21st Century Ideas and Institution -- 論廿一紀的思想與制度

前言: 二十一世紀已經開始了，可是，人類的前途如何呢? 我們有很多尖端的科技，但人類如何才能借助他們的發明去造福人類本身。且看看以下十年前寫的一篇短文章。

正文:

21^st Century Ideas and Institution

Undoubtedly, we are benefiting from the achievements of Western reason in the form of science and natural human rights. In our days, we are having basic freedom to vote, to choose religion, to live in a particular way. Also, we are appreciating in using the computers, the planes, and the electronic appliances. Actually, these are the products of the Western civilization. From Renaissance up to present, ideas and institutions of the freedom to think, to reason emerges as the exemplary civilization to the whole world. However, it is undeniable to assert that on one hand, we are now enjoying the prosperity and abundance from the improvement in material conditions and advanced technology, and at least, in most of the places of the world, we are having certain human freedoms that purse us the happiness that are came from the contribution of the freedom of thinking, but on the other hand, the domestic problems, social problems and political problems are still making our life more and more difficult. Wars and nations’ slaughter, racial discrimination, political unstable, social inequality, pollutions, crimes and conflicts between religions and different races are breaking the harmony and peace of the world, as well as the society. Therefore, we are benefiting from the achievements of Western reason in the forms of freedom and scientific technology, but at the same time, we are suffering from them.

In order to find out the effective solution to the problems of the mankind, it is very important to examine how the institutions and ideas that provide for freedom and advancement in material conditions came about and understand the nature and the limit of this ‘freedom’.

We can retrace to the Renaissance period, also called the Age of reason, in the Western history in which the formation of the idea of freedom reasoning first evoked and continued to shape the modern concepts of freedom in nowadays.

In the period of Renaissance, human became a valuable object again. Francis Bacon, 1561-1626, claimed a new way of thinking. This was the first step to let the mankind using his freedom of reasoning to recognize the world. He insisted on the inductive method and knowledge was gained from observation of what could be seen. Men then could learn from what they experienced, not only what they were told, especially by the Church as in the Middle Age.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650), on the other hand, advanced the principle of deductive method in his Discourse on Method. The trade mark, ‘I think, therefore I exist’, became the beginning of the unlimited freedom of reasoning in a rational world of mankind.

The unlimited thinking privilege not only contributed to the academic disciplines and institutions, but also brought a great impact on the scientific and political field.

The freedom of thinking made the chance for Hobbes to claim that absolute monarchy was essential to the people because human nature was not good. But on the other hand, John Locke preached a constitutional government, a government that was based on the consent of the governed. His two treatises of Government provided the basis for American revolutionary thinking a century later. He also claimed that human understanding was the result of the environment on the mind. Men and women were not limited by circumstances of their births, as proclaimed by Plato and Descartes. The mind could know anything and be taught to go in any direction by the environment, education, and experience. The day for the people to claim for their political, social and individual freedom was near.

In the scientific field, freedom of reasoning assisted Newton to discovery the laws of the physical world and this had shown the infinite capacity of the human mind, given it the key to the mastery of nature, and opened the possibility of solving social problems and creating a much better world.

Not more than a century’s time, from these basic assumptions Rousseau had come to the conclusion that all existing institutions under absolute monarchy of the ancient regime were against the laws of nature, hence should be removed. Montesquieu’s idea of separation of powers in government, and Thomas Jefferson’s American Declaration of Independence which announced the natural rights of people to choose their own government to maintain their life, the liberty and the happiness that brought to the western world were two important revolutions, the French revolution and the American Independent revolution. The first constitutional government was then born. The power of freedom of thinking, again, showed its influential power.

The effect of the Enlightenment intellectuals was obvious. In the 19^th century, and idea of Romanticism arouse. Romanticism sought to preserve the freedom and dignity of the individual that the Reformation and the Enlightenment had started, the former on religious and the latter o scientific grounds. During the 2^nd half of the 19^th century, faith in the power of natural science spread to many people. Science was at the bottom of the entire movement of industrialization. Science was touching each individual life. There was the railroad, followed by the steamship, the telegraph, and the telephone. In medicine there was anaesthesia, and X-ray. Chemistry was giving such benefits as fertilizer, enabling and ensuring harvests. All these underlying changes were based on those of Newton’s ideas. The law of gravitation was not changed. The ultimate nature of the universe was thought to be regular orderly, predictable and harmonious. It was timeless, in the sense that unlike human development, the universe did not changed.

