|
Post by SCWGuqin on Dec 12, 2006 19:25:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Dec 13, 2006 8:22:55 GMT
I've enjoyed listening to the tracks - thanks utmostvacuity2!! The quality of the recordings varies, as I am sure you are aware. I don't have anything to say re the traditional compositions except that they were enjoyable to listen to. The experimental compositions - or improvisations? - were interesting in that the qin and Indian music seem to blend in well together. There was something that sounded like the Chinese erhu, but I have a feeling it wasn't (perhaps it's one of those Indian stringed instruments that might have sounded like an erhu). It would've been good to know things like the titles, contexts and/or intended effects of each of the experimental tracks. Or were these experimental music for the sake of experimentation and nothing else i.e. there's no title/context/intended effect/meaning that you can talk about?
You also mentioned "abilities". Well what do you mean - were you thinking of the improvisation skills, compositional techniques, recording qualities, abilities to create certain effects and/or convey certain meanings, etc.? It would be fun to hear what you've got to add!
I've done experimental playing before as well and apart from being a lot of fun, it's also amazing how the musics of many ancient cultures just seem to blend in so well together as if they were once a big happy family!
|
|
|
Post by SCWGuqin on Dec 13, 2006 14:21:37 GMT
The experimental ones are all improvised; the other instrument is a Western violin played in the South Indian fashion. (The violin has been fully absorbed into that tradition and displaced indigenous bowed instruments.) As for titles/meaning, I actually think the qin tradition emphasizes this aspect too much, and I'm happy to leave these examples as just pure music in the hope that their "meaning" is transparent. Sure I could go into details about how they're intended to work, but that would involve mainly technical talk about how to interface between the formal aspects of Chinese and Indian music. That was the chief goal here--before Chinese/Indian fusion can "get off the ground" it has to figure out what it is! Actually now that I mention that, I can explain the basic "point" of each of the three. Actually (1) was a demo used to apply for a grant, and doesn't have much meaning per se The idea for the other two pieces, played together at a concert, was to explore viable textures that adequately combined qin and Indian strengths. (2) is me improvising off phrases from a traditional piece called Shuang He Ting Quan, mixed in with modal and heptatonic elements in an Indophilic fashion, while the violin does whatever it can to tastefully accompany. (3) is the violin's turn wto solo, with the basic instructions "go nuts" while I accompany as fast as I can with only open strings and harmonics. This piece was necessary since no Indian musician worth his salt will agree to appear onstage unless he has a chance to bust out fast. Now that we've explored these textures we're somewhat satisfied with them, and can try somewhat more engaging ones that involve more parity between musicians. There are a lot of hurdles in attempting Chinese-Indian fusion, and they mainly involve the qin musician getting more capable and daring, and the Indian musician learning to calm (the f*ck) down. South Indian music is ridiculously energetic compared to qin music (compare the Subramaniam/Chen recording, referenced elsewhere on this forum), while most qin musicians lack basic skills (like improv, modal understanding, and fast playing) that render them useless as jam session partners. When I talk about our abilities progressing, I mean mainly my own technical competence--notice how in those recordings I choose to use only sanyin and fanyin to go fast, while I'm better with anyin now. etc. Regarding your (guzhenglover's) comments about how well the two blend--I've argued for some time that, despite history and cultural politics, Chinese and Western music are not a good match. Chinese + other sophisticated monophonic traditions makes more sense, like those from South Asia and the Middle East. My knowledge of Indian music has totally transformed the way I play traditional qin, though that may not be evident to anyone but me!
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Dec 13, 2006 15:17:51 GMT
Your playing is very soft and gentle.
|
|
|
Post by SCWGuqin on Dec 13, 2006 17:40:42 GMT
Translation: the recordings are barely audible
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Dec 15, 2006 7:37:08 GMT
Thanks for those detailed comments re your recordings, utmostvacuity2! How interesting. According to my own experience, though it may be true that Chinese and Western music generally do not work as well together as does Chinese with other "musics", this may depend on a great many variables, such as the musical genre and style, instrumentation, techniques and methodology, etc. I've heard some appalling examples of traditional Chinese music played on the piano, and personally I think the effect was, well, terrible. But I also once played the piano with a Chinese orchestra (not in a concerto; the piano only took part in this Chinese orchestral piece), and I thought the overall effect was satisfactory.
