A Glance at the Musicological Perspectives of an Important Manuscript

Introduction

Nearly five years after the establishment and initial activities of the Payvar House in 2017, broader perspectives are emerging regarding the significant collection of documents left behind by Faramarz Payvar, shedding new light on the study of Iranian music. The vastness of these documents, of course, assists us in providing a more precise explanation of the past century’s musical transformations in Iran—both in terms of institutional developments and shifts in perceptions toward Iranian music—like never before. While the meaning of “institutional transformations” in music is likely crystal clear, it may be necessary to elaborate slightly on the term “shifts in perceptions toward Iranian music.”
Before diving into these conceptual shifts, it is crucial to acknowledge the expanding quantity of documents housed at the Payvar House and the efforts this center has made in enriching the archival resources related to Iranian music. This ongoing effort has notably resulted in the collection of other significant documents that, over the past five years, have been tracked and acquired from various corners of Iran’s modern musical history. A prime example of such invaluable work is the acquisition of the manuscripts of Lotfollah Mokhammad Payan.
This effort is commendable because, aside from representing a tangible fulfillment of the institution’s commitment to “organizing and preserving a large portion of the manuscripts of Iranian musicians,” it also heralds the future publication of these documents, ensuring that music researchers in Iran will eventually gain access to them. The Payvar Foundation has demonstrated that the latter is one of its guiding principles.

Returning to the topic of institutional changes and shifts in perception towards Iranian music over the past century, it is essential to note that the modern era of Iranian music is undoubtedly the era of the rise of modern musical institutions and their fluctuations in the context of social transformations. The documents at the Payvar Foundation, particularly those that record the “personal” activities of Faramarz Payvar and other musicians, offer a clear reflection of these turbulences. A simple examination of two periods of Faramarz Payvar’s life through these documents reveals this contrast: the first period, from 1958 to 1978, was filled with concerts, compositions, recordings, and collections—often institutionalized. The second period, from 1978 to 1998, was marked by a few notable concerts and releases—funded privately and individually. This contrast between the individual and the institution during this pivotal half-century of Iranian music can, as mentioned earlier, provide strong support for examining the institutional changes of the past century. The understanding of Iranian music, also known as the epistemology of Iranian music, has undergone significant transformations over the past century. One good example of these epistemological shifts is the evolution of “musicology” itself—from practical knowledge of the modal repertoire (dastgah) by practitioners at the end of the 19th century to systematic academic musicology by the end of the 20th century. We could illustrate this journey by identifying some key milestones: efforts to document the repertoire of top Qajar musicians, which began with cataloging attempts in the 19th century (such as Zia Yusef’s treatise, Mirza Shafi’s treatise, and Forsatoddoleh Shirazi’s Bahor ol-Alhan), continued with the publication of transcriptions of vocal radifs and old songs as narrated by Master Abdullah Davami. The rise of individual musical identity began with simple innovations by “court musicians” in the mid-19th century. Followed by the emergence of Alinaghi Vaziri early in the 20th century, the “contemporary Iranian musician era” was initiated. Theorizing about Iranian music formed with the efforts of Mahdi Gholi Hedayat in Majma’ al-Adwar, continued with Vaziri’s explanation of Iranian modal structures based on Western tonal theory, and was later pursued in various forms by the founders and followers of the “Center for the Preservation and Promotion of Iranian Music” (including Mehdi Barkeshli, Dariush Safvat, Majid Kiani, Dariush Talai, Hooman Asadi, and Nariman Hojjati). The concept of the “radif” transformed from various repertoires of “court musicians” at the beginning of the 19th century, then “musical knowledge” in the mid-century, and eventually became a tool for asserting individual musical identity by the end of the century. This transition is evident in examples such as the radifs of Mirza Abdullah, Mirza Hossein Gholi, Darvish Khan, Hossein Khan Esmailzadeh, and Ali Akbar Shahnazi. By the start of the 20th century, the radif had been fully transformed into a historical heritage and a defining symbol of national musical identity (similar to the Shahnameh in literature), culminating in its adoption as the ultimate criterion of “Iranian-ness” or “non-Iranian-ness” in a musical work, especially in academic circles by the late 1960s. In the post-1979 Revolution era, the creation of a “standardized” version of the radif led to a new form of musical authority, which was enforced through this “standardized text” (in its hermeneutical sense) within musical environments. This authority, especially during the decline of the social reach of this music, gained a deeply non-musical significance. These are just a few examples of the epistemological transformations we can discuss concerning Iranian music over the past century. While studying such epistemological shifts, nothing is more effective than thoroughly examining the musical works within their historical and social context. However, even such analyses require written documents that add detail to the reasons, components, and various aspects of these transformations. The Payvar Foundation has access to a set of these unique documents, and this article merely offers an initial glance at one of them: The Radif of Musi Marufi, as recorded and categorized by Faramarz Payvar. The significance of this document for scholars in Iranian music is undoubtedly clear. Given the transformations, it is evident just how much the publication of such works can influence the balance of different musical and non-musical authorities and our understanding of a music life rooted in the “radif repertoire.” This article briefly seeks to show the musicological perspectives based on this single work and to frame it as a set of questions. To this end, the article first provides a brief report on the content of “Avaz-e Bayaat Esfahaan” within the work, followed by a group of questions at the end.

