總瀏覽量

2011年4月26日 星期二

Music Theory Workshop -- 後浪漫風格和聲彙語的研究

致各同學,朋友:


梁 sir 現定於五月十一日開辦一個新的中高等程度和聲理論課程,詳程請看下面課程簡介。

如有興趣報讀的同學們,可以給我 一個 confirmative email,留下通訊方法。如果有足夠同學人數可以開課,我會 send 給你們一個 學員備忘通知。就算以前就某一個課程已留下 email 的同學,因現在是一個新課程,所以也請大家再留一次,以作安排。一般來說,我是不會打擾大家的。如果想進修一下 harmony 和分析樂曲的知識,這些不用趕考試的課程是很適宜的。

謝謝!

梁 sir





Music Theory Workshop 後浪漫風格的和聲彙語研究


這個課程旨在幫助學員進一步掌握調性和聲 (Tonal Harmony) 在十九世紀中後期,在各大師的音樂作品中之運用。眾所週知,由於十九世紀的作曲家為了表達含高度浪漫精神和獨特的個人風格,就在其作品中大量運用變化和絃 (Chromatic Harmony) 和遠系轉調,使傳統的和聲彙語不斷擴張,導致作品的調性面臨瓦解。雖然這樣產生了不少優美感人的樂曲,可是,也同時使一般音樂愛好者由於大師們的音樂語言的艱澀,以致未能理解其樂曲的原貌精神,以及背後蘊藏的深厚意義。這個課程的設計,就是基於要了解樂曲原貌這個基礎意義,跟學員以 workshop  即工作坊的學習方式,以數個有代表性的浪漫風格音樂大師們的作品為研究樂例,去探討他們個人獨特和聲的語彙與創作技巧,掀開這些樂曲的神秘面紗。

再者,經梁 sir 教學多年的觀察,學員在八級樂理課程中學過初級和聲學後,只忙於應付各種樂理考試,如八級樂理或 AMusTCL等,根本沒有靜下來消化其學得的和聲理論知識,看看它如何運用在解釋個別大師的音樂作品上。這種學習方式除了能拿一張證書或文憑外,對了解音樂和享受其美,沒有太大幫助。因此,這個課程是希望學員從分析作品的過程中,學到如何運用其學過的和聲概念和分析技巧,去對作品作一個有意義的詮釋,從以提高他們對音樂的認識和鑑賞能力。梁 sir 會引導學員在每一課堂上運用一至兩個技巧去分析和詮釋指定的樂曲或其片段,以此作為研究例證,並輔以 CD / mp3 的音樂作聆聽和思考之用。

課程題目包括:

1.    Enharmonic Modulations By Using Chromatic Harmony
2.    Diatonic Sequence and Chromatic Sequence
3.    Further  Expansion of the Harmonic Vocabulary
4.    Chords and Progressions in Special Situations
5.    Tonal Harmonic Vocabulary in the Late Nineteenth Century
6.    Color and Drama in Composition: Modal Mixture and Chromatic Mediant and Submediants
7.    Tonal and Harmonic Ambiguity
8.    Neo-Tonality: Impressionism
9.    Learning from the Masters: Chopin and Schumann
10.  Learning from the Masters: Brahms and Debussy

全個課程.: 共十課,每課 2 小時

上課時間7:45pm -- 9:45pm

上課日期: May 11, 2011 (Wednesday)

上課地點: 旺角,通菜街,威達商業大廈,408 室。(請參閱右方地圖)

人數: 5 至 8 人 (小組)

講授語言 : 粵語及英語

2011年4月21日 星期四

論音樂理論與數學的關係

前言: 究竟音樂理論與數學是否有直接關係? 有很多同學做和聲習作時,根本不聆聽音響,而 是在計數。可是,老師就會在這時大大禁止他們這樣做。同學們就算計數做對了和聲答案,也不算甚麼。可是在音樂理論的研究裡,數學是否沒有任何地位? 如果是有,也是甚麼呢? 以下的閱讀文章評論,相信可以簡易的提出了答案。

