Country in Transcaucasia. It borders Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Iran and covers approximately 29,800 kms 2. At the end of the 20th century its population stood at just under four million, most of which is Christian and belongs to the Armenian Apostolic Church. Formerly a republic of the USSR, it became independent in 1991. Its capital is Yerevan.
Situated on the border between Europe and Asia, Armenia has a culture and history that spans more than a millennium. This is attested by archaeological finds that can be dated to the 5th and 4th millennia bce as well as by numerous rock paintings and ancient written sources. Originating within the Armenian uplands, and assimilating in the course of its history several ancient peoples on the edges of Asia and in Anatolia (the Hurrians, the Assyrian-Aramaic and Urartian peoples), Armenia was already a slave-owning state with a single language and with its own distinctive culture by the 3rd millennium bce. By then, the monodic character of Armenian vocal music had been fully formed, and lasted for an entire millennium. Armenian traditional instrumental music, however, contains elements of polyphony; the melody is often accompanied by a steady drone and the ‘rhythmic’ voice of a percussion instrument.
Armenian musics combine features of both Asian and European musics. They draw on traditions from the Middle East in that they are essentially monodic and modal with a strong tonal centre, and have auxiliary notes that provide an antithesis to the tonic assisting in the unfolding of the melody. At the same time, they share the dynamics and temporal organization of melodic development found to the West.
Characteristic Armenian melodies occur in traditional folk and art music, as well as in the music of the Armenian Church. They are used also in contemporary professional compositions, which developed from the mid-19th century in the mainstream of Western art music.
III. Opera, ballet, orchestral and chamber music
ALINA PAHLEVANIAN,ARAM KEROVPYAN (II), SVETLANA SARKISYAN (III)
3. Peasant song and instrumental music.
5. Religious folksongs and secular ‘tagher’.
7. Urban folksong and instrumental music.
8. Theoretical basis and structure.
9. Folk music during the 20th century.
Armenia, §I: Traditional musics
The antiquity of Armenian folk music is attested by monuments of material and spiritual culture, including folksongs. In the high mountain areas of Armenia are thousands of rock paintings of the 3rd and 2nd millennia bce. In the many hieroglyphs are detailed dance scenes, probably of ritual dances. They are important in that they depict a circle-dance and war dances that are still performed. No instrumentalists are shown, as most Armenian folkdances are accompanied only by the singing of the dancers themselves.
Archaeological excavations in Armenia have yielded relatively few musical artefacts, which can be explained by the fact that in ancient times instruments were made of highly perishable materials – reeds, wood or leather. But the findings include small bronze handballs, bozhozh (small oval-shaped bells) and clappers from the 2nd millennium bce, these also having been used in rituals; a horn with a simple line ornament from the 1st millennium bce, found on the south-east bank of Lake Sevan (the part preserved is 17 cm long, with a lower diameter of 3 cm); and bronze cymbals from the 7th century bce found in Karmir Blur (near Yerevan), which are not essentially different from the modern small cymbals. The bird-bone pipes found in Garni and Dvin date from the period between the 5th century bce and the Middle Ages, and are similar in playing technique to the modern blul (end-blown flute). One of the better-preserved pipes has five finger-holes, producing a scale whose intervals, according to modern measurements, are a semitone above the open note, then another semitone, a whole tone, a semitone, and an interval of three semitones.
Early historians of Armenia paid considerable attention to manifestations of national music. Movses Khorenatsi and Faustus of Byzantium, for example, recorded in their 5th-century chronicles the names of song genres and musical instruments, fragments of epic song texts, descriptions of their performance and of the performers themselves, and descriptions of some rituals accompanied by music. This relates to a period beginning in the pre-Christian era. Artistic miniatures, gravestone carvings and also old engravings provide early illustrations of the performance of folk music.
From the early Middle Ages the Armenians had an advanced musical aesthetic that included such concepts as the aim and calling of music, the relation of sacred and secular elements and nature as the source of art. They interpreted in their own way the ancient classical teachings on sound and harmony and they also created systems of musical notation. In the 8th century khaz notation, basically a type of neumatic notation, was devised; after the 10th century it entered its second period of development, when it was made more exact (see below, §II). Manuscripts of khaz notation from the 8th century to the 18th have survived, many of ritual and non-ritual church music, but secular music and folksongs are also found. After the 15th century khaz notation became so complex and awkward that it gradually fell into disuse, but the spiritual songs continued to be transmitted orally until they were eventually written down in an appropriate notation.
Copies of many poems on folk models from the 16th century to the 18th have survived, many of which must have been sung, judging by the structure of the poetry and the presence of refrains. But their melodies were not fixed, although some have survived orally. In 1813 Hambardzum Limondjian (1768–1839) created a simple and accessible modern Armenian music notation, which was useful for the transcription of medieval chants as well as for the notation of folksongs. Many handwritten songbooks also contain a wealth of material for the study of Armenian folk music.
Armenian folk music began to be collected systematically in the last quarter of the 19th century. The most productive work among the many collectors was that of Komitas (1869–1935), a gifted ethnographer, scholar and composer. Other notable collectors, both pupils of Komitas, were Spiridon Melik‘ian (1880–1933) and M. T‘umadjian (1890–1973). Since the 1950s the Institute of Arts and the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences and the department of folklore at the Yerevan Komitas State University have assembled over 30,000 examples of Armenian folk music. Further collections are found in the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Armenian Academy of Sciences and the State Museum of Literature and Art; many recordings are also housed in the archive of recorded sound at Pushkin House (the Institute of Russian Literature) in St Petersburg. The songs were notated only by ear until 1913, when Melik‘ian first used the phonograph. From 1939 recordings were made by cutting discs on celluloid X-ray negative plates, using equipment designed by Djivan Kirakosian. Magnetic recording has been used exclusively since 1950. Scholarly study of Armenian folk music also began at the end of the 19th century, the most important studies again being by Komitas, who analysed several fundamental questions of peasant music. The work by K‘ristofor K‘ushnarian (1890–1960), investigating the problems of history and theory of Armenian folk and medieval professional vocal music, is also particularly significant.
Armenia, §I: Traditional musics
The Armenian highland was one of the centres of ancient world civilization. In Armenian territory the first traces of man date from the Palaeolithic era. A highly developed copper metallurgy existed there in the 5th and 4th millennia bce; in the 3rd and 2nd millennia agriculture and cattle-raising were advanced, as was a certain spiritual culture. The earliest ancestors of the Armenian people were the Urumeians, inhabitants of the north-eastern sector of Asia Minor, which was called Armatana from the 16th century bce to the 14th according to Hittite inscriptions, and later, in the 14th and 13th centuries, Hayasa. From there they invaded Assyria, in the region of Shupra, which the Assyrians came to call Urme or Arme. In the 8th century bce the land of Arme united with the increasingly powerful state of Urartu, but after the fall of this state it became independent and the Armenian state rose in power. Persian texts of the 6th century bce mention the broad land of Armina. Thus from the most ancient times two names have been used for the people and the country: Armen and Armina (or Armenia), used by outsiders, and Hay and Hayk‘ (subsequently Hayastan), as the Armenians called it themselves. Over the years Armenian culture strengthened and developed through contact with that of other races of the ancient world, and as the language of the people evolved, so the national characteristics of folk music became established.
The Armenians adopted Christianity in 301. Comparison of historical records and old church music, which can be dated with reasonable accuracy, enabled K‘ushnarian to give an approximate date of origin to the surviving folk music. With this chronological study he showed that the monodic form of Armenian music, as well as its basic means of expression, were fixed long before the modern era, and that its early categories were defined as peasant, gusan (a professional singer of epics) and religious. Traces of archaic modes, genres and forms of this prehistoric period are found in the exclamatory phrases of the horovelner (ploughing songs), in songs of work at home and in some dance-songs. Survivals of musical accompaniment of rites, described in the works of Movses Khorenatsi and Faustus of Byzantium, are found in wedding songs, laments and so on.
The Armenian people lived through countless wars and destruction, constantly struggling against foreign aggressors. In Armenian political, economic and spiritual life there were deep depressions and brilliant highpoints. Certain periods, and stages in Armenian culture generally, were reflected in the development of folk music. The period from the 5th century to the 7th is especially important from this point of view. At this time of struggle for liberation and of powerful peasant revolutionary movements there was an unprecedented upsurge in all Armenian culture, which began with the creation of the modern Armenian alphabet in 404. New forms and themes of folklore came into being; the modal basis of the music and the range of melodic structures were broadened; melodic singing (i.e. in a cantilena style) became more important. Evidence for this is found in certain surviving lyrical love-songs and work songs of the peasants, and in heroic dances. In the same period a similar upsurge took place in the art of the gusanner (see §4 below). This is confirmed not only by the chroniclers, who remarked upon the important place of gusan art in the life of various classes of people and described their singing and instrumental ensembles with their various tone qualities, but also by the menacing charge of the synod at Dvin of 649 levelled against the gusanner, and by some earlier authorities of the Armenian Church. In the struggle against the spread of gusan influence, the Church characterized it as ‘the work of the Devil’.
Another important period was the 10th century to the 13th, when the Armenians expelled their aggressors, the Arabs and Seljuk Turks, and established their independence, achieving a new and important cultural advance. Almost every historian of this period referred to folk music, either to ‘the muting of the sounds of singing and instruments’ when describing the land laid in ruin by the invaders, or to ‘the constant sounding of song and lyre’ when discussing the new well-being of the people. The ideas of love of life and humanism which were characteristic of Armenian art in this period (in poetry, miniatures, architecture etc.), and which brought it close to the early Renaissance, were already evident in folk music in the epic Sasuntsi Davit‘ (‘David of Sasun’). This epic took form under the influence of the Armenian struggle for freedom in the 8th and 9th centuries, and proclaims Mankind's right to freedom. The same trend of thought was characteristic of the peasant songs of that period, which are perfect models of harmony of form and content. Finally, in this period the rapid development of the tagh (a monophonic, aria-like vocal form of a lyrical, dramatic and laudatory character) took place (see §5 below). By contrast, in the mid-16th century, after the division of Armenia between Turkey and Persia, a particular type of ‘natural selection’ took place in folk music both in subject and in mood, and songs of anguish and sorrow predominated, with the rise of corresponding genres.
Among the interesting questions for the scholar in the history of Armenian folk music is that of Armenian contact with the cultures of the ancient world and the Middle Ages, the results of these mutual influences, and ‘dialect’ characteristics. The study of collateral data has led scholars to the conclusion that the early contiguity with Hittite and Assyrian-Aramaic cultures must have been important for Armenian music. Also important was the assimilation by the Armenians of the culture of Uranu, which was advanced for its time, as well as closer contact with the culture of ancient Persia and the exchange of creative experience with the cultures of the peoples included in the Seleucid Hellenistic kingdom.