Adding to the argument is the observation that whether or not Chinese music and other musics blend in well with each other may be an entirely subjective matter. For example, I've just recently realised that there are a few concerti (with a featured Chinese instrument) that I simply don't care for - and two of these are pretty famous - but that doesn't mean that other people agree with me.
As an aside, my experience has indicated to me that Chinese and Japanese music seem to work together well (though like I've said above, I accept that even this assertion has to take into consideration different variables and personal preferences).
|
|
|
Post by SCWGuqin on Dec 15, 2006 11:04:11 GMT
Yeah, I'll admit that it's all a matter of different variables. I used to think that Chinese + Indian would be a "uniquely good" fusion, but that's really only because I know more about Indian than about any other non-Chinese music. I'm a total outsider (on the aesthetic/instinctual level) to Western music after about 1450, so I don't know what "Chinese + Western" has to offer in the abstract, hypothetical arena. What I do know is that I *despise* most of the music that comes out of the conservatories, and that is certainly one attempt at Chinese + Western, albeit a small slice of Western. We're all imprisoned in the perspectives of the music we train in...I wish I had some kind of "universal taste" that judged all musics with equal fidelity, but nobody can have that. In any event, my attraction to Chinese + Indian comes from several sources. One class I'll call "positive": it has to do with what I regard as wonderful strengths of the kind of music Indian represents. The other class is "negative", involving things I think the qin tradition lacks and ought to have. POSITIVE: come ON, it's impossible not to like Indian music. The incredibly varied and expressive melodies, the vast array of moods, the intellectual intensity of it all. And the excitement of systematic improvisation at various rhythmic speeds. For whatever reason, Indian (specifically Northern, though I now prefer Southern) has always struck me as the most "naturally gripping" music around, though I think some Middle Eastern styles equal it in that respect (I have specific reasons why I prioritize Chinese + Indian over Chinese + [Indian +] Middle Eastern, but that's for another time.) There's also the fact that I'm attracted to various non-musical aspects of Indian civ and history. NEGATIVE: As a dedicated qin musician who tries to be faithful to the tradition, sometimes I just have to throw my hands in the air in frustration. The qin tradition lacks several things without which I couldn't live a musical life. Most importantly: 1. Improvisation. We discussed this elsewhere. Life without spontaneous composition = death. 2. Heptatonic scales. All its subtlety aside (and all the strengths of modal simplicity aside), Chinese pentatonic music is SERIOUSLY limited in expressive power and variety. Sticking in those two extra notes allows for semitone transitions, vastly expanding expressive power. 3. Lyrical texture. This one is a little hard to explain; I'll keep my remarks very brief. Qin music contrasts strongly with musics that I think are based ultimately on the voice. The latter prioritize coherent, continuous, expressive melodies. Qin music is much more start-and-stop, more spiraling, more irregular in its phrasing. That again is a unique strength, but if you want to make the qin "SING"--and I think to make the instrument sing is a deep urge for most instrumentalists--then you have to look to other traditions. Guzhenglover: isn't it the case that traditional zheng music doesn't use that tremolo that's omnipresent today? I think people started doing the tremolo a lot for exactly the same reason. Surveying the world of musics, Indian music represents the best answer to these three concerns. In the area of melodic (as opposed to harmonic) improvisation it is second to none, and does things very, very systematically. (One reason LXT's improvs generally strike me as "good" rather than "incredible" is that they don't have evident system to them. I hope that one of my eventual contributions to qin music could be *systematic* improvisation based on modes of some kind.) In the area of heptatonic scales, Indian music uses all 72 diatonic scales, allowing for complete diatonic exploration of the octave. There's little modulation and no tonic-shifting; these exist in Middle Eastern modal improv and thus represent "another layer" of complexity. Middle Eastern music also employs quarter tones which I'm not ready for. As for lyrical texture...the music speaks for itself. At this point I should seriously shut up I'm sorry to go on like this, but it's very exciting to me when someone expresses interest in the issues I've had to think through for so long.
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Dec 15, 2006 22:46:53 GMT
I generally prefer music that is true to a particular tradition, although some fusions work pretty well. A problem occurs when a fusion becomes mistaken for a tradition.
In my own situation, I learn and listen to a lot of Vietnamese music. I started out not even wanting to like the conservatory music, also referred to as Neo-traditional music. A common practice is to take vocal music out of its context and arrange it for instruments, some of which have been imported relatively recently into the "tradition". It would be more satisfying to claim that this music is lousy, but on the contrary, much of it is pretty good. It is just not really traditional. Of course, maybe I think it is good because it appeals to my Western taste. Get a listen to some Ca Tru music to get a more accurate flavor of true traditional music.
