Iyer

AAWM Journal 10/2 (2022)

Interpretations of Melodic Framework and Instrumental Idiom in a Metrically Fluid Piece of Central Javanese Music Performed on a Busking Zither

Rohan Iyer

Ngamen, Siteran, Pathetan, Melodic Framework, Instrumental Idiom

This article examines a recorded performance of a piece of music adapted from the Central Javanese court repertoire of pathetan to a large Javanese zither (siter barung). This solo instrumental rendition of a pathetan on a siter barung is very unusual, as the family of zithers do not usually partake in this genre of pieces, even within the realm of court-style gamelan music. A busker (ngamen), who belongs to a troupe of musicians that comprise a siteran ensemble, plays the zither. The pathetan is a metrically fluid genre of Javanese music, which holds important mode defining and mood setting functions across different performance contexts. Ngamen siteran troupes are made up of itinerant street musicians who primarily perform light, vocal genres of music. Transcription and analysis of the piece “Pathetan Sléndro Manyurå Jugag” reveals  that the siter barung largely adheres to the standard court-style melodic framework. By comparing this performance to a court-style rendition of the same piece on a large Javanese metallophone (gendèr barung), aspects of performative interpretation particular to the siter barung instrumental idiom and to rural/village styles of Central Javanese performance are highlighted. This study hopes to provide a model upon which pathetan can be (re)-introduced into ngamen and court-style siteran contexts.

---

Rohan Iyer is a PhD Candidate at the School of the Arts & Media, University of New South Wales, Sydney (Bidjigal Land).

---

Click to read the PDF version

---

Introduction

[1] The Central Javanese gamelan is one of the most studied musical ensembles in the field of Southeast Asian ethnomusicology. The traditional repertoire of the Central Javanese gamelan, known as karawitan, is heavily associated with the courts of Surakarta/Solo (Kraton Mangkunegaran and Kraton Surakarta Hadiningrat) and Yogyakarta (Kraton Pakualaman and Kraton Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat). Karawitan has received a lot of attention from scholars and is regularly performed by gamelan ensembles worldwide. However, there are several styles of karawitan performance that exist outside of court bubbles, which have been comparatively understudied. These idioms are sometimes referred to as rural, village, or female styles, due to the distinctive (and sometimes, gendered) interpretations that have characteried these styles of playing over the course of history. In this article, I transcribe and analyze a rendition of one karawitan piece from the pathetan court repertoire, in order to study how a large Javanese zither (siter barung) player from an ensemble of non-court related street musicians (ngamen) adapts court music to a busking context.[1]

[2] First, I discuss the metrical fluidity of the pathetan structural form, and establish the distinctive contextual and musical roles it plays in karawitan. In doing so, I incorporate discussions regarding the study of free rhythm. I then proceed to characterize the ensemble known as siteran, which is the type of group that the siter barung player in the analyzed recording belongs to. This group can be further classified as a ngamen siteran troupe, as the music they perform is in a busking context, rather than in court-style. Following this, I transcribe and analyze a recording of the piece “Pathetan Sléndro Manyurå Jugag” performed on a siter barung. I illustrate the musical specificities of the rendition and compare them to the conventional melodic framework of court-style performances. I also transcribe a court-style version of this piece, as performed on a large Javanese metallophone (gendèr barung), in order to compare and contrast instrumental idiom and technique between renditions. This study brings to light an unusual performance of a pathetan on a siter barung: a piece that would never traditionally be played on the family of zithers. Furthermore, this article aims to provide a model upon which pieces from the repertoire can be (re)-introduced into ngamen and court-style siteran contexts.

Pathetan and “Free Rhythm”

[3] Structurally, karawitan has been noted for its use of colotomy (punctuation cycles).  In performance, colotomy is when certain instruments regularly demarcate musical space in time at particular points, depending on the specific structural form. There is a large range of colotomic structural forms in the karawitan repertoire that can be defined through either musical specificities or performative context and function. Although most structural forms found in karawitan are colotomic, Benjamin Brinner describes pathetan pieces as “short, ametrical polyphonic pieces [of music] performed in free rhythm” (1985, 1). Thus, the pathetan is unique from other karawitan pieces as it is the “only [repertoire] of gamelan pieces that [has] no common pulse […] or set rhythmic relationships between the simultaneously sounding parts” (Brinner 1995, 245).

[4] There are three main contexts for which pathetan are usually performed: shadow puppetry (wayang kulit), dance performance (tarian) and concert/instrumental music (klenèngan) (ibid.). Typically, a pathetan is performed by four instrumentalists and one singer. The vocal part is the melodic framework of the piece, from which the instruments interpret and derive their distinctive musical lines. A rich multi-layered texture is created as the instrumentalists simultaneously follow the vocal line, independent of strict metrical constraints. However, the actual presence of the vocal line in performance is more commonly found in the wayang kulit context, where the puppet master (dhalang) sings it, whilst in klenèngan contexts, the vocal line is not necessarily compulsory and is only sung if vocalists are present. Nevertheless, the respective melodic framework is still in the minds of the instrumentalists when performing pathetan, even if it is not explicitly present on the musical surface.

