آسیب‌شناسی ردیف موسی معروفی در کارگان آموزشی موسیقی دستگاهی (مطالعه موردی: گوشه‌های درآمد از دستگاه شور)

Background: This study critically examines the radif compiled by Mūsā Ma'rūfī, one of the most extensive collections of Persian classical music, in order to uncover the reasons behind its limited adoption as an educational repertoire in Iranian music pedagogy. By comparing Ma'rūfī's radif with the radif of Mirza Abdullah, as narrated by Noor-Ali Boroumand, the research investigates the structural and pedagogical differences that have led to Ma'rūfī’s compilation being overshadowed by Mirza Abdullah's radif in academic settings. 
Objective: For more than fifty years, the radif of Mirza Abdullah has served as the cornerstone of Iranian music education, has been taught extensively at the University of Tehran, and has been recognized as the main reference repertoire in the academic study of Persian music. In contrast, Ma'rūfī’s radif, which features 465 musical sections (gūshes) across seven dastgahs (modal systems) and five avazes (sub-modal systems), remains less prominent, even though its scope is nearly double that of Mirza Abdullah's radif. The central question this research addresses is: why has Ma'rūfī's radif, despite its comprehensive content, not achieved the same recognition and usability in educational contexts? 
Through the comparative analysis of gūshes such as "Daramad-e Shur," the study identifies key factors: Ma'rūfī's radif suffers from excessive segmentation, unnecessary repetition, and a lack of coherent melodic development, all of which impede memorization and comprehension. Conversely, Mirza Abdullah's radif, with 256 gūshes, offers concise phrasing, logical melodic structure, and thematic consistency, making it more aligned with the cognitive capacities of learners and the pedagogical requirements of Iranian music education. 
Historical accounts reveal that Ma'rūfī’s radif was compiled during collaborative sessions with eminent musicians, including Noor-Ali Boroumand, Ali Akbar Shahnazi, and Abolhasan Saba. These efforts aimed to standardize nomenclature, melodic phrasing, and stylistic subtleties. However, discrepancies in melodic organization and differing interpretations among these maestros resulted in a repertoire that, while musically rich, lacked pedagogical focus. For example, gūshes such as "Kereshmeh" in Ma'rūfī’s radif feature intricate subdivisions that, rather than contributing to clarity, complicate their educational usability. 
Method: Methodologically, the study utilizes musical transcription and analytical tools, leaning heavily on comparative discussions between Daramad sections in both radifs. Ma'rūfī’s radif reveals a tendency to adopt vocal melodies and include multiple variations within gūshes, which diverges from the compact and focused nature of instrumental radifs, as exemplified by Mirza Abdullah’s version. For instance, the introductory melodic movements of Daramad-e Shur in Ma'rūfī’s radif include influences from vocal radifs, which lack the streamlined progression typical of the instrumental framework essential for teaching purposes. 
Conclusion: In conclusion, the research underscores the importance of brevity, thematic consistency, and logical melodic progression as crucial elements in designing educational radifs. While Ma'rūfī’s radif provides an expansive catalog of melodies, its organizational challenges and overextended content limit its practicality in educational settings. Mirza Abdullah’s radif, by adhering to these principles, establishes itself as a highly effective and accessible repertoire that balances musical intricacy with pedagogical utility. This comparative assessment sheds light on the structural and thematic qualities that distinguish Mirza Abdullah’s radif as the academic standard and highlights the difficulties in adapting Ma'rūfī’s compilation for similar purposes. 
The multiple doubling of gūshes in a famous musical Radif in the presentation and introduction of a gūshe can, on the one hand, cause a lack of understanding and accurate reception of the melodic content of that gūshe, and on the other hand, it reduces the ability to memorize it to a great extent.
In MirzaAbdullah’s radif, they go to the narration of Borumand, which is generally introduced with the titles of the first to the sixth Daramad; in each gūshe, a melodic theme specific to the Daramad is presented.
The first daramad (Mirza Abdallah) has an ascending melodic movement, followed by the introduction of its melodic movement and its distinct sound base. The second Daramad begins with a melody with a certain poetic weight, and then parts of the first melody are repeated. The third Daramad, titled "Kereshmeh," has the special rhythm of the gūshe of "Kereshmeh" and the specific melodic movement of that gūshe. The fourth Daramad, titled Rohab, starts with the fourth interval (characteristic of the gūshe of Rahab) and continues. The fifth Daramad titled Ouj has an ascending movement at the beginning, and its melodies are generally performed in the second wave, and part of it has the rhythmic movement of Kaereshmeh gūshe. The sixth Daramad, at the beginning of which there is a downward melodic movement, indicates that the collection of income ends in this gūshe.
In the famous Musa Marofi radif, which contains fourteen gūshes with the titles of Daramad and introduction, it is not possible to separate the gūshes like Mirza Abdullah's radif. The gūshe titled Daramad is a collection of melodies that are sung in vocal Radifs (Karimi and Davami). The gūshe with the title of Shour Daramad in a famous radif, except for the beginning and ending sentences, its melodic movement in the text of the gūshe corresponds to the radif of Mirza Abdallah. But it seems that the sentences do not have the solidity of the melodic movement in the radif of Mirza Abdullah.