However, in the late 19^th century, the unlimited reasoning rights, which formerly were the benefits, but brought a new hazard to the humankind. Darwin’s theory of evolution, although has no direct attack on Church, it denied the creation of God probably. Social Darwinism came into being as social scientists began to translate his idea of the survival to the fittest into the area of human behavior. This promoted the new imperialism in the worldwide, and the hierarchic conflict in the politics. Another example of abuse of freedom in thinking could be found in the ideas of Herder and Nietzche. The former proclaimed the racial superiority of the German nations and broke down the sense of human similarity which had been the characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, as revealed in French and American doctrines of the ‘rights of man’, and again in the codes of Napoleon while the latter announced that the God had died and thus, demolished the modern order of politics and moral, abolished the issue of Jefferson and his colleagues that the political rights were the gift of God. All political, religious, moral restraints were removed in order to achieve the so-called ‘freedom’. This was the crisis of the whole human civilization.

Nowadays, the effect of the unrestraint freedom of the ideas and thinking are devastating. Confronting the mankind are the ceaselessly ethnic conflict and disunity. Movements, reformations and revolutions occur elsewhere. The consequences of the victory of the freedom of reason are enormously horrible. If all the religious and traditional moral values are removed, the freedom becomes unlimited and uncontrollable. Before the human’s self destruction occurs, it is the time for us to revalue the virtue of the traditional values. To the Chinese people, the Confucian ideas of love, and the five relationships lead us to a more harmonious and peaceful society. To the Western people, the charitable Christianity should be revalued. These are the real, valuable roots of the civilization of mankind. Only through these positive re-examinations, we can recognize the true nature of freedom, that is, it is relative, not absolute. It should be restrained. Then, human can fully benefit from the achievements of freedom in form of science and liberty, forever.

David Leung (theorydavid)

2011-09-17 (published)

The Music I Love To Hate -- 我會討厭的音樂

前言: 這個題目很奇怪。這是我一直想寫的一個題目。但為了typing 方便，我還是選擇了寫英文。雖然我知道，讀者大都喜歡看中文。這個題目，其實是有點似小學生作文的題目 : 我的志願 。不過，我卻選擇了反面的寫作方向，就是選了我喜歡會去討厭的音樂 (按照英文直譯過來的意思)。是不是所有音樂都是藝術作品呢? 本人認為不是。有些音樂作品，在我的劃分裡，不算是藝術作品。究其原因，也離不開從其意義和功能去作參巧而定下來的。是不是這類音樂不算是藝術作品，還是請讀者自行作決定好了。

正文:

Topic: The Music I Love to Hate       

 

A proverb says, “one man’ s meat is another man’s poison’. It is very true that the taste of man is different from one another. This can happen in food, in fashion or even in music. However, if you like one piece of music, you may have some reasons for it. You may be attracted by its charming melody, its exciting rhythm, or some other non-musical reasons, such as, the underlying ideas of that piece of music. The music that you hate, likewise, may also have some reasons for it. To me, there is one kind of music that I really love to hate. This kind of music is the music that is written for political propaganda.

We all agree that an artwork usually possess certain ideas and thoughts concealed within. Sometimes, this is called motivation or the inspiration of the artist. Similarly in music, a composer often wants to express something, perhaps his ideas, personal affection, or even only his favorite musical sound through his music. His duty is to transform all these abstract ideas and feelings accurately into concrete musical sound in a logical and understandable way through the creative and artistic process. No matter what underlying idea that the music contains, this piece of music has its artistic value. But, it is greatly unsufferable if the music is only written for the purpose of promoting politics.

In my opinion, politics are dirty, hypocritical, greed and selfish. If an artwork connects with political purpose, unavoidably, it becomes spoiled. We should remember that the preciousness of art is valued by its genuineness, goodness and beauty. This is a common standard to evaluate an artwork. I regard music as an art. I can accept that the purpose of writing music is for making money. This is very common in the commercial world. I think, to some extend, the composers are concerned how to make their music more popular, and at least, they are doing something that is genuine to him, or to the audience. But the political music is totally different. They are only selling the so-called ‘perfect image’ of the government. The motivation behind is duplicitous. It is not strange to find that a politician boosts his plan to do everything for the people before the election but never moves one finger after officially elected. I cannot find any genuineness and goodness in this kind of music. The selfish purpose of the music makes its text, melody, and sound absolutely disgusting. I prefer the music written for advertisements to this kind of music though they seem to have the same motivation - promoting an object or idea. It is because the music of advertisements, at least, possesses some beauty. The product that the music promotes may be nice and lovely. But the product of the political music promoted is only nasty and unpleasing.

