Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony

Th eoretical Approaches to Heterophony Žanna Pärtlas

Abstract Heterophony is one of the basic principles by which a multilinear texture comes about in the music of oral tradition. It can be found in many cultures both as a particular form of music making and as a component of more complex multipart practices. Heterophony is also a very intriguing topic for ethnomusicological investigation, especially if the researcher intends to describe this phenomenon at the theoretical level. The problems start with the very notion of ‘heterophony’, and in attempting to resolve them the researcher is faced with the ambiguity of such basic terms as polyphony, monophony, unison, etc. The reason why heterophonic music is especially diffi cult to describe using standard European terminology is that the phenomenon of heterophony, being intrinsically connected with oral and col- lective music creation, has no direct analogies in Western written music. The present article aims to interpret heterophony as a musical, social and psychological phenomenon, using and merging diff erent approaches – music-analytical, anthropological and cognitive. The article also discusses the use of the ethnomusicological terminology connected with a musical texture – especially the umbrella terms for multilinear music – and searches for a more inclusive, yet diff erentiative and limiting defi nition of heterophony.

Timothy Rice in his article “Ethnomusicological One of such ‘conversations among ethnomu- theory”, published in the Yearbook for Traditional sicologists’ on the theoretical issues of the fi eld Music, Vol. 42 (2010), expresses his concern over took place during the First Seminar of the ICTM the tendency among most contemporary ethno- (International Council for Traditional Music) Study musicologists to recognize and use too little eth- Group on Multipart Music (Tallinn, 2014); this pro- nomusicological theory in their works. According vided the impulse for the discussion in the pre- to Rice and some other authors to whom he refers sent article. The theme of the Seminar, “Multipart (e.g. Ruth Stone 2008), despite quite frequent ref- Music: theoretical approaches on the terminol- erences to the various theoretical concepts (espe- ogy”, was dedicated to the part inherent in every cially of sociological origin), serious, well-argued theoretical system – its conceptual and termino- discussions on theoretical topics are rather rare in logical apparatus; the actual core of the discus- ethnomusicological publications (Rice 2010: 101). sion, however, seemed rather to be the question Ethnomusicological theory is, of course, present of the nature of multipart music making. In ac- in a latent form in every piece of ethnomusico- cordance with the Seminar theme, its participants logical research. Rice suggests, however, making were inclined to theorizing more than usual and it more explicit and beginning a more systematic the brief ‘idiographic reports’ served merely as il- theoretical dialogue among ethnomusicologists: lustrations to the theoretical discussion. Although Writing ethnomusicological theory involves, theorizing and generalization also prevail in the at its minimum [...], conversations among eth- present article, I fi nd it useful to mention in ad- nomusicologists. [...] Without explicit ethno- vance that my personal experience with tradi- musicological theory developed in conversa- tional heterophony, which is the central subject of tions among ourselves, the fi eld is in danger of this research, is mainly connected with two song being little more than the sum of a succession traditions: the ritual songs of the Russian-Belorus- of idiographic reports from here and there, a sian borderland, where heterophony occurs in its kind of academic journalism of fl eeting inter- pure form, and the ancient two-part singing of est, but of little or no long-term consequence the Seto (South-East Estonia), where one of the (Rice 2010: 106). parts is performed heterophonically.1

1 About these two song traditions see, for example, my recent publications: Pärtlas 2012, 2013.

44 Žanna Pärtlas

In the light of the article by Rice cited above, ysis and music psychology should also be valued I was prompted to consider whether the Tallinn as relevant approaches to traditional multipart discussions and my own research belong to the music. In this article, I try to take into account dif- frame of ethnomusicological theory, as under- ferent aspects of the musical process, merging stood by Rice. Hopefully this question can be the anthropological, music-theoretical and cogni- answered in the affi rmative, because Rice’s defi - tive research methods. nition of ethnomusicological theory is very broad With the goal of achieving a general theoreti- and inclusive: cal understanding of heterophony and taking into account the theme of the present collection Ethnomusicological theory involves the writ- of articles, which is intended as an extension to ing of descriptions, classifi cations, compari- the Tallinn Seminar, it also seems useful to place sons, interpretations, and generalizations heterophony into the more general context of about music (and possibly sound) in general, both traditional multipart music and ethnomusi- about particular musical traditions, about mu- cological theory with regard to multipart music. sic in a set of related communities, or about In fact, in such a context the topic of heterophony music in relation to cognitive, artistic, experi- is of special interest, since this widespread form ential, social, cultural, political, and economic of traditional music making lies on the border issues, themes, and processes (Rice 2010: 105). of multipart music, and merely answering the The diversity of the theoretical approaches in- question as to whether heterophony is multipart cluded in this defi nition was also noticeable dur- music or not could be illuminating for the more ing the Tallinn Seminar discussions, where it was general theoretical discussion. Heterophony, be- revealed, among other ways, in the diff erent inter- ing broadly understood as the simultaneous vari- pretations of the basic terms and concepts con- ation of the same melody, is one of the basic prin- nected with traditional multipart music. ciples by which a multilinear texture comes about Multipart music may, indeed, be viewed from in the music of oral tradition. It can be found in diff erent positions. According to the defi nition many cultures both as a particular form of musi- used by the ICTM Study Group on Multipart Mu- cal texture and as a component of more complex sic, it is fi rst of all a process of music making and multipart practices – indeed, almost everywhere a form of expressive behaviour: “Multipart music where the parts are performed collectively. All is a specifi c mode of music making and expres- the same, at the theoretical level, heterophony sive behaviour based on the intentionally distinct can function as an indicator that reveals how the and coordinated participation in the performing researcher understands the main concepts of eth- act by sharing knowledge and shaping values”.2 nomusicology and music theory related to musi- Following this defi nition, the most relevant ap- cal texture – such concepts as ‘polyphony’, ‘mo- proaches to multipart music would be anthro- nophony’ and ‘homophony’ and also newer terms pological and sociological. However, it is clear like ‘multipart’, ‘multivoiced’, ‘plurivocal’, etc. that multipart music is also an outcome of music For this reason, the present discussion will be- making – a musical text and a sound object, both of gin with a critical overview of the respective ter- which have their own principles of organization minology. After an overview of the main terms, I and structure. Both the above-named aspects will then concentrate on the term ‘heterophony’ merit close examination not only as academically itself, which is one of the most ambiguous no- interesting research subjects, but also because of tions in both music theory and ethnomusicology. their signifi cant place in the value system of the bearers of tradition. Furthermore, multipart music 1. On the terminology should also be studied as a cognitive process and, from this point of view, we can examine both the 1.1. The names for ‘simultaneous otherness’ creation and perception of multipart music. Thus, In the book The Wellsprings of Music, Curt Sachs such methods as musical analysis, acoustical anal- suggested four choices for how the term ‘heter-

2 http://www.ictmusic.org/group/multipart-music (15.01.2016).

45 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony ophony’ can be understood.3 According to the most general and neutral possible with respect to broadest defi nition, which was actually not ap- the reasons behind the textural multilinearity, the proved by Sachs himself as the most useful one, musical structure and style. “heterophony is in every composition in which It is remarkable that in music theory the most ‘other notes’ are heard at the same time, including fundamental diff erentiation of the types of tex- a simple drone with a melody, but also includ- ture is based on the presence or absence of ‘simul- ing modern polyphony and harmony” (emphasis taneous otherness’. The question arises as to why mine) (Sachs 1977 [1962]: 190). This defi nition al- this characteristic is so crucial, for whom it matters most coincides with Sachs’ broadest defi nition of and from what period of music history it comes. polyphony: “The word polyphony marks the per- I assume that this circumstance was not equally formance and perception of more than one note at a important in all musical cultures and at all times. time” (emphasis mine) (Sachs 1977 [1962]: 175). In The recognition of the ‘simultaneous otherness’ both cases, the main criterion for the defi nition is of sound probably came with the emergence of the simultaneous sounding of two or more notes/ its opposite notion, ‘unison’, and was connected pitches – the phenomenon which Sachs, in the with the rise of a degree of control over musical same book, once named a “simultaneous other- sound and texture. A high degree of control over ness” (Sachs 1977 [1962]: 177). The idea of ‘simulta- sound is more characteristic of the written music neous otherness’ corresponds very well with the traditions, where the prescriptive notation gives etymology of both words – ‘heterophony’ (from the performers quite a detailed musical text for Greek heteros – diff erent, other) and ‘polyphony’ execution. Although a high level of sound control (from Greek polus – many, much). However, we is also possible in the music of oral tradition, we should agree with Sachs that a more specifi c use may assume that many oral musical cultures exist of the term ‘heterophony’ would be preferable, where there is neither any notion of unison nor meaning that ‘simultaneous otherness’ is not the any conscious control over deviations from it. This only attribute of heterophony. Nevertheless, this is probably the most likely situation for the devel- feature is essential and obligatory, and if we want opment of heterophony. to understand the place of heterophony among In English-language music theory, the terms other forms of ‘simultaneous otherness’, we monophony and polyphony are commonly used should fi rst concentrate on this phenomenon and as a pair to diff erentiate diff erent types of tex- on the terms used for its designation. ture according to the criterion of the presence First of all, we should recognize that by speak- or absence of ‘simultaneous otherness’. In some ing about ‘simultaneous otherness’ we consider languages, there are native terms which are used music as a sound outcome, a sound object. At for this purpose – the terms such as Einstimmigkeit this level, we do not ask how performers conceive and Mehrstimmigkeit in German or одноголосие the musical texture, why the multilinear texture and многоголосие in Russian.4 In the opposition appears or what the logic of its structure is. We ‘monophony v. polyphony’, both concepts be- merely state the fact that two or more diff erent long to the level of sound outcome and have the notes have sounded simultaneously, i.e. were per- most broad and neutral meaning (see the Sachs’ formed and/or perceived in such way – “the per- defi nition of polyphony cited above). From this formance and perception”, according to the defi - viewpoint, heterophony, being a form of ‘simul- nition by Sachs cited above. We are dealing here taneous otherness’, should be also a form of po- with the most elementary level of music analysis, lyphony. However, it seems that many scholars do and therefore the terms we need for the designa- not agree with the last statement. Sachs himself tion of ‘simultaneous otherness’ should be the asserts that “unconscious heterophony is, psycho-

3 The ancient Greek term ‘heterophony’ was revived by Carl Stumpf in his research “Tonsystem und Musik der Siamesen” (1901). To the early ethnomusicological use of this term there also belong the writings by Guido Adler (1908) and Erich M. von Hornbostel (1909). In this article it is not my intention to give a detailed overview of the history of the term ‘heterophony’; I begin here with the defi nitions by Sachs, because his approach to ‘heterophony’ seems to be especially deep and consistent and provides a good basis for further discussion. 4 The list of examples could certainly be continued. Thus, in Estonian there are terms ühehäälsus and mitmehäälsus, which literally correspond to the above-mentioned German and Russian terms.

46 Žanna Pärtlas logically speaking, a non-polyphonic type of mu- but also with the type of musical thinking, wheth- sic” (Sachs 1977 [1962]: 186). The question asked er or not heterophony belongs to the domain of by Jaap Kunst – “who can fi x the place where het- polyphony depends on how heterophonic music erophony turns into polyphony?” (Kunst 1950: 47) is intended by the performers. – reveals that Kunst also did not consider heter- One further ‘disadvantage’ of the term ‘po- ophony as a form of polyphony. Here we witness lyphony’, to which some ethnomusicologists re- the contradiction between the defi nitions and fer, is that it is historically too closely connected the actual use of the terms. Thus, Sachs, giving with the European written musical culture. Some the defi nition of polyphony at the level of sound ethnomusicologists prefer not to use the term realization (“more than one note at a time”), then ‘polyphony’ with reference to traditional oral mu- uses this term as belonging to the cognitive level sic because of its manifold historical-stylistic con- (“psychologically speaking”). It is the absence of a notations (e.g. see Macchiarella 2012: 9). clear distinction between the levels and aspects Since the mid 20th century (and even earlier) of musical phenomena that leads to the ambigu- dissatisfaction with the term ‘polyphony’ has im- ity of the scholarly terminology. pelled ethnomusicologists to invent new terms for Besides the lack of clarity as to the question of ‘simultaneous otherness’, such as ‘multipart’, ‘mul- which level – textural, cognitive, behavioural, etc. tivoiced’ and ‘plurivocal’ music. These terms are – the notion of ‘polyphony’ belongs to, the use of intended in the most general and neutral manner, this term as the most general and neutral is also being independent of any historical, geographi- awkward because it has a narrower meaning as cal or cultural context and embracing all forms of well, constituting a terminological pair not only ‘simultaneous otherness’. Among them, the term with the term ‘monophony’, as mentioned above, multipart music is the most used, substituting the but also with the terms ‘harmony’ and ‘homoph- term ‘polyphony’ in its broader sense. The origins ony’. Polyphony and harmony (homophony) are and the history of the use of the term ‘multipart’ very often opposed as two forms of ‘simultane- are described in detail in the article by Ardian ous otherness’, which diff er by the prevalence of Ahmedaja in this volume; therefore I only mention ‘horizontal’ or ‘vertical’ musical thinking. The term here that, according to Ahmedaja, the word ‘part- ‘polyphony’ is broadly accepted as designating singing’ was fi rst used in 1910 by James Cowan in the type of texture that consists of “two or more his writing on the songs of the Rarotonga (Cook simultaneous lines of independent melody”.5 This islands), and the word ‘multipart’ fi rst appeared in meaning of the word ‘polyphony’, which also re- the book Metre, Rhythm, Multi-Part Music by Jaap fers to the rhythmical independence of the voic- Kunst (1950). Nowadays, though there are many es, is close to that of ‘counterpoint’. In the case of ethnomusicologists who prefer the expression harmony (homophony), “two or more parts move ‘multipart music’ as an umbrella term for all forms together in harmony, the relationship between of ‘simultaneous otherness’ (e.g. the majority them creating chords”.6 The homophonic texture of the authors in this volume), there is an equal may be either monorhythmic or melody with number of scholars who prefer to stick to the old- harmonic accompaniment (as in the so-called er term ‘polyphony’. Thus, Joseph Jordania in his ‘melody-dominated homophony’).7 Since such an book Who Asked the First Question? argues that the interpretation of the term ‘polyphony’ deals not shorter term ‘polyphony’ is more convenient as a only with the musical texture (sound outcome), ‘family name’, especially when deriving the more

