About Sultan II. Bayezid records

Sultan Makamı: When I was offered to have Bezmârâ perform the works attributed to Bayezid II within the scope of the Composer Sultans Collection project, I could not be very happy about the opportunity to perform the works of a different period whose instruments we had not used before, as the only representative in Turkey of the concept of “performing the works with the instruments of the periods they belong to”. The first reason for this was that we did not have the opportunity  or the means to manufacture a different instrument that we knew was used during the period of Bayezid II but that Bezmârâ had not used. Because there was a short time for the recordings to start and there was no sponsor to finance the production of the new instrument(s). The second reason was that I had researched whether the composer Bayezid, whose name I had come across in Ali Ufkî, Kantemir and Kevseri in the past, was really Sultan Bayezid II and had come to the conclusion that he was not involved in the music of this sultan to the extent of being a composer. But tradition attributed some instrumental works to him. In that case, the Hünkâr Makam project had to include these works as well.  
So with which instruments would we play them?  
Bezmârâ played 16th century works with the old kanun, old santur, old ud, kopuz, şehrud, çeng, ney, kemânçe, miskal and daire. It was certain that these instruments were used in the 15th century as well. None of them appeared in the 16th century. Besides, the reign of Bayezid II partially lasted until the 16th century. In that case, it is possible to consider the instruments in question as the instruments of the period of Bayezid II. Anyway, One of the pieces in the Bayezid collection came from Ali Ufkî (Neva Düyek Peşrev), two from Kantemir (Neva Fahte [10-time] and Nişabur Sakil peşrevs), and one from Kevseri (Isfahan Remel Peşrev). Kevseri had a complete version of Neva Fahte Peşrev, of which Kantemir wrote only the first section and the mulazim. Isfahan Remel Peşrev was also present in Kantemir's Edvarı, but it was not attributed to any composer there. We do not have any earlier versions of the five works mentioned. Unfortunately, I have not been able to determine whether the printed notation collection, which is the source of a Neva Peşrev measured in 20-time fahte and a Neva Saz Semaisi, was Sazende, Nuhbe-i Elhan, or another publication. Because I could not find the opportunity to review all editions of the printed magazines I mentioned. In the magazine, which can be said to have been published in the early 20th century -unknown for now-, Sultan Bayezid's name was also mentioned as the composer in the title of the last two works. Of course, the publisher of this magazine based this reference on an oral reference from earlier periods. But the first written/printed source mentioning Sultan Bayezid as a composer was probably this unknown magazine.  
The oldest notation we have of Neva Bağdat Semaisi, which resembles the 17th century sazende semai notated by Ali Ufkî and Kantemir, was written by İsmail Hakkı Bey. The oldest notation of Rahatü'l-ervah Peşrev may be the one in Nuhbe-i Elhan. The notes written by TRT and Fikret Kutluğ are no different from those in Nuhbe-i Elhan. Arazbar-zemzeme Peşrev and Semai seem to have come down to the present day from İsmail Hakkı Bey’s archive. The oldest note we have is written by İsmail Hakkı Bey. The oldest note we have of Eviç Peşrev and Semai was written by Halil Can.  
Although Bezmârâ played Nişabur Sakil Peşrev in many concerts and previously recorded it for an album, I must admit that I got to know the other 12 pieces very well thanks to the Hünkâr Makamı Project.  
After this introduction, if I were to take the works one by one, analyze their compositional structures in general terms, and explain the considerations with which I performed them, I would say the following:  
The Nishabur Peşrev, like the vast majority of the peşrevs notated by Ali Ufkî and Kantemir, has three characters. As written by Kantemir, the first character is one, the second and third characters are two sakils long. The Mülazime also has two sakils. It is worth noting that this sakil, like the 19th century sakil, has 48 beats, the beats are the same, but it differs in terms of tempo - it is approximately twice as fast.  
