龚鹏程x罗格诺尼｜乐器保护的一些基本问题仍待解决

wy168

龚鹏程对话海外学者第六十二期：在后现代情境中，被技术统治的人类社会，只有强化交谈、重建沟通伦理，才能获得文化新生的力量。这不是谁的理论，而是每个人都应实践的活动。龚鹏程先生遊走世界，并曾主持过“世界汉学研究中心”。我们会陆续推出“龚鹏程对话海外学者”系列文章，请他对话一些学界有意义的灵魂。范围不局限于汉学，会涉及多种学科。以期深山长谷之水，四面而出。

加布里埃尔·罗格诺尼教授（Professor Gabriele Rognoni）

英国皇家音乐学院的物质文化与音乐研究教授。

龚鹏程教授：您好。谈到物质文化与音乐的关系，我立刻会想起：中国音乐的基本分类，正是由物质定的，金、石、丝、竹、匏、土、革、木，合称“八音”，代表音乐的整体。有些地方的“八音会”未必八种物器齐备，也仍要以八音来标榜。相对来说，西方好像没这么强调物器之声。例如音乐只大体分为管弦乐或打击乐，就其演奏的行为说，而不是就其物器说。谈到提琴，也不会像中国这样，要强调是“丝桐”，且丝桐就是古琴的代称。您觉得这算是中西方的一种差异吗？

加布里埃尔·罗格诺尼教授：龚教授，您好。我总是被人们对人类经验的巨大分类方式所吸引，因为这些方式往往反映了人们看待世界的不同方式。玛格丽特-卡托米在她具有里程碑意义的《论乐器的概念和分类》一书中精彩地抓住了这一点。在这种情况下，我们需要关注乐器研究和音乐本身研究之间的区别。

谈到乐器，西方在许多世纪以来采用了不同的分类系统，通常将其划分为弦乐器、管乐器和打击乐器。

然而，自19世纪末以来，维克多·查尔斯·马荣、弗朗西斯·加尔平和科特·萨赫、埃里克·冯·霍恩博斯特尔根据每件乐器的发声元件（产生声波的部分）开发了一个更准确的系统，形成了体鸣乐器（如钟等乐器，其振动是由三维物体产生的），膜鸣乐器（振动是由二维表面产生的），弦鸣乐器（振动是由线性体产生的）和气鸣乐器（所有乐器的声音是由空气的振动产生的。振动是由三维物体产生的），膜乐器（振动是由二维表面产生的），和弦乐器（振动是由线性体产生的）和空气乐器（所有乐器的声音是由空气体积的振动产生的）。

后来，又增加了电子乐器的类别。这种分类——及其众多的细分——有助于比较不同地域和时间的乐器，有时还能突出音乐传统之间的联系，否则就不明显了。

这个故事中有一个鲜为人知的部分，我觉得特别吸引人，那就是马荣——他在布鲁塞尔生活和工作——显然从印度的分类系统中获得了他的分类的灵感，这就再次强调了知识流通的重要性以及我们可以从彼此的传统中学习到多少东西。

我一直很喜欢基于材料的中国分类系统的想法，因为反过来我相信它有可能向我展示特别吸引我的不同联系。

然而，我想知道它是如何处理今天使用的各种合成材料和乐器的，如钢琴，其中普遍的结构材料与声音的产生没有关系（钢琴主体可以由木头、金属、有机玻璃，甚至玻璃制成），或如长笛这类乐器，是用木材、金属、象牙和玻璃制成。

然而，虽然没有一个分类系统是完美的，但许多学者试图开发新的和更明确的方法，来对复杂的乐器进行分类，但没有人能够在一个系统中涵盖所有的东西，而且要保持简单和直接，并可以应用。

我想知道，一个新的多文化的方法，结合几个世纪的传统方法，是否会带来新的和有趣的想法。

I am always fascinated by the many ways people classify the immensity of the human experience, as the often reflect different ways of looking at the world. This was wonderfully captured by Margaret Kartomi in her landmark book On Concepts and Classifications of Musical Instruments. In this case we need to focus on the difference between studies on musical instruments and those that focus on music itself. When it comes to musical instruments, the west has adopted different classification systems for many centuries, often dividing them in stringed, wind and percussion instruments. However, since the late 19th century, Victor Charles Mahillon, Francis Galpin and the Curt Sach and Eric von Hornbostel developed a more accurate system based on the sound-producing element of each instrument (the part that generates the sound-wave), resulting in the articulation in Idiophones (instruments such as bells, where the vibration is generated by a three dimensional object), Membranophones (where the vibration is generated by a bidimensional surface), Chordophones (where the vibration is generate by a linear body) and Aerophones (all instruments where sound is produced by the vibration of a volume of air).

