meeqvse saerTaSoriso simpoziumi THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY 24-28 SEPTEMBER 2012 TBILISI, GEORGIA PROCEEDINGS m o x s e n e b e b i 24-28 seqtemberi 2012 Tbilisi, saqarTvelo tradiciuli mravalxmianobis saqarTvelos kulturisa da ZeglTa dacvis saministro Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoria MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND MONUMENT PROTECTION OF GEORGIA TBILISI STATE CONSERVATOIRE uak (UDC) 784.4 (479.22) (063) -753 t redaqtorebi rusudan wurwumia ioseb Jordania EDITED BY RUSUDAN TSURTSUMIA JOSEPH JORDANIA gamocemaze muSaobdnen: nino razmaZe maia kaWkaWiSvili maka xarZiani THIS PUBLICATION WAS PREPARED BY: NINO RAZMADZE MAIA KACHKACHISHVILI MAKA KHARDZIANI © Tbilisis vano sarajiSvilis saxelobis saxelmwifo konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri, 2014 © International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi Vano Sarajishvili State Conservatoire, 2014 ISBN 978-9941-9308-9-8 garekanis mxatvari nika sebiskveraZe Cover Design by NIKA SEBISKVERADZE kompiuteruli uzrunvelyofa nino razmaZe Computer Service by NINO RAZMADZE 3 s a r C e v i redaqtorebisagan ......................................................................................................................................... 9 From the Editors ............................................................................................................................................ 13 tradiciuli polifoniis SedarebiTi Seswavla COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY ioseb Jordania (avstralia/saqarTvelo) _ tradiciuli mravalxmianobis SedarebiTi Seswavla: guSin, dRes, xval ................................................................................................. 19 Joseph Jordania (Australia/Georgia) _ Comparative Study of Traditional Polyphony: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow .................................................................................................................................... 27 nino ciciSvili (avstralia/saqarTvelo) _ satrfialo simRerebis genezisis SeswavlisaTvis adamianis adreuli istoriis Suqze ............................................................ 39 Nino Tsitsishvili (Australia/Georgia) _ Exploring the Beginnings of Love Songs in the Light of Early Human History ...................................................................................................................................... 46 elena iovanoviCi (serbeTi) _ gacocxlebuli kavali 1990-iani wlebis serbeTSi da kavali da nei axlo aRmosavleTis sufiur tradiciebSi: musikisa da mniSvnelobis aspeqtebi .............................................................................................................................................................. 52 Jelena Jovanović (Serbia) _ Rekindled Kaval in Serbia in 1990s and Kaval and Ney in Sufi Traditions in the Middle East: The Aspects of Music and Meanings ............................................................ 60 nailia almeeva (ruseTi) _ vertikalis formireba volga-kamis regionis monaTesave xalxebis (qristiani TaTrebi, marielebi, CuvaSebi) koleqtiuri simReris faqturaSi .................................................................................................................................................... 70 Nailya Almeeva (Russia) _ Formation of Vertical Structure in the Texture of Collective Singing in Baptized Peoples of Volga-Kama Region (Kryashen Tatars, Mari, Chuvash) ................................... 75 tradiciuli polifoniis zogadTeoriuli da musikalur-esTetikuri aspeqtebi GENERAL THEORY AND MUSICAL-AESTHETIC ASPECTS OF TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY meT harvi (avstralia) _ politikuri polifonia ................................................................... 89 Matt Harvey (Australia) _ Political Polyphony ............................................................................................ 95 4 barbara elisoni (niderlandebi) _ akustikuri fantomebi ................................................. 100 Barbara Ellison (Netherlands) _ Sonic Phantoms ........................................................................................ 106 nino fircxalava (saqarTvelo) _ ebanis, banis, bamis urTierTmimarTebis sakiTiTxisaTvis ................................................................................................................................................... 113 Nino Pirtskhalava (Georgia) _ On the Interrelation Between Ebani, Bani and Bami .............................. 120 gia baRaSvili (saqarTvelo) _ `erTisa~ da `mravalis~ antinomia qarTuli musikaluri folkloris adreul stadiebze ................................................................................. 127 Gia Baghashvili (Georgia) _ Antinomy of “One” and “Many” on Early Stages of the Aesthetics of Georgian Folk Music ..................................................................................................................................... 133 marina qavTaraZe (saqarTvelo) _ monofonia da polifonia: paradigmaTa cvlis kulturul-istoriuli aspeqtebi (erTi Tvalsazrisi evropuli polifoniis Sesaxeb) ......................................................................................................................................................... 138 Marina Kavtaradze (Georgia) _ Monophony and Polyphony: Cultural-Historical Aspects of the Paradigmatic Changes (A View on European Polyphony) ........................................................................ 144 andrea kuzmiCi (kanada) _ ara aRdgena, aramed aRdgenis tradicia: tradiciuli qarTuli mravalxmianobis xelaxali wakiTxva ansambluri tradiciis mixedviT ................................................................................................... 149 Andrea Kuzmich (Canada) _ Not a Revival, a Tradition of Revivals: Rereading Georgian Traditional Polyphony Trough the Ensemble Traditions ........................................................................ 154 Tamaz gabisonia (saqarTvelo) _ sekundis dialeqtika eTnikur musikaSi: statika da dinamika .................................................................................................................................................. 160 Tamaz Gabisonia (Georgia) _ Dialectics of Second in Ethnic Music: Statics and Dynamics .............. 168 tradiciuli polifoniis regionuli stilebi da musikaluri ena REGIONAL STYLES AND MUSICAL LANGUAGE OF TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY kae hisaoka (iaponia) _ polifoniuri da musikaluri praqtikis avTentikurobis struqtura saqarTveloSi ........................................................................................................... 177 Kae Hisaoka (Japan) _ Structure of Authenticity of Polyphony and Musical Practices in Georgia ...... 182 su vei, uang qi (CineTi) _ qiangis polifoniuri tradicia CineTidan ............................... 187 5 Su Wei, Wang Qi (China) _ The Qiang’s Traditional Polyphony from China ........................................ 195 maria de sao xose korte-reali (portugalia) _ polifonia da evolucia portugaliuri fados istoriul CanawerebSi .............................................................................. 203 Maria de São José Côrte-Real (Portugal) _ Polyphony and Evolution in Fado Historical Recordings from Portugal ...................................................................................................................................... 208 mixail lobanovi (ruseTi) _ `CamorTmeuli~ unisonuri simRera – koleqtiuri Sesrulebis umartivesi tipi eTnikur musikaSi ................................................................... 213 Mikhail Lobanov (Russia) _ “Unison-Taking up” Singing – the Simplest Type of Collective Performance in Ethnic Music ............................................................................................................................. 220 anda beitane (latvia) _ Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviis tradiciuli polifonia Officium Defunctorum-Si ..................................................................................................................... 233 Anda Beitāne (Latvia) _ Traditional Polyphony in the Officium Defunctorum in North-Eastern Latvia ................................................................................................................................ 238 nino RambaSiZe, nino maxaraZe (saqarTvelo) _ Wvenierobis dResaswauli da masTan dakavSirebuli tradiciuli musika .................................................................................... 245 Nino Ghambashidze, Nino Makharadze (Georgia) _ Chvenieroba Festival and Traditional Music Related to It ............................................................................................................................................... 252 rie koCi (iaponia) _ polifoniuri elementebi ainus tradiciuli musikis monofoniur sasimRero stilebSi ...................................................................................................... 261 Rie Kôchi (Japan) _ The Polyphonic Elements in the Monophonic Singing Styles of Ainu Traditional Music ...................................................................................................................................... 267 maria de sao xose korte-reali, rosario pestana (portugalia) _ myisieri da gabmuli ornamentireba portugaliel qalTa tradiciul mravalxmian simRerebSi ........................................................................................................................................................... 277 Maria de São José Côrte-Real, Rosário Pestana (Portugal) _ Instant and Lasting Ornaments in Traditional Female Polyphony in Portugal ............................................................................................... 284 giorgi (gigi) garayaniZe (saqarTvelo) † eTnomusikis Teatris erTi ucnobi nimuSisaTvis (zedaSis iavnana) ....................................................................................................... 298 Giorgi (Gigi) Garaqanidze (Georgia) † On One Unknown Example of Ethnomusic Theatre (Zedashe Lullaby) .......................................................................................................................................... 305 6 velika stoikova-serafimovska (makedonia) _ makedoniuri mravalxmiani simRera – zogierTi ZiriTadi maxasiaTebeli .......................................................................................... 312 Velika Stojkova-Serafimovska (Macedonia) _ Multipart Singing in Macedonia – Some Basic Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................ 319 eno koCo (albaneTi) _ iso(n)i – samxreT albanuri uTanxlebo mravalxmianobisa da bizantiuri galobis saerTo komponenti ........................................................................ 327 Eno Koço (Albania) _ The Iso(n) – a Participatory Component in the South Albanian Multipart Unaccompanied Singing and in Byzantine Chant .................................................................................... 333 meTiu naiTi (aSS) _ huteritebis gunduri simRera preriebSi: xsnis xmebi ......... 339 Matthew Knight (USA) _ Hutterite Choral Singing on the Prairies: Sounds of Salvation ................ 345 viqtoria samsonaZe (saqarTvelo) _ mesxuri musikaluri dialeqtis Janruli Taviseburebani .......................................................................................................................................... 351 Victoria Samsonadze (Georgia) _ Genre Peculiarities of Meskhetian Musical Dialect ..................... 360 tradiciuli musikis istoriuli Canawerebi HISTORICAL RECORDINGS OF TRADITIONAL MUSIC daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene (litva) _ litvuri folkloruli musikis uZvelesi xmovani Canawerebi da eTnomusikologebis axali aRmoCenebi .............................. 371 Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė (Lithuania) _ The Oldest Sound Recordings of the Lithuanian Folklore and the Recent Discoveries by Ethnomusicologists ....................................................................... 379 Jana partlasi (estoneTi) _ setos erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos funqcionaluri sistema: mravalbilikiani Canawerebis distribuciuli analizi ....................... 393 Žanna Pärtlas (Estonia) _ The Functional System of the Seto One-Three-Semitone Mode: an Approach Based on a Distribution Analysis of Multitrack Recordings ............................................... 399 pirveli msoflio omis qarTvel tyveTa Canawerebi germaniisa da avstriis arqivebSi RECORDINGS OF GEORGIAN PRISONERS FROM THE FIRST WORLD WAR IN GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN ARCHIVES suzan cigleri (germania) _ qarTvel tyveTa Canawerebi germaniaSi (1915-1919) .... 411 7 Susanne Ziegler (Germany) _ Recordings of Georgian Prisoners in Germany (1915-1919) .............. 418 gerda lexlaitneri, franc lexlaitneri (avstria), nona lomiZe (avstria/ saqarTvelo) _ CD proeqti: 1909-1915/16 wlebis kavkasiis regionis Canawerebi .................................................................................................................................................... 425 Gerda Lechleitner, Franz Lechleitner (Austria), Nona Lomidze (Austria/Georgia) _ CD-Project: Recordings from the Caucasian Region, 1909 and 1915-16 ........................................................... 433 mravalxmianoba da instrumentuli musika POLYPHONY AND INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC bo lavergreni (aSS) _ kuTxovani arfa .......................................................................................... 443 Bo Lawergren (USA) _ Angular Harp ............................................................................................................ 447 mrgvali magida I _ qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba ...... 461 ROUND TABLE I _ Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music .................................................. 487 axali mosazrebebi adamianis evoluciasa da qcevaze _ mravalxmianobis roli Tanamedrove adamianis CamoyalibebaSi .......................................... 531 mrgvali magida II _ ROUND TABLE II _ New Thinking about Evolution and Expressive Behavior _ Polyphony as Part of What and How We Have Become .......................................................................................................... 543 audiomagaliTebis sia ............................................................................................................................................................. 553 videomagaliTebis sia ............................................................................................................................................................... 559 LIST OF AUDIO EXAMPLES .............................................................................................................................................................. 560 LIST OF VIDEO EXAMPLES .............................................................................................................................................................. 566 avtorebis Sesaxeb (krebulSi maTi ganTavsebis mixedviT) CONTRIBUTORS (In the order of appearance in the volume) ............................................................................. 568 9 redaqtorebisagan krebulSi Sesulia tradiciuli mravalxmianobis meeqvse saerTaSoriso simpoziumze wakiTxuli moxsenebebi da mis farglebSi gamarTuli ori mrgvali magidis mimoxilva. simpoziumi Sedga Tbilisis vano sarajiSvilis saxelmwifo konservatoriaSi, 2012 wlis 24-29 seqtembers da, tradiciulad, saqarTvelos prezidentis patronatiT, saqarTvelos kulturisa da ZeglTa dacvis saministros finansuri mxardaWeriT Catarda. simpoziumis damfuZneblebi arian Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoria da qarTuli xalxuri simReris saerTaSoriso centri, xolo mosamzadebeli samuSaoebi Seasrula konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centrma. Cven madlobas movaxsenebT yvelas, vinc wvlili Seitana Tbilisis mravalxmianobis simpoziumis warmatebiT CatarebaSi, agreTve, masSi monawile qarTvel da ucxoel mecnierebs, adgilobrivi da msoflio mravalxmianobis Semsruleblebs da, rac gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelovania, samecniero sesiebisa da sakoncerto programebis msmenelebs. simpoziumis samecniero sesiebi winaswar gamocxadebuli Tematikis Tanaxmad warimarTa. amasTan, 2012 welsac gagrZelda samecniero programaSi specialuri Temis CarTvis tradicia, romelic mexuTe simpoziumidan daiwyo. winamdebare krebulSi moxsenebebi Tematikis mixedviTaa warmodgenili. samecniero sesiebi gaixsna specialuri TemiT _ `tradiciuli polifoniis SedarebiTi Seswavla~, _ romelmac gansakuTrebuli aqtualoba SeiZina ukanasknel xans. pirveli moxseneba `tradiciuli mravalxmianobis SedarebiTi Seswavla: guSin, dRes, xval~ warmoadgina ioseb Jordaniam (avstralia/saqarTvelo), romelmac ganixila SedarebiTi meTodis mniSvneloba mravalxmianobis warmoSobis SeswavlaSi da ramdenime istoriuli periodic gamohyo. nino ciciSvilis (avstralia/saqarTvelo) moxsenebaSi `satrfialo simRerebis genezisis SeswavlisaTvis adamianis adreuli istoriis Suqze~ satrfialo simRerebis genezisi dakavSirebul iqna adamianis seqsualurobis tabuirebasa da akrZalvebis farTo sistemis SemoRebasTan, rasac, misi azriT, adasturebs zogierT arqaul tradiciaSi (magaliTad, svaneTSi, tibetSi) sasiyvarulo simRerebis uqonloba. SedarebiTi meTodis gamoyenebis ufro konkretul sferos mieZRvna elena iovanoviCis (serbeTi) moxseneba `gacocxlebuli kavali 1990-iani wlebis serbeTSi da kavali da nei axlo aRmosavleTis sufiur tradiciebSi: musikisa da mniSvnelobis aspeqtebi~. nailia almeeva (ruseTi) agrZelebs nayofier muSaobas volgispireTSi mcxovrebi e.w. `monaTluli TaTrebis~ tradiciuli mravalxmianobis SeswavlaSi. misi moxsenebis saTauri iyo `vertikalis formireba volga-kamis regionis monaTesave xalxebis (qristiani TaTrebi, marielebi, CuvaSebi) koleqtiuri simReris faqturaSi~. 10 rusudan wurwumia ioseb Jordania tradiciuli polifoniis zogadTeoriuli da musikalur-esTetikuri aspeqtebisadmi miZRvnili sesia gaxsna meT harvis moxsenebam (avstralia) `politikuri polifonia~, romelSic ganxiluli iyo mravalxmianobisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli musikaluri xerxebis (burdoni, ostinato, disonansi, konsonansi) gamoyeneba politikur gamosvlebsa da ideologiur brZolaSi maTi didi emociuri Zalis gamo. barbara elisonis (niderlandebi) moxsenebaSi `akustikuri fantomebi~ ganxiluli iyo naklebad Seswavlili akustikuri movlena, rodesac msmenelebi smeniT aRiqvamen movlenebs, romlebic realobaSi ar JReren. nino fircxalavam (saqarTvelo) warmoadgina moxseneba `ebanis, banis, bamis urTierTmimarTebis sakiTxisaTvis~, romelSic me-12 saukunis qarTveli filosofosis ioane petriwis naSromze (`ganmartebaQ~) dayrdnobiT ganixila qarTuli mravalxmianobis dasabamTan dakavSirebuli es sakiTxi. gia baRaSvilma (saqarTvelo) moxsenebaSi `erTisa~ da ,,mravalis~ antinomia qarTuli musikaluri folkloris adreul stadiebze~ filosofiur-filologiuri kuTxiT Sexeda tradiciuli musikis adreul fenebs. marina qavTaraZe (saqarTvelo) moxsenebaSi `monofonia da polifonia: paradigmaTa cvlis kulturul-istoriuli aspeqtebi (erTi Tvalsazrisi evropuli polifoniis Sesaxeb)~ ganixilavs monofoniisa da polifoniis kulturul-istoriul aspeqtebs mis dasavleTevropul gamovlinebaSi da amasTan dakavSirebul sakiTxebs qarTul sasuliero musikaSi. andrea kuzmiCi (kanada) moxsenebaSi: `ara aRdgena, aramed aRdgenis tradicia: tradiciuli qarTuli mravalxmianobis xelaxali wakiTxva ansambluri tradiciis mixedviT~, Seexo qarTuli folkloris SemsrulebelTa praqtikaSi mimdinare Tanamedrove tendenciebs. Tamaz gabisonias (saqarTvelo) moxsenebaSi `sekundis dialeqtika eTnikur musikaSi: statika da dinamika~ Seswavlis mTavari obieqti iyo disonansuri intervali sekunda da misi gamoyenebis sxvadasxva aspeqti. tradiciulad mravalricxovani iyo moxsenebebi Temaze tradiciuli polifoniis regionuli stilebi da musikaluri ena. kae hisaokas (iaponia) moxseneba eZRvneboda qarTul mravalxmianobas _ `polifoniuri da musikaluri praqtikis avTentikurobis struqtura saqarTveloSi~. didi interesi gamoiwvia su veisa da uang qis (CineTi) moxsenebam `qiangis polifoniuri tradicia CineTidan~, romelmac damswreT gaacno tibetis mimdebare mTiani regionebis mravalxmianobis STambeWdavi tradiciebi. maria de sao xose korte-reali (portugalia) Seexo mravalxmianobis sakiTxs fados Canawerebze dayrdnobiT: `polifonia da evolucia portugaliuri fados istoriul CanawerebSi~. mixail lobanovma (ruseTi) ganixila mravalxmianobis umartivesi tipebi tradiciul musikaSi: `CamorTmeuli~ unisonuri simRera – koleqtiuri Sesrulebis umartivesi tipi eTnikur musikaSi~. anda beitanem (latvia) mimoixila mravalxmianobis mxriv SedarebiT ucnobi regionis, latviis Crdilo-aRmosavleTis mravalxmiani tradiciebi: `Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviis tradiciuli polifonia Officium Defunctorum-Si~. nino RambaSiZisa da nino maxaraZis (saqarTvelo) moxseneba mieZRvna samegreloSi andria pirvelwodebulis qadagebis Semdeg warmarTulidan qristianulSi transformirebul tradiciul dResaswauls: `Wvenierobis dResaswauli da masTan dakavSirebuli tradiciuli musika~. rie koCim (iaponia) CrdiloeT iaponiaSi redaqtorebisagan 11 arsebuli msoflioSi yvelaze ufro izolirebuli mravalxmiani tradiciis mqone ainebis saintereso tradiciebi warmoadgina moxsenebaSi `polifoniuri elementebi ainus tradiciuli musikis monofoniur sasimRero stilebSi~. ornamentaciis problemas exeboda rosario pestanas da maria de sao xose korte-realis (portugalia) erToblivi moxseneba `myisieri da gabmuli ornamentireba portugaliel qalTa tradiciul mravalxmian simRerebSi~. udrood gardacvlili axalgazrda mecnieris giorgi (gigi) garayaniZis (saqarTvelo) moxseneba mieZRvna ,,saRvTo~ Rvinis (zedaSis) kultTan dakavSirebul tradiciasa da simReras: `eTnomusikis Teatris erTi ucnobi nimuSisaTvis (zedaSis iavnana)~. velika stoikova-serafimovskas (makedonia) moxsenebaSi ganxiluli iyo balkaneTis erT-erTi yvelaze ufro mravalxmiani xalxis, makedonielebis tradiciuli musika: `makedoniuri mravalxmiani simRera – zogierTi ZiriTadi maxasiaTebeli~. eno koCom (albaneTi) warmoadgina moxseneba `iso(n)i _ samxreT albanuri uTanxlebo mravalxmianobisa da bizantiuri galobis saerTo komponenti~. meTiu naiTis (aSS) moxsenebam `huteritebis gunduri simRera preriebSi: xsnis xmebi~ gagvacno specifikuri religiuri jgufis, huteritebis mravalxmiani simReris tradicia. viqtoria samsonaZis (saqarTvelo) moxseneba `mesxuri musikaluri dialeqtis Janruli Taviseburebani~ agrZelebs valerian maRraZis kvlevebs mesxuri musikaluri tradiciebis sferoSi. Temaze tradiciuli musikis istoriuli Canawerebi ramdenime moxseneba iyo warmodgenili, maT Soris, daiva raCiunaite-viCinienes (litva) `litvuri folkloruli musikis uZvelesi xmovani Canawerebi da eTnomusikologebis axali aRmoCenebi~, Jana partlasis (estoneTi) `setos erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos funqcionaluri sistema: mravalbilikiani Canawerebis distribuciuli analizi~. specialuri paneli mieZRvna germanul da avstriul arqivebSi arsebul qarTveli tyveebisgan gakeTebul Canawerebs. warmodgenili iqna suzan cigleris (germania) `qarTvel tyveTa Canawerebi germaniaSi (1915-1919)~ da sami avtoris _ gerda da franc lexlaitnerebisa (avstria) da nona lomiZis (avstria/saqarTvelo) `CD proeqti: 1909-1915/16 wlebis kavkasiis regionis Canawerebi~. Temaze mravalxmianoba da instrumentuli musika warmodgenili bo lavergrenis (aSS) erTaderTi moxseneba mieZRvna simebian sakravTa Soris uZveless _ `kuTxovan arfas~, romelic cnobilia Sumerebisa da sxva Zveli winaazieli xalxebis kulturebidan da maRalmTian nuristansa da svaneTSi dResac cocxlad aris SemorCenili. simpoziumis farglebSi gaimarTa ori mrgvali magida, winaswargamocxadebuli specialuri Temebis irgvliv. pirvelis _ `qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba~ iniciatorebi iyvnen tradiciuli mravalxmianobis cnobili eqspertebi simha aromi (safrangeTi) da polo valeho (espaneTi), romlebic ramdenime welia intensiurad ikvleven qarTul mravalxmianobas. diskusiaSi mTavari gamosvlebi hqondaT evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis aRiarebul mkvlevrebs, suzan rankins (didi britaneTi), arturo telosa (espaneTi) da axalgazrda mecniers, svimon jan- 12 rusudan wurwumia ioseb Jordania gulaSvils (saqarTvelo). meore mrgvali magidis `axali mosazrebebi adamianis evoluciasa da qcevaze _ mravalxmianobis roli Tanamedrove adamianis CamoyalibebaSi~ _ iniciatori iyo gamoCenili amerikeli eTnomusikologi diter qristenseni. misma monawileebma ioseb Jordaniam, piter goldma, maria de sao xose korte-realma, rusudan wurwumiam ganixiles mravalxmianobis kvlevaSi bolo dros gamokveTili tendenciebi, romlebSic mravalxmianobis warmoSoba ganxilulia ara rogorc gviandeli kulturuli movlena, aramed, rogorc adamianis evoluciis erT-erTi mniSvnelovani elementi. mkiTxvels winamdebare krebulSi SeuZlia gaecnos orive mrgvali magidis mokle mimoxilvas, rac Cveni wlevandeli krebulis erT-erT siaxles warmoadgens. simpoziumis monawileebs, tradiciulad, SesaZlebloba miecaT, gascnobodnen sam sruliad gansxvavebul da saintereso eTno-musikalur films. renato morelis (italia) `xmebi mTebidan: sami dRe prevanaSi~ warmogvidgens CrdiloeT italiis msoflioSi yvelaze maRali soflis dinamiuri da laRi mcxovreblebis musikalur yofas, xolo polo valehos (espaneTi) saeqspedicio masalaze samaki vanes jgufis mier gadaRebuli filmi `afrika: ritmi~ cxovlad SegvagrZnobinebs afrikuli cxovrebis ritmul pulsacias. sainteresodaa naCvenebi Zveli Tbilisuri dudukis Tanamedrove ostatisa da misi Segirdebis urTierToba sakravze dakvris swavlis procesSi hugo zempisa (safrangeTi) da nino ciciSvilis (avstralia, saqarTvelo) filmSi `Tbilisis duduki: eldar SoSitaiSvili da misi mowafeebi~. simpoziumis sakoncerto programebi, rogorc yovelTvis, mravalferovnad iyo warmodgenili – amjerad, simpoziumis gaxsnis koncerti saqarTveloSi mcxovrebi eTnikuri jgufebisa da diasporebis – ebraelebis, polonelebis, rusebis, rusi duxoborebis, ukrainelebis, germanelebis mravalxmian simReras daeTmo, dRisa da saRamos koncertebSi ki tradiciulad, qarTuli da ucxouri ansamblebi enacvlebodnen erTmaneTs. stumrebze dauviwyari STabeWdileba moaxdina ara marto qarTulma xuroTmoZRvrulma Zeglebma, aramed ugemrielesi kaxuri Rvinis dagemovnebam, romliTac guluxvad gvimaspinZla avstriaSi mcxovrebi Cveni Tanamemamulis, q-ni nona lomiZis megobarma, b-nma kaxa zukakiSvilma da saaqcio sazogadoeba `Telavis Rvinis maranma~, risTvisac maT mimarT did madlierebas gamovxatavT. vimedovnebT, rom, rogorc yovelTvis, simpoziumma bevri ram SesZina rogorc msoflios mravali qveynidan Camosul stumrebs, ise qarTvel eTnomusikologebsa da simpoziumis damswre sazogadoebas. rusudan wurwumia ioseb Jordania 13 FROM THE EDITORS The collection includes the papers presented at the 6th International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony and two round table sessions held as part of the symposium. The Symposium was held at V. Sarajishvili Tbilsi State Conservatoire on 24-29 September, 2012, traditionally under the patronage of the President of Georgia and financial support from Georgian Ministry of Culture and Monuments protection. The founders of the symposium are Tbilisi State Conservatoire and the International centre for Georgian Folk Song, all preparatory work was carried out by the International Research Centre for Traditional Polyphony of the Conservatoire. We would like to extend our gratitude to all who contributed to the successful conduct of Tbilisi Symposium on Traditional Polyphony, also to the participant Georgian and foreign scholar, performers of local and world polyphony and, what is particularly important, to the audience of scientific sessions and concert programs. The scientific sessions of the symposium were held according to the preliminarily announced themes. Besides, continued was the tradition of adding a special theme to the scientific program, initiated at the 5th symposium. In the collection the papers are grouped according to themes. Scientific sessions were opened with special theme – Comparative Study of Traditional Polyphony – which has became particularly topical lately. The first paper “Comparative Study of Traditional Polyphony: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” presented by Joseph Jordania (Australia/ Georgia) discussed the importance of comparative method in the study of the origin of polyphony and also distinguished several historical periods. In her paper “Exploring the Beginnings of Love Songs in the Light of Early Human History” Nino Tsitsishvili (Australia/Georgia) related the genesis of love songs to tabooing human sexuality and elaboration of the broad system of prohibition, which in her opinion is confirmed by the absence of love songs in some archaic traditions (e.g. Svaneti, Tibet). Jelena Jovanovic’s (Serbia) paper “Rekindled Kaval in Serbia in 1990s and Kaval and Ney in Sufi Traditions in the Middle East: The Aspects of Music and Meanings” dealt with particular sphere for using comparative method. Nailya Almeeva (Russia) continues fruitful study of traditional polyphony of the Kryashen Tatars in Volga-Kama Region. The title of her paper was “Formation of Vertical Structure in the Texture of Collective Singing in Baptized Peoples of Volga-Kama Region (Kryashen Tatars, Mari, Chuvash)”. The session dedicated to General Theoretical and Musical-Aesthetic Aspects of Traditional Polyphony was opened by Matt Harvey’s (Australia) paper “Political Polyphony”, which dealt with the use of musical methods (drone, ostinato, dissonance, consonance) in political speeches and ideological struggle thanks to their strong emotional power. Barbara Ellison (Netherlands) paper “Sonic Phantoms” discussed the lesser studied acoustic phenomenon, when listeners perceive by ear the occurrences that do not sound in reality. Nino Pirtskhalava (Georgia) presented the paper “On 14 Rusudan Tsurtsumia Joseph Jordania the Interrelation Between Ebani, Bani and Bami”, in which the author discussed this issue related to the origin of Georgian folk music basing on the work by the 12th century Georgian philosopher Ioane Petritsi (“Commentary on the Philosophy of Prokles Diadochoses and Plato”). In his paper “Antinomy of “One” and “Many” on Early Stages of the Aesthetics of Georgian folk Music” Gia baghashvili looks at the early layers of traditional music from philosophical angle. In a paper by Marina Kavtaradze (Georgia) “Monophony and Polyphony: Cultural-Historical Aspects of the Paradigmatic Changes (A View on European Polyphony)” manifestations of monophony and polyphony in Western Europe and interrelated topics from early Georgian professional music are discussed. In her paper “Not a Revival, A Tradition of Revivals: Rereading Georgian Traditional Polyphony Through the Ensemble Traditions” Andrea Kuzmich (Canada) touched upon the contemporary tendencies in the practice of Georgian folk performers. Main topic of Tamaz Gabisonia’s paper “ Dialectics of Second in Ethnic Music: Statics and Dynamics” was the dissonant interval second, with all the various aspects of its use. Traditionally numerous papers were represented on the theme Regional Styles and Musical Language of Traditional polyphony. Kae Hisaoka (Japan) dedicated her paper “Structure of Authenticity of Polyphony and Musical Practices in Georgia” to Georgian polyphony. The paper of Su Wei and Wang Qi (China) “The Qiang’s Traditional Polyphony from China”, which familiarized the audience with the impressive polyphonic traditions of the mountain regions neighboring with Tibet, was met with great interest. Maria De Sao Jose Corte-Real (Portugal) touched upon the issue of polyphony based on Fado recordings: “Polyphony and Evolution in Fado Historical Recordings from Portugal”. Mikhail Lobanov (Russia) discussed the simplest types of polyphony in traditional music: “Unison-Taking up” Singing – the Simplest Type of Collective Performance in Ethnic Music”. Anda Beitane (Latvia) discussed the polyphonic traditions of the lesser known region – North-East Latvia: “Traditional Polyphony in the Officium Defunctorum in North-Eastern Latvia”. Nino Ghambashidze and Nino Makharadze (Georgia) dedicated their article to the traditional festival transformed from pagan into Christian after the preach of Andrew the First-Called: “Chvenieroba Festival and Traditional Music Related to It”. Rie Kochi (Japan) presented interesting traditions of the Ainu people with most isolated polyphonic tradition: “The Polyphonic Elements in the Monophonic Singing Styles of Ainu Traditional Music”. The joint paper of Rosario Pestana and Maria De Sao Jose Corte-Real (Portugal) “Instant and Lasting Ornaments in Traditional Female Polyphony in Portugal” dealt with the problem of ornamentation. The paper of untimely deceased young scholar Giorgi (Gigi) garaqanidze (Georgia) “On One Unknown Example of Ethnomusic Theatre (Zedashe Lullaby)” was dedicated to the tradition and song of newly made wine (zedashe) cult. In her paper “Multipart Singing in Macedonia – Some Basic Characteristics” Velika Stojkova-Serafimovska (Macedonia) discussed the traditional music of the Macedonians – one of the most polyphonic peoples in the Balkans. Eno Kocho (Albania) presented the paper “The Iso(n) – a Participatory Component in the South Albanian Multipart Unaccompanied Singing and in Byzantine Chant”. Matthew Knight’s (USA) paper “Hutterite Choral Singing on the Praries: Sounds of Salvation” familiarized us with polyphonic tradition of Hutterites – a specific religious group. In the paper “Genre Peculiarities of Meskhetian Musical Dialect” Victoria Samsonadze (Georgia) continues Valerian Magradze’s research on Meskhetian musical traditions. From the Editors 15 Several papers dealt with the theme Historical Recordings of Traditional Music, among these “The Oldest Sound Recordings of the Lithuanian Folklore and the Recent Discoveries by Ethnomusicologists” by Daiva Raciunaite-Viciniene (Lithuania), “The Functional System of the Seto Onethree-Semitone Mode: an Approach Based on a Distribution Analysis of Multitrack recordings” by Zanna partlas (Estonia). Special panel was dedicated to the recordings of Georgian war prisoners from the archives in Germany and Austria. Presented were the papers: “Recordings of Georgian Prisoners in Germany (1915-1919)” by Susanne Ziegler (Germany), and “CD-Project: Recordings from the Caucasian region, 1909 and 1915-1916” by Gerda and Franz Lechleitener (Austria) and Nona Lomidze (Austria/Georgia). Only one paper was presented under the theme Polyphony and Instrumental Music; Bo Lawergren’s (USA) “Angular Harp” – one of the oldest string instrument, known from the cultures of the Sumerians and other peoples of Asia Minor, surviving to this day in mountainous Nuristan and Svaneti. Two Round Table Sessions on preliminarily announced themes were held as part of the symposium: the initiators of the first one “Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music” were the renowned experts of polyphony: Simha Arom (France) and Polo Vallejo (Spain), who have intensively been studying Georgian polyphony for several years. Among the participants of the discussion were well-known researchers of midle age European music: Susan Rankin (UK), Arturo Tello (Spain) and young scholar Svimon Jangulashvili (Georgia). The initiator of the second Round Table Session “New Thinking About Evolution and Expressive Behavior – Polyphony as Part of What and How We Have Become” was renowned American ethnomusicologist Dieter Christensen. The participants of the session Joseph Jordania, Peter Gold, Maria De Sao Jose Corte-Real, Rusudan Tsurtsumia discussed recent tendencies in the study of polyphony, in which the origin of polyphony is regarded not as later cultural occurrence, but as one of the most significant elements of human evolution. In present volume the readers can get familiarized with short reviews of both Round Table sessions, which is the novelty of the publication. The symposium participants were traditionally offered the opportunity to watch three completely different and interesting ethno-musicological films. Renato Morelli’s (Italy) “Voices from the Heights: Three Days in Premana” presents the musical life of dynamic and delightful inhabitants of the highest settlement in North Italy. The film of Semaki Wanne group “Africa: The Beat” based on Polo Vallejo’s (Spain) expedition materials makes the audience vividly feel the rhythmic beat of African life. Hugo Zemp’s (France) and Nino Tsitsishvili (Austrralia/Georgia) film “Duduki of Tbilisi: Eldar Shoshitaishvili and His Students” captured interesting interaction of the modern master of duduki Eldar Shishitaishvili and his students. The symposium concert program was diverse, as always. Opening concert presented polyphonic music of ethnic groups and diasporas residing in Georgia – the Jews, Polish, Russian Dukhobors, 16 Rusudan Tsurtsumia Joseph Jordania Ukrainians and Germans. Georgian and foreign ensembles participated in afternoon and evening concerts. The symposium guests were greatly impressed by Georgian architectural monuments as well as by generous hosting of Mr. Kakha Zukakishvili – a friend of our compatriot Nona Lomidze, residing in Austria and “Telavi Vine Cellar” Company, and degustation of delicious Kakhetian wine. For what we expand our deep gratitude to them. We hope that the symposium guests from different countries of the world, as well as Georgian ethnomusicologists and the audience acquired much from the symposium. Rusudan Tsurtsumia Joseph Jordania tradiciuli polifoniis SedarebiTi Seswavla COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY 19 ioseb Jordania (avstralia/saqarTvelo) tradiciuli mravalxmianobis SedarebiTi Seswavla: guSin, dRes, xval tradiciuli mravalxmianobis wina, 2010 wlis simpoziumze pirvelad gadawyda, rom yoveli simpoziumisaTvis dagvematebina axali, cvalebadi Tema. aseTi Tema unda yofiliyo mravalxmianobis fenomenis SeswavlisaTvis gansakuTrebiT aqtualuri da mniSvnelovani. ori wlis win aseT Temad avirCieT aziis mravalxmiani tradiciebi. amis mizezi iyo is, rom aziis mTel rig qveynebSi mravalxmianobis Seswavlas ar eqceoda araviTari yuradReba. ori wlis win simpoziumSi monawile specialistebma uamravi axali ram Seityves aziuri mravalxmianobis uaRresad saintereso kerebis Sesaxeb. bevrma pirvelad moismina mravalxmianobis nimuSebi avRaneTis mTian regionSi mcxovrebi nuristanelebisagan, CrdiloeT iaponiaSi mcxovrebi saidumloebiT moculi ainebisgan, himalais mTebis regionSi mcxovrebi tibetelebisagan, vietnameli mTielebisagan. gansakuTrebiT misasalmebelia is faqti, rom wina simpoziumis tradicia grZeldeba da wlevandel simpoziumzec aris warmodgenili aziis mravalxmianoba. ufro metic, iyo mcdeloba da ormxrivi survili rom Camosuliyvnen wlevandel simpoziumze iseTi unikaluri mravalxmianobis matarebeli kulturis warmomadgenlebi, rogorebic arian ainebi CrdiloeT iaponiidan da tibetelebi CineTidan. samwuxarod, wels es ver moxerxda sxvadasxva mizezis gamo, magram, imedi gvaqvs, rom momaval simpoziumebze monawile eTnomusikologebs eqnebaT maTi mosmenis saSualeba. mokled, imis Tqma mindoda, rom Cvens simpoziumebze warmodgenili axali da aqtualuri Temebi, rogorc Cans, gaagrZeleben aqtiur monawileobas saerTaSoriso eTnomusikologiur csovrebaSi, rac misasalmebelia. wlevandel simpoziumze aseT specialur Temas warmoadgens tradiciuli mravalxmiani kulturebis SedarebiTi Seswavla, romelsac aziuri mravalxmianobisgan gansxvavebiT, didi istoria aqvs. me Cems moxsenebaSi Sevecdebi, ganvixilo tradiciuli mravalxmianobis SedarebiTi Seswavlis mdidari warsuli, dRevandeli mokrZalebuli mdgomareoba da, aseve, SeZlebisdagvarad, warmovadgino misi samomavlo perspeqtivebi. . . . mravalxmiani simRera kacobriobis kulturuli istoriis erT-erTi yvelaze ufro idumalebiT moculi movlenaa, amitomac bunebrivi iyo, rom mravalxmianobis gaCena erT-erT yvelaze ufro mniSvnelovan istoriul problemad iqca kacobriobis musikaluri kulturis istoriaSi. mravalxmianobis warmoSobaze saubari ar Sewyvetila arasodes, Tumca, drodadro, Cveni dargis ganviTarebis garkveul periodebSi, igi met yuradRebas ipyrobda. am sakiTxis Seswavla pirdapir iyo dakavSirebuli kvlevis SedarebiTi meTodis gamoyenebasTan, radganac mravalxmianobis warmoSobis Seswavla 20 ioseb Jordania bunebrivad moiTxovs mravalxmianobis msoflio gavrcelebis gaTvaliswinebas. Cems moxsenebaSi me ganvixilav am sferos orive kuTxiT: erTi _ rogor viTardeboda da icvleboda damokidebuleba kvlevis SedarebiTi meTodisadmi da meore _ ra xdeboda uSualod mravalxmianobis warmoSobisa da Seswavlis sferoSi. pirveli periodi: 1880-iani wlebidan 1945 wlamde: SedarebiTi kvlevis aRzeveba SedarebiTi kvlevis meTods sakmaod saintereso da intensiuri cxovreba hqonda musikismcodneobis ganviTarebis pirvel naxevarSi. cnobilia, rom evropuli musikismcodneoba daiwyo swored SedarebiTi meTodebis yvelaze farTo gamoyenebiT. es mecnierebis istoriaSi sakmaod farTod gavrcelebuli movlenaa. roca axali dargi iwyebs arsebobas, am dargSi momuSave mecnierebi bunebrivad cdiloben am sferoSi arsebuli movlenebi da faqtebi ganixilon mTlianobaSi, mTeli msoflios maStabiT da moicvan iseTi sakiTxebi, rogoricaa am movlenis warmoSoba, misi ganviTarebis istoria da saerTaSoriso gavrceleba. mecnierebis ganviTarebis pirveli periodis Sromebs aseve xSirad axasiaTebs sakiTxebisadmi spekulaciuri damokidebuleba da gadametebuli ganzogadebebi. eTnomusikologiis ganviTarebaSi pirveli periodi grZeldeboda eTnomusikologiis sawyisebidan (XIX saukunis 80-iani wlebidan) meore msoflio omis damTavrebamde. SedarebiTi meTodi am periodSi imdenad farTod iyo gamoyenebuli, rom mTels dargs, xSirad, `SedarebiT musikologias~ uwodebdnen. musikologiuri kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri am periodSi evropa, gansakuTrebiT, germania iyo. Cemi azriT, es periodi mravalxmianobasTan dakavSirebuli kvleviTi paradigmebis cvalebadobis gamo or qve-periodad unda gaiyos, radgan am or qve-periodSi sakmao cvlilebebi moxda. pirveli qve-periodis kvleviTi paradigmebi, romelic grZeldeboda XX saukunis 30-ian wlebamde, daaxloebiT ase gamoiyureboda: (1) mravalxmianoba aris erTxmianobis ganviTarebis Sedegad gaCenili movlena. es idea imdenad aSkara iyo mkvlevrebisTvis, rom igi aravis Camouyalibebia da daumtkicebia Teoriis an, Tundac, hipoTezis formiT; (2) mravalxmianoba iyo kulturuli aRmoCena da am aRmoCenis avtorebi iyvnen Suasakuneebis evropeli berebi. warmoSobis xanad iTvleboda pirveli aTaswleulis bolo, ufro zustad, me-9 saukune, rodesac pirveli oficialuri informacia gamoCnda amis Sesaxeb. Tumca, isic unda iTqvas, rom sxva istoriuli wyaroebi ufro adrindel periodsac miuTiTebdnen CrdiloeT evropaSi; (3) tradiciul musikaSi mravalxmianoba Sevida profesiuli musikidan da, ZiriTadad, gavrcelda msoflios sxvadasxva kulturebis profesiul da xalxur musikaSi qristiani misionerebis moRvaweobis Sedegad (Von der Werf, 1997). SegviZlia isic gavixsenoT, rom nadelmac swored am ideis SemowmebiT daiwyo qarTuli da adreevropuli mravalxmiani tradiciebis Sedareba (Nadel, 1933). mravalxmianobis aRniSnuli modeli eyrdnoboda im azrs, rom pirvelyofili adamiani musikalurad Zalian primitiuli arseba iyo da mas jer ar hqonda kargad Camoyalibebuli simaRlebrivi smena, kilos SegrZneba, ritmi da, ra Tqma unda, harmoniis SegrZneba. tradiciuli mravalxmianobis SedarebiTi Seswavla: guSin, dRes, xval 21 mravalxmianobis Seswavlis meore qve-periodi daiwyo mas Semdeg, rac TandaTanobiT gavrcelda azri, rom mravalxmianoba tradiciul musikaSi, rogorc Cans, arsebobda profesiuli mravalxmianobis gaCenamde. es qve-periodi Zalian intensiuri, Tumca xanmokle iyo. igi mxolod erTi dekada gagrZelda (XX saukunis 30-iani wlebi). meore periodis paradigmebi SeiZleba ase warmovadginoT: (1) mravalxmianoba aris kulturuli aRmoCena da misi warmoSoba dakavSirebulia erTxmianobis ganviTarebasTan (am mxriv ori qve-periodis Sexedulebebs Soris ar iyo gansxvaveba); (2) mravalxmianoba Caisaxa da Tavdapirvelad ganviTarda tradiciul musikaSi da ara profesiul musikaSi (es ukve principuli siaxle iyo). (3) profesiul musikaSi mravalxmianoba Sevida xalxuri musikidan [am ideis upirvelesi mxardamWeri iyo Snaideri (Shneider, 1934-35, 1940, 1951); igive azri hqonda nadelsac (Nadel, 1933)]; (4) mravalxminoba, SesaZloa, gaCnda erT regionSi da mere iqidan TandaTanobiT gavrcelda sxvadaxva regionSi kulturuli difuziis saSualebiT (marius Snaideris modeli, Schneider, 1934-35), an, SesaZloa, is sxvadasxva regionSi damoukideblad ganviTarda (SeiZleba amas pol koleris modeli vuwodoT (Collaer, 1960), Tumca, kolers aseTi daskvna saerTaSoriso masStabiT ar gaukeTebia); (5) is, Tu rodis gaCnda mravalxmianoba, amaze zusti saubari SeuZlebelia, magram es moxda, albaT, Cveni welTaRricxvis pirveli aTaswleulis ganmavlobaSi, profesiul musikaSi mravalxmianobis gaCenamde, anu me-9 saukunemde (Schneider, 1934-35). am periodis profesiuli musikis mkvlevrebi mravalxmianobas aseve ar Tvlian Zalian Zvel movlenad. magaliTad, roca en kilmerma gaSifra Zveli xurituli firfitebis musikaluri Canaweri da gaakeTa daskvna, rom Canaweri warmoadgenda mravalxmiani musikis nimuSs, aman musikis istorikosebSi Zalian didi kritikuli gamoxmaureba gamoiwvia. `pirveli reaqcia, roca laparakia xurituli tabletebis musikalur Sinaarsze, isaa, Tu ramdenad SesaZlebelia, rom mravalxmianoba ukve arsebuliyo aseT Soreul istoriul warsulSi?~ ikiTxa vestma en kilmeris gamokvlevis daskvnebis Sesaxeb (West, 1994: 173). msgavsi kritika kilmeris mimarT sxvebmac gamoTqves (Wulstan, 1974; Duchesne-Giullemin, 1975, 1980: 11-18). aseve gaakritikes Zveli musikis specialistebma egviptolog hans hikmanis daskvna imis Sesaxeb, rom Zvel egvipteSi arsebobda mravalxmianoba (Hickmann, 1952, 1970: 138-140). aqac kritikis centraluri argumenti is iyo, rom aTaswleulebis win mravalxmianobis arseboba, faqtobrivad, warmoudgeneli iyo (Manniche, 1991: 30-32). amave periodis Sexedulebebs axasiaTebda agreTve tradiciul musikaSi arsebuli mravalxmianobis `stiqiurad~ da `gaucnobiereblad~ CaTvla. am Sexedulebebis Tanaxmad, pirvelyofil adamians Zalze primitiuli smena hqonda; rac Seexeba harmoniis SegrZnebas, is jer ar arsebobda. magaliTad, kurt zaqsis mixedviT, tradiciul musikaSi sekunduri disonansebis arseboba SemTxveviTi iyo, radgan momRerlebi sekundebs ver aRiqvamdnen, rogorc emociurad mZafr intervals. Sesabamisad, kurt zaqsis azriT, `velur mravalxmianobaSi~ warmoqmnili harmoniebi SemTxveviTi iyo da ar SeiZleboda maTi ganxilva dRevandeli esTetikuri kriteriumebiT (Sachs, 1962). 22 ioseb Jordania mravalxmianobis Seswavlis pirvel, `SedarebiT~ periods hqonda Tavisi aSkarad gamoxatuli dadebiTi da, aseve, uaryofiTi mxareebi. dadebiTi iyo mravalxmianobis, rogorc erTiani saerTaSoriso da istoriuli fenomenis gaazreba. aseve, dadebiTi iyo mcdeloba, msoflios maStabiT SeeswavlaT mravalxmianobis gaCena da gavrceleba. erix fon hornbostelis mowafe, germaneli marius Snaideri am mimarTulebis centraluri warmomadgeneli iyo (Schneider, 1934-1935, 1951, 1961, 1969). zigfrid nadelis cnobili Sroma qarTuli musikis Sesaxeb 30-iani wlebis am periodis erTerTi mniSvnelovani Sroma iyo, romelmac mravalxmianobis warmoSobis Sesaxeb Snaideris Sexedulebebis Camoyalibebaze didi gavlena iqonia (Nadel, 1933). aq minda msmenelebs Sevaxseno, rom Cvens simpoziumze adre-evropuli profesiuli mravalxmianobisa da xalxuri mravalxmianobis urTierTobis sakiTxs (rac Snaideris da nadelis Teoriebis centralur monakveTs warmoadgenda), specialuri mrgvali magida eZRvneba. meore periodi, 1945 wlidan 21-e saukunemde: SedarebiTi kvlevis meTodologiis dacema SedarebiTi meTodologiisadmi midgoma kardinalurad Seicvala meore msoflio omis Semdeg. amerikis SeerTebul StatebSi gavrcelebuli kulturuli anTropologiis paradigmebis mixedviT, kulturebis SedarebiTi Seswavla ar iyo gamarTlebuli da nayofieri. SedarebiTi kvlevisadmi aseTi uaryofiTi damokidebulebis gaCena mravali istoriuli da fsiqologiuri faqtoriT iyo gamowveuli. adrindeli midgoma _ kulturebis primitiul da ganviTarebul kulturebad dayofa ukve miuReblad iqca. SedarebiTi kvlevis avtorebi da maTi Sromebi gakritikebul iqna mTeli rigi mizezebis gamo. am mizezebs Soris iyo is, rom didtaniani SedarebiTi kvlevebis avtorebi Sesadarebel kulturebs mxolod zedapirulad, maTi Rrma codnis gareSe ganixilavdnen. isini ar miiCnevdnen aucileblad Sesadarebeli kulturebis ufro safuZvlianad Seswavlas, an folkloruli eqspediciebis Catarebas am regionebSi. garda amisa, Sedarebis dros mkvlevrebi ar eridebodnen iseT gamoTqmebs, rogoricaa `primitiuli~ da `maRalganviTarebuli~, rac aSkarad rasistul elfers aZlevda maT Sromebs. amitom srulebiT bunebrivi iyo, rom meore msoflio omis Semdeg, roca rasistulma ideologiam katastroful simaRleeebs miaRwia da milionobiT adamianis sicocxle Seiwira, reaqciuli Semobruneba moxda. meore msoflio omis Semdgom kulturebis `primitiulad~ da `maRalganviTarebulad~ gamocxadeba araeTikuri gaxda da mTlianad SedarebiTi kvlevis meTodic gariyuli aRmoCnda. am periodis eTnomusikologebis paradigmatuli Sexeduleba mravalxmianobis warmoSobis sakiTxisadmi, albaT, ase SeiZleba warmovadginoT: (1) kulturebis SedarebiTi Seswavla da stadiuri kibeebis Sedgena ar aris mecnierulad da eTikurad gamarTlebuli; (2) mravalxmianobis warmoSobis sakiTxis kvleva dakavSirebulia dausabuTebel spekulaciebTan, radgan ar arsebobs araviTari myari mecnieruli safuZveli da sando wyaroebi am sakiTxis kvlevisaTvis; (3) ara marto mravalxmianobis kvleva, aramed sxva maStaburi sakiTxebis kvlevac (magaliTad, musikaluri universaliebis, anda musikis warmoSobis sakiTxis kvleva) tradiciuli mravalxmianobis SedarebiTi Seswavla: guSin, dRes, xval 23 ar aris mecnierulad gamarTlebuli. am periodSi wamyvani gaxda kulturul-anTropologiuri midgoma _ TiToeuli kultura ganixileboda maTi imanenturi mniSvnelobis Sesabamisad, sxva kulturasTan Sedarebis gareSe. am mimarTulebis centri amerikis SeerTebuli Statebi iyo; drodadro xdeboda farTo kvleviTi sakiTxebis ganxilva (magaliTad, musikaluri universaliebis Sesaxeb), magram aseTi ganxilvebis Sedegi, rogorc wesi, negatiuri, anda, ukeTes SemTxvevaSi, pesimisturi iyo (Braun & Jordania, 2013). wina periodisagan gansxvavebiT, roca avtorebi arc ki miiswrafvodnen Sesadarebeli kulturebis siRrmiseuli codnisaken, axali mecnieruli paradigmis mimdevari mkvlevrebi Segnebulad izRudavdnen Tavs Sesaswavli kulturebis da regionebis mxriv. farTod gavrcelda xangrZlivi folkloruli eqspediciebis Catareba erT regionSi. mkvlevrebi mTels cxovrebas uZRvnidnen, umeteswilad, erT kulturas, an erT regions, swavlobdnen am kulturis enas, ecnobodnen maT tradiciebs da rac mTavaria, xangrZlivad (xSirad wlebis ganmavlobaSi) cxovrobdnen arCeul regionSi da cdilobdnen ise moqceuliyvnen, rogorc am kulturis tradiciuli warmomadgenlebi. aseT eTnomusikologiur praqtikasac hyavda Tavisi kritikosebi. magaliTad, araevropuli kulturebis warmomadgeneli mecnierebi miiCnevdnen, rom maTi evropeli kolegebis codna sxva kulturebis Sesaxeb verasodes iqneba iseTi Rrma, rogoric TviT am kulturebis wamomadgenlebisa. meore mxriv, evropeli da amerikeli eTnomusikologebi ki _ piriqiT, miiCnevdnen, rom obieqturi suraTis Sesacnobad mkvlevrisaTvis am kulturis warmomadgenloba saziano iyo da rom kulturis Sesaxeb obieqturi suraTis Sesaqmnelad saWiro iyo kulturis `garedan Seswavla~. aqve minda mokled aRvniSno erTi saintereso istoriuli tendencia, romelic SedarebiTi kvlevis istorias sruliad sxva WrilSi gviCvenebs. tradiciuli musikis Seswavlis zemoT aRniSnuli istoriuli ganviTareba, erTi mxriv, evropul da amerikul centrebSi da, meore mxriv, sxvadasxva qveynebSi sakmaod gansxvavebuli dinamikiT viTardeboda. XIX saukunis bolosa da meoce saukunis pirvel naxevarSi mraval qveyanaSi, evropisagan gansxvavebiT, swavlobdnen sakuTar kulturas TavisTavad da ara SedarebiTi meTodiT. xolo, mas mere, rac evro-amerikulma eTnomusikologiam zurgi Seaqcia SedarebiT meTodologias, piriqiT, am qveyanebSi daiwyo farTo SedarebiTi kvlevebisadmi interesis gaRviveba. ase moxda saqarTveloSi, rodesac gamoCnda vaJa gvaxarias da ilia tabaRuas (1983), nino maisuraZis (1989), manana SilakaZisa (2007) da am moxsenebis avtoris wignebi (Gvacharia & Tabagua, 1983; Maisuradze, 1989; Shilakadze, 2007; Jordania, 1989). ruseTSi, magaliTad, gamoCnda feodosi rubcovis wigni (Rubtsov, 1962). aseve moxda bulgareTSi, ukrainaSi, da msoflios sxva mraval qveyanaSi. Tuki mTeli msoflios masStabiT erTmaneTs SevadarebT meore msoflio omamde da omis Semdeg gamocemuli naSromebis raodenobas, davinaxavT, rom, daaxloebiT 1960-iani wlebidan, TandaTan gaizarda SedarebiTi kvlevebis kuTri wona. miuxedavad amisa, eTnomusikologiaSi Seuryevladaa miRebuli mosazreba, rom meore msoflio omis Semdeg moxda SedarebiTi kvlevebis Semcireba da regionuli kvlevebis gazrda, rac, albaT, mraval sferoSi zogadi evro-amerikuli tendenciiiT unda aixsnas. am movlenas me 2006 wels gamosul wignSi `ratom mReris xalxi?~ `rZis smis 24 ioseb Jordania sindromi~1 vuwode. sainteresoa, rom swored amave periodSi ganxorcielda SedarebiTi musikismcodneobis istoriaSi yvelaze farTomasStabiani da yvelaze ambiciuri gamokvleva. saubari maqvs alan lomaqsis kantometrikul proeqtze (Lomax, 1968). sainteresoa, rom lomaqsis farTo SedarebiT kvlevas profesional eTnmusikologTa udidesi nawili mtrulad Sexvda. amis mizezi iyo ara mxolod is faqti, rom TviT lomaqsi ar iyo profesionali eTnomusikologi da arc sanoto notacias flobda da iyenebda Tavis kvlevaSi, aramed isic, rom aseTi farTo SedarebiTi Seswavla, kritikosebis azriT, amartivebda msoflio musikaluri mravalferovnebis WeSmarit suraTs da Sesabamisad, miRebuli daskvnebic ar iyo obieqturi da sando. swored amitom, lomaqsis Sroma eTnomusikologiuri akademiuri wreebis mier ar iqna aRiarebuli. garda lomaqsis farTod gaxmaurebuli Sromisa, amave periodSi gamoCnda kidev ramdenime naSromi da, albaT, kargi iqneba am moxsenebaSi maTi mokled moxsenieba. iaap kunstma gamoaqveyna wigni (ufro zustad, broSura), indoneziisa da balkaneTis mravalxmiani tradiciebis siaxlovis asaxsnelad (Kunst, 1954). ivet grimom da jilber ruJem aRniSnes pigmeebisa da buSmenebis mravalxmiani tradiciebis siaxlove (Grimaud & Gilbert, 1956). erix Stokmanma gamoaqveyna orgverdiani statia qarTuli da albanuri mravalxmianobis siaxlovis Sesaxeb (Stockmann, 1957). cvetko rixtmanma aRniSna balkaneTis sxvadasxva qveynebis mravalxmiani tradiciebis siaxlove (Rihtman, 1958, 1966). nikolai kaufmanma aseve miuZRvna am sakiTxs Sromebi (Kaufman, 1966). pol kolerma Seiswavla evropis xalxuri mravalxmiani tradiciebi da gaakeTa daskvna, rom es tradiciebi gaxda safuZveli evropaSi profesiuli mravalxmianobis gaCenisaTvis (Collaer, 1955, 1960). bruno netlma Tavi mouyara da Seiswavla monacemebi amerikeli indielebis mravalxmianobis Sesaxeb (Nettl, 1961). oskar elSekma SedarebiTi gamokvleva Caatara evropuli mravalxmianobis kerebisa (Elshek, 1963). ernest emshaimerma Seadara evropuli vokaluri da sakravieri mravalxmiani tradiciebi (Emsheimer, 1964). alica elSekovam Seiswavla balkaneTisa da karpatebis mravalxmiani tradiciebi (Elschekova, 1981). jerald florian mesnerma Seiswavla da Seadara balkanuri, indoneziuri da wynari okeanis mravlxmiani tradiciebi (Messner, 1980, 1989, 2013). gerhard kubikma Seiswavla centraluri da aRmosavleT afrikis mravalxmiani tradiciebi (Kubik, 1968, 1986). izali zemcovski aTwleulebis ganmavlobaSi nayofierad iyenebs SedarebiTi kvlevis meTods (Zemtsovsky, 1969, 1988, 1990). karl brambatsma ganixila baltiis qveynebis mravalxmiani tradiciebi balkaneTisa da aRmosavleT evropis mravalxmian tradiciaTa konteqstSi (Brambats, 1983). martin boikom Seiswavla baltiispireTis mravalxmiani tradiciebi arqeologiuri monacemebis Suqze (Boiko, 1992). nino ciciSvilma ganixila paralelebi kavkasiur da samxreT slavur mravalxmian tradiciebs Soris (Tsitsishvili, 1990, 1991), xolo am statiis avtorma statiebi da wigni miuZRvna mravalxmiani tradiciebis SedarebiT Seswavlas (Jordania, 1988, 1989). meoce saukunis bolo wlebSi gamoikveTa azri, rom saWiro iyo damokidebulebis Secvla SedarebiTi kvlevebisadmi. wamyvanma amerikelma eTnomusikologebmac ki daiwyes imaze laparaki, rom SedarebiTi meTodis sruli uaryofa ar iyo gamarTlebuli. tradiciuli mravalxmianobis SedarebiTi Seswavla: guSin, dRes, xval 25 tim raisma, magaliTad, rio de JaneiroSi CemTan saubrisas gamoTqva azri, rom eTnomusikologiaSi SedarebiTi meTodis sruli uaryofiT, faqtobrivad `narecx wyals bavSvic gadaayoles~. 2001 wels braziliaSi, rio de JaneiroSi Catarebuli tradiciuli musikis saerTaSoriso sabWos msoflio konferenciis pirveli Tema swored SedarebiTi Seswavlis SesaZlo aRorZineba iyo. konferenciis msvlelobisas Catarda SedarebiTi kvleviT dainteresebuli specialistebis araoficialuri Sexvedra. samwuxarod, am Sexvedras ar mohyolia logikuri gagrZeleba da ar Seqmnila SedarebiTi kvleviT dainteresebul eTnomusikologTa jgufis Camoyalibeba, raSic, albaT, TviT am Sexvedris organizatorebs migviZRvis brali: aseTi jgufis xelmZRvanelobas erT-erTma organizatorma, stiven braunma, Tavi aarida imis gamo, rom dakavebuli iyo musikis warmoSobis sakiTxebiT, xolo meorem, am moxsenebis avtorma, imis gamo, rom dakavebuli iyo mravalxmianobis SeswavliTa da mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centris saqmeebiT. sul axlaxan igive tim raisma gamoaqveyna gaxmaurebuli polemikuri statia iseT prestiJul JurnalSi, rogoric `eTnomusikologiaa~, romelSic avtori Cioda, rom eTnomusikologebis yuradRebas naklebad ipyrobs farTo meTodologiuri sakiTxebi da zogadi problemebi, isini viwro specifikuri sakiTxebiT arian dakavebulni (Rice, 2010). 2012 wlis maisSi kanadaSi Jurnal msoflio musikisadmi analitikuri midgomis mier organizebul konferenciaze specialuri sesia daeTmo tradiciuli musikis SedarebiT Seswavlas. igegmeba ufro farTo masStabis konferenciac am Temaze da moxsenebebis dabeWdva romelime wamyvan gamomcemlobaSi. mesame periodi: 2000 wlidan dRemde: SedarebiTi meTodis aRzevebis dasawyisi Cemi azriT, XXI saukunis pirveli aTwleuli unda CaiTvalos SedarebiTi kvlevisaken Semobrunebis periodad _ gamoCnda Sromebi, romlebSic tradiciuli kulturebi mTeli msoflios masStabiT ganixileboda. marTalia, masaCusetsis institutis mier 2000 wels gamocemuli tomi musikis warmoSoba mravalxmianobis sakiTxs ar exeboda, magram didi impulsi gaxda musikis warmoSobisa da farTo Tematikisadmi interesis gaRvivebisTvis. am perodSi gamoCnda alan lomaqsis Tanamoazris da kantometrikis proeqtis Tanaavtoris, viqtor graueris Sromebi da wigni (Grauer, 2006, 2007, 2011), aseve, am moxsenebis avtoris Sromebi da ori wigni (Jordania, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011). gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelovania is faqti, rom orive mkvlevris SromebSi mravalxmianobis problemas centraluri adgili uWiravs. isic niSandoblivia, rom orive mecnieri mravalxmianobas miiCnevs adamianis evoluciuri warsulis memkvidreobad da mis asaks asiaTasobiT da milionobiT wliT gansazRvravs. es, ra Tqma unda, mravalxmianobis warmoSobis srulebiT sxva suraTs gvixatavs da musikismcodneobaSi miRebul SexedulebebSic paradigmul cvlilebebs iwvevs. am periodis SedarebiT kvlevasTan da mravalxmianobasTan dakavSirebuli paradigmebi, albaT, ase SeiZleba Camoyalibdes: (1) farTo SedarebiTi kvlevis meTodis gareSe SeuZlebelia didi masStabis problemebis gadaWra; (2) mravalxmianoba ar aris gviandeli kulturuli aRmoCena. is ar ganviTare- 26 ioseb Jordania bula erTxmianobis TandaTanobiT garTulebis Sedegad. mravalxmianoba ukve hqondaT afrikidan wamosul Cvens saerTo winaprebs; (3) musikaluri smena da ritmis SegrZneba Cvens Soreul winapars Cvenze gacilebiT metad hqonda ganviTarebuli (amis dadasturebaa is faqtic, rom yvela axladdabadebul bavSvs absoluturi smena aqvs) (Saffran, 2003); (4) im regionebSi, sadac dRes ar arsebobs mravalxmianoba, moxda mravalxmianobis tradiciis dakargva. mravalxmianobis dakargvis mizezebad avtorebi sxvadasxva pirobebs asaxeleben. graueris mixedviT, amis mizezi gaxda 70 aTasi wlis win momxdari vulkan tobas katastrofuli amofrqveva, xolo, Cemi azriT, mravalxmianobis TandaTanobiTi dakargvis mizezi gaxda metyvelebaze gadasvla da yofaSi musikaluri komunikaciis mniSvnelobis dakargva; (5) SedarebiTi midgoma XXI saukuneSi eyrdnoba revoluciurad gazrdil monacemTa bazas, garda amisa, mogzaurobisa da komunikaciis axal, revoluciur SesaZleblobebs. yovelive es iZleva saSualebas (magram ara garantias), rom Tavidan iqnas acilebuli mravali Secdoma, romelic 1930-iani wlebis berlinis skolis mecnierebisaTvis Zneli asacilebeli iyo. me ar minda vilaparako mravalxmianobis SeswavlaSi SedarebiTi kvlevis mniSvnelobaze, imis gamo, rom Cveni simpoziumis bolo dRes specialuri mrgvali magida eZRvneba mravalxmianobis warmoSobis sakiTxisadmi axlebur midgomas. mxolod imas vityvi, rom mravalxmianobis Seswavlisadmi Tanamedrove midgoma myarad eyrdnoba ara marto SedarebiT meTods, aramed interdisciplinur kvlevasac. Sesabamisad, unda iTqvas, rom SedarebiT kvlevas mravalxmianobis SeswavlaSi udidesi perspeqtivebi aqvs. da bolos, minda aRvniSno, rom tradiciuli mravalxmianobis Seswavla Tanamedrove eTnomusikologiis erT-erTi yvelaze aqtualuri sferoa, rac mravalxmianobisadmi miZRvnili konferenciebis raodenobaSi aSkarad gamoixateba. mravalxmianobis farTo kuTxiT Seswavla ki xels uwyobs, rom kvlevis SedarebiTma meTodma Tavisi kuTvnili adgili daikavos Tanamedrove eTnomusikologiaSi. SeniSvna 1 1960-iani wlebis bolomde miaCndaT, rom rZis miReba mTeli msoflios mosaxleobas uproblemod SeeZlo. 1970-iani wlebis gamokvlevebma aCvena, rom bavSvobis Semdeg misi aTviseba yvelasTvis bunebrivi da damaxasiaTebeli ar aris. aRmoCnda, rom mxolod CrdiloeT da centraluri evropis mosaxleobas da maT STamomavlebs ar eqmnebaT problemebi rZis miRebis Semdeg. aman naTeli mohfina, saidan modioda gaugebari saCivrebi humanitaruli daxmarebis organizaciebis mier araxarisxiani sakvebis miwodebis Sesaxeb. rogorc aRmoCnda, aTasobiT tona rZis fxvnils ugzavnidnen maT, visac rZis miReba ar SeeZlo. amis Semdeg humanitarulma organizaciebma Secvales sakvebis gavrcelebis strategia. evro-amerikuli gamocdilebis aseTi eqstrapolacia mTel msoflioze, meTodologiurad, uaRresad saSiSia. 27 JOSEPH JORDANIA (AUSRTRALIA/GEORGIA) COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY: YESTERDAY, TODAY, TOMORROW Starting with the previous symposium (in 2010), we decided to add a new particularly important topic to the themes of the biannual Symposia of Traditional Polyphony in Georgia. The first special topic was “Traditional polyphony in Asia” and it was featured at the symposium two years ago. The reason for choosing Asia as the first such topic was the fact that in most Asian countries the study of polyphony is completely neglected. Our colleagues learned a great deal about the very interesting and rich polyphonic traditions of Asia. Some of our participants heard for the first time polyphonic examples from the Nuristanis, living in the impenetrable mountain ranges of Afghanistan, from the mysterious Ainus of north Japan, from the Aba Tibetans, living in the Himalayas, or from the minority groups of North Vietnam. It is our particular delight that the theme of Asian polyphonic traditions continues strongly at this symposium as well, as the authors of Asian papers are still with us, adding new materials and ideas to our common knowledge. We even tried to bring singers to represent such traditions, such as the Ainus from Japan and the Aremai Tibetans from China. Unfortunately, this was not possible this year, but we hope that we will manage to bring some carriers of Asian polyphonic traditions during our later symposia for the delight of conference participants. It seems that the new topics presented at our symposia will continue active participation in our work. We can conclude that the introduction of new topics had a positive impact on the further development of our symposia. Our current symposium also has a newly added topic – the comparative study of traditional polyphony. We definitely cannot say that the comparative study of traditional polyphony is as neglected as the study of polyphonic traditions in Asian countries. On the contrary, the comparative study of traditional polyphony has rich scholarly traditions. In my presentation I will try to highlight the main points of the rich past of comparative research of traditional polyphony and its relatively modest contemporary status, and I will present the possible prospects of such research. .... Polyphonic singing is one of the most mysterious phenomenon of human musical culture, so it was natural that the search for the origins of polyphony became one of the central research topics in the history of musicology. We can say that after the problem of the origins of music, the problem of the origins of polyphony is the second most important topic of musicology and evolutionary musicology. Discussions about the origins of polyphony have never stopped, although during some periods of the development of our discipline this topic was sometimes more, and sometimes less active. Most importantly for our topic, the study of this problem was always directly connected to the comparative research methodologies, as any serious research of the origins of traditional polyphony naturally requires knowledge of the worldwide distribution and comparison of this phenomenon. In my paper I will address both of these issues. On one hand, we will see how attitudes were 28 Joseph Jordania changing towards the comparative studies in ethnomusicology, and on the other hand, we will review what was happening in the studies of the origins of traditional polyphony. I propose to distinguish three periods. The First Period: from 1880s to 1945: Domination of Comparative Studies The comparative method had a very interesting and full life during the first period of the development of musicology. As we know, the field known today as “ethnomusicology” started as a discipline heavily based on comparative research. This phenomenon is quite well known from the history of the science of various fields. As a new discipline starts to emerge, pioneering scholars working in this field naturally try to cover the new sphere in all of its manifestations, taking into account all the available information from all over the world. They try to cover such wide problems as the genesis of this phenomenon, the history of its development and its distribution in different regions of the world. This initial period of the development of scholarly studies is also widely based on a great deal of groundless speculations and overtly optimistic generalisations. All this was characteristic of the initial development of our discipline and the study of the history of polyphony as well. This period lasted from the birth of the discipline in the form of “comparative musicology”, or sometimes as “music history of non-European cultures” in the 1880s, until the end of the Second World War. The name of the discipline “comparative musicology” was a testament to the wide use of comparative method in this new field of study. Europe, and particularly Germany, was the centre of this line of scholarly thought. The Berlin school was paramount for the development of this field. I would like to suggest that in relation to the study of the origins of polyphony this big period should be divided into two sub-periods, as these periods were quite different from each other in terms of the attitudes towards the origins of polyphony. Let me first briefly list the characteristics of the first sub-period paradigms. This sub-period lasted until the 1930s: (1) According to the prevailing (or even the only accepted) model, polyphony was a later cultural invention. This idea seemed so obvious that no one tried to formulate it as a falsifiable hypothesis or a theory. This idea was treated more like an axiom that does not require any proof. (2) It was not only believed that polyphony was a cultural invention, but it was even believed that it was invented by Medieval Christian monks in the 9th century. This was the time when the first information about church music sung in two parts (known as “organum”) has been attested. Here we should also mention that there were also sources pointing to an earlier origin of polyphony, for example, in some countries of the northern Europe; (3) It was firmly believed that polyphony entered into traditional (folk) music from European church-based professional music, via the activities of European missionaries (Werf, 1997). We remember, that Nadel started comparing Georgian and early European polyphonic traditions with this idea (Nadel, 1933). This model of the origins of polyphony was based on an assumption that the early human had extremely primitive musical faculties. He did not yet have a good perception of pitch, sense of scale, precise rhythm, and of course, a sense of harmony. The second sub-period of the origins of polyphony started after the facts that did not fit into the existing paradigm were revealed. It became gradually accepted that polyphony as a phenomenon was Comparative Study of Traditional Polyphony: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow 29 not invented by medieval monks, but originated in traditional music, and later spread to European professional music. This period was very short but intense. It only lasted about a decade (1930s). Paradigms of this sub-period can be formulated in the following way: (1) Polyphony is a cultural invention, resulting from the gradual development of monophonic music (according to this element, the second sub-period was similar to the paradigms of the first subperiod); (2) Polyphony was first developed in traditional music, not in professional European music (this was a paradigmatically new view on the origins of polyphony). (3) Polyphony came to professional music from traditional music (This idea was primarily supported by Schneider; Nadel was of the same opininon). (4) Polyphony was probably born (invented) in one region and then it spread to various regions of the world via cultural diffusion. This was the model of the greatest authority on the history of polyphony of that period, Marius Schneider (Schneider, 1934-1935); There was another point of view as well, albeit it came a few decades later, and was developed by Paul Collaer (Collaer, 1960). According to this view, polyphony was developed in various regions independently from each other. We must admit, Collaer did not base his view on materials from the whole planet. (5) When exactly polyphony was born is impossible to say, but it must have been born sometime in the first millennia, some time before it penetrated to the European professional music in the 9th century. Musicologists did not consider polyphony as an archaic phenomenon. For example, when Ann Kilmer made a well-known transcription of the clay tablets from the Ancient Ugarit, and came to the conclusion that the music recorded on the clay tablets was polyphonic (two and three-part), this triggered a very negative response from her colleagues (Kilmer, 1971). “One’s immediate reaction is scepticism at the notion of this kind of harmony existing in any ancient music” wrote Martin West (West, 1994: 173). Other scholars also expressed the same kind of scepticism (Wulstan, 1974; Duchesne-Giullemin, 1975, 1980: 11-18). The same story happened to another renowned expert, Hans Hickmann, who earlier proposed that two-part music with drone was known in Ancient Egypt. He even made a transcription of this music (Hickmann, 1952, 1970: 138-140). Scholars were critical of this revolutionary interpretation, for the same reason – how could anyone believe that polyphony existed in such ancient cultures? (for example, see Manniche, 1991: 30-32). Scholarly thought had another common feature: it was believed that the existing polyphony in various tribal cultures, was “haphazard” and “unconscious”. We must remember here, that in this period it was believed that early humans had very primitive, if any, musical faculties. In regard to the perception of harmony, it was believed it was way outside the capability of the early human. Arguably the greatest musicologist of the first half of the 20th century, Curt Sachs, believed that the presence of the dissonant seconds in several tribal cultures was purely haphazard. According to Sachs, traditional singers could not feel the emotional sharpness of the interval, and therefore, these harmonies could not be evaluated by the standards of contemporary aesthetic criteria (Sachs, 1962). The first period of study of the phenomenon of traditional polyphony had its positive, as well as negative, sides. On the positive side, scholars in this period tried to study the phenomenon of polyphony as a single historical phenomenon, and they strived to study polyphony as an international, worldwide phenomenon. Marius Schneider, a student of Erich Moritz von Hornbostel, was the cen- 30 Joseph Jordania tral representative of this direction of thought (Schneider, 1934-1935, 1951, 1961, 1969). Siegfried Nadel’s well-known work on Georgian music is one of the important works of this period (Nadel, 1933), and it had a long-lasting influence on Marius Schneider’s ideas on the origins of polyphony. I want to remind the audience that a special round table will be dedicated to the interaction between Early European professional and traditional polyphony, so I will not discuss this issue in detail in this paper. Second Period: from 1945 till the end of the 20th Century. Fall of Comparative Methodology The attitude towards comparative studies had undergone a paradigmatic change after the Second World War. The world centre of the study of traditional music shifted from Germany to the USA. According to the paradigms of cultural anthropology, popular in the USA during this period, the comparative study of various cultures was not justified. Such a negative attitude towards the comparative methodology had many historical and psychological factors. Earlier generalization of cultures into “developed” and “primitive” cultures became ideologically untenable and racist. Authors of comparative studies and their works were severely criticized for a number of reasons. Among other reasons, the central critique drew attention to the fact that scholars involved in comparative studies did not bother obtaining any deep knowledge about the cultures they were comparing, or organizing fieldworks in the regions they were comparing to each other. For example, neither Nadel nor Schneider ever visited Georgia, although Georgian polyphony played an important role in their historical reconstructions. The example of WW2 did not help either. After the Second World War, where racist ideology yielded catastrophic results and cost lives of millions of peoples, labelling cultures as “primitive” and “highly developed” was considered unethical. Therefore, for many reasons the comparative method was rejected, and “comparative musicology” became “ethnomusicology”. If we try to summarise the paradigmatic postulates of this period of development of scholarly thought about the origins of polyphony, we probably come to the following result: (1) Comparative study of cultures and the creation of simple evolutionary ascending scales is not justified either scientifically or ideologically; (2) Research into the origins of polyphony is based on groundless speculations, and we do not have any hard evidence for studying this problem objectively; (3) Not only the search for the origins of polyphony, but the research of other “big” themes (like the study of musical universals, or the origins of music) is not justified. Leading methodology of this period was based on the traditions of cultural anthropology. According to this approach, every culture was to be studied according to its immanent rules and importance, without the use of comparative methodology. The USA became the centre for this line of research. Occasionally, during this period, the “big” themes were also discussed (for example, the discussion of the music universals was organised), but the results of these discussions were, as a rule, negative, or at least, pessimistic (Braun & Jordania, 2013). Unlike the previous, comparative period of development of ethnomusicology, when scholars did not even try to obtain detailed knowledge of a studied culture, followers of cultural anthropology were consciously limiting themselves to the number of studied cultures and regions. Long fieldworks, lasting for months and sometimes years, became the leading method for obtaining materials. Most Comparative Study of Traditional Polyphony: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow 31 scholars were dedicating their lives to a single culture, or even a single region, investing plenty of time, finances and energy in studying their language, history, and cultural traditions. During the long fieldworks ethnomusicologists would try to live the life of ordinary members of traditional society. Creating families with the representatives of these cultures also became widespread, as a logical result of a lifelong fascination and study of a single cultural tradition. Ethnomusicological practices of this period had their share of sceptics and critics. For example, representatives of the non-European cultures were pessimistic about the desire of Western scholars to obtain a deep intimate knowledge of foreign culture. On the contrary, European and American ethnomusicologists considered their approach scholarly superior, as an objective picture, in their opinion, cannot be obtained by the representatives of the studied cultures. They supported the idea of studying the culture from “outside” rather than studying it from the “inside”. Here I would like to discuss an interesting historical tendency in ethnomusicology that presents the history of our discipline in an alternative light. The study of traditional music in non-WestEuropean countries had very different dynamics. Unlike Germany and other European countries, in these countries the first period of development of the discipline (from the end of the 19th century till the end of WW2) was fully dominated by the studies of local traditions. After WW2, as American and European scholars rejected comparative methodology, non-European countries, on the contrary, embraced the comparative method. This was the case, for example, in Georgia, where the first examples of comparative studies appeared in the 1980s (Gvacharia & Tabagua, 1983; Maisuradze, 1989; Jordania, 1989). In Russia comparative works also appeared after WW2 (Rubtsov, 1962). The same happened in the Ukraine, Bulgaria, and many other countries. So if we compare the total volume of works dedicated to the study of traditional music, we will have to admit the increase in the number of comparative works after the 1960s. Despite this, the idea of a shift of comparative methodology into deep regional studies after WW2 is still strong in the history of our discipline. This must be the result of the prevalent general Euro-American tendency in many spheres of life and scholarship to view the world from the western viewpoint. In my 2006 book I labelled this tendency as a “milk-drinking syndrome” after the history of the study of lactose intolerance in populations around the world1. On the other hand, it was in this period of neglect of comparative methodology by American and European ethnomusicologists that the most ambitious comparative project in the history of ethnomusicology was undertaken. I am talking about Alan Lomax’s “cantometric” project (Lomax, 1968). Lomax’s work, entirely based on a comparative study of hundred of cultures, was met by the professional circles of ethnomusicology with a strong hostility. The reason for this hostility was not only the educational background of the author of the study (Lomax was not an academic, and he did not know and did not use musical notation in his research). According to the critics, Lomax’s grand comparative study was a gross simplification of the true diversity of the world’s musical cultures, and therefore the results were not credible. As a result, Lomax’s study was totally marginalized by ethnomusicological academia, which is a pity. Apart from Lomax’s highly publicized work, a few other comparative works were also produced in this period. Let me briefly mention them. Jaap Kunst published a book (more precisely a brochure) about the amazing closeness of Balkan and Indonesian polyphonic traditions, (Kunst, 1954). Yvette Grimaud together with Gilbert Rouget noted the closeness of the polyphonic traditions of the Central African Pygmies and the South African Bushmen (Grimaud & Rouget, 1956); Erich Stockmann 32 Joseph Jordania wrote a small article about parallels between Albanian and Georgian polyphonic songs (Stockmann, 1957); Cvjetko Rihtman noted the closeness of the polyphonic traditions of the Balkan peoples (Rihtman, 1958, 1966), followed by Nikolai Kaufman (Kaufman, 1966). Paul Collaer studied European polyphonic traditions and came to the conclusion that European professional polyphony came to life as a result of impulses from the ancient vocal polyphony of the European peoples (Collaer, 1960, see also 1955). Bruno Nettl discussed the available information of polyphony among North American Indians in the only article on the subject (Nettl, 1961). Oscar Elschek conducted a comparative study of European polyphonic traditions (Elschek, 1963). Ernst Emsheimer compared vocal and instrumental forms of polyphony of different European regions (Emsheimer, 1964). Alica Elschekova conducted a comparative study of vocal polyphonic tradition in the Balkans and the Carpathians (Elschekova, 1981). Gerald Florian Messner studied the polyphonic traditions of the Balkans, Indonesia and the Pacific region (Messner, 1980, 1989, see also 2013). Gerhard Kubik analysed polyphonic traditions in Central and East Africa (Kubik, 1968, 1986). Izaly Zemtsovsky is among the scholars who used the comparative method for many decades (Zemtsovsky, 1969, 1988, 1998). Karl Brambats, discussed polyphonic traditions of the Baltic peoples in a wide Mediterranean and East European context (Brambats, 1983). Martin Boiko studied Baltic polyphonic traditions in the context of archaeological data (Boiko, 1992). Nino Tsitsishvili studied parallels between the polyphonic traditions of Georgians and South Slavs (Tsitsishvili, 1990, 1991), and the author of this paper has published several comparative studies on traditional polyphony (e.g., Jordania, 1988, 1989). Mentioning these works that used the comparative method might create an illusion of active comparative research in ethnomusicology, but if we take into account that this period lasted for half a century, and that none of these articles appeared in the central academic journal “Ethnomusicology”, we will get a better perspective of prevailing research in the field after WW2. The Third Period: The First Decade of the 21st Century: Changing Attitudes Towards Comparative Studies By the end of the 20th century ethnomusicologists gradually realized that the negative attitude towards the comparative method and “big themes” in ethnomusicology had to be changed. During our conversation at the Rio de Janeiro ICTM World Conference in 2001, Timothy Rice said that with the full rejection of comparative methodology “the baby was thrown out together with the bath water”. It was at the ICTM conference in Rio de Janeiro in 2001 that a possible comeback of comparative methodology was discussed as the first theme of the conference. During this conference an informal meeting was organized of ethnomusicologists interested in comparative studies. Despite the interest expressed by the dozen or so participants at the meeting, and encouragement of the members of the ICTM executive board, the meeting did not culminate in the creation of a comparative study group. Blame for this should be divided between the organisers of this meeting: Steven Brown refused to lead this group as he was heavily involved in research into the origins of music, and the author of this paper alternatively was heavily involved in organizing the international research centre for traditional polyphony and the first symposium in 2002. Decade later Timothy Rice expressed his discontent with the state of contemporary ethnomusicology in a polemical article in the central journal “Ethnomusicology” (Rice, 2010). The author of the article was complaining that as everyone is busy with their deep regional studies, major theoreti- Comparative Study of Traditional Polyphony: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow 33 cal problems get neglected. Earlier this year (May of 2012) in Canada, at a conference organised by the journal “Analytical Approaches to World Music”, a special session dedicated to the comparative study of traditional music was organized by Steven Brown and Michael Tenzer. There are also plans for a larger special conference on the topic, with all the papers to be published by a major publisher. In my opinion, the first decade of the 21st century should be considered to be the period of changing attitudes towards comparative studies. It was in this period that several important works discussing the traditional musical cultures worldwide appeared. The impressive volume from MIT, “The Origins of Music” did not discuss the origins of polyphony, or the return of comparative methodology, but with its wide scope of approaches towards the origins of music and the multidisciplinary treatment of the problem, it became a stepping stone for the revival of interest in the big themes in musicology, like the study of the universals, or the study of the origins of music. In the same period comparative-based major works were published by Victor Grauer, the co-author of the “Cantometrics” project and a close associate of Alan Lomax (Grauer, 2006, 2007, 2011), and by the author of this paper (Jordania, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011). The important change introduced by these two authors was that they put the phenomenon of polyphony in the very centre of the evolution of human music, and they do not consider polyphony as a late cultural invention. Both scholars consider polyphony to be a legacy of human evolutionary history, and consider its age to be hundreds of thousands of years (Grauer), or even millions of years (Jordania). These suggestions and timelines give us a totally different picture of the origins and the history of polyphony, and heralded paradigmatic changes in ethnomusicology. We can formulate the paradigms of this new period of comparative studies and research into the origins of polyphony in the following way: (1) It is impossible to solve any large-scale scholarly problem without the use of wide comparative methodology; (2) Polyphony is not a late cultural phenomenon. Very complex polyphony was taken by the first humans that came out of Africa; (3) Our distant ancestors had a much better sense of pitch and sense of rhythm than contemporary humans have (one of the facts confirming this is that all newborn babies have perfect pitch. Saffran, 2003); (4) In regions where no polyphony is found today, vocal polyphony was lost. That is the main reason why polyphony is predominantly found in geographically isolated and inaccessible regions of the world (mountain ranges, forest massifs, islands); The reasons for losing polyphony, according to these two authors, are different. Grauer suggests polyphony in certain regions was lost because of the Toba catastrophe some 70 000 years ago, and the author of this paper suggested that the reason for the loss of polyphony was the shift from vocal communication to articulated speech that occurred in different regions in different epochs; (5) Comparative studies in the 21st century are based on the drastically increased data on traditional music, connected to the new possibilities of travel and the new revolutionary means of communications. These new means give us a possibility (but not a warranty) to avoid the mistakes that were so difficult to avoid for the representatives of the Berlin school of comparavite musicology of the 1930s. 34 Joseph Jordania I do not intend to speak more about the future of comparative research in the search for the origins of polyphony as a special round is dedicated to the contemporary view on the origins of the human polyphonic tradition. I want only to mention that contemporary search for the origins of polyphony is based not only on comparative research, but also on a multidisciplinary research, involving many related and ostensibly unrelated spheres. We can confidently conclude that the comparative method is vital for research into vocal polyphonic traditions. It is not accidental that the increase in interest in traditional polyphony that is clearly evident during the last decade coincides with the increase in interest in comparative methods in ethnomusicology. Notes 1 Until 1960 it was believed that it was the norm for adult humans to be able to drink milk. Studies undertaken in the 1970s shattered this belief and proved that only the populations of north and central Europe and their descendants could drink milk after childhood. After the studies of human intolerance towards lactose it became clear where confusing reports of humanitarian organisations delivering non-quality food to the starving populations of the world were coming from. Apparently, thousands of tonnes of milk powder were sent to countries where the populations could not absorb milk. Realising this, humanitarian organisations changed their food policy. Such extrapolations of the Euro-North-American experience on the rest of the world constitute the essence of the “milk drinking syndrome” and are methodologically very dangerous. References Boiko, Martin. (1992). “On the Interaction Between Styles in Baltic Folk Music: Sutartines Polyphony and the East Baltic Refrain Songs”. In: European Studies in Ethnomusicology: Historical Developments and Recent Trends. P. 218-236. Edited by Bauman, M. P., Simon, A., & Wegner, U. Wilhelmshaven. Brambats, Karl. (1983). “The Vocal Drone in the Baltic Countries: Problems of Chronology and Provenance”. Journ. Journal of Baltic Studies, 14 (1). Brown, Steven & Jordania, Joseph. (2013). “Universals in the World’s Musics”. In: Psychology of Music, 41(2):229–48. Collaer, Paul. (1955). “Similitudes Entre des Chants Espagnols, Hongrois, Bulgares et Géorgiens”. Addendum. In: Anuario Musical, 10: 109-110. Collaer, Paul. (1960). “Polyphonies de Tradition Populaire en Europe Méditerranéenne”. In: Acta Musicologica, 32, Fasc. 2/3:51-66. Duchesme-Guillemin, Marcelle. (1975). “Les Problèmes de la Notation Hourrite”. In: Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale, LXIX:159-173. Comparative Study of Traditional Polyphony: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow 35 Duchesme-Guillemin, Marcelle. (1980). “Sur la Restitution de la musique Hourrite”. In: Revue de Musicology, LXVI:5-26. Elschek, Oscar. (1963). “Porovnávacia úvodná štúdia k európskemu ľudovému viachlasnému spevu” (“Comparative Introductive Study of the European Polyphonic Folk Song”). In: Hudobnovedné Štúdie (Musicological Studies), Vol. 6: 79-116. Bratislava: SAV. (in Slovak with English summary) Elschekova, Alica. (1981). “Vergleichende Typologische Analysen der Vokalen Mehrstimmigkeit in den Karpaten und auf dem Balkan”. In: Stratigraphische Probleme der Volksmusik in den Karpaten und auf dem Balkan. P. 159-256. 216-227 Edited by Alicia Elschekova. Bratislava. Emsheimer, Ernst. (1964). “Some Remarks on European Folk Polyphony”. In: JIFMC, XVI:43-46. Grauer, Victor A. (2006). “Echoes of Our Forgotten Ancestors”. In: The World of Music, 48(2):5-59. Grauer, Victor A. (2007). “New Perspectives on the Kalahari Debate: A Tale of Two “Genomes”. In: Before Farming, 2:1-14. Grauer, Victor A. (2011). Sounding the Depths. Tradition and the Sounds of History. A Blog Book. Produced by Victor Grauer. URL: http: //soundingthedepths.blogspot.com Grimaud, Yvette & Rouget, Gilbert. (1956). Bushmen Music and Pygmy Music. Long Playing recording, with accompanying essay by Gilbert Rouget, and additional commentary and analysis by Yvette Grimaud. Baltimore: Peabody Museum and Paris: Musée de L’homme. Gvacharia, Vazha & Tabagua, Ilia. (1983). Basque folk songs. Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (in Georgian) Hickmann, Hans. (1952). “La Musique Polyphonique Cans L’Egipte Ancienne”. In: Bulletin de ‘Institut d’Egipte, XXIV: 229. Jordania, Joseph. (1989). Georgian Traditional Polyphony in an International Context of Polyphonic Cultures: On the Origins of Polyphony. Tbilisi: Tbilisi University Press. Jordania, Joseph. (2006). Who Asked the First Question? The Origins of Human Choral Singing, Intelligence, Language and Speech. Tbilisi: Logos. Jordania, Joseph. (2008). “Mnogogolosnie tradicii Mordovii i Gruzii v kontekste Evrazii” (“Mordovian and Georgian Polyphonic Traditions in the Context of Eurasia”). In: Finno-Ugric Musical Traditions in Interethnic Relationships. Edited by N. I. Bojarkin, L. B. Bojarkina, M.V. Loginiva, E.V. Sicheva. P. 116-135. Saransk, Mordovian State University Press. (in Russian) Jordania, Joseph. (2008). “Origin of Rhythm and the Defence Strategy in Human Evolution ”. In The Third 36 Joseph Jordania International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 55-65. Editors: Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Jordania, Joseph. (2009). “Times to Fight and Times to Relax: Singing and Humming at the Beginning of Human Evolutionary History”. In: Kadmos 1:272-276. Jordania, Joseph. (2011). Why do People Sing? Music in Human Evolution. Tbilisi. Logos. Kaufman, Nikolai. (1966). “Mnogoglasieto v pesennia folklore na Balkanskite Narodi” (“Polyphony in vocal folklore of Balkan Nations”). In: Bulgarska Muzika, 2: 30-40. (in Bulgarian) Kilmer, Anne D. (1971). “The Discovery of an Ancient Mesopotamian Theory of Music”. In: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 115, No.2:131-149. Kubik, Gerhard. (1968). Mehrstimmigkeit und Tonsystem in Zentral- und Ostafrika. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Kubik, Gerhard. (1986). “A Structural Examination of Homophonic Multi-Part Singing in East and Central Africa”. In. Anuario Musical 39-40: 27-58. Kunst, Jaap. (1954). Cultural Relations Between the Balkans and Indonesia. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute. Lomax, Alan. (1968). Folk Song Style and Culture. Washington D.C., American Association for the Advancement of Science. Maisuradze, Nino. (1989). Kartuli khalkhuri musika da misi istoriul-etnograpiuli aspektebi (Georgian Folk Music and its Historical-Ethnographic Aspects). Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (in Georgian) Manniche, Lise. (1991). Music and Musicians in Ancient Egypt. London. Messner, Gerald Florian. (1980). Die Schwebungsdiaphonie in Bistrica: Untersuchungen der Mehrstimmigen Liedformen Eines Mittelwestbulgarischen Dorfes. Tutzing: Schneider. Messner, Gerald Florian. (1989). “Jaap Kunst Revisited. Multipart Singing in Three East Florinese Villages Fifty Years Later: A Preliminary Investigation”. In: The World of Music 2:3-51. Messner, Gerald Florian. (2013). Do They Sound Like Bells or Like Howling Wolves? Interferential Diaphony in Bistritsa; an Investigation into a Multi-Part Singing Tradition in a Middle-Western Bulgarian Village. Vergleichende Musikwissenschaft. Nadel, Siegfried F. (1933). Georgische Gesänge. Berlin: Lautabt, Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Comparative Study of Traditional Polyphony: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow 37 Nettl, Bruno. (1961). “Polyphony in North American Indian Music”. In: Musical Quarterly, 47:354-362. Rice, Timothy. (2010). “Disciplining Ethnomusicology: A Call for a New Approach”. In: Ethnomusicology, 54/2, 318 –325. Rihtman, Cvjetko. (1958). On Illyrian Origins of the Polyphonic Forms of Folk Music of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Rad Kongresa Foklorista Jugoslavje. Zagreb. Rihtman, Cvjetko. (1966). Mehrstimmigkeit in der Volksmusik Jugoslaviens. JIFMC XVIII: 23-28. Rubtsov, Feodosi. (1962). Intonacionnie sviazi v pesennom tvorchestve Slavianskix narodov (Intonational Links in Singing Art of Slavonic Peoples). Leningrad. (in Russian) Sachs, Kurt. (1962). The Wellsprings of Music. Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff. Saffran, Jenny R. (2003). “Absolute Pitch in Infancy and Adulthood: The Role of Tonal Structure”. In: Developmental Science, 6:35-47. Schneider, Marius. (1934 – 1935). Geschichte der Mehrstimmigkeit: Historische und Phänomenologische Studien. Vol. 1 and 2. Berlin: Borntraeger. Schneider, Marius. (1940). “Kaukasische Parallelen zur mittelalterlichen Mehrstimmigkeit”. In: Acta Musicologica, 12:52-61. Schneider, Marius. (1951). “Ist die vokale Mehrstimmigkeit eine Schöpfung der Altrassen?” In: Acta Musicologica, 23:40-50. Schneider, Marius. (1961). “Wurzeln und Anfänge der abendländischen Mehrstimmigkeit”. In: Reports of Eight Congress of International Musicological Society, 1:161-178. Schneider, Marius. (1969). Geschichte der Mehrstimmigkeit. 2nd edition with added 3rd part. Tutzing: Schneider. Shilakadze, Manana. (2007). Traditsiuli samusiko sakravebi da Qartul-Chrdilokavkasiuri urtiertobani (Traditional Musical Instruments and Georgian_North Caucasian Relations). Tbilisi: Caucasian House. (in Georgian) Stockmann, Erich. (1956). “Kaukasische und Albanische Mehrstimmigkeit”. In: Kongressbericht. Gesseschaft fur Musikforschung. Hamburg. Tsitsishvili, Nino. (1990). “Folklorni paraleli mezhdu Gruzintsite i yuzhnite Slavjani” (“Folklore Parallels between Georgians and South Slavs”). In: Bulgarski Folklor (Bulgarian Folklore) 14 (4): 20-29. (in Bulgarian 38 Joseph Jordania with English summary) Tsitsishvili, Nino. (1991). “Muzikal’no-ethograficheskie paralleli mezhdu iuzhnimi Slavianami i Gruzinami” (“Musical-Ethnographic Parallels between the South Slavs and Georgians”). In: Sovietskaia Etnografia (Soviet Ethnography) (2): 114-123. (in Russian) Van der Werf, Hendrik. (1997). Early Western Polyphony. Companion to Medieval & Renaissance Music. Oxford University Press. Wallin, Nils, Meker, Bjorn & Brown, Steven (editors). (2000). The Origins of Music. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. West, Martin L. (1994). “The Babylonian Musical Notation and the Hurrian Melodic Texts”. In: Music and Letters 75, no. 2:161-179. Wulstan, David. (1974). “Music from Ancient Ugarit”. In: Revue d’Assyriologie, LXVIII:125-128. Zemtsovsky, Izaly. (1969). “Etnogenes v svete muzikal’nogo folklore” (“Ethno Genesis in the Light of Musical Folklore”). In: Narodno Stvaralashtvo (inglisurad) (Beograd) 29-32/69: 201-211. (In Russianwith English summary) Zemtsovsky, Izaly. (1988). “Muzika i etnogenez” (“Music and Ethno-Genesis”). In: Sovietskaia Etnografia, (Soviet Ethnography) 2: 12-22. (In Russian with English summary) Zemtsovsky, Izaly. (1990). “Music and Ethnic History: An Attempt to Substantiate a Eurasian Hypothesis”. In: Yearbook for traditional music, vol. 22: 20-28. 39 nino ciciSvili (avstralia/saqarTvelo) satrfialo simRerebis genezisis SeswavlisaTvis adamianis adreuli istoriis Suqze es moxseneba warmoadgens dasawyiss didi kvleviTi proeqtisa, romelze muSaobac momavalSi maqvs dagegmili. proeqtis centralur ideas adamianur sazogadoebebsa da kulturebSi satrfialo simRerebis funqciisa da genezisis Seswavla warmoadgens. moxsenebaSi wamoyenebuli hipoTezis Sesamowmeblad me ganvixilav satrfialo simRerebis gavrcelebas sxvadasxva sazogadoebaSi. Cemi hipoTezis mixedviT, im sazogadoebebSi, sadac siyvarulisa da seqsualurobis Tavisufali gamoxatva akrZalulia, ufro metia satrfialo simRerebi, vidre imaTSi, sadac seqsualurobas ufro Tavisuflad gamoxataven. me vvaraudob, rom Tavisufali seqsualuri urTierTobebis pirobebSi naklebia siyvarulze simReris moTxovnileba, gansakuTrebiT iseTisa, romlebic gulgatexilobasa da imedgacruebas gamoxataven. Tavisufal sazogadoebebSi erotikuli grZnobebis gadmocemisas, aseve, naklebad vxvdebiT Warb metaforebs. Cemi TvalsazrisiT, satrfialo simRerebi SedarebiT axali movlena unda iyos. amaze migviTiTebs is faqti, rom aseTi simRerebi farTodaa gavrcelebuli swored im kulturebsa da sazogadoebebSi, sadac sqesobrivi Tavisufleba kulturul-religiuri normebiTaa SezRuduli. amis sapirispirod, isini naklebad mniSvnelovania an saerTod ar gvxvdeba pirvelyofil socialur-ekonomikur formaciaSi mcxovreb xalxebsa da tomebSi, sadac sqesobrivi urTierTobebi gacilebiT ufro Tavisufalia, magaliTad, sasiyvarulo simRerebi mravlad gvxvdeba saqarTveloSi, balkaneTSi, wina aziaSi, aseve afrikisa da aziis mTel rig kulturebSi, maT Soris, Tanamedrove pop- da rok-musikaSi. meore mxriv, strfialo simRerebs ver vxvdebiT monadire-Semgrovebel pigmeebsa da buSmenebSi, romelTa socialur-ekonomiuri struqtura ufro adrindelia, vidre mesaqonleebis da miwaTmoqmedebisa. satrfialo simRera, rogorc kulturis erT-erTi yvelaze ufro Camoyalibebuli Janri, Cveulebriv, im sazogadebebSi gvxvdeba, sadac sqesobrivi urTierToba qorwinebamde akrZalulia da sadac damrRvevebi, rogorc wesi, mkacrad isjebian. satrfialo simRerebi, rogorc Cans, kulturulad nebadarTul formebSi gamoxataven adamianebis bunebriv instinqtebsa da survilebs, romelTac kulturaA axSobs. es azri exmianeba froidis ideas CaxSuli seqsualuri libidos sublimaciis Sesaxeb (Freud, 1997: 16). Tu Cven sxvadasxva sazogadoebaSi satrfialo simRerebis Sinaarssa da motivacias davakvirdebiT, marTlac SevZlebT davinaxoT kavSiri satrfialo simRerebsa (an romantikuli siyvarulis ideasa) da CaxSuli seqsualuri miswrafebebis gamoxatvas Soris. magaliTad, iaponuri vokaluri lirikis klasikuri sasimRero Janris oivakes idea aris auxdeneli siyvarulis grZnoba, xolo bulgaruli satrfialo simRerebis 40 nino ciciSvili umetesobaSi metaforulad aris aRwerili qalis seqsualuri mimzidveloba. gansakuTrebiT sainteresoa balkaneTsa da msoflios bevr sxva regionSi gavrcelebuli e.w. ,,ganTiadis poezia~, romelSic sayvarlebi ganTiadis dadgomamde unda dascildnen erTmaneTs, raTa Tavidan aicilon ojaxis, ufrosebisa da sazogadoebis wyroma da sircxvili (Pinto, 1955). qarTul satrfialo simRerebSi, umetesad, gadmocemulia qalis silamaze da misi miuwvdomloba uimedod SeyvarebulisTvis. zogjer Zneli saTqmelia, Tu zustad razea saubari, siyvarulze Tu sqesobriv ltolvaze, magram erTi ki naTelia: satrfialo simRerebis umetesobaSi gadmocemulia imedgacrueba da sevda, rac seqsualuri da romantikuli ltolvis obieqtis miuwvdomlobiTaa gamowveuli da, xSirad, simboloebiTa da poeturi metaforebiT gamoixateba. kidev erTi aspeqti, romelic SeiZleba satrfialo simRerebis gviandel warmoSobas adasturebdes, maTi Sesrulebis solo xasiaTia. es gansakuTebiT aSkara xdeba, roca solo simRerebs vadarebT koleqtiur simRerebsa da cekvebs, romlebic farTodaa gavrcelebuli tradiciul, miwaTmoqmedebamdel da industriamdel sazogadoebebSi. koleqtiur simRerebSi vgulisxmob ara marto Sesrulebis stils (jgufur Sesrulebas), aramed simReris funqciasac da misi Sesrulebis mizansac. koleqtiur simRerebSi es miznebi ufro sazogadoebrivia, magaliTad, jgufis wevrebs Soris kavSiris ganmtkiceba, amindis gaumjobeseba, an ukeTesi mosavlis SeTxovna RmerTisadmi. satrfialo simRerebs, maSinac ki, roca isini koleqtiurad da mravalxmianiad sruldeba (saqarTveloSi, balkaneTSi, italiaSi), ufro viwro, pirovnuli grZnobebi da Temebi amoZravebs, Tumca ki, es Sinaarsi mainc sazogadoebis mier miRebul da gaziarebul formebSi unda iyos gamoxatuli. am moxsenebis erT-erTi centraluri azri isaa, rom satrfialo simRera, rogorc Camoyalibebuli Janri, sruliad Seuferebeli unda yofiliyo adamianuri evoluciis adreul etapebze, mesaqonelobisa da miwaTmoqmedebis gaCenamde arsebul sazogadoebebSi. savaraudoa, rom maSin ar arsebobda imdeni seqsualuri akrZalva, ramdensac did Tanamedrove sazogadoebebSi vxvdebiT. rogorc bolo periodis zogi gamokvleva migviTiTebs, dReisaTvis farTod gavrcelebuli monogamia (rogorc kacebs, aseve qalebs Soris) ar axasiaTebda adreul adamianur sazogadoebebs (Ryan & Jethá, 2010). Sesabamisad, mosalodnelia, rom satrfialo simRerebi ufro gvian gaCeniliyo, roca civilizaciam akrZala Tavisufali seqsi da mkacri moraluri kodeqsebi danerga. marTlac, ratom unda mRerodes xalxi satrfialo simRerebs da gamoTqvamdes siyvarulTan dakavSirebul gulgatexilobas, Tuki intimuri urTierToba advili da SeuzRudavia sazogadoebaSi? farTodaa cnobili, rom satrfialo simRera kulturaTa didi nawilisTvis centraluri Janria. romantikuli siyvaruli da masTan dakavSirebuli sqesobrivi ltolva Tanamedrove pop-musikisa da tradiciuli musikis didi nawilis ZiriTad Sinaarss Seadgens. amave dros, safiqrelia, rom satrfialo simRerebs, SesaZloa, kulturaSi adre sulac ar hqondaT is mniSvneloba, rac maT mogvianebiT moipoves. magaliTad, satrfialo simRerebi an saerTod ar aris, an Zalian iSviaTia Tanamedrove monadire-Semgrovebel xalxebs Soris. `erT-erTi yvelaze farTod gavrcelebuli miTi samecniero literaturaSi aris is, rom romantikuli siyvarulis Tema Zalian satrfialo simRerebis genezisis SeswavlisaTvis adamianis adreuli istoriis Suqze 41 mniSvnelovania tomobriv tradiciul musikalur repertuarSi. es azri absoluturad arasworia. satrfialo simRerebi mniSvnelovania mxolod didi kulturebisaTvis~ (Brown, 2000: 249). eTnomusikologebma kargad ician, rom tomobriv kulturaTa umravlesobas aqvs `funqcionaluri (ediSer garayaniZis terminiT ,,Tandebuli~) simRerebi~, romlebic jgufis, sazogadoebis interesebs emsaxureba. monadire-Semgrovebel sazogadoebebSi satrfialo simRerebis uqonloba an simwire adasturebs, rom satrfialo simRerebi gviandeli periodis kulturuli ganviTarebis Sedegi unda iyos. es faqti ewinaaRmdegeba zogierTi evolucionistis mosazrebas, romlis mixedviTac musika swored sqesobrivi SerCevisTvis unda gaCeniliyo adamianis evoluciaSi (Miller, 2000). erTi mxriv, musika marTlac aRviZebs grZnobebs, maT Soris, seqsualursac. rogorc musikisa da tvinis kvlevis Sedegebi gviCveneben, musikas uamravi sxvadasxva grZnobis _ TanagrZnobis, dardis, agresiis, seqsualuri ltolvis, dedaSviluri grZnobis da a.S. _ gaRviZeba SeuZlia. amasTan, safuZveli ara gvaqvs, vifiqroT, rom musika specifikurad seqsualuri mizidvisaTvis ganviTarda, Tundac imis gamo, rom tomobrivi tradiciuli musikis udidesi nawili koleqtiuria. ,,egoisturi genis~ Teoriis momxreebis mixedviT (Dawkins, 1976), evoluciuri TvalsazrisiT SeuZlebelia musikas hqonoda raime mniSvneloba koleqtivSi bunebrivi gadarCevisTvis, igi mxolod individualuri SejibrisTvis gamoiyeneboda. miuxedavad imisa, rom es azri adamianuri sazogadoebis ganviTarebis SezRuduli xedvis Sedegia, igi popularulia, Tumca, dRes profesionalebis mxolod garkveuli jgufis mier aris gaziarebuli. magaliTad, centralur afrikaSi mcxovreb pigmeebs, faqtobrivad ar aqvT satrfialo simRerebi, maTi musikis udidesi nawili sruldeba koleqtiurad da mraval xmaSi. solo simReras pigmeebi iyeneben imisaTvis, rom Seavson siCume, Tavidan aicilon mtaceblis Tavdasxma, an dasZlion tyeSi martod yofnisgan gamowveuli SiSi. buSmenebs, kalaharis udabnoSi mcxovreb monadire-Semgroveblebs, rogorc Cans, saerTod ar aqvT satrfialo simRerebi. buSmenebis folkloris did krebulSi, romelic 1911 wels gamoica (Bleek & Lloyd, 1911), ar aris arc erTi satrfialo simRera. maTi simRerebis umetesoba funqcionaluria da iseT TemebTanaa dakavSirebuli, romelTac gacilebiT didi adgili uWiravT buSmenebis cxovrebasa da fiqrebSi, vidre romantikul siyvaruls: mze, ca, cxovelebi, urTierTobebi adamianebsa da cxovelebs, adamianebsa da bunebas Soris. ratom ar unda hqondeT buSmenebs sasiyvarulo simRerebi? gana maTTvis sqesobrivi ltolva mniSvnelovani ar aris? ra Tqma unda, aris. Cemi azriT, SesaZlebelia, vivaraudoT, rom kalaharis udabnoSi mcxovreb buSmenebs satrfialo simRerebi imitom ar aqvT, rom maTTan sqesobrivi urTierToba ar aris ise SezRuduli, rogorc es ,,maRal~ civilizaciebSia. magaliTad, buSmenur kungis tomSi seqsi bavSvebis TamaSis nawilia. ,,kungis tomis bavSvebi kargad arian seqsSi gaTviTcnobierebulebi imis gamo, rom maTTvis ufrosebis seqsualuri cxovreba dafaruli ar aris~ (Shostak, 1976: 263-267). ufro metic, mozardebs, maT Soris, da-Zmasac hqoniaT intimur-seqsualuri urTierToba sacxovrebel banakTan axlos. Zalian Znelia bavSvebis aseTi seqsualuri Tavisufleba warmovidginoT Cvens Tanamedrove da tabuirebul sazogadoebaSi. 42 nino ciciSvili marTalia, kungis tomis bavSvebi amisTvis xandaxan msubuqad isjebodnen, magram im SemTxvevaSi, Tuki es mSoblebisa da sxva ufrosebisgan moSorebiT xdeboda, maT xels aravin uSlida. mxolod maSin, roca ufrosebi Seuswrebdnen, bavSvebs tuqsavdnen da mouwodebdnen, rom ,,wesierad~ (seqsis gareSe) eTamaSaT (Shostak, 1976: 267). pigmeebSic, faqtobrivad, aseve ar vxvdebiT satrfialo simRerebs. maTTanac miRebulia seqsualuri urTierTobebi mozard naTesavebs Soris. incestis SemTxvevas aRwers kolin turnbuli (Turnbull, 1968: 112-113). marTalia, pigmeebi incests sasircxvilod miiCneven, magram, amavdroulad, sakmaod tolerantulad udgebian da Tvlian, rom amas ,,nebismieri axalgazrda akeTebs... faqtobrivad aravin aqcevs yuradRebas incestis SemTxvevebs~ (Turnbull, 1968: 113). Sesabamisad, sqesobrivi cxovrebis Tavisufleba pigmeebs Soris da maT Soris satrfialo simRerebis arqona adasturebs Cems mier gamoTqmul mosazrebas sqesobrivi cxovrebis amkrZalavi moraluri normebis arqonasa da satrfialo simRerebis Janris arqonas Soris. miuxedavad amisa, garemomcvelma kulturebma didi gavlena moaxdines kung buSmenebisa da pigmeebis socialur cxovrebaze, ris Sedegad maT sqesobrivi urTierTobis mTeli rigi aspeqtebi gadmoiRes bantus xalxebis kulturebisagan. maT Sorisaa, rogorc Cans, qorwineba da monogamia. amaze miuTiTebs maTi socialuri organizaciis zogierTi maxasiaTebeli, romelSic winaaRmdegobrioba SeimCneva. magaliTad, qorwinebisa da monogamiis idea SeuTavsebelia qorwinebamdeli seqsisa da incestis daSvebasTan, rac arsebobs rogorc pigmeebs, ise buSmenebs Soris. magaliTad, qorwinebis rituali pigmeebma pirdapir gadmoiRes mezobeli bantus soflebidan, radganac maT, faqtobrivad, qorwinebis sakuTari tradiciuli rituali ar gaaCniaT. monogamiuri urTierTobis sisusteze miuTiTebs isic, rom buSmen qalebs advilad SeuZliaT miatovon ojaxi da sakuTar ojaxSi dabrundnen. ase rom, maTTan ,,ganqorwineba~ Zalian farTod aris miRebuli. buSmenebSi monogamia/poligamia (mravalcolianoba) da qorwineba Soreuli warsulidan rom iyos damkvidrebuli, maSin ganqorwineba gacilebiT ufro rTuli iqneboda, rogorc es sxva, maT Soris, dasavlur kulturebSi xdeba. svaneTi da leCxumi saqarTvelos is ori regionia, sadac, SesaZloa, ufro kargad iyos SemorCenili uZvelesi qristianobamdeli kulturis elementebi. sainteresoa, rom dRes swored svaneTia saqarTvelos erTaderTi kuTxe, sadac satrfialo simRerebi ar moipoveba. gamoCenili qarTveli eTnografis, vera bardaveliZis Sromebis mixedviT, leCxumSi SemorCenili iyo ,,boslobis~ rituali. masSi sakmaod detalurad iyo warmodgenili sqesobrivi aqtis imitacia, romelsac naxevrad titveli colqmari mTeli ojaxis Tvalwin axorcielebda (Bardavelidze, 2005: 144). eTnografiuli literaturisa da saeqspedicio kiTxvarebis analizis Sedegad bardaveliZem daaskvna, rom, rogorc Cans, adre adgili unda hqonoda ara marto imitacias, aramed realur sqesobriv aqts (Bardavelidze, 2005: 146). satrfialo simRerebis simravle Zalian damaxasiaTebelia im sazogadoebebisaTvis, sadac qorwinebis instituti batonobs (monogamiis an poligamiis saxiT) da sadac seqsualuri cxovreba uaRresad tabuirebulia. satrfialo simRerebic, Sesabamisad, xSirad, imedgacruebasa da uimedo molodins gamoxatavs. zulus tomis gauTxovari gogonebi mRerian satrfialo simRerebs musikaluri mSvildis umaxveianas da ugubus satrfialo simRerebis genezisis SeswavlisaTvis adamianis adreuli istoriis Suqze 43 akompanementiT, Tumca gaTxovebis Semdeg isini icaven ,,umZraxvelobis~ tradicias da ar SeuZliaT dakvra an simRera (Joseph, 1987: 91-92). rogorc zulus tomis qalebis sasiyvarulo simRerebis Sesaxeb arsebuli literatura migviTiTebs, zulus tomis gogonebis gaTxoveba ar xdeba maTi romantikuli gatacebebis safuZvelze da amitomac maTTvis satrfialo simRerebis Sesruleba emociebis gamoxatvis mniSvnelovani saSualeba xdeba. garda amisa, zulus gogonebi zogjer mRerian satrfialo simRerebs sakuTari qmrebis mimarTac, romelTan cxovrebac, tradiciis Tanaxmad, ramdenime wlis ganmavlobaSi ar SeuZliaT, Tumca am periodSi akrZaluli ar aqvT garkveuli seqsualuri Tvisufleba. am SemTxvevaSic, satrfialo simRerebi, rogorc Janri warmoiqmneba, rogorc intimuri urTierTobebis SezRudvis Sedegi. afrikel tuaregebs aseve aqvT satrfialo simRerebi dardisa da moSorebuli satrfos Sesaxeb. tende simRerebi iZleva imis saSualebas, rom qalma Tavisi siyvaruli da gabrazeba gamoxatos, radganac amis pirdapir gakeTeba sazogadoebaSi miRebuli ar aris. tuaregebs aseve aqvT simRerebi ganSorebis Sesaxeb (Rasmussen, 1998), rac ar axasiaTebs monadire-Semgroveblebis tradiciebs. sxvaTa Soris, tuaregebSi seqsualurobis gamoxatva imdenad samarcxvinoa, rom gaRebuli piri maT sasqeso organos agonebT, ris gamoc am tomis mamakacebi pirsa da saxes ifaraven (Joseph, 1987: 92). miuxedavad imisa, rom dasavlur sazogadoebaSi qorwineba, rogorc wesi, siyvarulzea agebuli da sqesobrivi cxovrebis garkveuli Tavisufleba normadaa miCneuli, aq satrfialo simRerebis didi raodenoba SeiZleba imiT aixsnas, rasac xSirad aRweren, rogorc `Tavsmoxveul monogamias~. seqsualurobis Sesaxeb arsebuli mzardi literatura mxars uWers im azrs, rom monogamia da poliginia (mravalcolianoba, roca kacebi erTmaneTs eqiSpebian meti qalis xelSi CagdebaSi) ar iyo damaxasiaTebeli adreuli adamianuri sazogadoebisa da evoluciis adreuli etapebisaTvis, roca adamianTa winaprebi patar-patara jgufebad cxovrobdnen da miwaTmoqmedebasa da fulis mimoqcevaze damyarebuli didi sazogadoebebi jer kidev ar arsebobda (Ryan & Jethá, 2010). Sesabamisad, safiqrelia, rom satrfialo simRerebi adamianis istoriaSi ufro mogvianebiT unda gaCeniliyo, maSin, roca sqesobrivi kavSirebis damyareba garTulda da SeizRuda, roca dainerga tabuebi, Semovida monogamia da poliginia, gaZnelda qalebTan urTierToba, patarZlis qaliSviloba gaxda gaTxovebis piroba da a.S. mosos SemTxveva CineTidan moso aris CineTis erT-erTi nacionaluri umciresoba. isini cnobili arian seqsualuri cxovrebisa da gamravlebis uaRresad saintereso tradiciebiT. upirveles yovlisa, mosoebis sazogadoeba da ojaxi matrilinealuria. aq ojaxis ufrosi qalia. masTan erTad cxovroben misi qaliSvilebi, qali SviliSvilebi da maTi vaJebi. maT tradiciebSi ar aris miRebuli axali ojaxebis Seqmna da gaTxoveba. oriveni, kacebica da qalebic sakuTar matrilinealur ojaxSi rCebian. garda amisa, maT bolo dromde saerTod ar aqvT qorwinebis instituti. qalebTan RamiT modian sayvarlebi sxva ojaxebidan, romlebic dilas isev Tavis ojaxebs unda daubrundnen. ojaxis kacebic, aseve RamiT midian Tavis sayvarlebTan da dilas isev ukan brundebian sakuTar saxlSi. 44 nino ciciSvili amis Sedegad, qalebi bavSvebis gazrdaSi ar arian TavianT qmrebze an sayvarlebze damokidebuli. ojaxSi myofi kacebi, romlebic qalis Zmebi arian, mzrunveloben TavianTi dis bavSvebze. rac mTavaria, qalebs SeuZliaT erTdroulad hyavdeT ramdenime sayvareli, aseve, miRebulia rom qals hyavdes Svilebi sxvadasxva kacisagan. e.w. ,,paternaluri garantia~, zogierTi wyaros mixedviT, araviTar problemas ar qmnis mosoebs Soris. yvela erideba iseTi grZnobebis gaCenas, rogoricaa eWvianoba, an partniorebze zewola. urTierTobis dawyeba da gagrZeleba damokidebulia orive mxaris erTobliv survilze. mosoebis sazogadoebaSi, rogorc vxedavT, qorwineba praqtikulad ar arsebobs, Tumca ki, ojaxi arsebobs. principulia, rom mosoebis ojaxi eyrdnoba matrilinearul naTesaobas da ara patriarqalur urTierTobebs. miuxedavad imisa, rom mosos sazogadoebaSi miRebulia sakmaod didi Tavisufleba sqesobriv cxovrebaSi da ar vxvdebiT arc monogamiasa da poliginias, maT mainc aqvT ojaxis mkacrad Camoyalibebuli struqtura, sqesobrivi cxovrebisa da reproduqciis sakuTari wesebi. mosoebi ewevian miwaTmoqmedebasa da mesaqonleobas, amasTan, garSemortymulebi arian CineTisa da centraluri aziis civilizaciebis mier da ganicdian maT gavlenas. Sesabamisad, es metad aisaxeba maT socialur da ekonomikur cxovrebaze, vidre monadire-Semgroveblebis sazogadoebebis SemTxvevaSi. imis gamo, rom mosoebSi ar arsebobda xelis Txovnis sxva formaluri wesebi, seqsualur SeTavazebaze Tanxmoba gamoixateboda sityvierad an antifonuri simReriT. aseTi antifonuri SeTanxmebis magaliTi SeiZleba ase JRerdes: ,,SeiZleba SenTan davrCe amaRam?~ an, ,,CemTan darCi, Tu Tavisufali xar~, romlis pasuxi SeiZleboda yofiliyo ,,Tanxmobis antifonuri simRera~ (Shih, 2010: 77). orives, kacsac da qalsac SeeZlo sasiyvarulo urTierTobis wamowyeba swored SesaTavazebeli simReris saSualebiT (Shih, 2010: 77). SesaZloa, Cemi hi poTezis sawinaaRmdegod gamoiyureba, magram miuxedavad sqesobrivi cxovrebis Tavisuflebisa da qorwinebis arqonisa, mosoebs mainc aqvT satrfialo simRerebi. Tu gaviTvaliswinebT, rom maTi intimuri urTierToba mainc SezRudulia Ramis droiT, Cans, rom igi garkveul konfidencialurobasa da zneobrivi normebis dacvas eqvemdebareboda, rac, SesaZloa, erTgvarad xsnides am simRerebis arsebobas. daskvnis saxiT minda aRvniSno satrfialo simRerebis, rogorc Janris istoriuli warsulis Semdgomi Seswavlis aucilebloba. satrfialo simRerebis Janri, Cemi azriT, unda ganviTarebuliyo SedarebiT gvian, didi sazogadoebebis Camoyalibebis Semdeg, romlebSic monogamiuri (an poligamiuri) qorwineba sqesobrivi urTierTobebisa da gamravlebis normatuli forma gaxda. im sazogadebebSi, romlebSic akrZalulia Tavisufali seqsi da iq, sadac iTvleba, rom seqsi mxolod reproduqciisTvis unda arsebobdes, agreTve, iq, sadac qalis mier seqsualurobis gamovlena, an qalis mxridan ramdenime kacis mimarT interesis gamovlena garyvnilebad da arabunebrivad iTvleba, aucileblad vrceldeba sxvadasxva Tematikis satrfialo simRerebi. aseTi Temebi SeiZleba moicavdnen siyvarulis obieqtis miuwvdomlobasa da qalis mier intimuri urTierTobis uaryofas sazogadoebaSi miRebuli akrZalvebis gamo, sadac, rogorc wesi, uaRresad uaryofiTad afaseben sqesobriv urTierTobebs qorwinebis gareSe. satrfialo simRerebis genezisis SeswavlisaTvis adamianis adreuli istoriis Suqze 45 amis sapirispirod, im sazogadoebebSi, sadac yvela cxovrobs patara da mWidrod Sekrul sisxliT dakavSirebul jgufebSi, umetesad, monadire-SemgroveblebSi, gacilebiT ufro naklebia dakanonebuli, socialur kontraqtze agebuli da regulirebuli sqesobrivi urTierTobebi. aseT sazogadebebSi qorwinebis instituti, ise, rogorc es Cven gvesmis, saerTod ar arsebobs, Tumca dRes mcxovreb zogierT monadire-SemgroveblebSi is SeiZleba Sesuli iyos garemomcveli kulturebis zegavleniT. aseTi formaluri wesebisa da qorwinebis institutis arqonis gamo am sazogadoebebSi sqesobrivi urTierTobebi naklebadaa SezRuduli da, Sesabamisad, naklebia pirobebi satrfialo simRerebis gaCenisTvisac. Sesabamisad, satrfialo simRerebis gavrcelebisa da genezisis transkulturuli kvleva seqsualur-reproduqciul da socialur institutTa farTo konteqstSi uaRresad mniSvnelovania am sakiTxebis momavali safuZvliani SeswavlisTvis. 46 NINO TSITSISHVILI (AUSTRALIA/GEORGIA) EXPLORING THE BEGINNINGS OF LOVE SONGS IN THE LIGHT OF EARLY HUMAN HISTORY This paper is an initial step towards the bigger research project which I am going to undertake in the future. The central idea of the project is to examine the possible origins and function of love songs in human societies. I am interested in examining the distribution of love songs among different societies in order to test my hypothesis according to which societies with stricter taboos and stigma on sexuality must have more focus on love songs than those without. This hypothesis suggests that societies which exercise freer sexual mores will have less need to sing about love, and especially about such common themes as heartbreaks and frustrations as well as overstated metaphors of eroticism. I propose that love songs must be a relatively recent phenomenon, because they thrive within the cultures of strict sexual restraints mostly among the large civilizations. In contrast, they seem to be less significant or absent in small-scale societies with primeval social-economic formation such as hunter-gatherers. For example, love songs are abundant in Georgia, the Balkans, Middle East, but also in parts of Africa, in Asia and Western pop and rock music, but largely missing among the Pygmies or Bushmen hunter-gatherers, whose social and economic structure is of earlier formation compared to those of farming societies. Love song, as an established genre in a culture, is predominantly customary in the societies where sexual activities out of wedlock are disapproved and often severely punished for a variety of reasons. Love song possibly expresses the suppressed instincts and desires in a culturally approved way, and as such seems to be in accord with Freud’s idea of sublimation of the suppressed sexual libido (Freud, 1997: 16). If we have a closer look at the meaning and drives behind love song from different societies, we can see this connection between love song (and romantic love as concept) and the expression of suppressed sexual drive. For example, a Japanese classical lyrical song genre oiwake is about love which was not destined to happen. Bulgarian love songs are mostly about the woman’s sexual attractiveness described in metaphorical terms, revealing desire. Particularly interesting is the dawn poetry in Balkan societies as well as in many other parts of the world, in which lovers have to separate at daybreak so they are not ashamed in the eyes of family members, elderly and the community (Pinto, 1955). Georgian love songs talk about the woman’s beauty and how unavailable it is to its admirer. Whether we are talking about love or sexual desire is hard to find out, but one thing is clear: most love songs are about experiences of frustrations and sadness caused by restrictions or obstacles towards fulfilling one’s sexual and romantic desires. They are often expressed through symbolism and poetic metaphors. Another aspect which might prove that love songs have more recent origin in large cultures is the solo character of many love songs, compared to the collective nature of singing and dancing in most pre-industrial and pre-farming societies. By collective song I mean not only the style of performance (performed collectively) but also function of a song, such as collective concerns and aims of the 47 performance, including group’s coherence, weather control, or achieving better crops. Lyrical love songs, even when they are polyphonic in many polyphonic cultures such as Georgian, Bulgarian, or Italian, have a more individual concern, albeit collectively approved. One of the central ideas I am proposing in this paper is that love songs as an established genre would have been largely irrelevant in early human evolution and pre-industrial and pre-farming cultures, as early human societies do not seem to restrict sex as much as do more modern large societies. As some recent research points out, monogamy (both for men and women) as we are familiar with it in our lives today, was not a characteristic feature of early human societies (Ryan & Jethá, 2010). Love songs, then, should have become relevant in the later civilisations in which female sexual freedom and sex in general became tabooed and therefore, love songs became a cultural expression of various concerns associated with the constrains of sexual morality. Indeed, why would people sing about love and problematize love, if sex was an easy and simple endeavour? It is a widespread belief that love songs are central genre for most societies; indeed, romantic love and related themes of sexual attraction and desire make a major part of modern pop, folk and traditional music cultures; however, love songs may not have been the important part of early human prehistory. For example, an absence or insignificance of love as a theme of music-making in some contemporary or documented hunter-gatherer societies is worth noting. “One of the most frequently perpetuated myths about the music of tribal cultures is that romantic love songs form a substantial component of their repertoires. Nothing could be further from the truth. Romantic love songs are prominent features only of large cultures” (Brown, 2000: 249). As every ethnomusicologist knows, most tribal societies have the so-called “functional” music, mostly for collective concerns. The absence or an insignificant share of songs about love among hunter-gatherers should become the foremost support for the theory that love songs must be a later development in the evolution of human culture, and that music was not used for sexual selection as some evolutionists argue (Miller, 2000), even if we all agree that music arouses strong emotions including sexual ones. As music and brain research suggests, music can arouse positive emotions in many different areas of human life – empathy, sadness, aggressiveness, sexual desire, infant-mother bonding etc. Therefore, there is no ground to think that music developed specifically for one-to-one sexual selection, more so because most tribal music is, again, exclusively collective. Selfish gene theory (Dawkins, 1976), according to which music could not have been an evolutionary feature for collective survival but could only be used for individual competition, can be seen as a popular but limited view of the human society and its origins held and promoted by modern middle-class professionals today. The Pygmies of Central Africa, for example, have a very insignificant share of songs about love, most Pygmy songs are collectively performed, and solo practice usually occurs in order to fill silence, prevent predator attack and combat one’s fears while in the forest. The Bushmen, the hunter-gatherers of Kalahari Desert, too, seem to lack love songs. In the source of Bushmen folklore, which comes from 1911 (Bleek & Lloyd, 1911), not a single song is about love. Most of the songs are “functional”, and deal with the subjects that seem to occupy Bushmen life and mind more than romantic love: the sun, the sky, animals, relationships between animals and humans, nature and humans. Why should not Bushmen have love songs? Has not sexual desire been important to them? Of course it has. However, it is possible that people of Kalahari Desert may not have love songs because sex was not as restricted among these people as it has been among “higher” civilizations. 48 Nino Tsitsishvili For example, sex was part of the !Kung children’s playing. “!Kung children are sexually aware at a very early age because of the relative openness and acceptance of adult sexuality” (Shostak, 1976: 263-267); moreover, pre-adolescent siblings had sexual-intimate relationships near their camps. It is difficult to imagine such openness of child sexuality in a strictly-tabooed society. While children were mildly scolded for having sex with each other, parents and other adults were clearly aware this was taking place. As long as it is done away from adults, children are not prevented from participating in experimental sexual play. If they are seen by an adult, they are scolded and told to play “nicely” (that is, non-sexually) (Shostak, 1976:267). The Pygmies, similarly, are known for lacking love songs; and open sexuality such as having sex with their relatives is common among young. Colin Turnbull described an incident of incest (Turnbull, 1968: 112-113). While Pygmies consider incest a shame, they simultaneously tolerate and even accept incest as a normal thing and as something that “any youth would do”; “Almost everyone seemed to dismiss the act of incest” (Turnbull, 1968: 113). Thus, the absence of strict taboos on sexual relations among the Pygmies corroborates the idea that sexual morality was less stringent, also correlating with the absence of love song genre among them. Nevertheless, surrounding cultures have had a strong influence on the !Kung as well as Pygmies. Aspects of the !Kung and Pygmy sexual-reproductive practices point to the strong possibility that marriage and monogamy are imposed on them from the surrounding Bantu cultures. For example, there are features of their social organisation which are contradictory. Marriage and monogamy which they practice, for example, contradict to the practice of pre-marital sex and incest both among the Pygmies and among the Bushmen. The wedding ritual among the Pygmies, in fact, is a direct influence and even adoption of the surrounding Bantu village rituals, while Pygmies do not have wedding/marriage ceremony themselves, unless influenced by the villagers, again pointing to the absence of strong monogamous relationships. Bushmen women, can leave their husband whenever they wish, divorce is not an issue and is quite common. If monogamy/polygyny and marriage were a well-established practice with roots in the remote past, divorce would have been an issue, as it is among large cultures, including Western cultures. Svaneti and Lechkhumi in Georgia are the two regions where pre-Christian culture has survived to a greater degree than in other areas. Svaneti also seems to be the only region in Georgia where there are no traditional love songs. Based on fieldwork material, well-known Georgian ethnographer Vera Bardavelidze described a ritual bosloba, involving overt imitation of sexual intercourse between half-naked husband and wife in Lechkhumi, while the rest of the family were watching (Bardavelidze, 2005: 144). Based on available ethnographies and fieldwork questionaries, she also proposed that in the past this ritual must have included actual sexual intercourse not only an imitation (Bardavelidze, 2005: 146). Love songs seem to be common in the societies in which contractual marriage with its associated sexual taboos (monogamy, or polygyny) is well established. Often they are expressions of frustration and longing. Among the Zulu of Africa, for example, women sing love songs with the accompaniment of a musical bow umakhweyana and ugubhu, and this was characteristic of unmarried girls. These Zulu women observed avoidance after marrying, and as a result did not play and sing during the observance of avoidance (Joseph, 1987: 91-92). As stated in the literature about the Zulu women’s love songs, it is because Zulu marriages do not generally spring from romantic relationships that love Exploring the Beginnings of Love Songs in the Light of Early Human History 49 songs constitute a significant portion of emotional expression. Zulu girls also sang love songs as an expression of their longing for their husbands from whom they were separated for several years before they could start living together, despite the fact that they could have a certain degree of sexual intimacy. Thus love songs as a genre in this case is a result of restrictions placed on sexual and intimate relationships. The Tuaregs of Africa too have love songs about the sorrows of a distant lover. “Tende” songs are means for expression of love and anger, for these sentiments should be kept hidden or expressed indirectly. Tuareg Love songs are also about separation (Rasmussen, 1998), which is not characteristic of hunter-gatherer life. Among the Tuaregs, sexuality is so ashamed of, that open mouth while singing is compared and associated with genitals, the reason why men veil their faces/mouth (Joseph, 1987: 92). While in the West marriages sprung from romantic love and a certain degree of sexual freedom is norm, the abundance of love songs in Western cultures can be explained by the fact of what is often described as “imposed monogamy”. Modern literature about sexuality growingly supports the idea that monogamy and polygyny (one male competing for an exclusive access to many females) were not characteristic of early human societies and earlier stages of human evolution, when humans lived in small bands and when large scale societies with farming and monetary exchange were absent (Ryan and Jethá, 2010). Therefore, love songs must have emerged later in the course of human history, when sexual relationships had become a complicated matter, imbued with taboos, monogamy, polygyny, restricted access to females, demand on women’s virginity upon marriage etc. The Case of the Moso, China The Moso minority of China are known for their unique arrangements of sexual and reproductive life. First, they have matrilineal society, in which a household consists of a woman-head of family, her daughters and granddaughters and her sons. Daughters remain in their natal families, as well as sons. Second, they do not practice (until recently) marriage. Women take lovers, who visit them at night and leave in the morning. Sons of the family, too, visit their lovers at their home and then return to their natal family. As a result, women do not depend on their children’s fathers or on their lovers for living; the men of the home are brothers, who are uncles to the children of the family and take care of their sisters’ children. Women can take multiple partners at one time, and it is common that the different children of a woman are from different men. Paternity certainty, some sources argue, was not an issue among the Moso. Jealousy and pressure on partners, therefore, is strongly avoided and disapproved, the initiation and maintenance of a relationship is fully dependent on both sides’ wish. It is unique that women can have sex with multiple partners, and one woman may have children from different men. Marriage, then, practically does not exist, while families do. Families are thus based on matrilineal kinship, not patriarchal marriage. While the Moso are matrilineal and exercise a considerable degree of sexually permissive relationships in the absence of imposed monogamy or polygyny, they still have practiced a form of strictly organised family and sexual-reproductive relationships. The Moso is also farming and pastoralist society, surrounded and influenced by the civilisations of China and Central Asia, and this must have had a stronger influence on their social and economic structure as compared to those of the hunter-gatherer societies. 50 Nino Tsitsishvili In the absence of formal courtship rules among the Moso, an oral consent or an antiphonal song might have been a way of expressing one’s consent to the proposition of opposite sex. Examples of such informal proposals could be phrases like: “Can I stay with you tonight?” or “Stop by if you are free tonight” and response might have been expressed by “an encouraging antiphonal song” (Shih, 2010: 77). Either a man or a woman might initiate the courtship by singing a suggestive song (Shih, 2010: 77). It might seem contradictory to the theory pursued in this paper that the Moso, despite their matrilineal, matrilocal and “anti-marriage” social structure still have love and courtship songs. However, we can see that the Moso’s visits to their partners were done at night time, so there seems to be a certain secrecy and moral propriety to be observed, which might have been expressed in the existence of courtship songs. In conclusion, I would like to stress the importance of the study of love songs as a genre. Love song genre seems to have developed in large cultures in which marriage (either monogamous or polygamous) is a major institution of sexual relations and reproduction. Societies which have sexual restrictions – taboos against free sexuality, or those who consider that sex must be for reproduction only or who propagate that women’s expression of sexuality and interest in multiple partners is morally wrong and unnatural – inevitably proliferate in love songs on various themes. These themes include unrequited desire due to women’s unwillingness to give in to open sexual relationships and due to the illicit nature of love affairs out of wedlock. In contrast, societies which have lived in smaller face-to-face communities, mostly hunter-gatherers, seem to practice much lesser degree of contractual marriage institution; often marriage as traditionally understood in our societies, is absent, or seems to be adopted from the surrounding cultures. As a result of the absence of these marriage institutions, sexual relations were less restricted, and the need for love songs, less urgent. Therefore, trans-cultural examination of love songs in a broader context of sexual-reproductive and social institutions is essential for further inquiry in this subject. References Bardavelidze, Vera. (2005). Drevneishye religioznye verovanija i obrjadovoe graficheskoe iskustvo Gruzinskykh plemjon (Ancient Religious Beliefs and Graphic Ritual Arts of the Georgian Tribes). Tbilisi: Caucasian House. Bleek, W. H. I. & Lloyd, L. C. (1911). Specimens of Bushman Folklore. London: George Allen & Company. Brown, Steven. (2000). ”Evolutionary Models of Music: From Sexual Selection to Group Selection”. In: Perspectives in Ethnology, 13 (13): 231−81. Dawins, Richard. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. Freud, Sigmund. (1997). Sexuality and the Psychology of Love. With an Introduction by Philip Rieff. New York: Touchstone. Joseph, Rosemary M.F. (1987). “Zulu Women’s Bow Songs: Ruminations on Love”. In: Bulletin of the School of Exploring the Beginnings of Love Songs in the Light of Early Human History 51 Oriental and African Studies, vol. 50 (1):90-119. University of London. Loeb, E.M. (1950). “Courtship and the Love Song”. In: Anthropos, Bd. 45, H. 4./6. (821-851). Miller, G. F. (2000). “Evolution of Human Music through Sexual Selection”. In: The origins of music, MIT Press, pp. 329-360. Editors: Wallin, N. L., Merker, B., & Brown, S. Pinto, Vivian. (1955). ”Dawn-Courtship in Bulgarian and Macedonian Folk Poetry”. In: The Slavonic and East European Review, 34 (82):200-219. Rasmussen, Susan J. (1998) “Within the Tent and at the Crossroads: Travel and Gender Identity among the Tuareg of Niger”. In: Ethos 26 (2), Communicating Multiple Identities in Muslim Communities.P. 153-182. Ryan, Christopher & Cacilda Jethá (2010). Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. The United States: HarperCollins; Melbourne: Scribe. Shih, Chuan-Kang. (2010). Quest for Harmony: The Moso Traditions of Sexual Union and Family Life. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Shostak, Marjorie. (1976). “A !Kung Woman’s Memories of Childhood”. In: Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors. P. 246-278.Editors: Lee, Richard B. & DeVore, Irven. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England.. Turnbull, Colin. (1961). The Forest People. New York: Simon & Schuster. 52 Eelena iovanoviCi (serbeTi) Ggacocxlebuli kavali 1990-iani wlebis serbeTSi da kavali da nei axlo aRmosavleTis sufiur tradiciebSi: Mmusikisa da mniSvnelobis aspeqtebi1 am statiaSi yuradReba gamaxvilebulia naxevrad transversiul grZiv uyamiSo fleitebze Sesrulebis paralelebze marTlmadidebeli qristianebisa da sufis praqtikaSi. statia efuZneba serbiaSi, kerZod _ belgradSi kavalis cocxali musikaluri praqtikis Seswavlas specifikur konteqstSi, rac xels uwyobs masze dakvris Tavisebur aRqmas. serbia warmoadgens centraluri balkaneTis teritorias, dRemde Semonaxuli mdidari adgilobrivi tradiciebiT, romelSic gansxvavebuli gavlenebi ikveTeba. aq adgili hqonda xmelTaSuazRvispireTis, aRmosavleTis da centraluri evropis kulturuli identobebis dialogs xangrZlivi drois manZilze. arsebobs farTo eTnomusikologiuri literatura or urTierTdakavSirebul instrumentze _ kavalisa da neize. orive instrumenti Sedis grZivi ueno fleitebis jgufSi, romelic farTod aris gavrcelebuli CrdiloeT afrikaSi, samxreT-dasavleT da centralur aziaSi, agreTve, mcire aziasa da samxreT-aRmosavleT evropaSi (Basten, 2003: 4). nei gvxvdeba, rogorc ori saxis instrumenti, sparsuli da Turquli. is islamuri kulturis mqone xalxSia gavrcelebuli da specifikuria urbanuli dasaxlebebisTvis (Basten, 2003: 4). dRes ara mxolod neim, aramed, sazogadod, sufiurma musikam, misi esTetikuri Rirebulebebidan gamomdinare, ipova Tavisi adgili msoflio musikisa (World Music) da popularuli musikis JanrebSi (Bohlman, 2002: 56; Peterson, 2008). rac Seexeba kavalis2, balkaneTisa da TurqeTis teritoriaze, is umTavresad sasoflo saqmianobasTan, kerZod, mesaqonleobasTan dakavSirebul musikalur tradiciasTan asocirdeba. am instrumentebis gamoCena farTo geografiul teritoriaze da maTi uamravi saxeoba miuTiTebs maT ZvelTaZvel warmomavlobaze uZveles kulturebSi (Basten, 2003: 3-6). meore mxriv, kavalis Sesaxeb arsebuli monacemebi yofili iugoslaviis teritoriaze ar iZleva srul pasuxs imaze, Tu rogor gamoCnda es sakravi qveynis sxvadasxva eTnikuri jgufis tradiciebSi. kerZod, cnobilia, rom is gvxvdeba makedoniasa da serbeTSi, masze ukraven albanelebi, magram TiTqmis ucnobia, rom es instrumenti, agreTve, serbuli musikaluri tradiciis nawilia kosovos teritoriaze. sakiTxis kvlevas axlaxans Caeyara safuZveli, es statiac misi erT-erTi Sedegia (Zakić, 2012). kavalis dakvris interesi serbeTSi marTlmadidebluri, bizantiuri saeklesio xelovnebis aRorZinebasTan dakavSirebiT ganaxlda (Jovanović, 2012). es moxda qveyanaSi mkacri politikuri, ekonomikuri da eTikuri krizisis dros, romelmac, rogorc msgavs SemTxvevebSi msoflios masStabiT, warmoSva diskusiebi identurobis axal sazRvrebTan dakavSirebiT (Todorova, 2006: 15, 128). rogorc es statia amtkicebs, isini 53 scdebian saxelmwifoebriv, erovnul an eTikur, konfesiur sazRvrebs. am fenomenis protagonistebis interpretacia, Cemi, rogorc monawile-damkvireblis (Cooley and Barz, 2008: 20) gamocdileba, romelic SeviZine sazogadoebis wevrebisagan interviuebis saSualebiT, aseve, msmenelis mier musikis aRqmis mniSvnelobis Sesaxeb martin kleitonis Teoria (Clayton, 2001: 5), miuTiTebs axal aspeqtebze grZivi ueno fleitebis dakvris kvlevaSi. isini saintereso Temas exeba marTlmadideblur religiasTan dakavSirebiT, gansakuTrebiT, msgavsi instrumentis, sufiuri neis dakvrasTan dakavSirebiT. sxvadasxva religiuri jgufebis wevrebis damokidebuleba am tipis instrumentebisadmi, maTze Sesrulebuli musikis, JReradobisa da eTosis aRqmis formulireba did msgavsebas avlens. amis Sedegad, makedoniuri kavali warmoadgens aRmosavleT balkaneTisa da samxreT-dasavleT aziis musikalur kulturebs Soris kavSiris yvelaze mniSvnelovan indikators. kavalis aRorZinebis garemoebani serbeTSi serbeTSi kavalize dakvris aRorZinebis ganmapirobebeli faqtorebia: bizantiuri saeklesio xelovnebis, gansakuTrebiT galobis aRorZineba; individualuri, erovnuli, religiuri identobis Zieba individebis, jgufebis an ganaTlebuli xelovanebis mier; makedoniuri kavalis Canawerebze xelmisawvdomoba. kavalis aRdgenis iniciativa warmoiSva belgradis xelovanTa da mgalobelTa kavSiris _ wmida ioane damaskelis wevrTa Soris, romelTa ZiriTadi mizani marTlmadidebluri bizantiuri xelovnebis, freskebis, xatwerisa da saeklesio galobis aRdgena iyo. 1993 wlidan, kavSirSi arsebobs mgalobelTa ori gundi: mamakacTa da qalTa, romelTac iswavles galoba bizantiuri modelis mixedviT, Tanamedrove nevmuri notaciis safuZvelze. saeklesio msaxurebis dros isini aqtiur monawileobas iReben galobaSi (audiomag. 1). garda serbuli marTlmadidebluri eklesiis wevrobisa, bizantiuri galobis xelSemwyobebi gulisxmobdnen marTlmadideblebis ufro farTo transnacionalur sazogadoebaSi gaerTianebas ekumenuri identobis gziT (Jovanović, 2012). kavalis sicocxle daubrunes `specifikurma individebma“ (Stock, 2001: 5), romelTac, rogorc qveynis danarCenma moqalaqeebma, gaiares krizisis rTuli periodi da eZebdnen TavianTi identobis da SemoqmedebiTobis gamoxatvis gzas. fermwerni da mgalobelni usmendnen kavalis saukeTeso makedonieli Semsruleblebis audioCanawerebs da 1994 wels Tavad daiwyes kavalis aRdgena da masze dakvra. TavianT repertuarSi isini enTuziazmiT misdevdnen makedoniur models, radgan serbul tradiciaSi kavalis arsebobis Sesaxeb codna maTTvis im dros xelmisawvdomi ar iyo. maTi sayvareli melodiebi iyo improvizaciebi Tavisufal ritmSi – ezgies (еzgijes), sadac kavalis Tvisebebi da JReradoba srulad iyo gamovlenili (audiomag. 2). serbeTisa da makedoniis xalxebis religiuri, kulturuli, eTnikuri da regionuli siaxlove, bizantiur galobasTan erTad, uaRresad mniSvnelovani iyo saerTo religiuri da unikaluri kulturuli garemos erTianobis dadasturebisTvis. im dros, romelsac me mimovixilav, belgradSi kavalis dakvra, rogorc biliana milanoviCi werda, aris `mediumi, romelic ara marto asaxavs da Sifravs identurobas, aramed monawileobs kidec mis SeqmnaSi~ (Milanović, 2007: 125). 1990-ian wlebSi 54 elena iovanoviCi belgradSi kavalize ukravdnen privatulad, SemTxveviTi publikis winaSe, belgradis ramdenime eklesiis maxloblad, msaxurebis Semdeg, romelSic gundic monawileobda. garda saeklesio da xalxuri simRerisa, es spontanuri Sesruleba Seicavda mniSvnelovan emociur da gamaerTianebel elements jgufisaTvis, romelSic misi wevrebis pirovnuli identuroba urTierTmoqmedebda. SeiZleba iTqvas, rom kavalis JReradoba am konteqstSi warmoSobda gansakuTrebul emociur muxts, afarToebda meditaciis sferos, rogorc sazogadoebis liturgikuli gamocdilebis specifikur gagrZelebas religiuri msaxurebis Semdeg. es koleqtiuri emociuri gamocdileba Sedgeboda mravali individualuri gamocdilebisgan da SeiZleba SevadaroT induri ragas msmenelTa gamocdilebas, sadac es ukanasknelni SeiZleba ganvixiloT, rogorc `erTmaneTTan dakavSirebuli obieqtebi~ (Clayton, 2001: 3, 6). misi mizani iyo Sinagani simSvidis miRweva krizisis pirobebSi, rac gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelovani iyo sazogadoebis wevrebisTvis. musikalur-faqturuli da struqturuli elementebi, romlebic akavSireben bizantiur galobasa da makedoniur kavalize Sesrulebas rogorc wesi, neis dakvra sufis tradiciaSi monodiuria; ramdenime damkvreli ukravs unisonSi an heterofoniulad (Baines, 1991: 234). meore mxriv, makedoniur kavalize dakvra da bizantiuri galoba msgavsia ramdenime mniSvnelovani aspeqtiT. sainteresoa, rom mgaloblebi moxibluli iyvnen makedoniuri kavaliT, radgan makedoniuri musikis struqturuli elementebi avlenen did msgavsebas bizantiur galobasTan. es gamoixateba SemdegSi: faqtura: orive tradiciaSi, faqtura aris orelementiani _ mTavari melodia da burdoni. burdoni/ison/isokratima aris balkaneTSi da, aseve, samxreT slavebSi farTod gavrcelebuli avtoqtonuri folkloruli tradicia (Traerup, 1981; Vukičević-Zakić, 1994/1995). unda iTqvas, rom es ar aris saerTo slavuri memkvidreoba (Pashina, 2009) da misi arseboba makedoniuri kavalis SesrulebaSi unda aixsnas dasavluri musikis tradiciebTan kavSiriT. rudolf brendlis mixedviT, igi gagebulia, rogorc konstruqciuli, aritmuli da cvalebadi burdoni (Brandl, 1976: 10).Bbizantiur galobaSi marTlmadidebeli Teologebis mier igi interpretirebulia, rogorc `araeqspresiulobis mistikuri siRrme~ (Lazić, 1984: 240); garda am aRwerisa, aseve unda vaxsenoT Teoretikosebis azri, romlebic indur tradiciaSi mas aRweren, rogorc `maradiul absoluts~ (Brandl, 1976: 2), an teqnikas, roca `msmenelis gonebaSi dakvris dawyebamde kargad unda dafiqsirdes, rom melodia ukve arsebobs burdonSi~ (Clayton, 2000: 1-2). aratemperirebuli intervalebi: haeris gamoSvebis intensivobis SecvliT, kavalis SeuZlia sxvadasxva simaRlis tonebis gamocema imave TiTis poziciiT, rac uzrunvelyofs aratemperirebuli intervalebis farTo rigs, specifikurs, rogorc bizantiuri galobisTvis, aseve, balkaneTisa da aRmosavleTis mravali tradiciisTvis. kiloebi: mosmenis, galobisa da dakvris belgradeli Semsruleblebis praqtikam daadastura, rom makedoniuri ezgies Tavsebadia bizantiuri galobis standartul gacocxlebuli kavali 1990-iani wlebis serbeTSi da kavali da nei axlo aRmosavleTis sufiur tradiciebSi:Mmusikisa da mniSvnelobis aspeqtebi 55 modalur sistemasTan, romelic Seicavs diatonur, qromatiul da enharmoniul kiloebs. melodia da forma: melodiur da kilour principebze damyarebuli kompoziciuri principi axasiaTebs garkveul eToss da gavrcelebulia teritoriaze balkaneTidan indoeTamde. es aris formis Seqmnis e.w. makam-principi (Szabolsci, 1959), romelic ganuyofelia melodiuri formulisa da bgeraTrigis sistemebisagan (Powers, Widdes, 2001: 830). bizantiur tradiciaSi, models hqvia ixosi, Sua aRmosavleTSi _ makami, indoeTSi ki _ raga. miuxedavad imisa, rom analizis konkretuli Sedegebis saxiT amis mtkicebuleba ara gvaqvs, arsebobs safuZveli, vivaraudoT, rom modaluri kiloebis principi cvalebadi tonebiT arsebobs bizantiur galobasa da makedoniur kavalize Sesrulebul ezgiesSi. aseve aSkaraa, rom didi msgavsebaa makedoniur ezgiessa da indur ragas Soris: melodiuri ganviTareba emyareba kilos ZiriTad tonebs _ mTavar tons, kvartasa da kvintas (Clayton, 2000: 25), rac xSirad burdonis cvlilebas uwyobs xels. cnobilia, rom garda orelementiani burdonuli struqturisa, yvela zemoxsenebuli elementi aseve Cndeba Sua aRmosavleTSi neize Sesrulebul sufiur musikaSic. mniSvneloba marTlmadideblebisa da musulmanebis liturgikuli musika uZvelesi droidan iRebs saTaves da misi wyaroebi SeiZleba moiZebnos Zveli aRmosavleTis kosmologiur swavlebaSi, romelmac mniSvnelovani roli Seasrula aRmosavleTis ramdenime kulturis, maT Soris, aRmosavluri marTlmadidebluri galobis ganviTarebaSi (Petrović, 1982: 3-5). zogierT naSromSi laparakia Sua aRmosavleTis kulturis eqvsi milioni wlis istoriaze, romlis manZilze Zvel civilizaciebSi xdeboda berZnuli, iranuli, kavkasiuri, CrdiloeT afrikuli da balkanuri kulturebis urTierTqmedeba (Czekanowska, 1981: 159-161, 214-5, 218, 415). musulmani filosofosebi da marTlmadidebeli Teologebi Tanxmdebian, rom musika gamoxatvisa da rwmenis aRiarebis Zlieri saSualebaa. islamSi `melodiis, leqsisa da sakravebis SerCeva seriozuli swavlebis Tema iyo, imis mixedviT, Tu rasTan iyo dakavSirebuli: sixarulTan, mwuxarebasTan Tu avadmyofobasTan~ (Hamidullah, 1982: 200; Reinhard, 1969: 64-67, 71-2). meore mxriv, marTlmadideblebis azriT, wminda tradicia gamoixateba saeklesio xelovnebis saSualebiT, xatweriTa da galobiT, amitom garkveuli struqturuli da tonaluri maxasiaTeblebi marTlmadidebluri simRerisa unda asaxavdes gzavnils wminda mamebisgan. oqtoixosis kiloebSi Cadebulia uZvelesi religiuri swavlebis suli, romelsac didi mniSvneloba aqvsMmorwmuneebis srulyofisTvis (Petrović, 2004: 211). miuxedavad imisa, rom oficialuri marTlmadideblur-qristianuli Tu musulmanuri tradicia ar iZleva instrumentebis gamoyenebis nebarTvas liturgikul msaxurebaSi, neisa da kavalis SemTxvevaSi, arsebobs am instrumentebis Seswavlis mizezi maTi Semsruleblebis religiuri cxovrebis konteqstSi. sufiur tradiciaSi neis dakvris mniSvneloba SedarebiT kargadaa Seswavlili eTnomusikologiaSi. filosofosebisa da mevlevis ordenis3 xelovanTa interpretaciiT, arsebobs kavSiri sulier cxovrebasa da pirovnebis ganviTarebas Soris musi- 56 elena iovanoviCi kis, maT Soris, fleitaze dakvris saSualebiT (Ševalije, 1981: 187, 188). sparsi filosofosi, Teologi, advokati, mistikosi da poeti mevlana ialaludin rumi Tavis poeziaSi aRwers ZiriTad mniSvnelobebs, romelic axasiaTebs neis sufis tradiciaSi: fesvebisagan daSorebiT gamowveuli mwuxareba (`ucvleli arsi~) (Basten, 2003: 6), swrafva ganwmendisken da Semoqmedis ZiebiT gamowveuli sixaruli (Rumi, 2007: 86). Cemi msjeloba serbeTSi religiuri aRqmis konteqstSi kavalis dakvris mniSvnelobaze dafuZnebulia im adamianebis gamocdilebaze, romelTac aRadgines es instrumenti. xatmwerebisa da freskis ostatebis msgavsad, isini religiuri xelovnebis erTgulni arian. me ganvixilav maT monaTxrobSi gamoTqmul mosazrebebs am sakravis aRqmis Sesaxeb, raTa Sevadaro sufis tradicias, rac SesaZleblobas mogvcems, vimsjeloT am tipis instrumentis adgilze ori sxvadasxva religiuri konfesiis cxovrebaSi. serbiaSi kavalize Semsruleblobis aRdgenis qomagTaTvis liturgiuli galoba, freskis moxatva da kavalis dakvra gamoxatavs Semoqmedis srulyofilebis, madlierebisa da RmerTis xatis asaxvis mcdelobas4. sakravis bgeris aRqmaSi isini nawilobriv eTanxmebian sufis tradicias: aRweren mas, rogorc `vedrebas~ (serb.: “призивни”), `gamaerTianebels, damamSvidebels, Semrigeblurs, relaqsaciurs~ (“саборан, сабиран, смирујући и опуштајући”); igi adamians im mdgomareobaSi aqcevs, romelic `liturgiaze daswrebis~ (“битисања на литургији”) msgavsia, locvis garemos qmnis (“део неке молитвене атмосфере на било који начин”, xazgasma avtorisaa). kavalis dakvra gulisxmobs `zeciur imijs~ (“преслику Раја”) da `qristes ganuzomel siyvarulSi yofnis SesaZleblobas~ (“сусрет бића и љубави у Христу”). kavalis dakvra gulisxmobs ganwmendas vnebaTagan. Semsruleblebi serbeTSi zogjer aRniSnaven kavals, rogorc instruments, romelsac aqvs saubris unari, romelic pirdapir paralels badebs neis aRqmasTan, aseve uZveles xalxSi fleitis JReradobis aRqmasTan. calkeuli marTlmadidebeli serbebis interpretaciiT, `rodesac es instrumenti iwyebs laparaks~ (“тај инструмент, кад проговори, каже Хвала Ти, Боже” и “Хвалим Те, Боже”), is ambobs `gmadlobT Sen, RmerTo~ da `dideba Senda, RmerTo~. kidev erT saintereso detals vigebT belgradeli kavalis Semsruleblebis monaTxrobidan. maT Soris arian freskis mxatvrebi, romelTac miaCniaT, rom kavalize dakvra ar unda iyos SemTxveviTi, unda eqvemdebarebodes wesebs, ar unda iyos ilustraciuli, aramed xatismagvari, rom `Tavis TavSi Seicavdes~ (“садржи у себи”) ideas, sazriss. Aamitom gamoxatvis saSualebebi unda iyos martivi, rom SesaZlebeli iyos ,,gamoixatos is, rac gamouxatavia~ (“једноставна да би се постигло нешто што је неизрециво, а суштинско”). es xsnis farTo Temas kavalis dakvris semiotikis kvlevisaTvis. uspenskis Tanaxmad, dakvra aris damoukideblobis, avtonomiurobis simbolo, xolo teqsti – simboloTa nakrebi (Uspenski, 1979: 252-253). mas mivyavarT im sferomde, romelic jer ar aris gamokvleuli – vgulisxmob samusiko praqtikis specifikuri enis gaSifvras orTodoqsi qristianebisa da sufisti Semsruleblebis tradiciaSi. burdonis fenomenis, rogorc faqturis elementis, specifikuri adgili da mniSvneloba, aseve specifikur iers aniWebs musikalur struqturas. gacocxlebuli kavali 1990-iani wlebis serbeTSi da kavali da nei axlo aRmosavleTis sufiur tradiciebSi:Mmusikisa da mniSvnelobis aspeqtebi 57 daskvna zemoT aRweril konteqstSi kavalis suli avsebs mevlevis musikas. unda aRiniSnos, rom, am SemTxvevaSi, Semsruleblebisa da msmenelebis jgufebis SigniT kavalis ufro metad gaerTianebis funqcia aqvs, vidre komunikaciisa, ise, rogorc diuringma aRwera mevlevis neis SesrulebiT miRebuli STabeWdilebis Sedegad (www. crem-cnrs.fr/membres/j_during_1992_what_is_sufi_music.pdf. gv. 278). diuringis dakvirvebebis safuZvelze aseve dadgenilia kavalis ezgiasa da neis mevlevis melodiebis mniSvnelovani maxasiaTeblebi; esenia: neli tempi, kompleqsuri, xangrZlivi da mravalferovani ritmebi, SezRuduli repertuari, tradiciuli instrumentebi, locva gonebaSi (monawileTa mxridan), moqmedebis Tavisufleba, ganelebuli eqspresiuloba, simSvide, meditacia da (garda zemoTqmulisa) urTierToba (During, 1992: 279). ufro metic, marTlmadideblur qristianul konteqstSi kavalis mosmenis msmenelebiseuli gamocdileba – saerTo pirdapiri emociuri da sulieri gamocdilebis ormxrivi aRiarebis fenomeni – SesaZloa, ganvixiloT, rogorc mevlevis erT semasTan/samasTan daaxloebuli, rac, aseve, xasiaTdeba, rogorc TviT meditacia (Vlaeva, 2006: 421; Burckhardt Qureshi, 2006: 1). es SeiZleba kidev ufro metad SevadaroT induri musikis konteqstSi aRweril aRqmas: musika fasdeba, rogorc mdgomareoba, romelic miiRweva ukeTesi SesrulebiT, da, amgvarad, msmenelebi ,,CarTulni arian mimdinare samaradiso tendenciis mqone rag-nesis mdgomareobaSi~ (Clayton, 2000: 26). kavalis aRdgena serbeTSi adasturebs igor macievskis Teorias, romlis Tanaxmad, Sromis tradiciuli musikis formebi warmoadgenen SezRudul pirobebSi arsebobisaTvis brZolis saSualebas (Maciewsky, 2007). amas garda, serbeTSi, kavalisa da bizantiuri galobis mimarT midrekilebis gamo, araqristianuli musikaluri kulturebis elementebi, rogorc `aRmosavluri~ musikis nawili, aRqmuli iyo, agreTve, rogorc `sakuTari~, raTa miRweuli yofiliyo sakuTari identobis sisrule ufro farTo kulturul arealSi. sainteresoa, rom makedoniam kvlav iTamaSa Suamavlis roli balkaneTSi kulturuli tendenciebis Taobidan Taobaze gadacemaSi (Valchinova-Chendlova, 2000: 76). serbeTSi kavalize dakvris aRqmis Sesaxeb arsebuli monacemebi, ramdenadac cnobilia, aris jer-jerobiT erTaderTi informacia, romelic Casaberi instrumentis JReradobasa da mniSvnelobas akavSirebs marTlmadidebluri qristianobis doqtrinebTan da xelovnebasTan. zogadad, xmelTaSua zRvis musikalur kultura(eb)Si maT SemoaqvT axali xedva, romelic iswrafvis am kulturebis mimarT damokidebulebis gadasinjvisken, fardas xdis ,,musikis mimarT islamuri damokidebulebidan gamomdinare problemebs~ (Bohlman, 2002: 56). es monacemebi aseve misaRebia xmelTaSuazRvispireTSi bizantiuri kulturuli sferos dRevandeli gagebisTvis (Koço, 2006: 245-246) da axal SedarebiT midgomebze miuTiTeben. meore mxriv, faqtia, rom is musikaluri stili, romelsac es statia exeba, gvxvdeba Soreuli aRmosavleTis bevr musikalur tradiciaSi, ara marto uyamiSo fleitaze, aramed sxvadasxva saxis instrumentebSic; kavkasiaSi aseT melodiebs asruleben dudukze (somxebi, qarTvelebi), kavalize (lazebi), aWarpanze (afxazebi)5 da sxva, iseve, rogorc balkaneTSi – kavalize (albanelebi da Turqebi) da flogeraze (berZnebi da aromanielebi). 58 elena iovanoviCi aseve, Zalian sainteresoa, rom marTlmadidebel qristianebs Soris kavalis dakvram SesaZloa gamoiwvios kamaTi marTlmadidebeli qristianobis, sufizmisa da induizmis mistikur tradiciebs Soris arsebul ormxriv kavSirebze; maT praqtikaSi vpoulobT msgavs elementebsa da aRqmis erTnair tipebs. samive religiur sistemaSi RmerTTan erTianobis miRweva morwmeneTa umaRlesi mizania. miCneulia, rom es erTianoba miiRweva morwmunis ,,srulyofilebiT, romelic konkretuli regionis azrovnebis struqturisgan ganuyofelia, romlis realizeba SesaZlebelia adamianis Sinagan, sulier doneze~ (Keller, 1987: 11). ufro farTo gagebiT, uyamiSo fleitebis damkvrelTa gundis mier bgeris aRqma da maTze instrumentebis zemoqmedeba aSkarad ukavSirdeba Zalian Zvel, dasabamier impulsebs, romlebic qronologiurad win uswrebda sxvadasxva religiebis interpretaciebs. sxva mkvlevarebic aRniSnaven, rom amgvari instrumentebi ,,arqetipulia~ da, amdenad, SesaZloa, Seqmnas ,,transcendentuli ganzomileba~ (During, 1992: 278; Basten, 2003: 12). aucileblad unda aRiniSnos, rom belgradSi am praqtikis matareblebi dRemde inarCuneben originalur impulssa da motivacias, aRiareben ra aseTi midgomis did mniSvnelobas maTi piradi da religiuri identobis harmoniis miRwevaSi. maTTvis es harmonia dairRveva, Tu gadadgamen `nabijs~ tradiciulidan popularuli musikis Sesrulebisken (SeadareT: Bohlman, 2002: 21). im belgradeli musikosebis mosazrebebi, romlebic am tipis instrumentebs nawilobriv bizantiuri samgaloblo tradiciis saSualebiT gaecnen, amdidrebs codnas aseTi instrumentebis dakvris xasiaTze da saSualebas gvaZlevs vawarmooT SedarebiTi kvleva. SeniSvnebi 1 es naSromi Seiqmna serbeTis ganaTlebis, mecnierebisa da teqnologiuri ganviTarebis saministros mier dafinansebuli proeqtis ,,serbuli musikaluri identobebi adgilobriv da globalur CarCoebSi: tradiciebi, cvlilebebi, gamowvevebi~ (# 177004) Sedegad. avtori guliTad madlobas uxdis goran arsiCsa da dario maruSiCs naSromis momzadebaSi gaweuli konsultaciebisTvis. 2 rac Seexeba am sakravis saxelwodebas, belgradeli arabisti, batoni ivan kostiCi ambobs: ,,zmnis ‫[ لاق‬fuZe: sityva ‫[ ل و ق‬quil)] romelic niSnavs Tqmas, moyolas, Txrobas, momdinareobs sityvidan ‫( لاوق‬warmoiTqmis kaval) mamrobiTi sqesis mravlobiTi ricxvi ‫ نو‬niSnavs xalxur momRerals (an poets), deklamators~. didi madloba baton kostiCs am informaciisTvis; is gviCvenebs, rom instrument kavalis saxelis warmoSoba praqtikulad igivea, rac pakistanuri sufiuri musikaluri Janris saxelwodeba qavvali (www.sjsu.edu/people/shantanu.phukan/courses/157/s1/Ernst%20-%20Sufi%20Music%20and%20Dance%20.pdf gv. 186). 3 4 sufizmis ganStoeba. unda aRiniSnos, rom serbeTSi am praqtikis Semsruleblebi saubrobdnen kavalize dakvris gacocxlebuli kavali 1990-iani wlebis serbeTSi da kavali da nei axlo aRmosavleTis sufiur tradiciebSi:Mmusikisa da mniSvnelobis aspeqtebi 59 maTeul aRqmaze, sufiur praqtikaSi neis sruli arcodnis pirobebSi. magram serbeTSi ramdenime gamocema mieZRvna sufiuri doqtrinis gagebas; magaliTad, xazraT inaiaT xanis 2004 wels gamocemuli wignis Targmani (Inayat Khan, 2004). 5 sxvadasxva kavkasiur tradiciaSi Casaber sakravebze Sesasrulebel amgvar melodiebze informaciis mowodebisaTvis didi madlobas vuxdi qarTvel kolegebs, nino maxaraZesa da qeTevan baiaSvils. audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. qerubimi, sagalobeli, bizantiuri rvaxmis 1 kilo (fragmenti): qalTa gundi wm. ioane damaskeli. Cawerilia RvTismsaxurebis dros belgradis wm. aleqsandre nevelis taZarSi 1994 wlis 21 seqtembers. audiomagaliTi 2. predrag stoikoviCi da vladimir siviCi, ezgia ori kavalisTvis. Cawerilia ansambl iskonis koncertze. eTnografiuli muzeumi, belgradi (1998 wlis 5 dekemberi, Camweri zogan ierkoviCi). Targmna Tamar CxeiZem 60 JELENA JOVANOVIĆ (SERBIA) REKINDLED KAVAL IN SERBIA IN 1990s AND KAVAL AND NEY IN SUFI TRADITIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST: THE ASPECTS OF MUSIC AND MEANINGS 1 In this paper, the emphasis is placed on the parallel in the understanding and perception of playing of long ductless half-transverse flutes in Orthodox Christians and Sufis. The paper was based on observing and studying of living musical practice of the kaval in Belgrade, Serbia, in a specific context enabling specific perception of playing it. Speaking of Serbia, it is about the area of the central Balkans, where there is a plentitude of indigenous traditions which have been preserved till the present date and where different influences have been crossing over. Here also the cultural identities of the Mediterranean, of the East, and of the Central Europe have been negotiated over a long period of time. There is extensive ethnomusicological literature on the mutually related instruments kaval and ney. Both instruments belong to the group of long ductless flutes, widespread in the area of North Africa, south-west and central Asia as well as Asia Minor, and south-east Europe (Basten, 2003: 4). The ney or nay is encountered as two types of the instrument, Persian and Turkish, it occurs in the territory almost identical to the area of the Islamic culture, and is more specific for the urban settings (Basten, 2003: 4). By today, not only ney music, but Sufi music in general, due to its perception in terms of aesthetic value, found its place within the discourse of World Music and popular music genres (Bohlman, 2002: 56; Peterson, 2008). At the territory of the Balkans and in Turkey, the kaval 2 is primarily associated with rural, cattle-breeding music tradition. The broad geographic area of occurrence and plentitude of varieties of these instruments point to the assumption that their ancient origin lies in the old cultures rose on these territories (Basten, 2003: 3-6). On the other hand, the existing data on the kaval in the territory of former Yugoslavia does not provide a full answer to the issue of its occurrence in traditions of different ethnic groups in the country. Namely, it is well-known that it occurs in Macedonia and Serbia, that it is played by Macedonians and Albanians, but it is almost unknown that this instrument is also a part of Serb music tradition, in the territory of Kosovo. Research aimed at that direction has been initiated only as of recently, and this paper is one of its results (Zakić, 2012). This text was immediately caused by a phenomenon that the interest in playing the kaval in Belgrade was brought to light in the context of active work on restoration of Orthodox, Byzantine church art (Jovanović, 2012). It happened during the period of severe political, economic, and ethical crisis in the country, which, as in similar cases world-wide, initiated questioning of the identities embraced till that moment and the need to establish new ones (Todorova, 2006: 15, 128). The phenomenon this is about initiates discussions on establishment of new borders of identity; they surpass the state, national, or ethnic, even confessional borders, as this paper tends to show. The interpretations of the protagonists of this phenomenon, I obtained as a participant-observer (Cooley and Barz, 2008: 20), gaining personal experience in encountering members of the community, and through interviews and relying on Martin Clayton’s precepts on the importance of the mean- 61 ings of music as “perceived” by listeners themselves (Clayton, 2001: 5). Thus, it has been pointed to new aspects in the research of long ductless flute playing, because they open an interesting topic of its understanding in the context of Orthodox religion, especially if compared to playing instruments of the same kind, ney, in Sufis. In their narratives of their personal inclination to instruments of the kind, members of different religious groups state similar formulations of perception of their music, sound and ethos. This makes Macedonian kaval playing one of the most intriguing and most inspiring indicators of the connection between music cultures of the east and central Balkans and south-west Asia. Circumstances Causing Kaval Rekindling in Serbia The factors influencing the bringing to life of kaval playing in Serbia are as follows: restoration of Byzantine church art, especially chanting; search for personal, national, religious, and cultural identity of a group of individuals, highly educated artists; and availability of recordings of Macedonian kaval players. The initiative to make the kaval topical was born among the members of Belgrade congregation of artists and chanters “St John of Damascus”, whose leading idea was to restore Orthodox Byzantine art: icon painting, fresco painting, and church chanting. Since 1993, there are two choirs within the congregation; the male and female chanters, who learned to chant after the Byzantine model, after the contemporary neumatic notation, taking active part in chanting during church services (audio ex. 1). Besides affiliation to Serbian Orthodox Church, the identity of promoters of Byzantine chanting also implied affiliation to a broader transnational community of Orthodox peoples through the ecumenical identity (Jovanović, 2012). The kaval was brought to life in Belgrade thanks to “interactions of specific individuals” (Stock, 2001: 5) who, same as the other citizens of the country, had been undergoing the difficult time of crisis, and, seeking for the way to express their own identity and creativity, had to make decisions in terms of both personal and music choice. The fresco-painters and members of the choir listened to the audio recordings of the best kaval players from Macedonia and in 1994 started building the kaval themselves and playing it. In this, as well as in their repertoire, they enthusiastically followed their Macedonian models, as knowledge on the kaval in Serb tradition was unavailable to them at the time. Their favourite melodies were improvisations in free rhythm – еzgije, where the sound and nature of the kaval could be fully exercised (audio ex. 2). The awareness on the religious, cultural, ethnic and regional closeness of the peoples of Serbia and Macedonia, along with Byzantine chanting, was of crucial importance, to confirm affiliation to common religion and unique cultural surroundings. Kaval playing in Belgrade of the time I observe, as musicologist Biljana Milanović wrote, as “the medium not only reflecting and encoding meanings related to identities, but also participating in the creation thereof” (Milanović, 2007: 125). The Belgrade kaval players in the 1990s performed only privately and on occasions which could be called public; in the close vicinity of some Belgrade churches, after services in which the choir would perform. Besides church and folk singing, this spontaneous playing had the role of an important emotional and cohesive element among the members of the group, where their personal identities interacted. We can say that the sound of the kaval in this context represented a point of emotional encounter, opening the sphere of contemplation in the situation after the religious service as a specific extension of the liturgical experience of the community. This collective emotional experience consisting of a multitude of individual experiences might be compared to the experience of group listening of rāg play, in which the listeners can be observed as 62 Jelena Jovanovich “bounded entities” (Clayton, 2001: 3, 6). The aim was to reach internal tranquility in the conditions of close war destruction and general crisis and it was of exceptional importance for the members of the community. Musical-Textural and Structural Elements Linking Byzantine Chanting and Macedonian Kaval Playing As a rule, ney playing in Sufi tradition is monodic; if several players are involved, they play either in unison or in heterophony (Baines, 1991: 234). On the other hand, Macedonian kaval playing and Byzantine chanting are similar in several important aspects. Interestingly, it was the members of the choir who were attracted to the Macedonian kaval and who became permanently attached to it just because of the structural elements of Macedonian music which indicate to a large level of similarity with Byzantine chanting. These are as follows: Texture: Both in Byzantine chant and in Macedonian kaval tradition, the texture is two-part, with the main melody and the drone. Though the drone / ison / isokratima is widely present in autochthonous folklore traditions of the Balkans, and of South Slavs as well (Traerup, 1981; Vukičević-Zakić, 1994/1995), it could be said it is not a part of common Slavic heritage (Pashina, 2009) and its presence in Macedonian kaval play and in Byzantine chant should rather be brought into connection with Eastern music traditions. Here according to Rudolf Brandl, it is understood as the constructional, arrhythmic, changeable bourdon (Brandl, 1976: 10). In Byzantine chanting it was interpreted by Orthodox theologians as the “mystic depth of inexpressibility” (Lazić, 1984: 240); beside this description, we shall also mention the view of theoreticians in Indian tradition: it has been described as the “timeless absolute” (Brandl, 1976: 2), or a device which, from the starting point of tuning before the play, has been “thoroughly fixed in the listener’s mind”, who senses that “the melody is already present in the drone” (Clayton, 2000: 1-2). Non-tempered intervals: By changing the intensity of air emission, the kaval may generate tones of different pitches with the same finger position. This provides a wide range of non-tempered intervals, specific to Byzantine chanting, but also scales in traditions of Balkan and numerous eastern ethnicities. Scales: The practice of Belgrade players, which implies experience in terms of listening, chanting and playing, confirmed that the scales Macedonian ezgijas were founded on are fully compatible to the modal system of standardized scales of the Byzantine chanting tradition: diatonic, chromatic, and enharmonic. Melody and form: The composing principle based on melodic and scale principles bearing a certain ethos, occurs at the territory ranging from the Balkans to India. This is the so-called “maqamprinciple” (Szabolsci, 1959), principle of form building, inseparable from melody formulas and scale systems (Powers, Widdes, 2001: 830). In Byzantine tradition, the pattern / mode is called echos (ήχος), in the Middle East it is called maqam/meqam, in India it is called raga. Though we still do not have the proof for it in the concrete results of any comparative analysis, there are grounds for the assumption, that the principle of modal scales with more or less variable tones is present both in Byzantine chanting and in playing of the Macedonian kaval ezgijas. Here are also obvious similarities between the principles of melody construction in Macedonian ezgija and in Indian rag: melodic development relies on the main tones in the scale, including the principal tone, the fourth and the fifth Rekindled Kaval in Serbia in 1990s and Kaval and Ney in Sufi Traditions in the Middle East: The Aspects of Music and Meanings 63 (Clayton, 2000: 25), which is in ezgija often supported by changing of the drone. It is well-known that, apart from the two-part bourdon structure, all the aforementioned elements also occur in the music produced using the ney in the practices of Sufis in the Middle East. Meanings Liturgical music of the Orthodox and Moslems originates from ancient times and its sources may be found in the cosmological teachings of the old East, which were important for development of several cultures of the Orient, including the eastern Orthodox singing (Petrović, 1982: 3-5). Certain papers point to six millennia of history of culture in the Middle East, crossroads of various influences through history and mutual contacts of the cultures of Greece, Iran, Caucasus, India, even North Africa and the Balkans, with foundations in cultures of old civilizations (Czekanowska, 1981: 159-161, 214-5, 218, 415). The teachings of Islamic philosophers and Orthodox theologians are in agreement that music is a powerful means of expression and the confession itself. In Islam, “the selection of melody, lyrics, and instruments to suit the needs and the occasion was a matter of serious studying, depending on whether the occasion related to joy, sadness, illness, etc.” (Hamidullah, 1982: 200; Reinhard, 1969: 64-67, 71-2). On the other hand, the Orthodox are strictly of the opinion that the Holy tradition also reflects through church art, i.e. the icon and singing, which is why certain structural and tonal properties of Orthodox singing must reflect a higher meaning, a message from the holy fathers. The Octoechos modes understands ancient Ethos-doctrine (Petrović, 2004: 211) which is of great importance for individual efforts of the believers for directing in self-improvement. Although neither official Christian nor Moslem tradition allow for use of instruments in liturgical service, in the cases of ney and kaval, there are reasons for studying of these instruments in the context of religious life of their players. The topic of the importance of ney playing in Suphis is relatively familiar in ethnomusicology. Philosophers and artists of Mevlevi3 order provide detailed interpretations of the connection between spiritual life and personal development with sound, i.e. the art of music, which, among other things, includes playing the pipe (Ševalije, 1981: 187, 188). Persian philosopher, theologian, lawyer, mystic and poet Mewlana Jalaluddin Rumi depicts in his poetry the basic meanings ascribed to the ney in Sufi tradition: sadness due to separation from the source (“non-changeable essence”) (Basten, 2003: 6), aspiration to purification for the purpose of fulfillment with the Spirit of God and joy due to the hope that the strength of one`s search will result in becoming one with the Creator (Rumi, 2007: 86). I am speaking about the meaning of kaval playing in Serbia in the context of religious understanding and perceptions solely based on direct experiences of the small number of champions of the rekindling of the instrument and their narratives. They are also devoted to religious art and are its proficient connoisseurs, icon painters and fresco painters. Here I will provide a review of their understanding and perceptions, expressed in their narratives, so that they can be compared to the Sufi ones, as testimonies on the place of the instrument of this type in the life of the religious of the two confessions. For the protagonists of rekindling of kaval-playing in Serbia, Orthodox Christians, liturgical chanting, icon painting, fresco painting and kaval playing are all the manners to express the fullness of creation, gratitude, and attempt to reflect the image of God4. They partially agree with the Sufis in terms of perception of its sound: they describe it as “invoking” (Serb.: “призивни”), “congregational, 64 Jelena Jovanovich conciliar, calming, and relaxing” (“саборан, сабиран, смирујући и опуштајући”); it brings one to the state similar to the one “when attending liturgy” (“битисања на литургији”), it constitutes “certain praying atmosphere in any manner” (“део неке молитвене атмосфере на било који начин”; underlined by J. J.). For them, kaval playing provides an “image of the Heaven” (“преслику Раја”) and enables the “encounter of the beings in love in Christ” (“сусрет бића и љубави у Христу”). Playing the kaval claims for “purification from passions / negative emotions” (“очишћеност од страсти / негативних осећања”). In Serbia, kaval is sometimes denoted as the instrument which has the ability to speak, which has a direct parallel in the perception of the ney among Sufis, but also with the perception of the sound of ductless flutes in ancient peoples. Individual Orthodox Serbs interpret this saying that “when this instrument starts speaking, it says “Thanks to Thee, O Lord” and “Praise be unto Thee, O Lord” (“тај инструмент, кад проговори, каже “Хвала Ти, Боже” и “Хвалим Те, Боже”). One more intriguing question arises from some of the narratives of Belgrade kaval players. Among the players who are, at the same time, icon-painters and fresco-painters, a position occurs that kaval playing must not be deliberate, haphazard, but subjected to rules, same as the icon; that kaval playing should not be illustrative, but rather iconic, so that it could “contain in itself” (“садржи у себи”) a thought or an idea. This is why means of expression should be “simple so that it is possible to express something inexpressible yet of essential importance” (“једноставна да би се постигло нешто што је неизрециво, а суштинско”). This opens up a large topic of the semiotic of kaval playing, as (following Uspenski`s writings) a sign with independent, autonomous meaning, as well as a text – set of signs (Uspenski, 1979: 252-253). This reaches into the so far non-researched area of decoding the specific language of music practices in the playing of Orthodox Christians and Sufis. Specific place in this subject provides the phenomenon of drone and its significance as a textural element that provides specific features to the musical structure. Conclusion Important feature of kaval ethos in the context described obviously is complementary to the characteristic of Mevlevi music. It might be said that the role of kaval sound in these circumstances provided a role of communion, rather than communication within the group of players and listeners – just as described by During for the effect of ney playing among Mevlevi (www.crem-cnrs.fr/membres/j_during_1992_what_is_sufi_music.pdf P. 278). The other important features of both Macedonian ezgijas on kaval and Mevlevi melodies on ney have also been detected, according to During`s observations; these characteristics are: slow tempo, complex, long and varied rhythms, closed repertoire, traditional instruments, mental pray (by the participants), discretion, moderated expression, calm, meditation and (above already mentioned) communion (www.crem-cnrs.fr/membres/j_during_1992_what_is_sufi_ music.pdf P. 279). Furthermore, the listeners’ experience in musical event of kaval play in Orthodox Christian context – the phenomenon of mutual recognizing in common direct emotional and spiritual experience – might be regarded as close to one during Mevlevi sema / sama‘, which also has been characterized as meditation itself (Vlaeva, 2006: 421; Qureshi, 2006: 1). This could be further compared with the perception described in the context of Indian music: the music’s value considered as the state, achieved through better performances, and thus the listeners “being absorbed in an ongoing state of rāg-ness – one which tends towards timeless” (Clayton, 2000: 26). Rekindled Kaval in Serbia in 1990s and Kaval and Ney in Sufi Traditions in the Middle East: The Aspects of Music and Meanings 65 Rekindling of the kaval in Serbia is important as a confirmation of Ihor Maciewsky’s thesis on importance of traditional music forms as a way of struggle for existence under restrained living conditions (Maciewsky, 2007). Also, in Serbia, thanks to the inclination towards the kaval and Byzantine chanting, elements of non-Christian music cultures, as parts of broadly perceived “eastern” music, were also perceived as “own”, in the attempt to reach fullness of own identity in a broader cultural area. Interestingly, here Macedonia once again played the role of an intermediary in the transfer of cultural trends in the Balkans (Valchinova-Chendlova, 2000: 76). The given data about the perception of the kaval play in Serbia are, as far as it is known, the only ones noted among the Orthodox Christians so far, connecting the wind instrument sound and meanings with the ethos of the Orthodox doctrines and arts. They introduce a new insight in East Mediterranean musical culture(s) in general, striving for the revision of the attitude that this cultural basin generally opens the “questions arising from Islamic attitudes towards music” (Bohlman, 2002: 56). These data are also welcome for the reflections about nowadays recognizable Byzantine cultural sphere in the Mediterranean (Koço, 2006: 245-6) and they indicate to the possibilities of new comparative approaches. On the other hand, the fact is that the musical style this text is about is found in many musical traditions of Middle East, not only on ductless flutes, but also on instruments of different kinds; only among Caucasian peoples, there are melodies of this kind played on duduk (Armenians, Georgians), kavali (Lazetians), acharpan (Abkhazians)5 and other, as well as in the Balkans – kaval (Albanians and Turks) and floghera (Greeks and Aromanians). It is also extremely interesting that the described reception of kaval play among Orthodox Christians could provoke a discussion about the mutual relationships between mystic experiences in Orthodox Christianity, Sufism and Hindu religion, in whose musical practices we find similar elements and similar types of perception. In all three religious systems, achieving the unity with God has been considered to be the highest goal of the faithful. This unity is supposed to be realized in his/her own “coming to perfection, which is inseparably tied to the thoughtful structure as a characteristic for certain religion, which can be realized on the level of inner, spiritual dimension of the human being” (Keller, 1987: 11). On a broader level, the perception of sound and impact of instruments in the group of long ductless flutes have on players and listeners alike, should apparently be connected to very old, primordial impulses which must have chronologically preceded interpretations within individual religions which followed. Other researchers have also noted that this kind of instruments are “archetypal” and thus might evoke a “transcendental dimension” (During, 1992: 278; Basten, 2003: 12). It is important to note that the bearers of this practice in Belgrade kept faithful to original impulse and motivation up to nowadays, realizing the importance of such approach for achieving harmony between their personal and religious identities. For them, this harmony would be permanently disturbed if they would make an additional “step” in their way of playing from traditional towards popular music (compare: Bohlman, 2002: 21). Statements of Belgrade players who became familiar with instruments of the type partly thanks to the patterns within the system of Byzantine chanting tradition vastly enrich the knowledge on the ethos of such instruments play and provide the opportunity for further comparative research. 