Project Report - Institut 13: Ethnomusikologie

Transcription

The Research Project
Virtual Gamelan Graz:
Disclosing Implicit Musical Knowledge
funded by the Austrian Science Fund FWF, 2012-2015
(AR 143-G21)
Summary
2
Project implementation
3
Results: achievements and shortcomings
10
Conclusions
22
Presentation of the project in papers, publications, and public performances
23
References cited
24
Main collaborators
26
Compiled by Gerd Grupe
Graz, Oct. 2015
Final Report: FWF Project Virtual Gamelan Graz (AR 143-G21)
Summary
The project aimed at investigating ways of unveiling tacit knowledge on musical concepts and current
performance practice of classical Central Javanese gamelan music (karawitan) with the help of
computer-assisted listening experiments. The two main areas to be studied were first, the way in
which a given composition is actually transformed into a live performance (garap); second, the
evaluation of the specific tuning of individual gamelan sets (embat). In the course of the project an
attempt was made to program dedicated software that would emulate both an ensemble of gamelan
musicians as well as the sound of various fixed-pitch gamelan instruments and drums.
In spite of some progress towards implementing musical rules and performance principles of
karawitan as well as facilitating the control of sound and tuning of virtual gamelan instruments, it
turned out that within the project’s time frame an operational, autonomous software
implementation could not be achieved. Therefore, as far as musical rules are concerned efforts were
focused on preparing computer-generated audio examples which manually incorporated existing
explicit knowledge so that an evaluation by Javanese experts would reveal shortcomings due to tacit
assumptions disregarded in our virtual renditions. Concerning embat published measurements of 12
traditional (6 sléndro and 6 pélog) and two American gamelans (just intonation) were chosen as well
as two experimental ones (equidistant) resulting in some 1360 digital samples of sound generators
which had to be calculated and manually retuned.
Audio examples of 18 traditional compositions taken from both tuning systems (laras sléndro and
pélog) and their respective modes (pathet) were presented to three renowned senior musicians who
are also instructors at the Academy of Arts (ISI) in Surakarta, Bp. Suraji, Bp. Suyoto, and Bp.
Prasadiyanto. Their comments on both aspects, i.e., the rendition of the pieces and the sound of the
various virtual gamelans with respect to their tuning, were highly instructive. By adopting an analysisby-synthesis approach which incorporated only explicit and mainly generic principles of performance
practice while largely omitting tacit assumptions or specific knowledge pertaining to individual
pieces, it could be demonstrated that accomplished karawitan musicians have a more holistic view of
this art so that “correct” notes are equally important as – or sometimes even less so than – other
factors such as idiomatically adequate timing, phrasing, embellishments, articulation, and dynamics
as well as contextual considerations. While most of these insights might not be surprising to gamelan
experts they nevertheless underscore the necessity to approach the endeavor of letting a computer
emulate a karawitan performance in a much broader way than merely refining “structural”
paradigms on the level of a musical grammar. Regarding the assessment of various tunings listening
to different ones in direct comparison proved to be conducive to an in-depth verbal discourse on
matters which might otherwise remain rather vague or abstract.
The shortcomings in the domain of music computing notwithstanding, the project has successfully
demonstrated that listening experiments with local experts in which musical parameters such as
melodic gestures, timing, tuning, etc. can be controlled individually can be a useful tool in
investigating musical concepts and particularly in disclosing how actual performance practices are
shaped by – usually implicit – norms.
2
Project implementation
The original plan has been to further develop the already existing prototype of a dedicated software
program (cf. Grupe 2008) that would be able to render idiomatically acceptable versions of
traditional karawitan 1 pieces based on the implementation of musical rules and constraints as well as
on synthetic sounds modeled on those of original gamelan instruments. 2 In a next step such versions
would be presented to and evaluated by renowned Javanese musicians. Furthermore, performances
for a wider public aiming at contrasting traditional karawitan with new music involving gamelan and
live electronics were envisaged.
2012
In the beginning the main task has been to find a suitable person for the development of the existing
software written in SuperCollider, a programming environment especially for music computing
purposes. SuperCollider was chosen because the existing prototype of our software was based on it.
It turned out to be rather difficult to find such a person combining considerable experience with
SuperCollider and constant availability over a period of several months. Based on recommendations
by two experts who had collaborated in the pilot project we finally decided to commission Dominik
Hildebrand Marques Lopes (University of the Arts Berlin) to act as the main programmer. Right from
the start we aimed at implementing a graphical user interface (GUI) that would enable us to control
the software without the need to enter code. This included an audio mixer and the option to switch
between sampled gamelan sounds and synthetic ones based on suitable modeling algorithms.
Main GUI (as of Oct. 2012)
Furthermore, work on a so-called Tuning Editor and a Scale Graph Window was begun. The former
was intended to facilitate the modification of the generated sounds, the latter to visualize the
selected tuning in a clearly arranged way. Regarding the implementation of musical rules the existing
system was expanded to include more than the one composition (Ladrang Wilujeng, sléndro
manyurå and pélog barang respectively) that had been used as proof of concept in the pilot study.
1
Karawitan is the name of the classical gamelan music of Central Java. I recommend Pickvance (2005) as a
general reference.
2
The project thus draws on various earlier studies dealing with musical rules and computer-assisted research
respectively (e.g., Sutton 1978, Becker & Becker 1979, Hughes 1988, Kippen & Bel 1989, Kippen 1992.).
3
2013
Towards the end of 2012 Rainer Schütz (University of Birmingham) who had been the main
developer in the pilot project declared interest in joining our team as an external collaborator.
Therefore, the upcoming tasks were split between him and Hildebrand in such a way that Schütz was
supposed to work on the expansion and refinement of the rule system while Hildebrand would focus
on the sound modeling and audio part of the software. In the spring of 2013 an update of
SuperCollider necessitated an adaptation of the code which implied the option to run the
SuperCollider implementation not only on a Mac computer but also under the Windows. This was
seen as an advantage since the latter is the predominant operating system in Indonesia so that our
results were thus expected to be more accessible by Indonesian composers. Work on the GUI and
the Scale Graph Window resulted in more user-friendly versions.
Scale Graph Window (as of Oct. 2013)
Main GUI (as of Oct. 2013)
4
However, Schütz went to Indonesia for an extended stay that year and even after his return to
Europe was not available for any further collaboration. This meant a considerable drawback because
since he had joined our team in late 2012 we had relied on the distribution of work between him and
Hildebrand as described above so that now – considering the impending expiration of the project
after two years – we needed to opt for an alternative to the original project design. Finding a
replacement for him at such a rather late stage seemed unlikely so that we decided to first of all ask
