A Retrospect on a Century of Gamelan Tone Measurements
Author(s): Roger Vetter
Source: Ethnomusicology, Vol. 33, No. 2, (Spring - Summer, 1989), pp. 217-227
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of Society for Ethnomusicology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/924396
Accessed: 17/05/2008 09:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
VOL 33, No. 2
ETHNOMUSICOLOGY
SPRING/SUMMER
1989
A Retrospecton a Centuryof
GamelanTone Measurements
ROGERVETTER
GRINNELLCOLLEGE
lexander Ellis's well-known work on tone measurements of "exotic"
cales, published in 1884, has had a profound effect on the field of
ethnomusicology. Over the past century comparative musicologists and
ethnomusicologists have made extensive use of the system of cents, first
introduced in Ellis's 1884 publication, to represent and to conceptualize
the intervallic structure of nonharmonic scales in a scientifically objective
manner. The mathematicalpurity of this technology, if I may label the cents
system as such, has lent itself particularlywell to the comparative study of
the tuning systems of peoples living far apart in time and space. An ever
increasing data base of tone measurements and the application of the cents
technology to it stimulated provocative---even controversial-comparative
studies such as Hornbostel's theory of blown fifthsI and A. M.Jones's speculation on Indonesian colonization of parts of Africa (Jones 1961, 1964).2
Among the instruments that Ellis used to demonstrate the cents system
in his original study were instruments from a Javanese gamelan. I would
guess that Ellis's cents technology has been applied in the writings on
Javanese music to a greater degree than in the literature on any other single
tradition.This is perhaps due to the coexistence of two distinct, nonharmonic
tuning systems in Javanese music which themselves are not standards, but
concepts or models. When slkndro, an anhemitonic pentatonic tuning, and
pclog, which is heptatonic, are realized in the tunings of gamelan sets,
numerous manifestationsof each tuning concept are met with. The existence
'Hornbostel's most definitive statement of his theory is to be found in Geiger and Scheel's
Handbuch der Physik (Hornbostel 1927:425-49). Several of his contemporaries and students,
including Lachmann,Sachs, Schneider, and Kunst, also published works that involved partial
statements of the theory. For a summary of this literature see Kunst (1973:25).
2Some 50 years before Jones's presentation of this theory, Hornbostel (1911:610) proposed
Indonesian and Africancontacts based on tone measurement data.Kunst(1936) furtherdevelops
Hornbostel's idea with a greater amount of tone measurement data.
217
218
Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1989
of hundreds of interpretations of each of two tuning concepts is going to
be, quite naturally,of great interest to ethnomusicologists who, armed with
the technology inherited from Ellis, have given much energy to the explication of this musicological curiosity. The roster of scholars involved in this
area of investigation includes Kunst (1973 [1934, 1949]), Bukofzer (1944),
Jones (1963), Lentz (1965), Hood (1966), Surjodiningratet al. (1972 [1969]),
and Rahn (1978). Many more scholars would be included in this list if we
were to consider the two neighboring traditions of Bali and Sunda (West
Java).
In 1983, while carrying out research in CentralJava, I commissioned a
double gamelan, one set tuned to slndro, the other to p6log. Much of the
construction, and all of the tuning, took place in the back yard of my house.
Since my research activityat thattime had nothing to do with the construction
and tuning of this gamelan, I did not take full advantage of the situation by
carefully documenting the tuning of the gamelan. However, I was present
during most of the work and do remember much of what transpired. It
wasn't until a few years later that my awareness of the literature on Javanese
tuning systems, my experience of observing a gamelan being made and
tuned, and the centennial of Ellis's cents technology converged in my mind.
Centennials being appropriate times for retrospection, I began thinking
about how Javanese tunings have been treated in the literature and how
the tuner of my gamelan went about his task. As a result I noticed two very
different, if not mutually exclusive, perspectives on tuning; these two perspectives, described below, are what I shall consider in the remainder of
this paper:
1) Ellis'scent systemhas encouragedan approachto the studyof nonharmonic
tuningsystemsin generaland of Javanesetuningsystemsin particularthat
as scientificandspeculative,for it dealswiththe analysis
canbe characterized
of numericaldatageneratedfromtone measurementsof artifacts,i.e., fullytuned gamelansets.