Radif of Musi Marufi: Compilation, Not Collection

Some of the most famous mysteries in the history of the “Radif in Iranian Music” are directly or indirectly related to the Radif of Musi Marufi. the sources of each gusheh (melodic segment) in the current radif of Musi Marufi are ambiguities—which, once clarified, significantly increase the value of this document—but also questions about the exact content of the Radif of Darvish Khan, the fate of Alinaghi Vaziri manuscripts of the radifs of Mirza Abdullah and Mirza Hossein Gholi, and even the difference in understanding the sequence of radif gushehs before and after Nour-Ali Boroumand’s interpretation became the “standard.” Clarifying these unknown dimensions brings us closer to answers regarding how the understanding of the modal structures of this music evolved.

Our information on the Seven Dastgahs of Iranian Music book, first published in 1963 by the Fine Arts Administration of Iran for 1000 rials (Marufi, 2012), is substantial. In a letter published in Music Iran, Marufi shared worthwhile details about his work. Based on this letter, we know that he rejected the label “collection” for his work, considering it not only wrong but also ungrateful, as he explicitly stated that “the matter of collection was not involved at all” and he did this work to provide the “foundation of Iranian music” (Marufi, 2012, p. 86). However, through comparative studies with other published sources, Faramarz Payvar’s handwritten version would substantiate this claim and open up new horizons for inquiry.

According to Marufi’s letter, he made four significant efforts to preserve the Seven Dastgah Radif:

1. First phase: Memorizing Darvish Khan’s “summarized” radif by learning the tar from him between 1917 and 1920.
2. Second phase: Writing down these memories (Darvish Khan’s radif) with the help of his student, Rahmatollah Safai, from 1921 to 1923.
3. Third phase: Rewriting the previous version by accessing booklets that Alinaghi Vaziri had written from the radifs of Mirza Abdullah and Mirza Hossein Gholi before going to Europe, after 1923.

During this phase, Marufi realized that the Farahani brothers’ radif contained material not found in Darvish Khan’s version. From Marufi’s letter to Music Iran, we can infer that the version prepared during this phase had almost reached the printing stage. This version might be the same one copied by Lotfollah Mofakhampayan for violin in the late 1930s, encouraged by Abolhasan Saba, and eventually published in a photo-printed edition by the Institute of Musicology in 1977.

4. Fourth phase: Rewriting the radif again after studying Mottanazzem al-Hokama’s radif by Mahdi Gholi Hedayat and converting Hedayat’s notation method into his own. As the letter suggests, this phase happened after 1938 (the publication year of Majma’ al-Advar).

Based on Payvar Foundation documents, we now have two versions from this phase: one before and one after publication. Maroufi revised the published version with the help of Mohammad Ali Baharloo and a group of his students (Baharloo, 2022). Marufi likely referred to this team when he mentioned in his letter that it would have been appropriate for the Fine Arts Administration to recognize those who contributed to the book’s compilation, writing, and transcription efforts (Marufi, 2012, p. 87).

Thus, it appears that three versions of Marufi’s Radif are available: Lotfollah Mofakhampayan’s revision (from the third phase), Faramarz Payvar’s segregated manuscript (likely the pre-publication version), and finally, the published version in book form. Not only does Marufi himself, in his published letter, emphasize the presence of a design and compilation strategy behind his work—whether due to a necessity sparked by his review of the sources or his own musical tastes and technical expertise—but comparative-analytical studies of the versions also confirm this key point. A preliminary comparative review would reveal the necessity and a musical identifier shaping the final work. Therefore, the need for a “musical identity” that was comprehensive and national—during a rapid restructuring of the nation and state—seems to have motivated Marufi to undertake this project.

To illustrate this, we can review the “Radif-e Bayaat Esfahaan” from Payvar’s handwritten version. This would be an example of the design and compilation that shaped this remarkable work.

