--- Philip Gelb <phil@philipgelb.com> wrote:
> Is there such a thing as "A traditional sound"?
I think so. But surely this is not pin-downable to any
particulary definable "thing". Surely even it might
take sufficient depth of involement/understanding
before one can recognise what that "sound" is?
> Does
> this (and most elements of any given culture) not
> change from generation to generation?
[...] Otherwise it simply becomes a museum
> object or something that so called anthrolopgists
> can become nostaligic over.
Then Charles wrote:
> If the "traditional sense of sound is getting
> extinct", it seems that it
> is important to study it carefully and WRITE IT DOWN
> so that future people
> can try to replicate it.
I think these points are linked in an interesting way.
I have heard complaints from some people that the
writing down of the shakuhachi music STOPPED it
changing - somehow took the fluidity of the tradition
away to some extent. Perhaps even more so as notation
became more and more precise (e.g. kinko honkyoku
eventually taking on the timing marks as used in
sankyoku notation). And then the same for recording -
that so many people are simply copying the style of
famous teachers, from CD (and therefore sounding all
the same, except of course many are without the
refinement of the masters on the CD, adding further
complications!) So the devises of writing and
recording may indeed have an effect of preserving, but
perhaps not as straightforward effect of "keeping
alive" as we might think. I often get baffled actually
by anthropologists collecting so much DATA in a
supposed attempt at keeping things ALIVE.
Then the quote from Ronnie
"I had been told to try to exactly copy my teacher to
the best of
my ability, and that no matter how hard I would try
to duplicate
my teacher's playing, my own performance would
inevitably differ,
simply because no two people are alike. "
Somehow I have it in my mind that one copies ones
teacher PRECISELY, as diligently as possible. Finally,
one comes closer and closer to "what it's all about",
and one comes to "understand" it. At that stage, one
is free to stop "copying" and create, more "freely". I
remember my Tai Chi master demonstrating the form, NOT
in public. On that one occasion, he did it SO
differently. I watched. On some occasions also, he
would do the form with us, and make very small
differences, but which were actually big differences.
I mean, they were ones we would never make. Generally
people never noticed. But, I could see, he was free
from the "form". He did it, but he was free from it.
He knew it. Inside, I mean.
If a beginner tries that, they make nonsense. We see
it all the time of course. We can all make mistakes.
But we can also all make things up intentionally. But
when the student does that, to the master it is plain
to see that it is foolish - just wrong. I think that's
why it's so good to copy precisely, until all the
subtleties are internalised. And then...
Phil:
> Takemitsu is someone i admire very much but this
> particular comment really does not make sense to me.
> He is putting Tsuruta Kinshi in modern contexts in
> his film and orchestral scores and then does not
> want her sound to change as a result.
Perhaps he was not trying to stop her from CHANGING
but maybe from loosing what she had? Perhaps if she
could change, however she might, but at the same time
not loose that purity he spoke of. Perhaps him
learning the traditional biwa notation was an aid to
that - her keeping that whcih was essential to that
"sound", in this new context.
Best wishes
Justin.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_____________________________________________
List un/subscription information is at:
http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 06 2006 - 10:00:47 PST