“The Language Is the Music: Perceptions of Authority and

Transcription

“The Language Is the Music: Perceptions of Authority and Authenticity in
Hawaiian Language Composition And Vocal Performance”
Joseph Keola Donaghy
A thesis submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
University of Otago,
Dunedin
New Zealand
ii
Abstract
This thesis presents the results of an ethnographic inquiry into haku mele
(Hawaiian language composition) and modern Hawaiian vocal performance practice.
It hypothesises that there are elements and characteristics in Hawaiian language
compositions and vocal performance that are valued above others by composers,
performers and audiences today, and that certain individuals are viewed as authorities
in Hawaiian language composition and vocal performance. This research was
conducted by engaging seventeen practitioners of haku mele and performers who sing
in the Hawaiian language in k!k"k!k" (discussion) and an examination of recorded
mele (Hawaiian poetic compositions) of their choosing. Using a dialogic rather than
interrogative approach, we identify and discuss those elements and characteristics of
Hawaiian language compositional and vocal performance practices that are perceived
to be authentic, and those individuals perceived to be authorities in these fields.
I argue that these perceptions are influenced by older mele and vocal
performances that become models by which listeners compare contemporary
compositions and performances. This model–historically constructed, individually
experienced and expressed, and socially maintained–directly influences the continued
development of Hawaiian language composition and vocal performance today. I will
examine and discuss the role of the individual, Hawaiian conceptualization and
perception, the use of language in compositions, and finally, the vocalisation of mele
by using four exemplary recordings as points of entry for discussion.
iii
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to !"lei Beniamina, Haunani Bernardino and all of the
composers and performers whose art inspired this research: n" k!puna and n" haku
mele of the past and today; those known to us by name and those who remain
anonymous.
iv
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the support, encouragement
and aloha of the individuals, institutions and organisations that freely shared their
knowledge, expertise and opinions. I must first thank my family, my wife Marie
Elena, son Palani and daughter M#lia for their patience and aloha as I embarked on
this journey, as they have throughout my extended pursuits in academia. I also thank
my parents Joseph and June Donaghy and my siblings Robert, Kirk and June for their
unconditional love and support in every endeavour that I have ever undertaken.
I extend my deep mahalo and admiration to my supervisors Dan Bendrups and
Henry Johnson who agreed to accept me as a graduate student, and guided me through
the process of identifying and refining the subject and scope of this research. Their
enthusiasm for this research and their own work ethic was a source of constant
inspiration. I am also indebted to Shelley Brunt and Robert Burns for the friendship,
guidance and mentoring they provided during my residence in Otago, and generously
sharing their own work with me. I am also grateful to have had the chance to interact
and exchange ideas with other graduate students at the University of Otago, including
Oli Wilson, Tia Solomona, Farina Miyazawa-Lim, Daniel Milosavljevic, and Holly
Fleck. I am also grateful to Alan Davison, Dorothy Duthie and Mary-Jane Campbell
in the music department for their assistance and administrative support during my
time at Otago, and the Leoni wh"nau who treated my family and I like ‘ohana during
our time in Aotearoa.
My journey into higher education and the course that I took would not have
begun had it not been for the inspiration of individuals who comprise the four corners
of the kahua (foundation) upon which everything else I’ve learned about the
Hawaiian language and culture has been built: H$k%lani Holt, K&!ope Raymond,
v
Frank Kawaikapuokalani Hewett and Keali!i Reichel. Mahalo piha i" #oukou p"kahi
me ke aloha palena #ole.
Every individual I have studied and worked with at Ka Haka !Ula o
Ke!elik$lani College of Hawaiian Language has profoundly influenced my life and
this research. The mahalo and aloha I feel for them cannot be adequately expressed in
words–they have and will continue to be as much #ohana as they are colleagues:
Keiki Kawai!ae!a, Kalena Silva, Larry Kimura, Pila Wilson, Kauanoe Kaman#,
Haunani Bernardino, Hiapo Perreira, Kale Langlas, Iota Cabral, Kaliko BeamerTrapp, Kainani Kahaunaele, Keoni Kelekolio, Makalapua Alencastre, Alohalani
Housman, Ku!ulei Kepa!a, Kaulana Dameg, M#healani Kobashigawa, Kamuela
Miller, Liko Puha, Keao NeSmith, Lokahi Antonio and Kapulani Antonio.
I gratefully acknowledge those scholars whose feedback and continuous
engagement with my work has been invaluable: Puakea Nogelmeier, John Charlot,
and Albert Schütz at the University of Hawai!i at M#noa, Amy Ku!uleialoha Stillman
at the University of Michigan, Manulani Meyer at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo,
and Suzanne Romaine of Oxford University, also an adjunct faculty at the University
of Hawai!i at Hilo.
I must thank my hoa k!k"k!k" who freely shared their knowledge and
opinions. I thank Mahi Beamer, !"leialoha Beniamina, K&hei De Silva, Hailama
Farden, Kainani Kahaunaele, Dennis Kamakahi, Larry Kimura, Ku!uipo Kumukahi,
Aaron Mahi, K&hei N#hale-a, Puakea Nogelmeier, Pueo Pata, K&!ope Raymond,
Keali!i Reichel, Aaron J. Sal#, Kalena Silva, and Taup$uri Tangar$. I pray that this
research honours and does justice to their contributions, and accept full responsibility
for any misinterpretations or other shortcomings as my own.
vi
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ ii
Dedication............................................................................................................................................ iii
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................viii
List of Tables.....................................................................................................................................viii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Research Hypothesis .........................................................................................................................4
About The Hawaiian Language ........................................................................................................6
Haku Mele: Hawaiian Language Composition................................................................................8
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................13
Research Design......................................................................................................................... 15
Preparing For and Conducting The K%k#k%k# Sessions ......................................................... 17
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter Arrangement and Structure...............................................................................................19
Chapter Outline, Scope and Limitations ........................................................................................20
Chapter 1: A Chronology of Language Shift in the Music of Hawai!i ..................................... 23
Pre-Contact Oli and Hula: Native Speech in Composition (Pre-1820)........................................25
H&meni: Decontextualization of Hawaiian Language in Composition (1820) ............................28
Later Mele Forms, Continuity of Hawaiian Expression (ca. 1860-1870)....................................31
Hapa-Haole: Further Language Shift in Composition (ca. 1900) ................................................33
A Near-(Language)-Death Experience (ca. 1960-1970)...............................................................35
Hawaiian Renaissance: Reversal of Language Shift (ca. 1970) ..................................................36
Conclusion: Language in the Music of Hawai!i Today ................................................................38
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theory ................................................................................... 42
Language About Music ...................................................................................................................43
Language in Music ..........................................................................................................................45
Authority ..........................................................................................................................................48
Authenticity......................................................................................................................................55
Metaphor ..........................................................................................................................................64
Vocal Performance ..........................................................................................................................70
Summary ..........................................................................................................................................74
Chapter 3: The Ethnographic Process........................................................................................... 76
Locating The Researcher ................................................................................................................79
Pre-K%k#k%k# Session Preparations...............................................................................................82
The K%k#k%k# Sessions ..................................................................................................................83
Reflexive Practice............................................................................................................................89
Data Analysis Process .....................................................................................................................89
The Selection of Songs and Alignment With Theory ...................................................................92
Writing Process................................................................................................................................94
Biographies ......................................................................................................................................97
Mahi Beamer .............................................................................................................................. 98
!"lei Beniamina ........................................................................................................................... 99
K&hei De Silva .......................................................................................................................... 100
Hailama Farden ........................................................................................................................ 102
Kainani Kahaunaele ................................................................................................................. 102
Dennis Kamakahi ..................................................................................................................... 104
Larry Kimura ............................................................................................................................ 105
Ku!uipo Kumukahi .................................................................................................................. 106
Aaron Mahi............................................................................................................................... 107
K&hei N#hale-a.......................................................................................................................... 108
Puakea Nogelmeier .................................................................................................................. 110
Pueo Pata .................................................................................................................................. 111
vii
K&!ope Raymond ...................................................................................................................... 112
Keali!i Reichel.......................................................................................................................... 113
Aaron J. Sal#............................................................................................................................. 115
Kalena Silva.............................................................................................................................. 116
Taup$uri Tangar$ ..................................................................................................................... 117
Chapter 4: Ke Kanaka K" Ho!okahi – The Individual and Authority .................................. 119
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 120
Transcription of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”................................................................................... 121
Overview of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”......................................................................................... 124
Composer Biography: Lena Wai!ale!ale Machado .................................................................... 126
Recognition of Cognitive Authority............................................................................................ 127
Native Speaker Status As Authority In Composition................................................................. 132
Elder Status As Authority ............................................................................................................ 138
Younger Speakers and Second Language Learners as Cognitive Authorities ......................... 144
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 149
Chapter 5: Ka No‘ono‘o – Hawaiian Conceptualization and Perspective ............................. 152
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 152
Transcription of “Ku‘u Lei L&lia”................................................................................................ 154
Overview of “Ku!u Lei L&lia”...................................................................................................... 156
Composer Biography: Bill Ali!iloa Lincoln ............................................................................... 158
A Matter Of Perspective............................................................................................................... 159
Avoiding Negative Thought ........................................................................................................ 168
Differentiating Metaphor and Kaona .......................................................................................... 172
Identification of Metaphor ........................................................................................................... 175
Reconstruction of Metaphor ........................................................................................................ 179
Interpretation of Metaphor ........................................................................................................... 181
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 193
Chapter 6: Haku Mele – Hawaiian Language In Composition ............................................... 197
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 197
Transcription of “Paniau” ............................................................................................................ 199
Composer Biography: Helen Kapuailohia Desha Beamer......................................................... 202
Overview of “Paniau” .................................................................................................................. 202
Visual Imagery and Memory Image............................................................................................ 205
Specificity of Word Choice ......................................................................................................... 213
The Other Senses .......................................................................................................................... 219
Present Tense, Tenseless Verbs and Noun Phrases.................................................................... 222
Syntax, Grammar and Terseness ................................................................................................. 225
Linking Devices............................................................................................................................ 231
Lists and Repetition...................................................................................................................... 235
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 237
Chapter 7: Puana ‘Ia Mai: Expression Through Vocal Performance.................................... 240
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 240
Transcription of “Pua !Ala Aumoe”............................................................................................ 243
Overview of “Pua !Ala Aumoe”.................................................................................................. 245
Composer Biography: Jean !"leialoha Beniamina ...................................................................... 247
Sung Pronunciation of Syllables and Disyllables....................................................................... 247
Variation in Text and Musical Performance............................................................................... 254
The Grain of the Hawaiian Singing Voice.................................................................................. 270
Perceptions of Performer Understanding.................................................................................... 277
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 282
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 285
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 297
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Rice’s Model.............................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: Kahi Mele (“A Song”) Ka Nonanona, July 6, 1841. Page 3. ......................30
Figure 3: Verse 1, Line 1 of “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe” .....................................................249
Figure 9: Comparison of 1935 and 1962 recordings of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”.....258
List of Tables
Table 1. Number of Entries Entered in Haku Mele Category by Year. ........................... 41
Introduction
A half-century ago, the Hawaiian language seemed destined for extinction.
Transmission of the language within the family had all but disappeared, and its use as
a medium of education in schools throughout Hawai!i had been illegal for over sixty
years. The prospects for Hawaiian language composition and vocal performance were
no brighter. While some elderly native-speaking composers and performers remained,
a shrinking audience was hearing fewer new Hawaiian language compositions. Some
younger performers of that time were challenged to locate accurate texts of many
songs. Parents and grandparents–under coercion and with honourable intentions–had
denied their children and grandchildren a connection to their mother tongue. As a
result, the accuracy of their vocal performances and recordings were frequently
questioned, if not outright criticised, by the elder generation of native speakers.
By the 1970s, a cultural rebirth led to a renewed interest in the Hawaiian
language, cultural practices, knowledge and beliefs, and a restoration of cultural pride.
Music played a significant role in documenting this change, and was used to increase
social awareness and support change in the islands. Some young composers and
musicians began to seek out older texts, recordings, and consult with the aging and
diminishing population of native speakers. In the fifty years that have passed, the
Hawaiian language has made “a small, but determined, comeback” (Ho‘omanawanui
2005, 30).
In the 1980s, the legislation that outlawed the use of Hawaiian as a medium of
instruction was struck down. Since that time, a thriving immersion program, which
now extends from nursery school to the doctoral level, began to reverse the decline in
Hawaiian language use among the young. After two and a half decades of Hawaiian
immersion education, many young people are once again transmitting the Hawaiian
2
language to their own children–a practice that, with the exception of the Ni!ihau
community, had not been seen since the first half of the 20th century. Over ten years
have passed since the first students graduated from Hawaiian immersion high schools,
and some have become respected haku mele1 (composers of Hawaiian poetry) and
recording artists themselves. While much progress has been made, there is still much
to achieve. And while Hawaiian language composition and vocal performance has
also made tremendous strides during this time, questions regarding the authenticity of
these compositions and vocal performances, and the pre-eminence of the Hawaiian
language in Hawaiian music, continue to dominate contemporary discourse on the
subject.
Efforts to revitalise the Hawaiian language are not restricted to the linguistic
context, but also address aspects of Hawaiian cultural identity that are described as
mauli2. While mauli and the term “culture” share some characteristics, they are not
synonymous. However, like culture and language, mauli and language are intertwined
“as language is always with us in the thought processes in which we view our world
and act out our thoughts” (Wilson, Kaman# 2001, 161). Even Hawaiian students who
lack fluency in the Hawaiian language have expressed that by performing songs in
Hawaiian they can express their ethnic identity and “imagine themselves to be like
their ancestors” though their performances (Szego 2003, 320). A cultural affinity may
also be felt by non-Hawaiians because of their exposure to the language through
participation in the Hawaiian immersion program3 (Wilson, Kaman# 2006, 160).
1
2
3
A glossary of all Hawaiian terms that are used in this thesis and their meanings can be
found in Appendix C.
The mauli is defined as “the unique life force which is cultivated by, emanates from,
and distinguishes a person who self-identifies as a Hawaiian” (ʻAha Pūnana Leo, Ka
Haka ʻUla O Keʻelikōlani, Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi ma Hilo 2009, 17).
My own daughter began her education in Hawaiian immersion in 1994, and remained
in immersion education until her graduation from Ke Kula ʻO Nāwahīokalaniʻōpuʻu
3
As a participant in the efforts to revitalise Hawaiian over the past eighteen
years, I have witnessed profound changes in attitudes toward the language at many
levels–personal, educational, philosophical, social, and political. In these contexts and
others, Hawaiian language music can function as a bridge between those who do
speak Hawaiian and those who don’t. Many individuals who do not speak the
language do know some Hawaiian songs, particularly those that are used frequently at
large gatherings, such as “Ka Mele Ho‘omaika‘i” (the Doxology), “Hawai‘i Pono‘&”
(the Hawai!i state anthem), and “Hawai!i Aloha”. It is through the vehicle of
Hawaiian music that individuals who do not speak the language will most often
encounter it, be it during live performance, on the radio, television, or CDs. The
performance and recording of Hawaiian music contributed significantly to the
Hawaiian cultural renaissance of the 1960s and 1970s that gave birth to the modern
movement to revitalise the Hawaiian language. During that era, music not only
documented but also contributed to social change and pride in Hawaiian ethnic
identity (Lewis 1984, 38-41).
A Hawaiian cultural identity recognises a link “to place, to our role in history
and our own sequence in genealogy” (Meyer 2003, 144). While the importance of
genealogy is not unique to Hawaiian culture, what is significant is “its priority in how
it was shaped and how it also formulated what was worth knowing and thus carried
on” (Meyer 2003,143). Thus, it is imperative for composers today to critically
examine their works and recognise that their compositions will become part of the
musical and cultural legacy left for future generations, making them part of this
genealogical continuum.
School in Keaʻau, Hawaiʻi in 2008. Over the years I have encountered individuals who
expressed shock when they learned that she was not of part-Hawaiian ancestry, not
only because of her fluency in the language but also because of her mannerisms,
behaviour, and values.
4
Research Hypothesis
This research hypothesises that there are elements and characteristics in
Hawaiian language compositions and vocal performances that are valued above others
by composers, performers and audiences today, and that certain individuals are
viewed as authorities in Hawaiian language composition and vocal performance. It is
informed by ethnographic research–conversations with seventeen exemplars of
Hawaiian language composition and vocal performance–as well as my own
experiences and involvement in the Hawai!i music industry for nearly three decades
in various capacities. This research identifies and examines those elements and
characteristics of Hawaiian language compositional and vocal performance practices
that are perceived to authentic, how listeners use these perceptions comparatively to
ascribe or deny authoritative status to composers and performers, and to ascribe or
deny authentic status to new compositions, recordings and performances.
Timothy Rice’s proposed model for ethnomusicology (1987, 473) provides a
useful framework by which these perceptions can be examined. It was inspired by
Alan Merriam’s prior model that “involves study on three analytic levels–
conceptualization about music, behavior in relation to music, and music sound itself”
(1964, 32), and Clifford Geertz’s contention that “symbolic systems . . . are
historically constructed, socially maintained and individually applied” (1975, 363364). Rice presented his model and proposed that ethnomusicologists should study the
“formative processes of music” and how people “historically construct, socially
maintain and individually create and experience music (1987, 473). Reactions to
Rice’s model and his critique of Merriam’s earlier model were mixed. Kay Kaufman
Shelemay overcame her initial reluctance to recycle Geertz’s prior work, but noted,
“it was descriptive of the best work already emerging in ethnomusicology today as
5
well as a useful guideline for future inquiry” (1987, 489). Anthony Seeger questioned
the use of models in the discipline, believing that such modelling privileges consensus
over debate and disagreement (1987, 493). Ellen Koskoff believed that Rice’s
explanation of Merriam’s model was an over-simplification that “denies the model’s
complexity and structural integrity”, but noted its value in examining the role of the
individual in music (1987, 502). While Rice’s model is certainly not the only
approach to examining music in cultures, it has been accepted in the field of
ethnomusicology and continues to be used today (Trimillos, Pers. Comm.).
Figure 1: Rice’s Model
This research has two primary goals. The first goal is to determine what
elements and characteristics of mele influence perceptions of authority and
authenticity of Hawaiian language composition and vocal performance. These include
the authority of the composer, Hawaiian conceptualization and perspective as seen in
the use of metaphor, language use in composition, and in vocal performance. I will
examine and discuss these perceptions as expressed by seventeen composers and
performers of Hawaiian language music using the formative processes of music as
identified by Rice – “historical construction, social maintenance, and individual
creation and experience” (1987, 473).
6
The second goal of this research is to determine how these perceptions inform
contemporary composers and performers in their own works and practices. To what
extent is creativity and the development of an individual voice valued, as opposed to a
stricter adherence to older compositional and vocal practices? Some composers and
performers seek to establish their own individual voice through unmediated
expression, which implies a perceived honesty, lack of pretence or lack of concern for
commercial considerations. Allan Moore refers to this as “first person authenticity” –
when a composer or performer “succeeds in conveying the impression that his/her
utterance is one of integrity” (2002, 211-214). As Thornton argues, “music is
perceived as authentic when it rings true or feels real, when it has credibility and
comes across as genuine” (1995, 26). Performers seek this kind of authentication
through the composition of original song, the reinterpretation of older song or the
introduction of musical elements that are not normally heard in Hawaiian language
musical performance. This research also explores the function of the social processes
that influence contemporary composers of Hawaiian language poetry, such as having
new compositions reviewed by more experience composers, and the influence of
awards programs. All of these are indicative of the formative processes of music, and
therefore, music composition and performance.
About The Hawaiian Language
Ka #$lelo Hawai‘i (the Hawaiian language) is a member of the Austronesian
family of languages, and related to other languages found in Eastern Polynesia, such
as those of Rapanui (Easter Island), Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Nukuhiva (The
Marquesas Islands) (Hinton 2001b, 129). It was the sole language spoken in Hawai‘i
until the arrival of the explorer Captain James Cook in 1778, and remained the
primary language of government, education and society until the end of the 19th
7
century. In addition to speaking only Hawaiian, the inhabitants of the archipelago
“may not have known of the existence of other languages” (Elbert, M#hoe 1970, 19).
In 1893 the Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown by a group of missionary
descendants and American businessmen who were supported by the presence of U.S.
Marines (Wilson 1998, 128-129). The Hawaiian language was subsequently outlawed
as a medium of education by the newly formed Republic of Hawai‘i in 1896. The
desire to privilege some languages over others has a pragmatic function–making a
government’s job easier–but may also be motivated by a desire “to exclude minority
groups from power and privilege” (Hinton 2001a, 39).
This legislation and the subsequent coercion that was inflicted on the
Hawaiian community to adopt English as the language of everyday life led to a
precipitous decline in the use of the Hawaiian language (Wilson 1998, 129). By the
year 2000, fewer than 500 native speakers of Hawaiian were identified in the Ni‘ihau
community, and fewer than 200 Hawaiian-speaking elders attended an annual
gathering of such individuals organised by the !Ahahui !'lelo Hawai!i. The
remaining speakers of Hawaiian consist largely of those who have learned Hawaiian
as a second language and those individuals who have received their education in the
Hawaiian immersion schools that were first established in the 1980s (Wilson, Kaman#
2001, 148).
There are several #$lelo no#eau that express the importance of the Hawaiian
language. Perhaps the most widely known and frequently cited is I ka #$lelo n$ ke
ola; i ka #$lelo n$ ka make (‘In the language there is life; in the language there is
death’) (Pukui 1983, 129). While English language speakers may find solace in the
English idiomatic expression that states, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but
words will never hurt me”, it certainly does not reflect a Hawaiian perspective. The
8
Hawaiian language carries mana (power)–“the meanings had power and explained the
universe” (Elbert, M#hoe 1970, 19). Once vocalised, words cannot be withdrawn, and
neither remorse nor apology can prevent the consequences of the initial utterance. A
promise would not be offered if the speaker doubted his or her ability to fulfil the
obligation that it created (Pukui, Haertig & Lee 1972, 85-86).
Haku Mele: Hawaiian Language Composition
#O ka hana haku mele kekahi hana ma ka pae ki#eki#e loa o ka #$lelo.
Ho#ohana #ia ka #$lelo ma n" #anu#u like #ole, #o ke mele na#e ka #anu#u
ko#iko#i a ki#eki#e loa. (Kimura 2002, 1)
Hawaiian poetry writing is an act at the highest levels of the language. The
language is used at many different levels, but Hawaiian poetry is the most
important and highest level4.
Haku mele is the Hawaiian term for both the act of writing Hawaiian poetry,
as well as the composer of Hawaiian poetry. Mele is the term for the poetry itself–the
words, meanings (both literal and metaphorical), and poetical devices used by the
composer. Mele are “expressions of religious devotion and personal emotion,
including formal documentation of genealogy and history” (Tatar 1982, 22-33). Mele
can also be used to describe the vocalisation of the text, though more specific terms
do exist for the performance in older chant and later singing styles. Likewise,
distinctions between the text and performance style of text exist in English: “a song is
sung, a chant is chanted, a poem is recited” (Ho‘omanawanui 2005, 30). Mele does
not mean “music”, and there is no evidence of a pre-contact Hawaiian term that
directly corresponds to the English concept of music (Tatar 1982, 23)5. Hawai!i is not
alone in that respect – other cultures lack a term that is synonymous with the term
4
5
All translations are by the author unless otherwise noted.
The term puolo was coined by the Kōmike Hua‘ōlelo Hou (Hawaiian Language
Lexicon) in the 1990s to address this. It was derived from the Māori term puoro that
has the same meaning (Kōmike Huaʻōlelo 2003, 182).
9
music as well (Kaemmer 1978, 121-130; Nettl 2005, 513; Kartomi 1990, 292).
However, the Hawaiian language does contain a rich lexicon of terms that relate to
song texts and their performance, including terms for the subject of the mele (Elbert,
M#hoe 1970, 5-6; Kamakau 1867, 1), names for the various performance styles, as
well as terms for the characteristics and adornments that are heard within vocal
performances (Kamakau 1867, 1). In this dissertation, the term mele refers to
Hawaiian language poetry, regardless of how it is vocalised.
Mary Kawena Pukui6 documented the tradition of haku mele as practised in
her home district of Ka‘% at the southernmost tip of Hawai‘i Island (Pukui 1949, 247258). Two important characteristics of haku mele are the use of metaphor and kaona
(hidden meanings) contained within the mele (Elbert, M#hoe 1970, 17; Tatar 1982,
23). Human beings, their acts, and emotions were often guised as elements of nature,
including wind, rain, birds and lei (a garland made of flower, leaf, other vegetation,
shells, seeds or other materials) (Elbert, M#hoe 1970, 17). It is imperative that the
haku mele exercise great care when choosing the words that will be used in a mele, as
Pukui described:
Poets were skilled in the use of words. Carelessness in the choice of words
might result in death for the composer or the person for whom it was
composed. For instance, lua means “two,” and it also means “pit.” Pit is
associated with death, and is therefore a word to avoid using, or to use with
caution. (1949, 247)
When a composition was intended to honour an ali#i (chief or royal) or was a
longer composition and intended for a special occasion, several haku mele would be
given the task of composing the mele so that no inappropriate words or unintended
6
Elbert notes that Pukuiʼs family name was originally Kapūku‘i. The family ceased use of
the ka determiner in the name before her birth. Pukui herself eschewed the use of the
ʻokina (glottal stop) and kahakō (macron) when writing her own name because of their
infrequent use in her youth (Elbert 1989:132). In this thesis, I defer to Pukui and spell
her name as she did in her lifetime–Pukui–and not as it often is printed today using
these orthographic devices.
10
meanings would be left in the composition (Tatar 1982, 23; Beckwith, Haleole 1918,
29). In pule (prayer or to pray) as well as mele, words with positive connotations were
essential, and words that might offend akua (gods) or #aumakua (family deities) are to
be avoided (Handy, Pukui 1958, 141). The potential consequences of haku mele were
not always negative or harmful. As Pukui explained, “the kaona of a chant was
believed to be potent enough to bring lovers together, to mend broken homes or to
break up an undesirable union” (1949, 249). She related the story of a woman who,
after being abandoned by her lover for another woman, composed a mele that
contained several Hawaiian words that mean to bind, to make fast, to nail down
securely. After the composer performed the mele several times “a feeling of
restlessness came over her lover and he returned to Ka!% with a strong desire to marry
her” (Pukui 1949, 249).
Lorrin Andrews, the compiler of the first Hawaiian dictionary, characterised
Hawaiian poetry as terse–an observation expounded upon by Elbert and Pukui
(Elbert, M#hoe 1970, 14). In practice, a composer attempts to distil a composition by
using the minimal number of words required to express the composer’s thoughts. The
more complete grammatical structure of spoken Hawaiian is sometimes eschewed or
simplified in haku mele. This preference for terseness and specificity in word choice
results what I have characterised as “deceptive simplicity”–the use of non-complex
grammatical structures that do not challenge the listener’s language skills on the
surface, but do contain a depth of thought when the listener chooses to examine the
composition more closely.
Elbert and Mahoe lamented the later marginalization of the Hawaiian
language in composition and musical performance: “formerly there was as much
interest in the words and the stories in these songs as there is, for example, in
11
traditional Western American folk songs. Today the melody and the beauty of the
dancers, rather than the story, are of paramount interest” (Elbert, M#hoe 1970, 8).
Interest in and appreciation of Hawaiian language composition and performance has
grown considerably since the authors made this statement in 1970, however, the
quality of some recent compositions has been a point of contention due to the
recognition of mele as a higher form of language. While haku mele has been practised
continuously, the decline in the use of Hawaiian in the home, school, and community
has affected the quality of compositions as a younger generation of predominantly
second language speakers began to compose in Hawaiian (Stillman 1978, 6-7). The
Honolulu City Parks and Recreation department held an annual song writing
competition beginning in 1950 and which continued into the mid-1990s. Entrants into
this competition included many native speakers and some of the best-known haku
mele of that era – John Kameaaloha Almeida, Alice N#makelua, Randy Oness, and
Dorothy Kahananui (Kanahele 1977, 3).
Awards for Haku Mele (best new Hawaiian language composition) and
Hawaiian Language Performance (for CD releases) are presented at the annual N#
H$k% Hanohano Awards in Honolulu. The awards–originally known as the Nani
Awards–were created by radio personalities from Honolulu radio station KCCN in
1978, and winners were determined by popular vote. In 1982, the Academy became
an industry association–the Hawai!i Academy of Recording Arts (HARA)–and the N#
H$k% Hanohano Awards became a mechanism for peer recognition. The Academy
chose to model itself after the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences
(also known as NARAS or The Recording Academy), which produces the annual
Grammy Awards. Like the Grammy Awards, voting for the winners of the N# H$k%
Hanohano Awards became a privilege extended only to registered members with
12
recording credits (Board of Governors, Hawai‘i Academy of Recording Arts 2010a,
2).
While ostensibly established to support all genres of music and to promote all
aspects of the recording industry in Hawai‘i, HARA has long recognised the
significance of Hawaiian music by creating and maintaining specific categories for
Hawaiian music–nearly 25 years before the establishment of a separate Grammy
Award for Hawaiian music7 (Board of Governors, The Hawai‘i Academy of
Recording Arts 2010b, 1). The creation and adjudication of specific awards for Haku
Mele and Hawaiian Performance are examples of the academy’s support of the
Hawaiian language, and its role in the social maintenance of the haku mele and
Hawaiian language vocal performance traditions. A panel of individuals considered
by the academy’s board to be experts in Hawaiian language and haku mele selects the
winners of both of these awards, and the general membership of HARA does not vote
in these categories. The judges in these categories are almost exclusively secondlanguage speakers of Hawaiian, although the committee strives to include at least one
native speaker in the judging (Farden 2008).
While the adjudication of these awards is intended to mitigate the influences
of personal and professional relationships in the voting process, the selection of some
winners in the Haku Mele and Hawaiian Language Performance categories has been
controversial, and the appropriateness of some selections a subject of debate among
composers, performers, and within the Hawaiian music and language communities.
While an examination of the winners of these awards and interviews with the winners,
entries, and judges would be a worthwhile subject for further research, it is beyond
7
The Grammy Award for “Best Hawaiian Album” was first presented in 2004, and the
final award was presented in 2011. NARAS consolidated Hawaiian, Native American,
Cajun, Zydeco and other genres into a single “Regional Roots” award in 2011.
13
the scope of this thesis. When a composer or performer is cited in this thesis as the
winner of one of these awards, it is simply an acknowledgement of the honour
bestowed upon them by HARA and the specific committee that chose the winner in
that particular year. No comparison of these selections will be made in regards to
other winners of this award or other entries submitted in that particular year.
Methodology
This research was conducted using an ethnographic method that emphasised
the peer-to-peer relationships between the participants and myself. The individuals
who participated in this research resided on four of the seven populated islands in
Hawai!i, and I believed that face-to-face conversations and listening sessions with
these individuals would be more effective than the use of technology-mediated
methods such as phone, video conferencing or email. Only five of the participants in
this research live on Hawai!i Island, where I also reside. The others reside on the
islands of O‘ahu, Maui and Kaua‘i, necessitating my use of air travel and rental cars
to conduct this research.
The transmission of knowledge in pre-contact Hawaiian culture was based on
a model of observation and imitation, and aspects of this model remain in use today
(Charlot 2005, 185). I have personally noted that individuals with strong backgrounds
in Hawaiian culture and language frown upon being asked direct questions, and that
such behaviour is considered maha‘oi (impertinent or rude). As I learned haku mele
from my teachers and colleagues at Ka Haka !Ula O Ke‘elik$lani College of
Hawaiian Language and from other individuals, I observed how much more
productive our conversations were when I brought a composition or even a few lines
of poetry that we could discuss. Meetings in which I would simply ask questions or in
which we would simply discuss the process or elements of Hawaiian song
14
composition in an abstract manner have proved less productive. Therefore, the
purpose of this approach was to explore the practices of haku mele and Hawaiian
vocal performance “by placing them in local frames of awareness” (Geertz 1983, 6).
Rather than questioning my hoa k!k"k!k" on the various aspects and
characteristics of haku mele and vocal performance in an abstract manner, I requested
that each of the participants in this research select songs and recordings that–in their
opinions–represented Hawaiian language composition and vocal performance at their
highest levels. Once they selected songs that met these criteria, we would listen to
them together, and discuss the elements that we saw and heard in the composition and
vocal performance–identifying those elements that were responsible for the selection
of those songs and recordings. Once identified, discussion of the valued
characteristics of these elements could flow freely.
As a practitioner of haku mele and Hawaiian vocal performance who is also
fluent in the Hawaiian language, I chose to use a conversational rather than
interrogative approach to this research that acknowledged the peer-to-peer
relationship between myself and what I will identify as my hoa k!k"k!k"
(conversation partners). As I designed this research, I identified the Talanoa research
methodology that is based on an epistemology of Pacific peoples, is dialogic in
nature, and found it to be adaptable to this research. Talanoa places an emphasis on
the relationship between the researcher and participant in order to remove the distance
between them (Vaioleti 2006, 25). Rather than simply extracting information from my
hoa k!k"k!k" by posing a series of precomposed questions, we would both participate
in a sharing of knowledge framed around the songs and recordings that they selected.
As in Talanoa, our conversation on any particular topic would last as long as either of
us felt there was anything significant to discuss. The use of the Talanoa methodology
15
required me to “partake deeply in the research experience rather than stand back and
analyze” and in a manner that was “flexible and open to adaptation and compromise”
(Vaioleti 2006, 24-25). Vaioleti notes that reciprocity is important to the participants
in Talanoa–that when knowledge is shared, it needs to be “respected and honoured,
and to be used well”, and that “developments will be followed with interest” (2006,
26). In the time that has passed since the k!k"k!k" sessions, I have had numerous
conversations and communications with many of the participants who were eager to
learn the results of my research and how their knowledge was used.
While I conducted the conversations with these individuals in a dialogic
manner, I do not claim to be on equal standing with any of them as a haku mele. I
consider some of them to be among Hawai!i’s finest living haku mele, and make no
claims for that status myself. The desired outcome of this approach was to remove the
distance and obstacles between myself and the participants in this research–an
approach that is also consistent with the Talanoa research methodology (Vaioleti
2006, 25). In this endeavour I believe that the desired outcome was achieved.
Research Design
This research was designed as a cross-sectional study during which I engaged
in dialogs with seventeen composers and performers of Hawaiian language music. In
selecting potential participants, I took into consideration and attempted to achieve a
balance with respect to the following factors,
a. Age
b. Gender
c. Hawaiian proficiency
c. Ancestry
16
Composers and performers who are active in the Hawai‘i recording industry
range in age from late-teens to those who are 90 years old or more. Participants in this
research included composers and performers whose ages ranged from 31 to 71. When
examined by decade, one individual was born in the 1930s, two in the 1940s, six in
the 1950s, three in the 1960s, and five in the 1970s.
Three of the seventeen hoa k!k"k!k" were female (18%), and fourteen male
(82%). While I attempted achieve a greater balance in the ratio of males and females,
several prominent female haku mele I contacted were unavailable to participate in this
research because of scheduling conflicts, health issues or other reasons. Of the 34
individuals awarded or co-awarded the Haku Mele award at the N# H$k% Hanohano
Awards, 20 (59%) were male, and 14 (41%) were female (Board of Governors,
Hawai‘i Academy of Recording Arts 2010b, 2).
Fifteen of the participants in this research possessed conversational Hawaiian
language ability that ranged from basic to highly fluent. Only a single individual, !"lei
Beniamina, was a native speaker of Hawaiian. While I would have preferred to
include a higher number of native speakers, very few are actively composing and
having their compositions recorded. It should be noted that Beniamina was the most
noted and honoured of native speaking composers, and the only living speaker whose
composition was selected by other participants in this research. As the focus of this
research is Hawaiian language composition and vocal performance, my preference
was to select individuals who were conversant in the Hawaiian language, however,
two individuals who are not completely conversant in Hawaiian were selected
because of the high regard with which their performances are held and the unique and
informed insights that they could provide. The participants in this research include
17
fifteen composers of Native Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian ancestry and two who are not
of Hawaiian ancestry.
Preparing For and Conducting The Kūkākūkā Sessions
Prior to the k!k"k!k" session, I collected as much personal information as
possible regarding my hoa k!k"k!k". I also familiarized myself with their body of
work, including compositions and recordings, and attempted to locate any published
interviews with them. Prior to meeting with them, I requested that they each select
three to five songs in the Hawaiian language that they believe exemplify Hawaiian
language composition and/or performance that we could discuss. They were given the
option of providing the recordings themselves, or asking me to locate the recordings
prior to the listening and k!k"k!k" session. Despite this request, some neglected to
identify specific songs or notify me in advance for our discussion. In these cases, I
brought with me as many recordings as I could manage to digitise on my computer
and that I felt the hoa k!k"k!k" might bring up. These included as many recordings as
I could locate of the songs that the hoa k!k"k!k" had composed or recorded. In each
of these cases, we were able to identify and listen to recordings that the hoa k!k"k!k"
believed were excellent examples of Hawaiian performance and/or composition.
Our meeting location was determined by mutual agreement, with the
convenience of my hoa k!k"k!k" as my primary concern. The second consideration
was identifying a location which was sufficiently quiet and where the potential for
interruptions would be minimized. The hoa k!k"k!k" would be asked to select the
language in which the interview would be conducted – Hawaiian or English.
I would record each k!k"k!k" session using a Sony digital audio recorder.
Each session began with the introduction of the first song selected by the hoa
k!k"k!k". I would ask for his or her recollections of the mele, recording and artist,
18
why they chose each particular recording, and what elements of the recording they
consider to be exemplary. I would then play the recording, notating any verbal or nonverbal cues that may have indicated the presence of a significant compositional or
vocal performance event in the recording. After the recording had completed, we
would discuss the recording and their recollections of earlier listenings or
experiences. If any verbal or non-verbal cues were given during the listening session–
such as a smile, frown, nodding of the head or other bodily gesture–I would notate my
observation and ask what he or she heard that caused the reaction. I did compose
several general questions regarding Hawaiian language composition and vocal
performance that could have been utilized, when necessary, to move discussion to
these subjects, or if the hoa k!k"k!k" did not bring up these points, however, they
were infrequently used and I was generally able to allow the hoa k!k"k!k"’s thoughts
and recollection determine the course of discussion. I would repeat this process for
the other selected songs, and asked each hoa k!k"k!k" for any final thoughts
regarding our experience.
At the earliest opportunity after completing the k!k"k!k" session, I would
compose a reflection essay in which I documented my feelings, observations and any
pertinent information that came to mind during or after the conversation. Upon my
return to Hawai!i Island, I would copy the digital audio files from the portable
recorder to my computer, transcribe the interviews, and, if the interview was
conducted in Hawaiian, translate it into English. These transcriptions and translations
of all k!k"k!k" sessions are included in Appendix A.
Analysis
Once transcription and translation (when necessary) were completed, I would
examine each document and begin to search for themes and tropes within the
19
discussion, and divide them into two primary categories–those that were related to
composition and those that related to vocal performance. Later, I would examine
these themes and tropes and divide them into more specific categories that could be
aligned with the theories and concepts I had determined in advance–authority and
authenticity.
Chapter Arrangement and Structure
This thesis posits that there are individuals who are perceived to be authorities
in Hawaiian language composition, and elements and characteristics in Hawaiian
language composition and vocal performance that are perceived as being authentic. In
order to identify these elements and characteristics, I conducted seventeen k!k"k!k"
sessions with composers and performers of Hawaiian language mele between July,
2008 and June, 2009. The presentation and analysis of the contents of the k!k"k!k"
sessions will be found in Chapters 4 through 7. These chapters are organised
thematically, not by the theoretical constructs of authority and authenticity, as these
constructs will be found in all chapters. They are ordered in a manner that begins
internally with the individual and his or her experiences (Chapter 4), internal
conceptualization (Chapter 5), and then moves outwardly to expression of language in
composition (Chapter 6) and vocal performance (Chapter 7).
The organisation of each analysis chapter in this thesis is highly systematic.
The reader will find that each opens with a brief introduction that contains an
overview of the composition and recording that was selected to provide a focus and
entry point for discussion of the topics to be examined in that chapter. This is
followed by a transcription of the recorded musical performance, a description of the
composition and performance, and a biography of the composer. Only a descriptive
transcription of the lead vocal performance is included, however, I have included
20
prescriptive chord notation above the staff so that the reader can see the general
harmonic context of the song. The description of the recording will include notable
characteristics of the vocal performance, metric structure, key, melodic and harmonic
characteristics, instrumental accompaniment, an overview of the song text and subject
matter, and a brief discussion of the how the recording is representative or not
representative of the Hawaiian music of its era. Finally, I will examine the specific
topics discussed by the participants in this research as they relate to the theme of that
chapter and the theoretical constructs to which they are aligned8. While a single
composition was selected as an entry point for discussion of the topics, each chapter
includes discussion of these themes as they pertained to other compositions selected
by the participants in this research. More specific information regarding the remaining
and theme-specific content of the four analysis chapters will be found in the next
section.
Chapter Outline, Scope and Limitations
Chapter 1 contains a chronology of language shift in the music of Hawai!i
since the arrival of westerners in 1778. Such a chronology and discussion of the issues
and events that led to this language shift is necessary in order to appreciate the
contemporary issues involved in discourse surrounding modern Hawaiian language
composition and vocal performance that will be examined in this dissertation.
Chapter 2 provides the overall theoretical framework of the thesis, including a
literature review of the theoretical concepts that are applied within–authority and
authenticity. It also includes a review of the literature that examines metaphor theory, as
the use of metaphor is critical to understanding its use in haku mele and the
8
The reason for selecting a single song as the entry point for discussion of the theme of
each chapter is discussed in depth in the "Methodology” section of the Introduction.
21
manifestation of Hawai!i conceptualization and perspective in composition. Finally, it
includes a review of the literature that discusses vocal performance.
Chapter 3 describes the ethnographic process that was undertaken in the course
of this research. This chapter describes the process of identifying participants and other
preparations that were required to undertake this research, and locates the author as a
practitioner of haku mele within a broader community of living practitioners. It also
describes the preparation and process of conducting the k!k"k!k" sessions, and
describes the data analysis and writing processes. Finally, it includes biographies of all
of the participants in this research as well as reflexive and ethnographic notes of
significant elements that occurred during the k!k"k!k" sessions.
In Chapter 4, I will use Lena Machado’s composition “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”
as a point of entry for discussion. I will examine the individual’s role in Hawaiian
composition and vocal performance, and how perceptions of authenticity, native
speaker and elder status and recognition of individuals as cognitive authorities
influenced the selections made by the participants in this research.
In Chapter 5, I will use Bill Ali!iloa Lincoln’s composition and recording
“Ku!u Lei L&lia” as a point of entry to my examination of Hawaiian conceptualization
and perspective. I will discuss how the use of words with negative connotations is
avoided, and the use of metaphor and kaona in Hawaiian compositions reflect a
Hawaiian world-view.
In Chapter 6, I will use Helen Desha Beamer’s composition “Paniau” as a
point of entry to my examination of language use in Hawaiian composition. I will
examine the visual nature of the language used in compositions, word choice,
grammar and Hawaiian poetic devices such as linking and lists.
In Chapter 7, I will use !"lei Beniamina’s composition “Pua !Ala Aumoe” as a
point of entry to my examination of the vocal performance. I will discuss
performative variation, the disyllabification of some vowel groupings in sung
22
Hawaiian language performance, the use of chant characteristics in modern
performance, and how perceptions of performer understanding (of the meaning of a
composition) influence notions of authenticity, whether those perceptions are accurate
or not.
I will discuss the process by which I selected these four mele and recordings
as points of entry for my analysis in Chapter 3, The Ethnographic Process. Although
all four of the songs that were ultimately selected for examination and analysis are
commercially available, it is not possible to include the recordings with this thesis due
to copyright restrictions. Information regarding the CDs on which these recordings
appear, the names of the labels that currently publish the recordings, and places that
they are currently available for purchase is located in Appendix D.
23
Chapter 1: A Chronology of Language Shift in the
Music of Hawai‘i
This chapter contains a chronology of language shift in the music of Hawai!i,
from those forms that existed prior to the arrival of British Capt. James Cook in 1778,
through those composed, performed and recorded today. Language shift is defined as
“the relationship between change or stability in habitual language use … and ongoing
psychological, social or cultural processes … when populations differing in language
are in contact with each other” (Fishman 1964, 32). While Tatar previously identified
eight eras in which the development and evolution of Hawaiian music can be
examined (1979b, xxv-xxvi), her criteria for demarcating these eras were based on
change in the musical elements and performative characteristics of Hawaiian music.
The focus of this chronology will be the changes in language use in the composition
and the perspective or conceptualization represented–either Hawaiian or introduced. I
will indicate the year or approximate time in which this language shift in musical
composition began, but not demarcate the eras, as all of these forms have continued
with varying degrees of consistency and popularity since the time that they first
developed.
Musically, pre-contact forms of Hawaiian music bore little resemblance to
those Haole (foreign or Caucasian) genres that Hawaiians may have been first
exposed to when Cook and his crew arrived, and those forms that they certainly were
exposed to upon the arrival of Protestant missionaries in 1820. The text, context,
metric and textual structures, rhythmic patterns, and melodic intervals of these
introduced musical forms had little in common with pre-contact compositions and
performance practice. However, exposure to these introduced forms led to the
integration of many of their characteristics into Hawaiian compositions and
24
performances. Many of these musical developments coincided with significant
political and social changes that occurred in Hawai!i, such as the arrival of foreign
missionaries, the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and the imposition of U.S.
territorial status and eventually statehood on Hawai!i. It is therefore necessary to
discuss these forms, and examine the literature and research that has been conducted
in the area of Hawaiian music in order to understand both the historic construction of
modern Hawaiian music, and the processes that effected the changes that have
occurred since the introduction of these new musical forms.
Many aspects of Hawaiian music have been researched and documented by
native Hawaiian, Hawai‘i-based and other researchers and academics, however, the
“formative processes” (Rice 1987, 472) of Hawaiian language in contemporary
Hawaiian language composition and vocal performance have not been the focus of
any previous research that I have located. Academics and aficionados have debated
the definition of “Hawaiian music” (Stillman 1978, 6-7; Tatar 1979b, xxiii), the role
that the Hawaiian language plays in this definition, and the characteristics of
“authentic” or “traditional” Hawaiian music (Obejas 2006, 12); however, these topics
have not been subject to scholarly analysis.
Amy K. Stillman addressed the challenges she encountered while attempting
to compile a critical edition of Hawaiian repertoire for the Music of the United States
of America (MUSA) series (2005, 69-94). This task was complicated by overlapping
terminology and the lack of compatibility between the Hawaiian repertoire and the
critical edition model used for the series. She was further challenged by the task of
identifying a single performance of any text as either representative or definitive, as
the same mele may be performed in a variety of different musical styles. Stillman
acknowledges that examination of these elements ventures into the politics of cultural
25
identity and which songs and composers truly represent the concept of “tradition” in
Hawaiian music (2005, 69-94).
I will not discuss every form of music that has developed in Hawai!i since the
arrival of westerners in this chapter, nor will I examine any single form in great detail.
I will examine and discuss those genres and developments that are most pertinent to
this thesis. Each section will begin with a brief description of the forms discussed
within it, including instrumentation, performative characteristics and the significant
literature that supports these descriptions. Finally, I will examine the change in
language use instigated by the development of these new forms.
Pre-Contact Oli and Hula: Native Speech in Composition (Pre1820)
Tatar included the period between the arrival of Cook in 1778 and the arrival
of Protestant missionaries in 1820 in her discussion of pre-contact forms “since
contact with western music appears to have been negligible before that time” (1981,
481). Likewise, the influence of English in the performance of these older styles
would have been negligible, and all mele composed and performed in these precontact genres were and continue to be performed in the Hawaiian language.
Therefore, language shift will not be discussed in this section, and I will simply
provide an overview of these genres and their characteristics.
Musical performances in pre-contact Hawai!i can be divided into two major
genres - oli (vocal performance in a chant style) and hula forms. Both of these forms
involved the performance of a poetic text–the mele–that was vocalised using specific
techniques. Texts performed in a chant-only style are known as mele oli, and those
performed with hula accompaniment are known as mele hula. Tatar documented over
26
200 terms for chant types categorized by use (social function), performance style
(music), and vocal qualities (1982, 53-56), which she then uses to create a definition
of oli (1982, 117).
Oli performances are defined as those that are not accompanied by hula or
instruments, and are largely unmetered. There are five chant styles that are
distinguished by their performative characteristics and the contexts in which they are
used (Silva 1982, 30), and all five are believed to predate the arrival of Westerners–
kepakepa, k"wele, olioli, ho#"e"e, ho#ouw%uw%9 (Tatar 1982, 110-114; Stillman 2005,
79). Melodies are not fixed in the performance of any of these oli styles, nor are the
metric structure or note durations. Instead, the performer learns and applies vocal
techniques that allow for variation in performance (Stillman 2005, 79). Tatar’s
identification of qualities that she believes are characteristics of oli prior to the arrival
of westerners in 1778 is drawn from her analysis of the earliest recordings and
literature, and her examination of musical styles from other Eastern Polynesian
islands that are culturally and linguistically closest to Hawaiian (1982, 117-120).
The second major musical form originating in the pre-contact era is hula. Hula
performances include the chanting of a Hawaiian language text, and are most
commonly accompanied with membranophones or idiophones. Performances of chant
in hula tend to be structured metrically and rhythmically to a greater degree than oli,
providing a more consistent rhythm for dance performance. Hula can be further subcategorized by the instrument(s) used to accompany their performance. These
instruments could be sounded by the chanter, a ho#opa#a (one who performs an
idiophone or membranophone and chants) or the dancers themselves (Silva 1982,
9
Modern orthographic conventions dictate that the “w” would not be written, resulting in
the spelling of this genre as ho‘ouēuē.
27
314). The two major hula forms of pre-contact Hawai!i are hula pahu, which is
accompanied by a pahu (a membranophone), and the hula #"la#apapa, which is
accompanied by an ipu heke (a double gourd idiophone). Hula pahu, hula #"la#apapa,
and a third form, hula #$lapa10, are sometimes identified collectively as hula kahiko
(ancient hula) in present-day performances and competitions. This classification is
problematic as “these dichotomies manifest aural and visual criteria” including
chanted performance as opposed to the sung performance of modern hula styles, the
use of indigenous instrumentation as opposed to introduced instruments, and other
considerations (Stillman 2005, 79). For these reasons I will eschew the use of the
terms hula kahiko and hula #auana11 when discussing these hula forms.
Hula pahu is the performance of chant and dance accompanied by the striking
of a pahu, and its performance served two primary purposes – to “worship the gods in
sacred situations” and to “honour the gods as an element of formal entertainment”
(Kaeppler 1993, 6). According to Hawaiian oral tradition, the pahu was brought to
Hawai!i by La!amaikahiki from lands to the south known as Kahiki (Emerson 1909,
130). The pahu is used in many areas of Polynesia, and known by several names
(Tatar 1982, 24). The ho#opa#a strikes the pahu and sometimes a p!niu (a coconut
shell membranophone), and the dancers perform as the chanting and instrument(s)
sound.
The second major hula form originating in the pre-contact era–hula
#"la#apapa–is a form that dates back to at least the 1820s and likely pre-dates Cook’s
10
11
Hula ‘ōlapa will be discussed in greater detail in the next section of this chapter.
Hula ‘auana literally means “hula that has wandered from its use in front of the kuahu
(a ceremonial altar)”, but is most commonly used to describe those hula forms that
developed after western contact and that are usually accompanied by western
instrumentation.
28
arrival12. Hula #"la#apapa differs from hula pahu in social context, instrumentation,
dance performance and even costume (Stillman 1998). As with the hula pahu, the
ho#opa#a will vocalise the text, but instead of the pahu hula and p!niu, ipu heke are
sounded during the performance. Vocal performances in hula #"la#apapa also use
many of the same vocal techniques as hula pahu and oli styles.
Hīmeni: Decontextualization of Hawaiian Language in
Composition (1820)
The arrival of Protestant missionaries in 1820 marked a period of transition in
Hawaiian music. H&meni (hymns; to sing in a western style) were introduced to
Hawai!i, and fulfilled dual purposes–“from the missionaries’ perspective, hymnody
offered a participatory mode of praise during worship. Among the evangelized,
hymnody offered a form of recreational amusement in the void left by missionary
prohibitions on indigenous pre-Christian (i.e., “pagan”) performance practices”
(Stillman 1996, 469). The arrival of missionaries and their hymns introduced western
musical concepts of melody, harmony, meter and rhythm to Hawai!i. It should be
noted that h&meni have “enjoyed a longer history of performance … than any other
acculturated Hawaiian music genre” (Silva 1989, 505). Hymnals containing translated
versions of English hymns as well as original Hawaiian language h&meni can be
divided chronologically and in terms of repertoire into two groups–the first ending in
1872 with the publishing of Ka Buke Himeni Hawaii, and the second in 1972 with the
publishing of Na Himeni Haipule Hawaii. The first group contained older strophic
hymn and psalm tunes–“the repertoire that prevailed in England and America in the
12
Ellis referred to a performance of Hawaiian dance he observed as hura araapapa in
1823 (2003, 74). The letter “r” was commonly used to represent the Hawaiian phoneme
that has been standardised as the letter “l” in contemporary orthography. The glottal
stop was not written during Ellisʼ time.
29
late 1700s and early 1800s”– and the second contained “so-called Sunday-school
hymns and gospel hymns that eclipsed the hymn- and psalm-tune repertoire after
1850” (Stillman 1996, 472).
The introduction of western hymns and their translation into Hawaiian also
marked the first significant shift in language use in Hawaiian composition. As with
the introduction of Christianity in other areas, h&meni and other textual forms
introduced by the missionaries became “an ubiquitous force for transforming local
language communities” (Silverstein 1998, 418). Missionaries Hiram Bingham and
William Ellis translated the first hymns into Hawaiian with the help of two Tahitians,
and published the first hymnal in Hawaiian–Na Himeni Hawaii: He Me Ori Ia Iehova,
Ke Akua Mau (“Hawaiian Hymns and Songs to Jehovah, the Eternal God”)–in 1823.
This hymnal contained only words, no music notation. The specific reasons for the
omission of music notation are unknown, though it is possible that Hawaiians were
not ready to read musical notation, or that the printing press used by the missionaries
did not allow for printing of notation (Kanahele 1979b, 131).
The translation of western hymns into Hawaiian resulted in the language being
decontextualised as foreign concepts, perspectives and morals were covered in a
veneer of Hawaiian language. Decontextualised language is defined as “language
used in ways that eschew reliance on shared social and physical context in favor of
reliance created through the language itself” (Snow et al. 1991, 90). In the translation
of the Bible into Hawaiian, new words were created when the missionary translators
and their native assistants could find no Hawaiian equivalent. Examples of these
words are mana#o#i#o (faith), mana#olana (hope), #enemi (enemy) and “na mea e ae
he nui” (“many others”) (Pula 1857, 57-58). As such, these new words and their
Christian perspectives were used to “convey novel information to audiences who are
30
at a distance from the speaker and who may share only limited amounts of
background information with the speaker” (Whitehurst, Lonigan 1998, 851). Many of
these words were later used in the translation and composition of hymns.
So while the words of h&meni were Hawaiian, the underlying foreign
perspective pervades. This contradiction demonstrates that “literacy’s importance can
not be understood in isolation, or in terms of self-advancement or skills; rather its
significance lies in its relation to the transmission of morals, discipline and social
values” (Graff 1981, 258). While the development of h&meni in Hawai!i was the most
prominent music development of this era, other individuals, and perhaps even the
missionaries themselves, began to borrow western melodies from secular sources and
compose new mele to them. The mele that follows was printed in the July 6, 1841
issue of the newspaper Ka Nonanona. In it, the composer reuses the melody of
“Yankee Doodle”.
Translation:
“A Song”
1. Children everywhere,
Children at play,
Enlightened children,
Hawaiian Children.
2. Aloha to you all,
Good evening,
Good mid-day indeed,
Good morning.
3. Let us all show true aloha,
Show aloha to your school,
Show aloha to all students,
Show aloha to your teacher.
4. Show aloha to all the chiefs,
Show aloha to Kauikeaouli,
Show aloha to the cousins,
Show aloha to the
foreigners/Caucasians.
Figure 2: Kahi Mele (“A Song”) Ka Nonanona, July 6, 1841. Page 3.
31
Later Mele Forms, Continuity of Hawaiian Expression (ca.
1860-1870)
While h&meni represented a decontextualizing of Hawaiian language in
composition, later innovations in hula represented a continuity of the textual,
contextual and performative aspects of Hawaiian language in music. The development
of hula #$lapa, hula ku#i, and mele Hawai‘i in the 1860s reflected the “social
transformation and westernization happening in the islands as American economic
influence and political interference intensified” (Stillman 2005, 85). The influence of
more structured musical forms is evident in the texts that accompany hula #$lapa and
hula ku#i–they are composed in symmetric verses and arranged in a strophic format
that differed from the through-composed texts performed with the older oli, hula pahu
and hula #"la#apapa forms. While many older hula pahu and hula #"la#apapa were
composed for ali#i and akua, these subjects were far less common in the later forms.
The subject matter of mele written to be performed in these new genres tend to be of a
broader nature and express secular topics–the love between man and woman, love of
the land, celebrating the birth of children, and significant events.
Hula #$lapa are most often performed with indigenous Hawaiian idiophones
and membranophones, while hula ku#i more often feature introduced chordophones
and other introduced accompaniment and performative features. While both of these
hula forms developed during the 1860s, hula #$lapa is frequently identified as
“ancient hula” and hula ku#i as “modern hula” in contemporary performances and
competitions. This distinction reflects the fact that “over time the terms have come to
gloss a dimension of performance style” (Stillman 2005, 85). Stillman notes that
while modern hula ku‘i are sometimes notated, performers are expected to vary their
performance and “exercise melodic prerogative” after performing the first verse. She
32
notes that the melodies in older songbooks are descriptive notation, effectively
entextualizing performance practices of that era (2005, 86-87).
Stillman is the only scholar who has extensively researched and written about
the secular counterpart of religious h&meni that are known as mele Hawai#i, which
also developed during this era. While the term mele Hawai#i may be literally
translated as “Hawaiian song”, it is also a distinct genre, and this term is used to
describe them in published manuscripts in the 1800s. Mele Hawai#i, like h&meni, were
