文章 - 音乐

台灣的六十年代是接受國民政府普及教育的戰後新生代成長期，是歷經肅殺1950年代之後的文藝復甦與思想解放期，又逢全球性青年造反運動--促成戰後新生代在六十年代開始深具時代意義的世代自我實現，在各面向影響此後三、四十年的台灣。

［译者按］2006年是莫扎特诞辰二百五十周年，特在此贴发这篇长文，以致纪念。在汉语文化界，似乎仍然有必要继续加深对莫扎特的全面理解和正确认识——因为我们不断在专业人士的行文和爱乐者的谈吐中听到，莫扎特的音乐是“优雅、明亮、舒畅、动听”的代表。朗的这篇通论以雄辩而内行的笔调驳斥了这种被“洛可可－浪漫主义的有色眼镜”所歪曲的莫扎特“形象”。译者曾写过一篇短文“听莫扎特三境”（载《文汇报》2002年5月28日），分析了倾听莫扎特和理解莫扎特的三重境界，结论是，“甚至可以认为，莫扎特音乐的内在性质其实比贝多芬更加‘现代’。因为莫扎特对人性的态度更加暧昧、更加多变，也更加复杂。莫扎特的音乐从来不像贝多芬那样‘势不可挡’，其骨子里很多时候充满了无奈和阴影。但另一方面，莫扎特即便在对生活产生怀疑的时候，也从来不会陷入绝望或走向暴怒。因为说到底，莫扎特毕竟是启蒙运动的儿子。他的某些精神特质与‘现代人’有缘，但‘现代人’再也不可能具有莫扎特般的宽容、睿智、超脱和达观。”应该承认，朗的论述对笔者的莫扎特理解产生了深刻的影响。

［译者按］2006年是莫扎特诞辰二百五十周年，特在此贴发这篇长文，以致纪念。在汉语文化界，似乎仍然有必要继续加深对莫扎特的全面理解和正确认识——因为我们不断在专业人士的行文和爱乐者的谈吐中听到，莫扎特的音乐是“优雅、明亮、舒畅、动听”的代表。朗的这篇通论以雄辩而内行的笔调驳斥了这种被“洛可可－浪漫主义的有色眼镜”所歪曲的莫扎特“形象”。译者曾写过一篇短文“听莫扎特三境”（载《文汇报》2002年5月28日），分析了倾听莫扎特和理解莫扎特的三重境界，结论是，“甚至可以认为，莫扎特音乐的内在性质其实比贝多芬更加‘现代’。因为莫扎特对人性的态度更加暧昧、更加多变，也更加复杂。莫扎特的音乐从来不像贝多芬那样‘势不可挡’，其骨子里很多时候充满了无奈和阴影。但另一方面，莫扎特即便在对生活产生怀疑的时候，也从来不会陷入绝望或走向暴怒。因为说到底，莫扎特毕竟是启蒙运动的儿子。他的某些精神特质与‘现代人’有缘，但‘现代人’再也不可能具有莫扎特般的宽容、睿智、超脱和达观。”应该承认，朗的论述对笔者的莫扎特理解产生了深刻的影响。

提起琉球音乐，难免想起那种三线伴奏的特殊的悠扬舒缓的曲调，虽然喜悦从容，但却蕴含着深重的哀伤。这篇书评不涉及琉球的民乐，而是介绍琉球王府接待明代官员演奏的乐曲，并没有谈及当地民乐的发展，但可籍此看到一些琉球文化历史的特点。御座乐的消失，就是一个有意思的现象。－－Humanities.cn

“肖斯塔科维奇在１９４１年完成了作品编号６０的《第七交响曲》。这一年，希特勒的德国以３２个步兵师、４个摩托化师、４个坦克师和一个骑兵旅，还有６０００门大炮、４５００门迫击炮和１０００多架飞机猛烈进攻列宁格勒。希特勒决心在这一年秋天结束之前，将这座城市从地球上抹掉。也是这一年，肖斯塔科维奇在列宁格勒战火的背景下度过了三十五岁生日。”从作家的角度所写的乐评和文评，有特殊的敏感和质地。－－人文与社会

“乐迷都知道，《大地之歌》中的六首歌曲，一向是由一位男高音和一位女中音唱的，二人轮流各唱三首，男人高歌饮酒欢乐，女人却娓娓道出人生之哀愁，而最后的一场《告别曲》，足足有三十分钟之久，既向送行的朋友，也向人生告别。就唐诗的成规而言，送行的必是男性朋友，不可能由一个女子吟唱，否则只能是闺怨，而非送君千里。马勒的原作中也特别注明：女中音唱的三首歌曲也可以由男中音唱，其实这样才更合歌词中的意境，然而，男中音演唱此曲的人极少，除了大名鼎鼎的费雪·迪斯考(Dietrich Fischer Dieskau)之外，几乎无(男)人可继其后。”虽然李教授推崇Quasthoff，但总还是Dieskau的声音让人觉得舒畅，虽然李教授希望香港刮起马勒旋风，但马勒的音乐还是要在寂静开阔的境界中听最好。－－人文与社会

“我体会，无论中西，古往今来引发艺术变化的，不是非怎样不可，而是它可能会怎样。生为中国人的作曲家、戏剧家应该感到幸运。这里头大大的天地，若能真正立足于中国戏曲的根本，立足于中国文字艺术及中国文字声音的根本，必有真建树。乐意舒舒坦坦继续过西方瘾的，也是自己喜好，由不得他人。”瞿小松最近一直强调摆脱西方音乐的阴影笼罩，然而这对这批中国作曲家来说，这有多么难，甚至从他们的作品集中就可以看出，许多作品其实都是由国外委托或约稿写出的。－－人文与社会