[5] Martin Clayton notes that most musical traditions that incorporate free rhythm tend to have it featured within the context of a solo performance. For instance, the Middle Eastern taqsim and the Indian alap usually feature only one primary melodic line (1996, 324). This is not the case for a pathetan, as there are multiple instruments performing different melodic lines at the same time. The pathetan, therefore, represents a “significant exception” to this trend, as it features a “type of heterophony” (ibid.). Thus, the pathetan is unique because of the competency required for several instrumentalists to navigate free rhythmic musical passages together.[2]

[6] Music scholars have struggled to study free rhythm since Western classical music “is almost entirely metered” (Clayton 1996, 323). One reason for this may be because the “notion of rhythm is equated with metricity” in common usage (Frigyesi 1993, 62). As such, the description of music as constituting free rhythm has sometimes been incorrectly applied. Important distinctions can be made between rhythm and metricity, which can help in conceptualizing free rhythm. Indeed, Clayton distinguishes pulse, described as “a regular beat perceived by the listener,” from meter, described as the “organization of [pulses] to provide a framework for rhythmic design” (1996, 327). However, not all organized pulsations may be immediately perceivable to the listener. For those pulsations that are periodic, yet not simple to discern, “free rhythm cannot be said to exist” (ibid., 329). On this strain, Judit Frigyesi describes true free rhythm as “extremely rare” occurrences “in which no periodicity whatsoever is perceivable” (1993, 64). Thus, the concept of free rhythm should not be haphazardly applied to those musical styles where the pulse is hard to ascertain on the surface level.

[7] Keeping in mind the usual conflation between rhythm and meter, it is evident that describing music with no organized pulse as illustrating free rhythm would be inaccurate if a pulse was faintly perceivable. Clayton solves this dilemma by extending the definition to include not just music with no perceivable pulse, but also music without “perceived periodic organization” (1996, 330). This is one way through which music that is, often incorrectly, referred to as consisting of free rhythm can still be considered as such. However, Frigyesi disputes the broadening of a definition “for the sake of convenience” in studying music outside the Western classical tradition (1993, 64). Rather than dichotomizing the matter, a spectrum is helpful for gauging the extent to which rhythms are metric. Frigyesi appeals to the idea of a spectrum by coining a new term, “flowing rhythm,” thus avoiding problems which arise from the use of the dichotomous descriptors “free rhythm” or “nonmetric” (ibid., 67).  This term is effective in representing the temporality of a pathetan, the flow of which constantly undulates with regards to the periodicity of pulsations.

[8] The social and musical functions of pathetan vary greatly between subtypes. There are approximately thirty different varieties of pathetan, which are of different lengths and spread across all six primary modes of Central Javanese gamelan music (Brinner 1985, 2–3).[3] There are several functional reasons for including them in performance. In wayang kulit (shadow puppetry) performative contexts pathetan serve to convey the mood for the respective scene in the performance (Brinner 1995, 245). When played for tarian (dance), pathetan accompany dancers as they enter, exit or in between sections (ibid.). I focus on the klenèngan (concert/instrumental music) performative context, as this is the most applicable to the recordings that are subject to analysis.

[9] In klenèngan, one of the primary reasons a pathetan is performed is to set the feeling of the mode of the music following it. Pathetan are usually followed by a båwå sekar ageng and a gendhing. A båwå sekar ageng acts as a sung introduction to the piece of music that follows it andusually features a solo male vocalist. In this context, a gendhing is a large, major work from the karawitan repertoire.[4] The pathetan is particularly crucial in providing tonal orientation to the singer of the båwå sekar ageng. Moreover, during long periods of performance where there are changes of mode, a pathetan may serve to introduce a new mode.

[10] The relative rhythmic fluidity and critical modal functionality of pathetan make them increasingly intriguing pieces to study, in comparison to other works of karawitan. Following this necessarily brief introduction to important topics regarding pathetan and rhythm, I now proceed to provide a background to ngamen siteran, the ensemble that is of focus in this article.

Ngamen Siteran

[11] The siter is a Javanese plucked zither. It is one of the elaborating instruments in the Central Javanese gamelan ensemble and is played at the most rhythmically subdivided level of the musical texture (also known as density referent). The range of the siter often consists of two pentatonic octaves plus one note, although this varies significantly by instrument. The siter has a low status in most gamelan ensembles and is not played unless other, more essential, instruments are covered. Nevertheless, as one of only two stringed instruments in the gamelan (the other being the bowed rebab), its timbre makes a valuable aural addition to the ensemble. In contrast, the siter is at the heart of the much smaller siteran ensemble. Typically, a siteran ensemble consists of one or two zithers (of different sizes), a double-headed drum, a portable gong (blown or struck), and a flexible number of singers. This genre of music making is often performed by buskers (ngamen) on the streets of Central Java and is referred to as ngamen siteran.