正文:


Music Theory and Mathematics

The story of Pythagorean’s discovering the mathematical ratios illustrates not only the establishment of the underlying the science of harmonics but also a frame of reference in music-theoretical thought in the association between music and number. Indeed the relationship between music theory and mathematical models is not through number alone but through the more fundamental notions of universality and truth embedded in Pythagorean and Platonic mathematics and philosophy that one best begin to apprehend the broad range of interrelationships between music theory and mathematics. Catherine Nolan discusses such a relationship in several perspectives of topics, including numerical models, geometric imagery, combinatorics, set theory and group theory and transformational theory in this article.

The article is set out in the discussion of Pythagoreanism in two aspects: numbers are constituent elements of reality and numbers and their rations provide the key to explaining the order of nature and the universe. Nevertheless, central to Pythagorean mathematics is a theory of ratio, the relation of two quantities, and a theory of proportion, the relation of two or more ratios. These theories explain musical intervals in terms of ratios and combinations of ratios, correlating music theory with acoustic science. Through the ratios the dissonant intervals are computed in relation to the consonances.

The rich implications of Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy and mathematics, r4atios and magnitudes and their geometric representation, governed the science of music from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. Ratio and proportion indeed are understood today in the form of algebraic terms. But they were conceived in Greek mathematics as a close association of arithmetic and geometry epitomized by proportional relations of lengths of vibrating strings. Pythagorean’s notion of ratio and numbers thus developed the diatonic tuning which was a music theory remained virtually unchallenged until the fifteen-century. In the monograph Le istitutioni harmoniche (1558), for example, Zarlino, a well-known Renaissance music theorist, appealed to this number theory for theoretical justification of the imperfect and perfect consonances.

While the representation of musical intervals through numbers has undoubtedly been most important to music theory, other kinds of mathematical models have also been adopted. This is the notion of geometric images which is used as heuristic devices to conceptualize music theory from number and proportion to logical and spatial representations of relations. Boethius, for example, utilized geometric figures, ideal universal shapes constructed mainly of lines, circles and arcs, to illustrate harmonic rations and divisions of the monochord. This seminal music theory indeed covered a long tradition extending back from Boethius and early medieval of monochord tunings of engaging geometric space to represent harmonic space to Descartes and the  seventeenth-century Enlightenment of formulating a coordinate system and analytical geometry in La geometrie. However, another important mathematical branch, Combinatorics, which concerned with numeration, grouping and arrangements of elements in finite collections or sets, almost came parallel with the development of Descartes’ notion of analytical geometry in the same period. The mathematical combinatorics appeared in the form of ars combinatorial inspired numerous discourses on rational methods of musical composition by a variety of authors of theoretical treatises and practical manuals. Kirnberger, for example, described compositional decision-making by selection, using chance procedures from the total compilation of permutations of a given unit such as melodic or rhythmic figure or a two-part melodic-harmonic module. Thus, from the above discussion, music theory developed in relation to mathematical numbers, ratios and geometric imagery throughout the history was inextricably associated with the development of western science and humanism and rationalism in western culture.

The mainstream of music theory in relation to mathematics in the Modern period was undoubtedly the concept of Set theory, which was initiated by Milton Babbitt and Allen Forte. The algebraic structures of set theory and group theory are designed to explain harmonic innovations in the refractory repertoire of post-tonal music and extend to theoretical studies of other musical parameters and harmonic languages of systems. Even in the present academic field of music theory, there is a growing number of mathematicians and theorists continuing to explore and generalize the algebraic structure of the diatonic system and scales or tonal systems of disparate origins, ranging from diatonic or microtonal scale systems to medieval or non-Western modal systems. Furthermore, the music theorist David Lewin expounded a series of profound treatises, Generalized Musical Intervals and Transformations, in 1987 was also an important concept of mathematical music theory. His GIS covered a delineation of a formal space consisting of three elements: a set of musical objects, a mathematical group of generalized intervals and a function that maps all possible pairs of objects in the system into the group of intervals. Lewin’s model creates a transformation network recasting the role of generalized intervals, modeling actions upon or motions between objects, and is termed as “Transformation Theory”.

