|
Post by SCWGuqin on Aug 23, 2007 15:21:44 GMT
Zhang Longxiang (Zhang Ziqian and Long Xiang Cao) and Zha Xiaoxiang (Zha Fuxi and Xiao Xiang Shui Yun) spring to mind. I'm more in the "who? what? what?" class, myself. Now let's all come up with our own, at least as represents us right now. I guess I'm Hua Oulu... What about you, Charlie? Xu Qiushui? haha btw the other well-known ones are Peng Yuge (Peng Qingshou + Yu Ge) and Wu Yuqiao (Wu Jinglue + Yu Qiao Wen Da) Interesting that the custom seems to have died out. Perhaps it's because all the prominent players "specialize" in so many pieces at once these days. There's no one crowning piece for LXT, GY, WWG, CGL, LYR, etc. Plus they also tend to "specialize" in the same ones...
|
|
|
Post by Si on Aug 24, 2007 1:16:35 GMT
Yeah Tod - this it my problem too. But now I will focus on improving all that I have learnt so far. In other words a few months without learning a new tune.
I just hope that i can still understand and remember what i was previously told to do on all the pieces i have "so called" learnt.
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Aug 24, 2007 2:31:24 GMT
All this is making sense - for the moment - but then what makes me curious is why one would spend astronomical amounts of money investing in acquiring a qin with the aim being able to play only one, two or a few pieces well. That makes each piece sound so expensive! (I had to stop myself from drawing any analogy with the piano, since most people who do invest huge amounts of money in a piano tend to want to be able to play the piano well, too, if they don't already and the investment value of the piano seems to be a secondary concern...well I mean at least those who can afford an expensive piano in the first place...)
I'd just like to say that I am not trying to equate art with money here, nor am I trying to make sense of the situation by comparing art with money. I know and I agree that that would be an absurd comparison. Still, as in some of my previous posts, I already have some opinions of my own but I just thought that it might be good to hear what people have to say about this one!
|
|
|
Post by SCWGuqin on Aug 24, 2007 3:50:39 GMT
Someone made a remark earlier, to the effect that maybe guzheng is more your "style" than guqin. That may have been a throw-away comment, but your most recent post suggests there may be something to it. Why would one spend lots of money with the aim of playing only a few pieces? Well, firstly this question is a little misleading by itself. Qins are not "astronomically" expensive, and the best qins are orders of magnitude cheaper than the best Western instruments. And probably no one gets a qin *expecting* to play only a few pieces--experienced players have probably gone through dozens or hundreds of pieces, and have simply settled on a few as their core.
But the spirit of your question suggests a dissonance with qin culture, with the attitude that makes the qin what it is. Obviously I'm simplifying here, and there will always be people like Gong Yi who frankly have an inferiority complex towards more extroverted, professionalized performing traditions. The qin is almost unqiue in the world in the degree to which it emphasizes that music is about SELF-PERFECTION. Not sounding pretty, not impressing an audience, not selling yourself, not being part of a group, not even having fun or expressing yourself (strictly speaking). To the average traditional literatus--and that means nearly all qin players before the 1960s--those motivations are vulgar if not contemptible. Such an attitude may seem rather extreme, but you don't have to endorse it to recognize that the qin's attitude towards itself is fundamentally different from what goes on in virtually every other music. Including guzheng and all the rest of Chinese music.
If you don't understand why playing only one piece, or half a piece, or a single note, or SILENCE might be the highest and best form of music, something worthy of dedicating your life to--you don't understand the qin.
|
|
|
Post by Si on Aug 24, 2007 5:22:10 GMT
a lot of effort does go into just learning one piece, including buying the qin and learning all the stuff that is from a totally different culture....
it did cross my mind that it would be much easier to just enjoy listening to the cds instead - but thats not as much fun is it!
|
|
|
Post by sanmenxia on Aug 24, 2007 5:40:29 GMT
Good post! IMHO the worth or value of music itself has absolutely nothing to do with money, but of course the music business, making a living as a musician etc are entirely different.
I would choose to be able to play a few pieces to the highest standard rather than being able to play a hundred badly anyday. The latter seems quite pointless to me.