notated and published, and many were printed as piano and vocal scores between the
1860s and 1920s. While the melodies of hula ku‘i and hula #$lapa forms varied in
performance based on the use of certain vocal techniques, in the performance of mele
Hawai#i “singers maintain respect toward composers by delivering melodies as taught
from notated sources” (Stillman 2005, 83).
Among the most well–known and respected composers of this era were the
members of N" Lani ‘Eh" - royal siblings Queen Lydia Kamaka!eha Lili‘uokalani
(1838-1917), King David La!amea Kal#kaua (1836-1891), Princess Miriam Kapili
Likelike (1851–1887) and Prince William Pitt Leleioh$k% (1854-1877). All four were
native speakers of Hawaiian who received formal musical training as part of their
coursework at the Royal School in Honolulu and formed singing groups, which led to
a friendly rivalry between them (Kanahele 1979d, 225). Unlike her three siblings,
Likelike was raised in Hilo but learned to play piano, guitar and #ukulele by the time
she returned to Honolulu in 1860, where her elder sister Lili!uokalani encouraged her
further musical development (Kanahele 1979e, 226). Lili!uokalani was unique among
the siblings and other Hawaiian composers of that era in that she would document her
compositions using musical notation, and could do so without having an instrument to
work with as she composed (Kanahele 1979f, 228-30).
33
The language of hula ku#i and hula #$lapa, like that of their progenitors, was
Hawaiian. Mele Hawai#i were also composed in Hawaiian; though, like hula ku#i they
sometimes contained foreign words or short phrases. The influence of western
concepts of meter and rhythm significantly influenced Hawaiian language
composition. In older oli, hula pahu and hula #"la#apapa forms, composers were free
to compose lines of any length, and there was no restriction in the number of lines a
verse could contain. In hula ku#i and hula #$lapa, the composer must work within a
four or eight bar metric framework that usually contains two or four lines. I have
documented how moras that would be stressed in spoken Hawaiian tend to be situated
on strong beats in the measure when sung in such compositions (Donaghy 2003).
Because of these factors, western musical structure suggests to the composer the
length of lines, the number of syllables that can be sung easily within the music’s
metric structure, and the arrangement of words over the rhythms of the music
(Donaghy 2011, 66-92) The composer has no such restrictions or considerations when
composing mele that will be performed as oli, hula pahu, or hula #"la#apapa.
Hapa-Haole: Further Language Shift in Composition (ca. 1900)
The marketing of Hawai!i as a tourist destination exerted significant influence
on the music of Hawai‘i in the early 20th century, and this influence is also reflected
in the language chosen for composition and performance. The popularity of Hawai!i
among U.S. visitors after the annexation of Hawai!i in 1898 and the imposition of
U.S. territorial status in 1900 can be traced to the 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition in
San Francisco. Hawaiian music was prominently included at earlier events on the U.S.
mainland, but none of them had such an impact in popularizing Hawaiian music with
the U.S. audience as the Exposition (Kanahele 1977, 292). It included prominent
34
performances of hapa Haole songs, which combined elements of both popular
American music and hula ku‘i (Tatar 1987, 10).
Hapa-Haole songs represent the development of the first musical form in
Hawai!i in which Hawaiian was not the primary language. The texts of these songs
are largely colloquial English, Hawaiian “Pidgin” English13, and may or may not
include some Hawaiian words, people or place names. Musically, hapa-Haole songs
reflected the musical trends of the U.S. mainland, and included the musical elements
and instrumentation of “ragtime, Dixieland, jazz/fox-trot, Latin, blues, pop, rock,
country-western or folk-rock” (Kanahele 1977, 106-107). By George Kanahele’s
definition, much of the music written and recorded in Hawai!i today could be
considered hapa-Haole, however, the term’s use today is generally restricted to the
music composed and performed from the early 1900s through the 1950s (Tatar 1987,
10).
American songwriters on the U.S. mainland capitalized on the popularity of
the Hawaiian music craze of this era by composing humorous and sometimes
derogatory songs about Hawai!i and Hawaiians, or with Hawai!i themes in English.
While some contained a few recognisable Hawaiian words, they were often filled with
nonsensical but Hawaiian-sounding vocables. Many of these songs were recorded by
popular U.S. entertainers, including Al Jolson, and these later influenced Hawaiian
and part-Hawaiian composers (Tatar 1987, 33). While these songs may have been
written with Hawai!i themes, Kanahele notes one essential criterion of hapa-Haole
songs that Tin Pan Alley compositions lacked, and which is reflected in their
compositions, is that they did not display an understanding of the “general structure of
13
What is commonly referred to as “pidgin” or “pidgin English” in Hawai‘i is actually a
creole known as Hawaiian Creole English (HCE) (Romaine 1994, 529-531). Romaine
notes “HCE was not really seen as a vehicle for serious artistic expression. Its main
use was in popular songs and comic entertainment” (1994, 534).
35
traditional Hawaiian music” (Kanahele 1977, 106). It is also possible that some
characteristics of the English used by Tin Pan Alley composers differed from those of
Hawai!i composers who were bilingual or who still possessed significant knowledge
of the Hawaiian language and Hawaiian compositional techniques.
The popularity of hapa-Haole and Hawaiian music on the U.S. mainland and
internationally waned in the second half of the 20th century. This is evident in the
steep decline of the number of radio stations carrying the once-popular “Hawai‘i
Calls” radio program. In 1952, “Hawai‘i Calls” was broadcast to 750 radio stations
worldwide. By 1972, only 450 stations carried the program, and it ceased operation
permanently in 1975 (Kanahele 1979a, 113).
While hapa-Haole and Tin Pan Alley songs were popular internationally and
in Hawai!i, their popularity did not result in the abandonment of Hawaiian language
composition and performance. Indeed, while hapa-Haole songs embraced the many
musical genres that were popular on the U.S. mainland and internationally, so did
Hawaiian language composers. Native speakers of Hawaiian, such as Almeida,
Machado, Lincoln, Alfred !Alohikea and many others, continued to compose,
perform, and record in the Hawaiian language. Structurally and thematically, most of
their musical compositions conform to the hula ku#i and mele Hawai#i genres of the
late-19th century, while they frequently included musical and instrumental elements
that were introduced to Hawai!i during the 20th century. The four mele that are
examined in this thesis would fall into this category, as would a vast majority of the
songs selected by the participants in this research.
A Near-(Language)-Death Experience (ca. 1960-1970)
Hawai!i became the 50th state of the United States of America in 1959. It was
during the 1960s that “local” music emerged, representing a category that “cross-cuts
36
the boundaries between native Hawaiians and Hawai!i residents of other ethnicities”,
and in which “shared experiences of daily living are celebrated, and shared concerns
for maintaining this particular lifestyle are articulated” (Stillman 1998, 89-90).
Musically, “local music” borrows from a wide variety of popular music forms of that
era, and includes more recent hybridisations with reggae, rap and hip-hop. The
musical partnership of vocalist Don Ho and Hawaiian composer Kui Lee blended
elements from jazz, blues and rock (Kanahele 1979c, 222).
The decline in the use of Hawaiian language in the home, community,
education and government that began with the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893
and the subsequent ban on the use of Hawaiian as a medium of education finally
began to take its toll on Hawaiian language composition. While some elder native
speaking composers such as Almeida continued to compose and record songs in the
Hawaiian language throughout this decade, very little of their music reached a
significant audience. As Hawai!i audiences further embraced mainland popular music
and English-language local music forms, the popularity of Hawaiian music reached a
nadir this decade and represented a mere 5% of radio play in Hawai!i (Tatar 1979c,
xxvi). With the elder generation of native speakers reaching the age of 60 or more and
transmission of the language within the home virtually nonexistent, the prospects for
the continuation of Hawaiian language compositional practices seemed bleak.
Hawaiian Renaissance: Reversal of Language Shift (ca. 1970)
It is not possible to identify a single event or even a specific year in which the
substantial political and social changes began in Hawai‘i that later became known as
the Hawaiian Renaissance. Kanehele notes a few significant events in the mid-1960s
that could be characterised as indicators of such a movement, but “it was not until the
early 1970s that the Hawaiian Renaissance really flowered” (Kanahele 1982, 39).
37
George Lewis noted that only a few ethnomusicologists and those in the social
sciences in the 1960s and 1970s recognised that song can not only document but
cause change in political and social movements (1984, 38-52). He acknowledged the
contributions of Hawaiian performers and the messages of their songs to the
resurgence in Hawaiian ethnic and cultural pride during this era, and how they
contributed to social change. He also accurately notes the social and economic
pressures that caused many Hawaiian entertainers to focus their efforts and talents on
performing and recording music designed to appeal to the pervasive visitor industry
(Lewis 1984, 38-52).
During the early years of this Hawaiian Renaissance, both Hawaiian and
English language songs continued to be sung and recorded. As the popularity of hapaHaole waned and “local” music grew in popularity, a new generation of composers
and performers using the English language appeared. Many were inspired equally by
Kui Lee and western folk, rock and popular music forms. Others chose to record and
perform Hawaiian language songs, and these artists applied two different strategies–
some chose to recover previously performed and recorded Hawaiian language
repertoire, and others began to compose new mele in the Hawaiian language (Stillman
1998, 91).
Efforts to reverse language shift have taken different approaches with different
priorities. During the revival of the Hebrew language in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, the focus was on reviving Hebrew as a spoken language in daily life over
writing it (Fishman 1964, 32). During the Hawaiian renaissance era, Hawaiian
language instruction increased with equal emphasis on both spoken and written forms
in an organised effort to revitalise the language, however, the revival of Hawaiian
language composition has been less organised and focused. Larry Kimura and Puakea
38
Nogelmeier have conducted Hawaiian poetry classes at the University of Hawai!i at
Hilo and M#noa campuses, respectively, since the 1970s, and seminars and haku mele
“camps” are common throughout Hawai!i and even on the U.S. mainland. However,
there has not been the same level of organised effort to revitalise the use of Hawaiian
in new compositions and performance as there is for revitalizing it as a language of
the home, education, business and government.
Conclusion: Language in the Music of Hawai‘i Today
While many older oli and hula forms receded from public view after the
arrival of Western missionaries in 1820 due to their association with Hawaiian deities
and the perceived vulgarity of many of the hula motions and sacred subjects, they
continue to be performed today. Performances of these forms may be seen at festivals,
competitions, and in ceremonial contexts. The post-contact hula ku#i and hula #$lapa
forms that developed in the second half of the 19th century are also performed in
similar contexts, often along side of the older forms.
H&meni continue to be performed as part of religious services throughout
Hawai!i, and hymnals first published in the 19th century continue to be reprinted along
with more recent hymnals. The tradition of Hawaiian language choral music also
entered the secular realm in the 1920s with the beginning of the Kamehameha School
Song Contest14, in which the young men and women of the school compete by
singing choral versions of secular and religious Hawaiian language songs. This event
has been held continuously since it was founded, and it is now broadcast live
throughout Hawai!i on prime-time television and to those outside of Hawai!i via the
Internet.
14
Kamehameha Schools is a private school for Hawaiian students that is funded by the
th
estate of 19 century Hawaiian princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop.
39
Hapa Haole songs continue to be performed and recorded, and remain a
prominent component of the visitor industry. They are most often performed within
hotels and as part of l!#au (a traditional Hawaiian feast) shows targeting the elderly
visitor market. Harry B. Soria, Jr., a third generation Hawai!i radio personality, has
been broadcasting his Territorial Airwaves program continuously for over 30 years.
His program prominently features both hapa Haole and Hawaiian language
recordings from the territorial era, and occasionally features music of the early
Hawaiian Renaissance era (Soria 2010, 1).
The Hawaiian language song forms that evolved in parallel with hapa-Haole
music from the early 20th century are still being recorded and performed widely. New
renditions of older mele continue to be recorded, and new mele continue to be written
by contemporary composers, although not without some controversy (Stillman 1978,
6-7). The term “Traditional Hawaiian Music” is most frequently used to label or
identify this genre that predominantly includes Hawaiian lyrics with western
instrumentation and musical features. However, this label is not universally accepted
because of the use of introduced musical characteristics and instrumentation, and the
use of post-contact and sometimes very recent compositions (Chun 2001). While the
use of this label is contested, most of the recordings selected by the participants in this
research are from this genre, as are all four of the recordings ultimately selected for
further analysis.
While reggae music had been a part of the music scene in Hawai!i since the
1970s, it did not realise full popular and commercial success until the early 1990s as a
“local” hybrid known as Jawaiian music (Weintraub 1998, 78-79). Jawaiian combines
musical elements of Jamaican reggae with Hawai!i themes, almost exclusively in the
English language–much in the way hapa Haole joined similar elements with the
40
popular musical genres of its era. However, Andrew Weintraub argues that Jawaiian
and the musicians who perform it represent “an extension of the Hawaiian
Renaissance movement, an effort begun in the 1970s to revive distinct elements of
Hawaiian culture, especially music and dance” (Weintraub 1998, 78-79). While some
artists have recorded older Hawaiian language compositions accompanied by the
rhythmic elements and instrumentation heard in reggae performance, no artist has
found widespread acceptance and success in recording original Hawaiian language
compositions in a reggae style.
In recent years, hip-hop and rap have also experienced some degree of
hybridity with earlier Hawai!i forms of music and become established forms of
“local” music in Hawai!i. The pioneering Hawaiian rap group “Sudden Rush” uses
both English and Hawaiian lyrics as an expression of Hawaiian identity and resistance
(Akindes 2001, 82-98). Fay Akindes argues that the acceptance of the Sudden Rush’s
music as indicative of rap’s broader acceptance in the Hawaiian community, and
attributes it to their use of pāleoleo (rap music) as social discourse.
The popularity and recognition of original Hawaiian language compositions
today is undeniable. The Hawai!i Academy of Recording Arts established an award
category for Best New Song of the Year, which has been voted upon by all members
of the Academy since its inception in 1978. While there has also been a category for
Haku Mele (Best New Hawaiian Language Composition) since 1982, Hawaiian
language compositions are also eligible in the Best New Song category. During the
first ten years of the Best New Song category, the Academy’s membership chose a
Hawaiian language composition for this award only once–in 1986–when Tony
Conjugation’s “Ka Beauty A‘o M#noa” was honoured. During the last ten years of the
Best New Song category, Hawaiian language compositions have been selected six
41
times, compared to four compositions written in English. The privileging of Hawaiian
language composition and performance at the N# H$k% Hanohano Awards is part of
the social maintenance of the language that has assisted in the renewed interest in
haku mele. The fact that young Hawaiians and others are composing new mele can be
seen in the increasing number of new compositions that have been entered into the
Haku Mele category at the annual N# H$k% Hanohano Awards in recent years:
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Entries
30
29
49
46
Table 1. Number of Entries Entered in Haku Mele Category by Year.
Charlot argues, “We should appreciate every period of an art… No period
should be depreciated” (2008, 1). It is significant to note that none of the forms of
Hawaiian music that I have discussed in this chapter have fallen into disuse. While
many have evolved and reflect the influences of introduced music forms, there
continues to be a respect for the older genres and attempts by many performers to
maintain older performance practices. However, they are sometimes recycled in new
contexts for new audiences, such as the performance of older, sacred hula forms for a
secular audience (Kaeppler 2004, 310). Other artists continue to infuse new musical
elements from genres that originate outside of Hawai!i. Whether accepted by today’s
audiences or not, they all will ultimately become part of the musical tradition that will
be left for future generations.
42
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theory
In the first two sections of this chapter, I will examine two significant aspects
regarding the intersection of language and music, and the role of language in the
music of Hawai!i. The next two sections present the theoretical constructs that are
applied in this dissertation–authority and authenticity. In the final two sections I will
examine the literature and theory that pertains to metaphor and vocal performance.
While the use of metaphor in Hawaiian poetry has been widely discussed, no previous
work has been done to link it to metaphor theory, and an understanding of these
theories is necessary to examine Hawaiian conceptualization and perspective as
discussed in Chapter 5.
All cultures use language in song–at least occasionally–which results in “a
universal association of words and music” (Bright 1963, 26-32). The interdisciplinary
nature of the literature that discusses the relationship of music and language also links
into other fields. Four major research categories have been identified by which this
relationship can been examined: 1) “music as language”, which applies linguistic
models to the analysis of music; 2) “music in language”, which focuses on musical
aspects of spoken language, such as rhythm, tempo as well as vocal qualities; 3)
“language in music”, which focus on the “phenomenological intertwining of language
and music in verbal art, song texts, and musical performance”; and 4) “language about
music”, which calls for focus on the discourse regarding music (Feld, Fox 1994, 2553). Most of the research contained in this thesis falls into the third and fourth
categories identified by Steven Feld and Aaron Fox. The methodology used in this
research invokes language about specific examples of composition and vocal
performance, while the subject of these discussions was the use of Hawaiian language
in musical composition and vocal performance. While research into the first two
43
categories would be valuable in the contact of Hawaiian music, I will focus on the
third and fourth, and address both of these perspectives citing literature and examples
from Hawaiian music.
Language About Music
Charles Seeger noted that when we talk about music, “we produce in the
compositional process of one system of human communication, speech, a
communication “about” another system of human communication, music, and its
compositional process” (Seeger 1977, 16). To this observation, Feld addresses what
he perceives as Seeger’s “logical preoccupation with differences between the speech
and music modes”, and chooses to focus on the relationship(s) between those engaged
in the communicative act–“the process of meaningful interpretation explicitly
conceived as social activity” (Feld 1984, 1). I agree with Fox, who argues that talk
about music “constitutes a formal object of equal importance to song and verbal art,
not merely context, background or commentary” (Fox 2004, 44). The design and
execution of the research contained in this thesis reflects the significance of the
exchanges between the participants and researcher.
While it is impossible to document and examine discourse about Hawaiian
language composition or vocal performance prior to the establishment of a written
orthography and the arrival of printing technology in the 1820s, the Hawaiian
language newspapers that proliferated in the first half of the 19th century documented
such exchanges. Far from being passive readers and consumers of newspaper content,
the population engaged with authors, editors and publishers, often resulting in the
publication of criticisms, corrections and exchanges between authors and readers.
Nogelmeier observed, “once culturally pertinent dialogue became possible and
present in the newspapers, the oral nature of the society became engaged” (2003,
44
129). While many papers published chants that predate the arrival of westerners, some
chants were deemed to long to be printed and were shortened. One Hawaiian
language newspaper, Ka Hae Hawai‘i, ceased operation after it failed to respond to
reader complaints and concerns as some of its competitors did. Among these were
complaints that “chants and dirges are not printed as per the wishes of those who
composed them” (Nogelmeier 2003, 121-122). Newspaper editors also received
prompt letters of complaint when they published any chants “that offended those with
a strict mission morality” (Ho‘omanawanui 2005, 49).
The Ha!ilono Mele newsletters–published by The Hawaiian Music Foundation
in the late 1970s–became a popular venue for discourse on the subject of Hawaiian
music during that era. Established and budding ethnomusicologists played a
significant role during the newsletter’s short life. Mantle Hood served as editor of the
newsletter for the first two years of its existence, Ricardo Trimillos was a frequent
contributor, and Stillman contributed while still a student at the University of Hawai‘i
at M#noa. Stillman documented her own observations of Hawaiian language use in
composition and vocal performance–observations that effectively summarised much
of the discourse of that era. She examined compositions and recordings of that era,
and identified incorrect lyrics, mispronunciation, limited subject matter, vocabulary
and understanding as significant issues (Stillman 1978, 6-7).
Discourse about language in Hawaiian language composition continues today,
in all of the forms used in the past, in both Hawaiian and English, and today includes
the use of electronic communication systems. One of the more popular and sometimes
infamous venues for discourse about Hawaiian music is the Taro Patch discussion
board (http://www.taropatch.net). While ostensibly for aficionados of Hawaiian slack
key guitar, topics on its discussion board include nearly every imaginable aspect of
45
Hawaiian music, including the Hawaiian language. Participants include many
performers, recording artists, scholars, educators and industry professionals, as well
as hobbyist performers and those who are simply fans of Hawaiian music. While
moderated by its founder, Andrew Wang, discussions frequently become heated when
participants debate topics ranging from the definition of Hawaiian music, the
importance of the Hawaiian language, the place and limits of creativity in Hawaiian
music, and the selection of winners in the N# H$k% Hanohano and Grammy Awards
programs.
As this research was conducted in both Hawaiian and English, the subject of
language choice is also relevant to the subject of “language about music”, and it will
be examined in the context of this research in Chapter 3.
Language in Music
Feld observed, “Language and music are the two principal ways by which
humans pattern sound for social communication. For this reason it has been argued
that language and music are both open to analyses of a general semiotic character,
and, hence, that they may benefit from uniformities in analytic approach” (1974, 198).
Indeed, an incredibly wide range of approaches–including the use of linguistic models
(Feld, Fox 1994, 30-31)–has been used to examine the text and performative aspects
of music. Fox discussed the importance of the language used in country songs to both
performer and listener, and how it reflects the values and identity of working-class
culture in Texas (2004). In the case of bilingual and multilingual cultures, the
language of the text and performance can result in one language being privileged over
others in some circumstances and areas. Such has been the case in Ireland, where
some individuals and groups–with honourable intentions–privilege Irish language
performances in the sean nós vocal tradition, while those in English are devalued
46
(McCann & Laoire 2003). Merriam cautioned, “song texts often reveal deep-seated
values and goals stated only with the greatest reluctance in normal discourse” (1964,
44). This research was designed to address this concern and to enable an open sharing
of knowledge, although there may still have been aspects of the song texts that the
participants did not reveal for various reasons. The design of this research is discussed
in detail in Chapter 3.
The pre-eminence of the text and vocal expression of language in Hawaiian
music is well documented (Tatar 1979b, xxiv). Pukui documented the tradition of
haku mele as practised in her home district of Ka‘% at the southernmost part of
Hawai‘i Island (1949, 247-258). She described the significance of the practice, the
training given to individuals, and the importance of word selection, as “carelessness
in the choice of words might result in death for the composer or the person for whom
it was composed” (1949, 247). She further explained the power of the text and kaona,
stating “the kaona of a chant was believed to be potent enough to bring lovers
together, to mend broken homes or to break up an undesirable union” (1949, 249).
Cook estimated that there were 300,000 Hawaiians upon his arrival in 1778.
The number of Native Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians fell to under 40,000 by 1900,
while non-Hawaiians numbered nearly 70,000 (Halford 1954, 205). Along with the
continuous immigration of western missionaries and businessmen, a burgeoning
agricultural industry brought many labourers from Japan, China, the Philippines, and
Portugal in the late-1800s and early-1900s. It was shortly after 1900 that the first new
genre of music appeared that was predominantly in a language other than Hawaiian–
hapa-Haole. The 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition in San Francisco included a
Hawai‘i-themed pavilion and prominently featured Hawaiian and hapa Haole music.
Its promoters intended to appeal to potential visitors to Hawai!i and further expand
47
the tourist industry in the islands, and in that endeavour they were successful. With
their participation in this event, performers represented a “travelling culture” (Clifford
1997, 188-219). While not clearly defined by Clifford, his examples and discussion of
travelling culture emphasise a cultural mobility–that it exists and is practised beyond
its cultural locus or where it is perhaps the dominant culture. This does not mean that
these locations should be ignored, but that anthropologists should “focus on any
culture’s farthest range of travel while also [author’s emphasis] looking at its centers,
its villages, its intensive field sites” (1997, 25). The members of the Moe family, who
travelled and played Hawaiian music around the world for 56 years during the 20th
century, exemplified this practice. During that time they rarely returned to Hawai!i
(Clifford 1997, 25-26). The Exposition’s Hawaiian pavilion became a “contact zone”,
defined as “the space of colonial encounters, the space in which people
geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other and
establish ongoing relations … where subjects previously separated by geography and
history are co-present, the point at which their trajectories now intersect” (Pratt 1992,
6). This provided a venue where Americans could interact with Hawaiians, and
experience their music and cultural practices such as hula. In time, hotels and
nightclubs in Hawai!i also became contact zones for the producers and consumers of
cultural industry as “the notion of a contact zone … can be extended to include
cultural relations within the same state, region, or city–in the centers rather than the
frontiers of nations and empires” (Clifford 1997, 204). This characterisation of
commercial exchange is not intended to be a criticism of these encounters, but like the
commercial music and dance performances of the Small Namba of Malekula in
Vanuatu, recognition that it is “merely an adaptation to the exigencies produced by
48
global modernity under conditions which are not of their own choice” (Tilley 1997,
84).
The composition and performance of Hawaiian language music did not cease
with the emergence and popularization of hapa Haole music. Musically these forms
developed in parallel, similar to the “two traditions” hypothesis that have placed Irish
Gaelic and English language renditions of sean nós (an unaccompanied singing genre)
in binary opposition to each other (McCann, Ó Laoire 2003, 352). Indeed, language
can function as both a unifying and divisive force within a nation (Hinton 2001a, 40).
While the use of Hawaiian language continued to decrease in the school, society and
government and largely ceased to be transmitted within the family, new mele
continued to be composed and recorded in Hawaiian. Most recordings made through
the 1920s were of Hawaiian language compositions, and it was not until the 1930s
and into the 1940s that hapa-Haole compositions, originally intended for mainland
audiences, began to dominate the local recording industry and radio (Harry Soria,
Pers. Comm.). Steel guitar performance rose in prominence during this era, and it has
been suggested that certain nuances of steel guitar performance “allow a Canadian or
a Japanese to hear in the steel guitar what a Hawaiian hears in the vocalized song”
(Hood 1983, 146-147). With decreasing fluency in Hawaiian came a decreased ability
of Hawaiian audiences to comprehend the meaning of Hawaiian compositions. Even
those with some conversational ability could be challenged to understand the meaning
of some mele unless it was explained to them directly or in liner notes that
accompanied the recordings (Hood 1983, 142).
Authority
All I know of the world beyond the narrow range of my own personal
experience is what others have told me. It is all hearsay. But I do not count
all hearsay as equally reliable. Some people know what they are talking
49
about; others do not. Those who do are my cognitive authorities. (Wilson
1983, 13)
Our daily interactions with other individuals influence our opinion of them,
and their opinions of us–“our social identity and place in the world is defined by
others, but not in a way that can be measured very easily” (Russell 2005, 20). It is
important to differentiate two types of authority. The first is “administrative
authority”, which denotes a political, judicial, religious, social, administrative or
military power, or the ability to compel individuals to comply with laws, edicts or
instructions (Walton 1997, 76). Failure to comply with an administrative authority
may carry penalty or other grave consequences. The second kind of authority does not
contain the same elements of compulsion and consequence as the first. This kind of
authority, cognitive authority, is defined as the “power to influence the conduct and
actions of others; personal or practical influence” (Soanes, Stevenson 2009). An
individual recognised as a cognitive authority is known or believed to possess
“expertise in domain of knowledge or skill” (Walton 1997, 76). It is this kind of
authority that Gerstin cites among the bèlè musicians of Martinique, and that will be
examined in this dissertation. While epistemic authority is also glossed as “an expert
in a field of knowledge” (1997, 76), an expert and an authority are different as “one
can be an expert even though no one else realizes or recognizes that one is” (Wilson
1983, 13). Likewise, an individual may be perceived as an authority, while in reality
they lack the knowledge or expertise of an expert in that field.
There are two important characteristics of authority that may be considered
when characterising an individual as a cognitive authority. First, cognitive authority is
a matter of degree – “one can have a little or a lot of it” (Wilson 1983, 13-14). We are
challenged in our everyday lives to determine cognitive authority, as “in this age of
specialization and professionalization, it is not possible to escape accepting things on
50
the basis of authority” (Walton 1997, 1). We are sometimes confronted with
authorities who disagree, and challenged to determine whose authority on the given
topic or situation is greater. As such, two different individuals may be considered
authorities on Hawaiian language composition, but one perceived to be of greater
authority, and deferred to when the two authorities conflict. Second, authority is
relative to a sphere of interest (Wilson 1983, 13-14). One individual may be another’s
cognitive authority in regards to Hawaiian language composition or vocal
performance, but not that same individual’s cognitive authority on nuclear physics.
The ascription of the title “cognitive authority” on any individual is
problematic. As a social construct, one recognises another individual as a cognitive
authority on the basis of opinion and perception. That individual may or may not view
himself or herself as a cognitive authority. Another individual may believe himself or
herself to be a cognitive authority in a particular field of knowledge, but others do not
recognise their authority in that field. Therefore, when ascribing or denying cognitive
authority to another individual, we are dealing with issues of representation, and the
possibility of speaking for others.
The legitimacy and justifications for ethnographic authority in the
representation of the “other” are actively debated in anthropology:
As a type of discursive practice, speaking for others has come under increasing
criticism, and in some communities it is being rejected. There is a strong,
albeit contested, current within feminism which holds that speaking for others
is arrogant, vain, unethical, and politically illegitimate. (Alcoff 1991, 6)
While one could attempt to differentiate “speaking about others” from
“speaking for others”, it is sometimes difficult to disentangle the two (Alcoff 1991,
9). The difficulties that are manifested in speaking for others are found in “the very
structure of discursive practice, no matter its content, and therefore it is this structure
itself that needs alteration” (Alcoff 1991, 23). Rather than retreat from speaking for
51
others, Linda Alcoff suggests that those that do “should only do so out of a concrete
analysis of the particular power relations and discursive effects involved” (1991, 2324).
The nature of authority “implies a certain level of group structure” (Tyler,
Lind 1964, 124). As a social construct, at least two individuals are required–one who
is perceived as an authority and the other(s) who recognises it. As such, the politics of
authority play a significant role in musical exchange and activities, since “the ongoing
construction of authority in musical scenes-reputation-building is a pervasive theme
in most performers’ lives” (Gerstin 1998, 386). While Julian Gerstin focuses on
performance when arguing for the construction of authority, his statement may also be
applied to composition in the Hawaiian context. He refers to the informal negotiation
of authority within the bèlè musical tradition of Martinique as “reputation”, and notes
that it is “its strongest social glue” (1998, 386).
It is difficult and sometimes impossible to identify a word in Hawaiian that is
identical in meaning to a single word in English, and authority is no exception. Schütz
criticises The Hawaiian Dictionary for what he characterises as its “underlying
assumption that definition equals translation” and notes that translation is subordinate
to explanation in missionary Lorrin Andrew’s dictionary (1994, 233-234). Charlot
glossed some Hawaiian terms differently throughout his text in order to contextualize
their use in different passages. He uses the term kahuna as an example, which can be
glossed as “expert” or “priest”. In many situations–“from the most practical to the
most literary, intellectual, and ritualistic”–aspects of both definitions can be found in
a single context (Charlot 2005, 3).
A Hawaiian term that expresses the relationship and interactions between
individuals is pilina, and a Hawaiian perspective of interpersonal relations is
52
necessary to understand the recognition of authority in that context. Hawaiian society
prior to and immediately following Western contact had a complex, hierarchical
structure, and interactions between and within social classes were governed by kapu.
While some times glossed as taboo, laws, or restrictions, they also afforded privilege
and placed responsibility on individuals. Charlot noted that articulated moralities
dictated that even among chiefs and leaders, those of lower rank were expected to act
with “obedience, loyalty, devotion, and service” to those of higher rank–a recognition
of their administrative authority. In return, those of higher rank were expected to
provide care and protection to those of lower rank, however, he adds, “these precepts
were not always practiced” (2005, 113).
The Hawaiian translations, or perhaps more accurately approximations, of
authority are as follows, “Mana, kuleana, mea !ike; k&k# (rare)” (Pukui, Elbert 1986,
396). In the Hawaiian-English half of The Hawaiian Dictionary, however, authority is
the eleventh meaning given for kuleana – after “Right, privilege, concern,
responsibility, title, business, property, estate, portion, jurisdiction” and before
“liability, interest, claim, ownership, tenure, affair, province; reason, cause, function,
justification” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 179). Other definitions and multi-word
constructions are also given. Most entries that contain authority as a translation refer
to administrative authority. The lone exception that could be interpreted to include
aspects of cognitive authority is leo hano, which is glossed as “voice of authority and
respect” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 57). Laiana Wong glossed kuleana as authority in his
discussion of the movement to revitalise the Hawaiian language, and provided two
examples in the Hawaiian context. He identified two entities that have attempted to
establish cognitive and administrative authority over the use of the Hawaiian language
in contemporary society (1999, 105). The first focused the modernization of the
53
Hawaiian language through the creation of new lexicon to address the contemporary
needs of the Hawaiian language, and the second attempted to maintain notions of a
“pure” standard of the language by eschewing use of newly coined lexicon (Wong
1999, 99).
Completeness of knowledge is valued in Hawaiian society, and is crucial to
acceptance as an authority within the culture. Even today, “contemporary Hawaiians
praise people who know the complete lyrics of many songs and scorn people who try
to sing a song without knowing all the words” (Charlot 2005, 24). Prior to Protestant
missionaries creating the Latin-based orthography of the Hawaiian language that is
used today, completeness of knowledge was necessary to ensure the full and accurate
oral transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next (Charlot 2005, 24).
The ability to reproduce compositions exactly was “regarded as proof of divine
inspiration” as “exactness of knowledge is essential” (Beckwith, Haleole 1918, 29).
Lacking a written form for the language, Hawaiians developed many approaches to
assist in the memorization of their oral history, including genealogy.
This is not to say that there were not differences of opinion regarding
historical knowledge. The Hawaiian language newspapers printed in the mid-1800s
contained vigorous exchanges and disagreements between some individuals who are
recognised as cognitive authorities of the era, including John Papa ‘"!&, David Malo
and Samuel Kamakau (Nogelmeier 2003, 214). Cognitive authority was vigorously
challenged in pre-contact Hawai‘i, with formal contests of ho‘op"p" (a contest of
wits). Charlot documents many examples of ho‘op"p" that required an encyclopaedic
knowledge of place, wind, rain, animal, and plant names that must be listed in their
entirety from memory, as well as a high level of skill with language manipulation and
54
metaphor. The perceived cognitive authority of the winners of such contests is then
enhanced, and the losers were frequently put to death (Charlot 2005, xv-xvi).
I will not explicitly label any of the individuals who participated in this
research as authorities, even if I do consider many of them as such, as “the dangers of
speaking for others result from the possibility of misrepresentation, expanding one’s
own authority and privilege” (Alcoff 1991, 23). This is certainly not my intent. Some
of the participants in this research made self-deprecating statements or emphasised the
opinion that they were themselves students of haku mele. Such expressions of
modesty are admired in Hawaiian society, and is reflected in the following #$lelo
no#eau:
E noho iho i ke $p! weuweu, mai ho#oki#eki#e (Pukui 1983, 44).
Literally: Remain among the clumps of grasses and do not elevate yourself.
Figuratively: Do not put on airs, show off, or assume an attitude of superiority.
While my attempts to compliment my hoa k!k"k!k" on their skill with haku
mele were frequently met with self-deprecating humour or outright dismissal of my
compliment, “interpersonally constructed authority is part of every musical
relationship” (Gerstin 1998, 407). For the purposes of this dissertation, I will simply
identify these individuals as practitioners of haku mele. I have located no source or
informant who suggests that Machado or any other known composer whose mele are
included in this research claimed authoritative status for themselves in either
composition or performance. I do not claim that Machado or any other composer
whose mele are included in this research are indeed authorities on Hawaiian language
composition or vocal performance. To do so would be to be speaking for them in a
manner that they did not do themselves. Instead, I will focus on the perceptions of the
participants in this research, as represented in our discussions, that certain individuals
55
are their own cognitive authoritative in Hawaiian language composition and vocal
performance. This distinction is important, as “the authority of cultural texts often
seems to reside in the authorial personages themselves” (Carr 2005, 107). My own
opinions and those of my hoa k!k"k!k" support the social construction of authority,
and also the observation that “our social identity and place in the world is defined by
others, but not in a way that can be measured very easily” (2005, 4). My examination
of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”, Machado, and other compositions and composers will
focus on the cognitive authority of the composers, i.e., their recognition by others as
authorities, and their power to influence the opinions of others through their actions
and words.
Authenticity
The term “authenticity” and its ability to bestow credibility, integrity, favour
and even financial reward when affixed to a person, act, or object, make it a point of
contention between those that desire recognition of authenticity for their actions or
products, and those who have the ability to bestow it. Its application is problematic
(Rubidge 1996, 219), given its highly subjective nature in nearly every, if not all,
applications. It gives the appearance of being less pertinent, since “in a post-modern
world where appropriation … is everywhere evident, it no longer carries its originary
force” (Moore 2002, 210).
In the realm of musical performance, Peter Kivy has argued that the term
authenticity has begun “to take on a negative connotation … it came to have
associated with a kind of rigid dogmatism” (2002, 138). Given the interpretive nature
of the term and its dubious value in contemporary society, one is left to ponder the
value of the continued use of the term, particularly in academic discourse. In the
context of the performance of English folk music, Robert Burns observed that
56
“authenticity in [English] folk music is a false construct most often based on the
idealisation of Victorian and Edwardian folk song collectors, many of whom edited
their transcriptions to make them acceptable to Victorian and Edwardian audiences”
(2008, 4). While I agree with depictions of the subjective and qualitative nature of
authenticity, and with Burns that authenticity is constructed, I have no interest in and
will not attempt to establish rigid criteria whose presence or absence defines authentic
Hawaiian language composition or vocal performance. I instead focus on the elements
that are perceived by the participants in this research to be important and valued
characteristics of mele and Hawaiian vocal performance. I make no claim that their
perceptions are accurate or complete; I simply present them as discussed and align
them to critical theory as it pertains to authenticity.
Sarah Rubidge, like Moore, characterised the authenticity as interpretive,
stating that “designating a performance as ‘authentic’ is the outcome of a kind of
judgment” (1996, 307). Maud Karpeles noted, “authenticity must always be a
comparative rather than an absolute quality” (1951, 10). The act of comparison
requires the presence or knowledge of at least two people, actions or objects – one or
more which is being compared, and the other with which it is being compared. As
Kivy has observed, “the concept of authenticity seems to imply, in the context of
prototype and something that is modelled on it, an exact matching of the ‘authentic’
model and the prototype that it is intended to model” (2002, 138). I will demonstrate
that in the context of Hawaiian composition and vocal performance, perceptions of
authenticity in contemporary compositions and vocal performance are based on
historical construction, that is, by comparing it with older compositions, recordings,
performances and performance practice.
57
In the early 1980s, Hawaiians and anthropologists engaged in vigorous
debates regarding the concepts of authenticity and “invented traditions”. Eric
Hobsbawm defined an invented tradition as “a set of practices, normally governed by
overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to
inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically
implies a continuity with the past” (Hobsbawm, Ranger 1983, 1). Jocelyn Linnekin
posited that some Hawaiians of that era based their identity upon models of the past
that were not always historically accurate, and in ways that “characteristically
manipulate symbols of collective identity”. Sometimes this was done in order to
differentiate Hawaiians from other ethnic groups (1983, 250). Linnekin (1991) has
also contributed to discourse surrounding Allan Hanson’s characterisation of certain
aspects of M#ori culture as having been “invented” (1989, 77). Native Hawaiian
scholar Haunani Kay Trask challenged the research and writings of such non-native
anthropologists, as they have “more potential power than what Hawaiians write about
themselves” (1991,166). Indigenous objections to these depictions are not simply
based on the power of representation, but include “the way that people making claims
to represent cultural constructions are located vis-a-vis one another in complex and
shifting political economies” (Friedman 1992, 852-853). Misconceptions of tradition
may also exist within a cultural group. Davianna McGregor noted that during the
1970s, some Hawaiian elders criticised politically active Hawaiian youths, believing
that such resistance was “un-Hawaiian”. McGregor herself became involved in the
resistance movement of that era, and learned through research that such resistance
existed in the 1870s, when native Hawaiians organised to prevent a takeover of
Hawai‘i by the United States government (1985, 84-85)
58
Grossberg argues that authenticity of expression in rock’n’roll music is not
defined by its anchorage in the past, nor by the integrity of its performers, but by its
ability to articulate for its listeners a place of belonging, an ability which
distinguished it from other cultural forms (1992, 206). This sense of belonging may
be characterised as a “centredness” that “implies an active lifting of oneself from an
unstable experimental ground and depositing oneself within an experience to be
trusted, an experience which centers the listener” (Moore 2002, 219-220). Moore
identified this as “authenticity of experience” or “second person authenticity”– “when
a performer succeeds in conveying the impression to a listener that the listener’s
experience of life is being validated, that the music is “telling it like it is” for them
(2002, 219-220). An example of this kind of authentication in Hawaiian music occurs
with the performance of the mele “He Hawai‘i Au” (‘I Am A Hawaiian’), in which
those who speak the Hawaiian language or know the meaning of the song and who are
of Hawaiian ancestry feel that the performer is expressing thoughts, emotions as if
they were the listener’s own.
While the authenticity of current Hawaiian language use is a contemporary
and contested issue (Wong 1999; NeSmith 2003), it was also an issue in the 19th
century–an era when the Hawaiian language was the lingua franca of the Hawaiian
nation:
O ka olelo hawaii, oia ka olelo a keia lahui. O ka olelo a kekahi lahui, oia ke ki e
wehe ai a ike lea i ka manao, ka makemake a me na pono nui o na kanaka a pau
o ia lahui … O na kupuna mua o kakou, ke poe nana i hoonohonoho mua i ke
kahua o ka olelo Hawaii, ua hoopololei lakou ma ke kamailio ana, hoike manao
ana, uiui ana, a ke ano loea loa. A no ko lakou ake nui i maikai a pololei ka
lakou kamailio ana, ua mahele no lakou, a ua hoonohonoho palena kupono ma
loko o ka olelo Hawaii … ua pololei a ua maemae loa ka olelo ia wa, aka, i keia
wa haalele loa kekahi hapa nui o keia lahui ia mau palena a na kupuna o kakou i
59
hoonohonoho ai … (***** 1873a, 3)15
The Hawaiian language is the language of this race. The language of a race is the
key which unlocks so that the thoughts, desires and the propriety of all people of
that race so that they can be clearly seen. Our earliest ancestors, those who first
created the foundation of the Hawaiian language, they established the accuracy
of speech, the display of thoughts, and questioning until they would be expressed
in an expert manner. And because of their great desire to have their speech to be
good and accurate, they created a separation and established the proper
boundaries for the Hawaiian language … the language of that era was correct and
very pure, but, at this time most of this race has gone beyond the boundaries that
our ancestors established …
This text is part of a letter that appeared in the November 29, 1873 issue of Ka
Nupepa Kuokoa. In it, the author laments the inauthentic use of the Hawaiian
language that he or she had heard. Later in that article, the author goes on to describe
the various levels of Hawaiian language usage of that time:
1. Ka olelo Hawaii maemae maoli.
2. Ka olelo Hawaii awilia.
3. Ka olelo Hawaii hoopili wale.
4. Ka olelo Hawaii hoano e ia‘ (***** 1873a, 3; ***** 1873b, 3).
1. Truly, authentically pure Hawaiian.
2. Hawaiian that has been mixed.
3. Imitative Hawaiian.
4. Hawaiian that has been made strange16.
“Truly, authentically pure Hawaiian” is described by the author as the
language as spoken by the ancestors of Hawaiians of that era–those that the author
previously credited for setting the “proper boundaries” of the language. The author
described the Hawaiian language “that has been mixed” as a true Hawaiian language
as well, but that it also displayed the influence of foreign languages. The author
compared this kind of mixed Hawaiian to a poi - a food usually made of mashed kalo
(taro) mixed with water – which is made by combining kalo and #uala (sweet potato).
The author then described “imitative Hawaiian” as a form spoken by those who have
15
16
At the end of this letter in Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, the authorʼs name appears simply as J.
N. *****. This entry appears at the top the bibliography.
Translation by Charlot (2005, 692).
60
no knowledge of the language. The author provided several examples of Hawaiian
language which he had heard and which were spoken or written incorrectly (in the
author’s opinion), and offered a more accurate wording of those phrases. Finally, the
author described the Hawaiian language which has been “made strange” as that which
contained words which have been mixed up or are the result of joining parts of words
together. Some lapuwale (foolish) and hawawa (incompetent) people not only spoke
this type of Hawaiian, but also pass it on to their children (***** 1873b, 3). The
author ended this diatribe against those who inaccurately use the Hawaiian language
in the conclusion of the article by stating:
Lehulehu wale no na hemahema e ae i koe; aka, o keia mau mea i hoikeia,
oia kekahi mau mea e alalai ai ia kakou i ke kamailio pololei ana: – A ina
haalele kakou i keia mau mea keakea17 a pau; a laila, hiki no ia kakou e
kamailio pololei i ka olelo Hawaii. (***** 1873b, 3)
There are numerous other deficiencies remaining, but these things that I
have displayed, these are some of the things which are preventing us from
conversing correctly: and if we abandon all of these worthless seeds18, then
we will be truly capable of speaking the Hawaiian language correctly.
Wong noted that using language from older times as a model for authenticity
in current language learning and instruction is problematic “for the simple reason that
its own authenticity may have been called into doubt by its predecessors” (Wong
1999, 111). Keao NeSmith cited the use of lawe (to take) in a phrase like lawe i ka
h$‘ike (take the test) as a possible calque that is drawn directly from English19. He
observed that when native speakers use this type of loan translation, people he
18
19
Keakea literally translates as semen, though is also used metaphorically to describe
children that one raises but who were fathered by another. In this case, the author
applies the term to the results of foreign influence on the Hawaiian language.
A calque is a term used to refer to a word or phrase is translated item by item into
equivalent morphemes in the new language. It is also referred to as a “loan translation”
(Crystal 2009, 64)
61
characterised as speakers of “Neo Hawaiian”20 sometimes criticise it–even though a
gloss in the Hawaiian language dictionary also shows this use of lawe21. He noted
such uses of lawe also appear in unspecified and uncited 18th and 19th century
Hawaiian newspapers (2003, 11). Language planners working with what has been
characterised as “reinvented language” sometimes attempt to replace undesirable
loanwords because “it conceals foreign influence from the future native speakers,
ensuring lexicographic acceptability of the coinage, recycles obsolete autochthonous
roots and words (a delight for purists) and aids initial learning among contemporary
learners and speakers” (Zuckermann 2004, 281).
The passage in Ka Nupepa Kuokoa that is quoted at the beginning of this
section supports Wong’s observation that it is not our perception of what authentic
language is today that is most significant, but how it is perceived in the future:
If one recognises authenticity as a construction that is the result of a
negotiated present that manages to survive until it becomes a traditional past,
it should not make much difference what is called Hawaiian today because
tomorrow will determine whether or not it is accepted as such. (Wong 1999,
112)
We today may consider the language of certain authors of the 1800s to be
authentic–perhaps the same individuals who were the subjects of the diatribe printed
20
21
NeSmith defines “Neo Hawaiian” as an institutionalized form of Hawaiian that is the
result of second-language learners attempting to acquire the language without the
benefit of interaction with native speakers. He contrasts this with “Traditional
Hawaiian”, which he glosses as those who have acquired the language within the
family from native speakers in the way the language has been transmitted from “time
immemorial” (2003, 11). He proposes that enough evidence exists to prove that “Neo
Hawaiian” is at least an invented dialect and possibly even an invented language, and
contrasts some elements of the two to support his hypothesis. He acknowledges that
the Hawaiian language community has not yet engaged in a discussion of his points
and concerns.
The Hawaiian Dictionary that NeSmith refers to does not list a specific example
showing lawe used in this exact context, i.e., taking a test. However, the seventh gloss
of lawe is “undertake,” and a another example shown–Lawe i nā ‘ōlelo ho‘ohiki (to take
oaths) is similar enough in context to support his assertion (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 197198).
62
in Ka Nupepa Okoa. Likewise, NeSmith’s “Neo Hawaiian” may be recognised by
future generations as authentic Hawaiian, should it survive and become “a traditional
past”. Variations and accuracy in language use influence perceptions of authority and
authenticity, and this process is complicated by the fact that change is constant in
language use. High school students experience how the English language has changed
when they read Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet:
A description of the ways in which seventeenth-century English differs
from that of the twenty-first would practically constitute a catalogue of the
ways in which language can vary, ranging from purely phonological
through orthographic, lexical, and syntactic change up to pragmatic
changes in subject matter and style. (Juola 2003, 83)
An individual may introduce an element of language change; however, “it
becomes part of the language only when it is adopted by others, i.e., when it is
propagated. Therefore the origin of a change is its propagation or acceptance by
others” (Labov 1973; 1972, 277). Change or variation in Hawaiian language is not
readily accepted today, even when it is observed in native speakers of the language:
When today’s native speakers [of Hawaiian] use forms that do not reflect
the ‘university’ standard, forms that would be viewed as the result of
imperfect learning if they were produced by non-native speakers, it is more
often than not attributed to influence from English, an unfortunate byproduct of colonization. (Wong 1999, 99)
Wong argues that perceptions of accuracy and inaccuracy in Hawaiian
language use reflect colonial values –“not only do speakers continue to suffer the
imported version of linguistic ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, which is quite blatantly related
more to a sense of morality as defined by foreign sensibilities than to some quality
inherent to the language itself” (1999, 99-100). While these perceptions and moral
judgements may indeed reflect colonial values, there are several Hawaiian words that
can be used to express the concept of accuracy or correctness. Pololei means correct
or straight, pono can be glossed as proper and maiau as neat or proper (Pukui, Elbert
63
1986, 572). Something that was hana ‘ia me ka pololei (made correctly), hana #ia me
ka pono (made properly) or hana #ia me ka maiau (made neatly and carefully) can be
said to have been done accurately. The characteristic by which an individual may
produce something accurately is no#eau (skill).
As accuracy is a desired quality, its importance is instilled in Hawaiian
children from a young age. A child’s first effort to make anything–a mat, quilt, fish
net or bowl, for example–must be completed without fault (Handy, Pukui 1958, 102103). Any works completed in a manner that was hemahema (imperfect or sloppy)
would be considered “rude and immoral” (Charlot 2005, 122). Another #$lelo no#eau
reflects this desire for accuracy–hana k"pulu ka lima, #ai #ino ka waha (careless work
with the hands puts dirty food in the mouth). This saying can also be used
metaphorically in other situations to express displeasure at work poorly done. Upon
completion of some kinds of work that required the blessing of #aumakua, an #aha
#aina kahukahu (feast of blessing) was conducted to consecrate the finished product
before its use. This item is never given away (Handy, Pukui 1958, 102-103).
An example of the importance of accuracy is documented in the craft of k"lai
wa‘a (canoe carving), in which deities are invoked in the process of collecting and
transporting materials to construct the wa‘a (canoe) as well as in its construction. A
kahuna k"lai wa‘a (master canoe builder) would discard a poorly built canoe rather
than risk offending an akua or angering an ali#i (Handy, Pukui 1958, 259). Not only
must the wa‘a be constructed with great care, the ceremonial process by which the
kahuna k"lai wa#a turns over possession of the canoe must proceed without flaw as
well. If a mistake is made, the person for whom the canoe was built is advised e kuai
aku ia hai i ka waa (‘sell the canoe to someone else’) (Kamakau 1869, 1). While this
desire for accuracy is characteristic of pre-contact Hawai!i, “emphasis on perfection
64
continued through the 19th century” and “perfection is still a vital ideal in Hawaiian
education today, for instance, in chant and hula instruction” (Charlot 2005, 123).
Some performers choose to sing older compositions in a way that they believe
would please and honour the composer of the composition or their k!puna
(grandparents, elders or ancestors, pl.). I believe this is reflective of their belief in and
interpretation of the Hawaiian concept of kuleana. This is also an example of what
Moore refers to as third person authenticity–“when a performer succeeds in
conveying the impression of accurately representing the ideas of another, embedded
within a tradition of performance” (2002, 218). In some cases, the performer may
choose to mimic a historic performance, perhaps the composer’s own, as closely as
possible so that it will be perceived as authentic. In other cases, the performer may
take an older composition and perform it in a manner that differs in varying degrees
from older recordings, but which still contains elements from older performance
practices.
Metaphor
Language plays a crucial role in the transmission of culture, as “the world is
not simply the way it is, but what we make of it through language” (Romaine 2000,
26-29). And while the use of figures of speech such as metaphor is sometimes
perceived as a “device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish”, linguistic
evidence suggests that our conceptual system as human beings “is largely and
fundamentally metaphorical in nature” (Lakoff, Johnson 2003, 3). Edward Sapir
notes,
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the
world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the
mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of
expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one
adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language
65
is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of
communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’
is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the
group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as
representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies
live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels
attached. (1929, 209)
The study of metaphor can be traced back to Aristotle, who believed that
metaphors are a means of comparing two terms that are ornamental in nature (Ortony
1993, 3). Nonetheless, he considered a command of metaphor as “the mark of genius”
(Ortony 2001, 9). Andrew Ortony argued that the use of metaphor is not simply
ornamental, but that it addresses a basic deficiency of language – the inability of any
symbol system, such as language, to capture “every conceivable aspect of an object,
event or experience that one may wish to describe” (2001, 9). Richards expanded on
Aristotle’s assertion that metaphors are a means of comparing two terms, using
“tenor”22 for that which is being represented through metaphor, “vehicle” for the
metaphoric statement that represents the tenor and forms the basis for comparison,
“ground” for that which the two have in common, and “tension” for the dissimilarities
between the two terms being compared (Richards 1965, 89-112). I will use these
terms in my examination of the use of metaphor in Hawaiian language compositions
found in Chapter 5.
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s assertion regarding the fundamentally
metaphorical nature of our conceptual system is based on the belief that not only is
our human conceptual system metaphorical in nature, but the language we use to talk
about the concept is also systematic (2003, 7). They provided the conceptual
22
Ortony notes that the term ʻtopicʼ is frequently used now. I will use ʻtenorʼ to describe
this element of metaphor.
66
metaphor of ARGUMENT IS WAR23 to explain the systematic nature of this metaphorical
concept. They observed that when we talk about arguments, we might use the
vocabulary of war, such as to “attack a position”, “indefensible”, “strategy”, “new
line of attack”, “win” and “gain ground”. In doing so, “a portion of the conceptual
network of battle partially characterizes the concept of an argument, and the language
follows suit” (2003, 7). This is not to say that every metaphor is part of a broader and
systematic metaphorical concept. They provided the example of “the foot of the
mountain”, noting that it is idiosyncratic (2003, 7). Steven Feld noted that terms for
body parts in English are “a rather primary lexical domain” that may be used “for the
structure and function of other kinds of items and tools” (1981, 26). He also observed
then how “these terms transfer to less primary semantic fields like furniture,
technology, and clothing, where we speak of the eye of a needle, nose of pliers or of
an airplane, mouth of a jar, teeth of a saw, tongue of shoes, or leg of a table” (1981,
26).
An example of the systematic nature of metaphoric conceptualisation is the
manner in which Kimura uses the human body as a conceptual metaphor for analysing
the structure of mele using m%iwi (a term he coined to describe any Hawaiian poetic
device) to describe the traditional poetic devices found in the structure and thought
contained in mele (2002, 2). He coined the term ku#inaiwi (bone joint) to describe
those devices that link words and thoughts within the mele.24. Kimura further
23
24
Conceptual metaphors such as these are generally presented in small caps, such as
ARGUMENT AS WAR , LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS ARE CONTAINERS, IDEAS (OR MEANINGS) ARE
OBJECTS, TIME IS MONEY, and TIME IS A COMMODITY. I will present all conceptual
metaphors in this manner throughout this dissertation.
Kimura is a founding member and chair of the Kōmike Hua‘ōlelo Hou (New Word
Committee) housed at the Hale Kuamo‘o Hawaiian Language Center at the University
of Hawai‘i at Hilo. The committee publishes a new lexicon dictionary entitled Māmaka
Kaiao that contains the new words coined by the committee. The creation of this
lexicon addresses the needs of Hawaiian language speakers in contemporary society.
67
subdivided these devices contained within the mele by identifying the thought of the
mele as kino #i#o (flesh of the body), and the structural and linking devices as kino iwi
(bones of the body). Samuel M. Kamakau refers to these devices as loina (customs or
mannerisms) in his article on the features of Hawaiian chant (Kamakau 1867, 1).
Nogelmeier also uses the term loina to describe these devices (Nogelmeier 2009).
These devices will be further described and examined in Chapter 4.
The use of the human body as a conceptual metaphor for expressing the
structure of mele is not the only one that can be applied to haku mele. The process of
bringing words together in a mele may also be expressed metaphorically as a lei.
Haku is a specific technique used for making lei that brings together different flowers
and vegetation in a manner that, when done properly, is aesthetically uniform and
pleasing to look at from all sides. While there are many different techniques for
creating a lei, the similarities between the haku technique and song composition best
expresses the process of haku mele. Mele also have kino (form or shape) like lei, and
bring together multiple elements, and bring together both native and foreign
influences (Ho‘omanawanui 2005, 32).
Lakoff and Johnson posited, “the essence of metaphor is understanding and
experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (Lakoff, Johnson 2003, 5).
George Miller provided the steps necessary to move from experience to
understanding. The first requires recognition that a metaphor has been expressed, and
offers two possible views to explain the way in which this recognition occurs. In the
first he hypothesised that the metaphor “produces a problem of apperception because
the reader’s textual concept departs from known facts about the real world” (1993,
227). In this view, the reader recognises that the statement could not be true in the real
world, recognises a statement as a metaphor, and mental processes begin which will
68
lead to an understanding of the metaphor. In the second view, Miller believed that the
recognition “would be post hoc, based on a review of the mental processes it
initiated.” There is no recognition that the expression “departs from known facts
about the real world”, and the reader attempts to process the metaphor as if it were a
literal statement. Recognition of the statement as a metaphor would occur after the
listener has mentally processed the phrase (1993, 227). It should be noted that the
presence or absence of metaphor in Hawaiian language compositions cannot be
determined only by examination of individual words, phrases or verses. In some cases
the entire mele must be examined in order to determine if the use of a particular
phrase is literal or metaphoric in nature.
People, their actions, thoughts and emotions are often represented in Hawaiian
poetry through the use of elements of nature - birds, sea creatures, plants, features of
land and sea, place names, winds and rains are all elements that appear in Hawaiian
compositions that may represent human beings, their behaviours and actions (Elbert
1951, 346-47). Therefore HUMAN BEING AS NATURE could be considered to be a broad
Hawaiian conceptual metaphor “umbrella” under which individual metaphors may be
classified. With the arrival of westerners and new technologies to Hawai!i, boat
names, the telephone, airplanes and cars also became the subjects of Hawaiian
compositions or were used within them. Hawaiian poetry sometimes includes
statements that contradict known facts about the Hawaiian world; therefore, both of
Miller’s views regarding recognition of metaphor may indeed be applicable in the
Hawaiian context.
Miller also characterised metaphor as “a comparison statement with parts left
out” and that “making the comparison explicit is the first riddle that the reader must
solve.” These are characteristics of the comparison view of metaphor (1993, 227).
69
Following Martin Gannon, I will not differentiate between metaphor, simile and
analogy in this thesis as comparison for all of these figures of speech are done “with
respect to certain characteristics” (2001, 18-19). While these distinctions are worthy
of further research as they pertain to metaphor use in Hawaiian poetry, they are
beyond the scope of this thesis.
Hawaiian language compositions are a product of the social processes of the
society in which they are created. As we move further from older times when
Hawaiian was the first language of everyone in Hawai!i, “we have left the old
atmosphere and associations, and it is no longer possible to re-create them” (Pukui
1949, 252). The atmosphere Pukui referred to is the context in which the language is
used, and the associations that she refers to is the use of metaphors that are
representative of a Hawaiian conceptual system and world-view. Kimura argues that
the kinds of associations that Pukui referred to are available to the contemporary
composer who makes the effort to become familiar with them: “No laila, hiki ke ki#i
#ia ka mea kahiko a ho#ohou #ia no k%ia w". Ka mea mua na#e, pono e #ike he aha
k%l" mau mea kahiko a pa#a ma kou lima, lako ma kou lima, a ma ka w" e pono ai e
haku ai ma k"u mele, aia i laila” (‘So something old can be taken and make it new
for today. But first you need to know what are those old things are and make sure they
firmly grasped in your hand, your hands are well supplied, and when you are ready to
compose your song, it is there’) (Kimura 2009).
The challenge that confronts most contemporary Hawaiian speakers who are
predominantly second-language learners is to understand both the atmosphere/context
and the associations/figures of speech used in older Hawaiian poetry. Those
individuals who wish to glean knowledge from older mele also must be aware of the
70
atmosphere/context and the associations/figures of speech of the era in which the mele
was composed.
Although kaona and metaphor are frequent subjects of discourse regarding
Hawaiian language composition, and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably,
they are not synonymous, and it is important to distinguish the two. The use of
metaphor provides a layer of abstraction from the composers’ actual thoughts, and
allows them to express their thoughts ambiguously through association, comparison,
and resemblance (McArthur 1992, 653–55). Kaona is more accurately described as
the “story behind the story”–the people, places, events and experiences that the
composer veils in the composition through the use of metaphor and other rhetorical
devices (Nogelmeier 2009). What the listener/reader hears or sees can be taken
literally, or the metaphor can be explored and may hint at the kaona that underlies the
composition. While listeners and/or readers are empowered to create personal
interpretations of the metaphor and kaona, care must exercised, as these personal
interpretations should not presented as the composer’s intent. While the dangers
inherent to interpretation (and misinterpretation) of another individual’s mele have
been discussed in depth in the literature, the distinction between metaphor and kaona
has only recently become a topic of discussion. This distinction is discussed in more
depth in Chapter 5.
Vocal Performance
Identifying the characteristics that differentiate a vocal performance of music
from spoken or recited forms of vocalisation is as difficult as defining the word
“music” itself, and may vary from culture to culture. Vocal performance in music can
be broadly defined as the use of the human voice to make sounds in a manner that is
considered “musical” or in a manner that differs from spoken modes of vocalisation
71
and other sounds generated by the human voice that would be considered neither
spoken nor musical. List notes that both speech and singing share three important
characteristics: that they are vocally produced, linguistically meaningful and contain
melody, although some exceptions exist (List 1963, 1). Vocal performance, as used in
this thesis, is inclusive of the vocalisation of the text, but also all of the audible
characteristics inherent in the vocalisation, whether intended by the vocalist,
accidental, or simply by-products of each individual’s vocal mechanism.
Julia Kristeva’s distinction between the functions of texts and Roland Barthes
