Society For Ethnomusicology

Society for Ethnomusicology

The Classical Musics of Cambodia and Thailand: A Study of Distinctions Author(s): Terry E. Miller and Sam-ang Sam Source: Ethnomusicology, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Spring - Summer, 1995), pp. 229-243 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of Society for Ethnomusicology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/924427 Accessed: 01/10/2009 13:03 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for Ethnomusicology and University of Illinois Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethnomusicology.

http://www.jstor.org

VOL. 39, NO. 2

ETHNOMUSICOLOGY

SPRING/SUMMER 1995

The Classical Musics of Cambodia and Thailand: A Study of Distinctions KENT STATEUNIVERSITY UNIVERSITYOF WASHINGTON

TERRYE. MILLER SAM-ANGSAM

a world

the distinctions separating the classical musics

perspective, From of the Kingdom of Cambodia (hereafter, Cambodia) and the Kingdom of

Thailand (hereafter, Thailand) would seem small indeed, but for Cambodian (hereafter, Khmer) and Thai musicians the differences are obvious and significant. While up to this point the two traditions have been dealt with separately in the literature, this study explores similarities as well as the essential differences between them. We treatonly briefly two subjects which would require book-length explanations: history and repertory. The other elements cited here are ones that can be perceived and understood by nonpractitioners, including instruments, ensembles, function, colotomic structure, tuning, scale, mode, notation, and performance practices.1 We have reluctantlyadopted the term "classical"to distinguishthe musics under study from village or "folk"musics. We avoid calling it "court"music because, while this music was characteristicof court life, it was not exclusive to the court. Today both Khmer and Thai musics are maintained primarily through all levels of the education system, and consequently in both nations government support is essential. Courtsupport for the artsended in Thailand with the 1932 coup thatbrought the absolute monarchy to an end, and in 1970 in Cambodiawhen MarshalLon Nol overthrew Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In Thailandstate support for the artsgraduallyresumed in the 1930s through the newly founded Departmentof Fine Artsand eventually through the School of DramaticArts and its branches. The musical and theatricalarts of Cambodia have suffered several devastating blows, first when the Siamese destroyed Angkor in 1432, again when the court musical system was disbanded in 1970 and especially in 1975 when the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot attempted literally to destroy Khmer culture; this resulted in the deaths or escape of virtually all classical musicians and dancers. A determined but meagerly ? 1995 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

229

230

Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1995

financed restoration is taking place in Cambodia today through the University of Fine Arts with support from the Ministry of Culture.

Instruments and Ensembles Most Khmer and Thai classical instruments are similar enough that Cambodian refugee musicians in the United States and France use instruments imported from Thailand. Besides being unable to import instruments from Cambodia, they understood that few Khmer instrument makers survived Pol Pot's holocaust. Instrument making in Cambodia is only now resuming, thanks in part to a grant from Australia in 1988 to erect a building for instrument making. Although the terms for instruments are in some cases derived from the same roots, the overall terminology represents the differences between the Thai and Khmer languages. The basic classical instrumentarium is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Corresponding Thai and Khmer instruments Thai Ranat ek Ranat thum Ranat ek lek or Ranat tawng Ranat thum lek Khong wong yai Khong wong lek Pi Khlui So sam sai So duang So u Krajappi (3 strings) Jakay Khim Ching Chap Thon Rammana

Klong that

Khmer Roneat ek Roneat thom or roneat thung Roneat dek Roneat thong Kong thom Kong tauch Sralai Khloy Tro khmer Tro chhe Tro so tauch Tro so thom Tro ou Chapei veng (2 strings) Krapeu Khim Chhing Chhap Skor thaun Skor rumanea Skor arak Skor thom

Type Higher-pitched xylophone Lower-pitched xylophone Higher-pitched metallophone Lower-pitched metallophone Lower-pitched gong circle Higher-pitched gong circle Quadruple-reed aerophone Vertical fipple flute Three-stringed bowed lute Two-stringed bowed lute (d-a) Two-stringed bowed lute (G-d) Two-stringed bowed lute (D-A) Two-stringed bowed lute (C-G) Long-neck lute Three-stringed "crocodile"zither Dulcimer Small cup-shaped cymbals Medium flat cymbals Goblet shaped single-headed drum Single-headed flat drum Goblet-shaped drum larger than skor thaun Pair of barrel drums