杨燕迪评休伊特Ivan Hewett《修补裂痕：音乐的现代性危机与后现代状况》。休伊特的文章都比较接近大众，常在报纸上写写苹果的ipod为什么不适合古典音乐等等，这和他强调古典音乐的生命力来自民众参与一致。当然他的民众参与肯定不是指全世界华人的子女大多在儿童时代逼着当上琴童的现象。有些观点还不错，比如曾经在文章中批评“a world full of globalised aural soup”一个充满了全球化的声音杂碎汤的世界”。－－人文与社会

早期基督教的音乐也用乐器，后来因为反对罗马帝国的乐器繁多的音乐，渐渐开始了音由心生，用单纯人声来赞美教主的音乐方式。当然，也是为了用动听的乐声来吸引更多人入教。米兰的僧侣安木波罗斯在四世纪就主张用富于旋律的颂歌来魅惑人心了。这跟中国儒乐追求的淡而无味之境界截然不同。这篇文章简略地摘编介绍了圣咏从质朴犹太音乐因素渐渐发展到繁复拉丁圣歌的历史。

杨文是对2000年的《秋问》这两场音乐会的评论，称赞音乐会策划人瞿小松恢复中国音乐本真的尝试。杨燕迪是个很真率的人，他曾经在与谭顿和张国勇的对话中说过，虽然很多人以为谭顿很前卫，其实谭代表的是西方七八十年代的音乐风格。

这是John Cage (1912-1992)去世前两年写的自传。他的‘钢琴演奏曲’《四分三十三秒》（1952）演奏时，除了环境声没有其他声音,演奏者静静地端坐在钢琴前，只是寂静地度过了四分三十三秒。凯济对年轻一代作曲家的影响很大。他奠定了一个日常性(living)的概念，他在1937年发表了《音乐的未来》，声称“无论在什么地方，我们听到的大多数噪音都是迷人的。”“要捕捉和控制这些声响，不是作为声音的效果，而是作为音乐的手段来运用它们。”在这份自传中，凯济并没有提到他早年极力希望得到古根海姆家族控制着艺术品市场的富有女继承人的青睐，以及他的画展被她取消后当场哭泣，并在被她赶出家门后沮丧失落的心情。

这份自传原汉译错误比较多，现在正在校改中。

我于昭和十年（公元1935年）九月一日出生在中国东北的沈阳。我爸爸叫小泽开作，在我出生的前几年，他在长春当过牙科医生。可是随着满洲事变（"九一八"事变）的突然爆发，他停止了行医，以一个协和会创立委员的身份迁移到了沈阳。后来听说他给我--他的第三个刚生下来的孩子，摘取了当时和我们家有着深交的板垣征四郎的"征"和石原莞尔的"尔"，取了个"征尔"的名字。我出生后的第二年，由于爸爸有作为新民会创立委员到北京去工作，我们家也就搬到北京。一直到太平洋战争即将爆发的前夕，我们才回到东京。因此，我在进小学以前的所有记忆都是对北京的印象。 太平洋战争期间我是在立川度过的。我目睹了当时频繁的飞机轰炸和那机枪扫射的可怕情景。随着战争的失败，尽管爸爸也陷入了经济的困境，然而对我们这些孩子一向所爱好的东西，却一直还让我们继续学下去。战后又经过了几年，他才重操旧业，又去当牙科医生。我开始向丰增升老师学习钢琴的时候，也正是我们家处于战后最艰难的阶段。尽管如此，父母亲为了我的学习，从来也不曾让我的手离开过钢琴，如今回想起来真使我感激万分。 我那有着象樱花的名字一样可爱的妈妈，是一个基督教徒。在我们还是孩子的时候，她就经常让我们唱弥撒曲。我妈妈不仅会唱各种弥撒曲，根据我的记忆，好像在我上小学三年级的时候，她就开始叫我们几个弟兄在一起唱合唱。那时唱的似乎就是弥撒曲十一号，那是一支精练、漂亮的曲子。我家有兄弟四人，可以组成男声四重唱。一直到今天，只要有机会，我们还经常聚在一起演唱各种各样的歌曲。但是对我来说，和弥撒曲的《城之音》合唱团开始的。我最初的指挥生涯也就是从指挥这个合唱团开始的。这个合唱团不仅唱过弥撒曲，还唱过不少黑人的灵歌和其它歌曲，前后持续了将近十年之久。从我开始正式学指挥后，我就更加全力以赴地去指挥我们这些伙伴们组成的合唱团了。这次回到日本，只要有一点机会，我就去和那些有着十年来历史的合唱团的伙伴们在一起唱唱歌，指挥指挥，真是件其乐无穷的事情。 从我进了成城学院中学起，就开始跟丰增升老师学钢琴，我在他身边学了不少巴赫的作品。那时候我正热衷于玩橄榄球，常常弄的裤子上、鞋子上尽是泥巴，就那样去上课，因此往往把椅子、琴键弄脏。至今回想起来，我那时真是一个很淘气的学生。最使我感到难为情的是：正当我在专心致志地弹着老师的钢琴的时候，鼻涕淌了下来，随后老师掏出手帕默默地把琴键擦净，而我却照样一直弹着我的钢琴......。 拿玩橄榄球来说，曾有过这么一件小事儿。因为我正在学弹钢琴，不得不留心保护自己的手指，家里人也劝我尽量不要去玩橄榄球，可是每当我看到伙伴们雄赳赳地玩着橄榄球跑上运动场的时候，就再也坐不住了。有一次，我背着妈妈参加了成城、成蹊、学习院、武藏四校的定期循环赛，把脸、手、胳膊弄得到处是伤，一回到家，就被妈妈发现了。我说："撞到柱子上去了。"这样，才巧妙的躲过了一场责骂。可是过后不久，这就成了我们家中的笑柄，因为不管撞到多么粗糙不平的大柱子上，也不会把脸、手、胳膊都撞伤啊！ 我就这样，一边贪玩一边不断地去上钢琴课。后来之所以产生了当指挥的念头，是由于有一次我在日比谷公会堂观看了纳尼德•克劳维茨自己一边弹着钢琴，一边又在指挥乐队演奏贝多芬第五号《皇帝》钢琴协奏曲的演出而引起的。 当我从成城中学毕业的该进高校的时候，我就进了当时为专门进行音乐教育而创办的桐朋学院高校音乐系。在那里，我才开始向斋藤秀雄老师学习指挥，作为一个指挥的起点，我就是从一个老师教一个学生的这种特殊的教学方式开始的。 不久，我又进短期大学学习。在昭和三十三年（公元1958年）桐朋学院毕业之前，桐朋学院的管弦乐队想去参加在布鲁塞尔举行的国际展览会青少年音乐比赛，我想带一个管弦乐队去，那时才知道这是要花费很多钱的事情，因此没有去成，对此我感到万分遗憾！当时，我就下定了决心，尽管带一个管弦乐队去很难实现，而我个人将来无论如何也要设法到欧洲去一趟。我认为要想搞外国音乐，就必需了解产生那个音乐的土壤和在那里居住的人们。虽然像我这样的年轻小伙子不可能有很多钱，但是只要我能搞到一点钱，我就可以骑着摩托车，一边宣传一边筹划经费，我想总还是可以筹划得出来吧！关于我骑摩托车去旅行的计划，就是这样产生的。