extension of Kristeva’s work prove useful for the examination of vocal performance
that will be found in this thesis. Kristeva posits that “the phenotext is a structure … it
obeys rules of communication”, whereas genotext “is a process; it moves through
zones that have relative and transitory borders and constitutes a path” (1984, 86-89).
In an attempt to elevate discourse about vocal performance and music in general from
the domain of the adjective, Barthes proposed that the encounter between a language
and a voice be described as “the grain of the voice” (1977, 183). He builds on
Kristeva’s distinction between “photext” and “genotext” and applies it to “the whole
of music”. He then defines “pheno-song” the structures of musical language as sung
and elements of the performance that are “in service of communication” (1977, 182).
In contrast, he argues that “geno-song” includes volume and sonic qualities of the
musical voice–all characteristics are not functionally communicative in nature (1977,
183). The geno-song is also “the place where semiotic melody works on symbolic
language” (Jones 1999, 222). In an ethnographic study of folk singer Peggy Seeger’s
music, Stacy Holman Jones acknowledges Seeger’s tacit understanding of the
distinction between pheno-song and geno-song, noting that “the signifying of
72
Seeger’s voice and playing is partner to the significance of the music; the act is as
important as the sign” (1999, 222).
While the breadth of vocal performance in Hawaiian music is clearly a
valuable area for research, it is beyond the scope of this research. Instead, I will focus
on the issue of pronunciation during vocal performance and several non-linguistic
characteristics that were discussed by the participants in this research–most are areas
that Barthes would classify as being part of the pheno-song. When the term “vocal
performance” appears in this thesis, it will refer to pronunciation of the text and those
specific vocal characteristics. When referring to pronunciation of the text alone and
not referring to the other vocal characteristics identified in Chapter 2, I will use “sung
pronunciation”.
The importance of proper vocalisation in Hawaiian musical performance
cannot be overemphasised. While both Charlot and Tatar used the word “spoken”, the
power of the language is inherent in any vocalisation of the words, including chanted
and sung performance (Kamakau 1867, 1). In vocal performances, the most important
element is the mele (Stillman 2005, 83), and the leo (voice) is “the most important
instrument” (Tatar 1995, 215). Helen Roberts noted, “There were well-defined
standards of excellence” in chant, and that training began in childhood (Roberts 1967,
71). Prior to the arrival of western forms of music and foreign instruments, Hawaiian
musical instruments, and in particular idiophones and membranophones, were used
almost exclusively to accompany chant and hula. Instrumental forms of music “were
not cultivated” in Hawai‘i (Stillman 2005, 78).
The words and thoughts of a mele, on paper or in the mind of a composer,
have no inherent power in the physical world, “but the right words, spoken correctly,
produce by themselves, as an impersonal power, external results” (Charlot 2005, 100).
73
Elizabeth Tatar agreed, “the spoken word was believed to contains … mana” (Tatar
1982, 23). The desire for and necessity of accurate expression of language is not
unique to Hawai!i, but is also found in neighbouring areas of the Pacific. Mervin
McLean stated that “concern to avoid mistakes is a recurring theme throughout
Polynesia … and is addressed usually to the words”, adding, “penalties for mistakes
could be severe” (1999, 376-377). Charlot notes, “a chanter who makes a mistake can
be deeply troubled and search his conscience” (2005, 124). A guilty conscience may
be the least of the chanter’s worries - even the mispronunciation of a single syllable
would be disrespectful of the deity for whom the performance was offered (Handy,
Pukui 1958, 141) and an inaccurate performance could result in death (Tatar 1982,
23). Silva notes that while Hawaiians still believe in the power of language, he
believes that in contemporary Hawaiian society most individuals do not fear the
consequences of improper language use and pronunciation to the same degree that it
was in the past (Silva, Pers. Comm.).
The transmission of the Hawaiian language from one generation to the next
largely ceased early in the 20th century. The Hawaiian language had not only been
outlawed as a medium of education, but students were punished for using Hawaiian in
school, and families were coerced by teachers to abandon its use in the home (Wilson
1998, 123-137). This led to a predominantly monolingual, English-speaking
population of native and part-Hawaiians. Some of those individuals who participated
in this research selected recordings that were made by performers who lacked
conversational fluency yet were able to sing the mele accurately.
The aesthetics of Hawaiian vocal performance changed with the arrival of
hymns and other forms of western music. The repertoire and performance practice of
both the indigenous musical forms and the introduced hymns were affected as
74
“elements of indigenous performance practice began to appear in the performance of
Christian hymnody; and elements of Western music began to appear in indigenous
performance practices” (Stillman 1996, 469-470). Vocal techniques that have been a
part of vocal performance practice since before the arrival of westerners are now
heard in the performance of modern Hawaiian language repertoire. These elements
are discussed further in Chapter 7.
Summary
Perceptions of authority and authenticity in Hawaiian language composition
and vocal performance are based historic construction though comparison with older
compositions, recordings and performances. Mele composed, performed and recorded
in the past inform modern society as well as individual composers and performers of
Hawaiian language music. Each individual is exposed to these mele in a unique
sequence of listening experiences “then recreates, reconstructs and reinterprets them
in each moment of the present” (Rice 1994, 370). In this way, contemporary
compositions and performances can be described as historically constructed, but
individually experienced (Rice 1987; Geertz 1975, 474-475) as “individuals operating
in society must come to grips with, learn, and choose among a host of previously
constructed musical forms” (Rice 1987, 474). It is important to note, however,
authenticity is not inscribed in the performance, but ascribed by the listener(s) to the
performer (Moore 2002, 210), and a broader sense, society. Perceptions of
compositional and performative authority are constructed as “the audience becomes
engaged not with the acts or gestures themselves, but directly with the originator of
those acts and gestures” (2002, 214).
Moore argues that authenticity “is a matter of interpretation which is made and
fought for within a cultural and, thus, historicised position” (2002, 210), and that what
75
authentic is “depends on who ‘we’ are”. This authentication process is crucial to the
perceptions of individuals being recognised as authorities, and is reflective of the
social maintenance of the practices examined in this thesis. The theories and
constructs presented in this chapter–authority, authenticity, metaphor and vocal
performance–will be used to examine the perceptions of the participants in this
research in these areas, and the accompanying analysis will show how these elements
inform those perceptions.
76
Chapter 3: The Ethnographic Process
During the planning stages of this research, I assembled a list of potential
participants from among the many composers, performers, engineers, media and other
Hawai!i recording industry professionals with whom I was personally acquainted, and
those whose work was familiar. I generated a spreadsheet that contained relevant
characteristics of these individuals, including the scope of their participation in the
industry, Hawaiian language proficiency, gender, approximate age, and whether or
not they were of Hawaiian ancestry. As the scope of the researched narrowed and
began to focus on perceptions of authority and authenticity, I focused on and
prioritised those individuals who were conversant in the Hawaiian language and
actively composing, recording, and/or performing Hawaiian language songs. This
process reduced the number of potential participants from 49 to 37. I then created
three categories for potential participants based on my subjective perceptions of their
potential significance to this research. The criteria I considered included the longevity
of the potential participants in composition and recording Hawaiian language songs,
their age, and my own perceptions of the quantity and quality of their compositions. I
also considered the opinions of the academic and recording industry colleagues with
whom I had discussed my research topic. While I have not done a qualitative analysis
of the contributions of the hoa k!k"k!k", every individual who participated in this
research provided invaluable and unique insights of some kind, and I am not inclined
to attempt to quantify the value of the contributions of any hoa k!k"k!k" over any
other. While the observations of some hoa k!k"k!k" may be mentioned with greater
frequency than others, it is only because my conversations with them aligned better
with the topics ultimately selected for analysis in this thesis.
77
I made initial contact with potential hoa k!k"k!k" in a variety of ways – in
person, via telephone, or via e-mail. I was acquainted with each of the potential
participants in a variety of ways– some are personal friends, former classmates,
teachers, or colleagues in academia and/or the recording industry. Some I have known
for nearly twenty years, and others I have become acquainted with more recently.
After contacting potential hoa k!k"k!k" and discussing with them the goals and
parameters of this research, I sent them a copy of a letter25, composed in both
Hawaiian and English, which outlined the information that I was seeking. In it I
requested that they pick recordings for us to discuss. Included were the following
instructions,
1) That they select three Hawaiian language vocal performances that they
believe are excellent examples of Hawaiian language composition and
vocal performance at their highest levels. The songs from earlier times,
Hawaiian songs that were recorded around 1920 or shortly after, songs
recorded in the present time, or any songs recorded in the years in between
these two eras.
2) If the hoa k!k"k!k" possessed a CD or digital audio copy of the songs that
they selected, I asked that they bring them to our meeting. If they did not, I
requested that they advise me of their choices so that I could locate copies
of the songs so that we could listen to them together. I explained that this
was also important, as it would allow me to search for the song text and
prepare for our conversation.
3) Although my research focuses on the kind of songs that were written and
sung after the arrival of the missionaries - the hula ku#i, hymns and
25
A copy of this letter can be found in Appendix E.
78
modern Hawaiian songs – I informed the participants that they choose
choose a chant style performance in order to use its characteristics
comparatively. However, they were not required to choose one of these
kinds of recordings.
4) I informed them that when we met, we would listen to these songs together
and discuss the characteristics that we see in the song text as it was
composed as well as the vocal performance. I also informed them that the
discussion would be recorded so that I can transcribe our conversation
afterwards.
5) Finally, I informed them that language in which we would conduct the
conversation would be their choice, and that it could be in Hawaiian,
English, or we could switch between languages as necessary.
I initially focused on those individuals who resided on Hawai!i Island,
knowing that it would be easier to contact them later for follow-up should significant
points be raised by other participants in subsequent k!k"k!k" sessions. I began by
conducting k!k"k!k" sessions with younger haku mele, those who were perhaps less
prolific composers, and those whose compositions were less well known. As I gained
experience and became more comfortable with the process of conducting and
recording these k!k"k!k" sessions, I began to contact potential participants on O‘ahu,
Maui and Kaua‘i.
I did not determine in advance that I would interview seventeen of the 39
potential hoa k!k"k!k" from my narrowed-down list of candidates. I simply began the
process of arranging and recording k!k"k!k" sessions, and transcribing them as soon
as possible after the sessions. My initial goal was to interview 25 to 30 individuals in
k!k"k!k" sessions that would run from 45 minutes to an hour each. However, after
79
the first few sessions I realised that most were taking a minimum of 90 minutes, and
in some cases nearly two hours. After examining the first interview transcripts and
translations and noting the richness of the information that was provided during the
k!k"k!k" sessions, I decided to reduce the target number for participants to fifteen.
Upon reaching that number, I realised that two extremely significant individuals
remained that had not participated, and felt very strongly that without their inclusion
this research would not be complete. The first was Kimura, a colleague of mine at Ka
Haka !Ula O Ke‘elik$lani College of Hawaiian Language at the University of Hawai!i
at Hilo. Some individuals have cited Kimura as one of Hawai‘i’s greatest living
Hawaiian language poets. His compositions and research were also mentioned by
many of my first fifteen hoa k!k"k!k". The second individual whose participation
was crucial to the “completeness” of this research was Mahi Beamer. While Beamer
is not a fluent speaker of Hawaiian, he learned vocal performance as a child from his
grandmother Helen Desha Beamer. Beamer’s performance and his grandmother’s
compositions were cited by several other hoa k!k"k!k" for their excellence. For these
reasons, and my own desire to “close the loop” on topics brought up by others
regarding his vocal performances and his grandmother’s compositions, I felt Beamer
must be included in this research. I subsequently conducted k!k"k!k" sessions with
these last two individuals, resulting in the final count of seventeen k!k"k!k" sessions.
While I do regret not being able to conduct interviews with the remaining 22
individuals on my final candidate list, I do hope to discuss these topics with them in
the future and include them in future publications.
Locating The Researcher
I currently hold the position of Assistant Professor of Hawaiian Studies at Ka
Haka !Ula O Ke‘elikolani College of Hawaiian Language at the University of Hawai‘i
80
at Hilo. I hold a B.A. in Hawaiian Language and M.A. in Hawaiian Language and
Literature, both from UH-Hilo, and possess a high degree of fluency in the Hawaiian
language. I have been an employee of the college for over sixteen years, and during
that time I have used Hawaiian exclusively in all interactions with colleagues within
the college and other Hawaiian language organisations. The only time English is used
in the college’s facilities is when we host visitors who cannot speak Hawaiian. My
Master’s thesis was a comparative analysis of Hawaiian language as spoken and sung
that examined compositions and recorded musical performances by Almeida.
I have been active in the Hawai‘i music industry for nearly thirty years, and
have been a voting member of The Recording Academy (producer of The Grammy
Awards) since 2003. I currently serve on of the Board of Governors of the Hawai‘i
Academy of Recording Arts (producer of The N# H$k% Hanohano Awards), and have
done so since 2007. As a member of the HARA Board of Governors, I co-chaired the
Haku Mele and Hawaiian Language Performance adjudicating committees in 2008
and 2009, and was sole chair of this committee in 2010. The duties of this position
include contacting judges from a pool of haku mele who do not have mele entered in
that particular year, and instructing them on the process of selection of the winner. I
have been privy to many conversations among the judges regarding specific
compositions, and elements that the judges felt were most important in Hawaiian
language composition. In 2009 and 2010, I coordinated the production of a Hawaiian
language segment of the N# H$k% Hanohano Awards show, approximately 20
minutes in length, where all presentations were conducted in the Hawaiian language.
I am an accomplished and respected haku mele with over 80 mele to my credit.
Two of these mele have been finalists for the Haku Mele award at the N# H$k%
Hanohano Awards (2007 and 2010). My composition ”N# H$k% Pio !Ole” was
81
selected by HARA as the theme song of the 30th anniversary N# H$k% Hanohano
Awards held in 2006. Over the past five years such pre-eminent recording artists as
Kenneth Makauk#ne, Keali!i Reichel, Kainani Kahaunaele, Mailani Makainai,
O’Brien Eselu, Lehua Kalima and the De Lima !Ohana have recorded my
compositions, and other artists are in the process of recording other compositions. I
have also conducted classes and seminars on the practice of Hawaiian language
composition on the islands of Hawai!i, O!ahu and Kaua!i.
I should note that I am not of native Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian ancestry, nor
was I born in Hawai!i. I was raised from the age of 10 on the island of Maui, and
resided there until 1994, when I had reached the age of 34. Since that time I have
resided on the east side of Hawai!i Island. Other than the first ten years of my life, a
period of about four months that I resided in Hollywood, California to attend
Musician's Institute in 1985, and six months spent in Dunedin, New Zealand to begin
work on my Ph.D. research in 2008, I have lived in Hawai!i.
During my youth my family became acquainted with and very close to a
young couple whose ancestry included Hawaiian and Filipino. I, more than anyone
else in our family, became very close to and spent much time with this couple, their
brothers, sisters, parents, children, uncles, nieces and nephews. During that time I
began to be referred to as their h"nai–a term for a legally undocumented but very
strong cultural form of Hawaiian adoption. My relationship with them was also my
first exposure to the concept of ‘ohana (family) and other Hawaiian concepts. I did
not recognise the significance of this kind of relationship and its influence on me until
much later. Regardless of this connection and my continued recognition as a member
of this ‘ohana, I acknowledge that this relationship make me neither racially nor
ethnically Hawaiian.
82
The circumstances by which my family arrived in Hawai‘i, my relationship
with my h"nai family, my conversational fluency in Hawaiian, knowledge of the
culture, active participation in the movement to revitalise Hawaiian as the language of
home and society, and ability to compose and perform Hawaiian mele complicates
any attempt to claim insider or outsider status for the purposes of this research. As
other researchers who have come before me have eloquently stated, “I speak as
myself; neither fully insider nor outsider” (Herndon 1983, 63-80). However I would
be remiss if I did not acknowledge that all of these factors inform this research and
writing.
Pre-Kūkākūkā Session Preparations
Because many of my hoa k!k"k!k" resided on O‘ahu, Maui and Kaua‘i, the
high cost of air travel and transportation, and my own teaching and work schedule, I
attempted to schedule several k!k"k!k" sessions per visit to each island. I provided
individuals on each island with several periods of several days each, during which it
would be possible for me to travel to their island and conduct the k!k"k!k" session.
When they replied I would then attempt to schedule at least three individuals during
each trip, trying to conduct no more than three k!k"k!k" sessions per day. In this
endeavour I was successful; however, in retrospect, if I were to conduct this kind of
research again I would probably schedule no more than two sessions on any single
day. On the two occasions that I conducted three interviews in a single day, I found it
very difficult to write reflective essays between travel to and from k!k"k!k" session
locations.
I asked each hoa k!k"k!k" to select three recorded performances in advance,
using the criteria in the informational letter that I sent them, and requested that each
inform me of their selections so that I could prepare text and locate copies of the
83
recordings. In most cases, the hoa k!k"k!k" obliged and provide this information
prior to our session. In a few instances, the hoa k!k"k!k" failed to select songs to
listen to prior to our k!k"k!k" session. Anticipating this might happen, I attempted to
assemble and have available a large selection of Hawaiian language recordings as
digital .mp3 files on my computer and song texts for my hoa k!k"k!k" to chose from.
In each instance, my hoa k!k"k!k" was able to identify recordings from my collection
that met my criteria for discussion. While my letter explaining the research and my
expectations of participants specified three songs, some found it very difficult to
select only three songs. In these cases, I allowed those individuals to pick more than
three songs. In one case, upon hearing Kalena Silva lament the fact that he could only
pick three songs during our k!k"k!k" session, I allowed him to choose another. We
were able to quickly locate a copy of that recording and continue our conversation. In
my k!k"k!k" session with Taup$uri Tangar$, he brought a copy of Raiatea Helm’s
recording of Machado’s composition “Ku!u W# Li!ili!i”, and expressed regret that he
did not have a recording of Machado performing this song. I informed him that I did
have a copy of Machado performing the song. He expressed his desire to use that
recording instead, and we did indeed use that recording instead of Helm’s.
No pay or reward was offered for participation in this research; however, I
purchased a small gift worth under $20 that was given to each participant upon
completion of our discussion. The most common gift was cookies from a popular Hilo
bakery, though because of my concern for the health of some individuals, I purchased
a lei for some of them.
The Kūkākūkā Sessions
The seventeen k!k"k!k" sessions were conducted between July, 2008 and
June, 2009. Five k!k"k!k" sessions (Kahaunaele, Kimura, K&hei N#hale-a, Silva and
84
Tangar$) were conducted on the island of Hawai!i, on which I also reside. Eight
k!k"k!k" sessions (Beamer, K&hei De Silva, Hailama Farden, Dennis Kamakahi,
Ku!uipo Kumukahi, Aaron Mahi, Nogelmeier and Aaron Sal#) were conducted on the
island of O!ahu during three separate visits. Three k!k"k!k" sessions (Pueo Pata,
K&‘ope Raymond and Reichel) were conducted during a single, three-day visit to the
island of Maui. One k!k"k!k" session (!"lei Beniamina) was conducted during a
single visit to the island of Kaua!i. Each hoa k!k"k!k" determined the language in
which their k!k"k!k" session would be conducted. Ultimately eight of the seventeen
k!k"k!k" sessions were conducted in Hawaiian (Beniamina, Kahaunale, Kimura,
N#hale-a, Pata, Raymond, Silva, Tangar$), and nine (Beamer, De Silva, Farden,
Kamakahi, Kumukahi, Mahi, Nogelmeier, Reichel and Sal#) were conducted in
English.
As I allowed the participants to determine the language that was used for these
conversations, language choice was a significant factor in this research. This
discussion builds upon the subject of “language about music” that was introduced in
Chapter 2. Suzanne Romaine noted, “there is almost a one-to-one relationship
between language choice and social context, so that each variety can be seen as
having a distinct place or function within the local speech repertoire” (Romaine 1995,
121). I believe that the location and context of our discussions, in addition to the
duration and depth of our relationships, influenced the language that the participants
in this research chose for these discussions.
Seven of the eight individuals who selected Hawaiian to be used for our
sessions are current or former teachers, classmates and/or colleagues at Ka Haka !Ula
O Ke!elik$lani College of Hawaiian Language and/or the ‘Aha P%nana Leo, Inc. Five
of the discussions held in Hawaiian were conducted in my office at the University of
85
Hawai‘i at Hilo, two were conducted at the participants homes, and one in an office at
the Maui Community College. My day-to-day communication with all of these
individuals, regardless of context, is conducted in Hawaiian. Hawaiian language use
in the work environment is compulsory among employees at Ka Haka ‘Ula o
Ke‘elik$lani College of Hawaiian Language and the ‘Aha P%nana Leo, Inc.26, and in
most social situations we choose to use Hawaiian almost exclusively27. Regardless, I
explicitly asked each of these individuals to choose the language that would be used
for the conversations. While most simply replied “ma ka ‘$lelo Hawai‘i” (‘in the
Hawaiian language’) or a similar sentiment, the intonation and facial expressions that
accompanied the replies of some of these individuals implied that they were surprised
I would ask them which language would be used. Among these individuals–all of
them involved in the efforts to revitalise Hawaiian language and culture–the use of
Hawaiian in all contexts of our interaction, regardless of location, is tacit.
While all but three of the seventeen participants in this research were, in my
opinion, capable of conducting our conversations in Hawaiian, a total of nine
requested that the conversations be conducted in English. I did not question or
challenge those individuals who I believed to be capable of discussing this subject in
Hawaiian for their reasons, as I did not wish that it be perceived as either coercive
(suggesting that I preferred that we converse in Hawaiian) or critical (appearing to
question their choice to use English when given the opportunity to use Hawaiian). My
26
27
My use of “compulsory” at these organisations is not intended to be critical of this
practice. The mission of both organisations is to revitalise the Hawaiian language and
to make it viable in contemporary Hawaiian society. It is a pragmatic approach to
language revitalization that provides employment opportunities, language development
and/or professional training to those individuals who wish to contribute to the
revitalization movement.
Even in the presence of individuals who do not speak Hawaiian, employees of these
organisations tend to speak Hawaiian among themselves, and a Hawaiian speaker will
generally stand with those who donʼt speak the language and provide a simultaneous
translation.
86
intent was to neither coerce nor to criticise, but to create an atmosphere where ideas
could flow unencumbered. Some of these individuals anticipated a possible need for
specific musicological, anthropological or other terms and concepts that could be
difficult to discuss in Hawaiian. The context of our conversations–scholarly inquiry
for a doctoral dissertation–was explained in advance, and perhaps this influenced their
language choice. Their requests were honoured and those interviews conducted in
English. While none of the sessions was conducted bilingually, a single session began
with pleasantries exchanged in Hawaiian; however, that individual quickly switched
to English as our listening and discussion began, and indicated that he preferred to use
English from that point on.
None of these individuals are among those with whom I have interacted in an
exclusively Hawaiian language environment, and as such, prior to these arranged
discussions we had not had the opportunity to interact for a significant amount of
time. For some participants, such as those with whom I serve as on the board of the
Hawai‘i Academy of Recording Arts, our most frequent and extended conversations
are dictated by the common language of majority of board–English. Some have
visited Ka Haka ‘Ula O Ke‘elik$lani and/or the ‘Aha P%nana Leo, Inc. and
participated in events conducted exclusively in the Hawaiian language. For these
individuals, the location and context of those events–and perhaps the number of other
Hawaiian speakers in attendance–made them more comfortable with interacting in
Hawaiian than our individual discussion sessions did.
While these discussions were structured around objects–the compositions and
recordings selected by the participants in this research–I agree with Feld that the most
significant aspect of language about music is the relationship between those in
engaged in discourse on the subject (1984, 2). As practitioners involved in Hawaiian
87
language composition and/or vocal performance, we became engaged in interpretation
of these symbolic forms, which “makes it possible to imagine ongoing meaningful
activity as subjectively experienced by social actors” (Feld 1984, 3).
During each session, my hoa k!k"k!k" and I listened to and discussed the
recordings that they chose. There was only one question that I asked every participant
prior to our listening to each recording they had selected: “why did you choose this
song and this particular recording?” After allowing the hoa k!k"k!k" to discuss his or
her reasons for the selection, we would then listen to the recording. From that point on
I employed an open technique in which no pre-composed questions were asked in a
strict order–an approach similar to Talanoa in that it is “flexible and open to
adaptation and compromise” (Vaioleti 2006, 26). While I did have a list of questions
prepared in case the hoa k!k"k!k" were unable to identify any topic for discussion,
this situation never arose, and the questions remained unused.
Once we had completed listening to each selection, I would pause and see if
my hoa k!k"k!k" had any immediate reaction to either the mele or performance.
Some began speaking immediately after we completed listening, giving their opinions
on the composition and/or performance. If they did not, I would simply make a
comment about how beautiful the mele or performances was, and then ask if he or she
heard anything notable in order to stimulate conversation. Most listened attentively,
making mental notes or writing notes as we listened. One hoa k!k"k!k" made
numerous comments while the song was playing, making some of them difficult to
discern for transcription and translation.
While I attempted to allow the hoa k!k"k!k" to dictate the direction and pace
of the conversation, I would occasionally interject with an observation about a
particular compositional or performative aspect I had heard so that he or she could
88
comment on it. I did not explicitly attempt to end the discussion of any recording, but
noted that after fifteen or twenty minutes of discussion on any particular song, both
the hoa k!k"k!k" and I would begin to struggle to identify new elements to discuss.
At that point that I would ask if there was anything else to discuss, or if we should
move onto the next recording. Sometimes the hoa k!k"k!k" did have more to discuss,
and the discussion of that recording would continue. In no case was the discussion of
any song discontinued because of time constraints or other considerations. Once we
had completed listening to all of the recordings that the hoa k!k"k!k" had selected, I
would ask if they had any final thoughts or observations regarding any particular
recording, of if they had any other general thoughts to share on haku mele or
Hawaiian vocal performance. Once this discussion was completed, I would turn off
the recorder. On a few occasions our conversation would become more personal in
nature, though sometimes we would return to the subject of composition or vocal
performance. At that point I would ask if I could continue recording, and if the hoa
k!k"k!k" agreed, I would do so. With most of my hoa k!k"k!k", our conversations
would turn personal and continue for several minutes, if not an hour or longer. And on
two occasions, I was invited to share meals with the hoa k!k"k!k" and family
members, which was gratefully accepted.
Upon returning to Hilo I transferred the digital audio copies of the
conversations to computer format, transcribed them, and, if the discussion was
conducted in Hawaiian, I created an English translation of the Hawaiian
transcription28.
28
All interview transcriptions and translations can be found in Appendix A. I should note
that the discussion/transcription/translation process was not done sequentially. I
attempted to transcribe and translate the kūkākūkā sessions as soon as possible after
the session. However, some of them were done weeks after the recording due to
workload and a backload of recordings from extended research trips.
89
Reflexive Practice
As soon as possible after completing the k!k"k!k" sessions, I composed a
reflection paper containing my thoughts and reactions to the discussion. During two
of my visits to O!ahu, where I had schedule multiple k!k"k!k" sessions in succession,
I was unable to complete reflection papers until after all had been completed and I had
returned to Hilo later those evenings. On all other occasions, I was able to complete
these reflections within an hour of the k!k"k!k" session.
These reflections included the notes that I took during my conversation
regarding the general mood of the discussions, the location and ambience where the
k!k"k!k" session took place, facial expressions and other bodily cues, my own
recollections regarding elements of the recorded performances that were not
discussed, and also included my first distillation of the themes and topics that I
observed. As I proceeded in conducting the k!k"k!k" sessions, I began to “connect
the dots” between the participants and the recordings that they chose during these
reflections. I was later able to revisit and re-experience the k!k"k!k" sessions with
much more vivid detail because of the information that I included regarding travel to
the location, arrival, weather, my thoughts, anticipation and concerns as I approached
individuals homes and offices or their arrival to my own. As I wrote and reviewed
these reflections, the major themes that were recurring within the conversations began
to coalesce, even before I returned to the transcriptions much later to explicitly search
for and identify them.
Data Analysis Process
Linguistic competence “guarantees the integrity of traditional fieldwork and
gives the bounded field … its most important coherence to a culture” (Marcus 1995,
90
101). Of the eight individuals who chose to have the k!k"k!k" session conducted in
Hawaiian, only one, Beniamina, is a native speaker of Hawaiian. The remaining hoa
k!k"k!k" are, like myself, second language learners of Hawaiian, though our degrees
of fluency vary. The Hawaiian spoken by second language learners such as myself
and these hoa k!k"k!k" is sometimes referred to as “University Hawaiian”–which
carries a negative stigma and is not considered to be “real” Hawaiian” by some
individuals (Wong 1999, 100). As noted previously, seven of the eight individuals
who selected Hawaiian to be used for our session are current or former teachers,
classmates and/or colleagues of mine at Ka Haka !Ula O Ke!elik$lani College of
Hawaiian Language. I have been acquainted with the eighth, Pata, for approximately
ten years; therefore, I was familiar with all of those individuals who chose to conduct
our k!k"k!k" session in advance and knew their Hawaiian language background and
skills. While a native speaker of the Ni!ihau dialect of Hawaiian, Beniamina has
worked at the university level, teaching and interacting with second language learners
for many decades. She is quite capable of speaking and does speak in a manner that is
quite understandable to advanced second language learners, and did so during our
conversation. On occasion, particularly when quoting her mother, she would revert to
the Ni!ihau dialect that is spoken much faster than most second language learners do,
and includes different pronunciations. However, I have been exposed to the Ni!ihau
dialect previously, taken a class and have had extensive discussions with Beniamina
in Hawaiian; therefore, I had no difficulty transcribing and translating our discussion.
Occasionally my hoa k!k"k!k" needed to express a concept or word that they
could not express in Hawaiian, and would revert to English in those circumstances.
Raymond’s use of the English expression “an occasion where the whole was greater
91
than the sum of the parts” (2008) and Kahaunaele’s description of songs being a “first
step n$ ho#i” of knowing a place (2008) are examples found in the transcriptions.
After completing the transcription and–when necessary–translation process, I
read each one and began to search for themes and tropes within the discussions. I
documented these in a word processing document, and then divided them into two
primary categories–those that dealt with composition and those that vocal
performance. Some of the themes related to composition that I noted were word
choice, grammar, style, metaphor, kaona, poetic devices, cultural knowledge, the
continuity of thought, Hawaiian vs. western perspective, creativity, compatibility of
words and music, avoidance of negative thoughts, and intentional omission of some
information. Some of the themes related to vocal performance that I noted were
pronunciation and over-pronunciation, differences between Hawaiian as spoken and
sung, the use of chant characteristics, conviction and effortless-ness of delivery,
imitation of older styles, demonstrating knowledge of the song’s meaning, and
phrasing.
Once I had identified and organised pieces of the k!k"k!k" sessions into these
categories, I began to search for those elements that aligned with the key concepts of
authority and authenticity that I had chosen at the beginning of this research, and
noted those discussions that did align with them. I then chose to identify four or five
songs that could be used to discuss these elements and concepts. Rather than restrict
my examination of authority and authenticity in just one mele, the mele would be used
as a point of entry for that issue, and relevant discussion of that issue in any other
song would then be brought in to support or contradict discussion in the primary song.
I proceeded to re-examine the songs selected by my hoa k!k"k!k", focusing on the
broader themes that arose during our k!k"k!k" sessions.
92
The Selection of Songs and Alignment With Theory
While I had identified authority as the first theoretical concept to examine, I
quickly determined that discussion of authority in Hawaiian language compositions
more closely aligned with the composer, rather than the composition itself. My
thoughts immediately focused on Machado as three of my seventeen hoa k!k"k!k"
had selected Machado’s “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe” to discuss, and other participants in
this research selected other Machado compositions. De Silva indicated that he had
wanted to choose another Machado composition, “Lei K&ele”; however, he was
unable to locate a suitable recording of it before our discussion. Although they did not
select a Machado composition or recording to discuss, three other hoa k!k"k!k"
discussed Machado’s prowess as a composer and/or vocalist in my conversations with
them. All of these factors support Machado’s high regard and perceptions of her
authority in the Hawaiian music community as both a composer and vocalist. This
resulted in my selecting Machado and “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe” as an entry point to
my examination of perceptions of authority in Hawaiian composition. Discussions of
the authoritative status of other haku mele were later brought in to broaden the
discussion of this topic and related issues.
During my examination of discussions regarding authenticity, I observed that
many of these discussions focused on issues such as word choice, grammatical
structure, the preference for Hawaiian thought and perspective over foreign, the
avoidance of negative thoughts, and other language elements. For this reason my
attention was drawn to Helen Desha Beamer, and the frequent references to her
compositional style, word choice, and what has been described as the vivid visual
nature of her composition “Paniau”. Silva and Sal# both selected a recording of
“Paniau” by Beamer’s grandson Mahi Beamer to discuss. While Mahi Beamer did not
93
choose any specific songs to listen to prior our conversation, he did mention “Paniau”
and begin to discuss it, so we then listened to it before continuing our conversation.
Having previously identified two theoretical concepts to align to these songs,
my thoughts focused on other concepts that I had not previously considered, and
identifying a song that could be used as a point of entry for a discussion of that
concept. I observed that my hoa k!k"k!k" frequently discussed the use of metaphor
and kaona in haku mele, and the relationship of these two elements. As I was not
aware of any previous comprehensive and scholarly inquiry into these elements of
Hawaiian composition, I decided to make this the subject of one chapter. I was
particularly taken by Mahi Beamer’s comment during our k!k"k!k" session that many
individuals seem to be obsessed with kaona in his grandmother’s compositions–
something that he believes to be largely absent from her compositions. He asked me
directly, “are you not ill with kaona?” (Beamer 2009). While I can appreciate his
frustration at being constantly asked about an element of haku mele that he believes is
not a prominent feature of his grandmother’s compositions, I certainly was not ill with
the subject. On the contrary, my curiosity was even more piqued to learn of his
reasons for being tired of being asked about kaona.
I chose Bill Ali!iloa Lincoln’s composition “Ku!u Lei L&lia” to provide an
entry point for this subject for several reasons. The most significant reason was the
fact that Kimura possessed extensive knowledge of the mele, discussed of the use of
metaphor in this mele extensively, and possessed first-hand knowledge of the places
depicted within it. This provided the point of entry to a more in-depth discussion of
metaphor, kaona, how they are different, and alignment with metaphor theory. For
many other compositions, any discussion of kaona and possible interpretations of
metaphor would have been conjecture.
94
During my examination of discussions regarding accuracy, I observed that
many of these discussions focused on vocal performance issues such as pronunciation
and over-pronunciation, differences between Hawaiian as spoken and sung, the use of
chant characteristics, conviction and effortless-ness of delivery, imitation of older
styles, demonstrating knowledge of the meaning, and phrasing. For this reason my
attention was drawn to the sole native Hawaiian speaker among my hoa k!k"k!k",
Beniamina, and her composition “Pua !Ala Aumoe.” Reichel selected this mele to
discuss, as did Beniamina herself. While both did discuss compositional elements,
they both praised the vocal performance of Jerry Santos on the recording of this mele,
noting that he is not fluent in Hawaiian.
Writing Process
As I began the process of distilling information and writing the four analysis
chapters of this dissertation, my primary concerns were the accurate representation of
the knowledge that I was entrusted with by my hoa k!k"k!k", and to assure that
nothing revealed to me during our conversations and included in this thesis would
affect them in any negative way. While I did not explicitly explain this to them in my
initial letter or in person, only one expressed any concern regarding this aspect of our
discussion. Before our k!k"k!k" session began, this individual related that he does not
generally give interviews like this, but cited our long friendship, then added, “I trust
you.” I nodded in acknowledgement, and he again looked me in the eyes, stating
again “You understand? I trust you.” I replied by smiling and saying “Yes,
absolutely.” My understanding was that he would be completely open and answer any
questions or discuss any topic that I wished, but not to attribute any statements to him
that would reflect negatively on him, or affect his relationships with any other
individuals. I later contacted him when I was concerned about his choice of language
95
in a passage that I wished to quote, as I was concerned it might reflect poorly on him.
When I informed him of the quote I wanted to use and my concern, he replied that I
could use anything that he said during our conversation.
In another instance, as I was examining the transcriptions for elements that
aligned to my analysis of authority, I recalled a particular conversation with another
individual. In that conversation he expressed great admiration for the recordings and
performances of an elderly Hawaiian performer, while acknowledging that this
performer’s pronunciation was not always good, and that his understanding of the
meaning and history of some of his repertoire was lacking. I contacted this individual
by email and asked if he would mind if I shared this information in my dissertation. A
week passed, and I had received no reply from this individual who was generally very
prompt at replying to my queries. I have been taught that within the Hawaiian culture
that a lack of reply to a request or question–or a reply stating, “I will think about it”–
has the same meaning as being explicitly told “No”. Without communicating with me
directly, my hoa k!k"k!k" clearly informed me that he did not wish me to reveal that
portion of our conversation, and that it could negatively affect his relationship with
the performer that we had discussed. I composed another email to him, apologising
for the inappropriateness of my request, and informed him that I would find another
way to discuss this conversation and information in anonymous manner. He quickly
replied, expressing his relief and gratitude that I would not attribute the information to
him or reveal the details of that part of our conversation.
Most of my hoa k!k"k!k" freely shared their knowledge and expressed their
opinions on various compositions, recordings and other composers. On occasion, they
would provide sensitive information, and on rarer occasions, expressed opinions that
would portray other individuals in an unflattering manner. For example, the identity
96
of the individual for whom Beniamina composed “Pua !Ala Aumoe” has been a
mystery and topic of discussion and speculation among the Hawaiian music
community for nearly two decades. During my conversation with her, she revealed
the name of the individual for whom she had composed it. This information and the
surrounding discussion that could lead to his being identified has been removed from
the transcript and will not be revealed in this thesis.
The use of present tense to describe past events is sometimes called the
“ethnographic present.” Its use has been subject to criticism on the grounds that it
“removes events from their historical–and often colonial–context, and places them in
a kind of ‘never-never-land’ of time and space” (Seeger 1987, 147). Seeger justifies
his use of present tense in describing the Mouse Ceremony of the Suyá in order to
“emphasise the particularity of the events, not their normativity,” and that it is “not
intended to remove the events from their contexts, but to emphasise their insertion
into them” (1987, 147). He does note that he provides dates for these events in his
text.
While I agree with Seeger’s justification for using present tense in his writing,
I offer my own reason for the use of this voice. In Chapter Five I will discuss the
extensive use of present tense and tense-less verbs in Hawaiian compositions. The
result of this style of writing is that the reader or listener experiences the story or mele
as though the composer is describing events that are unfolding before their very eyes.
The conversation becomes a textual movie, similar to the experienced related by some
hoa k!k"k!k" in listening to Helen Desha Beamer’s composition “Paniau”. It is my
desire that the reader experience my conversations with my hoa k!k"k!k" as I did,
and believe that my use of present tense to frame and introduce their words will
provide the context in which this kind of “in-the-moment” experience may occur. As
97
all of the k!k"k!k" sessions occurred within a one-year period, the dates of the
sessions are indicated, and they were not historical events that would necessitate that
they be placed within a historical context. In order to differentiate my presentation of
the literature and written sources from the k!k"k!k" sessions I conducted, all
references to and discussion of literature and written sources shall be presented in past
tense.
Biographies
Biographies for the hoa k!k"k!k" that participated in this research are listed in
alphabetical order by last name. I use the names that which these individuals most
commonly use to identify themselves, regardless of their legal names or if they are
their full Hawaiian names. The qualifications of these seventeen individuals to discuss
elements of haku mele and Hawaiian language performance are, in my opinion,
beyond reproach. A total of thirty-two awards for either New Hawaiian Song or Haku
Mele have been awarded since the Hawai!i Academy of Recording Arts established
the award in 198029. The individuals who participated in this research have
collectively won thirteen of these awards. Some have been awarded the Hawai!i
Academy of Recording Arts’ Lifetime Achievement Award–its highest honour. One,
Mahi Beamer, has also been inducted into the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame. The
honours that have been bestowed on each individual are listed in their biography.
Another testament to the authoritative status of these individuals is the number of
times that they referred to each other during our conversations, and the number of
compositions written by these individuals that were selected and discussed by others.
29
Theses award have been given for thirty years, but in 2000 the award was given to two
mele - Lee Ann Ānuenue Pūnua for “Pua ‘A‘ali‘i”, and to Ida Pakulani Long
posthumously for “ ʻŌpiopio”. Farden explained justification for this decision in my
conversation with him, and it can be found in the conversation transcript.
98
Following the biography is a description of my k!k"k!k" session with each
individual, and a list of the mele that were discussed.
Mahi Beamer
Beamer is a N# H$k% Hanohano Lifetime Achievement Awardee; it is the
highest honour bestowed by the Hawai‘i Academy of Recording Arts. He is the son of
Milton D. and Pua‘ena Beamer, and the grandson of noted Hawaiian composer,
musician and kumu hula (hula teacher) Helen Desha Beamer. He attended
Kamehameha School and briefly attended Julliard School of Music to study piano. He
is most noted for his leo ki#eki#e (falsetto) singing, and for his faithful recordings of
his grandmother’s compositions. He is also a skilled hula dancer, and has performed
for many years at clubs and lounges in Hawai!i.
Our discussion was recorded in the dining room of the home of Beamer’s
niece Gaye Beamer in K#ne!ohe, on the windward side of the island of O!ahu on 10
June 2009. I had contacted him through Gaye Beamer, explained what I was
researching and expecting of my hoa k!k"k!k", and sent a copy of the letter
explaining how the research would be conducted. However, upon my arrival I found
that Beamer seemed unaware of the details of my discussions with his niece, and
thought that I simply wanted to talk about the music of his grandmother. As he had
not selected any songs in advance, I informed him that I had many of his recordings
available for use to listen to on my computer, and could access many others if
necessary. He began talking about his grandmother’s music before I could retrieve my
digital audio recorder, but I was able to capture all but the first few sentences of his
explaining how his grandmother composed. Rather than suggest mele for us to
discuss, I allowed him to talk about her music as he desired, and when he mentioned a
99
particular song for any reason, I would then suggest that we listen to that song and
talk about it.
Our discussion was not limited to his grandmother’s compositions, and
because of his recounting a telephone conversation with Machado, we listened to and
discussed her composition and recording of “Holo Wa!ap#”. As Silva had mentioned
that Beamer had composed a Hawaiian language mele, “Leilehua Ke Kuini O Ke
Kai”, I asked Beamer about it. He responded by going to the piano to play and sing it.
When his grandmother’s composition “Lei O H#!ena” was discussed, we listened to
both Mahi’s recording of it from the late-1950s, and a tape recording that he
possessed of his grandmother and other family members performing it.
‘Īlei Beniamina
Beniamina was a native speaker of Hawaiian, and a three-time winner of the
N# H$k% Hanohano Award for Haku Mele – the only individual with more than two
such awards. She was born on the island of Ni‘ihau in 1955, taught Hawaiian
language and advised Hawaiian students at Kaua‘i Community College. She was one
of the founders of the !Aha P%nana Leo, Inc., a non-profit organisation that is
dedicated to the perpetuation of the Hawaiian language and operates Hawaiian
language medium preschools throughout Hawai‘i. She was honoured as a Living
Treasure of the Year of Kaua!i for her dedication to the people of the island in 2005.
She chose her three N# H$k% Hanohano Award-winning compositions for us to listen
to and discuss–“Ho!$la L#hui Hawai!i,” “Pua !Ala Aumoe”, and “Ni!ihau”.
Our discussion was recorded in the dining room of her home near L&hu‘e,
Kaua‘i on 8 May 2009. Beniamina had experienced health issues in the months before
our meeting, and found it difficult to move. Before arriving at her home I purchased
lunch and drinks for the two of us to share. My wife Marie, who was present but
100
remained quiet during the course of the interview, also accompanied me on this visit.
Although we had exchanged emails and spoke on the phone prior to my visit,
Beniamina seemed unsure about what we were going to discuss beyond the broad
subject of haku mele. I reminded her of my request that she pick three songs for us to
discuss, and she quickly began to talk about her own compositions, much to my
delight. We began with one of her recent compositions, “Ni!ihau”, which was
recorded by Pekelo Cosma, and which was selected as best new Hawaiian language
composition at the 2007 N# H$k% Hanohano Awards. At several points during our
discussion Beniamina made reference to an earlier composition, “Pua !Ala Aumoe”,
so we listened to and discussed that mele. I was surprised and humbled when she
revealed the identity of the individual for whom the mele had been composed. The
subject of this mele has been the source of much speculation for years, and to my
knowledge she had never revealed this individual’s identity before. The final
composition we listened to and discussed, “Ho!$la L#hui Hawai!i” was also awarded
the Hake Mele award at the N# H$k% Hanohano Awards, and our conversation was
notable for her extended discussion of the importance of positive thought and to turn
negative thoughts into positive ones in Hawaiian composition.
I left Beniamina’s home very happy with the results of our conversation and
for the opportunity to visit her, but very concerned for health–wondering if I would
ever see her again. While we exchanged several emails after our k!k"k!k" session and
had at least one subsequent phone conversation, Beniamina died on 10 June 2010 –
just over 13 months after our discussion.
Kīhei De Silva
De Silva is a noted Hawaiian language composer, and has been honoured by
the Hawai‘i Academy of Recording Arts with its Haku Mele award twice – in 1997
101
for his composition “L&hau” (recorded by Moe Keale) and in 2006 for “ !Ehu!ehu Mai
Nei !o M#noa” (recorded by Sal#). He has written and researched widely on haku
mele, and many of his essays can be found on the Ka!iwak&loumoku Hawaiian
Cultural Center website30. His wife M#puana De Silva is a noted kumu hula.
Our discussion was recorded at De Silva’s home in Ka‘$hao near Kailua,
O‘ahu on 11 November 2008. Prior to this meeting we had only been casual
acquaintances, though I was quite familiar with many of his compositions and
writings on Hawaiian music. Likewise, I found that he was quite familiar with my
work at the Hawai!i Academy of Recording Arts, my own website and my work with
technology. Because we had never held an extended conversation on any topic before,
I had looked forward to this k!k"k!k" session more than any other. I found him to be
an incredibly humble person who qualified many of his statements so that I was sure
that he was simply expressing his opinion. I was also taken by the ease at which he
openly admitted when his opinions have changed or acknowledged errors in his
previous interpretation of a particular song. I was struck by the amount of humour that
he found in the songs that he chose, openly laughing about particularly humorous
lines, or the humour he interpreted from the songs’ metaphors. While acknowledging
that it was not intentional, De Silva noted that all of the songs he had selected for us
were by maka#"inana (commoner) composers. He cited this as an example of the high
level of compositional ability found at all levels of Hawaiian society during the 19th
century. De Silva and I have exchanged several emails in the year that followed our
discussion, with his clarifying and expanding upon points touched upon during our
discussion.
30
The website is located at: http://kaiwakiloumoku.ksbe.edu/
102
Hailama Farden
Farden attended Kamehameha School, and is currently a Vice Principal at the
Kamehameha Schools Kap#lama Campus on O‘ahu, a former Hawaiian language
instructor there, and a noted haku mele. He is also the Immediate President of the
Board of Governors of the Hawai‘i Academy of Recording Arts, has served on the
Board of Governors for over a decade, and chaired or co-chaired the Haku Mele
Award committee for many years.
Our conversation was recorded at the offices of the Hawai‘i Academy of
Recording Arts in Honolulu, Hawai!i on 11 November 2008, after we had attended a
members meeting elsewhere in Honolulu. Farden brought along several large books
containing copies of a many songs. He expressed how difficult it was to narrow down
the vast repertoire of Hawaiian songs to only three, and I reassured him that I wasn’t
asking him to pick those song that he believed to be the three finest examples of
Hawaiian language pronunciation, simply three that were excellent examples of haku
mele and Hawaiian language performance. That reassurance seemed to satisfy him.
Farden is part of a renowned musical family–the Farden and Aluli #ohana
from Maui–that includes a number of legendary composers and performers. While not
a recording artist, he does have a pleasant singing voice, and since he did not have a
recording of the third song he wanted to talk about he sang it for me live during our
discussion. His clear focus was on the compositional aspects of all of these songs,
though we did discuss vocal performances to a far lesser degree.
Kainani Kahaunaele
Kahaunaele was born on the island of Kaua!i. She teaches Hawaiian language
and culture classes at Ka Haka !Ula O Ke!elik$lani College of Hawaiian Language at
103
the University of Hawai!i at Hilo, and is a student in the college’s Master of Arts in
Hawaiian Language and Literature program. She was nominated for seven N# H$k%
Hanohano Awards in 2004 for her debut CD release, Na#u #Oe (‘You Are Mine’), and
won three awards that year: Best Female Vocalist, Hawaiian Album of the Year, and
Hawaiian Language Performance. She released her second CD, #'hai #Ula, in 2010.
The CD was honoured with the award for Hawaiian Language Performance, and
Kahaunaele was awarded the Haku Mele award for her composition ‘'hai ‘Ula at the
2011 N# H$k% Hanohano Awards.
Our conversation was recorded in room PB12-7 at UH-Hilo Campus on 25
July 2008. This session was the first I conducted for this research. While I had asked
her to identify three or four songs, she had emailed me a few days previously with a
list of the six recordings that she wanted to discuss. I located five of the six songs that
she had chosen prior to our meeting, and she brought a copy of the sixth–a song
written and performed by a female k!puna on Kaua‘i who she was acquainted with
and who passed away three or four years prior to our session.
Four of the six recordings she chose were older compositions by native
speakers who have since passed away – Almeida, Machado, Lincoln and Margaret
!Aipoalani. As Kahaunaele is from Kaua‘i I would have been surprised if she had not
chosen a Kaua‘i song or performers, so she didn’t disappoint me. My own knowledge
of Kaua‘i, its performers and songs is somewhat limited as I have only visited the
island a few times and for very short periods of time. She did mention that she
specifically chose some more recent compositions and not just older mele and
recordings.
I felt it was very significant that five of her six song selections featured the
composer performing his or her own song. She indicated that she first thought of the
104
composer, and then selected an exemplary recording from that person’s body of
recorded work. I felt this would support my hypothesis that perceptions of authority
would influence song selection by my hoa k!k"k!k". Only her final selection, “Aloha
H$naunau”, was chosen because of the song and recording itself, although she did
express great admiration for its composer, De Silva.
Dennis Kamakahi
Kamakahi was born in Honolulu, Hawai‘i in 1953, the hiapo (eldest child) of
Kenneth Franklyn Kamakahi and Clara Aweau Ing. He has been a professional
musician for over 40 years, and is one of Hawai’i’s most renowned and prolific haku
mele. Kamakahi credits Pukui for much of his knowledge of composing mele in an
older style. He gained fame with the Sons of Hawai’i in the early 1970s and has been
one of Hawai’i’s most prolific recording artists and composers, with over 400 mele
composed. In 1980, his composition “E H&h&wai” was awarded the “New Hawaiian
Song” award at the N# H$k% Hanohano Awards–a category that was renamed Haku
Mele the following year.
Our conversation was recorded at the Starbucks coffee shop in the Pearlridge
Shopping Center on the island of O’ahu on 19 January 2009. While I had first met
Kamakahi over a decade ago and we occasionally exchanged emails, I had not spoken
to him in depth since. I had anticipated that Kamakahi would focus on the content and
thought of mele, and that our conversation would be less focused on language,
vocabulary and grammar issues. The thought and content of the mele was indeed what
he focused on, frequently referring to his conversations with Pukui and Alice
N#makelua to explain how he had learned his perspectives of haku mele.
I was a bit surprised by his choice of a mele hula as our first recording to listen
to–James Ka‘upena Wong’s recording of the older mele “A Ko‘olau Au”. His
105
remaining three choices were mele recorded with western instrumentation and in a
more contemporary style. His final choice was his own recording of the standard “Ka
Manu”, and he revealed some information passed onto him by N#makelua. While she
did not compose “Ka Manu”, she learned it from a relative in her youth, and it is only
because of her knowledge of it that the song is known today. Although Kamakahi did
not choose one of his own compositions to discuss, I was able to prod him a bit into
discussing his own compositional process, and he offered some valuable insights.
Larry Kimura
Kimura is from the Kohala District of Hawai!i Island. He is an Associate Professor of
Hawaiian Studies at Ka Haka !Ula O Ke‘elik$lani College of Hawaiian Language, where he
teaches Hawaiian language, haku mele, and other Hawaiian culture classes. He is also one of
Hawai‘i's most respected haku mele, having won the Haku Mele award at the N# H$k%
Hanohano Awards, and having been awarded the organisation’s Sidney Grayson (Lifetime
Achievement) award in 1981. He is one of the founders of the !Aha P%nana Leo, Inc., a nonprofit organisation dedicated to the perpetuation of the Hawaiian language, and which
operates Hawaiian language medium preschools throughout Hawai‘i. His compositions
include the contemporary-styled standards “E Ku!u Morning Dew” and “E Pili Mai”, as well
as “Ua Ao Hawai!i”, a mele performed in an older chant style, and that is widely used at
many functions throughout the state. He has twice been awarded the Haku Mele award at the
N# H$k% Hanohano Awards – in 1989 for “To!u Hei Ahiahi” and jointly with guitarist Peter
Moon in 1983 for “E Pili Mai”.
Our conversation was recorded at PB12-7 on the University of Hawai!i at Hilo
campus on 12 August 2009. I was not surprised by Kimura’s three song selections“Ku!u Lei L&lia”, “Honesakala”, and “He Nani N$ M#kaha”. I was a student in
106
Kimura’s haku mele class at UH-Hilo in the late 1990s, and he and I have had many
discussions about Hawaiian composition since I moved to Hilo in 1994. I also
frequently ask for his assistance to review my own compositions before they are given
to others to record. I suspected that the issues of language, grammar, song structure
and Hawaiian thought would emerge as prominent themes in our discussion, and I
was not disappointed. Kimura does not possess a high degree of musical literacy, and
many of his compositions are done collaboratively with other individuals who
compose the music that accompanies his compositions.
While many hoa k!k"k!k" discussed the significance of the Hawaiian
language to the music, Kimura stresses that not only is the language important, but
that the language be used to express Hawaiian–and not foreign–thought.
Ku‘uipo Kumukahi
Kumukahi is employed at the ARC of Honolulu, the Hawai‘i chapter of a
national organisation that supports individuals with intellectual and related
disabilities. She is also a N# H$k% Hanohano Award-winning female vocalist, has
served on the board of the Hawai!i Academy of Recording Arts for approximately ten
years, and currently serves as the President of the Board. She was awarded the Haku
Mele award (along with her father Kamuela) in 1994 for the composition “‘O Wai
Kulumea”. Her recording N" Lani #Eh" with the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame
Serenaders was selected as Album of the Year at the 2008 N# H$k% Hanohano
Awards.
Our conversation was recorded at the offices of the Hawai!i Academy of
Recording Arts in Honolulu on 11 November 2008. When we met, she informed me
that although she had put some thought into the songs she would like us to listen to
and discuss, she had not really picked any recordings except for one–one of her own
107
recordings–and asked if we could perhaps pick something that I had on my computer.
Between the recordings I had and CDs that were kept in the HARA office, she was
able to locate recordings that met my criteria.
While Kumukahi has composed in the Hawaiian language, the majority of our
conversation focused on vocal performance. She takes a very conservative stance
toward Hawaiian language musical performance, believes in honouring composer
intent, and is rarely willing to deviate significantly from previous recordings of older
songs. Most of my other hoa k!k"k!k" have indicated a willingness to change some
aspects of a musical performance. Kumukahi clearly sees herself as a vessel that
delivers the mele, and feels a responsibility to deliver it as accurately and as truly to
the intent of the composer, or as the mele was taught to her should no record of
composer intent exist.
Aaron Mahi
Mahi graduated from Kamehameha School on O‘ahu, received a degree in
music education from Hart School of Music at the University of Hartford in
Connecticut, and studied conducting at Loma Linda University in California. He was
the conductor of the Royal Hawaiian Band for over 24 years, from 1981 and 2005.
During the early 1970s, as a student at UH-M#noa, he was an active member of the
group that participated in the recording of the Ka Leo Hawai‘i radio program.
Our conversation was recorded at Mahi’s home in Kalihi, O‘ahu on 19
January 2009. We began to converse in Hawaiian, but before we even got to listen to
the first recording he expressed a preference to continue our discussion in English at
that point. All of the recorded performances that he chose were from a 1944 program
of the Royal Hawaiian Band. Though it was recorded in the 1940s, he noted that he
108
had met some of the vocalists who performed and related his experiences and
discussions with them in later years.
Like Kumukahi, Mahi portrayed himself as a staunch traditionalist who felt
little if any inclination to tinker with arrangements or personalise performances. He
held this attitude regardless of the song source – whether they be less formal folk
songs or those composed by musically literate Hawaiians such as Queen
Lili‘uokalani, her siblings and others of that era. However, he was not offended or
taken back by what some felt was as a very radical performance of “Kaulana N# Pua”
in the 1970s31.
Kīhei Nāhale-a
N#hale-a was born on Hawai‘i Island, attended Kamehameha School on
O‘ahu, and received a B.A. in Hawaiian Studies from the University of Hawai!i at
Hilo. He is currently a lecturer in Hawaiian Studies at Hawai!i Community College.
He has recorded and performed with a number of Hawai!i recording artists, including
Kainani Kahaunaele, N#pua Makua, and his own groups Kahikina and !Ai P$haku.
These artists and groups, as well as other prominent Hawai!i recording artists, have
recorded several of his mele.
Our conversation was held in PB12-7 at the University of Hawai!i at Hilo
campus on 19 September 2008. He had mentioned that he had changed some of the
songs he wanted us to talk about at the last moment, and had narrowed his selection to
five songs. We listened to and discussed four of them. The four songs that he chose
were quite varied in musical style. One is a western-influenced standard, “Maunaloa”;
the second a recent recording that was done in an older hula #"la#apapa style, “Holo
31
This performance was also discussed by Raymond and discussed in depth in Chapter 7.
109
Mai Pele”; the third Kamakahi’s early Hawaiian Renaissance-era composition, “E
Kiss K#ua”; and finally a very recent composition by Kaumakaiwa Kanaka!ole,
“N#kukukulu Ka Nalu”. I was a bit surprised that he did not pick a composition by his
grandfather, the revered haku mele Albert N#hale-a, though I’m not aware of any
existing recordings by Albert.
I realised after our session that the songs he chose were done chronologically
(oldest to most recent) when considering the time of composition – “Maunaloa” being
the oldest and “N#kukukulu Ka Nalu” being the most recent. I was a bit surprised that
the recording of “Maunaloa” by the Peter Moon Band was the oldest of the recordings
that Nahale-a chose. It dates to the late-1970s or early-1980s. I thought that perhaps
he, like Kahaunaele, would choose older compositions and recordings from
composers like Almeida and Machado, however he did not. He did not give any
indication that the composers themselves were a major consideration in his selection
process.
I would have preferred to have gotten into more detail on various aspects of
pronunciation and composition, but Nahale-a seemed more comfortable discussing
the broader aspects of the performances and composition, so I let the discussion go
where it took us, and toward the end we diverted from the songs he chose and talked a
bit about his own composition and performance philosophy. During this part of our
discussion he did get very deep into the visual imagery that he experienced in
performing the music and dancing hula. Nahale-a’s choice of songs was not for their
textual or performative excellence, but each of the songs were significant to him in a
personal way, and the fact that he considered the compositions and performances to
be excellent a secondary considerations.
110
Puakea Nogelmeier
Nogelmeier is an Assistant Professor of Hawaiian Language at the University
of Hawai‘i at M#noa. His mele “Nematoda” was honoured with the Haku Mele award
at the annual N# H$k% Hanohano Awards in 1998. Reichel has recorded a number of
Nogelmeier's compositions, but other prominent Hawaiian artists have also recorded
them as well. He has translated a number of epic Hawaiian stories, including
Hi!iakaikapoliopele, into English, and directs a program which is digitizing archives
of Hawaiian language newspapers from the 1800 and 1900s in order to make them
searchable online.
Our conversation was held at Nogelmeier’s home in Kalihi, O‘ahu on 19
January 2009. Nogelmeier chose for us to conduct the interview in English, and it was
a bit strange feeling as we generally communicate in Hawaiian, and have done so
since I first met him in the mid-1990s. He understood that my thesis would be written
in English and thought that it was perhaps better for us to conduct it in English as
well. He acknowledged, as so many of my previous discussion partners, how difficult
it was to choose just three or four songs for our listening session, and ultimately
selected four recordings for us to listen to. All but one were recordings by Reichel,
and the final recording was by the duo K%paoa. Nogelmeier was apologetic for
selecting so many of Reichel’s recordings and for selecting one of his own
compositions, but I reassured him that I was happy that he did. I explained that he
could provide insights to his compositional process and the details of the song that no
one else could.
While Nogelmeier does not consider himself a trained musician, he did
provide some valuable insight into performance practice, but clearly his strength and
depth of knowledge is in the area of composition. While I had great appreciation for
111
his composition “Lei H#li‘a”, I was astounded at the depth of the composition, the
references to places and their significance in our discussion. He was also the first
person to really point out the explicit use of literary references in some mele, as he did
in our discussion of “Maika!i Ka !'iwi o Ka!ala”.
We were interrupted by phone calls to him at a few points during our
conversation, but it was appreciated as it gave me an opportunity to gather my
thoughts regarding our conversation. I felt a bit remiss as I left, as it seemed our
conversation could have gone on for several more hours, but I was quite satisfied with
our discussion of the four recordings he had selected.
Pueo Pata
Pata is a recording artist who specialises in falsetto singing, and won the Frank
B. Shaner Falsetto Singing Contest on O‘ahu in 1999. He won the 2008 N# H$k%
Hanohano Haku Mele award for his composition “Mili‘$pua”, and has two solo CD
releases to his credit. He previously Hawaiian language and hula at Kamehameha
Schools on the island of Maui, and is kumu hula of H#lau Hula Ka M#lama Mahilani.
Our conversation was recorded at Pata’s home in Makawao, Maui on 2 November
2008. He selected four recordings for us to listen to.
This was one of my more challenging interviews. I had been visiting a close
friend on Maui who had been experiencing serious health problems for a few years
just prior to meeting with Pueo, and found it hard to completely focus on this
interview. For this reason it seemed shorter than the others and I struggled somewhat
to find the topics by which we could expand on our conversation. We also talked a bit
more during our listening to the recordings, and I repositioned my recorder in the
hope that our voices would be a bit clearer on one channel and the audio on another.
112
I thought it quite interesting that none of the songs that Pata chose featured
much linked assonance, a Hawaiian poetic device which is quite common and quite
frequently heard in compositions by younger haku mele. I even find myself
consciously looking for opportunities to use linked assonance when perhaps a
different poetic linking device, such as similar or opposite thoughts, might have
worked as well or better.
Kī‘ope Raymond
Raymond is a Hawaiian language instructor at Maui Community College, and
also a respected haku mele. His composition “Lei P&kake” (co-written with Barry
Flanagan) was selected as Song of the Year at the 1994 N# H$k% Hanohano Awards.
The group Hapa has recorded several of his compositions, and The Brothers Cazimero
recorded his composition “‘"lolialoha” on their release, “Some Call It Aloha… Don’t
Tell” (Brothers Cazimero 2004). Raymond is also one of the founders of the !Aha
P%nana Leo, Inc.
Our conversation was recorded in Raymond’s office, Ka Lama 134 on the
Maui Community College Campus, Kahului, Maui on 31 October 2008. I had emailed
Raymond approximately three weeks prior to this trip and included my description of
how the k!k"k!k" session would be conducted a few days prior to our meeting. Like
several others, Raymond commented how difficult it was to pick only three or four
songs to discuss. And like some of the others, his choices seemed to be made for very
personal reasons that were not necessarily related to the quality of the compositions or
vocal performances.
This was the first k!k"k!k" session that I conducted in which multiple
versions of the same song were examined. While I thought that we would simply
listen to one of the two versions of “Ua Noho Au A Kupa” that Raymond had
