1953

111 M. Nuri Duyguer Kadikoy 1877 1963

16 Ali Riza Sengel (Eyyubi) Eyub 1878 1953

18 Ali Salahi Bey Istanbul 1878 1945

76 Huseyin Sadeddin Arel Vefa 1878 1953

80 Hosep Efendi (Ebeyan) Uskudar 1878 1966

210 Tevfik Kolayli Bodrum 1879 1953

47 Ekrem Bey Fatih 1879 1934

82

Ibrahim Efendi (Avram Hayat

Levi) Halep 1879 1948

282

248 Nurullah Kilic

Merkez

Efendi 1879 1975

20 Arsak Efendi (Comlekciyan) Gedikpasa 1880 1930

17 Ali Riza Bey (Kaptanzade) Kanlica 1881 1934

125 Mustafa Sunar Draman 1881 1959

8 Ahmet Nuri Canaydin Fatih 1881 ?

50 Emin Yazici Tophane 1881 1945

74 Huseyin Kazim Tav Fatih 1881 1957

254 Osman Efendi (Guvenir) Istanbul 1882 ?

244 Kemal Gurses Sehremini 1882 1939

68 Haydar Gunemek Fatih 1882 ?

174 Semsettin Ziya Bey Vefa 1882 1925

113 Mehmet Yuru (Nasibin) Kanlica 1882 1953

109 Mehmet Munir Kökten Eyub 1882 1969

44 Cevdet Refik Kalpakcioglu Fatih 1883 1959

129 Nail Okte Cihangir 1884 ?

130 Nazim Bey (Ama, Kanuni) Uskudar 1884 1920

215 İhsan Aziz Bey Istanbul 1884 1935

121 Musa Sureyya Uskudar 1884 1932

173 Sekib Bey Istanbul 1884 1938

119 Muhiddin Erev Seres 1884 1952

99 Kirkor Berber (Udi) Istanbul 1884 1959

84 Isak Varon Gelibolu 1884 1962

141 Nuri Halil Poyraz Inebolu 1885 1956

54 Fahri Kopuz Istanbul 1885 1968

21 Artaki Candan (Terziyan) Selanik 1885 1948

45 Durru Turan Fatih 1885 1960

96 Kemal Niyazi Seyhun Akka 1885 1967

137 Nubar Efendi (Kanuni) Istanbul 1885 ?

7 Ahmet Mukerrem Akinci Fatih 1885 1940

167 Serkis Suciyan (Kemani) Besiktas 1885 1943

283

64 Hasan Fehmi Mutel Beylerbeyi 1885 1964

184 Yasar Okur

Kocamustafa

pasa 1885 1966

236 Ali İcinger (Bulbul Ali) Edirne 1886 1976

90 Istepan Gedik Konya 1886 1970

171 Suphi Ziya Ozbekkan Istanbul 1887 1966

118 Mildan Niyazi Ayomak Safranbolu 1887 1947

59 Fehmi Tekce Fethiye 1888 ?

25 Avni Aktunc Eyub 1888 1961

238 Izak Elgazi Izmir 1889 1950

157 Sahak Hocasar Besiktas 1889 1946

120 Muhlis Sabahattin Adana 1889 1947

60 Fehmi Tokay Uskudar 1889 1958

145 Osman Sevki Uludag Bursa 1889 1964

136 Nigar Galip Hanim (Ulusoy) Cibali 1890 1966

151 Resat Erer Istanbul 1890 1940

164 Sedat Oztoprak Konya 1890 1942

202 Kadi Fuad Efendi Istanbul 1890 1920

201 Hikmet Bey Istanbul 1890 1923

12 Ali Galip Alnar Istanbul 1890 1951

53 Faik Mis ? 1890 1959

67 Haydar Tatliyay Drama 1890 1962

15 Ali Riza Sagman Unye 1890 1965

117 Memduh Imre Topkapi 1891 1956

208 Munir Mazhar Kamsoy Uskudar 1891 1973

181 Tahsin Karakus

M. Kemal

Pasa 1892 1959

10 Aleko Bacanos Silivri 1892 1950

176 Serif Muhiddin Bey Istanbul 1892 1967

150 Refik Fersan Sehzadebasi 1893 1965

231 Sevki Sevgin Istanbul 1893 1969

284

88 Ismail Hakki Nebioglu Besiktas 1893 1975

33 Besim Serif Ustunoz Uskudar 1893 1970

69 Hayri Yenigun Kumkapi 1893 1979

97 Kemal Batanay Fatih 1893 1981

57 Faize Ergin Istanbul 1894 1954

213 Refik Talat Bey (Alpman) Bebek 1894 1947

249 Huseyin Efendi (Sebilci) Istanbul 1894 1975

237 Sadettin Kaynak Fatih 1895 1961

234 Fatma Enise Can (Elizavet) Istanbul 1896 1975

31 Bedriye Hosgor Konya 1896 1968

194 Cevdet Kozanoglu Kasimpasa 1896 1986

190 Zeki Arif Ataergin Besiktas 1896 1964

232 Ahmet Yatman Istanbul 1896 1973

65 Hasan Guler Drama 1896 1984

105 Marko Colakoglu Nigde 1896 1957

159 Sadi Erden Kiziltoprak 1896 1963

197 Hafiz Burhan

Kocamustafa

pasa 1897 1943

228 Ahmed Celal Tokses Marmaris 1898 1966

186 Yesari Asim Ersoy Drama 1898 1992

175 Serif Icli Besiktas 1899 1956

160 Sadi Isilay Laleli 1899 1969

158 Sadettin Heper Eyup 1899 1980

240 Fahire Fersan Divanyolu 1900 1997

233 Mustafa Zeki Caglarman Fatih 1900 ?

66 Hasan Tahsin Parsadan Kars 1900 1954

187 Yorgo Bacanos Istanbul 1900 1977

128 Munir Nurettin Selcuk Sariyer 1900 1981

139 Nurettin Cemil Sangan Sehzadebasi 1900 1979