A partial result of the creative intercourse which took place in the 12th and 13th centuries was the appearance of elements of the mugamat (Arabic maqāmāt; see Mode, §V, 2) in Armenian urban instrumental music. The mugamat – a genre found among many Middle Eastern peoples – was favoured in these centuries among the upper levels of the urban population, and until recent times Armenian instrumentalists were among the best performers of the Persian-Azerbaijani branch of maqāmāt, naturally leaving an impression on certain levels of urban music. In some Persian-Azerbaijani maqāmāt, however, especially in instrumental sections with a dance character, the influence of Armenian urban songs and dances can still be detected. The Armenian ashughner (professional folk poets: see §6 below) assimilated certain features relating to Middle Eastern ashugh poetics during the 17th and 18th centuries. In spite of these common cultural characteristics and mutual influences, the Armenians have retained a specific national culture.
The Armenian language encompasses about 60 clearly differentiated dialects. Analogous distinctions can also be observed in the traditional folk music styles of the speakers of these dialects, in the general character and features of timbre of their music, in the preferences for certain modal intonations and genres, and in the preference for certain instruments. The study of this subject, begun by Komitas (1907), still continues.
Armenia, §I: Traditional musics
In enumerating stylistic subdivisions, Komitas divided Armenian peasant songs first of all geographically into songs from the mountains, and songs from the plains: the former are relatively harsh in sound, with greater importance given to recitative; the latter are softer, with a predominance of smooth cantilena style. He then divided them according to the larger regions of origin, that is, according to dialect: for example, songs from Shirak, Aparan, Alashkert (now Eleşkirt in Turkey), Van, Mokk, Mush (Muş in Turkey), Akn and Kharberd (places in historical Armenia). Next he divided them according to the most important centres of song creation within these regions.
The peasant song is generally monophonic (performed solo or by a unison chorus), but some types are performed antiphonally. Some peasant songs depend on conditions of place and time, and are linked with specific aspects of village life. Thus work songs and many everyday songs are performed only in appropriate situations. The ritual songs were created in ancient times but were performed and developed exclusively in the process of practising the rituals. The performance of very old epic-narrative and historical songs (which came to peasant life from the gusanner) is not linked with specific circumstances, however, nor is the creation and performance of songs about love and nature, those on social themes and certain others.
The most interesting work songs are the horovelner (ploughing songs). The term horovel derives from the joining of the exclamation ‘ho’ and the word ‘aravel’, which designates the unploughed strip between two fields. ‘Horovel’ became a cry used by ploughmen. The words and music of horovelner are improvised, and these songs consist of a main part, a refrain and many exclamations. Although the purpose is to stimulate work and enliven the ploughmen and the working animals, the singers also express personal feelings. The main subjects of the texts are work, grain and nature, but there are elements of prayer and thanksgiving, appeals and commands, complaints and expressions of satisfaction, and reflections of ancient customs and beliefs. The length of texts and melodies varies; one stanza of a horovel from the Lori region, corresponding to ploughing one furrow, takes 90 lines of text and 301 bars of notation (see below, ex.13, transcr. Komitas). In all horovelner powerful descending recitative phrases are followed by tranquil cantilena sections: the modal basis is rich (scales including an augmented 2nd predominate) and the rhythm and melodic phrases are varied. The horovel is a consistent and common type of song for a large group of people; an especially beautiful exchange of calls results, giving rise to a natural form of polyphony.
Also important are bullock-cart songs, performed while wheat is transported from the field to the threshing floor, and threshing-floor songs, sung while the wheat is being threshed by a board drawn by oxen. This work does not demand great effort, so the texts consist almost entirely of affectionate words addressed to the animals, and the melodies are flowing and lyrical. Among the women's work songs in the field, the hoeing songs are outstanding for their supple melodies, which are in mixed metre.
Some women's domestic work songs are linked with the rhythm of the work, to make it easier: for example, a wheat-grinding song sung as a dialogue (ex.l). Others, though subject to the motor movement of the work, contain clearly-expressed emotional elements.
Ritual songs. These can be subdivided into those of the calendar cycle, celebrated by everyone, and the ritual episodes of family life. Both generally consist of integral cycles. Little has survived from the first category because of the changes in the social conditions and customs of the people. The colourful songs of foretelling the maiden's future on the festival of Ascension and the songs of Shrovetide have proved especially persistent. Traces have also survived of songs of certain ancient pagan rituals, such as trndez, the ritual of fire worship.
Among the family ritual songs is the wedding cycle, consisting of over 100 items, which must be sung at specific moments. These songs have many local variants. They are varied in poetic and musical themes, relating to the groom or bride, to their parents, friends and other participants in the wedding, or to special rituals such as the blessing of the wedding tree. A broad spectrum of emotions is portrayed, from the humble prayer to the sharp-witted joke, from deep sorrow to unconstrained hilarity. There are women's and men's recitative and melodic songs, solo and choral songs, dialogues between soloist and chorus, two soloists or two choruses and so on. The songs of praise and of consolation of the bride appear to be very old, as do those of the bride's leavetaking. There are solemn songs to the groom and to his parents, and humorous riddle songs. The wedding ritual also includes special dance-songs. Other family ritual songs are the voghb, or lament, the earliest examples of which were performed in pagan times by special women mourners and, according to the description by Faustus of Byzantium, were accompanied by funeral dances.
A large proportion of peasant songs are lyrical love-songs. They are characterized by remarkable concentration of thought and feeling, strict definition of image and mood, laconic expression and depth of content. Their flowing cantilena style is developed within a narrow range, usually a 4th to a 7th, based on simple diatonic scales. Nature is always part of the subject matter of love-songs. Expansion of the form of lyrical love-songs (although their brevity is unaltered) is effected in two ways: internally, when the question–response parts of one section are themselves expanded, resulting in a romance-like structure (ex.2); and externally, when one or two independent sections of a light, sometimes dance-like nature are added to the basic cantilena section (ex.3).
Among the everyday songs are those sung to and by children, and joking songs. There are songs for all the important events of the child's life: particularly beautiful, with the most interesting texts, are the lullabies, in which the mother often expressed her misery at oppression. The experiences of the peasant, oppressed by feudal lords, gave rise to songs with social themes. The hardest lot, however, is described in the pandukht songs, those of the people who went abroad to work. In the late Middle Ages these folksongs constituted a special genre. A classic example of the heartbreaking sadness expressed in these songs is the ‘Song of the homeless’ (ex.4), in which the mode and the melodic structure are also of interest.
Dance-songs. By contrast, the parerger (dance-songs), the most widespread genre of peasant music, reflect optimism and enjoyment of life. Their melodic structure is based on the repetition of a rhythmic pattern. The rhythmic and metrical patterns of the different dances show endless variety; mixed metres are often found, with many variations of their internal division (ex.5). The dance-songs are also varied in tempo and emotional tone: they can be heavy or light, serene or energetic, slow or fast, lyrical or virile, joking or heroic. There is a further division into everyday and feasting dances, and ritual and epic dances (i.e. those danced to sung epics). In extant folklore lyrical dances predominate, performed chiefly by young people. The dance movements have great variety: in the stance of the dancers, the frequency and direction of the movements, and the order and type of step – on the spot, walking and leaping. Dance-songs may be performed in various ways: with a soloist (who is also the director of the dance) and chorus; two soloists (question–response) and chorus (refrain); two soloists and two choruses; one or two choruses without soloists and so on. These all conform to the verse forms and the sequence pattern of the introduction, the refrain and exclamations. The refrain may be at the beginning, middle or end of a stanza, and often appears in more than one position, interwoven with the basic text.
Circle-dances with instrumental accompaniment are also part of Armenian peasant life, although they are less important. They are danced to tunes of a chiefly ritual or epic-heroic character, which are always traditional. There are comparatively few peasant solo and couple-dances: they may be men's or women's dances, lyrical, humorous, pastoral or warlike. The last two types often use accessories such as a shepherd's crook, sabres or shields.
Peasant instrumental music is generally akin to song. It may be pastoral (ex.6) or epic-narrative in nature. Melodies may be performed on the blul (also called the sring), an end-blown flute of nasal tone quality, usually with seven finger-holes and one thumb-hole, or sometimes on the t‘ut‘ak (or shvi), a fipple flute. The duduk (or nay) is a cylindrical double-reed instrument with eight finger-holes and one thumb-hole, and a soft, slightly nasal timbre. Slow song-like melodies with lively dancing refrains are performed on two dudukner, the second duduk providing a tonic drone. Expansive ritual songs (which may be for weddings, funerals, pilgrimages, meeting the sunrise etc.) are performed on two or three zurna (conical oboes with a pirouette, producing a sharp timbre) or on the parkapzuk (bagpipe with a double chanter but no drone), accompanied by a dhol (double-headed cylindrical drum, beaten with sticks). The dances mentioned above, and all kinds of song, are performed with such instruments. Often the music is improvised.
Armenia, §I: Traditional musics
The oldest evidence of this branch of folk music is found in 5th-century sources, which indicate that at that time the gusanner were already divided into several categories. These included tellers of tales, singers, instrumentalists, male and female dancers, comedians and tragic actors. They took part in theatrical performances, weddings, funerals and other rites, and always performed at feasts that were purely for entertainment. They appeared singly or in groups, at royal palaces and courts, and also among the common people. Apparently at that time the tellers of tales were considered most important and enjoyed special prestige, recalling in many ways the Greek rhapsodes. They presented the national myths and epics in word and song. The gusanner were professionals: their performances always involved an audience, demanding preparation and a ready repertory. Beginning probably in pagan times, the gusanner gradually developed a favourite set of themes, forms, devices and means of presentation. Characteristic features evolved which were handed down from master to disciple and acquired the force of tradition. Although the art of the gusanner did not sever its ties with real folk creativity (as is apparent from surviving examples), it took on distinctive professional characteristics.
Movses Khorenatsi wrote that he heard the singing of the gusanner who ‘transmitted these tales singing, in songs of dances and performances, with the accompaniment of the bambir’. (Occasionally spelt bambirn, this may have been a medieval plucked string instrument, although some scholars believe it was a kind of castanet.) Faustus of Byzantium, in a description of the royal feast at which King Pap (4th century) was murdered, also recalls ‘the colourful throng of gusanner’ who beat the drum, played the flute, the lyre and the horn, producing a diversity of sound’. The music of the gusanner presumably had artistic merit corresponding to the high quality of their poetry. An idea of the melodies of the oldest epic songs of the gusanner can be obtained from the fragments of the epic Sasuntsi Davit‘ that are sung (much of it is spoken). Although these have survived in village folk music, they still retain a style distinct from that of peasant music (ex.7). The ‘angularity’ of the melodic contours of the example, its diatonic scale (emphasis on the fourth degree in relation to the tonic is a basic characteristic of Armenian folk music) and the general character of the music convey the heroic spirit of the epos. Other examples of the epic have the same scale contours but a more developed melody: comparison of such examples suggests that the epic music of the gusanner developed in the direction of ever greater melodic complexity. It is also apparent from the many historical references to gusanner that from the 10th century to the 13th their art expanded increasingly, and that they played a leading role in all kinds of entertainment. During the next period (from the 13th century, according to M. Abeghian, 1951) the genre of the gusan hayren was created. The hayren form had existed for a long time in Armenian folk poetry and was taken over by professional poets, among whom Grigor Narekatsi (Gregory of Narek, 950–1003) used it with particular brilliance in his tagher. The hayrenner are verses composed in the ‘Armenian’ metre (hayren: ‘in Armenian’): doubled seven- and eight-foot distichs, with dynamic displacement of accents.
