NORIKO ISHIDA The textures of Central Javanese music Pre-notation and its discontents

The idea of inner in Central Javanese gamelan music (karawitan), first presented by in 1975, was a bold departure from the pioneering notions about melodic texture that Jaap Kunst articulated in his monumen- tal book Music in . Kunst’s classification (1949:247) of the melodic instru- ments of the gamelan ensemble into three groups – cantus firmus instru- ments; instruments playing a more or less independent counter-melody; and paraphrasing instruments – always had its limitations. As is clear from the terms he chose, Kunst likened the gamelan composition known as gendhing to compositions of the European medieval period, which generally consisted of a nuclear theme (cantus firmus) and around it, and he assigned supreme importance to that nuclear theme, which was played by the in- struments.1 Sumarsam, in contrast, argued that the saron melody alone is not sufficient to show the entire melodic line of a gendhing, and that there seems to be no single part in the ensemble that is solely responsible for guiding its . There is an implicit melody in the minds of musicians, Su- marsam (1984:257-89) contended, that guides them in performance, and every melodic instrument extrapolates its own melody with reference to this inner melody. It is not the explicit saron melody, he asserted, but rather this inner melody that constitutes the basis of performance and allows the melodic parts of the gamelan orchestra to interact with one another as an organic entity. This concept of inner melody was quickly adopted by researchers and popularized via the sourcebook on karawitan edited by Becker and Feinstein (1984), especially inasmuch as it bridged the melodic lines of and garap, which scholars recognize as the two categories of melodic expression in the gamelan ensemble, allowing them to flow together at some times and diverge from each other at other times.2 Upon closer examination, however,

1 A saron instrument is a of six or seven keys played with one mallet. 2 Balungan may be provisionally defined as the saron melody, and for the moment, garap may be said to be the elaboration of the saron melody by the ‘soft-playing’ instruments.

NORIKO ISHIDA is lecturer at the Department of Japanese Literature, Faculty of Cultural Scienc- es, Gadjah Mada University, . Her main field of academic interest is Javanese gamelan music. She graduated at the Tokyo National University of Fine Arts and Music. Noriko Ishida may be contacted at [email protected].

Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI) 164-4 (2008):475-499 © 2008 Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 476 Noriko Ishida inner melody has not proved a tool that can fully elucidate the melodic behav- iour of gendhing. Marc Perlman (1993:303-12) provided several examples of problems with the register of balungan melodies that cannot be settled by means of the concept of inner melody. Perlman’s thorough study of unplayed melodies in Central Javanese gamelan music revealed that the concept of inner melody still leaves problems unsolved: it has even given rise to new problems. As expressed by some researchers, the idea of inner melody is tantalizing (Tenzer 1997:174; Sumrongthong and Sorell 2000:78), but not satisfactory. Does inner melody really exist? Perhaps this fundamental question should have come first. As evidence of the existence of inner melody, Sumarsam (1984:262-3) offered only the humming of a certain melody by musicians trying­ to remember parts of gendhing or while playing one particular part. Does such humming testify to the existence of an inner melody? In fact, the hummed melody is more often than not a collage of melodies played by vari- ous instruments of the ensemble that are spontaneously, informally, and arbi- trarily compiled by the musician at that moment.3 We can safely regard it as similar to the vocalized form of what Rahayu Supanggah (1990:120) calls ‘per- formance in the heart’. But how could such elusive melodies be transmitted from generation to generation without being transcribed or otherwise articu- lated? Gendhing have been handed down over hundreds of years without being notated – the notation we have now dates back only a century, and inner melody, according to Sumarsam, has never been written down, has never been played on any instrument, and has never been explicitly uttered. Can anything so vague and fleeting be shared among musicians and transmitted between generations? Even if we can say that inner melody is the underlying feeling of gendhing that musicians absorb, inspired by the melody of the whole ensemble (Sumarsam 1984:303), this raises a crucial question: Which comes first, gendh- ing or inner melody? Clearly, it is the gendhing that comes first. What is called inner melody may be not some a priori phenomenon for guiding uninitiated musicians, but rather the essence of gendhing extracted and edited by experienced musicians after performing it many times. Therefore, our inquiry must begin with melodies that were actually played. In order to examine these explicit melodies, one must take into consideration the changes that have occurred over the course of time, because there are indications that the present confusion about the elusiveness of karawitan melodies has been caused by the use of notation, which came into vogue in the early twentieth century. Examining gamelan melodies and melodic texture at a time when this music was not yet notated, and charting the changes caused by notation, may help solve the long unsettled problem of gamelan melodies. Reconstructing the melodic texture of gendhing of the pre-notation era, then discussing the advent and the impact of notation on performance practice, and finally examining

3 See Perlman (1993:231-40; 2004:106-7) for an example of such humming.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 477 the consequent changes that occurred in melodic texture will make clear how the monogenetic texture of gendhing in the pre-notation era developed into the complicated one of today, shifting the basis of performance from the (a two-stringed bowed ) to the saron. It will also show how melodies were enriched in response to the use of notation. (This article deals only with the ‘soft-playing’ compositions of the Solonese tradition, except where noted.)

Composed melody, tracing, and texture

How did gamelan composers in centuries past create gendhing, which are com- prised of many melodic parts, instrumental and vocal, without notation? How did they guide their fellow musicians to learn a new piece at its first rehearsal? Almost all of the 157 gendhing listed in the Serat Centhini, which was put into final form in 1814, still survive today as popular pieces in the ‘classical’ repertoire,4 which means that they were composed, played, and handed down without no- tation for years before notation became widely used in the early twentieth cen- tury. Did they compose all the parts one by one, as composers in the Western tradition do, and then teach musicians the parts individually? The origins of a piece entitled Gadhungmlathi offer a good indication as to how gendhing were composed and transmitted. The Wédhapradangga5 tells us that Gadhungmlathi was introduced by a female player named Jlamprang who had learned the piece from Kencanasari,6 the spirit wife of kings of the Mataram dynasty living in and ruling the legendary realm of spirits in the Southern Ocean (Pradjapangrawit 1990:99-105). Jlamprang, who was an accomplished gendèr player in the court of Paku Buwana IV in (1788-1820), contracted cholera and died. While her family members were grieving, Jlamprang herself felt as if she was entering a wonderland, the realm of Queen Kencanasari, in the Southern Ocean, where she was asked to become a court musician. She refused, say- ing that she still wanted to serve at the court of Paku Buwana IV. Knowing that Jlamprang could not be forced, Kencanasari abandoned the idea, but she asked Jlamprang in return to take back a gift for Paku Buwana IV, a musical work called Gadhungmlathi, a gendhing gendèr, which is a gendhing whose intro- duction (buka) is played by the gendèr. A gorgeous gendèr was carried in and

4 Serat Centhini 1986:90-1. See Lindsay (1991:327:54) for some problems of identification of these pieces. 5 This history of Solonese gamelan from Java’s mythological past to the period of Paku Buwana XI (1939-1945) was written by R.Ng. Pradjapangrawit (1887-1975) on the basis of what he had read and heard. He is better known by his last name of K.R.T. Warsodiningrat, a Surakarta-based master musician at the Kasunanan Palace and lecturer at Konservatori Karawitan and Akademi Seni Karawitan Indonesia. 6 The gendèr is a metallophone of 12 or more keys played with two mallets.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 478 Noriko Ishida