The Classical Musics of Cambodia and Thailand Figure 1, cont'd. Thai Taphon Klongkaek Krap Khong

Khmer Skorsampho Skorkhek Krabb Kong

231

Type barreldrum Horizontally-mounted Pairof long laced drums Pairsof wooden concussion idiophones Singlehangingknobbedgong

Among the melodic idiophones, the differences are relatively minor. The higher and lower Khmer xylophones have twenty-one and sixteen wooden or bamboo bars respectively while the Thai may increase the totals by one. While the Khmer formerly had the lower-pitched metallophone equivalent to the Thai ranat thum lek, it is now obsolete. Thai quadruple reeds come in three sizes-pi nai, pi klang, pi nok (from largest to smallest)-while the Khmer equivalents are found in only the largest and smallest sizes-sralai thom and sralai tauch. In practicaluse, however, one rarely hears anything but the pi nai/sralai thom. The Thai khlui and Khmer khloy, however, are not interchangeable, because the Thai flutes are available at four pitch levels-khlui u (F), khluiphiang o (B13),khlui lip (E), and khlui kruat (C) [from lowest to highest]-while the Khmer khloy is usually available in only one size, pitched C. Both the khlui and khloy have a hole for a buzzing membrane, but Thai musicians universally cover it with tape while many Khmer musicians use a membrane to obtain a desirable timbre modification. Greater differences are found among the bowed chordophones. The three-stringedversions differboth in constructionand function. The tro khmer is smaller than the normal Thai so sam sai, has a snakeskin resonator instead of calfskin,and its use is restrictedto the village arak(spiritceremony) and kar (wedding) ensembles, whereas the Thai version is the leader of the classical mahori ensemble. But the Thai also have a smaller version called so sam sai lip which is infrequently heard. Two-stringed fiddles are relatively recent in both countries. There is no convincing documentation for the Thai so duang and so u until the 1884 publications resulting from the London Inventions Exposition (see Verney 1885, Hipkins 1921). Two-stringed fiddles must have been known in Thailand long before that, however, because there is clear documentation for the performance of Chinese theatre, in which the fiddle is usually the leading instrument, from the late seventeenth century (see, for example, Chaumont 1686, Choisy 1930, Gatty 1963). That they did not become part of the Thai instrumentarium until around the middle of the nineteenth century may seem surprising,but the so duang is in shape and timbre a close relative of the Chao-zhou Chinese tou xian fiddle, and Chao-zhou speakers

232

Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1995

are the dominant Chinese group in Thailand. The Thai so u is less clearly Chinese in origin, since its calfskin resonator differsfromthe coconut-bodied Chinese fiddles-yeb bu and ban hu-instruments which have thin wooden resonators.2In contrast, the Khmerfiddles with cylindricalbodies-tro chhe, tro so tauch and tro so thom-have cylindricalbores ratherthan the conical bore of the Thai so duang (which gives it a nasal timbre), giving them a warmer tone quality. The Khmer tro ou (coconut body) is known in two versions: the normal tro ou with a full-sized coconut body and calfskin resonator, and the tro ou chamhieng with a half coconut body and wooden resonator. The former is used in the mohori ensemble and the latterin bassac and yike theatres. Therefore, the Khmer two-stringed fiddles appear to be closer to those of the Chinese than are those of the Thai. Indeed,-two-stringed fiddles were unknown in Cambodia until the twentieth century, and clearly they came to the Khmerthrough bassac, a genre of Chinese-derived theatre originating in the area of Vietnam where Khmer speakers predominate. In addition, the Khmer developed two lower-pitched fiddles with cylindrical bodies tuned G-D (a fourth below the tro ou) and D-A below that, both called tro thom, but these were used exclusively at the University of Fine Arts in Phnom Penh. The remaining chordophones, a zither and a dulcimer, are virtually identical. The useages of the khim dulcimer, however, differ in that it is a regular member of the Khmer mohori ensemble but is not found in the equivalent Thai ensemble. Furthermore,the khim, which was derived from the Chinese Chao-zhou yang qin or yao qin, is found in larger and smaller sizes (khim tauch and khim thom) in the Khmer-Chinese bassac ensemble, the former playing melody, the latter a bass line. Thai and Khmer drums are similar enough to be interchangeable, but useages vary. The pair of two-headed, laced drums (Klong khaek in Thai) can be used in classical ensembles whereas the Khmer equivalent is only used in the kaekensemble heard at funerals. In the Khmermohori ensemble, either the skor thaun with skor rumanea or the slightly larger skor arak may be used. In the case of Thailand, there are two kinds of thon, one used by the mahori and khruang sai ensembles, and one used in SouthernThai nang talung (shadow theatre) as well as classical pieces in the Khmer "accent" (samniang khamen or tang khamen). Finally, the Khmer mohori may use a skor sampho when the skor thaun and skor rumanea are unavailable, but the Thai would not use the equivalent drum, taphon, which is reserved for the piphat ensemble. The Thai and Khmerhave two related ensembles, one called piphat and pinpeat respectively, the other called mahori and mohori respectively. Although each pair is superficially similar, there are significant differences in function and leadership roles. The Khmer do not have an equivalent