When conditions once more became difficult, the gusanner drew closer to the people; there was more subjective lyricism in their works and the influence of folk music became more noticeable. Hayrenner are among the songs collected at the end of the 19th century in the town of Akn, where an abundant gusan tradition survived. The few surviving examples of hayrenner show the regard for tradition in gusan singing, which was accompanied by instruments, usually strings and percussion. In the 17th century the art of the gusanner merged with folk music, making way for the ashughner (see §6 below).
Armenia, §I: Traditional musics
Armenian folk and religious songs are closely related melodically. This reflects the early interchange between the two genres. From true religious songs there arose folk variants which were sung until modern times. There also exist independent religious songs, not intended for church use, which were composed in true folk style. These form a limited but characteristic genre in Armenian folklore; the rather short examples of songs for the Annunciation (close to village dance-songs) and the extended cantilena ones have an epic-narrative character.
At the point of convergence of Armenian folk and religious art there arose the secular and religious tagher. These were sung poems, lyrical, dramatic or solemnly laudatory, often with texts similar to the hayrenner, and dedicated to the lives of the Virgin Mary, Christ and the saints, but in essence reflecting the real life of human beings, expressing not ascetic but human feelings. The tagher were forerunners of the renaissance of Armenian art, and heralded the new humanistic trend in Armenian poetry and music of the 10th century. The earliest tagher (words and melodies) are by the l0th-century poet Grigor Narekatsi. The secular branch of the tagher developed somewhat later. From the 13th century to the 18th there was a large group of highly gifted secular poets to whom the people gave two names: tagherguner (‘creators of tagher’) and taghasatsner (‘performers of tagher’), although in most cases composer and performer were one person. The chief representatives were Frik ( 13th century), Kostandin and Hovhannes Erznkatsi (13th–14th centuries), Mkrtich Nagharsh (15th century), Hovhannes T‘lkurantsi and Grigons Aght‘amartsi (15th–16th centuries), and Hovnat‘an Naghash and Paghtasar Dpir (17th–18th centuries). Private and social feelings, for instance love, delight in nature and criticism of human life and morals, protest against social inequality and condemnation of foreign usurpation are reflected in the secular tagher of these authors, and in the many anonymous tagher.
The khaz notation of religious and secular tagher cannot yet be read. The tagh melodies which are now accessible were written down in the 1870s. From the time when khaz notation became unintelligible until their notation in the late 19th century the tagher were transmitted orally in the same way as genuine folksongs, thus losing some characteristics of professional compositions and almost becoming folksongs.
The religious tagher are extended, aria-like ornamented melodies, whose virtuoso structure shows the influence of urban folk music (possibly of gusanner); tense emotional passages are sometimes juxtaposed with meditative sections. The secular folk tagher are, however, lighter in form and more akin to arioso; feeling is expressed on one plane only. They show the influence of peasant lyrical songs, but are distinguished from these by greater melodic development and somewhat more open emotion. Ex.8 shows the tagh Havik (‘The bird’), which is based on folk motifs but is elaborated in a religious spirit. Some sources ascribe this version to Narekatsi. A very simple example of a secular folk tagh – one of the most popular folksongs – is the song Krunk (‘The crane’; ex.9), in which a pandukht (a man who must work abroad), bitterly complaining of his unhappy state, asks the crane for news of his home and family. In the 18th century the tagher merged partly with folksong, partly with the art of the ashughner.
Armenia, §I: Traditional musics
The art of the ashughner spread in Armenia in the 17th and 18th centuries, although the term ashugh was found earlier in Armenian literature, in the 15th and 16th centuries. This art has some features in common with that of the gusanner, which it replaced. The name ashugh, which is found in many languages, is derived from Arabic and means ‘in love’. Tradition has it that unhappy love turned three men into ashughner, who wandered the world seeking the meaning of life. Like the taghergu and gusan, the Armenian ashugh came mostly from a simple urban background, and performed for audiences of aristocrats and common folk alike. Gusanner and ashughner had the same social role and professional character, but the form and content of their music and certain features of performance differed.
The Armenian ashughner used personal and social themes. The subject of love was basic, sometimes expressed with touching directness or in striking imagery, always hyperbolic. In addition, prominence was given to social, philosophical and moralizing themes, to the celebration of human virtues and the censure of negative aspects of society or of the lives of individuals. There are also historical descriptions, jokes, riddles, Armenian versions of Middle Eastern ashugh tales and so on. In the course of time themes of public significance and themes of national liberation also entered their repertory, and new national ashugh tales arose. Armenian ashughner originally wrote in folk dialects, but later went over to the more generally accessible literary language. Some were fluent in many languages, wanting in Persian, Osmanli, Georgian and Azerbaijani as well as Armenian, and sometimes they composed macaronic verses. Classical versification was predominantly used by the ashughner, who developed it to a high standard. They adapted it to meet the demands of their language and ideas, creating new variants of classic forms of ashugh versification and even new forms. Especially prized is the medial ‘complex rhyme’ in each line. The ashughner often improvised (especially in competitions), employing a variety of technical devices.
Schools of ashughner with special traditions arose and were named after their centres: Vagharshapat (now Edjmiadsin), Alexandropol (now Gyumri), Tbilisi, and schools of Persian Armenians, Turkish Armenians and so on. They differed in dialect and manner of expression, in poetic subject and in details of musical style, both in composition and performance. The poems of distinguished ashughner were preserved in their authors' manuscript books, which were later printed. The melodies survived through oral transmission and from the end of the 19th century were also notated and later published.
In ashugh compositions the poetry was usually more important than the melody. Armenian ashughner used many traditional improvisatory motifs (there were up to 60), a general Middle Eastern feature. But alongside these they often composed original melodies. This was already a national feature, so that for the Armenian ashugh ‘song’ meant not only verses (as it often did among other ashughner) but a unified musical-poetic work. They maintained another Middle Eastern tradition, an ashugh pseudonym, which was always mentioned in the last couplet of each song, the aim being to preserve the knowledge of the song's authorship.
Compared with gusan melodies, those of the Armenian ashughner show more overt emotion, tension and pathos. The recitative, cantilena and dance character of the melodies is more apparent than in peasant folk music. Melodies are usually extended, mixed metres are widely used and ornamentation is relatively rich; they also have individual features that may reflect the creative personality of the ashugh and his folk music source. Like the gusanner, the ashughner used musical instruments, but only string ones: the saz, a lute with a long pear-shaped body and long neck, usually with six to eight metal strings and ten to thirteen frets; the chungur, a four-string lute, one of the strings being shorter than the others with its peg halfway down the neck; the t‘ar, a long-necked lute, with a body in the shape of a figure-of-eight, a skin soundboard and five to nine, 11 or 14 strings; the k‘anon, a trapeziform zither with 24 triple courses (72 strings in all); the sant‘ur, a trapeziform dulcimer; and the k‘yamancha, a long spike fiddle with three or four strings and a round skin-covered body, often beautifully decorated. The ashughner appeared alone (singing and playing), or together with others who performed an instrumental or a vocal accompaniment. Mimicry, movement and dramatization were not used by Armenian ashughner.
The first famous Armenian ashughner were the last tagherguner: Hovnat‘an Naghash (1661–1722) and Paghtasar Dpir (1683–1768). Among the classical representatives of this art (one of the world's greatest masters of ‘sound-painting’ according to the poet Valery Bryusov) was Sayat‘-Nova (Arut‘in Sayadian, 1717–95), born in Aleppo, who served as court singer and musician to the Persian Nadir Shah, later to the Georgian ruler Iraklii II, and spent his last years in Sanahin (Armenia). He composed in Georgian and Azerbaijani as well as Armenian. Djivani (Serob Levonian, 1846–1909) was born in Akhalkalaki, lived and was active in Alexandropol and later in Tbilisi. His chief themes were social ones, notably the liberation of his people. The sources of his music were the songs of the Armenian peasants. Sheram (Grigor Talian, 1857–1938) of Alexandropol, was another famous ashugh, an ardent singer of happy love.
Armenia, §I: Traditional musics
Little of the music of the medieval Armenian cities has survived. The folk music now played and sung in the cities is the product of the last two or three hundred years. Melodic patterns from all branches of folk music, mixed with elements of sazandar music, which is found throughout Transcaucasia, together with some Slavonic and European elements, have been assimilated into a nationally unified and characteristic style. Urban folksongs, especially lyrical ones, are emotionally more intimate than the peasant songs; the modal basis is practically identical, but the development of the melodies is achieved by simpler means: there are elements of periodicity in their structure, and the rhythm is also simpler. In urban songs the local features can be heard more clearly, so that, for example, there are clear distinctions between the songs of Yerevan, Gyumri (formerly Alexandropol), Shush, Van and other towns. The texts, unlike those of peasant songs, are mostly by professional poets. The love-song is characteristic; there are also everyday, student, entertainment and table songs, songs for solo and couple-dancing and so on. Much urban folk music consists of national patriotic songs, which developed intensively from the 1860s. The theme of liberation appeared in slow songs, including romances and even lullabies, as well as in marches. Also widespread were translations and Armenian adaptations of the Marseillaise and of Russian revolutionary songs.
Urban instrumental music, used to accompany songs and a great variety of solo dances, some of which are found throughout the Caucasus, included ritual melodies, slow extended improvisatory pieces (usually with refrains in slow rhythm) and potpourris, in both solo and ensemble performance. Ensemble performance was in unison with elements of improvisatory heterophony, and a sustained part was widely used.
In the medieval cities of Armenia folk instruments were very widespread. This is known not only from chronicles, miniatures and archaeological findings, but also from manuscripts in the Matenadaran (the Institute of Ancient Manuscripts in Yerevan). Some of these instruments have disappeared and others have changed. The l0th-century poet Grigor Narekatsi referred to a string instrument called djut‘ak, which is the modern Armenian word for violin. In the excavations of Dvin, one of the medieval capitals of Armenia, a vase from the 11th century shows a musician holding on his shoulder an instrument like the violin. The decrease in the number of folk instruments in the towns was also related to the introduction of European instruments.