the FWF for a prolongation of the project and also to try to achieve our objectives in a somewhat
different way than originally planned.
One important measure has been to produce improved samples of the original gamelan instruments
housed at our university in Graz especially as far as various articulations (open vs. muted strokes) and
dynamic levels (soft, medium, loud attacks) are concerned. This does not apply to all gamelan
instruments to the same extent so that new samples were recorded only for the relevant ones,
particularly the various metallophones (demung, saron, and peking). In addition, the keys of three
xylophones (gambang in sléndro, pélog bem, and pélog barang) were recorded in two dynamic levels
each. All in all more than 600 new samples were thus created and edited. Another measure has been
to implement the option to address the sound synthesis module of our software from an external
controller via a MIDI interface independent of the software’s rule system since the development of
the latter had been suspended. To discuss various issues connected to the formalization of rules visà-vis conventional performance practice the British gamelan experts Peter Smith and Jonathan
Roberts (Oxford) were invited to Graz in December 2013.
2014
For the remainder of the available time it was decided to focus on the preparation of the intended
listening experiments with Javanese experts. As a replacement for an autonomous rule system we
opted for implementing the known principles of current karawitan performance practice with the
help of a commercial sequencer program (Cubase 6). Linking it to the sound synthesis module of our
software via MIDI proved to be possible, but the handling was rather awkward and the operation not
always stable and reliable. In order not to lose any more time we therefore decided to completely
rely on only one program, the sequencer software, and use original as well as retuned samples
instead of synthetic sounds. The Cubase program in combination with a software sampler plugin
(Halion) had the advantage of being fairly stable and easy to handle including the possibility to
modify tones, timing, and tuning on the spot. During the summer of 2014 the data on gamelan
tunings published by Surjodiningrat et al. (1972) for a large number of traditional gamelan sets as
well as some on American ones by Ditrich (1983) and Miller & Lieberman (1999) were analyzed and
applied to the samples of our gamelan instruments. 12 traditional (6 sléndro and 6 pélog), two
American (just intonation), and two experimental ones (equidistant) were chosen resulting in some
1360 samples which had to be calculated and manually retuned.
name
location
laras
Sekar Råså Tentrem
KUG, Graz
s+p
Lebdhå Jiwå
Southbank Centre, London
s+p
Kanyut Mèsem
Mangkunegaran, Surakarta
s+p
Madu Murti
Madu Kusumå
Kraton Yogyakarta
s
p
5
Mardi Swårå
s+p
Sadad Pengasih
RRI, Yogyakarta
s+p
Prècèt
s
Udan Arum
p
Si Darius
Mills College, USA
s
Si Madeleine
Mills College, USA
p
equidistant
s+p
Spreadsheet tables were created in order to determine the required amount of retuning (in cents)
for each sound generator. The overall sound of the original instruments, i.e., the KUG gamelan, was
not altered. This procedure can be compared to having a gamelan tuner retune the KUG gamelan
according to the model of another set. Two caveats need to be taken into account here. First, the
measurements published by Surjodiningrat et al. (1972) are given in c.p.s. without decimals so that
the accuracy is limited. Second, a gamelan tuner would adjust partials and beats and this had to be
disregarded in our case. In cases where the models contain less sound generators than the KUG set
we extrapolated the required data. Nevertheless, the audio results seemed sufficient for our
purposes.
The Southbank Centre in London was chosen as the location for conducting the listening experiments
for various reasons. Our main gamelan advisors in Europe (see p. 26) are all connected to the Centre
as gamelan instructors, the Southbank Gamelan Players are the leading ensemble of karawitan in
Europe, and the Centre has a lot of experience with organizing events with Javanese artists regarding
visa and work permit issues etc. In this way experienced gamelan players for larger line-ups as well as
knowledgeable translators from Javanese and Indonesian were available. Based on the advice of our
British advisors, especially by John Pawson, three renowned senior musicians from Surakarta, Bp.
Suraji, Bp. Suyoto, and Bp. Prasadiyanto (see p. 26), who are also gamelan instructors at the local
Academy of Arts (ISI Surakarta), were invited to London from December 7-20, 2014.
During the first stage we focused on aspects of performance practice. We had selected 18
compositions from the traditional karawitan repertoire taken from both tuning systems and their
respective modes and covering various relevant compositional forms and prepared audio examples
for all of them.
laras
pathet
composition
sléndro
manyurå
Ladrang Asmaradana
Ketawang Branta Mentul
Ketawang Kinanthi Sandhung
Ladrang Mugi Rahayu
Ladrang Pangkur
Ladrang Sri Katon
Ladrang Wilujeng
Ladrang Kandha Manyurå *
Ladrang Sekar Gadhung *
6
sångå
Ladrang Gonjang Ganjing
Ladrang Subakastawa
nem
pélog
barang
Ladrang Asmaradana
Ladrang Moncèr
Ladrang Wilujeng
Ketawang Dhempo *
limå
Gendhing bonang Dènggung Turularé
nem
Ladrang Gléyong
Gendhing Bondhèt *
In spite of one mode (laras sléndro pathet nem) not being represented the selection met with the
approval of our three Javanese experts. They only found it surprising that no piece of the lancaran
form had been included but consented to this omission. The tuning of the local gamelan set called
Lebdhå Jiwå was chosen for the presentation of the virtual renditions so that the musicians might
easily demonstrate relevant issues by performing live in the same tuning as the audio examples they
were listening to. It turned out that the three have been an excellent choice because they got
seriously involved and their comments on the virtual renditions were detailed and vivid. Their
comments and their practical live demonstrations were recorded with two video cameras plus
additional multi-channel audio recordings for further analysis. While most audio examples had been
prepared on the basis of specific information regarding the conventional performance practice of
each piece, a few other ones (marked with an asterisk in the table above), i.e., without such specific
information, were deliberately presented in order to test the applicability of generic rules and
principles.
from left to right: Bp. Suraji, Bp. Suyoto, Jonathan Roberts, Bp. Prasadiyanto
Concerning the marked differences between the tunings of various gamelan sets, which is a typical
feature of karawitan, two pieces from the already presented ones were chosen by the three Javanese
musicians for each tuning system (laras) representing different modes (pathet). Based on these audio
examples the gamelans listed above were compared and discussed in relation to their absolute pitch,
general character, and suitability or preferences concerning specific modes (pathet) as well as certain
types or contexts of music.
7
2015
These discussions have been recorded and they were transcribed and translated from the original
Javanese or Indonesian respectively by Jonathan Roberts. Babak Nikzat who had been in charge of all
audio and video recording in London archived all recordings and edited them using Adobe Premiere
Pro CS6. He consolidated the footage of our two Sony HXR-NX30 HD video cameras as well as the
multi-channel audio recordings made with a Zoom H6 recorder so that two camera angles could be
viewed at the same time and the higher quality audio recordings could be merged with the video
footage. Moreover, all recordings were prepared to be uploaded to KUG’s long-term archival
platform PHAIDRA. 3
two cameras in sync
In addition, Nikzat created diagrams illustrating microtiming and dynamics of selected passages from
the live performances we had recorded in London using the analysis software Praat 4. Among other