Later on, the category of Electrophones had to be added. This – with its numerous subdivisions – has helped to compare musical instruments across geography and time and sometime highlighted connections between musical traditions that would not be evident otherwise. One of the less-known part of this story which I find particularly fascinating is that Mahillon – who lived and worked in Brussels – apparently took inspiration for this system from an Indian classification system, once more highlighting the importance of the circulation of knowledge and how much we can all learn from each other’s traditions.

I always liked the idea of the material-based Chinese classification system, as in turn I believe it has the potential to highlight different connections that are particularly interesting to me. However, I wonder how it deals with the variety of synthetic materials that are in use today and with instruments, such as the piano, where the prevalent material of construction is not relevant for the production of sound (piano bodies can be made of wood, metal, Plexiglas, even glass) or with instruments, such as the flute, that have been made in wood, metal, ivory and glass.

However, while no classification system is perfect, many scholars have tried to develop new and more articulated ways to classify the complexity of musical instruments, but no one has managed to cover everything in a system that remains sufficiently simple and straightforward to be usable. I wonder if a new multi-cultural approach, combining centuries of traditional approaches, might lead to new and interesting ideas.

龚鹏程教授：现代音乐教育似乎越来越偏于培养或成就艺术家，物质文化与音乐的关系，被认为属于工匠的事，不受重视。音乐家只练习演奏，偶尔作曲，基本不会造琴。琴都是买的或借的。中国弹古琴的也一样，通常不会斵琴修琴。您觉得这种“艺术和工技的区分”是必要或合理的吗？

加布里埃尔·罗格诺尼教授：曾几何时，直到17世纪，欧洲音乐家们还普遍具有乐器制作和维修的技能。从那时起，这些技能变得越来越专业化，以至于同一个人在这两方面都很出色变得非常困难，但也不是完全不可能。

另外，音乐家们有时也深怕毁掉他们的艺术所依赖的昂贵乐器，而更喜欢专业制作者或修理者所提供的安全感。

然而，我认识几个优秀的专业音乐家——尤其是木管乐器演奏家——他们制作了自己演奏的乐器，往往达到了非常高的标准，所有的双簧管和巴松管演奏家都花时间制作自己的簧片。

总的来说，音乐家和他们的乐器之间的关系，是非常物理性的，乐器对演奏者的影响，就像演奏者在某种特定的乐器上表现一样出色，但有时在类似的乐器上却不尽如人意。

因此，我相信鼓励学生熟悉他们所演奏的乐器的物质性，对鼓励心灵和身体之间更深的联系有非常有益的影响，并将音乐体验扩展为更全面的综合体验。现在键盘手可以学习钢琴和大键琴的调音课程，而在这个方向上我们可以做得更多。

There was a time, until the Seventeenth century, when it was common for European musicians to also be skilled in musical instrument making and repair. Since then, the skills became more and more specialised to the point that it became very difficult – but not entirely impossible – for the same person to excel in both. Also, there is sometimes a deep fear by musicians to ruin the very expensive instruments on which their art relies, and to prefer the safety offered by a professional maker or repairer.

However, I know several excellent professional musicians – particularly among woodwind players – who have made the instruments that they play, often reaching very high standards and all oboe and bassoon players spend hours making their own reeds.

Overall, the relationship between musicians and their instruments is very physical and the instrument influences the performer as much as the performer excels on one specific instrument, but sometime not on a similar one. Therefore I believe that encouraging students to familiarise with the materiality of the instrument that they play can have very beneficial effects on encouraging a deeper connection between the mind and the body and expand the musical experience into a more holistic and comprehensive experience. Courses in piano and harpsichord tuning are now routinely offered to keyboard players and more could be done in this direction.

