Virtual Gamelan Graz: Disclosing Implicit Musical Knowledge

The Research Project

Virtual Gamelan Graz: Disclosing Implicit Musical Knowledge

funded by the Austrian Science Fund FWF, 2012-2015 (AR 143-G21)

Summary 2

Project implementation 3

Results: achievements and shortcomings 10

Conclusions 22

Presentation of the project in papers, publications, and public performances 23

References cited 24

Main collaborators 26

Compiled by Gerd Grupe

Graz, Oct. 2015

Final Report: FWF Project Virtual Gamelan Graz (AR 143-G21)

2

Summary

The project aimed at investigating ways of unveiling tacit knowledge on musical concepts and current performance practice of classical Central Javanese gamelan music (karawitan) with the help of computer-assisted listening experiments. The two main areas to be studied were first, the way in which a given composition is actually transformed into a live performance (garap); second, the evaluation of the specific tuning of individual gamelan sets (embat). In the course of the project an attempt was made to program dedicated software that would emulate both an ensemble of gamelan musicians as well as the sound of various fixed-pitch gamelan instruments and drums.

In spite of some progress towards implementing musical rules and performance principles of karawitan as well as facilitating the control of sound and tuning of virtual gamelan instruments, it turned out that within the project’s time frame an operational, autonomous software implementation could not be achieved. Therefore, as far as musical rules are concerned efforts were focused on preparing computer-generated audio examples which manually incorporated existing explicit knowledge so that an evaluation by Javanese experts would reveal shortcomings due to tacit assumptions disregarded in our virtual renditions. Concerning embat published measurements of 12 traditional (6 sléndro and 6 pélog) and two American gamelans (just intonation) were chosen as well as two experimental ones (equidistant) resulting in some 1360 digital samples of sound generators which had to be calculated and manually retuned.

Audio examples of 18 traditional compositions taken from both tuning systems (laras sléndro and pélog) and their respective modes (pathet) were presented to three renowned senior musicians who are also instructors at the Academy of Arts (ISI) in Surakarta, Bp. Suraji, Bp. Suyoto, and Bp. Prasadiyanto. Their comments on both aspects, i.e., the rendition of the pieces and the sound of the various virtual gamelans with respect to their tuning, were highly instructive. By adopting an analysis-by-synthesis approach which incorporated only explicit and mainly generic principles of performance practice while largely omitting tacit assumptions or specific knowledge pertaining to individual pieces, it could be demonstrated that accomplished karawitan musicians have a more holistic view of this art so that “correct” notes are equally important as – or sometimes even less so than – other factors such as idiomatically adequate timing, phrasing, embellishments, articulation, and dynamics as well as contextual considerations. While most of these insights might not be surprising to gamelan experts they nevertheless underscore the necessity to approach the endeavor of letting a computer emulate a karawitan performance in a much broader way than merely refining “structural” paradigms on the level of a musical grammar. Regarding the assessment of various tunings listening to different ones in direct comparison proved to be conducive to an in-depth verbal discourse on matters which might otherwise remain rather vague or abstract.

The shortcomings in the domain of music computing notwithstanding, the project has successfully demonstrated that listening experiments with local experts in which musical parameters such as melodic gestures, timing, tuning, etc. can be controlled individually can be a useful tool in investigating musical concepts and particularly in disclosing how actual performance practices are shaped by – usually implicit – norms.


3

Project implementation

The original plan has been to further develop the already existing prototype of a dedicated software program (cf. Grupe 2008) that would be able to render idiomatically acceptable versions of traditional karawitan1 pieces based on the implementation of musical rules and constraints as well as on synthetic sounds modeled on those of original gamelan instruments.2 In a next step such versions would be presented to and evaluated by renowned Javanese musicians. Furthermore, performances for a wider public aiming at contrasting traditional karawitan with new music involving gamelan and live electronics were envisaged.

2012

In the beginning the main task has been to find a suitable person for the development of the existing software written in SuperCollider, a programming environment especially for music computing purposes. SuperCollider was chosen because the existing prototype of our software was based on it. It turned out to be rather difficult to find such a person combining considerable experience with SuperCollider and constant availability over a period of several months. Based on recommendations by two experts who had collaborated in the pilot project we finally decided to commission Dominik Hildebrand Marques Lopes (University of the Arts Berlin) to act as the main programmer. Right from the start we aimed at implementing a graphical user interface (GUI) that would enable us to control the software without the need to enter code. This included an audio mixer and the option to switch between sampled gamelan sounds and synthetic ones based on suitable modeling algorithms.

Main GUI (as of Oct. 2012)

Furthermore, work on a so-called Tuning Editor and a Scale Graph Window was begun. The former was intended to facilitate the modification of the generated sounds, the latter to visualize the selected tuning in a clearly arranged way. Regarding the implementation of musical rules the existing system was expanded to include more than the one composition (Ladrang Wilujeng, sléndro manyurå and pélog barang respectively) that had been used as proof of concept in the pilot study. 1 Karawitan is the name of the classical gamelan music of Central Java. I recommend Pickvance (2005) as a general reference. 2 The project thus draws on various earlier studies dealing with musical rules and computer-assisted research respectively (e.g., Sutton 1978, Becker & Becker 1979, Hughes 1988, Kippen & Bel 1989, Kippen 1992.).


4

2013

Towards the end of 2012 Rainer Schütz (University of Birmingham) who had been the main developer in the pilot project declared interest in joining our team as an external collaborator. Therefore, the upcoming tasks were split between him and Hildebrand in such a way that Schütz was supposed to work on the expansion and refinement of the rule system while Hildebrand would focus on the sound modeling and audio part of the software. In the spring of 2013 an update of SuperCollider necessitated an adaptation of the code which implied the option to run the SuperCollider implementation not only on a Mac computer but also under the Windows. This was seen as an advantage since the latter is the predominant operating system in Indonesia so that our results were thus expected to be more accessible by Indonesian composers. Work on the GUI and the Scale Graph Window resulted in more user-friendly versions.

Scale Graph Window (as of Oct. 2013)

Main GUI (as of Oct. 2013)


5

However, Schütz went to Indonesia for an extended stay that year and even after his return to Europe was not available for any further collaboration. This meant a considerable drawback because since he had joined our team in late 2012 we had relied on the distribution of work between him and Hildebrand as described above so that now – considering the impending expiration of the project after two years – we needed to opt for an alternative to the original project design. Finding a replacement for him at such a rather late stage seemed unlikely so that we decided to first of all ask the FWF for a prolongation of the project and also to try to achieve our objectives in a somewhat different way than originally planned.

One important measure has been to produce improved samples of the original gamelan instruments housed at our university in Graz especially as far as various articulations (open vs. muted strokes) and dynamic levels (soft, medium, loud attacks) are concerned. This does not apply to all gamelan instruments to the same extent so that new samples were recorded only for the relevant ones, particularly the various metallophones (demung, saron, and peking). In addition, the keys of three xylophones (gambang in sléndro, pélog bem, and pélog barang) were recorded in two dynamic levels each. All in all more than 600 new samples were thus created and edited. Another measure has been to implement the option to address the sound synthesis module of our software from an external controller via a MIDI interface independent of the software’s rule system since the development of the latter had been suspended. To discuss various issues connected to the formalization of rules vis-à-vis conventional performance practice the British gamelan experts Peter Smith and Jonathan Roberts (Oxford) were invited to Graz in December 2013.