Both the fact that the Nishabur Faslı in Ali Ufkî does not contain many works and that Kantemir did not write many nishabur works has always been a matter of regret for the members of Bezmârâ, who are members of this makam. When I put the score of Bayezid’s prelude in front of them during the rehearsals in 1997, they loved the second sentence of the third section very much and said that it would be unfair to this extraordinary sentence to be played only once, and I agreed with them. Therefore, I took that sentence from the third section and put it at the beginning of the mülazime; so it was played after every section. We were not satisfied with that, we played this sentence, which became the first section of the mülazime, twice each time. In this way, a new architecture of the work was created and we loved this new form very much. When we were going to re-record this work for the Hünkâr Makamı project, I did not dare to repeat this operation on the work here and put the unmodified score in front of my friends during the recording. But they Although they looked at the score, they played it the same way they did before, and I took it as a sign. I didn’t intervene and we played the piece as we were used to. The piece was undoubtedly more attractive this way, because the brightest and most striking phrase in it was played six times instead of one, like a kind of leitmotiv. But the third section consisted of only one sakil instead of two, and the balance of the piece was slightly disrupted. To tell the truth, the fact that the sections were unequal in length in the majority of the peşrevs and semai that Ali Ufkî and Kantemir notated prevented us from paying attention to this slight imbalance that emerged in the Nişabur Peşrev.  
The Neva Fahte Peşrev in Kantemiroğlu Edvarı, as I mentioned above, only has the first section and the mülazim. Ali Ufkî Bey has shown the same prelude in Mecmua-i Saz ü Söz as a verse made by a composer named Ahmed Bey to Bayezid's prelude, and Owen Wright has also drawn attention to this issue. The point that needs to be emphasized here is that the prelude is in the fahte metre. It is very unlikely that this prelude is a verse of the Neva Düyek Prelude in Mecmua-i Saz ü Söz. Because verses are generally composed in the same metre. Indeed, in Kantemiroğlu Edvarı, there is also a Neva Fahte Prelude shown as a verse to Bayezid's prelude. Perhaps Ali Ufkî Bey's references are wrong and Kantemir's are correct. The fact that Ali Ufkî Bey did not write Bayezid's Fahte Prelude can be explained in this way. It should be noted that the preface, which Ali Ufkî Bey showed as a verse to Bayezid and attributed to Ahmed Bey, was attributed to Bayezid by Kantemir approximately 50 years later. Another interesting situation is that the second and third verses of the verse, of which Ali Ufkî Bey wrote all three sections, did not survive to Kantemir's period, but were written in full by attributing them to Bayezid in the Kevserî Mecmuası. Comparing the versions of Neva Fahte Preface, which one of the three authors gave as a verse and the other two attributed to Bayezid, in Ali Ufkî and Kantemir shows that both the two authors correctly took the melodies they heard into notation and that – at least – this work has not changed much in the past 50 years.  
It is surprising that the oldest score of Neva Bağdat Semaisi we have comes from the Muallim İsmail Hakkı Bey Collection. Because the piece is composed in the yürük semai usul (like the sazende semai in the Ali Ufkî and Kantemir compilations) and is very similar to the 17th century sazende semai in terms of melodic structure. The only difference is that the Bağdat Semai is in four-part. I thought that there might be a similar piece in Ali Ufkî, Kantemir or Kevseri, or in all three, and that I might have overlooked it in my previous searches, and I re-scanned all three compilations from this perspective; but it didn’t come up. Bezmârâ sped up the mülazim of all the sazende semai he performed in concerts or albums with each performance. Thus, the semai ended with a very rapid pace. Because I think that sazende semai that have passed from Mevlevi music to saz music – like the yürük semai bends in the third selam of the Mevlevi ritual – should be played faster and faster. The fact that playing the works in Yürük semai usul with the same tempo from beginning to end would cause a tedious monotony was also influential in this decision. I did not have Neva Bağdat Semaisi played with this approach. Because the work was in four registers and it was necessary to start very slowly in order to be able to play it faster and faster. This would spoil the pleasure of the first two registers; this is the first reason. The second reason was my belief that I had no right to repeat a performance specific to Bezmârâ in a work that was not actually in the Bezmârâ repertoire and in an album that did not belong entirely to Bezmârâ. I determined a tempo that would make not only the first and second registers but the entire work attractive and had Neva Bağdat Semaisi performed with the same tempo from beginning to end.  
Neva Fahte Peşrev, which comes from a printed and currently unknown 20th century magazine, has four registers. Like 17th century peşrevs, the lengths of the registers vary. It is similar to 17th century peşrevs in terms of melodic structure. The passages in the fourth section, which start like karcığar and suddenly switch to nihaven, are encountered in 17th century peşrevs, although very rarely. I had the piece performed at a fast tempo so that it would resemble old peşrevs more. If it had been played more slowly, it would have approached 19th century music.  