Therefore, mathematics brings to music theory not only the technical means to perform measurements and computations and the statistical means to correlate data, but also the conceptual means, symbols and vocabulary need in order to model musical relations of various kinds and to delineate levels of abstraction. The diversity of music theories developed throughout the western history, undoubtedly, tells the fact that from the ancient Greek to the postmodern present, the studies of numbers, ratios, sets, geometries are all inseparable from music and its related concepts. As such, to regard music theory as a fundamental mathematical paradigm is to enhance our understanding of one of the most abstract form of arts (music) in the world with a rather rational process – mathematical reasoning. In this sense, hearing music is no longer an irrational aesthetic process, which has also been the core of our understanding of music for many centuries in the western history of music.


David Leung (theorydavid)

2011-04-22 (published)

2011年4月16日 星期六

是音樂的分析,還是描寫,究竟這是甚麼?

前言: 我們動不動就聽到人說音樂分析。他們分析了這段樂曲的和絃運用,label 了chord 的 symbol 之後,就說我分析了這段音樂。考樂理試的學員又常要做所謂的音樂分析題。究竟怎樣才算是好的音樂分析?  label 了 chord 之後,是否算是做了音樂分析呢? 身為音樂理論學者的 Dubiel,就這個問題,坦誠的跟讀者討論。以下就是我讀過這篇文章後的讀後感。


 正文:


Analysis, Descriptive, and What Really Happens?

Although there is a clear distinction between musical analysis and musical description in the present theoretical discourses, Dubiel’s talk seems to narrow this distinction, and make an alternative, or to extend the scope, of musical analysis. Dubiel uses two examples to demonstrate that a new conception of the piece can change the evaluation and the way of listening to and understanding of the piece. Different in sound is the result of a different in conception. This is why Dubiel suggests that a new conception of what the music is doing is to some degree a new conception of what music can do. The power of thought about music can determine what music is. For Dubiel, to analyze a piece of music means “to explain how it should be heard, and to explain how a given musical event should be heard on must show why it occurs: what preceding events have made it necessary or appropriate, toward what later events its function is to lead”. This explanation has to be teleological, empirical, and audible. Any meta-analytical framework should be avoided in musical analysis.

In most cases, I believe that what Dubiel suggests is the true musical experience in many listeners. However, to me, the so-called “conception” that Dubiel suggests is a “perspective” of listening. It works something like lenses. All theories just works similar to various lenses – anthropological, philosophical, linguistic, ethical, social, queer, aesthetical, political, formal, and so forth – through which a musical work may appropriately be listened, and by appropriately I mean to limit the range of lenses to those for which some good justification based in the work itself may be found. Applying various lenses to musical work is for analyzing purpose, in order to uncover the values of that analyzed piece.

Therefore, Dubiel’s teleological theory of music is a kind of reception theory. Since music theory covers a large variety of different kinds, what is a successful theory will very depend on how far this theory can successfully offer listeners a new perspective and understanding of the musical work. If the theory can lead us go “beyond” our understanding of the work, no matter it helps in audible aspect, or compositional aspect, or even the structural aspect, I believe, this is a good and successful music theory, since it uncover the intrinsic and hidden values of that musical art-work.

David Leung (theorydavid)

2011-04-16 (published)

2011年4月12日 星期二

從香港國際現代音樂節 2002的閉幕音樂會看香港未來藝術文化的政策

前言: 這一篇樂評,雖說是舊作,但我所提出,及所擔心的問題,在今天 2011 年的香港音樂界裡,仍是隱隱可見。難道自由創作的風氣,真的是隨著回歸而告終? 希望各音樂界同工,能從這篇文章反思一下自身的創作立場。謝謝!




