Loading...
雷昂纳德·伯恩斯坦

未作回答的问题-伯恩斯坦哈佛六讲

课程信息

未作回答的问题:伯恩斯坦哈佛六讲

  Lecture 1 - Musical Phonology

  Lecture 2 - Musical Syntax

  Lecture 3 - Musical Semantics

  Lecture 4 - The Delights and Dangers of Ambiguity

  Lecture 5 - The Twentieth Century Crisis

  Lecture 6 - The Poetry of Earth

 

这部讲座表达清晰,思考犀利而奇崛,引用丰富而完备,值得每个爱乐人细细研读。这里只从他借鉴语言学的角度,谈谈音乐评论方面可能的改进。 

  一、借鉴与发展 

  伯恩斯坦大胆移植了若干语言学概念,来阐述他的音乐思考。例如他引入的phoneme就颇有意思。语言学里一个phoneme,可以对应多个具体语音。如果把phoneme移植到音乐中,那么通常的乐谱记录的就是音乐上的phoneme——因为同一种乐谱会产生相异的诠释。比如Barenboim说,贝多芬和德彪西对pianissimo的理解是是不同的。按照伯恩斯坦的移植,那么这种现象就可以用phoneme来描述。注意虽然他只是把音乐的事实重新归类命名,但由于使用的概念更精确,因而也拓展了文字描述音乐的的可能途径。 

   

  二、音乐评论 

  已知问题:音乐评论无法保证让读者感知到音乐信息。 

  那么问题可能出在两个地方: 

  1作者头脑不清楚,缺乏音乐分辨力。 

  2是缺乏足够准确的语言或符号体系,能把要分析的不同精确展示出来。 

   

  1是分辨、思考与判断的过程,只要“听出点东西”,人人都可以尝试。音乐教育和听音经历有利于培养此种能力。 

  2是表达过程,如果受阻,说明缺乏有效的纸面表达方式。伯恩斯坦的思路对改进第2点有特效。 

   

  引入phoneme之后,更严格的音乐描述体系就显得相当必要了。语言学用国际音标记录语音。这一体系可以把人的语音相当严密地记录下来。如果熟稔音标符号,甚至可以“复制”出原话。 

  那么,是否有严格的音乐符号系统,能把音乐发生中的各种细节也如实展现出来?比如说可以把rubato的细节记录下来,把自由延长或跳奏的具体时值记录下来,把不同音乐家对f、p的响度理解记录下来,乃至把某一种哥德堡变奏曲的录音也记录下来。精密的语言有助于精密的思考,伯恩斯坦在讲座中有言:confirm, clarify, debunk,严谨的音乐符号可以加速实现他的构想。同样,音乐评论里若使用这样一套符号体系,可以提高读者对所评音乐的感知程度——既然只有可感知的才是真实的;而作者也可以直接用笔来写音乐“是什么”,而不必拐弯抹角地告诉大家音乐“像什么”。

 

  (This letter to Leonard Bernstein was written in October, 1973 by a Harvard University sophomore in response to the second of the Norton Lectures. ) 

   

  Mr. Bernstein, 

   

  The second Norton Lecture left me uneasy about a few of your linguistical/musical analogues. Some clarification, I think, is necessary. 

   

  First, you seem to have a strange notion of linguistic embedding. ...The structure which you demonstrated in the Mozart Symphony [no. 40] really has no parallel in human speech since, unfortunately, we can handle only one voice at a time. For those bars to have truly been embedding, the strings would have stopped to let the woodwinds have their say, and then would have completed their material. It is a small point, I know, but I think you probably could find real embedding if you looked for it; and you could then have described the Mozart as a distinctly musical extension of human embedding. 

   

  And you also used the word "creativity" without making clear the distinction between linguistic creativity and artistic creativity. This was probably not intentional, but you should be more careful when making these analogies. If I were to recast the "Eroica" [Beethoven's Third Symphony in E-flat Major] in, say, D Major, I would certainly not have been creative in an artistic sense, although I would have been creative "linguistically." I have never heard a D Major "Eroica" before, but I could fabricate one with my own competence and with the score in front of me. To slip this by to an unsuspecting audience is not even quasi-scientific; it could be construed as downright tricky. Keep on your toes, Leonard. That Harvard community with which you dare to go one step further is also keenly aware of the shortcomings of your arguments. 

   

  Just one more thing. Your fugue on the Hanon exercises was fun, but as I was sitting there I asked myself why you didn't mention the point in the 3rd movement of Shostakovich's Second Piano Concerto where the pianist actually does play the exercises for several bars. You must know about it; you play the concerto excellently. Even if it was intended as a joke between Dmitri [Shostakovich] and Maksim [Shostakovich's son and for whom the Concerto was written], the important thing to remember is that the aesthetic quality of the music is not lost for a second. 

   

  Enough of my ravings. Until Tuesday night. 

主讲教师

雷昂纳德·伯恩斯坦

雷昂纳德·伯恩斯坦

报名本课程!

个人
准备开始学习了吗?。这是一个自学的课程,所以喜欢在自己的速度学习!
200