occasions (see list p. 24) the project was presented during the AEC conference of the European
Platform for Artistic Research in Music (EPARM) 5 which took place in Graz from April 23-25, 2015. On
this occasion we collaborated with a British colleague, Charles Matthews, who has completed a PhD
thesis on “Adapting and Applying Central Javanese Gamelan Music Theory in Electroacoustic
Composition and Performance” (2014) and is also involved in linking gamelan with music computing
as a composer. For the EPARM conference he contributed a sound installation which gave the
audience the opportunity to interact with a software program that generated gamelan music on the
basis of an algorithmic implementation of karawitan concepts.
3
This digital asset management system is hosted by the University of Vienna.
http://www.praat.org/
5
http://www.aec-music.eu/events/event/european-platform-for-artistic-research-in-music-2015
4
8
interactive virtual gamelan installation by Charles Matthews and VGG project presentation
at the EPARM conference (Graz, April 23-25, 2015)
Matthew’s installation was also featured during a performance of traditional karawitan and classical
Javanese dance by the Southbank Gamelan Players and Lila Bhawa Dance Company, both based in
London. This concert contrasted traditional karawitan with new music by contemporary British
composers involving gamelan and live electronics. Towards the end members of the Southbank
Gamelan Players spontaneously performed together with gamelan parts generated by Matthew’s
software. It was controlled in real-time by various people from the audience who took turns in
entering the required data.
concert by Southbank Gamelan Players and interactive installation by Charles Matthews
(KUG, April 27, 2015)
9
Results: achievements and shortcomings
The project’s focus have been two main issues, namely (A) rules and constraints as characteristic
features of karawitan and (B) an assessment of the specific sound of individual gamelan sets due to
their differing tunings (embat).
(A) rules and constraints
When our three Javanese experts heard a version of a traditional piece rendered by a computer for
the first time they have been quite surprised that a computer should be capable of that at all. They
immediately identified the specific piece and after the first astonishment immediately started to
discuss successful as well as less convincing or outright unacceptable features of the virtual
performance. Their comments were always detailed and straightforward, i.e., without being in any
way reluctant. They pointed out a few mistakes that had been made in compiling the parts of some
instruments as far as wrong notes were concerned, but it soon turned out that other features
seemed to be at least equally relevant for their evaluation.
Timing, dynamics, articulation
While they found the timing of some of the punctuating instruments acceptable, with others this was
not always the case. An obvious example is the timing of the large gong (gong ageng). In certain
situations it should be played before the corresponding balungan note, while after it in some others.
Especially an amount of delay which is considered to be inappropriate can be a quite disturbing
factor. The same holds true for the microtiming or phrasing of certain parts in general. Two cases in
point that were discussed in relation to the virtual renditions were the drum part (kendhangan) as
well as that of the gong chime bonang barung. Both were criticized as being performed in a too
mechanical fashion. The differences regarding both timing and dynamics are illustrated in the
following diagrams created with Praat in which the live performance on bonang barung by Bp. Suraji
can be compared to the virtual version. The vertical lines on the horizontal axis represent the onsets
of the strokes, their height their volume. The excerpts from a so-called ådångiyah section, which is
performed in free rhythm before the actual introduction (bukå) of a large composition featuring the
gong chime bonang (gendhing bonang,) show how the musician adds an embellishing note at the
beginning of the phrase while omitting one in the middle as compared to the notated version which
obviously gives only an approximate idea of what shall be played. 6 Even more interesting is the
temporal distribution, i.e., which notes are closer together than other ones. Furthermore, exactly the
one note that is played softly by the musician (2) is emphasized in the computer version. In general,
the latter one, which all three musicians found more or less unsatisfactory, sticks to the notation
more closely than the one by Bp. Suraji.
6
On notation of gamelan music cf. Ransby 2013.
10
excerpt from the non-metered (free rhythm) section before the introduction to a large composition
(diagram: Babak Nikzat)
The differences in timing are somewhat less prominent in the metered section of such a piece, but
even here the much more flexible phrasing of the musician as compared to the computer version is
apparent. Especially the upper diagram illustrates how Bp. Suraji varies his performance between
two passages that call for the same melodic gesture by the gong chime. In the second, it is again the
dynamics of certain notes as well as the inclusion of an embellishing tone which make an obvious
difference.
11
excerpts from the metered section of a large composition
(diagrams: Babak Nikzat)
Another critique concerned the damping techniques for instance for the gong chime bonang and the
multi-octave metallophone gendèr which according to the Javanese musicians were either missing in
some cases or not properly executed, i.e., modeled, in the virtual version.
From these experiences one can draw the conclusion that virtual renditions of pieces based on the
application of generic rules and constraints seem to have been partly successful but need to be
enhanced by more sophisticated ones incorporating further aspects and features, e.g., timing,
dynamics, articulation, and embellishments.
Low 6 on balungan instruments in sléndro
In order to test how far generic principles suffice to predict an idiomatic rendering of a given piece,
two other experiments were carried out. The first concerns the seemingly easy issue of how to
transform a given multi-octave core melody (balungan) into one that will fit the range available on
those metallophones which are supposed to play them. This is only relevant for the sléndro tuning
system 7 where such metallophones usually have a choice of using a high 1 and sometimes also a low
6 (depending on whether they have six or seven keys respectively). Although certain rules have been
drawn up that are supposed to explain when to choose which key (cf. Pickvance 2005:111-112), we
put these assumptions to the test with the following pieces. 8 In each case the three Javanese experts
were asked to decide whether a written low 6 should be played as such on the suitable
metallophones.
pathet
name
form
manyurå Agun-Agun
7
8
ladrang
Asmaradana
ladrang
Asmaradana Mangunsih
ketawang
Metallophones tuned in pélog, on which the core melody is played, have no such choice.
Notation can be found in Barry Drummond’s database at http://www.gamelanbvg.com/gendhing/index.php.
12
sångå
nem
Branta Mentul
ketawang
Kinanthi Sandhung
ketawang
Mijil Ratri
ketawang
Paréanom - Glebag
gendhing
Pucung
ketawang
Rimong - Kuwung
gendhing
Rimong - Moncer
gendhing
Sidamukti
gendhing
Witing Klapa
ketawang
Bandhilori – Éling-Éling Kasmaran
gendhing
Danaraja
gendhing
Ela-Ela Kalibeber
ketawang gendhing
Éling-Éling Kasmaran
ladrang
Logondhang
gendhing
Majemuk
gendhing
Although this issue certainly does not rank high among factors determining a successful karawitan
performance it was nevertheless instructive to observe that beyond a predominant consensus in
most cases the three musicians were in no way always unanimous about their respective choices in
spite of their common background as ISI instructors. They even declared that their personal decision
might change from one occasion to another. As a general comment Bp. Suyoto said:
“It’s contextual: in Wilujeng it’s like this but in Asmarandana it’s not like that, so it’s hard to
fix, really difficult… even more so with loud style, loud style will be different, with loud style
you’re weighing up the direction of your hands as well, so it can’t be fixed ‘when?’ it can’t be
done.”
This could be interpreted as underscoring the only limited significance of this feature on the one
hand and as a potential domain for incorporating a type of fuzzy logic into a rule-based
implementation of karawitan on the other hand, unless the rationale behind the choices can be
related to specific contexts so that more elaborate constraints could be established.
Generic rules and constraints vs. customary performance practice
The second question we wanted to look into is the degree of implicit assumptions regarding the way
a particular piece is usually performed. Therefore, we prepared audio examples of some pieces for
which no specific prior knowledge of the customary performance practice had been sought
beforehand. After two of them, Ladrang Kandha Manyurå sléndro manyurå and Gendhing Bondhèt
pélog nem, had been presented the substantial limitations of such an endeavor became quite clear.
All three Javanese experts declared them the most unsuccessful of the examples presented so far. In
particular concerning Gendhing Bondhèt its virtual version differed too much from the conventional
way of performing this piece although another composition “treated” (garap) in that way might have
been acceptable to them. The ensuing discussion resulted in a demonstration of how a given piece,
e.g., Ladrang Moncèr sléndro manyurå, will be performed in different ways depending on the context
or event. This is exemplified in a statement by Bp. Suraji:
13
“Gléyong as Mas Pete’s 9 group did it yesterday is the palace version, the bedhayan version
for Bedhåyå Kabor, but when Gléyong is done with the gérongan that Pak Ciptosuwarso
wrote the kenongs are different” (Bp. Suraji)
Concerning the application of certain instrumental techniques and patterns for specific pieces similar
constraints exist which are not always compulsory, however. For instance, our use of pinjalan in the
computer version of Gendhing bonang Dènggung Turularé pélog limå was criticized as unusual and
replacing it with kinthilan (cf. Pickvance 2005:232-234 for an explanation of pinjalan and kinthilan)
was recommended at first, when on second thought Bp. Prasadiyanto declared that “for Dènggung
Turularé it’s not normal to use kinthilan”. This view was then corroborated by Bp. Suraji: “if it’s
forced, like for a gendhing sekaten, you have to use it, but for the purposes of a gendhing bonang
you don’t do it”. Regarding generic principles the available information can be used to refine their
scope, i.e., under what circumstances they are applicable. Thus it was pointed out that we had
neglected to employ a specific pattern for one punctuating instrument, the kethuk, in this piece:
“Since we’re talking about the Solonese gendhing bonang in the inggah there will be a special
kethuk like in the ladrang or ketawang we have ketuhuk salahan so in the inggah we have, it’s
called kethuk banggèn.” (Bp. Prasadiyanto)
But then, there are also decisions to be made where the personal choice of experts can differ, e.g.,
concerning which imbal notes to use when. Especially as far as interaction within the ensemble is
concerned, many factors come into play.
R 10: “In fact that often happens in klenèngan that one instrument copies another …
Interaction.”
P: “But it’s not nice if it happens all the time”
R: “But ok, why should the bonang play a sekaran six for a seleh three? That’s because the
bonang player is interacting with the rebab, with the gender, the rebab also does that […] At
this level of garap the bonang player … it will show in the bonang playing whether he knows
the tunes or not, but that doesn’t mean that each bonang player does the same all the time,
that would cause trouble with the rebab player and gendèr player who would feel they
weren’t being given space, because all the sekaran were filled in, the gendèr and rebab could
get angry, like Pak Yadi says ‘if the bonang does too much it’s a shame for the rebab and
gendèr player, they should be given space’”
P: “That’s why sometimes there are bonang players who do very few sekaran”
Y: “Because normally it’s like this so the musicians, what can they do to not tread on the toes
of the others, if the bonang player knows that debyang-debyung belongs to the gendèr then
he’ll find another possibility. So that the bonang part shows but doesn’t ‘judge’ other people,
cover them up, kill the others. In rangkep there’s more space to seek out opportunities for
the bonang. Like that you try not to kill that which already belongs to someone. This belongs
to the gendèr or rebab; he doesn’t want it and has to find another option. A clever bonang
player demonstrates their skill here”
R: “But everything is in the corridor of the melodic contour in the piece, still in the area.”
9
Peter Smith.
R: Bp. Suraji, P: Bp. Prasadiyanto, Y: Bp. Suyoto
10
14
In addition there is the personal style of each musician. An accomplished drummer for instance can
be identified by his colleagues:
“It’s the fillers that Pak Y. was talking about, the basic phrase is filled and developed so it
ends up like Pak Y.’s sekaran. Nartosabdho would do it differently but it can still be identified
as laku telu, or laku papat, or pilesan, but the fillers are trying to find aesthetic beauty, in the
context of dance it would be different, and it would be different in a klenèngan context,
although you use laku telu for the horse scene in wayang it will be different but it’s still close
enough to be identified as laku telu or laku papat.” (Bp. Suraji)
Again, what may be required in one context may have to be modified for another one. On the use of
certain building blocks in drumming Bp. Suyoto commented:
“Gambyong don’t follow in order so there’s sekaran six in the middle and then five after that,
that’s for dance, not for klenèngan.”
Thus, one has to take into account that a composition may sound markedly different on different
occasions such as a concert, a wedding, a wayang shadow-puppet performance, or as a dance
accompaniment, and that what might be considered appropriate for one situation could be
inappropriate or at least awkward in another (cf. Supanggah 2011:321-336). Thus, much more
elaborate constraints are involved which are not confined to modeling one “correct” version.
(B) sound and tuning (embat)
The notion of embat, i.e., the relative tuning and specific intervallic structure of a given gamelan, is a
central element of karawitan. Tuning issues as well as – to a lesser degree – sound spectrum-related
ones such as beats and partials have been discussed extensively (cf. among others Hood 1966, Rahn
1978, Vetter 1989, Carterette & Kendall 1994, Serafini 1995, Sethares 1998). Our main intention has
been to empirically determine which factors seem to be the most important ones for acknowledged
gamelan musicians when it comes to judge and compare various gamelans. Although a specific
vocabulary is documented in relevant literature (cf. Pickvance 2005:50-51) we assumed that listening
to various gamelan in direct comparison should encourage a more precise and detailed discourse,
maybe also stimulate diverging comments. Some of this dedicated terminology appeared in the
comments of the three Javanese experts on the audio examples we presented. Two pieces were
chosen by them for each tuning system (laras) representing the most important modes (pathet). In
order to avoid a mingling of several parameters the same two pieces were used for all examples of
one tuning system so that potential shortcomings of a virtual version would not interfere with the
comments on embat. The selected pieces were Ketawang Bråntå Mentul sléndro manyurå, Ladrang
Gonjang Ganjing sléndro sångå, Ladrang Asmårådånå pélog barang, and Gendhing bonang Dènggung
Turularé pélog limå. Only after an example had been discussed the name of the respective gamelan