66 Jelena Jovanovich Notes 1 This paper is the result of the work on the project Serbian musical identities within local and global frameworks: traditions, changes, challenges (no. 177004), financed by Serbian Ministry of education, science and technological development. The author expresses cordial gratitude to Goran Arsić and Dario Marušić for the consultations in the course of preparations of this paper. 2 About the name of this instrument, Mr. Ivan Kostić, Arabist from Belgrade, said: “From the verb ‫( لاق‬root: word ‫[ ل و ق‬qw`l]) which means to say, to tell, to narrate comes from the word ‫( لاوق‬pronounced literally kaval!) with regular male plural ‫نو‬, which means folk singer (or poet), reciter”. Many thanks to Mr. Kostić for this information; it shows that the origin of the name for the instrument kaval is practically the same as of the name of Pakistan Sufi musical genre qawwali (www.sjsu.edu/people/shantanu.phukan/courses/157/s1/Ernst%20-%20Sufi%20 Music%20and%20Dance%20.pdf P. 186). 3 The Mevlevi Order is a traditional Islamic Sufi Way. 4 It is important to emphasize that the protagonists of this practice in Serbia stated their perception of kaval play- ing fully ignorant of the meanings ascribed to the ney in Sufi practices. Nevertheless, there are few editions in Serbia that contribute to understanding Sufi doctrines; for example, translation of Khazrat Inayat Khan`s book published in 2004 (Inayat Khan, 2004). 5 For the information about wind instruments connected to melodies of this kind in different Caucasus traditions I cordially thank to my Georgian colleagues Nino Makharadze and Ketevan Baiashvili. References Baines, Anthony. (1991). Woodwind Instruments and Their History. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Basten, Andrea Elena. (2003). “Оtvoreno cilindrično telo kao aerofoni instrument iz roda labijalnih svirala” (“Open Cylindrical Body as the Wind Instrument from the Group of Labial Pipes”), student essay. Belgrade: Faculty of Music, Department for Ethnomusicology. (handwriting, in Serbian) Bohlman, Philip. (2002). World Music. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Brandl, Rudolf. (1976). Über das phänomen Bordun: Versuch einr Beschreibung von Funktion und Systematik, Studien zur Musik Südosteuropas (Beiträge zur Ethnomusikologie 4). P. 90-123. Hamburg (translation in Serbian / Croatian for internal use at the Music Academy in Sarajevo). Burckhardt Qureshi, Regula. (2006). Sufi Music of India and Pakistan. Sound, Context, and Meaning in Qawwali. Oxford University Press. Rekindled Kaval in Serbia in 1990s and Kaval and Ney in Sufi Traditions in the Middle East: The Aspects of Music and Meanings 67 Clayton, Martin. (2000). Time in Indian Music. Rhythm, Metre, and Form in North Indian Rāg Performance. Oxford University Press. Clayton, Martin. (2001). “Introduction: Towards a Theory of Musical Meaning (in India and Elsewhere)”. In: British Journal of Ethnomusicology, 10 (1):1-17. Cooley, Timothy J., Barz, Gregory. (2008). “Casting Shadows: Fieldwork Is Dead! Long Live Fieldwork! Introduction”. In: Shadows In The Field, New Perspectives For Fieldwork In Ethnomusicology. Oxford University Press. Czekanowska, Anna. (1981). Kultury muzyczne Azji (Music Cultures of Asia). Warszawa – Krakow: Instytut muzykologii Universytetu Warszawskiego, Polskie izdawnictwo muzyczne. (in Polish) During, Jean. (1992). “What is Sufi Music?”. In: The Legacy of Medieval Persian Sufism. P. 277-287. London www.crem-cnrs.fr/membres/j_during_1992_what_is_sufi_music.pdf Gojković, Andrijana. (1994). Muzički instrumenti. Mitovi i legende, simbolika i funkcija (Musical Instruments. Myths and Legends, Symbolic and Functions). Belgrade. (in Serbian) Hamidullah, Muhammed. (1982). Uvod u islam (Introduction into Islam). Sarajevo. (in Serbo-Croatian) Hercman, Jevgenij. (2004). Vizantijska nauka o muzici (Byzantine Science on Music). Belgrade: Clio. (Serbian translation) Inayat Khan, Hazrat. (2004). Tajna zvuka i sklad života (Secret of Sound and Harmony of Life). Belgrade – Vranje: Pešić i sinovi, Ved. (Serbian translation) Jovanović, Jelena. (2012) “Identities Expressed Through Practice of Kaval Playing and Building in Serbia in 1990s”. In: Musical Practices in the Balkans: Ethnomusicological Perspectives. Academic Conferences, Volume CXLII, Department of Fine Arts and Music, Book 8, P. 183–202. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute of Musicology SASA. Keller, Carl A., [1978] (1987). “Mistička književnost” (“Mystic Literature”). In: Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, Katz Steven T. (ed.), Kulture Istoka, IV (13), 4-11. London. Koço, Eno. (2006). “Reflexions of Albanian Urban Lyric Song”. In: Urban music in the Balkans: drop-out ethnic identities or a historical case of tolerance and global thinking. P. 238-259. Tirana: Documentation and Communication Center for Regional Music, ASMUS. Lazić, Milorad. (1984). “Etos vizantijskog crkvenog pojanja” (“Ethos of Byzantine Church Chant”). In: Teološki pogledi 3-4:237-243. (in Serbian) 68 Jelena Jovanovich Maciewsky, Ihor. (2007). “Instrumental’naja muzyka i etnoistoricheskaja identifikacyja: samosoznanie i tradicija” (“Instrumental music and ethno-historical identification: self-knowledge and tradition”). In: Musicology, 7: 157184. (in Russian) Milanović, Biljana. (2007). “Kolektivni identiteti i muzika” (“Collective Identities and Music”). In: Musicology, 7: 119-134. (in Serbian) Pashina, Olga. (2009). “Diaphony with bourdon in music folklore of the Eastern Slavs in comparison with the Southern Slavs”. In: Macedonian Folklore XXXV (67). Skopje: Institute of Folklore “Marko Cepenkov”. Peterson, Jennifer. (2008). Sampling Folklore: the‘re-popularization’ of Sufi inshad in Egyptian dance music. Arab Media & Society, The American University of Cairo, Center for Electronic Journalism; The Middle East Centre, St. Anthony’s College, University of Oxford. Petrović, Danica. (1982). “Osmoglasnik u muzičkoj tradiciji Južnih Slovena” (“Ochtoechos in the Musical Tradition of Southern Slavs”). In: Special editions, vol. 16/1. Belgrade: Institute of Musicology SASA. (In Serbian) Petrović, Danica. (2004). “The Selection of Tones in the Services for the Twelve Great Feasts”. In: Eastern Christian Studies, 4: Paleobyzantine Notations III. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters Reinhard, Kurt et Ursula. (1969). Turquie, Les Traditions Musicales IV. Berlin: Institut international d’études comparatives de la musique, Buchet/Chastel. Rumi, Mevlana Jallaluddin. (2007). Jedino Sve (pesme) (The Only All (poetry)). Belgrade: Lek San Dar. (in Serbian) Stock, Jonathan P. J. (2001). “Toward an Ethnomusicology of the Individual, or Biographical Writing in Ethnomusicology”, In: The World of Music 43 (1): 5-19. Szabolcsi, Bence. (1959). Bausteine zu einer Geschichte der Melodie. Budapest: Corvina. Ševalije, Žan. (1981). “Muzika i igra u sufizmu” (“Music and Dance in Sufism”). In: Sufizam. Belgrade: Biblioteka Zodijak. (Serbian translation) Traerup, Birthe. (1981). Mazedonische Bordungesänge. Der Bordun in der europäischen Volksmusik, Bericht über das 2. Seminar für europäische Musikethnologie, St. Pölten 1973. Wien: Verlag A. Schnedl. Todorova, Marija [1997] (2006). Imaginarni Balkan (Imagining the Balkans). Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek. (Serbian translation) Uspenski, B. A. (1979). Poetika kompozicije. Semiotika ikone (Poetics of the Composition. Semiotics of Icon). Rekindled Kaval in Serbia in 1990s and Kaval and Ney in Sufi Traditions in the Middle East: The Aspects of Music and Meanings 69 Beograd: Nolit. (Serbian translation) Valchinova-Chendlova, Elisaveta. (2000). Gradskata tradicionna instrumentalna praktika i orkestrovata kultura v Balgariya (sredata na XIX – kraya na XX vek) (Urban Instrumental Practice and Orchestral Culture in Bulgaria (middle 19th – fall of 20th centuries). Sofiya: Reklamno-izdatelska k’shta “Poni”. (in Bulgarian) Vlaeva, Ivanka. (2006). “The Music of Mevlevi – Contemporary Life of the Tradition”. In: Urban Music in the Balkans: Drop-Out Ethnic Identities or a Historical Case of Tolerance and Global Thinking. P. 419-430. Tirana: Documentation and Communication Center for Regional Music, ASMUS. Vukičević-Zakić, Mirjana. (1994/1995). “Bourdon in the Music Tradition of Zaplanje”. In: New Sound 4–5:11– 26. Zakić, Mirjana. (2012). “Intercultural Communication and Multicultural Context: the Place of Kaval in the Musical Practice of Serbia”. In: Paper presented at the Conference of ICTM Study Group for South-East Europe, Berovo, april 2012 (In print). Audio Examples Audio example 1. Female choir “St. John of Damascus”, Cherub Hymn (fragment), First mode of Byzantine octoechos. Recording from the liturgy in church St. Alexander Nevskii, Belgrade (21 September 1994). Audio example 2. Predrag Stojković and Vladimir Simić, Ezgija on two kavals. Recorded on the concert of the ensemble Iskon, Ethnographic Museum, Belgrade (5 December 1998, rec. by Zoran Jerković). 70 nailia almeeva (ruseTi) vertikalis formireba volga-kamis regionis monaTesave xalxebis (qristiani TaTrebi, marielebi, CuvaSebi) koleqtiuri simReris faqturaSi Cemi moxseneba miznad isaxavs, gagacnoT volga-kamis eTnikuri regionis sa­simRero masala msoflios mravalferovani polifoniuri simReris ko­nteq­s­­tSi. zogierTi Tvalsazrisi ukve gamovxate mTel rig, maT Soris, saqar­ Tve­ lo­ Si dabeWdil moxsenebebSi. moxsenebis Tema warmod­ ge­ nilia, rogorc problemis dasmis mcdeloba, radgan am kuTxiT volgis re­ gi­ onis polifoniuri simRera arasodes Seswavlila. volga-kamis regioni mdebareobs ruseTis evropuli nawilis centrSi ori didi mdinaris _ volgisa da kamis auzSi. is aseve cnobilia, rogorc `vol­ gisa da imieruralis regioni~, vinaidan aRmosavleTiT mas uralis mTebi ekvris (sur. 1). rogorc finelebis, ugorelebis, Turqebis da indo-iranuli da indo-ev­ ro­ peli xalxebis xangrZlivi istoriul-kulturuli urTierTobis zona, es aris ruseTis erT-erTi yvelaze ufro mravaleTnikuri regioni. detalebSi CaRrmavebis gareSe unda aRiniSnos, rom volga-kamis regionis Tanamedrove fino-ugorelebisa da Turqebis Camoyalibeba moxda rTul mravaleTnikur bazaze. kulturul-ekonomikuri tipebi, romlebmac ganapirobes volgis regionisa da imier-uralis fino-ugoruli da Turquli mosaxleobis Camoya­li­beba, warmoadgens miwaTmoqmedebisa da mesaqonleobis simbiozs, sadac do­ mi­ nirebs miwaTmoqmedeba; am faqtma, udavod, didi gavlena moaxdina aqauri sa­ si­ m­ Rero kulturebis Janrul sistemebze. volga-kamis regionis savizito baraTs tra­ diciuli simReris ori tipi warmoadgens: koleqtiuri simRera (mo­ rd ­o­ ve­ l­ e­ bi, marielebi, CuvaSebi, udmurtebi, monaTluli TaTrebi) da solo mo­ no­ di­ ur ­i simRera (muslimi TaTrebi da baSkirebi). am regionebisTvis (mordovelebi, marielebi, CuvaSebi, monaTluli TaT­ re­ bi/kriaSenebi) tipuria koleqtiuri simRera, zogierTi sxva adgilobrivi tra­ di­ ciisTvis (muslimi TaTrebi da baSkirebi) damaxasiaTebelia solo mono­ di­ uri simRera. naSromis saTaurSi naxseneb xalxebs aerTianebs, pirvel rigSi, sami­ wa­ T­ mo­ q­ medo Temi da meore rigSi _ msgavsi eTnogenezi. miuxedavad imisa, rom Cven va­ da­ rebT sxvadasxva enobrivi jgufis xalxebis (monaTluli TaTrebi da Cu­ va­ Se­ bi miekuTvnebian Turqul jgufs, xolo marielebi fino-ugorelebi arian) ku­ l­ turebs, maT Soris msgavseba aixsneba ara marto maTi kulturul-eko­no­mi­ku­ri tipebis istoriuli naTesaobiT, aramed maTi genetikuri kuTvnilebiTac. me­ sa­ me, am xalxebs aseve aerTianebs maTi me-18 saukuneSi monaTvlis faqti. amiT me xazs vusvam imas, rom volgis regionis musulmanuri sasimRero tradicia mox­ senebaSi ganxiluli ar aris. naSromi eZRvneba wliur ciklsa da adamianis cxovrebis ciklTan daka­ v­ Si­ rebul tradiciul simRerebs. es aris volgis regionis gaqrobis piras mis­u­li zepiri musi- 71 kaluri tradicia, romelic warmoadgens ara mxolod gar­ kve­ ul musikalur stils, aramed cnobierebis tradiciul rituals. sabednierod, 1960-90-ian wlebSi moxda regionuli musikaluri kulturis gaqrobis pi­­ ras myofi am Sris Cawera. qristiani TaTrebis koleqtiuri simRera, garkveuli moculobiT, Se­ s­ wa­ v­ li­ li da gamoqveynebulia (aq, upiratesad, vgulisxmob Cems naSromebs, Almeeva, 1986, 1998: 195-219, 2007: 316, 2008: 79-93). es aris marielebis koleqtiuri simReris ra­m­­denime gaSifruli nimuSi (Muro, 1951); mas umetesad ikvlevdnen o. gera­ si­ mo­ vi (Gerasimov, 1986: 17-18) da m. mamaeva (Mamaeva, 2004: 21-30). ramdenadac vici, arc Cu­ va­ Sebis koleqtiuri simRera aris aRwerili. Cemi eqspediciebis dros Cav­ we­ re CuvaSebisa da marielebis simRera1. volga-kamis regionis polifoniuri simReris mimarT Cemi interesi Tav­da­pirvelad Semoifargleboda `kriaSen~ (marTlmadidebeli) TaTrebis sim­Re­riT (samecniero ���������������� literaturasa da yoveldRiurobaSi aseve cnobili arian, ro­ gorc monaTluli TaTrebi). swored es kultura aris Cemi yuradRebis sa­ ga­ ni da SedarebiTi analizis amosavali winamdebare naSromSi. maTi simReris melodika efuZneba intonaciur formulebs. koleqtiuri sim­ Rera aris is forma, romelSic es kultura arsebobs. igives Tqma SeiZleba me­ zobel xalxebze – CuvaSebze, marielebze, udmurtebsa da mordovelebze. qristiani TaTrebis koleqtiuri simReris kvlevis dros, me movaxdine stru­ qturis vertikaluri warmoqmnis ori tipis identifikacia. pirveli tipi gvi­Cvenebs fiqsaciis realur vertikalur struqturas teqstis yovel ma­ r­ c­ va­ lz ­e (fiqsirebuli vertikaluri struqtura). aq me vgulisxmob kvintebiTa da ter­ciebiT2 Sedgenil qsovilsa da Semdgom sasimRero tips paraleluri ter­ ci­ ebiT. meore tipis dafiqsireba SeuZlebelia, is virtualurad arsebobs. ver­ ti­ kaluri struqturis es tipi Cndeba maSin, rodesac teqstis erT marcvalze er­ Tze meti bgera modis (SesaZloa iyos oridan xuT bgeramde). marcvlis gaJ­ Re­ rebis dros sapirispiro mimarTulebiT moZravi xmebi qmnian yuriT aRqmul in­ to­ naciur garemos potenciuri vertikaluri struqturis warmoqmnisTvis (es aris arafiqsirebuli vertikaluri struqtura). es, Cveulebriv, xdeba uwyvet ma­r­cvlebze, romlebSic marcvlis gamRerebis dros arsebobs intonaciuri mo­ Zr ­ aobis SesaZlebloba. qsovilis am tips me xazovan jgufur polifonias vu­wo­deb (Almeeva, 1986, 1998: 195-219, 2007: 316, 2008: 79-93). Tu pirvel tipTan yvelaferi naTelia (fiqsirebuli vertikaluri stru­ q­ tu­ ra), meore tipi ufro detalurad unda aRvweroT. meore tipis qsovili Tavisi funqciurad aqtiuri akorduli struqturiT, xme­bis dadgenili funqciiT da sxv., mkacrad organizebuli polifoniuri Sem­ T­ x­ vevisgan gansxvavebiT, smeniT, SesaZloa, `araoraganizebuli~ da `SemTxveviTi~ mog­­ veCvenos. struqturis SigniT mimdinare procesebi adamianis yuriT ver aRi­ q­ meba, magram naTlad Cans notirebul masalaSi (audiomag. 1, mag. 1). aseTi simRera hetrofoniis niSnebs atarebs. melodiis formirebis pro­ ce­ s­ Si xmebi Tanabrad mniSvnelovania. isini iyeneben saerTo intonaciur vels3 da mTlianad moicaven mas. amgvarad, ar arsebobs araviTari dayofa registre­­ bad (`mravaldoniani struqtura~); yvela momRerali mReris erTsa da imave si­ maRlis bgeraze4. 72 nailia almeeva teqsti yvela momRerlis mier TiTqmis sinqronulad sruldeba (gan­s­xv­a­ve­biT sxva xalxebis simRerebisagan, sadac, SesaZloa, iyos mTavari da damxmare xma, an TviTon teqsti an misi Sesrulebis manera sxvadasxva xmaSi gansxva­vebu­li iyos). mniSvneloba ara aqvs, Tu rogori intensivobiT xdeba musikaluri qso­vilis gaxleCa, forma kadansuri unisonebiTaa organizebuli5 (Sua da fi­na­luri unisoni). yvelaferi iwyeba erTi wertilidan – pirveli, ZiriTadi no­ ti­ dan – da masTanve brundeba. amgvarad, yvela xmis `xazovnebis~ STabeWdileba miR­ weulia. vinmes SesaZloa egonos, rom heterofonia miznad ar isaxavs vertikaluri kon­ sonansebis agebas da rom is gamiznulad `horizontaluria~. am faqtis miu­ xe­ davad, masSi warmoiqmneba klasteri, romelic sinamdvileSi aris arafiq­si­re­buli vertikaluri struqtura (virtualuri struqtura). aseTi ver­ti­ka­lu­ri struqtura iqmneba ara marto horizontaluri xazebis kombinaciiT, aramed Si­ da mJReri marcvlis Sinagani intonaciur-ritmuli fragmentaciiT. qris­ti­a­ni TaTrebis simRerebSi is qmnis heterofoniuri qsovilis `sxeuls~ da aris ver­tikaluri struqturis warmoqmnis mediumi. hangebis moZraoba makrodoneze xmebis ritmuli erTianobiT miiRweva; yve­ la xma miiswrafis, warmoqmnas hangis gamaerTianebeli ritmuli kom­po­zi­ci­is erTeuli _ muxlis/strofis ritmuli kliSe6 (sur. 2). xazovan-klasteruli hete­ rofonia iqmneba ritmikiT dabal doneze, anu TiToeuli xmis ritmiT mi­­ k­ ro­ doneze _ ritmuli fragmentaciiT marcvlis SigniT. vinaidan hangebis intonaciuri veli xasiaTdeba anhemitonuri kilouri sa­ fu­ ZvliT (unaxevartono oTx- da xuT-safexuriani bgeraTrigi, mag. 2), war­ mo­ iq­­ mneba utercio klasterebi. simReris marcvalSi aseTi klasteris JRe­ ra­ do­ ba aris `vertikaluri gadakveTis~ mTavari RerZi, romelic am fragments gar­ k­ ve­ ul kilour Seferilobas aZlevs. miuxedavad imisa, rom heterofoniis ganmarteba garkveul SemTxveviTobas gu­lis­ xmobs, Cveni masala gviCvenebs maTi mdebareobis stabilurobas, rasac te­ q­ stis mniSvnelovani nawilis notireba gvidasturebs. xmebis regularulad gan­meorebadi kombinaciebi qmnis klasterebs, rac maT koordinirebaze met­y­ve­lebs. qristiani TaTrebis heterofonia aris faqturis Seqmnis natifi xerxi. am stilis warmosaqmnelad eTnoforebi unda flobdnen tradiciul musika­lur azrovnebaze dafuZnebul tipur instinqtur saSemsruleblo qcevas. es uka­ na­ sk­ neli piroba amJamad Zalian rTulia gansaxorcieleblad, vinaidan qri­ s­ tiani TaTrebis tradiciuli saritualo cxovreba, maT Soris, adreuli Sris ka­le­­ndaruli saferxuli cekvebi da qorwili tradiciuli hangebis ko­ le­ q­ tiuri SesrulebiT, praqtikulad ukve gamqralia. amis gamo, misi matareblebis ga­ r­ dacvalebasTan erTad, es musikaluri tradicia TandaTan qreba. erTi da ima­ ve eTnosis warmomadgenlebi (tradiciuli Semsruleblebis Svilebi da Svi­li­Svilebi) Sewyvetili, droSi SezRuduli sasimRero praqtikis pirobebSi, ro­ gorc musikaluri azrovnebis sxva tipis matareblebi, TiTqmis ver axer­xe­ben kilouri da ritmuli wesebiT warmoqmnili bgeriTi nakadis cocxali, spo­n­ tanuri dinamikis aRdgenas (rogorc es eqspediciebis dros gamoCnda). hete­ro­fo­niuli smena da azrovneba aris tradiciuli sasimRero kulturis dama­ xa­ si­ a­ Te­ beli Tvise- vertikalis formireba volga-kamis regionis monaTesave xalxebis (qristiani TaTrebi, marielebi, CuvaSebi) koleqtiuri simReris faqturaSi 73 bebi, romlebic, SesaZloa, advilad daikargos cocxali, uwyveti sa­ Sem­ sruleblo tradiciis gareSe. qsovilis organizaciis aseTi principi – linearul-klasteruli hete­ ro­ fo­ nia virtualuri vertikaluri struqturiT _ gvxvdeba CuvaSebisa da mari­ e­ le­ bis zogierTi stiluri Sris simRerebSi. aseve, msgavsia maTi stilis rit­ mu­ li, saSemsruleblo da kilo-intonaciuri Tvisebebi, rac volga-kamis regi­ o­ nis Turquli da finougoreli xalxebis sasimRero tradiciis dama­ xa­ si­ a­ Te­ bel regionul stilur Sreze miuTiTebs. monaTlul TaTrebs, marielebsa da CuvaSebs Soris genetikur kavSirze sau­b­risas vigulisxme Sua saukuneebSi fino-ugorelebisa da volgisa da ura­ lis mTianeTis TaTrebis aRreva. marielebi da CuvaSebi volga-kamis regi­ onis TaTrebis mezoblebi arian. IX-XIII saukuneebSi isini yazanis saxanos miu­er­­Tdnen. 1552 wels yazanis saxano moskovis samefom daipyro. volgis regioni Seu­­ erTda moskovis ruseTs, romelic amgvarad polikonfesiuri saxelmwifo ga­ x­ da. am saxelmwifos erT-erTi politikuri mizani iyo volgis regionis xa­ l­ xebis (musulmanebisa da warmarTebis) marTlmadidebel qristianebad moq­ce­va. 1555 wels Seiqmna yazanis eparqia. es aris am xalxebis gaqristianebis ofi­ci­aluri TariRi. TaTrebis, marielebisa da CuvaSebis masobrivi gaqristianeba iyo namdvili kul­ turuli kataklizma; Tumca, SemTxveviTi ar iyo, rom moqcevis periodi 200 we­ li gagrZelda _ XVI saukunidan XVIII saukunemde. TaTrebSi islami ukve Rrmad fesvgadgmuli iyo, xolo marielebsa da CuvaSebs uZvelesi warmarTuli ker­ pebi hyavdaT. SeiZleba iTqvas, rom monaTluli TaTrebi, marielebi da Cuva­ Se­ bi XVIII saukunidan arseboben. am xalxebma miiRes saeklesio kalendari, sa­ e­ kl­­ esio dResaswaulebi da ritualebi; Tumca winaqristianuli kulturuli si­ s­ temebi da maTi Sesabamisi tradiciuli simRera ganagrZobda arsebobas (mag., marielebi dResac ki wminda tyeebSi loculoben). CuvaSuri da mariuli tradiciuli simRera aseve moicavs samiwaTmoqmedo Te­m­e­bis koleqtiur mReras. Cems xelT arsebuli yvela tipis JReradi ma­sa­li­dan me amovarCie arafiqsirebuli vertikaluri struqturis qsovilis mqone ni­ muSebi. mariuli xalxuri simReris gerasimoviseul koleqciaSi gaSifrulia erTi ni­muSi (Gerasimov, 1978: 47), romelsac me aRvwerdi, rogorc virtualuri ver­ ti­ ka­ luri struqturis mqone qsovils. sabednierod, arsebobs am nimuSis audi­o­Ca­naweri. es aris fino-ugoruli enebis jgufis xalxis _ marielebis tra­ di­ ci­ u­­ li simReris magaliTi (mag. 3-4, sur. 3, audiomag. 2). da bolos, me vipove zemoT aRwerili tipis vertikaluri struqtura Tu­rquli ­­ enebis jgufis _ anatri CuvaSebis simReraSi (audiomag. 3). gonivruli iqneba, visaubroT volga-kamis regionis Turquli da fino-ugo­ ruli xalxebis sasimRero tradiciaSi stiluri Sris arsebobis Sesaxeb. vfiqrob, rom heterofoniaSi marcvalTSorisi vertikaluri struqturis saf­ u­ Zvliani analizi dagvexmareba qsovilis am tipis Semadgenlobisa da Sem­ s­ ru­ leblobis avTenturobis gagebaSi. 74 nailia almeeva SeniSvnebi 1 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� eqspedicia tatarstanis, kristopolis regionSi mcxovreb anatri CuvaSebTan (1981), tatarstanis apastovis regionSi, tatarstanis elabugas regionis ielabugas marielebTan (2000). 2 amaze ukve visaubre borjomis konferenciaze 1988 wels. termini `intonaciuri veli~ SemogvTavaza i. zemcovskim. ix. zemcovski Мелодика Календарных песен, leningradi 1975 (zemcovski i. The Melodics of Calendar-bound songs. kalendaruli simRerebis melodika, leningradi, 1975). 3 4 aseTi sasimRero qsovili gvxvdeba, rodesac erT-erTi heterofoniuli xma saerTo intonaciur velze erTi oqtaviT maRlaa. 5 unisonis koncefcia am konteqstSi simboluria iseve, rogorc zogadad aratemperirebul xalxur simReraSi. is gulisxmobs ramdenime xmis Serwymas bgeraTrigis erT safexurze. saerTo tembruli gansxvavebebis gamo, zogadi JReradobis moculobaSi xmebi erTmaneTs 2/3 toniT daSordebian. 6 Cems mier kriaSenebis masalasa da ritmuli kliSeebis tipebze dayrdnobiT SemoTavazebuli ritmuli kliSes definicia ix. Ритмические Клише и мелодическая замениемость в песнях татаркряшен//Народная песня: история и типология. Ленинград, 1989, стр. 157-165. audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. kriaSen TaTrebi, jgufi tatarstanis petrecis raionidan, yvelieris simRera. Cawerilia nailia almeevas mier 1992 wels. audiomagaliTi 2. aRmosavleT mari, ielabugas jgufi, tatarstanis ielabugas raioni. axalwveulis simRera, Cawerilia oleg gerasimovis mier 1978 wels. audiomagaliTi 3. CuvaSebi, anatris jgufi, CuvaSeTis kanaSis raioni, sufruli simRera, Cawerilia nailia almeevas mier 1987 wels. Targmna maia kaWkaWiSvilma 75 NAILIA ALMEEVA (RUSSIA) FORMATION OF VERTICAL STRUCTURE IN THE TEXTURE OF COLLECTIVE SINGING AMONG THE BAPTIZED PEOPLES OF THE VOLGA-KAMA REGION (KRYASHEN TATARS, MARI, CHUVASH) The present paper aims to introduce the songs of Volga-Kama ethnic zone in the context of this comprehensive symposium on the world diversity of polyphonic singing. Some of the ideas were already expressed in a number of my papers, some of which were published in Georgia. The topic of my presentation is formulated as a problem-statement, because the polyphonic singing of Volga region has never been studied from such an angle. The Volga-Kama region is located in central European Russia and encompasses the basins of two large rivers the Volga and Kama. It is also known as “Volga region and Cis-Urals”, because its Eastern border is formed by the Ural Mountains (fig. 1). Being the zone of long-time historic cultural interaction between Finnish, Ugric, early and late Turkish, as well as Indo-Iranian and Indo-European peoples, it is now one of the most poly-ethnic regions of Russia. I should mention without going into details that it is on this complex poly-ethnic basis that the modern Finno-Ugric and Turkish peoples of the Volga-Kama region were formed. Cultural-economic types, determining the development of traditional song cultures of the Finno-Ugric and Turkish peoples of the Volga region and Cisurals are symbiosis of agriculture and cattle breeding, with strong predominance of agricultural type; this fact undoubtedly influenced the genre systems of these song cultures. Two types of traditional singing comprise the sound visit card of the Volga-Kama region: collective singing (in traditional cultures of the Mordva, Mari, Chuvashes, Udmurts, Kryashen (baptised) Tatars and solo monody (the Muslim Tatars and Bashkirs). Collective singing is as characteristic for the music of traditional cultures of the region: Mordva, Mari, Chuvash, Udmurts, baptized Tatars (Kryashens) as is solo monody for some other local traditional cultures (the Muslim Tatars and Bashkirs). The peoples mentioned in the title of the paper are united, firstly, by the culture of agricultural community type and, secondly, by similar ethno genesis. Although the compared phenomena belong to song cultures of the peoples of different language groups (the Kryashen Tatars and the Chuvash are Turkic, whereas the Mari are Finno-Ugric), their similarity is explained not only by the historical commonness of these peoples’ cultural-economic types, but also by their genetic affinity. Thirdly, these peoples are affiliated by being baptised in the 18th century. With this I emphasize that the song tradition of the Muslims of Volga region has not been included in the analysis. The paper is devoted to traditional singing bound to the events of annual cycle and human life cycle. This is a disappearing type of musical matter in the oral tradition of the Volga region, which represents not only a certain music style but also traditional ritual consciousness. This vanishing layer of regional musical culture has fortunately been recorded in the 1960s-1990s. Collective singing of the Kryashen Tatars was particularly studied, to a certain extent, and pub- 76 Nailia Almeeva lished (here I refer mostly to my own works: Almeeva, 1986, 1998: 195-219, 2007: 316, 2008: 79-93). There are very few notations of Mari collective singing (Muro, 1951); it was mostly studied by O. Gerasimov (1986) and M. Mamaeva (2004). As far as I know, there is not any description of Chuvash collective singing. I recorded the Chuvash and Mari singing during my expeditions1. My research interest in the polyphonic singing in the Volga-Kama region was first focused on the singing of the Kryashen (Orthodox) Tatars (also known as baptised Tatars in scientific literature and������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� everyday��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� life���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� )��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� . It is this culture that is the focus of my attention and a starting point of the comparative analysis presented here. The melodics of their singing is based on intonation formulas. Collective singing is the main form in which this culture exists. The same is true for the neighbouring peoples: the Chuvash, Mari, Udmurts and Mordva. During my study of traditional collective singing of the Kryashen Tatars I identified two types of vertical structure formation. The first type demonstrates actual vertical structure fixation to every syllable of the text (fixed vertical structure). Here I include the texture comprised by fifths and thirds2 and a later singing type in parallel thirds. The second type cannot be fixed but exists virtually. This type of vertical structure appears when there is more than one sound per syllable of the verse (there may be 2 - 5 sounds). The voices, moving in opposite directions while the syllable sounds, create an intonational environment for the formation of a potential vertical structure perceived by ear (this is a non-fixed vertical structure). This usually happens with continuous syllables, in which there is a possibility for intonation movement while the syllable is being sung. I call this type of texture linearcluster heterophony (Almeeva, 1986, 1998: 195-219, 2007: 316, 2008: 79-93). While everything is clear with the first type (fixed vertical structure), the second type needs more detailed description. The texture of the second type may aurally seem “unorganized” and “random” as compared to the strictly organized polyphonic matter characterized by functionally active chord structure, the sophisticated function of voice parts etc. Fine processes inside this structure almost escape human ear, but can be clearly seen when notated (audio ex. 1, ex. 1). Such singing bears signs of heterophony. The voices are equally important in the process of melody formation. They use common intonation field3, embracing the whole of it. Thus, there is no subdivision into registers or register-bound parts (“multi-level structure”): all singers sing on the same pitch level4. The verse is told by all the singers almost synchronously (unlike songs of other peoples, where there may be main voice and a supporting voice, or the text itself or the way it is pronounced may be different for different voices). No matter how intensively the musical tissue is split, the form is organized by continuous cadential unisons5 (middle and final unison). Everything starts from a single point – the first note, the keynote – and everything returns to it. Thus the impression of “linearity” of all voices is achieved. One would think that heterophony is not “aimed” at building vertical consonances, that it is purposefully “horizontal”. Despite this, a cluster is formed in it, which is actually a non-fixed vertical structure (virtual structure). Such vertical structure is created not only by the combination of horizontal lines, but by internal intonation-rhythmic fragmentation of time inside the sounding syllable. It forms the “flesh” of heterophonic texture in the Kryashen Tatars’ songs and is a Formation of Vertical Structure in the Texture of Collective Singing in Baptized Peoples of Volga-Kama Region (Kryashen Tatars, Mari, Chuvash) 77 medium for vertical structure formation. The movement in the tunes is achieved by rhythmic unity of voices on a macro level; all voices tend to reproduce common rhythmic composition unit of the tune: the rhythmic cliché of a verse6 (fig. 2). Linear-cluster heterophony is formed by the rhythmics of a lower level, that is, the rhythmics of each particular voice with the account for micro level – rhythmic fragmentation inside syllables. As the intonation field of the tunes is characterized by anhemitonic modal basis (anhemitonic four- and five-degree scales,�������������������������������������������������������������������������� ex. 2)������������������������������������������������������������������� , clusters with no thirds are formed. Sounding of such cluster during the syllable in a song is a king of “vertical cross-section” of the intonation field, its gleaming fragment of certain modal colouring. Despite the fact that heterophony, by definition, implies certain randomness of movement of voices, our material shows a high degree of their location stability, proved by notations of a significant number of verses. Regularly repeating combinations of voices form clusters, which says about their coordination. The heterophony of Kryashen Tatars is an exquisite style of textural composition. To reproduce such a style, ethnophores must be able to master instinctive characteristic performing behaviour, based upon traditional musical thinking, and have regular performing practice. The latter condition is already very hard to fulfil, because Kryashen traditional ritual life, including calendar-bound circle dances and a traditional wedding with collective singing of traditional tunes from the early layer, has virtually come to nought. For that reason, this musical tradition fades with the departure of its bearers. The representatives of the same ethnos (children and grandchildren of traditional performers) in the condition of interrupted time-bound singing practice, being the bearers of another type of musical consciousness, can hardly reproduce the living spontaneous dynamics of the sound flux formed by modal and rhythmic rules (which was shown during expeditions). Heterophonic hearing and heterophonic thinking are characteristic features of traditional singing culture, which can be easily lost outside the living continuous performing tradition. Such texture organization principle – linear-cluster heterophony with virtual vertical structure – can be found in some Chuvash and Mari songs of a certain style layer, namely, early traditional time-bound songs. They are also similar in rhythmical, performing and modal-intonation features of their style, which points out that a characteristic regional style layer in song tradition of Turkic and Finno-Ugric peoples of Volga-Kama region. Speaking about the genetic connection between the Kryashen Tatars, the Mari, and the Chuvashes, I meant ethnic diffusions which took place in the Middle Ages between the Finno-Ugric and the Turkic peoples of Volga and Cis-Urals regions. The Mari and the Chuvashes are neighbours of the Tatars in Volga-Kama region. In the 9th - 13th centuries they were part of Volga Bulgaria, and in the 13th -16th centuries they joined the Kazan Khanate. In 1552 the Kazan Khanate was conquered by Moscow Kingdom. Volga region was joined to Moscow Russia, which thus became a poly-confessional state. One of the political goals of this state was to convert the peoples of Volga region (Muslims and pagans) to Orthodox Christianity. 1555 the year when Kazan Eparchy was created, is considered the official date of these peoples’ Christianization. Mass Christianization of the Tatars, the Mari and the Chuvashes was, by all means, a cultural cataclysm; however, it was not by chance that the process of conversion dragged on for two hundred years, from the 16th to the 18th century. Islam already deeply rooted in Tatar culture, while the Mari 78 Nailia Almeeva and the Chuvashes had very ancient pagan cults. The baptised Tatars, Mari and Chuvashes can be said to exist since the 18th century. These peoples adopted church calendar, church feasts and rites; however, the pre-Christian cultural systems and the corresponding traditional singing continued to exist. (E. g., the Mari praying in holy forests is known to take place even today). Traditional Chuvash and Mari singing also include collective singing of agricultural communities. From all types of sounding at hand, I chose examples of texture with non-fixed vertical structure. In his collection of Mari folk songs (Gerasimov, 1978: 47) the scholar presents the song notation which I would also describe as texture type with virtual vertical structure, which has similar texture with virtual verticals. Fortunately, there exists a soundtrack. This is a good example of traditional singing of the Mari – the people of Finno-Ugric language group (ex. 3-4, fig. 3, audio ex. 2). Finally, I found vertical structure of the above-described type in the traditional singing of Anatri Chuvashes, who belong to Turkic language group (audio ex. 3). It seems reasonable to speak about the existence of a style layer characteristic for the region in song traditions of the Turkish and Finno-Ugric peoples of Volga-Kama region. I think that a thorough analysis of inter-syllable vertical structure in heterophony is a way to understand the composition of this texture type and authenticity of performance. Notes 1 An expedition to Anatri Chuvashes to Chistopol Region, Tatarstan (1981), Apastov region, Tatarstan (1981), to Yelabuga Mari in Yelabuga Region, Tatarstan (2000). 2 I already spoke about this at the conference in Borjomi in 1988. 3 The term “intonation field” was suggested by I. Zemtsovsky. See: Zemtsovky I. The Melodics of Calendar-bound songs. Leningrad, 1975. 4 There is also a singing texture when one of heterophonous voices is an octave above or below the common intonation field. 5 The concept of unison in this context, as well as applied to non-tempered folk singing in general, is notional to a certain extent. It implies the convergence of several voices to a common scale degree. Due to the difference in timbres the general sounding acquires volume, the deflection of the voices from each other amounts to 2/3 of a tone. 6 For the definition of rhythmic cliché suggested by me on the basis of the Kryashen material, as well as types of rhythmic clichés, see: Rhythmic Clichés and Melodic Interchangeability in Kryahen Tatar Songs. // The Folk Song: History and Typology. Leningrad: Leningrad State Institute of Theatre, Music and Cinematography. 1989. P. 157-165. Similar to such terms as ”rhythmic type” (Zemtsovsky) and “composition unit” (Yefimenkova). Formation of Vertical Structure in the Texture of Collective Singing in Baptized Peoples of Volga-Kama Region (Kryashen Tatars, Mari, Chuvash) 79 References Almeeva, Nailia. (1951). Mari Kalyk Muro (Mari Folk Songs). Compilation and Comments by V. Koukal. Editorhip and Introduction by K. Chetkaryov, Ph. D. (Philology). Musical editor F. Rubtsov. Leningrad – Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye Muzykal’noye Izdatelstvo. (in Russian) Almeeva, Nailia. (1986). Pesennaya kultura Tatar-Kryashen: zhanrovaya sistema i mnogogolosiye (Song Culture of Kryashen Tatars: Genre System and Polyphony). Ph. D. Dissertation in Arts History. Leningrad. (in Russian) Almeeva, Nailia. (1989). Rhythmic Clichés and Melodic Interchangeability in Kryahen Tatar Songs. In: The Folk Song: History and Typology. Leningrad State Institute of Theatre, Music and Cinematoraphy. P. 157-165. Leningrad. Almeeva, Nailia. (1998). Geterofonnaya faktura (opit analiza arhaicheskogo mnogogolosnogo peniya tatarkryashen) // Sudby tradizionnoy kultury (Heterophonous Texture (an Attempt of Analysis of Kryashen Tatar Archaic Polyphonic Singing // The Fate and Fortunes of Folk Culture). In: A Compilation of Papers and Proceedings in Memory of Larisa Ivleva. P. 195-219. Saint Petersburg. (in Russian) Almeeva, Nailia. (2007). Pesnyi tatar-kryashen. Pestrechinskaya (primyoshinskaya) gruppa (Songs of Kryashen Tatars). Issue 1. Pestretsy (Myosha Basin) (Pestrechinskaya (Primyohinskaya)) group. Sheet music. Field recordings, notations, introduction, comments, translation of song lyrics and comments of ethnophores by N. Almeeva. Under the general editorship of I. Zemtsovsky. P. 316. Saint Petersburg – Kazan. (in Russian) Almeeva, Nailia. (2008). “Mnogogolosiye Tatar-Kryashen v ethnokulturnom kontexte Volgo-Kamskogo regiona; Finno-Ugorskoye mnogogolosiye v kontexte drugih muzicalnih kultur” (“Kryashen Tatar Polyphony in the Ethnocultural Context of Volga-Kama Region (Ritual Singing, Heterophony; Finno-Ugric Polyphony in the Context of Other Musical Cultures”). In: Töid etnomusikoloogia alalt 5 (Works on Ethnomusicology, 5). P. 79–93. Edited by Triinu Ojamaa, Žanna Pärtlas. Tartu, Estonian Museum of Literature, Estonian Academy of Music anf Theatre (Summary in English and in Estonian). Gerasimov, O. (1978). Mari Songs from Tataria and Udmurtia. “From a Folklorist’s Collection” series. (With notes, with an audio disk). Ed. E. Alexeev. P. 47. Moscow: Sovietsky Kompozitor. (in Rusiian) Gerasimov, O. (1986). “The Principles of Polyphonic Texture of Mari Folk Songs”. In: Republican Research Conference “Issues of Folk Polyphony”. P. 17-18. Borjomi. (in Georgian) Mamayeva, M. (2004). “Polyphony in Mari Music: a Monograph”. Paragraph: Polyphony. Heterophony in Folk Singing Tradition. P. 21-30.Yoshkar-Ola: Mari Research Institute of Language and Literature. Zemtsovky, Izaly. (1975). The Melodics of Calendar-Bound Songs. Leningrad. 80 Nailia Almeeva Audio Examples Audio example 1. Kryashen Tatars, Pestretsi group, Pestretsi area of Tatarstan. Maslenitsa song. Recorded (1992) by Nailya Almeeva. Audio example 2. East Mari, Yelabuga group, Yelabuga area of Tatarstan. Recruit song. Recorded (1978) by Oleg Gerasimov. Audio example 3. Chuvashes, Anatri group, Kanash area of Chuvazhiya. Drinking song. Recorded (1987) by Nailya Almeeva. nailia almeeva. danarTi Nailia Almeeva. APPENDIX 81 suraTi 1. monaTluli TaTrebis gansaxlebis ruka. wignidan: Мухаметшин, Ю. (1977). Татары-кряшены. М.: Наука. gv. 20 Figure 1. Kryashen settlement map. Made on the basis of a map from: Mukhametshin, Yu. (1977). Tatari-Kryasheni (Kryashen Tatars). Moscow: Nauka. P. 20 82 nailia almeeva. danarTi Nailia Almeeva. APPENDIX magaliTi 1. saferxulo simRera. sofeli kovali, pestrecis regioni, TaTreTis respublika. Caiwera (1992) da gaSifra n. almeevam. krebulidan: Almeeva, A. (compiler). (2007). Pesni Tatar-kriashen (Songs of Kryashen Tatars). Issue 1. Pestrechinskaya (Primyohinskaya) group. Under the general editorship of I. Zemtsovsky. Saint Petersburg – Kazan. P. 29-30 Example 1. A Circle-Dance Tune. Kovali village. Pestretsy region, Tatarstan. Recording (1992) and notation by N. Almeeva. Notation from: Almeeva, A. (compiler). (2007). Pesni Tatar-kriashen (Songs of Kryashen Tatars). Issue 1. Pestrechinskaya (Primyohinskaya) group. Under the general editorship of I. Zemtsovsky. Saint Petersburg – Kazan. P. 29-30 nailia almeeva. danarTi Nailia Almeeva. APPENDIX suraTi 2. hangis ritmuli kliSe #1 magaliTidan Figure 2. The rhythmic cliché of the tune from example 1 83 84 nailia almeeva. danarTi Nailia Almeeva. APPENDIX magaliTi 2. klasterebi #1 magaliTidan Example 2. Сlusters from Example 1 magaliTi 3. rekrutuli simRera. krebulidan: Gerasimov, O. (1978). Marinskie pesni iz Tatarii i Udmurtin (Mari Songs from Tataria and Udmurtia). “From a Folklorist’s Collection” series. Ed. E. Alexeev�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� . ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ With�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� notes�������������������������������������������������������������������������� . ������������������������������������������������������������������������ With�������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������� an����������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� audio����������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� annex����������������������������������������������������� – a������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ flexible���������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������� audio���������������������������������� ��������������������������������� disk����������������������������� . ��������������������������� Moscow��������������������� : “������������������ Sovietsky��������� �������� Kompozitor”. P. 9-10 Example 3. A recruit song. From: Gerasimov, O. (1978). Marinskie pesni iz Tatarii i Udmurtin (Mari Songs from Tataria and Udmurtia). “From a Folklorist’s Collection” series. Ed. E. Alexeev. With notes. With an audio annex – a flexible audio disk. Moscow: “Sovietsky Kompozitor”. P. 9-10 nailia almeeva. danarTi Nailia Almeeva. APPENDIX 85 86 nailia almeeva. danarTi Nailia Almeeva. APPENDIX suraTi 3. hangis ritmuli kliSe #3 magaliTidan Figure 3. The rhythmic cliché of the tune from example 3 magaliTi 4. klasterebi #3 magaliTidan Example 4. Сlusters from example 3 tradiciuli polifoniis zogadTeoriuli da musikalur-esTetikuri aspeqtebi GENERAL THEORY AND MUSICAL-AESTHETIC ASPECTS OF TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY 89 UMmaT harvi (avstralia) politikuri polifonia SesaZloa, politikosebi kargad ver acnobiereben, magram mxardamWerebis mosazidad metad sasargeblo iqneboda tradiciuli mravalxmianobis mravalferovani teqnikis gamoyeneba, raTa isini Sexmatkbilebulad aemRerebinaT da erT muStad SeekraT. gamoricxuli arc isaa, rom amis gamo maTTvis brali daedoT sazogadoebisTvisLsakuTari azris Tavsmoxvevis gamo, magram Tu es sazogadoeba (mxardamWerebi, media) am hangs ahyveba, isini harmoniul Sedegebsac miiReben. Tu mxedvelobaSi miviRebT mravalxmianobis Jordaniaseul klasifikacias (Jordania, 2011: 16), politikas SegviZlia Semdgomi tipebi mivusadagoT: burdoni: politikosebs xSirad abraleben motonurobas, magram es maT tons met avtoritetulobas matebs, vidre tonis cvalebadoba. Tu erTi da igive idea sakmaod xSirad gameordeba, es mas damajereblobas Sehmatebs. erTi da igive gzavnilis mudmivi gameorebis meTodis efeqtianobaSi, rogorc Cans, darwmunebulia media-seqtori da, masTan erTad, sareklamo industriac. ostinato: mokle frazebis an sloganebis perioduli gameoreba politikaSi farTod gavrcelebuli teqnikaa. sityviT gamosvlebSi es teqnika Tavisi mniSvnelobiT musikalur teqnikas utoldeba, xolo, politikuri kampaniis dros warmoaCens ama Tu im ideisadmi mimxrobis xarisxs. Tu gamosvlis Sinaarsi mudmivad avlens kavSirs sloganTan, es xels uwyobs gamosvlis teqstis formis gamokveTasa da mis Sekvras. slogani, SesaZloa, pasuxobdes sazogadoebis survilebs, advilad imRerebodes an yoveldRiurobaSi popularul frazad gadaiqces. paraleluri polifonia: rodesac politikuri jgufi harmoniuli gzavnilebis mTel rigs SeimuSavebs, xolo lideri Seecdeba hangis Secvlas, jgufis yvela wevrma unda moaxerxos Tavisi hangis masTan SesabamisobaSi moyvana. kanoni: politikaSi SezRudulia poziciebi mkveTrad gansazRvruli, damkvidrebuli ritorikiT. es poziciebi erTi da imave jgufis mxridan ciklurad gamoiyeneba Zalauflebis zrdis Sesabamisad: `saqme bevrad uaresadaa, vidre Cven gvegona. Cven yvelam unda moviWiroT qamrebi~. Semdeg, arCevnebis periodSi: `es proeqtebi yvela Zalian mniSvnelovania. Cven maT ganvaxorcielebT~. kanonis kidev erTi analogiaa sxvadasxva politikuri mxaris mudmivad ganmeorebadi gzavnilebi da adamianebi, romelTa erTi nawili yovelTvis erTsa da imave partias uWers mxars, xolo meore nawili icvlis Tavis pozicias sakuTari interesebidan gamomdinare. heterofonia: heterofonia warmoadgens erTobliv unisonur simReras, roca yvela xma erTsa da imave melodias asrulebs, Tumca, xandaxan, gacnobierebulad Tu gaucnobiereblad, gadauxvevs xolme mas. metad sainteresoa fsiqologiuri sxvaobebi, romlebic heterofoniul simReras ukavSirdeba. magaliTad, xandaxan monawilee- 90 maT harvi bs gulwrfelad sjeraT, rom erT melodias mRerian, Tumca sinamdvileSi isini am melodiis sxvadasxva variantebs asruleben; meore mxriv, aris SemTxvevebi, rodesac monawileebs hgoniaT, rom isini gansxvavebul hangs asruleben, xolo sinamdvileSi erTsa da imave melodias mRerian. am yvelafers polifoniis wiaRSi metad saintereso paralelebi moeZebneba. unisoni: Tavisi SesaZleblobebiT unisoni ufro diqtaturisTvisaa xelsayreli, vidre demokratiisTvis, radgan yvela erT hangze mReris. aqve unda gavixsenoT kakafonia, rac, savaraudod, politikuri diskursisTvis yvelaze Sesaferisi formaa. me mimaCnia, rom politikosebis mizani harmonia unda iyos, magram bevrs mainc unisoni urCevnia. garda amisa, unda gaviTvaliswinoT ramdenime musikaluri stilis arsebobac: a) klasikuri _ efuZneba kargad SemuSavebul principebs da xelmZRvanelobs mkafio wesebiT. partias, SesaZloa, hqondes klasikuri ideologia, romelsac saWiroebis SemTxvevaSi gadauxvevs, magram rodesac amis aucileblobas xedavs, aCvenebs, rom mas garkveuli principebi aqvs; b) folki _ politikosebs sCveviaT apelireba maT xalxur fesvebze, sibrZnesa da istoriebze; g) jazi _ politikosebs SeuZliaT aiRon Zveli Tema, TanamedroveobasTan Sesabamisad, axleburad SefuTon da misi dausrulebeli improvizireba moaxdinon; d) popi _ politikosebs xSirad abraleben populizms, anu imis keTebas, rasac popularoba moaqvs da ara imisa, rac marTebulia. demokratiul wyobaSi politikosebi, garkveulwilad, popularobis mopovebis miznidan gamomdinare moqmedeben, magram Tu maT ar gaaCniaT Zireuli Rirebulebebi, didia imis saSiSroeba, rom sazogadoebis ganwyobis Secvla samoqmedo arealidan maT gaqrobas gamoiwvevs; e) roki _ albaT, ufro ajanyebas Seefereba, magram xmauri, xSiri gameoreba da sibraze politikosis mZlavr instrumentebad SeiZleba iqces, gansakuTrebiT, socialuri da ekonomikuri arastabilurobis pirobebSi. Semdegi sakiTxi ukavSirdeba politikosis musikalur rols: a) kompozitori: politikosma dawera wigni, romlis mixedviTac imarTeba qveyana. avstraliaSi kompozitorebi iyvnen mencisi da uitlemi, amerikis SeerTebul StatebSi _ ruzvelti, kenedi, jonsoni da reigani, britaneTSi – tetCeri, sabWoTa kavSirSi _ lenini da stalini; b) diriJori: es swored is yvelaze Sesaferisi rolia, romelic, Cemi azriT, mTavrobam, gansakuTrebiT ki liderebma unda aiRon Tavis Tavze da mouwodon adamianebs, icxovron harmoniulad. Tumca, problema imaSi mdgomareobs, rom adamianebis nawils, SesaZloa, undodes gansxvavebuli hangis Sesruleba, xolo nawils ki saerTod ar hqondes diriJoris aRiarebis survili. avstraliaSi bob hauki, albaT, am rolis Semsrulebeli yvelaze warmatebuli premier ministri iyo, romelic rva wlis Semdeg srulebiT umniSvnelo figurad gadaiqca; g) solisti: mraval politikoss surs iyos Sou-varskvlavi. udavoa, rom es midgoma diqtatoris Tvisebaa. pol kiTings undoda avstraliuli politikis plaCido domingo yofiliyo, magram xalxs guli ereoda mis xmaze. cnobilia, rom gamoCenili pianisti ignac paderevski poloneTis prezidenti iyo. ar aris gamoricxuli, rom im droindeli poloneTisaTvis es Zalianac xelsayreli yofiliyo; d) musikologi: zogierTi politikosi Tavs miiCnevs eqspertad, romelmac yvelaze kargad icis, Tu risi mosmena undaT adamianebs konkre- politikuri polifonia 91 tul momentSi. sxvebi cdiloben maT TavianTi hangi moaxvion Tavs. vitautas landsbergiss latviaSi Tavi ise uWiravs, rogorc musikolog prezidents. axla ganvixiloT politikaSi musikis faqtobrivi gamoyenebis sakiTxi. saxelmwifos mier yvelaze xSirad gamoyenebadi musikaluri forma, albaT, marSia. igi xandaxan iseTi mZlavria, rom patriotuli aRtkinebiT aRsavse Tavganwirvis emocias aRZravs. eklesiam musikis potencia didi xania gaacnobiera. bevri politikuri moZraoba aseve aRiarebda musikis Zalas solidarobis gamosaxatad. avstraliaSi politikuri kampaniebis dros sazogadoebis yuradRebis mosazidad ramdenime simReras iyenebdnen. erT-erTi iyo It’s Time 1972 wels, romelmac leiboristuli partiis 23 wlis Semdeg ZalauflebaSi pirvelad mosvlas Seuwyo xeli. didi britaneTis himni God save the Queen (RmerTo, daifare dedofali) wlebis ganmavlobaSi avstraliis erovnuli himnic iyo. 1974 wels Advance Australia Fair (win, mSveniero avstraliav) Catarebuli plebiscitis Sedegebis Tanaxmad, avstraliis axali erovnuli himni gaxda. mravali wlis ganmavlobaSi es simRera leiboristul partiasTan iwvevda asociacias, rac, rogorc Cans, plebiscitis Catarebis periodSi ukve miviwyebuli iyo. xalxSi yvelaze popularuli erovnuli simRera iyo Waltzing Matilda (valsis mocekvave matilda). am simReraSi moTxrobilia qurdis istoria, romelic dapatimrebas daxrCobas amjobinebs. es simRera erovnuli himnisaTvis Seufereblad CaiTvala. oficialur RonisZiebebze erovnuli himni yovelTvis erTpirovnulad imRereba da ara xalxis mier, ara aqvs mniSvneloba, ra musikalur xerxs mimarTaven _ polifonias Tu unisons. avstraliur politikaSi gamoyenebuli polifoniis metad saintereso formaa Dog whistle politics (ZaRlis stvenis politika). es gulisxmobs iseTi gzavnilebis gaJRerebas, romelic mxolod garkveuli jgufisTvisaa gasagebi. yvelaze metad cnobilia magaliTi, rodesac premier ministrma jon hovardma Tqva: `Cven gadavwyvetT, vin Camova am qveyanaSi da ra pirobebiT~. es sakmaod gonivrulad JRerda da misi momxreebisTvis ZaRlis stvenas warmoadgenda, rac imas niSnavda, rom is mkacri iqneboda TavSesafris mTxovnelTa mimarT. yvelaze advilad politikoss SiSi eZaleba: isini mtrebi arian, Cven isini unda davamarcxoT. gavixsenoT hitleris, stalinisa da CerCilis amgvari ritorikis warmateba. hitleri aseve intensiurad mimarTavda komunikaciis sityva-pasuxis formasac. dResdReobiT, politikosebi TavianTi interesebis dacvasa da gavlenis sferos gaZlierebas distanciurad, Soreul qveynebSi omebis gaCaRebiT cdiloben. ase moxda eraysa da avRaneTSi. amgvarad, roca maT awyobT, SeuZliaT adamianebSi patriotuli grZnobebis gaRvivebiT miaRwion TavianT Canafiqrs da Tanac ise, rom xalxs naklebi diskomforti Seuqmnan. eraysa da avRaneTSi daRupuli 30-mde avstralieli jariskacis Camosvenebam premier ministrs SesaZlebloba misca gansakuTrebuli samgloviaro ceremoniali Caetarebina. yoveli maTgani sruli samxedro pativiT daikrZala. saxezea musikis politikuri mizniT gamoyenebis kidev erTi xelsayreli SemTxveva. miRebulia mosazreba, rom diqtatorebi maTi avtoritetis ganmtkicebisa da patriotuli grZnobebis gasaRviveblad burdonsa da ostinatos mimarTaven. igive xerxebi damaxasiaTebelia demokrati politikosebisTvis, magram rogor qmnian isini 92 maT harvi harmonias? harmonia SeiZleba daiwyos, roca adamianebi kmayofili arian sakuTari samsaxureobrivi poziciiT. me ar vambob `mdgomareobiT~, radgan avstraliaSi vendobiT socialur mobilobas. politikuri diriJori darwmunebuli unda iyos, rom xmaTa ganawileba samarTliania da yvela Tavis partias imdenad kargad mReris, rom yvelaferi erTad mTlian harmonias warmoqmnis. amas mravali xelisSemSleli faqtori axlavs. mZlavrma burdonma SeiZleba sxva xmebi gadafaros. ostinatos SeuZlia azri sloganiT Caanacvlos. politikosebi harmonias warmatebiT maSin amkvidreben, roca harmonia Tavad maT rigebSi sufevs. saministro sazogadoebis mikrokosmoss waagavs. xelisuflebis wevrebi daarwmunebuli unda iyvnen gunduri muSaobis aucileblobaSi. bunebrivia, bevri sakuTari poziciis mudmiv ZiebaSi iqneba, magram kargi lideri SeZlebs maT sakuTari rolic Seasrulebinos da paraleluradac imoZraos. parlamentSi SekiTxvebis saaTi is droa, rodesac harmonia da azrTa sxvaoba isadgurebs. mowinaaRmdege mxare cdilobs, dasvas SekiTxva mTavrobis diskreditaciis mizniT da ara informaciis mosapoveblad. es aris e. w. ,,doroTi diqseris~ SekiTxva da misi xasiaTi Zalian Sorsaa realurad informaciis moZiebis survilisgan. SekiTxvebis saaTi, praqtikulad, yovelTvis ukavSirdeba ara informaciis gacvla-gamocvlas, aramed SekveTili kiTxvebis dasmiT yalbi harmoniis Seqmnis mcdelobas. meore msoflio omisa da warumatebeli socializmis Semdeg, avstraliis xelisuflebaSi movida robert menci, romelic britaneTisadmi usazRvro siyvaruliT gamoirCeoda. is acnobierebda komunizmis xifaTs da komunisturi partiis akrZalvac ki scada. komunizmisadmi antipatiisa da patriotizmis kombinaciam mencs sakmaod maRali politikuri qulebi moutana. mas JReradi da lamazi xma hqonda da premier ministris Tanamdebobaze yofnis 17 wlis ganmavlobaSi TiTqosda mamis figurad iqca. mis Semdeg mTavrobas zedized 3 adamiani xelmZRvanelobda, romelTac araviTari oratoruli niWi ar gaaCndaT. Semdeg mTavrobaSi movida ou uitlemi, romelic SesaniSnavi oratori iyo da warmosaTqmeli sityvis kargi Semdgenlebic hyavda. uitlemi cdilobda, erTdroulad kompozitoric yofiliyo da solistic. man metad ambiciuri programa warmoudgina sazogadoebas, romelsac Tan sdevda SesaniSnavi oratoroba da ritorika. garda erovnuli himnisa It’s Time da plebiscitisa, uitlemi TiTqmis ar mimarTavda musikas, Tu ar CavTvliT sakuTar xmas. misi politikuri memkvidre malkom freizeri naklebad STamagonebeli oratori iyo, magram sakmaod efeqturad iyenebda ostinatos teqnikas. bob hauki kargi oratori iyo, magram ar hqonda lamazi xma. man saintereso dueti Seqmna Tavis xazinadar pol ketingTan. ketings kargad gamosdioda rogorc maRali donis oratoroba, ise quCuri lanZRvac. hauki wyvetda konfliqtebs adamianebs Soris, mokle xanSi amkvidrebda harmonias erTad Sekrebil adamianebs Soris. B berlinis kedlis dacemam da sabWoTa kavSiris daSlam avstraliaze iseTi didi gavlena ar moaxdina, rogorc saqarTveloze, ase rom, 1991 wlisTvis hauks, rogorc Cans, ideebi gamoelia da ketingma, xangZlivi molodinis Semdeg, liderobis dauflebis SansiT isargebla. rogorc ukve aRvniSne, ketings undoda, plaCido domingo yofiliyo. misi musikal- politikuri polifonia 93 uri gemovneba ufro malerisken miiswrafoda da pativs scemda mtkice principebs. mas ramdenime metad dasamaxsovrebeli sityva aqvs warmoTqmuli da ramdenime sakmaod rTul sakiTxze mouwia muSaoba, magram, imis gamo, rom haukis mmarTvelobis dros mTeli 8 wlis manZilze xalxis Tvalwin trialebda, sazogadoeba daRlili iyo misi xmiT. ketingis Semcvlels, jon hovards momabezrebeli, gabmuli, dabali xma hqonda. garda amisa, saerTod ar gaaCnda musikaluri gemovneba. mas TanaSemwed hyavda axalgazrda, metad niWieri da moxerxebuli xazinadari peter kostelo. hovards moswonda scenaze centraluri adgilis dakaveba, Tumca Tavi plaCido domingod ar warmoedgina. rogorc zemoT aRvniSne, igi iyenebda `ZaRlis stvenis~ efeqts, Tumca misi ritorika, umeteswilad, burdonuli iyo. miuxedavad amisa, man mraval avstraliels Seuwyo xma da 3-jer iyo arCeuli. 2007 wels hovardma waago arCevnebi kevin rudTan, romelsac aseve araviTari oratoruli da musikaluri niWi ar gaaCnda. rudi, am statiis konteqstidan gamomdinare, saintereso iyo imiT, rom mas moswonda SekiTxvebis dasma da Semdeg Tavadve pasuxebis gacema. 2010 wels rudi Secvala misma moadgilem, julia gilardma. is avstraliis pirveli qali premier ministri iyo. din frenkeli1 mas brtyeli da uintereso xmis gamo akritikebda. Mmisi xma mosawyeni da arsasiamovno iyo, Tumca, es ar iyo misi misamarTiT kritikis erTaderTi mizezi. gilards xSirad CacmulobisTvisac akritikebdnen da mTlianobaSi, kritika ukavSirdeboda ufro metad stils, vidre arss. man namdvilad aamRera Tavisi ministrebi erTi partituriT, magram problema kargi hangis povna iyo. bedis ironia imaSi mdgomareobda, rom igi uelsSi iyo dabadebuli, magram aSkaraa, rom uelsis oratoruli kulturis simdidre memkvidreobad ar ergo. gilardis erT-erTi ministri peter jareti yofili rok varskvlavi iyo “Midnight Oil”-dan, magram, rogorc Cans, man Tavisi rok SemarTeba musikosis karierasTan erTad daTmo. mas warmateba arc ministrobam moutana da musikaluri karierac Sewyvita. opoziciis lideri toni aboti ufro moCxubaria, vidre momRerali. is samudamod ,,gaiWeda~ negatiuri bgeris burdonze. unda aRiniSnos adgilobrivi tomebis roli avstraliis politikaSi. evropuli kolonizaciis pirobebSi maTi mniSvneloba praqtikulad ugulebelyofili iyo, isini mdabio klasis warmomadgenlebad iTvlebodnen. es situacia ukanaskneli ormocdaaTi wlis ganmavlobaSi mniSvnelovnad gaumjobesda. 1967 wlidan maT sruli moqalaqeoba mieniWaT, xolo 1992 wels maT tradiciuli miwebi daubrunes. aborigenuli musika ver gaxda wamyvani kulturul mimdinareobaSi, Tumca, gvxvdeba maTi sinTezic. dResdReobiT, didi popularobiT sargeblobs aborigeni momRerali/gitaristi gurumuli, romlis mier aborigenul enaze Sesrulebuli simRerebi bevrad melodiuria, vidre tradiciuli aborigenuli musika. Jordania aRniSnavs, rom aborigenuli musika mkafiod monofoniuria, miuxedavad imisa, rom didjeridu2 sakmaod efeqtur burdons emyareba. avstraliaSi iyo e. w. Savi da TeTri harmoniis KmorigebisL mcdeloba, Tumca, aqamde warumateblad. da bolos, minda aRvniSno avstraliur tradiciul simRerasTan dakavSirebuli erTi samwuxaro faqti. 1983 wels, rodesac avstraliam iaxtebis Sejibris amerikuli 94 maT harvi Cempionati moigo, romelsac amerika 100 welze metia maspinZlobs, avstraliis bendis “Men at Work”-is simRera Land Downunder (miwa qveynis dasaliers) avstraliis araoficialur himnad iqca. is Seicavda fleitis solos cnobili sabavSvo ferxulis Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree-s Temaze. 20 welze meti xnis Semdeg kompaniam, romelic flobda saavtoro uflebebs, sasamarTlo wesiT mougo Land Downunder-is avtorebs maTi saavtoro honorarebis 5%-iani wili. reg hemi, fleitisti, romelsac Kookaburra-s Temis kompoziciaSi CarTvis idea ekuTvnoda, saerTod ar iyo avtorad moxseniebuli. albaT, demoralizebuli musikosis sikvdilis erT-erTi mizezi esec gaxda. samwuxarod, avstraliis sazogadoebas ar axasiaTebs harmoniuli urTierTobebi, Tumca, eWvgareSedaa miCneuli, rom Cven, saqarTvelosTan SedarebiT, politikuri harmoniis bevrad ufro meti gamocdileba gvaqvs. aris Tu ara SesaZlebeli kavSiri tradiciul polifoniasa da politikur harmonias Soris? erTxel BBC-s Jurnalistma Jordanias hkiTxa, Tu ratom aris ase rTuli politikuri erTianobis miRweva, rodesac qarTvelebs ase uyvarT simReraSi erTianoba. Jordaniam upasuxa: miuxedavad imisa, rom qarTvelebs uyvarT erTad simRera, isini unisonSi ar mRerian, piriqiT, maT gundze maRla mdgomi individualuri Tavisufleba sWirdebaT. ase, rom polifoniisaTvis damaxasiaTebelia `individualuri Tavisufleba erTianobaSi~, rac Zalian waagavs evrokavSiris wevrTaKmravalferovnebis erTianobas. naTqvamia, rom Kpolitikis polifoniaLaris federalizmi. avstralia federaciaa da simarTlea, rom Statebi da britaneTis erTa Tanamegobroba mraval xmaSi laparakobs. iyo is droc, rodesac Statebs SeeZloT harmoniulad gamarTuli simRerac, magram mainc, Statebisa da BbritaneTis erTa TanamegobrobisaTvis harmoniaSi Tanaarseboba damaxasiaTebeli ar aris. saqarTvelosac aqvs federaciaSi _ ssrk-Si arsebobis gamocdileba, Tumca, albaT, ruseTis dominanturma rolma da komunisturma ideologiam polifonias xeli naklebad Seuwyo. ara mgonia, rom vinmem stalinis mmarTvelobis principebSi polifoniis mxardaWera SeniSnos! saqarTvelos evrokavSirSi gawevrianebis Sansebi bolo xanebSi izrdeba. evrokavSiris farglebSi arsebul xelSekrulebebSi arsebobs kanonmdeblobis harmonizaciisLmTeli sistema. misi wevri 27 qveynisaTvis harmoniis miRweva sul ufro da ufro rTuli xdeba. politikuri sistema male SeiZleba polifoniis yvelaze radikalur formas, kontrapunqts daemsgavsos. es swored isaa, riTac saqarTvelos, Rvinosa da navTobsadenTan erTad, SeuZlia gaamdidros evrokavSiri. SeniSvnebi 1 din frenkeli cnobili yelismieri momRerali da maswavlebeli iyo. 2 avstraliuri Casaberi sakravi (red.). Targmna irina fircxalavam 95 MATT HARVEY (AUSTRALIA) POLITICAL POLYPHONY Though they may not be aware of it, the techniques of traditional polyphony are available to politicians who seek to inspire their supporters, get them “singing from the same songsheet”, and seek to present a united front. They may also be accused of “preaching to the choir”, though if the choir (supporters, media, public) follows their tune, this may yield harmonious results. If we take Jordania’s taxonomy (Jordania, 2011:16) , we might apply it to politics as follows: Drone: politicians are often accused of adopting a monotone, but it appears to sound more authoritative than a varied tone. It would also appear that if the same thing is repeated often enough, it gains authority. Sections of the media also seem to believe in constant repetition of the same message and the advertising industry also seems to believe in its effectiveness. Ostinato: frequent repetition of a short phrase or slogan is a technique widely used in politics. In speeches, it can lend a musical quality. It is described as being “on message” during political campaigns. If the content of a speech can be continuall tied back to the slogan, it can work to shape and unify the speech. The slogan may also resonate with the people and be suitable for chanting or becoming a catchphrase in popular use. Parallel polyphony: Where a political team are putting out a range of harmonious messages and the leader seeks to change the tone, they would hope that the rest of the team are able to adjust their tone accordingly. Canonical: In politics, there are a limited number of positions with well established rhetoric to support them. They may be used cyclically by the same group eg on gaining power: “Things are much worse than we thought. We must all tighten our belts”. Then at election time “These are all important projects. We will make them happen”. The other canonical analogy would be the different sides of politics putting out their same messages all the time with some people always supporting the same party and others moving as they see fit. Heterophony: Heterophony as a close associate of unison singing, where parts sing the same basic melody but sometimes, consciously or unconsciously, deviate from the basic melody. There are interesting psychological differences when singing heterophony, and sometimes singers believe they are singing the same melody, but they are in fact singing different versions of the melody; on the other hand, sometimes singers believe they are different tunes, but in fact they are singing the same melody. All these have interesting parallels in polyphonic life. We should also consider the possibility of Unison though this may be more suited to dictatorship than democracy, as everyone needs to sing the same melody. We should also consider Cacophony, perhaps the most common form of polyphony in political discourse. In this paper, I suggest that Harmony should be the politician’s aim, but many prefer Unison. We should also consider the availability of some musical styles: Classical: based on well developed principles and governed by strict rules. A party may have a 96 Matt Harvey classical ideology from which it is willing to depart if the times demand it, but which is available if they need to show some principles. Folk: Politicians can appeal to their folk roots and homespun wisdom and stories. Jazz: Politicians can take an old theme and dress it in new clothes to fit the times and improvise endlessly. Pop: Politicians are often accused of “populism” – doing what is popular rather than what is “right”. In a democracy, politicians have to do a certain amount of what is popular in order to get elected, but if they have no core values, they may be swept away by a change of public mood. Rock: perhaps more suitable to rebellion, but loudness, repetition and anger can be powerful instruments for a politician, particularly in the times of social and economical upheaval. The next question might be the politician’s musical role: Composer: the politician has written the book by which the country is to be run. In Australia, Menzies and Whitlam were composers, in the United States FD Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Reagan, in Britain Thatcher. In the USSR Lenin and Stalin. Conductor: this is the role I believe governments, and especially their leaders, should take, encouraging the people to live in harmony, but there are the problems that some people may want to play a different tune and some do not want to acknowledge the conductor. In Australia, Bob Hawke was perhaps the most successful Prime Minister to play this role, a great conciliator who after eight years seemed to stand for nothing. Soloist: Many politicians want to be the star of the show. This is certainly the case for dictators. Paul Keating wanted to be the Placido Domingo of Australian politics but the people became sick of his tune. It is true that Ignaz Paderewski, the great pianist, was President of Poland. Perhaps that was particularly appropriate in Poland at the time. Musicologist: some politicians are expert in judging what the people want to hear at a given time. Others seek to impose their tune. Vytautas Landsbergis in Lithuania stands out as a musicologist President. We might start with the actual use of music in politics then return to the metaphorical. Perhaps the most common use of music by the state is the marching tune. This can be so powerful that it induces ment to march to their deaths full of patriotic fervour. The church has long understood the importance and potential of music. Many political movements have also recognised the power of music to express solidarity. In Australia there have been few songs used in political campaigns that have caught the public imagination. One was the It’s Time campaign in 1972 which swept the Labor Party to power for the first time in 23 years. In Australia, the British anthem God save the Queen was also the national anthem for many years. In 1974, a plebiscite was held and Advance Australia Fair was the people’s choice as the new national anthem. For many years, this song had been connected to the Labor Party, but it seems that that association had been forgotten by the time of the plebiscite. The most popular national song, Waltzing Matilda, the story of a sheep thief who drowns rather than be arrested, was thought to be unsuitable as a national anthem. On official occasions, the national anthem seems always to be led by an individual rather than left to the people to sing in unison or polyphony. An interesting form of polyphony used in Australian politics has been “Dog whistle politics”. Political Polyphony 97 This is where the politician has a message that only their intended audience can hear. The most famous example was when Prime Minister John Howard said: “We will decide who comes to this country and the conditions on which they come” which sounds reasonable but was a dog whistle to his supporters that he would be tough on asylum seekers. The easiest note for a politician to strike is fear: there is an enemy, we need to fight them. We can note the success of Hitler, Stalin and Churchill with this sort of rhetoric. Hitler also extensively used call and response form of communication. In modern times, politicians have tried to have their cake and eat it by having limited wars in distant countries like Iraq and Afghanistan so they can whip up patriotism when it suits them but not inconvenience the people. The thirty or so deaths of Australian servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan have provided frequent opportunities for prime-ministerial mourning as each body has received a full military funeral upon return to Australia. Another opportunity for political music. We have established that dictators use drone and ostinato to assert their authority and rouse patriotic fervour – and these instruments are also available to democratic politicians, but how do democratic politicians create harmony? It must start with people being happy in their positions. I do not say “stations” as in Australia, we believe in social mobility. Sing your part well enough and you may get a new one, but different elements must be willing to play their part and work with others. The politician conductor must ensure that there are fair shares for all then get everyone singing their parts well so that overall harmony is achieved. There are many forces against it. Loud drones may try to drown out all others. Ostinato may substitute slogans for thought. A politician will be more successful instilling harmony if there is harmony in their own ranks. A ministry is like a microcosm of society. The members must be persuaded to work as a team and while many may be seeking different positions – and indeed the leadership – the good leader can get them to play their current parts in harmony and to move in parallel. Question time in Parliament is a time when harmony and disaccord reign. The practice of alternating questions from opposite sides of the house means that an opposition question seeking to discredit the government (not really seeking information) is followed by a question from the government to the government – a question the government wanted to be asked, a “Dorothy Dixer”, not a genuine request for information. Thus question time is never for questions genuinely seeking information but alternates between the disaccords of insult and the false harmony of the requested question. After the Second World War, after a period of attempted socialism, Robert Menzies came to power in Australia with his great love of Britain. He also fostered a fear of communism and tried to ban the Communist Party. That combination of fear and patriotism served him well. He had a rich and beautiful voice and became something of a father figure in his 17 years as Prime Minister. He was succeeded by three men none of whom were great orators. They were succeeded by Gough Whitlam who was a great orator and also had good speechwriters. Whitlam tried to be composer and soloist. He rolled out an ambitious program and poured out rhetoric and oratory. Apart from the “It’s Time” theme and the plebiscite on the national anthem, Whitlam did not make great use of music except in his voice. His successor Malcolm Fraser was a less inspiring orator, but did enough to get by. He used the technique of ostinato effectively. Bob Hawke was a good orator but did not have a beautiful voice. He formed a duet with his Trea- 98 Matt Harvey surer Paul Keating, who delivered lessons in economics, though in a colourful way. Keating could engage in high oratory or street fighting abuse. Hawke was adept at resolving conflicts by bringing people together and for a while, harmony reigned. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR did not affect Australia as much as this part of the world and by 1991, Hawke seemed bereft of ideas and Keating took his long-awaited chance to seize the leadership. As I mentioned, Keating wanted to be Placido Domingo. His musical tastes ran more to Mahler and he loved firm principles. He made some fine speeches and dealt with some difficult issues, but having already been in the public eye for eight years under Hawke, the people were tired of his tunes. Keating’s replacement John Howard had an annoying, drony voice. He had no known musical taste. Although assisted by an able young Treasurer Peter Costello, Howard liked to hold centre stage, though he certainly did not fancy himself Placido Domingo. I have mentioned his “dog whistle”, but most of his rhetoric was more a drone. Nevertheless, he struck a chord with many Australians and he was re-elected three times. In 2007, he lost conclusively to Kevin Rudd, a man also without oratorical or musical talents. Rudd had one characteristic of interest to us: he liked to ask himself questions and then answer them. He had a quiet and pleasant manner in public but a violent temper in private. Rudd was replaced in 2010 by Julia Gillard, who had been his deputy. Gillard is Australia’s first woman Prime Minister. She has been criticised by Dean Frenkel1 for the flatness of her voice. It is boring and unpleasant and also lower class, but as she has also been criticised for her dress sense, she has received much criticism for matters of style rather than substance. She has had some success getting her ministers to sing from the same sheet, but she has had trouble finding a good song. Ironically she was born in Wales, but seems not to have inherited any of the oral richness of Welsh culture. Gillard has a former rock star, Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil, as one of her ministers, but he is seen to have sold out his rock spirit and joined the establishment, and also not to have been a success as a minister. He has not brought any of his rock spirit to the government and no longer sings in public. The Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott is more of a fighter than a singer and he has struck only a droning, negative note. A word should be said about the role of indigenous people in Australian politics. Having been marginalised and ill treated since European settlement, their situation has improved somewhat in the last fifty years. They attained full citizenship in 1967 and title over traditional land in 1992. Aboriginal music has not become part of mainstream culture but occasionally a mixture of aboriginal and mainstream music has made an impression. The aboriginal singer/guitarist Gurrumul is presently enjoying great success singing in his native language songs which are more melodious than traditional music. Jordania has noted that Australian aboriginal music is heavily monophonic, though the didgeridoo2 is an effective drone. In Australia, there have been attempts at “reconciliation”, a kind of harmony between black and white, but there has not yet been enough successful blending of aboriginal and non-aboriginal voices. Finally I should mention a sad event connected to an Australian traditional song. In 1983 when Australia won a yacht race the America’s Cup, held by the Americans for over 100 years, the Australian rock band “Men at Work” song Land Downunder became an unofficial national anthem. It was a huge hit in Australia. It included a flute solo of the well known song Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree, a popular children’s round. More than 20 years later, the company that owned the copyright sued 99 Political Polyphony the writers of Land Downunder and won a 5% share of their royalties. Greg Ham, the faudioist who inserted Kookaburra but was not one of the writers, was devastated by this development and it may have contributed to his recent death. Out of the two songs, which had become public property, one used to give money to the copyright holder of the other long after the author’s death. It seems a bad omen for Australian polyphony. We seem in for some unhappy times in Australia, having survived the global financial crisis and enjoyed a mining boom. The benefits have not spread evenly around the country and there is no sign of someone fostering harmony, only politicians who want to set us against each other. Having said that, we have undoubtedly enjoyed a more harmonious political history than Georgia. Perhaps there is an inverse relationship between traditional polyphony and harmonious politics? Jordania once answered a question from a BBC journalist, interested why Georgians are so difficult to unite politically if they like singing together so much: although Georgian do like to sing together, they do not like singing in unison, instead preferring to have some individual freedom in the overall chorus. So polyphony can be characterized as “unity acknowledging individual freedom”, close to the European Union’s embrace of “unity in diversity”. In my capacity as a scholar of the European Union, I believe that this makes Georgia at least psychologically ready to join. There are some political matters making this difficult, but they are mainly beyond Georgia’s control. Once Georgia gets into the EU, you will be able to teach the other Member States how to work together more harmoniously! It has been said that federalism is the “polyphony of politics”. Australia is a federation and it is true that the States and the Commonwealth speak with many different voices. There have been times when the States have managed to sing in harmony, but it is very unusual for the States and Commonwealth all to be in harmony. Georgia has had experience of being in a federation – the USSR – but perhaps Russian domination and the ideology of communism did not support polyphony. I do not think that we can see much support for polyphony in the rule of Stalin! Now the possibility of membership of the European Union arises for Georgia. The EU treaties talk a lot about harmony. There is a whole system for “harmonising” laws. It was hard enough fostering harmony among the original six Member States. Now there are 27 and rising, harmony is even more difficult. There is the possibility of the most radical type of polyphony, counterpoint, being used in the political system. Certainly the EU could benefit from more expertise in harmony. As well as wine and gas pipelines, this is something Georgia can bring to the EU! Notes 1 Dean Frenkel is a noted throat singer and voice coach. 2 Australian wind instrument (edit.). 100 barbara elisoni (niderlandebi) akustikuri fantomebi akustikuri fantomi, rogorc warmoqmnili geStalti `akustikuri fantomi~ SeiZleba ganisazRvros, rogorc smeniTi iluzia, romelic TiTqos ismis, magram sinamdvileSi fizikuri gamoxatuleba ara aqvs da ar warmoSobs akustikur talRebs. `akustikuri fantomi~ aris smeniTi iluzia, romelic Cven namdvilad gvesmis, magram misi arsebobis fenomeni mxolod Cvens gonebaSia. msmenels esmis bgerebi, romlebsac sinamdvileSi ar gaaCnia akustikuri stimuli, magram aqvs `realuri~, gansakuTrebuli akustikuri elementebis formirebis Sedegad warmoqmnili `fiqtiuri~ bgerebi.AaseTi fenomeni ukve aRiarebulia da musikaluri praqtikis sxvadasxva sferos Seswavlis sagansac warmoadgens. eTnomusikologebi akustikur fantoms aRweren, rogorc smenis `Tandayolil an subieqtur~ models (Kubik, 1967). SemecnebiTi fsiqologebi mas `smeniT nakads~ uwodeben (Bregman, 1990). am sferoSi Seqmnili iseTi terminebi, rogoricaa `warmoqmnili geStalti~, `Sedegobrivi modelebi~ an `fsevdopolifonia~ yvelasaTvis misaRebia (Reich, 2002; Pandey, 2005). Tumca, me upiratesobas Cem mier Semotanil termins _ `akustikur fantoms~ vaniWeb. konteqstis Sesabamisad, am moxsenebaSi zemoT xsenebul sxva terminebsac gamoviyeneb. zogadi analizi msoflios tradiciuli da aratradiciuli musikis sxvadasxva tipis magaliTebisa, romlebSic Cven vpoulobT `warmoqmnili geStaltebis~ gamokveTil nimuSebs, cxadyofs, rom isini xSirad damxmare, an, zogierT SemTxvevaSi, sagangebod hoketingis teqnikiT miRebul movlenebs warmoadgenen. es teqnika aris struqturulad srulyofili strategia, Zalze martivi elementebisgan reliefuri modelebisa da kompleqsuri bgeriTi struqturebis Sesaqmenelad. hoketingis principebze, rogorc struqturul teqnikaze damyarebuli mravalxmiani tradiciebis magaliTebi mravladaa afrikaSi. maT aseve vxvdebiT kpeles xalxSi gvinea/liberiadan (magaliTad, sayviris ansamblebi, mcenareebiT ganwmendis simRerebi), aka da ba-benzeles xalxebSi centraluri afrikidan, bakas xalxSi kamerunidan, mbiras musikaSi zimbabves Sonadan, salamuris ansamblebSi uganda/busogidan, banda-lindas sayviris ansamblebSi centraluri afrikidan da sxv. hoketingis sxva magaliTebidan davasaxeleb indoneziur gamelanis musikas, hoketisa da krimanWulis vokalur polifonias dasavleT saqarTvelodan, fleitis tipis sakravze Sesrulebul litvur mravalxmian skuduCiais, SedarebiT naklebad cnobil rusuli salamuris tradiciebs kurskis olqidan (Velitchkina, 1996; Grauer, 2011; Jordania, 2006). hoketis teqnika, zogadad, gamoxatavs kavSirs erTze met instrumentsa an xmaSi bgeraTa alternatiul modelebsa da siCumes (pauzebs) Soris, rodesac kombinirebulad iqmneba `mTlianoba~. amasTan, man aseve SeiZleba warmoSvas fsevdopolifoni- 101 ac erTi xmaSi an sakravSi. am tipis vokaluri hoketingis kargad cnobili magaliTia iodli, roca erTi xmiT iqmneba erTdroulad ramdenime xmis STabeWdileba, rac msoflios mraval kulturaSi gvxvdeba. SemoqmedebiTi TvalsazrisiT, mimzidveli isaa, rom sxvadasxva tipis strategiebi araerTgvarovnad moqmedebs aRqmaze da iyenebs mis potencials Sesrulebis praqtikidan momdinare maxasiaTeblebis CamoyalibebisaTvis. am konteqstSi es `axali maxasiaTeblebi~ qmnis erT mTlianobas, geStaltur-SemecnebiT rezultatebs, romlebic umaRles doneze erTmaneTisagan mniSvnelovnad gansxvavebulia, roca informacia (bgeriTi fenomeni) dabal doneze specifikuri xerxiTaa organizebuli (Bregman, 1990). Cemi kvlevis fundamenturi mizania iseTi donis sistemis da procesis organizeba, romelic xels Seuwyobs akustikuri fantomis Semdgom kvlevas. saboloo mizani ki am fenomenis musikalur konteqstSi Seswavlaa; fenomenisa, romelic saintereso kompoziciur SesaZleblobebs qmnis msmenelis yuradRebis misapyrobad da geStalturi mosmenis didi gamocdilebis misaRebad. statiaSi warmodgenilia aseTi tipis movlenaTa analizisadmi gansxvavebuli midgomebis mokle mimoxilva. aqve sxvadasxva tipis musikis utyuari magaliTebi SevarCie mTeli msoflios masStabiT, misi istoriis gaTvaliswinebiT. mimaCnia, rom amgvarma SedarebiTma analizma, sxvadasxva disciplinis Sedegebis dapirispirebam da sinTezirebam tradiciuli musikis analizidan smeniT aRqmamde, mniSvnelovnad unda Secvalos smeniTi da musikaluri iluziebis warmoqmnis Cveneuli gageba. smeniTi scena da aRqmis gaurkvevloba smeniTi aRqma, rogorc Cven amas Cveulebriv viazrebT, roca `mosmenas~ vgulisxmobT, ar aris pasiuri procesi. Cveni yuris dafis apkebi SeiZleba vibrirebdes, magram saboloo jamSi, aRqma, rogorc smeniTi gamocdileba, xorcieldeba, rogorc nevrologiuri interpretaciis procesi, romelic warmoqmnis smeniTi aRqmis models. Cveni yuri akustikuri movlenis Sefasebisas ganasxvavebs dajgufebas, Serwymas, dayofas da a. S., radgan afasebs mniSvnelobas, struqturas, models da a.S. `smeniTi scenis analizis~ (ssa) cnebas aq gansakuTrebuli mniSvneloba aqvs. is aRwers, rogor aanalizebs smeniTi aRqmis sistema xmauriani da rTuli akustikuri samyaros calkeul SeTanxmebul bgerad elementebs an mniSvnelobis mqone movlenebs. amdenad, igi gvexmareba smeniTi movlenebis aRqmis organizebaSi. `smeniTi scenis analizi~ dakavSirebulia Cven mier sxvadasxva bgeriTi wyaroebis dajgufebasa da gamoyofasTan (Bregman, 1990). rodesac xalxiT savse xmaurian oTaxSi erTi molaparakis xma gvesmis, Cven faqtobrivad ara gvaqvs smeniTi scenis analizis SesaZlebloba. rodesac smeniTi sistemis mier bgerebi dajgufebulia aRqmiT rigebad, TiToeul maTgans `smeniT nakads~ vuwodebT.Aaq saxezea aRqmiTi kavSiri `nakadsa~ da `wyaros~ Soris, ris gamoc nakadi aRiqmeba, rogorc erTi wyarodan momdinare. realuri da virtualuri wyaroebi smeniT nakadebs warmoadgenen. isini erTmaneTisgan ara fsiqologiuri TaviseburebebiT, aramed saganTa realobiT gansxvavdeba. maS, ratom gvesmis bgerebis zogierTi kombinacia Serwymulad da zogierTi – dacalkevebulad? am sakiTxebis gadasaWrelad `smeniTi 102 barbara elisoni scenis analizi~ iseve xelmZRvanelobs smeniTi informaciis `dajgufebis kanonebiT~, rogorc vizualuri informaciis aRqmisas geStalt-fsiqologebi _ Camoyalibebuli `organizebis kanonebiT~. am bgerebis specifikuri organizeba, romelic nakadebsa da warmoqmnil Tvisebebs aZlevs dasabams, rogorc Cans, damokidebulia dajgufebis garkveuli kanonebis Sesabamisobaze. `melodia~ aris dajgufebis efeqtis naTeli magaliTi da SeiZleba aRvweroT, rogorc dajgufebis kanonebis Sedegad warmoqmnili Tviseba. aseve warmoebuli Tvisebaa `tembri~ _ nakadis organizaciiT aRqmuli movlena, romelic ar warmoadgens specifikuri talRuri formis pirdapir Sedegs. smeniTi movlenebis Cveneuli aRqma mniSvnelovnadaa damokidebuli droiT, speqtrul da sivrcul modelebze. musikis Cveneuli aRqma ki damokidebulia aRqmiTi modelebis sxvadasxva doneze. musikaSi saqme gvaqvs urTierTkavSiris mwyobr modelebTan. rogoricaa, magaliTad, dinamika (xmis siZlieris modelebi), melodia (uwyveti bgeris simaRlis modelebi), ritmi (droiTi modelebi) da a. S. scenis analizis TvalsazrisiT, aRqmis warmoebuli Tvisebebi iZleva garemomcveli obieqtebis Tvisebebis zust suraTs. rodesac scenis analizi ver xerxdeba, warmoqmnili aRqmis formebi SesabamisobaSi ar aris garemosTan, maSin, isini mTlianad qimerulia. aseTi smeniTi iluziebis, an fiqciebis daxasiaTebisaTvis bregmanma (Bregman, 1991) Semoitana qimeruli dajgufebis cneba. Cvens yoveldRiur garemoSi smeniTi sistemebi yvelafers akeTeben qimerebis Tavidan asacileblad, maSin, rodesac musikis Seqmnis saboloo mizani xSirad aris smeniTi sistemis `motyueba~ fiqtiuri nakadiT _ bgeriTi fantomebiT. am konteqstSi musika SeiZleba aRiweros, rogorc winaswarganzraxviT Seqmna bgeriTi fantomebisa, romlebic smeniTi dajgufebis procesebis modelebs warmoadgenen. aman SeiZleba naTeli mohfinos SemoqmedebiT process polifoniur musikalur struqturebSi bgeriTi Sreebis Serwymis an dayofis TvalsazrisiT. ganmeorebis fenomenis safuZvlebis gagebam, SesaZloa, gamoavlinos saintereso gzebi, sadac smeniTi aRqmis suraTi bgeriTi fantomis sasargeblod SeiZleba manipulirebdes. 1950 wels mkvlevrebma _ milerma da haisem Caatares eqsperimenti bgeriTi nakadis fenomenze (Miller & Heise, 1950). am samuSaom xeli Seuwyo SemdgomSi _ 1970-ian wlebSi ganxorcielebul safuZvlian kvlevas smeniTi meqanizmebisa da aRqmis Sesaxeb (Bregman, 1991; Bregman & Campbell, 1971; Van Noorden, 1975). bregmanisa da misi TanamSromlebis eqsperimentebma gamoavlina sxvadasxva akustikuri ganzomileba, romlebic SeiZleba gamoviyenoT rTuli bgeris komponentebis dajgufebisas. farTo kvlevebi Catarda laboratoriulad kontrolirebad pirobebSi martivi Tanmimdevrobis dajgufebis cikluri ganmeorebis tendenciebis gasaanalizeblad, organizaciis geStalturi kanonebis dasadgenad (Bregmam, 1991). laboratoriuli efeqti iqmneba swrafad, alternatiuli _ maRali da dabali tonebis TanmimdevrobiT da iyofa maRal da dabal nakadebad, rasac `nakadis efeqti~ ewodeba (Bregman, 1991). es cnobili efeqti hoketis teqnikis formebis mqone musikidan momdinareobs. nakadis efeqti mniSvnelovanwilad gansazRvravs bgeriT fantoms. bgeriTi nakadis dayofas SeuZlia gavlena moaxdinos iseT faqtorebze, rogoricaa: qvedanayofebs Soris siaxlovis sixSire, droiTi siaxlove, amplituda, sivrculi mdebareoba, tembri da a. S. (Deutsch, akustikuri fantomebi 103 1999). dajgufebebs Soris konkurenciam musikalur situaciebSi SeiZleba migviyvanos araerTmniSvnelovan Sedegebamde. neba momeciT, amis sailustraciod mimovixilo hoketingis teqnika. ganvixiloT situacia, roca gameorebadi melodiuri modelebi sruldeba hoketingis teqnikiT. es niSnavs, rom xdeba melodiis ganawileba ramdenime gansxvavebul sakravs Soris. TiToeuli ukravs erT nots modelis Sesabamisad da ganmeorebisas JRers yvela noti. erTgvarovani sakravebis farglebSi organizebuli hoketingis struqtura bgeris simaRleTa siaxloviTaa marTuli. Tumca, am mxriv, SesaZloa, iyos konkurencia tembrul nakadsa (sxvadasxva sakravis xmebi) da nakadis bgeraTa simaRles Soris, sadac yuradReba fokusirebulia msmenelze. aRsaniSnavia, rom Cvens aRqmaSi Secvlili melodiuri modelebi da ritmi SeiZleba warmoiqmnas perceptuli dajgufebis cvlilebis Sedegad. akustikuri fantomebi da nakadebi eTnomusikologiur kvlevaSi termini `damaxasiaTebeli modelebi~ (“inherent patterns”) pirvelad gerhart kubikma aRwera (Kubik, 1962). man es fenomeni aRmoaCina smeniTi nakadebis eqsperimentuli laboratoriuli kvlevis gareSe, roca amadinda qsilofonze dakvris gakveTilebs iRebda aRmosavleT afrikaSi, (Kubik, 2010). kubikis mier niSandoblivi nimuSebi SeiZleba ganisazRvros, rogorc smeniTi warmosaxvis saxiT arsebuli damoukidebeli melodiur-ritmuli frazebi, romelTac mxolod smeniTi gamoxatuleba aqvs da Semsruleblebis mier ar sruldeba. man isini swrafi pasaJebis garkveuli struqturuli wesrigiT gamowveul geStalt-fsiqologiur movlenad daaxasiaTa (Kubik, 1966, 1967). akadinda qsilofonis musika ugandidan smeniTi nakadiT miRebuli mravalxmianobisa da, amdenad, akustikuri fantomis warmoqmnis STambeWdavi magaliTia. akadinda warmoadgens xis did qsilofons, romelzec ramdenime musikosi erTdroulad ukravs. aqedan gamomdinare, musika Sedgeba izoqronuli notebis Cqari, urTierTdakavSirebuli modelebisa da calkeuli intervalebisagan, romlebic 8,4 tons aRweven erT wamSi. ciklis erTi da igive Tanmimdevrobebi xangrZlivad meordeba. am swraf cvlilebebs mivyavarT gansakuTrebul modelebTan, romlebic Cndeba jadosnuri siswrafiT dakavSirebul bgerebsa da nawilakebs Soris. TiToeuli musikosis mier Sesrulebuli cikli namdvilad izoqronulia, magram ori nawilis monacvleoba warmoSobs maRal da dabal perceptul dinebebs, romlebic moulodnel araregularul ritmebs qmnis. adamianis yuri aRiqvams geStalts _ mTlianobas da ara izolirebul bgerebs. kombinirebuli Tanmimdevroba Zalian swrafia imisTvis, rom yuri mihyves da zustad daiWiros yvela noti. amrigad, smeniTi aRqmis aparati iZulebulia, saWiroebisamebr gadaajgufos es masala sxvadasxva melodiuri/ritmuli modelebis formiT. warmoqmnili `geStaltebi~ ar sruldeba erTi konkretuli Semsruleblis mier, aramed warmoadgens kargad aRqmadi meqanizmebis Sedegs, romlebic cdiloben, daajgufon Semomavali bgerebi geStaltis yvelaze saWiro nakadebad/wyaroebad. kubiki aRniSnavs, rom geStaltis nimuSebis miReba namdvilad obieqturi procesia; isini mxolod adamianis mcdari smeniTi aRqmis SemTxveviT artifaqtebs ar wamoadgens: damaxasiaTebeli 104 barbara elisoni modelebi aris is, `rasac bevri afrikeli kompozitori Zlieri grZnobiT akeTebs~ (Kubik, 1960; Kubik, 2010: 71). am avtorisaTvis msoflioSi ar arsebobs sxva iseTi kultura, sadac kompozitorebi amgvarive warmatebiT axdenen adamianis aRqmis sistemiT manipulirebas. Seusabamoba motorul da smeniT saxeebs Soris kubikma aRwera Tavisi dakvirveba amadinda qsilofonis musikis Sesaxeb da Seusabamoba Semsruleblebis mgrZnobelobasa da xmovani iluziuri nimuSebis gamoxatulebas Soris. `Sesasrulebeli nawilebis urTierTSekavSirebis ekonomiuri teqnikis meSveobiT, da aseve simaRleebis araregularuli struqturis tonalobis Tanmimdevruli intervalebiT, kompozitorebma SeZles, SeeqmnaT smeniTi suraTi, romelic SemecnebaSi vibrirebs (Kubik, 2010: 112). msmenelebi aRiqvamen ara modelebs, romelTac Semsruleblebi ukraven, aramed tvinis aRqmiTi meqanizmis restruqturizaciis Sedegs. am gagebiT, musikis mJReri saxe xSirad sakmaod gansxvavdeba notebisagan, romelic Cven Sesrulebisas SeiZleba gavigonoT. es amouxsneli konfliqti motorul da xmovan saxeebs Soris SesaZlebelia aRmovaCinoT bgeriTi fantomis mqone sxva tipis musikaSic. magaliTad, eskimosebis vokaluri TamaSebis (Katajjaq, Iirngaaq, Piqqusiraarniq) dros. Cveulebriv, ori pirispir mdgari qali CasunTqvisas da amosunTqvisas axdens specifikuri motivebis vokalizebas mJReri da yru bgerebiT. totaluri efeqti miiReba de-fazirebuli xmebis motivebis erTmaneTze dafeniT. TiToeuli motivi Seicavs zeda bgerebiT Tanxlebul qveda (an piriqiT) bgerebs da, Tu xmebi erTmaneTs mosdevs, iqmneba ori gansxvavebuli nakadis STabeWdileba. realurad, yovel bgeras warmoqmnis ori partnioridan TiToeuli. amadinda qsilofonis musikis msgavsad, orive xma erT bgeraTkompleqss qmnis. eskimosebi ori gansxvavebuli bgeriTi nakadis saSualebiT cdiloben warmatebis miRwevas TamaSSi. msmenelisaTvis rTuli gasarCevia _ uSualod romel bgeras vin asrulebs da rogor midis TamaSi (Beaudry, 1988). arsebobs sxva faqtorebic, romlebic xels uwyobs aseTi bgeriTi fantomebis wamoqmnas. esenia: sivrculi siaxlove (qalebi TamaSisas erTmaneTTan Zalian axlos dganan) da vokaluri JReradobis msgavseba (diapazoni, tembri). araerTgvarovan aRqmas msmenelSi isini Segnebulad da ise moxerxebulad aRweven, rom saocari sxvaobaa nanaxsa da gagonils Soris. smeniTi nakadis procesi iwvevs am akustikuri fantomis warmoqmnas da rac ufro ostaturia Sesruleba, miT ufro uxilavia akustikuri fantomebi (Nattiez, 1983). akustikuri fantomis dawinaureba aRqmiTi nakadebis Camoyalibeba mxolod musikis tradiciuli formebisTvis araa damaxasiaTebeli. igi mniSvnelovan rols TamaSobs dasavlur klasikur da Tanamedrove musikaSi. saukuneebis manZilze bevri kompozitori intuitiurad adgenda imgvar bgeriT struqturas, romelic gamiznulad iyo mimarTuli bgeriTi fantomebis warmoqmnisaken. barokos epoqis iseTi kompozitorebi, rogorebic iyvnen telemani da baxi, xSirad qmnidnen fsevdopolifoniur faqturas solo instrumentul nawarmoebebSi akustikuri fantomebi 105 (mag., baxis solo saviolino partita), sadac maRali da dabali registrebis swrafi monacvleoba ori urTierTgadamkveTi melodiuri xazis efeqts iZleoda. miuxedavad imisa, rom am musikis Sesruleba ise swrafad ar xdeba, rom SevZloT maRali da dabali melodiuri xazebis gamocalkeveba, rogorc es amadinda qsilofonis SemTxvevaSi iyo, mainc Cans maTi dayofis xarisxi. bolo dros hoketis teqnika sxvadasxva originaluri gziT aiTvisa bevrma dasavlelma kompozitorma. maT Sorisaa, veberni (“klangfarbenmelodie”), ligeti, qsenakisi, feldmani, andrieseni da reixi. stiv reixma termini `Sedegobrivi nimuSebi~ procesualur musikaSi mocemuli akustikuri fantomis aRwerisaTvis gamoiyena (Reich, 2002). cnobilia, rom ligeti Zalian iyo gatacebuli afrikuli musikiT da uSualod ganicdida mis zegavlenas. mas xiblavda is, rasac Serzingeri `fsiqologiur gaorebas~ (“psychological doubleness”) uwodebda (Scherzinger, 2006) da zogierT nawarmoebSi cdilobda erTgvari iluzoruli musikaluri sivrcis Seqmnas, romelic hgavs Bbuganda da banda-linda sayvirebis ansamblebs samefo karze. 1980-ian wlebSi ligeti ukve icnobda simha aromis kvlevebs centraluri afrikis musikaze (Arom, 1991), agreTve, gerhard kubikis Teoriebs damaxasiaTebel ritmebTan dakavSirebiT (Arom, 1991). TiToeulma maTganma mniSvnelovani roli Seasrula mis 1980-90 ww-is kompoziciebSi. radikalurad gansxvavebuli kulturuli da istoriuli bgeriTi gamoxatulebis bolo magaliTi aris `biTboqsingi~, romelic warmoadgens vokaluri perkusiis popularul Tanamedrove tradicias, sxvadasxva vokaluri teqnikis gamoyenebiT Seqmnil art-formas, romelic ase Tu ise baZavs ritmis gamomcem manqanas. eskimosebis msgavsad, vokaluri TamaSebi farTod iyeneben SesunTqviTa da amosunTqviT miRebul bgerebs, raTa warmoqmnan damajerebeli akustikuri fantomebi. `biTboqserebi~ qmnian polifoniis iluziur formas da SeuZliaT moatyuon smena garkveuli bgerebis (banebi, dasartyamebis imitacia, vokali) aRqmisas, roca es yvelaferi erTad JRers. zogierTi meTodi gulisxmobs ramdenime nakadisagan Semdgari vokaluri tembrebis swraf monacvleobas. erT-erT statiaSi, romelic `biTboqsis~ stilis daxasiaTebas eZRvneboda, avtorebi (Stowel & Plumbley, 2008) miiCnevdnen, rom swrafi monacvleobis es tipebi smeniTi iluziis Sesaqmnelad aris gamoyenebuli da maT SeuZliaT xeli Seuwyon bgeraTa fenebis tembrul nakadTa ukeT aRqmas. Targmna ia maxaraZem 106 BARBARA ELLISON (NETHERLANDS) SONIC PHANTOMS The Sonic Phantom as Emergent Gestalt We could generally define a “sonic phantom” as an illusion of hearing; something apparently heard but having no physical reality in terms of acoustic waves as perceptive input. Sonic phantoms are auditory illusions that we can indeed perceive but their locus of existence as hearing phenomena is only in our mind (our brain). The listener hears sounds that are actually not present as acoustic stimuli, but are instead emergent “fictional” sounds which arise as a result of a very particular organization of the “real” acoustic elements present. These kinds of phenomena have been recognized and researched independently in different fields of study and musical practice. Ethnomusicologists typically describe these sonic phantoms as “inherent or subjective patterns” of hearing (Kubik, 1967). Cognitive Psychologists refer to them as “auditory streams” (Bregman, 1990). And within the realm of composition terms like “emergent gestalts”, “resultant patterns”, or “pseudo-polyphony” are common to refer to them (e.g., Reich, 2002; Pandey, 2005). Hence, although my preferred term is the one I am introducing here -“sonic phantoms”- throughout this paper I will use some of the different abovementioned terms as befits the context to point to the same phenomenon. A general analysis of different types of music from around the world (both traditional and nontraditional) in which we find examples of prominent emergent gestalts, reveals that these are often either a byproduct of, or in many cases intentionally produced by interlocking techniques such as hocketing. These techniques are structurally perfect strategies to adopt for generating prominent inherent patterns and emergent complex sound structures from very simple elements. Examples of polyphonic traditions which make use of the hocketing principle as a structural technique are abundant in Africa alone and feature in the music of the Kpelle people from Guinea/Liberia (e.g horn ensembles, bush-clearing songs), the Aka and Ba-benzele from Central Africa, Baka people from Cameroon, the mbira music the of Shona of Zimbabwe, panpipe ensembles of Ouganda/Busoga, Banda-Linda Horn ensembles from central Africa, etc. Other diverse examples include the hocketing gamelan music from Indonesia, the hocketed and yodeled vocal polyphony of west Georgia, the Lithuanian Skudučiai multipipe flute music and lesser known Russian panpipe traditions from the Kursk province (Velitchkina, 1996; Grauer, 2011; Jordania, 2006). The hocket technique, in general terms, describes interlocking alternating patterns of sound and silence between more than one instrument or voice which all combine to make a “whole”. However, it can also refer to the creation of a pseudo-polyphony within one voice or instrument. A well known example of this kind of vocal hocketing phenomenon is yodeling, found in many cultures all over the world, where a single voice is able to give the impression of multiple concurrent parts. What is fascinating from a creative perspective is how these kinds of strategies play with perceptual ambiguity and exploit its potential for producing emergent features which arise out of performance practice. In this context, “emergent features” would be global characteristics or gestalts- 107 perceptual results that are significantly different- arising at a higher-level when information (sonic phenomena) at a lower-level is organized in a particular way (Bregman, 1990). A fundamental aim underlying my compositional research in this area is in determining the organisation of such a ground-level system or process, which is capable of “bringing forth” the sonic phantom. My ultimate interest in practice is in exploring this phenomenon in a musical context as one which offers intriguing compositional possibilities to delight and capture the attention of the listener: a heightened gestalt listening experience. In this paper I present a brief general overview of the different perspectives on the analysis of these kinds of phenomena, as well as a selection of categorical examples of diverse types of music worldwide - and throughout history- making use of techniques that could be considered as giving rise to “sonic phantoms”. I believe this kind of comparative analysis - contrasting and synthesizing results from diverse disciplines, from traditional musical analysis to auditory perception, and across musical cultures and historical periods- could significantly inform and reshape our understanding of what seems to be an essential widespread human technique for the generation of auditory and musical illusions. The Auditory Scene and Perceptual Ambiguity Auditory perception, as we normally understand it when we refer to listening, is not a passive process. Our eardrums may be vibrating, but to eventually perceive as a listening experience we must execute the neurological interpretational processes that give rise to the listening perceptual patterns. We organize the acoustic input by perceptually grouping, fusing, segregating, etc., so as to appreciate meaning, structure, patterns, etc. The concept of ”Auditory Scene Analysis” (ASA) is of particular relevance here. It describes how the auditory perceptual system parses a noisy and complex acoustic world into individual coherent auditory components or meaningful events, thus helping us organise the perception of auditory phenomena of interest. ASA is concerned with how we group and segregate various sound sources (see e.g. Bregman, 1990). When we hear out a single speaker in a crowded noisy room we are in fact carrying out auditory scene analysis. When sounds are grouped by the auditory system into a perceived sequence, distinct from other simultaneous sequences, each of these perceived sequences is called an “auditory stream”. There is a perceptual relationship between the “stream” and “source” whereby a stream is perceived as coming from a single source. Real and virtual sources are both examples of auditory streams. They are different, not in terms of their psychological properties but in terms of the reality of the things they refer to in the world. So, what makes us hear some combination of sounds as fused and others as segregated? To address these questions ASA looks at the “laws of grouping” of auditory information much in the same way as the Gestalt psychologists dealt with the “laws of organisation” for visual information. The particular organization of sounds that gives rise to streams and emergent properties seem to depend on the conformity to certain grouping laws. “Melody” is an example of grouping effects and can be described as an emergent property resulting from laws of grouping. “Timbre” is also an emergent property, a perceived property of a stream organisation, as opposed to the direct result of a particular waveform. Our perception of auditory events is highly dependent on temporal, spectral and 108 Barbara Ellison spacial patterns. Our perception of music depends on the establishment of these perceptual patterns at various different levels. In music we deal with nested patterns of relationships; for example, dynamics (loudness patterns), melody (sequential pitch patterns), rhythm (temporal patterns), etc. From a scene analysis perspective, normally in perception, emergent properties are accurate portrayals of the properties of the objects in our environment. When scene analysis processes fail and the emergent perceived shapes do not correspond to any environmental sources, they will be entirely chimerical. Bregman (1991) coined the term chimeric grouping to characterise such “fictions” or illusions of hearing. In our day to day environment our auditory systems try their best to avoid these chimeras, whereas in making music the goal is often to “fool” the auditory system into hearing fictional streams -the sonic phantoms. In this context, music could be described as being the deliberate creation of sonic phantoms, which are the patterns created by auditory grouping processes. So if the sonic phantoms are the patterns manifesting from the perceptual auditory grouping processes, then creative strategies can be devised to manipulate the relevant factors at the relevant levels of interaction that control the formation of sequential and simultaneous streams. This can throw a new light on the creative process in terms of highlighting how fusion or segregation of sound layers in polyphonic musical structures can be achieved. Understanding the basis of the streaming phenomena can therefore reveal interesting ways in which the perceptual auditory image can be manipulated to bring forth the sonic phantom. As early as 1950, researchers Miller and Heise were conducting experiments into the streaming phenomenon (Miller and Heise, 1950). This type of seminal work promoted the later development of a substantial research focus in the 1970s in investigating parsing mechanisms in auditory perception (Bregman, 1991; Bregman and Campbell, 1971; Noorden, 1975). The experiments of Bregman and his collaborators have demonstrated a number of different acoustic dimensions that can be used by perception to group together the components of a complex sound. Extensive tests were carried out under laboratory-controlled conditions with cyclic repetitions of simple-stimulus sequences to analyse the grouping tendencies under certain conditions, as guided by the Gestalt laws of organisation (see Bregman, 1991). The laboratory effect created when a rapid kind of sequence of alternating high and low tones separate into high and low streams is referred to as the “streaming effect” (Bregman, 1991). It is this prominent streaming effect that manifests from music which uses hocketed interlocking forms. The streaming effect is largely responsible for the sonic phantoms. Auditory stream segregation can be affected by factors such as frequency proximity between units, temporal proximity, amplitude, spacial location, timbre, etc. (see e.g., Deutsch, 1999). Competition between the grouping cues can often lead to ambiguous outcomes in musical situations. Let me refer to the hocketing technique to illustrate this. Consider a situation where a repeating melodic pattern is played with a hocketing technique, meaning that the melody line is split between several different instruments. Each instrument is set to play one note at a time of the pattern, and will, through repetition, eventually play every note in the pattern. A hocketing structure between homogenous instruments will more than likely be perceptually organized into streams governed by pitch proximity. However, in this case there will be competition between streaming by timbre (different instrument sounds) or streaming by pitch depending on where the attentional focus of the listener is. What is fascinating is that alterations to our perception of rhythms and melodic patterns can result from these changes in perceptual grouping. Sonic Phantoms 109 Sonic Phantoms and Streams In ethnomusicological research the term “inherent patterns” was first described by Gerhard Kubik (Kubik, 1962). Whilst taking amadinda xylophone lessons in East Africa, and without knowledge of the experimental laboratory research into auditory streaming, Kubik stumbled across the phenomenon independently himself on the field (Kubik, 2010). Inherent patterns, as put forth by Kubik, can be defined as independent melodic-rhythmic phrases that only exist as an aural image and are not played as such by the performers. He described them as a gestalt-psychological phenomenon caused by a certain structural arrangement of rapid passages with wide intervals (Kubik, 1966, 1967). The akadinda xylophone music from Uganda is indeed an impressive example of sonic phantom-producing polyphony and so at the same time of auditory streaming. The akadinda is a large wooden xylophone played by several musicians at the same time. The resulting music consists of rapidly interlocking patterns of isochronous notes and disjunct intervals firing at about 8.4 tones per second, repeating the same note sequence in cycles for extended periods of time. These speedy alterations give rise to prominent inherent patterns that appear to magically emerge from the interconnections between the sound particles. The cycle played by each player is indeed isochronous but the interleaving of the two parts creates high and low perceptual streams that surprisingly give rise to irregular rhythms. The human ear perceives a “gestalt” instead of isolated sounds. The combined interlocked sequence is too fast for the ear to follow note by note and so the auditory perceptual apparatus has to regroup the material as it sees fit forming several different melodic/rhythms patterns. The “gestalts” that emerge are not played as such by any specific player but are instead a result of the very perceptual mechanism that tries to group the incoming sounds into the best fitting streams/sources. Kubik notes that obtaining the resulting pattern gestalts is indeed the objective of the process; they are not just mere incidental artifacts of the faulty human auditory perceptual apparatus: inherent patterns are “what many African composers are after by passion” (Kubik, 1960, cited in Kubik, 2010 Vol 1, p.71). For this author, there is no other culture in the world whereby composers have so successfully manipulated the human perception system with such expertise. Mismatch Between the Motor and Aural Image Kubik described his observations of amadinda xylophone music and the mismatch between the sensory input of the players and the sounding image as bringing forth illusory patterns: “by applying the economical technique of interlocking performance parts, and through an irregular structuring of pitch sequences in disjunct intervals, composers learned to create auditory jigsaw puzzles that would oscillate in perception” (Kubik, 2010: 112). Listeners perceive patterns that are not played as such by any of the players, but are instead a result of the perceptual restructuring mechanisms of the brain. In this fashion, the sounding image of the music often differs quite dramatically from the notes that we can see being played. This puzzling conflict between the motor image and the sounding image can also be observed in other types of music that play with sonic phantoms, such as the Inuit vocal games (Katajjaq, Iirngaaq, Piqqusiraarniq). Normally played by two women facing each other, the partners vocalize specific motifs in alternating patterns of voiced/un-voiced and inhaled/exhaled sounds, with the total effect resulting from the motivic superposition of the de-phased voices. If, for example, each motif contains a low-pitched sound followed by a high-pitched one (or the contrary), and if the two voices follow 110 Barbara Ellison each other by half a beat, we get the impression of hearing two distinct streams of low-pitched and high-pitched sounds, respectively. In reality, each sound has been produced alternately by each of the two partners. Just as with the inherent patterns of the amadinda xylophone music, both voices are creating each of the sounds heard. For the Inuit, the stronger the illusion of the two different voices with two different streams, the more successful the game is. It is even difficult for the listener to tell which sounds are produced by whom even when one understands how the game is played (Beaudry, 1988). There are other factors that contribute to this sonic phantom, such as spatial proximity (the women stand very close to each other as they play) and similarity in their sounding vocal qualities (range, timbre). These are deliberately and skillfully used by the players to produce perceptual ambiguity in the listener, with a striking mismatch between what is seen and what is heard. Auditory streaming processes cause this sonic phantom to arise and the more skilled the execution of the Katajjaq the more salient the sonic phantoms are (Nattiez, 1983). Bringing Forth the Sonic Phantom The formation of perceptual streams is not exclusive of traditional forms of music but has also played an important role in classical and contemporary Western Music. Over the centuries, many composers have intuitively composed sound structures that were strategically organised to produce emergent sonic phantoms. Composers in the Baroque period such as Telemann and Bach frequently played with pseudo-polyphonic textures in solo instrumental works (e.g., Bach solo violin partitas) where individual instruments rapidly alternated between a high and a low register, giving the effect of two interleaved melodic lines. While the performances of these compositions are typically not fast enough to segregate the high and low melodic lines as prominently as in the amadinda xylophone pieces, they still produce a convincing degree of separation. The hocket technique has also been explored more recently in many original ways by Western music composers such as Webern (“klangfarbenmelodie”), Ligeti, Xenakis, Feldman, Andriessen or Reich. Steve Reich used the term “resultant patterns” to describe the sonic phantoms generated in his process-based music (Reich, 2002). Ligeti was known for his admiration of African music and was directly influenced by it. He was fascinated by what Scherzinger called its “psychological doubleness” (Scherzinger, 2006), and in certain works he sought to achieve a kind of illusory musical space, inspired by such music as that of the royal courts of Buganda and the Banda Linda horn ensembles. In the 1980s Ligeti was already familiar with the research of Simha Arom on the music of Central Africa (Arom, 1991), as well as the theories of Gerhard Kubik on inherent rhythms (Arom, 1991), all of which provided substantial inspiration for his compositions in the 1980s and 1990s. As a final example of a radically different cultural and historical sound expression, “beatboxing” is part of a popular modern tradition of vocal percussion, an art-form exploiting many vocal techniques that -somehow paradoxically- imitate beat-producing machines. Like in the case of the Inuit vocal games, it includes the widespread use of inhaled and exhaled sounds to produce very convincing sonic phantoms. “Beatboxers” aim to create the illusion of a form of polyphony, and they can trick the listening brain into perceiving certain sound events (basslines, drum machine imitations, vocals) as taking place simultaneously. Some of these techniques also involve the rapid alternation between vocal timbres producing multiple streams. In a recent article characterizing the beatboxing style, the authors suggest that these types of rapid alternations are used to create auditory illusions 111 Sonic Phantoms and are employed because they can encourage the perceptual timbral streaming of the sound layers (Stowel and Plumbley, 2008). References Arom, Simha. (1991). African Polyphony and Polyrhythm: Musical Structure and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beaudry, N. (1988). “Singing, Laughing and Playing: Three Examples from the Inuit, Dene and Yupik Traditions”. In: The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, vol. 8, no. 2:275. Bregman, A.S. & Campbell, J. (1971). “Primary Auditory Stream Segregation and Perception of Order in Rapid Sequences of Tones”. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 89, no. 2:244-249. Bregman, A.S. (1994). Auditory Scene Analysis: the Perceptual Organization of Soun. MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Deutsch, D (editor). (1999). “Grouping Mechanisms in Music”. In: The psychology of music. P. 299-348. 2nd Edition. Grauer, D.V.A. (2011). Sounding the Depths. Self-Published, Createspace. Jordania, J. (2006). Who Asked the First Question? The Origins of Human Choral Singing, Intelligence, Language and Speech. Tbilisi State University: Logos. Kubik, G. (1962). “The Phenomenon of Inherent Rhythms in East and Central African Instrumental Music”. In: African Music, vol. 3, no. 1: 33-42. Kubik, G. (2000). “Interconnectedness in Ethnomusicological Research”. In: Ethnomusicology, vol. 44, no. 1:114. Kubik, G. (2010a). Theory of African Music. Vol 1. University of Chicago Press. Kubik, G. (2010b). Theory of African Music. Vol 2, University of Chicago Press. Miller, G.A. & Heise, G.A. (1950). “The Trill Threshold”, In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 22, no. 5:637. Nattiez, J.J. (1983). “Some Aspects of Inuit Vocal Games”. In: Ethnomusicology, 27(3):457-475. Pandey, A. (2005). Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Music. P. 549-550. Gyan Publishing House. 112 Barbara Ellison Reich, S. & Hillier, P. (2002). Writings on music, 1965-2000. P. 34-36. New York: Oxford University Press, Incorporated. Velitchkina, O. (1996). “The Role of Movement in Russian Panpipe Playing”. In: Ethnomusicology Online 2: http://www.umbc.edu/eol/2/index.html, accessed May 27, 2012 Scherzinger, M. (2006). “György Ligeti and the Aka Pygmies Project”. In: Contemporary Music Review, 25(3): 227-262. Stowell, D. and Plumbley, M.D. (2008). “Characteristics of the Beatboxing Vocal Style”. Technical Report C4DM-TR-08-01. Xenakis, I. (1992). Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition. Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press. 113 nino fircxalava (saqarTvelo) ebanis, banis, bamis urTierTmimarTebis sakiTxisaTvis samusiko terminologia erT-erTi umniSvnelovanesi gasaRebia musikaluri xelovnebis ganviTarebis safexurebis dasadgenad. qarTuli samusiko terminebis dadgenagaanalizebas udidesi yuradReba eqceoda da eqceva dResac. amaze metyvelebs qarTvel lingvistTa, istorikosTa Tu musikismcodneTa naSromebi, romlebic xalxur zepirsityvierebasa Tu literaturul ZeglebSi asaxul masalas, xmieri Tu sakravieri musikaluri terminologiis kvlevas eZRvneba. XI saukunis qarTveli filosofosisa da RvTismetyvelis, ioane petriwis1 Txzulebebis leqsika Zveli qarTuli terminologiis kvlevis TvalsazrisiT, erT-erTi umniSvnelovanesi wyaroTagania. did interess iwvevs petriwis ,,ganmartebaQ~-Si dafiqsirebuli simReris dabali, mesame xmis saxelwodeba bami. cneba banisagan gansxvavebiT, romelic dRemde saSemsruleblo praqtikaSi cocxali terminia, petriwiseuli bami faqtobrivad ar gvxvdeba samwerlobo da qarTul saero yofiT leqsikaSi. TviT XVIII saukunis qarTuli enis fundamentur leqsikonSi (,,sityvis kona~2) xsenebuli cnebis pirvelwyaro petriwis Txzulebaa. sainteresoa, ratom uwodebs petriwi simReris mesame xmas bams da ara bans, saidan moitana man mesame xmis es saxelwodeba? ebani, bani, bamis raobisa da etimologiis Sesaxeb sagulisxmo, angariSgasawevi Tvalsazrisi aqvs gamoTqmuli iv. javaxiSvils Tavis naSromSi `qarTuli musikis istoriis ZiriTadi sakiTxebi~. metad sainteresoa da, amasTanave, garkveuli TvalsazrisiT, sakamaToc, e. garayaniZis mosazreba cneba bamTan dakavSirebiT. amdenad, upirveles yovlisa, maTi Tvalsazrisebis Sesaxeb mogaxsenebT. ebanis raobis gamorkvevis sakiTxs sakmao adgili daeTmo i. javaxiSvilis zemoxsenebul naSromSi. daviTis fsalmunebidan, Tu `dabadebis~ qarTuli Targmanebidan moyolebuli, es sakravi dominirebs Zvel qarTul sasuliero da saero damwerlobis ZeglebSi, vidre XIX s.-mde. XIX s.-Si ebanis kvali wydeba. Zveli literaturuli wyaroebi da xalxuri zepirsityvieri mexsiereba TvalsaCino warmodgenas ar iZleva imis Sesaxeb, Tu rogor gamoiyureboda igi. amdenad, daskvnebis gakeTebaSi Zalzed frTxili i. javaxiSvilis savaraudo Tvalsazrisi ebanis Sesaxeb, mokled, SemdegSi mdgomareobs: saqarTveloSi ebani faqtobrivad ar Semonaxula, magram ,,ebani am sakravis qarTuli saxeli Cans. sakravic qarTuli iyo Tu ara Tavdapirvelad, es jer gamosarkvevia, magram misi ebraul qinnoris (qnari – n.f.) qarTul Sesatyvisobad miCneva da gamoyeneba uflebas gvaZlevs vifiqroT, rom ebanic galoba-simReris SebanebisaTvis gankuTvnili sakravi yofila, romelic Zalebian sakravTa jgufs hkuTvnebia (...) dabadebis (...) qarTulad gadmoTargmnis xanaSi mainc~ (javaxiSvili, 1938: 138). iv. javaxiSvili varaudobda, rom garkveuli xnis ganmavlobaSi ebani da qnari sinonimebi unda yofiliyvnen. maTi raobis gasarkvevad mecniers erTmaneTisaTvis Seudare- 114 nino fircxalava bia `dabadebis~ qarTuli Targmanebis saTanado adgilebi, ris safuZvelzec miaCnda, rom ebanic da qnaric Seesatyviseboda ebraul qinnors, berZnul kiTaras, somxur qanars da laTinur liras. iv. javaxiSvili xazgasmiT miuTiTebs sakravi ebanisa da cneba banis saerTo fuZeze, Sesabamisad, am ori cnebis qarTul warmomavlobasa da maT savaraudo xnierebaze. iv. javaxiSvilis Tvalsazrisis damadasturebel metad saintereso masalas vxvdebiT ebanze Zveli qarTuli enis ganmartebiT leqsikonebSi (a. Ciqobava, i. abulaZe), sadac araerTi saintereso amonaridia mowodebuli Zveli qarTuli literaturuli wyaroebidan. niSandoblivia is faqti, rom meqnareoba ganmartebulia definiciiT _ ebna. ebna niSnavs qnaris dakvras, meqnareobas. TvalsaCinoebisaTvis, leqsikonSi motanilia amonaridi Zveli aRTqmidan: keTilad ebnd, rac niSnavs keTilad meqnareobdas (abulaZe, 1973: 145). metad saintereso amonaridia motanili bibliidan (danieli): `romelsa Jamsa gesmes xmaQ sayvirisaQ, nestvisaQ, stvirisaQ da qnarisaQ da ebnisaQ da saxiobisaQ~. am amonaridSi orive sakravi erTmaneTisagan damoukidebladaa warmodgenili mwyobrSi, rac maT gansxvavebulobaze unda miuTiTebdes (abulaZe, 1973: 327). `qmna…... qnarebi, ebnebi galobaTa~ (abulaZe, 1973: 455) `Semsxmelni qnariTa da ebnebiTa da winwiliTa~ (abulaZe, 1973: 145). `xmaTa zeda ebnisa da qnarisa ityuelebdian~ _ sadac tyuelva, Tanatyuelva, Zveli qarTuliT taSis cemas niSnavs, an cekvas gulisxmobs (abulaZe, 1973: 415, 455). gansakuTrebiT sainteresod mogveCvena amonaridi gr. noselis Txzulebidan `kacis agebuleba~, romelic ase JRers: `ver xelewifebis stvenai ebniTa da verca ebnaQ stviriTa~ (abulaZe, 1973: 403). es amonaridi X-XIII saukuneebis xelnawerebidanaa amoRebuli i. abulaZis mier. Cven moviZieT am citatis Sesabamisi konteqsti gr. noselis Txzulebidan, romlis Sinaarsi aseTia: `ramdenadac adamiani metyveli cxovelia, saWiro Seiqmna sxeulSi metyvelebis Sesabamisi organos Semzadeba, ise, rogorc amas musikosebSi vxedavT, romelnic sakravis saxeobisaTvis Sesabamis musikas qmnian, radganac ebaniT ver dastven da stviriT simebs ver aaJRereb~ (abulaZe, 1964: 139, 230). amrigad, ebna Zvel qarTulSi xmis gamocemis procesis aRmniSvneli cnebaa, ebani _ sakravia. is faqti, rom ebna da meqnareoba Zvel qarTul wyaroebSi identuri mniSvnelobis cnebebia, iZleva safuZvels vifiqroT, rom ebraul fsalmunebs da sakrav qinnors saqarTveloSi adgilobrivi saSemsruleblo praqtika da Sesabamisi terminologiac daxvda. qnari da ebani msgavsi daniSnulebis, Tumca warmomavlobiT da, SesaZlebelia, JReradobiTac gansxvavebuli sakravebi iyvnen, rasac unda adasturebdes sxvadasxvagvar mwyobrSi maTi erTad yofna. iv. javaxiSvilisa da gr. CxikvaZis3 TvasazrisiT, qarTul saSemsruleblo praqtikaSi da, Sesabamisad, leqsikaSi qnaris gamoCenas win unda uswrebdes ebani, romelic adgilobrivi warmomavlobis qnaris msgavsi sakravi unda yofiliyo; Tumca, rogorc viciT, qnari literaturul wyaroebSi gacilebiT adre Cndeba, vidre ebani. is moxseniebulia V s.-Si iakob curtavelis hagiografiul TxzulebaSi `SuSanikis martvi- ebanis, banis, bamis urTierTmimarTebis sakiTxisaTvis 115 loba~, ebani ki, literaturul wyaroebSi fiqsirebis TvalsazrisiT, gacilebiT gviandeli movlenaa (daaxloebiT IX, X s.-dan). Sesabamisad, Cndeba kiTxva: Tu sworia iv. javaxiSvilisa da gr. CxikvaZis Tvalsazrisi bani-ebanis kavSirsa da maT siZvelesTan dakavSirebiT, maSin riT aris gamowveuli garkveuli xnis ganmavlobaSi ebanis ugulebelyofa qarTul literaturul wyaroebSi? amis mizezi sakravi ebanis qristianobamdeli warmomavloba xom ar undaNiyos? am kiTxvaze swori pasuxi upirobod moiTxovs Zveli qarTuli wyaroebis zedmiwevniT codnas. mocemul naSromSi Semovifarglebi ioane petriwis TxzulebebSi arsebuli masaliT. rac Seexeba am ukanasknelis orive Txzulebisa da fsalmunebis Zvel qarTul Targmanebs, am teqstebis dakvirvebiT Seswavlam naTelyo, rom am naSromebSi sakravebs Soris, faqtobrivad, naxsenebia mxolod ebani, bobRani, stviri, nestvni ,,rqisani~ da `Wedilni~. am sakravTa saxelwodebebi, fonetikuri TvalsazrisiT, vfiqrobT, marTlac sakmaod qarTulad ismineba (fsalmunebi, 1990: 56, 32,70, 80,91, 95, 96, 97, 150). xom ar unda miuTiTebdes es faqti imaze, rom kulturuli TviTdamkvidrebis am epoqaSi (vgulisxmobT gr. xanZTelidan (IX s.)4 moyolebuli petriwamdel da Semdgom epoqas), mizandasaxuli xdeba erovnuli leqsikis, tradiciuli qarTuli xelovnebis aRdgena-damkvidrebis procesi, yuradReba maxvildeba yovelive erovnulze, Tundac qristianobamdelzec?! yovel SemTxvevaSi, ioane petriwis leqsika amgvari ganwyobilebis TvalsaCino magaliTia. ioane petriwis leqsikaSi, romelic Sua saukuneebis erT-erTi umniSvnelovanesi wyaroTagania, samusiko sakravebidan vxvdebiT mxolod ebans, bobRans, stvirs da nestvs. faqtobrivad, ar vxvdebiT qnars da Cangs. Tu gaviTvaliswinebT am RvTismetyvelis sruliad mizandasaxul swrafvas Zveli qarTuli terminologiisadmi da qarTul leqsikaSi raime cnebis deficitis SemTxvevaSi qarTuli fuZeebidan axali cnebebis SeTxzvis miseul meTods, e.w. `sityvaqmnadobis~ miseul gamocdilebas, maSin petriwis leqsika kidev erTi argumentia, romelic adasturebs iv. javaxiSvilis da gr. CxikvaZis Tvalsazriss imis Taobaze, rom ebani uZvelesi qarTuli Sembanebeli (Semxmobi) sakravia, romelsac saerTo fuZe, erTi semantikuri veli akavSirebs qarTuli simReris fuZis _ mesame xmis saxelwodeba banTan; aseve iseT sityvebTan, rogoricaa e-ubne-ba, u-bnob-s, uam-bni-a. cneba banis xniereba da warmomavloba qarTuli musikis istoriisaTvis friad mniSvnelovani da sayuradRebo sakiTxia. iv. javaxiSvils miaCnda, rom bani Tu ufro adre ara, Zveli aRTqmis gadmoTargmnis xanaSi mainc, qarTul samwerlobo leqsikaSi ukve damkvidrebuli unda yofiliyo. am faqtis dasturad mas moaqvs mefeTa cxovrebis dedanSi (arsen iyalToelis redaqcia, XI s.)5 gamoyenebuli Semdegi fraza: `daviT ucemda orRanoTa SebanebuliTa~, sadac cneba Sebaneba, mecnieris ganmartebiT, harmoniulad SeTanxmebuls (sakraviT an xmiT) ayolebuls unda gulisxmobdes. am sakiTxTan dakavSirebiT momaqvs amonaridi misi naSromidan: `bani Zveladac da Tanamedrove qarTul xalxur sityvierebaSic imdenad boxi xmis aRmniSvneli ar yofila, ramdenadac zogadad, akompanementis, Sebanebisa, romelic SesaZlebelia sakravieric yofiliyo da xmieric~. mecniers miaCnda, rom bani Semdgom, droTa ganmavlobaSi, qarTuli mravalx- 116 nino fircxalava mianobis ganviTarebasTan erTad, unda qceuliyo dabali, mesame xmis saxelwodebad (javaxiSvili, 1938: 333, 339).A banis mniSvnelobasTan dakavSirebiT mravlismTqmelia `sityvis konis~ (XVIII s.) monacemebi. am ukanasknelSi bani, rogorc sasimRero xmis aRmniSvneli termini ar moixsenieba. aramed, `bani ewodebis ra galobas, gina simReras sxva xma Seawyos~ (orbeliani, 1991: 94). miuxedavad imisa, rom leqsikografs iseTi sityvebis ganmartebisas, rogoricaa godeba, zruni, Sebaneba, `sityvis konaSi~ cneba Sebanebuli calke ar aqvs Setanili, leqsikonSi bani Sebanebis sinonimadaa gamoyenebuli: `godeba aris xmatkbilobiT satkivarTa sityvaTa mgosnoba, xolo zruni Sebaneba misi~ (orbeliani, 1991: 164) zrunze ki sweria: `zruni _ godebis bani~ (orbeliani, 1991: 287). amrigad, bani da Sebaneba sabasaTvis sinonimebia. `qarTuli musikis istoriis ZiriTad sakiTxebSi~ iv. javaxiSvili cneba bam-is raobasac Seexo, Tumca, mecniers misi etimologiis Rrma analizi ar gaukeTebia, vfiqrobT, Sesabamisi masalisa Tu informaciis uqonlobis gamo. banisa da bamis raobis Sesaxeb saintereso Tvalsazrisia gamoTqmuli e. garayaniZis werilSi `zogierTi qarTuli musikaluri terminis raobisa da etimologiis garkvevisaTvis~. man erTmniSvnelovnad gaiziara iv. javaxiSvilis Tezisi, romlis mixedviT, banis ori mniSvnelobidan _ Tanxlebidan da dabali xmis saxelwodebidan _ pirveli ufro Zvelia, Tumca, cneba banis warmomavlobasTan dakavSirebiT gansxvavebuli Tvalsazrisi warmoadgina. imis gaTvaliswinebiT, rom qarTuli enis fonetikuri bunebisaTvis Cveulebrivi movlenaa bgera m-dan n-ze gadasvla, e. garayaniZe Tvlis, rom bani warmoadgens bamis fonetikur saxecvlilebas. bani gulisxmobs bmas, gabmas, dabmas. igi momdinareobs zmnidan bama, romelic Tavis mxriv dabma-gabmis aRmniSvnelia. bans mecnieri erTgvar Sualedur formad miiCnevs bamsa da bunas Soris, romelic megruli dialeqtze gundis, jgufis aRmniSvneli cneba iyo (garayaniZe, 1977: 42). e. garayaniZes gansakuTrebiT sagulisxmod miaCnia is faqti, rom oane petriwisagan gansxvavebiT, romlis TxzulebaSic (`ganmartebaQ~) dabali, mesame xmis saxelwodebad bamia moxseniebuli, misive Tanamedrovis _ arsen iyalToelis erT-erT TargmanebaSi gamoyenebulia ara bami, aramed bani. mecnieri ar miuTiTebs, Tu a. iyalToelis romel gamonaTqvams gulisxmobs igi. savaraudod, mas mxedvelobaSi unda hqondes zemoxsenebuli cnobili citata bibliidan (qarT. Targm.): `daviT ucemda orRanoTa SebanebuliTa~. erTi da igive epoqis ori qarTveli RvTismetyvelis leqsikaSi simReris xmis saxelwodebasTan dakavSirebuli sxvaobis am faqts igi imiT xsnis, rom i. petriwisa da a. iyalToelis SemTxvevaSi, SeiZleba qarTuli enis or, sxvadasxva dialeqturi wris warmomadgenelTan gvqondes saqme (garayaniZe, 1977: 40). e. garayaniZis Tvalsazrisi imis Sesaxeb, rom cnebebi: bami, dabamva, dabmuli, erTbami, zmna bama(bma)sagan nawarmoebi saxelzmnaa _ utyuaria; magram, rac Seexeba Tvalsazriss imis Sesaxeb, rom erTi epoqis am ori RvTismetyvelis leqsikaSi sxvaobis mizezi maTi gansxvavebuli dialeqturi warmomavloba SeiZleba iyos, CemTvis miuRebelia. Zveli qarTuli enis ganmartebiT leqsikonebSi daculi masalebisa, Tu Tavad ebanis, banis, bamis urTierTmimarTebis sakiTxisaTvis 117 petriwis Targmanebis teqstebze muSaobisas miRebuli gamocdilebis gaTvaliswinebiT, Cemi Tvalsazrisi bamTan dakavSirebiT gansxvavebulia da SemdegSi mdgomareobs. bani Tu bami? ioane petriwis musikalur esTetikaze muSaobis procesSi imTaviTve mosvenebas ar maZlevda kiTxva, romelzec dRemde vcdilob vipovo pasuxi: ratom uwodebs petriwi mesame xmas bams da ara bans, saidan moitana man mesame xmis es saxelwodeba? is faqti, rom petriwis Tanamedrove literaturuli skolis warmomadgeneli a. iyalToeli Tavis TargmanebSi (`mefeTa cxovreba~, baqari) mimarTavs cneba Sebanebuls (javaxiSvili, 1938: 302) imis dasturia, rom es ukanaskneli (Sebanebuli) ukve damkvidrebuli terminia qarTul literaturul leqsikonSi. ratom ar iyenebs mas petriwi? banisagan gansxvavebiT, romelic dRemde cocxali, qmediTi terminia, qarTul samwerlobo Tu yofiT leqsikaSi bami ar fiqsirdeba. TviT sityvis konaSic moxseniebuli am cnebis pirvelwyaro (faqtobrivad, erTaderTi) petriwis Txzulebaa, rac damafiqrebeli faqtia. iv. javaxiSvilisa da gr. CxikvaZis mier ebanze gaweuli kvlevis masalebis gacnobam gaaCina garkveuli Tvalsazrisi. maTi Sejerebisa da gaTvaliswinebis safuZvelze vfiqrob, rom: Sua saukuneebis qarTul yofiT Tu saliteraturo leqsikaSi damkvidrebuli, sakravier Tu xmier samusiko praqtikaSi Tanxlebis (xmis micemis) aRmniSvneli cnebebis _ bnda, ebna, bnoba, ebanis monaTesave cneba _ banma ver daakmayofila rTulad moazrovne, samwerlobo, safilosofoso leqsikis motrfiale RvTismetyveli, romelic qarTul simRera-galobaSi, misi gamoTqma rom gamoviyenoT, qarTulad ,,xmaTa SeyovlebaSi~ igi wminda samebis sadar erTebas, maRal musikalur dialeqtikas xedavda. amdenad, vfiqrobT, rom: sakravier TanxlebasTan asocirebuli definicia _ bani, petriwma Caanacvla ,,erTobaQ SeyovlebisaQ~-Si nagulisxmevi, musikaluri erTebis Semkvreli, azrobrivad gacilebiT datvirTuli iseTi cnebiT, romelic sami xmis `mrTvelobaSi~ (harmoniaSi) gansaxovnebul erTebas, `samusTa~ `erTbamobas~ warmoaCenda. swored am uZvelesi qarTuli cnebidan _ erTbam unda iyos nasesxebi petriwis mesame xmis saxelwodeba _ bami (petriwi, 1937: 221). erTbami _ uZvelesi qarTuli cnebaa, nebismier literaturul wyaroSi dadasturebuli. erTbami _ zmnizedaa, romelic Sesabamis zmnasTan erTad mravlis erTdroul, erTbaSad qmedebas gamoxatavs. niSandoblivia, rom swored am terminiT ganmartavs petriwi `ganmartebaQs~ erTerT TavSi umaRlesi `erTis~, rogorc yvelaze aRmatebulis ganusazRvrel, yovlismomcvel SesaZleblobas SemoqmedebiT procesSi, SedarebiT mis qvemore sawyisebTan (fircxalava, 2000: 156-160). vfiqrobT, rom qarTul samwerlobo Tu yofiT leqsikaSi sakmaod intensiurad gamoyenebuli am definiciidan petriwma aiRo fuZe – bami, rogorc eban-bnobisagan gansxvavebuli, ara ubralod Tanxlebis aRmniSvneli, aramed rogorc banisagan azro- 118 nino fircxalava brivad gansxvavebuli datvirTvis mqone, xmaTa dialeqtikuri erTobis warmomaCeneli cneba; rogorc xmaTa `mrTvelobaSi~, Tu `SeyovlebaSi~ erT-erTi umniSvnelovanesi, musikalur vertikalSi xmaTa dambmeli, mesame _ fuZe xmis saxelwodeba (n. fircxalava). Cems am Tvalsazriss aRniSnul sakiTxTan dakavSirebiT, am etapze varaudis pretenzia SeiZleba hqondes mxolod da, ara umetes. qarTvel mecnierebs Soris pirveli, vinc yuradReba miaqcia ioane petriwis `ganmartebaQs~ bolosityvaobaSi mocemul cnobas ~mzaxri, Jiri, bamis erTobaQ SeyovlebaQ~-s Sesaxeb, s. gorgaZea. am cnobis Sesaxeb igi iuwyeba mis mier komentirebuli ioane petriwis meore Targmanebis _ nemesios emeselis `bunebisaTvis kacisaQs~ Sesaval sityvaSi, sadac sqolioSi, SeniSvnis saxiT igi wers: `ioane petriwis naTargmnsa da ganmartebuls prokle diadoxosis `kavSirni~-Si (igive `ganmartebaQ~) Semdeg samusiko terminebs vpovebT: ,,mzaxr, Jir da bam~, romelnic unda udriden qarTuli galobis sam xmas _ pirvels, meores da bans~ (gorgaZe, 1914: 4). metad sakvirveli da guldasawyvetia, rom qarTuli musikis istoriisaTvis am umniSvnelovanes, XI s.-is ganacxads yuradReba ar miaqcies qarTuli filosofiuri azris korifeebma: k. kekeliZem, S. nucubiZem, m. giorgaZem, rac, cxadia, petriwis filosofiaSi maTi interesebis sxva aqcentebiT iyo ganpirobebuli. es ukanaskneli (da, saerTod, petriwis musikaluri esTetika) yuradRebis miRma darCa qarTul musikismcodneobaSi yvelaze Rirebuli fundamenturi naSromis Semoqmeds, did ivane javaxiSvils, romelsac Tavis am naSromSi swored qarTuli mravalxmianobis istoriis, misi nivTieri fuZis kvlevisas gamouyenebeli darCa am sakiTxebisTvis argumentis Rirebulebis tolfasi mniSvnelobis mqone petriwiseuli ganacxadi. ivane javaxiSvilis Tvalsazrisi petriwis samusiko monacemebTan dakavSirebiT, upirobod gansakuTrebiT Rirebuli da angariSgasawevi gaxdeboda qarTul musikologiaSi samomavlod. miT umetes, rom es didi qarTveli mecnieri miiCnevda: `qarTuli mravalxmianobis istoriisa da sadaurobis sakiTxi SesaZlebelia mxolod yovelmxrivi ganxilviTa da yovelgvari wyaroebis gamoyenebiT gamoirkves. am dros arc xmebis saxelebis analizi unda iyos daviwyebuli, arc ZeglebSi sagaloblebisa da galobis Sesaxeb daculi cnobebis gauTvaliswinebloba SeiZleba, sakravieri musikis terminologiac gamoadgeba mkvlevars. dasaxuli amocanis gadasawyvetad, ra Tqma unda, TviT sagaloblebisa da xalxuri simRerebis agebulebisa da damaxasiaTebeli Tvisebebis codnac aucilebel pirobas warmoadgens~ (javaxiSvili, 1938: 295). SeniSvnebi 1 XI s-is qarTveli RvTismetyveli, filosofosi (neoplatonikosi). mis mier naTargmni, ganmartebiTi xasiaTis naSromebidan SemorCenilia mxolod ori: prokles `kavSirni RmrTismetyvelebiTni~, igive _ `ganmartebaQ proklesaTvis diadoxosisa da platonurisa filosofiisaTvis~ (mokled _ `ganmartebaQ~) da nemesios emeselis `bunebisaTvis kacisa~. 2 XVIII s-is qarTuli fundamenturi leqsikoni `sityvis kona~, romlis avtoria mwerali, ebanis, banis, bamis urTierTmimarTebis sakiTxisaTvis 119 leqsikografi, politikuri moRvawe sulxan-saba orbeliani. 3 qarTveli musikismcodne, folkloristi (XXs.). 4 grigol xanZTeli _ VIII-IX s-is didi sasuliero moRvawe, himnografi. 5 arsen iyalToeli _ XI-XII s-is sasuliero moRvawe, filosofosi, mTargmneli, himnografi. gamoyenebuli literatura abulaZe, ilia. (1973). Zveli qarTuli enis leqsikoni. Tbilisi: merani. garayaniZe, ediSer. (1997). `zogierTi qarTuli musikaluri terminis raobisa da etimologiis garkvevisaTvis~. krebulSi: musikismcodneobis sakiTxebi. gv. 39-50. redaqtori: wurwumia, rusudan. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoria. orbeliani, sulxan-saba. (1991). leqsikoni qarTuli. gamomcemeli: i. abulaZe. Tbilisi: merani. petriwi, ioane. (1937).NSromebi. tomi II. gamomcemeli: Salva nucubiZe. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti. fircxalava, nino. (2000). `cneba `bamTan~ dakavSirebiT ioane petriwis ganmartebaSi~. krebulSi: xalxuri mravalxmianobis problemebi. redaqtori: wurwumia, rusudan. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoria. fircxalava, nino. (2010). `ioane petriwis musikalur-esTetikuri azrovneba nemesios emeselis `bunebisaTvis kacisas~ mixedviT~. krebulSi: tradiciuli mravalxmianobis meoTxe saerTaSoriso simpoziumi. moxsenebebi. gv. 531-552. redaqtorebi: wurwumia, rusudan da Jordania, ioseb. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri. Ciqobava, arnold. (red.) (1986). qarTuli enis ganmartebiTi leqsikoni. Tbilisi: saqarTvelos ssr mecnierebaTa akademia. CxikvaZe, grigol. (1955). `samusiko sakravi ebani da misi raoba~. krebulSi: masalebi saqarTvelos eTnografiisaTvis VII. Tbilisi: saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademiis gamomcemloba. javaxiSvili, ivane. (1938). qarTuli musikis istoriis ZiriTadi sakiTxebi. Tbilisi: federacia. 120 NINO PIRTSKHALAVA (GEORGIA) ON THE INTERRELATION BETWEEN EBANI, BANI AND BAMI Musical terminology is one of the most important means to determine the stages of the development of musical art. Great attention has always been paid to the definition and analysis of Georgian musical terms. This is corroborated by the works of Georgian linguists, historians and musicologists on the study of the vocal or instrumental musical terminology in folk traditions and literary monuments. The vocabulary of Ioane Petritsi1, an eleventh-century Georgian philosopher and theologian, is one of the most significant sources from the viewpoint of the study of old Georgian terminology. The term denoting the low-pitched voice bami, in Petritsi’s “Ganmartebai” (“Interpretation”) is of great interest. Unlike the term bani, still widely used in vocal performing practice, the term bami of Petritsi’s work is almost never used either in literature or in everyday secular vocabulary. Even in the fundamental dictionary of the eighteenth century (“Sitqvis Kona” lit.: “collection of words”)2 the primary sources of the above-mentioned term is Petritsi’s work. It is interesting why Petritsi calls the bottom, third part bami, instead of bani, and where he had found this term to denote the third voice part. In his work “The Basic Issues of the History of Georgian Music” I. Javakhishvili made a very interesting suggestion. Very interesting and debatable is Edisher Garaqanidze’s opinion on the term bami as well. First of all, I will touch upon their conjectures. In the afore-mentioned work I. Javakhishvili dwells on the definition of the term ebani. Beginning with David’s Psalms and the Georgian translations of “The Genesis” until the nineteenth century this instrument prevailed in the old Georgian sacred and secular literary monuments. In the nineteenth century the trace of the term was lost. Neither the old literary sources nor folk traditions provide any plausible information about what this instrument was like. Hence, I. Javakhishvili, who was very cautious when coming to conclusions, suggests the following, “Factually ebani had not been preserved in Georgia, but ebani seems to be the Georgian name of this instrument, whether the instrument was originally Georgian or not, remains to be determined yet, but its use as an equivalent to the Israelite Kinnor (knari) gives us grounds to infer that ebani too, was an instrument which belonged to the group of stringed instruments and accompanied singing at least in the period when “The Genesis” was translated into Georgian” (Javakhishvili, 1938: 138). I. Javakhishvili supposed that during certain period ebani and knari must have been synonyms. In order to determine what they were the scholar compared the corresponding passages of the Georgian translations of “The Genesis” Based on this he considered that both ebani and knari were equivalents to the Israelite kinnor, the Greek zither, the Armenian kanar and the Latin lyre. I. Javakhishvili lays special emphasis on the fact that the terms ebani and bani have a common root and hence they may have been of Georgian provenance and suggests their possible age. Very interesting material about ebani, corroborating I. Javakhishvili’s idea, is provided in the 121 explanatory Dictionaries of Old Georgian Language (A. Chikobava, I. Abuladze), where quite a few excerpts from old Georgian literary sources are presented. It is noteworthy that the term meknareoba is defined as ebna. Ebna means playing the knari (lyre), meknareoba. To explain it more clearly the dictionary gives an excerpt from the Old Testament, ketilad ebnad (“playing sweetly”. Abuladze, 1973: 145). A very interesting excerpt is taken from the Bible (Daniel): “as they heard the sound of the horn (sakviri), flute (nestvi), zither (stviri), lyre (knari), harp (ebani) and all kinds of music…”. In this extract both instruments are mentioned independently in the order which must refer to their being different (Abuladze, 1973: 327). “accompanied by harps (ebani), lyres (knari) and cymbals (tsintsila)” (Abuladze, 1973: 455). “Khmata zeda ebnisa (harp) da knarisa (lyre) itkuelebdian” – where tquelva, tanatquelva means clapping, or possible dancing in old Georgian (Abuladze, 1973: 415, 455). An excerpt from Gregory of Nyssa’s composition “Katsis Agebuleba” (On the Making of Man) seems especially interesting. It goes as follows, “ver kheletsipebis stvenai ebnita da vertsa ebnai stvirita” (“how shall it be known what is piped and what is harped”) (Abuladze, 1978: 403). This excerpt taken by I. Abuladze from the 10th-13th-century manuscripts means that “as a man is an articulate animal, it was necessary to create a corresponding organ of speech in his body, as it is seen among musicians, who create music for this or that kind of musical instrument, for one cannot pipe the harp (ebani) neither can he harp the pipe” (Gregory of Nyssa, 1964, prepared for publication by A. Abuladze; p. 139, 230). Therefore ebna in old Georgian is the term denoting the process of producing a sound, ebani is an instrument. The fact that in old Georgian sources ebna and meknareoba are terms with identical meaning gives us grounds to infer that Jewish psalms and the musical instrument kinor encountered the local performing practice and corresponding terminology in Georgia. Knari and ebani were musical instruments with a similar function though their provenance and sounding may have been different This may be corroborated by their being mentioned together in different sets of instruments. From the points of view of I. Javakhishvili and G. Chkhikvadze3 the appearance of knari in Georgian performing practice and accordingly in the vocabulary as well may have been preceded by ebani, which must have been a musical instrument of local origin resembling the knari; though, as it is known, knari emerges in literary sources much earlier than ebani. It is mentioned in Iacob Tsurtaveli`s hegiographic composition “The Martyrdom of Holy Queen Shushanik”. As for ebani it came to be present in literary sources much later (from about ninth, tenth centuries). Therefore the following question arises: if I. Javakhishvili’s and G. Chkhikvadze’s viewpoints about the connection between bani and ebani and their age are right, what could have caused the absence of the term ebani in Georgian literary sources for a certain period of time? Could it be the pre-Christian origin of the musical instrument? To find a correct answer to the question it is absolutely necessary to have, detailed knowledge of old Georgian sources. In the present paper I will limit myself to the material provided in Ioane Petritsi’s composition. As for the old Georgian translations of the latter two compositions and the psalms a detailed research into the texts made it evident that in the above works, factually, among other musical instruments only ebani, bobghani, stviri and nestvni rkisani (made of horn) and chedili (chased) are mentioned. 122 Nino Pirtskhalava In my opinion, from the phonetic viewpoint, the names of these musical instruments do sound Georgian (Psalms, 1990: 56, 32, 70, 80, 91, 95, 96, 96, 150; in Georgian); (… “Praise him with the sound of the trumpet, praise him with the psaltery and harp. Praise him with the timbrel and dance, praise him with stringed instruments and organs. Praise him upon the loud cymbals; praise him upon the high sounding cymbals” (psalm. 150; in English). Can this fact indicate that in that epoch of cultural self-assertion, here I mean the period from Gr. Khandzteli (11th cent.)4 and onwards to the pre-Petritsi and the following epochs, the revival and popularization of national terminology and traditional Georgian art were promoted with the purpose of laying special emphasis on everything that was national, perhaps even pre-Christian. At any rate Ioane Petritsi’s vocabulary is a vivid example of such an attitude. In Ioane Petritsi’s vocabulary, which is one of the most significant medieval sources, of all the musical instruments only ebani, bobghani, stviri and nestvi are mentioned. Factually, knari and changi are never encountered. If we take into account the theologian’s devotion to old Georgian terminology and his method of creating new terms from Georgian roots when no suitable word could be found in the Georgian vocabulary, i.e. his experience in word-formation, Petritsi’s vocabulary will serve as an argument confirming I. Javakhishvili’s and G. Chkhikvadze’s viewpoints that ebani is the oldest Georgian shembanebeli (accompanying) musical instrument, associated with the name bani the basis of Georgian singing-the bass part, by their common root and semantic field, also with the words such as e-ubne-ba (tells), u-bnob-s (says), uam-bni-a (told, narrated). The age of the term bani and its provenance is a very significant and remarkable issue for the history of Georgian music. I. Javakhishvili believed that the term bani must have been widely used in the Georgian literary vocabulary, at least in the period of translating The Old Testament if not earlier. To confirm this fact he refers to the phrase from the original of Mepeta Tskhovreba (The Lives of Kings), (edited by Arsen Iqaltoeli, 11th cent.5), “David utsemda orghanota shebanebulita” (“brought up the arc of the Lord with shouts and sound of trumpets”), where, as the scholar explains, the term shebaneba must mean harmoniously adjusted accompaniment (by a musical instrument or voice). In connection with this question I will present an excerpt from his work, “In the past and in modern Georgian folk vocabulary bani did not necessarily mean the low-pitched voice, it more often meant accompanying in general – shebenaba, which could be by the voice or a musical instrument. The scholar thought that later, in the course of time, alongside with the development of Georgian polyphonic singing it may have come to be used to denote the low-pitched bass part (Javakhishvili, 1938: 333, 339 in Georgian). The information about the meaning of the word bani, provided in Sitqvis Kona, (Georgian Explanatory Dictionary, 18th cent.) is quite ample. Here bani, is never mentioned as a term denoting a singing voice. Bani means accompanying, combining another voice with chanting or singing” (Orbeliani, 1991: 94). In spite of the fact that the lexicographer did not enter either shebaneba or shebanebuli separately in his dictionary, when defining such words as godeba (lamentation), zruni (the bass part in a lament) bani is used as a synonym to shebaneba, godeba is a sad, mournful lament with words, zruni is its shebaneba (accompaniment) (Orbeliani, 1991: 164); zruni is defined as the bass part of godeba (Orbeliani, 1991: 287), thus bani and shebaneba are considered to be synonyms by Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani. On the Interrelation Between Ebani, Bani and Bami 123 In his work “The Basic Issues of the History of Georgian Music”, I. Javakishvili also touched upon the meaning of the term bam, though the scholar did not provide an in-depth analysis; it may have been due to the absence of the corresponding material or information. E. Garaqanidze expresses a very interesting opinion about the meaning of bani and bami in his article “On the Meaning and Etimology of Some Musical Terms”. He completely agrees with I. Javakhishvili’s thesis, that of the two meanings of the word bani – accompanying and the low-pitched voice – the former is the oldest; though his surmise about the provenance of the term bani differs from that of I. Javakhishvili. Based on the fact that for the phonetics of the Georgian language the transformation of the sound “m” into the sound “n” is quite a common phenomenon, E. Garaqanidze thinks that bani is a phonetic modification of the word bami. Bani means bma, gabma, dabma (to tie up, stretch, fasten), it stems from the verb bama, which in its turn means dabma-gabma (to tie up - to stretch). The scholar thinks bani is an intermediate form between bami and buna which in the Megrelian dialect meant a team, a group (Garaqanidze, 1977: 42). Garaqanidze thinks it especially noteworthy that in contradistinction with Ioane Petritsi, in whose composition “Ganmartebai” the low-pitched voice is denoted by the word bami, in one of the translations of Arsen Iqaltoeli (Arsen of Iqalto) the word bani is used instead of bami. The scholar does not indicate which of Arsen Iqaltoeli’s expressions he means. Presumably he might mean the above well-known quotations from the Bible “David utsemda orghanota shebanebulita” He explains the difference between the names of the singing voice in the vocabulary of two Georgian theologians living in the same epoch by the possible belonging of I. Petritsi and A. Iqaltoeli to two different dialectal circles of the Georgian language (Garaqanidze, 1977: 40). E. Garaqanidze’s surmise that the terms bami, dabamva, dabmuli, ertbami are the verbal nouns stemming from the verb bama (bma, lit’ “to tie”) is true, but as for his suggestion that the cause of the difference in the vocabulary of the two theologians of the same epoch must have been their different dialectal provenance is unacceptable to me. Taking into account the experience acquired during the work on the material preserved in the Georgian explanatory dictionaries and on the texts of Petritsi’s translations my opinion concerning bani is different and it is as follows. Bani or Bami? From the very beginning when working on Ioane Petritsi’s musical aesthetics one question, whose answer I am still looking for, kept haunting my mind: why does Petritsi call the lowest-pitched voice bami and not bani? Where did he find the name of this voice? The fact that Arsen Iqaltoeli, a representative of Ioane Petritsi’s contemporary literary school, in his works (Mepeta Tskhovreba – Lives of Kings, Bakari) uses the term shebanebuli (Javakhishvili, 1938: 302) proves that this word shebanebuli is the term that had already been introduced into the Georgian literary vocabulary. Why does Petritsi not use it? Unlike bani, which is the term still in use, bami, factually, is attested neither in the literary nor the Georgian everyday vocabulary. Even in The Sitqvis Kona (Georgian explanatory dictionary) the original source of this word (the only one) is Petritsi’s composition, which is a challenging fact. The study of the material of the research on the word ebani, carried out by I. Javakhishvili and G. Chkhikvadze, gave rise to the following idea. With an eye on their conjectures and basing on them I suggest that: The term bani, related to the terms bnda, ebna, bnoba, ebani, denoting accompaniment 124 Nino Pirtskhalava in the instrumental or vocal practice and widely used in the medieval Georgian everyday or literary practice, failed to satisfy the theologian, who was a sophisticated thinker highly valuing Georgian chanting and singing (using his expression khmata sheqovleba – unity of different elements, parts), in which he saw the unity equal to the Holy Trinity and lofty musical dialectics. Therefore I think that Petritsi replaced the definition bani, associated with the instrumental accompaniment, by the term, which was much more charged semantically; in the harmony of the three parts it brought forward the unity of the musical instruments. It must have been from this most ancient Georgian term ertbam that Ioane Petritsi borrowed the name of the bass-part – bami (Petritsi, 1937: 221). Ertbami is the ancient Georgian term attested in almost all the literary sources. Ertbami is an adverb, which, together with the corresponding verb, denotes performing many activities simultaneously. It is noteworthy that this is the term Petritsi uses in one of the chapters of his “Ganmartebai” to denote the infinite, comprehensive ability of the supreme “one” in the creative process in comparison with its sources (Pirtskhalava, 2000: 156-160). I think that it was from this definition, widely used in Georgian literary or everyday vocabulary, that Petritsi took the stem – bami, and not from eban-bnoba, which does not denote only mere accompaniment; it is a term, semantically different from bani, bringing forward the dialectical unity of different parts. It is the name of one of the most important parts, the bass part (basic part), tying up the other parts of the musical vertical both in their harmonization and unity (N. Pirtskhalava). My viewpoint on the issue under discussion should be considered just a conjecture at this stage of research. Of all the Georgian scholars S. Gorgadze was the first who paid attention to the information presented in the afterword of Ioane Petritsi’s “Ganmartebai” – “mzakhri, zhiri, bamis ertobai sheqovlebashi” (top part, middle and bottom part in simultaneous sounding of different pitches). He gives this information in the introduction to Ioane Petritsi’s second translation of Nemesios of Emesa’s Bunebisatvis Katsta (On the Nature of Man), which he supplied with commentaries. In the scholia he writes, “In Ioane Petritsi’s translation of Proclus Diodochos’ “Interpretations” we come across the musical terms mzakhr, zhir and bam, which must correspond to the three parts of Georgian chanting – the top part, the middle part and the bottom part” (Gorgadze, 1914: 4). It is surprising and disappointing that this most significant information on the history of Georgian music escaped the attention of the leading figures in Georgian philosophical thinking such as K. Kekelidze, S. Nutsubidze, M. Giorgadze, which must have been due to the fact that their interest was focused on other aspects of Petritsi’s philosophy. Most regrettable is that the issue (and Petritsi’s musical aesthetics in general) was left beyond the attention of the great Ivane Javakhishvili, the author of the most valuable fundamental creation in Georgian musicology. In this work, when studying the history of Georgian polyphony and its material basis he failed to use Petritsi’s information, the most significant argument in this kind of research. Ivane Javakhishvili’s viewpoint about Petritsi’s musical data undoubtedly could have been especially valuable for the future of Georgian musicology. All the more so since the great Georgian scholar wrote: “The history and origin of Georgian polyphony can be determined only through discussion and the use of all kinds of sources. At the same time the analysis of the names of various parts should never be neglected, nor can we ignore the information about hymns and chanting preserved in the written monuments; the terminology of instrumental music can also be of use to researchers. Of 125 On the Interrelation Between Ebani, Bani and Bami course, in order to fulfill the task the study of the hymns proper and the structure of folk songs is also an indispensable condition” (Javakhishvili, 1938: 295). Notes 1 The 11th-century Georgian theologian, philosopher (Neoplatonist). From his translations of explanatory char- acter only two have survived: “Interpretation of Proclus Diodochos’ and Platonic Philosophy” (“Interpretation”) and Nemesios of Emesa’s “On the Nature of Man”. 2 The fundamental Georgian dictionary of the 18th century “Sitqvis Kona”, author Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani, a writer, lexicographer and a political figure. 3 Georgian musicologist, folklorist (20th cent.). 4 Grigol Khandzteli (of Khandzta) – a great ecclesiastic figure and hymnographer (8th-9th centuries). 5 Arsen Iqaltoeli (Arsen of Iqalto) – an ecclesiastic figure, philosopher, translator and hymnographer (11th-12th centuries). References Abuladze, Ilia. (1937). Dzveli kartuli enis leksikoni (A Dictionary of the Old Georgian Language). Tbilisi: Merani. (in Georgian) Garaqanidze, Edisher. (1997). “Zogierti Kartuli musiklauri terminis raobisa da etimologiis garkvevisatvis” (“On the Definition of Some Georgian Musical Terms and Their Etimology”). In: Musikismtsodneobis sakitkhebi (Collection of Scientific Works). P.39-52. Edited by Tsurtsumia, Rusudan. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State Conservatoire. (in Georgian) Orbeliani, Sulkhan-Saba. (1991). Leksikoni Kartuli (Georgian Dictionary). Prepared for publication by Il. Abuladze. Tbilisi: Merani. (in Georgian) Petritsi, Ioane (1937). Shromebi (Works). Volume II. Prepared for publication by Shalva Nutsubidze. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University. (in Georgian) Pirtskhalava, Nino (2000). “Tsneba “bamtan” dakavshirebit ioane petritsis ganmartebaishi” (“On the Term Bami in Ioane Petritsi’s Ganmarteba (Interpretation)”), In: Issues of Georgian Folk Polyphony. P. 156-163. Edited by Tsurtsumia, Rusudan. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State Conservatoire. (in Georgian) Pirtskhalava, Nino (2010). “Ioane Petritsi’s Musical and Aesthetic Thinking According to Nemesios of Emesa’s 126 Nino Pirtskhalava “On Human Nature”). In: The Fourth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 531552. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Chikobava, Arnold (editor). (1986). Kartuli enis ganmartebiti leksikoni (A Defining Dictionary of the Georgian Language). Tbilisi: Georgian Academy of Sciences. (in Georgian) Chkhikvadze, Grigol. (1955). “Samusiko sakravi “ebani” da misi raoba” (“The Musical Instrument “Ebani” and Its Definition”). In: Materials on Georgian Ethnography, VII. Tbilisi: Tbilisi Academy of Sciences Publishers. (in Georgian) Javakhishvili, Ivane. (1938). Kartuli musikis istoriis dziritadi sakitkhebi (The Basic Issues of Georgian Music History). Tbilisi: Federatsia. (in Georgian) Translated by Lia Gabechava 127 gia baRaSvili (saqarTvelo) ,,erTisa~ da ,,mravalis~ antinomia qarTuli musikaluri folkloris adreul stadiebze adreuli folkloruli msoflaRqma samyaroSi momxdar movlenebs maTi cvlilebis, jer kidev dausrulebeli metamorfozis mdgomareobaSi axasiaTebs _ sikvdilisa da dabadebis, zrdisa da Camoyalibebis stadiaSi. misi ganmsazRvreli niSania ambivalentoba: masSi ama Tu im formiT mocemulia cvlilebis orive polusi _ Zvelic da axalic, kvdomadi da ganaxlebadi, metamorfozis dasawyisica da dasasrulic. aseTi msoflaRqmis adreul stadiebze dro aris ubralo Tanamimdevroba, rigiToba (arsebiTad erTdrouloba) ganviTarebis ori fazisa _ sawyisis da damaboloebelis: gazafxuli _ zamTari, dabadeba _ sikvdili... es xatebani bunebisa da adamianis cxovrebis fazaTa cikluri monacvleobis biokosmiur wreze moZraobs. maTi komponentebia: weliwadis droTa monacvleoba, Tesva, Casaxva-ganayofiereba, kvdoma, xelaxla dabadeba da a.S. adrefolkloruli cnobiereba ganviTarebis am safexurze ar Cerdeba. droisa da droTa monacvleobis misTvis organuli SegrZneba farTovdeba, Rrmavdeba, Tavis wreSi socialur-istoriul movlenebsac aqcevs. xdeba ciklurobis gadalaxvac da igi istoriuli drois SegrZnebamde maRldeba. Tumca, adrefolkloruli esTetikuri cnobierebis mxatvruli gamovlinebis ZiriTadi saSualeba swored drois monacvleobis, kvdoma-ganaxlebis ambivalentobaa. am cnobierebaSi samyaro xorcielia da masSi aqcentirebulia yovelive is, rac gansakuTrebiT xazgasmiT, ukiduresi xarisxiT avlens qmnadi, mzardi, sikvdil-sicocxlis denadi usrulobiT niSandebul sawyiss. aqedanaa nasazrdoebi nayofierebis, erotizmis, maT Soris, e.w. ,,saRvTo erotizmis“ (Бахтин, 1965: 121), kvdomisa da gacocxlebis sawyisTa Sinagani erTianoba, romelic saxecvlili formebiT lamis mTeli folkloruli cxovrebis istoriis manZilze iCens Tas. am periodis mxatvrul saqmianobaSi is mxareebia xazgasmuli, romlebic qmnadobas, kvdoma-ganaxlebis usrulobasa da usasrulobas gansakuTrebuli ZaliT, xorcieli sisavsiTa da cxovelmyofeli energiiT warmoaCens. aq ar arsebobs calke aRebuli sikvdili da calke aRebuli sicocxle. orive maTgani erTi da imave ciklis Tanasworuflebiani nawilia: sicocxleSi Cabudebulia mzaoba kvdomisa, xolo kvdomaSi _ mzaoba sicocxlis ganaxlebisa. xorcieli sawyisis adreuli msoflmxedvelobis esTetikur wreSi moZraoba ar aris mza formaTa monacvleoba. igi Tavad yofierebis Sinagan moZraobad iqceva, rac gamoixateba erTi formidan meoreSi gadasvlaSi, yofierebis mudmiv moumzadeblobaSi. aq esTetikuri aRqma konkretulad (SeiZleba iTqvas, xorcielad) gancdili yofierebis amouwuraobisa da ukideganobis SegrZnebaa. masSi yovelTvis Cabudebulia amaRor- 128 gia baRaSvili Zinebeli da ganmaaxlebeli sawyisi. swored amgvarad aRqmuli samyaros magiuri aTvisebis msoflmxedvelobis pirmSoa qarTul yofaSi dRemde SemorCenili musikalur-folkloruli Janrebi: mTiblurebi, natirlebi, Selocvebi, miTvlebi, agreTve nayofierebis kultTan dakavSirebuli nimuSebi. maTSi TviT kvdoma-ganaxlebis ambivalentoba warmoadgens metafizikur erTianobas. usruloba am metafizikuri ,,erTis~ arsia. yvelafer amas xorcieli buneba aqvs. xorciel yofierebaSi ki yvelaze mTavari, dasabamieri, Tanac yvelaze xelSesaxebi da mkafiod aRqmadi kanonia cikluroba. swored cikluri ganmeorebadobis saSualebiT xorcieldeba mudmivi ganaxleba, aRorZineba, kvdomisa da axlis dabadebis erTianoba. es ukanaskneli yvelaze mniSvnelovania, gansakuTrebiT ki misi zRvruli aspeqti, romelic sikvdil-sicocxlis urTierTgadakveTaSi, maTi Sexebis momentSi vlindeba. am msoflaRqmis musikalur-mxatvrul xorcSesxmaSi ganmeorebadobas uaRresad didi mniSvneloba eniWeba. vfiqrobT, im drois folklorSi swored ganmeorebadoba unda yofiliyo is universaluri principi, romliTac musikaSi, rogorc droSi ganfenil xelovnebaSi, mudmivi kvdoma-aRdgenis ideis xorcSesxma xdeboda. ramdenjerac meordeba qarTuli musikaluri fuZe enis intonaciur birTvebze agebuli melodiuri naxazi, rogorc musikaluri wris, anu ciklis (berZn. kyklos _ wre) erTiani jaWvis rgoli, imdenjer xelaxla ibadeba da kvdeba musikaluri azri da masTan erTad mTeli samyaro. anu, aq Tavad musika, rogorc intonirebadi azri, dadis wreze. ciklis yoveli rgolis bolo momdevnos dasawyisia. swored aq aris is mniSvnelovani adgili, romelSic sikvdil-sicocxlis Sexvedra, maTi urTierTSeRweva xdeba. TiTqos sikvdili sicocxles Sobs da Sobis momentSi biZgs aZlevs, ganaxlebisaken mimarTavs sasicocxlo sawyiss. ganmeorebadi musikaluri qsovilis, rogorc musikaluri ciklis rgolis dasawyisi da bolo TiTqos miwaa. masSi, rogorc xorciel wiaRSi, STainTqmeba da xelaxla cocxldeba musikaluri azri da masTan erTad mTeli materialur-xorcieli samyaro. ciklis SigniT ganxorcielebuli kvdoma-ganaxlebis yovel etapze musika TiTqos miwaze eSveba, miwas erwymis, rogorc mSTanTqmelsa da, imavdroulad, warmomSob sawyiss. igi am miwaSi kvdeba, raTa imavdroulad daiTesos da xelaxla, aRorZinebuli ZaliT daibados. rogori ganmeorebadobiTa da mkacrad Camoyalibebuli ciklurobiTac iZinebs (kvdeba) da iRviZebs (cocxldeba) buneba, mcenareuli samyaro, xorbali, qeri, Wvavi, iseve droebiT aResruleba intonirebadi azri, Cabrundeba ,,tonikur saflavSi~ da xelaxla gacocxldeba Semdgom movlinebamde. aq ciklurobas mxolod samyaros kvdoma-ganaxlebis maradiulobis ganmeorebadobiT gamoxatvis funqcia rodi akisria. cikluroba ZiriTadi maorganizebeli, formaqmnadi saSualebaa, romelsac yofierebis ambivalentobis arsebiTi metafizikuri erTianobis asaxvis funqciac aqvs SeTavsebuli. es erTianoba, musikalur-mxatvruli TvalsazrisiT, Semdegi meqanizmiT xorcieldeba: Selocvebis, miTvlebis, natirlebisa Tu mTiblurebis (rogorc ciklurad ,,mcxovrebi” samyaros mxatvrul-esTetikuri modelirebis gziT damsgavsebuli ,,musikaluri ciklebis”) Semadgeneli rgolebi, ro- ,,erTisa~ da ,,mravalis~ antinomia qarTuli musikaluri folkloris adreul stadiebze 129 gorc wesi, an identuria, an Zalian did, arsebiT urTierTmsgavsebas amJRavnebs. maTi mravaljeradi monacvleoba ,,urTierTmsgavsis~ an ,,erTi da imaves~ Tanamimdevrul svlas qmnis. f. de sosiuris cnobili gamonaTqvamis _ ,,sanam ar arsebobs metyvelebis kontrastuli nawilebi, ar arsebobs arc erTi nawili~ (Dorner, 1975:113), perifrazireba rom movaxdinoT, sanam ar arsebobs kontrastuli musikaluri nawilebi, ar arsebobs arc erTi nawili. amgvarad, mravaljeradi, cikluri gameoreba ciklis rgolebis urTierTgadakveTisas STagrZnobili kvdoma-ganaxlebis ambivalentobasTan erTad, mis Sinagan, metafizikur erTianobas ayalibebs. cikluroba aq TviTkmari xerxia, oRondac, profesiuli musikis principebisagan gansxvavebiT, misi meSveobiT aq erTis nawilebad dayofa, an nawilebiT erTiani mTelis ageba ar xdeba; miT ufro, ar xdeba nawilebs Soris urTierTmimarTebis gamomzeureba, maTi msgavsebisa Tu dapirispirebis Cveneba-ganviTareba. is, rac Cveuli, bunebrivi da misaRebia momdevno epoqebis musikalur-mxatvruli azrovnebisTvis, sruliad ucxoa zemoxsenebuli saazrovno etapis esTetikuri cnobierebisTvis. cikluroba TiTqos ,,erTis~ mravaljer gameorebiT am ,,erTisve~ mamkvidrebelia, misi yovlismomcvelobis, ukideganobis amsaxvelia. am qmnadobaSi, yofierebis usasrulobis ostinatur mocemulobaSi qreba dro. TiTqos yvelaferi swored drois gasaqrobad, mis mosaspobad keTdeba. dro _ kacobriobis dasabamieri sazrunavi, misi dauZinebeli mteri, adamianis gamanadgurebeli _ Tavadve kvdeba adamianis xeliT, ufro sworad, misi esTetikur-filosofiuri cnobierebis meSveobiT. aq adamiani droze imarjvebs. marTalia, iluzorulad, fardobiTad, droebiT, magram mainc imarjvebs. Tanac dros misive iaraRiT _ usasrulobiT, maradiuli svliT, JamTa cvalebadobiT amarcxebs. samyaros kvdomasTan erTad droc kvdeba, marTalia, Semdeg cocxldeba, magram ,,dasasrulis~ msgavsad, imdenjer kvdeba da cocxldeba, rom am usasrulobas dro veRar uZlebs, igi ukan ixevs da zedroul, ,,miTologizebul drod~ (siraZe, 1978) yalibdeba. anu, dro kargavs konkretul-emociur mniSvnelobas da Semodis abstraqtuli ,,dro~. aq sruli sisavsiT iCens Tavs drosTan mimarTebaSi musikisa da miTologiis is Sinagani, siRrmiseuli msgavseba da siaxlove, rasac klod levi-strosi Semdegnairad xsnis: ,,musikasa da miTologias dro TiTqos mxolod imisTvis esaWiroebaT, rom is uaryon. arsebiTad, musikaca da miTologiac drois gasanadgurebeli instrumentebia. ... musikaluri nawarmoebis mosmena misi Sinagani organizaciis wyalobiT aCerebs drois dinebas. .... musika gvagonebs miToss. miTosis msgavsad igi xsnis istoriuli, warsuli droisa da permanentuli struqturis antinomias~ (Osmound-Smith, 1981: 122-123). k. levi-stross es zogadad miTosisa da zogadad musikis Sesaxeb aqvs naTqvami, magram musikis es zustad aRwerili esTetikuri Tvisebebi kidev ufro Rrmad, SeiZleba iTqvas, srulad vlindeba Tavad miTosuri azrovnebis epoqaSi, misive wiaRSi Seqmnil polifunqcionalur musikaSi. materialuri qmnadobis sistemaSi samyaros 130 gia baRaSvili ciklurobis amsaxveli musikaluri ciklurobis upirvelesi da umTavresi mizani (es, imavdroulad, mizan-Sedegobrivi urTierTobis primatiT niSandebuli msoflmxedvelobiT-esTetikuri sistemacaa) swored, warmavalobisa da usasrulobis antinomiis daZlevaa. drois musikalur-esTetikuri kvdoma-gacocxleba am antinomiis moxsnis meqanizmia. Tumca, am epoqis qarTul musikalur-esTetikur azrovnebaSi kidev erTi antinomia ikveTeba. Tuki pirveli _ droiTi mocemulobis wamierebisa da maradiulobis antinomia diaqronulad vlindeba, droSi ganfenil musikalur ciklurobaSi ikveTeba da masSive, anu, samusikismcodneo termini rom moviSvelioT, ,,horizontalSi” ixsneba, es meore antinomia sinqronulia da musikaluri qsovilis vertikalur ganaserSia mocemuli. igi ,,erTisa~ da ,,mravalis~ antinomias warmoadgens da qarTuli musikaluresTetikuri azrovnebisaTvis imdenad aris specifikuri, ramdenadac, savaraudod, ukve winareqristianul epoqaSi iqmneboda qarTuli mravalxmiani musikalur-folkloruli nimuSebi. Tavad mravalxmianoba ukve gulisxmobs simravles, rogorc mTlianobas, oRondac geStaltur mTlianobas, romlis Semadgeneli nawilebia calkeuli xmebi, magram esTetikur WrilSi, am xmaTa jamuri maCvenebeli (msgavsad, sazogadod, geStalturi mTelis nawilebis jamisa) naklebia maT geStaltur erTianobaze. Tuki gaviTvaliswinebT mravalxmianobis geneziss (Cven vemxrobiT im gavrcelebul Teorias, rom mravalxmianoba intonirebis procesSi erTxmianobidan amozrdili movlenaa), naTeli gaxdeba, rom mravalxmian mTelSi nawilebi ara Tu arsebobs, aramed ,,mTeli~ am nawilebis ,,erTidan~ amozrdis, ,,gamravlebis~ Sedegadaa miRebuli. amasTan, nawilebi, anu xmebi mravalxmian faqturaSi arasodes kargaven Tavs. isini ar qrebian. TiToeuli maTgani realurad JRers, anu mTelis Sesaqmnelad maTi TavisTavadobis SenarCunebis safuZvelze aucilebelia maT Soris garkveuli subordinaciis (rogorc vertikaluris, ise _ horizontaluris) arseboba. Tuki ar iarsebeben nawilebi (xmebi), isini ver Seqmnian mTels (mravalxmianobas), xolo Tuki ar iqna subordinacia, ver gaJRerdeba intonirebadi azri, ver aigeba musikalur-mxatvruli qsovili. erTi sityviT, es aRar iqneba musika. es mravalxmianobis ubralo Tviseba araa, es misi arsia. magram paradoqsuli is aris, rom winareqristianuli xanis materialur-xorcieli qmnadobis msoflmxedvelobiT sistemaSi mravalxmianoba, esTetikuri TvalsazrisiT, erTob araxelsayreli saSualeba unda yofiliyo samyaros mTlianobis, misi Sinagani, metafizikuri erTianobis musikaluri ganxorcielebisaTvis. maSin, rodesac individualuri sawyisi ar vlindeba folkloris arc ontiur da arc wminda esTetikur aspeqtSi da is mxolod ,,mTlian~, ganuyofel, lamis imanentur erTianobaSi mniSvnelobs, savaraudod, swored am dros Cndeba mravalxmianoba. ai, es qmnis antinomias, romelic musikalurad vertikalur-sinqronuli formiT yalibdeba, xolo misi moxsnis meqanizms, vfiqrob, Semdegi faqtorebi gansazRvravs: 1) rogorc Cans, mravalxmianobis Casaxvisa da ganviTarebis kvaldakval, qarTul musikalur folklorSi viTardeboda dialeqtikuri urTierTobebi; ,,erTisa~ da ,,mravalis~ antinomia qarTuli musikaluri folkloris adreul stadiebze 131 2) Tavdapirvelad, mravalxmianobaSi xmebi saxeobrivad ar mniSvnelobda (an naklebad mniSvnelobda) rogorc sxvadasxva sawyisis gamoxatuleba. isini, savaraudod, mkvidrdeboda, rogorc Sinaganad erTiani, Sekruli ,,mTelis~ ganuyofeli nawilebi; 3) ar aris SemTxveviTi, rom qarTul musikalur folklorSi sakulto musikalur-esTetikuri principebis mravalxmiani musikaluri gansaxovneba, ufro xSirad kompleqsur (sinqronul) mravalxmianobaSi xdeba. kompleqsuri mravalxmianoba Tavad atarebs zemoxsenebul niSnebs _ maqsimalurad iZleva xmebis Sinagani, imanenturi erTianobis warmoCenis saSualebas. masSi xmebi TiTqos erT birTvad, erTian organizmad aris qceuli; individualuri sawyisis warmoCenis gacilebiT met SesaZleblobebs iZleva homofoniuri mravalxmianoba, maT Soris burdonuli tipis da miT ufro _ polifoniuri mravalxmianoba. mravalxmianobis am tipebSi gacilebiT metia asparezi xmebis gaSlaganviTarebisaTvis, maTi individualobis Camoyalibebisa da aqtiuri qmnadobisaTvis. 4) mravalxmianoba, sazogadod, qarTvelis, rogorc Homo poliphonicus-is (i. zemcovskis termini) TviTgamoxatvis organuli, lamis Tandayolili Tvisebaa, romelSic mas esTetikuri mimarTebis diametrulad gansxvaveuli tipebis mxatvruli ganxorcieleba ZaluZs da es musikaluri saxismetyvelebis adreuli etapebidanve iCens Tavs; 5) rogorc Cans, marTebulia r. siraZis azri imis Sesaxeb, rom Tavad qarTuli esTetikuri azrovnebaa Tavisi bunebiT polifoniuri (siraZe, 1982). aqve misi kidev erTi saintereso dakvirvebis proecireba msurs qarTuli mravalxmiani azrovnebis procesze: vfiqrobT, winareqristianuli xanis qarTuli musikis esTetikuri wyobis formirebaSi Zalze mniSvnelovani roli unda eTamaSa qarTuli miTosuri azrovnebisaTvis niSandobliv or tendencias. pirvel rigSi imas, rom miTosur warmodgenebs ,,qarTul parnasze~ (asaTiani, 1982: 59), swored esTetikuri sferosTvis mieca gacilebiT meti kulturul-istoriuli perspeqtiva, vidre filosofiuri azrovnebisaTvis (siraZe, 1978: 48-97). meore tendencia gansakuTrebiT saintereso meCveneba da xazgasmiT aRvniSnav _ esaa tendencia, romelic heliocentruli monoTeizmis damkvidrebasTan erTad maSin iCens Tavs, rodesac poliTeizmis droindeli RvTaebebi mzis mxatvrul xatebebad iqceva. anu, mzis atributebi religiur mniSvnelobas kargavs, magram ar xdeba maTi daviwyeba; religiuri azrovnebis momdevno safexurebze isini mzis esTetikuri atributebis saxiT Cndeba. faqtobrivad, meore tendencia pirvelis kerZo gamovlinebaa, magram warmarTuli monoTeisturi astraluri RvTaebis atributebis religiur aspeqtSi moxsna da esTetikur aspeqtSi maTi Semonaxva, arsebiTad, qarTul miTosSi mxtvrul-esTetikuri mravalsaxeobis damamkvidrebelia. swored es aris CemTvis esTetikuri TvalsazrisiT gansakuTrebiT saintereso. vfiqrob, am movlenas aqtiuri zegavlena unda moexdina qarTuli musikaluri saximetyvelebis ganviTarebis or tendenciaze _ erTi mxriv, musikaluri saxis kristalizaciaze, meore mxriv, musikalur-mxatvruli azrovnebis gamravalferovnebasa da musikalur saxeTa diferenciaciaze. garda amisa, qarTul miTosSi mxatvrul-esTetikuri mravalsaxeobis gaCenas gansakuTrebuli roli unda eTamaSa im drois qarTul musikaSi dialeqtikuri urTierTobebis gaRvivebaSi, musikalur-mxatvruli subordi- 132 gia baRaSvili naciis mowesrigebaSi da, maT kvaldakval, mravalxmianobis ganviTarebaSi. Cemi azriT, es gaxldaT winaqristianuli epoqis qarTul musikaSi mravalxmiani nimuSebis gaCenis erT-erTi mniSvnelovani esTetikuri winapiroba da imavdroulad, ,,erTisa“ da ,,mravalis“ antinomiis moxsnis erT-erTi meqanizmi. damowmebuli literatura asaTiani, guram. (1982). saTaveebTan. Tbilisi, sabWoTa saqarTvelo siraZe, revaz. (1978). qarTuli esTetikuri azris istoriidan. Tbilisi, xelovneba. siraZe, revaz. (1982). saxismetyveleba. Tbilisi, nakaduli. Бахтин, Михаил. (1965). Творчество Франсуа Рабле и народная культура средневековья и ренесанса. Москва, Художественная литература. Osmound-Smith, David. (1981). “From Myth to Music, Levi-Strauss Mythologiques and Beriso Symphonic”. In: MQ, #2. Dorner, Lео. (1975). “Zu den Grundproblem der Musikästhetik”. In: ÖMz, H. 133 GIA BAGHASHVILI (GEORGIA) ANTINOMY OF “ONE” AND “MANY” ON EARLY STAGES OF THE AESTHETICS OF GEORGIAN FOLK MUSIC The earlier folkloristic world outlook considers of the phenomena occurring in the universe in the process of their changes, in the state of the still continuing metamorphosis – at the stages of death, birth, growth and final formation, its defining feature is ambivalency: it contains this or that form of both poles of the change – the old and the new, the mortal and the renovating, the beginning and the end of the metamorphosis. At the early stages of such a world outlook time is a simple sequence, order (in essence simultaneousness) of the two phases of development – the beginning and the end: spring-winter, birthdeath… These images move round the biocosmic circle of the cyclic alternation of the life of man and nature. Its components are: alternation of the seasons, sowing, conception and fecundation, dying, rebirth and so on. The early folkloristic consciousness does not stop at this stage of development. Its organic perception of time and the alternation of times expands, deepens involving socio-historical events within its circle. The cyclic process is also overcome and it rises to the perception of the historical time, though the basic means of the artistic manifestation of the early aesthetic consciousness is the very ambivalency of the alternation of time, dying and renovating. In this consciousness the universe is corporal and in it highlighted is all, that with special emphasis, in the highest degree reveals the growing foundation marked by the flowing infinity of life and death. It is that nurtures fertility, eroticism, the so-called “divine eroticism” (Bakhtin, 1965: 121) among them, the unity of the foundations of dying and reviving, manifesting itself in modified forms during almost the entire history of folkoristic life. In the artistic activities of this period emphasis is laid on the aspects which bring forward the process of creation, the endlessness of dying and reviving with special force, sensual plenitude and life-giving energy. There is no death taken separately or life taken separately. Both of them are parts of one and the same cycle, equal in their rights: the readiness for death is ensconced in life and readiness for revival – in life. The movement of the corporal foundation within the aesthetic circle of the early world outlook is not the alternation of the ready-made forms. It turns into the inner movement of the existence per se, which is manifested in the transition from one form to another, to the constant unpreparedness of existence. Here the aesthetic perception is the feeling of the inexhaustibility and boundlessness of the concrete (it may also be said – physically), experienced life. It always fosters the reviving and renovating source. It is the world outlook on the magical comprehension of the universe, perceived in such a manner, that gave birth to the musical-folkloristic genres still present in the Georgian everyday life: mtibluri (hay-makers’ song), dirges, incantations, counting rhymes, also the exsamples, associated 134 Gia Baghashvili with the fertility cult. There the ambivalency of dying and reviving per se is a metaphysical unity. Endlessness is the essence of this metaphysical “One”. All this has a physical nature, and in the physical existence the most significant, the very initial and the most tangible and clearly perceived law is cyclic recurrence. It is through the cyclic recurrence that the permanent renovation, revival, the unity of dying and giving birth to the new occur. The latter, especially its maximum aspect, which reveals itself at the crossing of death and life, at the moment of their contiguity, is the most significant. In the musical-artistic implementation of this world outlook, recurrence is of paramount importance. I think that in the folklore of those days recurrence must have been the universal principle which realized the idea of eternal dying and reviving in music, as an art spread out in time. As often the melodic pattern, which is built on the intonational nuclei of the Georgian radical musical language, in the form of a link of a single chain of the musical circle or cycle (Gr. kykloscircle), is repeated, as often the musical idea is born and dies and so does the whole universe with it. Or to put it differently, the music per se, as an intoned idea, moves along a circle. Each final link of the cycle is the beginning of the following one. It is this significant place, where death and life come together and mutual penetration takes place. As though death produces life and at the moment of the birth it gives impetus to the life-giving source and directs it towards renovation. The beginning and the end of the recurrent musical texture, as the link of the musical cycle, seems to be the earth. Within it, as within the corporal bowels, the musical idea is absorbed, and revives again, together with it the whole material-spiritual world. At every stage of dying and revival occurring within the cycle, music seems to descend to earth merging with it, as with the absorbing and reproducing beginning. It dies in this earth so that it could be sown and reborn simultaneously with regenerated power. Like the strictly regulated cyclic recurrence, according to which nature, the plant kingdom, wheat, barley, oats fall asleep (die) and then awaken (revive) again, in the same manner the intoned idea dies, descends into the “tonic grave” and comes to life again till the second coming. The function of this cyclic recurrence is not only the expression of the eternity of the dying and revival of the universe. Cyclic recurrence is mainly the means of the organization form-creation which also reflects the essential metaphysical unity of the ambivalency of existence. This unity, from the musical-artistic viewpoint, is implemented by means of the following mechanism: the links of the incantations, counting rhymes, dirges and hay-makers’ songs (mtibluri), (“the musical cycles”, that came to resemble one another by the artistic-aesthetic modeling of the world “living” in recurrent cycles), as a rule are either identical or show a great, essential resemblance to one another. Their reiterated alternations create an orderly sequence of “a mutual resemblance” or “one and the same”. If we paraphrase F. Saussure’s well-known expression “as long as there are contrasting parts of speech, there is not a single part” (Dorner, 1975: 113), it will sound as follows: as long as there are contrasting parts of music, there is not a single part. In this way the reiterated, cyclic recurrence together with the ambivalency of dying and reviving, felt at the crossing of the cycle links, also forms its inner, metaphysical unity. Here the cyclic recurrence is a self-sufficient method but by contrast with the principles of professional music, here it does not break up one into parts, or does not form a single whole by means of these parts; the more so that the interconnection between these parts is never revealed, neither is Antinomy of “One” and “Many” on Early Stages of the Aesthetics of Georgian Folk Music 135 the similarity or opposition between them manifested and developed. Something that is usual, natural and acceptable for the musical-artistic mentality of the following epochs, is quite alien to the aesthetic consciousness of the above stage of thinking. It seems as if the cyclic recurrence by means of repeating “the one” numerous times introduces into practice and makes popular the same “one”, indicating its comprehensiveness and boundlessness. In this creation, in the ostinato condition, time disappears, as if everything were being done to make the time vanish, be destroyed. Time – mankind’s concern from the very beginning, its sworn enemy, time that destroys man, dies at man’s hand; to say it more correctly – by means of his aestheticphilosophical consciousness. Here man triumphs over the time; it is true that the victory is illusory, relative, temporary, but man does gain victory. He defeats time by its own weapon – infinity, eternal moving, changes of time. Time dies together with the death of the universe; it is true, that later it resurrects, but similar to the “end” it dies and revives so many times, that time can no longer stand this infinity, it retreats and takes the shape of the supertemporal, “mythical time” (Siradze, 1978); it means that time loses its concrete-emotional significance and the abstract “time” steps in. Here, in relation with time we can fully observe the inner, in-depth resemblance and closeness between music and mythology which Claude Levi-Strausse explains in the following way: “Music and mythology seem to need time only in order to reject it. Essentially, both music and mythology are the instruments meant to destroy time. …Due to its inner organization listening to a musical composition stops the flow of time. …Music is reminiscent of mythology. Like mythology it removes the antinomy of the historical, past time and the permanent structure” (Osmound-Smith, 1981:122-123). Levi-Strausse said this about mythology and music in general, but these aesthetic features of music, so exactly described above, are completely revealed in the multifunctional music, created in the epoch of mythological thinking proper, within its midst. In the system of material-corporal creation the primary and most significant goal of the musical cyclic recurrence, reflecting the cyclic recurrence of the world (this, at the same time is the ideological-aesthetic system marked by the priority of the cause and effect relations), is overcoming the antinomy of transiency and infinity. The musical-aesthetic death-revival of time is the mechanism of removing this antinomy. Though, in the Georgian musical-aesthetic thinking of this epoch another antimony comes to the foreground. If the first one – the antinomy of the transiency and infinity of time is expressed diachronically, is revealed in the cyclic musical recurrency and removed within the same, or, using the musicological term – “horizontally”, the second antinomy is synchronous and is presented in the vertical section of the musical texture. It is the antinomy of “one” and “many” and is as much specific for Georgian musical-aesthetic thinking as, presumably, Georgian polyphonic musical-folkloristic specimens were created as early as the pre-Christian epoch. Polyphony per se indicates multiplicity as a wholeness, though a Gestalt wholeness consisting of separate voices, but in the aesthetic section, the summary index (like, generally, the sum of the constituent parts of the Gestalt whole) is less than their Gestalt whole. If we take into account the genesis of polyphony (I share the widespread theory that polyphony is a phenomenon which emerged in the process of intoned monophony), it will be clear that in the polyphonic whole different parts not only exist but “the whole” is the result of the emergence and “multiplication” of these parts from “the one”. Herewith the parts or voices never get lost in the polyphonic 136 Gia Baghashvili texture. They do not disappear, each one sounds in a realistic manner, which means that in order to retain their individuality for the sake of creating the whole the presence of a certain subordination between them (both vertical and horizontal) is quite necessary. If there are no parts (voices), they will never create the whole (polyphony), and if there is no subordination, no idea, ready to be intoned, will ever sound, no musical-artistic texture will ever be created, which means that there will be no music. But the paradox is that in the world-outlook system of material-corporal creation of the preChristian epoch, from the aesthetic point of view, polyphony must have been a very disadvantageous means for the musical implementation of the world integrity, its inner, metaphysical unity. While the individual source is never revealed either in the ontic or purely aesthetic aspect and it acquires its function only in the “whole”, integral, almost immanent unity, presumably, it is at that time that polyphony comes into being. This is that creates antinomy, which takes its shape in the verticalsynchronous form; as to the mechanism of its removal, it is conditioned by the following factors: As its seems, following the inception and development of polyphony dialectical interrelations were evolving in Georgian musical folklore. Originally in polyphony voices did not function (or if so, they played a less important role) as the expressions of different sources. They must have gained ground as the integral parts of an internally indivisible “whole”. It is not a mere chance that in Georgian musical folklore the polyphonic musical expression of the cult musical-aesthetic principles most often takes place in the complex (synchronous) polyphony. Complex polyphony most often bears the above features itself – it provides maximum means to bring forward the inner, immanent unity of the voices. In it the voices seem to become a single nucleus, an integral organism. Much more possibilites of bringing forward the individual basis are provided by homophonic polyphony, of a drone type among them, and the more so by polyphonic multy-part singing. In these types of polyphony there are much greater possibilites for the spreading out and developing of voices, for the formation of their individuality and active creative processes. In general, polyphony is of the Georgians, as Homo poliphonicus (I. Zemtsovsky’s term) organic, almost innate characteristic feature of self-expression, in which it is possible to provide an artistic implementation of diametrically different aspects of the aesthetic attitude, revealing itself at the early stages of musical imagery. As it seems R. Siradze is right in observing that it is Georgian aesthetic thinking proper that is polyphonic in its nature (Siradze, 1982). Here I should also like to apply one of his interesting observations to the process of Georgian polyphonic thinking: in my opinion in the formation of the aesthetic order of the pre-Christian Georgian music a very significant part must have been played by two tendencies characteristic of Georgian mythological thinking. First of all the fact that it must have been the aesthetic sphere that the mythological images about the “Georgian Parnassus” (Asatiani, 1982:59) gave much greater cultural perspective to, than to the philosophical thinking (Siradze, 1978:48-97). I think the second tendency to be especially interesting and I want to lay a special emphasis on it; this is a tendency which, alongside with the introduction of heliocentric monotheism, manifests itself at the time when the deities of the polytheism epoch turn into the artistic images of the sun, i.e. the attributes of the sun lose their Antinomy of “One” and “Many” on Early Stages of the Aesthetics of Georgian Folk Music 137 religious meaning though they never go into oblivion; at the following stages of the religious thinking they emerge as the aesthetic attributes of the sun. Factually, the second tendency is a separate manifestation of the first, but it did introduce artistic-aesthetic diversity into Georgian mythology. In my opinion it is especially interesting from the aesthetic point of view. I think that this phenomenon must have exercised great influence on the two tendencies of the evolution of Georgian musical imagery – the crystallization of a musical image on the one hand and the differentiation of the musical images on the other. Apart from that the emergence of the artisticaesthetic diversity in Georgian mythology must have played a great role in kindling the dialectical relations in the Georgian music of those times, in regulating the musical-artistic subordination and following the above, in the development of polyphony. In my opinion it was one of the significant aesthetic preconditions of the emergence of polyphonic specimens in the Georgian music of the preChristian epoch and at the same time one of the mechanisms of the removal of antinomy of “one” and “many”. Refernces Asatiani, Guram. (1982). At the Sourses. Tbilisi: Sabchota Sakartvelo. (in Georgian) Bakhtin, Mikhail. (1965). Tvorchestvo Fransua Rable i narodnaia kultura srednеvеkovia i renesansa (Works of Francois Rabelais and Popular Culture of Middle Ages and Renaissance). Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literature. (in Russian) Dorner, Lео. (1975). “Zu den Grundproblem der Musikästhetik”. In: ÖMz, H. Osmound-Smith, David. (1981). “From Myth to Music, Levi-Strauss Mythologiques and Beriso Symphonic”. In: MQ, #2. Siradze, Revaz. (1978). Kartuli estetikuri azris istoriidan (From the History of Georgian Aesthetic Thinking). Tbilisi: Khelovneba. (in Georgian) Siradze, Revaz. (1982). Sakhismetqveleba (Poetics). Tbilisi: Nakaduli. (in Georgian) Translated by Lia Gabechava 138 marina qavTaraZe (saqarTvelo) monofonia da polifonia: paradigmaTa cvlis kulturul-istoriuli aspeqtebi (erTi Tvalsazrisi evropuli polifoniis Sesaxeb) monofoniisa da polifoniis urTierTobis sakiTxi scildeba romelime erTi musikaluri kulturis problematikis CarCoebs da universalur xasiaTs atarebs. moxsenebaSi warmodgenili diskursis mizania warmovaCinoT: I _ monofoniisa da polifoniis zogadfilosofiuri da kulturul-istoriuli aspeqtebi, gansakuTrebiT mis dasavleTevropul gamovlinebaSi da II _ gamovkveToT masTan dakavSirebuli zogierTi sakiTxi qarTul sasuliero musikaSi. erTi moxsenebis farglebSi SeuZlebelia aRniSnuli problemis amomwuravad gaSla, amitom moxsenebaSi motanili mosazrebebi SeiZleba Sedgomi diskusiis Temad iqces. saqme isaa, rom dasavleTevropuli polifonia warmoadgens gansazRvruli tipis adamianuri individualobis musikalur proeqcias. polifonia, rogorc aseTi, dafuZnebulia ramdenime xmis erTdroul gansxvavebul JReradobaze, romelic, cxadia, ar aris mxolod evropuli kulturis monapovari. farTo gagebiT, is gavrcelebulia mraval qveyanaSi, maT Soris, uZveles civilizaciebSic da misi axalevropuli varianti warmoadgens mxolod erT-erT SesaZlo gamovlenas am musikalur-msoflmxedvelobiTi principisa. magram dasavleTevropuli polifonia imdenad mkafio da mZlavri movlenaa, rom musikismcodneebi sruliad safuZvlianad vsaubrobT gansakuTrebul niSnebze, romlebic ganasxvaveben musikalur `dasavleTs~ `aRmosavleTisagan~. rogoric ar unda iyos hipoTezebi, dakavSirebuli evropuli polifoniis warmoSobasTan da mis pirvelsawyis formebTan, saidanac daibada polifonia (VII—VIII saukuneebi, xalxuri Tu profesiuli), man maSinve gamoavlina Tavisi unikaluri xasiaTi. mis yvelaze tipur niSans warmoadgens zogadinteleqtualuri xasiaTi da kompozitoris rolis mniSvneloba. polifoniis inteleqtualuri xasiaTi mTeli misi istoriis manZilze iCens Tavs da mkafiod vlindeba kompoziciis kanonebis batonobaSi, romlebic ukve adreul istoriul etapze yalibdeba ara xmaTa empiriuli JReradobidan, aramed gonismieri, maT Soris, saRvTismsaxuro kanonikidan. intervalebi, romlebic aSorebda xmebs, magaliTad organumSi, SeiZleba yofiliyo mxolod `sruli~, `wminda~ konsonansuri, anu kvinta, kvarta an oqtava; ritmi _ upiratesad samwiladi, radgan wminda samebis cifrul simbolod iyo miCneuli da a.S. swored am intervalebis paralelizmiT xasiaTdeba evropuli saeklesio mravalxmianoba mis sawyis etapze (IX-X saukuneebi), roca erTaderT formas swored organumi warmoadgenda. `organumSi xmebi mTavar xmad _ vox principalis da Tanmxleb xmebad _ vox organalis-ad iyofa. es gansazRvreba qarTul galobaSi arsebul xmaTa funqciebs 139 mogvagonebs, sadac mTavari xma kanonikuri funqciis matarebeli xma _ Tqmaa, xolo moZaxili da bani misi Tanmxlebni arian~ (SuRliaSvili, 2001: 103). zigfrid nadeli Tavis gamokvlevaSi wers: `xmaTa moZraobis mTavar tipad dasavleT saqarTveloSi is forma mkvidrdeba, romelsac Suasaukuneebis musikisaTvis damaxasiaTeblad vTvliT. saxeldobr, hukbaldis paraleluri organumi~ (Nadel, 1933: 31), rac mas safuZvels aZlevs, gamoTqvas varaudi, TiTqos mravalxmianoba saqarTveloSi gaCeniliyos da aqedanve gavrcelebuliyos evropaSi. CvenTvis es varaudi kidev erTi dadasturebaa imisa, rom polifiniuri azrovnebis process sxvadasxva erSi ganviTarebis saerTo etapebi SeiZleba gaaCndes. rogorc aRniSnavs albert sei, `WeSmariti polifonia, am sityvis maRali gagebiT, ar SeiZleba yofiliyo improvizaciis Sedegi; is unda SeTxzuliyo kompozitoris mier da gaazrebuliyo kompoziciis praqtikuli da filosofiuri moTxovnebis gaTvaliswinebiT~ (Seay, 1965: 77). praqtikosi improvizatoris Canacvlebam Teoretikosi kompozitoriT asaxa veeberTela Zvra, romelic moxda SemoqmedebiT pirovnebasa da Tavad SemoqmedebiTi aqtis aRqmasTan dakavSirebul warmodgenebSi. Sesabamisad, is ukavSirdeba warmodgenaTa cvlas musikis Sesaxeb, rogorc ukve arsebulsa da ganmeorebadze (foklori), inteleqtualurad Seferili axali SemoqmedebiTi aqtiT. Semsrulebeli, rogori fantaziiTac ar unda yofiliyo aRbeWdili misi improvizacia, Tavisi arsiT ar iyo avtori, musikis Semqmneli. is iyo ostati, romelic muSaobda mza nimuSis mixedviT, maSin, rodesac kompozitori musikis Semqmneli-Semoqmedi iyo (TiTqmis yvela enaSi, maT Soris qarTulSic Semoqmedi RmerTs niSnavs, ise rogorc kompozitors Semoqmedi, xolo mis mier Seqmnils Semoqmedeba hqvia). aq swored mivuaxlovdiT yvelaze mTavar faqtors dasavleTevropuli polifoniis warmoSobaSi. rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, musikismcodneebi polifoniaze (imaze, rasac tradiciulad polifoniad miviCnevT) saubrisas ganasxvaveben axalevropuls sxva musikaluri tradiciebisagan. magram ratom gaCnda is Sua saukuneebSi, ra kulturul-istoriulma procesebma gansazRvres misi dabadeba, da rac mTavaria, ra cvlilebebma gaxada is ara marto SesaZlebeli, aramed sasurveli da saintereso ara marto kompozitorebisTvis, aramed auditoriisTvisac; es kiTxva xSirad yuradRebis miRma rCeba, maSin, rodesac es aris arsebiTi sakiTxi da movlenis kulturul-istoriuli mniSvnelobis arss ver CavwvdebiT, Tu am kiTxvaze pasuxis gacemas ar SevecdebiT. arsebuli pasuxebi SezRuduli da, amitomac, aradamakmayofilebelia. Tu amosavlad miviCnevT, rom mravalxmianoba ibadeba musikaluri bgeris wminda akustikuri bunebidan, maSin gaugebaria, ratom unda gaCeniliyo polifonia sasuliero musikis sferoSi garkveul periodSi da ratom ar SeiZleboda mas earseba yovelTvis: fizikur bgeras xom es Tvisebebi axasiaTebda ganurCevlad istoriuli epoqisagan. gaugebaria, aseve, ratom arsebobda mravalxmianobis gansxvavebuli formebi sxva xalxTa musikalur kulturebSi, maT Soris, qarTulSi. maSin es niSnavs imas, rom dasavleTevropuli polifoniis fesvebi Zevs ara fizikaSi, aramed kulturaSi. am hipoTezis WrilSi kiTxvis qveS dgeba m. Snaideris mosazreba, romelic 140 marina qavTaraZe gvTavazobs polifoniis gagebas, rogorc universaluri moqmedebis da, amasTanave, harmoniuli principebis wminda `teqnikuri~ kanonebis Sedegs, amasTanave, uaryofs am kanonebis kulturul-istoriul da geografiul gagebas (Schneider, 1934: 10-11), xolo musikaluri formis teqnikuri kanonebi, Snaideris Tanaxmad, universaluria. Sesabamisad, TviTmyofi dasavleTevropuli polifonia, misi unikaluri Tvisebebi aixsneba musikaluri Semoqmedebis teqnikuri mxareebiT da ara konkretuli kulturulistoriuli periodis SinaarsiT, romelsac is ekuTvnis. aseve aradamajereblad da calmxrivad gveCveneba riCard hopinis mier wamoyenebuli hipoTeza, romlis Tanaxmad, polifonia gaxda Sedegi musikosebis `SemoqmedebiTi energiis~ gamovlenisa (Hoppin, 1978: 181). Tu es asea, sakiTxavia, ratom moiTxova am energiam gamosvla mocemul momentSi da swored polifoniis saxiT. udavoa, rom polifoniaSi gamosavals hpovebs gansakuTrebuli SemoqmedebiTi energia, romelic gansxvavebulia erTxmiani musikisagan, magram mainc gaurkvevelia misi xasiaTi da azri. vfiqrob, rom adekvaturi axsna unda veZioT Suasaukuneebis azrovnebis fundamentur msoflmxedvelobiT principebSi. epoqis msoflmxedvelobis doneze polifoniis warmoSobis im mizezebis Ziebisas, romlebmac gansazRvres radikaluri cvlilebebi musikalur azrovnebaSi, yvelaze misaRebi aris substanciuri pirovnebis koncefcia (a.f. losevis termini), anu koncefciisa, romelic warmoiSva qristianuli swavlebis niadagze absolutis Sesaxeb, RmerTze rogorc pirovnebaze (Лосев, 1988). mxatvruli qmnilebis yovel aqtSi aris raRac, rac Seucnobelia gonebis mier, rodesac xorcieldeba uxilavi azridan garegani arsebobis obieqtur formaze gadasvlis procesi. hegelis mixedviT, Tavad adamiani ganasaxierebs am moments, rogorc fizikurisa da sulieri sawyisis gamaerTianebeli. dasavleTevropuli polifonia aris erT-erTi mkafio gamovlineba misi Semqmnelis koleqtiuri pirovnebisa _ adamianuri subieqtis gansakuTrebuli tipisa da misi fundamenturi aspeqtisa, anu RmerTisadmi damokidebulebisa. polifonia amoizarda am urTierTobebis qristianuli gagebidan da amitom gaxda `mzardi~ qristianobis epoqaSi, rac ar iyo SemTxveviTi. yvelaze adreuli formebi polifoniisa warmoadgens orxmian organums, romelSic erTxmian safuZvels _ cantus firmus-s, emateba meore xma, discantus-i. am meore xmis gaCena aris swored adamianuri pirovnulisa da RvTaebrivi pirovnulis axali urTierTobebis musikaluri asaxva. losevi aRniSnavda, rom qristianobis gavrcelebasTan erTad Cndeba warmodgena pirovnebaze, romelic ar daiyvaneba mxolod bunebriv an kosmiur sawyisze, aseve absolutze, rogorc pirovnebaze. amgvari gageba pirovnebisa gaCnda arauadres Suasaukuneebis monoTeizmisa an miwieri adamianis renesansuli absolutizaciis xanisa. elinistur-romauli periodis (aseve, adreuli arqauli da klasikuri antikuri) pirovnebebi aRiniSnebodnen grZnobad materialuri da pirovnulis miRmiseuli kosmologizmiT; mas imanenturi gancda da mgrZnobelobac ki ar arRvevda (Лосев, 1996: 180)1. Zvel samyaroSi adamianis pirovnebis amocana iyo Serwymoda kosmoss da Tavad adamianis pirovneba kosmosis nawilad, xolo misi arasrulfasovneba kosmiuri mTelisagan mowyvetis tolfasad aRiqmeboda. qristianuli gagebiT, adamiani aseve monofonia da polifonia: paradigmaTa cvlis kulturul-istoriuli aspeqtebi (erTi Tvalsazrisi evropuli polifoniis Sesaxeb) 141 miiswrafoda umaRles substanciasTan, RmerTTan erTianobisaken, magram aq ukve Cadebulia azri `aramiwieri~ transkosmiuri Semoqmedis Sesaxeb, romlis samyarosTan gaigiveba SeuZlebelia. kosmosi ar aris RmerTi, anu RmerTi ar aris kosmosis tolfasi da, miuxedavad imisa, rom samyaro RvTis mier aris Seqmnili, RvTaebrivi samyaro misi transcendenturia. magram, cxadia, RmerTsa da samyaros Soris transcendenturi damokidebuleba ar aris sakmarisi polifoniis warmoSobisaTvis: RvTis xma SeiZleba arsebobdes rogorc RvTismsaxurebis, religiuri ritualis nawili, sruliad damoukideblad adamianis xmis, Seqmnilis sferosagan. magram RmerTsa da adamians Soris urTierTobis gagebis arsi ara imdenad maTi erTianobis SeuZleblobaSia, ramdenadac maT SesaZlo da sanatrel erTianobaSi. swored amgvari `RvTiuri xarebaa~ polifonia: SeurwymelTa erTianoba Seqmnilisa mis SemoqmedTan, adamianis pirovnuli xmis _ diskantisa RvTis xmasTan _ cantus firmus-Tan. am ukanasknels warmodgenda saeklesio tradiciis mier nakurTxi sagaloblebi da umTavresi am repertuarSi, grigoriseuli qorali, romelic gadmocemis Tanaxmad, pap grigol dids angelosTa xmebiT Caesma (Hoppin, 1978: 42-43). amgvarad, cantus firmus-i Suasaukuneebis saeklesio musikosisaTvis erTmniSvnelovnad (Tumca ara pirdapiri gagebiT) RvTis xma iyo. xolo adamianuri praqtikiT damkvidrebuli diskanti, iyo xma adamianisa, gansxvavebuli RvTiurisagan, magram, amave dros, masTan kavSirSi myofi, misgan ganuyofeli. aRniSnuli qarTul saeklesio galobasac ukavSirdeba. qarTuli galobis mravalxmianobasa da adreuli evropuli polifoniis musikaluri azrovnebaSi sxvaobis miuxedavad, aris msgavsebac, romelic profesiul musikaSi or gzas Soris, or, gansxvavebuli istoriis mqone kulturaSi SeiniSneba. xmaTa moZraobaSi organumis tipis paralelizmis principi Suasaukuneebis mravalxmianobis niSan-Tvisebaa, romelic qarTul galobaSi SenarCunebulia misi ganviTarebis samive etapze da axasiaTebs saswavlebel xmebs, sada kilos da gamSvenebul kilos (SuRliaSvili, 2001: 105). amdenad, intravertuli bunebis mqone monofonia aris samyaros sruli imanenturoba, sakuTar TavTan igiveoba; Tavisi arsiT eqstravertuli polifonia aris samyaros sazRvrebis garRveva, misi gadalaxva _ is aris mravlobiToba, yofierebis danawevreba xarisxobrivad araerTgvarovan da arsobrivad gansxvavebul, mravalricxovan Sreebsa da doneebze. da mainc, polifoniaSi xmebi ar nawevrdeba qaosur mravalferovnebaSi, aramed erTiandeba mwyobr mTelSi. anu, sxvagvarad rom vTqvaT, erTianobis idea arsad qreba, is sxva xarisxobriv doneze iCens Tavs. swored pirovnulis modelis wyalobiT, romelic RmerTkaci qristes saxidan amoizrdeba, anu RmerTisa da adamianis gansxvavebulobidan da, amave dros, erTianobidan, ara marto SesaZlebeli xdeba, aramed gacnobierebulad mimzidvelic sxvadasxva xmaTa erTi nawarmoebis CarCoebSi gaerTianeba. `yoveli xelovnebis mizani, _ werda hegeli, _ aris suliT warmoqmnili igiveoba, romelSic maradiuli, RvTaebrivi cxaddeba realur movlenasa da saxeSi~ (hegeli, 1973: 615). polifonia ibadeba Sua saukuneebis adamianis moTxovnilebaSi, gamoxatos musikaSi misTvis yvelaze sanukvari, wminda WeSmariteba: misi Seurwymeli erToba umaRles substanciasTan. ioane petriwis Tanaxmad, RmerTis Semecnebis erTaderTi saSualeba saxeobrivi Semecnebaa – e.w. `xedvaQ~, rameTu `xelovani RmerTis~ ideis anareklis mixedviTaa awyobili da aJRere- 142 marina qavTaraZe buli mTeli samyaro, xolo musikas sxvaze ukeT ZaluZs `xedva~ da gancda `erTisa~ `erTobaQ SeyovlebisaQT~2. SeniSvnebi 1 amis dasturad losevs moaqvs magaliTi: senekas tragediaSi Tavisi cxovrebis yvelaze tragikul momentSi medea mouxmobs qaoss (`qaoso, qaoso~), maSin rodesac dantesa da Seqspiris gmirebi pirvelyofil qaoss ki ar mimarTaven, romlisganac sruliad Tavisuflebi arian, aramed Tavis beds monoTeizmis absolutur pirovnebas, an absolutizebul miwier-adamianur pirovnebas ukavSireben (Лосев, 1996: 181). 2 ioane petriwis xmaTa erTdrouli JReradobis aRmniSvneli cnebebia: `erTbami~, `dabamva~, `erTobaQ SeyovlebisaQ~, ,,morTuleba~ (`samusTa rTvaQ~); n. fircxalava gansakuTrebiT gamoyofs cnebas `morTuleba~ da misi fuZidan (`rTva~) warmoebul sxva monaTesave cnebebs, romlebic `harmoniis~ aRmniSvneli qarTuli cnebebia. maT gamoyenebas emyareba petriwiseuli filosofiuri Txzulebis nebismieri musikaluri paraleli (fircxalava, 2003: 111) gamoyenebuli literatura nucubiZe, Salva. (1947). rusTaveli da aRmosavluri renesansi. Tbilisi: mecniereba. fircxalava, nino. (2003). `petriwis filosofia da qarTuli mravalxmianoba~. krebulSi: tradiciuli mravalxmianobis pirveli saerTaSoriso simpoziumi. moxsenebebi. gv. 109-119. redaqtorebi: wurwumia, rusudan da Jordania, ioseb. Tbilisi: saxelmwifo konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri. SuRliaSvili, daviT. (2001). `qarTuli galobis `unisonuri~ mravalxmianoba~. krebulSi: sasuliero da saero musikis mravalxmianobis problemebi. gv. 101-118. p/red.: wurwumia, rusudan. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoria. hegeli, georg vilhelm fridrix. (1973). esTetika. Tbilisi: xelovneba. Лосев, Александр. (1988). “Античная философия и общественно-исторические формации”. В сборнике: Античность как тип культуры. Ред.: Лосев, А.Ф., Чистякова, Н.А., Бородай, Т.Ю. и др. Москва: Наука http://antique-lit.niv.ru/antique-lit/articles/antichnost-kak-tip-kultury/losev-antichnoe-myshlenie.htm Лосев, Александр. (1996). Мифология греков и римлян. Москва: Мысль. Nadel, Siegfried F. (1933). Georgische Gesänge. Berlin: Lautabt, Leipzig: Harrassowitz. monofonia da polifonia: paradigmaTa cvlis kulturul-istoriuli aspeqtebi (erTi Tvalsazrisi evropuli polifoniis Sesaxeb) 143 Schneider, Marius. (1934). Geschichte der Mehrstimmigkeit: Historische und Phänomenologische Studien. Vol. 1. Berlin: Borntraeger. Hoppin, Richard. (1978). Medieval Music. N. Y-London: W. W. Norton & Co. Lang, Paul, Henry. (1941). Music in Western Civilization. N. Y.: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc. Seay, Albert (1965). Music in the Medieval World. History of Music Series Edition. N. Y.: Prentice Hall. 144 MARINA KAVTARADZE (GEORGIA) MONOPHONY AND POLYPHONY: CULTURAL-HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THE PARADIGMATIC CHANGES (A VIEW ON EUROPEAN POLYPHONY) The question of the interrelation between monophony and polyphony exceeds the bounds of the problems of one musical culture and is of universal character. The discussion presented in the paper is targeted at 1) bringing forward the general philosophical and cultural-historical aspects of monophony and polyphony, especially in their west European manifestation and 2) along with that our goal is to single out some questions in Georgian sacred music associated with the former. Within the limits of one paper it is impossible to give an exhaustive analysis of the above problem, therefore the contentions suggested in this report may be used as subjects for further discussion. The thing is that west European polyphony is a musical projection of man’s individuality of a definite type. Polyphony, as such, is based on the simultaneous sounding of several different voices, which quite obviously is not an achievement of only European culture. In its wide meaning it is attested in many countries, ancient civilizations among them, and its new European variant is one of the possible manifestations of this principle of music and world outlook. But west European polyphony is such a prominent and powerful phenomenon that we musicologists are right in speaking of the specific features which differentiate the musical “West” from the “East”. Whatever might have been the hypotheses about the provenance of European polyphony and its primary forms which gave rise to polyphony (seventh-eighth centuries, folk or professional), it manifested its unique character immediately. Its most typical indication is its general intellectual character and the importance of the composer’s role. The intellectual character of polyphony reveals itself throughout its history and is clearly manifested in the dominance of composition laws, which took shape at an early historical stage and stemmed not from the empirical sounding of the voices, but from the sphere of intelligence, from the ecclesiastic canonry among them. Intervals which divided the voices, for instance in the organum, could only be the “complete,” “pure”, consonance, i.e. the fifth, the fourth or the octave; the rhythm was mostly triple, as it was considered to be a digital symbol of the Holy Trinity etc. It was the parallelism of these intervals that characterized European polyphony in its initial stage (ninth-tenth centuries), when the organum was the only form. “In the organum the voices are divided into the main voice – vox principalis and the accompanying voices – vox organalis”. This definition is reminiscent of the voice functions in Georgian chanting, where the main voice, the voice which has a canonical function, is tkma (term for “speech”) and modzakhili (the middle voice) and bani (the bass part) accompanying the former (Shugliashvili, 2001:103). Siegfried Nadel writes in his research: “In western Georgia the main type of the voice motion, which is considered to be characteristic of the Middle Ages, namely Huckbald’s parallel organum, was introduced into practice” (Nadel, 1933: 31). This conjecture gives him grounds 145 to assert that polyphony may have emerged in Georgia, from where it spread all over Europe. For us this conjecture proves once again that the process of polyphonic thinking may have common stages of development in different nations. As Albert Seay notes, “The true polyphony in the elevated meaning of the word cannot have been a result of improvisation; it had to be created by a composer and considered in keeping with the practical and philosophical demands of composition” (Seay, 1965: 77). The supersession of the practical improviser by a theorist composer reflected the huge changes that occurred in the images associated with the creative person and the perception of the creative act per se. Accordingly, it is linked with changes in the ideas about music as something already present and reiterating (folklore) and rendered intellectuality by a new creative phenomenon. The performer, no matter what kind of fantasy might have influenced his/her improvisation, in essence was not the author, the creator of the music. He was a master who worked according to a ready-made model, while the composer was the creator of music (almost in all languages, Georgian among them, creator means God, the same as the composer is called the creator and whatever he brings into existence, creates, is called the creation). Now I have come close to the main factor in the emergence of west European polyphony. As has already been mentioned above, when speaking about polyphony (whatever is considered to be traditional polyphony), musicologists differentiate between the new European polyphony and other musical traditions of the world. But why did it emerge in the Middle Ages? Which culturalhistorical processes conditioned its appearance, and what is most important: what were the changes that made it not only possible but desirable and interesting not only for composers but for the audience as well. This question often escapes attention, though it is an essential issue and we will never be able to penetrate deep into the essence of this phenomenon, the essence of great cultural and historical significance, if we do not try to find an answer to this question. The existing questions are limited and hence unsatisfactory. If we admit that polyphony stems from the pure acoustic nature of the musical sound, which spreads out on the complex three-part form in the overtones, then it is incomprehensible why polyphony should have remained in the sphere of sacred music for a definite period of time and why could it not have always been present, for these features characterized the physical sound despite the historical epoch. It is not clear either why there were different forms of polyphony in the musical cultures of other peoples, the Georgian culture among them. Then it will mean that the roots of West European polyphony can be found not in physics but in culture. This puts M. Schneider’s contention under question mark: he suggests that polyphony should be understood as a result of a universal activity and at the same time as an outcome of the pure “technical” laws of harmonic principles, thus rejecting the cultural-historical and geographical understanding of these laws (Schneider, 1934: 10-11), and according to Schneider the technical laws of the musical form are universal. Accordingly, the original West European polyphony’s unique traits can be explained by the technical aspects of music making and not by the content of the concrete cultural-historical period it belongs to. Similarly unconvincing and one-sided seems the hypothesis suggested by Richard Hoppin which says that polyphony was the result of the manifestation of musicians’ creative energy (Hoppin, 1978: 181). If that is so, a question then arises as to why this energy demanded to manifest itself at a given moment and in the form of polyphony at that. It is indisputable that a special creative energy, different from monophonic music, manifests 146 Marina Kavtaradze itself in polyphony, but still its character and meaning remain vague. In my opinion an adequate explanation should be looked for in the principles of the fundamental world outlook of thinking. When searching for the reasons behind the origin of polyphony on the world outlook level of the epoch, which conditioned the radical changes in musical thinking, the most acceptable is the concept of the substantial personality (A.F. Losev’s term), or the concept on the basis of Christian teaching about the absolute, God as a personality (Losev, 1988) In every act of artistic creation there is something which cannot be perceived by the mind, when the process of the transition from the invisible idea to the objective form of external existence takes place. According to Hegel it is man that personifies this process as the unifier of the physical and spiritual sources. West European polyphony is one of the prominent manifestations of its creator’s collective personality – of a special type of human subject and his fundamental aspect or attitude towards God. Polyphony stemmed from the Christian understanding of these relations, therefore it came to be “growing” in the Christian epoch, which was not accidental. The earliest forms of polyphony are a two-part organum, where the secondary part, discantus, is added to the homophonic basis-cantum firmus. The appearance of the secondary part is a musical representation of the new relations between the human personality and divine personality. Losev noted that alongside the spreading of Christianity appears the idea of a personality which cannot be brought down to the natural or cosmic source only, nor to the absolute as a personality. Such a concept of a personality came into being not earlier than the medieval monotheism or the Renaissance epoch when earthly man was perceived as an absolute value. Individuals of the Hellenic-Roman period (as well as the early archaic and classical and antique) were characterized by the beyond-sensitive-material-and-personal cosmologism; it was never violated even by immanent emotion and sensitivity (Losev, 1996: 180)1. In the old world the aim of man’s personality was to merge with the cosmos, man’s personality per se was viewed as part of the cosmos and his inferiority was perceived as equal to his getting detached from the cosmic whole. In the Christian concept man also aspired to unity with the supreme substance-God, but here it is already charged with the idea of a “heavenly” transcosmic creator, which cannot be identified with the universe. Cosmos is not God, i.e. God is not equivalent to cosmos, and in spite of the fact that the universe is created by God, the divine world is its transcendent. But it is evident that the transcendent relations between God and the universe are not sufficient for the emergence of polyphony. God’s voice may exist as part of the liturgy, a religious ritual, quite independently of the sphere of man’s voice, which is already created. But the essence of understanding the relations between God and man is not so much due to the impossibility of their unity as to their possible and desirable unity. Polyphony is such a “divine annunciation”: the unity of those who cannot be united, the unity of the creature with its creator, of the discant-man’s individual voice with God’s voice – cantus firmus. The latter were the hymns consecrated by the ecclesiastic tradition and the most important in this repertoire is the chorale of Pope Gregorius, which as the tradition has it, was sung to Gregorius Magnus by the angels (Hoppin, 1978: 42-42). Thus Cantus firmus was God’s voice (though not in its direct meaning) for medieval church musicians. But the discant introduced through the human practice, was man’s voice, different from the divine one but its integral part. All that has been said above is associated with Georgian chanting as well. In spite of the difference between the polyphony of Georgian chanting and the musical thinking of early European Monophony and Polyphony: Cultural-Historical Aspects of the Paradigmatic Changes (A View on European Polyphony) 147 polyphony, there are some similarities as well, which can be noticed between the two ways in professional music, in the two cultures of different history. The principle of the organum-type parallelism in the voice movement is a characteristic feature of the medieval polyphony which was preserved in Georgian chanting at the three stages of its evolvement and are characteristic of “the learning voices,” “plain mode” and “the decorated mode” (Shugliashvili, 2001: 105). Therefore monophony, which has an introvert nature, is a complete immanency of the universe, an identity with its own self; in its essence the extrovert polyphony breaks through the frontiers of the universe overcoming them – it is plurality, breaking up the existence on the qualitatively heterogeneous and essentially differentiated numerous layers and levels. And yet, in polyphony the voices do not break up into chaotic diversity, they become united in a regular whole, or to put it differently, the idea of unity does not disappear, it is manifested on a different qualitative level. Due to the personal model, which stems from the image of Christ, man and God, i.e. from the difference between God and man and herewith from their unity, it is not only possible but quite comprehensibly attractive as well to unite different voices within the framework of a single piece of art. Hegel wrote, “The aim of every art is the similarity created by the soul, in which the eternal and divine are manifested in a real phenomenon” (Hegel, 1973: 615). Polyphony was born in the medieval man’s need to express his most desirable, pure truth in music: his unblended unity with the supreme substance. According to Ioane Petritsi the only means to cognize God is through imagery, the so-called “khedvai” (seeing), for the whole universe is structured and made to sound according to the reflection of “God, the Creator’s” idea, and it is music that can “see” better than anything else and can feel “the one”, “ertobai sheqovlebisai” (simultaneous sounding of different pitches, unity of different parts)2. Notes 1 To corroborate this Losev gives an example: At the most tragic moment in her life Medea, in Seneca’s work, calls the chaos (“Chaos, chaos”), while Dante’s and Shakespeare’s characters do not address the primeval chaos, of which they are free completely, but link their fate with the absolute personality of monotheism, or an earthly man, made absolute (Losev, 1996:181). 2 Ioane Petritsi’s terms to denote simultaneous sounding are: “ertbami,” “dabamva,” “ertobai sheqovlebisai,” “mortuleba” (“samusta rtvai”); N. Pirtskhalava specially singles out the term “mortuleba” and other related terms derived from its root (“rtva”), they are Georgian terms which denote “harmony.” Any musical parallel of Petritsi’s philosophical composition is based on the use of the above terms (Pirtskhalava, 2003:111). References Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. (1973). Aesthetics. Tbilisi: Khelovneba. (in Georgian) Hoppin, Richard. (1978). Medieval Music. N. Y.-London: W. W. Norton & Co. 148 Marina Kavtaradze Lang, Paul, Henry. (1941). Music in Western Civilization. N. Y.: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc. Losev, Alexander. (1988). “Antichnaja Filosofija I antichnye obshestvenno-istoricheskie formacii”. (“Antique Philosophy and Antique Social-Historical Formations”). In: Antichnost kak tip kultury (Antiquity as a Type of Culture). Editors: Losev, A.F., Chistyakov, N.A., Boroday, T.Y. and etc. Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian) http//antique-lit.niv.ru/antique-lit/articles/antichnost-kak-tip-kultury/losev-antichnoe-myshlenie.htm Losev, Alexander. (1996). Myphologia Grekov i Rimlian (Mythology of the Greeks and Romans). Moscow: Misl. (in Russian) Nadel, Siegfried F. (1933). Georgische Gesänge. Berlin: Lautabt, Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Nutsubidze, Shalva. (1974). Rustaveli da aghmosavluri renesansi (Rustaveli and Eastern Renaissance). Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (in Georgian) Pirtskhalava, Nino. (2003). “Ioane Petritsi’s Philosophy and Georgian Polyphony”. In: The First International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 109-128. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Schneider, Marius. (1934). Geschichte der Mehrstimmigkeit: Historische und Phänomenologische Studien. Vol. 1. Berlin: Borntraeger. Shughliashvili, Davit. (2001). “Kartuli galobis “unisonuri” mravalkhmianoba” (“Unison” Polyphony of Georgian Church Hymns”). In: Problems of Sacred and Secular Polyphony. P. 101-118. Responsible editor: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Translated by Lia Gabechava 149 andrea kuzmiCi (kanada) ara aRdgena, aramed aRdgenis tradicia: tradiciuli qarTuli mravalxmianobis xelaxali wakiTxva ansambluri tradiciis mixedviT1 Sesavali saqarTvelo, 4.5 milioniani mosaxleobiT, kavkasionis mTebs Soris, Savi zRvis aRmosavleT sanapiroze mdebareobs. uZvelesi istoriis mqone es qveyana paleoliTis droidan 1600 welze mets iTvlis. am xnis ganmavlobaSi gacilebiT Zlier erebs Soris mcxovrebi mcirericxovani, marTlmadidebeli qarTveli eri mudmivad TviTgadarCenis reJimSi cxovrobda. yovelive amis Sesaxeb saqarTvelos mdidari kulturuli memkvidreobac mowmobs da saqarTvelos sazRvrebis mudmiv gadaadgilebasa da sxvadasxva eTnojgufTan urTierTqmedebas aireklavs. sxvadasxva dros aseTi eTnojgufebi berZnebi, romaelebi, arabebi, Turqebi da iranelebi iyvnen2. bevrma, SesaZloa, Tqvas, rom polifoniuri simRera istoriulad Teqvsmetiode geografiul-kulturul erTeulad gayofili eris erTianobis damadasturebeli faqtoria. miCneulia, rom samxmiani simRera bariton-tenoris sazRvrebSi moqceuli aTaswleulebis tradiciaa, romelic Tavisi disonansuri sirTuliT Znelad gansasazRvria dasavluri musikis terminebiT. regionuli stilebis mravalferovneba asaxavs qveynis Semadgenlobas. tradiciulad, simReraTa Sesruleba da maTi Sinaarsi soflis yofasTan dakavSirebuli TaviseburebebiT ganisazRvreba. mgzavrulebi, Sromis simRerebi, ferxulebi, nanebi, samkurnalo simRerebi da sxva polifoniuri formebi ubraloLsofluri, glexuri cxovrebis atributs warmoadgenen. am originalur-sofluri stilis sapirispirod, qarTuli mravalxmianobis saerTaSoriso asparezze wardgenis magaliTi qveynis dedaqalaq TbilisSi miRebuli ansambluri praqtikaa. Tbilisuri cocxali da damoukidebeli tradiciuli musika, SesaZloa urbanizaciis Sedegs warmoadgendes, romelSic soflidan wamosuli bevri musikosia CarTuli. ansamblis wevrebi erovnuli saganZuris dacviT motivirebuli axalgazrda musikosebi arian. `isini ewinaaRmdegebian simRerebis xangrZliv sabWour stilizaciasa da standartizacias, Tavad arian CarTulebi saarqivo da saeqspedicio saqmianobaSi, Sesrulebisas improvizireben da qmnian sakuTar variantebs~ (Kuzmich, 2010:Q149). ufro metic, isini qarTul tradiciul polifoniur simReras erovnuli cnobierebis gamoxatvasTan aigiveben da sjeraT, rom uZvelesi tradiciis matareblebi arian _ tradiciisa, romlis fesvebic aTaswleulebSi ikargeba. maTTvis musikaluri praqtikis gamijvna saqarTvelos erovnuli da sarwmunoebrivi cnobierebisagan warmoudgenelia. Tumca, saansamblo praqtika eTnomusikologebis did yuradRebas ar imsaxurebs. tradiciul qarTul sufrasTan momRerali ansamblebis avTenturi socialuri funq- 150 andrea kuzmiCi ciis miuxedavad, rogorc momRerlebi, ise mkvlevrebi, gamoTqvamen Tavis damokidebulebas ansamblis formatis namdvilobis mimarT, ufro metad, sakoncerto scenasTan misi asociaciis gamo. bolo periodis ramdenime gamocemis garda, romlebic simReris ostatebs (did momRerlebad aRiarebuli adamianebi, ansamblebis xelmZRvanelebi da isini, vinc cnobilia, rogorc aseulobiT simReris yvela xmis mcodne) (Chokhonelidze, Rodonaia, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Rodonaia, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c) eZRvneba, tradiciuli polifoniisadmi miZRvnili literaturis ZiriTadi nawili Seexeba polifoniis rols originalur, glexuri yofis konteqstSi. erTmaneTisgan asxvaveben originalur soflur konteqstsa da ostati momRerlebis/ansamblebis praqtikas. am gansxvavebaSi garkvevis mizniT, moxsenebaSi qarTuli polifonia danaxulia saansamblo tradiciis WrilSi da ganxilulia is, Tu rogor SeiZleba mivudgeT soflur sasimRero praqtikas profesiuli sasuliero sasimRero praqtikis zegavlenisa da esTetikuri ganviTarebiT motivirebuli ansambluri Sesrulebis gaTvaliswinebiT. ufro metic, ansambluri tradiciis diaqronuli ganxilva avlens aRorZinebis talRisebur aqtivobas, romelic axdens gadarCenis ideis identifikacias musikis farglebs miRma da gvafiqrebinebs, rom ansambluri praqtika SesaZloa iyos gadarCenis ufro didi tradiciis nawili. saansamblo tradiciis glexuri fesvebi qarTveli momRerlebi da eTnomusikologebi imowmeben pirveli ansamblis, igive ,,eTnografiuli gundis~ mier TbilisSi 1886 wels gamarTul koncerts, romelic ganixileba, rogorc rusuli okupaciis winaaRmdeg mimarTuli didi erovnul-ganmaTavisuflebeli moZraobis nawili. amave dros, maSinac da dResac aRniSnaven, rom es gundi tradiciuli musikis dacva-Senaxvas emsaxureboda, rac metad misasalmebeli istoriuli nabiji iyo [Chavchavadze, 2005 (1886)]. ansamblis daarseba da, zogadad, tradiciuli musikis koncertizaciis procesi kritikis sagans warmoadgenda da am kritikis mizezi tradiciul musikaSi dasavleT evropuli esTetikisa da formis Taviseburebebis Semotana iyo (Araqishvili, 1925, 2005). Tumca, am kritikam gadafara is faqti, rom gundis koncefcia im periodSi aRmoCenil siaxles sulac ar warmoadgenda. rogorc 1902-1914 wlebSi sofluri ansamblebis Canawerebis kompaqturi diskidan yanwebi da gramofonebi (Linich, 2001) Cans, SesaZloa, me-19 saukunis bolos sofluri ansamblebi ukve Camoyalibebuli iyo. sainteresoa, rom diskze warmodgenilia ori sxvadasxva regioni da musikaluri stili _ qarTl-kaxeTi (aRmosavleTSi) da guria (dasavleTSi). ori gundi guriidan _ erTi zemo akeTidan da meore makvaneTidan _ anotaciaSi daxasiaTebulia, rogorc Tavisi kulturuli memkvidreobis erTguli fermerebi da glexebi (Linich, 2001). isini galobdnen, rogorc RvTismsaxurebis dros, ise, ubralod, siamovnebisTvis (Erkomaishvili, 1987: 9). ufro metic, isini Zalian popularulebi iyvnen. 1987 wels gamoSvebuli diskis anotaciaSi anzor erqomaiSvili (makvaneTis gundis xelmZRvanelis, gigo erqomaiSvilis SvilTaSvili) wers, rom misi didi babuis trios ,,xSirad patiJobdnen sxvadasxva soflebSi... TiTqmis arc erTi wveuleba, saxalxo an religiuri dResaswauli maT gareSe ar imarTeboda~ ara aRdgena, aramed aRdgenis tradicia: tradiciuli qarTuli mravalxmianobis xelaxali wakiTxva ansambluri tradiciis mixedviT 151 (Erkomaishvili, 1987: 10). musikis istorikosi manana axmeteli aRniSnavs, rom sofluri ansambluri simRera Camoyalibda Tbilisis eTnografiuli gundis 1886 wels gamarTuli koncertis sapasuxod (interviu, 2005). SesaZloa, es marTebuli iyos sofluri ansamblebis umetesobisTvis, magram, gvaqvs safuZveli, gvjerodes, rom gunduri praqtika ukve fesvgadgmuli iyo saqarTvelos garkveul soflebSi. upirvelesad, is popularoba, romelsac anzor erqomaiSvili miawers Tavisi didi babuis ansambls, am ,,pasuxis~ TariRs kidev ufro win swevs, vinaidan guriaSi makvaneTis gundi popularuli 1870-ian wlebSi iyo (Erkomaishvili, 1987). erqomaiSvili aseve Tavis adgils miuCens me-19 saukunis dasasruls samuel CavleiSvilis gunds, aRniSnavs, rom ,,isini bevrs mogzaurobdnen sxvadasxva sofelSi da simReriT Soulobdnen sarCo-sabadebels~ (Erkomaishvili, 1987: 10). ufro metic, organizebuli da gamocdili sasimRero tradicia kargad iyo Camoyalibebuli 1902-1914 wlebis Canawerebamde, vinaidan yanwebsa da gramofonebSi moxseniebuli eqvsi gundidan oTxis xelmZRvaneli lotbaris Svili an moswavle iyo (Erkomaishvili, 1987: 10). zemoT motanili faqtebi soflur Sesrulebaze xalxuri simRerebis originalur soflur konteqstsa da maTi, rogorc ,,ubralo~ glexuri cxovrebis produqtis arsebobas kiTxvis niSnis qveS ayenebs. am faqtebis Tanaxmad, saqarTvelos Tundac erT regionSi, xalxuri simRera funqcionirebda da misi esTetikuri Rirebulebebi viTardeboda tipuri kalendaruli ciklis miRma. savaraudod, sasuliero praqtikaSi arsebuli profesionalizmi am ganviTarebasTan iyo dakavSirebuli. profesionali mgaloblebi (sasuliero musikis Semsruleblebi) kargad ganswavluli da sazogadoebaSi didad dafasebuli adamianebi iyvnen. istoriul wyaroebSi Semonaxulia cnobebi kargi xmiTa da musikaluri niWiT dajildoebuli adamianebis socialur mobilobaze (Karbelashvili, 1898: 61-67). miuxedavad imisa, rom sasuliero da saero sasimRero tradiciebi erTmaneTisgan gansxvavdeba, maT mainc aqvT bevri saerTo musikaluri maxasiaTebeli da, rac ufro mniSvnelovania, es praqtikebi yovelTvis erTmaneTTanaa dakavSirebuli. dResac ki iTvleba, rom saukeTeso mgaloblebi saukeTeso xalxuri momRerlebic arian. aqedan gamomdinare, am urTierTobam mniSvnelovani roli Seasrula xalxuri musikisa da ansambluri simReris ganviTarebaSi, profesionalma da maRali sulierebis musikosebma gavlena moaxdines sasimRero praqtikis ganviTarebazec. aRdgena Tvalsazrisi, rom mravalxmiani xalxuri simRera ufro organizebuli iyo saqarTvelos soflebSi, aSkarad mniSvnelovania imis gasagebad, rogor ganviTarda musika esTetikurad. aseve, unda gaviTvaliswinoT, Tu ra roli iTamaSa am ganviTarebaSi tradiciis dacvis ideam. rogorc ukve aRvniSne, Tanamedrove Tbilisuri ansamblebi avlenen tradiciis gadarCenaze zrunvis tendencias tonisa da intonaciis avTenturobaze zrunviTa da saarqivo kvlevaSi CarTulobiT. Tumca, amgvari aRorZinebis msgavsi aqtivoba sxva periodebisTvisac aris damaxasiaTebeli. gansakuTrebiT aRsaniSnavia me-20 saukunis dasawyisi (erqomaiSvilis didi babuis gundis periodi), iseve, rogorc, raoden gasakviric ar unda iyos, sabWoTa xelisuflebis Sua xanebi da misi 152 andrea kuzmiCi dasasruli. Tanamedrove Tbilisuri ansamblebis aRorZinebis msgavsi saqmianoba Zalian hgavs asi wlis winandeli ansamblebisas. orive SemTxvevaSi jgufebi damoukidebeli, saqmisTvis Tavdadebuli enTuziastebisgan Sedgeboda, romlebic ikvlevdnen, aRadgendnen da afiqsirebdnen simRerebis variantebs da sakuTarsac qmnidnen. sabWoTa periodi, Tavisi represiuli, daprogramebuli kulturuli aqtivobiT aferxebda amRorZineblebis saqmianobas da cvlida qarTuli mravalxmianobis JReradobasa da gamocdilebas (Meskhi, 2003, Erkomaishvili, interviu, 2005). 1960-iani wlebis dasawyisSi studenturma ansamblma ,,gordelam~, SemdomSi misma profesionalizebulma versiam _ ,,rusTavma~ warmatebiT gaacocxla tradiciuli mravalxmianobis aspeqtebi. saarqivo da saeqspedicio kvlevis Sedegad, xelaxla warmoadgines tradiciuli repertuari, zogierTi simReris unikaluri variantebi da ramdenime sagalobelic ki. ufro metic, maT kvals gahyva bevri sxvadasxva ansambli (mamakacTa, qalTa da bavSvTa), Tumca, mxolod musikaluri TvalsazrisiT, vinaidan sabWoTa reJimi mkacrad akontrolebda saarqivo masalebis xelmisawvdomobas. daaxloebiT oci wlis Semdeg ,,mTiebma~ da ,,anCisxatma~ wamoiwyes aRorZinebis axali talRa da gaafarToves ,,gordela~/,,rusTavis~ saqmianoba sabWoTa memkvidreobis pirobebSi. maT daamkvidres saeqspedicio saqmianobis, soflis mosaxleobisa da lotbarebisagan swavlis precedenti, simReris naklebad akademiuri stili da esTetika, aseve, repertuarSi sagaloblebis Setanis praqtika. Tanamedrove Tbilisuri ansamblebi agrZeleben am talRas. yoveli maTgani motivirebulia, rom Seinaxos tradiciuli kultura. amdenad, isini musikis amRorZineblebad SeiZleba miviCnioT (Livingston, 1999: 74). tradiciasTan TanxmobaSi myofi aRorZineba es aqtivobebi unda ganvixiloT ufro farTo, geo-politikur istoriul konteqstSi, romelic ayalibebs amRorZineblur azrovnebas. Tu SeadarebT Tanamedrove musikis aRdgenis aqtivobas ungruli cekvis saxlis musikas, romelsac iudiT frigiesi aRwers (Frigiyesi, 1996), naxavT, rom es saqmianoba Zalian mniSvnelovania orive qveynis axalgazrdobisTvis moklevadian perspeqtivaSi. amasTan dakavSirebiT ungrel axalgazrdobas ara aqvs raime mniSvnelovani molodini samomavlod, xolo qarTveli axalgazrdoba musikas ar acalkevebs Tavisi sulieri da erovnuli identobisgan arc awmyoSi da arc momavalSi. SesaZloa, amis mizezi iyos aRdgena-gadarCenis saqmianoba, rac saqarTveloSi istoriulad aseve dafiqsirebulia sxva kulturul formebSi, rogoricaa tixruli minanqari, ena, literatura da Teatri. marTlac, 100 wlis win musikis aRdgena iyo ufro didi erovnuli moZraobis nawili, romelmac Semoinaxa ara marto aRweriTi naSromebi, notebi da xmovani Canawerebi, aramed datova mentaluri memkvidreobac. me-19 saukuneSi enis gadarCenisken mimarTul aqtivobas qarTveli enaTmecnieri manana tabiZe ganixilavs, rogorc gaRviZebuli ,,erovnuli azrovnebisa... da TviTgadarCenis politikis~ memkvidreobas (Tabidze, 1996: 206). qarTveli musikosebis amgvarive midgomidan Cans, rom TviTgadarCenis es politika arasdros momkvdara. ufro metic, me-18 saukuneSi, aRmosavleT saqarTvelos dapyrobis Semdeg, samgaloblo skolis aRorZinebis saqmianobis aRwera (Shugliashvili, 2003: 432-433) miu- ara aRdgena, aramed aRdgenis tradicia: tradiciuli qarTuli mravalxmianobis xelaxali wakiTxva ansambluri tradiciis mixedviT 153 TiTebs, rom aseTi azrovneba ukve gaRviZebuli iyo. luarsab togoniZe, galobis istorikosi da arqivebze momuSave, Tvlis, rom aseTi aRorZineba omebiT gadaRlili saqarTvelosTvis Cveulebrivi movlena iyo (interviu, 2005). donald raifildi, literturis istorikosi, aseve aRniSnavs, rogor pasuxobda literaturuli tradicia arabebis, sparselebis, monRolebisa da rusebis mravalgzis dapyrobiT omebs (Rayfield, 2000: 10). amgvarad, moxsenebaSi ganxiluli musikaluri aRorZineba, SesaZloa, iyos ufro didi tradiciis nawili: tradicia, romelic scildeba musikis sferos, asaxavs eris gadarCenasa da saukuneebis ganmavlobaSi ucxotomelTa Semosevebis, daSlis, ngrevis, brZolis, ganaxlebisa da gadarCenis Sedegad qarTvelebSi Camoyalibebul fundamentur sulier Tvisebebs (Kuzmich, 2010: 155). cxadia, rom saWiroa kvlevis gagrZeleba am mimarTulebiT. kvlevisas gaTvaliswinebuli unda iyos aRorZinebis sxva, magaliTad, eklesiasTan dakavSirebuli sakiTxebi saqarTvelos istoriaSi me-18 saukunemde. aseve saintereso iqneba sinkretulad da diaqronulad garkveva imisa, aris Tu ara musikis aRorZineba ufro didi tradiciis nawili sxva qveynebSic. da bolos, aseve mniSvnelovania, gagrZeldes moxsenebaSi moxseniebuli qarTuli ansamblebis perspeqtivis kvleva imis dasadastureblad, rom ansambluri tradicia da misi asocireba sasuliero simReris praqtikasa da misi dacvis tendenciebTan ufro rTuli da Zveli movlenaa, vidre 1885 wels gamarTuli pirveli eTnografiuli gundis koncertidan ikveTeba. SeniSvnebi 1 moxseneba efuZneba 2009 wels Cems mier kanadis tradiciuli musikis sazogadoebisaTvis wardgenil moxsenebas (Kuzmich, 2009). 2 konfliqtebis istorikosma, endriu andersenma Seqmna rukaTa seria, romelic vizualurad warmoaCens politikuri dinamikis kompleqssa da sazRvrebis ganlagebis cvalebadobas. es rukebi misawvdomia mis veb-gverdze www.conflicts.rem33.com (Andersen). Targmna irina fircxalavam 154 ANDREA KUZMICH (CANADA) NOT A REVIVAL, A TRADITION OF REVIVALS: REREADING GEORGIAN TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY TROUGH THE ENSEMBLE TRADITIONS1 Introduction With a population of 4.5 million, Georgia is a small country located on the eastern side of the Black Sea between the Caucasian mountains. While it has an ancient history with the lands off the Black Sea inhabited since Palaeolithic times, its history over the past 1600 years is essentially that of a small Christian Orthodox state trying to survive amidst more powerful nations. Georgia’s thick cultural heritage is indicative of this, reflecting the fluidity of Georgia’s borders and the alliances its factions have made with the other great powers present in the Caucasus, such as the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, the Turks, and the Persians2. Many would say that a testament to the unity of the 16 or so different geographical-cultural units that make up this historically divided nation is the practice of polyphonic singing. Georgian polyphony, believed to be a millennia old tradition, typically involves three-part songs within the limited baritone-tenor range that results in a dissonance difficult to define in terms of Western Art music. The variety of regional styles which exist reflect the geographical makeup of the country. Traditionally, the performance context of songs is rurally defined and travel songs, work songs, round dances, lullabies, healing songs and other forms of the polyphony are attributed to the “simple” peasant life. In contrast to this original-village context, the ensemble practice, especially as it is practiced in the capital city of Tbilisi, sets the example for international representation of Georgian polyphony. Perhaps this is reasonable given that Tbilisi’s vibrant and independent traditional music scene is a result of urbanization, which has displaced just as many rural musicians as it has other population from the countryside. Ensemble members are composed of younger musicians who are motivated to preserve their national heritage. “They resist the lingering Soviet stylization and standardization of songs, involve themselves in archival and field research, and incorporate improvisation and their own variants into performance” (Kuzmich, 2010: 149). Moreover, seeing the singing of traditional Georgian polyphonic songs as a greater expression of national identity and, with the belief they are carrying on a millennia old tradition, they find it also impossible to separate the musical practice from a historical and religious identity of Georgia. The ensemble practice, however, has not been given much attention by ethnomusicologists. Despite the authentic social function of ensembles singing at supras (Georgian traditional feasts), both singers and academics alike express concern for the genuineness of the ensemble format, most likely due to its association with the concert stage. Except for a few recent publications that have addressed the tradition of master singers (men who are known as great singers, ensemble leaders, and who know all three parts to hundreds of songs) (Chokhonelidze, Rodonaia, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Rodonaia, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c), most of the literature on Georgian polyphony addresses the role of polyphony 155 within the original village context. In particular, there seems to be some disconnect between original village context and master singer/ensemble practices. In an attempt to reconcile this disconnect, this paper rereads Georgian polyphony through the ensemble tradition and reflects on how aspects of the rural singing practice may need to be revised to account for aesthetic developments motivated by ensemble singing organized and influenced by professional sacred singing practices. Further to this, a diachronic survey of the ensemble tradition reveals waves of revival like activities that identify preservationist mentality beyond the musical sphere and suggest that the ensemble practice may be a part of a larger tradition of revivals. The Rural Roots of the Ensemble Georgian singers and ethnomusicologists cite the first ensemble or “ethnographic choir” performance to 1886, which occurred in Tbilisi and was seen as part of larger national liberation movement against Russian occupation. While the choir was and continues to be hailed as a significant historical move for the preservation of traditional music [Chavchavadze, 2005 (1886)] it, and the concertization process in general, is criticized for its imposition of Western European aesthetics and form on traditional music [Araqishvili 2005 (1925)]. This criticism, however, seems to overlook the fact that the concept of a choir was not a new one at this time. Given the 1902-1914 recorded performances of rural ensembles on the CD Drinking Horns and Gramophones (Linich, 2001), it seems quite possible that rural-based ensembles were already established at the end of the nineteenth century. Interestingly, the CD features ensembles from two divergent geographical regions and musical styles, Kartli-Kakheti in the east and Guria in the west. Two of the Gurian choirs, one from upper Aketi and the other from Makvaneti, are described in the liner notes as farmers and peasants committed to their cultural heritage (Linich, 2001). They chanted as part of church services and also sang for pleasure (Erkomaishvili, 1987: 9). Furthermore, they were very popular. In the liner notes of an archival LP released in 1987, Anzor Erkomaishvili (the great grandson of Gigo Erkomaishiliv who led the Makvaneti choir) wrote that his great-grandfather’s trio “was often invited to different villages... Nearly no party, folk or religious celebration were held without them” (Erkomaishvili, 1987: 10). Music historian Manana Akhmeteli, suggests that village ensemble singing was organized in response to the Tbilisi ethnographic choir performance of 1886 (interview, 2005). While this may be true for much village-based ensemble singing, there are reasons to believe that established choral practices already existing in certain pockets of rural Georgia. First, the popularity that Erkomaishvili attributes to his great-grandfather’s ensemble predates such a response since he suggests that the trio from which the Makvaneti choir grew was renowned throughout Guria as early as the 1870s (Erkomaishvili, 1987). Erkomshvili also attributes a professional position to the choir led by Samuel Chavleishvili in the late nineteenth century, observing that “they earned their living by songs[,] travelling a lot in different villages” (Erkomaishvili, 1987: 10). Moreover, an organized and sophisticated singing tradition was clearly established well before those 1902-1914 recordings since four out of the six choir leaders listed on the Drinking Horns and Gramophone CD were students or sons of master singers (Erkomaishvili, 1987: 10). Clearly the above details concerning rural singing and ensemble practices puts into question the original village context of folk songs and their existence as a product of a “simple” peasant life. It 156 Andrea Kuzmich suggests, at least in certain pockets of Georgia, that folk songs functioned outside of typical calendric life cycles and were developed for their aesthetic values. Most likely tied to this development is the professionalism that existed in sacred musical practices. Professional chanters (singers of sacred music) were highly trained and greatly valued in the community. Historical record even reports social mobility granted to those blessed with good voices and musical skill (Karbelashvili, 1898: 61-67). Although sacred and secular singing practices differ, they do share many musical characteristics and, more importantly, the practices were always linked together. Even to this day it is a common belief that the best chanters are the best folk singers. In light of the above discussion, however, this relationship has significant implications for the development of folk music and ensemble singing, where professional and highly spiritual musicians influenced the development of the singing practice. Revival Activities The idea that multi-part folk singing was more organized in parts of rural Georgia clearly has implications for the how the music developed aesthetically. What must also be considered is how a preservationist mentality may have also played into this development. As already mentioned, contemporary Tbilisi ensembles demonstrate revival tendencies with their concern for authenticity in tone and intonation, and their involvement in field and archival research. Such revival-like activities, however, are characteristic of other periods, in particular those at the turn of the twentieth century (the time of Erkomaishvili’s great-grandfather’s choir) as well as and perhaps more surprisingly of the mid-Soviet period, and then again towards the end of the Soviet rule. The revival-like activities of contemporary Tbilisi ensembles significantly resemble the activities of those ensembles a hundred years earlier. Both are independent groups composed of enthusiasts committed to researching, recovering and archiving song variants as well as creating their own. The Soviet era, however, with its repressive, programmed cultural activities curtailed much of the work done by these early revivalists and altered the sound and experience of Georgian polyphony (Meskhi, 2003; Erkomaishvili, interview, 2005). Yet, at the start of the 1960s, Gordela, a student ensemble, and the its subsequent professionalized version Rustavi, successfully revived aspects of traditional polyphony. Through archival and field research, they re-introducing traditional repertoire, unique song variants, intonational peculiarities and even some songs from the sacred repertoire. Moreover, they provided and example from which many different ensemble formats (men, women and children) followed in musical content alone, since access to archival material and fieldwork was strictly controlled by the Soviet regime. It was approximately twenty years later when another wave of revival-like activities modelled by the Mtiebi and Anchiskhati ensembles expanded on Goredla/Rustavi’s work and further challenged the Soviet legacy. They set a precedent with fieldwork, study with villagers and master singers, a less academic singing style or aesthetic, and the incorporation of chants. The contemporary Tbilisi ensembles are a continuation of this most recent wave. In each of these cases, the motivation is to protect traditional culture which appears threatened, and therefore according to Tamara Livingston’s article “Music Revival: Towards a General Theory”, they may be labelled as music revivals (Livingston, 1999: 74). Not a Revival, a Tradition of Revivals: Rereading Georgian Traditional Polyphony Trough the Ensemble Traditions 157 Revivals that Add Up to a Tradition These revivals, however, must be understood in a larger context, a geo-political historical context that lays the foundation for a preservationist mind-set. If you compare the contemporary musical revitalization activities to the Hungarian dance house music that Judith Frigiyesi documents (Frigiyesi, 1996), the youth in both countries find the activities deeply meaningful in the short term. In the long term, however, Hungarian youth foresee no significant consequence while Georgian youth cannot separate the music from their spiritual and national identity for the present or the future. Perhaps this is due to Georgia’s history of preservationist activities which have been documented in other cultural forms as well, such as copper enamel, language, literature, and theatre. Indeed, the music revival of 100 years ago was part of a larger nationalist movement which left more than just descriptive writing, transcriptions, and sound recordings. It left a mental legacy. Manana Tabidze, a Georgian linguist who discusses the preservationist activities on language in the late nineteenth century, describes this legacy as a “national mentality… and policy of self-defence’ that was awoken (Tabidze, 1996: 206). Given the continued attitude of Georgian traditional musicians, it seems that this policy of self-defence has also never died. Furthermore, description of revival-activities around the establishment of a chant school in the aftermath of eighteenth-century invasion on eastern Georgia (Shugliashvili, 2003: 432-433) suggests that this mental legacy was already awoken. Luasab Togonidze, a chant historian and archivist, believes that such revival were most likely common occurrence in Georgia’s war-torn past (interview, 2005). Donald Rayfield, a literary historian, similarly notes how the literary tradition had to be rebuilt numerous times in response to invasions by the Arabs, Persians, Mongols and Russians (Rayfield, 2000: 10). Thus the music revivals discussed in this paper could be part of a larger tradition of revivals: a tradition which extends beyond the musical sphere, reflects the survival of a nation, and reflects a fundamental characteristic of Georgians built into their psyche after centuries and centuries of invasion, fragmentation, devastation, fighting, reviving and surviving (Kuzmich, 2010: 155). Clearly, more research could be directed towards this viewpoint. One angle of inquiry could consider other possible revivals, most likely associated with the church, in Georgia’s history prior to the eighteenth century. It would also be interesting to assess whether music revivals in other countries may be part of a larger tradition of revivals, syncretically and diachronically. Finally, it may be meaningful to further the perspective proposed in this paper on Georgian ensembles; i.e. that the ensemble tradition, in its association with sacred singing practices and preservationist tendencies, is more complex and dated a phenomenon than is typically traced to the first ethnographic choir performance of 1885. Notes 1 This paper is based on a similar paper I presented at the Canadian Society for Traditional Music in Montreal 2009, which was subsequently published in their journal MUSICultures (Kuzmich 2010). 2 Andrew Adersen, a conflict historian, has created a series of maps that visually depict the complex political 158 Andrea Kuzmich dynamics and fluidity of borders. They can be accessed on his web site www.conflicts.rem33.com (Andersen). References Akhmeteli, Manana. (2005). Personal Interview. September 3. Tbilisi, Georgia. Andersen, Andrew. (2010). “Ethnic Conflicts, Border Disputes, Ideological Clashes & Other Security Challenges”. In: Brief History of Georgia. http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/Georgia/geor_geschichte.htm Araqishvili, Dimitri. (2005 [1925]). “Georgian Music: a Brief Historical Review”. In: Essays on Georgian Ethnomusicology. P. 22-39. Eds. Andriadze, Manana et al. Tbilisi: IRCTP. Chavchavadze, Ilia. (2005 [1886]). “Georgian Folk Music”. In: Essays on Georgian Ethnomusicology. P. 17-21. Eds. Andriadze, Manana et al. Tbilisi: IRCTP. Chokhonelidze, Tamar & Rodonaia, Vakhtang. (2004). Kartuli khalkhuri simgheris ostatebi (Masters of Georgian Folk Singers). Guria. Vol. I,II,III. Tbilisi: ICGFS. Erkomaishvili, Anzor. (1987). Notes for The First Records in Georgia. Georgia: Melodia. Erkomaishvili, Anzor. (2005). Personal Interview. August 24. Tbilisi, Georgia. Frigyesi, Judith. (1996). “The Aesthetic of the Hungarian Folk Music Revival Movement”. In: Retuning Culture. Musical Changes in Central and Eastern Europe. P. 54-75. Ed. Mark Slobin. Durham: Duke University Press. Karbelashvili, Poliekvtos. (1898). Kartuli saero da sasuliero kiloebi, mghvdlis istoriuli mimokhilva (Georgian Secular and Ecclesiastical Modes, a Father’s Historical Review). Tbilisi. Kuzmich, Andrea. (2010). “Not A Revival, A Tradition of Revivals: Reinterpreting Georgian Traditional Polyphonic Practices through the Ensemble”. In: MUSICultures, 37 (winter): 145-158. Linich, Carl. (2001). Notes for Drinking Horns & Gramophones. Traditional Crossroads 80702-4307-2. Livingston, T. E. (1999). “Music Revivals: Towards a General Theory”. Ethnomusicology, 43(1):66-85. Meskhi, Tamar. 2003. “On Georgian Traditional Music in the Soviet Period”. In: The First International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 499-507. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire Rayfield, Donald. 2000. The Literature of Georgia: A History. 2nd ed. Surrey: Curson Press. Not a Revival, a Tradition of Revivals: Rereading Georgian Traditional Polyphony Trough the Ensemble Traditions 159 Rodonaia, Vakhtang (editor). (2005). Kartuli khalkhuri simgheris ostatebi (Masters of Georgian Folk Song) Samegrelo. Vol.I, II, III. Tbilisi: ICGFS. Shugliashvil, Davit. (2003). “Georgian Chanting Schools and Traditions”. In: The First International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 476-480. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Tabidze, Manana. (1999). “Sociolinguistic Aspects of the Development of Georgian”. In: Working Papers, 47: 201-210. http://webzone.imer.mah.se/projects/georgianv04/demo/GeoLINK/Tabidze.pdf Togonidze, Luarsab. (2005). Personal Interview. August 2. Tbilisi, Georgia. 160 Tamaz gabisonia (saqarTvelo) sekundis dialeqtika eTnikur musikaSi: statika da dinamika warmodgenili TemiT davinteresdi vietnamis Sromis simReraSi Seyovnebuli sekunduri xmovanebebis mosmenisas, romelmac energiis akumulaciis da, amave dros, intensiuri xarjvis Seudarebeli SegrZneba damitova. gamiCnda moTxovnileba, mivaxlovebodi eTnikur musikaSi sekundis sxvadasxva mniSvnelobis sakiTxs da problemas _ Tu ra meqanizmi ganapirobebs vertikalisa da horizontalis gzajvaredinze myofi am intervalis dialeqtikur bunebas. rogorc mazeli aRniSnavs (Мазель, 1991: 30-31), `didi sekunda arsobriv rols TamaSobs bevr kilour bgeraTrigSi, rogorc simaRliT mezobel bgerebs Soris intervali da, amgvarad, principSi, naTeli xdeba, kiloTwarmoqmnis SesaZlo gzebis saerTo xasiaTi, ra Taviseburic ar unda iyos es gzebi sxvadasxva pirobebSi, sxvadasxva xalxebSi~. marTlac, sekunda, erTi mxriv, melodiis safuZvelia, xolo meore mxriv _ erTgvari harmoniuli alternativisa. orive SemTxvevaSi, sekunda musikaSi moZraobis, iniciativis, energiis yvelaze martivi da dasabamismieri wyaroa. aleqseevis mowmobiT, ori mezobeli bgeris monacvleobiT intonireba metyvelebis melodizaciis yvelaze elementaruli da gavrcelebuli formaa (Алексеев, 1986: 102). ZiriTadad, yuradRebas mivapyrobT mravalxmian vokalur tradicias, radgan migvaCnia, rom movlenas unda davakvirdeT, rogorc adamianis xmis _ `substanciuri iaraRis~, produqts, romlis Zireuli, ontologiuri Tvisebaa uSualo, spontanuri TviTgamoxatva `Sinagani adamianisa~ (Орлов, 1972: 381). amasTan, iseTi wyobis mravalxmianobaSi, romlis TiToeul partiaze TiTo subieqtia pasuxismgebeli (swored vokalur garemoSi), xmaTasvla yvela doneze uwyveti SemoqmedebiTi yuradRebiT warimarTeba da, SeiZleba iTqvas, funqcionalurad kontinualuria; gansxvavebiT iseTi wyobis mravalxmianobisagan, romlis minimum orxmianobis xmaTasvlas erTi Semsrulebeli axorcielebs (instrumentze) yuradRebis talRiseburi gadanawilebiT, anu _ diskretulad. CvenTvis ki swored TiToeuli xmis funqcionaluri damoukideblobaa saintereso. zogadad sekunda xalxur mravalxmianobaSi imdenad mniSvnelovani faqtoria, rom cneba `sekunduri polifonia~ sakmaod aprobirebuli terminia eTnomusikologiaSi (mesneri, 2010). moxsenebaSi, ZiriTadad, saubari gveqneba xalxur diatonikaSi yvelaze xSirad gamoyenebad sekundaze, romelsac evropuli akademiuri wyobis didi sekunda ufro Seesabameba, vidre patara sekunda (cxadia, rodesac did sekundaze vsaubrobT, mis SefardebiT sidides, zonur bunebas vgulisxmobT). amas tradiciul mravalxmian musikaSi anhemitonuri kiloebis gavrcelebis masStaburoba adasturebs. pentatonika, 161 rogorc, zogadad, eTnikuri samyaros erT-erTi yvelaze gavrcelebuli sistema, swored mTeltonian sekundas icnobs. miuxedavad imisa, rom eTnomusikaluri movlena, romelsac mesneri cneba `uxeSi diafoniiT~ (Schwebungsbungsdiaphonie, agreTve, `interferenciuli diafoniiT~) aRniSnavs (mesneri, 2008: 314-321), xSir SemTxvevebSi, ufro did da patara sekundas Soris mdebare neitraluri intervalis dominirebas gulisxmobs (rogorc gansakuTrebiT mWaxe xmovanebisas), Semsrulebel-msmenelis mier sekunduri bgeraTSeTanxmebis garkveuli drois ganmavlobaSi fiqsacia xalxur musikaSi, didi umetesobiT, swored did (an neitralur) sekundaSi gamoixateba. cxadia, aqcents vamaxvilebT harmoniul da ara melodiur sekundaze, mravalxmianobis garemoSi _ simpoziumis Tematikis Sesabamisad. oRond, CvenTvis naklebad problematuria sekundis fenomenis ganxilva homofoniis saTanxlebo plastSi, sadac sekundis mkveTri funqcionalizmi sonorulobisaken gadaxril ukonfliqtobaSi ikargeba. sekunda ufro wonadia funqcionaluri mravalxmianobis pirobebSi. aq igi drois koordinatTan erTad met sivrcul mniSvnelobas iZens. TviT heterofoniis pirobebSic (romelic, Cemi azriT, Tavisi funqcionaluri SinaarsiT, ufro axlos dgas kontrastul mravalxmianobasTan, vidre _ homofoniurTan) swored sekunda, rogorc Tundac mxolod wertilovani ganStoeba, qmnis funqcionaluri kontrastis pirvelad SegrZnebas. sekunda _ konsonansi da disonansi sekunda marTlac rom ambivalenturia: harmoniuli TvalsazrisiT, igi disonansia, xolo melodiuri TvalsazrisiT _ konsonansi. ratom unda davukanonoT mas mxolod disonansurobis vertikaluri koordinati? samusiko skolaSi swavlisas, rodesac intervalebs mixsnidnen, tercias, rogorc konsonanss nazad iRebdnen, xolo sekundis Cvenebisas klaviSebs gametebiT urtyamdnen. sxvasac xom ar aqvs msgavsi mogoneba? cxadia, sekundas gaaCnia obieqturi mocemuloba, JRerdes garkveulwilad `arakomfortulad~ _ rac advilad aRqmisTvis naklebadaa momarjvebuli da, TiTqmis yovelTvis evristikul mimarTebas saWiroebs (Медушевский, 1976: 119). am arakomfortulobis ZiriTadi obieqturi mizezi akustikuri Zgeris faqtoria (sekunda, rogorc akustikuri disonansi) (Сохор, 1986: 40-41). marTlac, sekunda bgeraTa obertonuli sistemis maTematikurad rTuli Sefardebaa, amitom iTvleba disonansad. amgvari logikiT, rTuli Sefardeba arakomfortul SegrZnebebs badebs. magram musikaSi da, zogadad, xelovnebaSi mxolod komfortulis kategoriiT xelmZRvaneloba fonuri dizainis farglebs ver gascdeba. amitomac xdeba droTa ganmavlobaSi termin `disonansis~ uaryofiTi esTetikuri Sinaarsisagan Tanamimdevrulad dacla. Oobieqturi SefasebiT, calke aRebuli disonanturi JReradoba sxvadasxva musikalursaazrovno paradigmaSi TiTqos adekvaturad unda aRiqmebodes, magram, fenomenologiuri da semiotikuri ganpirobebulobiT, igi gansxvavebuli SinaarsiT itvirTeba da masze aqcentic ukve niSanTa sistemaSi mdebareobis mixedviT aRiqmeba (`konsonansi“ da „disonansi“). 162 Tamaz gabisonia sekundis fenomenologiuri arsi marTlac sruliad sxvaa xalxur musikaSi, vidre evropul profesiul musikaSi. pirvelSi, TiTqosda srulad cxaddeba Sonbergis musikaluri sivrcis erTianobis kanoni, sadac ar arsebobs ramdenadme prioritetuli lokalizeba (Орлов, 1972: 385). iqneb, amitomacaa arakorelaturi `konsonansuri~ TuU`disonansuri~ intervalebis Seyovnebuli xmovaneba eTnikur musikaSi. miuxedavad amisa, sekunda zogjer dResac gaigeba, rogorc `kilouri disonansi~, rogorc meryevi elementi (Сохор, 1986: 42). Tumca, rodesac igi gansxvavebul musikalur paradigmaSi apriori meryev intervalad ar miiCneva, igi iSorebs kilouri disonansis iarliysac. magaliTad, soxori miiCnevs, rom qarTul samxmianobaSi sekunda konsonansis rols TamaSobs (Сохор, 1986: 47). harmoniuli sekunda _ melodiuri aRqma stiven brauni, Tavisi `harmoniis xmianobis Teoriaze~ dayrdnobiT aRniSnavs, rom Tanxmovaneba unda aRiqmebodes erTianad da ara komponentebis winaswari analiziT, Tumca `harmonia miiReba melodiuri (da upirveles yovlisa, vokaluri) sistemis safuZvelze~ (brauni, 2003: 55). orlovis TqmiT, `harmoniuli intervali mxolod grZnobiTi aRqmis drosaa momenturi obieqti: misi sididis zusti Sefaseba, kunTebis aqtivobis CaTvliT, moqmedebaTa monacvleobas warmoadgens~ (Орлов, 1992: 274). garda fonuri da sonoruli efeqtisa, harmoniuli Tanamimdevrobis konteqstidan gamoyofili intervali (eTnikur musikaSi harmoniuli Tanmimdevrobis funqcionaluri konteqsti naklebad mniSvnelovania), kvlav melodiuri kavSirebiT aRiqmeba (Сохор, 1986: 39). ase rom, Cven intervalsa da akords, fonuri, fenomenologiuri aRqmis garda, calkeuli tonebisadmi talRiseburi yuradRebiT aRviqvamT. es cxadi xdeba introspeqciis meTodiT sekunduri xmovanebis mosmenis drosac. sainteresoa, rom melodiuri da harmoniuli sekunda SeiZleba erTmaneTSi gadaizardos erT-erTi bgeris CarTviT, an SewyvetiT, rac kidev ufro abundovnebs mkafio zRvars maT Soris. sekundis funqcionaluri xasiaTi maJor-minorul tonalur sistemaSi sekundis orive bgera yovelTvis polusurad sawinaaRmdego funqcionaluri statusisaa. amitomac ar gadawydeba sekundis erTi bgera meoreSi, gansxvavebiT xalxuri wyobisa, sadac msgavsi gadawyveta savsebiT dasaSvebia. tonalur sistemaSi sekunda bifunqcionaluria, xolo eTnikur sistemebTan axlos mdgom modalur wyobaSi (Sesabamisad _ pentatonikurSic) igi mizidulobis determinizmiT mxolod iSviaTad da mkrTali gamoxatulebiTaa datvirTuli. erTi ram ki aerTianebs `klasikuri~ da `eTnikuri~ sekundis funqcionalur iersaxeebs: orive SemTxvevaSi, igi daZabulobis _ muxtis `generatori~ da `akumulatoria~, oRond, pirvel SemTxvevaSi, misi gadawyveta, „ganmuxtva“ aucilebelia, xolo meoreSi _ erT-erTi SesaZlebeli gadawyvetilebaa. sekundis `gadauwyveteloba~ akademiur musikaSi mxatvruli xerxia (kaTakreza _ musikalur ritorikaSi _ arasworad gadawyvetili an gadauwyveteli disonansi), xolo tradiciul musikaSi _ bunebrivi sekundis dialeqtika eTnikur musikaSi: statika da dinamika 163 stiluri xerxi. sainteresoa, rom xalxur musikaSi, kerZod, qarTulSi, droTa ganmavlobaSi vamCnevT sekundis funqcionaluri muxtis erTgvarad `gadalaxvis~ process. rac ufro Zvelia musikaluri plasti, miT ufro kontrastulia igi funqcionalurad. SemdgomSi, melodiuri ganviTarebis gamo (da Tu xalxuri musika evolucionirebs, viTardeba swored melodiis prioritetiT), funqcionalur iniciativas iCemebs zeda xma, rogorc konturuli (Назайкинский, 1972: 119), xolo Sua xma Tmobs poziciebs. Sesabamisad igi eqceva zeda xmis gavlenis qveS da misi `orbitis~ paralelurad (ZiriTadad _ terciiT) gadaewyoba. es paralelizmi ki erTgvarad `auTovebs~ sekundebs. ase xdeba qalaqur musikaSi (qarTulSi, evropis bevr xalxSi). Seyovnebuli sekundis SesaZlo safuZvlebi SesaZloa imis gamoc, rom sekunda eTnikur musikaSi meryev, gadasawyvet intervalad ar miiCneva, igi aq xSirad Seyovnebuli JReradobiTaa mocemuli. Tavad faqti, rom tradiciul musikaSi didi umravlesobiT didi sekunda `yovndeba~, miuTiTebs, rom igi im kilos eyrdnoba, romlis safexurebi erTmaneTis mimarT melodiur kavSirebs qmnian da Tanabaruflebianni arian. eTnikur Seyovnebul sekundas, rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, energiis koncentraciis efeqti gaaCnia. aSkaraa, rom Seyovnebul sekundas axasiaTebs mkafiod gamorCeuli komunikaciuri niSani, rac swored mis Seyovnebisaken miswrafebaSi mdgomareobs, esaa emociuri da semantikuri reaqciis gamowveva (Медушевский, 1976: 37). magram, sekundis Seyovneba, SesaZloa, sxva qveSecneuli Tu gaazrebuli motiviTac iyos ganpirobebuli: ori TanamJReri alternatuli toni, rogorc ori samyaros _ xilulisa da transcedentulis _ urTierTobis simbolo, rogorc am samyaroTa Soris zRvris aRmniSvneli, rac, zogadad, transcedentulis niSnadac aRiqmeba. sagulisxmoa, rom svaneTSi Seyovnebul sekundas umetesad swored himnuri xasiaTis simRerebSi vxvdebiT. sekundis `sakralurobis~ mxriv, saintereso da gasaTvaliswinebelia soxoris Semdegi mosazrebac: `mas Semdeg, rac SromiT praqtikaSi aiTvises unisoni, did an patara sekundaSi (uzusto unisonSi) mRera, SesaZlebelia, damkvidrebuliyo magiur ritualebSi, rogorc uCveulo, arasadagi (radgan es ritualebi iTvaliswinebdnen qcevis yoveldRiuri formidan aucilebel gasvlas, adamianebis Sesaxedaobis TiTqmis aracnobadobamde). aqedan gamomdinare, sekunda gaxda sasargeblo da sasiamovno~ (Сохор, 1986: 49). braunis mixedviT, `vertikaluri integraciis~ pirobebSi, xmebis mizanmimarTuli bgeraTsimaRlebrivi daumTxvevloba uadresi SreebisaTvisaa damaxasiaTebeli, TviT zogierT cxovelSic (brauni, 2003: 62). ioseb Jordanias hipoTezis mixedviT, sekundur disonansebze damyarebuli sagundo mravalxmianoba `iyo adamianTa Soreul winaprebSi Tavdacvisa da fizikuri gadarCenis centraluri iaraRi, romelic adamianebs uqmnida koleqtiur Segnebas, Sehyavda isini transul mdgomareobaSi... aseTma mdgomareobam, romelsac myari neiroqimiuri safuZveli hqonda, Seuqmna safuZveli adamianuri socialuri bunebis, moralisa da 164 Tamaz gabisonia religiuri grZnobis Camoyalibebas~ (Jordania, 2012: 21-22). mecnieris azriT, swored amgvari mravalxmianobis gamoZaxilia msoflios sxvadasxva adgilebSi arsebuli sekunduri polifoniis kunZulebi, Tumca, aRniSnul sekundur xmovanebaSi igi Seyovnebul sekundas ar akonkretebs. SesaZlebelia, saintereso gamodges Seyovnebuli sekundis musikaluri perseveraciis movlenasTan paraleli. es ukanaskneli xSirad warmoiSoba, rogorc im bgeriTi STabeWdilebis anarekli, romelic ar gvakmayofilebs da romlis Secvlasac qveSecneulad vcdilobT. iqneb sekundis Semyovneblebic cdiloben, gadalaxon am ori bgeris antagonizmi maTi xazgasmiT (zogjer ki _ misi unisonSi gadazrdiT)? Seyovnebul sekundas, SesaZloa, safuZvlad edos aseve agonaloba _ rTul mocemulobaSi xmaTa individualobis SenarCunebisadmi erTgvari sportuli Jini, an/da _ ori dapirispirebuli tonikaluri muxtis brZola funqcionaluri iniciativisaTvis. SesaZloa, aseve, vigulisxmoT, rom Seyovnebuli sekunda xalxuri SemsruleblebisaTvis mravalxmiani muzicirebisadmi intenciis gansakuTrebulad mZafri gamoxatulebaa, raSic Semsrulebeli individualobis gansakuTrebul SegrZnebas hpovebs. cxadia, zogadad, sekunda `egzotikuri~ intervalia da mas mxolod fenomenologiuri axsnac SeiZleba moeZebnos. magram SeiZleba harmoniuli sekundis Seyovnebis moTxovnileba kidev erTi mizeziT aixsnas: iqneb SemsrulebelTaTvis intervali sekundis, rogorc melodiis safuZvlis, gabmuli TanaJReradoba melodiis statikuri xatia? proeqcia erT sibrtyeSi? marTlac, SeiZleba vigulisxmoT, rom melodiaSi sekundis momdevno bgeris wina, antagonisturi bgeris `waSlis~ efeqti, rac axlis damkvidrebis, moZraobis gancdas iwvevs, asociacias hpovebs harmoniuli sekundis or bgeraze Semsruleblisa Tu msmenelis yuradRebis talRisebur gadanawilebasTan. amgvarad, SegviZlia, vigulisxmoT, rom sekundis intervali harmoniaSi _ iseve, rogorc melodiaSi – moZraobis, axlis damkvidrebis miswrafebaa. da amis dasturi swored misi gangrZoba-Seyovnebaa. sekunda, esaa melodia statikaSi, erTgvari simultanuri melodia. Seyovnebuli sekunda da, sazogadod, harmoniuli sekunda metad damaxasiaTebelia qarTuli xalxuri musikis `eTnikur bgeriT idealSi~ (zemcovski, 1983: 20) _ kvartkvintakordSi, „triqordSi~ (arayiSvilis termini). mazelis TqmiT, `burdonze damyarebuli kvarta da kvinta qmnis xarisxobrivad Camoyalibebul interval did sekundas (3/2 : 4/3 = 9/8)... sami bgerisgan warmoqmnili ujredi (magaliTad – la-remi), romelSic qveda bgera zeda bgerebs kvintiTa da kvartiT CamorCeba, ukve mowmobaa Camoyalibebuli TavisTavadi musikaluri elementisa sinkretuli erTobis wiaRSi~ (Мазель, 1991: 30-31). amasTan, kvartkvintakordi saintereso da iRbliani Serwymaa `yuradRebis SenarCunebis yvelaze martivi xerxisa _ fonisa~ da `grZnobiTi materiis organizaciis~ erT-erTi `ZiriTadi principisa~ _ `kontrastisa~ (Голицин, 1980: 58-56). pirveli banis fonur funqciaSia gamoxatuli, xolo meore _ `kvarta-kvintur~ sekundaSi. riTia msgavsi da gansxvavebuli eTnikur musikaSi aseTi gabmulxmovani JReradoba sekundisa da unisonisa? es ukanasknelic didxans grZeldeba. iqneb, unisonis didxans sekundis dialeqtika eTnikur musikaSi: statika da dinamika 165 gagrZeleba aseTi qveSecneuli an manamde arsebuli disonansis gadalaxvis mcdelobaa? sazogadod, xom ar migviTiTebs gabmul bgeraze musikis aRmoCenamde, adamianis evoluciis pirvel safexurebze? pirveladi gabmuli bgerebi – musikis Zieba, bgeris Zieba. pirveladi musika marTlac Camoyalibebuli da garkveuli grZliobis mqone bgeraa, rogorc obieqti, romlis fiqsirebis unaric adamians gaaCnia. aseTad ver CaiTvleba, magaliTad, bgerebi, romelTa kombinacia Citebis JRurtuls qmnis. samwuxarod, moxsenebaSi ar gvaqvs saubari Temaze, Tu ras niSnavs Seyovnebuli sekunda Tavad xalxuri SemsruleblebisaTvis. Tavad am sekundis identifikaciac eTnoforebSi garkveul siZneles warmoadgens. amasTan, Semsruleblis pasuxi am kiTxvaze Tundac saukunis win ufro adekvaturi iqneboda, vidre dRes. Tumca, cxadia, garkveuli semantikuri Sefasebis aRmosaCenad msgavsi SekiTxva ar unda moixsnas dRis moTxovnidan. sekundis Seyovneba _ drois SeCereba msoflios sxvadasxva kulturaSi arsebobs rwmena, rom `SesaZlebelia samyaroseuli droisa da transcedentuli udroobis logikurad gadaulaxavi zRvris gadabijeba, adamianur gamocdilebaSi mudmivobisa da ukiduresi realobis Semotana~ (Орлов, 1992: 66). am dros aqtualuri xdeba e.w. `perceptualuri dro~ (Орлов, 1972: 367), recipientis subieqturi dro. es SefardebiToba sxvadasxva rakursiTaa mimarTuli obieqturi qronotopisadmi (Орлов, 1972: 474). zogadad, simaRlis ucvleli xmovaneba umoZraobaSi ganleuli drois yvelaze mkafio gamoxatulebaa. xolo Seyovnebuli JReradobis sekunda, Tu mas marTlac statikuri melodiis saxiT gaviazrebT, sakuTar droiT koordinatsac gvTavazobs. am SemTxvevaSi, statikuri melodia `SeCerebuli melodiaa~, erTgvari `simultanuri melodia~. marTlac, xom ar aris sekunduri Seyovneba eskapizmis _ droisgan gaqcevis erTerTi saxe? rogorc orlovi aRniSnavs, aseTi musikis mosmenisas Cven gvaviwydeba realuri dro da aRviqvamT erTgvar Seyovnebul konfiguracias _ struqturirebul `kristals~ da ara amorful `cecxlis als~ (Орлов, 1992: 49). statikuri mravalxmianoba Seyovnebuli sekunda zogierT kulturaSi imdenad mniSvnelovan kompoziciur meqanizms warmoadgens, rom, vfiqrob, calke unda ganixilebodes gabmuli, Seyovnebuli xmovanebis mravalxmianobis tipi _ statikuri mravalxmianoba, romelSic, gansxvavebiT qordulisagan, sinqronulisagan, melodiuri fraza ar ikribeba. igi ar iqneboda aqtualuri, marto samxmovanebebze da konsonansebze rom iyos gagrZelebuli (magaliTad, svanuri Seyovnebuli samxmovanebebi himnur simRerebSi monacvleoben aseve Seyovnebul kvartkvintakordebTan). kontrastuli mravalxmianobis faqturaSi, sadac melodiuri ganviTarebis SemoqmedebiTi principebi batonobs, xmebs Soris funqcionaluri iniciativa talRiseburadaa ganawilebuli, statikur mravalxmian faqturaSi ki xmebs Soris funqcionaluri iniciativa Tanabrad nawildeba. vfiqrobT, nayofieria amgvari statikuri mravalxmianobis datoleba, misadageba 166 Tamaz gabisonia modalur sistemasTan, romelSic aqcenti bgeraTrigzea, aseve – reperkusaze, rogorc awmyoze da ara _ finalisze, rogorc _ myofadze. statikur mravalxmianobaSi bgeraTa horizontaluri kavSirebi, maT Soris _ miziduloba, mxolod imdenadaa aqtualuri, ramdenadac ukve araaqtualuri xdeba mJReri xmovaneba. ... davaskvniT, rom sekunda eTnikur musikaSi, kerZod ki _ misi yvelaze mkafio gamovlena _ Seyovnebuli sekunda, ori tonalobis, ori sistemis, ori paradigmis, ori samyaros dialeqtikuri Tanamyofobaa. amasTan, igi statikuri melodiis gamoxatulebaa, erTgvari moZravi uZraoba, riTac transcedentuli drois xats qmnis. iqneb swored amitom (uxilavTan komunikaciis mizniT) mimarTaven mas xSirad calkeuli xalxebi, Tundac svanebi, TavianT himnur simRerebSi (xalxur simReraSi msgavsi xmovanebebi gvxvdeba vietnamSi, taivanSi, tibetSi, latviaSi, litvaSi, melaneziaSi, bosniahercogovinaSi, bulgareTSi da a.S.). damowmebuli literatura brauni, stiven. (2003). `gadamdebi heterofonia: axali Teoria musikis warmoSobis Sesaxeb~. krebulSi: tradiciuli mravalxmianobis pirveli saerTaSoriso simpoziumi. moxsenebebi. gv. 54-65. redaqtorebi: wurwumia, rusudan da Jordania, ioseb. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri. mesneri, jerald florian. (2008). `mravalxmiani vokaluri tradiciebi kunZul aRmosavleT floresze (indonezia), bulgareTsa da manusis provinciaSi (papua axali gvinea)~. krebulSi: tradiciuli mravalxmianobis mesame saerTaSoriso simpoziumi. moxsenebebi. gv. 314-333. redaqtorebi: wurwumia, rusudan da Jordania, ioseb. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri. mesneri, jerald florian. (2010). `isini mglebiviT ymuian“ (~Ululant ad modum luporum...”). axali Sexeduleba Zvel lombardiul myar zepir mravalxmian tradiciaze, romelsac ar cnobdnen Sua saukuneebisa da renesansis periodis musikis mkvlevrebi~. krebulSi: tradiciuli mravalxmianobis meoTxe saerTaSoriso simpoziumi. moxsenebebi. gv. 158-174. redaqtorebi: wurwumia, rusudan da Jordania, ioseb. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri. Jordania, ioseb. (2012). `tradiciuli mravalxmianoba aziaSi: problemebi da perspeqtivebi~. krebulSi: tradiciuli mravalxmianobis mexuTe saerTaSoriso simpoziumi. moxsenebebi. gv. 17-31. redaqtorebi: wurwumia, rusudan da Jordania, ioseb. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri. Алексеев, Эдуард. (1986). Раннефольклорное интонирование. Москва: Советский композитор. Голицын, Георгий. (1980). “Информация и законы эстетического восприятия”. В сборнике: Число и sekundis dialeqtika eTnikur musikaSi: 167 statika da dinamika мысль. Вып.3. Москва. Знание. Земцовский, Изалий. (1983). “Песня, как исторический феномен”. В сборнике статьей: Народная песня. Проблемы изучения. стр: 22-35. ЛГИТМИК. Ленинград. Мазель, Лев. (1991). О природе и средствах музыки. Москва: Музыка. Медушевский, Вячеслав. (1976). О закономерностях и средствах художественного воздействия музыки. Москва: Музыка. Назайкинский, Евгений. (1972). О психологии музыкального восприятия. Москва: Музыка. Орлов, Генрих. (1972). “Время и пространство Музыки”. В сборнике: Проблемы музыкальной науки. Вып. I:395. Орлов, Генрих. (1992). Древо музыки. Санкт-Петербург: Советский композитор. Сохор, Арнольд. (1986). “Музыка, как вид исскуства”. В сборнике статьей: Музыкальное восприятие, как предмет комплексного исследования. Составитель: Костюк, А.Г. Киев: Музична Украина. audiomagaliTebi Voices of the World: An Anthology of Vocal Expression. An Anthology of Vocal Exspression. Collection du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et du Musée de l’Homme. France. 1996. diski I #34 solomonis kunZulebi. gvadalkanal (nginia). kakabona. qalTa saojaxo repertuari. diski II #20 papua axali gvinea. (latmul). ientCan. samxreT sepikis provincial. Sulebis xmebi. diski III #7 indonezia. sulavezi (toraia). loko lemo, rindingalos olqi. mzis amosvlis ceremonia. diski III #15 makedonia. istibania. samxreT makedonia. `dodole~ simRera. wvimis mosayvani simRera. diski III #20 saqarTvelo. svaneTi. latali. zemo svaneTi. samgloviaro simRera `zari~. diski III #25 albaneTi. (labebi). vlare. samxreT albaneTi. himaras stilis simRera. epikurpatriotuli balada. 168 TAMAZ GABISONIA (GEORGIA) DIALECTICS OF SECOND IN ETHNIC MUSIC: STATICS AND DYNAMICS The presented topic aroused my interest when I was listening to the delayed second sounding in a Vietnamese labour song, which gave me a wonderful feeling of the energy accumulation and its intensive use at the same time. I wished to have a closer look at the issue of different meanings of the second in ethnic music and study the problem as to what is the mechanism that conditions the dialectical nature of this interval, located at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal. As Masel notes (Masel, 1991: 30-31), “The major second plays an essencial role in many modes of the sound sequence, as an interval between the neighbouring sounds according to their pitch, thus, in principle, the general character of the possible ways of mode formation become clear however peculiar these ways may be under different conditions with different peoples”. And, really, on the one hand the second is the basis of the melody, and on the other – of a kind of harmonic alternative. In both cases in music the second is the simplest and primary source of the movement, initiative and energy. As Alexeev suggests, the alternate intoning of two neighbouring sounds is the most elementary and widespread form of speech melodizing (Alexeev, 1986: 102). I’d like to focus on the multipart vocal tradition in order to study the phenomenon as a substantive organ, a product of human voice (Orlov, 1972: 381). Apart from that, in polyphony, where each individual is responsible for one part (just in vocal surroundings), on every level voice-leading is carried out with uninterrupted artistic attention and it can be said that it is functionally continuous, in contrast with multi-part singing, where at least two-part voice leading is performed by one singer with undulatory distribution of attention or discreetly. It is the functional independence of each voice that I am interested in. The second interval is considered so important in ethnomusicology that the term „secondal polyphony“ it quite well known in ethnmusicology (Messner, 2010) . In the present paper I am going to deal with the second, most frequently used in folk diatonics, which more readily corresponds to the major second of the European academic mode, than to the minor second (it is evident that when speaking about the major second I mean its relative size, zone nature). It is corroborated by the large-scale presence of anhemitonal modes. It is the whole-tonic second that pentatonics as the most widespread system in the ethnic world in general, knows. Dispite the fact that so called schwebungsdiaphony (or rough diaphony, Messner, 2008: 322328) is predominatnty characterized by a neutral second between major and minor seconds, as particularly rough dissonance, holding ������������������������������������������������������������������������� the attention on the second coordination for certain time by performer and listener in folk music, is largely manifested in major second. Of course, I focus on harmonic and not melodic second in the polyphonic surroundings – keeping with the topic of the symposium. But I consider it less problematic to discuss the phenomenon of the second in the layer accompanying homophony, where clear-cut functionalism of a second is lost in 169 conflict-free sonority. The second is more polysemantic under the conditions of functional polyphony. Even under the condition of heterophony, which, as I think, is closer to contrasting polyphony by its functional content than to monophony that even as only its dotted offshoot creates the initial sense of the functional contrast. Second – Consonance and Dissonance A second is ambivalent, in fact, from harm,onic viewpoint it is a dissonance, but a consonance from melodic viewpoint. Why should only dissonant vertical co-ordinate be attributed to it? During my school years, when intervals were explained to us the mediant was played softly, as a consonance, but when showing the second, they beat the keys mercilessly. Does any of you have similar recollections? Definitely, the second has an objective task to sound “uncomfortably” to some extent, which is less adjusted to a clear perception, almost always needing an eurystic approach (Medushevsky, 1976: 119). The main objective cause of such a discomfort is the factor of acoustic pulsation (a second, as an acoustic dissonance) (Sokhor, 1986: 40-41). And, in fact, a second is a complex mathematical equation, this is why it is considered as a dissonance. According to such logic, complex equation evokes uncomfortable feelings. But in music and in art in general, being guided only by the category of comfort will never go beyond the phonic design. That is why the term “dissonance” is consistently getting devoid of its aesthetic content in the course of time. If evaluated objectively, in different musical-mental paradigms the dissonant sounding, taken separately, must be perceived adequately, but due to the phenomenological and semiotic conditioning it is charged with different content and hence the accents are manifested according to their location in the sign system (“Consonance” and “Dissonance”). The phenomenological aspect of the second is more different in folk music than in European music; in the former Schonberg’s law of common musical space, where there is somewhat priority allocation (Orlov, 1972: 385) it is fully revealed. It may be due to this fact that in non-correlative ethnic music the delayed sounding of “consonant” or “dissonant” sounding occurs. In spite of that, even today a second sometimes is perceived as “modal dissonance,” as an unsteady element (Sokhor, 1986: 42). But when in a different musical paradigm, it is not considered as an unsteady interval a priori, it gets rid of the tag of modal dissonance. For instance, Sokhor believes, that in Georgian three-part singing second plays the role of consonance (Sokhor, 1986: 47). Harmonic Second – Melodic Perception Based on his theory of “contagious heterophony”, Steven Brown noted that harmonic entity must be understood in its entirety, not as the analytical sum of components, although “harmony is derived from (or primarily vocal) a basic melodic system…” (Brown, 2003: 67). As Orlov puts it “Harmonic interval is an instantaneous object only in the moment of emotional perception: the exact evaluation of its size, including muscular activity, is an alternation of activities” (Orlov, 1992: 274). Apart from phonic and sonorous effect the interval, separated from the context of harmonic sequence (in ethnic music the functional context of harmonic sequence is less significant), is again perceived through melodic connections (Sokhor, 1986: 39). Therefore, apart from phonal, 170 Tamaz Gabisonia phenomenological perception, we perceive the interval and the chord with an undulatory attention towards separate tones. This is also clear when listening to the second sounding by introspection method. It is noteworthy that the melodic and harmonic second can grow into each other by inserting or stopping one of the sounds thus making the line of distinction between them more vague. Functional Character of a Second In the major-minor tonic system both sounds are always of a diametrically opposite status. Therefore, one sound of the second cannot be solved in the other, unlike the folk mode, where such solution is quite acceptable. In the tonic system the second is bifunctional, but in the mode close to the ethnic systems (accordingly in the pentatonic one as well) it is charged with rare and weak attraction of determinism. There is one thing that unites the functional aspects of “classical” and “ethnic” second: in both cases it is “the generator” and “accumulator” of the charge of tension, but in the former its solution is indispensable, in the latter it is one of the possible solutions. “Non-solution” of the second in academic music is an artistic method – catachrese (in musical rhetorics – an unsolved dissonance or the dissonance that has not been solved correctly), , in traditional music it is an organic stylistic means. It is interesting that in folk music, particularly in Georgian folk music, the process of a sort of overcoming the functional charge of the second in the course of time can be noticed. The older the musical layer is, the more contrasting it is functionally. Subsequently, due to the melodic development (and if folk music evolves, it develops in the melodic way) top voice takes up the functional initiative, as a contour voice (Nazaikinsky, 1972: 119), and the middle voice gives up its position, accordingly it finds itself under the influence of the top voice and adjusts itself parallel to its “orbit” (mainly by a third). This parallelism “levels out” the seconds to some extent. Such is the case in urban music (Georgian, also with many European peoples). The Possible Bases of the Delayed Second Maybe due to the fact that in ethnic music second is not considered as an unstable element to be solved, here it is often represented by delayed sounding. The fact itself that in traditional music major second is “delayed” in most cases, indicates that it is based on the mode, whose grades form melodious links with one another and are equal in right. As it has been said above the ethnic delayed second has an effect of concentrating energy, but maybe, alongside with the effect it can be viewed as an intention (even subconscious)? Anyway, it is evident that the delayed second is characterized by an obvious communicative feature aspiring it to delay –causing emotional and semantic reaction (Medushevsky, 1976: 37). But the delay of second may also be conditioned by some other subconscious or meaningful motifs: two consonant alternate tones as symbol of the interrelation between two worlds – visible and transcendental. It is noteworthy that in Svaneti delayed second is encountered in the hymn-type songs. In connection with the “sacred” character of a second, Sokhor’s following conjecture is also interesting and worth taking into consideration (Sokhor, 1986: 49). “After mastering the unison in labour practice, singing in major and minor second (inaccurate unison) may have been introduced into major rituals, as something unusual and festive (as such rituals meant an obligatory escape from the Dialectics of Second in Ethnic Music: Statics and Dynamics 171 everyday routine to such extent that even people’s usual appearance was unrecognizable). Proceeding from this a second became useful and pleasant”. According to Brown, in the state of vertical uintegration the aimed difference between the pitches is characteristic for the earliest stages of musical thinking, end is even present among animals (Brown, 2003: 71). According to Joseph Jordania’s hipothesis, vocal polyphony, based on secondal harmonies, was a crucial element for the defense and survival of our distant ancestors. It was developed by the forces of natural selection, and was a potent strategic weapon for our hominid ancestors. It transformed them into the altered state of consciousness, in a battle trance... this state of trance with a strong neurochemical basis created the basis for human social nature, human morality and feeling of religion“ (Jordania, 2012: 29). According to Jordania, the existing isolated islands of vocal polyphony based on seconds should be considered as the remnants of this ancient polyphony, however the scholar does not specify the presence of suspended seconds. The parallel of the delayed second with the phenomenon of perseveration may prove interesting. The latter is often formed as a reflection of the sound impression, which does not satisfy us and we subconsciously try to change it. Maybe those, who delay the second, also try to overcome the antagonism between these two sounds by emphasizing them (and sometimes by growing into unison)? The delayed second may be based on the agon – a kind of contest to retain the individuality of voices in a complex situation, or the struggle between two opposed tonic charges to gain functional initiative. It may also be considered that the delayed second is an especially acute expression of the folk performers’ intention of multipart music playing, where the performer has particular feeling of individuality. It is obvious that in general a second is an “exotic” interval and even some phenomenological explanation could be found for it. But it is also possible to explain the demand for the delayed harmonic second by another reason: Maybe drawn-out consonance of the interval second, as of the basis of the melody, is the static image of the melody for the performers? Projection on the same plane? And truly, we may think that in the melody the effect of “erasing” the antagonist sound preceding the sound following the second, which causes the feeling of movement and introducing something new, is associated with the undulatory distribution of the performer’s or listener’s attention on the two sounds of the harmonic second. Therefore we may suggest that the second interval in harmony, as well as in the melody, aspires to moving, introducing novelty, and it is its prolongation and delay that corroborate it. The second is a melody in statics, a sort of simultaneous melody. The delayed and harmonic seconds, in general, are very characteristic of the “ethnic sound ideal” (Zemtovsky, 1983: 20) – fourth-fifth chord, “trichord” (Araqishvili’s term). As Masel writes, the fourth and the fifth based on the drone, create the qualitatively established interval major second (3/2: 4/3 = 9/8)… The unit, created by three sounds (A, D, E), where the lower sound lags behind the upper sounds by the fifth and the fourth, is already the evidence of the established, original element in the midst of the syncretistic unity” (Masel, 1991: 30-31). 172 Tamaz Gabisonia Apart from that the fourth fifth chord is an interesting and lucky fusion “of the simplest method of holding the attention – the background” and “one of the basic principles” – “contrast” of the “organization of the sensuous matter” (Golitzin, 1980: 58, 56). The former is expressed in the phonic function of the bass part, the latter in the “fourth-fifth” second. What is the difference and similarity between such drawn-out sounding of the second and unison in ethnic music? The latter also lasts for a long time. Maybe such a long continuation of unison is an attempt to overcome the subconscious dissonance? Unfortunately, in this paper I do not deal with the topic as to what the delayed second means for folk performers. Even the identification of this second per se among ethnophores presents certain difficulties. Besides, a performer’s answer to this question even a century ago may have been more adequate than at present. Though, it is evident that this question should not be removed from the agenda in order to discover definite semantic evaluation. Delaying the Second – Stopping Time In different cultures of the word there is a belief that “it is possible to step over the logically insurmountable border between the time of the universe and the transcendental timelessness, to introduce eternity and extreme reality into human experience” (Orlov, 1992: 66). In this case the so-called “perceptual time” becomes topical (Mostepanenko in Orlov’s, 1972: 367), the recipient’s subjective time. This relativity is directed towards the objective chronotope at different angles (Orlov, 1972: 474). In general the sounding, without the pitch change, is the most prominent expression of the time waning within immobility. The second of the delayed sounding, if we really look at it as a static melody, offers its own time co-ordinate. In this case the static melody is “the stopped melody.” And indeed, could the second delay be one of the aspects of escapism – fleeing from time? As Orlov notes when listening to such music we forget real time and perceive a kind of delayed configuration – a crystal and not flame (Orlov, 1992: 49). In delayed second Mamardashvili’s Punctum Cartesianum, “permanent lightning,” the same as “the absolute time intensity” can be felt, also Bernstein’s “simultaneous aspect devoid of “time coordinate, “simultaneous melody” is another dialectical characteristic feature of the delayed second in the form of the time – timelessness. Static Polyphony In some cultures delayed second is such an important mechanism that, I think, the type of the drawn-out, delayed sounding – static polyphony should be studied separately, for in it, in contrast with the chord, a synchronous type, a melodic phrase is not put together. It would not be topical if it were drawn out only on the consonances (e.g. the Svan delayed triads in hymn songs alternate with the also delayed fourth fifth chords). In the contrasting polyphonic texture, where the creative principles of melodic development are dominant, the functional initiative among the voices is distributed like waves, in the texture of static polyphony the functional initiative among the voices is distributed equally. I think it is effective to adjust and compare such static polyphony with the modal system, where the emphasis is laid on musical tunes, also on the repercussion as the present and not the finale, as Dialectics of Second in Ethnic Music: Statics and Dynamics 173 the future. In static polyphony the horizontal links of the sounds, the attraction among them, is as much topical as the vibrant sounding becomes less urgent – when compared with the 1 of the received information. In conclusion I should say that the second, its most prominent manifestation in particular, is the dialectical co-existence of two tones, two systems, two paradigms, two worlds. Herewith, it is an expression of the static melody, a sort of mobile immobility, by means of which it creates the image of transcendental time. Perhaps because of this (in order to communicate with the invisible) it is used by separate peoples, the Svans among them, in their hymn-type songs (in folk songs similar consonances are encountered in Vietnam, Taiwan, Tibet, Latvia, Lithuania, Melanesia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, etc). References Alekseev, Eduard. (1986). Rannefol’klornoe intonirovanie (Early-folk Intoning). Moscow: Sovetski kompozitor. (in Russian) Brown, Stieven. (2003). “Contagious Heterophony: A New Theory About the Origins of Music”. In: The First International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 66-78. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Golitzin, George. (1980). “Informatsia I zakoni esteticheskogo vospriatia” (“Information on the Laws of Aesthetic Perception). In: Chislo i misl (Number and Thought). T.3. Moscow: Znanie. (in Russian) Jordania, Joseph. (2012). “Traditional Polyphony in Asia: Problems and Perspectives”. In: The Fifth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 24-31. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Mazel, Lev. (1991). O prirode i sredstvakh muziki (On the Nature and Means of Music). Moscow: Muzika. (in Russian) Messner, Gerald Florian. (2008). “Multipart Vocal Tradition in Eastern Flores (Indonesia), Bulgaria and Manus Province (PNG)”. In: The Third International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 322333. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Messner, Gerald Florian. (2010). “They Howl Like Wolves…“ (“Ululant ad modum luporum…”). A New Look at an Old Persistent Lombardian Polyphonic Oral Tradition Loathed by Medieval and Renaissance Music Scholars”. In: The Fourth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 165-174. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Medushevsky, Viatscheslav. (1976). O zakonomernostjakh i sredstvakh khudozhestvennogo vozdejstvija muzyki 174 Tamaz Gabisonia (On the Regularities and Means of the Artistic Influence of Music). Moscow: Muzika. (in Russian) Nazaikinsky, Yevgeny. (1972). O psikhologii muzykal’nogo vosprijatija (On the Psychology of Musical Perception). Moscow: Muzika. (in Russian) Orlov, Genrikh. (1972). “Vremja i prostranstvo muzyki” (“Time and Spaces of Music”). In: Problemy muzykal’noi nauki (Problems of the Musical Science)Works, T. 1:395. Moskow: Sovetski kompozitor. (in Russian) Orlov, Genrikh. (1992). Drevo muzyki (The Tree of Music). Sankt-Peterburg: Sovetski kompozitor. (In Russian) Sokhor, Arnold. (1986). Muzyka, kak vid iskusstva (“Music as a Kind of Art”) In: Muzykal’noe vosprijatie, kak predmet kompleqksnogo issledovanija (Musical Perception as a Object of Complex Research). Compiler: Kostiuk, A. G. Kiev: Muzichna Ukraina. (in Russian) Zemtsovsky, Izaly. (1983). “Pesnja, kak istoricheskij fenomen” (“Music as Historical Phenomenon”). In: Narodnaja pesnja: problemy izuchenija (Folk Song: Problems of Studying). LGITMIK. Leningrad. (in Russian) Audio Examples Voices of the World: An Anthology of Vocal Expression. An Anthology of Vocal Exspression. Collection du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et du Musée de l’Homme. France. 1996. CD I #34. Solomon Islands, Guadalcanal: Women’s song, rope repertoire. CD II #20. Papua New Guinea [Iatmul]: Voices of the mai spirits. CD III #7. Indonesia, Sulawesi [Toraja]: Men’s chorus, manimbon. CD III #15. Macedonia: Rain-making song, dodole. CD III #20. Georgia, Svaneti: Male funerary chorus, zar. CD III #25. Albania [Lab]: Male corus, himarioce. Translated by Lia Gabechava tradiciuli polifoniis regionuli stilebi da musikaluri ena REGIONAL STYLES AND MUSICAL LANGUAGE OF TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY 177 kae hisaoka (iaponia) polifoniuri da musikaluri praqtikis avTentikurobis struqtura saqarTveloSi qarTuli mravalxmiani simRera da misi regionuli variaciebi dRes msoflioSi kargadaa cnobili. sakuTar Tavs mec im uamrav adamians Soris moviazreb, romlebic moxiblulni arian qarTuli musikis unikaluri RirebulebiT. es simRera, romelic bevr ucxo dampyrobels gadaurCa, maT Soris, arabebs, monRolebs, Turqebs, sparselebsa da sabWoTa rusebs, saSualebas gvaZlevs, vimsjeloT qarTuli musikis istoriul uwyvetobaze. me gansakuTrebiT mainteresebs am gzavnilis simyare, romelic mimzidvelia musikis ucxoeli moyvarulebisTvis. mecxramete da meoce saukuneebis cnobil musikologiur kvlevebze dayrdnobiT, naSromSi warmodgenilia „qarTuli avTentikuri musikis saxe“. miuxedavad imisa, rom warsuli musikologiuri kvlevis mimoxilva kompetenturi mkvlevrebis, n. ciciSvilis (Tsitsishvili, 2010: 89-130), r. wurwumiasa (Tsurtsumia, 2005) da i. Jordanias (Jordania, 2010) mier aris Catarebuli, me minda, qarTuli musikologiis warsuli Cemeuli xedviT ganvixilo. amasTanave, Tanamedrove qarTvelebze dakvirveba cxadyofs, rom ruseTis imperiis periodSi gamovlenili iseTi avTentikuri maxasiaTeblebi, rogoricaa mravalxmianoba, dialeqturoba da uZvelesi warmoSoba dRemde SenarCunebulia. musikaluri dialeqtebisa da mravalxmianobis aRmoCena ruseTis imperiis periodSi ruseTis mmarTvelobis periodSi (me-19 s.) inteligenciam daiwyo „qarTvelobis“ Zieba. 1860–iani wlebis qarTveli poetebi – aleqsandre jambakur-orbeliani da daviT maCabeli (Orbeliani, 1860: 141-160; Machabeli, 1864: 49-73) akritikebdnen sparsuli musikis zegavlenas, romelmac aRmosavleT saqarTveloSi meTeqvsmete saukunidan SemoaRwia. isini eris legitimur kulturul memkvidreobad miiCnevdnen sami xmis – Tqmis (mTavari xma), moZaxilisa (meore xma) da banis (dabali xmis) saxiT moRweul simReras (saero simRera), galobas (sasuliero simRera) da RiRins (dasavlurqarTuli saero simReris saxeoba). sainteresoa, rom saero da sasuliero simRerasTan dakavSirebuli es qarTuli terminebi maTTvis ar gulisxmobda `polifoniis~ dasavlur (dasavleTevropul) gagebas. kompozitorebma da eTnomusikosebma, meliton balanCivaZem da dimitri arayiSvilma, romlebmac sankt-peterburgsa da moskovSi Seiwavles dasavluri musika, mxolod orbelianisa da maCablis mier gamoTqmuli Tvalsazrisidan sami aTeuli wlis Semdeg SeZles am elementebis Tanamedrove poziciebidan ganxilva. qarTvelma musikologebma xalxuri simReris kvleva rusuli samusikismcodneo azrisaTvis winaaRmdegobis gawevis gziT daiwyes. kompozitori mixeil ipolitov-ivanovi, romelic Tbilisis musikalur saswavlebelSi muSaobda da qarTul simRerebs 178 kae hisaoka agrovebda, miiCnevda, rom maTi umravlesoba sparsul-arabuli melodiebis zegavlenas ganicdis. is aRniSnavda, rom me-19 saukunis aRmosavleT saqarTvelos qalaqebSi orkestrebi, romelTac sazandari ewodeboda, ukravdnen aRmosavlur instrumentebze, rogoricaa Tari dadablebuli meore safexuriTa da melizmebiT (Ippolitov-Ivanov, 1895: 137-38). ipolitov-ivanovis kavkasiuri eskizebi (Ippolitov-Ivanov, 1894) mowmobs, rom aleqsandre puSkinisa da mixeil lermontovis msgavsad, igi qarTul kulturas egzotikurad aRiqvamda. ruseTis imperiis periodSi qarTul kulturas analogiurad aRiqvamda petre Caikovskic. mis baletSi maknatuna qarTuli xalxuri simRera iavnana arabuli cekvisaTvis aris gamoyenebuli. SedarebisaTvis, qarTveli kompozitori meliton balanCivaZe, romelic sankt-peterburgis konservatoriaSi swavlobda, aprotestebda rus musikologTa mosazrebas qarTuli musikis sparsul-arabuli warmomavlobis Sesaxeb. sagazeTo statiaSi man daasabuTa qarTuli musikis WeSmaritad sagundo buneba (Balanchivadze, 1899: 333-34). ufro metic, am statiaSi man TiToeuli dialeqtis – guriis, samegrelos, qarTlkaxeTis, svaneTis, fSavisa da xevsureTis TavisTavadoba miuTiTa da qarTuli musikaluri kulturis dialeqturi mravalferovnebac daasabuTa (Balanchivadze, 1899: 331). miuxedavad imisa, rom igi intensiurad ar swavlobda xalxur musikas, aRiarebda profesiul musikalur xelovnebaSi folkloruli masalis mniSvnelobas. dimitri arayiSvilma, romelic iyo moskovis universitetis musikalur-eTnologiuri komitetis wevri, notebze gadaitana aRmosavleT da dasavleT saqarTvelos xalxuri simRerebi da gamoikvlia isini. adreul naSromSi, romelic 1905 w. gamoqveynda, arayiSvili akritikebda rusebis mier qarTuli xalxuri musikis mravalferovnebis ignorirebis faqts. 1916 wlisTvis man daasrula savele-SemkreblobiTi samuSaoebi da gaaanaliza qarTl-kaxeTis, guriis, samegrelos, imereTis, raWis, xevsureTis, fSavis, TuSeTis, xevisa da mTiuleTis xalxuri sasimRero Semoqmedeba. misma mecnierulma Zalisxmevam naTeli mohfina qarTuli musikis mravalferovnebas da moaxdina aRmosavleT da dasavleT saqarTvelos ,,glexuri~ mravalxmiani simReris struqturuli gansxvavebebis klasifikacia. mravalxmianobis genezisis Zieba sabWour periodSi Tbilisis konservatoriis saeqspedicio masalebiT sistematizebuli „qarTuli musikaluri saxe“ (polifonia da regionaloba) warmodgenilia grigol CxikvaZis, Salva aslaniSvilisa da sxvaTa naSromebSi. 1930-ian wlebSi nacizmis eqspansiis sapasuxod, sabWoTa mecnierebis istoriul-kulturuli kvlevebi warmoaCens yoveli sabWoTa respublikis istoriul memkvidreobiTobas. 1930-1940-ian wlebSi arqeologiuri aRmoCenebis dros napovni mwyemsis salamuri mcxeTidan da TrialeTis vercxlis Tasi, materialurad adasturebs uZvelesi droidan avtoqtonuri qarTuli musikis arsebobas. musikologi CxikvaZe aRwers qarTuli musikis istorias uZvelesi droidan, maT Soris imasac, Tu rogor Caiwera notebze ucxo dampyroblebs gadarCenili mravalxmianoba. istoriuli, folkloristikuli da lingvisturi masalis gamoyenebiT, CxikvaZem da aslaniSvilma iseT saritualo sim- polifoniuri da musikaluri praqtikis avTentikurobis struqtura saqarTveloSi 179 RerebSi, rogoricaa samkurnalo simRerebi, tirilebi da sxv., aRmoaCines qarTuli kulturis arqauli forma (Chkhikvadze, 1948, 1957: 7-200). aslaniSvili xazs usvamda xalxur simRerebSi `invariantuli Tvisebebis~ mniSvnelobas (Chkhikvadze, 1957: 90-163), misma Tvalsazrisma didi gavlena moaxdina saqarTveloSi Catarebul momdevno musikologiur kvlevebze. sabWoTa periodis musikologebi, magaliTad, CxikvaZe (Chkhikvadze, 1957: 28-30, Chkhikvadze, 1964: 4), aslaniSvili (Aslanisvili, 1954: 32-33) da ivane javaxiSvili (Javakhishvili, 1938: 340-341), emxrobodnen polifoniis arqauli warmoSobis Teoriebs da ganviTarebas monofoniidan polifoniisken, ramac daamkvidra samxmiani polifoniuri simReris evoluciuri ganviTarebis Tvalsazrisi. garda amisa, sabWour periodSi saintereso SedarebiTi musikologiuri kvleva Caatares vaJa gvaxariam (Gvakharia, 1963: 281-290), manana SilakaZem (Shilakadze, 1981: 174-181) da nino maisuraZem (Maisuradze, 1983). maTi kvlevebi exeboda saqarTvelosa da Crdilokavkasiis (afxazeTi, oseTi, adiRe, yaraCai-CerqezeTi, yabardo-balyareTi, CeCneTi, inguSeTi da daRestani) xalxebis urTierTkavSiris sakiTxebs. dRes aseTi kvlevebis Catareba SeuZlebelia garTulebuli politikuri viTarebis gamo. maT aRmoaCines saerTo arqauli elementebi qarTul da Crdilo-kavkasieli xalxebis dialeqtebs Soris, magaliTad maTi harmoniuli progresia, polifoniuri struqturebi da musikaluri instrumentebi. me-19 saukuneSi dawyebuli `polifoniis erovnuli narativi~, romelic qarTvelTa avTentur musikalur kulturas warmogvidgens, zemoxsenebuli kvlevebis safuZvelze dResac grZeldeba. musikaluri praqtika post-sabWour periodSi `avTentikuri polifoniis~ saxe axalgazrda, damoukidebeli saqarTvelos kultu-rul politikaSi erovnuli kulturuli identobis xazgasasmelad gamoiyeneba. post-sabWoTa periodSi, marTlmadidebluri religiisa da saeklesio galobis aRdgenam qarTvel xalxSi aseve gaaZliera erovnuli polifoniuri identobis SegrZneba. sabWoTa periodidan dRemde TiToeul dialeqtSi polifoniuri musikis kulturul models iyenebs saxelmwifo folkloris centri, kulturis saministros organizaciebi, romelTa direqtivebiT warimarTeba folkloruli praqtika kulturis zogierT adgilobriv centrSi. Cem mier monaxulebul kaxeTis, samegrelos, svaneTisa da aWaris regionur kuturul centrebSi ritualuri saferxulo simRerebi da koleqtiuri antifonuri Sromis simRerebi folkloris saxelmwifo centris instruqciebiT sruldeboda. Zveli monacemebisa da Canawerebis gamoyenebiT, es centri cdilobs avTentikuri Semsruleblobis SenarCunebas. adgilobrivi momRerlebi monawileoben folkloris centris mier organizebul erovnul konkursebSi, romlebSic upiratesoba avTentikur Sesrulebas eniWeba. globalizaciis procesis wnexis pirobebSi, saqarTvelos kulturuli politika mimarTulia avTentikuri xalxuri mravalxmianobisa da TviTmyofadobis SenarCunebisken. amitom adgilobrivi ansamblebi dRes mimarTaven xalxuri simRerebis profesionali momRerlebis mier Zveli Canawerebidan naswavl mravalxmianobis nimuSebs, romlebic maTi kuTxis dialeqturi damaxa- 180 kae hisaoka siaTeblobis niSnebs atarebs. Tumca, regionebisa da sub-eTnikuri jgufisagan musikaluri avTentikurobis moTxovna ar gulisxmobs mxolod Zveli `avTentikuri~ mravalxmiani simRerebis Sesrulebas. aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mTianeTSi TuSi da qisti qalebi, garmons _ patara rusul akordeons, romelic XIX saukuneSi CrdiloeTidan Semovida, iyeneben, rogorc `erovnul instruments~, romlis TanxlebiT asruleben calfa simRerebs. rogorc Cans, axali instrumentuli Janri gamoxatavs regionul an `pan-kavkasiur~ kulturas, romlis nimuSebs aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mTis regionis qalebi asruleben da romelic warmoadgens baris regionebis mamakacTa avTentikuri mravalxmiani simReris `alternativas~. me ar viziareb im ideas, rom mravalxmianoba dakavSirebulia mTeli qarTveli eris erovnul identobasTan, is regionebi, sadac mravalxmiani simRera tradiciulad warmatebulia, ZiriTadad, mdebareobs qveynis dasavleT nawilSi da aRmosavleT saqarTvelos dablobze. rogorc n. ciciSvili aRniSnavs, me-19 saukunidan qarTvelebi maT erovnul TviTmyofadobas mravalxmianobas ukavSirebdnen, xolo hibriduli aRmosavluri elementebi, rogoricaa aRmosavleT saqarTvelos qalaquri musika, `ar iyo CarTuli qarTul sabWour folklorul festivalebSi, olimpiadebSi, satelevizio programebsa da sxva mediaSi, rac xels uwyobda qarTuli polifoniuri sagundo musikis ganviTarebas~ (Tsitsishvili, 2010: 286). dRes, saqarTveloSi, folkloruli procesi grZeldeba, magram, Cemi azriT, is ufro bunebrivad mimdinareobs aRmosavleTis mTaSi, sadac kvlav iqmneba Tanamedrove folkloruli simRerebi adgilobrivi poetebisa da musikis moyvarulebis mier. radgan oficialuri kulturuli politika mxars uWers xalxuri tradiciuli mravalxmianobis dacvas, baris adgilobriv mosaxleobas profesionalebi qalaqidan ukan ubruneben winaprebis mier Seqmnili mravalxmianobis uZveles nimuSebs. saqarTveloSi, romelic me-19 saukunidan dRemde ruseTis muqaris obieqtia, saxelmwifos kulturuli politika erovnuli erTianobis dasamtkiceblad monokulturalizmisken ixreba; sxva arCevani ar arsebobs. imperiuli periodidan dawyebuli, bevrma musikologma didi ZalisxmeviT Seiswavla mravalxmianobis warmoSoba da ganviTareba. qarTuli mravalxmianoba mTelma msofliom gaicno da UNESCO-m (2001) mas `kacobriobis zepiri da aramaterialuri kulturuli memkvidreobis Sedevris~ statusi mianiWa; es aRiareba udidesi miRwevaa. magram qarTvel mecnierTa umravlesoba radikaluria: isini axdenen qarTuli musikaluri kulturis `wminda glexuri warmoSobis~ idealizacias da amtkiceben, rom is `uZvelesi droidan momdinareobs~ da erovnuli identobis gamomxatvelia. Sesabamisad, isini met yuradRebas uTmobdnen mamakacebis mravalxmianobas, naklebad Seiswavlidnen qalTa folklors da sarTod ar ikvlevdnen xalxuri musikis cvalebadobis dinamikasa da Tanamedrove folklorul movlenebs. safiqrebelia, rom momavalSi isini TavianT kvlevebs metad daukavSireben folk- polifoniuri da musikaluri praqtikis 181 avTentikurobis struqtura saqarTveloSi loruli musikis socio-kulturul konteqsts, rac kidev ufro gaaZlerebs interess qarTuli musikis mimarT. madliereba daxmarebisTvis did madlobas vuxdi qarTvel pedagogebsa da megobrebs. Targmna ia maxaraZem 182 KAE HISAOKA (JAPAN) STRUCTURE OF AUTHENTICITY OF POLYPHONY AND MUSICAL PRACTICES IN GEORGIA Today, Georgian polyphonic singing with its regional variations is globally known, and I include myself among the many persons who are fascinated with its unique musical qualities. Such singing, which has survived many foreign invasions, including those of the Arabs, Mongolians, Turks, Persians, and Russian-Soviets, has been employed to ensure the historical continuity of Georgian music. I am particularly interested in the fixity of this message, which is attractive to international music fans. In this paper, I consider the creation of an “authentic Georgian musical image” based on well-known musicological research of the latter nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Although, the review of past musicological research is carried out by competent scholars - N. Tsitsishvili (Tsitsishvili, 2010: 89-130), R. Tsurtsumia (Tsurtsumia, 2005) and J. Jordania (Jordania, 2010), I’d like to consider the past of Georgian musicology from my perspective. Furthermore, by focusing on the musical practices of the Georgian people today, I show that the authentic features of Georgian music, such as “polyphony”, “regionality”, and “ancient origin”, which emerged in the imperial and Soviet period, are still operative. Discovery of Polyphony and Musical Dialects in the Imperial Period While under Russian rule in the nineteenth century, Georgian intellectuals started to seek “Georgianness”. Local poets of the 1860s, such as A. Orbeliani and D. Machabeli, criticized Persian musical influence, which entered eastern Georgia in the sixteenth century, and claimed that the Simghera (secular song), Galoba (sacred song), and Ghighini (a kind of secular song ) of western Georgia, passed down by the three voices of Tkma (main part), Modzakhili (second part), and Bani (bass), were the nation’s legitimate cultural heritage (Orbeliani, 1860: 141-160; Machabeli, 1864: 49-73). It is interesting to note that these Georgian terms, which refer to secular and sacred songs, suggest that the intellectuals of this time did not observe these elements from a Western musical viewpoint, such as “polyphony”. Three decades later, when composer-musicologists such as M. Balanchivadze and D. Araqishvili - who studied Western music in St. Petersburg and Moscow, appeared, these elements were regarded from a contemporary musical viewpoint. Research on folk songs by Georgian musicologists began as a form of resistance to the framework of Russian musical knowledge. The composer M. Ippolitov-Ivanov, who worked at the Music College of Tiflis and who collected several Georgian folk songs, considered that most Georgian songs were influenced by Persian-Arabian melodies. As he pointed out, in the cities of Eastern Georgia in the nineteenth century, the orchestras called Sazandari played “oriental” instruments, such as the Tar, with augmented second and melisma (Ippolitov-Ivanov, 1895: 137-38). His orchestral suite Caucasian Sketches (1894) suggests that he had an exotic image of Georgian culture, as did A. Pushkin and M. Lermontov. We can also see an exotic Georgian image during the imperial period in the ballet 183 music of Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker, in which the melody of the Georgian folk song Iavnana is used for the “Arabian dance”. In comparison, Georgian composer M. Balanchivadze, who studied at the St. Petersburg Conservatoire, opposed the Russian musicological notion that “Georgian music is Persian-Arabian music”, which appeared in the musicological research and musical compositions of Russians, and asserted in a newspaper article that true Georgian music has a chorus form (����������������������������������� Balanchivadze, �������������������� 1899: 333-34). Moreover, in this article, he referenced the musical character of each dialect - such as Guria, Samegrelo, Kartli-Kakheti, Svaneti, Pshavi, and Khevsureti - and argued that Georgian musical culture is marked by regionality (Balanchivadze, 1899: 331). Balanchivadze also proclaimed the value of folk material in the composition of art music; nevertheless, he did not extensively study folk music. However, his contemporary D. Araqishvili, who was a member of the Music-Ethnographic Committee of Moscow University, took up the folk songs of Eastern and Western Georgia in musical notation and analyzed them. In his early research, published in 1905, Araqishvili criticized the general Russian disregard for Georgian local diversity. By 1916, he had completed fieldwork on and analyzed the folk songs of the Kartli-Kakheti, Guria, Samegrelo, Imereti, Rach’a, Khevsureti, Pshavi, Tusheti, Khevi, and Mtiuletian dialect; his scholarly efforts clarified the diversity of Georgian music and classified the structural differences of the “peasant” polyphonic singing of Eastern and Western Georgia. Seeking the Origin of Polyphony in the Soviet Period The Georgian musical image of “polyphony with regionality” of the imperial period was taken over by the Soviet musicologists Grigol Chkhikvadze, Shalva Aslanishvili, and others, and further classified by expeditions of the Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Soviet researchers established the authentic historical role of polyphony in Georgian national culture. As a response to the expansion of Nazism in the 1930s, historical and cultural research sought to demonstrate the historical continuity of each Soviet republic from ancient times. The shepherd’s flute Salamuri of the Mtskheta and the silver cup of the Trialeti, discovered in archaeological excavations in Georgia in the 1930s and 1940s, became the material evidence for the autochthonous existence of Georgian music from ancient times. Georgian musical history from the ancient times is described by the musicologist Chkhikvadze (Chkhikvadze, 1948, 1957: 7-20), including how the narrative of polyphony, which has been survived foreign aggression, was fixed. By using the historical, folkloristic and linguistic materials, Chkhikvadze and Aslanishvili founded the archaic form of Georgian culture in the ritual songs, such as healing songs, laments and others. Aslanishvili insisted on the importance of “invariant features” in folk songs (Chkhikvadze, 1957: 90-163), and his opinion had a significant impact on later musicological research of Georgia. Although Georgian scholars of Soviet time insisted on the archaic origin of polyphony, such as Chkhikvadze (Chkhikvadze, 1957: 28-30, 1964: 4), Aslanishvili (Aslanishvili, 1954: 32-33), and Ivane Javakhishvili (1938: 340-41), advocated theories of polyphonic development, such as monophony to polyphony, and their viewpoints established the highly developmental character of three-part polyphonic singing. Furthermore, in the Soviet period, interesting comparative musicological research was conducted by Vazha Gvakharia (Gvakharia, 1963: 281-290), Manana Shilakadze (Shilakadze, 1981: 174-181) and Nino Maisuradze (Maisuradze, 1983) on the Georgian and North Caucasian people, such as the Abkhazia, Ocetia, Adygea, Karachaevo-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Chechen, Ingushetia, and 184 Kae Hisaoka Dagestan. Such research is difficult to conduct today because of political problems. Under the influence of A. Chikobava’s theory of an “Iberian-Caucasian languages”, the Soviet musicologists discovered similarities between the Georgian and North Caucasian peoples, such as their patterns such as their harmonic progressions, polyphonic structures, and musical instruments. Starting from the nineteenth century and continuing to the present time, the “national narrative of polyphony”, which demonstrates the authentic musical culture of Georgians, has been constructed through the aforementioned studies. Musical practices in the Post-Soviet period The image of the “authentic polyphony” is used in the cultural policy of the country of the recently independent Georgia to emphasize national cultural identity. In post-Soviet period, the revivals of the Orthodox Religion and the sacred polyphonic singing of galoba also intensified the national identity of polyphony among the Georgian people. From the Soviet period until today, the cultural model of “polyphonic music in each dialect” is employed by the State Folklore Center of Georgia, an organization of the state’s Ministry of Culture. In some local cultural centers, folk music is practiced on the basis of the directions of the central Folklore Center. In the regional cultural centers of Kakheti, Samegrelo, Svaneti, and Achara, which I visited, ritual songs with perkhuli round dances and collective labor songs with antiphon were performed based on the instructions of the State Folklore Center. Using past musicological data and recordings, the center seeks to preserve authentic performances. Local examples are performed at national contests, organized by the State Folklore Center when regional performers present authentic performance style. Under the pressure of cultural globalization, the cultural policy of Georgia seeks to conserve authentic folk polyphony. This is why local ensembles perform the polyphonic examples with dialectal peculiarities of their regions studied by professional singers from old recordings. However, the appeal of the musical originality of the regions and the sub-ethnic groups does not rest only on polyphonic singing and old “authentic” songs. Garmoni - a small Russian-type accordion, has been used by the Tushetian and Kist women of the East Georgian Mountains as an accompaniment of single-part songs since its introduction from the North in the 19th century. It seems that the newly instrumental genre expresses the regional or “Pan-Caucasian” culture which is mainly performed by women from East Georgian Mountain regions, also means a “counter” or “alternative” culture opposed to authentic male polyphonic singing of lowland regions. I do not support the idea that the polyphony is linked to the national identity of the whole Georgian nation. Actually, the regions where polyphonic singing has traditionally prospered are basically in the western part and the eastern lowland regions of the country. As N. Tsitsishvili points out, from the 19th century, the Georgians related their national identity to polyphony but hybrid Middle Eastern elements, like East Georgian town songs, were not included into the folk festivals, Olympiads, television programs and other media of Soviet Georgia, which contributed to the development of Georgian polyphonic choral music (Tsitsishvili, 2010: 286). The Folk process still continues in Georgia, in my opinion, it develops more naturally in East Georgian mountains, where contemporary folk songs are being composed by local poets and music lovers. But as the official cultural policy supports safeguarding of traditional polyphony the examples Structure of Authenticity of Polyphony and Musical Practices in Georgia 185 created by the ancestors are returned to lowland regions by the professionals from the cities. In Georgia, which has faced threats from Russia since the 19th century until today, the state cultural policy leans toward monoculturalism in order to confirm national unity; there is no other choice. Through the efforts of the many musicologists devoted to investigating the origin of polyphony and its development from the imperial period, Georgian polyphony acquired global fame and was acknowledged as “a Masterpiece and Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Humanity” by UNESCO (2001); this recognition is a great achievement. However, most Georgian scientists tend to be extreme: they idealize “pure peasant origin” of Georgian musical culture and claim that it has survived from the ancient times and consider it as an expression of national identity. Correspondingly, they paid more attention to male polyphony, did not research the lesser studied female folklore and the dynamics of changeability of folk music and contemporary folk processes were not at all studied either. Hopefully, they will link their further research with socio-cultural context of folk music, which will provoke more interest to Georgian music. Acknowledgments I am deeply indebted to my Georgian teachers and friends for all their help. References Arakchiev (Araqishvili), Dimitri. (1905). Kratkij ocherk razvitija gruzinskoj Kartalino-Kakhetinskoj narodnoj pesni (Short Esseys on Development of Kartli-kakhetian Folk Songs). Moscow: Muzykal’no- Etonografichekoj Komissii. (in Russian) Arakchiev (Araqishvili), Dimitri. (1908). Narodnaja pesnja zapadnoj gruzii (Folk Songs of West Georgia). Moscow: Muzykal’no-Etonografichekoi Komissii. (in Russian) Arakchiev (Araqishvili), Dimitri. (1916). Gruzinskoe natornoe muzykalnoe tvorchestvo – narodnaja pesnja vostochnoj Gruzii (Georgian Folk Music – Folk Songs of East Georgia). Moscow: Muzykal’no-Etonografichekoi Komissii. (in Russian) Aslanisvili, Shalva. (1954). Narkvevebi Kartuli khalkhuri simgherebis shesakheb (Essays on Georgian Folk Songs). Tbilisi: Khelovneba. (in Georgian) Balanchivadze, Meliton. (1899). “O Gruzinskom narodnom svetskom penii” (“On Georgian Secular Folk Singing”). In: Russkaja muzykalnaja gazeta, 11:329-337. (in Russian) Chkhikvadze, Grigol. (1948). Kartveli khalkhis udzvelesi samusiko kultura (Ancient Musical Culture of Georgian People). Tbilisi: Sakartvelos SSR Musikaluri Fondi. (in Georgian) Chkhikvadze, Grigol. (1957). “Drevnegruzinskaja muzykalnaja kultura” (“Old Georgian Musical Culture”). In: 186 Kae Hisaoka Gruzinskaja muzykal’naja kul’tura (Georgian Musical Culture). P. 7-20. Moscow: Muzgiz. (in Russian) Chkhikvadze, Grigol. (1964). Osnovnye tipy Gruzinskogo narodnogo mnogogolosija (Basic Types of Georgian Multipart Singing). Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian) Gvakharia, Vaja. (1963). “O drevnikh vzaimosvjazjakh Gruzinskoj i Severo-Kavkazskoj narodnoj muzyki” (“On Old Relationship between Georgian and North Caucasian Folk Music”). In: Masalebi Sakartvelos etnografiistvis, 12-13: 281-290 (in Russian) Ippolitov-Ivanov, Mikhail. (1895). “Gruzinskaja narodnaja pesnja i ejo sovremennoe sostojanie” (“Georgian Folk Song and Its Contemporary State”). In: Artist, 45: 134-146. (in Russian) Javakhishvili, Ivane. (1938). Kartuli musikis Istoriis Dziritadi Sakitkhebi (The Basic Issues of Georgian Music History). Tbilisi: Federacia. (in Georgian) Machabeli, Davit. (1864). “Kartvelta zneoba” (“Mode of Georgians”). In: Tsiskari, 5: 49-73. (in Georgian) Maisuradze, Nanuli. (1983). Problemy genezisa stanovlenija i razvitija Gruzinskoj narodnoj muzyki (Problems of the Genesis of the Formation and Development of Georgian Folk Music). Tbilisi: Akademija Nauk GSSR. (in Russian) Maisuradze, Nanuli. (1990). Drevnejshie etapy razvitija Gruzinskoj narodnoj muzyki (The Ancient Stages of the Development of Georgian Folk Music). Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (in Russian) Orbeliani, Aleksandre. (1860). “Iverianelebis galoba, simghera da ghighini” (“Iverian’s Chanting, Singing and Humming”). In: Ciskari,1: 141-169. (in Georgian) Shilakadze, Manana. (1981). “Kartuli khalkhuri simebiani sakravebi da mati chrdilo-Kavkasiuri paralelebi” (“Georgian Folk String Instruments and Their Norh Caucasian Parralels”). In: Masalebi Sakartvelos etnografiisatvis, 21: 174-181. (in Georgian) Slobin, Mark. (1996). ”Introduction”. In: Retuning Culture: Musical Changes in Central and Eastern Europe. P. 1-13. Duke University Press Durham and London. Tsitsishvili, Nino. (2010). National Unity and Gender Difference: Ideologies and Practices in Georgian Traditional Music. Saarbrücken: Lambert; Achademic Publishing. Tsurtsumia, Rusudan. (2005). Meotse saukunis Kartuli musika (Georgian Music of XX Century). Tbilisi: Tbilisi State Conservatoire. (in Georgian with English summary) Tsurtsumia, Rusudan, Jordania, Joseph. (editors). (2010). Echoes from Georgia: Seventeen Arguments on Georgian Polyphony. Series: Focus on Civilizations and Cultures – Music. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 187 su vei, uang qi (CineTi) qiangis polifoniuri tradicia CineTidan statiaSi gvinda mkiTxvels gavacnoT qiangis tradiciuli polifoniuri musika CineTidan. aseve, SevexebiT tibetur aba da almais (an aremais) eTnikur jgufebs, romelebic qiangis xalxis mezoblad cxovroben. ganxiluli iqneba Semdegi sakiTxebi: I. qiangis xalxis aRwera migraciis istoria, qiangis Tanamedrove kultura, qiangis musika; II. qiangis tradiciuli polifoniuri musika ZiriTadi informacia, simReris tipebi; momRerlebi da simReris gadacema Taobidan Taobaze; simRerebis gavrcelebis Tavisebureba; warmoSobis hipoTezebi. III. qiangis tradiciuli polifoniuri musikis dacva Tanamedrove situacia, dacva-Senaxvis bunebrivi garemo, damcavi RonisZiebebi, polifoniuri tradiciis aRorZinebis sxvadasxva strategia da a.S. I. qiangis mokle daxasiaTeba qiangis xalxi, CineTis 55 eTnikuri umciresobidan erT-erTi, ZiriTadad, CineTis samxreT dasavleTSi, siCuanis mTebsa da platoebze cxovrobs. maTi ricxvi daaxloebiT 200 000 uaxlovdeba. am eTnikur jgufs migraciis grZeli istoria aqvs, dRemde uZvelesi, msoflios ZiriTadi religiebisagan ruliad gansxvavebuli religiuri warmodgenebiT cxovrobs da Tavis kulturas Taobidan Taobas zepirad, werilobiTi tradiciis gareSe gadascems. 1. migraciis istoria cnobebi qiangis istoriis Sesaxeb CineTis adreuli civilizaciis amsaxvel dokumentebSi gvxvdeba, romlebic, daaxloebiT, 3000 wlis winandeli periodiT TariRdeba. sityva qiang pirvelad damwerlobis uZveles wyaroebSi, e. w. `samkiTxao qvebis~ warwerebSiL Cndeba. CineTis erovnuli konsolidaciis xangrZliv procesSi qiangis xalxma mniSvnelovani wvlili Seitana qveynis ganviTarebaSi. am Tvalsazriss mravali Cineli istorikosi iziarebs. CineTis dasavleT nawilSi mdebareobs uzarmazari mTagrexili, romelic kunlunis mTebis saxeliTaa cnobili. es mTagrexili warmoadgens tibetis platos CrdiloeT sazRvars, romelsac msoflios saxuravsLuwodeben. igi aseve cnobilia, rogorc yviTeli mdinare, romlis msgavsad, gadaWimulia CineTis dasavleTidan aRmosavleTiT. amrigad, kunlunis mTagrexili erTgvari xidis rols asrulebda, romlis meSveobiTac mravali aTaswleulis manZilze xdeboda kulturis gacvla dasavleTsa da aRmosavleTs Soris. swored amis gamo, Cineli xalxi kunlunis mTagrexils Cinuri kulturis akvnad aRiarebs. Zv.w. daaxloebiT 3000 wlebSi kunlunis mTagrexilisa da yviTeli mdinaris 188 su vei, uang qi teritoriaze tomebi ian da huang gamoCndnen. am ori tomis gamo Cinelebs ian-huangis STamomavlebs uwodeben. ianis tomis xalxis gvaria iang (姜). vinaidan Cinuri ieroglifuri enaa, sityva iang (姜) gamoiTqmeba msgavsad sityvisa qiang (羌). qiangs xSirad ganixlaven centraluri dablobis momTabare tomad, romelsac 100-ze meti Sto hqonda. es arqauli tomi CineTis mravalferovan erTa winaprad iTvleba, magaliTad iseTis, rogoricaa hanis, tibetis, naqsisa da kidev sxva 20 eri. amrigad, CineTis akademiur wreebSi samarTlianad miiCneven qiangis xalxs CineTis deda-erad. statistikis Tanaxmad, 2005 wels qiangis mosaxleoba Seadgenda 326500 suls, magram mosaxleobis TiTqmis 10% 2008 wlis 12 maisis katastroful miwisZvras Seewira. qiangis xalxis istoria ramdenime migracias moicavs, romelic qiangis dasavleTidan aRmosavleTiT gadaadgilebis saxeliTaa cnobili. migracia sxva mimarTulebebiTac xdeboda. magaliTad, arsebobda tomi saxelad tuiue (Turq., Tujue), romelic qiangis (an qiangis erT-erTi Stos) teritoriaze cxovrobda. zogierTi istorikosi fiqrobs, rom tuiue dasavleTis mimarTulebiT gadaadgilda da kavkasiis mTebis gadaRma, Sav zRvas, dRevandel TurqeTs miaRwia. istorikosebi aseve Tvlian, rom tuiue, Turqi da TurqeTi lingvisturad axlosaa erTmaneTTan. dResdReobiT, qiangis xalxi ZiriTadad aba-tibetsa da qiangis avtonomiuri prefeqturis teritoriaze, siCuanis provinciasa da mian iang qiangis sxva avtonomiebSi cxovrobs. geografiulad es regioni warmoadgens kunlunis mTagrexilis dasawyiss da baian haris mTagrexilis bolo nawils. 2. qiangis Tanamedrove kultura qiangis xangrZlivi arsebobis manZilze damwerlobis sistemis Seqmna ver moxerxda. amdenad, misi istoriis Seswavla mecnierTaTvis erTgvar gamowvevas warmoadgens. qiangis xalxi cxovrobs mTebSi, zRvis donidan daaxlovebiT 2000 metris simaRleze. nagebobaTa jgufi, saxlebi, e.w. blokhauzebiLaraorganizebuladaa aSenebuli da mTis ferdobis umaRles wertilTan mdebareobs. maT konusuri forma aqvT da kldis masaliTaa naSenebi. SigniT es saxlebi bnelia da patara fanjrebi aqvT. pirveli sarTuli warmoadgens muSa cxovelebis sadgoms. adamianebi meore sarTulze cxovroben, sadac cecxlis keraa gakeTebuli. mis qveS pirvel sarTulze Rumelia ganTavsebuli, xolo bolo sarTuli sakuWnaodaa mowyobili. saxlebis cicabo kldeebze aSeneba TavdacviTi strategiis nawili iyo. qiangis zepirsityviereba, iseve, rogorc misi warmodgenebi moralur standartebze da mTeli kulturuli memkvidreoba, simRerebSia Semonaxuli. amgvarad, qiangis simRerebi ara mxolod garTobis, aramed tradiciebis gavrcelebis saSualebacaa. sasimRero sutrebi (literaturuli kompoziciebi) Zalian mdidar masalas iZleva kulturis SeswavlisaTvis. qiangis religiuri warmodgenebi bunebis Tayvaniscemas ukavSirdeba. isini religiur ritualebs simReris TanxlebiT asruleben. 3. qiangis musika a) musikaluri instrumentebi qiangis instrumentuli musika Zalian martivia. maT mxolod ramdenime instru- qiangis polifoniuri tradicia CineTidan 189 menti aqvT: qiangis fleita, tuCis harmonikebi da suonas sayviri. zogadad, instrumentebs sakmaod iSviaTad mimarTaven. qiangis fleita mzaddeboda cxovelis mxris Zvlisagan, Tumca, mogvianebiT, es masala bambukma Secvala. fleitas aqvs 5 erTmaneTTan mWidrod ganlagebuli naxvreti. es instrumenti ufro mwyemssa da mis faras Soris komunikaciis formas warmoadgens, romelic Zalian hgavs stvenas, Tumca, iyeneben, aseve, cudi gunebis gamosakeTeblad. dReisaTvis, qiangis fleita ise ganviTarda, rom instrumentis axali tipi warmoqmna, kerZod ki _ ori erTmaneTTan SeerTebuli bambuki mravali naxvretiT. am instruments stviris JReradoba aqvs. dasartyami instrumentebidan aRsaniSnavia cxvris tyavis tradiciuli doli, romelsac ritmuli funqcia aqvs da ZiriTadad ritualebisaTvis gamoiyeneba. b) simRera qiangis musikalur tradiciebs yvelaze kargad vokaluri musika, simRera ganasaxierebs. simReris pirveladi tipebi monofonuria. arsebobs monofoniuri simReris Semdegi Janrebi: b. 1. sasiyvarulo simRerebi - SeiZleba daiyos saxotbo (Tayvaniscemis, sadidebeli), saarSiyo, erTgulebis, ltolvis, ficis da a. S. simRerebad. simboluri gamoTqmebi da regularuli paralelizmebi sasiyvarulo simRerebis maxasiaTeblebia. yoveli striqoni gariTmuli sufiqsiT mTavrdeba. b. 2. simRera-sadRegrZeloebi - arsebobs qiangis specifikuri tradiciuli simRerebi, romlebic Cveulebriv, qorwilebSi, dabadebis dReebsa an tradiciul festivalebze alkoholis smis dros sruldeba.Aam simRerebis ritmuli mxare aramkafioa da axasiaTebs viwro diapazonis melodiuri xazi. b. 3. XX saukunis meore naxevarSi Seqmnili axali simRerebi - axali simRerebidan aRsaniSnavia xalxuri baladebi, Sromisa da samgloviaro simRerebi. maTi melodia tradiciulia, mxolod teqstia SedarebiT axali. g) qiangis tradiciuli polifoniuri musika aTas welze meti istoriis mqone polifoniuri simRerebi mxolod ramdenime tomSi gvxvdeba. es aris mTebSi ukiduresad izolirebuli tomebi. simRera mihyavs wamyvan xmas da yvela xmas Tavisi fiqsirebuli partia aqvs. g. 1. fundamenturi debulebani aRniSnuli tomebis warmomadgenlebi gansxvavebuli Janrebis polifoniur musikas uZvelesi, tradiciuli saxiT asruleben. Cinuri musikis evoluciis gaTvaliswinebiT, praqtikulad SeuZlebelia, rom aseTi rTuli formebi amgvar udabur adgilebSi gaCeniliyo. Sesabamisad, Cndeba kiTxva: aris Tu ara SesaZlebeli, rom es simRerebi qinisa da hanis dinastiebis karis musikidan gavrcelebuliyo? Tu es asea, maSin Cven Cinuri klasikuri musikis Tavdapirveli suraTis aRdgenis saSualeba gvaqvs. Cvens aRweraSi tibeturi musikac monawileobs, vinaidan orive _ qiangisa da tibetis tomebi erTsa da imave regionSi cxovroben da msgavsi polifoniuri formebi axasiaTebT. magram, metad mosaxerxebeli rom iyos, winamdebare statiaSi es movlena naxsenebi iqneba, rogorc Kqiangis polifoniuri musika. melodiisa da teqstis dasrulebuli saxe CvenTvis ucnobia, radgan isini Seqmnilia ara profesionali an Tanamedrove adgilobrivi musikosebis mier, aramed wina 190 su vei, uang qi Taobam moitana Cvenamde, isic xSirad teqstis gareSe. Sesabamisad, gasaTvaliswinebelia, rogor Caisaxa es fenomeni, ra kulturulsa da sayofacxovrebo garemoSi cxovrobda qiangis eri. g. 2. sasimRero stilebi aq aris ori mTavari sasimRero stili: iani da nisa. iani aris mamakacebis stili, romelsac alkoholis smis dros mimarTaven. Crdilo Cinur enaSi ianis warmoTqma inis (niSnavs sasmels) msgavsia; iani qiangis enazec sasmelsLaRniSnavs. qiangis tomebSi, iani aSkarad smis dros imRereboda da swored es aniWebs am sityvas magiur Zalas. es simRerebi metad nazi da sentimentaluria, gamoirCeva Zlieri emociebiT, gvaxsenebs istoriasa da winaprebs. meore stilia nisa da mas qalebi warmoadgenen. es simRerebi gvacnobs qiangis istoriasa da tradiciebs, gvixatavs bunebis suraTebs. isini sakmaod mkveTrad gansxvavdeba mamakacebis simRerebisagan Tavisi mSvidi, kargad awyobili da mowesrigebuli formebiT. nisa adidebs dedamiwis Seqmnas, winaprebis diad miRwevebs, bunebis mravalferovnebas, mogviTxrobs mwyemsebis Tavgadasavlebs. iTvleba, rom nisa Seicavs simReris 100-ze met saxeobas, qiangis zepiri eposis msgavsad. moviyvan erT magaliTs: ramdeni burji aqvs dedamiwas? dedamiwas aqvs oTxi burji. ra qvia pirvels? mTa ing vangi nan pingSi. ra qvia meores? mTa emei siCuanSi. ra qvia mesames? mTa Cui iang iouSi. ra qvia meoTxes? mTa putuo Sen kangSi. aRsaniSnavia, rom teqstSi naxsenebi geografiuli adgilebi dakavSirebulia im regionebTan, sadac Semsrulebeli cxovrobda. ��������������������������������������� Aamrigad, es simRera Seicavs metad sayuradRebo istoriul da geografiuli informacias. TxrobiT simRerebSi, yvela strofs leqsis Taviseburi forma aqvs. gundis partiaSi sityvebi ar aris da misi teqsti mxolod uSinaarso marcvlebzea agebuli. am simRerebis ritmi metad mkafioa da samxedro marSic ki SeiZleba mogvagonos, xolo maTi kargad dabalansebuli musikaluri struqtura Zalian iSviaTad gvxvdeba CineTis sxva tomebis CvenTvis cnobil xalxur simRerebSi. simReris tradiciuli manera Semdegnairia: zogadad, simRerac da metyvelebac warmoadgens 2 Semsruleblis TanamSromlobas, romelTac gansxvavebuli partiebi aqvT. am partiebis monacvleoba Zalian bunebrivia, rasac simReris melodiuri struqtura uwyobs xels. simReris hangi da teqsti, songis dinastiis (CineTis mmarTveli dinastia 960-1279 wlebSi) prozisaTvis damaxasiaTebel, damrigeblur xasiaTs atarebs. es simRerebi msgavsebas avlens cipais (uZvelesi Cinuri poeturi forma) poetur formasa da metrikasTanac. II. sxva erovnuli polifoniuri stilebi 1. nais polifoniuri musika tibetel tomebs, romlebic qiangis soflebTan uSualo siaxloveSi cxovroben, aseve aqvT polifoniuri simRerebi, romlebsac nai ewodebaT. es aris Rvinis smis dros Sesasrulebeli simRerebi. Sesrulebis manera xandaxan Sejibris xasiaTs at- qiangis polifoniuri tradicia CineTidan 191 arebs, vinaidan musikalur partiaSi an teqstSi Secdomis daSvebis gamo monawiles SeiZleba dascinon an dasajon kidec. saukeTesod aRiareben im momRerals, romelic Secdomebs arasodes uSvebs da mas liderad (`mefed~) airCeven xolme. nai warmoadgens yovelgvari SemTxveviTobisagan dazRveuli normatiuli teqstebis gamarTul sistemas, romelic Taobidan Taobas zepirad gadaecemoda. naim Tavisi ganviTareba odesRac daasrula da miiRo CvenTvis dRes cnobili srulyofili forma. Sesabamisad, dRes am sasimRero formis ganviTarebis gzas verc erTi tomi ver mohfens naTels. simReris wesi aseTia: erTi momRerali (wamyvani) iwyebs maRal xmas, xolo danarCenebi mas gundurad yvebian, meore variantSi 2 momRerali antifonurad asrulebs simReras. 2. aremais polifoniuri musika aremais xalxi qiangis tomebidan mxolod 30 kilometris daSorebiT cxovrobs da oficialurad tibets miekuTvneba, Tumca, saxezea uamravi msgavseba qiangis kulturasTan da, SesaZloa, aremais kultura qiangis uZveles kulturas yvelaze srulyofili saxiT warmoadgendes. mamakacTa repertuaris araCveulebrivad amaRelvebel simReras nama ewodeba. am simReris uxeS ritmSi Casmuli erTgvarad veluri stili pirveli mosmeniT `moCvenebis kivils~Lmogvagonebs. aremais qalTa simRera gansakuTrebiT sainteresoa, vinaidan am simRerebis partiebi mraval mkveTr bgeras Seicavs. sasimRero manera Zalian xmamaRali da mZlavria, xolo simRerebs, xSirad, poeturi teqsti axlavs Tan. qalTa ansamblma remam, popularoba mSobliuri aremais xalxis tradiciuli simRerebis SesrulebiTa da CineTis axalgazrduli simReris festivalSi gamarjvebiT moipova. III. qiangis polifoniuri folkloruli simRerebis dacva statiis meore nawilSi minda ganvixilo qiangis polifoniuri simRerebis dacvasTan dakavSirebuli Tanamedrove situacia. 1. qiangis xalxuri polifoniuri simRerebis Tanamedrove mdgomareoba qiangis xalxur polifoniur simRerebTan dakavSirebuli dRevandeli realoba problemuria. mas mere, rac es simRerebi erovnuli mniSvnelobis saganZurad gamocxadda, soflis momRerlebs sul ufro xSirad iwveven Sou biznesSi. TavisTavad, es faqti safrTxes uqmis bunebriv (avTentur) wes-Cveulebebs, momavalSi komerciul SouebSi monawileoba am momRerlebisTvis, SesaZloa, ZiriTad mimarTulebadac iqces. Tanamedrove civilizaciis ganviTareba tradiciuli kulturebis swraf saxecvlas uwyobs xels. amitom, gvinda ganvixiloT, Tu rogor xvdebian tradiciuli sazogadoebebi gare samyaros cvlilebebs. 1. a. dacva-Senaxvis bunebrivi garemo folkloruli simRerebis dacva-Senaxvis bunebriv garemos maTi bunebrivi sasicocxlo garemo warmoadgens. kultura sagrZnobladaa damokidebuli arsebobis garemoze, rogoricaa simaRle zRvis donidan, ekonomikis mdgomareoba da sxva mravali faqtori, xalxuri simReris tradiciis matareblis statusis CaTvliT. tomur dasaxlebebsa da gare samyaros Soris urTierTobis intensivoba izrdeba. maT uxdebaT, Seeguon emigracias da mis Sedegebs. axalgazrdebi soflis meurneobis saqmianobisa- 192 su vei, uang qi gan Tavisufal sezonebSi droebiT samuSaos etanebian da toveben mSobliur regions, xolo mozardebi, cdiloben ukeTesi ganaTlebis miRebasa da qalaqebSi gadasaxlebas. yvelaferi es xels uwyobs tradiciuli garemos saxecvlas, romelic ukve gaqrobis gzazea. mecnierebis winsvla da ekonomikuri procesebis daCqareba ganapirobebs Cinuri sazogadoebis uswrafes ganviTarebas. tradiciuli garemo Tvalis daxamxamebaSi icvleba internetis, avtobanebisa da uzarmazari turistuli nakadebis mier. Sesabamisad, icvleba tibetelebisa da qiangis xalxis soflebis yofac da, bunebrivia, sasimRero tradiciebic. Aam xalxebis soflebi mTis wverze mdebareobda. TandaTanobiT, rodesac tomTa Soris konfliqtebis saSiSroeba gaqra, soflis macxovrebelTa nawili mTis ZirSi gadasaxlda. mimdinare socialuri procesebi fizikuri da socialuri distanciebis Semcirebas da, amdenad, homogenizacias emsaxureba. 1. b. xalxuri simRerebis wamyvani momRerali da tomis sxva momRerlebi xalxuri simRerebis ramdenime wamyvani momRerali mSobliur sofelSi darCa, magram maTi raodenobis Semcirebisa da gaqrobis saSiSroeba mainc arsebobs. zogierTi maTgani gardaicvala. magaliTad nisas Semsrulebeli da wamyvani momRerali qali, romelic sofel aiqsiSi cxovrobda, 100 wlis asakSi gardaicvala. mis adgils veravin ikavebs. qiangis sufruli simRerebis wamyvani momRerali 70-ze meti wlisaa, misi TanamomRerali ramdenime wlis win gardaicvala da misi adgili Svilma daikava. amdenad, mama-Svilma qiangis ,,sadRegrZeloebis mefis~Lwodeba erTad daimsaxura. nai-s _ tibetis wiTel miwaze erT-erTi tomis kidev erTi momRerali qali ukve 90 wlisaa. meore mxriv, tibetis aremais xalxis sasimRero tradicia kvlavac Zlieria. misi wamyvani momRerali SedarebiT axalgazrda qalbatonia, romelsac SesaniSnavi xma da musikaluri niWi aqvs. soflis datovebis Sedegad axalgazrdebi kargaven TavianTi sasimRero tradicias da maTi interesi Tanamedrove popularul musikaze gadadis. tradiciebis SenarCunebisa da mxardaWerisaTvis, kargi iqneboda, Tu Teatraluri speqtaklebisa da Souebis organizatorebi TavianTi musikaluri programebis repertuarSi eTnikur simRerebsa da cekvebs CarTavdnen. polifoniuri simRerebis koncertebma SeiZleba meti stiluri mravalferovneba Semoitanos da, aseve, saxsrebis mozidvasa da momReralTa prestiJis zrdas Seuwyos xeli. magaliTad, bolo wlebSi qiangis xalxuri simRerebis saukeTeso momRerlis ojaxis wevrebi ramdenime gadaRebaze miiwvies, ramac, rasakvirvelia, maTi materialuri mdgomareoba mniSvnelovanwilad gaaumjobesa. folkloruli polifoniuri simRerebis Souebi maTi arsebobis gaxangrZlivebas Seuwyobda xels. tradiciuli momRerlebis Semcvlelebi ar Canan, amitom, SesaZloa, mogvianebiT am polifoniuri simRerebis SeswavliT dainteresebuli pirebis erTaderTi resursi arqeologiuri nimuSebi da istoriuli wyaroebi gaxdes... 1. g. mxardaWeris sazomi polifoniuri tradiciis mxardaWeris gzebis povna advili ar aris. amgvari kulturuli memkvidreobis flobis pirobebSi, adgilobrivi mmarTvelobis yvela done unda iyos CarTuli misi aRiarebis, popularizaciisa da mxardaWeris qiangis polifoniuri tradicia CineTidan 193 saqmeSi; polifoniuri simRera miCneuli unda iyos kulturis umniSvnelovanes elementad. siCuanis provinciis mmarTvelobam didi finanasebi gaiRo tebetelebisa da qiangis xalxis sacxovrebeli pirobebis gasaumjobeseblad. amave dros, mTavrobam Caatara mTeli rigi kulturuli RonisZiebebisa 2008 wlis miwisZvriT dazaralebuli tradiciuli eTnikuri Zeglebis aRsadgenad. 1980 wels siCuanis provinciam moiwvia istorikosebi da lingvistebi da fonetikaze dayrdnobiT wamoiwyo qiangis erTiani enisa da damwerlobis sistemis Seqmnis proeqti. am sakiTxze dResac muSaoben, Tumca kulturis mxolod akademiuri mecnierebebis meSveobiT Seswavla sakmarisi ar aris. 2. qiangis folkloruli polifoniuri simRerebis dacvis meqanizmebi qiangis xalxuri polifoniuri simRerebis umravlesoba tomis yoveldRiuri cxovrebis nawili iyo; Cveni azriT, unda Seicvalos am simRerebis dacvis meTodebi, vinaidan isini biznes SouebSi sul ufro metad gamoiyeneba. 2. a. polifoniuri tradiciis gacocxlebis sxvadasxva strategia arsebobs ramdenime strategia, romelic qiangis polifoniis tradiciis gadarCenas Seuwyobda xels: • ukanasknel ocdaaT weliwadSi, rac xalxuri polifoniuri simRerebia aRmoCenili, CvenTvis cnobil tomTa umetesobis simRerebi Segrovebuli iyo gareSe piris, musikosis b-ni uang jinquanis mier (qiangisa da aremais tibeturi polifonia aseve Cawerili, Seswavlili da gamocemulia wignis saxiT _ `polifonia CineTis erovnuli umciresobebis musikaSi~). man Seagrova qiangis aTasze meti sxvadasxva formis simRera da qiangis tomis axalgazrdebs Seaswavla. igi cdilobda am tradiciis gacocxlebas. swored ase SeiZleba tradiciuli kulturis cocxlad Senaxva da ganviTareba. • meore strategia gulisxmobs axlandeli wamyvani momRerlebis (saukeTeso eqspertebis) mier namReri simRerebis Caweras, raTa momavalSi adamianebs am audio da video masalebis gacnobis saSualeba hqondeT. • Semdegi strategia ukavSirdeba qiangis xalxis mimdinare migracias. 2008 wlis miwisZvris Semdgom, rodesac venCuani praqtikulad ganadgurebuli iyo, qiangis tomis aTasze meti kaci daaxloebiT 200 kilometris moSorebiT gadasaxlda. maT iq saxlebi aaSenes da, turizmis ganviTarebis miuxedavad, gaagrZeles arseboba, rogorc avTenturi kulturis matarebelma Temma. maTi musikaluri tradiciebi, SesaZloa, turistuli Sous mniSvnelovan nawilad iqces da originaluri xasiaTi dakargos, magram es procesebi isedac mimdinareobs, xolo am musikis Sereva sxva formebTan, SesaZloa, tomis tradiciis gacocxlebis kidev erTi gza iyos. 3. tradiciuli polifoniis, rogorc Rirebulebis damkvidreba aramaterialuri kulturuli memekvidreobis dacvis farglebSi UNESCO-m kulturuli tradiciebis Sefasebis sistema SemoiRo. aman, SesaZloa, CineTis polifoniuri tradiciis dacvasac Seuwyos xeli. tibetisa da qiangis tradiciuli polifoniuri simRerebis gamocema metad mniSvnelovani iniciativaa. gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelovania igi istoriuli, kulturuli da profesiuli SefasebisTvis. am tradiciebis xelmisawvdomoba gacilebiT met adamians daainteresebs. 194 su vei, uang qi 4. kulturis fondebis daarseba Zveli Cinuri sibrZne gvauwyebs, rom fuliT yvelafers ver miiReb, magram ufulod verafers gaakeTeb. finansuri mxardaWera yvela iniciativisTvis metad mniSvnelovania. arsebobs siCuanis provinciaSi kulturis fondis daarsebis idea, rac am regionis folkloruli polifoniuri simRerebis mxardaWeras realobad aqcevs. 5. akademiuri CarCoebis gafarToebis sistemis SemoReba mxolod musikosebis mier polifoniuri tradiciis Seswavla sakmarisi araa, iseve, rogorc mxolod istorikosebis an mxolod sociologebis mier. samwuxarod, mecnierTa umravlesobas urCevnia mxolod Tavisi sferos farglebSi darCena, kooperaciis xarisxi Zalian mcirea, an saerTod ar aris. yovelive es ki ganapirobebs imas, rom maT problemis mTliani xedva ar aqvT. saWiroa gardatexa, risTvisac vinmem mravalsferovan Seswavlaze unda aiRos pasuxismgebloba da ideaTa gacvla saerTaSoriso doneze aiyvanos. 6. aramaterialuri kulturuli memkvidreobis dacvisaTvis ukeTesi garemos Seqmna miuxedavad Cveni mcdelobisa, polifoniis gaqrobis processa da masTan dakavSirebul cvlilebebs Cven sabolood ver SevaCerebT. saerTo ZalisxmeviT SeiZleba movipovoT UNESCO-s mxardaWera tradiciuli polifoniuri folkloruli musikis globaluri SegrovebisaTvis. Aamgvari koleqcia metad mniSvnelovan Sedegs gamoiRebda da saerTaSoriso polifoniis atlasisa da am tradiciis cocxlad SenaxvaSi dagvexmareboda. uZvelesi polifoniuri folkloruli simRerebis codnam, SesaZloa, is istoriuli sazomi mogvces, rac musikaluri ganviTarebis problemisa da Tanamedrove musikis ganviTarebis arsis gagebaSi dagvexmareba. CineTSi yovel eTnikur jgufs Tavisi sakuTari tradicia gaaCnia, maT Soris, musikaluri tradiciac. Cinuri klasikuri musikis istoria metad xangZliv periods moicavs, vinaidan igi sxvadasxva eTnikuri jgufis mravalferovani musikaluri formebidan iRebs saTaves. rom ara es bazisi, Zneli warmodgenia, rogori iqneboda dRevandeloba. daskvnis saxiT ki vityodi, rom qiangis xalxis, iseve rogorc maTi mezoblebis, aba tibetelebisa da aremais xalxis polifoniuri tradiciebi udides esTetikur da samecniero Rirebulebas warmoadgens, magram mkvlevarTa umravlesobisTvis isini ucnobia. wignSi `polifonia CineTis umciresobaTa musikaSi~ (Zhong Guo Dio Sheng Bu da Min Ge Gailun) mocemulia garkveuli informacia am tradiciebis Sesaxeb. Cven aseve gamoveciT wigni qiangisa da mezobeli tomebis polifoniuri tradiciebis Sesaxeb, magram orive es wigni mxolod Cinur enazea. vimedovnebT, rom momavalSi Cveni dasavleli kolegebi mets gaigeben Cinur umciresobaTa tradiciul vokalur polifoniaSi daculi saganZuris Sesaxeb. Targmna irina fircxalavam 195 SU WEI & WANG QI (CHINA) THE QIANG’S TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY FROM CHINA In our paper we will introduce Qiang’s traditional polyphony music from China. We will also mention Aba Tibetan and Almai (or Aremai) Tibetan groups which live very close to the Qiang peoples. The following topics will be discussed: I. Brief description of the Qiang people The history of migration; Modern culture of the Qiang; the Qiang music II. Qiang traditional polyphonic music Basic information; types of songs; singers and the transmission; characteristics of the distribution; hypothesis of its origin III. Protection for the Polyphonic Folk Songs of the Qiang Current situation; natural environment for the preservation; support measures, different strategies for the revival of polyphonic tradition, etc. I. Brief description of the Qiang people The Qiang people, one of the 55 minorities in China, mainly live in the plateau and mountains of Sichuan province in Southwest China. Their population is about 200,000. They have a long history of migration, and they have been passing their history and culture orally, without written tradition. They still have the ancient religious beliefs, independent of major world religions. 1. The history of migration Information about the Qiang history is provided in the early documents of Chinese civilization, about 3000 years ago. The word Qiang first appeared in the early writing system, the so-called “oracle bone inscriptions”. In the long process of national unification of China the Qiang people greatly contributed to the development of China. This opinion is shared by many Chinese historians. In western part of China there is a great mountain range, known as the Kunlun Mountains. This range is the Northern border of the Tibetan plateau, known as the “roof of the world”. It is as famous as Yellow River (Huang He). The same way as the Yellow River, the Kunlun Mountains stretch halfway across China from West to East. So it became a bridge transporting the cultural traditions from the West to the East during the thousands of the years. Chinese people deeply revere Kunlun Mountain range as the cradle of Chinese culture. Around 3000 BC, Yan and Huang tribes emerged in the region of the Kunlun Mountain range and Yellow River. Due to these two tribes, the Chinese are called “the descendant of Yan-Huang”. The family name of people in Yan tribe is Jiang (姜). As Chinese is hieroglyphic language this word - Jiang (姜) shares the same pronunciation of Qiang (羌) and the two words are derived from the same word. Qiang was often referred to Western nomadic people in central plain tribes and had more than 100 branches. The Han nationality, Tibetan nationality, the Naxi nationality, the Yi nationality and the other 20 nationalities have originated in this archaic nationality, so in the academic circles the 196 Su Wei & Wang Qi Qiang people are often considered as the mother nationality of China. According to the 2005 statistics the Qiang population was about 326500, but almost 10% of the population was killed by the catastrophic earthquake on 12 May, 2008. The Qiang experienced several migrations known as eastward movement of Western Qiang people. Migrations took place towards other directions as well. For instance, there was a nationality called Tujue (Turk) who lived in that area, belonging to the Qiang (or a branch of the Qiang). Some historians have proposed that Tujue (Turk) moved toward west, climbed over the Caucasus Mountains and reached contemporary Turkey on the Black Sea coast. Historians also suppose that the pronunciations of Tujue, Turk and Turkey are linguistically close. Today the Qiang people mostly live in Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province and other Mian yang Qiang Autonomous County. Geographically speaking, this region is the beginning of Kunlun mountain range and the end of Bayan Har Mountain range. 2. Modern culture of the Qiang In order to obtain more territories, the Qiang people had many wars with the neighbors. Due to this, no writing system was formed during the long history of the Qiang. That makes the study of the Qiang history particularly challenging for scholars. The Qiang people live in the mountains about 2000 meters above sea level. A group of buildings, known as “blockhouses” stand randomly close to the top of the mountain slopes. Those cone-shaped blockhouses are built from rock materials. It is dark inside of the houses as windows are small. The ground floor is for draught animals. People sit around the fireplace which has a stove under it on the first floor, and the top floor is a store room. Building the house on precipitous cliffs has the function of defense. In the past centuries, the blockhouse frustrated enemies, as their attack was always going steep uphill. Oral literature of the Qiang was mostly maintained by singing. The moral standard and the cultural heritage are also maintained by singing. Therefore the Qiang spoken language undertakes heavier responsibility than other nationalities who have written language; the Qiang singing is not for entertainment only, it is also an important means for spreading their traditional culture. Ordinarily, chanting sutras (literary compositions) is good to transmit and learn culture but the Qiang religious belief is connected to worshiping the nature. They do not go to temple, instead they fulfill their religious rituals by singing. 3. The Qiang music a) Musical instruments The Qiang instrumental music is very simple. There are only few instruments: Qiang flute, jaw harps and suona horn. Generally, instruments are rarely used. Qiang flute used to be made of animal’s humerus but now they are made of bamboo; there are five finger holes on the flute with narrow range. It’s rather a whistle for communication of a Shepherd with his herd, and it can also disperse gloomy mood. Now the Qiang flute has developed into a new type of instrument of two bamboo rows with many finger holes, and the instrument sounds like a bagpipe. Of percussions, the traditional sheepskin drum provides rhythm, and it is mostly used for rituals. Therefore vocal music - singing is the primary way to embody the Qiang musical traditions. b) Singing The first singing type is monophonic. Monophonic songs are of the following genres: The Qiang’s Traditional Polyphony from China 197 b. 1. Love songs Love songs could be divided into: praising songs, wooing songs, commitment songs, longing songs, vowing song, etc. Symbolic speech and regular parallelism are characteristic of love songs, each line ending with rhyming suffix . b. 2. Toasting songs These are the Qiang specific traditional songs usually performed at the wedding or birthday party or traditional festivals while drinking. The rhythms of toasting songs are often smooth with the narrow range of the melody. b. 3. New songs which appeared in the second half of the 20th century New songs are work songs, folk ballads and funeral songs. It should be noted that the melodies of these songs are traditional, but the lyrics are relatively new. c) Traditional polyphonic music of the Qiang Polyphonic songs with the history of over one thousand years only survives in very few tribes extremely isolated in the mountains. The song is always lead by lead singer, and each singer has his own fixed part. We must also note that polyphonic singing is no more widespread among the Qiang tribes. c. 1. Fundamental state People naturally perform polyphonic music of different genres in their traditional ancient ways. In accordance with the evolutionary order of Chinese music, those advanced musical traditions are barely possible to appear in the wild so here is an interesting question: whether those songs spread from court music in Qin and Han dynasties. If so, we have a chance to get the picture of the primordial form of the Chinese Classical Music. Though there are many cultural legacies particular attention should be paid to polyphonic singing which is a living culture with thousand-year traditions. It is important to know that our description also involves Tibetan music, as both the Qiang and Tibetan tribes live in the same area and have similar polyphony. But for the sake of convenience we will only refer to it as “Qiang polyphonic music”. The completeness of tune and lyric are beyond our understanding for it is not created by professional musicians or modern local musicians but passed down by the previous generations, and also the songs are often without words. That’s why we have to consider how this phenomenon took place and the cultural and living environment of the Qiang nationality. That’s why we have to know cultural characteristics before knowing the nation. c. 2. Singing styles There are two main styles: Yan and Nisa Yan is the style for man when they drink. In Chinese mandarin, the pronunciation of Yan is similar to Yin (means drink) and Yan means just “drink” in Qiang language. In Qiang tribes, people certainly sing Yan when they drink so this word is endowed sacred feeling. These songs are soft and sentimental with intense emotions which recall the history and remember the ancestors. Another style is Nisa, and this singing style is presented by women. Those songs mainly tell the history of the Qiang and the lyrics depict natural scenery and the traditions. It is quite different from men’s song in its dispassionate, well edited and arranged form. Nisa praises the origin of the earth, great achievements of ancestors, distinction of herbs, experience of shepherds. It is estimated that Nisa contains more than 100 sorts just like the oral epic of the Qiang. Here is one example: 198 Su Wei & Wang Qi How many pillars are there in the world? There are four pillars in the world. What’s the name of the first one? Mount Jing Wang in Nan Ping. What’s the name of the second one? Mount Emei in Sichuan. What’s the name of the third one? Mount Chui in Jiang Yu. What’s the name of the fourth one? Mount Putuo in Shen Kang. It’s noting that the names of the places mentioned in these lyrics are always connected to the places where singers live, so the songs contain plenty of historical and geographical information. As narrative songs, each stanza has its own verse or chorus and there are no lyrics for the chorus, only nonsense syllables. The rhythm of those songs is usually quite strong and they remind military marches. The well-balanced musical structure of these songs is very rarely known in Chinese folk songs from other regions. The traditional manner of singing: generally speaking, singing is the collaboration of two singers, who sing different parts. Alternation of these two parts is very natural thanks to the melodic structure of the songs. Well, the lyrics and tune are strictly prescriptive like the Prose of Song Dynasty (ruling dynasty in China between 960 and 1279), poetic form and metrics of Cipai (ancient Chinese poetic form). II. Other national styles of polyphony 1. Polyphonic music of Nayi Tibetan tribes which live very close to the villages of the Qiang peoples, also have polyphonic songs, called Nayi. These are drinking songs and are performed by the people who sit around drinking wine. The way of singing is sometimes competitive as a singer can be mocked or punished if a singer made mistakes in singing his part or made mistakes in lyrics. The best singer who never makes mistakes will be elected as the leader (“king”) singer. Nayi shows a whole set of normative lyrics without any impromptu singing, apparently passed down from ancestors by oral tradition. That is to say, Nayi was once developed into its current perfect form and then its pattern was traditionally preserved, so today no one in the tribes knows the process of the development of this singing form. The singing follows the rule: one singer (the lead singer) starts in high part and then others join in a chorus, or, alternatively, two singers perform a song in antiphon. 2. The polyphonic music of Aremai Aremai people, who live about 30 kilometers from the Qiang tribes, officially belong to Tibet but have much similar with the Qiang culture, and possibly Aremai people’s culture is the best representative of the ancient Qiang culture. The thrilling polyphonic singing of men is called Nama which is wild with drastic rhythm just like “ghost crying” at first listening. Women’s singing among Aremai people is particularly interesting, as it has plenty of sharp sounds between the parts. The singing manner is very powerful and loud, and the songs often have no poetic words. The female ensemble Rema, representing their native traditional songs of the Aremai people, became very famous after being the winners of the youth singing festival in China. III. Protection of the Polyphonic Folk Songs of the Qiang In the second part of our paper dedicated to the Qiang I would like to discuss the problems of current situation and protection of their polyphonic songs. The Qiang’s Traditional Polyphony from China 199 1. Current Situation of the Polyphonic Folk Songs of the Qiang Current Situation of the Polyphonic Folk Songs of the Qiang raises many academic concerns. Several years after coming to national prominence, the village singers are more and more frequently invited to join show business. This creates threat to the natural tranquil custom of the singers of the polyphonic folk songs, but they still accept this reality within a short period. In the future, going to business shows may become a trend for these singers. The development of modern civilization rapidly changes traditional culture. To understand this effect, we must review how traditional societies face continuous changes of the environment. 1. a. Natural Environment for the Preservation The best environment for the preservation of polyphonic folk songs is a natural state of life. Culture depends on the conditions of living environment, including the height above sea level, the way of their economics and many other factors, including the status of folk song tradition bearers. Interactions between the tribal village and the outer world are increasing. The socalled “tribal people” have to face the effect caused by the migrations of the past few years. Young people take part-time jobs outside the region in the season when they are free from agriculture works, and teenagers seek for the opportunities of better education in the cities. All of these factors change the traditional way of life which is gradually disappearing. Thanks to the acceleration of science and economy, the Chinese society is experiencing tremendous development. The long-lasting traditional environment is rapidly changing by the Internet, highways and booming tourism, so the villages where the Tibetan and Qiang polyphonic folk songs are sheltered are also changing. In these villages, people usually lived on the top of the mountains, and regardless of the sunrise or sunset, the first and the last rays of the sun would always be drawn by the villagers. Gradually, as the threat of military inter-tribal conflicts disappeared, some villagers moved to the foot of the mountain. The object of the ongoing social processes is to cut physical and social distances, therefore, the homogenization is inevitable. 1.b. Leader of Folk Songs and Folk Singers in the Tribe Some of the senior leaders of folk songs stayed in the original villages, but this cannot help the aging and disappearance of traditions bearers. Some of them have died, for example, the Nisa, female leader of folk songs who lived in Aixi Village died at the age of 100, and there was not another Nisa singer to fill the gap. The leader of Qiang Table Songs is in his seventies now, his partner died several years ago, and his own son became his new partner, so the father and the son wan the title of “The King of the Qiang Toast Songs”. The Nayi, another female leader of folk songs in Red Soil Tibetan Village still sings every day although she is 90 years old now. On the other hand, singing traditions of the Aremai Tibetan people is still very strong, and every single group of singers could possibly win a prize if they attend a singing competition outside the region. The leader of folk songs in the Aremai tribe is a relatively young woman. The leaders of folk songs must have both splendid voice and musical talent. Young folk singers may lose their singing traditions after they leave their villages, and get interested in modern pop music. To help maintain the tradition, city theaters or the organizers of popular spots could include ethnic songs and dances in their musical programs. Traditional music is very seldom heard in the cit- 200 Su Wei & Wang Qi ies. Organizing polyphonic folk songs may bring more variety of styles to the organizers, and can generate some income and prestige to the singers. The successful singer would be invited to concerts, become participant of a movie or a TV production, may become a star of advertisement business. For example, in recent years, the family members of best folk songs of the Qiang had been invited as actors to different places, and of course, their income has improved. We think that the shows of polyphonic folk songs of the Qiang may keep them going for a certain period, but the state of the appearance of new leaders and experts of traditional polyphonic song is worsening. Possibly some time later those who will be interested to study these polyphonic songs, will have to study polyphonic folk songs of the Qiang only through archaeological excavations and historical sources... 