logo
Iran's early recordings revive forgotten sound heritage

Iran's early recordings revive forgotten sound heritage

Yahoo14-02-2025

In a century-old building in Tehran, Saeed Anvarinejad turned the dial of a vintage radio to tune into some of Iran's earliest recorded sounds, some serving as reminders of the seismic changes that shaped the country's history.
Along with a team of fellow enthusiasts, he spent months tracking down the earliest recordings of Iranian music, speeches, interviews, theatrical plays, radio broadcasts and even the hum of daily life from more than a century ago up to the present day.
"Sound is a phenomenon we pay little attention to... although it's very important," said Anvarinejad, one of the organisers of the "SoundScape" exhibition.
And "the era of early sound recording in Iran is a very important time in the socio-political history of the country".
He highlighted the emotional power of early voice recordings, saying they captured "in a very raw and pure way... the feeling that people have at that moment," unlike written records.
According to Anvarinejad, the oldest surviving sound recordings from Iran date back to 1898 and 1899, during the reign of Mozaffar al-Din Shah of the Qajar dynasty, which reigned over the country from the late 18th to the early 20th century.
His rule saw the unfolding of the Constitutional Revolution, a pivotal moment in Iran's political transformation that established a parliament and constitutional monarchy.
"It was a time when... a new order was taking shape in the Iranian mind and very important things were happening politically, socially and culturally," he added.
"We thought it would be good to have a new approach to the sound (from that time) and engage audiences with it."
Upon tuning the wooden-framed antique radio, a chilling broadcast announced the overthrow of prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, who had pushed for the nationalisation of Iran's oil industry sparking a coup d'etat orchestrated by the United States and Britain.
"This is Tehran! Good news! Good news! People of the cities of Iran, be awake and alert, the traitor Mosaddegh has fled!" crackled the voice of a radio anchor.
- 'Mysterious void' -
Other audio included Iran's first recorded call to prayer in either 1912 or 1913, and the 1959 report on the death of Qamar, the first woman singer to perform in public in the country.
One striking installation at the exhibition involved a mechanical device mounted on a concrete wall with gears, chains, wheels and a lever which played old recordings of the stringed tar instrument through retro telephone handsets.
Another, "Mowj Negar", featured printed sound waves arranged in three rows on one wall, with a metal device which moved along the waves.
When moved, the device activates melodies from the Qajar and early Pahlavi (1925-1979) eras that once echoed through Iran's grand palaces and bustling city streets.
Nearby stood a wooden cabinet named "The Silent Closet", displaying a series of photos from the First World War -— but without a single accompanying sound.
"There are no sound recordings from Iran during this period, not because technology was unavailable, but likely because the country was in such turmoil that recording sound was not a priority," said Atabak Axon, another exhibition organiser.
"There was a 12-year silence that remains a mysterious void in Iran's auditory history."
For centuries, sound has played a central role in Persian culture, connecting belief with poetry and identity.
For 21-year-old Sarvin Faizian, visiting the exhibition with friends was a deeply moving experience "as if I was experiencing my parents' past."
Similarly, Fatemeh Sadeghi described feeling overwhelmed by nostalgia, while 63-year-old Kamran Asadi found the exhibition unexpectedly personal.
"It is a very good and intimate atmosphere for me," he said, lingering on an old song playing in the background.
"It is good for the younger generation to learn where Iran's heritage of music and art came from."
bur-mz/dcp/ser

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why the West is bracing for war in the Middle East
Why the West is bracing for war in the Middle East

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why the West is bracing for war in the Middle East