The Neva Saz Semai, which also comes from the same source, has four sections like 19th century saz semai and its fourth section is measured with the yürük semai usul. This semai, which can also be considered a 19th century piece in terms of melodic structure, has a short nihavend passage in the first section, and the fact that it starts with nışabur tunes is also in line with the usage of the makam in the 19th century. I had the last phrase of the last section performed like buselik, even though there was no buselik sign for si. Because using the zirgüle (sol sharp) key in a decision motif where the uşşak key is used was completely contrary to our habits. 
Neva Düyek P from Ali Ufkî In order to prevent the chained 16th notes in the 13th and 14th measures of Eşrev’s mülazime from getting too crowded, we played the piece at a tedious slow tempo, but later sped it up using a computer. It turned out that the 13th measure was written one quarter off in the score we had. For this reason, the smallest groups of valuable notes in the piece were coming one after the other. After a few people played, we realized that a quarter of a dügah key had been skipped among the 16ths. When this was added, it became clear that the piece did not need to be played as slowly as it was at the beginning. Thus, the instruments added later played over the sped-up version of the piece. It can still be said to be a bit slow for a 17th century prelude.  
In my opinion, one of the most notable works attributed to Sultan Bayezid II is the Arazbar-Zemzeme Prelude. This is a complete 19th century Mevlevi prelude. Since I understood that no matter how hard we tried, we could not give it an archaic air, we performed the piece with 17th century saz but in 19th century style. Here, not only in the first hane but also in the other three hanes, the arazbar-zemzeme makam is used with great richness and variety. The peşrev we performed, especially with its mülazime, can be considered one of the most beautiful examples of Turkish peşrev literature. 
The Arazbar-zemzeme Saz Semai also has four measures. This is a typical mid-19th century piece in terms of melodic structure. But all the hanes are measured in the aksak semai usul. The hanes are of different lengths. (The first, second and fourth hanes are four measures each, the third hane is six measures, and the mülazime is two measures.) In this piece, all hanes are in arazbar makam, and the zemzeme (kürdi) is at the end of the mülazime. We performed this in the style of the peşrev. 
The Rahatü’l-ervah Peşrev, which should be considered a 19th century piece in terms of melodic structure, consists of four equal-length (five double-duek) sections. The Mülazime is two usul long. When the hicaz interval of the hicaz type on the dügâh key is kept a little narrow, as it was in the 17th century (and in the current Garik hicaz makam), the work is heard like a huzzam on the ırak. In my opinion, it is more beautiful this way. 
In the works I have mentioned so far, there are passages that challenge diatonic instruments such as çeng, santur and kanun. We have had to play these passages in a second session by re-tuning some strings of these three instruments. However, in the Eviç Peşrev, which is a complete 19th century Mevlevi peşrev, the pitches change so frequently that it was necessary to increase the number of sessions a lot. This would be very burdensome for both the instrumentalists and the tonmeister. For this reason, I had Eviç Peşrev performed only with the instruments from the “mukayyedat” class. Although Eviç Saz Semaisi is not as “playful” as Eviç Peşrev, I had it played with the same instruments in order not to “break up the team.”  
Isfahan Remel Peşrev, which Kantemir wrote as laedri and Kevseri attributed to a composer named Bayezid, consists of three sections of different lengths. (The first section is one, the second and third sections are three remels.) Mülazime, on the other hand, is three remels long. Here, the İsfahan makam is based on the alternating use of the uşşak and hicaz makams. While transcribing, I first wrote the segâh pitch as buselik in the sentences where the hicaz pitch is used – in accordance with today’s İsfahan makam. But when I saw that Owen Wright wrote those tunes as hicaz tunes, not nışabur tunes, I changed them and made them nim-kürdi.  
Although almost half of them are in neva makam, the collection of Bayezid II shows a variety of makams that cannot be played consecutively without geçki taksims. For this reason, I had difficulty in arranging them. In the end, I decided to start with nışabur makam. Since ageçki taksim cannot be made with çeng, I put a short nışabur çeng taksim at the beginning. Later, I tried to connect the makams with ney, kopuz and santur taksims.  
Finally, I should say that performing a peşrev and semaisi collection consisting of 12 works, some of which are 16th and 17th century, the majority of which are in the 19th century style, with 16th and 17th century instruments was a different experience for Bezmârâ. We had great pleasure while performing it, we hope this pleasure will be passed on to the listeners. 
 

Fikret Karakaya