Questions of terminology and

classification
Before we start discussing polyphonic traditions of different parts of the
world, I would like to discuss briefly the terminology that I am going to use in this
book. Unfortunately, as in many other spheres, ethnomusicology does not have the
commonly accepted set of terms in this field that everyone could follow easily without
much misunderstanding.
Quite a few different terms had been used in ethnomusicology to denote the
phenomenon of singing in more than one part. “Polyphony” seems to be the most
widely used term, although not universally accepted. “Multi-part music” is maybe the
next most popular English term used widely in ethnomusicological publications.
“Polyvocality”, “plurivocality” and “multiphony” also made appearances. They
denote generally the same phenomenon and could be used as the uniting word for this
phenomenon.
Let us pay attention to the most popular term – polyphony. Traditionally it has
been used in two – general and narrow meanings. “Those ethnomusicologists who
accept the very general etymological meaning of the term often tend to call all multi-
part music, whether vocal or instrumental, ‘polyphonic’ even if there is no obvious
organization. In itself, the concept of polyphony thus embraces procedures as diverse
as heterophony, organum, homophony, drone-based music, parallelism or
overlapping. The shared characteristics of all these procedures is that they all relate to
multipart phenomena” Arom, 1985:34). Arom himself prefers the more neutral term
“multi-part music”.
To find the most convenient term, we should know what for we need this term
for. I suggest that we need a uniting term, the one to use conveniently as the “family
name” for the extended “polyphonic family”. This term in its broadest meaning
should unite whole set of types and subtypes of this “family”.
The very wide general meaning of the term “polyphony” (as Arom described
it) seems to be very convenient to use in this context. I suggest using the category of
“polyphonic family”, with subsequent division on types (heterophonic polyphony,
drone polyphony, parallel polyphony, contrapuntal polyphony etc.) and sub-types of
polyphony (unison-heterophony, pedal and rhythmic drone, tonally unconnected and
tonally linked parallelism etc.). In search of the better alternative for the uniting wide
term for the whole “family”, we could use the term “multi-part music”. This word is
not so much “contaminated” by the extensive use in musicology and ethnomusicology
for few centuries, and could make a good alternative for the term “polyphony”. At the
same time, as three-word-composition (“multi-part music”) this term might not be the
most convenient and practical to use as a “family name”. When I imagine myself (or
my colleagues) using the terms to denote the further sub-types of polyphony (for
example, “heterophonic multi-part music”, “drone multi-part music”, or “canonic
multi-part music”), I feel there will be a certain resistance in implementing this kind
of terminology. Therefore, I believe that the use of the term “polyphony” as a “family
name” leads to more practical and convenient terminology to denote different types
and sub-types of polyphony.
So, although both terms (“polyphony” and “multi-part music”) actually mean
the same (the first one in a long ago dead ancient Greek language, and another in very
much alive and the most widespread contemporary English) we have in one case the
one word-term (“polyphony”) and in another case complex three-word-combination to
denote the same phenomenon (“multi-part music”). This simple fact works in favor of
the practical use of one-word-term “polyphony”. [As a matter of fact, the term
“polyphony” also contains two words “poly” and “phony”.] So, without insisting that
this is the only correct way of naming this family, type and sub-types of music, for the
sake of practicality I will be using in this book the term “polyphony” as a “family
name” for all types and sub-types of music, where more than one pitch is heard
simultaneously.
