Rusudan Tsurtsumia - International Research Center For Traditional ...

630RUSUDAN TSURTSUMIAGEORGIAN POLYPHONY IN A MODERNSOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXTGeorgia is actively engaged in modern intercultural processes, which exercisegreat influence on its socio-cultural situation. Apart from this factor the new folkloremovement, which began in the 1970s, has gained great impetus, and might be viewedas a reaction of Georgian society to these processes. I would like to present “theanatomy” of these processes, i.e. the attitude of various social groups to Georgianpolyphony and its place in the modern socio-cultural context in order to find out whya majority of contemporary Georgians identify themselves with traditional multipartsinging.It has been said that in human and historical reality external is always internal andthe internal is external as well (Mamardashvili, 1990:185). Therefore what the modernfolklore movement offers is a reflection of our souls. The scale provides anopportunity to observe the whole multiformity of the dialogue of Georgians withmusical folklore.By the terminology, accepted in ethnomusicology and music sociology, from thisviewpoint Georgians may be provisionally divided into three groups: 1bearers of polyphony;2) consumers of polyphony and 3) people neutral/indifferent to polyphony.Let us try to find out how traditional Georgian polyphony is perceived by differentsocial groups.I. Bearers of PolyphonyGeorgia belongs to a small group of countries where bearers of traditional multipartsinging still remain in rural areas. Zemtsovsky calls them “homo-polyphonicus”.He writes, “In this particular case in the consciousness of an individual music existsin the form of polyphony” (Zemtsovsky, 2003:47). And this means that Georgianshave been “homo-polyphonicus” since time immemorial and have remained so includingthe 20 th century.On the one hand to such bearers polyphony offers the opportunity to take part inimprovised, collective music-making, on the other hand to them it is a fully realizedmusical structure i.e. a kind of polyphonic “score”, virtually existing in the imaginationof the homo-polyphonicus (Zemtsovsky, 2003:47).They hear every part and by means of polyphonic thinking can imagine theirsimultaneous sounding immanently.My generation very well remembers the singers whose memory preserved thousandsof examples of traditional polyphony either orally or by recordings they had

631made. It was from them that scholars notated Georgian folk songs in separate voices.Due to the fact that their polyphonic musical cognition preserved many of suchmultipart “scores”, it was not difficult for them to perform the part of every voiceseparately.“A folklore act” does not make the folklore cognition implement an individualartistic will, as the artist is a co-participant of a socio-communicative act, and isconnected with its other participants not only physically but also ideologically, whichdetermines the unity of their “semantic demands” as well. The internal solidarity ofthis group is an indispensable condition for the creation of an artistically and emotionallycomplete structure. When making music together the musical thinking worksintensively so that when bringing forward “the idea of polyphony” the “basic musicalmodels” that have been worked out for centuries, should not be violated; these modelshelp participants to perceive not only the structural but the aesthetic perfection of“the musical matter” as well (Zemtsovsky, 2005).For such persons the traditional multipart singing determines not only their personaltraits of character, but also the norms of their lives, their way of thinking andthe form of the dialogue between the world and the man. To put it more precisely, theGeorgian (as any other) homo-polyphonicus exists in polyphony.Today polyphony still remains an immanent trait of Georgian musical thinking,though its expression by means of the same immanent forms depends on how well itsbearers are provided with suitable conditions. Unfortunately, such conditions no longerexist. In the present situation they may be created artificially, be it in urban or ruralareas. The modern centers of teaching folk songs provide convincing evidence to theabove. It is in such specific environments that the contemporary carriers of polyphonyhave been nurtured; in spite of their professional education, they have retainedthe traditional logic of polyphonic thinking.In May, 2008, together with prof. S. Arom and P. Vallejo I, personally, witnessedthe process of such polyphonic thinking, when Anzor Erkomaishvili, an illustriousdescendant of the family of traditional singers, demonstrated many different variantsof one and the same song together with members of “the Basiani” ensemble.II. Consumers of PolyphonyOf all the consumers I should like to single out active and passive ones.1) For their part active consumers are divided into several groups.a) First group includes singers of the city-based folk ensembles, who receive“folklore in the ready-made form” (Zemtsovsky, 1989:12), which implies “introductionand strengthening the position of the consumer attitude”.The history of “folklorism” in Georgia (Zemtsovsky, 1978:192; Lapin, 1989:5;Tsurtsumia, 1997:5-6, 2005:113-114) is older than a century. It is also possible todistinguish some of the stages of its development: the first stage started in 1886, withthe concert of Aghniashvili’s “Georgian Choir”, where folk songs were performedfor the public in the “European” academic manner; the second stage started from the