All musical traditions consist of a set of boundaries to work within. I don't know that one tradition is necessarily more successful compared to another due to fewer limitations. I think it is fun to see how creative people can be when they are limited in some fashion and they embrace the space between the borders.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
Post by Si on Dec 16, 2006 1:48:08 GMT
Do you think then, it would be possibel to do a sort of raga that explores a mode etc but its all on the qin rather than the sita for example?
I must admit that a survey of world musics (as in HMV /Borders) and recent pop music, does for me, leave china near the bottom of the pack. Its pop culture is dire compared to India and the Middle east - which is so excite and energetic - its easy to like it.
Anyway, now all the pop is just copy from the the west and I have not heard a cha cha cha sound fo years! (imagine kids going wild over a cha cha cha while the beatles and the stones were strutting there stuff...............................sorry i got side tracked
|
|
|
Post by SCWGuqin on Dec 16, 2006 2:50:07 GMT
"Do you think then, it would be possibel to do a sort of raga that explores a mode etc but its all on the qin rather than the sita for example?"
I mention systematic improvisation as desirable. The problem is doing systematic improv on the qin that is faithful in significant respects to the qin tradition and aesthetics. This is an ongoing difficulty for me. I might debut a semi-composed improvisatory piece in February and thus might have a recording of what I'm working on. I've discovered a lot, and here are a few distilled points:
1. Playing Indian music, i.e. serious/authentic Indian music, on the qin is not what this is about. Indian music is way too vast for me to study right now, AND I'm more interested in genuine fusion and novelty than in slavish imitation of what Indian music does. The qin is not physically suited to Indian music, plus there are many areas in which I think Indian music itself has oversights.
2. Indian music, suitably filtered through the player's personal feelings, offers phenomenal resources for developing technique and musicality on the qin. I sympathize when Gong Yi says things like we must learn to play any melody on the qin with ease--the difference is, he works with Western influence, while I work with other Asian influences. I believe that my study of Indian music, however superficial, has impacted my traditional qin playing in a major way. To some extent Indian music is all about "the selection, modification, and combination of pitches", and it does this in a highly rigorous way that is genuinely theoretical. Qin has no theory of this kind, and re-conceptualizing traditional qin music in those terms yields novel insights. Again, if anyone's interested, I could go into more detail here.
3. Systematic improvisation might be impossible to derive using only Chinese musical resources. I have tried various ways of "arriving at" systematic improvisation using the material and techniques of the traditional repertoire, but with very limited success. I think a much better person to consult here would be LXT, since to the extent that his improv is systematic it seems to draw almost entirely on Chinese resources.
4. Even partial application of Indian-like styles of modal improvisation yields music utterly different in texture from traditional qin music. This is what I referred to as "lyrical texture" in a previous post. As I currently practice them, traditional playing and improvisation have *utterly* different feels, and I think this is problematic insofar as I seek a faithful development of existing qin principles. It's also notable that LXT's improvisations have a starkly different texture from traditional pieces. I have many additional thoughts on what accounts for the uniquely labyrinthine and non-linear texture I think we can observe in traditional qin compositions. It's a valuable achievement, but I don't know how I can improvise with it!
5. What success I HAVE had in developing satisfying improvisation has involved the interweaving of three elements: a. The use of melodic modes to articulate emotion. The key here is to understand how scales work, and how to construct compelling phrases. Typical Chinese music training does not prepare you to do this, and Indian music makes the largest contribution here. Plus anything else I heard that day... b. The systematic exploitation of the technical possibilities of the qin. The qin is organologically unusual, and its unusual properties can be used to good effect. Contrasting textures, execution of the same pitch on different strings, and shifting tonics add things to modal music that are foreign to e.g. Indian contexts. Recently I have been developing a "toolkit" of ways to exploit the instrument, using various spatial zones on the qin and pre-assigned rules for selecting and combining techniques. You can hear one example in the "Tanam" piece above. Maintaining a constant pulsing drone on 7th string with my right hand thumb, I used inward strokes of the other fingers on the other 6 strings, intermingling open strings and harmonics. This is one of the first "textures" I developed, and I call it "matrix" or "matrix fingering" for evocative reasons. The main point is to keep the thumb drone going and do whatever you can with the other fingers against that background. If I were to switch away from the thumb drone and work with more pure mo-tiao-gou-ti, it would no longer be "matrix fingering" but something else I haven't named yet. Recently I discovered something I call "axis" which involves working up and down the 7th hui positions with anyin, exploiting shifting fifth chords. c. The use of good old fashioned qin aesthetic/artistic principles throughout.