[12] David W. Hughes provides an introduction to ngamen siteran in his short survey of the genre, illustrating contextual norms and aspects of playing style. One of the issues he raises is the buskers’ competency as musicians (1997). Hughes notes some disrespect directed towards buskers by other musicians. Buskers are often looked down upon for “[begging]” on the streets, and remarks such as “playing like a busker [seperti ngamen],” are used in a derogatory fashion (ibid., 7). However, several revered gamelan musicians, such as Ki Wasitodiningrat, are known to have a background in performing ngamen siteran in their youth (ibid.). In her study of the cokekan (in this context, itinerant musician) group Ngudi Laras in Surakarta, Susan Walton also notes the musicians’ “lower-class status” despite “[inhabiting] a much higher economic level than common beggars” (2020, 150).[5] Thus, the underestimation of the musical skill level of ngamen siteran troupes seems to be a common trope in their societal perception.

[13] There have been initiatives to attempt to counter this (sometimes) false perception. Hughes discusses siteran contests (lomba siteran) that existed in the 1970s and 1980s that purposefully excluded conservatoire-trained musicians (1997, 15). This reflects the attempts to increase the prestige of ngamen siteran by showcasing a distinctive style of music making. Nevertheless, the ubiquity of the instrument—described by Hughes as “the guitar of Java”—results in the performance of siteran by individuals of varying musical ability (ibid., 6). Thus, individual performances need to be subject to close analysis to determine the skill level of the musicians.

[14] Ngamen siteran troupes often diverge from the traditional karawitan court repertoire. Troupes prefer pieces “centered on vocals and poetic texts,” such as langgam and jineman, which are more favourable amongst the wider public (ibid., 14). Walton echoes this sentiment by referencing Ngudi Laras’ repertoire, which tends to “highlight the solo female voice,” and includes classical forms such as palaran, andhegan and lagu kreasi baru (newly composed songs) (2021, 152). However, Walton also notes that the musicians “had a strong grasp of the standard gamelan repertoire of short pieces”, which they sometimes played in a “lively way” (ibid.). Nevertheless, Hughes and Walton both suggest that ngamen siteran groups find it preferable to perform wide-appealing vocal music as opposed to standard karawitan repertoires. This is likely because public entertainment is often their primary source of income.

[15] In contrast, in a recent article, I explored the music of a ngamen siteran troupe whose repertoire was firmly embedded within the karawitan tradition (Iyer 2020). I transcribed and analyzed a ngamen siteran rendition of “Ketawang Puspåwarnå,” to compare how the technicalities of siter playing in a busking context differed with common court-style approaches. One of the fundamental differences was the use of the ganti slenthem technique in the street-style version, where the siter player simultaneously plays the melodic framework of a piece (balungan) alongside the usual siter patterns (ibid., 253-4). This is a distinctive characteristic of ngamen siter players, who not only have instruments with more bass strings than most gamelan siter players, but also perform in such a way to compensate for the absence of an instrument playing the balungan (Hughes 1997, 14).I illustrated how the leadership role of the large Javanese zither (siter barung) is exemplified through the musician’s use of particular melodic patterns and instrumental techniques. I attributed the distinctive musical framework through which the siter barung player interprets musical phrases to a regionalized musical identity, which differs from musicians performing in court-style (Iyer 2020, 260).

[16] Ngamen siteran troupes are often made up of itinerant musicians from regional towns in the outskirts of the Solo (Surakarta) and Yogyakarta court centers. During his fieldwork, Hughes noted the presence of troupes from towns such as Temanggung, Semarang, and Kudus, all approximately 100 kilometers from Solo (1997, 7). Whilst the karawitan tradition is heavily associated with the court styles of Solo and Yogyakarta, the music has long been practiced in towns and villages surrounding the two regions. The distinction between court and village styles of gamelan performance is well established in Central Java and has been discussed in the academic literature. In studying the social meanings and statuses of modal practice, Marc Perlman explores how the interpretation of melodic phrases on a large Javanese metallophone (gendèr barung) can be representative of this dichotomy of playing styles (1998). Furthermore, musical prestige is often a topic of contention, whereby the “non-canonical” treatment of mode according to court-style standards diminishes the status of the musician (ibid., 56). Understandably, this would disadvantage those village styles of gamelan performance that do not necessarily adhere to the urban standards of interpretation. Therefore, in studying ngamen siteran, extra care needs to be taken when considering performance standards, in order to avoid unduly treating court standards preferentially.