113
selected, we listened to not only these two but N#makelua’s also, and I was quite
happy that we did. I have always considered Almeida’s commercial recording of the
song to be definitive, and noted both inaccurate lyrics as well as pronunciation
problems in Haili's. Musically N#makelua’s recording is also a striking contrast to
Almeida’s. There are only slight melodic differences, but she sings it against a sparse,
contrapuntal slack key style she is know for–very different than Almeida’s
performance.
Raymond was quote open in describing his own composition. He noted that
while he was somewhat hesitant to bring one of his own compositions to our
k!k"k!k" sessions, he was clearly very proud of the song and the thought behind it.
While I neither asked for composers to choose one of their own mele nor did I ask
them not to, I had hoped that some would do so and lend some insight into their own
creative processes. At one point, when explaining some of the meanings of his own
composition, he looked down at the recorder and seemed to be prepared to ask me to
stop the recording, however, he quickly decided that it would be OK for the recording
to continue. I’m not certain that he would have been any more revealing in his
discussion of the composition had I turned off the recorder, but I believe he did give
more insight than many haku mele would have into the highly personal nature of his
thoughts.
Keali‘i Reichel
Reichel is a N# H$k% Hanohano Award winning singer, chanter, haku mele
and kumu hula. He was a final ballot nominee for the first Hawaiian Grammy Award
in 2004. His debut CD, Kawaipunahele was recently certified as reaching Gold status
(500,000 copies sold)–the first and only predominantly Hawaiian language release to
achieve that status. He was the founding director for P%nana Leo O Maui–the
114
Hawaiian language immersion school in Wailuku. He also founded his own hula
school, H#lau Ke!alaokamaile, which has won numerous awards over the years. He
has been awarded 19 N# H$k% Hanohano Awards, including a Haku Mele award in
1996 for his composition “Ku!u Pua Mae!ole”.
Our conversation was recorded at Reichel’s home in Pi‘iholo, upland of
Makawao on the island of Maui on 1 November 2008. For all his fame, Reichel is a
very private person, and though I’ve known him for about 18 years, I still felt a bit
remiss at asking for his participation with this research as I know how frequently his
private time is intruded upon. He did make me quite at ease in his home and jokingly
referred to my request and letter as his “assignment”. It was clear that he had put
significant time and consideration into his song choices – he emailed me no more than
one song title per day over the course of three or four days in the week leading up to
the interview, and commented how difficult it was to chose only three songs. Some of
the emails came as he was travelling in Europe the week before we met. Reichel had
requested that the k!k"k!k" session be conducted in English. In our conversations and
emails we will commonly switch between using Hawaiian and English, and I’ve never
been able to identify exactly what leads us to switch at any given point. I’ve also
noticed this pattern with other individuals with whom I became acquainted before I
learned Hawaiian–even though we may now both speak the language we sometimes
revert to English.
I found his thought process in selecting the recordings was noteworthy, and
that he ultimately chose to restrict his selections to more contemporary recordings and
not older recordings by people such as Almeida and Machado. Reichel is a trained
chanter and kumu hula, so I was not surprised that he picked a traditional chant
performance, “Ka Wai A K#ne”, for our session. While I thought he might use that
115
particular chant as a point of reference to identify chant characteristics in the more
modern songs, it wasn’t used in that way, but he chose it to provide a glimpse on how
mele can reflect a Hawaiian world-view.
Aaron J. Salā
Sal# is a N# H$k% Hanohano Award winning singer and multi-instrumentalist
who has recorded with many highly regarded Hawaiian music acts, and is in great
demand as a piano accompanist and arranger. He won the Best New Artist Award at
the 2006 N# H$k% Hanohano Awards, and is also a haku mele. He attended
Kamehameha School, received a B.A. in vocal music performance from the
University of Hawai‘i at M#noa in 2000, and completed his M.A. in Ethnomusicology
from the University of Hawai!i at M#noa in 2011.
Our conversation was recorded at the Heritage Center at Kamehameha School
campus in Kap#lama, O‘ahu on 30 October 2008. The session was interrupted about
twenty minutes into the recording as a cleaning crew arrived and began loud
conversations with the other office staff. Unfortunately, the noise became so loud that
we needed to suspend our conversation. Sal# did walk around outside to see if there
might be someplace where we could continue, but there was some rain, the chapel
was in use, so we opted to wait until the cleaning crew was done and then continued.
It was a bit difficult to regain lost momentum, and I walked away feeling as
though we both had been too distracted to take full advantage of our time; however
Sal# did share some very valuable insights. He was the first of my Hawaiian-speaking
hoa k!k"k!k" to request that our conversation be conducted in English, and expressed
the concern that we may need to use some ethnomusicological terminology that was
less familiar to us in Hawaiian. Our conversations before the session, during our
noise-induced break, and after the session were done mostly in Hawaiian.
116
Two of the three songs he selected were compositions by Machado. After
listening to his explanation of his reasons it was quite clear that he had put a
substantial amount of time into this choice, and had put a lot of consideration into the
many nuances of her compositions. Like Silva, Sal# chose Mahi Beamer’s recorded
performance of “Paniau”. Sal# offered different insights into the song, based on his
perspective and also his close personal association and discussions with Mahi
Beamer. Both share a similar opinion on the grammatical construction of the song –
that it is very conversational, not highly poeticised Hawaiian text, though very vivid
in its visual aspects.
As a formally schooled musician and vocalist, Sal# was able to express many
elements of the performative aspects, including how certain vocalisations may express
thought and emotion that enhance the textual aspects of the song. I was very surprised
to learn from him about Mahi Beamer’s apparent distaste for the ha#i technique. This
is something that is generally considered to be very characteristic of Hawaiian falsetto
singers, though in listening to Beamer’s recordings, he clearly does not do it much if
at all. He glides from low notes (however infrequently he sings in full voice) to his
falsetto range. I came away very impressed with Sal#’s eloquence and being able to
bridge his knowledge of the language, culture and Hawaiian music and analyse it
from a western-educated musical perspective as well.
Kalena Silva
Silva is the director of Ka Haka !Ula O Ke‘elik$lani College of Hawaiian
Language, a renowned chanter, kumu hula and occasional haku mele. He recorded in
the 1960s in a group known as N# !'iwi (with Kamakahi and Mahi), as well as a
featured vocalist on the Ka Leo Hawai‘i album recorded in the early-1970s. He is also
only one of two native Hawaiian holding a Ph.D. in ethnomusicology (from the
117
University of Washington). He teaches hula as well as modern and ancient Hawaiian
music at the upper-division and graduate level at Ka Haka !Ula O Ke‘elik$lani.
Our conversation was recorded in PB12-7 at University of Hawai!i at Hilo
campus on 29 November 2008. He expressed that he had difficulty identifying three
or four songs that represented the highest standard of both Hawaiian language
performance and composition. While some recordings featured excellent
compositions and featured well-known and highly regarded artists, sometimes the
performers did not pronounce the language properly. In other instances, the
composition and pronunciation were fine, but he felt that the quality of the
performer’s voice was not at a high level. Silva ultimately finally emailed me the day
before our meeting with his selections, and requested that we meet the following
afternoon to listen to and discuss them.
As with my previous hoa k!k"k!k", Silva emphasised that while accurate
pronunciation and text is important, they are not the only criteria by which excellence
in Hawaiian language performance is judged. His willingness to ignore the
pronunciation problems in “Pua !(hihi” because of the other outstanding qualities of
the vocal performance was a notable example.
Taupōuri Tangarō
Tangar$ is an instructor of Hawaiian language and culture at Hawai‘i
Community College, and previously taught the same subjects at the University of
Hawai‘i at Hilo. He is married to Kekuhi Kanahele, a N# H$k% Hanohano Awardwinning female vocalist who is daughter of Pualani Kanahele and granddaughter of
the late “Aunty” Edith Kanaka‘ole. Both are members of H#lau o Kekuhi, a h"lau
hula (hula school) led by Kanahele’s mother Pualani Kanahele and her aunt N#lani
118
Kanaka‘ole Zane. Tangar$ and Kanahele collaborated on many of the songs that
Kanahele has recorded.
Our conversation was conducted at PB12-7 at the University of Hawai!i at
Hilo campus on 23 October 2008. Although I gave Tangar$ a copy of the letter
outlining how the k!k"k!k" session would be conducted just a few days prior to our
meeting, he did not provide names of the songs he chose in advance. I apologised and
let him know that I should have given him more time than just a few days to prepare.
He did give me a list of the four recordings about 10 minutes before we met and I was
able to quickly find lyrics to three of the four recorded performances.
We spent considerable time discussing the text as well as the vocal
performance of each selection. Tangar$ listened quite intensely to all of the
recordings, though at times he would stare off toward a ceiling in the corner of my
office, and it seemed apparent that he had been “taken away” to another place and
time by listening to the song, something that he had expressed prior to our listening to
the very first song, “M& Nei”. I smiled myself when hearing the performance of the
word lilo (to be taken) in the performance as he had just used that word to express the
thought of being “taken back” to his youth prior to our listening to the song.
Of all of the performances I was most fascinated by his discussion of the
change of perspective of the haku mele, that is, that the composer can write as though
he was a different person and writing from that individual’s perspective. I had not
read De Silva and Motta’s book on Machado completely at that time, and was
surprised to learn that many of the songs that she wrote were not written from her
perspective, but that of someone else. The most significant aspect of our conversation
was the importance that the performer understands the story of the mele and his or her
expression of the song should be to make the song shine, and not the performer.
119
Chapter 4: Ke Kanaka Kū Ho‘okahi – The Individual
and Authority
I arrived at my workplace at the Hale Kuamo!o at the University of Hawai!i at
Hilo one morning in 1999, and entered the shared curriculum development room
where I worked and that was abuzz with activity. My co-workers were busy
producing the curriculum that our office was developing for students in the Hawaiian
language immersion schools, and a portable CD player filled the room with the music
of Reichel’s most recent (at that time) CD, Melelana. I sat at my computer
workstation to check email and begin the day’s work, when Reichel’s rendition of the
song “Lei Hinahina” began to play. Shortly after Reichel sang the first line of the
mele, one of my co-workers expressed his displeasure with the recording, and
repeated that first line of the mele in Hawaiian–“uluhua, uluhua wale au”–in a
mocking tone. While I do not recall the exact phrase he uttered in Hawaiian after
speaking that line, I do recall it translating as “What the heck kind of Hawaiian song
is that?” I was not surprised, as my colleague had previously expressed a personal
dislike for Reichel and his music. I replied to him, “Mapopopo anei i" #oe na John
Almeida i haku i ia mele?” (‘Did you know that John Almeida wrote that song?’). His
face first expressed surprise, then embarrassment, and he returned to his own
computer workstation in silence. I regret not having asked him at the time if his
embarrassment was because he did not know that Almeida had written “Lei
Hinahina”, or that he realised that in his ignorance he had criticised a composition by
one of the most revered and authoritative figures in the history of Hawaiian music.
120
Introduction
In this chapter I will discuss the place of the individual in Hawaiian language
composition and the ascription of authoritative status to some individuals. I will also
examine, to a lesser extent, these elements in vocal performance. I will begin by
examining and discussing Machado’s composition “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”, the two
recordings that she made of this composition during her lifetime, and elements within
the composition and in her recordings that the participants in this research identified
and discussed. I will provide a biographical essay of Machado’s life, and an historical,
contextual and musical analysis of her composition “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”. I will
then discuss perceptions of Machado as an authoritative figure in Hawaiian language
composition. I will frame this discussion by examining her ability to convince
listeners of the authentic nature of her compositions and experiences, the reverence
afforded to k!puna, and native speakers of Hawaiian such as Machado. I will examine
how and why younger, second-language learners of Hawaiian may also be recognised
as authorities, although the compositions of some have been subject to scrutiny and
criticism. In addition to addressing these themes and topics as they pertain to
discussions about Machado and “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”, I will also draw upon the
discussion of these themes and others as they arose during discussion of other
composers, compositions and recordings that were selected by the participants in this
research.
Mai Lohilohi Mai ‘Oe
b 5
&b 4Ó Ó
‰
5
Bb
b
&b c œ
B b7
Bb
-
‘O
lo - ko
e
c
œ œ
B b7
‘A - u
Bb
he
-
b
& b 45 Ó Ó ‰
Bb
œœ
Ho -‘o
-
lo
-
ha.
-
œ œ ˙
a - lo
-
ha,
C7
F7
Ó
45
Ó
14
i.
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ 45 œ œ œ œ œ . œj œ œ c
œ
œ
œ
œ
œœ œœ
17
‘O
c
ne
18
i
‰ œj œ œ œ
e
œ
11
˙
œ
‘o - e
ha - na
po
ka hi me-a ho - ‘o - he no
œ. œ œ œ
no
œ
œ
-
G7
20
Bb
ka - ‘u i
˙
C7
œ
ne
-
œ œ ˙
21
a - lo
-
ha,
C7
˙
23
a - ‘e
F7
Ó
5
4
Ó
24
i.
œ .œ
j ‰ 45 œ œ œ œ ! œ c
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ. œ œ
.
œ
œœ œœ
F7
26
27
Eb
ka -hi no a - ‘u - me - a
bb c 29œ œ œ œ œ
&
-
a - ‘e
Eb
j
œ œ œ œ œ
25
ka - ‘u i
˙
he - a wa le ‘o e e ku ‘u
no.
lo - ko
œ. œ œ œ
C7
F7
F7
a
ka - hi me - a ho - ‘o - he - no-
13
16
-
3
po
G7
no
œ
œ
ha - na
œ œ œ
19
-
Bb
‘o - e
œ
3
a
i
‰ œj œ œ œ œ
F7
Bb
Bb
8
10
no - .
b
& b 45 Ó Œ ‰
b
&b ‰
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ 45 œ œ œ œ œ . œj œ œ c
œ
œ
œ
œ
œœœ
7
Eb
15
22
F7
6
j
œ œ œ œ œ
Bb
b
&b c œ
Bb
œ œ œ
he
&
œ œ
Words and Music by Lena Machado
As Recorded by Lena Machado (1935)
‘A - u - he - a wa -le ‘o - e e ku -‘u
9
bb 12‰
c
1
28
i a - lo -
30
j
‰ œ œ. œ œ
Ka
ne
G7
-
ma
ha
,
‘o ko le - o la
œ œ œ
-
i
i
-
C7
œ œ œ
œ.
31
-
-
-
a
e ke a-
-
‘u
‰
Bb
b
&b ‰
32
F7
œœ œ œ œ œ
Bb
œ œ œ
e na - ne - a ka - u - a
b 5 Ó Ó ‰
b
& 4
35
Bb
œœ
Ho -‘o
B b7
c
b
&b ‰
-
lo
-
i
‘a
-
ne
Ka
ne
i
Bb
-
Eb
-
œ œ
J
‘a
-
ne
-
Bb
lo - ko
Bb
‘A
Bb
lo - ko
ka - hi
e ke a-
œ œ œ
œ.
-
-
a
C7
‰
Ó
44
-
‰
‘u
F7
5
4
Ó
‘i.
F7
œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ 45 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ c
48
i
C7
-
-
41
i -
47
51
a ka ma - na
i
œ œ.
J
-
Bb
ka po
b
œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ˙‰ ‰
& b c œ œ œœ œŒ œ
J
G7
‘o ko le- o la
C7
œ œ œ
43
‘A - ‘o - he o - ‘u mo - e po - no
50
ha ,
G7
ma
b
& b 45 Ó Ó ‰ j c
œ œ œœ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ
-
5
4
Ó
‘i.
40
j
‰ œ œ. œ œ
46
49
Ó
38
ka -hi no a - ‘u me -a i a - lo
Eb
-
e na - ne - a ka - u - a
Bb
‰
1
F7
œ œ œ . œ œ . œj ‰ 45 œ œ œ œ œ œ . ! œ œ œ c
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ œœ
œ œ œ
œ
œœ œ œ œ
45
-
C7
34
F7
ha.
Bb
œ œ.
J
37
F7
42
œ œ
J
33
36
bb c 39œ œ œ œ œ
&
Bb
Bb
52
‘o
Bb
i
F7
œ œœ œ
ka ha - na nu - i
œœœ ˙ ˙
53
e la - u - wi - li - wi - li
C7
a-
F7
Ó Ó
54
ne - i.
5
4
b 5
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ ‰ 45 œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œj œ c
&b 4 Ó Œ ‰ j c
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
F7
55
56
Eb
-
57
‘o - he o - ‘u mo - e po - no
58
i
b
œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ ˙ ‰ ‰
& b c œœ œœ œŒ œ
J
59
60
.
ka-hi
G7
a ka ma - na
C7
61
-
62
‘o
Bb
ka po
Bb
i
F7
œ œœœ
ka ha - na nu - i
œœ œ ˙ ˙
63
C7
a
F7
Ó Ó
64
e la - u -wi -li-wi - li ne - i
5
4
b
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ 45 œ œ œ œ œ .œj œ œ c
œ
& b 45 Ó Ó ‰ j c
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ œ
65
66
Ha
-
‘i - na
F7
67
‘i - a ma - i ka - pu
-
68
a - na
ka hi me-a ho‘o - he - no-
Bb
Eb
Bb
b
j œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œœ ˙ ‰
& b c œ œœ œ‰ œ œ œ
G7
69
70
Bb
‘O ‘o - e
he - no.
C7
71
Bb
72
no ka - ‘u i a - lo
b 5 Ó Œ‰
b
& 4
j œœœœœœ œ
œ œ
75
-
76
Eb
Ha - ‘i - na ‘i - a ma - i ka - pu
F7
ha,
œ œœœ œ
œœœ œœœ‰
a
œœ œ œ ˙ ˙
73
C7
F7
Ó Ó
74
-
na
Bb
F7
78
œ
he - no.
G7
80
‘O
‘o - e
no
C7
81
ka - ‘u i a - lo
82
-
ha,
5
4
œ œ œ œ. j
œ œœ c
ka - hi me - a
Bb
ho - ‘o - he-no-
b
j
œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ‰
œ œœœ ˙ ˙
& b c œ œœ œ‰œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
79
1
ma -i lo hi -lo - hi ma-i ‘o - e.
77
-
Bb
F7
ma - i lo - hi - lo - hi
83
ma- i
‘o - e.
124
Overview of “Mai Lohilohi Mai ‘Oe”
Machado composed “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe” and copyrighted it on 20 July
1935. Her adoptive daughter, Pi‘olani Motta, believes that it was written in the early
1930s. She also believes it to be one of three Machado compositions that follow a
single story line, the other two being “Ho‘onanea” and “Kauoha Mai” (2006, 117).
Machado recorded “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe” twice during her lifetime – the first
recording was released in 1935 and the second in 1962. There are minor textual,
melodic and metric differences in these two recordings that were cited during
k!k"k!k" sessions, and these differences will be discussed in depth in Chapter 7. It is
the only song in the sample that was selected by three different participants in this
research; Kahaunaele and Sal# selected Machado’s 1935 recording to discuss, and
Kumukahi chose Machado’s 1962 recording. “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe” has been
recorded at least six times by other Hawai!i recording artists (Ortone 1999, 290).
“Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe” is classified as a hula ku#i because of its strophic
format, and contains four verses of eight measures each. One or two pickup notes
precede the first measure of each verse, and consists of a single quarter note or two
eighth note triplets that introduce the melody. It was recorded in the key of Bb, and
features a melodic range of Bb4 to Eb5. The melody of the second, fifth and seventh
measures each include a melodic interval of a fifth that allows Machado to feature the
ha#i technique where her voice breaks during its transition to falsetto range.
Guitar, acoustic bass, and steel guitar accompany Machado in both her 1935
and 1962 recordings, and their arrangements are similar. The steel guitar is featured in
the introduction of both recordings–playing the melody heard in last two measures of
the verse–before Machado begins her vocal performance. In the 1935 recording, she
sings each verse twice. During the first performance of each verse she sings alone,
125
and during the second additional vocalists harmonise with her. In the 1962 recording,
additional vocalists harmonise with her during her second performance of the first and
fourth verses. A vibraphone solo is featured after her first performance of the second
verse, and a steel guitar solo is featured after her first performance of the third verse.
The total length of the recorded performance of this mele is three minutes and 19
seconds.
The text of the song opens with #auhea wale ana ‘oe e ku#u ipo–a very
common opening for mele ho‘oipoipo (love songs). Literally translated, the phrase
asks, “Where are you, my sweetheart?” However, more figuratively it is intended to
call out to the person for whom the mele was written or is being performed and
beseech them to pay attention to the rest of the mele. The remainder of the verses
express Machado’s loneliness and restless in the night, and her longing for the
companionship of her beloved husband Luciano Machado. Motta notes that
Machado’s creative powers seemed to peak in the night, and that the night and
nocturnal activities were a recurring theme in Machado’s compositions (2006, 118).
The recording, instrumentation and musical performance of “Mai Lohilohi
Mai ‘Oe” is representative of what is now commonly referred to as the “traditional”
Hawaiian music of the era in which it originates. This composition is widely
considered to be a “standard” of the Hawaiian repertoire, particularly for female
vocalists using the Hawaiian falsetto technique. Machado’s use of secondary
dominant chords (the VI7, II7, V7, I progression) within the verse is also
characteristic of this era, though no research that I have uncovered has examined the
origins of the use of these more sophisticated chord changes in Hawaiian
compositions and recordings of that era. The end of each verse includes a two bar
vamp or turnaround using the II7, V7, I cadential progression that is characteristic of
126
hula ku#i performances, and that is also be heard in “Ku‘u Lei L&lia” and “Paniau”.
This vamp assists in the choreographing of hula dance, and gives the dancers
opportunity to prepare for the next verse. It is known as the ki#ip" in Hawaiian, and is
heard in both hula ku‘i and hula #$lapa forms.
Composer Biography: Lena Wai‘ale‘ale Machado
Lena Kaulumau Wai!ale!ale Machado was born in Pauoa on the island of
O‘ahu on 16 October 1903. While born into a musical family–her father was a
composer and mother was a well-known musician–she was given in h"nai
(‘adoption’) to friends of her mother, Dr. Loo Pan and his wife Mary Davis Loo Pan.
Dr. and Mrs. Loo strongly discouraged Machado’s musical interest and activities
(Motta, De Silva 2006, 3-4). In spite of the objections of her adoptive parents,
Machado continued her informal education by interacting with elderly Hawaiians and
learning elements of Hawaiian chant and song composition from them. Her vocal
talent was discovered and her career in entertainment began in her late teenage years
when the manager of KGU radio station heard her singing in a mango tree. Observing
her talent, he requested that she come to the station and audition to perform on a radio
program. Machado subsequently joined the Royal Hawaiian band as a featured
vocalist in 1925, a position she held for 30 years. She also recorded and performed
across the mainland United States, and acted as choreographer, technical and costume
advisor for a number of Hollywood films about Hawai!i and other Pacific islands.
Machado passed away on 25 January 1974 (Motta, De Silva 2006, 15), and was
inducted into the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame in 1995 (Ely 2007, 1). A book
containing thirty of her best-known compositions, including lyrics, music notation, a
biography and extensive notes regarding the origins and meanings of her songs (when
known), was published in 2006 (Motta, De Silva 2006, 15).
127
Recognition of Cognitive Authority
It is notable how perceptions of authority influenced the process by which
some participants selected songs and recordings for our discussions. Some selected
songs by first choosing composers and/or performers, and then considering songs
from those individuals’ composition or performance repertoire. Kahaunaele notes that
when she was first asked to participate in this research, she immediately thought of
Machado:
I ko#u #ike #ana i k"u mau n&nau no k%ia kumuhana, #o Machado n$ ka mea
mua i kupu ai ko#u mana#o. No ke aha l"? Ma muli paha o ko#u lohe #ana i
kona wala#au #ana e ho#olauna ana i k"na mau mele, i kekahi mau mele, a
no kona #ano he m"naleo ho#i … A no ka nui; no ka laha ho#i o n" mele he
nui, no laila, a hele a ma#a n" pepeiao. No laila #o ke koho, #o ka wae ho#i
ka#u hana, #o ke mele hea. (2008)
When I saw your questions about this subject, Machado was the first
person that came to my mind. Why? Perhaps it was because of hearing her
speak and introducing her songs, some of her songs, and because she was a
native speaker … For the quantity [of her songs]; because of how wellknown so many of her songs are, and my ears have become familiar with
them. So the choice, my task, was to choose which song.
Kahaunaele also chose her first listening example, Almeida’s composition
“Lei Hinahina”, by first thinking of Almeida, and then selecting one of his
compositions. This method of selection displays her perception of Machado and
Almeida as two of her cognitive authorities in Hawaiian language composition and
performance–a perception that then influenced her song selections. Not all of the
participants in this research thought of or considered the composer or performer first.
Sal# notes that when he received my request and instructions for selecting recordings,
he immediately thought of Machado’s 1935 recording of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”.
Unlike Kahaunaele and some other participants in this research, he did not consider
Machado herself first and then select the mele. However, he did note that at the time
of our discussion “I’m on a big Machado kick” (2008).
128
During the course of this research a number of individuals were cited on
multiple occasions for their composing or performing skills, but none were cited as
often as Machado. While Kahaunaele, Sal# and Kumukahi’s chose “Mai Lohilohi Mai
!Oe” to discuss, other participants in this research selected other Machado
compositions. Beamer chose Machado’s recording of her composition “Holo Wa!ap#”
to discuss, and Tangar$ another of her composition/recordings, “Ku‘u W# Li‘ili‘i”.
Sal# chose to discuss Robert Uluwehi Cazimero’s recording of Machado’s
composition “Aloha N$”. De Silva indicated that he had wanted to discuss another of
Machado’s compositions, “Lei K&ele”; however, he was unable to locate a suitable
recording of it before our discussion. Although they did not select Machado
compositions or recordings to discuss, Farden, Pata and Raymond each mentioned
Machado’s prowess as a composer and/or vocalist during my conversations with
them. All of these factors support Machado’s high regard and perceptions of her
authoritative status in the Hawaiian music community as both a composer and
vocalist. Perceptions of Machado’s authoritative status belie the fact that her
compositions or recordings were not always representative of the musical trends or
norms of the era in which they were composed and recorded. Beamer notes the
sophistication of the melodies that were composed by both Machado and his
grandmother:
Even her [Helen Desha Beamer’s] music, her melodies were not of the day
- they were not the general run of the mill. It’s like Lena’s melodies were
not like that either. She’s another one… so totally out of their time, and so
much ahead of their time–far ahead. (2009)
Machado composed many songs that tell the stories of her own experiences
and emotions. “Ei Nei” and “Aloha N$” are two such compositions–both were written
to express her love for her husband, Luciano Machado. Motta describes “Mai
Lohilohi Mai !Oe” as being one of a number of songs that were not based on her own
129
personal experiences, but on stories that others had told her in her youth. Motta cited
“Kauoha Mai” and “Ho!onanea” as other Machado compositions written in this
manner. Yet Motta noted some similarities of emotional expression found in “Mai
Lohilohi Mai !Oe” with others songs that Machado wrote for her husband Luciano
Machado, and believed that it may have also been written for him:
If you look at these love songs, you will see that night is always involved.
Night was when her feelings were strongest, when her emotions stirred
restlessly inside her. She did most of her composing at night when the rest
of the house was asleep and she was by herself. … Maybe she wrote “Mai
Lohilohi Mai !Oe” while she was away, when Uncle Lu was at home, and
when they couldn’t do anything about it but wait.” (2006, 118)
De Silva relates that Motta’s reservations were based in part on his discussing
the similarity of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe” with other songs that were composed for
Machado’s husband – “Aloha N$”, “Ei Nei”, and “Lei K&ele”.
We noted with several other compositions (“Kauoha Mai”, “Ho!onanea”,
“Pohai Ke Aloha”, and “U‘ilani” especially) that Aunty Lena had an
extraordinary capacity for making a song, situation, emotion, mentor’s
wife, friend’s child, etc. HER OWN [De Silva’s emphasis]. I still run into
people who insist that “U‘ilani ” was composed for Lena’s granddaughter,
and these people are floored when I explain that Lena was childless and
therefore granddaughterless. (De Silva, Pers. Comm.)
Moore referred to the ability of composers and performers who seek to
establish their own individual voice through unmediated expression as “authenticity
of expression” or “first person authenticity”. This is accomplished when a composer
or performer “succeeds in conveying the impression that his/her utterance is one of
integrity” (2002, 211-214). Although Motta and De Silva’s examination of the lyrics
have caused them to doubt the true, personal nature of Machado’s expression,
Kahaunaele was led to believe that the composition was based on Machado’s own
experience and emotions:
#A#ole, #a#ole n$ hau#oli wale n$ k%ia mele, #e", loa#a ka #ao#ao e
lauwiliwili nei kona mau mana#o, #a#ole hiki i" ia ke moe pono i ka p$, no
130
ka mea, kau ana kahi mea ma kona no#ono#o, no k"na mea aloha. A i ko#u
mana#o ma muli o k%ia #ano kumuhana o ka na#au, ke aloha, ka
lauwiliwili, k%l" #ano… na#au… e #oi aku ai ka ikaika paha, #oi aku ai ka…
na#au ke ho#opuka #ia. A #oiai n"na n$ i haku, hiki n$ i" ia ke ho#i i
k%l" w", a p%l" e puka ai ka mana#o "na i #ike ai, #e". (2008)
No, this song is not a happy song - there is the side in which her thoughts
are entangled. She doesn’t sleep well at night because there is something on
her mind, for her beloved. And I think this is because of the emotions, the
love, the uncertainty, emotional things that intensify the feelings when they
are expressed. And since she is the one who wrote it, she could return to
that time, and that is how the thoughts that she experienced, do you see?
Machado’s ability to convince listeners of the authenticity of her expression is
not restricted to “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”. Textual elements in “Kamalani o
Keaukaha” suggest that a romantic encounter occurred, although De Silva insists
there was none:
[S]he manages in “Kamalani o Keaukaha”, to suggest (more than suggest!)
that the song was inspired by the nearly overwhelming fragrances and
emotions of a romantic reunion (ka hanu a ka ipo, darling sweet lei, e
hooipo nei me ke kamalani) when nothing of the sort occurred. Pi!o[lani
Motta] maintains - adamantly - that the song was written only in
celebration of the hospitality shared with Aunty L[ena Machado] by the
people of Keaukaha: nothing else was going on behind the scenes. Yet, in
my opinion, the romantic nature of the song, even if imaginary, is its
essence, its sine qua non. (De Silva, Pers. Comm.)
Whether “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe” was inspired by a story that Machado heard
in her youth, her love and longing for her husband, or a combination of the two, she
has convinced listeners that she is communicating the truth of her own experiences
through her musical composition and vocal performance. Some of Machado’s
compositions suggest that she was born in places where she was not32 (De Silva 1997,
1). De Silva notes that in “Kaulana ‘o Hilo Hanakahi”, Machado composed and
performs this line which states that Hilo is the place of her birth:
V4, L1: ‘O ka nani ia, #o ka nani ia It is the beauty, the beauty
32
Machado was born in Pauoa, Oʻahu.
131
V4, L2: O ku‘u #"ina h"nau %
of the land of my birth
Machado also describes the island of Kaua!i as her birthplace in the second
verse of “Pua M#mane”, a mele that was written for her brother William Kauila
Wai!ale!ale:
V2, L3: Kaua‘i Manookalani
V2, L4: Ku‘u one h"nau ia
Kaua!i of chief Manookalani
The beloved sands of my birth
Both ku#u #"ina h"nau (‘the land of my birth’) and ku#u one h"nau (‘the sands
of my birth’) are expressions of affection that can be heard in mele aloha #"ina
(patriotic songs; songs expressing love for the land). The family of Machado’s father,
Robert Wai!ale!ale, is from Kaua!i, and Wai!ale!ale is also the name of the tallest
mountain on the island. Machado composed “Pua M#mane” a number of years after
the experiences that the composition describes–trips with her older brother William to
the summit of Mount Wai!ale!ale (Motta, De Silva 2006, 181-182). Machado’s
expression of Kaua!i as ku#u one h"nau is more likely an acknowledgement her
genealogical connection to Kaua!i, rather than a literal statement of where she was
born. As the song was written for William, she could have also written the mele using
his perspective and voice–another example of third person authenticity. Machado’s
use of ku#u #"ina h"nau to describe a place that is not her actual birthplace is not
unique in Hawaiian composition. Massachusetts-born Reverend Lorenzo Lyons
referred to Hawai!i as ku#u #"ina h"nau and ku#u home kulaiwi (my beloved native
homeland) in his composition, “Hawai!i Aloha” - one of Hawai!i’s best-known
patriotic hymns:
E Hawai#i ku#u one h"nau %, ku#u home kulaiwi nei…
Hawai!i, the beloved sands of my birth, my beloved native homeland…
With compositions such as “Kamalani o Keaukaha” and “Hawai!i Aloha”,
Machado and Lyons created expressions of love of homeland and patriotism that give
132
voice to the natives of those lands, and to those who were not born there, but wish to
express those sentiments of aloha #"ina (love of homeland). There is clearly no intent
to deceive the listener and lead them to believe that Machado was indeed born on
Kaua‘i, or that Lyons was born in Hawai!i. Both songs are also examples of what
Moore has characterised as “authenticity of experience” or “second person
authenticity”–validating the lives of the Keaukaha and broader Hawai‘i communities
by “telling it like it is” for them (2002, 219-220).
Some compositions are so personal in nature that they don’t become accepted
as a public expression – “there’s a personalising of mele that make them so personal
that they’re almost not a collective and shared piece” (Nogelmeier 2009). This is
clearly not the case with “Kamalani o Keaukaha”. While some of Machado’s
compositions are very personal expressions of her experiences, observations and
emotions, “Kamalani o Keaukaha” expresses those elements in a way that the
listeners from Keaukaha may feel that the composition is speaking for them, or
perform it in such a way that it becomes a collective and shared piece for the people
of that place. Today, nearly thirty years after her death, Machado’s composition,
along with many mele written by other composers, continues to be used in the social
maintenance of the Hawaiian music tradition for this community. Her ability to
express these shared sentiments also bolsters perceptions of her authority in Keaukaha
and the rest of Hawai‘i.
Native Speaker Status As Authority In Composition
Machado and the composers of many of the mele selected by the participants
in this research were m"naleo (native speakers of Hawaiian). The fact that some
composers and performers were m"naleo was also cited in support of their
authoritative status. Beniamina, from the island of Ni‘ihau, was the only living native
133
speaker whose composition was selected by participants in this research, and she
participated herself in this research. Reichel credits Beniamina’s skill with haku mele
with great detail, in part, to her status as a native speaker:
I think because she [Beniamina] is a m"naleo there is minute detail that–
you know I’m not m"naleo–and although I compose, I don’t know that I
could ever write in detail like this. I think … only m"naleo can really write
in this kind of … just the choosing of one word can add just a little bit more
salt, a little bit more pepper to the mana#o [‘thought’]. (2008)
An example of this can be found in my conversation with Beniamina
regarding a line from her composition “Pua !Ala Aumoe”. Although I had previously
pondered this line and encountered a translation of it, I could find no dictionary
definition that corresponded with the translation. It is found in the third line of the
third verse:
V3, L3: ‘'lino ha#a mai ana
Dazzled with numbness33
‘'lino is glossed as “bright, brilliant, dazzling, gleaming; brightness, glare”;
ha‘a has several glosses–none of which express the sensation of numbness. I asked
Beniamina about the meaning of #$lino and ha#a when combined in this way. She
laughed and explained the sexual connotation of the line:
#A#ohe ona unuhi. Nui ka po#e i n&nau ia#u–he aha k%l" laina #$lino ha#a
mai ana. #O ka ma#alahi loa–he hohonu k%l", hohonu loa–#o ka ma#alahi,
#o ia ka l"l" o k%l" pua, k!nou mau ana #o ia. In" p" ka l", p" wale, k%l"
#ano, ke k!lou a#ela, #$lino ha#a mai ana, ho#omaka #o ia e mea, kohu mea
l" ho#ohenehene ana k%l" l"l" o k%l" pua, in" e n"n" pono, he lilo… ka #ike
k%l" o ka maka, #$lino ha#a mai ana, aia k%l" #ano pua. [laughs]. E like me
k%l", in" p" wale ka makani a i #ole ka ua, a i #ole ke aheahe, ho#omaka #o
ia e k!lou. Ho#omaka e ha#aha#a, a ho#i hou kona l"l", #ano interesting
k%l", k%l" l"l" pua. #O k%l" hana–in" #oe ua like n$ me ke k"ne, in" #oe
kama#"ina i k%l" hana. (2009)
It can’t be translated. There are plenty of people who have asked me–what
is this line #$lino ha#a mai ana. The easiest way to explain this–this is
deep, very deep–but the easiest, that is the branch of that flower, bending
33
Beniamina provided this translation for the liner notes of the CD on which this mele
appeared, the Māhaka Sons of Ni‘ihauʼs Ho‘oluana (Makaha Sons of Niʻihau 1991).
134
over. If the suns shine, just touches it, like that, it bends over, #$lino ha#a
mai ana, it begins to… as though teasing the branch of that flower, if you
look straight at it, it becomes… that is what the eye sees, #$lino ha#a mai
ana, that is the kind of flower it is [laughs]. Just like that, if the winds just
blow and there is no rain, or if the wind gently blows, it begins to bend. It
becomes lowered, and then its branch rises. That is kind of interesting, the
branch of that flower. That action, if you are a man, you are acquainted
with that action.
The meaning that results from the combining of these two words in this
manner could not be construed from an examination of the Hawaiian dictionary. A
second-language learner of Hawaiian would not likely know or encounter this
interpretation unless a native speaker such as Beniamina explained it to them. The
interpretation is also possibly an idiosyncratic one known only to Beniamina and
perhaps encountered within her family or the Ni!ihau community. The thought that
she expressed through the use of those two words could be expressed in other ways,
but would require the use of additional, more widely known lexicon.
M"naleo are particularly revered in the Hawaiian community (Wong 1999,
100). Sadly, very few remain–in 1999 fewer than 500 native speakers of Hawaiian
were identified in the Ni‘ihau community, and fewer than 200 Hawaiian-speaking
elders attended an annual gathering of such individuals organised by the !Ahahui
!'lelo Hawai!i. The remaining speakers of Hawaiian largely consist of those who
have learned Hawaiian as a second language and those individuals who have received
their education in the Hawaiian medium schools which were first established in the
1980s (Wilson, Kaman# 2001, 148).
While sometimes viewed as an elite or specialised activity in the
contemporary Hawaiian language community, haku mele was more widespread and
less specialised in the times when there were a greater number of native speakers.
Kimura’s selection of “Honesakala” is notable as its composer, Thomas Lindsey, was
a native-speaking paniolo (cowboy) from the rural Kohala on Hawai!i Island. Kimura
135
states that he selected “Honesakala” for use in his Hawaiian poetry composition class
at the University of Hawai!i at Hilo to show his students the high level of skill that
Thomas Lindsey had achieved at an early age. Lindsey was proficient enough in
Hawaiian at eighteen years old to take a conversational language style and express it
in a way that is more representative of Hawaiian poetry:
#O kekahi mea hoihoi… haku #o ia i k%ia mele ma kona w" #$piopio. #O
kekahi mea hoihoi, no ko#u kama#"ina, haku #o ia i k%ia mele ma kona w"
#$piopio loa, e like me n" haum"na kulanui. #Umik!m"walu ona makahiki.
Pilikia #o ia ma hope i ka ulia, h"#ule, make #o ia. No laila, he h$#ike k%ia i
ka#u mau haum"na i ka wali o ka #$lelo, no ka mea he kanaka m"naleo, he
kanaka #$pio, ak", he haku mele kekahi, hiki i" ia ke ki#i i ka #$lelo
kama#ilio, a ho#ololi i loko o ka p$#aiapili o ke mele. #A#ole k%ia he
kama#ilio. (2009)
Something that is interesting… is that he wrote this in his youth, he was
about the age of a university student. He was 18 years old. He met with an
accident later - he fell and died. So, I use this to show my students his
fluency with the language, because he was a native speaker, he was a
young man, but he was a composer, and he could take a conversational type
of language, and change it so that it fit into the context of a song. This is
not a conversational type of song.
While “Honesakala” is an example of mele composed in the early 20th century
by a rural, maka‘"inana (commoner) composer, many of the best known and most
frequently recorded mele from the 19th century were composed by royalty, whose
place in Hawaiian society, education, musical training and authoritative status at the
time was unrivalled. Kumukahi recorded a CD in 2007 that included only
compositions by N" Lani #Eh"–Lili!uokalani, Kal#kaua, Likelike and Leleioh$k%.
She related the great care she took in her recording and presentation of the royals’
compositions:
I wanted people to hear the story. So even in the recording, to keep it as
simple as possible, with simple instrumentation, is what I was after.
Because everything–the beauty of everything on this particular recording–
was all of their lyrics. I was just a vehicle for, through whom it came. But
everything is theirs… Even the way it’s lined up. Against better producers
way would be to line it up according to how people would buy the CD,
136
whether it’s a fast catchy song or something catchy in the beginning is what
they tell you to put on first when you line it up. But I said no, I’m going to
start off with “Hawai!i Pono!&” and close it with–it might not be a popular
song. But I don’t care; that’s not what the intent was–and close it off with
“The Queen’s Prayer”. So we have the entire history of N" Lani #Eh", or
the Hawaiian Kingdom, the national anthem and close with forgiveness. So
I didn’t allow the commercial side to rule me in this manner. It’s risky.
(2008)
The authoritative status of and reverence expressed for these individuals is
based not only on their royal lineage, but also supported by their skill in composition,
knowledge of older Hawaiian musical forms and literature, and their training in
western music theory, composition and performance. Kumukahi refused to allow
commercial considerations to override her desire to acknowledge the compositional
authority of the four royals, and recorded their mele in a manner that she believed best
represented their compositional intent.
While several compositions by N" Lani #Eh" are represented in the songs
selected by the participants in this research, De Silva notes, in retrospect, that two of
his three selections were songs by maka#"inana. The authors of his selections, “Ka
Manu” and “E Aha !Ia Ana !o Maunakea” are unknown, although both compositions
are known today through the memories of native speakers Alice N#makelua and
!'ulu Konanui. The recognition of these mele supports the contention that texts can
acquire authoritative status independent of their authors (Wilson 1983, 168-169). In
the case of “Ka Manu” and “E Aha !Ia Ana !o Maunakea”, the anonymity of their
composers does not detract from the perceived authenticity of the compositions.
Almeida composed De Silva's third selection, “Ka Nani A!o Hilo”, but the text is
based on an older chant written for King David Kal#kaua’s trip to Hilo in the late1800s (De Silva 1997, 1).
The reverence afforded to native speakers–particularly those who have died–
presented a challenge for the selection committee that determined the winner of the
137
Haku Mele award at the 2000 N# H$k% Hanohano Awards. A committee of experts
adjudicates this award and the awards in several other technical categories. Hawaiian
slack key guitarist and vocalist Ikaika Brown of Maui recorded “!'piopio”–a mele
composed by native speaker Mrs. Ida Pakulani Brown in the early 1900s. The
members of the committee also thought very highly of the composition “Pua !A!ali!i”
by a young, living composer, Lee Ann (nuenue P%nua, who is not a native speaker.
The members of the committee felt it would be unfair to compare two outstanding
compositions–one written by native speaker born in the 19th century, and the other by
someone who learned Hawaiian as a second language toward the end of the 20th
century. Farden, who served on the Haku Mele selection committee that year and in
many others, explains their decision to offer two awards that year:
Because we felt that Lee Ann P%nua’s mele was so great, that there was no
way we could have compared her to, not just a m"naleo, but Ida Long who
died back in the 60s or 50s–a m"naleo born in the 1880s. How could you
even judge her mele? They’re very different than the m"naleo today. And
so we decided we’re not going to even judge Mrs. Long’s, we’re going to
keep it at here, and we’re going to judge everybody else’s song, and we
offered a tie … I thought who the hell are we to judge Mrs. Long’s mele?
(2008)
Farden added that during his term on the Board of Governors of the Hawai‘i
Academy of Recording Arts there has always been at least one native speaker on the
committee that selects the winner of the Haku Mele category in order to preserve “the
credibility of the committee”34. This practice continues today, though the decline in
number of elderly native speakers will hinder the ability of the Academy to continue
this practice in the future. The entry of songs written in the early 20th century provides
34
At the time of our kūkākūkā session, Farden had been on the HARA Board of
Governors for 12 or 13 years; he could not recall the exact number. He noted that prior
to his election to the Board and appointment to the haku mele that the committee
frequently included individuals who could not speak Hawaiian at all, but who were
highly respected in the industry. According to Farden, their participation in the selection
process was deemed more appropriate and acceptable than allowing all members to
vote in the category.
138
a challenge to the Academy and the Haku Mele committee–if the purpose of the
award is indeed to encourage new compositions, why does it allow mele that were
written over a half century before the Academy was even founded to be entered? If
the judges for the award do not feel qualified to critically examine such mele, or will
simply defer to the authoritative status of m"naleo and select their compositions,
should they even be considered for the award? Further discussions of this situation are
warranted, as they do appear to conflict with the stated purpose of the award–to
encourage the composition of new mele, and encourage the practitioners of this art
form to continue honing their skills.
Elder Status As Authority
Respect for elders is a valued cultural ideal in the Hawaiian community
(Meyer 2003, 168; Pukui, Haertig & Lee 1972, 130-311; Charlot 2005, 177).
Composer and singer Irmgard Aluli stated emphatically “you don’t overstep someone
you think who is older than you in authority. You don’t try to correct. You pay
homage to the old all of the time, bow to them” (Meyer 2003, 168). De Silva supports
this, noting that in cases of mispronunciation or incorrect lyrics being recorded “you
do respect the elders and not deliver criticism where you might think [it should be
directed]” (De Silva 2008). Raymond also agrees with these observations:
In" ma kekahi p"#ina e ho#okani ana kekahi po#e k!puna i pa#a i" l"kou
kekahi #ano - mahalo ma ke #ano #a#ole #oe loiloi i" l"kou. #A#ole au #ike
in" ua… he “Aloha N$”, #o ia ka #$lelo, #o ke aloha, kekahi m"hele o ke
aloha ka mana#o o empathy. I #ike #oe #o k%ia ke k!lana, a i #ole #o k%ia ka
m"kaukau o k%ia kanaka i k%ia manawa. Mai noho ali#i ma luna ona, e like
me, he makamaka (2008).
If you are at a party and some older people are playing and they have a
particular way–appreciate it and don’t be critical. I don’t know if… it is
aloha, that is the word, aloha; part of the meaning of aloha is empathy. So
that you see this level, or this is the proficiency of this person at this time.
Don’t act like a king over him, be a friend.
139
This is not to say that compositions or vocal performances by elderly
Hawaiian performers are without fault, they are simply not faulted or criticised
publicly for those shortcomings, and notions of authority may still exist in cases
where textual and pronunciation flaws exist. Several participants in this research
selected recordings that contained mispronunciations or inaccurate texts that they
themselves acknowledged after we listened to them together. In each case, the
performer was an elder who was neither a native speaker nor highly conversant in the
Hawaiian language, yet was held in high regard. Raymond explains that he did not
speak or understand Hawaiian when he was younger and first heard one of the
recordings he selected to discuss, and that although his language skills are sufficiently
developed that he can hear the shortcomings in the recording at this time, his opinion
of it remains unchanged:
A i loko n$ o n" hemahema he nui i lohe #ia i" k"ua e ho#olohe ana i k%ia,
he mele k%l"… he la#ana o ke #ano o n" mele i lohe pinepine #ia i ko#u w"
kamali#i. #O wai au ma ia w" e loiloi i ke #ano o ka pilina#$lelo, in" ua
k!pono?
I loko n$ o ka hiki ia#u i k%ia manawa ke lohe i n" puana hemahema li#ili#i
#a#ole au e k"lele ana ma luna o k%l". (2008)
In spite of the large number of errors that we heard in this, this is a song…
it is an example of the type of songs that I heard in my youth. Who was I at
the time to critique the type of grammar, if it was correct?
In spite of my ability at this time to hear the little pronunciation errors, I
don’t focus on that.
Nogelmeier documented the vigorous exchanges and differences of opinion
between Hawaiian historians in the Hawaiian language newspapers of the 19th
century. While many of these individuals addressed each other directly and by name,
John Papa ‘"‘& was never directly criticised by the others (Nogelmeier 2003, 214). He
suggests that ‘"‘#’s “status as an elder statesman and his first-hand experiences in the
courts of the Kamehamehas lent credence to his stories”, but adds that the humility with
140
which ‘"‘# expressed his detailed recollections of Hawaiian history may have also been a
factor.
The significance of mo‘ok!‘auhau (genealogy) in Hawaiian society–ancient
and modern–cannot be understated, and also influences perceptions of cognitive and
administrative authority in the Hawaiian context. E. S. Craighill Handy and Pukui
noted the importance of memorizing and transmitting family genealogical knowledge
to subsequent generations as “these had a very important function in the
determination of precedence and right” (1958, 259). The practice of giving a punahele
(favoured child), usually a hiapo, to be raised by grandparents was intended, in part,
to ensure the proper maintenance and transmission of the family genealogy. While the
first-born child was frequently selected as the punahele, sometimes a younger child
would be chosen if the first-born proved to be unsuitable (Charlot 2005, 391). While
these children received favoured treatment by the grandparents and authority over
younger siblings, it also came with increased responsibilities (Pukui, Haertig & Lee
1972, 189-90). Sal# notes that Mahi Beamer was Helen Desha Beamer’s punahele
grandchild:
I do know that he was the punahele, and you know everyone went out to
rake the yard and he sat under the piano, you know that kind of a thing. So
I know that he had a relationship with Helen that was much closer than her
relationship with other grandchildren. (2008)
This punahele relationship has proved to be crucial in the maintenance of
Helen Desha Beamer’s body of work. As she did not commercially record and release
performances of her own compositions, Mahi Beamer became the repository of
knowledge for them and guardian of her legacy:
The thing is that when she completed a song she generally soon after she
would teach it to Auntie Harriet first, then eventually I learned it as we
were with grandma or Auntie Harriet would teach it to us. (Beamer 2009)
141
It is not always possible to determine whether or not a performer is a native
speaker or simply very skilled with Hawaiian language vocal performance by simply
listening to their vocal performance, particularly among elders. Kimura supports this
observation, and Silva notes that Mahi Beamer–who does not speak Hawaiian with a
high degree of fluency–is an example of someone whose sung pronunciation is
excellent. Beamer learned piano, vocal performance, and specifically how to play the
compositions of his grandmother directly from her and his aunt Harriet Leilehua
Magoon:
#A#ole #o ia m"kaukau loa, hiki i" ia–#apo #o ia, ua lohe i ka #$lelo, #ano
hiki i" ia ke wala#au, ak" #a#ole #o ia m"kaukau loa. Ak", ke lohe i" ia, ke
lohe k"ua i" ia, hiki ke lohe he kohu m"naleo, ke #ano o kona ho#opuka
#ana i ka #$lelo, he kohu m"naleo ke #ano. A ma laila paha ke akamai o
kona kupuna wahine i ho#opololei maika#i i" ia. (2008)
He’s not highly proficient [with Hawaiian language]–he understands, he
heard the language, he can sort of converse, but he’s not highly proficient.
But when you hear him, when we listened to him [singing], you can hear
that his vocalisation is like that of a native speaker. And that was perhaps
because of the wisdom of his grandmother in correcting him well.
While he is neither a native speaker nor highly conversant in Hawaiian, two
different participants in this research selected Beamer’s recorded performance of
“Paniau” to discuss in our k!k"k!k" sessions. Perceptions of Beamer’s authoritative
status in performance of Hawaiian language compositions are not diminished by his
lack of native speaker status or conversational ability in Hawaiian, and he continues
to be respected and honoured for the excellence of his recordings and performances of
mele.
Love and respect for elders is also a common theme in mele, and references to
them numerous. While kupuna may be glossed as a grandparent, elder, or ancestor, it
is also commonly used as an adjective to describe any treasured object that dates from
older times, such as ‘"ina kupuna (land of the elders/ancestors), hulu kupuna
142
(anything precious from an elders generation, including the elders themselves), and
ha#i kupuna (a chant type honouring ancestors). While not selected by any of the
participants in this research for discussion, one of the best-known and most frequently
cited examples of this kind of expression for kupuna is Queen Lili!uokalani’s
composition “T%t%”. It is a fond reminiscence of her grandmother that discusses her
long life, her love of reading the Bible, and a humorous incident in which she thought
that she had lost her glasses–only to find that they were placed upon her forehead.
The Queen’s performance of this mele at Kaumakapili Church, where she portrayed
her grandmother and was surrounded by small children portraying her grandchildren,
received five ovations and “a shower of money” from the audience (Lili‘uokalani,
Gillett, Smith, & Hui H#nai 1999, 273). In this mele, the Queen clearly articulates her
at feelings toward her kupuna, and urges others to act in a similar manner:
CH, L1 E aloha k"kou i ia
CH, L2 E m"lama k"kou i" t!t!
CH, L3 E ho‘"no k"kou i" ia
CH, L4 Ko k"kou kupuna wahine
We must all now show her reverence
We must love our dear t%t%
We must do all to honor her
our dear Grandma T%t%
Machado’s composition “Ku‘u W# Li!ili!i” also includes expression of aloha
for k!puna. Tangar$ selected this mele and recording for us to discuss, and the first
element he chose to discuss was her expression of affection for her elders. It is a
reminiscence of her youth and being nurtured by her grandmother:
V2, L1 H"nai #ia a nui pu#ipu#i
V2, L2 I ka nui miki #ai a T!t!
V2, L3 #Ai a m"#ona, inu a kena
V2, L4 Ke aloha ia o n" k!puna
I was raised to perfection
Under the loving care of my grandmother
Who looked after my every need
Such is the love of grandparents
Machado took some poetic liberty with the facts that inspired the mele–she
was recalling an incident that occurred when she was still a teenager and embarrassed
herself by trying to appear older. In reality, the t!t! depicted in the song was not her
real grandmother, but a composite character that depicted the relatives of her
143
grandparents’ generation who chided her for her behaviour35. Written twenty years
after this incident, Machado shows a sense of humour that was sometimes masked by
her more dignified public countenance (Motta & De Silva 2006, 102).
The significance of genealogy to Hawaiian society is not restricted to deceased
ancestors, but the living as well, and they are afforded great respect. Pukui observed,
“it is the kupuna who can convey a sense of continuity in family structure and a
knowledge of and pride in the Hawaiian cultural heritage” (1972, 130-131). It is
evident from discussions with several individuals who participated in this research
that respect afforded to elders in the Hawaiian community is extended to elder
performers of Hawaiian music, living and deceased. Genealogical and familial ties
influence one mele selected by Nahale-a:
K%ia mele, pili ia#u no ka mea #o k%ia ke mele a m"ua #o ko#u p"p" i
ho#olohe ai i n" kakahiaka a pau loa… Pono au e h&meni i k%ia mele, e
h&meni ana au no… he mea aloha no ko#u makuak"ne. (2008)
This song, it’s bound to me because it is the song that my father and I
would listen to every morning… I have to sing this song, and I will sing
it… it’s an expression of love for my father.
Raymond also cites very personal criteria and familial relationships as a
reason for his selecting a recording by Leina!ala Haili to discuss:
He la#ana ia mele #o “Ua noho Au A Kupa” no n" mele he nui i pa#%#% i
ko#u pepeiao i ko#u w" kamali#i… A #o ka pu#ukani punahele a ku#u
makuahine #o ia #o Leina#ala Haili… No Lahaina #o ia - #ohana Medeiros,
ma n" l!#au, ma n" p"#ina l" h"nau, p"#ina male, ma laila #o ia. He
wahine i piha i ke aloha i ia w" no kona po#e, k%ia mau mele. (Raymond
2008)
“Ua Noho Au A Kupa” is an example of the many songs that caught my ear
in my youth… And my mother’s favourite singer was Leina!ala Haili…
She was from Lahaina - the Medeiros family. At traditional feasts, at
35
The use of kupuna is not restricted to oneʼs biological or adoptive grandparents, but
anyone of the grandparentʼs generation or older. Tūtū or kūkū is an expression of
affection oneʼs own grandparents or other close relatives of their generation.
144
birthday parties, wedding parties, she was there. She was a woman who
was filled with love for her people, and these songs.
Younger Speakers and Second Language Learners as
Cognitive Authorities
While many of the recordings selected by the participants in this research were
composed and/or performed by native speakers of the Hawaiian language and/or
k!puna, some participants expressed a desire to include compositions by younger
composers and recordings by younger performers who are not native speakers. Silva,
Kahaunaele, Nahale-a and Reichel expressed that their desire to include such younger
performers and composers in our discussions influenced their selection process.
Reichel characterised Pata’s compositional skills as “brilliant … with some of his
phrasing and utilization of imagery” (2008). In discussing her select of a recording by
Kekuhi Kanahele, Kahaunaele states:
Ua mamake au e koho i mau mele o k%ia w", no ka mea #o ia kekahi mea
a#u i mamake ai e #ike no ka #ike #ana o ka mau o ka #$lelo i k%ia manawa
… ma ka haku mele a ma ka h&meni #ana, a #o Kekuhi kekahi mea i pa#a ka
#$lelo i" ia - he mea oli #o ia, he mea h&meni #o ia, he mea haku #o ia
kekahi. (2008)
I wanted to choose some songs of this era, because that is something that I
wanted to see–to see the continuation of the language today … in
composition and in singing. And Kekuhi [Kanahele] is someone who
knows the language – she’s a chanter, a singer, and a composer also.
During a time when the authenticity of Hawaiian language use by secondlanguage learners is sometimes questioned (Wong 1999; NeSmith 2003), it is not
surprising that such considerations would play a part in the selection process.
Kahaunaele notes that when she was decided to include a song representative of this
era, she first thought of Kanahele, and then began to consider which of Kanahele’s
145
recordings to select for discussion36. Although Kanahele is not a native speaker of
Hawaiian, perceptions of her authoritative status are supported by command of the
Hawaiian language as spoken, in her compositions, and in musical performances in
both a chanted and sung style. She is also part of an esteemed hula lineage – her
grandmother, mother and aunt are all respected kumu hula, and Kanahele herself a
highly respected practitioner of hula.
The quality of mele written by many younger composers, particularly those
who have learned Hawaiian as a second language, has been questioned since the
1970s–“today the melody and the beauty of the dancers, rather than the story, are of
paramount interest, and the words of the more recent songs not included in this
collection are simple and artless” (Elbert, M#hoe 1970, 8). Some of the elements that
have been noted in these more recent compositions are grammatical errors,
unidiomatic expressions, limited vocabulary use and lack of traditional poetic devices
(Stillman 1978, 6). While many endured these criticisms and understood that a large
portion of their audience would not understand or appreciate their compositions, these
composers nonetheless could enjoy the “feeling of authenticity or ethnicity generated
from the Hawaiian text” (Stillman 1978, 7).
While discussing the contemporary recordings of Kanahele’s son
Kaumakaiwa Kanaka!ole, Reichel expressed his belief that the acceptance of
Kanaka!ole’s integration of contemporary, non-Hawaiian musical elements in the
performance of his own compositions comes from Kanaka!ole’s foundation of
knowledge in Hawaiian performance traditions, and is not simply due to his place of a
distinguished hula lineage:
36
The lyrics of the song that Kahaunaele chose, “Mīkohukoku”, were written by Kanaheleʼs
husband, Tangarō.
146
I wouldn’t say so much the lineage but moreso the foundation. ’Cause you
can have a good foundation and not have that kind of illustrious lineage
like they do. I think that as long as there is no question in so far as the
poetic context and the way that he writes it and in which language he’s
thinking in. (2008)
Kanaka!ole is in his mid-20s, and a graduate of Ke Kula !o
N#wah&okalani‘$pu‘u, a Hawaiian immersion school located in Kea!au on Hawai!i
Island. While not considered a native speaker of Hawaiian, his exposure to the
language in the home, throughout his formal education, and through his participation
in his grandmother and great-aunt’s h"lau hula has provided him a strong foundation
in the Hawaiian language and culture. Many of his compositions bear a greater
resemblance in lyrical content to older chanted mele, though the recordings feature
western-influenced melodies, harmonies, metric and rhythmic elements. His vocal
performances also include many older chant techniques, though accompanied by more
modern instrumentation and arrangements. In my opinion, his compositions and
recordings appear to represent a greater hybridisation of pre-contact and immediate
post-contact indigenous musical forms with western forms of today. While he does
not eschew elements of the hybridised forms of Hawaiian music that form the basis of
what is most often called “traditional” Hawaiian music today, he has returned to the
source of Hawaiian music, and used that as the basis for his innovations. Reichel
agrees with this assessment, and discusses Kanaka‘ole’s composition and recording,
“Lani Kau Keha”:
I chose this mele because it’s so different form anything else that we are
accustomed to, it doesn’t fit into hula (laughs) which is… I like thinking
out of the box. Because I know that he can also can compose and sing in a
more traditional vein … I like this kind of sound, and I think that in order
to do this you have to be very grounded and very confident in what you
know and what you are doing. (2008)
147
Reichel further discusses the introduction of “Lani Kau Keha”, noting a
modern vocal accompaniment that he likens to recordings by Irish singer Enya, but
that textually establishes the song in a location–on Haleakal# on Maui. He adds, “for
me, that sets the place, and for me, chants and songs for me always have to set
something right away, I have to be taken to that spot or shown that image, almost
right away” (2008).
V1, L1: I uka a#e l" ku#u mana#o,
My thoughts are in the uplands.
V1, L2: I Haleakal" kahi e kakali nei. Haleakal# is where he/she waits.
Kanaka!ole benefited from both his place in a family of active hula, chant and
cultural practitioners, and from receiving his education in a Hawaiian immersion
environment from preschool through secondary school and into college. Many
composers of today do not have this foundation of knowledge, and began to learn
Hawaiian language and culture in an English environment in school. For this reason
and others, Kimura believes that many contemporary songwriters are challenged not
only by the linguistic aspects of haku mele, but in properly representing Hawaiian
thoughts and perspective in a way that is similar to native speakers would express
them37:
Pono k"kou i loko o k%ia ho#"la, ho#$la #$lelo hou e haku ma ke kumu mai
he Hawai#i ka mana#o. Mai lawe kahiki–“#a#ole waiwai o ke continental”.
K%l" #ano unuhi h"iki, #a#ole. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. P%l" e
helele#i ai ke kuki. #A#ole. He lawe kahiki k%l" #ano. Pono mai ke kumu
mai, he Hawai#i a e puka he m"puna#$lelo Hawai#i ke #ano. (2009)
We in this time of revitalization, language revitalization, need to create it
with a foundation of Hawaiian thought. Don’t take things from foreign
places–“It’s not worth a continental”. That kind of narrow translation is
wrong. That’s the way the cookie crumbles? P%l" e helele#i ai ke kuki? No,
that is borrowing from foreign sources. It needs to be done from the source,
and be expressed in a Hawaiian manner.
37
The representation of Hawaiian thought and perspective in mele is examined more
closely in Chapter 5.
148
One aspect of second language acquisition that may impede a willingness of
younger composers to innovate or freely express themselves in compositions is the
prescriptive nature of contemporary Hawaiian language instruction. Nogelmeier
posits that criticism of some younger, contemporary composers and their composition
may stem from the limited amount of materials from which our knowledge of the
Hawaiian language is derived:
We find instance or some example and then we make that the rule … I
mean, I teach language, and so and at the level that I teach, I’ll have
students that say, “but the rule is this”. So we’re running to… we’re doing
newspaper material and we’re doing manuscript material. The native
speakers are breaking a rule that they were taught in third year, and taught
hard and fast. And so I have to point out that–who made these rules?
Second-language speakers. Relying on what? Relying on what they could
extract; what they were exposed to. Well, they weren’t exposed to this one;
didn’t read this newspaper article. So you have to allow for that the rules
that we have in place are a distillation of what’s been seen. (2009)
As one of Hawai‘i’s most popular recording artists, Reichel relates that
younger composers frequently send mele to him with the hope that he will like and
record their compositions:
I get music sent a lot, and so, the good thing, the good news, is that young
Hawaiians are composing. What’s not sometimes great is that they are not
composing in the style in which I am accustomed to, and I’m not sure if
that’s a good thing or a bad thing. Time will tell. You know, too wordy, not
terse enough, that kind of thing. Where it’s Hawaiian, and they’re thinking
it in Hawaiian, but they’re not–there’s a certain, for lack of a better word–
lack of poetic balls that just isn’t there. (2008)
While the number of new Hawaiian language compositions increases, there
are still concerns regarding their quality. Beniamina was one of seven judges in the
Haku Mele category at the 2009 N# H$k% Hanohano Awards38, and expressed the
opinion that only five or six were of high enough quality to be considered for the
award (Pers. Comm.). So while four decades have passed since M#hoe and Elbert
38
I was co-chair of the Hawai‘i Academy of Recording Arts Haku Mele committee, which
oversees the selection of judges and balloting for the award, in 2009.
149
voiced their concerns regarding the “simple and artless” nature of some mele written
in that era, some progress has clearly been made, and more is clearly needed. Reichel
remains optimistic, and expresses the opinion that the younger haku mele of today are
better prepared than those whose works were scrutinised in the late twentieth century:
I think no matter what, we’re in a good place. I think we’re in a better place
than we were twenty years ago, and so again the challenge for us is finding
that fine line between growth and utilizing what we have already and
making sure that it remains a certain way, yet at the same time step out of
the box. (2008)
Conclusion
In this chapter I have examined the role of the individual and perceptions of
authority in Hawaiian language composition by examining Machado’s composition
and recording of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe” and discussions with other haku mele
regarding Lena, this mele, and other composers, compositions and recordings.
Machado’s command of the Hawaiian language enabled her to compose and perform
mele that were appreciated in her time, and continue to be recognised as exceptional.
One of the fundamental differences between historians of Western music and
ethnomusicologists has been the former’s focus on individual performers, while the
latter have historically been focused on groups, communities and larger populations.
Bruno Nettl adds that by examining the exceptional, we identify and privilege “the
musical ideal in composition and performance” (Nettl 2005, 172-173). Likewise,
linguists have predominantly focused on languages and language communities,
although some linguistic anthropologists have “repeatedly stressed the importance of
approaching language from the perspective of the individuals as well as the social”
(Johnstone 2000, 408-409).
From a Hawaiian cultural perspective, the individual is viewed as “being
placed in time at the proper point of his genealogy and in his moment in history”
150
(Charlot 2005, 273). While this is not unique to Hawaiian culture, genealogy’s
priority to Hawaiians and “how it was shaped and formulated what was worth
knowing” is notable (Meyer 2003, 143-144). However, the recognition of the
individual’s place in the genealogical continuum did not result in a homogeneity or
suppression of creativity–“Hawaiians were individualistic, differences and variations
were common” (Charlot 2005, 85). This research and its findings do not remove the
individual from his place in Hawaiian society and this genealogical continuum;
however, it acknowledges the role that the individual and perceptions of their
authority have on the development of musical culture.
Several participants in this research indicated that their song selections for this
research project were influenced by the authoritative nature of certain individuals,
such as Machado, Almeida, and Kanahele. These hoa k!k"k!k" first identified the
authoritative composer or performer, and then selected a mele from their
compositions or recorded performances. Among the participants in this research, only
Beniamina was a native speaker, and her perceived status as an authoritative figure in
Hawaiian composition was well discussed in this research. Some participants
acknowledged the language shortcomings of some elder, non-native performers, yet
their performance of incorrect texts or pronunciation errors did not detract from the
perception of authority of these individuals. On the other hand, Mahi Beamer was
cited by several hoa k!k"k!k" as an example of a non-native speaker whose
pronunciation of Hawaiian was praised and is considered authoritative.
In spite of his relative youth, Kanaka!ole has demonstrated his foundation of
cultural knowledge sufficiently enough that Reichel accepts Kanaka‘ole’s
innovations, and Reichel is not overly critical of those times that he believes that
Kanaka!ole’s innovations may have been a bit too far “out of the box” (Reichel 2008).
151
The dynamics of this negotiation between innovation and adherence to tradition is
very personal and will vary from individual to individual, and are also representative
of the “formative processes” of music that Rice addressed in his proposed model for
ethnomusicology (1987, 469-488).
It is clear from my analysis of these k!k"k!k" sessions that while status as a
native speaker and k!puna do influence perceptions of authenticity among Hawaiian
composers, it is not the only means by which individuals may be perceived as
cognitive authorities. Younger composers such as Kanaka!ole, Pata and Kahaunaele
have garnered praise for their compositions, including having their mele honoured
with the Haku Mele award at the annual N# H$k% Hanohano Awards. While the
innovations of composers and performers such as Machado and those of her
generation were widely accepted, some younger individuals have and continue to face
criticism and resistance to their innovations, while others have achieved recognition
and acceptance. Hawaiians have historically displayed a tolerance for and acceptance
of a variety of traditions with contradictory positions (Charlot 2005, 497), and there is
no binary standard in which one is considered authoritative and the other is not
(Wong 1999, 100). The results of this research demonstrate that while being a native
speaker or elder may enhance perceptions of authority, such recognition is achievable
by younger composers as well.
152
Chapter 5: Ka Noʻonoʻo – Hawaiian Conceptualization
and Perspective
During the summer of 2001 in Kea‘au on Hawai!i Island, Dr. Bernice
McCarthy taught her 4MAT (pronounced “format”) curriculum development and
teaching pedagogy to a group of native Hawaiian educators and others who taught
native Hawaiian students. I was a member of this group. At one point in the middle of
a lecture, McCarthy stopped and asked us how we felt about our progress. A number
of individuals raised their hands and expressed how they had felt up to that point. I
raised my hand and compared the class to skydiving for the first time. I felt
apprehensive as the class began, as I would be in an airplane while preparing to
skydive. I described the feeling at the beginning the classes and our early lessons as
exhilarating as the free fall after jumping out of the plane. I added that at that point I
was still waiting to feel the reassuring tug of the cords when the parachute opened,
and anticipated landing softly on the ground when the classes completed. After
listening to all of the responses, McCarthy commented that she had never encountered
a group of people who used metaphor so extensively and richly in conversation as
Hawaiians did. (McCarthy, Pers. Comm., 2001). While I cannot speak for the other
attendees in her class, I had not recognised at the time that I or any other participant