The signs could hardly be more ominous. The United States is withdrawing non-essential diplomats and the families of American servicemen from across the Middle East. Britain has warned commercial vessels in and around the Gulf to exercise caution. It seems clear that Western officials are bracing for a potentially imminent Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities – and the retaliation Tehran would unleash in response. The sudden movement of personnel is being interpreted as a signal that Donald Trump has privately told Benjamin Netanyahu he will not stand in the way should the Israeli prime minister decide to act. Such a message would mark a significant shift from the US president's position just a few weeks ago, when he reportedly stayed the Israeli prime minister's hand. That does not mean military action is inevitable. Frustrated by the slow pace of nuclear talks, Mr Trump – a dove at heart – may simply be trying to rattle Tehran. He was deeply riled last month after being branded 'Taco' – an acronym that stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out'. Keenly aware that his adversaries may now view his threats as bluster, and assume the safest course is to wait him out, the US president may be trying to persuade the mullahs in Tehran that playing chicken with him is a dangerous miscalculation. Likewise, even if Washington has given Mr Netanyahu the green light, the Israeli prime minister has backed down at the last minute in the past on the advice of his generals. Ideally, any serious assault on Iran's nuclear programme would include a commando component to cripple its deeply-buried enrichment facilities. But earlier this year, Israel's generals reportedly told the prime minister that planning for a commando operation would not be completed until the autumn. Mr Netanyahu may decide to press on regardless. There are certainly increasingly convincing reasons to believe that, after 16 years of threatening military action, Israel may now be preparing to follow that through. Much has changed since April, when Mr Trump is said to have talked him down, arguing that negotiations remained a better path to prevent Iran from building a bomb. Credit: Reuters Israel is believed to have a strike plan in place, with or without commandos, and Mr Netanyahu was ready to implement it last month. Yet without US backing, he had to back down. No Israeli attack is feasible without American operational support and a commitment to help defend Israel from Iranian retaliation. That calculus appears to be shifting. This week, Mr Trump acknowledged for the first time that diplomacy may be failing, and that he is no longer sure Tehran can be persuaded to halt nuclear enrichment. That impression was reinforced on Thursday when the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, formally found Iran in breach of its nuclear obligations for the first time in two decades. Tehran responded defiantly, announcing plans for a new enrichment facility. In Israel's eyes, that declaration may well amount to a casus belli. The stakes are high. Less hawkish voices in the Trump administration doubt that Israeli strikes could destroy Iran's nuclear capability and warn that strikes could prompt Tehran to race to build a bomb while triggering a wider regional war. Aware of these risks, Israel may instead opt for a more limited assault aimed not at eliminating Iran's nuclear programme but at delaying it by a year. Such an operation, Israeli officials believe, is more likely to succeed now than in the past. Iran's proxy forces – Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and, to a lesser extent, the Houthis in Yemen – have been weakened by Israeli strikes, diminishing Tehran's capacity for retaliation. Iran's principal deterrent has been blunted. Moreover, Iran's nuclear facilities are more exposed after Israeli retaliatory strikes last year that destroyed much of its air defence capacity. Still, the regime's most important nuclear facilities remain deeply buried. In the absence of commandos, the only realistic way to destroy them would be with US B-2 bombers carrying 30,000lb bunker-busting bombs flying in support of an Israeli-led mission. It is unclear whether Mr Trump would have the appetite for such a mission. Even a limited Israeli strike, however, risks triggering a wider regional conflagration. Iran is expected to retaliate with missile strikes on Israel – although, given the strength of Israeli air defences, the effectiveness of such an attack would be uncertain. Two Iranian missile assaults last year caused only limited damage. Iranian strikes on US interests in the region or on energy infrastructure in the Gulf would be far more dangerous – steps that could draw Saudi Arabia and its allies into the conflict. Oil prices would soar, exacerbating strains on a global economy reeling from Mr Trump's trade wars. There is still a chance to avert the worst. US and Iranian negotiators are due to meet in Oman on Sunday. What would once have been a routine round of talks has taken on far greater significance. If they go ahead at all, they may now mark a moment of reckoning, with the Americans delivering a final ultimatum – get serious, or face the consequences. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Iran Threatens to Attack U.S. Forces if Israel Strikes Nuclear Sites
Iran Threatens to Attack U.S. Forces if Israel Strikes Nuclear Sites

Miami Herald

time41 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Iran Threatens to Attack U.S. Forces if Israel Strikes Nuclear Sites