[17] Additionally, “female” and “village” are the two terms most often used to describe the styles of gendèr barung playing that do not resemble the standard “urban” court-style (ibid., 55). The “female” style of gendèr barung playing has been subject to extensive study by Sarah Weiss, who confirms that the term is used to refer to the “same [idiom] as ‘old’ and ‘village’ styles of performance” (2010, 7). Historically, the gendèr barung player has usually been the wife of the dhalang, hence the deep female association with this instrument. Whilst village styles of gamelan performance are often “scoffed at” by urban musicians for being “unrefined,” the lack of relative orderliness of female-style gendèr barung playing is valued for its extensive “melodic flowerings” and ornamentation (ibid., 116). The female style of gendèr barung playing is heavily intertwined with Javanese gender ideology and aesthetics, such as the concept of rasa (lit. feeling) and the freedom of emotional expression. Though these topics are out of the scope of this study of ngamen siteran,it is important to acknowledge the existence of village/rural styles of performance of karawitan and some of its associations with femininity.

[18] In this article, I transcribe and analyze a performance from Mark Nelson & Roger Vetter’s published field recordings of ngamen siteran made in 1975 (Nelson & Vetter 1976). Most of the musicians on these field tapes are from Klaten, a regency between the court centers (ibid., liner notes). Bapak Suradi, the siter barung player, is from Prambanan, a city just outside Yogyakarta (ibid., liner notes). The pathetan I analyze, “Pathetan Sléndro Manyurå Jugag,” is the first in a suite of three pieces, which also includes “Båwå Sekar Ageng Tepi Kawuri” and “Gendhing Montro.” Although this recording is from an era where there was a much wider engagement with karawitan in Central Java than there is today, this rendition of a siteran pathetan is still out of the ordinary.

[19] The siter is not usually one of the four elaborating instruments that play pathetan in the gamelan ensemble, which normatively include the gendèr barung (large metallophone), gambang (xylophone), rebab (bowed lute) and suling (end-blown flute). The court-style siteran tradition—where it is more common for large pieces of karawitan to be performed than in ngamen siteran—has been featured on multiple cassette tapes and radio broadcasts[6]. In instances where a pathetan may be performed in a gamelan context, these court-style siteran recordings often omit it and proceed directly to the gendhing by opening with the piece’s introduction (bukå). If a båwå sekar ageng is being sung, the siter often only provides notes for the singer’s aid, without preceding it with a pathetan. Court-style siteran ensembles that include one or several of the soft-style instruments from the gamelan ensembleare referred to as cokekan ensembles.[7] Recordings with this instrumentation sometimes feature a short series of melodic units (grambyangan) that indicate the mode (pathet)before the piece starts, played by a gendèr barung.

[20] Thus, this adaptation of a pathetan by this ngamen siteran troupe is a very rare occurrence. Even in court-style siteran contexts, it is uncommon. The ngamen rendition I analyze does ­­not include any vocals and is performed solely on the siter barung, the leading melodic instrument in this ensemble. The closest comparable tracks I have heard feature a grambyangan played on a siter barung, examples of which can be heard on certain recordings of the group Siteran Nunggal Roso (2020a; 2020b). This troupe is associated with the Radio Siaran Publik Daerah (Regional Public Broadcasting Radio) in Klaten Regency, coincidentally, the area from which most of the musicians from featured on Nelson & Vetter’s recordings are from. Thus, I use this opportunity to study not only how the pathetan is interpreted in a ngamen siteran context, but also the performative idiom of the siter barung.

[21] The most logically comparable pathetan instrumental idiom to the siter barung is the gendèr barung. This instrument is a metallophone with keys suspended over tube resonators, which holds a very high status in the gamelan ensemble. The gendèr barung is the most important instrument in a performance of a court-style pathetan and, when accompanying singing, is the “singer’s primary aid for intonation and sense of mode” (Brinner 1985, 269). Sumarsam dedicates an article to the instrument where he notes the importance of the gendèr barung in several contexts across the karawitan repertoire (1975). Through transcription and analysis, Sumarsam illustrates not only how the instrument showcases pathet (mode),but also the instrument’s role in the wayang context of pathetan (1975, 164–9). As the siter barung is the only instrument playing in this rendition, the most sensible option is to compare its playing style to that of the gendèr barung in the gamelan ensemble. Even within the gamelan, whilst each instrument has its own idiomatic style, the siter is one of the few that sometimes plays in a polyphonic manner akin to the gendèr barung.

[22] To enhance my analysis, I have also transcribed a rendition of “Pathetan Sléndro Manyurå Jugag” as played by Bapak Cokro (another one of Ki Wasitodiningrat’s many names and honorific titles), one of the most highly respected performers of Central Javanese gamelan music (n.d.). Unlike siteran renditions, there are countless gendèr barung versions of this pathetan, which all vary considerably amongst themselves. However, Bapak Cokro’s recording serves as enough of a model to illustrate the general melodic framework of the piece and to showcase the instrumental capabilities of the gendèr barung for the purposes of this comparative study.