福柯 ： 人们常说这样的话：当代音乐偏离了正轨，它的命运非常奇特，它复杂到如此的地步以致于不可接近，它的技巧使它走上了一条不归路。但另一方面，音乐吸引我的地方在于它与其他文化要素之间的多样复杂的关系。这一点从不同的角度来看都是很明显的。一方面，音乐对技术的进步非常敏感，它对技术的依赖性比其他艺术门类要大得多(也许电影是个例外)。另一方面，从德彪西和斯特拉文斯基之后的音乐发展同绘画的发展有很多密切相关之处。此外，音乐为自身提出的理论问题，它对自身的语言、结构、材料的反思方式，取决于一个在20世纪具有普遍意义的问题："形式"的问题。这个问题在塞尚((Cezanne)、立体主义者、勋伯格(Schoenberg)、俄国形式主义者或是布拉格学派那里都是存在的。 我认为我们不应该问：既然音乐已经走得如此之远，我们怎么才能再度体验和重新享有它?而应该问：这个音乐与我们所有的文化如此接近，如此一体化，我们怎么会觉得与它如此疏异、与它有如此不可逾越的距离呢? 布列兹 ： 是不是因为当代音乐的"流通"与交响音乐、室内乐、歌剧、巴罗克音乐的"流通"大不一样?后者的"流通"是很专门化和局部化的，会使人怀疑是否真的有一种总体的文化。唱片摧垮了这些藩篱，但是我们要注意，唱片另一方面又增强了公众和演奏者的专业化。古典或浪漫音乐意味着一个标准化的格式。巴罗克音乐不仅要求一个有限的群体，还要乐器与所演奏的音乐相配，要求演奏家掌握通过对古代的音乐作品和理论著作进行研究所获得的专业知识。当代音乐要求掌握新的乐器技巧，新的记谱方法，对新的演奏形式的适应。凡此种种，不胜枚举，足以表明从音乐的这个领域跨越到另一个领域有多么困难：组织的困难，把自己置于不同的情境中的困难，更不用说适应为不同的演奏而设的场所的困难了。于是，出现了这样的倾向，出现了适应不同种类的音乐的或大或小的群体，在社会及其音乐和演奏家中建立了危险的封闭的流通。当代音乐无法逃避这种发展，它无法逃避一般音乐社会的缺陷：它有它的地盘、它的聚会、它的明星、它的趋炎附势者、它的竞争对手、它的排他性；正如其他社会一样，它有市场价值、报价、盈利计算。不同的音乐圈子也就像监狱体制一样，绝大多数人在其中感到平安无事，但是他们却对别人进行痛苦的折磨。 福柯 ： 我们必须考虑到这样的事实，在很长一段时期内，音乐是为社会的祭祀和仪式而设的：宗教音乐，室内乐；在19世纪，音乐与剧院之间的纽带是歌剧(更不用提歌剧在德国和意大利的政治和文化意义了)，这也是一个凝聚性的因素。 我认为，如果谈起当代音乐的"文化隔绝"的话，在考察其他音乐的流通之后，我们马上就会要修正前面的说法。 拿摇滚乐来说吧，我们马上就有了完全相反的印象。摇滚音乐(比爵士乐从前的情形更厉害)不仅是许多人生活中不可分割的一部分，而且是文化的一种推动力：喜爱摇滚，喜爱这一类而不是那一类的摇滚，这也是一种生活方式，一种对社会作出反应的态度；这是一整套的趣味和态度。 摇滚乐紧张、强壮、生动、充满"戏剧性"(摇滚总是把自己弄得多彩多姿，听摇滚是一个事件，而且发生在舞台上)，这种音乐本身是贫弱的，但是倾听它的人却能从中达到对自己的肯定；但是，在那种复杂的音乐面前，人们感到脆弱、遥远、充满了问题，好似被排斥在外。 我们无法谈论当代文化与音乐的普遍的单一关系，而是应该更加宽容，对音乐的多重性采取一种多多少少是亲善的态度。每一类音乐都有"权利"生存，这种权利可以视为价值的平等。每一类音乐的价值都取决于实践并喜爱它的人的认可。 布列兹 ： 这样来谈论音乐的多重性是不是具有一种折衷主义的色彩?能够解决问题吗?正相反，这是把问题掩盖起来了--就像某些致力于激进自由社会的人所做的那样。所有这些音乐都是好的，它们都很棒。啊!多元主义！它对缺乏理解的人来说真是太妙了。爱情，每个人在自己的角落，但是都会爱他人。做自由主义者吧，对他人的趣味要宽容，他们反过来也会这样对待你的。一切都是好的，没有坏的东西；价值不再有了，但是每个人都会幸福。诸如此类的话语，尽管他们希望具有解放的作用，却只会相反地增强自己的隔绝状态，为自己的隔绝状态感到宽慰，特别是当自己看到了别人的隔绝状态之后。这种机制提醒我们不要迷失在这种肤浅的乌托邦中：有些音乐是为了赚钱和带来商业利益而存在的；有些音乐则要花费钱，与赢利的观念毫不相干。任何自由主义也抹杀不了这种界限。 福柯 ： 我有这样的印象，许多帮助人们接近音乐的工具到头来削弱了我们与音乐的关系。这里有一个大而复杂的机制在起作用。如果很难接触到音乐，那倒能保护人们选择音乐的能力，也带来了倾听音乐时的灵活性。但是如果更加频繁地接触音乐(电台、唱片、卡带)，对音乐越熟悉，习惯就凝固下来了；最经常出现的变成最能够接受的，最后只有一种保留下来。这导致了某种"追踪"，这是一种神经病症。 显然，市场的法则很容易运用到这种简单的机制之中。产品投放到大众之中，大众就倾听。大众发现自己在听某一类东西，因为提供的就是这种东西，这又强化了某种趣味，划定出一块规定得很好的听觉空间，制订出越来越专门化的倾听计划。而音乐则必须满足这种期待，等等。因此商业产品、评论、音乐会，所有这些增强公众与音乐的关系的东西都使人感到，要接受一种新的音乐是越来越困难了。 当然，这一过程也并不是十分确定的。对音乐的不断熟悉也会增强倾听音乐的能力，从而导致对多样性的选择；但这有可能不会很普遍，只是少数的情形，如果我们不努力地将熟悉性疏异化的话。 毫无疑问，我并不赞成减少与音乐的关系，但是要知道，这种关系如果具有了一种日常生活的色彩，再加上经济的法则凌驾其上，就能把传统僵化。并不是说要更少地接触音乐，而是要把它的频繁出现从习惯和熟悉性中拉过来。 布列兹 ： 听众对当代音乐真的缺乏注意和漠不关心吗？这种经常出现的抱怨是不是出于懒惰和习惯于舒适地呆在熟知的领域?贝尔格在半个多世纪前就写过一篇文章，题为《为什么勋伯格的音乐很难理解?》，他描述的困难同我们现在碰到的几乎一模一样。难道情形一点都没有改变吗?也许，所有的创新都会挫伤对之不习惯的人的感觉。但是如今作品向大众的传播带来了特定的困难。古典和浪漫派的音乐构成了人们熟知的主要的曲目资源，它们遵循一定的程式，人们对之的欣赏可以相对独立于单独的作品来进行。交响曲的乐章是根据其形式、特性和节奏形态来划分的，它们彼此区别开来，绝大多数乐章之间有实际的停顿，或者是明显的过渡。交响乐的语言建立在"分类的"和弦的基础之上，它们都有很好的名字，你不用分析就知道这些和弦是什么，发挥怎样的功能。它们像讯号那样富有功效和稳妥可靠；它们在这个作品中出现，又在那个作品中出现，每一次出现都带着同样的功能。逐渐地，这些令人感到宽慰的要素逐渐从"严肃"音乐中消失了。音乐的进化朝着不间断的、越来越彻底的更新的道路上发展，既包括作品的形式，也包括作品的语言。音乐作品变成了独一无二的事件，它并非完全不能让人预料，但是却不服从任何先决的、人们认可的指导体系；这当然带来了人们理解上的障碍。它要求听者熟悉作品的进程，为了达到这一点，就必须把它听上很多遍。当人们对作品的进程熟悉的时候，对作品的理解、对作品所表达的内容的感知就会开花结果。如今，初次的倾听是越来越难带来对作品的感觉和理解了。可能对作品会有自然而然的反应，通过语句的力量，美妙的音色，某些可以理解的暗示性的语句。但是深刻的理解只能通过反复的倾听来实现，通过再现音乐的进程，这种重复代替了以往那种普遍认同的范式。 这种以往的范式--语汇的和形式的--从所谓的严肃音乐中撤退出来，到某些大众流行样式中去避难，成为音乐消费的对象。在那里，创作仍然是按照特定的样式和人们所接受的形态来进行的。保守主义并不总在人们期待的地方出现：无可否认，某些保守的音乐形式和语言构成了所有商业化音乐的基础，而狂热接受这种音乐的一代人最不想要的也就是保守主义了。这是我们时代的悖论，抗议者的歌唱通过的是受到贿赂的语言，商业的成功使得抗议显得空洞无物。 福柯 ： 在这一点上，20世纪的音乐和绘画还有另一个不同的演化方向。从塞尚以来，绘画倾向于把自己创造的行为本身公之于众：这种行为是可见的、惹人注目的、在作品中确定无疑地表露出来，无论是通过使用要素性的标记，或者是通过对自身运动的追踪。正相反，当代音乐提供给听众的只是它结构的外表。 这样，在听这种音乐的时候，产生了既困难又迫切的问题。每一次倾听都把自己表现为一个事件，听者关注它，而且必须接受它。没有任何暗示让听者作某种期待和确认。他听着它发生。这是一种非常困难的倾听模式，同重复听古典音乐带来的那种熟悉感是非常矛盾的。 今日音乐的文化隔绝状态并不简单是教育和传播的缺乏引起的。光是抱怨音乐学院或唱片公司是 很容易的。情况比这严重得多。当代音乐发展到这样一种独一无二的处境，要归咎于其作品。在此意义上，它是有意要这样做的。这种音乐不想让人们熟悉。它就是要用这种方式来保持自己的优势。我们能重复它，但是它不重复自己。在这个意义上说，人们不能把它当做一个物体来返回它。它永远突兀在边界线上。 布列兹 ： 既然它渴望永不停歇的开拓和发现--新的情感领域，试验新的材料--当代音乐注定了是一个堪察加半岛(还记得波德莱尔和圣佩甫吗?)，供罕见的探险者满足他们无畏的好奇心吗?要知道，最谨严的听众是在往日的音乐商店中获得他们专有的音乐文化的，而且是特定的往日。而最开放的听众--是不是因为他们最无知呢?--则对其他的表现方式有持续的兴趣，特别是造型艺术。"陌生者"最能接受?一个危险的结合将表明现在的音乐将从"真正的"音乐文化中死去，为的是在更广大和更含混的领域中得到一席之地，在那里业余爱好占主导地位，审美变成消遣。别把这称作"音乐"--只要你别把它称为音乐，随你怎么去玩都行；那属于不同的欣赏领域，同我们所说的对真正的音乐、大师的音乐的欣赏毫不相干。当我们这样争辩的时候，即使带着天真的骄傲，也是在接近一个无可争辩的真理。判断和口味是门类划分和预先设定的范式的囚徒。他们要我们相信，这里区分的是高贵的情感表达与建立在实验基础上的危险的手艺之间的差别：思想对工具。这是一个倾听的问题，它无法被调节了去适应不同的创造音乐的方法。我当然不会去宣扬一种普适的音乐，我认为那不过是一种超级市场的美学，这种蛊惑人心的宣传不敢打出自己的旗号，把自己装扮成具有良好的用心，来掩饰自己可怜的折衷和妥协。我很清楚--幸亏我有很多的经验，而且都是非常直接的--超越了某种复杂性之后，感知就迷失了方向，陷入绝望的混乱，变得厌烦并进入停滞状态。我的意思是说我可以保持批评性的反应，但是我的执著不是自动地从"当代性"本身产生出来的。某种对听觉的调制已经在发生了，这其实是很糟糕的，因为它超越了历史的限度。我们听巴洛克音乐，不是与瓦格纳和斯特劳斯音乐一个听法。但是为了让音乐文化能够相互认同和吸收，需要去适应标准，适应成规，而创新也要视所处的历史情境而与之相适应。文化在冒险中铸造、维持和播撒自身，带着两副面孔：有时是残暴、斗争和骚乱；有时是沉思、非暴力和沉默。这种文化的冒险不管呈现怎样的形式--最吵闹的并不总是最惊人的，但是最吵闹的肯定无可救药地是最肤浅的--忽略它是不行的，取消它则更为徒劳。我们甚至能声称，也许会有更令人难受的时代，创新和成规的合流更加困难，有些创新完全超越了人们所能容忍和"理性地"接受的程度；也许会有另外的时代，到时候又回复到更直接达成的秩序中去。所有这些现象的关系--个体与集体--是如此的复杂，以至于将它们严格地对应和分组是不可能的。我们会忍不住要说：先生们，打赌吧，相信"时间的态度"，请玩游戏，尽情地玩吧!