從香港國際現代音樂節 2002的閉幕音樂會看香港未來藝術文化的政策


最近,文化委員會發表了一份關於未來香港文化藝術發展的文件,名為諮詢文件2002,其中提出了香港未來的文化定位,並且指出所有香港的藝術發展應在中華文化的基礎上進行創作,以確立香港人對民族文化和其中華民族身份的認同,這才應該是香港未來藝術發展的主要方向。可是,這項建議,卻引起了各界藝術工作者的擔憂。如果政府的定位政策得以落實,這可能影響了藝術創作的自由。因為大部份的支助將會由於中華文化身份認同這個政策的緣故,落在那些只與中國文化有關的藝術創作身上,而忽略了開拓國際視野,發展多元化的藝術,及建立香港本土自已獨特的藝術文化,並違背了創作自由這個基本的藝術原則。香港現代音樂的發展,也因這份諮詢文件,而難以獨善其身。


究竟政府應該為香港未來文化藝術的發展定位與否,實在頗具爭議。然而,在十月十九日晚,香港中樂團在大會堂音樂廳,為香港國際現代音樂節 2002而演出的一場閉幕音樂會中,卻給了我們一個關於未來香港現代音樂創作,或藝術發展的定位問題的啟示。


在這場音樂會裏,全部六首作品的作曲家都是接受西方音樂技巧的訓練。他們自已的創作也大部份是以西方現代音樂為主。可是,他們這次卻為中樂團寫作中國風格的音樂。當然,筆者在這裏,並不是要討論他們的作品是否能成功表現出中華民族的音樂風格; 可是,無可否認的是,這六首作品都是以中國,或民族文化為基礎而創作的。作曲家都自發地嘗試將一些中國音樂,或民族文化的元素放進他們的現代音樂創作裏面,表現出承先啟後的創作精神。例如,林樂培的問蒼天,他用的是聖詠序曲的曲體,雖屬於一種西方的音樂曲體,但音樂的古樂器聲,調子,卻是古氣盎然,充滿中華民族遠祖的風采。聽眾是很難否認作品中的中國元素。


另一首由羅永輝創作的現代中國音樂作品潑墨仙人,就更能表現出作品是含有中華文化的元素在內。這首作品的琵琶部份,很明顯是從一些古琵琶曲,如武曲,十面埋伏的演奏方式移植借用過來的。而琵琶與樂隊的組合,卻以現代音樂的手法,利用聲響去捕捉潑墨仙人這幅畫的藝術精神,及古人的飄逸情懷。毫無疑問,羅氏的這個音樂創作,也表現出他自覺地從中國文化的基礎上,去進行其現代音樂的藝術創作。


至於鐘耀光的永恆之城和郭文景的滇西土風兩首,可說是完全植根於中國及民族民化的基礎上而寫作的。永恆之城是21 世紀香港中樂團國際作曲大賽的冠軍作品。音樂處處能揉合西方現代的作曲技巧和傳統的中樂元素,是一首典形的中國現代音樂創作。而部文景的滇西土風兩首則是取材於中國的小數民族的音樂元素,去創作一首全新的音樂作品。這也是中樂團的委約作品。由於音樂材料是現成的民族音樂元素,這更能體現作曲家在從事現代音樂創作時,對於繼承中國民族音樂特點的重視。


說到陳明志的刮風的日子,雖然全曲的寫作手法相當西方音樂式的前衛,以音層性的音響為主,不似是以中國文化為基礎的創作; 但是,聽眾不要忘記,這首作品卻探索了中國傅統樂器的各種演奏技巧的可能性,拓展了民族樂器在現代音樂中的表現。這首音樂作品,也算是承傳於中華文化的一項現代發展。