So, according to this model, we have one big family of polyphonic music, and
this “family” consists of several different types of polyphony:
(1) Parallel polyphony,
(2) Drone polyphony,
(3) Canonic polyphony,
(4) Contrapuntal polyphony,
(5) Ostinato polyphony,
(6) Heterophonic polyphony,
(7) Overlapping polyphony,
(8) Chordal polyphony
(9) Array of Synthesis polyphonic subtypes;

(1) Parallel polyphony is based on parallel movement of parts and can be

divided further into at least two sub-types (these two sub-types were
distinguished and described in Marius Schneider’s 1934-35 book):
a. Tonally linked parallelism, or when parallel movement of different
parts is united into one tonal system. As a result, intervals do
change occasionally, for example, parallel fourths sometimes
change into isolated thirds, or fifths (as this happens in some sub-
Saharan African traditions), or, in other case, minor and major
thirds follow each other in a tonally specified succession (this kind
of parallelism is very popular in most of European and some
African traditions);
b. Tonally unconnected parallelism, or when two or more parts are
singing the same melody in parallel movement, keeping all the time
the same interval. In most cases this means that parts are singing
without the unifying tonal system. Vocal parts singing without the
shared tonality may indicate that this is a case of “thick unison”, or
when singers intend to sing in unison, and sometimes they believe
they are singing in unison, but in reality they start from different
pitches and proceed as they started – maintaining the initial interval
throughout. This kind of singing is usually present in monophonic
cultures. As a matter of fact, maintaining the same interval
throughout the whole melody is an arduously difficult task for the
representatives of polyphonic cultures, as they tend to unite
different co-sounding parts into a shared tonal system. If the reader
of this book tries to sing, together with any of musically gifted
friend, the melody of the Beatles “Yesterday”, or any other well
known melody, say, in parallel fourths, or even in major thirds, you
will soon see how difficult this is. At the same time, at least for
some representatives of monophonic singing cultures this task does
not seem to be difficult at all, as they seem to follow the logic or
 horizontal melodic line, ignoring the vertical coordination of parts
and therefore, they are singing without the interference of the
desire to sing all parts into one shared tonal system. Russian
musicologist Viktor Sergeevich Vinogradov told me how surprised
he was when his friend, choir master, working with the choir in one
of the Central Asian republics (where singing traditions are strictly
monophonic), showed him how easily his students could sing quite
a complex classical melody in parallel fourths, fifths, sevenths, or
even seconds and augmented fourths (personal communication
from 30 January, 1986). Hugh Shields gave another interesting
anecdote of the accidental two-part organum in parallel fourths,
because the professional French singer (France is one of the most
monophonic singing cultures in Europe) was unable “to adjust his
pitch to his Parisian grandson’s accordion. The effect might be
described as a two-part equivalent of heterophony; while
contributing a lower part, of pitch at times uncertain, the singer
seems to have perceived the whole as a strictly monophonic”
(Shields, 2000, 542-543).
These two sub-types of parallel polyphony could be further divided into two-
part, three-part etc. subtypes of both tonally linked and tonally unconnected
parallelism. This is a very interesting topic by itself, although I am not going to
discuss this issue (classification of polyphonic types) into more detail.
(2) Drone polyphony is definitely one of the most important “members of the
polyphonic family” and has one of the biggest numbers of the subtypes
among all the types of polyphony. Without going into the detailed
description of all possible subtypes of drone polyphony, let me give you
some feel of the wealth of the different subtypes of drone polyphony:
a. The first level could be a division of a drone into pedal drone and
rhythmic drone subtypes. Despite an obvious difference between
these two drone subtypes, sometimes in the same village ensemble
some sing the pedal, and some the rhythmic drone in the same song
at the same time.
b. Each of them (I mean “pedal” and “rhythmic” drones) would
further divide into single note drone and moveable drone (with the
possibility of further division of moveable drone into “two-pitch
drone”, “three-pitch drone” etc.).
c. Moveable drone can be further divided into “narrow range
moveable drone” (secondal pitch changes in the drone only,
characteristic mostly for traditional archaic drone traditions, like in
Balkans, Caucasia, Baltic region or Polesie), and “wide-range
drone” (fourth and fifths pitch changes in the drone, characteristic
for European traditional polyphonic traditions, mostly influenced
by the European professional harmonic system, like in Alpine
region or the new polyphonic singing style in Balkans);
d. Secondal changes in the drone could be (1) leading to modulations
(like in East Georgian Long Table Songs), or (2) leading to
functional changes within the same tonality, without the key
change (for example, like in Latvia, or western Georgia);
 e. The same way the rhythmic drone can have “one-pitch” and
“moveable” versions, further divided into “the drone with secondal
changes” and “the drone with fourth-fifths changes”.
f. The whole new set (or, more precisely, two new sets) of drone
polyphony subtypes emerge when we take into account that drone
does not have to be the lowest part of the polyphonic texture (base),
that it can well be in the middle of the polyphonic texture, or even
on the very top of the texture. Here I must say that having a drone
in the middle or on the top of polyphonic texture is much more
common for traditional polyphonic cultures, than for the European
professional music. Both of these new sets of subtypes (“drone in
the middle”, and “drone on the top”) would go through all the
abovementioned subtypes (pedal and rhythmic subtypes; one pitch
and changeable subtypes; secondal and fourth-fifths changes
subtypes; modulating and non-modulating subtypes etc.).
g. This is not the end. We could add here another factor of drone
performed by the group (this is mostly the case), or by an
individual singer (much more rare); The same way we need to
consider a very important factor of simultaneous use of different
types of drones (for example, pedal and rhythmic drones together,
like in western Georgia); or still another important factor of double
(triple, etc.) drones. And of course, all these double and triple
drones will come with further division according to the different
intervals between the drones.