2014

For the remainder of the available time it was decided to focus on the preparation of the intended listening experiments with Javanese experts. As a replacement for an autonomous rule system we opted for implementing the known principles of current karawitan performance practice with the help of a commercial sequencer program (Cubase 6). Linking it to the sound synthesis module of our software via MIDI proved to be possible, but the handling was rather awkward and the operation not always stable and reliable. In order not to lose any more time we therefore decided to completely rely on only one program, the sequencer software, and use original as well as retuned samples instead of synthetic sounds. The Cubase program in combination with a software sampler plugin (Halion) had the advantage of being fairly stable and easy to handle including the possibility to modify tones, timing, and tuning on the spot. During the summer of 2014 the data on gamelan tunings published by Surjodiningrat et al. (1972) for a large number of traditional gamelan sets as well as some on American ones by Ditrich (1983) and Miller & Lieberman (1999) were analyzed and applied to the samples of our gamelan instruments. 12 traditional (6 sléndro and 6 pélog), two American (just intonation), and two experimental ones (equidistant) were chosen resulting in some 1360 samples which had to be calculated and manually retuned.

name location laras

Sekar Råså Tentrem KUG, Graz s + p

Lebdhå Jiwå Southbank Centre, London s + p

Kanyut Mèsem Mangkunegaran, Surakarta s + p Madu Murti Madu Kusumå

Kraton Yogyakarta s p


6

Mardi Swårå Mangkunegaran, Surakarta s + p

Sadad Pengasih RRI, Yogyakarta s + p

Prècèt Mangkunegaran, Surakarta s

Udan Arum Mangkunegaran, Surakarta p

Si Darius Mills College, USA s

Si Madeleine Mills College, USA p equidistant s + p

Spreadsheet tables were created in order to determine the required amount of retuning (in cents) for each sound generator. The overall sound of the original instruments, i.e., the KUG gamelan, was not altered. This procedure can be compared to having a gamelan tuner retune the KUG gamelan according to the model of another set. Two caveats need to be taken into account here. First, the measurements published by Surjodiningrat et al. (1972) are given in c.p.s. without decimals so that the accuracy is limited. Second, a gamelan tuner would adjust partials and beats and this had to be disregarded in our case. In cases where the models contain less sound generators than the KUG set we extrapolated the required data. Nevertheless, the audio results seemed sufficient for our purposes.

The Southbank Centre in London was chosen as the location for conducting the listening experiments for various reasons. Our main gamelan advisors in Europe (see p. 26) are all connected to the Centre as gamelan instructors, the Southbank Gamelan Players are the leading ensemble of karawitan in Europe, and the Centre has a lot of experience with organizing events with Javanese artists regarding visa and work permit issues etc. In this way experienced gamelan players for larger line-ups as well as knowledgeable translators from Javanese and Indonesian were available. Based on the advice of our British advisors, especially by John Pawson, three renowned senior musicians from Surakarta, Bp. Suraji, Bp. Suyoto, and Bp. Prasadiyanto (see p. 26), who are also gamelan instructors at the local Academy of Arts (ISI Surakarta), were invited to London from December 7-20, 2014.

During the first stage we focused on aspects of performance practice. We had selected 18 compositions from the traditional karawitan repertoire taken from both tuning systems and their respective modes and covering various relevant compositional forms and prepared audio examples for all of them.

laras pathet composition

sléndro manyurå Ladrang Asmaradana

Ketawang Branta Mentul

Ketawang Kinanthi Sandhung Ladrang Mugi Rahayu

Ladrang Pangkur

Ladrang Sri Katon

Ladrang Wilujeng

Ladrang Kandha Manyurå *

Ladrang Sekar Gadhung *


7

sångå Ladrang Gonjang Ganjing

Ladrang Subakastawa

nem

pélog barang Ladrang Asmaradana

Ladrang Moncèr

Ladrang Wilujeng

Ketawang Dhempo *

limå Gendhing bonang Dènggung Turularé

nem Ladrang Gléyong

Gendhing Bondhèt *

In spite of one mode (laras sléndro pathet nem) not being represented the selection met with the approval of our three Javanese experts. They only found it surprising that no piece of the lancaran form had been included but consented to this omission. The tuning of the local gamelan set called Lebdhå Jiwå was chosen for the presentation of the virtual renditions so that the musicians might easily demonstrate relevant issues by performing live in the same tuning as the audio examples they were listening to. It turned out that the three have been an excellent choice because they got seriously involved and their comments on the virtual renditions were detailed and vivid. Their comments and their practical live demonstrations were recorded with two video cameras plus additional multi-channel audio recordings for further analysis. While most audio examples had been prepared on the basis of specific information regarding the conventional performance practice of each piece, a few other ones (marked with an asterisk in the table above), i.e., without such specific information, were deliberately presented in order to test the applicability of generic rules and principles.

from left to right: Bp. Suraji, Bp. Suyoto, Jonathan Roberts, Bp. Prasadiyanto

Concerning the marked differences between the tunings of various gamelan sets, which is a typical feature of karawitan, two pieces from the already presented ones were chosen by the three Javanese musicians for each tuning system (laras) representing different modes (pathet). Based on these audio examples the gamelans listed above were compared and discussed in relation to their absolute pitch, general character, and suitability or preferences concerning specific modes (pathet) as well as certain types or contexts of music.


8

2015

These discussions have been recorded and they were transcribed and translated from the original Javanese or Indonesian respectively by Jonathan Roberts. Babak Nikzat who had been in charge of all audio and video recording in London archived all recordings and edited them using Adobe Premiere Pro CS6. He consolidated the footage of our two Sony HXR-NX30 HD video cameras as well as the multi-channel audio recordings made with a Zoom H6 recorder so that two camera angles could be viewed at the same time and the higher quality audio recordings could be merged with the video footage. Moreover, all recordings were prepared to be uploaded to KUG’s long-term archival platform PHAIDRA.3

two cameras in sync

In addition, Nikzat created diagrams illustrating microtiming and dynamics of selected passages from the live performances we had recorded in London using the analysis software Praat4. Among other occasions (see list p. 24) the project was presented during the AEC conference of the European Platform for Artistic Research in Music (EPARM)5 which took place in Graz from April 23-25, 2015. On this occasion we collaborated with a British colleague, Charles Matthews, who has completed a PhD thesis on “Adapting and Applying Central Javanese Gamelan Music Theory in Electroacoustic Composition and Performance” (2014) and is also involved in linking gamelan with music computing as a composer. For the EPARM conference he contributed a sound installation which gave the audience the opportunity to interact with a software program that generated gamelan music on the basis of an algorithmic implementation of karawitan concepts.

