Resources / Theory / Makam and dastgah — a cross-reference

Makam and dastgah — a cross-reference

Why the comparison matters

Established Turkish makam and Persian dastgah are often treated as unrelated systems. They aren't. Both descend from the same medieval Islamic musical theory tradition, and many of their structures are recognisably parallel — sometimes even sharing names, though the names may have drifted in meaning over centuries.

For a player studying both traditions (or moving between them), understanding where the systems genuinely overlap and where they diverge prevents two common errors: assuming they're identical (they're not — the same name may mean different things) and assuming they're unrelated (they're not — the shared heritage is deep).

Systematic correspondence

Attested The following table maps the primary dastgahs and avazes to their closest Turkish makam counterparts. "Closest" means the interval structure and character are similar enough that a player familiar with one would recognise the other — not that they are identical.

Primary dastgahs

Avazes

Where they overlap

Shur and Huseyni/Ussak

Attested The strongest cross-tradition correspondence. Both are built on a neutral second above the tonic, both have a melancholic character, and both are the most commonly performed mode in their respective traditions.

The overlap is close enough that a Turkish oud player hearing a Persian Shur performance would recognise the territory — and vice versa. But the details diverge:

• Neutral second placement: Turkish AEU theory places Ussak's second degree at 5 commas (~113 cents), though measured performance is consistently higher (140-160 cents, per Bozkurt et al. 2009). Persian Shur practice places Re koron around 140-150 cents without claiming a fixed theoretical value. The two traditions arrive at similar actual pitches by different theoretical routes.
• Melodic trajectory: Ussak as a makam has a relatively fixed scale and seyir (see Seyir). Shur as a dastgah contains multiple gushe, each with its own emphasis, and a performance moves through them in a prescribed order.

Mahur and Cargah

Established Both are major modes. The interval structure is nearly identical — the divergence is mostly in octave species (which note functions as the tonic relative to the major scale pattern). A Mahur performance's opening sounds very much like a Cargah taksim.

Shared names, shifted meanings

Attested Several names appear in both traditions but have drifted:

Where they diverge

Structural level

Established The most fundamental difference is the level at which modal identity operates:

• A Turkish makam is a single modal structure: one scale, one cesni assembly, one set of characteristic pitches (karar, guclü, yeden), one seyir direction. Performance within a makam may modulate to other makams, but each makam is self-contained.

• A Persian dastgah is a collection of modal areas (gushe) that a performance moves through sequentially. The dastgah is the journey, not a single room.

This means that comparing "Shur" to "Ussak" is not one-to-one: Shur contains within it modal areas that correspond to different Turkish makams. The full Shur dastgah with all its gushe spans a wider modal territory than any single Turkish makam.

Theory of pitch

Attested As described in Persian parde names:

• Turkish AEU assigns fixed comma values and treats theory-practice discrepancies as a known problem.
• Persian theory builds pitch mutability into the system explicitly (koron/sori as contextual markers, not fixed values).

Both traditions produce performers who play "the same" neutral pitches with remarkably similar intonation. The theoretical frameworks around those pitches are what differ.

The radif vs. composed repertoire

Attested Turkish makam has a large body of composed works (beste, sarki, perev) that are specific compositions in specific makams. Performance of a makam typically means either improvising a taksim or playing composed pieces.

Persian dastgah practice centres on the radif — a sequential collection of gushe that is the curriculum, reference, and performance framework all in one. The radif is not exactly a composition and not exactly an improvisation schema: it's a canonical melodic journey that the performer knows by heart and reinterprets in each performance.

Historical connections

Established The shared heritage is real and well-documented:

• Medieval Islamic theory — both traditions draw on the writings of al-Farabi (10th century), Ibn Sina (11th century), and Safi al-Din Urmavi (13th century), who described modal systems, interval calculations, and pitch hierarchies that are ancestral to both modern Turkish and Persian systems.

• Ottoman-Safavid exchange — musicians, theorists, and musical ideas moved between Ottoman Turkey and Safavid Persia throughout the 16th-18th centuries. Many instrument forms, mode names, and theoretical concepts crossed in both directions.

Attested The divergence is largely a product of 19th and 20th century nationalisation of music theory:

• Turkey adopted the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek system (1930s-40s), codifying a 53-comma framework and establishing conservatory curricula.
• Iran developed the radif-based system, codified primarily through the transmission of Mirza Abdollah's repertoire and Vaziri's notational reforms.

Each country's modernisation pulled its theory further from the shared root, producing the differences in notation, terminology, and analytical framework that exist today — even as performing musicians on both sides of the border continue to make remarkably similar musical decisions about pitch and phrasing.

Sources

• Hormoz Farhat, The Dastgah Concept in Persian Music (Cambridge University Press, 1990) — the definitive English-language comparison of Persian dastgah structure with other modal systems
• Karl Signell, Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music (rev. ed., Usul Editions, 2008) — Turkish makam structure and terminology
• Owen Wright, The Modal System of Arab and Persian Music, A.D. 1250-1300 (Oxford University Press, 1978) — the shared medieval theoretical roots of both systems
• Harold S. Powers, "Mode," in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London: Macmillan, 1980) — comparative framing of modal systems across cultures
• Jean During, The Art of Persian Music (Mage Publishers, Washington, D.C., 1991) — on the historical connections between Persian and Turkish traditions
• Barış Bozkurt, Ozan Yarman, M. Kemal Karaosmanoğlu, and Can Akkoç, "Weighing Diverse Theoretical Models on Turkish Maqam Music Against Pitch Measurements," Journal of New Music Research 38, no. 1 (2009): 45-70 — measured pitch data useful for cross-system comparison