龚鹏程教授：由于工业化和社会变动，音乐与物器的关系也会有变化。例如中国本来有笛子，后来因胡汉交流加剧出现了羌人的乐器：羌笛，类似竹笛，但有簧片。近代则因文化大革命，制作古琴丝弦的人才断层了，只好研究用钢丝包尼龙线来代替。这似乎都是观察物质文化与音乐关系的例子。您在这方面的研究，应该会给我们更多启发。

加布里埃尔·罗格诺尼教授：乐器确实是复杂的文化物品，因为它们处于技术、经济和剧目之间的交叉点。此外，它们还需要适应人体的限制和音乐场所的要求。所有这些因素都随着时间的推移而变化，因此，乐器也在变化，试图满足特定时间、地点和人群的不同需求和时机。这使得乐器不仅是产生声音的物品，而且是社会和人类文化的有力代表。

我们博物馆所收藏的乐器之一，是世界上现存最早的吉他。当我们看到它时，我们可能会想弹奏它，听听它的声音。然而，我们也可以想想它精美的工艺，这是550年前里斯本木匠能力的一个典型代表，或者想一下它的材料，这些材料来自遥远的南美和非洲，代表了当时葡萄牙帝国的广度。还可以把它作为一个起点，了解拥有和演奏它的特殊家庭的生活。然而，我们也可以研究这种乐器在今天如何在现代吉他演奏者中引发强大的反应，他们经常长途跋涉，来看看他们所演奏的乐器的最古老存在，或者它如何唤醒人们深刻的记忆，将吉他与他们生活中的重要时刻联系起来。

因此，这种乐器跨越时间和空间将成千上万的人联系在一起，产生了远远超过其自身历史的记忆和想法。

Musical instruments are indeed complex cultural objects as they are at the intersection between technology, economics, and repertoire. Moreover, they need to adapt to the limitations of the human body and to the requirements of music venues. All of these elements change with time, so that musical instruments also change, trying to meet the different demands and opportunities of specific times, places and people. This makes musical instruments not only sound producing objects, but also powerful representation of society and human culture.

One of the instruments that are held in our museum is the earliest guitar surviving in the world. When we look at it, we might want to play it to listen to its sound. However, we might also consider its beautiful workmanship, which is an extraordinary example of the ability of woodworkers in Lisbon 550 years ago, or consider its materials, which come from as far as South America and Africa and represent the breadth of the Portuguese empire at that time, and also take it as a starting point to understand the life of the exceptional families who owned and played it. However, we can also study how this instrument, today, triggers powerful reactions in modern guitar players, who often travel long journeys to come and see the oldest example of the instrument that they play, or how it can awaken profound memories in people who connect the guitar to important moments in their life. As such, this instrument connects thousands of people across time and space, generating memories and ideas that go well beyond its own history.

龚鹏程教授：我们近年在古书保存和修复的技术传承和人才培养方面，都有了些成果，乐器的物质性保存和修复也同样受到了重视。这方面，可以请教您们是怎么做的？

加布里埃尔·罗格诺尼教授：自从我在这个领域开始工作以来，大约25年前，技术在文化遗产保护方面的应用有了令人难以置信的发展。我清楚地记得，二十年前某些技术是多么的冒险和复杂，而现在这些技术几乎已经司空见惯。其中，CT扫描的使用，碳14用于木材测年，测年和材料分析技术往往是从医疗、军事和安全行业中借用的，在这些行业中，更多的投资是集中于此。

然而，乐器保护的一些基本问题仍然没有得到解决，因为它们涉及到道德决定而不是科学：我们可以在多大程度上修改一件旧乐器，以使其可以再次演奏？在做出这些决定时，应该以什么观点为准？我们应该追求什么样的声音理想？乐器的使用/维护/修理往往导致历史证据的破坏和新材料的加入，但它也使人们能够欣赏和理解该乐器的演奏方式，并加强该物品与音乐家和公众之间的联系。

虽然我相信科学和技术将永远向前发展，并导致新的惊人的发现，但我相信这些问题的答案将一直变化，因为它们与不断变化的文化观念有关。

在过去的十年里，我在我的领域里看到的最有趣的发展，是视角的扩展和学科障碍的消除，所以今天我们知道我们与许多其他类型的物体——例如历史上的汽车、衣服、科技产物——共享其中的一些问题，我们可以讨论包容更多复杂程度的想法。还有很多工作要做，但我们正逐渐把乐器看作不是孤立的物品，而是作为具有特定功能的更广泛的人类人工制品文化的一部分。

当与来自不同国家的同事进行讨论时，这种讨论变得更加有趣，因为每个文化传统在保护文化遗产方面都有不同的优先事项和关于对错的想法，这表明我们也许应该放弃对错的分类，而是关注我们今天如何与我们过去的物质记忆联系起来。

The application of technology to the preservation of cultural heritage has developed incredibly since I started working in this area, about 25 years ago. I remember very well how adventurous and complex certain techniques appeared twenty years ago, which are now almost commonplace. Among them the use of CT scanning, Carbon 14 for wood dating, dating and material analysis techniques often borrowed from the medical, military and security industries, where more investment are focused. However, some of the fundamental issues of musical instrument conservation are still unresolved, as they relate to ethical decisions rather than science: how much can we modify an old musical instrument in order to make it playable again? What perspectives should prevail when these decisions are taken? What sound ideal should we pursue? The usage/maintenance/repair of musical instruments often leads to the destruction of historical evidence and to the addition of new materials, but it also enables the appreciation and understanding of the way that instrument was played and strengthens the connection between the object, the musicians and the public.