3 This digital asset management system is hosted by the University of Vienna. 4 http://www.praat.org/ 5 http://www.aec-music.eu/events/event/european-platform-for-artistic-research-in-music-2015

http://www.praat.org/

http://www.aec-music.eu/events/event/european-platform-for-artistic-research-in-music-2015


9

interactive virtual gamelan installation by Charles Matthews and VGG project presentation at the EPARM conference (Graz, April 23-25, 2015)

Matthew’s installation was also featured during a performance of traditional karawitan and classical Javanese dance by the Southbank Gamelan Players and Lila Bhawa Dance Company, both based in London. This concert contrasted traditional karawitan with new music by contemporary British composers involving gamelan and live electronics. Towards the end members of the Southbank Gamelan Players spontaneously performed together with gamelan parts generated by Matthew’s software. It was controlled in real-time by various people from the audience who took turns in entering the required data.

concert by Southbank Gamelan Players and interactive installation by Charles Matthews (KUG, April 27, 2015)


10

Results: achievements and shortcomings

The project’s focus have been two main issues, namely (A) rules and constraints as characteristic features of karawitan and (B) an assessment of the specific sound of individual gamelan sets due to their differing tunings (embat).

(A) rules and constraints

When our three Javanese experts heard a version of a traditional piece rendered by a computer for the first time they have been quite surprised that a computer should be capable of that at all. They immediately identified the specific piece and after the first astonishment immediately started to discuss successful as well as less convincing or outright unacceptable features of the virtual performance. Their comments were always detailed and straightforward, i.e., without being in any way reluctant. They pointed out a few mistakes that had been made in compiling the parts of some instruments as far as wrong notes were concerned, but it soon turned out that other features seemed to be at least equally relevant for their evaluation.

Timing, dynamics, articulation

While they found the timing of some of the punctuating instruments acceptable, with others this was not always the case. An obvious example is the timing of the large gong (gong ageng). In certain situations it should be played before the corresponding balungan note, while after it in some others. Especially an amount of delay which is considered to be inappropriate can be a quite disturbing factor. The same holds true for the microtiming or phrasing of certain parts in general. Two cases in point that were discussed in relation to the virtual renditions were the drum part (kendhangan) as well as that of the gong chime bonang barung. Both were criticized as being performed in a too mechanical fashion. The differences regarding both timing and dynamics are illustrated in the following diagrams created with Praat in which the live performance on bonang barung by Bp. Suraji can be compared to the virtual version. The vertical lines on the horizontal axis represent the onsets of the strokes, their height their volume. The excerpts from a so-called ådångiyah section, which is performed in free rhythm before the actual introduction (bukå) of a large composition featuring the gong chime bonang (gendhing bonang,) show how the musician adds an embellishing note at the beginning of the phrase while omitting one in the middle as compared to the notated version which obviously gives only an approximate idea of what shall be played.6 Even more interesting is the temporal distribution, i.e., which notes are closer together than other ones. Furthermore, exactly the one note that is played softly by the musician (2) is emphasized in the computer version. In general, the latter one, which all three musicians found more or less unsatisfactory, sticks to the notation more closely than the one by Bp. Suraji.

6 On notation of gamelan music cf. Ransby 2013.


11

excerpt from the non-metered (free rhythm) section before the introduction to a large composition (diagram: Babak Nikzat)

The differences in timing are somewhat less prominent in the metered section of such a piece, but even here the much more flexible phrasing of the musician as compared to the computer version is apparent. Especially the upper diagram illustrates how Bp. Suraji varies his performance between two passages that call for the same melodic gesture by the gong chime. In the second, it is again the dynamics of certain notes as well as the inclusion of an embellishing tone which make an obvious difference.


12

excerpts from the metered section of a large composition (diagrams: Babak Nikzat)

Another critique concerned the damping techniques for instance for the gong chime bonang and the multi-octave metallophone gendèr which according to the Javanese musicians were either missing in some cases or not properly executed, i.e., modeled, in the virtual version.

From these experiences one can draw the conclusion that virtual renditions of pieces based on the application of generic rules and constraints seem to have been partly successful but need to be enhanced by more sophisticated ones incorporating further aspects and features, e.g., timing, dynamics, articulation, and embellishments.

Low 6 on balungan instruments in sléndro

In order to test how far generic principles suffice to predict an idiomatic rendering of a given piece, two other experiments were carried out. The first concerns the seemingly easy issue of how to transform a given multi-octave core melody (balungan) into one that will fit the range available on those metallophones which are supposed to play them. This is only relevant for the sléndro tuning system7 where such metallophones usually have a choice of using a high 1 and sometimes also a low 6 (depending on whether they have six or seven keys respectively). Although certain rules have been drawn up that are supposed to explain when to choose which key (cf. Pickvance 2005:111-112), we put these assumptions to the test with the following pieces.8 In each case the three Javanese experts were asked to decide whether a written low 6 should be played as such on the suitable metallophones.

pathet name form

manyurå Agun-Agun ladrang

Asmaradana ladrang

Asmaradana Mangunsih ketawang

7 Metallophones tuned in pélog, on which the core melody is played, have no such choice. 8 Notation can be found in Barry Drummond’s database at http://www.gamelanbvg.com/gendhing/index.php.

http://www.gamelanbvg.com/gendhing/index.php


13

Branta Mentul ketawang

Kinanthi Sandhung ketawang

Mijil Ratri ketawang Paréanom - Glebag gendhing

Pucung ketawang

Rimong - Kuwung gendhing

Rimong - Moncer gendhing

Sidamukti gendhing

Witing Klapa ketawang sångå Bandhilori – Éling-Éling Kasmaran gendhing

Danaraja gendhing

Ela-Ela Kalibeber ketawang gendhing

Éling-Éling Kasmaran ladrang

Logondhang gendhing

nem Majemuk gendhing

Although this issue certainly does not rank high among factors determining a successful karawitan performance it was nevertheless instructive to observe that beyond a predominant consensus in most cases the three musicians were in no way always unanimous about their respective choices in spite of their common background as ISI instructors. They even declared that their personal decision might change from one occasion to another. As a general comment Bp. Suyoto said:

“It’s contextual: in Wilujeng it’s like this but in Asmarandana it’s not like that, so it’s hard to fix, really difficult… even more so with loud style, loud style will be different, with loud style you’re weighing up the direction of your hands as well, so it can’t be fixed ‘when?’ it can’t be done.”

This could be interpreted as underscoring the only limited significance of this feature on the one hand and as a potential domain for incorporating a type of fuzzy logic into a rule-based implementation of karawitan on the other hand, unless the rationale behind the choices can be related to specific contexts so that more elaborate constraints could be established.

