 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
欢迎来到“爱乐人走四方”，请您先看一下FAQ。
 |
穿梭时空谈音乐（精华帖检索） | |
爱乐资讯BBS | |
爱乐问答BBS | |
新朋友必读 | |
爱乐人通讯录 |
|---|
如果回复已有的留言，请点留言前的 图标，或任何已有回复前的 图标如果下载帖子的附件有困难，请访问http://www.bh2000.net/bbs/download.php | 第1/5页 | 下一页 直接去第 页 |
| ||||
| 打扰各位一下，请问有人比较了解斯卡拉爱乐和毕契科夫吗？9.17在北京有场音乐会，查了查google没有查到关于乐团和指挥的详细介绍，都是演出预告,有了解的麻烦介绍一下，谢谢。 |
| ||
| Filarmonica della Scala http://www.filarmonica.it/ Semyon Bychkov www.semyonbychkov.com |
| ||||
| 今年在拜魯特山上有幸得遇唯正兄，向我介紹了這個歷史悠久的網站；回國後花了些時間拜讀這裡關於華格納的留言與討論，深感諸位「瓦迷」的博學與熱忱，對於最近（2009年）討論到的一個問題也想分享自己的一些看法，還請各位不吝賜教： 「救贖者得救贖！」Erlösung dem Erlöser! 常常被問到的這句話，是《帕西法爾》的最後一句歌詞，我認為代表了本劇的核心意義。要搞清楚這句話的意思，首先要要搞清楚這自己被救贖的救贖者（Erlöser）是誰？ Erlösung dem Erlöser!被唱出來的時候是《帕西法爾》終曲，此時有以下的人獲得拯救：最明顯的是Amfortas，因為長久以來折磨他的傷口被帕西法爾帶回來的聖矛癒合；其次是Kundry，因為終於有人能抗拒她的誘惑因而解除了她所受的千年詛咒；再來是聖杯騎士們，終於又再度接受聖杯的祝福（像線上遊戲人物那樣把血補滿）。 這些被拯救的人中間有哪一個可以被稱為救贖者呢？有人說Amfortas在失能以前也算是救贖者，因為他負責揭露聖杯讓大家「補血」。但是實際有神奇力量能「補血」的是聖杯。所以聖杯才是真正的救贖者，Amforta第一幕的獨白後面說他自己是「救贖聖物的守護者」des Erlösungsbalsams Hüter（Balsam是醫療用的方劑，如第一幕Kundry帶來的阿拉伯藥膏），這救命仙丹Erlösungsbalsam便是聖杯。 聖杯也獲得拯救了嗎？當然。根據第一幕Gurnemanz的獨白，由於狂野敵人的詭計與力量 威脅純潔信仰的國度wilder Feinde List und Macht des reinen Glaubens Reich bedrohten，於是聖杯與聖矛被交給Titurel，以便建立騎士團、執行崇高使命（例如後來的羅安格林那樣，去拯救受誣陷的純真少女云云）。騎士團的國王必須定期揭露聖杯，以維護騎士們健康並賦予力量與，亦即拯救騎士們免於病衰。由於Amfortas被誘惑受傷後不願繼續執行職務，聖杯因而蒙塵，直到帕西法爾在終曲到來。所以穹頂傳來的兒童與騎士的合唱，是讚美聖杯這個救贖者得到了救贖。 |
| ||
| 大部分關於華格納作品的問題，都可以從正確地解讀歌詞來獲得解決，但是答案最好必須能夠在音樂上佐證。華格納通常是心口合一：音樂是心，文字是口；但若音樂與歌詞兩者不符合時，根據我的經驗，音樂不會說謊，其可信度還更大些。 前文說Erlösung dem Erlöser!，此一被拯救的救贖者是指聖杯。但是教堂穹頂傳來兒童與騎士合唱這一句時，所唱的並非眾所周知《帕西法爾》中代表聖杯本身的音樂，而是第一幕前奏曲開頭齊奏的那個我命名為「聖餐」主題的音樂，前五個音相同但最後三個音不同。 從音樂上來看，代表聖杯的那個主題自始至終沒有改變過，所以聖杯僅是做為一具神奇魔力的物品／工具，當然（以華格納的音樂語言來說）它若是落在壞人手中可能會有小調的和聲改變。有變化與發展的是這個「聖餐」主題：在最初的「聖餐」主題中，後面「折尾」的部份帶來悲傷與扼腕的感覺，後來也常單獨出現。但在終曲時反覆模進、彷彿可以無限延伸的Erlösung dem Erlöser!這句，由於最後的部份不同，「聖餐」主題的悲傷獲得了解決，亦即得到了救贖。 那「聖餐」主題代表的是甚麼東西？在第一幕，Amfortas終於揭露聖杯後，高處傳來人聲：拿我的血喝，拿我的肉吃，為了我們的愛！Nehmet hin mein Blut, nehmet hin meinem Leib, um unser Liebe willen!，唱的正是這個音樂。 1880年華格納為路德維希二世寫的曲目解說，稱這個主題為「愛」，而且把這三句話寫在下面（據說這是耶穌基督最後晚餐所說的話）。誰的愛？耶穌基督的愛──聖餐有時被教徒稱為愛宴（德文Liebsmahle），所以這個主題可說是代表耶穌基督。獲得拯救的是耶穌基督這個救贖者：Erlösung dem Erlöser!這句的音樂，乃是耶穌基督的愛的真正應該有的形態。 回頭檢視整部《帕西法爾》的歌詞，從未直接稱呼耶穌基督之名，通常稱「救世主」Der Heiland。不過有五次把耶穌基督稱為Erlöser：兩次Amfortas的獨白、Gurnemanz的獨白、帕西法爾Erlöser吻了Kundry以後與第三幕為Kundry洗禮時。全劇中似乎只有帕西法爾也被稱為Erlöser（Kundry所稱）。 不過這個牽扯可大了：專門拯救世人的耶穌基督，為何需要救贖？可我認為這才是華格納《帕西法爾》的核心意義。 |
| ||
| 華格納《帕西法爾》的「宗教」涵義 「……所有最獨特而動人的基督教神話中，沒有一個在精神上是基督教的：其精神均承繼自史前純人類的觀念，只是經過重新塑造……」A Communication to My Friends , 1851 「……當宗教變成人為的產品時，就必須端賴藝術來挽救其核心，經由辨認出其神話象徵的真正價值（而宗教只希望我們相信其字面意義），以及理想地呈現其中隱藏的深刻真實。」Religion and Art , 1880 叔本華的哲學論述：1) 這表象世界是無止盡的渴望與苦難，皆為虛幻 2) 世上所有生物在那永恆真實中是無法分辨的太一，所以推論：只有同悲Mitleid是唯一合理的道德基礎，並發現佛教與許多原始宗教（包括原始的基督教）中都存在類似的思想。可是現代人對基督教的看法，實際是受了一千多年以來很會排除異端邪說的教會的影響──小說與電影《達文西密碼》的最大好處，便是讓世人知道耶穌所傳的道（祂自己並未寫下文字），並非只有新約聖經的內容（是約翰等門徒各自寫下的），也可能有其他門徒不同觀點的論述（但遭埋沒）。 華格納繼承叔本華對基督教的看法，認為耶穌弟子們傳的福音有許多是誤解、扭曲了耶穌的真意（以及早期基督教與各宗教共通的、對世界真相的認知），這些不當的論述包括：耶穌復活、審判之日等等，掩蓋了耶穌受難的真正涵義──而耶穌受難此舉的真正意圖是，對於Mitleid的重要性的極致展現。 「是叔本華向我揭露了基督教教義。」柯西瑪日記 , Feb 19 , 1879。「…他們完全不懂基督教教義，看到的只是教會，不明白其歷史源流。只有叔本華瞭解。」柯西瑪日記 , Jan 11 , 1880 所以華格納說《帕西法爾》全劇構想的泉源，來自「聖星期五」（耶穌受難日）為他帶來的感覺，而非「復活節」。華格納說他「不承認任何宗教，除了憐憫(Mitleid)以外。」柯西瑪日記 , Jan 27 , 1882。尼采罵華格納臨老膝蓋一軟跪在十字架面前，真是冤枉啊大人。若要說真跪在十字架前，可不是教堂裡香煙繚繞、僧侶頂禮膜拜的那些工藝複製品，而是耶穌淌血灌溉的真正十字架。我的小標題說：華格納《帕西法爾》的「宗教」涵義，將「宗教」加一引號，是說華格納探索的是比宗教更原始、更根源的東西。 看清楚這點，便不難理解：《帕西法爾》的音樂一言以蔽之，乃是「聖餐」主題從一開始的折尾哀傷，發展到終曲的恢復原形。 |
| ||
| Charlie老兄的图书馆，内容相当可观，兄弟仰慕得紧。 叔本华的大厚书虽然文笔很好，不过啃起来真不如听瓦格纳省心。所以我偷懒看看二手货，Bryan Magee的那本《Tristan Chord》，里面讲到(大意)：叔本华推导出一个有趣的伦理学结论：我如果伤害了你，实际上也是伤害了我自己。Amfortas受了伤，Parsifal胸口也跟着疼，这个就叫Mitleid。 http://www.bh2000.net/bbs/all/track.php?cdb=musicbbs&id=11402 (第3楼) 我想在Parsifal里面，基督教的符号仅仅是手段，为了让德国观众理解起来比较方便的一套词汇。 实际上瓦格纳没有打算挖掘基督教本身的涵义。顺着Charlie的话说，“華格納探索的是比宗教更原始、更根源的東西”，这个东西是叔本华从康德式形而上学推导出来的结论，是叔本华的道德哲学，它受到一点佛教的启发。 圣餐的动机(为了方便讨论，借用一下现成的谱子http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bhq8950/large/index.html)，也就是全剧最开头4个小节，很有意思的是第3和第4小节，这个有时候被贴上“圣矛”或者“Amfortas的伤口”标签，当然怎么解释都通，甚至把“伤口”说成是“基督的伤口“都未尝不可。瓦格纳非常喜欢用这个下行5度然后上行级进，《Lohengrin》中的“禁忌的问题”和《神界黄昏》中的Wedding Call是最突出的两个例子。 不过，我倒是比较认同尼采对瓦格纳的批评。并不是说跪在十字架前，而是说两个圣殿的场面，非常集体主义。观众似乎成为骑士中的一员，等待着Erlöser，或者是Führer？个人似乎迷失了，就像信徒在圣礼上合唱众赞歌一样。我承认，这完全是个人气质的选择，我从来不能被Bruckner的交响曲真正感动，大概就因为我没那个气质吧。尼采看到了这一点，他的用词比较激烈，说瓦格纳(也包括那些骑士)是“病人”，未必妥当，但是也不能说尼采冤枉了瓦格纳。这是一种与贝多芬第九交响曲或者《Fidelio》对自由的欢呼，完全不同的“崇高”。 |
| ||
| 仰慕不敢當，只是小小收藏；《Tristan Chord》是絕妙好書，推薦給所有對華格納作品的思想有興趣的朋友，而這些思想對於瞭解華格納的音樂與劇情都非常有幫助。 聖餐動機第二小節後半至第三小節可以命名為［傷口］，因為第一幕Gurnemanz「一個傷口燒灼他的腰脅」時非常明確地唱這個旋律。第四小節可命名為［聖矛］，則大致說來只有名片型動機的意義。 恕我冒昧，板主無法被布魯克納的交響曲感動，是否由於還沒有機會聽到優秀的現場演出？布魯克納的東西，一樣探索的是比宗教更原始、更根源的東西，即使音響商如何推崇，恐怕只有在現場才能體會其真正的規模。從錄音中聽就好像在電視上觀賞介紹大教堂的紀錄片，更好的音響也許就不過是更大尺寸的螢幕。關於帕西法爾兩個大場景的問題，也很可能與現場體驗有關。 順便問一下，關於指環劇本的討論 http://www.bh2000.net/bbs/all/track.php?cdb=musicbbs&id=11402 我找不到可以回覆的按鈕，可以告訴我如何回覆嗎？ 不過指環劇本應該是在1852年完成（1853年即有Private printing），而華格納看到叔本華是1854年，此時所有劇情與大部分細節都已在那裡。在未受叔本華影響之下華格納將佛旦的退讓與心態寫入劇本，幾年後看到叔本華的思想與此不謀而合，才在信上寫了那句有名的話：現在我才完全瞭解我的佛旦。 |
| ||
| 集体宗教性体验，对许多人来说是很向往的事情。我可以理解他们，但是自己却总是麻木不仁，不唯瓦格纳如此。 Bayreuth的剧场镜框式舞台结构限制，没有办法把Parsifal搞成更“现代”的演出。一个制作思路是“看不见的剧院”。头尾两幕场景的转换用大型设备移动舞台和观众席，把舞台从镜框式变换到体育馆式(arena)，坐在这个移动的观众席上，真是“时间变成空间”。然后，灯光聚焦于中心舞台，合唱队员分散在四周观众席中，鸽子从天而降…… 我们这坛子设计得有点古怪。长时间没人回帖或者回帖到了一定数量之后都会自动锁定，所以，你随便开新贴子或者在这里跟帖子，写上原引用贴子的地址好了。 |
| ||
| Erlösung dem Erlöser!这句话，通常的英译有两种： 1. The Redeemer (is) Redeemed. Redeemed这个过去分词按英语语法来理解，同时有完成时和被动态的意思； 2. Redemption to the Redeemer. 这个意思就模糊得很了。它可能是说：“瞧，这里发生了一件奇迹(Höchsten Heiles Wunder)，我们把这奇迹作为见证献给神。” Erlösung这个单词，翻译为“解放”也是可以的。Prometheus被Hercules解放，没有赎罪的意思。 |
| ||||
| 詹姆斯·高威要来上海了 10月份，高威大爷带着老婆大人一起来上海音乐厅演出。 曲目： W. A. 莫扎特：《费加罗的婚礼》序曲 W. A. 莫扎特：C大调长笛与乐队柔版，K.315 W. A. 莫扎特：D大调第二长笛协奏曲，K.314 ――――――――――――――――――――――――― W. A. 莫扎特：《魔笛》序曲 W. A. 莫扎特：A大调第29交响曲，K.201 指 挥 ： 詹姆斯·高威 独 奏 ： 长笛：詹姆斯和珍妮·高威 整场都是莫扎特，大概大爷特别钟爱莫扎特吧。最有趣的是这回高威亲自指挥自己和老婆大人，很期待。 |
| ||||
| 阿镗爱读书敬佩：说起学肖邦，（一）必须具有“花丛中一门门大炮”，也就是你是一堆鲜花，还得有藏在鲜花中一门门大炮随时待发的可能才行，呵呵（二）要想学肖邦首先得从钢琴家转形成作曲家才能做到，肖邦不只是那华丽的织体。有趣的是：有一次我在北京音乐厅后台，听一古筝权威对另一位正要上台演奏的古筝权威说：“你上台演奏要更像肖邦一些”。 |
| ||
| 文革后期江青想把《歌唱祖国》弄成国歌，就先把王莘放了还接到北京。据说《黄协》初稿审查王莘在场，让他发言时他说可以加点民族乐器特点。于是《黄协》上台演奏就更像古筝一些。 胡老师也很民族啊，很欣赏舒曼对肖邦民族音乐语言的比喻嘛！ |
| ||
| 陈老师：你还别说我还真有两张不同歌词的中国国歌邮票呢。前些年《歌唱祖国》就是咱国第二国歌呀，与《蓝色多瑙河》也被奥地利地誉为第二国歌有些相似，但这几年《歌唱祖国》不怎么唱了，可《蓝色多瑙河》年年在演奏。王莘的儿子王大山在芭团好像与鲍爷一样是学长笛的，他也是中央音乐学院的学生，上学那时曾在去天津的火车上聊过，也去过他家，不幸的是白发先送黑发啊。我和梁大楠在北京音乐厅后台聊天，一古筝演奏家在和李萌（古筝演奏家）聊天时听到的,下两个节目就要轮到李萌与梁大楠上台演奏了。如果《黄协》真的加进古筝特色也不错吗，呵呵。别理舒曼，他患上了精神病，跳河自杀了，他竟出“狂言“ |
| ||
| 今年是这疯子诞辰200周年纪念，以为他发行了两枚银币了。 |
| ||
| 舒曼：“一镑铁不值几文，但把它制成千万根钟表发条确价值累万” |
| ||
| 钢协中“黄水奔流向东方”那句应该就是古筝的特色了 |
| ||
| 狂兄说的不错，《黄协》真的加进古筝特色了。 |
| ||
| 改版《娘子军》吴清华主题是王大山弄的吧？ |
| ||
| 狂兄陈兄记忆力真好！《黄协》那段“轮指”确像古筝。听说王大山给改的，那时是小集体与大集体一齐创作的。有一次我去芭团听《红舞》内部走台排练（还没公演），当乐队奏南霸天主题时一位坐在后排的一电工站起来，一面走出排练厅一面唱着南霸天主题还给加上了词：“娘子军——你、在、哪里，娘子军——你、在、哪里！”，全场舞蹈演员及乐队大笑不止。 |
| ||
| 芭蕾舞《红色娘子军》中的民乐挺好的！ 2009-11-07 15:07 1975年中央芭蕾舞团（当时叫中国舞剧团）拍摄了芭蕾舞红色娘子军的电影版本，当时的音乐中中有很多民族乐器，是江青的意见。这在当时绝对就是最高指示，谁敢不从。 锣鼓经的使用 其实当时大家都感到很新鲜，有的地方感到很滑稽。尤以一场长青和小庞出场时的小锣为甚，大家演奏到这里，每每忍俊不禁，或互相传递眼神儿，觉得很可笑。现在看来，其实作为一种中国特色的社会主义芭蕾，也是可以接受的。 琵琶 其他地方的民乐更是独具特色，甚至可谓精彩。 例如，在一场琼花被毒打后，被抛尸荒野，大雨过后，琼花苏醒，引出一段琵琶独奏，由于是在几声霹雳和暴雨之后，激烈的雨滴溅落在芭蕉林中，变得很柔和，随着雨声渐远，传来琵琶一段哀婉的独奏声，演奏者（我忘记是谁了）的五指轮奏，听起来流利却恬静，又如大珠小珠漫天飘舞，纷纷洒洒，带给我们的是好一个雨打芭蕉，实在是精彩绝伦。这段堪称绝笔！ 海笛（唢呐） 二场《五寸刀》舞以唢呐做引子，也是一段特色乐章。演奏家是姜克先生，他是吹双簧管兼任唢呐演奏，他的演奏特色是Vibrato 明显，频率慢而幅度大，这个特色唢呐Vibrato，很快在全国普及起来，成为唢呐演奏的样板儿。通常 每每到他演奏的时候，大家都会窃笑，谁都不敢看他，因为他总是面红耳赤，非常投入地演奏，以至于他的多脂肪的全身都在激烈地Vibrato 。 另外，关于那个乐器的称谓，我记得应该叫：海笛。唢呐在我国北方俗称“喇叭”，“小喇叭”他们的不同在双簧哨片儿的宽度不同。 竹笛 二场琼花踉踉跄跄疲惫出场，被众人搀扶，小庞指点，琼花抬头，亲切的面孔和新的环境 中，怅然引来一段清脆嘹亮鸟鸣般的竹笛声，引出大提琴深情的呼唤。据说这段音乐是已故演奏者王大山随手拈来被作曲家采用了。可谓点睛之笔， 需要特别说明的是，现在我们演出使用的不是这个版本，不但竹笛去掉了，（“四人帮”倒台后，所有的民乐部分全部都换成了西乐，琵琶换成了小提琴，海笛换成了小号加弱音器，竹笛换成了双簧管等）并非故意只换了这一段，而是因为其他的总谱都没保留，只有这一段被无意中发现，是残存的总谱。其实我还是喜欢电影中的那个版本。 柳琴，三弦和中阮 三场南府的音乐，使用的几件民族乐器，衬托着南府饱含着的中国民俗民风，以及相关人物的文化背景。 芦笙 绝对的南方特色乐器，比北方的芦笙长，竹管的排列也很独特，是双排阵列。由圆号演奏者杨杰老师兼任独奏，演奏得非常好，那是需要专门花费时间苦练才能成就的。 其实，我以为，就任何一部大型舞剧来说，在音乐中使用特色乐器都是无可非议，民族乐器在《红色娘子军》这样一部大型且闻名天下的舞剧音乐中是不可或缺的味精。 详见： http://cor55.blog.sohu.com/136119407.html |
| ||
| 五声琶音学古筝，轮指学琵琶。古筝中的轮指是近年来学琵琶的结果。 |
| ||||
| “新上海”第三届上海音乐学院当代音乐周2010学生三重奏作品征集 作为上海音乐学院当代音乐周大师班的活动，该作品征集旨在鼓励学生富有创新精神和优秀的三重奏的创作。 组委会将选出五部作品于2010年11月4日上午10点在上海音乐学院北楼报告厅举行的《大师点评+国际学生作品音乐会》，演奏：德国DuoPlus乐团。 音乐会将由音乐周驻节大师米赫也T.Murail [法]、许舒亚、贾达群现场进行作品点评。 音乐周将为外地及国外入选者提供2010年11月2 -6日的食宿与全套音乐周免费套票（路费请自理）。 征稿要求： 1.作曲者须为学生身份（可以任何国籍、年龄不限），每位只能提交一部作品。 2.参选作品时间长度介于6-10分钟之间。 3.参选作品必须为小提琴、单簧管、钢琴、手风琴（键钮式）之间的三件乐器而作。 4.参选者必须提供一式6份干净、清楚的已打印装订的乐谱（如是电子PDF文挡乐谱请寄：wen_deqing@yahoo.com）。如果是按C调记谱的作品(就单簧管而言)，6份乐谱中必须有三份是移调乐谱以便演奏。 5.参选者请提供本人的真实信息（学生证复印件，电话，E-Mail，通信地址，简历），并连同乐谱一起于2010年9月15日下午5时整以前送交或速递寄至： 中国上海市汾阳路20号 上海音乐学院作曲系温德青教授收 邮编200031 感谢参与！ 感谢胡景敏当代音乐基金的资助！ 2010-3-29 “新上海”第三届上海音乐学院当代音乐周 详情可参见当代音乐周官方网站：http://www.shcnmw.com |
| ||||
| 《2010当代音乐作品研讨会文集》启事 为推动当代音乐作品在中国的发展，2010第三届上海音乐学院当代音乐周将再次举办当代音乐作品研讨会和出版优秀论文集。 本会议内容将围绕当代音乐作品展开研讨，并将入选优秀文章集结成集。本届评委由韩钟恩、陆培、伍维曦组成。入选文章者将获得音乐周期间11月2日-6日的食宿（外地或海外入选者）及音乐周全部活动之套票，同时赠送出版文集2本。外地或海外入选者的路费须自理。 投稿标准： 1、文章内容必须在当代音乐范围之内。包括：现代音乐作品分析；国内外现代音乐现状批评；国内外现代音乐作曲家访谈；传统与现代音乐的继承和创新；等等。 2、投稿文字只限中文。 3、投稿者的年龄、身份不限，每人只能投一篇。 4、字数在10‘000－12′000之间。 5、投稿时间即日生效，截止于2010年9月18日零时，请将稿件寄往：qiaochengpm@gmail.com 。凡未于指定时间内收到的稿件皆不具入选资格。 6、来稿请注明中文个人简介及即时联系方式(手机号码)。 7、投稿文章必须未经正式刊物发表。但本论文集（内部发行）发表的文章并不影响该文将来在其它正式刊物的发表。 评审过程及规则明细： 1、 第一阶段由三位评委于2010年10月8日12时前选出10篇文章； 2、 第二阶段将公布入选者名单，并请入选者做好会议发言的准备：10位文集入选者将有10分钟的时间陈述，然后与会者可进行研讨。 第三届上海音乐学院当代音乐周2010组委会 2010-3-29 |
| ||||
| 今天无意间在学校图书馆借到一套brahms弦乐重奏作品集，三张CD包括全部弦乐四重奏，五重奏和六重奏。演奏者是匈牙利的一个叫做bartok quartet的组合。录音年代是七十年代中期，出版公司是hungaroton. 因为历来对于东欧杰出而悠久的室内乐传统就非常喜欢，以前听过的录音包括vegh quartet,talich quartet,hungarian quartet,budapest quartet等等没有一个让我失望的，而且很多他们的录音都成了我的首选。而这个四重奏以前竟然完全不知道。上amazon搜索了一下，竟然结果都是巴托克的弦乐四重奏录音，而几乎没有这个组合的录音。不知道哪位大侠有所了解？ 关于他们的演奏，没有噱头，没有卖弄。声音好像也并不是什么光彩亮丽。但我觉得他们确具备了一个顶级四重奏应该有的所有气质，入化境的默契，朴实但极有韵味的声音，及其自然却考究的风格等等。总之，听了他们的录音，美国的重奏就基本可以用没文化来形容了，而别说现在最好的hagen quartet相比之下觉得还有些浮，就是alban berg, melos这样的大师级别组合在有些地方都稍显过于凌厉了。当然，这也是不同国家和文化的音乐传统了，所以，仁者见仁。 |
| ||
| http://classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=7103 http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=50717 http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=36556 http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=24061 http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=45865 Without a unique signature sound or playing style, any ensemble can be buried in no time. |
| ||
| 如果说这种unique signature sound or style是向emerson quartet那种的，那我宁愿不听四重奏。哈哈~ |
| ||
| Some people can make it a career, some can't. It's not just a philosophical thing. It's a practical one. Very often it's the loser who turns into a whiner. By the way, what are doing in USC now? Teaching? Studying? Or both? I figured that you should be very close to planning your future now, as a soloist (I have seen your playing clips), a member of a chamber ensemble or a part of an orchestra. Once you get buried with all sorts of auditions, I guess you won't have much time to call so and so ensemble without a cultural anymore. But don't complain, because there many free wheeling ones who would love to have an auditioning call because they seldom get any. Emerson Quartet? If yours can be half as good as they are, I would love to pay double the price to see it. :-) |
| ||
| 您真神通广大，不仅知道我在USC，还看过我演奏的视频。。。是youtube上那个照相机拍的吧？实在不好意思。 明年就硕士毕业了，不过从03年来美就没打算在这里留，毕业了直接回国了。在音乐学院里面半教书半演奏也不错。不知道那个时候自己一边听着这些老录音看着很多同辈还在美国天天考自己是不是有种很奇怪的感觉。所谓“古调虽自爱，今人多不弹。”哈~ 另外，我确实不太喜欢emerson quartet，不过课没有说自己拉重奏有他们十分之一的水平。就像我可以不会做菜，但是还是可以点评一下某个厨子的手艺吧？哈哈~ |
| ||||