否则，那该是多么地令人厌烦啊!Michel Foucault & Pierre Boulez: Contemporary Music and the Public MICHEL FOUCAULT. It is often said that contemporary music has drifted off track; that it has had a strange fate; that it has attained a degree of complexity which makes it inaccessible; that its techniques have set it on paths which are leading it further and further away. But on the contrary, what is striking to me is the multiplicity of links and relations between music and all the other elements of culture. There are several ways in which this is apparent. On the one hand, music has been much more sensitive to technological changes, much more closely bound to them than most of the other arts (with the exception perhaps of cinema). On the other hand, the evolution of these musics after Debussy or Stravinsky presents remarkable correlations with the evolution of painting. What is more, the theoretical problems which music has posed for itself, the way in which it has reflected on its language, its structures, and its material, depend on a question which has, I believe, spanned the entire twentieth century: the question of "form" which was that of Cézanne or the cubists, which was that of Schoenberg, which was also that of the Russian formalists or the School of Prague.I do not believe we should ask: with music at such a distance, how can we recapture it or repatriate it? But father: this music which is so close, so consubstantial with all our culture, how does it happen that we feel it, as it were, projected afar and placed at an almost insurmountable distance?PIERRE BOULEZ. Is the contemporary music "circuit" so different from the various "circuits" employed by symphonic music, chamber music, opera, Baroque music, all circuits so partitioned, so specialized that it's possible to ask if there really is a general culture? Acquaintance through recordings should, in principle, bring down those walls whose economic necessity is understandable, but one notices, on the contrary, that recordings reinforce specialization of the public as well as the performers. In the very organization of concerts or other productions, the forces which different types of music rely on more or less exclude a common organization, even polyvalence. Classical or romantic repertory implies a standardized format tending to include exceptions to this rule only if the economy of the whole is not disturbed by them, Baroque music necessarily implies not only a limited group, but instruments in keeping with the music played, musicians who have acquired a specialized knowledge of interpretation, based on studies of texts and theoretical works of the past. Contemporary music implies an approach involving new instrumental techniques, new notations, an aptitude for adapting to new performance situations. One could continue this enumeration and thus show the difficulties to be surmounted in passing from one domain to anther: difficulties of organization, of placing oneself in a different context, not to mention the difficulties of adapting places for such or such a kind of performance. Thus, there exists a tendency to form a larger or smaller society corresponding to each category of music, to establish a dangerously closed circuit among this society, its music, and its performers. Contemporary music does not escape this development; even if its attendance figures are proportionately weak, it does not escape the faults of musical society in general: it has its places, its rendezvous, its stars, its snobberies, its rivalries, its exclusivities; just like the other society, it has its market values, its quotes, its statistics. The different circles of music, if they are not Dante's, none the less reveal a prison system in which most fed at ease but whose constraints, on the contrary, painfully chafe others.MICHEL FOUCAULT. One must take into consideration the fact that for a very long time music has been tied to social rites and unified by them: religious music, chamber music; in the nineteenth century, the link between music and theatrical production in opera (not to mention the political or cultural meanings which the latter had in Germany or in Italy) was also an integrative factor.I believe that one cannot talk of the "cultural isolation" of contemporary music without soon correcting what one says of it by thinking about other circuits of music,With rock, for example, one has a completely inverse phenomenon. Not only is rock music (much more than jazz used to be) an integral part of the life of many people, but it is a cultural initiator: to like rock, to like a certain kind of rock rather than another, is also a way of life, a manner of reacting; it is a whole set of tastes and attitudes.Rock offers the possibility of a relation which is intense, strong, alive, "dramatic" (in that rock presents itself as a spectacle, that listening to it is an event and that it produces itself on stage), with a music that is itself impoverished, but through which the listener affirms himself; and with the other music, one has a frail, faraway, hothouse, problematical