Generic rules and constraints vs. customary performance practice

The second question we wanted to look into is the degree of implicit assumptions regarding the way a particular piece is usually performed. Therefore, we prepared audio examples of some pieces for which no specific prior knowledge of the customary performance practice had been sought beforehand. After two of them, Ladrang Kandha Manyurå sléndro manyurå and Gendhing Bondhèt pélog nem, had been presented the substantial limitations of such an endeavor became quite clear. All three Javanese experts declared them the most unsuccessful of the examples presented so far. In particular concerning Gendhing Bondhèt its virtual version differed too much from the conventional way of performing this piece although another composition “treated” (garap) in that way might have been acceptable to them. The ensuing discussion resulted in a demonstration of how a given piece, e.g., Ladrang Moncèr sléndro manyurå, will be performed in different ways depending on the context or event. This is exemplified in a statement by Bp. Suraji:


14

“Gléyong as Mas Pete’s9 group did it yesterday is the palace version, the bedhayan version for Bedhåyå Kabor, but when Gléyong is done with the gérongan that Pak Ciptosuwarso wrote the kenongs are different” (Bp. Suraji)

Concerning the application of certain instrumental techniques and patterns for specific pieces similar constraints exist which are not always compulsory, however. For instance, our use of pinjalan in the computer version of Gendhing bonang Dènggung Turularé pélog limå was criticized as unusual and replacing it with kinthilan (cf. Pickvance 2005:232-234 for an explanation of pinjalan and kinthilan) was recommended at first, when on second thought Bp. Prasadiyanto declared that “for Dènggung Turularé it’s not normal to use kinthilan”. This view was then corroborated by Bp. Suraji: “if it’s forced, like for a gendhing sekaten, you have to use it, but for the purposes of a gendhing bonang you don’t do it”. Regarding generic principles the available information can be used to refine their scope, i.e., under what circumstances they are applicable. Thus it was pointed out that we had neglected to employ a specific pattern for one punctuating instrument, the kethuk, in this piece:

“Since we’re talking about the Solonese gendhing bonang in the inggah there will be a special kethuk like in the ladrang or ketawang we have ketuhuk salahan so in the inggah we have, it’s called kethuk banggèn.” (Bp. Prasadiyanto)

But then, there are also decisions to be made where the personal choice of experts can differ, e.g., concerning which imbal notes to use when. Especially as far as interaction within the ensemble is concerned, many factors come into play.

R10: “In fact that often happens in klenèngan that one instrument copies another … Interaction.” P: “But it’s not nice if it happens all the time” R: “But ok, why should the bonang play a sekaran six for a seleh three? That’s because the bonang player is interacting with the rebab, with the gender, the rebab also does that […] At this level of garap the bonang player … it will show in the bonang playing whether he knows the tunes or not, but that doesn’t mean that each bonang player does the same all the time, that would cause trouble with the rebab player and gendèr player who would feel they weren’t being given space, because all the sekaran were filled in, the gendèr and rebab could get angry, like Pak Yadi says ‘if the bonang does too much it’s a shame for the rebab and gendèr player, they should be given space’” P: “That’s why sometimes there are bonang players who do very few sekaran” Y: “Because normally it’s like this so the musicians, what can they do to not tread on the toes of the others, if the bonang player knows that debyang-debyung belongs to the gendèr then he’ll find another possibility. So that the bonang part shows but doesn’t ‘judge’ other people, cover them up, kill the others. In rangkep there’s more space to seek out opportunities for the bonang. Like that you try not to kill that which already belongs to someone. This belongs to the gendèr or rebab; he doesn’t want it and has to find another option. A clever bonang player demonstrates their skill here” R: “But everything is in the corridor of the melodic contour in the piece, still in the area.”

9 Peter Smith. 10 R: Bp. Suraji, P: Bp. Prasadiyanto, Y: Bp. Suyoto


15

In addition there is the personal style of each musician. An accomplished drummer for instance can be identified by his colleagues:

“It’s the fillers that Pak Y. was talking about, the basic phrase is filled and developed so it ends up like Pak Y.’s sekaran. Nartosabdho would do it differently but it can still be identified as laku telu, or laku papat, or pilesan, but the fillers are trying to find aesthetic beauty, in the context of dance it would be different, and it would be different in a klenèngan context, although you use laku telu for the horse scene in wayang it will be different but it’s still close enough to be identified as laku telu or laku papat.” (Bp. Suraji)

Again, what may be required in one context may have to be modified for another one. On the use of certain building blocks in drumming Bp. Suyoto commented:

“Gambyong don’t follow in order so there’s sekaran six in the middle and then five after that, that’s for dance, not for klenèngan.”

Thus, one has to take into account that a composition may sound markedly different on different occasions such as a concert, a wedding, a wayang shadow-puppet performance, or as a dance accompaniment, and that what might be considered appropriate for one situation could be inappropriate or at least awkward in another (cf. Supanggah 2011:321-336). Thus, much more elaborate constraints are involved which are not confined to modeling one “correct” version.

(B) sound and tuning (embat)

The notion of embat, i.e., the relative tuning and specific intervallic structure of a given gamelan, is a central element of karawitan. Tuning issues as well as – to a lesser degree – sound spectrum-related ones such as beats and partials have been discussed extensively (cf. among others Hood 1966, Rahn 1978, Vetter 1989, Carterette & Kendall 1994, Serafini 1995, Sethares 1998). Our main intention has been to empirically determine which factors seem to be the most important ones for acknowledged gamelan musicians when it comes to judge and compare various gamelans. Although a specific vocabulary is documented in relevant literature (cf. Pickvance 2005:50-51) we assumed that listening to various gamelan in direct comparison should encourage a more precise and detailed discourse, maybe also stimulate diverging comments. Some of this dedicated terminology appeared in the comments of the three Javanese experts on the audio examples we presented. Two pieces were chosen by them for each tuning system (laras) representing the most important modes (pathet). In order to avoid a mingling of several parameters the same two pieces were used for all examples of one tuning system so that potential shortcomings of a virtual version would not interfere with the comments on embat. The selected pieces were Ketawang Bråntå Mentul sléndro manyurå, Ladrang Gonjang Ganjing sléndro sångå, Ladrang Asmårådånå pélog barang, and Gendhing bonang Dènggung Turularé pélog limå. Only after an example had been discussed the name of the respective gamelan was revealed.

On the whole certain central features which the three obviously considered most important soon emerged:

• Is the absolute pitch suitable for vocal parts? • Does the tuning work particularly well for only one of the two main modes (pathet)?


16

• Does the tuning convey a specific character which makes it more suitable for certain types of pieces or performance contexts?

• Are there instruments with shortcomings?

In several cases the general impression created by an audio example was felt to be reminiscent of other, more remote gamelan traditions such as “coastal,” “Sunda,” or even “Malay”. Here are some of the statements and comments.

On sléndro tunings:

Y: “On the subject of tuning it’s possible that one set is nicer when in sångå or in manyurå or vice versa, not nice in either laras or nice in both, it’s not definite. That’s tuning.” R: “In Javanese gamelan we have inherited the term ‘embat’ (tuning) embat actually means distances, the gap between notes, that’s called, the distance, the Javanese term that’s normally used, the distance between notes, that will make… the character will come out ‘Oh this is a sundari type tuning or a larasati tuning’. Larasati is actually the one which in manyurå … the one which… brings out… because it makes the manyurå distances. …. the one is not high enough, in Javanese we’d say it’s not ‘nyingkrik’ (going up) enough. We really feel that in manyurå when the distance from the six to the one, but we feel that it’s nice when that distance between six and one is in sléndro sångå.”