Notes on Transcription

[23] I use the Central Javanese system of cipher notation (kepatihan) to transcribe this performance. In ascending order, the notes are represented by the numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Notes in the higher pentatonic octave are represented with a dot above. Notes in the lower and twice lower pentatonic octaves are represented with a dot or two dots below, respectively. The other dots in the notation represent rests. Due to the quick decay of plucked strings, there are no intricacies of dampening heard or notated for the siter barung. A slashed note, only present on the transcription of the gendèr barung rendition, indicates that a key is damped when struck.

[24] A bar above two notes represents the halving of rhythmic value. A second bar represents a further halving. Both the siter barung and gendèr barung are played polyphonically. Notes above the dividing line are played by the right hand and the notes below are played by the left hand. When the hands do not have audibly independent lines, I divide the notes according to my intuition as a performer of both these instruments. It is conventional to group the rhythms of most Central Javanese music in fours. The music has an end-weighted feel: the fourth beat is always the strongest and the second beat is the second strongest. Standalone notes in the transcription represent the fourth beat. There are some instances of irregular rhythmic groupings due to the relative metric fluidity of a pathetan. Where this occurs, the final note of a grouping is the strongest. The division of the transcriptions into systems represents the melodic framework of this pathetan and facilitates comparative analysis.

[25] In several phrases, there are gradual tempo changes that are not marked in the transcription. This is an important characteristic of pathetan (Brinner 1985, 271). As the nuances of these tempo changes are not subject to scrutiny in my analysis, I leave them out for ease of readability. In addition to providing transcriptions in kepatihan notation, I also include full transcriptions in Western staff notation. Figure 1 illustrates how the pitches of the pentatonic octave are notated. Slashes through notes in the kepatihan transcription are illustrated with crossed note heads in Western staff notation.

Figure 1. Key to understanding corresponding Western staff notation transcriptions (not true pitch) of kepatihan transcriptions.

Analysis

[26] This pathetan (Figures 2 and 3) is in the ahemitonic pentatonic sléndro tuning and the manyurå mode. This is clarified as it precedes a gendhing with the same characteristics. Of the five pathetan available in sléndro manyurå, this one conforms to the structure of the jugag version, due to its brevity (Brinner 1985, 199–201). This form is so short that it is merely an abbreviation of the larger wantah version, rather than consisting of a completely unique melodic trajectory (ibid., 210–1).[8] I apply Brinner’s melodic framework for a court-style performance of the shorter jugag version (illustrated below) to establish to what extent this rendition follows the pattern. To complement comparisons to Brinner’s theory, I also concurrently compare the idiom of the siter barung to that of the gendèr barung (Figures 4 and 5) to study practical differences in performance.

Figure 2. Transcription of the siter barung rendition using kepatihan.

Figure 4. Transcription of the gendèr barung rendition using kepatihan.

Figure 5. Transcription of the gendèr barung rendition using Western staff notation.

[27] Brinner splits his melodic framework of “Pathetan Sléndro Manyurå Jugag”into five segments (1985, 445):

[28] This first phrase that the siter barung plays (Figure 6), which the gendèr barung does not, is not part of the pathetan proper, however, plays an important role in setting the mode. This short passage is a thinthingan—a phrase that establishes “a musical impression” of the pathet (Sri Hastanto 1985, 92). Essentially, the descending phrase outlines a note progression that marks the mode. Sri Hastanto identifies the pattern high 1, 6, 5, 3 as one of four thinthingan, which fall under the manyurå pathet family (ibid., 94). The thinthingan that the siter barung plays is an elaborated version of this descending phrase. Whilst thinthingan are usually played in lieu of a pathetan before a båwå sekar ageng, it serves to complement the pathetan in this rendition.

Figure 6. Siter barung thinthingan.

[29] The next phrase that the siter barung plays (Figure 7) marks the start of the pathetan proper. The style of playing resembles the gembyungan idiom, which the gendèr barung would usually play in a court-style pathetan. Several of the characteristics Brinner attributes to this idiom are present in this rendition: the groupings of four beats remains intact throughout the phrase; the right hand plays a repetitive pattern using adjacent pitches; and the left hand has more rhythmic freedom and a larger pitch range (1985, 274–5). This phrase matches the first segment of Brinner’s melodic framework by reiterating pitch 1. High 1 is used as a pivot note in the right hand and low 1 is emphasized in the middle of the phrase by the left hand.

Figure 7. Siter barung gembyungan 1.

[30] The gendèr barung rendition of the first segment of Brinner’s melodic framework (Figure 8), too, emphasises pitch 1, however, it is notably different from the siter barung rendition. The rhythm of the gendèr barung version is much more intricate, consisting of a lot more syncopation compared to the rhythmically straight siter barung version. However, the left hand of the siter barung makes use of a slightly larger pitch range. Also, rather than placing emphasis on the gembyang (“octave”) interval as the gendèr barung does, the recurring use of pitch 5 on the strong beats in the right hand creates a kempyung (“fifth”) interval with the resonating 1’s in the left hand. According to Javanese court standards of modal theory, the placement of this kempyung interval in this pathetan is incorrect, as it is representative of another mode in the sléndro tuning (sångå).

