Page:Philosophical Review Volume 1.djvu/86

70 The second horn melody, Long-how-sa, is characterized by the greatest uncertainty of intonation. The groups of attempts at the same note of the scale are here indistinguishable, and the intonations at which the performer probably aimed must be obtained by the separate examination of successive fragments of the song. The result of this analysis is the following set of notes in which d’, g'# and a’ are by their infrequency determined as pien and d'# therefore as Koung.

This song is the only one in our collection in which any other note than (g'#) is taken for Koung. Its scale, moreover, differs from that of the Samien melodies in several points. The intervals, Koung-Chang and Tche-Yu, are three-quarter tones instead of tones, and pien-Tche appears in both its Chinese and Mongolian positions, a semitone and a tone above Kio. The explanation of these irregularities is doubtless to be found in the construction of the Gie-erh. To perform the scale perfectly, from d'# at Koung would require several notes not included in it when taken from g’. Only one (g'#) seems to be provided on the Gie-erh, and even of this the performer does not appear to have made the best use. That the instrument gives no other notes within the compass of this song is rendered probable by the resemblance between the scale of Long-how-sa and that of the Kuant-zu, which, according to Van Aalst's description, is a horn very like the Gie-erh. The two scales are as follows:

We may surmise that the intention in making the Gie-erh was primarily to embody the scale at what appears from our songs to be a standard pitch, and further (by the introduction of g'#) to permit in some fashion its displacement downward through a minor third. In this case, not only the irregular formation of the scale, but also the exceptional insecurity of intonation in Long-how-sa, receives a plausible explanation. The performer