was revealed.
On the whole certain central features which the three obviously considered most important soon
emerged:
•
•
Is the absolute pitch suitable for vocal parts?
Does the tuning work particularly well for only one of the two main modes (pathet)?
15
•
•
Does the tuning convey a specific character which makes it more suitable for certain types of
pieces or performance contexts?
Are there instruments with shortcomings?
In several cases the general impression created by an audio example was felt to be reminiscent of
other, more remote gamelan traditions such as “coastal,” “Sunda,” or even “Malay”. Here are some
of the statements and comments.
On sléndro tunings:
Y: “On the subject of tuning it’s possible that one set is nicer when in sångå or in manyurå or
vice versa, not nice in either laras or nice in both, it’s not definite. That’s tuning.”
R: “In Javanese gamelan we have inherited the term ‘embat’ (tuning) embat actually means
distances, the gap between notes, that’s called, the distance, the Javanese term that’s
normally used, the distance between notes, that will make… the character will come out ‘Oh
this is a sundari type tuning or a larasati tuning’. Larasati is actually the one which in manyurå
… the one which… brings out… because it makes the manyurå distances. …. the one is not
high enough, in Javanese we’d say it’s not ‘nyingkrik’ (going up) enough. We really feel that in
manyurå when the distance from the six to the one, but we feel that it’s nice when that
distance between six and one is in sléndro sångå.”
Y: “In Javanese we’d say that the manyurå is not ‘branyak’ (dashing) enough 11, […] well the
character of sléndro manyurå is a bit branyak, a bit high. That’s the character of the tuning.
[…] The tuning of the kethuk, the kethuk isn’t… in Javanese we’d say not ‘ulem’ enough… and
the tuning is a little bit too sharp for a kethuk, it’s not dhedhep (covered) enough, not
powerful enough, but overall it’s great, the tuning I mean, not the garap! Yes in Javanese
there’s these terms: branyak (dashing), ulem (resonant) that’s tuning terminology, in
Javanese.”
R: “Pak Purbo’s gamelan is ‘dashing’ in manyurå and the sångå is… but Pak Mantep’s gamelan
is what is called ‘welu’ (bland, flat) there’s another term: ‘welu’ that’s harder to… so, not
coquettish… but…
P: “‘Welu’ means that it is hard to achieve the proper character in any pathet. It doesn’t bring
out the character: it’s not nice played in sångå, nor in manyurå”
R: “Pak Anom and Pak Mantep’s gamelan, many people say that they are ‘welu’ (bland). And
then also ‘ulem’”
P: “The peking, for me, overall, it’s too flat in pitch” 12
R: “We’d say ‘melangkrik’.”
R: “Kanyut Mèsem in the 70’s was like that: they say that Kanyut Mèsem was changed,
before it was actually tumbuk 13 five, with tumbuk five the manyurå is really high… because it
was too high, like we were saying the problem with vocals, so the six for pélog became the
five for sléndro. So it went down a note […] Normally gamelan are tumbuk five or tumbuk six,
so why doesn’t Kanyut Mèsem have a tumbuk? Why does the gender stop at high two, why
isn’t there a low one on the bonang, taking that… then Pak Rono Suripto, Pak
11
Referring to the KUG gamelan.
13
The common tone of the two halves (sléndro and pélog) of a complete gamelan tuned to the same pitch.
12
16
Mitropradonggo at that time, in the 80s, told me about the process why Kanyut Mèsem was
like that. The whole tuning was high so there was that problem, then…”
Y: “Ok I think that from these three examples this is the nicest 14. But with the observation
that the interval between six one two and three, for me I’d say they weren’t… the three isn’t
quite high enough, the three isn’t there, it doesn’t reach”
R: “If things are too high, too high that’s ‘nyingkrik’ […] I felt that, particularly the pots, with
pots there’s a term ‘gemak’ from the bird callled ‘gemak’ like a quail. The sound of a gemak is
‘Mek, mek’. This wasn’t concentrated enough like ‘Hmm. Hmm’. I felt that the kempul and
the bonang, particularly the female bonang, the lower pots, weren’t gemak enough, yes
that’s the bonang. Then I felt that the two on the bonang was bindheng (bunged up)”
P: “The sound doesn’t come out”
R: “Like deaf. Bunged up like the Buta Térong15. […] Yes this is appropriate for wayang,
wayang is playful… so dhalang like Ki Purbo Asmoro like tunings that are quite high, because
with a high tuning, which is quite sharp… it won’t wear your voice out quickly, in contrast to,
if the gérong in a standard tuning, so for that reason many dhalang prefer gamelan which
have sharper tunings as they’re called. Pak Nartosabdho’s was sharp, Pak Purbo’s…”
R: “This 16 is more appropriate for pieces in sléndro sångå, so this is good for srimpi or
bedhayan, powerful [antep], settled. For me in manyurå it’s not playful enough.”
R: “In the terms that have been passed down by the gamelan masters or those who make
tunings, there are two types: Sundari and Larasati. Well this is a Larasati tuning 17 like Pak Y.
was saying. A wayang character, Larasati is a playful, woman with an upturned face, whereas
Sundari is demure. A Sundari tuning is nice for bedhaya or srimpi, according to my taste…”
Y: “If we were doing a concert, a klenèngan, when maybe we were using this gamelan on one
occasion, the people arranging the pieces would definitely choose pieces that were like I was
saying earlier, playful… because playful is appropriate for this… because there are some
pieces in manyurå that are demure too… this manyurå is really right for evening manyurå,
from three to six and it’d be different from manyurå that’s used from three to five in the
morning… the sångå is more appropriate for night-time sångå rather than sångå that’s… like
that…”
On pélog tunings:
Y: “In tuning pélog there will always be one that loses out between pélog barang and pélog
limå, there’ll always be one that loses out. In this case 18, the pieces just now, this tuning is
nicer in pélog barang. The intervals are nice enough but as for a playful character in pélog
barang it really has that. So it will definitely make the others lose out, the pélog limå felt
sweet, it became playful, yes sweet rather than majestic or authoritative, so it’ll always be
like that, the pélog barang is nicer.”
14
Referring to Gamelan Madu Murti, Kraton Yogyakarta.
The aubergine demon, a wayang character with a very stuffed up sounding voice.
16
Referring to Gamelan Prècèt, Mangkunegaran Surakarta.
17
Referring to an experimental equidistant tuning.
18
15
17
R: “For me the pélog barang 19 is the type which would be better for pieces which aren’t
played with ciblon drumming, but the kind of pieces that you have in pélog barang which are
played during the day time like Pramugari or Angun-angun which don’t use ciblon… that
would be more enjoyable, it’s still nice in pélog barang but more appropriate for pieces which
are more in line with intervals like that. […] I felt that the bonang, all of the pots, weren’t
resonant enough, especially the low pots. There’s the term ‘leaf’ they need to be given a
‘leaf’, so that the sound is ‘gembluk gembluk’.”
P: “Yes this is nice in both pélog barang and pélog limå but the pélog barang is definitely not
as god as the previous one, maybe better for refined.”
Y: “Pretty but not flirty.”
P: “For pélog limå it was definitely not powerful enough.”
Y: “From the point of view of the measurements of a vocalist, singing with a tuning that’s that
low 20 isn’t worthy of doing.”
R: “There’s a piece which is majestic in character with vocals it would be appropriate 21, I
don’t mean playful, like when a, a piece in pélog limå for bedhayan: Tejanata, I feel that
Tejanata, Bedhaya Tejanata, on a gamelan like this would be majestic.”
On the difference between Solonese and Yogyanese sléndro tunings:
In a paper by Miller & Lieberman (1999:162) the Javanese musician K.R.T. Wasitodiningrat (aka Pak
Cokro) is said to have postulated a clear distinction between Yogyanese and Solonese tunings.
Referring to the American composer Lou Harrison’s use of pure interval tunings they report that