632 Rusudan Tsurtsumia1930s, when the Soviet ideological drive for all kinds of mass events facilitated theformation of large collectives, so traditional ensemble singing style was supersededby chorus singing. The question of preserving the local manner of performance indifferent dialects arose. Even for the leading figures of traditional singing, leadingthese collectives meant adjusting folk songs to stage performance practices (e.g.soloists’ started singing in unison, choir conducting which is alien to oral traditionbecame a norm). The most “non-folklore” was the repertoire policy, when the stateor village choir started performing songs of all the provinces of Georgia. In this waya common folk singer became a receiver of the folklore in “the ready-made” form,i.e. the consumer of another local tradition.The next stage was ushered in by J. Kakhidze’s ensemble “Shvidkatsa” (lit. “SevenMen”) in the 1950s. Large choir collectives were again superseded by smaller ensembles,though in the 1960s and 1970s the ensembles “Gordela” and “Rustavi”firmly established “the academic” style of performing folk songs.The fourth stage, still continuing today, began in the 1980s, when Georgianethnomusicology remembered that the folk song is more than sheet music and forperforming it a specific atmosphere is needed. E. Garaqanidze was the first to replacethe academic manner of singing the public was used to, by way of singing as close tothe peasant manner as possible.The new tendency of “Georgian folklorism” very soon found followers: thewomen’s ensemble “Mzetamze”, the men’s ensembles “Anchiskhati”, “Basiani”,“Lashari” and Garakhanidze’s folklore theatre “Mtiebi”.It also must be natural for the modern pluralistic society that alongside the growthof the number of those who follow this aesthetics there are a great many admirers ofthe academic (“Rustavi”, “Erisioni”) and the so-called mixed-type (“Kartuli Khmebi”,“Universiteti”) ensembles.For the last few years these and other – the so-called “city” ensembles - have beendetermining the trends in folklore activities and creating certain stereotypes of therepertoire and performing style, which also attained a strong position in regionalensembles. Now in every province of Georgia there is an ensemble which performsKartl-Kakhetian drinking songs, Svan round-dance songs, Gurian-Acharan “Naduri”and Megrelian “Odoia”.What gives stimulus to the singers of these numerous ensembles? What doesGeorgian part-singing mean to them?For the masters of folk singing in the first half of the 20 th -century (their excellentrecordings are preserved in our phonographic-archives) and their direct descendants,members of the ensembles of the 60s and 70s – this was an activity stemming fromtheir way of thinking. For those who were younger, it was both a way of thinkinginherited from their ancestors and a feature of cultural originality realized in them. Formany of them it became their profession and job. Therefore for the singers of themodern folklore ensembles Georgian polyphony is a multifunctional phenomenon,which corresponds to their spiritual world, at the same time being the means of their

