“Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions: the Concept of Tradition and Its Relation to Time in the Practices of the Chinese Seven-Stringed Zither (Qin)*

民俗曲藝 166 (2009.12): 97–124 97

“Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions: The Concept of Tradition and Its Relation to Time in the Practices of the Chinese Seven-Stringed Zither (Qin)*

Tsai Tsan-huang Assistant Professor Department of Music Chinese University of Hong Kong

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to explore the concept of “tradition” of the Chinese seven-stringed zither qin 琴 and its association with issues of “intangible heritage,” “internal debate,” as well as its connection to the current and future practices of the instrument itself. The article intro- duces the discourse on “tradition” from an anthropological perspective before turning to its relationship with the above-mentioned issues. The paper also focuses on the material aspects of the qin by examining its associations with the concept of tradition and time (the past, present, and future). As a constantly renewing process and one that is often limited to a particular pace or speed of change, the concept of “tradition” has indeed played a very important role within contemporary qin practices and has provided a vision that projects toward the future. By using the case of the qin, the paper further suggests that an abstract concept such as “tradi-

＊The paper is an expanded and reworked version from my DPhil thesis (2007). In preparation of this paper, I received invaluable help from Noel Lobley and Dr Rowan Pease who provided me with both critical reviews and language assistance, culminating in the final version of this paper. Critical reports with useful comments from the two anonymous readers have made vital contribution to the current shape of this article. I would like to express my gratitude to them. 98 Tsai Tsan-huang tion” can be useful for the understanding of performance itself in relation to the interpretation of the past and considerations for the future.

Key words: Chinese seven-stringed zither qin (or guqin), music and tradition, intangible heritage, internal debate, music and time. “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 99

Introduction

Traditionally, the qin 琴1 is not only a musical instrument but also an object d’art. Connoisseurs have long studied inscriptions and lacquer cracks on a qin to decide its age, origin, historical ownership and other distinctive features. The traditional notation for the qin, called jianzipu (simplified character notation), uses parts of Chinese characters to construct symbols that specify finger movements to produce individual musical tones (Liang and Lam 2001; my emphases).2 Because elites use the instrument, qin, to cultivate themselves, the qin practice has become the representative of Chinese music tradition, and it is part of the traditional “cultural genus” of Confucian philosophy (Lau Chor-wah, speaking about qindao 琴道 [lore of the qin]; my emphasis). The mainland Chinese qin players who were strongly opposed to the tradition at the same time linked themselves with the tradition intangibly (Lau Chor-wah speaking about the Cultural Revolution; my emphses).3

1. The term qin is taken from the pinyin system, but the Romanisation ch’in is used in Taiwan and by earlier Sinologists. Also, the term guqin 古琴 (lit. ancient qin) has recently been used in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the West in order to distinguish the qin from other instruments. Interestingly, the term guqin had been mentioned by ancient scholars in their poetic writings and the notion of “ancient” or “old” has been associated with this instrument. For instance, Yu Xin 庾信 (513–581) mentioned the term guqin in his poem “Youju zhichun shi” 幽居值春詩 (Poet of peaceful living in the spring season). Since the late nineteenth century, the term qin has been applied to musical instruments in general, including Western instruments. For example, the piano is called gangqin 鋼琴, whilst violin is translated as xiaotiqin 小提琴. 2. Grove Music Online: http://www.grovemusic.com/shared/views/article. html?from=search&session_search_id=1155676966&hitnum=1§ion=mus ic.47071 (accessed April 7, 2007) 3. These two citations are summaries of views expressed during an interview with Professor Lau at the Department of Chinese Language and Literature (HKBU), Hong Kong, January 25, 2002. 100 Tsai Tsan-huang