While I believe that science and technology will always move forward and lead to new impressive discoveries, I believe that the answers to these questions will always change, as they relate to cultural ideas which are constantly in flux.

The most interesting development that I have seen in my field over the past decade has been the expansion of perspectives and the removal of disciplinary barriers, so that today we know that we share some of these questions with many other types of objects – for example historical cars, clothes, objects of science and technology – and we can discuss ideas embracing a much greater level of complexity. There is still a lot of work to do, but we are gradually looking at musical instruments not as isolated objects, but as part of a much broader culture of human artefacts that have a specific function.

This discussion becomes even more interesting when undertaken with colleagues from different countries, as each cultural tradition has different priorities and ideas about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in the preservation of cultural heritage, which shows that we should probably abandon the categories of right and wrong and focus instead on how we all relate today with the material memories of our past.

龚鹏程教授：对于数字技术对音乐遗产的记录和传播，您们又是怎么做的？

加布里埃尔·罗格诺尼教授：数字人文领域的技术发展甚至更快，在线和数字资源的数量和质量几乎已经让人无法跟上。出于这个原因，每个机构在投资数字项目时，都需要确定一些可管理的优先事项来关注。就我而言，我认为我们领域最紧迫的两个优先事项是巩固和扩大网络，以及在更广泛和不同类型的受众中建立对我们领域的复杂性和兴趣的认识。

对于第一个问题，我相信没有一个音乐博物馆足够大，足够引人注目，可以单独出类拔萃，数字技术可以帮助我们与其他可比的机构，无论大小，在我们的领域和相关领域，扩大我们的影响力和联系。在过去的几年里，我们开发了两个大型项目。第一个项目汇集了来自世界各地的64,000多件乐器，第二个项目专注于英国的200多个收藏，可以让人访问超过20,000件乐器。这种类型的集合增加了乐器在文化遗产大世界中的影响，多年来产生了许多进一步的项目，使不同时代和文化的乐器得到比较，并促进了与其他研究领域的合作。

此外，我坚信社交媒体连接人们的力量，尽管我也意识到这个不断发展的新世界的风险和弱点。然而，我也意识到，技术并不是每个人都能平等获得的，当我们把资源集中在技术上时，我们有可能把大量可能有身体、经济或文化障碍而无法使用技术的人排除在外。因此，我认为我们应该特别小心，确保每一个数字项目都有对它可能造成的障碍的仔细研究，以及解决如何减轻这些障碍的周密策略。

Technological development is even faster in the field of digital humanities and the number and quality of online and digital resources has become almost impossible to follow. For this reason each institution needs to identify a manageable number of priorities to focus on when investing in digital projects. In my case, I believe that the two most urgent priorities in our field are the consolidation and expansion of networks and the creation of awareness of the complexity and interest of our field among a broader and diverse type of audience.

For the first, I believe that no music museum is big and visible enough to excel on its own and that digital technologies can help us to connect with other comparable institutions, small and large, in our field and in relatable field, to expand our reach and connect. Two large projects were developed over the past years. The first brings together over 64,000 musical instruments from all over the world, and the second focuses on over 200 collections in the UK offering access to over 20,000 instruments. This types of aggregations increase the impact of musical instruments in the large world of cultural heritage and has generated many further projects over the years, enabling the comparison of instruments across time and cultures and facilitating the collaboration with other areas of study.

Also, I strongly believe in the power of social media to connect people, although I am also aware of the risks and weaknesses of this new and ever-evolving world. However, I am also aware that technology is not equally accessible to everyone, and when we focus resources on technology we risk excluding large numbers of people who might have physical, economic or cultural barriers that prevent them from using them. Therefore I believe that we should be particularly careful in always making sure that every digital project is accompanied by a careful study of the barriers that it can create and by a careful strategy addressing how these could be mitigated.

龚鹏程

龚鹏程，1956年生于台北，台湾师范大学博士，当代著名学者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

办有大学、出版社、杂志社、书院等，并规划城市建设、主题园区等多处。讲学于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、台北、巴黎、日本、澳门等地举办过书法展。现为中国孔子博物馆名誉馆长、美国龚鹏程基金会主席。