| 沉迷在酒徒的小說和中醫雜書之中一大段時間，久未提筆。 最近，被一位學生輩朋友，逼出了一篇撈過界兼班門弄斧小文。貼在此，歡迎拍磚。 如何欣賞鋼琴音樂 阿 鏜 主編出了這樣一個大題目，要我寫篇文章。難煞我也! 把它改為「鋼琴音樂欣賞心得分享」吧。 不管欣賞任何一位作曲家、任何一種樂器、任何一種形式的音樂，關鍵點都是「聽熟」兩個字。聽熟了，音樂的「味道」才會出來。 先從音樂之父巴赫談起。 巴赫的鋼琴音樂，沒有莫札特的天真可愛，沒有貝多芬的強烈戲劇性，沒有蕭邦的如詩如訴，也沒有李斯特的王者氣派，卻有著最精緻、最巧妙、最豐富的對位，即多聲部、多線條。 巴赫的鋼琴音樂不激動、不濫情，相當理性，有點清淡。唯其清淡，不「油膩」，加上對位豐富，所以百聽不厭。有失眠症者，最宜聽巴赫。 莫札特被譽為音樂之神。 隨便聽一曲他的鋼琴奏鳴曲或鋼琴協奏曲，我們都會感受到那獨一無二的清純、清爽、天真、美麗，有如不知憂愁為何物的小孩子，或不食人間煙火的天上仙女。 心情煩悶時，最好聽一曲莫札特。 貝多芬是樂壇聖人。 他的32首鋼琴奏鳴曲，既是作曲典範，更是讓人一聽就精神振奮的「提神劑」。他的音樂充滿奮發與崇高精神，最適合遇到困難、挫折的人聽。有精神憂鬱症者，宜多聽貝多芬。 把鋼琴音樂推到最高峰的人，是蕭邦。 筆者在少年時代，就曾被蕭邦的音樂感動到掉眼淚。可是真正了解蕭邦的高不可及，是在試寫過幾首鋼琴曲之後。 為了學習作曲技法，筆者曾模仿巴赫、莫扎特、貝多芬、華格納的風格，寫過一些習作式作品，均有幾分模樣。可是想模仿蕭邦風格寫點東西，連一句都沒有成功過。 原因何在? 思考了很久，結論是: 1、蕭邦音樂色彩變化太多太豐富，學不來。 2、蕭邦作品百分之百鋼琴化，鋼琴程度太差者如阿鏜，寫不來。 3、蕭邦的個性與人生經歷太獨特，沒有那樣的個性與人生經歷，模仿不來。 面對蕭邦，我只能崇拜，只能欣賞。再給我五十年，也絕無希望寫出那樣色彩繁富，如詩如畫、如潮如電的鋼琴極品來。 李斯特的鋼琴音樂，有王者氣派。 德布西的鋼琴音樂，擺脫了嚴格的調性束縛，沒有了宗教情懷，色彩更濃更艷更多彩。 柴可夫斯基和拉赫瑪尼諾夫的鋼琴音樂，先天性地帶有俄國人的憂鬱、 傷感、遼闊、熱情。 …… 華人鋼琴音樂，我推薦「黃河協奏曲」與郭芝苑先生的「鋼琴小協奏曲」。 前者充滿剛陽之氣，旋律平易近人，頗能代表當代華人的精神風貌。 後者只用了mi so la三個音，就變化發展出一首既有東方風味，又有現代感的三個樂章之曲。只因它旋律不明顯，一般人不容易一下子就聽得出味道。 比起屈指可數的頂尖鋼琴作曲家來，古往今來，優秀的鋼琴演奏家數之不盡。我個人聽得最多，也較為偏愛的是其中三位。 第一位杜麗克(Rosalyn Tureck)。她演奏的巴赫，層次之豐富、清晰，結構之嚴謹，連鼎鼎大名的顧爾德(Glenn Gould)，都遠遠不如。 第二位霍洛維茨(Vladimir Horowitz)。他的音色變化豐富之極，主要聲部與次要聲部的音量，通常是8比2甚至9比1。這非常難做到。 第三位郎朗(Lang Lang)。可用「靈氣逼人、舉重若輕」八個字，來形容他的演奏。只要把同一曲目，比較阿勞、基辛、郎朗三位演奏家的版本，就可明白郎郎的好處所在。 主編給的指令中，還有一條是「如何分辨鋼琴作品的高低、好壞、優劣?」 這是個不可能達成的重任。我只能分享一點個人評樂心得。 先自引兩段《庸人樂話》中之舊文: 俗人賞旋律，雅士賞意境，行家賞功力。能賞意境與功力者，必能賞旋律，能賞旋律者，未必能賞意境與功力。此雅俗，高低有別也。 旋律，意境，功力，三者既不可分又可分。得其一者已入流，得其二者是上品。三者皆備，乃是雅俗行家共賞，登堂傳世的上上之作。 以上文字，講的是欣賞、評論音樂作品三個方面標準，即旋律、意境、功力。這個標準，用在辨別、評論鋼琴作品，亦同樣適用。可以再加上一條: 樂器特點之發揮。 以上提及的幾位超級大師之作品，大都三者兼備。 論旋律，巴赫、貝多芬、德布西的得分，比莫札特與蕭邦略低。 論意境，李斯特的得分不如蕭邦。 論對位功力，蕭邦比不上巴赫、貝多芬。 論樂器特點之發揮，巴赫、莫札特均不如蕭邦、李斯特。 四方面合起來總論，蕭邦得分最高，是前無古人，後無來者的鋼琴音樂之王。 |
| ||
| 国交新指挥普拉松将与国交乐队赴欧洲巡演。普拉松9月5日为北大新生举办一场音乐会。普拉松9月4日指挥国交演出贝多芬第五《命运》交响曲、莫索尔斯基的《图画展览会》、还有吴祖强改编的弦乐合奏《二泉映月》《永定河》交响曲已在官厅水库排完外景近期制作DVD。《永定河》交响曲定于9月中旬由潭利华指挥北京交响乐团排练，9月20日在中山音乐堂首演，年底出版总谱。 |
| ||
| 巴哈从未写过钢琴音乐。所有现代钢琴演奏的巴哈，都是“改编”。巴哈在晚年见过现代钢琴的祖宗，仅此而已。 Mozart和Beethoven时代的钢琴，与肖邦的带复式击弦机的钢琴，与更晚的Steinway大钢骨架琴，区别那是相当的大。各位能想象Debussy或者Rachmaninov的音乐在Klavier或者fortepiano上演奏么？ 所以，这篇论钢琴音乐的文章，基础就有问题。关公战秦琼。 |
| ||
| 阿镗兄所论乃现代大钢琴上所奏之巴赫、之莫扎特、之贝多芬、之肖邦、之李斯特、之德彪西，故相互间并非没有可比性。班长有打镲之趣。 |
| ||
| 为什么不都在fortepiano上演奏，大家再比比谁高谁低呢？Rosalyn Tureck和Glenn Gould的巴哈之所以出名，首先就因为他们的声音不像现代大钢琴上通常发出来的声音。 “為了學習作曲技法，筆者曾模仿巴赫、莫扎特、貝多芬、華格納的風格，寫過一些習作式作品，均有幾分模樣。可是想模仿蕭邦風格寫點東西，連一句都沒有成功過。” 学生我下面这句话说得重了点：您如果觉得您能有几分模样模仿得像，那说明您没有真正了解到那些大师们的伟大之处；您觉得您学不来肖邦，倒说明您懂肖邦。 至于说“蕭邦的個性與人生經歷太獨特”，个性独特，这是没有意义的说法，主语发给谁都行。他的经历，也说不上有什么丰富多彩，从华沙到巴黎而已，比他经历丰富的作曲家多了去了。 |
| ||
| “論樂器特點之發揮，巴赫、莫札特均不如蕭邦、李斯特”，nonsense。 |
| ||
| 论乐器发挥是进化的，从巴赫、贝多芬到肖邦、李斯特、德彪西并没有截止，虽然余超与陈老师说到了可比性，但音乐包括创作与演奏以及乐器的制造一直是在不断有进化的。 |
| ||
| 在巴赫之前斯维林克是第一个给管风琴的脚键写作声部的作曲家。 |
| ||
| “論樂器特點之發揮，巴赫、莫札特均不如蕭邦、李斯特”，nonsense。 不是nonsense。乐器没那个特点，想发挥也没法发挥。 |
| ||
| 我不喜欢《黄河钢琴协奏曲》，《黄河大合唱》还行，感觉改成钢协，有点像八十年代有一阵时兴的“世界名曲主题连奏”。 前几天路过唱片店，正好心情不错，想买张CD。忽然想起家里居然一张《梁祝》都没有，就挑了一张。挑选的原则有一条就是不想搭配《黄河》钢协。 BTW，最后买的是沙汉姆/水蓝/新加坡交响，搭配的是老柴小协。 |
| ||
| 记得以前阿鏜老师说学颜真卿有些象，学柳公权不像，所以柳比颜好。 |
| ||
| http://www.bh2000.net/bbs/all/track.php?cdb=musicbbs&id=10571 快两年了 |
| ||
| 文字能描绘音乐？不要当真。顶多谈谈欣赏者的文字还不切内容的个人的感觉和感受以及在此基础上的理解。 作曲家更难评论了，我看谈得比较能清楚的就是曲子结构等。 这篇文章出于个人欣赏的角度写的，而且已经注明了，不必追究乐器的限制。没有必要在这上批驳。 |
| ||
| 浩瀚的钢琴演奏界中，郎朗就别提了，算不上钢琴大师。 |
| ||
| “論樂器特點之發揮，巴赫、莫札特均不如蕭邦、李斯特” 这完全可以换一个说法：巴赫、莫扎特是超越乐器的。 |
| ||
| 論旋律，巴赫、貝多芬、德布西的得分，比莫札特與蕭邦略低。 論意境，李斯特的得分不如蕭邦。 論對位功力，蕭邦比不上巴赫、貝多芬。 这不是废话嘛，对位见长的音乐，当然就不能同时强调歌唱旋律了；旋律为主的，往往都不是对位的。 |
| ||
| 你仔细听LL演奏快速乐曲时，有好多不清晰的地方，哈哈镜说他不是大师我很同意，LL只能是小师。 |
| ||
| 这里有个钢琴织体写作问题。肖邦很多作品的织体只有钢琴演奏音响才对，就是说只适合钢琴演奏。贝多芬不同，他的钢琴作品中既有典型的钢琴织体，也有明显适合其它体裁的织体形式：第四奏鸣曲第三乐章三声中部就像巴赫C大调前奏曲、肖邦第十三首练习曲一样是纯钢琴织体；第二奏鸣曲第二乐章主部主题是弦乐四重奏织体，一提、二提、中提用弓拉，大提拨弦；第十一奏鸣曲第一乐章呈示部第二副部主题前半部分是四部合唱织体；第二十一奏鸣曲呈示部副部主题前半部分是管风琴织体；第二奏鸣曲第一乐章呈示部副部主题预示了舒伯特交响曲的音响：下方是弦乐的颤抖，上方相继是单簧管、双簧管、长笛哀怨的独奏；第十一奏鸣曲第二乐章呈示部主部主题是钢琴伴奏下的抒情花腔女高音独唱。假如把这些部分钢琴织体改换成上述织体时（就是改配器），无需改换音高，弄出来就是那个东西。 不同角度结论就不同：你可以说贝多芬钢琴特点的发挥不如肖邦，你也可以说贝多芬把其它体裁的织体引进钢琴中来扩展了钢琴的表现领域，比肖邦强。再比如一个说烂了的评价：肖邦把钢琴特点发挥到极致、李斯特把钢琴推到了交响化的顶峰之类，不好说谁高谁低。只有订一个标准：或者是钢琴织体最典型，或者是模仿其它织体最多最像，或者是技巧最难，或者是织体层最多，或者是最为听难弹易……，这才好比出高低。阿镗已经列出了单项标准，评价也很中允。 |
| ||
| 如果没有钢琴的发明和进展，也不会有肖邦，更不会有肖邦这样的留世作品。想像一下根本就没有钢琴，只发明了电子琴。。。。。。还有谁？ |
| ||
| 人还是挺个性化的，有些人对和声敏感，有些人对旋律敏感。就比贝多芬晚的肖邦，这里不能再说钢琴的限制了。但我看肖邦对和声不如对旋律敏感，很多和声用琶音处理的。 至于时代的一些潮流，总是有大多人去迎合时代潮流的时势，像贝多芬，就是一个愤青斗士，迎合屁民时代需要所出的顶尖者（如果刚开始没有一群屁民支持，他在钢琴对决中败下阵来早就无声息了）。这里因为时势，不但不能出贝多芬可能出比他差点的其他人，而且贝多芬一定在这方面出色才去做这方面的音乐。就凭贝多芬他那个马拉多纳的体型，钢琴的和声表现上肯定也有优势。但要是清瘦的肖邦去搞这些，不是自己和自己48公斤的体重过不去（他自己作曲自己弹）？实际最后不就是在欧洲巡演中，自己和自己身体过不去死的？ 所以，搞什么也是自然按自己擅长的，即使是时势偏好所致导致从事的某种音乐特征。 因此，说贝多芬比肖邦更擅长交响和声，想想还挺有道理的。 |
| ||
| 也不要神化这些伟大的作曲家。不是说肖邦的钢琴协奏曲的伴奏部分，有很多差错的地方需要后世人去修订吗？显然交响功底的问题。 神化之后，都只能比较强的，不能比较差的了。 |
| ||
| 钢琴家弹的好不好，技术上听快速跑动的连接句。有耳朵的细心听的，一听就露馅。 不信比比LL和阿劳？不是一个量级的。 |
| ||
| 也不要神化这些伟大的作曲家。不是说肖邦的钢琴协奏曲的伴奏部分，有很多差错的地方需要后世人去修订吗？显然交响功底的问题。 神化之后，都只能比较强的，不能比较差的了。 --要看好的地方。也要看是谁弹的。肖邦写的那两个钢协，也就是他尝试而已。 你把贝多芬早期练习和尝试的东西拿来也是类似的。 |
| ||
| 【莫札特被譽為音樂之神。 隨便聽一曲他的鋼琴奏鳴曲或鋼琴協奏曲，我們都會感受到那獨一無二的清純、清爽、天真、美麗，有如不知憂愁為何物的小孩子，或不食人間煙火的天上仙女。 心情煩悶時，最好聽一曲莫札特。 】 K466、K491、K457、K475、K570都和天真美丽清纯关系不大啊。莫扎特是男的，不是小萝莉啊！女性化的莫扎特是对莫扎特的误读。就算最脍炙人口的K331，前两个乐章，多么多愁善感啊！ |
| ||
| 以前听音乐讲座，把莫扎特说跟贫下中农一样苦。其实莫扎特吃的玩的用的都比你好。他既不是苦中作乐也不是多愁善感。是能赚能花。 |
| ||
| 阿镗的文章只有机械的单项比较，并没指出这些特质内在的矛盾或者联系。 |
| ||
| 以在自己之前的和声中添加新东西的多少为标准，肖邦对和声的贡献比贝多芬大。 |
| ||
| 和声与和弦是两个不同的概念。 和声指两个以上不同的音按一定的法则同时发声而构成的音响组合。和声作为和声学的简称，是指研究和弦的结构、和弦与和弦之间的相互关系，以及和弦连续进行的学问。 和弦是乐理上的一个概念，在西方古典—浪漫主义时期，指的是一定音程关系的一组声音。将三个和三个以上的音，按三度叠置的关系，在纵向上加以结合，就成为和弦。 琶音指一串和弦音从低到高或从高到低依次连续奏出，可视为分解和弦的一种。 在专业人士的一些不严格的语境中，和声常常与和弦的用法相混，因此不能苛求一般音乐爱好者能将这两个概念严格准确地区分开来。但有些观念还是应当讲清楚的，比如“很多和声用琶音处理”严格讲应当是“很多和弦用琶音处理”，而琶音使用的多少与对和声是否敏感并没有直接的关联。 哈兄对钢琴音乐的感悟有自己独到的见解，个别名词概念表述不清并不掩盖哈兄观点的精彩。 |
| ||
| 能有机会跟陈师一起听音乐会，听听他事先、事后的点评就好啦。 |
| ||
| 有些爱乐者，只听“提琴”，或者只听“女高音”，只听“钢琴”，人家青菜萝卜，咱不能干涉。不过，这种听音乐，“境界”不高。我这么评论这些爱乐者，也是青菜萝卜的说法。 单独讨论贝多芬的钢琴部分，只有演奏者和造钢琴的才会这样。你只会弹钢琴，不会别的，自然得把贝多芬全集中沾钢琴的那部分挑出来。除此之外，我看不出还有什么原因要专门限制在钢琴音乐领域，特别是对欣赏者而言。你说关公使矛打不过张飞，瓦格纳钢琴写不过李斯特，也许是这样，但是有什么意义呢？ 阿鏜老师此文专论钢琴，却避而不提钢琴本身演化这一如此重要的事实，说是对入门者的普及，还不如说是对入门者的误导。 |
| ||
| 陈老师说肖邦的和声比贝多芬贡献大是对的,浪漫期就是比古典期和声丰富多彩。肖邦钢琴协奏曲的配器也是很棒的，他配的相当有分寸，即不喧宾夺主还把乐队的协奏关系处理的很好，他不会配器吗？只不过他不写乐队作品而已，他从不改编别人的音乐作品，但他亲口说过“李斯特就会改编别人的音乐作品”。我个人最喜欢拉赫曼尼诺夫的第二钢琴协奏曲，钢琴与乐队共同协作达到了炉火纯青的程度。 |
| ||
| 陈老师是教“织体”的，呵呵。拿个比仿：巴赫的音乐作品织体是“裸体”或是只穿上了“背心和裤衩”，肖邦与李斯特的音乐作品织体是穿上华丽的外套，而德彪西、斯特拉文斯基的音乐作品织体却穿上了有讲究的富于个性的服饰。 |
| ||
| 过客兄想象与在下一起听音乐会兼听事先、事后点评会很愉快，来他一回就知道要大上其当：本人常常搞不清谁弹的好谁弹得不好。说来可能不信：听一场音乐会，于我而言，夸张地讲，跟在家读谱区别不大（现场、CD、读谱当然不同，这里是一种极而言之的说法），听一场糟蹋大师的音乐会，还不如在家读谱。过客兄跟我在家一起读读谱或许还能说道说道。 本坛各位都喜欢音乐，但角度不同。有的偏爱某一体裁，有的偏爱某一风格，有的偏爱某一作曲家，有的偏爱某一演奏（唱）家。就其所爱，有的泛泛，有的专深。诚如班长所言：萝卜青菜，各有所爱，遇有所爱之物，便似大烟鬼般过它一个大瘾。 本人最为不幸，早早陷入专业泥潭，一听（更多是看，即便听也会在脑子里变成谱子）就是技术、技巧，拿技术、技巧当乐趣，甚少有常人赏乐时过大烟瘾般的满足感（或不满足感）。 当然技术也有技术美，我在其中所得到的乐趣也许并不比各位听音乐时所得到的乐趣更少。作曲技术如此，演奏技术也如此，正像哈兄对钢琴家手指快速跑动技术也很看重一样。 |
| ||
| 陈老师说得倒满靠谱的。 |
| ||
| 陈老师谈技术一点没错。 如果论到谁最有资格谈论音乐，当然是专业人士。音乐的核心还是内部的结构问题。至于音乐引发的情感，那是公说公有理，婆说婆有理的事情，属于音乐的外部事物。要论排序，当然专业人士具有优先资格。 |
| ||||
| Nice article. http://axess.se/magasin/english.aspx?article=713 The Post-Modern Ear By Roger Scruton Towards the end of the 19th century, and in the wake of Wagner's achievement in Tristan und Isolde and Parsifal, the musical language which had been common property of Western composers since the Renaissance, underwent a crisis. What we now know as tonality, which is the system of keys and scales, and the harmonic progressions, which had been accepted by audiences since at least the end of the Middle Ages, entered a kind of flux. Keys were no longer stable; dissonances began to resolve onto other dissonances (as in the Prelude to Tristan und Isolde), new harmonies began to insert themselves into the old sequences, and the scale expanded from eight notes to the twelve-note chromatic scale, using notes at random from other keys, and constructing sinuous melodic lines that seemed more adapted to dark and solitary emotions than to the cheerful day-light exuberance of choral song. The crisis deepened during the first quarter of the 20th century, as a result of two striking innovations. The first was that of Debussy, anticipated by Liszt, who began to use the whole-tone scale (the scale without semitones). This scale, emphasizing each note equally, and being without a dominant, is directionless and lacks the dynamic tension of the traditional major and minor modalities. From the whole-tone scale new harmonies emerge – static, indolent, yet somehow not at rest. Debussy combined this scale with post-Wagnerian harmonies, in music which was guided entirely by his own sensitive ear, and by none of the rules of classical harmony, not even those followed and stretched by Wagner. Ravel followed suit, and in due course the French composers were to influence Bartók, Stravinsky and Janácek, all of whom borrowed the whole-tone language when they needed it, meanwhile inventing with the ear. The second innovation, yet more subversive, was the introduction of entirely atonal melodies and harmonies by Schoenberg, who also, in his vocal setting Pierrot Lunaire, used Sprachgesang – a kind of insinuating sing-song, in which words are deftly stuck onto the musical line, rather than being sung to a melody of their own. It was impossible to dismiss Schoenberg’s innovations as the work of a second-rate composer trying to disguise his incompetence. In Gurrelieder, Verklärte Nacht, and Pelléas et Mélisande he had shown total mastery of tonality and of late romantic harmony, and these great works remain part of the repertoire today. But by the time of the Piano Pieces op. 11 he was writing music which to many people no longer made sense, with melodic lines that began and ended nowhere, and harmonies that seemed to bear no relation to the principal voice. At the same time, Schoenberg’s atonal pieces were meticulously composed, according to schemes that involved the intricate relation of phrases and thematic ideas. In due course this meticulousness led to an obsession with structure and the quasi-mathematical idiom of twelve-tone serialism, in which the linear relations of tonal music were entirely replaced by a permutational grammar. The result, in the hands of a musical genius like Schoenberg, was intriguing, often (as in the unfinished opera Moses und Aron, and The Survivor from Warsaw) genuinely moving. Schoenberg’s pupils Alban Berg and Anton Webern developed the idiom, the one in a romantic and quasi-tonal direction, the other towards a refined pointillistic style that is uniquely evocative. But it should be remembered that all these experiments were begun at a time when Mahler was composing tonal symphonies, with great arched melodies in the high romantic tradition, and using modernist harmonies only as rhetorical gestures within a strongly diatonic style. And in England Vaughan Williams and Holst were working in a similar way, treating dissonances as by-ways within an all-including tonal logic. A concert-goer in the early 1930s would have been faced with two completely different musics – one (Vaughan Williams, Holst, Sibelius, Walton, Strauss, Busoni) remaining within the bounds of the tonal language, the other (Schoenberg and his school) consciously departing from the old language, and often striking a deliberately defiant pose towards it. Somewhere in between those two musics hovered the great eclectic geniuses, Stravinsky, Bartók and Prokoviev. And meanwhile the polemics abounded, some dismissing the tonal idiom as reactionary and exhausted, some attacking the modernists as nonsensical and deliberately insulting to the good bourgeois audiences who paid for their self-indulgence. As we know the contest between tonality and atonality continued throughout the 20th century. The first was popular, the second, on the whole, popular only with the elites. But it was the elites who controlled things, and who directed the state subsidies to the music that they preferred – or at least, that they pretended to prefer. From the time (1959) when the modernist critic Sir William Glock took over the musical direction of BBC’s Third Programme, only the second kind of contemporary music was broadcast over the airwaves in Britain. Composers like Vaughan Williams were marginalised, and experimental voices given an airing in proportion to their cacophonousness. During the 1950s there also grew up in Darmstadt a wholly new pedagogy of music, under the aegis of Karlheinz Stockhausen. Composition, as taught by Stockhausen, consisted in total randomness of inspiration combined with a meticulous mathematisation of the score, to produce music which makes