The main question in discussing the runosong is, probably, whether it can be treated as an independent musical phenomenon or whether it should be put into that dim intermediate zone beyond criticism, where cultural phenomena are given an independent status regardless of their actual artistic value only because of social and political considerations. I am thinking about the same land where the "merited peoples' artist", the "poetry of the national awakening" and Alo Mattiisen's five patriotic songs live their eternal life.

I believe that the runosong is, foremost, an exercise in memory. When I listen to it, I always recall the habitual manner of Finns, (a sister nation, after all), who, when alone, comment upon their current activities in the style of "now I shall stand up and go to my room", etc. It seems that one of the aims of the runosong also is to act as a living diary - to map vital activities, and, in its preliterate way, let the next generations share in them. The reason why a musical form has been chosen for such a keeping of a diary probably lies in the fact that it simply makes it easier to remember the message. The history of the art of remembering (Cicero, Bruno, and Camillo) tells us about remembering things with the help of metrics and mental images. The tetrametric trochee of the Estonian runosong is, evidently, too plain to fulfil this task satisfactorily, but the harmony of simple metrics and simple melody helps to accomplish this aim. It is interesting that, in the runosong, the actual sequence and number of these fragmentary activities are not important - they result in a song of no beginning and no end, which also lacks a canonised text. Can any reason be found to listen to the runosong outside the realm of ethnology? A non-Estonian should answer this question.

Tristan Priimägi (1976), interested in advertising, music, pop culture. BA in Semiotics from Tartu University.