|
Post by davidmdahl on Oct 5, 2004 16:57:00 GMT
Price is a relative thing. The prices for CDs, VCDs, and sheet music in Asia are very much less than in the USA and Europe. Importers charge according to local custom, not the cost of the thing at the origin.
If someone is going to Asia already, that is the best way to get books and CDs, but the mail works also. Every so often I order CDs and music books from Vietnam. The postage is high, but the cost of the goods is so low that the total is quite reasonable. I just received a package for three books of music and two CDs from Hanoi and the cost was $30.
For traditional music CDs in China, I would think a music school or conservatory would be a good place to start. I wish I had thought of that when I was in VN in 2001. It is difficult to find trad music there as well. I think that the true traditional music is not so easy to find for tourists, so you have to make the right contacts.
For music resources in general, I have found that doors opened for me as I gained some competence on my instrument. When you can show that a good instrument will be played rather than hung on the wall as a decoration, it may be easier to get that good instrument.
Best wishes,
David Dahl Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Oct 6, 2004 10:36:13 GMT
Well, I just bought 3 qinpu from Hanshan Tang for less that $200, whereas if I bought those same ones from CCN, it would have costed my over $500!!! But maybe because the ones sold at HST were prints from 1994-1998, but the quality is the same as the WZZQP that I got earlier this year printed in 2003.
If you want qinpus, go to HST.
Of course, they sell only a small range: They don't have Jiao'an Qinpu, Xilutang Qintong, Chuncao Tang Qinpu, Mei'an Qinpu, etc...
|
|
|
Post by calden on Oct 9, 2004 15:24:31 GMT
Hey all:
I wandered in here a few weeks ago because of my interest in playing erhu. I've played for about three years, and taken it seriously for the last year or more. I'm getting fairly good at the repertoire I do (pitch is good, bowing not terribly scratchy, etc.) and play at local Chinese events with a Chinese friend who does erhu and dizi. I also incorporate erhu into some Celtic music with a local group I've played with for the last ten years.
Question about obtaining more traditional music: Anyone know of a good trad music internet site where I could download MP3s? How about that advertiser at the top of this forum's page - imusicsearch.com? I think that's just software to locate and download (and upload) tunes with other users, like napster, right? - but has anyone here used it and found some good trad Chinese music out there?
I agree with many of the comments in this thread about quality inconsistency with traditional music. I have a few erhu collections that would be fine if they would just take out the Casio keyboard backing tracks and the Roland synth percussion. Or, as has been noted, Western instrument "treatments" of traditional music.
Another complaint I have is with overproduction, with lots of reverb and a hollow sounding eq on the instruments - big bass, spangy treble. I recently bought a CD of a solo artist from Mongolia who played what essentially was a large erhu. Fantastic sound live, but on CD it sounded as if he was on the other side of the middle school gymnasium. All the detail and subtlety was lost due to the producer's belief that it wanted to be awash in a sea of reverb. It's unlistenable.
Some of the best erhu music I have is a two-disc collection of exercises and lesson book tunes that came with an instruction manual. By the way, this is a great book - written in Chinese and English (wonderfully bad translation, but I read some Chinese so I can delve into the real text). But the erhu recordings are simple and direct, and very, very dry. They sound as if you are simply sitting in front of a player or two, or sometimes in an ensemble format with a few other instruments.
So - any more suggestions on reliable sources?
By the way, thanks for setting up this forum. I love talking about and playing traditional Chinese music.
Carlos Alden
|
|
|
Post by rhp on Nov 24, 2004 3:53:51 GMT
Did you hear the "klezmer like" music on a particular album? I'd love to check it out. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Nov 24, 2004 4:33:33 GMT
I heard a klezmer-like tune performed on erhu during a live concert of Chinese music a few months ago. There was no announcement about the source of the tune, but my guess is that it came from western China, perhaps from the Uighurs. You could search on this term in google or Amazon and maybe come up with something. Of course, the spelling is phonetic and there are variants, such as Uighar and Uyghur. I don't have a CD in mind, but there is probably something available.