1. c. The Support Measures It is not easy to think of practical ways to support polyphonic traditions. First of all, it is a miracle that polyphonic folk songs still exist today. To deal with such a cultural heritage, the local government of all levels had to take measures to recognize, publicize and support polyphonic singing as an important element of culture. Sichuan Provincial government had put a lot of finances in the residential area of the Tibetan and Qiang people, in order to improve their traffic conditions, residential facilities and other infrastructures. Simultaneously, the government rebuilt the ethnic buildings and scenic spots, and held various cultural activities to resume the traditional ethnic culture after the 2008 earthquake. These are positive ways to protect traditional culture. Time and time again, the Qiang people accept the change brought by modernization. In the 1980 th Sichuan Province summoned historians and linguists and initiated a cultural project in order to create a unified Qiang language and writing system on the basis of phonetics. This project has lasted for many years, and it has taken the phonetic test in the People’s University of China. Scholars are still working on this project. It is not enough to study a culture through academic studies. 2. The Protection for the Polyphonic Folk Songs of Qiang Most of the existing polyphonic folk songs of Qiang existed in everyday tribal life; some of the songs were possibly initially introduced as church hymns or were influenced by classical musical compositions. We think we should change the methods of protection due to the fact that their singing is getting more involved with the business shows. 2.a. Different strategies of reviving the polyphonic tradition There are several possible strategies to help Qiang polyphonic traditions to survie. • There is an interesting story. In the past thirty years since the polyphonic folk songs of Qiang was found, most of the known tribe songs were collected by an outside musician, Mr. Wang Jingquan (examples of Qiang and Aermai Tibetan polyphony had been also recorded, studied and published in a book “Polyphony in Chinese Minority Music”). Mr. Wang has collected himself more than one thousand of Qiang songs in many forms. In the past five years, Mr. Wang taught young singers of the Qiang tribe in order to make the tradition to survive. Such cases can help tribal culture to survive and move on. • The second possible strategy is to record the songs sung by the current leaders (best experts), so that in the future people may know it from audio and video materials. The Qiang’s Traditional Polyphony from China 201 • Another strategy may be connected to the recent migration of Qiang people. After the devastating Wenchuan earthquake in 2008, more than a thousand of Qiang people moved from devastated villages more than 200 kilometers away to settle down in new places. They built their houses and, through the development of tourism, the original tribal society and culture can carry on. Their musical traditions can become an important part of the tourist shows. Of course, the new trend of the traditional Qiang folk songs involved in business shows will result in the loss of the original character of music. But these processes are already happening, and the mix of the Qiang folk songs and the other forms of music may be another way to keep the tribal traditions alive. 3. Establishing the Value of Traditional Polyphony Besides the national evaluations of cultural heritage, the international evaluation can also make a big difference. Under the spirit of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection, UNESCO deployed a grading system to evaluate cultural traditions; this may assist the protection of the polyphonic traditions in China as well. Publication of the traditional polyphonic songs of Tibet and the Qiang is an important initiative. For historic, cultural and professional evaluation this is extremely important. After making these traditions widely available there will be many more people interested in the thousand-year-old cultural traditions. 4. Establishing a Cultural Foundation An old Chinese saying goes that Money cannot get you everything, but nothing can be done without money. Constantly changing and disappearing polyphonic folk traditions are cultural heritage of the ancestors to future generations, as well as a part of the common treasure of humanity. Financial support is important to any initiative. There is the idea to establish a cultural foundation in Sichuan Province to realize cultural support for the polyphonic folk songs of the region. 5. Establishing an Academic Extending System It is not enough to study traditional polyphony only by a musician, nor only by a historian or a social scholar. Unfortunately, most scholars prefer to stay in their own fields, there is very little or no cooperation and they have no broad view of the problems. To make a breakthrough, somebody has to take the responsibility for multi-subject studies and put the studies onto the international platform for idea exchange. 6. Making a Better Environment for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage Putting traditional polyphonic folk songs in the centre of attention is a way to study it by today’s generation as well as the following generations. However, we cannot avoid the changes and the process of disappearance of polyphony. I suggest searching for UNESCO support for the project of global collection of traditional polyphonic folk songs under the patronage of UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage, in order to record traditional polyphonic folk songs. Such a collection would lead to an important international atlas of polyphonic traditions. The support of UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection is a means to reach our goal. Our goal must create a better social and cultural environment for traditional singers of polyphonic traditions to keep these traditions alive. Finally let us talk about the possible impact of ancient traditional polyphonic folk songs of Tibet and the Qiang on modern music. The knowledge of ancient polyphonic folk songs can give us a historical dimension to 202 Su Wei & Wang Qi understand the problem of musical development. Knowledge of ancient traditions is necessary for music scholars of any historical period. Such dimension is also essential for understanding the development of modern music. In China every ethnic group has its own traditional culture, including music. Ethnic music of different groups made the basis for modern Chinese music. The history of Chinese classical music is quite long, because it has originated from different music forms of various ethnic groups. Without this foundation, we cannot imagine what would have been be the current situation. That’s why the continuity of traditions means so much. In our technological era and fast food society it would be impossible to create everlasting music. But through the study of the original forms of music, the perspectives of musical development can be seen. Professional musicians may also get a new idea through the study of ancient traditional polyphonic music. In conclusion we want to say that the polyphonic traditions of the Qiang people, as well as of their neighbors from Aba Tibetan and Aremai people villages, have big aesthetic and scholarly value but are mostly unknown to scholars. The book “Polyphony in the Music of Chinese Minorities” (Zhong Guo Dio Sheng Bu and Min Ge Gailun) has some information on these traditions. We have also published a book on the polyphonic traditions of the Qiang and neighboring tribes, but both books are only in Chinese. We hope that in future our Western colleagues will have better knowledge of the wealth of traditional vocal polyphony of Chinese minorities. 203 maria de sao xose korte-reali (portugalia) polifonia da evolucia portugaliuri fados istoriul CanawerebSi msoflioSi araferi gadamwyveti jer ar momxdara saboloo sityva msofliosi da msoflios Sesaxeb jer ar Tqmula, samyaro Ria da Tavisufalia, kvlav da mudam yvelaferi momavalSic iqneba. [Bakhtin, (1929) 1984: 166] Sesavali: fado, iuneskos nusxa, mravalxmianoba da evolucia ra xmebi gvesmis Cven, eTnomusikologebs fadoSi 2012 wels? TiTqmis erTi weli gavida mas Semdeg, rac fado Seyvanil iqna UNESCO-s kacobriobis aramaterialuri kulturuli memkvidreobis warmomadgenlobiT propagandistul nusxaSi. oci weli gavida mas Semdeg, rac portugalielma migrantebma aCvenes, rogor gamoxatavdnen isini sakuTar individualur identobas transnacionalur situaciaSi fados Sesrulebis gziT niu-iorkis maxloblad (Côrte-Real, 1991); Tormetma welma ganvlo mas Semdeg, rac portugaliaSi, diqtaturidan demokratiisken gardamaval periodSi, vswavlobdi kavSirebs kulturul politikasa da musikalur gamomsaxvelobas Soris, rac motivirebuli iyo portugalieli migrantebis patimrobiT (Côrte-Real, 2000); da bolos, radgan internetma farTod gauRo kari fados Sesrulebis yvela saxeobas, Cven SegviZlia movisminoT mravali xma, konteqstualizebuli mraval perspeqtivaSi, ideologiur, akustikur, komerciul motivaciebsa da tendenciebSi; Tumca, arc ise advilia, isini erTmaneTisagan gavarCioT da maT Sesaxeb visaubroT. mixeil baxtinis adreuli ideebi samyaros Riaobis Sesaxeb, Zalian dagvexmareba fados, rogorc musikaluri kategoriis analizSi. statiaSi xelovnebis pasuxismgebloba Caisaxa misi koncefcia polifonizmis Sesaxeb (Bakhtin, 1919). dostoevskis nawarmoebebis analizis gziT, sadac baxtini xazs usvams, rom mTavari gmirebi warmodgenilni arian ara erTi mTxroblis, aramed sxvebis mier, maTi perspeqtivis Sesabamisad, man safuZveli Cauyara im diskusias, romelic dRemde naklebadaa miRebuli portugaliis sazogadoebis bevr seqtorSi (Bakhtin, 1929). mis naSromebTan erTad davasaxelebdi mixail fukos Sromas enis Riaobis Sesaxeb, romelSic igi ambobs, rom ena arasodes sruldeba, igi mudmivad mdidrdeba masSi monawileTa mier (Foucault, 1966); da bolos, kliford gircis interpretacia kulturis, rogorc qselis Sesaxeb (Geertz, 1973), mexmareba, gavigo fados gulwrfelobis mniSvneloba da msjelobisaTvis gamovyo ramdenime gansxvavebuli xma, romlebic drom moitana. am diskusiisTvis me gamoviyeneb ramdenime istoriul Canawers – werilobiT, ferwerul, fonogramul da kinematografiul wyaroebs. rogorc ki informacias gavecnobiT, TiToeuli Cven- 204 maria de sao xose korte-reali ganisaTvis evoluciis gza interpretaciisaTvis Ria iqneba... albaT, dausrulebelic da, vimedovneb, rom migviyvans Tavisuflebamde. nacionalizmi da xmisCamweri industria rogorc yvavilebis TaigulSi vardis ekali, axlaxans mikvleuli 1910 wlis Canaweri Fado da Revolução (revoluciuri fado), Segvaxsenebs, rogor moqmedebda individualuri aqtivoba dadgenili wesis mimarT. istoriam gvaCvena, rom XIX-XX saukuneebis gasayarze centralizebuli nacionalisturi grZnobebi, kulturuli industriis dacvis mizniT, mxardaWerili iyo saxelmwifos mxridan. portugaliaSi axladfexadgmuli ucxouri xmisCamweri industria xels uwyobda zogierT kerZo iniciativas da `status-kvos~ damyarebas am momentisaTvis. ar gavixseneb saocari scenaris kuluarul detalebs da davasaxeleb maSin gamocemul ramdenime wigns, romlebmac gansazRvres fados `oficialuri~ istoria. julio dantasis araCveulebriv romanSi Severa (1900) da amave saxelwodebis metad warmatebul Teatralur speqtaklSi (Dantas, 1901) legenda ambobs: aristokrati mamakaci, Seyvarebuli Rarib momReral qalze, tiriliT ganacxadebs, rom es aris portugaliis bediswera, iRupebode bedis, fados garemocvaSi (scena X, II aqti). ori sxva wigni – jon pinto jo karvalios História do Fado (fados istoria) (Carvalho, 1903) da alberto pimentelis A Triste Canção do Sul (samxreTis sevdiani simRera: subsidiebi fados istoriisaTvis) (Pimentel, 1904), kontrastuli missave `CrdiloeTis mxiarul simRerebTan~ (Pimentel, 1905) iZleva fados dokumentirebul literaturul teqsts da mis klasifikacias. es wignebi da Teatraluri speqtakli avseben am popularuli simReris musikaluri transkripciebis (Neves e Campos, 1893, 1896, 1899) pirvel yovlismomcvel koleqciaSi gamoqveynebul informacias, sadac erovnuli rezonansis mqone fado harmoniuladaa aranJirebuli romantikuli saxiT. is, rac iwereboda fados Sesaxeb, TiTqos mis ganwmendas emsaxureboda, aRiniSneboda kidec, rom is aRar iyo uxamsi simRera (ibid, 1893: 31). fados idea, rogorc nacionaluri simRerisa, swored maSin daibada. nacionaluri fado warmodgenilia safortepiano transkripciebSi (Neves and Campos, 1899: 43), sadac redaqtori aRniSnavs, rom musikaSi gamoyenebulia misi sxvadasxva popularuli versia. pimentali aseve aRniSnavs, rom nacionaluri fado Seqmnilia cnobili gitaristis jon maria dos anJos (Pimentel, 1904: 271) mier. pinto jo karvalio ityobineba markus kastelo-melhoris gardacvalebas, moixseniebs koridas, gitaras da fados, rogorc erovnul saxasiaTo simReras, romelic Seqmnili unda iyos uzarmazari muxtiT... (Carvalho, 1903: 268). Tu mivubrundebiT dantasis mier warmodgenil severas legendas, 1901 da, mogvianebiT, 1931 wlebSi, ramdenime Teatraluri speqtaklis ganxorcielebas da aRvniSnavT fados Sesaxeb samecniero kvlevebis uqonlobas, pinto de karvaliosa da alberto pimentalis safortepiano notebis xelaxla gamocemas 1984 da 1989 wlebSi, SeiZleba iTqvas, rom XX saukunis bolo dekadaSi isev gacocxlda fados mniSvnelobis Zveli, nacionalisturi gaazreba. leitao de baros pirveli portugaliuri fonografiuli filmi (1931) uzarmazari warmateba iyo. zustad SeirCa severas monakveTi, adaptirebuli dantasis romanidan. nawyveti socialuri klasebis konfrontacias siyvarulis gziT gviCvenebs. severa polifonia da evolucia portugaliuri 205 fados istoriul CanawerebSi mReris fados mdidrul aristokratul wveulebaze da grafis sacole amCnevs maT kavSirebs1. aman imuSava da Tu portugaliels, erovnuli miznebisTvis mouxdeboda ecxovra msgavs dramatul periodSi, fado misi ena iqneboda. axlaxans aRmoCenili, 1910 wels 12 duimian diskze Cawerili Fado da Revolução, warmogvidgens metad gansxvavebul xmebs, an perspeqtivebs fados `polifoniuri~ istoriisaTvis. portugaliis istorias igi axleburad mogviTxrobs. No dia 5 de Outubro Rebentou a Revolução O trono caiu por terra Cantou vitória a nação xuT oqtombers revoluciam ifeTqa taxti daeca miwaze xalxma umRera gamarjvebas O rei e a sua gente Fugiram de Portugal Foram embarcá-lo à Ericeira P’ra ninguém lhe fazer mal mefe da misi xalxi gaiqca portugaliidan maT gacures eriseiraSi ise, rom maT araferi dauSaves E tu que estás no poder Governando com liberdade Vivam os seus defensores Por toda a eternidade. da Tqven, xelisuflebaSi myofni, marTavT TavisuflebiT mravalJamier maT mxardamWerebs samaradJamod. es simRera warmogvidgens fadistas (ase uwodebdnen fados Semqmnelebs)2 individualistur xedvas, romelmac gabeda monarqiis dacemis Semdeg kritikulad moexseniebina axali adamiani xelisuflebidan. axali nacionalizmi gamoxatuli iyo individualuri rakursiT, romelic mxardaWerili iyo portugaliaSi axladgamoCenili ucxouri xmisCamweri industriis mier. fadod wodebuli amgvari kritikuli simRerebi, Cawerili iyo da mxolod axla gaxda xelmisawvdomi kvlevisaTvis. centralizebuli xelisuflebis Zalebisadmi dapirispirebulma am simRerebma, sxva mravalmniSvnelovan xmovan CanawerebTan erTad, iseve, rogorc Fado do Zé Povo-m, romelSic momRerali mouwodebs, yuradReba miaqcion saxelmwifo biujetis menejments, sicxade SeiZina: mogvianebiT, 1940 wels komunistma kompozitorma lopes grasam maT `moqmedebis simRerebi~ Searqva, 1970 wels ki `intervenciis simRerebi~ uwodes. sasimRero stili da ornamentacia sxva saxis mniSvnelovani `polifoniuri~ situacia Seiqmna fados istoriaSi adreul 1940-ian wlebSi. es, Tavis mxriv, dakavSirebuli iyo JReradobasa da vokalur stilTan, romelic didi momRerlis, amalia rodrigesis gamocdilebas ukavSirdeba. es Tavad momReralma 1990 wlis zafxulSi CemTvis mocemul metad saintereso interviuSi ganacxada. amalia rodrigesi, rogorc momRerali, aRmoaCines 1940 wels da, aqedan moyolebuli, diqtatoruli kulturuli samsaxuris mier gamoiyeneboda, rogorc eris wa- 206 maria de sao xose korte-reali myvani musikaluri xma. mas uyvarda simRera da mReroda, upiratesad, individualurad da emociurad. amaliam male Seitana Tavis repertuarSi Zalian gansxvavebuli tipis simRerebi. Tavisi bunebrivi vokaluri unarebis Sesabamisad, momReralma `mSral, mosawyen da vrcel fadoSi~, rogorc man aRniSna, ornamentebi CarTo. Povo que Lavas no Rio misi SesrulebiT ex-libris-ad gadaiqca. fadista Joakim kamposma (Joaquim Campos) folklorist pedro homem de melos (Pedro Homem de Mello) poemis nawyveti strofisa da fado viqtorias musikis safuZvelze tradiciuli fados melodia Seqmna. am simReris magaliTze amalia cdilobda, aexsna CemTvis, ra aris fado. amgvarad, amalias xmaSi, rogorc is xazs usvamda, Povo que Lavas no Rio-s saSualebiT, Cven SegviZlia davinaxoT, rom fado aris simReris manera, damaxasiaTebeli vokaluri stiliT, sadac teqstis sxvadasxva monakveTis garkveuli marcvlebis ornamentacia uaRresad mniSvnelovania3. man mimRera simReris erTi da igive, sawyisi strofi sxvadasxva aqcentebiTa da ornamentaciiT, raTa eCvenebina, rogor SeiZleba iyos namReri da mosmenili erTi da igive simRera, rogorc fado da rogorc flamenko. Semdeg man daayovna ramdenime wami da daaskvna _ fado aris yvelaferi da ara aqvs mniSvneloba mis warmomavlobas. es aris ara misi, aramed misi auditoriis azri, ganmarta man. es aris arsi stilisa, romelsac polifoniurad aRiqvamdnen misi msmenelebi. es amaliam misi karieris dasawyisSive SeniSna. fados definiciis Riaoba aq gamoxatulia empiriulad, misi polifoniuri bunebidan gamomdinare. rac Seexeba musikalur polifoniurobas, vokaluri an instrumentuli warmoSobis mravalxmian musikasTan SedarebiT, amalias magaliTi gacilebiT ufro mdidaria, vidre manuel Joakim karvaliosi mis revoluciur fadoSi, miuxedavad imisa, rom es musikaluri interpretaciis personaluri stilis sakiTxia. fados Semsruleblebi (momRerlebi da instrumentalistebi) Caweris dros, Secdomis daSvebis SiSiT, dResac Tavs ikaveben ornamentaciisagan. aseT pirobebSi, rTulia warmovidginoT, rogor SezRudavda es SiSi Semsruleblebs 1910 wlis Cawerebis dros, roca materialuri pirobebi ufro mZime iyo da SesaZleblobebi _ ufro mwiri4. integracia da Tavisufleba da bolos, musikaluri integracia da Tavisufali interpretaciis mzardi tendenciebi fados polifoniur nairsaxeobas dReisaTvis gavlenasa da mniSvnelobas matebs. rogorc istoriuli Canawerebi gviCveneben, 1973 wels karlos do karmom (Carlos do Carmo) gamouSva LP vinilis firfitaze Cawerili Um Homem na Cidade (mamakaci qalaqSi) fado axali JReradobiTa da instrumentuli TanxlebiT5. dulCe pontesma (Dulce Pontes) aaRorZina amalias Fado Solidão (simartovis fado)6, rogorc Canção do Mar (zRvis simRera)7, mogvianebiT is gadaiqca ufro did hitad Desert Fantasy (udabnos fantazia) sara braiTmanis SesrulebiT8. abou kalili da rikardo ribeiro asrulebdnen libanur/portugaliur versias fados – Se o meu amor me pedisse (Tu mTxov Cems siyvaruls)9 _ gavleniT. arc erTi maTganis musikaluri plastikuroba ar aris axali. faqtobrivad, ukve adreul 1950-ian wlebSi fado iyo udidesi musikaluri in- polifonia da evolucia portugaliuri 207 fados istoriul CanawerebSi tegraciis obieqti, gamoyenebuli politikuri propagandisTvis. amalia kidev erTxel Caeba meore msoflio omis Semdgomi krizisidan evropis gamosvlis procesSi, msgavsad zogierTi CrdiloeT da samxreT evropeli da amerikeli didi momRerlisa. Cems prezentacias davasruleb imis aRniSvniT, rom luis armstrongma 1953 wels niu-iurkSi araCveulebrivad Seasrula jazur stilSi Fado Coimbra, April in Portugal10. msoflios moqalaqeTa erovnuli gaTavisuflebisken mimarTuli es polifoniuri xmebi SeiZleba vipovoT fadosa da misi msgavsi simRerebis mcirericxovan istoriul CanawerebSi. amgvarad, daviwyoT eTnomusikologiuri diskusiebi musikisa da transnacionalizmis Sesaxeb. SeniSvnebi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br_1XFJK400 , 05.06.12. 1 2 manuel joakim karvalio. 3 http://letras.terra.com.br/amalia-rodrigues/230947/ , 05.06.12 4 informaciis mowodebisaTvis madlobas vuxdi armenio melos, erovnuli konservatoriis musikis skolis portugaliuri gitaris profesorsa da universidade nova de lisboas eTnomusikologiis doqtorantsa da mis akademiur xelmZRvanels jon soeiro de karvalios. 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukEDg9Ll22o&feature=related, 05.06.12. 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-JXKvlGc9U&feature=related, 05.06.12. 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCahD0M9cv4, 05.06.12. 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCahD0M9cv4, 05.06.12. 9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlCT0p0X6e4, 05.06.12. 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgekMkn6YKQ, 05.06.12 Targmna Tamar CxeiZem 208 MARIA DE SAO JOSE CORTE-REAL (PORTUGAL) POLYPHONY AND EVOLUTION IN FADO HISTORICAL RECORDINGS FROM PORTUGAL Nothing conclusive has yet taken place in the world, the ultimate word of the world and about the world has not yet been spoken, the world is open and free, everything is still and will always be in the future. (Mikhail Bakhtin, 1984: 166) Introduction: Fado, the UNESCO List, Polyphony and Evolution What voices may we – ethnomusicologists listen to in fado in 2012? Now that almost a year has passed since fado was included into UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity; that twenty years have passed since the Portuguese migrants showed how they play with their individual identity in the transnational situation through fado performance around New York (Côrte-Real, 1991); that twelve years have passed since I studied the relationship between cultural policy and music expression in the transition from dictatorship to democracy in Portugal, precisely motivated by the nationalist imprisonment of those Portuguese migrants (Côrte-Real, 2000); and finally that Internet opened doors wide to every kind of fado performance, thus made available at the simple touch of a keyboard key. We may hear many voices, contextualized in many perspectives, imbeded in ideological, acoustic and commercial motivations and trends; and it is not easy to separate and talk clearly about them. Mikhail Bakhtin’s early ideas on the interpretation of the openness of the world are most helpful for the analysis of fado as a music category. His writings on the Answerability of Art were seminal for his choice of the concept of polyphony to develop his thoughts (Bakhtin, 1919). Through the analysis of Dostoevsky’s work in which Bakhtin stresses that the main characters are presented by the others, through their respective perspectives instead of the narrator’s one, he laid foundations for a reasoning still underdeveloped in many sectors of the Portuguese society till today (Bakhtin, 1929). His writings as well as those by Mikhail Foucault on the openness of the language in which he mentions it as never finished and enriched by the chain made by those who participate in it (Foucault, 1966). And finally the writings of Clifford Geertz on the interpretation of cultures as webs of meaning helped me to understand the value of the openness of fado and also helped me to separate, for discussion, some different voices that have shaped it through time (Geertz, 1973) . For this task I use a number of historical records in written, drawn/painted, phonographic and cinematographic sources. The paths of evolution are open to interpretation by each one of us as soon as the information unfolds… certainly unfinished, hopefully gaining freedom. Nationalism and the Recording Industry Like a rose-thorn in a flower bouquet, the recently found recording of the Fado da Revolução 209 (Revolution Fado) from 1910, reminds us how the individual action worked towards the established canon. History has shown that by the turn of the 19th to the 20th century centralized nationalist feelings were supported by the state-protected cultural industries. The emerging foreign recording industry in Portugal however, supported some individual initiatives, challenging the status quo of the moment. Not mentioning backstage details of this amazing scenario, I point to some then-published books on what became the “official” history of fado. In particular the romance A Severa by Júlio Dantas (1900), the very successful theater play with the same name (Dantas, 1901), in which the legend is set: the aristocratic male said to be in love with the poor female singer cries stating that: “It is the destiny of Portugal to die embracing the fate!” [É destino de Portugal morrer abraçado ao fado!] (Scene x, second act). Two other books História do Fado (History of Fado) by João Pinto de Carvalho (1903), and A Triste Canção do Sul (The Sad Song of the South: Subsidies for the History of Fado) by Alberto Pimentel (1904), contrasting with his Happy Songs of the North (1905), provided documentation and classification of fados’ literary texts. These books and the theater play, complementing the information published on the first comprehensive collection of musical transcriptions of popular songs (Neves e Campos 1893, 1896, 1899) harmoniously arranged the romantic image of fado, of nationalist resonance. The written references about fado worked as if to clean it, even mentioning that it is not an obscene song any more (ibid, 1893: 31). The idea of fado as the national song was born then. Fado Nacional is presented in a transcription for piano (Neves and Campos 1899: 43) in which the editor notes that the music is used with different popular verses. Pimentel also mentions Fado Nacional, he states that it was composed by the famous guitar player João Maria dos Anjos (Pimentel, 1904: 271). Pinto de Carvalho, referring to the death of the Marquis of Castello-Melhor, mentions tauromachy, guitar and fado as the song so characteristically national, that seems to be composed with the oceanic pulsations… (Carvalho, 1903: 268). The return to the Severa legend as presented by Dantas, then in 1901 and later in 1931, among other dates of smaller theater productions, the absence of scientific studies on fado and the re-edition of the books by Pinto de Carvalho and Alberto Pimentel in 1984 and 1989 respectively, revivified old nationalist constructions of the fado meaning in the last decades of the 20th century. The first Portuguese phonographic-film, by Leitão de Barros (1931) was an enormous success. The plot chosen was precisely that of Severa, adapted from the romance of Dantas. The excerpt shows the confrontation between social classes through love affairs. Severa sings fado in a sumptuous aristocratic party and the fiancé of the count notices their connections 1. It worked as if the Portuguese, for nationalist purposes, would live in such a drama plot, fado being the language. The recently found Fado da Revolução, in a 12-inch recording from 1910, shows a very different voice or perspective for the polyphonic history of fado. Documenting Portuguese history, it proposes a new popular position. O Dr. Afonso Costa Ele tudo quer seguir Andou armado na guerra, Não para de discutir Dr. Alfonso Costa He wants to follow everything He was armed in war, Do not stop to discuss No dia 5 de Outubro Rebentou a Revolução On 5 October Revolution broke out 210 Maria De Sao Jose Corte-Real O trono caiu por terra Cantou vitória a nação The throne fell to the ground The nation sang victory O rei e a sua gente Fugiram de Portugal Foram embarcá-lo à Ericeira P’ra ninguém lhe fazer mal The king and his people Fled from Portugal They were shiped to Ericeira So that nobody hurt them E tu que estás no poder Governando com liberdade Vivam os seus defensores Por toda a eternidade. And you who are in power Ruling with freedom Long live their supporters For all eternity. This song represents the individualist vision, through a fadista2 who dared to critically advert the new man in power after the fall of monarchy. New nationalism was expressed from an individual perspective supported by foreign recording industry emerging in Portugal. Meaningful critical songs similar to this one, classified as fados, were recorded and are only now being available for research. Opposing the centralized governmental forces, these songs – there are other meaningful sound recordings such as Fado do Zé Povo in which the singer calls attention for the management of the state budget – gave voice to what then thus gained some visibility: action songs as they were later classified by the communist composer Lopes Graça, in the 1940s, and intervention songs as they were called in the 1970s. Singing Style and Ornamentation Another kind of meaningful “polyphonic” situation happened in the history of fado from about the early 1940s on. This one has to do with sound and vocal style itself as it was experienced by the great singer Amália Rodrigues, and was mentioned to me as an outflow by Amália herself in a most interesting interview, at her home, in the summer 1990. From 1940 on, Amália Rodrigues was discovered and used by the dictatorial cultural services as the main musical voice of the nation. Loving to sing, and doing it in a rather personal and emotional way, Amália soon included very different kinds of songs in her repertoire. Due to her natural vocal skills she also included ornaments in “dry, long and tedious fados” as she put it. Povo que Lavas no Rio became an ex-libris of her contribution. With verses extracted from a poem by the folklorist Pedro Homem de Mello, and music of the Fado Victoria, a traditional fado melody composed by the fadista Joaquim Campos, this song was used by Amália to explain me what fado is. So, in Amália’s voice, and as she stressed we may see through Povo que lavas no rio, fado is a way of singing, characterized by the vocal style in which the ornamentation of some particular syllables in different parts of the text is of paramount importance3 . She sang me the same initial verse of the song with different accents and ornaments to show how the same song could be sung and heard as a fado or as a flamenco cante. Then she took only some seconds to conclude that fado is everything she sings regardless of the song origin. And it is not her but her audience who says so, she explained. It is a matter of style polyphonically recognized by the voices of her listeners. And this happened – Amália stressed – since very early in her career as a singer. The opened character of the definition of fado was expressed there as an em- Polyphony and Evolution in Fado Historical Recordings from Portugal 211 pirical conclusion, relying on its polyphonic nature. Regarding musical polyphony strictly speaking, meaning multipart music of vocal and instrumental origin, Amália’s example is far richer than that of Manuel Joaquim Carvalho in his Fado da Revolução. Although it is obviously a question of personal style in musical interpretation, it surpasses it. If even today fado singers and players do restrain their ornamentation practice in recording sessions for the fear of making mistakes, one may imagine how this fear limited their recording performances when financial conditions were much more expensive and opportunities much rarer as happened in 1910 4. Fusion and Freedom Last, but not least, the increasing trends for music fusion and free interpretation do add meaning to the polyphonic variety of fado influences and meanings nowadays. As historical recordings show when Carlos do Carmo produced the LP vinyl record Um Homem na Cidade (A Man in the City) in 1973 with a new sound and instrumental functioning for fado 5. Or when Dulce Pontes revived Amália’s Fado Solidão (Loneliness Fado) 6 as Canção do Mar (Sea Song) 7 later turned into even greater hit “Desert Fantasy” by Sarah Brightman 8. Or when Rabibh Abou-Khalil and Ricardo Ribeiro play a Lebanese/ Portuguese influenced version of Se o meu amor me pedisse (If you ask me my love) 9. None of this music plasticity is new. In fact already in the early 1950s fado was the subject of great musical fusion for political propaganda reasons for the European recovery after the Second World War. Once more Amália was involved, as well as some great North and South European and American singers and musicians. And I finish my presentation with a precious phonogram of the Fado Coimbra sang to jazz sound as April in Portugal in New York by Louis Armstrong in 1953 10. Heading to the nationalist liberation of the world citizens these polyphonic voices found in a handful of historic recordings of fado and related songs thus unveil the path for an ethnomusicological discussion about music and transnationalism. Notes 1 Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br_1XFJK400 accessed on 05.06.12. 2 Manuel Joaquim Carvalho. 3 Available at http://letras.terra.com.br/amalia-rodrigues/230947/ accessed on 05.06.12. 4 Information given by Arménio Melo, Professor of Portuguese Guitar at the Escola de Música do Conservatório Nacional, and PhD student of Ethnomusicology at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa to his academic advisor João Soeiro de Carvalho, whom I thank the authorization to mention. 5 Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukEDg9Ll22o&feature=related accessed on 05.06.12. 6 Available at http://ww11w.youtube.com/watch?v=i-JXKvlGc9U&feature=related accessed on 05.06.12. 7 Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCahD0M9cv4 accessed on 05.06.12. 212 Maria De Sao Jose Corte-Real 8 Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4egvCyHhWo accessed on 05.06.12. 9 Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlCT0p0X6e4 accessed on 05.06.12. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgekMkn6YKQ accessed on 05.06.12. 10 References Bakhtin, Mikhail. (1919 [1990]). Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays. Edited and translated by Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, Mikhail. (1929 [1984]). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Carvalho, Pinto de. (1903 [1982 and 1984]). História do Fado. Lisboa, Empresa da História de Portugal. Sociedade Editora. Publicações D. Quixote. Côrte-Real, Maria de São José. (1991). Retention of Music Models in Fado Performance among Portuguese Migrants in New York. MA Dissertation. New York: Columbia University. Côrte-Real, Maria de São José. (2000). Cultural Policy and Musical Expression in the Transition from Dictatorship to Democracy in Portugal (1960s to 1980s). PhD Dissertation. New York: Columbia University. Dantas, Júlio. (1900). A Severa. Porto: Domingos Barreira Editor. Dantas, Júlio. (1901). A Severa: Peça em quatros actos. Lisboa, Sociedade Editora Arthur Brandão & Cª. Foucault, Michel. (1966). Les Mots et les Choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Éditions Gallimard. Geertz, Clifford. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Publishers. Neves, C.A. and Campos, G. (1893, 1896, 1899). Cancioneiro de Músicas Populares, 3 Vols. Porto: Tipografia Ocidental. Pimentel, Alberto. (1904 [1989]). A Triste Canção do Sul: Subsídios para a História do Fado. Lisboa: Livraria Central de Gomes de Carvalho Editor, Publicações Dom Quixote. Pimentel, Alberto. (1905 [1989]). As Alegres Canções do Norte, Lisboa: Livraria Central de Gomes de Carvalho Editor, Publicações Dom Quixote. 213 mixail lobanovi (ruseTi) `CamorTmeuli~ unisonuri simRera – koleqtiuri Sesrulebis umartivesi tipi eTnikur musikaSi winamdebare statia1 agrZelebs Cems kvlevas (Lobanov, 2011, 2012) CrdiloeT evropis fino-ugarebis xalxTa eTnikur musikaSi arsebuli erToblivi simReris Sesaxeb, vinaidan am sakiTxisadmi manamde interesi aravis gamouCenia (Jordania, 2006: 67). didi xnis win gavige, rom mravalxmianobis sawyisebi SeiZleba moiZebnos mamakacTa da qalTa erTobliv simReraSi2, rodesac isini mRerodnen erTsa da imave melodias sxvadasxva oqtavaSi. miuxedavad amisa, tembruli da registruli kontrasti qmnida STabeWdilebas, TiTqos simRera iSleboda xmebSi (Khominsky, 1975: 16). iyo Tu ara oqtavaSi simRera polifoniis gamovlenis uZvelesi saxe, SesaZloa, diskusiis sagans warmoadgendes. yovel SemTxvevaSi, zogierTi uZvelesi xalxis tradiciul kulturaSi qalTa da mamakacTa erToblivi simRera tabudadebuli iyo. dRes mamakacTa da qalTa erToblivi simRera oqtavaSi koleqtiuri Sesrulebis yvelaze gavrcelebuli, urbanizebuli tipia Sexvedrebze, demonstraciebze, stadionebze, megobrebSi da sxva socialur situaciebSi. Tu misi, rogorc uZvelesi drois pirveladi tipis simReris ganxilva Znelia, eWvgareSea, rom struqturuli TvalsazrisiT, es koleqtiuri simReris umartivesi formaa. Cem mier ganxilul erToblivi simReris tips bevri saerTo aqvs am oqtavebTan. jer erTi, orive SemTxvevaSi, rogorc Semdgom vnaxavT, SenarCunebulia monodiuri safuZveli. meorec, SenarCunebulia igive ormagi buneba: erTi mxriv, arqaulia da, meore mxriv, organuladaa CarTuli Tanamedrove urbanizebul masobriv simReraSi. simReris es tipi saSualebas iZleva, unisonuri vokaluri partia moZraobdes maSinac ki, rodesac erTi momRerali sunTqvis asaRebad Cerdeba, xolo sxvebi simReras ganagrZoben. es meTodi, an, ufro sworad, simReris teqnika, sagundo Sesrulebisas, cnobilia, rogorc `jaWvuri sunTqva~. misi amocanaa, Searbilos sunTqvisas arsebuli Sesvenebebi da ar dairRves melodiis mTlianoba. yoveldRiur simReraSi es teqnika sxvadasxvagvarad vlindeba. zogierTi momRerali Crdilavs sxva momRerlebs da cdilobs, Tavis Tavze aiRos iniciativa, zogierTebi _ eTiSebian simReras, rodesac raime aviwydebaT, isveneben an yuradReba efantebaT da a.S. miuxedavad amisa, saamebis, karelebisa da CrdiloeT evropis sxva xalxebis eTnikur musikaSi, es teqnika iZens specifikur stilistur xasiaTs da ganumeorebel kolorits da, rogorc eTnokulturuli fenomeni, gadaiqceva koleqtiuri simReris gansakuTrebul tipad. eTnikur musikaSi erToblivi simRerisas, iseve, rogorc yoveldRiurobaSi, SenarCunebulia iniciativis aRebis momenti. amitom, gTavazobT, eTnikur musikasTan mimarTe- 214 mixail lobanovi baSi mas `CamorTmuli unsonuri simRera~ vuwodoT. qvemoT vimsjelebT imis Sesaxebac, ratom ver SeniSnes adre simReris es tipi CrdiloeT evropis vokaluri musikis mkvlevrebma. magram, manamde unda ganvsazRvroT `CamorTmeuli unisonuri simReris~ zogierTi eTno-stilisturi Tavisebureba. am regionSi warmodgenilia norvegiuli Val’gon-guoi’ka, romelsac Canawerebidan vicnob. miuxedavad imisa, rom igi sruldeba profesionali momRerlebis mier da intonaciuri struqtura ar aris iseTi, rogoric adreuli me-20 saukunis WeSmarit folklorul ioikSi, msgavsi folklorizmi Sors ar aris folkloruli originalisgan3. Val’gon-guoi’ka-Si xmis CamorTmeva ori meTodiT xdeba: xma gamoeyofa unisons 1-1,5 wamiT, an Tavis Tavze iRebs liderobas xmis simZlavrisa da vokalur-intonaciuri simdidris meSveobiT. duetSi aris wamyvani momRerali (zogjer, ra Tqma unda, is gamoeyofa unisonidan, da simRera grZeldeba mis gareSe), romelic mReris melodiurad Tavisi diapazonis nebismier nawilSi da, aseve, meore momRerali, romelic mReris maRal bgerebs da Cumdeba, rodesac partniori Camodis dabal bgerebze. melodias amTavrebs erT-erTi momRerali, am SemTxvevaSi wamyvani; da es xdeba regularulad (mag. 1, audiomag. 1). k. tirenis mier Caweril avTentur ioikSi, CamorTmeuli simRera ismis uCveulo intonaciur simaRleze, rac notirebiT, rogorc wesi, ver gadmoicema, magram momRerlebis xmaTa Sesatyvisoba arsobrivad igivea (audiomag. 2). CamorTmeuli unisonuri simRera CrdiloeT evropul regionSi gvxvdeba, isic mxolod sam-oTx JanrSi, romlebic dRemde arsebobs. esenia: saamis ioiki da kareliebis ioiga, kareliebis xmiT tirili da rusuli epikuri simRerebi. am tipis simRerebis sanoto Canawerebi ar gamocemula, arsebobda mxolod fonografis an magnitofonis audioCanawerebi, maSin, rodesac xalxis koleqtiuri mexsierebidan yvela es Janri, rogorc bunebrivi Sesruleba duetSi, TiTqmis sruliad gaqra. rogorc n. a. lavoneni (Lavonen) aRniSnavda, Crdilo kareliebis ioiga SeiZleboda Sesrulebuliyo duetSi, rodesac `erTi gamoscems xmebs, xolo sxva _ Tanxlebas uwevs xmiT~ (КЁ, 1993: 31). isini SeiZleboda Sesrulebuliyo, aseve, mravali monawilis mier: `Tqven, deida, mxolod sityvebi TqviT, Cven ki SevasrulebT ioigats~, ase sTxovdnen gogonebi moxuc qals, eTqva ioigas teqsti (КЁ, 1993: 31). erToblivi simReris tradicia airekleba ioigas teqstebSic: `modi, daviwyoT, mocvebo, ioigati an agreTve batebo, simRera, da vimReroT amis Sesaxeb mere~ da a.S. (VKY, 2000: No. 12) mimarTva ara erTi, aramed ramdenime gogonasadmi, koleqtiur Sesrulebaze miuTiTebs. 1960-1980-ianebSi, karelielma mecnierebma erTobliv simReraSi ioiga veRar aRmoaCines, Tumca 1915-1922 wlebSi isini Caiwera a. viaisianenma. saamis ioikis msgavsad, kareliuri ioigas asrulebs gabmuli gundebi, romlebic mRerian asemantikur verbalur marcvlebze (glosolaliebze). Semsruleblebs Soris aris mTavari momRerali, romelic marto iwyebs da amTavrebs simReras, xolo meore, xmis CamomrTmevi momRerali axdens metad intensiuri JReradobis zeda seqciis aqcentirebas. danarCen `CamorTmeuli~ unisonuri simRera – koleqtiuri Sesrulebis umartivesi tipi eTnikur musikaSi 215 sxva parametrebSi, simReris es ori tipi yvelafriT gansxvavebulia. kareliuri ioiga sruldeba ukiduresad nel tempSi kvintis diapazonSi. ioigas Seswavlil magaliTSi meore momRerlis xma, ZiriTad momReralTan SedarebiT, oqtaviT maRla JRers (mag. 2, audiomag. 3). Cemi azriT, yvela aRniSnuli TvisebiT, kareliuri ioiga rusuli `znamenuri sagaloblis~ msgavsia. Cemi Teoriis Tanaxmad, amis mizezi isaa, rom didi xnis ganmavlobaSi Crdilo karelielebi iyvnen Zvelmoweseebi, romlebic mRerodnen znamenur, anu monodiur sagaloblebs. wamyvani momRerlis Semdeg oqtavis intervalSi simRera swored znamenur sagalobelSi gvxvdeba. xmis CamorTmeva, am SemTxvevaSi, kidev ufro garkveviT ismis. Crdilo karelielebTan ioiga asrulebs lirikuli simReris funqcias. ZiriTadi Temebia qalisa da vaJis damSvidobeba, roca vaJi midis samxedro samsaxuris mosaxdelad an qorwilisTvis fulis gamosamuSaveblad. amitom gasakviri ar aris, rom ioigas musikaluri gamomsaxveloba axlosaa Crdilo karelielebis saqorwilo tirilebTan. ioigas msgavsad, kareliuri lamentaciebi SeiZleba Sesruldes qorwilze ramdenime momRerlis mier, magram maTi raodenoba aq daregulirebulia: ori an sami, umeteswilad _ ori. n.a. lavonenma, romelic dainteresebulia kareliaSi arsebuli erToblivi simReriT, es faqti ase aRwera 1979 wels: ori an sami gaTxovili an qvrivi qali patarZalTan dgas da misi saxeliT moTqvams, iTxovs raimes, rac ritualisTvisaa saWiro, an madlobas ixdis saCuqrebisTvis da a.S. (Lavonen, 1989). kareliur tirilebs aqvT sruliad asimetriuli, praqtikulad, prozauli teqsti, romelic SemosazRvrulia xangrZlivi salaparako epizodebiT. amgvar tirilebSi ZiriTadad xdeboda teqstis improvizireba. rTulia gaigo, rogor SeiZleba aq erTi da igive teqsti imRerebodes. lavoneni cdilobda am saidumlos axsnas TviT adgilobrivi macxovreblebisgan da zogjer Zalian zust pasuxs iRebda: `k.: rogor tiris erTdroulad ori momRerali? p.: SegiZliaT orma SeasruloT ioiga da itiroT erTad. k.: rogor tirian samni? p.: maT SeeZloT yvelaferi erT xmaSi ekeTebinaT <...> erTs mihyavda da sxvani mas misdevdnen. k.: rogor moTqvamda erTad sami qali? p.: isini amas ukve miCveulni iyvnen, yvelafers erT xmaSi akeTebdenen, icodnen yvela sityva. k.: ors erTad SeeZlo daetira micvalebuli? p.: ors an sams SeeZlo daetira micvalebuli, magram ara erTad, isini erTad mxolod qorwilebSi galobdnen~ (Lavonen, 1989: 53-55). SemsrulebelTa pasuxebidan Cans, rom adgilobrivi qalebi mkacrad misdevdnen qorwilSi erToblivi tirilis tradicias, magram ar uTqvamT, rom teqsti improvizebuli iyo; maT aRniSnes, rom momRerlebma ukve kargad icodnen verbaluri teqsti da xazi gausves simReris monodiur bunebas. tirilebi ioigasgan refrenebisa da glosolaliebis ararsebobiT gansxvavdeba. 216 mixail lobanovi tirilebis mTel teqsts azri da mniSvneloba gaaCnia. rac ar unda ucnauri iyos, isini tirilebs ufro energiulad mRerodnen, vidre ioigas. xmebis gaCumeba tirilebSi zogjer ufro xangrZlivia, vidre ioigaSi da, am SemTxvevebSi, SesaZlebelia, es movlena dakavSirebulia aucileblobasTan, mousmino, Tu ras mReris partniori da SeuerTde mas teqstis momdevno, nacnobi nawilis pirvel sityvaze (mag. 3, audiomag. 4). garda amisa, gansxvaveba imaSia, rom tirilebSi iSviaTia xmebis intervalebSi gaSla. es movlena, vfiqrob, sruliad SemTxveviTia da msgavs magaliTebs ar miviCnev heterofoniis gamovlenad. aq vertikalSi odnavac ar ikveTeba polifonia, magram am tirilebis teqsti, rogorc poeturi, ise musikaluri, realurad myari ar aris, simReras ar aqvs metnaklebad stabiluri forma, maSinac ki, roca is variaciulia. es intervalebi ar abaTileben `CamorTmeuli unisonuri simReris~ erTobliv princips, romelic ioigas msgavsad, CrdiloeT kareliur saqorwilo lamentaciebSic subordinacias eqvemdebareba, rodesac orni an samni erTad mRerian. gadavideT Janrze, romelsac gansazRvruli poeturi metri da melodiis Camoyalibebuli forma gaaCnia. epikuri simReris ilia muromeci da monadire audioCanaweri erTaderTia, romelic 1964 wels sofel mdinare peCoraSi (komis respublika) d. m. balaSovma (istoriuli novelebis avtori da folkloristi) ojaxuri duetisgan Caiwera. es simRera, bevri sxva peCoruli simReris msgavsad, erTxmiani melodiiT imRereba. melodiis simReras iwyebs mamakaci. mogvianebiT, pirveli maxviliT qalis xma erTveba da oriveni mRerian maxviliT bolo marcvalze, ris Semdeg mamakaci Cumdeba da daskvniT nawilSi qali mReris leqsis darCenil marcvlebs (sur. 1). am SemTxvevaSi, mTavari roli aqvs momRerals, romelic qmnis leqss, magram melodias amTavrebs ara TviTon, aramed mogvianebiT Semosuli xma, romelic Tavis Tavze iRebs iniciativas da marto rCeba melodiuri xazis dasrulebisas. ra Tqma unda, peCoruli duetis mier Sesrulebul epikur simReraSi erTi mniSvnelovani gansxvavebaa aRsaniSnavi: maTi CamorTmeuli simRera ar aris xangrZlivad unisonSi. aq SeiZleba movisminoT marTvadi heterofoniis Taviseburebebi an rusuli podgolosuri polifoniis Canasaxebi (mag. 4, audiomag. 5). am epikuri simReris audioCanaweri unikaluria, magram `CamorTmeuli unisonuri simReris~ tipi, romelsac, rTulia, vuwodoT unisonuri, bevrad farTodaa gavrcelebuli CrdiloeT ruseTis epikur simRerebSi. es dasturdeba a. d. grigorievis mier Segrovebuli nimuSebiT; man isini Cawera fonografzec, rac, samwuxarod, daikarga. Semonaxulia mxolod sanoto Canawerebi, romlebic gaakeTa i. tezaurovskim. b. v. asafievma aRniSna maTi gansxvaveba podgolosuri tipis simRerebisgan, daaxasiaTa ra ukanasknelni, rogorc `xmis mkacri mxatvrul-arqauli tipis SenarCunebis mSvenieri nimuSebi~ (Asafiev, 1965: 21). mdinare mezenze mdebare sofelSi Cawerili epikuri simReris grigorieviseul transkrifciaSi, vertikalSi terciis, rogorc intervalis SegrZneba, romelic organizebas uwevs harmonias, ra Tqma unda, sagrZnobia. magram `CamorTmeuli simReris~ unisonuri buneba aq yvelaze mkafiod vlindeba, rac aaxloebs mas saamisa da Crdilo karelielebis simRerasTan (Grigoriev, 1910: XXII) (mag. 5, sur. 2). `CamorTmeuli~ unisonuri simRera – koleqtiuri Sesrulebis umartivesi tipi eTnikur musikaSi 217 moxsenebisTvis gankuTvnili dro ar iZleva saSualebas, aRiweros aRniSnuli movlena baltieli finebisa da rusebis mezobel samoedebTan. erToblivi Sesrulebis `CamorTmeuli simReris~ tipis arseboba adreul me-19 saukuneSi aRniSnes nenebis xalxTa enisa da zepiri poeziis mkvlevrebma. magram moxsenebaSi warmodgenili masala gvaZlevs saSualebas ,kidev erTxel mivubrundeT kalevalas runas koleqtiur simReras da davamatoT am sakiTxs ramdenime niuansi, romelic wamoiWreba finuri eposis kvlevisas (Leisiö, 2004: 45). runebis simReris `or kacSi~ mReris tradicia aisaxeba kalevalas pirvel simReraSi da e. lonrotis mgzavris CanawerebSi, romelic dawera runebis Ziebis eqspediciisas. am erToblivi simReris procesi ufro detalurad aRwera d. komparetim. Tavis ganmartebebSi igi daeyrdno fineli fokloristebis naSromebs, romelTagan yvelaze mniSvnelovani iyo j. kroni (Kron, 1835 – 1888). epikuri simRerebis msgavsad, finuri runa miekuTvneba Janrebs, romelTac aqvT myari poeturi metri da Camoyalibebuli, poeturi teqstis simetriuli melodia. runas asrulebs ori momRerali, romlebsac erTmaneTis xelebi uWiravT, xelebiT exebian erTmaneTis muxlebs da irwevian. runas simReras, d. komparetis mixedviT, axasiaTebs Semdegi Taviseburebebi: a) poemis simReras iwyebs epikuri momRerali (päämies), romelic runas sityvebs mexsierebiT mReris; b) striqonis meore naxevarSi mas uerTdeba partiniori (keralinnen) da mokle drois ganmavlobaSi, striqonis bolo marcvlebze isini erTad mRerian; g) meore momRerali marto imeorebs simReris melodiur xazs maSin, rodesac pirveli Cumadaa da ixsenebs momdevno striqons (sur. 3). zogierT SemTxvevaSi, striqonebSi marcvlebis ganawilebidan gamomdinare, meore momReralma, romelic simReras mxolod imeorebs, SesaZloa sityva “sanon” (`me vTqvi~) daumatos (Comparetti, 1892: 66) da pirveli momRerlis naTqvami daadasturos. savsebiT dasaSvebia runas erToblivi simReris dros xmebis unisonuri SeerTeba, msgavsad zemoT ganxilul fino-ugarul xalxTa eTnikuri musikis JanrebSi warmoqmnili vertikalisa. iniciativis CamorTmeva, amavdroulad, erToblivi simReris yvelaze gasaocari formaa, maSin, rodesac epikur simReraSi am TaviseburebasTan erTad, gvxvdeba xmaTa regularuli dayofa intervalebad. epikuri simRera da runa axlosaa erTobliv simRerasTan imiTac, rom runas melodiaSi striqonis mReras asrulebs meore damxmare momRerali, xolo karelielebis ioigasa da saqorwilo lamentaciebSi ZiriTadi momRerali amTavrebs melodias. epikur simReraSi momRerlis pauzas ganapirobebs dasamaxsovrebeli teqstis uzarmazari masStabebi. * * * vimedovneb, warmodgenili masala dagarwmunebT, rom saqme gvaqvs koleqtiuri simReris sakmaod Camoyalibebul da mkafiod gamovlenil tipTan. es namdvilad ar aris simReris gamartivebuli Sesruleba Camouyalibebeli formiT (akompanementis, harmoniuli faqturis da a.S. gareSe, rogorc es dRes gvxvdeba), aramed warmoadgens koleqtiuri Sesrulebis erTaderT meTods, romelic, SesaZlebelia, arsebobdes garkveul eTnikur kulturaSi, an mxolod garkveuli Janris xangrZlivi istoriis mqone simRerebSi. axla Cven SegviZlia mivubrundeT zemoT dayenebul sakiTxs: ratom ar iyo 218 mixail lobanovi SemCneuli simReris es tipi ufro adre? rogorc cnobilia, sasimRero folkloris CamwerTa yuradReba, pirvel etapze, mimarTuli iyo verbaluri teqstis dafiqsirebisken (Tumca, yvelas esmoda musikis Caweris aucilebloba). maTi mTavari mizani iyo, CaeweraT erTxmiani simRera. amis Sedegad warmoiSva melodiaTa katalogiazaciis evropuli sistemis Seqmnis sakiTxi, romelic damuSavda specialurad erTxmianobisTvis. aRniSnul periodSi ikveTeba interesi polifoniisadmic, magram ara yvela im qveyanaSi, sadac folkloristika ganviTarda. msoflios masStabiT, polifoniis Seswavla eTnomusikologiaSi bevrad mogvianebiT iwyeba. aman uaryofiTi gavlena moaxdina mecnierebis mier eTnikuri musikis fenomenis im movlenaTa gagebaze, razec Cems moxsenebaSi maqvs saubari. movitan ramdenime faqts. saamis ioikis Zvirfasi da Zalze didi fonografiuli koleqcia Seagrova 100 wlis win SvedeTSi musikaluri folkloristikis klasikosma, karl tirenma (Karl Tiren, 1869-1955). mis mier gakeTebuli 500-ze meti Canaweridan, 50-ze meti (e.i. TiTqmis mTeli masalis 10%) Seicavs simRerebs ori momRerlisTvis da, iSviaT SemTxvevaSi, meti raodenobis SemsrulebelTaTvis. es yvelaferi dafiqsirebuli iyo Canawerebis mokle aRwerilobaSi. 1942 wels, tirenis masalebze dayrdnobiT, gamoica ioikis sanoto krebuli. im droSi gabatonebuli mecnieruli ideis Tanaxmad, koleqtiuri simReris yvela transkrifcia sanoto damwerlobaSi aisaxa, rogorc erTxmiani melodiebi. ori xmis unisoni, romelic realurad arsebobda saamis folkloris `CamorTmeul simReraSi~, nivelirebuli aRmoCnda (Tiren, 1942). ufro saintereso istoria ukavSirdeba finur simRerebs. koleqtiuri Sesrulebis runaSi d. komparetis mier gakeTebuli bgeris zusti analizi uSualo dakvirvebas moiTxovda. am ukanasknelis aucilebloba fineTSi gamZafrda mxolod maSin, rodesac daiwyo kalevalas yovelmxrivi mecnieruli Seswavla – e.i. 1870-1880-ianebSi. 1894 wels gakeTda ori momRerlis fotosuraTi, romlebsac erTmaneTis xelebi eWiraT, rogorc amas moiTxovda runas Sesruleba da aman daadastura runas simReris erToblivi Sesrulebis forma. amgvarad, SeiZleba vivaraudoT, rom runebis erToblivi simReris forma, SesaZloa, SemTxveviT iqna aRmoCenili me-19 saukunis dasasrulsa da me-20 saukunis dasawyisSi, maSin, rodesac folkloruli musikis cnobilma Semgroveblebma a. launisma (A. Launis) da a. viaisianenma (A. Vyaisyanen) daiwyes moRvaweoba da folkoristul praqtikaSi fonografi Semovida. Tumca, maT gamocemul SromebSi runebi msgavsi SesrulebiT ar aris warmodgenili. maS ra moxda? SeuZlebeli iyo, rom 1894 wlis Semdeg ori adamianis mier runebis Sesrulebis nimuSebi ukvalod gamqraliyo. runebis, rogorc melodiebiT Tanxlebuli auTenturi folkloruli teqstebis ufro gviani periodis publikaciebSi, ar iyo motanili ori adamianis mier Sesrulebis arc erTi magaliTi. interesi mxolod melodiisadmi da ara simReris arsisadmi, niSnavda imas, rom, runebis SemTxvevaSi, mecnierebs ar aRmoaCndaT sakmarisi Tvalsawieri CrdiloeT evropis musikaluri kulturis ZiriTadi pirvelsawyisebis gasagebad. SesaZloa, nabiji am mimarTulebiT iyos runebis hipoTezuri CarTva `CamorTmeuli unisonuri simReris~ tradiciaTa wreSi, romelic aRmoCenilia baltiispirel finel xalxsa da maT uaxloes mezoblebSi. `CamorTmeuli~ unisonuri simRera – koleqtiuri 219 Sesrulebis umartivesi tipi eTnikur musikaSi SeniSvnebi 1 es statia ar daiwereboda, rom ara zogierTi mecnieris daxmareba. maT Sorisaa: mecnier-TanamSromeli v. p. mironova (ruseTis mecnierebaTa akademiis kareliis samecniero centri, enaTa, literaturisa da istoriis institutis fonogramis arqivi), fineTis akademiis mowveuli profesori, mecnier-TanamSromeli iarko niemi (tamperes universiteti) da filosofiis doqtori, mkvlevari marko ioste (tamperes universiteti). erToblivi simRera (Joint singing) aris i.v. gi piusis mier 1940-ianebSi SemoTavazebuli termini, romliTac xasiaTdeboda mravalxmiani simRera termin `polifoniis~ nacvlad (Gippius, 2003: 166). rusul eTnomusikologiaSi am termins eniWeba upiratesoba iseTi simReris aRsaniSnavad, sadac xmebi kontrapunqtuli kavSirebiT ar aris erTmaneTTan dakavSirebuli (Yengovatova, 1997). 2 3 aRsaniSnavia, rom arsebobs mcdeloba, daadginon skandinaviuri ioikis kavSirebi jazTan, sagitaro simRerebTan Tu pop musikasTan. audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. FA KNTS – kareliis samecniero centris enis, literaturisa da istoriis institutis fonogramarqivi. audiomagaliTi 2. joiki – sami uoikis magia. valkeapaa _ fineTi: 3984-22112-2, (CD). audiomagaliTi 3. peCora – diski D 025677/78. audiomagaliTi 4. samiska – samiskis sia: karl tirenis Canaweri fonografze, 1913-1915. CVCD (CD). audiomagaliTi 5. VKY 2000 – kelketelieaniadan. venis kareliuri iokebi. ISRC FI-KM8-00-00001-18 SKSCD 4 (CD). Targmna marika nadareiSvilma 220 MIKHAIL LOBANOV (RUSSIA) “UNISON-TAKING UP” SINGING – THE SIMPLEST TYPE OF COLLECTIVE PERFORMANCE IN ETHNIC MUSIC The present paper1 continues my study of joint singing in the ethnic music of the Finno-Ugric peoples in North Europe (Lobanov, 2011, 2012), as there has no attention been paid to this subject before (Jordania, 2006: 67). Long time ago I learned that the first seeds of polyphony could be found in the joint singing2 of male and female voices, when they sing the same melody an octave apart. Although, the timbre and register contrast creates the feeling that the sound is separated into parts (Khominsky, 1975:16). Whether this singing strictly an octave apart really was an ancient manifestation of polyphony is disputable. At least, in traditional cultures of some peoples, joint singing of men and women was tabooed. Today, singing a melody by men and women in octave at the same time is the most widespread, urbanized type of collective singing at meetings, demonstrations, stadiums, groups of friends and in other social situations. If it is problematic to consider this the first type of singing in ancient times, from structural standpoint it is undoubtedly the simplest form of collective singing. The type of joint singing, which I will discuss has much in common with these octaves. Firstly, in both cases, as we will subsequently see, the monodic basis is preserved. Secondly, also preserved is the same dual nature: the direction towards archaism, on the one hand, and the organic survival in modern urbanized mass singing, on the other. In itself, this type of singing involves carrying unison vocal line, when loosing breath one singer stops for a while to gather a new portion of air, and singing is continued by the other participants. This method or technique of singing is known in choral performance as “chain breathing”. Its task is to smooth over the breathing stops, and keep the singing line intact. This technique manifests itself differently in everyday singing. Some singers try to take up the initiative, drowning out the other singers, some fall out of singing when they forget something, or because they want to rest or become distracted by something else, etc. However, in the ethnic music of the Sami, Karelians and other North European peoples the same technique acquires a specific stylistic character and unique colouring, and moves to the level of a special type of collective singing as an ethnocultural phenomenon. In joint singing in ethnic music, the moment of taking over the initiative is preserved – just like in everyday singing. And so in ethnic musical deviation, I propose to call it “unison-taking up singing”. Below, I will deal with the issue why this type of singing was not noticed earlier by those who studied North European vocal music. But first we should determine certain ethno-stylistic features of this “unison-taking up singing”. In this area illustrative is the Norwegian Val’gon-guoi’ka, which I know from a recording. Al- 221 though it is sung by the performers focused on professional artistic activity, and the intonation structure is not the same as that for genuine folklore joik in the recording of the early 20th century, as folklore recordings go it is not distanced from the original3. The taking up in this singing is carried out by two methods: the voice either breaks out of the unison for 1 – 1.5 sec., or takes up the leadership by a greater volume of sound and vocal-intonation richness. In a duet, there is a leading singer (of course, sometimes he also removes himself from the unison, and the singing continues without him), who sings melodically in any part of its sound range, and the other singer who stands out in high notes, and stays silent when the partner sinks to low notes. One of the singers finishes the melody, in this case the leader. And this happens regularly (ex.1, audio ex.1). In authentic joik recorded by K. Tiren, the unison-taking up singing is heard in an unusual intonation pitch that the usual notation cannot transmit, but the correspondence of the singers’ voices is essentially the same (audio ex. 2). Unison-taking up singing is encountered in North Europe only in three or four genres which were alive until recently. These are Sami joik and Karelian yoiga, Karelian lamentations and Russian epic songs. Notations of this type of joint singing were not published, and were only recorded on a phonograph or tape recorder, when all of these genres in their natural performance as duets had almost completely disappeared from the collective memory of the people. As N.A. Lavonen noted, that the yoiga of the Northern Karelians may have been performed in duets when “one utters the words, and the other accompanies with the voice” (КЁ 1993: 31). They may have also been performed by a large number of participants: “You, auntie, just say the words, and we’ll yoigat,” girls asked an older woman to speak the text of the yoiga [Ibid]. Joint singing was also reflected in the texts of the yoigas: “Let’s begin, blueberries, to yoigat, Or also, geese, to sing. What will we sing about then” (etc.) (VKY 2000: no 12). The appeal not to one, but several girls, indicates collective performance. In the 1960s-1980s, Karelian scholars no longer encountered yoigas in joint singing, but in 19151922, A. Vyaisyanen recorded them on a phonograph. Like the Sami joiks, the Karelian yoigas have long choruses, sung with asemantic syllables. There is also a lead singer among the performers, who starts the song and ends the song alone, and the second singer in the taking-up part, emphasizes more intensive upper section of the sound scale. But, everything else between them is different. Karelian yoiga is performed with an extremely slow tempo within the range of a fifth, while the melody line almost exclusively advances conjunctly. There is also another feature; however I am not sure how typical it is. In the example of the studied yoiga, the voice of the second singer sings an octave higher than the lead singer (eх. 2, audio ex. 3). In my opinion, with all of the indicated features, this Karelian yoiga resembles Russian “znamenny chant”: according to my theory, due to the fact, that for a long time the Northern Karelians were Old Believers, who sang znamenny chant i.e. monodic chant. Singing in octave interval after the lead singer also took place in Znamenny chant. The taking up in this case is heard even more distinctly. Among the northern Karelians, yoiga has the function of a lyric song. Dominant theme is parting of a girl and a boy, either because he is called up for military service, or going away to earn money 222 Mikhail Lobanov for the wedding. Therefore, it is not surprising that the musical appearance of the yoiga is close to wedding lamentations of the Northern Karelians. Just like the yoigas, the Karelian lamentations may be performed at a wedding by several singers, but here their number is regulated: either two or three, usually two peformers. N.A. Lavonen, who is very interested in the Karelians’ joint singing, documented this fact in 1979, and described how it happens: two or three married women or widows stand by the bride, sing lamentations on her behalf, with the request to do something required by the ritual, with gratitude for the gifts and so on (Lavonen, 1989: 53-55). The Karelian lamentations have completely asymmetric, practically prosaic texts, conveyed by very long speech periods. In this form, lamentations were performed, mainly improvising the text. It is not easy to understand how one and the same text can be sung here. Lavonen attempted to uncover the secret of this from the locals, and sometimes received very precise answers: “Q.: How did two singers lament at the same time? A.: You can yoiga in twos and lament together. Q.: How did they lament in threes? A.: They could do everything in one voice <…> One led, and the others followed. Q.: How could all three women lament in one voice? A.: They were already used to it. They did everything in one voice, they knew all the words. Q.: Did they mourn for the dead in twos? A.: They mourned for the dead in twos, or in threes, but not together, they chanted together at weddings” (Lavonen, 1989: 53-55). From the performers’ answers it is clear that local women strongly stood up for joint singing tradition of lamentations at weddings, and did not say that the text was improvised, but that the singers knew the words well and emphasized monodic nature of singing. Lamentations differed from yoiga by the lack of refrains and asemantic syllables. The entire text of lamentations is meaningful. They are sung, strangely enough, in a more lively way than the yoigas. The silencing of voices in lamentations is sometimes longer than in yoigas, and in these cases it is probably connected with the necessity to listen to what the partner is singing, and to join in on the first word of the following familiar part of the text (ex. 3, audio ex. 4). Another difference is that in lamentations, there is rarely any divergence of the voices in intervals. This is regarded as completely coincidental, and I would not consider such examples as a manifestation of heterophony. Here we can see no focus even on the smallest recognition of polyphony in the vertical, but only that the text, both lyrical and musical, in these lamentations is not actually solid, and the song has not established itself in any more or less stable form, even if it allows for variation. These intervals do not cross out the principle of unison-taking up joint singing, to which the north Karelian wedding lamentations are subordinated to the same degree as the yoigas, when they are sung together by two or three people. We will now move to the genres with certain poetic meter and an established form of melody. The sound recording of the epic song Ilya Muromets and the Hawker, made by D.M. Balashov (author of historical novels and a folklorist) in 1964 in a village on the Pechora River (Komi Republic) from a family duet remains unique. This song, like many others in Pechora, is sung in a one-line tune. The singing of the tune is started by a man. Later, a female voice enters with the first accent, and both sing to the final accented syllable, after which the male voice falls silent, and the woman sings the remain- “Unison-Taking up” Singing – the Simplest Type of Collective Performance in Ethnic Music 223 ing syllables of the verse in the clausula (fig. 1). In this case, the main role is also held by the singer who makes the verse, but he does not finish the tune, but the voice which enters later and takes up the initiative, and remains alone when the melodic line must be finished. Of course, in the performance of an epic song by a duet from the Pechora River, one significant difference may be noted: their joint taking-up singing is no longer in unison. Features of regulated heterophony can be heard in them, or perhaps the rudiments of Russian podgolosochnaya polyphony (ex. 4, audio ex. 5). The sound recording of this epic song is unique, but the type of taking-up singing itself, which is now hard to call unison, is much more widely distributed in North Russian epic tradition. This is confirmed by the examples from A.D. Grigoriev’s epic song collection, who also recorded phonograph rolls, which have unfortunately been lost. Only transcriptions, made by I. Tezaurovsky, have been preserved. B. V. Asasfiev insightfully pointed out their textural differences from the podgolosochny song type, characterizing the latter as “wonderful example of the supporting voices of the austere artistic-archaic type” (Asafiev, 1965: 21). In the vertical of the epic song example from Grigoriev’s transcription from a village on the Mezen River, the sense of a third as an interval that organizes harmony may be felt. But the nature of unison – taking-up singing manifests itself here most strikingly of all, bringing the way that this song was sung to the singing of the Sami and Northern Karelians (Grigoriev, 1910: XXII) (ex. 5, fig. 2). The time limitations for this paper do not allow describing the unison-taking up type of joint singing among the Samoyed neighbors of the Baltic Finns and Russians. This was documented by the first researchers of the language and oral poetry of the Nenets in the early 19th century. But the materials presented in the paper make us turn once more to the collective singing of the “Kalevala” runes, and add some nuances to this issue, which constantly arise in Finnish epic studies (Leisiö, 2004: 45). The method of singing runas in twos is reflected in the very first song of “Kalevala”, and in the “Travel Notes” by E. Lohnrot about his expeditions to find runas. The process of this joint singing was described in more detail by D. Comparetti, who in his elucidations relied on the works of Finnish folklorists, the most distinguished of whom was J. Kron (1835-1888). Just like epic song, the Finnish runa belongs to the genres with strict poetic meter and established tune, symmetric to the poetry. The procedure for performing runas in twos, when the singers hold their hands, touching each other’s knees, and swaying, begin to sing the runa, includes the following moments, according to Comparetti: a) the start of singing the poem by the lead epic singer (päämies) – the one who brings the words of the runa out of his memory; (b) in the second half of the line, the partner (keralinnen) joins in, and for a short time, they sing together on the last syllables of the line; (c) repetition of the sung line by the second singer alone, while the first is silent, remembering the next line (fig. 3). In certain cases, depending on the distribution of syllables in the lines, the second singer, repeating the song alone, could add the word “sanon” (I say) (Comparetti, 1892: 66), confirming the authenticity of what the first person said. It is most likely that in the zone of joint singing in the runa, there may be unison combination of voices, as this is how the vertical was organized in the above-studied genres of the ethnic music of the Finno-Ugric peoples. Taking up the initiative in volume remains the most striking feature of joint singing, while in epic song, alongside this feature, regular division of voices into intervals is 224 Mikhail Lobanov encountered. Epic song and runa are also close in joint singing by the fact that singing the verse in the melody is completed by the second assistant singer, while in the yoiga and wedding lamentations of the Karelians, the lead singer finishes the tune. In epic song, the necessity to rest for the lead singer is dictated by enormous texts, to be remembered line after line. *** I hope that the demonstrated material will convince you that we are dealing with a rather wellestablished and definite type of collective singing. This is far from being a simplified performance of a song in an unreliable form (without accompaniment, harmonic texture, etc, like in today’s life), but the only method of collective performance that is possible in certain ethnic culture, or only in certain genre of songs with a lengthy historical life. And now back to the issue raised above, why this singing was not previously noticed as a type. As we know at the first stage, recording folk song was directed towards verbal text, and this was the goal (it is not cancelled by previous folk song anthologies with musical notations). Then another goal was recording one-part singing, as a result of which the European systems of melody cataloging arose, which was designed specifically for monophony. Interest in polyphony was also seen at this time, but not in all the countries where folklore studies developed. And at least in the main world directions, the study of polyphony appeared in ethnomusicology much later. This delay of scholarly attention has had a negative effect on the understanding of the phenomena of ethnic music that my paper deals with. I will give some facts. A valuable and very large phonographic collection of Sami joik was collected 100 years ago in Sweden by Karl Tiren (1869-1955) - a classic of folk music studies. Of the over 550 recordings that he made, more than 40 (i.e. almost 8% of the entire material) contain songs by two performers, and in rare cases by a larger number of performers. All of this was documented in the cards of the recordings. In 1942, based on Tiren’s materials, a sheet music collection of joiks was published. According to the scholarly ideas predominant at the time, all the transcriptions of collective singing were presented in the notations as one-voice melodies. The unison, which really did exist among the Sami in the form of voices taking up the song and breaking off, was leveled (Tiren, 1942). There is an even more intriguing story about Finnish runas. Comparetti’s precise analysis of the sound of runas in collective singing required direct observation. The need for the latter arose in Finland only when comprehensive scholarly studies of the “Kalevala” began – i.e. in the 1870s1880s. In 1894, taken was a photograph of two singers holding each other hands, as required by the performance of the runas in twos, and this confirmed the reality of the joint runa-singing performance. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that joint singing of runas could be encountered at the very end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, when important collectors of folk music such as A. Launis and A. Vyaisyanen began their activity, and the phonograph was introduced into the folklorists’ field practice. But in their published works there is lack of runas in such a performance. What happened? It cannot be that after 1894 the tradition of singing runas in twos suddenly vanished without trace. In subsequent publications of runas as authentic folklore texts with melodies, there were no examples of recordings in twos or in the form of verses sung twice by even one performer. The interest in the melody exclusively, and not in the score of singing, meant that in the case of runas it was not possible to reach an important horizon making it possible to understand the general “Unison-Taking up” Singing – the Simplest Type of Collective Performance in Ethnic Music 225 rudiments of the musical culture of North Europe. And perhaps a step in this direction could be made by the hypothetical inclusion of runas into the traditions of “unison taking-up singing”, encountered among the Baltic Finnic peoples and their close neighbors. Translated from Russian by S. Patterson Notes 1 This paper could not have been written without the scholarly support of the research officer V.P. Mironova (Phonogram Archive of the Institute of Language, Literature and History of the Karelian Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences), Adjunct Professor, Research Fellow of the Academy of Finland Jarkko Niemi (University of Tampere) and Doctor of Philosophy, Reseacher Marko Jouste (University of Tampere). 2 Joint singing is a term proposed by Ye. V. Gippius in the 1940s for the general characteristics of folk singing by many voices, instead of the term “polyphony” (Gippius, 2003: 166). In the ethnomusicology of Russia, this term is preferred for singing with combinations of voices or parts which are not connected to each other by contrapuntal relationships (Yengovatova, 1997). 3 This must be emphasized, as there are numerous attempts to link Scandinavian joiks with jazz, or with songs accompanied by guitar or a pop group References Asafiev, Boris. (1965). Rechevaja intonacija (The Intonation of the Speech). Edited by Orlova, E. M. MoskvaLeningrad: Musika. (in Russian) Chominsky, John. (1975). Istorija garmonii i kontrapunkta (The History of Harmony and Counterpoint). T.1. Kiiv: Muzichna Ukraina. (in Russian) Comparetti, Domenico. (1892). Der Kalevala oder die traditionelle poesie der Finnen. Halle: Max Nemeyer. Engovatova, М.А. (1997). “Osobye formy sovmestnogo penija” (“The Special Forms of Joint Singing”). In: Zhivaja starina, 2. Gippius, Еvgeni. (2003). “Melodicheskij sklad, myslimyj vne garmonii i taktovoj ritmiki, i melodicheskij sklad, garmonicheski oposredovannyj” (“The Melody that is Imaginary outside Harmony and Time and the Melody that Pass through Harmony”). In: Materials and papers to the 100 anniversary of E.V. Gippius. Edited by Dorokhova, E.A. and Pashina, O.A. Moskva: Kompozitor (in Russian) Grigoriev, Alex. (1910). Arkhangelskie byliny i istoricheskie pesni, sobrannye A.D. Grigorievym v 1899 – 1901 226 Mikhail Lobanov gg. (Arkhangelsk Epic Songs Collected by A.D. Grigoriev in 1899 – 1901). Vol. 3. The River Mezen– St.Petersburg: Publishing House of Emperor Academy of Sciences. (in Russian) Jordania, Joseph. (2006). Who Asked the First Question? The Origins of Human Choral Singing, Intelligence, Language and Speech. Tbilisi State University, Logos. Stepanova, A., Lavonen, N., Rautio K. (Editors) (1993). Karelskie ioigi (The Karelian Ioigs). Petrozavodsk: KNZ RAN. (in Russian) Lavonen, N. A (editor). (1989). Pesennyj folklor kesten’gskikh karel (The Folksongs of Karelians from Kestenga). Petrozavodsk: Karelia. (in Russian) Lobanov, Мikhail. (2011). “Sovmestnoe penie vepsov i arkhaicheskie javlenija v culture narodov Severa” (“The Joint Singing of Vepses and Ancient Phenomena in the Culture of North Peoples”). In: Riabinskie chtenija-2011. Materials of the sixth Scientific Conference. Petrozavodsk: Kizhi. (In Russian) Lobanov, Mikhail. (2011). “Joint Singing of the Vepses and Archaic Phenomena in the Peasants’ Multipart Singing in the Baltic Countries”. In: The Fifth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Leisiö, T. (2004). “The Runo Code. The Finnish Epic Folk Song Tradition in Finnland. Inspired by Tradition”. In: Kalevala poetry in Finnish music. Jyväskylä. Tirén, K. (1942). Die Lappische Volksmusik. Acta Lapponica III. Uppsala. Audio Examples Audio example 1. FA KNTS - Fonogramarkhiv Instituta jazyka, literatury i istorii Karelskogo Nauchnogo Tsentra RAN [ Phonogramarchiv ....of Karelian Scientific... of RAN]. Audio example 2. Joik – The Magic of Sámi Yoik N.-A. Valkeapää - Finlandia: 3984-22112-2, (CD). Audio example 3. Pechora – disk D 025677/78. Audio example 4. Samiska – Samiska röster: Karl Tirén’s Phonograph recordings 1913 - 1915. CVCD (CD). Audio example 5. VKY 2000 - Kelkettelyeänijä eli. Viena Karelian Yoiks. ISRC FI-KM8-00-00001-18 SKSCD 4 (CD). mixail lobanovi. danarTi Mikhail Lobanov. APPENDIX 227 suraTi 1. sqema simReridan `ilia muromeci da monadire~. Cawerilia d. m. balaSovis mier 1964 wels Figure 1. Figure from song “Ilya Muromets and the Hawker”, made by D.M. Balashov, 1964. suraTi 2. `CamorTmeuli unisonuri simReris~ ti pis epikuri simRera Mezen’ river. i. tezaurovskis sanoto Canaweri Figure 2. The recording of this epic song Mezen’ river; the type of taking-up singing. Only transcriptions, made by I. Tezaurovsky suraTi 3. fragmenti finuri runadan Figure 3. A fragment from Finnish runa 228 mixail lobanovi. danarTi Mikhail Lobanov. APPENDIX magaliTi 1. Val’gon goui’ka Example 1. Val’gon goui’ka mixail lobanovi. danarTi Mikhail Lobanov. APPENDIX magaliTi 2. kareliuri ioki Example 2. Karelian Yoik 229 230 mixail lobanovi. danarTi Mikhail Lobanov. APPENDIX magaliTi 3. Kasten’ga (karelia), tirili Example 3. Kasten’ga (Karelia), Lament mixail lobanovi. danarTi Mikhail Lobanov. APPENDIX magaliTi 4. ilia muromeci da bazieri Example 4. Ilia Muromets and the Hawker 231 232 mixail lobanovi. danarTi Mikhail Lobanov. APPENDIX magaliTi 5. Mezen’ Bylina Example 5. Mezen’ Bylina 233 anda beitane (latvia) Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviis tradiciuli polifonia OFFICIUM DEFUNCTORUM-Si Sesavali latviaSi ramdenime regionia, romelTa tradiciuli musika uwyvetad viTardeboda. TiToel maTganSi mravladaa warmodgenili orive _ uZvelesi da SedarebiT gviani warmoSobis tradiciuli mravalxmianoba. winamdebare statiaSi aRwerili da gaanalizebulia latviuri tradiciuli vokaluri mravalxmianobiT erT-erTi yvelaze gamorCeuli regionis (igi mdebareobs latviis Crdilo-aRmosavleTis kideze, ruseTis sazRvarTan) mravalxmianoba. es tradicia mkvlevrebis yuradRebis qveS moeqca SedarebiT gvian _ mxolod 1980-iani wlebis dasasrulidan, rodesac martin boikom sistematuri eqspediciebi daiwyo am regionSi. adreul 1990-ianebSi, boikos am statiis avtoric SeuerTda. eqspediciebis Sedegad aRmoCnda moulodneli mravalferovneba, romelmac dokumenturad daadastura axlad warmoSobili harmoniuli polifoniuri formebis arseboba ufro Zvel, burdonuli mravalxmianobis nimuSebTan erTad. mravalxmiani simRera soloTi Tanmxlebi xmebis zeviT, praqtikulad cnobili iyo da adreuli kvlevis etapebze varaudobdnen mis kavSirs kaTolikuri saeklesio musikis Sesrulebis adgilobriv praqtikasTan. 20 welze met xans kvlevis Sedegadac ki ver davadgineT konkretuli faqtebi, romlebic daamtkicebdnen an uaryofdnen am Teorias. xandaxan ise Canda, rom, piriqiT, folkloruli simRerebis polifoniur maxasiaTeblebs SeeZloT gavlena moexdinaT saeklesio simRerebis specifikur stilze, radganac erTi da igive momRerlebi iyvnen orive sferoSi – qorwilebSic da eklesiaSic. es azri gamyarda mravalxmiani simReris tradiciul tipebsa da kaTolikuri sasuliero simReris adgilobriv praqtikas Soris arsebuli paralelebis kvlevis Sedegad: rTulia sazRvris gavleba sasuliero da saero simReras Soris. 1990-ian wlebSi es revolucia iyo latviuri tradiciuli musikis kvlevaSi, vinaidan manamde, rogorc wesi, tradiciuli musikis vokalur repertuars mxolod folklorul simRerebs miakuTvnebdnen. am drois ganmavlobaSi, orive – martin boiko da am statiis avtori xSirad vatarebdiT sajaro leqciebs Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviis tradiciuli simReris Sesaxeb da aRvniSnavdiT, rom am regionSi tradiciuli musikis repertuari Sedgeboda ara marto saero, aramed, aseve, sasuliero musikisgan. amdenad, Zalian mniSvnelovani iyo eTnomusikologebs sasuliero musikis formebisTvisac mieqciaT yuradReba. tradiciuli sasuliero musikis tipebi aRmosavleT latviaSi mTel aRmosavleT latviaSi, sadac mosaxleobis umetesoba kaTolikuri rwmenisaa, saeklesio ritualSi sasuliero simReris ori tradicia Sexvda erTmaneTs. 234 anda beitane es tradiciebi araa pirdapir dakavSirebuli saeklesio saqmianobasTan, isini sruldeba mRvdlis monawileobis gareSe. erT-erTi maTgania simRera jvarcmasTan Ria cis qveS maisis TveSi. es sazogadoebrivi Tayvaniscemis saintereso nimuSia, romlis ganmavlobaSi zemoaRniSnuli mlocvelebi RvTismSoblis sadidebel teqstebs mRerian locvanidan. kompozitoris Seqmnilma am sasimRero melodiebma folklorizacia ganicada da Taobidan Taobas gadaecemoda zepiri tradiciiT. am garemoebam ganapiroba, rom meoce saukunis Sua wlebamde maisSi yvela sofelSi gvxvdeba saRamoobiT jvarcmasTan simRera. miuxedavad sabWoTa okupantebis mcdelobisa, jvarcmebis dangreviTa da am tipis simReris akrZalviT amoeZirkvaT es tradicia, igi saidumlod grZeldeboda sasaflaoebze an saxlSi (sadac jvarcmebi hqondaT damaluli), Tumca ara Cveuli intensivobiT. adreul 1990-ianebSi, damoukideblobis aRdgenis Semdeg, es tradicia kvlav aRorZinda bevr sofelSi da dRes ukve SesaZlebelia misi dokumentireba, Tumca am simRerebs, metwilad, mxolod kviraSi erT an ramdenime dRes, zogjer, ufro iSviaTadac mRerian. meore tradiciaa Officium Defunctorum, anu locvebi micvalebulTaTvis, rasac folklorul tradiciaSi fsalmunTa simRera ewodeba da am regionis zepir tradiciaSi, sul mcire, erTnaxevari saukunis ganmavlobaSi arsebobs. masSi CarTulia locvebi, romelic grZeldeba erTnaxevari-ori saaTis ganmavlobaSi da, ZiriTadad, saxlSi tardeba. zemoT aRniSnuli, jvarcmasTan simReris tradiciis msgavsad, es simRerebic imRereba locvanidan, sadac, rogorc wesi, mxolod verbaluri teqstia dabeWdili. melodiebi da mravalxmiani simReris stili memkvidreobiT gadaecema Taobidan Taobas zepiri tradiciiT da Sesabamisad, imRereba `zepirad~. ufro gamocdili momRerlebi xSirad verbalur teqstsac zepirad asruleben, miuxedavad misi didi moculobisa, magram mainc uWiravT simReris wignebi, vinaidan es tradiciis nawilia. Officium Defunctorum am unikaluri fenomenis Seswavlis sawyisi wertili iyo Cems mier Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviuri fsalmunebis simReris Cawera 1995 wels, misi latviis tradiciuli musikis anTologiaSi Setanis mizniT. amas dauyovnebliv mohyva sistematuri dokumentireba da kvleva, rasac dResac ganagrZobs martin boiko. misi aRweris Tanaxmad, Officium Defunctorum _ esaa locvebi, romelTac, rogorc wesi, laTinurad asrulebs RvTismsaxuri. gasakviria, rom es fenomeni aRmosavleT latvielebis tradiciuli repertuaris nawilia gviani me-18 saukunidan. locvebi ikiTxeba regionis mSobliur enaze da, nawilobriv, memkvidreobiT gadmoica zepiri tradiciiT, rogorc folkloruli fenomeni, iseve, rogorc folkloruli simRerebi – nebismieri gare gavlenebis gareSe (Boiko, 2012: 14). boiko varaudobs, rom aRmosavleT latviaSi am tradiciis damkvidreba da gaZliereba ukavSirdeba iezuitebis moRvaweobas. misi gavrcelebis dasawyiss igi ukavSirebs locvebis wignis _ Nabożeństwo ku czci y chwale Boga w Trójcy Swiętey Jedynego (locvebis wigni RvTaebrivi wmida samebis sadideblad) _ gamocemas 1771 wels. es wigni iezuitebma Seadgines. masSi locvebi, simRerebi da Sesrulebis wesebi gamocemulia latgaliurad, aRmosavleT latviis enaze (Boiko, 2012: 16). micvalebulTaTvis fsalmunebis simReras mniSvnelovani adgili uWiravs aRmosav- Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviis tradiciuli polifonia Officium Defunctorum-Si 235 leT latviis tradiciul musikalur repertuarSi. rogorc boiko wers, `es aris ojaxuri cxovrebis sakuTreba, iseve, rogorc Tavad sikvdili~ (Boiko, 2012: 14). es yvelaze realuri aspeqtia, ris gamoc tradicia dResac bevr adgilas grZeldeba. mas, SesaZloa, hqondes sxvadasxva konteqsti: erT-erTia dasaflavebis wina periodi, rodesac gardacvlilis cxedari jer kidev saxlSia (gverdiT oTaxSi an sxva sayofacxovrebo daniSnulebis SenobaSi). am drois ganmavlobaSi locvebic igalobeba, xSirad saRamoobiT. sxva konteqstia _ ojaxis sayvareli, gardacvlili wevris wlisTavebi da `gardacvlilis wlisTavisadmi miZRvnili ceremonia~, romelsac yovel wels awyobs misi ojaxi. Officium Defunctorum weliwadSi erTxel imRereba eklesiaSic. es xdeba 2 noembers, yovelTa sulTa moxseniebis dRes da, aseve, sasaflaoebze _ yovelwliuri ritualis dros (Boiko, 2012: 15-16). rogorc Cans, fsalmunebis simRera micvalebulTaTvis specifikurad qalTa tradiciaa: dRemde Catarebul eqspediciebSi ar moiZebneba miniSneba imaze, rom mamakacebi odesme monawileobdnen fsalmunTa SesrulebaSi. aseve aRsaniSnavia, rom Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviaSi polifoniuri simRera tradiciulad qalTa privilegiaa. Tumca, iSviaTad, interviuebSi vxvdebiT Canawerebs, rom uwin kacebic mRerodnen; mamakacTa amgvari simRera funqciurad asocirdeboda sxvadasxva specifikur dResaswaulTan, roca simRera JRerda garkveul socialur garemoSi, sadResaswaulo magidasTan. fsalmunebis simRera, iseve, rogorc uZvelesi burdonuli da polifoniuri simRerebi, qalTa repertuaris nawili iyo didi xnis ganmavlobaSi. saxlSi fsalmunebs, rogorc wesi, mRerodnen misaReb oTaxSi, TeTri tilos gadasafarebliT gawyobil magidasTan. anTebuli sanTlebi da jvarcma idga magidaze, xSirad maT gverdze ido Wvavis puri da marili (ojaxis kurTxevis simboloebi). simReras iwyebda da mihyavda wamyvan momRerals, romelsac uerTdebodnen sxva momRerlebi. rig SemTxvevaSi, momRerlebis ori jgufi da, Sesabamisad, ori wamyvani gvxvdeba. TiToeuli jgufi mReris Tavis jerze. momReralTa raodenoba cvalebadia, Tumca, Cveulebriv, TiToO jgufi Sedgeba xuTi an eqvsi momRerlisgan. fsalmunebis sasimRero stili SeiZleba davaxasiaToT, rogorc Zalian mZlavri. momRerlebma ramdenjerme aRiares, rom maTi Sesruleba did Zalas moiTxovs. polifonia fsalmunebis simReraSi mravalxmianoba warmoiqmneba tradiciuli gziT, tradiciuli musikis msgavsad _ es damokidebulia momRerlebis Semadgenlobaze, mravalxmianobis Seqmnis unarsa da adgilobriv polifoniur tradiciebze. specifikuri SemTxvevebis gamoklebiT, rodesac isini unisonSi mRerian, fsalmunebis simRera Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviis soflebSi, Cveulebriv, warmodgenilia harmoniuli mravalxmianobiT. yvelaze xSiria orxmiani simRera paraleluri terciebiT, epizodurad _ samxmiani harmoniebiT, Tumca gvxvdeba samxmianoba samxmovanebebiT, epizodebSi ­ _ oTxxmiani harmoniiT. unisonSi simReris erTeuli SemTxvevebia, rodesac, garkveuli mizezebis gamo, araa sakmarisi raodenobis dabali xmebis Semsrulebeli an momRerlebi Caweris dros ver bedaven simReras. eqspediciaSi, magaliTad, iyo epizodi, rodesac unisonSi simReris orsaaTiani Caweris Semdeg vikiTxe: `Tqven yovelTvis unisonSi mReriT?~, 236 anda beitane razec momRerlebma mipasuxes: `ara, rogorc wesi, Cven or xmaSi vmReriT, magram dRes gadavwyviteT gvemRera unisonSi, radganac ase ufro daculad vgrZnobT Tavs~. fsalmunebis mravalxmiani simReris aRwerisas naTeli xdeba, rom aq momRerlebi mimarTaven imave meTodebs, romelTac isini TavianT sasuliero repertuarSi iyeneben. mravalxmianobis sayrdens qmnis orxmianoba paraleluri terciebiT, rac met-naklebad epozodurad ivseba mesame, dabali xmiT (igi warmoiqmneba meore xmidan terciiT qveviT) da, zogjer, meoTxe kidura xmiT, mesame xmidan terciiT dabla. Sedegad, ���������������� samxmianoba xSirad Seqmnilia vertikalurad axlos ganlagebuli terciebiT da zogjer dominanturi septakordiT (mag. 1). es nimuSi gviCvenebs im urTierTgavlenasa da urTierTgamdidrebas, rac TvalsaCino xdeba misi Sedarebisas polifoniuri folkloruli simReris transkrifciasTan. magaliTad, fsalmunebis simReris sanoto Canaweris fragmentis mesame taqtSi moniSnuli ritmuli motivi (mag. 1) mTlianad (ara mxolod ritmulad, aramed melodiurad da harmoniuladac) Seesabameba motivs, romelic SeiZleba vixiloT folkloruli simReris momdevno, meore nimuSSi (mag. 2). es folkloruli simReris repertuarisTvis araa tipuri da Cndeba aRniSnuli nimuSis Canaweris mxolod erT versiaSi. amitom, sainteresoa msgavsi motivis aRmoCena fsalmunebis simReraSi, romelic Cawerilia mezobel sofelSi. Tavis mxriv, pirveli magaliTis meore taqtSi xazgasmuli motivi gviCvenebs sapirispiro process. pirvel SemTxvevaSi, harmonia, romelic warmoiqmneba dabali xmis melodiuri xazis wyalobiT, SesaZloa, ucnaurad gamoiyurebodes, zedmetad `saero~ iyos am stilisTvis. SesaZlebelia, amgvarad imitom gveCveneba, rom es harmoniuli Tanmimdevroba Zalze tipuria adgilobrivi instrumentuli musikis repertuarisTvis. am Tanmimdevrobis gamoCena vokaluri mravalxmianobis Caweril nimuSebSi, uTuod Segvaxsenebs im faqts, rom dabali xmis Semsruleblebi, rogorc wesi, arian agreTve instrumentalistimusikosebi, romlebic simReraSi iyeneben dakvrisas miRebul harmoniul gamocdilebas. daskvna Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviis fsalmunebis simReris analizi adasturebs, rom, tradiciuli musikis zegavleniT momRerlebis azrovneba aris ara marto misi harmoniuli, aramed melodiuri da ritmuli struqturis safuZveli, da amitom, gansxvaveba araa, isini sasuliero mravalxmian repertuars mRerian TuU saeros. es analizi aseve gvaZlevs didxans Ziebul pasuxs kiTxvaze _ ra gavlenebi, anda sul mcire, ra urTierTkavSiri arsebobda adgilobrivi kaTolikuri eklesiis sasimRero praqtikasa da am regionis harmoniuli mravalxmianobis erT-erT saintereso formas _ mravalxmian simReras (solo zeda xmiTa da Tanmxlebi qveda xmebiT) Soris. mravalxmianobis es tipi warmodgenilia xalxuri simReris repertuarSi, romelic, tradiciulad, funqciurad asocirdeba qalTa Ria cis qveS simRerasTan gazafxulisa da zafxulis saRamoebSi, glexebis koleqtiuri samuSaoebisas da qorwilebis dros. am tipis mravalxmianobis specifikuri maxasiaTeblebia solo zeda xma dabali Tanmxlebi xmebiT, romelic imRereba Zalian omaxianad da xmamaRla. momRerlebi simReris am stils aseve uwodeben “yelling” (mag. 3). Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviis tradiciuli polifonia Officium Defunctorum-Si 237 aq mravalxmianoba igive wesiT aigeba, rogorc Cvens mier aRweril fsalmunebis simReris nimuSSi (mag. 1). erTaderTi gansxvaveba imaSia, rom fsalmunebis simReraSi ZiriTadi melodia qveda xmaSia, aq ki igi ganTavsebulia Sua xmaSi. Tumca, maT Soris arsebul mniSvnelovan kavSirze metyvelebs is, rom fsalmunis wamyvani momReralic yovelTvis gamoirCeva sxva momRerlebis fonze: igi sxvebze xmamaRla mReris da melodia, romelsac asrulebs, SesaZloa, iyos qveda Tanmxlebi xmebis tolfasi, Tu SevadarebT nimuSebs Sesabamisi repertuaridan. amgvarad, SesaZlebelia, arsebobdes pirdapiri kavSiri tradiciul mravalxmianobasa da fsalmunebis simReris wess Soris. misi fesvebi SeiZleba moinaxos adreul me-18 saukuneSi, rodesac daiwyo mRvdelmsaxurTa mizanmimarTuli moRvaweoba da aRmosavleT latviis mosaxleobas aswavlidnen Officium Defunctorum-s. SesaZlebelia iTqvas, rom harmoniuli polifonia (akorduli mravalxmianoba), rogorc musikaluri azrovnebis dominanturi forma, damaxasiaTebelia aRmosavleT latviis mTeli regionisTvis. droTa ganmavlobaSi, am safuZvelze Seiqmna harmoniuli mravalxmianobis sxvadasxva adgilobrivi forma, romelTagan bevri dResac ganagrZobs arsebobas. Targmna marika nadareiSvilma 238 ANDA BEITANE (LATVIA) TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY IN THE OFFICIUM DEFUNCTORUM IN NORTH-EASTERN LATVIA Introduction There are several Latvian regions in which traditional music exists in an unbroken tradition. In all of these regions both ancient and more recent-origin traditional multipart harmonies are richly represented. This paper describes and analyses vocal polyphony in one of the most vibrant areas of Latvian traditional polyphony, located on the north-eastern edge of Latvia, by the Russian border. This tradition was drawn to the attention of scholars fairly recently – only at the end of the 1980s, when Martin Boiko began systematic fieldwork in this area. Soon afterwards, in the early 1990s, Boiko was joined by the author of this paper. The results of fieldwork revealed a surprising diversity, whereby it was possible to document various specific forms of recent-origin harmonic polyphony alongside examples of more ancient drone polyphony. Multipart singing with a solo upper accompanying part was particularly notable, and in the very early research stages was suspected to be associated with the local practice of singing Catholic sacred music. Over almost 20 years of research, we have not been successful in identifying concrete facts that could prove or disprove this theory. Occasionally it has seemed that, to the contrary, the polyphonic characteristic of folksongs could sooner have influenced particular styles of sacred singing, because the singers are one and the same both in the field, at weddings, and in church. This conviction was strengthened as a result of searching for parallels between traditional types of multipart singing and the local practice of singing Catholic sacred music: where it is difficult to draw a line between the sacred and secular. This realization caused a revolution in the research of Latvian traditional music in the 1990s, because until then it was customary to regard the vocal repertoire of Latvian traditional music to be constituted only of folk songs. During this time, both abovementioned Martin Boiko and the author of this paper often introduced their public lectures about the traditional singing of north-eastern Latvia with the explanation that in this region the repertoire of traditional music was constituted of not only secular, but also sacrad music, and therefore it was important for ethnomusicologists to finally turn their attention to sacred forms also. Types of Sacred Traditional Music in Eastern Latvia Throughout the whole of eastern Latvia, in which a majority of inhabitants belong to the Catholic faith, two sacred singing traditions are encountered alongside the musical practice involved in church rituals. These traditions are not directly related to the activities of the church, and they are practised without the participation of a priest. One of these is singing in the outdoors by a crucifix during the month of May. These are curious instances of public worship, during which prayers are said and songs are sung from prayer books, to honour the Virgin Mary. These song melodies, although 239 originally the work of a composer, have become folklorized and are inherited through the oral tradition. Up until the middle of the 20th century, evening singing by crucifixes, which were found in each village precisely for this reason, was held every night in May. Irrespective of the efforts of the Soviet occupying powers to interrupt this tradition by destroying crucifixes and banning this type of singing, it continued in secret, although not with the same intensity – in graveyards or sometimes also at home, where crucifixes were hidden. After regaining independence in the early 1990s this tradition was revived in many villages and it can still be documented today, although typically the singing only occurs once or a few days a week, sometimes even more infrequently. The second tradition is Officium Defunctorum or Prayers for the Dead, which in the folk tradition is called psalm singing, and has existed in this area at least one and a half centuries in the oral tradition. It involves prayers, which last for around one-and-a-half to two hours, which are performed mainly at home. Similar to the above-mentioned practice of singing by crucifixes, songs are sung from prayer books, in which, as is customary, only the words are published. The melodies and multipart singing style is inherited from generation to generation through the oral tradition, and subsequently, are sung “by heart”. More experienced singers often sing the words by heart as well, irrespective of their large number, but they still hold song books in front of them, because this is part of the tradition. Officium Defunctorum The starting point for the study of this unique phenomenon is a recording of psalm singing from north-eastern Latvia, which was recorded in 1995 by the author of this paper with the aim of including it in an anthology of Latvian traditional music. This was immediately followed by systematic documentation and study, which is continued today by Martin Boiko. He describes Officium Defunctorum as prayers, which are usually performed by clergymen in Latin and admits that it is surprising to encounter this phenomenon as a part of the traditional repertoire of eastern Latvians, which has existed since the late 18th century. The prayers are sung in the native language of the area, and are partly inherited through the oral tradition as a folklorized phenomenon, the same as folk songs – without any outside influence (Boiko, 2012: 14). Boiko considers the adoption and strengthening of this tradition in eastern Latvia to be linked to the work of the Jesuits, and attributes the beginning of its spread to the publication of the prayer book Nabożeństwo ku czci y chwale Boga w Trójcy Swiętey Jedynego [A prayer book in honour of the God of the Holy Trinity] in 1771. This book was compiled by the Jesuits, and within it the prayers, songs and instructions in the faith are published in Latgallian, the language of eastern Latvia (Boiko, 2012: 16). Psalm singing for the deceased has a very significant place in the traditional music repertoire of eastern Latvia. As Boiko writes: “it is something that belongs to home life. The same as death itself” (Boiko, 2012: 14). Most likely it is this aspect, which is the reason why the tradition continues in many places today. It can have a number of contexts: one of these is before the funeral, when the body of the deceased is still at home, kept in a side room or another household building. During this time, psalm singing is performed, usually in the evenings. Another context is the yearly anniversaries of the death of a loved one and the “commemoration anniversary”, which is organized each year by families for all of their loved ones who have passed away. Once a year the Officium Defunctorum is also sung in church, on All Souls’ Day on 2 November, and in cemeteries during annual cemetery festivals (Boiko, 2012: 15-16). 240 Anda Beitāne It seems that psalm singing for the deceased is specifically a women’s tradition: in fieldwork performed up until now there has not been any indication that men have ever participated in psalm singing. It should also be noted that in north-eastern Latvia polyphonic singing is traditionally a women’s privilege. Statements have been occasionally recorded in interviews that men also sang earlier, but that male singing was functionally associated with various specific celebrations, when singing occurred in social circumstances around the festive table. Psalm singing, the same as the ancient drone songs and the rest of the polyphonic repertoire, has been held in the hands of women for a long time. At home, psalm singing usually occurs in the living room at the table, which has been decorated with a white linen tablecloth. Lit candles and a crucifix stand on the table, and also often rye bread and salt, symbols of blessing for the home, are placed beside these. The singing is begun and led by the lead singer, who is joined by other singers. In a number of cases two groups of singers have been observed, and in these instances, there are also two lead singers. Each group sings in turn. The number of singers tends to vary, although commonly one group of singers is made up of five or six singers. The style of psalm singing can be described as very powerful. Singers have admitted several times that the delivery requires a lot of strength. Polyphony Polyphony in psalm singing occurs in the usual way that it is created in traditional music – this depends on the composition of singers, their strengths in creating polyphony, and on local polyphonic traditions. Excluding specific instances when they are sung in unison, psalm singing in north-eastern Latvian villages usually represents harmonic polyphony. This is most commonly two-part singing in parallel thirds with episodic three-part harmonies, although a number of examples demonstrate also three-part singing with triads and episodic four-part harmony. Isolated instances of singing in unison occur when for some reason there is a lack of singers who can sing one or more lower parts, or because the singers feel uncertain when a recording is being made. During fieldwork, for example, there was an episode when after two hours recording singing in unison, I asked “do you always only sing in unison?”, and the singers replied: “No, we usually sing in two-parts, but today we decided to sing in unison, because we feel safer that way”. Considering the fact that in various instances the singers create polyphony in psalm singing, it becomes appearent that here they are using the same methods that we encounter in their secular repertoire. The core of polyphony is created by two-part harmony in parallel thirds, which is more or less episodically supplemented by a third – lower – part, which is created a third lower than the second (middle) part, and in some instances a fourth – bottom – part, which is sung sporadically, a third lower than the third part. As a result, a triad is often created in the vertical alongside the third intervals, and in some cases also a dominant septachord (ex. 1). This example leads one to consider mutual influences and processes of cross-fertilization, which become visible when comparing this example to polyphonic folk song transcriptions. In this way, for example, the rhythmic motif marked in the third bar of the transcribed fragment of psalm singing (ex. 1) completely (not just in terms of rhythm but also melodically and harmonically) matches with the motif that can be seen in the following transcription of a folk song (ex. 2). This is not typical for the folk song repertoire in question and appears only in one of the recorded versions of this song. Therefore it is interesting to encounter an almost identical motif in psalm sing- Traditional Polyphony in the Officium Defunctorum in North-Eastern Latvia 241 ing recorded in a neighbouring village. In turn, in the second bar of the first example, the highlighted motif suggests the opposite process. In the first instance the harmony that is created, thanks to the melodic line of the lower part, may seem strange, too “secular” for the style in question. It is possible that it seems this way because this harmonic order is very typical for the local instrumental music repertoire. In recorded instances, when this order appears in vocal polyphony, it is usually associated with the fact that the singers of the lower part are also musicians, who apply their harmonic experience of playing to building the song’s lower part. Conclusions Analysis of polyphony in the psalm singing of north-eastern Latvia therefore confirms the fact that the thinking of the singers, influenced by traditional music, is at the foundation of not only its harmonic, but also its melodic and rhythmic structure, and in this case there is no difference whether they are singing secular or sacred polyphonic repertoires. This analysis also offers the long-sought answer to the question about the possible influence or at least the relationship between the singing practice of the local Catholic Church with one of the most interesting forms of harmonic polyphony in this area – multipart singing with a solo upper accompanying part. This type of polyphony is represented in the folksong repertoire, which traditionally has been functionally associated with women’s singing in spring and summer evenings outdoors, during collective farm work, during the summer and winter solstice and at weddings. A specific characteristic of this type of polyphony is the solo upper accompanying part, which is sung very powerfully and loudly. Singers also call this style of singing “yelling” (ex. 3). Polyphony here is built up in the same way as described when outlining the transcription of psalm singing (ex. 1). The only difference is the fact that in psalm singing, the main melody is found in the upper part, while here it is located in the middle part. However, one cannot fail to notice a significant correlation, that is, that the lead singer of psalms is also always highlighted on the backdrop of the other singers: she sings more loudly than the others and the melody that she sings could just as well be equivalent to the upper accompanying part, if we were to compare an example from a relevant repertoire. Therefore it is possible that a connection exists, and that it is very direct, and its roots can be found in the late 18th century, when the purposeful actions of clergymen began, teaching the inhabitants of eastern Latvia the Officium Defunctorum. It is probable that it is able to be explained as harmonic polyphony, as a dominant form of musical thinking in the whole region of eastern Latvia. Over time, and on this basis various local forms of harmonic polyphony have been created and developed, from which many also continue today. References Beitāne, Anda. (2009). Vēlīnās izcelsmes vokālā daudzbalsība latviešu tradicionālajā mūzikā (Multipart Singing of Recent Origin in Latvian Traditional Music). Rīga: LULFMI. Boiko, Martin. (1998). “Relics of Burial Laments in Latvia”. In: Finnish Yearbook of Ethnomusicology. Special 242 Anda Beitāne Issue: Conference Proceedings of the European Seminar in Ethnomusicology 1997. P. 152–162. Edited by Louhivuori, Jukka. Helsinki: The Finnish Society for Ethnomusicology. Boiko, Martin. (1999).“The Officium Defunctorum” (“Office of the Dead”) and the Mourning Rites in Eastern Latvia. A Preliminary Study”. In: Ritual and Music. Papers presented at the International Ethnomusicological Conference held in Vilnius, Lithuania, December 11–12, 1997. P. 29–37. Edited by Astrauskas, Rimantas. Vilnius: Lithuanian Academy of Music, Department of Ethnomusicology. Boiko, Martin. (2005). “Totenoffizium, Jesuiten und Heidnische Seelenspeisungen in Südostlettland”. In: Heike Müns (Hg.). Musik und Migration in Ostmitteleuropa. Schriften des Bundesinstituts für Kultur und Geschichte der Deutschen im östlichen Europa. P. 61–79. Oldenburg. Bd. 23. München: R. Oldenburg Verlag. Boiko, Martin. (2010). “Das lattgallische Totenoffizium. Zu seiner gegenwärtigen Lage”. In: Concepts, Experiments, and Fieldwork: Studies in Systematic Musicology and Ethnomusicology. P. 369–380. Bader, Rolf., Neuhaus, Christiane und Morgenstern, Ulrich (Hrsg.). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Boiko, Martin. (2012). Psalmu dziedāšana Latgalē. Officium defunctorum. The Office of the Dead in Latgale. CD/DVD. LULFMI. anda beitane. danarTi Anda Beitāne. APPENDIX 243 magaliTi 1. nawyveti Crdilo-aRmosavleT latviis fsalmunebis simReridan, Cawerilia martin boikosa da gita lanceres mier 1999 w., gaSifrulia a. beitanes mier Example 1. Fragment of psalm singing in north-eastern Latvia. Recorded by Martin Boiko and Gita Lancere (1999). Transcribed by A. Beitane magaliTi 2. folkloruli simReris nawyveti, Cawerili da gaSifruli a. beitanes mier 1994 wels Example 2. Fragment of transcription of a folk song. Recorded and transcribed by the A. Beitane (1994) 244 anda beitane. danarTi Anda Beitāne. APPENDIX magaliTi 3. mravalxmiani simRera solo zeda xmiT da dabali Tanmxlebi xmebiT. Cawerilia latviis radios mier 1998 w., gaSifruli a. beitanes mier Example 3. Multipart singing with a solo upper accompanying part. Recorded by Latvian Radio in 1988. Transcribed by A. Beitane 245 nino maxaraZe, nino RambaSiZe (saqarTvelo) Wvenierobis dResaswauli da masTan dakavSirebuli tradiciuli musika `Wve~ megrulad muxis norCi nergia. `Wveniers~ eZaxian mTas, romelzec martvilis taZari dgas. Wvenierobis dResaswauli samegreloSi aRdgomidan merve dRes, anu kviracxovlobis orSabaTs tardeboda. arsebuli gadmocemebi da eTnografiuli masala mis daarsebas sofel banZasa da qristes mowafis _ wm. andria mociqulis saxels ukavSirebs. informatorTa cnobiT, Wvenieroba XX saukunis 20-ian wlebamde aRiniSneboda da sabolood is komunistebs aukrZalavT. dResaswaulisadmi Cveni interesi amjerad masTan dakavSirebulma tradiciulma musikam ganapiroba. dRevandeli martvilis taZris adgilze mdgara didi muxa _ didi Wyoni (Wyondidi), romelzec Tujisagan (zogierTi cnobiT _ spilenZisagan) Camosxmuli kacis figura iyo mibmuli. kerps kapunia/rokapunia, igive didgimiri/dodgimiri erqva. zogierTis warmodgeniT, es iyo arwivi, romelic WyondidSi budobda. kerpis qurumebs Wyondarebs eZaxdnen. kerpis dResaswaulze TuTaSxobas (mTvaris dRes, orSabaTs) kapuniasTvis Sesawirad dedas zustad erTi wlis, anu wina wels gaCenili pirmSo unda Seewira. Wyondarebi momavali dResaswaulisaTvis kenWisyriT irCevdnen samsxverplo bavSvs. SabaTs RvTis rCeuli bavSvis mSoblebi marTavdnen saojaxo dResaswauls, xolo kviras _ bJaSxas (mzis dRes) bavSvi etliT unda mieyvanaT muxasTan, sadac msxverplSewirvis rituali tardeboda (Машурко, 1894: 376-377; eliava, 1962: 15). eTnografiul masalaSi martvilis platodan gadmomdgari dedis kivili da xmamaRali moTqmis ambavic aris aRwerili. gadmocemis mixedviT, martvilSi andria pirvelwodebuli da svimon kananeli Cadian. andria anadgurebs kerps, Wris muxas da mis nacvlad jvars aRmarTavs. mas morwmuneTa Tvalwin didi muxisaTvis najaxi Semoukravs da roca igi uvnebeli darCenila, xalxs uRiarebia qristes Zala. andrias maxarebeli gaugzavnia im ambis saTqmelad, rom dedebs aRar mouxdebodaT TavianTi Svilebis Sewirva. gadmocema gviambobs, rom samegrelos mosaxleobam swored wm. andrias qadagebis Semdgom aRiara qristianoba. zogierT warmarTs surda misi samociqulo moRvaweobis Seferxeba da Rame mZinare mociqulisaTvis kverTxi da fexsacmeli waurTmevia. wmindani fexSiSveli wasula martvilSi. roca mociquls didi Wyoni mouWria, axladmoqceul banZelebs uTqvamT, marTalia, muxa moWeri, magram ferdobze mravali norCi muxa xarobso. erT-erTs gaaxareben da axla imas dauwyeben Tayvaniscemas, amitom yvela muxa moWerio. andrias upasuxia: rom movWraT, isev amoiyris, amitom yvela amovTxaroTo. am ambis Semdeg martvilidan dabrunebul banZelebs muxis moWris (Tu moTxris) ambavi dResaswaulad uqceviaT da qristianobis warmarTobaze gamarjvebis niSnad misTvis Wveenia/Wvenieroba uwodebiaT. am dResaswaulis XIX saukuneSi arsebobaze Tavadis _ meqi faRavas mier 246 nino maxaraZe, nino RambaSiZe ilia WavWavaZis sagangebod miwvevis faqtic miuTiTebs. stumrisaTvis ukiTxavT, rogor mogewonaT Cveni ritualio da ilias moswrebulad uTqvams _ amas Wvenieroba ki ara mSvenieroba unda erqvaso. Wvenierobis dResaswaulis Sesaxeb cnobebi gamoqveynebulia XIX saukunis periodikaSi. mis Sesaxeb werdnen eqvTime TayaiSvili, sergi makalaTia, korneli kekeliZe da sxvebi. eTnomusikologiuri mzera am dResaswauls pirvelad qeTevan WiTanavam miapyro. aq Sesrulebuli saferxulo mze Sina da mze gareTa, romelic saqarTvelos sxvadasxva kuTxeSi Zeobis ritualze, mSobiare qalTan, bavSvTa infeqciuri daavadebebis samkurnalod da dasaZinebeli funqciiTac aris dafiqsirebuli, sxva mkvlevarTa msgavsad, manac solarul kultTan dakavSirebul uZveles nimuSad miiCnia (Читанава, 1987: 66). aRsaniSnavia, rom mecnieris mier XX saukunis 80-ian wlebSi mopovebuli erTi cnoba mzeSinas ferxulis Cabmas metad originaluri formiT warmogvidgens: mamakacebi neka TiTebis gadaWdobiT qmnian wres. mkvlevari ganixilavs agreTve, mravalxmian kirialesas, romlis intonaciur masalaSi megruli saferxulo simRerebis martiv variantebTan da sxva kuTxeebis kvartulsayrdenian nimuSebTan kavSiri vlindeba. aRsaniSnavia, rom kirialesas saferxulo wyobaze manamde dimitri arayiSvilic mianiSnebda (Аракчиев, 1908: 85). saferxulo simRerebTan misi siaxlove bolo dros oTar kapanaZemac daadastura (kapanaZe, 2011: 52-53). sagaloblebSi formula kirie eleisonis (ufalo Segviwyale) ucvlelad SenarCunebis gverdiT, dasavleT saqarTvelos ramdenime simReris saxelwodebasa da refrenSi misi gaxalxurebuli, modificirebuli formebic gvxvdeba: kirialesa, kirialersa, kirQalesa, kirialeison, krialeso, kililesa, leison da kiria, eisedo kiria, eisado kirie, eisade kirie, sadavoi kirialesa. vfiqrobT, locviT formulaSi gansakuTrebuli cvlilebebi marTlmadidebluri sarwmunoebis gamiznuli devnis Sedegad unda momxdariyo. dReisaTvis arsebuli samecniero literaturis, sanoto, audio da videoCanawerebis analizma aRniSnuli dResaswaulis dramaturgiaSi kidev ramdenime saintereso detalis xazgasmis saSualeba mogvca. irkveva, rom Wvenieroba WeSmaritad saxalxo dResaswauli gaxldaT, sadac sxvadasxva jgufad dayofili mozeimeni ferxuls abamdnen, ukravdnen, mRerodnen, leqsebs ambobdnen. lxini da jaroba didxans grZeldeboda. warmarTuli ritualebis aRwerisas, erT-erTi mTxrobeli kerpis Zvel saxels _ rokapunias termin rokvas ukavSirebs, romelic Sesatyvisi musikaluri TanxlebiT moZraobas, cekvas gulisxmobs. kerpis Semusrvisa da qristianobis miRebis Semdeg xalxs kvlav gaugrZelebia WyondidTan Sekrebis, muxis garSemovlisa da molxenis Zveli tradicia, oRond zvarakad axla ukve Rors swiravdnen. xorcielis xuTSabaTs an axal welsac samsxverplo RoriT an keratiT – okapunaTi imarTeboda kapunobis dResaswauli, romelic warmarTuli dResaswaulis gadmonaSTuri saxe unda iyos. dResaswaulis saxelwodebas, kapunoba/rokapunoba/didgimiroba, xalxuri tradicia kerpis uZveles saxelwodebas ukavSirebs. samsxverplo Roris saxeli okapunec kerpis saxelidan unda momdinareobdes. kerpis saxeli kapuna (kap-una) kap-is kninobiTi forma Wvenierobis dResaswauli da masTan dakavSirebuli tradiciuli musika 247 unda iyos, rac qarTulsa da mis dialeqtebSi xesTan da mis totTanaa dakavSirebuli (Cuxua, 2000-2003: 120; orbeliani, 1991: 352). kerpi Wyondidi/kapunia/rokapunia/didgmiri aSkarad uzenaesi RvTaeba, demiurgia. SesaZloa, qristianobamdeli kerpis saxelwodebaSi marTlac iyos xazgasmuli ritualuri qmedebis _ ferxulis/cekvis gansakuTrebuli roli. sainteresoa, rom banZaSi sakulto xe Zelqva _ TelisebrTa ojaxis magarmerqniani mcenarea, romelsac CvenSi uZvelesi droidan sacemel, sasignalo sakravad iyenebdnen. Wvenierobis dResaswaulze mudmivad gaismis eklesiis zarebisa da bukis xma. marTalia, cnobebSi maincdamainc ar Cans maTi erTdrouli JReradoba, magram Semosakravi da Casaberi sakravis xma erTnairi semantikiT gamoiyeneba. sagulisxmoa, rom buki saqarTvelos sxva kuTxeebSic (svaneTSi, leCxumSi, afxazeTSi) religiur dResaswaulebs ukavSirdeba1. soflad misi saSualebiT cxaddeboda samxedro gangaSi, Temis yriloba, mindvris samuSaoebi. bukze ukravdnen nadirobisas, brZolisas. afxazeTSi masze CaberviT wyevlidnen saqonlis qurds, mparavis Semfarebels (SilakaZe, 2007: 109). samegrelosTan dakavSirebul cnobebSi bukis sigrZis xazgasma (`SuadRes eklesiis zarebiTa da grZeli bukiT mouxmoben mosaxleobas~) mokle bukis arsebobasac migvaniSnebs. dResaswaulis Semdgom etapze musikaluri foni sportul Sejibrsac uwyvetad gasdevs. zarebisa da bukis gverdiT aq kirieleisonic gaismis da am nimuSTan mimarTebaSi sami termini _ galoba, simRera da SeZaxili gamoiyeneba. eklesiis aRsavlis karTan dadebuli wiTeli burTis aRebis Semdeg, `mRvdeli gars uvlis eklesias. mas ukan xalxi mihyveba kirieleisonis uwyveti galobiT. zarebis rekvis da bukis yvirilis fonze mindvrisaken midian, sadac burTiT ritualuri TamaSi lelooba imarTeba~2. SesaZloa, termini galoba nimuSis locviTi teqstis gamo iyos moxmobili. qarTuli samgaloblo praqtika am sagalobels mRvdlad kurTxevisas iyenebs (SuRliaSvili, 2006: 242; erqvaniZe, 2011: 147). sanimuSod mogvyavs artem erqomaiSvilisagan Cawerili varianti (audiomag. 1). SeZaxilebiani kirieleisoni ki xis ryevis, moTxris, gaTreva-gadatanis da fesvebiT zemoT Cargvis rituals ukavSirdeboda. martvilis mxareTmcodneobis muzeumSi daculi masalebis mixedviT, soflis mamakacebi muxis norC xes soflis sasaflaoze airCevdnen. zed moxuci kaci avidoda, aryevda totebs da mReroda eisade kiries. dResaswaulis TviTmxilvelis _ givi eliavas TqmiT, kacebi xes moTxridnen, gaidebdnen mxrebze da amave simReriT jer sasaflaos Semouvlidnen samjer, Semdeg ki banZis centrSi mdgar Saorkaris wm. giorgis eklesias. moTxril xes eklesiis kedelTan fesvebiT zemoT miayudebdnen. swored am dros sruldeboda saferxulo mze Sina da mze gareTac, romelic Cveni azriT, gadarCenili bavSvis xelmeored dabadebis gagebiT, an Zeobis ritualTan asociaciuri kavSiris gamo SeiZleboda miesadagebinaT WvenierobisaTvis. qristianul WvenierobaSi amoyiravebuli xe warmarTuli kerpis damarcxebis simbolo iyo. xis amoZirkva satanis damarcxebas niSnavda3 (RambaSiZe, 2011). xis totebs patar-patara natexebad amtvrevdnen da saxlebSi mihqondaT. iq, misTvis specialurad Sekeril tyavis parkSi Cadebdnen da Seinaxavdnen, rom ojaxs momaval wlamde xvavi da baraqa ar mokleboda. sof. najaxarSi, vediTkarSi xis amoglejis wess sofiobasac eZaxdnen da mis saxels megrul sityvas sofuas – moTxras ukavSireben (eliava, 1962: 16; RambaSiZe, 2005). gadmocemebis mixedviT, sof. 248 nino maxaraZe, nino RambaSiZe banZaSi mcxovrebi monaTesave gvarebi _ kekeliebi da gabuniebi, romelTa Soris mkacrad egzogamiuri urTierToba iyo, xis ukuRma Cargvis wess daaxloebiT 25-27 wlis winaT jer kidev atarebdnen. ritualis monawileebi ambobdnen: ase daiqces kekeliagabuniebs Soris daTqmuli ficis damrRvevio. diliT adre moitandnen moTxril xes, erTi kaci ormos Txras daiwyebda, danarCenebi garSemo ferxuls Caabamdnen da mRerodnen eisedo kirias (RambaSiZe, 2011). savaraudod, am dros saTqmeli nimuSis mokle frazebi Sromis Janris sasimRero nimuSebis _ naduris, elesas monakveTebis msgavsi unda yofiliyo. marTlac, 2011 wlis eqspediciis dros moxerxda msgavsi magaliTebis Cawera. sayuradReboa, rom dimitri arayiSvilis mier 1902 w. samegreloSi Cawerili lesion da kiria (Аракчиев, 1908, №17) da konstantine kovaCis mier 1929 w. samurzayanoSi mopovebuli kililesac (Ковач, 1930, №9) SromiT saqmianobasTan, kerZod ki, mindvris an yanis samuSaoebis dasrulebasTan dakavSirebuli orxmiani simRerebia. dasavleT saqarTvelos bevr kuTxeSi koleqtiuri Sromis bolo etapze elesas ambobdnen xolme. apolon wulaZis cnobiT, mZime tvirTis, sawnaxlis, xis morebis gadatanisas elesa uleqsod imRereboda. ar aris gasakviri, rom sirTulis daZlevisaTvis uflisagan Sewevna mokle, magram miznis miRwevisaTvis maqsimalurad Sesatyvisi fraziT gamoeTxovaT. TviT samuSaos simZimis gamo, leqsze fiqri warmoudgenelic ki iyo. SeZaxilebSi (elesa da vio, oo, ele, ele, aha, elesa da vio da io) zogan (metadre dasavleT guriaSi) _ vios nacvlad Turme kirios ayolebdnen (wulaZe, 1971: 32). aqedan gamomdinare, zogierTi mkvlevris (jemal CxeiZe, malxaz erqvaniZe) mier simRera elesas (hesas) kirie eleisonidan momdinareobis Taobaze gamoTqmuli varaudi sarwmunod gveCveneba. SesaZloa, am rigs lazeTSi SemorCenili navis an saTevzao badis amosaTrevi helesac davumatoT. Turquli gavlenis mqone qarTul mosaxleobaSi qristianuli locviTi formulis samRerisebSi `gaqvaveba~ gansakuTrebuli mniSvnelobis faqtad unda miviCnioT. liganis xeobaSi (TurqeTi) mcxovrebi Cveneburebi amgvar nimuSebs dRemde asruleben (malaymaZe, 2002). cxadia, sofelSi davlisas, taZris garSemovlisas saTqmeli kirialesas wyoba da ritmuli mxare fexis moZraobasTan Sexamebuli iqneboda. msgavs nimuSs samegreloSi dRes axali wlis (iSviaTad Sobis) misalocad kardakar Camovlisas asruleben. aRniSnuli msvleloba XVII saukunis italiel misioners, TeaTinel bers _ arqanjelo lambertis detalurad aqvs aRwerili (lamberti, 1938: 137-138). cnobilia, rom momRerlebs vaSliT, broweuliTa da yvavilebiT Semkuli CiCilakic dahqondaT xolme. aliloobisa da Wonaze siarulis msgavsad, kirialesas mTqmelebi sanovagesa da fuls agrovebdnen. ` _ hei, maspinZelo, kari gaaRe, / axal wels mogilocav! es Zveli da sxva _ axali! / sikeTiT gaixare! / veras gaklebdes eSmaki da mzakvari! / Seni beReli _ Romis marcvliT aivsos! / Seni marani _ RviniT aivsos! / Seni akvani _ dalocvili / Seni damwyevleli _ amomwydari! / moxucebuli Tu gyavs _ mieRwios Svidas wlamde! / Sors Tu gyavs vinme _ mSvidobiT dagbrunebodes! / erTi raime damimate Senagroveb fulze!~ _ aseTia am saaxalwlo milocvis sityvieri teqstebis qarTuli Targmani. kirialesas variantebis Sedareba simReris ganviTarebis etapebze dakvirvebis saSualebas gvaZlevs Wvenierobis dResaswauli da masTan dakavSirebuli tradiciuli musika 249 (mag. 1, 2). qeTevan WiTanavas cnobiT, SeZaxili kirieleison xujiS-osxapues ferxulSic ismoda, romelsac eliaobis (amindis RvTaebis) dResaswaulze asrulebdnen (Читанава, 1987: 49). Wvenieroba aSkarad xalxis mier Seqmnili xalxuri qristianuli dResaswaulimisteriaa, romlis ganuyofel nawils wirva da msaxurebis dasasruls sasuliero piris leloSi aqtiuri, misTvis Sesaferi formiT monawileoba warmoadgens. is, rom Wvenieroba xalxis mier daarsebuli dResaswaulia, amaze ioane zosimes kalendaric metyvelebs. am kalendris mixedviT, kviracxovlobis Semdgomi kviris yvela dRes, orSabaTis garda, miCenili aqvs saeklesio dResaswauli (kekeliZe, 1957: 279). Wvenierobis dResaswauli bunebis ganaxlebis, gazafxulisaken Semobrunebuli zamTris _ buniobis periods emTxveva. Tavis mxriv, rituali Zalian hgavs saaxalwlo wes-Cveulebebsac, sadac gansakuTrebuli adgili kvlav xes, tots, CiCilaks (saaxalwlod morTul xes) ukavia. albaT amitomaa, rom kirialesas Cvens xelT arsebuli cxra variantidan _ oTxi swored megruli saaxalwloa, romelTa intonaciuri analizi aSkarad avlens kavSirs saferxulo wyobis nimuSebTan. erTi nimuSi _ imeruli krialeso saaRdgomo ferxulad aris dafiqsirebuli (audiomag. 2). vfiqrobT, es faqti kargi argumentia saSobao da saaRdgomo simRerebis erTi wyarodan momdinareobis mtkicebisaTvis (RambaSiZe, 2004: 242), xolo maTi Sesrulebis saferxulo wesi, udaod, ritualis warmarTuli xanidan momdinareobaze migvaniSnebs. Sromis simRerebTan gamovlenili intonaciuri erTianobac nimuSebis siZvelisa da nayofierebis kultebTan kavSiris damadasturebelia. Wvenierobis dResaswaulis kompleqsuri, SedarebiTi da sistemuri kvleva saSualebas gvaZlevs warmovidginoT warmarTuli wes-Cveulebebis qristianuliT Canacvlebis realuri procesi, xangrZlivi istoriuli periodis manZilze Tvali gavadevnoT saero da saeklesio tradiciebis Tanaarsebobas, vikvlioT erTian musikalur kanonzomierebebze agebuli mravalxmiani sagaloblisa da xalxuri simReris urTierTmimarTebis sakiTxebi, agreTve, zogierTi sasimRero nimuSis genezisi da evoluciis gza. sagangebo ganxilvas saWiroebs ritualis elinur samyarosTan mimarTebisa da kirie eleisonis hangis bizantiur-qarTuli paralelebis sakiTxic. P. S. xis amoZirkvisas saTqmeli nimuSis Taviseburebebis Sesaxeb Cven mier gamoTqmuli varaudi dagvidastura 2013 wels saqarTvelos radios arqivSi aRmoCenilma Canawerma (audiomag. 3). SeniSvnebi 1 am TvalsazrisiT sainteresoa XVII s. italieli misioneris _ don kristeforo de kastelis Canaxati, romelic buks drandis saepiskoposo taZris fonze asaxavs (kasteli, 1976: 477). 2 sagazafxulo sportuli TamaSobebi saqarTveloSi dRemde imarTeba (magaliTad, guriis sof. 250 nino maxaraZe, nino RambaSiZe SuxuTis mcxovrebTa Sejibri firzec aris aRbeWdili). ar aris gamoricxuli, rom cnobili lotbaris _ varlam simoniSvilis mier erT-erT sabWour olimpiadaze wardgenili simRera burTis gamarjveba (kokelaZe, 1984: 284) swored amgvari TamaSebis dros Sesasrulebeli antifonuri SeZaxilebisa da intonaciebis akinZvis Sedegi yofiliyo. 3 sagulisxmoa, rom xis amoZirkvis tradicias xis dargvis tradiciac axlda _ aRdgomis wina dRes mamakacs Zalis Sesamateblad muxa an cacxvi unda daergo. 4 mxedvelobaSi gvaqvs d. arayiSvilis, k. kovaCis, a. xoravas, e. garayaniZis, d. SuRliaSvilis, n. SveliZis, m. xuxunaiSvilis, n. maxaraZis mier notirebuli nimuSebi. damowmebuli literatura eliava, givi. (1962). Wyondidi-martvili (istoriuli mimoxilva). Tbilisi: codna. erqvaniZe, malxaz (Semdg.). (2011). qarTuli saeklesio galoba. t. VI. gelaTis skola. Tbilisi: sruliad saqarTvelos sapatriarqos saeklesio galobis centri. TayaiSvili, eqvTime. (1993). martvilis monasteri. (redaqt. buba kudava). Tbilisi: samSoblo. kapanaZe, oTar. (2011). ,,saferxulo simRerebi samegreloSi~. Jurn.: musikismcodneoba da kulturologia, 1(7):52-64. http://gesj.internet-academy.org.ge/ge/list_artic_ge.php?b_sec=muz. kasteli, kristoforo. (1976). cnobebi da albomi saqarTvelos Sesaxeb. Targmani, gamokvleva da komentarebi beJan giorgaZisa. Tbilisi: mecniereba. kekeliZe, korneli. (1957). etiudebi, 5. Tbilisi: saqarTvelos mecnierebaTa akademiis gamomcemloba. kokelaZe, grigol (Semdg.). (1984). asi qarTuli xalxuri simRera. Tbilisi: xelovneba. lamberti, arqanjelo. (1938). samegrelos aRwera. Tbilisi: federacia. makalaTia, sergi. (1941). samegrelos istoria da eTnografia. Tbilisi: saqarTvelos mxareTmcodneobis sazogadoeba. malaymaZe, roin. (2002). liganis xeobis eqspediciis videomasala. inaxeba baTumis SoTa rusTavelis universitetis arqivSi. orbeliani, sulxan-saba. (1991). leqsikoni qarTuli. t. I. Tbilisi: merani. Wvenierobis dResaswauli da masTan dakavSirebuli tradiciuli musika 251 RambaSiZe, nino. (2004). ,,Wonas tradicia da misi genezisis zogierTi sakiTxi~. krebulSi: tradiciuli mravalxmianobis meore saerTaSoriso simpoziumi. moxsenebebi. gv. 242-253. redaqtorebi: wurwumia, rusudan da Jordania, ioseb. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri. RambaSiZe, nino. (2005). martvilis eqspediciis savele dRiuri. RambaSiZe, nino. (2011). martvilis eqspediciis savele dRiuri da videomasala. SilakaZe, manana. (2007). tradiciuli samusiko sakravebi da qarTul-Crdilokavkasiuri eTnokulturuli urTierTobebi. Tbilisi: kavkasiuri saxli. SuRliaSvili, daviT (Semdg.). (2005). qarTuli xalxuri simRerebi anCisxatis taZris repertuaridan. Tbilisi: globusi. SuRliaSvili, daviT (Semdg.). (2006). qarTuli saeklesio galoba. Semoqmedis skola artem erqomaiSvilis Canawerebis mixedviT. Tbilisi: iota. Cuxua, merab. (2000-2003). qarTvelur ena-kiloTa SedarebiTi leqsikoni. Tbilisi: universali. wulaZe, apolon. (1971). eTnografiuli guria. I gamocema. Tbilisi: sabWoTa saqarTveelo. Аракишвили, Димитрий. (1908). Народная песня Западной Грузии (Имеретии). С приложением 83 песен в народной гармонизации. Оттиски из II т. «Трудов Музыкально-Этнографической Комиссии» (МЭК). Москва. Ковач, Констатин. (1930). Песни кодорских Абхазцев. Москва: изд. Наркомпроса Абхазии и Академии абхазкого языка и литературы. Машурко, М. (1894). Предания основания Мартвильского монастыря. СМОМПК, №18, от. III. Читанава, Кетеван. (1987). Музыкальная культура равнинного населения Западной Грузии. Автореферат диссертации на соискание ученой степени кандидата исторических наук. Ереван: На правах рукописи. 252 NINO GHAMBASHIDZE, NINO MAKHARADZE (GEORGIA) CHVENIEROBA FESTIVAL AND TRADITIONAL MUSIC RELATED TO IT “Chve” in Megrelian means a young oak sapling. “Chvenieri” is the name of the mountain on which the Martvili church is erected. In Megrelia the chvenieroba feast was celebrated on the eighth day after Easter, i.e. on Monday, following St. Thomas’s Sunday. As the oral tradition has it the establishment of the feast is associated with the village of Bandza. The available ethnographic material connects it with the name of the Apostle St. Andrew, one of Christ’s disciples. According to the data provided by informants the chvenieroba feast had been observed until the 1920s, when eventually it was prohibited by Communists. Our interest in the feast was aroused by the traditional music associated with it. On the site of the present Martvili church there used to be a big oak (didi chqoni, chqondidi) to which a man’s figure, made of cast-iron (according to some data – of copper), was tied. The idol was called kapunia/rokapunia, alias didgmiri/dodgimiri. In some people’s imagination it was an eagle, which had its nest in chqondidi. The priests of the idol were called chqondari. At the idol’s feast – tutashkhoba (the Moon’s day, Monday) – a mother was to sacrifice her child to kapunia The child had to be exactly twelve months old, i.e. born in the previous year. Chqondaris cast lots to choose a child to be sacrificed. On Saturday the parents of the child chosen by the deity gave a family party, and on Sunday – Bzhashkha (the Sun’s day) the child was taken in the carriage to the oak, where the sacrificial ceremony was to be held (Mashurko, 1894: 376-377; Eliava, 1962: 15). By the way, in the ethnographic material the fact of the mother’s standing on the Martvili Plateau and wailing loudly over her child is also attested. As the story goes Andrew-the-First-Called and Simeon the Canaanite arrived in Martvili. St. Andrew demolished the idol, cut down the oak and erected a cross on the site. Before the eyes of the devout he hit the big oak with an axe and when it remained unharmed, the people recognized the power of Christ. Andrew dispatched a herald to announce the news that mothers would never have to sacrifice their children again. The legend tells that a population of Samegrelo adopted Christianity following St. Andrew’s preaches. Some pagans wonted to obstruct his apostolic activity and stole his shoos and crozier at night. The apostle went to Martvili bear feet. When he cut down the big oak tree the just-converted population of Bandza told him: “You have cut down the big oak tree, but many young oak trees are growing on the slope. People will take care of one of them and start worshipping them”. St. Andrew responded: “If we cut the big tree down, it will grow again, so let us uproot all the oaks”. Upon their return from Martvili the Bandzans celebrated the fact of cutting down the oak tree and called this chveenia/chvenieroba as a token of the victory of Christianity over paganism. The existence of this feast in the nineteenth century is attested by the fact that Prince Meki Paghava sent a special invitation to Ilia Chavchavadze to take part in the celebration. The guests were asked how they liked the ritual, Ilia answered wittily: “This should be called not chvenieroba (feast of the oak), but mshvenieroba (feast of beauty)”. Information about the chvenieroba feast was published in nineteenth-century periodicals. It was described by Ekvtime Taqaishvili, Sergi Makalatia, Korneli 253 Kekelidze and others. Ketevan Chitanava was the first to study this feast from the viewpoint of ethnomusicology. Like other researchers she considered the round-dance song “Mze shina da mze gareta” (performed different regions of Georgia at the childbirth celebration ritual, at the bedside of a recently confined woman; it was also sung to cure the child suffering from an infectious disease, it functioned as a soporific as well) to be the most ancient specimen associated with the solar cult (Chitanava, 1987: 66). It should be noted that this information, obtained by the scholar in the 1980s, represents the joining in the Mzeshina round dance in an original manner: linking their little fingers the men form a circle. The scholar also looks at the polyphonic Kirialesa, in whose intonational material the link with the simple variants of Megrelian round dance songs and the specimens with the basic quart from other provinces is revealed. It is noteworthy that before that Dimitri Araqishvili also referred to the round dance mode of Kirialesa (Arakchiev, 1908: 85). Its kinship with the round dance songs has also been established lately by Otar Kapanadze (Kapanadze, 2011: 52-53). In the hymns, together with the unchanged formula of Kirie Eleison (God, have mercy on us) in western Georgia its folklorized, modified forms are also attested in the names of some songs and refrains: kirialesa, kirialersa, kirjalesa, krialeso, kililesa, leison da kiria, eisedo kiria, eisade kirie, sadavoi kirialesa. In our opinion in the praying formula such changes must have taken place in the years when the Communist ideology was raging, and orthodox religion was persecuted purposefully.An analysis of the available scholarly literature and of the notated, audio and video recordings provided grounds to emphasize some interesting details in the dramatic composition of the above-mentioned feast. It is proved that chvenieroba was a truly popular feast where the participants, united in different groups, performed a round dance, played musical instruments, and recited poems. The festivities lasted for a long time. When describing pagan rituals, one of the informants associates rokapunia, the old name of the idol, with the term “rokva” meaning moving, dancing to an instrumental accompaniment. After the destruction of the idol and adopting Christianity, the people continued the tradition of getting together at chqondidi, walking round the oak tree and making merry, but now they sacrificed a pig. On Shrovetide Thursday or on New Year’s day the Kapunoba feast, which may be a remnant of the pagan festival, was celebrated and a pig or a boar was sacrificed. Tradition associates the ancient name of the feast Kapunoba/Rokapunoba/Didgmiroba with the ancient name of the idol. The name of the sacrificial pig Okapune must have stemmed from the name of the idol as well. The name of the idol Kapuna (Kap-una) must be a diminutive form of Kap, which in the Georgian language and its dialects is connected with a tree and its branch (Chukhua, 2000-2003: 120; Orbeliani, 1991: 352). The idol Chqondidi/Kapunia/Rokapunia/Didgmiri is clearly the highest deity, demiurge. It is possible that in the name of the pre-Christian idol a special role for the devotional ritual – round dance – was emphasized. It is noteworthy that in Bandza, Zelkova (water elm), a hardwood cult tree from the elm family, has since early times been used as a percussion or signal instrument in this country. During the Tchvenieroba feast the ringing of church bells and the sounds of a horn are heard constantly; though in the sources there is no special information whether they sound together or not, but the percussion and wind instruments are used in the same semantics. It is noteworthy that the horn is associated with religious feasts in other parts of Georgia too (Svaneti, Lechkhumi, Abkhazeti)1. In 254 Nino Ghambashidze, Nino Makharadze the countryside it was used to give a battle alarm, to call people to a community gathering or to take part in field work. The horn was sounded during hunting and in battles. In Abkhazeti they blew the horn when cursing a cattle stealer, and the one who gave him shelter (Shilakadze, 2007: 109). In the information about Samegrelo, with a special mention of the length of the horn (“at midday the call people with church bells and a long horn”) there is an indication that there was a short horn as well. At the following stage sports competitions also take place against the uninterrupted musical background. Together with the sounds of the bells and the horn Kirileison is also heard and in connection with this specimen the three terms – chanting, singing and exclamation - are used. After picking up the red ball placed at the Royal Door, “the priest walks around the church. People, chanting Kirileison continuously, follow him. Accompanied by the ringing of the church bells and the sounds of the horn they head for the field where Lelooba, a devotional game, is held”2. It is possible that the term chanting was used due to the prayer text of the specimen. In Georgian chanting practice this hymn is used when ordaining a priest (Shughliashvili, 2006: 242, Erkvanidze, 2011: 147). As an example we bring here is Artem Erkomaishvili’s variant (audio ex. 1). Kirileison, accompanied by exclamations, was associated with the ritual of shaking, rooting up, dragging away and planting a tree upside down, with its roots above the ground. According to the material preserved at the Martvili Museum of Regional Studies, the elders of the village chose a young oak at the village cemetery. An old man would climb it, shake its branches singing Eisade Kirie. As Givi Eliava, an eye-witness to the feast, says, men would dig up the tree, shoulder it and chanting the same words first walked around the cemetery three times, then they would walk round the Shaorkari St George’s church situated in the centre of Bandza. The uprooted tree was leaned against the church wall with its roots up. It was at this time that the round dance song Mze shina da mze gareta was performed; in our opinion it might have been adjusted to the Tchvenieroba feast due to the associative connection with the second birth of the saved child or the childbirth ritual. In the Christian Tchvenieroba the overturned tree was a symbol of defeating the idol. Uprooting the tree meant defeating the devil (Ghambashidze, 2011). The tree branches were broken into small pieces and taken home. There they were placed in small leather bags specially made for this purpose: the bag was kept so that the family’s welfare would be guaranteed till the next year. In the village of Najakhari, Veditkary the tradition of uprooting the tree was also called Sofioba, associating the word with the Megrelian word “sofua” – digging out, uprooting (Eliava, 1962:16; Ghambashidze, 2005). According to the oral tradition in the village of Bandza, the related families of the Kekelias and the Gabunias, who maintained strict exogamous relations, the ritual of planting the tree upside down was still observed about 25-27 years ago. The participants of the ritual said, “Let the one who violates the oath sworn between the Kekelias and the Gabunias be ruined like this tree”. Early in the morning they brought the uprooted tree. One man would start digging a hole in the ground, the rest would start a round dance singing Eisedo kiria (Ghambashidze, 2011)3. The short phrases of the specimen to be recited at that time must have been like the passages from the specimens of work songs – Naduri, Elesa. And factually, the expedition of 2011 managed to record similar examples (see video fragments). It is noteworthy that Lesion da Kiria, recorded in Samegrelo in the year 1902 by Dimitri Araqishvili (Arakchiev, 1908: No. 17), and Kilile, written down by Constantine Kovatch in Samurzaqano in the year 1929 (Kovatch, 1930: No. 9), connected with the completion of work, namely work in the cornfields, are two-part songs. Chvenieroba Festival and Traditional Music Related to It 255 In many provinces of western Georgia at the last stage of collective work Elesa was sung. According to Apolon Tsuladze Elesa was sung without words when carrying heavy weights, logs and a wine press. No wonder that they used short, but most suitable, phrases to ask God for assistance in achieving their goal. When the work was very hard it was impossible even to think about poetry. In the exclamations: Elesa da vio, oo, ele, ele, aha, elesa da vio and oi in some places (especially in western Guria) these words were followed by Kirio instead of vio (Tsuladze, 2009: 26). Therefore we think that some scholars’ (Jemal Chkhaidze, Malkhaz Erkvanidze) conjecture to the effect that the song Elesa (hesa) stems from Kirie eleison is quite plausible. The Helasa that has survived in Lazeti and is sung when dragging a boat or a fishing net out of the water may also be added to the above. Among the Georgian population who are under the Turkish influence the “petrification” of Christian prayer formulae in refrains must be considered to be a very significant fact. Our compatriots, living in the Ligani Gorge (Turkey), perform such specimens up to the present time (Malaqmadze, 2002). It is obvious that when walking about the village or round the church the mode and the rhythmic aspect of Kirialesa must have been adjusted to the leg movements. Today, a similar specimen is performed in Samegrelo when going from house to house to wish people a Happy New Year (rarely it also happens at Christmas). By the way, the above tradition was described in detail by Archangelo Laberti, an Italian missionary in the 17th century (Lamberti, 1938: 137-138). It is known that the singers also carried Chichilaki4 adorned with apples, pomegranates and flowers. As when walking on Alilooba and Tchonaoba, the performers of Kirialesa also collected provisions and money. “Hey, host, open the door, / Happy New Year! / Be happy, may the deuce and evil do no harm to you! / May your barn be full with millet, and your wine-cellar with wine! / Blessed is your cradle! / Exterminated be who curse you! may the elderly of your family live 700 years! / May those of your family who are far a way return home safe and sound! Please help me with some money!” – This is the translation of the New Year’s wishes. The comparison of Kirialesa variants allows to observe the stages of the song development (ex. 1, 2). As Ketevan Chitanava writes, the exclamation Kirieleison could also be heard during the Khujishoskhapue round dance, which was performed at the Eliaoba (deity of weather) feast (Chitanava, 1987: 49). It is obvious that Chvenieroba is a popular Christian feast-mystery created by people, its indispensable part being liturgy and at the end clergymen also took part in the play; they started plaing lelo by throwing a ball. The fact that Chvenieroba is a feast established by people is corroborated by Ioane-Zosime’s calendar. According to the calendar on every day after St Thomas’s Sunday, except Monday, some church feast is fixed (Kekelidze, 1957: 279). The feast of Chvenieroba coincides with the period of winter solstice, nature’s revival and turning towards spring. For its part, the ritual bears a great resemblance to the New Year’s customs and traditions as well, where a special place is again occupied by a tree, a tree-branch or Chichilaki (a tree decorated for the New Year). It must have been due to this fact that of all the nine available variants5, four are Megrelian meant for the New Year, and their intonational analysis clearly reveals their association with the specimens of round-dance mode. One specimen, the Imeretian Krialeso is considered to be an Easter round-dance. In our opinion this fact is a good argument to prove that Christmas and Easter songs have originated from the same source (Ghambashidze, 2004: 242). As for the round-dance tradition of their performance, quite evidently, it refers to their pagan provenance. Their intonational kinship with the work songs also substantiates their antiquity and association with 256 Nino Ghambashidze, Nino Makharadze the cult of fertility. A complex, comparative and methodical study of the Chvenieroba feast gives us grounds to follow the real process of the superseding of pagan customs and traditions by Christian ones, to observe the co-existence of secular and ecclesiastic traditions for a long period of time, to carry out research into the problems of the interrelation between the multi-part chants constructed on the common musical regularities and folk songs and also into the genesis and evolution of some specimens of songs. The issues of the relations with the Hellenic world of rituals and the Byzantine-Georgian parallels of the Kirie Eleison melody also call for a special study. P.S. Our consideration on the peculiarities of an example performed when uprooting a tree was confirmed by the manuscript discovered at the archive of Georgia State radio in 2013 (audio ex. 3). Notes 1 From this viewpoint a sketch by the 17th-century Italian missionary Don Christoforo de Castelli is very interest- ing, he depicts the horn against the background of the Episcopal cathedral in Dranda (Castelli, 1976). 2 Spring sport games are still held in Georgia (for instance the competition of the inhabitants of the village of Shukhuti in Guria is even filmed). It cannot be excluded that the song Burtis Gamarjveba (Victory of the Ball), (Kokeladze, 1984:284), presented at one of the Soviet sports games by the outstanding choral conductor Varlam Simonishvili may have resulted from the compounding of antiphonic exclamations and intonations to be performed during such games. 3 It is noteworthy that the tradition of uprooting the tree was accompanied by the tradition of tree planting on the eve of Easter: a man should plant an oak or a linden to be stronger. 4 Chichilaki – a stick, mainly from a hazel bush with the bark shaved off, the shavings being left on the stick like curls. Ch. Is adorned with sweets and fruit. It is an attribute of a New Year celebration in some parts of Georgia (translator’s note). 5 We mean D. Araqishvili’s, K. Kovatch’s, A. Khorava’s, E. Garaqanidze’s, D. Shugliashvili’s, N. Shvelidze’s, M. Khukhunaishvili’s, N. Makharadze’s notated specimens. References Araqishvili, Dimitri. (1908). Narodnaia pesnia zapadnoi Gruzii (Imeretii). S prilozheniem 83 pesen v narodnoi garmonizatsii (Folk Songs of West Georgia (Imereti). With 83 Songs in Folk Harmonization). Reprints from II Vol. Works of the Musical-ethnogaphic Commission (MEK). Moscow. (in Russian) Chukhua, Merab. (2000-2003). Kartvelur ena-kilota shedarebiti leksikoni (Comparative Dictionaly of Kartvelian Chvenieroba Festival and Traditional Music Related to It 257 Lenguages and Dialects). Tbilisi: Universali. (in Georgian) Chitanava, Ketevan. (1987). Musikalnaia kultura ravninnogo naselenia Zapadnoi Gruzii (Musical Culture of the Plainsmen of West Georgia). Author’s abstract of dissertation on scientific degree of candidate of historical sciences. Yerevan: Manuscript. (in Russian) Eliava, Givi. (1962). Chkondidi-Martvili (istoriuli mimokhilva) (Chkondidi-Martvili (Historical Review). Tbilisi: Tsodna. (in Georgian) Erkvanidze, Malkhaz. (Comp.) (2011). Kartuli saeklesio galoba (Georgian Sacred Chanting). Vol.VI. Gelati School. Tbilisi: Center of Georgian Sacred Chant of Georgian Patriarchate. (in Georgian) Ghambashidze, Nino. (2004). “Chonas traditsia da misi genezisis zogierti sakitkhi” (“Tradition of Chona and Some Issues of Its Genesis”). In: The Second International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 242-253. Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Ghambashidze, Nino. (2005). Field diary of Martvili Expedition. Ghambashidze, Nino. (2011). Field diary of Martvili Expedition and video material. Kapanadze, Otar. (2011). “Saperkhulo simgherebi samegreloshi” (“Round Songs in Samegrelo”). In: Musikismcodneoba da kulturologia (Musicology and Culturology). Reviewed Electronic Scientific Magazine, 1(7):5264. http://gesj.internet-academy.org.ge/ge/list_artic_ge.php?b_sec=muz (in Georgian) Kastelli, Kristophoro. (1976). Tsnobebi da albomi sakartvelos shesakheb (Information and Album about Georgia). Translation, research and comments by Bejan Giorgadze. Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (in Georgian) Kekelidze, Korneli. (1957). Etiudebi 5 (Etudes 5). Tbilisi: Publishing House of Gerogian Academy of Science. (in Georgian) Kokeladze, Grigol (comp.). (1984). Asi Kartuli khalkhuri simghera (Hundred Georgian Folk Songs). Tbilisi: Khelovneba. (in Georgian) Kovach, Konstantin. (1930). Pesni kodorskikh abkhaztsev (Songs of Abkhaz from Kodori). Moscow: Published by Narkompros of Abkhazii and Abkhazian Academy of Lenguage and Literture. Lamberti, Arcangelo. (1938). Samegrelos aghtsera (Discription of Samegrelo). Tbilisi: Phederatsia. (in Georgian) Makalatia, Sergi. (1941). Samegrelos istoria da etnographia (History and Ethnography of Samegrelo) Tbilisi: Georgian Local History Society. (in Georgian) 258 Nino Ghambashidze, Nino Makharadze Malaqmadze, Roin, (2002). Video omaterial of Ligani Gorge field expedition. Mashurko, M. (1894). “Predania osnovania Martvilskogo monastyria” (“Legends on Origins of Martvili Monastery”). СМОМПК, №18, от. III. Orbeliani, Sulkhan-Saba. (1991). Leksikoni Kartuli (Georgian Dictionary). Vol. 1. Tbilisi: Merani. (in Georgian) Shilakadze, Manana. (2007). Traditsiuli samusiko sakravebi da Kartul-Chrdilokavkasiuri etnokulturuli urtiertobebi (Traditional Musical Instruments and Georgian-North Caucasian Relationships). Tbilisi: Caucasian House. (in Georgian) Shughliashvili, Davit (comp.). (2005). Kartuli khalkhuri simgherebi Anchiskhatis tadzris repertuaridan (Georgian Folk Songs from the Repertoire of Anchiskhati Churche). Tbilisi: Globusi. (in Georgian) Shughliashvili, Davit (Comp.). (2006). Kartuli saeklesio galoba. Shemokmedis skola Artem Erkomaishvilis chanatserebis mikhedvit (Georgiam Sacred Chant. Shemokmedi school according to Artem Erkomaishvili’s recordings ). Tbilisi: Iota. (in Georgian) Taqaishvili, Ekvtime. (1993). Martvilis monastery (Martvili Monastery). Editor Kudava, Buba. Tbilisi: Samshoblo. (in Georgian) Tsuladze, Apolon. (1971). Etnograpiuli guria. (Ethnographic Guria). First ed. Tbilisi: Sabchota Sakartvelo. (in Georgian) Translated by Lia Gabechava nino RambaSiZe, nino maxaraZe. danarTi Nino Ghambashidze, Nino Makharadze. APPENDIX 259 magaliTi 1. sadavoi kirialesa. saSobao (fragmenti). Cawerilia 2000 w. TbilisSi marina xuxunaiSvilis mier. asr. Cxorowyueli nazi jaiani. notireba m xuxunaiSvilisa Example 1. Sadavoi Kirialesa. Christmas (fragment). Recorded by Marina Khukhunaishvili in 2000. Performer by Nazi Jaiani from Chkhorotsku. Transcribed. by M.khukhunaishvili 260 nino RambaSiZe, nino maxaraZe. danarTi Nino Ghambashidze, Nino Makharadze. APPENDIX magaliTi 2. kirialesa. saaxalwlo (fragmenti). Cawerilia 1990-ian ww. ediSer garayaniZis mier. asrulebda martvilis raionis sof. banZis ansambli omar xuxuas xelmZRvanelobiT. notirebulia qeTevan gelaSvilis mier Example 2. Kirialesa. New year song (fragment). Recorded by Edisher Garakanidze in the 90s of the past century. Performed by the ensemble from v. Bandza, Martvili district, under the leadership of Omar Khukhua. Transcribed. by Ketevan Gelashvili 261 rie koCi (iaponia) polifoniuri elementebi ainus tradiciuli musikis monofoniur sasimRero stilebSi winamdebare statiis mizania ainus monofoniuri sasimRero tradiciis zogierTi polifoniuri aspeqtis ganxilva da maTi Taviseburebebis Seswavla Zveli Canawerebis magaliTze. Sesavali avtori gvTavazobs ainus jgufuri-sasimRero stilis axal klasifikacias (2012), polifoniasa da monofoniaSi daSrevebul xmebsa da simaRleze dakvirvebis safuZvelze. solo simRera rogorc zemoT motanili magaliTidan Cans, ainus xalxs hqonda koleqtiurad mReris ara marto polifoniuri, aramed monofoniuri tradiciac _ responsoruli (or xmas Soris) da unisonuri (erT xmaSi), Tumca ukouki gansakuTrebuli popularobiT sargeblobda da gamoirCeoda mezobeli xalxebis (iaponelebis CaTvliT) tradiciidan. musikismcodneebi nakleb yuradRebas iCendnen monofoniis mimarT, radgan is ar iyo iseTi unikaluri, rogorc ukouki. amasTan, msgavsi monofoniuri stili arsebobda Crdilo-aRmosavleT honsius kunZulis iaponelTa xalxur simRerebSi da iTvleboda, rom swored am ukanasknelma moaxdina didi gavlena ainus musikalur tradiciaze. Sesabamisad, ismis kiTxva: ra tipis kavSiria polifoniasa da monofonias Soris maSin, rodesac orive maTgani erTi kulturis SigniT arsebobs da ra saxiT vlindeba is ainus SemTxvevaSi? rogor xasiaTdeba da ramdenad identificirebadia monofonia ainus tardiciasTan? am kiTxvebiT daviwyeb ainus tradiciuli monofoniis zogierTi aspeqtis ganxilvas. 262 rie koCi sakiTxis ganxilvisTvis avirCie 1940-1970 w.w.-Si Cawerili masala3, romelic fokusirebulia ufro tradiciul da Zvel elementebze. rogorc mogvianebiT vnaxavT, miaCniaT, rom ganviTarebuli heterofonia mWidrod aris dakavSirebuli simReris ufro tradiciul tipTan, ris gamoc Tanamedrove simReraSi Cven ver SevxvdebiT variantebis uwindel mravalferovnebas. masala Zalian mwiria da mogvianebiT naxsenebi xmis bevri elementi dRes naklebad ismis, amitom Znelia maTi arsebobis pirdapiri dasturis mopoveba Tanamedrove momRerlebisgan. gamovyof sam sakiTxs ainus monofoniidan: ganviTarebuli heterofonia; responsoruli stilisa (monofonia) da ukoukis (polifonia) msgavseba da siaxlove; polifoniisa da monofoniis monacvleobis SesaZlebloba. 1. ganviTarebuli heterofonia ainus koleqtiur simReraSi gvxvdeba ganviTarebuli heterofoniis gamovlinebebi – gansxvavebuli simaRlis Sreebi. rac ufro Zvelia Canaweri, miT ufro didia heterofoniis mravalferovneba4 (mag. 1, 2). es faqti emTxveva i. Jordanias mosazrebas imis Sesaxeb, rom polifoniuri tradiciis TandaTanobiTi gaqroba warmoadgens msoflios mravali regionis polifoniuri kulturis universalur tendencias (Jordania, 2006: 198-210). zedmetia imis Tqma, rom ainus xalxs arasodes hqonia harmonizebuli mravalxmiani simReris tradicia5. iTvleba, rom es JReradi fenomeni mWidrodaa dakavSirebuli simReris tradiciul saxeebTan. es aris improvizaciuli variantebi da xmis sxvadasxva tembruli SeferilobiT gamocema, rogorc es aRniSnulia adrindel gamokvlevebSi: • improvizaciuli variantebi _ tanimotos mixedviT, ukoukSi TiToeuli momRerali mReroda erTi da igive melodias monacvleobiT, Tumca, ufro zustad, melodia mTlad igive ar iyo (Tanimoto, 1965); metic, erTi da igive momRerali, faqtobrivad,Ayovel jerze qmnida variants. unda aRiniSnos, rom melodiis aseTi varireba gamoiyeneboda sxva sasimRero stilebSic da TavisTavad varireba Zalian mniSvnelovani da arsebiTi iyo ainus musikaSi6. • xmis gamocema sxvadasxva tembruli SeferilobiT _ meore mxriv, Ciba gamoTqvams axal mosazrebebs Tavis uaxles saeqspedicio masalaze dayrdnobiT. fenomeni, romlis JReradobis simaRle TiTqos icvleba, xmis sxvadasxva tembruli SeferilobiT gadmoicema. isic unda aRiniSnos, rom ainus tradicia upiratesobas aZlevs simReris sxvadasxva tembruli SeferilobiT Sesrulebas. `cvalebadi intervalebis odnav SesamCnevi varireba damokidebulia (. . .) mxolod individebze, erTi da igive bgera erTsa da imave adgilas, erTsa da imave simReraSi JRers xan myifed, xan xaverdovnad, TiToeuli momRerlis xmis tembris Sesabamisad~ (Chiba, 1996: 12)7. amrigad, varirebulad mJReri melodia ganxilulia `eTikuri~ (ufro zogadi) TvalsazrisiT, rogorc improvizacia da aseve `emikuri~ (ufro konkretuli) TvalsazrisiT, rogorc tembruli Seferilobis upiratesobis Sedegi. es heterofoniuli JReradobebi warmoadges erTi da imave melodiis gameorebas. amis gamo, adamianebs, romelTaTvisac musikaSi bgeris simaRlea mTavari, ainus het- polifoniuri elementebi ainebis tradiciuli musikis monofoniur sasimRero stilebSi 263 erofonia Zalian martivi moeCvenebaT. amitom, Cemi azriT, Tu polifoniis kvleva sxvadasxva simaRlebriv Sreebze koncentrirebas saWiroebs, ainus musikis polifoniuri elementebi ganxiluli unda iqnas `eTikuri~ TvalsazrisiT. aseTi varireba SeiZleba momdinareobdes ainus tradiciuli melodiebis maxasiaTeblebidan, romelTa umravlesoba mokle musikaluri motivebisa da maTi gameorebebisagan Sedgeba. Tu es fenomenebi – improvizacia da tembruli upiratesoba – arsebiTia da xSirad Cndeba stilisagan damoukideblad, Cven SegviZlia vTqvaT, rom ainus heterefonia ar gaCenila jgufuri simRerisas, aucileblobidan gamomdinare. 2. responsoruli stilisa (monofonia) da ukoukis (polifonia) kavSiri ganvixiloT responsoruli simReris struqtura. aRniSnuli responsoruli stili iqmneba ori xmis _ solosa da unisonis monofoniiT. orive _ wamyvani da mimyoli xma SeiZleba imReros erTma an mravalma Semsrulebelma. am stilSi or tipi ikveTeba: a) gameoreba mTeli gundis mier (audiomag. 1); da b) frazebad gameoreba (audiomag. 2). melodia an fraza imRereba wamyvani xmis mier, romelsac eqoseburad imeorebs mimyoli xma. am stilSi, rogorc unisonuri simRerisas, ise ori xmis monacvleobisas, JReradobis Sreebi bunebrivad ismis, rogorc heterofonia (rogorc es vnaxeT I qveTavSi). am dros Zalian mniSvnelovania ukoukisTan, ainus kanonikur polifoniasTan struqturuli msgavsebis dadgena. ganvixiloT es ufro detalurad. upirveles yovlisa, am stils ukoukisTan aaxlovebs droiTi msgavsebis principi (mag. 3); erTi melodia imRereba mravali xmis mier, romlebic simReris dawyebis regulirebas axdenen8. meore: erTi da igive musikaluri principi gadmoicema Tanmimdevrulad: gameoreba, eqo da imitacia. es ufro gasagebi xdeba, roca mas vadarebT iaponuri xalxuri simReris responsorul stils. tanimoto gamoyofs Crdilo-aRmosavleT honsius kunZulis iaponuri xalxuri simReris gavlenas ainus musikaze (Tanimoto, 1965). iaponur xalxur simReras axasiaTebs msgavsi responsoruli Sesruleba wamyvan xmasa da mopasuxe jgufs Soris. iaponur variantSi ar aris aucilebeli, rom mopasuxe jgufma aucileblad gaimeoros solistis mier Sesrulebuli melodia an fraza (mag. 4). xSirad gvxvdeba iseTi magaliTebic, sadac mTeli melodia dayofilia da yoveli fraza solistsa da jgufs Soris monacvleobiT meordeba. meore mxriv, ainus simReris am tipSi musikaluri principi ufro zustadaa imitirebuli eqos msgavsad (rogorc es audiomag. 2-Sia), maSin, roca iaponur simRerebSi maTi gameoreba aucilebeli araa. es imitaciuri principi aseve axasiaTebs ukouks. ra Tqma unda, Cven ver gamovitanT naCqarev daskvnebs maT urTierTkavSirze, magram aseTi struqturuli msgavsebis ignorirebac ar aris marTebuli. aqac, ukoukisa da responsoruli stilis aseTi siaxlove momdinareobs ainus melodiebis Taviseburebidan, romlebic Zalian patara motivebisa da maTi gameorebisgan Sedgeba. 264 rie koCi 3. polifoniisa da monofoniis monacvleobis SesaZlebloba Semdegi magaliTi sxva SesaZleblobaze migvaniSnebs. 1947 wels kuSiroSi Cawerili magaliTi (Chiri-NHK, 1948: C-PR155) warmoadgens sami saferxulo-sacekvao simReris ciklis saintereso Sesrulebas9. responsoruli stilis ori simReris Semdeg, isini SeuCereblad asruleben mesames. Semsruleblebi _ solisti da jgufi _ responsorul stilSi asruleben simReras da Semdeg, imave simReris gameorebisas, cvlian stils ukoukiT (audiomag. 3) (mag. 5). am SemTxvevis ganxilvisas sifrTxile gvmarTebs, radgan es aris erTaderTi magaliTi, romelic CanaweriTaa dafiqsirebuli. ramdenadac es magaliTi momavalSi moiTxovs damatebiT ganxilvas, Cven SegviZlia gamovTqvaT Semdegi varaudi: (1) es iyo mxolod maTi Secdoma da modifikacia; (2) isini apirebdnen ukoukis Sesrulebas, magram gaagrZeles simRera wina simRerebis responsorul stilSi; (3) tradiciis Tanaxmad, simReris Sesabamisad, stili unda Secvliliyo; (4) maT SeeZloT emReraT nebismierad (simReris stili zustad ar iyo fiqsirebuli). Cemi azriT, bolo (4) punqti ufro savaraudoa, Tumca jerjerobiT amis mtkiceba SeuZlebelia. am ramdenime xnis win, erTma xanSiSesulma momReralma qalbatonma damidastura informacia, rom sxvadasxva dros erTsa da imave simReras gansxvavebulad asrulebdnen _ xan ukoukis stilSi, xan responsorulad. es SeiZleba iyos ainus musikaSi polifoniisa da monofoniis SesaZlo monacvleobis erT-erTi myari dasabuTeba. sxva sityvebiT rom vTqvaT, SeiZleba konkretuli simRera ukavSirdebodes ara marto erTi sasimRero stilis tradicias, aramed sxva stilsac. am sakiTxis ganxilva unda gagrZeldes momavalSi. sainteresoa, rom Canaweris dasasruls simRera qreba. Tu es cekvebis saboloo dasasruli iyo da Tu ori stilis monacvleoba ar iyo ubralo Secdoma, SegviZlia ganvavrcoT Cveni varaudebi istoriuli kuTxiTac. magaliTad, Jordania aRniSnavs, rom simRerebis bolos xandaxan `rCeba~ xolme polifoniuri Sesruleba, roca xdeba misi kleba da Canacvleba simReris ufro monofoniuri stiliT (Jordania, 2006). Cven ar unda daviviwyoT es saintereso mosazreba, sanam sakmarisad Rrmad ar SeviswavliT ainus musikas. magram, amave dros, ar unda SevwyvitoT fiqri or SesaZleblobaze: ainus ukouki, an kanonikuri simRera SeiZleboda warmoSobiliyo responsoruli Sesrulebis miRma; responsoruli Sesrulebis tradicia SeiZleboda Casaxuliyo kanonikuris miRma. cxadia, zemoT aRniSnuli sakiTxi Zalian sakamaToa. darwmunebuli var, rom ainus tradiciuli musikis samomavlo kvleva xels Seuwyobs polifoniis SedarebiT kvlevas msoflio masStabiT. daskvna amgvarad, ainus monofoniuri jgufuri simRera gvevlineba ar wminda monofoniad, aramed sxvadasxva polifoniuri elementebis mier Seferadebul monofoniad; ganviTarebuli heterofonia, misi struqturuli da musikaluri msgavseba ukoukTan iZleva polifoniuri elementebi ainebis tradiciuli musikis 265 monofoniur sasimRero stilebSi polifoniasa da monofonias Soris kavSiris kvlevis SesaZleblobas. zemoT motanili magaliTebi gansakuTrebul Taviseburebas sZens ainus monofonias (sq. 1). madliereba msurs Rrma madliereba gamovxato doqtor Jordaniasadmi misi sasargeblo ganmartebebisa da winadadebebisTvis, gansakuTrebiT III qveTavTan dakavSirebiT. SeniSvnebi 1 unisonuri simReris aRsaniSnavad sityva uvopuki mxolod CirisTan (Chiri, 1955: 86) gvxvdeba. vinaidan ar arsebobs sxva informacia, umjobesia Tavi SevikavoT misi gamoyenebisagan. ZiriTadad, vemyarebi Ciris (1948, 1949), nihon hoso kiokais (Nihon Hoso Kyokai=NHK - iaponiis radiomauwyeblobis korporacia) (1967) da honda da kaianos (Honda & Kayano) (1976/2008). 2 3 is, aseve, SeiZleba Segvxvdes responsoruli simReris unisonur xmaSi (amaze vmsjelobT me-2 da me-3 qveTavebSi). 4 zogierTi Zveli Canaweri amgvar Sesrulebas gviCvenebs, rogorc paralelur polifoniur moZraobas (mag. 6). jer kidev miWirs am SemTxvevebis aRqma, rogorc gacnobierebuli musikaluri movlenisa. 5 Cven SegviZlia vusminoT maT; aseTi cvalebadoba uceb gardaiqmneba zustad fiqsirebul melodiad da, am TvalsazrisiT, SegviZlia vTqvaT, rom igi ufro monofoniuri gaxda. 6 originali iaponuria (miaxlobiT inglisur Targmanze pasuxismgeblobas avtori iRebs). Cibas mixedviT (Chiba, 1996) Sesruleba ori aspeqtisgan Sedgeba: simaRlisa (anu intervalebisagan) da xmisgan (anu tembrisagan), Tumca es ori mWidrodaa erTmaneTTan dakavSirebuli. amasTan, damtkicebulia, rom ainus sasimRero tradiciaSi warsulSi upiratesoba xmier ton-ferebs eniWeboda, magram, droTa ganmavlobaSi, tembrul Seferilobaze didi mniSvneloba xmis simaRlem SeiZina. 7 melodia unda daimaxsovron, rogorc erTi xma (mag. 7); Tumca, TiToeuls sxvadasxva saxeli ewodeboda (Chiri, 1955: 86), amis gamo, upriani iqneba, Tu vityviT, rom orive namdvilad gansakuTrebuli da gamorCeulia dRes. 8 zogierTi regionSi ganviTarebuli ukoukis stilis garda, dRes ainus saferxulo cekvebs responsoruli an unisonuri simRerebi uwevs Tanxlebas. TiToeuli mokle simRera SerCeulia SemTxveviT da imeoreben imdenjer, ramdenjerac surT, Semdeg ki sxva simReriT Caanacvleben. 266 rie koCi audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. saferxulo simRera urara suye e kamuy sinta atuy tun na e tunun paye Cawerilia kuSiroSi 1947w; wyaro CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR155B dedani inaxeba hokaidos prefeqturis biblioTekaSi). audiomagaliTi 2. saferxulo simRera hoy ya a a hoy ya o o ho hoy ho hoy ya Cawerilia asakihavaSi 1947w. wyaro CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR152B, dedani inaxeba hokaidos prefeqturis biblioTekaSi). audiomagaliTi 3. saferxulo simRera matnaw rera apaca osma uran nisi kanto korikin Cawerilia kuSiroSi 1947w; wyaro CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR155B, dedani inaxeba hokaidos prefeqturis biblioTekaSi). Targmna maia kaWkaWiSvilma 267 RIE KÔCHI (JAPAN) THE POLYPHONIC ASPECTS IN THE MONOPHONIC SINGING STYLES OF AINU TRADITIONAL MUSIC The purpose of the paper is to indicate some polyphonic aspects on Ainu monophonic singing tradition and to discuss its characteristics, referring to older recorded materials. Introduction The author presents a new classification of group-singing styles of the Ainu (2012), by looking at the layered parts and pitches in polyphony and monophony, as below; As shown above, the Ainu people have had not only polyphony but also monophonic tradition in their group-singings; the responsorial one (between two parts) and the unison (in one part), while ukouk singing has been very famous and distinctive from the neighboring peoples (including Japanese). Little musicological attention, however, has been paid to their monophony, since it does not seem as unique as ukouk and there have been similar monophonic styles in the folk songs of major Japanese of Northeastern Honshu island, which is thought to have affected Ainu music tradition. These raise the questions; what kind of concerns are there between polyphony and monophony when both exist in one culture, and how is it in the case of the Ainu? How characteristic and identifiable is their monophony as Ainu tradition? With these questions, I will now discuss some aspects of the traditional monophony of the Ainu. For this consideration, I have selected the materials recorded in the 1940s -1970s3, focusing on the more traditional and older elements. As we will discuss later, generating rich heterophony is considered to have close relation with their more traditional singing ways, for we cannot hear abundant variants in modern singing as before. The materials, however, are very limited and many voice elements (mentioned later) are less heard at present, so we can hardly prove them by informed directly from modern singers. Here, let us distinguish three issues from Ainu monophony to discuss; Abundant heterophony; Affinity between responsorial style (monophony) and ukouk (polyphony); Possibility of alternating 268 Rie Kôchi polyphony and monophony. 1. Abundant Heterophony The appearances of abundant heterophony different pitch layers― can be heard in group singing of the Ainu. The older the years of recording of any materials, the larger the variety of heterophony that can be listened to4 (ex. 1, 2). Also, this fact coincides with the suggestion of Jordania (2006:198210) that gradual disappearance of polyphonic traditions is a universal trend in polyphonic cultures in many regions of the world. Needless to say, there has never been any tradition of multi-part-singing to intend harmonization among the Ainu, as far as investigated5. These sonic phenomena are considered to be closely correlated with more traditional ways of singing. That is, the improvisational variants and the voicing within various timbre elements, which have been designated in each of the two representative preceding studies as below. • Improvisational variants – according to Tanimoto (1965), in ukouk, each singer sang the same melody one after another, yet strictly speaking it is not completely the same. Moreover, even the same singer made variants in detail every time she/he sang. It is also pointed out that such variations of the melody were adapted to other singing styles likewise, and that the variant making itself was very important and essential to Ainu music6. • Voicing within various timbre elements – on the other hand, Chiba shows newer viewpoints based on his close fieldworks (Chiba, 1996); the phenomena which sound like changes in pitches are accompanied by different ways of voicing. It is also mentioned that Ainu tradition gave priority to the voicing with various tone-colors fixed to the song. As a result, “subtle variation of changing intervals was commended to the individuals’ conveniences (. . . .) One sound in the same place in the same song sounds scattered or fuzzy, depending on the singer (Chiba, 1996: 12)”7. Thus the melody, which sounds unstable in a way, has been discussed, some from a more “ethic” viewpoint as an improvisation, others from a more “emic” one as a result of voicing precedence. Needless to say, mass of those heterophonic sounds is thought to have been as one melody for those concerned, so in this meaning Ainu heterophony would seem to be much easier for outsiders whose musical background were in the pitch-predominating music to recognize as the layers of different pitches. In this meaning, I suppose the polyphonic elements of Ainu music must be much discussed from an “ethic” viewpoint if the examination of polyphony here needs to be concentrated into the layers of different pitches. Certainly for one thing, such variation can derive from one of the characteristics of Ainu traditional melodies, most of which consist of very brief musical motifs and their repetition. Anyway, when these phenomena – whether improvisation or voicing precedence – are essential and often arising without regards to any styles, we can say that Ainu heterophony was born out of the necessity whenever they did group-singing. 2. Affinity between Responsorial Style (Monophony) and Ukouk (Polyphony) Next, let us see about the structure of the responsorial singing. This responsorial style is monophony of two parts basically solo and unison. Both leading and The Polyphonic Elements in the Monophonic Singing Styles of Ainu Traditional Music 269 following parts can be sung by either single or several singers. This style is moreover classified into two types; (a) whole chorus repeated (audio ex. 1) and (b) phrase-by-phrase repeated (audio ex. 2). In either way, a melody or a phrase is sung by the leading part and is repeated by the following one like an echo. Also in this style, the layers of sounds are naturally heard as heterophony (as we discussed in 1.) within unison part and in overlapping when two parts switch. Here, it is more important to recognize structural similarities with ukouk, the canonic polyphony of Ainu. Let us see these in detail. Firstly, this style has a kind of time affinity with ukouk, (ex. 3) in this one melody is sung by several voices staggering the timing to begin8. Secondly, the same musical principle is shared consistently: repetition, echoing, or imitation. This seems rather understandable when comparing with similar responsorial style of Japanese folk songs. Tanimoto pointed out the musical influence on Ainu music from Japanese folk songs of the North-Eastern part of the mainland Honshu (Tanimoto, 1965). Japanese folk songs also have similar responsorial singing between one leading singer and a responding group. In the Japanese one, however, the responding group does not necessarily repeat the phrase or the melody sung by the soloist in advance (ex.4). Also often observed are the cases when the whole melody is divided and each phrase is shared between the soloist and a group alternately. On the other hand, the musical principle of this type of Ainu is much more thoroughly imitative like an echo (audio ex. 2), while Japanese songs are not necessarily repeated. This imitative principle is also running in ukouk. Of course we cannot conclude their relation rapidly, however such structural similarity cannot be ignored. Here again, the affinity to ukouk and responsorial styles derives from the characteristics of Ainu melodies which consist of very brief motifs and their repetition 3. Possibility of Alternating Monophony and Polyphony Next example indicates another possibility. This is the case (Chiri-NHK, 1948: C-PR155) recorded in 1947 in Kushiro, containing an interesting performance of a series of three circle dance songs9. After two songs in responsorial style, they sang the third song. There singers began in responsorial style between a soloist and a group, and then, by the repetitions of the same song, they switched the style to ukouk (audio ex. 3) (ex. 5). Here we must be very careful, since this is the only example, where such change was apparently documented. As far as this case is concerned, we can still make the following suppositions: (1) These were their mistakes and modifications; (2) They intended to make ukouk singing, yet they continued in the responsorial style for a moment just after the series of two eve songs; (3) It was traditionally fixed that the styles were exchanged in the way of the song; (4) They could sing in either ways of singing (the style was not strictly fixed to the song). In my opinion, option (4) seems the most possible, though it cannot be affirmed any more yet. Recently, however, I was given brief information from an elder female singer, who said that the elders she knew in her young days had done one song in various ways, sometimes in ukouk, other times in responsorial. It might be one of the strongest corroborations for the possibility of alternating polyphony and monophony in Ainu singing. In other words, it could still be that one song had been bound not only to one 270 Rie Kôchi singing style but also another way, though this remains a topic for further discussion. Furthermore, this performance faded out at the end of the disc. If this was the very end of the dances, and if the switching between two styles was not a simple failure, we could spread our supposition or hypothesis to the historical matters. For instance, Jodania indicates that polyphonic singing may sometimes survive in the end of the songs, in the process of gradual decline and replacement by more monophonic styles of singing (Jodania, 2006). Also on Ainu music, we do not have to stop remembering this interesting suggestion before sufficient examination is carried out. We do not have to give up thinking about two more possibilities; the suppositions that affirm • Ainu ukouk, or canonic singing, might have originated from responsorial one, • Responsorial singing might have been born out of canonic one. These, of course, are very delicate to be discussed and beyond this paper. The further continuous examinations of Ainu traditional music would also dedicatedly strengthen the comparative and worldwide studies of polyphony, I believe. Conclusion Thus, Ainu group-singing in monophony appears not purely monophonic but colored by various polyphonic elements; plenty of heterophony, structural and musical affinities with ukouk, and there still remains the possibility of alternating between polyphony and monophony. In conclusion, the afore-mentioned ones are considered to add peculiar characteristics to Ainu monophony (fig. 1). Acknowledgement I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Jordania for his kind and profitable comments and suggestions especially on the topic 3. Notes 1 For this name in Ainu, uwekaye and some other words are appeared in Chiri (1955: 86), while we do not have any other examples or information of actual usage. On the other hand, ukouk has been used even today among Ainu community. 2 The word uwopuk is written only in Chiri (1955:86) for unison singing. Yet, for the same reason above (note 1), it is better to be careful to use it. 3 Mainly I referred to Chiri (1948, 1949), Nihon Hoso Kyokai (1967), Honda and Kayano (1976/2008) here. 4 It also can be found within a unison part of responsorial singing (discussed in 2. and 3. text). 5 Some of the older recordings show even such performances as parallel-polyphonic movement (ex.6), yet I have found it hard to treat them as such consciously composed ones. The Polyphonic Elements in the Monophonic Singing Styles of Ainu Traditional Music 6 271 We can still listen to them, though such variability has been changed into fixed melodies―and in this respect we might say it has become much more monophonic. 7 The original is Japanese (all translation here is tentative and I am responsible for it). According to CHIBA(1996), singing is generally composed of two aspects; pitches (or intervals) and voicing (or tone-colors), though both cannot be separable each other actually. Also it is insisted that voicing tone-colors predominated much more in Ainu singing of former days, and their way of singing has been changed from timbral voicing superiority into pitchpredominating singing, as the times go on. 8 In their recognitions, however, the melody seems to be memorized as one part (ex.7) Also, each was called in different names (CHIRI 1955:86), therefore it seems reasonable to say that both are definitely distinctive, for now. 9 Today most of Ainu circle dance songs are accompanied by the responsorial or unison singing, except for some ukouk styles in some areas. Each brief song are chosen at random and repeated as much as they like, and then changed by the next song. References Chiba, Nobuhiko. (1996). “Aynu no uta no senritsu kozo ni tsuite” (“The melodic structure of Ainu songs”). In: Toyo Ongaku Kenkyu, 61:1-21. Tokyo: The Society for Research in Asiatic Music. (in Japanese) Chiri, Mashih. (supervised) and NHK (ed.). (1948). Ainu Kayo-shu 1. Tokyo: Nihon Hoso Kyokai Hoso Bunka Kenkyu-jo & Nihon Columbia (SP records). (in Japanese) Chiri, Mashiho (supervised). (1949). Ainu Kayo-shu 2. Ditto. (SP records). (in Japanese) Chiri, Mashiho. (1955). Ainu Bungaku. Tokyo: Gengen-sha. (in Japanese) Chiri, Mashiho. (1958/1973). “Aynu no kayo dai-1-shu”. In: Chiri Mashiho Chosaku-shu, 2 :299-322. Tokyo: Heibon-sha. (in Japanese) Honda, Yasuji and Kayano, Shigeru. (supervised) (1976 / 2008). Aynu Hoppo minzoku no geino (Aynu Orokko Giryak no Geino). Tokyo: Nihon dento bunka shinko zaidan (CD). (In Japanese) Jordania, Joseph. (2006). Who Asked the First Question? The Origins of Human Choral Singing, Intelligence, Language and Speech. Tbilisi: Logos. Kobayashi, Yukio and Kobayashi, Kimie. (1987). “Hokkaido Aynu no uta no syoso”. Hokkaido Aynu Koshiki Buyo: 40-55, Tokyo: Nihon Minzoku-Buyo Kenkyu-kai. (In Japanese) Kochi, Rie. (2012). “Dento-teki na Aynu ongaku no monophony no kasho-keishiki ni okeru polyphony-teki yoso” 272 Rie Kôchi (“The polyphonic elements in the monophonic singing styles of Ainu traditional music”). In: Bulletin of Hokkaido Ainu Culture Research Center,18:51-90. Sapporo: Hokkaido Ainu Culture Research Center. (in Japanese) Kubodera, Itsuhiko. (1939 / 2004). “Aynu no ongaku to kayo”. Kubodera Itsuhiko Chosaku-shu 2:9-40. Tokyo: So-hu-kan. (in Japanese) Nihon Hoso Kyokai (NHK) (Japan Broad Casting Corporation) (editor). (1965). Aynu Dento Ongaku (Traditional Ainu Music). Tokyo: Nihon Hoso Shuppan Kyokai. (in Japanese) Nihon Hoso Kyokai (NHK) (Japan Broad Casting Corporation) (editor). (1967). Aynu no Ongaku. Nihon Hoso Kyokai Hoso-gyomu-kyoku Shiryo-bu Ongaku-shiryo-ka. (In Japanese) Tanimoto, Kazuyuki. (1965). “Aynu ongaku ni tsuite”. Aynu Dento Ongaku (Traditional Ainu Music). P. 3-17. Tokyo: Nihon Hoso Shuppan Kyokai. (in Japanese) Yamada, Hidezo. (1974). “Oshoro no nishin-ryo uta 2”. Recorded in 1974, held as Yamada-Collection by Hokkaido Ainu Culture Research Center (audio material YC800042). (in Japanese) Audio Examples Audio example 1. Circle dance song urara suye e kamuy sinta atuy tun na e tunun paye in Kushiro recorded in 1947; selected from CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR155B, the source is held by the Hokkaido Prefectural Library) Audio example 2. Circle dance song hoy ya a a hoy ya o o ho hoy ho hoy ya in Asahikawa recorded in 1947; selected from CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR152B, the source is held by the Hokkaido Prefectural Library) Audio example 3. Circle dance song matnaw rera apaca osma uran nisi kanto korikin in Kushiro recorded in 1947; selected from CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR155B, the source is held by the Hokkaido Prefectural Library) rie koCi. danarTi 273 Rie Kôchi. APPENDIX sqema 1. ainus musikis sasimRero stili Figure 1. Singing Styles in Ainu Music Singing Styles in Ainu Music polyphony plural melodies (contrapuntal) Structural similarity monophony the responsorial ukouk (canonic) (voluntary selection?) heterophony Traditional singing way ・partially improvisational singing ・tone-color sprinkled voicing ↑group singing ↓solo singing solo magaliTi 1. meniCbis simRera “hon kaya cippo ho cip / takama ha kiriri” Cawerilia 1962 w. SizunaiSi. avtoris originaluri transkrifcia (gadatanilia d. sekundiT zemoT) (NHK, 1967: VDL189A-No.17) Example 1. Playing-rower song “hon kaya cippo ho cip / takama ha kiriri”, in Shizunai, recorded in 1962; author’s original transcription (transposed to minor 2nd above) (NHK, 1967: VDL189A-No.17) 274 rie koCi. danarTi Rie Kôchi. APPENDIX magaliTi 2. mjdomare simRera “iyo yo iyo”, Cawerilia 1961-1962 ww. SiranukaSi. avtoris originaluri transkrifcia (gadatanilia p. sekundiT zemoT) (NHK, 1967: VDL186 A-No.4) Example 2. Sitting song “iyo yo iyo”, in Shiranuka, recorded in 1961-1962; author’s original transcription (transposed to major 2nd above) (NHK, 1967: VDL186A-No.4) magaliTi 3. struqturuli msgavsebebi kanonikursa (ukouk) da responsoruls Soris Example 3. Structural similarities between the canonic (ukouk) and the responsorial rie koCi. danarTi 275 Rie Kôchi. APPENDIX magaliTi 4. meniCbeebis iaponuri xalxuri simRera. Cawerilia 1974 wels oSoroSi. asruleben solisti da gundi. originaluri transkrifcia (YAMADA, YC800042: No.3) Example 4. A Japanese folk song of rowers in Oshoro, recorded in 1974, sung between a leader singer and followers; author’s original transcription from (YAMADA, YC800042: No.3) magaliTi 5. “Matnaw rera”, sruldeba stilebis monacvleobiT. Cawerilia 1947 wels kuSiroSi, avtoris originaluri transkrifcia (CHIRI-NHK, 1948: C-PR155B, originali daculia hokaidos prefeqturis biblioTekaSi) (ix. audio mag. 3) Example 5. Switching singing styles in performing “matnaw rera” in Kushiro recorded in 1947; author’s original figuration (CHIRI-NHK, 1948: C-PR155B, the source is held by the Hokkaido Prefectural Library) (See audio ex. 3) Slightly lapped leader matnaw … followers matnaw … matnaw … matnaw … matnaw … the responsorial matnaw … matnaw … matnaw … matnaw … matnaw … matnaw … matnaw … matnaw … matnaw … matnaw matnaw … ‘ukouk’ (canonic) 276 rie koCi. danarTi Rie Kôchi. APPENDIX magaliTi 6. sakes dayenebis simRera “ama sake sorpa”. Cawerilia 1954 wels kuSiroSi,. avtoris originaluri transkrifcia (Cawerilia d. sekundiT zeviT) (HONDA, KAYANO, 1976 / 2008: diski 1, biliki No. 1) Example 6. Sake making song “ama sake sorpa”, in Kushiro recorded in 1954; author’s original transcription (transposed to major 2nd above) (HONDA, KAYANO, 1976 / 2008: Disc 1 track No. 1) magaliTi 7. 4-fraziani melodiisa (a, b, c, d) da responsoruli Sesrulebis SemTxvevaSi, gvaqvs Semdegnairad: Example 7. If there are a melody composed of 4 phrases (a, b, c, d) and performed in the responsorial style, like this: leader damwyebi → follower mimyoli → a b a c b d c d magram melodiis emikuri aRqmis SemTxvevaSi, SesaZloa, aRiqmebodes ase: but their “emic” recognition of the melody itself may be: a a b b c c d d 277 maria de sao xose korte-reali, rosario pestana (portugalia) xanmokle da xangrZlivi ornamentireba portugaliel qalTa tradiciul mravalxmian simRerebSi Sesavali: qalTa mravalxmianoba portugaliaSi vokaluri polifonia, anu mravalxmiani simRera, warmoadgens mniSvnelovan nawils audioCanawerebis koleqciisa, romlebic Sesrulebulia portugaliis soflebSi 1939-1963 wlebSi. miuxedavad imisa, rom mravalxmianoba damaxasiaTebelia, rogorc mamakacTa, ise qalTa musikaluri praqtikisTvis, Cven yuradRebas SevaCerebT qalTa mravalxmiani simRerebis koleqciaze, romlebic Segrovebul iqna 3 eTnografis _ armando lesas (Armando Leça, 1891-1977), verjilio pereiras (Vergílio Pereira, 190065) da artur santosis (Artur Santos, 1914-87) mier. Cven, aseve, viTvaliswinebT or patara portugaliur sofelSi (qveynis Sida raionSi) _ monsantosa da menhausSi Catarebuli sakuTari savele samuSaos Sedegebs adreul 1980-ian da 90-ian wlebSi. ratom es sami eTnografi? vin iyvnen isini? ra motivacia da ganzraxva hqondaT maT? es Sesavali kiTxvebi gagviZRveba qalTa mravalxmiani simRerebis JReradobis zogierT Taviseburebebze msjelobisas, simRerebisa, romlebic Cven davaxasiaTeT, rogorc xanmokle da xangrZlivi ornamentebi. mxedvelobaSi gvaqvs JReradobis damaxasiaTebeli harmoniuli da melodiur-ritmuli Tvisebebi. ra codnas SeviZenT am fragmentuli xasiaTis xmovani Canawerebis, vrceli da kompleqsuri musikaluri praqtikis erTi mcire nawilis gamokvleviT? romeli musikaluri kompetenciebi, Janrebi da stilebi aris dokumentirebuli? rogor xdeba maTi kategorizacia? SegviZlia maTgan movniSnoT esTetikuri kategoriebi? ra SeiZleba iTqvas am sasimRero praqtikis socialur relevanturobaze? rogori mravalmniSvnelovanni iqnebodnen isini soflis qalebisaTvis im dros, rodesac qveynis masStabiT saxelmwifom represiuli diqtatoruli politika danerga? fonogramebis nimuSebi da akusmografi 3-is analizi gviCvenebs xmovan detalebs smeniTi da vizualuri interpretaciisaTvis. Cven movaxdenT musikis kategorizaciasa da misi zogierTi mniSvnelobis interpretacias. sami eTnografi, maTi krebulebi, motivacia da saSualebebi armando lesa, verjilio pereira da artur santosi _ portugaliuri musikis es sami gamoCenili koleqcioneri mniSvnelovan yuradRebas imsaxurebs. miuxedavad imisa, rom portugaliaSi sofluri yofis zepiri musikaluri tradiciis Semswavleli sxva ufro mniSvnelovani koleqcionerebic iyvnen, am pirebma pirvelebma gaakeTes audioCanawerebi sakmaod vrcel teritoriaze. maT mier Sesrulebuli Canawerebi portugaliis sofluri musikaluri tradiciis amsaxvel, CvenTvis cnobil yvelaze Zvel fonogramebs warmoadgens. maT dokumenturad aRweres mravalxmiani simRerebis mniSvnelovani raodenoba, CrdiloeTidan samxreT portugaliamde, romelTa umravlesoba qalTa mier 278 maria de sao xose korte-reali, rosario pestana iyo namReri (sur. 1). armando lesa iyo portugaliuri musikis aRorZinebis ideiT gatacebuli folkloristi da kompozitori. misma moRvaweobam mniSvnelovani gavlena iqonia portugaliaSi folklorizaciis procesze. 