因此,藉著回顧這一場音樂會裏的各首音樂作品,我們不難發現,在華人作曲家的音樂創作裏,是有一隻無形的手在背後調節著他們的藝術創作方向,亦即是他們的藝術文化的定位。 他們無論是出於有意,或是無意,華人音樂創作者都會探索,寫作一些與他們的民族文化身份認同的音樂藝術創作,他們不約而同的植根於中國音樂的傳統,從而探索現在,發展將來。他們大都相信,成功的現代音樂創作,或多或少都跟自已的民族文化有關。他們絕對樂於把中華民族,或傳統文化有關的音樂元素,融合在自已的音樂創作裏。所以,對於香港未來的現代音樂藝術發展方向,實在不需要文化委員會以,甚麼文化身份認同,或是甚麼中華文化的基礎上發展香港的藝術文化作為定位的政策。這種過度強調,缺乏闡釋及監管的指引方式,常常因用白紙黑字記錄下來而成為了硬性規條。很多時候,這些所為指引更很容易被一些不懂藝術的官員所濫用,或個人政治性的取向的影響,造成了創作自由被扼殺的嚴重後果。這難怪當諮詢文件一推出,就引起了香港藝術工作者,包括作曲家們的擔憂。恐怕我們本來多姿多彩,各種各色的的現代音樂花園,會因政府政策的間接拑制,變成了只能孤芳自賞,只擁有單一種花的音樂花園。這是香港現代音樂的悲哀,也是香港整體藝術文化的悲哀。


所以,政府與其發出指引,變成了變相干預了香港未來文化藝術的自由發展,不如讓藝術創作上這隻 無形的手去自行發揮作用,適當地調節著作曲者自已的藝術文化定位與取向。我們深信,這隻 無形的手會像經濟學上,阿當史密斯所論到的供求定律一樣,會給予香港現代音樂,一個自由的創作空間或 市場,從而發展一種既植根於中華文化的基礎上,但又屬於香港自已的獨特音樂藝術文化的創作。再者,我們不應忘記,香港已經回歸了,成為中國領土的一部份。無論香港的藝術文化發展成怎麼樣子,就算是不中不西,或是中西合壁,也是屬於我們中華民族,或是中國藝術文化的一個不可分割的部份,所有的音樂創作和各類的藝術,根本無須刻意地作民族身份的認同。


因以,政府應放棄以中國,或民族文化為主位中心,去為香港未來藝術文化而定位的建議,讓各項藝術的創作,包括現代音樂的創作,在這隻自由的 無形的手中繼續自由運作,順其自然地發展。不然的話,這個所謂藝術文化定位的指引,就只會變成另一隻 無形的手,不是調節,而是在背後操控,為香港未來藝術的發展,帶來了一場無可挽回的嚴重災難。

David Leung (theorydavid)
2002 (published in In-school Journal)
2011-04-12 (re-published)

2011年4月7日 星期四

聆聽 -- 透視音樂理論的一個層面

前言: 身為一位音樂理論的導師,我一直都很喜歡探究 music theory 如何與聆聽扣上關係。這個題目也有很多知名的研究學者發表過有影響力的文章。當然我這個入們漢也不想在這裡班門弄斧。所以,我這篇文章只算是評論這些大師的研究心得,讓有興趣的讀者對這題目有些了解。

正文:


Perception: A Perspective from Music Theory

Music and cognitive psychology seem to be inseparable. Since music is for listening, it involves human perception. On the one hand, musicians aim to discover the musical structure to gain better interpretation and understanding of actual compositions. On the other hand, cognitive psychologists tend to be more interested in exploring mental theories of how musical events may be perceived. But does music theory and music analysis relate to cognitive science? Nicholas Cook’s article attempts to distinguish the discipline of music theory from that of cognitive psychology. According to Cook, they are radically two different branches of study. He blames that cognitive or information theory places too much emphasis on psychoacoustical studies but overlooks the meaning and cultural value of music. Cook argues that there are potential pitfalls in applying general psychological theories to music without taking into account what listeners actually hear, and why. Listeners usually do not listen to music according to large-scale structures. In addition, Cook points out that studies on the recognition of intervals, chord progressions, and key centers are merely tests of ear training, but not to be considered as the significance of music.

Although cognitive experiments have been carried out attempting to prove that untrained listeners do not listen to music in the same way that musicians do, and what matters to them is not the same as what matters to music theorists. However, according to Cook, these experiments only reflect that interviewers’ responses are mainly a matter of playing game of language. The finding that the musicians and non-musicians are not bound by the same rule in listening is not an adequate basis for saying anything about how they perceive music in their own ways. 