The Classical Musics of Cambodia and Thailand

233

ensemble to the Thai kbruang sai composed of two-stringed bowed lutes, zither, flute, the usual idiophones and membranophones, and optional instruments as diverse as dulcimer, electric organ, and violin. The term piphat in Thai suggests the importance of the quadruple reed aerophone, pi, combined with a word which means instruments, while the Khmerretainthe word pin, derived from the Sanskritvina, meaning stringed instrument.In earliertimes the Thai also called their ensemble phinphat, and the Lao continue to do so, but there are no chordophones in this ensemble type. Both Thai and Khmer ensembles consist of two types of xylophones, two gong circles, and a quadruple reed, with rhythmic structurearticulated by small cymbals and a drum or drums. Leadership in both resides with the higher xylophone player, but the instrument carryingthe fundamental form of the melody differs. In Thai practice the lower-pitched gong circle is not only essential, it is the first instrument learned and must be mastered before going on to other types. In reducing a Thai piphat ensemble to minimum strength, the lower xylophone and higher gong circle can be eliminated, but not the lower gong circle, while in Khmer practice the latter is expendible. Indeed, Khmer musicians do not normally startlearning on this instrument, and consequently few play it. The Thai conceive of the lower-gong circle's idiom (tang khong wong yai or tang khong) as representing the most fundamental form of the melody (luk khong); that is why musicians must play this instrumentfirst.The Khmer, in contrast, think of the sralai quadruple reed as carrying the melody, although the vocal part is first and foremost. Since the gong circles play variants, they are of lesser importance. In Thai practice the pi, xylophones, and higher gong circle play variants of the khong wong yai version. Both Khmerand Thai have pin peat/piphat ensembles for both hard and soft mallets. The Thai call them piphat mai khaeng and piphat mai nuam respectively while the Khmercall them pinpeat anloung roeung and pinpeat anloung tun respectively. The soft-mallet ensemble in Thailand, however, uses khlui instead of pi, which results in a shift of pitch level (to be discussed below). In addition, the Thai employ a so u in the soft-mallet ensemble. The Khmer soft-mallet ensemble uses khloy but no chordophone. A full Thai mahori ensemble consists of the three-stringed fiddle, both two-stringed fiddles, flute, zither,and both xylophones and gong circles, with the addition of the ching cymbals and a drum pair, usually the thon and rammana but possibly klong khaek. The three-stringed fiddle is normally considered the leader, although that function is shared with the higher xylophone. As with the piphat, the lower gong circle is considered to play the most fundamental form of the melody. Although not required, there is a smallerversion of the gong circle available for mahori use called khong wong klang. The Khmermohori, in contrast, does not use either the three-stringed