Figure 8. Gendèr barung gembyungan 1.

Interestingly, Perlman notes how certain village musicians invert the uses of the gembyang and kempyung intervals when playing the gendèr barung (1998, 59). In other words, playing a kempyung interval where urban/court-style musicians would play gembyang, and vice-versa, is common in some village performances. Thus, Bapak Suradi’s use of a kempyung interval on the siter barung at this point in the pathetan may be representative of his performative background in village/rural styles of Central Javanese music.

[31] In addition to discussing repeatable idioms, such as gembyungan, Brinner distinguishes between three types of non-repeatable modules that a gendèr barung might exhibit in rendering a pathetan (1985, 277). One of these idioms is called rambatan, which refers to the “creeping” up of the melodic contour (ibid., 277–8). The phrase of the siter barung rendition shown in Figure 9 resembles rambatan, as it transitions between the first and second segments of Brinner’s melodic framework. This passage contains irregular rhythmic groupings and a slightly more rhythmically varied left hand. The transition to pitch 2 is exemplified through the kempyung interval part way through the passage and the downward consecutive note progression to low 2 in the left hand.

Figure 9. Siter barung rambatan.

Figure 10. Siter barung gembyungan 2.

[32] In the passage shown in Figure 10, the siter barung reiterates pitch 2, the second segment of Brinner’s melodic framework. This is marked by a return to the gembyungan idiom, albeit played one pitch higher. This gembyungan passage is shorter than the first The left hand plays a transposed version of the same downward pattern as in the first half of the earlier gembyungan idiom.

[33] Like before, the gendèr barung rendition of the second segment of Brinner’s melodic framework(Figure 11) is more rhythmically intricate than that of the siter barung. In the gendèr barung rendition, there are only three pitch classes in the entire passage: 6, 1, and 2. This contrasts with the siter barung, which uses all five pitch classes of the tuning system (particularly in the downward consecutive note progression). The gendèr barung, too, features the kempyung interval when highlighting pitch 2, which is common practice in this context. The transition to reiterating pitch 2 is much more fluid in the gendèr barung rendition. Unlike the clear-cut rambatan and returning gembyungan phrases played by the siter barung, irregular rhythmic groupings or cadence points do not interrupt the flow of the initial gembyungan in the gendèr barung.

Figure 11. Gendèr barung gembyungan 2.

Figure 12. Siter barung descending passage.

[34] In the passage shown in Figure 12, the siter barung plays a very short phrase that exemplifies the third segment of Brinner’s melodic framework. The first half is a short transitory phrase, followed by a series of kempyung intervals. Within this phrase, the left hand plays the key pitches of the overall descent of the passage: 3, 1, and 2. None of the pitches are sustained. The arrival at the low 6, which marks the end of the third segment of Brinner’s melodic framework, is marked at the start of Figure 14.

[35] From Figure 13 onwards, the rhythm of the gendèr barung becomes more fluid than before. As Figure 13 shows, the rhythm of the gendèr barung, whilst less metrically stable, still confines itself to a regular four-beat grouping. The very end of the previous phrase (see Figure 11) featured an upward passage ending on pitch 3, which begins the third segment of Brinner’s framework. Both hands on the gendèr barung interweave with each other whilst following the overall downward melodic progression. The midpoint of the phrase, pitch 2, is clearly emphasized on the strong beat of the first half of the gendèr barung version. The phrase ends with an upward gesture from the low 3 to cadence on pitch 6.

Figure 13. Gendèr barung descending passage.

Figure 14. Siter barung reiteration of 1.

[36] The fourth segment of Brinner’s melodic framework consists of reiterating pitch 1. The siter barung does this in the passage shown in Figure 14, after having reached the low 6 (in kempyung form where the top note is 3) that ends the third segment of Brinner’s melodic framework. Again, there is an emphasis on the kempyung interval. Whilst the right hand reiterates pitch 1, the melodic progression of the left hand resembles an extension of the descending phrase from the previous passage using pitches 2, 3, and 1 (see Figure 12).

[37] The nature of pitch centering in the gendèr barung rendition is considerably different to that of the siter barung version. In the gendèr barung version of the fourth segment of Brinner’s melodic framework (Figure 15), pitch 1 is immediately sounded in the right hand at the beginning of the passage, implying a shift up a tone from the 6. Whilst the middle of the phrase, which includes a cadence on pitch 6, makes the emphasis on pitch 1 ambiguous, this is resolved at the very end of the phrase. In contrast to the siter barung, which explicitly reiterates pitch 1 (see Figure 14), the gendèr barung uses the notes around 1 to lead up and down to the pitch center.

Figure 15. Gendèr barung reiteration of 1.