Cook also asserts that the next question showing the fallacy of cognitive theory of music is that no listeners tend to hear the tonal structure of music. Of course, there are a few exceptions to this. Composers, sometimes, would pay attention to the tonal structure of a composition. Milton Babbit, was being told in a story, that he could hear in his first time of the wrongly performed tone-row series in a serial composition. Boulez’s enigmatic tone-row series in Le Marteau is also another example to show the weakness of cognitive theory of music. Compositional grammar designed by Boulez is more or less different from listening grammar enhanced by listeners. If the composition is atonal, its tonal structure is less to be considered by general listeners. On the contrary, Cook’s experiment shows that the compositions by tonal composers have more psychological effects on the listeners and they can hear the change of tonal areas in the work. However, the radical question remains: do listeners hear the large-scale tonal structure of a work? Music theory seems to possess a hierarchy of analytical system in music: large-scale and smaller-scale analysis. However, Meyer criticizes such a hierarchy of analytical theory in music. The so-called deepest level of Schenkerian structure, the Ursatz, is simply an abstraction. It, perhaps, does not exist in perception.

Applying linguistic theory to analyze music, according to Cook, is also problematic. Grammar by definition is a finite set of rules that will generate all and only well-formed sentences in a given language. Music works do not possess unalterable set of rules in nature. We may often hear someone claims that Bach always broke the rules or rules are made by man, not man by rule. Hence composers always show no interests in following compositional rules. As a result, there are many factors that militate against the usefulness of explaining music in terms of strict grammars. Even though purporting to analyze musical sound, the transformational theory of music, as Cook claims, is better treated as a game of ear-training for musicians, rather than a real psychological perception of music.

In short, although Cook points out that there is a pitfall of mistranslation of different theories from different disciplines into music theory, he hasn’t suggested an infallible theory of music that can bind musical sound, psychological cognition and cultural parameters together. It is widely known that musical meaning is not confined to psychological cognition or political and socio-cultural associations solely. Different theories can more or less improve our understanding of music in a particular aspect. No matter developing theories from linguistic, scientific, acoustic, psychological, transformational, rhetorical, cultural, topical or aesthetic disciplines, each successful theory can contribute to the understanding of one of the most abstract form of art, music, in the world.

David Leung (theorydavid)

2011-04-07 (published)

2011年4月4日 星期一

玩盡規則 -- 在寫作上應用修辭手法 -- 陳 sir 的一個有意思的回應

前言: 早前收到 Spencer Chan 的一個回應,覺得很有見地。 而且,他提及一部有關新詩寫作的新書。近日,我也收到蕭才子的簡單回應。查實我還以為他像 BT一樣消聲匿跡,早已忘記到我的網誌流灠。我想他是詩人,可能有看過這本新書,所以順道在這裡將陳 sir 的回應文章轉載,希望與各位朋友分享一下玩盡規則的樂趣。


正文:

Spencer Chan 已針對您的文章「玩盡規則 -- 在寫作上應用修辭手法」留下新意見:

我的一位詩人朋友陳永康先生曾說過:語文要學的是「規範」,而文學要學的,是怎樣去「犯規」。這個文字gag 實在是一針見血。
語文的目的是溝通,只要讀者能看得明,那便無需再有其他額外的要求了。但文學呢?若只達到溝通目的的話,還未觸及到文學的邊皮。
但「犯規」其實都有其「規範」的,若無止境的「犯規」,連最基本與讀者交流的作用都失效的話,這個「犯規」便是一個嚴重的破壞了。當然,有時,無止境的犯規都可表達一種藝術姿態,John Cage 的 4'33"就是一個很好的例子了。
怎樣在「規範」之中「犯規」並帶有個人印記,正就是最考工夫的地方。很多人自以為只要將一段文字柝散成一行行便是懂寫新詩,這就是一個天大的誤解。就正因為這個原因,新詩看似人人都懂得寫,但不是個個可以成為詩人。
在「犯規」與「規範」之間遊走,跟Leung Sir 在這篇文章所說的,實在有異曲同工之妙。是一個工匠(或技師)還是藝術家,就看他在rules 之上還可以怎樣雕花,怎樣加入個人印記了。
Leung sir 這兩篇文章實在寫得好,讀者若能用心地看,必能獲益良多。
(容許我在這裡賣一個廣告,上面提及的那位詩人朋友陳永康的新作「新詩讀寫基本法」已經出版(匯智出版社出版),這是我所知的第一本系統介紹新詩的讀寫方法的一本著作,實在難得,值得推介!)