The string instruments of the Armenian urban ensembles of later centuries have general Near Eastern distribution, and include the k‘yamancha (fig.1) and the k‘amani (the latter being a long rectangular three- or four-string fiddle); the ud, a short-necked unfretted lute, with 11 strings in six courses plucked with a plectrum; the t‘ar (also plucked with a plectrum); and the k‘anon and sant‘ur. In the 1920s the musician and composer Vardan Buniyatian (1888–1960) constructed a family of t‘aryer and k‘yamanchaner of different pitches and timbres, from which an Middle Eastern symphony orchestra was created. These instruments have now spread to Dagestan and other Central Asian republics. Among the newer string instruments is a special type of folk cello in two sizes, which has been given the name of the old instrument bambir. The wind instruments used include the duduk and zurna; the percussion includes the dhol (double-headed drum), the dap‘ or ghaval (a single-headed frame drum, sometimes with rattles or rings inside the frame, played with the fingers), and the naghara (two single-headed drums of the kettledrum type). There are string and wind ensembles, and combinations of both. The most easily formed ensemble, consisting of a t‘ar player, a k‘yamancha player and a ghaval player (the latter is also the singer), is called a nvagurd in Armenian, while the general Transcaucasian word for it is sazandar. In all these ensembles the dynamic of the performance rests primarily on the percussion instrument, which varies and develops the rhythmic intensity.
Armenia, §I: Traditional musics
The types of Armenian folk music described above and also the medieval religious music are monodic: they are formed exclusively from melodic elements. A basic diatonic scale gradually evolved, consisting of identical major tetrachords linked so that the highest note of one is the lowest of the next tetrachord. The scale is not equal-tempered: in folk vocal and instrumental performing practice the third degree of each tetrachord is slightly flatter than the corresponding degree of the tempered scale. Thus there is a great variety of intervals. In addition to tempered major and minor 2nds, there are ‘wide’ minor 2nds and ‘narrow’ major 2nds. This applies also to 3rds and other intervals. The major 7th and augmented 4th do not appear as melodic intervals, and augmented intervals are absent. The diminished octave exists as a diatonic interval. The basic diatonic scale is shown in ex.10 with the slightly flattened untempered degrees preceded by a small slanted line.
As the relations between the degrees are repeated after every fourth note, three types of mode can be formed naturally, corresponding to the G, A and B modes; these constituted the original basis of Armenian music. In the process of development of the melodic contours of the tunes, some degrees of the basic diatonic row were altered. These alterations may be divided into those of less than a semitone, when a partly raised variant occurs in the scale together with the original lower degree, and those of a semitone, which results in a new degree. Both types of alteration occurred from the earliest times and became increasingly frequent. Some modes formed with a semitone alteration (see ex.11b scales 1 and 2) appeared in simple forms in very early agricultural improvisations containing elements of pagan incantations to natural phenomena. Some (see ex.11b, scale 3) occurred with the development of the medieval tagher and the gusan hayrenner between the 10th and 13th centuries, while others (see ex.11b scales 6 and 7) occurred in the music of the ashughner; in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Chromaticism has no place in Armenian folk music. The basic degrees of the scale and their altered variants appear separately in practice as diatonic degrees. The scales are not confined to the octave and, in addition the notes of the mode above and below that octave are not automatically repeated; if a note is repeated an octave higher, it has a different melodic function in the mode. For example, if the final note occurs in the mode an octave above the actual finalis, the higher note will not be a final degree. As a result the mode has only one finalis: this usually appears in the middle of its scale, so that the modes are chiefly plagal. They are also centripetal in that the degrees below the finalis are raised notes and those above it are lowered: thus from both directions there is a tendency to move towards the finalis. The medians degrees also assume the role of leading notes.
The modes are made up of several joined segments which may be dichords, trichords, tetrachords or pentachords. A relatively full form of each mode usually consists of three segments, more rarely of four or five (see ex.11). The maximum range of a mode is generally a 10th or slightly more. The most important segment, defining its structure and expressive character, is the tonic segment, whose highest note (the beginning note of the segment above) has the role of a secondary tonal centre, slightly less stable than the tonic. In practice the complete stability of the tonic is felt most clearly when a folk melody is performed on two instruments (e.g. two dudukner), with one holding the tonic throughout. Similarly the fair degree of stability of the secondary tonal centre is clear when three instruments are played and two hold the notes of the two tonal centres of the scale. At the end all come together on the finalis. The secondary tonal centre acts as the dominant note, from its frequent occurrence in the melody, its metrical emphasis and its more important role in the melodic contour in relation to the other degrees. It may be a 3rd, 4th or 5th above the tonic. In the closing part of the melody the secondary tonal centre usually relinquishes its role to the degrees immediately below, which then lead the melody in sequence to the finalis. In the process of melodic development each segment of the mode can serve as a new tonic segment, and if the melody is non-modulating the original tonic segment reestablishes its function later.
The finalis of each mode is linked with a certain degree of the basic diatonic scale and can be transposed only by a perfect 4th. For this reason the modal systems are in a sense also tonal systems. The scales of the chief modes are shown in ex.11 with their complete range of a 10th, to illustrate their differences fully.
In the old theory of Armenian music the concept of mode was part of a broader concept of dzayn (‘voice’), which when used in relation to religious music implied specific melodic patterns and ways of developing the cantilena, to be linked with the various modes. The modes are all independent systems with a definite semantic character, and each of these is peculiar to a particular range of emotional expression. Within the limits of one cantilena they can occur in various combinations, as modal (sometimes also modal-tonal) modulation or deviation leading to an increase in melodic tension; in the old Armenian music theory such a modulation was called zartughut‘yun. Possibilities include a combination of modes with various tonics (in the simplest cases with various secondary tonal centres) within the same scale; a combination of modes with various scales using the same tonic; and a combination of modes with various scales and various tonics. In the first and third cases the second (modulated) tonic is usually a major 2nd above or below the original or a major or minor 3rd or perfect 4th below it. The modes which are combined may have the same or different tendencies; when modulation occurs it is (in descending order of frequency) a transition from major to minor, from minor to minor or from minor to major. The relationship of the modes (or modal tonalities) is based on common traits.
The characteristics of the modal system apply to all branches of Armenian folk music with a slight reservation: in peasant music as well as in the old gusan music and the folk tagher natural modes are predominant, with fairly simple alterations and combinations, while in urban folk music and especially in ashugh songs complex alterations and combinations are also widely used. This also applies to melodic contour.
The melodic pattern (‘intonation’) of Armenian folk music is also diatonic. In the expressive sense it is distinctively natural and balanced, and is close to spoken intonation; indeed in village and ashugh songs certain musical phrases are often perceived as melodized speech. In spite of the close tie between the musical contour and the words (both in general mood and in details), each retains its own logic of development. The musical side dominates because melismatic development of the melody is often found alongside the syllabic principle. The melody also governs the general form; the text, which is expanded by repetition and exclamations, is subordinate to the musical form. Melodically, a flowing wave-like movement prevails, usually even but also with a short rising and a relatively long descending pattern. Skips (primarily upwards) occur, if at all, in opening structures, which are always completed with a wave-like movement.
One of the most typical forms of composition of the peasant melody is as follows: at the beginning the core motif appears, composed of the tonic or secondary modal centre (heard either at once or preceded by an upward skip) and the notes surrounding it. This motif (or part of it) is then varied rhythmically and melodically, constantly expanding horizontally or vertically, and a definite rhythmic-melodic structure develops; phrases and sections are usually unequal, and the melodic culmination stands out. A rapid opening is usually followed by a slow denouement. Ex.12a shows a song, ex.12b its motinc structure. It is this principle of varying the core motif that makes it possible to create an expanded and expressive melody from only four or five notes. Sometimes the basis of a melody is a complete phrase, and its relatively developed modal-melodic variant becomes an independent ‘central section’ (see above, ex.2), after which the first phrase is repeated in part or in full (reprise). In professional lyric monodies the form expanded by variation is still more highly developed Such devices of melodic structure are distinctive adaptations of motivic-thematic development. In one form or another they are characteristic of songs in all the branches of Armenian folk music. A second rule can also be discerned: these elementary melodic cells have their own characteristic melodic structure and modal features in the different song types, in accordance with the genre and emotional mood of the song. In this way the emotional mood, the modal-melodic features and the genre to which the cantilena belongs all have a determining effect on each other, and this interdetermination has traditional stable forms. The use of grace notes and mordents in Armenian melodies is rather limited, and they are more charactenstic of ashugh songs. In peasant songs, however, the notes which appear to be ornamental are often basic to the melody, even if they are short.
The possibilities of rhythmic variation in Armenian folk music seem limitless, as may be seen in the improvisations of the players of the dhol and the zurna. Three types of rhythmic form may be distinguished. The first is the dance form in which relatively short rhythmic figures follow each other, repeated or slightly varied, with simple correlation of durations and with much use of dotted rhythms and syncopation. In songs of this type the number of rhythmic units usually equals the number of syllables. The second is the song form in which the rhythmic figures are quite broad and usually unrepeated. When they are repeated the metric sequence is changed; in any case the metric units do not correspond to each other. In songs in this form there is melismatic development, so that the number of rhythmic units is always greater than the number of syllables. The third is the recitative or improvisatory form in which the metre is free and the pulsation of time is produced not by metric but by separate rhythmic units, which can themselves change; the relation between the lengths is more marked and is irregular. In the songs with this rhythmic form a vocalization on one syllable follows every syllabic motif. These three rhythmic forms are characteristic in both vocal and instrumental music. Each may be said to be more charactenstic of certain genres of song than others, but there is often a combination or interpenetration of two or all three forms. The special quality of rhythm in Armenian folk music is also emphasized by metric variety: along with the simple and compound metres many mixed metres are used (5/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 10/8, 11/8 etc.).
Polyphony has been little studied. Armenian folk music has traditionally been regarded as monophonic, although Komitas observed that in it ‘one finds cases which show signs of true two-part singing’. A sustained part or drone, probably taken from folk instrumental music, was known in the Middle Ages in professional vocal monodic music (called dzaynarut‘yun in old Armenian music theory). In folksinging with instrumental accompaniment and in ensemble playing this part is held by a single instrument or group of instruments. On a single instrument it may be played by one or two strings, or on a bagpipe by one pipe. The sustained pitch, usually the tonic, may be on the level of the melody or below or above it. It may be unbroken or interrupted; on percussion instruments it may be in the form of tremolo. It may consist of one note or of an ostinato phrase. The modal digressions of the melody can take place against the background of this part. Where a melody revolves directly around the sustained note and the untempered intervals (especially those smaller than a semitone) are more clearly perceived, sharp dissonances occur and the sustained note produces a remarkable artistic effect. In addition players of the dhol or dap‘ often strike various parts of the skin obtaining different pitches and timbres so that the instrument produces two-part music. Of general interest also is a polyphony of timbre in ensemble playing at the octave or in unison, when short phrases are added to the basic melody at its rhythmic pauses; heterophony also occurs. These are improvisatory devices, but they are linked with definite traditions.