I won't bother saying more about (c) because we're probably already familiar with what I mean!
OK, that's enough from me for now. Hopefully I'll have more to report after February.
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Dec 18, 2006 3:18:48 GMT
Sorry I've got to keep this short as I have to run...anyway I am all for fusion music and experimentations. After all, even the so-called "established" western music is the result of musicians in the past like Bach who dared to explore new possibilites based on past knowledge (and beyond). Apart from my own musical experimentations, I know of people in Europe who specialise in Chinese + Middle Eastern + Indian fusioned string music, which sounds so terribly interesting...
Please do kindly share with us more of your musical insights and expertise, utmostvacuilty2!
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Jan 10, 2007 4:37:55 GMT
Hi utmostvacuity2! Any more interesting musical outputs lately? It's always a great pleasure to hear from you regarding your musical activities and listening to your expertise opinions...
|
|
|
Post by SCWGuqin on Jan 10, 2007 16:44:16 GMT
Hah, not much currently. I should have a few performances in February (Chinese New Year = p4R74y!), but I'm not sure if they'll be recorded. Mainly just practicing these days. New findings...uh...qin music is really interesting! How's that?
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Jan 11, 2007 3:10:05 GMT
Well it's sounding interesting already, utmostvacuity2! Pls do keep us in the loop with your musical ventures/creations etc.!
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jan 11, 2007 13:30:41 GMT
Oh talking about experimental sorts of music - i found out the other day that my teacher is in a band. She plays qin and there are other trad instruments etc as well as a keyboard or synth playing atmospheric stuff in the back ground. She has a concert in CNY and Dia Xiao Lian will be joining them. I'll let you know how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Jan 12, 2007 3:39:00 GMT
Sounds like interesting stuff, Syburn. Speaking of guqin concerts, there's a concert in November this year featuring the SCO and it has a guqin-related composition on the programme. I think it's something like a guqin concerto. Are you planning to be back in Singapore during that time of the year? If so, you might be interested in attending. If not, I'll let you know how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jan 12, 2007 17:35:09 GMT
Wow November - so far away!!!
Tell you the truth (and to be honest) I can really stand Chinese Orchestras (i think the music is too shallow and mainstream - not interesting enough to hold my attention) - if you want to hear good music just go to see the SSO (sinagpore syphony Orcestra) - for me, chinese orchesral musical music is not even near the same level as Baroque/classical/romantic/avant garde ect......... its like Kids music, but naturally Guqin music is different!!!!
For concerts - Call up the TeoChew Society / Clan association - I have seen a lot of gu qin concerts at their place before.
|
|
|
Post by SCWGuqin on Jan 12, 2007 19:04:59 GMT
If people are interested...I have LOTS to say on just how bad "Chinese orchestral music" is. And I don't just mean "I don't like it"--I mean it's misconceived, a hybrid spawned for questionable reasons and marketed deceitfully.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jan 12, 2007 20:05:23 GMT
Meow! Saucer of milk for table three please!
Well, I haven't listened to much COM so can't give a fair comment on it. Any linked examples to test my appreciation skills?
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jan 13, 2007 8:05:57 GMT
After attending quite a few COM concets in Sinagpore and at the same time also attending the Singapore Syph Orchestra concerts most weeks, it enabled me to understand why western classical music is far superior.
COM aims to please and does not make it hard for the listener to access the music. Its melodies and motifs are "in yer face".
But western classical tradition requires more work to enjoy and so unlock the pleasure of the music. I still cant claim to understand any major work, but there is enough happening musically to keep you listening and learning and discovering and enjoying.....