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Aug 24, 2007 6:13:24 GMT
Well I don't think anyone has any right to conclude, based on a few posts, what is my style or not. I did kind of thought that I might get shot down for asking the question, but I wanted to anyhow and anyway someone's got to ask it. What I meant was that qins do cost more than most other Chinese musical instruments and I have read stuff in various qin or non-qin related literature about people questioning the reason why qins should cost so much. I think people should feel disconcerted about those who see the qin as a money-making object rather than me who's just curious about the situation. And what I have a problem with is those businesspeople, not those who are prepared to spend lots of time and money on an art that they love (like I still do and I have already spent a lot of money on my lessons, not to mention the trouble of trying to find someone to teach me).
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Aug 24, 2007 8:31:51 GMT
The reason why qins cost so much is because a) the difficulty in sourcing good materials, b) the limited target market, c) even since UNESCO's proclaimation, all qin makers have hiked their prices up from what it already was, d) the difficulty and time in making qins, e) natural price inflation, f) growing demand, et cetera. TBH, I don't think the qin costs as much as a grand piano which costs anything between £5000 to £15,000 depending on materials and workmanship (but I suppose you get more wood out of it for the money...). And yes, it is true that some qin makers tend to rip people off; I've heard stories. But isn't that the same for all instruments.
And trying to 'rationalise' the qin by calculation of the cost vs. benefit is slightly besides the point of the qin and of music. As Stephen said, qin players don't aim for anything, they just play and whatever happens during is of natural consequence and not forced or predicted.
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Aug 24, 2007 8:47:23 GMT
The reason why qins cost so much is because a) the difficulty in sourcing good materials, b) the limited target market, c) even since UNESCO's proclaimation, all qin makers have hiked their prices up from what it already was, d) the difficulty and time in making qins, e) natural price inflation, f) growing demand, et cetera. TBH, I don't think the qin costs as much as a grand piano which costs anything between ?000 to ?5,000 depending on materials and workmanship (but I suppose you get more wood out of it for the money...). And yes, it is true that some qin makers tend to rip people off; I've heard stories. But isn't that the same for all instruments. And trying to 'rationalise' the qin by calculation of the cost vs. benefit is slightly besides the point of the qin and of music. As Stephen said, qin players don't aim for anything, they just play and whatever happens during is of natural consequence and not forced or predicted. Thank you for your post, Charlie. Of course, it is a shame that some people use qin as a source of financial gain - and they do that with other instruments, too - and we qin players are not like that and stay focused on the art of qin music.
|
|
|
Post by charliecharlieecho on Aug 24, 2007 10:33:12 GMT
Of course, it is a shame that some people use qin as a source of financial gain. I agree. It's like doctors being paid for treating people - their ethics should tell them to do it for free. :-)
|
|
|
Post by charliecharlieecho on Aug 24, 2007 10:34:57 GMT
I'm more in the "who? what? what?" class, myself. From what I've heard about him Pipstraw's more in the "Why on Earth does he bother class". But each to his own.
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Aug 24, 2007 17:41:07 GMT
Thank you for your post, Charlie. Of course, it is a shame that some people use qin as a source of financial gain - and they do that with other instruments, too - and we qin players are not like that and stay focused on the art of qin music. Boy do I ever disagree with that! If people could not make a living from making music, teaching music, and making instruments, our choices would be few and standards would be much lower. I highly value my teachers and do not resent the lesson fees. I greatly appreciate the skilled craftsmen who have made my instruments. I do not believe that they have shamed themselves by charging for their valuable work. I also admire those who take the difficult path of being a professional musician. Not many can make a good living that way, especially in traditional music. Best wishes, David
|
|
|
Post by tod on Aug 24, 2007 19:42:10 GMT
This thread has taken some odd twist and turns.... does anyone really take up the qin to become rich? Only spirtually, I hope ....
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Aug 24, 2007 19:54:40 GMT
Well, anyone who wants to 'get rich' ought to go into crime et al. I seriously doubt that you can make much money out of qin and it should stay that way. Money really should only be a secondary thought in music. The first thought should be primarily the music itself and I could go on about self-cultivation and all that but it has already been said. The key thing here is sincerity.
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Aug 24, 2007 21:20:41 GMT
I don't understand the attitude that earning a living is degrading. Making one's way in the world by playing or teaching guqin for hire is no less honorable than farming, building houses, or teaching school, to start with. The music itself may be rewarding, but that does not pay the bills.
