译文：音乐学的新趋势

教师之友网

译文：音乐学的新趋势


朱云人

译自：

“Musicology: §I.The nature of musicology:§5.New Trends”， The N ew Grove D ictionary of Music and Musicians ,
Second edition. Vol.17.London: Macmillan, 2001.

译者：朱云

音乐学：§I.音乐学的本质：§5.新趋势

在20世纪的最后20年里，音乐学作为学术的领域经历了一次的观念的爆发，其意在获得更广范围的关注。一些学者对历史音乐学的基本假定进行了审视。正如同历史上他们的同行一样，他们质疑将历史归结为伟大人物、伟大作品、伟大传统和伟大创造的产物。这便引发了将音乐视为社会驱动的产物以及多元的音乐种类历史的研究，这些研究在以前是不包含在学者研究的范围之内的，因为他们多倾向于将研究重点放在社会精英的艺术音乐上。达尔豪斯（Dahlhaus，1977年）提出，音乐学不应该仅仅包括风格历史，即“将主要问题放在艺术上，而非放在传记上或是社会偶然性上的历史”，也应该包括结构历史、音乐接受历史和文化历史。另一些批判传统科学及传统历史学的学者则更进一步地了质疑了科学客观性的可能性，并探究在任何历史叙述中主观因素所占的程度。一些学者甚至质疑了历史包含了因果关系的观念，而更愿用一种随时间而改变的易变性来定义历史。

将音乐学视为一种批评的形式成为了另一种重要的趋势，或者即科尔曼（Kerman,1985年）所称的“将音乐作为审美经验的研究”。在这种研究中，音乐学与很多人文学科，特别是文学相类似，并且其可能借用了文学或文化理论以及一些新领域，比如性别研究。这种关注点激发了对于音乐本身是否存在意义的讨论：音乐是否独立于它所创造、表演及欣赏的时代背景而存在，或是不可避免地存在着社会性烙印，离开了其所依存的社会环境便不可能被完全理解；音乐的意义是否由一种特定的目的性而产生，这种目的性可以被创作者和接收者相互理解；以及音乐是否主要是大脑的产物，是一种对于声音以及/或者肉体活动认知反应的产物。这些问题研究方法形成了一些基本的议题----即对于知识本质、知识来源、以及学者如何将其联系到调查研究中的假设。从这些议题的各种不同的解释中产生了音乐学所诠释的大量不同的课题及方法论。

一些学者遵循人文主义传统，继续坚持认为真理是具有附着性的、目的性的：揭示真理便是目标的所在。他们通过对谱例细致的分析及批判性阅读来补充或是质疑传统的原理，或者提出音乐与其他艺术及社会的特定关系，如同历史学家在研究中包含了思想理论及时代精神一样。另一些学者受到结构主义人类学家、符号学家及/或社会学家的影响，将真理理解成符号与音乐的一个系统，正如同任何语言一样，是“符号的运作”。在克劳德·里维·施特劳斯（Claude Levi-Strass）的论述中，“知识可以同时具有客观性与主观性”,并且“历史从来不是（单纯的）历史，而是为什么服务的历史。 当历史宣称其无偏见的时候，恰好是其偏见的表现，因为……书写历史必须进行选择，拣选，放弃……因此历史的形成完全地取决于历史研究方法。”支持这种观点的学者将意义看成是演示的产物。在音乐研究中，他们试图理解音乐的结构或叙事中所呈现的东西。支持马克思或阿多诺观点的学者则相信音乐是辩证的话语，即揭示又隐藏了其与语言和社会的关系。

跟随后结构主义思潮的音乐学家们倾向于赞同米歇尔·福柯（Michel Foucault）的观点，即认为“真理与权力系统连接在一种循环的关系中。”他们表达了对权威、父权制、身份性和伦理学的批判态度，并质疑了所谓的宏大叙事，这种宏大叙事成为了我们了解西方音乐及音乐进步的中心---比如调性的功能和音乐中叙述曲线的重要性。他们运用解构主义的方法来揭示音乐中权力的运作，特别是与社会性别、种族和阶级有关的方面，或者指出音乐在建构社会身份及社会空间中的作用。