little or no sense to the ear, but which fascinates the eye when spelled out on the page. Stockhausen’s own works – bulbous monstrosities which make maximum demands on the listener’s attention and give next to nothing in return – received and still receive extensive, usually state-subsidised performances all across the world. His older Austrian contemporary, Gottfried von Einem, who was at the time writing powerful operas in a tonal idiom influenced by Stravinsky and Prokoviev, was in comparison ignored, not because his music is trivial, but because he was perceived to be out of touch with a musical culture determined to clear away the dangerous vestiges of the romantic worldview. It is no longer accepted as proof of a low-brow musical sensibility to wish to reconnect with that the romantic tradition. It is now permissible to like Sibelius and Vaughan Williams, and to believe that they are superior to Stockhausen and Boulez. It is permissible to reject the notion that tonality was made irrelevant by the atonal school, and to recognise that some of the greatest works in the tonal tradition were composed in the middle of the 20th century: Rachmaninov’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, for example, Strauss’s Four Last Songs, Britten’s War Requiem, the later symphonies of Shostakovitch and Vaughan Williams, Aaron Copland’s Clarinet Concerto and Appalachian Spring. Some of these – the Rachmaninov and the Strauss – could be seen as extracting unexploited remainders from the tonal tradition. Others – Britten (and not in this work only) and Copland – could be seen as actively engaged in renewing the tonal tradition, drawing out new kinds of melodic line and novel harmonic sequences. The idea put about by the Marxist critic Theodor Adorno, that tonality was by then nothing but the exhausted remainder of a dead tradition, was definitely disproven by post-war music. By the 1950s it was atonality and not tonality that was exhausted. The radical modernist idiom was kept alive by Darmstadt and the musical establishment, by the system of official patronage and by the fact that real musical education, which used to be a household requirement, had been effectively destroyed by the invention of broadcasting and recording. Without a musical education it is not easy to feel confident in saying, of Stockhausen, that the Enperor has no clothes. Meanwhile the real modernist experiments – those which drew freely on the tonal tradition and on the eclectic spirit of Western civilisation – gained acceptance from the ordinary concert-goer. Works like the Turangalila Symphony of Messiaen, the remarkable Star-Child oratorio by George Crumb, and the triple concerto of Michael Tippett entered the repertoire without any need for the critical hype and institutional support enjoyed by Stockhausen and Boulez. |
| ||
| But there is another reason for the brief ascendancy of radical modernism, and one that bears heavily on the future of Western music. During the course of the 20th century a wholly new kind of popular music emerged. Nobody can say, in retrospect, that the waltzes and polkas of Strauss or the operettas of Léhar and Offenbach belong to another language and another culture from the symphonies of Brahms or the music dramas of Wagner. Strauss (father and son), Léhar, Offenbach are now counted in the ‘classical’ repertoire, just as much as Wagner, Brahms and the other Strauss. And the distinction between popular entertainment and high art is internal to their repertoire: the Overture to Der Fledermaus and the Hungarian Dances of Brahms surely stand side by side. Only in the 20th century did popular and serious music finally divide, and the principal reason for this was jazz – itself an intrusion into Western culture from a place outside it. The origin of this remarkable idiom is veiled in obscurity, though it is evident that it absorbed, along the way, both the syncopated rhythms of African drum music, the blues notes that come from attempting to unite the pentatonic and the diatonic scales, and the chord grammar of the Negro spirituals. The jazz idiom showed a remarkable ability to develop, so that an entirely new harmonic language grew from it, and soon became the foundation of a new kind of popular song and dance. It was this quintessentially American idiom that most got up the nose of Adorno, and which served as his proof that tonality was destined to degenerate into short-breathed melodies and repetitious sequences. For that was all that Adorno found in the jazz of his day. It is true that improvisation around a ‘jazz standard’ is a very different thing from the far-ranged musical thinking that we find in the concert-hall. A work that returns constantly to the same source for refreshment, and goes on ‘forever’ precisely because it goes on only for a moment is a very different thing from the symphony which develops thematic material, extracting a continuous musical narrative. But Ravel, Gershwin and Stravinsky showed how to incorporate jazz melodic lines and even jazz harmonic sequences into symphonic works that had some of the long-distance complexity of the classical tradition. Meanwhile there emerged a new form of popular music, on the edge of jazz, but reaching into the world of folk melody and light opera. This was the idiom of the Broadway Musical and the American Song Book. Brilliant musicians like Cole Porter, Hoagy Carmichael and Richard Rodgers became household names, with songs that our parents knew by heart, and which defined a new kind of taste. This was music to be sung around the house, which normalised the emotions of ordinary people as they endeavoured to cope with the new world of machines, gadgets, social mobility, fast romance and easy divorce. Thus began the great fracture in the world of music between ‘pop’ and ‘classical’, in which it became ever more important for the critics to side with the classical tradition, and to find something that distinguished modern composers in that tradition from the ‘easy listening’ and ‘light music’ that filled the suburban bathroom. For a while, therefore, there was an added motive for composers to take the path of radical modernism, and so to give proof that they belonged to the great tradition of serious musical thinking. A composer like Boulez or Fernyhough, ensconed in the madhouse of IRCAM in Paris, could be ‘bounded in a nutshell and count himself king of infinite space’, as Hamlet put it. Insulated from the vulgar world of musical enjoyment, sending out musical spells into the electronic ether, the composer began to live in a world of his own. That it should be Boulez who received the accolades and not Maurice Duruflé or Henri Dutilleux is explained by the enormous publicity value of difficulty, when difficulty is subsidised by the state. The modernists had succeeded in persuading the official bodies that they were keeping alive the flame of high art amid the grotesqueries of an increasingly degenerate pop culture. And for a while, following the transformation of rhythm and blues into a universal idiom of song and dance by Chuck Berry, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, it seemed as though they were right. What did this new popular music have to do even with the comparatively refined language and domestic charm of the Broadway musical, still less with the symphonic and operative traditions? But then the whole thing collapsed. Impassable divides have an ability to survive in the old hierachical culture of Europe; but they don’t last for long in America. Composers like Steve Reich and Philip Glass had no desire to separate from their hippy friends, or to lose the one benefit that makes the life of a composer worthwhile, namely an audience. There emerged the new idiom of minimalism, in which the harmonic complexities of the modernists and those of the great jazz musicians like Monk, Tatum and Peterson were both rejected in favour of simple tonal triads, often repeated ad nauseam on mesmeric instruments like the marimbas. The result, to my ear utterly empty and the best argument for Boulez that I have yet encountered, succeeded in entering the repertoire and gaining a young and enthusiastic audience. The explanation is simple. This music uses the devices of pop: regular and mechanical rhythm, fragmented and constantly repeated melodic lines, and a small repertoirs of chords constantly repeated. It has in effect joined the world of ‘easy listening’. Whether Reich and Glass entitle us to talk of a new and ‘postmodern’ idiom in the world of serious music I doubt. For this is not serious music, but a kind of musical void. Listening to Glass’s opera Ekhnaton, for instance, you will be tempted to agree with Adorno, that the musical idiom (let’s not speak of the drama) is utterly exhausted. But then along came John Adams, whose mastery of orchestration and knowledge of real tonal harmony began to redeem the minimalist idiom, and to bring it properly into the concert hall. And other American composers followed suit – Torke, Del Tredici, Corigliano – writing ‘tonal music with attitude’, inserting advanced harmonic episodes into structures that make thematic and rhythmical sense. In Britain a new wave of tonal composers has also emerged, some of them – like James Macmillan, Oliver Knussen and David Matthews beginning as radical modernists – but all moving along the path mapped out by the great Benjamin Britten, the path out of the sterile desert where no melody ever grows, into a place of song and dance. Such composers learned the lesson taught (however clumsily) by Reich and Glass, which is that music is nothing without an audience, and that the audience must be discovered among young people whose ears have been muddled by the ostinato rhythms and empty chord sequences of pop. To offer serious music to such an audience you must also attract their attention. And this cannot be done without melody and rhythm that connect with their own bodily perceptions. Is it working? I don’t know. The catastrophic effect of modern pop – think of youjr own Death Metal Group Meshuggah, or the obscene Lady Gaga – is felt not only in the ears but in the soul of its devotees. And it is difficult to write fresh and tuneful music for a burnt out soul. Still, we have no other path to tread, unless it is the one that reaches back into that sound-proof bunker beneath the Centre Pompidou, where the spells are still being brewed and sent with undiminished malice across the airways of Europe. |
| ||