Kencanasari began playing. After three repetitions, Jlamprang was edorder­ to play the gendèr herself. Because she was an extremely talented and well- trained gendèr player, she surprised Kencanasari with her performance by precisely imitating Kencanasari’s example. Only when Jlamprang had demon- strated her mastery of the instrument and the composition was she allowed to return to life, just as her body was about to be bathed before burial. Whether this narrative of a near-death experience is a real story or fiction is irrelevant. Rather, its significance lies in how Gadhungmlathi was taught and how Jlamprang learned it. The tale insists that Gadhungmlathi is a gendhing gendèr, and that Kencanasari played only the gendèr. When Jlamprang showed that she could play the gendèr part precisely as Kencanasari played it, the lesson ended, meaning that the Gadhungmlathi composition had been transmitted to Jlamprang or, more precisely, that Jlamprang had completed the composition. Although this story concerns only the gender part, Jlamprang returned to play Gadhungmlathi for Paku Buwono IV not as a performance by solo gendèr, but with a full gamelan ensemble, which is how the work is still known (Pradjapangrawit 1990:103-4). Clearly according to this legend, orchestration was not included in the original process of composition: the implication is that other instruments were only added when the piece was performed by the full gamelan. This suggests that the task of the composer was to make a single melodic line for a single melodic part, and that the creation of melodies for the other parts was up to the fellow musicians. The composer did not worry about the possibility of incompatible melodies being put forward by them, because the principle of orchestration in karawitan was the simultane- ous expression of the single melody by the other melodic instruments in their respective manners determined by their respective musical particularities. I refer to this method as ‘tracing’, and refer to the melody pre-composed in order to be traced as ‘composed melody’. Performing a gendhing seems to have meant that one person played the composed melody on one instrument and the other musicians traced it on other instruments. Such speculation may lack concrete historical evidence, but it is all but undeniable that the com- posed melody must have been of supreme importance as a source melody that directed all of the other melodies of the ensemble. The term gendhing gendèr in the story of Gadhungmlathi may shed some light at this point. There are several ways of classifying gendhing, one of which takes its cue from the instrument playing the introduction (buka). A piece whose introduction is played by the rebab is called a gendhing rebab. A piece whose introduction is played by the gendèr is called a gendhing gendèr. There are gendhing (the gambang is a wooden ) and gen­ dhing (the bonang is a small kettle arranged in two rows) as well. Although our current understanding of the phrase gendhing X is only that it is a gendhing whose introduction is played by the instrument X, its original

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 479 meaning may have been a little different. There are indications that gendhinga X is a piece composed on the instrument X. What is referred to as gendhing in this phrase is the composed melody. Composers must have composed that melody from the beginning (buka) to the end (the last note). Therefore, the fact that the introduction to gendhing X is played by instrument X is only a natural outcome of this process of composition.7 If that interpretation is correct, which instrument would be the composer’s choice as the carrier of the composed melody? That instrument has to be heard clearly so that other musicians can ’trace’ it easily. The instrument that distinguishes itself from the other percussion instruments with its sustained voice-like tone is the rebab, which is why gendhing rebab are the most numer- ous – about 90% – among the hundreds of pieces in the current repertoire of karawitan (Mloyowidodo 1977a, 1977b). The human voice has characteristics very similar to those of the rebab, and although there is no special term such as ‘gendhing voice’, there are many pieces based on vocal parts, among them bedhayan (especially those of the type called gendhing ),8 jineman,9 dolanan,10 the gen­dhing sekar,11 pieces based on poems of Mangkunegara IV, and the gendhing sri-sri.12 Their intro- ductions, called buka celuk or bawa, are all vocal. Although the introductions to Mangkunegara IV’s pieces and gendhing sri-sri are now generally played by the rebab, they were originally introduced by bawa.13 Some of them (bedhayan, jineman, and dolanan) are not performed by the full gamelan. The rebab is left out, because the established predominance of the instrument as the carrier of the composed melody might disturb the vocalist and confuse the other musi- cians as to which melody to follow: the rebab or the vocal melody. The Serat Sastramiruda14 even claims that formerly the rebab did not even participate in the gendhing gendèr.15 The human voice (female solo sindhèn and male chorus gérong) does find a place in gendhing rebab, but the style of singing or melodic expression in gen-

7 There are also indications that gendhing bonang was not composed on the bonang, but on the saron. The bonang’s playing technique, called mipil (see Sumarsam 1984:282-9 for the technique of mipil), can be extrapolated only on the basis of the saron melody. In the performance of gamelan Sekatèn, when many gendhing bonang are played it is not the bonang player, but the demung (one of the saron instruments) player who determines what gendhing to play and who leads the performance (Sumarsam 1981). These facts indicate that gendhing bonang were actually composed on the saron. 8 Pieces accompanying the dance. 9 Works featuring the solo female vocal part. 10 Children’s songs arranged for gamelan. 11 Compositions featuring melodies of macapat, or sung poetry. 12 Pieces composed at the court of Paku Buwana X (1893-1939) to commemorate various events held in the palace, the titles of which mostly begin with the word ‘sri’. 13 See Mangkunegara IV 1934:142-78; Nut sekar macapat tuwin sekar tengahan 1, 2. 14 A treatise on Javanese performing arts written by Kangjeng Pangeran Arya Kusumadilaga in 1879. Kusumadilaga was head of the court musicians at the Kasunanan Palace of Surakarta. 15 Kusumadilaga 1981:187. ‘Gendhing gender iku pancen ora nganggo rebab’.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 480 Noriko Ishida dhing rebab is different from that of vocalgendhing . In vocal gendhing, the vocal melody covers the whole piece, whereas in gendhing rebab the vocal expres- sion is only fragmentary (sindhèn), or it appears only in predetermined sec- tions (gérong). For vocal gendhing played with full gamelan, there are particu- lar reasons to play them in that way. In the case of gendhing sekar, it is because their vocal melodies are not newly ‘composed’ melodies but well-known macapat melodies, so the status of the vocal part as the composed melody is not threatened by the presence of the rebab. In the case of Mangkunegara IV’s pieces and gendhing sri-sri, composed vocal melodies are in the style of the gérong melody in gendhing rebab. These vocal gendhing seem to be comprised of only the gérong section of gendhing rebab, with the short linking refrain called umpak between stanzas, so performance with full gamelan in the style of gendhing rebab is quite reasonable. Why are gendhing gendèr and gendhing gambang all in sléndro, while there are no such gendhing in pélog? Pélog is a scale (laras) of seven tones (panunggul, gulu, dada, pélog, lima, nem, barang) and there are three modes () of five tones (pathet lima, pathet nem, pathet barang).16 In the pélog set of gamelan instruments, there are two gendèr and two gambang. One gendèr or gambang is to play gendhing in pathet lima and pathet nem, possessing five tones panunggul( , gulu, dada, lima, nem). The other gendèr or gambang is to play gendhing in pathet barang, equipped with a different set of five tones (gulu, dada, lima, nem, barang). Although the prominent pitches in either of the three pathet of pélog are five, sometimes pélog melodies use the two excluded pitches in passing. As the pélog gendèr and gambang do not have these pitches, they cannot express these melodic nuances themselves, which is why they never carry the composed melody. The method used to play Indonesian pop songs or other diatonic tunes on gamelan, which we hear now and then at concerts taking place in an infor- mal atmosphere in the suburbs or rural areas, is also relevant to our inquiry. Those songs, using a diatonic scale, are accompanied by the gamelan, which is accomplished by having the melody instrument players trace the diatonic song melody, seeking out the closest notes on the gamelan. Generally, the musicians already know the popular song so well that, even without rehearsal, they can anticipate the tones to be played. The gamelan musicians, many of whom are semi-professionals who have not received formal education in how to play the gamelan, trace the song melody confidently and execute the orchestration without instruction, unquestionable testimony to the tradition of tracing as a technique of orchestration deeply rooted in the Javanese musician. The fact that rural female gendèr players tend to play melodies congruent with the saron melody (Perlman 1998) may be regarded as a remnant of the practice of tracing in peripheral areas, which usually adopt cultural changes more slowly, a phenomenon often observed in the distribution of linguistic