Best wishes,
David Dahl Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Dec 4, 2004 18:16:25 GMT
Good Lord! Today I fell into a honey trap by purchasing a CD known as China Classic Music vol. 1: Yi Guren... Big mistake! It was the worst music I've listened to in my life! Basically, they had tracks which had perfectly good traditional pieces on them on traditional instruments, except they for some reason decided to mix them in with synths and western instruments like piano! The result is a complete mess! Especially cringeworthy is the tracks with guqin in, like Liu Shui and Yi Guren. They were totally spoilt with a constant orchestra (played by a bunch of people who seems to haven't touched a single musical instrument in their lives) which was out of tune, irritating and annoying, and totally chaotic bunch of noise! One track was listed as 'guqin with xiao' but all I heard was qin with a bunch of other instruments and a sheng... I was so pissed off that I couldn't be bothered to finish to the end! I grabbed the sordid CD and in to the bin it goes! I want my money back!
|
|
|
Post by kyokuhon on Jan 24, 2005 21:59:43 GMT
Hi, First, like so many, thanks to Charlie for doing this! I'm a former CCN infrequent contributor, and play xiao and starting qin. This is a really interesting line, and corresponds with my experience of buying "traditional" Chinese music CDs sound unheard. I'll look through mine for some recommendations. Keep playing, all, and it's good to be back. Best, kyokuhon.
|
|
|
Post by Vi An on Jan 29, 2005 6:57:32 GMT
High Mountain Flowing Water has two versions I realized. What are the names of the two versions, are they different schools??
Thank you.
Vi An.
|
|
|
Post by Vi An on Jan 29, 2005 7:01:58 GMT
There are a lot of pirate CDs out there these days, so much more now that you just never know anymore!
With trad. Chinese music its so hard, litterally impossible now to find genuine music which has not been touched by electronic manipulations. I prefer only trad. instruments of China. Its the new age music movement and new age this and that which has influenced the Chinese producers to move in that direction. I respect any musical movement and thinking BUT certain things must remain authentic and simple!! Less is more!
My best,
Vi An.
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Jan 29, 2005 7:28:39 GMT
Hmmm. By "pirated" music do you mean illegal copies (Arrrrrr!) or just the desecration of good traditional Chinese music with the addition of synthesizers and drum machines?
I am of the "less is more" philosophy myself, so I also cringe when I hear New Agey watered down with Pop or easy listening arrangements. I suppose that it is okay that the stuff exists, but it is a crime to label it so us trad purists get sucked in to buying bad CDs. Just as bad is when a good recording is destroyed by adding too much reverb or other post-processing.
I suppose the problem would go away if people did not buy the bad stuff. Unfortunately, like spammers have found, there are still a lot of people willing to take the bait.
Now I have to admit that tomorrow (Saturday) I am going to perform a Vietnamese tune "Tinh Ca" on dan bau monochord at a Tet New Year celebration at Portland State University, with a singer and accompanied by a synth arrangement on CD. In this case, there is really little option since it is either the CD accompaniment or nothing. So it seems convenience and reality are powerful forces.
Best wishes,
David Dahl Portland, Oregon USA
|
|
|
Post by Dick on Jan 29, 2005 19:45:11 GMT
What are the standards defining "authentic" traditional music and distinguishing it from that other cheesy music we complain about? What factors contribute? Start with a short list of categories: - melodic, harmonic qualities of the sounds (the music "theory")
- sonorities, timbral qualities of the sounds
- technologies used to create sounds
- technologies used to create instruments
- personal traits of individual artists
- purported origin of material (the music "history")
If I missed something, fix it. The idea is, we fill in a matrix that says what things are allowed. Now, this forum represents a community of common interest around the material under examination. It seems there is a high degree of knowledge and shared aesthetic value here. In this context, is there a consensus about what music is okay and what is not? There is also this question about the nature and influence of recording itself. You buy a CD with a track that sounds like a solo koto. Let's say it sounds good. Let's say you cannot tell whether the recorded sound was a koto or a well-executed synthesizer or sampler program. Is it "authentic"? Does it matter?