The term tradition is indeed very commonly used in the daily conversations and intellectual writings of qin players. The different uses of the term “tradition” or “traditional” (both by scholars and by qin players) cited above show that the term itself can be associated with very different meanings by different people depending on various contexts. The aim of this paper is to explore the concept of “tradition” as frequently mentioned by qin players and academics writing about it. The “tradition” examined here has been strongly associated with two key issues, namely “intangible heritage” and “internal debate.” The former category relates to the contribution made by both Japan’s and Korea’s long existing national cultural policy (or practice) to the global community through UNESCO, and the concept has also created unavoidable discussion among qin players and scholars under the discourse of “tradition.” The idea of “internal debate” as used in this paper referring to different views on current practice among players themselves, and the discourse of “tradition” is often seen to be replacing actual historical evidence. While considering these two issues, the concept of “tradition” is clearly presented in the context of present as well as future directions. Using the case of the qin or Chinese seven-stringed zither, this paper aims to contribute to the study of “folklore practices, objects and time” (the central topic of this special issue) by examining how the discourse of “tradition” has been connected to the current and future practices of the instrument itself. Rather than providing a detailed ethnographic study, the paper will summarise the findings of my pervious publications and relate them to the journal’s thematic concerns. The article will first introduce the discourse on “tradition” from an anthropological perspective before turning to its relationship with the above-mentioned issues (“intangible heritage” and “internal debate”). The second half of this paper will focus on the material aspects of the qin by examining its associations with the concept of tradition and time (the past, present, and future). As the discussion proposed here is the first attempt of its kind in the literature of qin studies, I delimit this paper by engaging my dialogue in the context of the journal’s thematic focus. “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 101

“Tradition” in Context: An Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary Musical Practice

In anthropology, and similarly in ethnomusicology, the term “tradition,” just like another ambiguous term (“culture/cultural”), is often used in different ways to refer to different situations in a rather abstract and uncertain manner. Actual continuity with the past and the maintenance of antiquity might be regarded as “tradition,” but one may legitimately ask to what extent one can be sure that the current activity really does represent continuity and to what degree the maintenance of antiquity really happens. More frequently the term “tradition” is used as a conceptual term of classification and is used by scholars without much reference to any indigenous society being studied. The concept has been interpreted as “ideas and processes in human societies that are loosely but conveniently termed “traditions’” (Jain 1977:1) or the classification of different cultures within a great national state, such as India’s division of great and little traditions (Bharati 1978, Babiracki 1988). The invention of the Highland tradition of Scotland (Trevor-Roper 1983) offers an alternative view of the theoretical understanding of “tradition” that is not necessarily orig inal, but does nevertheless show how the indigenous view of tradition can be directly brought out through specific material objects.4 The debate regarding “inventing tradition” has also led to further exploration of the concepts of “authenticity” and “purity” in the works of anthropologists and ethnomusicologists. For example, “real” or “true” aboriginality has often been seen to depend upon the degree of “traditional” culture rather than on kinship or lineage (Beckett 1988; Weichart 2000). Even on a day-to-day level and particularly in a multi-cultural context, one “does” tradition in order to distinguish oneself from others. Hence the concept of tradition becomes a question of degree and of different layers. Both “tradition” and “authenticity” not only create

4. See also other articles in the same book edited by Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983). 102 Tsai Tsan-huang identity, but also generate a political dimension, in which tradition is applied as identity under certain circumstances. In the study of China and Chinese culture, the term “tradition” has long been associated with both scholarly disciplines and indigenous daily life. Several anthropologists have noted that this concept plays a very important role in Chinese societies or cultures (in both mainland China and the overseas diasporas). For example, Allen Chun highlights a distinction between the anthropological understanding of Chinese “traditional” lineage-villages and actual indigenous practices (2000). In his discus- sions on Cantonese opera, Kevin Latham argues that “rather than there being fixed traditional elements of Cantonese opera which were historically unchanging, there were instead different ways of ‘traditionalizing.’” He goes on to suggest that the “traditional” “did not inform people’s practices but rather people referred their practices to it on particular occasions for particular purposes and often in quite different ways’ (1996:284). Although we may be able to relate tradition to culture to some extent, the term “tradition” is not necess arily used in the same way in the anthropological debate on the use of the term “culture.” For example, we now tend to agree that ani- mals can have some kind of “culture,” but would not see them as having “tradition.” From the citation given at the beginning of this paper, however, the term tradition arguably suggests a strong narrative viewpoint from indigenous concepts and practices with a crucial connection between the past, present and future.5 In modern Chinese societies, “traditional music” has attracted new meanings, which do not only relate to the people who take pleasure from the music itself. The gradual association of traditional music with cultural policy and government funding in the modern world suggests that the existence of “traditional music” in contempor ary society is seen as both necessary and crucial. Hence the institu- tionalisation of traditional music which appeared in post-war Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China, in which traditional music research and the