2) Throughthe ethnography-based
study of tuners in the actualprocess of
tuning,we mightcome to a totallydifferentperspectiveon gamelantuning
thanhasbeen affordedus bytheexistingliteraturedealingwiththattopic.
Whathave we learned aboutJavanesetuning systems from the published
literature?We have learned, indeed, thatthere are numerous interpretations
of slndro andpilog. This point is clearly demonstrated in tables of frequency
measurements and cents calculations of several gamelan sets published in
the 1930s by Kunst(1973 [1934,1949]) and in the late 1960s by Surjodiningrat
and his associates (Surjodiningratet al. 1972 [1969]).3We have also learned
from Hood (1966), whose conclusions were reinforced by Surjodiningrat
et al. (1972), that the tuning of a gamelan is more complex than can be
represented by measurements of a single-octave instrument from any given
A Retrospecton a Centuryof GamelanToneMeasurements
219
gamelan. Hood concludes, from detailed measurements of four gamelan
sets (two tuned to sldndro, two to pdlog), that octaves within the total
six-octave range of the gamelan are consciously stretched and compressed
by a tuner (Hood 1966:36-37).
Other scholars have made use of tone measurements found in the
above-mentioned works to fashion or support theories of tuning. Kunst, a
firm supporter of Hornbostel's theory of blown fifths, went to great lengths
to illustrate that various sldndro and pilog realizations could be derived in
some regular manner from the 23-intervalcycle of blown fifths (Kunst 1948).
Bukofzer (1944) concludes, from carefully selected sets of tone measurements taken from Kunst (1973 [1934, 1949]), that the p6log system is the
older of the two Javanese tuning concepts, and that the slndro system was
derived by selecting five tones from the completep6log scale. More recently,
Jay Rahn (1978) presents a theory thatpilog tunings can best be predicted
with an equidistant nine tone system with intervals of 133 cents each. Jones
(1963), also looking for uniformities in pilog tunings, proposes thatpilog
tunings consist of six relatively fixed intervals that move up or down as a
group in relation to the scale degree pilog (degree 4). On the other side
of the coin, Donald Lentz(1965) proposes thatJavanese and Balinese tunings,
unlike Hindu and Chinese tuning systems, are atheoretical and do not have
their roots in ordered and demonstrable acoustical phenomena.
On the surface, many of these theories are convincing. Theories expressed in the mathematical purity of numbers take on a logic of their own
andcarrygreatvalidityfor us.Theresultsof suchinquiriesare oftenthought
provokingand imaginative.But a number of aspects about these studies
have come to bother me for the followingreasons:
1) Theydeal only with the productof tuningand not with the individualswho
do the tuning.It is not uncommonfor authorsin these studiesto implyor
say outrightthat the tuner'sintent was to produce this or that intervallic
pattern,even though the writershad no contactor communicationwith a
tuner.
2) They all treatgamelan tone measurements as some sort of sacred and unvarying "truth."In reality, the embat, or intervallic structure, of a given gamelan
3Thevalidityof the dataderivedfromtone measurementsof idiophones(in particularmetallophones, xylophones,and gongs) itself has come into question recentlyby the German
musicologistAlbrechtSchneider(1988).He pointsout thatspectralanalysisof tones produced
on suchinstruments
showno clearlydiscerniblefundamental
buta ratherdenseandinharmonious spectrumthatgives rise to "auditoryuncertainty."
As a result,datageneratedby the use
of standardethnomusicologicaltone-measuringequipment,both past (the monochord)and
present (strobo-tuners),may produce erroneous results.The ramificationsof Schneider's
researchon our interpretation
of the theoriesaboutJavanese
tuningunderdiscussionpresently
are great.
220
Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1989
evolves throughthatset'sexistence.Differenttunersworkon it andimpose
of the tuningconcepts on the tuningof the set.
their own interpretations
Tone measurementsof the set only representthe tuningof a gamelanatthe
moment of measurementand do not take into considerationthe random
changesof pitchintroducedby the naturalagingof materialssuchas bronze,
or the consciouschangesintroducedby tuners.
3) There are gross inconsistenciesin the treatmentof the numericaldataby
the authorsof tuning studies.Withina given gamelan the most minute
discrepenciesare interpretedas significant(even thoughthey mightnot be
audiblyperceptible),while when comparingthe tuningof one gamelanto
that of another,or to thatof a SouthAmericanpanpipe,the authorsthink
nothingof overlookingdiscrepenciesof 20 or 30 cents.Theyarenot dealing
with tuningas an artisticandfunctionalaspectof musicalbehavior,theyare
dealingwith it all too often as abstractnumbers.