轉載自陳 sir 的回應文章

2011-04-03

2011年4月1日 星期五

Music Theory Workshop -- 後浪漫風格的和聲語研究

致各同學,朋友:

梁 sir 準備在五月開辦一個新的中等程度和聲理論課程,詳細請看下面課程簡介。如有興趣報讀的同學們,可以先給我 email 一個,留下通訊方法。如果有足夠同學人數可以開課,我會跟大家進一步聯絡。就算以前就某一個課程已留下 email 的同學,因現在是一個新課程,所以也請大家再留一次,以作安排。一般來說,我是不會打擾大家的。如果想進修一下 harmony 和分析樂曲的知識,這些不用趕考試的課程是很適宜的。

謝謝!

梁 sir





Music Theory Workshop 後浪漫風格的和聲匯語研究


這個課程旨在幫助學員進一步掌握調性和聲 (Tonal Harmony) 在十九世紀中後期,在各大師的音樂作品中之運用。眾所週知,由於十九世紀的作曲家為了表達含高度浪漫精神和獨特的個人風格,就在其作品中大量運用變化和絃 (Chromatic Harmony) 和遠系轉調,使傳統的和聲語不斷擴張,導致作品的調性面臨瓦解。雖然這樣產生了不少優美感人的樂曲,可是,也同時使一般音樂愛好者由於大師們的音樂語言的艱澀,以致未能理解其樂曲的原貌精神,以及背後蘊藏的深厚意義。這個課程的設計,就是基於要了解樂曲原貌這個基礎意義,跟學員以 workshop  即工作坊的學習方式,以數個有代表性的浪漫風格音樂大師們的作品為研究樂例,去探討他們個人獨特和聲的語與創作技巧,掀開這些樂曲的神秘面紗。

再者,經梁 sir 教學多年的觀察,學員在八級樂理課程中學過初級和聲學後,只忙於應付各種樂理考試,如八級樂理或 AMusTCL等,根本沒有靜下來消化其學得的和聲理論知識,看看它如何運用在解釋個別大師的音樂作品上。這種學習方式除了能拿一張證書或文憑外,對了解音樂和享受其美,沒有太大幫助。因此,這個課程是希望學員從分析作品的過程中,學到如何運用其學過的和聲概念和分析技巧,去對作品作一個有意義的詮釋,從以提高他們對音樂的認識和鑑賞能力。梁 sir 會引導學員在每一課堂上運用一至兩個技巧去分析和詮釋指定的樂曲或其片段,以此作為研究例證,並輔以 CD / mp3 的音樂作聆聽和思考之用。

課程題目包括:

1.    Enharmonic Modulations By Using Chromatic Harmony
2.    Diatonic Sequence and Chromatic Sequence
3.    Further  Expansion of the Harmonic Vocabulary
4.    Chords and Progressions in Special Situations
5.    Tonal Harmonic Vocabulary in the Late Nineteenth Century
6.    Color and Drama in Composition: Modal Mixture and Chromatic Mediant and Submediants
7.    Tonal and Harmonic Ambiguity
8.    Neo-Tonality: Impressionism
9.    Learning from the Masters: Chopin and Schumann
10. Learning from the Masters: Brahms and Debussy

全個課程.: 共十課,每課 2 小時

上課時間: May 4, 2011 (Wednesday)

上課地點: 旺角,通菜街,威達商業大廈,408 室。(請參閱右方地圖)

人數: 5 至 7 人 (小組)

講授語言 : 粵語及英語