“Pak Cokro immediately identified the two experimental tunings in figure 8 as representative
of the two major gamelan schools of central Java (Yogyakarta [1] and Surakarta [2])”.
19
Referring to Gamelan Kanyut Mèsem, Mangkunegaran Surakarta.
Referring to Gamelan Madu Kusumå, Kraton Yogyakarta.
21
Referring to Gamelan Sadad Pengasih, RRI Yogyakarta.
20
18
Expressed in cents this yields the following relationship between the assumed Yogyakarta and
Surakarta models:
1
2
3
5
6
=
Yogyakarta
231
231
240
231
267
Surakarta
231
231
267
231
240
Thus, a larger interval should be expected between scale degrees 6 and high 1 in a Yogyanese
gamelan and between 3 and 5 in a Solonese one. However, this distinction does not fit the
measurements published by Surjodiningrat et al. (1972).
1
ä
Surakarta
Mardiswara
Lokananta
Swarahardja
Nagalima
Kanyutmèsem
Manisrengga
Lipurtambaneng
Konservatori I
Hardjawinangun
RRI
Udanriris
Konservatori II
Konservatori III
Pretjet
3
5
6
=
octave
222
237
240
226
252
251
235
216
229
240
242
236
228
244
240
234
259
255
232
238
250
254
225
250
222
228
246
240
258
255
230
214
245
241
246
234
254
235
266
240
259
245
220
243
249
257
232
235
240
251
236
244
231
260
244
242
256
244
259
244
251
252
255
246
256
256
252
236
247
232
240
1213
1237
1196
1212
1217
1226
1201
1200
1225
1213
1200
1224
1203
1214
242
237
242
242
244
248
1213
Yogyakarta
Landung
Tedjakusuma
Surak
Rarasrum
Sadadpengasih
Pantjasona
Hardjanagara
Madumurti
Tunggul
Hangabehi
Pengawesari
Pusparana
Madukentir
219
235
226
231
226
221
217
224
238
236
225
230
237
248
228
239
238
250
226
238
233
249
234
251
228
228
247
260
248
248
234
260
244
258
244
254
258
242
256
242
234
250
230
248
248
244
243
228
237
233
258
242
275
267
255
259
248
251
257
258
264
252
256
242
250
1231
1224
1218
1206
1206
1206
1200
1216
1223
1213
1223
1200
1213
average
228
238
250
241
256
1214
average
242
244
254
244
259
244
246
2
227
258
224
comparison of sléndro tunings (after Surjodiningrat et al. 1972:51), from low 6 (if present) to high 1
19
For instance Gamelan Kanyut Mèsem does not have a larger interval between 3 and 5, while
Gamelan Mardi Swårå (both from the Mangkunegaran in Surakarta) does have it. For Yogyanese
gamelans the larger interval between 6 and high 1 holds true for Gamelan Madu Murti for example,
but not for Gamelan Sadad Pengasih. In Yogyakarta larger intervals occur both between 3 and 5 and
6 and high 1 respectively. The differences in size tend to be smaller in Surakarta as compared to
those from Yogyakarta, but in both traditions there are extreme sizes, i.e., considerably larger or
smaller ones than the average. However, in their comments our three Javanese experts emphasized
primarily the distinction between embat sundari and embat larasati (laras ati) 22 rather than any
particular difference between the traditions of Surakarta and Yogyakarta.
Y: “What made the distinction after there was Surakarta and Yogya, what made the
difference was garap. Not the tuning, the garap, or the tuning. To differentiate between Solo
and Yogya … Yogya developed peking technique like this, and drum garap like this. Yes that’s
what makes the difference; it’s not about scale…”
R: “But we have to remember that when we’re talking about Yogya and Solo, in Yogya there’s
the Pakualam, and that’s an ‘import’ from Solo. And then RRI Yogya was in the hands of Pak
Cokrowarsito, Solonese style is strong there. The musicians at the Pakualam and RRI Yogya
are from Klathen.”
P: “And their garap is Solonese.”
R: “The majority are from Klathen. The edges of Prambanan, lots of them went there. The
Kraton is different. So all the ‘Yogyanese’ stuff, a lot of the information comes from Pak
Cokro, you have to remember that Pak Cokro is from Solo. To the extent that people think of
the Pakualam as ‘Solo in Yogya’.”
A special case seems to be Gamelan Kanyut Mèsem. According to Bp. Suraji quoted above this
gamelan has been retuned because it was considered to be too high. Marc Perlman in a paper
dealing with embat (1994) refers to the tuning of this gamelan and in comparing one of its gendèr to
another one belonging to his gendèr teacher Suhardi (from Yogyakarta) he states a difference
between the sizes of the intervals between scale tones 2 and 3 as well as 3 and 5 (1994:536):
22
Cf. Pickvance 2005:51 for details.
20
Comparing his measurements of Kanyut Mèsem with those of Surjodingrat et al. (1972) there is a
striking difference because the latter list a high 2 as highest note of the Kanyut Mèsem gendèr while
Perlman assumes a high 3 as is usually the case with current gendèr instruments. According to Bp.
Suraji the highest note of the Kanyut Mèsem gendèr today actually is a high 2 as Surjodiningrat et al.
suggested. Surprisingly Perlman does not mention their publication in his paper but since his first
visit to Java was in 1981 (Perlman 2004:9), i.e., after 1972, we may assume that the measurements
need to be properly rearranged. If all of his measurements for the Kanyut Mèsem instrument were
shifted by one scale degree the following relationship results (in cents):
KanMès_Surjod.
205
264
215
259
251
238
241
236
253
249
-
KanMès_Perlman
205
258
221
259
255
234
238
240
250
248
-
Suhardi (Yogya)
252
257
228
251
238
225
254
232
251
243
244
Assuming that this arrangement is correct the differences are generally rather small 23 and
particularly concerning differing sizes between certain scale degrees no basic distinction can be
established. Apart from these discrepancies Perlman’s quotation of a musician saying that
“If a gamelan tuner isn’t careful, he may tune sléndro to either sanga or manyura, forgetting
about the other pathet. Ideally, he should adjust it so that both pathet sound good, but often
one or the other will have to be compromised.” (1994:537; italics in the original)
corroborates the views expressed by our Javanese experts.
(C) Shortcomings
Musical rules and constraints
While the listening experiments and the ensuing comments by the Javanese collaborators have been
quite instructive, the music computing part of the project has been much less successful. Combining
expertise from two different branches of scholarship, i.e., ethnomusicology and music computing,
has been more difficult than anticipated. Instead of putting a certain degree of autonomous decision
making into the code we had to resort to versions which were fixed in advance, i.e., before playback,
so that any interaction between musical parts had to be determined beforehand. The latter aspect
which is one central issue in karawitan (cf. Brinner 1995, 2008) thus could not be pursued in the
anticipated way and to the desired extent. Thus, we have unfortunately not been able so far to really
comply with Ben Brinner’s (2008:47) claim regarding the potential of a virtual gamelan – or only with
the second aspect:
“This will be useful only insofar as human choices and fallibility are incorporated into the
model.”
However, once it had become obvious that a setup with the option of changing musical parameters
of the computer-generated renditions on the spot without having to rewrite code would not be
23
The differences between the values for the Kanyut Mèsem instrument may be due to various factors.
However, only two steps (264 vs. 258 cents and 215 vs. 221) seem to differ significantly and even in these cases
the trend towards a larger interval is the same.
21
achievable during the project’s time span, we decided to concentrate primarily on its
ethnomusicological aspects, i.e., preparing audio examples to be evaluated by Javanese experts.
Embat
Comments by our Javanese collaborators on the sound and in particular on the intonation of
individual instruments have to be taken with a certain caution due to the nature of the available data
which were used to calculate the emulated gamelan sets (see above).
Conclusions
Some years ago I discussed potential topics for a PhD thesis with a graduate student who had spent
several years in Surakarta studying karawitan. He was quite uncertain which topic to choose because