Rather than pursuing in greater detail the methodological and conceptual merits and shortcomings of the above-mentioned literature and the
ways in which the cents technology has encouraged such approaches, I will
suggest future avenues of research that might lead us to a more thorough
understanding of the Javanese perspective on gamelan tuning. Towards this
end I will present some views about tuning as expressed by Javanese musicians and share some observations about the tuning of the gamelan I commissioned.
HardjaSusilo, aJavanese musician and ethnomusicologist at the University of Hawaii, made the following statement in response to what he felt
was Kunst'soverly cerebral treatment ofJavanese tuning in the third edition
of Music in Java (Kunst 1973):
Javanesemusicalculturetoleratesmore variantsof tuningsystemsthanthatof
the west.Whentalkingaboutembat,i.e., intervallicrelationships,one mayhear
such remarksas mbotensekica (not comfortable),kirang sekkca(not quite
comfortable),langkungsekkca(more comfortable),sekica (comfortable),and
sek6casanget(verycomfortable),as opposedto thewesternway,whichdifferentiatesrightfromwrong.(Susilo 1975:62)
This is a very different way of describing gamelan tunings, and immediately
brings forth the question: What is meant by the word "sekdca"("comfortable")? I believe Susilo is referring to what is musically comfortable, i.e.,
what features of a given realization of slindro or pilog work successfully
to accommodate in an aesthetically pleasing way a wide variety of musical
circumstances inherent to gamelan performance practice.
It was not until a very few years ago that a more indigenously Javanese
perspective on tuning surfaced in the literature. In his dissertation on
Javanese vocal music, MartinHatch (1980) begins to uncover some of the
mysteries of gamelan tuning as explained to him by a respected Javanese
musician-theoretician, the late R. L. Martopangrawit.Although far too cornm-
A Retrospecton a Centuryof Gamelan ToneMeasurements
221
plex to go into detail here, the crux of the matteris thatJavanesevocal
music is mode-lesswhile gamelanmusic is modal.To retaina vocally"comfortable"intervalstructurein more than one mode in the fixed-pitchenvironment of a gamelantuning is basicallyimpossible.Thus, compromises
are sought in, and ambiguitiesworked into, instrumentaltuningsto allow
vocaliststo retain their "natural"intervallicstructure(i.e., the intervallic
patternthey would use when singing unaccompanied)while singingwith
a gamelan.Hatch'sdiscussion,interestinglyenough, incorporatesillustrations of relativeintervalsizes expressed in terms of "small-,""smallplus-,"
and "medium-"sized
intervals,ratherthan in precise cents measurements.
Itwas in suchtermsthatthe tuningtheorywasexplainedto himbyMartopangrawit.
Both Susilo'sstatementand Martopangrawit's
theory as presented by
Hatchseem to implythatthe evaluationof a tuning,andprobablythe process
of creatingone as well, is deeply rooted in musicalconcerns ratherthan
in a theoreticalsystembasedon orderlyacousticalrelationships.Myexperience of watchingthe constructionandtuningof mygamelanwould support
this view. In the followingparagraphsI will describethe tuningprocess in
some detail.The intentionbehindthis descriptionis to point out the potentialitiesof researchingthe process of tuningand the tuner himself.
The firststep in puttingmy gamelantogetherwas the orderingof the
gong (gong ageng, gong suwukan,and kempul)and gong chime (bonang
barungandbonangpanerus)instrumentsfromagamelansmithspecializing
in the makingof iron gamelans.4Mytuner visited the gong smith before
productioncommenced. At that time the tuner's only concern was the
absolute pitch of the tumbuk,or common tone, between the sl&ndroand
pilog tuningsof a double gamelan.The absoluteplacementof thatpitch is
importantbecause it will determinehow well the ambitusof the gamelan
will complementthatof Javanesesingers.The gamelansmithplayedfor the
tuner a commercialcassetteof the gamelanused at the governmentradio
station,Radio RepublikIndonesia Yogyakarta.This cassettewas what the
gong smith used as his tuningguide. He would tryto replicate,by ear, the
4The favored, and most expensive, material of construction for the gongs and keys of a gamelan
is of course bronze. Financialconstraints necessitated my choice of iron over bronze. Although
bronze instruments produce a richer tone that is more appealing to the Javanese than the tone
of instruments made from iron, iron instruments, and especially iron gongs, are much easier
to tune than their bronze counterparts.The pitch of an iron gong can be adjusted up or down
with ease and little risk of permanent damage by cold hammering; bronze gongs can have
their pitch altered by hammering, which could result in cracking the gong, or by scraping,
which permanently removes metal and reduces a tuner's options for future pitch adjustments.
