For better understanding of the role of the “Ukrainian Folk Melodies” (1922) it’s important to take into consideration the understanding by Kvitka of his own role in the common investigation work on a historical problematic. His work he jugged as a part of collective forces work of the representatives of various historical disciplines who studied traditional culture. Such feeling of you as part of a greater team created high self demanding ethic standards to performed work.
The scientific level of Kvitka’s collection and many of its particularities are stipulated first of all by his personality, his high level of culture, professionalism, and spirituality. This collection is a designative memorial of Ukrainian folkloristic. It’s the last fundamental edition of Ukrainian folklore, were materials were collected only by hearing meaning. Kvitka’s collection summarizes practical and
methodical achievements of the hearing recordings era. And at least, one of its great characteristics is chrestomathy content. This collection even today is an important source for the study of Ukrainian music, which presents in a fullest way not only genres and themes but widest territories as well.
2. K. Kvitka’s “Commentary” to the Collection of “Ukrainian Folk Melodies”
Scientific society appreciates K. Kvitka first of all as a great theoretician. But K. Kvitka worked not only on the theory of ethnomusicology he tried to improve its documentary foundation. The idea of “Commentary” was bom as a wish to present to the public self critical report devoted to these topics.
The theme of the “Commentary” is devoted to two main topics: observation during the field work and methods of the critical-textological analyses of the musical notes. First group includes notes about the field work, observations about performance of the representatives from different social groups including observations over their timbres, voice creation, dynamic plans, attitude toward the song, intonation, defectology of the performance and recording, rhythmic, form, variation. The changing nature of all the described components is forming specific attitude toward the song as to the motion object. But such “motion” can could come to life without turning into amorphousness the feeling of the performer should be based on some invariants. K. Kvitka considered archetype to be one of the basic invariants. Kvitka found his way to the archetype through modeling of the sinning type. K. Kvitka’s theoretical and textological investigations are based on the discovery of the song types and their comparative analyses: he was looking for their formation, branching (“divergence”, as he called it), and their spread (on the territory of the certain ethnos and among other related, cultures).
Typology in “Commentary” is one of the main research tools. Most consistently and perfectly its have been used in two asses about “Recruit song” (chapters 4, 5 of the “Commentary”). Typological approach is also spread by K. Kvitka on the recoding of the melody. The accuracy of the notes fixation and historical documentation of the folk music are distinguished not only by attention to the details
(melizms, prolongations-abbreviations, deviations of intonation), but mainly by the collector’s understanding of stanza and syllable forms of a certain type of the song. From this point of view showy would be comparative analyses of the song variants № 627 (525) “Why sun don’t you drink” (see “Commentary” chapter 12, № № 104-k, 105k) recordings done by Mykola Kharzevskyi and Filaret Kolessa, the involvement in this analyses as a “model” of the recording done by Osyp Rozdolsky – Stanislav Lyudkevych (№ 107-k). The same type of the analyses is concerning song “Sorrow, my sorrow” in the recordings done by M.Lysenko and K. Kvitka (see “Commentary” chapter 18, № № 140-k, 141-k). Based on his own observations K. Kvitka made an assumption about two possible approaches to the note writing: structural-typological (Lysenko, Lyudkevych, Kolessa) and empirical (Kharzevskyi, Kvitka). First one is oriented towards the discovery of the archetypical regularities of the structure. The second one is oriented towards reflection of maximum individual particularities of the rhythmic, accord, intonation, dynamics, etc.).
In order to figure out the type of the song K. Kvitka addresses the issue of the modeling – in particular, the modeling of the syllable form – an operation which he called “unloading of thestanza”. During the discussion of this topic Kvitka is adopting the terms syllable counting norm and deviation from the norm. In the “Commentary” K. Kvitka finished substantiation of the rhythmicstructural typology theory. Its foundation create four modeling operations of the archetypical “norm” of the song stanza: 1) Straightening of the puncture rhythms; 2) Pause including into the summery length of the syllable notes; 3) “unloading” of the amplicific (prologue sinning) up to the level of the syllable counting norm. It’s done by the removing of the “extra” syllables of the text. 4) An attempt, to turn the prologue melodic singing into an ordinary (Kvitka’s term for norm) rhythmic length. Most consistently and fully this methodic was applied in the “Commentary” in two assays about “Recruit song”. First is the analyses of the variants with the structure 4+4+6 (“The River is floating but a small one”), the second one is the analyses of the variants with the structure – 4+4 (“Oh, nobody has a pear”).