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Jan 30, 2005 6:50:14 GMT
What are the standards defining "authentic" traditional music and distinguishing it from that other cheesy music we complain about? Wow, great question! But also very slippery to answer. First of all, I can only speak for myself. I have no authority to define what is Chinese trad. music, nor any other type of trad. music. Any tradition, if it is to be considered living and not a museum piece, is going to change over time. But there is a heart that stays essential. New music and instruments, such as the yangqin, can enter the tradition and enrich and enliven it. The difficulty comes when something fundamentally different is mixed in, and then the result is a branch, or a fusion. Most of what I hear of Asian music that includes synthesizers is essentially Pop music with some elements of traditional music mixed in to add color. Other "New Agey" music has the sounds of trad music without its substance. When you take a centuries-old tune and render it with drum machines and synths, I do not believe that it is traditional music any more. But what is it when a guzheng player performs a Beatles tune solo? I suppose that it depends on the intent of the performer and how knowledgable and determined they are to play within Chinese tradition. I think that it is possible to transform the tune enough to be within the realm of traditional music, although it does seem to be a stretch. I think that music becomes traditional when a lot of people love it a lot over many generations. The bad simply becomes forgotten. This process can be brutal, and much good music that simply does not appeal to succeeding generations is forgotten as well. To my ears, much of the synth/Pop/trad music is very one-dimensional, with little subtilety or expression. Chinese instruments such as guzheng, erhu, dizi, pipa, and qin have developed over centuries, as have the techniques for playing them. It would be a lot to expect for very new instruments such as synthesizers to be played at their level. There is also this question about the nature and influence of recording itself. You buy a CD with a track that sounds like a solo koto. Let's say it sounds good. Let's say you cannot tell whether the recorded sound was a koto or a well-executed synthesizer or sampler program. Is it "authentic"? Does it matter? Not if the music itself is good. If the musician can make good expressive and tasteful music with the synth/sampler, then it does not matter too much if the instrument needs electricity or not. From my perspective, it is more difficult to make the sound of an acoustic instrument with a synth and use it convincingly than it is to use the actual acoustic instrument itself. This has been done very well with the digital piano, but very poorly on other complex instruments, such as flute. Synths as they are generally used, are more of a convenience than an improvement over traditional instruments. I usually find non-electronic instruments more rewarding to play and listen to. I think that it is very likely that new elements such as synths can and are being tastefully used with traditional Chinese instruments and music. The tradition becomes what people do. Only time will tell what course that will take. Best wishes, David Dahl Portland, Oregon USA
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Jan 30, 2005 6:59:24 GMT
Welcome, kyokuhon! It is great to see our numbers growing. I look forward to reading your posts.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
Post by Vi An on Jan 30, 2005 8:31:16 GMT
Hello, What I mean by pirated is yes the "illegal" mass reproduction of music. I'm not a huge musician so it doesn't apply for me but on a music career level piracy is very wrong when not a cent of profit goes to the "artists". Artists when they get that "huge" still need to make money BUT their retail value should decrease abit, the only way to discourage piracy is not to tell the consumer they are sinners. The best way is for industry to reduce the price of a CD for regular / middle class musicians, this keeps us happy and legit stores opperating!!! In China town here where I live, there are only two legit asain CD/DVD shops, one sells obvious pirate products and one (now out of business) sold all legit products. The legit business was so upset when they realized they had to shut down because everyone would rather buy pirated CDs than support them, the owners were more upset and pissed about industry not listening to the needs of small owners! I tried so hard to help them keep afloat by educating the english speaking press etc. No sucess ----- Now in regards to synth overdubs and reworkings of "traditional" chinese pieces... The "accoustic instruments" and the "synth" communitie have always butted heads. Basically no matter how good technology gets, it will never become as realistic as actual instruments. Only recently have new developments with sampling have synths come a little close to mimicing of accoustic instruments and its pretty impressive. Its a tool and some musicians do well with it and others do not. We can't compare accoustic and electronic because they are very different mediums and tools. Its all in what you prefer and can live with. Its about excecuting it tastesfully. I personally do not like synthesized music overly enthusiastic on sampling traditional / ethnic / world music. So much of it out there are so tacky. On the same note, there have been very very good meldings of the two, where little bits of electronic elements have been used to emphasize or give added mood / atmosphere. Or clever remixes and electronic artists who really have a good ear of sampling in accoustic instruments into their works. Usually these electronic artists started out as really great accoustic musicians and it comes across. Sometimes when I listen to certain trad chinese pieces my mind also hears certain electronic elements to emphasize a certain mood or groove, because I produce both electronic and accoustic music I admire both applications. However I prefer the accoustic any day over electronic because one day when electricity is no longer (you never know right?) accoustic instruments will bring communities together again! Thank you, Vi An.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jan 30, 2005 17:02:02 GMT
Why pain oneself figiting with synths to create something that sounds 'real' when you can create the 'real' by playing said instrument for a fraction of the effort? So much fancy 'oh, I'm so good at synths I can create something that's almost the same' talk is missing the whole point of music. That is, music's accessibility and simplistic complex.