| There are more: http://axess.se/magasin/default.aspx?article=714 The Politburo of Music Av James MacMillan Modernity in music is a multi-faceted and complex phenomenon. The much used word 'modernism' is also a catch-all definition which leaves questions still hanging in the air. It is a word, like 'socialism' or 'spirituality' that can easily be hijacked by partisan voices who then claim ownership of it and thereafter imbue it with their own narrow, specific, pointed, sectarian and self-justifying aura. It has to be said that a particular kind of modernism, specific to certain places, times, ideologies and forceful personalities, has been sublimated into a paradigmatic position in our own time. A European modernism, with its roots in the 2nd Viennese School and developed by a small group of post-war composers in certain towns and cities on mainland Europe, has been given a special place in official understandings of the development of modern music. A message has gone out that composers, and indeed the musical public, should regard this sanctioned path as, not just the way forward, but they way things are and ought to be. State broadcasters, many sharing the aesthetical and political perspective of the composers themselves and their followers, give the oxygen of life, publicity and dissemination to this view of the musical present and future. This has been especially the case in Germany and France, which are much more controlled by a centralised and top-down view of what high culture should be. A central, pivotal figure in this development is, of course, Pierre Boulez, composer, conductor and radically scathing polemicist, at least in his younger days. A powerful, driven figure, always manoeuvring politically and pushing boundaries imaginatively, he has never hidden his determination to put his musical biases into operation. An Alpha Male, par excellence in the musical world, it has been suggested that his influence on legions of third-rate imitators over the last few generations has been a pernicious one. Mediocre acolytes have been bedazzled by the master’s encyclopaedic panoply of colouristic subtleties and rhythmic intricacies. So much so, that a lot of modern music is obsessed, fetishist-ically, with surface detail to the detriment, perhaps, of core profundities. Nevertheless Boulez's influence on musical culture as a composer, and now as a conductor, has been powerful and meticulously plotted. His choice of repertoire is large and interesting, covering Berlioz, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartók, Schoenberg and Messiaen. Others are constantly and steadily added - Wagner, Mahler, and some major contemporary figures such as Berio and Ligeti. But the omissions from this list are also fascinating and revealing. There is no Brahms and hardly any Schumann. He compares the latter unfavourably (justifiably so, perhaps) to Mendelssohn as showing "little invention and even little skill". Explaining his priorities, Boulez says that "there are composers who possess this gift of instrumental invention and others who, more or less, lack it... if you compare the symphonies of Brahms with the operas of Wagner solely from the viewpoint of instrumentation... one is not bowled over by his [Brahms's] instrumental imagination." "Solely from the viewpoint of instrumentation" is the key here. Brahms's structural genius in reshaping classical models, his gift for soaring melody and expansive spiritual vision are all subordinated to the ear-tickling skill of instrumental choice. This is understandably French, of course, and Boulez comes from a tradition which has emphasised perfumed delicacies and nuanced subtleties, but it may explain not only his blind spots, but also modernism's over-indulgence of surfaces instead of the deep heart. Perhaps this justifies Boulez's disregard of Bruckner, Hindemith and Sibelius and all the Russians from Prokofiev and Shostakovich to Schnittke. It may also explain the Anglophobic prejudices of many French musicians - there's no Britten or Tippett in Boulez's repertoire and precious little that has been written since. But there are also significant French omissions - no Poulenc or any of the important contemporary figures who follow a different aesthetic and reject the dogmas of L'Eglise Boulezienne. As far as American music is concerned, no Copland, no Adams, but lots of Elliot Carter. All conductors are discriminating, of course, and subjective preferences are widespread. But there is a personal agenda at work here. The music that he says opens up "new terrain", the emphasis on colour in Mahler, or rhythmic and melodic fragmentation in Webern, all point in the same direction. All roads of significant musical history lead to Boulez. Significant developments are therefore reinterpreted as self-justifying and self-aggrandising proto-modernism. Some say that having burnt himself out as a composer by his mid-30s Boulez has dedicated the rest of his life to controlling how the culture will remember 19th and 20th-century musical history, and how the musical future will be shaped. The latter strategy is monitored from IRCAM (Institute for Research and Coordination in Acoustics and Music), which has been described as "Boulez's personal Kremlin" in Paris. In spite of the messianic and prophetic claims of its supporters and acolytes, it seems, to me, not to have made any huge impact on the world of music and, has failed to produce any significant new composer. His powerful position and influence has determined the nature of the modern music that is programmed and esteemed in Paris, and in France generally. I know many composers in France who, because they were not part of the Boulez world vision, were sidelined. I’ve made a point of finding out who these people are and, to a degree, championing their music; having some of it played here in the UK, and finding out what happens when you are outcast from a central orthodoxy. Most interesting are Nicolas Bacri, Thierry Eschiaich and Guillaume Connesson, who is probably known to RSNO audiences through the championing of their principal conductor, Stefan Deneuve. Similar groups of composers and enthusiasts have sprung up, underground-style in Italy and Germany. In my experience I have observed a very different kind of modern music culture in this country, and, in different ways, in other parts of the anglosphere – the US, Canada and Australia. A plurality of aesthetics and styles is valued in these places. There is no comparable narrowness or megalomania at work. It makes me think that different places experience the challenge of modernity in the Arts in different ways. If one looks at the development of modernity in music from the perspective of the United States, for example, one sees radically alternative trajectories and a completely different range of personalities at the core of modernism’s history; in effect, an entirely other kind of narrative. And who is to say that their narrative is less authentic than the official European one? Common to both Europe and the New World are Stravinsky and Schoenberg, but their embrace of North American culture in the flight from European hostility is crucial here. Shortly after Schoenberg’s death, his widow found a note in the form of a brief poem written in 1944 when the composer was living in Los Angeles and teaching at UCLA stating; There is a great man living in this country – a composer. He has solved the problem how to preserve one’s self and to learn. He responds to negligence by contempt. He is not forced to accept praise or blame. His name is Ives. Charles Ives was the first great non-European modernist, and it is argued that he owed nothing of his originality to Europe. Although he is much celebrated now in modernist circles, it is as a great eccentric and one-off that the ‘central orthodoxy’ prefers to see him, a bit like Messiaen. But his great experiments in polytonality, polyrhythm, tone clusters, aleatoricism and quarter tones, come from a different place philosophically and sociologically, from those generated later in France, Germany and Italy. Fundamental to everything in Ives’ imagination were hymn tunes and traditional songs, patriotic songs, the sentimental pop songs of the day, the melodies of Steven Foster, music of the dance halls and American popular culture; in fact everything that the European liberal elites were to come to despise in the coming generations. And although the European-rooted, Marxist-tinged orthodoxy has its apologists here in the UK too, their agendas working overtime in the prominent reviews they write about modern music, things here are, and have always been, different. Britain is a prime example of this plurality of aesthetics and style in action. There is no restricting binding ingredient – no false, utopian, extraneous ideology that binds us together in the same way that schools emerged according to a certain political instigation, prompting and inspiration in mainland Europe. This plurality leads to a ‘promiscuous’ disregard for the fundamental precepts of ideological modernism. Some characteristics of the classic avant-garde have been absorbed over the years but many have been easily and lightly discarded. |
| ||
| Why? Could it be, for example, that there is a greater respect for ideology and intellectualism in general on the continent? Or is it a fetish with ideology, rather than a respect for intellectualism that holds sway there? There is a great conceit in Europe over their much-trumpeted intellectual culture; but actually, it’s an intellectual culture that has been hijacked by a now tired and jaded cosmopolitan liberalism, which has lost its cutting edge in a new world largely unpredicted in the great Marxist, modernist, secular meta-narrative of the last century. The British do tend to be less ideological in our cultural make-up, and tend not to fall for the glitz and glamour of revolutionary causes. In many ways, the saving grace for this country’s musical modernity is the disregard for rules, and an apathy for imposed ideological posturing. The fashionable views of the day, coming from politics and philosophy, have had a limited impact on the way we have shaped our musical culture. Nevertheless, there is a tendency in British musical criticism to see what happens on the continent as superior to here. And you’ll find a lot of disparaging remarks about ‘British provincialism’ running through the comparisons that music critics make between this island – and indeed America as well - the Anglosphere if you like, and the citadels of modernism on the continent. Our own musical accommodation with modernity, from Vaughan Williams to the present day, is caricatured as inferior and reactionary to what happens in places where a more ‘revolutionary’ rigour has been cultivated. You’ll find an unnatural comparison, an unfair comparison between – as they would see it - an insularity in the UK and US, and the highest heights of professionalism and intellectual endeavour that shapes the music of Germany, France and Italy. So there is a kind of self-loathing, haughty arrogance in certain aspects of our critical fraternity, which is a problem. It is unrealistic and does not take a broad and objective view of the expanse of recent musical history. I find it interesting, for example, that the ‘underground’ composers in France and Italy, working at cross-purposes to the modernist orthodoxy, look to the US for inspiration, where they see a totally different pantheon of 20th century composers. To them the preferred narrative of modernism starts with Ives and leads on to Aaron Copland, Carl Ruggles, Henry Cowell, Lou Harrison, Harrv Partch, George Crumb, Terry Riley, and especially Steve Reich and John Adams. But then, Europeans have made a habit of turning enthusiastically towards America as an attractive alternative, after overthrowing their own home-grown dictatorships and repression. Although the music of John Adams is still largely proscribed in Boulez’s home town, and when it does manage to wriggle its way into the public sphere it is subjected to the abuse of organised claques, there is a palpable forbidden excitement about it among the younger generation. It is the European perspective that prefers to see tonality, for example, as simply something of the past, and to be rejected. That seems an extreme and unrealistic view. It was understandable in a way, in that traditional musical values, like all traditional values were rejected by the new philosophical, political and cultural elites in Europe after the Second World War. There was a feeling, in Eurocentric terms at least, that ‘the old culture’ had come to an end. That European bourgeois culture had failed; that the Christian cement to the continent’s culture had been exhausted and come undone. And that therefore it was a perfectly respectable position for the young artists to begin with a blank slate – a virgin field, if you like, to begin with nothing. No rules, no connection, no taint of the past. One sees that in politics, and in philosophy of course, but you see it in music as well, with a deliberate attempt to expunge any form of the taint of tradition in