Tehran has vowed to unleash an "unprecedented response" if Israel launches a military strike on its nuclear facilities, warning that any such action would engulf the region in war and drag U.S. forces into the line of fire. As tensions mount, Washington has begun evacuating embassy personnel in Baghdad and other regional countries, with President Donald Trump citing fears that the Middle East "could be a dangerous place." The statement, broadcast by Iranian state TV, comes as multiple Iranian officials issue escalating threats of retaliation amid indications that Israel is finalizing plans for an imminent attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. The standoff between Israel and Iran has long simmered, but a confluence of military posturing, inconclusive nuclear talks, and open threats now suggests a turning point. If Israel strikes, Iran has indicated it will retaliate not only against Israeli targets but also U.S. bases across the region. The warning has increased the possibility of a broader regional war. Iran has warned it will unleash a massive regional response if Israel targets its nuclear facilities, with Defense Minister General Aziz Nasirzadeh declaring, "In case of any conflict, the U.S. must leave the region because all its bases are within our range, and we will target all of them in the host countries regardless." Echoing the threat, Commander-in-Chief of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Major General Hossein Salami, said on Thursday, "If our hands are untied, we will win victories that will make the enemy regret its actions." Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, an Iranian official confirmed that Tehran has finalized a detailed retaliation plan modeled after its October 2024 missile barrage, when nearly 200 ballistic missiles were launched at Israel. The official said a future response would match or exceed that scale. Iran-aligned Houthi forces in Yemen have also entered a state of high alert. A Houthi source told Newsweek they are "at the highest level of preparedness for any possible American escalation," adding that a broader conflict "will drag the entire region into the abyss of war." Diplomatic efforts continue in parallel. A sixth round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the U.S. will take place in Muscat this Sunday, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi confirmed. "I am pleased to confirm the 6th round of Iran US talks will be held in Muscat this Sunday the 15th," he wrote on X. U.S. President Donald Trump: "They can't have a nuclear weapon. Very simple – they can't have a nuclear weapon." Iranian Defense Minister General Aziz Nasirzadeh: "If a conflict is imposed on us, all US bases are within our reach, and we will boldly target them in host countries." All eyes now turn to the sixth round of nuclear talks scheduled for this weekend in Oman. With the stakes rising and Tehran preparing a counterproposal after rejecting a U.S. offer, the outcome of the negotiations may determine whether the region steps back from the brink. Related Articles Iran Fails to Meet Nuclear Obligations for First Time in 20 YearsExclusive: Houthis Warn US and Israel of 'War' If Iran AttackedUS Embassy in Middle East Prepares to Evacuate After Warning From IranTrump Puts Iran Nuclear Deal in Doubt, Raising Risk of War 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Israel's Least Bad Option Is a Trump Deal With Iran
Israel's Least Bad Option Is a Trump Deal With Iran

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Israel's Least Bad Option Is a Trump Deal With Iran