relation with an erudite music from which the cultivated public feels excluded.One cannot speak of a single relation of contemporary culture to music in general, but of a tolerance, more or less benevolent, with respect to a plurality of musics. Each is granted the "right" to existence, and this right is perceived as an equality of worth. Each is worth as much as the group which practices it or recognizes it.PIERRE BOULEZ. Will talking about musics in the plural and flaunting an eclectic ecumenicism solve the problem? It seems, on the contrary, that this will merely conjure it away - as do certain devotees of an advanced liberal society. All those musics are good, all those musics are nice. Ah! Pluralism! There's nothing like it for curing incomprehension. Love, each one of you in your corner, and each will love the others. Be liberal, be generous toward the tastes of others, and they will be generous to yours. Everything is good, nothing is bad; there aren't any values, but everyone is happy, This discourse, as liberating as it may wish to be, reinforces, on the contrary, the ghettos, comforts one's clear conscience for being in a ghetto, especially if from time to time one tours the ghettos of others. The economy is there to remind us, in case we get lost in this bland utopia: there are musics which bring in money and exist for commercial profit; there are musics that cost something, whose very concept has nothing to do with profit. No liberalism will erase this distinction.MICHEL FOUCAULT. I have the impression that many of the elements that are supposed to provide access to music actually impoverish our relationship with it. There is a quantitative mechanism working here. A certain rarity of relation to music could preserve an ability to choose what one hears, and thus a flexibility in listening. But the more frequent this relation is (radio, records, cassettes), the more familiarities it creates; habits crystallize; the most frequent becomes the most acceptable, and soon the only thing perceivable. It produces a "tracing" as the neurologists say.Clearly, the laws of the marketplace will readily apply to this simple mechanism. What is put at the disposition of the public is what the public hears. And what the public finds itself actually listening to, because it's offered up, reinforces a certain taste, underlines the limits of a well-defined listening capacity, defines more and more exclusively a schema for listening. Music had better satisfy this expectation, etc. So commercial productions, critics, concerts, everything that increases the contact of the public with music, risks making perception of the new more difficult.Of course the process is not unequivocal. Certainly increasing familiarity with music also enlarges the listening capacity and gives access to possible differentiations, but this phenomenon risks being only marginal; it must in any case remain secondary to the main impact of experience, if there is no real effort to derail familiarities.It goes without saying that I am not in favor of a rarefaction of the relation to music, but it must be understood that the everydayness of this relation, with all the economic stakes that are riding on it, can have this paradoxical effect of rigidifying tradition. It is not a matter of making access to music more rare, but of making its frequent appearances less devoted to habits and familiarities.PIERRE BOULEZ. We ought to note that not only is there a focus on the past, but even on the past in the past, as far as the performer is concerned. And this is of course how one attains ecstasy while listening to the interpretation of a certain classical work by a performer who disappeared decades ago; but ecstasy will reach orgasmic heights when one can refer to a performance of 20 July 1947 or of 30 December 1938. One sees a pseudo-culture of documentation taking shape, based on the exquisite hour and fugitive moment, which reminds us at once of the fragility and of the durability of the performer become immortal, rivaling now the immortality of the masterpiece. All the mysteries of the Shroud of Turin, all the powers of modem magic, what more could you want as an alibi for reproduction as opposed to real production? Modernity itself is this technical superiority we possess over former eras in being able to recreate the event. Ah! If we only had the first performance of the Ninth, even - especially - with all its flaws, or if only we could make Mozart's own delicious difference between the Prague and Vienna versions of Don Giovanni. . . . This historicizing carapace suffocates those who put it on, compresses them in an asphyxiating rigidity; the mephitic air they breathe constantly enfeebles their organism in relation to contemporary adventure. I imagine Fidelio glad to rest in his dungeon, or again I think of Plato's cave: a civilization of shadow and of shades.MICHEL FOUCAULT. Certainly