234

Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1995

fiddle or the gong circles, but it does use all four sizes of the two-stringed fiddles and the dulcimer. The preferred drums are the skor thaun and skor rumanea, but when these are unavailable a skor arak or sampho may be employed. Both Khmer and Thai ensembles use flute and zither, but string sounds predominate in the former whereas melodic idiophones retain a greater importance in the latter. While listeners unacquainted with the Thai and Khmer languages may find the vocal sections of compositions similar, there are fundamental differences. The Thai language is tonal and Khmer is not. This difference triggers totally different procedures in generating melody in relation to text. As noted earlier, the voice part is considered the purest form of the melody in the Khmer tradition. Those instruments which imitate the voice most closely--quadruple reed, flute, or fiddle-therefore play the purest form of the melody. Ornamentation occurs as a result of idiomatic style. In contrast, the Thai singer constructs the voice version on a skeletal outline of the melody-the same skeletal structureon which the instrumentalistsbase their versions-but the realization results from a systematic coordination among several variable elements. Yoko Tanese-Ito has shown through extensive analysis that Thai singers use a complex system of formulae to realize each syllable of text based on its tonal inflection, the degree of the scale, the mode, as well as other factors(1988). While Thai singing might appear more flexible and changeable from one stanza to another than Khmer, in fact Thai singers have little flexibility because they operate within this intuitively known but surprisingly consistent system governing the creation of the vocal form of a melody. Therefore, in Thai thinking, both melodic and instrumentalversions of a given melody are built upon the same skeletal structure,and the version played by the largergong circle is closest to that fundamental form, whereas the Khmer musician considers the vocal version to be the purest realization of the melody and considers all other versions to be variants, in spite of the fact that the same sort of skeletal structure exists. Functionally, practices in both Thailand and Cambodiawere at one time similar. The piphat/pinpeat was the primary ensemble and accompanied virtually all genres of theatre, including masked play (khon/khol), dance drama (lakhon/lakhon), and shadow puppet theatre (nang/sbek). The latter type exists in two varieties, large tableau puppets carriedon sticks above the manipulatorswho move behind and before a screen, called nangyaiin Thai and sbek thom in Khmer, and small puppets manipulated from behind a screen, called nang talung in Thai and sbek tauch in Khmer.All Cambodian puppet theatre is a village entertainment, but in Thailand the larger puppets were found at the court and the smaller type was centered in southern Thailand. The mahori/mohori ensemble had the same function in both countries, primarily to entertain guests at banquets. The Khmer ensemble was also used to accompany folk dances and a genre of theatre called the

The Classical Musics of Cambodia and Thailand

235

mohori play. In Thailand the mahori is the primaryensemble for playing an extensive repertory of tuneful compositions from the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries, some of which are in the extended, tripartitethao form. Today the Thai mahori may even accompany the lakhon dance drama.

Rhythm and Meter Rhythm and meter in both Thai and Khmer musics are founded on the same fundamental principles, but the practices differ in subtle but important ways. Melody in both is regulated by cyclic patterns realized on both the drum or drums and the small cymbals (ching or chhing). The Thai system is more extensive than the Khmer. In Thai practice a cycle consists of four strokes of the ching, alternating the unaccented (undamped) "ching" stroke with the accented (damped) "chap"stroke, the final stroke ("chap")being both accented and representing the end of the cycle, called siang tokor luk dok(o + o D). Ithas been customary to mark the final stroke-the siang tok-as (. A full cycle is o + o @. Further,this cyclic patterncan be realized in three different proportional relationships, or tempo levels, called in Thai chan ("level"):chan dio ("first level"), song chun ("second level"), and sam chan ("thirdlevel"). Four cycles of chan dio equal in duration two in song chan or one cycle of sam chan (see fig. 2).

Figure 2: Thai tempo levels o +

+

o +

o E o o o + o( o + oE3o + o (o

o

E

sam chan (1 cycle)

E

song chan (2 cycles) chan dio (4 cycles)

+ o(

Without the ching strokes, however, it is difficult to tell which level is being heard because the basic movement remains relatively constant. Drum patterns, called nathap, parallel the ching patterns. Two are associated with drums of the laced head category (called thap) and consist of sets of drum patterns called nathap brop kai and nathap song mai in all three tempo levels. There are other nathap associated with pieces in specific national accents (samniang), such as Lao (lao), Khmer (khamen), Mon (mon), Chinese (jin), Burmese (phama), and Muslim(khaek). A nathap song mai pattern is half the length of the same level pattern in nathap brop kai. Thus, nathap brop kai sam chan has four ching strokes spaced over sixteen beats while nathap song mai sam chan has the same number of strokes over eight beats. Expressing this relationship in number of beats (not ching strokes), the proportions in nathap song mai are 8-4-2 while those in nathap