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Jan 15, 2007 3:43:29 GMT
Well this is not disagreeing with you guys but, I understand that the SCO ranks among the best Chinese orchestras. But I really can't say much more about it in its favour or not as I haven't been to any of its concerts. Anyway the attraction of the November concert I mentioned was simply the guqin segment of the programme, and I've never heard of the guqin in a performance with an orchestra. I've been to a few concerts by SSO and in different venues in Singapore. I do know a lot more about western music esp. as I've performed with orchestras before (piano and harpsichord concerti), but I still would be hestitant to say that western classical music is any more superior than other music traditions. OK, I admit that there are certain genres of Chinese music that I am not particularly fond of - and I am speaking personally - and this includes not only certain types of Chinese orchestral music but also Peking opera or Kunqu (and I hope people won't boo me for saying this... ). I think for me (again speaking personally) is Chinese instrumental (solo) music (which could be solo performances of anything). So there are concerts organised by the TeoChew Society / Clan association in Singapore? Sounds interesting. Would you happen to have their website links?
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jan 15, 2007 12:58:00 GMT
Teochew thingy - just call them or visit one of the chinese music shops and ask if anything is coming up.
I think after you have attended a seasons worth of SCO concerts you will understand what I mean, more so if you actually come from a western music base.
For me the best is a small group of 4-5 musicians, but I think these types of groups rarely perform.
The worst is a legion of 50 schools girls all performing GU ZHENG together, I did have the misfortune of that sort of tourture once.
Typical in a Chinese Orchestra is to have to sit through lots of Drums and souna sections. Its the equiv. on having to listen to football hooligans "perform" in the stands. To me drums and sounas are ceremonial /wedding/funeral instruments - i dont thing they work in an orchestra. They just sound loud and horrible.
One thing that I always find intersting though, are those massive er-hus that take the place of cello and double base. Unfortunately most orchestras dont seem to use them.
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Jan 16, 2007 6:53:33 GMT
OK, another admission here - I simply do NOT like the Yellow River concerto or the Butterfly Lovers Concerto. I think they are the kind of "in yer face" music that syburn you were talking about (well for me they are, anyway). There are things there in those compositions that just turn me off, and I think utmostvacuity2 you have successfully pinpointed the problems on this forum and elsewhere (having said this, would you consider these concerti as the exceptions to what you might regard as "bad" Chinese orchestral music?)
|
|
|
Post by SCWGuqin on Jan 16, 2007 19:53:52 GMT
I've tried twice to send you three (CCC, Syburn, Guzhenglover) a relevant document I wrote about this, but apparently the file was just too big. Last year I wrote a 100-page guide to Chinese music, published by Demidec, a company specializing in study materials for high-school academic competitions. In addition to covering all the curriculum, I allowed myself generous space to discuss rather abstract aesthetic, historical, etc. issues about Chinese music. One of the biggest themes of the whole text was just how different "Chinese [traditional] music" is now from how it was 70-80 years ago. Basically, Chinese music has been totally overhauled, partially gutted, and pumped full of steroids by selectively appropriated Western classical music. The account most popular sources give of "Chinese traditional music" is HUGELY misleading because it disregards this ongoing process. If you believe CD notes, concert programs, and most websites, what goes under the name of "minzu yinyue" today, with its orchestral arrangements, 4-part harmony, and extroverted virtuosity is traditional, old, authentic, even "classical" Chinese music. Nothing could be further from the truth. Much of its evolution didn't happen until the 50s and 60s. What are the reasons? In brief,
1. Since the late 19th century, many elements of the Chinese intellectual and cultural elite believed that Western culture was clearly superior to Chinese culture, and offered many specific reasons for preferring Western music over Chinese music. Insofar as Chinese music was worth pursuing at all, it required "modernization" by subjecting it to the technical and aesthetic expectations of Western music. 2. The rise of nationalistic, romantic, and popular ideologies (under the GMD but especially under the CCP) led to an emphasis on folk melodies and sentimentality. The main precedent for the music that developed under this aegis came from the Soviet Union. The development of Chinese music in the Communist decades is actually quite similar to what went on under Soviet cultural control: basically, a fusion of romantic-era Western techniques and expectations with ideologically-driven nationalist/populist themes.
Now while the music resulting from these processes may have various virtues, what I cannot stand (indeed, abhor) is the fact that it is marketed as something old and authentically Chinese. It is neither of these, but it appears to regard that mystique as essential to its identity and survival. What would you rather listen to: "ancient Chinese music of the emperors" or "1960s pseudo-folk melodies with Soviet-style harmonization"? Mystique (=age) is everything in Chinese culture, and here it helps to cover up the basically crass and poorly-thought-through origins of much contemporary Chinese music.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jan 16, 2007 20:06:54 GMT
I got it, but it looks like a long read! I'll scan through it when I get the time.
|
|