|
|
|
Post by Dick on Jan 30, 2005 21:05:26 GMT
Why pain oneself figiting with synths to create something that sounds 'real' when you can create the 'real' by playing said instrument for a fraction of the effort? So much fancy 'oh, I'm so good at synths I can create something that's almost the same' talk is missing the whole point of music. That is, music's accessibility and simplistic complex. Preach on, brother Charlie! Let's follow your line of thought to its end. Your negative view of electronic instruments should also apply to records, tapes and CDs. Recordings are not music, and in terms of your aesthetic criteria they are worse than merely not "real" ... at least a synthesizer can be played by an actual human artist in performance. But recordings are like robot music; they are anti-music, the same every time for all time. At best, they may be relevant to music only in the same way a photograph of a dancer may relate to the dance. Why pain oneself figiting with microphones, amplifiers, mixers, sound-proof rooms, and the whole nasty process of dubbing, replaying, enhancing, mastering, copying and marketing a final plastic product? Do you believe electro-mechanical reproduction of any kind is "missing the whole point of music" since it seeks to replace music with static artifacts?
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Jan 31, 2005 7:58:55 GMT
Hello Dick,
I am with Yinhao on this one. We are both reacting to the often unmusical way that synths and samplers are used to mimic other instruments in Chinese music. Once I got past the jee wiz aspect of synths, I personally found playing a real flute a lot more satisfying than trying to mimic one with a wind controller. The recording of performances of musical instruments is a much different issue. I think that you built a straw man with your argument.
It is not a luddite notion to object to the lack of skill and taste often evident in the use of synths. While someone can spend years or decades mastering a conventional instrument, a few weeks seems to be enough practice to lay synth tracks on a recording. In reality, synths and samplers are powerful instruments in their own right, and take a lot of work. study and taste to use properly.
I think the main reason why we have electronic instruments used to mimic "real" ones is economics and convenience. Yes, it is very difficult to make a completely convincing and musical performance with digital instruments, but 100% is usually not necessary. What is termed "good enough" is a lot less trouble. One synthesist with some experience can replace a lot of highly trained and expensive musicians. This is a big issue on Broadway where digital instruments and computers often replace the orchestra on the whole and are only augmented by a few strings and winds.