16 See Martopangrawit (1975:1-31) for three pathet in pélog.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 481 dialects.17 After notation became popular among Solo musicians, the orches- tration technique of tracing was replaced by another method, but it survives in the last two peripheral areas: in rural areas which are geographically on the periphery, and among female musicians who are socially on the periphery. In the notation era, the rebab ceased to be the carrier of the composed melody, and the saron instruments emerged instead as the reliable base of tracing, which is why these musicians, who belong to the notation era, trace not the rebab melody but the saron melody. In order to be traced by other instruments, the composed melody must be clear, but in current performing practice, the rebab melody is far from clear. It is sometimes so full of embellishments and ornaments that it is difficult to follow.18 Composed melodies must have been much simpler, as is suggested by transcriptions of rebab melodies of the early nineteenth century recorded in The history of Java by Thomas Stamford Raffles (1982:470-1). As Benjamin Brinner (1993) has shown, the rebab melodies are very simple, almost as simple as the balungan today. Is this the result of the transcriptions having been made by ‘a gentleman at Semarang’ (Raffles 1982:471), presumably a Westerner not trained as a musician of karawitan or an ethnomusicologist and therefore deaf to subtle nuances in the performance? Or was the performance really so simple that it could be written down by an amateur without a tape recorder? The technique of tracing is not in fact foreign to researchers of karawitan. Tracing a core melody is recognized as the technique of performing suluk.19 The rebab, gendèr, gambang, and (bamboo ) literally ‘trace’ the vocal melody sung by the dalang (puppeteer). The method of performing gendhing may have been basically the same as that of suluk. The difference is that suluk is performed with a time lag and in free , while in gendhing every part moves on the beat, except for the sindhèn (female solo voice) and the suling. Melodies are monogenetically derived from the single source of the com- posed melody and made to flow together in the same direction, even coincid- ing with each other. The resultant texture can be called heterophony – unison in its broadest sense. This heterophonic texture is neither monotonous nor homogeneous, because each instrument has a different tone quality (soft, sharp, sustainable, dry, and so on) and traces the composed melody in its own register and with its own distinctive note density. Some instruments, such as the gambang, traced the line of the composed melody with quick steps and created dense melodic lines with many short notes; other instruments, not suited for rapid move- ment, summed up the composed melody and expressed it in sustained tones.

17 For example, see Yanagida 1969. 18 For examples of transcription of rebab performance today, see Brinner 1993:231. 19 Songs sung by the dalang and accompanied by the rebab, the gendèr, the gambang, and the sul- ing.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 482 Noriko Ishida

Some followed the composed melody beat for beat, while others marked only certain points of the melody in a fragmentary manner. Some moved up and down with the composed melody because of their multi-octave range, those with a limited range ignoring the register and playing the same notes as the composed melody, irrespective of register. The expression of each instrument was thus determined by its own par- ticular characteristics. In other words, each component created its own specific melody, which could not be replaced or duplicated by others. In this sense, there was no discrimination among the tracing melodies, and the instruments expressing them all had the same status in the ensemble as tracers. The differ- ence between them lay in their distance from the composed melody. Melodies created by the multi-octave instruments can be said to be closer to the composed melody, while those expressed by single-octave instruments are more remote. This structure can be described as ‘the gradual, even diminution of the radi- ance of the lamp with increasing distance from the bulb’. Benedict Anderson (1972:22) even uses this metaphor to describe the Javanese conception of the structure of the state. Perhaps we need not be surprised by this resemblance of the structure of the melodic texture of karawitan with the structure of the state: a gamelan ensemble too is a society, though not as large as a state. Applying Anderson’s metaphor to karawitan again, we can say that gamelan performance in the pre-notation era was defined by the composed melody, not by its remote tracers.20 The fact that Raffles’s transcriber used melodies played on the rebab as an illustration of the nature of karawitan suggests that the per- formance was defined by the rebab melody, though it is not certain whether he chose the rebab part himself or did so on the advice of Javanese musicians. Indeed, there are indications that performance in the pre-notation era often made no use of saron instruments. No mention is made of saron instruments in some of the gamelan sessions portrayed in the Serat Centhini, even though other instruments are individually mentioned.21 In this voluminous literature we cannot even find the word , the most representative saron instru- ment today. According to the Serat Centhini, when people felt like playing the gamelan, they set up a small ensemble. The instruments always included the rebab, the gendèr, the gambang, and the suling, as well as a female singer. These are the carrier of the composed melody and its close tracers. When there was no female singer, they apologized and immediately invited one (Serat Centhini 1989:237; 1990:72). When they had no suling, they ordered a piece of bamboo and made a suling on the spot (Serat Centhini 1989:266). An absence of saron instruments, however, required no such compensation. J.P.N. Land, who listened to the Mangkunegaran Palace gamelan ensemble at the Arnhem Industrial Exhibition in 1879, described this texture: ‘The rabab plays the tune

20 ‘[...] the traditional state is defined by its centre, not by its perimeters’ (Anderson 1972:29). 21 For example, see Serat Centhini (1988a:216-20; 1988b:129-36; 1989:161-8; 1990b:70-2).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 483 in the character of leader; […] the others play the same tune, but figured, and each for himself and in his own way; the sáron resumes the motive or tune’ (Ellis 1885:509). For a Javanese description of this texture, we may look to the Serat Centhini, with its many scenes, albeit idealized, of gamelan performance. For example, a harmonious and therefore pleasant performance is often described as rempeg, or ‘all the same, with none differing from the other’ (Robson and Wibisono 2002:614). The term runtut, or ‘harmonious’, is also used (Robson and Wibisono 2002:638). While these words may be applied to any good ensemble and not only to the gamelan, several other examples can be fully understood only if the texture depicted is woven from a single composed melody and other melodies tracing it. The text speaks of situations in which ‘sarancak tangkêpe sami’ (Serat Centhini 1988a:103), or ‘all the instruments of the ensemble coincided with each other’.22 This notion also finds expression in the phrase sarancak‘ ungêle kamot jroning kawa’ (Serat Centhini 1988b:142), or ‘the sound of all the instruments of the ensemble was contained in the strings of the rebab’. Finally, we read: ‘Mukêt wilête barungan rêbab, […], samya angungas bêsus, lir pênjalin sinigar palih, swara mot jroning kawat‘ (Serat Centhini 1989:237-8), or ‘the melody of the sindhèn was well mixed with the melody of the rebab. They both showed off their skill. They were as similar as a piece of rattan split into two. The voice of the sindhèn was contained in the strings of the rebab’. Such language, even in its somewhat formal exaggeration, confirms that the rebab was the carrier of the composed melody, which was traced by others so closely that they all merged into its sound. Can historical recordings of karawitan verify such assertions? Performances captured on 78 rpm records produced in the 1930s reveal the predominance of the vocal part sung by either male or female singers or by both.23 Female singers in particular are far more eloquent on these discs and offer more melodies than one hears today. While in current practice the melodies are in free rhythm, extended seemingly to the limits of the performer’s breathing capacity, and almost always ending up far behind the others, the melodies on the historical recordings are in free, ‘shrunk’ rhythm, sometimes almost metrical, so as to end at the same point with the other instruments. Unlike in contemporary performance practice, female singers on older recordings even correspond beat by beat with the saron or the gendèr melody,24 and sometimes