5. The concept of tradition requires further study through cross-cultural investigations. “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 103 preservation of traditional music are thought of as being very signifi- cant. The use of traditional music as cultural identity can be shown in the Chinese societies across the Taiwan Strait.6 For example, the classifications used by cultural policy makers in reference to traditional Taiwanese and Chinese music are extremely ambiguous. To create a specific identity through emphasis on a particular type of traditional music is not the only governmental strategy that is employed. Rather, “traditional music” is also used as political ideology. Thus, for example, China uses it to claim their authority over other Chinese societies. In contrast, Taiwan might use the very same music to demonstrate their Chinese orthodoxy before the 1980s and again to assert its distinct Taiwanese identity since the 1980s. Again, the “traditional music” here has a strong association with the concept of time. When considering the term tradition, music is certainly not treated as merely being “handed down” from the past to the present. When past activities or their elements are transmitted into a modern setting and embodied within contemporary activities, different degrees of change occur no matter how hard people have tried to avoid this through a variety of methods. Through different emphases on particular time and space within the historical development of any traditional practices, people interpret the “tradition” according to their own understanding of what it means to be “traditional.” During my fieldwork and personal engagements, contemporary qin players, whether from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan or even Japan, UK, and USA, often referred to their practice as being “traditional,” claiming that the way they perform is in accordance with qin “tradition.” Scholars who specialise in Chinese music tend to find this type of answer rather general and unhelpful. However, with regards to the players’ own sense of qin practice, the concept of “tradition” is both interesting and complex. The term “tradition” does not simply refer to the context of the past, but rather, it is more precisely the present

6. Keith Howard has also shown how the preservation of old forms of Korean music by the government is often for the purpose of national identity (2006). 104 Tsai Tsan-huang understanding of the past. In other words, tradition is a process of appropriating the past and often more than one version is taken account of. It may well be the case that “[t]radition may be better seen as a process in which culture is continuously renewed with reference to the past,”7 but at the same time we should still be prepared to conduct a detailed analysis to decode the possible elements and materials from the indigenous concept of “tradition(s).” Howard suggests that: “[t]radition is an accretion of insights, understandings, and operational practices (2006:175),” and believes that investigating the indigenous concepts of “tradition/traditional” that are held by musicians can be very useful for scholars. This is because the concept plays an important role in the practice and understanding of a particu lar cultural performance by musicians themselves, and it is also important to consider how they incorporate this concept as a metaphor consisting of different internal debates on current practices and different viewpoints on the future development of the instrument and its practice. In the case of qin, both the instrument itself and historical handbooks act as narrative media for modern players to talk about and to interpret what they mean by “tradition” and “traditional.” The concept of “tradition” as discussed here shares some similarities with the concept of “history.” Nevertheless, I would argue that the internal use of the concept of “tradition” provides us with a useful analytic and self-oriented framework for practitioners to consider their own current practice in relation to the past and future. In addition, the concept of tradition has yet to be explored particularly within the past- present-future relationship, which is the fundamental framework towards the understanding of the concept “time.” Let me now first address the relationship between the “tradition,” and “intangible Heritage.”