Y: “In Javanese we’d say that the manyurå is not ‘branyak’ (dashing) enough11, […] well the character of sléndro manyurå is a bit branyak, a bit high. That’s the character of the tuning. […] The tuning of the kethuk, the kethuk isn’t… in Javanese we’d say not ‘ulem’ enough… and the tuning is a little bit too sharp for a kethuk, it’s not dhedhep (covered) enough, not powerful enough, but overall it’s great, the tuning I mean, not the garap! Yes in Javanese there’s these terms: branyak (dashing), ulem (resonant) that’s tuning terminology, in Javanese.” R: “Pak Purbo’s gamelan is ‘dashing’ in manyurå and the sångå is… but Pak Mantep’s gamelan is what is called ‘welu’ (bland, flat) there’s another term: ‘welu’ that’s harder to… so, not coquettish… but… P: “‘Welu’ means that it is hard to achieve the proper character in any pathet. It doesn’t bring out the character: it’s not nice played in sångå, nor in manyurå” R: “Pak Anom and Pak Mantep’s gamelan, many people say that they are ‘welu’ (bland). And then also ‘ulem’” P: “The peking, for me, overall, it’s too flat in pitch”12 R: “We’d say ‘melangkrik’.”

R: “Kanyut Mèsem in the 70’s was like that: they say that Kanyut Mèsem was changed, before it was actually tumbuk13 five, with tumbuk five the manyurå is really high… because it was too high, like we were saying the problem with vocals, so the six for pélog became the five for sléndro. So it went down a note […] Normally gamelan are tumbuk five or tumbuk six, so why doesn’t Kanyut Mèsem have a tumbuk? Why does the gender stop at high two, why isn’t there a low one on the bonang, taking that… then Pak Rono Suripto, Pak

11 Referring to the KUG gamelan. 12 Referring to the KUG gamelan. 13 The common tone of the two halves (sléndro and pélog) of a complete gamelan tuned to the same pitch.


17

Mitropradonggo at that time, in the 80s, told me about the process why Kanyut Mèsem was like that. The whole tuning was high so there was that problem, then…”

Y: “Ok I think that from these three examples this is the nicest14. But with the observation that the interval between six one two and three, for me I’d say they weren’t… the three isn’t quite high enough, the three isn’t there, it doesn’t reach”

R: “If things are too high, too high that’s ‘nyingkrik’ […] I felt that, particularly the pots, with pots there’s a term ‘gemak’ from the bird callled ‘gemak’ like a quail. The sound of a gemak is ‘Mek, mek’. This wasn’t concentrated enough like ‘Hmm. Hmm’. I felt that the kempul and the bonang, particularly the female bonang, the lower pots, weren’t gemak enough, yes that’s the bonang. Then I felt that the two on the bonang was bindheng (bunged up)” P: “The sound doesn’t come out” R: “Like deaf. Bunged up like the Buta Térong15. […] Yes this is appropriate for wayang, wayang is playful… so dhalang like Ki Purbo Asmoro like tunings that are quite high, because with a high tuning, which is quite sharp… it won’t wear your voice out quickly, in contrast to, if the gérong in a standard tuning, so for that reason many dhalang prefer gamelan which have sharper tunings as they’re called. Pak Nartosabdho’s was sharp, Pak Purbo’s…”

R: “This16 is more appropriate for pieces in sléndro sångå, so this is good for srimpi or bedhayan, powerful [antep], settled. For me in manyurå it’s not playful enough.”

R: “In the terms that have been passed down by the gamelan masters or those who make tunings, there are two types: Sundari and Larasati. Well this is a Larasati tuning17 like Pak Y. was saying. A wayang character, Larasati is a playful, woman with an upturned face, whereas Sundari is demure. A Sundari tuning is nice for bedhaya or srimpi, according to my taste…”

Y: “If we were doing a concert, a klenèngan, when maybe we were using this gamelan on one occasion, the people arranging the pieces would definitely choose pieces that were like I was saying earlier, playful… because playful is appropriate for this… because there are some pieces in manyurå that are demure too… this manyurå is really right for evening manyurå, from three to six and it’d be different from manyurå that’s used from three to five in the morning… the sångå is more appropriate for night-time sångå rather than sångå that’s… like that…”

On pélog tunings:

Y: “In tuning pélog there will always be one that loses out between pélog barang and pélog limå, there’ll always be one that loses out. In this case18, the pieces just now, this tuning is nicer in pélog barang. The intervals are nice enough but as for a playful character in pélog barang it really has that. So it will definitely make the others lose out, the pélog limå felt sweet, it became playful, yes sweet rather than majestic or authoritative, so it’ll always be like that, the pélog barang is nicer.”

14 Referring to Gamelan Madu Murti, Kraton Yogyakarta. 15 The aubergine demon, a wayang character with a very stuffed up sounding voice. 16 Referring to Gamelan Prècèt, Mangkunegaran Surakarta. 17 Referring to an experimental equidistant tuning. 18 Referring to the KUG gamelan.


18

R: “For me the pélog barang19 is the type which would be better for pieces which aren’t played with ciblon drumming, but the kind of pieces that you have in pélog barang which are played during the day time like Pramugari or Angun-angun which don’t use ciblon… that would be more enjoyable, it’s still nice in pélog barang but more appropriate for pieces which are more in line with intervals like that. […] I felt that the bonang, all of the pots, weren’t resonant enough, especially the low pots. There’s the term ‘leaf’ they need to be given a ‘leaf’, so that the sound is ‘gembluk gembluk’.” P: “Yes this is nice in both pélog barang and pélog limå but the pélog barang is definitely not as god as the previous one, maybe better for refined.” Y: “Pretty but not flirty.” P: “For pélog limå it was definitely not powerful enough.”

Y: “From the point of view of the measurements of a vocalist, singing with a tuning that’s that low20 isn’t worthy of doing.”

R: “There’s a piece which is majestic in character with vocals it would be appropriate21, I don’t mean playful, like when a, a piece in pélog limå for bedhayan: Tejanata, I feel that Tejanata, Bedhaya Tejanata, on a gamelan like this would be majestic.”

On the difference between Solonese and Yogyanese sléndro tunings:

In a paper by Miller & Lieberman (1999:162) the Javanese musician K.R.T. Wasitodiningrat (aka Pak Cokro) is said to have postulated a clear distinction between Yogyanese and Solonese tunings. Referring to the American composer Lou Harrison’s use of pure interval tunings they report that

“Pak Cokro immediately identified the two experimental tunings in figure 8 as representative of the two major gamelan schools of central Java (Yogyakarta [1] and Surakarta [2])”.

19 Referring to Gamelan Kanyut Mèsem, Mangkunegaran Surakarta. 20 Referring to Gamelan Madu Kusumå, Kraton Yogyakarta. 21 Referring to Gamelan Sadad Pengasih, RRI Yogyakarta.


19

Expressed in cents this yields the following relationship between the assumed Yogyakarta and Surakarta models:

1 2 3 5 6 =

Yogyakarta 231 231 240 231 267

Surakarta 231 231 267 231 240

Thus, a larger interval should be expected between scale degrees 6 and high 1 in a Yogyanese gamelan and between 3 and 5 in a Solonese one. However, this distinction does not fit the measurements published by Surjodiningrat et al. (1972).