as he said most he could think of would only yield results already well-known to those gamelan
scholars who had studied karawitan intensively for so many years by now. On the other hand a
substantial part of that knowledge has never been put to print or can only be found in unpublished
treatises of ISI Surakarta graduates but hasn’t entered general ethnomusicological discourse or
textbooks. This is also true of some aspects that were investigated in the present study and in my
opinion this justifies the otherwise odd fact that somebody without a long record of in-depth field
experience in Central Java should undertake this kind of research project.
(A) Rules and constraints in karawitan and issues of embat
One central aim has been to disclose implicit knowledge in the sense that tacit assumptions on
proper karawitan performance practice are often taken for granted. When trying to view karawitan
as a rule-based musical system we notice that in addition to the need to refine generic paradigms
such as “on bonang the balungan notes a and b may result in the pattern a b a . . b a .
under such and such circumstances” we need to look beyond this level of musical grammar or “deep
structure” and include parameters of performance practice or “surface structure” such as timing,
articulation, embellishments, etc. as well as contextual ones such as the occasion or context of a
performance. The project has demonstrated that gamelan musicians have a much more “holistic”
view of their art than could be covered by searching for a musical “grammar” alone. In contemporary
mainstream jazz, swing is a central feature. Therefore, playing a melodic gesture of eighths notes
with this particular kind of phrasing would be considered essential for an idiomatically acceptable
performance. Playing the same notes as even eighths would at best be considered a poor
performance or probably not jazz at all. As our experiments have shown, the same holds true for
karawitan in the sense that it cannot be reduced to “correct” notes. Actually there may be worse
flaws than playing one or two wrong notes (cf. Supanggah 2011:253). Furthermore, beyond regional
specifics (cf. Sutton 1991), even within one local tradition (gaya Solo) no monolithic view on matters
of music theory and performance practice should be expected. The statements by our three Javanese
collaborators have demonstrated certain common ideas on the one hand and personal preferences
on the other – as had been anticipated. The challenge rather lies in exploring the range of available
options, their respective conditions, and who adopts which attitude on what grounds. The listening
experiments seem to lend themselves to draw a more precise picture of karawitan in these respects
and thus to disclose more of the inherent norms (pakem; cf. Supanggah 2011:313) that shape its
current practice. Still, the basic doubts expressed by Anderson Sutton (2008:222) concerning the
22
potential scope of a computer program capable of rendering karawitan remain because we have not
been able to reach the stage of sophistication described here:
“Even if ‘correct’ gambang playing can be generated with a complex set of rules/constraints and
the input of each gendhing’s balungan and other relevant information concerning its melodic
design, it does not incorporate the subtler aesthetic considerations, and in particular the often
unpredictable, seemingly random, varieties of interaction and individual variation that
distinguish merely correct playing from good, interesting, or even beautiful playing.” (Italics in
the original)
(B) methodological considerations
An analysis-by-synthesis and virtual musicians have proven to be useful tools in investigating
karawitan. For one thing they encourage revealing all the parameters that need to be taken into
account, and furthermore, they help in transforming usually implicit knowledge into the domain of
verbal discourse, since verbal statements precisely addressing issues of musical concepts and/or
performance practice could be elicited to a larger extent than is usually the case. Discussing specially
prepared audio examples in connection with the option of demonstrating musical details on the spot
has yielded valuable insights and adds to our standard repertoire of research techniques including
the well-established approach of learning to perform the music under scrutiny. In this process the
musicians, instead of being mere “informants”, could take on a more active role as research
collaborators.
(C) Outlook
The present project may be considered a proof of concept. For future studies the examples should be
more sophisticated and experts of different backgrounds (outside of ISI Surakarta) should be
involved. Furthermore, the issue of embat could be pursued more reliably if samples of all relevant
gamelan sets were obtained beforehand so that original sounds could be employed throughout.
Presentation of the project in papers, publications, and public performances
Papers and conference presentations
•
•
•
•
”Virtual Gamelan Graz: Disclosing Implicit Musical Knowledge”. Paper presented at the 1st
International Symposium on Ethnomusicology and Ethnochoreology, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) on Sept. 27, 2012.
“Virtual Gamelan Graz: Disclosing Implicit Musical Knowledge”. Paper presented at Sultan
Idris Education University, Tanjong Malim (Malaysia) on Oct. 2, 2012.
“Culturally informed analysis: Mbira-Musik und Karawitan”. Paper presented at the
Universität of Vienna on March 24, 2014.
“Virtual Gamelan Graz. Disclosing Implicit Musical Knowledge”. Audiovisual Presentation at
the Conference of the European Platform for Artistic Research in Music (EPARM), University
of Music and Performing Arts Graz, April 23-25, 2015.
23
•
•
“From tacit to verbalized knowledge. Towards a culturally informed musical analysis of
Central Javanese karawitan”. Keynote at the 1st Conference in Ethnomusicology and
Anthropology of Music: Methods, approaches and perspectives for the study of music within
culture. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain), July 3, 2015.
“Computergestützte Forschungsmethoden in der Ethnomusikologie“. Paper presented at the
Symposium „Musikanalyse im Spannungsfeld von Expertise und computergestützter
Datenverarbeitung“. Gesellschaft für Musikforschung, University of Halle (Germany), Sept.
30, 2015.
Publications
•
•
“Culturally Informed Analysis and Ways to Disclose Local Musical Knowledge”. In: WorldMusic-Studies, ed. by Regine Allgayer-Kaufmann, Berlin: Holos [forthcoming]
“From tacit to verbalized knowledge. Towards a culturally informed musical analysis of
Central Javanese karawitan”. In Perifèria [e-journal; forthcoming]
Public performance
•
“Gamelan Music and Dance from Java & New British Music for Gamelan”. Concert and
presentation by Southbank Gamelan Players & Lila Bhawa Dance Company and sound
installation by Charles Matthews with interactive audience participation. University of Music
and Performing Arts Graz (Austria), April 27, 2015.
Public presentation of project implementation and results
•
University of Music and Performing Arts Graz, Oct. 7, 2015.
References cited
Becker, Alton; Becker, Judith (1979): A Grammar of the Genre Srepegan. Journal of Musical Theory
24(1), 1-43.
Brinner, Benjamin (1995): Knowing Music, Making Music. Javanese Gamelan and the Theory of
Musical Competence and Interaction. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Brinner, Benjamin (2008): Interaction in Gendhing Performance: The Panerusan. In Virtual Gamelan
Graz. Rules - Grammars – Modeling, ed. by Gerd Grupe. Aachen: Shaker, 27-57.
Carterette, Edward C.; Kendall, Roger A. (1994): On the Tuning and Stretched Octave of Javanese
Gamelans. Leonardo Music Journal 4, 59-68.
Ditrich, Will (1983): The Mills College Gamelan Si Darius and Si Madeleine (reprinted in Balungan
9/10, 2005, 95-163).
Grupe, Gerd (2008): Introduction: Musical Knowledge and Computer-based Experiments in
Ethnomusicological Research – or Can a Virtual Gamelan Ensemble Help Us in Understanding
Karawitan. In Virtual Gamelan Graz. Rules - Grammars - Modeling, ed. by Gerd Grupe. Aachen: Shaker,