Polyphonic elements are widely used in antiphonal vocal music: antiphony is divided into that arising spontaneously in natural conditions and that created de liberately. The former, like heterophony, is directly connected with improvisation and occurs in work songs, at home and in the field, performed by two or three people: ex.1 above is such a domestic work song, for grinding grain. Here the woman with the best voice or the leader of the work sings the main melodic line, and her co-worker performs the added phrases or exclamations. The antiphony during farm work, especially during ploughing, is more elaborate. Each member of the working group has his specific function in the work and in the singing. Ex.13 is an excerpt from a horovel noted down by Komitas (for full version see Shaverdian, 1959, p.339).
What has been called a ‘premeditated’ type of antiphony is that found in ritual songs (wedding and carnival songs and songs of young girls foretelling the future), love-songs and other duets and dance-songs. This is basically traditional responsorial singing by a soloist and a chorus, or two soloists or two choruses: ex.14 shows a girls's lyrical dance-song. Komitas found an example of two-part singing during a circle-dance, in which the second part was in harmony with the first, an unusual feature: in songs with polyphonic features, one of the parts is almost always a continuation of the other.
The characteristics common to Armenian folk arts can be observed in the general ‘emotional tone’ and also in details of composition. The two most important of these are: the asymmetry of the component parts which form a balanced whole, a ‘symmetry of asymmetry’, while producing an internal dynamism; and the economy of expressive means and the avoidance of extremes, resulting in a particular restraint of expression, a concentration of thought and feeling. These characteristics are manifested in music and also in architecture, bas-reliefs, artistic miniatures, carpets and embroideries.
Armenia, §I: Traditional musics
During the 20th century, especially since the beginning of Soviet rule in 1920, the life and ways of the Armenian people changed radically. The security of life, the decisive reconstruction and the swift development of the economy have brought about new intellectual interests. These were also reflected in folk music, the chief genres of which have continued to exist. Those connected with the old way of life and old forms of work died out, some were modernized and some new ones arose. Themes acquired new elements: alongside the eternal personal motifs there were also contemporary social ones. Television and radio as well as the recording industry have also exerted an important influence over the development of Armenian music, especially in the urban centres where such technologies have increased enormously the interaction between the cultures of various nations.
The ashugh tradition continues, in spite of the fact that there are now many centres of professional training in literature and music, but with one important change: the ashugh songs are not only spread orally but also published. Contemporary ashughner, obviously wishing to emphasize their devotion to the ancient national art call themselves gusanner. The songs of these modern gusanner, while retaining traditional ashugh poetic and musical forms (especially the oratorical manner of expression) have also become relatively simple and clear optimistic subjects and views of life predominate. Among the many 20th-century gusanner, some of the most gifted were Gusan Sheram (1857–1938), Havasi (1896–1978), Ashot (1907–86), Shahen (1909–90), and Lgit‘ (1908–96).
Folksong and dance ensembles and orchestras of folk instruments were organized by professional musicians as early as the 1880s, and these brought folk music to the concert stage. A pioneer in this activity was the composer and choral conductor Khristofor Kara-Murza (1856–1902). The teaching of traditional instruments is now a professional activity and an integral part of the programme for all the educational establishments specializing in music in Armenia. The modern Armenian State Folk Song and Dance Ensemble was created and for a long time directed by the choral conductor T‘atul Altiunian (1901–73); this group has gained recognition far beyond the borders of its own country. Old and new folksongs and ashugh songs are also performed on the stage, for radio and for television by folk musicians. Special organizations such as the House of Folk Creation and the Choral Society of Armenia arrange competitions for these musicians and for professional and amateur folk music ensembles, and organize song festivals for the entire country.
Folksong has played a great role in the development of Armenian composed music. In the 19th century the creative genre of folksong arrangement arose; it still retains its importance today. Folk music formed the basis of a significant part of the nationalistic compositions of Komitas, and such melodies or their stylistic features have been used in various forms in the works of Alexander Spendiarian, Romanos Melik‘ian, Armen Tigranian, Aram Khachaturian and many other composers.
Armenia, §I: Traditional musics
Komitas: Shar Akna zhoghovrdakan ergeri [Series of Akn folksongs] (Vagharshapat, 1895) [in Armenian notation]
S. Demurian: K‘nar (St Petersburg, 1908) [in European notation]
S. Melik‘ian and A. Ter-Ghevondian: Shiraki erger [Songs from Shirak] (Tbilisi, 1917)
S. Melik‘ian and G. Gardashian: Vana zhoghovrdakan erger [Folksongs from Van] (Yerevan, 1927–8)
Komitas: Zhoghovrdakan erger [Folksongs] (Yerevan, 1931)
Sayat‘-Nova: Erger [Songs] (Yerevan, 1946, 2/1963)
Sheram: Erger [Songs] (Yerevan, 1948, 2/1959)
S. Melik‘ian: Hay zhoghovrdakan erger ev parerger [Armenian folksongs and dances] (Yerevan, 1949–52)
Komitas: Hay zhoghovrdakan erger ev parerger [Armenian folksongs and dances] (Yerevan, 1950)
Djivani: Erger [Songs] (Yerevan, 1955)
Gusan Ashot: Erger [Songs] (Yerevan, 1958)
H. Harut‘unian: Manyak: zhoghovadsu hay zhoghovrdakan ergeri [‘Manyak’: a collection of Armenian folksongs] (Yerevan, 1958)
S. Lisitsian: Starinnïye armianskiye plyaski i teatral'nïye predstavleniya [Old Armenian dances and theatrical presentations] (Yerevan, 1958–72)
Gusan Havasi: Erger [Songs] (Yerevan, 1961)
Gusan Shahen: Erger [Songs] (Yerevan, 1964)
M. T‘umadjian: Hayreni erg u ban [Folksongs] (Yerevan, 1972–86)
A. K‘ocharian: Hay gusanakan erger [Armenian gusan songs] (Yerevan, 1976)
A. P‘ahlevanian: Hayreni erger [Folksongs] (Yerevan, 1980)
N. T‘ahmizian: Voskepo'rik: Hay ergi goharner [Voskeporik: selection of Armenian folksongs] (Yerevan, 1982)
A. P‘ahlevanian and A. Sahakian: T‘alin: Haykakan zhoghovrdakan erger ev nvagner [T‘alin: Armenian folksongs and melodies] (Yerevan, 1984)
A. Brutian: Ramkakan mrmundjner [Peasant melodies], ed. M. Brutian (Yerevan, 1985)
M. Brutian and A. P‘ahlevanian: Hayrenakan meds paterazmë hay zhoghovrdakan ev gusanakan ergerum [The Great Patriotic War (1941–5) in Armenain folksongs and the songs of the gusanner] (Yerevan, 1995)
A. Sahakian and A. P‘ahlevanian: ‘Sasna dsrer‘ dyutsaznavep: araspelakan ënderk’, Vipakan karuyts, vipasanakan eghanak [The heroic epic ‘Sasun daredevils’: the mythological roots, epic structure, method of delivery] (Pasadena, CA, 1996) [incl. musical exx.]
M. Manukian: Martunu shrdjani zhoghovrdakan erger [Songs of the Matuni region of Armenia] (Yerevan, 1997) [Eng. summary]
V. Korganov: Kavkazskaya muzïka [Caucasian music] (Tbilisi, 1900, 2/1908)
Komitas: Zeitschrift für armenische Philologie, i/1 (1901)
Komitas: ‘La musique rustique arménienne’, BSIM, iii (1907), 472–90
Komitas: Hay geghdjuk erazhshtut‘iwn [Armenian peasant music] (Paris, 1938)
Komitas: Hodvadsner ev usumnasirut‘yunner [Articles and Studies], ed. R. T‘erlemezian (Yerevan, 1941)