As I have already mentioned, I am not going to discuss here all the existing
types and subtypes of drone polyphony, although even from this short survey it is
clear that drone polyphony has incredible amount of subtypes (see also the
classification of different types of drone polyphony in Brandl, 1976).
(3) Canonic polyphony is based on the principle of imitation of the lead
singer’s melody by another vocal part (or parts). If we do not consider the
large body of responsorial songs, where the leader and the following
chorus sing the same (or related) musical phrases, as examples of canonic
polyphony (and I believe we should not), then we will find that true
canonic forms of polyphony are quite rare in traditional music. Although
they do exist and there are incredibly interesting polyphonic cultures based
on the use of canonic polyphony (in the survey of polyphonic traditions
later this chapter we will discuss canonic polyphonic traditions like
“sutartines” in Lithuania and polyphony of Ainus from North Japan).
Canonic type can be further divided into subtypes according to the moment
of joining of the next singing part with the same melodic material (early
entry, late entry), and could be divided into monotonic and even polytonal
canons (like this is a case in Lithuanian “secondal sutartines”). Unlike the
great European professional school of polyphony, overshadowed by the
giant figure of J.S.Bach, which was mostly based on imitational
polyphony, most of the folk polyphonic traditions are based on non-
imitational polyphony.
(4) Contrapuntal polyphony, or as it is sometimes addressed, “free
polyphony”, or “polyphony in the narrow sense”, is the type of polyphony
where all different vocal parts are independent from each other. Well, I
 actually do not find this popular definition of contrapuntal (or free)
polyphony justified, because both in European and traditional polyphonic
music separate parts are actually never “independent” from each other. As
a matter of fact, from the extensive talks and experiments during the
fieldwork with Georgian singers it became clear to me that even in the
most saliently independent contrapuntal western Georgian polyphonic
“trio” songs (discussed later) singers intensely listen to each other and are
very much mutually dependant. It would be more precise to say that in
contrapuntal (or free) polyphony there is no hierarchy between the parts,
as none of them can claim to be more important than the other parts. So, I
would suggest, that contrapuntal polyphony is not “free”, or
“independent”, but rather “egalitarian”. Another fruitful idea would be to
divide contrapuntal polyphony into two subtypes – (1) imitational
polyphony and (2) non-imitational, or contrast polyphony. As I wrote
above regarding canonic forms of polyphony, professional polyphony uses
more imitational forms, and folk polyphony mostly uses non-imitational
forms of polyphony.
(5) Ostinato polyphony is based on the constant repetition of a relatively
short musical phrase (phrases) in one or several parts. As repetition is one
of the key elements of traditional polyphonic cultures, ostinato is present
in most of the polyphonic traditions, both in vocal and instrumental music.
Ostinato can be present in one part, in two parts, etc. The most widespread
form of ostinato contains a repetitive phrase in one of the voices. Ostinato
is mostly present in the base, but it can be in the top part as well, and in
rare cases in the middle of the texture. Like a drone, ostinato creates a
powerful pitch reference point for other parts, but unlike the drone,
ostinato is more melodically active. It is a powerful “engine” and the point
of reference both for the melodic and metro-rhythmic development of the
song. One of the most colorful and specific techniques of the use of
ostinato in a top voice is yodel. In some polyphonic traditions (particularly
in dance genres) ostinato principle becomes so dominant (in all parts), that
no space is left for any other compositional principle of polyphony in the
entire polyphonic texture. In such cases the whole texture is filled up with
continuous ostinato phrases. Gabisonia calls this subtype of ostinato
polyphony “total ostinato” (Gabisonia, 1988:9). Sub-Saharan African
music is filled with ostinato phrases. According to Arom, “all the
polyphonic and polyrhythmic procedures used in Central Africa… [could
be described] … as ostinatos with variations” (Arom, 1991:39).