was speaking in metaphor.
Introduction
In this chapter I will discuss the place of the conceptualization in haku mele,
and how the use of metaphor in them expresses a Hawaiian perspective of the world. I
will begin by examining and discussing Lincoln’s composition “Ku!u Lei L&lia”, the
two recordings that he made of this composition during his lifetime, and significant
153
elements within the composition that this research identified and discussed. I will
first, provide a biographical essay of Lincoln’s life, and a historical, contextual and
musical analysis of “Ku!u Lei L&lia”. Kimura provided many of the insights into this
particular mele, and I expound upon them with the application of metaphor theory and
analysis. I will discuss a number of examples of Hawaiian perspective noted by
Kimura in “Ku‘u Lei L&lia” and the avoidance of negative thought in Hawaiian
compositions. I will also differentiate between the use of metaphor and kaona–a
distinction first noted by Nogelmeier–and the identification, reconstruction, and
interpretation of metaphor. In addition to addressing these themes and topics as they
pertain to discussions about “Ku!u Lei L&lia”, I will also draw upon the discussion of
these themes and others as they arose during discussion of other compositions and
recordings that were selected by the participants in this research.
1
Ku‘u Lei Lïlia
Lyrics and music by Bill Ali‘iloa Lincoln
As performed by Bill Ali‘iloa Lincoln
Voice
&
###
œ œ œ. œ œ
œ œ œ œ
œ
A7
A
11
cŒ
10
A - i - a
i
ka la
-
Œ
‘i
œ œ
˙
œ œ œ
D
12
A
13
Ho - no - ma - ka
‘u
-
16
17
18
19
. 15œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
˙
œ
#
## œ . œ œ œ
œ œ œ‰ Œ œ œ
œ.
Ó Ó Ó
Œ
J
&
B7
E7
B7 E7
A
A
14
ke
‘a la li
-
li - a
ho ‘o - he- no - po -
œ œ œ œ
### Œ œ œ œ . œ
œ Œ
&
A
A7
20
21
A - i - a
Œ
E7
œ œ ˙
A
25
Ke ‘a - la
li
-
ho - ‘o-he - no - po
li- a
.
### œ œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ
Œ
& Œ
A7
A
30
31
Ma - i ku - hi ma - i
‘o - e
D
32
Œ
œ
œœœ
˙
A
23
Ho - no - ma - ka
26
œ œœ
œ œ œ œ 27œ
œ
œ
.
œ
œ
#
#
œœ œ Œ
& # Œ
B7
24
.
œ œ œ
D
22
ka la - ‘i
i
li
li
-
œ. œ œ œ
E ka I - nu
œ
-
˙
B7 E7
28
&
###
&
###
A
Œ
44
Œ
a-u
ke ku
œ œ œ œ
He- ku - pu - a
-
pu - a
œ. œ œ œ œ
A7
41
-
no
a- u
œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ
B7
45
No ka ma - ka - ni
a - nu
E7
46
Œ
42
Œ
-
œ. œ œ œ
D
Œ
-
lo
No ke ka - i
œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙
A
47
a - he Hu - lu - ma
-
no
Ó Ó
Ó
œ. œ œ œ
œœ œ
wa
i
˙
A
ki - a - ‘i
A
29
A
B7 E7
35
‘O
40
E7
‘u
33
œ . œ œ . 36 œ œ œ 37œ œ œ . œ œ
.
œ
œ
#
œ œ Œ œ.
#
œ
œœ œ
& # Œ œ.
B7
34
3
38
ko
A
Ó Ó Ó
39
œ œ œ œ
Œ
A
43
-
lo
˙
a
B7 E7
48
Ó
A
49
Ó Ó
1
Ku‘u Lei Lïlia
2
### Œ œ œ œ
&
A
59
œ œ œ
œ œ
A7
60
‘A - ka - hi
a
li - ‘a
œ œ œ
œ
Œ
œ œ œ œ
˙
D
A
61
Ko - ‘u - ma
62
-
na
‘o
65
66
67
œ œœœ
.
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
˙
œ
#
œ œ
## œ œ œ œ
œ.
œ
Ó
Œ
‰
Œ
&
B7
63
&
###
A
69
Œ
E7
64
E
ku - i
ku ‘u
œ œ œ
œ
pu - a
‘i
-
A7
œ œ œ œ œ
70
Ha - ‘i - na
B7
a
B7
A
pu - a me
D
li
-
a
Œ
a - na ka - pu
73
74
75
76
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
.
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œœœ ˙
#
œ
##
Œ
‰
Œ
‰
&
Ke ‘a - la
&
###
&
###
A
79
Œ
83
Œ
li
œ œ œ
-
li - a
œ
œ œ œ œ œ
A7
80
Ha - ‘i - na
‘i
-
a
œ œ œ œ œœœœ œ
B7
84
Ke ‘a - la
li
-
li - a
A
ho - ‘o- he - no
E7
85
‰Œ
-
Œ
a - na ka - pu
œ. œ œ œ œ
ho - ‘o- he - no
A
86
-
‰
œœœ ˙
po - li
Ó Ó
68
œ œ œ
˙
A
- a
B7 E7
˙
77
Ó
na.
A
78
Ó
Ó
œ œ œ
˙
œ œ œ œ
D
A
72
po - li
81
ma - i
.
œ œ œ œ
71
ma - i
E7
-
E7
A
82
-
˙
B7
87
-
a
E7
Ó
na.
A
88
Ó Ó
156
Overview of “Ku‘u Lei Līlia”
Lincoln copyrighted “Ku!u Lei L&lia” in 1936, although the exact year in
which it was composed is unknown. The specific circumstances and individuals for
whom it was composed are also unknown. The liner notes that accompany the
historical anthology release Bill Ali#iloa Lincoln - Hawai#i’s Falsetto Poet suggest
that Lincoln composed it to encourage a reluctant sweetheart–the pua l&lia (lily). He
warns her that he may be tempted by another woman, depicted as the pua m%lia
(plumeria flower) (Lincoln 2007; 1938, 6). Kimura offers a different interpretation–he
believes that the person whose sentiments are being expressed in the mele–whether
the individual whose thoughts are expressed within it is Lincoln himself or someone
else–is telling his sweetheart that he is not prepared to commit to a life with her alone,
and that he desires to share the company of another. The reasons that Kimura cites for
his interpretation of this mele will be discussed in this chapter.
Lincoln recorded “Ku!u Lei L&lia” at least twice during his life–the first in
1938 on the Hawaiian Transcription Productions label, and the second in 1945 on the
Bell label (Lincoln 2007; 1938, 6). Almeida and Pukui published the lyrics of this
mele and others composed by Lincoln in his book Na Mele Aloha (1946, 26). Kimura
selected the 1945 version of “Ku!u Lei L&lia” for us to listen to and discuss. “Ku!u Lei
L&lia” is classified as a hula ku#i because of its strophic format. It contains five verses
of eight measures each, with a two measure vamp between each verse. The 1945
recording chosen by Kimura was recorded in the key of A, while the 1938 version
was recorded in G. The melody of the verse in the 1945 recording ranges from E4 to
C#5. Although the melodic range is not broad, Lincoln does use the ha#i vocal
technique by using intervallic leaps of a fifth (from E4 to B4) in the final two
measures of each verse. Lincoln’s use of secondary dominant chords (the II7, V7, I
157
progression) within the verse using is also characteristic of this era. The end of each
verse includes a two bar vamp or turnaround using the progression II7, V7, I cadential
progression that is characteristic of hula ku#i performances and can also be heard in
“Mai Lohilohi Mai ‘Oe” and “Paniau”.
Lincoln’s 1945 recording of “Ku!u Lei L&lia” begins with an eight-measure
introduction featuring steel guitar. Melodically, the instrumental performance is
similar to the melody performed vocally throughout the song, with some minor
variations and adornments. Lincoln sings unaccompanied by vocal harmonies in his
first performance of the first verse, and accompanied by male and female vocalists
who sing in harmony with him during its second performance. He sings
unaccompanied in second verse, and is again accompanied by male and female
vocalists in the third verse. After the third verse the steel guitar solos for eight bars,
again performing a melody that is similar to Lincoln’s lead vocal, but with slightly
more melodic variation than that which is heard in the introduction. Lincoln sings the
fourth verse unaccompanied by vocal harmony, and is again accompanied by male
and female vocalists for both performances of the fifth and final verse. Guitar,
acoustic bass, and steel guitar support the vocals throughout the vocal performance.
The total length of his recorded performance of this mele is three minutes and one
second.
The text of the mele opens with Aia i ka la#i o Honomaka#u (‘There in the
tranquillity of Honomaka!u’), which is consistent with the compositional practice of
introducing the subject of the mele in a broad and general way by identifying where
the story takes place. The second line–ke #ala l&lia ho#oheno poli (‘the fragrance of
the lily which delights the bosom’)–introduces the subject for whom the mele was
written–an individual represented metaphorically by the lily flower. Verses two
158
through four describe an exchange between these two individuals in which they
express their feelings for each other, and of the central character’s feelings for another
individual. The final verse opens with Ha#ina #ia mai ana ka puana (‘the refrain is
told’). Phrases like this are common in hula ku#i, most often summarise important
points of the previous verses, and inform the listener that the performance of the mele
is concluding. The second line of the final verse restates the second line of the first
verse by once again identifying the subject of the mele–the fragrance of the lily
flower.
The recording, instrumentation and musical performance of “Ku‘u Lei L&lia”
is representative of what is now commonly referred to as the “traditional” Hawaiian
music of the era in which it originated (1938 for Lincoln’s original recording and
1945 for the recording used during my conversation with Kimura). I could identify
only one other recording of this song, by H$k%lani Meatonga & Her Na Leo O
Punahele; however, I was unable to locate a copy of this recording.
Composer Biography: Bill Ali‘iloa Lincoln
Lincoln was born on March 21, 1911 in the Kohala District of Hawai!i Island.
He was one of fifteen children born to cattle rancher Lawrence William Lincoln and
his wife Abigail. He grew up working as a paniolo, and formed his own band after
graduating from high school in 1931. He later moved to O!ahu where he began
performing in nightclubs and became a protégé of Almeida, who showcased Lincoln’s
voice on his show on radio station KGU. While he performed in a male tenor voice
earlier in his career, he was inspired by Machado and George Ka!inapau to learn leo
ki#eki#e, a style which comprises much of his later work (Board of Governors,
Hawai‘i Academy of Recording Arts 2005, 1). Lincoln was a native speaker of
Hawaiian who was adamant about preserving the proper pronunciation of Hawaiian
159
lyrics. Among his better-known compositions are “Kawaihae Hula”, “Pua Be Still”,
“Nani Lawa!i”, “Halema!uma!u”, and “Pua !Iliahi”. Lincoln died in Honolulu in 1989
at the age of 78, and was posthumously inducted into the Hawaiian music Hall of
Fame in 2005 (Ely 2009a, 1).
A Matter Of Perspective
During my discussion with De Silva, he noted the difficulty of deciphering
some of the pronunciations and interpreting the meaning in Almeida’s recording of
“‘O Ko‘u Aloha I# ‘Oe”. I asked him if the ambiguity added to his interest in the
composition and recording, and if he would be less interested in it if the meanings
were clearer:
That’s a really interesting question, because I think that part of the
fascination for me in studying all of this is because we don’t have the
straight-from-the-horse’s-mouth, but you know, there’s a whole other
element to that. Because when people ask me to explain my stuff, as
carefully as I try to explain it, there’s always something that I either leave
out on purpose, or I forget to tell, or that I don’t bring up, because there is
also a huge amount of ambiguity in what I’m trying to express as well. And
the literal this means this sometimes when I’m explaining to kids I just try
to keep it very simple. Sometimes if I’m explaining the same song to
someone that I have a feeling for, a trust, then I go into more of the… so I
would wonder what, even if I did get straight from the man himself what
this is all about, you would also have to say, well… (2008)
While metaphor use is not a required element of Hawaiian poetry, its use is
very widespread, and arguably more prevalent that direct expression. The effective
use of metaphor influences perceptions of compositional authenticity or composer
authority, whether or not the listener’s perceptions are accurate. While there are
composers such as Beamer who could create stylised, poetic compositions using more
direct expression of language, skill with representation of people and events through
metaphor is valued. While much Hawaiian cultural knowledge and perspective has
been lost, an examination and understanding of mele written by native composers can
160
help contemporary composers to reconstruct metaphors and create new ones that
reflect a Hawaiian perspective. Kimura explains how he approaches modern Hawaiian
language poetic composition from a Hawaiian perspective using metaphor:
#Ae, he mea pa#akik&, ak", e like me ka#u i haku ai no “E Pili Mai”. Ki#i au
i k%l" mana#o kahiko no Makana–k%l" #$ahi #ana ma ka pali. Ak",
maopopo ia#u pono e haku me ka pili o ka leo me ka p$#aiapili nui, ak"
#ano ho#ololi iki #ia. Komo na#e ka mana#o. In" ho#i hou i ka mana#o o ke
ahi o Makana, i k%l" hana ku#una kahiko, a laila ho#opili #ia me n" ipo. No
laila, hiki ke ki#i #ia ka mea kahiko a ho#ohou #ia no k%ia w". Ka mea mua
na#e, pono e #ike he aha k%l" mau mea kahiko a pa#a ma kou lima, lako ma
kou lima, a ma ka w" e pono ai e haku ai ma k"u mele. Aia i laila. Ka
ho#omaopopo #ana. Pono e kama#"ina ka mana#o. Hiki. Ak", pa#akik&.
K%l" m"hele o ke k&nohinohi, m%iwi mo#omeheu. He inoa a #o ia kekahi, a
nui n" #ano o ka m%iwi k&nohinohi, #a#ole inoa makani, inoa ua wale n$.
He mau #ano o k%l" m%iwi. (2009).
Yes, it is hard, but like I did when I composed “E Pili Mai”. I took that old
idea about Makana–that hurling of fire from the cliff. But, I knew I need to
compose the melody with this important situation, but it changed just a
little bit. The thought is still in there. You return to the thought of the fire
of Makana, in that traditional practice, and then relate it to the sweetheart.
So you can take something old and make it new for today. But first you
need to know what those old things are and make sure they firmly grasped
in your hand so that your hands are well supplied, and when you are ready
to compose your song. It is there. Remembering it. You need to be familiar
with the thought. You can. But it is hard. That part is of the k&nohinohi and
the mo#omeheu poetic devices. The names are one part of it, and there are
many kinds of k&nohinohi poetic devices, not just wind names and rain
names only. There are many of that kind of poetic device.
Kimura’s emphasis on mele reflecting a Hawaiian perception and thought is a
common theme in his haku mele class at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, and he
frequently focuses on this aspect of Hawaiian poetic composition when I ask him to
perform paka my own mele. While he is sometimes characterised as a staunch
traditionalist, Kimura’s approach is to know older practices well enough so that they
may be applied to modern contexts, as he has clearly done in his own compositions.
“Ka Manu” is a mele of unknown authorship from the 19th century. It is
sometimes attributed to N#makelua; however, she has stated that she learned the song
161
from her older brother who also taught her slack key guitar. It is a story of unrequited
love between two individuals: a man (the composer) and his sweetheart (represented
metaphorically as the manu–a bird). Kamakahi noted:
This is probably the saddest song that I’ve ever sung, because, this
loneliness, this man–it must have ate at him every year of his life, because
he didn’t, well, they didn’t get together, you know. And so the ending, we
say goodbye with great pain–it’s exactly how this song feels. And to me I
think probably the worse thing that a human being can experience is a loss
of something that is very, very precious, that’s loved, and not being able to
grab onto that and become man and wife, or a companion. And he regrets it
at the end of his years. It’s like, I wish I was man enough to have done the
stuff that I was supposed to do, but it’s too late, and to have him tell his
story, is a lesson for us. (2009)
De Silva also chose “Ka Manu” as one of the mele that he wished to discuss.
While he agrees with Kamakahi that it expresses great sadness, he also believes that
older compositions do not focus on the negative aspects exclusively:
And then I think the sentiment of the song strikes me as so admirable too,
because it’s not, with all of the sorrow that’s contained in the song, it still
isn’t… what do I want to say? When you have a sad song in contemporary
Hawaiian music and poetry, you often feel as though the writer and singer
are trying to wring you, just grab you and wring you and really over-make,
make the point way too powerfully that this is a sad song and that you
should be sad, and everything is orchestrated to that. And I resent being led
along by the nose with that kind of delivery and performance. And this is
so much more subtle to me and a sense of in spite of the sorrow there’s a
whole lot, there are expressions here that are pure joy. (2008)
Both Kamakahi and De Silva draw comparisons between “Ka Manu” and the
story of Romeo and Juliet. Kamakahi notes that a major difference is that Romeo
committed suicide when he thought he had lost his beloved (2009). De Silva expands
on this, noting that the main character in “Ka Manu” continued on, never married, and
continued to love the woman he could not be with. His expression in “Ka Manu”
recognised the love that the two individuals shared, and did not dwell on the
negativity of their not being able to remain together:
162
The tragedy that you have to commit suicide, is really, I would say, kind of
foreign to our … I’d say for the most part the Hawaiian mode is you
ho‘omau [continue] … They never marry, according to Auntie Alice, but
that doesn’t stop them from continuing. … This is not a song about
sovereignty or a song about the political world that we face, but yet the
strength of character, you go on. This is “Kaulana N# Pua”[39] in a way
because you don’t give up, you don’t despair. (2008)
Though it dates from the 19th century, “Ka Manu” also includes a reference
that clearly indicates an English perspective–the use of the word pu‘uwai (heart).
Pukui notes that the “use of pu#uwai as a centre of emotions (instead of na#au, #$p!,
or loko) is probably a Western concept” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 360). Kimura expands
on the introduction of pu#uwai and how it has become, though repeated use and
acceptance, a Hawaiian concept:
Wala#au p! au no ka hua#$lelo pu#uwai, no ka mea i ke au kahiko #a#ole
k%l" ka #$lelo, ho#ohana #ia ka #$lelo manawa a i #ole, kekahi mea, poli
paha. Ka pu#uwai, he mana#o hou mai ka Haole mai, aia n$ na#e, ua hele
k%l" mana#o Haole kohu mea lawe h"nai #ia a lilo he mana#o Hawai#i
kekahi, #oiai ua loa#a. Ua loa#a k%l" mana#o like ma ka #$lelo Hawai#i, #o
ia ho#i ka manawa. Ak", k%ia manawa ho#ohana #ia ka hua#$lelo pu#uwai.
(2009)
I’ll talk about the word pu#uwai because in the old days you didn’t use that
word, something, poli perhaps. Pu#uwai is a new thought from English,
however, that English thought seems to have been adopted and become a
Hawaiian thought as well, since it is used. There is also a thought like that
in Hawaiian, that is manawa (‘emotions’). But in these times the word
pu#uwai is used.
“Ku!u Lei L&lia” does not contain any references to pu‘uwai, but does contain
a reference to poli in second line of the first verse, which is then repeated in the
second line of the final verse:
V1 & V5, L2: Ke #ala l&lia ho#oheno poli
39
The fragrance of the lily that
delights the heart.
Kaulana Nā Pua (ʻThe Flowers Are Famousʼ), also known as Mele ‘Ai Pōhaku (ʻRockEaterʼs Songʼ) is one of the best known and widely performed Hawaiian patriotic songs.
163
I can offer no insight regarding the reasons why the composer of “Ka Manu”
would have chosen pu#uwai over poli or any other Hawaiian term, nor do intend my
discussion of this usage to be a criticism of that choice. It is simply reflective of the
language use of the time in which the mele was composed, and the haku mele
exercising his poetic license while composing it. Nogelmeier credits Kimura with
teaching him that some elements of nature, such as poli, may be used metaphorically
references to human physiology:
And if you know the kupukupu fern, which always arcs, right? I hadn’t
thought of that as the umauma (chest). As the face of the … of course it’s
the face of the kupukupu. And it was Larry [Kimura] who taught me that
every tree has front and a back, and so it kind of connects to that image of,
of course, there’s an alo (front) and kua (back), and again you’re layering
imagery. (2009)
Because of the use of poli in “Ku‘u Lei L&lia” and Nogelmeier’s recollection
of Kimura’s earlier comments, I asked Kimura about the use of human and animal
characteristics, such as poli (front) and kua (back) to describe objects in nature. As an
example, I cited Kamakahi’s use of i ka poli o Moloka#i (in the bosom of Moloka‘i) in
his composition “Wahine !Ilikea”:
N"n" #ia ka poli ma ke alo mai. Pono e #ano maopopo e like ma ka #"ina,
ke kuahiwi, e like me Hualalai. #'lelo #ia ma k%l" mele #o “Pu#u
Wa#awa#a”, hi#ipoli #ia maila e Hualalai. No Pu#u Wa#awa#a. No laila, #o
Pu#u Wa#awa#a k%l" pu#u, aia i ka poli, kahi e hi#ipoli #ia ai a i #ole e
hi#ipoli #ia nei. No laila, hiki ke #ike ma ke kuana#ike Hawai#i, #o ka #ao#ao
alo #o Hualalai ma ka #ao#ao Kona. Ka #ao#ao kua, aia paha ma kekahi
#ao#ao #eko#a, #o ia ho#i, #o wai k%l" #"ina, #o Ka#! m" paha. Maunaloa
m". E like me Maunakea, h&meni #ia ke alo o Maunakea, aia i Waimea,
k%l" huli #o Waimea. K%ia paha ke kua, ma Hilo nei, k"ua e n"n" nei, i uka
nei. In" komo ka manawa #o ka poli, pono e n"n" #ia ma hea ke kua, ma
hea paha ke alo. (2009)
The bosom is seen on the front. You need to kind of understand that like on
the land, the mountain, like Hualalai. It is said in this song “Pu!u
Wa!awa!a”, hi#ipoli #ia maila e Hualalai. For Pu!u Wa!awa!a. So Pu!u
Wa!awa!a, that hill, it is in the bosom, a place where it is born in the
bosom. So, you can see from the Hawaiian perspective, the face of Hualalai
is on the Kona side. The back side, it is perhaps on the opposite side, what
164
is that place, Ka!% perhaps. Maunaloa and those places. Like Maunakea, it
is sung that the face of Maunakea is in Waimea, that area of Waimea. This
is perhaps the back, here in Hilo, what we are looking at, upland here. If the
thought of the bosom comes in, you need to look where the back is, where
perhaps is the front.
When I proposed that perhaps the designation of front and back was one of
perspective–based on the individual’s location or place of birth–Kimura disagreed:
Ua pa#a paha mai ka w" kahiko mai. #A#ole hiki i k%ia l", #$lelo au #o k%ia
ke alo o Maunakea, a laila, #"p$p$, #$lelo au #o ia ke kua. #A#ole hiki me
k%l" e like me kou makemake. Ko#u mana#o, ua pa#a mua paha, mai ka
w" kahiko mai. Ma hea ke alo? #'lelo pinepine au, no ka mea, no ka mea
#aka#aka ka po#e ia#u, #$, #o #oe no Waimea, #o ia ke kumu i #$lelo ai #o ia
ke alo i" #oukou, e n"n" mai ana i" #oukou. #'lelo au, #ae, no ka mea e
huli ana kona kua i ka makani, ka #ao#ao Ko#olau. In" he kanaka #oe,
#a#ole #oe e huli ana i kou alo i ka ua a me ka makani, ho#ohuli #oe– ma
laila kou alo a me kou kua. (2009)
It was probably established from the old times. We can’t today… I say that
this is the front of Maunakea, and then, tomorrow, this is the back. You
can’t do that just as you like. I think it was established in the old days.
Where is the front? I frequently say, because people laugh at me and say,
oh, you’re from Waimea, that is why you say it is the front to you folks,
looking at you folks. I say, yes, because its back is facing the wind, the
Ko!olau [windward] side. If you are a person, you aren’t going to turn your
front to the wind, you’ll turn–that is where your front and back are.
Kimura’s insights into this perspective were revealing. At the time of our
conversation, I had been composing a new mele, and considered using poli describe
the Hilo side of Hawai‘i Island. Kimura’s understanding of this use and perspective
may be idiosyncratic or based on the mele and other literary sources that he is familiar
with. A more extensive search of the corpus of mele and literature is warranted, and
may confirm Kimura’s interpretation or reveal a broader use of the term poli to
describe places.
I frequently take new compositions to Kimura to review before I allow them to
be recorded and performed–a process known as paka. In paka, a haku mele will show
a new composition to an experienced haku mele, and is an example of social
165
maintenance in the practice of Hawaiian composition. Nogelmeier believes, based on
written descriptions of paka found in 19th century Hawaiian language newspapers,
that the contemporary practice has become more prescriptive. Students and current
practitioners of haku mele are strongly encouraged to have their songs examined by
more experienced composers, and sometimes criticised if they do not. Nogelmeier
also believes that the process of paka has changed, and that contemporary practice
more often addresses issues of grammar or word choice, where in previous times the
concern was more for correctness of thought, perspective, and avoiding negative
consequences. Nahale-a believes that the term paka is frequently used in an inaccurate
manner today, and suggests that true paka is more accurately a peer-to-peer review of
a composition. He characterises the current process of taking a composition to a more
experienced composer or a teacher as loihape (editing), while acknowledging that this
is his personal interpretation (Pers. Comm). While the elements of paka may have
changed from its earliest documented use, it is still a valuable practice and an example
of the social maintenance of haku mele today.
Tangar$ notes that western and older Hawaiian perspectives sometimes
conflict, and provides two examples from Machado’s composition “Ku!u W# Li!ili!i”.
In the first, Machado recalls a time when she was referred to as a h!p%kole (mucus
nose):
V1, L1:
V1, L2:
V1, L3:
V1, L4:
Ho‘omana‘o a‘ela ala au
I ko‘u w" li‘ili‘i
Kapa ‘ia mai au he h!p%kole
A nui a‘e he wahine u‘i
I am remembering
My youth
When I was called a runny-nosed kid
But I’ve become a beautiful young
woman
Tangar$ believes that this reminiscence is reflective of a Hawaiian perspective
of child-rearing, one that shows affection and not ridicule toward the child:
A #o k%l" hua#$lelo #o h!p%kole, no n" k"naka #ike #ole i n" ku#una #ohana
Hawai#i, no#ono#o l"kou #a#ole ia he hua#$lelo maika#i ma hope no#ono#o
166
n" keiki, #a#ole maika#i kona no#ono#ono nona iho. But no ka Hawai#i, k%l"
h!p%kole, he aloha k%l", a he pale, he pale aloha k%l". P%l" n$ m"kou ma
ko#u #ohana, ma ka #ao#ao Hawai#i a me ka #ao#ao Pilipino. He #ano #$lelo
ho#ohenehene, i mea i pale ke keiki i ka hiki #ana mai o ka #ino, i hala #% ka
#ino ma ka #ao#ao, #a#ole mea e… he hana ku#una k%ia. #A#ole ia, #a#ole
m"kou mea e ho#ohanohano i ke keiki i waena o n" lehulehu. He mea k%l"
no ka #ohana pono#&. Ma waho a#e, a hiki i k%ia l", hele mai kekahi
malihini n"n" i ka#u mau kamali#i a #$lelo “kiuke k%ia!” Ka#u, “‘" … he
h!p%kole.” A no#ono#o l"kou, “why are you calling them mucus nose?”
(2008)
And that word h!p%kole, for all kinds of people who don’t know traditional
Hawaiian families, they think that it is not a good word because they think
that the child will not think well of himself or herself. But for Hawaiians,
that word, h!p%kole, it is a display of affection, a protection, a loving
protection. That is how we are in my family, the Hawaiian side and the
Filipino side. It is a teasing word, so that the child is protected from bad
things, that the bad things will pass to the side, nothing will … it is a
traditional act. It’s not … we don’t praise our children in front of people. It
is something for the family itself. Beyond that, until today, some strangers
see my children and say “cute!”, but I say “a h!p%kole”. And they think,
“why are you calling them mucus nose?”
Tangar$ notes that Machado travelled around the world; yet carried with her
and performed that loving expression from her grandmother in her song wherever she
performed. The second example that he provides is from the second verse of “Ku!u
W# Li!ili!i”, which describes the feeding of children by their grandparents:
V2, L1:
V2, L2:
V2, L3:
V2, L4:
H"nai #ia a nui pu#ipu#i
I ka nui miki #ai a T!t!
#Ai a m"#ona, inu a kena
Ke aloha ia o n" k!puna
I was raised to perfection
Under the loving care of my T%t%
Who looked after my every need
Such is the love of grandparents
Tangaro uses the verse to support his contention that, from a Hawaiian
viewpoint, you cannot overfeed the children–you feed them until they are plump, as is
the practice in his own family. This, he argues, is a sign of affection.
As western concepts and technologies arrived in Hawai!i, they were also
integrated into the Hawaiian conceptual system and used metaphorically. Pata
discusses the mele “Kuhiau”, whose fourth verse contains a metaphorical comparison
167
of the arrival of a Christian missionary’s wife on Kaua!i with the vessel on which she
arrived:
V4, L1: Ka hoe uli k"papa o luna
The rudder juts out above
V4, L2: Ua lewa lalo, #oni pono #ole The bottom sways unsteadily
Pata explains his understanding of these lines that compare her unpleasant
voice, large frame and inelegant gait were expressed by comparing those
characteristics to the unsteady boat upon which she arrived:
He moku hemahema n$ k%ia, lewa o lalo, #oni pono #ole. #O ia n$ ka nui o
k%ia wahine, #ano hemahema #o ia ke puka aku. A #o kona leo #a#ole i
#olu#olu ke lohe aku. #'lelo #ia no k%ia #o ka hoe uli k"papa o luna, na
m"kou e h&meni, u&u& ka papa hele o luna, ua lewa o lalo #oni pono #ole.
P%l" n$ kona holo #ana. Ukiuki kona leo. (2008)
This boat, it was poorly built–the bottom swayed and it moved unsteadily.
That was the size of this woman–she moved awkwardly when she exited.
And her voice was not pleasant to listen to. It is said that this is ka hoe uli
k"papa o luna [‘the steering paddle that taps above’], we sing !u&#u& ka
papa hele o luna, ua lewa #o lalo #oni pono #ole [‘the upper deck squeaks,
the bottom moves unsteadily’]. That was how she moved. Her voice was
irritating.
While it is possible that this reference was borrowed from another mele or
historical source, I have been able to locate such source. The composer observed and
identified the similarities in between the woman’s awkward movements and those of
the boat on which she arrived on Kaua‘i. The composer’s use of hoe uli (steering
paddle) is likely a metaphoric representation of her tongue. While such a construction
and expression may not be unique to a Hawaiian perspective, it clearly is
representative of one.
The perspectives, their similarities and contrasts that are discussed in this
section are intended to provide examples of Hawaiian conceptualization or worldview
that may be expressed in mele. It is not my intent to privilege those elements that
likely represent a pre-contact origination, such as the use na#au or poli over the
introduced concept of pu#uwai. Such choices are the prerogative of the composer,
168
though I believe that such a choice should reflect an understanding of the distinction. I
recall an instance several years ago when a mele I gave to Kimura to paka contained
the word pu‘uwai, and he suggested that I change it to poli. When I inquired as to why
he recommended that I use poli in that situation, he simply replied that it was more
appropriate given the context and the language use in the rest of the mele, but that the
choice to use either was mine alone to make.
Avoiding Negative Thought
The choice of words in Hawaiian poetry is of paramount importance, and this
topic is explored in greater depth in Chapter 6. In this section, I will examine how
many of the participants in this research discussed the importance of avoiding
expressions of negativity in compositions. Kamakahi recalls his conversations with
Pukui and N#makelua and their emphasising the importance of avoiding words with
negative connotations in composition:
The one thing I learned, in studying with Kawena, T%t% Kawena [Pukui],
and Auntie Alice [N#makelua] was you always have to be aware of the
word being used in the context so that it was never a negative. That’s a
challenge. For a good example, when you use any reference to like
sleeping, the poetic side of sleeping is death. So it has a negative
connotation, so you have to watch how you use the word moe or hiamoe.
These–even though they mean to go to sleep–but poetically it meant a
person’s passing. (2009)
Several #$lelo no#eau describe the power inherent to the language: I ka #$lelo
n$ ke ola, i ka #$lelo n$ ka make (in the language there is life, in the language there is
death) (Pukui 1983, 129) is of the best known that address the power of the language
and the inherent dangers of its misuse. Pukui documented the significance of
Hawaiian composition, the training given to individuals, and the importance of word
selection, as “carelessness in the choice of words might result in death for the
composer or the person for whom it was composed.” She also recalled the sudden
169
death of a woman who had used the word lilo (to be taken away) in an inappropriate
manner in a chant that she had composed (1949, 247). In some cases, the
inappropriateness of using a particular word is not evident from its literal meaning,
but an understanding of its cultural implications. For example, Elbert and Mahoe note
that mai#a (banana) is not used in love songs because it is considered an omen of
misfortunate and defeat (1970, 23).
Beniamina describes her experiences in the 1980s with a young physician who
had recently graduated from medical school and began to work with other recent
medical school graduates to evaluate health issues in the Ni!ihau community. Upon
observing the eating habits of members of the community, he predicted that if they
continued to eat in the manner that he observed they would begin to experience
serious health problems by the time they reached 40 years old. He then solicited
Beniamina’s help in order to compose a mele to communicate his concerns to the
community, and shared a draft of his English language song with her. The physician’s
thoughts focused on the negative outcomes that he believed would occur if the
members of the Ni!ihau community continued to practise what he characterised as
unhealthy lifestyles. Beniamina found his perspective to be inappropriate to include in
a mele:
Hele mai l"kou i ka makahiki mua ho#omaka #o ia e hana i k%ia, haku #o ia
i ka pauk! - the flowers of Hawai!i are dying, the land will be barren.
Ikaika loa, k"lele loa ma ka #ao#ao negative. A m"kou po#e Ni#ihau,
positive loa. K"kau #o ia i k%ia mau mea ma ka #$lelo Haole. A ha#i #o ia
ia#u, I think we better make a song of this. I ain’t going to make a song out
of this negative thing. I want some things to be happy. Now that… a ha#i
au i k%ia, pono #oe e hui me ko#u m"m", #o ia, OK. Hui #o ia me ko#u
m"m" i ka w" mua a ua pa#a loa kona waha. Ho#omaka #o M"m" e
heluhelu i k%ia no#ono#o, me ka n"n" i k"na #$lelo. N"n" i" Hiram,
because you’re here, darling, ko#u m"m", you will change this, yeah? The
flowers won’t be dying. The flowers will be blooming. Yeah? Ho#$la
L"hui Hawai#i. And the land will not be barren - because of your
knowledge it will flourish. (2009)
170
They came in that first year, and he wrote the verse–the flowers of Hawai!i
are dying, the land will be barren. That was very strong, it emphasised the
negative side. And we Ni!ihau people are very positive. He wrote this in
English. And he says to me, I think we better make a song out of this. I
ain’t going to make a song out of this negative thing. I want some things to
be happy. He met with my mother and from the beginning his mouth was
shut. My mother began to read his thoughts, looking at his words. She
looked at Hiram and said, because you’re here, darling, my mother, you
will change this, yeah? The flowers won’t be dying. The flowers will be
blooming. Yeah? Ho#$la L"hui Hawai#i. And the land will not be barren because of your knowledge it will flourish.
This conversation led to Beniamina composing “Ho!$la L#hui Hawai!i”, for
which she was honoured with the Haku Mele award at the 1987 N# H$k% Hanohano
Awards:
V1, L1: N# pua u!i, u!i maika!i
V1, L2: Ikaika i ka l#
The beautiful flowers, very beautiful
Strengthened in the sun
V2, L1: N" lau nani, nani ke #ike
The beautiful leaves, beautiful when
seen
In the enduring love
V2, L2: I ke aloha mau n$
Ch, L1: Ke #ala o n" pua ke honi #oe The fragrance of the flowers you smell
Ch, L2: Nani ka #"ina, holo ke aloha The land is beautiful and love flows
V3, L1: #Aka hau#oli n" kamali#i
V3, L2: Ke hui like nei n$
The children smile happily
In companionship
V4, L1: K$kua aloha m"lama pono Loving help to care properly
V4, L2: L$kahi n" pu#uwai
One in heart
V5, L1: Na ke aloha o ke Akua
V5, L2: E kia#i alaka#i
The love of God
Will guide and protect
V6, L1: Ho#omaika#i ho#$la l"hui
Hawai‘i
V6, L2: I ola mau n" pua
Bless and preserve the Hawaiian race
So that all of the flowers will live
In this composition she took the dire situation that the young physician had
predicted, and reoriented it to reflect a positive perspective and outlook in which
native Hawaiians were flourishing through the adoption of healthy lifestyles. “Ho!$la
L#hui Hawai!i” also became the name of an organisation on Kaua‘i whose mission is
171
“to enhance the health and wellness of our community, with an emphasis on culturally
appropriate services for Native Hawaiians” (Ho‘$la L#hui Hawai‘i 2009, 1).
While Beniamina characterised her experience with this young physician as
paka, a negative experience can also be the source of inspiration for a song that can be
uplifting. Nogelmeier described how one of his better-known compositions, ”Lei
Hali‘a” came about as a result of a very negative experience, and how he was able to
turn it into a positive expression:
I used to live down Kahuiki, they had just cut down a five story high
tamarind tree that was, had to have been a hundred and some years old, that
had defined my life in many ways, because it had hung over my yard,
messed up my garden, affected what I could plant, and it was a real bother.
And yet they cut it down and I was immediately blue. It was like a wall of
my house was ripped out, in a way. And then, in the gap that it left, I
looking out the office window and I realised I’m looking at Kilohana. I had
never … we couldn’t see the mountain from our house, because it was
totally blocked by this giant tree. There was this good thing that came out
of the negatives, and just the playing on the same place that, so the memory
of the tree becomes just that, only memory. But looking for the good parts
of that kind of thing. (2008)
His now-unobstructed view of Kilohana, obscured by the dark, ominous
clouds, is expressed in the final verse of “Lei Hali‘a”
V3, L1:
V3, L2:
V3, L3:
V3, L4:
‘Auamo ‘o Konahuanui
I ke ao h"kumakuma
K! m"hiehie Kilohana
Ua p$ i ke‘ala h&nano %
Konahuanui shoulders the burden
Lifting the dark heavy clouds
That Kilohana in its glory may rise
Mantled in the heady fragrance of h&nano
Kimura once pointed out a negative meaning in a mele that I had composed
and that I requested that he paka for me. In it I used the well-know expression ke kai
la‘i lua (the incredibly/doubly tranquil sea). The term lua has many meanings, and in
this saying it is known to mean “double” or “doubly”, and this was my intent in using
la‘i lua in my composition. However, lua also means “pit”, which is associated with
death in Hawaiian culture. I believe that the phrase was well known and that listeners
would understand the meaning. He countered that this did not matter–the meaning of
172
the word was inherent and must be dealt with. He suggested the addition of the word
‘ole (nothing; without; lacking) at the end of the phrase to counteract the negative
connotations of lua. I did so, resulting with the phrase ke kai la‘i lua ‘ole (the sea
whose tranquillity knows no second). This example and the others I have listed
demonstrate not only the desire to avoid negative expression in mele, but the ability to
use language reverse their meaning and express otherwise negative thoughts in a
positive and culturally acceptable manner.
Differentiating Metaphor and Kaona
Because both metaphor use and kaona will be discussed in depth in this and
subsequent chapters, it is important that their differences be explained. Nogelmeier was
the first participant in this research to articulate the distinction between the two, and the
challenges faced by translators and those who desire to understand the kaona of a song
without the composer’s insights:
[Some people] look at a song like “Ahulili” and think, well, come on, this
is a song about somebody who is jealous and not getting laid and
everybody else is. You know this is apparent. The mistake there is thinking
that that is the kaona. That’s not the kaona, that’s simply the similes that
are in place, that’s the narrative, that’s the real meat of the story. But under
that, the kaona is really the seed from which it all came. The story under
the story, so… Lots of songs - most songs - you don’t have that point of
access, so you can only indicate down below the similes, below the
metaphors trying and say that this might indicate that this, this could be…
And oft times you can tell the flavour of the kaona: this is sarcastic, this is
honorific, this is an expression of love. Sometimes not, so, you’re limited,
and you have to acknowledge that. Translation, especially poetic
translation, is just a challenge. (2009)
This misunderstanding explains Beamer’s frustration with individuals who
inquire about the kaona in his grandmother’s compositions, and their belief that her
use of metaphoric expressions to represent people is kaona:
One other thing people are always asking me about is the kaona. Are you
not ill with kaona? I am. About the kaona in grandma’s songs. And I tried
to explain that grandma … there is no kaona, almost no, no kaona, other
than obvious things when she… alliterating to a person as a something like
173
in “Lei o H#!ena” … he was an orchid person, and he raised these beautiful
orchids. She refers to him as #auhea wale #oe e kanaka u#i, hoapili #oe no
ka pua kaulana. Ua nani makamae i ma#! a ko#i#i i ka Waik$lihilihi, e $ e
ka lei o H"#ena. So he was that, the one for the famous blossoms of
Kea!au. And then… yeah, you are a blossom. You can’t call this kaona, it’s
just poetry. (2009)
Nogelmeier supports Mahi Beamer’s assertion that the use of metaphor does
not always indicate the presence of kaona–“even though they include poetically
adorning metaphor or allusion, [they] are direct expressions” (Pers. Comm.). Kaona
exists when the composer uses metaphor and allusion to express a story in a manner
that obfuscates the origins, characters, actions and meanings. There was unanimity
among the participants that discussed metaphor use and kaona that unless the
composer explicitly explains the meaning and story behind the kaona, “guessing only
makes confusion and one may make the mistake of putting into it some thoughts that
had never occurred to the mind of the composer” (Pukui 1949, 247).
Lacking Lincoln’s personal insights into “Ku!u Lei L&lia”, I cannot
definitively explain his use of metaphor and the underlying kaona. However, by using
Miller’s three steps - recognition, reconstruction and interpretation (discussed in
Chapter 2) – we can examine them more closely and extrapolate possible meanings.
In doing so we may gain insight not only into the mele itself but the atmosphere and
associations of the composer’s time. In some circumstances these steps may be
completed in a single mental act (Miller 1993, 227), an observation supported by
Claire Kramsch:
Native speakers do not feel in their body that words are arbitrary signs. For
the words are part of the natural, physical fabric of their lives. Seen from
the perspective of the user, words and thoughts are one. (1998, 12)
Pukui, N#makelua, Almeida and Machado were native speakers of Hawaiian,
and as such creating and interpreting associations could be done effortlessly. For
174
second language learners, it proves to be a greater challenge. Kahaunaele relates how
individuals frequently approach her to discuss her composition “Ka H#nano O Puna”.
These individuals have shared a wide range of interpretations about its meaning, and
how they have used their own interpretations to create hula choreography for her mele:
No ka#u mele o “Ka H&nano o Puna”, nui n" mo#olelo e laha nei … kona
mana#o. “In" p%l" kou mana#o, in" p%l" e kupu a#e ka mana#o i loko ou e
hula i k%ia, e h&meni i k%ia. P%l" n$. P%l" n$.” Eia na#e, in" ua makemake
au e h$#ike i ke kaona, #a#ole au e haku me k%l". #O ia ka#u i ka po#e e
n&ele mai ana ia#u “He aha ke kaona o k%ia mele?” In" ua makemake e
h$#ike i ke kaona, #oko#a ke mele. In" makemake #oe e #ike i kekahi
mana#o, #oko#a k%l". (2008)
For my song “Ka H&nano O Puna”, there are plenty of stories about it…
[she pretends to be talking to someone else] “If that’s what you think, then
go ahead and dance this, sing this… If that’s how it is, that’s how it is.”
But, if I wanted to tell what the hidden meanings are, I wouldn’t have
written it like that. That’s what I say to the people who ask what the hidden
meanings are “if I wanted it to be known, it would be a different song. If
you want to know some thoughts, that’s different.”
Kahaunaele notes that she does not object to others interpreting her
compositions in their own way, and even dancing to their own lyrical interpretation,
but that they should not present their interpretations as her intended meaning. She also
has her own interpretations and understandings of the meaning of other composers’
mele, however, she would not claim that her interpretations to be the composer’s
intended meaning (2008). The creation of meaning by these individuals and
Kahaunaele herself is indicative of the individual experience that Rice described in
his model. Lacking first-hand knowledge of Kahaunaele’s composition, or perhaps
even in spite of knowing some elements, each listener’s experience in unique and
intimately bound to their personal life experiences.
Pukui provided many chant examples from Ka‘% and within her own family,
translated them and explained the kaona of some of them. However, she declined to
provide the reader with the meaning of the kaona in one particular mele, stating, “this
175
beautiful piece of vulgarity is our very own” and only used by the family in its
appropriate context (1949, 250-251). Kahaunaele’s statement regarding “Ka H&nano o
Puna” clearly demonstrates the folly of attempting to accurately interpret the kaona of
a Hawaiian composition without consulting the composer–particularly when he or she
is still living and can refute another’s interpretation of the composition. And even
consulting the composer does not guarantee that the meaning of the kaona will be
revealed.
There are many possible reasons why a composer or someone with specific
knowledge regarding the kaona of a mele may not wish do divulge such information.
The “story behind the story” may be embarrassing to the composer or individuals who
are depicted in the song. It may be an intimate expression only intended for a
particular individual–a lover, spouse, child, or beloved ancestor. I have composed
mele hakukole (songs of ridicule or defamation) for individuals who I believe have
acted inappropriately, and have not shared the kaona or the identity of the individuals
for whom the mele were composed with anyone. Such proprietary information is the
domain of the haku mele alone, and it is up to the composer to decide how much, if
any, and in what manner this knowledge will be revealed.
Identification of Metaphor
I will now examine each verse of “Ku!u Lei L&lia” and attempt to identify
possible use of metaphor in the composition for later examination.
V1, L1: Aia i ka la#i o Honomaka#u There in the calm of Honomaka!u
V1, L2: Ke #ala l&lia ho#oheno poli The fragrance of the lily delights the
heart40
40
26)
Translation of Ku‘u Lei Līlia by Mary Kawena Pukui, from Johnnyʼs Na Mele Aloha (1946,
176
The first line of this verse begins to locate where something is – in the calm of
Honomaka!u on Hawai!i Island. Expressions such as this, while common in mele, are
not usually recognised as being metaphors. Ontological metaphors such as this
provide the means by which events, activities, emotions and ideas can viewed as
entities and substances (Lakoff, Johnson 1980, 26). The calmness of the Honomaka!u
is treated as a location itself, rather than as a condition or characteristic of that
location. The second line then locates the fragrance of the lily in the calmness of
Honomaka!u. Kimura classifies this use of place names to be a m%iwi that he refers to
as a nane (puzzle) whose meaning is only explicitly known to the composer and
others with whom the composer shares that information (Pers. Comm.). For that
reason I will identify the place name Honomaka!u also possibly metaphoric in nature
based on the meaning of maka#u “Fear, frightened, afraid, cowardly’ (Pukui, Elbert
1986, 228). I will note the use of both aia i ka la#i (there in the calm) and the place
name Honomaka!u as potentially metaphoric in nature and worthy of further
examination for reconstruction and interpretation.
The second line of this verse is a single noun phrase in which the noun #ala
(fragrance) contains multiple adjectives, all of which must be examined. The
fragrance that the composer chose for this mele is that of the pua l&lia (lily flower),
and the adjective phrase that follows it - ho#oheno poli (that delights the heart) – will
be identified as potentially metaphoric in nature and examined later for reconstruction
and interpretation.
Neither line in the first verse produces the problem of apperception that Miller
identifies as a key to identifying metaphors in his first view; the statements could be
read literally and would not clash with any known facts in a Hawaiian world-view.
The composer could indeed have fragrant lily flowers in Honomaka!u that he grows,
177
plucks and cherishes as he holds it against his bosom. Therefore, the recognition that
these elements are metaphorical in nature is derived from cultural knowledge, and the
use of elements of nature to represent human beings and their actions, and occurs after
the reader reviews the statements.
The second and third verses follow a single train of thought and will be
examined together:
V2, L1: Mai kuhi mai #oe e ka Inuwai
V2, L2: !O au ke kupua kia#i loko.
Don’t make a mistake, O Inuwai
breeze
Of thinking that I am the demigod
who guards the pond.
V3, L1: He kupua n$ au no ke kai loa I am a demigod from the distant seas
V3, L2: No ka makani anu he Ulumano. From the land of the cold wind,
Ulumano
In the second verse, the narrator addresses someone directly– not by name but
by use of the wind name Inuwai in the first line. This is clearly indicated by the use of
the vocative particle e, which is used when addressing someone in order to get their
attention (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 228). Addressing an element of nature like this does
cause a problem of apperception–assigning the human ability to think and listen to the
Inuwai wind. This use of this wind name will be identified as metaphoric in nature
and examined further for reconstruction and interpretation as Kimura also identifies
wind and rain names as m%iwi nane (2002, 17).
In the second line of this verse, the narrator identifies this person’s mistaken
presumption – that the narrator is the supernatural being that guards a pond. The third
verse opens with the narrator’s assertion that he is not the supernatural being who
guards a pond, but a supernatural being from the distant seas. Neither of these lines
causes a problem of apperception in the Hawaiian world-view as kupua (demigods),
‘aum"kua and akua are considered to be a part of the natural world. However, it is not
178
likely that the person that the composer is addressing actually believes him to be a
demigod, nor is it likely that this individual believes himself to be one. Therefore,
both of these statements will be examined further for reconstruction and
interpretation.
The second line of the third verse continues the composer’s description of
himself, stating that he is from the land of the Ulumano–a cold wind. There is no
word in this phrase that translates as “land”–Pukui provides this information in her
translation (Almeida, Pukui 1946, 26). Therefore when viewed literally–the composer
stating that he is from the cold Ulumanu wind–this statement presents a problem of
apperception. It is also an ontological metaphor in that a characteristic of this
unnamed source of the Ulumanu wind is being used to represent the place that is its
source. This phrase will also be examined further for reconstruction and
interpretation.
The fourth verse will be the last in “Ku‘u Lei L&lia” to be examined for
metaphoric expressions.
V4, L1: #Akahi a li#a ko#u mana#o
This is the first time that the desire
possesses me
V4, L2: E kui i ku#u pua, pua m%lia To string a wreath of plumeria blossoms
Pukui’s English translation of the first line is metaphoric and poetic in nature.
Read literally, the English translation presents a problem of apperception also: how
does something that has no physical form–desire–possess a person? As in the phrase
aia i ka la#i found in the first verse, this ontological metaphor provides the means by
which the composer’s thought can viewed as a physical entity (Lakoff, Johnson 2003,
26). Michael Reddy noted that ideas, thoughts, feelings and meanings expressed in
English denote “internal conceptual or emotional material” which can be “freely
substituted for each other”. Reddy referred to this conceptual group as a repertoire of
179
emotional and mental material–each individual element of which is referred to as a
repertoire member or RM (1993, 289-90).
While this mele opens with the description of the fragrance of the lily flower, a
new flower–the pua m%lia–is now introduced in the fourth verse. Additionally, the
narrator describes his desire to string a lei of plumeria blossoms. This line does not
produce the problem of apperception. The statements could be read literally and
would not clash with any known facts in a Hawaiian world-view, and the composer
could indeed string a garland of plumeria flowers. Therefore, the recognition that
these elements are metaphorical in nature is derived from cultural knowledge and the
use of elements of nature to represent human beings and their actions, and occurs after
the reader reviews the statements.
Having identified potential use of metaphor within “Ku!u Lei L&lia”, I will
now examine each metaphorical statement and attempt to identify and reconstruct its
form.
Reconstruction of Metaphor
Miller notes “reconstruction of the implied comparison is a critical step in
understanding a metaphor” (1993, 227). He uses conceptual notation to examine
comparison statements in which both the tenor and vehicle are provided, and
reconstruction helps the reader gain insight into the conceptual basis of the
comparison (1993, 227). In Hawaiian compositions the reader is not always provided
the luxury of knowing the tenor of the metaphor, and must reconstruct all elements of
the metaphor from the vehicle. For this reason, I will first examine the two
metaphorical statements found in “Ku!u Lei L&lia” that are overtly comparative in
nature and contain both tenor and vehicle – the second line of verse two, and the first
line of verse three.
180
Both line two of the second verse and the first line of the third verse are
equational sentences known as the pepeke #aike #o and pepeke #aike he41, respectively.
The major difference between these two grammatical structures is that the pepeke
#aike #o provides greater specificity in conversational Hawaiian, though in poetic
Hawaiian the difference is less significant.
I am the demigod who guards the
pond.
Neither of these statements contains a Hawaiian word that translates as “is” or
“am” as no such equivalent word exists in Hawaiian. The equational nature of this
grammatical structure makes the relationship explicit. Au is the tenor of the first line,
and kupua kia#i loko the vehicle. In the second line au is also the tenor, and kupua no
ke kai loa the vehicle. These phrases do not contain a word which indicates
comparison, such as “like”. An English example of this type of metaphor is “his wife
is his mother”, which can be reconstructed as the more plausible “his wife is like his
mother” in order to allow for interpretation of the sentence as a metaphor (Miller
1993, 228-29).
In Hawaiian, it is not possible to insert a single word into the two pepeke #aike
phrases in the same way that “like” can be inserted in English to reconstruct the
metaphor. However, Hawaiian does have other grammatical structures that provide a
direct comparison as “is like” does in English. Any of the following sentences could
be used to more explicitly state the comparison than the comparable lines in the
second and third verses:
41
Hawaiian grammatical terms such as pepeke ‘aike ‘o and pepeke ‘aike he were coined by
William H. “Pila” Wilson and Kauanoe Kamanā, and first used in their Hawaiian language
textbook “Nā Kai ʻEwalu” (1990, 22-27).
181
Ua like42 au me ke kupua kia#i loko. I am like the demigod who guards the pond.
Kohu kupua kia#i loko au.
I am like a demigod who guards the pond.
Me he kupua kia#i loko l" au.
I am like a demigod who guards the pond.
Ua like au me ke kupua o ke kai loa. I am like the demigod of the distance seas.
Kohu kupua au o ke kai loa.
I am like a demigod of the distance seas.
Me he kupua l" au o ke kai loa.
I am like a demigod of the distance seas.
While the reconstruction of the metaphor in a manner that makes the
comparison explicit assists in accurately translating the composer’s intent into
English, it is unnecessary for native and advanced speakers of Hawaiian. The
comparative nature of the pepeke #aike #o and pepeke #aike he sentence structures is
understood. Having made these comparative metaphors more explicit, I will now turn
to interpretative of those elements in “Ku‘u Lei L&lia” that have been identified as
being possibly metaphoric in nature.
Interpretation of Metaphor
Great care must be exercised in the interpretation of metaphor, as it is possible
for the reader to “read things into” the text, and the listener’s responsibility is that of
extracting–not inserting–meaning from the metaphor” (Reddy 1993, 288-9). Irish poet
Padraic Colum took an extreme view regarding the presence of multiple meanings. He
was hired by the territorial legislature of Hawai!i in the early 1920’s to compile a
book of Hawaiian legends. Colum believed that there were at least four separate
meanings in each Hawaiian composition–an ostensible meaning, a vulgar meaning, a
mytho-historical-topographical meaning and a deeply hidden meaning (Elbert, M#hoe
42 Like (pronounced /like/ using the International Phonetic Alphabet) is one Hawaiian word
that can be used to express similarity. While spelled exactly the same as like /laɪk/ in
English, it is like not a borrowed word as the cognate form lite exists in other areas of
Polynesia.
182
1970, 17). Pukui disputed Colum’s conclusion, asserting that there are only two
meanings - the literal and the kaona – adding that some compositions have no inner
meaning at all (1949, 247). The metaphor is simply the means by which the true
meaning of the kaona is obscured by the composer.
It is not uncommon in Hawaiian poetry for a single individual to be
metaphorically represented in multiple ways within a single song–“a person might be
referred to in the same poem as rain in one place and as wind in another ” (Pukui 1949,
249). Pukui cited the example of a mele composed for her grandmother, noting that a
reader lacking insider knowledge of the mele might believe that a single individual is
being spoken of, when in fact there are three different individuals (1949, 248-9). In
“Ku!u Lei L&lia”, Kimura identifies three individuals – the individual who is
expressing the thought of the mele (the central character, most likely a man and
possibly the composer) and two women. He believes that the l&lia was a woman who
resided in Honomaka!u, Kohala, and that she was involved with the central character
of the mele (2009). In the second verse he addresses her directly, not as the l&lia, but
as the Inuwai wind of Kohala43.
I will now discuss the characterisations of this woman and the elements that
must be considered in order to gain insight into the composer’s use of the l&lia flower,
Honomaka!u place name, and Inuwai wind name.
V2, L1: Aia i ka la#i o Honomaka#u There in the calm of Honomaka!u
V2, L2: Ke #ala l&lia ho#oheno poli The fragrance of the lily delights the
heart
While Honomaka!u is located in Kohala, Kimura notes that one of the most
significant reasons for choosing a place name is the meaning or meanings that are
43
Kimura, who is also from the Kohala district of Hawai‘i Island, confirmed that
Honomaka‘u is indeed a place name found in Kohala, and the presence of the Inuwai
and Ulumanu winds in that district. In some mele the wind, rain and place names may
be used which are not necessarily located in the same are of on the same island.
183
contained within the name (2009). Often it is necessary to separate the individual
parts of place, wind and rain names and examine them for meanings; such is the case
with Honomaka!u. Hono (bay, gulch, valley) is a common prefix for place names in
bay areas such as Honolulu (O!ahu), Honouliwai (Moloka!i), Honolua (Maui) and
Honok$hau (Hawai!i island). The use of this place name is likely for the meaning of
maka#u (fear; frightened, afraid, cowardly, timid, unsafe). Kimura suggests that this is
perhaps indicative of the woman’s concern for her relationship with the individual
expressing the thoughts of this mele. The inclusion of la‘i (tranquillity) and maka#u is
an example of the use of what Kimura refers to as #eko#a (opposing thoughts) (2002,
16). This use of opposing thoughts hints that there is a tension present in the mele that
must be explored further.
The use of a pua (flower) or lei is an extremely common metaphoric
representation of a beloved individual in Hawaiian poetry. It can then be stated that
HUMAN BEING AS FLOWER
is a Hawaiian metaphorical concept. The composer also
specifies the type of flower–the pua l&lia– and this must be examined for meaning by
examination of its characteristics. The pua l&lia is not a flower that is native to
Hawai‘i, so the composer could be implying that this individual is not from Hawai!i,
is not Hawaiian, or perhaps is simply not from the area where this story is set. It could
also be this individual’s name – L&lia or Lily. There are many other characteristics
that could be examined, such as the physical characteristics of the lily–colour, texture,
and scent. The word l&lia could also be examined for meaning, either in its entirety or
in parts. Lili also means to be jealous (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 79), and supports the
interpretation of tension that is suggested in the first line. However, lacking first-hand
knowledge of the composer’s intent, any such conclusion would be purely
speculative.
184
In the second line of the first verse, Pukui again provides an English
“translation” that is metaphoric and poetic in nature. Poli does not translate as “heart”
in Hawaiian, but the bosom area; heart is pu#uwai. This translation also indicates the
influence of foreign thought, as “use of pu#uwai as a center of emotions (instead of
na#au, #$p!, or loko) is probably a Western concept” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 360). De
Silva also noted the adoption of a western-introduced fixture–the vase–in the fourth
verse of Almeida’s “Ka Nani A!o Hilo”:
V4, L1: Ua la#a ia pua i #ane#i
V4: L2: Eia l" i ko#u k&#aha
This flower has been reserved for right here
Right here in my vase
He explains that, when done correctly, it can be made to fit a Hawaiian
conceptual framework and lacking in tension:
I enjoy the fact that there are, when you get to the fourth verse, you’ve got
a western image, the vase, the k&#aha, that there is this Hawaiian ability to
draw in objects whether Western or not, into the Hawaiian framework, it
reminds me in a way of the train chants, or of the boat chants, or the horse
riding chants, where there’s this ability to appropriate something that is
more often associated with another world, and bring into and make it a part
of the Hawaiian expression. To me that’s one element of Hawaiian
creativity in composition. It is almost a little act of revenge, in a way.
(2008)
Beniamina notes that in her own compositions, the first verse is the most
important and carries the main thought of the mele–it introduces the topic to the
listener. The remaining verses support and expand the thought of the first verse
(2009). Thus, in two brief lines, the composer has identified the location where this
story is taking place, the individual for whom the song is written, and implied through
the use of the opposing thoughts la#i and the place name Honomaka!u that there is an
underlying tension. It is important to note, however, that lacking first-hand
information from the composer, none of these possible interpretations can be stated
definitively.
185
The source of the tension between the central character and his sweetheart that
is implied in the first verse is provided in greater detail in the second verse:
V2, L1: Mai kuhi mai #oe e ka Inuwai
Don’t make a mistake, O Inuwai
breeze
Of thinking that I am the demigod
who guards the pond.
V3, L2: No ka makani anu he Ulumano. From the land of the cold wind,
Ulumano
I will first examine the composer’s use of kupua (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 186),
and then return to examine his use of the Inuwai wind name to address his sweetheart.
Kimura observes that the composer’s use of kupua kia#i loko (demigod who guards
the pond) and kupua no ke kai loa (demigod from the distant seas) are excellent
examples of an older Hawaiian perspective which Hawaiian speakers today may find
difficult to understand (2009). Pre-contact Hawaiians practised aquaculture by
building rock-walled fish ponds along the shoreline and stocking them with particular
varieties of fish. It was a practice that continued to some degree after Western contact,
was later mostly abandoned, and which is being revived in contemporary Hawaiian
society. As a valuable source of food, these ponds would be watched over by a kia#i
who would protect against thieves “four footed and two footed” (Handy, Handy &
Pukui 1991; 1972, 261).
Kimura interprets the composer’s use of these two different kupua to tell the
woman being addressed in the mele that she expects the central character–the kupua–
to remain steadfastly by her side like the guardian of the fishpond would. Kimura
suggests that she perhaps wished or expressed to him that they be married. However,
he states that he is actually the demigod of the distant seas–meaning that he must be
free to travel and perhaps have other lovers (2009). These salient characteristics are
186
applied to the central character and the tension caused by the contradiction of his
human condition and the supernatural character of the kupua is ignored.
Kumukahi cites similarities between the traits of the goddess Kaiona and
Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop as the reasons that Leleioh$k% chose Kaiona as the
central character in his composition for Bishop – “Ka Wahine Hele L#” (2009).
Bishop was well known for her benevolence towards children, and her land holdings
later became the estate upon which the Kamehameha Schools were built and continue
to operate. As with the central character in “Ku!u Lei L&lia”, the tension caused by the
incompatibility of Bishop’s mortality and Kaiona’s status as a deity is simply ignored,
and the salient characteristics, including their similar benevolent natures, are applied
to interpretation of the metaphor.
The ability of contemporary speakers of Hawaiian to interpret the composer’s
intent in the use of these kinds of metaphors is hampered by the lack of cultural
knowledge for a practice that had largely been abandoned, and is now being
resurrected as a historical recreation. While many in the Hawaiian community still
fish, for most of Hawai!i their “fishpond” is the market or their refrigerator (Kimura
2009). This is the challenge that today’s generation of predominantly second language
learners faces in understanding older mele and composing new mele which reflect an
older Hawaiian perspective:
Ka pilikia o ka po#e o k%ia w", #$lelo Hawai#i nei, #a#ole k" k"kou Hawai#i
i loko o ka p$#aiapili o k%l" po#e kahiko. No laila, #o ke kia#i loko ua hala,
it’s out of fashion. #A#ole paha po#e maopopo ka mana#o hou a#e mau
manawa. He aha ka loko. Pehea e kia#i ai i ka i#a i #ole #aihue #ia ka i#a,
ak" he aha hou a#e ka mana#o? K%l", ua hala. Ua pau me ka po#e kahiko.
(Kimura 2009)
The problem of folks today who speak Hawaiian is that we don’t use
Hawaiian in the same situations as the people of old. So, the fishpond
guardian has passed – it’s out of fashion. People don’t know all of the
meanings. What is the pond? How was it guarded so that the fish weren’t
187
stolen? But what else does it mean? That is gone. It went with the people of
old.
While Kimura understands the general function of the fishpond and its
guardian, he acknowledges the shortcomings of his own knowledge and the fact that
more detailed knowledge of this aspect of Hawaiian life remains lost. Such
knowledge could provide additional insight that would assist in a more thorough and
accurate interpretation of these lines, however, these insights are no longer accessible
to us. Interpreting the composer’s use of the Ulumano and Inuwai wind names for the
central character and his lover is difficult. Kimura states that both winds occur in the
Kohala District of Hawai!i Island, though Nathaniel Emerson observed that the
Inuwai is “known to all the islands” and identifies it as “a wind that dries up
vegetation, literally a water-drinking wind” (1909, 112). Pukui identified the Inuwai
as “name of a sea breeze. Lit., water drinking” (1986, 101).
The use of the vocative particle e in front of ka Inuwai clearly indicates that
the composer is addressing another individual through the use of personification –
another ontological metaphor in which something non-human is described in terms of
human motivations, characteristics and activities (Lakoff, Johnson 2003, 33). As such
HUMAN BEING AS WIND
could be described as a Hawaiian metaphorical concept. The
act of drinking water–inu wai–has been used metaphorically for lovemaking in some
mele. However, one cannot assume that because a particular word or phrase was used
metaphorically to express a thought in one song that the reason for its use or its
intended meaning in another is identical. If Emerson’s depiction of the wind as one
that dries up the vegetation is correct, perhaps the composer is expressing that his
sweetheart (the wind) is smothering him (the land) and draining him of water
(denying him the lifestyle that he wishes to pursue). Kimura refers to the use of place,
wind and rains names in this matter as k&nohinohi – elements and characteristics that
188
can only be gleaned though an understanding of Hawaiian perspective and cultural
knowledge (2009).
The Ulumano wind name is glossed as “a strong wind blowing from a given
direction in each locality… Lit., blowing hard” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 370). Kimura
describes the Ulumano as a cold wind that originates on the south side of Maui,
crosses the !Alenuih#h# channel to the northern part of Hawai!i Island, through
Kohala and continues on to Ka!%pulehu, North Kona44 (Pers. Comm. 25 Nov. 2009).
There is also an ‘$lelo no#eau which states #Eha ana #oe i ka makani ku#i o ka
Ulumano (‘you will be hurt by the sharp words spoken’) (Pukui 1983, 33).
Examining Pukui’s literal translation of Ulumano as “blowing hard”, one may
be tempted to interpret this use of the Ulumano wind name as being similar to the
English expression “blow hard”, which is used to describe “a boastful or pompous
person” (Soanes, Stevenson 2009). However, such direct comparisons between
English and Hawaiian metaphors, idiomatic expressions, and slang should be should
be considered carefully. Contrary to the conclusion one might draw from this
comparison between the meaning of Ulumano and the English expression “blow
hard”, Kimura does not believe that the central character is boasting when
characterising himself metaphorically as a demigod:
K%ia kupua #ano ona kekahi mea hiki ke n"n" #ia he #ano ho#okano paha a
i #ole he kaena ma kekahi #ano. Ak", #a#ole paha #o k%l" n" mea nui he
h$#ike #o ia i kona #ano #oia#i#o, a he k"ne hiki #ole ke #ae i ka pa#a me
ho#okahi. (2009)
You could look at this demigod-like depiction and think that he is
conceited or that it is a boast of some kind. That is probably not the main
44
Kimuraʼs depiction of the Ulumano wind being cold is identical to the composerʼs use of
anu in the mele. The Ulumano wind name also appears in the mele “Ka Ua Kea O
Hāna”. Hāna is on the eastern-most side of Maui, directly across the ‘Alenuihāhā
channel from the northern tip of Hawai‘i Island and the Kohala district.
189
thought, but it is showing his true nature–that he is a man that cannot agree
to be committed to one person.
The composer may have also been aware of the proverbial saying and used the
name as a warning to the woman that she would perhaps be hurt by his inability to
remain faithful to one woman. The component parts of Ulumano should also be
examined. Ulu means “to grow, increase, spread; growth” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 368),
and mano “many, numerous, four thousand” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 239). Kimura’s
description of the Ulumano wind as being one that originates on Maui, crosses the
!Alenuih#h# Channel, travels through Kohala and on to Ka!%p%lehu can also suggest
that, like the wind, our central character is simply “passing through” and has no plans
to settle down. In this case, a salient characteristic of the wind, rather than the
meaning of its name, could be more significant in determining the author’s reason for
selecting that particular wind name.
All of these possible meanings, when examined together, support Kimura’s
interpretation that the central character is not satisfied with a single sweetheart, and
wishes to be with other women. While I cannot substantiate any of these
interpretations, by examining them collectively, Kimura’s use of k&nohinohi aligns
with the compactness dissertation of metaphor, which is dependent on a
“reconstructionist” view of language comprehension (Ortony 2001, 12). The reader or
listener brings their knowledge of the world to comprehending any statement,
including metaphor. Ortony noted that from a list of abstract characteristics particular
to the vehicle, the reader must first create a subset of characteristics determined by
salience–characteristics that are distinctive to the vehicle–and then eliminate tension
by removing those characteristics that are incompatible (2001, 13).
In the case of place names, wind names, rain names and other k&nohinohi, a
deep understanding of Hawaiian language, culture, and history provides a greater
190
inventory of concepts and characteristics from which the reader or listener can extract
salient characteristics and reduce tension caused by incompatible and conflicting
characteristics. The composer’s use of the Inuwai and Ulumano wind names in “Ku!u
Lei L&lia” and the characteristics and interpretations cited here all support Kimura’s
interpretation of this mele. While there may be some incompatible or conflicting
characteristics, Kimura cited none, and I have observed none myself.
There are also situations in which a place, wind or rain name may provide
insights that, while not contradictory, may not be compatible or applicable in all uses.
Kimura cites Thomas Lindsey’s use of the Hawai!i island place name !'la!a in the
chorus of his composition “Honesakala” as an example of a place name being used
for the cultural knowledge contained in its use, rather than its location relative to the
subject of the composition or the meaning of the name and its component parts:
Ch, L3: #A#ohe kani leo n" manu o #'la#a
Ch, L4: Ua la#ahia au me ka kuhi hewa
But the birds of ‘'la‘a no longer
sing
For I found myself mistaken
“Honesakala” is also set in Kohala, north Hawai!i Island, while !'la!a is
located on the eastern side of the same island – a distance that would require a full
day or more of travel during the time that “Honesakala” was composed. Kimura states
that !'la!a was famous for its forest of native birds that sounded constantly, so the
expression that they were silent was an indication that something was wrong.
Ke loa#a ka #eko#a, #a#ole kani leo, #oi ka ikaika, #e"? Ka #eko#a ka mea e
#oi a#e ka ikaika o k%l" mana#o. No ka mea, #o ka ma#amau, e like me ka#u.
No laila, #a#ole lohe, he mea #% loa… Ki#i i ka mea #eko#a mai ka mea
ma#amau, kama#"ina i ka po#e, ho#ohuli i ia mana#o a #oi ka p!#iwa ke
lohe me k%l". Me k%l" e ola n$, #e"? Kekahi #ano ki#i o ka haku mele.
(Kimura 2009)
When you have the opposite, no sound is heard, the strength is enhanced,
right? The opposite is what strengthens that thought. Because normally,
like I said previously… So, it’s not heard; it is very strange… Take the
opposite from the normal thing that people are familiar with, turn the
thought so that it enhances their surprise when they hear it.
191
The use of !'la!a as a place name would not be restricted to this context and
use of the cultural knowledge implied in its use. De Silva offers a possible
interpretation for use of the !'la‘a place name in Lili‘uokalani’s composition “Ninipo
Ho!onipo”, and its use for the meaning of la#a (sacred, holy, devoted, consecrated, set
a part or reserved for a special purpose) (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 188):
When you leave Hilo and go in the !'la!a direction you are going more
into your ancestral past and in some ways into your non-restricted, nonmissionary mode of existence. In “Ninipo [Ho‘onipo]”, the progress is out
of Hilo to Puna, and the mid-day trist in that mele takes place at