236

Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1995

brop kai are 16-8-4. In practice, however, musicians often double the rate of ching strokes in nathap brop kai because the time span between strokes, especially in the third level, is so long that musicians easily lose the beat. Consequently, in practice a given tempo level in either nathap may sound the same, but fundamentally they are not. Furtherdetails, especially drum strokes on each drum in each pattern, are well beyond the scope of this paper. A third category, called nathapphiset (special pattern), is associated with drums of the klong category, with tacked heads. They include a great variety of patternsunique to particularpieces, especially for theatricalaction tunes (phleng naphat). Khmer practice is much simpler. There are two classes of drum patterns parallel to the Thai nathap: the longer phleng chrieng and the shorter lam or phleng skor respectively. In the former, the first level (shortest pattern, equivalent to chan dio) is called muoy choan, the second levelpi choan, and the third level bey choan. In practice, the rate of chhing strokes is reduced by half during vocal portions. While details of the drum patterns differ between Thai and Khmer traditions,the principles remain the same. Khmer musicians do not depend to any great extent on the chhing pattern in identifying the choan of a composition. Instead, they listen to the patterned filler phrases played by melody instrumentsbetween the end of one phrase and the beginning of the next, called thao. Because the time span between structuralpitches in bey choan is greaterthan either pi choan or muoy choan, the thao pattern is different. A majordifference thatinvolves both metricalpracticeand repertoryis the Thai preference for constructingcompositions in thao form [a differentword from that used for filler phrases]. In these compositions, the second tempo level (song chan) is considered to be the basic or "original"form and the diminished version (chan dio) and augmented version (sam chun) are variants. A full thao composition, however, begins with the augmented version and flows without break into the originalversion, then the diminished version. If listeners fail to recognize the progression from the melody itself, they become aware of it as the ching and drum patternschange. The Khmer play tripartitecompositions less often, and they retainthe same chhing pattern throughout.Mostcompositions exist in only one tempo level. This is trueeven though both traditionsshare repertorythat may be performed in thao form by Thai musicians.

Tuning, Scale, Mode A full discussion of this broad topic exceeds the bounds of this preliminarystudy; only certain essential matters can be touched upon here. Another limit is that theoretical terminology is neither fully developed nor

The Classical Musics of Cambodia and Thailand

237

widely known, and yet discussions in Western languages (and in Thai and Khmer to some extent) often refer to pitches by letter names as if everyone understands. We do not believe they do. First, regarding absolute pitch and tuning generally, there is no fixed standard equivalent to the West's A=440; but because aerophones are made within a narrow range there tends to be an unofficial standard. Evading for the moment the question of tuning, let us consider who does the tuning?In the Khmer tradition the leader of the ensemble controls the tuning himself using the notes of the sralai quadruple reed as the standard.The Thai leader may also exercise such authority, but at least in cities the services of a professional tuner may well be used. Certainlythe pi (Thai quadruple reed) pitches must be taken into account, but they are not preeminent. The question of whether the Thai and/or Khmer tuning systems is/are equidistant has been fiercely debated in some quarters (see, for example, Fuller 1979). Morton asserts that Thai tuning is equidistant, although Thai tuners accomplish this by ear and not with the aid of a machine, all of which makes the perfect intervals of 171.4 cents arrived at by Morton unlikely (Morton 1976:26). In fact Thai instrumentsof fixed pitch, such as xylophones, are not exactly equidistant; and in some ensembles the variations among intervals are significant and easily heard. By the same token, Western musicians teach that the piano is tuned equidistantly when in fact careful measurement would demonstrate discrepancies. Nonetheless, in practice the piano functions as an equidistantlytuned instrumentmaking all twelve major or minor keys useable. The question remains,then, do the easily demonstrated differences among notes on virtuallyany xylophone or gong circle in Thailand contradictthe equidistanttheory or is the tuning "practically" equidistantas on the piano? The fact that specific classes of compositions, especially those in the national accents such as lao or mon, are always played at certain pitch levels argues for non-equidistance. The fact that specific ensembles play at specified pitch levels-for example, piphat normally plays based on Gargues for non-equidistance. The latter,however, is explained by the necessity of accommodating the appropriate aerophones rather than non-equality among intervals.Finally,Thai musicians can play the same piece on the same instrumentsfor both piphat and mahori ensembles without retuning, and yet mahori pitch is one key or blade lower than piphat pitch. To muddy the argumentyet a littlemore, even an inexperienced listenercan sometimes hear unnerving differences when the same melody is played at two differentpitch levels on a Thai xylophone. In fact, the near equidistance of fixed pitch instruments is a compromise, for the other instruments realize a far more flexible and complex tuning system. In the case of Khmer music, there has never been a strong claim for equidistance, and in fact Khmertuning is clearly non-equidistant. Certain pitch levels are considered useable, others not. In

