Gong Yi think green book

[Si]

I dont really undersatnd this book. The early exercises use simple symbols for tiao, guo etc. Whats the point indroducing false symbols and making things more complicated than they need to be?

I had a look at XWC and XFY which i am learning. They are really simple and sound really boring and not really a proper piece of music. And thats on page 250!

Has anyone worked through this book and can me more about its method. Cos basically my teacher is happy to teach me song after song but things I might need to be familiar with the Gong Yi way. (My teachers way is all Mei -an style in 100% jian zi pu)

[SCWGuqin]

Everyone I've ever heard talk about Gong Yi's book says that his idiosyncratic notation methods are distracting and useless. I borrowed the book from my teacher and find myself in agreement: how are you supposed to teach qin melodies, especially to beginners, as just notes on the staff without fingering directions?? It's almost nonsensical given that staff + jianzipu is well-established.

Have you read much of Gong Yi's writing? My conclusion about the notation is that he wants qin players to integrate into Western ensembles and Western pedagogy as smoothly as possible. To that end, it makes sense to train qin players to read staff notation directly without tablature directions. If that's not your goal as a player--and I doubt for many of us it is--the whole exercise becomes rather pointless.

Regarding XWC and XFY...haha, what is a 'proper piece of music' anyway? Have you read Bo Juyi's (tongue-in-cheek) rules for qin pieces?

[Charlie Huang]

I have mixed feelings about GY's book. In one way, it is useful, but in another it can be an obstruction for the beginner. I do understand that there maybe this need to be able to play scores by sight-reading like Westerners do for their instruments, but I fail to see it's practical applications towards qin music. No disrespect to GY; I think he is a fine player and teacher. It's just that I find this neo-notation suitable only to those who need it or be better at using it (mainly those who are taught to play qin that way). I think he wants qin to maybe be taught that way, like in terms of notes rather than positions. For me, unless you are going to utilise this in future or completely replace jianzi-pu with this notation, or you want to play Western music on the qin; it is of limited practical use. A lot of players focus on playing and learning to play new pieces via jianzi-pu, which is adequate and easy to learn from. I found myself having to transcribe one piece into jianzi-pu and it took up over an hour and a half (time that is practically wasted when I could have dapu'ed the score directly from jianzi-pu). The other reason why this might be given is maybe it is more suited to someone who is musically trained; i.e. those who can read music/sight-read/etc; those who already got that form of notation system in their head and can easily adapted from this new system. It makes sense since GY was trained in a conservatory. I also think he was cautious not to overwhelm the reader because he includes both jianzi-pu and the new notation in equal measure, pleasing the traditionalists and the modernists. I do think that the new system would have deserved a separate book of its own, because it can confuse and put off a beginner (who we must assume does not know how to read music; and teaching someone to read music takes another books worth). I find it frustrating since it throws the book's goals into a vague sphere of what it is trying to set out to do; is it a pedagogy tool or a paper promoting/defending this new notation system? Also, he says one of the reasons of the creation of this new notation is because a lot of people ask qin players to play 'popular' music, which they can't, etc. To me, most qin players don't have this 'problem' because they don't want to/the music doesn't suit the qin, etc. Is it being embrassed that you can't play what other musicians can play a good reason for all this work? The jury out for me.

Other than that point, the book is rather useful as a reference tool as it contains a lot of information that other books don't cover or cover in detail.

I would have to kill you for calling XWC and XFY not 'proper' pieces of music! Coz that would mean you have to say that twinkle little star isn't proper, or taiko drumming, etc isn't 'proper' music!

EDIT: Can I just clarify that this is in no way a criticism of the new notation, just a comment about the context which it would be practical in and be better used in. TBH, I'll probably end up learning this new notation if I ever turn pro, because it might be useful if say, a Western composer were to compose a piece in staff notation for it.

[Si]

Well i dont have any need to play with others so do I need to follow this book?

My teacher said its up to me?

She has been through the XFY and now its up to me to practice and then come back to her with my problems, but what she thinks is that its not realy a full lessons work to go over parts of the XFY.

So what other useful thing can I do in the lesson?

[SCWGuqin]

I think XFY, especially for a beginner, can certainly be a full lesson's work. The reason is that you can always play it better!

I think a very helpful way to practice getting good at simple pieces--pieces we might rather wish to simply get done with--is to think not in terms of "ok, here's note x in piece y ", but instead in terms of "here's note x". Note x is always worth perfecting, right? Piece y is just a bunch of notes strung together, all of which notes might appear later in pieces we like better...

[Charlie Huang]

Don't stick too tightly to a piece too much. Since it is a beginners piece, you should learn it and then move to a different one; otherwise you'll spend the rest of your life trying to 'perfect' your play, which can only be developed through continuous playing of different pieces, not just one.