I would suspect that the approach a tuner uses in the tuning of an iron gamelan would be
somewhat different from that he would use in the tuning of a bronze gamelan because of the
difficulties and risks involved in adjusting the pitch of bronze gongs.
222
Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1989
tuning of the gamelan on the cassette. My tuner said that the tumbuk was
fine, and asked the gong smith to replicate that pitch. At that time, the tuner
was basically unconcerned about the rest of the tones in the two tuning
systems.
When, several weeks later, the gongs were finished, the tuner was
satisfied with the common tone. In fact, that tone was the only one he
requested to hear; he was not even interested in hearing the slkndro and
pilog scales to which the smith had tuned the gongs as a set. The tuner did,
however, ask to hear the gong ageng, the largest and lowest-pitched gong
in a gamelan, in relation to the tumbuk. He was not satisfied with the gong
ageng that was made for my gamelan, and asked to hear two other gong
ageng that he saw in the room. One of these did satisfy him, and it was
quickly agreed that it would be substituted for the one originally assigned
to the gongs I had ordered. When I later questioned my tuner about his
choice, he remarked that he wanted the gong ageng to be tuned to the
scale degree just below the tumbuk in the sldndro scale (the tumbuk in my
gamelan is the scale degree nem, or 6, in both slOndro and pilog tunings,
so the gong ageng would be tuned to slndro lima, or 5), which also
coincided with the pitch two scale degrees below the tumbuk in the pilog
scale (with the note name "pilog," carrying the cipher designation 4). He
also mentioned that the ombak (lit.: "wave,"i.e., the amplitude and speed
of the vibrato built into a gong's sound) of the first gong ageng was not
satisfying.The ombak of the gong he selected was not perfect, but lumayan
(adequate, reasonably satisfactory). However, his concern with the gong's
ombak was secondary to that of its pitch.
Afterarranging for transportationto carrythe 63 newly acquired gongs
to my house, two makeshift bonang racks were constructed by pounding
bamboo stakes into the ground and tying strands of plastic raffia to them
to simulate the ropes upon which the bonang kettles rest on a real rancakan
(casing). The tuner then placed the gongs of the p6log bonang barung on
one of the racks and started playing the appropriate part for that instrument
for several pieces. He would frequently stop, lift up one of the gongs, and
adjust its pitch by pounding on it from its inside or top with the butt of a
hammer.5 He played parts both for pieces using the bem scale (a pentatonic
selection from the totalpilog scale, consisting of degrees 1-2-3-5-6) and the
barang scale (another pentatonic selection, degrees 7-2-3-5-6). He paid
special attention to pitch 2, adjusting it up and down several times and
explaining to me that it was difficult to position that particularpitch so that
5By cold hammering the flat surface (rai) around the knob (pencu) of a gong from the top
the pitch of the gong is lowered. The pitch can be raised by hammering the same surface
from the inside of the gong.
A Retrospecton a Centuryof GamelanToneMeasurements
223
it would sound right going to both pitch 1 and 7. Placing pitch 2 to sound
natural going to pitch 1 in pieces using the pilog bem scale, and placing
barang pieces, would be
pitch 2 to sound correct going to pitch 7 in
p.log
for
if
had
each
scale. But, since one
separate pilog gamelans
easy you
gamelanis used to playgendhing (gamelanpieces) in both scales, partof
the tuner's task is to work out some sort of compromise with the placement
of plog pitch 2 so that it can be almost right for gendhing in both pdlog
bem andp6log barang.
This process of makingsubtle adjustmentsto the tuningthathad been
given to the p6log bonang barung by the gong smith went on for well over
an hour before my tuner was satisfied with the tuning of this one instrument.