Owing to the above reasons, I consider the political music is not an art. It has no artistic and aesthetic value. The dirty underlying political ideas make the music nauseating. Undoubtedly, the political music, therefore, is the kind of music that I really love to hate.

全文完:

David Leung (theorydavid)

2011-09-03 (published)

學生寄來的一封電郵

前言: 以下是一封由本人的作曲理論學生寄來的電郵，內容饒有意義，可供大家沉思一下。

****************************


Leung Sir,

Having learnt  the concept of writing notes for instrument on score, I was inspired how to set up a music writing method and system of my own. I believe that writing music on score will not be a difficult task. As a commerical music production man, I understand that competition is very keen. The client offer me money and I must tailor-make to fulfill their demands as soon as possible. They do not accept my writing down of every note that I have composed and arranged, even as the professional players too. I need to play and review their expectations in real time everyday. So many different ideas promoted my ear training and improvise technique indeed. But as regard to the lack of writing score technique in the nowaday computer world, I can say that this working in realistic and cruel musical industrial circle is not enjoyable, although many music students may admire my present situation. Anyway, through the learning lesson yesterday, I will never give myself an excuse of writing as difficult task. I will read and write everyday from now on. Please forgive me for so many many questions in the class.

thanks

Simon Digital

****************************

The following is my reply.

Dear Simon,

This is nothing new and special, as I always said so. Many of the great masters such as Beethoven, Mozart or Bach copied music from their predecessors so as to learn from them. As such, why not us, the modern man? Techniques can be learnt and trained and writing skill can be improved in some days. The rest remained is our talent. I don't have doubt on it. 

But it seems that the high technology , efficient equippments, and abundant of referenctial information through computers, networks, visual aids and books etc still have not guaranted our improvement of understanding and mastering music. That is what I have observed in the past ten years in the uiversities.


I can help 10 % and students have to do the rest of 90 %. This is what I also always emphasize in the class.

為何要學習音樂理論和分析

前言:

梁 sir 大半生都是以教導音樂理論和分析為生。如果可能，總會找個時間對學生解釋為何他們要學習音樂理論。當然，對大部份學生而言，他們學習的目的，就是考試。甚麼皇家音樂院考試，甚麼聖三一音樂考試，考完試，拿張文憑就算了。除了拿來 show qualification 之外，好像音樂理論是沒有用似的。查實，理論十分實用，是所有學生必需學習的。以下就是本人對音樂理論用途的看法。

正文:

但凡學音樂的，他們都有學習的重點。音樂學習的範圍其實很大，並不是一般外行人以為，學音樂就只是學玩樂器，如彈琴，唱歌，拉小提琴等。當然，學音樂，少不免要學樂器，但也有一些學生的學習目的是學習作曲。除此之外，學生也可以學習了解音樂，從而懂得欣賞音樂。不論你學習的重點是甚麼，你都需要懂得音樂理論。那麼，音樂理論拿來何用?


其實理論是拿來作分析之用。但凡要學習一個 object，我們都必須運用特定的 theory 去分析其特定的特質。就以結構理論來說，我們可以用用不同的角度去觀察，了解。從最小部份的自身結構，到與其他相關部份之關係，最後到連結全個整體結構的關係。

了解樂曲的結構，可以助彈奏者演譯樂曲。經分析後，樂曲的句子，樂段，大樂段等，就當然菱角分明。演奏者就可以清楚以不同方式演奏出來。雖然樂曲或會很長，觀眾也可以容易明白了。

學習作曲的朋友，當然也可以了解樂曲結構，從而學會寫作自己的作品。任何作品，也有形式，形式顯示，就當是結構了。Form and structure 是息息相關的。學生學作曲，不能沒有 form，就好像流動的水，是沒有form的，所以是沒有結構，我們也捉不住。但水注入了任何形狀的樽，就有了form，樽的結構，就是那樽的形狀，水在樽中，水也有了形態，我們了解樽的形狀，也就可以了解，明白水了。

