Re: Old World vs. New World klez

[Paul M. Gifford <PGIFFORD...>]

Joshua Horowitz <horowitz (at) styria(dot)com> wrote:

Thanks for another great post, Josh.
 
> Zev is convinced that Ashkenazic klezmorim introduced the cimbal to
> Moldavia and is Wallachian, conclusions which are based, I assume, on
> the sparse comments of Romanian *musicologists.*
> If I understand Zev correctly, his entire summary is based upon the
> Jewish (i.e. chromatic) TUNING, and not the form as such.

That is clear from what historical evidence that exists. In 1781 
Sulzer described the music and instruments at the courts of the 
Moldavian hospodars, and they were standard Turkish instruments, 
including the santur. He also mentioned Gypsy groups with cymbal 
(these were probably in Bucovina). But if you look at not only the 
traditional tuning of the tzambal mic but also at its structural
design, you find close similarities with the varieties found in 
western Ukraine, Belarus, eastern Poland, you see close resemblances. 
This variety differs from the old German/Bohemian/Hungarian type 
(here I mean the _Cymbal_, not _Hackbrett_), which entered 
Transylvania from that direction. The Romanian variety must have been 
influenced by that subtype, though, because of the wrapped hammers.

The chief characteristic structural design of the eastern variety is 
that the ends of the pin blocks are mortised, allowing tenons of the 
lengthwise rails to fit in. The backs are thin and added later. 

By 1884-5 (according to an ethnological survey) the instrument was 
mostly used in Ialomitza county, in eastern Muntenia, and in 
Clejani, the first Gypsy to play it did not learn it 
until 1919. In other words, the lautari were just adopting it in the 
late 19th and early 20th centuries. No doubt Jewish influence was 
also responsible for introducing the cello and maybe clarinet to the 
Gypsies, too. 

> I am skeptical about making broad conclusions however. Musicology of the
> 19th century was by no means what it has become. Conclusions were often
> made on hearsay, archival resources were scarce and chaotic, and
> scientific method in ethnomusicology was unheard of (neither the term
> nor the discipline even existed then) Filimon's earliest source of the
> Jewish tsimbl is from 1744, yet we hear from the Belgian musicologist
> Fetis in 1869 that *the tympanon (tsimbl,) ....is... an instrument with
> metallic strings, beaten with light sticks and which is in usage among
> the Jews of POLAND AND RUSSIA* If we based the arrival of the tsimbl in
> Moldavia on the quantity of iconography showing Jews playing the
> instrument, we would be forced to say that it came from the north and
> travelled south, because the bulk of our available resources come from
> what is now east Europe (Czech Republic, Poland, northwest Ukraine,
> Belorussia. 

I'm not sure what you're saying. Filimon, writing in 1864 about 
instruments used by the lautari, called it a "canon" and said it was 
an "ancient Jewish instrument." In other words, it was still somewhat 
unfamiliar to Romanians, and he confused it with the Turkish 
instrument. But by that time, it was well established with klezmorim 
in Poland and western Russia.  Also, there is less variety in 
Romanian instruments than in those in Ukraine and Belarus, indicating 
a more recent introduction and standardization. 
> 
> In Brandwein's case, and perhaps what Mr. Hescheles still hears, is a
> micro-level change in parameters of performance brought about by
> acculturative processes, i.e. differences in approach, straightness of
> rhythm, lack of ensemble interaction, simplification of arrangments,
> etc. all contributing to the statement that the old and new world are
> very different. 
> 
It would be interesting to compare the case of klezmer music to those 
of Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians, and Romanians, in the U.S. It seems 
that sheet music publishers in Chicago, Buffalo, and elsewhere had a 
lot of influence in standardizing the Polish repertoire. The dances 
got reduced to polka, waltz, and oberek. The Ukrainians in western 
Canada seemed to have retained the ear approach and instrumentation, 
but the variety of dances (and tunes) declined. American tunes and 
foxtrots were added. The Gypsy musicians from Saris, Slovakia, who 
moved to Pennsylvania in the 1880-1910 period retained the style, 
instrumentation, and ear approach, but became more urban, learning 
off Berkes and Magyari 78s and from Budapest Gypsy immigrants, etc. 
The Romanians (at least from a couple of people I interviewed) 
developed the _fanfara_ (military band) style, playing by ear, but by 
the postwar period, had transformed themselves into "sweet" bands, 
complete with fold-up music stands, and played a more limited 
Romanian repertoire, while increasing their knowledge of American pop 
and standards of other nationalities, as they played a lot of mixed 
weddings. But the development into the postwar instrumentation, etc., 
is a topic for another day.

Paul Gifford

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+