He then proceeded to retune the p6log bonangpanerus in accordance with
the bonang barung and then spent a long time playing bonang barung
parts for sl6ndro gendhing and adjusting pitches on the slndro bonang
barung. When he was satisfied with the tuning of the sl6ndro bonang
barung, he then tuned the sllndro bonang panerus. The tuner and his
main assistant then played several gendhing from both tuning systems, the
tuner playingthe bonang barung part,the assistantthe bonangpanerus
part.Satisfiedwith the results,he said these instrumentswould serve as his
baku (lit.:"base"or "foundation")
tuninguntilthe keysfor the multi-octave
metallophonescalledgend'r barung were made.
In a double gamelan there are three gend&rbarung, one tuned to
sl&ndro,and one each to the pentatonicpilog scales,p6log bem andp6log
barang. As the keys for each of these gend&rswere finished,they were
tuned by filing and cold hammeringto the tunings of the gong chimes.
Over the ensuingseveralweeks the tunerspent manyhourson each of the
three sets of gend&rkeys playingcharacteristictwo-partmelodic formulae
and isolatedoctavesandfifths.He would constantlymakesubtlepitchadjustments by cold hammeringthe keys. At one point in this process I had
noticed thatthe intervalon the slWndro
gend&rbetween the tone abovethe
tumbuk(slkndropitchbarang,withthe cipher1) in the instrument'smiddle
octave and that same tone an octave above was excruciatinglywide. The
next day I asked the tuner about that octave. He said he was eventually
going to narrowthatinterval,althoughnot to a perfectoctave.Thatoctave,
he said,had to be somewhatout of tune in orderto makethe overalltuning
work comfortably,i.e., musically,in all of the modes (pathet)of the slndro
tuning.In other words,he was againconsciouslyintroducingan ambiguity
into the instrumentaltuningto make it musically,and, perhapsmore specifically,vocally,comfortablefor performancein a varietyof musicalsituations.
Once the three gend&rwere tuned to his satisfaction,work proceded
on the tuning of the rest of the metallophones(slenthem,saron demung,
224
Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1989
saron barung, peking, and the kenong rent&ng6),all of them single octave,
and the xylophones (gambang), which cover a range of nearly four octaves.
The lowest-register single-octave metallophones were tuned to the lowest
octave of the gendbr, and the middle-register metallophones to the middle
octave of the gend&r.Successively higher octaves were tuned to the upper
octave of the gendr (which is incomplete, including only scale degrees
1-2-3) or octave duplications of tones from the middle register (degrees 5
and 6). In other words, any ambiguities or compromises worked into the
tunings of the gendrs were replicated in the corresponding octaves of the
other instruments.
Once all of the keyed instruments were tuned, the tuner returned to
the gong chimes and retuned them to the final embat worked out on the
gend&rs.The final instruments to be tuned were the larger-sized gongs (the
gong suwukan and the kempul). The gong ageng, which the tuner had so
carefully selected several months earlier, did not require any adjustment to
its tuning.
Throughout the tuning process the tuner never used any sort of tonemeasuring equipment, nor did he consult a sound recording, an instrument
from another gamelan, or any other pitch standardor model. The only pitch
which remained unaltered throughout the entire construction and tuning
process was the tumbuk, the pitch 6 of both the sl&ndroandpilog systems.
The tuner seemed alwaysconcerned with seeking comfortable compromises
between vying musical considerations. The importance of "process" in the
tuning of my gamelan was made clear when the tuner returned to the
bonang barung and bonangpanerus, his original baku, after tuning all the
metallophones. He had to make minor adjustments to the tuning of the
majorityof those gongs to bring them in line with the final solution he had
arrived at on the gendcrs.
In retrospect, I find intriguing and well worth further investigation
certain aspects of the tuning process I witnessed:
1) It would seem in the case of my gamelanthattuningsdo not begin from
theories expressedin frequencyratiosor some other acousticalconstruct.
Rather,they seem to begin from the tuningof anothergamelan.For my
gamelan,it wasthe tuningof the localradio'station
gamelanas approximated
by the gamelansmithfroma commercialcassette.
2) A tunerdoes not begin with a hardand fastidea of the end product.If he
did, all gamelanstuned by him would likelyend up with the same embat.
Rather,he workson refiningthe existingtuningof a gamelanto makeit as
(froma musicalstandpoint)as possible.