music, whether it be German symphonism or anything worryingly hierarchical or patriarchal from European history. There were concerted attempts to begin again, with apparently entirely new sounds and new concepts. Exciting in a way, but with worrying unseen implications. Similar to the visual arts world, where many forms of traditional learning were scrapped and forgotten, out of a sort of self-disgust, music too entered into its own iconoclastic phase. But the difference between music and some of the other arts is that music needs craftsmanship. It can’t exist without it. So the craftsman in the composer – whether the composer was Boulez, or Stockhausen, or Berio – eventually took over. And that craftsman – the artisan as much as the artist – is what prevailed in the end. It is the craftsmanship and technical vision of the principal players in European modernism that prevailed for future consideration. Much of the debate in modern music concerns ‘language’. If one embraces tonality, that’s seen as a backward-looking gesture by some. Even someone regarded here as streetwise and cutting-edge like Mark-Anthony Turnage will be regarded in certain European spheres as a reactionary composer because of his interaction with popular culture, through jazz especially. (That smacks too much of Americana, and it is de rigeur to flaunt an anti-Americanism in Europe.) But there is also a modality and pastoralism in his work that one can detect in British music over the last century or so; and that is also what the European modernist mind despises; possibly because it is seen as nationalistic, provincial, and backward-looking, with an ideal based in nostalgia. Even the music of Birtwistle is regarded as ‘English pastoralist’ in novelty-obsessed modernist Europe. He and a number of other British composers, including myself, used to be published by Universal Edition of Vienna, which has been closely associated with the growth of modernism from Webern to Boulez. They neglected their London division so much that any performances of their British names in mainland Europe that did actually happen were secured by their London representative, the legendary Bill Colleran. They didn’t care about their British operation and eventually scuppered it, forcing a number of us to seek a new home at Boosey and Hawkes. We were all far too beguiled by nostalgia apparently, which, if you know the music of Harrison Birtwistle, will make the mind boggle, even although he has acknowledged a deep subliminal debt to Vaughan Williams. But nostalgia is first on a list of crimes deemed out of bounds for German composers, for example, since WWII, because the ‘Nazi’ word can be used to batter anyone who departs from the script, the implications of which are left-wing and radically anti-traditional. I remember attending the famous Darmstadt Summer Festival of New Music in 1980, when any work with a major chord was boo-ed. There was a concerted attempt underway to undermine Wolfgang Rihm, then regarded as the main young German ‘reactionary’ composer by the ascendant revolutionaries at the time. I have been intrigued and delighted to notice that since then, he and other ‘conservative’ German composers like Detlev Glanert (and HK Gruber in Austria) have risen to the fore and gained an international respect, while the Marxist snipers have faded largely into oblivion, as far as the wider musical consciousness is concerned. And then there’s also the question of religion, which has become such a defining battleground in many areas of culture and public life. The liberal elites who control the commanding heights of culture and criticism have an instinctive anxiety about religion. They thought it should have died out by now. But they have been mugged by history, as that hasn’t happened, and it’s unlikely to. This is yet another example of how the once powerfully cock-sure analysis of the 68ers has been proved wrong. This is another reason why the prophets of Marxist-inspired modernism are in retreat right across the board. They are perplexed at how the world has gone. Their view has not prevailed, and even in modern music that is the case. Everything, including our understanding of recent history, is up for grabs. As far as the classic modernist is concerned, we live in a period of chaos. They have lost the argument. The case for Modernism has been undermined by the flow and permanence of tradition, and many other things that they didn’t see either as important or as effective in the making of the modern world. In the period after the Second World War, what the new Young Turks sought out for themselves was a laboratory culture for music. Because everything was up for grabs, and because everything traditional – traditional music and culture – was tainted and, in their view, finished, they had to go into a ‘laboratory’ to make something new. They valued the resulting obscurantism: because if something was obscure, it wasn’t connecting with those traditional and outmoded understandings of culture that, they would say, the bourgeoisie held dear. But to be honest, it was more than the bourgeoisie they had to worry about – it was the entire world. And therefore their laboratory experiment, in many ways understandable and exciting in its own right, deliberately avoided those aspects of musical communication that were primal, universal aspects of the human condition. They wanted to build a new culture, Khmer Rouge-like, out of the broken shards. This has been the mistake that modernists and Marxists in music and politics have made ever since. |
| ||
| That which began life in the post-war years as a deadly serious challenge to tradition and a Duchampian provocation, is now enshrined in academia and cultural officialdom, with fences up all around. To give an example: I was asked by a New Music festival in Hanover to adjudicate on a composition competition, and I agreed to it. They were all ready to send the scores. But I discovered that the deal usually was that ‘esteemed professors’, when they were asked onto the panel, would have their music played at this Hanover New Music Festival. But then it became clear that none of my music was being played. So when my representatives asked why, their basic explanation was that “Our New Music festival does not give a platform to tonal and conservative composers.” Then why have you asked me to adjudicate? I pulled out. The modernist hierarchy is still so powerful in places like German radio stations, German New Music festivals, French New Music festivals, that it acts like a politburo. And like all good politburos in recent times they see religion as an enemy to be confronted and defeated. This is why it is often airbrushed from official readings of recent musical history. But there is a huge untold story here which is worth pursuing, and religion can be found in the fault lines of this ongoing discussion. It all comes back to Wagner. Although he was an unconventional religious thinker, his absolute ideal was a search for the sacred. The philosopher Roger Scruton explores this in Death-Devoted Heart: Sex and the Sacred in Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde. The impact of this opera in particular, not just on modern music, but on other forms of modernity, was huge. In the last 100–150 years, there has been a steady line of major composers who were profoundly religious men or women in different ways. Stravinsky, who was as conservative in his theology as he was revolutionary in the music he made, had a great love of the Catholicism he encountered in the West, and of his own Orthodoxy. He wrote masses, he wrote music for liturgy. He was a believer. Schoenberg, the great modernist icon, reconverted to a practising Judaism on fleeing Germany in 1933, becoming a mystic in his outlook; obsessed with the philosophical connections between silence and music. (Religious subjects became increasingly important to him in the last few decades of his life.) This is why John Cage decided to study with Schoenberg and then pursued his own religious paths through a discovery of the religions of the Far East. The interesting thing about John Cage, with his aesthetics of silence, noise and music, was that his most notorious or famous piece, 4’33”, which is 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence – a kind of rhetorical gimmick one might say, but a real challenge to the culture in many other ways – was originally entitled ‘Silent Prayer’. So even someone like Cage, in his counter-cultural way, was fundamentally plugged into this constant search for the sacred. And then there was Messiaen, who was famously Catholic, and everything he wrote was shaped by a theology and a personal faith. It is interesting to observe just how uncomfortable many continental commentators are when having to discuss this absolutely core aspect of his work. Many prefer to see it as an eccentric personal foible, almost irrelevant to the music he made. Others, more hostile, accuse him of propaganda, preachiness and anti-semitism. And in this country, people like Britten, with his social Anglicanism and troubled spiritual searching, points to a profoundly numinous modernity, a universe away from the cultural denials of Darmstadt and elsewhere. Even with Tippett, who always described himself as an agnostic, one can detect a deep mysticism at the heart of his work. It is fascinating that he chose St Augustine as one of his major texts for setting. Again there is another untold story here. Since the Iron Curtain came down, there’s been a whole range of composers that we’ve become aware of in the wake of Shostakovich. Schnittke and Gubaidulina - profoundly religious composers, embracing Catholicism, but also keeping alive an Orthodoxy, and indeed an interest in Islam as well. Arvo Pärt from Estonia, Kanchelli from Georgia, Gorecki from Poland – it’s almost as if there’s a constant theme going through the development of modern music, that religion is alive and well, and that the search for the sacred has become part of the mainstream of modernity in music. That is a huge challenge to those people who try to rub it out of history and say that it’s not important. I got a fly-on-the-wall report from an academic board which was planning a book on Music in the Twentieth Century. They were going through a list of headings and volumes – music and nationalism, music and gender of course, music and anti-imperialism, etc, etc. Someone suggested music and religion, and it was completely and immediately rejected – there was nothing to write about! There was no place in the discussion of modern music for religion. The wider discussion here though, is more about religion of course, and certainly involves more than a straight comparison between the anglosphere and ‘old Europe’ as George Bush might have put it. The UK has always been Janus-faced in the way it has been able to absorb ideas and influences from Europe and America. This has given us the power to take what is good and reject what is not from both. However we do have the facility to do the opposite too. But we are in a good position of objectivity and detachment to assess developments and potential in cultural matters. It is widely felt now that the influence of the International Left is on the wane. The ability of this cultural and political movement to mould society according to its classic principles and shape high culture in its own image is fast dissolving. Therefore the primacy of high modernism, one of its most precocious children, will inevitably disintegrate in its European citadels just as it has elsewhere. The unbridled, dumbed-down populism of American free-market culture usually fills these vacuums. It is not a pretty sight or happy outcome. But there are other ways. (I hesitate to use the term Third Way, as the whole point of the British contribution to modern music is the very proliferation of multiple options.) It has been the case for some time now that British composers have flourished in an open non-dogmatic environment, which is the envy of the new generation of composers in other countries. We have pursued freer routes through the necessary balancing of tradition and modernity. Gradually even in Europe people have woken up to the diverse riches of the British composer from Maxwell Davies and Birtwistle, through the middle generation of Knussen, Casken and Judith Weir to astonishingly imaginative younger figures like Thomas Ades. This work is played a lot now in places like Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris. From a time that we were regarded as dilettante, eccentric outsiders, the sheer breadth of musical thought here is now attracting fascinated attention. Speaking personally, I can feel nothing but relief and gratitude that I have grown up in as benign an environment. |