Figure 16. Siter barung final descent.

[38] The final segment of Brinner’s melodic framework is a long melodic descent from pitch 2 to low 3. In the siter barung rendition (Figure 16), the passage begins with a high 2, momentarily played on the second-strongest beat. Following this, there is a cadence on a pitch 6 and a shift up to pitch 1. The phrase ends with a descent to a low 3, with a brief sustain of pitch 6. The final note of the pathetan is an ultra-low 3, a note that is out of range for most, if not all, conventional gendèr barung and gamelan siter. The first half of this phrase could be considered a continuation of the previous passage (see Figure 14), which reiterates and circles pitch 1, whereby there is a drop to pitch 6 before a final cadence on pitch 1. However, this is unlikely as there would not be a pitch 2 in the phrase before descending to low 3.

[39] The final descent in the gendèr barung rendition (Figure 17) follows Brinner’s melodic framework closely and consists of several syncopated rhythms, played in a relatively fluid manner. As shown in Figure 17, in the gender barung version, pitch 6 is only briefly sustained in the middle of the passage before the descent continues. This version of “Pathetan Sléndro Manyurå Jugag” ends with the notes 3 and high 1: a kempyung interval at an “octave’s” distance.

Figure 17. Gendèr barung final descent.

[40] Finally, Figure 18 presents the transcription of the final passage in the siter barung rendition: it comes after the pathetan proper and provides the starting notes of the båwå sekar ageng that will follow. The equivalent passage is not present in the gendèr barung rendition, as this version has been recorded in isolation, rather than within a suite of pieces.

Figure 18. Siter barung providing cue notes for the singer.

Synthesis of Analysis

[41] To summarize, the siter barung’s melodic progression closely adheres to the general framework for “Pathetan Sléndro Manyurå Jugag,”as documented by Brinner in his analysis of court-style gamelan music. Due to the brevity of this ngamen siteran rendition, some of the individual segments that Brinner identifies sometimes overlap those that precede and follow them. This is mainly due to short reiterations of pitches and quick descent passages. There are also certain modal choices that draw similarities with the rural, village style of Central Javanese performance. Nevertheless, the court-style overarching melodic framework is still clearly audible.

[42] When compared to the gendèr barung rendition of the piece, several differences in instrumental technique can be identified. The rhythm of the siter barung is much straighter and less complex than the gendèr barung. One possible reason is that the strings do not resonate for as long as the keys on the gendèr barung. This results in a variation on the gembyungan idiom that is more suitable on the siter barung. It is important to note, though, that less intricate gendèr barung renditions of this pathetan are also possible, depending on the skill level and musical background of the performer. In terms of melodic shaping, the siter barung makes use of several parallel kempyung intervals and repeated notes to reiterate pitch centers. Contrastingly, the gendèr barung rendition uses neighboring notes to lead up and down to pitch center. Furthermore, the siter barung rendition features several long consecutive note passages (especially in the left hand). This highlights a unique feature of the instrument’s construction, which boasts a larger pitch range than the gendèr barung.

[43] The siter barung rendition features more irregularities in rhythmic grouping, compared to that of the gendèr barung. Tempo-wise, the siter barung is played relatively steadily, in contrast to the gendèr barung, which is played more fluidly, especially in the second half of the performance. As the siter would not normally be played with other instruments in the performance of a pathetan, let alone lead one, the instrumentalist can probably afford to include more rhythmic irregularities, as no one is following along. On the other hand, the temporal fluidity of this gendèr barung rendition possibly reflects the nature of a standard pathetan context, where the instrumentalist would be listening for cues from other musicians to guide their musical flow.

Conclusion

[44] This unusual performance of a pathetan on a siter barung by a ngamen siteran troupe musician illustrates not only how a piece of court-style music is adapted to a busking context, but also highlights the performative idiom of the instrument in interpreting the piece. Despite the fluidity of rhythm in the pathetan genre, the renditions of “Pathetan Sléndro Manyurå Jugag” analyzed in this article can be accurately transcribed. This is possible as most temporal fluctuations fit into the standard rhythmic groupings of four beats, which is the norm in Central Javanese gamelan music. Any passages of irregular rhythmic groupings are contextualized and comprehensible within the wider melodic framework of the piece.

[45] The siter barung rendition closely adheres to the court-style melodic framework of the piece, despite its brevity and (sometimes) quick transitions between passages. There are more irregularities in rhythmic grouping and less temporal fluidity in the siter barung rendition, compared to that of the gendèr barung. In terms of instrumental technique, the siter barung adapts gendèr barung idioms common to the pathetan genre. These idioms are made more suitable for the siter barung through less use of syncopation, extended use of the kempyung interval, repeated notes and long passages of consecutive, descending notes in the left hand. The additional bass strings available on this siter barung allow the player to make extensive use of the lower register, which is not available on most conventional gendèr barung. In terms of modality, instances of the kempyung interval—where urban/court-style musicians would use a gembyang interval—act as a signifier of rural/village-style music making in the siter barung rendition.