5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony (15.01.2016). I deliberately cite here such a not very academic source as Wikipedia, because its defi nitions refl ect well the widespread understandings of common terms as they are usually used in educational practice. 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophony (15.01.2016). 7 Sachs considers these two types of musical texture as ‘vertical’ (harmony) and ‘horizontal’ (counterpoint) polyphony: “Western terminology distinguishes two basic concepts of polyphony. One is ‘harmony’ or ‘vertical’ polyphony: we hear simultaneous sounds or ‘chords’ in a lawful sequence of tension (‘dissonance’) and relaxation (‘consonance’). The other concept is ‘counterpoint’ or ‘horizontal’ polyphony: we hear a lawful coexistence of voice parts or simultaneous melodic lines.” (Sachs 1977 [1962]: 175)

47 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony complex names for the sub-types of polyphony diff erent roles in the performance of music), but (e.g. ‘drone polyphony’, ‘ostinato polyphony’, etc.) actually sing or play in unison or at the octave. (Jordania 2006: 24). He reasons: In the search for a more neutral term for ‘simultaneous otherness’ than ‘multipart’, one of although both terms (“polyphony” and “mul- solutions may be the word multivoiced, which is ti-part music”) actually mean the same (the the literal translation to the words Mehrstimmig- fi rst one in a long ago dead ancient Greek keit, многоголосие, etc. (Stimme – голос – voice). language, and another in very much alive For this last reason, in my previous works (Pärtlas and the most widespread contemporary Eng- 2012) I preferred this term to other new inven- lish) we have in one case the one-word-term tions such as ‘plurivocal’ or ‘polyvocal’ and distin- (“polyphony”) and in another case complex guished the terms ‘multipart’ and ‘multivoiced’ three-word-combination to denote the same on the basis of the diff erence between the mean- phenomenon (“multi-part music”). This simple ings of the words ‘part’ and ‘voice’. I interpreted fact works in favor of the practical use of one- the word ‘part’ as referring to the intentional word-term “polyphony” (Jordania 2006: 24). diff erentiation of musical roles between the per- There are also researchers who use these terms formers, and the word ‘voice’ as designating the alternatively with the same meaning. Thus Izaly individual melodic line. Accordingly, the term Zemtsovsky in his article “Polyphony as a Way of ‘multipart’ was understood as belonging to the Creating and Thinking: The Musical Identity of level of musical thinking and behaviour and the Homo Polyphonicus” (2003) uses both the terms term ‘multivoiced’ as the concept at the level of ‘polyphony’ and ‘part-singing’. sound realization. However, we must ask whether the term ‘mul- However, as my further discussions with col- tipart music’ is the universal name for all forms leagues have shown, the word ‘multivoiced’ was of ‘simultaneous otherness’ in music. Clearly the also not a perfect choice for the designation of answer to this question is that it is not, because ‘simultaneous otherness’.9 The problem is that in the case of ‘multipart music’ the reason for the the word ‘voice’ has too many other meanings emergence of ‘simultaneous otherness’ is clearly besides that of the individual melodic line. One designated by the term itself – it is the distinc- of these meanings, unfortunately, coincides with tion between several textural parts, which implies that of the word ‘part’, and, therefore, the words their functional diff erence. In collectively per- ‘multipart’ and ‘multivoiced’ can be perceived as formed music, it means that singers or musicians synonyms. Actually, the word ‘voice’ frequently are divided into parts and this division is deliber- designates one part of a multipart texture also in ate and usually refl ected in the folk terminology.8 folk terminology, e.g. in the Russian (голос), Es- Since the concept of ‘part’ refers, fi rst of all, to tonian (hääl) and Mordvinian (Moksha) (вайгяль) musical thinking and behaviour, the concept of song traditions (the list of examples could cer- ‘multipart’ belongs fi rst and foremost to the re- tainly be continued – see, for example, the essay spective aspects of musical process. Of course, by Anda Beitāne on Latvian traditional songs in multipart music has also a sound dimension and, this volume). In traditional terminology, the word in this respect, a ‘simultaneous otherness’ is its ‘voice’ also often means the tune, the melody, very characteristic feature, but this is neither while for some scholars, the word ‘voice’ mainly strongly obligatory nor determinative. In fact, the associates with the human voice and vocal music; simultaneous sound of diff erent notes can appear and then there are, in addition, the philosophical without the division of performers and musical meanings of this word in anthropology and soci- texture into diff erent parts – this is the case in ology as well. many forms of heterophony. Moreover, the oppo- To avoid such misunderstandings, in this arti- site situation is not excluded, where the perform- cle I decided to use the term multilinear instead ers declare their division into parts (i.e. they have of ‘multivoiced’. It seems that the word ‘line’ is not

8 In this connection, it should be noted that the above-cited defi nition of multipart music given by the Study Group on Multipart Music excludes solo performance from the domain of multipart music practices. 9 This became especially clear to me during the Tallinn Seminar.

48 Žanna Pärtlas charged with so many diff erent meanings as the being ‘uncertain’ or ‘vague’, a ‘catchall’, etc. Al- word ‘voice’ and, when applied to music, it mostly though the term ‘heterophony’ has been in use associates with the musical texture as a sound as- among ethnomusicologists for more than a cen- pect of musical process. A further advantage of tury now, new attempts to fi nd a better defi nition the term ‘multilinear’ as opposed to ‘multivoiced’, for it are still appearing, and this paper makes its ‘multiphonic’, ‘plurivocal’, ‘plurilinear’ and ‘poly- own contribution to the topic. However, the short vocal’ is that it is more often used in music stud- defi nition of heterophony that appears at the end ies (especially in music theory) and therefore does of this article is by no means the main goal of my not sound strange;10 it is also equally applicable to research. both vocal and instrumental music. However, I am The concept of heterophony raises many is- compelled to state that an ideal term for ‘simul- sues. First of all, there is the question of how broad taneous otherness’ simply does not exist, unless or narrow the defi nition of heterophony should we invent a totally new word. One drawback of be and which level of musical process it should the word ‘multilinear’ as a neutral term is its con- characterize. The broadest defi nition at the level nection with the word ‘linear’, which is often used of sound, given by Sachs, was discussed above. in music theory and jazz-research as pointing to Sachs’ fourth (and preferred) suggestion is also the specifi c way of musical thinking where a ‘hori- very broad, but it belongs to the level of musical zontal’ musical dimension strongly prevails over thinking, connecting heterophony to all kinds of the ‘vertical’ one, or where it is the only factor improvisation in the oral musical tradition: “het- of music composition (e.g. such terms as ‘linear erophony is every type of part-performance left counterpoint’, ‘linear polyphony’, and ‘linear har- to tradition and improvisation – contrapunto alla mony’). As to heterophony, the word ‘linear’ char- mente as against res facta” (Sachs 1977 [1962]: 191). acterizes well the essence of this music in which In ethnomusicological literature we can also fi nd the vertical sonorities are not under the control of many narrower defi nitions that describe one eth- the performers. However, our goal here is to fi nd nic tradition or a group of them (see, for example, a neutral term for the level of musical texture – a the defi nition for Russian heterophonic singing term which would not be associated with a cer- in Narodnoye … 2005: 496). Such defi nitions may tain type of musical thinking. This problem could be very precise in terms of the respective musical be partly resolved by adding the word ‘texture’ styles to which they refer, but their cross-cultural to the term ‘multilinear’ wherever possible. In this use is rather more limited. It seems that the best article I use the concepts of multilinear music and working defi nition, which can be applied to many multilinear texture as belonging entirely to the diff erent musical styles, is still the ‘classical’ one level of sound realization (sound outcome) and (used by Stumpf, Hornbostel, Sachs, Cooke, Nettl, embracing all forms of ‘simultaneous otherness’ etc.), according to which, heterophony is the si- including every manifestation of heterophony. multaneous variation of the same melody. The ad- This term would seem to be useful in the context vantage of this defi nition is that it is simple and of both the general theory of musical texture and, clear. Nevertheless, it remains incomplete in that especially, in the discussion of heterophony. too many essential questions are left unresolved and some inherent features unnamed. 1.2. What does ‘the simultaneous variation of Although, at fi rst glance, the defi nition ‘simul- the same melody’ mean? taneous variation’ appears unequivocal and un- The original meaning of the ancient Greek term ambiguous, it can actually describe very diff erent ‘heterophony’, revived by Carl Stumpf in 1901, is musical phenomena. Let us examine the possible unclear. At the same time, almost all authors ad- meanings of ‘simultaneous variation’. In connec- mit that its new usage is also unsatisfactory – the tion with the word ‘variation’, a question arises term ‘heterophony’ is usually characterized as about the ‘theme’ of the variations. What is the

10 Among the terms mentioned here, the word ‘plurilinear’ might also be satisfactory as a neutral term at the level of texture (sound outcome). However, I would prefer ‘multilinear’ because it constitutes a better pair with ‘multipart’. Moreover, it would also be sensible to avoid the parallel use of three diff erent prefi xes – ‘poly-’ (in ‘polyphony’), ‘multi-’ (in ‘multipart’) and ‘pluri-’ (in ‘plurilinear’).

49 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony

‘theme’ of heterophonic variations, and where ation at the respectful distance of an eighthnote is it to be found? Does it sound simultaneously without disturbing or confusing the listener with with its variations? Or is it a pre-existing melody, its random con- and dissonances” (Sachs 1977 on which musicians create the variations? The an- [1962]: 187). Furthermore, the two last examples swer to these questions would also explain the show that not only ‘variation’, but also such a functional interrelations between the voices: are seemingly simple notion as simultaneity can be they equivalent melodic lines or, rather, subordi- called into question.11 John Napier shows this by nated polyphonic parts, one of which is a main examining what ‘as soon as possible’ means in melody, the ‘theme’, while the others are depend- North Indian sangat (Napier 2006: 94–95). Sachs’ ent parts, ‘variations’? description of Japanese musical practice confi rms With regard to many traditions of vocal heter- the possibility that the heterophonic divergences ophony (for example, Russian and, more broadly, can be caused not only by melodic variation, but East Slavic, Mordvinian, Udmurtian, etc.), we can also by the shift in synchronicity. assert that all variants of the song tune are func- Rudolf Brandl describes heterophony as the tionally equal and homogeneous and no single simultaneous performance of the ‘basis melody’ one of them can be considered as the ‘theme’. and ‘equivalent-alternative’ variations: Izaly Zemtsovsky describes the variation process Heterophony, too, is a two-dimensional cogni- in Russian folk songs as “variations without a tive structuring of the audible image in which, theme” (Zemtsovsky 1980: 38). However, the mu- by means of rules, an exclusively horizontal sical styles based on diff erent principles are also allocation of sounds and noises in additional often characterized as ‘heterophony’ – the arti- parts to a melody-line takes place. There is no cles in the musical dictionaries (such as The New vertical rule for the connection with the basis Grove, MGG and others) usually refer to such in- melody. [...] Heterophonic parts are seen as strumental music traditions as Japanese gagaku, equivalent-alternative forms of the basis melody Indonesian gamelan, Philippine kulintang, Thai (heterophony of variants) (Brandl 2008: 288; traditional music, etc. The term ‘heterophony’ is emphasis as in the original). also used to describe many practices of “accompanied vocal music of the Middle East and East Brandl does not provide concrete examples Asia, where the instrument provides an embel- of music where the ‘basis melody’ sounds simul- lished version of the vocal part” (Cooke 2001: 466). taneously with its ‘equivalent-alternative’ varia- Unlike functionally homogeneous vocal het- tions. It seems, however, that his defi nition corre- erophony, instrumental and vocal-instrumental sponds neither to the vocal heterophonic styles heterophony is usually functionally diff erentiated. mentioned above, where there is not a ‘basis mel- One example of such music could be the North ody’ as such, nor, presumably, to many practices Indian melodic accompaniment known as san- of instrumental and vocal-instrumental ‘simulta- gat. According to the description by John Napier neous variation’ in the music of Asia, where the (2006), in this kind of performance the melodic variations may not be ‘equivalent-alternative’. line of the singer-soloist can be understood as a There is also the question of the variation tech- ‘theme’ to which the accompanist adds a more niques that are relevant to heterophony. While or less diff erentiated variation almost simultane- some authors speak about homogeneous variously with the soloist’s part. Curt Sachs describes ants of the melody as the characteristic feature a similar practice in Japanese music: “the accom- of heterophony (Brandl 2008: 288; Narodnoye … panying instrument follows the singer in free vari- 2005: 495–496), others describe specifi c methods

11 Usually the ‘simultaneity’ of heterophonic variations means not merely their sounding at the same time, but implies the synchronicity of musical form. However, in the literature on heterophony there are cases where it is understood as the overlapping performance of similar musical utterances. Thus, Steven Brown, who sees the origins of music in the primary ‘contagious heterophony’, defi nes his newly invented term as follows: “a group vocalization in which each individual produces a variation on a similar kind of call but in which the members of the group call asynchronously; group-wide vocalizing emerges through a sequential process of spreading and contagion” (Brown 2003: 68). The typical example of such ‘contagious heterophony’ is the howling of wolves.