| ||
| http://axess.se/magasin/default.aspx?article=711 Swedish music out of the refrigerator Av Camilla Lundberg The music scene in our country has long been characterised by an art that turns a deaf ear to its audience. A small coterie of composers kept competition and alternative influences at bay. The way out of sectarian modernism has been to reconnect with and become grounded in Swedish choral singing and folk music. “An ideological icebox in which sado-modernism reigned supreme.” This is Anders Hillborg’s definition of the musical scene, and he knows what he is talking about. Hillborg is one of Scandinavia’s most successful composers, one of the few whose music is played by the leading symphony orchestras in continental Europe, Britain and the US and released on Deutsche Grammophon’s prestigious yellow label, and the only Scandinavian to be published by the venerable Edition Peters. Anders Hillborg is referring to the cultural environment that flourished when he was a young composer, at the time he first appeared on the concert scene. Today, a generation later, the refrigerator door is wide open, with much of its ideological content rotting away. Hard-core modernism in the tradition of Arnold Schönberg and Theodor Adorno has lost its omnipotence. And yet. Anyone with a penchant for “sado-modernist” music can still have their needs met, at least on the continent or in an American academic setting. That means the type of composition rooted in the serial technique which in turn developed from the twelve-tone principle, the “discovery” of atonal Arnold in the 1920s. This was comparable to the cubist technique of the era, which paved the way for nonfigurative, “abstract” painting. It is here that both the ear and the eye lost the safe fixedness of established keys and one-point perspective. In the fully regulated democracy of the twelve-tone scale, every tone has an equal value. It obeys neither King Major nor Queen Minor, only egalitarian but rigid laws. Arnold Schönberg’s marketing slogan is renowned: “The method of composing with twelve tones will ensure the hegemony of German music for the next hundred years.” Let us say it lasted half a century, with a historic interruption under the Third Reich. Nazi German hegemony banished the twelve-tone principle; Stalinist cultural policy did the same in the Soviet Union as well – a method of composing with totalitarian pretensions that could not be tolerated by totalitarian regimes; a dissonant music that came to see itself as dissident music relative to the “people’s music” imposed by dictators. But does this resistance explain why post-war art music has to be so ugly and hostile? In principle, it serves as the background to the music that developed in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1950s, where the country’s numerous radio stations constituted important creative centres and distributers. After having served as Goebbels’ megaphone, radio became a medium of the avant-garde. Here, composers could also liberate themselves from the heavy apparatus of the symphony orchestra and instead work with new-fangled electronics, experiencing how their work spread into the ether, out to distant homes. Like to the home of the self-taught teenager Bo Nilsson up in Lappland, soon a composer whose name was on the lips of the avant-garde and who closer to home was nicknamed “the genius from Malmberget”. The intricate, mathematically calculated scores of this autodidact prodigy impressed continental giants like Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez and – Theodor Adorno. Hard to play, hard to listen to, in just the right way. But the meteoric career of this young Swede quickly faded. Ten years later, Nilsson turned up as a composer for TV series and explained with great animation that the mathematical notations in the brilliant works of his youth were simply a bluff ... The modernist ideal of the era was “absolute”, “objective”, often even “scientific” music in a white coat. The result was esoteric compositions and intricate scores to be tackled by highly specialised musicians. Nowadays they are lumped together – right or wrong – under the label “Darmstadt”. The place in question was the centre for summer courses in serial, experimental composition. But perhaps more importantly: a hub for the development and sustenance of an international brotherhood. The phenomenon itself is not unique. We are familiar with this building of shrines, of a Mount Parnassus, in every form of art. What is striking in this case is that music that spurned the general public to such an extent could influence the structures of the musical world for such a long time. In Sweden, we had the Monday Group, a welfare-state version of the German-inspired avant-garde. The most well-known work from this circle is the opera Aniara (1959) by Karl-Birger Blomdahl, the group’s leading figure. The Monday Group composers were, otherwise, not hard-core modernists of a continental sort. Rather, like many Nordic composers of that era, they were more representatives of a kind of musical functionalism, preferably with references to the structures of nature. Today, barely more than a handful of works by Ingvar Lidholm live on in the Swedish repertoire. The aesthetics of the Monday Group influenced the Swedish art music scene up until the 1980s, when a younger generation of pop-influenced composers took over. But more important than their influence on style were the positions of power in music institutions conquered by Blomdahl & Co. As a result, not only could they launch their own works and disciples but also keep unwanted competitors at bay. Among those who were silenced either directly or indirectly were the circle connected with the popular Lars-Erik Larsson. And Allan Pettersson. However, he got belated but massive revenge for his 1950s proletariat symphonies in the 1970s. Like a Beethovenesque titan, this severely tested composer, who suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, emerged as a result of unrivalled media coverage. Pettersson’s numerous symphonies were performed frequently and released as recordings – a privilege accorded no other Swedish composer. But Allan Pettersson was old and sickly, his work a unique symphonic counterpart to Swedish working-class literature of the 1930s. It was not music for the yuppie era. No younger composer had as yet succeeded in making an impression in the media. The breakthrough came in 1982, straight to the headlines of the evening tabloid Aftonbladet. Sven-David Sandström’s requiem, De ur alla minnen fallna [‘Mute the Bereaved Memories Speak’], generated a tremendous commotion even prior to the performance, which took place in Stockholm’s Berwaldhallen, which had been threatened by the LaRouchian EAP party. The reason was actually Tobias Berggren’s charged libretto, featuring four-letters words and emotional references to the murder of children in the Holocaust. But the music also led to an extensive debate in newspaper culture review sections. It was the at times direct appeal in Sandström’s emotional tone language that agitated commentators faithful to Adorno. Even though the requiem’s musical veneer was no different from other traditional modernist works of this genre, a Romantically-tinged longing for beauty was noted in the languorous phrasing and dissonant-free harmonics of the big choral movements. Gone was the feeling of atonal sprawl so comforting to modernists. What did this man mean? After all, Sven-David Sandström belonged to the young establishment, schooled in the Monday Group and nurtured ten years earlier by Pierre Boulez in his first major opus. He also shared a background as religious dissident with the Monday Group: a widespread feeling of solidarity that has long been integral to the contemporary music world in Sweden – nothing he ever tried to conceal or excuse; on the contrary, he referred to the Baptist church of his childhood, with its naïve appeal, with growing frequency. |
| ||
| When Sandström later collaborated with the young choreographer Per Jonsson, a clear kind of gesturing entered his music – ringing statements that did not “mean” anything, but provided movement and especially decoration to the musical score. Naughty naughty! Ornamentation was anathema both to the functional style of Swedish architecture and to art music. Hadn’t the pre-modern composer Wilhelm Stenhammar launched a “sober, honest music without flourish” as the Nordic ideal? At that time, glasnost led the West to start incorporating an Eastern mystique – in the form of meditative, religiously tinged music produced by an Arvo Pärt, a Henryk Gorecki, a Sofia Gubaidulina. Sandström also sought out Christian publishers while persistently retreating from the established ideal of art music. However, he is no mystic: his increasingly softer and more heartfelt tonal language instead echoes with direct references to Bach. At the same time, Sven-David Sandström’s younger colleagues – composers of the pop and rock age – chose another way out of modernism. Jan Sandström, Anders Hillborg and Karin Rehnqvist are the most prominent of those born in the 1950s. They all, like Sven-David Sandström, have that typical Swedish grounding in choral singing. Karin Rehnqvist has connected to Swedish folk music, something that has always generated a fear of contamination among “serious” composers ever since Hugo Alfvén – a repudiation that stems from the fear of folk music kitsch, of Swedish blue-and-yellow National Romanticism, of accusations of stolen glory. But Rehnqvist was inspired by an as yet unexploited source from the traditions of Dalarna in central Sweden – the powerful technique of women’s herding calls. Her original reverse reel Davids Nimm for three female herd callers, using trained singers, was a breakthrough, which typically had to wait more than ten years for a CD release... Typically, not simply because of extremely tenacious male structures in the world of Swedish art music, but also because they were deeply rooted institutionally. Any success with audiences or critics is of minimal importance in terms of a composer’s opportunities to be played and given exposure. Rather, it is the composers’ guild itself – the Society of Swedish Composers – that determines which member should be given important commissions and in what order. Otherwise, the tried and tested way is for conductors and soloists to pave the way for their composer contemporaries. Not to mention the most natural strategy: composers perform the work themselves – or soloists play their own compositions. This sharp distinction between creating and performing is also a result of post-war sectarian modernism. In Sweden, the important interplay between musicians and composers really only worked within the Monday Group. Otherwise, the Swedish music scene long lacked the