22 All the translations are mine. These phrases are in verse, but I have translated them in prose, and rather freely at that, for the sake of clarity. 23 I am grateful to Rob van Albada and Wim van der Meer for allowing me the access to 16 pieces from their 78 rpm records. 24 In Gendhing Lobong sléndro pathet manyura (Columbia GJX10), Gendhing Manis pélog pathet barang (Odeon A39603a), and Ladrang Kutut Manggung sléndro pathet manyura (Columbia GJ234).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 484 Noriko Ishida they are literally in unison with the other instruments.25 These moments of correspondence and unison sometimes result in a saron melody that is significantly different from contemporary saron melodies.26 There is also at least one historical recording in which the rebab almost coin- cides with the saron melody, anticipating the notes to be played.27 All these treatments, which might be interpreted as an effort to carry out or encourage faithful tracing, create a texture that sounds more solid than that of the more modern performances we are accustomed to hearing today. This conjecture about the texture of gendhing in pre-notation times is dependent on the hypothesis of the single composed melody and the orches- tration technique of tracing. Describing the texture of contemporary gen­dhing, which is so complex and rich in variety that it perplexes uninitiated listeners by its elusiveness, is considerably less straightforward. In fact, gen­dhing that one hears in the twenty-first century apears to have two poles – balunga­n and garap – around which the melodies intertwine, a phenomenon often described by researchers. When, how and why did this monogenetic texture evolve into the complicated one performed today? My next conjecture is that the changes are rooted in the use of notation.

25 In Ladrang Sekar Gadhung sléndro pathet manyura (Odeon Jab129), Jineman Glathik Glindhing sléndro pathet manyura (Odeon A39630a), and Ladrang Janggleng Ireng sléndro pathet manyura (Co- lumbia LJ441). 26 For example, the third section of the first gong cycle of Ladrang Clunthang sléndro pathet sanga (Columbia GJ231): vocal . . @ @j@# @ . 6 ! . j5!6 n5 saron (GJ231) . 3 . 2 . 3 . n5 saron (standard) . 5 . 6 . 3 . n5 27 Part of the second and the third gong cycles of Ladrang Uluk-Uluk pathet sanga (Columbia GJ272). In current practice, this part is considered to be very challenging because the saron mel- ody is apparently in sléndro pathet nem, while the designated pathet is pathet sanga. So the rebab is expected to work out melodies that provide the feeling of pathet sanga. There are several solutions, but the melody as shown below might be the last resort for musicians today. (the upper row: rebab, the lower row: saron) j. j 3 j5j 6 jjk35j. 3 j. 3 jk56j.6 j. j 6 j6 jk.6 . 5 . 3 . 5 . n3 j.jj jk35 k53j. k21j 5 k52j j. k. 3k53 j3jk.5 k2 j3j. g2 . 6 . 5 . 3 . g2 k.k k3k53 3 j2 kj56 6 j.j 5 ! k6!j6 nj6 j2 . 3 . 2 . 5 . n6 k.3j5 5 3 k56j. 6 j5j6 k6!j6 n6 . 2 . 3 . 5 . 6

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 485

The introduction of notation

The oldest notation of gendhing is a form of staff notation called nut ranté,28 which seems to have been formulated in the circle of court musicians of Surakarta in the late nineteenth century.29 It seems visually uncomplicated, at least compared to the sheet music of ensemble compositions from the same period in the West:

Figure 1. Nut ranté. Part of Gending Titipati sléndro pathet nem (from Nut ranté gendhing Surakarta, Museum Sonobudoyo)

28 This notation is called ‘chain notation’. Nut or enut comes from the Dutch noot, or ‘note’, which means notation, while ranté means chain, on account of its appearance. 29 The earliest extant manuscript of nut ranté is dated in the Javanese year 1809 (15-12-1879~2- 12-1880) (Perlman 1991:59). For the rise of nut ranté, see Pradjapangrawit 1990:146, 166-7; Sindoe- sawarno 1960:61; Perlman 1991.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 486 Noriko Ishida

Since this example represents an orchestral piece, one would expect a full score or notation for the respective parts, rather than what appears to be a single melodic line with no clue as to the instrument assigned to play it. Such ex- pectations ignore the fact that gendhing performance consists of a single com- posed melody and accompanying tracing melodies, for which reason no score or notation for the various parts is necessary. Notating the composed melody is sufficient to represent the whole melodic texture. And especially if we take into consideration that variation is almost always at work during performance, the notated composed melody can be no more than approximate. The melody notated in nut ranté expressed by four notes per measure (gatra) should be re- garded as no more than a rough line of the composed melody. Some researchers regard this notated melody as the saron melody,30 a notion unsubstantiated by manuscripts containing nut ranté. The fact that the notation attempts to indicate the register of melodies that go beyond the range of the six pitches of the six-line staff31 suggests that this is not the transcrip- tion of the melody actually played on the saron, whose range is limited to six pitches corresponding to the six lines of nut ranté.32 We can also tell from the titles of manuscripts that the notators were not attempting to represent the saron melody, but quite purposefully wrote down the composed melody (gen- dhing). For example, we find manuscripts entitled Nut Gending (‘notation of gendhing’), but not Nut Saron.33 Because this new system was difficult to write and read, its popularity remained limited. It was particularly inconvenient for use at gamelan rehears- als with amateur musicians, a situation that inspired a Surakarta nobleman to revise it. He gave numbers to the pitches and called them by their numbers. Pitches of pélog were numbered one to seven (from low to high) while those of sléndro were numbered one to six. This notation was called nut angka.34 It is not clear when this cipher notation system was introduced, but the manuscript dated earliest, from 1906,35 shows that the basic principles were already established by the early twentieth century. As the revised translitera- tion of nut ranté, nut angka continues to be the notation used of the composed melody, as in the example in Figure 2:

30 For example, Becker (1980:11-25) and Sumarsam (1995:106-13). 31 On ways of indicating register, see Perlman (1991:50-1). 32 The six lines in the nut ranté staff for a sléndro piece represent, in ascending order, the pitches barang, gulu, tengah, lima, nem, and high barang. Many older sléndro saron have six keys, while new saron in Solo have seven, adding a key for low nem. 33 Perlman 1991:58-9. Several manuscripts in Behrend (1990) are listed under different titles made by the annotators. 34 Angka means number. This notation is called titilaras kepatihan or nut kepatihan as well. On the invention of nut angka, see Pradjapangrawit 1990:168-9; Sindoesawarno 1960; Becker 1980:13-9. 35 This is the Nut gendhing Radyapustaka of Museum Radyapustaka in Surakarta written by De- mang Warsapradongga, who was the father of Warsodiningrat and who before his death in 1911 was master musician of the Kepatihan, the prime minister’s official residence.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 487

.yt. ty12 .321 ytent

.yt. ty12 .321 ytent

wety etew ..wt wetny

11.. 321y 33.. 653g2 Figure 2. Nut angka. Part of Gending Titipati sléndro pathet nem

The ease with which nut angka can be written and read led to its widespread adoption, both by musicians writing down gendhing they knew and by ama- teurs learning to play gendhing, a situation that led to important changes in the development of karawitan.