Some of investigative, critical and textological observations done by K. Kvitka are concerning defectology of performance. They are not always separable from general problems of rhythmic-structural typology (and not necessary as well because Kvitka’s defectology is
based on the rhythmic-structural modeling). Thus, the aspects pf defectology (of performance and recording) are main part of the theory of rhythmic-structural typology.
Deficiencies of the recording are not always the result of the mistakes of the decoder. Sometimes during the fixation the defect of the performance can be recorded automatically. The problems of defectology became especially important during the audio recordings era. When the singer could repeat many times the same fragments of the song (during the recordings from the voice), folklorist had a chance to get oriented, to figure out “typological” from the accidental. Modem recording technology, usually, fixes one time performance often done without a preliminary sinning (recollection). As a result we have a “audio document” which contains not only typical features of the form but also accidentals, mistakes.
Observations done over the defectology are quite numerous in a “Commentary”. Especially important, as it seems to us, is Kvitka’s attitude toward defective performance and the solution he gives for the use of such recordings for the historical theoretical research.
Performer S.Moskal’ska did not demonstrate ending sound “Hu” in freckles but did it in the harvest songs. Such “self edition” of the singer K. Kvitka noticed when he was analyzing recordings done by professor A.Rybets ant amateur K. Lazarevska, were he noticed ending “Hu!” The defect of the spring corals performed by S.Moskal’ska Kvitka explains by the fact that recording was done inside the building (not during the rite itself). It’s why amateur’s recordings can be more precise in details if such recording was done in natural context (during the holiday or rite).
The opposite phenomenon takes place when the singer based on deep knowledge creates his own versions (compilations) which might have undesired features. One of the samples – freckle “Rural”, recorded from the writer Olena Pchilka (the mother of Lesya Ukrainka). The critic of the original sources takes an important place in a historical research. K. Kvitka pointed out, that investigators of folk music would embarrass themselves if they would deny a source instead of its critical use. This is one of main principles of Kvitka’s attitude toward the original sources. He considered being historical even non perfect recordings, after its throe criticism (which would point out authentic elements of the recording and will make clear the general measurements of its credibility).
The analysis of the theoretical and analytical positions of the defectology and textology within the “Commentary” lets us to come to following assumptions:
1. Rhythm and form of the folk song keep in unconsciousness of its barriers the ancient archetypes (from late Paleolithic age, Mesolithic age, Neolithic age). The modem studies prove it very clearly. Folk performance and variation is done not on the base of simple memorizing of certain samples, but on the base of intuitive understanding of the archetype.
2. The base for the critical and comparative analyses of the folk melodies is a universal method called modeling of the rhythmic and syllable counting “norm” of the segments and lines of sinning stanzas. Modeling archetype is a logic figure which becomes a base for the temporary and territorial branching (divergention) of the family of song variants. Modeling archetype becomes a “holding bone” for the sinning-rhythmical form which then “receives” accord and melodic component of the song.
3. The foundation of the folk-musical textology tilled by K. Kvitka is based on the laws of logic and symmetry which received its embodiment in the theory of the rhythmic-structural typology.
Written by Anatoliy Ivanytskyi.
Translator: Inna Golovakha.
УКРАЇНСЬКІ НАРОДНІ МЕЛОДІЇ
Частина 2. Коментар
Упоряд. та ред. А. І. Іваницького
Компютерна верстка, макет, коректура Анатолія Богорода
Підписано до друку 15.11.2005. Формат 60 х 84/16 Папір офсетний. Гарнітура UkrainianTimesET. Ум.-друк. акр. 23,9. Наклад 500. Зам. № 5–209
Видруковано ТОВ “ПоліграфКонсалтинг”,
03150, м. Київ вул. Предславинська, 28
Тел./факс: 422–89–36 Свідоцтво Держкомінформу України (серія ДК № 324, 31.01.2001 р.)