ä 1 2 3 5 6 = octave Surakarta Mardiswara 242 237 234 255 243 244 1213 Lokananta 244 240 259 230 249 259 1237 Swarahardja 254 226 255 214 257 244 1196 Nagalima 244 252 232 245 232 251 1212 Kanyutmèsem 259 251 238 241 235 252 1217 Manisrengga 244 235 250 246 240 255 1226 Lipurtambaneng 246 216 254 234 251 246 1201 Konservatori I 229 225 254 236 256 1200 Hardjawinangun 227 240 250 235 244 256 1225 RRI 242 222 266 231 252 1213 Udanriris 258 236 228 240 260 236 1200 Konservatori II 224 228 246 259 244 247 1224 Konservatori III 244 240 245 242 232 1203 Pretjet 222 240 258 220 256 240 1214 average 242 237 242 242 244 248 1213 Yogyakarta Landung 219 248 247 242 275 1231 Tedjakusuma 235 228 260 234 267 1224 Surak 226 239 248 250 255 1218 Rarasrum 231 238 248 230 259 1206 Sadadpengasih 226 250 234 248 248 1206 Pantjasona 221 226 260 248 251 1206 Hardjanagara 217 238 244 244 257 1200 Madumurti 224 233 258 243 258 1216 Tunggul 238 249 244 228 264 1223 Hangabehi 236 234 254 237 252 1213 Pengawesari 225 251 258 233 256 1223 Pusparana 230 228 242 258 242 1200 Madukentir 237 228 256 242 250 1213 average 228 238 250 241 256 1214

comparison of sléndro tunings (after Surjodiningrat et al. 1972:51), from low 6 (if present) to high 1


20

For instance Gamelan Kanyut Mèsem does not have a larger interval between 3 and 5, while Gamelan Mardi Swårå (both from the Mangkunegaran in Surakarta) does have it. For Yogyanese gamelans the larger interval between 6 and high 1 holds true for Gamelan Madu Murti for example, but not for Gamelan Sadad Pengasih. In Yogyakarta larger intervals occur both between 3 and 5 and 6 and high 1 respectively. The differences in size tend to be smaller in Surakarta as compared to those from Yogyakarta, but in both traditions there are extreme sizes, i.e., considerably larger or smaller ones than the average. However, in their comments our three Javanese experts emphasized primarily the distinction between embat sundari and embat larasati (laras ati)22 rather than any particular difference between the traditions of Surakarta and Yogyakarta.

Y: “What made the distinction after there was Surakarta and Yogya, what made the difference was garap. Not the tuning, the garap, or the tuning. To differentiate between Solo and Yogya … Yogya developed peking technique like this, and drum garap like this. Yes that’s what makes the difference; it’s not about scale…” R: “But we have to remember that when we’re talking about Yogya and Solo, in Yogya there’s the Pakualam, and that’s an ‘import’ from Solo. And then RRI Yogya was in the hands of Pak Cokrowarsito, Solonese style is strong there. The musicians at the Pakualam and RRI Yogya are from Klathen.” P: “And their garap is Solonese.” R: “The majority are from Klathen. The edges of Prambanan, lots of them went there. The Kraton is different. So all the ‘Yogyanese’ stuff, a lot of the information comes from Pak Cokro, you have to remember that Pak Cokro is from Solo. To the extent that people think of the Pakualam as ‘Solo in Yogya’.”

A special case seems to be Gamelan Kanyut Mèsem. According to Bp. Suraji quoted above this gamelan has been retuned because it was considered to be too high. Marc Perlman in a paper dealing with embat (1994) refers to the tuning of this gamelan and in comparing one of its gendèr to another one belonging to his gendèr teacher Suhardi (from Yogyakarta) he states a difference between the sizes of the intervals between scale tones 2 and 3 as well as 3 and 5 (1994:536):

22 Cf. Pickvance 2005:51 for details.


21

Comparing his measurements of Kanyut Mèsem with those of Surjodingrat et al. (1972) there is a striking difference because the latter list a high 2 as highest note of the Kanyut Mèsem gendèr while Perlman assumes a high 3 as is usually the case with current gendèr instruments. According to Bp. Suraji the highest note of the Kanyut Mèsem gendèr today actually is a high 2 as Surjodiningrat et al. suggested. Surprisingly Perlman does not mention their publication in his paper but since his first visit to Java was in 1981 (Perlman 2004:9), i.e., after 1972, we may assume that the measurements need to be properly rearranged. If all of his measurements for the Kanyut Mèsem instrument were shifted by one scale degree the following relationship results (in cents):

KanMès_Surjod. 205 264 215 259 251 238 241 236 253 249 -

KanMès_Perlman 205 258 221 259 255 234 238 240 250 248 -

Suhardi (Yogya) 252 257 228 251 238 225 254 232 251 243 244

Assuming that this arrangement is correct the differences are generally rather small23 and particularly concerning differing sizes between certain scale degrees no basic distinction can be established. Apart from these discrepancies Perlman’s quotation of a musician saying that

“If a gamelan tuner isn’t careful, he may tune sléndro to either sanga or manyura, forgetting about the other pathet. Ideally, he should adjust it so that both pathet sound good, but often one or the other will have to be compromised.” (1994:537; italics in the original)

corroborates the views expressed by our Javanese experts.

(C) Shortcomings

Musical rules and constraints

While the listening experiments and the ensuing comments by the Javanese collaborators have been quite instructive, the music computing part of the project has been much less successful. Combining expertise from two different branches of scholarship, i.e., ethnomusicology and music computing, has been more difficult than anticipated. Instead of putting a certain degree of autonomous decision making into the code we had to resort to versions which were fixed in advance, i.e., before playback, so that any interaction between musical parts had to be determined beforehand. The latter aspect which is one central issue in karawitan (cf. Brinner 1995, 2008) thus could not be pursued in the anticipated way and to the desired extent. Thus, we have unfortunately not been able so far to really comply with Ben Brinner’s (2008:47) claim regarding the potential of a virtual gamelan – or only with the second aspect:

“This will be useful only insofar as human choices and fallibility are incorporated into the model.”

However, once it had become obvious that a setup with the option of changing musical parameters of the computer-generated renditions on the spot without having to rewrite code would not be 23 The differences between the values for the Kanyut Mèsem instrument may be due to various factors. However, only two steps (264 vs. 258 cents and 215 vs. 221) seem to differ significantly and even in these cases the trend towards a larger interval is the same.


22

achievable during the project’s time span, we decided to concentrate primarily on its ethnomusicological aspects, i.e., preparing audio examples to be evaluated by Javanese experts.

Embat

Comments by our Javanese collaborators on the sound and in particular on the intonation of individual instruments have to be taken with a certain caution due to the nature of the available data which were used to calculate the emulated gamelan sets (see above).

Conclusions

Some years ago I discussed potential topics for a PhD thesis with a graduate student who had spent several years in Surakarta studying karawitan. He was quite uncertain which topic to choose because as he said most he could think of would only yield results already well-known to those gamelan scholars who had studied karawitan intensively for so many years by now. On the other hand a substantial part of that knowledge has never been put to print or can only be found in unpublished treatises of ISI Surakarta graduates but hasn’t entered general ethnomusicological discourse or textbooks. This is also true of some aspects that were investigated in the present study and in my opinion this justifies the otherwise odd fact that somebody without a long record of in-depth field experience in Central Java should undertake this kind of research project.