The birth of garap

By the turn of the twentieth century, having a functional dominant notation system, as well as several less popular ones, meant that the composed melody could now be written down and shared by musicians. Gendhing could now ex- ist outside of performance contexts. Previously, if performing musicians did not know the gendhing well, the player of the composed melody, most often the rebab player, had to articulate it as clearly as possible so as to be traced cor- rectly by other players. Now each musician had a reliable and independent relationship with the composed melody, which released the rebab player from the responsibility of leading the entire ensemble. Rebab players found that slight deviations from the composed melody, far from harming the performance as a whole, added a certain charm. The importance of this exciting discovery is hard to overestimate. Competent rebab players could now begin to create alternative melodies, with more orna- mentation, embellishment, and variation, in a bold manner, that is they began to do garap. Although we can pinpoint the circumstances of the birth of garap in karawitan, the word itself is difficult to translate.Nggarap , which is the verb form, means ‘to work at or on, to do’ (Robson and Wibisono 2002:231). In the context of karawitan, nggarap gendhing may best be translated as ‘arranging gendhing’, and as far as the melodic aspects are concerned, nggarap gendh- ing or ‘arranging the composed melody’ may mean ‘playing the composed melody not as it was composed’, or more specifically, ‘intentionally creating a counter melody to the composed melody’.36 This was an aspect of perform-

36 See Rahayu Supanggah (1990:119) and Perlman (1993:575-7) for other definitions of garap.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 488 Noriko Ishida ance unknown to musicians of the pre-notation era. In the Serat Centhini, the Serat Sastramiruda, and the Serat Kyahi Gulang Yarya, which is another treatise on Javanese performing arts written by R.M.H. Tondhakusuma in 1870,37 the phrase nggarap gendhing never comes up. The ambitious, creative, and enterprising musicians of that time may have greeted the idea of garap with enthusiasm as they became absorbed in creat- ing new phrases, thus enriching their musical vocabularies. While using tra- ditional phrases, they gradually created new ones, and their efforts expanded into various experiments. For example, the same written phrase in two dif- ferent pathet (modes) could be treated differently. Then again, the same rebab melody might be applied to portions that differed in notation. They could transpose gendhing in sléndro to pélog and vice versa, or to differentpathet , and they experimented with new (wirama)38 as well, playing gendhing tradi- tionally assigned to irama dadi in irama wiled. I have often heard from elderly musicians how enthusiastically in their youth they sought new garap for the old well-known gendhing. In this sense, the early twentieth century seems to have been a golden era in the history of karawitan. The performance of gendhing as we know it today seems to have been devel- oped during this period by a relatively small number of musicians with easy access to notation. Certainly, they were elite court musicians of Surakarta led by K.R.T. Warsodiningrat (1887-1975), S. Mloyowidodo (1911-1997) and R.L. Martopangrawit (1914-1986) being the youngest among them. They organized small study groups, including Pananta Dibya, Panti Sari, and Ngèsthiraras (Wiranta Wiayasumarta 1972:v-vi; Pradjapangrawit 1990:172-3), in which they seem to have analysed and experimented with gendhing in search of the best garap. They may have referred to notation when discussing or testing tentative garap,39 and once a certain garap was agreed upon and established, they always used it as a mark for distinguishing themselves from other musical groups, per- haps with a sense of rivalry and pride. Once initiated into the garap technique, musicians were no doubt entranced by its charms and challenged to search for better garap. Because they never seem to have considered returning to the bare composed melody and its mere tracing, this old style disappeared from their performance practice. After the independence of Indonesia and the opening of the national conservatory (now Sekolah Menengah Karawitan Indonesia) and the national academy of karawitan (now Institut Seni Indonesia Surakarta) in Surakarta in the decades after World War II, these musicians taught their garap

37 Tondhakusuma, a son-in-law of Mangkunegara IV, was a dancer and the creator of langen­ driya­n, which was a dance drama performed only by female dancers. 38 See Martopangrawit (1969:1-3) for an explanation of irama. 39 They never looked at notation while performing. A player consulting notation on stage was laughed at as kethèk ngilo ‘a monkey looking in a mirror’ (personal communication with Mloyowi­ dodo).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 489 to their students in more formal settings. Among the most vocal and influential propagandists for the new style was Martopangrawit, who while teaching gen- dèr in 1985-1986 often told me that players who did not play this part of gendh- ing in this way were not playing this gendhing in its true sense. In this way, the garap they played and taught rapidly assumed standard, authoritative status in Solonese karawitan.

Further changes in melodic texture

Notation gave freedom to the carriers of composed melody to nggarap, or to spin their own melodies. Traditionally, there were four carriers of composed melody in soft playing pieces: the rebab, the gendèr, the gambang, and the voice. Of interest at this point is the rebab, for a variety of reasons. The gendèr and the gambang, whose sounds do not stand out clearly in the ensemble, have almost totally surrendered their few gendhing to the rebab, so that most gendhing gendèr and gendhing gambang now appear to be gendhing rebab. The human voice is not so active in garap, which by its very nature is conducted by a solo player and therefore cannot be applied to the chorus. Many gendhing featuring a vocal solo are based on well-known sung-verse melodies, from which the vocalist cannot depart too far. Therefore, when talking about garap it is always the rebab that will be the object of investigation. Since the introduction of garap in the perfor- mance of gendhing, the rebab has become much more important than before. How free is the rebab? This question introduces two different issues: how far the rebab may depart from the composed melody, and to what extent the garap-ed rebab melody exerts influence on other instruments of the ensemble. Even after the introduction of garap, the old orchestration principle of tracing may have been maintained for some time. The rule was that other instru- ments traced the rebab melody wherever it went. However, blind obedience to this rule brought about an embarrassing result: if all of the other instruments followed the garap-ed rebab melody, the piece performed would become something other than what had originally been composed. Furthermore, if the other instruments continued to trace the rebab melody as loyally as before, the rebab’s freedom from the duty of leading the ensemble would disappear. In fact, because the melody was now different from the original composed melody, the rebab was again put in the position of guide. Its freedom would be lost and, even more regrettably, the charms and thrills created by the ten- sions between the composed melody and the garap-ed rebab melody would be lost as well. In the pre-notation era, a change in the gendhing melody, whether intentional or not, would not have been so problematic, and it would have been accepted as a reasonable metamorphosis not uncommon in any oral tra- dition. Sometimes it may even have passed unnoticed. But now the composed

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 490 Noriko Ishida melodies existed in notation. As is common with many forms of ‘traditional’ art everywhere, people in Java respected authoritative documents made and used by court musicians and regarded them as something that had to be fol- lowed exactly. The composed melody, gendhing, had to be played as notated, while at the same time its carrier (the rebab) was to be granted freedom to depart from it. How could this contradiction be resolved? Reorganization of the division of labour in the gamelan ensemble was the solution. Now that the assigned carrier of the composed melody (the rebab) was released from its former duty, quite naturally the task of playing the com- posed melody was entrusted to the saron instruments, because the notated composed melody was almost the same as what they had been playing in the ensemble all along. Other instruments continued to trace the rebab melody, but the melody they traced was the new garap-ed melody. The new carriers of the composed melody were the group comprised of the loud-playing instru- ments, while those that traced the new rebab melody were the soft-playing ones. This division of labour and the composition of each group were not strictly fixed. Some instruments could switch from one task to the other depending on performance conditions, deter­mined by tempo, irama and the purpose of the performance: whether for a concert, dance accompaniment, or accompaniment. This new division of labour divided melody instruments into three groups: those that played the notated composed melody (the loud-playing instru- ments), those that nggarap-ed the composed melody (the rebab), and those that traced the garap-ed melody (other soft-playing instruments). Although the sec- ond and third groups may seem very different, because the former led and the latter followed, they interacted freely, so much so that they could logically be grouped together. In this way, the melodic instruments were generally divided into just two groups: the composed melody group and the garap group. The instruments of the latter group had the freedom to create their own melodies, while those of the former group were strictly bound to the composed melody. If they too participated in garap, then the composed melody, or gendhing, would be lost – so they had to play the composed melody unaltered. Garap could become bolder and bolder if the composed melody continued to be played clearly as the foundation. These changes constituted a total restructuring of the melodic texture, in which there was no longer a definitional centre. Melodies were no longer monogenetic but began to weave around two focal points: the composed melody and the garap-ed rebab melody. Strictly speaking, however, this model of two foci is somewhat inaccurate, because these two points were different in their nature and their power was not balanced. Following the shift of the composed melody from the rebab to the saron instruments, the original linear melody assumed the shape of a line of stepping-stones, and all the garap

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 491 instruments traced this fixed composed melody. Tracing in the pre-notation era was dynamic because it meant moving together, but this new tracing was rather static, because the composed melody was now fixed. Only the garap instruments moved together, when the rebab decided to nggarap. In principle, the rebab traced the composed melody, but it could depart from that melody at will. Thus, the melodic texture of the notation era can be described as the melodies tracing the fixed composed melody, with the sporadic addition of passages of garap-ed melodies intertwined around the rebab as their limited dynamic centre. What makes it appear complex is this coexistence of stasis and dynamism in an unbalanced state.

