Re: Guzikow

[Joshua Horowitz <horowitz...>]

> When the Mendelssohn wedding march appears
> in your "Ultimate Klezmer" book, is it or
> is it not a klezmer melody? Yes, of course
> it is, street-rodded. Why? Because it
> was played by klezmer musicians at Jewish
> functions. That puts the stamp of kashrus on it.
> Prince Oginski?s march "becomes" a klezmer piece,
> as the Marseillaise "becomes" Napolean?s March
> to the Chabad Chasidim. Josh, please get used
> to the idea some things fit into more than
> one category.

(Sigh). I think you make an important point about blurred borderlines, but
it might help the discussion if we used Zev Feldman's widely accepted model
for categorizing repertoire: a) Core repertoire b)Transitional Repertoire c)
Co-territorial Repertoire d) Cosmopolitan repertoire. The Napolean and
Mendelssohn Marches and Oginski's Polonaise (not march) are of the
Cosmopolitan category. Sure, we can go on for hours about the Hasidic
concept of mekadesh sayn a nign (making a song holy) by mere virtue of
playing it, and how all tunes are klezmer tunes when played by Jews, etc
etc. Count me out of this discussion if we go that route, though. Hermetic,
self-referential definitions cannot function in discussions unless they are
jointly agree upon. Zev's model may not be omniscient, but it serves well to
discern basic attributes, and most of us struggling to make sense of this
stuff appreciate that model.

> Or whether its
>> layout changed from vertical
>> to horizontal. 
> THAT?s funny! Its layout changed? As if someone
> suddenly played "Sorcerer?s Apprentice" in the
> background? No, a flesh-and-blood person changed
> the layout, removed the rolls of straw (egad!),
> broadened the range to five octaves, and called
> it a new name. It?s not the same instrument.
> But related.

Organologically, they are both considered the same instrument - wood
idiophones, Layout and position do not affect their classification, just as
scordatura tunings and varied playing positions of the violin do not affect
its classification.

The Belgian musicologist, Fétis writes about the instrument in 1869, but his
description has an error, which I explain below:

He writes: This instrument is composed of bars of wood, for example
Pinewood, and is called by the Jewish people Jerova i Salamo . It is usually
built upon the major Chinese scale with the 4th (degree) raised a semitone.

My correction: It would seem as if Fétis were referring here to the lydian
mode, though in his descriptions of tunings for both, the Chinese Tseng
(cymbalom), pp. 64-65  and metal xylophone, pp. 76-77 of his Histoire
Générale De La Musique, Tome Premier (Paris, 1869, librarie de Firmin Didot
Frères) he shows the major pentatonic form of the "Chinese" scale, beginning
on G, i.e. G-A-B-D-E-G, omitting the 4th and 7th degrees. Earlier
xylophones, such as those depicted by Martin Agricola (Musica instrumentalis
deudsch, 1529 and 1545 show the xylophone as beginning on G with a major or
a mixolydian scale, as were most of the earlier single or double row early
xylophones. It is possible that Fétis meant the G major scale, but extended
down to C on the lower end, giving the impression of being lydian. Hence,
the "raised 4th." This would suggest the following tuning:
CDEF#GABCDEF(natural).

> You?ve surely heard of "claquebois", hoelzern
> Gelaechter, etc. Please look it up.

Hoelzernes Gelaechter is the alpine term (check your case, Alex, you forgot
the adjective suffix "es" - and as long as we're having fun with this
testosterone-laden pissing contest, why not include the Russian term, Jerova
i Salamo?) Early western forms of the instrument as early as Agricola show
different types, usually 2 rows. The horizontal layout we have today was not
a recent development. It coexisted with the vertical layout, and can still
be found in both forms in many cultures.

> Strange. My issue of Seele (issued 1933!)
> mentions both versions,  but favors
> the modern construction, lists the Guzikow
> version as a footnote.

The issue I have been using was published by Zimmerman in the 19th century
(no defitnite date) and includes Guzikov in the opening preface. The
instrument is NOT of the modern type, but the Guzikov type. Your source must
be a later edition.

>> With all three present at Guzikov's first concert
>> there, it seems more than
>> mere coincidence that the instrument would
>> eventually become part of their
>> orchestra. 
> Balderdash. Pure. Why don?t you make the
> jump to Warp Speed, and postulate that
> Mendelssohn composed for Guzikow?
> If Mssrs. Idelssohn, Beregovski and Stutchewsky,
> (peace upon their haloed musicological heads) missed
> something in your opinion, you better bring
> more factual information than such a wild guess.
 
In the original publication, below his paragraph on Guzikov, Seele writes
"Up to a few years ago the xylophone was only heard in the concerts of
Tyrolese choral societies. Nowadays, on the contrary, the improvement of the
instrument has made considerable progress: and it is in use in every concert
orchestra as a solo instrument." (pg. 1, Xylophon-Schule, Jul. Heinr.
Zimmermann Verlag, Leipzig). Seele writes of Guzikov in "this century".
Beyond that, the Russian composer, Rimsky Korsakow includes the xylophone in
his book on Orchestration (penned 1873-74). Interesting is that
Rimsky-Korsakow mentions two types, those "composed of strips or cylinders
of wood."

> What I don't know is whether it was the
>> first orchestra to
>> include the Guzikov instrument.
> go to the next step, Sherlockwitz,
> :-) which would be the easiest:
> find even one compositional score calling for
> Guzikow?s instrument. THAT would be the
> document, doncha think?

Still sniffing, Phido.

>> Its first printing in 1927
>> in Musikalischer Pinkas by the Vilner Hazzan A. M.
>> Bernstein (1866-1932) has
>> the melody set with Hebrew text in 2-4 voices,
>> complete with dynamic
>> markings and articulations.
> You may be incorrect there. Pete mentions a string
> quartet version listed in 1850.

I would love to see it. Who set it?

Thanks for the enlightening thoughts, Alex. Discussing with you is like
trying to shave the belly of a Pit Bull Terrier.
  
Yours, Josh
 

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