后现代主义概念开始质疑全球性、普遍性观点的有效性，并将注意力转移到音乐和音乐创作中本地的、日常的、变化的和偶然的部分中去。在这种研究中的学者将真理视为总是相关联的，具有主观性，以及具有多层次性、对立性及述行性，并且既受身体又受头脑的影响，有时也受精神关注的影响。他们致力于打破等级主义，展现出任何音乐都可以拥有的多种含义。他们常常考虑声音对于听者的物理性影响，以及音乐引发的一种过程，而不仅仅是一种空缺的存在（比如其所表现的）。他们的研究目的有时不是为了增加音乐的知识，而是重建音乐的经验。

后现代主义者同样也更加关注表演者和欣赏者在确定音乐作品含义中的作用。他们分析在个人表演中特殊的部分，包括罗兰·巴特（Roland Brathes）的“声音的纹理”，而不是谱面的结构。他们致力于理解独立于结构的音乐表现，以及一些没有写下来的音乐。对于后现代主义学者来说，音乐经验在本质上具有合作性、协作性及不确定性。欣赏者可以不顾创作者的意图为音乐带来或添加意义，这种意义常常是欲望辩证的一部分，用以帮助他们塑造如何对自身以外的部分进行定义。欣赏者的聆听过程同样也相应的塑造了欣赏者个人、社会及文化身份。这种探究音乐经验及理解人们所描述的音乐的含义中蕴含了什么的愿望促使了在音乐研究中采用心理分析学的方法论。

这些探究知识的不同方式反映在了其与学术过程的不同关系上。一个学者可以扮演一个超然的观察者的角色，给予选定的课题严格的解释和研究，并且保持对所研究结果的不参与。这种关系包括将观察者与被观察物进行严格的划分以及对“他者”的相信，不管其是作曲家或是作品，并需要认识到所提供的事实便是所需要的。或者一个学者可以自我批判，承认语言的力量、对语言的相互依赖以及音乐学工作的意义。这便会使得学者不仅仅对于理论问题进行提问，还会包括政治及伦理问题，这些问题便会相应的涉及到音乐中反映出的一些更广的方面。另一种可选择的方式是学者可以关注于个人的内心，将个人的音乐经验看成知识来源的一个部分。这种将个人的相关性与个人自己的部分视为出发点的做法清楚地说明了了学者在音乐意义的产生中起到了重要的作用。与此同时，这种视角也存在着一定的局限性，体现在这种由内心所产生的是否具有普遍的相关性。

这些不同的观念使得音乐学中产生了很多重要的分学科。一些学者比如科尔曼（Kerman）、塔鲁斯金（Taruskin）和德雷福斯（Dreyfus）将其用于对历史表演运动的批判中，对早期音乐表演的“权威性”及“原真性”概念进行了质疑。其他跟随麦克莱瑞（McClary）及布雷特（Brett）的学者则将其运用于对探索社会性别及性征对于音乐的影响。越来越多的音乐学家进行了跨学科研究并对其研究的边界进行了重新考虑，不仅包括对古典音乐和流行音乐、口头及书写传统的区分，也包括历史音乐学与其他学科比如民族音乐学及音乐理论的划分。

原文：

Musicology

(Fr. musicologie; Ger. Musikwissenschaft, Musikforschung; It. musicologia).

I. The nature of musicology

5. New trends.

In the last two decades of the 20th century, there was an explosion in the field of musicology as scholars, sought to give
voice to a broader range of concerns. Some have interrogated the fundamental assumptions of historical musicology.
Like their colleagues in history, they have questioned the focus on history as the product of great men, great works,
great traditions or great innovations. This has led to the study of music as a social force and to histories of musics previously excluded by scholars,
many of whom have tended to concentrate on the art music of social élites. Dahlhaus (1977) proposed that musicology should encompass not just stylistic history,
‘a history whose subject matter is art and not biography or social contingencies’, but also structural history,
reception history and cultural history. Others, critical of traditional science and traditional historiography,
have gone further, questioning the possibility of scientific objectivity and exploring the extent to which subjective
elements inform any historical discourse. Some have even questioned the idea that history implies causality,
preferring to define it by the mutability in anything that changes over time.

Another important trend has been in the focus on musicology as a form of criticism, or what 　　Kerman　　 (1985) has called ‘the study of music as aesthetic experience’. In this, musicology resembles the humanistic disciplines, especially literature, and may borrow from literary or cultural theory and new fields such as gender studies. This interest has provoked debate over whether music has its own meaning, independent of the context in which it is created, performed and heard, or whether it is inevitably socially embedded and cannot be fully understood outside these contexts, whether its meaning results from a certain kind of intentionality mutually understood by the creator and perceiver, and whether it is principally an attribute of the mind, a product of cognitive responses to sound and/or bodily ones. Underlying the manner in which these questions are explored are certain fundamental issues – assumptions about the nature of knowledge, the source of that knowledge, and how scholars should relate to the inquiry. From these differences come the enormous range of subjects and methodologies that musicology has come to comprehend.