1939 da 1940 wlebSi man Cawera 487 fonograma AEG K 4 sistemis magnitofonze. es naSromi nawili iyo diqtatorul nacionalur dResawaulTan dakavSirebuli proeqtisa portugaliuri samyaros gamofena (Exposição do Mundo Português) 1940 wels. aTwleulebis ganmavlobaSi dakarguli 64 firi (Canaweri), axlaxan venis fonogramarqivSi gadatanil iqna cifrul matareblebze da rosario pestanas mier mzaddeba gamosacemad, Cveni eTnomusikologiis institutis mier SemuSavebuli proeqtis farglebSi. Canawerebi portugaliis radiosa da televiziis arqivis (Arquivo da Rádio e Televisão de Portugal) kuTvnilebaa. verjilio pereira gundis diriJori iyo. misi musikaluri koleqciebi daafinansa kostal douros eTnografiisa da istoriis komisiam (Comissão de Etnografia e História do Douro Litoral) 1947-1959 wlebSi; es proeqti miznad isaxavda soflis musikaluri tradiciis Segrovebas, umTavresad, vokaluri praqtikis Seswavlas, portugaliuri musikis atlasis Sedgenis mizniT. es naSromi Seicavda 1957 fonogramas, romelTagan 1801 axlaxans cifrul matareblebze iqna gadatanili rosario pestanas mier da daculia (gamocemis gareSe) eTnologiis erovnul muzeumSi (Museu Nacional de Etnologia), lisabonSi. zemoaRniSnuli eTnografebisagan gansxvavebiT, artur santosma, kompozitorma da 1947-1951 wlebSi xalxuri musikis saerTaSoriso sabWos direqtorTa komitetis wevrma, savele samuSao Caatara ara mxolod portugaliis kontinentur nawilSi, aramed atlantikuri auzis kunZulebze _ madeirasa da azorze da aseve, angolaSi, lundas regionSi (Cruz, 2010; Pestana, 2011). Cveni kvleva fokusirebulia 116 Canawerisagan Semdgar koleqciaze, romelic Seiqmna londonSi britaneTis samauwyeblo korporaciis (BBC) mier, 1956 wels. es koleqcia gamoqveynda, rogorc portugaliis xalxuri musika [LP/BBC 1956] (Cruz, 2010). xmovanebis Taviseburebebi da terminologia qalTa mravalxmian simRerebSi simRerebis koleqciebis mniSvnelovan nawilSi Seswavlilia mravalxmianoba qalTa folklorSi. eTnografebis mier simRerebis kategorizaciis dros aRniSnuli terminologiuri mravalferovneba xazgasmulia emikuri gamonaTqvamebiT, rac avlens damaxasiaTebel lokalur tendenciebs da praqtikas qalTa mravalxmian sasimRero repertuarSi. soflad, sadac es praqtika aRmocenda, rogorc Cans, moxda qalTa mravalxmiani Sesrulebis musikaluri SesaZleblobebis gadafaseba, Semsruleblobis damaxasiaTebeli kriteriumebis sakuTari, araformaluri sistematizaciis Sesabamisad. kriteriumebi SeiZleba dagvexmaros esTetikuri aspeqtis SemsruleblobasTan dakavSirebaSi. minhos regioni mniSvnelovania qalTa mravalxmiani simReris TvalsazrisiT. karolina vaskonkelosi (Carolina Vasconcelos, 1851-1925) miuTiTebs am regionis musikalur SemsruleblobaSi qalTa aqtiurobis Sesaxeb (Sampaio, 1931: 5). Teofilo braga (Teófilo Braga, 1843-1926) miuTiTebs, rom maT STambeWdavi roli hqondaT simReraSi (Braga, 1893: VI). adgilobrivebs axsovT portugaliis bolo dedoflis, amalias komentarebi momReralTa jgufis Lavradeiras-as Cacmulobaze, roca isini samefo ojaxs stum- xanmokle da xangrZlivi ornamentireba portugaliel qalTa tradiciul mravalxmian simRerebSi 279 robdnen 1891 wels (Côrte-Real and Carvalho, 2001). Lavradeiras sityva-sityviT soflis meurneobaSi momuSave qalebs niSnavs. am ansamblSi mamakacebTan erTad qalebic cekvavdnen da TavianTi Cacmulobis demonstrirebas axdendnen. dRemde isini ranCos folklorikosebad iwodebian (Côrte-Real & Carvalho, 2001). qalTa mravalxmiani musikis rolisa da repertuaris gacnobiereba da minhos regionis soflebis nimuSebSi mikrotonaluri intervalebis aRmoCena 1660 wels moxda. pimentelisa (1849-1925) da sampaios (1865-1937) mier moxmobili markus montebelos istoriuli aRwera axasiaTebs qalTa mravalxmian simReras minhoSi: `xSirad xdeba, rom quCaSi gamvleli ucxoelebi, gansakuTrebiT zafxulSi, SuadRisas, Cerdebian da usmenen tonoss _ Sromis dros Sesasrulebel simRerebs, romelsac quCaSi, sufTa haerze gundurad, fugirebulad da ganmeorebebiT mRerian ymawvili qalebi~ (Pimentel, 1905: 34). gonsalo sampaio Universidade do Porto-s botanikosi da eTnografi, aRwers rogor axasiaTebs markus montebelo sofleli qalebis xmebis wyobis srulyofilebas, sunTqvisa da JReradobis xarisxs: isini mRerodnen 2, 3, 4 da 5 xmaSi meoTxedi tonebiT da xSirad disonansuri intervalebiT, burdoniT, SekavebebiTa da SenelebebiT (1660: 44; Silvari, 1874: 26; Sampaio, 1931: 5-6; Côrte-Real and Carvalho, 2001). XX saukunis dasawyisSi sampaio xazs usvamda minhoSi qalTa mravalxmian simReras, rogorc religiur, ise saero konteqstSi. pestanas azriT, es qalTa musikalur samyarosTan pirdapir dakavSirebuli, pirveli Cvenamde moRweuli dokumentia da masSi avtori asaxelebs mxolod qalTa repertuars (Pestana, 2008). sampaio axsenebs ternosad wodebul patara organizebul qalTa jgufs, romelsac saukeTeso da kargad navarjiSevi xmebi hqonda da saeklesio msaxurebsa da aseve mcire gunds enacvleboda. ganswavluli xalxis mier Seqmnili kompoziciebi Seicavda yvelaze cota 1 an 2 bans (baixos,) 1 Sua xmas (médio), 1 gamkivansa (guincho) da 1 gamkivanze maRal xmas (sobreguincho) (Sampaio, 1931: 8). sampaio wuxs, rom es mSvenieri da, SesaZloa, monastruli gavlena sabolood mokvda 1931 wlisTvis da adgili dauTmo `ufro meorexarisxovan siaxleebs, romelic, Cveulebriv, moklebuli iyo religiur gamomsaxvelobasa da harmonias da imeorebda florenciuli stilis saero simReras akompanirebuli melodiiT~ (Sampaio, 1931: 8; Côrte-Real & Carvalho, 2001). informaciis pirveli done, warmodgenili Canawerebis dokumentaciebSi, Seswavlilia im konteqstis gauTvaliswineblad, romelSic simReraa namReri. pestanas Tanaxmad, terno aris termini, romelic aRniSnavs ara mxolod gansakuTrebul repertuars, aramed simReris specifikur maneras. armando lesa da vergilio Pereira iyenebdnen emikur terminologias ara mxolod maSin, roca gansxvavebul praqtikas aRniSnavdnen, _ terno, kanta, moda, kantarola, kantaraCo, kantareu _ aramed maSinac, roca sxvadasxva xma `erTmaneTis qveS mReroda~: kerZod, raso (dabali xma) enCeri (Sua xma), de riba (maRali xma). simRerebis kategorizaciaSi terminologiuri mravalferovneba eTnografebis mier gamoiyeneboda emikuri gamoxatvis xazgasamelad, rac avlenda qalTa repertuaris ganumeorebel adgilobriv Taviseburebebs – magaliTad, umetes SemTxvevaSi, 2 an 3 realuri xma terciebSi, an terciebsa da kvintebSi, an jer terciebiT, seqstebiT da oqtavebiT an/da duodecimebiT, nawildeba araTanabrad (Pestana, 2012). sxvasxva raodenobis qalis mier namRerSi yoveli xma (3 dabali da 1 maRali) SeiZleba ganvixiloT, rogorc portulgaliel qalTa mravalxmiani praq- 280 maria de sao xose korte-reali, rosario pestana tikisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli, radgan es, pestanas dakvirvebiT, warmodgenilia, rogorc lesas, ise pereiras fonogramebSi. sami ZiriTadi saSemsruleblo aspeqti ganxilulia kategorizaciebis pirvel doneze, romelic warmodgenilia am fonogramebis koleqciaSi: (1) xmaTa raodenoba, romelic integrirdeba momReralTa jgufebSi; (2) xmaTa raodenoba, romlebic mravalxmianobaSi sxvadasxva xmebs (realurs, an dublirebuls) asruleben; (3) solo/jgufuri monawileoba. Cveni pirveli musikaluri nimuSi aris verjelio pereiras koleqciidan SerCeuli fonograma. igi identificirebis procesis ilustrirebas axdens. Trai-larai, cantaraço, cantiga-sTan erTad Segrovebulia monte-kordovaSi (santo tirsos administraciuli erTeuli), 1958 wels (audiomag. 1). es orxmiani simRera Sesrulebulia 4 qalis mier, romelTa xmebi ar aris Tanabrad/Tanazomierad ganawilebuli: sami mReris por baixo-s (niSnavs yvelaze dabal xmas) da erTi por riba-s (yvelaze maRal xmas). solo cantiga, astimulirebs cantaraço-s da mReris yvelaze dabal xmasTan erTad. cantiga-s solo monacvleobs mravalxmianobasTan. ori seqcia gamoirCeva erTmaneTisgan gansxvavebuli moZraobiT, swrafi da neli, da artikulaciis gansaxvavebuli gzebiT, solo Sesrulebis dros, erT-erTi yvelaze dabali xma gamoyofs yovel artikulacias mcire melodiuri brunviT. Cvens analizSi mokle da xangrZliv ornementebs aRviqvamT, rogorc am qalTa mier esTetikuri miznebisaTvis Sesrulebuls. maT sailustraciod gTavazobT samuSao simReras selis darTva (maçar o linho, audiomag. 2). simRera ganisazRvreba, rogorc terno, namReri cameti araidentificirebuli qalis mier: 1 _ sobreguincho (niSnavs uaRresad maRal xmas, gamkivans), 3 _ guincho (sityvasityviT _ yvirili, maRali xma), 4 _ meios (saSualo xma), da 5 _ baixos (bani, dabali xma). CrdiloeT portugaliis zogierTi soflis TemSi qalTa xmebs uwodeben falas, rac sityva-sityviT niSnavs saubars, semantikurad ki _ sasimRero xmas. am soflur TemSi qalTa xmebs hqonda damatebiTi mdedrobiTi seqsualurobis datvirTva da amitom, rodesac isini qvrivebi xdebodnen, aRar hqondaT simReris ufleba (Pestana, 2011a). aq simRera yoveldRiurobis Semadgeneli qmedeba iyo da sruldeboda qalTa sxvadasxva saqmianobisa da dasvenebis dros. sxvadasxva adgilas, simRerisas qalebi mimarTaven Zalian Tavisebur maneras: dgebian mWidrod Sekrul naxevarwreSi, odnav win daxrilni da, Cveulebriv, erTi xeli mifarebuli aqvT pirze. aseT dros, maT drodadro samuSaos Sewyveta uxdebaT, raTa imReron am Tavisebur pozaSi. es maT saSualebas aZlevs, erTmaneTs usminon da moaxdinon xmis proeqcia Sor distanciaze, xandaxan Seenacvlon maTgan Sors ganTavsebul sxva jgufs. es saintereso Temaa samomavlo kvlevisaTvis, gansakuTrebiT ki, portugaliaSi me-20 saukunis bolo aTwleulamde soflur TemSi qalebis represiuli mdgomareobis kvlevisaTvis. fala, qalis sasimRero xma gamoyenebuli iyo kontaqtisaTvis, magaliTad, rodesac isini fizikurad daSorebulni iyvnen (simRera mdelodan mdelomde, mTidan mTamde, sofelSi Sromis an mwyemsvis dros) (Pestana, 2011a). am momentSi qalebi mTel energias debdnen TavianT xmebSi, rasac zogjer isini grZnobis dakargvamde mihyavda, rogorc amas pestana adasturebs manhausSi 1990-iani wlebis dasawyisSi. monsantoSi (sityva-sityviT _ wminda mTa), ufro samxreTiT, qalebi qancis gawyvetamde micocavd- xanmokle da xangrZlivi ornamentireba portugaliel qalTa tradiciul mravalxmian simRerebSi 281 nen qvian cicabo mTaze simRer-simReriT, raTa STambeWdavi simaRlidan gadmoegdoT yvavilis Tixis qoTnebi. amiT isini ganasaxierebdnen yvavilebiT morTul xbos, romelmac SecdomaSi Seiyvana cixesimagreze alyaSemortymuli mteri (Côrte-Real & Carvalho, 1986, 1987). aseT SemTxvevebSi, fala sofelSi qalebis irgvliv qmnida avtonomiurobisa da gamorCeulobis atmosferos. miuxedavad imisa, rom mravalxmiani simRera ar warmoadgenda qalTa eqskluzivs, praqtikaSi Semosuli ucnauri esTetika dafiqsirda SemsruleblobaSi. mokle da vrceli ornamentuli detalebi gvexmareba avxsnaT, Tu rogor uwyobs simRera xels qalebs moaxdinon sakuTari Tavis identificireba da Seasrulon wamyvani roli Tavis sazogadoebaSi. akusmografi 3 JReradobis detalebis vizualuri warmodgenisaTvis am istoriuli Canawerebis akustikuri konteqstidan gamomdinare, Cven gvinda isini TvalsaCinod warmovadginoT. pirvel rigSi, TvalSisacemia am repertuaris Taviseburi rbili, `mosriale~ xasiaTi. rogor davaxasiaToT xerxebi, romliTac xmebi erwymian an calkevdebian? ra SeiZleba davinaxoT maT moZraobaSi? SesaZlebelia Tu ara aRqmiT ganvasxvavoT struqturuli da ornamentuli bgerebi? mravalxmianobaSi musikis JReradobis cvalebadi xasiaTi yovelTvis ainteresebdaT mecnierebs. imis gagebaSi, Tu rogor xdeboda es portugaliur fonoCanawerebSi, korte reals daexmara plastikurobis is gancda, romelic man miiRo portugaliasa Tu kolumbiaSi (aSS) Zveli Canawerebis Seswavlisas1. garkveuli hipoTezebiTa da samxreT afrikaSi, mozambikur gundebSi napovni msgavsi mgrZnobiare plastikurobiT (Carvalho, 1999) STagonebulebma gadavwyviteT, fokusireba mogvexdina bgeriTi produqtis vizualur warmodgenaze. mokle da xangrZlivi ornamentirebis Cveneuli analitikuri koncefciis vizualuri warmodgenis mizniT, Tavisufali cifruli programis akusmografi 3-is meSveobiT gasaanalizeblad avarCieT erTi simRera. es programa gamoscades korte-realma da izabel piresma erTobliv proeqtSi, romelic ganxorcielda universidade nova de lisboaSi (Pires, 2010). akusmografi aris eTnomusikologiuri miznebisaTvis Seqmnili mravalmxrivi programa bgeriTi speqtogramis grafikuli warmodgenisaTvis. is SeimuSava safrangeTis radio-televiziis GRM-is (Groupe de Recherches Musicales) jgufma makintoSis kompiuterebisaTvis 1988 wels. 1990-ian wlebSi Seiqmna misi meore, xolo 2004 wels _ mesame versia. mas didi SesaZleblobebi aqvs musikis JReradobis warmosaxvisa da aRqmisaTvis. mas SeuZlia aCvenos talRis forma da mowodebuli bgeris signalis speqtograma, bgeris xangrZlivobasa da sixSiresTan dakavSirebuli parametrebiT. es cifruli xelsawyo, Seqmnili Tanamedrove musikaluri kompoziciis eleqtroakustikuri bunebis swavlebisa da SecnobisaTvis, amtkicebs, rom aris metad sasargeblo instrumenti musikaluri partituris TvalsaCinoebisaTvis. Cven misi meSveobiT gvinda gavaSuqoT mokle da xangrZlivi ornamentuli detalebi da maTi kavSiri verbalur teqstTan. sailustraciod warmovadgenT franko beilis (François Bayle) kompoziciis (La fin du bruit) vizualuri nimuSis izabel piresis mier interpretirebul analizs (Pires, 2010). grafikuli gamosaxulebebis aRsaniSnavad izabel piresis SemoTavazebuli sim- 282 maria de sao xose korte-reali, rosario pestana boloebis grZeli siidan Cven sailustraciod SevarCieT gafiltruli sityvebi da sxva vokaluri bgerebi, punqtuacia da JReradi dasawyisebi (Pires, 2010: 37) (sur. 2, 3). speqtogramaze warmodgenili beilis komopoziciis fragmentis grafikuli formebis gamosaxuleba, romelic naCvenebia akusmografze, mkiTxvels, Canaweris mosmenasTan erTad, daanaxebs gaanalizebul partituras. Semdegi gamosaxuleba (sur. 4) aCvenebs ritmis formirebas. aq mkiTxvels SeuZlia dainaxos magaliTebi, rogor Cndeba periodulad punqtuacia, dasawyisebi da gafiltruli sityvebi. istoriuli koleqciidan armando lesas mier 1940 wels centralur/CrdiloaRmosavleT portugaliaSi Cawerili simRera Maçadeira, klasificirebulia, rogorc Sromis simRera selis darTvisas (maçar o linho), romelic gameorebadi dartymebiT asaxavs selis wewva-pentvas. simRera iwyeba sami ritmuli dartymis Semdeg ornamentulad Sesrulebuli uTargmneli teqstis o ai le, o ai, le ganmeorebiT, romelic eriTmeba Senhora de Nazaré-s (nazareTeli qalbatoni). Semdeg, viris xseneba migvaniSnebs, rom simRera imRereba, roca mosalocad midian. mxolod sityva Maçadeira – simReris saTauri migvaniSnebs selsa an sxva produqtze ritmulad momuSave qalebze (sur. 5). meoTxe dartymaze xmebi Semodis TandaTan: pirvelad _ solisti, Semdeg _ meore xma, rasac mohyveba 4 xmiani simRera terciebiT. maRali xmebi dabalze oqtaviT maRlaa. akusmografze maTi xazi, romelic kargad Cans speqtogramaze, mdebareobs oqtavis obertonebze zemoT (pirveli harmoniul seriaSi). teqsti, xazgasmuli ornamentul formulaSi o ai le, sakmaod martivia. simReraSi monacvleobs solisti da gundi (sur. 6, videomag. 1). akusmografuli forma, romelic moicavs sityvier teqstsac, wiTlad gviCvenebs solistis vokalur xazs, sagundo masivis vardisfer/ yviTeli ferebisagan gansxvavebiT. gamosaxulebis foni gviCvenebs obertonTa livlivs, xolo y RerZi _ sixSires [HZ] (sur. 7). bgeradi struqturis TvalsazrisiT, es martivi strofuli simReraa, romelSic ZiriTadi melodiuri xazi meordeba mciredi ornamentuli varirebiT. harmonia Seicavs Cveulebriv terciul konsonansebs, romelic, rogorc ioseb Jordania aRniSnavs (Jordania, 2006: 137), evropuli terciuli harmoniisa da paraleluri terciebis tradicias Seesabameba, rasac jer kidev XIX saukunis bolos miiCnevdnen portugaliuri musikis damaxasiaTebel niSnad (Arroio, 1897: 14). orive – musikaluri da sityvieri teqsti aSkarad ornametuli xasiaTisaa. umetes SemTxvevaSi, JReradi signalebis es mokle da xangrZlivi ornamentebi, romlebic qmnian qalTa mravalxmiani simRerebis plastikas, simReris struqturul elementebs ar warmoadgenen. simReraSi ornamentis koncefciaSi Cven viTvaliswinebT evropasa da mis gareT arsebul tradicias. magaliTad, rogorc es xdeba iavur gamelanSi, aq araa JReradi elementebi, romlebic ufro struqturuli an kolotomikuria, vidre sxva, romlebic ufro ornamentuli, Aan rogorc indoneziuris SemTxvevaSi, ufro detalurad damuSavebulia. da bolos, saintereso detali _ portugaliur smeniT samyaroSi gvxvdeba didi da patara sekundebis intervalebi. isini maSinve aRiqmeba ara mxolod paraleluri xmebis JRerad masaSi, aramed mosriale melodiuri xazebis plastikurobaSic, romelic xanmokle da xangrZlivi ornamentireba portugaliel 283 qalTa tradiciul mravalxmian simRerebSi xangrZlivad aRiqmeba Maçadeira-Si. Cveni smeniTi gamocdileba modis korte-realis 1980 d 2011 wlebis monsentos SedarebiTi savele samuSaoebidan, sadac xangrZlivi ornamentebi Warbobda monofoniur simRerebSi, islamuri modalobis TvalSisacemi gavleniT, alenteios 1985 wlisa da alto-minhos 1990 wlis eqspediciebidan; agreTve pestanas 1990 wlis manhousis eqspediciidan, sadac umetesad mokle ornamentaciebi iyo aRmoCenili. polifoniuri tradicia portugaliis tradiciul musikaSi cocxladaa Senaxuli alto-minhos CrdiloeT regionSi da alenteios samxreT regionebis mxolod mamakacTa simRerebSi. orive – xanmokle da xangrZlivi ornamentaciebi CrdiloeTSi kvlav aris orive genderul jgufSi, xolo qalTa mravalxmiani simRera ukve gaqra samxreTSi. XIX-XX saukuneebis manZilze portugaliis sofelSi qalTa polifoniuri simReris praqtika TandaTan Semcirda. amas xeli Seuwyo folkloruli procesis institucionalizaciam XX saukunis dasawyisSi (Carvalho, 1997; Castelo-Branco & Branco, 2003). gasuli saukunis ganmavlobaSi, rogorc pestana aRniSnavs (2008), calkeul adgilobriv iniciativas Tu ar CavTvliT, ar arsebobda arc kulturuli politika da arc akademiuri interesi sofluri musikaluri Semsruleblobis mimarT. akusmografi 3 metad sasargebloa musikis detalebis analizisa da asaxvisaTvis, agreTve bgeris organizaciis interpretaciisaTvis, rogorc socialuri, ise akustikuri da esTetikuri TvalsazrisiT. Cven ganvixileT mokle da grZeli ornamentirebis sakiTxi JRerad praqtikaSi, magram momavalSi es xelsawyo dagvexmareba ukeT gavigoT qalis roli mocemul garemoSi da vimsjeloT semantikisa da mravalxmianobis klasificirebis sistemaze. aseve, miznad gvaqvs CavwvdeT eTnografebisa da Semsruleblebis rols portugaliur musikalur kulturaSi. Cven vemxrobiT sasimRero detalebis vizualuri TvalsaCinoebis ideas. amdenad, qalTa tradiciuli polifoniuri repertuari SeiZleba momaval diskusiebSi gaxdes JReradobis vizualuri warmosaxvis axali strategiis damkvidrebis stimuli. SeniSvnebi 1 korte-reali iyo kolumbiis universitetis eTnomusikologiis centris asistent-mkvlevari 1988-1993 wlebSi. audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. trai-larai, moZiebulia 1958 wels verjilio pereiras mier monte-kordovaSi, santo tirsoSi. audiomagaliTi 2. masadela, moZiebulia 1940 wels armando lesas mier vila maiorSi. videomagaliTebi videomagaliTi 1. masadelas akusomografis Canaweri (pirveli nawili). Targmna Tamar CxeiZem 284 MARIA DE SÃO JOSÉ CÔTRTE-REAL1 ROSÁRIO PESTANA2 (PORTUGAL) INSTANT AND LASTING ORNAMENTS IN TRADITIONAL FEMALE POLYPHONY IN PORTUGAL Introduction: Portuguese female polyphonies Vocal polyphony, or multipart singing, represents a considerable part of the sound recording collections made in rural areas throughout Portugalfrom1939 to1963. Although they feature male and female music practices, we focus on female multipart songs collected by three ethnographers: Armando Leça (1891-1977), Vergílio Pereira (1900-65) and Artur Santos (1914-87). We also take into consideration our own fieldwork on two small Portuguese inland villages named Monsanto and Manhouce during the early 1980s and 90s. Why these three ethnographers? Who were they and what motivations and means they had? These were introductory questions that led us to discuss some sound peculiarities of female multipart singing that we characterize assistant and lasting ornaments. By these we mean distinctive sound traits mainly of harmonic and melodic/rhythmic nature. Considering the fragmentary character of these sound recordings - revealing but a small part of an extensive and complex music practice - what can we learn from them? What musical competences, genres and styles are documented? How are they categorized? May we infer aesthetic criteria from them? What to say about the social relevance of these singing practices? How meaningful would they have been to rural women, in a time when specific state measures implemented the repressive dictatorial Policy of the Spirit throughout the country? Samples of phonograms and an Acousmograph 3 analysis show sound details for aural and visual interpretation. We emphasize thoughts in turn of music categorization and interpret some of its meanings. Three Ethnographers, their Collections, Motivations and Means Armando Leça, Vergílio Pereira and Artur Santos were prominent music collectors who deserve some attention. Although there were other meaningful collectors of oral music traditions on rural areas, these were the first to record sound in extensive territories. Their recordings represent the oldest known phonograms of Portuguese music traditions from rural areas. They document a significantnumber of multipart singing items, from North to South of Portugal, most of which sung by women (fig. 1). Armando Leça was a folklorist and composer engaged in the construction of the idea of Portuguese music. His action had a meaningful impact on the process of folklorization in Portugal. In 1939 and 1940, he made 487 phonograms with an AEG K4 magnetophone. His work was part of a wider project of dictatorial nationalist celebration, from which emergedthe Exhibition of the Portuguese World in 1940. It commemorated the so-called centenaries of 1140 (nation’s foundation) and 1640 (recovering of the national sovereignty, after the Castilian domination). The 64 tape recordings, lost for decades, were recently digitalized on the Vienna Phonogram Archive and are now almost ready 285 for edition by Rosário Pestana, in a project developed in the Institute of Ethnomusicology, an institutionco-hosted at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, the Universidade de Aveiro and the Universidade de Lisboa. These recordings belong to the Portuguese Radio and Television Archive. Vergílio Pereira was ������������������������������������������������������������������������� a choral conductor. His music collection was sponsored by the Commission of Ethnography and History of the Costal Douro from 1947 to 1959; and the Commission for Ethno-Musicology of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation from 1960 to 1963. These projects aimed to collect rural music traditions, mainly vocal practices, to buildan atlas of Portuguese music.This work included1957 phonograms, from which 1801, recently digitalized by Rosário Pestana, survived unedited on the National Museum of Ethnology in Lisbon. Unlike the previous ethnographers, Artur Santos, composer and member of the directive committee of the International Folk Music Council between 1947 and 1951, made fieldwork not only in continental Portugal but also in the Atlantic islands of Madeira and Azores as well as in Angola, in the region of Lunda (Cruz, 2010; Pestana, 2011). Our research focuseson the collection of 116 recordings made under the sponsorship of the British Broadcasting Corporation in London (BBC), in 1956. This collection was published as Folk Music of Portugal [LP/BBC 1956] (Cruz, 2010). Female multipart singing, sound peculiarities and terminology A meaningful part of the songs in the mentioned collections is polyphonic and sung by women. The terminological diversity used in the categorization of the songs, stresses emic expressions revealing distinctive local trends and practices. The rural communities where they emerged seem to have valorized female musical competences of multipart singing to the point to ascribe distinctive criteria, applied to performance, in their informal systematization of music categories. The criteria may well have helped to in corporate aesthetic aspects in performances. Regarding references to female participation in multipart singing, Minho region is meaningful. Carolina Vasconcelos (1851-1925) points out the female action in the music of this region (Sampaio, 1931: 5). Teófilo Braga (1843-1926) mentions that they have an expressive role on singing (Braga, 1893: VI). Local memories of comments made by the Portuguese last queen, Amélia, about the garments of a group of Lavradeiras during the royal visit to the city of Viana do Castelo on Nov. 30, 1891 (Côrte-Real & Carvalho, 2001) complement the proud discursive narratives about the local female dress tradition. Curiously enough, Abel Viana (1896-1964) recalls not remembering to see groups of Lavradeiras in the famous pilgrimage festivities of Nossa Senhora da Agonia (Our Lady of Agony) in Viana do Castelo before 1909 (Viana, 1941: 1 cit. in Carvalho, 1997: 125). Lavradeiras, literally female agricultural workers, are groups in which, together with men, women sing, dance and expose their dresses in representative ways. Still today they are generally known as ranchos folclóricos (Côrte-Real & Carvalho, 2001). The recognition of female music competences, roles and repertoires in multipart singing, and the presence of microtonal intervals in the music of rural areas in Minho, was pointed out in 1660. The Marquis of Montebello historical descriptions recalled by Pimentel (1849-1925) and Sampaio (1865-1937) characterize female multipart music in Minho: (…) “It happens frequently that foreigners, passing through the streets, particularly in Summer afternoons, stop and are surprised listening to the tonos [songs] that female youngsters sing in choirs, with fugues and repetitions that, for exercising their life works, they are allowed to do in the street, at the fresh air” (1660: 44 cit. in Pimentel, 1905: 34). Gonçalo Sampaio, a botanic and ethnographer of the Universidade do Porto, recalls how the 286 Maria de São José Côrte-Real, Rosário Pestana historical writer characterizes the perfect tuning, breath and sound quality of the voices of rural women who sung in 2, 3, 4 and 5 parts, using quarter tones and even frequently dissonant intervals by pedal, antecipação e retardo (drone, anticipation and retard) (1660: 44, cit. in Silvari, 1874: 26 cit. in Sampaio, 1931: 5-6, cit. in Côrte-Real & Carvalho, 2001). In the early 20th century Gonçalo Sampaio recalled it, stressing the old tradition of female multipart singing in Minho both in religious and non-religious contexts (Sampaio, 1927, 1929, 1931 and 1940/44). Pestana recalls that the music transcriptions and comparative analysis by Sampaio are the first known documents directly related with the female music universe, and that this author points out an exclusive female repertoire (2008). Sampaio mentions that there were religious songs in Minho that belonged exclusively to qualified small organized groups of women called ternos that, with better and properly rehearsed voices, alternated the singing of the priest or the more simple choirs of the people. According to him, these ternos were, almost exclusively, compositions of erudite origin and included at least 1 or 2 baixos (basses), 1 médio (medium) 1 guincho (cry) and 1 sobreguincho (over cry) (1931: 8). Sampaio regrets that this beautiful and probably monastic influenced is appeared slowly, completely gone by 1931, giving place to inferior novelties mostly devoid of religious expression and harmony, imitating profane songs in the Florentine style of accompanied melody (Sampaio, 1931: 8 cit. in Côrte-Real & Carvalho, 2001). In the information presented in the documentation of the recorded items of the collections studied there is a first level of categorization that is independent from the context in which the song is sung. According to Pestana, terno is a term that refers to a specific way of singing, not to a particular repertoire. Armando Leça and Vergílio Pereira used emic terminology to refer not only to the different practices – terno, canta, moda, cantarola, cantaraço, cantaréu, … _ but also to the different “voices” that sing one under the other: namely, raso (the lower voice), encher (the middle voice), de riba (the upper voice). The terminological diversity used by the ethnographers in the songs’ categorization stresses emic expressions that reveal distinctive local trends and practices regarding these female repertoires. This terminology locally used to refer different ways of positioning the voices one under the other, reveals that independently of the context, there was a structure in which a song must have been sung: in most of the cases by 4 to13 women, 2 or 3 real voices, mainly on 3rds or on 3rds and 5ths, and 8s or/and 12s (Pestana, 2012) are distributed non-equitably. The contrast resultant from the different number of women singing each voice (3 lower and 1 higher) can be considered a most relevant trait of the female practice of polyphonies in Portugal once it is present in both Leça and Pereira phonograms as was observed by Pestana. Three main performance aspects are considered in the first level of the categorization presented in these collections: (1) the number of voices of the singing group; (2) the number of voices that sing the multipart lines (real or duplicated); (3) the solo/group participation. Our first musical example is a phonogram chosen from the collection of Vergílio Pereira. It illustrates the identification process: Trai-larai, a cantaraço with cantiga, was collected in MonteCórdova, Santo Tirso, 1958, by Vergílio Pereira (audio ex. 1). This 2-part-song is sung by 4 women (Ana Cabo, Eufrazina Carneiro, Inocência Monteiro, Luzia Ribeiro) whose voices are not equitably distributed: 3 sing the por baixo (meaning, the lowest) and 1 (Luzia Ribeiro) the por riba (the highest). A solo, the cantiga, initiates the cantaraço, sung by 1 of the lowest voices (Ana Cabo). The cantiga solo alternates with the multipart singing. The 2 sections display different movements, fast and slow, and distinct articulations, during the solo presentation, 1of the lower voices (Ana Cabo) Instant and Lasting Ornaments in Traditional Female Polyphony in Portugal 287 emphasises each articulation with a small melodic curve. We perceive instant and lasting ornaments as performed for aesthetic purposes by those women. To illustrate them, we propose a work song to bore flax (maçar o linho (audio ex. 2) .The action of the work involved repeated strokes with a beater on the flax. According to Pestana, the song is named as a terno, sung by 13,non-identified women: 1 sobreguincho (meaning over-screaming, very high voice), 3 guincho (literally scream, high voices), 4 meios (middle voices) and 5 baixos (bass, lower voices). In some rural communities in the north-eastern regions of Portugal like Manhouce, Cambra and Candal, the female voice is called fala, literally meaning to speak; semantically the singing voice. It was connoted with female sexuality and when women became widows their singing was forbidden (Pestana, 2011a).Singing was a daily activity, present in different works and resting times. Women used to sing in very particular ways, interrupting or not their work: tightly close together in a semicircle, slightly inclined forward, and usually with a hand cupped to the mouth. It allowed them to project the voices for long distances, sometimes alternating with other groups, in visual reach or not. This is an interesting topic for future research, particularly due to the repressive condition of women in rural societies until the last decades of the 20th century. Fala was used to create moments of interlocution, for example when they where physically distant, from field to field, during the rural labour or shepherd hood (Pestana, 2011a). On those moments women put all the energy on their voices, fact that in some cases conduces to faint with loss of senses, as Pestana observed in the region of Manhouce in the early 1990s. In Monsanto, further South, women climb the harsh stony mountain path singing to exhaustion, to throw a clay flower pot down the impressive natural rocky walls, representing the prosperous calf to deceive the enemy siege (Côrte-Real & Carvalho, 1986, 1987). In such situations, in rural societies, these represent female public spheres in which women could and can create their own autonomies, exclusivities and dominances (Pestana, 2011b). Although multipart singing was not female exclusive, the singular aesthetics noted inthe practices recorded as well as in the performances observed, on instant and lasting ornamental details among others, help us to interpret how female singing allowed them, to define territories of belonging identifying themselves as a distinctive group, performing leading social roles. Acousmographe 3 for visual representation of sound details Considering the sonic ambiance of these historical recordings, those of our own experiences in these interior rural regions, and with the aim to discuss some details of their distinctive characteristics, we became interested in the plasticity of its representation. There is a kind of slipping like character that we find conspicuous in this repertoire. How to characterize the way in which the voices mingle and separate themselves? What may we distinguish in their movements? May we perceive structural and ornamental sounds? What characterizes each of them in a song? The fluid character of the music sound in polyphonic practices has interested the authors for some time. Paying attention to a number of items of old collections of recordings in different contexts from private presentations in the Museum of Ethnography and the Universidade Nova de Lisboa in the early 1980s, and in work developed in the sound archive of the Center for Ethnomusicology at Columbia University in New York especially within the Laura Boulton Collection of Traditional and Liturgical Music (recorded, throughout the world, between the 1930s and the 1960s) 3 and listening to some recent and not so recent editions of old recordings, trying to envisage trends and patterns of sound organization, Côrte-Real somehow got the impression of a plasticity that may in the case of the Portuguese recordings be particularly 288 Maria de São José Côrte-Real, Rosário Pestana varied in the female polyphonic songs. With this hypothesis in mind, challenged by the voluptuous plasticity meanwhile found in some male polyphonic traditions such as those of the chorus of Southern Africa and Mozambique (Carvalho, 1999), we decided to focus on the visual representation of the sound product. For that it would be interesting to consider the female repertoire of the referred collections as a unit of analysis for future study. In the present context, aiming to test the visual representation of analytic concepts such as instant and lasting ornaments, we selected one song and submitted it to analysis through the free on-line digital program, Acousmographe 3. The aim was to exercise illustrative experiences in order to produce problem oriented analytic listening scores of creative profile music representation. This didactic strategy, involving development of knowledge in music sound spectromorphology (Smalley, 1997), has recently been tested in the master’s program Problems of Music Representation, in Music Sciences: Ethnomusicology at the Music Department of the Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa as a joint project between Côrte-Real and Isabel Pires who as researcher and electroacoustic composer has worked with it, developing visual signs and sound representational structures for long (Pires, 2010). Acousmographe3 is a software application for graphic representation over the sound spectrogram. It is a very versatile tool for music sound analysis for ethnomusicological purposes. It was developed at the Groupe de Recherches Musicales (GRM) of the Radio-Television Française in Paris, first for Macintosh computers since 1988. It has benefited from the creative ambiance among electroacoustic composers, engineers and radio-television personnel with pedagogical purposes in mind. It was designed for the analysis and teaching of electroacoustic repertoire. By the mid 1990s, the Acousmographe 2 version included the ability to insert markers and automated analysis processes. The Acousmographe 3, released in 2004 by request of the French Ministry of Education, is to be replaced soon by a new and more versatile one. Aiming to contribute to the understanding of music through visual descriptive transcriptions, it may display wave references and the spectrogram of a sound signal providing parameters related with duration and frequency of sound. It produces colorful listening scores in which the analyst may use different graphic forms, lines, dots, trace thickness, colors and transparencies to illustrate whatever he/she wants, with multiple possibilities of playback, repetition and velocity manipulation at reach. The development of different analytic perspectives is virtually unlimited through this tool, involving not only colored graphic annotation but also literary text inclusion and analysis over the visual representation of the sound waves. It opens wide possibilities for music sound representation and perception. The perspective we propose through the study of instant and lasting ornamental details within a song enables us to interpret subtleties of sound organization on time and through time combining literary and music texts within multipart songs. As an illustrative example we present some visual sign proposals made by Isabel Pires within the scope of an interpretative analysis of François Bayle’s composition La fin du bruit from 1979 (Pires, 2010) using voices, instruments and electroacoustic sounds. Although this acousmography, or as Pires calls it this graphic representation of audio sensations (Pires, 2010: 36) has been conceived for a different purpose, we find it useful for our presentation of this tool . From a long list of symbols, for our illustration here, we selected filtered words and other vocal sounds, punctuations and sound attacks from the designations proposed by Isabel Pires (Pires, 2010: 37) to denominate the colored graphic representations she made to analyze the musical sounds of the composition. Other denominations and colored forms may be proposed by whoever interprets multipart songs or other music Instant and Lasting Ornaments in Traditional Female Polyphony in Portugal 289 phonograms, according to the perspectives in analysis, being them ornamental or structural, instant or lasting or whatever one wants to consider in the analytic inquiry devised (fig. 2, 3). The very personal graphic forms produced, subjective as such, representing Pires analysis over the spectrogram of the work, give her interpretation of Éros bleu, a part of Bayle’s composition La fin du bruit, as shown in beginning of her acousmography in the capture above (ibid.: 36). The idea is that the reader may see the analytic listening score while he/she listens to the phonogram. There are the possibilities of considering sections, with introduction of text, and symbols, using different shapes, colors and transparencies, visualizing or not the spectrogram that in this case is hidden (ibid.: 32). The possibilities are virtually infinite, departing from the available array of free images or prearranged formal models’ suggestions as shown on the top of the capture above. It portrays the beginning of the acousmographic work of 16’25’’. In it we may see part of the symbols presented before, as they appear in the listening score thus produced. The symbols are placed over the spectrogram hidden in this capture. In the Cartesian coordinate system, in the x axis runs time (HMS) and in the y axis runs frequency (Hz). The y axis may show a exponential representation of the Hz scale for better visual quality of the representation (Pires, 2010: 31) (fig. 4). The new capture represents the formation of a rhythmic moment. In this example we may observe some of the symbols presented in arrangements that show either lasting instances (the rhythmic moment) in periodical appearances of punctuations, attacks and filtered words; or instant ones in any of the vertical lines imagined over the representation. It is possible to observe and compare whatever the analist wants to highlight. Maçadeira, the song chosen from the historical collection to test the tool, was collected by Armando Leça in Vila Maior, S. Pedro do Sul, a village in the central/northeastern region of Portugal, in the meaningful year of 1940. It is classified as a work song to bore flax (maçar o linho).The action represents the mentioned repeated beats of the beater on the flax. The singing starts, after 3 strokes of the beater, with the repeated ornamental text rendition O ai lé, o ai lé, without possible translation, used for the rhyme with Senhora de Nazaré (Our Lady of Nazareth). Then, the reference to a donkey seems to indicate that this is a song sung while going into a pilgrimage like festivity, or to a far away work place. Quem tem burro leva o burro / Quem no não tem vai a pé (Those who have a donkey take the donkey / Those who don’t go on foot). Only then comes the reference to Maçadeira, the title of the song, literally meaning the female worker with a beater (to bore flax or other products). The lyrics go on mentioning how the beaters should bore my flax well: Maçai-me o meu linho bem (Beat my flax well).Then bem (meaning well) rhymes with meu bem, (my love) and the theme falls into that of a love song with numerous and long repetitions of the initial ornamental text rendition o ai lé, o ai lé lé lé meu bem (my love). It then continues exploring the theme of the mealtime food expectation at noon (fig. 5). The phonogram of this peculiar female multipart singing song presents regular beats of the beater (representing the flax work) throughout. At the 4th beat the voices enter gradually: first the soloist, then a 2-part voice followed by a 4-part voice singing in juxtaposed 3rds. An higher voices heard an octave above the lowest one. In the acousmographic representation, its line lies over that of the octave overtone (the first one in the harmonic series), very visible on the spectrogram, as observable in the capture below. The lyrics highlighting the ornamental formulae o ai lé, are quite simple. In strophic form of 5 line verses, it progresses with the soloist singing the 1st verse and the choir, first in 2-parts and then in 4, repeats 4 times the second verse with a minor variation in the 2 last renditions. The song 290 Instant and Lasting Ornaments in Traditional Female Polyphony in Portugal follows alternating soloist and choir parts in the same pattern (fig. 6, video ex. 1). The acousmography built, including the literary text representation, shows soloist vocal lines in red alternating with choral sound masses in a pink/yellow gradation. The lines designed follow the background layers, the so-called wavelets, representing the overtone series of the sounds heard/depicted. These are the spectrogram linear representations on a layout in which the y axis shows the frequencies [HZ] on an exponential scale, thus chosen for a more agreeable visual image. If we hide the spectrogram representation, the acousmography becomes clearer as the following capture shows (fig. 7). Considering sound structure, this is a simple strophic song in which each strophe contains a basic melodic line that is repeated with some ornamental variation and shared successively by 1, 2 and 4 vocal parts. Thus described, the structure may be considered as being ornamented instantly and lastingly by musical details performed either by 1 voice or by a polyphonic rendition of 2 or 4 vocal parts. The harmony of the polyphonic sections, with the juxtaposition of 2 and 3 3rds, challenges the usual consonance of the triad, the sound of European triadic harmonies and parallel thirds that indeed seems to be prevailing in Portugal as Joseph Jordania observed (Jordania, 2006: 137). This prevalence was already pointed out in the late 19th century as a distinctive musical trait in Portugal (Arroio, 1897: 14). At the beginning of the acousmography, a red oval represents the starting point of the song and then, the yellow and purple ovals represent instant moments, thus considered ornamental, marking the entrances of the voices. The red line, being unique, is structural. Although the soloist singer seems to continue singing after the entrance of the choir, her function becomes ornamental: the literary text is repeated and the melody is a variation, so an ornamental rendition of the melody presented with the 1st verse. Thus, the pink/yellow gradation areas represent long periods, considered lasting ornaments. In these, there is a curious detail that we somehow highlighted. The highest voice, an even more ornamental one, an octave above the lower voice, doubling its overtone frequency is heard like a hidden voice. So the visual representation of this other ornamental situation was marked with a transparent representation. This voice helps to enhance the massive plastic sensation of the choral section. This analytic conception benefits from the versatility of Acousmographe 3. Both music and literary texts present meaningful ornamental characters. The numerous ornaments in the literary text itself moved us into the conceptualization proposed. The idea of ornament thus used/proposed to mean particular instant and lasting productions of sound, somehow highlight its superfluous character regarding the structure of the song. Although it is not necessarily the case, it seems that in most situations these instant and lasting productions of sound signal that convey the so called plasticity to the phenomenon of female multipart singing, are not structural to the song. By using the concept of ornament within the song, we employ a word used with specific music meanings in different traditions in and out of Europe. For example as it happens in the Javanese gamelan tradition, there are sound elements in these songs that are more structural or colotomic than others, that are more ornamental or, as said for the Indonesian case, more elaborative. Finally, a curious sound detail, in the universe of our direct aural references in Portugal, appears in the succession of major and minor intervals of second, heard not only in the sound mass of the parallel voices, instantly perceived, but also in the melodic lines providing a slipping like plastic sensation, lastingly perceived in Maçadeira. Our aural references come from comparative fieldwork done by Côrte-Real in Monsanto in the 1980s and 2011, in which the lasting ornaments prevailed in the characteristic monophonic songs, some of which with conspicuous Islamic modal influences and 291 Maria de São José Côrte-Real, Rosário Pestana on music traditions in Alentejo in 1985 and in Alto-Minho in the 1990s; and from fieldwork done by Pestana in Manhouce in the 1990s where instant ornamentation was more explored. Polyphonic practices remain alive in the Portuguese traditional music mainly in the Northern region of AltoMinho, and in the male-only sung tradition of Southern regions, in Alentejo. Both instant and lasting ornaments continue thus to be part of the gender mixed music traditions of the North and the already vanishing female rural polyphonic traditions of the South. Through the late 19th and the 20th centuries private polyphonic female practices have indeed declined progressively in the daily rural life in Portugal. The institutionalization of the process of folklore, initiated in the first decades of the 20thcentury did promote that decline (Carvalho, 1997; Castelo-Branco & Branco, 2003). The process of folklorization seems to have had an impact on the development of the dance music in particular in the Southern male polyphonic practices. Pestana stresses that during the 20th century, excluding some local and ephemeral initiatives, there were no cultural policies preserving rural private polyphonic practices (2008). There was also no academic interest focused on those musical performances. Acousmographe 3 developed for the understanding and teaching of contemporary music composition of electroacoustic nature in Paris, proves to be useful for the analysis and representation of music details as the ones identified in this presentation. The possibility of elaborating graphically using shapes and colors already in a considerably free way, makes this a very meaningful tool for visual representation of simultaneously human and digital music analysis, with acoustical in-time presentation of chosen wave references. In an ethnomusicological context, old music recordings and recent technologies thus help us to interpret sound organization with social, acoustic and aesthetic meaning. We considered instant and lasting details in the sound plasticity seen as ornamental procedures, but, in the long run, we seek to better understand female roles and behaviors in given environments, and to discuss aspects of classificatory systems of semantic and polyphonic nature. We aim also to understand roles and actions of ethnographers and performers in those Portuguese music cultures. We ultimately advocate the practice of visual representation of sung details, as analytical exercises in search of acoustical, aesthetical, and social meaning. The old body of traditional female polyphony repertoire thus motivated new strategies for visual sound representations renewing interpretive paths for future discussion. Notes 1 INET, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. 2 INET, Universidade de Aveiro, Supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal. 3 Côrte-Real was research assistant at the Center for Ethnomuscology at Columbia University from 1988 to 1993. References Arroio, António. (1897). “A música em Portugal”. In: Boletim do Instituto Portuense de Estudos e Conferências, 292 Maria de São José Côrte-Real, Rosário Pestana 1:12-6. Braga, Teófilo. (1893).Cancioneiro de Músicas Populares. Vol 1. Porto: Empresa Neves & Campos. Carvalho, João Soeiro de (editor). (1997).O Alto-Minho na Obra Etnográfica de Abel Viana. Viana do Castelo: Academia de Música de Viana do Castelo. Carvalho, João Soeiro de. (1999).Makwayela – Moçambique. AViagem dos Sons, Tradisom VS09. http://www.tradisom.com/pt/x176/catalogo/discos/tradicional/a_viagem_dos_sons Castelo-Branco, Salwa & Jorge Freitas Branco. (2003). Vozes do Povo: A Folclorização em Portugal. Lisboa: Celta Editora. Côrte-Real F. Oliveira, Maria de São José and João Soeiro de Carvalho. (1986). A Festa do Castelo em Monsanto. BA unpublished AcademicMonography guided by Salwa Castelo-Branco at Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Côrte-Real F. Oliveira, Maria de São José and João Soeiro de Carvalho. (1987). “Monsanto: uma tradição musical em mudança?”. In: Boletim da Associação Portuguesa de Educação Musical, 52:20-5. Côrte-Real, Maria de São José and João Soeiro de Carvalho. (2001). Report, Alto-Minho 2000: Património Musical (Alto-Minho 2000: Musical Heritage) CCRN- PRONORTE C.Instituto de Etnomusicologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa / Academia de Música de Viana do Castelo, (Institute of Ethnomusicology, New University of Lisbon / Academy of Music of Viana do Castelo) 1997-2001. Cruz, Cristina Brito da. (2010). “Artur Santos”. In: Enciclopédia da Música em Portugal no Século XX.Vol. 4. Lisboa: Círculo de Leitores, P. 1165-69. Editor: S. Castelo Branco. Jordania, Joseph. (2006). Who Asked the First Question? The Origins of Human Choral Singing, Intelligence, Language and Speech. Tbilisi: Logos. Montebello, Marquês de. (1660). Vida de Manuel Machado (cit. in Sampaio 1931:6). Pestana, Maria do Rosário. (2008). “A música na construção do Douro Litoral: colecção, estudo e divulgação de práticas polifónicas de música da tradição oral em Portugal (1947-1959)” Etno-folk. Revista galega de etnomusicoloxia. Baiona: Dos Acordes, in Salwa El-Shawan Castelo-Branco and Susana Moreno Fernández, (coords.), IV (1),12: 31-54. Pestana, Maria do Rosário. (2011). “Dar luz aos textos, silenciar as vozes “des”- conhecimento e distanciamento em processos de construção da “música portuguesa” (1939-59)” Arte e Filosofia.68: 68-81. Pestana, Maria do Rosário. (2011a). “A ‘fala’ é a voz das mulheres”: textos e contextos do feminino em Manhouce Instant and Lasting Ornaments in Traditional Female Polyphony in Portugal 293 (1938-2000). Trans-Revista Transcultural de Música, 15: 1-21. Pestana, Maria do Rosário. (2012). Armando Leça e a Música Portuguesa (1910-1940). Lisboa: Tinta-da-China. Pimentel, Alberto. (1905). As Alegres Canções do Norte. Porto: Livraria Chardron. Pires, Isabel. (2010). “La fin (l’infini) du bruit”, in François Bayle, Erosphère. Paris: Ed. Magison P. 29-39. Sampaio, Gonçalo. (1927). Cantos populares do Minho, s.l.(cit. in Carvalho 2010 (4):1161). Sampaio, Gonçalo. (1929). “Cantos populares do minho” Orfeu. II (22):1-2. Sampaio, Gonçalo. (1931).Cantos Populares Minhotos a Nossa Senhora.Separata do livro do Cónego Manuel de Aguiar Barreiros, Nossa Senhora nas suas imagens e no seu culto na Arquidiocese de Braga. Braga: Oficina Grafica Pax. Sampaio, Gonçalo. (1940). Cancioneiro Minhoto, [s.l. s.n.]. Sampaio, Gonçalo. (1944). Cancioneiro Minhoto, 2ª Ed. Porto: Livraria Educação Nacional. Silvari, J. Varela. (1874). Apuentes para la Historia Musical del Reino Lusitano (Santiago 1874) (cit. in Sampaio 1931:6). Smalley, Denis. (1997). Spectromorphology: explaining sound-shapes, Organised Sound 2(2):107–26. Cambridge University Press. Viana, Abel. (1941). “Os Ranchos das Lavradeiras Vianesas. Algumas notas sobre a sua história”. Aurora do Lima 86 (84):1,(cit. in Carvalho 1997:125-27). Audio Examples Audio example 1. Trai-larai, collected by Vergílio Pereira in Monte-Córdova, Santo Tirso, in 1958. Audio example 2. Massadela or Maçadeira, collected by Armando Leça in Vila Maior, S. Pedro do Sul, in 1940. Video Examples Video example 1: Acousmograph of Massadela (first part). 294 maria de sao xose korte-reali, rosario pestana. danarTi Maria de São José Côrte-Real, Rosário Pestana. APPENDIX suraTi 1. gundis wevri qalebi, acviaT barselosis regionis ranCos stilSi. a. lesas foto Figure 1. Women in choir, dressed in Barcelos regional ranchos’ style. Photo by A. Leça, s.d. suraTi 2. gamomsaxvelobiT-analitikuri mizniT Seqmnili simboloebi (Pires, 2010: 37) Figure 2. Symbols made for representational analytic purposes (Pires, 2010: 37) Filtered words and other vocal sounds Punctuations and attacks, bells and other percussive character sounds maria de sao xose korte-reali, rosario pestana. danarTi Maria de São José Côrte-Real, Rosário Pestana. APPENDIX suraTi 3. akusmografis gverdi La fin du bruit (Pires, 2010: 36) Figure 3. A page of the acousmography of La fin du bruit (Pires, 2010: 36) suraTi 4. ritmuli momentis formireba me-2 wuTidan (Pires, 2010: 31) Figure 4. Formation of a rhythmic moment from minute 2’ (Pires, 2010: 31) 295 296 maria de sao xose korte-reali, rosario pestana. danarTi Maria de São José Côrte-Real, Rosário Pestana. APPENDIX suraTi 5. masadela=masadeiras teqstis pirveli nawili, Cawerilia lesas mier 1940 wels Figure 5. First part of the lyrics of Massadela=Maçadeira collected by Leça in 1940 O ai lé, o ai lé Senhora de Nazaré, Senhora de Nazaré, Senhora de Nazaré, Senhora de Nazaré, ai lé-. O ai lé, o ai lé Our Lady of Nazareth Our Lady of Nazareth Our Lady of Nazareth Our Lady of Nazareth, ai lé Quem tem burro, leva o burro, Quem no não tem vai a pé, Quem no não tem vai a pé, Quem n’não tem vai a pé, Quem n’não tem vai a pé, ai lé-. Those who have donkey, take the donkey Those who don’t go by foot, Those who don’t go by foot, Those who don’t go by foot, Those who don’t go by foot, ai lé Maçadeiras do meu linho, maçai-m’o meu linho bem, Maçai-m’o meu linho bem, Maçai o meu linho bem, Maçai o meu linho bem, ai lé-. Boring women of my flax Bore my flax well, Bore my flax well, Bore my flax well, Bore my flax well, ai lé Ai lé, o ail é, o ai lé, lé, lé meu bem, (…) Ai lé, o ail é, o ai lé, lé, lé my love, (…) suraTi 6. masadela=masadeiras akusmografiis pirveli gverdi, korte-reali da piresi Figure 6. First page of the acousmography of Massadela=Maçadeira by Côrte-Real and Pires maria de sao xose korte-reali, rosario pestana. danarTi Maria de São José Côrte-Real, Rosário Pestana. APPENDIX suraTi 7. masadela=masadeiras akusmografis ufro mkafio pirveli gverdi Figure 7. First page of a clearer acousmography of Massadela=Maçadeira 297 298 giorgi (gigi) garayaniZe (†) (saqarTvelo) eTnomusikis Teatris erTi ucnobi nimuSisaTvis (zedaSis iavnana) yoveli xalxis sulier kulturaSi TvalsaCino adgili uWiravs xalxur musikalur Semoqmedebas. Soreuli warsulidan zepiri gziT momdinare musikaluri xelovneba mWidrodaa dakavSirebuli TaobaTa koleqtiur SemoqmedebasTan, erovnul tradiciebTan, esTetikur idealebTan, xalxis fsiqologiasTan. folklori xalxuri yofis nawilia. misi saxis CamonakvTva ganuyofelia eris Sinagani bunebisa da mis kulturaSi mimdinare procesebisgan. msoflioSi Znelad Tu moiZebneba meore iseTi eri, romlis yofaSic tradiciul musikas esoden mniSvnelovani adgili eWiros: am garemoebas aRniSnavdnen rogorc qarTveli, ise ucxoeli mecnierebi, ase, magaliTad: qar­TvelTa eTnogenezis mkvlevari l. f. leman-haufti Zveli qarTveluri modgmis karduxebisa da Tana­me­drove qarTvelebis erT-erT saerTo maxasiaTeblad gamoyofs simReris siyvaruls omSica da mSvidobiano­ bis drosac (Citaia, 2000: 33). `qarTveli simReriT ibadeba da simReriTve ebareba miwa­ so~, – brZanebda cnobili kompozitori, qarTuli musikaluri folkloris Semgrovebeli da mkvlevari dimitri arayiSvili. marTlac, dabadebidan garda­cva­lebamde da merec – micvalebis wlisTavze – qarTveli kacis cxov­rebis yoveli momenti simReriT iyo Tan­ x­ lebuli: simRera axlda bavSvis daba­debas, pataris daZinebas, dasneulebuli bavSvis mkurnalobas, qorwilis mimdinareobas. saTanado simRera arsebobda Sromis TiTqmis yvela saxeobisTvis; micvalebuls samgloviaro simReriT aci­le­bdnen ukanasknel gzaze; amas ematebo­da sxva­da­sxva warmarTul Tu qristia­nul dResaswaulze Sesasrulebe­li mravalricxovani saweso simRe­ra. amgvarad, qarTveli kacis cxovrebis yovel moments Tavisi Sesatyvisi simRera axl­ da Tan, romelic calke samRerlad ki ar arsebobda, aramed _ konkre­ tuli eTnografiuli garemos, yofis saTanado movlenis ganuyofel nawilad da mxolod da mxolod masSi Sesasruleblad. Sesabamisad, auTentikur garemoSi aRzrdili adamianebisTvis is simRerebi, romlebic raime wes-Cveulebis nawili iyo, simRerebad ki ar miiCneoda, aramed ama Tu im wes-Cveulebis erT-erT ganuyofel komponentad moiazreboda1. magaliTisTvis moviyvan ramdenime SemTxvevas gamoCenili eTnomusikologis, ediSer garayaniZis eqspediciebidan: `sofel nabakevSi kiTxvaze, mRerian Tu ara simRerebs, glexebma mogviges: _ simRerebs Cven ar vmReriT. _ rogor, arc adre gimReriaT?! _ ara. _ nuTu aliloc ar gimReriaT?! 299 _ alilo? mai ra simReraa! da amis Semdeg wamoiwyes alilo~. movitanT sxva magaliTsac _ ,,1979 wlis eqspediciaSi, sofel zemo xviTSi, roca 77 wlis iluSa esiaSvils vTxoveT, CvenTvis Wona emRera, man Seicxada: `aRdgoma gavida da exla unda mamReroT Wonai?!~ (garayaniZe, 2007: 21, 25). qarTul eTnografiul yofaSi amgvari sinkretuli saxiT warmodgenil wes-Cveulebebsa da musikas termin eTnomusikis TeatriT aRvniSnavT, romelic pirvelad gamoviyeneT monografiaSi `qarTuli eTnomusikis Teatri da misi sawyisebi~ (garayaniZe, 2008). naSromSi vrclad aris ganmartebuli terminis raoba, amitom masze aq aRar SevCerdebiT, mxolod mokled SevexebiT mis orive komponents: termin eTnomusikis Teatris pirveli komponentisTvis amosavalia anTropologiuri disciplinis _ eTnomusiko­lo­ giis _ arsi: eTnomusikologia musikaluri folklori­ stikisa da eTno­ logiis sinTezis Sedegad Camoyalibebuli dargia, romelic musikaluri folkloris nebismier nimuSs ganixilavs ara rogorc mxatvrul fenomens, aramed, upirveles yovlisa, rogorc yofis movlenas, rogorc xalxis sayofacxovrebo tradi­ ciis, misi sameurneo saqmianobisa Tu Cveulebebisa da rwmenawarmodgenebis erTian, ganuyofel nawils (SilakaZe, 1991). amitomac eTnografiul si­ nam­­ dvi­ leSi mocemuli musikisa da yofis movlenaTa ganuyoflobis arsis cxadad warmosaCenad swored aRniSnul termins _ eTnomusiko­ lo­ giaze dafuZnebul eTnomu­ sikas viyenebT. rac Seexeba terminis meore komponents _ Teatrs: qarTuli yofis momentebi, sxvadasxva ritualiTa da wes-CveulebiT, marTlac STambeWdav Teatralur sanaxaobas qmnis. amasTan, igi Teatris struqturis arse­ biTi, relevanturi elementebis Semcvelia: aqac Semsruleblebs winaswar aqvT mocemuli piesa, romelic gansazRvravs verbalur-xmier Tu qmedeba­Ta Tanmim­de­v­robas; Semsruleblebi piesis gadmocemisas inarCuneben individualur Tavisuflebas; aqac aris mayurebeli, romelic piesis mizan­ da­ saxulobis Sesabamisad, an pasiuria, an aqtiurad erTveba speqtak­lSi. saukuneebis ganm­av­lobaSi yalibdeboda da zepiri tradiciiT Taobebs gadaece­moda konkretuli Sinaarsisa da funqciis mqone es mravalferovani warmo­dgenebi, romelTa `scenaric~ mkacrad gansazRv­ ravda Sesru­le­bis drosa da adgils, aseve _ Sesaferis musikalur Tanxlebas. es iyo artistuli gamovlinebis cocxa­li procesi, srulyofi­ li gamomsaxvelobiTi formebiT: satiralSi misuli mozareebi, saqorwilo sufra­ze Tu nadSi sagangebod miwveuli momRerlebi, religiuri ri­t­ua­­lis aRmasruleblebi da sxvani – garkveulwilad, msaxiobebi iyvnen2. sabolood, Cven winaSea erTgvari xalxuri musikaluri Teatri, romelsac Cven eTnomusikis Teatri vuwodeT. misi sazRvrebisa da struqturis warmosaCenad movitanT ramdenime magaliTs: nimuSad aviRoT batonebis msaxureba _ bavSvis infeqciuri daavadebiT dasneulebis SemTxvevaSi aRsasrulebeli wes-Cveuleba: ojaxSi infeqciuri daavadebis gaCenisas cocxldeba miTologiuri siuჟeti, romlis Tanaxmadac ojaxSi mobrZandebian zebunebrivi arsebani _ batonebi. am miTologiur Zalebs xelewifebaT avadmyofis mokvdineba da `Tan wayvana~. batonebis msaxureba swored am Zalebis gulis mosagebad aRsrulebuli ritualia: avadmyofis oTaxi irTveba Wreli naWrebiT, ipkureba yvavilebis sur- 300 giorgi (gigi) garayaniZe (†) nelovani wyliT, inTeba kandeli, iwveba bazma. saxlSi ikrZaleba xmauri; dasneulebuls naz xmaze umRerian iavnanas. ibmeba ferxulic. avadmyofobis garTulebis SemTxvevaSi bavSvis mSoblebi, babua da mamida SiSvldebian da cekviT gars uvlian sawols _ xalxuri rwmena-warmodgenebis Tanaxmad, gardacvlili SiSvelia, amitom bavSvis axloblebis siSiSvlec avadmyofTan Senacvlebis mzaobis gamomxatvelia (garayaniZe, 2008: 171). amrigad, am magaliTSi gvyavs Semsruleblebi, romlebic dadgenili `scenaris~ mixedviT iqcevian da asruleben maTTvis gankuTvnil rolebs. dasneulebulis oTaxi warmoadgens samoqmedo scenas; erTgvari rekvizitis funqcias atarebs feradi naWrebi, kandeli, bazma, surnelovani wyliT savse Tasi da xonCa, romelzec batonebisTvis mirTmeuli nugbaria dawyobili. formiT gansxvavebuli, magram eTnomusikis Teatris TvalsazrisiT metad saintereso numuSia koleqtiuri Sromis procesic. aq scena samuSao yanaa, sadac simReras iseTive funqcia aqvs, rogoric Tavad Sromis iaraRebs. amitom damxmareebis mowvevis dros aucileblad zrunavdnen imaze, rom mSromelTa rigebSi naduri simReris kargi Semsruleblebic yofiliyvnen (garayaniZe, 2007: 20). gariTmuli SeZaxilebi da simRera, misi tempi, cvalebadi dinamika da mxne ganwyoba mTlianad gansazRvravda Sromis procesis mimdinareobas (garayaniZe, 2008: 3845) (videomag. 1). mecnierebis ganviTarebis Tanamedrove etapze, rodesac ukanaa motovebuli SemgroveblobiTi saqmianoba (aTwleulebis manZilze Catarebuli eqspediciebis Sedegad dagrovilia didZali folkloruli masala), Zneli warmosadgenia eTnografiul wiaRSi kidev moxdes eTnomusikis Teatris manamde ucnobi nimuSis moZieba-aRnusxva. aRniSnul garemoebas isic emateba, rom Tanamedrove yofaSi tradiciuli musikaluri folklori fragmentuli saxiTRaa SemorCenili da isic sul ufro metad Sordeba pirvelsawyiss da ikargeba. aseT viTarebaSi, Cven mogveca saSualeba, Cagvewera eTnomusikis Teatris manamde ucnobi nimuSi, kerZod _ Rvinis qvevrTan Sesasrulebeli, simReriT Tanxlebuli wes-Cveuleba, romelsac Tavisi funqciisa da agebulebis mixedviT zedaSis iavnana vuwodeT. sanam uSualod aRniSnul nimuSze gadavidodeT, sagangebod unda SevCerdeT TviTon zedaSis kulturis fenomenze, rac Rvinis sakralur xarisxSi ayvanasa da mis miTologizacias gulisxmobs. 2010 wels qiziyis eqspediciaSi swored am sakiTxze gavamaxvileT yuradReba3. zedaSe RvTaebisaTvis Sesawir saukeTeso Rvinos ewodeba. sxvadasxva saswaulTmoqmedi unaris gamo xalxur yofaSi igi Tayvaniscemis obieqtadac miiCneva. zedaSis Rvinis kultura yvelaze mkafiod qiziyis eTnografiul yofas SemorCa. aq yovel ojaxs sazedaSe qvevri calke hqonda gamoyofili. amas garda, yovel ojaxs evaleboda gaetana Rvino sagvareulo da saubno zedaSisTvis, romlisTvisac ufro didi qvevri iyo gankuTvnili (Tofuria, 1963: 159; orbeliani, 1991: 278; kakaSvili, 1995: 12). zedaSis Rvinos swiravdnen eklesiasac, romelsac RvTismsaxurebaSi iyenebdnen da romelic usaTuod wiTeli unda yofiliyo. es garemoeba zedaSes qristianul semantikas sZens: marTlmadidebluri qristianuli moZRvrebis Tanaxmad, saeklesio RvTismsaxurebisas Rvino qristes sisxlad gardaiqmneba, romliTac morwmuneni udides RvTaebriv saidumlos eziarebian. aRniSnuli qristianuli datvirTvis gverdiT, xalxur yofaSi eTnomusikis Teatris erTi ucnobi nimuSisaTvis (zedaSis iavnana) 301 zedaSe gansxvavebuli Sinaarsis matarebelia, rac mas arqaul cnobierebasTan akavSirebs: qiziySi zedaSe gvaris, ojaxis mfarvel angelozad iTvleba. xalxuri rwmeniT, mas SeuZlia avadmyofis gankurneba, mosavlis gamravleba, Svilierebis miniWeba, borotisagan dacva da, piriqiT _ uRirsi saqcielis gamo adamianis dasjac. zedaSe xalxisTvis salocav obieqts warmoadgens da, Sesabamisad, sakralizebulia masTan urTierTobis wesebic. Tuki ojaxi icvlis saxls da mis adgilze sxva ojaxi mkvidrdeba, axalmosaxleebi sazedaSe qvevrs arasdros exebian. Zveli mepatroneni ki drodadro brundebian uwindel karmidamoSi da pativs miageben ojaxis mfarvel angelozs. im SemTxvevaSic, roca mTeli sofeli ayrila, zedaSis qvevrebi Tan ki ar wauRiaT, aramed gaugrZelebiaT maTi movla-patronoba. wmindad iTvleba is adgilic, sadac uwin qvevri iyo Cagdebuli. qvevris dakargvis SemTxvevaSi Tayvans scemen cariel adgils. jer kidev ori aTeuli wlis win xSirad naxavdiT eklesiaSi Tu mis kedlebTan datovebul cariel qvevrebs, romelTac adre sazedaSe funqcia hqoniaT da axla ki krZalvis gamo veravin exeboda. zedaSis mimarT warmarTuli damokidebulebis gamoxatulebaa, roca mas rogorc salocavs, eklesiaze upiratesad miiCneven: bodbisxevSi vinme gigas RvTismSoblis saxelobis eklesiisTvis gumbaTi auxdia. gigas coli olRa avad gamxdara. maTTvis mkiTxavs uTqvams _ RmerTma dagsajaT, olRas verc erTi salocavi veRar uSveliso da urCevia, zedaSes sTxoveT, dagexmarebaTo (kakaSvili, 1995: 9). savele muSaobisas, CaviwereT zedaSis kultTan dakavSirebuli STambeWdavi rituali, romelic Tavisi agebulebiT eTnomusikis Teatris nimuSs warmoadgens: zedaSisTvis pativis misagebad ojaxi daniSnavda dRes, romelic, rogorc wesi, ro-melime dResaswauls emTxveoda. am dRisTvis momzaddeboda sufra da sanTlebi. ojaxis yvela wevri sazedaSe qvevrTan gaSlil sufras Semousxdeboda. qvevri gansxvavebul adgilas SeiZleboda yofiliyo: maranSi, ezoSi, Ria cis qveS _ xis ZirSi, wnulis qoxSi an salocavis siaxloves mowyobil, fardulis msgavs sivrceSi. ojaxis uxucesi qali yvelaze axlos mividoda wminda qvevrTan, iqve Camojdeboda, daanTebda sanTels, warmoTqvamda locvas, zedaSis angelozs Seavedrebda ojaxis wevrebs. pirvelad dailoceboda: `Cvens zedaSes gaumarjos!~ qvevris Tavze miakravda anTebul sanTels da `angelozis daZinebis~ mizniT iwyebda simReras, romelsac, rogorc aRvniSneT, zedaSis iavnanad movixseniebT. simReras ojaxis sxva wevrebic ahyvebodnen (videomag. 2). konkretulad zedaSesTan Sesasrulebeli iavnanis sxva variants jerjerobiT versad mivakvlieT, Tumca zedaSis iavnana Tamamad SeiZleba CavTvaloT batonebis iavnanebis variantad rogorc musikaluri TvalsazrisiT, ise miToreligiuri mrwamsiT, rac batonebis simReris teqstebsa da zedaSis kultis garegan Tu Sinagan xasiaTSi vlindeba. kerZod, batonebis iavnanebSi mocemuli miTologiuri teqstis erTi nawili, romelSic saubaria iagundis maranze, Rvinosa da Sig amozrdil alvis xeze, Cveni fiqriT, uSualod unda ukavSirdebodes zedaSis iavnanas: `iagundis maranSia, Rvino dgas da lali bWviso, Sig alvis xe amosula, norCia da totebs Sliso~... batonebis iavnanas am amonaridSi moxseniebuli miTologiuri iagundis marani pirdapir Seesabameba zedaSis kults, romelic mTlianad miTologizebuli fenomenia da masSi mTavari adgili swored marans (qvevrs) uWiravs. rac Seexeba `Sig amo- 302 giorgi (gigi) garayaniZe (†) sul alvis xes~, es gaxlavT cnobili miTologiuri saxe, romelic mraval xalxSia gavrcelebuli da romlis semantikac wlis ganaxlebas, baraqianobas, sicocxlis miniWebas ukavSirdeba. batonebis iavnanaSi moxseniebul sicocxlis xes zedaSis kultSic sakmaod mniSvnelovani adgili unda sWeroda, saxeldobr: zedaSis ritualSi am miTologiuri xis erT-erT gamovlinebad unda miviCnioT mousavlianobis dros vazis totis moWra da misi qvevrSi Cayudeba4 (Tofuria, 1963: 141); amave miTologiuri siuJetis gamovlineba unda iyos saqarTveloSi farTod gavrcelebuli Ria cis qveS mowyobili marnis saxeoba, romelic xis ZirSi moTavsebuli qvevrebiTaa warmodgenili. zedaSis qvevris xis ZirSi `dargva~ farTod iyo gavrcelebuli. praqtikuli daniSnulebis garda, rac xis CrdilSi qvevrebis Cayras gulisxmobs, aseT marans zemoaRniSnuli moTologiuri gaazrebac unda hqonoda, rac xes maranSi amozrdilad warmoaCenda. termini qvevris `dargvac~ (kakaSvili, 1995: 8) zemoTqmuls ganamtkicebs, vinaidan dargva mxolod da mxolod mcenarisa (xisa) SeiZleba. aRsaniSnavia, rom qalbatoni, romlisganac aRniSnuli iavnana CaviwereT, am nimuSs ar miiCnevda simRerad da, am mizeziT, uars ambobda mis Sesrulebaze _ `es iseTi sasimRero xom ar ariso~... qalbatoni lamara qoquaSvili gviyveba, rom zedaSis iavnanis da masTan dakavSirebuli ritualis kargi mcodne iyo misi mamida, romlisgan uswavlia es nimuSi5. motanil magaliTSi solists, reCitatiuli principiT unda CamoeTvala salocavebi (,,mTavarangelozs, yvela wmindaso, Cvens samebaso, wm. giorgis~ da sxv.) da aRevlina maTdami vedreba. misive TqmiT, aseTi formiT Sesruleba ,,mkiTxavi qalebis~ sagangebo niWs moiTxovs. aq igulisxmeba kultmsaxuri qalebi, igive ,,mona qalebi~ romlebsac salocavis msaxureba aqvT SeTqmuli da romelTac ritualis aRsrulebisas salocavis saxeliT qadageba-winaswarmetyveleba SeuZliaT. aRniSnuli garemoeba am simReras amsgavsebs RvTis karis, igive savedrebel iavnanas, romelic msgavsi formiT sruldeba swored aRniSnuli pirebis mier. RvTis karis iavnanas qalebi saeklesio dResaswaulebze asruleben taZris garSemovliT. es aris saocrad STambeWdavi warmodgena, romlis monawileni eklesias sasoebiT uvlian irgvliv, xelSi anTebuli sanTlebi upy­ri­aT da pirjvars isaxaven (videomag. 3). zedaSis, saxadis da RvTis karis iavnanebis msgavseba kargad vlindeba, rogorc responsoriumis kvalSi (garayaniZe, 1997: 27), ise musikaluri frazebis bolos mocemul refrensa da samRerisebis identurobaSi. raki Cvens SemTxvevaSi zedaSis iavnanas erTi qali asrulebda, cxadia, simRera erT xmaSi JRerda da asec CaviwereT. Tumca, respodentis gadmocemiT, wesis aRsrulebisas ojaxis wevrebi simReras erTad asrulebdnen. amitom, SeiZleba vivaraudoT, rom igi sam xmaSi Tu ara, banis TanxlebiT mainc unda Sesrulebuliyo. vgulisxmobT `eTnosmenis~ princips, romelic msgavs situaciaSi unda gaaqtiurebuliyo (zemcovski, 2004: 18-19). qarTuli xalxuri simReris SemTxvevaSi, aRniSnuli faqtori kargadaa ilustrirebuli ediSer garayaniZis monografiaSi qarTuli xalxuri simReris Semsruleblobis Sesaxeb: `marto kaci simReris erT xmas imRerebs, Tu mas meore Seemata, is, rogorc wesi, bans Seawevs, mesame ki moZaxilis partias Seasrulebs, xolo Semdeg mimatebulebi bans SeuerTdebian~. orxmiani simReris SemTxvevaSi, damwyebs erTi kaci ityvis, danarCenebi ki bans etyvian (garayaniZe, 2007: 48-50). ze- eTnomusikis Teatris erTi ucnobi nimuSisaTvis (zedaSis iavnana) 303 daSis iavananaSi mocemuli vedreba da salocavebis uxvad CamoTvla am simReras RvTis karis iavnanasTan aaxloebs, romelic erTi an ori solistis monacvleobiT, gabmuli banis fonze sruldeba. aseTi formis Sesrulebisas, rodesac `kultmsaxuris~ sityvieri Tu musikaluri teqsti mTlianad improvizaciulia da didwilad Semsruleblis ganwyobazea damokidebuli, gamoricxavs unisonur Sesrulebas. savaraudo samxmianobis TvalsazrisiT, nimuSad SeiZleba movitanoT, Cven mier 2004 wels kaxeTSi Cawerili savedrebeli iavnana, romelsac solisti asrulebs banis fonze. refrenis nawilSi ki, romelic solistis ZiriTadi partiisagan gansxvavebiT, TiTqmis ucvlelad JRers yoveli gameorebisas, zeda xmac uerTdeba, rac simReras samxmianad aqcevs. amrigad, zedaSis iavnana eTnomusikis Teatris nimuSs warmoadgens, romelic, erTi mxriv, Rvinis kultTan dakavSirebuli damoukidebeli wes-Cveulebis nawilia, xolo, meore mxriv, mas bevri niSani aaxloebs saxadisa da savedrebel iavnanasTan. SeniSvnebi 1 specialur literaturaSi am rigis simRerebi, romlebic dadgenil viTarebaSi sruldeba da ganuyofelia ama Tu im wesisa da ritualisagan, `Tandebul~ simRerebad iwodeba, gansxvavebiT `wminda~ simRerebisagan, romlebic nebismier drosa da adgilas SeiZleba Sesruldes (garayaniZe, 2007: 19-23). 2 bunebrivia, aRniSnuli wes-Cveulebebi an ritualebi Tavad monawileTa mier ar gaiazreboda sanaxaobad da Teatrad. 3 aRniSnuli kvlevis savele nawilis CatarebaSi (2010 w.) gaweuli daxmarebisTvis uRrmes madlobas movaxseneb wnorSi mcxovreb dekanoz daviT grigalaSvilisa da javaSvilebis, begaSvilebisa da koxtaSvilebis ojaxebs. aseve _ ediSer garayaniZis saxelobis wnoris bavSvTa studia `amer-imeris~ xelmZRvanels TinaTin ServaSiZesa da yvarleli feiqriSvilebis ojaxs. 4 es mogvagonebs evropis xalxebSi (italia, germania, CexeTi da sxv.) gavrcelebul Cveulebas, sadac Wridnen xis tots, ,,klavdnen xis suls~, raTa Semdeg is ukeTesi formiT aRmdgariyo (Frazer, 1993: 300-306). 5 qalis mier zedaSis ritualis warmarTva da codnis Senaxva 64 wlis TinaTin donjaSvilmac dagvidastura (dedofliswyaro). 304 giorgi (gigi) garayaniZe (†) damowmebuli literatura garayaniZe, giorgi. (2008). qarTuli eTnomusikis Teatri da misi sawyisebi. Tbilisi: petiti. garayaniZe, ediSer. (1997). `qarTuli xalxuri simReris ganviTarebis erTi adreuli etapis Sesaxeb“. krebulSi: musikismcodneobis sakiTxebi. gv. 18-38 Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoria. garayaniZe, ediSer. (2007). qarTuli xalxuri simReris Semsrulebloba. Tbilisi: inteleqti. zemcovski, izali. (2004). `polifonia rogorc `eTnosmena“ da misi `musikaluri substancia“: Homo Polyphonicus-is qceva. krebulSi: tradiciuli mravalxmianobis meore saerTaSoriso simpoziumi. moxsenebebi. gv. 17-24. redaqtorebi: wurwumia, rusudan da Jordania, ioseb. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri. Tofuria, n. (1963). `Rvinis zedaSeebi~. krebulSi: masalebi saqarTvelos eTnografiisaTvis, XII-XIII:157-173. Tbilisi. kakaSvili, m. (1995). zedaSe, rogorc sulieri kulturis fenomeni. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetis gamomcemloba. orbeliani, sulxan-saba. (1991). leqsikoni qarTuli. t. I, Tbilisi: merani. SilakaZe, manana. (1991). eTnomusikologiis sagani, meTodebi da amocanebi. Tbilisi: mecniereba. Citaia, giorgi. (2000). ,,Teoriebi qarTveli xalxis eTnogenezis Sesaxeb~. Sromebi xuT tomad, qarTveli xalxis eTnogenezi da kulturul-istoriuli problemebi. t. II: 32-63. Tbilisi: mecniereba. Frazer, James. (1993). The Golden Bough. London: Wordsworth. videomagaliTebi videomagaliTi 1. Sroma (imeruli naduri) _ ediSer garayaniZis eqspediciidan, vanis r-is sof. yumuri. satelevizio gadacema, reJ. dim. gugunava (ediSer garayaniZis komentarebiT), 1988 (garayaniZe, 2008: video No. 3, 05:11 wT.-dan). videomagaliTi 2. zedaSis iavnana. videomagaliTi 3. RvTis karze saTqmeli iavnana. 305 GIORGI (GIGI) GARAQANIDZE (†) (GEORGIA) ON ONE UNKNOWN EXAMPLE OF ETHNOMUSIC THEATRE (ZEDASHE LULLABY) Folk music occupies a significant place in the spiritual culture of every nation. Musical art, which has survived to this day by means of oral tradition, is closely linked with the collective creative work of generations, national traditions, aesthetic ideals and people’s psychology. The formation of its aspects is inseparable from the nation’s innate nature and the processes going on in its culture. One can hardly find another nation in whose culture traditional music could occupy such an important place as in Georgia: this phenomenon has been emphasized by both Georgian and foreign scholars. For instance L. F. Leman-Hauft, a researcher into the ethnogenesis of Georgians, singles out their love for singing both in war and in peacetime, as a common feature characterizing both Kardukhs, an ancient Kartvelian tribe, and modern Georgians (Chitaia, 2000: 33). “A Georgian is born with singing and is interred with singing, too”, said Dimitri Araqishvili, an outstanding composer and collector of folk music. And, indeed, beginning from his/her birth until death and afterwards, on the commemorative anniversary a year after his/her death, every moment of a Georgian’s life was accompanied by singing: the birth of a child, putting him/her to sleep, healing a sick child, a wedding ceremony. There was a special song for almost all kinds of work; the deceased was accompanied on the last journey by a funeral dirge; this was supplemented by various devotional songs to be performed at pagan or Christian feasts. Thus every moment of a Georgian’s life was accompanied by a suitable song, which was not to be performed independently, as a separate song. It was an integral part of a concrete ethnographic environment, a corresponding event of everyday life and should be performed only on such occasions. Therefore, people brought up in the authentic environment never thought the songs, which were part of some ritual, to be just songs; they were one of the integral components of this or that custom or tradition1. As an example I would like to refer to some incidents from the expeditions of an outstanding ethnomusicologist Edisher Garaqanidze: “In the village of Nabakevi, when asked whether they sang songs, the villagers answered: “We do not sing any songs”. “What? Didn’t you ever sing in the past either?” “No”. “Haven’t you sung “Alilo?” “Alilo? It isn’t a song”. And after that they began to sing “Alilo”. Here is another example: “In fieldwork of 1979, in the village of Zemo Khviti, when we asked Ilusha Esiashvili, a 77-year-old man, to sing Chona, he was amazed, ‘‘Easter has passed and you want me to sing Chona now?” (Garaqanidze, 2007: 21, 25). I use the term ethnomusical theatre to denote the customs and traditions present in Georgian ethnographic everyday life in such a syncretistic form. I used it first in the monograph “Georgian Ethnomusical 306 Giorgi (Gigi) Garaqanidze (†) Theatre and Its Sources” (Garaqanidze, 2008). In the monograph the meaning of the term is discussed at some length, therefore I will not dwell on it here; I will only touch upon its two components briefly: The first component of the term Ethnomusical Theatre stems from the essence of the anthropological subject – ethnomusicology. Ethnomusicology is a sphere of knowledge which took shape as a result of the synthesis of folkloristic studies and ethnology. It views any sample of musical folklore not as an artistic phenomenon, but, first of all, as an integral part of the people’s everyday life, their economic activities, customs, beliefs and images (Shilakadze, 1991). Therefore, it is the afore-mentioned term ethnomusic, based on ethnomusicology, that I use in order to more clearly bring forward the essence of the indivisibility of musical and everyday life phenomena in ethnographic reality. Now about the other component of the term – theatre: various moments of Georgian everyday life with its different rituals, customs and traditions do really create an impressive theatrical show. Apart from that it includes the essential, relevant elements of the structure of the theatre. Here, too, the performers are given the play beforehand, it determines the sequence of the verbal-vocal performance and other activities. When presenting the play the performers retain their individual freedom. Hhere, too, there is the audience, which according to the purpose of the play, can be either passive or can get actively engaged in the performance. Over the centuries these multifarious performances of a concrete content and function took shape and were handed down from generation to generation through oral tradition; their scenarios strictly defined the time and place of their performance and the suitable musical accompaniment as well. It was a live process of artistic expression with perfect expressive forms: the weepers who came to the funeral service, singers specially invited to wedding parties or to accompany the helpers when working on a neighbour’s land, performers of devotional rituals and others – all of them were actors and actresses to some extent2. Finally, we have to deal with a certain kind of folk musical theatre, which I have given the name the ethnomusical theatre. I will present some examples to suggest its boundaries and structure. Let us take Batonebis Msakhureba (Serving the masters) – the ritual was performed if a child caught an infectious disease: when there is a case of infectious disease in a family a mythological plot is revived, according to which the family is visited by supernatural creatures – Batonebi (Masters, Lords). These mythological forces are able to kill the patient and “take him/her with them”. Serving the masters is the ritual to appease them. The room of the patient is adorned with pieces of bright-coloured fabric, an aromatic infusion of sweet-smelling flowers is sprinkled about the room, a candle and a lamp are lit. Everything and everybody must be quiet in the house. At the patient’s bedside a lullaby is sung in a low, pleasant voice, and a round dance is also performed. If complications set in, the child’s parents, grandfather and aunt (the father’s sister) take off their clothes and start dancing round the bed naked; according to folk beliefs and images the diseased person is naked, hence their nakedness means that they are ready to die instead of the sick child (Garaqanidze, 2008: 171). Thus, in this example there are performers who act according to a fixed scenario and perform the roles they are assigned. The patient’s room is the stage; the pieces of bright-coloured fabric, the candle, the lamp, a bowl full of aromatic water and a tray with delicacies meant for the masters function as a sort of props. The process of collective labour, though different in its form, is also an interesting example from the point of view of the ethnomusical theatre. Here the stage is the corn-field where singing has the same function as working instruments. Therefore, when inviting helpers it was important that among them there should be good performers of labour songs (Garaqanidze, 2007: 20). On One Unknown Example of Ethnomusic Theatre (Zedashe Lullaby) 307 Rhymed exclamations and singing, tempo, changeable dynamics and a cheerful disposition conditioned the course of the working process (Garaqanidze, 2008: 38-45) (video ex. 1). At the present stage of the development of the field of ethnomusicology, when we have left collecting material (over the decades plenty of fieldwork material has been collected) far behind, it is difficult to imagine that any so-far unknown samples of ethnomusical theatre could still be found and described within this sphere of ethnography. Apart from all that has been said above it should also be taken into account that in modern everyday life traditional musical folklore has survived only fragmentarily and it is moving farther and farther from the original source and is heading for oblivion. Under these conditions I had an opportunity to record a so-far unknown sample of ethnomusical theatre, namely a ritual to be performed at kvevri (clay vessel for wine) and accompanied by singing; according to its function and structure I called it Zedashis Iavnana (Sacral wine lullaby). Before touching upon this sample directly I should like to specially dwell upon the phenomenon of the Zedashe culture, which means elevating wine to the sacral level and turning it into a myth. In the 2012 expedition to Kiziqi it was this issue that I concentrated my attention on3. Zedashe (sacral wine) represents the best available wine to be offered to God. Due to various miraculous properties in the everyday life of people it was even the object of worship. The culture of Zedashe wine has survived most vividly in the ethnography of Kiziqi. Here each family kept the Zedashe wine pot apart from the others. Besides, every family was to donate wine for the Zedashe of his family clan or the section of the village they lived in, in a much bigger vessel for that wine (Topuria, 1963: 159; Sulkhan-Saba, 1991: 278; Kakashvili, 1995: 12). Zedashe wine was also donated to the church and was used during liturgy. Such wine had to be red. This echoes Christian beliefs: according to the Orthodox Christian teaching during liturgy the wine turns into Christ’s blood, through which the believers share the greatest divine sacrament. Alongside with the above Christian function in people’s everyday life Zedashe has a different semantic content, which connects it with the archaic consciousness: in Kiziqi Zedashe is considered to be the guardian angel of the family and the family clan. People believe it can heal the sick, make the crops abundant, cause fertility, withstand evil and sometimes inflict punishment for doing evil. Zedashe is worshipped by the people and hence the rules about how it should be treated are also sanctified. If the family moves house and another family settles in, the newcomers never touch the Zedashe wine vessel. The old owners come back from time to time and pay respects to the guardian angel of the family. Even when the whole village had to leave their old homes they never took the Zedashe wine vessels away, but continued to take care of them. The place where the wine vessels used to be buried in the ground was considered to be sacred. When the wine vessel was lost, the place where it used to be is worshiped. About two decades ago you could very often see empty wine vessels left in the church near its walls. In the past the vessels were used to contain Zedashe, but now nobody would touch them for people stood in awe of them. The fact that Zedashe, as a sanctuary, was held in higher regard than the church is an expression of the pagan attitude: in Bodbiskhevi, a certain Giga removed the dome of the church. His wife Olgha was taken ill. A fortune-taller told them that it was God’s punishment; no sanctuary could help her and he advised them to beg Zedashe for help (Kakashvili, 1995: 9). During the field work I recorded an impressive ritual associated with the Zedashe cult. By its structure it is a sample of ethnomusical theatre: in order to express their veneration for Zedashe, the 308 Giorgi (Gigi) Garaqanidze (†) family fixed a day, which, as a rule, coincided with some feast. Food and candles were prepared for that day. All the members of the family would sit at the table near the wine vessel. The wine vessel could be in a special place: in the wine cellar (Marani), in the yard, or under a tree, in a wattle and daub hut or in a special space near the sanctuary. The oldest woman in the family would go up to the sacred wine vessel, sit down nearby, light a candle and offer a prayer for the welfare of her family members to the Zedashe angel. First of all she said, “Here is to our Zedashe!” She would stick the lit candle to the lid of the wine vessel and start singing in order “to put the angel to sleep”. The song, as stated above, was called Zedashis Iavnana (Zedashe lullaby). Other members of the family would also join in singing (video ex. 2). I could not trace another variant of the Zedashe lullaby anywhere else, though we can easily consider the Zedashe lullaby a variant of Batonebis Iavnana, both from the musical viewpoint and mythoreligeous belief, which is revealed in the texts of the Batonebi songs and in the outer or inner character of the Zedashe cult. Namely, part of the mythological text of the Batonebis Iavnana, which mentions the wine cellar of rubies, wine and the poplar growing within, in my opinion, must be associated directly with the Zedashe lullaby: “In the wine cellar of rubies there is wine and the rubies sparkle, A poplar grows within, very young, with its branches spreading wide…” The mythological “wine cellar of rubies”, mentioned in this excerpt of the Batonebis Iavnana is directly associated with the Zedashe cult which has completely transformed into a myth where the most significant place is occupied by the wine cellar (resp. wine vessel). As for the “poplar growing within” it is a well-known mythological image, quite popular with different peoples, its semantics being associated with the renewal of the year, abundance and giving life. The tree of life, mentioned in Batonebis Iavnana must have occupied quite an important place in the Zedashe cult too, namely in the Zedashe ritual of cutting a branch of a grape vine and putting it into the wine vessel when the harvest was bad, which must be considered one of the manifestations of this mythological tree4 (Topuria, 163: 141). Another manifestation of this mythological plot must be a kind of an open-air marani (wine cellar) where the wine vessels were buried under a tree which was popular in Georgia. Planting the Zedashe wine vessel under a tree was a widespread practice. Besides being practical (which meant burying the wine vessels in the shade of the tree) such a wine cellar must have had some mythological meaning as well, for the tree looked as if it were growing in the wine cellar. The term planting the wine vessel (Kakashvili, 1995: 8) corroborates all that has been said above, for only a plant (resp. a tree) can be planted. It should be noted that the woman from whom we heard the afore-mentioned lullaby did not consider this sample to be a song and therefore she refused to perform it – “It is not a song just for singing..” Lamara Kokuashvili tells us that her aunt (father’s sister) was a good connoisseur of Zedashis Iavnana and the ritual associated with it, and from her Lamara learned this song5. In the example given the soloist was to enumerate all the sanctuaries in a recitative manner (“Archangel, all the saints, our Trinity, St George” and others) and offer prayers to them. As she says to perform the ritual in this form demands that “the seer women should have a special talent”. Here they mean the female-votaries of the cult, or the “sanctuary slaves” who have vowed to serve the sanctuary and who can preach and make prophesies in the name of the sanctuary when performing the ritual. All the afore-mentioned makes this song reminiscent of the Ghvtis karis (God’s Court) Ia- On One Unknown Example of Ethnomusic Theatre (Zedashe Lullaby) 309 vnana, the same as Savedrebeli Iavnana (entreating lullaby), performed in a similar manner by the persons mentioned above. Women performed Ghvtis karis Iavnana walking around the church at church feasts. It is a highly impressive performance during which the participants holding lit candles walk around the church with reverence, crossing themselves (video ex. 3). The resemblance between the Zedashe, Batonebis (Sakhadis) and Ghvtis Karis Iavnana examples is manifested very well in both the identity of the responsorium trace (Garaqanidze, 1997: 27) and the refrains and glossolalias, given at the end of the musical phrases. Since in this case the Zedashe lullaby was performed by one woman, quite understandably the song was homophonic and therefore it was recorded in the same manner. Though, as the respondent informed us, during the ritual the whole family performed the song. That is why it may be presumed that if not performed in a three-part form, it must have been sung with a bass-part accompaniment. Here I mean the principle of ethnohearing which must have been activated in similar circumstances (Zemtsovsky, 2004: 18-19). The above factor in the case of the Georgian folk songs is illustrated very well in Edisher Garaqanidze’s monograph on the performance manner of Georgian folk songs, “One man’s singing will be homophonic, if another man joins in, he, as a rule, will sing the bass part, the third one will sing the middle part, all the others, joining in later, will sing the bass”. In two-part singing one man is a leader, the others sing the bass-part (Garaqanidze, 2007: 48-50). The abundant use of entreating words and prayers in the Zedashe lullaby brings this song closer to the Ghvtis karis Iavnana, performed by two soloists singing alternately against the background of the bass drone. When performing in this manner, when the verbal or musical text of the “cult votary” is completely improvised and depends mainly on the performer’s mood, unison performance is excluded. From the point of view of three-part singing, I can present an example of a Savedrebeli Iavnana (entreating lullaby), recorded in Kakheti in 2004; it is performed by a soloist against a background of the bass part. In the refrain, which, unlike the main part of the soloist, almost always sounds the same during each repetition, when a high-pitched voice joins in, making the song polyphonic. Thus, Zedashe lullaby is a sample of the Ethnomusical theatre, which on the one hand is a part of an independent tradition associated with the cult of wine, on the other hand many features make it resemble Sakhadi and entreating lullabies. Notes 1 In specialist literature the songs of this kind, which are performed in prescribed situations and are inseparable from this or that custom or devotional ritual, are called “tandebuli” (accompanying) songs, compared with “tsminda” (pure) songs, which can be performed in any time or place (Garaqanidze, 2007: 19-23). 2 Quite understandably the above-mentioned customs and traditions were not perceived as a show or a theatre by the tradition bearer. 3 I wish to express my gratitude to Dean David Grigalashvili, who lives in Tsnori and the Javashvili, the Begash- vili and the Kokhtashvili families for their assistance in carrying out the field part of the above research. Thanks are also owed to Tinatin Shervashidze, the Head of Edisher Garaqanidze Children’s Studio “Amer-Imeri” in 310 Giorgi (Gigi) Garaqanidze (†) Tsnori and to the Peikrishvili family in Qvareli. 4 It is reminiscent of the tradition widespread among European peoples (Italy, Germany, Czechia) where they would cut off a tree branch, “killed the spirit of the tree,” so that it should resurrect in a better form (Frazer: 300306). 5 Tinatin Donjasvhili, 64, confirmed that it was a woman who performed and preserved the knowledge of the ritual (Dedoplistsqaro). References Chitaia, Giorgi. (2000). Theories on the Ethnogenesis of the Georgian People. Collection of works in 5 volumes, vol. II. P. 32-63. Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (in Georgian) Frazer, James. (1993). The Golden Bough. London: Wordsworth. Garaqanidze, Edisher. (1997). “Kartuli khalkhuri simgheris ganvitarebis erti adreuli etapis shesakheb” (“On an Earlier Stage of the Development of Georgian Folk Songs”). In: Musikismtsodneobis sakitkhebi (Issues of Musicology). P. 18-38. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State Conservatoire. (in Georgian) Garaqanidze, Edisher. (2007). Kartuli khalkhuri simgheris shemsrulebloba (Performance of Georgian Folk Songs). Tbilisi: Intelekti. (n Georgian) Garaqanidze, Giorgi. (2008). Kartuli etnomusikis teatri da misi satskisebi (Georgian Ethnomusical Theatre and Its Sources). Tbilisi: Petite. (in Georgian) Kakashvili, M. (1995). Zedashe, rogorc sulieri kulturis penomeni (Zedashe as a Phenomenon of Spiritual Culture). Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University Publishers. (in Georgian) Orbeliani, Sulkhan-Saba. (1991). Georgian Dictionary I, Tbilisi: Merani. (in Georgian) Shilakadze, Manana. (1991). “Etnomusikologiis sagani, meTodebi da amotsanebi” (“The Subjects, Methodology and Tasks of Ethnomusicology”). Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (in Georgian) Topuria, N. (1963). “Ghvinis zedasheebi” (“Wine Zedashes”). In: Masalebi Sakartvelos etnograpiistvis (Materials on Georgian Ethnography), XII-XIII:157-173. Tbilisi. (in Georgian) Zemtsovsky, Izaly (2004). “Polyphony as “Ethnohearing” and Its “Musical Substance”: Homo-Polyphonicus in Action”. In: The Second International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 25-32. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. On One Unknown Example of Ethnomusic Theatre (Zedashe Lullaby) 311 Video Examples Video example 1. Shroma (Imeretian naduri)- from Edisher Garaqanidze’s expedition, village of Qumuri, Vani district; television program prod. D. Gugunava (with Edisher Garaqanidze’s comments), 1988 (Garaqanidze, 2008: video #3, from 05:11). Video example 2. Zedashis Iavnana. Video example 3. Ghvtis karze satkmeli iavnana. Translated by Lia Gabechava 312 velika stoikova-serafimovska (makedonia) makedoniuri mravalxmiani simRera – zogierTi ZiriTadi maxasiaTebeli makedoniis zogierT regionSi jer kidev aris SemorCenili mravalferovani musikaluri folklori. balkaneTis naxevarkunZulis centrSi (sur. 1), istoriuli movlenebis gzajvaredinze mdebareobam mniSvnelovani gavlena iqonia qveynis kulturul memkvidreobaze. sxvadasxva kulturebis gavlenis miuxedavad, makedonieli xalxis mravalsaukunovani unikaluri zepiri tradicia, romelic dResac grZeldeba da Taobidan Taobas gadaecema, avlens makedoniuri tradiciuli kulturis araerT anTropologiur da sociologiur elements. makedoniuri tradiciuli xalxuri simReris esTetikisa da funqcionalobis maRal mecnierul doneze Seswavla naTlad warmoaCens miTiuri da tradiciuli saxeebis siRrmes, adamianis Seqmnils da inspirirebuls misi Sinagani da bunebrivi garemos mier. makedoniaSi am procesebis mravalxmianobis saSualebiT kvleva gviCvenebs makedoniuri mravalxmiani xalxuri simReris warmoSobis yvela stadias, rac mkacrad funqcionaluri da ritualuri xalxuri simReris vertikaluri struqturis ganviTarebis Tanmimdevruli Seswavlis saSualebas iZleva. mravalxmiani simRera gavrcelebulia eTnikuri makedoniis did nawilSi. Cven viyenebT termins `eTnikuri makedonia~, vinaidan misi didi nawili axla saberZneTsa da bulgareTSia. eTnikuri makedonielebis didi nawili gandevnili an emigrirebulia, xolo maT, vinc dRevandeli makedoniis respublikis sazRvrebSi dasaxldnen, SeinarCunes Tavisi originaluri simRera yvela ZiriTadi maxasiaTebliT. mravalxmiani simRera ar gvxvdeba centralur makedoniaSi, gansakuTrebiT, mdinare vardaris dablobze. sasimRero tipebis, maTi daniSnulebisa da adgilmdebareobis mixedviT, makedoniaSi xalxuri simRera aris erTxmiani, orxmiani da samxmiani. erTxmiani simRera gavrcelebulia qveynis centralur da samxreT-aRmosavleT nawilebSi, xolo yvela sxva regionisaTvis _ Crdilo-dasavleTis, ufro zustad, tetovos regionis garda, ZiriTadad, burdonuli simReraa damaxasiaTebeli. aq gvxvdeba mamakacTa Zveli, samxmiani burdonuli simReris tradicia. wminda samxmiani polifonia _ qalTa simRera gavrcelebulia makedoniis, albaneTisa da saberZneTis sazRvarze, sadac aSkaraa msgavseba albanur toskasTan. orxmiani simRera gavrcelebulia dasavleT, Crdilo-dasavleT, CrdiloeT, Crdilo-aRmosavleT, aRmosavleT makedoniaSi. aq gvxvdeba burdonuli tipis orxmianoba. burdoni SeiZleba iyos statikuri da eyrdnobodes erT ZiriTad bgeras, an moZraobdes ZiriTadi bgeridan toniT qveviT. orive SemTxvevaSi, burdonuli simRera emyareba finalur tons, romelic, rogorc simReris dros Cans, sayrdenia da simRera maszea agebuli. am simRerebs axasiaTebs vi- 313 wro diapazoni, ganuviTarebeli melodia da or xmas Soris sekunduri damokidebuleba. regionidan _ bunebrivi garemodan da simReris funqciidan gamomdinare, xmebis aseTi urTierTdamokidebuleba warmoSobs damaxasiaTebel garemomcvel sivrces, romelSic tonalur mwkrivSi moZravi xSiri sekundebi mWidrod da heterefoniulad JRers. Tumca, zogjer, xmebis amgvari urTierTmimarTeba SeiZleba ufro rbilad da sivrculadac JRerdes zogierT regionSi, simReris funqciis mixedviT (audiomag. 1). burdonuli simReris es tipi Seicavs arqaul elementebs, romlebic saritualo simRerebisTvisaa damaxasiaTebeli da miekuTvneba makedoniuri musikaluri praqtikis uZveles Sres. aRmosavleT, Crdilo-aRmosavleT da pirineis makedoniaSi (amJamad bulgareTi) es gansakuTrebiT qalTa saritualo simRerisTvisaa tipuri da gvxvdeba winaqristianul ritualebSi, rogoricaa vodici, lazarica, giurgiovden, aseve saaRdgomo, mosavlis aRebisa da saqorwilo simRerebSi. burdonuli orxmianobis igive tipi mamakacTa repertuarSic gvxvdeba, Tumca, Zalian iSviaTad, umetesad _ moxucebis repertuarSi, isic mxolod lirikuli da epikuri xasiaTis simRerebSi. simRerisa da teqstis mimarTeba xSirad asimetriulia; damaxasiaTebelia misamReri, romelic garkveul adgilebSi meordeba, aseve _ teqstis SuaSi gaCereba da wamoZaxilebi, ufro xSirad, melodiis bolos. simReris dros Cndeba funqcionaluri xasiaTis garkveuli ornamentebi. yovelive es orxmiani simReris Rrma fesvebze metyvelebs (mag. 1). dasavleT makedoniaSi, ufro zustad _ tetovos regionSi, gavrcelebulia mamakacTa burdonuli tipis mravalxmianoba moZravi baniT, romelic drodadro samxmianobas qmnis. aseTi orxmianoba mxolod am regionisTvisaa damaxasiaTebeli, tradiciuli vokaluri formaa, da amitom aqauri mosaxleobis kulturuli identobisaTvis udidesi mniSvneloba aqvs. am tipis simReris dasaxeleba _ glasoeCko an sofluri _ adasturebs mis socialur da kulturul funqcias, romelic, rogorc adgilobrivi tradiciis nawili, saukuneebis manZilze Taobidan Taobaze zepiri gziT gadadioda. burdonuli principi axasiaTebs ZiriTadad mamakacTa simRerebs, Tumca misi variantebi qalTa repertuarSic gvxvdeba. glasoeCko sruldeba or- an sam-kaciani jgufebis mier sxvadasxva dResaswaulis, qorwilis, wveulebis da sxva socialuri Tavyrilobis dros. simRera yovelTvis spontanuria, damswreebis TavmoyriT aCqarebs RonisZiebis kulminacias. glasoeCkos maneriT Sesrulebuli simRera ara saritualo, aramed epikuri an lirikulia, ufro xSirad miTologiuri an satrfialo teqstiT. TviT is faqti, rom simReris teqsti epikuri an miTologiuri xasiaTis unda iyos, xazs usvams maTi Taobebze gadacemis mniSvnelobas, vinaidan simRerebTan erTad gadadis adgilobrivi mosaxleobis istoria, rwmenebi da miTebi. makedoniis sxva regionebis am tipis simRerebisgan gansxvavebiT, aq xmebs dinamiuri urTierToba aqvT. bani, romelic, umetesad, statikuria da sayrdenis funqcia akisria, tetovos regionSi, SesaZloa, pirvel xmasTan kontrapunqtulad moZraobdes. es movlena Tavs yovelTvis simReris dasawyisSi iCens. pirveli xma simReras iwyebs ZiriTadi melodiiT, mas meore xma uerTdeba an unisonSi mReris, ise, rom dasawyisSi xmebis polifoniuri moZraoba dabla Cadis bolo bgeramde, sadac teqstis bolomde rCeba. am daRmaval moZraobaSi pirveli xmac qveviT moZraobs mikrotonaluri Skalis gaswvriv tremolos tipis JReradobiT da banTan erTad qmnis sekunduri an kvartuli harmoniebis aratemperirebul 314 velika stoikova-serafimovska intervalebs. zogjer, rodesac simRerebi sruldeba samkaciani jgufis mier, sadac erTi wamyvani xmaa, danarCeni ori ki _ sayrdeni, simRera samxmiani xdeba: pirvel xmas mihyavs melodia, erT-erTi bani gaCerebulia finalisze, xolo meore bani moZraobs finalisidan erTi safexuriT qveda bgerisken da Semdeg finalisze brundeba. samxmiani simRera yovelTvis specifikur metrSia, umetesad damokidebulia momRerlis niWze da Zalian hgavs organizebul heterofonias. es energiuli sasimRero stili mTis mosaxleobisTvis aris damaxasiaTebeli, rac gasagebia, vinaidan es regioni makedoniis udidesi mTis Ziras mdebareobs. simRerebi ufro xSirad Tavisufali rubatoTi sruldeba, Tumca arsebobs nimuSebi 2/4 an 4/4 zomaSi, rogorc cekvis Tanxleba. ritmul simRerebs TiTqmis yovelTvis satrfialo teqstebi aqvs. am regionSi makedonielebi da albanelebi saxloben da aqauri sasimRero tradicia CrdiloeT albaneTisas hgavs; magram Tanamedrove demografiul cvlilebebs am tradiciis swrafi gaqroba mohyva da axla iSviaTad gvxvdeba (audiomag. 2). tetovos regionisTvis damaxasiaTebeli qalTa repertuari wmindad heterofoniuli iyo. qaotur heterofoniul JReradobaSi xmebs aqvT mkafiod gansxvavebuli funqcia, sadac gamoricxulia SemTxveviToba. es simRerebi miekuTvneba uZveles qalaqur Sres, romelic ukve 40 welze metia praqtikaSi aRaraa. magram makedoniis sxva regionebisgan gansxvavebiT, sadac SemTxveviTi heterofonia sekundebis sixSirTa da gunduri SesrulebiT xasiaTdeba, tetovos regionis sasimRero tradicias axasiaTebs mkafiod organizebuli heterofonia. samwuxarod, simReris es tipi amJamad sabolood gamqralia. bani uwyvetad zeviT moZraobs da, gadauWarbeblad SeiZleba iTqvas, rom xmas Tan `miaTrevs~. ZiriTad xmas, romelsac mihyavs melodia, gamoarCevs teqstis gansxavavebuli warmoTqma, wamoZaxilebi da `qaosi~, rac mas banis xazisgan gamoyofs. rogorc wesi, es simRerebi saritualoa da Rrma magiuri funqcia aqvT. CrdiloeT makedoniaSi, skopies garSemo, mTian regionSi, gvxvdeba burdonuli orxmianoba moZravi baniT. aq bani moZraobs ZiriTadi tonidan mxolod erTi toniT _ sekundiT dabla, magram, am SemTxvevaSi, es moZraoba simRerisTvis funqcionaluria. xmebs Soris vertikaluri kavSiris pirobebSi, sekunda-kvartis bgerebis sayrden funqciasTan erTad, terciac mkafiod JRers da qmnis stabilur intervals, romelzec xmebi xSirad Cerdebian (audiomag. 3). xmebs Soris odnav ufro ganviTarebuli urTierToba gvxvdeba pirineis makedoniaSi (makedoniis aRmosavleT nawili, amJamad bulgareTi). aqauri simRerebi, gansakuTrebiT, mamakacTa repertuaris, yovelTvis erT xmaSi iwyeba. meore fazaSi Cndeba stabiluri bani, romelic am funqcias simReris bolomde inarCunebs. es sasimRero stili burdonuli simReris ueWvel ganviTarebaze miuTiTebs, sadac bans simReris CamoyalibebaSi ara marto funqcionaluri, aramed esTetikuri mniSvnelobac eniWeba (audiomag. 4). msgavs urTierTobas aqvs adgili samxreT makedoniis qalTa simRerebSi, sadac pirveli strofi erT xmaSi sruldeba, xolo melodiuri frazis ganmeorebisas xmebi iyofa da stabiluri banis mqone orxmianoba iqmneba. am regionisgan gansxvavebiT, egeosis zRvispira makedoniaSi gvxvdeba xmebs Soris ufro metad ganviTarebuli urTierToba, sadac qveda xma inarCunebs ZiriTad melodiur xazs, xolo zeda xma qmnis terciasa da kvartaze dafuZnebul sxva xazs. am makedoniuri mravalxmiani simRera – zogierTi ZiriTadi maxasiaTebeli 315 SemTxvevaSi, zeda xma Tanmxlebi xmis funqcias iZens (audiomag. 5). saintereso mravalxmianoba gvxvdeba egeosis zRvispira makedoniis dasavleT nawilSi (saberZneTi), kosturSi (meglenis regioni), sadac qalTa simRera samxmiania da Zalian hgavs albanur toskas. am SemTxvevaSi, pirveli xma iwyebs melodias da igi simReris bolomde mihyavs, meore xmas `mihyavs~ an `brunavs~ _ xan pirvel xmas uerTdeba, xan ZiriTadis msgavs melodias asrulebs. mesame xma, rogorc bani, erT bgeraze rCeba, drodadro ki qveda bgeraze Cadis. es regioni makedoniis, albaneTisa da saberZneTis gzagasayarze mdebareobs. warsulSi aq qristiani eTnikuri makedonielebi da vlaxebi saxlobdnen. aseTi simRera mxolod am regionisTvisaa damaxasiaTebeli, magram albanur toskasTan msgavseba axlo kavSirsa da ormxriv gavlenaze miuTiTebs. am regionidan makedonielebis gandevnis gamo, es sasimRero stili, samwuxarod, mxolod arqivebsa da egeosis zRvispireTidan gafantuli makedonielebis mexsierebaSia SemorCenili (audiomag. 6). orxmianoba da misi esTetika xalxur terminologiaSicaa asaxuli. makedoniis yvela regionSi, sadac arsebobs orxmiani burdonuli stili, simReras xSirad asruleben e.w. Cetebi, sami momRerlisgan Semdgari qalTa jgufebi. xalxi simReris am tips glasoeCkos, vikaCkos, na vikanies, grtenies, na ais eZaxis, sadac erTi (Sua xmis momRerali) asrulebs ZiriTad melodias, e.i. `mihyavs~, `yviris~, `wamoiZaxebs~, xolo danarCeni ori (iqeT-aqeT mdgomni) mRerian bans iso da `Rrialeben~ an `dabla Camodian~, sayrdens qmnian. Sua momRerali aris `motriale~, `moyvirali~, `SuaTana~, xolo ori danaCeni Tanmxlebi qali – `xoWoebi~, `foni~, `gverdiTebi~. saxelebi TavisTavad metyvelebs simReris stilze. pirveli `trialebs~ ZiriTadi tonis garSemo, `yviris~, xolo danarCenebs toni uWiravT da `bzuian~. socialur konteqstSi TiToeul momRerals aqvs mkafiod gasazRvruli roli da sofelSi yvelam icis, vin visTan erTad mReris, vis mihyavs melodia da vin aris sayrdeni, anu bans vin aZlevs. aucileblobis SemTxvevaSi, zogi momRerali orive funqcias iTavsebs. erTxel Semdgari trio aseTad rCeba, Tu erTi momRerali aklia, simReras ar asruleben. winaT simRerebs asrulebdnen yvela arasaritualo SemTxvevaSi, ubralo Tavyrilobebis dros da a.S., agreTve yanaSi muSaobis dros, rodesac simRera xSirad Sejibris saxiT, antifonurad sruldeboda. aseTi Sesruleba damaxasiaTebelia ramdenime jgufis arsebobis SemTxvevaSi _ erTi jgufi asrulebs strofs, meore agrZelebs. es socialuri konteqsti myari da tipuria SedarebiT Zveli Sris simRerebisaTvis, rac adasturebs maTi, rogorc regionis tradiciuli kulturis nawilis, dacvisa da swavlebis aucileblobas. saritualo simRerebis erT-erT yvelaze mniSvnelovan funqcias warmoadgens ritualis magiuri garemos warmoCena, misi Sesrulebis adgilisa da drois Sesabamisad. amgvari garemo ramdenime faqtorzea damokidebuli. simReris magiuri stilis Sesaqmnelad, melodiis garda, gadamwyvetia ritmi, teqsti da yvela misi eTnomusikaluri maxasiaTebeli, rac ara marto yvela sofelSi, aramed individualuradac gasxvavebulia da damokidebulia ritualze, Sesrulebis adgilze, Semsruleblis sqesze. stili yvelaze Znelad asaxsneli, magram gadamwyveti elementia magiuri iluziisTvis, romelic man unda Seqmnas. garemos, rogorc saritualo simRerisTvis udidesi mniS- 316 velika stoikova-serafimovska vnelobis elementis, Seqmna, ramdenime faqtorzea damokidebuli. garemo gulisxmobs yvela zemoxsenebul elements, funqcionalobisa da esTetikis sakiTxebs. im garemos Sesaqmnelad, romelic msmenelSi pirvelad SiSis grZnobas aRZravs, monawileobs saukunovani tradicia, Sinagani, genetikuri midrekilebebi. samagaliTod, Cven SevadarebT sam giurgiovdens _ aRmosavleT makedoniis radoviSis olqis sami sxvadasxva soflis simRerebs. pirveli magaliTia simRera Sopsebis regionidan. Sopsebi arian mesaqonleebi maRalmTiani regionidan, sadac Zalian mkacri havaa. sasimRero bgeris elferi Zalian sufTaa. sufTa da sasiamovno opeiuvanie _ rbili simReraa ZiriTadi bgerebis ornamentirebiT tonaluri centrebis irgvliv. simRera stabilurad JRers, sekundebi myaradaa fiqsirebuli da msmenels rCeba STabeWdileba, rom ori xma erTSia Serwymuli. tirili xangrZlivia, rbili, daRmavali da sasiamovno. meore magaliTia giurgiovden maRal mTebs Soris moqceul zeganze mdebare sofel dedinodan. simRera ufro uxeSad JRers. msmenels rCeba heterofoniis STabeWdileba, Tumca ki es ubralod statikuri bania. simReraSi uxvadaa ornamentirebuli tonebi da iqmneba gaurkvevlobis STabeWdileba, xmebi gancalkevebulia da gaidas1 imitacias waagavs, romelic gamudmebiT kveTs finals. tirili ufro moklea, daRmavali, Zlieri da mkafio. mesame magaliTi barSi, mdinaresTan axlos mdebare sofel podareSidan aris. aq igrZnoba mdidari struqtura, romlis grafikulad gamosaxva SeuZlebelia. ufro metad dedinos simReras hgavs, magram ufro nazi da sasiamovnoa, xolo elferi mniSvnelovnad nazia, vidre mTiani regionis simRerebisa. samive sofelSi gansxvavebuli klimaturi pirobebia. xmebis elferi isevea gamoxatuli, rogorc tansacmlis feri. mTian soflebSi ferebi ufro intensiuria, maqmanebi _ mWidro, ornamentebi _ mkafio, magram mdidari. xma _ ufro cxvirismieri da mkveTri. Sopsebis teritoria maRali adgilia, iq feri ufro gamWvirvalea, zustad iseve, rogorc haeri, Sesamoseli naTeli, magram sasimovno ferisaa, sada, magram didi frazebiT. xma xorxismieria, Ria, sufTa, magram sasiamovno. dablobi mxare savsea muqi ferebiT da ornamentebiT. xma moxurulia, ufro mkveTri da xorxismieri. es Sedareba sakmarisia simReris funqcionalobisa da esTetikis winapirobebis Sesaxeb sakiTxis dasasmelad. sinamdvileSi, magiuri saritualo funqciis garda, simRera gviCvenebs adamians, xalxs, regions, zogjer konkretuli soflis mentalobas. xalxuri simRera aRwers mis Semqmnels. is itevs yvela adamianur Tvisebas, romelic msxverplad ewireba rituals, nayofierebisa da janmrTelobis magias. yvela zemoT aRweril mravalxmian simReras aqvs igive sociologiuri da anTropologiuri maxasiaTeblebi. sabednierod, makedoniaSi jer kidev aris SemorCenili regionebi, sadac am tipis simRera sruldeba. Semsruleblebma zustad ician, rogor unda JRerdes bgera, rogor unda Sesruldes, unda `iyviron~ Tu ara da a.S. rac Seexeba melodias, aq wesebi mkacri da funqcionaluria, gansakuTrebiT, asakovan momRerlebTan mimarTebaSi. TemSi Semsruleblebis gasarCevad, maTi eTnikuri da regionuli warmoSobisa da identobis gasarkvevad, mniSvnelovania Semsruleblebis sociologiuri funqcia. adreuli asakidan `xmis~2 swavla damokidebulia Semsrule- makedoniuri mravalxmiani simRera – zogierTi ZiriTadi maxasiaTebeli 317 blis iniciativaze. xmis codna gulisxmobs tradiciis, magiis codnas. dRevandeli situacia tradiciul mravalxmianobaSi mTlianad Secvlilia. simRera aRar gamoiyeneba realur garemoSi, dResaswaulebisa da ritualebis dros. Tumca, is jer kidev praqtikaSia, rogorc tradiciuli makedoniuri kulturuli musikaluri memkvidreoba, ara mxolod lokalur da regionul, aramed erovnul doneze. mravalxmiani simReris zogierTi tipis gaqrobis mizezis gasagebad, saWiroa am tradiciis Seswavla, rac dRes makedoniis kulturuli politikis nawilia da miznad isaxavs makedoniuri erovnuli kulturuli identobis gaZlierebas. SeniSvnebi 1 gaida _ makedoniuri salamuri. 2 xalxur terminologiaSi termini xma xSirad sxvadasxva mniSvnelobiT gamoiyeneba. xma, SesaZloa, aRniSnavdes mokle an grZel xmas, qorwilis stumrebis, mgzavris xmas, uZveles xmas, an konkretul xmas, xmis gamocemas, xmiT simReras, xmis gamomcemels, da bolos, am naSromSi igi gamoiyeneba rogorc saqorwilo, mosavlis aRebis, saaRdgomo, mgaloblis xma. es termini da misi yvela mniSvneloba warmoadgenda yofili iugoslaviis samecniero, gansakuTrebiT, musikologiuri da eTnomusikologiuri literaturis interesis sagans. am terminis yvelaze Tanamedrove mniSvneloba xalxur terminologiaSi aris `garkveuli tonaluri struqturis melodiuri formula, romelic damokidebulia teqstze, Sesrulebis droze, ganzraxvasa da funqciaze, Semsruleblis Sinagan musikalur niWze~. termini xma Tavis TavSi atarebs saukuneebis manZilze funqcionirebad garkveul melodiur formulas, romelic gaucnobiereblad gadaecema ritualis Sesrulebis dros. dRevandeli situacia gansxvavebulia. musikalurad, Tumca ara fiziologiurad. xma-melodia icvleba, magram Camoyalibebuli terminologiis funqcia, anu gansxvaveba simRerasa da xmas Soris ar Secvlila, miuxedavad imisa, rom dRes axalgazrdebis mier mowyobil msvlelobebs lazarobis an koledas aRsaniSnavad, xSirad `axali~ simRerebi axlavs Tan. audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. Shto pile poje (ras galobs Citi?), ritualuri simRera aRmosavleT makedoniidan, sof. istibania. asr. qalTa trio sof. istibaniidan. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 1978. audiomagaliTi 2. More son sonila (is ocnebobs), mamakacebis simRera tetovos regionidan. asrulebs jgufi Bistri vodi. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 2003. audiomagaliTi 3. Oj Jelenchice (oi, ielenCice), qalTa simRera skopies mTiani regionidan. asrulebs jgufi Bistri vodi. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 2003. 318 velika stoikova-serafimovska audiomagaliTi 4. More da bi znalo (Sen rom icode), mamakacebis simRera pirineis makedoniidan. asrulebs jgufi Pirinski Gavraci. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 1980. audiomagaliTi 5. Kalina grlo boleshe (kalinas yeli stkiva), qalTa simRera gevgelias regionidan, samxreT makedonia. asrulebs qalTa jgufi gevgelias regionidan. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 1978. audiomagaliTi 6.AAjde mori Stojno, le (Sen gogov, stoino), qalTa simRera kosturis regionidan, aegianis makedoniidan. asrulebs jgufi Bistri vodi. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 2003. Targmna maia kaWkaWiSvilma 319 VELIKA STOJKOVA-SERAFIMOVSKA (MACEDONIA) MULTIPART SINGING IN MACEDONIA – – SOME BASIC CHARACTERISTICS Macedonia is a country exceptionally rich in diverse and in some regions still surviving musical folklore. Located in the center of the Balkan Peninsula (fig. 1), the region has been a crossroad of many historical events, which have left traces on Macedonian cultural heritage in many aspects. Although influenced by many different cultures, Macedonian people created unique oral tradition of centuries-old beliefs which aesthetically shaped, transmitted and still performed in preserved forms, reveals many anthropological and sociological elements of Macedonian traditional culture. Studying Macedonian traditional folk singing through the elements driven primarily by aesthetics and functionality elevates folk song to a higher scientific level offering a clear discern of inner mythical and traditional images, constructed and inwrought to the humans’ work inspired primarily by the their intimate and natural environment. Studying these processes through the multi-part character of folk singing in Macedonia offers an analytical exposure of all layers of Macedonian folk song formation. The layers that provide for almost precise study of the development of folk songs’ vertical structure - created strictly functionally and ritually. Multi-part singing is present in the largest part of ethnic Macedonia. We refer to the term “ethnic Macedonia” because its large parts are now in Greece and Bulgaria. Мost ethnic Macedonians who lived there are either expelled or have emigrated, but those who settled within the borders of today’s Republic of Macedonia have preserved their original ways of singing, with all basic characteristics. Multi-part singing is not encountered in Central Macedonia, mostly in the lowlands along the Vardar River. Depending on the types of songs, their purpose and location, folk singing in Macedonia is onepart, two-part and three-part. One-part singing is present in Central and Southwest Macedonia, whereas basic form of drone singing is characteristic to all other regions, with the exception of Northwest Macedonia, more specifically Tetovo region where old male singing features forms of accidental three-part drone singing. Pure three-part polyphone singing is present in the female singing at the crossroads between Macedonia, Albania, and Greece, where apparent is the similarity with Albanian Toska singing. The largest part where two-part singing is practiced includes the region of West – Northwest – North – Northeast – East Macedonia. This zone features pure drone-type two-part singing. Thereby drone may be static and lay on only one basic tone, or mobile when it moves from the basic tone to the subtonic. In both cases, drone singing is based on the final tone, which appears as a foundation during singing and underpins the song. These songs have a narrow ambitus, undeveloped melody dominated by the second relation between the two voices. Depending on the region – natural environment, and function of song, the sound of this relationship between voices creates a characteristic ambiental 320 Velika Stojkova-Serafimovska space in which the density of the seconds, occasionally moving in a tonal row of two tones, sounds heterophonic and dense. However, sometimes the same relation between two voices may sound much softer and more spatial, which is once again related to the natural environment of the region and the song function (audio ex. 1). This type of drone singing has distinctive archaic elements, characteristic to the rite songs and belong to the oldest layer of music practice in Macedonia. In East, Northeast and Pirin Macedonia (modern day Bulgaria) it is particularly characteristic to female rite songs in pre-Christian rituals Voditsi, Lazaritsa, Gyurgyovden, Easter, harvesting and wedding songs. The same type of drone two-part singing may also be encountered in male songs, but very rarely and mostly among older generation and strictly within lyrical and epic songs. The relation of the song with the text is often asymmetric, with characteristic refrain repeated in certain spots, stopping in the middle of the text, and exclamations, most often at the end of the melody verse. Certain ornaments, which also have deep functional characteristics, appear during singing, creating aliquots. This points to the deep origin of this kind of two-part singing (ex. 1). In Western Macedonia, more specifically in Tetovo region, very characteristic is drone-style male polyphonic singing, but with mobile drone which occasionally creates three-part singing. This two-part singing is a traditional vocal form characteristic to this region alone, and thus of enormous importance for the cultural identity of the population. The very name of this type of singing, called glasoechko or “rural” by the locals confirms its social and cultural function, orally passed from generation to generation as part of local tradition throughout centuries. The mode of singing, characteristic drone principle, is primarily typical of male songs, but its versions can also be encountered in female singing in the region. Glasoechko is performed by the groups of two or three at celebrations, assemblies, weddings, dinner parties and other social gatherings. The singing is always spontaneous and anticipates the culmination of the event in bringing the attendees together. The songs sung in glasoechki manner are epic or lyrical, not ritual, most often with mythological or love lyrics. The very fact that the lyrics could be of epic or mythological character underscores their importance in passing the tradition on, since through the transmission of songs, the beliefs, history and mythology of local population is transferred as well. Unlike these types of songs in most of Macedonia’s other parts, the voice-parts in this region have dynamic relation so that the drone, which is usually a voice-part with a static, supporting role, in Tetovo region may move contrapuntally in relation to the first, leading voice-part. This phenomenon always occurs in the beginning of the song. The first part begins the song with the basic melody, and the second joins in or sings in unison so that at the very start, in a polyphonic move of the voices, descend all the way to the finalis where it remains until the end of the verse. In this downward movement, the first voice part also descends along the microtonal scale with a tremolo typical for this type of singing, and together with the drone creates untempered intervals of second/fourth harmonies. Sometimes, when the songs are performed by groups of three, where one is the lead voice and the other two – supporting, the singing becomes three-part: first voice leads the melody, one of the drones is static on the finalis, and the other drone moves a whole step down from the finalis, on the subtonic, and then returns to the finalis. The appearance of three-part singing is always in a specific metric time and mostly depends on the singers’ talent and creates a powerful resemblance to organized heterophony. This singing style is strong, typical of highland population, which is understandable since this region is at the foot of the highest mountain in Macedonia. The Multipart Singing in Macedonia – Some Basic Characteristics 321 songs are most often performed in a free rubato rhythm, but there are also instances in a 2/4 or 4/4 time sung while accompanying a dance. Rhythmic songs almost always have love lyrics. This region is inhabited by Macedonian and Albanian population and is similar to the Albanian singing in North Albania. But, today’s demographic changes have led to the swift disappearance of this tradition and it is very rarely practiced (audio ex. 2). Tetovo region was also characterized by female singing, which was purely heterophonic. In chaotic heterophonnic sounding, the voices have clearly different function which leaves nothing to accident. Those are songs of oldest rural singing layer, which have not been practiced for more than 40 years. But, as opposed to the examples from other Macedonian regions, where plausible heterophony based on the density of seconds and group singing, the singing of Tetovo region features very clearly organized heterophony. To the regret of science, this type of singing has completely disappeared. The drone that appears in this singing continuously moves upward, and drags the voice up, literally, by sliding. Basic voice which leads the melody in fact conducts singing process around the drone. The functionality of the leading voice may be noticed by its different pronunciation of the text and performance of screams and the embroilments that distinguishes it from the drone line. These are songs which are exceptionally ritual and have deep magic function. In Northern Macedonia, in the mountainous region around Skopje, drone to-voice singing with a moving drone may be encountered. Here the drone also moves one second below the basic tone, but this time the movement is functional to the singing. Within the vertical relation between the voices, the fourth sounds beside the already pillar unction of the second, the third also sounds clearly, building a stable interval at which the voices frequently rest (audio ex. 3). A bit more developed relation between the voices may be found in Pirin Macedonia (East part of Macedonia which is now part of Bulgaria). In these songs, especially in male singing, the beginning is almost always in one voice. In the second phase, when the song develops, a stable drone appears maintaining this function until the end of the song. This singing points to a certain development of drone singing, when the drone, alongside functionality, also acquires aesthetic value in the formation of the song (audio ex. 4). Similar relation is observed among the female songs of Southern Macedonia., where in the first verse the singing is in one voice, whereas when repeating the melodic phrase the voices split and create stable drone two-part singing. Contrary to this region, in the songs of the Aegean Macedonia a more developed relation between the voices is observed, where the bottom voice keeps to the basic melody line and the top voice builds another line based on third and fourth. In this case the top voice acquires the function of an accompanying voice (audio ex. 5). Very interesting way of polyphonic singing is encountered in the western part of Aegean Macedonia (Greece), in Kostur – Voden region, where female repertoire is three-part singing, very close to the Albanian Toska singing. In this case first voice starts the melody and leads it to the end of the song, second voice “leads” or “turns”, at one moment joining the first voice, and at the other singing melody resembling the basic one. Third voice remains on one tone as drone, occasionally going down to the subtonic. This region is located at the very crossroads between Macedonia, Albania, and Greece and in the past it was inhabited by Christian ethnic Macedonian and Vlach population. This type of singing is characteristic exclusively to this region, but the similarity with the Albanian Toska singing 322 Velika Stojkova-Serafimovska indicates to a very close communication and mutual influence. Regretfully, due to the forced expel of the Macedonians from this region, this type of singing is only preserved in the archives and in the memories of the Macedonians dispersed from Aegean Macedonia (audio ex. 6). Two-part singing and its aesthetics are also reflected in folk terminology. In all regions of Macedonia with two-part drone style, singing is most often performed by the so-called chets- female singing groups of three singers. People call this type of singing glasoechko, vikachko, na vikanje, grtenje, na I in which middle part sings the basic melody, i.e. she “leads’, shouts”, “cries out” izvika or vishi (leads) and the other two – standing on both sides – keep the drone iso and “roar” or “climb down”, slozhi (supports). The middle one is a “rounder”, a “crier”, a “middle one”, and the two accompanying women are “beetles”, “layers”, “the side ones”. The terms explain the way of singing. The first one sings “around” the basic tone, screams, and the other ones “give” the tone and buzz. In social context, each singer has a clearly defined role, and it is common knowledge in the village who sings with whom, who leads the melody and who offers support i.e. sings the drone. Some singers may play both roles if necessary. Once the trio is formed, it remains so for good. If one of the singers is absent, the song is not performed. In the past the songs were performed at every nonritual occasion, at gatherings, assemblies, and so on, also during field work when songs were often performed antiphonally, with overtaking. This mode of singing is typical when several groups sing as soon as one group finishes the verse, another group takes over the next one. This social context is strong and typical of the songs of older level, confirming the importance of their preservation and care as part of the traditional culture of the region. One of the most important functions of the rite song is to catch the magic ambient of the rite, according to the place and time of performance. Such an ambient function depends on several factors. Besides the melody, the rhythm, the text and all its ethnomusicological characteristics, crucial for the creation of the ambient is the style of singing, which is different not only from village to village, but also individually. It also depends on the performed rite, on the place of performance, the performers’ sex. The style is the most incomprehensible element for the analysis like this, but still crucial for a complete experience, for the success of the magic illusion that song is supposed to create. Creation of the ambient, as the biggest function of the ritual song, is influenced by several factors. The ambient includes all the afore-mentioned elements, all open questions about functionality and aesthetics. In the creation of the ambient -of those scary primordial feelings aroused when listening to these songs, centuries of tradition are included, predisposed internally, genetically. As an example of heterogeneity and conditions where the ambient is created, we will compare three Gyurgyovden songs from three different villages from the Radovish area – East Macedonia. The first example is a Gyurgyovden song from Shops region. The Shops are cattle breeders and live high in the mountains, where the climate is very severe. The tone color is very clear. No ornamental tones, just clean and pleasant opeyuvanye – ornamenting of the basic tones, around the tonal centers, and the singing is soft. The song sounds stable, the seconds are fundamentally firm, and one gets a feeling that two voices merge in one. The cry is long, soft, downward and pleasant. The second example is a Gyurgyovden song from the village of Dedino, a mountain village, located on the plateau surrounded by mountains. This song sounds much more rustically. One gets an impression of heterophony, although it is just a static drone. The song is full of ornamental tones and Multipart Singing in Macedonia – Some Basic Characteristics 323 gives an impression of uncertainty, the voices are separate and sound as if they imitate the gayda1 , continuously cutting the finale. The cry is much shorter, strong, downward and sharp. The third example is from the village of Podaresh – a valley village, located close to a river. Here one can feel a rich structure, although it can’t be noticed graphically. The singing is much closer to the one from Dedino, but still softer and more pleasant. The cry is lower and shorter, but the color is significantly softer than the mountain one. All three villages have different climate conditions. The color of the voices is expressed the same way as the color of dresses. In the mountain villages the colors are more intensive, the motifs are thicker and the ornaments are clear, but rich. The voice is more nasal and sharp. The Shops area is a highland place. There the color is clear just like the sight, the dresses are of light, but pleasant colors, with simple but big motifs. The voice is guttural, open, clear, but pleasant. The valley area is full of dark colors, with ornaments and embroidery. The voice is closed, sharper and guttural. This comparison is sufficient to open the question about the prerequisite character of the functionality and the aesthetics of the song. In fact, besides its magic ritual function, the song also expresses human being, the people, the region, sometimes and the mentality of a certain village. By creating the ambient, the folk song describes its creator. It implies all human features, sacrificed to the rite, to the magic for fertility and health. All hereinabove described examples of two- and multi-part singing have the same sociological and anthropological characteristics. Luckily, there still are regions in Macedonia where this type of singing has not been forgotten and it is still in practice. The performers have a precise notion of how a “voice” should sound, how it should be performed, should they cry or not, even if minimal differences are at stake, they know precisely how to recognize them. As for the melody, the rules are strict and functional, especially among elderly performers. The sociological function of the performers is of great significance for distinguishing them in the community, for their ethnic and regional origins, and for their identity. Learning “voice”2 at an early age is of initial function for performers. To know the voice means to know the tradition, to know the magic. Today’s situation within the traditional two- and multi-part is completely changed. This singing is no longer practiced in a real ambient, during holidays and rituals. However, it is still practiced as part of traditional Macedonian cultural musical heritage, not only locally and regionally, but also on national scale. Understanding the reason for the disappearance of some types of two- and multi-part singing, studying this tradition today has become part of cultural policy in Macedonia, aiming to strengthen Macedonian national cultural identity. Notes 1 Gayda – Macedonian pipe. 2 In folk terminology the term “voice” appears pretty often, but with various meanings. “Voice” may be found as “a short or a long voice”, “wedding guests’ voice”, “traveler’s voice”, “ancient voice”, then voice, or “the voice”, “voicing”, “singing on voice”, or “voice songs”, “voicer”, and finally, among many other variants, the term of interest in this work, “wedding, harvesting, Easter, Kolede voice”. This term and all its meanings were in the 324 Velika Stojkova-Serafimovska focus of the ex-Yugoslav science literature interest, especially of the musicological and the ethnomusicological. The scientific account on the most present meaning of this term states that “Voice” in folk terminology is most often understood as, “melody formula created within certain tonal structure, and modeled and shaped depending on the text, the moment of performance, the intention and the function, as well as depending on the performer’s inner musical capability. The term “voice” carries within itself clearly specified features of a specific melodic formula functioning for centuries, perhaps more unconsciously than intentionally transferred by the preservation and the performance of the rite. The present situation is different. Musically, but not psychologically, the “voice – melody” is altered, but the function of the established terminology i.e. the distinction of the singing by naming it “a voice”, still remains, in spite of the fact that today’s juvenile Lazarian or Kolede processions are accompanied by some “new” songs. References Bicevski, T. (1986). Dvoglasjemo vo SR Makedonija (Two part singing in SR Macedonia). Skopje: Institute for folklore Marko Cepenkov. (in Macedonian) Bugariska, Branka. (2000). “Gatalechkite pesni od Tetovsk” (“Gatalechki Songs from Tetovo Region”). In: Muzika, 6. SOCOM. Skopje. (in Macedonian) Vasiljević, A. Miodrag. (1970). “Funkcije i vrste glasova u Srpskom narodnom pevanju” (“The Function and the Types of Voices in the Serbian Folk Singing”). In: Proceedings from the VII Congress of SZFJ. P. 375. Gjorgjiev, Gjorgji. (1980). Makedonskoto narodno peenje so izvikuvanje (Macedonian Folk Singing with Cry). Doctoral dissertation. Manuscript. Faculty of Music Art. Skopje. (in Macedonian) Kaufman, Nikolay. and Todorov, Todor. (1967). Narodni pesni ot jugozapadna Bugarija, Pirinski kraj (Folk Songs from Southwestern Bulgaria, Paring Region). BAN. Sofia. (in Bulgarian) Linin, Aleksandar. (1972). “Polifonite formi vo Makedonija” (“Polyphony forms in Macedonia”). In: Proceedings from the XVII Congress of SZFJ. Porech: Zagreb. (in Macedonian) Stojkova, Velika. (1998). “Svadben Glas kako naroden termin razgleduvan preku etnomuzikoloshka analiza” (“The Wedding Voice as a Folk Term and Its Ethnomusicological Analysis”). In: Muzika, 2-3. SOCOM. Skopje. (in Macedonian) Traerup, Birthe. (1970). East Macedonian Folk Songs. Kopenhagen: Akademija Forbag. Audio Examples Audio example 1. Shto pile poje (What is the bird singing? ), ritual song from Eastern Macedonia, village Ist- Multipart Singing in Macedonia – Some Basic Characteristics 325 ibanja, performed by female trio from the village of Istibanja, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 1978. Audio example 2. More son sonila (She dreamt a dream ), male song from Tetovo region, performed by the group Bistri vodi, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 2003. Audio example 3. Oj Jelenchice (Oj, Yelenchice ), female song from Skopje highland region, performed by the group Bistri vodi, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 2003. Audio example 4. More da bi znalo (If only you could know ), male song from Paring/Macedonia, performed by Pirinski Gavraci trio, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 1980. Audio example 5. Kalina grlo boleshe (Kalina had a sore throat), female song from Gevgellija region, South Macedonia, performed by female group from Gevgelija, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 1978. Audio example 6. Ajde mori Stojno, le (O you Stoino girl), female song from Kostur region, Aegian Macedonia, performed by the group Bistri vodi, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 2003. 326 velika stoikova-serafimovska. danarTi Velika Stojkova-Serafimovska. APPENDIX magaliTi 1. gazafxulis dResaswaulze, wm. giorgis dRes Sesasrulebeli saritualo simRera (aRmosavleT makedoniidan) Example 1. Traditional ritual song for St. George’s day spring celebration (Eastern part of Macedonia) 327 eno koCo (albaneTi) iso(n)i _ samxreT albanuri uTanxlebo mravalxmianobisa da bizantiuri galobis saerTo komponenti sityva isoni, romelic sityvasityviT gabmul bans niSnavs, berZnuli warmoSobisaa (ισον) da aRniSnavs xmas, romelic bizantiur sagalobelSi bans asrulebs (aRmosavleT qristianuli galoba). Tumca, mogvianebiT, marTlmadideblur eklesiebSi gamoyenebuli liturgiuli musikisgan gansxvavebiT, isonze dafuZnebuli mravalxmiani uTanxlebo simRera (SemoklebiT imus) ganviTarda, rogorc saero repertuari. albanur zepirsityvierebaSi amave funqciis mqone sityva warmoiTqmis rogorc iso. warmoTqmis orive versia am naSromSic gamoiyeneba, ison _ bizantiuri galobis mniSvnelobiT, xolo iso _ samxreTalbanuri imusis mniSvnelobiT. am or lingvistur formas Soris kavSiris daxasiaTebis mizniT, gamoyenebuli maqvs, aseve, warmoTqmis Sualeduri forma frCxilebis gamoyenebiT iso(n). arcerT SemTxvevaSi iso ar iwereboda _ bizantiur saeklesio sagaloblebSi es sityva nevmebis saxiTaa mocemuli da misi yvelaze adreuli sanoto Canawerebi me-19 saukunis dasawyisSi gakeTda. iso(n)i anu burdoni, rogorc samxreT albaneTisa da CrdiloeT epirusis1 imusisa da bizantiuri galobis saerTo komponenti, viTardeboda, zepirad gadaecemoda da integrirebda samxreT-dasavleT balkaneTis mravalxmian pentatonur zepir tradiciasa da erTmniSvnelovan bizantiur monodiasTan. iso(n)is integracia da konsolidacia saero mravalxmianobasa da saRvTismsaxuro galobaSi myari daboloebis funqciiT, rogorc Cans, erTi da imave periodSi, gvian SuasaukuneebSi moxda, Tumca, verc imas gamovricxavT, rom uTanxlebo simReris orive formaSi burdonis gamoyeneba gacilebiT adre dawyebuliyo. amis damadasturebeli werilobiTi wyaroebis uqonlobis miuxedavad, saWiroa iso(n)is Semdgomi kvleva. socialuri saqmianobis aspeqtSi, realuri da ekumenuri TvalsazrisiT, Tanamonawileoba aris uZvelesi fenomeni, romelmac iso(n)is musikaSic hpova asaxva. sazogadoebisaTvis es aris grZnobebis gaziarebis, gaerTianebis, gaZlierebis universaluri SesaZlebloba, radgan igi adamianuri bunebis safuZvelia. Tanamonawileobis kultura gamoiyeneboda saero da sasuliero cxovrebaSi, xolo saerTo elementebi asocirdeboda isonTan, rogorc heterofoniul musikalur saazrovno elementTan. mravalxmianoba, romelic moicavs samxreT-dasavleT balkaneTis mniSvnelovan geografiul areals, xasiaTdeba sazogadoebis koleqtiuri aRqmiT da socialuri saqmianobis mniSvnelobiT; Tu mas SevadarebT, magaliTad, Crdilo albaneTis da saberZneTis monodiur musikas, davinaxavT, rom es koleqtiuri mexsierebis ueWveli dadasturebaa. Tavdapirvelad imusi JRerda mxolod ojaxebSi an Temis Tavyrilobebze, da warmoadgenda gaziarebul koleqtiur memkvidreobas. ase gaxda musika aucilebeli samxreTdasavleli balkanelebisTvis ara marto saqorwino da dasaflavebis wes-Cveulebebis 328 eno koCo Sesrulebisas, aramed yoveldRiur cxovrebaSi. simRerebi funqcionaluria da xSirad `ganpirobebulia~ specialuri SemTxvevebisa da xalxis mier, romelmac Tavis dResaswaulebebze imuss gansakuTrebuli adgili mianiWa. es repertuari sawyis etapze dakavSirebuli iyo saxlSi, `sufris garSemo~, an gareT, `cecxlis garSemo~ jgufur simRerasTan. meore msoflio omis periodSi imusi gardaiqmna sadResaswaulo simRerad; mas asrulebdnen oficialuri ansamblebi, romelTa patronaJi da cenzura saxelmwifos mxridan xorcieldeboda. es is maxasiaTebelia, romelic socialisturi ideologiis Sesatyvisad ganviTarda. rogorc albanuri eTnikuri jgufebis (labi, toski, Cami da muzeqi) sasimRero variantebSi, ise Crdiloeli berZnebis (Crdilo epirusi) uTanxlebo mravalxmian simReraSi iso asrulebs maorganizebel da gamaerTianebel rols. igi organizebas ukeTebs frazas da iTvlis pauzas, sanam ZiriTadi xma Tavidan daiwyebs; amave dros, igi damatebiT dros aZlevs pirvel (albanurad marrës – amRebi) da meore solists (albanurad kthyes _ mopasuxe) mkafio JReradobis miRwevisaTvis. isos partia, gamaerTianebeli komponenti, moiTxovs ramdenime adamianis monawileobas JReradobis meti simkvrivis Sesaqmenlad da simReris gasavrcobad. magram balansi yovelTvis unda Semowmdes, raTa saukeTeso rezonansi iqnas miRweuli. imusis SesrulebaSi monawileobs ori an sami solisti, romlebic `moZaxilisa da pasuxis~ funqcias asruleben. maT zurgs vokaluri isoni umagrebs. eqrem cabeji aRniSnavs, rom `toskerias simRerebi polifoniuri, qoraluri da socialuri simRerebia.... isini gvevlineba ara ganmartoebuli cxovrebis, aramed Temis erTobis gamoxatulebad~ (Çabej, 1975: 129) (audiomag. 1). Camoyalibebis etapze, adgilobriv kulturul konteqstSi, imusma Seisisxlxorca bizantiuri samyarosTvis damaxasiaTebeli enebi da socialuri qmedebebi, rac gavlenas axdenda kulturazec. iso(n)is Tavdapirveli funqcia da roli gansxvavdeboda mogvianebiT SeZenilisgan. mas gaerTianebis funqcia ufro hqonda, vidre melodiis harmonizebisa, JReradobiTac ufro rbili iyo. amJamad mxolod Soreul, miyruebul mxareebSi Tu SevxvdebiT isons kvlav embrionul da naklebad ganviTarebul mdgomareobaSi, garda sadResaswaulo tipis Sesrulebisa. imusis struqturebis, stilebisa da lingvisturi idiomebis ganviTareba daaxloebiT me-14 saukuneSi SeimCneva albanurad mosaubre xalxTa musikalur kulturaSi. isoni mniSvnelovani komponentia bizantiur saeklesio musikaSic, rogorc gamaerTianebeli, integraciuli elementi. igi sruldeba eklesiebSi, religiuri dResaswaulebis dros. Tavdapirvelad, roca isoni gamoiyeneboda bizantiur galobaSi, pedaluri tipis SesrulebiT, is mxolod galobis sworxazovan ganviTarebas emsaxureboda. qvemoT mJReri burdonuli toni ucvleli iyo (rogorc imusSi), gansxvavebiT dRevandeli berZnuli galobisagan. aTonis mTaze, sadac gviani bizantiuri galobaa gavrcelebuli, Semsruleblebi cdiloben, SeinarCunon adreuli bizantiuri galobis tradicia, romelSic harmonia ar icvleba, isoni aris mxolod fundamenti da ar gaaCnia harmoniuli roli. swored amaSia misi gamaerTianebeli funqcia. burdoni/isoni aris erTianobis gamoxatvis gza. es aris mxolod heterofoniuli gaformeba da sxva araferia, Tu ara Tanxleba zuzuniT (audiomag. 2). iso(n)i _ samxreT albanuri uTanxlebo mravalxmianobisa da bizantiuri galobis saerTo komponenti 329 me-15-19 saukuneebs Soris, neo-bizantiur periodSi, isonis ganviTareba warimarTa gaerTianebis gziT, romlis mizani iyo monofoniuri, araharmonizebuli melodiis gamyareba burdoniT. misi mTavari funqcia iyo SeenarCunebina simaRle da daxmareboda mgalobels intervalebis sworad SeswavlaSi, emoZrava kiloSi (gadaenacvlebina tetraqordis tonebi melodiuri ganviTarebisas) da monawileoba mieRo galobaSi. saberZneTSi da danarCen axlo aRmosavleTSi galobis iseTi axali Taviseburebebi, rogoricaa tembruli niuansireba, intervaluri sidideebis cvalebadoba, rac vlindeba intonaciis meryeobaSiY(intervalebis gafarToebasa da SemcirebaSi), naxevrad cxvirismieri tonebi da zedmiwevniT damuSavebuli melodiuri ornamentebi gansxvavebuli mimarTulebiT ganviTarda (audiomag. 3). balkaneTis epirusis (yofil romaul) zonaSi, isoze dafuZnebuli mravalxmiani uTanxlebo simReris (imus) zepiri tradicia Tanaarsebobs imave regionis bizantiur isonTan. imusis adgilobrivi tradiciisa da samxreT-dasavleT balkaneTis bizantiuri musikis urTierTzegavlena kanonzomieria am regionis mosaxleobis Semadgenlobis gaTvaliswinebiT; albanelebs, vlaCebs, berZnebs da, CamoTvlilTagan yvelaze naklebad _ slavebs yoveldRiuri kavSiri hqondaT erTmaneTTan. aqedan gamomdinare, sesxeba bunebrivi iyo da xSirad gaucnobiereblad xdeboda, gansakuTrebiT Camebs Soris. warsulSi isini cxovrobdnen axlandeli saberZneTis miwaze, TavianTi berZeni mezoblebis gverdiT; mRerodnen simRerebs albanur adgilobriv dialeqtze, romelic Tavad albanelebisTvisac gansakuTrebulad gamorCeulia (audiomag. 4). albaneli mezoblebis gverdiT, parakalamosSi, epirusSi, berZnul enaze mRerian; msgavsia maTi simRerac, iseve, rogorc Cacmuloba da sxva Taviseburebebi. igive SeiZleba iTqvas aromanul/ vlaCur eTnikur jgufebze, romlebic calke Temebad saxloben albanelebsa da berZnebs Soris (audiomag. 5, 6). neo-bizantiur saeklesio isons ufro bevri saerTo aqvs samxreT-dasavleT balkaneTis imusis saero zepir tradiciasTan, vidre badia di grotaferataSi gamoyenebul cruburdonis tipis isons. SeiZleba iTqvas, rom samxreT italiasa da siciliaze arbereSis (Arbëresh) diasporis liturgiuli sagaloblis zepiri tradicia efuZneba klasikur bizantiur, Sua saukuneebis galobis stils da dasavluri galobis tips ufro uaxlovdeba, vidre neo-bizantiur musikas. arbereSis liturgiuli isonis tradiciis kvlevisas kruta aRniSnavs: `erTi mniSvnelovani faqtori, romelic burdonis warmoSobis sakiTxs ufro arTulebs da kiTxvis niSnis qveS ayenebs mis arsebobas bizantiur galobaSi, aris kavSiri italiis arbereSis marTlmadidebeli eklesiis mravalxmian simRerasTan, rac uZvelesi tradiciis miuxedavad, ver axdens identifikacias isonTan... me-14 saukunemde mainc, rodesac daiwyo arbereSebis migracia italiisken, samxreT albaneTSi bizantiuri liturgiuli sagalobeli isos gareSe ganviTarda” (Kruta, 1991, 68-9). krutas ganmarteba zustia. 2006 wlis zafxulSi siciliaze Cemi yofnisas, palermos provinciis xuT patara qalaqSi mcxovrebi arbereSebis diasporis bizantiur liturgiaSi ver vipove isonis odesme arsebobis damadasturebeli verc erTi faqti. arbereSebis musikaluri memkvidreobis mTavar centrs – piana deli albanezis bizantiur eklesias siciliaze (1914 wlamde cnobili iyo, rogorc piana dei greCi) – aqvs 330 eno koCo zepiri tradiciiT miRebuli sakuTari specifikuri repertuari, romelic melodiurad gansxvavdeba neo-bizantiuri liturgiisgan; es ukanaskneli isons iyenebs, xolo arbereSis bizantiuri musikalur tradicia – ara. neo-bizantiuri musika iyenebs myife da rbil qromatul intervalebs (gadidebul sekundas) rva xmis (oqtoixosis) modalur sistemaSi, maSin, roca arbereSis bizantiur tradicias sistemis sakuTari specifikuri organizacia aqvs, sruliad Tavisufali bizantiuris gavlenisagan. me-15 saukunidan osmaleTis mier balkaneTis okupaciis dros Zalian mniSvnelovani gaxda bizantiuri simReris axali, harmoniuli da kilouri komponentebi (e.i. isoni da gadidebuli sekunda), xolo balkaneTis gareT arbereSebis bizantiur simReraSi isoni ganixileba, rogorc Tanamedrove esTetikuri maxasiaTebeli da Tanamedrove siaxle. siciliaze, kalabriasa da, gansakuTrebiT, grota feratas saabatoSi, klasikuri bizantiuri galoba dResac gamoiyeneba, maSin, roca saberZneTis marTlmadidebel eklesiaSi neo-bizantiur musikas galoben. Sua saukuneebis Teoriul teqstebsa da sanoto xelnawerebze dayrdnobiT, grotaferatelma lorenco tardom (Grottaferrata) saTave daudo iso(n)is Sesrulebas ara yvelaze dabali bgerisa da kilos safuZvlis saxiT (anu ise, rogorc is balkaneTSi ganviTarda 1453 wlis Semdeg), aramed, saorRano-pedaluri saxiT, an cruburdonis stilSi, gansakuTrebiT, rogorc solo melodias samxmovanebebis qoraluri akompanementiT. tardom didi wvlili Seitana uZvelesi bizantiuri galobis aRorZinebaSi. Tu im drois sxva mecnierebi aRniSnuli problemis Teoriuli aspeqtebiT interesdebodnen, tardosTvis mniSvnelovani iyo rogorc Teoriuli, ise praqtikuli problematika. Tumca, tardom yuradReba gaamaxvila isonze, ara, rogorc gamaerTianebel elementze, aramed, rogorc gamoxatvis saSualebaze, romelic xels uwyobs sagaloblis esTetikurad Sesrulebas. zogierTi Tanamedrove Teoria iziarebs tardos mosazrebas, romlis mixedviTac, isoni gavrcelebuli iyo Suasaukuneebis italiaSi. tardo aRniSnavs: `isonis Sesrulebis es tipi _ sotto voce harmonia _ Canawerebis saxiT SemorCenilia romSi. berZnuli koloniis ayvavebis xanaSi berZnul sagaloblebs Caenacvla laTinuri sagaloblebi, ara mxolod liturgiuli, aramed araliturgiuli funqciebiTac~ (Tardo, 1938: 392). swored amis safuZvelze `Caisaxa grigoriseuli galobis, romelic, Tavis mxriv, bizantiuri galobis ganStoebas warmoadgens, orRanis TanxlebiT Sesruleba~ (Tardo, 1938: 392). tardo aseve ganmartavs tonikaze damyarebuli `martivi~ da tonikidan dominantisken mimavali `ormagi~ isonis gamoyenebas. is am moZraobas aRiqvamda harmoniad an polifoniis garkveul formad. `aq aris nawilebi, _ werda is _ sadac isoni ar unda ismodes, adgilebi, sadac isoni sustad unda ismodes da, aseve, adgilebi, sadac isoni realurad unda gaxdes mTeli simReris myari fundamenturi toni (Tardo, 1938: 393). is wers: `isoni Seesabameba iseT Tanmxleb bgerebs, rogoricaa saorRano pedali an e.w. cruburdoni~ (Tardo, 1938: 390). naTelia, rom tardos diriJorobiT bizantiuri sagaloblebis Sesrulebisas, zogierT liturgiul piesaSi Tavs iCens `Tanxlebis~ miseuli aRqma. magaliTad, cruburdoni mas esmis, rogorc konsonirebuli akordis gavrcobili harmonia (audiomag. 7). iso(n)i _ samxreT albanuri uTanxlebo mravalxmianobisa da bizantiuri galobis saerTo komponenti 331 miuxedavad imisa, rom eklesiis mTeli rigi arbereSeli msaxurebi mTeli XIX saukunis ganmavlobaSi swavlobdnen da muSaobdnen grotaferatasa da romis Collegio Romano-Si, arc erT maTgans ar ucdia, meTodurad warmoedgina isonis praqtika arbereSis, siciliisa da kalabrias eklesiebis yoveldRiur musikalur liturgiaSi. isini loialurad iyvnen ganwyobili sakuTar eklesiebSi uZvelesi bizantiuri wes-Cveulebebis, ritualis dacvis mimarT, mRerodnen tradiciulad, berZnulad da zogjer albanuradac; amdenad, didi survili ar hqoniaT SemoetanaT `axali~ maxasiaTeblebi TavianT galobaSi, iqneboda es isoni, balkaneTis post-bizantiuri tradicia Tu bizantiis Sua saukuneebis uZvelesi italiuri wesi. Tumca, bolo xans siciliaSi isons iyenebdnen, rogorc Tanamedrove SemoqmedebiT komponents, siaxles. es iyo garkveuli mcdeloba imisa, rom isoni adaptirebuliyo tradiciul arbereSis galobaSi; magram, Cemi azriT, misi JReradoba TaviseburebiT gamoirCeva. darwmunebuli var, rom isoni ar gadmosula italiur niadagze balkanuri saeklesio simReridan, roca Turqebis mier naxevarkunZulis dapyrobis Semdeg praqtikosma Semsruleblebma datoves teritoria. isonma gavrceleba daiwyo mxolod bizantiuri imperiis ZiriTadi centrebidan da mas dasWirda aTwleulebi da saukuneebi imisaTvis, rom fexi moekidebina epirusis teritoriaze. melurgiuli kvlevebiT dainteresebulma adamianebma yuradRebis miRma ar unda datovon is faqti, rom bizantiuri musikis ganStoebas, romelic siciliaze mcxovreb albanelebTanaa gavrcelebuli, uxvad aqvs Semonaxuli gamorCeuli, cocxali melurgiuli tradicia Tavisi religiuri `wvrilmanebiT~. iseve, rogorc bizantiuri musikis uZveles xelnawerebs aqvs sakuTari gramatika da stili, siciliuri tradicia mihyveba Zalian mniSvnelovan, gansakuTrebul normebs, romlebic gansazRvravs maTi melodiebis struqturas: esaa oqtoixosi da siciliuri tradiciuli melodiebi: melizmuri, irmologiuri, stiqaronuli. arbereSelma mkvlevarma papas mateo skiambram (1914-1967) gamoavlina, rom siciliur-albanuri tradicia aseve mihyveba kompoziciis princips melodiuri formulebiT. man gviCvena, rom `melurgiuli tradicia, romelic siciliaze Sevida peloponesusis, kretisa da kviprosis kunZulebidan da bolos epirusis himaradan, veleSis Tanaxmad, aRmoCenilia imave teritoriaze, romelzec siriidan Semosuli musikaa gavrcelebuli~ (Sciambra, 1965-66: 316). es maxasiaTebeli, xmelTaSua zRvis auzis qveynebis msgavsi melodiuri formulebi, skiambras azriT, SeiZleba CaiTvalos siciliur-albanuri tradiciis originalur Rirebulebad. bizantiuri melodiebisa da maTi melodiuri formulebis ganxilvisas veleSi askvnis: `kompoziciis am principis aRmoCena gacilebiT ufro mniSvnelovania, vidre Tavidan fiqrobdnen. Semdgomma kvlevebma gviCvena, rom misi gavrceleba ar Semoifargleboda mxolod ramdenime regioniT, aramed warmoadgenda aRmosavlur musikaSi gabatonebul kompoziciur princips da qristianuli musikis eqspansiasTan erTad gavrcelda mTels xmelTaSua zRvis auzSi~ (Wellesz, 1949: 269). tradiciuli imusis sazogadoebis wevrebi da marTlmadidebluri religiis moRvaweebi ar aRiareben kavSirs am or repertuars Soris. Tumca, garkveuli kavSirebi mainc SeiZleba davinaxoT mikrotonuri intervalebis, modalobis, Tavisufali ritmis, improvizebuli ornamentebis, intonirebis procesisa da, yvelaferTan erTad, isonis saxiT, romelic orive tradiciaSia gavrcelebuli. am or, sruliad gansxvavebul 332 eno koCo tradicias Soris kavSiris dasadgenad, aucilebelia Semdgomi kvleva, Tumca, Cemi azriT, garkveul farglebSi. isoni simReris am or formas Soris arsebuli Zlieri kavSiria, romelic araCveulebrivad gadmoscems samxreT-dasavleT balkaneTSi gavrcelebuli musikis suls. orive tradicia, saeroc da sasulieroc, cdilobs, daicvas sakuTari, saerTo musikaluri kultura. SeniSvnebi 1 epirusi aris Crdilo-dasavleTi saberZneTisa da samxreT albaneTis erT-erTi geografiulistoriuli provincia audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. girokasteris nugbari (alban. Thëllëzë e Gjirokastrës), girokasteris vokaluri ansambli, albaneTi _ vokaluri polifonia, INEDIT, Auvidis distribution, 1995. audiomagaliTi 2. wm. ioane kukuzeli, Anagrammatismos, XIV s. Sua saukuneebis bizantiuri galoba, Cappella Romana, Ioannis Arvanitis, Gothic Records, Seattle, USA. audiomagaliTi 3. wm. ioane kukuzeli, damifare, o, didebulo!, krebulidan Mathimata (PsalmsSticheron-Kratima), berZnul-bizantiuri gundi, xelmZRvaneli l. angelopulosi, Editions Jade, 1995. audiomagaliTi 4. zeTisxilis xesTan (alban. Ne ulliri’), jgufi Dodona, Fier, Trashëgimia shpirtërore, Ministria e Kulturës, Rinisë dhe Sporteve, 2003. audiomagaliTi 5. dedam cxvrebis samwyemsad gamgzavna (alban. Më dërgoi nëna me dele; in Aromanian: Niqisië dadaë, Andon Poçi) polifoniuri simRerebi, cocxali Sesruleba palasSi, Eurodisc S.A.5 audiomagaliTi 6. erT SabaT Rames (berZn. Ένα Σάββατο βράδυ), POGDORIANI/KATAGRAFES TRAGOUDION STON PARAKALAMO-DIMOS ANO KALAMA _ VASILIS RAPTIS (2CD AND VIVLIO). audiomagaliTi 7. Asate Kyrie pirveli xma, krebulSi L’Antica Melurgia Bizantina, badia greka di grotaferatas melurgiuli skolis gundi, xelmZRvaneli padre lorenco tardo, Cawerilia 1953-1956 w.w. Targmna nana SariqaZem 333 ENO KOҪO (ALBANIA) THE ISO(N) – A PARTICIPATORY COMPONENT IN THE SOUTH ALBANIAN MULTIPART UNACCOMPANIED SINGING AND IN BYZANTINE CHANT An Iso(n), a drone-holding note, comes from the Greek (ισον) and is the voice that provides drone in Byzantine chant (Eastern Christian Chant). This is the liturgical music of Orthodox Churches, whereas the Iso-based multipart unaccompanied singing (abbreviated in this paper as IMUS) has developed as a secular repertoire. In Albanian, the same word for the same function in the oral traditional IMUS is spelt Iso. Both versions of the spelling will be used throughout this survey, Ison in the sense of Byzantine chant and Iso referring to South Albanian Imus. An intermediate form of spelling with the use of parenthesis, Iso(n) will also be used in order to characterise a liaison between the two linguistic forms. In both types Iso was never written down, but in Byzantine ecclesiastical chants Iso(n) is a written neume, the earliest scored records of which can be found only from the beginning of the 19th century. Iso(n) or drone, as a participatory component of the IMUS of south Albania and North Epirus, and Byzantine chant, has evolved and been orally transmitted and integrated in Southwest Balkan oral traditions of multipart pentatonic singing and univocal Byzantine monody. The integration and then consolidation of Iso(n) into secular multipart and liturgical singing with its function as a sustained final in relation to the melody, might have occurred approximately at the same time, Late Meddle Ages, although it cannot be excluded that the drone used in both forms of unaccompanied singing may have originated earlier. Nevertheless, further investigation into the possibility of the use of Ison is to be carried out, as no written records support its existence,. From the viewpoint of social activity, and in genuine and ecumenical sense, participation is an old phenomenon which has also been reflected in musical Iso(n). Participation is a universal way of sharing, joining, strengthening the sense of community; it appears that participation is the basic need of human nature. Participatory culture is applied in secular and sacred cultures and the participatory element has been associated with Iso(n), an element of heterophonic musical means. The multipart expression, which covers significant geographical area of the Southwest Balkans, is characterised by the collective sense of community and its importance as a social activity, compared, for instance, with the monodic expression of the music of North Albania and mainland Greece, is a living manifestation of group memory. In the beginning IMUS was used only at family or communal social gatherings, being a shared collective heritage, such music becomes necessity for the Southwest Balkan population during weddings and funerals and in everyday life too. The songs are functional and closely bound to specific occasions and customs, and people attribute IMUS a honorary place in their festivities. This repertoire was initially associated with indoor group singing “around the table” or “around the outdoor fire”. In post-WWII period it was transformed into a festival-type singing as well and was organised in the form of an institutionalised ensemble culture under the state 334 Eno Koço patronage and state censorship, a feature that developed along socialist lines. In the multipart unaccompanied singing the Iso feature plays an organisational and participatory roles, as in Albanian ethnic communities of the Lab, Tosk, Cham (Çam) and Myzeqe versions, also in North Greek (North Epirus) types; it organises the phrase and calculates the pause before restarting the main tune; it adds to the precise timing, allowing the first soloist (Alb. marrës, taker) and second soloist (Alb. kthyes, answerer) to be clearly heard. The Iso part, the participatory component, requires several people to create more density in order to “hold” the singing, but the right balance has to be always checked in order to achieve the best resonance required. IMUS structure involves two or three soloists engaged in a kind of musical interaction - “call and response” interplay, backed by the vocal Iso. Eqrem Çabej states that the “songs of Toskëria are polyphonic, choral, social songs . . . a symbolic expression not of the solitary dwelling, but of the community one” (Çabej, 1975: 129) (audio ex. 1). At the dawn of its formation as indigenous cultural contexts, IMUS embedded languages and social activities practiced in the Byzantine world interacted with this culture. Iso(n) itself did not play the same role as it did in a later period; its sound production was much softer and its mission was only to participate, rather than support harmonised melodies. There are still remote areas where an embryonic and undeveloped Iso(n) can be heard, away from festival-type performances. As IMUS structures, styles and linguistic idioms developed, its predominance, extended as more of an Albanian-speaking musical culture from around the 14th century onwards. Ison is an important component, as a participatory, integration and unifying element of Byzantine ecclesiastical music as well. It is performed in the churches of towns and villages at religious ceremonies. When Ison was initially used in Byzantine chant, it only sustained the chant in a straight line in a pedal-note fashion. The drone was (as in Imus) an unchangeable underlying tone, which is different from the present-day Greek chant; its main role, apart from functioning as the key/basic note was to allow for participation, without having any intention that this second voice would create, in a technical sense, polyphony. On the Mount Athos, where Late Byzantine Period singing is practiced, practitioners are trying to preserve the earlier tradition of Byzantine chant in which the harmony does not change, so Ison is a basic one and does not play harmonic or rational role, but is, more than anything else, participatory. The drone/Ison reflects the way one participates in the singing. It is of a heterophonic design, which means nothing but humming along (audio ex. 2). Between the 15th and 19th centuries, during the Neo-Byzantine period, Ison took a totally different course, that is a participatory role with the aim to reinforce the melody in the form of a sustained single tone within an originally monophonic, non-harmonised, chant. Its basic role relied on maintaining the pitch, helping the chanter learn correct intervals, moving within a Tone (shifting to the prominent tones of the tetra chords in the melodic movement) and participating in chanting. In Greece and elsewhere in Middle East, the novelty features such as the timbral nuances, size of intervals comprising fluctuation in the intonation (expansion and contraction of intervals, augmented seconds in particular), semi-nasal tone qualities, highly wrought melodic embellishments developed with different inclinations (audio ex. 3). In ex-Roman Epirus zone of the Balkans (Vetus and Nova), the oral traditions of Iso(n)-based multipart unaccompanied singing (Imus) coexisted with Byzantine Ison of the same region. Interaction of the local tradition of IMUS with Byzantine music in Southwest Balkan area would have been normal because the population of this region, the Albanians, Vlachs, Greeks, and, to a lesser degree, The Iso(n) – a Participatory Component in the South Albanian Multipart Unaccompanied Singing and in Byzantine Chant 335 Slavs, had contacts not only in their places of worship but, more importantly, in their everyday life as well. Therefore, borrowing and lending was a natural and often unconscious process, particularly among the Chams, who, in the past, used to live on the present-day Greek lands and close to their Greek neighbours. They sang songs in their own local Albanian dialect, which is very distinctive even among the Albanians themselves (audio ex. 4). In Parakalamos, in Epirus, in the Albanian neighbourhood, although the songs are sung in Greek, the singing, as well as the dress and certain characteristics of these ethnic group peoples are very much related, if not almost similar, however, with some nuances between the areas. The same analogy could be applied to Aromanian/Vlach ethnic groups who live in communities between the Albanians and Greeks (audio ex. 5,6). Neo-Byzantine ecclesiastical Iso(n) has more in common with the secular oral tradition of IMUS of the Southwest Balkans than with the falsobordone type of Iso(n) used at Badia di Grottaferrata. It can be said, that the oral tradition of liturgical chant of the Arbëresh Diaspora of South Italy and Sicily is based on classical Byzantine, Medieval style chant, and it is closer to Western chant than Neo-Byzantine music. Investigating the possibility of liturgical Iso(n) tradition among the Arbëresh, Kruta notes that “an important fact which makes the genesis of the drone appears more complex and puts a question mark to its early existence in Byzantine chant, is the link with the polyphonic song of the Orthodox Church of the Arbëresh of Italy, which, despite its ancient tradition, does not identify Iso(n)... At least until the 14th century when the migration movements of the Arbëresh towards Italy began, the Byzantine liturgical chant in South Albania developed without Iso’ (Kruta, 1991: 68-9). Kruta’s assessment is accurate. During my visit to Sicily in the summer 2006, I found no evidence to suggest such Iso(n) ever existed in the Byzantine liturgy of the Arbëresh Diaspora residing in five small towns in the province of Palermo. Main centre of this Arbëresh musical patrimony–Byzantine church of the Piana degli Albanesi in Sicily (known as Piana dei Greci before 1914) – has its own specific repertoire, transmitted orally, melodically different from Neo-Byzantine liturgy; the latter employs Iso(n), whereas Arbëresh Byzantine musical practice does not. Neo-Byzantine music uses hard and soft chromatic intervals (augmented seconds) in its Eight Tone (Oktoechos) modal system, whilst Arbëresh Byzantine musical tradition has its own specific organisation of this system largely unaffected by Neo-Byzantine music. During the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans, from the 15th century onwards, new components of Byzantine singing, harmonic and modal (i.e. Iso(n) and augmented second) became very important, whereas for Arbëresh Byzantine singing outside the Balkans, the Iso(n) component is treated as a modern aesthetic feature and as something of recent novelty. In Sicily, Calabria and in the Abbey of Grottaferratta in particular, classical Byzantine chant is still practiced in liturgy, whereas in nearly all monasteries of the Greek Orthodox Church they use Neo-Byzantine music. Based upon medieval theoretical texts and notated manuscripts, Lorenzo Tardo of the Badia of Grottaferrata conceived the performance of Iso(n) not as it developed in reality in the Balkans after 1453, that is as the lowest sound and foundation of the mode, but in organ-pedal or falsobordone style, specifically the solo melody with a triadic form of choral accompaniment. Tardo put a great deal of effort into the practical revival and performance of ancient Byzantine 336 Eno Koço chants. If other scholars of his time were interested in the theoretical aspect of this field, Tardo’s inclination was both in theoretical and practical matters. However, Tardo, apparently, conceived the Iso(n) not as an element of participation but as an expressive means contributing to the aesthetic performance of chant. There are some contemporary theories, which suggest that the ison, as Tardo also believes, was used in medieval Italy. He stated: “On the practice of this kind of ison, that is the sotto voce chord, records are preserved also in Rome. When the Greek colony was flourishing, the Greek chants alternated with the Latin ones, not only in the liturgical but also extra-liturgical functions” (Tardo, 1938: 392). It is on this basis that “the Gregorian chant, the far filiations of the Byzantine chant, has started to be accompanied by the organ” (Tardo, 1938: 392). He also gives an explanation of the use of a “simple” ison based on the tonic, and a “double” ison, as he named the movements from the tonic to the dominant; he was inclined to perceive these movements as harmonic, or a certain form of polyphony. “There are parts”, he explains, “where the ison should not be heard, in some other parts where the ison should be slightly heard, and there are points where the ison should really sustain the fundamental tone of the whole singing part” (Tardo, 1938: 393). “The ison”, he wrote “corresponds to an accompanying note similar to the organ pedal or the so-called falsobordone” (Tardo, 1938: 390). Listening to Tardo’s own performances of Byzantine chants where he acted as conductor, his perception of the ‘accompaniment’ used in some of liturgical pieces is obvious. Here is an example where the falsobordone is conceived as spread harmony of a consonant chord (audio ex. 7). Although several Arbëresh clerics studied and worked at Grottaferrata and the Collegio Romano in Rome from the end of 19th century to this day, none of them tried to methodically introduce Iso(n) practice into their everyday musical liturgy of the Arbëresh churches of Sicily and Calabria. Just as they were loyal toward the preservation of ancient Byzantine rite in their church, sung in traditional Greek and recently in Albanian, so were they reluctant to introduce “new” features into their chants, such as the case with the Iso(n), borrowed either from the post-Byzantine new tradition of the Balkans or the Byzantine medieval tradition of Italy. However, in recent times in Sicily the Iso(n) component started to be treated as a modern creative feature, as a kind of novelty. Thus, efforts have been made to adopt a kind of Iso(n) to the traditional Arbëresh chants, but, in my view, it sounds a bit peculiar. I believe that no Iso(n) was brought onto Italian soil from the Balkan church singing when its practitioners left the peninsula after the Ottoman conquest. This is because the Iso(n) had only begun to be disseminated from the main centres of the Byzantine Empire and it took decades if not centuries to get introduced into the remote areas of Epirus. Those who are interested in melurgic studies should not ignore the fact that the branch of Byzantine music, where the Albanians of Sicily are involved, has an abundant, precious and living melurgic tradition conserved with religious meticulousness. In the same way that the manuscripts of ancient Byzantine music are characterised by their grammar and style, so the Sicilian tradition follows particular, some very important norms which determine the structure of their melodies; these are the Οχτώηχος and Sicilian traditional melodies: melismatical, heirmological and sticheraic. The Arbëresh scholar, Papas Matteo Sciambra (1914-1967) revealed that the Sicilian-Albanian tradition also follows the principle of composition of melodic formulae. It has been shown that “the melurgic tradition, which reached Sicily with the clergy originating from the isles of Peloponnesus, Crete and Cyprus and in the end from Himara in Epirus, was found in the same ambit as the music coming, The Iso(n) – a Participatory Component in the South Albanian Multipart Unaccompanied Singing and in Byzantine Chant 337 according to Wellesz, from Syria” (Sciambra, 1965-66:316). This characteristic, the Mediterraneanlike melodic formulae, concluded Sciambra, can be considered as an original value of the SicilianAlbanian tradition. In discussing Byzantine melodies and their melodic formulae Wellesz asserts: “The discovery of this principle of composition is of far greater importance than was at first thought. Further investigations have shown that it was not confined to the melodies of a few areas, but was the ruling principle of composition in Oriental music and, with the expansion of Christian music, it spread all over the entire Mediterranean basin” (Wellesz, 1949: 269). *** The members of traditionalist IMUS communities and the members and congregations of Orthodox religious practitioners do not acknowledge any relationship between the two repertoires. Nevertheless, we may suggest some similarities in the traces of microtonic intervals, modal character, free rhythms, improvised ornamentations, process of intoning, as well as a thoroughly vocal repertoire posed to the process of oral transmission, and – above all – the Iso(n), all of which are found in both traditions. Further research is required to sufficiently identify the relation between these two very different traditions but nevertheless there seems to be scope for further study in this area. Being the strongest bond between these two forms of singing, Iso(n) served in the best way to convey the feeling of the music that was practiced in the Southwest Balkans. Both traditions, secular and ecclesiastic, tend to preserve their traditional participatory musical cultures by directing the focus not to individual expression, but to community involvement in order to participate in community life. References Çabej, Eqrem. (1975). Studime Gjuhësore (Linguistic Studies). Prishtinë, Rilindja, Vol. 5. (in Italian) Kruta, Beniamin. (1991). “The Bourdon-Iso in the Albanian Polyphony and Some Questions of its Ethno-Genesis”. In: Kultura Popullore. No. 1, P. 51-72. Tiranë. Sciambra, Matteo. (1965-66). “Structural Characteristics of the Traditional Liturgical Songs of Albanians of Sicily”. In: Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici. N. S. 2-3. P. 309-320. Roma. Tardo, Lorenzo. (1938). L’Antica melurgia bizantina (Antique Bizantine Melurgy). Scuola Tip. Italo Orientale “S. Nilo”. Grottaferrata. (in Italian) Wellesz, Egon. (1949). A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Audio Examples Audio example 1. Thëllëzë e Gjirokastrës (Dainty of Gjirokastër). Vocal Ensemble of Gjirokastër. INEDIT, Albanie – polyphonies vocales du pays Lab, Auvidis distribution, 1995. 338 Eno Koço Audio example 2. Anagrammatismos, St. John Koukouzelis, 14th c.; Medieval Byzantine Chant. Cappella Romana, Ioannis Arvanitis, Gothic Records, Seattle, USA. Audio example 3. Protect, O Most Glorious, in Ioannis Koukouzelis, Mathimata (Psalms-Sticheron-Kratima), Greek Byzantine Choir, directed by L. Angeloopoulos. 1995 Editions Jade. Audio example 4. Në ulliri (At the Olive Tree). Dodona Group. Fier, Trashëgimia shpirtërore, Ministria e Kulturës, Rinisë dhe Sporteve, 2003. Audio example 5. Më dërgoi nëna me dele (My mother sent me to look after the sheep) (in Albanian: Më dërgoi nëna me dele; in Aromanian: Niqisië dadaë, Andon Poçi), Πολυφωνικά τραγούδια (Polyphonic Songs), Live in Pallas, Eurodisc S.A. Audio example 6. Ena savato vradhi (One Saturday Night) POGDORIANI/KATAGRAFES TRAGOUDION STON PARAKALAMO-DIMOS ANO KALAMA _ VASILIS RAPTIS (2CD AND VIVLIO). Audio example 7. Asate Kyrie. First Tone. L’Antica Melurgia Bizantina. Coro della Schola Melurgica della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata diretto da Padre Lorenzo Tardo, registrazioni 1953-1956). 339 meTiu naiTi (aSS) huteritebis gunduri simRera preriebSi: xsnis xmebi naSromSi ganxilulia religiiTa da religiuri cxovrebis wesiT gaerTianebuli eTnikuri jgufis musika, romelic ar SeiZleba `tradiciul mravalxmianobad~ CaiTvalos. huteritebi TavianT sagaloblebs mudmivad monofoniurad asruleben. gunduri mRera maT 40 welia rac daiwyes da repertuaric sakmaod standartuli, dasavluri musikaluri xelovnebisTvis damaxasiaTebeli aqvT (soprano-alti-tenori-bani). miuxedavad amisa, huteritebis eTika da idealebi maT gunduri praqtikisa da TanamSromlobisaken mouwodebs. am TvalsazrisiT, Tu izali zemcovskis davesesxebiT, huteritebs homo-polifonikusisTvis damaxasiaTebeli socialuri Rirebulebebi da habitusi aqvT (Zemtsovsky, 2002), rac kargad xsnis maT mier sagundo simReris swrafad aTvisebisa da adaptaciis unars. ioseb Jordanias TqmiT, am jgufis xangrZlivi `socialuri polifonia~ yvela sakiTxSi (maT Soris, musikaSi), gvexmareba, CavwvdeT maTi axlandeli polifoniuri musikaluri praqtikis arss (Jordania, 2011). Sesavali huteritebis rwmena da xelovneba aris qristianobis `anabaptisturi~ ganStoebis erT-erTi nawili. `anabaptizmi~ rwmena-warmodgenaTa sistemis nakrebia, romelic TariRdeba 1520-iani w.w. radikaluri reformaciis periodiT germanul da daniur enaze mosaubreTa teritoriaze. igi gamoeyo kaTolikur eklesias da martin luTeris moZRvrebaze ufro Sors wavida. amasTanave, standartul protestantul rwmenaSi bibliisa da wm. samebis Sesaxeb maTi ZiriTadi doqtrina gulisxmobs pacifizms, eklesiis saxelmwifosagan gamijvnasa da morwmune adamianebis naTlobas zrdasrul asakSi, anu im dros, roca maT ukve SeuZliaT gonebis ZaliT, sakuTari nebiT, Segnebulad airCion RvTisken savali gza. daaxloebiT 2 milioni anabaptisti, maTi qvejgufebis _ `menonitebisa~ da `emiSebis~ CaTvliT, mTels msoflioSi (upiratesad, CrdiloeT amerikaSi) saxlobs. aqedan, huteritebi Seadgenen 50 000 da isini, ZiriTadad, kanadis centralur nawilsa da SeerTebul StatebSi cxovroben. anabaptistTa Soris huteritebi Zveli wes-Ceulebebis mimdevrebad iTvlebian. am Zveli mrwamsis mimdevrebi da praqtikosebi inarCuneben germanuls, rogorc liturgikul enas da yoveldRiur cxovrebaSic germanul dialeqtze saubroben. garda imisa, rom isini geografiulad axdenen sakuTari Tavis izolacias, sazogadoebis ZiriTadi tendenciebisagan axalgazrda Taobis dacvis mizniT, Tavs arideben saero sainformacio saSualebebsac, cdiloben SeinarCunon religiuri, socialuri da kulturuli praqtika fiqsirebuli formebiT (Kraybill, Bowman, 2001: 15). amgvarad, Tavisi religiiTa da mSobliuri eniT huteritebi advilad ganirCevian ZiriTadi Crdiloamerikuli masisagan. am enas, romelsac huterituli hqvia, dabadebi- 340 meTiu naiTi dan swavloben, Tumca, sasuliero miznebisaTvis mas germanuliTa da dawyebiT skolaSi wasvlisas inglisuriT avseben. aRsaniSnavia, agreTve, maTi Cacmulobis gansxvavebuli stili da manera: qalebisaTvis grZeli kabebi da Tavsafrebi, mamakacebisaTvis ki, romlebic qorwinebis Semdeg wvers izrdian _ muqi Sarvlebi, Rilebiani perangebi da aWimebi. huteritebi kidev erTi mniSvnelovani TaviseburebiT gansxvavdebian Tanamedrove sazogadoebisa da sxva anabaptistebisgan. 