Moeawakea [‘to lie in the midday’] in the !'la!a area, so it’s when you get
away from the port, when you get away from the Haole world, and you’re
moving into… I don’t know, it might be possible to argue that this; I don’t
know though. (2008)
Kimura also notes the use of the name Kakuhihewa, a famous chief from the
island of O‘ahu, in Thomas Lindsey’s composition “Honesakala”, which is firmly set
in Kohala on Hawai‘i Island. This name contains both salient information – the
meaning of kuhi hewa (to be mistaken)– and information that is incompatible with the
context of the mele – the identification of the chief with the island of O‘ahu. Kimura
believes that Lindsey’s use of the chief’s name is solely for its meaning and not to
locate the story or any of the characters. This is a demonstration for the need of the
reader or listener to eliminate the tension in this incompatible information and extract
only the salient facts. I will now examine the fourth verse of “Ku‘u Lei L&lia”:
V4, L1: #Akahi a li#a ko#u mana#o
This is the first time that the desire
possesses me
V4, L2: E kui i ku#u pua, pua m%lia To string a wreath of plumeria blossoms
Pukui’s translation of li#a ka mana‘o (‘the desire possesses me’) is indicative
of an ontological metaphor, where something with no physical form is depicted as
such. Li#a is glossed as “strong desire; yearning, amorous; to wish for ardently, crave”
(Pukui, Elbert 1986, 204). This phrase, and Pukui’s poetic and metaphorical
interpretation, supports Nogelmeier’s assertion that translations–particularly poetic
192
translations–are very difficult. Having made it clear to his l&lia that he is not a person
to be committed to a single woman, Kimura believes that the central character is now
expressing his desire to string a garland with the pua m%lia.
The type of flower that is depicted must also be examined. The plumeria, like
the lily, is not native to Hawai‘i. It has a delicate scent. The object of his affection
could have been named M)lia, Mary, Maria, Marie, or another that sounds like m%lia.
Any or all of these elements, or others unknown to us at this time, could have
influenced the composer’s choice of pua m%lia. Again, lacking first-hand knowledge
of the composer’s intent, any such conclusion would be purely speculative.
As HUMAN BEING AS FLOWER has been identified as a Hawaiian conceptual
metaphor, the act of stringing, weaving, twisting or otherwise joining flowers and
other vegetation together symbolises the binding or love of two individuals. We can
then identify the central character to string a lei with the plumeria as a new
metaphorical concept - LOVE AS A LEI MAKING. The method by which lei are created
varies depending on the material or materials being used. Flowers such as plumeria,
#ilima, mokihana, orchids and others are often strung together with string or other
cordage– to kui. Certain vegetation does not lend itself well to being strung, and may
be made into lei by haku (a braiding technique for lei-making), wili (a twisting
technique for lei-making), or h&pu‘u (a knotting technique for lei-making). Any of
these techniques for creating a lei could be used to express the binding of a
relationship though the use of the metaphor, provided it was used in context with the
appropriate lei-making material for that technique.
The fifth and final verse of “Ku!u Lei L&lia” opens with a common phrase that
has become an idiomatic expression in the final verse of modern Hawaiian
193
compositions, and the second line of this verse simply repeats the second line of the
first verse:
V5, L1: Ha#ina #ia mai ana ka puana This is the end of my song
V5, L2: Ke #ala l&lia ho#oheno poli
The fragrance of the lily delights the
heart45
Pukui again eschews a literal translation of the ha#ina #ia mai ana ka puana–
an idiomatic expression that can be translated in a number of ways–and simply
informs the listener that the song is reaching its conclusion. The central character
again restates the second line of the first verse, expressing his affection for the l&lia.
This is a common method of summarising the contents of a mele–the restating of its
purpose and/or the individual for whom it was composed.
Conclusion
In this chapter I have examined the expression of the use of metaphor and
kaona in Hawaiian language composition. By using Lincoln’s composition “Ku!u Lei
L&lia” as a point of entry for an examination and discussion of elements within this
composition, I demonstrated the processes of reconstructing and analysing the use of
metaphor in Hawaiian compositions. This process is hindered by what Pukui
characterises as disconnect caused by a loss of “the old atmosphere and associations”
of Hawaiian language poetry. I have argued that Pukui is referring to the context and
use of metaphor that are representative of a Hawaiian conceptual system and
worldview.
I have used much of Kimura’s interpretation and understanding of “Ku!u Lei
L&lia” to complete a more thorough examination of possible interpretations of
metaphor use. These include examining both characteristics of place and wind names,
45
Translation of Ku‘u Lei Līlia by Mary Kawena Pukui, from Johnnyʼs Na Mele Aloha
(1946, 26)
194
as well as potential meanings of these names as either the meaning or characteristics
could explain their use and the composer’s intention. I have noted that one of the
challenges of interpreting metaphor in mele is examining those cases in which the use
of metaphor does not conflict with facts about the known world, such as the use of
stringing a flower lei. A line containing such use could be interpreted literally and not
even perceived as metaphoric in nature without specific cultural knowledge. In other
circumstances, the use of metaphor clearly contradicts elements of the Hawaiian
world, and can more easily be identified as being metaphoric in nature. However, this
identification does not necessarily make the act of extraction or interpretation any
easier.
I have also noted that some of the mele selected by the participants in this
research include foreign elements that have been integrated into mele and are used in
metaphoric ways that do not clash with a Hawaiian worldview. In “Ku!u Lei L&lia”,
neither the l&lia nor the m%lia flowers are native to Hawai!i. The use of pu#uwai
(heart) and k&‘aha (vase) were also cited as foreign words that have become accepted
as Hawaiian metaphorical expressions. I have also pointed out, however, instances
where Hawaiian and English conceptual systems contradict, such as the use of the
ostensibly insulting h!p%kole as an expression of affection, and the lack of negative
stigma associated with feeding children until they are nui pu#ipu#i (sufficiently
plump). Words with negative connotations are clearly avoided because of the
Hawaiian belief in the power of words and their vocalisation. This recognition is
clearly indicative of an older Hawaiian perspective that has continued today and
should recognised and utilized by contemporary composers.
I have discussed the importance of cultural knowledge to the extraction and
interpretation of meaning–not the insertion of meaning–in Hawaiian language
195
compositions. I have also examined how some mele have incorporated elements of
foreign world-view into them–elements that through repeated use have gained
acceptance as Hawaiian concepts. It is clear that the misconception that kaona and the
use of metaphor and allusion are synonymous hampers understanding of the
underlying story behind some mele. They are separate concepts that are sometimes
used interchangeably in contemporary discourse when they should not be. The use of
metaphor is one tool that provides a layer of abstraction to the underlying meaning;
however, even an accurate understanding of the metaphor does not provide complete
understanding of the kaona of a mele. As Pukui notes, not every song contains kaona–
a fact that is demonstrated in Mahi Beamer’s frustration with what he perceives as a
preoccupation with kaona in his grandmother’s compositions. While listeners may
create their own interpretation of the kaona contained in the composition of other
composers, Kahaunaele’s anecdote and Pukui’s writings serve as warnings to those
who would present their personal interpretations of a composition’s kaona as the
composer’s intended meaning.
I will close this chapter by adding my own anecdote: In late 2004, I learned
about the death of what scientists believed to have been the last remaining po‘ouli
bird–a small honeycreeper that lived in a remote area of east Maui. It had been
captured and died while scientists attempted to locate a mate for it (Associated Press
2011). I composed a mele entitled “Manu Po!ouli” to lament the loss of the species,
and Hawaiian composer and recording artist Kenneth Makuak#ne created the melody
and a musical arrangement for it. He recorded the mele and included it in his release
“Makuak#ne” (Makuak#ne 2006). There is no kaona in the mele, though there is some
use of metaphoric expressions whose meanings should be apparent to a native or
advanced second language learner of Hawaiian. Shortly after the CD’s release,
196
Makuak#ne’s father passed away. The song then took on new significance for him,
and he began to perform the song with an explanation of how his father, like the
po#ouli, was “the last of his kind” (Makuak#ne, Pers. Comm.). While doing so, he
clearly explained both the inspiration for and meaning of the mele as I related them to
him, and that comparing his father to the po#ouli was his own personal interpretation.
As the composer, I was deeply moved by his personalisation of my mele, and while I
had no objection to his expressing the significance of the song to him and his own
interpretation, I was and remain grateful for his clear explanation of my intent during
his performances.
197
Chapter 6: Haku Mele – Hawaiian Language In
Composition
When I was first starting to play music, I learned a song, “Nani
Wai!ale!ale”. Never saw Kaua!i, never saw Kaua!i, and I’d sing it, and sing
it over and over. It’s part of the repertoire, you know. And then I’d hear
people talk about, oh, Kaua!i this, Kaua!i that, and I could afterwards kind
of knowing a little bit about the song, learning to know about Wai!ale!ale,
some geographical features. When I sing the song, I think–I wonder if this
place would… I bet you this place is all this. You know, kuahiwi
[‘mountain ridge’] up here, and all that. And when I finally went to Kaua!i
it was exactly what I thought. You know, when you get out of the airport
and you see the … it’s probably the ko#olau [‘windward side mountain
range’] they call it, yeah but that background. I was thinking, wow, this is
what I’ve been singing about all the time. (Kumukahi 2008)
Introduction
In this chapter I will examine the use of visual imagery, word choice, grammar
and other elements of language in haku mele. I will use Helen Desha Beamer’s46
composition “Paniau”47 and the discussion of elements within the composition by the
participants in this research as a point of entry to my examination of authenticity in
Hawaiian composition. Some of these elements include Beamer’s use of words that
were visually stimulating and that also enticed the other senses, the importance of
word choice in Hawaiian language composition, Beamer’s selection of specific words
for their precise meaning, the use of present tense or tenseless sentences and phrases
in “Paniau”, and poetic linking devices. While poetic linking devices such as linked
assonance are not a prominent feature of “Paniau”, they are most closely related to the
broader topic of word choice, syntax, and grammar; therefore, they are included in
46
47
As the name of several Beamer family members will be mentioned in this chapter, I will
use “Beamer” only to refer to Helen Desha Beamer. I will use the full names of other
Beamer family members.
Paniau is both the name of this composition, and the name of the place that is depicted
in the song. I will use quotation marks when referring to the song “Paniau”, and no
quotation marks when referring to the place.
198
this chapter. I will draw from the discussion of these devices as they related to the
other song selections made by the participants in this research.
Paniau
Voice
œ œ C dim
œ œ
C
&c Œ
4
&Œ
U -a
na - ni
Ab
ka wa - i - ho ka
bœ
& ‰œ œ œ
12
C
&‰
œ
Pa - ni - a
-
œ
J ˙
G7
9
œ.
he
bœ
-
œ.
-
la
A-hu wa -le
i
C
13
ka
-
la
ka mo - a - na
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
&œ œ
21
Ab
Na - na i - hi - ‘i - po - i
œ
œ ‰ #œ nœ
u
w
Œ
œ œ
J
‘i
œ
J ‰
˙
i - ‘a e ho - lo - ho - lo
ka
D7
G7
Ó
ku - ‘u
œ œ
C dim
Ó
!
C
˙
i
ka ma
œ
30
26
o - ne ha
D7
-
ha - ‘i ma - i
he -na -ne - a
ma - i
ho - ‘i
-
C
˙
-
na
Ó
œ #œ œ nœ
li
-
i - ka ha
u
!
C
˙
˙
31
-
.
C
27
œ œ
œ.
e.
œ
J
23
G7
Ó
˙
19
pa
-
pa.
˙
C
ho - ne i ke ki - no
bœ œ œ bœ
œ
œ
œ
œ
‰
&
˙
C
15
œ œ œ œ
œ
Œ
a - na i - ka na - lu
36
‘i
la
35
œ œ œ 34œ œ # œ œ n œ œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ œ œ
J ‰
œ œ ˙
& œ œ œ
Ab
-
œ ‰ ˙
J
33
Me ke ka - i - pu - me - ha - na
ke
C
G7
32
-
11
i
ka - u - la - na
22
C
Ka
˙
‘i
18
œ
œ
25
14
ka - ‘u
œ œ
œ œ œ œ #œ nœ œ œ
G7
œ œ
C
he - la
˙
7
.
m7
7
œ œ œ œC dim
œ œ œ œ D29œ œ œ œ G
J
œ œ
&‰
28
#œ œ nœ
10
ne - i Ha - wa - i - ‘i
24
i
C
œ
6
Pa - ki - pi - ka i
G7
20
&
la
œ œ œ œ . C dim
œ œ œ œ D17œm7 œ
he
16
œ
G7
œ
5
œ œ œ œ œ
8
œ
D m7
Words and Music by Helen Desha Beamer
As Recorded by Mahi‘ai Beamer
37
œ.
C
ka
-
œ œ
J
u
he na - ne - a ma - i
œ œ
38
D7
Ó
G7
Ó
ho - ‘i
ka
39
C
Ó
-
u
Ó
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 41œ œ œ
42
œ #œ œ nœ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
‰
&
J
3
C
C dim
40
Na ke
Paniau
D m7
a - he la - u - ma ka - ni i
G7
ho - ‘o pa - ma - i
‘i - ke
a - na
a-u
i ka
46
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œJ ‰ œ œ # œ œ n œ
œ
&
G7
44
&
Ab
w
˙
C
&‰
52
49
m7
œ œ œ C dim
œ œ œ œ D53œ œ œ
Ka wa - i
-
la - la - i
œ
C
48
Hu - a
‘a - u - ‘a - u
œ
na ki - a - ‘i
œ
œ
D7
G7
œ œ
‰
54
o ka wa - hi - ne
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
&œ œ
œ œ œ œœ
bœ
b
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
&‰
œ.
G7
56
57
Ab
ke ke - a - we, ‘o ka - mi - lo,
60
me ka ni - u
C
&‰
64
ha - ‘a
i
ke
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 65œ œ œ œ
C dim
D m7
E - i - a ka - pu - a - na
C
61
-
o
G7
œ œ
a - ‘i lo - he ‘i - a
69
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
&
Ab
ma - u ka - ma - i - ka - ‘i
&
w
72
˙
C
73
ka
-
ho
!
C
˙
œ
i
55
ka
me
C
‘o
-
59
œ œ #œ œ nœ œ
‰
œ œ ˙
œ ‰ œ
J
lu.
˙
-
ne
C
me ka ni - u
ha - ‘a
D7
G7
œ
J
62
Ó
i ke
o
Ó
63
C
!
ne .
œ
66
œ #œ œ nœ
na -
œ œ
C
œ œ œ œ œ.
J
œ
œ œ #œ œ nœ
70
u - a
74
œ
D7
ka
G7
Ó
u.
˙
-
u
C
˙
œ
na - ni Pa - ni
Œ
œ ‰ œ
J
67
Ko - ‘o - la - ni - o - ha
me ka ma - lu - hi - a
œ
˙
58
œ œ œ
J J
G7
68
˙
51
œ #œ œ nœ
‘o ke ko - u, ‘o ka ha u,
˙
C
Ó
A - i - a
˙
47
G7
Œ
50
o
C
na - ni
œ
45
Ma -u - na-lo - a, - Ma-u - na ke - a,
43
71
75
a
C
!
E
76 œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ 77œ œ œ œ
œ œ
&‰
C
C dim
D m7
E - i - a ka - pu - a - na
&œ œ
G7
81
Ab
ma - i - ka - ‘i
bœ
&‰ œœœ œ
84
u - a na - ni
Pa
bœ
-
œ #œ œ nœ
78
a - ‘i lo - he ‘i - a
80
ma - u ka
Paniau
G7
ni
na
œ œ
œ.
C
-
a
-
œ œ
J
u
œ œ.
J
79
Ko - ‘o - la - ni - o - ha
82
œ
œ œ #œ œ nœ
J ‰
me ka ma - lu - hi - a
85
œ œ œ
ka
u - a
na - ni Pa - ni
G7
.
˙
œ ‰ œ
J
u.
˙
-
u
C
˙
œ
C dim D m7
œ œ 86˙
C
83
C
Ó
87
a
E
202
Composer Biography: Helen Kapuailohia Desha Beamer
Beamer was born in Honolulu, Hawai‘i on September 8, 1882, and was the
eldest daughter of Isabella Hale!ala and George Langhern Desha. She attended the
Kamehameha School for girls on the island of O‘ahu, and showed early musical
aptitude. Beamer learned western music notation by copying sheet music, and learned
Hawaiian music and cultural practices such as the hula from her mother. She married
Peter Carl Beamer in Hilo on Hawai!i Island, and subsequently raised five children.
She was the organist for the Haili Church in Hilo for many years. Her grandchildren
Mahi and Winona Beamer, great-grandsons Keola and Kapono Beamer and greatgreat-grandson Kamana Beamer are among her descendants who are notable
composers and performers of Hawaiian music. Beamer was a native speaker of the
Hawaiian language who was noted for the use of visual imagery in her compositions,
and for compositions honouring people and places she knew well (Beamer 1991, xi).
Beamer passed away in 1952, and was inducted into the Hawaiian Music Hall of
Fame in 1995 (Ely 2009b, 1).
Overview of “Paniau”
“Paniau” was composed by Beamer as a gift for her friends Al and Anabelle
Ruddle of Puak$ who lived on the west side of Hawai‘i island, and is also the name of
their home. It was composed during a visit by Beamer to Paniau, and describes the
Ruddle’s property, the ocean fronting it, and the mountain ranges visible from the
home. Silva and Sal# selected a recording of “Paniau” by Beamer’s grandson Mahi
Beamer to discuss. While Mahi Beamer did not choose any specific songs to listen to
during our conversation, he did mention “Paniau” and began to discuss it, so we then
listened to it before continuing our conversation.
203
Beamer never recorded and commercially released “Paniau” in her lifetime,
and I was able to locate only four commercial recordings of it. Mahi Beamer recorded
and released his rendition of it on his LP “Hawaii’s Mahi Beamer” in 1959 (2004).
Kumukahi recorded and released “Paniau” twice–on her CD releases H$‘ulu‘ulu
#Ekahi (2003) and Na Hiwa Kupuna o Ku‘u One Hanau (1993). While these three
recordings all featured vocalists performing “Paniau”, Beamer’s great-grandson
Kapono Beamer recorded and released an instrumental version of it on his CD Great
Grandmother, Great Grandson (1998).
“Paniau” is classified as a hula ku#i because of its strophic format, and
contains eight verses of ten measures each, though Mahi Beamer does not include the
fourth and fifth verses as composed by his grandmother in this recording. It was
composed and annotated in the key of F; however, Mahi Beamer recorded it in the
key of C. The melody of the first four measures–performed with the first two lines of
each verse–features a mostly descending diatonic figure starting at C5 down to C4.
The melody of the fifth through ninth measures includes two wide intervallic leaps
that showcase his falsetto style. The first, found in the fifth measure of each verse,
includes a leap from B3 to A4. In the ninth measure of each verse, the melody
descends to C4, and returns sharply to C5. The final line of each verse is repeated at
the end of the measure, although there is some variation.
Mahi Beamer’s performance begins with a four-measure introduction
featuring steel guitar. Melodically it is similar to the melody heard at the end of each
sung measure. He sings unaccompanied by vocal harmonies in second and fourth
verse, and in his first performance of the final verse. Several female vocalists perform
harmonies to his lead vocal in the first, third, and fifth verses, and his second
performance of the final verse. Only the final verse is performed twice; all of the
204
other verses are performed only once. Guitar, acoustic bass, and #ukulele support the
vocals throughout the recorded performance.
The text of the mele opens with ua nani Paniau i ka‘u ‘ike (‘I see Paniau and
know it to be beautiful’), which is consistent with the compositional practice of
introducing the subject of the mele in a broad and general way. Each verse describes a
location within Beamer’s view from her vantage point in the guest cottage at Paniau–
the Pacific Ocean and its waves, Mount Haleakal# on Maui in the distance, three
Hawai!i Island mountains, as well as the bathing pond located on the property. The
first line of the final verse begins with a variation on the more frequently heard ha#ina
#ia mai ana ka puana (‘the refrain is told”), using instead eia ka puana e lohe #ia
(‘here is the refrain that is heard’). Phrases like this are common in hula ku#i, most
often summarise the most important points of the previous verses, and inform the
listener that the performance of the mele is concluding.
Charlot provided an analysis of “Paniau” and to a lesser extent other Beamer
compositions (2008). He attempted to provide insight into Beamer’s compositional
process, and believed “Beamer’s aesthetic innovation was stimulated by historical
problems: the gradual loss of the Hawaiian language and Western society’s
disapproval of sexual expression” (2008, 12). Mahi Beamer and his niece Gaye
Beamer disagree with Charlot’s conclusion that Beamer consciously restricted her
word choice to address an audience whose fluency in the Hawaiian language was
declining. I will not focus on Beamer’s motivations, but instead identify the elements
she used and the effect of her poetic style on the listener.
The recording, instrumentation and musical performance of “Paniau” are
representative of what is now commonly referred to as the “traditional” Hawaiian
music of the era in which it originated (1959). Beamer’s use of the bVI major chord in
205
the verse is striking, though not unknown in compositions of the era in which it was
composed. The end of each verse includes a two bar vamp or turnaround using the
progression II7, V7, I cadential progression that is also heard in “Mai Lohilohi Mai
!Oe” and “Ku!u Lei L&lia”.
Visual Imagery and Memory Image
The use of visualization to aid in retention of knowledge was not unique to
Hawai!i. Peter Parshall notes, “For centuries, rhetorical texts held that an effective
memory was by definition a visual memory.” The theory of visual memory is most
fully developed in the Rhetorica Ad Herennium and “is a method for recollecting
items or ideas by attaching them to imagined images, which is to say, pictures in the
mind” (Parshall 1999, 1). The use of visual imagery is a common and effective tool in
all Hawaiian literary forms, including the composition of mele–“Hawaiian literature is
extraordinarily visual” (Charlot, Pers. Comm.). The experience of seeing a place and
being able to relate that experience through song can assist the performer in delivering
a convincing performance of the mele. Upon being asked how someone could sing
about a particular place without actually having seen it, Kahaunaele replies:
Ma o ke mele - #o ia ka first step n$ ho#i. No ka mea, ke h&meni au i n"
mele no Ni#ihau, a ho#olauna au i ke mele me ia mana#o. #Oiai #a#ole n$
hiki i" k"kou ke hele i Ni#ihau k%l" l" k%ia l", ma ka hopenapule, e huaka#i
k"kou i laila ma o ka h&meni #ana i k%ia mele, no laila, ua #ike maka au
i" Ni#ihau, a he k$kua k%l" i ka#u h&meni #ana. (Kahaunaele 2008)
Through the songs - that’s the first step. Because when I sing songs for
Ni!ihau, I introduce the songs with the thought, since we cannot go to
Ni‘ihau every day or on weekends, we can travel there by singing these
songs. I have seen Ni‘ihau so that is a help to my singing.
Mahi Beamer compares Beamer family compositions to movies that are
composed in such a manner “that the dancer, in his own mind’s eye, sees the story
unfolding and is able to gesture most appropriately” (Charlot 2008, 6). Both Sal# and
206
Silva selected “Paniau” to discuss for this research, citing the visual imagery of the
composition. Sal# states, “I mean to me this [“Paniau”] is a moving picture, you can
see everywhere - you put on these glasses and you see everything she saw” (2008).
Charlot notes that Beamer “puts the greatest emphasis on original observation—that
is, her own perceptions and experience of a place” (2008, 9). I will use selected verses
from Paniau and other compositions selected by the participants in this research to
discuss Beamer’s observations and her depiction of visual elements. Some verses
express other senses and Hawaiian poetic devices that will be discussed later in this
chapter, and others are variations of the descriptions that are discussed below.
Charlot’s observation regarding Beamer’s emphasis on original observation is
supported by the composition’s opening verse:
V1, L1: Ua nani Paniau
V1, L2: I ka#u #ike
V1, L3: Ka waiho k"helahela
V1, L4: I ka la‘i
Beautiful is Paniau
In my sight
A panoramic expanse
In the calm48
#Ike means “To see, know, feel, greet, recognize, perceive, experience, be
aware, understand; to know sexually” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 96). This opening line is
followed by Beamer’s description of what she observed at Paniau: the panoramic
expanse around the house, the dwarf coconut trees providing shade near the bathing
pool, listing a number of tree varieties by name, and listing the three visible
mountains of Hawai!i island as well as Haleakal# on Maui – all visible from Paniau.
In his analysis of “Paniau”, Charlot translated i ka#u #ike as “in my sight”, exactly as
it is translated in The Songs of Helen Desha Beamer (Beamer 1991, 12). I believe this
gloss of #ike as “sight” to be too narrow and literal, and other meanings of #ike need to
be considered and reflected in the translation. Hawaiians distinguish between lohe
48
All English translations for the lyrics in “Paniau” are from The Songs of Helen Desha
Beamer, edited by Marmionette Beamer (1991, 115), except where noted otherwise.
207
#$lelo (hearsay) and ‘ike maka (seeing with one’s own eyes) and that first-hand
observation is valued over knowledge which is simply heard (Charlot 2005, 336).
This is reflected in the proverbial saying ma ka hana ka #ike (one sees/learns/knows
by doing) (Pukui 1983, 227). In addition to informing the listener that she is stating
that she has indeed seen “Paniau”, I believe that the gloss of #ike in this context
should be expanded to include knowing:
V1, L1: Ua nani Paniau i ka#u #ike
I have seen Paniau and therefore
know it to be beautiful
While it was certainly not Beamer’s intent, this opening statement does
provide the listener with his or her first opportunity to authenticate “Paniau”. Beamer
has stated that she has seen Paniau and found it to be beautiful, and it is up to the
listener to decide whether or not Beamer is indeed speaking the truth of her
experience. The text of the song itself, as well as written and anecdotal evidence
regarding her visit and pictures of Paniau, supports this claim (Beamer 1991, 115).
Provided that the listener does accept the truth of Beamer’s statement, that she has
seen Paniau and knows it to be beautiful, they may then begin to listen to and
authenticate the rest of the experience that she has documented in the song.
The vocal performance of mele provides the opportunity for listeners who
have never visited a particular location to experience it through their mind’s eye:
“hearing about the wahi pana [‘storied places’] merely whetted one’s appetite to visit
them oneself, and one’s own experience of the place would be a part of one’s chant in
its praise” (Charlot 2005). The visual nature of Beamer’s compositions is enhanced by
her choice of words–“Her own style is marked by a perfect correctness of word
choice and a clarity of syntax” (Charlot 2008, 7). As the Ad Herennium and its
medieval interpreters noted, “one critical feature of a memory image is that it be
striking, indeed, idiosyncratic enough to be clearly recalled” (Parshall 1999, 1). The
208
ability of Hawaiian composers to convey images through the language is well
documented:
To the Hawaiian mind, the chief charm of the singing or chanting lay in the
words, for their obvious meaning in many cases consisted of exquisite
imagery, of word painting succeeding word painting, describing the
beauties of natural scenery, used in a profusion bewildering to one
accustomed to the restraints of most of our modern poetry. (Roberts 1967,
401)
Beamer was able to entextualize her observations in a manner that it is
idiosyncratic enough to be visualized by the listener who may have never seen what
she is describing in her composition. However, I do not believe that Beamer’s
descriptions alone are responsible for this ease of recollection. I argue that the
memorability of “Paniau” and other Beamer compositions is due to the fact that it is
lacking specific visual details, and that it provides a broader framework of description
that empowers the listener to actively participate in the process of constructing a vivid
image based on the information that Beamer provides. This is not a criticism of
“Paniau” or Beamer’s compositional style, as “each language has a peculiar tendency
to select this or that aspect of the mental image which is conveyed by the expression
of thought” (Boas et al. 1966, 39). As one listens to “Paniau”, each listener begins to
assemble a mental picture of what is being portrayed using Beamer’s own words and
the knowledge that they already possess–“you construct an image as part of the
process of understanding the passage, and that the image helps you remember”
(Miller 1993, 205). The “memory image” created by this process is not perfect, and
psychological experiments show that people will forget some details of the text and
embellish others (Miller 1993, 205).
209
The second verse of Paniau is visually descriptive, depicting a very broad
view of the Pacific Ocean and the western side of Hawai‘i Island that appeared before
her as she composed this mele:
V2, L1: Ahuwale ka moana P"k&pika
V2, L2: I kaulana i ka m"lie
V2, L3: N"na e hi#ipoi nei Hawai#i
V2, L4: Ku‘u one h"nau
In plain view is the Pacific Ocean
Renowned for its calm
Cradling this Hawai‘i
Sands of my birth
This macro view of the scenery, as depicted in the second verse, is explored in
greater detail in the third verse of “Paniau”. I will now examine the first two lines
from the third verse of “Paniau” that has been described as being particularly visual in
nature to demonstrate Miller’s notion of a constructed mental image. I will discuss the
third and fourth lines of this verse in a later section of this chapter that discusses the
other senses of the human body.
V3, L1: Ka i‘a e holoholo ana i ka nalu The fish run through the waves
V3, L2: Ha‘i mai i ka h"papa
Breaking on the reef
Sal# cites Beamer’s use of holoholo in this line as an example of specific word
choice: “It’s those kinds of words that… ka i#a e holoholo ana i ka nalu. Why didn’t
she use something else besides holoholo?” (2008). Holo means “To run, sail, ride, go;
to flow, as water; to run, as for political office; to slide, as an avalanche; fleet, fast;
double time; landslide; to fare, progress” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 71), and among its
many uses is to describe the movement of fish through water. Holoholo provides a
greater level of specificity – “To go for a walk, ride, or sail; to go out for pleasure,
stroll, promenade” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 71), and implies a more aimless movement of
the fish through the waves in which they are seen than holo would.
While this verse could be described as vivid and idiosyncratic, I contest that
depiction. What kind of fish are swimming in the waves, how many are there, and
what is their size? What kind of day is it–clear, rainy, overcast? What is the condition
210
of the ocean, and is there anything else visible in the distance? Is the shore sandy, and
the reef located beyond the shoreline, or is it a rocky coast? How big are the waves
that are breaking? Rather than providing an incredibly detailed description of the
scene before her, Beamer provides a framework by which the reader or listener can
create his or her own memory image. The ability of the listener to participate in the
construction of this mental image based on Beamer’s framework should not be
construed as a license for the listener to interpret the metaphors and kaona contained
within the composition and present it as the composer’s own. The image is personal
and unique to each individual, and its purpose is to assist the listener’s retention of the
lyrics and the listener’s personal interpretation, if any, of its meaning. It also exists on
the literal level–using those elements that appear in the text–and not in the
interpretation of metaphor or kaona. However, greater knowledge and understanding
of the composition’s subject can assist the listener in creating a more accurate
memory image, and potentially lend insight into the composer’s intended meaning.
Someone who has visited Paniau would have his or her own memory image of
the location, and build the rest of the memory image in much greater detail. A
knowledge of Hawaiian fish and the coastline near Paniau may lead the listener or
reader to believe that perhaps they are #ama#ama – a fish which travels in schools and
can be seen in the waves before they break. The fact that the fish can be seen in the
water would indicate that the water was not murky–perhaps the sea was tranquil and
the waves were small. If it were a very overcast day, sufficient sunlight would not
allow someone to see the fish and their shadows as they travelled through the waves.
There is well-known #$lelo no#eau for the Kona side of Hawai‘i Island, near Paniau,
that states Kona, kai #$pua i ka la#i (‘Kona, where the horizon clouds rest in the
calm’) (Pukui 1983, 199). With this cultural knowledge I might add some clouds
211
along the horizon to the mental picture that I am assembling. Someone who is not
familiar with this saying or this shoreline may picture a cloudless or very overcast
day, large waves, and a fish that is not found in the shallow waters near Paniau.
Beamer returns to a broader view, glancing across the ‘Alenuih#h# Channel to
the island of Maui in the fourth verse:
V4, L1: Aia ma mua pono
V4, L2: ‘Au mai ana i ke kai
V4, L3: K%l" kuahiwi nani o Maui
V4, L4: Haleakal" he inoa
Directly out in front
Jutting out into the sea
That beautiful mountain of Maui
Haleakal#, her name
It is notable that Maui is not always visible from Paniau. Because of its
location and distance, only part of the island is visible from Paniau. Sometimes the
weather and the mist generated by the large waves found in the ‘Alenuih#h# Channel
mask it from view. Someone familiar with these facts may deduct that the weather on
the day that Beamer composed “Paniau” was calm and sunny in order for her to see
and depict it. The remainder of the verses continue this model of building a visual
framework for listeners, using similar depictions of the view from Paniau, the
stimulation of other senses, and the use of lists of words that will be discussed in later
sections of this chapter.
While the visual descriptions found in Paniau are literal, many Hawaiian
compositions use similar visual expressions that are indeed metaphoric expressions of
kaona. Almeida’s composition “Lei Hinahina”, selected by Kahaunaele for our
discussion, provides an example of this, and we are fortunate that Almeida himself
provided insight into its meanings.
V1, L1: Uluhua, uluhua wale au
V1, L2: I" Mahinakauahiahi
V1, L3: E kau a‘ela i luna l"
V1, L4: ‘Ike pono ‘ia ka pae ‘$pua
I am so very distressed
At Evening-Rising-Moon
Sitting up there above
Plainly seen are the banks of billowing
clouds.
V2, L1: He aloha l", he aloha
I adore, I adore
212
V2, L2: He aloha ku‘u lei hinahina My beloved hinahina lei
V2, L3: E lei ‘ia maila e ka ‘u‘a l" Now worn by a worthless person
V2, L4: E ka m"‘uka‘uka hoe hewa A buffoon who can’t even paddle a
canoe
V3, L1: I hewa n$ i" ‘oe l"
It’s your fault
V3, L2: I kou ‘"wihi maka ‘ana mai You did the winking
V3, L3: ‘Ike ‘ia e ka mea waiwai l" The rich one saw you
V3, L4: Pi‘i e ke kai i kumu pali
And now the sea rises at the base of the
cliff49
Fortunately Almeida provided some background information to Kimura
during a visit by Almeida to Kimura’s haku mele class at the University of Hawai!i at
M#noa in the 1980s (Pers. Comm.). Almeida explained that the song portrayed a love
triangle. The first individual was a woman he was involved with, portrayed
metaphorically as the hinahina flower lei. Almeida himself is referred to in the first
person, and another man that the woman was involved was metaphorically cast in
four different ways – as the moon rising in the evening (explained by Almeida to be a
balding man), as a worthless person, an incompetent canoe paddler and someone who
is rich. All of the portrayals in this mele are as visually stimulating to the listener as
“Paniau” is, yet the metaphors obscure the true facts of the story that Almeida
revealed to Kimura.
By helping the listener to visualize what she is describing and building their
own “memory images” using her depiction and their own knowledge, Beamer
facilitates the retention of information contained within the song. The accuracy or
inaccuracy of the picture that each listener creates does not diminish the effectiveness
of Beamer’s visual framework–a framework over which the reader or listener can
create his or her memory image.
49
Translation by the author, and included in the CD compilation John Kameaaloha Almeida,
1897-1985 (Almeida 2003).
213
Specificity of Word Choice
While the use of visually descriptive words in Hawaiian language composition
provides an aesthetically pleasing element to the mele, assists in the choreography of
hula, and supports notions of authenticity and the representation of Hawaiian thought,
it also serves a functional purpose–the retention of knowledge. All Hawaiian literary
forms, including mele, serve an educational purpose, including the preservation of
information:
Polynesians recognise the use of chants in the preservation and
transmission of information. Indeed, the chants themselves preserve
obsolete terms and pronunciations. Chants in the Kumulipo, the story of
P#ka!a, and elsewhere, which list large numbers of items, were in all
likelihood used for these purposes. (Charlot 2005, 275)
While the perpetuation and transmission of knowledge in pre-literate
Hawaiian society was maintained through memorization, Hawaiians maintained the
texts of their various literary forms with varying degrees of specificity. Some, like
genealogies and wills, were most strictly secured and “were both memorized and
contested until a general consensus was reached.” While mele were memorized, they
were less strictly maintained and subject to variation in their articulation. Hawaiian
prose more closely resembled spoken Hawaiian and was not memorized (Charlot
2005, 497). Transmission of knowledge in this manner “stimulated the imagination of
the child, trained him in visualization and the use of language, and added aesthetics to
the learning process” (Charlot 2005, 393).
Beamer and Machado were both cited by the participants in this research for
their choice of words. Silva praised Beamer’s skill as a composer: “He wahine
akamai i ka #$lelo Hawai#i, a ua … ua maika#i loa kona koho #ana i n" hua#$lelo,
launa” (2008) (‘She was very smart with Hawaiian language, and … she chose the
words well, they match’). As a native speaker of Hawaiian who lived and actively
214
composed in the first half of the 20th century, Beamer had a broad vocabulary of
words from which to choose. This is in contrast to younger composers of the
Hawaiian Renaissance era who were predominantly second language learners of
Hawaiian, and whose vocabulary choices were possibly influenced by the desires of
the members of the Hawai‘i recording industry (Stillman 1978, 6). While many of
Beamer’s compositions were recorded and released commercially during her lifetime,
there is no evidence that vocabulary choices were influenced by commercial
considerations. However, Charlot believes that Beamer would simplify the vocabulary
she used in her compositions because she understood that it would assist listeners of
that era–a time when fluency in the Hawaiian language was declining. He also noted
Beamer’s familiarity with a broad range of earlier Hawaiian music genres, and would
choose a vocabulary appropriate for the kind of song she was composing. He believed
that she understood that knowledgeable listeners might have previously heard those
songs, their words and meanings, and gain insight into her own compositions. Mahi
Beamer remains dubious of Charlot’s academic approach toward analysing Beamer’s
compositions, and vehemently disagrees with Charlot’s conclusion that Beamer
simplified her language to accommodate less-fluent listeners:
The thing is that whatever the situation was, that’s how she wrote it, that’s
how she composed it. And she and all of her people, her generation, her
people, this was their language, so they said it as they said it. It was not
necessary to make it understandable to those who don’t know the language.
(2009)
Sal# supports Mahi Beamer’s observation, noting:
I don’t think there is any other way you could paint this picture. Using… I
think if you look at her library, her repertoire of songs, if she really wanted
to be a little more poetic, she could have. She would have, you know. I
think this is what she meant. (2008)
215
Charlot did acknowledge that lacking first-hand knowledge of Beamer’s
compositional processes that “no one can enter into an artist’s soul.” He stressed that
his interpretation was based on his examination of Beamer’s compositions and that it
“has no more authority than its arguments” (2008, 6-7).
A number of participants discussed the importance of vocabulary choice and
the use of common words. Kamakahi notes the language he heard from the elders in
his family while growing up:
So the language back then was more flowery and more poetic and people
took time to choose the right word, instead of today we, common, we
choose another word, it wouldn’t have the same … if you looked at it you’d
go–wow. (2009)
Kumukahi lists Machado and Leleioh$k% as examples of composers who also
“chose their words well” (2008). She cites Leleioh$k%’s use of #$helo papa
(strawberries), pu#apu#a (tasteless; not tasty), and Niakala (Niagara) as examples of
words he used in “Wahine Hele L#” and that are infrequently used in Hawaiian
language composition:
There are those standards [words] that are used in many compositions
across the board, you know, generally speaking, and then there are these
little pearls that show up in a composition like this. I think it’s a good
lesson to be able to find those gems of words that we can be more selective
in using rather than, and be more specific about how we use those kinds of
words, and I think he’s [Leleioh$k%] a master at creative writing and
finding those magical words. (2008)
While acknowledging the compositional talents of all four royal siblings that
comprise N" Lahi ‘Eh", Mahi singles out Leleioh$k%’s poetry as “a little bit more
imaginative” and also cites his use of “interesting words which I just really enjoy
reading” (2008).
Although Nogelmeier acknowledges his occasional use of obscure words, he
adds that he does use not them to make his compositions more difficult to understand,
216
but chooses them for their specific meanings–some which are not differentiated in the
Hawaiian Dictionary. He may also use them in a new composition to document a new
word that he has learned in order to assist in retaining its meaning. He cites an
exchange with native speaker Kamuela Kumukahi to explain his use of kamahoi in
one of his compositions after a conversation with Kumukahi:
It might be just his unique grasp of it, but he says kamaha‘o is amazing,
and so is kamahoi. I think they might have the same description in the
dictionary. He says amazing doesn’t always have a particular connection to
you. I mean it could be amazing, but it’s not necessarily, he says that whole
kind of connection to hoihoi, to a personal relation to that. It’s not only
kamaha#o, it’s kamaha#o i kou ola [‘amazing in your life’]. Kamaha#o a
pili i" #oe [‘amazing and relevant to you’]. Ma kekahi #ano e pili ai #oe [‘in
some way it is relevant to you’]. So, you know, it’s… what a lovely little
distinction. I’ve not seen it in the dictionary as clarified that way – don’t
care, that’s what it’ll mean for me. You know, so, and it’s what I explain to
my students. This is what he understood the difference to be. (2009)
De Silva critiques his own compositional style, and concluded that he uses too
many obscure words in his own compositions, and that “a carefully placed word that
isn’t common is a lot more effective than verse after verse of ‘gotta go to the
dictionary’” (2008). While noting that many young composers of the Hawaiian
Renaissance era were not native speakers of Hawaiian, Stillman hypothesised that the
influence of the recording industry also caused composers to restrict their vocabulary
choices. She believed that composers, concerned that potential success of new
compositions would be limited by using obscure words and phrases, consciously
chose to incorporate “simple and familiar contexts which are acceptable to the
recording industry, as well as the audience” (1978, 6).
“Paniau” contains no words that would be unknown to an advanced, second
language learner of Hawaiian today, and all would certainly have been known by
native speakers of Beamer’s generation. Much of the vocabulary and some shorter
phrases contained within the composition can be found in other well-known songs
217
composed in the 1800s and early-1900s. However, the lack of obscure words in
“Paniau” belies the specific nature of the words that Beamer chose. Beamer opened
the mele by using a very common expression which states that “Paniau” is nani
“beautiful, pretty, glorious, splendid” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 261) in ka waiho
k"helahela i ka la#i (‘its expansive repose in the tranquility’). Nani is used three more
times in the composition – in the fourth verse to describe Haleakal# mountain on
Maui, in the sixth verse to describe the mountains Maunaloa, Maunakea and Hualalai
on Hawai!i island, and in the final line of the final verse where she closes the
compositions by restating his opening line - ua nani Paniau.
Pukui and Elbert’s Hawaiian Dictionary lists ten Hawaiian words under the
English entry for “beautiful” – “nani, u#i, maika#i. Also: makalapua, p$lani, nonohe,
hiluhilu, luhiehu; mikihilina (as dress, finery, ornaments); pa#anehe (as work) ”
(Pukui, Elbert 1986, 261) - and four Hawaiian words under “pretty” – “nani, maika#i,
u#i, nohea, huapala” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 504). It is important to note that those ten
words listed under the entry for “beautiful” are not synonyms, nor are those listed
under the entry for “pretty”. Each of these words reflects a different type of beauty
from the Hawaiian perspective - distinctions similar to those articulated by Kamuela
Kumukahi to Nogelmeier regarding the difference between kamaha#o and kamahoi.
For example, in the English entry for “beautiful”, the dictionary specifies the use of
two words - mikihilina (for dress, finery, ornaments) and pa#anehe (for work). While
other Hawaiian terms displayed in these entries do not provide the specific
circumstances when certain terms should or should not be used, this is not an
indication that they may be used interchangeably. U#i is listed under the entries for
“beautiful” and “pretty”, however the gloss for u#i is “youthful, youthfully stalwart,
heroic, handsome, pretty, beautiful, vigorous; youth; youthful vigour and beauty;
218
youthful hero, beautiful young woman” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 504). The implication of
youth in the use of u#i is not found in the other Hawaiian words listed in the entries
for “beauty” nor for “pretty”. Likewise, huapala imparts a feeling of affection or
intimacy – “sweetheart, lover; pretty, handsome” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 85). Neither
would likely be appropriate to use to describe the beauty of land features.
Other than the movement of fish through the waves found in the third verse,
most of verses of “Paniau” describe scenic elements – the Pacific Ocean, Mount
Haleakal#, the Kohala District, Maunaloa, Maunakea, Hualalai, the wai #au#au
(bathing pool) and various trees which surround it. Sal# cites her use of p"hola in the
line i" #oe e Kohala e pahola nei, noting that she could have used a number of other
words in its place. I can provide no insight regarding Beamer’s choice of p"hola over
other Hawaiian words to describe the expanse of Kohala, other than to suggest that it
could be for the consonance and/or assonance of the place name Kohala with p"hola.
However, there are other words that she could have used that would have provided the
same similarity of sound.
Sal# cites Machado’s use of the word haha#i instead of ha#i in her composition
“Aloha N$”, believing that there was intent behind her use of the less-commonly used
haha#i:
I don’t believe her to be a composer that puts tra-la-la’s in if they’re not
meant to be something… So she says… she doesn’t say E ha#i ana i kou
moe #ole, she’s saying E haha#i ana i kou moe #ole, haha#i ana. Why
haha#i and not just ha#i? (2008)
Ha#i means “to tell, to say” and while haha#i is not glossed in the Hawaiian
dictionary with a similar meaning, Motta and De Silva translate e haha#i ana as
“telling” (2006, 21). Elbert and M#hoe noted that full or partial reduplication is
inevitable in Hawaiian due to its relatively small number of vowels and consonants.
They also observed that such reduplications are usually, but not always “indicative of
219
plurality, repeated action or continuous state,” and that there are words such as ahiahi
(evening) and ikaika (strong) that exist only as reduplications (1970, 12). While it is
possible that Machado’s use of haha#i could indicate that she was told several times
or repeatedly about his sleeplessness, we unfortunately do not know how Machado
herself differentiated the meanings of these two words.
The Other Senses
While several participants in this research noted the visual nature of Beamer’s
compositions, she also includes elements that require the use of other senses.
Hawaiian literature in general “uses all the senses” (Charlot, Pers. Comm., 28 Oct.
2009), and Beniamina notes the importance of the senses in Hawaiian composition:
Ho#ohana i n" lonoa a pau. He ihu ka hana. He makani p" i ka helehelena,
puka ka leo, lohe #oe i ke aha… pehea ka hanu #ana o ka ihu, pehea ka #ike
#ana a ka maka, a pehea ka hana a ka lima? Komo k%l" mau mea kekahi.
(2009)
Use all of the senses. The nose has a job. The wind that blows in the face,
the voice is expressed, you hear what… how does it smell to the nose, how
does it look like to the eyes, and what does the hand feel? These things
come in, too.
The Hawaiian dictionary identifies #ike as “sense”, and lists several examples
– “Sense of taste, #ike i ka #ono. Sense of pain, #ike i ka #eha. Sense of sight, #ike i ka
maka.” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 51). The Hawaiian Lexicon Committee coined the new
term lonoa for sense, and identifies five: “Lonoa alelo. Sense of taste. Lonoa ihu.
Sense of smell. Lonoa maka. Sense of sight. Lonoa pepeiao. Sense of hearing. Lonoa
#ili. Sense of touch” (K$mike Hua‘$lelo 2003, 383).
Beamer described the sensation of touch that she experienced at “Paniau”, and
includes them in the composition:
V3, L3: Me ke kai pumehana hone i ke kino Warm seas softly caress the body
V6, L1: Na ke ahe lau makani i ho#op" mai A gentle breeze caresses
V7, L1: Ka wai #au#au o ka wahine
A fresh water bathing spring for
220
aia i ka #olu
the lady, there in the cool shelter
In the first two lines of Paniau, Beamer described her visual observation of
fish as the move through the waves before they break; however, it also contains a
subtle aural element:
V3, L1: Ka i#a e holoholo ana i ka nalu The fish moving in the waves
V3, L2: Ha#i mai i ka h"papa
Which break on the reef
Ha#i in this context translates as “To break or snap, as a stick; broken;
fracture, joint, break” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 47). Each of these items, when breaking,
will make a sound. It is perhaps not a coincidence then that the second gloss of ha#i is
“To say, tell, mention, state, declare, confess” (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 47).
While Beamer did not refer to the sense of smell in “Paniau”, Reichel explains
its importance to Hawaiians:
Fragrance is important to us, and maybe I’m getting off into a tangent, but
you know fragrance to me is like Godliness; it changes your thought
process almost instantly … it’s like when you walk into a room and
someone has p&kake [Indian jasmine] on, almost right a way you go [takes a
deep breath through the nose] kind of thing because it changes your whole
mind, it alters your thinking of them. (2008)
Beniamina describes her first encounter with the fragrance of the pua #ala
aumoe (night-blooming jasmine) at a friend’s home that became the inspiration for
and the name of one of her best-known compositions, “Pua !Ala Aumoe”:
Honi mau au i k%ia #a#ala #a#ole na#e au i n&ele he aha k%l" #a#ala … a
puka m"kou ma waho ma ka l"nai … i k%ia ahiahi wale n$, i ka l" #a#ole i
honi #ia, ke ahiahi, ke #ala, a malihini ia#u, no ka mea, #a#ole au i… #a#ole
au maopopo. He aha l" ka #a#ala. He #ala aumoe k%n". #Ala aumoe. He
aha k%l" mea. #Ala aumoe … no ka mea he hopenapule ma ia manawa, a
puke wale ka #$lelo, he pua #ala #oe na#u i honi i ke aumoe, #o #oe kai pane
mai i ku#u nui aloha. (2009)
I would always smell this fragrance, but I never asked what that fragrance
was … we went outside on the porch… only in the evenings, during the
day you didn’t smell it, in the evenings the fragrance… it was new to me,
because I didn’t know. What is that fragrance? It was the ylangylang
flower. There was a weekend around that time, the words just came out,
221
you are a fragrant flower that I smelled in the evening. You were the one
that who answered my complete love.
The composer, as a reminiscence of someone who is no longer present,
sometimes uses fragrance. In the third verse of Kimura’s composition “I Ka Ua O Ka
P$ Nei”, Kimura portrays the clearing of rain and a reminiscence brought on by the
fragrance of the k&ele (gardenia) blossom:
V3, L1: I ka mao #ana a#e o ka ua
V3, L2: #Upu a#ela n" hali#a i ka m"lie
V3, L3: L&hau ke #ala pua k&ele
V3, L4: Ua sila i n" ke#ena pu#uwai
As the rain clears
A memory arises in the calm
Moist with the fragrance of the k&ele
Sealed in the recesses of the heart
Raymond chose to discuss “I Ka Ua O Ka P$ Nei”, and relates this verse to
those times that his wife is away travelling, but her scent remains, reminding him of
her:
Kekahi manawa ku#u wahine, hele paha #o ia i O#ahu, #o au wale n$ ma ka
moe, hopu au i kona uluna, honi i kona #ala, l&hau i ka pua. #O ia n$. A ua
sila ma waena o m"ua wale n$. A no laila, ma#a, he lahilahi paha k%ia,
ak", hononu ma kekahi #ano. (2008)
Sometimes my wife goes to O‘ahu. I’m alone in bed, I grab her pillow,
smell her fragrance, fresh with scent of the flower. That’s it. It has been
sealed between the two of us alone. And so, it’s familiar, it is perhaps
delicate, but deep in some way.
The final verse in many Hawaiian compositions is often one that summarises
the contents of the entire mele or revisits a main theme that is stated in the first verse.
The invocation of fragrance is also a powerful tool to express this theme. In his
discussion of “E Aha ‘Ia Ana !o Maunakea”, De Silva commented on the use of
fragrance in the last verse of the mele:
I just love the fact that it ends in fragrance, just the way to summarise and
older Hawaiian, in older Hawaiian poetry, the fragrance in very often the
last thought or the thought that brings emotion and thought and memory all
together, it’s in your nose. Which is not something that we’re really, in my
experience, trained anymore or ma#a [accustomed] to anymore, that there
still is a sense of fragrance with us, people and their fragrance, my mother
and her fragrance … (2008)
222
While the use of visual description is important in Paniau and other Hawaiian
compositions, it is clear that the use of other senses also entices the reader or listener
to bring their past experiences into the process of creating a broader sensual memory
picture.
Present Tense, Tenseless Verbs and Noun Phrases
Kamakahi notes the extensive use of present tense in older chants–“it’s in the
now; it’s our present now. So they’re taking us back to this present time. That is
amazing, then it has no time restraints” (2009). The previous depictions of Beamer’s
compositions as motion pictures are also indicative of the listener’s “in the present”
experience. Beamer enhanced her description of Paniau by her use of the present
tense, tenseless verbs and noun phrases throughout the composition that places the
listener at her side as she describes what she sees. Her use of present tense and
tenseless verbs is not unique among Hawaiian composers, nor is it unique to
Hawaiian composition. American composer Jimmy Webb observed that the present
tense is “one of the loveliest modes of lyric writing” though it poses “a special
challenge” (1998, 59). “Paniau” begins with this statement:
V1, L2: Ua nani Paniau i ka#u #ike
Beautiful is Paniau in my sight
Ua is an aspect marker that does not indicate past tense; however, an
indication of tense “must be supplied in English translations of sentences” (Elbert
1979, 57). When ua is followed by a verb, the English translation is frequently done
in the past tense. When paired with a stative or condition-marking verb such as nani
(beautiful), ua may indicate present tense or indicate that the item that is being
described has reached that state or condition (Elbert 1979, 57-8). Beamer clearly did
not intend to describe Paniau’s beauty in the past tense. Therefore ua nani is
translated as stating that Paniau “is beautiful” and not “was beautiful”. The remainder
223
of the first verse is an extension of the thought contained in the first two lines, and
identifies its location in “a panoramic expanse in the calm” (Beamer 1991, 12).
The absence of an aspect or verb marker in front of ahuwale in the first line of
verse two indicates the description of a condition, and is also without tense.
V2, L1: Ahuwale ka moana P"k&pika In plain view is the Pacific Ocean
The first indications of tense in “Paniau” occurs in the third line of the second
verse, as Beamer describes her perspective of the ocean cradling the shore and island:
V2, L3: N"na e hi#ipoi nei Hawai#i Cradling this Hawai!i’
The verb markers e and nei that precede and follow the verb hi#ipoi indicate
an action that is occurring at the time at which it is stated. The first line of the next
verse further supports Ruddle’s observation - aia ma mua pono (directly in front [of
me]). Beamer then described what she sees directly in front her as she composes
“Paniau” – Haleakal# on the island of Maui, which is located across the !Alenuih#h#
Channel from Hawai!i island and is visible from Paniau on clear days:
V4, L1: Aia ma mua pono
V4, L2: ‘Au mai ana i ke kai
V4, L3: K%l" kuahiwi nani o Maui
V4, L4: Haleakal" he inoa
Directly in front
Jutting out into the sea
That beautiful mountain of Maui
Haleakal#, her name
Beamer exercised poetic license in omitting the e usually found in the
imperfect aspect marker combination e + verb + ana at the beginning of the second
line - a common practice in Hawaiian poetry. The meaning of this line [e] ‘au mai
ana i ke kai (‘jutting out into the sea’) describes condition, and that this condition
existed in the past, continues in the present, and will continue in the future.
Beamer next described the sight of the Kohala District of Hawai!i Island in
repose before her by addressing it directly:
V5, L1: I" ‘oe e Kohala e p"hola nei To you, Kohala, spread out here
224
Again, Beamer uses the present tense to provide the listener an “in the
moment” experience. The sole instance of past tense in “Paniau” appears to occur in
the first line of verse five – Na ke ahe lau makani i ho‘op" mai. However, the
translation provided by Marmionett Beamer for this line – “a gentle breeze caresses” also indicates a present, ongoing action50 (1991, 12). The remainder of the song’s text
describes Beamer’s observations is without any aspect or verb markers. Kimura
described a visit to Paniau many years after Beamer composed “Paniau” and
confirmed the accuracy of her depictions of the place. He noted how he observed
“fish in the waves before they broke on the reef, just as Beamer had described them”
in the first two lines of the third verse. Kimura’s observations at Paniau also
confirmed the correct gloss for ka niu ha‘a i ke one as “the dwarf coconut trees” and
not another possible gloss–“the dancing coconut trees” (Charlot 2008, 6).
Beamer’s use of ua to describe present condition, the use of the [e] + verb +
ana imperfect aspect markers and the e + verb + nei present verb markers leads the
listener to visualize the scene as Beamer describes. She did not describe what she had
previously seen – she is describing what she sees and experiences as she composes
the mele. This conclusion is supported by Annabelle Ruddle’s description of Beamer
as she composed “Paniau” - “lying on her opu (‘stomach’) on the bed looking out to
the sea and writing on a pad” (Beamer 1991, 8).
“He Nani N$ ‘O M#kaha” is another place name song of unknown authorship,
written for a place on the west side of the island of O‘ahu, and which was chosen by
Kimura for our discussion. Kimura expresses his opinion that while many people
believe that this is a place name song for M#kaha itself, that it is actually a mele
50
The origins of this specific translation are unknown. In her book, Marmionette Beamer,
she notes that the source for the English translations in this collection are and notations
are from the notes of Helen Desha Beamer and her daughter Harriet Beamer Magoon,
and recollection of her other children and family members (Beamer 1991, ix).
225
ho#oipoipo (love-making song). It is devoid of any verb or tense markers except for
the use of the e + verb + ana construction in the first line of the third verse.
V1, L1: He nani n$ M"kaha
V1, L2: Noho mai i ke onaona
V1, L3: Onaona i ke #ala me ke aloha
V1, L4: Ho#oheno ana i ka poli
M#kaha is truly beautiful
Reposed in fragrance
Fragrant in the scent with my love
Cherished in the bosom
V2, L1: He poli pumehana ko#u
V2, L2: Pumehana ho#i ku#u kino
V2, L3: #O #oe a #o au n$ i laila
V2, L4: I ka u#i a ke aloha
My bosom is warm
As is my entire body
You and I are there together
In the beauty of love
V3, L1: E aloha a#e ana au
V3, L2: Ke kai honehone mai
V3, L3: Ke kai honehone papa he#e nalu
V3, L4: Ho#oipo ana me ia#u
I love
The gently caressing sea
Gently caressing the surf board
Making love to me
V4, L1: Me a#u mai n$ #oe
V4, L2: Ka nani a#o M"kaha
V4, L3: Ku#u hoa i ke #ala me ke onaona
V4, L4: I ka poli a ke aloha
You are together with me
The beauty of M#kaha
My companion in the fragrance
In the bosom of love
V5, L1: Ha#ina mai ka puana
V5, L2: He nani n$ M"kaha
V5, L3: Noho mai i ke #ala me ke onaona
V5, L4: I ka poli a ke aloha
The story is told
M#kaha is truly beautiful
Reposed in fragrance
In the bosom of love
One of the effects of using verbs in the present tense or tenseless expressions
in Hawaiian compositions such as “Paniau” and “He Nani N$ ‘O M#kaha” is that they
provide a sense of genealogical continuity–they can be sung and enjoyed, expressing
the sentiments of composers like Beamer and making them meaningful today. They
are not simply expressions of a time past, but are relevant now and into the future.
Syntax, Grammar and Terseness
Several participants in this research cited their preference for songs that
featured simplicity of composition and grammar. Both Kamakahi and Mahi believe
that older compositions feature a simpler form of grammar that is sometimes lacking
226
in modern compositions. Kamakahi cites two well-known hula ku#i from the 1800s as
examples of this simplicity:
What I love about looking at old chants is the poetry, because it’s hard to
write simply until you go back and you go back to the ancient chants. Two
lines and three line stanzas; usually chants are two lines. A good example is
the song “He!eia” and another is “Hi!ilawe”, when they write in these two
line stanzas, yet, man, they pick just the right phrasing and words to fit in
this meter that they use. Trying to do that today is hard. I mean you have to
be a master and I think that’s why I, you know, I write music I favour
going back to the old style and doing the material just to bring it up to the
audience to see. This is what simplicity is. This is what the language we no
longer, I mean the people back then it was just so easy. But for us it’s hard.
(2009)
While acknowledging her lack of knowledge in Hawaiian language at the
time, Kumukahi uses a guitar tuned to a slack key tuning that forces her to compose in
a manner that is simpler than when she uses standard tuning:
The biggest thing was simplicity. Simplicity. And that’s why, without even
attending a Hawaiian language class, I wrote my first song and I did it by
the dictionary and you know, but the one thing that kept me simple was I
purposely tuned my guitar to slack key … it forced me to stay away from
the minor chords, because I didn’t know how to play the minor chords in
slack key. The diminished chords, I didn’t know how to do it in the slack
key. So slack key gave me the simplicity to… and you know you only have
a few chords you can play in slack key. (2008)
In addition to Beamer’s talent in choosing words, her compositions also
featured “clarity of syntax that produces a light, delicate music that is physically
delightful to sing and recite” (Charlot 2008, 7). Charlot cited an encounter with
Hawaiian chorus member who told him that they performed Beamer’s songs so often
because they “just feel good to sing” (2008, 7). Elbert and M#hoe hypothesised that
Robert’s description of “word painting succeeding word painting” was related to the
grammar and syntax of the Hawaiian language, and that “the long, involved,
entangled, embedded, bewildering-to-a-Polynesian phrases of English (such as this
one)” would be expressed as six or more phrases or clauses in Hawaiian (1970, 14).
227
They also noted that the frequent use of noun phrases and the omission of subjects in
many verb phrases as being commonplace in Hawaiian, though they may sound
ungrammatical in English (1970, 14-5). Nogelmeier acknowledges that while word
choice and grammatical structure are important aspects of Hawaiian composition, and
also believes that consistency of word choice and grammatical structure must be
considered:
I’ve used this [“Maika‘i Ka ‘'iwi O Ka!ala”] as an example in my poetry
class for the levels of word choice, you know and that there’s a consistency
on the kinds of words that are chosen, and yet they are all different. And a
lot of poetry today will have eight descriptive words that are used
throughout the song and that’s it, or there’s a limited pool of poetic
vocab[ulary] that gets repeated, so it’s nice to see that expanded. That was
part of it… Usually there’s a level that’s approached and more or less
within that level, so there is kind of a structure and it’s been utilized from
the beginning mostly through to the end. Then, and the poetry that I like
usually aren’t grammatical wonders. They’re not all over the place. If it’s
complex, it’s complex all the way through. And there is a reason for that…
It’s not jumping all over the place. So this is pretty consistent. There’s a
consistent high level of vocabulary, there’s a consistent simplicity. There’s
a straight descriptive, stative verbs… (Nogelmeier 2009)
De Silva modestly critiques his own writing, indicating that he could simplify
his compositions more and still represent the meaning he wishes to transmit through
the mele:
It’s the seemingly simpler stuff that, to me, is the most lasting and the most
seemingly simpler in composition. Seemingly simpler in delivery that
proves to me more timeless and more appealing, at least to me. And that
the effort at least in my, from my own point of view, in my own
composition, where I see myself failing is that I haven’t made it simple
enough. I haven’t worked it down to the point where only what needs to be
said is said, and not the language, the syllable count, everything is as
reduced as possible, but still a bearer of much meaning. (2008)
This desire for simplicity must also take into account the need for accurate
expression of the thought, including the emphasis of particular parts of the phrase or
sentence. Emphasis in Hawaiian is expressed through word order and use of different
228
grammatical structures. Alexander notes four different ways to say ‘I give this to you’
– each which emphasises a different word51.
(a) Ke h"#awi aku nei au i k%ia i" #oe.
‘I give this to you.’
(b) #O au ke h"#awi aku nei i k%ia i" #oe.
(c) #O #oe ka mea a#u e h"#awi aku nei i k%ia.
(d) #O k%ia ka#u e h"#awi aku nei i" #oe.
‘I give this to you.’ (Elbert
1979, 132)
Alexander refers to the #o particle as the “#o emphatic”, and posited that the
use of this particle is what results in the shift of emphasis in these grammatical
structures. Elbert disagrees, stating that the arrangement of these #o phrases at the
beginning of the sentence and not the presence of the #o particle is what causes these
phrases to be emphatic. He also notes that the English translations that Alexander
provides could be expressed by fronting the emphatic words in English, as is done in
the Hawaiian.
(b) #O au ke h"#awi aku nei i k%ia i" #oe.
‘I’m the one giving this to you.’
(c) #O #oe ka mea a#u e h"#awi aku nei i k%ia. ‘You’re the one I’m giving this
to.’
(d) #O k%ia ka#u e h"#awi aku nei i" #oe.
‘This is what I’m giving you.’
(Elbert 1979, 132)
What Elbert failed to note is that form (a), fronted by a verb phrases, is
difficult or awkward to express in English, and also fails to provide a grammatical
English wording for that phrase. Elbert summarised three general rules that “favor the
hypothesis that elements in focus preceded elements not in focus”:
51
The Hawaiian and corresponding English word whose thought is emphasised in the
phrase will be underlined. Words that precede the emphasised word in the Hawaiian
sentence are either verb markers or articles and are not translated.
229
1)
2)
3)
A base precedes its qualifiers, except that a chief’s name may
precede the object named for him.
A possessed object in the underlying structure precedes the
possessor, but the latter may be emphasised by reversing this
order.
Verb phrases in underlying structure precede noun phrases, but
noun phrases may be fronted for emphasis. (Elbert 1979, 172)
Most of the verb phrases in “Paniau” are similar in structure to Alexander’s
sentence structure (a) that begins with a verb phrase. This is also the most commonly
used Hawaiian structure, and taught in first semester Hawaiian using the N" Kai
#Ewalu textbook (Kaman#, Wilson 1990, 11-14). Beamer only used some of the more
complex sentence structures52 found in (b), (c), and (d) in Paniau, and they are found
in the first lines of verse three (V3) and four (V4):
V3, L1: Ka i‘a e holoholo ana i ka nalu ‘The fish run though the waves’
V4, L1: I" #oe e Kohala e p"hola nei
‘You Kohala, spread out there’
By fronting the first line of verse three with the noun phrase ka i#a, she placed
emphasis on the fish, and not the action of their movement through the water. In the
first line of verse four the verb phrase follows the place name Kohala in order to
further describe it, rather than to describe the action of “spreading out”.
Beamer also used the na preposition to emphasise nouns before the verb
phrases that follow them. The third line of the second verse (V2, L3) states:
V2, L3: N"na e hi#ipoi nei i" Hawai‘i
‘Cradling this Hawai!i’
While not provided in the translation, n"na may be more accurately translated
as “that which is”, and refers to ka moana P"k&pika, (the Pacific Ocean) that is found
in line one of the second verse. In doing so she emphasises that it is the ocean that is
cradling Hawai!i, rather than the act of cradling itself. The first line of verse six (V6,
L1) states:
52
The characterization of these sentences as “complex” is Elbert's (1979, 132).
230
V6, L1: Na ke ahe lau makani i ho#op" mai ‘A gentle breeze caresses’
This translation does not reflect the use of the na preposition and fronting of
the verb phrase ke ahe lau makani (the gentle breeze). Taking these factors into
account, a more accurate translation could be “it is a gentle breeze which caresses”,
emphasising the wind itself over the action ho#op" (to touch). While Elbert
characterised sentence forms (a), (b), and (c) as shown above as “complex sentences”,
they are actually quite common in Hawaiian poetry. None of the grammatical
structures that Beamer used would be considered complex by a native speaker of her
era, though some challenge second language learners today53.
With such a broad palate of words to draw upon to describe Paniau’s beauty,
perhaps others not listed in the Hawaiian dictionary, and a native speaker’s command
of Hawaiian, one might wonder why she would use so many common words and
simple grammatical structures. Sal# provides his opinion for her reasons:
In much of her mele she has this way of choosing words that do exactly
what she means for them to do… (2008)
I have previously characterised this element of Hawaiian compositions as
“deceptive simplicity” - choosing the right words and grammatical structures that
express exactly what you intend to express, regardless of the reader or listener’s
possible perceptions regarding the simplicity of the word or grammatical structure
used. No intended thought is left out and no unintended meaning is left in. The words
cannot be arranged in any other way without changing the meaning of what is written.
That is the essence of Hawaiian poetry.
53
This is a personal observation from my interactions with Hawaiian language students at
the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, as well as my own experience as a second language
learner of Hawaiian.
231
Linking Devices
While “Paniau” contains no examples of linked assonance, I include
discussion of this feature of Hawaiian poetry here as it is most closely related to the
other topics found in this chapter. I will draw on discussion of this poetic feature as
the participants in this research noted it in other mele. Kamakahi discussed the use of
linked assonance, one of several kinds of linking devices found in Hawaiian poetry, in
the 19th century compositions “Ka Manu”:
This person was skilled in maybe haku mele or chanting. This is very akin
to the old style of chant writing where you know it was commonplace back
then, in the 1850s, 1840s, because they still had it. And to us it was ancient,
but to them it wasn’t that ancient. So their form of writing, is the old style,
it’s what I call the old style. It’s so beautiful how they composed this, mele,
he mele, kapalili, he lili, you know these references (2009).
Hawaiian poetic compositions do not contain line-terminal rhymes similar to
those found in English language poetry and songs. However, other poetic devices are
used in mele (Elbert, M#hoe 1970, 10-25; Kimura 2002, 11; Tatar 1982, 24; Roberts
1967, 66-67). Some of these devices assist in the memorization of long texts and
assist in the accurate transmission of the mele. One textual element found in older
mele that is also found in these later forms and continues to be used by modern haku
mele is the use of linking devices. The most readily apparent of these devices, even to
someone who does not speak the Hawaiian language, is linked assonance (Tatar 1982,
24).
The text of “Ka Manu” appears below, and the use of assonance linking
device is underlined. Note that it is not necessary for the match to be perfect, nor do
the linking words need to appear at the very end of one line, or as the first word of the
following line. While the line-terminal words of the first verse do rhyme, I believe
232
this to be a coincidence, and no other instance of line-terminal rhyming are found in
the mele:
‘Auhea wale ‘oe e ka manu
Ku‘u hoa ‘alo leo o ka p$ anu
Mea ‘ole ia anu a i ka mana‘o
Ke ko‘i‘i koi mau a ka pu‘uwai
Na wai no ‘oe e pakele aku
Ua like me ka liko a‘o ka lehua
Ka maka o ka lehua ka mea aloha
Ka wehi holu mai ma ka hikina
E honi k"ua e ke aloha
Ke noe mai nei ka pua lehua
Alia ‘oe a‘e p!lale mai
A hala o maile lau kapalili
He lili ka mana‘o o ke kapena
N" ‘ale po‘ip! a‘o ka moana
Ua ana pono ‘ia ko‘u mana‘o
E ka lei hulu nani hulu melemele
He mele kaulana no Nihoa
Ua hui Kane‘ohe me Pohoiki
Ha‘ina ‘ia mai ana ka puana
Goodbye k"ua me ka ‘eha‘eha
Raymond expressed his admiration for composers who are skilled in the use of
these devices, and cited the 19th century composition “Ua Noho Au A Kupa” as an
example of a song that used these kinds of devices:
Maika#i ho#i kekahi o ka haku #ana, ka #eko#a – i laila, i #ane#i, lohe #ia
kekahi o k%l" mau mea i loko o ka haku #ana. Mahalo nui au i k%l" #ano.
(Raymond 2008)
The composition is good, the use of opposites – there, here - you can hear
some of those things in the composition. I greatly appreciate that type of
thing.
233
Kimura documented four different types of ku#inaiwi (poetic linking devices)
– kani (sound), mana#o (thought, meaning or to think) and pilina#$lelo (grammar).
Each of these three types of ku#inaiwi also had three sub-types – like (identical), pili
(similar) and #eko#a (opposite). The final ku#inaiwi–and the only one that has no substyle–is nane. For example, a ku#inaiwi kani like exists when a word or sound in one
line is identical to a word or sound in the next line, and a ku#inaiwi kani pili exists
when a word or sound in one line is similar–but not identical to a word or sound in the
next line.
Nogelmeier notes the early recognition of this particular poetic device, and
credits Kimura with the recognition of a deeper structure that Kimura identified in his
analysis of the chants contained in the epic “Hi!iakaikapoliopele”:
So a line that ends in pua, and the next line starts in pua aku [‘spawn of a
type of tuna fish’]. Okay. So this was recognised by ethnomusicologists
and folks who were looking from the 1880s or so. So it’s first mentioned,
and then some of the really good work that’s been done by formal
ethnomusicologists. But once we started to look at poetry, and Larry
Kimura is who brought me into this … but wait a minute, ’cause somebody
without the language can see that. It ends in pua, it starts in pua. Well, what
about one that ends in pua and starts with mohala [‘to bloom’]? They no
match, but they’ll mean ‘$pua and ‘$pu#u, one means flower, one means
bud. And so by related meaning, but they don’t sound the same anymore.
And then there’s ones where the end of a line will end in wela [‘hot’], and
the next line starts with anu [‘cold’]. So it’s in opposition. (2009)
The use of these devices–words of similar or opposite meaning rather than
words that sound the same–are elements that were not apparent to early researchers
with limited Hawaiian language skills. All of the examples noted previously in “Ka
Manu” are either ku#inaiwi kani like or ku#inaiwi kani pili. A ku#inaiwi mana#o #eko#a
exists when the meaning–not the sound–of a word in one line is the opposite of a
word or sound in the next line. For example:
Ua ala ka uka
Ua ala ke kai (Kimura 2002, 16).
234
In this example, uka means “the uplands” and kai means “the sea”, a use of the
ku#inaiwi mana#o #eko#a is common, as are other combinations – i luna/i lalo
(top/bottom) and i loko/i waho (inside/outside). For some ‘eko‘a combinations, the
order that the terms appear in the mele is important as well. The use of kai before uka,
lalo before luna, or waho before loko would be hemahema (sloppy) and inaccurate.
These are but two samples of the nine possible combinations of ku#inaiwi kani
(sound), mana#o (meaning) and pilina#$lelo (grammar), each of which can have the
attribute of like, pili or !eko#a. The nane (puzzle) is the tenth ku#inaiwi identified by
Kimura, and is the use of a word or name that requires cultural knowledge in order to
understand its meaning and use. Not all lines have ku#inaiwi, and Kimura ascribes the
term #ole (‘none’ or ‘without’) to denote the absence of any ku#inaiwi in a particular
passage of a mele (2002, 10). In contemporary compositions, ku#inaiwi are frequently
encountered between verses as well as lines within the verse, and help performers
memorize the mele. To the listener, the use of ku#inaiwi assists the flow of sound and
meaning from one verse to the next. They may be found, however, throughout the
mele. They were also aids to the accurate transmission of mele from one generation to
the next.
During discussions with my hoa k!k"k!k", my attempts to turn the discussion
in the direction of the linking devices would frequently return the subject to the
thought behind the mele. Kamakahi mentions a few instances of linked assonance in
“Ka Manu”, and then added:
It looks like he didn’t have to think too much on this song. It was just a
flow. Once he started writing, it was just, oh, I know exactly what I want to
say, because everything just flows right into the next verse. (2009)
De Silva notes the usefulness of linking devices in exploring alternative
directions during the composition process:
235
Sometimes I give myself a challenge, and I do it [trying to create a link]
from the end of one. Sometimes I like to do that because it forces me to
appreciate more chance, this is not where I meant to go, but I, ooh, look at
this word, maybe I should start my next verse with this. And I go, ooh,
that’s a possibility. Sometimes I’ve gone way off of the original intent …
but that’s delightful, too. At other times I say, no, I’m not going to try to
follow that, but generally I enjoy the linking of terminals and it holds me
better too, I think. (2008)
“Paniau” lacks any examples of linked assonance or any poetic device that
would be accessible to someone who did not speak the Hawaiian language. We do not
know if Beamer consciously made this choice or simply exercised her poetic license.
If, as Charlot argued, Beamer simplified the language of her compositions to
accommodate an audience lacking fluency in the language, one might expect that she
could also augment other aesthetic devices that are accessible to that same audience.
As a non-Hawaiian speaking audience could have easily recognised linked assonance,
she could have used it to enhance the listening experience of that audience if that was
indeed her intent.
Lists and Repetition
Reichel believes that repetition in composition, as well as in performance, is
an important aspect of Hawaiian language composition and performance. He cited the
use of lists of similar elements during our discussion of “Ka Wai A K#ne”:
Maybe that’s a throwback, maybe that’s a DNA thing that we are looking
at, you know, that we have to do to get that mana#o [‘thought’] across.
Because otherwise we wouldn’t have such a thing as repetition. You know
so there has to be a reason and a power, for lack of a better word, to
repetition and whether that be in the actual text itself or in the arrangement
of the mele. (2008)
The text of “Ka Wai A K#ne”, chosen by Reichel, appears below. Each item
that is part of a list is underlined. Some verses contain two lists, and in these instances
the first list will have a single underline, and the second list a double underline. While
236
these items are not synonyms, they represent a continuity of thought and/or
representation of a similar location:
He ui, he ninau:
E ui aku ana au i# !oe,
Aia i hea ka wai a K#ne?
Aia i ka hikina a ka l#,
Puka i Ha!eha!e
Aia i laila ka Wai a K#ne.
A query, a question,
I will ask of you
Where is the water of K#ne?
It is where the sun arrives
And emerges at Ha!eha!e;
There is the water of K#ne.
Aia i hea ka Wai a K#ne?
Aia i Kaulanakal#,
I ka pae ‘$pua i ke kai
Ea mai ana ma N&hoa
Ma ka mole mai o Lehua;
A question I ask of you:
Out there with the floating Sun,
Where clouds rest on the sea,
Rising at Nihoa,
At the base of Lehua;
There is the water of K#ne.
E ui aku ana au i# ‘oe,
Aia i ke kuahiwi, i ke kualono,
I ke aw#wa, i ke kahawai;
I will ask of you,
Where is the water of Kane?
It is on mountain, on the ridges,
In the valleys, in the rivers;
There is the water of Kane.
Aia i hea ka Wai a Kane?
Aia i kai, i ka moana,
I ke Kualau, i ke #nuenue,
I ka punohu, a i ka uakoko,
I ka !#lewalewa
Aia i laila ka Wai a Kane.
I will ask of you,
Where is the water of Kane?
It is at sea, in the ocean,
In the Kualau rain, in the rainbow,
It in the piled up mist, in the blood rain
Floating
There is the water of Kane.
Aia i luna ka Wai a K#ne,
I ke ao uli, i ke ao !ele!ele,
I ke ao panopano,
I ke ao popolohua mea a K#ne l#, e!
I will ask of you,
The water of K#ne is above
In the dark clouds, in the black clouds,
In the thick clouds,
In the dark, purplish clouds of K#ne,
There is the water of K#ne
E ui aku ana au i# !oe.
Aia i hea ka Wai a Kane?
Aia i lalo, i ka honua, i ka Waihu,
I ka wai kau a Kane me Kanaloa
He wai puna, he wai e inu,
He wai e mana, he wai e ola.
E ola n$,‘e#!
I will ask of you,
It is beneath, in the earth, in the springs.
In the water ducts of K#ne and Kanaloa
A well, a water to drink
A power-giving water, a water of life
Give us life, yes
237
Charlot noted the extensive uses of lists as an aid to memorization in Hawaiian
literature (2005, 225). Their use is common in older mele that are performed in an oli
style. Because of their length, lists are not as frequently encountered in westerninfluenced forms of music in Hawai‘i that feature shorter verses. Martha Beckwith
noted that:
The Hawaiian (or Polynesian) composer, who would become a successful
competitor in the fields of poetry, oratory, or disputation must store up in his
memory the rather long series of names for persons, places, objects, or phases
of nature which constitute the learning of the aspirant for mastery in the art of
expression. (1918, 29)
Beamer used lists of three related items twice in “Paniau”. She listed Mauna
Loa, Mauna Kea, and Hualalai–the three major mountains on Hawai!i Island that are
visible from Paniau–in verse six, referring to them as n" kia#i o ka home (‘the
guardians of the home’). In verse seven, she lists five trees that are visible to her–the
kiawe, the milo, the kou, the hau and the niu ha#a. Such lists were more common in
older chants and are less commonly seen in modern compositions due to their brevity.
Yet Beamer skilfully included two such lists in her modern composition “Paniau”.
The value placed on completeness of knowledge and accuracy reflects the
significance of the language in the culture, and the mana that it possesses, and the use
of lists in compositions such as these may assist in the retention of this knowledge.
Conclusion
In his analysis of English folk songs and performance, Burns characterised the
ascription of subjective terms such as traditional and authentic as “powerfully
symbolic” (2008, 166). Like the English folks songs that Burns discussed, Hawaiian
audiences today perceive Beamer’s compositions as being traditional and authentic
because “they draw on specific historical themes and are crafted in the appropriate
238
language” (Burns 2008, 167). The recognition of the innovations that Charlot
attributes to Beamer supports the acceptance of innovation and creativity in Hawaiian
culture (2008, 7). She was able establish her own individual voice through
unmediated expression of her thoughts perceived to be expressions of integrity
(Moore 2002, 211-214), not because she adhered to any strict formula of Hawaiian
composition. This is not to say that her compositions ignored older models and
techniques. Her use of older poetic devices such as lists, present tense and tenseless
nouns, and a writing style that stimulated the senses, particularly the visual, are very
much based on older compositional styles. These devices help place the listener
within the composition, as opposed to simply documenting her experience for them to
hear. As such, they are representative of the historic construction of Hawaiian
composition as these elements are all part of the historic model from which
contemporary composers draw may inspiration for new mele.
Several participants in this research noted the visual nature of many
compositions, and Beamer’s extensive use of visual words is notable. I have argued
that while “Paniau” and other compositions do contain strong visual elements, they
provide a framework by which the listener can create an individual mental image of
the song that assists in memory retention of the image and the text of the song. This
image is constructed using each individual’s experiences and knowledge, and may
include elements not intended by the composer. This construction of a mental image
not only assists in memory retention, but creates a personal meaning for the individual
that may differ from what the composer actually portrayed, therefore, such personal
constructions of meaning should not be portrayed as the composers own. In addition
to the use of words that contained strong visual elements, I have noted how “Paniau”
239
and other mele also contained elements that stimulated the other senses, such as the
smell and touch.
I agree with the subjective and qualitative nature of authenticity, and that
authenticity is constructed (Burns 2008, 4) and ascribed, not inscribed (Moore 2002,
210). Therefore, I have not attempted to define rigid criteria whose presence or
absence defines authentic language use in haku mele. Instead, I have focused on the
elements found in Hawaiian language composition that are perceived by the
participants in this research to be important in mele. While some of my hoa k!k"k!k"
did agree on some elements, there was no major point of disagreement between them,
and some simply emphasised different elements over others. I do not propose that my
discussion of these elements is complete or definitive. Further research will
undoubtedly identify further elements that contribute to perceptions of authenticity in
Hawaiian language compositions. Mahi Beamer argued passionately “we have no
reason to analyse grandma’s music” (Beamer 2009). While I do sympathize with him
and the manner in which Helen Desha Beamer’s compositions have been scrutinized,
it is vital part of the social maintenance and individual creation of haku mele today, as
Hawaiian composers seek to find examples of excellence in the past in order to create
new compositions for future generations.
240
Chapter 7: Puana ʻIa Mai: Expression Through Vocal
Performance
For me, the lesson came when I was 21, and had just released my very first
album, LP to be exact. One of the songs I recorded was “Ka Lehua I
Milia”, written by Kawena Pukui and Maddy Lam. While promoting the
album in Honolulu, we stopped by the Halekulani Hotel, because I had
entertained there in the main showroom with Marlene Sai when I was still
in high school. Well sitting at the piano was none other than Maddy Lam. I
was so excited as I waited for her to take a break. I approached her and told
her that I had recorded her tune. She turned and started yelling at me. She
said I had no right singing her song without her permission. The words
were all wrong, the chords were wrong, the feel was wrong, the phrasing
was terrible, and we sang it ugly. She told me not to ever sing any of her
songs anymore, until I come to her to learn it the right way first.
I was shell-shocked. From that moment on, I never recorded anyone else’s
songs and began to write my own material. Now, when you look at this
story for face value, you may think that Maddy Lam was a total jerk and
way out of line. But if you read between the lines, you will find that she
was passing the Hawaiian values of respect and responsibility to me.
(Kenneth Makuak#ne, Per. Comm.)
Introduction
In the three previous chapters, I discussed the roles of the individual,
conceptualization, and language use in composition in mele. In this chapter I will
examine the ultimate use of mele–in vocal performance. I will examine and discuss
perceptions of authenticity and a Hawaiian aesthetic of accuracy in a number of
culturally relevant contexts that are applicable to Hawaiian language vocal
performance. From the mid-twentieth century to the present, live and recorded
performances that included inaccurate song texts, new compositions perceived as
inauthentic, and mispronunciation have been a source of contention between older
m"naleo and younger generations of performers, many of whom are English
monoglots. Lewis notes that although study of Hawaiian language increased in the
1970s and early 1980s, many performers still lacked the ability to understand the text
241
of many mele, forcing them to rely on album liner notes or explanations of the
meaning by other performers (Lewis 1984, 63).
During an interview on the very first Ka Leo Hawai‘i radio program in 1972,
Almeida criticised the Hawaiian pronunciation of younger performers of that era
(Kimura 1973). Stillman attributes this to younger performer’s lack of knowledge of
the language or the song texts themselves, as well as insufficient understanding
regarding the standardization of Hawaiian orthography during that era. Performers
would add or remove the effects of the kahak$ (macron) and ‘okina (glottal stop) for
aesthetic effect, unaware of the fact that these diacritics affect the meaning of the
words they are singing (Stillman 1978, 6). As the older generations of m"naleo such
as Almeida and Machado began to pass away in the final decades of the 20th century,
a new generation of Hawaiian speakers–most of whom had acquired Hawaiian as a
second language–began to carry on this language activism in the realm of Hawaiian
composition and vocal performance.
The first two analytical sections of this chapter, “Sung Pronunciation of
Syllables and Disyllables” and “Variation in Text and Performance”, will focus on the
performer’s pronunciation of the text. These all represent communicative aspects of
performance that Barthes described as the “pheno-song” (1977, 182). The third
section, “The Grain of the Hawaiian Singing Voice”, examines characteristics that are
part of what Barthes referred to as the “geno-song”–the non-communicative aspects
(1977, 182). The final section, “Perceptions of Performer Understanding”, includes
descriptions and discussions of characteristics that include elements of both the
pheno-song and geno-song.
I will begin by examining and discussing Beniamina’s composition “Pua !Ala
Aumoe”, a recording of it made by the M#kaha Sons and Jerry Santos, and elements
242
within the recorded performance that the participants in this research identified and
discussed. In addition to addressing these themes and topics as they pertain to
discussions about “Pua !Ala Aumoe”, I will also draw upon the discussion of these
themes and others as they arose during discussion of other recordings and vocal
performances that were selected and highlighted by the participants in this research.
2
Pua ‘Ala Aumoe
Swing Feel
Words and music by
Jean ‘Ileialoha Beniamina
As recorded by The Mäkaha Song of Ni‘ihau
Lead vocal by Jerry Santos
#
œ
& c œ œœœœœ œ œœ˙
9
Voice
C
G
He
# 13
& œ
D7
pu - a ‘a - la ‘o - e na
G
11
‘u
-
14
‘o - e
‘O
C
ka - i
pa - ne
G
i
# 17œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 18œ
&
‘O ‘o - e ka - i pa ne ma D7
G
G7
# 21 Ó
&
Ó
22
Ó
D7
ho -ne i ke a - u - mo
15
-
ma
C
j
œ ‰
Ó
i
23
ku ‘u nu - i a D7
œ
He
pu - a
26
27
# 25œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ‰ œ œ œ
&
J
D7
G7
G
kü
C
ho - ‘o - hi - hi na ka le - hu - le - hu - .
D7
G
G7
Le - hu
o
D7
.
a
30
31
# 29
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œJ ‰ œ œ œ
ku - ‘u nu - i
a
# 33
& œ œ œ œ œ œ
ku - ‘u nu - i
a
-
lo
G
-
34
-
˙
lo
E7
-
ha
E7
#˙
-
-
C
Le - hu a
A7
# # # 35
˙
-
ha
‘o ka ha - nu ne - he i
ka
e.
œ
lo
œ ‰
J
ha.
j‰
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œœ
C
19
20
ku ‘u nu - i a - lo
G
i
œ œ
œ œ œ
-
œ
16
i
i
œ œ
œ
-
G7
12
œ œ œ œ œœœ œ‰
œ
œ
J œ œœ œœœœ œ
œ
C
o
G
œ œœœœ œ œ œœœ œ‰
œ
J
10
œ
œ œ œ
24
ho - ‘o - ka
œ œ œ œ
ha.
hi
-
œ. !
J
G
œ œ œ œ œ ‰
J
28
le - hu ka ma - na
G
-
‘o
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œj ‰
32
le - hu ka ma - na
D
œ Œ
-
‘o
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
36
‘O ka he - a wa - le
D
‘a - na
39
40
œ
# # # 37œ œ œ œ œ 38œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œJ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ
J‰
&
A
ma
-
i
A7
A
po
-
li
.
‘Ö - li - no ha - ‘a ma - i
2
Pua ‘Ala Aumoe
### œ œ œ œ œ ‰
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ
‰
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
J œ œ œ œ
&
J
E7
A
41
A
42
a
A
-
a
-
i
na
ku - ‘u nu - i
a
&
# # # 49
i
na
D
ku - ‘u nu - i
‘a - la
54
# # # 53
& œ œ œ Jœ ‰ œ
A
‘e
A7
-
D
le
-
E
.
˙
lo
ha
-
"
48
.
E7
51
52
e
-
œ œ œ
ka
‘a - la hu - ‘i ko - ni ma - ‘e-
œ œ œ
A
55
‘a - ne ko
‘O - li - no ha - ‘a ma - i
.
j
œ œ ‰
a - u - mo
œ œ œ
ha
œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
J
œ
50
‘O ka pu - a
-
A
47
a A
œ œ œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ
"
44
lo
# # # 45œ œ œ
j 46
œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ
&
E7
2
D
43
‘i - ‘i
œ
J ‰ œ œœ œœœœ
E7
56
ni
-
i
ku ‘u nu - i a-
58
59
60
œ
# # # 57
j
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ
œ œ œ ‰
œ œ œ Jœ ‰
&
œ œ œ œ œ œ
A7
A
lo
&
###
-
ha.
-
‘a - ne ko
C7
˙
˙
˙
-
-
ka ‘i - ‘i
nn n
œ Œ
62
-
-
-
C
no ka pu - a
‘a - la
a - u - mo
-
C
69
i
70
ku - ‘u nu - i
G7
73
&˙
i
œ œ
ku - ‘u
a
-
lo
œ œ ˙
nu - i
a
75
-
me
71
w
C
lo
ku - ‘u nu - i
a-
œ
J ‰
le
-
œ 68œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ
J ‰
œ œ œ œ
F
C
‘O ‘o - e ka - i pa - ne
ma
i
-
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 72œ œ œ œ œ
J ‰
F
C
‘O ‘o - e ka - i pa - ne
ma
w
76
-
œ œ œ
Pu - a - na ke - i - a
67
ha.
74
i
.
C
e.
œ
œ œ œ ‰
J
&œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
G7
-
ni
F
C7
66
-
œ 64œ
œ
œ œ œ œ
63
œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ Jœ ‰
&
G7
65
E7
A
E
G7
A
61
-
D
-
-
w
77
-
-
ha
-
i
78
w
.
245
Overview of “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe”
Beniamina composed “Pua !Ala Aumoe” in 1986, and The M#kaha Sons of
Ni!ihau recorded and released it in 1992 on their album Ho#oluana (M#kaha Sons
1991). Beniamina garnered the prestigious Haku Mele award for it at the 1993 N#
H$k% Hanohano Awards. The pua #ala aumoe is the Chinese ylangylang flower that
blooms and is fragrant during the night. She was inspired to write it after a visit to the
home of her friend and colleague, Bryon H$k%lani Cleeland, whose property had
several of these trees. The identity of the individual for whom the mele was composed
has been the subject of much discussion and speculation by members of the Hawaiian
music industry. Reichel cited a conversation with Beniamina in which he and other
individuals attempted to persuade Beniamina to reveal this information, but failed54.
While Beniamina did divulge this information to me during our conversation, it has
been removed from the transcript at her request and will not be revealed here. When
approached by individuals and asked for whom the song was written, Beniamina
would simply smile and reply “I wrote it for you” (2009).
“Pua !Ala Aumoe” is classified as a hula ku#i because of its strophic format,
and contains five verses of eight measures each. However, in the M#kaha Sons of
Ni!ihau and Jerry Santos recorded performance the last two lines of each verse are
performed twice, and a two measure instrumental vamp is performed between each
verse. The recording begins in the key of G, and modulates to A at the end of the
performance of the second verse by using a short chromatic run from G to G# and
then A as the vocalists sing “aloha”. It then modulates to C at the end of the
54
I also attended this event with Reichel and Beniamina in Hāna, Maui, and recall the
extent of the speculation and playful coercion exerted on Beniamina to reveal the
identity of the individual for whom the mele was written.
246
performance of the fourth verse by using a short melodic run from A to B and then C
as the vocalists again sing “aloha”. While in the key of G the melody of the verse
ranges from D3 to D4, from E3 to E4 in the key of A, and G3 to G4 in C. The total
length of the recorded performance of this mele is three minutes and seven seconds.
The recording begins with an eight-measure introduction that features two
guitars playing a single note melody with occasional harmony notes. Melodically the
instrumental performance is similar to the melody performed vocally during the final
four measures of each verse, with some minor variations. Santos sings
unaccompanied by vocal harmonies in his performance of the first and third verses,
and is accompanied by the members of the M#kaha Sons during the second
performance of the last two lines of these verses. In all other verses, the members of
the M#kaha Sons provide vocal harmonies that support Santos’s lead vocal. The
instrumental accompaniment consists of the strumming of six and twelve string
guitars and a plucked acoustic bass, performed by the members of the M#kaha Sons
of Ni!ihau.
The text of the mele opens with He pua #ala #oe na#u i honi i ke aumoe (‘you
are a flower whose fragrance I detect in the time of sleep’), which is consistent with
the compositional practice of introducing the subject of the mele in a broad and
general way by addressing the individual for whom the mele is written. Verses two
through four further describe the feelings of the composer and characteristics of the
composition’s subject. The final verse opens with Puana k%ia mele (‘this song is
expressed’). Phrases like this are common substitutions for the more common ha#ina
#ia mai ana ka puana (‘the refrains is told’) in hula ku#i–it restates the overall subject
of the mele and informs the listener that the performance of the mele is concluding.
247
In terms of vocal and instrumental performance, this recording is stylistically
representative of what was considered “traditional” Hawaiian music when it was
recorded and released (1992), and it remains so today. The M#kaha Sons of Ni!ihau
had been performing and recording together for over fifteen years at the time that they
recorded “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe”. They were at that time and continued to be widely
viewed by the general public and members of the Hawai!i music industry as
exemplars of “traditional” Hawaiian music.
Composer Biography: Jean ‘Īleialoha Beniamina
As Beniamina was one of the participants in this research, her biography is
found in Chapter 3 and will not be duplicated here.
Sung Pronunciation of Syllables and Disyllables
While increasing numbers of students have enrolled in conversational
Hawaiian language courses since the early years of the Hawaiian Renaissance, many
have found it difficult to master the subtleties of haku mele (Stillman 1978, 6-7).
Many performers are also unaware of the differences in Hawaiian language
pronunciation as spoken and sung. I highlighted some of theses differences by
transcribing and analysing a dozen compositions and recordings by renowned
Hawaiian composer and performer Almeida. My analysis showed that stressed
syllables as heard in spoken Hawaiian may be vocalized differently in sung
performance, and explained the circumstances in which a performer may insert
specific phonemes and a phoneme cluster in order to add variation to and personalise
their vocal performances (2003). There are similarities between Almeida’s recorded
performances and Santo’s lead vocal in “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe”, and I will now examine
some of these similarities.
248
Rhythmic placement of syllables over the strong beats of the measure is
largely analogous to spoken stress; i.e., syllables that are normally stressed in spoken
Hawaiian tend to be arranged on strong beats of the musical measure. While stressed
syllables are usually performed over beats one and three, they are sometimes placed
all four beats of a recording performed in 4/4. In “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe”, stressed
syllables are heard on all four beats. One notable difference between Almeida’s sung
pronunciation and spoken Hawaiian was the disyllabification of some vowel
groupings when these vowel groupings occurred in the penultimate position of a
stress group55. The effect of this disyllabification in Almeida’s sung pronunciation is
that listeners will perceive that the stress on these vowel groupings had shifted from
the first vowel of the syllable to the second. I noted that such disyllabification and
stress shift occurred when Almeida sang some words that are frequently found in
mele, such as maile, onaona, Maui, laila, eia, aia, and ‘"ina (Donaghy 2011, 75-76).
The two-syllable grouping that results is called a disyllable.
It is important to note that not every vowel grouping in Hawaiian is heard as a
syllable, and some vowel groupings will normally be heard as a disyllable in spoken
Hawaiian. Examples of these disyllables, such as pua, nui, #oe, and moe will be
notated in the examination that follows. It is also important to note that stress groups
may be comprised of more than one word, and examples of this will be noted in the
recorded performance.
55
Schütz proposed the use of the term “measure” to explain the characteristics of stress in
spoken Hawaiian (2010). I use “stress group” to avoid confusion between the use of
measure to explain both spoken stress and the musical measure. A stress group in
spoken Hawaiian may contain two or three syllables. One syllable, generally the
penultimate, is stressed. In sung Hawaiian, a stress group may contain only one or two
syllables. A single syllable stress group will be heard only at the beginning of a line or
phrase in the text or when a long vowel, indicated by the macron or kahakō, is sung.
249
While no stress shift occurs in the recording of “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe”, the lead
vocal performance includes the disyllabification of many vowel groupings, resulting
in the perception of two syllables in words that would be heard as a single syllable in
spoken Hawaiian. I will explain this phenomenon by using examples from the verses
of “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe”. I will examine the first verse in its entirety, and draw notable
examples from the remaining verses. I will first display the text of the verse, using
square brackets to separate the spoken stress groups found in each phrase and indicate
accent with the grave character. I will then display the musical notation and discuss
the elements of stress and disyllabification that occur. In addition to discussing this
disyllabification, I will also note any other performative events that reflect on the
perceived accuracy of the vocal performance.
V1, L1: [He pú-a] [!á-la] [!óe] [ná-!u]
Figure 3: Verse 1, Line 1 of “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe”
In this line, each syllable that would be stressed in spoken Hawaiian falls on a
downbeat. The word he that is sung on the first beat of measure nine is a single-vowel
stress group situated at the beginning of the textual phrase. He and pua would be
considered a single stress group in spoken Hawaiian, resulting in a three-syllable
stress group. However, I treat them as two separate stress groups when sung. No twovowel syllables are performed in this line; therefore, no disyllabification is heard. The
words pua performed on the second beat of measure nine and ‘ala performed on the
following beat are two syllable words as spoken, and the word ‘oe that is performed
on the fourth beat of the same measure is heard as a disyllable. The word na‘u that is
performed in the final measure is also a two syllable word. The stress that is heard in
250
this vocal performance is similar to that which would be heard in spoken Hawaiian.
Santos clearly performed the ‘okina heard in the words ‘ala, #oe and na#u, and did not
insert and ‘okina in front of the word aumoe–an occurrence I have frequently heard in
both sung and spoken Hawaiian. I will now examine the second line of verse one:
V1, L2: [I ho-ni] [i ke] [áu][móe]
In this line, each syllable that would be stressed in spoken Hawaiian is sung on
a downbeat. The word i that is heard on the first beat of measure eleven is a singlevowel stress group situated at the beginning of the textual phrase. I and hone would
be considered a single stress group in spoken Hawaiian, resulting in a three-syllable
stress group. However, as I did in line one, I will treat them as separate stress groups.
The word hone performed on the second beat of measure 11 is a two-syllable word,
and heard sung in the same manner that it is spoken. The words i ke that are
performed on the third beat of measure eleven are heard as a single stress group, with
the penult of this stress group, i, falling on the downbeat. The first syllable of the
word aumoe is the first example of disyllabification heard in this recording. While
heard as a single syllable in spoken Hawaiian, it is clearly heard as two distinct
syllables in this recorded performance. The word moe that is performed on the second
beat of measure nine is a disyllable, and heard as it is in spoken Hawaiian.
V1, L3: [!Ó !óe] [ká i] [páne] [mái]
251
As in the previous two examples, each syllable that would be stressed in
spoken Hawaiian falls also on a downbeat. The word #oe that is performed on the
second beat of measure thirteen is heard as a disyllable. The words ka i performed on
third beat of this measure are normally heard as a single syllable in spoken Hawaiian,
but are clearly heard as a disyllable in this recording. The word #oe that is performed
on the fourth beat of this measure is heard as a disyllable, as it would be in spoken
Hawaiian. The word mai performed on the first beat of measure fourteen is also an
example of disyllabification, as this normally single syllable vowel grouping is clearly
heard as two syllables in Santos’s sung performance.
V1, L4: [I kú-!u] [nú-i] [a-ló-ha]
Line four of verse one contains no examples of disyllabification, and each
disyllable is performed with the normally stressed syllable on a downbeat. However,
it does contain the first example of a three-syllable stress group in spoken Hawaiian–
found in the word aloha–that is represented by two stress groups when sung. Santos
did not insert #okina between any vowels where they are not normally heard anywhere
in this verse–something that could potentially change the meaning of the word and
has been done for aesthetic effect (Stillman 1978, 6).
The pronunciation of double-vowel syllables and disyllables heard in the
remaining verses of “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe” are consistent with those noted above.
However, I will examine two lines from the fourth verse that highlight ways in which
the long vowels–indicated by the kahak$-can be performed.
V4, L2: [!A-la] [hu-!i] [ko-ni] [m#][!e-!e-le]
252
The sung pronunciation of the first three words in this phrase is consistent
with those previously described, and will not be examined here. In spoken Hawaiian,
the first syllable of m"#e#ele would be heard as a long vowel, and this is indicated in
the text with the kahak$. As such, m"#e#ele would contain two separate stress groups
in spoken Hawaiian. In sung performance, the extra duration of the first syllable, ma,
would be reflected by increased duration. However, as a three-syllable stress group
follows it, Santos shortened the length of the vowel. The phrasing that results is
aesthetically pleasing, and as there is no Hawaiian word ma#e#ele (without a kahak$
over the first syllable), there is no possibility of confusion on the part of the listener.
The final example that I will examine is the third line of the fourth verse, in
which the increased duration can be clearly heard. Note that the word k$ that is
performed on the third beat of measure 54 is performed over a quarter note, while the
syllables that precede and follow it are eighth notes. The result of this added duration
is that k$ is heard as it would be in spoken Hawaiian, and the listener would not hear
ko. Unlike ma#e#ele, ko (without the kahak$) is a Hawaiian word, and Santos’ vocal
performer assists the listener by distinguishing the two.
V4, L3: [E ‘a-ne] [k$] [ka !i][!i-ni]
253
The disyllabification of syllables and the arrangement of stress in words
during vocal performance are just two of many issues that affect perceptions of
accuracy in Hawaiian vocal performance. Reichel expressed his concern that overfocus on correct pronunciation is leading to what considers to be over-pronunciation,
and believe that vocal performances can suffer due to this focus:
I think that as long as the main core of what we’re doing remains Hawaiian,
and that we don’t get so caught up in the total technical aspect of it, and
what I mean by that is, the over-pronunciation, too much, where you lose
all emotion from the performance. So from the performance side, that’s one
side, and then you have the technical side, which is the haku mele side,
cause to some degree it is technical. And so finding that right line in
between so that it’s emotional and technical at the same time is very
difficult. (2008)
Reichel admits to having over-thought and over-analysed his own recordings,
and having changed his opinion of what the correct pronunciation of some words are
when sung:
And sometimes, often times we have to trust what we heard. In our quest,
especially knowing that when we record and because we are talking about
and listening to recordings, we sometimes go into the studio and we’re on
pins and needles because we know that this is forever. And yes I’ve made
mistakes in the studio, you know and I listen to them now and I go, “oooh,
you stupid boy” [laughs]. But you live and learn. But there were times
when I remember learning it this way and I remember changing it for the
recording to satisfy linguists, and not meaning anything by that, and then
going back and listening after release and things like that. And you know
what–I should have done it the other way. Because it was just fine, stuff
like the word #"ina, you know sometimes you hear n" #ono o ka #"ina,
#"ina [sings the " with a longer sound and re-stressed the following i], and
sometimes we shift it so that it doesn’t sound like that any more. To make
it a little bit more correct in its pronunciation. So, I’m getting to the point
where I’m like, you know what, it’s going to be pronounced like I heard it,
and you can correct me all you like. (2008)
The disyllabification that I have documented in Almeida’s recordings and
Santos’ vocal performance in Pua ‘Ala Aumoe is a description of a phenomenon that
have heard in not only their recordings, but also recordings by other native speakers
of Hawaiian in sung performance. Further examinations of this phenomenon and
254
other aspects of prosody and pronunciation in Hawaiian language vocal performances
are warranted.
Variation in Text and Musical Performance
The participants in this research offered varying opinions regarding the degree
to which a vocalist could improvise, rearrange or otherwise alter the textual and
musical aspects of another individual’s composition. Authenticity in Hawaiian
language performance does not mean that the performance be exactly as it was or
could have been performed by the composer, even if a definitive text or recorded
performance did or could possibly exist. In the case of chanted styles, Roberts noted,
“within limits, olis are very flexible. The texts are likewise subject to variation”
(1967, 401). While not universal, several participants in this research expressed
acceptance of this kind of flexibility and variation in text and vocal performance. For
example, Pata is familiar with several versions of the composition Manu ‘'‘$, and
which text of the song he would choose to perform:
Ua kama#"ina ia#u he mau versions, so aia i ka p$#aiapili e koho au i ka
mea na#u e h&meni. E like me “ka i hiki mai”, “ua hiki mai”, a p%l" aku,
#ano #oko#a ka mana#o i loko o ka #$lelo Hawai#i. P%l" au e koho ai. #Oni
mai, ho#i mai, a p%l". #Oko#a, #oko#a iki i loko o k%ia uluhina, he h"iki, ak"
i loko o ka #$lelo Hawai#i, he kumu ko ke koho #ia #ana o k%l" hua
ho#okahi. P%l" n$ au e koho ai. In" #a#ole kama#"ina iki i ke mele, n"n" au
i loko ka puke a p%l" n$ au e h&meni ai, ak", #a#ole au e ho#okuleana mai
ia#u iho i ka manawa… "hea au e ho#ololi ai i ia mau hua#$lelo. (2008)
I am familiar with several versions, so it depends on the context, and I will
choose the one that I will sing. Like with ka i hiki mai, ua hiki mai, and so
forth, the thought is slightly different in Hawaiian. That is how I chose #oni
mai, ho#i mai, and so forth. It is different–there are slight differences in
these versions. It is narrow, but in the Hawaiian language, there is a reason
for the choice of this single word. That is how I chose. If I am not familiar
at all with the song, I’ll look in the book and that is how I will sing it. But, I
don’t authorize myself to change the words.
255
Pata also cites an example from his youth of a well-known composer who
spontaneously changed some of the words of his own compositions to suit the
circumstances:
Ua noho mai #o #Anakala Larry Arieta–he mea haku #o ia. #A#ole
m"kaukau #o ia me ke k"kau #ana, he illiterate wale #o ia, eia k", ua pa#a
i" ia n" mele he nui a ua haku #o ia i n" mea he nui, e like me He Aloha N$
#O Wai#anae … I kekahi manawa, ua hele n$ m"kou no ka h&meni #ana ma
Ke#anae ma ko l"kou ho#olaule#a, a ua h&meni #ia n" mele no Ke#anae, a
p%l", ak", ua hana hou #ia #o ia, ua koi #ia #o ia e hana hou i kekahi mele.
No laila, peki i hope #o ia mai ka ipu leo mai a ha#i mai #o ia i" m"kou – e
h&meni k"kou i" He Aloha N$ #O Ke#anae, a na#u wale n$ e puana mua, a
na #oukou e hahai. So, ua ho#ololi #o ia i n" hua#$lelo, but ua ho#ohana #ia
ka leo ho#okahi, a ua, ak", ua loli iki n" hua#$lelo no ka pono o ka
p$#aiapili. So he mana#o wale n$ k%l", ua ola ke mele, #a#ole i pa#a wale
n$ ma ka pepa. (Pata 2008)
Uncle Larry Arieta came–he was a composer. He was not proficient in
writing, he was illiterate, however, he had memorized many songs, and he
composed many songs, like “He Aloha N$ !o Wai!anae”. … One time, we
went to sing at Ke!anae at our festival, and there were many songs for
Ke!anae sung, like that. But, the crowd called for him to do an encore, he
needed to do one more song. So, he stepped back from the microphone and
told us, let’s sing He Aloha N$ #o Ke#anae, and I will call out, and you
folks follow. So he changed the words, but he used the same melody, but
he changed the words because of the circumstances. So this is just a
thought, the song lives, it is not just affixed on paper.
As the M#kaha Sons/Jerry Santos recording of “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe” that was
used in this research is the only one that they recorded, and as I was unable to identify
any recordings of “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe” by any other recording artists, I have no basis
for comparison in order to examine variation in the vocal performance of this mele.
However, Machado recorded two different versions of her composition “Mai Lohilohi
Mai ‘Oe”, one in 1935 and the other in 1962, which do contain textual and
performative variations. Therefore, I will use this composition and her two recordings
of it to discuss variation in performance practice.
One characteristic of mele written by composers of Machado’s generation is
that their lines could vary greatly in the number of syllables they contained. Samuel
256
Elbert and Noelani M#hoe noted that one aspect of the Hawaiian poetic style is that
there is “some irregularity in syllable count” in Hawaiian compositions (Elbert,
M#hoe 1970, 10). Tangar$ notes the predilection of some contemporary composers to
adhere more strictly to the rhythmic structure of the melody:
Ia#u, hiki ke #ike #ia he haku mele m"naleo #o Lena, a #a#ole like n" laina,
kekahi o n"… #a#ole pana like n" laina. Kekahi, nui n" hua#$lelo i loko o
kahi laina, kekahi #a#ole… K%ia manawa, makemake n" haku hou i mea e
#ano k! k"pana #ia. (Tangar$ 2008)
To me, I can hear that Lena is a composer who is a native speaker, and the
lines are not alike, some of the… the beats are not the same. Also, there are
some lines where there are many words, and some not. Sometimes the new
composers like everything to have everything rhythmically the same…
De Silva notes that in the 1962 recording substitutes the l phone for n in one
word, singing ho#ohenohelo instead of ho#ohenoheno – a substitution that was not
uncommon among native speakers from certain parts of Hawai!i but very unusual for
“mainstream Hawaiian music of the 1960s” (Motta, De Silva 2006, 119). Machado
also changed one word in the third verse that would significantly alter the meaning of
the line. In the 1935 version she sings #a#ohe o#u moe pono i ka p$ (‘I do not sleep
well at night’), while in the 1962 recording she sings #a#ohe o#u moe #ole i ka p$ (‘I
do not experience sleeplessness at night’)56. De Silva notes that this change “makes
no sense in the song’s context of sleepless tossing and turning” (Motta, De Silva
2006, 119).
In terms of her vocal performance, Sal# observes that in Machado’s 1962
performance she did not strictly adhere to the song’s metric structure, and expresses
his belief that the 1962 recording was perhaps recorded in a way that would facilitate
it being danced in a hula performance. Tangar$ also notes Machado’s irregular
56
The translation of this line from the 1935 version is De Silvaʼs, and the translation of the
1962 recording is the authorʼs.
257
arrangement of lines over the songs metric and rhythmic structure in Machado’s
“Ku!u W# Li!ili!i”. In her 1935 recording of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”, Machado
altered her phrasing in the third measure of each verse in a manner that added an
additional beat to these measures. Sal# observed this, and ponders Machado’s
motivation:
And then arrangement-wise, to me, she takes the mai lohilohi mai #oe very
literally, because she waits. And she does two commercial recordings of
this, I think this is ’35 [version recorded in 1935] and then the ’62 [version
recorded in 1962] is normal–it’s in four [4/4 time]. But this is not in four,
so you expect it to come in… “1, 2, 3, 4… !auhea”. But now she waits. So
if she’s really saying don’t hesitate, why does she hesitate? You know-must
be something. (2008)
The way Machado phrased this line, as Sal# describes, results in a 5/4 measure
in a song whose time signature was predominantly 4/4. Figure 2 displays the
differences in Machado’s phrasing in the first to verses of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”. In
these examples and all other verses of the 1935 recording, Machado begins her
vocalisation of a textual phrase on the first beat of the third measure of the verse. This
is the measure that contains an extra beat and is transcribed as being in 5/4. In the
1962 recording, the first or the first and second syllables of the phrase precede the
third measure of the verse and function as pickup notes that allow her to maintain the
common time meter of the measure57.
Verse 1, Measure 3 (1935 recording)
57
The difference in the measure numbers of these transcriptions is a result of Machadoʼs
1962 recording containing a six bar intro, while the 1935 version begins with a four bar
intro.
258
Figure 9: Comparison of 1935 and 1962 recordings of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”
In the 1935 recording of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”, each of these measures is
performed in 4/4. Each textual phrase is performed over two-measures, including the
single beat pickup at the beginning of the phrase, and the omission of a single beat at
the end of the second measure. This terminal beat then becomes the pickup note of the
next textual phrase in the verse, and there is no rest between the phrases. The melody
is predominantly comprised of eighth notes performed in a swing feel, for a total of
sixteen eighth notes for each two musical measures over which the textual phrase is
performed. No rests are encountered during the performance of textual phrase;
however, notes of longer durations are heard toward the end of the phrase, and are
sometimes performed with multiple glissandos. The shortest textual phrases in this
composition contain only eight syllables, while the longest phrases contain thirteen.
This variation in syllable count confirms Tangar$’s observationg regarding
Machado’s ability to vary the number of syllables in her phrases, yet maintain their
melodicism.
Sal# expands on his earlier speculation regarding the metric symmetry of the
1962 recording and the extra beats heard in the 1935, noting that the consistent use of
4/4 in the 1962 recording would be more appropriate to accompany a danced hula
performance (Sal# 2008). He also noted that Machado inserted 2/4 measures in her
composition and recording of “Ke Aloha”:
Yeah, she does another 2/4 bar, because you know she goes, he singings
[sings] ho#ohihi ko#u mana#o, #e", 1… 2… i kou leo ma ke kelepona 2…
3… 4… e haha#i ana… she takes another 2/4 bar there. … i kou leo ma ke
kelepona , e haha#i ana… and I really believe, because I think she was just
259
as much a musician as she was a haku mele, that there has to be a reason for
that. It’s not just because I felt like doing it. So I think, that if you… it’s
one of those “I can’t wait to tell you”, you know. I have to get… so she
didn’t wait the four bars. So she didn’t wait, I want to tell you wait now.
(2008)
The differences in phrasing between the two recordings of “Mai Lohilohi Mai
!Oe” and Machado’s manipulation of the metric structure in “Ke Aloha” is
representative of what Farden describes as a taffy-like quality common in older chant
recordings, and that can be heard in recorded performances by Almeida and Edith
Kanaka!ole:
And there are songs and composers like Edith Kanaka!ole, who in her song
M%lie, Pua M%lia–she stretches the words out. And people, artists today
tend to just ignore that, and they’ll sing it, they want to sing everything on a
note or on a beat or something. So that’s a big part of our music culture
missing. So here is a good example, “Ku!u Aloha I# !Oe”, where Almeida
writes a mele and perhaps, and this is a guess because I don’t know, but
perhaps composes the words as he needs to. In other words, it’s not “I have
to fill it in by doing this” or “I have to do that”. (2008)
Farden also believes that this flexibility challenges contemporary singers who
are more familiar with melodies that are more consistent metrically. He provides an
example from one of his song selections–Almeida’s recording of his own composition
“‘O Ko!u Aloha I# !Oe”–in which the sung pronunciation is challenging because the
syllables are not arranged so that they are performed consistently with the rhythm of
the song:
If a person were to try to sing this on beat they’d never make it through the
song based on the first verse if you [sings], Ho#oheno nei… ho#oheno n$
nei no ku#u i…, and then if they want to go ho#oheno n$ nei no ku#u… and
it just won’t fit, you just have to, you have to know how to sing this song in
order to sing it, put it that way. And I remember my grandparents when I
grew up they were saying, “Oh, these people are changing the songs”, and I
don’t know if they intentionally changed, although some will do it to fit
their, their desire. But I think some they just don’t know how. (2008)
While some modern haku mele have demonstrated a preference for greater
metric and rhythmic symmetry in their compositions (Tangar$, 2008, Reichel 2008),
260
Machado’s command of the Hawaiian language allowed her to follow her muse and
express the thoughts she wished in a manner that was aesthetically pleasing to
audiences of her own era as well as those of today. Her manipulation of the phrasing,
rhythms, and meter in her vocal performances may be noticeable by knowledgeable
listeners who are fluent in the Hawaiian language, but none would question the
authenticity of her performances or her compositions.
In the performance of “E Aloha ‘Ia ‘O Wai‘anae” cited by Pata, Arieta was the
composer of the song whose lyrics he changed, and it is certainly the prerogative of
the composer to do so. Kimura believes that individuals other than the composer may
also add additional verses to songs to personalise their performances. He cites
“Maika!i Ka Makani o Kohala” as an example of a mele for which a relative of his
composed a new verse:
Po#e Hawai#i, he mea ma#amau ke ki#i i kekahi leo a hana i hua#$lelo
#oko#a… Na ko#u #anakala, kekahi #anakala i haku i pauk!, #elua paha
pauk!. #O wai k%l" mele… A laila, ke #ole au e kuhihewa, na k%ia kanaka
#o Bill Sproat, haku #o ia i k"na wahi pauk! no ke kama#"ina i k%l" #"ina
Kohala Nui, Kohala #(kau, a makemake e komo k%ia m"hele #"ina #o
Polol! m", #(wini m" i loko o ke mele. Haku l"ua. (2009)
For the Hawaiian people it was a normal thing to take a melody and
compose new lyrics… It was my uncle, an uncle of mine, who composed a
verse, perhaps two… And then, if I’m not mistaken, Bill Sproat wrote his
own verse because of his familiarity with that place, Big Kohala, North
Kohala. And he wanted to put these places Polol% and !(wini into the song.
So they both wrote new verses.
Tangar$ has done this as well, and notes that when he performs Machado’s
“Ku!u W# Li!ili!i”, he will sometimes compose a new verse if he is performing for a
family audience. However, he does not change the words in the verses that Machado
had composed and simply augments the mele with his own verse or verses. When
performing publicly, he more strictly adheres to Machado’s composition and her own
performances:
261
Ia#u ke h&meni i kekahi, ke h&meni au i k%ia wahi h&meni no ka#u po#e
kamali#i a hele a ma#a i k%ia, i kekahi manawa, haku wale au i kahi pauk!
hou i huli, #ano huli #eu ko l"kou pepeiao ia#u, “eh, he aha k%ia” and then,
#oko#a ka lohe #ana, … i kekahi manawa poina au i ka hua#$lelo ak", i mea
e pani ai k%l" laina, haku i ia manawa. I kekahi manawa ho#ok"pae au i
k%l" mana#o a ho#okomo i kekahi, no ka mea, ua k!ikaw" no ia w". But
in"… no ka #ohana k%l", in" aia au ma waho o ka lehulehu pono au e k! n$
i, in" e h"pai au i k%ia wahi mele e h&meni ai, k! n$ me k%ia, me k"na i
k"kau. (Tangar$ 2008)
When I sing this song to my children and become familiar with it, I will
compose my own verse to this song so that their ears turn and pay attention
to me “hey, what is this” and then they listen differently … Sometimes I
delete that thought and insert another, because it is something special for
that time. But if… this is for the family, if I am outside in public it needs to
be representative, if I am raising up this song to sing, it needs to be like
this, as she wrote it.
All three of these examples reflect an older Hawaiian perspective that not only
tolerated but recognised the fluid nature of song text, and authorized the performer to
take liberties with it. However, Kimura notes that the imposition of western concepts
of song ownership and copyright law has rendered this concept and practice largely
obsolete (2009). Tangar$’s willingness to change lyrics when performing in front of
family alone and reluctance to do so in public is more likely due to his respect for
Machado’s compositional authority and desire to honour her than it is a concern for
violating copyright law and western sensibilities.
Machado left little doubt regarding how she wished her own compositions to
be performed, and those of her contemporary, Helen Desha Beamer. Mahi Beamer
relates this story of an exchange between Machado and himself:
I was on the Lucky Luck show, and I did “Holo Wa!ap#”. Well, in my
show at Queen’s Surf, I would just sing the melody a little easy … because
I’m moving all over [dancing hula as he sang] … dah, dah, dah. Well, she
[Machado] had seen the show, and I didn’t, of course, I didn’t know. And
when I got home I was just walking into the house and the phone rang in
!(lewa. And I answered the phone and I said, “Hello” and she said, “Mahi,
dear.” And I said, “Oh, Auntie Lena.” She said, “I just saw you on the
Lucky Luck show, and I just wanted to tell you, darling, you know, I would
262
never think of singing your grandmother’s songs and not doing her
melodies. Why do you do that with mine?” (2009)
Beamer noted that after this exchange he always performed and recorded
songs as closely as possible to how it had been composed, or had been previously
recorded. While Beamer may have been influenced by other factors to limit his
interpretative freedom when performing compositions by other individuals, it was
clear that this exchange with Machado affected him profoundly and still affects him to
this day. While some recordings artists contact him before recording songs written by
his grandmother, he laments the fact that contemporary recording artists frequently
refer to other, often-inaccurate recordings while preparing to record her compositions.
Quite often they fail to consult him or members of the Beamer family before
recording her compositions, much to his dismay (Beamer 2009).
Kumukahi states during her discussion of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe” that while
she will vary and personalise her performance to some degree, “I see no reason to
really go past and create all kinds of liberties – I mean the song is too pretty” (2008).
While discussing the musical and textual differences between Machado’s 1935 and
1962 recordings of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”, Sal# expresses the opinion that, as the
composer, it was Machado’s prerogative to change not only musical aspects but also
the lyrics of her song. Based on these differences and the fact that Machado herself
took liberties with her own composition, Sal# believes that Machado “would be a
composer that would allow for improvisation on her [compositions]” (2008), provided
that the performer understood the sentiment of the composition and the extent to
which Machado herself deviated from her original recording. Sal# was also aware of
the exchange between Machado and Beamer after Beamer’s performance of “Holo
Wa!ap#”, and he still believes that Machado would have been comfortable with a
performance that was truer to her original intent:
263
The melody he performed was less an improvisation of the original and
more a complete departure from it, except to say that it had the same “feel”
perhaps… So, I do still think that Lena would be OK with improvisation
provided that that improvisation came from a strong foundation in her
original intent. (Sal#, Pers. Comm.)
Mahi and Pata both express a strong desire to perform songs as they had been
previously recorded or documented in notation whenever possible. Mahi cites his
background in classical music in explains his desire to perform as close the original
version as possible, and does not differentiate between the compositions of those
more musically literate composers - such as Kal#kaua, Lili!uokalani, Likelike and
Leleioh$k% - and those who were not musically literate (2008). Mahi also cites his
formal musical training and the importance of mo#ok!#auhau (genealogy) and the
transmission of knowledge regarding performance practice:
So when something is passed down, it’s treasured, it’s a treasure. So you
have to, so you take a tempo, and you take every shade of a note, why is it
this bowing and not this bowing, why is this enunciation and not that
enunciation. And that’s to me, I grew up in that kind of lineage, and so we
as young students are asking, well why is it this, why is it that, and why is
it this tempo? And so and so has his interpretation, now came out this
whole myriad of interpretations. But when you make interpretation, you
have to know why you are interpreting. (2008)
It can be difficult to establish composer intent for many older Hawaiian
compositions. Indeed, establishing the authorship of many Hawaiian language
compositions, both well known and obscure, has been difficult and in some cases
impossible. Composers from the 19th century until today have borrowed subjects,
phrases, and lines of text from older compositions. Many of these compositions
predate the arrival of westerners and were subsequently inscribed as text after the
arrival of western missionaries and their creation of an orthographic system for
Hawaiian. Composers also collaborated and consulted with each other in a number of
264
different ways - sometimes working together to compose the text, or one individual
will compose the text and the other the melody (Wilcox et al. 2003, x).
Hawaiian language compositions can be performed in a number of different
musical genres that contain varying amounts of features from ancient performance
practice as well as introduced musical elements. Stillman noted the difference in the
freedom given to and exercised by performers of two western-influenced genre, hula
ku#i and mele Hawai#i58 (2005, 86). While both of these forms developed in the
second half of the 19th century and are feature Hawaiian language texts, the degree to
which performers are expected to remain true to the melodies of the songs are quite
different, according to Stillman. Prescriptive music notation was introduced to
Hawai‘i in 1820 in order to teach religious hymns and was also used to publish mele
Hawai‘i songs as early as 1869 (Stillman 2005, 80). While hula ku#i do have
composed melodies, “singers are expected to vary the tune after the first stanza, and
individual singers are expected to exercise melodic prerogative” (Stillman 2005, 86).
Stillman added that while some hula ku#i melodies have been published, most are
transmitted orally, and believes it is possible that many composers of hula ku#i songs
lacked the ability to annotate the melodies themselves (2005, 86). In the context of
chant forms, Stillman notes the latitude given performers:
A performer does not learn repertoire in the sense of learning set melodies.
Rather, he or she learns performance technique. Performers do learn
repertoire in the sense that poetic texts are precomposed. But many poetic
texts may be performed in more than one style of oli; thus performers learn
how to decide which style of oli to apply a given text in any given
circumstances. (2005, 80)
58
Mele hula kuʻi, mele meant to be performed in a hula ku‘i style, are strophic in
structure, generally contain 2-4 lines per verse, and use the same melody for each
verse. Mele Hawaiʻi are similar except that they also have a chorus.
265
A striking example of this is the adaptation of a chant text that has been
recorded in a variety of musical styles and is known by several names – “He Inoa No
Kamehameha” (Bernice P. Bishop Museum 1997), “Hole Waimea”, and “Waik#”59
(Brothers Cazimero 1987). Roberts recorded James Kapihe Palea Kuluwaimaka
performing this mele in a kepakepa60 chant style in the 1920s. It has also been
recorded in a hula #"la#apapa61 style, as a waltz, and as a contemporary ballad with
piano and choral accompaniment.
Stillman noted that the dissemination of compositions in the hula #$lapa and
hula ku#i genre was largely oral, adding that they “were not the product of literate
composition” (2005, 84). While the origins of both hula #$lapa and hula ku#i date to
the 1860s, hula #$lapa tend to be performed with older instruments such as ipu, #ili#ili
(stone castanets) and p!#ili (slotted bamboo rattle), while hula ku#i tend to be
accompanied by introduced instruments such as guitar, #ukulele, and the double bass.
Both genres allow for melodic and rhythmic flexibility, and Stillman argues that older
published manuscripts of hula ku#i appear to be descriptive transcriptions of
performances. Her examination of other performances of the same composition
revealed “the range of performative license that is permissible and even desirable in
hula ku#i songs” (2005, 87).
In older chant styles, Roberts noted wide variation in performance
characteristics – performers would distort pronunciation of syllables that rendered
them unintelligible to those not intimately familiar with the performance style.
Examples of these variations include the substitution of a ‘t’ sound for the ‘k’ sound
59
60
61
Waikā does not contain the entire text of the mele. It begins in the middle of the text.
Kepakepa is a style of chant that is performed in a very rapid, speech-like manner in
which the pitch of the voice lowers and volume decreases at the end of each line of
text.
Hula ‘āla‘apapa are the chant performances of texts which contain lines of uneven
length, and which have oki (paragraphs) containing varying numbers of lines.
266
that is more commonly used in spoken Hawaiian, and the changing of vowel sounds.
She adds that “doubtless every one of the better-known chants here given [in her
sample] would show considerable rhythmic or even melodic differences if rendered
by other performers” (1967, 73). While expression of individuality and melodic
innovation are not only acceptable but also admires trait in hula ku#i, Stillman noted
that in the performance of mele Hawai‘i “generally singers maintain respect toward
composers by delivering melodies as taught from notated sources. Singers are
discouraged from deviating from melodies as learned” (2005, 83).
Stillman further explained that the mele Hawai#i, largely composed and
published between 1860 and 1920, were published with piano scores that firmly
established the intent of “musically literate composers” (Stillman 2005, 83). However,
she does note that:
Despite the conceptual intent within Hawaiian music performance of
maintaining the melodies of mele Hawai!i songs, examining sound
recordings illustrates that some tunes have transformed over time (2005,
83).
Pata believes that he, as a composer, has the liberty to change his own
compositions and vary his performance of them when he is so inclined. If he
composes a song as a gift for another individual, that person may also change the
composition if they desire to do so (2008). The difference in how song ownership is
conceptualized is reflected in the use of Hawaiian possessive prepositions na and no.
The phrases na‘u k%ia mele and no‘u k%ia mele can both be translated “this song is
mine.” However this translation ignores the subtle distinction of Hawaiian thought.
The use of na‘u would indicate that the speaker was the composer of the song, and
no‘u would indicate that their relationship to the song was created through the agency
of another, i.e., the song was written for the speaker by someone else (Wilson 1976,
44). This distinction exists in all Hawaiian possessive forms.
267
Raymond believes that the desire by some individuals to vary performances is
due to their becoming bored with repeatedly performing the songs in the same way,
and suggests that Hawaiian language proficiency and instrumental prowess provide
the performer with a license to express greater creativity:
#O k%ia po#e i m"kaukau, i wali i ka #$lelo, m"kaukau i ka ho#okani pila,
hele a manak" paha. Ke #ano o ke kahe o k%ia mau mele, h&meni, h&meni,
h&meni hou #ia k%ia mau… a luhi. … in" lawa ka m"kaukau o ka ho#okani o
ke kanaka, ka #$pio, in" m"kaukau #o ia ma ka #$lelo, a h$#ike mua #o ia
hiki i" ia ke ho#okani a puana e like me ka mea i haku mua #ia, a laila,
nona paha ke kuleana o ka p"#ani li#ili#i. (Raymond 2008)
These people who are proficient, who are fluent with the language,
proficient in playing the instrument - they get bored perhaps. The way these
songs flow, sing, sing, sing again these… and you get tired of it … if the
person’s proficiency is sufficient, the younger person, and they have shown
the ability to sing and play it as it was first composed, then they perhaps
have the right to play with it a bit.
During my k!k"k!k" session with Sal#, I asked him about a statement which I
had heard attributed to him – that his recording of Almeida’s composition “!(!oia”
was a note-for-note replication of Almeida’s recorded performance. I asked first to
confirm the accuracy of this attribution, and if it was true, why it was important to
him to replicate Almeida’s recording so closely. He cited a conversation with vocalist
Nina Keali!iwahamana, and a single melodic line of “!(!oia” that has been
consistently recorded in a way that was different than how Almeida had recorded it:
It doesn’t fit in the chord, but that’s how he sang it, and every recording I
have of him singing it – and some are not commercial – he sang it that way.
So that’s why I sang it that way - because it was important for him to repeat
it that way every time. So I felt that it should have been important enough
for me to repeat it that way every time. (2008)
Regarding the remainder of his recording of “‘(!oia”, Sal# states:
I tried to stay as true to what he did as possible, and to be, I mean, to be
truly honest, I wanted to do it that way because it hadn’t been done that
way in a long time. So it then presents a different perspective from what we
normally believe. But I also wanted to - as Aunty Nina [Keali!iwahamana]
says - honour the composer. (2008)
268
Raymond recalls attended a concert at Andrews Amphitheater on O‘ahu
during his time as a student at UH-M#noa. The Peter Moon Band performed “Kaulana
N# Pua”, a Hawaiian patriotic song written by Ellen Wright Prendergast shortly after
the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893. Elbert and M#hoe noted “the words of this
h&meni are bitter, yet the tune is gay (was there no feeling that the tune should reflect
the mood of the words?)” (1970, 62-63). Raymond observes that the song is usually
performed in a very sombre fashion, and that the up-tempo and aggressive nature of
the Peter Moon Band’s performance with a group of dancers from Rarotonga took
them by surprise, but in a positive way:
#', p!#iwa m"kou … . No ka mea mai ko#u w" kamali#i, he kanikau. Ma ka
#ao#ao politika kekahi, mai mana#o k"kou he mea k%ia e kaumaha ai, he
k!#% i ka hana #ino o ia w". Me he mea l", #a#ole au e #$lelo nei ua h"#awi
pio n" Hawai#i a pau ma ka #ao#ao politika, ak", ua hele a kaumaha ka
po#e i ka ho#omana#o [h&meni lohi loa me ke kaumaha] "Kaulana n" pua
a#o Hawai#i…", #$, aloha n$, aloha n$. A laila, k%ia po#e Lalokona, #$, a
me Peter Moon Band m". Da-da-da-da. Da-da-da-da [imitates the sound
of rapid percussion]. #', k! a ‘u" m"kou – Ah! (2008)
Oh, we were surprised … Because in my youth this was performed as a
dirge. … On the political side too, we shouldn’t think that this is sad, an
opposition to the injustices of that time. It seems, I’m not saying that all
Hawaiians gave up on the political side, but they were sad in remembering
[sings very slowly and with a sad voice] “Kaulana n# pua a!o Hawai!i…”
Oh, so sad, so sad. And then these Rarotongan people… and Peter Moon
folks… Da-da-da-da. Da-da-da-da! Oh, we stood up and yelled – Ah!
Raymond notes that by the time he heard this performance, he was sufficiently
proficient with the Hawaiian language to appreciate that the language in Peter Moon
Band’s performance of the text was accurate and he did not detect any pronunciation
errors. He adds that he feels there is a limit to the amount of creativity that is
acceptable in performance:
Loa#a ka palena [o ka hakuhia]. #O ia palena, h$#ike mua i ka mahalo, e
like me n" mea a pau, mahalo mua, mahalo i kou mau m"kua, ka #ohana,
na l"kou i h"nai i" #oe, i a#o i" #oe. Mahalo ka haum"na i ke kumu. A ma
hope mai o k%l", #o ia mahalo li#ili#i, #o wai kekahi kumu e ha#i i ka
269
haum"na – lawa kou ulu #ana. #A#ole pau ka #ike i ka h"lau ho#okahi.
Ho#oku#u au i" #oe, e ulu. (2008)
There is a boundary [for creativity]. That boundary is how you show your
appreciation. Like everything, appreciate first, appreciate your parents, the
family, they were the ones that raised you. The student appreciates the
teacher/source. And after that, that small appreciation, what teacher would
tell his student “you have grown enough”? Not all knowledge is learned in
one school [a traditional Hawaiian saying]. I will let you go so that you
may grow.
In showing their appreciation for the composer and an understanding of the
political context of its composition and performance, the Peter Moon Band clearly
met Raymond’s personal criteria for an authentic yet creative performance, and likely
that of others. And how else might one show this appreciation? Kumukahi recalls a
discussion that she had with Val Kepelino: “When you want to take liberties in a
song, you wait. You do the song correctly the first time, so if it was a five-verse song,
you do the first verse the right way. And if you want to take liberties you go from
there, but you don’t do it right at the top” (2008).
The recorded vocal performances of Almeida–a native speaker of the
Hawaiian language as well as a prolific haku mele and recording artist–exhibited
notable variation (2003). Some of the recordings, the earliest of which were made as
early as the 1920s and the latest in the 1970s, do show variations in phrasing,
pronunciation, and the insertion of meaningless phonemes in Almeida’s performance
of both hula ku#i and mele Hawai#i. In his recorded performances, Almeida frequent
sang verses twice, which allows for direct comparison of variation in performance. As
Almeida is strongly believed to be the author of all of the mele hula ku#i and mele
Hawai#i in the sample, there is little doubt as to the accuracy or authority of
Almeida’s recorded performances. He simply performed the songs in a way that
sounded appropriate to his ears, and reflected the music as he had heard performed by
270
his m"kua (parents and anyone of parents’ generation) and k!puna in his youth
(Donaghy 2003, 107).
The Grain of the Hawaiian Singing Voice
It is not surprising that the participants in this research expressed a range of
opinions regarding the vocal qualities and characteristics that they value, and how
much weight those elements affect their perceptions of quality. These include not only
the pronunciation of the language, but other characteristics labelled by Barthes as the
“grain of the voice” (1977, 183). While most of the analysis contained in this chapter
is in the realm that Barthes’ characterised as the “pheno-song”, this section includes
examples and discussion of those characteristics he describes as the “geno-song”–
those that are not of a communicative nature.
Characteristics other than the quality of the text and pronunciation influenced
the choices of several participants in this research, were are often described using
subjective terms. Reichel relates that he had considered a number of different
compositions to discuss with me, but that what ultimately led him to choose “Pua !Ala
Aumoe” over other outstanding compositions that he considered was Santos’s lead
vocal on the recording with the M#kaha Sons:
[I was] trying to find that one that blended both–that it was a good
composition and it was contemporary, it told a story and it was full of
imagery, the puana [pronunciation] was good. But also too I also put
another parameter on it that was it had to be pleasant to hear, to listen to.
There’s lots of singers and lots of good compositions and singers who
pronounce really, really good, but they’re not compelling. And for me, it
had to be compelling to some degree, and pleasant. So this kind of fit the
mould…
That [the quality of the vocal performance] didn’t have to be a criteria to
me, but it kind of pushed it over the edge. You can have a good composer
and they can sing, but it’s not as compelling … It would have had a
different kind of impact had it been any other singer singing besides Jerry.
(2008)
271
While I did not discuss this recording with Santos, he related to Beniamina
that he found it very difficult to sing the song properly when he was learning it to
record with the M#kaha Sons62. Beniamina commented that he did an excellent job in
his vocal performance (Beniamina 2009), and I was not able to discern any
mispronunciations or issues with the flow of language when I examined the recording.
Nahale-a notes this in his selection of “Maunaloa” by the Peter Moon Band,
with the lead vocal sung by Cyril Pahinui63:
#Ano maopopo ia#u i ka, well, #a#ole ma#a loa ko l"ua waha i ka #$lelo
Hawai#i ma ke #ano he wala#au, ma ke #ano he k!k"k!k", ak", lohe #ia n$
ka ma#a o ka waha a me ke alelo e ho#opuka aku ai i k%ia mau huamele,
k%ia mau kani Hawai#i. Ke ho#olohe au i" l"ua, k! n$ ko#u pepeiao i kona,
i ko l"ua mau m"kua, a me n" k!puna ho#i. Ia#u he Hawai#i loa ke kani.
(2008)
I kind of know, well, their mouths are not really used to speaking the
language, as a conversational style, but, I hear the familiarity of their
mouths and tongues when expressing these notes, these Hawaiian sounds.
When I listen to them, it sounds like their parents, their ancestors. To me it
is a very Hawaiian sound.
While Barthes attempted to elevate discourse about the voice and expand the
vocabulary of such discourse beyond the use of adjectives, many of the participants in
this research resorted to very subjective terms while describing the qualities that they
preferred in Hawaiian vocal performance. Kumukahi discussed the Kahauanu Lake
Trio’s recording of “Pua ‘(hihi” and describes the effect of Lake’s singing voice on
her:
He’s able to capture your ear in all ways. And that has something to do
with the… I don’t know… the sound waves in your, what do you call it, the
tympanic membrane, and all that, to be able to just suck you right in. It’s
62
63
While Santos did have some Hawaiian language instruction in his youth, he does not
consider himself proficient in the language.
While Nahale-a mentioned only Cyril Pahinuiʼs name in our discussion of this
recording, I later learned from Pahinui that both he and his brother Martin sang lead
vocals, alternating lead and background vocals in the performance. I thank Stillman for
pointing out Martin Pahinuiʼs omission from the discussion.
272
not too high, it’s not too low, and it’s just this mid-range that you can just
sink your teeth into. (2008)
Likewise, Sal# discussed what he describes as a pain that is heard in the voice
of Robert Cazimero:
He has this way of singing with an #eha (pain) that not many singers sing in
general in this world … Aside from the richness of tone and all of those
western ideas that we can think of to make aesthetically a beautiful voice, I
think Robert has the ability to sing with an #eha that pulls at some kind of
na#au you know. [There’s] something in there. (2008)
Silva comments that while he values accuracy of language in Hawaiian vocal
performance, he is willing to ignore some textual and pronunciation inaccuracies
because of other aspects of the performance that he perceived as excellent. There is a
limit, however, to what degree he is willing to overlook errors in pronunciation:
Loa#a ka #$lelo, a ia#u he mea nui ka #$lelo a me ka pololei o ka #$lelo…
Ak", kohu mea l" no ko#u #ike, #o ia ka pololei, hiki ia#u ke #ano huikala
aku, no ka u#i o n" leo a no ka u#i o ke k!launa o n" leo, ka u#i o k" [ke
kanaka] ho#okani #ana i ka #ukulele, k"na kaila k%l". In" lohe #ia, #ike koke
ka po#e #o ia k%l". No laila no ia mau #ao#ao u#i ma waho a#e ka ho#opuka
#ana i ka #$lelo hiki ia#u ke #ano, #a#ole pono e huikala, #a#ole au n"n",
#a#ole au huikala, #a#ole au n"n" i k%l", #oiai ua loa#a n" #ao#ao #% a#e i u#i
a no laila hiki ia#u #ano n"n" i k%l" #ao#ao u#i, maopopo na#e au i ka
mana#o. In" ua hewa loa na#e ka #$lelo, ak", #a#ole p%l" ko l"kou h&meni
#ana. Ak", in" ua u#i loa, a laila, komo ka hewa, hewa loa, a laila #ano