M. Abeghian, ed.: Sasna dsrer [The heroes of Sasun], ii/2 (Yerevan, 1951) [epic song incl. transcr.]
Kh. Kushnarian: Voprosï istorii i teorii armianskoy monodicheskoy muzïki [Questions on the history and theory of Armenian monody] (Leningrad, 1958)
R. At‘aian: Haykakan khazayin notagrut‘yune: usumnasirut‘ian ev verdsanut‘yan hartser [Armenian khaz notation: questions of study and transcription (Yerevan, 1959)
E. Khanzadian: ‘Haykakan hin erazhshtakan gordsik‘nerě’ [Old Armenian musical instruments], Hayastani Patmakan T‘angarani ashkhatut‘yunner (1959), no.5, pp.63–93
A. Shahverdian: Ocherki po ostorii armyanskoy muzïki XIX–XX vekov [Sketches of the history of 19th- and 20th-century Armenian music] (Moscow, 1959)
R. At‘aian: Gusan Havasi (Moscow, 1962)
V.M. Belyayev: ‘Muzïkal'naya kul'tura Armenii’, Ocherki po istorii muzïki narodov SSSR [The musical culture of Armenia: outline of the history of the music of the peoples of the USSR], ii, ed. G.A. Balter (Moscow, 1963), 82–204
A. K‘och‘arian: ‘P‘oghayin erazhshtakan gordsik‘nerě Hayastanum’ [Armenian wind instruments], Patma-banasirakan handes (1963), no.3 p.163
G. Levonian: Erker [Collected works] (Yerevan, 1963)
M. Manukian: ‘Sovetahay gusanakan arvestě’ [Soviet Armenian gusan art], Patma-banasirakan handes (1963), no.2, p.117
A. T‘adevosian: S. Melik‘ianě ev hay zhoghovrdakan ergě [S. Melik‘ian and Armenian folksong] (Yerevan, 1964)
R. At‘aian: Armyanskaya narodnaya pesnya [Armenian folksong] (Moscow, 1965)
A. Tamburist: Rukovodstvo po vostochnoy muzïke [Handbook of oriental music], ed. N. T‘ahmizian (Yerevan, 1968)
Komitasakan: Sbornik issledovaniy [Collection of studies], ed. R. At‘aian (Yerevan, 1969–81)
G. Geodakian: Komitas (Yerevan, 1969)
M. Brutian: Hay zhoghovrdakan eraszhshtakan steghdsagordut'yun: geghdjkakan erg [Armenian folk music: peasant music] (Yerevan, 1971)
M. Brutian: ‘Ladovaya sistema armyanskoy narodnoy (krest'yanskoy) muzïki’ [Modal system of Armenian folk (peasant) music], Problemï muzïkal'nogo fol'klora narodov SSSR, iii, ed. I.I. Zemtsovsky (Moscow, 1973), 226
M. Brutian: Hay zhoghovrdakan erazhshtakan steghdsagordsut‘yun, i: Geghdjkakan erg [Armenian folk music, i: Peasant songs] (Yerevan, 1971)
A. Sarian-Harut‘unian: ‘Hay k‘aghak‘ayin zhoghovrdakan ergarvestě’ [Armenian urban folksong], Hay azgagrut‘yun ev banahyusut‘yun, iv (Yerevan, 1973), 83–174
A. P‘ahlevanian: ‘Printsipï notirovaniya armyanskikh narodnïkh pesen’ [The principles of notating Armenian folksongs], Haykakan SSH gitut‘yunneri akademiayi teghekagir (Yerevan, 1976), no.8, p.14
A. Tsistsikian: Haykakan agheghnayin arvestě [The instrumental art of the bow in Armenia] (Yerevan, 1977) [Eng. summary]
N. T‘ahmizian: Teoriya muzïki drevny Armenii [Theory of music in ancient Armenia] (Yerevan, 1977) [Eng. summary]
A. P‘ahlevanian: ‘O roli narodnogo tvorchestva v muzïkal'hoy kul'ture sovetskoy Armenii’ [On the role of folk art in the musical culture of Soviet Armenia], Muzïkal'naya kul'tura Armyanskoy SR (Sbornik statey), ed. M. Berko (Moscow, 1985), 367–95
G. Geodakian: ‘Chertï ladovoy sistemï armyanskoy narodnoy muzïki’ [Features of the modal system in Armenian folk music], Traditsii i sovremennost‘. Voprosï armyanskoy muzïki (Sbornik statey, kniga 1), ed. G. Geodakian and M. Rukhkian (Yerevan, 1986), 7–40
A. Shahverdian: Komitas, ed. R. At‘aian and N. T‘ahmizian (Moscow, 1989)
N. T‘ahmizian: Komitasě ev hay zhoghovoordi erazhshtakan zharangut‘yuně [Komitas and the musical legacy of Armenian notation] (Pasadena, CA, 1994)
H. Asadourian: Komitas vardapeti het: Hay ergi arahetnerov [With Komitas Vardapet: through Armenian song] (Tenafly, NJ, 1994)
N. T‘ahmizian: Sayat‘-Novan ev hay gusana-ashughakan erg-erazhshtut‘yuně [Sayat‘-Nova and the Armenian minstrel tradition] (Pasadena, CA, 1995)
G. Geodakian: ‘Sistema khazovoy notopisi i vozmozhnosti yeyo rasshifrovki’ [The khaz system of notation and the possibilities of deciphering it], Traditsii i sovremennost'. Voprosï armyanskoy muzïki (Sbornik statey, kniga 2), ed. G. Geodakian, M. Rukhkian and A. Sarian (Yerevan, 1996), 45–67
G. Geodakyan: ‘Funktsional'nïye svyazi tonov v zvukovïsotnoy sisteme armyanskoy narodnoy muzïki’ [The functional link between notes in the pitch system of Armenian folk music], ibid., 78–108
C. Dowsett: Sayat‘-Nova: an 18th-century Troubadour: a Literary and Biographical Study (Leuven, (1997)
In 301 ce St Grigor the Illuminator converted King Trdat III (Tiridates) to Christianity; Armenia thus became the first officially Christian state. Having participated in the first three ecumenical councils only, the Church of Armenia belongs to the Lesser Eastern Orthodox group of churches. At the beginning of the 5th century, during the Catholicate of St Sahak Part‘ew (387–436), St Mesrop Mashtots (d 440) devised the Armenian alphabet. The translation of the Bible into Armenian, which immediately followed, became the starting point for the development of a distinctive tradition of liturgical music. Grabar, the classical Armenian language, has remained the ritual language of the Armenian Church. The Divine Liturgy (Patarag is based on the liturgy of St Athanasius of Alexandria and the Alexandrian text of St Basil of Caesarea; it was reformed in the 12th century by Catholicos St Nerses IV Klayetsi, known as ‘Shnorhali’ (‘Gracious’).
Knowledge of the early periods of Armenian liturgical music is scarce and derives primarily from events and facts documented in medieval sources (information that was formerly transmitted orally). However, the historical development of the early rite and its music can be reconstructed from liturgical manuscripts, in which the archaic structure is largely preserved. During the first centuries of Christianity in Armenia, the greater part of the liturgy consisted of psalms and canticles whose chants were probably adapted from local melodies. Hymns such as P‘ark‘ i bardzuns (Gloria in excelsis), Luys zevart‘ (Phōs hilaron) and Surb Astuads (Trisagion) were also gradually introduced. The organization of traditional melodic patterns into an eight-mode system is ascribed to the 8th-century theorist and hymnographer Step‘anos Siwnetsi.
As the liturgy evolved, the number of chants increased and new forms appeared. Sacred song blossomed during the Armenian renaissance of the 10th–13th centuries, a period of political stability that favoured urban expansion and the flourishing of art and trade. By this time there was already a substantial repertory of liturgical chants whose music, with its diverse melodic turns and elaborate melismas, was often quite complex and ornate. A complete Proper repertory of the texts, of which there were regional melodic variants, was established by the 15th century, and many new chants continued to appear up to the 19th. The main melodic variants to have come down into the 20th century developed in diaspora centres such as Constantinople (where several schools existed), the Mekhitarist monastery in Venice, the Armenian monastery in Jerusalem and the Armenian communities of Egypt and Iran. The origins of these variants derive from the musical traditions of the monasteries of Cilicia and Greater Armenia.
The Armenian liturgy is completely interwoven with music. Only the prayers and collects are spoken; the rest consists of three main forms of musical interpolation: (1) sung recitative, such as simple psalmody, introits and litanies, with a limited range; (2) chants, including the majority of sharakan (canonical hymns), based on traditional melodic patterns; and (3) chants with particular melodies, such as the tagh, meghedi and erg. The forms in all three categories are used for psalmody, for the chants of the Divine Liturgy and for the Office chants of the Book of Hours (zhamagirk‘).
The substance of the Armenian Church’s musical system is the sharakan repertory of more than 1300 cyclically organized chants contained in the Book of Sharakan (modern term sharaknots), which developed from the hymnbook compiled by Barsegh Tjon in the 7th century. In the earliest period these were sung during Offices, alternating with psalms and canticles; later, they replaced several psalms and canticles, the first verses of which were retained as introductions and intonations. Little is known about their early history: sharakan authors were listed only from the 13th century onwards, and their names reflect the hieratic character of the repertory. Thus, St Mesrop Mashtots and St Sahak Part'ew are traditionally considered to be the first composers of the genre, although the oldest attested chant of the present Book of Sharakan dates from the 7th century. Almost a fifth of all present canonical sharakan chants were composed by Catholicos St Nerses IV Klayetsi (1112–73). The melodic patterns of the sharakan have their own developed structure, but they are subordinate to the texts and are adapted according to the prosody of the words. Depending on the occasion, the same sharakan may be sung in its rapid, medium or slow variants, for which the melodic pattern is again adapted. (For a transcription of a sharakan for Resurrection Sundays see below, ex.15b.)
The tagh and the meghedi, which are no longer clearly distinct genres, are thought to have developed in about the 10th and 11th centuries. Their rich ornamentation and long phrases may have influenced some slow sharakan chants. The gandz, which have all but disappeared from the repertory, were originally litanies, usually in recitative style and of limited range; the handful that remain are no longer in litany form but have been transformed into chant-like melodies. The erg (‘song’), the oldest of the genres, is the term used for the chants of the Book of Hours, most of which survive in numerous variants.
With the development of Armenian church ritual over the centuries, several liturgical books were compiled at different periods: the zhamagirk' (Book of Hours), Pataragamatyuts (Book of the Divine Liturgy) and the Book of Sharakan are for daily use; the tagharan, gandzaran and ergaran are specific collections of optional chants (the zhamagirk‘ also includes optional chants); and the mashtots contains canons for ordinations, baptisms and funerals, among other rites.
An ekphonetic notation developed from prosodic accents was introduced into the Armenian Church in about the 9th century and was used primarily for the liturgical recitation of the Bible. During the same period a system of neumes, known as khaz notation, also appeared (fig.2). The latter subsequently developed during the period of the Cilician kingdom (1187–1375) and was later adapted to the evolving traditional melodic patterns and new chant forms. The most important reform of khaz notation and compiling of khaz transcriptions of the Book of Sharakan was undertaken by Grigor, nicknamed ‘Khul’ (‘deaf’), during the reign of Levon II (1187–1219). Manuals called manrusum, in which chants notated in khaz are arranged according to the degree of difficulty, date from the Cilician period. The continuous contact of monks from Greater Armenia with the Cilician monasteries promoted musical exchange and evolution; it was through such interaction that the development of khaz notation was brought from the Cilician kingdom to Greater Armenia. Though highly elaborate, khaz notation remained a series of indications, valid only within the context of an orally transmitted, living tradition.
During the 16th century the teaching of khaz notation began to decline, and the transmission of liturgical chants was increasingly dependent on oral methods. In 1812 a modern system with diastematic characteristics, called ‘church notation’, was developed in Constantinople through the collective efforts of Baba Hambardzum Limondjian (1768–1839), Fr Minas Bejeshkian (1777–1851) of the Venice Mekhitarist congregation, Andon Duzian (1765–1814) and Hagop Duzian (1793–1847). Now known as ‘Armenian modern musical notation’, it was used to transcribe the canonical repertory of liturgical chant in different variants. (An example of this notation, together with a transcription into Western notation, is given in ex.15.) The official publication of the transcriptions began in 1874 at the instigation of Catholicos Georg IV (1813–82), who had received his musical training at Constantinople. When these transcriptions were begun, however, the elaborate melodies of numerous chants had already been forgotten; with the destruction of Armenian monasteries in 1915–16, further loss of the repertory occurred as many songs and variant traditions disappeared. Several books using Armenian modern musical notation have since been published, and manuscript notebooks belonging to ordained choristers remain in use or are preserved in libraries. Western notation has also been used since the early 20th century, especially for polyphonic versions of the Divine Liturgy and other frequently performed chants. Modern studies of khaz notation began with the work of Eghia Tntessian (1834–81) and Fr Komitas (1869–1935).