1530 wlidan dRemde maTi ideali cxovrebis Temuri stilia, romelic emTxveva bibliur `SesaqmeSi~ aRweril eklesiuri cxovrebis adreul wess. 1870-ian wlebSi ruseTidan migraciis Semdeg, CrdiloeT amerikeli huteritebi cxovroben Temebad, romelic ar aRemateba 120 adamians. isini inawileben produqts, erTad Wamen, loculoben yoveldRiurad da ar iReben pirad xelfass. TiToel wevrs aqvs garkveuli samsaxuri, magram zogierT saqmianobaSi mTeli jgufia CarTuli. jgufis wevrebi sakuTar saqmianobas ara pirad, individualur miznad, aramed sazogadoebis keTildReobaze zrunvad miiCneven. huteritebi da musika huteritebs arc ise martivi damokidebuleba aqvT saSemsruleblo xelovnebasTan. ubraloebis principebisa da Tavmdablobis gamo, isini gaurbian TavianTi xelovnebis demonstrirebas, gansakuTrebiT, RvTismsaxurebis dros. cekva kategoriulad akrZalulia, sakravebi, saukeTeso SemTxvevaSi, iyo da aris miCneuli saeWvo movlenad, xolo uares SemTxvevaSi _ satanistur garTobad. bibliisadmi pativiscemis miuxedavad, huteritebi uaryofen fsalmunTa (Tavi 150) erTmniSvnelovan miTiTebebs _ `aqebdiT ufalsa~ qnariT, barbiTiT, dafiT, sayviriT, CangiT, tamburiT, dairiT, winwiliTa da tubiT. anabaptistebis TiTqmis yvela jgufSi SenarCunebulia himnebis erToblivi Sesrulebis myari tradicia. huteritebisaTvis himni imTaviTve iyo da dRemde aris rwmenis gamoxatuleba. maT istoriul qronikaSi xSiradaa aRwerili boZTan dasawvavad miyvanili adamianebis wamebis faqtebi: `isini mRerodnen mxiarulad da maTi xma ise quxda, TiTqos qorwilSi sasiZos Sesaxvedrad emzadebiano~ (Hutterian Brethren, 2003: 222). Zveli huteritebis (maT Soris, martvilebisa da wamebulebis) mier dawerili uamravi sagalobeli Väterlieder-is (mamaTa simRerebi) saxiT aris SemorCenili. es teqstebi dReisaTvis Sekrebilia saeklesio krebulSi, romelsac Die Lieder der Hutterischen Brüder (huteriti Zmebis simRerebi) (Janzen, 2002) hqvia. huteritebi am simRerebs sxva axal himnebTan erTad RvTismsaxurebis dros asruleben. am dros Tavs imdenad Tavisuflad da komfortulad grZnoben, rom moridebis gareSe, nebismier momentSi yvelas SeuZlia SeuerTos Tavisi xma gunds. garda amisa, CrdiloeT amerikis sxva xalxisagan gansxvavebiT, huteriti mamakacebi simReras ar miiCneven qalebis saqmianobad. maTi erToblivi simRera monofonuria, igi kiTxva-pasuxis tipisaa, romelsac iseTi cnobili mecnierebi, rogoric arian nikolas temperlei (Temperley, 1981: 511-544) da uesli bergi (Berg, 1996), `intonirebis Zvel manerad~ miiCneven. erTi lideri (solisti), xSirad erT bgeraze an mokle Sablonur melodiaze intonirebs teqsts, rasac `ankesis gadagdeba~ (“lining out”) ewodeba. Sem- huteritebis gunduri simRera preriebSi: xsnis xmebi 341 deg mTeli Temi Zalian nel tempSi da grZeli melizmebiT imeorebs teqstis marcvlebs ukve damaxsovrebul melodiaze. lideri sTavazobs leqsis yovel striqons da jgufis wevrebi, romlebic ar iyeneben daweril teqsts, imeoreben mas. imis gamo, rom hangebi ar aris notirebuli, isini droTa ganmavlobaSi icvleba da sxvadasxva TemSi mniSvnelovnad gansxvavebulia. Tumca, mkvlevarma helen martensma (Martens, 2002) am melodiebSi memkvidreobiTobac aRmoaCina. man isini XVI s. notirebul sagaloblebs Seadara, romelTa teqstebs xSirad im droisaTvis popularul melodiebs usadagebdnen. himnebis simReras bevri huteritisTvis socialuri funqcia aqvs. warsulSi igi ojaxebisaTvis dasvenebis erTaderTi saSualeba iyo. maikl holcaxi aRwers kanaduri zamTris grZel, civ Rameebs, romlebsac huteritebis jgufebi martvilTa simRerebis SesrulebaSi atarebdnen (Holzach, 1993). musika jer kidev warmoadgens Tavisufali drois gatarebis saSualebas, magram igi xSirad Cumad, farulad sruldeba. sakravebisa da saero simRerebis akrZalvis gamo, huteriti Tineijerebi malaven sakuTar akustikur gitarebs, Tumca popularuli simRerebis farTo repertuars floben. gansakuTrebiT, axalgazrdobaSi, isini farulad arian gatacebuli musikiT da amiT gamoxataven protests arsebuli religiuri diqtatis mimarT. aseTi amboxi mTavrdeba maSin, roca axalgazrda inaTleba da eklesiaSi midis. iniciaciis rituali mas huteritebis eklesiis wevrad aqcevs, mxolod amis Semdeg ibadeba is huteritebis TemisTvis. Ppasuxismgebloba izrdeba, eZlevaT qorwinebis ufleba (swored esaa imis mizezi, rom axalgazrdebis umravlesoba seriozul romantikul sasiyvarulo urTierTobamde ar inaTleba). naTloba mimdinareobs wesebis dacviT. eklesiis WeSmariti wevrebisaTvis miuRebelia sevdiani qanTri da dasavluri tipis simRerebi. huteritebis gundebi bevri huteriti mSobeli jiutobad ar cnobs iatakqveSa musikalur protests, SesaZloa imitomac, rom maT axsovT TavianTi axalgazrdobis wlebi. magram araswori iqneboda imis Tqmac, rom isini iwoneben aRniSnul qmedebas. saboloo jamSi, es qmedebebi ganixileba, rogorc codva, romelic masSi monawileebma monaTvlamde aucileblad unda moinanion. maT unda dadon piroba, rom aRarasodes miiReben msgavs aqtebSi monawileobas. Tumca, ufrosebi axalgazrdebis mimarT ufro Semwynareblebi arian. huteritebma mravalxmiani mRera 1970-iani wlebis bolos da 1980-iani wlebis dasawyisSi sxvadasxva faqtoris zegavleniT daiwyes. axalgazrda anabaptistebma, romlebic amerikul/kanadur (Sua dasavlur) uxvmosavlian raionSi dasaxldnen, 1800-iani wlebis bolos gunduri simReris Zlieri tradiciebi Camoayalibes. menonitebma jer kidev ruseTSi cxovrebisas Secvales Tavisi erTxmiani simReris meTodi kongregaciuli oTxxmiani himnebiT da sagundo simRerebiT. luTeraneli mezoblebisagan maT miiRes germanulenovani himnebi, romelTa didi nawili male aqcies inglisuridan Targmnil Crdiloamerikul sasuliero simRerebad. sagundo simRera gaxda erT-erTi mniSvnelovani socialuri movlena axalgazrdebis cxovrebaSi. es iyo erT-erTi iSviaTi situacia, sadac maT Tavisuflad, mSoblebis mkacri meTvalyureobis gareSe SeeZloT emReraT sawinaaRmdego sqesis warmomadgenlebTan erTad. huteritebi da menonitebi 342 meTiu naiTi daaxloebiT erT periodSi gadasaxlden CrdiloeT amerikaSi da Tan waiRes sagundo tradiciebi (Berg, 1985). menonitebsa da huteritebs Soris urTierTobebi iSviaTi ar iyo, radganac warsulSi bevri menoniti huteritTa Temis skolaSi maswavleblobda. zogierTi maTgani moswavleebs saSobao koncertisa da sxva saskolo RonisZiebisaTvis simRerebs aswavlida. Tumca, polifoniuri sagundo mReris farTo gavrceleba mxolod 1970 wlidan iwyeba. am dros huteritebis eklesia daukavSirda amerikis aRmosavleT sanapiroze mdebare sxva qristianul sazogadoebriv gaerTianebas. am jgufs bruderhofs eZaxian da saTaves XX saukunis germaniaSi iRebs. huteritebisagan gansxvavebiT, isini ar iyvnen cekvisa da musikalur sakravebze dakvris winaRmdegi (Janzen, Stanton, 2010). 1970-1980–ian wlebSi huteritTa didi nawili bruderhofis gavlenas ganixilavda, rogorc axalgazrda huteritebis saeklesio TemSi darCenisa da eklesiaSi dabrunebis saSualebas. bruderhofebis cxovreba naklebad mkacri da seriozuli iyo. isini musikas `mxiarulebis gamoxatvis~ saSualebad ganixilavdnen da ar miiCnevdnen borot potenciur Zalad. bevri xandazmuli huteriti cekvas da sakravier musikas Zveleburad skeptikurad ucqerda, magram sagundo musika bruderhofebis Cveuli praqtika iyo. igi ganixileboda, rogorc axalgazrduli saprotesto moZraobis saukeTeso alternativa. simRerebis religiurma teqstma bevri huteriti lideri daarwmuna, rom es SeiZleboda yofiliyo axalgazrdebze moraluri zemoqmedebis erT-erTi forma. Tavdapirveli iniciativa axalgazrdebisagan modioda, romlebic bruderhofis TemebTan gacvliT mogzaurobebSi monawileobdnen. religiuri liderebis TanxmobiT, gundis pirveli xelmZRvanelebi qiraobdnen ara-huterit profesional musikis pedagogebs. wlebis ganmavlobaSi, rodesac huteritebi universitetSi maswavleblis sertifikatis misaRebad swavlobdnen, bevri maTgani Tavad ayalibebda gunds. repertuari Tavdapirvelad bruderhofelebisagan iyo nasesxebi, romelic Semdeg sxva himnebiT da religiuri simRerebiTac Seivso.AhuteritTa gundebi xSirad asruleben baC uipfis (Butch Wipf) musikas. igi Zalian nayofieri kompozitoria, kanadis centraluri nawilis huteritTa Temidan. amasTan erTad, repertuaris didi nawili gare wyaroebidanac _ gansakuTerebiT, sagalobelTa sxvadasxva krebulidanac ivseba. bevr Tems dRes ramdenime sxvadasxva gundi hyavs. xanSiSesulebi da daqorwinebulebi regularulad monawileoben masSi. magram sagundo simRera ufro metad axalgazrdebis saqmea. bevr gunds Cawerili aqvs albomebi, romlebic vrceldeba huteritul mosaxleobaSi. es mizezebi nawilobriv gvixsnis imas, Tu ratom mRerian huteritebi gundurad, magram ra gamarTleba aqvs maTze saubars tradiciuli mravalxmianobis konferenciaze? mec vamtkicebdi, rom huteriti inividebis socializacias aadvilebs is, rom isini, rogorc i. zemcovski aRwers, potenciuri homo-polifonikusebi arian. huterit megobrebTan Cemi urTierToba adasturebs, rom maTi musika xSirad individebisagan modis, rogorc maT mier met-naklebad nacnobi melodiebis improvizaciuli harmonizacia. homo-polifonikusis msgavsad, harmonizebis es unari xangrZlivi gamocdilebis Sedegad modis (bevri maTgani axalgazrdaa da, mSoblebisagan gansxvavebiT, ukve gundSia aRzrdili). magram ufro mniSvnelovani isaa, rom gunduri mReris gamocdileba huteritebis gunduri simRera preriebSi: xsnis xmebi 343 huteritebis religiur doqtrinebTan da yoveldRiur praqtikasTan erTad Zlieri metaforuli da aqtualuri gzebis rezonatoria. igi huteritebs gunduri simReris bunebriv Semsruleblebad warmoaCens. uwinares yovlisa, gundi metaforulad mniSvnelovan rols TamaSobs religiur idealebSi (sparsuli semiotikuri TvalsazrisiT, gundsa da religiur idealebs Soris ikonografiul-niSnobrivi kavSiri arsebobs). Sesrulebis dros gundi gansakuTrebulad aris damokidebuli xelmZRvanelis nebasa da mimarTulebaze. anabaptistebis koncefcia simSvidis, uSfoTvelobis (germ. Gelassenheit) Sesaxeb qadagebs, rom religiur cxovrebaSi pirovneba RvTaebriv nebas unda daemorCilos. amis gamoa, rom rogorc huteritebSi, ise anabaptistebSi naTloba zrdasrul asakSi xdeba. es aris xsnis, rogorc Segnebuli gadawyvetilebis miRebis simbolo, winaswar ganzraxuli da kargad mofiqrebuli nabiji, piradi neba-survili, sazogadoebis diqtatze damorCilebuli, Cvilis naTlobisagan gansxvavebiT, romelsac naTlobis arCevani ara aqvs. am koncefciis Tanaxmad, gundSi simRera amSvidebs, diriJori RmerTis metaforuli simboloa da igi huteritTa Temis socialuri gaerTianebis idealur suraTs qmnis, sadac TiToeul adamians mokrZalebuli, magram mniSvenlovani roli aqvs da saerTo warmatebisaTvis TiToeulis CarTulobaa aucilebeli. gundi Zalas iZens sxvadasxva individebis xmaTa kombinirebiT, magram igi efeqturobas kargavs, roca momRerlebi Sexmatkbilebulni ar arian, an cdiloben sakuTari vokaluri SesaZleblobebis warmoCenas. huteritebis diriJorebTan saubari gundis, rogorc Temis metaforul Zalas ganamtkicebs. Cemi kvlevis zogierTi monawile ufro Sorsac midis da aRniSnavs, rom gunduri simRera TavisTavad aris maTi erTianobis aqti da, amdenad _ religiur cxovrebaSi eklesiis wevrTa warmatebuli monawileobis zusti modeli. swored es iyo Cemi erT-erTi wina moxsenebis mTavari Tema (Knight, 2011). garda amisa, huteritebis sagundo simReris gamocdileba aRviZebs emociebs, romlebic sxva gamocdilebis asociacias iwveven. Carlz sanders pirsi aRwers asociaciis indeqsur niSnebs. tomas turino am koncefcias musikas usadagebs da xsnis, Tu rogor SeiZleba moaxdinos musikalurma nawarmoebma an musikalurma gamocdilebam Zlieri gavlena adamianis mexsierebaze (Turino, 1999). gundSi konkretuli musikis Sesrulebam SeiZleba gaaRviZos sasiyvarulo emociebi. is, aseve, SeiZleba gaxdes sixarulis, eqstazis, mowyenis, imedgacruebis an sxva nebismieri emociis, an warsuli gamocdilebis inspiraciis wyaro. huteritebisaTvis gundSi mRera RvTismsaxurebis procesis indeqsia. amrigad, sagundo simReras SeuZlia migviyvanos martvilobis Zveli istoriebis mogonebasTan, TanamedroveobisaTvis rogor aqtualur Temasac ar unda asaxavdes teqsti. garda amisa, maTi Sesrulebisas, nebismieri emocia da warsuli gamocdileba SeiZleba gaixsenon. amgvarad, musikaluri aqtivoba SeiZleba potenciuri SinaarsiT daitvirTos Semsruleblebisa da msmenelebis gonebaSi. daskvna huteritebis gunduri simRera JReradobiT unikaluri an ,,uZvelesi~ ar aris, Tumca imdenad farTod aris gavrcelebuli, rom SeiZleba mieces wyaroebze dafuZnebuli axali ,,xalxuri“ tradiciis kvalifikacia institucionaluri rekomendaciebis 344 meTiu naiTi gareSe. miuxedavad amisa, huteritebis habitusi da socialuri garemo _ religiuri doqtrinebis CaTvliT, socializacia da yoveldRiuri praqtika _ maT bunebriv (Tu ara genetikur) midrekilebas SeTanxmebuli musikaluri Zalisxmevis saxes aniWebs. aseTi xarisxiT, es iSviaTi movlenaa CrdiloeT amerikaSi. huteritebisTvis, iseve, rogorc mravali tradiciuli jgufisaTvis, musika moiTxovs monawileobas da ara auditoriis pasiur wevrobas. musikaluri polifoniiT gataceba aris is, ramac, SesaZloa, maTi Temis socialuri idealebi momavali aTwleulebis manZilze asazrdoos. Targmna ia maxaraZem 345 MATTHEW KNIGHT (USA) HUTTERITE CHORAL SINGING ON THE PRAIRIES: SOUNDS OF SALVATION In this paper, I discuss an ethnic group, with a religious origin and highly religious lifestyle, whose music cannot be considered “traditional polyphony” by any measure. Hutterites sing their hymns in invariably monophonic style; they have only begun to sing in choral fashion in the last forty years, and this repertoire is fairly standard Western art music in four-part SATB (soprano-alto-tenor-bass) format. Despite this, Hutterite ethics and ideals predispose them strongly to practices of cooperation and teamwork. In this respect, to borrow from Izaly Zemtsovsky (2002), they possess the social values and habitus required to become homines polyphonici, explaining their widespread and quick adoption of choral singing; in Joseph Jordania’s terms (2011), this group’s longtime “social polyphony” in all matters (including music) helps to make sense of their now-polyphonic musical practice. Introduction Hutterite practices and beliefs are part of the “Anabaptist” branch of Christianity. Anabaptism designates a set of belief systems that date back to the “Radical Reformation” of the 1520s in German and Dutch-speaking lands—a rejection of the Catholic Church that went even further than Martin Luther. In addition to standard Protestant beliefs about the Bible and the Holy Trinity, key doctrines include pacifism, separation of church and state, and “believer’s baptism”, undertaken by an adult in possession of their full mental faculties and hence able to make a conscious choice to follow God. About 2 million Anabaptists, including subgroups called Mennonites and Amish, exist worldwide (primarily in North America); Hutterites make up about 50,000 of that number, and reside in the central plains region of Canada and the United States. Within the Anabaptist spectrum, Hutterites can be classified as an “Old Order” group. Old Order believer-practitioners hold onto German as a liturgical language and speak their own “Low” German dialects in everyday life; they isolate themselves geographically and avoid secular media to protect their young people from the influences of mainstream society, and they attempt to maintain the patterns of religious, social, and cultural practice in relatively fixed form (Kraybill, Bowman, 2001: 15). Thus, Hutterites are easily distinguished from mainstream North Americans by their religiosity, their vernacular language (“Hutterisch”, learned from birth and complemented by German instruction for spiritual purposes and English upon entering primary school), and by their distinctive mode of dress, including long dresses and headscarves for the women and dark pants, button-up shirts, and suspenders for the men, who always grow a beard after getting married. Hutterites are distinctive from mainstream society (and even from other Anabaptists) in one other important way. Since 1530, their ideal lifestyle has been communal, modeled after the early church described in the biblical book of Acts. After migrating from Russia in the 1870s, North American Hutterites have lived in communities not exceeding 120 members, who share all goods, eat meals 346 Matthew Knight together, worship daily, and receive no private wages. Each member has a specific job, but some tasks involve the entire group. Members understand their labor as contributing toward the welfare of the entire community rather than toward an individual goal. Hutterites and Music Hutterites have had an uneasy relationship with the performing arts. Tenets of simplicity and humility led to a shunning of ostentatious display, particularly in worship. Dancing has been categorically forbidden, while musical instruments have been viewed as morally questionable at the very best, and a Satanic diversion at worst. Despite their high regard for the Bible, Hutterites have ignored the unequivocal commands in the book of Psalms (chapter 150) to “praise the Lord” with instruments such as the harp, psaltery, drum, trumpet, lyre, shofar, tambourine, cymbal, and tuba. However, almost all Anabaptist groups do maintain a strong tradition of congregational hymnsinging. For Hutterites, hymns have been an important manifestation of their faith since the beginning. Their historical chronicle includes many accounts similar to the following, which describes several martyrs brought to the stake to be burned for their Anabaptist heresy: “They sang joyfully, their voices ringing out as if they were going to meet the bridegroom at a wedding” (Hutterian Brethren, 2003: 222). Many hymns written by early Hutterites, including some who were martyred, have been preserved and passed down to this day as Väterlieder or “songs of the fathers”. Their texts are now collected in a massive hymnal called Die Lieder der Hutterischen Brüder, or “The Songs of the Hutterian Brethren” (Janzen, 2002). Hutterites sing these songs, as well as many newer hymns, daily in their worship services. The sheer frequency of this activity makes Hutterites comfortable with their own voices and many are not shy about bursting into song without a moment’s notice; additionally, unlike many North Americans, Hutterite men do not view singing as primarily a female activity. Congregational singing is typically monophonic, in a call-and-response fashion described by scholars such as Nicholas Temperley (Temperley, 1981: 511-544) and Wesley Berg (Berg, 1996) as “The Old Way of Singing”. In this method, a single song leader—often the sole possessor of the hymnbook—intones a line of text on a single note or brief formulaic melody; this is called “lining out”. The entire congregation then repeats that text on a different, memorized melody, often at an extremely slow pace and with lengthy musical melismas on each textual syllable. This process continues with each line of text, with the leader “feeding” the words to the congregation, which does not use written lyrics for reference. Since the tunes are not notated, they have changed over time to the point where there are serious discrepancies between different communities. However, researcher Helen Martens (Martens, 2002) has discovered significant continuities in the tunes as a whole when they are compared with notated sources from the sixteenth century (the hymn texts were often set to popular tunes of their day when written). Hymn-singing also serves a social function for many Hutterites today. In the past, it was almost the only form of leisure available to families; Michael Holzach describes long evenings in the cold Canadian winters spent singing the old martyr songs in large groups (1993). Music is still an important leisure activity, but it is often practiced in an “underground” fashion in addition to the sort of hymn-singing just described. Despite taboos on musical instruments and secular songs, many Hutterite teenagers own a hidden acoustic guitar and know an extensive repertoire of popular songs. Particularly in their youth, Hutterites engage in covert musical activities as a form of rebellion against Hutterite Choral Singing on the Prairies: Sounds of Salvation 347 established religious dictates. Such rebellion is expected to end after the young person chooses to join the church by becoming baptized, a rite of passage that confirms the individual as a member of the Hutterite Church rather than just a person born into a Hutterite community. Responsibilities change, and marriage is then permitted (a reason why most young people do not get baptized until they are in a serious romantic relationship). Baptism is accompanied by heightened expectations of propriety, and singing heartbroken country and western songs to a roomful of adolescents is decidedly unacceptable for an upright member of the church. Hutterite Choirs Although many Hutterite parents wilfully ignore the acts of musical rebellion occurring in their own basements, perhaps remembering their own youthful years, it would be incorrect to assume that they “approve”. Ultimately, these actions are viewed as sinful, and participants must repent of them upon baptism and promise never to participate in them again. However, alternative activities for youth are regarded with more favor. Hutterites began singing in harmony in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a result of several influences. Fellow Anabaptists who settled nearby in the American/Canadian Midwest had developed strong choral singing traditions of their own in the late 1800s. The Mennonites had traded their “lining out” method of congregational song for hymns and chorales in four-part harmony while they still lived in Russia. From Lutheran neighbors, they adopted German-language hymns, many of which had been translated from English North American gospel songs. Choir practice became an important social event for young people as one of the few situations in which they could mix freely with members of the opposite gender without their parents close at hand. When the Mennonites moved to North America around the same time as the Hutterites, they brought this new choral sound along with them (Berg, 1985). Interactions between Mennonites and Hutterites were not uncommon, as the former often served as schoolteachers in Hutterite communities. Some of these teachers taught songs to their students for Christmas concerts and other school performances. However, the widespread adoption of polyphonic choral singing did not come until the 1970s. During this time, the Hutterite Church became linked to another communal Christian society located on America’s east coast; this group, called the Bruderhof, had roots in early 20th -century Germany. Unlike the Hutterites, they were not opposed to dancing or playing musical instruments (Janzen & Stanton, 2010). In the 1970s and 80s, many Hutterites viewed the Bruderhof as a rejuvenating influence, and a possible aid in convincing young Hutterites to remain in the community and join the church. The Bruderhof life was less stern and serious, and they viewed music as a “joyful expression” rather than as a potential force for evil. Dancing and instrumental music were still viewed with skepticism by many Hutterite elders, but choral music was also a common Bruderhof practice. It was viewed as a wholesome alternative to rebellious youthful activities. The songs’ almost exclusively religious texts convinced many Hutterite leaders that part-singing could also be a form of moral instruction for the young. The initial impetus came from young people who had participated in exchange trips and visited the Bruderhof communities themselves; from here (with the approval of religious leaders) the first choir directors, primarily trained music educators, were hired from outside the Hutterite community. Over the years, as Hutterites began to attend university to become certified as teachers, some of them began to lead choirs themselves. Repertoire was initially borrowed from the Bruderhof (who wrote many of their 348 Matthew Knight own arrangements), but extended later to other hymns and religious songs. Hutterite choirs frequently perform the music of Butch Wipf, a very prolific composer from a Hutterite community in central Canada, but other than this, most repertoire comes from outside sources, especially various hymnbooks. Numerous communities now have several choirs, and while they do not exclude older, married members, these individuals are often too busy to commit to regular attendance. Thus, choir singing remains primarily a youthful activity. Many choirs have also recorded albums, which now pervade the Hutterite landscape. These reasons partially explain why Hutterites sing choral music, but what might justify their inclusion in a conference devoted to traditional polyphony? I earlier claimed that the individual Hutterite is socialized well to be a potential homo polyphonicus, as Zemtsovsky describes (2002). Indeed, in my excursions among Hutterite friends, music often comes up and individuals frequently extemporize their own harmonies to familiar and less-familiar melodies. Like the homo polyphonicus, harmonizing comes naturally to these individuals due to long experience (many of them are young people, and would have grown up with choirs, unlike their parents). But more importantly, the choral experience resonates in powerful metaphorical and actual ways with Hutterite religious doctrine and daily practice, making Hutterites natural group singers. First of all, the choir metaphorically enacts a powerful religious ideal (in Persian semiotic terms, this metaphorical resemblance indicates an iconic relationship between the choir and the religious ideal: one of similarity). The choir, particularly in performance, is subject to the will and direction of the conductor. In religious life, the Anabaptist concept of Gelassenheit commands surrender to divine will and the setting aside of personal agency; submission before God is another possible translation. This is why adult baptism is prized so among Hutterites and other Anabaptists: it symbolizes salvation as a conscious decision, a deliberate surrender of personal will to the dictates of the community, unlike infant baptism which involves no choice on the part of the baptized. Singing in the choir enacts Gelassenheit, with the director as a metaphorical representation of God. But it also metaphorically summons the image of the ideal Hutterite communal society, wherein each person has a humble but important role to play and success requires the committed participation of all. The choir derives its strength from a combination of individual voices, but loses effectiveness when singers are not unified enough, prioritizing self-aggrandizement over vocal blend. Conversations with Hutterite choir directors reinforce the metaphorical power of the choir-as-community. Some of my research participants go even further, noting that singing in a choir is itself an act of unity, and thus has the ability to model directly the kind of skills needed for successful participation as a church member (this was a main theme in my thesis – Knight, 2011). Further, performing with a choir is similar enough to other Hutterite experiences that it can reawaken emotions associated with these other experiences. In addition to iconic signs (of resemblance), Charles Sanders Peirce describes indexical signs of association. Thomas Turino applies this concept to music, explaining how musical pieces or types of musical experiences can have strong emotional associations due to individual memories (Turino, 1999). Singing a particular piece of music in a choir, then, could bring an onrush of emotions relating to romance, for example, given hours of rehearsing that musical piece while peeking at a special someone five seats down the row. It could also inspire feelings of joy, boredom, ecstasy, disappointment, or any number of other emotions dependent on past experience. For a Hutterite, additionally, the (iconic) resemblance that singing in Hutterite Choral Singing on the Prairies: Sounds of Salvation 349 a choir shares with another common group activity _ congregational singing _ allows it to summon the (indexically) associated emotions of the worship service. Thus, a choral performance can lead to reflections on the sacred or even to a consideration of the stories of martyrdom in the Väterlieder, regardless of to what the actual text sung in the moment refers. Further, all of the emotions connected with any past performance of the same piece, or any past experience in some way connected to the piece, can potentially be triggered by its performance (or rehearsal). Musical activity is thus filled with the potential for meaning in the minds of its performers and audiences. Conclusion Hutterite choral singing is not in itself sonically unique or “ancient”, although it is widespread enough to qualify as a new tradition “of the folk”, instituted at the grassroots level without institutional prompting. However, the Hutterite habitus and social setting, including religious doctrines, socialization, and everyday practices, give them a natural (if not quite genetic) predisposition for concerted musical effort that is rarely found to this degree in North America. For Hutterites, as for many in “traditional” societies, music requires participation, not passive involvement as an audience member. Musical polyphony is thus likely to reinforce their communal social ideal for decades to come. References Berg, Wesley. (1985). From Russia with Music. Winnipeg: Hyperion Press. Berg, Wesley. (1996). “Hymns of the Old Colony Mennonites and the Old Way of Singing”. In: The Musical Quarterly 80, No. 1:77-117. Holzach, Michael. (1993). The Forgotten People: A Year Among the Hutterites. Translated from German by Stephen Lhotzky. Sioux Falls, SD: Ex Machina Publishing Co. Hutterian Brethren (editor). (2003). The Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren. Vol.I. Translated from German by the Hutterian Brethren. Elie, MB: Hutterian Education Committee. Janzen, Rod and Stanton, Max. (2010). The Hutterites in North America. Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Knight, Matthew. (2011). “When My Kids Get to Heaven, they’re Gonna Know How to Sing”. Performing Salvation in Hutterite Choirs. MA Thesis, University of Alberta. Jordania, Joseph. (2011). Why Do People Sing? Music in Human Evolution. Tbilisi: Logos. Kraybill, Donald and Desportes Bowman, Carl. (2001). On the Backroad to Heaven: Old Order Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 350 Matthew Knight Martens, Helen. (2002). Hutterite Songs. Kitchener/Scottdale: Pandora Press/Herald Press. Temperley, Nicholas. (1981). “The Old Way of Singing: Its Origins and Development”. In: Journal of the American Musicological Society 34, No. 3:511-544. Turino, Thomas. (1999). “Signs of Imagination, Identity, and Experience: A Peircian Semiotic Theory for Music”. In: Ethnomusicology 43, No. 2: 221-255. Zemtsovsky, Izaly. (2002). “Polyphony as a Way of Creating and Thinking: the Musical Identity of Homo Polyphonicus”. In: The First International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 45-53. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. 351 viqtoria samsonaZe (saqarTvelo) mesxuri musikaluri dialeqtis Janruli Taviseburebani mravalferovani da mdidari qarTuli musikaluri folkloris erT-erTi ganStoeba mesxuri dialeqtia, romelmac Cveni qveynis istoriis uZvelesi periodis amsaxveli msoflmxedvelobisa da SemoqmedebiTi azrovnebis kvali Semogvinaxa; erTian qarTul konteqstSi, am kuTxis musikalurma Semoqmedebam gamokveTili, TviTmyofadi da damoukidebeli adgili daimkvidra. Tumca xalxuri musikis dRevandel saSemsruleblo xelovnebaSi msmeneli iSviaTad Tu Sexvdeba mesxur nimuSebs. am dialeqtisadmi interesis gaRviveba CvenSi swored nimuSebis Sesrulebis iSviaTobam da, agreTve, manamde cnobili saeqspedicio Tu samecniero masalebis simwirem ganapiroba. Tavdapirveli biZgi axalcixis raionSi sakuTari ZalebiT mowyobilma studenturma eqspediciam mogvca, xolo Semdgomi eqspediciebis axalma masalebma da Zveli, gamouqveynebeli audio masalebis gacnoba-damuSavebam ufro Rrma mecnieruli Seswavlis saSualeba gagviCina da cnobili nimuSebis gansxvavebuli variantebisa an sulac ucnobi magaliTebis samzeoze gamotanis survili aRgviZra. viziarebT ra winamorbed mecnierul mosazrebebs, gvsurs sakuTari dakvirvebis Sedegad, am kuTxis kvlevis axali mimarTulebebi davsaxoT. manamde ki neba gviboZeT, mesxeTis eTnomusikologiuri kvlevis mcire eqskursi SemogTavazoT, romelic gasuli saukunis 30-iani wlebidan dawyebul periods moicavs. 1930 wels Catarebul pirvel musikalur eqspedicias kompozitori Salva mSveliZe xelmZRvanelobda. eqspediciis monawileTa cnobebiT, mesxebs nacionaluri musikis tradiciebis daviwyebis gamo, naklebad axsovdaT qarTuli simRerebi da uZneldebodaT maTi Sesruleba. 1949 wels eqspedicia moewyo profesor grigol CxikvaZis xelmZRvanelobiT. mopovebuli saeqspedicio masalidan eqvsi Zveli mesxuri simRera iqna notebze gadatanili da krebulSi Setanili (CxikvaZe, 1960: 425436). Cveni saukunis 60-ani wlebidan, eTnomusikolog da kompozitor valerian maRraZis dauRalavi mecadineobisa da mravalricxovani eqspediciis Sedegad, mesxuri simRerebis mravali nimuSi dafiqsirda (maRraZe, 1987). masTan erTad moRvaweobda da mesxuri simRerebis gadarCenisaTvis iRvwoda musikosi SoTa alTunaSvilic. unda aRiniSnos, rom orive maTgani adgilobrivi mkvidri gaxldaT da saeqpedicio CanawerebTan erTad, maT erTxmiani mesxuri nimuSebis gamravalxmianebuli versiebi dautoves momdevno Taobebs, rasac aqtiurad iyeneben kidec mesxuri simRerebis dRevandeli Semsruleblebi. mas Semdeg, am kuTxeSi ramdenime lokaluri eqspedicia Catarda momdevno Taobis qarTveli eTnomusikologebis mier, romelTa Soris arian: ioseb Jordania, natalia zumbaZe, TinaTin Jvania, qeTevan maTiaSvili, baia JuJunaZe, am moxsenebis avtori da sxvani. 352 viqtoria samsonaZe maS, ra dagvitova dReisaTvis saukuneebSi Rrma fesvebiT gamdgarma mesxeTis musikalurma tradiciam?! es danatovari SeiZleba, warsulis nangrevebs SevadaroT, romlidanac mxolod fragmentebia SemorCenili, isic imdenad transformirebuli, rom maTSi „qarTuli kvalis“ danaxva did dakvirvebas moiTxovs. miT ufro rTulia am pirobebSi sakuTriv mesxuri niSan-Tvisebebis gamovlena. amdenad, arsebuli masalidan Cven zogadqarTuli elementebis gamokveTas vcdilobT, rac eTnografiasTan, upiratesad, Zvel ritualebTan kavSiriT, musikalurad ki – sxva dialeqtebTan Sedarebisa da saerTo maxasiaTeblebis dadgenis gziT SeiZleba ganvaxorcieloT. vfiqrobT, amjerad upriani iqneba im sakiTxebze SevCerdeT, romlebic qarTuli folkloris erTian konteqstSi yvelaze naTlad gamokveTs mesxeTis musikalur Semoqmedebas. Cveni TvalTaxedviT, RerZiseul funqcias am SemTxvevaSi Janris sakiTxi atarebs, romelic eTnokulturul TaviseburebebTan, sawesCveulebo ritualebTan mWidro kavSirs gulisxmobs. Janrulad mesxuri musika sakmaod mravalferovania: Sromis, saqorwilo, saferxulo, sufruli, sadidebeli, kalendaruli, akvnis, samkurnalo, amindis marTvis, saZeobo, ritualuri, epikuri, baladuri (sagmiro, saistorio), samgloviaro (datireba, mosagonari), lirikul-satrfialo da sxva. aqve vityviT, rom zogierTi Janris saxeli mosaxleobaSi xSirad simReris saxelwodebadac ixmareba, magaliTad guTnuri, kalouri, sufruli, mwyemsuri da a.S. v. maRraZe raodenobrivad, srulyofilebiTa da mkafiod gamoxatuli erovnuli niSniT oTx Janrs gamoyofs: sufruls, saqorwilos, saferxulos da Sromis simRerebs (maRraZe, 1987: 13). zogierTi magaliTi erTi Janris farglebSi Tavsdeba, Tumca, xSirad, erTi da igive nimuSi, SesaZloa, or an Tundac sam Janrs erTdroulad mivakuTvnoT _ istoriuli wanamZRvrebis, yofaSi misi adgilis, sityvieri da musikaluri Sinaarsisa da Sesrulebis formis gaTvaliswinebiT. magaliTad, simRera win sufra (audiomag. 1) yvela CamoTvlili parametriT sufruli Janris nimuSia, xolo oqromWedelo (audiomag. 2), romelic „sagazafxulo ciklis“ erT-erTi mniSvnelovani nawilia, erTdroulad ramdenime Janris niSnebs atarebs: Tavisi funqciiTac da istoriuli warmomavlobiTac saritualo Janrisaa; teqstis SinaarsiT (samiwaTmoqmedo iaraRebis CamoTvla) Sromis Janrs exmianeba, xolo Sesrulebis formiTa da musikaluri SinaarsiT tipuri saferxulo simReraa. mecnierebi am nimuSs meliToneobis xanas ukavSireben da `uRrmesi arqaikis Semcvel movlenebTan kompleqsSi~ ganixilaven (soselia, 1972: 100), sadac mWedeli – oqromWedlad aris gandidebuli: am gansakuTrebuli statusis mqone pirovnebis naxelavi xom siuxvisa da baraqis sawindarad miiCneoda. mWedlobasTan dakavSirebuli Tematika saqarTvelos sxvadasxva kuTxis zepirsityvierebaSi, metwilad, legendebSi, mravlad gvxvdeba. Tumca musikaluri magaliTebidan igi mxolod gurul simRera mWedelosTan hpovebs Sinaarsobrivi warmomavlobis paralels, xolo musikaluri TvalsazrisiT, arqauli elementebis Semcvel sxvadasxva kuTxis nimuSebs SegviZlia SevadaroT: mTel saqarTveloSi farTod gavrcelebuli solistisa da gundis responsoruli Sesrulebis forma, ZiriTadi tonisaken melodiis daRmavali swrafva, minor- mesxuri musikaluri dialeqtis Janruli Taviseburebani 353 uli mixriloba, frazis bolos tonikuri bgeris xazgasma, samwiladi pulsacia rbili sinkopiT, viwro diapazoni – e. w. iavnanas tipis intonaciis Semcvel simReraTa ricxvs miakuTvnebs; amasTanave, mcire moculobis melodiuri frazis mravaljeradi wrebrunva agreTve arqauli wyobis, upirveles yovlisa, mTis kuTxeebis saferxulo simRerebTan aerTianebs. simRera xvna-Tesvis aucilebeli Tanamgzavric iyo. mesxeTSi Sromis simRerebi mxolod calfa (erTi kacis samReri) SesrulebiT aris SemorCenili: orovela (igive horovela), guTnuri, kalouri, urmuli. sainteresoa aRvniSnoT am jgufis, saxeldobr, mesxuri simRera jilRuri, romelic, guTnuris msgavsad, Sromis iaraRis saxelwodebidan momdinareobs. CamoTvlili terminebi simReris ama Tu im Janrze Tavadve migvaniSnebs. xSirad sawyisi frazis teqstTan erTad an mis gareSe nimuSis saTauradac moixsenieba. magaliTad, orovela – orSabaTobiT aSenda, horovela – qali tiroda qarTveli, orovela – qalo, Seni qalamani, urmuli – nikoram uTxra laRasa, guTnuri – guTano, Seni Wirime, kalouri – orovel, modi kalosa da a.S. es simRerebi mravalnairi variantiTa da agreTve nairgvari, upiratesad, uZvelesi Sinaarsis teqstebiT imRereba. musikalurad mesxuri Sromis simRerebis melodiebi melizmuri `samkaulebiT~, improvizaciulobiT, Tavisufali metr-ritmiT, didi diapazoniT, frazis bolos gagrZelebuli sayrdeni bgeriTa da sxva niSnebiT amave Janris qarTl-kaxur variantebs emsgavseba, Tumca, ganviTarebulobis TvalsazrisiT, CamorCeba maT (audiomag. 3). zogierTi ki aRmosavleTis mTis simRerebis – mTiblurebis analogiurad, datirebas mogvagonebs (audiomag. 4). qarTul mosaxleobaSi urTierTdaxmarebis koleqtiuri formebi ZvelTaganve wesad iyo miRebuli. amasTan dakavSirebiT, mravali ritualic tardeboda. am procesis amsaxveli simRerebic mravlad aris SemorCenili sxvadasxva kuTxeSi, xolo oTxxmiani aWaruli da guruli nadurebi xom qarTuli polifoniis mwvervalebad aris aRiarebuli. mesxeTSi koleqtiuri Sromis simRerebi, samwuxarod, ar fiqsirdeba; Tumca, maTi arseboba unda vivaraudoT, radgan jgufuri Sromis nairgvar process eTnografiuli wyaroebi mravlad gvidasturebs. magaliTad, didi guTnis asamuSaveblad sagangebo koleqtiur amxanagobas mesxeTSi modgami ewodeboda. igi metad sainteresod Sekrul mtkice organizms warmoadgenda, romelic jgufis wevrebis mier individualurad Setanili wvlilis Sesabamisi anazRaurebis garda, gaWirvebul ojaxebs usasyidlod exmareboda, anu Tanamedrove eniT Tu vityviT, qvelmoqmedebas eweoda. Semdegi aseve fuZiseuli Janri sufris tradicias ukavSirdeba. iseve, rogorc Tanamedrove saqarTveloSi aRiqmeba sufra da Rvino erTmaneTisagan ganuyoflad, Zveladac sufris tradiciebi mevenaxeobasTan mWidro kavSiris gareSe warmoudgeneli iyo. mesxeTis eTnografiaSi dasturdeba qarTuli vazis uZvelesi jiSebis arseboba. dRemde Semonaxulia venaxebis unikaluri terasuli ganaSenianebis kvali da kldeSi nakveTi saTavsoebi. Cvenamde moRweuli mesxuri musikaluri folkloris didi nawili swored saweso sufrulebia, romlebic imis mixedviT jgufdeba, Tu lxinis ra momentSi, romel etapze unda Sesruldes: lxinis dasawyisSi – e. w. `samxiarulo simRerebi“, Semdeg 354 viqtoria samsonaZe _ sufris gaxsnis simRerebi, Sua lxinSi _ sakuTriv sufrulebi da bolos _ SemoZaxilebi. am Janris simRerebis musikaluri analizi sxva dialeqtebis masalasTan mraval paralels avlens, razec, am kuTxis kvlevisas, faqtobrivad, yvela avtori migviTiTebs, xolo azris naTelsayofad zogierTi simReris saxelwodebac ki ikmarebda: mravalJamieri, samadlobeli, maspinZelsa mxiarulsa, wasvla sjobs warmavalisa, SemoZaxili. Tumca, aRsaniSnavia sakuTriv mesxuri nimuSebic: geguTisa mindorzeda, mtredma Tavis simarTliTa (audiomag. 5), win sufra da a.S, romlebic, agreTve, „saerTo qarTul Zirze yofila warmoqmnili da zogadqarTul kanon-wesebze aris dafuZnebuli“ (maRraZe, 1987: 88). amasTanave, zogierTi nimuSis warmomavlobas Soreul warsulsac ukavSireben. magaliTad, am kuTxis mkvidri, istorikosi SoTa lomsaZe simReras geguTisa mindorzeda Cv.w.-is araugvianes VIII-IX saukuneebamdel periods miakuTvnebs, xolo mtredma Tavis simarTliTas adreqristianul sawyisebs ukavSirebs (lomsaZe, 1997: 128). sufris adaT-wesebTan gadajaWvulia qorwilis musikaluri tradiciebic, radgan, rogorc mogexsenebaT, qarTul sinamdvileSi tradiciuli qorwili sufris gareSe warmoudgenelia. Sesabamisad, sufruli Janris faqtobrivad yvela nimuSi, imavdroulad, saqorwilo Janris Semadgeneli nawilia. magram mesxeTis musikalur dialeqtSi gagvaCnia agreTve sagangebod qorwilis sufrasTan Sesasrulebeli simRerebi. zemoT CamoTvlili simRerebis garda, qorwilis sufraze ityodnen agreTve: oTxi wyaro dis, gana CvengniTa, madlobeli varT, mimino myavda, sxvisi gvegona (meore SemTxvevaSi – Cveni gvegona), mivel da vnaxe, harli harale, romlebic, musikaluri masalis TvalsazrisiT, erTi simReris muxlebad (kupletebad) SeiZleba warmovidginoT, TiToeuli maTgani sufris msvlelobis sxvadasxva momentSi Sesabamisi sadRegrZelos kvalad da tradiciuli wesebis dacviT sruldeboda. garda amisa, mogvepoveba mayrulis jgufis simRerebi: wadi, RmerTma gagimarjos, romelic patarZlis gastumrebis dros imRereboda; movdivarT, mogvixaria – nefis saxlSi mimaval gzaze samReri, nefeo, Sensa gvirgvinsa, mindor-mindor da a.S., romlebic SeuRlebis ritualis aseve sxvadasxva moments ukavSirdeba. gansakuTrebuli xalisis Semomtani saqorwilo ceremonialSi iyo munjuri cekva, igive atosa (Turquli saxelwodebiT – laloini), romelic patarZlis gastumrebis dros sruldeboda. procesis monawileni valdebulni arian meTauris, anu winamZRolis brZanebiT nairgvari sasacilo moqmedeba Seasrulon; vinc ar daemorCileba, mas maTraxi, sxvadasxva SemTxvevaSi _ qamari, laxti an joxi xvdeba. aris aseve wels zemoT gaSiSvlebis da bavSvebis zurgze akidebis elementebic. es saxaliso cekva-TamaSi, romelSic mxolod mamakacebi monawileobdnen, Tavisi Sesrulebis wesiT waagavs raWul winamZRolas (arayiSvili, 1950), agreTve aWarul cekva-TamaSs bari, amave kuTxis ohoi nanos (TaTaraZe, 2010: 170) da lazur vahahai nanos, dasaxelebuli cekvebi ki, Tavis mxriv, ganayofierebis kultTan dakavSirebul uZveles svanur ritualur qmedebebTan _ melia telefiasa da adrekilasTan badebs asociacias. munjuri cekva instrumentuli TanxlebiT aris moRweuli, bolo dros mesxeTSi gavrcelebuli zurnis, dudukisa da dolis, zogierTi cnobiT _ gudastvirisa da mesxuri musikaluri dialeqtis Janruli Taviseburebani 355 dairis TanxlebiT. saqorwilo Janris friad saintereso magaliTs warmoadgens Svidi wyvili ferxuli, romelic, miuxedavad imisa, rom dRes instrumentuli TanxlebiT sruldeba, saxelwodebidan gamomdinare, aseve folkloruli Semoqmedebis siRrmiseul Zirebze migvaniSnebs: Tavad ferxuli, rogorc Janri, Tavisi warmoSobiTa da istoriiiT sami plastis _ moZraobis, musikisa da sityvis _ sinkretul erTobliobas, anu simRerisTvis fexis ayolebas gulisxmobs. Svidi wyvili ferxuli imiTac aris saintereso, rom saritualo elementebiT aris gajerebuli da ricxobrivi simbolikiT xasiaTdeba: nefe-patarZlis CaTvliT, ferxulSi Svidi bedgamoucvleli ojaxuri wyvili ebmeba. Svidjer wris Semovlis Semdgom ferxuli gaixsneba da moqmedeba saerTo cekva-TamaSSi gadadis, sadac qorwilis sxva monawileebic CaerTvebian. sxvadasxva monacemiT, es ferxuli patarZlis gastumrebis momentSi, vaJiseul saxlSi Seyvanis dros an qorwilis damTavrebisas sruldeboda. mesxur folklorSi ricxvebisadmi gansakuTrebuli damokidebuleba maTs sakralur datvirTvaze unda migvaniSnebdes. es mJRavndeba rogorc ritualebSi, aseve simRerebis teqstebsa da nimuSebis saxelwodebebSi. magaliTad: sufruli simRerebis samxanad _ sampirulad _ Sesruleba, samsarTuliani ferxuli samyrelo, sufruli oTxi wyaro dis, Svidi wyvili ferxuli da a.S. davubrundeT saferxulo Janrs, romelic Soreuli kulturuli msoflmxedvelobis informaciis matarebelia, rogorc wesi, saritualo sawyisebTan kavSirs TvalnaTliv amJRavnebs. am mxriv Sromisa da saqorwilo ferxulebis garda, mesxur musikalur dialeqtSi sxva magaliTebic mravlad mogvepoveba. maT Soris aris iseTi nimuSebic, romlebSic Sesrulebis wesis an xasiaTis mimaniSnebeli terminebia: Zimuri (audiomag. 7), anu mZimuri, cqvituri (swrafad, cqvitad Sesruleba), asayoliebeli (savaraudoa, igulisxmebodes simRerisTvis fexiT ayoleba). aris SemTxvevebi, rodesac es terminebi nimuSis saxelwodebas Seesabameba. saferxulo simRerebis umetesi nawili didebis SesavliT iwyeba, romelsac Tavad saferxulo nawili mohyveba. cocxali SesrulebiT Cvenamde moRweuli saritualo simRerebidan Zalze mniSvnelovani nimuSebia: saZeobo saferxulo simRera mze Sina (audiomag. 8), muxis kultis amsaxveli uZvelesi saritualo simRera mamli muxasa (audiomag. 9), samsarTuliani saferxulo simRera samyrelo (audiomag. 10), varZioba-Ziobasa, aRdgomis ritualTan dakavSirebuli simRera Wona (audiomag. 11) da a.S. Soreuli warmomavlobis sawyisebs emyareba agreTve amindis marTvis rituali, romelic sxvadasxva saxelwodebiT mraval kuTxeSi aris gavrcelebuli: elioba, lazaroba, gonjaoba. am ritualis ganuyofeli komponenti saferxulo wyobis Sesabamisi simReraa. mesxeTSi amindis marTvasTan dakavSirebuli Zalian saintereso legendebisa da Tqmulebebis garda, bolo dromde Tavad ritualic fiqsirdeba, romelsac didebaze davlas uwodeben. rac CvenTvis gansakuTrebiT sagulisxmoa, am ritualis dros simRera lazarec (audiomag. 12) sruldeboda, romlis musikaluri ena, zemoT CamoTvlili simRerebis msgavsad, wminda qarTulia. mesxeTSi kardakar siaruli Wonazec icodnen, romlis sasimRero nimuSebis ramdenime variantia SemorCenili. saferxulo wyobis tipuri nimuSia Savlego. vaJkacobis, gautexlobis, simtkici- 356 viqtoria samsonaZe sa da patriotizmis simbolod qceuli qarTveli vaJkaci Savlegi sxvadasxva kuTxis (qarTli, kaxeTi, mesxeTi, lazeTi) simReris gmirad aris qceuli. sxva dialeqtebTan kavSiriT xasiaTdeba agreTve saferxulo simRera avTandil gadinadira (audiomag. 13), romlis mesxuri magaliTebi mravalferovani musikaluri variantebiT warmogvidgeba. am saferxulo simReris warmoSoba XII s-is msoflio mniSvnelobis qarTveli mwerlis, SoTa rusTavelis poemis _ vefxistyaosnis _ mTavar gmirs, avTandils ukavSirdeba. qarTuli mwerlobis am didebuli Zeglis, Cveni qveynis kulturuli memkvidreobis erT-erTi savizito baraTis avtoris _ SoTa rusTavelis warmomavlobas swored mesxeTs ukavSireben. amitom arc aris gasakviri, saeqspedicio audio CanawerebSi dafiqsirebuli xalxuri mTqmelebis mier vefxistyaosnidan didi moculobis nawyvetebis zepirad Txrobis an damRerebis faqtebi. unda aRiniSnos, rom cocxali Sesrulebis dros, mesxeTSi iSviaTad Tu SexvdebiT iseT mTqmels, romelic saleqso teqsts mSralad gadmogvcems: is, rogorc wesi, saTqmels daamRerebs. sityvisa da musikis aseTi ganuyofloba kidev erTxel gvidasturebs, Tu raoden Zlieria xalxur cnobierebaSi Rrma fesvebis mqone sinkretuli azrovnebis kodi. epikuri Janris nimuSebi mesxur dialeqtSi mravlad mogvepoveba: es aris simRerebi SoTa rusTavelze, Tamar mefeze, erekle mefeze, sxvadasxva gmirze an mSobliur kuTxeze da a.S., xolo baladuri tipis nimuSebi raime konkretul sagmiro an istoriul ambavs mogviTxrobs. musikaluri TvalsazrisiT, epikuri da baladuri simRerebi saerTo niSan-TvisebebiT xasiaTdeba: TiToeuli nimuSi mravaljer gamnmeorebad fuZe intonacias eyrdnoba, romelic sityvier teqsts misdevs. amdenad, Taviseburi mravalrgoliani jaWvuri forma iqmneba, romelic droSi gaSlil mRera-Tqmas warmoadgens. rogorc cnobilia, folkloruli Semoqmedebis uZveles Janrebad bavSvis sawolTan Sesasrulebeli akvnis nanebi da infeqciuri daavadebebis dros samReri iavnanebia miCneuli. mesxur masalebSi am orive Janris nimuSebi gvxvdeba, maT Soris, dasaZineblad gankuTvnili nanebis nairgvari variantic mogvepoveba _ iqneba es musikaluri masala Tu sityvieri teqstis Canawerebi (audiomag. 14). mesxuri akvnis nanebi da iavnanebi naTeli magaliTia imisa, Tu raoden sicocxlisunariania qarTuli musikaluri geni, romelic Tundac erT patara „intonaciur birTvSi“ moTavsebuli, aTaswleulebs gaivlis da sakuTari energiiT uamrav simReras, Janrsa da dialeqts kvebavs. iavnanas melodia mesxur dialeqtSi ara mxolod amave Janris nimuSebSi iCens Tavs, aramed sxva Janrebis intonaciuri sivrcis wamyvan elementad, ase vTqvaT, „saSen masaladac“ gvevlineba, romlis erT-erT magaliTze, oqromWedelosTan mimarTebaSi zemoT gvqonda saubari. mesxuri musikis melodiur-intonaciuri sfero, rogorc Cans, Zalze saintereso informaciiis matarebelia da am sakiTxis siRrmiseuli kvleva, mraval sagulisxmo aspeqts wamoswevs zogadqarTuli musikaluri azrovnebis istoriuli etapebis dadgenaSi. am kuTxis simRerebis melodiebi garkveul intonaciur formulebad warmogvidgebian, romlebic TiTqos ifanteba sxva dialeqtebis (svanur, aWarul, qarTlkaxur, aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mTis) martivi da rTuli aRnagobis musikalur qso- mesxuri musikaluri dialeqtis Janruli Taviseburebani 357 vilSi (maRraZe, 1987: 70-76; WoxoneliZe, 1978: 33; garayaniZe, 1990: 83-87). mesxeTis istoriuli movlenebis gaTvaliswinebiT SeiZleba vivaraudod, rom garkveul etapze arsebuli qarTuli musikaluri azrovnebis saerTo principebi sxvadasxva kuTxeSi Taviseburad ganviTarda, mesxeTSi ki im nimuSebSi „dakonservda“, romlebmac „qarTuli kvali Semogvinaxes“. am kuTxis melodikaSi, iseve rogorc sakadanso brunvebSi, kilour wyobasa da sxva musikalur kanonzomierebebSi, daviwyebuli mravalxmianobis anareklic SeiZleba amovikiTxoT. qarTul sasimRero folklorSi ki, ganviTarebis donis gansazRvrisas, xmebis raodenobas gansakuTrebuli mniSvneloba eniWeba (garayaniZe, 1990: 83). amitom, gasuli saukunis 60-ani wlebidan moyolebuli, valerian maRraZe saeqspedicio muSaobis dros gulmodgined eZebda xangadasul moxucebs, romlebsac jer kidev axsovdaT mesxeTSi mravalxmiani Sesrulebis tradicia. sabednierod, man miagno aseT xalxs _ 62–103 wlamde asakis moxucebs, magnitofirze daafiqsira maTi saubrebi da xmebSi namReri (maRraZe, 1987: 83). am mamuliSviluri RvawliT mecnierma kidev erTi dasayrdeni dagvitova mesxuri simReris mravalxmianobis aRdgenis saqmeSi. sakravebidan mesxeTSi gavrcelebulia stviri, salamuri, gudastviri (Tulumi), kavali, zurna, duduki, daira, doli (dauli), sazi, Tari. bolo periodSi Semovida saqarTveloSi sayovelTaod gavrcelebuli garmoni da Tanamedrove eleqtronuli instrumentebi. maSasadame, mesxuri musikaluri dialeqti qarTuli musikaluri folkloris erT-erT organul ganStoebas warmoadgens, romelmac ganumeorebeli xibliT, sakuTriv misTvis damaxasiaTebeli niSan-TvisebebiTa da gansakuTrebuli roliT Rirseuli adgili daimkvidra Cveni eris TviTmyofad kulturaSi. damowmebuli literatura arayiSvili, dimitri. (1950). raWuli xalxuri simRerebi. Tbilisi: xelovneba. garayaniZe, ediSer. (1990). qarTuli musikaluri dialeqtebi da maTi urTierToba. Tbilisi: sakandidato disertacia. xelnaweris uflebiT. TaTaraZe, avTandil. (2010). qarTuli xalxuri cekva. Tbilisi: saqarTvelos folkloris saxelmwifo centri. lomsaZe, SoTa. (1997). mesxebi 1. Tbilisi: farnavazi. makalaTia, sergi. (1938). mesxeT-javaxeTi. (istoriul-eTnografiuli narkvevi). Tbilisi: federaciis gamomcemloba da stamba. maRraZe valerian. (1987). qarTuli (mesxuri) xalxuri simRerebi. Tbilisi: xelovneba. 358 viqtoria samsonaZe soselia, l. (1972). oqromWedlobis SeswavlisaTvis mesxeTSi. krebulSi: masalebi mesxeT-javaxeTis eTnografiuli SeswavlisaTvis. Tbilisi. mecniereba. CxikvaZe, grogol. (1960). qarTuli xalxuri simRerebi, sanoto krebuli, 1. Tbilisi: sabWoTa saqarTvelo. WoxoneliZe, kukuri. (1978). mesxeT-javaxeTis musikaluri folklori. Tbilisi: samecniero naSromi. xelnaweris uflebiT. audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. win sufra. asr. maro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi. audiomagaliTi 2. oqromWedelo. asr. maro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi. audiomagaliTi 3. orovela-guTnuri (xarma Tqva pirma naTelman). Semsrulebeli ucnobia. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTi 4. sanTlis guTans avaSeneb. Semsrulebeli ucnobia. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTi 5. mtredma Tavis siamiTa. Semsrulebeli arCil vebsaZe, q. axalqalaqi. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTi 6. oTxi wyaro dis. asr.Mmaro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi. audiomagaliTi 7. Zimuri. asr. maro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi audiomagaliTi 8. mze Sina. Semsrulebeli ucnobia. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTi 9. mamli muxasa. Semsrulebeli ucnobia. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTi 10.Lsamyrelo. asr. ansambli ,,mesxeTi~. xelmZRv. zaza TamaraSvili. audiomagaliTi 11. Wona. Semsrulebeli ucnobia. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. mesxuri musikaluri dialeqtis Janruli Taviseburebani 359 audiomagaliTi 12. lazare. asr. maro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999 w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi. audiomagaliTi 13. avTandil gadinadira. asr. ansambli ,,mesxeTi~. xelmZRv. zaza TamaraSvili. audiomagaliTi 14. iavnana. asr. maro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi. 360 VICTORIA SAMSONADZE (GEORGIA) GENRE PECULIARITIES OF THE MESKHETIAN MUSICAL DIALECT One of the branches of the multifarious and rich Georgian musical folklore is the Meskhetian dialect. Meskheti is the southern part of East Georgia. It has preserved traces of the creative thinking of the most ancient period in our country’s history. Despite the prominence that this province occupied in Georgia during the Georgian “Golden Age” (10th to 12th centuries), in the modern performing art of folk music listeners come across Meskhetian specimens very rarely. It was the rare performance of these specimens and the paucity of scholarly material in wellknown fieldworks that aroused my interest in this dialect. The first stimulus was the fieldwork to Akhaltsikhe organized by us, the students; and the new material obtained by the resulting fieldworks and the study and analysis of the old, unpublished sound recordings gave me grounds to carry out more thorough research. Therefore it is my wish to acquaint the public with the different versions of the already well-known specimens and completely unknown ones. Sharing the opinions of my predecessors I would like to make new observations and map out new directions in the study of this province. Until then allow me to present a short excursion into the ethnomusicological research on Meskheti, which was conducted over a period in the 1930s. The first fieldwork in the year 1930 was headed by the composer Shalva Mshvelidze. According to information provided by the members of the team, due to the fact that the Meskhetians had forgotten the national musical traditions, they did not remember Georgian songs well and found it difficult to perform them. The head of the 1949 fieldwork team was Grigol Chkhikvadze, an ethnomusicologist. Of the obtained fieldwork material six old Meskhetian songs were put down in musical notation and put together in a collection – all of them monophonic (Ckhkikvadze, 1960: 426-436). Beginning from the 1960s many specimens of Meskhetian songs were found thanks to numerous fieldworks and the devoted and selfless work of the ethnomusicologist and composer Valerian Maghradze (Maghradze, 1987). Shota Altunashvili, a musician of local origins, supported Maghradze in his bid to save Meskhetian songs. It should be noted that both of them came from Meskheti and together with the fieldwork journals they left many songs (turned later into polyphonic versions by them) to future generations. These songs are used widely by modern performers of Meskhetian songs. Subsequently some local fieldworks were organized to this province by the Georgian ethnomusicologists of the following generation, among them there being: Joseph Jordania, Natalia Zumbadze, Tinatin Zhvania, Ketevan Matiashvili, Baia Zhuzhunadze, the author of this paper, and many others. So what did the Meskhetian musical tradition, whose roots reach deep into history, tell us? They can be compared with the ruins of the past, of which only some fragments have survived, and the surviving fragments are transformed to such an extent that it needs keen observation to notice the Georgian trace in them. In such conditions it is more difficult to trace the Meskhetian traits per se. Therefore I am trying to bring forward the common Georgian elements present in the available 361 material; this may be achieved by determining the links with ethnography, mainly with the old rituals. Musically this may be achieved by comparing them with other musical dialects and indicating their common parameters. I think that this time it would be preferable to dwell on the issues which in the general context of folklore will strengthen the focus on the musical art of Meskheti. In my opinion in this case the fundamental function belongs to the genre which means close links with the ethnocultural peculiarities, devotional rituals. The genre music of Meskheti is quite multifarious, including labour, wedding, round-dance, drinking, exultation, calendar, cradle, curing, governing the weather, childbirth, ritual and epic songs, ballads (heroic, historical), dirges (mourning, remembering), also lyrical-love songs and others. It should be added that people often use the name of this or that genre as the name of the song, e.g. Gutnuri (ploughman’s song), Kalouri (sung on the thrashing floor), Supruli (drinking song), Mtsqemsuri (herdsman’s song) and so on. According to their number, importance and pronounced national features, Maghradze divides these genres into four main groups: drinking, wedding, round-dance and labour songs (Maghradze, 1987: 13). Some specimens can be combined into one genre, though one and the same specimen may belong to two or even to three genres simultaneously – taking into consideration their historical preconditions, their place in everyday life, musical and verbal content and the form of their performance. For instance the song Tsin supra (At the table, audio ex. 1), according to all the above parameters, is a specimen of the drinking song genre, but Okromchedelo (Goldsmith, audio ex. 2), which is one of the significant parts of the spring cycle, bears the features of several genres at the same time: both by its function and historical provenance it belongs to the devotional genre; the content of the text (enumeration of the agricultural instruments) links it to the agricultural genre, but by the form of its performance and musical content it is a typical round-dance song. Scholars associate this specimen with “the metal-working epoch” and study it “combined with the phenomena containing the deepest archaic elements” (Soselia, 1972: 100), where the blacksmith is exalted to the status of the goldsmith, as the works of this person, who had a special status, were considered to be a guarantee of abundance and wealth. The themes associated with blacksmithing and very often attested in the folklore, in the legends in certain provinces of Georgia, but of all the musical specimens only it does show parallels with the Gurian song Mtchedelo (Blacksmith) according to the provenance of its contents. But from a musical viewpoint it may be compared with the specimens of various provinces, containing archaic elements, features widespread in Georgia: the form of the responsive performance of the soloist and the choir, the downward gliding of the melody towards the basic tone, inclination to a minor key, emphasizing the tonic sound at the end of the phrase, triple pulsation with the gentle syncope and the narrow range assign it to the songs containing the so-called Iavnana (lullaby) – type intonation Apart from that the frequent rotation of the small-volume melodic phrase groups unites it together with the round-dances with the archaic mode, especially with those of the highland provinces. Singing was an indispensable companion of agricultural work. In Meskheti they have survived as songs sung by one soloist only: Orovela (or: Horovela, a ploughman’s or an bull-cart-driver’s song), Gutnuri (ploughman’s song), Kalouri (sung on the trashing-floor), Urmuli (a bull-cart-driver’s song); another song of this group, namely a Meskhetian song Jilghuri, which, like Gutnuri, also 362 Victoria Samsonadze stems from the name of an agricultural instrument, should be mentioned specially. The songs mentioned above themselves refer to their belonging to this or that genre. They are quite often used as the title of the specimen with the initial phrase or without it. For instance Orovela, orshabatobit ashenda (Was built on Mondays), Kali tiroda Kartveli (A Georgian woman was crying), Kalo, sheni kalamani (O, lady, your footwear), Urmuli (Bull-cart-driver’s song), Nikoram utkhra Laghasa (Nikora told Lagha – Nikora, Lagha are names of oxen), Gutnuri – Gutano, sheni chirime, Kalouri – Orovel, modi kalosa and so on. These songs are sung in different variants and also with different, mostly very ancient texts (see the APPENDIX). From the musical viewpoint the melodies of Meskhetian labour songs resemble the Kartl-Kakhetian variants of the same genre through their melismatic ornamentation, improvisation, the free meter-rhythm, the wide range, the basic sound, drawn out at the end of the phrase and other features, but they lag behind them in their development (audio ex. 3). Some are reminiscent of dirges analogous to the Mtibluri (Haymakers’ songs) of the highlands of eastern Georgia (audio ex. 4). Collective forms of mutual assistance have been popular with Georgians since the olden days. There were many rituals associated with this tradition. Many songs, indicating the process, have survived in different provinces of Georgia, and four-part Atcharian and Gurian Naduri (collective harvest songs) have been acknowledged to be the crown of Georgian polyphony. Unfortunately, labour songs are not attested in Meskheti, though it may be presumed that they may have been present in the past, because in ethnographic sources there are many references to various kinds of collective work. For instance in Meskheti special collective associations to work on a big plough were called modgami. It was a very interesting close-knit organism, which, apart from the remuneration given to the members of the group, according to their individual contribution, also helped the needy families free of charge, or to express it in a modern language they performed an act of charity. Another important genre is drinking songs, sung at supra (lit.: table cloth). The same as in today’s Georgia feasts and wine were indivisible. In the past, too, feasting traditions without close links with viticulture could not be imagined. In Meskheti the presence of the ancient species of Georgian grape-vine have been well attested. Even today there are remnants of unique vineyards arranged in terraces, and there are also utility chambers carved out of rock. The greater part of Meskhetian musical folklore that has survived until modern times, consists of drinking songs, which are divided into groups according to what time, or at which stage of the feast they are to be performed: at the beginning the so-called Samkhiarulo simgherebi (songs of merry-making), Supris gakhsnis simgherebi (songs opening the party), in the middle Suprulebi, drinking songs proper and finally Shemodzakhili (special songs at the end of the party). A musical analysis of the songs of this genre manifests numerous parallels with the material of other dialects, which, factually, are indicated by all the authors, when studying this province, and in order to make it more explicit to some amateurs, quoting the names of some songs would be sufficient, Mravalzhamier (Live a long life), Samadlobeli (thanking song), Maspidzelsa mkhiarulsa (Our merry host), Tsasvla sjobs dsarmavalisa (song of leaving guests), Shemodzakhili. Though there are some solely Meskhetian songs: Gegutisa mindorzeda (in the Geguti field), Mtredma tavis simartlita (The dove with its truth, audio ex. 5), Tsin supra (at the table) and so on, which also stemmed from the common Georgian root and are based on general Georgian laws and customs (Maghradze, 1987: 88). Herewith the provenance of some specimens is associated with the remote past. For instance Shota Lomsadze, Genre Peculiarities of Meskhetian Musical Dialect 363 a historian, a native of this province, dates the song Gegutisa minordzeda to a period not later than the eighth-ninth centuries A.D, and he associates the song Mtredma tavis simartlita with the early Christian period (Lomsadze, 1997: 128). The musical traditions of weddings are also linked with the customs and traditions of parties, for, as it is usually known, in Georgian reality, there is no wedding without a traditional feast. Accordingly, factually, each specimen of the feast genre is a constituent part of the wedding genre as well. But in the Meskhetian musical dialect there are songs sung at wedding feasts specially. Apart from the songs mentioned above, the songs Otkhi tsqaro dis (Four springs are flowing), Gana chvengnita (On our part), Madlobeli vart (We are grateful), Mimino mqavda (I had a hawk), Skhvisi gvegona (We thought it was someone else’s), another variant of Chveni gvegona (We thought it was ours), Mivel da vnakhe (I got there and saw), Harli harali (nonsense syllables), which according to their musical material can be considered to be the stanzas of a single song, each of them performed at different moments of the feast, following a suitable toast and observing traditional rules. Besides that there are some of the Maqruli (Best men’s song) group: Tsadi, ghmertma gagimarjos (Go, may God help you), which was sung when the bride was leaving her house, Movdivart, mogvikharia (We are coming and are very happy) – performed on the way to the bridegroom’s house, Nepeo, shensa gvirgvinsa (Bridegroom, may your crown…), Mindor-mindor (In the fields) and others, which are also connected with different moments of the wedding feast. The most cheerful at the wedding ceremony was Munjuri tsekva (Dumb dance), or Atosa (Turkish name Laloini), performed when seeing off the bride to the groom’s house. The participants in the process were to perform some funny actions as orderd by their leader; those who disobeyed were beaten with a whip, a belt or a stick. There are elements which demand men’s undressing down to the waist and carrying children on their backs. This entertaining merry-making, according to the manner of its performance is reminiscent of Ratchian Tsinamdzghola (Araqishvili, 1950) also the Atcharian dance Bari, Ohoi nano (Tataradze, 2010: 170), and the Lazian Vahahai nano, in their turn the above-mentioned dances bring up an association with the ancient Svanian rituals Melia telepia and Andrekila connected with the cult of fertility. Munjuri tsekva has come down to this day with a musical accompaniment, with the zurna (shawn, an oriental musical wind instrument), duduki (duduk, a sort of clarinet) that have become popular in Meskheti lately, and according to some information – with the bagpipe and the tambourine. A very interesting specimen of the wedding genre is Shvidi tsqvili perkhuli (Seven-pair round dance), which, though now performed with an instrumental accompaniment, proceeding from its name, also refers to the roots going deep into the people’s art: the round dance per se, as a genre, by its history and provenance indicates the syncretic unity of three layers: movement, music and word, i.e. moving the legs in keeping with the rhythm of the music. Shvidi tsqvili perkhuli is also interesting due to the fact that it is saturated with ritual elements and has digital symbolism: including the groom and the bride, seven family couples, devoted to their marriage, after making seven rounds of a circle, the round-dance “opens” and they all start dancing and merry-making joined by other participants in the wedding party. According to various data, this round dance was performed either at the time when the bride was leaving for her husband’s house, when entering his house or at the end of the wedding party. The Meskhetians’ special attitude to the figures must refer to their sacred significance. This is expressed both by the rituals and the texts of the songs and the names of the specimens. For instance 364 Victoria Samsonadze performing drinking songs in three parts, the three-tiered round-dance Samqrelo, the drinking songs Otkhi tsqaro dis, (Seven-couple round-dance) and so on. Let me return to the round-dance genre which bears information about the remote cultural world viewpoint; as a rule it clearly reveals its links with ritual sources. In this connection in the Meskhetian musical dialect there are many other specimens apart from the labour and wedding round-dances. Among them there are such specimens in which terms indicating the rule of their performing or their characteristic features are present: Dzimuri or Mdzimuri, (audio ex. 7) Tskvituri (to be performed at a fast tempo, lively), Asaqoliebeli (lit., to follow , supposedly it refers to the leg movement in keeping with the rhythm of the song). There are cases when these terms correspond to the name of the specimen. Most of the round-dance songs begin with the introduction of Dideba (Exultation), which is followed by the round-dance part. Of the surviving ritual songs that are performed live, the most significant are: the childbirth round-dance song Mze shina, (audio ex. 8) Mamli mukhasa, (audio ex. 9) the most ancient ritual song dedicated to the cult of the oak, the three-tiered round-dance song Samqrelo, (audio ex. 10) Vardzioba-dziobasa (Vardzia – famous medieval citadel carved in the mountain), and the song Tchona, (audio ex. 11) connected with the Easter ritual and many others. The ritual of ruling the weather is also based on sources dating back to the remote past.This ritual, having different names, is spread throughout many provinces: Elioba, Lazaroba, and Gonjaoba. An indispensable component of this ritual is a song corresponding to the round-dance mode. In Meskheti, apart from the interesting legends associated with ruling the weather, the ritual proper, which has come down to this day, is also attested and is called Didebaze davla (procession for the ritual glory). The most noteworthy for me is the fact that during this ritual the song Lazare (audio ex. 12) was also sung, its musical language, like those mentioned above, being purely Georgian. Meskhetians used to go from door to door at the Tchona ritual, whose several singing variants have survived. A typical specimen of the round-dance mode is Shavlego; Shavlego, a Georgian man of valour who has become a symbol of chivalry, courage, fortitude, is the hero of the song in different provinces of Georgia (Kartli, Kakheti, Meskheti, Lazeti). The round-dance song Avtandil gadinadira (Avtandil was hunting, audio ex. 13) also manifests affinity with other dialects and its Meskhetian specimens are represented in multifarious variants. The provenance of this round-dance is associated with the main character of the poem Vepkhistqaosani (A Knight in the Panther’s Skin), by Shota Rustaveli, a poet of world-wide significance. It is to Meskheti that Shota Rustaveli, the author of this brilliant monument of Georgian literature, one of the trademarks of the cultural heritage of our country, traces his roots back to. Therefore it is no wonder that the sound recordings of the fieldworks include folk-song performers’ reciting from memory or singing lengthy passages from Vepkhistqaosani. It should be noted that in Meskheti cases where folk performers would recite the text of the poem “drily” were very rare. As a rule they sing it. Such indivisibility is more evidence of how strong the deep-rooted code of syncretic thinking is in people’s mentality. There are many specimens of the epic genre in the Meskhetian dialect: there are the songs about Shota Rustaveli, Queen Tamar, King Erekle, various heroes of their native province and so on; as for the specimens of the ballad type, they are usually about concrete heroes or historical events. From the musical viewpoint the epic songs and ballads have common features: each specimen is Genre Peculiarities of Meskhetian Musical Dialect 365 based on the frequently reiterated root intonation, which follows the verbal text. Thus, a certain chain form consisting of many links, is created: it is singing and reciting spread out in time. As is well known the Akvnis nana (cradle lullabies) performed at the child’s bedside, and Iavnana (lullaby) sung during times of infectious diseases, are considered to be the oldest genres of people’s art. In the Meskhetian material the specimens of both genres are attested, among them being different variants of Nana (lullaby), meant to put the child to sleep. They concern both the recordings of the musical material and the verbal text (audio ex. 14). The Meskhetian songs akvnis nana and iavnana are vivid examples of how viable the Georgian musical gene is, even when present in a single, small intonational nucleus, and how, passing through the millennia, it nurtures numerous songs, genres and dialects by its energy. In the Meskhetian dialect the iavnana melody is distinguished not only in the specimens of the same genre, but it also functions as a leading element of the intonational space of other genres, if we may say so as a building material. One of its specimens I have touched upon above, in connection with the song Okromchedelo (goldsmith). The melodic-intonational sphere of the Meskhetian music, as it seems, bears very interesting information, and an in-depth study of this issue will bring forward many significant aspects in determining the historical stages of common Georgian musical thinking. The melodies of the songs of this province are presented in definite intonational formulae, which seem to be dispersed in the simple and complex musical texture of other dialects (Svanian, Acharian, Kartlian-Kakhetian, and of the east Georgian highlands) (Maghradze, 1987: 70-76; Chokhonelidze, 1978: 33; Garaqanidze, 1990: 83:87). Taking into account the historical events of Meskheti it may be conjectured that at a certain stage the general principles of Georgian musical thinking took an original path of evolution in different provinces of Georgia. But in Meskheti they were preserved in the specimens, which have retained the Georgian trace. We can even detect the reflection of forgotten polyphony in the melodics, cadential spinning and other musical elements. In the Georgian singing tradition, when defining the level of the development the number of voices plays a special role (Garaqanidze, 1990: 83). Therefore, beginning from the 1960s, during his fieldwork Valerian Maghradze was diligently looking for people, well advanced in years, who still remembered the multi-part singing traditions in Meskheti. Thankfully, he did find such people, from the ages of 62 to 103. He recorded their conversations and the multi-part performance of songs (Maghradze, 1987: 83). His patriotic deed has left us yet another basis for restoring Meskhetian polyphony. Of the musical instruments in Meskheti the most widespread are the fife, the pipe, the bag-pipes (tulumi), kavali, zurna (shawn, oriental wind musical instrument), duduki (duduk), the tambourine, the doli (the drum, dauli), the sazi, and the tari (oriental stringed instruments). Lately the accordion, popular in Georgia, and electronic instruments have been introduced. So the Meskhetian musical dialect is one of the organic branches of Georgian musical folklore, which has occupied a significant place in the original culture of our nation by its unique charm and its special characteristic features. 366 Victoria Samsonadze References Araqishvili, Dimitri. (1950). Rachuli khalkhuri simgherebi (Rachan Folk Songs). Tbilisi: Khelovneba. Chkhikvadze, Grigol. (1960). Kartuli khalkhuri simgherebi (Georgian Folk Songs). Collection of transcriptions, 1. Tbilisi: Sabchota sakartvelo. Chokhonelidze, Evsevi. (1978). Meskhet-Javakhetis musikaluri folklori (Musical Folklore of Meskhet-Javakheti). Tbilisi: scientific work, with the copyright on manuscript. Garaqanidze, Edisher. (1990). Kartuli musikaluri dialektebi da mati urtiertoba (Georgian Musical Dialects and their Relation). Tbilisi: Candidate’s dissertation, with the copyright on manuscript. Lomsadze, Shota. (1997). Meskhebi, 1 (The Meskhetians, 1). Tbilisi: Parnavazi. Maghradze, Valerian. 1987. Kartuli (Meskhuri) khalkhuri simgherebi (Georgian (Meskhetian) Folk Songs). Tbilisi: Khelovneba. Makalatia, Sergi. (1938). Meskhet-Javakheti/istoriul-etnograpiuli narkvevi (Meskhet-Javakheti/Historical-Ethnographic Essay).Tbilisi: Pederatsia publishing and typography. Soselia, L. (1972). “Okromchedlobis shestsavlisatvis meskhetshi” (“On the study of Goldsmithing in Meskheti”). In: Masalebi Meskhet-Javakhetis etnograpiuli shestsavlisatvis (Materials on Mesket-Javakhetian Ethnography). Tbilisi: Metsniereba. Tataradze, Avtandil. (2010). Kartuli khalkhuri tsekva (Georgian Traditional Dance). Tbilisi: State Folklore Centre of Georgia. Audio examples Audio example 1. Tsin supra. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. Audio example 2. Okromchedelo. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. Audio example 3. Orovela-gutnuri (kharma tkva pirma natelman). unknown performer, recorded in the 1950s1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 4. Santlis gutans avasheneb. unknown performer, recorded in the 1950s-1960s. V. Maghradze’s 367 Genre Peculiarities of Meskhetian Musical Dialect audio archive. Audio example 5. Mtredma tavis siamita. performer Archil Vebsadze, Akhalkalaki, , recorded in the 1950s1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 6. Otkhi tsqaro dis. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. Audio example 7. Dzimuri. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. Audio example 8. Mze shina. unknown performer, recorded in the 1950s-1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 9. Mamli mukhasa. unknown performer, recorded in the 1950s-1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 10. Samqrelo. ensemble “Meskheti”, directed by Zaza Tamarshvili. Audio example 11. Chona. unknown performer, recorded in the 1950s-1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 12. Lazare. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. Audio example 13. Avtandil gadinadira. ensemble “Meskheti”, directed by Zaza Tamarshvili. Audio example 14. Iavnana. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. Translated by Lia Gabechava tradiciuli musikis istoriuli Canawerebi HISTORICAL RECORDINGS OF TRADITIONAL MUSIC 371 daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene (litva) litvuri folkloruli musikis uZvelesi xmovani Canawerebi da eTnomusikologebis axali aRmoCenebi audioCanawerebis axal gamocemaSi `berlinis fonogramarqivSi cvilis lilvakebze daculi eduard volteris litvuri Canawerebi (1908-1909)~, Cven SeiZleba movisminoT litvuri simReris uZvelesi kiloebi. am CanawerebSi yvelaze gasaocari aRmoCenaa ramdenime burdonuli simRera, Cawerili samxreT aRmosavleT litvaSi, ZukiaSi (Dzūkija). dRevandlamde iTvleboda, rom am regionisTvis monodia iyo tipuri (mag. 1, audiomag. 1). es mosazreba araerTxel iyo gamoTqmuli saxelganTqmuli litveli eTnomusikologis iadvuga Curlionitesa da misi studentis, Zukiuri simReris specialistis, jenovaite Cetkauskaites (Genovaitė Četkauskaitė), aseve axalgazrda Taobis mTeli rigi mkvlevrebis mier. `Zukiuri simRera warmoadgens tipur monodias; misi ganviTareba saukuneebis manZilze efuZneba linearulobas, sadac dominirebs melodiuri elementi. [...] SesaZlebelia, rom melodiurobis aseTi absoluturoba didi xnis manZilze xels uSlida polifoniis Semosvlas, romelsac Zukias regionSi XX sukunis dasawyisamde naTlad ar gamouvlenia Tavi~ (Čiurlionytė, 1969: 291). `samxreT aRmosavleT regionebis umravlesobaSi farTod aris gavrcelebuli Zveli monodia, romelic saukuneebis manZilze Camoyalibebul tradiciul maxasiaTebelebs inaxavs~ (Čiurlionytė, 1969: 292). `samxreT-aRmosavleT litvaSi, romlis centralur nawils hqvia Zukia, ZiriTadad monodiuri (monofoniuri) stili aris gavrcelebuli, romlis mTavar Tvisebas unisonSi simRera warmoadgens, maSinac ki, Tu koleqtiurad sruldeba. simReris aseTi stili Tavisufali improvizaciis saSualebas iZleva, afarToebs melodiis CarCoebs da alamazebs mas melizmebiT, gamvleli da damxmare bgerebis gamoyenebiT~ (Četkauskaitė, 2007: 24). Tvalsazrisi, rom litvur xalxur musikaSi monofonia Zukiuri simRerebisTvisaa damaxasiaTebeli, dadasturebulia musikis enciklopediaSic (Ambrazevičius, Kalavinskaitė, 2003: 470) (mag. 2, audiomag. 2). auste nakiene, erT-erTi xsenebuli gamocemis redatori, romelmac axlaxans (2005) 1935-1941 ww. saarqivo Canawerebis koleqcia warmoadgina, aseve miiCnevs Zukias regions monodiis akvnad: `Zukias sasimRero stili iyo monodia. Zukiuri melodiebi gamoirCeva srulyofili linearuli gamomsaxvelobiT, spiraluri melodiuri xaziT, kiloebis mravalferovnebiTa da melizmebiT. Cawerili melodiebi adasturebs monodiuri simReris sicocxlisunarianobas: simRerebi sruldeboda monodiurad, maSinac ki, Tu maT erTze meti momRerali asrulebda. magram me-20 saukunis Sua wlebidan tradiciuli monodia TiTqmis gaqra; dRes igive melodiebs Semsruleblebis didi raodenoba meore xmis TanxlebiT mReris~ (Nakienė and Žarskienė, 2005: 24). modiT, davubrundeT axlaxan gamoqveynebul uZveles Canawerebs. mniSvnelovania, 372 daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene rom tradiciuli simRera gabmuli TanxlebiT Zukias regionis ramdenime sofelSia Cawerili. SeiZleba vivaraudoT, rom am tipis simRera SemTxveviTobaa momReralTa calkeuli jgufis mxridan. saidan aRmoCndnen isini Zukias regionSi? rogor aixsneba gabatonebuli monodiis regionSi burdonuli simReris arsebuli Canawerebi, romlebic me-20 saukunis dasawyisSia gakeTebuli? winamdebare gamosvla Semdeg amocanebs isaxavs miznad: 1) litvis samxreTiT _ Zukias regionSi burdonuli simReris arsebobis SesaZleblobis Seswavlas; 2) sakiTxis dayenebas Zukias marcvleulis (ufro zustad ki Wvavis) aRebis simRerebis eTnogenezis Sesaxeb. burdonuli simReris fesvebi da arsebobis SesaZleblobeba Zukias regionSi sanam Zukias regionis burdonuli simReris Sesaxeb vimsjelebde, mokled mimovixilav burdonis arss. Cemi mizani ar aris burdonis srulyofili gansazRvreba da misi saukunovani istoriuli ganviTarebis mimoxilva. gamoCenil eTnomusikologebs sxvadasxvagvarad aqvT ganxiluli burdoni. martin boikos ekuTvnis yovlismomcveli naSromi mis Sesaxeb (Boiko, 2000). rogorc cnobilia, burdoni aris harmoniuli an monofoniuri efeqtis mqone Tanxleba, sadac bgera an akordi uwyvetad JRers mTeli an TiTqmis mTeli piesis manZilze1. franc eibneris mixedviT, `burdoni asocirdeba `xarisxis~ cnebasTan, romelic aris rogorc harmoniis, ise melodiis kategoria~; aqedan gamomdinare, `fenomenologiuri TvalsazrisiT, burdoni monofoniasa da polifonias Sorisaa~ (Eibner, 1981: 121). klod marsel dubuas azriT, arsebobs `rogorc Sedgenili burdoni, aseve burdonisa da monodiuri musikis narevi~ (Marcel-Dubois, 1973: 13). iaap kunstma aseve gaamaxvila yuradReba burdonis ormag bunebaze: `musikalur praqtikaSi mTeli rigi formebi erTiandeba: vis SeuZlia Tqvas, sad unda visaubroT organumze da sad gadavideT Tanxlebian monodiaze; vis SeuZlia gaavlos mkacri zRvari homofoniasa da polifonias Soris; vis SeuZlia Tqvas darwmunebiT, sad mTavrdeba heteroritmuloba da iwyeba poliritmia; sad aris zustad heterofoniis polofoniaSi gadasvlis adgili? praqtika bevrad ufro mdidari da moqnilia, vidre nebismieri Teoriuli sqema~ (Kunst, 1950: 47). motanili citatebi naTlad aCvenebs, rom burdoni da monodia sakmaod axlosaa erTmaneTTan, xSirad ki urTierTSemavsebel fenomens warmoadgenen. ase rom, `monodiis akvanSi~ – samxreT aRmosavleT litvaSi axlaxan aRmoCenili burdonuli simRera sulac ar aris sakvirveli. is aris igive Zukiuri melodia, burdonuli TanxlebiT. magram ratom ar aris aseTi magaliTebis adreuli Canawerebi? ratom ar aris miniSnebac ki Zukias burdonul simReraze xalxuri simReris pirvel Semgroveblebs Soris? ratom ar gvxvdeba burdonuli simReris kvali 1935-1939 ww. saarqivo CanawerebSi? aRsaniSnavia is faqti, rom burdonuli Tanxlebis mqone simRerebis adreuli variantebi, romelic axlaxan gaxda cnobili, Cveulebriv, warmogvidgens tipur Zukiur monodias yvela manamde gamoSvebul Canawersa da xalxuri simRerebis krebulTa gamocemebSi. ram moaxdina gavlena burdonuli stilis formirebaze (an burdonul Tanxlebaze monodiur simRerebSi)? nakiene, romelmac moamzada volteris mier Cawerili litvuri folkloruli musikis uZvelesi xmovani Canawerebi da eTnomusikologebis axali aRmoCenebi 373 simRerebis gamocema, akavSirebs Zukiur burdonul simReras am regionSi gudastviris arsebobis SesaZleblobasTan: `lilvakebze Cawerili melodiebi sakmaod damuSavebulia, Semkulia sxvadasxva melizmebiT. aseTi ornamentirebuli melodiuri xazi aseve SeiZleba iyos ganpirobebuli gudastviris melodiiT~ (Nakienė, 2011: 189). misi azriT, `SesaZlebelia Zukiuri mkis simRerebis uwyveti bgerebi aRmocendes gudastviris musikis gavleniT da xalxuri simReris musikalur qsovilze gavlena moaxdina am instrumentis specifikurma JReradobam. Tumca, litvuri eTnografiuli literatura ar Seicavs monacemebs mosavlis aRebis dros gudastviris gamoyenebis Sesaxeb; SeiZleba vivaraudoT, rom instrumentebze ukravdnen gzaSi _ samuSaodan saxlSi dabrunebisas (burdonuli Tanxlebis mqone orive Cawerili simRera saRamos sruldeboda)~ (Nakienė, 2011: 182). am mosazrebas emxroba instrumentologi ruta Jarskiene (Rūta Žarskienė), romelic acxadebs, rom gudastviris gamoyenebam litvaSi gavlena moaxdina specifikuri melodiuri tipis Camoyalibebasa da burdonis TanxlebiT Sesrulebis originaluri stilis Seqmnaze, romelic savaraudod me-18-19 saukuneebSi iyo popularuli (Žarskienė, 2011: 216). gudastvirze rTuli melodiebis Sesrulebas ,,SeeZlo gavlena moexdina Wvavis mosavlis aRebis simRerebis melodiis ornamentikaze, rac Zalian popularuli iyo aRmosavleT da samxreT litvaSi~ (Žarskienė, 2011: 222). Cemi azriT, Zukiuri burdonuli simReris TaviseburebebTan mimarTebiT, gudastviris roli gadaWarbebulad aris Sefasebuli, miT umetes, rom ar mogvepoveba Zukias regionSi gudastviris arsebobis (JReradi Canawerebis CaTvliT) damadasturebeli masala. meore mxriv, nakiene cdilobs daukavSiros Zukiuri burdonuli simRera latviur burdonul simRerebs. is ambobs, rom `unda movZebnoT jerac Seuswavleli msgavsebani litvuri da latviuri simReris tradiciebs Soris~ (Nakienė, 2011: 190). cnobilia, rom latviaSi gavrcelebuli burdonis tipi Seicavs pedals da ritmul burdons. boikos mixedviT, pedaluri burdoni ufro damaxasiaTebelia samxreT-aRmosavleT latviisTvis, maSin, roca samxreT-dasavleTSi gvxvdeba rogorc pedaluri, ise ritmuli burdoni. ritmuli burdoni sruldeba melodiis moZraobis mixedviT: roca melodiaSi sekunduri intervali Cndeba, burdonis uwyveti toni maRldeba kilos meore safexuramde, an dabldeba mTavar tonamde, raTa Tavidan aicilos disonansi (Boiko, 2008: 187, 189). magram faqtia, rom latvia sakmaod Sors aris `burdonuli simReris akvnidan~ _ Zukias regionidan; sinamdvileSi, pirdapiri gavlena ufro savaraudoa belorusidan, vidre latviidan. Tumca, burdonuli simReris aranairi gamovlena ar aris aRmoCenili arc belorusis teritoriaze, romelic esazRvreba samxreTiT Zukias regions. vfiqrob, Zukiuri fenomeni momavalSi unda ganvixiloT ufro farTo perspeqtividan da SeviswavloT baltiur-slavur (Tundac arqaul evropul) konteqstSi. boiko adarebs latviur burdonul polifonias burdonul simRerebs, romlebic dResac arsebobs zemo dnepris samxreTSi. is acxadebs, rom slavi tomebi ver Seitandnen burdonul polifonias zemo dneprSi. arqeologiuri, lingvisturi da anTropologiuri monacemebis mixedviT, pirveli aTaswleulis mesame meoTxedSi am teritoriaze mcxovrebi baltiispirelebi gadiodnen slavianizaciis process. boiko askvnis, 374 daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene rom zemo dnepris burdonuli polifonia aris aRmosavleT baltiispiruli tomebis mier aRmosavleT slavebis musikalur folklorSi datovebuli eTnikuri musikaluri memkvidreoba. sruliad SesaZlebelia, rom Zukiuri burdonuli simRera zemoT xsenebuli memkvidreobis nawili iyos. Sesabamisad, sanam naTels movfendeT Zukiuri burdonuli simReris fesvebs, sjobs visaubroT ara gareSe faqtorebis pirdapir gavlenaze, rogoricaa gudastviris musika da mezobel latviaSi xmebiT simRera, aramed yuradReba gavamaxviloT burdonis kavSirze baltiuri eTnikuri musikis yvelaze arqaul SresTan. savaraudoa, rom saukuneebis manZilze burdonuli Tanxleba ki ar amdidrebda Zukiur monodias, aramed Tavad burdoni qreboda etapobrivad da regionSi misgan darCa mxolod monofoniuri melodia. am varauds amyarebs sxvadasxva eTnomusikologTa mosazrebani. gerson-kivis citatis mixedviT `istoria ar viTardeba naxtomiseburad da musikaluri artefaqtebi ar aRniSnaven wminda racionalur progress monofoniidan ori, sami da oTxi xmiT simReramde. maTi Tanaarseboba aris polifoniuri formebis garkveuli safuZveli, rogorc, magaliTad, burdoni~ (Gerson-Kiwi, 1962: 176). msgavsi mosazreba gamoTqva kurt zaqsma, romelic `monofoniidan polifoniisken~ evoluciuri ganviTarebis Sesaxeb Sexedulebebs apirispirebs: `Cveni memkvidreobiT miRebuli araswori gagebis sawinaaRmdegod, dRevandeli monofonia _ aqac da iqac, orientalur da pirvelqmnil samyaroSi _ aris finaluri faza imisa, rac odesRac iyo polifonia. Soreuli aRmosavleTi, mis mier polifoniis adreul safexurzeve uaryofiT, iZleva TiTqmis igive magaliTs, rac adreul gregoriseul galobas ewia da rasac me-16 s.-is bolos mravalxmianobidan solo madrigalze gadasvla warmoadgenda~ (Sachs, 1962: 176). analogiur pozicias mxars uWers ioseb Jordania: `sxvadasxva xalxisa da regionis polifoniis problemebisadmi Cemi Rrma interesis miuxedavad, ver davasaxeleb verc erT magaliTs, romelic daadasturebda vokaluri polifoniis aRmocenebas tradiciul musikaSi, manamde arsebuli monofoniuri kulturidan~ (Jordania, 2006: 204). Cemi varaudi aseve ar ewinaaRmdegeba latvieli mkvlevris, karl brambatsis mosazrebas, romelmac baltiispirelTa polifoniuri tradicia farTo xmelTaSuazRvisprul da aRmosavleT evropul konteqstSi ganixila da, amave dros, daeTanxma evropeli mecnierebis didi jgufis pozicias burdonuli polifoniis fenomenis evropuli fesvebis Sesaxeb (SesaZlebelia pre-indoevropuli) (Brambats, 1983). amrigad, ra kavSirebs viRebT mxedvelobaSi, roca vaanalizebT Zukiuri burdonuli simReris magaliTebs? sanam am kavSirebs ganvixilavdeT, unda ganvasxvavoT Sesrulebis gavrcelebuli Taviseburebani: ritmuli (silaburi) burdoni (Cveulebriv, kilos pirvel safexurze) da myari sekunda, romelic Cndeba pirvel da meore vokalur xmas Soris melodiis bolos (mag. 3, audiomag. 3). burdonuli polifoniis msgavsi magaliTebi me-20 saukunis dasawyisSi Caiwera tamperem (Tampere) samxreT dasavleT estoneTSi, latviis sazRvarTan axlos da gamoaqveyna 1938 wels. es aris orxmiani burdonuli polifoniis tipuri magaliTi (mag. 4). burdonuli Sesrulebis analogiuri magaliTebi napovnia bulgareTSi (pirineis mTebis regionSi), xorvatiaSi (xorvatiuli simRerebis umravlesobaSi, romlebsac diatonuri kilos viwro ambitusi aqvs, pirveli da meore safexurebi xSirad as- litvuri folkloruli musikis uZvelesi xmovani Canawerebi da eTnomusikologebis axali aRmoCenebi 375 ruleben tonuri centris funqcias, rac SeiZleba xazgasmuli iyos pedliT; igive safexurebi xSirad am melodiebis finalisadac gardaiqmnebian), serbeTsa da montenegroSi, makedoniasa da saberZneTSi (epirusis da rodosis kunZuli). orxmiani burdonis magaliTebi SeiZleba vnaxoT ukrainasa da belarusSi. burdonuli tipis polifoniis vertikaluri komponentis ganviTarebis TvalsazrisiT, kutireva gamoyofs Semdeg formulas: `disonansi-konsonansi-unisoni~, romelSic disonansidan dawyebuli musikaluri idea finalur unisonamde yovelTvis gaivlis terciis intervals (konsonanss) (Kutireva, 1985: 38-39). sainteresoa, rom Zukiuri burdonuli magaliTebi SeiZleba gamoixatos Setrialebuli formuliTac: `unisoni-konsonansi-disonansi~. amgvarad, es simRerebi sruldeba mkveTri da xangrZlivi JReradobiT (mag. 5, audiomag. 4). es is Tvisebaa (sekunda, rogorc finaluri intervali), romelic Zukiuri burdonis Sedarebis saSualebas iZleva balkanuri dinariuli regionis Sesrulebis tradiciasTan (xorvatiis, bosniis da hercogovinas, montenegros da dasavleT serbeTis CaTvliT). dinariuli tipis orxmiani Sesrulebis ZiriTadi maxasiaTebelia or xmas Soris warmoSobili intervali sekunda _ kerZod ki kadenciaSi, finaluri tonsa da daRmaval did sekundas Soris, romelic miiReba xmaTa gadajvaredinebiT (Elscheková, 1981: 211, Dević, 2002: 39, Golemović, 2011, Petrović, 2011: 122 da a.S.). zogjer sekunda gaTanabrebulia melodiasTan; da xSirad gamoiyeneba melodiis bolos, gansakuTrebiT maSin, roca finaluri JReradobis gaSla esaWiroeba (bulgareTSi, serbeTSi, xorvatiaSi da a.S.) (Petrović, 2011: 122, Petrović, 1989: 66–67, Peycheva, 2011 da a.S.). aqedan gamomdinare, Zukiuri burdonuli Sesrulebis analizisas, SesaZlebelia, vifiqroT uZveles indo-evropul (an Tundac pre-indo-evropul) periodze. marcvleulis da Wvavis mkis Zukiuri simRerebis eTnogenezis Sesaxeb gansakuTrebul mniSvnelobas iZens is faqti, rom Zukiuri burdonuli Sesrulebis magaliTebi Seicavs Wvavis mkis or simReras, romlebic, SesaZlebelia, warmoaCenen Zukiuri regionis uZveles folklorul Sres. orive simRera – Vaikštinėjo tėvulis pabarėmis (mama Wvavis mindvrebs mihyveboda, Li Wo, 49) da Oi, aš pjaunu pjovėjėlė (oh, me vmki, Li Wo, 60-1) – miekuTvneba erTsa da imave melodiur tips. es tipi aRwerilia, rogorc gansxvavebuli seqciebisagan Sedgenili, finaluri kadenciiT meore safexurze (mag. 6, audiomag. 5). eTnomusikologma austra JiCkienem aRniSna, rom litvur, latviur, belorusul da makedonur marcvleulis mkis simRerebs axasiaTebT ori an sami gansxvavebuli monakveTisagan Sedgenili melodiebi, finaluri kadenciiT meore safexurze. TviT melodiaTa intonaciuri maragic ki, romelic efuZneba am formulas, aSkarad msgavsia (Žičkienė, 1996: 76). rodna veliCkovskas gamokvleva ,,mkis simRerebi makedoniaSi~, naTels hfens makedonuri marcvleulis mkis simRerebis ZiriTad stilur da Sesrulebis Taviseburebebs; es kvleva aseve mniSvnelovnad afarToebs litvuri mkis simRerebis kvlevis sferos, gansakuTrebiT, burdonuli Sesrulebis magaliTebiT. veliCkovskas mixedviT, `makedoniuri mkis simRerebi mWidrodaa dakavSirebuli samxreT-slavur da, zogadad, 376 daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene slavebis amave tipis simRerebTan da maTi fesvebi preslavuri warmarTuli periodidan momdinareobs, anu im droidan, rodesac isini erTad cxovrobdnen TavianT Zvel samSobloSi. miuxedavad imisa, rom makedonur mkis simRerebs bevri saerTo aqvT sxva slavebis imave tipis simRerebTan, rac metyvelebs maT saerTo warmomavlobaze2, maT ganaviTares mTeli rigi am xalxebisTvis da qveynebisTvis damaxasiaTebebeli Taviseburebani~ (Veličkovska, 2002: 111). makedoniur mkis simRerebSi SesamCnevia kadenciebis sakmaod didi raodenoba, rac xazs usvams kadenciis zogierT Taviseburebas. kadencia xSirad Cndeba VII/I svliT, rac tipuria ara marto mkisTvis, aramed sxva, e.w. burdonuli tipis simRerebisTvisac. ganviTareba sruldeba unisonSi finalisze G1 an hipofinalisze pirvel xmaSi. makedoniur mkis simRerebSi burdoni warmoadgens safuZvels orxmiani Sesrulebis klasifikaciisTvis (audiomag. 6). rodesac vadarebT litvur da makedoniur mkis simRerebs, TvalSisacemia maTi msgavseba. magram aris erTi ucnauri Tavisebureba: makedoniuri melodiis dasawyisi, romelic igive kiloSia, raSic litvuri, aRqmuli da gaSifrulia (notebSi Cawerilia) meSvide safexuridan da mTavrdeba pirvel safexurze (VII-1-2-3) (mag. 7), maSin roca litvuri melodia iwyeba pirveli safexuridan (zogierT SemTxvevaSi _ meoredan) da mTavrdeba meoreze (1-2-3-4)3 (mag. 8, audiomag. 7). burdonuli polifoniis dros makedoniur da litvur simRerebs axasiaTebs myari pirveli safexuri; erTaderTi gansxvaveba maT Soris: makedoniur simRerebSi finaluri meore safexuri JRers meSvide/ pirvel safexurs Soris (anu meSvide safexuri ,,ivseba~ pirveliT da pirveli ki _ meore xmiT), maSin, roca litvur simRerebSi amas vxvdebiT pirvel da meore safexurebs Soris. kilos damuSavebisas, aseTi gansxvavebebis miuxedavad, orive xalxi asrulebs simReras sekundis intervalze, rasac veliCkovskam sekundis unisoni uwoda. musikalur folklorSi sekundebis gamoyenebas svetlana zaharieva ganixilavs, rogorc tembrul-akustikur fenomens, romelsac momRerali adreuli asakidanaa miCveuli da mis identificirebas axdens zarebis JRerasTan (Zaharieva, 1984: 72). mkis simRerebis Sesrulebis garemoc emTxveva. saxeldobr, es simRerebi sruldeba diliT, SuadRes, saRamos da samuSaodan saxlSi dabrunebisas; aqvs magiurritualuri xasiaTi da, aseve, Sesrulebis gansazRvruli Tanmimdevroba (ramdenadac vici, igive SeiZleba iTqvas bulgareTis da serbeTis zogierTi regionis simRerebis Sesaxeb). aqedan gamomdinare, Zukiuri burdonuli stilis mkis simRerebi samarTlianad SeiZleba miekuTvnos balkanuri Wvavis mkis simRerebis ojaxs (ufro zustad, orxmian burdonul simRerebs). mkvlevarTa umravlesoba Tvlis, rom am simRerebis fesvebi momdinareobs pre-slavuri kulturidan, SesaZlebelia maTi dakavSireba Zvel Trakiel, iliriel da sxvaTa tomebTan. mkis burdonuli simRerebis melodiebis pirveli xmebi gansakuTrebiT moqnilia da Selamazebulia melizmebiT. ana Cekanovskas (Anna Czhekanowska) mixedviT, msgavsi magaliTebi _ viwro diapazonis mqone ornamentebiT mdidari melodiebi – uZveles xanas miekuTvneba; maT SeiZleba uZvelesi aziuri fesvebic ki gaaCndeT (Czekanowska, 1972). polifoniisa da monofoniuri elementebis Sereul stils Jordania miakuTvnebs indo-evropul memkvidreobas: `indo-evropelebi iyvnen mudmiv urTierTobaSi Zveli ev- litvuri folkloruli musikis uZvelesi xmovani Canawerebi da eTnomusikologebis axali aRmoCenebi 377 ropis avtoqtonur mosaxleobasTan da burdonuli polifoniis savaraudo tradiciasTan. saukuneebisa da aTaswleulebis manZilze indo-evropelebis Camosvlis Semdeg, es ori kultura da maTi warmomadgenlebebi Seerwynen erTmaneTs da dasabami misces polifoniuri simReris axal, Sereul tradicias (Jordania, 2006: 222). `Sereuli~ polifoniuri tradiciis tipologiuri siaxlove naTelia. am siaxlovis mTavari mizezi unda iyos is faqti, rom saxezea ori gansxvavebuli tipis kulturis Sereva. msgavsi magaliTebi: (1) Zveli evropeli mosaxleobis burdonul disonansze damyarebuli polifonia; (2) ,,mdidari ornamentika, Tavisufali ritmi da ametruloba dafuZnebuli monofoniaze, romelic Semotanilia indo-evropelTa zogierTi migraciuli talRis mier~ (Jordania, 2006: 222-223). viRebT ra mxedvelobaSi Jordanias Sexedulebas, SeiZleba vivaraudoT, rom mkis burdonuli simRerebi, romlebic Cawerilia Zukias regionSi, gamoeyo Tavis ojaxs Zveli evropis dabadebis adgilas _ dunais napirebze. maT TandaTanobiT SeiZines monofoniis Taviseburebebi: ritmuli Tavisufleba, modaloba, melodiuri gamomsaxveloba da a.S. aseve, ar unda gamovricxoT is SesaZleblobac, rom es Tvisebebic (vglisxmob monofoniis Tvisebebs) Camoyalibda uZveles droSi, romelic win uswrebda indo-evropul migracias. es Zalin kompleqsuri sakiTxia, romelic dResac Riad aris darCenili. arsebobs sxva upasuxo kiTxvac: am yvelafris Semdeg ra urTierTobaSia Zukiuri burdoni sekundaze dafuZnebul sutartinesTan, romelic gabatonebulia CrdilodasavleT litvaSi? cnobilia, rom orive warmoadgens urTierTSeuTavsebel fenomens (saerTo aqvT mxolod erTi ram: finaluri sekunduri intervali). viRebT ra mxedvelobaSi Cvens xelT arsebul monacemebs, naklebad dasajerebelia saubari Zukiuri burdonis da sutartinuli polifoniis Tavdapirvel ganuyoflobaze. neba miboZeT, es sakiTxi momaval kvlevebs mivandoT. amomwuravi daskvnebis gakeTeba da ganzogadebebi ar warmoadgens winamdebare gamosvlis mizans. ubralod, gTavazobT mosazrebas imis Sesaxeb, rom TviT 21-e saukunis dasawyisSic ki SesaZlebelia axali `aRmoCenebi~, amiT ki xels vuwyobT litvuri tradiciuli Sesrulebis Sesaxeb axlaxans gakeTebuli tipologiis kritikul mimoxilvas da SemovdivarT winadadebiT axali saklasifikacio sistemis Seqmnis Sesaxeb. 21-e saukunis dasawyisSi me ganvixile nibragaleli qalebis (paneveJis raioni) mier Sesrulebuli simRerebi, rogorc litvuri burdonuli tradiciis ucnauri naSTi; es TiTqmis saukunovani Canawerebi adastureben, rom odesRac burdonuli polifonia arsebobda litvaSi. vfiqrob, rom litvuri burdonuli simReris Zukiurma Canawerebma SeiZleba didi samsaxuri gauwios axal SedarebiT kvlevas. SeniSvnebi 1 Sua saukuneebis suraTebi zogjer gamoxataven instruments, romelsac SeuZlia mxolod erTi an ramdenime notis aJRereba, rasac Cven burdons an burdonian gudastvirs vuwodebT. aseTi burdoni arasodes aRiniSneba Suasaukuneebis xelnawerebSi. es damatebulia Tanamedrove Sems- 378 daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene ruleblebis mier. Zalian mniSvnelovania imis gaazreba, rom burdonis damateba ar cvlis am musikis monofoniurobas. es ar aqcevs mas arc polifoniurad da arc homofoniurad (dasavluri musikis ori ZiriTadi struqtura) http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/sonicg/terms/monophony.html 2 Tu SevadarebT mkis simRerebis damaxasiaTebel elementebs maT eTnikur arealTan, romelic ganTavsebulia makedoniis, serbeTisa da bulgareTis sazRvrebze, SegviZlia davaskvnaT, rom bevri saerToa ara marto kostumebSi, romelic Tan sdevs mkas, aramed, Tavad SesrulebaSic (Veličkovska, 2002: 111). 3 swored amitom Cetkauskaite, Zukiuri melodiebis specialisti, Wvavis mkis tipis simRerebis melodiebs uwodebs ,,maJoruls, romlebsac simReris bolos axasiaTebT gadaxra supertonikaSi~ (ix. 54a da 54b, Četkauskaitė, 1981: 498). audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. Oi tu aglala (o, mSveniero). Cawerilia 1965 w. brone bogujiene-vamelitesagan, 63 w., lazdiais regioni. gaSifra gierde razmukaitem (Četkauskaitė, 2007, N91). audiomagaliTi 2. Oi, aš pjaunu (o, me Wvavs vmki). Semsr. katre Jilinskiene, 68 w. sof. andriunai, alitusis regioni. Cawerilia 1938 w. LTR pl. 910(4) (Nakienė and Žarskienė, 2005, N16). audiomagaliTi 3. Atjoc berneliu (Seyvarebuli biWi cxeniT mova). eduard volterma sof. perloiaSi (1909). gaSifra audrone vakarinienem (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė, 2011, N28). audiomagaliTi 4. Šių tamsių naktełį (aq gogonebi ar mRerian). Caiwera eduard volterma sof. gudakiemisSi (1909). gaSifra audrone vakarinienem (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė, 2011, N31). audiomagaliTi 5. Oi, aš pjaunu (gza grZelia am bnel Rames). Caiwera eduard volterma sof. gudakiemisSi (1909). gaSifra audrone vakarinienem (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė, 2011, N35). audiomagaliTi 6. Жетва се зажнева (o, me vTibav maRal mTaze). Semsr. mitra da stoina tasevskebi, sof. milano, svetinikolsko; AIF m.l. 2149. Cawerili da gaSifrulia duSko dimitrovskis mier 1971 wels (Rodna Veličkovs-ka, 2002: 133, nr. 23). audiomagaliTi 7. Vaikšcinėjo tėvulis (koliko vranskos mindorze). Sesrulebulia sofel lieponis (Trakais raioni) momRerlebis mier. Cawera daiva viCinienem 2000 wels (Vyčinienė, Daiva (comp.) Dzūkija. Pietų dzūkų dainos. Lietuvių tradicinė muzika ‘Dzūkija. Songs of Southern Dzūkai. Lithuanian Traditional Music’. Vilnius, 2000, Nr. 4.). Targmna nana SariqaZem 379 DAIVA RAČIŪNAITĖ-VYČINIENĖ (LITHUENIA) THE OLDEST SOUND RECORDINGS OF THE LITHUANIAN FOLKLORE AND THE RECENT DISCOVERIES BY ETHNOMUSICOLOGISTS In the new publication of sound recordings “Eduard Wolter’s cylinders recorded in Lithuania (1908–1909), held at Berlin Phonogramm-Archive” we can hear some examples of the ancient modes of Lithuanian singing. The most surprising discovery in Wolter’s recordings is a few songs with drone recorded in Southeast Lithuania (Dzūkija). Until now it was thought that monody is typical to Dzūkija region (ex. 1, audio ex. 1). This approach was repeatedly emphasised by the distinguished Lithuanian ethnomusicologist Jadvyga Čiurlionytė, her student, Genovaitė Četkauskaitė – a specialist in Dzūkian songs, and a number of other researchers of younger generation: “A Dzūkian song is a typical monody; its development throughout centuries relied on linear origin, demonstrating the prevalence of melodic element. […] It is possible that such profound sense of melodiousness has for a long time prevented the appearance of polyphony, which did not distinctly manifest itself in Dzūkija region until the beginning of the 20th century” (Čiurlionytė, 1969: 291); “In most South-East regions old monody is still widely spread, retaining its original characteristics established through age-old traditions” (Čiurlionytė, 1969: 292); “In South-East Lithuania, the central part of which is Dzūkija, there still exists monodic (monophonic) style, its main feature being a melody intoned in unison even when it is performed by a group of people. Such way of singing allows free improvisation, encourages to expand the boundaries of a melody, and urges to embellish certain modal tones with appoggiatura, mordent, turn, transitional and auxiliary notes” (Četkauskaitė, 2007: 24). The viewpoint that monophony in Lithuanian folk music is characteristic of Dzūkian songs is also supported in “Music Encyclopaedia” (Ambrazevičius, Kalavinskaitė, 2003: 470) (ex. 2, audio ex. 2). Austė Nakienė, one of the editors of the afore-mentioned publication, who recently (in 2005) presented a collection of archival recordings from 1935-41, also saw Dzūkija region as the cradle of monody: “The singing style of Dzūkija region was monody. Dzūkian melodies are distinguished for their perfect linear expression, winding melodic lines, various modes and melismas. The recorded melodies attest to the endurance of monodic singing: songs were performed monodically even if sung by more than one singer. But since the mid-20th century traditional monody has come close to extinction; from that time still a large number of performers sing the same melodies with the accompaniment of second voice” (Nakienė, Žarskienė, 2005: 24). But let us turn back to the recently published oldest sound recordings. What is important is that traditional singing with drone accompaniment was recorded in several villages of Dzūkija region. We can suppose that this type of singing was a curious occurrence of a single group of singers. How did they originate in Dzūkija region? How shall one explain the early 20th century recordings of drone singing in an area of a prevalent monody? The present report has the following objectives: 1) to explore the possibilities of existence of 380 Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė drone singing in the Southern part of Lithuania – Dzūkija region; 2) the question of ethnogenesis of Dzūkian corn (more precisely, rye) harvesting songs. On the Origins and Possibilities of the Existence of Drone Singing in Dzūkija Prior to discussing the drone singing in Dzūkija region, one should briefly look into the very concept of drone. In this report I do not intend to present a thorough description of drone and its development over the centuries. Most distinguished ethnomusicologists have addressed drone singing one way or another. Drone is known to be a harmonic or monophonic effect or accompaniment where a note or chord is continuously heard throughout most or entire piece1. According to Franz Eibner, “Drone is associated with the notion of “degree”, which is a category of both harmony and melody [Bordun ist mit dem Begriff “Stufe” verbunden. Stuf ��������������������������������������������������������� ist aber nicht nur eine Kategorie der Harmonie, sondern auch eine Kategorie der Melodie]”; hence, “from a phenomenological standpoint the drone lies between monophony and polyphony [Phänomenologisch liegt der Bordun zwischen Ein- und Mehrstimmigkeit]” (Eibner, 1981: 121). According to Claudie Marcel-Dubois, there exists “compound drone [zusammengesetzter Bordun] as well as a mixture of drone and monodic music [Mischung von bordunierender und monodisher Musik]” (Marcel-Dubois, 1973: 13). Jaap Kunst has also pointed out the twofold nature of drone, saying that “in musical practice a number of the forms distinguished here, merge into each other: who can say, where we should still speak of a kind of organum, and where we have already passed into the domain of monody with accompaniment; who can draw the exact borderline between homophony and polyphony; who can tell with certainty at which point heterorhythm ends and polyrhythm begins; who can fix the place where heterophony turns into polyphony? Living practice is always richer and more plastic than any scheme-building theory” (Kunst, 1950: 47). The quoted statements clearly show that drone and monody are fairly close, often overlapping phenomena. Thus the examples of drone singing recently “discovered” in the “cradle of monody” – Southeast Lithuania – should not be surprising. It appears to be the same, instantly recognisable and distinctly Dzūkian melody, with added drone accompaniment. But why such instances have not been recorded earlier? Why is there no mention of drone singing in Dzūkija among the first folk song collectors? Why is there no trace of drone singing in the archival recordings of 1935–39? Noteworthy is the fact that the earlier variants of all songs with drone accompaniment, featured in the recent release, have usually represented typical Dzūkian monody in all previously released recordings and published collections of folk songs... What could have influenced the formation of drone style (or the drone accompaniment in monodic songs)? Nakienė, who prepared the publication of songs recorded by Wolter, associated the Dzūkian drone singing with the possible existence of bagpipes in Dzūkija region: “The melodies recorded on cylinders are quite elaborate, decorated with a variety of melismas. Such meandering melodic lines might also be regarded as an imitation of intricate bagpipe strains” (Nakienė, 2011: 189). In her opinion “It is possible that the sustained tones in Dzūkian harvesting songs emerged under the influence of bagpipe music, and the texture of folk songs could have been affected by the hooting characteristic of the instrument. Although Lithuanian ethnographic literature contains no evidence of bagpipe use during harvest time, one may suspect that the instruments were played on the way home after work in the field (both recorded songs with drone accompaniment were being sung in the The Oldest Sound Recordings of the Lithuanian Folklore and the Recent Discoveries by Ethnomusicologists 381 evening)” (Nakienė, 2011: 182). This approach is supported by the ethno organologist Rūta Žarskienė who claimed that the use of bagpipes in Lithuania influenced the formation of specific melodic type and original style of singing with drone accompaniment that could have been popular in the 18th–19th centuries (Žarskienė, 2011: 216). The intricate melodies performed on bagpipe “could have affected the ornate melodies of the rye harvesting songs, very popular in eastern and southern Lithuania, as well as other kinds of folk songs” (Žarskienė, 2011: 222). I tend to think that the role of a bagpipe is overrated in addressing the issue of origin of Dzūkian drone singing, especially, taking into account the fact that no material evidence (including sound recordings) exists to support the existence of bagpipes in southern Dzūkija region. On the other hand, Nakienė tried to relate the examples of Dzūkian drone singing to those of Latvian drone singing. She states that one “should be looking for yet undiscovered affinities between Lithuanian and Latvian singing traditions” (Nakienė, 2011: 190). It is known, that the prevalent drone types in Latvia include the pedal and rhythmic drone. According to Boiko, the pedal drone is prevalent in Southeast Latvia, while in the Southwest the examples of both pedal and rhythmic drone accompaniment can be found. The rhythmic drone is sung according to the melody movement: when it comes at an interval of second to the sustained sound the drone ascends to the second degree of the scale or descends to the leading tone to avoid dissonant tone combinations (Boiko, 2008: 187, 189). But as a matter of fact, Latvia is quite far off the drone singing cradle in Dzūkija region; hence the direct influence from Belarus rather than Latvia would be more likely. However, no manifestations of drone singing have been discovered on the territory of Belarus bordering Southern Dzūkija. It appears that this Dzūkian phenomenon should be viewed from a wider perspective and should be investigated within the common Balto-Slavic (or even archaic European) context. Boiko compared Latvian drone polyphony with the drone songs, still existing in the South of the Upper Dnepr. He claims that drone polyphony could not have possibly been brought to the Upper Dnepr by the Slavic tribes. According to archaeological, linguistic and anthropological data, in the third quarter of the first millennium the Baltic peoples in the mentioned territory were undergoing the processes of Slavianisation. Boiko concludes that this fact leads to a proposition that drone polyphony of the Upper Dnepr is the legacy of ethnic music of Eastern Baltic tribes in the musical folklore of Eastern Slavs. It seems entirely possible that the Dzūkian drone singing in question might be part of the abovementioned legacy. Therefore, while unravelling the origins of Dzūkian drone singing it might be worthwhile to speak not about the direct and fairly late (18th-19th century, according to Žarskienė) influence of “external” factors – such as bagpipe music and part-singing in neighbouring Latvia – but about the relation of the drone to the most archaic layer of Baltic ethnic music instead. Most likely, it was not Dzūkijan monody that was “enriched” by the drone accompaniment over the centuries, but the drone itself gradually became extinct, leaving only monophonic melody in Dzūkija region. This assumption can be backed up by the statements of various ethnomusicologists. To quote Gerson-Kiwi, “History does not proceed stepwise, and musical artefacts do not indicate a pure rational progression from monophony to part-singing in two, three, or four voices. Co-existent, and presumably even older than monophony, are certain basic forms of polyphony, such as bourdon (Gerson-Kiwi, 1972: 9). Similar thoughts are expressed by Curt Sachs, when he contradicts the notion of evolutionary development “from monophony to polyphony”: “Against our inherited misconceptions, today’s monophony is here 382 Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė and there in the oriental and primitive worlds an end stage of what once was polyphonic. Far East with its early surrender of the polyphonic so-called Right Music gives examples as good as do the destinies of early Gregorian chant and the transition from multipart to solo madrigals at the end of the 16th century” (Sachs, 1962: 176). Analogous position is supported by Joseph Jordania: “despite my lifelong keen interest in the issues of polyphony of different peoples and regions, I cannot name even one documented case of the emergence of vocal polyphony in traditional music from a formerly “monophonic” culture” (Jordania, 2006: 204). My assumption does not conflict either with Latvian researcher Karl Brambats, who put the polyphonic traditions of the Baltic peoples into a wide Mediterranean and East European context and agreed with a big group of European scholars about the ancient (possibly pre-Indo-European) roots of the phenomenon of drone polyphony in Europe (Brambats, 1983). So, what relationship are we referring to when analysing the examples of Dzūkijan drone singing? Before we look for connections, we should distinguish the prevalent characteristics of this singing: it is rhythmic (syllabic) drone (usually, on the first degree of the scale) and a sustained second between the 1st and 2nd vocal parts at the end of the melody (ex. 3, audio ex. 3). Similar examples of rhythmic drone (currently extinct, though) can be found in Estonia. Examples of drone polyphony were recorded by Tampere in Southwest Estonia, close to Latvian border, in the beginning of the 20th century and published in 1938. This is a typical example of two-part drone polyphony (ex. 4). Similar examples of drone singing are found in Bulgaria (Pirin Mountain region), Croatia (in most Croatian songs with narrow ambitus of diatonic scales, the first and the second degrees often serve as tonal centre, which drone may accentuate; the same degrees often become finalis of these melodies), Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia and Greece (Epirus and Rhodes island). Examples of two-part drone can also be found in Ukrainian and Belarusian Polessie. In terms of the development of the vertical component of drone-type polyphony, Kutireva points out the formula: “dissonance – consonance – unison” where musical idea starts with dissonance, and before final unison it always goes through the interval of third (consonance) (Kutireva, 1985: 38-39). Interestingly, musical development of Dzūkijan drone examples can be expressed using an inverted formula: “unison – consonance – dissonance”. Thus the song ends with a strident and long sustained sound (ex. 5, audio ex. 4). It is this feature (the second as the final interval) that allows to compare Dzūkijan drone with the singing tradition of the Balkan Dinaric region (including Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Western Serbia). The main characteristics of Dinaric types of two-part singing is the interval of the second between the two voices, particularly in the cadence between the final tone and the major second blow it, achieved by the crossing of voices (Elscheková, 1981: 211, Dević, 2002: 39, Golemović, 2011, Petrović, 2011: 122, etc.). Sometimes the second is equated to the sparse internal melody; however it is simply preferred at the end of the melody, especially when it greatly extends the final sound (in Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, etc.) (Petrović, 2011: 122, Petrović, 1989: 66–67, Peycheva 2011, etc.). Therefore, it is possible that when analysing the Dzūkijan drone singing, we might be referring to very ancient times of Indo-European (or even Pre-Indo-European) ancestry. On the Ethnogenesis of Dzūkijan Corn and Rye Harvesting Songs Of special significance is the fact that the examples of Dzūkijan drone singing include two rye The Oldest Sound Recordings of the Lithuanian Folklore and the Recent Discoveries by Ethnomusicologists 383 harvesting songs, that is, the instances representing perhaps the oldest folklore layer from Dzūkija region. Both songs – Vaikštinėjo tėvulis pabarėmis (Father walked along the rye field; Li Wo 49) and Oi, aš pjaunu pjovėjėlė (Oh I am cutting, I the harvester; Li Wo 60-1) – belong to the same melodic type. This type is described as being fourth-tonal, with the final cadence on the second degree (ex. 6, audio ex. 5). Ethnomusicologist Aušra Žičkienė noted that the third-tonal or fourth-tonal melodies, with the form of two or three different sections, with the final cadence on the second degree, are characteristic of corn harvesting songs encountered in Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Bulgaria, and Macedonia. Even the intonational vocabulary of melodies based on this formula is fairly similar (Žičkienė, 1996: 76). The study by Rodna Veličkovska “Harvest singing in Macedonia” reveals key stylistic features and performance conditions of Macedonian rye harvesting songs; this study also significantly expands the field of research into Lithuanian harvesting songs, specifically – into the instances of drone singing. According to Veličkovska “Macedonian harvest songs are closely related to this kind of songs of the other South-Slavonic and Slavonic peoples in general and their roots are deeply embedded in the pre-Slavonic pagan period, i.e. in the time when these peoples had lived together in their old homeland. Although Macedonian harvest songs share many common elements with the same songs of other Slavonic peoples, testifying to their common origin with the above-mentioned songs2, they have developed a series of particular characteristics by some of these peoples and countries” (Veličkovska, 2002: 111). In Macedonian harvest songs we can notice a large number of the cadenza patterns, stressing the existence of some peculiarities of cadenzas. Cadenza appears most frequently with the crossing of part VII/I, typical not only for the harvest but for the other kinds of songs of the so-called drone type singing. The way of ending progresses in unison in finale G1 or hypo-finale of the first voice. In Macedonian harvest songs drone with its laws represents a basis for the classification of two-voiced singing (audio ex. 6). When comparing Lithuanian harvesting melodies with Macedonian examples, one can easily note their remarkable similarity. There is but one surprising point: Macedonian melody in the same mode as its Lithuanian counterpart is understood and transcribed (notated) as starting on the seventh step of the scale and closing on the first (hence the scale VII-1-2-3) (ex. 7) whereas the Lithuanian melody begins on the first step (in some versions on the second step) and ends on the second (hence the scale 1-2-3-4)3 (ex. 8, audio ex. 7). Yet, in case of drone polyphony both Macedonian and Lithuanian songs feature a sustained first step, with a sole difference that the final second in Macedonian songs sounds between the steps VII-I/first step (in principle, the 7th step is filled with the first, and the 1st one is filled with the second voice), while in Lithuanian songs it occurs between the first and secondsteps. Despite these differences of mode treatment, both peoples tend to end a song with the interval of second, referred to as “the unison of the second” by Veličkovska. The use of the second in folk music Svetlana Zaharieva considers as a “timbre and acoustic phenomenon”, linked with the effect of the acoustical beating, to which folk singer has been accustomed since his early age and he identifies it with the sound of the bells (Zaharieva, 1984: 72). The circumstances of performing the harvest songs coincide as well. Namely, these songs are sung in the morning, at noon, before night falls and upon returning home from the fields, have a 384 Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė magic-ritual character and also a precisely fixed order of their performance (as far as I know, the same can be said about the songs from certain regions in Bulgaria and Serbia). Therefore, Dzūkijan dronestyle harvesting songs “admitted” into the family of Balkan rye harvesting songs (more specifically, two-part drone songs). Many researchers believe that the roots of these songs should be traced in the pre-Slavic culture, possibly associating them with the old Thracian, Illyrian, or other tribes. The melodies of the first voice in the rye harvesting drone songs are exceptionally winding and ornate, with abundant melismas. According to Anna Czekanowska, such examples of richly ornamented melodies within the narrow ambitus date back to very ancient times: they might even be of Asian (Oriental) origin (Czekanowska, 1972). Jordania attributes these mixed styles of polyphonic and monophonic elements to Indo-European legacy (Jordania, 2006: 222). “Moving through Europe, the Indo-Europeans were constantly in constant contact with the autochthonous population of Old Europe, with the supposedly polyphonic traditions of drone polyphony. During centuries and millennia after the arrival of the Indo-Europeans these two cultures and their representatives interacted, mixed and gave birth to the new combined traditions of polyphonic singing. The typological closeness of these “mixed” polyphonic traditions is quite clear. Main reason for this closeness must be the fact that in all these cases there was a similar mixture of two different types of cultures: (1) Drone dissonant-based polyphony of the old European populations, and (2) “Richly ornamented, free rhythm and non-metric time based monophony of the populations brought by at least some migration waves of the Indo-Europeans” (Jordania, 2006: 222-223). Taking into account Jordania’s insights, one may presume that at some stage in the past the harvesting drone songs recorded in Dzūkija region separated from their kin on the banks of the Danube – the birthplace of Old Europe. They gradually acquired more features characteristic of monophony: rhythmic fluency, modal richness, melodic expressiveness, etc. Still, one should not eliminate the possibility that these features (characteristic of monophony) were also formed in the ancient past, prior to Indo-European migrations. But that is a very complex issue which remains open. There is yet another unanswered question: after all, how does Dzūkijan drone correlate with the second-based sutartinės prevalent in Northeast Lithuania? It is well-known that the two represent quite disparate phenomena (sharing only one thing in common: the final interval of second). Taking into account the currently available data, it does not seem plausible to speak of a former integral area of Dzūkijan drone and the sutartinės polyphony. Let us leave this question open for the future investigations. This report does not aim to provide definitive conclusions and generalisations. It merely states the fact that even in the beginning of the 21st century new “discoveries” are possible, thus encouraging the critical review of the presently established typology of Lithuanian traditional singing and proposing the creation of a new classification system. In the beginning of the 21st century I consider the songs performed by the women from Nibragalis (Panevėžys district) as the odd remnant of Lithuanian bourdon tradition, yet the century-old recordings testify to the existence of drone polyphony in Lithuania. I think that the examples of Lithuanian drone singing recorded in Dzūkija region might well contribute to the new comparative research. The Oldest Sound Recordings of the Lithuanian Folklore and the Recent Discoveries by Ethnomusicologists 385 Notes 1 Medieval pictures sometimes also show an instrument capable of playing just a single, sustained note or pair of notes - what we call a “drone”, or, as in this example, a bagpipe with drone. Such a drone is never indicated in medieval manuscripts. It is added by modern performers. Again, it is important to realize that the addition of a drone does not change the status of the music as monophony. It does not change it into either polyphony, or homophony (the two other principal textures of Western music). http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/sonicg/terms/monophony.html 2 Comparing separately the characteristic elements of the harvest singing within the Shop ethnic area, which lies on the borders between Macedonia, Serbia and Bulgaria, it can be concluded that there is a big similarity not only in terms of customs that accompany the harvest activities but also the very way of performing the harvest singing (Veličkovska, 2002: 111). 3 That is why Četkauskaitė, the specialist in Dzūkian melodies, defines the type of fourth-tonal rye harvesting song melodies as “a major version of melodies with the digression to the key of the supertonic at the end” (see comment to 54a and 54b in Četkauskaitė, 1981: 498). References Ambrazevičius, Rytis & Kalavinskaitė, Danutė. (2003). “Monofonija” (“Monophony”). In: Muzikos enciklopedija. T.II (Encyclopedia of Music, Vol.II). P. 470. Vilnius: Lietuvos muzikos akademija, Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. (in Lithuanian) Boiko, Martiņš. (2008). Lietuviešu sutartines un to Baltijas konteksti (The Lithuanian Sutartines and their Baltic Contexts). Rīga: Musica Baltica. (in Lithuanian) Brambats, Karl. (1983). “Vocal Drone in the Baltic Countries: Problems of Chronology and Provenance”. In: Journal of Baltic Studies, 14 (1):24-34. Četkauskaitė, Genovaitė (comp.). (1981). Dzūkų melodijos (Melodies of Dzūkai). Vilnius: Vaga Publisher. (in Lithuanian) Četkauskaitė, Genovaitė (comp.). (2007). Lietuvių liaudies dainų antologija (The Anthology of Lithuanian Folk Songs). Vilnius: Lietuvos muzikos ir teatro akademija. (in Lithuanian) Čiurlionytė, Jadvyga. (1969). Lietuvių liaudies dainų melodikos bruožai (Features of Lithuanian Folk Songs Melodies). Vilnius: Vaga Publisher. (in Lithuanian) Czekanowska, Anna. (1972). Ludowe melodie wąskiego zakresu w krajach słowiańskich (Narrow-range Folk Melodies in Slavic Countries). A survey of sourse documentation and classification with the Wrocław method of 386 Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė taxonomy. PWM Edition. (in Polish) Dević, Dragoslav. (1990). Narodna Muzika Tsnorechia u Cvetlosti Etnogenetskikh Protsesa (Folk Music of Crnorečje in the Light of Ethnogenetic Processes). Belgrade: Beograd JP SHRIF Bor, Kulturno-obrazovni Tsentar Bolevats, FMU. (in Serbian) Eibner, Franz. (1981). “Bordun – Tonalität – Auskomponierung: Zum innermusikalischen Sinngehalt bordunierenden Musizierens”. In: Der Bordun in der europäischen Volksmusik. P. 96–128. Comp.: Deutch, Walter. Report at the Second Seminar for European Ethnomusicology, 28 May-2 June, 1973, St. Pölten. Schriften zur Volksmusik, Bd. 5. Vienna: Verlag A. Schendl. Elscheková, Alice. (1981). “Vergleichende typologische Analysen der vokalen Mehrstimmigkeit in den Karpaten und auf dem Balkan”. In: Stratigraphische Probleme der Volksmusik in den Karpaten und auf dem Balkan. P. 159-256. Editor: Elscheková, Alice. Bratislava: Veda, Verlag der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaft. Gerson-Kiwi, Edith. (1972). “Drone and ‘Dyaphonia basilica”. In: Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council, 4:9-22. Golemović, Dimitrije. (2011). “Seosko Pevanie u Zapadnoi Serbii” (“Rural singing in West Serbia”). In: Serbia: Muzichki I igrachki Dyalekti (Serbia: Dialects of Music and Dance). P. 7–60. Editor: Golemović. Belgrade: Pakultet Muzichke Umetnosti. (in Serbian) Jordania, Joseph. (2006). “Who asked the first question? The Origins of Human Choral Singing, Intelligence, Language and Speech”. Tbilisi: Logos. Kunst, Jaap. (1950). Metre, Rhythm, Multi-Part Music. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Kutireva, Galina. (1985). “Polyphonic Singing in Western Belarus Polessie”. In: Problems of Folk Polyphony. P. 36-39. Editor: Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: Sabchota Sakartvelo (in Russian with English summary). Marcel-Dubois, Claudie. (1973). “Der Bordun in der europäischen Volksmusik”. In: Report at the Second Seminar for European Ethnomusicology, 28 May-2 June,1973, St. Pölten. (manuscr.). P. 13. Deutsch, Walter (comp.). Nakienė, Austė, and Žarskienė, Rūta (editors). (2005). Dzūkijos dainos ir muzika. 1935–1941 metų fonografo įrašai (Songs and Music from Dzūkija. Phonograph Records of 1935–1941). Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas (with CD). (in Lithuanian) Nakienė, Austė and Žarskienė, Rūta (editors), Ziegler, Susanne (co-editor). (2011). Eduardo Volterio Lietuvoje įrašyti voleliai (1908–1909), saugomi Berlyno fonogramų archive. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas (The Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore) (with CD). (in Lithuanian) Petrović, Ankica. (2011). “The Phenomenon of Multipart Singing in Rural Communities”. In: European Voices The Oldest Sound Recordings of the Lithuanian Folklore and the Recent Discoveries by Ethnomusicologists 387 II: Cultural listening and local discourse in multipart singing traditions in Europe. P. 113-126. Editor: Ahmedaja, Ardian. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag. Petrović, Radmila. (1989). “Srpska Narodna Muzika – Pesma Kao Izraz Harodnog Muzichkog Mishlenia” (“Serbian Folk Music. Song as an Expression of Folk Musical Thinking”). In: Одељење друштвених наука, књ. 98. Belgrad: САНУ, posebna izdana. (in Serbian) Peycheva, Lozanka. (2011). “Verbal Projection for Multipart Folk Singing from Central Western Bulgaria”. In: European Voices II: Cultural listening and local discourse in multipart singing traditions in Europe. P. 219-231. Editor: Ahmedaja, Ardian. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag. Radinović, Sanja. (1997). “Elementi structure obredno-običajnih pesema” (“Elements of Ritual Songs Structure”). In: Folklor-Muzika-Delo (Folklore-Music-Act). IV Međunarodni simpozijum. P. 442-465. Belgrad: FMU. (in Serbian) Sachs, Curt. (1962). The Wellsprings of Music. Martinus Nijhoff Publisher. Tampere, Herbert. (1983). Estonskaja Narodnaja Pesnja (Estonian Folk Song). Leningrad: Muzika. Veličkovska, Rodna. (2002). “Jetvarskoto Peenie vo Makedonia”(“Harvest Singing in Macedonia”). In: Kniga 45. P. 110-116. Sкоpjе: Sкоpjе posebni izdania. (In Macedonian with English summary) Zaharieva, Svetlana. (1984). “Към въпроса за произхода на многогласието” (“About the Origin of Multipart Singing”). In: Blgarsko Muzikoznanie (Bulgarian Musicology), 1: 62-75. Sofia. (in Bulgarian) Žarskienė, Rūta. (2011). “Užmirštieji muzikos instrumentai: dūdmaišis ir Lietuva”(“Forgotten Musical Instruments: Bagpipe and Lithuania”). In: Tautosakos Darbai (Folklore Studies), XLII: 194-222. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. (in Lithuanian) Žičkienė, Aušra. (1996). “Kai kurie lietuvių javapjūtės dainų melodikos bruožai baltų – slavų kontekste” (“Some Melody Characteristics of the Lithuanian Harvest Songs in the Context of the Melodies of the Balts and the Slavs”). In: Tautosakos Darbai (Folklore Studies), V (XII): 72-82. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. (in Lithuanian) Audio Examples Audio example 1. Oi tu aglala (Oh, you spruce). Recorded in 1965 from Bronė Bogušienė-Varnelytė, 63, Lazdijai district. Transcribed by Giedrė Razmukaitė (Četkauskaitė 2007, N 91). Audio example 2. Oi, aš pjaunu (Oh, I am cutting the rye). Sung by Katrė Šilinskienė, age 68, Andriūnai village, Alytus district. Recorded in1938; LTR pl. 910(4) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2005, N 16). 388 Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė Audio example 3. Atjoc berneliu (The dear boy will ride). Recorded by Eduard Wolter in Perloja village (1909); transcribed by Audronė Vakarinienė (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N 28). Audio example 4. Šių tamsių naktełį (The road is long on this dark night). Recorded by Eduard Wolter in Gudakiemis village (1909); transcribed by Audronė Vakarinienė (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N 31). Audio example 5. Oi, aš pjaunu (Oh, I scythe on the high hill’). Recorded by Eduard Wolter in Gudakiemis village (1909); transcribed by Audronė Vakarinienė (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N 35). Audio example 6. Zhetva se zazhneva (Harvesting song).Sung by Mitra and Stojna Tasevski, Vill. Malino, Svetinikolsko; AIF m.l. 2149. Recorded and transcribed by Duško Dimitrovski in 1971 (Rodna Veličkovska 2002: 133, N 23). Audio example 7. Vaikščiojo tėvulis pabarėmis parugėmis (Father walked along the rye field). Sung by singers from Lieponys village, Trakai district; recorded by Daiva Vyčinienė in 2000 (Vyčinienė, Daiva (comp.) Dzūkija. Pietų dzūkų dainos. Lietuvių tradicinė muzika ‘Dzūkija. Songs of Southern Dzūkai. Lithuanian Traditional Music’. Vilnius, 2000. N 4). daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene. danarTi Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė. APPENDIX 389 magaliTi 1. Oi tu aglala (o, mSveniero). Cawerilia 1965 w. brone bogujiene-vamelitesagan, 63 w., lazdiais regioni. gaSifra giedre razmukaitem (Četkauskaitė 2007, N91) Example 1. Oi tu aglala (Oh, you spruce) Recorded in 1965 from Bronė Bogušienė-Varnelytė, 63, Lazdijai district. Transcribed by Giedrė Razmukaitė (Četkauskaitė 2007, N91) 390 daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene. danarTi Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė. APPENDIX magaliTi 2. Oi, aš pjaunu (o, me Wvavs vmki). Semsr. katre Jilinskiene, 68 w. sof. andriunai, alitusis regioni. Cawerilia 1938 w. LTR pl. 910(4) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2005, N16) Example 2. Oi, aš pjaunu (Oh, I am cutting the rye) Sung by Katrė Šilinskienė, age 68, Andriūnai village, Alytus district. Recorded in1938; LTR pl. 910(4) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2005, N16) magaliTi 3. Atjoc berneliu (Seyvarebuli biWi cxeniT mova). Caiwera eduard volterma sof. perloiaSi (1909). gaSifra audrone vakarinienem (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N28) Example 3. Atjoc berneliu (The dear boy will ride). Recorded by Eduard Wolter in Perloja village (1909). Transcribed by Audronė Vakarinienė (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N28) daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene. danarTi Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė. APPENDIX 391 magaliTi 4. Tohi neiu siin laulda (aq gogonebi ar mRerian). Caiwera tamperem samxreTdasavleT estoneTSi (Tampere 1983: 71, N 87). Example 4. Tohi neiu siin laulda (No Maid sings here). Recorded by Tampere in southwestern Estonia (Tampere 1983: 71, N87). magaliTi 5. Šių tamsių naktełį (gza grZelia am bnel Rames). Caiwera eduard volterma sof. gudakiemisSi (1909). gaSifra audrone vakarinienem (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N31) Example 5. Šių tamsių naktełį (The road is long on this dark night). Recorded by Eduard Wolter in Gudakiemis village (1909). Transcribed by Audronė Vakarinienė (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N31) magaliTi 6. Oi, aš pjaunu pjovėjėłė (o, me vTibav maRal mTaze). Caiwera eduard volterma sof. gudakiemisSi (1909). gaSifra audrone vakarinienem (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N35) Example 6. Oi, aš pjaunu (Oh, I scythe on the high hill’). Recorded by Eduard Wolter in Gudakiemis village (1909). Transcribed by Audronė Vakarinienė (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N35) 392 daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene. danarTi Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė. APPENDIX magaliTi 7. Ej Kоliko jе Vransko pole (koliko vranskos mindorze). Semsr. mitra da stoina tasevskiebi, sof. malino, svetinikoslko; AIF m. l. 2042, sof. kneJevo, kratovsko; ruJa, ruJica da kubica nikolovebi. Cawerili da gaSifrulia spas georgievskis mier, 1973 w. (Veličkovska, 2002, N52) Example 7. Ej Kоliko jе Vransko pole ( Koliko in Vransko field) Sung by Mitra and Stojna Tasevski, Vill. Malino, Svetinikolsko; AIF m. l. 2042, v. Kneževo, Kratovsko; Ruža, Ružica and Qubica, Nikolovi. Recorded and transribed by Spase Georgievski in 1973 (Veličkovska 2002, N52) magaliTi 8. Vaikščiojo tėvulis pabarėmis parugėmis (mama mihyveboda Wvavis mindors) Semsr. mare-naviCkiene-kuoZiute, 76 w. varenas regioni. Cawerilia 1956 w. gaSifra genovaite Cetkauskaitem, KTR 51(5) (Četkauskaitė 1981, N. 54a) Example 8. Vaikščiojo tėvulis pabarėmis parugėmis (Father walked along the rye field) Sung by Marė-Navickienė-Kuodžiūtė, 76, Varėna district. Recorded in 1956. Transcribed by Genovaitė Četkauskaitė, KTR 51(5) (Četkauskaitė 1981, N. 54a) 393 Jana partlasi (estoneTi) setos erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos funqcionaluri sistema: mravalbilikiani Canawerebis distribuciuli analizi musikaluri analizi eTnomusikologiuri kvlevis ganuyofeli nawilia. miuxedavad amisa, me-20 saukunis meore naxevarSi, mas Semdeg, rac eTnomusikologia anTropologiuri msjelobisken gadaixara, am sferos bevri mkvlevari da, maT Soris, henri stobarti, aRniSnavs, rom musikalurma analizma saeWvo reputacia daimkvidra. musikaluri analizisadmi amgvari uaryofiTi damokidebulebis mizezi, mkvlevris azriT, mdgomareobs `mis kavSirSi analizis potenciurad Seusabamo kategoriebTan an modusebTan~ (Stobart, 2008: 17). Tumca, bolo aTwleulebis ganmavlobaSi eTnomusikologiaSi xdeba kvlevis am sferos reabilitacia da musikaluri analizis meTodebis ganaxleba. meTodologiuri ganaxlebis erT-erTi SesaZlo mimarTulebaa musikaluri analizis metad obieqturi, realuri meTodebis Zieba. winamdebare gamokvlevaSi warmogidgenT setos1 (CrdiloaRmosavleT estoneTi) mravalxmiani simRerebis uZvelesi kilos analizis mcdelobas _ distribuciuli (ganawilebis) analizis meSveobiT, romelic aRweriTi lingvistikidan warmoiqmna. es meTodi gansakuTrebiT kargad miesadageba iseT iSviaT enebs, romelTa Sesaxeb mcire mecnieruli informacia arsebobs; SeiZleba iTqvas, rom, garkveuli TvalazrisiT, igi setos uZveles musikalur sistemasac miesadageba. Cemi analizis obieqti Zalian uCveulo, erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kiloa, romelic gvxvdeba setos mravalxmiani sasimRero tradiciis uZveles SreSi (kerZod, Sromis, kalendarul da saqorwilo simRerebSi). erTi-sam-naxevartonian kilos simetriuli struqtura aqvs da Seicavs mxolod erT da sam naxevartonul intervalebs (mag. 1). bgeraTrigis yvelaze farTo varianti Sedgeba 6 bgerisgan da maTi intervaluri struqtura SeiZleba gamoisaxos ricxvebis Semdegi TanmimdevrobiT 1-3-1-3-1, sadac ricxvebi aRniSnaven intervalebis sidides naxevartonebSi. musikalur transkrifciebSi es kilo SeiZleba Caiweros notebiT D-Eb-F#-G-A#-H (xSirad iwereba, rogorc D-Eb-F#-G-B-Cb, magram pirveli varianti logikurad ufro misaRebia). erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos umciresi forma Sedgeba sami bgerisagan, F#-G-A#, romelic aigeba struqturisgan 1-32. imisTvis, rom warmoidginoT am kilos JReradoba, gTavazobT fragments saqorwilo simReridan Hähkämine (mag. 2, audiomag. 1). sizustis mizniT, aRvniSnav, rom Cem mier moyvanili aRweriloba warmoadgens gamartivebul Teoriul konstruqcias; praqtikaSi yvelaferi metad ufro rTuladaa. rogorc akustikurma gamokvlevebma aCvena (Ambrazevičius, Pärtlas, 2011; Pärtlas, 2012), bgeraTrigis bgerebs Soris intervalebi araa zustad erTi da sami naxevartoni, maTi sidide SeiZleba mniSvnelovnad Seicvalos. miuxedavad amisa, winamdebare statiaSi ar gvainteresebs intervalebis zusti sidide; Cveni kvlevis sagania funqciuri kavSirebi 394 Jana partlasi bgeraTrigis bgerebs Soris da melodiis agebis wesebi. Cven ramdenime empiriuli dakvirveba movaxdineT am sakiTxTan dakavSirebiT (Pärtlas, 1997, 2006, 2010); magaliTad, SeiZleba iTqvas, rom erTi-sam-naxevartonian kilos aqvs modaluri centri, romelic SeiZleba iyos bgera G, ufro iSviaTad ki _ F#. aseve SegviZlia vTqvaT, rom am kiloSi obertonuli JReradobebi xSirad Seicavs bgerebs, romlebic Tanmimdevruladaa ganlagebuli, Tumca _ erT bgeraTrigSi, romelic ayalibebs or harmoniul kompleqss _ D-F#-A# da Eb-G-H. problema imaSia, rom yvela es dakvirveba SeiZleba uaryofil iqnas sxva mkvlevrebis mier, rogorc subieqturi; marTlac, viRacam SeiZleba am sakiTxze akademiur literaturaSi aRmoaCinos sakmaod bevri sapirispiro mtkicebuleba. warmodgenili moxsenebis mizania, moinaxos erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilosadmi, rogorc musikaluri sistemisadmi, ufro metad obieqturi midgoma. dasawyisisTvis, unda SegaxsenoT, rom distribuciuli analizi gulisxmobs kavSirebs gverdi-gverd ganlagebul elementebs (segmentebs) Soris. TiToeuli elementis kavSirs winamdebare an momdevno elementTan, misi pozicia ewodeba. yvela pozicia, romelSic elementi SeiZleba aRmoCndes, qmnis mis distribucias (gadanawilebas). analizis Sedegebi SeiZleba gaformdes specialuri simboloebiT; analizis finalur stadiaze SeiZleba miviRoT formaluri, garegnuli gramatika _ wesebis kompleqti, romelic saSualebas mogvcems, elementebisgan, romlebic enis sintaqsis Tanaxmad imoqmedeben, SevqmnaT jaWvi. gamoyenebuli meTodologiis gaTvaliswinebiT, winamdebare gamokvleva efuZneba boris gasparovis (Gasparov, 1969, 1972), anatoli milkasa (Milka, 1982) da vladimer mazepusis (Mazepus, 1993) naSromebs, sadac gamoyenebulia musikis kvlevis distribuciuli analizi. Cems mizans ar warmoadgens ganawilebis analizis yvela proceduris gamoyeneba, mivmarTav imas, romelic Cemi kvlevis miznebisTvisaa misaRebi. analizis Sedegebs gamovsaxav musikis Teoriis zogadi cnebebiT, iseTebiT, rogoricaa bgeraTrigis bgerebis modaluri funqciebi, maTi miziduloba, stabiluroba da a.S. saanalizod avirCie setos simRerebis aTi mravalbilikiani Canaweri, romelic gakeTda 1976, 1990, 1995 da 1996 wlebSi CrdiloeT setomaas soflebSi: varskasa da mikitameSi. maTi umravlesoba warmoadgens Sromisa da ritualur simReras (saqorwilo, mwyemsis, mosavlis aRebis da sxv.). yvela simRera emyareba erTi-sam-naxevartonian kilos da gaaCnia G modaluri centri bgeraTrigSi. amgvarad, gansaxilveli musikaluri masala imdenad erTgvarovania, rom SesaZlebelia gamoyenebul iqnas distribuciuli analizisTvis. kvlevisas upirvelesi sakiTxi iyo, Tu romeli musikaluri elementi unda yofiliyo aRebuli, rogorc musikaluri teqstis segmenti _ melodiis individualuri bgerebi Tu harmoniuli kompleqsebi. vinaidan setos mravalxmian simRerebSi mxolod ori harmoniuli kompleqsia, romelTa ganawileba nebismieri analizis gareSec naTelia, gadavwyvite, elementebis saxiT ameRo melodiis individualuri bgerebi (an segmentebi). gavaanalize maTi binaruli kavSirebi TiToeul simReraSi, yoveli momRerlis xmaSi; es SesaZlebeli gaxda mravalbilikiani Caweris teqnikis meSveobiT. pirveli nabiji iyo distribuciis/ganawilebis matricis Sedgena (sur. 1), msgavsad imisa, rac gaakeTa boris gasparovma, roca evropuli funqcionaluri harmonia setos erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos funqcionaluri sistema: mravalbilikiani Canawerebis distribuciuli analizi 395 gaaanaliza. am matricaSi plusebi aRniSnaven elementebis SesaZlo poziciebs, adgilmdebareobas, sxva sityvebiT rom vTqvaT, melodiis bgerebs (D, Eb, F#, G, A# da H), iseve, rogorc frazebs Soris cezurebs (cezurebisTvis gamoyenebulia simbolo ø). rigebSi miTiTebulia TiToeuli elementis SesaZlo kavSiri momdevno elementTan (esaa elementis marjvena poziciebi), maSin, rodesac svetebi miuTiTeben elementebis SesaZlo kavSirebs winamdebare elementTan (marcxena poziciebi). rogorc vxedavT, melodiis bgerebis yvela pozicia araa SesaZlebeli erT-sam-naxevartonian kiloze agebul simRerebSi. magaliTad, bgeraTrigis bgeris H-s distribucia Zalian SezRudulia orive mimarTulebiT; bgeraTrigis yvela bgera ar gvxvdeba cezuramde da a.S. miuxedavad yovelive amisa, msgavsi matricebi araa srulyofili, radgan isini ar aCveneben, Tu ramdenad xSirad xdeba esa Tu is kavSirebi. amitom Sevadgine anatoli milkas mier gamoyenebulis msgavsi matrica ricxvebis gamoyenebiT, nacvlad plusebisa (sur. 2). ricxvebi miuTiTeben elementis marjvena poziciebs, an, ufro zustad, maTi warmoSobis albaTobas, gamosaxuls procentuli mniSvnelobebiT. Tu albaToba aris 1 procentze naklebi, ricxvis nacvlad gamoiyeneba patara varskvlavi. im bgeraTa poziciebi ki, romlebic mxolod 1-2-jer gvxvdeba mTeli saanalizo masalis ganmavlobaSi, araa naCvenebi matricaSi. rogorc xedavT, es matrica bevrad informaciulia. jer erTi, matricidan amoRebulia garkveuli SemTxveviTi an aradamaxasiaTebeli poziciebi da axla ukeT Cans bgeraTrigis zogierTi bgeris SezRuduli distribucia. magaliTad, pirvel matricaSi (sur. 1) iqmneba STabeWdileba, rom bgeraTrigis bgeras A# gaaCnia Tavisufali distribucia orive mimarTulebiT; axla ki vxedavT, rom mas Tavisufali distribucia gaaCnia mxolod marcxena mimarTulebiT da misi marjvena poziciebi sakmaod SezRudulia. meorec, ricxvebi matricaSi miuTiTebs zustad, rom zogierTi pozicia sxvebTan SedarebiT ufro xSiria. yuradsaRebia, rom didi ricxvebi (suraTze naCvenebia ferad kvadratebSi) Tavmoyrilia ZiriTadi diagonalis irgvliv. es niSnavs, rom melodiis bgerebis metad saxasiaTo poziciebia maTi kavSirebi bgeraTrigSi maT gverdiT ganlagebul bgerebTan. milkas (Milka, 1982) mixedviT, Cven bgerebis marjvena poziciebs ufro SesaZleblad aRviqvamT, maTi ZiriTadi tonaluri an modaluri mizidulobis gamo. erTisam-naxevartoniani kilos sqemaSi (mag. 3) mizidulobebis mimarTulebebi aRniSnulia isrebiT, ricxvebi ki miuTiTeben bgeraTrigis TiToeuli bgeris SesaZlo marjvena poziciebs. aq vxedavT, rom yvela isari mimarTulia bgeraTrigis centrisken G, romelic Cveni empiriuli analizis Tanaxmad, warmoadgens kilos ZiriTad sayrden bgeras. mizidulobis mimarTuleba adasturebs, rom G-s namdvilad aqvs msgavsi kilouri funqcia. arsebobs sxva faqtorebic, riTac dasturdeba G-s, rogorc kilouri centris mniSvneloba: 1. is erTaderTi bgeraa bgeraTrigSi, romelsac aqvs Tavisufali distribucia marjvniv, 2. albaToba imisa, rom is iqneba ganlagebuli cezuris win, Zalian didia (ix. G sur. 2-Si). bgeraTrigis erTaderTi bgera, romelsac aqvs distribucia marcxniv, aris A# (ix., A# sur. 2-Si). misi yvelaze SesaZlo marjvena poziciaa kavSiri kilour centrTan G (86%). es niSnavs, rom bgeraTrigis yvela bgeras SeuZlia gadaadgildes A#-ken, romelic Semdeg gadawydeba kilour centrSi G. aRniSnuli metyvelebs imaze, 396 Jana partlasi rom bgeraTrigis bgeras A#-s erTi-sam-naxevartonian kiloSi aqvs gansakuTrebuli funqcia, romelsac SeiZleba ewodos `kilouri antiTeza~. momdevno matrica (sur. 3) aCvenebs marjvena poziciis elementebis warmoqmnis albaTobas procentebSi yvela binarul SeerTebebTan mimarTebiT, romlebic warmoiqmneba gaanalizebul simRerebSi. am matricaSi oTxi didi ricxvia (aRniSnulia feradi kvadratebiT). yvela maTgani dakavSirebulia bgeraTrigis bgerebTan F#, G da A#. es niSnavs, rom gaanalizebul masalaSi dominirebs am sami bgeris SeerTebebi. aRniSnuli adasturebs Cvens varauds imis Sesaxeb, rom bgeraTrigis bgerebi F#, G da A# Seadgenen erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos ZiriTad birTvs. bolo mtkicebuleba aseve SeiZleba daadasturos im faqtma, rom erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos umciresi forma Sedgeba am sami bgerisgan, anu arsebobs simRerebi, sadac mxolod es sami bgera gamoiyeneba. bgeraTrigis bgerebi D, Eb da H erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos periferiazea. isini kilour centrSi SeiZleba gadawydnen mxolod F# da A# meSveobiT, romlebic kilos ZiriTad birTvs warmoadgenen. amavdroulad, isini SeiZleba arc iyos bgeraTrigSi. bgeraTrigis bgerebs Eb da H gaaaCniaT kidev erTi kilouri funqcia _ frazis bolos maT SeuZliaT kilouri centris, G-s dublireba. es metyvelebs imaze, rom bgerebi G, Eb da H miekuTvnebian erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos igive harmoniul kompleqss (rogorc navaraudevi iyo empiriuli analizis dros), magram gaanalizebul simRerebSi mxolod bgera G-s gaaCnia kilouri centris funqcia. Semdegi sqema (sur. 4) gviCvenebs bgeraTrigis bgerebis funqcionalur damokidebulebas (kilos ZiriTadi birTvi da periferia aRniSnulia wreebiT), da maT mikuTvnebas harmoniuli kompleqsebisadmi (rac aRniSnulia sxvadasxva SriftiT). zogierTi damatebiTi informacia erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos Sesaxeb SeiZleba miRebul iqnas gansxvavebuli tipis matricidan. winamdebare naSromSi minda warmogidginoT kidev erTi analitikuri procedura, romelic SesaZloa, sasargeblo aRmoCndes tradiciuli musikis kilouri struqturis analizisTvis. esaa meTodi, romelic boris gasparovma (Gasparov, 1969, 1972) gamoiyena evropuli klasikuri musikis harmoniuli sistemis analizisas. gasparovis Tanaxmad, elementebis yvela binaruli SeerTeba SeiZleba daiyos sam tipad – konstelaciebi, determinaciebi da solidarobebi. konstelaciebis elementebi Tanabaria da damoukidebeli; maT ar esaWiroebaT erTmaneTi, raTa gamoCndnen ama Tu im poziciaSi. magaliTad, erTi-sam-naxevartonian kiloSi erT-erTi konstelaciaa G-A#. am SeerTebis ganawileba aseTia: (Eb–, F#–, A#–) G A# (–Eb, –G, –H). rogorc xedavT, G-mde aq SeiZleba iyos Eb, F# da A# (sur. 2). yvela es bgera, aseve, SesaZlebelia iyos A#–mdec. A#-s Semdeg SeiZleba gamoCndes Eb, G da H. yvela es bgera Sesalebelia G-s Semdegac. es niSnavs, rom Tu Cven SevkvecavT G-s an A#s am binaruli segmentidan, ar warmoiqmneba `akrZaluli~ SeerTebebi. erTisam-naxevartoniani kilo Sedgeba sxva konstelaciebsagan _ D-Eb, Eb-D, F#-Eb da F#-D. determinaciebis wevrebi araa Tanabari; erT-erTi maTgani aris `determinanti~ (ganmsazRvreli) da meore _ `determinatori~. `determinanti~ damoukidebelia, rac niSnavs, rom is SeiZleba gamoCndes am konteqstSi binaruli segmentis sxva wevrebis gareSe. `determinatori~ damokidebulia `determinantze~, radgan mas esaWiroeba segmentis sxva setos erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos funqcionaluri sistema: mravalbilikiani Canawerebis distribuciuli analizi 397 wevri, raTa gamoCndes konteqstSi. reduqciis, Semcirebis procesis gamoyenebisas Cven SegviZlia SevamciroT `determinatori~ da ara `determinanti~. amgvari `determinaciebis~ CamonaTvali mocemulia sur. 5-Si. SesamCnevia, rom yvela SeerTebaSi `determinantebia~ (naCvenebia gamsxvilebuli SriftiT) G, A# an F#, rac adasturebs Cvens varauds, rom bgeraTrigis es sami bgera erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos safuZvels Seadgens. solidarobebis wevrebi Tanabaria, magram isini erTmaneTzea damokidebuli. es niSnavs, rom vercerTi maTgani ver Semcirdeba binaruli segmentidan akrZaluli SeerTebebis warmoqmnis gareSe. erTi-sam-naxevartonian kiloSi amgvari solidarobebia A#-G da F#-G. axla, rodesac yvela binaruli segmenti klasificirebulia konstelaciebSi, determinaciebsa da solidarobebSi, SegviZlia daviwyoT reduqciis procesi. mosavlis aRebis simReridan Lelotaminõ fraza mocemulia sur. 6-Si. `determinacia~ D-F# SeiZleba Seikvecos mis `determinantamde~ F#, `determinacia~ G-F# ki _ G-mde, da `determinacia~ G-Eb _ aseve G–mde. `konstelacia~ G-A# SeiZleba Seikvecos orgvarad. Tu SevecdebiT pirvelad G-s reduqcias, Sekvecis proceduris Sedegi aris `solidarobebi~ F#-G, romelic ver Seikveceba. Sekvecis meore gzaa `konstelaciis~ G-A# Sekveca A#-mde. am SemTxvevaSi Cven viRebT elementTa jaWvs, romelsac Seicavs `determinacia~, romlis `determinantia~ F#-A#, A#. F#-A#–is A#-mde Sekvecis Semdeg Cven viRebT `solidarobebs~ A#-G, romelic ver Seikveceba. msgavsi muSaoba Catarda simRerebis araerT frazaze da Sedegebi yovelTvis iyo `solidarobebi~ F#-G an `solidarobebi~ A#-G. Tu am ors SevaerTebT, miviRebT harmoniul Tanmimdevrobas _ didi tercia F#-A# wydeba unisonSi _ G (mag. 4). es Sedegi mniSvnelovania, radgan aRniSnuli harmoniuli SeerTeba yvelaze tipuri kadansia ganxilul simRerebSi. dasasruls, SeiZleba iTqvas, rom distribuciuli analizi adasturebs empiruli kvlevis Sedegebs da iZleva met informacias erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos Sesaxeb. is gviCvenebs, rom analizis es meTodi warmatebiT SeiZleba gamoviyenoT tradiciuli musikis kvlevaSi da gansakuTrebiT sasargebloa maSin, rodesac gvinda miviRoT obieqturi informacia ucnobi musikaluri sistemebis Sesaxeb. SeniSvnebi 1 ZiriTadi faqtebi setos Sesaxeb: setos xalxi Tavis regions uwodebs setomaas (estonurad – setu da setumaa), setos enaa estonuri enis veru-setos dialeqti, romelzec daaxloebiT 5000 adamiani saubrobs, igi fino-ugaruli enebis finur qvejgufs miekuTvneba. setos tradiciuli kultura mniSvnelovnad gansxvavdeba sxva estonelebis kulturisgan; estonelebi luTeranebi, xolo setoebi marTlmadideblebi arian. setoebis musikaluri tradicia aris uZvelesi mravalxmiani sasimRero stili; setos musikaluri tradicia erT-erTi im mcireTagania, rac dRemde SemorCa estoneTSi. meti informaciisaTvis erTi-sami-naxevartoniani kilos Sesaxeb ix. Sarv, 1980; Pärtlas, 1997, 2006, 2010. 2 398 audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. saqorwilo simRera Hähkäminõ. asruldebs gundi helmine sofel mikitamaedan (1998). Targmna marika nadareiSvilma 399 ŽANNA PӒRTLAS (ESTONIA) THE FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM OF THE SETO1 ONE-THREE-SEMITONE MODE: AN APPROACH BASED ON A DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS OF MULTITRACK RECORDINGS Musical analysis is an essential part of ethnomusicological research. However, since ethnomusicology turned increasingly towards anthropological discourse in the second half of the 20th century, musical analysis has earned a doubtful reputation among many scholars in the field. The reason for such a negative attitude towards musical analysis is, as Henry Stobart remarked, “its association with imposing potentially inappropriate “outsider” categories or modes of analysis” (Stobart, 2008: 17). During the last decades, however, we can observe the rehabilitation of this domain of research in ethnomusicology and a renewal of the methodology of musical analysis. One possible direction of this methodological renewal is a search for more objective methods of musical analysis. In this paper I am going to demonstrate my attempt to analyse the ancient mode of the multipart songs of the Seto (South-Eastern Estonia) by means of distribution analysis, which originated from descriptive linguistics. This method is especially applicable to rare languages about which little scholarly information exists, and in some sense it can be said that this is the case with the Seto ancient music system as well. The object of analysis in this paper is the one-three-semitone mode – a very unusual mode, which can be found in the older layer of the Seto multipart song tradition (especially in the work, calendar, and wedding songs). The one-three-semitone mode has a symmetrical structure and consists of one and three-semitone intervals only (ex. 1). The largest form of the scale is composed of 6 notes, and its intervallic structure can be expressed by the succession of the numbers 1-3-1-3-1, where the numbers designate the size of the intervals in semitones. In the music transcriptions, this mode can be written with the notes D-Eb-F#-G-A#-B (it is also often written as D-Eb-F#-G-Bb-Cb, but the first variant is logically preferable). The minimum form of the one-three-semitone mode consists of 3 notes, F#-G-A#, constituting the structure 1-32. The provide the music transcription of the wedding song Hähkämine, which is based on the one-three-semitone mode (ex. 2, audio ex. 1). To be precise, the description above is a simplified theoretical construction; the practice is much more complicated. As acoustic researches have shown (Ambrazevičius, Pärtlas, 2011; Pärtlas, 2012), the intervals between the scale notes are not actually one and three semitones exactly, and their size can vary considerably. In this paper, however, we are not interested in the precise size of the intervals; rather, our subject is the functional relationships between scale notes and the rules of melody building. Of course, we can already make some preliminary observations concerning this issue (Pärtlas, 1997, 2006, 2010). For instance, it can be said that the one-three-semitone mode usually has a clear modal centre, which can be the note G or, more rarely, F#. We also can assert that in this mode the harmonic sonorities usually consist of the notes that are situated next but one in the scale, which leads 400 Žanna Pärtlas to the formation of two harmonic complexes D-F#-A# and Eb-G-B. The problem is that all these observations can be rejected by other researchers as being subjective; indeed, one can find quite the opposite assertions in academic literature on the subject. The purpose of the present paper is to find a rather more objective approach to the one-three-semitone mode as a music system. To start with, it should be reminded that distribution analysis deals with the connections between the adjacent elements (or segments) of a text. Each element’s connection with the previous or the successive element is called its position. All positions in which the element can appear constitute its distribution. The results of the analysis can be formalized by means of special symbols, and at the final stage of the analysis a formal grammar can be derived – a set of rules that allows us to compose the strings of elements which are valid according to the language’s syntax. With respect to the methodology employed, the present study stems from works by Boris Gasparov (Gasparov, 1969, 1972), Anatoly Milka (Milka, 1982), and Vladimir Mazepus (Mazepus, 1993), who have applied distribution analysis to music research. It is not my intention to use all the procedures of distribution analysis, but only those that are relevant to the goals of my investigation. I shall express the results of the analysis in the common terms of music theory, such as the modal functions of the scale notes, their tension, stability etc. The material for the analysis consists of 10 multitrack recordings of Seto songs, which were made in 1976, 1990, 1995 and 1996 in the villages of Värska and Mikitamäe in Northern Setomaa. Most of these are work and ritual songs, such as wedding songs, a herding song, a harvest song, and others. All the songs are based on the one-three-semitone mode and have their modal centre on the scale note G. Thus the musical material under consideration is homogeneous enough to be used for distribution analysis. The first question to consider was which musical elements should be taken as segments of the musical text – the individual melodic notes or harmonic complexes. Since in the Seto multipart songs there are only two harmonic complexes, the distribution of which is clear without any analysis, it was decided to take the individual melodic notes as the elements (or segments). The binary connections of the melody notes were analysed in each song in the parts of every singer; this was possible thanks to the multutrack recording technique used. The first step was to compile a distribution matrix (fig.1), similar to those used by Boris Gasparov, who analysed European functional harmony. In this matrix the pluses designate the possible positions of the elements, in other words, the notes of the melody (D, Eb, F#, G, A#, and B), as well as the caesuras between phrases (the symbol for the caesura is ø). The rows show each element’s possible connections with the successive element (these are the right-hand positions of the element), while the columns show the element’s possible connections with the previous element (the left-hand positions). As one can see, not all positions of the melody notes are possible in the songs based on the one-three-semitone mode. For example, the distribution of the scale note B is very limited in both directions; not all scale notes can occur before a caesura; and so on. However, such matrices are not perfect because they do not show how often one or another connection occurs. Therefore another matrix was compiled (fig.2), similar to those used by Anatoly Milka – a matrix with numbers instead of pluses. The numbers show the elements’ right-hand positions, or, more exactly, the probability of their occurrence expressed in percentage values. If the probability is smaller than 1 percent, an asterisk is used instead of a number. Those positions which have occurred The Functional System of the Seto One-Three-Semitone Mode: an Approach Based on a Distribution Analysis of Multitrack Recordings 401 only 1-2 times in all the material analysed are not shown in the matrix. The matrix with the numbers is much more informative. Firstly, some accidental or non-characteristic positions are removed from the matrix, and now the limitation of the distribution of some scale notes can be seen better. For example, in the first matrix (fig.1) it appears that the scale note A# has a free distribution in both direction; now, however, we can see that it has a free distribution only in the left direction and its right-hand positions are quite limited. Secondly, the numbers in the matrix show clearly that some positions occur much more often than others. It is noteworthy that the biggest numbers (shown here in the coloured squares) are concentrated around the main diagonal. This means that the most characteristic positions of the melody notes are their connections with the notes adjacent to them in the scale. According to Milka (Milka, 1982), we perceive the most probable right-hand positions of the notes as their main tonal or modal tensions. The example 3 provides the scheme of the tension system for the one-three-semitone mode (ex. 3). The directions of the tensions are shown by arrows, while the numbers designate the probability of these right-hand positions of each scale note. In this scheme we can see that all the arrows point towards the scale note G, which is, according to our empirical analysis, the centre (or root note) of the mode. The direction of the tensions confirms that G actually does have such a modal function. The other factors that confirm the status of the scale note G as the modal centre are, firstly, the fact that it is the only scale note which has a free distribution towards the right and, secondly, that the probability of its being situated before a caesura is very high (see the G-row in the fig. 2). The only scale note that has a free distribution towards the left is A# (see the A#-column in the fig. 2). It’s most probable right-hand position is the connection with the modal centre G (86 %). This means that all scale notes can move to the note A#, which then resolves to the modal centre G. This suggests that the scale note A# has a special function in the one-three-semitone mode, which can be named “modal antithesis”. The next matrix (fig. 3) shows the percentage of the occurrence of the elements’ right-hand positions with respect to all the binary connections that occur in the songs analysed. There are four bigger numbers in this matrix (shown here by coloured squares). All of these are connected with the scale notes F#, G, and A#. This means that connections of these three notes prevail in the material analysed. This circumstance confirms our earlier assumption that the scale notes F#, G, and A# constitute the core of the one-three-semitone mode. The last assertion can be also confirmed by the fact that the minimum form of the one-three-semitone mode consists of these three notes, in other words, that there are performances of songs where only these three notes are used. The scale notes D, Eb, and B are on the periphery of the one-three-semitone mode. They can be resolved to the modal centre only through the notes F# and A# which belong to the mode’s core. They can also be absent from the scale. The scale notes Eb and B have one more modal function – they can duplicate the modal centre G at the end of a phrase. This suggests that the notes G, Eb, and B belong to the same harmonic complex of the one-three-semitone mode (as was presumed on the basis of the empirical analysis), but only the note G has the function of the modal centre in the songs analysed. The next scheme (fig. 4) shows the functional subordination of the scale notes (the mode’s core and periphery are designated by the circles), and the fact of their belonging to the harmonic complexes (which is shown by the style of the font). Some further information about the one-three-semitone mode can be obtained from distribution 402 Žanna Pärtlas matrices of a different kind; in this paper, however, I would like to demonstrate one more analytical procedure, which can be useful for the analysis of the modal structure of traditional music. This is the method of reducing the strings of elements to the core connection, which Boris Gasparov (Gasparov, 1969, 1972) has used in analysing the harmonic system of European classical music. According to Gasparov, all binary connections of the elements can be divided into three types, called “constellations” (костелляции), “determinations” (детерминации), and “solidarities” (солидарности). The elements of the “constellations” are equal and independent; they do not need each other to appear in a particular position. For example, one of the ‘constellations’ of the one-threesemitone mode is G-A#. The distribution of this connection is (Eb–, F#–, A#–) G A# (–Eb, –G, –B). As one can see before G there can be Eb, F#, and A# (fig.2). All these scale notes are also possible before A#. After A# the notes Eb, G, and B can appear. All these scale notes are also possible after G. This means that if we reduce G or A# from this binary segment, no ‘forbidden’ connections emerge. In the one-three-semitone mode other ‘constellations’ include D-Eb, Eb-D, F#-Eb, and F#-D. The members of the “determination” are not equal; one of them is a “determinant” and the other one is a “determinator”. The “determinant” is independent, that is, it can appear in that context without the other member of the binary segment. The “determinator” is dependent on the ‘determinant’ because it needs the other member of the segment to appear in that context. Using the reduction procedure we can reduce the “determinator”, but we can not reduce the “determinant”. The list of these ”determinations” is provided in the fig. 5. It is clearly noticeable that in all the connections the “determinants” (shown in bold font) are G, A# or F#, which confirms our assumption that these three scale notes constitute the core of the one-three-semitone mode. The members of “solidarities” are equal, but they depend on each other. This means that none of them can be reduced from the binary segment without the emergence of “forbidden” connections. In the one-three-semitone mode there are two “solidarities”: A#-G and F#-G. Now, when all binary segments are classified into “constellations”, “determinations”, and “solidarities”, we can begin the reduction procedure. The phrase from the harvest song Lelotaminõ is shown in the fig. 6. The ‘determination’ D-F# can be reduced to its “determinant” F#, the “determination” G-F# to the note G, and the “determination” G-Eb also to the note G. The “constellation” G-A# can be reduced in two ways. If we try first the reduction to G, the result of the reduction procedure is the “solidarity” F#-G, which cannot be reduced. The second possibility is to reduce the “constellation” G-A# to the note A#. In this case we get the string of elements including the “determination” F#-A#, the “determinant” of which is A#. After reducing F#-A# to A# we get the “solidarity” A#-G, which cannot be reduced. Such operations were carried out on many phrases from the songs, and the results were always either the “solidarity” F#-G or the “solidarity” A#-G. If we put these two core connections together, we get the harmonic succession, which is provided in the ex. 4 – the major third F#-A# resolves to the unison on the note G. This result is significant, because this harmonic connection is the most typical cadence in the songs under consideration. In conclusion, we can say that the distribution analysis confirms the results of our aural analysis and provides more information about the one-three-semitone mode. It shows that this method of analysis can be successfully applied to traditional music and is especially helpful when we need to obtain objective information about unfamiliar music systems. The Functional System of the Seto One-Three-Semitone Mode: an Approach Based on a Distribution Analysis of Multitrack Recordings 403 Notes 1 The basic facts about the Seto are as follows: The Seto people name their region Setomaa (in Estonian – Seto and Setomaa). The Seto tongue—a Võru-Seto dialect of Estonian—is now spoken by about 5000 people, and belongs to the Finnic subgroup of the Finno-Ugric languages. The traditional culture of the Seto differs notably from the culture of other Estonians. Unlike most other Estonians, who are Lutherans, the Seto people are Orthodox. With regard to music, the greatest peculiarity of the Seto culture is the ancient multipart singing style. The musical tradition of the Seto is one of the few in Estonia that has been preserved in active use until today. 2 For more details about the one-three-semitone mode see: Sarv, 1980; Pärtlas, 1997, 2006, 2010. References Ambrazevičius, Rytis and Pärtlas, Žanna. (2011). “Searching for the “Natural” Origins of the Symmetrical Scales: Traditional Multipart Seto Songs”. In: Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies, 5 (1): 1-17. (in Russian) Gasparov, Boris. (1969). “Some Questions on the Structural Analysis of Musical Language”. In: Trudy po znakovym sistemam IV. Tartu Ülikooli Toimetised: Issue 236. (in Russian) Gasparov, Boris. (1972). “Structural Method in Musicology”. In: Journ. Sovetskaja muzyka, № 2. (in Russian) Mazepus, Vladimir. (1993). Universalno-grammaticheski modkhod v kulturologii (Universal-Grammatical Approach in Culturology). Novosibirsk. (in Russian) Milka, Anatoli. (1982). Teoricheskie osnovi punktsionalnosti v muzike (Theoretical Bases of Functionality in Music). Leningrad: Muzika. (in Russian) Pärtlas, Žanna. (1997). “Some Remarks about Modal Structure and Polyphony in the Seto Songs”. In: Teater. Muusika. Kino, No. 1:23-28. (in Estonian) Pärtlas, Žanna. (2006). „Symmetrical Modes” and Mono-interval Polyphony in Vocal Folk Music: Some Parallels between the Seto and Southern Russian Folk Song”. In: Regilaul – esitus ja tõlgendus. P. 219-248. Toim. Aado Lintrop. Tartu: Eesti Kirjandusmuuseum. (in Estonian) Pärtlas, Žanna. (2010). “A “Hen-and-Egg” Problem: Interrelation between Scale Structure and Vertical Structure in Seto Multipart Songs”. In: The Fourth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 336-354. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Pärtlas, Žanna. (2012). “Retracing Processes of Change: the Case of the Scales of the Seto Songs (Southeast Estonia)”. In: The Fifth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 185-195. Editors: 404 Žanna Pärtlas Tsurtsumia, Rusudan and Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Sarv, Ian. (1980). “Transcription of Seto Multipart Singing by Multitrack Studio Equipment”. In: Finno-ugorskij muzikal’nyj fol’klor i vzaimosvjazi s sosednimi kul’turami. P. 103-126. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat. (in Russian) Stobart, Henry (editor). (2008). The New (Ethno)musicologies. Introduction (P. 1-22). Lanham, Toronto, Plymouth: Scarecrow Press. Audio Examples Audio example 1. The wedding song Hähkäminõ, performed by the Helmine choir from Mikitamäe village in 1998. Jana partlasi. danarTi Žanna Pärtlas. APPENDIX 405 magaliTi 1. erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilo aris simetriuli struqturebis bgeraTrigi, romelic Sedgeba mxolod erTi da sami naxevartnoniani intervalebisagan Example 1. The one-three-semitone mode is the scale of symmetrical structure which consists of one and three-semitone intervals only (1-3-1-3-1) magaliTi 2. saqorwilo simRera Hähkämine, sof. mikitames gundis helmines SesrulebiT Example 2. The wedding song Hähkämine, performed by the Helmine choir from Mikitamäe village (1998) magaliTi 3. erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos mizidulobis sistema Example 3. The tension system of the one-three-semitone mode magaliTi 4. ZiriTadi SeerTeba da yvelaze tipuri kadansi setos simRerebSi erTisam-naxevartoniani kilos bazaze Example 4. The core connection and the most typical cadence in the Seto songs based on the one-three-semitone mode 406 Jana partlasi. danarTi Žanna Pärtlas. APPENDIX suraTi 1. matricebis boris gasparoviseuli ganawileba Figure 1 . The distribution matrix after Boris Gasparov suraTi 2. matricebis anatoli milkaseuli ganawileba Figure 2. The distribution matrix after Anatoly Milka Jana partlasi. danarTi Žanna Pärtlas. APPENDIX 407 suraTi 3. gaanalizebul simRerebSi binaruli SeerTebebisas warmoqmnili marjvena poziciis elementebi procentebSi Figure 3. The Percentage of the occurrence of the elements’ right-hand positions with respect to all the binary connections that occur in the songs analysed suraTi 4. erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos funqcionaluri sistema: G _ modaluri centri; A# _ modaluri antiTeza; G, A#, F# _ kilos centraluri bgerebi; D, Eb, B – kilos araZiriTadi bgerebi; Eb, G, B – daskvniTi harmoniuli kompleqsi Figure 4. The functional system of the one-three-semitone mode: G – the modal center; A# the modal antithesis; G, A#, F# - the core of the mode; D, Eb, B – the periphery of the mode; Eb, G, B – the final harmonic complex 408 Jana partlasi. danarTi Žanna Pärtlas. APPENDIX suraTi 5. erTi-sam-naxevartoniani kilos determinaciebi, naCvenebia muqi SriftiT. Figure 5. The determinations of the one-three-semitone mode. The determinants are shown in bold font G-F# G-Eb G-D G-B D-A# Eb-A# F#-A# B-A# A#-B Eb-F# D-F# suraTi 6. reduqciis procesi frazaSi Lelotaminõ mosavlis aRebis simReridan. isrebiT naCvenebia reduqciis mimarTuleba Figure 6. The reduction procedure in the phrase from the harvest song Lelotaminõ. The arrows show the direction of reduction pirveli msoflio omis qarTvel tyveTa Canawerebi germaniisa da avstriis arqivebSi RECORDINGS OF GEORGIAN PRISONERS FROM THE FIRST WORLD WAR IN GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN ARCHIVES 411 suzan cigleri (germania) qarTvel tyveTa Canawerebi germaniaSi (1915-1919) Sesavali 2012 wlis aprilSi berlinSi daiwyo axali samecniero proeqti `prusiis fonografiuli komisiis Canawerebis Sefaseba da cifrul matarebelze gadatana~. proeqtis erT-erTi mizania, kompaqt diskebze gadaitanos prusiis samefo fonografiuli komisiis (Königlich-Preußische Phonographische Kommission) Canawerebi, romlebic dRes gadanawilebulia berlinis or arqivSi: cvilis lilvakebi inaxeba berlinis eTnologiuri muzeumis (Ethnologisches Museum - Staatliche Museen zu Berlin) fonogramarqivSi, xolo diskebi _ berlinis humboldtis universitetis fonoarqivSi (Lautarchiv der Humboldt-Universität Berlin). am proeqtis farglebSi, romelsac afinansebs germaniis samecniero fondi (DFG), yvela Canaweri xelmisawvdomi gaxdeba farTo auditoriisTvis erTobliv internetportalSi. Cemi moxseneba `xmebi warsulidan~, romelic 2003 wels daibeWda tradiciuli mravalxmianobis pirveli simpoziumis masalebis krebulSi, Seicavda informacias mxolod berlinis fonogramarqivis fondebze (Ziegler, 2003: 521-546). mas Semdeg, saSualeba momeca, Semeswavla fonoarqivis Canawerebic. moxsenebaSi warmodgenilia germaniaSi 1915-1918 wlebSi qarTveli tyveebis Canawerebis pirveli zogadi mimoxilva da orive arqivSi daculi Canawerebis Sedarebis pirveli mcdeloba. istoria prusiis samefo fonografiuli komisia daarsda 1915 wels da mas xelmZRvanelobda karl Stumfi (Carl Stumpf) _ berlinis fridrix-vilhelmis universitetis fsiqologiis profesori da berlinis fonogramarqivis direqtori. proeqti daiwyo vilhelm dogenma (Wilhelm Doegen), romelmac 1914 wels kulturis saministros warudgina germaniis banakebSi myofi ucxoeli tyveebis xmebis Caweris idea. komisiam, romlis SemadgenlobaSi Sediodnen lingvistikis, eTnologiisa da musikis specialistebi, muSaoba 1915 wlis bolos daiwyo. doegeni saorganizacio saqmeebs uZRveboda. Canaweris saukeTeso xarisxis uzrunvelsayofad is TanamSromlobda odeonis xmisCamwer kompaniasTan odeon (Odeon), romelic Canawerebs cvilis lilvakebze akeTebda. SemdgomSi gakeTda am lilvakebis aslebi diskebze, romlebic dRes humboldtis universitetis fonoarqivSi inaxeba. es koleqciebi gadaurCa mRelvare xanas, Tumca orive maTgans ramdenjerme Seucvales adgili da patroni. 1919 wels vilhelm doegenma am diskebis koleqciis safuZvelze berlinis saxelmwifo biblioTekaSi (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin) fonoarqivi daaarsa. mas Semdeg, es koleqciebi gamijnes da maT Soris kavSiri gawyda1. eWvgareSea, rom isini Zalian hgavs erTmaneTs, SeiZleba iTqvas, rom erTmaneTs avsebs. kulturis saministroSi acxadeben, rom orive erTad unda 412 suzan cigleri inaxebodes. imedia, es koleqciebi kvlav gaerTiandeba, jer Cveni samecniero proeqtis erToblivi internetportalis saSualebiT, xolo Semdgom es realuradac moxdeba berlinis humboldt-forumSi (Humboldt-Forum). Canawerebi berlinis fonogramarqivis prusiis samefo fonografiuli komisiis koleqcia Seicavs 985 cvilis lilvaks da damatebiT dokumentacias; fonoarqivis tyveTa Canawerebi Seicavs 1651 disks musikaluri da teqstobrivi masaliT. musikaluri Canawerebis sia katalogis saxiT fric bosem gamoaqveyna 1935 wels (Bose, 1935). diskebis garda fonoarqivSi inaxeba damatebiTi informacia TiToeuli Semsruleblis Sesaxeb, magaliTad, personaluri anketebi, teqstebis originalebi da maTi germanuli Targmani. fonoarqivis fondis eqsponatebis moZebna internetiTac aris SesaZlebeli2; aq, aseve, mocemulia ZiriTadi informacia diskebze Cawerili masalis Sesaxeb, magram ara damatebiTi dokumentaciis Sesaxeb. aseve, SeuZlebelia diskebis mosmena. fonografiuli komisiis mizani iyo, Caewera musikac da verbaluri masalac. fonogramarqivi ki dainteresebuli iyo mxolod musikaluri CanawerebiT. amis gamo, diskebze gakeTebulia lingvisturi Canawerebic (warmoTqmuli sityvebi, ambebi, dialeqtebi, da a.S.), cvilis lilvakebze ki _ mxolod musikaluri masala. Caweris proceduris Tanaxmad, pirvelad gakeTda cvilis lilvakebis Canawerebi. komisiam mxolod maTi mosmenis Semdeg gadawyvita, ra Caewera diskebze. germanul banakebSi tyveebis Cawera xorcieldeboda sxvadasxvagvarad. diskebze Caweris doegenis mier kargad organizebul process sWirdeboda mTeli gundis muSaoba: erTi an ori teqnikosi xmisCamweri studiidan, enis specialisti, rogorc wesi, germaniis universitetis profesori, Tavad _ dogeni da misi mdivani. cvilis lilvakebis Caweraze muSaobda SedarebiT mcire jgufi da Canawerebic, rogorc Cans, keTdeboda ufro farul garemoSi. georg Sunemani (Georg Schünemann) marTavda fonografs da werda protokolebs, simRerebis teqstebs, iqve fiqsirdeboda maTi ganmartebebi da iTargmneboda enis specialistis an Tarjimnis mier. prusiis fonografiuli komisiis wevrebs ZiriTadad ainteresebdaT ucxo enebi da sxvadasxva eTnikuri jgufebis tradiciuli musika, germaneli mecnierebis interesis obieqti iyo rusuli jaris SemadgenlobaSi myofi eTnikuri jgufebi. am proeqtisTvis maT amoarCies mefis jaris rusi, ukarineli, qarTveli, somexi, estoneli, litveli, TaTari, komi, CuvaSi, baSkiri, yirgizi, votiaki3, Ceremisi4 da sxva erovnebis jariskacebi. 1916-1918 wlebSi Caweres 4 sxvadasxva banakSi _ manhaimSi, fuxhaimSi (miunhenis maxloblad), miunstersa da saganSi (dRevandeli zagani poloneTSi) myofi 19 qarTveli tyve. qarTuli da megruli simRerebi da lingvisturi Canawerebi gadanawilda 33 disksa da 69 cvilis lilvakze. 33 diskidan 10 eqskluziuri lingvisturi Canaweria (6 qarTuli da 4 megruli), 20 diskze mxolod musikaa Cawerili, 3 diskze ki _ Sereuli repertuaria, _ simRerebi da simRerebis teqstebi musikis gareSe. cvilis lilvakebze Cawerilia mxolod musikaluri masala, misi mimoxilva qarTul da germanul enebze mocemulia anzor erqomaiSvilis katalogSi qarTuli fonoCanawerebi qarTvel tyveTa Canawerebi germaniaSi (1915-1919) 413 ucxoeTSi (Erkomaishvili, 2007). kiTxvarebi Caweramde Semsruleblebs usvamdnen ramdenime SekiTxvas. maT unda daefiqsirebinaT Tavisi vinaoba, asaki, dabadebis adgili, mSoblebis warmomavloba da mieTiTebinaT, Tu ramdeni xani cxovrobdnen iq; fonoarqivSi daculi piradi anketebidan Cans, rom momRerlebi 23-38 wlis iyvnen. 