(A) Rules and constraints in karawitan and issues of embat

One central aim has been to disclose implicit knowledge in the sense that tacit assumptions on proper karawitan performance practice are often taken for granted. When trying to view karawitan as a rule-based musical system we notice that in addition to the need to refine generic paradigms such as “on bonang the balungan notes a and b may result in the pattern a b a . . b a . under such and such circumstances” we need to look beyond this level of musical grammar or “deep structure” and include parameters of performance practice or “surface structure” such as timing, articulation, embellishments, etc. as well as contextual ones such as the occasion or context of a performance. The project has demonstrated that gamelan musicians have a much more “holistic” view of their art than could be covered by searching for a musical “grammar” alone. In contemporary mainstream jazz, swing is a central feature. Therefore, playing a melodic gesture of eighths notes with this particular kind of phrasing would be considered essential for an idiomatically acceptable performance. Playing the same notes as even eighths would at best be considered a poor performance or probably not jazz at all. As our experiments have shown, the same holds true for karawitan in the sense that it cannot be reduced to “correct” notes. Actually there may be worse flaws than playing one or two wrong notes (cf. Supanggah 2011:253). Furthermore, beyond regional specifics (cf. Sutton 1991), even within one local tradition (gaya Solo) no monolithic view on matters of music theory and performance practice should be expected. The statements by our three Javanese collaborators have demonstrated certain common ideas on the one hand and personal preferences on the other – as had been anticipated. The challenge rather lies in exploring the range of available options, their respective conditions, and who adopts which attitude on what grounds. The listening experiments seem to lend themselves to draw a more precise picture of karawitan in these respects and thus to disclose more of the inherent norms (pakem; cf. Supanggah 2011:313) that shape its current practice. Still, the basic doubts expressed by Anderson Sutton (2008:222) concerning the


23

potential scope of a computer program capable of rendering karawitan remain because we have not been able to reach the stage of sophistication described here:

“Even if ‘correct’ gambang playing can be generated with a complex set of rules/constraints and the input of each gendhing’s balungan and other relevant information concerning its melodic design, it does not incorporate the subtler aesthetic considerations, and in particular the often unpredictable, seemingly random, varieties of interaction and individual variation that distinguish merely correct playing from good, interesting, or even beautiful playing.” (Italics in the original)

(B) methodological considerations

An analysis-by-synthesis and virtual musicians have proven to be useful tools in investigating karawitan. For one thing they encourage revealing all the parameters that need to be taken into account, and furthermore, they help in transforming usually implicit knowledge into the domain of verbal discourse, since verbal statements precisely addressing issues of musical concepts and/or performance practice could be elicited to a larger extent than is usually the case. Discussing specially prepared audio examples in connection with the option of demonstrating musical details on the spot has yielded valuable insights and adds to our standard repertoire of research techniques including the well-established approach of learning to perform the music under scrutiny. In this process the musicians, instead of being mere “informants”, could take on a more active role as research collaborators.

(C) Outlook

The present project may be considered a proof of concept. For future studies the examples should be more sophisticated and experts of different backgrounds (outside of ISI Surakarta) should be involved. Furthermore, the issue of embat could be pursued more reliably if samples of all relevant gamelan sets were obtained beforehand so that original sounds could be employed throughout.

Presentation of the project in papers, publications, and public performances

Papers and conference presentations

• ”Virtual Gamelan Graz: Disclosing Implicit Musical Knowledge”. Paper presented at the 1st International Symposium on Ethnomusicology and Ethnochoreology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) on Sept. 27, 2012.

• “Virtual Gamelan Graz: Disclosing Implicit Musical Knowledge”. Paper presented at Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjong Malim (Malaysia) on Oct. 2, 2012.

• “Culturally informed analysis: Mbira-Musik und Karawitan”. Paper presented at the Universität of Vienna on March 24, 2014.

• “Virtual Gamelan Graz. Disclosing Implicit Musical Knowledge”. Audiovisual Presentation at the Conference of the European Platform for Artistic Research in Music (EPARM), University of Music and Performing Arts Graz, April 23-25, 2015.


24

• “From tacit to verbalized knowledge. Towards a culturally informed musical analysis of Central Javanese karawitan”. Keynote at the 1st Conference in Ethnomusicology and Anthropology of Music: Methods, approaches and perspectives for the study of music within culture. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain), July 3, 2015.

• “Computergestützte Forschungsmethoden in der Ethnomusikologie“. Paper presented at the Symposium „Musikanalyse im Spannungsfeld von Expertise und computergestützter Datenverarbeitung“. Gesellschaft für Musikforschung, University of Halle (Germany), Sept. 30, 2015.

Publications

• “Culturally Informed Analysis and Ways to Disclose Local Musical Knowledge”. In: World-Music-Studies, ed. by Regine Allgayer-Kaufmann, Berlin: Holos [forthcoming]

• “From tacit to verbalized knowledge. Towards a culturally informed musical analysis of Central Javanese karawitan”. In Perifèria [e-journal; forthcoming]

Public performance

• “Gamelan Music and Dance from Java & New British Music for Gamelan”. Concert and presentation by Southbank Gamelan Players & Lila Bhawa Dance Company and sound installation by Charles Matthews with interactive audience participation. University of Music and Performing Arts Graz (Austria), April 27, 2015.

Public presentation of project implementation and results

• University of Music and Performing Arts Graz, Oct. 7, 2015.

References cited

Becker, Alton; Becker, Judith (1979): A Grammar of the Genre Srepegan. Journal of Musical Theory 24(1), 1-43.

Brinner, Benjamin (1995): Knowing Music, Making Music. Javanese Gamelan and the Theory of Musical Competence and Interaction. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Brinner, Benjamin (2008): Interaction in Gendhing Performance: The Panerusan. In Virtual Gamelan Graz. Rules - Grammars – Modeling, ed. by Gerd Grupe. Aachen: Shaker, 27-57.

Carterette, Edward C.; Kendall, Roger A. (1994): On the Tuning and Stretched Octave of Javanese Gamelans. Leonardo Music Journal 4, 59-68.

Ditrich, Will (1983): The Mills College Gamelan Si Darius and Si Madeleine (reprinted in Balungan 9/10, 2005, 95-163).

Grupe, Gerd (2008): Introduction: Musical Knowledge and Computer-based Experiments in Ethnomusicological Research – or Can a Virtual Gamelan Ensemble Help Us in Understanding Karawitan. In Virtual Gamelan Graz. Rules - Grammars - Modeling, ed. by Gerd Grupe. Aachen: Shaker, 1-15.

Hood, Mantle (1966): Slendro and Pelog Redefined. Selected Reports in Ethnomusicology 1(1), 28-48.


25

Hughes, David (1988): Deep Structure and Surface Structure in Javanese Music. A Grammar of Gendhing Lampah. Ethnomusicology 32(1), 23-74.

Kippen, James; Bel, Bernard (1989): Can a computer help resolve the problem of ethnographic description? Anthropological Quarterly 62(3), 131-144.

