|標題:||音樂史學在奧地利與臺灣 III--- 臺灣傳統|
Music Historiography in Austria and Taiwan Iii---The Taiwan Tradition
|關鍵字:||歷史寫作;臺灣史;臺灣音樂;後殖民理論;國族文化認同;historiography;history of Taiwan;music of Taiwan;post-colonialism;national cultural identity|
Current researches on music in Taiwan are well represented by the articles in the New Grove Dictionary (second edition, 2001) and the Garland Encyclopedia of World Music (volume 7, 2002), and by a formal historical monograph in Chinese (2003). However, contributors to the Garland Encyclopedia on the Chinese reception of Western music and on the modern Chinese orchestra all fail to mention Taiwan, even though the editor of that volume claims to cover it under “China” as a historical concept. On the other hand, the author of the 2003 history, who is one of the team of the New Grove article, by adopting that schema, inherits some of its problems: e. g. periodization based on political history without clarifying its interrelation with music history; within each period music traditions presented separately without showing their connection or continuity. Above all, emphasis on the aboriginal music at the cost of the Chinese and Western traditions turns almost half of the book into an “Introduction to Taiwanese Aboriginal Music,” and falls short of its title “History of Music in Taiwan.” And why must it be labeled as a history after all? This leads eventually to the fundamental question: what is and how to write music history? Here I suggest gaining insights from the general theories of historiography, especially on national historiography, then from the historiography in Taiwan, especially from the perspective of post-colonialism. Above all, Carl Dahlhaus’s general music historiographical conceptions (especially on realizing structures or configurations) and his objections to the music history of Austria will be discussed. At the same time, though criticized for his narrow interest in German music, he strongly rejects the idea of a German music history, arguing that the historical structures are either local or regional than national. He recognizes the fragmentary nature of music history and advocates a pragmatic, eclectic, and pluralistic approach. This may sounds less engaging than the theories of Adorno or Knepler, yet Dahlhaus’s disenchantment with his own participation in the Hitler’s Youth and his sympathy with the student movement in the 60s alerts him to the lure of any ideology. Rethinking these issues would raise the level of consciousness in musicologists working in Taiwan, as well as in places where national cultural identity is too eagerly sought by the unreflective writing of music history.
|Appears in Collections:||Research Plans|