listening to music becomes more difficult as its composition frees itself from any kind of schemas, signals, perceivable cues for a repetitive structure.In classical music, there is a certain transparency from the composition to the hearing. And even if many compositional features in Bach or Beethoven aren't recognizable by most listeners, there are always other features, important ones, which are accessible to them. But contemporary music, by trying to make each of its elements a unique event, makes any grasp or recognition by the listener difficult.PIERRE BOULEZ. Is there really only lack of attention, indifference on the part of the listener toward contemporary music? Might not the complaints so often articulated be due to laziness, to inertia, to the pleasant sensation of remaining in known territory? Berg wrote, already half a century ago, a text entitled "Why is Schonberg's music hard to understand?" The difficulties he described then are nearly the same as those we hear of now. Would they always have been the same? Probably, all novelty bruises the sensibilities of those unaccustomed to it. But it is believable that nowadays the communication of a work to a public presents some very specific difficulties. In classical and romantic music, which constitutes the principal resource of the familiar repertory, there are schemas which one obeys, which one can follow independently of the work itself, or rather which the work must necessarily exhibit. The movements of a symphony are defined in their form and in their character, even in their rhythmic life; they are distinct from one another, most of the time actually separated by a pause, sometimes tied by a transition that can be spotted. The vocabulary itself is based on "classified" chords, well-named: you don't have to analyze them to know what they are and what function they have. They have the efficacy and security of signals; they recur from one piece to another, always assuming the same appearance and the same functions. Progressively, these reassuring elements have disappeared from "serious" music. Evolution has gone in the direction of an ever more radical renewal, as much in the form of works as in their language. Musical works have tended to become unique events, which do have antecedents, but are not reducible to any guiding schema admitted, a priori, by all; this creates, certainly, a handicap for immediate comprehension. The listener is asked to familiarize himself with the course of the work and for this to listen to it a certain number of times. When the course of the work is familiar, comprehension of the work, perception of what it wants to express, can find a propitious terrain to bloom in. There are fewer and fewer chances for the first encounter to ignite perception and comprehension. There can be a spontaneous connection with it, through the force of the message, the quality of the writing, the beauty of the sound, the readability of the cues, but deep understanding can only come from repeated hearings, from remaking the course of the work, this repetition taking the place of an accepted schema such as was practiced previously.The schemas - of vocabulary, of form - which had been evacuated from what is called serious music (sometimes called learned music) have taken refuge in certain popular forms, in the objects of musical consumption. There, one still creates according to the genres, the accepted typologies. Conservatism is not necessarily found where it is expected: it is undeniable that a certain conservatism of form and language is at the base of all the commercial productions adopted with great enthusiasm by generations who want to be anything but conservative. It is a paradox of our times that played or sung protest transmits itself by means of an eminently subornable vocabulary, which does not fail to make itself known: commercial success evacuates protest.MICHEL FOUCAULT. And on this point there is perhaps a divergent evolution of music and painting in the twentieth century. Painting, since Cézanne, has tended to make itself transparent to the very act of painting: the act is made visible, insistent, definitively present in the picture, whether it be by the use of elementary signs, or by traces of its own dynamic. Contemporary music on the contrary offers to its hearing only the outer surface of its composition.Hence there is something difficult and imperious in listening to this music. Hence the fact that each hearing presents itself as an event which the listener attends, and which he must accept. There are no cues which permit him to expect it and recognize it. He listens to it happen. This is a very difficult mode of attention, one which is in contradiction to the familiarities woven by repeated hearing of classical music.The cultural insularity of music today is not simply the consequence of deficient pedagogy or propagation. It would be too facile to groan over the