Because no medieval Armenian music treatise has survived, information on chant theory must be sought in the repertory itself, especially from the sharakan chants, which are organized according to the system of the eight modes (Ut‘ dzayn). The Armenian oktōēchos is formally divided into four modes called dzayn (‘voice’; equivalent to the Byzantine ēchos) and four termed koghm (‘side’; the Byzantine ēchos plagios). There are also a number of modes called dardzuatzk‘ (‘strophe’), steghi (‘branched’) and zartughi (‘deviated’), each classified under one or other of the eight modes. Approximately 20 modes are combined in the Armenian oktōēchos, each containing a number of different melodic patterns. The modes are defined by their characteristic melodic formulae and interval combinations. Pythagorean diatonic, natural diatonic and chromatic intervals are used with varying divisions. The definition also includes such characteristic features as the hierarchy of the fundamental, final, leading note and other degrees, as well as the interpretation required for each degree, for example, use of the full voice, vibrating the voice within a very small interval, or making minor pitch changes according to the upwards or downwards motion of the melody.
The main characteristics of melodic development in Armenian chant include movement within the natural 4th, direct passage between intervals of 3rds and 4ths, and slow upwards and rapid downwards (somewhat ornamental) progressions. A drone sung on the vowel ‘u’, either on the fundamental degree or on the first degree of the basic interval (which in many cases is the same pitch) is frequently used to accompany solo singing and slow group songs such as processional chants.
In the 19th century, with the participation of polyphonic choirs and the organ in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, equal temperament was introduced. Settings of the Divine Liturgy include those of Makar Ekmalian (1856–1905), Levon Chilingirian (1862–1932), Fr Komitas (1869–1935) and Khoren Mekhanedjian (b 1937). During the latter half of the 20th century the singing of traditional modal chant at the liturgy declined, and knowledge and teaching of the Armenian oktōēchos – still the musical basis of the Offices – has also diminshed. The practice has nevertheless been kept alive by groups of ordained choristers led by precentors. Although notation is used to a certain extent, the musical training of such choristers relies mainly on oral transmission.
N. Tashjian, ed.: Dzaynagreal ergetsoghut‘iwnk‘ Srboy Pataragi [Musical transcription of the chants of the Divine Liturgy] (Vagharshapat, 1874, 2/1878) [in Armenian modern notation]
N. Tashjian, ed.: Dzaynagreal sharakan hogewor ergots [Musical transcription of sharakan chants] (Vagharshapat, 1875) [in Armenian modern notation]; i (Yerevan, 1997) [in Western notation]
N. Tashjian, ed.: Ergk‘ dzaynagrealk‘ i zhamagrots Hayastaneayts Surb Ekeghetswoy [Musical transcription of the chants of the Armenian Church’s Book of Hours] (Vagharshapat, 1877) [in Armenian modern notation]
M. Ekmalyan, ed.: Die Gesänge der heiligen Messe der armenisch-apostolischen Kirche (Leipzig and Vienna, 1896) [in Western notation]
A. Apkar, ed.: Melodies of the Holy Apostolic Church of Armenia (Calcutta, 1897, enlarged 2/1920) [in Western notation]
K. Mehterian, ed.: Tonakarg dzaynagreal [Ceremonial with musical transcriptions] (Constantinople, 1921, enlarged, Cairo, 1952) [in Armenian modern notation]
V. Sargsian, ed.: Komitas Vardapet: Dashnaworeal ergetsoghut‘iwnk‘ Srboy Pataragi [Harmonized chants of the Divine Liturgy] (Paris, 1933/R)
Mayr Eghanak S. Pataragi [Mother-melody of the Divine Liturgy] (Istanbul, 1934) [in Armenian modern notation]
E. Tntesian, ed.: Sharakan dzaynagreal [Musical transcription of sharakan chants] (Istanbul, 1934) [in Armenian modern notation]
L.D. Daian, ed.: Sharakan hayastaneayts ekeghetswoy/Les hymnes de l’église arménienne, ii–viii (Venice, 1960–76) [in Western notation]
Arewagali ew hskumi erger [Sunrise Office and vigil chants] (Antelias, 1979) [in Western notation]
Meds Pahots Kirakiner [Canons for Lenten Sundays] (Antelias, 1981) [in Western notation]
Awag Shabat‘ [Canons for Holy Week] (Antelias, 1984) [in Western notation]
Awag Ōrhnut'iwnner [Sharakan chants for Resurrection Sundays] (Antelias, 1985) [in Western notation]
Meghediner, tagher ew gandzer [Melodies, odes and litanies] (Antelias, 1990) [in Western notation]
MGG2 (C. Hannick)
E. Tntesian: Nkaragir ergots Hayastaneaytss ekeghetswoy [Description of the hymns of the Armenian Church] (Constantinople, 1874/R)
Komitas Vardapet: ‘Hayots ekeghetsakan eghanaknerě’, Ararat (1894), no.7, pp.222–7; no.8, pp.256–60; Eng. trans. as ‘The Church Melodies of the Armenians’, in Nersessian, 1998, pp.97–121
Komitas Vardapet: ‘Hayots ekeghetsakan eghanaknerě 19. darum’, Ararat (1897), no.5, pp.221–5; Fr. trans. as ‘La musique religieuse arménienne au XIXe siècle’, Revue des études arméniennes, new ser., xx (1986–7), 497–506; Eng. trans. as ‘The Church music of the Armenians in the 19th century’, in Nersessian, 1998, pp.163–72
Komitas Vardapet: ‘Die armenische Kirchenmusik, I: Das Interpunktionssystem des Armenier’, SIMG, i (1899–1900), 54–64; Eng. trans. in Nersessian, 1998, pp.143–56
N. Ter-Mikaëlian: Das armenische Hymnarium: Studien zu seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Leipzig, 1905)
A. Hisarlian: Patmut‘iwn hay dzaynagrut‘ean ew kensagrut‘iwnk‘ erazhisht azgaynots, 1768–1909 [History of Armenian notation and biographies of Armenian musicians] (Constantinople, 1914)
Kh. S. Kushnarian: Voprosi istorii i teorii armyanskoy monodicheskoy muziki [Questions on the history and theory of Armenian monody] (Leningrad, 1958; Eng trans., ed. N.V. Nersessian, 1998, as Armenian Monodic Music: History and Theory)
R.A. At‘aian: Haykakan khazayin notagrut‘yuně: usumnasirutyan ev verdsanutian hartser [Armenian khaz notation: questions of study and transcription] (Yerevan, 1959; Eng. trans., ed. N.V. Nersessian, 1998, as Armenian Neume System of Notation)
R.A. Atajan: ‘Armenische Chasen’, BMw, x (1968), 65–82
N.K. T‘ahmizian: ‘Komitasě ev haykakan khazeri vertsanut‘ean khndirě’ [Komitas and the problem of deciphering Armenian neumes], Patma-banasirakan handes, iv (1969), 30–48
R.A. Atajan: ‘Die armenische professionelle Liederkunst des Mittelalters’, Revue des études arméniennes, new ser., vii (1970), 241–66; repr. in V. Nersessian, ed.: Essays on Armenian Music (London, 1978)
N.K. T‘ahmizyan: ‘Les anciens manuscrits musicaux arméniens et les questions relatives à leur déchiffrement’, Revue des études arméniennes, new ser., vii (1970), 267–80; repr. in V. Nersessian, ed.: Essays on Armenian Music (London, 1978)
B. Outtier: ‘Recherches sur la genèse de l’octoéchos arménien’, EG, xiv (1973), 129–211; repr. in V. Nersessian, ed.: Essays on Armenian Music (London, 1978), 52–128
N.K. T‘ahmizian: Nerses Shnorhalin: ergahan ev erazhisht [Nerses Shnorhali: composer and musician] (Yerevan, 1973)
V.N. Nersessian, ed.: Essays on Armenian Music (London, 1978)
N.K. T‘ahmizian: Muzyka v drevnei i srednevekovoi Armenii [Music in ancient and medieval Armenia] (Yerevan, 1982)
A. Ertlbauer: Geschichte und Theorie der einstimmigen armenische Kirchenmusik: eine Kritik der bisherigen Forschung (Vienna, 1985)
N.K. T‘ahmizian: Grigor Narekatsin ev hay erazhshtut‘yuně, v–xv dd. [Grigor Narekatsi and Armenian music, 5th–15th centuries] (Yerevan, 1985)
N.K. T‘ahmizian: Erazhshtut‘yuně haykakan Kilikiayum [Music in Cilician Armenia] (Yerevan, 1989)
A. Kerovpyan: ‘Les charakan (troparia) et l’octoéchos arménien selon le charaknots (tropologion arménien) édité en 1875’, Aspects de la musique liturgique au Moyen-Age, ed. C. Meyer (Paris, 1991) 93–123
A. Kerovpyan: ‘Mündliche und schriftliche Überlieferung in der Musik der Armenier’, Armenien: Wiederentdeckung einer alten Kulturlandschaft, ed. K. Platt (Bochum, 1995), 445–9 [exhibition catalogue]
A. Kerovpyan: ‘Armenian Liturgical Chant; the System and Reflections on the Present Situation’, St Nersess Theological Review, i (1996), 25–42
M. Bzheshkian: Erazhshtut‘iwn: or e hamarōt teghekut‘iwn erazhshtakan skzbants elewejut‘ean eghanakats ew nshanagrats khazits [Music: a concise summary of musical principles, modal patterns and neumatic notation], ed. A. Kerovpian (Yerevan, 1997)
V.N. Nersessian, ed.: Armenian Sacred and Folk Music: Komitas (Richmond, 1998)
A. Kerovpyan: Manuel de notation musicale arménienne moderne (Vienna, 1999)
V.N. Nersessian: The Armenian Neume System of Notation (London, 1999)
Messe arménienne, Chorales réunies d’Istanbul, dir. J. Arslaniantz, ARAS 21003 (1966)
Chants de la liturgie arménienne, Choeurs Sipan-Komitas de Paris, dir. G. Aprikyan, Harmonia Mundi HM 5120 (1982) [originally issued in 1975]
Arménie: chants liturgique du Moyen-Age, dir. R. Atayan, Ocora–Radio France C559001 (1988) [originally issued in 1975]
Chants liturgiques arméniennes, Choir of the Mekhitarist Community of S Lazarro, Venice, UNESCO: Anthologie des musiques traditionelles, Auvidis D8015 (1989) [chants for Lent and Easter; originally issued in 1975]
Chants liturgiques arméniennes, Ensemble Akn, dir. A. Kerovpyan, ALSUR CDAL274 (2000)
The growth of musics influenced by European art forms in the second half of the 19th century was brought about predominantly by the incorporation of two areas of eastern Armenia into Russia (one from Persia in 1828 and one from Turkey in 1878). Enforced emigration and the dispersal of Armenians in Europe and the East determined the development of Armenian culture; various Armenian societies, cultural and educational centres and publishing organizations sprang up, in Armenia as well as in Moscow, Tbilisi, St Petersburg, Baku, Constantinople, Paris, Venice and Vienna. Important roles were played by the Lazarian Institute (Moscow, 1815), the Nersessian College (Tbilisi, 1824), the Gevork‘ian Theological Seminary (Vagharshapat [now Edjmiadsin], 1874) and by the K‘nar musical society, set up in Constantinople on the initiative of G. Yeranian and Tigran Chukhajian, which published the periodicals K‘nar arevelian (‘Eastern lyre’, 1857) and K‘nar Haykakan (‘Armenian lyre’, from 1861). From the mid-19th century, arrangements of traditional and popular songs were made. Solo and choral performances became more frequent and the first small symphony orchestras were formed. Constantinople and Tbilisi became the biggest centres of musical culture for western and eastern Armenia; there were links with Western traditions in Constantinople and with Russia in Tbilisi. Various European genres, including opera, chamber music and romance, were adapted; Tigran Chukhajian, G. Yeranian and G. Korganian were the first composers of this trend. In 1868 Chukhajian composed the first Armenian opera, Arshak Erkrord, based on a historical patriotic theme. In the 1880s the systematic collection of folksongs and folkdances began. Khristofor Kara-Murza, Makar Yekmalian, Nikoghayos Tigranian, T‘ashchian and Komitas laid the foundations of a new Armenian instrumental and choral culture, both secular and sacred, and were also associated with the nationalistic development of polyphony inspired by the harmonic style and tunes of folk music and by medieval Armenian church music. The central figure of the period was Komitas, who created a national compositional style and established Armenian musical scholarship.