1-15.
Hood, Mantle (1966): Slendro and Pelog Redefined. Selected Reports in Ethnomusicology 1(1), 28-48.
24
Hughes, David (1988): Deep Structure and Surface Structure in Javanese Music. A Grammar of
Gendhing Lampah. Ethnomusicology 32(1), 23-74.
Kippen, James; Bel, Bernard (1989): Can a computer help resolve the problem of ethnographic
description? Anthropological Quarterly 62(3), 131-144.
Kippen, James (1992): Tabla Drumming and the Human-Computer Interaction. The World of Music
34(3), 72-98.
Matthews, Charles Michael (2014): Adapting and Applying Central Javanese Gamelan Music Theory in
Electroacoustic Composition and Performance. PhD thesis, Middlesex University.
Miller, Leta E.; Fredric Lieberman (1999): Lou Harrison and the American Gamelan. American Music
17(2):146-178.
Perlman, Marc (1994): American Gamelan in the Garden of Eden. Intonation in a Cross-Cultural
Encounter. The Musical Quarterly 78(3):510-555.
Perlman, Marc (2004): Unplayed Melodies. Javanese Gamelan and the Genesis of Music Theory.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pickvance, Richard (2005): A Gamelan Manual. A Player's Guide to the Central Javanese Gamelan.
London: Jaman Mas Books.
Rahn, Jay (1978): Javanese Pélog Tunings Reconsidered. Yearbook of the International Folk Music
Council 10:69-82
Ransby, Sophie (2013): An Investigation into the Emergence of Notation in Surakarta, Central Java,
and its Implications for the Transmission of Gamelan Music as an Oral Tradition. PhD thesis, City
University London.
Serafini, Sandra (1995): Timbre Judgments of Javanese Gamelan Instruments by Trained and
Untrained Adults. Psychomusicology 14, 137-153.
Sethares, William A. (1998): Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale. London: Springer.
Supanggah, Rahayu (2011): Bothèkan - Garap. Karawitan. The Rich Styles of Interpretation in
Javanese Gamelan Music. Book 1 & 2. Surakarta: ISI Press Surakarta; Garasi Seni Benawa Surakarta.
Surjodiningrat, Wasisto; Sudarjana, P. J.; Susanto, Adhi (1972): Tone Measurements of Outstanding
Javanese Gamelans in Jogjakarta and Surakarta. Second revised edition. Jogjakarta: Gadjah Mada
University Press.
Sutton, R. Anderson (1978): Notes toward a Grammar of Variation in Javanese Gendèr Playing. In
Ethnomusicology 22(2), 275-296.
Sutton, R. Anderson (1991): Traditions of Gamelan Music in Java. Musical Pluralism and Regional
Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sutton, R. Anderson (2008): Towards a Theory of Gambang Performance in Central Javanese
Gamelan Music. In Virtual Gamelan Graz. Rules - Grammars - Modeling, ed. by Gerd Grupe. Aachen:
Shaker, 195-245.
Vetter, Roger (1989): A Retrospect on a Century of Gamelan Tone Measurements. Ethnomusicology
33(2):217-227
25
Main collaborators
•
ISI Surakarta, Java
o Bp. Suraji: senior musician, lecturer at ISI
o Bp. Suyoto: senior musician, lecturer at ISI
o Bp. Prasadiyanto: senior musician, lecturer at ISI
•
Southbank Centre London
o Sophie Ransby, PhD: gamelan advisor, logistics
o John Pawson, MA: gamelan advisor, translations
o Jonathan Roberts, MA: gamelan advisor, transcriptions, translations
o Charles Matthews, PhD: interactive gamelan software
•
University of Music and Performing Arts, Graz
o Babak Nikzat, MA: recordings, video editing, computer-based analysis
•
University of the Arts, Berlin
o Dominik Hildebrand Marques Lopes, MA: SuperCollider programming
Special thanks to the members of the Southbank Gamelan Players who performed for us.
Participating Artists at Southbank Centre London
The following information has been supplied by the artists themselves.
Bp. Suraji was born on 15 June 1961. Since he was a child he liked to listen to gamelan music and
shadow puppet performance. Started to learn gamelan when he was in the premiere school, and
carried on to study in Konservatori Karawitan Indonesia (Conservatory of Karawitan) and Akademi
Seni Karawitan Indonesia (ASKI) Surakarta, graduate in 1987. Since 1988 he works at ISI Surakarta. In
2001 he studied master degree at Pascasarjana ISI Surakarta, and graduate in 2005. He is very active
in karawitan activities in Sala, such as Pujangga Laras, Hanggara Kasih (SMKI and ISI Surakarta),
Klenengan at Mangkunegaran and Kraton Surakarta, Klenengan Broadcasting at Sukarena RRI
Surakarta, and the leader and arranger of the karawitan group of Mayangkara, Karawitan for
puppeteer “KI Purbo Asmoro”.
Bp. Suyoto was born in Sragen 02 Juli 1960, one of sons of gamelan player in Sragen, called
Martorejo. Since he was in Premiere School, he played gamelan for Tayub as a drummer, followed his
farther carrier. He has a very good quality of voice and therefore he has often been champions in
many vocal competitions. He graduated at ASKI Surakarta in 1986. After that he became a gamelan
teacher at ISI Surakarta. He also leads a group of Karawitan in Karanganyar, and which often
performs from village to village. Beside a leader of the group, he is also the drum player and the
vocalist. Beside a musician, he also composes some music, such as Music Drama Tari “Dewa Ruci”
Festival Borobudur in 1994, Music Drama Tari “Gerakan Sayang Ibu” in 1995. Music “Bedhaya Arum
Dalu”, in 1996. Karawitan Composition “Kendali” in 1997. Music Tari “Bedhaya Ciptoning” in 1998.
He has also been performing abroad, such Scotland, England, America, Hongkong, Singapore, Japan,
Germany, Denmark, Australia, Taiwan, Turkey, Malaysia, Italy.
26
Bp. Prasadiyanto was born in Sala in 1958. Since he was a child, he and his brothers and sisters
learned gamelan music with his father, who was a puppeteer. He entered Conservatory of Karawitan
to continue learning the music, and to know more about this music. After graduating from
Coservatory, he entered ASKI Surakarta, the former name of ISI Surakarta, where he teaches up to
the present time. As a gamelan teacher, he has often been invited to teach in abroad, such as
England, Germany, Hong Kong, France. He started composing in 1985, since then he has been
composing some pieces of traditional and contemporary music. In 1989 – 1990 he was an artist in
residence in London, when he met and worked together with composers, such as Alec Roth, Nigel
Osborne, Adrian Lee. In 1993 he was invited by Stratch Clyde, Glasgow, to do a music colaboration
with Paragon ensemble, Glasgow, for a Community Project, especially for disabled people. By the
time, his composition was performed in Australia, during the Warana Festival, Queensland. In 1995
he composed a dance music, and performed it in Germany during the tour with The local goverment
of Central Java. He was asked to compose for the Asia Pasific Folk Music Festival in the Philippine. He
was invited by Widosari, a gamelan group in Amsterdam, in 2002, to compose and perform his pieces
together with Adrian Lee of London. His compositions have also been performed, including
Ramayana dance music, Denpasar, Bali; Imbal-imbalan, Pekan Komponis Bandung; Dolanan, Taman
Budaya Jawa Tengah, Surakarta. In 2003 and 2004, he was a guest music director of The South Bank
Gamelan Player, for the performence of Ramayana in London, England and Padova, Italy. As a
gamelan teacher, he has been teaching in England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore and
some where else. As a Gamelan Musician he has been performing in Europe, America, and Asia. In
2004 he got a Master degree from Kingston University, London, on Music Performance.
27

Project Report - Institut 13: Ethnomusikologie

Transcription

Similar documents

Pocket Gamelan program

main article - TCPS - 國立臺灣大學文學院臺灣太平洋研究中心！

Gamelan in Japan - American Gamelan Institute

Grade 8 Learning Module in MUSIC - DepED

The Roles of Traditional Markets as the Main Component of

View/Open - Massey Research Online

Adapting and Applying Central Javanese Gamelan

music 8 - depedmati

Aspects of Ida y Vuelta in music about Mermaids

Mandala #8, Spring 1991

- City Research Online

TUNING WORLD BODENSEE 2015 | Exhibitors` information

Vol 9-10, 2004 - American Gamelan Institute

Repertoire - IGC FEST 2015