50 Žanna Pärtlas of variation such as ornamentation, simplifi ca- and is not usually designated as ‘heterophony’.12 tion, shortening, etc. (Sachs 1977 [1962]; Cooke Although we can fi nd here many heterophonic 2001; Napier 2006). With regard to this question divergences within the collectively performed there is no agreement among ethnomusicolo- parts (especially the lower main part), the general gists. Thus, David Morton, who shares the former compositional principle of the multipart texture is point of view, in his book The Traditional Music of the contradistinction of two or three parts, which Thailand (1976) objects to the designation of the are fully recognized as such by the singers. From Thai instrumental simultaneous variation as het- the above, we may conclude that heterophonic erophony: variations, as they are usually understood by researchers, are always situated at the same pitch The technique of combining simultaneously level (with the exception of octave duplications), one main melody and its variants is often and they are not intended as lower and upper incorrectly described as heterophony: poly- melodic parts. Heterophonically related melodic phonic stratifi cation seems a more precise de- lines should consequently have a suffi cient num- scription, since each of the ‘layers’ is not just a ber of unison (or octave) points to be perceived as close approximation of the main melody, but the variations of the same melody. also has distinct characteristics and a style of In relation to these unison points, the question its own (Morton 1976: 39). arises as to the extent to which the heterophonic While Morton’s observation concerning the variations should diff er from each other. This is, diff erent principles that can underlie simultane- so to speak, a quantitative characteristic of hetero- ous variation is very important for our under- phonic variation. The most usual understanding standing of heterophony, nevertheless we cannot is that the diff erence between the melodic vari- ignore the century-long tradition of the usage of ants should be rather small in heterophony. Some the term ‘heterophony’ (which is supported by researchers (e.g. the Russian ethnomusicologists) the musical dictionaries), and it seems that the draw a distinction between ‘monodic’ and ‘vari- only solution would be the more inclusive, but ant heterophony’ depending on the amount of not catch-all, defi nition of this term. multilinear divergence. Another example of such The question of the variation techniques in a quantitative approach is the statement by Jo- heterophony is even more complex, because seph Jordania in the book cited above: there is also the unresolved problem of where to heterophonic polyphony diff ers from all other draw the border between a variation of the same types of polyphony, because it can belong to melody and a melodically distinct part. For exam- (a) polyphonic family (when the diff erences ple, should we consider a subsidiary part moving between the versions are well defi ned), or it in the parallel thirds with the main melody as a could also belong to (b) monophonic fam- variation of the latter? The similarity of the me- ily (when the deviations from the unison are lodic contours and the unity of the rhythm sug- minimal) (Jordania 2006: 28–29). gest that such melodic lines are related as some kind of variants. However, scholars do not usually Jordania admits that in this case “the diff er- consider this type of variation as a heterophonic ence is purely quantitative (and not qualitative)”, technique. Thus, though the Russian so-called which reveals that when distinguishing between подголосочная полифония (literally, ‘the po- polyphony and monophony he proceeds primar- lyphony of subsidiary voices’) is essentially the ily from the level of the sound outcome. Although polyphony of melodic variants, it is divided into such an approach is pertinent in diff erentiating functionally diff erent (main and subsidiary, lower between particular kinds of musical texture, it and upper) and harmonically regulated parts, seems to me that the more appropriate approach

12 The rare exception is the position of Joseph Jordania, who characterises the entire Russian multipart singing tradition (except some cases of ‘drone polyphony’) – and even more widely, that of the Eastern Slavs – as ‘variant heterophony’ (Jordania 1988: 27) or ‘heterophonic polyphony’ (Jordania 2006: 226–227). I fi nd that the preferable English term for подголосочная полифония would be ‘variant polyphony’ (Emsheimer 1991: 279), as this allows us to diff erentiate between the latter and the various forms of Russian one-part singing named by local researchers ‘heterophony’.

51 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony to the main types of musical thinking, such as mo- is an inherent feature of heterophony, it should be nophony and polyphony, should be ‘qualitative’. refl ected in its defi nition.13 It seems to me, how- With regard to heterophonic variation, the ques- ever, that the issue of consciousness, intention, tion as to how the variation is intended and un- control over the sonic outcome and vertical reg- derstood by the performers themselves is more ularity is much more diffi cult than it may at fi rst essential than the amount of multilinear activity glance appear. Therefore, these questions will be in the texture. discussed separately in the relevant section of this Thus we can say that the most usual defi nition article. of heterophony – ‘the simultaneous variation of the same melody’ – allows diff erent interpreta- 2. Bipartite and tripartite theoretical models tions and embraces diff erent musical phenomena. in the approach to heterophony If one prefers a more specifi c use of this concept In the previous discussion, I mentioned the im- (as, for example, Morton, Brandl and Russian eth- portance of making a distinction between the dif- nomusicologists), the relevant defi nition should ferent levels of musical process – for example, the include the additional limitations concerning the levels of musical thinking and sonic realization. functional interrelation of the melodic lines and Such diff erentiation can be illuminating in the ex- the methods of variation. The latter aspect should plaining of the nature of heterophony and other be specifi ed even if we agree with the more gen- forms of musical texture and also help to systema- eral usage of the term, and the distinction be- tize the terminology. In this connection, I will try tween diff erent forms of heterophony is still of to compare and possibly incorporate the ideas use in both situations. originating from Russian-language music theory In any case, there are some other essential and ethnomusicology (especially, the theory of features of heterophony which the ‘classical’ defi - musical texture by Tatyana Bershadskaya) with nition fails to mention, though these are often the well-known tripartite model by Alan P. Mer- discussed by ethnomusicologists in this context. riam ‘concept – behaviour – sound’. Although nei- I refer here to questions about the consciousness ther of these concepts is new, they still seem to be or unconsciousness of heterophony and the exist- very fruitful for attaining a better understanding ence of vertical coordination between the melodic of the process of oral music-making and its sound variations. With respect to the former question, results. Curt Sachs and some other ethnomusicologists fi nd it necessary to make a distinction between 2.1. The music theoretical viewpoint: musical ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious’ heterophony. The thinking and sonic realization answer to the question about vertical coordina- Heterophony is often considered to be a bor- tion is unanimously negative, i.e. there is none. der area between monophony and polyphony.14 Reading the literature on the question gives the Sometimes heterophony is named the primary impression that the lack of ‘vertical rules’ is no less form of polyphony; less frequently it is called the an essential attribute of heterophony than ‘simul- primary form of monophony (and even, some- taneous variation’. For Guido Adler, who was an times, the primary form of music, as in Brown important fi gure in the popularization of the term 2003). It can also be considered as a transitional ‘heterophony’ at the beginning of the 20th centu- form between monophony and polyphony. ry, it was even the main criterion of heterophony, Whether heterophony is interpreted as belonging which he defi ned as “rudimentary irregular po- to polyphony or monophony depends on which lyphony” (Adler 1985 [1908]: 631). From the above, type of heterophonic music the scholar has in we can conclude that ‘the simultaneous variation mind, how this music is intended by the singers/ of the same melody’ is not a suffi cient explanation instrumentalists, and how it is heard and under- of the phenomenon of heterophony. If irregularity stood by researchers. At the same time, however,

13 ‘The simultaneous variation’ in itself does not mean the lack of vertical organization. 14 See, for example, the statement of Jordania: “Heterophony is strategically positioned between polyphony and monophony” (Jordania 2006: 225).

52 Žanna Pärtlas this depends no less on how the terminology is Applying Bershadskaya’s theory to heteropho- interpreted. Are monophony and polyphony no- ny, we can say that in many cases one is dealing tions belonging to the level of musical thinking here with monodic musical thinking realized in or just types of musical texture, i.e. notions at the a polyphonic texture. Using other terms (which level of sound? I would prefer in English), it is a realization of This issue was widely debated in Russian-lan- monophonic thinking in a multilinear texture. Such guage ethnomusicology and music theory dur- an explanation fi ts well with many styles of vocal ing the 1970s and 1980s (Kharlap 1972; Skrebkov heterophony, which are mostly unintentional and 1973; Bershadskaya 1985 [1978]; Galitskaya 1981; unconscious. The singers intend to perform the Alekseyev 1986). In this discussion, the position same melody (monophonic thinking), but they do of the music theorist Tatiana Bershadskaya seems not aim to sing it in a strict unison. In such condi- to be the most coherent and systematically for- tions, the melodic variation, which is an intrinsic mulated. Bershadskaya makes a clear distinction characteristic of oral music, causes the multilinear between the levels of musical thinking and its divergences in the texture (multilinear texture). In sonic realisation (the level of sound). For the fi rst some styles of vocal heterophony (e.g. the het- level, Bershadskaya uses the term музыкальный erophonic songs of some regions of Russia), these склад or just склад (this word can be translated divergences can be so signifi cant that they create as ‘constitution’ or ‘composition’). This level is es- the impression of intentional polyphony.16 In such sentially an ideal, pointing to the inner logic, the cases, researchers, defi ning the type of musical deep structure of the musical texture. The level thinking, proceed from the comments of singers, of sonic realisation (sound) is designated by the who assert that they sing ‘in one voice’. term фактура (‘texture’). This is a material level However, as mentioned above, the multilinear (i.e. the level of the materialization), which is con- music that ethnomusicologists name ‘heteropho- nected with the particular surface structures. ny’ is not always unconscious. In this context the Bershadskaya distinguishes between three gen- question emerges as to how we should defi ne the eral principles of musical thinking (музыкальные musical thinking of the singers/instrumentalists склады): monodic, polyphonic (in the sense of if they are themselves aware of the heterophonic Sachs’ ‘horizontal polyphony’), and harmonic, all divergences, if the variation is intentional, if the of which can be realised in multiple forms of mu- performers divide themselves into functionally sical texture (Bershadskaya 1985 [1978]: 11–12).15 diff erent parts, but when they nevertheless still She draws attention to the fact that the appear- do not aim to coordinate the vertical aspect of the ance of musical texture can diff er from and even multilinear texture. Is their thinking polyphonic, oppose the principles that give rise to it. For in- since they produce the multilinear texture delib- stance, polyphonic thinking can be realised in a erately, or monophonic, since every performer chordal (harmonic) texture (as is often the case in proceeds in the creation of his/her melodic line Renaissance polyphony), while behind the mono- from a purely horizontal (i.e. melodic, linear) musi- phonic texture there can be both polyphonic and cal logic and without taking into account the ver- harmonic principles (viz. the well-known cases of tical sonorities that emerge as result of variation? implicit polyphony and harmony) (Bershadskaya To answer this question, we should again defi ne 1985 [1978]: 12–14). Thus we should distinguish our terms. Do we understand polyphony merely between monophonic musical thinking and as “a texture consisting of two or more simultane- monophonic texture, between polyphonic think- ous lines of independent melody”,17 or should the ing and polyphonic texture, and also between defi nition include the condition of vertical regu- harmonic (homophonic) thinking and harmonic larity, e.g. “simultaneously combining a number (homophonic) texture. of parts, each forming an individual melody and

15 When ascribing the names to the types of musical thinking, Bershadskaya prefers the term ‘monodic’ to ‘monophonic’ and ‘harmonic’ to ‘homophonic’ because of the special tradition of the usage of these terms in Russian music theory. 16 A particularly developed multilinear texture appears in the Russian so-called ‘diff erentiated heterophony’ and ‘drone-like diaphony’ (бурдонная диафония) (see Narodnoye … 2005: 496–497). 17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony (15.01.2016).

53 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony harmonizing with each other” (emphasis mine)?18 to the traditional shared knowledge concern- Although the larger part of polyphonic music is ing the structure of multilinear texture and the governed by both melodic and harmonic rules, it techniques of its production. The most focused seems that the question of vertical coordination manifestation of this knowledge is the traditional should not be determinative for the recognition terminology. We are not dealing here with an ab- of musical thinking as polyphonic. This is because stract music theory. On the contrary, traditional the notion of polyphony refers fi rst and foremost terminology is mostly connected with the practi- to the building of musical texture (the texture lay- cal organization of the process of music making, ers, their functions, etc.) and to the thinking con- and it also functions as a teaching tool (although nected with this, while the pitch relations belong the main method of teaching in the oral traditions rather to the domain of a modal or tonal system. is usually by imitation). The terminology and other Thus, I would conclude that the deliberate pro- verbalised forms of traditional knowledge refl ect duction of a multilinear texture of melodic char- the generally accepted understandings about acter should be a suffi cient reason for speaking the division of roles between performers and the about polyphony in terms of both the musical building of musical texture. These doubtless have thinking and its realization. a signifi cant eff ect on the musical practice, but we cannot be sure that they conform entirely to what 2.2. The music anthropological viewpoint: singers/instrumentalists really do (the level of concept – behaviour – sound behaviour) or to the actual musical outcome (the While music theory, by contradistinguishing the level of sound). Moreover, there are some aspects ideal (cognitive) and material levels of musical of musical structure that are not usually discussed process, off ers a bipartite model for approach- by the bearers of tradition. When answering the ing the issue of musical texture, in ethnomusicol- questions of ethnomusicologists, the bearers of ogy we have the well-known tripartite model of tradition are able to go beyond the scope of tra- Merriam, concept – behaviour – sound, which also ditional discourse in their explanations, but topics distinguishes between the diff erent levels of mu- remain which are completely outside their tradi- sical process. Although Merriam’s triad suggests tional way of thinking. the general scheme for ethnomusicological stud- The traditions of functionally homogeneous ies and is applicable to many areas of research, it vocal heterophony are usually poor in terminol- can be also a very effi cient tool for investigating ogy. Singers have no need to negotiate the divi- questions related to musical texture and the pro- sion of roles or the methods of variation. The very cesses of its formation. It would seem very helpful typical answer to the inquiry of ethnomusicolo- to examine all kinds of multipart and multilinear gists is ‘we sing in one voice’, which means both music bearing in mind the clear distinction be- the same part and the same tune. For instance, tween the three levels of Merriam’s triad. With re- such a statement is characteristic of all types of spect to heterophony, it gives especially interest- Russian heterophonic singing, including the so- ing results, because one can fi nd here (apparent) called ‘diff erentiated heterophony’ and ‘bourdon discrepancies between these three levels. For in- diaphony’, which give to the outsider-listener the stance, the performers of heterophonic songs can impression of intentionally organized multipart assert that they all sing ‘in one voice’ (the level of singing (Narodnoye … 2005: 496). The performers conceptualization), but actually they signifi cantly of functionally diff erentiated heterophony (which vary the melody (the level of musical behaviour) is mostly instrumental or vocal-instrumental) are and as a result we can hear a dense multivoiced obviously able to give more detailed explana- texture (the level of sound). I will now try to ap- tions concerning the formation of the multilinear ply Merriam’s model consistently to the issue of texture, variation technique and the relations be- heterophony. tween the parts. Concept. The level of “conceptualisation about Behaviour. The notion of “behaviour in relation music” (Merriam 1964: 32) refers, in our case, to music” (Merriam 1964: 32) embraces many dif-

18 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defi nition/english/polyphony (15.01.2016).