Georgian Polyphony in a ModernSocio-Cultural Context633self-expression; it is a form of dialogue with the tradition.. This dialogue helps themto cognize themselves, for some it is a job quite often done without any remuneration.b) Modern Georgian Ethnomusicians are also active consumers. Modern Georgian“ethnomusic” (this term in Georgia covers new fusion genres between folk andpopular musical styles) started in the 1970s, with the ensemble “Orera”, which arrangedtraditional multipart songs in pop-music style. It was a sphere of the interrelationshipof folklore and variety music (this is how popular music was called in theSoviet Union), which was never studied in the Soviet epoch. In Georgia this issue wastouched upon only by Orjonikidze (1978:244-264). In the 70s, of the Russian scholarsV. Konen wrote about the importance of Georgian variety music for the understandingof Georgian polyphonic music in the Soviet Union (Konen, 1975:394-9).In the 80s there was also a precedent of forming a Georgian “Ethno-jazz” (“Adio”band) which was followed by new quests at the beginning of the new century (project“Shin”). The experiment was founded on a principle similar to the creation of musicalstructures in folklore and jazz. In the consciousness of these musicians Georgianpolyphony is not “a sign to recognize the national attribution” (Orjonikidze) but apossibility to express individual artistic will; and the interactivity of “ethnohearing”and “ethnopsychics” results in a new musical-aesthetical value.Another artistic realization of modern Georgian ethnomusic is the festival “Artgene”,whose organizer, the pop-musician Zumba considers himself to be anethnomusician and it is his aim to activate the dormant genetic memory of teenagersfond of pop-music. I think that to achieve his aim he has found the best method.The anonymously created music of the oral tradition was called “ethnomusic”,but today the new ethnomusic has an author. If “the ethnic” category is universal,then this tendency must be viewed as the modern form of the concrete manifestationof ethnic combinations and infinite multiformity” (Zemtsovsky, 2005:25); for its partit corresponds to the problem of the ethnic identification of an individual.There is a considerable difference between a folklore ensemble singer and a modernethnomusician. The former, like a classical music performer, makes music withinthe limits of the given text and at the best, by means of a new interpretation of thistext achieves self expression; the other, like a composer or a jazz musician creates atext of his/her own, in which he/she aspires to implementing his/her artistic will. Inspite of this fact both of them –singers of a folklore ensemble and ethnomusicians –are perceived as active consumers of folklore.2) I give the name Passive Consumers to the army of those listeners, whoenthusiastically fill the halls at folklore concerts and according to their own system ofvalues order suitable production. This group, consisting of representatives of variousstrata of society, are the customers whose demands are met by the active consumers(performers).Today “the consuming value” of multipart singing in Georgia is very high. Itsvalue is further enhanced by society’s charging it with symbolic significance, whichmeans that multipart singing is one of the most important attributes of the originality

634 Rusudan Tsurtsumiaof Georgian music and the national identity of Georgians.The fact of the presence of “the customer” and “consumer”, “production” categoriesand “the consuming value” refers to the existence of the musical-folkloreindustry in society. Sociology suggests dividing society into groups according todifferent indications. If we use the scheme offered by Adorno (1999:13-19), Georgiansinterested in folklore may be divided into experts, good, educated and emotionallisteners, though it is quite clear that we cannot borrow Adorno’s characterizing ofthese types mechanically. Like Adorno I can call experts those people who listen toGeorgian multipart singing adequately, i.e. fully comprehending every concrete momentof the singing process. Close to them stand good listeners, who, like experts, donot only use the categories of prestige and taste when discussing polyphony, thoughthey fail to thoroughly cognize the logical links of the whole (folk singers and professionals).There are also educated listeners, who know a lot about multipart singing,value it as a cultural achievement and can discuss it, though without dwelling onconcrete details. As for emotional listeners their number is very great in this country.In the value system of so-called passive consumers Georgian multipart singingalso occupies a special place; to them it is a multi-functional phenomenon, the mostsignificant of them being the emblem of national identity.III. Neutral GroupThis social group comprises those people, who, for some reason, are indifferentto Georgian traditional polyphony, who are not even passive consumers of multipartsinging and from whose national-cultural identity Georgian polyphony is absent becauseof different motives, i.e.: 1) those who admit that multipart singing is a symbolof the originality of Georgian culture and a national value, though they do not considerthem to be an attribute to their identity and 2) those, who are orientated to othercultural values. The number of the latter cannot be that great; for instance in theyouth talk-show “Kedeli” (Wall) dedicated to Georgian musical folklore, which wastelevised in spring 2008, of about 20 participants there was only one who said that hedid not like Georgian folk songs and never listened to them.Instead of ConclusionThe presented division of Georgian society into different groups, according to theirattitude to multipart singing, is based on the criterion of evaluation. I think that whenreasoning about the fundamental issue of an individual’s national-cultural identification,the decisive factor is the evaluative idea of a phenomenon – in our case that of polyphony.According to one of the definitions of the value – “value is something that canmake man’s life worthy” (N. Chavchavadze, 2007:11).The most ancient Georgian polyphony reveals the genetic talent of Georgians andindicates the road of history, which the people, who had created it, had passed alongwith dignity. Therefore as Mamardashvili wrote, “every time, when a Georgian sings orlistens to a song (he means multipart songs, R.Ts.), a new Georgian is born”(Mamardashvili, 2000:292-293).