The establishment of the theory of pathet

Did the rebab have unconditional freedom to develop its own melodies? Of course not, because unlimited freedom would confuse the ensemble. The rebab had to follow rules in order to live harmoniously with the instruments carrying the composed melody. So what kept the rebab’s melodies within a cer- tain frame? The coincidence of tones of the rebab melody with the composed melody at important points would keep their lines roughly consonant with each other. The minimal melodic unit of gendhing is the measure (gatra), and the strongest and therefore most important beat in the four-beat measure is the last (the fourth) one, called sèlèh.40 The most basic rule for the rebab was to come back to the sèlèh note, that is, the rebab melody was required to land on the note played by the saron on the last beat of every measure. On rare occa- sions the landing might be suspended for a few measures by skipping over several sèlèh notes, but this was not done arbitrarily. Once the points of coincidence were agreed upon, the next issue was how the rebab was to travel from one sèlèh note to the next. If the rebab were allowed total freedom, it could create an infinite number of routes, at least in theory. However, when various rebab melodies were played with the notated saron melody, some melodies were felt to be more suitable, pleasant, acceptable, or at least tolerable, than others, and pathet was the deciding factor. This discussion hypothesizes that elaborate theories of pathet, such as that of Martopangrawit (1969, 1975) explaining pathet by referring to the range, cadential patterns, ‘tonic’, ‘dominant’, ‘enemy tone’, and so on, were achieve- ments of later years and were not yet codified in these very early years of the notation era, although there must have been an awareness of those factors. Pathet, which can be translated roughly as ‘mode’, had been known for a long time, as is shown by the list of gendhing titles mentioned in the Serat Centhini, which classified gendhing neatly into six pathet (Serat Centhini 1986:89-91).

40 Sèlèh means ‘to put something somewhere’ (Robson and Wibisono 2002:662).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 492 Noriko Ishida

What was pathet at that time? The definition of pathet, one of the most contro- versial issues in karawitan, is obviously beyond the scope of this paper. With this in mind, the understanding of pathet presented here is a minimally valid one, for the purpose of the present discussion only. Pathet is, in a very limited sense, a zone of pitches arranged in a certain order. A certain pathet occupies a higher or lower zone than other pathet in the total range. In order to determine the zone, we need a standard pitch, which is generally given by the gamelan instruments. If there is no standard pitch, we cannot perceive or distinguish pathet, in either sléndro or pélog. Traditionally, every gendhing was assigned to a certain pathet. Musicians must already have intuitively and empirically shared the specific feeling associated with each of the six pathet. Perhaps musicians would have assigned a certain gendhing to a certain pathet according to the final gong note and the final passage leading to that gong note. The melodic line of agendhing did not have to stick to one pathet from beginning to end. It was sometimes allowed to venture into the territory of other pathet or linger briefly in an ambiguous area, as long as the melody came back to the assigned pathet at the final gong stroke. In the pre-notation era, when gendhing seem to have been played almost in unison, a certain gendhing may have been assigned to a certain pathet in this macroscopic way. This simple attitude toward pathet underwent revision as the practice of garap gained in popularity. Musicians may have begun to feel that the designat- ed pathet was strengthened or weakened by the garap-ed melodies played side- by-side with the composed melody. If the garap-ed rebab melody supported the feeling of the designated pathet, it was regarded as appropriate. If not, it was felt to be improper. In this way, pathet served as the ‘moral code’ that restrained the melodic behaviour of the rebab. This new role assigned to pathet required the garap of gendhing to be consistent within the designated pathet. Whether a certain garap-ed rebab melody was appropriate to the designated pathet had to be examined measure by measure in order to maintain consistency from the beginning (buka) to the end (the last gong note). Pathet, which until then had been felt only macroscopically, now demanded a microscopic treatment. Measures taken in the effort to maintain consistency included: – Standardizing finger positions for the rebab for each pathet.41 – Standardizing the zones of the octave (gembyang) and the fifthkempyung ( ) for the sèlèh of the patterns cèngkok( ) of the gendèr.42 – Establishing alternative rebab melodies for the pathet-less ascending pas- sages.43

41 See Martopangrawit (1975:13-21) for finger positions for each of the six pathet. 42 See Martopangrawit (1969:37-9) for the zones of the octave and the fifth. 43 See Rahayu Supanggah (1990:122-4) for examples of the alternative rebab melodies for Gendh- ing Cucurbawuk, sléndro pathet manyura.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 493

– Transposing gendhing whose pathet were ambiguous in sléndro to pélog.44 – Removing from the repertoire gendhing whose ambiguous pathet could not be clarified.45 In short, they adjusted gendhing and garap to cohere with the designated pathet, a task which could be performed better and more easily if notation was avail- able, not only because of the necessity of surveying the whole length of the gen- dhing concerned, but also because of the need to refer to many gendhing and to consult with other people. It was the musicians who quickly adopted nut ang- ka, namely the court musicians of Surakarta, led by Warsodiningrat, who en- gaged in this extraordinary exercise. The time required from the birth of garap in the early twentieth century until its establishment with the elaborate theory of pathet was surprisingly short. The two volumes of karawitan theory compiled by Martopangrawit (1969, 1975), can be seen as the completion of their efforts at the hand of the youngest among this group of musician-theorists.

Balungan reconsidered

The term balungan, provisionally defined above as the saron melody in order to prevent misunderstandings, now requires further definition. Ever since Kunst (1949) used the term balungan or balunganing gendhing (balungan of gendhing) in his influential book Music in Java, the question of what balungan is has troubled researchers. Kunst assumed that the saron melody was the balungan and sug- gested that it functioned as the basis on which other instruments constructed their melodies. Sumarsam (1984:256) rejected this view, claiming that balungan is not the same as the saron melody because of the balungan’s multi-octave range, which cannot be expressed by the saron. He defined balungan as an abstraction of the inner melody felt inwardly by musicians (Sumarsam 1984:273). In pres- ent practice, cipher notation of gendhing like that found in Figure 2 is called balungan. However, even this interpretation invites a challenge in the form of the idea of the ‘essential balungan’ offered by Rahayu Supanggah (1990), which creates a different melodic line from notation. This term, used every day as an indispensable tool in learning and studying karawitan, nonetheless resists easy definition, presumably because we are unaware of the changes that have oc- curred in karawitan from the pre-notation era to the notation era.