I make my living from technology, yet my musical soul is better fed from listening to and playing traditional instruments. I do know of musicians who make good expressive music with synths, and I respect them for it. I just wish that standards were higher in general for synths in Chinese music. I also wish that bad fusions of traditional and Pop music were better labeled so I would not waste my money. (Yes, I like cheese with my whine. <g>)
Best wishes,
David Dahl Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Jan 31, 2005 8:23:58 GMT
Hello Peter and Dick, Its about excecuting it tastesfully. I personally do not like synthesized music overly enthusiastic on sampling traditional / ethnic / world music. So much of it out there are so tacky. On the same note, there have been very very good meldings of the two, where little bits of electronic elements have been used to emphasize or give added mood / atmosphere. Or clever remixes and electronic artists who really have a good ear of sampling in accoustic instruments into their works. Usually these electronic artists started out as really great accoustic musicians and it comes across. Your whole post was very well put, Vi An. I usually don't like electronic instruments in Chinese music because often they are overused. Just because it is easy to add another sound to the mix does not mean it is a good idea to do so. I think that the combination of electronic and traditional instruments can work very well when the musicians are trying to be creative to make something new rather than merely a knock-off or update on traditional music. Best wishes, David Dahl Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Huang on Jan 31, 2005 13:35:39 GMT
Preach on, brother Charlie! Let's follow your line of thought to its end. Your negative view of electronic instruments should also apply to records, tapes and CDs. Recordings are not music, and in terms of your aesthetic criteria they are worse than merely not "real" ... at least a synthesizer can be played by an actual human artist in performance. But recordings are like robot music; they are anti-music, the same every time for all time. At best, they may be relevant to music only in the same way a photograph of a dancer may relate to the dance. Why pain oneself figiting with microphones, amplifiers, mixers, sound-proof rooms, and the whole nasty process of dubbing, replaying, enhancing, mastering, copying and marketing a final plastic product? Do you believe electro-mechanical reproduction of any kind is "missing the whole point of music" since it seeks to replace music with static artifacts? Total misinterperatation. Recordings as such are a copy (although not an accurate copy) or the 'shadow' or 'reminisence' of a piece of music. Sorry to go all Plato here, but hearing the real instrument play live is different from listening to it on your tape deck. Just like watching a movie in the cinema is different from watching it home. Which is better? I find it more real to listen to a instrument play live than its recorded version. But they both are legit and real because the primary medium used is a real instrument of craft. But recordings are not the same as performance of music and should not be mistaken for each other. Now, the stuff I'm talking about is the creation to music that tries to 'sound' like the 'real'. That is, trying to make a 'violin' sound, or a 'piano' sound etc, using electric magnetism or whatever, alone. This, of course, doesn't mean instruments that are 'electrified', such as the electric guitar, or the electric violin, because they have a 'real base' to which they can be played on that is legit. They are played in much the same way as instruments and they are as real as any other instrument on the face of this planet. Therefore, I'm not going on about them. The main gist is the use of 'equipment' to meddle with a legit piece of music (especially created from traditional means) in order to 'enhance' it. That is not to say, enhancing in terms of ridding of background noises or bringing out the shine, but of adding things in that do not fit or are not suppose to be there. An example of this (I heard recently on a CD) was where a perfectly legit piece of qin music was mixed in with a 'bunch of sounds' that were out of tune, creating a noise, more than a sound. That is probably an extreme case, but there are other cases of it sneeking through others. Of course, synths can indeed create music, but it is best used for music that it fits for. Also, it should try and create music rather than create something which tries to sound like music. Em, well, hope you understand the gist of my thesis... [/rant]
|
|
|
Post by YouLanFengChune on Jan 31, 2005 14:44:43 GMT
ok, my 2 cents worth...
I'm "ok" with syths, as sometimes, just sometimes, practicality is the issue, but pullease, DO NOT pass it off as "real" Chinese Music or any other music for that matter.
Look that the 12 girls band... they tried to look like BOND, dance like Jackson and market themselves, true, they might be playing OVER MDs and midis, but hey, listen for their intonation, listen for their syncopation. They are supposed to have graduated from some conservatories.... OMG!!!
Look again at Diizi maestro Prof Li Zhen. His famous Bass Dizi Concerto when performed in 2002 in Singapore was to a midi record, BUT he doesn't use it to mask his inadequacies. (mind you, he can play half holes as fast as any one can play piano keyboards)In stead, he used the MIDI well to support his playing as a good and supportive though passive accompaniment. Else he would have needed a 60 man orchestra to accompany his concerto. For this, I would agree...
|
|
|
Post by kyokuhon on Jan 31, 2005 18:02:03 GMT
Hi, all, I've just got a couple of anecdotes to add to the "what's traditional" discussion.