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated June 12, 2025, 8:20a.m. Having once described Donald Trump as Israel's 'greatest friend ever,' Benjamin Netanyahu must be watching with some consternation as the American president enthusiastically pursues a nuclear deal with Iran. After all, the Israeli prime minister made every effort to stop the Obama administration's Iran deal in 2015. Trump exited that deal in 2018, perhaps partially at Netanyahu's urging. And now Trump is pursuing a deal of his own—his administration has even dropped a number of Iran hawks from its ranks, in what one pro-Israel D.C. outlet described as a 'purge.' But Israel's leaders shouldn't fear a new Iran nuclear deal. They may even find reasons to welcome it: Among a host of bad options for curbing Iran's nuclear program and pacifying a volatile region, a nuclear agreement between Trump and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be the least bad option for Israel, too. The need for a solution became more pressing just today, as the United Nations nuclear watchdog's board of governors has found Iran in violation of its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years—a possible prelude to the resumption of significant U.N. sanctions against Iran. American and European officials say that Israel is preparing a military strike against Iran, and the U.S. has moved some of its personnel out of the region in preparation. The Iranian foreign ministry described the U.N. watchdog report as political and said that it will establish a new enrichment center 'in a secure location.' No strike is likely to happen before the next round of talks on Sunday. And both the U.S. and Iran have compelling reasons to want a deal to stick. The Trump administration, stymied in Ukraine and Gaza, could use a foreign-policy win, and the Iranian regime, having lost its regional proxy power, would prefer to avoid military strikes on its nuclear facilities and to see some sanctions lifted. On Thursday, Trump called Iranian 'good negotiators' who were 'tough' and said the US was 'trying to make a deal so that there's no destruction and death.' Any agreement will require the two sides to reach an accord about whether Iran should maintain a capacity to enrich uranium on its own soil. The U.S., together with Israel, has strongly objected to any such prospect. 'WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 2. The Iranians insist on it—and, for their part, are playing a game of reverse psychology: 'This Guy Has No Will for a Deal,' read a headline in the semiofficial Tehran Times on June 7, referencing Trump. But both sides have compelling reasons to want these talks to come to something. The Trump administration, stymied in Ukraine and Gaza, could use a foreign-policy win, and the Iranian regime, having lost its regional proxy power, would prefer to avoid military strikes on its nuclear facilities and to see some sanctions lifted. Steven Witkoff, the Trump administration's top negotiator, has proffered a plan that reportedly suggests outsourcing Iran's uranium enrichment to a regional consortium. The enrichment would be for civilian purposes, and the consortium would include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and possibly Qatar and Turkey. The idea is to remove the technical capacity from Iranian hands and internationalize the process. Whether this consortium would do its work on Iranian soil or elsewhere, however, is not clear. And as Richard Nephew, an American diplomat who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal, told me, this is the nub of the issue—'centrifuges in Iran'—in relation to which 'a consortium is window-dressing.' [Read: Trump's real secretary of state] Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based expert close to Iran's security establishment, told me that Iran has 'seriously studied' Washington's consortium proposal and could accept it only if at least some enrichment were to be done on Iranian soil. One option might be to use Iran's islands in the Persian Gulf for this purpose, he added. These are part of Iran but geographically close to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and therefore easier to monitor than the mainland. For Israel, the matter of where the enrichment happens is nonnegotiable. 'Israel would be willing to accept the consortium solution only if it is located outside of Iran, a condition that Iran, of course, will not accept,' Raz Zimmt, the head of the Iran program at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, told me. 'This is Israel's official stance, and it enjoys near-unanimous support across the Israeli political spectrum.' The reasons for this are understandable: Iran's leaders, unlike many of their counterparts in the region, have never embraced a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and instead continue to clamor for the destruction of Israel. Just last month, Khamenei called Israel 'a cancerous, dangerous, and deadly tumor that must be removed from the region and it will be.' Israeli leaders are worried that a deal with Iran will not go far enough in disabling it from acting on its animus against Israel. In fact, hard-line Israelis cannot envision a solution to the Iranian nuclear problem that doesn't involve the total dismantlement of its centrifuges and expatriation of its uranium. That's because the means to weaponize are already there. Even those, including Nephew, who advocate for a new deal caution that Iran's enrichment capacity has increased in the seven years since Trump left the 2015 agreement. Iran now has enough enriched uranium that if it sought to weaponize, it could build as many as 10 atomic weapons. Even if it shipped that stockpile elsewhere, the country would still have its advanced centrifuges. With these, experts say, Iran could hold on to just 5 percent of its current stockpile and still be able to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb inside of a month, and four bombs' worth in two months. Given this reality, according to Zimmt, the Israeli government believes that it is running out of time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And to this end, he told me, 'Israel clearly prefers no deal over a bad deal,' because without a deal, military strikes become thinkable. Many in Israel see such a confrontation as the best option—even though Iran's nuclear facilities are spread across its territory, and some are buried deep underground, making any military campaign likely to be drawn-out, complicated, and hazardous. The analysts I spoke with did not see much lasting good coming of such an assault. Nephew noted that the setback to Iran's nuclear program would likely be temporary and said that Israel would be 'infinitely better off with a good deal.' Gregory Brew, an analyst with the Eurasia Group, pointed out that Iran's regional proxies have been so weakened that Israel is in a particularly strong position at the moment. A negotiated settlement to the nuclear question could allow Israel to build on its advantage by pursuing closer ties to Arab states. This 'would be a win for Israeli security and the region as a whole,' Brew said. Back in 2015, the Arab states of the Gulf region were leery of a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal. They had poor relations with Iran and worried that an agreement might exclude their interests. Now those relations have softened, and most of the Gulf states are eager for an arrangement that could cool the region's tempers. Their support for diplomacy should be good news for Israel, which already has diplomatic, trade, and military ties with two Gulf countries (the UAE and Bahrain). The Saudis have conditioned normalization on Israel's allowing for a Palestinian state, but their language is pragmatic—Riyadh's overwhelming interest appears to be in economic development, which regional conflict only undermines. A nuclear deal that draws in the Gulf states would undoubtedly serve to better integrate Iran into the region's economy. Some in Israel may balk at this idea, preferring to see Iran isolated. But there is a case to be made that giving Iran a stake in regional peace and stability would do more to de-radicalize its foreign policy than caging it has done. Some in Israel remain skeptical. 'I don't believe that Saudi or Emirati participation in the deal carries any real significance,' Zimmt said. 'It's not something that would reassure Israel, certainly not before normalization with Saudi Arabia, and not even necessarily afterward.' Other Israeli critics of Trump and Witkoff chastise them for mistaking the ideologically driven actors of the Middle East for transactional pragmatists like themselves. [Daniel Byman: Trump is making Netanyahu nervous] But leaders and peoples—in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Damascus, Beirut—have grown tired of wars around religion and ideology, and many are ready to pursue development instead. This explains why Syria's new leaders have embraced Trump and promised not to fight Israel. Iran is not immune to this new regional mood. Iranian elites have reason to fear that the failure of talks will bring about devastating military strikes. But they also have reason to hope that the lifting of sanctions, and even a partial opening for the country's beleaguered economy, will be a boon to some of the moneyed interests close to the regime. Najafi told me that Iran already has a shared interest with Arabs in trying to avoid a confrontation between Israel and Iran: 'Arabs know that any military action by Israel against Iran could destroy their grand developmental projects in the region,' he said. I've talked with Iranian elites for years. Most of them have no interest in Islamism or any other ideology. They send their sons and daughters to study in American and Swiss universities, not to Shiite seminaries in Iraq or Lebanon. Khamenei's zealotry is very unlikely to outlive him in Iran's highest echelons of power. A diplomatic deal, however flawed, will not only curtail Iran's nuclear program but also put the country on a path defined by its economic and pragmatic interests. A more regionally integrated Iran is likely to be much less belligerent, as it will have relations with the Saudis and Emiratis to maintain. The regime will likely be forced to drop many of its revolutionary pretensions, as it already has toward Saudi Arabia: Iran once considered the kingdom illegitimate, but it now goes out of its way to maintain good ties with Riyadh. Although this might sound unthinkable today, ultimately the regime will have to drop its obsession with Israel as well, for the same pragmatic reason that Arab countries have done in the past. The alternative to a deal is an extensive military campaign—most likely, a direct war between Iran and Israel—with unpredictable consequences. The notion that such a confrontation would lead to positive political change in Iran is a fantasy. Just as likely, the regime will hunker down under duress, prolonging its hold on power. This is why even the most pro-Israel figures in the Iranian opposition, such as former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, oppose military strikes on Iran. Iran's population harbors very little hostility to Israel. A group of student activists recently tried to organize an anti-Israel rally at the University of Tehran, but only a couple of dozen people joined them, a small fraction of those who have turned out for rallies in Cairo, Amman, or New York City. But a direct war that costs Iranian civilian lives would easily change this. The future of Iran and Israel does not need to lie in hostility. That's why a deal that keeps Iran from going nuclear and avoids military strikes is the least bad option for everyone. Article originally published at The Atlantic

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store