distinguished influential conductors and soloists that provide the backing required by composers. Only when Esa-Pekka Salonen debuted as chief conductor for the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra did the situation begin to open up for the younger generation of composers. Because Salonen is himself a composer, it was natural for him to socialise with Swedes his age like Jan Sandström and Anders Hillborg – composers who, through him, gained valuable insight into the intricate structures of symphony orchestras. Also coming from the same generation were the noted percussion group Kroumata and virtuoso brass musicians like the trombonist Christian Lindberg and the trumpeter Håkan Hardenberger, and later the clarinettist Martin Fröst. They all needed soloist repertoires, which has led to the creation of a number of solo concertos, a genre that was almost nonexistent in Sweden up until 1985. The best known is the strikingly theatrical Motorbike Concerto by Jan Sandström, which Christian Lindberg played across the globe – according to one estimate more than 700 times. Martin Fröst is happy to tour with the choreographically designed clarinet concerto Peacock Tales by Anders Hillborg, and has now expanded his guest artist repertoire this year with Viktoria Borisova-Olla’s extravagant Golden Dances of Pharaohs. This composer, raised and trained in Russia, is the most recent representative of modern orchestra art, a genre in which Swedish composers are holding their own rather well against international competition, especially given that they are not being helped along by conductor compatriots elsewhere in the world, as the Finns Kaija Saariaho and Magnus Lindberg are. These two are the Nordic composers most oriented toward continental modernism, like that evinced at Pierre Boulez’s “science centre”, IRCAM. Finland’s delayed modernism – Sibelius’s legacy cast a long shadow – brought with it a lively interest in intellectual and experimental aspects of music. This Finnish avant-garde never showed an interest in pop music, unlike their colleagues from the other side of the Baltic. It was more important to head to Paris, to IRCAM and the “spectralism” going on there. Composing based on what is called a spectral analysis produces at its best moments entirely new, fascinating sounds with the traditional instruments of classical music. Combined with a genuine desire for communication both with performing musicians and the listening public, this late-modernist technique still has a great deal to give. But the question is whether the “pure” musical work an sich – a legacy of Romanticism that is still nurtured by orthodox modernists – can make itself heard in the 21st century. The great symphonies have always had an underlying narrative, a hidden story, And the most beloved orchestral works from the 20th century are ballets: The Rite of Spring, Bolero, Romeo and Julia ... ************************** It will be interesting to see if someone could follow up with a similar article so summarize the classical music composition development inside mainland China from the last past century. :-) |
| ||||
| 在文学城上看到的： 一直以为前几天的绑架案是菲律宾歧视华人没尽全力，结果今日发现 2000年21个美国人在菲律宾被阿布撒耶夫绑架，经菲律宾解救只活下来一个人……原来丫真不是故意的！ 《费加罗报》说，菲律宾警方并非第一次如此丢脸，2002年他们解救一名被劫持男童，结果一大群特警面对一个只有一把刀的劫匪，居然让劫匪捅了孩子13刀后才击毙劫匪，那个孩子身上还中了5枪…… 世界最恐怖的事不是中国城管来抓你，而是菲律宾特警来救你！ |
| ||
| http://news.sina.com.cn/w/phikid/index.shtml ? 为什么这种新闻一看就像是铁血编造的呢？一搜“菲律宾 绑架 美国 人质”果然也都是铁血之类的论坛链接。 |
| ||
| 再次证明百度的正确性：） http://gzbbs.soufun.com/2811079903~1~650/69009348_69009348.htm |
| ||
| 俺昨天刚从马尼拉回来。这个国家无论气质还是氛围上，都跟法制，专业精神，秩序，发达，文明这些词汇无缘。警察在那儿，跟职员，门童，服务生的性质差不多。在银行，写字楼站岗的警察，都负责开门。在餐馆负责保卫的警察，居然还管招揽生意，收拾桌子！他们给我的印象是特友好，驯良，，，呃，驯良到近乎懦弱无能。根本就没有威慑力。跟美国警察根本就是俩概念。 其实，也就是因为是香港人遇难了。在某些压力下，菲律宾国内还跟着嚷嚷几句。我到马尼拉当天，菲律宾南部就又发生劫持事件了。死了4个人。据说这种事在菲律宾司空见惯。他们自己人民死了，更是没人管。 菲民们，好像都挺同情门多萨的。1955年出生的他，丧失了退休金，很难想象该如何生存。这种国情，中国也有。唉，万恶的。。。 |
| ||
| 10 Famous Hostage Situations http://listverse.com/2009/04/17/10-famous-hostage-situations/ elanso的翻譯 http://www.elanso.com/ArticleModule/Compare.aspx?ArticleID=KzIYL9U0PULcNsQwNsW6KzIi |
| ||
| 在这位出了名的人质事件凶手门多萨的棺材上,还放着他的警帽?是对他的哀悼么?为什么最方便击倒的时刻没有把他击倒? |
| ||||
| 刚从音乐会上回来不久。这是庆祝中国大提琴学会天津分会成立的庆典音乐会，天津专业、业余、老师、学生八十多位演奏者演奏了古（十八、十九世纪）、今（二十、二十一世纪）中、外各种体裁大提琴乐曲共计一百六十分钟，中间不休息！我和老妻居然坚持了下来。倒不后悔：一，道义使然，老妻拉了一辈子大提琴，本专业盛会，自当亲临。二，司徒志文、楼乾利等老辈儿人没喊累，当然吾等年轻老人理当坚持。关键在三，天津院儿大提琴师生演奏黄安伦b小调托卡塔·圣咏与赋格（天津首演），黄安伦指挥。真不虚此行！演奏质量似还有提升空间，但作品和作者的亲指足够震撼。 第一次见到黄安伦指挥，验证了过客兄的评价：一流指挥家。 |
| ||
| 祝賀！ 八十多位大提琴演奏者手的大提琴專場！ 黄安伦b小调托卡塔·圣咏与赋格（天津首演），黄安伦指挥。希望有機會在多倫多舞臺演奏。 |
| ||
| 真是盛会！八十位大提琴手同台，这阵势没见过，还真不好想象。 安伦兄指挥合唱另有一功，也非常好。 |
| ||
| 早起与安伦老师聊了一会儿，因有事，未能多聊。甚投机。 |
| ||
| 有位网友在敝博留下一句隽语：“我们从来没这样衰老，将来也不会这样年轻”，可以转注陈师的“年轻老人”。 |
| ||
| 記得在土豆網上欣賞過黃安倫此曲，是由俄國一群大提琴好手演奏，指揮亦是俄國人。好像當時曾在本壇發過一帖，推介此曲，但居然找不出來了。 曲壇中，人品、腦袋、手藝俱優者，黃安倫肯定排在最前列。大概與遺傳與宗教信仰，均有關係? |
| ||
| 好！希望能在网上欣赏。 刚刚演过海顿C大调大提协奏曲，聂佳鹏独奏，雷雩指挥，深交协奏。 |
| ||
| 因为预定的28日南京到天津的奥凯公司航班被临时取消，我只好改乘南京到北京的航班。这样，一天里从常州到南京，再从南京到北京，最后从北京折腾到天津已经将近晚上十点了。盛会没有赶上。第二天到金禧园补课，和安伦、小龙、苏力会面，还结识了一位来自南京的赵景扬先生。 这是大家合影—— http://www.bh2000.net/files/musicbbsdetails69255.jpg 723KB |
| ||
| 中午经南京，和几位老朋友聚会： 闵乐康（左二）是1995年在南京录制《炎黄风情》第一套CD的乐队指挥。江苏歌舞剧院管弦乐队演奏，台湾摇篮唱片公司出版发行。闵乐康是二胡大师闵惠芬的弟弟，他和我一样，也是长笛出身。 徐志廉（右一）是2004年在成都录制我的第一交响曲CD的乐队指挥。四川广播交响乐团演奏，香港雨果公司出版发行。当时他是美国路易斯安娜州立大学音乐学院交响乐团的总监。现任南京艺术学院交响乐团指挥。 黄莺（右二），南京艺术学院居其宏门下的“歌剧与音乐剧”方向在读博士。这次聚会是由杨健安排的，他身体临时出现状况，便由其妻黄莺代为组织。 高继勇（左一）天津音乐学院双排键教师。2007年在日本YAMAHA大赛中夺冠的赵伟成就是他的门生。此次和我同路从常州回到天津。 http://www.bh2000.net/files/musicbbsdetails69256.jpg 899KB |
| ||
| 从照片上看，安伦老师好像瘦了，是累的吧？鲍老师、黄小龙老师和继勇兄的气色都不错啊。请你们多保重身体！ |
| ||
| 中央广播、电视、电影乐团下月２５日莅临敝处演出。据说，将演出鲍爷的两个作品和安伦兄的一个作品，曲目不详。我正好回京，无缘拜聆。 |
| ||||
| 我想翻译海子的诗集， 翻译成英文，有没有老板出钱？ |
| ||
| 海女翻译海子，倒是一段佳话。 不是我故意煞风景，黑敦芙尔女士，译诗这类活儿，要好，只能往自己的母语这边译。 |
| ||
| "译诗这类活儿，要好，只能往自己的母语这边译。" |
| ||
| http://www.mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=6440&pc=9 |
| ||
| http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/none/haizi-his-poems-and-his-death-510231/ |
| ||
| 如果哪天我成立个翻译公司，还请各为帮忙啦。 |
| ||||
| 《隨亂》之後，酒徒又一部長篇巨著《開國工賊》，害我連續多天，不練琴，不打譜，不寫文章，不看中醫經典，不顧眼睛酸、脖子硬，一節一節往下追，一直到全書看完。 內中有多個場面，很適合寫成歌劇。可惜阿鏜人老才盡，不然真可以考慮投三、五年進去，寫它兩、三部歌劇。 此書在台灣只出版了前兩卷。在這個網站上，可以一節一節地看: http://www.lxwxw.com/files/article/html/64/64113/index.html 稍為麻煩之處，是要一直刪掉那些自己跳出來的電玩廣告網頁。 |
| ||
| 阿镗老师喜欢的东西我得瞧瞧去。这小说很好看吗？ |
| ||||
| http://www.stereophile.com/news/klaus_heymann_of_naxos/ News Desk Klaus Heymann of Naxos By Jason Victor Serinus August 25, 2010 — Klaus Heymann has some surprising news. During an in-person chat in the lobby of San Francisco's Mandarin Oriental Hotel, the founder of the label that turned the classical-music recording industry on its ear revealed that, in the US, classical-music sales for the labels that Naxos distributes are stable. This year, Naxos' sales are up 6% for CDs and down 3% for DVDs. Taking into account some big DVD promotions in 2009, even DVD sales are stable. These figures fly in the face of what's happening in the pop-music industry, where US sales of physical CDs are decreasing 10–15% per year. It also defies Naxos' "biggest problem," the shrinking of US retail outlets for physical CDs, and their replacement by online sellers such as Amazon.com and ArkivMusic.com. Equally surprising, downloads of classical recordings are not growing as strongly as they did in the past. "I don't think the future of the industry will be entirely downloads, as we had thought maybe three years ago," Heymann told me at the start of our conversation. "But they're still a stable income—stable, not stagnant. Downloads are still a significant portion of the business, but they're not growing at a rate that looks to overtake physical sales any time soon. We expect a growth of maybe 1–2% this year in the US, but not at the dramatic rate we experienced before." In the rest of the world, classical downloads are a far more modest percentage of Naxos' total business. Only in the UK and Australia do they exceed 10% of physical sales. "In Continental Europe, downloads are dismal," he says, "and growing from a very small base. Europe has not caught on to downloads, as has happened in the US, UK, Australia, and Canada. iPods are popular, but people buy CDs and transfer them to iPod rather than downloading titles. Japan and Korea are good download markets, but that's mostly to mobile phones." Regardless, Naxos has good news for audiophiles. Coming soon are its long-promised, full–CD-quality and high-resolution two- and 5.1-channel downloads—both 24-bit/96kHz and 24/88.2, depending on the master recording. In addition, Naxos' first two- and 5.1-channel Blu-ray, of music by John Corigliano, will be out by the end of September. Other Blu-rays, such as Mahler's Symphony 8 and Mendelssohn's Elijah, await only the creation of subtitles. "In the end, I think surround sound brings infinitely more to the listening experience than the extra extension of the frequency response or 24/96," Heymann says. "But since the market demands 24/96, we will do it, both in stereo and surround, as both Blu-ray audio discs and downloads. We may do 24/88.2 downloads, if that is the way it was recorded. But upsampling 44.1 to 88.2 or 96 is not legitimate, in my opinion; we're not going to do that. We may put out 24/44.1 surround, which is how many of our older titles were recorded, but we'll clearly declare that on the cover." Heymann expects physical formats to continue for a long time. "Whether physical product will be a half of today or a third of today, nobody knows," he says. "There will also be downloads, and all kinds of subscription things. Our streaming classical-music library right now is by far the most successful in our field, and the most profitable for us and for the labels. But there may be others that mix paid and unpaid [streaming]. No one knows if they'll be free or half-free, or whom you'll pay. Whatever happens, we'll be part of the future." Heymann, who founded Naxos to promote the artistry of his wife, violinist Takako Nishizaki, explained that Naxos is no longer simply a record label. Instead, it's a service provider to the classical-music industry that also has a label. Naxos' logistics center in Germany provides logistic services to every DVD music label except one, Opus Arte; carries everyone else's stock and ships it around the world; and does the same for a growing number of classical labels worldwide. Naxos has also taken over US distribution of Warner Classics' audio content on CD. Beginning September 1, Naxos will offer repertoire from Warner Classics, encompassing titles on the Teldec, Das Alte Werk, Erato, and Warner Classics imprints, as well as the Lontano and Apex labels. As part of the agreement, Naxos will make available more than 2000 classical products, including a range of titles which are currently unavailable in the US. "Frankly, the last thing I wanted to get into was being a service provider," Heymann admits. "But in order to build our own label and do all the things we're doing, we needed an economic base. Providing services to others was a sound economic base." Young people, he believes, are the major beneficiaries of classical music on the Internet. The percentage of young people who access Naxos' music via the Web is greater than those who buy CDs or go to concerts. "Naxos radio has 75 channels, preprogrammed, where you can listen to whatever you want," he says. "If, on your way to work, you want to listen to guitar music or baroque violin concertos, you go to Naxos Radio and click on the genre. You can listen 24 hours a day, and it costs you $20 a year." Toward the end of our discussion, Heymann shared some information that gave me pause. "The classical market has now probably shrunk to the core collector," he says. "There are very few titles that will sell huge quantities like in the past. We think the market that we all sell to is between a million to a million and a half. If you sell well, it means you have good