例如，學生要寫一個 sonata，這種樂曲的form 有一些特定的 structure，如果從分析 sonata 作品的樂曲結構，學會了樂曲的每個相關部份和其相互關係，同學們就可以入手寫作自己的作品了。

對於了解音樂為學習重點的同學而言，可視音樂為一種語言，作為作品 (作曲家) 與聽眾溝通之用。我們看小說，難道我們可以了解其故事，卻不清楚其中的情節，伂局，結構等嗎? 一篇文章，讀者是要了解哪裡是引言，哪裡是呈示主題，哪裡是發展主題，有多少個次要點支持主題，最後哪裡是結論。這樣才算是明白這篇文章。


所以， music theory 是幫助我們清楚呈現音樂作品的某方面的特定面貌。結構理論，當然是幫助我們了解樂曲的結構。可是，不同的音樂理論，是可以幫助我們了解不同的角度和面貌。看同一個作品，也不會只是囿限運用某一種理論。可以是各種理論一起運用。當然，每種理論也有其點，有些適宜幫助了解樂曲作品的 performance ，但另一些是幫助我們了解 作品是如何 composing out 的，所以就對學作曲的朋友較有用處，有一些理論，卻對我們作為聽眾甚有用處。因為我們用它來觀察分析作品，可以使我們對作品定出一個全新的理解和詮釋。音樂作品，不單可以喚起我們的情緒反應，也可以引導我們理性上的沉思，使我們產生對藝術作品的美學反應。

話雖如此，學生們從來不以彈奏樂器同樣的態度去學習音樂理論。他們不介意用多年時間學樂器彈奏，卻嫌學幾個月的理論為多。最好越快越好，三兩個月就可以拿個 AMusTCL。我以過來人來說，我的各種精巧理論和分析音樂作品的能力，也培養了超過十年。就像一個從事演奏的朋友，也要起碼超過十年，才有像樣的東西 show 給人看。

現在彈琴學生們最流行考的八級音樂理論，只是小學程度的理論。雖然學過了，也不夠用來分析一個 Master 的作品。同學們常說理論沒有用處，真的是小覷了音樂理論了。

梁 sir 即將開辦的 Schenkerian Analysis 分析理論，就是專為幫助 performer 演譯作品的一個理論。其程度就超越了所謂的 LMusTCL 高級理論的程度。就連 Undergraduate 畢業的同學，也只簡略知道有這樣一個理論，根本就未能懂得運用在作品身上。

因此，香港學習音樂的怪現象，真是越講越有。幸好，這半年來，看這個網誌的讀者也有一點。他們間中留言鼓勵，以示支持，本人也十分感激。我也不害怕，多談我對音樂分析，音樂理論的看法，也發表一些學術文章，讓不同程度的讀者，從歷史更風格，從樂曲和聲到結構等，從美學到社會文化等去了解音樂作品。



全文完



David Leung (theorydavid)

2011-07-29 (published)

音樂專題討論: Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis

Dear students,

It is a good new that Leung Sir Music Center is going to offer a new course on advance music analysis.

Please leave down your contact email or phone if you are interested in. Further information about this course, please don't hesitate to email Leung Sir (theorydavid@yahoo.com.hk)

Have you ever heard of Schenkerian Analysis? This is a very useful analytical theory to help us to understand the tonal structure as well as the way of composing out of tonal musical works. Such theory is so famous that performers, as well as composers and piano teachers are eager to learn. LeungSir believes that no private music sectors will offer such course.

Leung Sir will tailor this theory to suitable students of different levels so that they can understand and make use of it according to their needs.

The whole course will include the following topics:

1. Brief introduction to Schenkerian Analysis

2. Melody and Counterpoint

3. Bass Linge and Harmonic Structure

4. Linear techniques

5. Tonal Strucutre

6. Techniques of Melodic Prolongation

7. Some Basic of Fundamental Structures

8. Some Common Tonal Patterns

9. Introduction to Graphic Notation

10. Set Pieces Discussion

Students should possess qualified Harmony knowledge in order to fully assimilate the concept of this theory.