If it were possible for someone to become a millionaire by playing traditional Chinese music, that would be terrific. Unfortunately, our society values talented sports heroes more than guqin masters. In my dreamland, sports stars are not more highly rewarded than great teachers and musicians.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
Post by SCWGuqin on Aug 24, 2007 21:47:34 GMT
It's interesting to think that people's attitudes about what constitutes a "sincere" or "worthy" approach to profit differs according to the profession in question. While we might lament the sky-high salaries of athletes and movie stars, we tend not to view them as morally flawed for accepting the money. University professors, however low their salaries by comparison, make far more than any guqin player (as far as I know)--but it's the qin players we single out for criticism??
There's only one explanation I can think of. The entire pre-modern ideology of the qin is anti-proft and anti-making-a-living. It was almost by definition an amateur instrument, and it gloried in that amateurism. The idea that making a profit is an unworthy goal is deep-seated in several Chinese moral traditions--the kind that tended to be taken seriously, even if superficially, by the elites who played qin. Sure they might draw hefty salaries from government employment or landowning--but the qin was holy!! Making money from the qin would be like making money with religion, and think how much criticism THAT has gotten across history!
|
|
|
Post by charliecharlieecho on Aug 25, 2007 7:31:43 GMT
But wasn't it the case that the arts in general should be for personal development? Of the 4 arts the only one without a moral element was qi, and even that could be used for mental development - thinking slowly. carefully and comprehensively before acting. Shu and hua were explicitly used to judge character and hence as a way of developing character. Then there's the question of whether the character that the player/poet/artist was projecting was genuine - the eternal question of whether people are what they seem to be. And couldn't the philosophy of the gentleman amateur be used as a form of snobbery or as an excuse for poor performance?
Or maybe the emphasis on the character developing aspects of the arts was a way of encouraging introspection - am I doing this for aesthetic reasons or because it's the "done thing" for people in my position? - am I playing golf because I enjoy it or because my boss does and I want to get on his good side? Bringing it back to the qin today, am I learning qin because I really like it? or because Mummy and Daddy want me to? and what are their reasons anyway?
Maybe the moral factors are most important in the long term, but at this stage of the qin's history I don't give a damn. The important thing is that people play. If we set targets that people disagree with or don't understand we make it more likely that they won't play, and the fewer the people who play the more likely it becomes that the qin will die out. What kind of love for the qin wants that to happen?
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Aug 25, 2007 11:35:07 GMT
I'm not saying you cannot (or are not allowed to) make a living out of the qin, it's just that you're not gonna get rich overnight, that's all. Similarly, anyone who wants to get rich and famous through music is deluded because very few make it to the top unless they have real talent, get lucky or become 'celebrities'. The reason why sportsmen and actors get paid more is because there is more public awareness (which is crucial) of them and the companies cash in on it, diverting some of the money received into the the pockets of said individuals. At this point, since the majority of us are amateurs, we shouldn't concern ourselves much with making money out of the qin but focus on improving. If we get a bit of money at the end of the day, bonus. Then, when the time comes, we can make as much money as we want to.
On the subject of fees for tuition, whether a teacher charges you or not it is really part of common practice for payment of services. In the past, some may not charge you because the payment would be in the student's carrying on of the tradition and style whereas in this time and age this is no longer the case and so replaced by a customer service relationship. I really don't care about the cost of instruments since you can get a qin (however crappy it may be) for tuppence.
GY said that all the 'self-perfection' stuff is all rubbish and that the aim now is that as much people are introduced to the qin and want to learn to play it (and whether you subscribe to the traditional stuff is up to you, no one can stop you). Fair enough since one of the key things in saving the qin is to spread the word and get as much people involved in it. But he also says that now every qin player is claiming to be an expert, doing concerts and teaching even though they only have little experience. I suppose it is good for a lot people to play qin, but I wonder what will happen quality-wise. I'm not concerned if the whole world plays qin, more concerned about quality and lay people's views.
It's just a personal concern/opinion that I have with qin at the present moment and I can't dictate what one should or shouldn't do; what they do is up to them. I suppose you noticed that I'm more of a traditionalist in this aspect.
|
|
|
Post by song on Aug 25, 2007 17:37:43 GMT
A music instructor can and should charge fees for his/her lessons. If they are good, people will not mind paying more to learn from them. And they deserve high fees for doing a good job.