“Bayaat-e Esfahaan,” Payvar’s version

The separated manuscript by Payvar (fourth stage, pre-publication) identifies five distinct sources: Darvish Khan, Montazem al-Hokama, Agha Hossein-Gholi, Mirza Abdollah, and unnamed sources. Out of the 31 named “Gushehs” listed under the section “Bayat Esfahan,” 7 gushehs come from Darvish Khan, 3 from Montazem al-Hokama, 9 from Agha Hossein-Gholi, 9 without a specified source, and 1 gusheh is labeled as a combination of “Montazem al-Hokama and Hossein-Gholi,” 1 as “Montazem al-Hokama and Darvish,” and one is unreadable.
Initial cataloging of the gushehs by their respective sources reveals a significant point: none of the identified sets provide a complete and continuous repertoire for the Bayaat-e Esfahaan radif. Here, the first speculations and scholarly questions begin to arise:

• Either the source Payvar used to create this version Or the set of available materials for Mosi Maroufi when preparing the final version were incomplete.
• Therefore he filled in the gaps using other sources.
• Another hypothesis is that Maroufi didn’t include everything he had from the various sources in this collection, exercising a level of selection and design according to his own judgment. This collection could have been driven by two main reasons: a) musical preferences or expertise, or b) the fact that many of the gushehs may have been musically identical across sources. In this second case, probably similar gushehs were discarded in favor of what was deemed the primary reference. Given the very close similarities of some of the repeated gushehs in Maroufi’s radif, labeled with terms like “another version,” “another type,” or “another manner,” the omitted gushehs might have been nearly identical. This idea is grounded in the fact that the “compilation of a radif,” especially in the early phases when the collection was becoming a national musical identifier and later in its evolution into a tool for defining personal musical expression, often involved a degree of re-arrangement of existing materials: a kind of interplay with the arrangement itself.

Thus, from the outset, it is clear that Maroufi’s efforts were definitely not just a “compilation” in the sense that the available materials were simply gathered into one volume. Instead, it was a curated and designed presentation of existing materials, with the goal of achieving a certain “comprehensiveness.” One piece of evidence supporting this claim can easily be extracted by audio comparison of the samples. It is that compiling the gushehs attributed to Darvish Khan, for instance, does not produce the conventional musical flow of the radif.
The concept of “comprehensiveness” should not be limited to the diversity of gushehs alone. The use of “another version” labels indicates that this “comprehensiveness” can be understood in a broader sense, encompassing different uses, expansions, and variations on a given musical theme (for example, the Mowje gusheh from the Se-Gah system). In such cases, these “other versions” can reflect personal styles by showcasing various methods of expanding or applying variations. For example, Bayaat-e Esfahaan in the Payvar manuscripts is labeled as Darvish Khan and the melodic expansion across a defined time period is broader compared to the version labeled under Hossein-Gholi.
Another notable point is the mismatch between the Payvar manuscript and the table of contents of Ma’roufi’s published radif (for instance, the Payvar manuscript includes a Chaharmezrab at the beginning of Bayat Esfahan that is absent from the published version). This mismatch goes beyond differences in the table of contents; in some cases, the notation content differs when comparing the book to Payvar’s manuscript. Whether these differences occurred at some point during the publication process remains unclear. Nevertheless, detailed comparative analyses of the style and content of these manuscripts and versions could shed light on many ambiguities.
Some examples of comparative studies that would be helpful include:

• Payvar’s notebooks compared to Maroufi’s radif book
• The Montazem al-Hokama section from Payvar’s manuscript compared to other published collections of Montazem al-Hokama
• The Montazem al-Hokama section from Payvar’s manuscript compared to Nour-Ali Borumand’s version of Mirza Abdullah radif (assuming Montazem al-Hokama’s radif acted as a substitute for Mirza Abdullah’s radif)
• Payvar’s manuscripts compared to Mirza Abdullah’s radif as taught by Abolhasan Saba (available in Payvar’s archives)
• The Darvish Khan section from Payvar’s manuscript compared to Saeed Hormozi’s radif (as Hormozi attributed his radif to Darvish Khan)
• The unnamed gushehs in Payvar’s manuscript compared to other texts

References

• Baharloo, Mohammad Ali. Audio Interview dated: 07-11-1401.
• Payvar, Faramarz. “Handwritten manuscript of Mosi Maroufi’s radif.” Tehran: Payvar Archives.
• Maroufi, Mosi. 1391. “A Complaint Letter by Mosi Maroufi after the publication of his notation of the Radif of Iranian Music.” Mahoor Music Quarterly, Issue 58, pp. 85-88. Tehran: Mahoor.