hana nui ka n"n" #ole #ana i k%l" hewa. (2008)
There is the language, and to me the language is a big thing and the
correctness of the language… But, it seems as though because I know, that
is correct, I can sort of forgive that, because of the beauty of the voice and
the beauty of the harmonies of the voices, the beauty of his playing the
#ukulele, that is his style. People know it is him. So because of those
beautiful aspects beyond the vocalisation of the language, I can forgive it. I
don’t have to forgive, I don’t care; I don’t forgive, I don’t care about that,
because there are other aspects so I can look at those other beautiful
aspects, but I understand the thought. However if the language was really
bad, but that is not how their singing is. But if it is really beautiful, then
there are errors – plenty of errors – it is difficult to overlook that.
While it cannot be stated definitively that characteristics heard in vocal
performances of modern Hawaiian music are influenced by chant styles, this
273
connection was made by some of the participants in this research. Renowned chanter
Henry P# was once asked if his chant training had influenced his singing voice, P#
replied that he hadn’t considered it, but believed that his performance of both styles
influenced each other (Hawaiian Music Foundation, 1978). These chant
characteristics are also part of the Barthes refers to as the “geno-song” (1977, 182).
It is important to note that the term hula refers to not only the indigenous
dance forms of Hawai!i, but to the performance of a chanted text that frequently
includes performance of rhythmic figures on membranophones or idiophones. In her
discussion of ancient hula forms, Tatar asserted that the voice “is the most important
‘instrument’ of musical performance”, followed in importance by the dance
movements, and finally, the percussive instruments, which are the least important
(1993). She added that dances can be performed without instrumental
accompaniment, but that it must include chanting, and “the role of chanted language
is pre-eminent in Hawaiian musical and dance traditions” (1993). Roberts noted that
“there were well-defined standards of excellence” in chant, and training began in
childhood (1967, 71).
Nahale-a was one of several participants who selected a recording of an older,
chant-style performance to discuss, and notes that many characteristics of Hawaiian
chant can be heard in more modern vocal performances. He selected Cyril Pahinui’s
vocal performance in the Peter Moon Band’s recording of “Maunaloa”, praises his
singing, and notes his use of chant techniques in the performance:
#', loa#a… #ano like n$ n" leo, n" leo, loa#a ke "e"e, loa#a ke k"ohi, ke
kuolo, loa#a ka ha#i, ma#alahi, loa#a n$, like n$ n" leo #elua, ak", h$#ike
#ia a i #ole, #ae, h$#ike #ia me ke #ano o n" pila o ke au hou paha, ak" ua
#ano ho#ohawai#i #ia k%ia mau pila, a laila, loa#a k%ia mau pila a me k%ia
mau pana k!puna, ak", like ke kani o n" leo a me n" hua#$lelo, like ka
puana #ana (2008).
274
Oh, there are similarities in the type of voice, the vocal characteristics, the
aeae64, the k"ohi65, the #i#i [‘vibrato’], there is the ha#i. It’s easy, there are
similarities in the two voices, but, it is shows, yes, it is expressed with the
style of the instruments of the new era, but these instruments been
Hawaiian-ized, and then, there are these instruments and these ancestral
beats, but like the sound of the voices and the words, the pronunciation is
the same.
Kahaunaele notes the use of chant performance characteristics in Kanahele’s
performance of “M&kohukohu” as one of the reasons she chose that performance to
discuss.
Nui ka leo oli i loko o k%ia, a #o ia kekahi kumu a#u i koho ai no ka…
n" hi#ohi#ona oli i loko o k%ia. #A#ole i puana piha ma#ema#e #ia, ak", he
ma#ema#e n$ ho#i, #e"? #A#ole e ho#"#o nei e… #a#ole no#ono#o iki ana no
ka papa h&meni a me k%l" #ano, ke k!launa like o ka ho#opuka mana#o ma
ke #ano o ka leo o ka mea h&meni, #e"? (2008)
There are a lot of chant voice characteristics in this, and that is one of the
reasons I chose this–for the chant characteristics, they aren’t completely,
cleanly pronounced, though it is are clean. They don’t think about the style
of a choir’s singing, but the expression of the thought and the voice of the
singer.
Kahaunaele observes that the singing styles of both Kanahele and !Aipoalani,
whose composition and recording of “Ka U!i O Kaua!i” she chose, are reflective of
the areas in which they were raised, lived and/or are connected to.
#Ae, #ano kalakala, kalakala ka #$lelo #ano, #a#ole m"lie, #a#ole nahenahe,
ma muli o ka noho #ana i komohana, #o ia ho#i ka #ao#ao wela. Hana nui,
#e"? Hiki ke #olu#olu ka #$lelo, ak", #a#ole… ke lohe aku hiki ke lohe #ia
nui ka hana a k%ia po#e. (2008).
Yes, the pronunciation is kind of guttural, not gentle, not soft, because of
living in the west, the hot side. It’s hard work. The words can be nice, well,
but when you listen you know these were hard working people.
64
65
In the aeae chant technique, vowels are prolonged at the end of phrases (Pukui, Elbert
1986, 4). The use of this technique also features the raising of the initial pitch of a line,
and sometimes a lowering of pitch at the end of the phrase.
In the kāohi chant technique, prolonged vowels are restrained or compressed, and cutoff abruptly by the use of a glottal stop (Pukui, Elbert 1986, 130).
275
Kahaunaele also observes that !Aipoalani would frequently insert #okina
(glottal stops) in her vocal performance in places that they are not heard in spoken
Hawaiian, something that modern vocalists are sometimes criticised for doing. Rather
than viewing this element as a mistake, Kahaunaele believes it to be something that
reflects hot and dry characteristics and !Aipoalani’s lifestyle on the west side of
Kaua!i. It is also representative of chant performance practice. In her discussion of
Kanahele’s “M&kohukohu”, she notes also the influence of homeland and lifestyle,
and the desire to express that aloha #"ina (‘love for land’) in both text and vocal
performance:
#O kekahi mea, #ano like me kupuna #Aipoalani, h&meni #ia ma ke #ano o ka
wala#au #ana, ma ka h$#ike #ana i ke #ano o ka noho #ana, #e", he po#e pili
loa i ka #"ina, #%a, hana, hana, hana ma luna o ka #"ina. A… #oiai
p! kama#"ina au i k%ia wahine #o Kekahi, #ae, #o ia n$ e h&meni #o ia me
kona h&meni #ana. #A#ole lohe #ia n" … mea… n" #ano leo o ka po#e e
kaulana nei i ka h&meni, #%a? #Ae. #O ia kekahi kumu a#u e ho#ohihi ana i
k%ia mele ma muli o kona… ke ahuwale o kona pili i kona #"ina h"nau, a
no kona makemake e h$#ike i n" mea nani o kona wahi …
#A#ohe k"nalua, h$#ike #ia ke k!pa#a ma hope o ka #"ina. He mele aloha
k%ia no ka #"ina, ak" #a#ole n$ i like me n" mele #% a#e, e like ho#i me k%l"
mele no Kawaihae, he mea aloha i ka #"ina, ak", #oko#a loa ke #ano, h$#ike
#ia ke #ano o ka noho #ana o k%l" kanaka. #Ae, no laila no k%ia, he mea e
h$#ike ana i ke k!pa#a i ka #"ina ma n" #ano a pau ma ka haku mele, ma ka
h&meni #ana a ma ke ea kekahi, he ikaika ka pana. No laila, #ae, i ko#u
mana#o he mele k%ia e h$#ike ana i n" mea nani he nui o Hilo, e like me
Hilo Hanakahi (2008).
And another thing, this is like ‘Aipoalani, it’s sung like the speech in that it
represents their lifestyle, yeah, they are people close to the land, work,
working on the land. Since I know Kekuhi [Kanahele], yeah, she sings like
she sings, you don’t hear the characteristics of the people who are famous
for their singing. That is something that I an attracted to about this song,
her relationship to the place of her birth, and her desire to show these
beautiful things of her place… In the singing, it is powerful, not soft and
gentle. The voice is beautiful, but the performance is powerful …
No doubt, she shows her steadfastness for the land. It’s a love song for the
land, but not like the other songs like that song Kawaihae, it’s a song of
love for the land, but it’s very different, it shows the kind of living of that
kind of person. For this, it’s something that shows the steadfastness for the
276
land in every way, from the composition, the singing and the melody, too.
The beat is strong.
One of the most easily identified characteristics of Hawaiian chant that can be
heard in more modern Hawaiian vocal performances is the use of the ha#i technique,
where the voice breaks in its transition from chest voice into falsetto (Trimillos 1977,
4). It should be noted that the use of the ha#i was restricted to certain chant types and
not all of them, and that its use was ornamental in nature–the performer did not
remain in the falsetto register for long (Tatar 1979a, 86).
Kahaunaele praised the effortlessness she perceived in Machado’s use of
the ha#i technique in her recording of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”:
#Ae, #o kona leo, #o ka ha#i #ana, kona ha#i #ana; he kahe wale, #a#ohe
hana nui ke puka aku k%ia #o ka ha#i. Ka nahenahe o kona leo ha#aha#a, a
me ke ki#eki#e loa ho#i, ka pi#i #ana, a i ka ho#i hou #ana i lala–kohu
wailele e kahe ana. #A#ole paha e ho#"#o ana e h&meni me ka… ma ka hua
mele pololei. He mea #ano nahenahe… he mea nahenahe n$ a kahe ke lohe
aku. A, no#ono#o au i ke #ano ma k%ia w", no ka mea, ho#"#o au ma ka leo
wahine leo ki#eki#e, a no#ono#o nui au i ka hua mele e h&meni ai… (2008).
Yes, her voice, her ha‘i just flowed; there was no effort to it when it comes
out, the ha‘i. The gentleness of her lower voice, and the upper register, the
rising, and the drop in the voice–it’s like a waterfall flowing. She’s not
trying to hit the correct notes; it’s just gentle. I think about the ways of
today, I try to sing in woman’s falsetto, and I think a lot about the notes…
Kahaunaele also expressed a preference for the falsetto performers of the older
generation over modern performers:
#A#ole n$ like iki ka leo ki#eki#e o k%ia mau l", #e"? #A#ohe lua e like ai me
k%ia hanauna, ka hanauna o ko#u mau k!puna ua hiki n$ ke like me k%ia,
ak", #a#ole n$ p%l" a hiki i k%ia manawa (2008).
Falsetto singing today is nothing like hers, there is nothing in today's
generation that can compare with hers. My grandparents’ generation could
do it like this. But not today.
Sal# recalls a time when he was in the recording studio with Mahi Beamer,
and used the ha#i–to Beamer’s dismay:
277
I remember once Uncle Mahi was working with me on “Kalama!ula”, and
I’m not a falsetto singer, but we thought what the hell we’ll just give it a
try. And immediately I did a ha#i thing. I don’t really know how to do it
anyway, and we stopped and he said “no, no, no”. You don’t sing this that
way; you don’t use that kind of thing. You don’t use ha#i. And his idea was
that you’re not really supposed to use ha#i as a purposefully… and I think
that in his experience he never needed it. So you don’t really hear it. It’s
only… ha#i as it occurs naturally in his voice, but not as something
purposefully implemented in a presentation. (2008)
Prompted by Sal#’s recollection, I asked Beamer about his feelings regarding
the use of ha#i technique in contemporary vocal performance. He clarifies that he
objected to the over-use of ha#i, and emphasised that it should be used to enhance
particular thoughts in a song:
They’re teaching ha#i, and ha#i is every single line. … It occurred at the
break in the voice, the natural voice, but the ha#i was only used… for either
an emphasis at that point or something, but it’s a natural tendency to
enhance that moment. (2009)
Perceptions of Performer Understanding
Several participants in this research expressed their appreciation for vocalists
whose conviction of performance displays to them that the singer understands the
meaning of the mele that he or she is performing. While this conviction may or may
not actually reflect a performer's true understanding of the song’s meaning, such
observations enhance perceptions of authenticity in Hawaiian vocal performance.
Silva cites Joe Keawe’s recording of “No Ka Pueo”66 as an example of his (Silva)
choosing language accuracy over vocal performance:
Ia#u, #o kona leo, #a#ole #o kona leo ka leo ki#eki#e u#i loa a#u i lohe ai,
ak", #o ka mea a#u e hoihoi ana i loko o kona h&meni #ana, #o ia ka pololei
o ka #$lelo. A ua hiki ia#u ke lohe i kona, kohu mea l" #ano maopopo i" ia
ka mana#o. No laila, hoihoi au i k%l", nanea au i ka lohe i kona #apo pono
#ana i ka mana#o hiki i" ia ke h$#ike ma kona leo no ka puana pololei o ka
#$lelo ma ka h&meni #ana. #O ia ka#u mea e hoihoi nei, #a#ole hoihoi loa i
66
The title of this mele is sometimes incorrectly shown to be Na Ka Pueo, Naka Pueo, or
Nakapueo.
278
ke kani a kona leo, #a#ole k%l" he leo u#i loa, u#i, ak" #a#ole #o k%l" ka leo
ki#eki#e loa a#u i lohe ai. (Silva 2008)
To me his voice, his falsetto voice isn’t the most beautiful I’ve heard, but
what I am most interested in regarding his singing–it is the accuracy of the
language. And you can hear in his singing, it seems as though he
understands the thought. So, I am interested in this, I enjoy hearing his
complete understanding of the thought to that he can show through his
voice the proper vocalisation when singing. That is what I am interested in,
I’m not very interested in the sound of his voice; it is not an extremely
beautiful voice. It is beautiful, but it is not the most beautiful falsetto voice
I’ve heard.
Silva notes that he had heard Keawe speaking Hawaiian after Keawe had
returned to Hawai!i after living in California for many years, found his conversational
Hawaiian quite good, and believed Keawe to be a native speaker. Despite the accurate
pronunciation heard in Keawe’s own vocal performance, Silva noted serious
pronunciation errors in the performance by the female vocalists that provided
background vocals on this recording:
Hiki p! ia#u ke lohe i k%ia po#e w"hine–#a#ole he m"naleo. Loa#a #elua,
#ekolu paha, #a#ole i maopopo loa l"kou. Ak", ua hiki ke h"#ule kekahi mau
#okina, ha[#]ina ia mai ana ka puana, k%l" #ano. A laila kekahi mau woela,
#a#ole i ma#ema#e loa, mae #a#ole mai i ko#u mana#o, pono e ho#olohe hou,
ak", #o k%l" mau #ano o ka ho#opuka #ana, ho#opuka hewa #ana o ka
m"naleo #ole, no laila au i mana#o ai ua #ano hoihoi k%ia, #oiai #oko#a loa
ke #ano o ka ho#opuka #ana o ka m"naleo i ka #$lelo o ke mele, #oko#a loa
ka ho#opuka #ana o ka po#e m"naleo #ole. (2008)
You can hear these women–they are not native speakers. There are two,
three perhaps–they really don’t understand. But some of the ‘okina can be
dropped ha[#]ina ia mai ana ka puana, like that. And then some of the
vowels, they are not very clean, mae, not mai, I think. I would have to
listen again, but that kind of vocalisation, that inaccurate vocalisation by a
non-native speaker. That is why I thought this was kind of interesting–
because the vocalisation by the native speaker of the song is different from
the non-native speaker.
Silva and I discussed the poor pronunciation of the backing vocalists, and
speculated on why Keawe did not insist that they be corrected. While I suspected that
it was because of the limitations of the recording technology of the time lacking
279
multi-track recording and over-dubbing capabilities, Silva suggested that Keawe was
overwhelmed by the number of mistakes, and asked “where do I begin?” (2008).
Kimura notes that it is not always possible to determine if a vocalist is a native
speaker solely by his or her vocal performance:
A laila, ke #ano o ka m"naleo. Hana nui ma ka leo ka #ike he m"naleo a i
#ole he kanaka m"kaukau i ka #$lelo ma ka pepeiao ke ho#olohe kona
h&meni #ana, hiki ke #ike, ma waho paha o kona kanaka makua, hiki i" ia ke
lohe i loko o kona puana #ana i ka #$lelo, he m"naleo, a i #ole he kanaka
wali o ka #$lelo. (2009)
And then there is the nature of the native speaker. It is difficult to tell the
difference between a native speaker and someone who is very skilled with
the language by listening to their singing. You can see, besides his parents,
you can hear in his pronunciation of the language if it is a native speaker or
someone who is fluent in the language.
An excellent example of this is Mahi Beamer. Sal# and Silva selected
Beamer’s recording of his grandmother's composition “Paniau”, and other participants
in this research lauded his singing of the Hawaiian language. Silva notes that Beamer
was well-trained by his grandmother:
Mahalo au i" Mahi, no ka mea, #ike au #a#ole #o ia he kanaka m"kaukau
loa ma ka #$lelo Hawai#i, ak", a ua wala#au au me ia no k%ia ho#okahi l",
i" m"ua ma kekahi p"#ina. A ua mahalo aku au i" ia no i ka ma#ema#e o
kona puana #ana ma k"na h&meni #ana, a #$lelo #o ia, #$lelo koke maila #o
ia, “no ke akamai o ko#u kupuna wahine i ka ho#opololei mai ia#u.” Ua
lohe pono aku #o ia i ka #$lelo, ka h&meni k!pono #ia #ana o k%ia mau #$lelo
Hawai#i ma k"na mau mele, #apo #o ia, #o Mahi, #apo, a laila, #o ia ke #ano
o kona h&meni #ana. Hawai#i loa ke #ano. E kuhihewa ka po#e he Hawai#i
piha ka mea e h&meni #ana, ak", ke #ike aku i kona ki#i ma k%ia s%d% "u e
ho#okani mai ana, a ke hui me ia, oh, kohu mea l" he Haole piha. Ak", #o
ke #ano o kona leo, he leo Hawai#i, leo ki#eki#e u#i loa, ke ho#opuka #ana i
ka #$lelo he Hawai#i n$. (2008)
I am grateful to Mahi, because I know he is not someone who is very
skilled with speaking the Hawaiian language. But I talked to him about this
one day, when we were at a party. And I thanked him for how clean his
pronunciation was, and he said, he quickly said, “because of the wisdom of
my grandmother in correcting me.” He listened attentively to the language,
the proper singing of the Hawaiian language in her songs, he grasped it,
Mahi, and that is how he sings. It is very Hawaiian. Some people
mistakenly think that the person who is singing is pure Hawaiian, but look
280
at his picture on the CD cover that you played, and meet him, oh, it seems
as he is a full Haole [Caucasian]. But, his vocal characteristics, it is a
Hawaiian voice, a beautiful falsetto voice, and when he vocalises the
language it is indeed Hawaiian.
While Mahi acknowledged the importance of having an accurate text and
pronouncing the text properly during performance, the vocalist needs to show him
more than this. He provided an example of the detailed assistance he provided to
singer Martin Pahinui as Pahinui was preparing to record the mele “Liholiho”, and I
asked him if he felt that there was more to excellence in Hawaiian vocal performance
than simply having the correct text and pronouncing the words correctly:
Right lyrics and the right pronunciation, yeah, much more. There has to be
a full understanding of the experience of the haku mele, of the person that
wrote the song. So that when you were thinking about what to place there,
your choice of tempo, your choice of breathing, your choice of line, a line,
is so important, because you’re putting, again, and that happens in all
music, all music performance, this is just basic music performance, that
you have to capture the pure essence of the poet and what the poet was
going through. Now, you might not know who the poet was, you might
now, so the only way you can do it is you study the music, you study the
words, and then you listen to as many performances as possible. And then
you kind of have to pule (pray) over all that. (2008)
Tangar$ notes that in George Helm’s recording of Lili!uokalani’s composition
“Ku!u Pua I Paoakalani”, he can feel the pain expressed by Lili!uokalani in text
through Helm’s vocal performance:
Ua lonoa ke kino i ka #eha, ka nui #eha o ke ali#i wahine, he aha k%l", ka
hiki #ana mai o k%l" poke pua mai Paoakalani, i wah& #ia i k%l" n!pepa o ia
l", p%l" #o ia i #ike ai he aha ko wahi. A #o kona ho#opa#ahao #ia, i ko#u
mana#o h"pai #o George i k%l" mau lonoa i loko o kona leo, a me ka wilia
p! o ka leo kanaka me ka leo k&k", launa n" mea #elua, k"ko#o kekahi i
kekahi, #"nu#u l"ua me he leo ho#okahi l", a laila, iho l"ua. #O ia kekahi
m"hele o ko#u makemake, puni, #a#ole he makemake, puni. (2008)
The body can feel the hurt, the incredible pain of the queen, what is that,
the arrival of the bouquet of flower from Paoakalani, wrapped in the
newspaper of that day, that is how she knew what was happening outside.
And her imprisonment, I think that George raises those senses in his
singing, the intertwining of his human voice with the voice of the guitar,
281
they complement each other, support each other, rise with one voice, and
then fall with one voice. That is a part of why I like this, not like, cherish.
For Tangar$, Helm has achieved what Moore labels third person authenticity –
“when a performer succeeds in conveying the impression of accurately representing
the ideas of another, embedded within a tradition of performance” (2002, 218)
Several participants in this research indicated their desire, when possible, to
hear a song performed by its composer. The primary reason cited is that as composer,
the performer understands the full meaning of the song and is able to accurately
express it through vocalisation. Kumukahi expresses this preference when discussing
Machado’s recording of “Mai Lohilohi Mai !Oe”:
But she’s the composer, she’s singing it, she’s recording it, she’s all that,
you know. And I think that’s the one, one glorious part about this
recording. Thank God, thank God we have this recording of her. You know
she’s very gentle and she’s telling her story, she knows what story is about,
you know. But what I like about it is because she knows this so well
(2003).
While lamenting his inability to locate a copy of Machado performing her
composition “Lei K&ele”, De Silva also expressed his preference to hearing a
composer perform his or her own composition:
I can’t put my finger on it right now. But there is something about listening
to the composer sing his or her own composition that just… there’s
something in the intonation, or there’s something in the whatever-it-is in
the voice. If it’s laughter, if it’s a little vocal tweak, pay attention to what is
being said. (2008)
De Silva was unable to articulate exactly what characteristics it was that he
heard in Machado’s performance, and was forced to rely on the adjective in his
description. So while perceptions of performer understanding and the preference of
some individuals to hear recorded performances by the composers themselves are
notable, a more comprehensive examination of the characteristics that lead to these
perceptions and preferences are worthy subjects for future research.
282
Conclusion
In this chapter I have examined how the sung pronunciation of mele as well as
the non-communicative elements–what Barthes referred to as the pheno-song and
geno-song–influence perceptions of authenticity in Hawaiian language vocal
performance. I have described how Santos’ vocal performance in “Pua ‘Ala Aumoe”
includes the disyllabification of some vowel groupings that differs from spoken
Hawaiian, but that his sung pronunciation is consistent with the pronunciation of
Almeida and other native-speakers of Hawaiian. I observed that in this recorded
performance, Santos skilfully performed the ‘okina where necessary, and did not
insert it in places that could possibly affect the comprehensibility of the language or
alter the meaning of the words.
Notions of accuracy in text and vocal presentation varied greatly among the
participants of this survey; some individuals more strictly adhere to known texts while
others allow for more fluidity by adding new verses to mele and varying their
performances. The leeway that performers may exercise is not new, but has been
documented in older chant performance as well as the recorded performances of 20th
century composer and performer Almeida (Donaghy 2003). Sal# noted in his
recording of Almeida’s “‘(!oia”, his primary goal was to “honour the composer”.
While he certainly did so with his attempt to reproduce Almeida’s own performance
“note-for-note”, I believe that his goal could have also been achieved with a less strict
reproduction. The choice was his, and this statement is certainly not to be a criticism
of his choice, nor of the quality of his faithful recording.
While Barthes attempted to elevate discourse about vocal performance and
music in general from the domain of the adjective (1977, 183), of the discussion
regarding vocal qualities and characteristics found here–those represented by what
283
Barthes labelled the geno-song–included the extensive use of subjective descriptions.
This is not a criticism of the participants in this research, but indicates that the vocal
qualities and characteristics that each individual favours do remain subjective and
difficult to express. Perhaps the most nebulous of these discussions was that which
involved perceptions of performer understanding, which include elements of both the
pheno-song and geno-song. While accurate pronunciation of the text clearly
influences this perception, the participants cited other elements of the voice.
While most Hawaiian compositions of her era were composed with metric
symmetry (either in 4/4 or–occasionally–3/4) and other characteristics representative
of the Hawaiian music tradition of that time, Machado demonstrated her command
over lyrical content and music by making the lines with varying syllable counts fit
over the same basic melody. She executed this in a manner that was and continues to
be appreciated and praised by Hawaiian speakers and music aficionados. She could
also add or subtract beats from measures during her performances and vary her
performance in other ways to suit her whims. These innovative and nonrepresentative aspects of her compositions are accepted because of her perceptions as
a cognitive authority for many of the participants in this research.
Kumukahi’s conversation with Kepelino rings true: that a vocal performer
should show the foundation of their knowledge by performing a song as it has been
previously performed or recorded before taking liberties and personalising their
performance. Such performances demonstrate the appreciation that Raymond believes
is necessary for acceptance of innovations. However, I do not believe that this is the
only way for a performance to be accepted as authentic. Silva was willing to overlook
some pronunciation errors he heard because of the quality of the singer’s voice,
however, there was an unspecified limit to how many errors he would tolerate in the
284
performance. Perceptions of the performer or composer’s authority, and excellence in
the execution of any aspect, be it part of the pheno-text or geno-text, may cause the
listener to ignore problems in the other. As Hawaiian religious teacher Kal#hikiola
N#li‘i‘elua’s presentation to Charlot’s class in 1979 demonstrated, Hawaiian
traditions are not without contradictions; however, these contradictions are tolerated
and can be explained by those whose own traditions are different. The responses and
opinions of the participants in this research show the wide range of factors that
influence perceptions of accuracy in Hawaiian vocal performance, and while the
opinions of some may contradict others, there is room in the traditions for all of them.
285
Conclusion
In this thesis I have argued that perceptions of authority and authenticity in
Hawaiian composition and vocal performance are informed by compositional and
performative characteristics that are valued above others by composers, performers
and audiences today. I have I have identified, examined, and analysed some of these
elements and characteristics by engaging seventeen exemplars of Hawaiian language
composition and vocal performance in dialogue while listening to recordings of their
choosing. By using these recorded examples as entry points for discussion, and by
using a dialogic approached similar to talanoa, I gained insights into not only those
elements and characteristics that are valued by these individuals, but how these
perceptions inform contemporary composers and performers in their own works and
practices.
Modern discourse regarding Hawaiian composition and vocal performance is
dominated by the topic of authenticity, essentially debating what characteristics are
essential to the perceived “Hawaiian-ness” of compositions and vocal performances.
While the music of Hawai!i has been subjected to academic scrutiny since the early
1900s, the focus of much research has been on the historical, musical, and contextual
aspects of Hawaiian composition and performance. Some have noted the primacy of
the Hawaiian language in musical performance, but it has only been recently that
language in music composition and performance has been the subject of serious
inquiry. The music of Hawai!i is important because it is a vessel for cultural
knowledge and understanding of history and genealogy, of actions and emotions, and
of people and places. The language is the music because it is the knowledge,
perspectives, and values contained within the mele and the mana imbued by their
286
vocalization that defines the musical culture of Hawai!i. While the melodic,
harmonic, rhythmic, and metric aspects of Hawaiian musical performance have
changed drastically in the more than two centuries that have passed since the arrival
of westerners, the presence and significance of the Hawaiian language in composition
and vocal performance has been the most notable aspect of continuity in these cultural
practices. Had knowledge not been documented in the mele that predate western
contact and those that immediately followed it, we would know significantly less
about the Hawaiian people of those eras.
This is not to say that Hawaiian language use in haku mele and vocal
performance has remained static during the past two and a quarter centuries. The
shifting landscape of language use in Hawai!i since the arrival of western explorers in
the 1778 and later Christian missionaries complicates the application of older
compositions and recordings as models by which modern compositions and
recordings are compared. I have noted the decontextualization of the Hawaiian
language in hymns translated into Hawaiian in the early 1800s, and the hybridization
of some hula forms during that same era. These hula forms continued to be
composed in the Hawaiian language, although some use words or short phrases in
English. They continued to portray a Hawaiian worldview representative of the era
while adopting some musical characteristics from introduced forms. I have also noted
the development of a predominantly English language genre, hapa-Haole, and later
English language forms that co-existed with Hawaiian language forms though the
early 20th century and into the 21st century, much as Irish Gaelic and English language
forms of sean nós co-exist in Ireland. The effects of language shift and efforts to
reverse it, in all contexts, continue to influence the formative processes of Hawaiian
language composition and vocal performance.
287
The results of this research have been presented in a very systematic manner.
It began with an examination of the individual’s role in Hawaiian composition and
vocal performance. The act of listening to live or recorded music is an individual
experience. Each composer and performers brings his or her individual experiences
and prior knowledge to the creative act of composing or recording. As such, the
results of their work, even in collaborative settings, are acts of individual creation.
Many of the compositions and recordings that were selected by the participants in this
research were those of native speakers of Hawaiian, both well known and anonymous.
A number of considerations are noted in the recognition of the authoritative status of
many of the composers and performers who were selected by the participants in this
research. M"naleo were frequently cited by many of the participants for their
compositional and vocal performance abilities. While Wilson argued that texts can
acquire authoritative status independent of their authors (Wilson 1983, 168-169), it is
clear that the reverence and authoritative status afforded these individual also
influences the perceived authenticity of their work.
Respect for elders is one of fundamental precepts of Hawaiian culture, and is
well documented in both the Hawaiian oral tradition and post-missionary literature.
The practice of h"nai assures the transmission of cultural knowledge, and places the
future of Hawaiian society–its youth–in the care of those most knowledgeable about
its past–k!puna. It is the k!puna who provide a genealogical and musical continuity
from the past, embodying it in the present, and assuring its perpetuation into the
future. The respect afforded to elders was clearly demonstrated during this research.
Some the recordings selected by several participants were those of non-native
speaking elders, with questionable pronunciation and the use of arguably inaccurate
texts heard in their recorded performances. When these problems were heard in the
288
recordings, the hoa k!k"k!k" quickly acknowledged them and dismissed their
significance. Many living elders who are not native speakers of Hawaiian are among
the first and second generations that were denied the birthright of their native tongue
by well-intended parents and grandparents. These individuals did so under coercion
and in the belief that their children and descendants would be best prepared for life in
post-monarchy Hawai‘i by learning English. As such, shortcomings in the
compositions and vocal performances by these individuals are quietly acknowledged,
most often in private (as was done in some k!k"k!k" sessions), but generally not
discussed publicly. This is both an acknowledgement of their significant role in
Hawaiian society and understanding that any shortcomings were a result of
circumstances beyond their control.
While status as a native speaker and/or elder clearly influenced the selections
and opinions of several participants in this research, it is not the only factor used in
their selection process. It is inevitable that in an era when few native speakers remain,
the responsibility for revitalisation of the Hawaiian language in all contexts has
largely fallen to those who have acquired Hawaiian as a second language. As such, a
vast majority of living composers and performers have acquired Hawaiian as a second
language, as are those who are involved in may aspects of the social maintenance of
the traditions–formal instructors and mentors of haku mele, those who paka the mele
of other composers, and those adjudicate the Haku Mele and Hawaiian Language
Performance categories at the N# H$k% Hanohano Awards. These awards are
intended to encourage the composition of new mele, and to honour the highest quality
compositions. At least thirteen of the seventeen participants in this research have
entered songs in this competition, and eight of those that have entered mele into this
category have won.
289
None of the participants in this research opposed the competitive aspect of
these awards. Several noted that the Hawaiian people have always been competitive,
and that this kind of award encourages composers to continue to develop and
strengthen their skills. It is important that those who paka the mele of others and
participate in the adjudication of these awards encourage the composition of new
mele, and not discouraging it through heavy-handed criticism and unreasonable
comparisons with compositions and recorded performances by native speakers of the
19th and 20th centuries. The Academy has taken a more active role in this
responsibility through the establishment of the N# H$k% Hanohano Music Festival,
which includes workshops by notable haku mele, and includes many of those
individuals that participated in this research. By adding an educational component to
support its adjudicated awards, the Academy is contributing to the continuation of the
practice of haku mele by providing young and older composer alike with the tools to
strengthen their skills, and a venue by which their compositions can be recognised.
It is notable that several hoa k!k"k!k" expressed their desire, if not a need, to
cite examples of compositions and recordings by younger composers and performers
such as Kanaka!ole, Pata, and H$k% Zuttermeister. To dismiss the compositions and
performances of younger artists would be to deny these practices a future. However,
discussion and criticism of compositions and performances by second language
learners of Hawaiian does more frequently occur in public forums. Like many elders
who cannot speak Hawaiian, these younger composers and performers are also
products of their time, and raised in a society that privileged the use of English and
marginalized the native Hawaiian language. The youngest of those individuals whose
compositions and recordings were selected by the participants in this research,
Kanaka!ole, is a product of the Hawaiian immersion schools that were founded in the
290
early 1980s. He is among the first of a new generation of Hawaiian speakers who
have been educated through the medium of Hawaiian, and who have become
respected composers and performers. In the time that has passed since the time that
this research was completed, at least one more product of Hawaiian medium
education, Ryan Kamakak)hau Fernandez of Maui, has caught the attention of the
Hawai!i music industry. It is perhaps inevitable that perceptions of accuracy and
authenticity in the compositions and performances of these individuals and others will
continue to be scrutinized, contested and negotiated in the present until, as argued by
Wong, they become a “traditional past” (1999, 112).
Perceptions of authenticity in the text of mele are influenced by a number of
factors. Elements and characteristics of language use in older compositions and
recorded performances are used as models by which perceptions of authority and
authenticity are formed, and represent the historic construction of Hawaiian
composition and vocal performance. In some cases, it is not what is found in the older
mele that is significant, but what is not. Several participants noted that words
containing negative connotations are to be avoided, and how negative expressions or
situations can be turned into positive expressions. This is reflective of the belief in the
mana that is inherent to the vocalization of language, and a recognition that once
spoken words cannot be recalled. I agree with Silva’s belief that while Hawaiian
speakers and many non-speakers acknowledge this cultural precept, and they do not
fear the consequences of negative expressions of language in the same manner as
previous generations. I noted my own attempt to use a word with negative
connotations in a composition, only to be reminded by Kimura about the
inappropriateness of its usage when he performed paka on the mele. While
understanding the avoidance of negative connotations in Hawaiian composition, I
291
simply failed to recognize it in my own composition. While some younger composers
I have encountered eschew the practice of paka, it has resulted in the release of
recordings of new mele with unintended and possibly embarrassing word use or
representation of thought. I have had many of my own compositions undergo paka,
and while some have been returned to me with no corrections or feedback, others did
indeed contain questionable word selection, grammatical use, or could have been
interpreted in ways that I had not intended. Paka remains and should continue to play
an important role the social maintenance of haku mele.
Some participants in this researched expressed the belief that contemporary
mele should reflect a Hawaiian perspective and worldview, and not simply be nonHawaiian thought expressed through the Hawaiian language. This is indicative of the
loss of the “atmosphere and associations” lamented by Pukui. However, De Silva and
Kimura noted the acceptance of introduced objects and concepts such as vase and the
heart as the seat of emotion as being Hawaiian. I have cited literature that suggests
that our conceptual system as human beings is fundamentally metaphorical, and
explored how a Hawaiian worldview is reflected in the use of metaphor in Hawaiian
language compositions. While the use of figures of speech such as metaphor is
sometimes perceived as a “device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical
flourish” (Lakoff, Johnson 2003, 3), the use of metaphor in older compositions is
representative of an older Hawaiian conceptual system that has been largely lost due
to the decreasing fluency of the Hawaiian population and the loss of the contexts in
which older metaphors were used. Our understanding of how a Hawaiian
conceptualization and perspective are reflected in metaphor use influences
perceptions of authenticity in Hawaiian language composition, however incomplete or
inaccurate, are also representative of the historic construction of Hawaiian
292
composition and vocal performance. The use of metaphor in older songs is one
element of a model by which newer compositions are compared. While English
speakers may eschew the use of mixed metaphors and favour the consistency of
remaining within a single conceptual metaphor, such as ARGUMENT IS WAR, the use of
such mixed metaphors from different conceptual realms is not avoided in Hawaiian
compositions, provided that the underlying thought remains consistent. A deeper
examination of metaphor use in Hawaiian could prove valuable to the expansion of
metaphor theory in not only Hawaiian but also other languages and cultures.
I have noted the importance of the extraction and interpretation processes in
understanding older mele, and urged caution against inserting thoughts where the
composer did not intend them. I have also noted and support Nogelmeier’s assertion
that the terms metaphor and kaona are not the same. Kaona is the story that inspired
the composer to create the mele, and metaphor a tool by which the composer provides
a layer of abstraction to the song in order to hide some of the details. Every hoa
k!k"k!k" who discussed aspects of kaona acknowledged that it is only with first-hand
knowledge of the mele and the circumstances under which it was written that
someone could understand the kaona. This is not to say that there is no value in
closely examining the use of metaphor in mele, as it is possible to draw some general
conclusions or possible interpretations based on an understanding of the traditional
use of metaphoric devices. Such examinations are still of great value to those wishing
to hone their skills as haku mele. When the composer of a mele is alive, it is wise to
consult them to provide insights to their compositions, as many of the participants in
this research did. While they may not be willing to share some knowledge regarding
the more intimate details of their compositions, it is clear from my conversations with
293
all of these individuals that they are truly passionate about the perpetuation of this
cultural practice and willing to share their knowledge.
As the composer moves from conceptualization towards choosing the
vocabulary and grammatical structures that will be used to express the thoughts of the
mele, the composer will draw from what Nogelmeier has characterized as the
composer’s “toolbox” to assemble these thoughts into a coherent expression of
language. This research has shown that there is a wide range of poetic devices and
styles available to the composer, many of which are derived from older compositional
styles that may be performed in oli and/or hula performance. While Helen Desha
Beamer’s compositional style is frequently described as being vivid and visual, I have
examined this contention more closely and argued that it is not the explicitly vivid
nature of her compositions that is notable, but how it provides the listener with a
framework by which they can create their own visual image of the song’s depictions.
It is possible that one of the challenges of composers today is being able to choose
how to leave out some elements and construct such a framework, resulting in the
more verbose nature of modern compositions that some of the participants in this
research have noted. While elements such as terseness, exactness of word choice, the
use of present tense, tenseless verbs, noun phrases, syntax, grammar, and the use of
older poetic devices such as lists and linking of sound and thought, none of these
individual elements alone are essential to any composition. In fact, all of these
elements could be included in a single composition, and it still not be considered to be
excellent or perceived as being an authentic expression of Hawaiian language or
thought. Kimura’s examination of the poetic structure and linking devices found in
mele (2002, 157), Ho!omanawanui’s discussion of similar aspects in both English and
Hawaiian language compositions by native Hawaiians (2005, 29-81), and my own
294
research into the differences between Hawaiian language and spoken and sung (2003)
are all examples of this recent examination of language use in Hawaiian music.
Further examination all of these elements of language use in haku mele, and more, is
warranted.
Perceptions of authenticity and accuracy in vocal performance are also based
on historical construction. In this area more than any other that I have examined, the
participants in this research expressed differing opinions regarding authenticity and
accuracy in vocal performance. I have noted that in the performance of ancient
Hawaiian chant, chanters were not compelled to perform a song exactly as it was or
could have been performed by the composer–even if a definitive performance or
recording did exist. The process of entextualization, acquisition of western musical
literacy by Hawaiians during the 19thcentury and the recording technologies of the
20th century certainly influenced later performers and performances (Stillman 2005,
69-94). Ultimately, it is not sufficient to possess knowledge, but be able to utilize it in
a manner that is of value–“the Hawaiian medical practitioner had to heal the patient.
The chanter had to deliver the chant” (Charlot 2005, 3). Just as vocalisation brings life
and mana to words, I argue that the display or practical application of knowledge in
an expert manner is necessary in the Hawaiian contexts of haku mele and Hawaiian
vocal performance. It is not sufficient to understand haku mele or vocal performance
from a theoretical perspective, or even to transmit such knowledge–the expert must
possess the ability to apply it.
Raymond noted his preference for a performer to acknowledge his ability to
perform a mele as it had been previously recorded to show a respect for the composer
and those that had recorded and performed the mele before him. Once this respect is
shown, he feels it is allowable for a singer to vary and personalise the performance,
295
but within reason. None of my hoa k!k"k!k" could state specifically what the
boundaries of the authentic or accurate vocal performance were, though none
indicated a willingness to accept what has been characterised as “ubiquitous
creativity”, defined by Bohlman as a “wilful departure from traditional constraints”
(1988, 78). While Kumukahi, Mahi, Sal# and Beamer all expressed their desire to
honour composer intent with their own vocal performances, and others recognising
the importance of understanding composer intent, none of them expressed their desire
for other performers to adhere to their own standards. Pata was unique among my hoa
k!k"k!k" in that he brought multiple recordings of more than one song to listen to and
compare. Though there were textual differences among some of these recordings, Pata
possesses extensive knowledge of all of these versions. Which version he chooses to
perform in any given context is based on that knowledge. Clearly, none of the
participants in this research, even the most “traditionalist” performers among them,
displayed the kind of “rigid dogmatism” that concerned Kivy in his discussion of
authenticity in early music (2002, 138).
I have previously highlighted some of the variations that are possible in sung
pronunciation through an analysis of recorded performances by Almeida. In that
research I compared the sung pronunciation of syllables with norms in spoken
Hawaiian and documented other performative variations. In Chapter Seven, I noted
similarities in the recorded performance of Santos with older recorded performances
by Almeida. It is possible that the hesitance of modern performers to personalize and
vary their vocal performances is due to the prescriptive nature of Hawaiian language
education today. Well-intentioned elders, teachers, or students of Hawaiian language
have perhaps scolded or corrected what they believe were incorrect pronunciation.
296
While this research has touched on elements of what Barthes has described as
the “geno-song”–characteristics of the voice that are not related to the expression of
language or meaning–there is clearly much research to be done in this area. I have
noted how specific performative techniques found in older chant styles, such as
nonolo (nasality), ha‘i (a break in the voice), kuolo and ‘i‘i (vibrato), he‘u (a creaky
sound) were noted by some of the participants in this research while listening to
recorded performances; however, no research has been conducted to firmly establish a
connection between the two. Sal# characterized the voice of Cazimero expressing an
‘eha (hurt or pain) that he could not describe in more objective terms. A further
examination of the recordings selected by the participants in this research, as well as
other recordings of Hawaiian language vocal performance, is warranted.
Burns has argued that an appropriate definition of modern British folk music
could be “music in which the performance practice and lyric content demonstrably
represent its ethnic origins and cultural identity” (Burns 2008, 254). Such a definition
would not be inappropriate to modern Hawaiian language music. In this thesis, I have
demonstrated that while perceptions of authority and authenticity are based on historic
construction, the models by which comparisons are made and perceptions formed are
individually experienced. The acts of composition and performance are individual
expressions that are negotiated and maintained through interaction with other
members of society. While the perceptions of authority and authenticity of new
compositions and vocal performances are admittedly subjective, discourse about these
aspects of Hawaiian music is valuable and will undoubtedly continue in the future.
Such discourse is healthy, reflective of the passion that burns in individuals to honour
the historic aspects of these traditions, and benefits the continuation of these practices
into the future.
297
Bibliography
*****, J. 1873a, Pehea la e hiki ai ia kakou e kamailio pololei i ka olelo Hawaii?
*****, J. 1873b, Pehea la e hiki ai ia kakou e kamailio pololei i ka olelo Hawaii?
‘Aha P%nana Leo, I. & Ka Haka ‘Ula O Ke‘elik$lani, Ke Kulanui o Hawai‘i ma Hilo
2009, Kumu honua mauli ola : he k"laimana‘o ho‘ona‘auao ‘$iwi Hawai‘i, ‘Aha
P%nana Leo, Inc. and Ka Haka ‘Ula O Ke‘elik$lani, Ke Kulanui o Hawai‘i ma
Hilo, Hilo, Hawai‘i.
Akindes, F.Y. 2001, “Sudden Rush: na mele paleoleo (Hawaiian rap) as liberatory
discourse”, Discourse, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 82-98.
Alcoff, L. 1991, “The problem of speaking for others”, Cultural Critique, no. 20, pp.
5-32.
Almeida, J. & Pukui, M.K. 1946, Na mele aloha, J. K. Almeida, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Almeida, J. 2003, John Kameaaloha Almeida, 1897-1985, Cord International/HanaOla Records, Ventura, CA.
Associated Press 2011, Rare bird may have just gone extinct. Available:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6630652/ns/technology_and_sciencescience/t/rare-bird-may-have-just-gone-extinct/#.TkGGDXPE-RA
Barthes, R. & Heath, S. 1977, Image, music, text, Hill and Wang, New York.
Beamer, E.M.C. 2009, Interview with the author conducted on 10 June, 2009.
Beamer, K., Beamer, H. D., & Kolivas, J. (1998). Great grandmother, great
grandson. Honolulu: Kapono Beamer Ent., Ltd.
Beamer, M. 2004, Hawaii’s Mahi Beamer, Hula Records, Honolulu.
Beamer, M.M. 1991, Songs of Helen Desha Beamer, Abigail K. Kawananakoa
Foundation, Honolulu.
Beckwith, M.W. & Haleole, S.N. 1918, The Hawaiian romance of Laieikawai,
Government Printing Office, Washington.
Beniamina, J.‘".K. 2009, Interview with the author conducted on 8, May, 2009.
Bernice P. Bishop Museum 1997, N" leo Hawai‘i kahiko [sound recording],
Mountain Apple Company, distributor. Honolulu.
Board of Governors, Hawai‘i Academy of Recording Arts. 2011a, Member Eligibility,
[Online]. Available: http://www.nahokuhanohano.org/blog/?page_id=7.
Board of Governors, Hawai‘i Academy of Recording Arts. 2011b, N" H$k!
Hanohano awards, [Online]. Available:
http://www.nahokuhanohano.org/blog/?page_id=19.
Board of Governors, Hawai!i Academy of Recording Arts. 2005, Lifetime
achievement awards script: Bill Ali‘iloa Lincoln, Program Script edn, Honolulu.
Boas, F., Holder, P., Boas, F. & Powell, J.W. 1966, Introduction to handbook of
American Indian languages, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Bohlman, P.V. 1988, The study of folk music in the modern world, Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
Bright, W. 1963, “Language and music: areas for cooperation”, Ethnomusicology,
vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 26-32.
Brothers Cazimero. 2004. Some call it aloha-- don't tell. Honolulu: Mountain Apple
Co.
Brothers Cazimero 1987, The best of the brothers Cazimero, Mountain Apple,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Burns, R. 2008, Transforming folk: innovation and tradition in English folk-rock
music, University of Otago.
298
Carr, D.M. 2005, Writing on the tablet of the heart origins of Scripture and literature,
Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York.
Charlot, J. 2008, “Helen Desha Beamer’s P#n&‘au: innovations in hula”, The Journal
of Intercultural Studies, vol. 34 & 35, pp. 1-15.
Charlot, J. 2005, Classical Hawaiian education, Pacific Institute, Brigham Young
University, Hawaii.
Chun, G.C.W. 2001, Rare treasures found in mele. Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Features,
27 July, p. 1.
Clifford, J. 1997, Routes : travel and translation in the late twentieth century, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Crystal, D. 2009, Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, Chichester : John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
De Silva, K. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 11 November, 2008.
De Silva, K. 1997, Ka nani a‘o Hilo : an essay by K&hei de Silva.
Donaghy, J.K. 2011. “Puana !ia me ka !oko!a: a comparative analysis of Hawaiian
language pronunciation as spoken and sung”, Language Documentation and
Conservation, vol. 5, pp. 66-92.
Donaghy, K. 2003, N" h&meni a John Kameaaloha Almeida: he k"lailaina
ho‘oh"likelike me ke k"lele ma luna o ka ‘oko‘a o ka puana kama‘ilio a me ka
puana h&meni.
Elbert, S.H. 1989, Kawena: a personal reminiscence, Honolulu Magazine, Honolulu.
Elbert, S.H. 1979, Hawaiian grammar, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Elbert, S.H. 1951, “Hawaiian literary style and culture”, American Anthropologist,
vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 345-354.
Elbert, S.H. & M#hoe, N. 1970, N" mele o Hawai‘i nei, University of Hawaii Press,
Honolulu.
Ellis, W.,d1794-1872 & Ellis, W. 2003, A narrative of an 1823 tour of Hawai‘i or
Owhyhee : with remarks on the history, traditions, manners, customs and
language of the inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands, Mutual Pub., Honolulu, HI.
Ely, J. 2009a, HMHFM Honorees [Homepage of Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame],
[Online]. Available:
http://www.hawaiimusicmuseum.org/honorees/honorees.html#2005.
Ely, J. 2009b, HMHFM Honorees - Helen Desha Beamer [Homepage of Hawaiian
Music Hall of Fame], [Online]. Available:
http://www.hawaiimusicmuseum.org/honorees/1995/beamer.html.
Ely, J. 2007, HMHFM Honorees - Lena Machado [Homepage of Hawaiian Music
Hall of Fame], [Online]. Available:
http://www.hawaiimusicmuseum.org/honorees/1995/machado.html.
Emerson, N.B. 1909, Unwritten literature of Hawaii: the sacred songs of the hula,
collected and translated, with notes and an account of the hula, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Farden, H. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 11 November, 2008.
Feld, S. 1974, “Linguistic models in ethnomusicology”, Ethnomusicology, vol. 18,
no. 2, pp. 197-217.
Feld, S. 1984, “Communication, music, and speech about music”, Yearbook for
Traditional Music, vol. 16, pp. 1-18.
Feld, S. 1981, “‘Flow like a waterfall’: the metaphors of Kaluli musical theory”,
Yearbook for Traditional Music, vol. 13, pp. 22-47.
Feld, S. & Fox, A.A. 1994, “Music and language”, Annual Review of Anthropology,
vol. 23, pp. 25-53.
299
Fishman, J.A. 1964, “Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry.
A definition of the field and suggestions for its further development”, Linguistics,
vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 32-70.
Fox, A.A. 2004, Real country: music and language in working-class culture, Duke
University Press, Durham.
Friedman, J. 1992, “The past in the future: history and the politics of identity”,
American Anthropologist, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 837-859.
Gannon, M.J. 2001, Cultural metaphors : readings, research translations, and
commentary, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Geertz, C. 1983, Local knowledge : further essays in interpretive anthropology, Basic
Books, New York.
Geertz, C. 1975, The interpretation of cultures: selected essays, Hutchinson, London.
Gerstin, J. 1998, “Reputation in a musical scene: the everyday context of connections
between music, identity and politics”, Ethnomusicology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 385414.
Graff, H.J. 1981, Literacy and social development in the West : a reader, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York.
Grossberg, L. 1992, We gotta get out of this place : popular conservatism and
postmodern culture, Routledge, New York.
Halford, F.J. 1954, 9 doctors & God, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Handy, E.S.C., Handy, E.G. & Pukui, M.K. 1991; 1972, Native planters in old
Hawaii : their life, lore, and environment, Rev edn, Bishop Museum Press,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Handy, E.S.C. & Pukui, M.K. 1958, The Polynesian family system in Ka-'u, Hawai'i,
Polynesian Society, Wellington, N.Z.
Hanson, A. 1989, “The making of the Maori: culture invention and its logic”,
American Anthropologist, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 890-902.
Hawaiian Music Foundation 1975, Ha‘ilono mele, Hawaiian Music Foundation,
Honolulu.
Hawaiian Music Foundation 1979, “Hawaii loses another kumu hula, Henry Pa”.
Ha‘ilono mele, vol. 5, no. 6, pg. 10. Hawaiian Music Foundation, Honolulu.
Herndon, M. 1983, “Insiders, outsiders: knowing our limits, limiting our knowing.”,
The World of Music, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 63-80.
Hinton, L. 2001a, “Federal language policy and indigenous languages in the United
States” in The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice, eds. L. Hinton
& K.L. Hale, Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., pp. 39-44.
Hinton, L. 2001b, “An introduction to the Hawaiian language” in The Green Book of
Language Revitalization in Practice, eds. L. Hinton & K.L. Hale, Academic
Press, San Diego, Calif., pp. 129.
Hobsbawm, E.J. & Ranger, T.O. (eds) 1983, The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge Cambridgeshire; New York.
Ho‘$la L#hui Hawai‘i 2009, 9 July, 2009-last update, Ho‘$la l"hui Hawai‘i
[Homepage of Ho‘$la L#hui Hawai‘i], [Online]. Available:
http://www.hoolalahui.org/.
Ho‘omanawanui, K. 2005, “He lei ho‘oheno no n# kau a kau: language, performance,
and form in Hawaiian poetry”, The Contemporary Pacific, vol. 17, no. I, pp. 2981.
Hood, M. 1983, “Musical ornamentation as history: the Hawaiian steel guitar”,
Yearbook for Traditional Music, vol. 15, no. East Asian Musics, pp. 141-148.
300
Johnstone, B. 2000, “The individual voice in language”, Annual Review of
Anthropology, vol. 29, pp. 405-424.
Jones, S.H. 1999, "Women, musics, bodies, and texts: The gesture of women's
music", Text and Performance Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 217-235.
Juola, P. 2003, “The time course of language change”, Digital Media and Humanities
Research: Selected Proceedings of ACH-ALLC 2001, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 77-96.
Kaemmer, J.E. 1978, “Elements of research in aesthetics”, International Review of the
Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 121-130.
Kaeppler, A.L. 2004, “Recycling tradition: a Hawaiian case study”, Dance Chronicle,
vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 293-311.
Kaeppler, A.L. 1993, Hula Pahu - Hawaiian Drum Dances - Volume I - Ha‘a and
Hula Pahu - Sacred Movements, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Kahaunaele, D.K. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 25 July, 2008.
Kamakahi, D.D.K. 2009, Interview with the author conducted on 19 January, 2009.
Kamakau, S.M. 1869, Ka moolelo Hawaii.
Kamakau, S.M. 1867, Ka moolelo o na Kamehameha, helu 52.
Kaman#, K. & Wilson, W.H. 1990, N" kai ‘ewalu : beginning Hawaiian lessons, Rev
edn, Hale Kuamo‘o, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Honolulu.
Kanahele, G. 1977, Mele Hawai‘i award goes to Honolulu City Parks and
Recreation, The Hawaiian Music Foundation, Honolulu.
Kanahele, G.S. 1982, Hawaiian renaissance, Project WAIAHA, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Kanahele, G.S 1979a, “Hawai‘i Calls” in Hawaiian music and musicians. University
of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu, pp. 109-114.
Kanahele, G.S. 1979b, “H&meni, history of” in Hawaiian music and musicians.
University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu, pp. 129-141.
Kanahele, G.S. 1979c, “Lee, Kuiokalani” in Hawaiian Music and Musicians: An
Illustrated History, ed. G.S. Kanahele, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, pp.
222-223.
Kanahele, G.S. 1979d, “Lelei$hoku, William Pitt” in Hawaiian Music and Musicians:
An Illustrated History, ed. G.S. Kanahele, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu,
pp. 224-225.
Kanahele, G.S. 1979e, “Likelike, Miriam” in Hawaiian Music and Musicians: An
225-226.
Kanahele, G.S. 1979f, “Lili‘uokalani” in Hawaiian Music and Musicians: An
227-232.
Karpeles, M. 1951, “Some reflections on authenticity in folk music”, Journal of the
International Folk Music Council, vol. 3, pp. 10-16.
Kartomi, M.J. 1990, On concepts and classifications of musical instruments,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kimura, L.L. 2002, N" mele kau o ka m"hele mua o ka mo‘olelo ‘o
Hi‘iakaikapoliopele na Joseph M. Poepoe: he k"lailaina me ke k"lele ma luna o
n" ku‘inaiwi kaulua.
Kimura, L.L. 1973, Ka leo Hawai‘i radio program.
Kimura, L.L. 2009, Interview with the author conducted on 12 August, 2009.
Kivy, P. 2002, “On the historically informed performance”, The British Journal of
Aesthetics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 128-144.
K$mike Hua‘$lelo 2003, M"maka kaiao: a modern Hawaiian vocabulary, University
of Hawai!i Press, Honolulu.
301
Koskoff, E. 1987, “Response to Rice”, Ethnomusicology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 497-502.
Kramsch, C.J. 1998, Language and culture, Oxford University Press, Oxford, OX ;
New York.
Kristeva, J. 1984, Revolution in poetic language, Columbia University Press, New
York.
Kumukahi, K. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 11 November, 2008.
Kumukahi, K. 2003, H$‘ulu‘ulu ‘ekahi, Ke‘alohi Corporation.
Kumukahi, K. 1993, N" hiwa kupuna o ku‘u one h"nau, Ho‘oli Productions, Hawaii.
Labov, W. 1973; 1972, Sociolinguistic patterns, University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 2003, Metaphors we live by, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Lewis, G.H. 1984, “Da kine sounds: the function of music as social protest in the new
Hawaiian renaissance”, American Music, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 38-52.
Lili‘uokalani, Gillett, D.K., Smith, B.B. & Hui H#nai 1999, The Queen’s songbook,
Hui H#nai, Honolulu.
Lincoln, B.A. 2007; 1938, Bill Ali#iloa Lincoln, Cord International, Ventura, CA.
Linnekin, J. 1991, “Cultural invention and the dilemma of authenticity”, American
Anthropologist, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 446-449.
Linnekin, J.S. 1983, “Defining tradition: variations on the Hawaiian identity”,
American Ethnologist, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 241-252.
List, G. 1963, “The Boundaries of Speech and Song”, Ethnomusicology, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. pp. 1-16.
Mahi, A.D. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 19 January, 2009.
Makaha Sons of Ni‘ihau 1991, Ho‘oluana, Poki Records, Honolulu.
Makuak#ne, K. 2006, Makuak"ne, Makuak#ne Music, Honolulu.
Marcus, G.E. 1995, “Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multisited ethnography”, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 24, pp. 95-117.
McArthur, T. 1992, The Oxford companion to the English language, Oxford
University Press, Oxford ; New York.
McCann, A. & Ó Laoire, L. 2003, ““Raising one higher than the other”: the hierarchy
of tradition in representations of Gaelic- and English language song in Ireland” in
Global Pop, Local Language, eds. H.M. Berger & M.T. Carroll, University Press
of Mississippi, Jackson, pp. 352.
McGregor, D.P. 1985, “Voices of Today, Echo of Voices of the Past”, The Hawaii
Writers’ Quarterly, pp. 44- 49.
McLean, M. 1999, Weavers of song: Polynesian music and dance, Auckland
University Press, Auckland, N.Z.
Merriam, A.P. 1964, The anthropology of music, Northwestern University Press,
Evanston, Ill.
Meyer, M.A. 2003, Ho#oulu : our time of becoming : collected early writings of
Manulani Meyer, !Ai P$haku Press, Honolulu, Hawai!i.
Miller, G.A. 1993, “Images and models, similes and metaphors” in Metaphor and
thought, ed. A. Ortony, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
England ; New York, NY, USA, pp. 202.
Moore, A. 2002, “Authenticity as authentication”, Popular Music, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.
209-223.
Motta, P. & De Silva, K. 2006, Lena Machado songbird of Hawai#i: my memories of
Aunty Lena, Kamehameha Schools, Honolulu, Hawai!i.
N#hale-a, E.K. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 19 September, 2008.
302
NeSmith, K. 2003, “T%t%’s Hawaiian and the emergence of a neo Hawaiian
language”, ‘'iwi : a native Hawaiian journal, vol. 3.
Nettl, B. 2005, The study of ethnomusicology: thirty-one issues and concepts,
University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Nogelmeier, M.P. 2009, Interview with the author conducted on 19 January, 2009.
Nogelmeier, M.P. 2003, Mai pa‘a i ka leo: historical voice in Hawaiian primary
materials, looking forward and listening back, University of Hawai‘i at M#noa.
Obejas, A. 2006, A Grammy gripe: slack key not the only Hawaiian music style.
Chicago Tribune. 12 Feb., p. 1.
Ortone, B.C. 1999, The island music source book, 1st edn, Olinda Road Distribution,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Ortony, A. 2001, “Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice” in Cultural
metaphors : readings, research translations, and commentary, ed. M.J. Gannon,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif., pp. 9-21.
Ortony, A. (ed) 1993, Metaphor and thought, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge England; New York, NY, USA.
Parshall, P. 1999, “The art of memory and the passion”, The Art Bulletin, vol. 81, no.
3, pp. 456-472.
Pata, P. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 2 November, 2008.
Pratt, M.L. 1992, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation, Routledge,
London.
Pukui, M.K. 1983, ‘'lelo no‘eau: Hawaiian proverbs & poetical sayings, Bishop
Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawai'i.
Pukui, M.K. 1949, “Songs (meles) of old Ka'u, Hawaii”, The Journal of American
Folklore, vol. 62, no. 245, pp. 247-258.
Pukui, M.K. How legends were taught, Typescript, Hawaiian Ethnographic Notes I:
1602–1606 [typescript numbered 1–5] edn, Bernice Pauahi Bishop museum
library.
Pukui, M.K. & Elbert, S.H. 1986, Hawaiian dictionary: Hawaiian-English, EnglishHawaiian, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Pukui, M.K., Haertig, E.W. & Lee, C.A. 1972, N"n" i ke kumu, volume 1. Hui H#nai,
Honolulu.
Pula, J. 1857, No ka unuhi ana i ka Palapala Hemolele iloko o ka Olelo Hawaii,
Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Raymond, S.K. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 31 October, 2008.
Reddy, M.J. 1993, “The conduit metaphor - a case of frame conflict in our language
about language” in Metaphor and thought, ed. A. Ortony, 2nd edn, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge England ; New York, NY, USA, pp. 284.
Reichel, C.K. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 1 November, 2008.
Rice, T. 1994, May it fill your soul: experiencing Bulgarian music, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rice, T. 1987, “Toward the remodeling of ethnomusicology”, Ethnomusicology, vol.
31, no. 3, pp. 469-488.
Richards, I.A. 1965, The philosophy of rhetoric, Oxford University Press, New York.
Roberts, H.H. 1967, Ancient Hawaiian music, Dover Publications, New York.
Romaine, S. 2000, Language in society : an introduction to sociolinguistics, 2nd edn,
Oxford University Press, Oxford ; New York.
Romaine, S. 1995, Bilingualism, 2nd edn, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Romaine, S. 1994, “Hawai'i Creole English as a Literary Language”, Language in
Society, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 527-554.
303
Rubidge, S. 1996, “Does authenticity matter? The case for and against authenticity in
the performing arts” in Analysing Performance: A Critical Reader, ed. P.
Campbell, Manchester University Press; Distributed exclusively in the USA and
Canada by St. Martin's Press, Manchester England ; New York; New York, pp.
307.
Russell, T. 2005, Contextual authority tagging: cognitive authority through
folksonomy, University of North Carolina.
Sal#, A.J. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 30 October, 2008.
Sapir, E. 1929, “The status of linguistics as a science”, Language, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
207-214.
Schütz, Albert J. 2010. Measures and morphemes: A functional approach to
Hawaiian accent. A journey through Austronesian and Papuan linguistic and
cultural space: Papers in honor of Andrew Pawley, 205–421. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.
Schütz, A.J. 1994, Voices of Eden, Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.
Seeger, A. 1987, “Do We Need to Remodel Ethnomusicology?”, Ethnomusicology,
vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 491-495.
Seeger, A. 1987, Why Suyá sing : a musical anthropology of an Amazonian people,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York.
Seeger, C. 1977, Studies in musicology, 1935-1975, University of California Press.
Shelemay, K.K. 1987, “Response to Rice”, Ethnomusicology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 489490.
Silva, G. 1989, A Comparative Study of the Hymnody of Two Hawaiian Protestant
Denominations: Ho‘omana I" Ies! and Ho‘omana Na‘auao.
Silva, G.K. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 29 November, 2008.
Silva, G.P. 1982, The chanting of traditional Hawaiian mele hula.
Silverstein, M. 1998, “Contemporary transformations of local linguistic
communities”, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 27, pp. 401-426.
Snow, C.E., Cancino, H., De Temple, J. & Schley, S. 1991, “Giving formal
definitions: a linguistic or metalinguistic skill?” in Language processing in
bilingual children, ed. E. Bialystok, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
England ; New York, pp. 90-112.
Soanes, C. & Stevenson, A. 2009, Oxford reference online. Oxford dictionary of
English, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Soria, H.B. 2010, 9 December 2010-last update, About us: Territorial Airwaves.
Available: http://www.territorialairwaves.com/index.php?page=11.
Stillman, A.K. 1998, Sacred hula : the historical hula ‘"la‘apapa, Bishop Museum
Press.
Stillman, A.K. 1978, “Young composers have trouble with Hawaiian language”.
Ha‘ilono mele, vol. 4, no. 7, pg. 6. Hawaiian Music Foundation, Honolulu.
Stillman, A.K. 1998, “Hula hits, local music and local charts: some dynamics of
popular Hawaiian music” in Sound alliances : indigenous peoples, cultural
politics and popular music in the Pacific, ed. P. Hayward, Cassell, London ;
Washington, D.C., pp. 89.
Stillman, A.K. 2005, “Textualizing Hawaiian music”, American Music, vol. 23, no. 1,
pp. 69-94.
Stillman, A.K. 1996, “Beyond bibliography: interpreting Hawaiian-language
protestant hymn imprints”, Ethnomusicology, vol. 40, no. 3, Special Issue: Music
and Religion, pp. 469-488.
304
Szego, C.K. 2003, “Singing Hawaiian and the aesthetics of (in)comprehensibility” in
Global Pop, Local Language, eds. H.M. Berger & M.T. Carroll, University Press
of Mississippi, Jackson, pp. 352.
Tangar$, T. 2008, Interview with the author conducted on 23 October, 2008.
Tatar, E. 1995, “Hawaii drum dance chants: sounds of power in time”, pp. 215.
Tatar, E. 1993, Hula pahu - Hawaiian drum dances volume II - the pahu - sounds of
power, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Tatar, E. 1987, Strains of change : the impact of tourism on Hawaiian music, Bishop
Museum Press, Honolulu.
Tatar, E. 1982, Nineteenth century Hawaiian chant, Dept. of Anthropology, Bernice
P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Tatar, E. 1981, “Toward a description of precontact music in Hawai'i”,
Ethnomusicology, vol. 25, no. 3, Pacific Issue, pp. 481-492.
Tatar, E. 1979a, “Falsetto” in Hawaiian Music and Musicians: An Illustrated History,
ed. G.S. Kanahele, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, pp. 86-92.
Tatar, E. 1979b, “Introduction: what is Hawaiian music?” in Hawaiian Music and
Musicians: An Illustrated History, ed. G.S. Kanahele, University Press of
Hawaii, Honolulu, pp. xxiii-xxx.
Tatar, E. 1979c, “Slack key guitar” in Hawaiian Music and Musicians: An Illustrated
History, ed. G.S. Kanahele, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, pp. 351-360.
Thornton, S. 1995, Club cultures: music, media and subcultural capital, Polity Press,
Oxford, England.
Tilley, C. 1997, “Performing culture in the global village”, Critique of Anthropology,
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 67-89.
Trask, H.K. 1991, “Natives and anthropologists: the colonial struggle”, The
Contemporary Pacific, vol. 3, no. Spring, pp. 159.
Trimillos, R.D. 1977, Workshop examines the music of Hawaiian music.
Tyler, T.R. & Lind, E.A. 1964, “A relational model of authority in groups” in
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz, Academic Press,
New York, pp. 115.
Vaioleti, T.M. 2006, “Talanoa research methodology: a developing position on
Pacific research”, Waikato Journal of Education, vol. 12, pp. 21-34.
Walton, D.N. 1997, Appeal to expert opinion: arguments from authority, Penn State
Press.
Webb, J. 1998, Tunesmith : inside the art of songwriting, 1st edn, Hyperion, New
York.
Weintraub, A.N. 1998, “Jawaiian music and local cultural identity in Hawai‘i” in
Sound alliances : indigenous peoples, cultural politics and popular music in the
Pacific, ed. P. Hayward, Cassell, London ; Washington, D.C., pp. 79.
Whitehurst, G.J. & Lonigan, C.J. 1998, Child Development and Emergent Literacy,
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Wilcox, C., Hollinger, V., Hussey, K. & Nogelmeier, P. 2003, He mele aloha : a
Hawaiian songbook, Softbound edn, 'Oli 'Oli Productions, Honolulu, Hawai'i.
Wilson, P. 1983, Second-hand knowledge : an inquiry into cognitive authority, .
Wilson, W.H. 1998, “I ka ‘$lelo Hawai‘i ke ola, 'Life is found in the Hawaiian
language'”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 132, pp.
123-137.
Wilson, W.H. 1976, “The o/a distinction in Hawaiian possessives”, Oceanic
Linguistics, vol. 15, no. 1/2, Essays in Honor of Samuel H. Elbert, pp. 39-50.
305
Wilson, W.H. & Kaman#, K. 2001, “Mai loko mai o ka ‘i‘ini: proceeding from a
dream” in The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice, eds. L. Hinton
& K.L. Hale, Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., pp. 147.
Wilson, W.H. & Kaman#, K. 2006, “"For the Interest of the Hawaiians Themselves":
Reclaiming the Benefits of Hawaiian-Medium Education”, H!lili :
Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 153-180.
Wong, L. 1999, “Authenticity and the revitalization of Hawaiian”, Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1, Authenticity and Identity: Lessons from
Indigenous Language Education.
Zuckermann, G. 2004, “Cultural hybridity: multisourced neologization in
“reinvented” languages and in languages with “phono-logographic” script”,
Languages in Contrast, vol. 4.2, pp. 281-318.

“The Language Is the Music: Perceptions of Authority and

Transcription

Similar documents

`Ölelo Ola o ka `äina Living Language of the Land

Hawaiian Party

Presentation

January 2013 family

clicking here - Yellowstone Teton Territory

Popular Hawai`i

A Lesson from IZ: An Essay from a Wai`anae Youth

Mon–Fri 8:00 Am - ALU LIKE, Inc.

Wedding Favors - Joy Kawai Consulting

Maui`s Hawaiian Hotel, Hawai`i`s Best Value!