who asked the first question? - International Research Center For ...

123LatviaAnother Baltic country, Latvia, could be considered the most polyphonic amongthe Baltic States. Although Latvian polyphonic traditions are not as internationally knownand as dazzlingly unique as the Lithuanian canonic polytonal sutartines style, andalthough there is no such variety of polyphonic styles as in Lithuania, the Latviantradition of polyphonic singing covers most of the ethnic territory of the Latvian state.The only region where no polyphonic recordings have been made is the Northeast part ofthe country. In the western part of Latvia the tradition of polyphonic singing is still wellalive (as in the regions of Nica, Barta, Alsunga).Interestingly, virtually the only type of polyphony recorded in the territory ofLatvia (according to the works of Latvian ethnomusicologists) is drone polyphony.Written sources mention the tradition of drone polyphony in Latvia from the 16 th and 17 thcenturies. The drone is mostly pedal, but there are instances of the rhythmic drone aswell. There are different terms for the drone performer in Latvia: vilceja (“the one whodrags”), duceja (“the one who gives a low, continuous droning sound”) and ruceja (“agrumbler, the one who murmurs”). The drone changes its pitch and moves always amajor second up. The main melody is always sung by a solo performer, and the range ofthe main melody is very small (usually a third). The drone is always performed by agroup of singers. Rhythmically Latvian drone polyphony is based on a simple duplemetre (2/4). Two-part singing dominates:Ex. 66. Latvia. (Vitolin, 1976:103)A. Yurian documented a fascinating tradition of drone three-part singing in Latviain the 1890s. This tradition of three-part singing was documented at two places – incentral-Southeastern and Southwestern regions of Latvia. (I am very grateful to Latvianethnomusicologist Villis Bendorf for making archive transcriptions of A. Yurianavailable to me while I was in Latvia in November 1988.) Some of these recordings werepublished in 1907. A fascinating tradition of drone three-part singing is represented onthese recordings (see the last example from Latvia). The pedal drone is in the middle, themain melody (solo performer) sings a small-range (within a third) melody, and the thirdpart mostly sings under the drone. The third part is also performed by a solo singer. It isvery interesting that the third part is also based on a small-range melody and mostly sings(recites) on a major second below the pedal drone, thus creating plenty of sharp secondaldissonances with the drone. (I do not want to go into “comparative” discourses here,before the second part of the book, but the parallels between three-part Latvian dronepolyphony and some three-part Balkan dissonant styles are quite obvious.) This tendencyto create secondal dissonances is particularly evident at the very end of the musicalphrases. Look at the second last note: there are the following notes together: “D” in thepedal drone, “C” in the lowest part, and “E” in the main melody. Therefore, at thismoment there are two seconds sounding together (C-D and D-E). Most importantly, thissharp dissonance is not a result of a random coincidence of free melodic parts. The fact