"sekeca,"or "comfortable"
6The kenong rent&ngis a keyed version of the kenong, which is a gong instrument. The keys
of a kenong rEnt~ng are about the same size as those of the slenthem, but have knobs raised
at their center.
A Retrospecton a Century of Gamelan Tone Measurements
225
3) The evaluationof the tuning by playingappropriatemelodic patternson
instruments,especiallyon thegendir, illustratesthata basicconcernon the
partof the tuneris thatthe tuningworksmusically,not mathematically.
4) Tunersthemselvesconstitutean aspectof tuningthatdeservesfurtherstudy.
is the head musician
The tunerof my gamelan,RadenRiyoMangkuasmara,
where he is also responsiblefor mainin the sultan'spalaceof Yogyakarta,
taining the tunings of the palace's 18 gamelansets (these are all single
gamelans,tuned either to sldndro or to pl1og). He is a competent and
practicingmusician.I would be curious to know if most tunerswho are
considered good by peer concensus are active musicians,or if they are
craftsmenworkingin the professionof gamelanconstruction.Aninteresting
side note to this is thatwhen tuningpalacegamelans,R R Mangkuasmara
nevertouchesthe instrumentsthemselves.He listens,then instructsan assistant,who is an apprenticegong smith,as to whetherthe pitchof a gong or
key needs to be raisedor lowered.It would seem that,at least in his case,
decisionsandstrategiesthatemerge
the artof tuninginvolvesmusically-based
from yearsof performanceexperience.Formost gamelansmithsand merchants,I wouldguess thattuninginvolveslittleor no knowledgeof performance considerations,only approximationof "in-house"models.7
5) As for discrepanciesfound between individualtones in differentoctavesof
the samegamelan,it wouldbe usefulto questiontunersas to whetherthese
are intentional,accidental,or insignificant.Giventhe natureof the materials
from whichgamelansare made,the tools and the level of technologyused
in their tuning,and the fact that they are tuned totallyby ear, I question
how farwe shouldallowour theoreticalanalysesof tone measurementdata
to go withoutconsideringat some point the tuners themselves.I do not
thinkit is wrongto speculatefromscientificallygathereddata,but I do think
it questionablewhen ethnomusicologists,in their generationof theories,
almosttotallyignorethe indigenousperspective.I thinkwe need some sort
of balancein our methodology.
Gamelan tuning, especially when executed by a tuner who is an accomplished musician, is a process guided by musical sensibilities and experience. An understanding of this process cannot be fully extrapolated from
the analysis of tone-measurement data generated from finished products,
that is, fully-tuned gamelans. If we are seeking an understanding ofJavanese
tuning, I think we will eventually have to study tuners in action, not just
tunings. We will have to consider what musical and technological concerns
and constraints come to bear upon the tuner during the process of creating
7For instance, just south of the city of Yogyakarta,in the village of Peleman, lives the well-to-do
gamelan merchant Pak Dermo. At his house, someone wishing to purchase, for example, a
gend&rtuned to slndro can choose from several instruments tuned, for all intents and purposes,
identically. He also sells entire gamelan, consisting for the most part of keys and gongs which
originated from several gamelan he has purchased. I would not be surprised if these were
tuned alike by his craftsmen following some house standard.In any case, PakDermo, a former
ox-cart driver, most certainly does not do the tuning himself, for he told me that he does not
know how to perform gamelan music and that he is not musical.
226
Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1989
a tuningor while alteringan existingone. For methodologicalinspiration
we mightlook to Wachsmann's
documentationof the tuningof an Ugandan
andto Berliner'sdocumentationof the con(Wachsmann
1957)8
xylophone
structionand tuningof a Shonambira(Berliner1980).9We mighthaveto
accept the fact thatthe Javanesetuningconcepts of slndro andpilog do
not lend themselvesto be understoodin termsof centsalone.Ourcontinued
effortsto reduceJavanesetuningsto numericalrepresentationsand subject
them to Westernpatternsof analyticallogic, regardlessof how fruitfulthese
avenuesof investigationmayprove to be, will add little to our knowledge
of the culturallysignificantfactorsthatsurroundthe art of tuningin Java.
If, duringthe next century,tunersbecome the focus of our investigations
of Javanesetone systems,perhapsnew insightsinto the mysteriesof sldndro
andp6log and theirplace withinthe greatercoherence of gamelanperformanceaestheticswill surface.