Well, if you know what some music instructors in my country is doing for financial gain. You would have no complaints. To further enrich their pockets, some go to the extent of 'persuading' the students in the orchestra which they are employed to teach to take private lessons with them. If that is not enough, students are also 'persuaded' to buy overpriced instruments. Those who failed to be persuaded are being made to feel like second class orchestra members and banished to the back rows of their orchestra. More often than not, their love for music is crushed and they leave school vowing never to touch their instruments ever again. The parents of these children have no clue what their children are going through.
|
|
|
Post by guzhenglover on Aug 27, 2007 4:42:38 GMT
Thank you for your post, Charlie. Of course, it is a shame that some people use qin as a source of financial gain - and they do that with other instruments, too - and we qin players are not like that and stay focused on the art of qin music. Boy do I ever disagree with that! If people could not make a living from making music, teaching music, and making instruments, our choices would be few and standards would be much lower. I highly value my teachers and do not resent the lesson fees. I greatly appreciate the skilled craftsmen who have made my instruments. I do not believe that they have shamed themselves by charging for their valuable work. I also admire those who take the difficult path of being a professional musician. Not many can make a good living that way, especially in traditional music. Best wishes, David Well this thread has certainly turned very interesting ! What I meant wasn't that it's wrong to make a living out of music. I just think that when the qin is being used as a mere commodity and nothing else by people who actually don't care about qin art that there is a problem. When people in the "music business" are promoting the art out of their love for it at the same time as making a living, that can be very admirable. Like some people have pointed out, the qin might not have traditionally been a source of income, but times have changed and so it may very well be those people who are making a living out of qin playing etc. who are spreading the art. Obviously those of us fortunate enough to be able to enjoy this noble art form might be horrified to even think that the qin could be something that could be featured in the "music business", but then again it would be equally pretentious or hypocritical to try and dissociate the qin from money altogether. It would be unreasonable to expect to have lessons for free in this day and age, noble and true as the master's intentions are. I think song's post as above has shed some light on the kind of situations that I was thinking of...
|
|
|
Post by Si on Aug 27, 2007 5:40:58 GMT
What / why do all these students enroll in conservatory in shanghai and beijing to study the qin. I think they must have some idea that they will earn money being a teacher, because what else can they do with a degree in qin? Not a very lot.
I dont think they will earn alot of money compared to others that went on to study and get a job with a good foreign MNC. Long term i dont know how long they will stick teaching, but at least all these teachers will make it easy for people to learn the qin (its about 75rmb per person in a group of 5 lesson in china, i was paying 150rmb for my one on one lesson)
Sorry I got lost and maybe im off the subject a bit.
|
|
|
Post by charliecharlieecho on Aug 27, 2007 6:44:30 GMT
I think syburn underestimates the influence of parents in China and maybe elsewhere too. Think of the tennis players and ballet dancers, especially girls, who are pushed into a career because of their parents' dreams. It's the same in China. All the conservatories have stories of students who graduate with outstanding marks and immediately abandon music to open restaurants, for example. For every one who does that, how many would like to but think "what else can (I) do with a degree in qin? Not a very lot"?
|
|
|
Post by Si on Aug 27, 2007 8:11:29 GMT
oh yeah - but what else can you do related to qin, was what i ment.
Otherwise why would you decide to study qin - they must have had a dream to do something with your qin skills.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Aug 27, 2007 8:17:33 GMT
GZL: I maybe mis-informed but what about Tsar Teh-yun? I heard that she refused to 'make money' out of the qin. She only ever released one CD album and one book (qinpu) and i think the proceeds went to her charity or something like that (I could be wrong).
A few years back, I heard a story about the first national Guqin competition in China. Some of the 'losers' threw a hissy fit and ripped the roll of names off the wall when they left in disgust. Says, a) they where more concerned with winning and the 'fame' that will bring rather than with music, and b) they don't know what the qin is really about.
Syburn: It is more complex than that. Some people want to study qin just as much as someone wants to study old instruments. To improve their and everyone else's knowledge on the subject for the future. Unfortunately, the parents have no idea about the complexities and significance and would push their child into the lion's den, reasons I already explained in an earlier thread/post.
|
|
|
Post by charliecharlieecho on Aug 27, 2007 12:43:27 GMT
Otherwise why would you decide to study qin - they must have had a dream to do something with your qin skills. Mine was that a number of students, including students at conservatories or with provate teachers, don't decide they want to study qin - their parents decide that they will study it. The child's dream is just to please Mummy and Daddy.
|
|