Mixing for Parlak and Bowing for a Büyük Ses: The Aesthetics of Arranged Traditional Music in Turkey

Ethnomusicology 54 (1):81-105 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I explore the production aesthetics that define the sound of most arranged traditional music albums produced in the early 2000s in Istanbul,Turkey. I will focus on two primary aesthetic characteristics, the achievement of which consume much of the labor put into tracking and mix- ing: parlak (“shine”) and büyük ses (“big sound”). Parlak, at its most basic, consists of a pronounced high frequency boost and a pattern of harmonic distortion characteristics,and is often described by studio musicians and engineers in Turkey as an exaggeration of the perceived brightness of the majority of Anatolian folk instruments. Büyük ses, which in basic terms connotes a high density of heterogeneous musical parts,in contrast to parlak has no relation to any known longstanding Anatolian musical performing traditions or timbral aesthetics, and is a recent development in Istanbul-produced record- ings.Parlak and büyük ses became widespread after 2000,accompanying the paradigm shift of Istanbul studios from analog to digital workflows. Parlak and büyük ses are of interest for reasons that transcend music-aesthetics. The successful creation of mixes with parlak and büyük ses necessitates a palpable change in the performance practice of folk music instruments, as well a fundamental reconfiguration of the social structure of music-making, which in turn involves new musical competences and conceptualizations of musical practice. Parlak and büyük ses are not just a result of using a particular set of technologies (i.e., microphones or effects plugins), but instead arise from arduous and detailed arrangement and nonlinear editing work that is made feasible through DAW (digital audio workstation) systems. Although parlak and büyük ses index the transformation of traditional music aesthetics in the context of digital audio recording production, and their production is at the forefront of concerns of the professionals working in the recording studio environment, the terms are never mentioned in published music criticism, and only usually uttered in the studio context at the inception of a project and at the completion of a mix. Considerable preemptive work is done by studio musicians, engineers, and arrangers to avoid the need for the terms to be mentioned at all.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Not Music, but Musics: A Case for Conceptual Pluralism in Aesthetics.Adrian Currie & Anton Killin - 2017 - Estetika: The European Journal of Aesthetics 54 (2):151-174.
Moribund music: can classical music be saved?Carolyn Beckingham - 2009 - Portland: Sussex Academic Press.
History of music aesthetics.Enrico Fubini - 1990 - London: Macmillan. Edited by Enrico Fubini.
Music.Nicholas Cook - 2010 - New York, NY: Sterling.
Music in the life of man.Julius Portnoy - 1973 - Westport, Conn.,: Greenwood Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-05-05

Downloads
18 (#814,090)

6 months
13 (#184,769)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Eliot Bates
The Graduate Center, CUNY

Citations of this work

What Studios Do.Eliot Bates - 2012 - Journal on the Art of Record Production 7 (1).

Add more citations

References found in this work

.Kathleen Higgins (ed.) - 1995 - Harcourt Brace.
Folk Musical Instruments of Turkey.Bonnie C. Wade & Laurence Picken - 1978 - Journal of the American Oriental Society 98 (2):169.

Add more references