In the early 20th century the first Armenian symphonic works were written, together with a new kind of national opera closely bound up with traditional music, for instance Armen Tigranian’s lyrical opera Anush (1912). Armenian symphonic poems, overtures, suites, chamber music and vocal music were written by Aleksandr Spendiarian, Tigranian, Romanos Melik‘ian, A. Ter-Ghevondian and Sarkis Barkhudarian. Spendiarian was the leading Armenian symphonic composer; his works, notable for their rich and expressive timbre, greatly influenced later Armenian composers. Skilful use of timbre and harmony is also characteristic of Melik‘ian, the creator of a new style of romance (Zmrukhti, 1920). In the first few years after the establishment of the Soviet regime (1920–91) Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, became the centre of musical activity. In 1921 the Musical Studio was organized on the initiative of Melik‘ian; in 1923 it was transformed into the conservatory (now the Komitas State Conservatory). Melik‘ian also encouraged the formation of the first state choral ensemble. The opera and ballet theatre was opened in 1933; two years later it became the Spendiarian Armenian Theatre of Opera and Ballet. The Armenian PO, Choral Society and Composers’ Union were founded in 1932, while the Komitas String Quartet was established in 1925. The highlights of native composition were the suite Yerevan Sketches (1925) and the opera Almast by Tumanian, as well as works by Ter-Ghevondian and Melik‘ian, and organ music by K. K‘ushnarian.
Armenian musicians were trained in the conservatories of Moscow and, particularly, Leningrad. Through the efforts of many composers over several decades, Armenian music developed a distinctive style that had reached maturity by the 1930s. Khachaturian laid down the principles of new symphonic thinking which, in addition to Spendiarian’s idiom, became the determining factors for the development of Armenian music. He also influenced cultural development in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Soviet Central Asia.
In the 1930s Haro Stepan‘ian composed several operas in a style novel for the period (including Kaj Nazar); operas and ballets were also written by A. Mailian, A. Ter-Ghevondian, A. Ayvazian, Sarkis Barkhudarian and Sergey Balasanian. Thematic versatility and associations with national literature, as well as the desire to depict contemporary events, were characteristic of the music of this period. There was also rapid development in choral music, romances, songs and arrangements of folktunes, which in turn influenced opera. The composers who became prominent in the 1940s and 1950s continued to base their work on Armenian heritage and to develop further the artistic principles of Spendiarian and Khachaturian. In this period the most important genre was the symphony, and works of the 1940s are notable for the increasing importance of patriotic themes, which determined the large scale and dramatic nature of the music. Khachaturian’s Second Symphony (1943) is among the best-known wartime Soviet symphonies; other examples are Grigor Yeghiazarian’s symphonic poem Armenia (1942) and Step‘anian’s two symphonies (1943–5). The patriotic theme was brilliantly expressed in Alexander Harut‘unian’s vocal symphony Cantata on the Homeland (1948). In the 1950s instrumental music flourished. The dramatic, epic and lyrical elements typical of Armenian music were integrated into a broader symphonic style, manifested in Khachaturian’s ballet Spartacus (1954), the symphonies of Yeghiazarian, Harut‘unian, Edgar Hovhanesian and Jivan Ter-Tatevosian, Harut‘unian’s Trumpet Concerto, A. Khudoian’s Cello Concerto, the Introduction and Perpetuum mobile for violin and orchestra by Eduard Mirzoian, and Arno Babadjanian’s Herosakan Ballad. Symphonic principles also found their way into chamber music.
A feature of Armenian music in the 1960s and 1970s has been the diversity and interaction of stylistic trends and genres: A. Adjemian’s Symphony no.2 includes a solo voice; choral ballets have been written by K. Orbelian and Hovhanesian, and an opera-oratorio with pantomime by Avet Terterian; while Terterian’s Symphony no.2 includes a solo tenor and choir. Composers have experimented with neo-Classical elements (e.g. Mirzoian in his Symphony, Mansurian in his Partita for orchestra, Harutunian in his Simphonietta, L. Sarian in his Violin Concerto and Gagik Hovunts in his orchestral Inventions); dodecaphony (in Shest' kartin (Six Pictures) for piano by Arno Babadjanian, Ter-Tatevosian’s Second String Quartet, Mansurian’s Piano Trio and E. Hayrapetian’s oratorio 1915th); and aleatory procedures (Terterian’s second and third symphonies and Aristakesian’s Simphonietta).
Since the 1970s Armenian composition has been characterized by the search for possibilities within the national style. Aram Khachaturian's music has been particularly influential on younger generations of composers, who increasingly regard Armenian music as part of the wider international culture. Within the stylistic variety, however, two main directions can be detected. Some composers have sought inspiration in the traditional monodic music. For example, E. Hovhannesian's opera-ballet David of Sasun is based on an Armenian epic and L. Astvatsatrian has used the modal structures of ancient Armenian music in his First Symphony. Other composers following a similar path include G. Hovunts (piano and violin concertos), S. Arghajanian (Polymonodies for strings), A. Voskanian (vocal works), Y. Erkanian (opera St Shushanik) and Hovhannesian. The other main direction has focussed on avant-garde techniques and the use of modern technology. Composers of such music include G. Eghiazarian, whose ballet Ara Beautiful and Shamiram uses both neo-impressionist and neo-expresssionist styles, L. Sarian (Symphony and Passacaglia), Mansurian (Preludes for orchestra), Astvatsatrian (who uses spatial techniques and tape), and A. Zobrabian, whose chamber work Elegy employs microtonal heterophony.
A. Hisarlian: Patmut'yun hay dzaynargrut‘ean ev kensagrutyunk‘ erazhisht azgaynots [History of Armenian notation and biographies of musicians] (Constantinople, 1914)
M. Abeghian: ‘Armianskaya dukhovnaya pesnya’ [Armenian religious song], Istoriya drevnearmianskoy literaturï, i (Yerevan, 1948), 408
G. Tigranov: Armianskiy muzïkal'nïy teatr [The Armenian music theatre] (Yerevan, 1956–60)
B. Asaf'yev: Ocherki ob Armenii [Sketches of Armenia] (Moscow, 1958)
K‘. K‘ushnarian: Vosprosi istorii i teorii armianskoy monodicheskoy muzïki [Questions on the history and theory of Armenian monody] (Leningrad, 1958)
A. Shahverdian: Ocherki po istorii armianskoy muzïki XIX–XX vekov [Sketches of the history of 19th- and 20th-century Armenian music] (Moscow, 1959; Armenian trans., 1959); Eng. trans. in N.V. Nersessian, ed., Essays on Armenian Music (London, 1978)
Muzïka Sovetskoy Armenii (Moscow, 1960)
A. Barsamian and M. Harut‘unian: Hay erazhshtut‘ean patmut‘yun [The history of Armenian music], i (Yerevan, 1968–96)
M. Muradian: Hay erazhshtut‘ean patmutyun‘ě XIX darum ev XX dari skizbum [The history of Armenian music in the 19th and early 20th centuries] (diss., U. of Yerevan, 1970)
M. Brutian: Hay zhogkovodakan erazhshtakan steghdsegortsutyun‘ě [Armenian folk music works] (Yerevan, 1971, 2/1983)
M. Ter-Simonian: Kamerno-instrumental'naya ansamblevaya muzïka Armenii [Chamber-instrumental ensemble music of Armenia] (Yerevan, 1974)
K. Khudabashian: Armianskaya muzïka na puti ot monodii k mnogogolosiyu [Armenian music on the way from monody to polyphony] (Yerevan, 1977)
A. Tatevosian: Edjer hay-rusakan erazhshtakan kaperi patmutyunits [Pages from the history of musical links between Armenia and Russia] (Yerevan, 1977)
M. Rukhkian: Armianskaya simfoniya [The Armenian symphony] (Yerevan, 1980)
S. Sarkisian: Voprosï sovremmenoy armianskoy muzïki [Problems in contemporary Armenian music] (Yerevan, 1983)
A. Grigorian: Armianskaya kamerno-vokal'naya muzïka [Armenian chamber vocal music] (Yerevan, 1982)
E. Pashinian: ‘Superladovaya sistema armianskoy narodnoy muzïki i yeyo proyavleniye v tvorchestve sovremennïkh kompozitorov’ [The super-modal tonal system of Armenian folk music and its appearance in the works of contemporary composers], Theoretical Problems of non-European Musical Cultures (Moscow, 1983), 104–54
M. Berko, K. Khudabashian and M. Ter-Simonian, eds.: Muzïkal'naya kul'tura Armianskoy SSR [The musical culture of the Armenian SSR] (Moscow, 1985)
G. Geodakian and M. Rukhkian, eds.: Traditsii i sovremennost' [Traditions and the contemporary] (Yerevan, 1986, 2/1996)
R. Mazmanian: Hay khorhrdayin erazhshtakan k‘ianki taregrutyun‘ě: 1946–60 [A chronicle of Soviet Armenian musical life, 1946–60] (Yerevan, 1986)
A. Arevshatian: ‘Mashtots’ zhoghovatsun vorpes hay midjnadarian erazhshtakan mshakuyti hushardzan [The ‘Mashtots’ collection as a monument of medieval Armenian musical culture] (Yerevan, 1991)
S. Koptev: Muzïkal'nye teroreticheskiye sistemy [Theoretical systems in music] (Yerevan, 1992)
T. Brutian: Hay erazhshtakan mshakuyti ashkharhaspyur endjughner‘ě [The overseas sprouts of Armenian muic culture] (Yerevan, 1996)