音樂史學在奧地利與臺灣 III--- 臺灣傳統

Abstract

有關台灣音樂的最新研究，可以《新格魯夫第二版》(2001)、《格蘭世界音樂百科第七冊》 (2002)中的相關條目和一本《台灣音樂史》(2003)為代表。然而，《格蘭百科》的作者在 論述中國對于西方音樂的接受，以及論述所謂國樂團的現代化方面，都未提及台灣的發 展，雖然該冊的編者聲稱將以「中國」作為一個歷史概念來包括台灣在內。另一方面， 2003年的《台灣音樂史》，因其作者也是《新格魯夫第二版》的撰寫成員之一，便沿用 了同樣的架構，卻忽略了自稱為《史》的分別，從而出現了同樣的問題：譬如在時代劃 分上過度參照政治歷史而未澄清其與音樂史的關係；再者，每個時期內不同音樂傳統都 進行孤立式的描述而缺乏彼此關聯和連續性敘述。這最終引向音樂史寫作的後設理論問 題。本研究藉史學的討論，尤其是臺灣史、音樂史、以及後殖民理論等，探索臺灣音樂 史寫作的可行摸式。

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.