titles. But you're not expanding the classical market any more, even with the most sensational stuff, such as the 100,000 copies Harmonia Mundi sold in Japan of the blind Japanese pianist who won the Van Cliburn International Piano Competition." [Nobuyuki Tsujii's Gold Medalist: Thirteenth Van Cliburn International Piano Competition, 2009 live recording, Harmonia Mundi HMU 907505] "Where we used to sell 40,000 copies of an orchestral recording, we now sell 10,000 or 15,000. At that rate, we can't make money any more. So we make money from distribution and licensing. We've gone into e-books with embedded music and website links; the first 10 titles are due in October. We're launching a 400,000-word classical-music dictionary with embedded crosslinks. Our www.classicsonline.com site has 1500 to 2000 orders per day, but it breaks even only because it has other platforms that use the same database. In fact, right now, none of this makes money. But it will." ******************** What Mr Heymann failed to take into account is those illegal underground downloads through emule, torrent, rapidshare, megaupload, mediafire, etc, are higher than ever. How much money can DGG get if the whole two sets of Kempff's Beethoven Sonatas (mono as well as stereo ones) can be easily available on line in lossless format? Unless they team with other so called majors to go after those down load facilitators such as VeryCD, probably nothing. In the meantime, because most of those download users are relatively low in their personal asset, even if those companies win the law suit, the compensation probably won't cover the hefty lawyer fee either. So, it's still a lose lose scenario. Same with online on demand stream providers like the Spotify, because, deep down, no one want to pay anything unless they are forced to. |
| ||
| p2p和cyberlocker下载对古典音乐的影响很大程度上被夸大了，那些整天下载的人，很多本来并不是古典乐迷，你看看verycd上那些不知所云的回复就知道。没有下载，他们也不会购买CD。 Spotify对于真正听古典的人几乎就意味着付费订制服务，用免费版的那些为了省10磅每月而不在乎乐章间插播广告的人，如果没有Spotify，你觉得他们会去买CD? 过去半年Spotify付费用户增长了一倍，达到了50万。 什么是“被迫付费”？每个人的定义都不一样，市场也必然是多样化的。乔布斯就说了，对于一般用户来说，去itunes花钱买比花时间精力去p2p找下载要划算。有了Spotify之后，我再也没非法下载过音乐，并且把之前装满的500G硬盘格式化了。录音音乐产业每个月能从我这里赚到10磅，之前是0. 这就是Spotify的意义之一。 我可以再说一次：去年在瑞典，环球最大的利润来源，是“可选免费”的Spotify，不是“必须付费”的itunes store，也不是任何其他销售渠道。 |
| ||
| And your point is? How much money per album can be collected through Spotify? Less than peanuts! And Mr Heymann knew it very well. ( http://www.bh2000.net/bbs/all/track.php?cdb=reader&id=5105 ) That's why it's not a sustainable business model. It hurts new recording project. That's why many recordings these days are actually funded by sponsors and benefactors not the recording companies, without those help, major record companies these days are willing to do less and less. EMI now is on the life support themselves and counting their final days. It's not a business as usual anymore. In the end, the artists themselves are going to running their own album, not necessarily to make a money but rather to gain more publicity and exposure. These days, more and more soloist and chamber ensembles are selling and signing their own CDs during the concert tour. For most artists, they sold more recordings each week that way than through any other formal channels believe it or not. That to me IS the right way for musicians to connect their audiences, to help them keep their foot on the real ground. See, I am a realistic person, not a hypocrites, I guess I have about 4, 5 thousands of CDs myself (never counted), I believe HanHan and some other folks here are the same, and still I don't deny I am using all sorts of download tools either. The effort to download is not as bad as some described, and there are software these day making it all automatic and you don't even need to pay too much attention to. To me I have no sympathy to those major labels who are still trying to cash in with other re-re-re-release of full collections of Horowitz or Glen Gould, those should be in the public domain already! What make me feel sorry are those talented young artists, who are devoid of possibilities like those old timers from the past. Just imagine some poor string quartet plyers who were asked to divide a concert fee of couple of grand a night. They need to make a living too! But how? See? I am speaking as an outsider, with no ropes attached, while you on the other hand, sound more like a one with a conflict interest which should automatically disqualified you from the witness stand. :-) |
| ||
| 我不想多绕弯子，一个直接的问题是：为什么艺术家应当认为他们“应当”可以通过艺术来养活自己？如果你的艺术让足够的人感到共鸣，那么你会获得相应的支持和回报。如果你觉得你获得的不够多，花10美元做个网站，放上一个paypal捐款按钮。如果你无法满意你的收入，没有问题，放弃你的艺术，没什么大不了的，不是因为“非如此不可”而选择艺术的人永远不会成为大师。而且大师已经太多了。 贝多芬和舒伯特是怎么养活自己的？可能最伟大的50位作曲家一辈子的收入加起来，也只能抵得上不上环球高层几年年薪吧？而数字技术的发展带来的直接好处就是，再也不需要那么多和音乐无关的人寄生在音乐产业里了。当然他们会抱怨，下载和新技术让他们失业了，但是他们的工作和音乐本身有没有一点关系？ Heymann 不会不知道Spotify上有几千张Naxos吧。音乐云服务满足95%的大众需求，5%的收藏者和继续收集CD黑胶。他说的和这个一点也不矛盾。 取消价格这个障碍，让更多本来没有机会的人接触古典音乐，对音乐本身没有任何坏处。每个人花在音乐上的钱大致是有限的，云服务省下来的钱，可以去看演出，可以捐给当地的乐团。 我知道下载可以非常简单，但我不愿意花时间解压整理档案，Spotify可以在1秒钟之内播放任何音乐，没有必要浪费时间。 |
| ||
| 用CD和LP的很多是所谓的Stereophile,发烧友嘛。最近也有PC-HIFI之说，厂商当然要抢占市场了。 |
| ||
| 可能最伟大的50位作曲家一辈子的收入加起来，也只能抵得上不上环球高层几年年薪吧？ ------------------------ 按可比价格，很多作曲家收入不算少。环球总裁年薪不高的，如果没有股权期权奖金之类，也许巴赫的哥德堡变奏曲得到的那箱金币相当于5年的环球总裁收入 |
| ||
| Puccini是去世时候最有钱的作曲家之一，折算到今天，大概是上亿美元的身家。R.Strauss一辈子其实挣的比他多，不过Strauss经历了两场失败的战争和一次恶性通货膨胀，大部分都亏掉了。他们那个时代，演出版税比较高，他们俩的作品上演频率又高得出奇。 下面这个top ten我觉得未必准确。它列出一场演出要价，不过没有更多的数据支持。 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/29/arts.media1 哥德堡变奏曲得到的酬劳据说(也就是说，不符合史实)，是一个高脚杯，里面装了100个金路易(=500 Taler)，相当于今天的3万6千美元。巴哈在莱比锡的年薪是400 Taler。当时一个理发师的年收入大约是50 Taler。 |
| ||
| 不能这样简单折算，尤其不能简单按金子的市价，那时候，一个普通马夫的年薪大约3个金路易。马夫地位相当现在司机，环球高层薪水也就司机5--8倍，所以100金路易大约是马夫30年年薪。折合环球高层薪水就是几年了。 现代作曲家，伯恩斯坦也不少赚，格诗文的版税收入累计，也许是环球高层薪水几辈子总和 |
| ||
| 经常这里逛的唐某在新民晚报编译了最富的10位作曲家。http://xmwb.news365.com.cn/yywd/t20050918_654056.htm 陈康明指挥贵交的美国音乐会时，说格什温很快积累了上千万美元财富，他想拜在斯特拉文斯基门下学作曲，后者说，还是你教我吧。 音乐家中，卡拉扬死时除去一些不动产和后期版税，有5亿多马克，折合现在，大概相当于7、8亿欧元。海飞兹死时保守也有几千万美元。 |
| ||
| 他想拜在斯特拉文斯基门下学作曲，后者说，还是你教我吧。 =================================== 格什温出名后美国曾流行一个笑话： 问：“格什温最近怎么见不到了？他忙什么呢？” 答：“正在学习作曲”。 |
| ||
| 【环球高层薪水也就司机5--8倍】 不会吧！！！司机若按照5万美元算，CEO什么的一年100万不是很多啊。 |
| ||
| 好吧, 那是夸张的说法. 但你明白我的意思. 歌剧当年地位相当于现在电影, 和纯音乐作曲收入肯定不同, 马勒伯恩斯坦他们也是靠指挥录音挣钱. 和纯音乐作曲都没什么关系. 格什温那个笑话是说他想和拉威尔学作曲吧, 他真是应该学配器. 我就在音乐产业里工作, 我希望我工作中遇到的人90%都失业, 乐迷凭什么花钱养活这帮人? 一个区域主管一年差旅都上百万, 还都是从来不听音乐的人. |
| ||||
| 前面在看fat chence舞团的传统肚皮舞： http://athos1978.blog.sohu.com/ 才听了几分钟，就立刻想到bittova的dos kelbl(the little calf)： http://www.bh2000.net/files/singdetails75072.mp3 3423KB 在她的音乐里我听到过非洲土著人，加拿大因纽特人......我曾大胆断言，bittova的所有那些人声都不是她自己的发明创造，应该全部可以从世界各国民族民间音乐中找到原型，看来这首作品也说中了，在这段埃及传统肚皮舞里找到了一模一样的人声原型，有意思：） |
| ||
| 有人会觉得她怪异，但我同样敢断言，Meredith Monk的这些人声片段也全部可以从各国民族民间音乐中找到原型。比如下面这段开始部分的单人人声技巧在非洲土著妇女中是常见的。 http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/_81-4-wkhks/ Meredith Monk无疑是我们这个时代最伟大的人声艺术家之一，如果仅仅从人声这个角度来评价她的话。和bittova沉浸于采集世界民族民间花粉酿造自己单纯的蜜相比，monk更重要的角色还是西方音乐体系中的严肃作曲家，她用人声作为主奏乐器来架构混合风格的复杂乐队作品。 |
| ||
| Meredith Monk的这些作品，人声不是歌唱，所谓“艺术歌曲”体裁已经彻底瓦解，更不是歌剧，它摒弃了试图给音承载意义的功能，人声随机变换发出无意义的元音辅音，音和语言分离。我们也许可以把它称为剧场作品，但这个称呼也仅仅停留在文字层面表示演出空间而已。 所谓“先锋艺术”其实往往也有悖论。正如Meredith Monk的这些作品，它试图摒弃音的意义——或许没这么彻底，但至少是摒弃语言，然而，这些作品却都是赋予意义的标题作品。正如参与互动的观众不可能披着兽皮或赤身裸体走入剧场一样，表演者也不可能真的回到茹毛饮血没有语言沟通的年代，这些变换的单音节本身就是语言形成发展的必由之路。本质上，很多“先锋艺术”就是尝试回到人类文明之初的关于沟通交流的不同命题的互动游戏。 |
| ||
| 几十年前，这一批人的这些尝试可称得上“先锋”或“实验”——尽管我们总可以从蛮荒黑非洲土著人或古老的阿拉伯肚皮舞或几千年来农妇喂猪喂鸡的咕咕叫唤声中找到这些“先锋”人声实验的原型——如今多了，它们也就不“先锋”了。 但这些努力，探索了人声组合的各种可能性（只能说是组合运用，而不是发明），更重要的是尝试结合各国民族民间音乐，这是它们的价值——尝试从头捡起那些文明中古老的东西，反而可能变成一种“先锋”了，这反映出现代艺术发展的一种绝境。最重要的是，这些如今已是老人但曾经“先锋”的名字，至少在几十年内让几代年轻人着迷，尽管在难以预料的时期内这也恐怕不会是主流，但听和欣赏她们的人，绝对比我这样听patti、lehmann、moreschi老古董的人多得多。这些都在潜移默化的影响、改变着未来艺术走向。 |
| ||
| 我曾认为，西方音乐体系中的“艺术歌曲”和“歌剧”两个体裁，从听觉艺术角度而言已到穷途末路。看了Harry Partch的《Delusion Of The Fury》才强烈感受到，东方主义可能（或必然？）成为西方音乐包括所谓“艺术歌曲”和“歌剧”体裁的发展出路之一，也改变了自己以前关于世界民族音乐“融合”几乎不可能的观点。 Harry Partch的这部《Delusion Of The Fury》，是我看过的最精彩的西方现代歌剧（是否还能如此称呼呢？）之一。感觉作品里有太多太多东方音乐元素，特别是印尼、日本、越南民族音乐，尤其是Gamelan和kecak。个人感觉这部作品是一次非常有价值且成功的关于融合的音乐探索，而成功的首要前提，是不把自己凌驾于别的之上，平等对待各国民族音乐，才谈得上融合。 http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/v82C0YKkqTA/ |
| ||||
| 吕思清广州之行专访（9月11日广州交响乐团音乐季开幕式音乐会）： 被誉为“东方帕格尼尼”的吕思清，登录星海音乐厅演奏第一小协，他对于帕格尼尼的音乐有自己独特的看法： “众所周知，帕格尼尼的《第一小提琴协奏曲》是一部注重技巧的作品，其技巧可以说是开创历史的。但除了技巧以外，作品的内涵方面也很重要，尤其是独奏部分一直在引领着乐队。这部作品就像意大利歌剧中的咏叹调，又像一幅意大利风情画，具有优美的音乐性和歌唱性。我觉得，技巧不应该是这部作品取悦观众的唯一。它能成为杰作，归根到底还是因为它的音乐能够打动人的心灵。” “谈到如何欣赏帕格尼尼的音乐，我觉得音乐欣赏是一种个性化的体验。作为演奏家，我希望用独特的处理方法，引领观众进入帕格尼尼的音乐世界。但我希望观众能有想象的空间，思路更开阔一点，用宽容、探索的心态，多角度地去欣赏音乐，这样，才会更有乐趣。” 在20多年后回忆起获得帕格尼尼小提琴比赛金奖时，吕思情显得很淡然，他说：得奖是一件好事，但是更重要的是，得奖以后你的音乐潜能能否继续发挥出来。成功不在一时，而在一生。 与许多获得过帕格尼尼大赛奖项的演奏家一样，吕思清并不太想成为专门演奏帕格尼尼的专家。他希望能呈现更多样化的音乐给观众。他现在的曲目涵盖了巴洛克、古典、浪漫时期、以及现代的作品。例如在今年5月，他在波兰就演奏了当代作曲家谭盾的《英雄小提琴协奏曲》。” |
| ||||
| 超值票价享受维也纳爱乐系列音乐会 9月2日起，享誉国际的顶级乐团——维也纳爱乐乐团的弦乐声部音乐家们将登陆广州，连续三个月在星海音乐厅为广州观众献上三场形式与格调各异的系列音乐会：弦乐四重奏音乐会、乐团首席独奏专场、六把大提琴音乐会。共十七人的阵容里面包括了辉煌的维也纳爱乐乐团曾任及现任的小提琴首席、中提琴首席、大提琴首席共四人。他们此次中国之行，将陆续在广东省星海音乐厅、深圳音乐厅、国家大剧院登场，其中在广州的音乐会更是打出“高品位低票价”的口号，以飧向来重视品质的广州观众。 系列之一 “弦乐四重奏音乐会”将是星海音乐厅八月整修后的首场重量级音乐会。1999年维也纳爱乐乐团的第一小提琴丹尼尔•弗洛绍成立了Arista Trio三重奏，在国内外取得巨大成功并录制CD。2007年丹尼尔•弗咯绍在三重奏的基础上发展为弦乐四重奏，通过经典的曲目和精湛高超的演技向观众展示海顿，莫扎特，贝多芬的作品。 |
| ||||
| 今晨大雨到来！上星期门头沟区的书记就连夜值班，北京要密切关注门头沟、房山、密云的山上下来的泥石流。 |
| ||||
| 在一個電台清談節目上，一個媽媽的分享： 她很喜歡音樂，但是在兒時沒有機會學琴，所以及希望於孩子身上——當然也認為對孩子日後的生活學習上有好處。 因此搭上了很多金錢與時間來讓其女學琴;到處打探以找“名師”上課，威逼利誘女兒每日練琴，參加各種比賽。。。 到末了兒，女兒終於通過了最高一級的鋼琴考試。當其女拿到了證書後，把它交到了媽媽手上，說：這個考試我是為你而考的，證書也是你想要的，我也幫你得到了。從今以後你也別再逼我練琴了！我要準備上大學了。 自此之後，她的女兒對鋼琴是一個指頭也不會碰一下（我想對音樂也是絕了緣分嘍），並且母女之間的關係一直不好。。。 你作為一個音樂愛好者、家長、孩子、老師與學生怎麼來看這個個案？ |
| ||
| 这个孩子上大学以后，看到周围的同学喜欢音乐。慢慢地她也会喜欢，也会弹琴，会感激她妈妈的！ |
| ||
| 童年的影响会延续一生。 |
| ||||
| 我的作品第二季， 持续上新ing |
| ||
| SAY OF THE OLD Close your eyes Let the time fly You’ll be old soon Then the only thing is to walk the street with your love In a sunny morning of summer As I follow him, follow up He knows my speed He knows where to go, Where to get something new And where to try the tasty I know the price anyway I know how to spend nicely This world now behind me is far away. It’s like a fishy story of my past fellow It’s like the long-ago childhood of my own You know my love has grown into a bellied gnome And our old house has changed into a drawing on walls What can I expect for now? The youth with sadness? And his dream of conquering love? Again this world, now behind me, is strange. It’s like a drowsy state of ecstasy Or a foreign magazine you’ll just glance over quickly. You know my love’s hair has turned so gray That one of my classmates has become a figure in history What on earth can I expect for now? Now the dead is busy Now the nuts is free |
| ||
| 妹子，作诗不能赶走寂寞的 maybe 作爱... |
| ||
| BE ONE OF THOSE Lies are everywhere Nobody tells the truth They’re afraid of the truth They know they’ll be punished for it But who are they? What they did was horrible They have to do everything to cover up However, the world is wide, Chance is random, God is forgiving, And my love is young So it takes time But what is it? But it will surely come You’ll believe it if you are father and mother You’ll believe it if you are brother and sister Even though you don’t know God Whom you haven’t ever heard of Just look at your sky and your river Just look around the city and see the people All of them tell Let’s join in those who wait Or watch along with those who watch Let’s hide up inside the music Or talk with each other malicious hearsay Let’s be one of those loud As well as those quiet Let’s be one of those rich As well as those poor |
| ||
| Lies are not everywhere Somebody tells the truth They’re not afraid of the truth Even though They know they’ll be punished for it |
| ||
| Don't look at the sky Don't look at the river Look at the net here God is being used as a mask Let's learn from Bush Let's clear rubbish Use your hand When you see dirty mind |
| ||
| God is using as a mask: God is being used as a mask |
  |
第1/5页 | 下一页 直接去第 页 |
|
本主页基于1024X768分辨率制作，建议使用IE、小字体获得最佳浏览效果
|
