the classification of
RASA GENDHING
Since the only possible gendhing sizes are small, medium, and large, the gendhing prenès and gendhing gecul must overlap with at least one of the other three categories (most likely the second, if we are to take their characters at face value). This is one indication that the one-to-one correspondences laid out for the three different sizes are probably a little too pat. In current practice, at least, there are many exceptions, although this is one area where things could have changed since Warsadiningrat’s time.31 Toward the end of my first discussion about rasa gendhing with Mloyowidodo, he recapitulated the range of rasas he had outlined earlier, making absolutely clear how it fit in with gendhing size. The progression was as follows: klassiek ageng (largesized classic), klassiek tengahan (medium-sized classic), nges (moving), memelas (piteous), bérag alus (refined exuberant), bérag sanget (very exuberant), gecul (jocular), gecul sanget (very jocular), lancaran (a category of pieces with a very small gong cycle), ayak-ayak (a category of extremely “small” pieces), srepeg32 (a category of even “smaller” pieces), sampak (the “smallest” pieces in the repertoire). In another formulation, the list began with klassiek berat, then klassiek ènthèng (see his explicit classification by rasa on p. 80). The implication here is that klassiek ageng and klassiek berat are equivalent, as are klassiek tengahan and klassiek ènthèng. Mloyowidodo knows Warsadiningrat’s work backwards and forwards,33 and his typology almost certainly derives from the older musician’s. But these are not the only two authorities to make the connection between gendhing size and rasa: at least four other musicians I talked to made the same association, but none as systematically as Warsadiningrat and Mloyowidodo. Another thing that distinguishes the two older musicians’ formulations from the others is that, for them, heaviness alternates with lightness as we go from big to small (for Mloyowidodo this is more evident in figure 3.13). For most of the others the relation is a bit simpler: the most serious pieces are very large; in other words, size in and of itself confers weight. Large, heavy, old pieces are also considered the most difficult in the repertoire, and this, too, is reflected in figure 3.2. The obvious reason is that musicians have to remember a lot of notes, and must keep track of where they are without the help of frequent and distinctive oral cues: they do not use the kempul (medium-low hanging gong), and the strokes of the kenong (medium-high pot gong) are spaced very far apart. The less obvious reason is that, because of their courtly origins, these pieces are replete with interpretive idiosyncrasies designed to keep “outside” 31. We know from oral history that the proportion of pieces that are performed with gérong (unison male chorus) has increased markedly in living memory. This is important, since the gérong part, except under special circumstances, automatically lends an air of levity to the proceedings. As a matter of fact, it was precisely in complaining about that particular development that Mloyowidodo made the comment quoted in the next paragraph. 32. The first time through the list, srepeg was inadvertently placed ahead of ayak-ayak. Mloyowidodo corrected himself very soon afterwards. 33. When STSI came out with its new transliteration in 1990, Mloyowidodo was the first to notice that certain sections had been omitted by mistake.
73