238

Etbnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1995

sum, then, Thai tuning is functionally equidistant while Khmer is not only apparently non-equidistant but variable. For years the Fine ArtsDepartment in Bangkok has published examples of Thai classical music in staff notation following a systematic relationship between Western and Thai systems. The staff is constructed to differentiate half and whole steps. Whether or not Thai music is perfectly equidistant, the staff does not reflect the true intervals. Staff notation, then, is somewhat crude, and results in compromises like using the degrees B and E in some scale forms and Bb and Eb in others, to make it appear more reasonable. Even putting this problem aside, the question remains, where is C on a given instrument?Both Khmer and Thai musicians trained to read Western staff notation consider that the piphat or pinpeat ensembles play in G. But where is G on the xylophone? The Thai higher xylophone (ranatek), normallywith twenty-one blades, begins with F on the lowest end and concludes with E at the upper end three octaves higher. The Khmerconceive of the highest blade as being E, making the lowest F. Consequently, the Khmer and Thai are in agreement here. However, in Cambodia village-trained musicians play one pitch lower than university- or court-trained musicians. The Thai piphat plays in G because that is the pitch of the pi nai. In recent years piphat also played on other pitch centers when using pi klang (A) or pi nok (C). The piphat mai nuam (soft mallets) ensemble substitutes the khlui phiang o flute, a Bb instrument, for pi nai, thus requiring the fixed instruments to shift down one blade or gong. The Khmerpinpeat anloung tun with soft mallets also uses khloy, but the Khmer flute is tuned in C, requiring no shift. The Thai mahori has the same relationship to the piphat mai khaeng (hard mallets) as does the soft mallet form:the requirement of shifting down one blade to accommodate the flute. The Thai mahori is said to play in either Bb and F or C and G, depending on the source. The confusion arises because of differences in placing C. To a piphat musician, C is the seventh gong on the largergong circle, but to a mahori musician, C is the sixth gong. The staff notation used in Thailand has no way to accommodate this shift. If piphat musicians play a piece written in C, it is understood that C is the seventh gong, but mahori musicians using the same score would start one pitch lower-the sixth gong-and still call it C, but it would be Bb compared to the piphat. Because the Khmerkhloy flute is pitched in pinpeat C, in contrast to the Thai khlui which is pitched in piphat Bb, no shift is necessary. While none of this is of much concern to a traditionalmusician of either country, since they do not use notation, it is nonetheless perplexing to scholars trying to reconcile written notation with aural practice.

The Classical Musics of Cambodia and Thailand

239

A detailed discussion of scales and modes is out of the question, for extensive documentation through examples would be required to illustrate how both Thai and Khmer melodies may be built on five or more pitches, why pitches beyond the basic set occur, and how modulation or metabole occurs. In this area Thai and Khmer melodies are not radically different. These matters have been discussed at some length separately in Morton's pioneering study (Morton 1976) and in Sam's doctoral dissertation (1988). What is clear, though, is that Thai musicians have developed a much more extensive vocabulary for explaining musical phenomena than have Khmer musicians. Forexample, the Thai have names for each pitch of the seven tone scale, based in part on the names of aerophones which play at that level. Both the pitch level and the scale built upon it are subsumed under the term thang, meaning "way."

Notation It is safe to say that until the twentieth century neither Khmer nor Thai musicians used any kind of notation. Training was and to a great extent continues to be by rote, directly from master to student. Only after one phrase is mastered is the next given. This traditionalpedagogy is as effective as it is time intensive for both student and teacher. During modern times, especially after 1932 in Thailand, various kinds of notation have been developed to make the transmission process more efficient but less personal as well. It is not unusual to see students today using notation of some type, even in performance. The Thai make use of several kinds of notation (see Miller 1992). First, there is notation using arabic numerals which represent, depending on useage, either scale pitches or finger positions; the latteris actually tablature notation. Second, there is notation using Thai letter initials of the do-re-mi solfege. Third, staff notation has been used since the 1930s both in publications aimed at non-Thai and in the beginning to notate the entire oeuvre of Thai classical music in manuscript,a project never completed.4The Fine Arts Department has published an anthology of Thai pieces and the magazine Silapakorn once published a series of notated pieces with discussions, all in staff notation. The numeral and solfege notations share common traits:(1) they show only the skeletal melody, with minimal degrees of idiomatic instrumental embellishment; (2) they are barred with the accented notes (as determined by the ching, whose symbols are usually omitted) falling at the end of the measure; and 3) they indicate minimal rhythmic complexity. These limitations are more true of solfege notation than of numeral. The most frequently

