论文部分内容阅读
作为当代西方作曲家代表人物之一的施托克豪森,本文对他的主张作了客观的描述。这对我们了解他的主张是有益的。但是,施氏的一些根本主张,比如说:①音乐家的根本道路只是个性与自然人性的解放,②音乐语言的“不确定性”是不是就是音乐的最根本的本质特征?这些问题都涉及到马克思主义文艺学的根本问题。我们不能因为其和我国禅宗、老庄思想有其共通之处便全面予以肯定。至于量子力学上的“测不准关系”问题,我国现代物理学家何祚麻同志便有专文来阐述,这是不是可以套用到一切领域的一个现象呢?都是值得深入讨论的。而本文中时而流露出来的“全面肯定”的论点,则是我们不能苟同的。不是要“百花齐放”么?为什么又要造成新的“一花独放”的局面呢?特别是施氏的“机遇音乐”在西方也并未被人们全般接受,我们为什么要将之奉若神圣呢?
As one of the representatives of contemporary western composers, Stockhausen made an objective description of his proposition. This is useful for us to understand his claim. However, some basic ideas of Shih Shih, for example: ① The fundamental road of musicians is only the liberation of personality and natural humanity; ② Is the “uncertainty” of musical language the most essential essential feature of music? These questions all involve To the fundamental problem of Marxism literature and art. We can not fully affirm it because of its commonalities with our Zen and Lao-Zhuang ideas. As for the problem of “uncertainty in measurement” in quantum mechanics, Comrade He Hema, a modern physicist in our country, has written an article to elaborate on whether this is a phenomenon that can be applied to all fields. All are worthy of further discussion. However, we can not agree with the “fully affirmed” argument that sometimes emerges from this article. Why do we want to create a new “single flower” situation? In particular, Shih’s “opportunity music” has not been accepted by the people in the West. Why should we enshrine it? What?