A few years ago I had the good fortune to play music with a couple of Cambodian refugees who had settled near where I live in Western Massachusetts, USA. When I first showed up, I was interested in learning to play chapey, the trad. long necked fretted instrument. When they found out that I played mandolin, however, they were quite happy and had me learn on that. As the language barrier lowered, I found that they not only thought of it as a traditonal Cambodian instrument, but that, in part, they were right. At least, it appears that it's almost as traditional in Cambodian music as it in American music. Mandolins were first brought to Cambodia by French colonials ca. 1900, and to the US by Italian immigrants ca. 1880.
Later, I talked to a Cambodian mandolin player about chapey, and he essentially said, "Yeah, my grandfather used to play one, but we've got these nice little mandolins now."
In this same group, one of the musicians played the accordion. When I asked him why, he said it was because he liked the sound. Clearly, for him, the "Cambodianness" of the music lay in the tunes and in the fact that he, a Cambodian man, was playing them, not in the instrument he chose to play.
Finally, once I was playing my pre-1940 Vega mandolin, made in Boston, MA., with the same group at a dinner for a group of the parents of foreign students that a friend of mine put on. During the performance, one of the parents, who was Chinese, came up to me and said, "I didn't know Americans knew how to play those. I thought it was a Chinese instrument."
So anyway, it at least broadened my idea of what constitutes "traditional" music, an made me realize that definitions aren't always easy.
Look forward to more discussion, and thanks, Dick, for letting me know about this forum.
Best until later, k.
|
|
|
Post by Dick on Jan 31, 2005 18:18:51 GMT
I chimed in on this thread hoping to engage a journey of discovery regarding the concept of authenticity in traditional music. My gut says it's an extra-musical consideration, not about music at all. Often, that's enough to tell me a topic lacks interest, but I try to keep an open mind about what matters. Always willing to learn. Here the passion seemed to be running high, and as artists we might allow that some extra-musical considerations are worth thinking about, sometimes, maybe. So, the questions I put about measurable criteria (several posts back) were intended to elicit practical guidance and establish some shared understanding of values. So far, responses focus disproportionately on technology, indeed on one narrowly defined use of one particular technology. If I may echo David, it seems there is a lot of whine about cheese. It was an error for me to introduce the example of a synthesizer that sounds like some other instrument, and I'm sorry about the misunderstanding that ensued. My assumption was, imitating orchestra instruments with synthesizers went out of fashion in the mid-60s, and everyone knows this. It simply did not occur to me that imitation would be considered an issue. From Stevie Wonder to Joe Zawinul to Trimpin to Wendy Carlos, synthesizer artists use their instruments to produce new unique sounds. Here's my position on this: All sounds are real, there are no sounds that are more real than others, and the realness of a sound is not derived from or modified by the technologies involved in generating it. The point of my badly chosen example was to show this. The fact is, dizi and erhu and zheng are dictionary-definition "synthesizers" -- machines designed and built to generate and manipulate specific sounds. These instruments, and all instruments younger than the dijeridu, employ sophisticated technology both to fabricate and to operate. The introduction of electicity or integrated circuits, or whatever, represents a historical element in the evolution of "synthesizers" available to musicians. Me personally, I am a flute and wind player, and I like the physical sensations associated with manipulating the column of air in a flute or reed instrument. I deeply respect the abilities of artists who struggle and practice to master the techniques. But I don't assert that my sensual gratification and pleasure in playing my instruments makes the music better, realer, or more authentic. Well, okay. I must confess I really like it when the discussion comes back around to things that actually matter in music. So I was glad that ... hey, listen for their intonation, listen for their syncopation... Now you're talkin music! The keyword listen is a big tip-off that we're on a musical topic again. Yay! Now here's an interesting thing: YouLanFengChune's comments go to the quality of the music and the abilities of the players. I agree 12 Grils are abominable on the grounds of poor musicianship. Even beyond that, their presentation is not about music that any of us care about. Say the girls were replaced with some others capable of executing the parts adequately or even artistically. The presentation would still be bankrupt, because limited performance skills are not the only thing making the music bad. The melodic material is derivitave, the arrangements, harmonizations, dynamics, and rhythmic content are weak, unimaginative and trite. There is a huge body of "New Age" material that deserves the same critique. Here comes another example, I hope it won't be misunderstood like my earlier one. Take that weak arrangement, transcribe the synth and drum machine parts, hand it over to an accomplished orchestra to perform. Does that make the music better? I say it does not. Unfortunately, this analysis (really, I am not mounting an "argument," straw-man or otherwise) amounts to little more than a tautology: bad music is bad. To this, even a 12 Gril girl might say, "duh!" Alas, it does nothing to inform the question of authenticity, which I was hoping to gain insight into.