19 qarTveli momRerlidan 10 samegrelodan iyo, 2 _ guriidan, 2 _ imereTidan, 1 – qarTlidan, 1 _ kaxeTidan, 1 _ mesxeTidan, 1 _ xevidan da 1 _ raWidan. anketaSi aseve iyo kiTxva momRerlebis ganaTlebaze. mxolod ramdenimes ar hqonda ganaTleba, qarTvelebis umetesobas ki dawyebiTi ganaTleba hqonda. anketaSi iyo kiTxva momRerlebis profesiis Sesaxebac: TerTmeti iyo glexi an meRvine, ramdenime _ gamyidveli, erTi _ mzareuli, erTi _ Cinovniki, erTi _ yasabi, erTi _ memamule da erTi _ eqimis TanaSemwe. maTive gancxadebiT, 16 qarTveli marTlmadidebeli qristiani iyo, xolo sami _ kaTolike. fonografiuli komisiisTvis gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelovani iyo kiTxva enobriv unarebze, vinaidan lingvistebis erT-erTi mizani iyo tyveebis sametyvelo enis Seswavla. maT dausves aseTi kiTxvebi: romeli miaCnia mSobliur enad, romel enas flobs mSobliuris garda da SeuZlia Tu ara sxva enebze wera-kiTxva. anketis mixedviT, aTma tyvem gaancxada, rom maTi mSobliuri ena megrulia. tyveebis umravlesoba rusuladac saubrobda, es gasagebicaa, vinaidan isini rusul armiaSi msaxurobdnen. am pasuxebze dayrdnobiT, gasagebi xdeba, Tu ratom werdnen tyveebi zogierTi simReris teqsts mSobliur enaze da xolo sxva simRerebisas _ ara. teqstis fonetikuri transkripcia da misi germanuli Targmani Cawerilia adolf diris (Adolf Dirr) mier, romelmac ramdenime weli kavkasiaSi gaatara da venisa da berlinis fonogramarqivisTvis Canawerebi gaakeTa5. diri kavkasiuri enebis specialistad muSaobda ara marto germanul banakebSi, aramed _ avstriaSic (Lach, 1928, 1931). repertuari fonoarqivSi dacul lingvistur diskebze Cawerilia sityvebi, cifrebi, andazebi, dialogebi or glexs Soris, mokle ambebi da locvebi. Cemi interesis sfero musikaluri Canawerebia. momRerlebis repertuari musikis farTo speqtrs moicavs. qarTuli musikisa da enis erTaderTi specialisti adolf diri iyo, romelic am Temas Jurnal `anTroposSi~ qarTul simReraze statiis gamoqveynebis periodidan icnobda (Dirr, 1910). qarTveli tyveebis mier Sesrulebuli simRerebis umravlesoba tradiciuli xalxuri simRerebia. Tu miunstersa da manhaimSi Caweril repertuars umetesad solo simRerebi Seadgens, fuxhaimsa da saganSi dafiqsirebuli nimuSebi mravalxmiania. fuxhaimSi Sedga megreli momRerlebis jgufi, romelmac ramdenime simRera Seasrula. gurulebis jgufs, romelic trios mReroda, viqtor megreliSvili xelmZRvanelobda. man Seasrula cnobili guruli simRerebi: xasanbegura, vodila, ali faSa da Cven mSvidoba. saganSi Cawerili aTkaciani gundis repertuari, Sesabamisad, ufro 414 suzan cigleri farTo iyo da moicavda cnobil kaxur da aWarul simRerebs, maT Soris iyo: Tebrone, namgalo, Tamar qali, samSoblo xevsurisa da sxv. tradiciuli mravalxmiani simRerebis garda, aseve Cawerilia ramdenime sagalobeli da popularuli simRera. yvelas teqsti Caiwera adolf dirma, romelmac, aseve, gaakeTa komentari simRerebis Sinaarsze, maT warmoSobasa da istoriul konteqstze. samwuxarod, mxolod ramdenime komentari ekuTvnis musikolog georg Sunemans. man umniSvnelo gansxvaveba SeniSna pirvelad, gavarjiSebis mizniT da, mogvianebiT, Caweris dros Sesrulebul melodiebs Soris. zogadad, oqmebi Zalian moklea da ar Seicavs raime informacias imaze, Tu ra STabeWdileba moaxdina komisiis wevrebze am simRerebis mosmenam da Sesrulebam Caweris dros. mogvianebiT, fonoarqivis oqmebSi aRmoCnda doegenis mier Cawerili, aRmosavluri musikis erevneli profesoris, aleqsandre oganezaSvilis (Aleksandr Oganezashvili) komentarebi, romlebic man 1927 wels arqivSi stumrobisas gaakeTa da aseve, mis mier violinoze Sesrulebuli gamebi da somxuri da qarTuli xalxuri simRerebi. rogorc Cans, mas, rogorc qarTuli musikis specialists, sTxoves (an, SesaZloa, TviTon iTxova), moesmina qarTveli da somexi tyveebis namReri, is mokle komentarebiT Semoifargla, xazi gausva Canawerebis mniSvnelobas, Seaqo SesaniSnavi xmebi da aRniSna saintereso kontrapunqti. Canawerebi diskebze – Canawerebi cvilis lilvakebze diskebsa da lilvakebze Cawerili masala SinaarsiT msgavsi, Tumca, teqnikuri TvalsazrisiT, gansxvavebulia. eWvgareSea, rom diskebze Cawerili masalis xarisxi gacilebiT ukeTesia. fonoarqivSi dacul 23 diskze dafiqsirebulia 17 sxvadasxva momRerlis mier Sesrulebuli 51 musikaluri nawarmoebi, xolo fonogramarqivSi dacul 69 cvilis lilvakze dafiqsirebulia 19 sxvadasxva momRerlis mier Sesrulebuli 96 simRera. lilvakebsa da diskebze Cawerilia 16 momRerali. eseni arian: platon maCaiZe da giorgi nalekriSvili (1916 wlis noemberi, manhaimi), aTanase (avTandil) gegelia (1917 wlis marti, miunsteri), vasil xubulava, aleqsandre korkelia da ermolai kurava (1917 wlis Tebervali, fuxhaimi), viqtor megreliSvili, varden dadiani, domenti goguaZe, kalistrate kankava, Teodor (fiodor) TargamaZe, grigol xorava, nikoloz yazbegi, platon ServaSiZe, mixeil qiria da sardion gogelia (1918 wlis Tebervali, sagani). platon maCaiZe, giorgi nalekriSvili da aTanase gegelia Cawerilia orjer: rogorc solo momRerlebi fuxhaimis sami megrelisagan Semdgar jgufSi da saganis aTkacian jgufSi, romelSic gurulebic mRerodnen. qarTveli tyveebis mier 1916 wels manhaimSi da 1917 wels miunsterSi Cawerili simRerebi qarTul mravalxmianobas ar asaxavs, 1917 wels fuxhaimsa da, gansakuTrebiT, 1918 wels saganSi gakeTebuli Canawerebi ki mTlianad mravalxmianobazea koncentrirebuli. am gansakuTrebulma polifoniurma mReram fonografiuli komisiis wevrebis aSkara daintereseba gamoiwvia. aRsaniSnavia, rom pirveli Canawerebi cvilis lilvakebze gakeTda, romlebmac safuZveli moumzada gramofonis Canawerebs. es garemoeba gvixsnis, Tu ratom aris qarTvel tyveTa Canawerebi germaniaSi (1915-1919) 415 diskebze Cawerili naklebi musikaluri nawarmoebi, vidre lilvakebze: diskebze Casawerad mxolod saukeTeso nimuSebi iqna arCeuli. germanul banakebSi qarTveli tyveebis Canawerebi 1930-iani wlebis dasawyisSi musikologisa da eTnologis, zigfrid nadelis (Siegfried Nadel) kvlevis obieqti gaxda. nadelma es Canawerebi notebze gadaitana, vrceli da mravlismomcveli Sesavali daurTo da 1933 wels gamoaqveyna saTauriT “Georgische Gesänge” (Nadel, 1933; Ziegler, 2010: 97-115)6. unda aRiniSnos, rom nadelis wignSi mocemuli notirebuli nimuSebi mxolod diskebidan aris aRebuli da qarTveli tyveebis Canawerebi cvilis lilvakebze naxsenebic ki arsadaa. warmogidgenT tyveTa Canawerebs Caweris TariRisa da banakis Sesabamisad 1. manhaimi, 1916 1916 wlis oqtomber-noemberSi manhaimis banakSi Cawerili masala Seicavs 23 lilvakze Caweril 32 sxvadasxva musikalur nimuSs, aqedan 14 simReras imereli platon maCaiZis, 11 simReras ki kaxeli giorgi nalekriSvilis SesrulebiT. orive maTgani diskebzec Caweres, xolo mesame momRerali _ filipe murjikneli mxolod lilvakebzea Cawerili. 10 diskze Cawerili 24 nimuSidan 16 simReraa, maCaiZe asrulebs 13 simReras 6 firfitaze, nalekriSvili – 3 simReras 4 firfitaze. repertuari nawilobriv emTxveva. gafrindi Savo mercxalo, mravalJamier, orTav Tvalis sinaTlev da sxva Cawerelia lilvakebzec da diskebzec. anotaciebis mixedviT, orive momRerals kargi xma da sakmaod didi repertuari hqonia. Tumca isini cal-calke mRerian da ara erTad7. 2. fuxhaimi, 1917 da 1918 1917 wels fuxhaimSi Cawerili masala 9 lilvakisa da 9 diskisgan Sedgeba. megruli enis garda, aq Cawerilia vasil xubulavas, aleqsandre korkeliasa da ermolai kuravas trios mier Sesrulebuli megruli da sxva kuTxeebis simRerebi. lilvakebsa da diskebze dafiqsirebuli repertuari met-naklebad msgavsia: patara sayvarelo, bedinera, murman, raSarera da qriste aRsdga. imereli sergo boCeraSvili aseve Caweres diskebze 1917 wels fuxhaimSi, magram cvilis lilvakebze misi xma dafiqsirebuli ar aris. garda amisa, 1918 wels fuxhaimSi lilvakebze Caweres vasil gagloSvili, magram momReralsa da mis mier Sesrulebul simRerebze Zalian mwiri informaciaa mowodebuli. 3. miunsteri, 1917 1917 wlis martSi miunsterSi Cawerili repertuari Sedgeba 8 lilvakze Cawerili 11 da 1 diskze Cawerili 3 simRerisgan. SesaZloa, Semsrulebeli igive iyo, magram fonogramarqivis dokumentebSi aTanase gegeliaa Setanili, xolo fonoarqivSi – avTandili. komisiam misi namReri daiwuna, amitom mxolod misi saubari Caiweres8. 4. sagani, 1918 saganis banakSi 1918 wlis TebervalSi 19 cvilis lilvaksa da 11 diskze Caweri- 416 suzan cigleri li masala yvelaze mravalferovania da 15 sxvadasxva nimuSisgan Sedgeba. aq Canawerebi srulad emTxveva, vinaidan gramofonis firfitebi da cvilis lilvakebi erTmaneTis miyolebiT Caiweres. ramdenime Canaweri gaakeTa gurulma triom viqtor megreliSvilis, grigol xoravasa da kalistrate kankavas SemadgenlobiT. ra Tqma unda, maT tipuri guruli simRerebi Seasrules, maT Soris: xasanbegura, vodila, ali faSa da Cven mSvidoba. maTi mosmenisas SesamCnevia, rom xmebs srulyofilad ver floben, ise mRerian, rogorc repeticiaze. mokrimanWule Teodore (fiodor) TargamaZe sakmaod kargi momRerali aRmoCnda, Tumca, danarCenebi Sesabamisad ver ahyvnen. am Caweris dros maT sxva momRerlebic SeuerTdnen da bolo 8 simReras 10 momRerali asrulebs. guruli momRerlebis garda, mRerian varden dadiani, domenti goguaZe, nikoloz yazbegi, platon ServaSiZe, Teodor TargamaZe, mixeil qiria da sardion gogelia. TiToeuli momRerlisTvis calke anketa Seivso. mTeli jgufis mier sruldeba kargad cnobili simRerebi: Tamar qali, Tebrone, coli gamididgulda, kuCxi bedineri, facxa, namgalo, samSoblo xevsurisa da sxva9. cvilis lilvakebze sxva simRerebic aris, magram Sunemanis ganmartebiT, isini gramofonis CanawerebisTvis sarepeticio masalad gamoiyeneboda da yvela simRera sworad ar sruldeboda. daskvna dasasruls, SeiZleba iTqvas, rom germanul tyveTa banakebSi bevri momRerali da mravalferovani nimuSebi Caiweres. namRer repertuarSi asi wlis winandeli qarTuli xalxuri da popularuli simRerebia. aRsaniSnavia, qarTuli simRerebis gasaocari mravalxmianoba, razec, mogvianebiT, Tavis naSromebSi saubrobdnen laxi da nadeli (Lach, 1928, 1931; Nadel, 1933), Tumca, avstriis banakebSi Cawerili masalisgan gansxvavebiT, germaniaSi mravalxmiani nimuSebis calkeuli xmebi ar CauweriaT, Tumca, zogadad da ZiriTadad, avstriasa da germaniaSi, qarTvel tyveTagan Cawerili simRerebis repertuarSi didi msgavseba vlindeba. Cndeba kiTxva, rogor SeiZleboda, germaniis tyveTa banakSi sxvadasxva warmoSobis SemTxveviT erTad moxvedril momRerlebs erTi da igive simRerebi scodnodaT? saqarTveloSi gramofonis Canawerebi gakeTda pirvel msoflio omamde didi xniT adre, SesaZloa, isini saqarTvelos mosaxleobaSi popularuli iyo, qalaqebSi mainc. savaraudoa, rom banakSi myof qarTvel tyveebsac, SesaZlebelia, scodnodaT es Canawerebi. imedi gvaqvs, rom saqarTveloSi pirvel msoflio omamde gamoqveynebuli repertuarisa da germania-avstriis banakebSi Cawerili simRerebis saguldagulo Sedareba gamoavlens maT aSkara msgavsebas. seriozuli samuSao aris Casatarebeli tyveTa banakebSi gakeTebuli Canawerebis istoriuli mniSvnelobis dasadgenad. am simRerebis umetesoba dResac sruldeba da isini eTnomusikologiur-istoriuli kvlevis SesaniSnav saSualebas iZleva. 417 qarTvel tyveTa Canawerebi germaniaSi (1915-1919) SeniSvnebi 1 prusiis fonografiuli komisiis Canawerebis Sesaxeb meti iformacia SeiZleba moiZioT cigleris sxva naSromebSi (Ziegler, 2000: 197-206, 2003: 521-546). 2 http://www.sammlungen.hu-berlin.de 3 votiaki aris rsfsr udmurtis respublikis adgilobrivi mosaxlis Zveli saxeli (red.). 4 Ceremisi aris rsfsr maris respublikis adgilobrivi mosaxlis Zveli saxeli (red.). berlinis fonogramarqivSi daculi adolf diriseuli audioCanawerebis Sesaxeb ix. Ziegler, 2003: 521-546, xolo venis fonogramarqivSi daculi diris Canawerebis Sesaxeb _ Lomidze, 2006: 513-522. 5 fragmentebi nadelis wignidan inglisurad iTargmna da gamoqveynebulia (Tsurtsumia, Jordania, 2010: 1–18). 6 7 audiomagaliTi (PK 489/1 fonoarqivi) Seesabameba nadelis mier gaSifrul simReras #6a. 8 audiomagaliTi (PK 709/1 fonoarqivi) Seesabameba nadelis mier gaSifrul simReras #13. 9 audiomagaliTi (PK 709/1 fonoarqivi) Seesabameba nadelis mier gaSifrul simReras #12. Targmna maia kaWkaWiSvilma 418 SUSANNE ZIEGLER (GERMANY) RECORDINGS OF GEORGIAN PRISONERS IN GERMANY (1915-1919) Introduction In April 2012 in Berlin a new research project started, entitled “Valorization and Digitisation of the Recordings of the Prussian Phonographic Commission 1915–1918”. One of the project‘s goals is to compile the recordings of The Royal Prussian Phonographic Commission (Königlich-Preußische Phonographische Kommission) on discs and on wax cylinders, which to the present day are divided between two different Berlin archives: The wax cylinders are part of the holdings of the Berlin Phonogramm-Archive in the Ethnological Museum (Ethnologisches Museum - Staatliche Museen zu Berlin), and the discs are in the Soundarchive of the Humboldt University Berlin (Lautarchiv der HumboldtUniversität Berlin). Within this project, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), all recordings will be made available to the public in a joint internet portal. In my paper “Voices from the Past”, published in the proceedings of the first Symposium on Traditional Polyphony in 2003, I provided information only about the holdings in the Berlin Phonogramm-Archive (Ziegler, 2003: 521-546). Since then I have had the opportunity to do research on the recordings in the Soundarchive as well. What I wish to present today is an initial overview of recordings of Georgian prisoners in Germany 1915–1918 in general, and an initial attempt to compare the recordings in both archives. History The Royal Prussian Phonographic Commission was founded in 1915 and headed by Carl Stumpf, professor of psychology at Berlin Friedrich-Wilhelm’s-University and director of the Berlin Phonogramm-Archive. The project was initiated by Wilhelm Doegen, who submitted the idea of recording the voices of foreign soldiers in German prison camps to the ministry of Culture in 1914. The commission began its work at the end of 1915; it included specialists for different languages, ethnology, and music, with Doegen as the organiser. In order to provide the best quality in recordings, Doegen cooperated with the Odeon record company that made recordings on wax cylinders. These discs were later copied and made available for sale; they are preserved today in the Soundarchive of the Humboldt University Berlin. At the same time the musicologist Georg Schünemann made recordings on wax cylinders for the Phonogramm-Archive. Both collections survived despite turbulent times, and they both changed location place and affiliation several times. There is no doubt that the two collections are very similar; indeed, they complement one another. According to the Ministry of Culture both collections should be kept together. However, in 1919 Wilhelm Doegen took the collection of discs as a foundation stone for the Soundarchive of the Humboldt University Berlin. Since then, the two collections have been separated1. However, there is hope of bringing these two collections together, first through our research project in a joint internet portal, and later in reality in the Humboldt-Forum in Berlin. 419 The Recordings The collection of the Prussian Phonographic Commission in the Berlin Phonogramm-Archive includes 985 wax cylinders together with additional documentation; the recordings of prisoners in the Soundarchive comprise 1651 discs with music as well as language recordings. Further, a list of the music recordings was published in a catalogue compiled by Fritz Bose in 1935 (Bose, 1935). Besides the discs, the Soundarchive holds additional information, such as personal questionnaires for each informant, original texts, phonetic transcription of the text and translation into German. A search for the holdings in the Soundarchive is also possible in the internet2, where one can get basic information on the content of the discs, but not on additional documents, and one cannot listen to the recordings. The intention of the Phonographic Commission was to record music as well as language. The Phonogramm-Archive was not interested in recordings of language, but solely in recordings of music. Therefore, recordings of language, that is, spoken words, stories, dialects etc., are found only on discs, whereas music was recorded on wax cylinders as well as on discs. The recording procedures suggest that the wax cylinder recordings were made first, and after listening to them, the commission decided which items should also be recorded on discs. The recordings in German prison camps were carried out in different ways. The recordings on discs – well prepared by Doegen – required a whole team: one or more technicians from the record company, a language specialist, usually a professor of a German university and Doegen himself as organiser and secretary. Recordings on wax cylinders were less involved: the group was smaller and the recordings were probably made in a more intimate situation. Georg Schünemann handled the phonograph and wrote the protocol, and the texts to the music were written down and explained/translated by a language specialist or an interpreter. Members of the Prussian Phonographic Commission were foremost interested in foreign languages and traditional music of different ethnic groups. Especially the different ethnic groups in the Russian army were of interest for the German researchers. Not only Russian, but also Ukrainian, Georgian, Armenian, Estonian, Lithuanian, Tatar, Komi, Tshuwash, Bashkir, Kirgiz, Mari, Wotyak and Tsheremiss soldiers, among others, who served in the Tsarist army, were chosen for this project. Nineteen Georgian soldiers were recorded in different prison camps between 1916 and 1918: in Mannheim, Puchheim (near Munich), Münster and Sagan (today Żagań in Poland). Georgian songs and language recordings have been identified on 33 discs and 69 wax cylinders. Of the 33 discs, 10 are exclusively language recordings (6 Georgian, 4 Megrelian), 20 discs contain music only, 3 discs present a mixed repertoire of songs and spoken song texts. The wax cylinders contain music recordings only. A survey in Georgian and German is published in Anzor Erkomaishvili’s catalog “Georgian Phonogram Recordings Abroad” (Erkomaishvili, 2007). The Questionnaires The persons who sang or spoke were asked several questions before they were recorded. Besides identifying themselves by name and age, they had to announce their birthplace and how long they had lived there. In addition, they were asked where their father and mother came from and what nationality and tribe they belonged to. According to the personal sheets kept in the Soundarchive, the singers’ age ranged between 23 and 38 years. Among the 19 Georgians singers, 10 were from Samegrelo, 2 420 Susanne Ziegler from Guria, 2 from Imereti, 1 from Kartli, 1 from Kakheti, 1 from Meskheti, 1 From Khevi and 1 from Racha The singers’ education was also part of the questionnaire. Only a few did not have any education, while most of the Georgian singers had basic education in an elementary school; several also attended schools in small towns, and one went high school. The singers’ profession was the last question in the questionnaire; 11 announced to be farmer or winemaker, several others were salesmen; one was a cook, one a clerk, one a butcher, one a land owner, and one a doctor’s assistant. 16 of them declared to be Orthodox Christians, 3 of them – Catholics. Questions about language skills were especially important for the members of the Phonographic Commission, since research on spoken languages among the prisoners was one of the aims of the linguists. They asked the prisoners questions such as: what language did the person regard as his mother tongue, which language did he know other than his mother tongue, and was he able to read and write other languages too; if so, which language(s). According to the questionnaires 10 persons declared Megrelian and 9 persons Georgian as their mother tongue. Most of the prisoners claimed to speak Russian too, which is plausible, since they were serving in the Russian army. On the basis of these answers, it is understandable why some song texts were written down by the singers in their own script and others not. The text in phonetic transcription and its German translation were written down by the linguist Adolf Dirr, who had spent several years in the Caucasus and also made phonographic recordings for the Phonogram archives in Vienna and Berlin3. Dirr served not only in German prison camps as a specialist on Caucasian languages, but in Austria as well (Lach, 1928, 1931). Repertoire Recordings of languages preserved on discs in the Soundarchive present spoken words, numbers, proverbs, a dialogue between two peasants, short stories, and the Lord’s Prayer. My focus is now on the music recordings. The repertoire of the singers covers a wide spectrum of music. The only specialist on Georgian music and language was Adolf Dirr, who was familiar with the topic since he published Georgian songs in the journal “Anthropos” (Dirr ,1910). The majority of the songs performed by Georgian prisoners was traditional folk songs. While the songs recorded in Münster and Mannheim were mostly solo songs, the songs recorded in Puchheim and Sagan were sung polyphonic. Megrelian men formed a group in Puchheim; they sang only a few songs. The group from Guria was headed by Victor Megrelishvili and sang as a trio, presenting some famous Gurian songs like Khasanbegura, Vodila, Ali Pasha, and Chven mshvidoba. A whole chorus of 10 prisoners was recorded in Sagan. Accordingly, the repertoire was broader, and wellknown Georgian, Kakhetian and Acharian melodies were recorded, among them the songs Thebrone, Namgalo, Tamar kali, Samshoblo Khevsurisa and others. Besides traditional polyphonic folk songs, a few church songs and popular songs were recorded as well. All texts were written down by Dirr, and he also wrote comments on the content of the songs and explained their local origin and historical context. Unfortunately, the musicologist Georg Schünemann made only a few comments. He noticed a slight difference in the melodies, when the songs were first sung without being recorded, just for practice, and the later recorded performance. In general, the protocols are very short, and they do not give any information about the impression that the commis- Recordings of Georgian Prisoners in Germany (1915-1919) 421 sion had when recording and listening to these impressive songs. Later comments have been found in the protocols of the Soundarchive, made by Aleksandr Oganezashvili, a professor of Oriental music in Yerewan. Oganezashvili visited the Soundarchive in 1927, and Doegen recorded his playing Armenian and Georgian folk songs and scales on the violin. Most likely Oganezashvili was also asked – or he himself asked – to listen to the recordings of the Armenian and Georgian prisoners of war. As a specialist for Georgian music he commented on the songs shortly, praising the valuable recordings, the wonderful voices or an interesting counterpoint. Recordings on Discs – Recordings on Wax Cylinders The recordings on discs and wax cylinders are similar in content, but different in technical aspects. No doubt, the quality of the recordings on discs is much better than those on wax cylinders. However, the general atmosphere during the recording sessions was probably more relaxed during the phonographic recordings. The recording sessions resulted in 23 discs in the Soundarchive with 51 music pieces, sung by 17 different singers, and 69 wax cylinders in the Phonogramm-Archive with 96 songs, sung by 19 different singers. 16 singers were recorded on wax cylinders and discs, namely, Platon Machaidze and Giorgi Nalekrishvili in October 1916 in Mannheim, Athanase (Avtandil) Gegelia in March 1917 in Münster, the Megrelians Vasil Khubulava, Aleksandre Korkelia and Ermolai Kurava in February 1917 in Puchheim, and Victor Megrelishvili, Warden Dadiani, Domenti Goguadze, Kalistrate Kankava, Theodor (Fjodor) Targamadze, Grigol Khorava, Nikoloz Qazbegi, Platon Shervashidze, Mikheil Kiria and Sardion Gogelia in February 1918 in Sagan. While Platon Machaidze, Giorgi Nalekrishvili and Athanase Gegelia were recorded in both cases as solo singing, the group in Puchheim, consisting of 3 Megrelians, and the group in Sagan, consisting of 10 men including the Gurians sang in choruses. While the recordings of Georgian prisoners in Mannheim 1916 and in Münster 1917 did not reflect Georgian polyphonic singing, the recordings made in Puchheim 1917 and especially in Sagan 1918 were exclusively concentrating on polyphonic singing. It was obviously the special kind of polyphonic singing that attracted so much interest among the members of the phonographic commission. It is noteworthy that the phonographic recordings on wax cylinders were recorded first and that they usually served as examples for gramophone recordings. This practice explains why the number of music pieces on records is smaller than on wax cylinders: only the best pieces were chosen for recordings on discs. Recordings of Georgian prisoners in German prison camps were subject of research carried out by the musicologist and ethnologist Siegfried Nadel in the beginning of the 1930s. Nadel transcribed the melodies of the songs from the records and published them together with a comprehensive introduction as “Georgische Gesänge” in 1933 (Nadel, 1933, Ziegler, 2010: 97-115)4. It should be mentioned that the examples transcribed and published in Nadel’s book stem from the discs only, wax cylinder recordings of the Georgian prisoners are not mentioned at all. The Recorded Material will be Presented now According to the Date of Recording and the Prison Camps 1. Mannheim, 1916 The recorded material in the prison camp at Mannheim in October/November 1916 comprises 422 Susanne Ziegler 23 wax cylinders with 32 different pieces, 14 sung by Platon Machaidze from Imereti, 11 sung by Giorgi Nalekrishvili from Eastern Georgia. They both were also recorded on discs, while a third singer was recorded on wax cylinders only. On 10 discs 24 pieces were recorded, among them 16 songs. Machaidze is represented with 13 songs on 6 records, Nalekrishvili with 3 songs on 4 records. The repertoire overlaps partly; for example, songs like Gaprindi, shavo mertskhalo, Mravalzhamier, Orthav tvalis sinatlev and others were recorded on wax cylinder as well as on discs. According to the annotations both singers had good voices and a quite large repertory. However, both singers were recorded separately and did not sing together5. 2. Puchheim, 1917 and 1918 The recorded material in the prison camp of Puchheim in 1917 comprises 9 wax cylinders and 9 discs. Besides recordings of the Megrian language, a trio was recorded, consisting of Vasil Khubulava, Alexandre Korkelia, and Ermolai Kurava. They sang Megrian as well as Georgian songs, and the repertory on wax cylinders and on discs is more or less the same: Patara saqvarelo, Bedinera, Murman, Rasharera and Kriste aghsdga. Sergo Bocherashvili from Imerethi was recorded on discs in Puchheim in 1917 as well, but his voice was not recorded on wax cylinders. In addition, wax cylinder recordings were made of Vasil Gagloshvili in Puchheim in 1918, but there is little information about the singer or about the songs that he sang6. 3. Münster, 1917 The repertoire recorded in the prison camp at Münster in March 1917 includes 11 songs on 8 wax cylinders and 3 songs on 1 disc. The singer was probably the same, but in the PhonogrammArchive’s documents the singer is Athanase Gegelia, in the Soundarchive Avtandil. The Commission did not rate his singing skills as good, so he was recorded as a speaker instead. 4. Sagan, 1918 The material recorded in the prison camp of Sagan in February 1918 on 19 wax cylinders and 11 discs is the most comprehensive and comprises 15 different pieces. Here the recordings completely overlap, because the gramophone and the wax cylinder recordings were made immediately one after the other. A few recordings were made of a Gurian trio consisting of Victor Megrelishvili, Grigol Khorava and Kalistrate Kankava, and of course they performed typical Gurian songs like Khasanbegura, Vodila, Ali Pasha, and Chven mshvidoba. While listening one may notice that the singers did not totally master their voice. The song sounds like a rehearsal. However, the krimanchuli singer Theodor (Fjodor) Targamadze was quite good, but the others did not support him accordingly. In the course of the session more singers joined, and the last 8 songs were sung by 10 singers; besides the Gurian singers there were also Warden Dadiani, Domenti Goguadze, Nikoloz Qazbegi, Platon Shervashidze, Theodor (Fjodor) Targamadze, Mikheil Kiria and Sardion Gogelia. For every singer a detailed questionnaire was made. The songs performed by the whole group include well-known songs Tamar kali, Thebrone, Tsoli gamididgulda, Kuchkhi bedineri, Patskha, Namgalo, Samshoblo Khevsurisa and others7. There are more songs on wax cylinders, but according to the explanation written by Schünemann they served as an exercise for the gramophone recordings and not Recordings of Georgian Prisoners in Germany (1915-1919) 423 all songs were sung properly. Conclusion Summing up we may state that a great variety of singers and songs was recorded in German prison camps. The range in sung music provides insight in the repertory of Georgian traditional and popular songs of one hundred years ago. The most fascinating aspect of the Georgian songs was the extraordinary polyphony, later discussed in the publications of Lach and Nadel (Lach, 1928, 1931; Nadel, 1933). However, in contrast to the respective recordings in Austrian prison camps, the voices of polyphonic songs were not recorded separately in Germany, but in general and especially in the repertory the recordings of the Georgian prisoners of war in Austria and in Germany reveal great similarities. The question arises as to how it was possible that singers from different regions and backgrounds, who by chance were together in a German or in an Austrian prison camp, knew the same songs. Gramophone records were recorded in Georgia long before World War I, and they were probably also known among the Georgian population, at least in towns. Most likely also the Georgian singers in prison camps knew the gramophone records and were familiar with the repertory. A careful comparison between the repertories published in Georgia before World War I and the songs recorded in German and Austrian prison camps will hopefully demonstrate their close relationship. Much work still must be done in evaluating the historical songs recorded in prison camps. Most of the songs are still sung today, and they offer a wonderful chance for historical studies in ethnomusicological research. Notes 1 More information on the history of the recordings of the Prussian Phonographic Commission can be found in Ziegler, 2000 and 2003: 97-115. 2 http://www.sammlungen.hu-berlin.de 3 More information on Adolf Dirr’s music recordings, kept in the Berlin Phonogramm-Archive can be found in Ziegler 2003: 521-546. On Dirr’s recordings in the Vienna Phonogramm-Archive see the article of Nona Lomidze (Lomidze, 2006: 513-522). 4 An excerpt of Nadel’s book has been translated into English and published in Tsurtsumia and Jordania, 2010: 1–17. 5 An audio example (PK 489/1 Lautarchive) has been played which corresponds to Nadel’s transcription no. 6a. 6 An audio example (PK 709/1 Lautarchive) has been played which corresponds to Nadel’s transcription no. 13. 7 An audio example has been played (PK 1165 Lautarchive) which corresponds to Nadel’s transcription no. 12. 424 Susanne Ziegler References Bose, Fritz. (1935). Lieder der Völker – Die Musikplatten des Instituts für Lautforschung an der Universität Berlin. Katalog und Einführung. Berlin: Max Hesses Verlag. Dirr, Adolf. (1910). “Fünfundzwanzig georgische Volkslieder”. In: Anthropos, 5:483-512. Erkomaishvili, Anzor. (2007). Georgian Phonogram Recordings Abroad. The International Centre for Georgian Folk Song. International Charity Foundation Khobi. Tbilisi. Lach, Robert. (1928). Gesänge russischer Kriegsgefangener, III. Band: Kaukasusvölker, 1. Abt.: Georgische Gesänge (= 55. Mitteilung der Phonogramm-Archives-Kommission Wien) Lach, Robert. (1931). Gesänge russischer Kriegsgefangener, III. Band: Kaukasusvölker, 2. Abt.: Megrische, abchasische, Svanische und ossetische Gesänge (= 65. Mitteilung der Phonogramm-Archives-Kommission Wien). Lomidze, Nona. [2006]. “Phonogram Archive and Georgian Records”. In: The First International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. P. 513-522. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan and Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Nadel, Siegfried F. (1933). Georgische Gesänge. Lautabteilung Berlin. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph (editors). (2010). Echoes from Georgia: Seventeen Arguments on Georgian Polyphony. Series: Focus on Civilizations and Cultures – Music. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Ziegler, Susanne. (2000). “Die akustischen Sammlungen. Historische Tondokumente im Phonogramm-Archive und im Lautarchive“. In: Katalog der Ausstellung „Theatrum naturae et artis“ – Wunderkammern des Wissens. Essays. P. 197-206. Hrsg. Horst Bredekamp, Jochen Brüning, Cornelia Weber. Henschel-Verlag Berlin. Ziegler, Susanne. (2003). “Voices from the Past”. Caucasian Polyphony in Historical Sound Recordings From the Berlin Phonogram Archive”. In: The First International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 521–546. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Ziegler, Susanne. (2010). “Siegfried F. Nadel and his contribution to Georgian Polyphony”. In: The Fourth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. P. 97–115. Editors: Tsurtsumia, Rusudan & Jordania, Joseph. Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire. 425 gerda lexlaitneri, franc lexlaitneri (avstria), nona lomiZe (avstria/saqarTvelo) CD proeqti: 1909-1915/16 wlebis kavkasiis regionis Canawerebi Sesavali dRes venis fonogramarqivis istoriuli Canawerebi did interess iwvevs ara marto mkvlevrebisa da kvleviTi institutebis viwro wreSi. umetes SemTxvevaSi, am uZveles istoriul CanawerebSi dafiqsirebulia kulturebi da enebi, romelTac fundamenturi cvlilebebi ganicades. es koleqciebi farTo sazogadoebis yuradRebas miapyrobs kulturasa da istorias maTi warmoSobis regionebSi (Schüller, 1999: 9). vinaidan istoriuli Canawerebis damuSaveba did dros moiTxovs, fonogramarqivma gadawyvita am koleqciebis gamoqveyneba komentarebiT, audio kompaqturi diskebiT, monacemTa diskiTa da bukletiT. amgvarad, gamocema xelmisawvdoms xdis ara marto xmovan masalas. mas Tan daerTvis monacemTa kompaqt diski, cifruli saxiT Cawerili originaluri oqmebiT. Semdgomi Seswavlis gaadvilebis mizniT, komentarebis seqciaSi istoriuli masala mimoxilulia Tanamedrove TvalTaxedviT. marTalia, es komentarebi ver daaCqarebs an Caanacvlebs ufro amomwurav Seswavlas, magram maTgan viRebT saWiro informacias im garemoebebze, romelSic moxda Cawera. Cawerili simRerebis gaSifruli teqstebi da saubrebi gviadvilebs Canawerebis SinaarsSi Cawvdomas, romlebic, maTi JReradobis xarisxis gamo, xSirad Znelad ismineba. Cven ukve gamoveciT 12 seria, kidev 6 momzadebis procesSia. erT-erTi maTgania 1905-19015/16 wlebis `Canawerebi kavkasiis regionidan~. rogorc Caweris TariRi gviCvenebs, seriaSi Sesulia: adolf diris (Adolf Dirr) koleqcia da fonogramarqivis teqnikuri TanamSromlebis _ leo haiekisa (Leo Hajek) da rudolf poxis (Rudolf Pöch) mier robert laxisTvis (Robert Lach) Cawerili koleqciebi. dirma 1909 wels gamokvleva Caatara daRestansa da TbilisSi, xolo laxi anTropologebis, maT Soris, rudolf poxis iniciativiT dainiSna pirveli msoflio omis dros tyveTa banakebSi musikaluri kvlevis proeqtis xelmZRvanelad. miuxedavad imisa, rom termini `kavkasiis regioni~, SesaZloa, problemuri iyos sazRvrebisa da enebis TvalsazrisiT, am regionebis Canawerebis gamoqveyneba iZleva mravalmxrivi midgomis SesaZleblobas akademiuri msjelobisaTvis. bevri TvalsazrisiT, es gamocema gamowvevaa: erTi mxriv, `klasikuri~ savele kvlevis Sedareba Caweris sxva garemosTan, kerZod, omis tyveTa banakTan, axasiaTebs ara marto kontrasts mkvlevarsa da Semsrulebels Soris, aramed ierarqias gamarjvebulsa da msxverpls Soris, met-naklebad studiis msgavs situaciaSi; da meore mxriv, sainteresoa Canaweris keTebis gansxvavebuli meTodebisa da miznebis TvalsazrisiT. 426 gerda lexlaitneri, franc lexlaitneri, nona lomiZe ori koleqcia rogorc Cans, adolf diri, lingvisti da eTnologi, 1901 wels TbilisSi imyofeboda; igi darCa kavkasiis regionSi da gaagrZela Tavisi kvleva 1913 wlamde, sanam miunxenis samefo eTnografiuli muzeumis kuratorad dainiSneboda. am drois ganmavlobaSi Seqmna xelnaweri angariSebis, fotoebisa da eTnografiuli artifaqtebis, fonografze Cawerili enisa da musikis koleqcia (Öhrig, 2000). 1909-1914 wlebSi dirma cvilis lilvakebze Cawera tradiciuli musika, romelic axla berlinis fonogramarqivSi inaxeba (Ziegler, 2006: 123-124) da, aseve, verbaluri nimuSebi, romlebic venis fonogramarqivSia daculi. ucnobi enebis Caweris diriseul meTodsa da Sedegebs Seexo poxi 1917 wels statiaSi, romelSic saubari iyo eqspediciebis dros lingvisturi erTeulebis fonografiT Segrovebis mniSvnelobasa da teqnikaze (Pöch, 1917: 9). warmoTqmis gansxvavebebis mkafiod Cvenebis mizniT, erTi xmovnis an Tanxmovnis SecvliT, sityvebis siebad dalagebis es meTodi erTgvari modeli gaxda mkvlevrebis _ gustav ramStedtisa (Gustav Ramstedt) da abraham cvi idelsonisTvis (Abraham Zwi Idelsohn). robert laxi aris musikis SedarebiTi kvlevis aRiarebuli specialisti da SedarebiT-sistemuri musikologiis venis cnobili skolis fuZemdebeli, romlis tradiciebs dRes agrZeleben valter grafi (Walter Graf) da franc foedermairi (Franz Födermayr). misi mTavari mizani iyo, Seegrovebina rac SeiZleba meti nimuSi gasaSifrad, xmovani sabuTebis werilobiTi wyaroebi, Seedarebina e.w. tonaluri sistemebi, ritmuli struqturebi da stilebi da eCvenebina martividan rTul struqturad gardaqmnis `evolucia~. misi Sedegebi Semoifargleboda im drois meTodebiT, romlebic evolucionizmisa da SedarebiTobis gavlenis qveS imyofeboda. laxis musikaluri Canawerebi robert laxis mier caristuli ruseTis tyveebis simRerebis kvleva iyo anTropologebis mier dawyebuli didi proeqtis nawili, romelic miznad isaxavda xalxis aRweras, Segrovili monacemebis Sedarebasa da, amgvarad, rasobrivi maxasiaTeblebis taqsonomiis Seqmnas. poxis wyalobiT, romelmac papua axal gvineasa da kalahariSi eqspediciidan uamravi xmovani Canaweri Camoitana (Schüller, 2000, 2003) da fonogramarqivis arqivariusi da teqnikosi gaxda, laxs mieca unikaluri SesaZlebloba, Caewera im droisTvis ucnobi musika. laxis publikacia `omis rusi tyveebis simRerebi~ (Lach 1928, 1931) sakmaod kargadaa cnobili, iseve, rogorc misi notirebuli masala da mis analizze dafuZnebuli am kulturebis sistematizacia. rogorc arqivis angariSebSia aRniSnuli, misi codna yovelTvis emyareboda xmovan Canawerebs, pirvelad wyaroebs. laxis teqstebis ufro axlos gacnobisas, odnav gansxvavebul suraTs vxedavT: laxis Sedegebi emyareboda ara sakuTriv xmovan Canawerebs, aramed mis mier tyveTa banakebSi gatarebuli kvirebis gamocdilebas, rodesac is muSaobda SemsruleblebTan (laxi maT `adamianur masalas~ uwodebda; Lach, 1917: 5), iwerda melodiebs da amgvarad poulobda yvelaze gamorCeul, yvelaze tipur da saintereso simRerebs (Sefasebisas igi gamudmebiT iyenebda aRmatebiT xarisxs; Lach, 1928: 5). es Sedegebi safuZvlad edeboda mis gadawyvetilebas, Tu romeli da vis mier Sesrulebuli musika unda Caewera. CD proeqti: 1909-1915/16 wlebis kavkasiis regionis Canawerebi 427 namdvili Cawera daiwyo am urTierTobebidan ramdenime kviris Semdeg (cnobilia, rom omis dros laxs ufleba misces, mxolod garkveuli periodi gaetarebina banakSi), Tumca, tyveTa banakSi dabrunebulma laxma aRmoaCina, rom mis mier mowonebuli wamyvani momRerlebi sxva banakSi gadaeyvanaT. amgvarad, mis mier gakeTebuli Canawerebi adre Catarebuli kvlevis Sedegia. mas dasaxmareblad fonogramarqivis teqnikosebi gaugzavnes. erT-erT banakSi Cawera mxolod ori dRe mimdinareobda, es iyo, ase vTqvaT, kargad organizebuli proeqti. aseT SemTxvevaSi, Canaweri pirvelad wyarod ar gamodgeba, magram asaxavs Catarebuli muSaobis Sedegebs. SedarebiT musikologiaSi xmovani Canawerebis mTavari rolis gaTvaliswinebiT, laxma yuradReba gaamaxvila Canawerebis mniSvnelobaze, romelic kolegebs daexmareboda mis mier notirebuli masalis sizutis Semowmebasa da CasworebaSi da uzrunvelyofda misi daskvnebis ukeT gagebas. Cven vvaraudobT, rom laxi ekiTxeboda maT, visac simReris survili hqonda, iyvnen Tu ara isini kargi Semsruleblebi. momRerlebs Cawerisas Taviseburad umReriaT, Tavisi variantebiTa da improvizaciebiT. laxi gabrazebula da usayveduria maTTvis, rom ver imeorebdnen simReras ise, rogorc adre Seasrules. maSin erT-erT momRerals auxsnia: `SesaZloa, es Tqveni wesia evropaSi, magram CvenTvis wesi iseTia, rom SegiZlia imRero xan ase da xan ise~ (Lach, 1931: 14). dRevandeli gadasaxedidan, Cven SegviZlia laxis Sedegebi kiTxvis niSnis qveS davayenoT: is muSaobda, rogorc namdvili savarZlis eTnomusikologi; marTalia, miRweulma Sedegebma farTo aRiareba moutana da gza gaukvala karierisken; magram dRes Cven ufro metad gvainteresebs konteqsti, anu istoriuli da socialuri garemo, Caweris situacia, Semsrulebeli da misi gzavnili, Canaweris Sinaarsi da Cveneuli Sefaseba. *** kompaqt diskze muSaobisas azrTa sxvadasxvaobam iCina Tavi. ZiriTadad, es iyo gansxvaveba laxis Sedegebsa (gaSifruli masala) da Sesabamisi Canaweris Sinaarss Soris. franc lexlaitneris moxsenebaSi, erTi mxriv, saubaria am problemebze, rac teqnikuri SezRudulobiT iyo gamowveuli da, meore mxriv, momavalze orientirebul Caweris meTodebze. specifikuri teqnikuri aspeqtebi: imdroindeli gamowvevebi da inovaciuri mosazrebebi Camweri erTeuli: arqivfonografis tipi IV saimperio mecnierebaTa akademiis fonogramarqivma SeimuSava Cawerisa da arqivirebis sakuTari sistema. ZiriTadi erTeuli iyo arqivfonografi, edisonis teqnikasTan erTad momuSave meqanikuri Camweri da aslis gadamRebi danadgari. pirveli Camweri da aslis gadamRebi aparati Zalian mZime da, maSasadame, savele saqmianobisTvis gamousadegari iyo. amitom, arqivis teqnikosma fric hauzerma ramdenjerme scada, gaexada es mowyobiloba ufro moxerxebuli da gaeumjobesebina misi muSaobis xarisxi. gardacvalebamde man Seqmna tipi IV, yvelaze warmatebuli mowyobiloba (Pöch, 1914). cvilis 428 gerda lexlaitneri, franc lexlaitneri, nona lomiZe firfita, romelic warmoadgenda Caweris saSualebas, damzadebuli iyo gabzaruli lilvakebisgan. amgvarad, Caweris xarisxi damokidebuli iyo gabzaruli lilvakebis masis sirbileze. is arasdros iyo erTgvarovani. arqivfonografis tipi IV-s muSaoba Seesabameboda misi winamorbedebis standartebs. wonis Semcirebis mizniT, rkinis nawilebi Canacvlebuli iyo msubuqi liTonis SenadnobiT. moZravi motori daapataraves da xis yuTi aRar iyo iseTi mouqneli, rogorc adre. Tumca, xraxniani borblebis xmauri zogjer Camwer qselSi gadadioda da Zravac susti iyo imisTvis, rom dauyovnebliv daeZlia mkveTri dasawyisi da SeenarCunebina stabiluri siCqare. Caweris specifikuri situacia Cveulebriv, Cawerisas iyenebdnen mxolod erT rupors. magram male dadga ramdenime adamianisa da gundis erTdroulad Caweris saWiroeba. am mizniT, daiwyes ufro didi zomis, aucileblobis SemTxvevaSi ki _ 3 yeliani ruporis gamoyeneba. Caweris dawyebamde siCqares arkvevdnen/ayenebdnen, Cveulebriv, es iyo 60 bruni/ wuTSi metyvelebisTvis da 70 bruni/wuTSi musikisTvis. garkveul SemTxvevebSi, laxi urCevda teqnikosebs haieksa da poxs masalis Caweris dawyebamde jer sayrdeni toni (435 herci) CaeweraT. es uCveulo movlenaa, vinaidan fonogramarqivi arasdros iyenebda sayrden tons siCqaris dasadgenad. aseT gansakuTrebul SemTxvevebSi, laxi, albaT, fiqrobda sinqronizaciis martivi markeris dayenebas zusti JReradobis misaRwevad. sayrdeni tonisa da dakvris dros gadaxris SeTanxmebisTvis siCqare unda yofiliyo 72.5 bruni/wuTSi. sayrdeni tonis garkveva Caweris dawyebis win problemas qmnis. is aiZulebs momRerlebs garkveuli maneriT Sesrulebas – anu imis gakeTebas, rasac isini ar gaakeTebdnen, sayrdeni toni Caweris boloSi rom iyos dasmuli, Tumca, am SemTxvevaSi, diskze Casaweri sivrcis problema Seiqmneboda. laxis analitikur Canawerebs aqvs erTi problema _ patara gundis SemTxvevaSi, yoveli momRerali asrulebs Tavis partias, rogorc koleqtivis wevri da ara rogorc calkeuli Semsrulebeli. 3 momReralTan 3 ruporis gamoyenebis laxiseuli idea SesaniSnavi iyo, magram sasurveli efeqtis, notirebis gaadvilebis molodini ar gaamarTla. im dros amis gakeTeba SeiZleboda mxolod sayrdeni toniT koordinirebuli, sami sxvadasxva erTeulis daxmarebiT. studiur pirobebSi Cawerili bgeris sixSire Seesabameba im periodis komerciuli produqciisas, magram maSin teqnikuri SezRudvebi raime gaumjobesebas SeuZlebels xdida. Semomavali bgeris dinamika xuTamde iyo SezRuduli da reaqciis sixSire Tanabari ar iyo ruporisa da membranis rezonansebis gamo. garkveul SemTxvevebSi, gamoiyeneboda 3 rupori, magram damzadebis Taviseburebis gamo, maT identuri sixSireebi ar hqondaT. amgvarad 3 momRerlis JReradoba sxvadasxvanairad fiqsirdeboda, rac individualuri xmebis notirebas arTulebda. xelaxali Cawera fonogramebis koleqcia amJamad xelmisawvdomia epoqsidis fisis Sablonis for- CD proeqti: 1909-1915/16 wlebis kavkasiis regionis Canawerebi 429 miT. Canawerebi ikvreba saWiro siCqareebis sruli kompleqtis mqone Tanamedrove saarqivo firsakravze. bgeras gamoscems moZravi 200μ diametris nemsebiani magnituri stereo kartriji. sayuradReboa, rom firfita unda moTavsdes zustad centrSi, vinaidan yoveli centridanuli moZraoba Seamcirebs sixSires, risi gasworebac TiTebiT SeuZlebelia. cifrulis msgavsi gardaqmna (AD conversion) xorcieldeba cifrul qselSi/domeinSi optimaluri pirobebis gasaumjobeseblad. *** nona lomiZis moxseneba eZRvneba laxis koleqciis zogad mimoxilvasa da Sefasebas; igi yuradRebas amaxvilebs gamorCeul nimuSebze, raTa aCvenos is problemebi, romlebsac SevejaxeT am masalis gamocemisas da romlebic, SesaZloa, nawilobriv gadaiWras Semdgomi kvelevebiT. Cawerili simRerebis mimoxilva da Sefaseba me visaubreb Caweril masalaze da imaze, Tu rogoria es koleqcia. mTlianad koleqciaSi 24 simReraa, aqedan 17 xalxuria da 7 qalaquri. firfitebze Cawerilia 1, 2 da 3-xmiani nimuSebi. ra saxis sirTuleebs vawydebiT Cven? zogjer Cawerilia mxolod simReris nawili, zogi Cawerili nimuSi ar emTxveva mis notirebul variants krebulSi, zogjer Cawerilia simReris nawili, magram notirebulia sruli teqsti da musika, zogierT firfitaze Cawerilia dReisTvis ucnobi varianti, krebulSi simRerebis teqstebi umetesad srulia; magram maTi siswore sxva saubris Temaa. masalaze warmodgenis Sesaqmnelad SevadgineT cxrili, romelic mkafiod gviCvenebs sxvadasxva aspeqtis ganawilebas. zogierTi simRera, masSi mocemuli `problemidan~ gamomdinare, cxrilis ramdenime grafaSia ganTavsebuli. bevri nimuSidan Cans xmovan Canawersa da mis Sesabamis dokuments Soris gansxvaveba. es problema warmoiSva imis gamo, rom es masala pirvelad laxma gaSifra da SemdgomSi Tavisi gaSifruli masalis gadasamowmeblad gaakeTa sxva momRerlebis mier Sesrulebuli sxva variantebis xmovani Canawerebi. amasTan dakavSirebiT, ori varaudi minda SemogTavazoT: pirveli _ SesaZloa, es aris Caweris droisTvis popularuli variantebi; meore _ SesaZloa, momRerlebi improvizirebdnen simRerebSi, romlebic zustad ar icodnen. laxma ar gaSifra zogierTi es Canaweri – man an Secvala Tavisi muSaobis meTodi da Cawera mxolod misTvis saintereso simRerebi; danarCenebis gaSifvra ki an ver SeZlo, an saWirod ar CaTvala. simRerebis fragmentebad Caweras, Cveni azriT, ori mizezi SeiZleba hqonoda: 1. gamomdinare mTavari miznidan, Caewera rac SeiZleba bevri melodia, laxma gadawyvita, Caewera simReris mxolod erTi muxli an fraza; 2. simReris moulodneli dasasruli gamowveulia diskze sivrcis amowurviT. Tumca, miuxedavad imisa, rom zogjer mxolod ramdenime bgeraa Cawerili, teqstis dasawyisiT mainc SesaZlebelia maTi amocnoba. teqstebisa da melodiebis monacvleobaSi Tavs iCens ramdenime `Secdoma~. dRes Cven vvaraudobT, rom zogjer momRerlebma icodnen mxolod teqsti an mxolod 430 gerda lexlaitneri, franc lexlaitneri, nona lomiZe melodia da maT erTmaneTSi urevdnen. aseT SemTxvevaSi, Cven SegviZlia simReris amocnoba melodiis saSualebiT; unda aRiniSnos, rom zogierTi simRera, romelic, wesiT, sruldeboda simebiani da/an Casaberi sakravis TanxlebiT, aq sakravis gareSe sruldeba; zog samxmian simReras mxolod erTi an ori momRerali asrulebs _ SesaZloa, maT ar hyavdaT mesame Semsrulebeli; sam xmaSi Sesrulebuli nimuSebi sakmaod kargad ismis da kargadaa interpretirebuli, magram laxma gaSifra mxolod erTi an ori xma. rogorc is teqnikur TavSi ganmartavs, swored amis gamo eZebda damxmares. laxis koleqciis xuT CanawerSi Ph 2751-2755 Sesulia ori simRera: Cven mSvidoba da maspinZelsa mxiarulsa. yvela Canaweri ori erTeulisgan Sedgeba, maTgan meore erTeuli simReris mxolod fragments warmoadgens. Ph 2751 da 2755 samxmiani simReris Canawerebia, Ph 2752, 2753 da 2754 SeiZleba eqsperimentul Canawerebad miviCnioT. isini mxolod erT xmas warmoadgens da kompleqsuri polifoniis gaSifvrisTvis damxmare saSualebad iTvleba. rogorc teqnikur nawilSi ganvmarteT, idea kargi iyo, magram warumatebeli. TiToeuli Canaweris Seswavlam aseTi Sedegebi aCvena: Ph 2751: pirveli simRera aris Cven mSvidoba sami xmis SesrulebiT _ teqsti da musika SesabamisobaSia (audiomag. 1); meore simReraa maspinZelsa mxiarulsa _ aqac teqsti da musika SesabamisobaSia, magram mxolod erT muxls mRerian. Canaweri aris lamazi da cnobili varianti, magram, imis gamo, rom diskze sivrce SezRudulia, simReris mxolod nawili ismineba. Ph 2752: es aris Sua xmis Canaweri: levarsi mamalaZe simReris maspinZelsa mxiarulsas teqsts asrulebs Cven mSvidobas melodiaze (audiomag. 2). meore simRera aris maspinZelsa mxiarulsa. am SemTxvevaSi, is xan erT xmas mReris, xan meores, rom CawerisTvis melodia `lamazad~ Seasrulos (audiomag. 3). Ph 2753: momRerali asrulebs Cven mSvidobis Sua xmas, xandaxan gadadis pirvel xmaze; mReris marcvlebze (nanina, nanina) (audiomag. 4). meore simReraSi maspinZelsa mxiarulsa is mxolod Sua xmas asrulebs. ra Tqma unda, advili araa partiis sworad Sesruleba sxva xmebis gareSe, amitom momRerali SecdomebiT mReris (audiomag. 5). Ph 2754: momRerali asrulebs Cven mSvidobas bans SecdomebiT, vinaidan momRerali marto mReroda (audiomag. 6); udaod, rTulia am partiis marto Sesruleba, profesionalisTvisac ki. Tumca, simReraSi maspinZelsa mxiarulsa is sworad mReris dabal xmas, magram iwyebs teqstiT da agrZelebs nanina, naninaTi (audiomag. 7). Tu yuradRebiT mousmenT, ukana planze sxva xmebsac gaigebT, SesaZloa, es iyo dabali xmis uSecdomo mReris mizezi. Ph 2755: es aris mTliani Canaweri, masSi Sesulia wina diskebze (2752-2754) Cawerili calkeuli xmebi; amgvarad es aris wina Canawerebis erTgvari Sejameba. laxma Tavisi amocana _ Caewera erTi xma (ukeTesad gaSifvris mizniT) ver Seasrula, radgan erT xmaSi mRera momRerlisTvis uCveulo aRmoCnda, da, amdenad, samecniero mizansac ver miaRwia. isev da isev, momRerlebi erTi simReris (maspinZelsa mxiarulsa) teqsts asrulebdnen meore simReris (Cven mSvidoba, audiomag. 8) melodiaze, CanawerebSi meore simRera, miTiTebulia rogorc samxmiani maspinZelsa mxiarulsa, magram Cawerilia CD proeqti: 1909-1915/16 wlebis kavkasiis regionis Canawerebi 431 mxolod misi nawili, vinaidan diski mTavrdeba (audiomag. 9). daskvna nona lomiZis ideis safuZvelze anzor erqomaiSvilma eqsperimentis saxiT gvaCvena, Tu rogor unda miesadagos xmebi diskis Canawers (audiomag. 2, videomag. 1, 2). laxis istoriul Canawers man meore xma Seuwyo. es Sesruleba CavwereT da momdevno etapze b-ma anzorma or xmas mesame miusadaga. Sedegad, istoriuli wyarosa da dRevadeli praqtikis safuZvelze, miviReT `axali~, samxmiani versia. am istoriuli Canawerebis gamoqveyneba aris gamowveva rogorc teqnikuri, ise Sinaarsobrivi TvalsazrisiT. maTze muSaobisas amotivtivda axali aspeqtebi, romlebmac naTeli mohfina imdroindeli muSaobis meTodebs, midgomebsa da miznebs. da bolos, es Canawerebi warmoadgens jer kidev cocxali tradiciis uZveles Sreebs. audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. Cven mSvidoba. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2751. audiomagaliTi 2. Cven mSvidoba (maspinZelsa mxiarulsas teqstze). Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2752. audiomagaliTi 3. maspinZelsa mxiarulsa. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2752. audiomagaliTi 4. Cven mSvidoba. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2753. audiomagaliTi 5. maspinZelsa mxiarulsa. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2753. audiomagaliTi 6. Cven mSvidoba (bani). Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2754. audiomagaliTi 7. maspinZelsa mxiarulsa (bani). Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2754. audiomagaliTi 8. Cven mSvidoba. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2755. audiomagaliTi 9. maspinZelsa mxiarulsa. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2755. 432 gerda lexlaitneri, franc lexlaitneri, nona lomiZe videomagaliTebi videomagaliTi 1. Cven mSvidoba. rekonstruirebuli varianti. Semsruleblebi: levarsi mamalaZe, anzor erqomaiSvili. gadaRebulia nona lomiZis mier, 2012 wlis agvisto. nona lomiZis piradi arqivi. videomagaliTi 2. maspinZelsa mxiarulsa. rekonstruirebuli varianti. Semsruleblebi: levarsi mamalaZe, anzor erqomaiSvili. gadaRebulia nona lomiZis mier, 2012 wlis agvisto. nona lomiZis piradi arqivi. Targmna maia kaWkaWiSvilma 433 GERDA LECHLEITNER, FRANZ LECHLEITNER (AUSTRIA), NONA LOMIDZE (AUSTRIA/GEORGIA) CD PROJECT: RECORDINGS FROM THE CAUCASIAN REGION, 1909 AND 1915/1916 Introduction The historical recordings of the Phonogrammarchiv are of huge interest today also outside the narrow circle of research institutions and researchers. In many cases, the historical recordings are the earliest of their kind, documenting cultures and languages which have since been subjected to fundamental changes. These collections, therefore, are also attracting the attention of general public interested in culture and history, especially in the regions of their origin (Schüller, 1999: 9). Due to the time-consuming handling of historical carriers the Phonogrammarchiv has decided to publish theses collections in the form of a commented source edition, including Audio CDs, Data CD and a booklet. Thus, the edition is meant to facilitate access, not only to the sound documents as such. The sound documents are therefore accompanied by original protocols, published on a Data CD as digital images. A commentary section discusses the historical material from modern perspective in order to make further evaluation easy. Although these commentaries cannot anticipate or replace more exhaustive treatment, they can provide useful information about the circumstances under which the recordings were made. Text transcriptions of the recorded songs and spoken texts will help to gain access to the contents of the recordings, which are often difficult to hear due to their historical sound quality. We have published 12 series so far and six more are on the way. One of those is the series “Recordings from the Caucasus Region”, made in 1909 and 1915/16. As it is obvious from the recording date, this series will comprise two collections – the recordings made by Adolf Dirr and those made for Robert Lach by Leo Hajek and Rudolf Pöch – technicians of the Phonogrammarchiv. Dirr carried out his field research in Daghestan and Tbilisi in 1909, while Lach was appointed as project leader of the music studies in the camps for war prisoners during WWI, going back to an initiative of anthropologists, among them Rudolf Pöch. Although the term “Caucasian region” might be problematic in respect of the borders of the national states and languages, the decision to publish recordings from that region offers manifold approaches for academic discussion. The publication of those recordings is a challenge in many respects: firstly, the comparison of “classic” field research with another recording situation, namely in a prisoner of war camp featuring not only the contrast between researcher and performer but also the hierarchy of the victors and the victims in a more or less studio-like situation; and secondly, the different methods and goals of making recordings. The Two Collections Adolf Dirr – a linguist and ethnologist, seemed to have been to Tbilisi already in 1901; he continued his research and stayed in the Caucasus region until 1913 when he was appointed the curator 434 Gerda Lechleitner, Franz Lechleitner, Nona Lomidze in the Royal Ethnographic Museum in Munich. During that time he created a collection of written reports, photographs, and ethnographic artifacts and also phonographic recordings of language and music (Öhrig, 2000). In 1909-1914, he recorded traditional music on wax cylinders now in the collections of the Berlin Phonogramm-Archiv (Ziegler, 2006: 123-124), and in 1909 he used the Vienna Archiv-Phonograph to make language recordings on wax discs preserved at Vienna Phonogrammarchiv. Dirr’s method of recording (unknown) languages and his results were referred to by Pöch in his article on the technique and value of collecting language items with Phonograph during expeditions (Pöch, 1917: 9). The method of arranging word lists with only one vowel or consonant changed to make clear the differences in pronunciation became a kind of model for other researchers, e.g. Gustav Ramstedt or Abraham Zwi Idelsohn. Robert Lach is acknowledged comparative musicologist and father of the well-known Vienna school of comparative-systematic musicology as carried out by Walter Graf (Graf, 1954) and Franz Födermayr (Födermayr, 2013). His main goal was to collect as many items as possible with the purpose of transcribing, gaining written sources from sound documents, and thus being able to compare e.g. tone systems, rhythmical structures or styles, and to show “the developments”, from simple to complex construction. His results were shaped by the methods of the time – affected by evolutionism and comparison. Lach’s Music Recordings Robert Lach’s research on the songs of Tsarist Russian war prisoners was part of a large-scale project, initiated by anthropologists with the main focus on measuring people, comparing the collected data, and thus creating a taxonomy of racial characteristics. Thanks to R. Pöch, who after his expeditions to Papua New Guinea and the Kalahari – from where he brought back numerous sound recordings (Schüller, 2000, 2003) – worked as an archivist and technician at the Phonogrammarchiv, this unique opportunity of recording music, unknown at that time, was eagerly seized. Lach’s publications about “Songs of Russian Prisoners of War” (Lach, 1928, 1931) are quite well known, as are his transcriptions and the results based on his analysis, culminating in his systematisation of those cultures. And, as has always been reported in the archive, this knowledge was based on sound recordings- the primary sources. Closer look at Lach’s texts gives a slightly different picture: it was not the sound recording itself which was the basis for Lach’s results; rather, it was Lach’s stay for some weeks at the war prisoners’ camps, during which he worked with the performers (he called them “human material”, Lach, 1917: 5), writing down melodies and thus finding the most outstanding, most typical, most interesting kinds of songs (each time Lach uses the superlative, Lach, 1928: 5). For him these results were the basis to decide which music performed by whom should be recorded. The real recording session, however, took place some weeks later (during wartime Lach was allowed to stay only for a certain period) and when he returned it turned out that some of the main singers whom Lach favoured had been moved to another camp. Thus, the recordings he made were the result of his working sessions which had taken place before. Technicians from the Phonogrammarchiv were sent to help. The recording sessions in one of the camps lasted only two days, a very well organised project, so to speak. The recordings in that case do not stand for primary sources but mirror the results of the work already done. But, completely true to the sense of comparative musicol- CD-Project: Recordings from the Caucasian Region, 1909 and 1915-16 435 ogy and the central role of sound recordings, Lach pointed out the importance of the recordings to prove his transcriptions, to have a tool for colleagues to correct him, and to ensure better understanding of his conclusions (Lach, 1931: 3-4). We assume that Lach had to ask those who were available and willing to sing at the time, regardless of the fact whether they were good performers or not. The singers sang into the horn in their own way, with their variations and improvisations – the fact Lach was angry about because he accused those singers of not being able to repeat the song in the same way. In that sense, one of the singers explained: “Maybe that is your rule in Europe. For us it is completely the same. You can sing the song this or that way” (Lach, 1931: 14). From today’s standpoint we can question Lach’s results: he worked as a typical armchair ethnomusicologist and his results were widely accepted and paved the way for his career. But at present, we are more interested in the context, i.e. the historical and social setting, the recording circumstances, the performer and his message, the contents of the recording and their evaluation as wee them. *** When starting the work for the CD, some discrepancies emerged – mainly differences between Lach’s results (transcriptions) and the content of the respective recordings. These problems, caused by technical limitations on the one hand, and future-oriented recording methods in line with the goals of comparative musicology on the other hand, explained in the chapter about specific technical aspects, are addressed by Franz Lechleitner. Specific Technical Aspects: Challenges and Innovative Considerations at that Time The Recording Unit: Archivphonograph Type IV The Phonogrammarchiv of the Imperial Academy of Sciences developed its own recording and archiving system. Central unit was the Archivphonograph, a mechanically operated recording and reproducing machine working with Edison’s technique. The very first recording and reproducing apparatus was very heavy and therefore not very useful for field recording. Hence the Archive technician Fritz Hauser (Hauser, 1905), made several attempts to improve handiness and operability of the equipment. Just before his death he launched Type IV, the most successful one (Pöch, 1914). A wax plate served as recording medium. Wax composition consisted simply of cracked wax cylinders. Thus the quality of the recording was directly related to the softness of the mass of cracked cylinders. It was not uniform at any time. The performance of the Archivphonograph Type IV barely matched the standard of the forerunners. Iron parts had to be substituted by parts made of light metal alloy in order to save weight. The spring motor got smaller and the wooden box was not as stiff as before. Thus the noise produced by the cog wheels occasionally found its way into the recording chain, and the engine torque was too weak to overcome the cutting start immediately and to keep the speed absolutely stable. Specific Recording Situation In common recording session only one horn was used. But the need to record more persons or a 436 Gerda Lechleitner, Franz Lechleitner, Nona Lomidze choir at the same time arose very soon. For this purpose a larger horn, or in special situations a split array of up to 3 horns were used. The speed was set before the recording, usually at 60rpm for speech and 70 rpm for music. In certain cases Lach advised the technicians, Hajek and Pöch, to record a reference tone (435Hz) before the actual performance. This is unusual because Phonogrammarchiv never bet on reference tones using the speed readout as reference. In these special cases Lach was probably of the opinion to place an easy synchronizing marker for exact replay. And indeed in order to match the reference tone without deviation the replay speed has to be set to 72.5 rpm. The reference tone causes a problem at the beginning. It leads the actors to perform in a certain manner – which they would not do if the reference tone were set at the end of the recording. But there is always the risk of space lack. Lach’s analytic recordings suffer the problem that in the case of a small choir every singer is trained to perform his part within the unit and not as a specific voice. Lach’s idea to use 3 horns for 3 singers was great but did not have effect he was really asking for, namely easy transcription. At that time, this could only be managed with the help of three different recording units (synchronized by a reference tone). Under studio conditions the frequency response of the recorded sound was comparable to the commercial products of the time, but almost no improvement was possible due to technical limitation. The dynamics of the incoming sound was compressed to 5 by 1 and the frequency response was not flat because of many resonances produced by the horn and the membrane. For certain recordings (e.g. Ph 2755) three horns were used but for manufacturing reasons they did not have identical frequency response. Thus the sound of 3 singers was captured differently, and therefore the transcription of the individual voices got more difficult. Re-Recording The collection of Phonogramms is now available in the form of epoxy resin molds. The records are replayed with a modern archive turntable offering the complete speed range required. The sound will be picked up with a moving magnet stereo cartridge with needle tips in the 200µ range. The record should carefully be placed in perfect center because every out of center moving will cause low frequency wow which cannot be removed digitally. The AD conversion is done with highest resolution and a high sampling rate in order to have optimal conditions for enhancement in the digital domain. *** Third chapter, presented by Nona Lomidze is devoted to a rough overview and an evaluation of “Lach collection” and focuses on distinct examples to show the problems we face when editing this material – problems which could partly be solved by detective work. Overview and Evaluation of the Songs Recorded This part is devoted to the content of the sound recordings and what the collection looks like. All together the collection comprises 24 recordings of songs, 17 are folk songs and 7 would be categorized as urban songs. The recordings cover 1, 2, and 3 voice recordings. CD-Project: Recordings from the Caucasian Region, 1909 and 1915-16 437 But what is the specific shape of that collection and what are the problems we are confronted with? Sometimes only parts of the songs were recorded, and some of the recorded songs are not identical with the transcriptions in the publication; sometimes the recordings comprise only parts of the songs but the transcriptions show the complete text and music; in addition some of the recordings comprise variants today unknown; but judging the correctness of the texts would go far beyond these considerations. To get an overview about those stocks a chart was drawn which evidently shows the distribution of various aspects. Some songs, corresponding to their “problems”, appear in more than one column. Numerous examples show problems connected with the discrepancy between the recording and the written document. This problem arises from the fact that Lach first made the transcriptions and later on, for verification of his transcriptions, made the recordings, but partly with other singers singing another variant. Concerning the unknown variants I would like to offer two hypotheses: firstly, we could assume that these variants were popular at the time of recording, secondly, the singers probably have improvised songs which they did not know exactly. Lach did not transcribe some of the recordings – in that case he probably changed his working method and just recorded a song which seemed very interesting to him; finally he either was not able or did not consider it necessary to make transcriptions. Fragments can be divided in two groups: firstly, due to the main goal to record as many melodies as possible Lach decided to record only one stanza or one phrase of a song, and secondly we are faced with the abrupt ending of a song caused by the end of a disc. Although only few tones are recorded, those parts could be recognized because of the beginning of the text. Another “mistake” is evident in the interchange of texts and melodies. Today we assume that the singers sometimes did not know the texts but the melodies, and therefore they mixed them. In this case we are able to recognize the song by melody. It should be mentioned that some songs which are typically accompanied by string and/or wind instruments are sung without any instrumental accompaniment. Some of the originally three part songs are sung only by one or two singers. Maybe they could not find any other musician to join them. The songs in three voices sound rather good and are interpreted well, but Lach could only transcribe one or two voices. This is exactly the point why Lach was looking for technical help as explained in the technical paragraph. Five recordings Ph 2751-Ph 2755 from Lach’s collection include two songs Chven mshvidoba and Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa. All recordings comprise two items, and therefore it is not astonishing that the second item represents only part of a whole song. Ph 2751 and 2755 are documents of threepart singing, recordings Ph 2752-ll 2754 could be called experimental recordings. They are thought of as a help for transcribing complex type of polyphony and thus represent only single voice. As already explained in the technical part the idea was nice but not as successful as estimated. Now, after studying each recording the following results turned out: Ph 2751: the first song is Chven mshvidoba in three voices – text and music correlate (audio ex. 1); the second song is Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa, text and music correlate as well – but they sing only one part (mukhli). The recording comprises a nice and well-known variant, but as the time span of the disc is limited only its part is audible. Ph 2752: This is the recording of middle voice: Levarsi Mamaladze interprets the text Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa but consequently on the melody of Chven mshvidoba (audio ex. 2). The second song matches Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa (audio ex. 3) – in that case he switches between the voices to 438 Gerda Lechleitner, Franz Lechleitner, Nona Lomidze perform “nice” melody for the recording. Ph 2753: The singer sings the middle voice of Chven mshvidoba switching between the first and second voices with some mistakes (audio ex. 4); he sings on syllables (nanina, nanina, …). In the case of the song Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa he sings solely middle voice (audio ex. 5). Of course, it is not easy to keep the voice when the others do not participate, therefore he made some mistakes. Ph 2754: The low (bass) voice is not quite correct because he sang on his own, he sings on the syllables nanina, nanina, … (audio ex. 6); evidently it is very difficult to sing that part on one’s own, even for a professional. In Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa he correctly sings the low voice, starts with the text and then continues with nanina, nanina, (audio ex. 7)… If you listen carefully you may hear the other voices in the background, which could be the reason why low voice was sung without mistakes. Ph 2755: This recording includes the recording as a whole, with single voices recorded on the previous discs (2752-2754); thus, to some extent this recording represents a sum of those recordings but with the inevitable variants. Lach’s task to sing on one’s own (for better transcribing) could not be fulfilled, because it is completely unusual to sing only one voice – therefore the scientific goal was not achieved. Again, the singers used the text of Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa sang to the melody of Chven mshvidoba (audio ex. 8); on the recording the second song features Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa in three voices – but only its part, because the disc had come to an end (audio ex. 9). Conclusion Based on Lomidze’s idea an experiment showing how the three voices should be composed was carried out by Anzor Erkomaishvili using playback (audio ex. 2, video ex. 1, 2). Lach’s historical recording featuring the first voice was played and Anzor added second voice. This performance was recorded so that in the next step the two voices were played and Anzor added third voice. The result was a “new” version of singing in three voices, based on the historical source and performed in today’s practice. As has been shown the publication of those historical recordings is a challenge from technical and from the content-related standpoint. When examining these recordings some new aspects emerged shedding light on the working methods, approaches and goals of the time. Finally, these recordings evidently represent older layers of a tradition still in use. References Graf, Walter. (1954). Robert Lach. Persönlichkeit und Werk, zum 80. Geburtstag überreicht von Freunden und Schülern. Wien: Musikwissenschaftliches Institut der Universität. Födermayr, Franz. (2013). “Robert Lach”. In: Oesterreichisches Musiklexikon ONLINE. Wien. (www.musiklexikon.ac.at) Öhrig, Bruno. (2000). “Adolf Dir (1867-1930). Ein Kaukasusforscher am Münchner Volkskundemuseum”. Jahrbuch des Staatlichen Museums für Völkerkunde München 6. CD-Project: Recordings from the Caucasian Region, 1909 and 1915-16 439 www.circassianworld.com/DE/Adolf_Dirr.pdf Lach, Robert. (1917). “Vorläufiger Bericht über die im Auftrage der kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften erfolgte Aufnahme der Gesänge russischer Kriegsgefangener im August bis September 1916”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 183/4:1-62. Lach, Robert. (1928). “Gesänge russischer Kriegsgefangener. III. Band: Kaukasusvölker. 1. Abteilung: Georgische Gesänge”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Österr. Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 204/4:1-253. Lach, Robert. (1931). “Gesänge russischer Kriegsgefangener. III. Band: Kaukasusvölker. 2. Abteilung: Mingrelische, abchasische, svanische und ossetische Gesänge”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Österr. Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 205/1: 1-63. Pöch, Rudolf. (1914). “Beschreibung einer modifizierten Type des Archiv-Phonographen mit Motorantrieb und Repetiervorrichtung”. Sitzungsberichte Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, mathem.naturw. Klasse 122/IIa: 1259-1265. Pöch, Rudolf. (1917). “Technik und Wert des Sammelns phonographischer Sprachproben auf Expeditionen”. In: Sitzungsberichte Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, mathem.- naturw. Klasse 126/III: 3-15. Schüller, Dietrich (editor). (1999). “General editor’s preface”. Series 1: The First Expeditions 1901 to Croatia, Brazil, and the Island of Lesbos. (Sound Documents from the Phonogrammarchiv of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. The Complete Historical Collections 1899-1950).P. 9-11. OEAW PHA CD 7. Wien. Schüller, Dietrich (editor). (2000). Series 3: Papua New Guinea (104-1909). The collections of Rudolf Pöch, Wilhelm Schmidt, and Josef Winthui. (Sound Documents from the Phonogrammarchiv of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. The Complete Historical Collections 1899-1950). OEAW PHA CD 9. Wien. Schüller, Dietrich (editor). (2003). Series 7: Rudolf Pöch’s Kalahari Recordings (1908). (Sound Documents from the Phonogrammarchiv of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. The Complete Historical Collections 1899-1950). OEAW PHA CD 19. Wien. Ziegler, Susanne. (2006). Die Wachszylinder des Berliner Phonogrammarchivs. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Veröffentlichungen des Ethnologischen Museums Berlin, Neue Folge 73, Abt. Musikethnologie, Medien-Technik und Berliner Phonogramm-Archiv XII). Berlin. Audio Examples Audio example 1. Chven mshvidoba, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2751. 440 Gerda Lechleitner, Franz Lechleitner, Nona Lomidze Audio example 2. Chven mshvidoba (on the text of Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa), recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2752. Audio example 3. Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2752. Audio example 4. Chven mshvidoba, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2753. Audio example 5. Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2753. Audio example 6. Chven mshvidoba (bass), recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2754. Audio example 7. Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa (bass), recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2754. Audio example 8. Chven mshvidoba, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2755. Audio example 9. Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2755. Video Examples Video example 1. Chven mshvidoba, reconstructed variant; performers: Levarsi Mamaladze, Anzor Erkomaishvili; filmed by Nona Lomidze, August, 2012. Nona Lomidze’s personal archive. Video example 2. Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa, reconstructed variant; performers: Levarsi Mamaladze, Anzor Erkomaishvili; filmed by Nona Lomidze, August, 2012. Nona Lomidze’s personal archive. mravalxmianoba da instrumentuli musika POLYPHONY AND INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC 443 bo lavergreni (aSS) uZvelesi kuTxovani arfa kuTxovani arfa gavrcelebuli iyo Zalian didi xnis ganmavlobaSi _ Zv. w. 1900dan ax. w. 1700 wlis CaTvliT da misi gamoyeneba aziiT Semoifargleboda. am sakravis gavrceleba daiwyo dasavleT aziidan da aRmosavleT aziamde mxolod ori aTaswleulis Semdeg miaRwia. kuTxovani arfis istoriaSi evropa mxolod aTasi wlis win Cndeba, rasac am instrumentis formis dRevandel modelamde ganviTareba mohyva. amrigad, Tanamedrove, e. w. sayrdeniani arfa mxolod aTas wels iTvlis, maSin, rodesac misi winaprebi aziaSi 3600 wlis ganmavlobaSi arsebobdnen.Aam geografiuli arealidan isini daaxloebiT 300 wlis win gaqra da SemorCa mxolod aq, kavkasiasa (saqarTvelo, oseTi da afxazeTi) da cimbiris patara nawilSi [xantisa (ostiakis) da mansis teritoriaze]. mokle istoria, Zv. w. 1900 _ ax. w. 1700 wlebi kuTxovani arfa pirvelad mesopotamiaSi Zv. w. daaxloebiT 1900-ian wlebSi gaCnda (sur. 1, 2). am periodiT TariRdeba terakotis 2 dafa arfis gamosaxulebiT. erTi vertikaluri kuTxovani arfaa, xolo meore _ horizontaluri. aTasi wliT adre, sanam kuTxovani arfebi gamoCndeboda, mesopotamiaSi gavrcelebli iyo TaRovani arfebi, romlebmac arseboba Zv. w. 1900-ian wlebSi Sewyvita, swored maSin, rodesac kuTxovani arfebi Seiqmna (sur. 3). TaRovani arfebi mxolod indoeTSi SemorCa (sur. 4). indoeTi kuTxovani arfebis aziaSi gavrcelebis erTaderTi wyaro gaxda, swored aqedan gavrcelda es sakravi samxreT-aRmosavleT aziaSi, kerZod, birmaSi (sur. 5). mesopotamiidan kuTxovani arfebi Tavidan iranSi gavrcelda, xolo ramdenime saukuneSi _ sxva mezobel regionebSic. migraciisaTvis saWiro dro gansxvavebul kulturebSi sxvadasxva iyo. magaliTad, egvipteSi kuTxovani arfebi Zv. w. 1400-ian wlebSi Sevida, anu 500 wliT gvian, vidre mesopotamiaSi (sur. 6); saberZneTamde am instrumentma mxolod Zv. w. 450-ian wlebSi miaRwia, rac mesopotamiasTan SedarebiT 1500 wliT gvian moxda (sur. 7); saberZneTSi arfebis gavrcelebas xeli SeeSala. amis mizezi, savaraudod, mravalsimiani instrumentebis akrZalva, proskrifcia iyo. damokidebuleba am instrumentebis mimarT kargad Cans sokrates dialogebSi. mas ar moswonda tonalobebis Sereva, xolo mravalsimiani instrumentebi swored aseT Serevas uwyobdnen xels. amrigad, am tipuri mravalsimiani instrumentis gavrcelebas, erTgvarad, sokratem SeuSala xeli. israeli kidev erTi qveyana iyo, sadac sazogadoebam arfebi pirveli aTaswleulis bolomde ar miiRo. daviTis dros israelSi arfebi ar iyo. ebrauli bibliis mixedviT, daviTi kinorze _ liraze ukravda. Tumca, mogvianebiT, XVI saukuneSi, rodesac biblia evropul enebze iTargmna, kinori SecdomiT Targmnes, rogorc arfa. 444 bo lavergreni amasobaSi, kuTxovani arfebis xelovneba ganviTarebis pikze aRmoCnda iransa da eraySi. ax. w. VII saukuneSi es regioni islamma moicva da arfebi maleve iqca islamuri kulturis Semadgenel nawilad. religia da, masTan erTad, arfebic, gavrcelda TurqeTSi. bevrad gvian, XIII da XVI saukuneebs Soris, arfebi islamuri wignebis ilustraciis erT-erT mTavar motivad gadaiqca (sur. 8). islamis winamZRolebs am religiis evropaSi gavrceleba surdaT. es mcdeloba warmatebiT mxolod or regionSi dagvirgvinda _ espaneTsa da balkaneTSi. islamuri jari espaneTSi Cv. w.-is 700-ian wlebSi Sevida da Tan kuTxovani arfac Seitana. daaxloebiT 1250-ian wlebSi igi gamosaxulia wignSi, saxelad Libro de los Juegos (TamaSebis wigni), romelic CrdiloeT espaneTis qristiani mefis alfonso X-s davalebiT Seiqmna (sur. 9). igi ganaTlebuli pirovneba iyo da amboben, rom mravali simReris avtoric gaxldaT. es simRerebi cnobilia, rogorc Cantigas de Santa Maria (mariam RvTismSoblis simRerebi). im dros es simRerebi, savarudod, kugoze sruldeboda, Tumca dResdReobiT, isini sruldeba am tipis erTaderT instrumentze _ tomokoze. gTavazobT erT-erTi ukanaskneli kugos gamosaxulebas, romelic Sesrulebulia konstantinopolSi, dRevandel stambulSi, TurqeTSi (sur. 10). misi mxatvaria danieli melqior lorqi, romelic iq XVI saukuneSi 3 wlis ganmavlobaSi cxovrobda. Cven siamovnebiT vasrulebT im droisa da regionebis musikas, sadac kuTxovani arfebi popularuli iyo, Tumca, im qveynebidan, romlebic musulmanuri kulturis centrebs warmoadgenda _ arabeTi, irani, erayi da TurqeTi, mxolod ramdenime melodia SemorCa. dResdReobiT, CvenTvis cnobilia mxolod erTi iranuli melodia, simRera saxelad Qawl, romelic 1300-iani wlebis wignSia Sesuli. siCuanis tramalis horizontaluri arfebi me aqamde mxolod vertikalur arfebze vsaubrobdi. rogorc cnobilia, arsebobs horizontaluri tipis arfebic, rogoricaa, magaliTad, qarTuli Cangi (sur. 11). aseTi tipis arfa xSirad gvxvdeboda asureTis imperiaSi (Zv. w. 900-630 wlebi), romlis dedaqalaqebs sxvadasxva periodSi nimrudi da ninevia warmoadgendnen. Aam samefos teritoria vrceli iyo, magram saqarTvelos ar moicavda. dedaqalaqebSi Warbobda qvis kedlebi da spilenZis karibWeebi, damSvenebuli reliefebiTa da sagmiro saqmeebis amsaxveli gamosaxulebebiT. Hhorizontalur arfas am ilustraciebSi gamorCeuli roli aqvs. is didi xnis win mesopotamiaSi gaCnda, axla ki asurul kulturaSic mniSvnelovan rols asrulebs. magaliTad, aRsaniSnavia ori arfis gamosaxuleba msxverplSewirvis nivTebiT savse sakurTxevlis win. mefe aSurbanipali (daaxloebiT Zv. w. 650 w.) nadirobisas moklul oTx loms Sesawir Rvinos asxams, xolo marcxena mxridan SemoaqvT mexuTe lomi. asuruli arfebis aRnagoba mkafioa (sur. 12). maT aqvT 9 simi. Semsruleblis marcxena xeli simebzea daWerili, xolo marjvena xelSi grZeli da viwro Camosakravi (mediatori) uWiravs. naxatis zeda nawilSi warmodgenilia sami tipuri magaliTi, xolo qveviT, SegiZliaT ixiloT naxazi. SesaZloa, amgvarma arfebma didi xnis win saqarTveloSic SemoaRwies, magram amis Taobaze mxolod varaudi SegviZlia1. uZvelesi kuTxovani arfa 445 asuruli reliefebi CvenTvis ukve 150 welia, rac cnobilia, magram, bolo periodSi, msgavsi nimuSebi aRmoaCines CineTis Crdilo-dasavleTi regionis udabnoSi warmoebuli arqeologiuri gaTxrebis dros (sur. 13). manamde, msgavsi nimuSebia aRmoCenili paziriksa da olbiaSi. yvela maTgans 5 simi aqvs, maSin, rodesac yvela asurul arfas 9 simi aqvs. miuxedavad amisa, tramalis arfebi da asuruli arfebi praqtikulad erTnairia da mimaCnia, rom maTze dakvrac erTi da imave principiT xdeboda. isini horizontalurad eWiraT da grZeli CamosakraviT ukravdnen. TandarTul rukaze aRniSnulia amgvari arfebis gavrcelebis adgilebi (sur. 14). ukravdnen Tu ara arfebze akordebs? arfebs mravali simi aqvT da amitom, musikologebis nawili varaudobs, rom maTze akordebis an melodiebisTvis garkveuli harmoniuli sayrdenebis dakvra SesaZlebeli iyo. me, piradad, amaSi eWvi mepareba. warmovidginoT CineTi da brinjaos xanis zarebis didi da mravalferovani kompleqti. erT-erTi aseTi kompleqti Zv. w. 433 wliTaa daTariRebuli, romelic ekuTvnoda cengis markiz i-s (Marquis Yi of Zeng) da 65 zars moicavda (sur. 15). zarebis am kompleqts daaxloebiT 4 oqtavis diapazonSi SeeZlo qromatiuli bgerebis mTeli Tanmimdevrobis gaJRereba (Lawergren, 2000: 47). im droidan araviTari sanoto Canaweri ar SemorCa, Sesabamisad, repertuaris aRdgena, praqtikulad, SeuZlebelia. samagierod, rodesac CineTSi pirvelad sanoto damwerloba gamoCnda (ax. w. 618-907 w.w.), TvalsaCino gaxda harmoniis simwire. instrumentuli partiebi Seiqmna tuCis harmonikis, citris, barbiTisTvis. yvela es instrumenti unisonSi JRerda da am JReradobas mxolod mcireodeni varireba axlda Tan. aSkaraa, rom mraval instrumentze Sesruleba xdeboda heterofoniulad da ara harmoniulad. daaxloebiT 50 wlis win arqeologebma aRmoaCines fila, romelic Zv. w. 1300iani wlebiT TariRdeba. filaze warwerebi huritul enaze ugarituli anbaniTaa Sesrulebuli da Seicavs musikalur notaciasac. am nimuSebs dRes huritul himnebs uwodeben. teqstSi vxvdebiT iseT sityvebs, rogoricaa kitmum da qablītum. am terminebs pirvelad vxvdebiT nipurSi, mesopotamiaSi, arqeologiuri gaTxrebis Sedegad mopovebul filebze, romlebic Zv. w. 500 wliT TariRdeba (Gurney, 1994). yoveli termini aRniSnavs kilos bgerTwyobaSi 2 fiqsirebul bgeras2 (mag., C da F, an C da G, an D da A) da ara TiTos, rogorc es evropul notaciaSia miRebuli. ,,wyobis dafebze~, sadac aRwerilia, Tu rogor unda aewyos TiToeuli simi, aRniSnulia, rom simTa (bgeraTa) yoveli wyvili, SesaZloa, JRerdes sufTad an usufTaod, aramkafiod. usufTao JReradobis intervalebis mkafioeba simebis daWimviT unda vareguliroT. am miTiTebebis gaTvaliswinebiT, mkvlevrebma daaskvnes, rom arazustiLintervali warmoadgens Semcirebul kvintas (tritons), magaliTad, intervali F-H, romelic ufroKmkafioLgaxdeba, Tu Seicvleba F#-H-Ti. huritul himnebSi amgvarma diqordebma garkveuli problemebi warmoWra. ana kilmerma ubralod aRiara, rom es simebi diqordis poziciiT ikvreboda (Kilmer, 1974), magram mkvlevarTa umravlesoba ar daeTanxma mis ideas im argumentiT, rom aseT adreul musikas ar SeiZleboda, harmoniuli wyoba hqonoda. devid vulstani pirveli 446 bo lavergreni iyo, vinc gaSifrvis meTodi SemogvTavaza (Wulstan, 1971). is varaudobs, rom Semsrulebeli diqordSi bgaraTrigs qvevidan aRmavali mimarTulebiT asrulebda. marsel duSesn-gulemini gvTavazobs gadasvlebs intervalis erTi tonidan meoreze da am JReradobas ebraul folklorSi gavrcelebul melizmebs adarebs (Duchesne-Guillemin, 1980). raul vitali aRwers gadasvlebs diqordis or tons Soris (Vitale, 1982). martin vestma yuradReba miaqcia, rom diqordis qveda bgera ucvleli rCeba diqordebis xangrZlivi Tanmimdevrobis pirobebSi; is TiTqos `gaiWeda~ da misi JReradoba monotonuri gaxda (West, 1994). Teo krispini ubrundeba or notian diqords, Tumca misi mosazreba srulebiT gansxvavebulia kilmeris midgomisagan (Krispijn, 2002)3. jerjerobiT, hurituli himnebis interpretaciis arc erTi versiis garSemo ar Camoyalibebula mecnieruli azri. kilmeri Tavis mosazrebas mtkiced icavs da saswavlo LP-s meTodsac mimarTavs. misma ideebma sakmaod farTo gavrceleba hpova (http:// www.greenwych.ca/evidence.htm), magram mecnierebis darwmuneba mainc ver moaxerxa. sxva mecnieri, devid vulstani, romelmac gaSifrvis pirveli meTodi gamoaqveyna, 15 wlis Semdeg meubneboda: Kme ar vici, sworia Tu ara Cemi meTodi, magram is ki vici, rom yvela danarCeni mcdaria. 1991 wels israelelma musikologma baTia baierma gamoTqva Tavis mosazreba, rom arsebul suraTs aSkarad raRac mniSvnelovani informacia aklia: `rodesac mas aRmovaCenT, maSin musikis gaSifrvasac SevZlebT~4. zemoT motanili arc erTi magaliTi ar adasturebs uZveles musikaSi harmoniis gamoyenebas. mraval instruments hqonda harmoniis gaJRerebis SesaZlebloba, magram, rogorc Cans, musikosebi amisgan Tavs ikavebdnen. SeniSvnebi 1 kavkasiaSi 11-simiani arfis gavrcelebis Sesaxeb cnobas gvawvdis kurt zaqsi (Sachs, 1937: 53- 69). 2 orbgeriani intervali, diqordi, an wyvili simi. 3 vestis kritika sxvadasxvanair interpretacias aZlevs huritul himnebs (West, 1994: 171-174). 4 piradi saubrebi, 1991. Targmna irina fircxalavam 447 BO LAWERGREN (USA) ANCIENT ANGULAR HARPS Angular harps were used for a very long period, 1900 BCE to 1700 CE. They were largely confined to Asia, beginning in western Asia and eventually reaching eastern Asia, more than two millennia later. In the history of harps, Europe only emerged a thousand years ago with the development of the modern frame harp. That’s only a millennium of modern harps – also known as “pillar harps” – whereas the early harp existed for 3,600 years in Asia until it largely died out 300 years ago. Only here in Caucasus (the Georgians, Ossetians and Abkhasians) and in a small part of Siberia [the territories of the Khanty (Ostyak) and Mansi people] did it survive. Brief History, 1900 BCE – 1700 CE Angular harps arose in Mesopotamia about 1900 BCE, the date of depictions on two terracotta plaques (fig. 1, 2). One is a vertical angular harp, the other a horizontal one. A millennium before angular harps entered the scene, arched harps had dominated in Mesopotamia (fig. 3), but they disappeared when angular harps arose in 1900 BCE. Only in India did they remain (fig. 4). India became the only source of arched harps in Asia, and from there arched harps spread into SE Asia, e.g., to Burma (fig. 5). From Mesopotamia, angular harps spread to neighboring Iran and within a few centuries to other neighboring regions. The speed of migration varied from culture to culture. For example, angular harps arrived in Egypt around 1400 BCE – 500 years after Mesopotamia (fig. 6). But they did not reach Greece until about 450 bce, which is 1500 years after Mesopotamia (fig. 7). Something prevented harps from entering Greece. Most likely, it was a proscription against instruments with many strings. The attitude was expressed in a dialogue by Socrates. He did not want mixing of modes, but many-stringed instruments facilitated mixing. So, Socrates discouraged the use of harps, a typical multi-stringed instrument. Israel was another society where harps were not accepted until late in the first millennium BCE. There were no harps when David lived. In the Hebrew Bible he played the kinnor, a lyre. But when the bible was translated into European languages in the 16th century, kinnor was mistranslated as harp. Meanwhile, angular harps continued to thrive in Iran and Iraq. During the 7th century CE Islam conquered the region and harps soon became part of Islamic culture. The religion spread, and so did harps, for example to Turkey. Much later, between the 13th and 16th centuries, they became favorite objects illustrated in Islamic books (fig. 8). Muslim rulers wished to spread the faith to Europe, and they succeeded on two fronts: Spain and the Balkans. Their armies pushed into Spain around 700 CE, and that brought angular harps to Spain. Around 1250 it is painted in a book called Libro de los Juegos (Book of Games) commissioned by Alfonso X, the Christian king of northern Spain (fig. 9). He was a learned man who, also, is said to have composed many songs, known as the Cantigas de Santa Maria. 448 Bo Lawergren At his time, the Cantigas may have been played on the kugo, but in modern time, Tomoko’s performance is the only one on this type of instrument. Here is one of the last kugos documented in Constantinople, today’s Istanbul, in Turkey (fig. 10). It was drawn by the Danish artist Melchior Lorch who lived there 3 years in the 16th century. We like to play music from the time, and region, when and where angular harps existed, but few tunes have survived from the heartland of Muslim culture: Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. But we have one tune from Iran, a song called Qawl which appeared in a book from 1300. Horizontal Steppe Harps in Xinjiang So far, I have dealt with vertical harps, but the Georgian harp, changi, is horizontal (fig. 11). That type of harp was often shown during the Assyrian empire (900-630 BCE) with capitals were Nimrud and Nineveh. Its territory was vast, but did not include Georgia. Dominating the capitals were large palaces, their stone walls and copper gates covered with reliefs illustrating royal exploits. Horizontal harps were prominent subjects on these illustrations. They had arisen long ago in Mesopotamia, and were now shown as important participants in the Assyrian cult. Here is a pair of harps in front of an altar loaded with sacrificial items. King Ashurbanipal (around 650 BCE) pours a libation over four lions killed in a hunt, while a fifth lion is carried in from the left side. The design of Assyrian harps is clear (fig. 12). They have 9 strings. The player’s left hand was pressed against the strings, while the right hands held long narrow plectra. Three typical examples are shown at the top of the figure and line-drawings are given below. Maybe, such harps also migrated to Georgia long ago. One can only speculate1. These Assyrian reliefs have been known for 150 years, but similar extant harps have recently been excavated in the desert region in north-western China (fig. 13). These are dated to the fifth century BCE – two centuries after the Assyrian ones. Before Chinese archaeologists excavated these harps, similar ones had already been found at Pazyryk and Olbia. All have 5 strings, whereas all Assyrian ones have 9. Apart from that, steppe harps and Assyrian harps are similar and it is reasonable to assume they were played the same way. They were held horizontally and played with a long plectrum. Here is a map that shows the find spots (fig. 14). Did Harps Play Chords? Harps have many strings, and some musicologists have speculated these were used to play chords or some kind of harmonic foundation for the tunes. I doubt it. Consider China which had large sets of bells during the Bronze Age. One set from 433 BCE, belonging to the Marquis Yi of Zeng (fig. 15) , had 65 bells and could play a full set of chromatic pitches across more than four octaves (Lawergren, 2000: 47). From that time, no notation has survived and we don’t know what was played. But when the first notation finally emerged in China (618-907 CE), it lacked harmony. Instrumental parts were given for mouth organs, zither, and lute, and all play in unison – with very small variations. Evidently, the many instruments played heterophonically – not harmonically. Some 50 years ago archaeologists excavated a tablet from about 1300 BCE; it was written in the Hurrian language at Ugarit, and it contained musical notation, now called the “Hurrian hymn”. The text contained terms like kitmum and qablītum which were already known from the “tuning tablets” excavated at Nippur, Mesopotamia, dated 500 BCE (Gurney, 1994). Each term indicates two pitches 2 449 Ancient Angular Harps located at fixed positions along a musical scale (e.g., C and F, or C and G, or D and A), not a single pitch as Western notation does. The tuning tablets, which describe how strings should be tuned, state that a pair of strings (pitches) may sound “clear” or “unclear.” The unclear interval could be cleared by increasing the string tension. Given theses clues, scholars understood that “unclear” referred to the interval of a diminished fifth (tritonus), e.g., the interval F-B which would be “cleared” when changed to F#-B. For the Hurrian hymn such dichords lead to problems. Anne Kilmer simply accepted that a chord was played at the position of each dichord, but most scholars rejected her idea, believing that such early music did not have harmony (Kilmer, 1974). David Wulstan, who offered the first decipherment, proposed that the performer played a scale from the lower to the upper note in the dichord (Wulstan,1971). Marcelle Duchesne-Guillemin (1980) made runs between the two tones of the interval and compared her suggestion to the melismas of Jewish folksongs (Duchesne-Guillemin, 1980). Raoul Vitale prescribes runs between the end points of the dichords (Vitale, 1982). Martin West noticed that the lowest tone of each dichord stayed at the same pitch for long sequences of dichords (West, 1994); he stuck with those and his tunes became monotonous. Theo Krispijn went back to two-note chords, but his were completely different from Kilmer’s (Krispijn, 2002)3. Scholarly opinion has not yet coalesced around any one interpretation of the Hurrian hymn. Kilmer promotes her effort tenaciously, even issuing an instructional LP, and her idea has penetrated to the masses (e.g., http://www.greenwych.ca/evidence.htm), but it has not convinced scholars in the field. Another scholar, David Wulstan, who published the first decipherment, told me 15 year later: “I don’t know if I was right, but I am sure all others are wrong.” In 1991 the Israeli musicologist Bathya Bayer considered crucial information to be missing: “when it turns up, we may be able to decipher the music” 4. None of the examples cited here document the use of harmony in ancient music. Many instruments were capable of playing harmony but, apparently, they abstained from doing so. Notes 1 Curt Sachs provides the information on the dissemination of 11-stringed harp in the Caucasus (Sachs, 1937: 53-69). 2 A two-note interval, a dichords, or a string pair. 3 West critiques various attempts to interpret the Hurrian hymn (West, 1994: 171-174). 4 Private communication, 1991. References Duchesne-Guillemin, Marcelle. (1980). “Sur la restitution de la musique hourrite”. In: Revue de Musicologie 66, no. 1:5–26. 450 Bo Lawergren Gurney, O.R. (1994). “Babylonian Music Again”. In: Iraq, 56: 101-106. Kilmer, Anne Draffkorn. (1974). “The Cult Song with Music from Ancient Ugarit: Another Interpretation.” In: Revue d’Assyriologie, 6: 69–82. Krispijn, Theo. (2002). “Musik in Keilschrift, Beiträge zur altorientalischen Musikforschung”. In: Studien zur Musikarchäologie III. P. 465-479. Edited by Hickmann, Ellen, Kilmer, Anne D. and Eichmann, Ricardo. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Lawergren, Bo. (2000). “Strings”. In: Music in the Age of Confucius. P. 65 – 85. Editor F. So, Jenny. Washington: Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Seattle/London: University of Washington Press. Lawergren, Bo. (2003) “Western Influences on the Early Chinese Qin-Zither”. In: Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 75: 79–109. Lawergren, Bo. (2008). “Angular Harps Through the Ages; a Causal History”. In: Studien zur Musikarchäologie VI, P: 261-281. Editors: Both, Arnd Adje, Eichmann, Ricardo, Hickmann, Ellen and Koch, Lars-Christian. Rahden: Orient-Archäologie 22. Vitale, Raoul. (1982). “La musique seméro-accadienne: gamme et notation musicale”. In: Ugarit-Forschungen, 14:241-263. West, M. L. (1994). “The Babylonian Musical Notation and the Hurrian Melodic Texts”. In: Music and Letters, 75:161-179. Wulstan, David. (1971). “The Earliest Musical Notation”. In: Music and Letters, 52:365–82. Sachs, Curt. (1937). Muzikalnaia kultura drevnego mira (Musical Culture of the Old World). Leningrad: Muzgiz. (in Russian) bo lavergreni. danarTi Bo Lawergren. APPENDIX suraTi 1. kuTxovani arfa, vertikaluri, mesopotamia Zv. w. daaxloebiT 1900 w. Figure 1. Angular harp, Vertical, Mesopotamia, ca. 1900 BC suraTi 2. kuTxovani arfa, horizontaluri, mesopotamia Zv. w. daaxloebiT 1900 w. Figure 2. Angular harp, Horizontal, Mesopotamia, ca. 1900 BC 451 452 bo lavergreni. danarTi Bo Lawergren. APPENDIX suraTi 3. TaRovani arfa, vertikaluri, mesopotamia Zv. w. daaxloebiT 2600 w. Figure 3. Arched harp, Vertical, Mesopotamia, ca. 2600 BC suraTi 4. TaRovani arfa, indoeTi, Cv. w. daaxloebiT 100 w. Figure 4. Arched harp, India, ca. 100 AD bo lavergreni. danarTi Bo Lawergren. APPENDIX 453 suraTi 5. TaRovani arfa, mianma (birma), Tanamedrove Figure 5. Arched harp, Myanmar (Burma), contemporary suraTi 6. egvipturi kuTxovani arfebi, marcxniv: dRemde SemorCenili Zv.w. daaxloebiT 1450 w. marjvniv: usinaTlo arfaze damkvreli da medole, kedlis reliefi Zv.w. daaxloebiT 350 w. Figure 6. Egyptian angular harps. Left: Extant harp, ca. 1450 BC. Right: Wall relief of a blind harper with a drummer, ca. 350 BC 454 bo lavergreni. danarTi Bo Lawergren. APPENDIX suraTi 7. arfis ilustraciebi antikur larnakebze, Zv.w. daaxloebiT 400 w.a. kuTxovani arfa sayrdeni ZeliT; b. mbrunavi arfa; g. kuTxovani arfa Figure 7. Harps illustrated on Attic vases, ca. 400 BC. a: Angular harp with supporting rod. b: Spindel harp. c: Angular harp suraTi 8. kuTxovani arfa da mocekvave. naxati islamuri iranuli wignidan herati, avRaneTi (daaxloebiT, 1426 w.) Figure 8. Angular harp and dancer painted in an Islamic Iranian book from Herat, Afganistan, ca. 1426 bo lavergreni. danarTi Bo Lawergren. APPENDIX 455 suraTi 9. kuTxovani arfa, ilustracia Wadrakis TamaSis wignis Soreul marjvena kuTxeSi. suraTi daemata espaneTis mefe alfonso X-is brZanebiT 13 saukuneSi Figure 9. An Angular harp illustrated on the far right in the book El Libro los Juegos de Ajedrez, Dados y Tablas. The picture was added under the direction of King Alfonso X of Spain in the 13th century suraTi 10. kuTxovani arfa, nanaxi da daxatuli melqior lorqis mier konstantinopolSi, 1570 Figure 10. An Angular harp observed and drawn by Melchior Lorch in Constantinople (later renamed Istanbul), 1570 456 bo lavergreni. danarTi Bo Lawergren. APPENDIX suraTi 11. horizontaluri kuTxovani arfa sabWoTa kavSiris xalxebis musikaluri instrumentebis atlasidan. Sesrulebulia k. vertkovis, g. blagodatovisa da e. iazovickaias mier Figure 11. Horizonal Angular harps shown in Atlas of Musical Instruments of the Peoples inhabiting the USSR by K. Vertkov, G. Blagodatov, and E. Iazovitskaia suraTi 12. ori kuTxovani arfa aSurbanipalis sasaxlis kedlis reliefidan (ninevia/erayi), Zv.w. 7 saukune. qveviT am reliefebis naxatebi Figure 12. Pairs of Horizonal Angular harps shown on Assyrian wall reliefs in Assurbanipal’s palace at Nineveh (Iraq), seventh century BC. On the bottom are my line drawings of the reliefs bo lavergreni. danarTi Bo Lawergren. APPENDIX 457 suraTi 13. horizontaluri kuTxovani arfa centraluri aziidan Zv. w. daaxloebiT 500 w. (Lawergren, 2003: 89-90) Figure 13. Horizontal Angular harps from Central Asia, ca. 500 BC. (Lawergren, 2003: 89-90) suraTi 14. rukaze moniSnulia stepuri arfis gavrcelebis areali Figure 14. Find spots for Steppe harps 458 bo lavergreni. danarTi Bo Lawergren. APPENDIX suraTi 15. 65 brinjaos zanzalakis kompleqti cengis markiz is samarxidan Zv.w. 43 weli leiguduni, CineTis hubeis provincia Figure 15. The set of 65 tuned bronze bells found in the tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng, buried 433 BC at Leigudun, Hubei Province, China mrgvali magida I qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba ROUND TABLE I MODALITY OF GEORGIAN AND EUROPEAN MUSIC qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 461 wamyvani: polo valeho polo valeho miesalma monawileebs da damswreT mokled uambo SemoTavazebul Temaze mrgvali magidis mowyobis ideis istoria. mas Semdeg, rac igi 2006 wels TbilisSi, simpoziumze pirvelad gaecno qarTul mravalxmianobas, Tavis ufros kolegasa da maswavlebelTan, simhaHaromTan erTad misi Seswavla daiwyo. simha aroms mrgvali magidis monawileTa winaSe wardgena ar esaWiroba, igi 2002 wlidan TiTqmis yvela simpoziumis monawilea da mas aq ukve icnoben, rogorc msoflioSi aRiarebul eTnomusikologs, mravalxmiani Caweris originaluri meTodis gamomgonebelsa da aka pigmeebisa da sxva xalxebis intrumentuli polifoniis mkvlevars, fumio koicumis prestiJuli eTnomusikologiuri premiis laureats. aromsa da valehoze gansakuTrebuli STabeWdileba qarTuli polofoniis harmoniulma mxarem moaxdina, ris gamoc maT gadawyvites, gamoekvliaT qarTuli mravalxmianobis akordikis sintaqsi. maTi muSaoba mimdinareobda qarTvel SemsruleblebTan da mecnierebTan mWidro kontaqtSi, kerZod, ansamblebTan basiani da mzeTamze, rusudan wurwumiasTan, soso JordaniasTan, Tamaz gabisoniasTan, daTo SuRliaSvilTan, svimon jangulaSvilTan da anzor erqomaiSvilTan. gansakuTrebiT mWidrod TanamSromlobdnen ansambl `basianTan~, romlis wevrebi maT exmarebodnen TavianTi eqsperimentebis SemowmebaSi. mecnierebma da ansamblma ara erTi erToblivi proeqti ganaxorcieles – gamarTes qarTuli musikis leqcia-koncertebi espaneTSi, italiaSi... muSaobis procesSi s. aromsa da p. valehos gauCndaT mosazrebebi adreuli Sua saukuneebis evropuli da qarTuli mravalxmianobis modalobaSi garkveuli saazrovno principebis msgavsebis Sesaxeb. swored amitom, maT konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centrTan erTad, gadawyvites 2014 wlis simpoziumze moewyoT mrgvali magida, risTvisac simpoziumze moiwvies medievaluri musikis ucxoeli specialistebi. polo valehom damswreT warudgina am sesiisaTvis specialurad mowveuli ori stumari _ dr. suzan rankini, kembrijis (didi britaneTi) universitetis Sua saukuneebis musikis profesori, romelic amave dros adreuli Sua saukuneebis musikaluri wyaroebis paleografiiTaa dainteresebuli da notebze gadaaqvs orxmiani himnebi; dr. arturo telo, madridis universitetidan komplutenses musikologiis departamentis profesori da Semsrulebeli. igi ikvlevs Sua saukuneebis espanur xelnawerebsa da am epoqis musikaSi gamosaxulebas, sityvierebasa da damwerlobas Soris kavSirs. qarTuli mxridan, mrgvali magidis ZiriTadi momxsenebelia d-ri svimon jangulaSvili, romelic, amave dros, saeklesio gundis regenti da SesaniSnavi musikosia. man winaswar mogvawoda dasavleT saqarTvelos gelaTisa da Semoqmedis skolebis ramdenime sagalobeli, ramac SesaZlebloba misca Cvens ucxoel kolegebs Camosvlamde gascnobodnen maT. wamyvanma sityva gadasca dr. arturo telos arturo telo: pirvel rigSi, minda madloba gadavuxado polo valehosa da simpoziumis organizatorebs, rom momces am saintereso mrgval magidaSi monawileobis saSualeba; darwmunebuli var, am sesias gansakuTrebuli Sedegebi eqneba. 462 mrgvali magida I vgrZnob, rom sxva realobidan var mosuli, kerZod gregoriseuli, laTinuri liturgikuli galobis, Sua saukuneebis romauli liturgiis monodiuri da polifoniuri galobis samyarodan. Tumca, sul ar vgrZnob Tavs ucxod, SesaZloa, imis gamo, rom Tavidanve movixible qarTuli saeklesio musikiT. unda aRvniSno, rom Cemi gamosvla ufro SekiTxvebisa da sakiTxebis Sejameba iqneba, vidre moxseneba da imedi maqvs, mapatiebT, Tu zogierTi maTgani bundovanad mogeCvenebaT. Sevecdebi, mokled visaubro. magram mainc, minda gamovxato araCveulebrivi qarTuli saeklesio galobis swavlis mokrZalebuli survili da saWiroeba, rac Zalian damexmareba zogadad, liturgikuli musikis gagebaSi. maS ase, pirveli kiTxva Zalian mkafio iqneba. Cven vsaubrobT ara nebismier, aramed liturgikul galobaze, romelic Sedgeba ori aucilebeli komponentisgan: sityvisa da musikisgan. saeklesio galobaSi, yovel SemTxvevaSi, franko-romanulSi mainc, musikis garda, sityvieri teqstic sayrdenia, anu, swored is aris gzavnilis saboloo mizani, rac ukve iTqva. musika ki gveubneba, rogor aris naTqvami sityvebi, romlebic RmerTisagan modis. yvelafers garemoeba ganapirobebs. im repertuarSic ki, romelsac Cven axal kompozicias vuwodebT da sadac sityva pirdapir bibliidan ar aris aRebuli, am princips ramdenadme kanonis funqcia aqvs. teqsti, romelic, SesaZloa iyos rogorc poeturi, ise prozauli (saxarebis laTinuri Targmani mTlianad prozaulia), gansazRvravs struqturas, daZabul momentebsa da Sesvenebas, sintaqsur artikulaciebs (gansxvavebebs, rogoricaa orwertili, mZime da a.S.), galobis stils (silaburi, nevmuri an melizmuri), kilos (kilos raobaze, albaT, bevri unda visaubroT), ornamentaciis xarisxs, Sesrulebis tips (pirdapiri/solisti, antifonuri an responsoruli), Janrs (fsalmodiuri, reCitatiuli an Tavisufali) da sxv. TavisTavad, Cndeba SekiTxva: aseve ganszRvravs Tu ara teqsti qarTuli saeklesio galobis bunebas? me vfiqrob, gansazRvravs, me ar mesmis qarTuli, magram Cven unda vifiqroT amaze. ufro metic, rogori teqstebi igalobeba (bibliuri, poeturi, da a.S.)? wina kviras bedma gamiRima da daveswari RvTismsaxurebas samebis sakaTedro taZarSi. garda imisa, rom RvTismsaxurebiT aRfrTovanebuli davrCi, SevamCnie, rom sruldeboda kvintiT daSorebul sam paralelur xmas Soris ganawilebuli liturgiuli reCitativi. rasakvirvelia, intonacia da kadansi ufro kontrapunqtulad iyo damuSavebuli. es marTebulicaa, vinaidan teqstTan aris dakavSirebuli, radgan dasavluri laTinuri liturgiis galoba (ara marto franko-romanuli) kilourad fsalmunebidan unda modiodes. Txrobis procesSi Zlierdeboda teqstSi mkafio kilouri aRmasvla, sityvebis aRmasvla an daRmasvla finalSi, teqstis sintaqsuri garkvevis mcdeloba. sxvadasxva melodiuri kiloebi martivi reCitatividan warmoiqmna, pedagogiuri miznebiT, Cven SevTanxmdiT rvaze: rvaxmis sistema. SeiZleba Tu ara, rom msgavsi hipoTeza qarTul galobaSic davuSvaT? ra Tqma unda, es, garkveulwilad, mianiSnebs, rom raRac momentSi saqarTveloSic arsebobda monodiuri galoba, magram ar vici, kvlavac arsebobs Tu ara igi am liturgiis TvalsawierSi? erTxmianobasa da mravalxmianobas Soris urTierToba CemSi kidev erT SekiTxvas badebs: franko-romanul liturgiaSi, mravalxmianoba ar aris galobis Semadgeneli, qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 463 e.i is aris ornamenti, gaZliereba ritorikuli ornamentis saSualebiT. igi yovelTvis saWiroebs winaswar monodiur melodias da misgan Cndeba organumi, simfonia. es marTebulia, radgan mravalxmianobis kompoziciuri SegrZneba, Sua saukuneebSi mainc, ara vertikaluri, aramed horizontaluria, me vityodi, terasuli. pirveli moicavs xmas, Semdegs, kidev Semdegs da a.S. kargi iqneboda, igive gvekiTxa qarTul mravalxmianobaze. am principis sailustraciod momyavs magaliTi (sur. 1; mag. 1; audiomag. 1, 2, 3) santiago de kompostelas sakaTedro taZris (XII s.) kaliqstusis xelnaweridan. es aris laTinuri Kyrie Cunctipotens genitor dues. sami nawilidan (Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus) TiToeulSi monodiuri melodia imRereba bavSvis xmiT, oficialuri berZnuli teqstiT, Semdeg am hangze sruldeba organumi, amjerad laTinuri teqstiT. teqsti aseTia: a. Cunctipotens genitor Deus omnicreator eleison [yovlisSemZle mamao, RmerTo, Semoqmedo yovlisa, Semiwyale] b. Christe dei forma virtus patrisque Sophia eleison [qriste, RmerTis didebao, mamis Zalav da sibrZnev, Segviwyale] g. Amborum sacrum spiramen nexus amorque eleison [wminda sunTqvao, Serwymav da orives siyvarulo, Segviwyale] franko-romanul liturgiaSi xSirad gvxvdeba aseTi principi: mcire-teqstiani sagalobeli ufro gamSvenebulia, musikaluri ornamentaciisa da polifoniiskenaa midrekili, maSin, rodesac uxvteqstian sagalobels meti Sinaarsobrivi datvirTva aqvs, silaburia _ TiTo marcvali yovel notze. igive xdeba Tu ara saqarTveloSi? msurs Cemi saubari davasrulo kilosTan dakavSirebuli ramdenime SekiTxviT: aris Tu ara qarTul musikaSi, martivi finalisis garda, kilosTvis damaxasiaTebeli sxva elementebi da ganmeorebadi motivebi? aqvs Tu ara yovel kilos gansazRvruli, damaxasiaTebeli xasiaTi? da ra rols asrulebs amaSi teqsti? siuzan rankini: Tqvens winaSe var, rogorc erTgvari despani – yovel SemTxvevaSi Tavs aseTad vgrZnob, dasavleT evropis Soreuli nawilidan (irlandieli var) da rac ufro mTavaria, Sua saukuneebis dasavleTevropuli musikis istoriis stipendianti. Cemi samecniero naSromis Temaa notireba – grigoriseuli sagaloblebis pirveli notirebuli nimuSebi. aseve, intensiurad vmuSaob adreul evropul polifoniur musikaze. es musika, romelic Seiqmna da notebze gadaitanes meTerTmete saukunis dasawyisSi, Tanamedrove msofliosaTvis TiTqmis ucnobia, Tumca ki didi interesis sagans warmoadgens. amdenad, rodesac simha aromma SemomTavaza davxmarebodi qarTul polifoniaze muSaobaSi, magaliTad, Sua saukuneebis dasavlur musikasTan paralelebis moZebnaSi an Sua saukuneebis musikis gaazrebis iseTi gzebis moZebnaSi, rac qarTuli musikis gagebaSi daexmareboda, winaaRmdegoba ver gavuwie. simham didi gamowvevis winaSe damayena: vestumro qveyanas, sadac identuroba musikaSi msoflios romelime sxva qveyanaze metadaa gamoxatuli, Tanac gavbedo da visaubro qarTul musikaze, bolo 464 mrgvali magida I ori Tvis manZilze Cems Tavs xSirad vekiTxebodi `rogor aRmovCndi am ambavSi?~. aqedan naTlad Cans, rom Cemi Tavi gareSe piri mgonia da dRes mxolod SekiTxvebs davsvam qarTuli musikis Sesaxeb. vidre visaubreb mrgvali magidisTvis gankuTvnil masalaze, minda ramdenime sityviT gavixseno zigfrid nadelis 1933 wels gamocemuli naSromi. im dros ukve gamocemuli iyo naSromebi Sua saukuneebis evropul polifoniasa da misi Seqmnis Sua saukuneebSi arsebul Teoriaze. es gamogvadgeba imis axsnaSi, Tu ratomaa nadelis zogierTi SeniSvna araswori (magaliTad, zogierTi qarTuli nimuSisa da XII saukunis organum purum-is Sedareba). SesaZloa, es iyos yvelaze mniSvnelovani kavSiri, romelsac is xedavs qarTuli polifoniis ZiriTad formebsa da paralelur organums Soris, romelic, daaxloebiT, IX saukunidanaa cnobili. imdroindel TeoriaSi warmodgenili paraleluri organum ornairia: erTia kvintebisa da oqtavebis mkacri paraleluri moZraoba, rac arasodes irRveva, meore ki _ paralelur kvartebze damyarebuli polifonia, magram cvalebadi intervalebiT, maT Soris, unisoniT kadansSi. saqme isaa, rom kvintebisa da oqtavebis paraleluri moZraoba xSirad aris damoukidebeli xmebis moZraobis safuZveli, magram TiTqmis arasdros minaxavs an gamigia, rom is zustia. qarTul musikaSi me, agreTve, ver vipove paraleluri kvartebiT moZraoba. amgvarad, iq, sadac nadelma pirdapiri kavSirebi dainaxa, me diatonuri musikaluri sistemis gamoyenebiT gamowveul msgavsebebs vxedav; axla minda vimuSao ufro analogiis modelze da ara istoriul kavSirze dasavleTevropul da qarTul polifonias Soris. Tu saerTo maxasiaTeblebi vlindeba kulturulad daSorebul musikas Soris, maSin Cven, bolos da bolos, gveqneba sasargeblo baza istoriuli kavSirebis dasamyareblad, Tu aseTebi saerTod arsebobs. axla warmogidgenT sam Zalian patara SemTxvevas, romlebic mimarTulia zedmiwevniT gamoikvlios, Tu rogor ewyobian notebi erTmaneTs samxmian polifoniaSi; qarTuli musikis Cem mier moyvanili yvela magaliTi aRebulia am mrgvali magidisTvis gankuTvnili masalidan, xolo dasavleTevropuli magaliTebi miekuTvneba meTormete saukunesa da mecamete saukunis dasawyiss. 1. pirveli SemTxveva: melodiisa da harmoniis mimarTeba (wm. giorgis tropari) Cemi erT-erTi pirveli SekiTxvaa, Tu rogoria kavSiri xmebs Soris. musikis akorduli buneba – didi interesi vertikaluri JReradobis mimarT naTelia. simha aromsa da polo valehos aqvT mniSvnelovani Sedegebi imis gamovlenaSi, Tu rogor xdeba sistemurad akordebis arCeva. magram me, rogorc melodiis mkvlevarma, minda gavigo, Tu rogor erwymis erTmaneTs melodia da harmonia simReris dros. musikaSi, miT umetes, zepir tradiciaSi (romelic axasiaTebs rogorc evropul, ise qarTul musikas), imas, rasac mReris TiToeuli Semsrulebeli, misTvis azri unda hqondes ara marto melodiis, aramed jgufis socialuri struqturis TvalsazrisiTac. me amas vasabuTeb misi siaxloviT zepir tradiciasTan, smeniT, notebis gareSe simRerasTan, rasac evropuli polifoniis bevr nimuSSi vertikalur konsonansze melodiuri xmis moZraobis upiratesobasTan mivyavarT. qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 465 magaliTad, warmogidgenT Sua saukuneebis evropuli polifoniis sami notirebuli samxmiani nimuSidan erT-erTs (mag. 2, videomag. 1). ra Tqma unda, iyo erTze met xmaSi melodiuri moZraobis warmarTvis saWiroeba, ramac migviyvana kontrapunqtis TeoriasTan, romelic pirvelad meToTxmete saukuneSi Seiqmna. magram qarTul polifoniaSi me ver daviwyebdi kontrapunqtis Zebnas evropuli gagebiT _ ar mqonda mizezi, mqonoda raime msgavsis molodini. amitom, vamjobine martivi, `pirdapiri progresiis“ (moZraobis) koncefcia. amerikeli mecnieris, sara fuleris (Sarah Fuller) Seqmnili es termini aRwers xmaTa wyvilis moZraobis kontrapunqtul wess daZabulobidan gadawyvetamde: es wesebi qmnian kontrapunqtuli Teoriis safuZvels da maT sistematizebul gamoyenebas musikaSi SeiZleba Tvali gavadevnoT XIII-dan XV saukunemde. qarTul nimuSebSi me veZebdi ara am specifikur progresiebs, aramed ganmeorebadobas, romelic moqmedebda daZabuloba-gadawyvetis situaciaSi. maTi povna advili iyo: es aris wm. giorgis troparis oTxi kadansi, romlebic, paralelurad dalagebis SemTxvevaSi, msgavsad moZraoben musikis dasasrulisken (mag. 3, a, b, g, d). Semdeg me davamate igive damamTavrebeli formulis mqone pasaJi gixaroden, RvTismSobelo-dan (mag. 4, a, b). am faqtma damarwmuna, rom me SemeZlo simhasTan da polosTan kamaTi imaze, rom am musikaze muSaobis procesSi Semxvda garkveuli kontrapunqtuli wesebi – ara marto ori xmis `pirdapir progresiaSi~, aramed sam xmaSic. vfiqrob, Semdgomi kvleva gacilebiT met naTels mohfens amgvar SemTxvevebs. 2. meore SemTxveva: urTierToba xmebs Soris qarTuli polifoniis yvelaze fundamenturi SekiTxva: rogor urTierToben xmebi erTmaneTTan – aris Tu ara erTi maTgani mTavari, anu organizatori, maT Soris arsebobs wyviluri urTierToba (mag., A da B, A da C), Tu es aris mTliani samxmiani qsovili, an iqneb samidan or xmas Soris ufro Zlieri urTierTobaa (rogorc es naCvenebia qarTuli musikis zogierT damxmare literaturaSi). Cemi SekiTxvebis wyaros ilustraciisTvis, momyavs Verbum partis-i, romelSic yvelaze dabali xma, udavod, iyo samxmiani kompoziciis sawyisi punqti; igive himni sxva wyaroebSi SeiZleba vipovoT, rogorc erTxmiani simRera; orxmiani variantis melodia yovelTvis dablaa polifoniur qsovilSi. meore SekiTxva: rogor aris agebuli samxmiani qsovili? (mag. 2) wyviluri xmebis upiratesad sapirispiro moZraobiTa (sapirispiro moZraoba waxalisebulia) da xmebs Soris arasruli da sruli konsonansebis warmoqmniT, advili gasagebia, Tu rogor iqmneba es samxmiani qsovili: es ar aris A+B, da arc A+B+C, aramed A+B, Semdeg A+C, Semdeg (A+B)+(A+C). kargad mogexsenebaT, rom qarTul musikaSi me ver vipovidi am maxasiaTeblebs, magram me es ar vicodi da, rac ufro mniSvnelovania, momixda musikis Rrmad wvdomis gzebis Zieba. am procesSi vecade am SekiTxvebze pasuxebis povna da vipove kidec zogierTi saintereso ram: zogierT nimuSSi aRmovaCine, rom ganapira xmebis moZraobebi efuZneba oqtavur da kvintur urTierTobebs, am intervalebis gamudmebuli monacv- 466 mrgvali magida I leobiT (mag. 5). es aseve damaxasiaTebelia evropuli samxmiani qsovilisaTvis, rogorc me-13 saukuneSi skolis moswavleebis mier boves kaTedralur taZarSi Sesrulebul, cnobil simReraSi saxedarze (Orienis patribus) (videomag. 2). mniSvnelovani gansxvaveba Sua saukuneebis evropul da qarTul nimuSebs Soris aris moculoba, romliTac evropul nimuSebSi gamoyenebulia xmaTa sapirispiro moZraoba, rogorc ZiriTadi principi, maSin rodesac qarTuli nimuSebSi, rogorc Cans, upiratesoba eniWeba paralelur moZraobebs, sapirispiro moZraobis mokle pasaJebiT. magram me kargad ar vicnob qarTul musikas da amis Sesaxeb metis arafris Tqma SemiZlia. rogorc evropul, ise qarTul magaliTebSi oqtavisa da kvintis monacvleoba emyareba erT struqturul wess vertikaluri JReradobis sivrcis Sesaqmnelad, romelSic SeiZleba ganTavsdes Semdegi xma. magram evropuli da qarTuli nimuSebis Sedarebis saintereso Sedegs warmoadgens is gza, romelic avlens mesame xmis organizebis uaRresad gansxvavebul wess. Orientis partibus-Si (videomag. 2) Sua xmas axasiaTebs sami ZiriTadi qceva, samxmian akordSi misi adgilis mixedviT: Tu ganapira xmebi erTmaneTidan oqtaviTaa daSorebuli, Sua xma mexuTe safexurze dajdeba; Tu ganapira xmebi kvintiTaa daSorebuli, Sua xma, SesaZloa, moTavsdes am oridan erT-erT notze, an mesameze notze maT Soris. es axasiaTebs nimuSebis umetes nawils. rogorc TqvenTvis cnobilia, qarTuli musika ar wyalobs terciebsa da samxmovanebebs, Tumca ki isini arian kadansebis maCvenebeli musikaluri enis nawili da iseT nimuSSi, rogoricaa RvTismSobelo qalwulo-s samxmovanebebi xSirad meordeba. aRsaniSnavia, rom gadawyvetis momentebSi samxmovanebi ar aris, isini Canacvlebulia Ria kvintebiT (mag. 6). garda amisa, Ria kvintebi ufro gadawyvetis momentisTvisaa damaxasiaTebeli, vidre romelime sxva situaciisTvis (mag. 7). magram, Cemi azriT, Sua xma yvelaze aSkarad maSin iqceva, rodesac ori ganapira xma erTmaneTidan oqtaviTaa daSorebuli da xSirad dabali xmis zemoT seqstaze `zis~ (mag. 8). ramdenadac SemiZlia vTqva, RvTismSobelo qalwulo-Si (mag. 6) akordi kvintiTa da oqtaviT maRla (kvintoqtakordi), ufro iSviaTia da aq ara TavisTavadia, aramed ufro xmis moZraobidan gamomdinareobs. am nimuSSi ganapira xmebis moZraoba oqtavidan kvintisken da piriqiT, Sua xmaSi moZraoba seqstidan kvintaze, Semdeg terciaze, dabali xmis zemoT, aris am nimuSis (mag. 6) centraluri harmoniuli JReradoba. 3. disonansi, rogorc xmis moZraobis erTi aspeqti damrCa mxolod erTi, bolo SemTxveva. adre me aRvniSne, rom Sua saukuneebis ni-muSebSi disonansi unda momdinareobdes melodiuri xmaTasvlis upiratesobidan vertikaluri konsonansze. qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 467 vxvdebi, rom qarTuli musika disonansebiT ufro tkbeba, vidre Sua saukuneebis dasavluri musika da rom didi mniSvneloba eniWeba iseT intervalebs, rogoricaa sekunda, septima da nona. magram es mxolod am disonansebiT tkbobis sakiTxi ara _ vfiqrob, bevri disonansi xmebis moZraobasTanaa kavSirSi. Semdeg magaliTSi ori zeda xma imeorebs ganmeorebad qcevas da nimuSis bolos sekundisken midis; qveda xmas aqvs ori SesaZlo varianti: zeda xmasTan Sewyobili (Gdan) kvinta an zeda xmasTan Sewyobili oqtava (D-dan). rodesac zeda xma miemarTeba D-sken, qveda xma mas paraleluri kvintebiT miyveba, rodesac zeda xma miemarTeba Gsken, qveda xma mas unisonSi uerTdeba. ar vici SeiZleba Tu ara am samxmiani qsovilis ganxilva rogorc ori wyvilisa an ori zeda xmis erTmaneTTan mimarTebisa, an zeda da qveda xmis erTdroulobisa _ vfiqrob, amas Cemze meti codna da gamocdileba sWirdeba. magram me vxedav, Tu rogor momdinareobs or qveda xmas Soris disonansi am xmebis pirveladi melodiuri energiidan (mag. 9). da bolos: rac Seexeba Sua saukuneebs, arsebobs Cvenamde moRweuli mxolod sami samxmiani nimuSi – da Tqven dRes ori maTgani ukve naxeT. rac Seexeba mecamete saukunes, bevri nimuSi arsebobs, magram am etapze ar visaubreb am samxmiani qsovilis Teoriul sakiTxebze. msjeloba XIV saukunis samxmiani qsovilis Sesaxeb jer mxolod dawyebulia, vinaidan Cveni Teoriuli modelebi mxolod orxmiani nimuSebisTvisaa gankuTvnili. Sua saukuneebis musikis istorikosebs, albaT, imdenive arsebiTi SekiTxva eqnebaT, ramdenic qarTuli musikis istorikosebs (magram imedi maqvs, rom SevZeli simha aromisa da polo valehos darwmuneba, rom isini unda gascdnen akordul sintaqss!). wamyvanma madloba gadauxada prof. siuzan rankins da sityva gadasca dr. svimon jangulaSvils. svimon jangulaSvili: me visaubreb qarTuli galobis Hharmoniuli enis zogierT kanonzomierebaze. ����������������������������������������������������������� qarTuli tradiciuli simRerisa da saeklesio galobis harmoniuli sistema, rogorc cnobilia, modaluri azrovnebis nayofia. qarTuli saeklesio musikis harmoniaSi Tavs iCens Zveli modalobisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli mravali niSanTviseba (JRenti, 2005), kerZod: 1) aratemperirebuli wyoba; 2) diatonuri kiloebi; 3) mravalkilouroba; 4) harmoniuli vertikali, romelic mravalxmiani qsovilis linearuli ganviTarebis Sedegia, eyrdnoba konsonirebul Tanxmovanebebs, magram, amasTan, axasiaTebs disonansuri TanaJReradobebis emansipirebuli da xSiri gamoyeneba; 5) melodiur safuZvelze damyarebuli TanxmovanebaTa moZraoba; 6) harmoniuli azrovnebisaTvis niSandoblivi orfunqciuroba – myari da meryevi. meryevis mravalnairad (afunqciuri, gamvleli, droebiTi da a.S.) gamovlena, xolo simyaris mniSvneloba aqvs mxolod metrulritmulad aqcentirebul Tanxmovanebebs; 7) sagaloblis damaboloebeli Tanxmovaneba, `finalisi~, ZiriTadad, aris metrul-ritmulad aqcentirebuli unisoni an kvinta, amasTan, iSviaTad, sagaloblis Sida muxlebi sxva TanaJReradobebiTac mTavrdeba; 8) finalisi ar sazRvravs TanxmovanebaTa urTierTobebs da asrulebs mxolod damaboloebeli Tanxmovanebis funqcias; 9) modalur sistemas axasiaTebs kilouri modula- 468 mrgvali magida I ciebis mdidari `teqnika~ da mravalgvari saxeobani (kilouri, melodiuri, melodiurharmoniuli, funqciuri, dapirispireba (ix. JRenti, 2005). amasTan, zogadad, modulaciebi qarTul galobaSi 3 saxeobad SeiZleba daiyos: a) modulaciebi, rodesac erTi bgeraTrigis pirobebSi/farglebSi icvleba kilouri centrebi; b) modulaciebi, rodesac icvleba bgeraTrigic da kilouri centrebic (am dros, SesaZloa kilos mixriloba ar Seicvalos da misi transponireba moxdes); g) modulaciebi, rodesac erTi sayrdenis an kilouri centris pirobebSi icvleba kilos mixriloba da bgeraTrigi. aseTia mokled Zveli modaluri sistemis is ZiriTadi da zogadi Taviseburebani, romlebic vlindeba qarTul saeklesio musikaSic. qarTuli galobis kilouri organizeba dialeqtikuria: 1) sagaloblebSi vlindeba modaluri azrovnebisaTvis tipuri aracentralizebuli kilouri sistema: mravalxmiani qsovilis ganSla-mdinarebisas warmoCindeba sxvadasxva kilouri simyareebi, romelTa funqciebis cvlileba mudmivad dasaSvebia. 2) sagalobelSi periodulad vlindeba sxvadasxva kilour simyareebsa Tu sayrdenebze mimarTuli kilouri struqturebi. maT organizebuli buneba da kanonzomierebebi aqvs. es kanonzomierebebia: a) erTi ZiriTadi kilouri centri, romelic `sistemis centralur elements~ warmoadgens. igi mizidulobis centria da ZiriTadad, gansazRvravs danarCeni bgerebis funqcionalizms~ (WoxoneliZe, 1983: 3). am centrs kilos tonikas, xolo harmoniul movlenas kilos monotonikurobas uwodeben1; b) kilos ZiriTadi tonisadmi (ori mimarTulebidan – mis zemoT da qvemoT ganlagebuli bgerebidan) miziduloba; g) Sua kvinturi an/da kvartuli sayrdenebis arseboba; d) tonebis oqtavuri gaormageba maTi funqcionaluri identobis gareSe; e) kilos ZiriTadi tonis zeda oqtavuri ganmeorebis mZafri, meryevi funqcionaluri buneba. Sesabamisad, sagaloblis kilouri organizeba mokled ase SeiZleba aRiweros: mravalxmiani intonirebisas erTmaneTs cvlis gansxvavebuli mniSvnelobisa da `gavlenis~ mqone sxvadasxva kilour simyareze mimarTuli kilouri struqturebi da mravalxmiani konstruqciebi. dasaSvebia iseTi fragmentis warmoSobac, romelSic ar vlindeba kilouri simyare-centri. kilouri centri, an sayrdeni bgerebi muxlTa damasrulebel saqcevebSi xdeba sacnauri. mravalxmian struqturaSi harmoniul kanonzomierebaTa analizisas2 mniSvnelovnad migvaCnia sagalobo hangis, cantus firmus-is kilour TaviseburebaTa garkvevac, vinaidan swored mas `ebanebian~, Seewyobian qveda xmebi da maTi urTierTmimarTebis Sedegia mravalxmiani struqtura. mTqmelis (zeda xmis) partiaSi arsebuli tradiciuli hangis muxlTa Tu saqcevTa damamTavrebeli bgerebi, xSir SemTxvevaSi, sulac ar warmoadgenen mravalxmiani struqturis kilos bgeraTrigis centralur, myar safexurs (mag. 10). es bgerebi simyares danarCeni ori xmis Sewyobis Sedegad iZenen. kvinturi TanxmovanebiT kadansirebisas, umravles SemTxvevaSi, kilos mTavari safexuri mTqmelis (I xmis) hangis an kvintiT qvemoT Sewyobili banis damamTavrebeli bgeraa (aseve, xSirad, masTan unisonSi myofi moZaxilic) (mag. 11): qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 469 qarTul musikismcodneobaSi ukve saukuneze metia, sagaloblis notirebis epoqaSive, aRwerilia sagaloblis kidev erTi, ganapira xmebis kvinturi koordinaciis faqtoriT gamowveuli harmoniuli Tavisebureba – zeda ori xmisa da banis sagasaRebo niSnebisa da bgeraTrigebis gansxvaveba. kerZod, diezebis SemTxvevaSi, bans, zeda xmebTan SedarebiT, alteraciis erTi niSniT naklebi aqvs, xolo bemolebis SemTxvevaSi _ erTiT meti (karbelaSvili, 1899: III). xSirad alteraciis niSanTa aseTi gansxvaveba mravalxmian sintaqsur nagebobaSi polikiloobas, an mis msgavs movlenas warmoSobs _ rodesac kadansSi qveda or xmas erTi ZiriTadi kilouri sayrdeni aqvs, xolo manamde ki xmebis bgeraTrigebi gansxvavdeba (mag. 12, a, b, g). zemoT motanil magaliTebSi, sakadanso nagebobebSi kilouri centria d, romelic mTqmelis finalisze _ a-zea Sebanebuli. amasTan, kvinturi finalisis gamovlinebamde, zeda ori xma erTdiezian bgeraTrigSi viTardeba, xolo bani _ uniSno bgeraTrigSi. kadansebSi moZaxilSi d miqsolidiuri JRers, igive kilouri mixrilobas amyarebs mTqmelic. banSi ki _ d doriuli JRers; Tanac, karbelaSviliseul magaliTSi xmaTa iribi winaRobiT, qoriZiseul nimuSebSi ki _ erTdrouli winaRobiT _ banSi F-ia da moZaxilSi an mTqmelSi _ fis. aSkaraa, rom sagaloblebSi sxvadasxva polifoniuri faqtura warmoSobs da sabolood ayalibebs kilour struqturebs. sxvadasxvanairi intervaluri struqturis mqone bgeraTrigebSi, TiTqosda garkveul JRerad velSi `moxvedrili~ intonaciuri formulebi da maTze Sewyobili TanaJReradobebi gansazRvraven himnis muxlTa damamTavrebel safexurebs da kilour saxes. amasTan, notirebul sanoto masalaSi xSirad gvxvdeba SemTxvevebi, rodesac erTi da imave melodiuri xazis an konturis mqone formula-modeli (mikromotivi, motivi, saqcevi, muxli) bgeraTrigisa da kilos sxvadasxva bgeridanaa agebuli erT an sxvadasxva sagaloblebSi, an erTi himnis sxvadasxva versiaSi da, Sesabamisad, sxvadasxva intonaciuri Taviseburebisa da kilouri mixrilobisaa. am mxriv, gansakuTrebiT aRsaniSnavia karbelaSvilTa sanoto Canawerebi, sadac, araTu calkeuli saqcevebi an muxlebi, aramed, xSirad, sagalobelTa variantebi erTmaneTisagan harmoniuli aspeqtiT gansxvavdeba. varaudoben, rom msgavsi SemTxvevebi ar gadmoscems sagalobelTa realur JReradobas, aramed, warmoadgens himnebis CamwerTa – karbelaSvilTa mcdelobebs, zustad asaxon, `Targmnon~ xuTxazian sistemasa da temperaciaSi aratemperirebuli, zonuri wyobis mqone sagalobelTa harmoniuli mxare. ra Tqma unda, zonuri smenisa da intonirebis mikrointervaluri gradaciebis zusti asaxva sanoto sistemaSi SeuZlebelia (rogorc tradiciul, iseve profesiul musikaSi – ZvelSic da axalSic); magram warmoudgenelia, rom fenomenaluri musikaluri niWiT dajildoebul galobis iseT mcodneebs, rogorebic iyvnen Zmebi karbelaSvilebi (vasils profesiuli musikaluri ganaTlebac hqonda miRebuli), notebze realobisagan da maT codnasa da SemsruleblobaSi arsebulisagan radikalurad gansxvavebulad CaeweraT, gamoecaT da gaevrcelebinaT sagaloblebi. asea Tu ise, faqtia, rom himnTa sanoto CanawerebSi xdeba erTi da imave formulebisa da mravalxmiani nagebobebis fiqsireba alteraciis sxvadasxva sagasaRebo da 470 mrgvali magida I arasagasaRebo niSnebiTa da sxvadasxva kilouri mixrilobiT. amasTan dakavSirebiT, unda aRvniSnoT, rom tradiciul mravalxmian intonirebas, iqneba is zonuri Tu temperirebulTan miaxloebuli (rac aseve/mainc zonuria), axasiaTebs intervaluri da mikrointervaluri aspeqtebis variaciuloba da/an mikrovariaciuloba. vokaluri intonirebisas mikrointervalebiT operireba miiRweva bunebrivad, SemsrulebelTa ostatobis Sedegad. aratemperirebuli SemsruleblobisaTvis gamiznuli nebismieri sanoto teqsti warmoadgens realuri JReradobis mxolod ConCxs, mcdelobas JReradi materiis grafikuli asaxvisa, romlis intonireba yovel jerze unikaluria. adamianis smenisa da intonirebis zonurobidan gamomdinare, yoveli vokaluri Sesruleba aris erTaderTi, ganumeorebeli varianti. xolo notirebisas, xdeba zonuri smeniT intonirebuli mravalsaxovani, improvizaciuli bgeradi materiis erT konkretul sqemaSi moqceva; mravali SesaZlo variantidan mxolod erTis _ modelis, modusis arCeva. notirebisas es speqtruli simdidre ufro konkretuli xdeba, naklebi gardamavali tonebis Semcveli, magram misi vokaluri aJRerebisas kvlav Tavs iCens intonaciurspeqtruli gradaciebi. yovelive zemoT Tqmulis Sesabamisad, mravalxmiani intonirebisas dasaSvebad migvaCnia sagaloblebSi tradiciuli formulebis da maTze mimarTuli mravalxmiani nagebobis sxvadasxva harmoniuli SeferilobiT `aRmoCena~ da maTi aseTivenairad warmoCena sanoto CanawerebSi. garda zemoaRniSnulisa, sagaloblebSi am mravalferovnebis mizezi qarTuli tradiciuli musikaluri xelovnebisaTvis imanenturi polifoniuri qmnadoba-Semsrulebloba da improvizaciulobac aris. qveda xmebi, ewyoba ra cantus-is mTqmel xmas, harmoniulad `aformebs~ mis mier `naTqvam~ intonaciur formulebsa da maT finalisebs. esa Tu is muxli, vidre ar damTavrdeba, kilouri mixrilobis mxriv, sakmaod neitraluria, an mravalferovani, sxvadasxva harmoniuli ferebiT `mociagea~. rogorc zemoT vTqviT, aq intonirebis procesSi erTmaneTs enacvleba sxvadasxva sayrdeni da maTze mimarTuli nageboba. romeli iqneba maTgan saboloo, damamTavrebeli simyare, amas mxolod mTqmelis intonaciuri formula uCvenebs qveda xmebs. sxvadasxva intonaciuri da harmoniul Taviseburebebis mqone TanxmovanebaTa gamudmebuli monacvleoba-livlivi qarTuli sagaloblis ganumeorebeli mSvenierebis erT-erTi saidumloa. es harmoniul-emociuri mravalsaxeoba, miT ufro intensiuria, rac ufro `gamSvenebuli~, anu polifonizebulia sagalobeli. mraval sagalobelSi (gansakuTrebiT `gamSvenebulSi~) dasaSvebia, rom qveda xmebma formulis finalisi ki ar `gaamyaron~ kadansirebisaTvis `normatiuli~ unisoniT an kvintiT, aramed savaraudo da mosalodneli finalisis `irgvliv~ Ria kadansis funqciis mqone struqtura warmoSvan, romelSic xazgasmuli araa kilouri centri da `Tavidan acilebulia~ misdami miziduloba. aseT nagebobaTa meSveobiT cezuris simkveTris ganeitraleba xdeba da miiRweva linearuli ganviTarebis uwyvetobis, sintaqsur erTeulTa gadabmis efeqti. qarTuli samgaloblo melosis kidev erTi saintereso Taviseburebaa is, rom qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 471 aq SezRudulia kilos bgeraTrigis zeda bgeraTa gamoyenebis areali. hangSi kilos bgeraTrigis umaRles bgeraTa gamoCena, yovelTvis mxatvrul-emociuri kulminaciis, gansakuTrebuli sulieri ganwyobis matarebelia. maqsimaluri zRvari, rasac samgaloblo hangi `aRwevs~, aris pirobiTad, eoliuri kilos nonuri (an miqsolidiuris, iSviaTad ioniuris decimuri) bgera. rogorc magaliTebSic vxedavT, sagaloblebSi gvxvdeba am bgeris gamoyenebis ori saxe – maRali da naxevari toniT dadablebuli (mag. 13). qarTl-kaxur galobaSi xSirad intonaciuri mwvervalis miRwevis, kulminaciurobis ganwyoba Semoaqvs eoliuri kilos VIII (anu kilouri centris oqtavuri gameorebis), an miqsolidiuris IX bgerebis aJRerebasac. kilos am bgerebTan (magaliTSi pirobiTad, d eoliuris VII-VIII, an c miqsolidiuris VIII-IX) qveda xmebis SebanebiT miRebuli TanxmovanebaTa Tanmimdevroba tipuria qarTl-kaxuri galobisaTvis (mag. 14). sagalobelSi JReradi sivrcis aTvisebisas bgeraTrigis gazrda kilos am - umaRlesi bgerebidan (eoliuris IX, miqsolidiuris an ioniuris X) qveda mimarTulebiT xdeba (rig SemTxvevebSi `gamSvenebul~ sagaloblebSi bani eoliuri kilos centraluri tonidan oqtaviT dablac ki Cadis). hangSi maTze maRali bgerebis gamoyenebisas, sagalobelSi JReradi materiis am safexurebze zeda mimarTulebiT `dapyrobisas~ bgeraTrigi da kilo, an kilos simaRle icvleba xolme. sagalobelTa Soris mravladaa nimuSebi, sadac melodiis kilos bgeraTrigis umaRles monakveTze `atyorcna~ gansakuTrebulad amaRlebuli, sazeimo, Taviseburad kulminaciuri sulieri da mxatvruli ganwyobis Seqmnis mizniTaa gamoyenebuli. unda aRiniSnos, rom e. WoxoneliZis debuleba ZiriTadi sayrdenis oqtavuri gaormagebis `mZafr da meryev funqcionalur bunebasTan~ dakavSirebiT, kanonzomieria Zveli qarTuli saero da sasuliero musikisaTvis. magram, sagaloblebSi mravlad arsebobs gamonaklisi SemTxvevebic: dasavlurqarTul, `gamSvenebul~ himnebSi, Zalian xSiria specifikur sakadanso nagebobebSi oqtavuri unisonebiT muxlTa an saqcevTa damTavreba (mag. 15). Sida muxlebis an saqcevebis oqtavuri kadansebiT damTavrebasTan erTad, gelaTis skolis samgaloblo tradiciaSi gvxvdeba SemTxvevebi, (qoriZe, 1895:75, 80; kereseliZe, Q-674) rodesac uSualod sagalobeli mTavrdeba kilos ZiriTadi tonis oqtavuri gaormagebis Sedegad miRebuli TanxmovanebiT (mag. 16). f. qoriZiseul erT-erT `gamSvenebul~ `romelni qerubimTa~-Si ki (qoriZe, 1895: 94), banis qveda variantis Sesrulebis SemTxvevaSi, damaboloebeli Tanabgeradoba oqtduodecimakordia (mag. 17). es SemTxvevebi, gansakuTrebiT ki gelaTis skolis `gamSvenebul~ sagaloblebSi oqtavuri Ria kadansebis sixSire, imis mimaniSnebelia, rom Zvel qarTul saeklesio musikaSi e.w. `monotonikurobis~ principTan erTad Tanaarsebobs kilouri simyaris, ZiriTadi tonis oqtavuri gaormagebis principic. `gamravalxmianebuli~ intonaciur formulebis, anu sintaqsuri erTeulebis finalisebis erTi bgeraTrigis pirobebSi monacvleoba warmoadgens melodiur-harmoniul an funqciur modulacias erTi bgeraTrigis farglebSi. am dros bgeraTrigi ar icvleba, icvleba kilouri centri da kilos intervaluri struqtura. 472 mrgvali magida I magaliTad, Tu erTbemolian bgeraTrigSi intonaciuri formula mTavrdeba mcire oqtavis a-ze da mas kvintiT qvemoT Seewyoba bani (da moZaxili an bans SeuerTdeba an mTqmels), am SemTxvevaSi, sakadanso saqcevi d eoliur kiloSi damTavrdeba. Tu qveda xmebi am a-s unisonSi uerTdebian, maSin aq a frigiuli SeiZleba davinaxoT. Tu formula g-ze damTavrdeba da bani mas kvintas Seuwyobs, c miqsolidiurs miviRebT, xolo Tu xmebi unisonSi SeerTdeba, warmoiqmneba kilo g. kilour centrad/sayrdenad SesaZloa mogvevlinos, bgeraTrigis, faqtobrivad, nebismieri safexuri Tu bgera. magaliTad, erTbemolian bgeraTrigSi kilouri sayrdenebi yvelaze xSirad SeiZleba iyos mcire oqtavis d an c, aseve, maTgan zemoT mdebare e, f, g, a, b, c1 (mag. 18). erTbemolian bgeraTrigSi hangis ganviTarebis maqsimaluri zRvari iqneba e. Tuki intonaciuri formula masze (eoliuri kilos IX, an miqsolidiuris X bgerebi) maRla aRmoCndeba; an qarTl-kaxuri himnis sagalobo hangSi eoliuri kilos centris zeda oqtavuri ganmeoreba did manZilze gamRerdeba; an igive bgera hangSi modulaciisa an gadaxrisaTvis `xelsayrel~, mastimulirebel konteqstSi gamoCndeba (xSirad, qarTl-kaxur sagalobelSi kilos bgeraTrigis umaRles bgerebTan hangis `miaxloebisas~), aseT SemTxvevebSi himnSi mosalodnelia aRmavali modulacia (an gadaxra) bgeraTrigis cvlilebiT. am SemTxvevaSi uTuod iCens Tavs mTeli sistemis Zvra erTi toniT zemoT. mxolod, axali bgeraTrigi inarCunebs Zvelis intervalur struqturas. bgeraTrigis cvlilebiT modulaciebic, faqtobrivad, warmoadgens melodiur-harmoniuli an funqciuri modulaciis gansakuTrebul SemTxvevebs. aRmavali mimarTulebiT aseTi modulaciis dros, eoliur kiloSi naxevari toniT maRldeba VI da III safexurebi, axali eoliuri kilos centri ki xdeba Zvelis II safexuri. miqsolidiurSi naxevari toniT amaRldeba VII da IV safexurebi, centri aqac erTi toniT `aiwevs~... anu, sanimuSod moyvanili bgeraTrigis SemTxvevaSi naxevari toniT amaRldeba b da f (banSi naxevari toniT amaRldeba e da b). Sedegad miviRebT axal bgeraTrigs (qarTl-kaxuri `wmidao RmerTo~ (mag. 19). bgeraTrigis cvlilebiT modulaciis saxea bgeraTrigis gadanacvleba erTi toniT dabla – rodesac xdeba eoliuri kilos II da V (an miqsolidiuri kilos III da VI) safexurebis naxevari toniT dadableba da kilour sayrdenTa erTi toniT dabla gadanacvleba (fragmenti qarTl-kaxuri evqaristiuli kanonidan) (mag. 20). Zalian xSirad, qarTl-kaxur galobaSi, am modulaciis mastimulirebeli, mTqmelSi eoliuri kilos VI (an miqsolidiuris VII) safexurze reCitacia (an am bgeraTa SedarebiT did manZilze gamRereba) da mis fonze moZaxilis melodiuri moZraoba da gansazRvruli intervaluri koordinacia xdeba xolme (akurTxevs suli Cemi ufalsa) (mag. 21): karbelaSvilTa gamocemebSi bgeraTrigis cvlilebiT modulaciis kidev ori saxea dafiqsirebuli, romlebic xuTxazian sistemaSi gadatanil sxva sagaloblebSi SedarebiT iSviaTad gvxvdeba. pirveli SemTxveva warmodgenilia himnSi `netar ars kaci~ (karbelaSvili, 1897: 9) (mag. 22). am sanoto nimuSSi, manamde gabatonebuli eoliuri kilos VI safexurze da masTan, kvinturi koordinaciis aucileblobis gamo dadablebul II safexurze, agebulia qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 473 sakadanso nageboba `karbelaanT~ galobisaTvis saxasiaTo moZaxilis svliT. manamde gabatonebuli d bgera kargavs kilouri sayrdenis mniSvnelobas. metro-ritmulad xazgasmul, axal, es sayrdenze agebuli mikrostruqturis pirvel naxevarSi, moZaxilis melodiur saqcevSi dabldeba manamdeli d eoliuri kilos V safexuri, Semdeg _ IV. sakadanso saqcevis II naxevarSi (sasvenis – mZimis Semdeg) xdeba miRebuli es eoliuri kilos ganmtkiceba, romelSic grZeldeba Semdgom sagalobeli. rogorc vxedavT, `netar ars kacSi~ bgeraTrigi daZrulia naxevari toniT zemoT. meore SemTxveva ki karbelaSvilTa krebulSi _ sagalobelni Sobis dResaswaulisa _ (karbelaSvili p., 1899:1) Semaval himnebs axasiaTebs (dasdebeli movediT erno) (mag. 23): sagaloblis am fragmentSi intonacia miedineba c eoliuridan es ioniurSi, Semdeg f doriulSi (`saidumlosa~). amis Semdeg bgeraTrigSi icvleba 4 bgeris simaRle (as→a, es→e, b→h, f→fis), sambemolian bgeraTrigs cvlis erTdieziani, intonireba grZeldeba am bgeraTrigSi agebul kiloebSi. sagaloblebSi xSiria erTi sayrdenis pirobebSi kilos mixrilobis cvlilebac. aq mogvaqvs polievqtos karbelaSviliseuli `movediT Tayvanis vsceT~-is muxlTa daboloebani (mag. 24): hangis yvela muxlis finalisi aris g, magram qveda xmebis harmoniuli `aqtivobis~ Sedegad, I SemTxvevaSi nageboba c doriulSi `aRmoCnda~, II-Si – g eoliurSi (banis es-is meSveobiT), III-Si c miqsolidiurSi, xolo IV-Si ki – g doriulSi. qarTl-kaxur galobaSi aseve xSiria kilos kolorirebis SemTxvevebic (mag. 25, a, b). mraval himnSi aseve xSirad gvxvdeba intervaluri koordinaciiT ganpirobebuli kilouri gadaxrebic. sagalobelSi modulacia an gadaxra bgeraTrigis cvlilebiT ukavSirdeba formas, an faqturis polifoniurobis, e.i. `gamSvenebis~ gazrdas. mas ZiriTadad ganapirobebs: 1. xmis [ixosis] an hangis tradiciuli struqtura; 2. improvizaciuli Semsrulebloba-qmnadobis procesSi kilos kolorireba, harmoniuli feradovnebiT Taviseburi `TamaSi~ romelime, an yvela xmis mier; 3. hangSi bgeraTrigis (galobisaTvis, samgaloblo melosisaTvis) ukiduresi safexurebis gamoCena; 4. hangSi iseTi safexuris gaJRereba, romelic kilos kolorirebis, an kilouri gadaxris impulss aZlevs calkeul xmas. aseT SemTxvevebSi, mniSvnelovani faqtoria xmebs Soris tritonis Tavidan acilebis da wminda kvintis an kvartis aJRerebis mizniT, romelime safexuris simaRlis Secvla (bansa da moZaxils Soris mosalodneli tritonis Tavidan acilebis nimuSi, SesaZloa, davinaxoT me-18 da me-19 magaliTebSi warmodgenil modulaciebSi); 5. intervaluri koordinaciis ti puri da tradiciuli saxeebi; 6. iseTi polifoniur-faqturuli movlenebi, rodesac sagalobelSi irRveva ganapira xmebis kvinturi an oqtavuri, da zeda xmebis terciuli koordinaciis tipuri principebi da xmebis `normatiuli~ urTierTmimarTeba axali StrixebiT mdidrdeba. vgulisxmobT sakadanso formulebSi aRmavali mimarTulebiT banis 474 mrgvali magida I sinkopur svlebs damaboloebeli unisonisaken; aseve, mis melodiur an motivur iniciativebs, romelTa drosac is zemoTken ascdeba Tavis bunebriv intonaciurregistrul `kalapots~ da II xmas uerTdeba an gadajvaredindeba masTan. am dros banze TiTqos ukve mTqmelTan moZaxilis `urTierTobis~ kanonzomierebani iwyeben zemoqmedebas da, amitom, igi Tavis bgeraTrigSi manamde (mTqmelTan kvinturi koordinaciis mizeziT) `armyof~ bgerebs aJRerebs. igive SeiZleba `daemarTos~ sxva xmebsac _ polifoniurobis gamZafrebis, improvizaciul-registruli `Tavdaviwyebis~, gansakuTrebiT, xmebis gadajvaredinebis SemTxvevebSi. amrigad, sagalobelSi sayrden bgeraTa da maTze Sefardebul nagebobaTa monacvleoba, intonaciuri formulisa da mravalxmiani struqturis urTierTmimarTebisagan momdinareobs. mTqmelisadmi Sewyobil mravalxmian qsovilSi kilos safexurebis urTierTmimarTebas ki, qarTuli tradiciuli mravalxmianobisaTvis tipuri harmoniuli kanonzomierebebi gansazRvravs. am kilour Taviseburebas emateba sayrdenTa da Sesabamisad, maTze orientirebul nagebobaTa zemoT aRwerili monacvleoba: vidre cantus-is sintaqsuri erTeuli, modeli-formula ar damTavrdeba da qveda xmebs `ar uCvenebs~, Tu saiT unda `wavidnen~ isini, manamde musikalur struqturaSi ZiriTadad moqmedebs faqturuli konfiguraciis raime saxis (paraleluri, ganapira xmebs Soris konturuli dapirispirebis, paralinearuli, gansxvavebul-melodiuri, kontrastuli) idea da mTavari kilouri (qveda) simyarisadmi mizidulobis kanonebi. qveda xmebis (moZaxilisa da banis) polifoniur-melodiuri aqtivobisas, kilos centrisaken maT mizidulobas, zogierT nagebobaSi `sZlevs~ maTi orientacia mTqmelis intonaciur formulaze. swored am movlenis, da aseve xmebis polifoniuri damoukideblobisaken swrafvis mizeziT xdeba yvelaze myari da ganmeorebadi sayrdenis Secvla sxva safexuriT, an e.w. kilouri gaurkvevlobis warmoqmna. faqturis konfigurirebis sxvadasxva tipebis ganxorcielebis procesTan mWidrod dakavSirebuli harmoniuli metyveleba ganapirobebs qarTuli samgaloblo skolebis esTetikur Taviseburebebs. faqturis sxvadasxvanairad polifonizebis process, polifoniurobis matebas Tan axlavs harmoniuli enis garTuleba da samgaloblo harmoniuli azrovnebis mTeli simdidris maqsimaluri warmoCena. gansakuTrebiT saCinoa, sxvadasxva samgaloblo skolebis tradiciebisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli polifoniur-faqturuli azrovnebis TaviseburebebiT formirebuli akordikis, saxasiaTo vertikalur TanaJReradobaTa gansxvavebani. Cvenamde moRweul samive samgaloblo skolis musikalur enas axasiaTebs sekunduri da terciuli TanaJReradobebis xSiri gamoyeneba. dasavlurqarTul himnebSi xSiria aseve kvartuli TanaJReradobebic. amasTan, Semoqmedis skolis erT-erT stilur niSans kvartoqtavakordebisa da kvintnonakordebis sixSire warmoadgens. dasavlurqarTul, gansakuTrebiT ki, gelaTis skolis himnebSi, `gamSvenebis~ matebasTan erTad, matulobs da xSirad, stilur niSnad iqceva, kidev ufro farTo TanaJReradobebis (undecima, an duodecima ganapira xmebs Soris, maTgan seqstiT, septimiT an oqtaviT daSorebuli Sua xma) gamoyenebis magaliTebi. sveticxovlis skolis sagaloblebs ki ganapira xmebis oqtavur-decimur `CarCoSi~ konsonansur da disonansur TanaJReradobaTa `livliva~ monacvleoba axasiaTebs. aq moZaxilis mTqmelisagan qveda mimarTu- qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 475 lebiT daSorebis maqsimaluri intervali, SesaZloa, seqsta, uiSviaTes SemTxvevebSi ki _ septima iyos. amasTan, samive skolis sagaloblebSi, polifoniur-melodiuri simZafris mqone `kvanZebSi~, xSiria uaxloesi bgerebiT agebuli, sekundur-terciuli, an sekundur-kvartuli (SigadaSig _ sekundur-klasterulic ki) TanaJReradobani. yovelive zemoTqmulidan gamomdinareobs, rom qarTul sagalobelSi kilo, rogorc harmoniul-intonaciuri sistema vlindeba, ganisazRvreba da realizdeba erTi mxriv, tradiciuli intonaciuri formulebis (es Tavisebureba qarTul saeklesio musikas saerTo aqvs bizantiur, grigoriseul da znamenur tradiciebTan) da, meore mxriv, polifoniuri mravalxmianobis faqtorebiT. sagalobelTa analizi gviCvenebs, rom intonaciuri formulebiT agebuli arqetipuli, tradiciuli cantus firmus-is mravalxmiani ganxorcielebisas, yvelaze mTavari iyo hangis formula-modelebis sxvadasxva harmoniul konteqstSi `aRmoCena~. Cvenamde moRweuli, XIX saukuneSi xuTxazian sistemaSi gadatanili musikaluri masaliT aseve dasturdeba, rom improvizaciuli Tavisuflebis niSniT iyo aRbeWdili musikaluri enis sxva elementebic, maT Soris, kiloc, romelic, erTi mxriv tradiciis `CarCos~, xolo meore mxriv ki _ polifoniuri improvizaciis sfero iyo. SemoqmedebiTi Tavisuflebis `maregulirebeli~ tradiciuli intonaciuri formula-modelebia. maT sxvadasxvanair modifikaciasa da mravalxmian ganxorcielebas wamoadgens arsebiTad Tavad sagalobeli. amasTan, swored am ganxorcielebis polifoniuri procesis Semadgeneli komponentia sagaloblis harmonia. wamyvanma madloba gadauxada s. jangulaSvils da, masTan erTad yvela qarTvel mecniersa da momReral-praqtikoss, romelTa xelovnebas aRtacebSi mohyavs msmeneli. xanmokle Sesvenebis Semdeg simha aromma aRniSna, rom qarTuli polifoniis gagebaSi erT-erT mniSvnelovan problemas warmoadgens terminologia, romelSic ucxoeli da qarTveli mecnierebi gansxvavebul mniSvelobas deben. magaliTad, erT-erTi sakvanZo terminia `kilo~ (`modusi~). yvela sxadasxva raRacas gulisxmobs, roca am termins iyenebs. ras gulisxmoben qarTveli mecnierebi, roca kiloze laparakoben? Tqven ambobT, rom kilo damokidebulia kadansze. nu vilaparakebT kiloze zogadad. Sua saukuneebSi am termins iyenebdnen monodiasTan mimarTebaSi. magram Tqven laparakobT kiloze mravalxmianobaSi, maT cvalebadobaze, erTi kilodan meoreSi gadasvlaze da Semdeg, musikaluri nimuSis mesame kiloSi dasrulebaze; ras niSnavs, magaliTad, roca ambobT, rom es nimuSi aris ama Tu im kiloSi? svimonis gamosvlaSi laparaki iyo Tanabgeradobaze (co-sounds), magram gaugebaria, ra igulisxmeba masSi? CemTvis Tanabgeradoba aris is, rac erTdroulad JRers. Tanabgeradoba ar aris mxolod konsonansi, es SeiZleba iyos disonansi, gansakuTrebuli metrulritmuli formula. konsonansi aqcentirebulia metrul-ritmulad. niSnavs Tu ara is metrul-ritmul models? ras gulisxmobs kadansi da naxevarkadansi? svimoni aseve laparakobda bgeraTwyobis modulaciaze (scale modulation), ras niSnavs es, ra gansxvavebaa bgeraTrigisa da kilos modulacias Soris? modulacia Zalian evropuli 476 mrgvali magida I movlenaa, ras niSnavs is modalur musikaSi? ras niSnavs monotonikaloba? Semdegi terminia `polimodaloba~ – ra igulisxmeba galobis SemTxvevaSi am terminis qveS? aris Tu ara terminologiis unificirebis SesaZlebloba? es aris kiTxvebi, romlebis gviCndeba qarTuli polifoniis Seswavlisas, xSirad Cven gvaqvs problemebi, roca am sakiTxebs vuRrmavdebiT. da Tu viqnebiT iRblianebi, SevZlebT SevimuSavoT modeli, romelic xalxs aqvs TavSi, modeli, romelic dagvexmareba am kiTxvebze pasuxis gacemaSi. polo valehom qarTuli simReris harmoniul modelTan dakavSirebiT, gaixsena Tavisi stumroba ansambl `mTiebis~ sabavSvo studiaSi, romelsac giorgi garayaniZe xelmZRvanelobda. bavSvebis umetesobas studiaSi mosvlamde simReris praqtika ar hqoniaT. misi TxovniT, xelmZRvanelma bavSvebs misca davaleba SeewyoT xmebi, mihyolodnen maTTvis ucnob melodias, rac maT advilad daZlies. maTTvis erTaderTi problema teqstis arcodna aRmoCnda, harmoniul struqturas maT advilad auRes alRo. me maSin davrwmundi, rom qarTvel bavSvebSi, maT azrovnebaSi Cadebulia mravalxmianobis idea, arqetipi, modeli, romlis povnasac vcdilobT me da prof. aromi. ioseb Jordania: me maqvs ramdenime SeTavazeba. upirveles yovlisa, umTavresi SekiTxva: gaqvT Tu ara samuSao hipoTeza, roca adarebT am gansxvavebul musikalur stilebs? Tqveni kvleva hipoTezis gareSe mimdinareobs, mxolod imisaTvis, rom naxoT ra Sedegebs miiRebT, Tu gaqvT garkveuli samuSao hopoTeza msgavsebebisa da gansxvavebebis asaxsnelad? meore SekiTxva: rogorc vxedav, roca bgeraTrigebs asaxelebT, Tqven mxolod frazis bolo nots, finaliss iyenebT. es, SesaZloa, ar iyos Sedegiani, radgan qarTul tradiciul musikaSi, faqtobrivad, erTnairi musikaluri frazebi SeiZleba sxvadasxva adgilas damTavrdes. da es, SesaZloa, imaze iyos damokidebuli, Tu saidan modis es frazebi. magaliTad, kaxeTSi SeiZleba gvqondes fraza aseTi sayrdeniT: G-G-G-G-G-G-G-A. msgavs frazas samegreloSi eqneba gansxvavebuli dasasruli: G-G-G-G-G-A-B. Tu msgavs frazas guriaSi ipoviT, is ufro maRla ava: GG-G-G-G-A-B-C. sagaloblebSi SesaZloa gvqondes ufro dabal re-ze dasrulebuli fraza: G-G-G-G-G-D. zogjer, aseve, SeiZleba davasruloT dabal mi-ze: G-G-G-G-GA-E. amgvarad, centralur ton sol-ze damyarebuli msgavsi frazebi SesaZloa dasruldes sruliad gansxvavebul adgilebze. qarTul musikologiaSi 1960-ian -1970-ian wlebSi am sakiTxze kamaTobdnen.. Salva aslaniSvili darwmunebuli iyo, rom bolo noti, finalisi iyo tonika, centraluri toni. sxva mkvlevari, grigol CxikvaZe, darwmunebuli iyo, rom bgeraTrigs gabatonebuli centraluri toni gansazRvravda da ara musikaluri frazis bolo noti. Cemi azriTac, bgeraTrigis gansazRvrisTvis centraluri toni ufro mniSvnelovania, vidre musikaluri frazis bolo noti. polo valeho: ki magram, rogor igebT, romelia centraluri noti? ioseb Jordania: centraluri toni is tonia, romelic, Cveulebriv, musikalur frazas iwyebs banis partiaSi. is, Cveulebriv, dominirebs musikalur frazaSi da qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 477 zogjer mTel simReraSic ki _ es martivia. polo valeho: es SesaZloa gamoiyureba martivad, magram ase ar aris. Cven vcdilobT gavarkvioT, romelia mTavari bgera, romelic axdens organizebas, es ar aris naTeli, Cven mivmarTav finaliss, rom vipovoT saerTo bgera. ioseb Jordania: diax, mesmis. magram zogjer Cven veZebT raRacas iq, sadac is, SesaZloa, sulac ar iyos. maxsovs, didi kamaTi erT xevsurul iavnanaze. es aris Zalian martivi da ganmeorebadi fraza (mReris): ,,e-e, nano, nanasao, samkal gaCenilasao…..~ melodia efuZneba tetraqords (G-C-B-A, G-C-B-A, da a.S). msjelobdnen finalisze, anu imaze Tu sad unda damTavrdes simRera da sad aris simReris tonika. erTi versiiT es iyo `A~, sxvebi fiqrobdnen, rom simRera unda dasrulebuliyo tetraqordis meore safexurze (bevri sxva qarTuli simReris msgavsad). magram arsebobda amave iavnanis sxva variantic da es varianti sruldeboda tetraqordis yvelaze maRal safexurze `C~-ze. im principis Tanaxmad, rom saeqspedicio masalis gaSifvrisas yvela detalia mniSvnelovani, Cveni yuradReba miiqcia simReris bolos momRerlis naTqvamma: `mgoni davasrule~. Cven es sityvebi CaviwereT da vkiTxeT, `ra xdeba, ratom kiTxulobT daasruleT Tu ara?~ bolos Cven CavwvdiT am ucnauri frazis arss: es iyo iavnana, am melodias gansakuTrebuli funqcia aqvs _ bavSvis daZineba. amgvarad, simReras ar gaaCnia dasrulebis gansazRvruli adgili, is sruldeba Tavisi socialuri funqciis Sesrulebis Semdeg, rodesac bavSvi daiZinebs. am variantis Caweris dros qali xelovnur situaciaSia _ is bavSvs ki ar aZinebs, aramed mReris mikrofonSi. amitom is agrZelebs simReras, magram Semdeg xvdeba, rom ase, SesaZloa, gagrZeldes iqamde, vidre eTnomusikologs ar CaeZineba, amitom is Cerdeba da aqedanaa misi fraza `mgoni davasrule~. Sesabamisad, am melodias ara aqvs `swori~ finalisi, sadac momReralma unda daasrulos simRera. es ambavi mogiyeviT, raTa meCvenebina, rom zogjer Cven veZebT iq, sadac ar unda veZebdeT. rogorc nino ciciSvilma Tavis moxsenebaSi brZana, mecnierebi zogjer qorwinebis sxvadasxva formas eZeben iseT sazogadoebaSi, sadac qorwineba, rogorc aseTi, saerTod ar arsebobs. amis msgavsad, Cven veZebT tonikas simReraSi, sadac SesaZloa iyos ori sxvadasxva dominanti tonis kombinacia, mag. G an G bemoli; an G da B; an G da A. SegviZlia vikamaToT, romeli maTgania tonika. amgvarad, saeklesio galobaSi, SesaZloa, Segvxvdes kompoziciaSi dominanti ori an sami tonis kombinacia. amas ar unda mivudgeT evropuli harmoniis sistemis TvalsazrisiT, sadac tonika aSkarad aris. es Cemi SemoTavazebaa. siuzan rankini: minda mxari davuWero Tqvens pozicias. is modeli, romelsac Tqven aviTarebT, Zalian naTelia grigoriseul sagalobelSi. mravali sagalobelia, romelSic finaliss vxvdebiT. es aris modeli, romelic Zalian axlobelia CvenTvis. modalur TeoriaSi finalisi didi xnis Semdeg gaxda Zalian mniSvnelovani. am TvalsazrisiT, Cemi azriT, tonikis nacvlad centraluri tonis xmareba Zalian sasargebloa, es ar ewinaaRmdegeba Tqvens models. Tqveni analitikuri modelis Tanaxmad qarTuli sagalobeli Sedgeba formulebisagan da mTavaria, Seiqmnas ganmeorebadi 478 mrgvali magida I struqturebis seria. mniSvneloba ara aqvs imas, rom Tqven sulac ar mimarTavT modalur Teorias. Tqveni Teoria araa damokidebuli finalisis urTierTobaze danarCen musikasTan. igi damokidebulia ganmeorebadi saqcevebis povnaze da ara aqvs mniSvneloba, Tqven mas ras uwodebT. polo valeho: qarTvel kolegebTan urTierTobaSi Cven davadgineT, rom qarTul religiur musikaSi gvaqvs naxevarkadansic, romelTagan TiToeuli finalisiviTaa. amitom daviwyeT akordebis sintaqsis Seswavla da Zebna modelisa, romelic damasrulebel rols asrulebs sagalobelSi. ioseb Jordania: Cven ar unda velodoT, rom ganxilvis Semdeg mivagnebT problemis saukeTeso gadawyvetas. xSirad, samecniero kamaTis saukeTeso Sedegi aris axali SekiTxva an axali faqti. msurs SemogTavazoT simha aromis naxsenebi erTi detali. man aRniSna, rom qarTul simReraSi yovelTvis aris akordebis SegrZneba. ara imitom, rom sami sxvadasxva melodiuri xazi qmnis raRac akordebs. me veTanxmebi amas. amasTan dakavSirebiT minda gagiziaroT Cemi dakvirveba qarTvelebis mier gamoyenebul akordebze. mravali wlis win, rodesac qarTul tradiciul musikalur azrovnebas vadarebdi evropul klasikur musikas, im daskvnamde mivedi, rom isini Zalian gansxvavdebian imiT, Tu rogor iwyeba da viTardeba musikaluri idea. evropuli musikaluri idea, rogorc wesi, iwyeba romelime stabiluri elementiT, Cveulebriv tonikiT. da harmoniac, rogorc wesi, tonikuria, melodiac umetesad iwyeba tonikis samxmovanebis bgerebidan. Semdeg gadadis sxva bgerebsa da harmoniebze da bolos tonikas ubrundeba. qarTul tradiciul azrovnebaSi SeiniSneba aSkara gansxvaveba: musikaluri idea xSirad dinamiuri, arastabiluri elementidan iwyeba. harmoniaSi es aris disonansuri akordi, rogorc 1-4-5, xolo melodiaSi es, xSirad, aris gamis meSvide an meoTxe safexuri. ganviTarebis Semdeg, rogorc melodia, ise harmonia erT stabilur elementTan midian, finalur unisonTan an kvintasTan. magaliTisTvis aviRoT Sen xar venaxis guruli varianti iwyeba absoluturi disonanturi akordiT, rogorc bevri sxva sagalobeli an tradiciuli simRera. Tu SevadarebT Sua saukuneebis evropul musikas, ara mgonia, vipovoT amgvari mkafio disonanturi akordebiT dawyebuli nimuSebi. amgvarad, arsebuli paralelebis miuxedavad, mainc arsebobs am kulturebis ganmasxvavebeli mniSvnelovani elementebi. diax, rogorc wesi, orive mTavrdeba unisoniT, magram, aba, vnaxoT dasawyisi _ aq maT Soris udidesi gansxvavebaa. daviT SuRliaSvili: man madloba gadauxada monawileebs am saintereso diskusiisTvis da aRniSna, rom moxsenebebi Seexeboda sasuliero musikas, Tumca kamaTSi ZiriTadad saero musikaze iyo saubari. rasakvirvelia, qarTul sinamdvileSi uTuod SeiZleba saubari maT Soris mWidro kavSirze, magram igi yuradRebas gaamaxvilebs qarTul sagalobelze. misi azriT, qarTuli musikologia da s. jangulaSvilic erTsa da imave martiv, magram uzusto meTods mihyveba, kerZod, mxedvelobaSi aqvs analizisas sanoto Canawerebze dayrdnoba. misi azriT, galobis kvlevisas analizis dasayrdeni unda iyos qarTuli sagaloblebisa da simRerebis avTenturi Canawerebi, qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 479 romelTac sabednierod, Cvenamde moaRwies. mxolod es mogvcems saSualebas, rom CavwvdeT am musikis harmonias, melodiis bunebas da xmaTa urTierTdamokidebulebasac. sagalobelTa xelnawerebSi saqme gvaqvs qarTuli galobis 5-xazian sistemaSi ,,naTargmn~ teqstebTan da maTi analiziT Cven mxolod ,,naTargmnis~ analizs vakeTebT. faqtobrivad, Tanamedrove ansamblebis Sesrulebac am naTargmnis aJRerebaa, yuriTac advilad SesamCnevia, rom es Sesruleba acdenilia Cveni winaprebis nagalobebs, marTalia, Zalian vcdilobT, magram yvelas sxvadasxvanairad gamogvdis. galobis mkvlevarTa mTavari amocanaa analizSi swored maT namRers daveyrdnoT, rom vipovoT qarTuli kilos gasaRebi maTi JReradobidan da ara notebidan. aseT SemTxvevaSi, SesaZloa kidev ufro saintereso gaxdes Sua saukuneebis qarTul-evropuli musikis urTierTmimarTebis sakiTxi: evropisagan didi xniT izolirebulma saqarTvelom kargad Semoinaxa Semsruleblobis Zveli kilo, Zveli manera, rac SeiZleba evropelebisTvisac orientiri aRmoCndes sakuTari musikis sxvagvari wakiTxvisaTvis. svimon jangulaSvili: rasakvirvelia, sagaloblebis kvlevisas Cven fonoCanawerebic unda gaviTvaliswinoT. magram Cven xelT gvaqvs mxolod dasavleT saqarTvelodan Semoqmedis kilos 150-mde da ramdenime qarTl-kaxuri sagaloblis fonoCanaweri, maSin, rodesac arsebobs notebze gadawerili ramdenime aTasi sagalobeli, romlebSic Zalian didia faqturuli, harmoniuli, polifoniuri gansxvaveba qarTuli galobis sxvadasxva skolis nimuSebs Soris, saocrad mravalferovania maTSi warmodgenili musikaluri samyaro. amitom, samwuxarod, erqomaiSvilebis fonoCanawerebis mixedviT karbelaSvilebis an qoriZis Caweril masalaSi ver ganvsazRvravT kilos sagaloblebis harmoniisa Tu kilos azrovnebis sakiTxebs, ver SevZlebT avsaxoT notirebul sagaloblebSi dafiqsirebuli stiluri simdidre. sazogadod, bgeris simaRlis zustad dafiqsireba mxolod temperirebul (klaviSian) sakravebzea SesaZlebeli. vokaluri Semsrulebloba (iseve, rogorc sxva aratemperirebul sakravebze) mimdinareobs aratemperirebul wyobaSi, amitom, bunebrivia, aseTi musikis yoveli sanoto Canaweri warmoadgens erTgvar Targmans. xmiT Sesruleba ar SeiZleba iyos temperirebuli, momRerali verasodes SeZlebs zusti centebiT, mikrointervaluri sizustiT simReras. Cven verasodes vityviT, ra mikrointervalebs aJRerebdnen Cveni winaprebi saukuneebis win, iseve, rogorc verc erTi momRerali ityvis zustad, ramdeni centiT iyo erTmaneTisagan daSorebuli mis mier aRebuli ori bgera. xalxuri simReris uamravi Canaweri gvaqvs SemorCenili, sagaloblebisa ki – mxolod erTi skolis. bevr rames davkargavT, Tu sagaloblebis xelnawerebis mTel korpuss SeviswavliT mxolod Cvens xelT arsebuli erTi skolis fonoCanawerebis mixedviT. amitom, Cven qarTul sagalobelze mecnieruli msjeloba gvixdeba 5 xaziani sistemiT Cawerili sagaloblebis mixedviT, rom SevZloT sanoto masalis mTeli mravalferovnebis asaxva. nana valiSvilis azriT, qarTuli mravalxmianoba ar aris stiqiuri movlena. is faqti, rom Cven jerjerobiT ar mivsulvarT daskvnebamde rac bolomde naTels gaxa- 480 mrgvali magida I dis qarTuli musikaluri azrovenebis sistemas, ar niSnavs, rom igi ar arsebobs. Tu Cven ara gvaqvs mravalxmianobis kilouri da harmoniuli sistema gaazrebuli, maSin gamodis, rom qarTuli mravalxmianobac stiqiuri yofila da araorganizebuli. qeTevan baiaSvilma gaixsena SemTxveva sakuTari pedagogiuri praqtikidan, roca igi xalxur simReras aswavlida bavSvebs, romelTac smena evropuli harmoniiT hqonda gawvrTnili. roca bavSvebma simRera notebiT Seasrules sam xmaSi, Semdeg ki xalxuri momRerlebis Zveli Canaweri moismines, maT maswavleblis gareSe, Tavad advilad dainaxes gansxvaveba JReradobaSi. Semdeg didi muSaoba aRmoCnda saWiro, rom bavSvebis Sesruleba fonoCanawerebis JReradobisaTvis mieaxloebina. man bolos kiTxva dasva: riTi SeiZleba es aixsnas, Tu ara qarTuli bgeraTwyobis originalobiT? Tamaz gabisoniam aRniSna, rom igi ufro daviT SuRliaSvilisa da ioseb Jordanias mosazrebebs iziarebs, s. jangulaSvili ki umciresobaSia. man mokled gasca pasuxebi ucxoeli mecnierebis mier dasmul SekiTxvebs. • qarTul sagalobelSi teqsti musikas naklebad gansazRvravs. es gviCvenebs, ramdenad daSorda qarTuli sagalobeli Tavis winapars, ramdenad Sors wavida pirvandeli saxisagan; • qarTul sagalobelSi linearuli moZraoba wamyvania; • imis pasuxad, rom prof. rankins paraleluri kvartebi ar Sexvedria qarTul sagalobelSi, man moixmo d. SuRliaSvilis mier gamocemuli Semoqmedis skolis erqomaiSviliseuli `saswavlo kilos~ sagaloblebi, romlebiTac patarebs aswavlidnen galobas da iyenebdnen galobis Seswavlis sawyis etapzea da warmoadgens paraleluri kvartuli da oqtavuri moZraobiT, uZveles, pirvandel saxes qarTuli galobisa; • kiTxvaze, aris Tu ara qarTul sagalobelSi romelime xma lideri da aris Tu ara xmaTa wyvilebi, pasuxi aseTia – aris sxvadasxva xarisxis SeWiduloba, rogorc konturul xmebs (pirvelsa da bans) Soris, aseve, zeda or xmas Soris, sadac zeda xma wamyvania, rogorc kanonikuri xma, xolo meore xma mas xSirad misdevs _ lagdeba paralelur terciaSi. T. gabisoniam, agreTve, gaamaxvila yuradReba vertikalis sakiTxze qarTul sagalobelSi. mas miaCnia, rom masSi, linearulis gverdiT, aris orientacia kvintasa da oqtavaze; ar gaiziara svimonis mosazreba qarTul sagalobelSi kontrapunqtisa da paralelizmis dialeqtikis arsebobis Sesaxeb. misi azriT, sagalobelSi paralelizmis diqtatia, magram variantuli, improvizaciuli ganviTareba midis kontrapunqtisken; igi sagalobelSi ufro kvinturi da oqtavuri Sefardebebis dialeqtikas xedavs. ori mezobeli xma kvintazea orientirebuli, konturuli xmebi ki _ oqtavaze. ori erTmaneTze daSenebuli kvinta sZlevs oqtavur SeWidulobas da gamodis nona. es aris mTavari dialeqtika, rac axasiaTebs qarTuli sagaloblis harmonias. man, aseve, xazi gausva, rom termini `polimodaloba~ gaugebaria modalur sistemaSi qarTul sagalobelTan mimarTebaSi. Cveni ucxoeli megobrebi, prof. aromi da prof. valeho cdiloben mTlianobaSi moicvan erTi sagalobeli, rogorc nawarmoebi. is daeTanxma Jordanias, romelic miiCnevs, rom es marTebuli ar aris. gvido qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 481 arecoeli ambobda, roca vismenT bolo tons, Cven simultanurad vgrZnobT Tu ra iyo wina frazaSi, msgavsad locvisa, ar vkravT Cvens TavSi am erT did frazas galobisa, aramed yovelTvis, yovel wams vimyofebiT iq, sadac varT. melodia simultanurad naklebad ikribeba sagalobelSi, vidre simRerasa da klasicizmSi, sadac funqcionaluri kontrastebia da funqcionalurad Sekrulia mTeli fraza. ioseb Jordaniam qarTul tradiciul kilosa da bgeraTrigTan dakavSirebiT gaixsena Tavisi bolo stumroba svaneTSi, roca avstralielebis did jgufTan erTad islam filfanTan rihos Seiswavlidnen. xalxuri momRerali simReris Cvenebisas erTsa da imave saqcevs xan minoruli mixrilobiT mReroda, xan maJoruliT. avstralielebi, romlebsac notebze gadahqondaT misi namReri, daibnen, ver mixvdnen, rogor unda CaweraT. roca ikiTxes, romelia swori – dabla namReri Tu maRlao, man sapasuxod ikiTxa, maT Soris ra gansxvavebaao. es imas niSnavs, rom imas, ris dafiqsirebasac Cven zustad vcdilobT mikrotonebSi, ufro metic, naxevar tonsac ki misTvis principuli mniSvneloba ar aqvs. erTxel maxsovs, vSifravdi simReras da verafriT davadgine bgeris simaRle. am process mamaCemi, mindia Jordania eswreboda, romelmac miTxra _ bgera imitom gesmis ufro dabla, rom igi `o~-ze JRers, `a~, Cveulebriv, ufro maRla JRerso. saqme is gaxlavT, rom qarTuli simRerisa da sagaloblis buneba zonuria da bgerebs Soris 17 Tu 25 centiani gansxvavebis Zieba, did sirTuleebs Segviqmnis. erTi da imave momRerlis sxvadasxva dros Sesrulebuli simRerebic ki gansxvavebulad JRers. cxadia, roca simRera Tu sagalobeli gadagvaqvs notebze, igi fiqsirdeba da erTsaxovani xdeba. magram es aucilebelia _ Tu ginda maTi gaanalizeba, raRac sayrdeni wertilebi unda gqondes. ara mgonia aRmoCndes erTi qarTuli sistema, romelsac misdevdnen erqomaiSvilebi, filfanebi, Zuku lolua da sxvebi, rogorc dasavleT, ise aRmosavleT saqarTveloSic. Cemi azriT, aseTi zusti qarTuli sistemis povna miuRweveli ocnebaa, radgan aseTi rom yofiliyo, igi aucileblad aRmoCndeboda. rusudan wurwumiam aRniSna, rom es diskusia bunebrivia, radgan qarTuli mravalxmianoba urTulesi fenomenia imisaTvis, rom iolad Cawvde mis bunebas, mis kilour wyobas. gasakviri iqneboda, rom dRes aq gvepovna erTmniSvnelovani pasuxi yvela dasmul kiTxvaze. amas kargad vxvdebiT rogorc qarTveli, ise ucxoeli mecnierebi. prof. aromma dasva terminologiis sakiTxic. qarTuli eTnomusikologia Tavisi Casaxvis dRidanve rusuli folkloristikis ganuyofeli nawili iyo, dRes ki mimdinareobs qarTuli eTnomusikologiis dasavlurTan integraciis procesi. qarTveli musikologebi bevrs kamaToben, magram isini kargad erkvevian qarTuli tradiciuli musikis bunebaSi, ubralod, Cven yovelTvis ver vlaparakobT ucxoelebisTvis gasageb enaze, rac bevr gaugebrobas iwevevs. sxvaTa Soris, prof. rankinma gaiziara ioseb Jordanias mosazreba da mianiSna, rom prof. aromi da valeho cota gansxvavebulad udgebian qarTuli mravalxmianobis modalobas, vidre es miRebulia Sua saukuneebis modaluri azrovnebis SeswavlaSi. amJamad CvenSi mimdinareobs muSaoba e.w. `qarTuli wyobis~ dasadgenad, Cven unda davelodoT am kvlevebis Sedegebs, Tumca, es jerjerobiT mecnierulad dasab- 482 mrgvali magida I uTebuli araa. mec viziareb aq gamoTqmul mosazrebebs zonuri wyobisa da modalobaSi centraluri tonis Sesaxeb. jon gremi: Tavdapirvelad gagecnobiT. me var jon gremi, vswavlob prinstonis universitetSi da vwer sadisertacio naSroms qarTul galobaze. msurs vupasuxo prof. aromis mosazrebebs qarTul musikalur terminologiaze. mokled _ sam sakiTxze. vfiqrob, man wamoswia Zalian mniSvnelovani Tema, musikaluri terminologiis gagebisa da sruli inglisurenovani ganmartebebis nakleboba gamocemul literaturaSi. ibadeba kiTxva: visi bralia es? Targmanebi, nawilobriv, Cveni, qarTuli musikis ucxoeli mkvlevrebis bralia, magram gana Cven ar unda vcdilobdeT gavigoT Sesabamisi qarTulenovani literatura da wyaroebi? did bodiSs vixdi, magram unda aRvniSno, rom qarTvelebisTvisac yovelTvis ar aris gasagebi sakuTari terminologia. Tqvens SeniSvnaSi svimon jangulaSvilis moxsenebasTan dakavSirebiT, gaugebrobis mizezi Targmania, romelic savsea inglisurenovani mkiTxvelisTvis sruliad gaugebari Sereuli musikaluri JargoniT. Tumca svimonis moxseneba qarTulad sakmaod gasagebia. amdenad, es svimonis brali ki ara, mTargmnelis bralia. vfiqrob valdebulni varT, sworad gavigoT, Tu ras weren qarTveli avtorebi da vTargmnoT isini saerTaSoriso sazogadoebisTvis gasageb enaze da ara _ piriqiT. Semdegi sakiTxia terminologiis gageba. b-nma simham isaubra terminze modus. mogexsenebaT qarTulSi aris sityva kilo, romelsac iseve, rogorc laTinurSi sityva modus-s, qarTulSic bevri mniSvneloba aqvs, rom araferi vTqvaT sityvaze tropus. dasavleTSi, sabednierod, Cven gvaqvs IX-X-XI saukuneebis Teoriuli traqtatebi, romlebSic aRwerilia, Tu rogor gamoiyeneboda termini modus TiToeul saukuneSi da rogor gansxvavdeboda misi gamoyeneba laTinursa da berZnulSi, arsebobs bevri naSromi, sadac ganmartebulia maTi mniSvnelobebi yovel saukuneSi. samwuxarod, saqarTveloSi ase ar aris, vinaidan aq ar arsebobs Sua saukuneebSi Seqmnili traqtatebi. amgvarad, termini ,,kilo~ arsebobs sruli istoriuli konteqstis gareSe, igi, SesaZloa, aRniSnavdes melodias, harmonias, wyobas.... qarTvelma mkvlevrebma Seiswavles istoriuli wyaroebi sityva kilos gamoyenebis konteqstis gasagebad. Cven gvaqvs, magaliTad, eqvTime kereseliZis citata, sadac is ambobs: `Tu kilos ar iswavli, ver gaamSveneb~ _ am SemTxvevaSi is gulisxmobs kilos, rogorc sagaloblis ZiriTad melodias. aseve, raJden xundaZis citata, sadac is ambobs `es imRereba lamaz, SesaniSnav kiloSi~ _ sadac igi harmonias gulisxmobda. amgvarad, Tavidan SeiZleba es Zalian gaugebari iyos, magram, Cemi azriT, konteqstSi es gasagebia da ar veTanxmebi Tvalsazriss, rom qarTvelebs TiTon ver gaurkveviaT Tavisi terminologia. axla, rac Seexeba Tqven mier dasmul sakiTxs musikis Sesrulebisa da musikaluri enis gramatikis Seswavlisagan gancalkevebis Sesaxeb. vfiqrob, qarTuli sagaloblis konteqstSi aseTi gancalkeveba Sedegs ver gamoiRebs, radganac saqme zepir tradiciasTan gvaqvs. Semsrulebloba avsebs gramatikas. Tu gsurT sagaloblebis gramatikis gamocalkeveba, Cemi azriT, mniSvnelovania SexedoT mas Semdeg Taobaze ga- qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 483 dacemis konteqstSi, Tu rogor aswavlidnen da rogor swavlobdnen. dRes, erTaderTi swori gzaa davakvirdeT notirebul sagalobels, sadac Cans, Tu rogor icvleboda sagalobeli Sesrulebis dros. daviT SuRliaSvili saubrobs e.w. `saswavlo xmebis~, swavlebisa da gadacemis Sesaxeb. svanur xalxur musikaze saubrisas soso Jordania dawvrilebiT aRniSnavs, rom gansxvavebebi mikro-SewyobaSi umniSvnelo iyo, radgan Sesrulebis dros Sewyoba da naxevari tonis adgilmdebareobis gansazRvra maTTvis gadamwyveti ar iyo. vgulisxmob, rom gadamwyveti mniSvneloba aqvs Semsruleblobis iseTi aspeqtebis gaTvaliswinebas, rogoricaa improvizacia, miT ufro, rom es polifoniuri musikaluri sistemaa. bevri momRerlis SemTxvevaSi, maT sWirdebaT xmebis koordinacia. maTi melodiebi harmoniul CarCoebSi arsebobda da saWiro iyo am CarCos Sewyoba Sesrulebis im momentisTvis. Sesrulebis procesSi isini xmas uwyobdnen erTmaneTs. ar arsebobs fundamenturi gramatika, romelic gansazRvravs erTi momRerlis xmis simaRles romelic sxvebisTvisac misaRebia. vfiqrob, SemsruleblobaSi es aris danarCeni ori momRerlis mosmenis procesi, romlebic mudmivad cvlian xmebs, da momReralma unda gadawyvitos rogor moaxdinos harmonizeba. arsebobs ki gansakuTrebuli harmonia romlis miRwevasac vcdilobT? me vityodi, rom arsebobs. rodesac qarTveli momRerlebis jgufTan xar da viRac odnav dabla an odnav maRla mReris, sxva qarTveli momRerlebi ityvian, rom es sulac ar iyo maRali. me aseTi ram axlaxans gadamxda, rodesac Cemi gundi kompaqtur disks iwerda da bolo sami Rame studiaSi SuRamemde gviwevda yofna. rodesac xmebs vimeorebdiT, gundis xelmZRvaneli gamudmebiT gvisworebda namRers da SeniSvnebs gvaZlevda, rom esa Tu is bgera ufro maRla an dabla gvemRera. Cemi azriT, gamocdil momRerlebs aqvT Tavis namRerSi xmaTa Sewyobisa da erTad namRer simRerebSi variantebis Sefasebis SegrZneba. simRera am ori procesis Sedegia. amdenad, vfiqrob, rom qarTuli sagaloblis SemTxvevaSi, gramatikis Semsruleblobidan gamoyofa mxolod da mxolod SezRudul Sedegebs moitans. es Cemi azria. didi madloba. polo valeho: Cvenze did STabeWdilebas axdens qarTuli musika, gvaqvs Cveni warmodgena musikis im uzarmazar universumze, im masalaze, romelic Cven gvaqvs xelT am eqvsi wlis manZilze, rac qarTul musikas vswavlobT. magram gvaqvs agreTve sirTuleebi maT SeswavlaSi, roca vlaparakobT fenomenalur parametrebze, enaze, mis semantikaze. amitom, es diskusia kiloze, enaze da a.S. metad sasargebloa. maria korte-reali dainteresda, Tu romeli kilo esadageba qarTul sagalobels dasavleTSi cnobili modaluri sistemebidan. polo valeho: es rTuli sakiTxia, Cven gansxvavebulad aRvniSnavT movlenebs. magaliTad akords Cven vuwodebT agregats, konstruqcias, erTobliobas, magaliTad, Tu tercia ar aris arc didi da arc patara, Cven mas vuwodebT neitralurs. vcdi- 484 mrgvali magida I lobT SeviswavloT fenomeni iseTi, rogoric is aris. simha aromi: me iseTi STabeWdileba damrCa, rom ver gamiges. me vlaparakobdi musikaze, rogorc formalur sistemaze, rogorc enaze, da meti araferi. es aris sruliad gansxvavebuli ram. musika aris gansxvavebuli sistema, adamianebi ibadebian da midian am qveynidan, magram musika rCeba, rogorc formaluri sistema, romelsac aqvs Tavisi gramatika. igi ar icvleba ise swrafad, rogorc adamianebis Taoba. meore sakiTxia terminologia – prof. wurwumiam Tqva, rom aris qarTul da evropul terminologias Soris gansxvaveba. es ar aris kargi. mTavaria, CavwvdeT da gavigoT musika yvelgan _ saqarTveloSi, afrikaSi an sadme sxvagan. radgan musikis formaluri ena yvelasaTvis gasagebi unda iyos. qarTuli musika ar aris mxolod qarTuli movlena, igi kacobriobis saganZuria, romelic aRiarebulia iuneskos mier, mas aqvs ena, romelic araqarTvelebmac unda gavigoT da romlis Seswavla araqarTvelsac unda SeeZlos. jon gremi gamonaklisia, mas qarTveli coli hyavs, Cven ar SegviZlia amis gakeTeba (sicili darbazSi). me emociurad vlaparakob, magram qarTuli musikac Zalian emociuria. yoveli eTnikuri konteqsti unda iqnas ganxiluli zogadkulturul konteqstSi da araqarTvel mecnierebsac, maT Soris, mec da polosac, unda gvqondes SesaZlebloba gavigoT igi. da es TanamSromloba sulac ar aris cudi. dasasrul, prof. wurwumiam madloba gadauxada mrgvali magidis monawileebs, gansakuTrebiT suzan rankinsa da arturo telos, romlebic specialurad Camovidnen mis muSaobaSi monawileobis misaRebad. man didi madlierebiT aRniSna simha aromisa da polo valehos wvlili qarTuli xalxuri simRera-galobis Seswavlasa da popularizaciaSi da imedi gamoTqva, rom maTi kvlevis Sedegebi did daxmarebas gauwevs qarTuli tradiciuli musikis yvela mkvlevars. man, agreTve, gamoTqva rwmena, rom prof. aromisa da prof valehos TaosnobiT mowyobili es Sexvedra Sua saukuneebis qarTul-evropuli musikis SedarebiTi kvlevis axali etapis dasawyisi gaxdeba. SeniSvnebi 1 harmoniis Tanamedrove Teoriuli miRwevebis Sesabamisad, gamarTlebulad ar migvaCnia cnebebis `tonika~, `tonikuroba~, `tonaloba~ gamoyeneba modaluri harmoniis movlenebis definiciisa da analizisaTvis. 2 ZiriTadad, vaanalizeb sveticxovlisa da gelaTis skolebis himnebs. sagalobelTa kiloharmoniuli Taviseburebebis Sesaxeb msjelobisas calke ganxilvis sagania guruli, Semoqmedis skolis, artem erqomaiSviliseuli sagaloblebi _ gansxvavebiT sxva skolebis nimuSTagan, romelTa audioCanawerebi TiTqmis ar mogvepoveba, Semoqmedis skolis himnTa kvleva-Seswavla qarTuli da evropuli Sua saukuneebis musikis modaloba 485 aucilebelia, Cvenda sabednierod _ arsebul audioCanawerebze dayrdnobiT. am skolis himnebisaTvis specifikuria polifoniuri xmaTasvlis maRalganviTarebuli da arqauli saxeebis Tanaarseboba da harmoniuli azrovneba, romlebSic TviTmyofadobasTan erTad, aSkarad vlindeba gansakuTrebuli paralelebi regionul xalxur musikalur enasTan. s. jangulaSvilis mier gamoyenebuli literatura, xelnaweri da gamocemuli sanoto krebulebi karbelaSvili, vasil. sanoto xelnawerTa arqivi. xelnawerTa erovnuli centri, fondi #264 karbelaSvili, vasil. (1897). qarTl-kaxuri galoba `karbelaanT kiloTi~. I nawili, mwuxri. tfilisi karbelaSvili, vasil. (1898). qarTl-kaxuri galoba, ,,karbelaanT kiloTi~, ciskari. notebze gadaRebuli mRvdel vasil karbelaSvilis mier. meore nawili. tfilisi: stamba m. SaraZisa da amxanagobisa. karbelaSvili, vasil (st.). (1899). qarTuli galoba (qarTl-kaxuri kiloTi), liturRia, wmida ioane oqropiris wirvis wesi. m. ippolitov-ivanovis mier notebze gadaRebuli. tfilisi: stamba m. SaraZisa da amxanagobisa. karbelaSvili, polievqtos. (1899). sagalobelni Sobis dResaswaulisa. gamocema mR.p. karbelovisa da a. molodinovisa. rveuli a. Tbilisi: stamba m. SaraZisa da amxanagobisa. karbelaSvili, polievqtos, CxikvaZe, grigol. polievqtos karbelaSvilisagan grigol CxikvaZis mier Cawerili sagaloblebi. folkloris saxelmwifo centris arqivi. kereseliZe, eqvTime. sanoto xelnaweri. xelnawerTa erovnuli centri, Q-667. kereseliZe, eqvTime. qarTuli saeklesio sagaloblebis krebuli, sami wirvis wesi. liturgia mRvdelmTavarTaTvis. xelnawerTa erovnuli centri, Q-674. JRenti, ivane. (2005). leqciebi harmoniaSi. Tbilisi: v. sarajiSvilis saxelobis saxelmwifo konservatoria. rosebaSvili, kaxi. (1968). qarTuli galoba (imerul-guruli kilo). Cawerili da notebze gadaRebuli kaxi rosebaSvilis mier. Tbilisi: ssrk musikaluri fondis saqarTvelos ganyofileba. rosebaSvili, kaxi. (1976). qarTuli galoba (guruli kilo). Caiwera da notebze gadaiRo kaxi rosebaSvilma. Tbilisi: ssrk musikaluri fondis saqarTvelos ganyofileba. 486 mrgvali magida I qoriZe, filimon. (1895). qarTuli galoba: liturgia ioane oqropirisa. gadaRebuli filimon i. qoriZis mier. tfilisi: m. SaraZis gamocema da stamba. qoriZe, filimon. (1904). aRdgomis sagalobelni. partitura #4. tfilisi: mswraflmbeWdavi ar. quTaTelaZisa. WoxoneliZe, evsevi. (1983). „qarTuli xalxuri simReris kilouri safuZvlebis Sesaxeb“. krebulSi: qarTuli xalxuri musikis kilo, melodika da ritmi. gv. 3-30. red.: a. SaverzaSvili. Tbilisi: v. sarajiSvilis saxelobis saxelmwifo konservatoria. arturo telos audiomagaliTebi audiomagaliTi 1. Cunctipotens genitor Deus. santiago de kompostelas kaTedralis kaliqtinusis kodeqsidan (XII s.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoe2_AmxoQ audiomagaliTi 2. Organum / Kyrie Trope: Cunctipotens genitor Deus (1 xma, 3 xma) http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/op1-102.htm audiomagaliTi 3. Kyrie cunctipotens http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/cpu301.htm suzan rankinis videomagaliTebi videomagaliTi 1. Verbum patris. asrulebs ansambli Sequentia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShNPEnkqCcA Published on YouTube on Mar 12, 2013 videomagaliTi 2. Orientis partibus. Sua saukuneebis saSobao himni, asrulebs klivlendis gundi, ros v. diufinis diriJorobiT. Sesrulebulia klivlendisa da ohaios samebis kaTedralur taZarSi, 2010, 3-4 dekemberi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn--eGxF8p4 masala publikaciisTvis moamzada rusudan wurwumiam Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music 487 SPEAKER: POLO VALLEJO Polo Vallejo greeted the participants and briefly told them the history of organizing a Round Table session on the suggested problem. After his first acquaintance with Georgian polyphony in 2006, he started its research together with his elder colleague and teacher Simha Arom. There is no need to present Prof. Arom to the audience, he has been the participant of almost all symposia on traditional polyphony since 2002 and he is already known here as world-renowned ethnomusicologist, inventor of the original method for recording polyphony and researcher of the instrumental polyphony of Aka Pygmies and other peoples, laureate of the prestigious Fumio Koizumi Prize for Ethnomusicology. They were greatly impressed by the harmony of Georgian polyphony and they decided to explore the syntaxes of the harmony of Georgian polyphony. Their work was carried out in close contact with Georgian performers (ensembles “Basiani” and “Mzetamze”) and scientists, such as Rusudan Tsurtusmia, Joseph Jordania, Tamaz Gabisonia, Davit Shughliashvili, Svimon jangulashvili and Anzor Erkomaishvili. They had particularly close cooperation with ensemble “Basiani”, whose members helped the scholars check their experiment and with whom they realized a number of joint projects _ held lecture-concerts of Georgian music in Spain, Italy…. In the working process of Professors Arom and Vallejo there merged considerations on the similarity between certain thinking principles in early Medieval European and Georgian polyphony. This is why together with the International Centre for Traditional Polyphony they decided to hold a Round Table Session at the 2012 Symposium, to which specialists in medieval music were invited. In conclusion Polo Vallejo presented to the audience two guests _ Dr. Susan Rankin, professor of Medieval music at Cambridge University (UK), also interested in the paleography of early Medieval musical sources and who transcribes two-part hymns and Arturo Tello, professor at the Department of Musicology of the Universidad Complutense of Madrid and performer. He studies Trope _ Medieval hymn in Spanish manuscripts as well as connection between expression, verbal text and writing in medieval music. From Georgian side, the reporter of the Round Table is young scholar, Dr. Svimon Jangulashvili, also director of church choir and wonderful musician. He preliminarily forwarded to us several chants of Gelati and Shemokmedi Schools (West Georgia), which enabled our foreign colleagues to familiarize with them before coming to the symposium. The speaker passed word to Dr. Arturoo Tello Ruiz-Pérez. Arturo Tello Ruiz-Pérez: First of all, I would like to thank Polo Vallejo and the organization of the Symposium for inviting me to sit in this interesting round table, which, I am sure, will have extraordinary results. I feel here as coming from another reality: I come from the world of Gregorian chant, particularly the Latin liturgical song, in summary, from the monodic and polyphonic chant in the Roman liturgy of the Middle Ages. However, perhaps because of the fascination that since the beginning this liturgical music from Georgia caused me, as a Christian musical expression, I do not feel strange at all. I have to note that my speech, more than a presentation, will be a sum of questions and issues, and I also hope you are able to forgive if many of them may seem obvious. I will try to be brief and clear as possible at this initial intervention. But above all, I would like to humbly express my desire and need to learn all I can of this wonderful liturgical polyphony of Georgia, looking forwards to my own work and in order to understand the phenomenon of liturgical music in general. 488 Round Table I Well, the first of my questions could be very obvious. As we are discussing about chant, not on any type of chant but on liturgical chant, in every song is common that there are two essential components: word and music. In the liturgical chant, at least in the Frankish-Roman and above the music, word is the base, that is, the ultimate goal is the message, what is said. The music would be how the words are said, and we should note that in most of repertoires this word is the biblical one, the word of God. This circumstance determines everything. Even in the strata of the repertoire that we could be called of new composition, the liturgical song, where the word is not directly taken from the Bible, this principle somehow still works as a law. The text, which can be poetic or prose (the Latin Vulgate Bible is entirely in prose) determines the structure, the points of tension and relaxation, syntactic articulations (distinctions like colon, comma, etc.), the style of chant (syllabic, neumatic or melismatic), the mode (we should discuss a lot about what is really a mode…), the degree of ornamentation, the type of performance (direct/soloist, antiphonal or responsorial), the genre (psalmodic recitative or free), etc. The question I want to put on the table appears by itself: does the text determine in the same way, with the same importance, the nature of the Georgian church chant? I think so, and I understand nothing of Georgian Language, but we need to think about this. Moreover, what kind of texts are sung (biblical, poetic, etc.)