conservatories or complain about the record companies, Things are more serious. Contemporary music owes this unique situation to its very composition. In this sense, it is willed. It is not a music that tries to be familiar; it is fashioned to preserve its cutting edge. One may repeat it, but it does not repeat itself. In this sense, one cannot come back to it as to an object. It always pops up on frontiers.PIERRE BOULEZ. Since it wants to be in such a perpetual situation of discovery - new domains of sensibility, experimentation with new material - is contemporary music condemned to remain a Kamchatka (Baudelaire, Sainte-Beuve, remember?) reserved for the intrepid curiosity of infrequent explorers? It is remarkable that the most reticent listeners should be those who have acquired their musical culture exclusively in the stores of the past, indeed of a particular past; and the most open - only because they are the most ignorant? - are the listeners with a sustained interest in other means of expression, especially the plastic arts. The "foreigners" the most receptive? A dangerous connection which would tend to prove that current music would detach itself from the "true" musical culture in order to belong to a domain both vaster and more vague, where amateurism would preponderate, in critical judgment as in creation. Don't call that "music" - then we are willing to leave you your plaything; that is in the jurisdiction of a different appreciation, having nothing to do with the appreciation we reserve for true music, the music of the masters. Then this argument has been made, even in its arrogant naiveté, it approaches an irrefutable truth. Judgment and taste are prisoners of categories, of pre-established schemas which are referred to at all costs. Not, as they would have us believe, that the distinction is between an aristocracy of sentiments, a nobility of expression, and a chancy craft based on experimentation: thought versus tools. It is, rather, a matter of a listening that could not be modulated or adapted to different ways of inventing music. I certainly am not going to preach in favor of an ecumenicism of musics, which seems to me nothing but a supermarket aesthetic, a demagogy that dare not speak its name and decks itself with good intentions the better to camouflage the wretchedness of its compromise. Moreover, I do not reject the demands of quality in the sound as well as in the composition: aggression and provocation, bricolage and bluff are but insignificant and harmless palliatives. I am fully aware - thanks to many experiences, which could not have been more direct - that beyond a certain complexity perception finds itself disoriented in a hopelessly entangled chaos, that it gets bored and hangs up. This amounts to saying that I can keep my critical reactions and that my adherence is not automatically derived from the fact of "contemporaneity" itself. Certain modulations of hearing are already occurring, rather badly as a matter of fact, beyond particular historical limits. One doesn't listen to Baroque music - especially lesser works - as one listens to Wagner or Strauss; one doesn't listen to the polyphony of the Ars Nova as one listens to Debussy or Ravel. But in this latter case, how many listeners are ready to vary their "mode of being," musically speaking? And yet in order for musical culture, all musical culture, to be assimilable, there need only be this adaptation to criteria, and to conventions, which invention complies with according to the historical moment it occupies. This expansive respiration of the ages is at the opposite extreme from the asthmatic wheezings the fanatics make us hear from spectral reflections of the past in a tarnished mirror. A culture forges, sustains, and transmits itself in an adventure with a double face: sometimes brutality, struggle, turmoil; sometimes meditation, nonviolence, silence. Whatever form the adventure may take - the most surprising is not always the noisiest, but the noisiest is not irremediably the most superficial - it is useless to ignore it, and still more useless to sequestrate it. One might go so far as to say there are probably uncomfortable periods when the coincidence of invention and convention is more difficult, when some aspect of invention seems absolutely to go beyond what we can tolerate or "reasonably" absorb; and that there are other periods when things relapse to a more immediately accessible order. The relations among all these phenomena - individual and collective - are so complex that applying rigorous parallelisms or groupings to them is impossible. One would rather be tempted to say: gentlemen, place your bets, and for the rest, trust in the air du temps. But, please, play! Play! Otherwise, what infinite secretions of boredom!Foucault, Michel and Pierre Boulez. 1985. Contemporary Music and the Public. Perspectives of New Music, 24 (1 Fall-Winter), pp.6-12. 