44 Musicians say that incompatibility of pathet in sléndro becomes less conspicuous when trans- posed to pélog. For example, Gendhing Onang-onang and Gendhing Bontit were originally com- posed in sléndro pathet sanga, but they are now usually played in pélog pathet nem because sléndro pathet sanga cannot be maintained in some parts of these pieces. How pélog can diminish the feel- ing of incompatibility is an issue requiring further study. 45 For example, the minggah (the second section) of Gendhing Perkutut manggung, sléndro pathet manyura is no longer played and Gendhing Lonthang kasmaran, sléndro pathet sanga is only rarely played because some passages of these gendhing cannot be played in their designated pathet.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 494 Noriko Ishida

As Sumarsam (1995:144-53) pointed out, early usage of the word balungan was rare and mostly superficial. It is possible that its italicized appearance in Kunst’s treatise led to balungan being mistakenly adopted as a special term in karawitan, first among Western researchers and then as a re-import to Java. So we should read the word balungan in pre-Kunst sources as an everyday word. But what did balungan then mean? The root form, balung, means bone; balun- gan means ‘frame, skeleton, or something like bones’. Examples of its usage are balungan omah, or ‘house frame’, and balunganing lakon, or ‘outline of the story, especially of wayang’. The implication is always of one thing support- ing another from the inside, or, put differently, of one thing that exists before another and is essential because it forms the basis for the other. Reference to these examples in interpreting the phrase balunganing gendhing probably led to a somewhat unfortunate distortion. Balungan was interpreted as the skeleton that supported gendhing from the inside and therefore as the founda- tion for the whole melodic texture. Further explanation often led to deeper dis­tortion. Because this skeletal melody appeared to be extracted from the entire ensemble, it was often referred to as an ‘abstraction’ or ‘essence’. Both of these terms gave the impression that balungan was something of supreme importance and yet something ineffable or inaccessible. In fact, what was called gendhing in the pre-notation era was almost identi- cal with the composed melody, and notation of a gendhing was nothing more than the composed melody in its simple form. It must have been this simple composed melody that pre-Kunst authors referred to as balungan. Indeed, it can be called the synopsis of the composed melody. Terms such as ‘outline’, ‘skeleton’, or ‘bone’ are deliberately avoided here, because they can be used to refer to melodic sketches prepared before composing a piece. ‘Abstraction’ and ‘essence’ are also better avoided, because their connotations are so metaphysi- cal that they may suggest unnecessary philosophical and spiritual dimensions. Authors of the pre-Kunst era referred to anything having the nature of a synopsis of the composed melody as balunganing gendhing. For them, notation (nut gendhing) was equivalent to balunganing gendhing, whether the register was written or not, and whether staff notation or cipher notation. The melody played by the saron was also balungan in the same sense. The word ‘synopsis’ is suitable because it is a rough summary written only after the piece is completed, just as the balungan of a gendhing is worked out after that gendhing is composed, and because a synopsis is not a must. Gendhing can be performed without balungan, as in performances without saron instruments, a not unusual occurrence in the pre-notation era. The way of playing in the sirep section46 in wayang accompaniment, a practice

46 The sirep section is when many of the melodic instruments stop playing at a signal from the puppeteer so that his narration can be heard clearly. Melodic instruments that continue to play in the background are the rebab, the gendèr, and the suling.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 495 observed even today, is another example of performance without balungan. A synopsis for the sake of reference, or as a reminder of the original piece, is nonetheless often needed. Musicians wrote downbalunganing gendhing just as people make a synopsis of a novel, and for the same purposes. They made a notation for themselves from their own memories, each of them with his or her own individual way of rendering the composed melody, and their nota- tions were slightly different from one another. This is one of the reasons why gendhing almost always have several versions of balungan (notation) showing minor differences. These slight differences due to the peculiarities of the vari- ous notators can be safely ignored as long as their outlines are the same. As a synopsis can be made by anyone, and as every synopsis is valid as long as it summarizes the whole story line, we cannot designate one particular notation as the only ‘right’ notation. In the case of a gendhing having versions radically different from each other, notators may have forgotten some passages or may have remembered them incorrectly. They may have reconstituted lost passages by composing melodies themselves, or they may even have made a rearrangement, but we have no way of confirming these suppositions, because we have only the synopses, not the original pieces. For musicians of the pre-notation era and the first generation of the nota- tion era, who compiled manuscripts of notation of familiar gendhing for themselves, balungan was the term to refer to the synopsis of the composed melody. However, with the changes that karawitan underwent, the situation surrounding balungan also changed drastically. Members of the second gene­ ra­­tion of the notation era, who made copies of the manuscripts of notation written by the first generation, were the first to learn gendhing from notation. They were also the first generation ofgarap , or strictly speaking, they were the first generation that did not learn to playgendhing from tracing, but learned to nggarap from the very beginning. For them, balungan (notation) was the melo- dy for the saron instruments. It was the melody they had to learn first so that they could use it as the melodic base for garap. This understanding, deduced from the way melodies were created in the notation era, of course suggested that the balungan was the basis of the full gamelan performance, the shape of gendhing as the composers of olden times composed it. It is precisely this misconception that has given rise to so many unnecessary problems and con- troversies. Why are there balungan with register marks and without register marks? What is the difference between them? Why is there no instrument that plays the register-marked balungan? What is the relationship between balungan and garap-ed melodies, especially in passages where the discrep- ancy between them is quite remarkable? The concept of an imagined implicit melody not played by any of the instruments was proposed as an answer to these questions, but it has proved inadequate.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 496 Noriko Ishida

In contrast, I suggest that first there was a composed melody, thenbalung - an, and only then the garap-ed rebab melody. Garap is not inherent in karawitan, but is the by-product of notation born only about a century ago. Apparently, almost all the mysteries surrounding karawitan melodies have been caused by the fact that researchers lacked an awareness of the composed melody. The mixture of balungan-oriented melodies and garap-ed melodies that we con- front currently as the texture of karawitan is confusing and perplexing if we approach it using solely the balungan and garap as reference. Only by taking the composed melody into account can we fully understand the behaviour of melodies in the performance of gamelan today. Quite unfortunately, the existence of the composed melody, the orches- tration technique of tracing, and the original meaning of the term balungan were not handed down to the second generation of the notation era. When the composed melody shifted from the rebab to the saron instruments, its original linear form was lost. When the composed melody became notated, its dynamism and its role in the ensemble were lost as well, which completed its extinction. As far as melodic texture goes, however, nothing was lost. On the contrary, it has been enriched with many newly created melodies, which con- cealed the losses taking place in the background. Therefore, we cannot really blame the predecessors responsible for the series of changes for their failure to pass on those key notions to their successors. They were quite unaware themselves of what a significant enterprise they were engaged in.

Conclusion

This paper has proposed that the musical texture of gendhing in the pre-nota- tion era was virtually a form of unison because it consisted of the composed melody and its tracing, but that use of notation gave birth to the practice of garap, and consequently complicated the texture by dividing melodies into garap-oriented ones and balungan-oriented ones. We cannot overemphasize the remarkable effect that notation exerted on the development of karawitan shortly after its introduction. Instead of suppressing creativity, as is generally believed, the use of notation in Java about a century ago stimulated musicians to create new melodies and enrich musical texture. Garap may be considered a rare and perhaps unprecedented by-product of notation operating within an oral tradition. It could happen to karawitan precisely because what was no- tated was not an exact transcription of the melody of a certain instrument or the prescriptive melody made by a composer, but the synopsis of an already familiar piece. Notation did not standardize the behaviour of instruments in performance, but rather allowed them to flourish.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 497

This stimulating situation, however, was no longer enjoyed by people who learned to play the gamelan using notation. Notation recovered its inherent effect of standardization and fixation and made their performance rather dull. Gamelan sessions in the Serat Centhini were so exciting and could move the hearts of listeners so deeply in part because performance in the pre-notation era consisted of direct interaction of the composed melody and its tracing melodies without the intervention of notation.47 Perhaps it is time for karawitan educators to pay more serious attention to direct teaching, as Kencanasari taught Jlamprang. Although this study deals only with Solonese karawitan, what is presented here should provide material for a wider discussion about the principle of ensemble-making in an oral tradition and about what happens when such an oral tradition meets with notation or, put differently, with modernization.48 The principle of the composed melody and its tracing can be used as a tool to analyse other ensembles in Southeast and East Asia. It would also be interest- ing to note the differences and similarities among these ensembles examined from the viewpoint of ensemble-making. What happened to Solonese kara- witan after its encounter with notation was, as was often the case with oral cultures, that the formulation of music and its performing practice came into the hands of just a few individuals. It is safe to say that theories compiled in this way for Solonese karawitan have already gained authority through classes in the state-run music schools. They certainly provide useful keys for researchers who want to understand karawitan, yet their validity needs to be examined carefully, because these theories were created under the specific conditions of their times.