54 Žanna Pärtlas ferent aspects. Merriam distinguishes between 1976: 21). What links the two kinds of heterophony three kinds of behaviour – physical, social and ver- is the lack of vertical coordination at the level of bal – which can be further subdivided into more musical behaviour (i.e. we do not exclude the pos- particular forms of behaviour (Merriam 1964: 33). sibility that a vertical coordination can be present Among the behavioural manifestations related to at the level of sound) and the principle of simulta- music are the posture of the performers’ bodies, neous variation (although the methods used may gestures, the interaction between the perform- be diff erent). ers in the ensemble, the reaction of the listeners, Sound. The level of sound would seem to be etc. It seems that ‘behaviour in relation to music’ more unequivocal, less ambiguous. This is the should also include ‘musical behaviour’ as such, material level of music, the sonic realization of the i.e. the musical decisions, both conscious and musical thinking, the sound outcome of the pro- unconscious, that singers/instrumentalists make cesses of conceptualization and behaviour. Sound during the performance of music. To specifi cally can be also understood as a ‘musical text’ and, in musical decisions belong, for example, improvisa- this respect, it has a multilevel, multi-aspect struc- tion, variation, the use of melodic embellishment, ture. When investigating conceptualization and the choice of the part in multipart music, the ad- behaviour we can prognosticate the sound result; justment of one’s own part to the parts of other and when investigating the sound result we can performers, the reaction to their musical deci- make assumptions as to the conceptualization sions, and so on. and behaviour. However, the level of sound is to If we include such forms of musical behaviour some extent independent. Not all the regular pat- in the middle category of Merriam’s triad, we can terns that can be found in the musical text pro- state that in heterophony, at the level of musical ceed directly from the theoretical intentions or behaviour, a melodic variation always takes place. even from the actual behaviour of the perform- In functionally homogeneous heterophony, all ers. Music is in some sense a self-organizing sys- performers actualize the melody within the vari- tem, where order at one level of musical structure ation zone inherent to the musical tradition. As can result in regular patterns at other levels. Thus, a rule, they do not employ specifi c methods of in respect of a multilinear texture, the vertical variation, the use of which could create func- sonorities can depend on the musical scales and tional diff erences between the variants. Such a vice versa; the vertical organization can be condi- type of ‘equivalent-alternative’ variation can be tioned by the rules of melodic development and considered as a specifi cally ‘heterophonic varia- vice versa; some aspects of the harmony can be tion’, although this characterizes only one kind of explained through the rhythmic system, and so heterophonic music. One more essential feature on. Therefore, it is sometimes suffi cient that one of ‘heterophonic variation’ is that it is optional, of the aspects of musical structure be consciously i.e. there is no obligation to vary the melody. The organized in order to produce regular patterns in variation happens spontaneously and if it does other aspects which are not under the direct con- not happen, or if melodic variants coincide with trol of the performers. each other, it is not a problem for the performers. The organization of the vertical aspect of mul- Finally, a specifi cally ‘heterophonic variation’ is tilinear music can take diff erent forms and mani- individual and non-coordinated: Each performer fests itself with diff erent degrees of intensity. We makes his/her musical decisions personally with- can even say that some elements of regularity can out taking into account the musical decisions of be always found inasmuch as music diff ers from other performers, at least with respect to the re- noise. The question thus arises as to what kind of sulting sonorities. In functionally diff erentiated orderliness should be considered as an example heterophony, on the other hand, the methods of of ‘vertical organization’ in multilinear music. It variation can be intentionally or unintentionally seems that this is a question of limitation. If the specialized. Such specialization is often connect- structure of vertical sonorities is limited only by ed with the technical abilities of the instruments the structure of the musical scale, it is not enough – as David Morton explained this in relation to to draw the conclusion that the vertical aspect is Thai music, “each individual line follows the style organized, because such limitation is inevitable idiomatic for the instrument playing it” (Morton per se and does not need the intervention of the

55 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony

human mind. ‘True’ vertical coordination begins Figure 1. Comparison of the bipartite and tripartite when the usage of the possible sonorities is lim- models of musical process. ited by some additional principle – this might be, for example, the prevalence of the specifi c intervals or combinations of the scale notes.19 Such regularities may manifest themselves at diff erent levels of musical structure and are usually more evident at its deeper levels (Pärtlas 2012).

2.3. Comparison of the bipartite and tripartite models The use of both the models described above – the music theoretical and music anthropological – helps understand better the nature of multipart and multilinear music. Both conceptions pro- all aspects of musical text – structural, acoustical, ceed from the diff erentiation between thinking perceptional, etc.; in Bershadskaya’s conception, in relation to music and its realization as sound. the ‘texture’ refl ects the structural aspect of the However, they are quite diff erent. The scheme in musical text (more exactly the surface layer of the the Figure 1 shows the relation between the two structure). The profound diff erence between the models – the white ovals designate the levels of two research models under consideration con- the tripartite model by Merriam, while the grey cerns, however, the source of the information: the ones refer to the bipartite model suggested by ethnomusicological approach takes into account Bershadskaya. all the sources of information available to the re- The major diff erence here is that the level of be- searcher, whereas the music theoretical approach haviour is present only in Merriam’s model, which obtains information about musical thinking from is a manifestation of the ethnomusicological ap- an analysis of the musical text. It would seem that proach. Additionally, the notion of ‘musical think- the analytical potential of the music theoretical ing’ is not exactly the same as that of ‘conceptu- approach might also be used successfully in eth- alization’. Whereas the latter refers to knowledge nomusicological research, especially when mu- that can be verbalized (‘thinking about music’ sical texts (e.g. archival recordings) are the only rather than ‘musical thinking’), the former notion source available. In any case, we can state that a is broader – it includes not only conceptualization consideration of the diff erent aspects and levels but also specifi cally musical thinking, which can of the musical process gives us a more complete, be a non-verbal cognitive process.20 Bershads- multi-dimensional insight into the issue of musi- kaya’s notion of texture seems, on the contrary, cal texture and multipart and multilinear music to be narrower than that of sound. According to making. Merriam, the “sound has structure, and it may be a system” (Merriam 1964: 32). The ‘texture’ in Ber- 3. Towards an inclusive and diff erentiated shadskaya’s theory also has a structure, but it is a conception of heterophony surface structure, and the level of the deep structure, that of the musical system, is designated as 3.1. One-part and multipart heterophony the склад (which is, at the ideal level, a manifesta- When discussing the topic of heterophony, eth- tion of the ‘musical thinking in relation to texture’). nomusicologists do not usually touch upon the In ethnomusicology, the level of sound embraces question of the diff erent kinds of heterophony

19 Concerning the diff erent principles of the formation of the vertical sonorities in multilinear music see Pärtlas 2010. 20 The concept of ‘musical thinking’ as a specifi c form of non-verbal imaginative thinking is very important for Russian musicological thought in general (e.g. see the works of the leading Russian scholars such as Yuri Kholopov, Yuri Tyulin, Viktor Bobrovsky, Vyacheslav Medushevsky, Yevgeny Nazaikinsky and others). With regard to traditional multipart singing, the importance of ‘musical thinking’ and ‘musical hearing’ is emphasized by Izaly Zemtsovsky, who describes “part-singing as part-thinking”, which means that part-singing is only possible when each member of polyphonic community (Homo Polyphonicus) is able to hear and think polyphonically (Zemtsovsky 2003: 47, 51).

56 Žanna Pärtlas that occur in the diff erent musical cultures of the bution of every singer/instrumentalist, etc. Using world, their comparison or the search for an inte- the words ‘part’ and ‘multipart’ fi guratively, au- grating defi nition. Individual researchers mostly thors sometimes express quite radical ideas, like proceed from the particular musical traditions that of Ignazio Macchiarella, for example, who that they investigate. For instance, John Napier in draws attention to the ‘parts’ of performer and his article “A ‘Failed’ Unison or Conscious Diff er- listener: “Indeed, all music might be considered entiation: The Notion of ‘Heterophony’ in North ‘multipart’, since all music (or almost all music) Indian Vocal Performance” (2006) provides a per- is a social act (“a social experience” in Blacking’s spicacious discussion of many theoretical ques- terms), i.e. it comes from interactions between tions of heterophony, but he does not go beyond at least two parts: performer and listener” (Mac- those topics which are directly connected to his chiarella 2012: 9). Although this remark is valu- musical subject. In English-language ethnomusi- able in itself, it is hardly helpful to use the term cological works we very seldom fi nd references ‘multipart’ with such a broad meaning. The other to heterophonic styles other than those of the radical interpretation would be to understand the instrumental and vocal-instrumental music of word ‘part’ as an individual musical contribution South-East, East and South Asia and the Middle of each performer. In this case, we would have to East. Despite some exceptions to this tendency, confess that all collectively performed music is such as Scottish Gaelic psalm-singing (one of the ‘multipart’, which is also too broad a meaning of common examples of heterophony given in mu- the term. Even if we assume that a ‘part’ means sic dictionaries), the vast layer of heterophonic the division of the performers into the function- singing in Eastern Europe (Eastern Slavs, Finno- ally diff erent parts, the problem remains that such Ugric peoples) is hardly considered. On the other a division is not necessarily connected with their hand, Russian-language ethnomusicology, in simultaneous sound, since the parts can be per- which the subject of heterophony is thoroughly formed successively – for example, the parts of investigated and theoretically discussed, takes the lead singer and responding chorus.21 The very into account only the heterophonic singing styles broad interpretations mentioned above make characteristic of the latter region. My own disser- the term ‘multipart’ too catchall and obliterate tation on heterophony in the ritual songs of the its meaning as a term relating to the domain of Russian-Belorussian borderland (1992) follows, in musical texture and to the conceptualization and this respect, the Russian theoretical tradition, and behaviour that give rise to it. To keep the mean- the defi nition of heterophony which I have pro- ing of the term ‘multipart’ within reasonable posed in that work is valid only for the relevant borders, it would be sensible to limit its usage to type of heterophonic singing. cases of the intentional production of ‘simultane- One of the purposes of this article is to fi nd a ous otherness’. This means that, at the diff erent defi nition of heterophony which would be in- levels of musical process, the notion ‘part’ would clusive enough to encompass all kinds of het- designate (1) the musical textural function that is erophonic music making and, at the same time, recognized by the singers/instrumentalists (the suffi ciently diff erentiative to point to the principal level of musical thinking and conceptualization), diff erences between them. The necessary condi- (2) the single performer or group of performers tion for the achievement of such a goal is to make who execute a functionally diff erentiated part of a clear distinction between one-part and multi- the musical texture (the level of behaviour), and part heterophony. To understand this distinction (3) the respective layer of the musical texture (the unambiguously, we should fi rst agree on what we level of sound). Under such conditions, the term mean by a ‘part’. ‘multipart’ would mean intentional and negotiated The word part is rich in meanings, both musi- division of the performers into functionally diff erent cal and general. In ethnomusicology, the term parts with the goal of producing the simultaneous can denote the layer of the musical texture, the sound of two or more melodic lines. part of the performing group, the musical or so- In accordance with the above, I would suggest cial role of the performer, the individual contri- using the notion one-part heterophony in those

21 Susanne Fürniss pointed to this problem of terminology in her paper at the Tallinn Seminar.

57 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony cases in which all the singers/instrumentalists variant heterophony the diff erences between perform the same part – in other words, when the individual melodic lines are quite small. In they are not divided into diff erent parts. Such a the former case, they are limited by diff erences situation mostly occurs when the group of per- in tuning, micro-melodic and micro-rhythmic formers is homogeneous, consisting only of sing- elements and voice embellishment (which still ers or of one kind of musical instrument. creates a specifi c sound very diff erent from the One-part heterophony is a widespread phe- unison of art music). According to the textbook nomenon. For example, it is typical of many re- we are referring to here, variant heterophony gional song traditions of the East Slavs; it also can be one- and two-register, which means that occurs among Finno-Ugric peoples such as Mord- some of the singers perform their variants of the vinians and Udmurts and among the Kryashen- melody an octave above the others (such a form Tatars (Boyarkina 1986; Nuriyeva 2008; Almeyeva of singing is typical of North-Russia and some 2008). Russian ethnomusicology, describing such other regions) (Narodnoye … 2005: 496).22 In dif- a type of music making, names heterophony ferentiated heterophony and bourdon diaphony функциональное одноголосие (in relation to vo- one can fi nd some rudiments of functional dif- cal music, it can be translated as ‘functional one- ferentiation, with some singers mostly using the part singing’) and opposes it to the функциональ- lower or upper part of the scale and some singers ное двухголосие (‘functional two-part singing’, performing the fragments of the bourdon. While the term coined by Yevgeny Gippius) (Narodnoye the sound outcome gives the impression of quite … 2005: 495–496). The latter means that the sing- a developed degree of polyphony, we are never- ers consciously diff erentiate between two tex- theless still dealing here with one-part singing, in tural parts and have a respective terminology as much as (1) the singers do not recognize these (Narodnoye … 2005: 498). In the work just men- divergences as diff erent parts (although they are tioned (which was intended as a textbook on Rus- to some extent aware of them), (2) they do not sian traditional music), the following defi nition is have traditional terms for designating these tex- given for heterophony: tural functions, and (3) such kinds of specialized variation are not obligatory for the singers.23 Functional one-part singing [функциональ- Collectively performed one-part music which ное одноголосие] or heterophony […] is the is realized in a multilinear texture can be always type of multilinear texture [многоголосной defi ned as heterophony, because singing/play- фактуры] that is characterized by the inter- ing one part always means performing the same lacement of the diff erent performers’ versions melody or, more precisely, melodic model. In the within the confi nes of the same voice part [го- case of multipart practice there can be diff erent лосовой партии]. In respect to such texture, situations: the simultaneously performed parts the folk singers say that they all sing ‘in one can proceed from diff erent melodic models (this voice’ (Narodnoye … 2005: 496). is the more typical situation) or from the same In the same textbook, three types of heter- model. The latter case impels us to consider the ophony are described: (1) ‘variant heterophony’, use of the term ‘heterophony’. If we agree to ex- (2) ‘diff erentiated heterophony’ and (3) ‘bourdon tend the use of this term to cases of the intention- diaphony’ (бурдонная диафония, Yevgeny Gip- al, functionally diff erentiated simultaneous varia- pius’ term) (Narodnoye … 2005: 496–497). In some tion of the same melody, we should use in such a other publications, ‘monodic heterophony’ (‘a context the notion of multipart heterophony. Such wide unison’) is also mentioned. In monodic and a use of the term ‘heterophony’ was actually quite

22 It seems to me that in the case of the two-register singing the use of the term ‘heterophony’ is questionable, because the lower and upper parts have diff erent textural and even social functions (the married women sing with the chest voice and young unmarried women with the head voice) and the performers are aware of this. They characterize the timber of the voices as ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ voices (Narodnoye … 2005: 496). This ‘two-register heterophony’ also occurs among Udmurts (Nuriyeva 2008: 65, 66). 23 The singing practices described here are obviously the transitional forms between one-part and multipart musical practice.