REFERENCES
Berliner, Paul
1980 "JohnKunaka,Mbira Maker."African Arts 14/1:61-67.
Bukofzer, Manfred F.
1944 "The Evolution of Javanese Tone-systems." In Papers Read at the International
Congress of Musicology Held at New York,September 11th to 16th, 1939, ed. A.
Mendel, G. Reese, and G. Chase,241-50. New York:AmericanMusicological Society.
Ellis, A. J.
1884 "TonometricalObservations on Some Existing Nonharmonic MusicalScales."Proceedings of the Royal Society 37:368-85.
Hatch, MartinF.
1980 "Lagu, Laras,Layang:Rethinking Melody in Javanese Music." Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University.
Hood, Mantle
1966 "Slendro and Pelog Redefined;Witha Note on LaboratoryMethods,by MaxHarrell."
Selected Reports in Ethnomusicology 1/1:28-48.
documentedthe fine-tuningof a newly constructedamadinda xylophoneby
8Wachsmann
takingtone measurementsbefore the tuningprocessbeganand of everyalterationmadeby
the tunerin his searchfor a satisfyingproduct.Commentsmade by the tunerand othersin
attendancewere recordedas well. One can clearlyfollow how the tuner createsthe final
productby scrutinizingintervalsmelodicallyandharmonically
(in octaves).Thetuningproceduredocumentedby Wachsmann
is uncannilysimilarto the one I witnessedduringthe tuning
of mygamelan,fromthe natureof thetuningsystem(anunstandardized
anhemitonicpentatonic
scale) to the criteriafor makingalterationsto the pitchesof individualkeysandthe meansof
evaluatingthe results.
9Although
presentedin moregeneraltermsthanWachsmann's
studyandwithouttonemeasurements, Berliner'saccountgives one a good perspectiveon the close relationshipbetween
tuningand the process of construction.Berlinerpointsout thatan mbiramakeronce made
111 tuningchecks,mostlyby ear ratherthanby comparisonto a model,duringa singlestage
in the constructionof an mbira(Berliner1980:66).
A Retrospecton a Century of Gamelan Tone Measurements
227
Hornbostel, E. M. von
1911 "Ober ein akustisches Kriterium fiir KulturzusammenhAinge."Zeitschrift fifr
Ethnologie 43:601-15.
1927 "MusikalischeTonsysteme." In Handbuch der Physik, ed. H. Geiger and K Scheel,
vol. 8:425-49. Berlin: Springer.
Jones, A. M.
1961 "Indonesia and Africa:The Xylophone as a Culture-indicator."African Music 2/3:3647.
1963 'Towards anAssessment of theJavanese Pelog Scale."Ethnomusicology 7/1:22-25.
1964 Africa and Indonesia: The Evidence of the Xylophone and Other Musical and
Cultural Factors. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Kunst,Jaap
1936 "AMusicologicalArgument for CulturalRelationshipbetween Indonesia--Probably
the Isle of Java-and CentralAfrica."Proceedings of the Musical Association 62:5776. Also appears in German in Anthropos 31:131-40.
1948 Around von Hornbostel's Theory of the Cycle of Blown Fifths.Amsterdam: Royal
Institute for the Indies, Mededeling 76.
1973 Music in Java. 3rd ed., enl. Ed. E. L. Heins. The Hague: MartinusNijhoff. (1st ed.,
1934; 2nd ed., 1949.)
Lentz, Donald
1965 The Gamelan Music of Java and Bali: An Artistic Anomaly Complimentary to
Primary Tonal Theoretical Systems. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Rahn,Jay
1978 "JavanesePelog Tunings Reconsidered." Yearbookof the International Folk Music
Council 10:69-82.
Schneider, Albrecht
1988 "PsychologicalTheory and Comparative Musicology." Paper presented at the History of Ethnomusicology Conference, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
April 14-17.
Surjodiningrat,Wasisto, et al.
1972 Tone Measurements of Outstanding Javanese Gamelans in Jogjakarta and
Surakarta. 2nd ed., rev. Jogjakarta:Gadjah Mada University Press. (1st ed., in
Indonesian, 1969)
Susilo, Hardja
1975 Review of Music in Java, 3rd ed. by Jaap Kunst.Asian Music 7/1:58-68.
Wachsmann, Klaus
1957 "AStudy of Norms in the Tribal Music of Uganda."Ethnomusicology 1/11:9-16.