Georgian Polyphony in a ModernSocio-Cultural Context635This is what fills me with the belief that in this or that form multipart singing willnever lose the function of expressing Georgians’ ethnic-national identity, and like theGeorgian language, it will always remain one of the strongest attributes of the representationof national culture and identity.ReferencesAdorno, Theodor W. (1999). “Introduction in Sociology of Music” // Selected works:Sociology of Music. Moscow – Sanct-Petersburg: Universitetskaia kniga (p. 7-190) (inRussian).Garaqanidze Edisher. (1989). “Nekotorie voprosi ispolnitelstva gruzinskikh narodnikh peseni ansambl “Mtiebi” (“Some Aspects of Performance of Georgian Folk Songs and Ensemble“Mtiebi”). In Traditsionni folklor i sovremennie folklornie khori i ansambli (The TraditionalFolklore and Contemporary Folk Choirs and Ensembles). Leningrad: State Institutefor the Theatre, Music and Cinematography of Leningrad. p. 124-132 (in Russian).Chavchavadze, Niko. (2007 2 nd edition). Kultura I tsennosti (Culture and Value) Tbilisi:Publisher “Nino Chavchavadze”. 1 st edition: 1984, Tbilisi:Metsniereba (in Russian).Konen, Valentina. (1975). “Znachenie vneevropejskix kultur dlia muziki XX veka” ( “TheSignificance of Non-European Cultures for the Music of XX Century” // In Studies onForeign Musi. p. 227-268. Moscow:Muzika (in Russian)Lapin, Vladimir. (1989). “Ot redaktora” (“From the Editor”) In Traditsionni folklor isovremennie folklornie khori i ansambli (The Traditional Folklore and ContemporaryFolk Choirs and Ensembles). Leningrad: State Institute for the Theatre, Music and Cinematography.p. 4-5 (in Russian).Mamardashvili, Merab. (1990). Kak ia ponimaiu philosophiu (How I Understand Philosophy).Moscow: Progress (in Russian).Orjonikidze, Givi. (1978). Aghmavlobis gzis problemebi (The Problems of Moving Forward).Tbilisi: Khelovneba (in Georgian).Tsurtsumia, Rusudan. (1997). “Kartuli khalkhuri simghera dghes _ tsotsckhali procesi tusamuzeumo eqsponati? (sociologiuri analizis tsda)~ [Georgian Folk Song Today – AliveProcess or Museum’s Exhibit? (The trial/experience of Sociological Analyze // In Essays onMusicology. Proceedings of the scientific works. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State Conseratoire. p.3-17(in Georgian).Tsurtsumia, Rusudan. (2005). XX saukunis kartuli musika. Tvitmqopadoba da ghirebulebitiorientatsiebi. (20th Century Georgian Music. The Individuality and Value Orientation).Tbilisi: Tbilisi State Conservatoire (in Georgian with English summary).Zemtsovsky, Izaly. (1989). “Ot narodnoi pesni k narodnomu khoru: igra slov ili problema?”(“From the Folk Song to the Folk Choir: Casuistry or Problem?”) In Traditsionni folklor isovremennie folklornie khori i ansambli (The Traditional Folklore and ContemporaryFolk Choirs and Ensembles). Leningrad: State Institute for the Theatre, Music and Cinematographyof Leningrad. p. 6-19 (in Russian).

636 Rusudan TsurtsumiaZemtsovsky, Izaly I. (2003). “Polyphony as a Way of Creating and Thinking. The MusicalIdemtity of Homo-Poliphonicus” // The First International Symposium on TraditionalPolyphony. Proceedings. PPP. 45-53. Tbilisi: The International Research Center forTraditional Polyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire.Zemtsovsky, Izaly I. (2005). “Polyphony as “Ethnohearing” and its Musical “Substance”:Homo-Poliphonicus in Action”// The Second International Symposium on TraditionalPolyphony. Proceedings. gv.. 25-32. Tbilisi: The International Research Center for TraditionalPolyphony of Tbilisi State Conservatoire.