58 Žanna Pärtlas usual from the very beginning, when this notion of the particularities of the instruments’ playing was introduced into scholarly language, and is techniques and conventional musical idioms. legitimized by long ethnomusicological practice. According to Benjamin Brinner: “Given a basic In connection with the topic of heterophony, eth- melody, musicians will rely on their idiomatic nomusicologists very often refer to the orchestral knowledge of instrument-specifi c conventions music of south-east Asia, such as the Indonesian (the “idiom” of that instrument) to create the gamelan (e.g. Cooke 2001). This musical practice strands that make up the rich, dense texture char- can provide a very good example of ‘multipart acteristic of Javanese gamelan” (Brinner 2008: 24). heterophony’. The conjunction of the melodic versions into the All researchers describe the texture of gamelan whole texture is coordinated on the basis of cer- music as consisting of multiple textural layers tain vertical rules and musicians create their vari- (usually named ‘strata’) which are easily distin- ations taking into account the musical decisions guishable for listeners owing to their specifi c of the other participants in the performance. As sound characteristics. The strata can be grouped Brinner asserts: “Musicians listen to one another, into four or fi ve functional layers such as “(1) foun- acutely aware of what others are doing and at- dation/colotomic, (2) simplifi ed/abstracted mel- tuned to the cues that come from those playing ody, (3) elaborated/varied melody, and (4) drum leading roles” (Brinner 2008: 24). patterns” (Spiller 2004: 71).24 The melodic strata According to the descriptions above, the mul- (the second and third functions in Spiller’s clas- tipart heterophony of gamelan essentially diff ers sifi cation) are based on the same melodic mod- from the one-part vocal heterophony of the East el – pokok in Balinese and balungan in Javanese Slavs, Finno-Ugric peoples and others: the parts tradition (Jaap Kunst named it ‘nuclear melody’) are functionally diff erentiated, the variation tech- – which is varied in accordance with the textural niques are specialized, one of the parts is recog- functions and specifi c characteristics of the in- nized as the theme (model) for variation, and the struments. As Henry Spiller explains: simultaneous melodic variants are coordinated at least at some certain points of the metrical and The lower-pitched instruments (jengglong rhythmic form. Nevertheless, we are still dealing and demung) play versions of the melody here with the principle of simultaneous variation, that are very simple – only seven notes in the the melodic versions have the same reference example. The versions played by the higher- notes (i.e. the structurally fi xed sonorities are uni- pitched instruments (boning and titil) are, by sons or octaves), and, between obligatory unison comparison, very elaborate. They are consid- points, the vertical outcome of variation is not a ered to be diff erent versions of the same mel- matter for detailed aural control.25 ody because they land on the same pitches at Another kind of the ‘multipart heterophony’ is regular time intervals. The simplifi ed version, to be found in accompanied vocal music where a played by the lower-pitched instruments, in- melodic instrument performs the variation of the cludes only the melody’s most essential con- vocal part. In this connection, I referred above to tours (Spiller 2004: 70). the North-Indian melodic accompaniment sangat The diff erences between variations emerge (Napier 2006) and to a similar Japanese practise not only as a result of performing diff erent com- mentioned by Sachs (Sachs 1977 [1962]: 187). positional functions such as ‘abstraction’ and Certainly, there must also be other examples of ‘elaboration’ (Tenzer 2000: 53), but also because such heterophonic accompaniment, including

24 Michael Tenzer names these functions in a slightly diff erent way and adds the function of ‘mediation’ – “pokok reinforcement (or colotomic melody)” (Tenzer 2000: 53). 25 In connection with the theory and terminology of gamelan music, it should be noted that contemporary gamelan researchers do not actively use the word ‘heterophony’, preferring instead the notions of ‘polyphonic stratifi cation’ and ‘simultaneous variation’. However, some authors mention that the latter technique can be named ‘heterophony’ (Brinner 2008: 88; Spiller 2004: 12, 278); sometimes the term ‘stratifi ed heterophony’ is used in this connection. It is also interesting that, as Tenzer remarks, the understandings of strata and their compositional functions are more characteristic of the Western conceptualization of gamelan music, whereas “the traditional taxonomies are not concerned with the idea of strata” (Tenzer 2000: 52).

59 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony

‘self-heterophony’, which emerges when a singer 3.2. Consciousness, intention, control and accompanies his/her singing on a melodic instru- vertical regularities in heterophony ment, as is the case with the Serbian epic songs The concepts listed in the title of this subsection with gusle. Some cases of heterophonic accom- are closely connected to one another, but they paniment were already briefl y described above; are not the same. As mentioned above, Curt Sachs therefore here I will only summarize their es- makes a distinction between ‘unconscious’ and sential features, comparing them with the other ‘conscious’ heterophony (1957, 1962). Peter Cooke types of heterophonic music making. (2001) uses in this context words with slightly Such practises should be defi ned as multipart diff erent meanings: ‘accidental’ and ‘deliberate’. music because the parts of the singer and accom- John Napier (2006) wittily notes that heterophony panist are functionally diff erentiated and subor- can be unintentional but conscious, if the reason dinated. The singer’s part is considered to be the for variant deviations lies in the skills of the musi- main part and the reference melody for the ac- cians involved. He also mentions the expression companist; from the point of view of variation, it “a planless plan” by Alan Lomax (1976), which is a ‘theme’. The accompanying instrumental part refers to the contrary situation – heterophony (or parts) is a subsidiary part, which follows the so- that is intentional (planned) but not conscious loist’s musical decisions. According to John Napi- in details. The intention to produce a multilinear er’s description, “if the authority of the soloist is texture does not necessarily mean that musicians accepted, and their line is understood as ‘prime’, also carefully coordinate their parts and control it may be interpreted as the ‘normal’ version pre- the resulting vertical sonorities. When consider- sented at the same time as one or more accompa- ing coordination and control, we should not think nying voices actually present ‘the heterophony’” in the terms of ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but ought always to (Napier 2006: 93). As in the case with gamelan, ask the extent to which the sound is coordinated the variation methods of the instrumentalists are and controlled. Finally, the lack of deliberate verti- idiomatic for their instruments. All the same, the cal coordination and control does not mean that performers’ attitude towards the diff erences be- there are no regularities in the vertical aspect of tween the parts may, in some respects, be similar the music. These cognitive questions and some to that of one-part vocal heterophony, because other relative topics of heterophony will be dis- musicians tend to declare that the accompanist cussed below. follows the soloist exactly (Napier 2006: 102). Summarizing the above, we may conclude that 3.2.1. Hearing and listening in the perception of the main diff erences between one-part and mul- heterophony tipart heterophony concern the question of func- From the cognitive point of view, it would be in- tional diff erentiation (including subordination) teresting to consider the discrepancies between and the method of variation. One-part heter- the intention of the performers to sing/play the ophony is characterized by the lack of functional same melody and the multilinear textural out- diff erentiation and subordination of the melodic come. Moreover, the question is not only one lines and by the ‘equivalent-alternative’ method of intention, but also of the perception of the of variation, whereas the textural layers of multi- sound result. John Napier comments on the san- part heterophony are functionally diff erentiated gat practice: “I was surprised when not one, but and subordinated and the variation methods are two consultants told me that the accompanist specialized. The most important common fea- can play the same thing at the same time. This tures of both types of heterophony are the princi- seemed to fl y in the face of both commonsense, ple of ‘simultaneous variation’ and the lack of de- and almost everything that I had heard” (Napier liberate aural control over the vertical sonorities 2006: 102). Questioning the traditional singers (except structural unisons). However, the ques- of the Russian-Belorussian borderland in 1980s, tion of aural control and coordination is quite a I received the same ‘standard’ explanation, which diffi cult one and will therefore be discussed in the was mentioned above in connection with Russian next part of the article. heterophonic singing (Narodnoye … 2005: 496):

60 Žanna Pärtlas

“We sing these songs in one voice”. When I in- Equally, it is also possible that some performers sisted and explained my question more precisely, consciously produce a multilinear texture, while I was fi nally told that everyone sings the tune in others just perform their individual variants of the his/her own way and it is possible that they do not melody. sing exactly the same melody. It seemed to me In the perception of heterophonic music by that my question was strange to my consultants outsider listeners (e.g. by ethnomusicologists), and that normally they do not think about it. Of the emphasis of aural attention is often shifted. course, they would be able to hear the deviations We tend to pay attention to the aspects of sound from unison in their singing, but apparently they which are not essential for the bearers of the tra- usually do not listen to them. dition. The same occurs when ‘secondary’ musical Although the singers/instrumentalists may not collectives (e.g. so-called ‘folklore ensembles’) try be interested in careful control over the musi- to imitate one-part heterophonic music. In such a cal texture, it can be presumed that the specifi c situation, the attention of performers is directed sound of a multilinear texture in every concrete to the intentional production of heterophony, musical style becomes a ‘sonic ideal’ for the bear- which is an attitude fundamentally diff erent from ers of the respective tradition and the deviations that of the performers of the ‘primary’ tradition.26 from this ‘ideal’ (e.g. if an unexpected endur- ing unison or an over-dense multilinear texture 3.2.2. Levels and forms of texture control emerges) can cause dissatisfaction. In multipart Heterophony is often described as an unconscious heterophony the performers are evidently far and/or irregular multilinear texture. Together more conscious of the overall sound. However, with the principle of ‘simultaneous variation’, this psychologically speaking, the vertical aspect of would seem to be the second main characteristic music in both one-part and multipart heteroph- feature of heterophony. However, as demonstrat- ony is traditionally something for hearing rather ed above, heterophony can be both unconscious than for listening, i.e. it can be passively perceived, and conscious and, as will be shown in the next but it is not the object of a “concentrated, goal subsection, the irregularity of the vertical out- oriented interest in noticing what is sounding” come of heterophony can be called into question (Günther 2007: 10). Even when we speak about in many cases. I would suggest that this essential ‘listening’, the question remains as to what sing- quality of heterophony could be better described ers/instrumentalists actually listen to – whether using the notion of control. Discussing the prob- it is to the general sound, to the melodic vari- lem in these terms, we can say that whether het- ation of other performers, or to the structure of erophony is conscious or unconscious, irregular the vertical sonorities. This last kind of listening or regular, the performers of heterophonic music do (listening to the structure of the vertical sonori- not have (or have a rather limited) control over the ties) is apparently not characteristic of any type of vertical aspect of sound. However, we should take heterophony. into account the fact that musical processes can- Of course, when speaking about ‘hearing’ and not be completely controlled or uncontrolled – it ‘listening’ in heterophony and, more generally, is a question of degree, and control can manifest about all conscious and unconscious musical cog- itself at diff erent levels and in diff erent forms. nitive processes, we should also take into account First of all, it should be understood which as- the individual factor. When analysing such pro- pects of the multilinear texture can be controlled. cesses, we should distinguish between general The most elementary level of control, which is tendencies and the peculiarities of musical think- characteristic of all kinds of heterophony, is unity ing of the individual performers. Thus it is always of tonality and synchronicity of form. This mani- possible that there are some performers who are fests itself in the structural unisons, which are inclined to ‘listen’, whereas others merely ‘hear’. always found in the heterophonic texture. The

26 As my personal experience in teaching heterophonic songs to music students shows, the avoidance of unison is quite a challenging task for the ‘secondary’ performers, and, unless they concentrate specifi cally on the individual melodic variation, the heterophonic elements easily disappear and the texture inconspicuously becomes plain unison.

61 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony second level of control is that of the textural co- i.e. the use of the diff erent parts of the musical ordination between individual melodic lines. In scale (higher and lower) in the diff erent parts. The this respect, three attitudes are possible: (1) the situation where some singers/instrumentalists intentional production of a multilinear texture, perform the lower melodic variants while others (2) the intentional production of a unison texture, perform higher variants occurs in many styles of and (3) a neutral attitude towards the texture. In multipart music, but, as a rule, it is not character- heterophony, we are dealing with the fi rst or third istic of heterophony. Some exceptions like the attitude. above-mentioned Russian ‘diff erentiated heter- The neutral attitude means that singers/instru- ophony’ point to transitional forms of textural mentalists do not plan any kind of texture – they thinking. As in the case with ‘rhythmic diff eren- just do not think in the terms of texture, having tiation’, the use of the lower and higher melodic neither the concept of unison nor that of multi- variants does not necessary mean that the result- linear texture. Such music making is conceptually ing vertical sonorities are under the control of the one-part and its textural outcome depends to a performers, who may simply maintain the unity of great extent on the structural complexity of the the tune’s modal scale. melody – the more complex melody, the more The third level of control concerns the structure multilinear divergences we can expect to emerge. of vertical sonorities. As mentioned above, such In vocal music, this is often connected with the control can manifest itself mainly in two forms: in number, length and structure of the melismata – the preference for certain harmonic intervals (e.g. the singing of a single syllable of the text with two thirds or perfect fi fths) and/or in the preference or more successive melody notes. In the Estonian for certain combinations of scale notes (Pärtlas runic tunes, which are structurally very simple and 2010). The control over the structure of the ver- mostly syllabic, the heterophonic divergences are tical sonorities can also be more or less detailed, minimal (Oras 2008); in the more melismatic Rus- depending on what exactly the subject of the con- sian tunes, the heterophonic elements are usually trol is – all real sonorities or only the structural so- more developed. The density of the heterophonic norities. In the latter case, the number of vertical texture also depends on the variation technique sonorities that are not structural and, therefore, and the modal structure. In those styles that are that are not the subject of the control depends characterized by the exchangeability of certain (as in the case of heterophonic divergences) on scale notes in the melodic variants (as in many the development of the melodic embellishment Russian regional song styles), heterophnonic di- (including the melismata). For example, in the vergences can often appear even without a melis- Seto multipart songs, almost all real sonorities matic context. are structural (due to the very small number of The intentional production of a multilinear tex- melismata), and therefore almost all real vertical ture is conceptually a multipart attitude, though sonorities have a regular structure. In the South- this does not mean that performers have com- Russian multipart singing, on the contrary, one plete control over the musical texture. So there may fi nd many, as it were, accidental sonorities are several compositional devices which can en- between the structural sonorities that act as a sure the multilinear result without any control tonal and formal reference; one of the reasons for over the structure of vertical sonorities. One such this is the more developed and complex melodic possibility is rhythmic diff erentiation, which means style of the songs. There are also traditional styles that performers use complementary rhythms ei- where the thorough aural control over the vertical ther by the simultaneous singing/playing of the sonorities is a special aesthetic attitude (e.g. the melodic variants with a diff erent rhythmic density cantu a cuncordu style in Sardinian music). or by fi lling the long notes in one part with the It appears, however, that the highest level of shorter notes in the other. The former device is vertical control – the control over the structure often consciously used in multipart heterophony of vertical sonorities – is not characteristic of any (as is the case with gamelan); the latter situation, kind of heterophonic music. The singers/instru- on the other hand, may appear by chance in the mentalists can be conscious of the fact of the vari- process of variation. Another device for creat- ant divergences in the texture; they can like the ing a multilinear texture is pitch diff erentiation, sonic outcome and produce such types of texture