240

Etbnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1995

notated instrumentalparts are for the two-stringed fiddles, zither, dulcimer, and less commonly for flute. Many teachers, both famous and little known, have published collections of their own versions of standardmelodies, most commonly for so duang and so u. Other masters require or permit their students to copy partsfor their own use. Some also publish generic versions. Leastcommonly notated are parts for piphat instruments. Full scores do not exist except for the Fine Arts Department's editions of the hom rong yen ("Evening Prelude") suite and phleng chut tham khwan ("Tham Kwan") suite. The Khmer,on the other hand, use none of the Thai notations. Only staff notation is used and then only by urban students at the University of Fine Arts.Both Khmerand Thai follow the Western practice of placing the accent at the beginning of the measure in staff notation. In both traditionsthe ideal is performance from memory, with or without spontaneous variantsin ornamentation or even phrase details depending on the player's skill. Notation is more common in Thailandbecause the country, and especially Bangkok (the center of classical music) is much more modern than Cambodia. Modernization brings with it greater awareness of and greater demands on time. Thai teachers have less time for the usual practice of supervised practice/lessons and students have less time as well. Notation saves time, and "time is money" in the modern world.

Repertory Although potentially endless if discussed in detail, the subject of repertory if kept to an overview is fairly simple. The Khmer and Thai share much repertory, so much that a musician from one country could sit in with musicians of the other and play many pieces with them. Much of the repertory of "action tunes" used to accompany specific kinds of scenes or actions in both human and puppet theatre (phleng naphat in Thai, phleng skor in Khmer) is shared. Not surprisingly,both share the suites made up of these action tunes, such as the Thai hom rong yen. In addition both Khmer and Thai share many of the extended suites called ruang. Among the Thai twenty-nine have survived into modern times. Where the Khmer differ most from the Thai is in the area of pleng thao, discussed earlierin referenceto the three tempo levels. While both share many of the pieces that have been composed into thao in Thailand,the Khmertend to play them one tempo level at a time, and tripartiteversions occur rarely.In addition, many of these compositions derive froma Thai narrativegenre called sephah, in which the reciter accompanies himself/herself with two pairs of short, wooden sticks called krap sephab. When sephah was still a living genre-today it is barely maintained by professors and students in the

The Classical Musics of Cambodia and Thailand

241

university system-the reciter was allowed to rest from time to time, during which a piphat ensemble performed melodious compositions, some in thao form. As sephah died out, the instrumentalrepertoryflourished on its own. These compositions constitute the best known classical repertoryin Thailand. They are more easily played by students and amateursbecause they are built of long, tuneful phrases, as opposed to the motivic "actiontunes." Most Thai compositions created since the beginning of the Bangkok Era (1782) are associated with specific composers. Virtually all before 1932 served the court, but a few were members of the royal family. Some in recent times: Nai Montri Tramote and Luang Pradit Phairaw, for example, have contributed numerous works which are now in the standard repertory. Obviously, these compositions are by Thai composers whether played in Thailand or Cambodia, and theirworks do constitute a significant percentage of the Khmer repertory. The extent to which compositions of Khmer origin are played in Thailand is uncertain. Our knowledge of Khmer composers is more limited, and it could be said that Khmer musicians are less concious of composers than are Thai musicians. Important differences between the traditions are found in the category of solo performance. Solo repertories and solo versions of ensemble pieces are more prominent in Thailand than in Cambodia. The practice among the Khmer has been to have solos only to demonstrate instruments for an audience or to fill a time gap during a dance when the dancer has to change or altera costume. Beyond these functional solos, there is relatively little solo repertory in which master performers could exhibit virtuosity. Thai musicians, on the other hand, have developed the solo style (thang dio) to a greater extent. The concept of thang dio means a soloistic idiom applied to an otherwise ensemble-type composition, especially of the "action tune" type. Extended, and sometimes virtuosic, solos are most commonly played on the higher xylophone and the higher two-stringed fiddle, but solos also occur for flute, quadruple reed, three-stringed fiddle, lower two-stringed fiddle, zither, dulcimer, and occasionally the gong circles and lower xylophone. Extremelyadvanced players have even been known to play two or more higher xylophones at the same time, to impress the audience. Thus, virtuosity is more developed in Thailand than in Cambodia.

