We had this discussion on facebook, I would like to keep them here...
9/15/2020 I asked:
Juni L Yeung
and Bin Li
Do the "diao 調" and "yi 意" in the ancient Chinese guqin music function as the same idea of western music term of those scales ?Juni:
- There's a WHOLE can of worms about diao being "a tune/song", "a tuning", and "a mode" all using the sameword. Yi is a little easier - since it's "a motif" and that's easily understood in English as "an example of music that uses a certain mode, especially to demonstrate the characteristics of it." So we're good on that one.
Bin Li :- Yea. This video went viral in my composer & educator circle but what is new in the discussion is more about racial/political theory than the music theory (although there is overlap). I agreed on some aspects but not all of them. For example, I certainly agreed on the college curriculum emphasis on Schenkerian analysis (usually a 2 semester courses...). We also need to recognize that music theory & ppl's perception of theory is changing all the time. Also composers do not really think in terms of theory before composing. It is rather the other way around. Composition first then theory. This is evident at Beethoven's music. I also agree we should not use the framework of the western theory to music from other cultures. For comparison OK, but not as the only way to understand. I think Chinese Diao does talk about how pitches are organized similar to the Western scale. Same as 十二律 (e.g. 黄钟，大吕, etc.) similar to the fixed-do/tuning system.
- scales ... don't have a single function. it depends on the instrument. if fretless - then you are trying to learn both finger agility and to hit the notes. if fretted - then it is all about agility as with guitar players with perhaps a side order of teaching you where notes are to be found but you really don't need to worry about missing the notes because you can't. However there is very little if any musical sense in scales. No one ever says and now I will play you a C scale on the guitar that starts at such and such a position. diao yi or whatever seem to be more or less a set of "riffs" and a higher level function of giving you musical sentences as well as a sense of the mode itself. To me they are very different. To often I think the point of guitar players at least playing scales is to learn how to jam the most notes into the smallest time and I don't find it interesting.
NB. "Theory" is a post-facto attempt to understand the creative process, whether of music or of a visual art. I don't believe theory ever explains what music is, but in the act of looking at scores, or tablature, and analyzing the form, the phraseology, the sequencing and the textures, we have a way to deepen our understanding of a work. What is "theory" anyway? if it is verbal, it is already a translation into another language, whether it is Western or whatever. Speaking of Beethoven, a number of his scores, or holographs, are extant in the Library of Congress, and the Morgan Library, as are Mozart's. They are enlightening, but how close does it take us to his "music"? they are marks on a page of what went on in his brain/heart, and it is up to the musician(s) who read it to bring it alive in their instruments. Whether the result is what the composer intended, one can only ask a living composer. Am I discussing something completely different from what you have been, Li Bin? When you or Juni or Peiyou speak, it is also an act of interpreting what you are saying, and my trying to determine and fathom your point of view, because what you are saying is only the tip of the iceberg of what you have been thinking about. A musical piece, or visual work, condenses a complex process into a dense gem-like result, like a gem, it has undergone, heat, pressure, and time lapsing. That is why a real gem can hold our attention for so long...do I make any sense here?- agreed. theory is nonetheless a process of "generalization". although it provides a framework but the exact framework might limit our appreciation of the music. what is worse: like the video pointed out, a tendency to use western theory for eastern music. that's why i don't really go with the theory when i compose. but for education purpose, i do think theory is important, a more "practical" way to inquire to the past music. but after one studies all the theories, it is also important to realize that sometimes one need to "unlearn" all things learned to appreciate music as it is. in addition, "theory" is changing all the time, as well. even the theory about Debussy 20 years ago is different than the theory about Debussy today.
- The main difference between Bin (a composer) and I (a player/scholar) is that our critique on the same situation goes in slightly different shades. While he argues that theory too precise hinders the creative process, I argue that the theory hinders the creative process because it either doesn't explain enough, or is providing inaccurate guidelines for said creative processes. And given that Western theory is used to explain Chinese music since the 20th century as the standard curriculum, the "Chinese music" situation is really dire right now. This is why both of us are calling for a return of teaching Chinese "music theory" as it was used to be taught and understood, and perhaps work towards rearranging that knowledge for modern learning and thinking patterns for broad dissemination.
- Bin LiFor you as a composer I can see how the history of a musical form, whether from the East or the West, could be a burden, unless your creative drive can overcome that burden. I can see it in an art form like ballet as in music, there is a certain level of training that is necessary -- all the technical aspects, that have to be mastered, unless one is dancing or composing in completely "free form." Certain Schubert, who was not really appreciated in his own day by a wider public, felt the burden of the past that he revered, Haydn, Mozart, especially Beethoven. .....I find it interesting that you mention Debussy, because I do believe he is only being truly recognized today, and even not fully appreciated by many today, for his truly individual sound impressions, whether for piano or orchestrally, his ability to suggest mood, atmosphere, anxiety and even his sense of humor. Even his opera Peléas et Mélisande does not have a wide audience, but I love it: for the orchestration, for the relation of the music to the Fr. language and rhythms, etc ......Juni: I am interested in what you consider standard Chinese curriculum in music theory. When was it taught, that you refer to a return? which instruments would you consider standard (eg. as the keyboard is in western music, circle of 5ths, scales in all keys, etc). Was a standard text written at one time? I am so ignorant. It is only through studying guqin, and my interest in art history and archeaology that I can see certain things coming together, such as the development of percussion, and string instruments. Without audio examples, or illustrations of instruments, etc, any history of music ,Chinese or Western, would be quite dry, almost incomprehensible. I need to re-read Rulan Chao Pian's book in light of what was discussed at our last meeting, and Bill Mak has kindly referred me to several reviews. I acquired her book ( also v. Gulik's classic writings) before I could study qin or heard much Asian music, so now I would read those books quite differently than before....