? Last Sunday I had the good fortune to attend the worship service at Sameba Cathedral. There, apart from being entranced by the beauty of the liturgy, I was able to observe that there is also the liturgical recitative, split into three parallel voices at the fifth distance. Of course, intonation and cadence differently had more contrapuntal elaboration. This seems relevant, once again linked to the text, because the western chant of the Latin liturgy (not only the Frankish-Roman) is very likely to arise modally from the psalmody. Through a recited note, the text was gradually forcing that there was a modal sharp ascent from to the note recited, looking the accent of words or a descent in the final, seeking syntactic clarification of the text. From the simple recitative arose different melodic modes, which, for pedagogical reasons among other things, were established in eight: the Oktoechos. Could we consider a similar hypothesis for Georgian chant? Of course that would mean that at some point the monodic chant had to have existed, if it still exists, I do not know, in the scope of this liturgy. The relationship between monody and polyphony brings me to another question. In the FrankishRoman liturgy, polyphony is not constitutive of the chant, id est, it is an ornament, an amplification through rhetorical ornatus. Always needs a prior monodic melody, and from it, appears the organum, the symphonia. This is relevant because the compositional sense of polyphony, at least well into the Middle Ages, is not vertical but horizontal, like terraces _ let me expression: the first comprises a voice, then the next, and so on. It would be good to ask if something similar happens in Georgian polyphony. I show this principle with an example (fig. 1, ex. 1, audio ex. 1, 2, 3) from the Codex Calixtinus of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela (twelfth century). It is the Latin Kyrie Cunctipotens genitor deus. In each of the three sections (Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus), monodic melody comes in the voice of a child with the official Greek text, then on that tune is made organum, this time with the Latin text. The text says: A. Cunctipotens genitor Deus omnicreator eleison [All-powerful Father, God, Creator of all things, have mercy] B. Christe dei forma virtus patrisque sophia eleison [Christ, the splendor of God, strength and wisdom of the Father, have mercy] C. Amborum sacrum spiramen nexus amorque eleison [The holy breath, the fusion and the love of both, have mercy] Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music 489 We can also observe a maxim often in the Frankish-Roman liturgy: a chant with little text is susceptible of more musical ornamentation, flowery and polyphonic, while one with a lot of text runs more content in style, aiming at syllabism and note against note. Is it also fulfilled in Georgia? I would like to end my speech leaving some questions on the mode. Are there cells in Georgian music and recurring motifs that characterize a mode beyond a simple? Is there an ethos assigned to each mode? What does the text in this? Susane Rankin: I sit here before you as a kind of envoy _ at least I feel like an envoy, from a far away part of western Europe (since I am Irish) and, more importantly, from a world of historical scholarship on the music of western Europe in the Middle Ages. The centre of my scholarly work at present is notation _ the earliest notations for Gregorian chant; but I also continue to work a good deal on the earliest European polyphonic music. This music, composed and notated in the early eleventh century, is hardly known in the modern world, although it is of immense musical interest. So when Simha Arom threw down the gauntlet to me to help him think about Georgian polyphony, perhaps by finding some useful western Medieval parallels, or ways of thinking about medieval music which might help to develop ways of thinking about Georgian music, it was hard to resist. Yet the challenge Simha set me is massive: visiting a country in which identity is expressed in music almost more than any other in the world, and then to dare to speak about Georgian music _ well, many times in the last two months I have thought “how did I get into this?” That is all a way of saying that I see myself as an outsider _ and today can only try to open some questions about ways of looking into Georgian music. Before looking at the materials circulated for the round table I want first to say a few words about the pioneering work by Siegfried Nadel, published in 1933. At that time a certain amount of Medieval European polyphony and medieval theory about how to make polyphony was known _ but very little existed in published form. That would go some way to explaining why some of Nadel’s remarks are simply wrong (such as his comparison between some Georgian pieces and organum purum of the 12th century). Perhaps the most significant correction is to the link he makes between the ‘main forms of Georgian polyphony’ and the parallel organum known of since circa 900. The parallel organum presented in theory of this date is of two kinds: first a polyphony in strictly parallel 5ths and octaves, from which there is never any deviation; and then a polyphony based on parallel 4ths, but with variable intervals, above all, unison at cadences. The point here is the strictness of the parallel movement in 5ths and octaves _ whereas in Georgian music movement in 5ths and octaves is often the basis of the movement of separate voices, but almost never _ in anything I have seen or heard _ is there strictness. And movement based on parallel fourths I have not found in Georgian music. So where Nadel saw direct links I am much more inclined to find similarities _ behaviours born out of using the diatonic musical system: for now I would rather work with the model of analogies than with an idea of historical relation between western European and Georgian polyphonies. And if shared characteristics can be used to expose qualities of these culturally separate kinds of music, then we will at least have a useful basis from which to build towards ideas about historical links, if there are any. Now I would like to present three very brief cases, each directed to a different way of enquiring into literally, how the notes of three-part polyphonies fit together: my examples of Georgian music are all taken 490 Round Table I from the materials distributed for this round table, while my western medieval examples are all from the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. 1. First Case Study: Melody V. Harmony (St. George’s Troparion) One of my first questions about three-part Georgian singing was how the voices relate to each other: the chordal nature of the music _ a very strong interest in the vertical sound, moment by moment _ was evident, and the studies of Simha Arom and PoloVallejo have already had significant results in uncovering the degree to which the chords are systematically chosen. But I am a scholar trained in melody, and I really wanted to know how melody and harmony were fused in these ways of singing. In music, above all music of an oral tradition (which is true of much European as well as Georgian music), what each singer sings must make sense to that singer as a melody, as well as within the social texture of a group. I would argue that it is because of this closeness to orality, to singing by ear without notation, that much European polyphony prizes melodic voice-leading over vertical consonance. This example is one of the three notated and still extant three-part pieces of the European middle ages (ex. 2, video ex.1). Of course, it was the need to control melodic movement in more than one voice which led to the theory of counterpoint, first written in the fourteenth century: but I could not look for counterpoint in this European sense in Georgian polyphony _ there was no reason to expect one to have anything to with the other. So then I started to consider a simple concept, that of the “directed progression”. That is a term invented by the American scholar Sarah Fuller, to describe the contrapuntal procedure of movement in a pair of voices from tension to resolution: these procedures form the basis of contrapuntal theory _ and their systematized use can be traced through music from the thirteenth through to the fifteenth centuries. What I looked for in the Georgian examples was not these specific progressions but evidence of repeated behaviours which acted in a tension-resolution situation. And they were easy to find: here are four cadences in the St. George’s Troparion, which, if set out in parallel are easily seen to reveal similar procedures of arrival at a musical close (ex. 3, a, b, c, d). And then I add a passage from Rejoice O Virgin, with the same closing formula (ex. 4, a, b). With that evidence I felt that I could at least argue with Simha and Polo that there were some contrapuntal procedures at work in this music _ not only in “directed progressions” in two parts, but in three parts. Surely more study is going to uncover much more of this kind of behavior. 2. Second Case Study: The Relation Between Voices My most fundamental question about the Georgian polyphonies has been how three voices relate to each other _ whether one of the three is fundamental as an organiser (or not), whether the relation between the three voices is as a pair of pairs (A and B, A and C), or as a three-part texture through and through, whether there is a stronger relation between two of the three voices (as indicated in some of the secondary literature on Georgian music). To illustrate the source of my questions, here in Verbum patris the lowest of the three voices was certainly the starting point for the three-part composition. The same piece can be found elsewhere as a song for one voice and in a two-part version and the melody which is always present is the one set lowest in the polyphonic texture. The second question, about how the three-part texture is built up can be quickly shown (ex. 2). Through the predominantly contrary movement of the pairs of voices (contrary movement being prized), Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music 491 and the patterns of imperfect and perfect consonances made between the voices, it is easy to understand how this three part texture was created: it was not A + B, and then A + B + C, but A + B, then A + C, then (A+ B) + (A + C). Of course, you all know that I would be unlikely to find either of these characteristics in Georgian music _ but I did not know, and, more importantly, I had to look for ways to get beyond the surface of the music. And in the course of trying to find my way into these questions, I did find some interesting things going on. In some pieces I found that much movement in the two outer voices was based on intervallic relations of octaves and fifths, with a fairly constant exchange between these two intervals (ex. 5). That is also a characteristic of European three-part textures _ as here in the famous Song of the ass (= donkey), sung by schoolboys at Beauvais cathedral in the thirteenth century (video ex. 2). The significant difference between the Medieval and the Georgian examples is the extent to which the medieval examples use contrary movement of the voices as a basic principle, where Georgian examples seem to prefer parallel movement, with short passages of contrary movement, and certainly no privileging of this principle. But I am not familiar with enough Georgian music to say more about this. The exchange between octaves and fifths seen in both repertories constitutes one structural procedure for creating a vertical sound space within which a further voice can be situated. But the interesting result of the comparison between the medieval and the Georgian examples is the way in which it exposes the very different procedures for organizing this third voice. In Orientis partibus (video ex. 2) the middle voice has three main behaviours, in terms of its place in a three-part chord: if the outer voices are an octave apart, the third voice will sit on the fifth degree; if the outer voices are a fifth apart, the third voice can either be on one of those two notes, or on the third in between. And that describes most of the piece. As you all know, Georgian music does not have that love of thirds, of triadic behaviours, although they tend to be part of the language which signals cadences, and in a piece like Rejoice O Virgin, there is much use of triads. What is noticeable is the absence of the triad from moments of resolution, which will tend to sit on open fifths instead (ex. 6). Also the open fifth seems to belong more to these moments of resolution than to any other situation (ex. 7). But most revealing I think is the way in which the third voice behaves when the outer two are an octave apart _ often sitting a sixth above the lowest voice (ex. 8). As far as I can tell, a chord with a fifth and an octave above is rather rare, and here, tellingly, it results from voice-leading rather than being made in its own right (ex. 6). The progression from an octave apart to a fifth, and vice versa, with the middle voice a 6th, then a 5th, then third above the lowest voice is the central harmonic sound in this one piece, Rejoice O Virgin. 3. Dissonance as an Aspect of Voice-Leading I have just one last case study, and it will not take long to demonstrate my point. Earlier I showed how in Medieval examples dissonance could result from the privileging of melodic voice-leading over vertical consonance. I realize that Georgian music delights in dissonance much more than Western Medieval music, and that intervals like 2nds and 7ths and 9ths have been given great prominence. But it is not only a question of these dissonances being enjoyed in their own terms – I think that much dissonance results from the same 492 Round Table I concern with voice-leading. In this set of examples, the two upper voices follow a repeated behaviour, leading to a 2nd at the end; the lower voice can behave in one of two ways, beginning on G a fifth below the top voice, or on D an octave below the top voice. And, where the upper voice heads for D, the lower voice follows in parallel fifths, whereas when the upper voice heads for G, the lower voice meets it there in unison. Whether or not this texture of three voices could be taken apart as two pairs, that is the two upper voices made in relation to each other, and the upper and lower voice made together i do not know – I think it needs more knowledge and experience of the music than I have. But I can see how dissonances between the two lower voices result from the primary melodic energy of those voices (ex. 9). Just to close: for the Middle Ages, there are only three three-part pieces extant, and you have seen two of them today. For the thirteenth century there are many, but at this stage in time no real theorization of three-part textures. Even discussion of three-part textures in the fourteenth-century is in its infancy, since our only theoretical models are for two parts. For historians of Medieval music there are probably as many basic questions as for scholars of Georgian music (but I hope that I managed to convince Simha Arom and Polo Vallejo to go further the cord syntax!). The speaker thanked Prof. Susan Rankin and passed the word to Dr. Svimon jangulashvili. Svimon Jangulashvili: I will deal with Some Regularities of the Harmonic language of Georgian Chant. It is known, that harmonic system of Georgian traditional song and sacred chant is the product of modal thinking. Many peculiarities characteristic of old modality are revealed in the harmony of Georgian sacred music (Zhghenti, 2005), namely: 1. non-tempered scale; 2) diatonic modes; 3) multi-modality; 4) harmonic vertical _ the result of the linear development of polyphonic texture, is based on consonant chord, but is also characterized in emancipated and frequent application of dissonant co-sounds; 5) chord movement based on melodic basis; 6) double-functionality _ steady and unsteady characteristic of harmonic thinking. Unsteady functionality is revealed in many ways (afunctional, passing, temporal, etc.), whilst only meter-rhythmically accentuated chords have steady meaning; 7) final chord the chant _ is basically a meter-rhythmically accentuated unison or fifth, but also seldom ends with co-sound of phrases within chant; 8) does not determine relation between chords and performs only the ending function; 9) modal system is characterized with the technique of rich modal modulations and diverse kinds (modal, melodic, melodic-harmonious, functional) (Zhghenti, 2005). Besides, in general modulations in Georgian chant can be divided into 3 kinds: a) modulations, when modal centers alternate within/under the conditions of one scale; b) modulations, when both scale and modal centers alternate (when it is possible not to change, but transpose mode); c) modulations, when mode and scale alternate within one support or modal center. These are briefly basic and general peculiarities of old modal system of Georgian sacred music. Modal organization of Georgian chant is dialectical: 1) Revealed is non-centralized modal system typical for chants: in the development of polyphonic texture revealed is different modal steadiness, functional alternations of which are possible. 2) Revealed are modal structures directed towards various modal steadiness and supports; they have organized nature and regularities. These regularities are: a) One basic modal center, which is “central element of the system”. It is the centre of attraction and Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music 493 mainly determines the functionality of other sounds” (Chokhonelidze, 1983:3). This centre is called tonic, but harmonic occurrence is called mono-tonicity1; b) attraction to the basic tone of the mode (from two sides-from the sounds above and below it); c) existence of mid fifth or/and fourth supports; d) octave duplication of tones without their functional identity; e) harsh, hesitant functional nature of the above octave repetition of the upper tone in the mode. Correspondingly, modal organization of chant can briefly be described as follows: modal structures and polyphonic constructions with different meaning and “influence” alternate during polyphonic intoning. Also possible is the formation of the fragment, in which modal steadiness-center is not revealed. Modal centre or steady sound reveals itself in the final phrases of stanzas. When analyzing harmonic regularities in polyphonic structure2 it is significant to elucidate chant tune as well as modal peculiarities of cantus firmus, as low voices tune with it and polyphonic structure is the result of their interrelation. Final sounds of stanzas and phrases in traditional tune do not often represent central, support step of the scale in polyphonic structure (ex. 10). These sounds acquire steadiness as a result of tuning with the other two voices. When cadencing with fifth chords, in most cases, main step of mode is the sound a fifth below from first voice (as well as often is second voice in uniosn with it) (ex. 11). Another harmonic peculiarity caused by the fifth coordination factor of outer voices-difference between keys of two top voices and bass clef and scales, was described in Georgian musicology over a century ago, in the epoch of chant transcription. Namely, in the case of sharps, bass has one alteration marks less as compared to top voices, but in the case of flat one alteration mark more (Karbelashvili, 1899: III). Frequently such difference between alteration marks provokes poly-modality or similar occurrence in the polyphonic syntactical construction _ when two bottom voices have the same modal support in a cadence, whilst before that the scales of voices are different (ex. 12, a, b, c). In the afore-provided examples, the modal centre of cadences is ‘d’, tuned to the ‘a’ of first voice. Besides, before the fifth is revealed, top voices develop in a scale with single sharp, whilst the bass develops in a scale without key. In second voice of cadences ‘d’ Myxolidian is present; first voice is in the same mode. In bass d Dorian is present. In bass there is ‘f’ in Karbelashvilis’ and Koridze’s examples, but there is ‘fis’ in second or first voices. It is obvious, that in church chants polyphonic texture contributes to the origin and formation of various modal structures. In the scales with different interval structure the intonational formule “found’ in certain sound fields together with the co-sounds tuned to them determine the modal type and final steps of chant stanzas. Besides, in notated material we frequently encounter the cases, when the formula-models with melodic line or same outline (micromotive, motive, phrase, stanza) is taken from different sounds of a scale and mode within the same or different chants, different versions of one hymn and correspondingly is characterized in different intonational peculiarity and modal belonging. from this standpoint noteworthy are the Karbelahsvilis’ transcriptions, where not only separate phrases or stanzas, but often chant variants differ from each other in harmonic aspect. Supposedly, such cases do not show the real sound of chants, but represent the hymn transcribers _ the Karbelashvilis’ attempt to accurately reflect, “translate” the harmonic side of chants with non-tempered, zonal scale in five-line system and temperation. 494 Round Table I Of course, it is impossible to accurately reflect zonal hearing and micro-interval gradations (both of traditional and professional music) in notation system; but it is hard to imagine that such connoisseurs of chanting as Karbelashvili brothers (Vasil also had professional musical education) gifted with phenomenal musical talent could have transcribed chants in the way radically different from reality, their knowledge and performance, as well as published and disseminated them. Anyway, it is a fact, that in the transcriptions same formulas and polyphonic constructions are documented with different key and non-key signs and in different modes. In relation to this it should be said that traditional polyphonic intoning, zonal or approximated to tempered (which is zonal anyway), is characterized in the variation and/or microvariation of interval and micro interval aspects. In vocal intoning operation with micro intervals is achieved naturally, by the performers’ mastery. Any notated text intended for non-tempered performance is only the skeleton of real sound, attempt to graphically depict the sound matter with unique intoning in each case. Proceeding from human hearing and zonal nature of intoning each vocal performance is a unique, inimitable variant, but in the process of transcription multiform, improvisational sound matter is put within one particular scheme; out of numerous possible variants only one -model, modus is selected. In the process of notation this spectral riches becomes more concrete, with less transitional tones, but intonational-spectral gradations are revealed in vocal performance. According to the afore-mentioned we consider it permissible to “discover” traditional formulas and their polyphonic constructions with different harmonic coloring and to present them this way in the transcriptions. Apart from the above-mentioned another reason of this diversity in chants is creation-performance and improvisational nature immanent to Georgian traditional music. Bottom voices tune to of cantus, harmonically “design” its international formulas. Before finishing any stanza is rather neutral and diverse from modal standpoint, rich in harmonic colors. As said above, here different supports and their constructions alternate in the process of intoning. Only the chanter’s intonational formula indicates to bottom voices which of these will be final. Continuous alternation of chords with different intonational and harmonic peculiarities is one of the secrets of the inimitable beauty of Georgian chant. The more “ornamented” or polyphonized is the chant the more intensive is this harmonic-emotional diversity. In many chants (particularly in “ornamented” ones) it is permissible that bottom voices do not steady for cadancing by unison or fifth, but form a structure with open cadence function “around” the finalis, in which modal centre is not emphasized, but avoided is attraction to it. Thanks to these constructions the sharpness of seizure is neutralized and achieved is the effect of the continuity of linear development, linkage of syntactic units. Another interesting peculiarity of Georgian chant melos is that here restricted is the area for the application of top sounds of modal scale. The appearance of the uppermost sounds of the mode in tune always carries particular spiritual disposition and that of artistic-emotional culmination. Highest possible limit, “reached” by chant tune, is conditionally ninth step of the Aeolian mode (or Mixolydian, rarely decimal of the Ionian). As seen from the examples in chants encountered are two ways of sound application _ high and semi-tone lower (ex. 13). In Kartli-Kakhetian chant step VIII of Aeolian and IX of Mixolidian introduce the mood of reaching Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music 495 the summit. Cords obtained by the tuning of these sounds with low voices is typical (ex. 14). When coping with sound space in chant the scale increases from top sounds (Aeolian IX, Mixolydian or Ionian X) downwards (in a number of cases in “ornamented” chants the bass even moves an octave below the central tone of Aeolian mode). The use of sounds higher than these in a chant, results in the change of scale and mode, or mode pitch. In a large number of chants the jump of the scale in tune mode is applied to create particularly elevated festive, culmination, spiritual and artistic disposition. It should be mentioned, that E. Chokhonelidze’s statute on the “harsh and hesitant functional nature” of the octave duplication of basic support is natural for old Georgian secular and sacred music, but there are many exceptions in chants: In specific cadence constructions of West Georgian “ornamented” hymns stanzas and phrases frequently end in octave unison (ex. 15). Together with ending on octave cadences inside stanzas and phrases, in the chant tradition of Gelati School there are cases (Koridze, 1895: 75, 80; Kereselidze, Q-674) when the chant ends on the chord resulting from different kinds of octave duplication of the basic tone of mode (ex. 16, 17). Such cases, particularly the frequency of octave open cadences in the “ornamented” chants of Gelati School indicated to the fact, that in old Georgian sacred music the principle of octave duplication of the modal steadiness, basic tone, coexists with the principle of “monotonicality”. Alternation of “polyphonized” intonational formulas or syntactic units of ‘es’ within one scale is a melodious-harmonic or functional modulation within a scale. In this case only modal centre and interval structure of a mode change but not the scale. For instance, if in a scale with one flat an intonational formula ends on ‘a’ of minor octave and bass is tuned to it a fifth below (and second voice joins either bass or first voice), the cadence phrase ends in‘d’ Aeolian mode. If bottom voices join the ‘a’ in unison ‘a’ Phrygian can be observed here, if the formula ends on ‘g’ and bass is tuned to fifth, we will have ‘c’ Mixolydian. But if voices join in unison s, ‘g’ mode is formed. Any step or sound of scale can be modal a centre/support; for instance in the scale with one sharp most often modal supports are minor octave ‘d’ or ‘c’, also above them ‘e, f, g, a, b, c’ (ex. 18). The limit of maximal development of tune in a single-flat scale is ‘e’. If an intonational formula will be above it (Aeolian IX or Mixolydian X sounds); or the high octave repetition will be longer sung in the chant of Kartli-Kakhetian hymn; or the same sound will appear in the context stimulating, convenience for tune modulation or deviation (and often when the tune approaches highest notes of mode in KartliKakhetian chant), in such cases ascending modulation (or deviation) with scale change is possible in hymn. In this case upheaval of the entire system with one tone will take place; only new scale will maintain old interval structure. With scale change modulations also represent particular cases of melodic-harmonious or functional modulation. During such upward modulation steps VI and III move semi-tone up in Aeolian mode, step II of the old Aeolian mode becomes the centre of the new Aeolian mode. Steps VII and IV elevate in a semi-tone in Mixolydian mode; here the centre will also go a semi-tone up …… i.e. in the case of the scale provided as an example here ‘b’ and ‘f’ (in bass ‘e’ and ‘b’ will go a semi-tone up), this results in a new scale (Kartli-Kakhetian Tsmidao ghmerto) (ex. 19). A kind of modulation is the scale movement one tone below – when steps II and V of Aeolian mode (or steps III and VI of Mixolydian mode) move a semi-tone down and mode supports move one tone down (a fragment from Kartli-Kakhetian Eucharistic canon) (ex. 20). 496 Round Table I In Kartli-Kakhetian chant often encountered is the recitation of first voice, stimulating this modulation, on step VI of Aeolian or (step VII of Mixolydian) or longer singing of these sounds and melodic movement and coordination with certain intervals of second voice on this background (Akurtkhevs Suli Chemi Upalsa) (ex. 21). In Karbelashvilis’ publications documented are two other kinds of modulation with scale change, rarely encountered in the chants transcribed in 5-line system. The first case is presented in the hymn Netar ars katsi (Karbelashvili, 1897:9) (ex. 22). In this example the cadence construction is built on step II lowered due to the necessity of coordination between step VI of Aeolian and fifth. ‘d” dominating earlier loses its significance as of a modal support; in the first half of the microstructure built on the meter-rhythmically emphasized ‘es’ support, ‘d’ step V, then VI of Aeolian mode, dominating before, goes down in the melodic phrase of second voice. In the second half of cadence phrase (following a comma) the obtained ‘es’ Aeolian mode is reinforced, in which the hymn continues. As we see in Netar ars katsi the scale has moved a semi-tone upward. And second case the hymns included in Karbelashvilis’ collection Sagalobelni shobis dghesastsaulisa (Karbelahsvili, 1899: 1) are characterized in the hymn movedit erno (ex. 23). In this fragment of the hymn the intonation flows from’c’ Aeolian to ‘es’ Ioanian, then ‘f’ Dorian (Saidumlosa), after this the pitches of 4 sounds are changed in the scale (as a; es e; b h; f fis), the 3-flat-scale is substituted with single-sharp one, intoning goes in the modes constructed in this scale. In chants frequent are cases, when mode also changes under the conditions of one support; the example of such is the endings of stanzas in Polievktos Karbelashvili’s Movedit taqvanis vstset (ex. 24). All tunes end in ‘g’ /ending phrases II and IV are identical/ . But as a result of the harmonic activity of bottom voices, in case I the construction “was found” in c Dorian, whilst in case II-it was found in ‘g’ Aeolian (by means of bass ‘es’), in case III –in ‘c’ Mixolydian, and in case IV-in ‘g’ Dorian. Cases of mode coloration are also frequent in Kartli-Kakhetian chant (ex. 25, a, b). In many hymns often encountered are modal deviations determined by interval coordination. Modulation or deviation with scale change in chant is linked with form or the polyphonic nature of texture i.e. increase of “ornamentation”, this is mostly determined by: 1. the traditional structure of voice/echos/or tune; 2. coloration of mode in the process of improvisational performance-creation, original “play” with harmonic colors of one or all voices; 3. Appearance of extreme voices of scale in tune (for chanting, chant melos); 4. Step in a tune which gives impetus for modal coloration or deviation to separate voice. In such cases it is important to change the pitch of any step in order to avoid triton between voices and of pure fifth or fourth sound (the example of preventing triton between bass and madzakhili can be found in the modulations of the 18th and 19th century examples); 5. Typical and traditional kinds of interval coordination; 6. Polyphonic-textural occurrences which break typical principles of coordination between fifth or octave and third coordination of top voices and enrich “normative” interrelation between voices with new traits. Here we imply syncopated upward movements on bass towards ending unisons; as well as its melodic or motive initiatives when it upwardly exceeds its natural intonation-register frame and joins or crisscrosses II voice. At this point the regularities of “interrelation” between first and second voices start acting this is why it makes the before “absent” notes of the scale sound. The same may “happen” to the Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music 497 other voices in the cases of violent polyphony, improvisational-register “self-oblivion, particularly during vocal crisscrossing. Thus, the alternation of support notes and their corresponding constructions proceed from the interrelation between intonation formula and polyphonic structure. In the polyphonic tissue tuned to first voice the interrelation between the steps of a scale is determined by harmonic regularities typical to Georgian traditional polyphony. To this original modal peculiarity added is the afore-mentioned alteration of support notes and their constructions: until the syntactic unit, model-formula of cantus ends and “shows” bottom voices where they should “go”, but before that any idea of textual configuration (parallel, outline contradistinction of outer voices, poly-linear, different-melodic, contrast) and laws of attraction to basic modal (bottom) steadiness acts in musical structure on the whole. During the polyphonic activity of bottom voices (second voice and bass), in some constructions their attraction to modal centre is overcome by their orientation to the intonation of first voice. Due to this very occurrence and strive of the voices to polyphonic independence most steady and repetitive support is substituted by another step i.e. modal vagueness is created. Harmonic speech tightly connected with textural configuration of various types determines aesthetic peculiarities of Georgian Schools of chant. The process of textural polyphonization in different ways, the increase of polyphony is accompanied by the complication of harmonic language and maximal exposure of the entire riches of harmonic thinking of a chant. Differences between the chords formed by the peculiarities of polyphonic-textural thinking, racy vertical co-sounds are particularly distinguished. The musical language of all three schools surviving to this day is characterized in the frequent application of second and third co-sounds. In West-Georgian hymns fourth co-sounds are also frequently encountered. One of the stylistic features of Shemokmedi School is frequent application of fourth-octavechords and fifth-ninth-chords. In West-Georgian hymns, particularly those from Gelati School the examples of application of broader-sounds (undecima or duodecima between outer voices, middle voice distanced in sixth, seventh or octave interval from them) increases together with the increase of “ornamentation” and becomes as a stylistic feature. The chants from Svetitskhoveli School are characterized in wavy alteration of consonant and dissonant co-sounds. Here maximal interval of second voice below first voice may be sixth, very rarely – seventh. Besides, in chants from these three schools, in the “knots” with polyphonic-melodic incandescence, co-sounds built by adjacent sounds, second-third or second-fourth (sometimes even secondcluster) are frequently encountered. Proceeding from the afore-mentioned the mode of Georgian chant, as harmonic-intonational system is revealed, determined and realized by the factor of traditional intonational formula, on the one hand (this peculiarity of Georgian music is common with Byzantine, Gregorian and Znamenny traditions) and the factor of polyphonic multi-part singing, on the other hand. The analysis of chants shows that in the realization of archetypal, traditional cantus firmus most significant was “to discover” formula-models of chant in various harmonic context. The 19th century material transcribed in 5-line system surviving to this day confirms, that other elements of musical language, including mode _ a “frame” of tradition on the one hand and the sphere of polyphonic improvisation on the other hand, were also imprinted with the signs of improvisational freedom. Traditional Intonation formula-models “regulate” creative freedom. Chant is the realization of different modifications and polyphonization. 498 Round Table I Harmony of chant is a component of the polyphonic process of such realization. The speaker thanked S. Jangulashvili, all Georgian scholars and singer-practitioners whose art inspires the audience. After a short break Simha Arom mentioned, that one of the most significant problems in the understanding of Georgian polyphony is terminology, in which Georgian and foreign scholars put different meanings. For instance, one of the key terms is “mode” (“modus”). Everyone who uses this term, gives different meanings. What do Georgian scholars mean when speaking of mode? You say, that mode depends on cadence. Let’s not speak of mode in general. In Middle Ages the term was applied in relation to monody. But you are speaking of mode in polyphony, its changeability, transmission from one mode into another and then finishing musical example in the third mode; what does it mean when you say that an example is in this or that mode? We took the disicion ake the Svimon spoke of “co-sounds”, but it is unclear what is meant under this. For me co-sounds is not only consonance; it can also be dissonance, particular meter-rhythmic formula. Does it mean that this cadence has particular meter-rhythm? He also spoke of scale modulation, what does this mean, and what the difference is between scale and scale modulation? Modulation is a very European phenomenon, what does it mean in modal music? What does monotonicality mean? Next term is “polymodality” – what is meant under this term in chant? These are questions which arise in the study of Georgian polyphony and if we are lucky we will be able to elaborate a model, which will help us answer these questions. In connection with the harmonious model of Georgian song Polo Vallejo recollected his visit to Mtiebi children’s studio directed by Giorgi Garaqanidze. Most children had no singing practice before joining the studio. At Polo’s request the director gave children a task to tune voices, follow an unknown to them melody, which they easily did. The only problem for them was nescience of the text, they easily understood harmonious structure. I was convinced, that the idea, archetype, model of polyphony (that Prof. Arom and I are trying to find) is present in Georgian children, their thinking. Joseph Jordania; I have couple of suggestions. First of all, very basic question: when you are comparing these different musical styles, do you have a working hypothesis? Is your research without any working hypothesis, just to see what the research will show, or you do have such a working hypothesis to explain observed similarities or dissimilarities? Another question: As I can see, when you name the scales, you only use the last note of the phrase. This might not be very productive, because virtually the same musical phrases in Georgian traditional music might finish in different places. And this might depend where the musical phrase comes from. For example, in Kakheti we can have a phrase with such a base: G-G-G-G-GG-G-A. Similar phrase in Samegrelo will have different ending: G-G-G-G-G-A-B. If you find the similar phrase in Guria, most likely it might go higher, like G-G-G-G-G-A-B-C. In Church songs we might have such a phrase finishing on lower D: G-G-G-G-G-D. And sometimes we can finish on lower E as well: G-GG-G-G-A-E. So very similar phrases, based on G central tone, might finish on totally different places. There was a discussion in Georgian musicology on this topic in the 1960s and the 1970s: Shavla Aslansihvili was sure that the last note, was the tonic, the central tone. Another scholar, Grigol Chkhikvadze, was sure that it Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music 499 is the dominating, central tone, that defines the scale, not the finalis. For me also, the central tone is much more important for determining the scale, than the last note of the musical phrase. Polo Vallejo: But how you can find which is the central tone? Joseph Jordania: Central tone is the tone which usually starts the musical phrase in the bass part. It usually dominates the musical phrase, or even the entire song. It is simple. Polo Vallejo: It seems to be simple. We are trying to find the main sound, which fixes common point to explain what happened before, that’s why we refer to finales. Joseph Jordania: Yes, I understand. But sometimes we are searching for the things that might not be there. I remember, there was a big discussion about one Khevsurian lullaby. It is a very simple and repetitive phrase (sings): “e-e, nano, nanasao, samkal gachenilasao...” Melody is based on tetrachord (G-C-B-A, G-C-B-A, etc). The discussion was about the finalis, or about where the song should finish, and where is the tonic of the song. There was a version which was finishing on A, and some used this to prove that the song should finish on the second step of the tetrachord (as many other Georgian songs). But there was another version of the same lullaby, which was finishing on the first step of the tetrachord, on “G”. So, some were proposing this is the correct for the song. And in the 1980s we were transcribing still another version of the same lullaby, and this version was finishing on the top of the tetrachord - on “C”! Following the principle that when transcribing fieldwork materials, every detail is very important, we paid attention to what the singer said after finishing her singing: “I think I’ve finished” she said. We recorded these words, and then we asked, “What is happening, why is she asking whether she finished song or not”. After discussing why she said these strange words, we gradually understood what was the problem: this is lullaby. This melody has a specific function, putting a baby to sleep. The song does not have a proper place where to finish, it is finished when the social function of the song is fulfilled and the baby is asleep. When recording this version a women is in an artificial situation: she is singing to the microphone, and she has no baby to put to sleep. So she is continuing singing, but then she understood she could not continue singing until she puts the ethnomusicologist to sleep, she stopped at some points and hence her words “I think I’ve finished.” This melody does not have the “correct”, where the singers should finish the song. I told you this story from my experience to show that sometimes we are searching for the things that are not really there. As Nino Tsitsishvili was saying during her paper, scholars are searching for the various forms of marriage is some societies, where there is no marriage as such. The same way if we are searching for a tonic of a song, there can be combination of two different dominant tones, for example, G and E-flat, or G and B, or G and A, and we can have argument, discussing which of them is tonic. In the church song we might have a combination of two or even three tones that are dominating in the composition. We should not approach this from the point of view of European harmonic system where the tonic is clearly present. This is my suggestion. Susan Rankin: I want to support your position extremely. The model that you are expending is very clear in Gregorian chant. There are many chants with the finalis. This is a model that we very familiar with. And the fact that finalis became so important in modal theory is something that happened long after. And in those terms I think say central tone rather than tonic is very useful. So, I support that I don’t think it anyway 500 Round Table I upsets your analytical model, because the point of your analytical model consists of patterns and all the need to produce is a series of features that repeats themselves. It does not matter that you are not making the modal theory at all. Your theory does not depend on relationship of the finalis to the rest of the music. It depends on finding repeating behaviors and when you find repeating behaviors whatever you call. Polo Vallejo: in the relation with Georgian colleagues we have ascertained that in Georgian sacred music we also have semi-cadences, each of which is like a finalis. This is why we started to study chordal syntaxes and look for a model playing finalizing role in chant. Joseph Jordania: We should not expect that after the discussion we will find a perfect solution to the problem. Often the best result of a scholarly discussion is a new question, or a new evidence that comes to our knowledge. I want to put forward one detail, mentioned by Simha Arom. He mentioned that in Georgian singing you always have a feeling of chords. It is not that there are three different melodic lines that make some chords. A agree with this. In this connection I want to share with my observation about the chords that Georgians use. Many years ago I was comparing Georgian traditional musical thinking to European classical musical thinking, and I came to conclusion, that they have big differences how the musical idea starts and develops. European musical idea as a rule starts with some stable element, usually tonic. So the harmony as a rule is tonic, and the melody also starts from the notes of the tonic triad. Then it travels to other notes and harmonies, and finally it comes back to tonic. In Georgian traditional thinking there is a marked difference: musical idea often starts from the dynamic, non-stable element. In harmony this is usually a dissonant chord, like 1-4-5, and in melody it is often a seventh or the fourth note of the scale. And after development, both melody and harmony come to the stable element, final unison of the fifth. Have a look for example, at Gurian version of Shen khar venakhi _ it starts with a stark dissonant chord, as many other church songs or traditional songs. Now if we compare with the Medieval Euroepan music, I do not think we can find any examples of music starting from such sharp dissonant chords. So despite the existing parallels, there are still important elements that divide these cultures. So yes, as a rule they both finish with the unison, but look at the beginnings _ there where the biggest difference between them is seen. Davit Shughliashvili: He thanked the participants for the interesting discussion and noted that the papers dealt with sacred music, however the discussion basically touched upon secular music. Of course, we can speak about their close connection in Georgian reality, but would rather focus on Georgian chant; in his opinion Georgian musicology and S. Jangulashvili are following the same simple, but inaccurate method, namely in the nalysis they base on transcriptions. He thinks that when researching chant the analysis should base on authentic recordings of Georgian chants and songs, which have fortunately survived to this day. Only this will allow us to understand the harmony of this music, nature of the melody and interrelation of voices. In chant manuscripts we deal with the texts of Georgian chants translated into Western 5 line notation system and analyzing these in fact we are analyzing the translation. Actually, the performance of today’s ensembles is singing of this translation, it is easy to notice even by ear that this performance does not coincide with our ancestors’ chanting, it is true we try hard, but all of us do it differently; main goal of chant researchers is to base on the ancestors’ singing in the analysis in order to find the key to Georgian mode from their sound and not from transcriptions. In this case the issue of the interrelation between Georgian and Europen music may become even more interesting: Georgia isolated from Europe for along Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music 501 time has preserved old mode and manner of performance, fairly well, which may become a guidline for the Europeans themselves for reading their own music differently. Svimon Jangulashvili: Of course when researching chants we should consider audio recordings as well, but at hand we only have about 150 recordings of West Georgian Shemokmedi Mode and several recordings of Kartli-Kakhetian chants, whilst there are few thousand notated chants, with significant textural, harmonious and polyphonic difference, amazingly diverse is their musical world. This is why, sadly, we cannot determine the issues of Georgian chant mode, harmony and musical thinking in general, or reflect the stylistic riches documented in the transcribed chants. In general, accurate documentation of a sound pitch is possible only on tempered (key-board) instruments. Vocal performance (as well as that on other non-tempered instruments) is carried out on nontempered scale; this is why each transcription is naturally a sort of translation. Vocal performance can’t be tempered, a singer can never sing with exact cents, micro intervals. We can never say which micro intervals were performed by our ancestors centuries ago, as we no, singer can say how far from each other were two sounds sung by him. Surviving is a large number of folk song recordings, but chants of only one School. Much will be lost if we study the entire corpus of manuscripts basing on the audio recordings of only one School. Thus, in order to reflect all diversity of transcribed material we discuss Georgian chant according to the examples transcribed in 5 line notation system. In Nana Valishvili’s opinion Georgian polyphony is not a spontaneous phenomenon. The fact that we have not yet come to conclusions to clear out the system of Georgian musical thinking does not mean that it does not exist. If we have not acknowledged the modal and harmonious system of polyphony does not indicate that Georgian polyphony either was spontaneous and disorganized. Ketevan Baiashvili recollected a case from her own pedagogical practice, when she taught folk songs to children, whose ear was trained in listening to European harmony. When the children sang the song in three voices reading the notes, then after having listened to old recordings of folk singers, they easily, without the teacher, noticed the difference in sound. It took Ketevan much effort to approximate the children’s singing to the sound of audio recordings. In the end she asked a question: how this could be explained, if not by the originality of Georgian scale? Tamaz Gabisonia mentioned that he shared Davit Shughliashvili’s and Joseph Jordania’s considerations rather than S. Jangulashvili’s. He briefly answered foreign scholars’ questions. • In Georgian chant the music is lesser determined by text. This indicates how Georgian chant is distanced from its ancestor and has gone far from its original; • In Georgian chant leading is the linear movement of voices; • In answer to the fact that Prof. Rankin has never encountered parallel fifths in Georgian chant, he referred to the chants of Erkomaishvili’s “mode for study” of Shemokmedi School published by Davit Shughliashvili, with which the children were taught at the initial stage of learning chants, and which represents the ancient initial type of Georgian chant with the movement of parallel fifths and octave; • To the question whether any leader voice or voice pairs in Georgian chant, the answer is as follows: there is different tension between top and bottom voices, as well as between two upper voices, where 502 Round Table I the top voice is leading, as canonic one, with middle voice often following it parallel thirds. Gabisonia also emphasized attention on the issue of vertical in Georgian chant. In his opinion, alongside linearity there is orientation towards fifth and octave. He did not share Svimon’s viewpoint on the absence of dialectics of counterpoint and parallelism in Georgian chant. He believes, that there is the dictate of parallelism, but variant, improvisational development moves towards counter point; in chant he sees the dialectics of fifth and octave relation. Two adjacent voices are orientated to fifth, whilst outer voices orientate towards octave. Two fifths built over each other defeats octave tension and creates ninth. This is the basic dialectics, characteristic of the harmony of Georgian chant. He also emphasized that in modal system the term “polymodality” is unclear in relation with Georgian chant. Our foreign friends Prof. Arom and Prof. Vallejo are striving to encompass one chant entirely as a composition. He agreed with Joseph Jordania who considers this incorrect. Guido d’Arrezzo said: When we listen to the final tone; we simultaneously feel what was before, in the phrase just like a prayer, we do not bind this big phrase of chant within ourselves, but are always, every moment where we are. Melody is lesser gathered in chant, than in a song and classicism, where there are functional contrasts and the phrase is functionally bound. In connection with Georgian traditional mode and scale Joseph Jordania recollected his last visit to Svaneti, when together with a large group of Australians he was learning “Riho” from Islam Pilpani. When teaching the song the folk singer sang the same phrase sometimes in minor mode, sometimes in major one. The Australians who were transcribing the song, were confused-they did not know how to document his singing; when they asked which of these variants was correct – singing high or low. He reciprocated the question what was the difference between them; meaning that, what we are trying to document precisely is not important for him in the main. One I remember transcribing a song, I could not determine the pitch. My father Mindia, who was observing this process, told me – you hear low pitch because it sounds on ‘o’, usually it sounds higher on ‘a’. The thing is that, Georgian song and chant have zone nature and seeking for 17 or 25 cent difference between them created serious difficulties. Even the songs performed by the same singer sound differently, thus when transcribing a song or chant, it becomes fixed and featureless. But this is necessary – if one wants to analyze them there should be some support points. I do not think that there existed a Georgian system which the Erkomaishvilis, Pilpanis, Dzuku Lolua and others in East or West Georgia followed. I believe that discovering such accurate Georgian system is an unrealizable dream. If it had ever existed it would have been found. Rusudan Tsurtsumia noted that this discussion was natural, as Georgian polyphony is a too complex phenomenon to understand its nature, modal scale. It would have been surprising to have found a singlevalued answer to all questions here today. All of us Georgian and foreign scholars are well-aware of it. Prof. Arom also put a question of terminology. Since the day of its inception Georgian ethynomuiscology was an inseparable part of Russian folkloristics, but today the process of integration of Georgian ethnomusicology into Western is under way. Georgian ethnomusicologists argue a lot, but they have good knowledge of the nature of Georgian traditional music, simply we do not always speak the way understandable for foreigners, which cause much misunderstanding. By the way Prof. Rankin shared Prof. Jordania’s viewpoint and indicated, that Profes- Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music 503 sors Arom’s and Vallejo’s approach to the modality of Georgian polyphony is different from the accepted study of Medieval modal thinking. Now Georgian scholars are working to ascertain the so-called “Georgian mode”. We should wait for the results of the research, though this is not scientifically proven. I agree with the viewpoints, expressed here, on zonal scale and central tone in modality. John A. Graham: By way of introduction, my name is John Graham, I study at Princeton University, and I’m writing my dissertation on the subject of Georgian chant. I’d like to respond to Prof. Simha Arom’s comments on Georgian musical terminology. Three quick points. I think he brings up a very important point, which is the lack of understanding of musical terminology, and the lack of fully published explanations in English. But the question is, whose responsibility is this? Translations are partly at fault, but isn’t it exactly our role as international scholars of Georgian music to attempt to understand relevant literature in Georgian, relevant source materials? And I beg to differ that Georgians do not understand their own terminology. In the reference you made to Svimon Jangulashvili’s paper, the confusion lies with the translation, which was full of mixed musical jargon that was completely incomprehensible to an English speaker. But in Georgian, Svimon’s paper was very clearly written out and understandable. So that’s not Svimon’s fault, that’s the translator’s fault. I think it is our responsibility to clearly understand what Georgian authors are writing, and translate it in a way that is understandable for the international community, not the other way around. To make another point about understanding terminology, Mr. Simha mentioned the word modus. In Georgian, as you know, there is the word kilo, which has as many meanings in Georgian as modus does in Latin, not to mention the word tropus. In the West, we have the advantage of having theoretical treatises from the 9th-10th-11th centuries which describe how they used modus in each century and how that usage changed between Latin and Greek, and there is a lot of scholarship defining what those terms meant in each century. We don’t have that advantage here in Georgia, as there are no Medieval theoretical treatises. So the term kilo exists without full historical context. In different contexts, it can mean melody, it can mean harmony, it can mean tuning.... Georgian scholars have already looked at the historical sources to see the context for the usage of the word kilo. We have quotes from, for example, Ekvtime Kereselidze, who says, “if you don’t learn the kilo, you cannot ornament it”. In that case, he is referring to the word kilo as the fundamental chant melody. We also have quotes from Razhden Khundadze, who in one case says, “this is sung in a beautiful, wonderful kilo”. In that case, he was using the word kilo to talk about harmony. So, it is very confusing at first, but my point is that the meaning comes across in context, and I disagree with the implication that Georgians are unclear about their own terminology. Now to your point about separating the performance of music from the study of the language of music as a grammar. I think that in the context of Georgian chant, such a separation will provide limited results precisely because this was an oral tradition. The performance informs the grammar. If you want to isolate the grammar of chants, then I believe it will be important to look at it in the context of transmission, how it was taught and how it was learned. One of the only ways to do now is to look at the chant transcriptions that show the variations of how chant was performed in performance. Dato Shugliashvili has written about the so-called ‘study voices,’ about pedagogy and transmission. Soso Jordania detailed in his discussion of Svan folk music that micro-tuning differences were negligible, 504 Round Table I because tuning and the location of the half-step was not the critical performance issue for them. My point is that taking into account aspects of performance such as improvisation is critical, especially because this is a polyphonic music system. Multiple singers need to coordinate their voices. Their melodies existed in a harmonic framework, and that framework had to be adapted in the moment. They had to tune to the other voices in the act of performance. There is no fundamental grammar that defines the particular pitch of one singer that others have to agree with. In performance, I think it’s in the process of listening to the other two chanters, who are constantly shifting their voices, that a singer decides how to harmonize. Now is there a particular harmony that they were trying to achieve? I would argue yes. When one is with a group of Georgian singers and someone sings something a little bit lower or a little bit higher than it should be, the other Georgian singers will say, that was quite right. I have had some recent experience with this because my choir has been recording a CD, and for the last two nights we’ve been in the studio until midnight. When we go over the parts, the choir director is constantly tweaking what we’re singing, telling us to sing certain pitches higher or lower, this way or that way. My point is that experienced singers have a sense of how to approach the tuning of their songs, and to evaluate whether the variations in the songs are working together. The resulting song is a product of these two processes. So I think that separating grammar from performance, in the case of Georgian chant, will only yield a limited result. That is my opinion. Thank you. Polo Vallejo: Georgian music makes big impression on us. We have our opinion on the large universe of this music, on the material we have had at hand during the six years of our research. But we also come across difficulties in the study, when we speak of phenomenal parameters, language, its semantics. this is why this discussion on mode, language, etc is very helpful. Maria Corte-Real got interested which of the Western modal systems corresponds to the mode of Georgian chant. Polo Vallejo: this is a difficult topic, we differently interpret the occurrences, for instance we call a chord - aggregate, construction, totality, for instance if the third is neither major nor minor, we call it neutral. We are striving to study the phenomenon as it is. Simha Arom: I have impression, that I was not understood. I spoke of music as a formal system, as a language, and nothing more. This is totally different. Music is a different system, people are born and leave this world, but music remains a formal system which has its grammar. It does not change as fast as generations of people. Another topic is terminology: Prof. Tsurtsumia said, that there is difference between Georgian and European terminology, This is not a good approach, most important is to go deep in music in Georgia, Africa or elsewhere, as the formal language of music should be understandable for everyone. Georgian music is not only Georgian phenomenon; it is the treasure of Humanity, proclaimed by UNESCO. It has language, which non-Georgians should also understand and should be able to research. 505 Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music John Graham is an exception, he is married to a Georgian woman, we cannot do this (laughter in the room). I am speaking emotionally, but Georgian music is also emotional. each ethnic context should be discussed in general cultural context and non-Georgian scholars, including me and Polo should have opportunity to understand it. This cooperation is not bad at all. In the end Prof. Tsurtsumia thanked the participants of the Round table, particularly Susan Rankin and Arturo Tello who specially came to Georgia to participate in the session. She noted with gratitude Simha Arom’s and Polo Vallejo’s contribution in the research and popularization of Georgian multipart singing and expressed hope, that the results of their research will greatly help all scholars of Georgian traditional music. She also expressed hope that this meeting organized with the leadership of Prof. Arom and Prof. Vallejo will become the first stage for beginning of the comparative study of Medieval GeorgianEuropean music. Notes 1 According to the achievements of modern Harmony theory, we do not consider it correct to apply notions “tonic”, “tonicity”, “tonality” for the definition and analysis of the occurrences of modal harmony. 2 Here we would like to add, that we have mainly analyzed the chants from Svetitskhoveli and Gelati Schools. When discussing the modal-harmonic peculiarities of chants Artem Erkomaishvili’s chants from Shemokmedi School/Guria constitute the topic of another discussion; almost no audio recordings of these are available unlike the examples from other Schools, it is necessary to research of the hymns from Shemokmedi School basing on the audio recordings fortunately available for us. The chants from this School are characterized in the co-existence of specific kinds of developed and archaic counterpoint and harmonic thinking, in which particular parallels with regional folk language are clear. Used literature, manuscripts and published notated collections Chokhonelidze, Evsevi. (1983). “Kartuli kahlkhuri simgheris kilouri sapudzvelis shesakheb” (“On the Modal Bases of Georgian Folk Song”). In: Kartuli khalkhuri musikis kilo, melodia da ritmi (Mode, Melodics and Rhythm of Georgian Folk Music). P. 3-30. Editor: A. Shaverzashvili. Tbilisi: V. Sarajishvili Tbilisi state Conservatoire. Karbelashvili, Vasil. Archive of handwritten transcriptions, National Centre of Manuscripts, Fund #264. Karbelashvili, Vasil. (1897). Kartli-Kakhetia Chant in Karbelashvili Mode, part I, Vespers, Tpilisi. Karbelashvili, Vasil. (1898). Kartl-kakhuri galoba, “Karbelaant kiloti”, tsiskari, notebze gadaghebuli mghvdel Vasil Karbelashvilis mier. Meore natsili (Kartli-Kakhetian Chant “Karbelaant Mode”, Matins, Notated by Priest Vasil Karbelashvili. Part Two). Transcribed by M. Ippolitovo-Ivanov. Tpilisi: Typography M.Sharadze and Co. 506 Round Table I Kkarbelashvili, Vasil (art). (1899). Kartuli galoba (Kartl-Kakhuri kiloti) liturghia, tsm. Ioane Okropiris tsirvis tsesi (Georgian Chant (Kartli-Kakhetian mode) Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). Transcribed by M. IppolitovIvanov. Tpilisi: Typography Sharadze and Co. Karbelashvili, Polievktos. (1899). Christmas Chants. Karbelov and Molodinov Publishing, notebook A, Tbilisi: Typography M. Sharadze and Co. Karbelashvili, Polievktos, Chkhikvadze, Grigol. Chants recorded by Grigol Chkhikvadze from Polievktos Karbelashvili, the Archive of the State Folklore Centre of Georgia. Kereselidze, Ekvtime. Handwritten notation, National centre of manuscripts, Q-667. Kereselidze, Ekvtime. Collection of Georgian Sacred Chants, three service; Liturgy for the Clergy, National Centre of Manuscripts, Q-674. Koridze, Philimon. (1904). Easter Chants. Score #4. Tpilisi: Estate Kereselidze’s Publishing. Rosebashvili, Kakhi. (1968). Kartuli galoba (Imerul-guruli kilo) (Georgian Chant (Imeretian-Gurian Mode). Recorded and transcribed by Kakhi Rosebashvili. Tbilisi: Georgian Branch of the USSR Music Fund. Roseashvili, Kakhi. (1976). Kartuli galoba (Guruli kilo) (Georgian Chant (Gurian Mode). Recorded and transcribed by Kakhi Rosebashvili. Tbilisi: Georgian Branch of the USSR Music Fun. Zhghenti, Ivane. (2005). Lektsiebi harmoniashi (Lectures on Harmony). Tbilisi: V. Sarajishvili Tbilisi State Conservatoire. Arturo Tello’s Audio Examples Audio example 1. Cunctipotens genitor Deus. Codex Calixtinus of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela (XII c.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoe2_AmxoQ Audio example 2. Organum/Kyrie Trope: Cunctipotens genitor Deus (voice, 3 voices) http://www.medieval. org/emfaq/cds/op1-102.htm Audio example 3. Kyrie cunctipotens http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/cpu301.htm 507 Modality of Medieval Georgian and European Music Susan Rankin’s Video Examples Video example 1. Verbum patris. Performed by Sequentia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShNPEnkqCcA Published on YouTube on Mar 12, 2013 Video example 2. Orientis partibus Medieval Carol for Quire.Performed by Quire Cleveland, conducted by Ross W. Duffin, performing at Trinity Cathedral, Cleveland OH, December 3-4, 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn _ eGxF8p4 Prepared for publication by Rusudan Tsurtsumia 508 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX suraTi 1. yovlisSemZle mama RmerTi. xelnaweri santiago de kompostelas kaTedralis kaliqtinusis kodeqsidan (XII s.) gv. 219r Figure 1. Cunctipotens Genitor Deus. Codex Calixtinus of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela (twelfth century). P. 219r mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX 509 magaliTi 1. yovlisSemZle mama RmerTi. santiago de kompostelas kaTedralis kaliqstinusis kodeqsi, (XII s.) gv. 219r Example 1. Cunctipotens Genitor Deus (transcription). Codex Calixtinus of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela (XII c.) 219r 510 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX 511 magaliTi 2. Verbum patris. XII saukunis akvitaniuri sagalobeli. kembrijis universitetis biblioTeka, Ff.i.17. sanoto Canaweri gakeTebulia ansambl Sequentia-s Sesrulebis safuZvelze. me-2 t.-Si pirveli da mesame xma (D C-s pirispir) + 1-l t.-Si meore da mesame xma (kvlav C D-s pirispir) Example 2. Verbum patris. A 12th century Aquitanian chant. Cambridge University Library, Ff.i.17. Top and tenor in bar 2 (D against C) + middle and tenor in bar 1 (again C against D) 512 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 3. oTxi sakadanso fragmenti wm. giorgis troparidan (karbelaSvili, 1897: 90) Example 3. Four cadences from the St. George’s Troparion ( Karbelashvili, 1897: 90) a) a) b) b) mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX g) c) d) d) magaliTi 4. kadansebi RvTismSobelo qalwulodan (karbelaSvili, 1897: 104) Example 4. Cadences from Rejoice O virgin ( Karbelashvili, 1897:104) a) a) 513 514 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX b) b) magaliTi 5. ganaTldi, ganaTldi (qoriZe, 1904: 44) Example 5. Shine, Shine ( Koridze, 1904: 44) mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX 515 516 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 6. fragmenti sagaloblidan RvTismSobelo qalwulo (karbelaSvili, 1897: 104) Example 6. Fragment from the chant Rejoice O Virgin ( Karbelashvili, 1897:104) mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 7. kadansebi sagaloblidan angelosi RaRadebs (qoriZe, 1904: 43) Example 7. Cadences from the chant The Angel Cried (Koridze1904: 43) 517 518 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 8. fragmenti wm. giorgis tropridan (karbelaSvili, 1897: 90) Example 8. Fragment from the St. George’s Troparion ( Karbelashvili, 1897:90) mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX 519 magaliTi 9. damabolovebeli kadansi sagaloblidan angelosi RaRadebs (qoriZe, 1904: 43) Example 9. The final cadence from the chant The Angel Cried (Koridze1904: 43) 520 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 10. aRdgomisa dRe ars (Q-667: 4) Example 10. The Day of Resurrection (Q-667:4) magaliTi 11. aRdgomisa dRe ars (Q-667: 4) Example 11. The Day of Resurrection (Q-667: 4) mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 12. Example 12. a) movediT, Tayvanis-vsceT (karbelaSvili, CxikvaZe, #2125-2126: 32) a) O Come, Let Us Worship (Karbelashvili, Chkhikvadze, #2125-2126: 32) b) romelni qerubimTa (qoriZe, 1895: 81) b) Let Us, the Cherubim (Koridze, 1895: 81) g) movediT, Tayvanis-vsceT (qoriZe, 1895: 43) c) O Come, Let Us Worship (Koridze, 1895: 43) 521 522 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 13. movediT, Tayvani-vsceT (karbelaSvili, 1897: 1), akurTxevs suli Cemi ufalsa (Q-672: 1), ufalo, Segviwyalen (karbelaSvili, 1897: 7) Example 13. O come, let us worship (Karbelashvili, 1897: 1), Bless the Lord, O my soul (Q672: 1), Lord, Have a Mercy (Karbelashvili, 1897: 7) magaliTi 14. qarTl-kaxur galobaSi qveda xmebis SebanebiT miRebul TanxmovanebaTa tipuri Tanmimdevroba Example 14. Typical cord’s succession obtained by the tuning of low voices in Kartli-Kakhetian chant mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 15. movediT, Tayvani vsceT (qoriZe, 1895: 35) Example 15. O Come, Let Us Worship (Koridze, 1895: 35) magaliTi 16. samRvdelTmTavro romelni qerubimTa (qoriZe, 1895: 80) Example 16. Let Us, the Cherubim (Koridze, 1895: 80) 523 524 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 17. gamSvenebuli romelni qerubimTa (qoriZe, 1895: 94) Example 17. Let Us, the Cherubim (Koridze, 1895: 94) magaliTi 18. kadansebis damTavreba unisoniT Example 18. Cadances with unison at the end mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 19. wmidao RmerTo (karbelaSvili, #264) Example 19. O, Holy God (Karbelashvili, #264) 525 526 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 20. evqaristiuli kanoni (fragmenti) (karbelaSvili, #264) Example 20. The Anaphora (frag.) (Karbelashvili, #264) magaliTi 21. akurTxevs suli Cemi ufalsa (karbelaSvili, 1897: 6) Example 21. Bless the Lord, O My Soul (Karbelashvili, 1897: 6) magaliTi 22. netar ars kaci (karbelaSvili, 1897: 9) Example 22. Blessed Is the Man (Karbelashvili, 1897: 9) mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 23. movediT, erno (karbelaSvili, 1899: 1) Example 23. O Come, People (Karbelashvili, 1899: 1) magaliTi 24. movediT Tayvanis-vsceT (karbelaSvili, CxikvaZe, #2125-2126: 32) Example 24. O Come, Let Us Worship (Karbelashvili, Chkhikvadze, #2125-2126: 32) 527 528 mrgvali magida I. danarTi Round Table I. APPENDIX magaliTi 25. Example 25. a) Sen gigalobT (karbelaSvili, #264) a) We Praise Thee (Karbelashvili, #264) b) romelni qerubimTa (karbelaSvili, 1899: 14) b) Let Us, the Cherubim (Karbelashvili, 1899: 14) mrgvali magida II axali mosazrebebi adamianis evoluciasa da qcevaze _ mravalxmianobis roli Tanamedrove adamianis CamoyalibebaSi ROUND TABLE II NEW THINKING ABOUT EVOLUTION AND EXPRESSIVE BEHAVIOR _ POLYPHONY AS PART OF WHAT AND HOW WE HAVE BECOME 530 axali mosazrebebi adamianis evoluciasa da qcevaze _ mravalxmianobis roli Tanamedrove adamianis CamoyalibebaSi 531 wamyvani: rusudan wurwumia rusudan wurwumia miesalma damswreT da gaacno werili, romelic dautova sesiis monawileebs am mrgvali magidis Catarebis ideis avtorma prof. diter qristensenma. igi unda yofiliyo sesiis wamyvani da apirebda damswreTaTvis mokled Seexsenebina sakiTxis Seswavlis istoria, magram, samwuxarod, janmrTelobis mdgomareobis gamo mouxda Tbilisis datoveba. rogorc Tavad aRniSna, SemoTavazebuli Tema STagonebuli iyo ioseb Jordanias am ramdenime xnis win gamocemuli wigniT vin dasva pirveli SekiTxva? amitom bunebrivia, rom pirveli sityva wamyvanma dr. Jordanias gadasca. ioseb Jordania: msurs kolegebs Sevaxseno Sexeduleba Tanamedrove mecnierebis ganviTarebis Sesaxeb, romelic, albaT, samecniero kamaTis dros gvsmenia. am Sexedulebis Tanaxmad, Tanamedrove mecnierebma gadawyvites yvela didi problema da mxolod mcire detalebiRaa dasamuSavebeli. rasakvirvelia, XXI saukunis dasawyisSi Cven vgrZnobT, rom kacobriobis civilizaciisa da adamianis bunebis ganviTarebis yvelaze maRal safexurze vimyofebiT, magram ar unda dagvaviwydes, rom aseTi SegrZneba arsebobda me-20 saukunis, me-19 saukunis dasawyisSi da ufro adrec. arsebiTad, istoriis yvela periodSi fiqrobdnen, rom adamianis codnam umaRles wertils miaRwia. es mcdari daskvnaa da ar unda dagvaviwydes, rom XXII da XXIII saukuneebSi Cveni saukunis codnis done arasrulyofilad CaiTvleba, iseve, rogorc dRes Cven miviCnevT me-19 da me-20 saukuneebis codnas. arasdros unda davkargoT axali ideebis miukerZoebeli Sefasebis unari, maSinac ki, Tu isini sruliad miuRebelia CvenTvis Zveli paradigmebis gadasaxedidan. Cvens Tvalsazrisebs mravalxmianobis warmoSobaze hqonda Zalian Zlieri paradigma. iTvleboda, rom mravalxmianoba ufro gviandeli kulturuli gamogonebaa mravalaTaswlovani monofoniuri mReris Semdeg. es postulati imdenad myari iyo, rom aqsiomad iTvleboda da aqsioma ki, rogorc viciT, damtkicebas ar saWiroebs. ukanasknel wlebSi gaCnda azrovnebis axali tipi, romlis Tanaxmad, polifonia gviandeli kulturuli gamogoneba ki ara, pirveladi musikaluri tradiciaa, romelic pirvelma adamianebma afrikis kontinentidan wamoiRes. rasakvirvelia, me rogorc am Sexedulebis warmomadgenels, SemiZlia ZiriTadad visaubro Cems sakuTar kvlevaze, magram aucileblad unda aRvniSno, rom arsebobs sxva mecnieri _ amerikeli doqtori viqtor graueri, romelic aseve iziarebs azrs, rom adamianebis mier afrikidan wamoRebuli pirveli musikaluri tradiciebi polifoniuri iyo. Cvens midgomebSic aris gansxvavebebi. graueris modeli aris e.w. `axali afrikuli hipoTezis~ nawili da, misi azriT, afrikidan adamiani daaxloebiT 100 000 wlis win wamovida. am hipoTezis Tanaxmad, hominidebis yvela adrindel formas (neandertalelebs, homo georgikuss, homo sinanTropuss) afrikidan axalmosulebi Caenacvlnen. bevr regionSi polifoniis ararsebobas graueri 70 000 wliswin momxdari tobas kastrofiT xsnis. Cemi modeli efuZneba sxva hipoTezas, romelic cnobilia, rogorc `multiregionaluri hipoTeza~, romelic amtkicebs hominidebisa da adamianebis mravali adreuli formis uwyvetobas da miiCnevs, rom daaxloebiT 2 milioni wlis win, afrikidan 532 mrgvali magida II wamosuli Cveni winaprebi ukve adamianebi iyvnen. amgvarad, CemTvis polifonia ara kulturuli gamogoneba, aramed mtaceblebisa da adamianTa sxva jgufebisgan Tavis daRwevis mniSvnelovani elementi iyo. amdenad, CemTvis polifonia arqauli homo sapiensis asakisaa, daaxloebiT, 2 milioni wlis. Cems modelSi polifoniisa da monofoniis araTanabari gadanawileba artikulirebul metyvelebaze gadasvlasTan aris dakavSirebuli. mis Tanaxmad, metyvelebis CamoyalibebasTan erTad, polifoniam dakarga Tavisi, rogorc adamianis socialuri kavSirebisa da komunikaciis pirvandeli roli da amis gamo, polifoniuri tradiciebi mTels msoflioSi nel-nela qreba. 2006 wels gamocemul Cems wignSi vin dasva pirveli SekiTxva? me momyavs bevri magaliTi msoflios polifoniuri tradiciebisa, romlebic nel-nela sustdeba da qreba; 2006 wlis Semdeg me Seviswavle bevri sxva polifonia, romelic ukve gamqralia. amavdroulad, ver vpoulob monofoniuri tradiciidan warmoSobil verc erT polifoniur tradicias. Zalian sainteresoa vokalur da instrumentul polifonias Soris urTierTkavSiri. im tradiciebSi, sadac vokaluri polifonia Zlieria (mag., pigmeebi) instrumentuli polifonia TiTqmis ar arsebobs. rodesac vokaluri polifonia sustdeba, met mniSvnelobas iZens instrumentuli polifonia, gansakuTrebiT, Casaberi sakravebi (vgulisxmob ormag, sammag, oTxmag Casaber sakravebs). simebiani sakravebis SemTxvevaSi vokalur da instrumentul polifonias Soris kavSiri Zlieri ar aris. amis mizezi unda iyos sunTqvis procesi, romelic umTavresia rogorc simRerisTvis, ise Casaber instrumentebze dasakravad. polifoniis gaqrobis xangrZliv procesSi, vokaluri da Casaberi instrumentebis polifonia Tanaarseboben. mogvianebiT, vokaluri polifoniis dakargvas mohyva instrumentuli polifoniis dakargva, magram erTi saintereso gansxvavebiT: Tavidan gadarCa ormagi Casaberi sakravebis struqtura, magram polifoniuri ormagi sakravebis nacvlad, isini gadaiqcnen unisonur ormag sakravebad, sadac orive mili erTi sigrZisaa da Tvlebis erTnairi raodenoba aqvT (rac mianiSnebs, rom es unisonuri sakravebia). da, ra Tqma unda, vokaluri musikisgan gansxvavebiT, radgan sakravebma dRemde moaRwia, maT SeuZliaT bevri mogviTxron warsulis/Zveli civilizaciebis vokaluri tradiciebis Sesaxeb. es gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelovania uZvelesi mesopotamiuri da mesoamerikuli civilizaciebis SemTxvevaSi, sadac bevri polifoniuri Casaberi sakravi arsebobda. polifoniis axleburi gaazrebis kidev erTi elementi, Cemi modelis mixedviT, aris yvelaze mniSvnelovani _ SemecnebiTi unari, rac Cven adamianebad gvaqcevs (kiTxvis dasma), dakavSirebuli polifoniur simRerasTan, ufro zustad, simReris sayovelTao responsorul formasTan, kiTxva-pasuxis gacvlis formiT. Cveni planetis cocxali arsebebebis arc erT sxva saxeobas ar SeuZlia kiTxvis dasma. maT Soris. `ganaTlebul~ Simpanzesa da bonobos. Tumca ki maT esmiT maTi mwvrTneli adamianis SekiTxvebi da swor pasuxebsac scemen. amgvarad, pasuxis gacemis unari evoluciurad ufro adreulia, vidre kiTxvis dasma. 2011 wels saganmanaTleblo kongresze indoeTSi me SevTavaze, rom Cvenma saganmanaTleblo sistemam unda waaxalisos studentebis mier kiTxvebis dasma. Cveni swavlebis sistema studentebs aswavlis, rogor unda upasuxon kiTxvebs, amiT Cven vklavT maT bunebriv cnobismoyvareobas da, ufro kreatiul moazrovneebad Camoyalibebis nacvlad, axali mosazrebebi adamianis evoluciasa da qcevaze _ mravalxmianobis roli Tanamedrove adamianis CamoyalibebaSi 533 morCilebas vaswavliT. polifoniis warmoSobis axali gaazreba aseve Seexo iseT sakiTxs, rogoricaa borZikiT laparaki. me aRvniSne, rom aRmosavleT aziis, amerikeli indielebisa da avstralieli aborigenebis winaprebma ufro adre daiwyes metyveleba vidre evropelebma da gansakuTrebiT afrikis mosaxleobam da vivaraude, rom aRmosavleT azielebi, amerikeli indielebi da avstralieli aborigenebi gacilebiT naklebad unda laparakobdnen enis borZikiT. amis meTodologoiuri mizezi kargad aris cnobili: drosTan erTad borZikiT laparaki TandaTan qreba (iseve rogorc vokaluri polifonia). rodesac arsebul literaturas gadavxede, aRmovaCine, rom arsebobs naSromebi, saidanac Cans, rom borZikiT laparaki TiTqmis ar fiqsirdeba amerikeli indielebis bevr tomsa da avstraliel aborigenebs Soris, Tumca sakmaod xSiria bevr afrikul tomSi. 1990 wels moskovSi me daveswari metyvelebis paTologiisadmi miZRvnil saerTaSoriso konferencias, am Temaze leqcia wavikiTxe qinis universitetis (aSS) metyvelebis paTologiis kaTedraze da gamokvlevac ki Cavatare da qinis univeristetis metyvelebis paTologiis specialist doqtor Siri risTan (Sheree Reese) erTad statiac davbeWde borZikiT laparakze Cinelebs Soris. es aseve saintereso axali sferoa. axla minda Sevexo polifoniis axali gaazrebis erT, SesaZloa, yvelaze mniSvnelovan nawils. ratom axdens musika Cvenze aseT Rrma zemoqmedebas? adamianuri, gansakuTrebiT polifoniuri sagundo musikis evoluciis kvlevisas davaskveni, rom musikas namdvilad SeuZlia Cveni individualobis Secvla. Cemi azriT, Cvens tvinSi ori sxvadasxva pirovneba arsebobs. erTi _ umetesad, aqtiuri da am mdgomareobaSi Cven normalurad vfiqrobT, vsvamT da vpasuxobT kiTxvebs, logikurad vazrovnebT. tvinis meore mdgomareoba Tavs iCens kritikul momentSi (brZolis, Zaladobis, stiqiuri ubedurebis dros). am meore mdgomareobaSi Cven sruliad gansxvavebulad viqceviT, ar SegviZlia fiqri, kiTxvebis dasma da mxolod instiqtebs, brZanebebs da mTeli jgufis qcevebs mivyvebiT, xSirad ar gvaxsovs, ras vakeTebdiT cnobierebis Secvlil mdgomareobaSi. es mdgomareoba kargadaa cnobili kacobriobis omebisa da miTologiis istoriidan, Tumca ki ar arsebobs misi aRmniSvneli termini. am movlenis aRniSvnisaTvis me gTavazobT termins `saomari transi~, romelic TandaTan popularuli xdeba. musikis mier adamianebis sabrZolo transSi Seyvanis, SiSisa da tkivilis SegrZnebis dakargvis mkafio magaliTia 1893 wels Samilis brZola ruseTis winaaRmdeg. aseve, sabrZolo misiebSi wasvlis win amerikeli jariskacebi xSirad cekvaven da mRerian. am mdgomareobis aRweris bevri istoria arsebobs, uaxloesi warsulis ruseT-saqarTvelos omis drosac ki, rodesac jariskacebi saSineli Wrilobebisgan miyenebul tkivils ar grZnobdnen. marTalia, es mdgomareoba, umetesad, omebsa da sxva eqstremalur situaciebs ukav-Sirdeba da ZiriTadad mamakacebs exeba, me mjera, rom am mdgomareobis warmoSoba ganapiroba qalebis mier Svilebis ubedurebisgan gadarCenis survilma. yvelam viciT, raoden saSiSia Zu cxoveli, rodesac mis lekvebs saSiSroeba emuqreba. es mdgomareoba bunebrivi gadarCevis procesis Sedegicaa, rodesac bunebrivi gadarCeviT moxda instinqtebis ierarqiis gadanawileba da STamomavlobis gadarCena TviT ZuZumwovara 534 mrgvali magida II mdedrebis gadarCenaze mniSvnelovani gaxda. cnobierebis am mdgomareobaSi sicocxle kargavs yvelaze mniSvnelovanis funqcias da Cven mzad varT sicocxle Cveni sayvareli arsebebis sicocxles, qveyanas, religias an raime sxva ideas SevwiroT. musikas, gansakuTrebiT ritmulsa da polifoniurs, SeuZlia Cveni cnobierebis am mdgomareobaSi Cayeneba. amgvarad, polifoniis axleburi gaazreba gulisxmobs ara marto polifoniis warmoSobas; is adamianis evoluciisa da evoluciuri fsiqologiis mniSvnelovan sakiTxebsac gulisxmobs. piter goldi: Tavdapirvelad minda aRvniSno, soso, rom moxibluli var Tqveni wigniT. Tqven dasviT bevri sxvadasxva sakiTxi. gansakuTrebiT, minda gamovyo wignis nawili saxelwodebiT `cnobierebis brZola~, romelic exeba sabrZolo simReras da imas, Tu rogor cvlis is azrovnebas. 1968 wels TurqeTSi mcxovrebi qarTvelebis Sesaxeb Cemi gamokvlevis Semdeg me sxva sferoebiTac davinteresdi, gansakuTrebiT amerikeli indielebisa da tibetelebis xelovnebiTa da sulierebiT. Sesabamisad, Tqveni wignis am nawilis wakiTxvis Semdeg, daviwye fiqri cnobierebis, musikisa da xelovnebis kavSirze. vTvlidi, rom amerikel indielebs – gansakuTrebiT, baris indielebs hqondaT sikvdilis simRera. omis win isini asrulebdnen lamaz, mkivana, grZnobiT aRsavse, xSirad ganmartebiTi Sinaarsis galobas, radgan is Seiqmna sikvdilisTan pirispir yofnis momentSi. vfiqrob, es swored ukavSirdeba Tqvens mosazrebas Tu rogor SeuZlia jgufur simReras Secvalos azrovnebis xarisxi iq, sadac musika gamoxatvis saSualebaa, anu sicocxlis faqtori. am sakiTxze vifiqre Cemi tibeturi gamocdilebis gaTvaliswinebiT, Tu ramdenad arsebiTia musika cnobierebis transformaciisTvis (indo-budisturi samyaros koncefcia). Tqven saubrobdiT individualobis Secvlaze _ vfiqrob, Cven erTsa da imaves vambobT. indo-budistur samyaroSi musika da xelovneba fundamenturi damakavSirebeli faqtorebia – rogorc xidi, faqtobrivad – arsebobis formiani an uformo mdgomareoba. uformo mdgomareoba aris `budas buneba~, arsebobis saboloo mdgomareoba _ Cveni arsebobis safuZveli. SeuZlebelia misi aRwera da iTvleba, rom es aris `carieli~ forma. magram, faqtobrivad, mas aqvs formis, formirebuli arsebobis yvelanairi potenciali, rac aris es samyaro, romelSic Cven vcxovrobT _ Cveni saRi azris fiqrebi, pirobiTi qmedebebi, arsebobis Cveni pirobiTi SegrZneba. xelovneba am ors Soris xidis funqcias asrulebs, akavSirebs da acocxlebs maT. budistur TeoriaSi saubaria `trikaiaze~ anu `sam sxeulze~. arsebobis saboloo formas hqvia `gasxivosnebuli sxeuli~, romelic yvela formis miRmaa, magram aqvs aRdgomis yvela formis potenciali. Cveni arsebobis Cveulebriv formas hqvia `emanaciuri sxeuli~. budistur TeoriaSi, sadac Zalian mniSvnelovania meored dabadeba, Tqven `gadadixarT~ cxovrebis erTi formidan meoreSi. amgvarad, Cven yvelani `sxivosani~ sxeulebi varT. is, rac maT Sua mdgomareobad miaCniaT, rac meditaciis, formirebis, STagonebis sferoa, aRiniSneba terminiT `tkbobis sxeuli~. es saxeli ewoda imitom, rom yvelanairi xelovneba siamovnebis momgvrelia _ aq Tqveni yvela mgrZnobiare organo rig-rigobiT funqcionirebs. es aris gamomxatvelobis, energiis sfero. axali mosazrebebi adamianis evoluciasa da qcevaze _ mravalxmianobis roli Tanamedrove adamianis CamoyalibebaSi 535 me vsaubrob am yvelaferze, vinaidan mjera, rom xelovneba sayrdeni wertilia, adamianis pirobiT mdgomareobas Soris wonasworobis wertili da transcedentuli cnobierebis kritikuli mdgomareoba, rogorc Tqven aRwereT, batono soso. aRmosavleTis samyaroSi am or mdgomareobas akontrolebs cnobierebis SemoqmedebiTi Zala: STagoneba, vizualizacia da bgera. amgvarad, isini iyeneben bgeras cnobierebis cariel an gasxivosnebul mdgomareobaSi mosayvanad, aseve _ Cveulebrivi mdgomareobis gacocxlebisa da STagonebisTvis. aRmosavleTis budistebi, magaliTad, iyeneben saeklesio saglobels. es sagalobeli umeteswilad monofoniuria. magram tibetelebi, monRolebi, tuvelebi da yalmuxi monRolebi (romlebic saqarTvelos CrdiloeTiT/CrdiloeT daRestanSi cxovroben), asruleben multifonur sagalobels, romelSic moSlilia ZiriTadi, sayrdeni toni, xSirad, Rrmad aRebuli marcvliT _ `om~ (prof. goldi axdens amis demonstracias) mis nawilobriv obertonebSi _ rasac Cven polifoniurad ar miviCnevT, Tumca, Cemi azriT, es asea. TiToeuli es obertoni asocirdeba cnobierebis sxvadasxva mdgomareobasTan. mindoda es azrebi TqvenTvis gameziarebina, radganac mjera, rom rasac Tqven ambobT, Zalian zusti da sworia. gTavazobT, rom amaze SevjerdeT. mxolod davamateb, rom simRera ara marto exmareba cnobierebas brZolaze fokusirebaSi, aramed amerikel indielebsa da tibetelebSi is gonebis ganwmendis Zlieri saSualebacaa. marTlac, tibetelebs, budistebs aqvT rTuli Teoria cnobierebaze, Tu rogor xdeba azrovnebis sxvadasxva aspeqtis gacocxleba, ganwmenda sxvadasxva xmovani signalebiT/vokalizaciiT, rac gaerTianebulia krebiT saxelSi `mantra~. mantrebs xSirad axmovaneben marcvlebisgan Sedgenili gamoZaxebiT/gamoxmobiT (amis yvelaze cnobili magaliTia “Om Mani Padme Hum”). maTi Teoriis Tanaxmad, TiToeuli marcvali zemoqmedebs cnobierebis garkveul aspeqtze. da radganac, Cvens ideebs vamzeurebT, minda aRvniSno (radgan, vfiqrob, am momentSi marTebulia), rom arsebobs kulturebi, romelTa sasimRero tradicia efuZneba marcvlebs. erT-erTi aseTia qarTuli tradicia, romelSic qarTvelebi uxvad iyeneben marcvlebs. aqedan gamomdinare, mainteresebs, Tu arsebobs raime Teoria an Tu aris axsnili am xSirad gamoyenebuli bgerebis buneba da efeqti. minda aqve davamato, rom simRera dafuZnebulia sunTqvaze; sunTqva arsebiTia ganwmendis am procesSi. aRmosavleTis iogebis tradiciaSi arsebobs meditaciis fundamenturi forma _ Cumad jdoma. magram am siCumeSi Tqven ar giwevT Tqveni guliscemisa da sunTqvis mosmena. sunTqvas Tqven saSualebad iyenebT; iTvliT Tqvens sunTqvas, raTa Tqvens gonebas aaSoroT gareSe, xelisSemSleli fiqrebi. mainteresebs, simReraSic gamoiyeneba Tu ara ritmuli sunTqva adamianis damamSvidebel, koncentraciis xelSemwyob saSualebad. iavnanebSi, romlebic mSvidi, Cveulebriv a kapela monofonuri simRerebia, bavSvi yveba dedis sunTqvis ritmsa da melodias. maria de sao xose korte-reali: did madlobas gixdiT mrgval magidaze mowvevisTvis, gTavazobT, visaubroT musikalur polifoniasa da msoflio harmoniaze. ioseb Jordanias wigniT (vin dasva pirveli SekiTxva?) motivirebuli, me gagiziarebT Cems 536 mrgvali magida II Sexedulebebs. 1980-iani wlebis bolos kolumbiis universitetis magistraturis pirvel kursze swavlisas, pirvel semestrSi, romelsac diter qristenseni uZRveboda, gadavwyvite semestruli naSromis dawera al-andalusis musikaze. gancvifrebuli viyavi am kulturis dRemde SemorCenili simdidriT. Zneli saTqmelia, ratom ar gamego mis Sesaxeb lisabonis universidade nova de lisboaSi musikaluri mecnierebebis fakultetze 4 wliani swavlis dros? meore impulsia ioseb Jordanias kiTxva: ratom mRerian adamianebi? (2011) axla maxsendeba, rom ziriabi, me-9 saukuneSi andalusiuri musikaluri kulturis pirveli mkvlevari da damaarsebeli ambobda, rom simRera kargia rogorc sxeulisTvis, ise gonebisTvis. maSin portugalia, iseve, rogorc espaneTi, rogorc aseTi, jer ar arsebobda da ziriabma, romelic swavlobda musikas, modas, medicinas, poeziasa da kulinarias, kordovaSi daaarsa akompanirebuli simReris skola. is gonivrulad werda, rogor unda moqceuliyvnen da mopyrobodnen sxeuls, Tavs, pirs da Tanmxleb sakravebs. me gagonili mqonda islamuri gavlenis Sesaxeb portugaliaze, movipove da vmuSaobdi kidec modaluri struqturebiT organizebul soflur simRerebze. maS, ratom iyo, rom mTeli programis manZilze erTi sityvac ar Tqmula alandalusis saucxoo musikalur kulturaze? pirvel sakiTxze pasuxs momavlisTvis vitoveb da gadavdivar meoreze. Cemi gamocdilebidan, niu iorkSi da mogvianebiT, lisabonSi, wignze `musika da migracia~ muSaobisas aRmovaCine, rom musikis SeqmnaSi erT-erTi yvelaze didi sirTule erovnuli kuTvnilebaa. maxsovs, rogor daibnen musikosebi neuarkSi, niujersiSi 1990 wels, rodesac Seecadnen CemTvis aexsnaT, rom Zveli fado erCivnaT axal, seqsualur da momxibvlel lambadas, romelsac giJebiviT cekvavdnen Tavisi erovnuli identobis aRsaniSnad, sevdiani da eWviani fados SualedebSi; den landbergis problemebi, romelic saubrobs ismetze _ SvedeTSi mcxovreb bosniel musikosze. es musikosi iZulebuli gaxda Seewyvita saqmianoba balkanuri konfliqtis dros, imis gamo, rom aRar SeeZlo iugoslaviuri musikis Sesruleba, radgan es eri aRar arsebobda. xangrZlivi pauzis anu mis mier music straitjacket mdgomareobaSi gatarebuli 4-5 wlis Semdeg, is daubrunda Zvel, TanxlebiT Sesasrulebel simRerebsa da mravalxmian sacekvao musikas. me aRvniSne, rom musikaluri identobis SegrZneba SeiZleba dabrkolebad iqces Tavisufali SesrulebisaTvis. axla minda, SemogTavazoT mesame sakiTxi, romelic exeba kavSirs eTnomusikologiasa da mas Soris, rasac Cven vuwodebT multikulturul, interkulturul an samoqalaqo ganaTlebas, gamomdinare iqidan, Tu romel qveyanaSi an regionSi vmuSaobT. pasuxismgebelma mecnierma, musikis mkvlevarma da pedagogma, vinc erovnuli da transnacionaluri konfliqtebis prevenciisa da gadaWris problemebze muSaobs, xazi unda gausvas musikis dinamiur bunebas. am dinamikaze, globalur migraciul moZraobebsa da erovnuli sazRvrebis efemerulobaze fiqrisas, unda vecadoT, xelaxla SevafasoT kavSiri musikis produqtebs, maT Semqmnelebsa da momxmareblebs axali mosazrebebi adamianis evoluciasa da qcevaze _ mravalxmianobis roli Tanamedrove adamianis CamoyalibebaSi 537 Soris. miuxedavad imisa, rom bevr musikalur process, maT Soris, Semsruleblobasa da saganmanaTleblo saqmianobas erovnuli instituciebis mxardaWera aqvT, musikis mecnierebma gardamaval situaciebSi aucileblad unda gamoikvlion da sazogadoebas gaacnon am kvlevebis Sedegebi musikasa da xalxs Soris kavSirze. dRes naTelia, rom umetes SemTxvevebSi, musikaluri da politikuri sazRvrebi ar emTxveva. msoflio cvalebadobisa da harmoniis TvalsazrisiT, dRes, SesaZloa, socialuri ganviTarebisTvis mniSvnelovani aRmoCndes musikis, gansakuTrebiT, erovnuli individualuri da koleqtiuri, statikuri da dinamikuri polifoniuri praqtikis wvdoma, Sedegebis ganzogadeba da sazogadoebisaTvis miwodeba. rusudan wurwumiam aRniSna, rom wina gamosvlebSi mravali saintereso as-peqti gamoikveTa. gansakuTrebiT mniSvnelovania problemis xedvis kuTxe – gasaTvaliswinebelia istoriulad Camoyalibebuli ori gansxvavebuli _ aRmosavluri da dasavluri civilizaciebisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli xedva, romelTa morigeba, SeiZleba iqces sadiskusio Temis sruliad axal konteqstSi ganxilvis impulsad. ukanasknel xans musikis warmoSobis Sesaxeb gazrdil interesze metyvelebs soso Jordanias wignSi vin dasva pirveli SekiTxva? motanili umdidresi bibliografiac, romelSic mravali wigni da statiaa dasaxelebuli. mecnierebaSi bevri problemaa, romelTa Sesaxeb mkvlevrebi mxolod hipoTezebs gamoTqvamen. swored aseTia musikis warmoSobis problemac. didi qarTveli istoriografi, ivane javaxiSvili werda, qarTuli musikis istoriis dasawyisi burusiTaao moculi. igive SeiZleba iTqvas, sazogadod, nebismieri tadiciuli musikis saTaveebzec.Aam saTaveebze saubari ki SeuZlebelia hipoTezebis gareSe. amasTan, aris diskursebi, romlebic ganekuTvnebian zogadi Teoriis – magaliTad, filosofiis, anTropologiis da a.S. sferos, da piradad CemSi, gacilebiT met ndobas imsaxureben, vidre saeWvo argumentebze damyarebuli konkretika. aseTi msjeloba, Cemi azriT, ufro mniSvnelovania, radgan is gvaZlevs SesaZleblobas, CavwvdeT movlenis arss, CavuRrmavdeT procesis bunebas da Cveni interpretaciiT SevecadoT, wvlili SevitanoT sakiTxis garkvevaSi. isini mdidar masalas iZlevian gansjisaTvis. maT ricxvs ganekuTvneba prof. izali zemcovskis mier musikis warmoSobaze gamoqveynebuli naSromebic, romlebic ganagrZoben mis mier didi xnis win dawyebul kvlevebs, ramac gamiCina survili diskusiis monawileTa yuradReba mimeqcia am problemis miseul interpretaciaze. daviwyeb imiT, rom igi pirveli iyo, vinc ara marto rusul, aramed mTel aRmosavleTevropul eTnomusikologiaSi (maSin yofil sabWoTa kavSirSi mas folk-loristikas eZaxdnen), axali problematikis damuSaveba daiwyo. asafievis intonaciur Teoriaze dayrdnobiT, romelic musikas ZiriTadad swavlobda, rogorc kulturas (Music as culture), zemcovskim Tavisi maswavleblis, didi rusi folkloristis vladimer propis kvaldakval (Tavis naSromSi zRapris morfologia man jer kidev 1926 wels daudo saTave miTologiisa da zRapris struqturulistur Seswavlas), pirvelma daiwyo musikis kulturaSi Seswavla (Music in culture), Semoitana rusul folkloristikaSi kvlevis fsiqologiuri da filosofiuri aspeqtebi, gaafarTova misi 538 mrgvali magida II Tvalsawieri, aqcia namdvilad interdisciplinur mecnierebad da, amdenad, dauaxlova dasavlur eTnomusikologias. ufro metic, alan meriamis mier SemoTavazebul da eTnomusikologiaSi sayovelTaod miRebul musikis Seswavlis or paradigmas _ Music as culture da Music in culture, igi amatebs mesames _ Culture in music da gvTavazobs, swored musikaSi davinaxoT/SeviswavloT kultura. saqme isaa, rom zemcovskisaTvis `kultura da azrovneba, urTierTobis gziT (through) (romelic ganpirobebulia Tavidan Sromis, Semdeg ki kulturis formebiT) vlindeba intonaciaSi. swored intonaciurobaSia musikis mravalmxrivi Rirebuleba. swored es ganasxvavebs 1) musikas aramusikisagan da 2) sxvadasxva kulturis musikas _ erTmaneTisagan. aqedanaa sistemuri jaWvis `kultura _ azrovneba _ intonacia~ gawyvetis dauSvebloba~. amaSi mdgomareobs SemoTavazebuli mesame paradigmis arsi. zemcovski aRniSnavs adamianis smenis gadamwyvet rols musikaluri azrovnebis CamoyalibebaSi. igi xazs usvams, rom adamianis smena, ufro konkretulad, eTnosmena, yoveli adamianis musikaluri smenis aucilebeli Semadgenelia. igi iZleva William Allaudin Mathieu-s sityvebis “The method of your knowing is the self” parafrazs – adamianis cxovrebis meTodi aris Tavad adamiani – `Seni smenis meTodi TviTon xar~, rogorc anTropologiurad mTliani `TviTon~ (anthropological whole “self”). smenis, rogorc adamianis mier samyaros Secnobisa da misi interpretaciis instrumentis gacnobiereba warmoadgens zemcovskis mier didi rusi mecnieris, asafievis intonaciis Teoriis ganviTarebas da xsnis, sazogadod, adamianis mier musikaluri aqtivobis motivacias. zemcovski intonaciasTan mWidrod akavSirebs sakuTriv, musikis warmoSobis Teoriasac. humboldtis kvaldakval, romlis azriT, ena molaparake adamians erTbaSad mieca mTlianad (язык, по-Вильгельму Гумбольдту, был весь дан сразу Человеку Говорящему), zemcovskic fiqrobs, rom musikalur adamiansac erTbaSad mieca musikaluri intonacia. amisaTvis saWiro iyo musika Tavidanve ukve yofiliyo musika da ara raRac wina-musika (музыка сразу должна была быть уже музыкой, а не той или иной пред-музыкой). am hipoTezis gasamyareblad, garda humboldtisa, igi iSveliebs cnobil qarTvel filosofoss, merab mamardaSvils, romlis Tanaxmad, `Tu gvaqvs, gvaqvs mTlianad~ (“если имеем, то имеем целиком”). musikis warmoSobis zemcovskiseul koncefcias, Cemi azriT, agvirgvinebs musikaluri dialogikis Teoria, romelmac pirvelad gaiJRera 1986 wels saqarTveloSi, borjomSi gamarTul mravalxmianobisadmi miZRvnil konferenciaze, sadac man warmoadgina moxseneba: `musikaluri dialogikis problema: antifonia da diafonia~. maSin gamoqveynda mxolod mokle Tezisebi. misi gadamuSavebuli teqsti mecnierma Semdeg waikiTxa JenevaSi, eTnomusikologiis evropul seminarze da am moxsenebis teqsti daibeWda kidec inglisur enaze (1993). misi sruli varianti gamoqveynda 2006 wels, wignSi From the World of the Oral Tradition: Notes in Use. Cemi azriT, SeiZleba iTqvas, rom 1986 wels borjomSi wakiTxulma moxsenebam uaRresad mniSvnelovani roli Seasrula qarTul da, vfiqrob, ara marto qarTul eTnomusikologiaSi mravalxmianobis warmoSobis Teoriis Camoyalibebaze. 1988 wels gaCnda ediSer garayaniZis Sroma – responsoruli simReris roli mravalxmianobis CamoyalibebaSi. es iyo wliuri samecniero naSromi, mdidari magaliTebiT, romle- axali mosazrebebi adamianis evoluciasa da qcevaze _ mravalxmianobis roli Tanamedrove adamianis CamoyalibebaSi 539 bic gviCvenebdnen responsoris, anu dialogis anu kiTxva-pasuxis (rogorc cnobilia, laTinurad respondeo niSnavs pasuxs) Sedegad arqetipuli formulebidan rogor ibadeba axali intonaciuri samyaro da kilouri urTierTkavSirebi. garayaniZis naSromis Rirsebas Seadgenda ara sakuTriv koncefciis originaloba – igi swored zemcovskis naSromidan modioda, aramed, mdidari empiriuli masala, romelic am Teoriuli postulatis SesaniSnav demonstrirebas warmoadgenda. swored amitom CavTvaleT SesaZleblad, igi Segvetana Cveni centris mier momzadebul da amerikuli Nova Science Publishers-is mier gamocemul wignSi Echoes from Georgia: Seventeen Arguments on Georgian Polyphony (2010). zemcovskisAamave ideis gagrZelebas warmoadgens ioseb Jordanias erT-erTi bolo wignic vin dasva pirveli SekiTxva? isic, garayaniZis Sromis msgavsad, sazrdoobs zemcovskis mier Tavis droze wamoyenebuli koncefciiT da mis axlebur interpretacias iZleva. rogorc es mas sCvevia, avtori ara erT inovaciur ideas gvTavazobs. am wignis didi Rirseba isicaa, rom igi sainteresod ikiTxeba, Seicavs did informacias (pirveli nawili) mravalxmianobis gavrcelebs Sesaxeb msoflios sxvadasxva qveyanaSi, avtori exeba SedarebiTi musikologiis meTodologiur da praqtikul aspeqtebsac (II nawili). avtori uxvad mimarTavs analogiebs, xolo teqsts erTgvari paradoqsulobac axasiaTebs. magaliTad, imis dasamtkiceblad, rom evropuli polifoniis warmoSoba monofoniidan ar SeiZleba miviCnioT normad; rom evropacentristuli midgoma umarTebuloa sxva kulturuli movlenebis Sefasebisas, igi kiTxulobs _ vin svams rZes? Who Can Drink Milk? Jordanias moaqvs mecnierTa gamokvlevebis Sedegebi, romelTa Tanaxmad, evropelebi rZes irgeben garTulebebis gareSe, maSin, rodesac igi mawyinaria afrikelebisTvis, e.i. is rac normaluri da bunebrivia evropelisTvis, ar aris aseTive afrikelisTvis. aseTi moulodneli analogiebiT, es wigni me, piradad, bruno netlis eTnomusikologiur eseebs magonebs. es analogia ki mas imisaTvis esaWiroeba, rom dagvimtkicos evropacentristuli midgomis umarTebuloba sxvakulturuli movlenebis Sefasebisas. Jordanias wignis III Tavi eZRvneba adamianur aqtivobebs – simReras, kiTxvebis dasmas, azrovnebas, laparaksa da enabluobas. magram, miuxedavad imisa, rom am aqtivobebidan kiTxvebis dasmas, am didi teqstis mxolod garkveuli, sakmaod mokrZalebuli adgili eTmoba, avtori mas, Cemi azriT, gansakuTrebul mniSvnelobas aniWebs, radgan igi wignis saTaurSia gamotanili. ver vityodi, rom Jordania uRrmavdeba sakuTriv dialogis problemas (is aseT amocanas arc isaxavs). swored amaSi mdgomareobs arsebiTi gansxvaveba Jordanias da zemcovskis midgomebSi. wignis gv. 329-ze avtori asaxelebs zemcovskis am statias. igi yuradRebas amaxvilebs musikaluri dialogze, rogorc antifonia-diafoniis warmomqmnel fenomenze da aRniSnavs, rom verc erTi musikologi ver uaryofs im faqts, rom antifonia da responsoriali warmoadgens polifoniuri tradiciis ganuyofel nawils. (“This is a fact that no musicologist would try to deny – antiphonal and responsorial is an integral part of the polyphonic tradition”.) mas, faqtobrivad, dialogis Sedegi ainteresebs da ara Tavad dialogis fenomeni. 540 mrgvali magida II amdenad, Jordanias midgoma dialogis problemisadmi anTropologiuria – momdevno TavebSi misi mizania empiriul gamocdilebaze dayrdnobiT daasabuTos, rom kiTxvis dasma mxolod adamians SeuZlia, rasac warmatebiT akeTebs kidec. misgan gansxvavebiT, zemcovskis midgoma dialogisadmi filosofiur-fenomenologiuria. unda iTqvas, rom dialogis Tema yofil sabWoTa kavSirSi arc Tu ise popularuli iyo. rogorc cnobili qarTveli filosofosi merab mamardaSvili werda, totalitaruli reJimi, klasikuri despotizmisagan gansxvavebiT, araTu adamianebs Soris dialogs anu azrebis cirkulacias krZalavda, aramed Signidan ryvnida da angrevda adamianebis azrovnebasa da cnobierebas1, romelSic es azrebi SeiZleboda gaCeniliyvnen. swored aseT dros, roca es reJimi jer kidev dangreuli ar iyo, zemcovskim misTvis Cveuli maneriT – uzarmazar, upiratesad, filosofiur literaturaze dayrdnobiT, TvalnaTliv warmoaCina, rom dialogi Tavad yofierebis modusi, urTierTobis universaluri forma da yvelaferi cocxlis mudmivi mdgomareobaa; rom yvelafers dialogiuri struqtura aqvs – enas, azrovnebas, urTierTobas, moRvaweobas da a.S.2 igi gansakuTrebul mniSvnelobas aniWebs dialogis socialur aspeqts, mis rols adamianis evoluciaSi da am TvalsazrisiT, misi Teoria pirdapir exmianeba Cveni mrgvali magidis Temas. misive azriT, mravalxmianobis problema mWidrod aris dakavSirebuli, sazogadod, musikaluri azrovnebis warmoSobisa da specifikis, ufro metic, eTnogenezis problemasTan. amrigad, i. zemcovskis musikaluri dialogikis koncefcia, romelic man pirvelma daamuSava musikalur mecnierebaSi filosofiisa da enaTmecnierebis kvaldakval, Cemi azriT, Zalian nayofieri aRmoCnda am problemebis sakvlevad, razec metyvelebs, Tundac i. Jordanias wigni vin dasva pirveli SekiTxva?, romelzec Cven dRes vsaubrobT. ai, es iyo mokled, risi gaziarebac mindoda dRevandeli mrgvali magidis monawileebisTvis. qeTevan baiaSvilma daamata, rom Zalian mniSvnelovania i. Jordanias mosazreba socialuri mravalxmianobis arsebobaze, ramac, misi azriT, gadatrialeba moaxdina eTnomusikologiur mecnierebaSi _ Zalian bevri problema, romlis axsna manamde SeuZlebeli iyo, am Teoriis wyalobiT, dRes SesaZlebeli gaxda. maT Soris, ediSer garayaniZis mosazreba saqarTveloSi unisonuri Sesrulebis praqtikis arsebobis Sesaxeb. es swored socialuri mravalxmianobis erTi forma gaxlavT. bo lavergreni: me musikis arqeologi gaxlavarT da amitom cota skeptikurad var ganwyobili eTnografiuli monacemebisadmi. eTnografia ise Rrmad ver midis istoriaSi, rogorc arqeologia. magaliTad, ramdenime wlis win arqeologma, tubingenis universitetis (germania) profesorma konantma, gaTxrebis Sedegad aRmoaCina 40 000 wliT daTariRebuli musikaluri instrumenti. es aris evropaSi homo sapiensis gaCenis xana. homo sapiensi evropaSi levantis (xmelTaSua zRvis aRmosavleTi) gavliT afrikidan movida. sanam safrangeTsa da espaneTs moaRwevdnen, adamianis am saxeobis warmomadgenlebi moZraobdnen dunais dasavleT sanapiros gaswvriv, samxreT axali mosazrebebi adamianis evoluciasa da qcevaze _ mravalxmianobis roli Tanamedrove adamianis CamoyalibebaSi 541 germaniis gavliT. konantma gaTxara gamoqvabuli ulmis (germania) maxloblad da aRmoaCina didi Citis frTisgan da mamontis eSvisgan damzadebuli fleitebi. isini kargad iyo damuSavebuli da maTze SesaZlebeli iyo bgeraTrigis dakvra. roca aseT monacemebs vflobT, Cven SegviZlia gavakeToT daskvnebi. sxvaTa Soris, ufro gviandeli xanis Zvlis fleitebi napovnia safrangeTsa da espaneTSic, rogorc dunaidan migrirebis kvalis dadastureba. velika stoikovam arqeologiuri artefaqtebis mniSvnelobasTan dakavSirebiT, magaliTad moitana centralur makedoniaSi arqeologiuri gaTxrebisas aRmoCenili 6000 wlis wriuli fleita. igi gadaeca prof. dragan dautovskis, iuneskos mier aRiarebul artistsa da skopies universitetis musikaluri xelovnebis fakultetis tradiciuli musikaluri sakravebis departamentis profesors. radgan sakravi kargad Senaxuli da SesaniSnav mdgomareobaSi iyo, man mravali koncerti Caatara da msmenelebs gaacno es uZvelesi instrumenti. me imis Tqma minda, rom roca am patara sakravis teqnikur da garegnul SesaZleblobebs waradgenda, igi iyenebda burdonul JReradobas. es ukanaskneli xazs usvamda sakravis uZveles magiur daniSnulebas, burdoni mTel warmodgenas aniWebda universalur JReradobas, da, Tumca, fleitas sul sami Tvali hqonda, is axerxebda masze aeJRerebina sxvadasxva bgeraTrigi da melodiebi msoflios sxvadasxva kuTxidan. swored burdoni avsebda mTel sivrces da qmnida am arqeologiuri sakravis universalur da globalur ganzomilebas. polifoniisa da burdonis mniSvnelobis xazgasmiT, me minda, vTqva, rom 6000 wliT daTariRebuli es uZvelesi sakravi srulyofilad sinqronizebuli mxolod burdonis erTi toniT, aris imis dasturi, rom polifonia yovelTvis iyo adamianebis TviTgamoxatvis saSualeba. danarTSi Tqven SegiZliaT ixiloT makedoniuri wriuli fleitis suraTi, gadaRebuli dragan dautovskis mier. bo lavergreni: rogorc Cans, dr. stoikovas mxedvelobaSi hqonda Zvlis fleita, romelic napovnia Crdilo-dasavleT sloveniaSi da ganTavsebulia internetSi neandertalur saitze “Divje Babe” (veluri qali – adgilis saxeli). arqeolog ivan turkis mier 1995 wels gamoqveynebuli es ambavi aRiarebuli iqna, rogorc udidesi aRmoCena, romelic adasturebda, rom neandertaleli adamiani ukravda musikas. magram misi ganacxadi kiTxvis qveS daayena ramdenime arqeologma. franCesko d’erikom aCvena, rom turkis Zvali, SesaZlebelia, gamoqvabulis daTvis mier iyos gaxvretili. gamoqvabulis daTvis kbilebs Soris manZili utoldeba ZiriTad naxvretebs Soris manZilebs, xolo Zvalze napovnia daTvis RrRnis kvali. zogierTi arqeologi darwmunebulia, rom es Zvali fleitaa. ioseb Jordaniam aRniSna, rom mecnierebis sxvadasxva dargebs, gansxvavebuli midgomebi axasiaTebT. rasakvirvelia, arqeologebi, upirveles yovlisa, gaTxrebis Sedegad mopovebul monacemebs eyrdnobian. Cven gvaqvs faqtebi, romelTa Seswavlis Semdeg, viwyebT maT interpretirebas da gamovTqvamT Cvens mosazrebebs am faqtebis Sesaxeb. es mosazrebebi hipoteturia, magram xSirad, isini gvixsnian faqtebs da gvaZleven axali 542 mrgvali magida II daskvnebis gakeTebis saSualebas. dasaruls wamyvanma madloba gadauxada mrgvali magidis monawileebs SeniSvnebi 1 amis Sesaxeb ix. merab mamardaSvilis wignSi `saubrebi filosofiaze~ (Tbilisi, 1992: 7-9). 2 ix. wignSi: Земцовский И. Музыкальная диалогика//Заметки впрок. Санкт-Петербург, 2006: 167. masala publikaciisTvis moamzada rusudan wurwumiam New Thinking about Evolution and Expressive Behavior _ Polyphony as Part of What and How We Have Become 543 SPEAKER: RUSUDAN TSURTSUMIA Rusudan Tsurtsumia greeted the audience and read the letter left by Prof. dieter Christensen _ the author of the idea for holding this round Table; he was supposed to be speaker of the session and was going to briefly remind the audience the history of the study of this issue, but sadly, due to health problem he had to leave Tbilisi. As he mentioned the proposal of the theme was inspired by Joseph Jordania’s recently published book “Who Asked The First Question?” this is why it is natural that the speaker passed the first word to Joseph Jordania. Joseph Jordania: I want to remind our colleagues about the idea of the development of contemporary science we all probably heard in scholarly discussions. According to this idea contemporary scholars solved all the big problems, and only minor details are left to work out. Of course, we are at the beginning of the 21st century, and it is natural we feel this is the highest point of development of human civilization and human nature, but we should not forget, that the feeling was the same in the beginning of the 20th century, 19th century, and earlier. Basically, in every period of history there was a feeling that human knowledge reached the highest point it can ever reach. This is a fallacy, and we should never forget, that in 22nd or 23rd century our 21st century level of knowledge will seem as incomplete, as 19th or beginning of the 20th century knowledge seems to us today. We should never lose the ability of unbiased appreciation of new ideas, even if they are completely unacceptable from the point of the old paradigms. Our views on the origins of polyphony had very strong paradigm. It was believed that polyphony is a later cultural invention, after the countless millennia of singing in monophony. The belief in this postulate was so strong, that it was considered to be an axiom, and axioms, as we know, do not need any proof. In the last few years a new type of thinking emerged. According to this new thinking, polyphony was not a late cultural invention. Instead it was a initial musical tradition, that first humans took from African continent. Of course, as representative of this idea, I can speak mostly about my own research, but I must mention that there is another scholar, Dr. Victor Grauer from USA, who also believes that the first musical traditions that humans took from Africa, was polyphonic. There are differences in our approach as well. Grauer places his model within the so called “Recent African hypothesis” and for him first humans came out of Africa about 100 000 years ago. According to this hypothesis all the earlier forms of early hominids (Neanderthals, homo Georgicus, Sinantrhopus) were all replaced by the newcomer from Africa. Grauer explains the absence of polyphony in many areas by the Toba catastrophe some 70 000 years ago. My model is based on another hypothesis, known as “Multiregional Hypothesis”, which states the continuity of many earlier forms of hominids and early humans, considers that our ancestors were already humans when they came out from Africa about 2 million years ago. So for me human polyphony was not a cultural invention, but an important element of survival mechanism against predators and other human groups. So for me the age of polyphony is as old as the age of archaic Homo Sapiens, about 2 million years. Also, in my model the uneven distribution of polyphony and monophony is connected to the shift to the articulated speech. According to my model, polyphony lost its primary role as the center of human social connections and communication after the appearance of speech, and as a result, polyphonic traditions all over the world are slowly disappearing. In my 2006 book Who Asked the First Question? I gave many examples from all over the world of polyphonic traditions gradually weakening and disappearing, and after 544 Round Table II 2006 I learned many other polyphonic traditions that have disappeared. At the same time, I can not find a single example of any polyphonic tradition that naturally came out from a monophonic tradition. Very interesting is the relationship between vocal and instrumental polyphony. In traditions where vocal polyphony is very strong (for example, among pygmies) there is hardly any instrumental polyphony. As vocal polyphony weakens, instrumental polyphony becomes more important, particularly the polyphony of blown instruments (I mean the double, triple, quadruple blown instruments). This link between vocal and instrumental polyphony is not as strong when we think of string instruments. The reason must be the process of breathing, central to both singing and playing blown instruments. In the long process of disappearance of polyphony, both vocal and blown instrumental polyphony co-exist. Later, when vocal polyphony is lost, instrumental polyphony follows as well, but with an interesting difference: at the beginning the structure of double blown instrument survives, but instead of polyphonic double instruments, they become unison double instruments, where both pipes are of the same length and with the same numbler of the holes (suggesting these are unison instruments). And of course, as musical instruments can survive, unlike vocal music, these instreumtns can tell us about the vocal traditions of the past civilizations. This is particularly important in case of ancient Mesopotamian and Mesoamerican civilizations, where we have many polyphonic blown instruments. Another element of new thinking about polyphony is that according to my model, the most important cognitive achievement that made us human (asking questions) was also connected to the polyphonic singing, more precisely, the ubiquitous responsorial form of singing, with question-answer form of exchange. No other species on our planet is able to ask questions, including “educated” chimpanzees and bonoboes. Although they do understand questions of their human trainers and answer them correctly. So the ability to answer questions is evolutionarily much earlier, than asking questions. At an educational congress in India in 2011 I proposed that in our educational system we should encourage students to ask questions, not only to teach them how to answer questions. With our educational system, aimed to teach students how to answer questions, we kill student’s natural curiosity, and teach them obedience, instead of raising more creative thinkers. The new thinking about the origins of polyphony also touched such a problem as stuttering. As I proposed that the ancestors of the East Asian, American Indian and Australian Aboriginal populations shifted to speech earlier than European and particularly African populations, I proposed that East Asian, American Indian, and Australian Aboriginal populations should have much less stuttering. The methodological reason for this is well known: at time goes, stuttering is gradually disappearing (very much like vocal polyphony which is also gradually disappearing). When I checked the existing literature, I found that there are works indicating that stuttering is almost non-existent in many American Indian tribes, and among Australian Aborigines, and stuttering is extremely high in many African tribes. I attended the international conference on speech pathology in 1990 in Moscow, had lecture on this subject at the dept of speech pathology at Kean University (USA), and even did a research and published an article on stuttering among Chinese together with a professional speech pathologist from Kean University, Dr. Sheree Reese. This is an exciting new field as well. Now I would like to touch upon possibly the most important part of the new thinking about polyphony. Why music affects us emotionally so profoundly? Researching the evolutionary origins of human music, and particularly polyphonic choral music, I came to the conclusion that music can literally change our personality. I proposed that we all have two separate personalities in our brain. One of them is active most of the time, and in this state we can all think normally, ask and answer questions, think logically. The New Thinking about Evolution and Expressive Behavior _ Polyphony as Part of What and How We Have Become 545 second state of mind makes appearance only when there is a critical for survival moment (in battle situation, violent attack, natural disasters). In this other, or altered state of our consciousness we behave totally differently: we can not think logically, we can not ask questions, we can only follow our instincts, or the orders, or the behavior of the whole group, and often we do not remember what we did in this altered state of consciousness. This state was well known from the history of human wars and even mythology, although it did not have a term connected to it. I suggested for this phenomenon the term “Battle Trance” and the term is gradually becoming popular. Shamil’s fight against Russians in 1839 gives us a very clear example of music putting people in a battle trance, losing fear and sensitivity to pain. The same way, American soldiers often dance and sing together before going to the combat missions. There are many stories about this state, even from the recent Russian-Georgian war, when soldiers did not feel any pain from the horrible wounds. Although this state is mostly connected to wars and other extremal situations and involves mostly men, I believe that the origins of this state was the female desire to save their offspring from danger. We all know how dangerous are mother animals when there is a danger to their cubs. This state was also a result of the forces of natural selection, when natural selection redistributed the hierarchy of instincts so that survival of the offspring became more important that own survival for mammalian females. In this state of mind our life is not the most important thing we have, and we are ready to sacrifice our life for our loved ones, for our country, for our religion, or for some other ideas. And music, particularly, rhythmic and polyphonic music, can put us in this state of mind. So, the new thinking about polyphony involves not only the origins of polyphony. It involves some very important questions of human evolutionary history and evolutionary psychology. Peter Gold: I’d like to start by saying that I was fascinated by your book, Joseph. You’ve brought up many different issues. I particularly took note of your section on the “battle of consciousness”, regarding the battle song and how it lead to a change in mind. Now, since my research in 1968 among Georgians in Turkey, I went on to other areas of inquiry _ and those other areas included, particularly, the arts and spirituality of Native America and Tibet. Accordingly, I started thinking about the nature of mind in relation to music and the arts from reading that section of your book. I considered that Native Americans – particularly the Plains Indians – had a death song. When they would go into battle they would sing a beautiful, piercing, heartfelt chant which often was expository as it was created right at the moment of facing death. And I think that it was similar to what you were talking about the ability of the group song to change the quality of mind, where music is an expression, in fact an agent of life. And I also got to thinking because of my Tibetan experience, how music is an essential part in the transformation of consciousness (which is a concept used in the Indo-Buddhist world). You were talking about change in personality – I think we’re saying the same thing. In the Indo-Buddhist world, music and art are fundamental agents linking - as a bridge, actually – the formed and formless states of existence. The formless state is the “buddha nature”, the ultimate state of existence beyond all description – lying at the foundation of our existence. It is without any description and is considered “empty” of all form. But it’s actually full of all potential for form, expression and meaning to arise. It is the ultimate potential. And, then, there is the formed state, the formed existence, which is this world in which we live – our commonsense thoughts, our conventional actions, our conventional sense of existence. The arts become the bridge between these two, linking and vitalizing them. 546 Round Table II Buddhist theory talks about the “Trikaya” (if I may get a little technical for a moment), meaning the “Three Bodies”. The ultimate state of existence is called the “Enlightenment Body”, which is beyond all forms but full of potential for all forms to arise. Our ordinary state of existence is called the “Emanation Body”. In Buddhist theory, where rebirth is very important, you “emanate” into a new form from one lifetime to the next. Thus, we all are emanation bodies. What they consider to be the middle state, which is the realm of meditation, the realm of ideation, the realm of inspiration, is termed the “Enjoyment Body”. It’s so named because all the arts are enjoyable – where your sensory organs are aligned and operating. This is the realm of expressivity, of energy. Well, the reason I am going into all of this is because I believe that the arts are the fulcrum, the balancing point between one’s conventional state as you, Dr. Jordania, have described it, and this critical state of transcendent consciousness. In the Eastern World these two states are controlled by the creative power of the mind: inspiration, visualization and sound. So, they actually use sound to bring the consciousness into this empty or enlightened state. But they also use it to vitalize and inspire the ordinary state. Eastern Buddhists use, for example, sacred chant. Now for the most part, the chant is monophonic. But, in the Tibetan, the Mongolian, the Tuvan and Kalmuk Mongols (who are just north of here [the Republic of Georgia], north of Daghestan), they intone multiphonic chant, which consists of breaking up the basic, fundamental tone – often a deeply chanted “Om” (Gold demonstrates this by singing) into its partial overtones – which we didn’t talk about as being polyphony – whereas I believe it is. And, each of these overtones is associated with a different state of consciousness. So, I wanted to share these ideas with you and provide this perspective, because I do believe what you’re saying is very accurate and right on point. And, I would tentatively offer that we expand on this understanding of the shifting states of consciousness through music. I would just like to add that not only is singing a means of enhancing the focus of mind for battle, but in Native America and certainly in Tibet, it’s a means of powerfully clearing the mind. Indeed, Tibetans, Buddhists have a complex theory of the nature of mind, and how different aspects of mind are vitalized, clarified, by different vocalizations, which they collectively call “Mantra”. Mantras, which are often vocalized as evocations (the most famous example being “Om Mani Padme Hum”), are composed of “seed syllables”. Each syllable exerts, according to the theory, an effect on some aspect of the consciousness. And, as long as we are putting ideas out on the table, I wanted to mention (since it seems relevant at this moment) that there are certain cultures whose singing traditions are founded strongly on what I would consider to be seed syllables. One of these is the Georgian, a vital tradition in which Georgians make extensive use of vocables. This leads me to wonder whether there has been developed any explanation or theory regarding the character or effect, of these often used Georgian vocables. I would here add that, at the basis of singing is breathing. And breath is essential in this process of developing holiness. In the yogic traditions of the East you have a fundamental form of meditation where you sit in silence. But in such silence you’re not assaulted by the experience of hearing your heartbeat and hearing your breath. You actually use your breath as a tool. You count your breath in order to keep your mind focused away from extraneous thoughts, disturbing thoughts. So, I would wonder if in singing the breath is utilized in a rhythmic manner so as to focus and calm the person. In lullabies, where you have quiet, usually acapella monophonic singing, the child gets into the rhythm of the breathing of the mother as well as into the flow of melody. New Thinking about Evolution and Expressive Behavior _ Polyphony as Part of What and How We Have Become 547 Maria de Sao Jose Corte-Real: Grateful for the invitation to the closing roundtable on New thinking about expressive behavior – polyphony as part of what and how we have become, of this rather interesting and complete Sixth International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony, I propose a reflection on transnational concern, music polyphony and world harmony. For that, and motivated by Joseph Jordania’s drive for first questions (2006, Who Asked the First Question?) I organize my participation, following an early doubt, as challenge, obstacle and proposal thoughts. In the first semester of my MA program in Ethnomusicology at Columbia University, led by Dieter Christensen, in the late 1980s I decided to do a term paper on the music of Al-Andalus. I was so astonished by the historic richness and current remnants of such culture that I did not think on what puzzles me now. Why did not I hear about that during my four years program on Musical Sciences at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa in Portugal? It is indeed a challenge to think about that. And another Jordania’s question: Why do people sing? (2011). It comes to mind now, because I remember having discovered then that Ziryab, the early expert and founder of the Andalusian music culture in the 9th century, mentioned that singing is good for body and mind. Portugal did not exist as such yet as also Spain, and Ziryab, working on music, fashion, medicine, poetry and gastronomy founded an accompanied singing school in Cordoba. And he wrote about how to behave and how to deal with the body, head, mouth and the accompanying music instruments to sing efficiently. I had heard about the Islamic influence on Portugal, and I even found and worked on rural songs organized around modal structures remnants of more than one maqam. Why then, neither a word about the splendorous music culture of Al-Andalus in the entire program? I leave the first point as a challenging question for future thought, and I follow to the second, the obstacle. Also from my experience, back in New York and lately in Lisbon while editing my volume on Music and Migration [Corte-Real, (ed., 2010) Music and Migration, Special issue Migrações], I found that one of the sharpest embarrassments for own music production, or even own fruition in some migrant cases, is the national belonging. I recall how embarrassed the musicians were in Newark, New Jersey in 1990, when they tried to explain me that they preferred the old fado than the new and sexy and captivating lambada they were dancing like crazy followers in the midst of the sad and jealous fados they were singing to celebrate their national identity. Or the problems Dan Lundberg describes about Ismet, the Bosnian musician in Sweden, that had to suddenly stop playing during the Balkan conflict, because he could not play Yugoslavian music anymore, the nation disappeared. After a long silence he passed four or five years in what he called a music straitjacket carefully recapturing his old repertoire. of accompanied songs and multipart dance music. Having mentioned how national identity feelings may work as an obstacle for free music performance or fruition, my third point for thought has to do with the relationship between ethnomusicology and what we call multicultural, intercultural, citizenship or civic education depending on in which country or world region are we working. Those of us, responsible scientists, music researchers and educators, who work to help to preventing and solving national and transnational conflicts, should stress the fluid and dynamic character of the music phenomenon. Thinking about this fluidity and dynamism, the global migratory movements, and the ephemeral life of national borders in many points of the world, we should work to re-evaluate the links between music products, their producers and consumers. Although many music processes, including performance and education efforts, are supported by national institutions, it is urgent that music scientists study and present results on the understanding of the links between music and people in transnational situations. As it is clear nowadays that in most cases music cultures do not coincide with 548 Round Table II political boundaries. To understand and present music, and especially polyphonic practices, related with cultural and national individual and collective static and dynamic identities is perhaps a priority for social development in a world of transnational respect and harmony. Rusudan Tsurtsumia mentioned that many interesting aspects have been marked out in the discussion. Particularly interesting is the view of the problem-considered should be the views characteristic of historically formed two different – Eastern and Western approaches, the agreement of which may become an impulse for the discussion of the debatable topic in a totally new context. As for the topic of discussion, in her opinion, Prof. Izaly Zemtsovsky’s considerations on polyphony, or on the origin of music in general, may be interesting for the audience. Lately, interest in the origin of music has grown greatly. This is corroborated by the comprehensive bibliography presented in the book of Joseph Jordania Who Asked the First Question?, which refers to numerous books and articles. There are quite a few problems in science about which researchers suggest only hypotheses. It is this type of problems the issue of the origin of music belongs to. Ivane Javakhishvili, a great Georgian historiographer, wrote that the provenance of musical history in Georgia was obscure. The same may be said about the sources of any traditional music in general. Therefore discussing these sources is impossible without hypotheses. Here with there are discourses which belong to the sphere of general theory – for instance philosophy, anthropology and so on, which seem more valid to me than any concrete ideas based on questionable arguments. In my opinion such reasoning is more significant, for it provides grounds to penetrate into the essence of the phenomenon, make an in-depth analysis of the nature of the process and contributes to clarifying the problem. One of such concepts belongs to Izaly Zemtsovsky. Zemtsovsky’s works about the origin of music that have been published lately and continue the researches he began a long time ago, prompted me to draw the attention of the participants in the discussion to his interpretation of this problem because, as I think, they are worth of being considered – at any rate they provide ample material for discussion. I am not going to offer exhaustive information about these works, the framework of the round table does not make it possible. Simply, I will draw your attention to some issues, dealt with in the book, and which, in my opinion, are noteworthy. First of all, I should say, that he was the first to start working on the new problems not only in the Russian but in the whole east European ethnomusicology (then, in the Soviet Union it was called folkloristic studies). Basing on Asafyev’s intonational theory, who mainly studied music as culture, following his teacher Vladimir Propp, a great Russian folklorist (in his work The Morphology of the Fairytale he laid a foundation for the structural study of mythology and fairytales as early as the year 1926), Zemtsovsky was the first to study music in culture; he introduced the philosophical and psychological aspects into Russian folkloristic studies, expanded its range, turned it into a branch of science related to other spheres, in this way getting closer to the western ethnomusicology. More than that he added the third paradigm Culture in Music, to Alan Mariam’s generally accepted two paradigms of the study of music Music as culture and Music in Culture and suggested that it is in music itself that we should see and study culture. The gist is that in Zemtsovsky’s opinion, “culture and thinking is manifested in the intonation through the interrelation (which at the beginning is conditioned by the forms of work, and subsequently by those New Thinking about Evolution and Expressive Behavior _ Polyphony as Part of What and How We Have Become 549 of culture). It is in the intonation that the diversified value of music lies. This differentiates 1) music from non-music and 2) the music of different cultures from one another. It is from here that the impossibility of breaking up the system chain “culture-thinking-intonation” stems”. This is the essence of the suggested third paradigm. Zemtsovsky refers to the decisive role of human’s hearing in the formation of musical thinking. He emphasizes that human’s hearing, to be more precise, ethnohearing is an indispensable part of every person’s musical ear. It is a paraphrase of William Mathieu’s words “The method of your knowing is self” – “You yourself are the method of your hearing, as an anthropological whole “self”. The realization of hearing (musical ear) as an instrument of the cognition of the world and its interpretation develops the great Russian scholar Asafyev’s “Intonational theory” and in general, explains the motivation of man’s musical activity. Zemtsovsky closely links the theory of the origin of music per se to the intonation. Following Humboldt, who thinks that the Speaking Man was given the language at once, Zemtsovsky thinks that the Musical Man also was given the musical intonation at once. For this it was necessary that from the very beginning music should be music and not a sort of pre-music. To substantiate the hypothesis he refers to the renowned Georgian philosopher Merab Mamardashvili, who says that “If we have something, we have it completely”. Zemtsovsky’s concept of the origin of music, in my opinion is crowned with the theory of musical dialogics, which was first presented at the conference dedicated to polyphony (Borjomi, Georgia, 1986). At this conference he presented his paper “The Problem of Musical Dialogics: Antiphony and Diaphony”. At that time only the brief theses were published. Subsequently the scholar read the edited text in Geneva at the European seminar on ethnomusicology, later the text of the paper was published in the English language (1993). Its full variant came out in 2006, in the book From the world of the oral traditions: (Notes in use) Collected reflections. In my opinion, the paper presented in Borjomi in 1986, played a very significant role in the formation of the polyphony provenance theory in Georgian and not only in Georgian ethnomusicology. In 1988 Edisher Garaqanidze’s work “The Role of the Responsive Singing in the Formation of Polyphony” appeared. It was an annual scholarly work, abounding in examples which showed how the new intonational world and mode interrelations took shape as a result of the responsorium, the dialogue or questions and answers. The merit of Garaqanidze’s work is not the originality of the concept per se, for it came from Zemtsovsky’s work, but the rich empiric material which was a perfect manifestation of this theoretical postulate. This is why I thought it possible to include it in the book Echoes from Georgia: Seventeen Arguments on Georgian Polyphony (2010)1, prepared by our Centre and published by the American Nova Science Publishers. One of the latest works by Joseph Jordania Who Asked the First Questions? is a continuation of the same idea of Zemtsovsky’s. This book, too, like Garaqanidze’s work is based on the concept, presented by Zemtsovsky in its time, and gives its new interpretation. As it is characteristic of him, the author offers quite a few innovative ideas. A great merit of this book is also the fact that it is easy to read and contains a lot of information (first part) about spreading polyphony in different parts of the world, the author also touches upon the methodological and practical aspects of comparative musicology (second part). The author very often refers to analogues, and the text also exhibits some sort of paradoxical features; for instance, to prove that the origin of European polyphony from monophony cannot be considered a norm and that the Eurocentrist approach is not right when evaluating other cultural phenomena, he asks a question, Who Can Drink 550 Round Table II Milk? Jordania gives the results of the scientists’ researches to the effect that Europeans can digest milk without any complications, while it disagrees with Africans, i.e. something that is normal and natural for Europeans, fails to be such for Africans (p. 203). This book with such unexpected analogues for me, personally, is reminiscent of Bruno Nettle’s ethnomusicalogical essays. And he needs such analogy to prove that the Eurocentrist approach is wrong when evaluating other cultural phenomena. The third chapter of Jordania’s book deals with man’s activities – singing, asking questions, thinking, speaking and stuttering. But in spite of the fact that of all these activities asking questions occupies only a definite, rather modest place in this lengthy text, I think that the author considers it the most significant, since it is used in the title of the book. It cannot be said that Jordania penetrates deep into the problem of the dialogues per se (and he never considered it to be his goal). It is this issue that makes an essential difference between Jordania’s and Zemtsovsky’s works. On page 329 of the book the author names this article of Zemtsovsky’s. He attaches special importance to the musical dialogue, as a phenomenon that creates antiphony and monophony and notes, “this is a fact that no musicologist would try to deny – antiphonal and responsorial is an integral part of the polyphonic tradition”. Factually he is interested in the result of the dialogue and not the dialogue phenomenon proper. Therefore Jordania’s approach to the problem of the dialogue is anthropological – in the subsequent chapters it is his goal on the basis of the empirical experience to prove that only man can ask a question and he/she does it successfully. Unlike him Zemtsovsky’s attitude to the dialogue is philosophicalphenomenalistic. It should be said that in the former Soviet Union the subject of the dialogue was not very popular. As Georgian philosopher Merab Mamardashvili writes, the totalitarian regime, unlike the classic despotism not only prohibited dialogues, i.e. the circulation of ideas among people, but ruined and corrupted people’s mentality and cognition from the inside2 where these ideas could be born. At the very time when the regime was not ruined yet, in his usual manner, basing on the huge, mainly philosophical literature, he made it explicit that the dialogue, the modus of existence itself, is a universal form of communication and a permanent state of everything that is alive; that everything has a dialogic structure – the language, thinking, interrelation, activities and so on3. He attaches special importance to the social aspect of the dialogue (p. 168), its role in man’s evolution and from this viewpoint his theory directly responds to the topic of our round table. He also thinks (p. 166) that the polyphony problem is closely linked to the provenance of musical thinking and its specificity in general, and more than that, to the problem of ethnogenesis. Thus I. Zemtsovsky’s concept of the musical science, following philosophy and linguistics, proved to be very effective in the process of researching in these problems, which is substantiated by J. Jordania’s book Who Asked the First Question? that we are discussing today. This is a brief account of the ideas I wanted to share with you, the participants in our round table discussions. Ketevan Baiashvili added, that apart from the afore-mentioned, significant is J. Jordania’s consideration on the existence of social polyphony. This, in her opinion, was a breakthrough in ethnomusicological science – many problems, inexplicable before, can be solved today thanks to this theory including Edisher Garaqanidze’s consideration on the existence of unison performance practice in Georgia. This is one of the New Thinking about Evolution and Expressive Behavior _ Polyphony as Part of What and How We Have Become 551 forms of social polyphony. Bo lawergren: I am a Music Archaeologist and I am a bit skeptical about Ethnographic data. Ethnography does not go far back historically and has little depth. I’ll give you an example: A few years ago an Archaeologist, Professor Conant at University of Tübingen in Germany, excavated musical instruments that goes back ca. 40,000 years. It is the beginnings of homo sapient in Europe.  Homo sapiens presumably entered Europe through the Levant from Africa. Members of the species are likely to have moved west following the shore of the Danube and passes through southern Germany before they reached France and Spain. Conant excavated caves near Ulm and found flutes made of the wing bone of large birds and even of mammoth ivory. They were worked with great precision and could be made to play scales. Having such data we might start to make general statements. By the way, bone flutes are also attested in France and Spain, but are later – as the Danube migration path implies. Velika Stoikova: I’d like to introduce the archaeological artifact found in the central area of Republic of Macedonia, that is the Globular flute old 6000 years. It was perfectly preserved music instrument that was given to Prof. d-r Dragan Dautovski, UNESCO artist and professor at the Faculty of Music Art in Skopje, Department of traditional instruments. Since the instrument was very well preserved and in perfect condition, he introduced it on a huge concert dedicated to the Globular flute. The point in my discussion was that in introducing the technical and ambient characteristics of that small globular flute, he was using a drone sound. That sound emphasized the magic and the ancient dimension of the instrument, the drone tone gave the whole presentation one universal sound (since he managed to produce different tone rows and melodies from different part of the world, and the flute have only three holes). Exactly the Drone tone filled the space and produced the universal and global dimension of that archaeological music instrument. In direction of emphasizing the importance of the polyphony and the drone tone, my point was that this given example of the 6000 old music instrument which goes perfectly synchronized with one single drone tone, may prove that the polyphony has always been part of the music expression of the humanity. Attached I am sending you a picture of the Macedonian Globular flute, hold by Dragan Dautovski. Bo Lawergren: Evidently, the speaker is referring to the bone flute from the Neanderthal site of “Divje Babe” in north-western Slovenia. When published in 1995 by the excavator Ivan Turk it was hailed as a major discovery showing that Neanderthal people played music. But his claim was questioned by several archaeologists. Francesco d’Errico showed that the finger-holes on Turk’s bone were likely to have been punctured by a cave bear. The spacing of a cave bear’s teeth equals the distance between the major finger holes, and there were several gnaw marks on the bone. Few archaeologists now believe that the Divje Baba bone was a flute. Joseph Jordania noted that different branches of science are characterized with different approaches. Of course archaeologists base on the data obtained by excavations. we have facts, after studying them we start interpreting and express our views on these facts. These views are hypothetical, but they often explain facts and help us make new conclusions. In conclusion the speaker thanked the participants of the Round Table. 552 Round Table II Notes 1 Echoes from Georgia: Seventeen Arguments on Georgian Polyphony. Editors Rusudan Tsurtsumia and Joseph Jorda- nia. New York, 2010. 2 In: Mamardashvili Merab. Talks on philosophy.Tbilisi, 1992:9 ( in Georgian) 3 In: Zemtsovsky Izaly. The Musical Dialogic//From the World of the Oral Tradition. Useful Notes. St. Petersburg, 2006. (in Russian) Prepared for publication by Rusudan Tsurtsumia 553 audiomagaliTebis sia 01. elena iovanoviCi (serbeTi) audiomagaliTi 1. qerubimi, sagalobeli, bizantiuri rvaxmis 1 kilo (fragmenti): qalTa gundi wm. ioane damaskeli. Cawerilia RvTismsaxurebis dros belgradis wm. aleqsandre nevelis taZarSi 1994 wlis 21 seqtembers. audiomagaliTi 2. predrag stoikoviCi da vladimir siviCi, ezgia ori kavalisTvis. Cawerilia ansambl iskonis koncertze. eTnografiuli muzeumi, belgradi (1998 wlis 5 dekemberi, Camweri zogan ierkoviCi). 02. nailia almeeva (ruseTi) audiomagaliTi 1. kriaSen TaTrebi, jgufi tatarstanis petrecis raionidan, yvelieris simRera. Cawerilia nailia almeevas mier 1992 wels. audiomagaliTi 2. aRmosavleT mari, ielabugas jgufi, tatarstanis ielabugas raioni. axalwveulis simRera, Cawerilia oleg gerasimovis mier 1978 wels. audiomagaliTi 3. CuvaSebi, anatris jgufi, CuvaSeTis kanaSis raioni, sufruli simRera, Cawerilia nailia almeevas mier 1987 wels. 03. Tamaz gabisonia (saqarTvelo) Voices of the World: An Anthology of Vocal Expression. An Anthology of Vocal Exspression. Collection du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et du Musée de l’Homme. France. 1996. diski I #34 solomonis kunZulebi. gvadalkanal (nginia). kakabona. qalTa saojaxo repertuari. diski II #20 papua axali gvinea. (latmul). ientCan. samxreT sepikis provincial. Sulebis xmebi. diski III #7 indonezia. sulavezi (toraia). loko lemo, rindingalos olqi. mzis amosvlis ceremonia. diski III #15 makedonia. istibania. samxreT makedonia. `dodole~ simRera. wvimis mosayvani simRera. 554 audiomagaliTebis sia diski III #20 saqarTvelo. svaneTi. latali. zemo svaneTi. samgloviaro simRera `zari~. diski III #25 albaneTi. (labebi). vlare. samxreT albaneTi. himaras stilis simRera. epikur-patriotuli balada. 04. mixail lobanovi (ruseTi) audiomagaliTi 1. FA KNTS – kareliis samecniero centris enis, literaturisa da istoriis institutis fonogramarqivi. audiomagaliTi 2. joiki – sami uoikis magia. valkeapaa _ fineTi: 3984-22112-2, (CD). audiomagaliTi 3. peCora – diski D 025677/78. audiomagaliTi 4. samiska – samiskis sia: karl tirenis Canaweri fonografze, 1913 - 1915. CVCD (CD). audiomagaliTi 5. VKY 2000 – kelketelieaniadan. venis kareliuri iokebi. ISRC FIKM8-00-00001-18 SKSCD 4 (CD). 05. rie koCi (iaponia) audiomagaliTi 1. saferxulo simRera urara suye e kamuy sinta atuy tun na e tunun paye Cawerilia kuSiroSi 1947w; wyaro CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR155B dedani inaxeba hokaidos prefeqturis biblioTekaSi). audiomagaliTi 2. saferxulo simRera hoy ya a a hoy ya o o ho hoy ho hoy ya Cawerilia asakihavaSi 1947w. wyaro CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR152B, dedani inaxeba hokaidos prefeqturis biblioTekaSi). audiomagaliTi 3. saferxulo simRera matnaw rera apaca osma uran nisi kanto korikin Cawerilia kuSiroSi 1947w; wyaro CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR155B, dedani inaxeba hokaidos prefeqturis biblioTekaSi). 06. maria de sao xose korte reali, rosario pestana (portugalia) audiomagaliTi 1. trai-larai, moZiebulia 1958 wels verjilio pereiras mier montekordovaSi, santo tirsoSi. audiomagaliTi 2. masadela, moZiebulia 1940 wels armando lesas mier vila maiorSi. audiomagaliTebis sia 555 07. velika stoikova-serafimovska (makedonia) audiomagaliTi 1. Shto pile poje (ras galobs Citi?), ritualuri simRera aRmosavleT makedoniidan, sof. istibania. asr. qalTa trio sof. istibaniidan. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 1978. audiomagaliTi 2. More son sonila (is ocnebobs), mamakacebis simRera tetovos regionidan. asrulebs jgufi Bistri vodi. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 2003. audiomagaliTi 3.OOj Jelenchice (oi, ielenCice), qalTa simRera skopies mTiani regionidan. asrulebs jgufi Bistri vodi. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 2003. audiomagaliTi 4. More da bi znalo (Sen rom icode), mamakacebis simRera pirineis makedoniidan. asrulebs jgufi Pirinski Gavraci. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 1980. audiomagaliTi 5. Kalina grlo boleshe (kalinas yeli stkiva), qalTa simRera gevgelias regionidan, samxreT makedonia. asrulebs qalTa jgufi gevgelias regionidan. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 1978. audiomagaliTi 6.AAjde mori Stojno, le (Sen gogov, stoino), qalTa simRera kosturis regionidan, aegianis makedoniidan. asrulebs jgufi Bistri vodi. Cawerilia makedoniis erovnuli radios mier, 2003. 08. eno koCo (albaneTi) audiomagaliTi 1. girokasteris nugbari (alban. Thëllëzë e Gjirokastrës), girokasteris vokaluri ansambli, albaneTi _ vokaluri polifonia, INEDIT, Auvidis distribution, 1995. audiomagaliTi 2. wm. ioane kukuzeli, Anagrammatismos, XIV s. Sua saukuneebis bizantiuri galoba, Cappella Romana, Ioannis Arvanitis, Gothic Records, Seattle, USA. audiomagaliTi 3. wm. ioane kukuzeli, damifare, o, didebulo!, krebulidan Mathimata (Psalms-Sticheron-Kratima), berZnul-bizantiuri gundi, xelmZRvaneli l. angelopulosi, Editions Jade, 1995. audiomagaliTi 4. zeTisxilis xesTan (alban. Ne ulliri’), jgufi Dodona, Fier, Trashëgimia shpirtërore, Ministria e Kulturës, Rinisë dhe Sporteve, 2003. audiomagaliTi 5. dedam cxvrebis samwyemsad gamgzavna (alban. Më dërgoi nëna me dele; in Aromanian: Niqisië dadaë, Andon Poçi) polifoniuri simRerebi, cocxali Sesruleba palasSi, Eurodisc S.A.5 556 audiomagaliTebis sia audiomagaliTi 6. erT SabaT Rames (berZn. Ένα Σάββατο βράδυ������������������� ), POGDORIANI/KATAGRAFES TRAGOUDION STON PARAKALAMO-DIMOS ANO KALAMA - VASILIS RAPTIS (2CD AND VIVLIO). audiomagaliTi 7. Asate Kyrie pirveli xma, krebulSi L’Antica Melurgia Bizantina, badia greka di grotaferatas melurgiuli skolis gundi, xelmZRvaneli padre lorenco tardo, Cawerilia 1953-1956 w.w. 09. viqtoria samsonaZe (saqarTvelo) audiomagaliTi 1. win sufra. asr. maro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi. audiomagaliTi 2. oqromWedelo. asr. maro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi. audiomagaliTi 3. orovela-guTnuri (xarma Tqva pirma naTelman). Semsrulebeli ucnobia. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTi 4. sanTlis guTans avaSeneb. Semsrulebeli ucnobia. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTi 5. mtredma Tavis siamiTa. Semsrulebeli arCil vebsaZe, q. axalqalaqi. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTi 6. oTxi wyaro dis. asr.Mmaro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi. audiomagaliTi 7. Zimuri. asr. maro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi audiomagaliTi 8. mze Sina. Semsrulebeli ucnobia. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTi 9. mamli muxasa. Semsrulebeli ucnobia. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTi 10.Lsamyrelo. asr. ansambli ,,mesxeTi~. xelmZRv. zaza TamaraSvili. audiomagaliTi 11. Wona. Semsrulebeli ucnobia. Cawerilia 1950-60-ian wlebSi. v. maRraZis audioarqivi. audiomagaliTebis sia 557 audiomagaliTi 12. lazare. asr. maro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999 w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi. audiomagaliTi 13. avTandil gadinadira. asr. ansambli ,,mesxeTi~. xelmZRv. zaza TamaraSvili. audiomagaliTi 14. iavnana. asr. maro JuJunaZe. sof.Mmusxi. 1999w. v. samsonaZis piradi arqivi. 10. daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene (litva) audiomagaliTi 1. Oi tu aglala (o, mSveniero). Cawerilia 1965 w. brone bogujiene-vamelitesagan, 63 w., lazdiais regioni. gaSifra gierde razmukaitem (Četkauskaitė, 2007, N91). audiomagaliTi 2. Oi, aš pjaunu (o, me Wvavs vmki). Semsr. katre Jilinskiene, 68 w. sof. andriunai, alitusis regioni. Cawerilia 1938 w. LTR pl. 910(4) (Nakienė and Žarskienė, 2005, N16). audiomagaliTi 3. Atjoc berneliu (Seyvarebuli biWi cxeniT mova). eduard volterma sof. perloiaSi (1909). gaSifra audrone vakarinienem (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė, 2011, N28). audiomagaliTi 4. Šių tamsių naktełį (aq gogonebi ar mRerian). Caiwera eduard volterma sof. gudakiemisSi (1909). gaSifra audrone vakarinienem (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė, 2011, N31). audiomagaliTi 5. Oi, aš pjaunu (gza grZelia am bnel Rames). Caiwera eduard volterma sof. gudakiemisSi (1909). gaSifra audrone vakarinienem (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė, 2011, N35). audiomagaliTi 6. Жетва се зажнева (o, me vTibav maRal mTaze). Semsr. mitra da stoina tasevskebi, sof. milano, svetinikolsko; AIF m.l. 2149. Cawerili da gaSifrulia duSko dimitrovskis mier 1971 wels (Rodna Veličkovs-ka, 2002: 133, nr. 23). audiomagaliTi 7. Vaikšcinėjo tėvulis (koliko vranskos mindorze). Sesrulebulia sofel lieponis (Trakais raioni) momRerlebis mier. Cawera daiva viCinienem 2000 wels (Vyčinienė, Daiva (comp.) Dzūkija. Pietų dzūkų dainos. Lietuvių tradicinė muzika ‘Dzūkija. Songs of Southern Dzūkai. Lithuanian Traditional Music’. Vilnius, 2000, Nr. 4.). 11. Jana partlasi (estoneTi) audiomagaliTi 1. saqorwilo simRera Hähkäminõ. asruldebs gundi helmine sofel mikitamaedan (1998). 558 12. gerda lexlaitneri, franc lexlaitneri (avstria), nona lomiZe (avstria/ saqarTvelo) audiomagaliTi 1. Cven mSvidoba. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2751. audiomagaliTi 2. Cven mSvidoba (maspinZelsa mxiarulsas teqstze). Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2752. audiomagaliTi 3. maspinZelsa mxiarulsa. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2752. audiomagaliTi 4. Cven mSvidoba. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2753. audiomagaliTi 5. maspinZelsa mxiarulsa. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2753. audiomagaliTi 6. Cven mSvidoba (bani). Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2754. audiomagaliTi 7. maspinZelsa mxiarulsa (bani). Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2754. audiomagaliTi 8. Cven mSvidoba. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2755. audiomagaliTi 9. maspinZelsa mxiarulsa. Cawerilia r. laxis mier. venis fonogramarqivi, Ph 2755. 13. mrgvali magida I: arturo telo (espaneTi) audiomagaliTi 1. Cunctipotens genitor Deus. santiago de kompostelas kaTedralis kaliqtinusis kodeqsidan (XII s.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoe2_AmxoQ audiomagaliTi 2. Organum / Kyrie Trope: Cunctipotens genitor Deus (1 xma, 3 xma) http://www. medieval.org/emfaq/cds/op1-102.htm audiomagaliTi 3. Kyrie cunctipotens http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/cpu301.htm 559 videomagaliTebis sia 01. maria de sao xose korte reali, rosario pestana (portugalia) videomagaliTi 1. masadelas akusomografis Canaweri (pirveli nawili). 02. giorgi (gigi) garayaniZe (saqarTvelo) videomagaliTi 1. Sroma (imeruli naduri) _ ediSer garayaniZis eqspediciidan, vanis r-is sof. yumuri. satelevizio gadacema, reJ. dim. gugunava (ediSer garayaniZis komentarebiT), 1988 (garayaniZe, 2008: video No. 3, 05:11 wT.-dan). videomagaliTi 2. zedaSis iavnana videomagaliTi 3. RvTis karze saTqmeli iavnana 03. gerda lexlaitneri, franc lexlaitneri (avstria), nona lomiZe (avstria/ saqarTvelo) videomagaliTi 1. Cven mSvidoba. rekonstruirebuli varianti. Semsruleblebi: levarsi mamalaZe, anzor erqomaiSvili. gadaRebulia nona lomiZis mier, 2012 wlis agvisto. nona lomiZis piradi arqivi. videomagaliTi 2. maspinZelsa mxiarulsa. rekonstruirebuli varianti. Semsruleblebi: levarsi mamalaZe, anzor erqomaiSvili. gadaRebulia nona lomiZis mier, 2012 wlis agvisto. nona lomiZis piradi arqivi. 04. mrgvali magida I _ suzan rankini (didi britaneTi) videomagaliTi 1. Verbum patris. asrulebs ansambli Sequentia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShNPEnkqCcA Published on YouTube on Mar 12, 2013 videomagaliTi 2. Orientis partibus. Sua saukuneebis saSobao himni, asrulebs klivlendis gundi, ros v. diufinis diriJorobiT. Sesrulebulia klivlendisa da ohaios samebis kaTedralur taZarSi, 2010, 3-4 dekemberi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn--eGxF8p4 560 LIST OF AUDIO EXAMPLES 01. JELENA JOVANOVIĆ (SERBIA) Audio example 1. Female choir “St. John of Damascus”, Cherub Hymn (fragment), First mode of Byzantine octoechos. Recording from the liturgy in church St. Alexander Nevskii, Belgrade (21 September 1994). Audio example 2. Predrag Stojković and Vladimir Simić, Ezgija on two kavals. Recorded on the concert of the ensemble Iskon, Ethnographic Museum, Belgrade (5 December 1998, rec. by Zoran Jerković). 02. NAILIA ALMEEVA (RUSSIA) Audio example 1. Kryashen Tatars, Pestretsi group, Pestretsi area of Tatarstan. Maslenitsa song. Recorded (1992) by Nailya Almeeva. Audio example 2. East Mari, Yelabuga group, Yelabuga area of Tatarstan. Recruit song. Recorded (1978) by Oleg Gerasimov. Audio example 3. Chuvashes, Anatri group, Kanash area of Chuvazhiya. Drinking song. Recorded (1987) by Nailya Almeeva. 03. TAMAZ GABISONIA (GEORGIA) Voices of the World: An Anthology of Vocal Expression. An Anthology of Vocal Exspression. Collection du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et du Musée de l’Homme. France. 1996. CD I #34. Solomon Islands, Guadalcanal: Women’s song, rope repertoire. CD II #20. Papua New Guinea [Iatmul]: Voices of the mai spirits. CD III #7. Indonesia, Sulawesi [Toraja]: Men’s chorus, manimbon. CD III #15. Macedonia: Rain-making song, dodole. CD III #20. Georgia, Svaneti: Male funerary chorus, zar. CD III #25. Albania [Lab]: Male corus, himarioce. 561 04. MIKHAIL LOBANOV (RUSSIA) Audio example 1. FA KNTS - Fonogramarkhiv Instituta jazyka, literatury i istorii Karelskogo Nauchnogo Tsentra RAN [ Phonogramarchiv ....of Karelian Scientific... of RAN]. Audio example 2. Joik – The Magic of Sámi Yoik N.-A. Valkeapää - Finlandia: 3984-22112-2, (CD). Audio example 3. Pechora – disk D 025677/78. Audio example 4. Samiska – Samiska röster: Karl Tirén’s Phonograph recordings 1913 - 1915. CVCD (CD). Audio example 5. VKY 2000 - Kelkettelyeänijä eli. Viena Karelian Yoiks. ISRC FI-KM8-00-00001-18 SKSCD 4 (CD). 05. RIE KÔCHI (JAPAN) Audio example 1. Circle dance song urara suye e kamuy sinta atuy tun na e tunun paye in Kushiro recorded in 1947; selected from CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR155B, the source is held by the Hokkaido Prefectural Library). Audio example 2. Circle dance song hoy ya a a hoy ya o o ho hoy ho hoy ya in Asahikawa recorded in 1947; selected from CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR152B, the source is held by the Hokkaido Prefectural Library). Audio example 3. Circle dance song matnaw rera apaca osma uran nisi kanto korikin in Kushiro recorded in 1947; selected from CHIRI-NHK (1948:C-PR155B, the source is held by the Hokkaido Prefectural Library). 06. MARIA DE SÃO JOSÉ CÔTRTE-REAL, ROSÁRIO PESTANA (PORTUGAL) Audio example 1. Trai-larai, collected by Vergílio Pereira in Monte-Córdova, Santo Tirso, in 1958. Audio example 2. Massadela or Maçadeira, collected by Armando Leça in Vila Maior, S. Pedro do Sul, in 1940. 07. VELIKA STOJKOVA-SERAFIMOVSKA (MACEDONIA) Audio example 1. Shto pile poje (What is the bird singing? ), ritual song from Eastern Macedonia, village Istibanja, performed by female trio from the village of Istibanja, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 1978. Audio example 2. More son sonila (She dreamt a dream ), male song from Tetovo region, performed by the group Bistri vodi, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 2003. Audio example 3. Oj Jelenchice (Oj, Yelenchice ), female song from Skopje highland region, performed by 562 the group Bistri vodi, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 2003. Audio example 4. More da bi znalo (If only you could know ), male song from Paring/Macedonia, performed by Pirinski Gavraci trio, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 1980. Audio example 5. Kalina grlo boleshe (Kalina had a sore throat), female song from Gevgellija region, South Macedonia, performed by female group from Gevgelija, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 1978. Audio example 6. Ajde mori Stojno, le (O you Stoino girl), female song from Kostur region, Aegian Macedonia, performed by the group Bistri vodi, recorded at Macedonian National Radio, 2003. 08. ENO KOҪO (ALBANIA) Audio example 1. Thëllëzë e Gjirokastrës (Dainty of Gjirokastër). Vocal Ensemble of Gjirokastër. INEDIT, Albanie – polyphonies vocales du pays Lab, Auvidis distribution, 1995. Audio example 2. Anagrammatismos, St. John Koukouzelis, 14th c.; Medieval Byzantine Chant. Cappella Romana, Ioannis Arvanitis, Gothic Records, Seattle, USA. Audio example 3. Protect, O Most Glorious, in Ioannis Koukouzelis, Mathimata (Psalms-Sticheron-Kratima), Greek Byzantine Choir, directed by L. Angeloopoulos. 1995 Editions Jade. Audio example 4. Në ulliri (At the Olive Tree). Dodona Group. Fier, Trashëgimia shpirtërore, Ministria e Kulturës, Rinisë dhe Sporteve, 2003. Audio example 5. Më dërgoi nëna me dele (My mother sent me to look after the sheep) (in Albanian: Më dërgoi nëna me dele; in Aromanian: Niqisië dadaë, Andon Poçi), Πολυφωνικά τραγούδια (Polyphonic Songs), Live in Pallas, Eurodisc S.A. Audio example 6. Ena savato vradhi (One Saturday Night) POGDORIANI/KATAGRAFES TRAGOUDION STON PARAKALAMO-DIMOS ANO KALAMA _ VASILIS RAPTIS (2CD AND VIVLIO). Audio example 7. Asate Kyrie. First Tone. L’Antica Melurgia Bizantina. Coro della Schola Melurgica della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata diretto da Padre Lorenzo Tardo, registrazioni 1953-1956). 09. VICTORIA SAMSONADZE (GEORGIA) Audio example 1. Tsin supra. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. Audio example 2. Okromchedelo. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. 563 Audio example 3. Orovela-gutnuri (kharma tkva pirma natelman). unknown performer, recorded in the 1950s-1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 4. Santlis gutans avasheneb. unknown performer, recorded in the 1950s-1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 5. Mtredma tavis siamita. performer Archil Vebsadze, Akhalkalaki, , recorded in the 1950s1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 6. Otkhi tsqaro dis. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. Audio example 7. Dzimuri. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. Audio example 8. Mze shina. unknown performer, recorded in the 1950s-1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 9. Mamli mukhasa. unknown performer, recorded in the 1950s-1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 10. Samqrelo. ensemble “Meskheti”, directed by Zaza Tamarshvili. Audio example 11. Chona. unknown performer, recorded in the 1950s-1960s. V. Maghradze’s audio archive. Audio example 12. Lazare. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. Audio example 13. Avtandil gadinadira. ensemble “Meskheti”, directed by Zaza Tamarshvili. Audio example 14. Iavnana. performer Maro Zhuzhnadze, village of Muskhi, 1999. From V. Samsonadze’s personal archive. 10. DAIVA RAČIŪNAITĖ-VYČINIENĖ (LITHUENIA) Audio example 1. Oi tu aglala (Oh, you spruce). Recorded in 1965 from Bronė Bogušienė-Varnelytė, 63, Lazdijai district. Transcribed by Giedrė Razmukaitė (Četkauskaitė 2007, N 91). Audio example 2. Oi, aš pjaunu (Oh, I am cutting the rye). Sung by Katrė Šilinskienė, age 68, Andriūnai village, Alytus district. Recorded in1938; LTR pl. 910(4) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2005, N 16). 564 Audio example 3. Atjoc berneliu (The dear boy will ride). Recorded by Eduard Wolter in Perloja village (1909); transcribed by Audronė Vakarinienė (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N 28). Audio example 4. Šių tamsių naktełį (The road is long on this dark night). Recorded by Eduard Wolter in Gudakiemis village (1909); transcribed by Audronė Vakarinienė (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N 31). Audio example 5. Oi, aš pjaunu (Oh, I scythe on the high hill’). Recorded by Eduard Wolter in Gudakiemis village (1909); transcribed by Audronė Vakarinienė (2010) (Nakienė and Žarskienė 2011, N 35). Audio example 6. Zhetva se zazhneva (Harvesting song).Sung by Mitra and Stojna Tasevski, Vill. Malino, Svetinikolsko; AIF m.l. 2149. Recorded and transcribed by Duško Dimitrovski in 1971 (Rodna Veličkovska 2002: 133, N 23). Audio example 7. Vaikščiojo tėvulis pabarėmis parugėmis (Father walked along the rye field). Sung by singers from Lieponys village, Trakai district; recorded by Daiva Vyčinienė in 2000 (Vyčinienė, Daiva (comp.) Dzūkija. Pietų dzūkų dainos. Lietuvių tradicinė muzika ‘Dzūkija. Songs of Southern Dzūkai. Lithuanian Traditional Music’. Vilnius, 2000. N 4). 11. ŽANNA PӒRTLAS (ESTONIA) Audio example 1. The wedding song Hähkäminõ, performed by the Helmine choir from Mikitamäe village in 1998. 12. GERDA LECHLEITNER, FRANZ LECHLEITNER (AUSTRIA), NONA LOMIDZE (AUSTRIA/GEORGIA) Audio example 1. Chven mshvidoba, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2751. Audio example 2. Chven mshvidoba (on the text of Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa), recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2752. Audio example 3. Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2752. Audio example 4. Chven mshvidoba, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2753. Audio example 5. Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2753. Audio example 6. Chven mshvidoba (bass), recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2754. Audio example 7. Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa (bass), recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2754. Audio example 8. Chven mshvidoba, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2755. 565 Audio example 9. Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa, recorded by R. Lach.Vienna Phonogrammarchiv, Ph 2755. 13. ROUND TABLE I _ ARTURO TELLO RUIZ-PEREZ (SPAIN) Audio example 1. Cunctipotens genitor Deus. Codex Calixtinus of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela (XII c.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoe2_AmxoQ Audio example 2. Organum/Kyrie Trope: Cunctipotens genitor Deus (voice, 3 voices) http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/op1-102.htm Audio example 3. Kyrie cunctipotens http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/cpu301.htm 566 LIST OF VIDEO EXAMPLES 01. MARIA DE SÃO JOSÉ CÔTRTE-REAL, ROSÁRIO PESTANA (PORTUGAL) Video example 1. Acousmograph of Massadela (first part). 02. GIORGI (GIGI) GARAKANIDZE (GEORGIA) Video example 1. Shroma (Imeretian naduri) _ from Edisher Garaqanidze’s expedition, village of Qumuri, Vani district; television program prod. D. Gugunava (with Edisher Garaqanidze’s comments), 1988 (Garaqanidze, 2008: video #3, from 05:11). Video example 2. Zedashis Iavnana. Video example 3. Ghvtis karze satkmeli iavnana. 03. GERDA LECHLEITNER, FRANZ LECHLEITNER (AUSTRIA), NONA LOMIDZE (AUSTRIA/GEORGIA) Video example 1. Chven mshvidoba, reconstructed variant; performers: Levarsi Mamaladze, Anzor Erkomaishvili; filmed by Nona Lomidze, August, 2012. Nona Lomidze’s personal archive. Video example 2. Maspindzelsa mkhiarulsa, reconstructed variant; performers: Levarsi Mamaladze, Anzor Erkomaishvili; filmed by Nona Lomidze, August, 2012. Nona Lomidze’s personal archive. 04. ROUND TABLE I _ SUSAN RANKIN (UK) Video example 1. Verbum patris. Performed by Sequentia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShNPEnkqCcA Published on YouTube on Mar 12, 2013 Video example 2. Orientis partibus Medieval Carol for Quire.Performed by Quire Cleveland, conducted by Ross W. Duffin, performing at Trinity Cathedral, Cleveland OH, December 3-4, 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn _ eGxF8p4 568 avtorebis Sesaxeb (krebulSi maTi ganTavsebis mixedviT) CONTRIBUTORS (In the order of appearance in the volume) ioseb Jordania, xelovnebaTmcodneobis doqtori, melburnis universitetis musikis konservatoriis wamyvani mecnier-TanamSromeli (avstralia, saqarTvelo) Joseph Jordania, Doctor in Arts, Honorary Fellow at the Melbourne Conservatorium of Music University of Melbourne (Australia, Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: josephjordania@yahoo.com.au elena iovanoviCi, eTnomusikologiis doqtori, belgradis musikologiis institutis mecnier-TanamSromeli (saqarTvelo) Jelena Jovanović, PhD in Ethnomusicology, Research Associate at the Institute of Musicology in Belgrad (Serbia) el. fosta / E-mail: Jelena.Jovanovic@music.sanu.ac.rs nino ciciSvili, folosofiis doqtori. melburnis monaSis universitetis mecnier-TanamSromeli (avstralia, saqarTvelo) Nino Tsitsishvili, Ph.D, Adjunct Research Fellow at the School of Music/Conservatorium at Monash University (Australia, Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: nino.tsitsishvili@unimelb.edu.au nailia almeeva, doqtori xelovnebis istoriaSi, eTnomusikologi, ruseTis xelovnebis istoriis institutis folkloris ganyofilebis ufrosi mecnier-TanamSromeli (ruseTi) Nailia Almeeva, PhD in Art History, Ethnomusicologist, Senior Researcher at the Folklore Department at the Russian Institute of Art History (Russia) el. fosta / E-mail: almeeva@yandex.ru maT harvi, doqtori, iuristi, melburnis viqtorias universitetis ufrosi maswavlebeli (avstralia) Matt Harvey, PhD, Lower, Senior Lecturer in Law at Victoria University in Melbourne (Australia) el. fosta / E-mail: Matt.Harvey@vu.edu.au 569 barbara elisoni, saxviTi xelovnebis bakalavri, musikisa da mediis Mmagistri, hudersfildis universitetis doqtoranti (niderlandebi) Barbara Ellison, BA in Fine Arts, MA in Music and technologies. PhD candidate at the University of Huddersfield (Netherlands) el. fosta / E-mail: barbaraellison@gmail.com nino fircxalava, sasuliero musikis mkvlevari, Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis xalxuri musikaluri Semoqmedebis laboratoriis TanamSromeli (saqarTvelo) Nino Pirtskhalava, Researcher of Sacred Music, employee of the Georgian Folk Music Laboratory of Tbilisi State Conservatoire (Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: ninopirtskhalava@yahoo.com gia baRaSvili, xelovnebaTmcodneobis doqtori, eTnomusikologi (saqarTvelo) Gia Baghashvili, Doctor of Arts, Ethnomusicology (Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: bagashviligia@yahoo.com marina qavTaraZe, xelovnebaTmcodneobis doqtori, profesori, Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis musikis istoriis mimarTulebis xelmZRvaneli (saqarTvelo) Marina Kavtaradze, Doctor of Arts, Professor, Head of the Department of Music History at Tbilisi State Conservatoire (Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: mkavtaradze@gmail.com andrea kuzmiCi, filosofiis doqtori, eTnomusikologi (kanada) Andrea Kuzmich, Ph.D in Ethnomusicology (Canada) el. fosta / E-mail: singinkuz@gmail.com Tamaz gabisonia, musikologiis doqtori, ilias saxelmwifo universitetis asocirebuli profesori (saqarTvelo) Tamaz Gabisonia, Doctor of Musicology, Associate Professor of the Ilia State University (Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: tamazgabisonia@yahoo.com kae hisaoka, osakas universitetis doqtoranti literaturasa da musikologiaSi (iaponia) Kae Hisaoka, Doctoral student in Literature and Musicology at Osaka University (Japan) el. fosta / E-mail: kaehisaoka67@gmail.com 570 su vei, Ceng dus saxalxo politikuri sakonsultacio konferenciis ganaTlebis, kulturis, janmrTelobisa da sportis komitetis asocirebuli direqtori (CineTi) Su Wei, Associate Director of Science and Education, Culture, Health and Sports Committee of Cheng du People’s Political Consultative Conference. President of the Academy of Culture and Art (China) (China) el. fosta / E-mail: cdshs115@163.com uang qi, iuneskos janmrTelobis komitetis CineTis ganyofilebis, Ceng dus saxalxo kongresis mudmivi komitetis Tavjdomaris moadgile, wiTeli jvris vice prezidenti (CineTi) Wang Qi, Vice Chairman of the Health Committee of UNESCO of China, Chengdu People’s Congress Standing Committee, Chengdu, Vice President of the Red Cross (China) el. fosta / E-mail: cdshs115@163.com maria de sao xose korte-reali, doqtori, nova de lisboas universitetis mecnier-TanamSromeli (portugalia) Maria De Sao Jose Corte-Real, PhD, Associate Researcher at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal) el. fosta / E-mail: saojose@fcsh.unl.pt mixail lobanovi, xelovnebaTmcodneobis doqtori, ruseTis saxelmwifo pedagogiuri universitetis profesori, ruseTis xelovnebis istoriis institutis wamyvani mecnier-TanamSromeli (ruseTi) Mikhail Lobanov, Doctor of Arts, Professor at Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, Leading Scientific Worker at the Russian Institute of History of Arts (Russia) el. fosta / E-mail: malobanov@yandex.ru anda beitane, doqtori, iazeps vitolsis musikis akademiis profesori (latvia) Anda Beitāne, Doctor, Professor of Jāzeps Vītols Latvian Academy of Music (Latvia) el. fosta / E-mail: anda.beitane@jvlma.lv nino RambaSiZe, istoriis mecnierebaTa doqtori, iv. javaxiSvilis sax. istoriisa da eTnologiis institutis TanamSromeli (saqarTvelo) Nino Ghambashidze, Doctor of Historical Sciences, employee at the Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology (Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: nino_ghambashidze1955@yahoo.com 571 rie koCi, eTnomusikologiis magistri, musikis pedagogi (iaponia) Rie Kôchi, MA in Ethnomusicology, Music Educator (Japan) el. fosta / E-mail: kochi.rie@pref.hokkaido.lg.jp rosario pestana, filosofiis doqtori, aveiros universitetis asocirebuli profesori (portugalia) Rosario Pestana, PhD Associate Professor at the Universidade de Aveiro (Portugal) el. fosta / E-mail: mrosariopestana@gmail.com giorgi (gigi) garayaniZe † istoriis mecnierebaTa magistri eTnologiaSi (saqarTvelo) Giorgi (Gigi) Garakanidze † MA of Historical Sciences in Ethnology (Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: meilia-kanudos@yahoo.com velika stoikova-serafimovska, filosofiis doqtori, eTnomusikologi (makedonia) Velika Stojkova-Serafimovska, PhD in Ethnomusicology (Macedonia) el. fosta / E-mail: lika73@yahoo.com eno koCo, doqtori, lidsis universitetis asocirebuli profesori (albaneTi) Eno Koço, PhD, Associate Professor at Leeds University (Albania) el. fosta / E-mail: enokoco1@hotmail.com meTiu naiTi, ilinoisis universitetis doqtoranti (aSS) Mattew Knight, A doctoral student in ethnomusicology at the University of Illinois (USA) el. fosta / E-mail: jacob_eiserman@hotmail.com viqtoria samsonaZe, musikismcodneobis magistri (saqarTvelo) Viktoria Samsonadze, MA of Musicology (Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: vikanababi@yahoo.com daiva raCiunaite-viCiniene, xelovnebaTmcodneobis doqtori, litvis musikaluri akademiis eTnomusikologiis kaTedris gamge da docenti (litva) Daiva Račiūnaitė-Vičinienė, Doctor of Arts, Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Ethnomusicology at the Academy of Music (Lithuania) el. fosta / E-mail: daivavy@lmta.lt 572 Jana partlasi, musikologiis doqtori, estoneTis musikisa da Teatris akademiis asocirebuli profesori (estoneTi) Žanna Pärtlas, Doctor of Musicology, Associate Professor of the Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre (Estonia) el. fosta / E-mail: zhanna@ema.edu.ee suzan cigleri, eTnomusikologi. berlinis fonogramarqivisa da berlinis eTnologiuri muzeumis eTnomusikologiis ganyofilebis TanamSromeli (germania) Susanne Ziegler, Ethnomusicologist. Employee at Berlin Phonogramm-Archiv and Ethnomusicology department of the Ethnological Museum of Berlin (Germany) el. fosta / E-mail: susanne.drziegler@web.de gerda lexlaitneri, musikologi, avstriis mecnierebaTa akademiis venis fonogramarqivis istoriuli koleqciis kuratori da kompaqturi diskebis seriis redaqtori (avstria) Gerda Lechleitner, Musicologist. Curator of the historical collections and the editor of the CD series at the Phonogrammarchiv, Centre for Linguistics and Audiovisual Documentation, of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna (Austria) el. fosta / E-mail: Gerda.Lechleitner@oeaw.ac.at franc lexlaitneri, komunikaciebis inJineri, muSaobda avstriis mecnierebaTa akademiis fonogramarqivis wamyvan teqnikosad (avstria) Franz Lechleitner, communications engineer. Worked as technician in the Phonogrammarchiv of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (Austria) el. fosta / E-mail: franz.lechleitner@chello.at nona lomiZe, xelovnebis magistri, avstriis mecnierebaTa akademiis venis fonogramarqivis StatgareSe TanamSromeli (avstria, saqarTvelo) Nona Lomidze, MA in Arts. Freelancer at the Vienna Phonogamm-archive of the Austrian Academy of Science (Austria) el. fosta / E-mail: nona.lomidze.music@gmail.com bo lavergreni, filosofiis doqtori (birTvuli fizika), niu iorkis siTi universitetis hanT kolejis fizikis emeritus profesori (aSS) Bo Lawergren, PhD (Nuclear Physics), Professor Emeritus of Physics at Hunter College of the City University of New York (USA) el. fosta / E-mail: bo.lawergren@hunter.cuny.edu 573 rusudan wurwumia, xelovnebaTmcodneobis doqtori, Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis emeritus profesori. tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centris direqtori (saqarTvelo) Rusudan Tsurtsumia, Dr. of Arts, Professor Emeritus of Tbilisi State Conservatoire, Director of the International Research Center for traditional Polyphony (Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: rusiko.tsurtsumia@gmail.com simha aromi, doqtori, parizis samecniero kvlevis erovnuli centris sapatio direqtori (safrangeTi) Simha Arom, Dr., Emeritus Research Director at the Paris National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) (France) el. fosta / E-mail: simha.arom@gmail.com polo valeho, eTnomusikologiis doqtori, kompozitori da pedagogi (espaneTi) Polo Vallejo, Doctor in Ethnomusicology, Composer and Pedagogue (Spain) el. fosta / E-mail: polovallejo@gmail.com piter goldi, eTnomusikologi da anTropologi (aSS) Peter Gold, An ethnomusicologist and anthropologist (USA) el. fosta / E-mail: peter@ancientwaysproject.org suzan rankini, doqtori, kembrijis universitetis profesori (didi britaneTi) Susan Rankin, Holds a personal chair in the University of Cambridge as Professor of Medieval Music (Great Britain) el. fosta / E-mail: skr1000@cam.ac.uk svimon (jiqi) jangulaSvili, musikologiis doqtori, Tbilisis yovladwmida samebis sakaTedro taZris sapatriarqo gundis regenti (saqarTvelo) Svimon (Jiki) Jangulashvili, PhD in Musicology, Director of the Holy Trinity Cathedral Church Choir of the Georgian Patriarchy (Georgia) el. fosta / E-mail: svimon.jangulashvili@gmail.com 574 simpoziumis organizatorebi mxardaWerisa da xelSewyobisaTvis madlobas uxdian: saqarTvelos prezidents saqarTvelos kulturisa da ZeglTa dacvis saministros amerikis saelCos saqarTveloSi da q-n lola petrovas guriis, imereTis, kaxeTis, mesxeTis, mcxeTa-mTianeTis, samegrelosa da zemo svaneTis, svaneTisa da raWa-leCxumis, qvemo qarTlis, Sida qarTlis samxareo adminitraciebsa da qedis municipalitets folkloris saxelmwifo centrs kavkasiur saxls saqarTvelos qalTa sabWos iaponiis kulturuli mekvidreobisa da xelovnebis kvlevis fonds sazogadoebriv mauwyebels saqarTvelos sapatriarqos televizias erTsulovneba folkradios radio muzas gazeT 24 saaTs Jurnal cxel Sokolads Tbilisi OUT-s stafanwmindisa da xevis mTavarepiskopos iegudiels (tabataZe) kaxa zukakiSvils, saaqcio sazogadoeba Telavis Rvinis marani jumber kopalians, dmanisis arqeologiuri eqspediciis xelmZRvanels jon vurdemans, kompania xoxbis cremlebi, siRnaRi wignis gamomcemlebi madlobas uxdian: baton bob segreivs (avstralia) qarTveli avtorebis inglisuri teqstebis stilisturi CasworebisTvis 575 THE SYMPOSIUM ORGANIZERS ARE MOST GRATEFUL TO: PREZIDENT OF GEORGIA MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND MONUMENTS PROTECTION OF GEORGIA USA EMBASSY IN GEORGIA AND MRS. LOLA PETROVA REGIONAL ADMINISTR5ATIONS OF GURIA, IMERETI, KAKHETI, MESKHETI, MTSKHETAMTIANETI, SAMEGRELO AND ZEMO SVANETI, SVANETI AND RACHA-LECHKHUMI, KVEMO KARTLI, SHIDA KARTLI AND KEDA MUNICIPALITY STATE FOLK CENTER CAUCASIAN HOUSE GEORGIAN WOMEN’S COUNCIL JAPANESE FOUNDATION for CULTURAL HERITAGE and ART RESEARCH PUBLIC BROADCASTER OF GEORGIA ERTSULOVNEBA, TELEVISION OF GEROGIAN PATRIARCHY FOLK RADIO RADIO MUZA NEWSPAPER 24 SAATI TSKHELI SHOKOLADI MAGAZINE TBILISI OUT IEGUDIEL (TABATADZE), Archibishop of Stephantsminda and Khevi KAKHA ZUKAKISHVILI, Corporation Telavi Vine Marani, Telavi JUMBER KOPALIANI, Head of Dmanisi Archeological Expedition JOHN WURDEMAN, Company Pheasants’ Tears, Sighnaghi THE PUBLISHERS ARE GREATFUL TO: Mr. BOB SEGRAVE (Australia) who provided the stylistic check of the English versions of Georgian authors’ papers 576 simpoziumi Catarda saqarTvelos prezidentis baton mixeil saakaSvilis patronaJiT THE SYMPOSIUM WAS HELD UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF Mr. MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI, PREZIDENT OF GEORGIA simpoziumis organizatorebi: Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoria saqarTvelos kulturisa da ZeglTa dacvis saministro qarTuli xalxuri simReris saerTaSoriso centri ORGANIZERS OF THE SYMPOSIUM: THE TBILISI STATE CONSERVATOIRE MUNISTRY OF CULTURE AND MONUMENTS OF GEORGIA THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE OF GEORGIAN FOLK SONG simpoziumi Catarda Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriaSi THE SYMPOSIUM WAS HELD AT THE TBILISI STATE CONSERVATOIRE Tbilisis saxelmwifo konservatoriis tradiciuli mravalxmianobis kvlevis saerTaSoriso centri INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER FOR TRADITIONAL POLYPHONY OF TBILISI STATE CONSERVATOIRE 0108, Tbilisi, griboedovis q. 8/10 8/10, GRIBOEDOV STR., TBILISI, 0108, GEORGIA tel./PHONE: (+995 32) 2998953 faqsi/FAX: (+995 32) 2987187 el-fosta/E-MAIL: polyphony@conservatoire.edu.ge www.polyphony.ge qarTuli xalxuri simReris saerTaSoriso centri THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE OF GEORGIAN FOLK SONG 0164, Tbilisi, aRmaSeneblis gamz. 103 103, AGMASHENEBELI AVE., TBILISI, 0164, GEORGIA tel./PHONE: (+995 32) 2959473 el-fosta/E-MAIL: icgfs@yahoo.com