一方面，我还是期待这个社会能够存在许许多多自主的、饱满的创作心灵以及相应的作品；另一方面，我也期待这些作品在社会上能够恰当地被群众所接收，被喜闻乐见。

西蒙·玻利瓦尔青年交响乐团仅不过是委内瑞拉众多杰出青年乐团中的一个代表，而它成功背后所展示出的，则是一项极为令人震撼、钦佩、赞叹与感动的，用音乐改变年轻人命运的伟大工程--"音乐救助计划"，也就是在这个计划的倡导下，委内瑞拉掀起了一场历时30多年的"音乐改变人生命运的革命"。

他整形后肤色比黑白混血的奥巴马白一点，比奥巴马大三岁，却早出道三十年。这早出道的整整三十年，决定麦可杰克逊从高峰跌落谷底，既精彩又危险的一生。 创作天分始於童年 猝死，或许对与我同年的杰克逊是最好的结局。持续不了的高潮人生提早结束；庞大的天文五亿美元债务就此勾销；最后一场音乐演唱会也不用再举行了。他太早经历盛况，以致长大不了，也活不下去。杰克逊无预警死亡，固然颤栗了许多随著他音乐长大的人们；但这几年，他不是被控「狎童」，就是被迫出售梦幻庄园；2003年起已无新音乐作品。往事既不堪回首，人生又何必持续下去？ 杰克逊最著名的作品回想起来都像他的人生回忆录，《危险之旅》（Dangerous）、《早逝》（Gone Too Soon），《黑或白》（Black or White），《战栗》（Thriller），《跳舞机》（Dancing Machine）……。其中《黑或白》，开创了MTV史上观看次数最多的音乐影视带，片长10分钟。故事中一个小孩与父亲对抗，爸爸喝斥孩子「把音量关小一点」，小孩子干脆拿了巨大的音箱，客厅一放，音量调最大；巨大的音波把父亲一轰冲上天，冲破屋顶、穿越天空，最终落地非洲。杰克逊玩耍他的美籍非洲裔背景，把90年代初期刚冒出芽的「Interculturalism」（跨文化）玩到极致。美国音乐史上，每次总有一些不幸，黑人音乐才出头。Armstrong原只是为黑人送葬时的吹奏手；艾灵顿公爵是大萧条后小罗斯福新政的意外结果。 杰克逊天才般的音乐背景，来自於他不幸的童年。他们一家兄弟姊妹共9人，加父母11人，只住一厅二房。父亲从小打骂，不过10岁不到，兄弟5人组成的「Jackson 5」已在美国中西部巡回演唱。1969年他才11岁，已是父亲的最大摇钱树，签约摩城唱片公司；1978年杰克逊20岁，王牌音乐制作人昆西琼斯帮杰克逊打造《墙外》、《战栗》与《飙》。从此没有童年的杰克逊进入了巨星生涯，他24岁已成「音乐史上最畅销的唱片歌手」、「超越猫王」、「专辑连37周冠军」、「史上最伟大的黑人歌手」。不幸的童年挡不住他的音乐天才，集作曲、作词、MV制作、舞蹈、演唱、乐器演奏於一身；他把黑人的蓝调与白人的摇滚、男性的高亢与女性的柔美、成人的嗓音与婴儿般牙牙语音融合在一块儿。舞蹈动作猥亵，双脚却如月球漫步般优雅迷人，他像一只美国黑白熔炉、新旧世代交替中诞生的怪物，瞬间征服了全美国；10年后美国人终究容不下一个怪物，开始遗弃他、贬抑他。 灵魂始终孤独受伤 最终，上帝救走了他。杰克逊的死，我最想听到奥巴马的吊言。他比奥巴马更像黑人社区的小孩，没有完整的教育，没有呵护的家庭。打骂之间也就相依为命，人生纵使出现奇遇，也难以为继。奥巴马在杰克逊出道后三十年，才登上美国政坛核心；这三十年间美国黑人当选过纽约市长、洛杉矶市长、路易斯安纳州长……最终总统。 我从杰克逊的身上看到一个不幸的黑人小孩；无论多么成名，灵魂始终孤独受伤。愿他在上帝的怀里，终得安息。

1957年左右，梁羽生、金庸、百剑堂主在《大公报》上开的专栏《三剑楼随笔》中的一篇。提及表姐蒋英与钱学森合著关于中国音乐事业发展的文章。

裹挟的时代，把我们从六十年代投入了蜕变更新的八十年代。我从一个职业牧民，变成了一个职业写作者。
　　　　“现代”冲淘着那时的中国文学界。
　　　　文学领域，特别是小说领域的故作虚玄和暧昧怪奥，使我浅尝辄止和心里疲倦。一个在北京长大的日本朋友的介绍，使我偶然碰上了冈林信康的歌曲。初听时虽然有振聋发聩的新鲜感，但我还是没留意，这个遭遇，对于我见识“现代派”有多重要。

湖北郭店一号楚墓出土有《老子》及儒家著述写本，引起国际的重视，到目前为止，已经有几次举行国际性的讨论会。规模最大的，要算今年（1999年）10月15一18日，在武汉大学珞珈山庄举行的研讨会，笔者有机会出席、接触到一些新发表的论文，复在编钟馆再作一次详细考察。归来之后，因草此文。

6月25日，迈克尔·杰克逊死讯传出的时候，贾樟柯正在上海忙着拍纪录片《上海传奇》。他既不上网，也没看报，并不知道杰克逊死了，直到看到高晓松发来的短信：“迈克尔·杰克逊已于2009年6月25日下午在洛杉矶去世。这个人的去世让我感觉到，或许我们都老了。”