Nettl, Brono. 1998. “Arrows and Circles: An Anniversary Talk about Fifty Years of ICTM and the Study of Traditional Music.” Yearbook for Traditional Music 30: 1-11.

“歷史的變化與循環(huán)：關(guān)于ICTM的五十年和音樂(lè)研究傳統(tǒng)——在ICTM五十周年紀(jì)念上的講話”

主講：陳晨  專業(yè)：傳統(tǒng)音樂(lè)

一、引言

學(xué)術(shù)研究者總是反思的兩個(gè)問(wèn)題：“What have we learned?”更徹底"Have we really learned anything in all that time?"

本文題目的來(lái)源：A book by Stephen Jay Gould, Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle

詳解：歷史是一種自我重復(fù)的過(guò)程，從學(xué)科的歷史是由一系列范式構(gòu)成的。

本文的內(nèi)容與目的是通過(guò)回顧歷史，解釋民族音樂(lè)學(xué)學(xué)科在哪些方面經(jīng)歷歷史的循環(huán)、重復(fù)與重新發(fā)現(xiàn)，統(tǒng)一的保持，在哪些方面跟隨著歷史的改變，從而引發(fā)反思。

二、似曾相識(shí)

v     今昔不同的社會(huì)政治大環(huán)境

v     今昔不同的學(xué)科大環(huán)境

三、作者自我小傳

作者的三個(gè)親身經(jīng)歷，揭示 1947年前后民族音樂(lè)學(xué)學(xué)科的現(xiàn)象。

™    Prague-Walter Kaufmann-Indian music

™    Prague-Father-78-rpm records and later discography

™    Bloomington-Herzog-"Folk and Primitive Music."

總結(jié)民族音樂(lè)學(xué)在1947年后的50年，發(fā)展的基線 P3/4：

™    study of non-Western and folk music – the study of the exotic which requires special methods

™    the attachment of non - Western music to the Western for suggesting a skewed  chronology 年表 of world music

™    the unification of an eclectic methodology

v     提問(wèn)并引出下文 P3/5 ：

™    我們?cè)谶^(guò)去的五十年中學(xué)到了什么，我們是在循環(huán)還是在進(jìn)步？

™    引出下文段落a) What is ethnomusicology? b) What is music? c) What is a music - or rather, what is our conception of the world of music? d) What kind of people are we? and finally, e) Have we done anyone any good? Needless to say, I have no answers but want to comment briefly and selectively from the viewpoints of circle and arrow.

四、什么是民族音樂(lè)學(xué)？

循環(huán)一 ：對(duì)于學(xué)科Ethnomusicology的定義  P3/6-P4/1

™    Merriam: "Ethnomusicology today is an area study caught up in a fascination with itself." 1964

™    ethnomusicologists -- not numerous the number of definition and conceptualization -- very considerable.

™    “ethno” and “compare” – long discussion

循環(huán)二：學(xué)科內(nèi)關(guān)注問(wèn)題的一致性 P4/2

™    Peasant societies:

™    Education:

™    Music and ethnicity:

™    Technology:

™    Relationship of music and dance:

™    on folk and art music;

作者對(duì)于學(xué)科的將來(lái)提出問(wèn)題：P5/1

™    …現(xiàn)在是否已是時(shí)間考慮我們的學(xué)科聯(lián)盟是幫助了我們的學(xué)科，抑或是阻礙了它？

五、什么是音樂(lè)？

由民族音樂(lè)學(xué)家觀念中的兩分法，引出Folk Music的定義問(wèn)題。

Folk music 定義1955：P5/3-5：民間音樂(lè)是一種音樂(lè)傳統(tǒng)的產(chǎn)品，這一產(chǎn)品是在口頭傳播的過(guò)程中演進(jìn)而來(lái)的。民間音樂(lè)必須包含的因素有：聯(lián)系著現(xiàn)在和過(guò)去的連續(xù)性、因?yàn)閭�(gè)人或者群體自發(fā)的創(chuàng)造沖動(dòng)而不斷變化、有社群決定他的它的生存的形式。例如，未受藝術(shù)音樂(lè)或流行音樂(lè)影響的社群的原生音樂(lè)；或者，由個(gè)人創(chuàng)作的音樂(lè)，但被社群采納并通過(guò)口傳流傳。創(chuàng)作的流行音樂(lè)不包括在內(nèi)，因?yàn)樗�在社群中不發(fā)生變化，民間音樂(lè)的核心特點(diǎn)是在流傳的過(guò)程中不斷地被重置和再創(chuàng)造。

通過(guò)舉例貝多芬的民歌改編，質(zhì)疑三種folk music觀點(diǎn)，引發(fā)反思。

六，什么是一種音樂(lè)？

循環(huán)：音樂(lè)的世界是由一系列不同劃分的音樂(lè)組成的這一觀點(diǎn)沒(méi)有改變。

矛盾體：保存——變化的民間音樂(lè)

問(wèn)題：對(duì)于音樂(lè)的劃分，我們需要新的理論嗎?