[46] As the siter barung player is performing the pathetan alone in the ngamen siteran context, the instrumentalist can afford to demonstrate a greater level of individuality where necessary, as there are no other melodic parts following along. Thus, this rendition illustrates how such pieces from the repertoire may be interpreted on a siter barung, adapting itself in terms of melodic framework and instrumental technique. Hopefully, this study provides a model upon which instrumentalists may wish to (re)-introduce pathetan to both ngamen and court-style siteran contexts.

---

REFERENCES

The definitions of the words cokekan and siteran vary considerably and the terms can sometimes be used interchangeably. Usually, siteran ensembles only consist of zithers, drums, a gong, and singers, whilst cokekan ensembles also include one or more soft-style instruments from the gamelan ensemble. However, there are a number of records labeled siteran which include other instruments. Several examples of court-style cokekan and siteran can be found under the “Garapan/Cara” tab here:

Rekaman Gendhing Jawi. http://dustyfeet.com/lagu/index.php. Accessed 23 October 2021.

---

Glossary of Specialist Terminology

This is a basic glossary of all specialist terminology/non-English words used in this article. All terms refer to Central Javanese music, unless otherwise stated.

Ageng	A type of pathetan (in the context of this article)
Alap	Unmetered section of North Indian classical music
Andhegan	Classical form of Central Javanese music
Balungan	Melodic framework
Barang	A mode of the pélog tuning
Bukå	Introduction
Båwå Sekar Ageng	Sung introduction, usually by a male
Cokekan	Itinerant musicians or
	Court-style siteran ensembles that include one or several of the soft-style instruments from the gamelan ensemble
Colotomy	Punctuation cycles
Density referent	The highest level of rhythmic density
Dhalang	Puppet master
Gambang	Xylophone
Gamelan	Traditional court music of Central Java. Ensemble consisting of gong-chime instruments, drums, zithers, bowed lute & flute
Ganti Slenthem	Technique where siter barung plays the balungan
Gembyang	“Octave” interval
Gembyungan	Musical idiom found in pathetan
Gendhing	A large piece from the karawitan repertoire
Gendèr Barung	Large Javanese metallophone
Grambyangan	Short series of melodic units that indicate the mode before a piece starts
Jineman	Classical form of Central Javanese music
Jugag	A short version of a pathetan
Karawitan	Traditional repertoire of the Central Javanese gamelan
Kempyung	“Fifth” interval
Kepatihan	Javanese cipher notation
Klenèngan	Concert/instrumental music
Lagu Kreasi Baru	Newly composed songs
Langgam	Classical form of Central Javanese music
Limå	A mode of the pélog tuning
Lomba Siteran	Siteran competitions
Manyurå	A mode of the sléndro tuning
Nem	A mode of the sléndro and pélog tunings
Ngamen	Buskers/street musicians
Ngamen Siteran	Siteran, as performed by buskers/street musicians
Ngelik	A type of pathetan (in the context of this article)
Palaran	Classical form of Central Javanese music
Pathet	Mode
Pathetan	Classical form of Central Javanese music
Pélog	Javanese tuning system
Rambatan	Musical idiom found in pathetan
Rebab	Javanese bowed lute
Siter	Javanese plucked zither
Siter Barung	Large Javanese plucked zither
Siteran	A small ensemble that typically consists of one or two zithers, double-headed drum, portable gong and a flexible number of singers
Sléndro	Javanese tuning system
Sångå	A mode of the sléndro tuning
Suling	End-blown flute
Taqsim	Unmetered, improvisational section of Arabic/Middle Eastern music
Tarian	Dance performance
Thinthingan	A short phrase that establishes a musical impression of the pathet
Wantah	A long version of a pathetan
Wayang Kulit	Javanese shadow puppetry

---

[1]. A glossary is provided at the end of the article for all non-English words and specialist terminology.

[2]. This topic has been explored in more depth and detail in Brinner’s large-scale study (1985).

[3]. These six modes are split across two tuning systems: pélog (barang, nem, limå) and sléndro (manyurå, sångå, nem).

[4]. In other contexts, gendhing could refer to any piece of music for the gamelan, a particular section of a large piece of music, or a multitude of miscellaneous, seldom-used definitions.

[5]. In another context, cokekan may refer to a court-style siteran ensemble that includes one, or several, of the soft-style instruments from the gamelan ensemble.

[6]. Illustrative discography is provided at the end of the article.

[7]. Note that the word cokekan is used here in another context to which Walton uses the words to refer to the ensemble Ngudi Laras.

[8]. There are several types of pathetan, such as jugag, wantah, ngelik, ageng, and others. These are extrapolated on in greater in detail in Brinner 1985. However, for the purposes of this article, it is sufficient to know that the shorter jugag version is an abbreviation of the larger wantah version.