Performance Practices A great number of performance practices have been discussed within the preceding pages, but two in particularstand out in differentiating Thai from Khmer. The first is tempo. Partly because of virtuosity, and partly because of the chan dio tempo level which occurs in the thao compositions, it can be said that overall Thai music is faster than Khmer. The more rapid

242

Etbnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1995

tempo extremes are set by the Thai, even in ensemble performance. This is especially so at the end of a composition where a stereotyped luk mot (coda) is appended to bring the piece to a close, a passage in which the ensemble or soloist races to a most exciting and sudden conclusion. A second practice easily differentiates Khmer music from Thai: the tendency to play pairs of notes in long-short rhythmic patterns. One could characterize this as sounding dotted, but the proportion of long to short is closer to a ratio of 2:1 than 3:1. Combined with the overall slower tempos, this gives Khmermusic a gentler, more lyricalquality. In contrast,Thai music is played with nearly equal note values throughout, especially for the upper xylophone, whose idiom tends to continuous and even short notes.

Conclusion The foregoing demonstates two kinds of differences between Thai and Khmer musics: those which can be observed and those which are only known to practitioners. Any experienced musician of either tradition can instantly distinguish Khmer from Thai. For outsiders it depends on knowledge and experience. Perhaps the main question remaining concerns the significance of these differences. To what extent do they matterand to what extent are they mere idiosyncrasies?Here the views of insiders and outsiders may clash. When looking at the big picture-court music (or "classical" music) in (Mainland)Southeast Asia-the outsider likely feels the similarities outweigh the differences. Although the Khmer and Thai have much in common culturally-Theravada Buddhism (and its sacred language, Pali), geography, living patterns, and musical instruments,for example-there are many reasons, both historical and cultural, for the two to wish to keep matters clearly distinguished. To a person with strong feelings about neighbors across the border, no difference is insignificant, and few Thai or Khmer easily forgive confusion on the issue. The most obvious differences for the uninitiated, as, for example, the unequal rhythms, are possibly the least significant. One of the greatest differences-who has "the melody" and what is the singer's relationship to it-is virtually unobservable but of utmost importance to the musicians. Whereas instrumentalistscan play in each other's ensembles, an exchange of singers is out of the question, both because Khmer is non-tonal and Thai tonal and because the latteralters the melody almost beyond recognition to accommodate the language tones. The preceding comparisons are offered, not to demonstrate the superiority of one tradition over the other or to "compare and contrast"apples and oranges, but to highlight the nuances which make each traditionunique. They are two distinct traditions, and our musical lives are enriched by their

The Classical Musics of Cambodia and Thailand

243

differences. In listening to the music we may sense them, and there are concrete reasons for these feelings. Although we have long moved beyond a naive form of "comparative musicology," articulating the differences between two apparently similar traditions seems helpful.

Notes 1. The authors wish to thank Dr. Jarernchai Chonpairot and Prof. Panya Roongruang for reading and correcting the Thai portions of this study. 2. Similarly,the Vietnamese dan gao has a rounded coconut body and wooden resonator. 3. We are indebted to Dr. Yoko Tanese-Ito of Japan for her clear explanation of the Thai rhythmic system in an unpublished paper (1981). 4. David Morton microfilmed the pencilled manuscripts, and copies are held at the UCLA Archives and at Kent State University's Archives of World Musics.

References Chaumont, Mr. le Chevalier de. 1686. Relation de lAmbassade de Mr ... a la cour de Roy de Siam. Paris: Arnoult Seneuse. Choisy, M. I'Abbe de. 1930. Journal du voyage de Siam (fait en 1685 et 1686). Paris:Editions Duchartre et Van Buggenhoudt. Fuller,Paul. 1979.Review of TheTraditionalMusicofThailandby David Morton.Ethnomusicology 23(2):339 ff. Hipkins, A. J. 1921. Musical Instruments Historic, Rare, and Unique. London: A. & C. Black. Miller, Terry E. 1992. "The Theory and Practice of Thai Musical Notations." Ethnomusicology 36(2):197-221. Morton, David. 1976. The Traditional Music of Thailand. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sam, Sam-ang. 1988. "The Pin Peat Ensemble: Its History, Music, and Context." Ph.D. diss., Wesleyan University. Tanese-Ito, Yoko. 1988. "The relationship between speech-tones and vocal melody in Thai court song." In Musica Asiatica 5, ed. Laurence Picken, 109-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.