Kippen, James (1992): Tabla Drumming and the Human-Computer Interaction. The World of Music 34(3), 72-98.

Matthews, Charles Michael (2014): Adapting and Applying Central Javanese Gamelan Music Theory in Electroacoustic Composition and Performance. PhD thesis, Middlesex University.

Miller, Leta E.; Fredric Lieberman (1999): Lou Harrison and the American Gamelan. American Music 17(2):146-178.

Perlman, Marc (1994): American Gamelan in the Garden of Eden. Intonation in a Cross-Cultural Encounter. The Musical Quarterly 78(3):510-555.

Perlman, Marc (2004): Unplayed Melodies. Javanese Gamelan and the Genesis of Music Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pickvance, Richard (2005): A Gamelan Manual. A Player's Guide to the Central Javanese Gamelan. London: Jaman Mas Books.

Rahn, Jay (1978): Javanese Pélog Tunings Reconsidered. Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council 10:69-82

Ransby, Sophie (2013): An Investigation into the Emergence of Notation in Surakarta, Central Java, and its Implications for the Transmission of Gamelan Music as an Oral Tradition. PhD thesis, City University London.

Serafini, Sandra (1995): Timbre Judgments of Javanese Gamelan Instruments by Trained and Untrained Adults. Psychomusicology 14, 137-153.

Sethares, William A. (1998): Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale. London: Springer.

Supanggah, Rahayu (2011): Bothèkan - Garap. Karawitan. The Rich Styles of Interpretation in Javanese Gamelan Music. Book 1 & 2. Surakarta: ISI Press Surakarta; Garasi Seni Benawa Surakarta.

Surjodiningrat, Wasisto; Sudarjana, P. J.; Susanto, Adhi (1972): Tone Measurements of Outstanding Javanese Gamelans in Jogjakarta and Surakarta. Second revised edition. Jogjakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Sutton, R. Anderson (1978): Notes toward a Grammar of Variation in Javanese Gendèr Playing. In Ethnomusicology 22(2), 275-296.

Sutton, R. Anderson (1991): Traditions of Gamelan Music in Java. Musical Pluralism and Regional Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sutton, R. Anderson (2008): Towards a Theory of Gambang Performance in Central Javanese Gamelan Music. In Virtual Gamelan Graz. Rules - Grammars - Modeling, ed. by Gerd Grupe. Aachen: Shaker, 195-245.

Vetter, Roger (1989): A Retrospect on a Century of Gamelan Tone Measurements. Ethnomusicology 33(2):217-227


26

Main collaborators

• ISI Surakarta, Java o Bp. Suraji: senior musician, lecturer at ISI o Bp. Suyoto: senior musician, lecturer at ISI o Bp. Prasadiyanto: senior musician, lecturer at ISI

• Southbank Centre London o Sophie Ransby, PhD: gamelan advisor, logistics o John Pawson, MA: gamelan advisor, translations o Jonathan Roberts, MA: gamelan advisor, transcriptions, translations o Charles Matthews, PhD: interactive gamelan software

• University of Music and Performing Arts, Graz o Babak Nikzat, MA: recordings, video editing, computer-based analysis

• University of the Arts, Berlin o Dominik Hildebrand Marques Lopes, MA: SuperCollider programming

Special thanks to the members of the Southbank Gamelan Players who performed for us.

Participating Artists at Southbank Centre London

The following information has been supplied by the artists themselves.

Bp. Suraji was born on 15 June 1961. Since he was a child he liked to listen to gamelan music and shadow puppet performance. Started to learn gamelan when he was in the premiere school, and carried on to study in Konservatori Karawitan Indonesia (Conservatory of Karawitan) and Akademi Seni Karawitan Indonesia (ASKI) Surakarta, graduate in 1987. Since 1988 he works at ISI Surakarta. In 2001 he studied master degree at Pascasarjana ISI Surakarta, and graduate in 2005. He is very active in karawitan activities in Sala, such as Pujangga Laras, Hanggara Kasih (SMKI and ISI Surakarta), Klenengan at Mangkunegaran and Kraton Surakarta, Klenengan Broadcasting at Sukarena RRI Surakarta, and the leader and arranger of the karawitan group of Mayangkara, Karawitan for puppeteer “KI Purbo Asmoro”.

Bp. Suyoto was born in Sragen 02 Juli 1960, one of sons of gamelan player in Sragen, called Martorejo. Since he was in Premiere School, he played gamelan for Tayub as a drummer, followed his farther carrier. He has a very good quality of voice and therefore he has often been champions in many vocal competitions. He graduated at ASKI Surakarta in 1986. After that he became a gamelan teacher at ISI Surakarta. He also leads a group of Karawitan in Karanganyar, and which often performs from village to village. Beside a leader of the group, he is also the drum player and the vocalist. Beside a musician, he also composes some music, such as Music Drama Tari “Dewa Ruci” Festival Borobudur in 1994, Music Drama Tari “Gerakan Sayang Ibu” in 1995. Music “Bedhaya Arum Dalu”, in 1996. Karawitan Composition “Kendali” in 1997. Music Tari “Bedhaya Ciptoning” in 1998. He has also been performing abroad, such Scotland, England, America, Hongkong, Singapore, Japan, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Taiwan, Turkey, Malaysia, Italy.


27

Bp. Prasadiyanto was born in Sala in 1958. Since he was a child, he and his brothers and sisters learned gamelan music with his father, who was a puppeteer. He entered Conservatory of Karawitan to continue learning the music, and to know more about this music. After graduating from Coservatory, he entered ASKI Surakarta, the former name of ISI Surakarta, where he teaches up to the present time. As a gamelan teacher, he has often been invited to teach in abroad, such as England, Germany, Hong Kong, France. He started composing in 1985, since then he has been composing some pieces of traditional and contemporary music. In 1989 – 1990 he was an artist in residence in London, when he met and worked together with composers, such as Alec Roth, Nigel Osborne, Adrian Lee. In 1993 he was invited by Stratch Clyde, Glasgow, to do a music colaboration with Paragon ensemble, Glasgow, for a Community Project, especially for disabled people. By the time, his composition was performed in Australia, during the Warana Festival, Queensland. In 1995 he composed a dance music, and performed it in Germany during the tour with The local goverment of Central Java. He was asked to compose for the Asia Pasific Folk Music Festival in the Philippine. He was invited by Widosari, a gamelan group in Amsterdam, in 2002, to compose and perform his pieces together with Adrian Lee of London. His compositions have also been performed, including Ramayana dance music, Denpasar, Bali; Imbal-imbalan, Pekan Komponis Bandung; Dolanan, Taman Budaya Jawa Tengah, Surakarta. In 2003 and 2004, he was a guest music director of The South Bank Gamelan Player, for the performence of Ramayana in London, England and Padova, Italy. As a gamelan teacher, he has been teaching in England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore and some where else. As a Gamelan Musician he has been performing in Europe, America, and Asia. In 2004 he got a Master degree from Kingston University, London, on Music Performance.

Date post:	19-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vumien
View:	269 times
Download:	2 times

Virtual Gamelan Graz: Disclosing Implicit Musical Knowledge

Documents