|
|
|
Post by Dick on Jan 31, 2005 18:37:22 GMT
I hope it is okay to make a side comment to Charlie. Respectfully, I disagree about recordings being like a copy or shadow or different kind of music. You are welcome to go as Plato as you want. I don't think my assertion relates to realness, but to dramatic and musical aesthetics (where Plato had some serious problems!)
I participate sometimes in studio recording processes, and my experience is that almost nothing that happens in that context is music, or even musical. It saddens me that the plastic artifacts produced by those processes are called "music" by so many people. I imagine those folks think live drama is just a low-rent form of cinema, not available on their home TVs and without the great FX.
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Jan 31, 2005 19:52:43 GMT
In this same group, one of the musicians played the accordion. When I asked him why, he said it was because he liked the sound. Clearly, for him, the "Cambodianness" of the music lay in the tunes and in the fact that he, a Cambodian man, was playing them, not in the instrument he chose to play. I love it! I have to admit that it is very tempting to want the traditional music of other cultures to remain "traditional" according to my definition. I love the differentness of traditional music, and dislike the trend of incorporating Western characteristics into the music, particularly when there does not seem to be an improvement. I have seen this same battle go on with Irish music. The bazouki is fairly new to Irish traditional music, but seems to be very well accepted. If you go back far enough, the erhu is new to Chinese trad music. I think that the key is that certain new instruments fit within a tradition very easily. I do realize that my opinion on what course trad Chinese music should take does not register above the noise of a butterfly in the wind. People will continue to play what they like. Best wishes, David Dahl Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Post by davidmdahl on Jan 31, 2005 22:33:54 GMT
Hello Dick,
This is a fascinating topic. My comments and seeming preoccupation about synths in "traditional" Chinese music are based upon my bad experiences trying to find CDs that I want to listen to. I prefer to listen to performances of small ensembles of acoustic instruments playing traditional music. My ideal for elegance in Chinese music is the so-called "Silk and bamboo" ensemble.
I do not categorically reject electronic instruments in all situations. They are used very artistically in jazz and some Western classical music, for example. To my ears however, the use of electronic instruments to replace acoustic ones is not an improvement, and unfortunately it is not an obsolete practice.
As I have already written, I don't object to mixing new and traditional instruments, but the success of this depends a lot on the skills, tastes, and goals of the musicians involved. If the goal is to play traditional music, I think that it is very hard to improve on already highly developed and refined forms. If something new is conceived, then success is more likely.
The issue of authenticity in traditional music is a very slippery topic that I have never been able to "grok". It is just so difficult to set the boundaries to fit every situation. In any culture I have sampled, there has never been a single authority who was empowered to decree what was and what was not within the tradition. It seems more a decree of consensus, by what people in the culture are actually doing.
I suppose authenticity is extramusical, but it does have value in that it provides for the setting of boundaries. Without some sense of what is an authentic traditional element, what is there to distiguish one traditional music from another? I really enjoy the differences in music from one culture to another, and regret the cultural imperialism of the West which has been smoothing out those differences. There is no stopping Chinese musicians from appropriating instruments and musical styles from the West, but I am just hoping that too much of what is unique is not lost. Good music is good music, but there is also value in variety.
Best wishes,
David Dahl Portland, Oregon
|
|