62 Žanna Pärtlas intentionally; but the quality of the vertical so- as the pentatonic and diatonic scales and the norities is not planned and/or controlled by the scale based on the overtone series (Kubik 1968). performers. This last phenomenon – the lack of I found an analogous principle in the Russian and control over the quality of the vertical sonorities – Seto (South-East Estonia) songs based on the should be considered as a second attribute of het- whole-tone and one-three-semitone scale (Pärt- erophony along with ‘the simultaneous variation’. las 2006). What is especially important is that under the conditions of diff erent scales the principle 3.2.3. Vertical regularities in heterophony of ‘overjumping’ gives the diff erent intervallic re- Usually, when speaking about the unconscious- sults: thus, in diatonic music the sonorities of the ness of heterophony, researchers automatically minor and major thirds emerge, in the pentatonic assume a lack of any vertical organization27 in the music perfect fourths and major thirds, in the heterophonic texture. The main goal of this sub- whole-tone and one-three-semitone mode the section is to show that some harmonic regulari- major thirds only, etc. ties can also be found in the multilinear texture Although Kubik interpreted the principle of that emerges unintentionally and/or is not under ‘overjumping’ as the method forming the vertical the control of the performers. The existence of sonorities, I would like to draw attention to the such regularities can be explained by the connec- possibility that this principle could be of melodic tions between the diff erent aspects of the musical origin. It seems that the theoretical substantiation structure – they are essentially resulting regulari- of this phenomenon could be the theory of ‘ter- ties which emerge when intentional coordination tial induction’ (теория терцовой индукции) of of one aspect of the musical structure provides the Russian music theorist Lev Mazel (1972). Lev unintentional coordination of another aspect. In Mazel was not satisfi ed with the common expla- the case of heterophony, the rules of melodic build- nation of the tertial chord structure in tonal mu- ing and variation determine the regularities in the sic by the acoustic qualities of vertical intervals structure of vertical sonorities. alone. He added a functional explanation, which At the most elementary level, the interval takes into account the melodic functions of the structure of the vertical sonorities can be deter- scale notes. Since the notes placed next but one mined by the very structure of the musical scale, in the scale both have a melodic tendency to go especially when dealing with scales that consist to the same scale note located between them, of a small number of scale notes. Such a correla- they have a similar melodic function (for instance, tion is obvious, but sometimes the interdepend- the upper and the lower neighbouring tones of ences that occur are more complex. For example, the same scale note). Since stepwise melodic mo- the resulting vertical coordination can be con- tion has a special importance in many musical nected with the rules of the interchangeability of cultures, the principle of ‘overjumping’ is wide- scale notes in the melodic variants. Thus, in many spread in traditional (and art) music. The vertical musical traditions, the rule of so-called ‘over- sonorities that result from this principle may be jumping’ (Überspringverfahren – Gerhard Kubik recognized by the performers as a desirable har- 1968) underlies the formation of both melodic monic sounds, but the method of ‘overjumping’ variants and vertical sonorities. According to this can also work without any harmonic intentions. rule, the vertical sonorities are composed of the The heterophonic songs of the Russian-Belorus- notes placed next but one in the scale. Investigat- sian borderland provide a good example of this ing the multipart music of Central and East Africa, last situation (an example of the musical style is Kubik discovered that this principle can be real- provided in Ex. 1).28 ized in music with diff erent scale structures, such

27 Actually, I would prefer the notion of ‘harmonic regularities’, were the word ‘harmony’ not so strongly connected for many musicologists with the functional harmony of the Western art music. The regularities in the structure of the vertical (i.e. harmonic) sonorities, however, can be found in music that is not related to functional harmony. So we can speak about a harmonic dimension in all musical styles where the ‘simultaneous otherness’ is coordinated by certain intervallic and/or modal rules. 28 I described this song tradition and its heterophonic style in more detail in Pärtlas 2012; therefore I will provide here the minimum necessary examples and explanations.

63 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony

Example 1. The most widespread wedding tune of the Russian-Belorussian borderland (the variant from Ver- hovye village of the Velizh district in the Smolensk region of Russia, 1990).

Example 2. The harmonic scheme of the same wedding tune: structural notes at the level of syllabic rhythm.

While on the subject of vertical regularities material analysed allowed me to fi nd such micro- in heterophony, one more topic should be men- variants for the majority of syllable-notes in diff er- tioned, namely the structural level on which the ent performances. Surprisingly, the tunes’ models manifestations of vertical coordination can be consisting of the structural notes (at the level of found. The vertical regularities can be most eas- syllabic rhythm) revealed a predominantly ter- ily observed if they manifest themselves at the tian vertical structure (Ex. 2). The schemes of the level of surface structure, which means that most structural notes also showed that it is possible to of the real sonorities are built in accordance with substitute any scale note with the tonic (the note some harmonic principle (e.g. most of the vertical G in the schemes and notations) and with the fi fth sonorities are thirds). However, statistical analysis above or the fourth below the tonic (the note D). of the wedding songs of the region just named The tertian correlation of the structural notes revealed no clear regularities at this level: unison points to the validity of the rule of ‘overjumping’ prevailed, as is common in heterophonic music, in this heterophonic style. The interchangeabil- but the number of the seconds and thirds in the ity of all scale notes with the tonic, upper fi fth multilinear texture was approximately the same. and lower fourth indicates the function of these Consistent patterns emerged, however, when three notes as imaginary ‘drones’ or the reference examining the deeper structural level – namely, tones of musical mode. The observations made the level of the syllabic rhythm.29 To avoid sub- in the large number of experimental recordings jectivity, I searched for those variations where showed that the bearers of this tradition use the the syllable-notes were performed as one note same melodic variants when singing in diff er- and, although the whole strophe can never be ent ensembles and alone and never correct their performed in this manner, the large amount of individual versions of the tune in order to create or

29 The syllabic rhythm (слогоритм) is one of the most important categories of the ‘structural-typological method’ (структурно-типологический метод) of music analysis widely used in Russian-language ethnomusicology. The unit of syllabic rhythm, a ‘syllable-note’ (слогонота), is the sum of durations of all notes corresponding to one syllable of text.

64 Žanna Pärtlas avoid particular vertical sonorities. This suggests be an entirely self-suffi cient aesthetic phenom- that in the heterophonic tradition under consid- enon; however, I would like to draw a distinction eration: (1) the musical thinking of the singers is between heterophony and simple inaccuracy in essentially melodic; (2) at the level of behaviour performance. The case of so-called ‘mass sing- they do not coordinate their melodic variants; and ing’ usually involves the latter situation. Ignazio (3) the regularities that can be found at the level Macchiarella diff erentiates between ‘mass sing- of sound result entirely from the melodic logic of ing’ practices, which “should not be considered the tunes. as multipart music since they lack intentionality”, and heterophony, which according to him is mul- 3.2.4. Heterophony and ‘mass singing’ tipart music, because “these intentional unper- Before moving on to the concluding section, I fect music synchronisms are fully part of the ex- would like to touch upon one more topic related pressions of multipart music” (Macchiarella 2012: to heterophony, although it is somewhat ‘risky’ 10). While agreeing with the idea that imprecise and perhaps provocative. This topic concerns the musical performance and heterophony are dif- aesthetic evaluation of the diff erent forms of het- ferent in nature, I cannot agree with the reason erophony. In this connection, Curt Sachs diff er- Macchiarella gives for this diff erence, because, entiated between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ heter- as I have attempted to demonstrate above, one- ophony, proceeding from the understanding that part heterophony is essentially unintentional and ‘positive’ heterophony is conscious and ‘negative’ lacks vertical awareness. I think that the border unconscious. So bringing an example of ‘uncon- between ‘true’ heterophony and discordant ‘mass scious’ heterophony, Sachs speaks about congre- singing’ is not the border between conscious and gational singing in church; he notes that it “would unconscious, or intentional and unintentional. be unbearable if intention and attention were fo- In my opinion, the question here relates to how cused on satisfactory sense perception, meaning, music is initially meant and how it is performed. The on art” (Sachs 1977 [1962]: 186). ancient heterophonic songs are initially ‘meant’ Although nowadays we usually avoid evaluat- to be performed with variation and not in unison ing any kind of music as ‘negative’, it would be un- and heterophonic performance is in full accord- reasonable to deny the obvious fact that diff erent ance with their very nature. In such songs, the musical phenomena may have a diff erent aesthet- unintentional heterophonic divergences are re- ic value for the insiders of a tradition and for those ally an inherent part of the musical expression. outside it. In musicology, the word ‘heterophony’ In the case of ‘mass singing’, we are very often is often associated with musical phenomena that dealing with music that was initially meant to have little or no aesthetic value, such as crowd be sung either solo, in unison or in a harmoni- singing at a demonstration or some sports event, cally coordinated multipart way (as in the case, soldiers’ songs performed while marching, etc. for example, of popular songs used as marching For this reason, the term ‘heterophony’ is some- songs). The ‘mass performance’ of such music is times perceived as having a negative meaning. usually far from being perfect and the performers Some negative attitudes towards heterophony, themselves do not consider such music making which can be found even among ethnomusicolo- as skilled and aesthetically valuable: such music gists, are also rooted in the essentially ethnocen- making fulfi ls other functions. tric belief that the level of control over the musi- Every kind of music indeed, including hetero- cal process determines the quality of the musical phonic songs, can be performed improperly. For result and that real mastery means an awareness example, I witnessed an occasion when two wom- of every smallest detail of musical performance. en started to sing a heterophonic wedding song Proceeding from such an attitude, the value of in parallel seconds. I asked them whether it was a heterophony is sometimes seen in its ‘polyphonic proper performance and they said ‘no, it was not’. potential’, i.e. in the assumption that it may be This suggests that although the heterophonic di- considered as historical step in the development vergences in these songs were unintentional, the of a truly polyphonic style (Bouёt 2012). performers were fully conscious of the need to For me there is no doubt that heterophony support the unity of tonality. It seems that in such in both its forms – one-part and multipart – can cases we should not speak about heterophony,

65 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony but, rather more mundanely, about inaccurate levels and aspects of musical and cultural phenom- performance. Of course, the border between het- ena. Using (and merging) the existing structural erophony and inaccurate performance can some- models of musical process, such as Merriam’s tri- times be very vague, and it depends, too, on the partite model ‘concept – behaviour – sound’ and cultural and musical context. Bershadskaya’s bipartite model склад – фактура (musical thinking and sonic realization (texture)), Conclusions I tried to better understand to which level(s) one In my research I proceeded from the assumption or another (ethno)musicological term refers and that a clear system of concepts and terms is a nec- formulate defi nitions that take into account diff er- essary condition for every productive theoretical ences between the levels. discussion. While Alessandro Bratus in his essay At the level of sound (sonic realization), I pro- in the present volume praises the term ‘multi- pose the use of the concept multilinear texture as part’ for its “positive ambiguity”, which allows it the most neutral term for designating every form to be applied to diff erent musical practices, I try of ‘simultaneous otherness’. Heterophony, as a to overcome the ‘negative ambiguity’ of this term, kind of texture, is always multilinear. A multilinear which impedes understanding between ethno- texture is also characteristic of multipart music, musicologists. I also try to enunciate a defi nition but not all multilinear music is multipart. ‘True’ mul- of ‘heterophony’ that is both inclusive and coher- tipart music implies the “will to produce diff eren- ent, clearly pointing to the distinctive attributes tiated sound emissions” (Macchiarella 2012: 10), of this phenomenon and diff erentiating between which refers to the level of concept. This means its particular forms. that multipart music should be defi ned proceeding, I believe that ‘heterophony’ is a term that is fi rst of all, from the level of concept, and the aspects well worth theorizing about. This term could be of behaviour and sound outcome are secondary very useful in ethnomusicological discourse, since with respect to that of conceptualization. it combines in itself two important advantages: At the level of concept (musical thinking), two on one hand, it is a Western term of a very old types of heterophony should be distinguished origin, which does not need much translation; on – one-part and multipart heterophony. ‘One-part the other hand, its ‘new history’ is not long and it heterophony’ means that the performers do not is mostly used for designating the phenomena of divide themselves into diff erent textural parts. non-Western music. On the subject of the useful- The other characteristic features of ‘one-part het- ness of a clearly defi ned international terminolo- erophony’ are: (1) the performers lack the con- gy, I completely agree with John Napier, who said: cept of unison; (2) the multilinear divergences are unintentional; (3) all the singers/instrumentalists some straightforward terminological deter- have an equal role in the musical performance, mination may be necessary, one that perhaps executing ‘equivalent-alternative’ variants of the does not mire writers in awkward translation, melody; (4) though in some cases the perform- verbose descriptions of what they perceive, ers can be aware of the multilinear divergences in endless neologisms, or the constant introduc- the texture, nevertheless they do not control the tion of non-Western terminology, which in structure of the vertical sonorities. One-part het- itself always requires a degree of translation erophony typically occurs in homogeneous en- (Napier 2006: 86). sembles (the same type of musical instruments) Such terms as ‘heterophony’ allow us better to and, especially, in vocal music. ‘Multipart heter- identify some universal features in human musi- ophony’, on the other hand, means that: (1) the cal thinking and in the ways of music making and performers are consciously divided into function- ensure the possibility of the cross-cultural use of ally diff erent textural parts; (2) their roles in the the terminology. musical performance are diff erentiated and of- It would appear that the most typical cause of ten subordinated; (3) the performers use specifi c ambiguous defi nitions and their diff erent under- methods of variation, which are often idiomatic of standings is an insuffi cient attention to the diff erent their instruments; (4) they are completely aware

66 Žanna Pärtlas of the multilinear character of the texture, but of any kind of heterophony is the intentional for- they still do not control the structure of the verti- mation of particular vertical sonorities (except the cal sonorities. structural unisons). The resulting sonorities may The level of behaviour is the bridge between be passively perceived by the traditional perform- the level of concept and that of the sound. When ers and listeners, but they are not the aim of the studying heterophony, one should take into ac- performance. count that musical behaviour includes compo- To summarize the theoretical discussion above nents that are not acknowledged at the level of in a short defi nition of heterophony, I would pro- concept or which can even (apparently) contra- pose the following formulation: the term ‘heter- dict the assertions of the bearers of tradition. The ophony’ may be used to defi ne diff erent types of level of behaviour includes among other compo- music making, both one-part and multipart, which nents also the specifi cally musical decisions and are characterized by a multilinear texture and which choices made by singers/instrumentalists during come into being through the process of the simul- performance. taneous variation of the same melody when the The descriptions of one-part and multipart performers do not control the quality of the vertical heterophony proposed above may seem quite sonorities. This defi nition contains as its inevitable contrasting, but there are two essential features and necessary part the usual description of het- that link them together. The fi rst of these is the erophony as ‘the simultaneous variation of the simultaneous variation of the same melody, which same melody’. One of its new components points is the well-known defi nition of heterophony. As I to the lack of control over the vertical sonorities showed in this article, it works relatively well, but on the part of the performers. This is an attribute it is not suffi cient and can be variously interpret- of heterophony which is of no less importance ed. The second attribute of heterophony, which than ‘the simultaneous variation’. The wording has gained much less attention in ethnomusi- used for this attribute in the present defi nition cological research, is the lack of control over the emphasizes that we are speaking here about the structure of vertical sonorities. In this paper I have levels of conceptualization (intention) and behav- tried to defi ne this second characteristic feature iour (control), but not about the sound outcome, of heterophony very carefully, because in this re- because the latter may be ‘vertically’ regulated by spect diff erent understandings are possible. The the rules resulting from the melodic (‘horizontal’) second attribute of heterophony is very impor- musical logic. This new defi nition also points to tant, because the better we realize it, the better the diff erences at the level of conceptualization we can understand the fi rst one, i.e. the nature between one-part and multipart heterophony of heterophonic variation. It would be incorrect and to the fact that both one-part and multipart to claim that performers completely lack control musical thinking can be realized in a multilinear over the vertical aspect of heterophonic music, texture. for they can be aware of the multilinear texture I hope that this defi nition, which is both inclu- emerging as a result of the simultaneous vari- sive and limiting and which takes into account dif- ation, and indeed they can even coordinate the ferent levels and aspects of the music-making pro- variation process (in the case of multipart het- cess, facilitates the cross-cultural use of the term erophony). Neither would it be correct to assert ‘heterophony’. The recognition of heterophony as that heterophonic texture is always irregular with a complex and multilevel process also contributes respect to the intervallic structure of the vertical to the more general discussion about the nature sonorities. Vertical regularities can be found in of traditional multipart music, drawing attention the resulting sonorities, but these are rooted in to the fundamental question about the relation- the rules of melodic variation and in the structure ship between human agency (musical thinking of musical scales. What really is not characteristic and actions) and sound structure in music.