Some, working out of the humanist tradition, continue to believe that truth is something coherent and intentional: the goal is to unveil it. They may use close analytical and critical readings of scores to reinforce or question conventional truths or, like historians embracing the theory of mentalités or Zeitgeist, to suggest specific relationships of music to the other arts and society. Those influenced by structuralist anthropologists, semioticians and/or sociologists understand truth as a product of a system of signs and music, like any language, as a ‘play of signifiers’. In Claude Lévi-Strauss’s words, ‘knowledge can be objective and subjective at the same time’ and ‘history is never history, but history-for. It is partial in the sense of being biased when it claims not to be, for … one must choose, select, give up … it consists entirely in its method’. Scholars embracing this perspective understand meaning as a product of interpretation. In their studies of music, they seek to understand what its structure or narrative may represent. Some, sympathetic to Marxist ideas or Theodor Adorno, believe that music is a dialectical discourse that both reveals and conceals its relationship to language and society.

Musicologists following poststructuralist thinking tend to agree with Michel Foucault that ‘truth is linked in a circular relation with systems of power’. Sensing a crisis of authority, patriarchy, identity and ethics, they question the validity of the so-called master narratives, stories that we have come to regard as central to our understanding of Western music and musical progress – for example, the function of tonality and the importance of the narrative curve in music. Using deconstructive methods, they seek to unveil the operations of power in music, especially those related to articulations of gender, race and class, or point out how music helps to construct social identities and social spaces.

Postmodernist notions have begun to inspire questions about the validity of global, universalizing perspectives and to shift attention to the truths embedded in the local, everyday, variable and contingent aspects of music and music-making. Scholars engaged in this work see truth as always relative and subjectivity as multi-layered, contradictory and performative, as influenced by the body as well as the mind and sometimes spiritual concerns. They seek to break down hierarchies and show the multiple meanings that any music can have. They are often concerned with the physical impact of sound on the listener and with music as evoking a process, not just a presence that refers to an absence (i.e. what is represented). Sometimes the goal of their inquiry is not so much to increase knowledge of music as to restructure experience of it.

Postmodernists also tend to concentrate more on the role of the performer and listener in determining the meaning of a musical work. They analyse what is specific to individual performances, including Roland Barthes’ ‘grain of the voice’, rather than the structure of written scores. They seek to understand musical expression independent from the structure, and some, music that is not written down. For postmodern scholars, the musical experience is essentially cooperative, collaborative and contingent. Listeners bring or attach meanings to music regardless of composers’ intentions, often as part of a dialectics of desire that helps shape how they define what is outside themselves. The listening process is an activity that in turn shapes the personal, social and cultural identity of the listener. The desire to explore the experience of music and to understand what underlies the meanings people ascribe to it has motivated an interest in applying psychoanalytic methodologies to the study of music.

These different approaches to knowledge are reflected in different relationships to the scholarly process. A scholar can play the role of a transcendent observer, applying rigorous reason and research to a chosen study and remaining unimplicated in the results of what is learnt. This relationship involves a strict separation of the observer from the observed and a trust of the ‘other’, be it the composer or the work, and a sense that the facts provided are what is needed. Or a scholar can be self-critical, acknowledging the power of language and the interdependence of language and meaning in musicological work. This may lead the scholar to ask not only theoretical questions but also political and ethical ones which may in turn shed light on some aspect of the larger world as reflected in music. Alternatively, a scholar can focus on personal insight, considering one’s personal experience of music as a source of knowledge. Taking personal relevance or one’s own perspective as the point of departure makes it clear that the scholar plays an important role in producing musical meaning. At the same time, such a perspective may have limitations as to the general relevance of the insights produced.

A number of important new subfields within musicology have arisen as a result of these different perspectives. Some, such as 　　Kerman　　, Taruskin and Dreyfus, have used them to criticize the historical performance movement, throwing into question the notion of an ‘authoritative’ or ‘authentic’ performance of early music. Others, following the lead of McClary and Brett, have used them to explore how gender and sexuality may influence the creation and reception of music. More and more musicologists are crossing borders and reconsidering the boundaries of their research, not only that which has separated classical and popular music, written and oral traditions, but also historical musicology from other disciplines including ethnomusicology and music theory.