Number of lessons: 10

Date : August 10 2011 (Wednesday)
Time: 7:45pm to 10:00pm

Students : 6-8

(All materials will be provided)

David Leung

Analysis, Descriptive, and What Really Happens (Dubiel Joseph) - Reviews

Preface:

When doing music anaysis, we tend to label the chords in terms of Roman numerals figure bass symbols on the score. This kind of analysis is often termed tonal structure analysis. we rarely explain how these chords mean in terms of audience perceptions. Recent scholarship on the similar topics seems change. In stead of understanding what tonal elements have been used  and how they relates to the tonal structure, we tend to seek the audiable phenomenon in relationship with audience. Simply put, how musical elements, including harmonic features, are used to enhance an effect on aural perception, which engender expressive meaning to listeners. Below is an article discussing about this issue.

Analysis, Descriptive, and What Really Happens – Dubiel Joseph

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)

2011-07-14 (pubished)

The Reading Report of Glenn Gould's The Prospects of Recording

Foreword:

I am quite busy recently since I have rented a flat to start private music theory teaching. However, publishing music topic articles is still my habit. This time I would like to give a reading report of an article by Glenn Gould. Glenn Gould was an usual pianist and artist. His almost perfect interpretation of Bach's polyphonic keyboard music, together with his strange, yet eriee, body actions during performance, never fail to leave behind a deep impression to audience. Below is some interesting points declared by Gould about his views on recording technology.

The Reading Report of Glenn Gould Prospects of Recording 

Gould believes that the manifold influences of the music by electronic medium are overwhelming and unaccountable.  Public concert, undoubtedly, is in a predicament that is going to be replaced by the musical recording as approaching to 21^st Century.  The impact of recording is not only exerted upon the commercial world, but also onto the performer, audience, composer, concert impresario, technical engineer, critic, historian, musicologist and scholar.  Electronic technology enhances high acoustic performance and thus it raises the standard of demanding for ‘foremost’ musical sonorities.  Recording also fosters the exploitation of untapped, undiscovered musical repertoire.  Professional musicologists, as well as the performers, have been forced to put a great effort on exploring, manipulating, analyzing, realizing and performing them.  Gould, furthermore, asserts that many of those appreciable, nearly forgotten Renaissance and Baroque music can reappear to the listeners, changing their listening selections and helping them to escape from the bombarding, furious and unsavory musical sound of the 20^th Century contemporary music.  Moreover, recording changes the position of the standard repertoire, which is based largely on the ‘mastery’ pieces.  Even some of the neglected superb and full of accomplishments compositions, because of the recording, are revalued and preserved. 

High technique of tape splice in musical recording also changes the performance style and way of interpretation.  It avails to overcome the limitation of the external performing environment and also the technicality of the performer.  This monumental impact satisfies the so-called pursuing ‘perfection’ in music, which is an inherent attribute of a composer, performer, audience, as well as the human.  Hence the live recording that is full of discontented and unexpected misktakes, therefore, is insufferable.  The role of a performer, because of the high-tech editing process, becomes shifting from a mere performer to a demandable audience, and even a creative composer.  Recording also alters the role of audience, from passive to active.  Listener can utilize the tape-editing option freely to ‘create’ his/her own ‘ideal’ musical sound, performance and style.  The conventional ‘musical hierarchy, that is the broader-line between composer-performer-audience, is then blurred. 

Conclusively, as the increasing popularity of the electronic medium and everlasting stride of the

technology itself, Gould believes that, the dominance of Western musical culture will be diminished. 

The world will be permeated with diversity of musical cultures, from every corner of the world.  All

musical styles are mixed up.  A new epoch of electronic age of music is inaugurated.  In the

foreseeable future, in this fascinating new time, audience would be the artist, and their life would be

art.

David Leung (theorydavid)

2011-07-01 (published)

令人醇醉的八十年代歌曲的旋律人後記

前言: 上一次題及的八十後和六十後聆聽歌曲口味的不同的問題，現在又有新發展。我和新郎哥對展示出來的結果，都不禁相對笑笑。當然，我們是很高興和欣賞各方好友的大力支持，他們無論想唱甚麼歌曲，都是為新郎哥助興。既是幫忙，攪攪氣氛，我們也很專重他們的選擇。不過，話得說回頭，人對音樂的感應，歌曲風格的認同，還是那一句，不同年紀閱歷，不同時代，不同民族的文化價值和美學的標準，都是不同的。所以，對音樂藝術的審美標準和理解，都不會是永恆不變的。


正文:

經過一番商討，新郎哥老友 email 給各方好友之後，我還已為沒有異議。可是，先是一輪silence ，最後的結果是: 一番你推我讓之後，各八十後老友就推了一個不大懂中文的老友出來 (他原本是印尼華僑，根本不知道誰是劉家昌，也不知國語歌梅花，海鷗，更遑論月亮代表我的心)，致 email 新郎哥說，他們還是想向難度挑戰，所以最好還是唱 Time to Say Goodbye。查實，最當初的時候，我是 propose 唱這首歌作為壓軸歌曲。可是老友們一聽到 Time to Say Goodbye Sarah Brightman 唱第一段時就牙痛咁聲。因為他們說這很像急口令。因此他們想唱一首比較容易的。但他們 propose 的歌曲，又不大適合作壓軸歌曲。最後，新郎哥就說出自已的至愛 -- 老餅歌曲--劉家昌的 晚安。這就是我上一篇文章所述的前因。

事情確是峰迴路轉。後來，這班八，九十後老友聽過此曲後，就分分說很老套，難頂。所以，就轉呔唱 Time to Say Goodbye 了。他們現在是不怕急口令的前段。真奇怪。

然而，他們所說的急口令，也不是甚麼真的像棟篤笑的急口令。只是他們不夠音樂知識，不知道 Time to Say Goodbye 的原作者是 Italian 。也不知 Italian 最令人欣羨的音樂就是 Opera。意大利歌劇在音樂史上的地位是無可爭辯的。甚麼是 Italian Opera呢? 就算今天那些知道有 Broadway Musical ，有 Phantom of opera 的八十後年青人已被稱為有音樂修養的了，我看也是答不上來。查實意大利歌劇最dramatic 的部份不是 Aria (嘆調)，而是 Recitativo (宣調)。意大 利歌劇強調音樂，所以沒有對白。所有推進劇情的部份，需要用 recitativo 來半講半唱出來。這就是 Italian Opera 的精粹了。用意大利文來唱 Recitativo，可說是一絕。根本，Recitativo 的寫作就是為意大利語言度身定做的，我們用德文，或是法文，根本唱不到這種 recitativo 的效果。

Time to Say Goodbye 這首歌曲的第一段就是摹彷輕快的 意大利 recitativo 的風格而寫成的。我們的老友是中國人，不懂說意大利話，所以 feel 不到這個 "急口令" ，也覺得難學難唱。而且，原文是意大利歌曲，英文版本只是歌曲太成功了，為了迎合世界各地歌迷的口味，只好張就點用英語唱出來。用英語唱這首歌，我看是低了一點層次境界，稍欠風韻。

不過，為何香港的八十後又 feel 不到劉家昌的中國式曲調? 這也拜九十九年的 British Colonization 所賜。因為殖民地的西方式的管治和西化教育，也有很大程度 marginalize (不是erase) 一切跟中國本土有關的文化，社會和政治。我們香港人的文化特性，說真的，也真與大陸人，台灣人很不同，可說是 something-in-between 。既然正統灌輸的文化不能幫助我們找得我們自身的文化身份，我們還是多得流行文化的輸入。幸好，在六十年代，台灣的流行曲文化，經自由開放的英式殖民地政策傳送過來，又因我們 share the same language system，要禁也禁不來，結果，我們就 recreate，reshape 了不少所謂的中華民族的音樂風格。在那個年代，如果你聽用粵語所寫的流行曲，是低下低俗的，難登大雅之堂。而所謂的台灣流行曲，如青山的，姚蘇蓉的，就是正宗香港的中國人歌曲。垣白說，劉家昌這首晚安，並不是他最好年作品之一，開頭的兩句，就很像黃自先生在我們中國的音樂現代化時期，即二，三十年代所寫的最早期中國風格的藝術歌曲風格，如玫瑰三願等的旋律。我想，我們八十後的也不知道黃自老師的 "花非花" ，或是玫瑰三願 歌曲是甚樣。可能他就只知道林子祥的 "每一個晚上"。


真的，歌曲旋律的奧妙處，正如野人蕭公子留言，在於聽者的音樂修養，和作者的功力。兩者，皆缺一不可。

我看，老友所欣賞的舊歌和 "中國"風格的旋律，還是在歷史記憶中去找尋吧。就是這種特有的歷史記憶和社群印記，構成了我們這一代六十後的 Collective Memory，集體回憶，從而 reshape and reconstruct 我們的不中不西的中華民族音樂風格。


全文完

David Leung (theorydavid)

2011-06-19 (published)