47 See Serat Centhini (1988b:142; 1990a:276-8; 1990b:71) for examples of listeners’ reactions. 48 Changes in musicians’ attitudes caused by the use of notation in Java are discussed by Becker 1980:12-25.

References

Unpublished Sources

Titles and numbers below are taken from Behrend (1990) and Florida (1981, 1993, 2000).

Nut gendhing Radyapustaka, G1, Museum Radyapustaka, Surakarta. Nut rante gendhing Surakarta, M10, Museum Sonobudoyo, Yogyakarta. Nut sekar macapat tuwin sekar tengahan 1, KS556, Sana Pustaka, Surakarta. Nut sekar macapat tuwin sekar tengahan 2, KS557, Sana Pustaka, Surakarta. Serat Kyahi Gulang Yarya, MN618, Reksa Puskata, Surakarta.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access 498 Noriko Ishida

Published Sources

Anderson, Benedict R. O’G. 1972 ‘The idea of power in Javanese culture’, in: Claire Holt (ed.), Culture and politics in Indonesia, pp. 1-69. Ithaca, NY: Press. Becker, Judith 1980 Traditional music in modern Java; Gamelan in a changing society. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Becker, Judith and Alan H. Feinstein (eds) 1984 Karawitan; Source readings in Javanese gamelan and vocal music. Vol. 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies. [Michigan Papers on South and 23.] Behrend, T.E. 1990 Museum Sonobudoyo, Yogyakarta. Jakarta: Djambatan. Brinner, Benjamin 1993 ‘A musical time capsule from Java’, Journal of the American Musicological Society 46:221-60. Ellis, Alexander J. 1885 ‘On the musical scales of various nations’, Journal of the Society of Arts 33:485-527. Florida, Nancy K. 1981 Javanese language manuscripts of Surakarta, Central Java; A preliminary de- scriptive catalogue. Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell Univer- sity. [Four vols.] 1993 Javanese literature in Surakarta manuscripts, Vol. 1; Introduction and manu- scripts of the Surakarta. Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Program, Cor- nell University. 2000 Javanese literature in Surakarta manuscripts, Vol. 2 ; Manuscripts of the Mang- kunegaran Palace. Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University. Kunst, Jaap 1949 Music in Java Vol. 1. The Hague: Nijhoff. Kusumadilaga, K.P.A. 1981 Serat Sastramiruda. Jakarta: Proyek Penerbitan Buku Sastra Indonesia dan Daerah, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Indonesia. Lindsay, Jennifer 1991 Klasik, kitsch, kontemporer; Sebuah studi tentang seni pertunjukan Jawa. Yog­ ya­karta: Gadjah Mada University Press. Mangkunegara IV, K.G.P.A.A. 1934 Serat-serat anggitan dalem, Jilid 4. Surakarta: Java Instituut. Martopangrawit, R.L. [1969] Catatan-catatan pengetahuan karawitan bagian ke 1. Surakarta: Akademi Seni Karawitan Indonesia. 1975 Catatan-catatan pengetahuan karawitan bagian ke 2. Surakarta: Akademi Seni Karawitan Indonesia. Mloyowidodo, S 1977a Gendhing-gendhing Jawa gaya Surakarta Jilid 1. Surakarta: Akademi Seni Karawitan Indonesia. 1977b Gendhing-gendhing Jawa gaya Surakarta Jilid 2. Surakarta: Akademi Seni Karawitan Indonesia.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access The textures of Central Javanese gamelan music 499

Perlman, Marc 1991 ‘Asal usul notasi gendhing Jawa di Surakarta; Suatu rumusan sejarah nut rante’, Seni Pertunjukan Indonesia 2(2):36-68. 1993 Unplayed melodies; in post colonial Java. PhD thesis, , Connecticut. 1998 ‘The social meanings of modal practices; Status, gender, history, and pathet in Central Javanese music’, Ethnomusicology 42:45-80. 2004 Unplayed melodies; Javanese gamelan and the genesis of music theory. Berke- ley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Pradjapangrawit, R. Ng. (K.R.T. Warsodiningrat) 1990 Serat sujarah utawi riwayating gamelan; Wedhapradangga (Serat saking gotek) Jilid I-VI. Surakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Seni Indonesia, Surakarta. Raffles, Thomas Stamford 1982 The history of Java Vol. 1. Selangor, Malaysia: Oxford University Press. [Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints, first published in 1817.] Rahayu Supanggah 1990 ‘Balungan’, Seni Pertunjukan Indonesia 1-1:115-36. Robson, Stuart and Singgih Wibisono 2002 Javanese-English dictionary. Singapore: Periplus Editions. Serat Centhini 1986 Serat Centhini Latin 2. Yogyakarta: Yayasan Centhini. 1988a Serat Centhini Latin 5. Yogyakarta: Yayasan Centhini. 1988b Serat Centhini Latin 6. Yogyakarta: Yayasan Centhini. 1989 Serat Centhini Latin 8. Yogyakarta: Yayasan Centhini. 1990a Serat Centhini Latin 9. Yogyakarta: Yayasan Centhini. 1990b Serat Centhini Latin 10. Yogyakarta: Yayasan Centhini. Sindoesawarno, Ki 1960 ‘Radyapustaka dan nut-angka’, in: Nawa windu Paheman Radyapustaka, pp. 57-63. Yogyakarta: Taman Siswa. Sumarsam 1975 ‘Inner melody in Javanese gamelan music’, Asian Music 7: 3-13. 1981 ‘The musical practice of gamelan ’, Asian Music 12:54-73. 1984 ‘Inner melody in Javanese music’, in: Becker and Feinstein (eds), Kara- witan vol.1, pp. 245-304. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. 1995 Gamelan; Cultural interaction and musical development in Central Java. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press. Sumrongthong, Bussakorn and Neil Sorrell 2000 ‘Melodic paradoxes in the music of the Thai pi-phat and Javanese game­ lan’, Yearbook for Traditional Music: 67-80. Tenzer, Michael 1997 ‘The life in gendhing; Current approaches to Javanese gamelan’, Indone- sia 63:169-86. Wiranta Wijayasuwarta, R. 1972 ‘Pengetan sawatawis sugengipun panjenenganipun Bapak R. T. Warso­ diningrat’, in: Warsodiningrat, Weda pradangga, pp. iv-vi. Surakarta: SMKI Surakarta. Yanagida, Kunio 1969 ‘Kagyuu-koo’, in: Yanagida Kunio, Teehon Yanagida Kunio-shuu. Vol. 18, pp. 3-136. Tokyo: Chikuma Shoboo.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 04:19:36PM via free access