135 Nezahat Adula Findikli 1901 1959

70 Hirant Emre, Kenkiloglu Adapazari 1901 1978

285

205 Mesud Cemil Aksaray 1902 1963

204 Rusen Ferit Kam Beylerbeyi 1902 1981

43 Cevdet Cagla Acibadem 1902 1988

198 Hayri Tumer Zeyrek 1902 1973

252 Naci Tektel Istanbul 1902 1975

172 Suleyman Erguner SultanSelim 1902 1953

165 Selahaddin Pinar Uskudar 1902 1960

195 Gavsi Baykara Yenikapi 1902 1967

71 Hulusi Gokmenli Besiktas 1902 1975

131 Nebahat uner Bebek 1903 1955

223 Zuhdu Bardakoglu (Santuri) Tophane 1903 ?

132 Neveser Kokdes Drama 1904 1962

239 Mebruke Cagla Istanbul 1904 1982

122 Mustafa Nafiz Irmak Istanbul 1904 1975

55 Faruk Arifi Istanbul 1904 ?

203 Fuat Sorguc Uskudar 1904 1970

48 Ekrem Karadeniz Rize 1904 1981

212 Omer Altug Sivas 1905 1965

138 Nubar Tekyay Istanbul 1905 1955

216 Burhanettin Okte Istanbul 1905 1973

225 Halil Can Uskudar 1905 1973

185 Yekta Akinci Sarachane 1905 1980

144 Osman Nihat Akin Bakirkoy 1905 1959

211 Fatma Nihal Erkutun Amasya 1906 1989

235 Emine Fulya Akaydin (Panfilia) Istanbul 1906 1975

49 Emin Ongan Edirne 1906 1985

108 Halil Dikmen Istanbul 1906 1964

126 Mustafa Sirin Fatih 1906 ?

180 Sukru Tunar Edremit 1907 1962

226 Hakki Derman Kabatas 1907 1972

191 Zeki Duygulu Beyrut 1907 1974

286

89 Ismail Safa Olcay Amasya 1907 1969

251 Nefise Ozses Istanbul 1908 ?

227 Laika Karabey Asir, Yemen 1908 1989

155 Sabri Suha Ansen Bursa 1908 1990

256 Mualla Anil Edirne 1909 1985

207 Mustafa Caglar Midilli 1910 1961

217 Izzettin Okte Istanbul 1910 1990

156 Sadi Hosses Istanbul 1910 1994

127 Muzaffer İlkar Istanbul 1910 1987

257 Feyzi Aslangil Bayezid 1910 1965

78 Huseyin Tolan (Hafiz) Karaferye 1910 1976

200 Mehmet Resat Aysu Tekirdag 1910 1?

153 Sabiha Tekad Beylerbeyi 1911 ?

36 Cahit Gozkan Fatih 1911 1?

230 Vecihe Daryal Beylerbeyi 1912 1970

242 Vedia Tunccekic Istanbul 1912 1982

229 Haldun Menemencioglu Uskudar 1912 1972

85 Ismail Baha Surelsan Bursa 1912 1998

253 Rustu Eric Iskece 1912 ?

93 Kadri Sencalar Eyup 1912 1989

250 Salahaddin Demirtas Kasimpasa 1912 1997

166 Semahat Ergokmen Uskudar 1913 2008

241 Nezahat Soysev Istanbul 1915 ?

134 Nevzat Akay Kanlica 1915 1969

214 Vecdi Seyhun Kanlica 1915 1984

75 Huseyin Mayadag Selanik 1915 1965

255 Rustu Sardag Halep 1915 1994

114 Melahat Pars Fatih 1918 2005

287

VITA

Personal Information:

First Name & Last Name: Onur Öner

E-mail (1): onuroner@sehir.edu.tr

E-mail (2): onur.ioa@gmail.com

Education:

2000 – 2006 …………………………. BA in Philology, Istanbul University, Turkey

2011 – 2013 …………………………. MA in History, Istanbul Sehir University, Turkey

Work Experience:

2009 – 2010 ……………… Greek Language Instructor at the School of Languages in

the Turkish Land Forces Command, Istanbul

2011 – 2013 ………………. Graduate Assistant at Istanbul Sehir University

2013 – 2016 ………………. TUBITAK project (No. 113K156) fellowship, Armenians in

the Ottoman Bureaucracy (1839-1909). Project supervisor: Prof. Abdulhamit Kırmızı

Publications:

1. İskender Goçe’nin İstintâknâmesi: Pindus Dağları’nda Bir Eşkıyânın İzini Sürerken,

Kebikeç, No. 34, 2012, pp. 25-40.

2. Book review of Bob Van Der Linden, Music and Empire in Britain and India:

Identity, Internationalism, and Cross-Cultural Communication, Palgrave Studies in

Cultural and Intellectual History series. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013,

published in Dîvân: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, Vol. 23, No. 44, 2018/1, p.

209-212.

288

3. Book review of Güneş Ayas, Mûsiki İnkılâbı’nın Sosyolojisi Klasik Türk Müziği

Geleneğinde Süreklilik ve Değişim, Doğu Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2014, published in

Insight Turkey, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2015, p. 243.;