七、我們是怎樣的一群人？

變化：學(xué)術(shù)和實(shí)踐分家

變化：舞蹈方面逐漸削弱

問(wèn)題：保持純學(xué)術(shù)，亦或重返Bloomington當(dāng)年？（當(dāng)年歌舞并用的場(chǎng)面）

八、我們是否作出了貢獻(xiàn)？

對(duì)于世界的好處：使世界對(duì)音樂(lè)的多樣性以及音樂(lè)與舞蹈在民族人中扮演的角色更有了解。

對(duì)于學(xué)界的好處：提高了師生對(duì)于世界范圍內(nèi)音樂(lè)多樣性的認(rèn)知，而這些多樣的音樂(lè)是需要多樣的適合的方法去理解的

對(duì)于局內(nèi)人的有爭(zhēng)議的好處：我們的研究是否真的對(duì)于局內(nèi)人有幫助？但至少我們比前人能夠正視這個(gè)問(wèn)題了。

九、小結(jié)

  本文是發(fā)表在ICTM五十周年慶上的主體演講，正如作者所說(shuō)，整篇文章并不是要回答問(wèn)題，而是提出文體引發(fā)思考，對(duì)于民族音樂(lè)學(xué)的反思、對(duì)于民族音樂(lè)學(xué)方法論的反思、對(duì)于民族音樂(lè)學(xué)家本身角色的反思、以及對(duì)于學(xué)科的研究對(duì)象、50年來(lái)學(xué)界貢獻(xiàn)的反思。

曹老師的點(diǎn)評(píng)：

這篇文章應(yīng)該與前面課堂上已經(jīng)討論過(guò)的Christensen、Nettl（1988）的文章互相對(duì)照來(lái)看。

Structure of the Article

Introduction

The Field: What is ethnomusicology? [Definition of ethnomusicology]

Object of Study: What is music?

Unit of the object under study: What is “a” music?

Us the researchers: What kind of people are we?

Conclusion: Have we done anybody any good?

以下是曹老師希望同學(xué)在文章中注意的地方：

Introduction

p. 1

It's an honor for me to have been invited to speak on this occasion of the golden anniversary of the ICTM.

If we are an organization of people devoted to scholarship and research, looking back to the time of our origins, we should be asking, “What have we learned?” or with a bit more bite, “Have we really learned anything in all that time?” A book by Stephen Jay Gould, Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle (1987), suggested my title to me. It juxtaposes the resigned-sounding adage, “history repeats itself”….

So I want to ask to what extent we in ethnomusicology have been following the circle of history, repeating and rediscovering, maintaining consistency, and to what extent we have followed history’s arrow. I’d like to draw you back to the era or period of history about 50 years ago, and more, so that we can see in what ways our organization and our profession have moved forward【“arrow”】, and in what ways our history has been cyclic.

p. 1 – 2

In 1987, our fortieth anniversary, several spoke about the history of ICTM, its relationship to the field of ethnomusicology as a whole, the interface between European and American styles of scholarship, our institutional history (see e.g. Christensen 1988, Nettl 1988, Stockmann 1988)【前兩篇文章在課堂上已討論過(guò)】… there are various histories of the field that ascribe its onset to Guido Adler's (1885) seminal article, to the earliest field recordings of 1891, to the publication of the Sammelbande fiir vergleichende Musikwissenschaft in 1922, to Jaap Kunst's first edition (Kunst 1950), to the establishment of the Society for Ethnomusicology in 1955, or even 【注意 “or even” 這個(gè)用詞（“就算連”）】to the publication of The Anthropology of Music (Merriam 1964).【作者的意思：“‘甚至連’Merriam的The Anthropology of Music也算在歷史時(shí)刻之內(nèi)”——給人的感覺(jué)似乎有作者與Merriam有舊賬未清之感】… origins are always obscure. In any event, when IFMC was founded in 1947, the term “ethnomusicology” wasn’t yet established, and when it was, perhaps a few years later, many of our members really wouldn’t have felt comfortable with such a highfalutin word.

p. 3

For my third incident I mention taking a course in 1949 at Indiana University in Bloomington taught by George Herzog, a man also reared not far from here, in Budapest…Herzog brought into this course the eclectic approach that characterized his work and also that of many in our field: the analytic folk music study of Bartok and Kodaly with their emphasis on authenticity; the analytical paradigms developed by Hornbostel; the holistic view of culture characteristic of the American anthropology of Franz Boas; the folkloristics of the Scandinavian school and its historical-geographic method, and pre-C