67 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony

References Brown, Steven 2003. Contagious Heterophony: A New Theory About the Origins of Music. – The First International Adler, Guido 1908. Über Heterophonie. – Jahrbuch der Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. Eds. Musikbibliothek Peters XV, S. 17–27. Rusudan Tsurtsumia, Joseph Jordania, Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi Vano Adler, Guido 1985 [1908]. Heterophony [Über Heterophonie] Sarajishvili State Conservatoire, pp. 66–78. (translation). – Appendix C in the book: Mitchell, Donald 1985. Gustav Mahler. Vol. 3: Songs and Symphonies of Life Cooke, Peter 2001. Heterophony. – The New Grove Dictionary and Death. Interpretations and Annotations. Berkeley, Los of Music and Musicians. Vol. 11, ed. Stanley Sadie, London: Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 624–634. Macmillan Publishers Limited, pp. 465–466. Alekseyev, Eduard 1986. Rannefol’klornoye intonirovaniye: Cowan, James 1910. Offi cial Record of the New Zealand Zvukovysotnyj aspekt [Early Traditional Vocalisation: The International Exhibition of Arts and Industries, held at Aspect of Musical Pitch]. Moscow: Sovetskiy kompozitor. Christchurch. 1906–7. A Descriptive and Historical Account. [Алексеев, Эдуард 1986. Раннефольклорное Published by Authority of the Right Hon. Sir Joseph G. Ward, интонирование: Звуковысотный аспект. Москва: P.C., K.C.M.G. Prime Minister of New Zealand, Wellington: Советский композитор.] John Mackay, Government Printer. Almeyeva, Nailya 2008. Mnogogolosiye tatar-kryashen Emsheimer, Ernst 1991. Some Remarks on European v etnokul’turnom kontekste Volgo-Kamskogo regiona Folk Polyphony. – Studia ethnomusicologica eurasiatica (obryadovoye peniye, geterofoniya) [Tatar-Kryashen II. Stockholm: The Royal Swedish Academy of Music / Polyphony in the Ethnocultural Context of the Volga- Musikmuseet, pp. 277–280. Kama Region (Ritual Singing, Heterophony)]. – Finno- Galitskaya, Savolina 1981. Teoreticheskiye voprosy monodii ugorskoye mnogogolosiye v kontekste drugikh muzykal’nykh [The Theoretical Questions of Monody]. Tashkent: FAN. kul’tur [Finno-Ugric Multi-Part Music in the Context of Other [Галицкая, Саволина 1981. Теоретические вопросы Music Cultures]. Töid etnomusikoloogia alalt 5, eds. Triinu монодии. Ташкент: ФАН.] Ojamaa, Žanna Pärtlas, Tartu: Eesti Kirjandusmuuseum Günther, Robert 2007. The Anthropology of Hearing / Eesti Muusika- ja Teatriakadeemia, pp. 79–93. and Listening: Preliminary Remarks to a Theory of Music [Альмеева, Наиля 2008. Многоголосие татар-кряшен Perception and Understanding. – European Meetings in в этнокультурном контексте Волго-Камского региона Ethnomusicology 12, pp. 5–17. (обрядовое пение, гетерофония). – Финно-угорское Hornbostel, Erich M. von 1909. Über Mehrstimmigkeit in der многоголосие в контексте других музыкальных культур. außereuropäischen Musik. – III. Kongreß der Internationalen Töid etnomusikoloogia alalt 5, pед. Трийну Оямаа, Жанна Musikgesellschaft, Wien, 25. bis 29. Mai 1909. Bericht vorgelegt Пяртлас, Тарту: Эстонский литературный музей / vom Wiener Kongreßausschuß, Wien: Artaria & Co / Leipzig: Эстонская академия музыки и театра, стр. 79–93.] Breitkopf & Haertel, S. 298–303. Bershadskaya, Tatyana 1985 [1978]. Lektsii po garmonii Jordania, Iosif [Joseph] 1988. Narodnoye mnogogolosiye, [Harmony Lessons]. 2nd ed., Leningrad: Muzyka. etnogenez i rasogenez [The Folk Multipart Music, [Бершадская, Татьяна 1985 [1978]. Лекции по гармонии. Ethnogenesis, and Racial Genesis]. – Sovetskaya etnografi ya Изд. 2-е, Ленинград: Музыка.] 2, pp. 24–33. [Жордания, Иосиф 1988. Народное Bouёt, Jacques 2012. Heterophony Leads Necessarily многоголосие, этногенез и расогенез. – Советская to a Polyphony Much Less Rudimentary than the этнография 2, стр. 24–33.] Hocket. Listening to Recordings of Macedo-Roumanian Jordania, Joseph 2006. Who asked the fi rst question? The (Gramoshtenes of Roumanian Dobrogea) and Xhosa (South Origins of Human Choral Singing, Intelligence, Language and Africa) plurivocal songs. – Multipart Music: A Specifi c Mode Speech. Tbilisi: Logos. of Musical Thinking, Expressive Behaviour and Sound. Ed. Ignazio Macchiarella, Udine: Nota, pp. 143–148. Kharlap, Miron 1972. Narodno-russkaya muzykal’naya sistema i problema proiskhozhdeniya muzyki. [The Russian Boyarkina, Ljudmila 1986. Geterofoniya v kalendarnykh Traditional Music System and the Question of the Origin i semeyno-obryadovykh erzya-mordovskikh narodnykh of Music]. – Ranniye formy iskusstva. Eds. S. Neklyudov, E. pesnyakh [Heterophony in Erzya-Mordvinian calendric Meletinskiy, Moscow: Iskusstvo, pp. 221–274. [Харлап, and family-ritual folk songs]. – Muzyka v obryadakh i Мирон 1972. Народно-русская музыкальная система trudovoy deyatel’nosti fi nno-ugrov. Ed. Ingrid Rüütel, Tallinn: и проблема происхождения музыки. – Ранние формы Eesti Raamat, pp. 268–283. [Бояркина, Людмила 1986. искусства. Pед. С. Неклюдов, E. Мелетинский, Москва: Гетерофония в календарных и семейно-обрядовых Искусство, стр. 221–274.] эрзя-мордовских народных песнях. – Музыка в обрядах и трудовой деятельности финно-угров. Pед. Ингрид Kubik, Gerhard 1968. Mehrstimmigkeit und Tonsysteme Рюйтел, Tallinn: Eesti Raamat, стр. 268–283.] in Zentral- und Ostafrika. Bemerkungen zu den eigenen, im Phonogrammarchiv der Österreichischen Akademie Brandl, Rudolf 2008. New Considerations of Diaphony in der Wissenschaften archivierten Expeditionsaufnahmen. Southeast Europe. – European Voices I. Multipart Singing in Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, the Balkans and the Mediterranean. Eds. Ardian Ahmedaja, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte Gerlinde Haid, Schriften zur Volksmusik 22, Wien/Köln/ 254/4, Wien/Graz/Köln: Österreichische Akademie der Weimar: Böhlau, pp. 281–297. Wissenschaften / Böhlau. Brinner, Benjamin 2008. Music in Central Java: Experiencing Kunst, Jaap 1950. Metre, Rhythm, Multi-Part Music. Leiden: Music, Expressing Culture. New York / Oxford: Oxford E.J. Brill. University Press.

68 Žanna Pärtlas

Lomax, Alan 1976. Cantometrics: An Approach to the Жанна 1992. Гетерофонное многоголосие русской Anthropology of Music. Berkeley: University of California народной песни: определение феномена, закономерности Extension Media Center. образования и строения (на материале традиции русско- Macchiarella, Ignazio 2012. Theorizing on Multipart белорусского пограничья). Диссертация на соискание Music Making. – Multipart Music: A Specifi c Mode of Musical научной степени кандидата искусствоведения, Санкт- Thinking, Expressive Behaviour and Sound. Ed. Ignazio Петербург: Санкт Петербургская государственная Macchiarella, Udine: Nota, pp. 7–22. консерватория имени Н.А. Римского-Корсакова.] Mazel, Lev 1972. Problemy klassicheskoy garmonii [The Pärtlas, Žanna 2006. “Sümmeetrilised laadid” ja Problems of Classical Harmony]. Moscow: Muzyka. [Мазель, monointervalliline mitmehäälsus vokaalses rahvamuusikas: Лев 1972. Проблемы классической гармонии. Москва: mõningaid paralleele setu ja Lõuna-Venemaa rahvalaulu Музыка.] vahel [“Symmetrical Modes” and Mono-Interval Polyphony in Vocal Folk Music: Some Parallels between the Setu and Merriam, Alan P. 1980 [1964]. The Anthropology of Music. Southern Russian Folk Song]. – Regilaul – esitus ja tõlgendus. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Toim. Aado Lintrop, Eesti Rahvaluule Arhiivi Toimetused 23, Morton, David 1976. The Traditional Music of Thailand. Tartu: Eesti Kirjandusmuuseum, lk. 219–248 [summary in Berkeley et al.: University of California Press. English: pp. 270–272]. Napier, John 2006. A ‘Failed’ Unison or Conscious Pärtlas, Žanna 2010. A “Hen-and-Egg” Problem: Diff erentiation: The Notion of ‘Heterophony’ in North Indian Interrelation Between Scale Structure and Vertical Vocal Performance. – International Review of the Aesthetics Structure in Setu Multipart Songs. – The Fourth International and Sociology of Music (IRASM ) 37/1, pp. 85–108. Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. Proceedings. Eds. Narodnoye … 2005 = Narodnoye muzykal’noye tvorchestvo Rusudan Tsurtsumia, Joseph Jordania, Tbilisi: International [Folk Music]. Ed. Ol’ga Pashina, Saint Petersburg: Kompozitor, Research Center for Traditional Polyphony of Tbilisi Vano 2005. [Народное музыкальное творчество. Pед. Ольга Sarajishvili State Conservatoire, pp. 336–354. Пашина, Санкт-Петербург: Композитор, 2005.] Pärtlas, Žanna 2012. Musical Thinking and Sonic Realization Nuriyeva, Irina 2008. Mnogogolosiye v udmurtskoy in Vocal Heterophony. The Case of the Wedding Songs of the narodnoy muzyke: k postanovke problemy [Polyphony in Russian-Belarussian Borderland Tradition. – Multipart Music: the Udmurt Traditional Music: Some Research Problems]. A Specifi c Mode of Musical Thinking, Expressive Behaviour and – Finno-ugorskoye mnogogolosiye v kontekste drugikh Sound. Ed. Ignazio Macchiarella, Udine: Nota, pp. 129–142. muzykal’nykh kul’tur [Finno-Ugric Multi-Part Music in the Pärtlas, Žanna 2013. On Musical Creativity in “Text-oriented” Context of Other Music Cultures]. Töid etnomusikoloogia Song Traditions: The Processes of Melodic Variation in alalt 5, eds. Triinu Ojamaa, Žanna Pärtlas, Tartu: Eesti Seto Multipart Songs. – Local and Global Understandings Kirjandusmuuseum / Eesti Muusika- ja Teatriakadeemia, of Creativities: Multipart Music Making and the Construction pp. 64–78. [Нуриева, Ирина 2008. Многоголосие в of Ideas, Contexts and Contents. Ed. Ardian Ahmedaja, удмуртской народной музыке: к постановке проблемы. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. – Финно-угорское многоголосие в контексте других 60–76. музыкальных культур. Töid etnomusikoloogia alalt 5, Rice, Timothy 2010. Ethnomusicological theory. – Yearbook pед. Трийну Оямаа, Жанна Пяртлас, Тарту: Эстонский for Traditional Music 42, pp. 100–134. литературный музей / Эстонская академия музыки и театра, стр. 64–78.] Sachs, Curt 1957. Heterophonie. – Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Musik. Bd. 6, Oras, Janika 2008. Geterofoniya v runicheskoy pesne Kikhnu hrsg. von Friedrich Blume, Kassel/Basel/London: Bärenreiter, – na osnove zapisey Liis Alas i Reet Sutt [Heterophony in Sp. 327–330. Kihnu regilaul – based on the recordings by Liis Alas and Reet Sutt]. – Finno-ugorskoye mnogogolosiye v kontekste Sachs, Curt 1977 [1962]. The Wellsprings of Music. Ed. Jaap drugikh muzykal’nykh kul’tur [Finno-Ugric Multi-Part Music in Kunst, New York: Da Capo Press. the Context of Other Music Cultures]. Töid etnomusikoloogia Skrebkov, Sergey 1973. Khudozhestvennyye printsipy alalt 5, eds. Triinu Ojamaa, Žanna Pärtlas, Tartu: Eesti muzykal’nykh stiley [The Art Principles of Music Styles]. Moscow: Kirjandusmuuseum / Eesti Muusika- ja Teatriakadeemia, pp. Muzyka. [Скребков, Сергей 1973. Художественные 94–106. [Орас, Яника 2008. Гетерофония в рунической принципы музыкальных стилей. Москва: Музыка.] песне Кихну – на основе записей Лийз Алас и Реэт Сутт. Spiller, Henry 2004. Gamelan: The Traditional Sounds of – Финно-угорское многоголосие в контексте других Indonesia. Santa-Barbara/Denver/Oxford: ABC-CLIO. музыкальных культур. Töid etnomusikoloogia alalt 5, pед. Трийну Оямаа, Жанна Пяртлас, Тарту: Эстонский Stone, Ruth M. 2008. Theory for Ethnomusicology. Upper литературный музей / Эстонская академия музыки и Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. театра, стр. 94–106.] Stumpf, Carl 1901. Tonsystem und Musik der Siamesen. Pärtlas, Žanna 1992. Geterofonnoye mnogogolosiye russkoy – Beiträge zur Akustik und Musikwissenschaft 3. Hrsg. Carl narodnoy pesni: opredeleniye fenomena, zakonomernosti Stumpf, Leipzig: Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth, S. obrazovaniya i stroyeniya (na materiale traditsii russko- 69–138. belorusskogo pogranich’ya) [Heterophony in Russian Folk Tenzer, Michael 2000. Gamelan Gong Kebyar: The Art of Song Tradition: Defi nition of the Phenomenon, Formation Twentieth-Century Balinese Music. Chicago/London: The Rules and Structure (on the Material of the Russian-Belorussian University of Chicago Press. Borderland)]. Ph. D. Dissertation, St.-Petersburg: The Rimski- Zemtsovsky, Izaly 1980. Problema varianta v svete Korsakov Saint Petersburg State Conservatory. [Пяртлас, muzykal’noy tipologii [The Problem of Variant in the Light

69 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony

of the Musical Typology]. – Aktual’nye problemy sovremennoj Zemtsovsky, Izaly 2003. Polyphony as a Way of Creating fol’kloristiki: sbornik statej i materialov. Ed. Viktor Gusev, and Thinking: The Musical Identity of Homo Polyphonicus. Leningradskiy gosudarstvennyy institut teatra, muzyki i – The First International Symposium on Traditional Polyphony. kinematografi i, Leningrad: Muzyka, pp. 36–49. [Земцовский, Proceedings. Eds. Rusudan Tsurtsumia, Joseph Jordania, Изалий 1980. Проблема варианта в свете музыкальной Tbilisi: International Research Center for Traditional типологии. – Актуальные проблемы современной Polyphony of Tbilisi Vano Sarajishvili State Conservatoire, фольклористики: сборник статей и материалов. Сост. pp. 45–53. Виктор Гусев, Ленинградский государственный институт театра, музыки и кинематографии, Ленинград: Музыка, стр. 36–49.]

70 Žanna Pärtlas

Teoreetilised lähenemised heterofooniale

Žanna Pärtlas

Heterofoonia on üks lihtsamaid (algelisemaid) mitmehäälsuse vorme traditsioonilises muusikas ning samas üks segasemaid teoreetilisi teemasid etnomusikoloogias. Selle nähtuse tekkimine on otseselt seotud traditsioonilise muusika suulise loomuse ja sellest lähtuva muusikalise mõtlemisega, mistõttu on seda raske kirjeldada kasutades Euroopa kunstmuusikast välja kasvanud terminoloogilist aparaati. Heterofoonia teoreetiline mõtestamine on keeruline ülesanne ka selle poolest, et paneb proovile muusikateooria ja etnomusikoloogia kõige üldisemaid muusikalise faktuuri ja selle tekitamisviisidega seotud mõisteid, millele lisandub etnomusikoloogiliste terminite tõlkimise probleem (siinne artikkel käsitleb põhiliselt ingliskeelset terminoloogiat, mis domineerib rahvusvahelises muusikateaduslikus suhtluses). Artiklis üritatakse mõtestada heterofooniat kui muusikalist, sotsiaalset ja psühholoogilist nähtust, ühendades erinevaid lähenemisviise – muusikaanalüütilist, antropoloogilist ja kognitiivset. Ühtlasi arutletakse mitmehäälsusega seotud terminoloogia kasutamist ning otsitakse heterofooniale defi nitsiooni, mis oleks senistest täielikum (s.t. hõlmaks kõiki selle nähtuse olulisi tunnuseid), diferentseerivam (s.t. eristaks heterofoonia põhilisi liike) ja piiritlevam (s.t. määraks selgemini selle nähtuse piire) ning arves- taks niipalju kui võimalik ka väljakujunenud terminoloogilist traditsiooni. Viimase puhul võib täheldada mõningat vastuolulisust, mille üheks põhjuseks tundub olevat vähene arvestamine muusikalise protsessi mitmetasandilisusega, mis tähendab, et termineid kasutades jääb sageli teadvustamata, millisele tasandile üks või teine mõiste kuulub, ja nii satuvad eri tasandite terminid vastuollu. Artiklis üritatakse lahendada seda probleemi, vaadeldes järjekindlalt heterofoonia eri aspekte – rahvamuusikute mõtle- misviisi, muusikalise käitumise mustreid ning muusikat kui kõlalist objekti. Vastavalt eelmainitud eesmärkidele koosneb artikkel kolmest peatükist. Esimeses peatükis (On the terminology) arutletakse mitmehäälsusega seotud üldisemaid mõisteid ning analüüsitakse heterofoonia n.-ö. klassikalist defi nitsiooni the simultaneous variation of the same melody (‘sama meloodia üheaegne varieerimine’). Üldistest terminitest pööratakse erilist tähelepanu neutraalsetele katusterminitele, mille eesmärk on tähistada igasugust muusikalist kooskõlamist sõltumata mitmehäälse faktuuri ehitusest ja tekkimise põhjustest (sellega seoses on kasutatud Curt Sachsi väljendit simultaneous otherness (Sachs 1977 [1962]: 177)). Paljudest käibel olevatest mõistetest (polyphony, multipart, multivoiced, plurivocal, plurilinear music jms.) jääb katusterminina sõelale väljend multilinear music, mis seostub põhiliselt muusikalise protsessi kõlatasandiga ja ei ole üleliia koormatud ajalooliselt väljakujunenud kitsamate tähen- dustega. Analüüsides heterofoonia tavapärast defi nitsiooni leitakse, et selle näiliselt lihtsa sõnastuse igast komponendist võib aru saada (ja seda ka tehakse) üsna mitut moodi, mis teeb heterofoonia mõiste ebaselgeks ja laialivalguvaks. Muu hulgas vaadeldakse artikli selles osas heterofoonilise varieerimise spetsiifi kat, meloodialiinide funktsionaalset vahekorda, sünkroonsuse mõistet jms. Samuti selgub, et heterofoonia üldlevinud defi nitsioon jätab nimetamata selle nähtuse ühe väga olulise tunnuse – faktuuri vertikaalse aspekti ebakorrapärasuse –, kuigi seda heterofoonia omadust mainitakse korduvalt selleala- ses kirjanduses, alustades termini kasutuselevõtust 20. sajandi alguses. Tähelepanu juhitakse ka sellele, et „vertikaalse irregulaarsuse” mõiste ise nõuab lähemat seletamist ja täpsustamist. Artikli teine peatükk (Bipartite and tripartite theoretical models in the approach to heterophony) loob heterofoonia uurimisele metodoloogilise aluse. Selle eesmärgiga võrreldakse kahte teoreetilist kont- septsiooni: Vene muusikateoreetiku Tatjana Beršadskaja kahetasandilist mudelit склад–фактура (~‘mõtlemislaad–faktuur’),1 kus esimene tasand iseloomustab faktuuriga seotud muusikalise mõtlemise põhiprintsiipi ja teine selle realiseerimist konkreetses faktuuris (Bershadskaya 1985 [1978]), ning Amee- rika muusikaantropoloogi Alan P. Merriami kolmetasandilist mudelit concept–behaviour–sound (‘idee– käitumine–kõla’; Merriam 1980 [1964]), mis lisab muusika ideaalse ja materiaalse tasandi vastandamisele

1 Selle terminipaari esimest sõna on raske tõlkida eesti keelde (otsetõlge oleks „laad”, „viis”, „kord”), sest sellele vastav muusikateooria termin „kirjaviis” viitab ühetähenduslikult kirjalikule muusikatraditsioonile. Beršadskaja faktuuriteooria seisukohalt oleks kõige sobivam tõlge „mõtlemislaad” või „mõtlemisviis”, kusjuures peab meeles pidama, et jutt käib just muusikalise faktuuri aspektist.

71 Theoretical Approaches to Heterophony ka antropoloogilise dimensiooni. Heterofoonia puhul võivad nende tasandite vahel tekkida (näilised) vastuolud: traditsioonikandjad võivad uskuda, et nad laulavad või mängivad ühehäälselt (idee tasand), samas varieerida meloodiat olulisel määral (käitumise tasand), mille tagajärjena osutub kõlaline tulemus mitmehäälseks (kõla tasand). Samuti on võimalik situatsioon, kus muusikud ei koordineeri meloodia va- rieerimist ei idee ega käitumise tasandil, kuid ometi osutub kõla tasandil muusika vertikaalne aspekt korrapäraseks (Pärtlas 1992, 2012). Kolmas peatükk (Towards an inclusive and diff erentiated conception of heterophony) koosneb kahest alaosast. Neist esimeses (One-part and multipart heterophony) eristatakse heterofoonia kahte tüüpi: one- part heterophony, mille puhul esitajad ei jagune partiideks ning kõik meloodia variandid on funktsionaal- selt võrdsed, ning multipart heterophony, mille puhul esitajad jagunevad teadlikult partiideks ning meloodia variandid täidavad erinevaid funktsioone ja nende vahel võivad olla ka subordinatsiooni suhted.2 Esimest tüüpi heterofoonia tekib põhiliselt homogeensetes ansamblites ja eriti vokaalmuusikas (näiteks esineb seda palju slaavlaste ja soomeugrilaste vanemas rahvalaulus); teine tüüp on omane heterogeen- setele instrumentaalansamblitele (nagu Indoneesia gamelan või Filipiini kulintang) ja vokaal-instrumen- taalmuusikale, kus meloodiline instrument saadab soololauljat (nagu Põhja-India instrumentaalsaade sangat). Need kaks heterofoonia tüüpi erinevad ka varieerimistehnika poolest: kui ühe partii raames toimuv varieerimine lähtub meloodiamudeli realiseerimise põhimõttelisest paljususest, siis eri partiides kasutatakse spetsialiseeritud varieerimistehnikaid (põhiliselt meloodia lihtsustamist ja keerustamist) ning meloodiavariandid on sageli idiomaatilised neid esitavatele muusikapillidele. Kolmanda peatüki teises osas (Consciousness, intention, control and vertical regularities in heterophony ) vaadeldakse küsimusi, mis on seotud mitmehäälse faktuuri tekitamise kognitiivsete aspektidega: tead- vustatuse ja kavatsuslikkusega ning kontrolliga kõlalise tulemuse üle. Heterofooniat käsitlevates uuri- mustes ei pöörata üldjuhul tähelepanu erinevustele mainitud aspektide vahel. Käesolevas artiklis näi- datakse, et mitmehäälsuse olemasolu teadvustamine ei tähenda selle kavatsuslikku tekitamist ning mõlemad ei tähenda, et muusikud üritavad või suudavad hoida mitmehäälset tulemust kuuldelise kontrolli all. Samuti lahatakse mitmehäälsuse tekitamise strateegiaid ning kuuldelise kontrolli ulatust, juhti- des tähelepanu faktile, et kontroll võib olla osaline ja puudutada vaid mõningaid mitmehäälse faktuuri aspekte. Heterofoonia atribuudina tõstetakse esile kontrolli puudumist mitmehäälsuses tekkivate koos- kõlade üle, mis ühendab kõiki heterofoonia liike sõltumata sellest, kas mitmehäälsus on teadvustatud ja taotluslik ning kas muusikud jagunevad partiideks või mitte. Samuti näidatakse ühe konkreetse muusi- katraditsiooni, nimelt Vene-Valgevene piiriala pulmalaulude näitel, kuidas heterofoonia teadvustamatus ja mitmehäälsete kavatsuste puudumine lauljate poolt ei tähenda, et viisi varieerimise mitmehäälne tulemus oleks kaootiline. Viisi varieerimise meloodilised seaduspärasused, mis lähtuvad lauludele omasest laadisüsteemist, tagavad ka muusika vertikaalse aspekti korrapärasuse, kuigi keegi ei püüdle selle poole ei idee ega käitumise tasandil. Artikli kokkuvõttes iseloomustatakse heterofoonia fenomeni, lähtudes järjest muusikalise protsessi kolmest tasandist – muusikalisest mõtlemisest, käitumisest ja kõlalisest tulemusest – ning võttes arvesse erinevusi heterofoonia kahe põhilise tüübi vahel (jagunemisega ning jagunemiseta partiidesse). Dis- kussiooni summeerivas heterofoonia defi nitsioonis osutatakse lisaks faktuuri tavapärasele kirjeldusele kõla tasandil („meloodia samaaegne varieerimine”) ka selle kognitiivsele ja käitumuslikule aspektile, ja nimelt – heterofoonia kahe tüübi olemasolule ning kontrolli puudumisele kooskõlade üle kui heterofoonia olemuslikule tunnusele. Uus defi nitsioon ühendab ja diferentseerib erinevaid muusikalisi nähtusi, mille puhul on heterofoonia terminit kasutatud, ning näitab nende ühiseid ja olulisi jooni. Loodetavasti võimaldab artiklis esitatud heterofoonia kontseptsioon selle mõiste mittevasturääkivat kasutamist eri- nevate muusikakultuuride puhul ning panustab ka üldisemasse diskussiooni traditsioonilise mitmehääl- suse olemuse üle.

2 Ingliskeelsete terminite one-part ja multipart otsetõlge eesti keelde ei kõla kuigi hästi – „ühepartiiline” ja „mitmepartiiline”. Samuti ei sobi ka terminid „ühe- ja mitmehäälne”, sest need on kõlatasandiga seotud katusterminid, samal ajal kui „partii” viitab idee ja käitumise tasanditele. Võib-olla tasuks kasutada selles kontekstis vene etnomusikoloogia eeskujul termineid „funktsionaalne ühe- ja mitmehäälsus” (функциональное одноголосие и многоголосие) (Narodnoye … 2005).