7. See Oxford Reference Online: Craig Calhoun, ed., “Tradition.” In Dictionary of the Social Sciences; http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t104.001698 (accessed March 18, 2003). “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 105

The Concept of “Tradition” and Its Relation to “Intangible Heritage” and Internal Debates

It is not possible to full reconstruct in the present what had happened in the past, this is because that which people believed happened in the past may not necessarily correspond to reality and is in fact sometimes constructed artificially. The way one talks about one’s past is actually more to do with trying to make sense of the ideologi- cal and political agendas behind the stories created about the past.8 It is therefore clear that people make sense of past practices and events through their own understanding and interpretations. As Marshall Sahlins famously claimed: “history is culturally ordered,” and “cultural schemes are historically ordered” (1985:vii). Bringing the past into the present has also given the past alternative meanings and new interpretations within a modern context, as David Lowenthal also notes:

Intense preoccupation with former times features individuals and institutions all over the world. Genealogical yearnings swamp registries; nostalgia pervades popular culture; traditions are ceaselessly recycled or invented; museums and historic houses become tourist meccas; appetites for antiquities seem unlimited. Heritage is alike a popular crusade among the dispossessed and a growth industry for the privileged. (Lowenthal 1992:24)

Lowenthal here does more than simply suggest that “traditions are ceaselessly recycled or invented,” and it is clear that the aspect of material culture plays a very important role within this context. In a different socio-cultural context, old objects indeed come to be infused with new meanings. The importance of the material aspect of a culture, regardless of whether or not it is tangible, is one main

8. For example, the story of the death of Captain James Cook has been interpreted from different points of view by Europeans and by Indigenous Hawaiians; one story appeared differently with two different histories. See debates between Sahlins (1985, 1995) and Obeyesekere (1992). 106 Tsai Tsan-huang point I would like to emphasise in this paper. What has happened to the musical culture of the qin, a culture that has survived through more than one millennium of continuous written and oral history (and is in particular an old tradition that is now being performed in the modern world), and how are contempor ary players to respond to such a long-term musical practice? How are players to make sense of their current performance in relation to the past, and in what way has the past been transmitted in an alternative form into the present world? And perhaps more significantly, how do players link their performance with a potentially uncertain future? Before answering these questions, let me begin by offering a critical examination of UNESCO’s new cultural category of “intangible heritage,” a category that can be problematic, particularly through misrec- ognition of the importance of the material aspect of intangible cultures which are themselves often regarded as being essential aspects of the qin’s very tradition. The submission of the qin to the United Nations Educational, Sci- entific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as one of the Master- pieces of the “Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity 2003” illus- trates the view of scholars and players that the activities and practices of this age-old instrument and its musical tradition can be maintained in a changing society, and also reflects a desire for greater international recognition (which was indeed awarded on 7th Novem- ber 2003).9 For better or worse, the proclamation has had a signifi- cant impact on the qin.10 Of more significance is the fact that the term “intangible heritage” (fei wuzhi wenhua yichan) 非物質文化遺產 has suddenly developed from being a term or concept that was unfamiliar to most Chinese, to becoming an essential category situ- ated in the centre of Chinese cultural politics in recent years.

9. The proposal was planned and suggested by The Music Research Institute at the Chinese Academy of Arts in Beijing, then submitted to UNESCO by the Ministry of Culture, People’s Republic of China. 10. The situation also applies to the 2001 Kun Qu 崑曲 Opera and the 2005’s Uyghur Muqam 烏魯木齊 of Xinjiang 新疆 and the Urtiin Duu 長調– Traditional Folk Long Song (joint submission with Mongolia). “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 107

On 14 September 2006, the Centre for China’s Intangible Herit- age Protection was established by the government under the Chinese National Academy of Arts to deal with all tasks relating to intangible heritage, including policy consultation, research surveys, direction guidance, scholarly research, hosting academic meetings, and public exhibition as well as other associated events.11 At the same time a “National List” of China”s intangible heritages and “Transmitters (people who carry on the tradition)” chuanchengren 傳承人 has been launched to acknowledge individual contributions, and this List includes a group of 10 qin players. Although some qin players may feel cause to celebrate since the qin has been chosen as one of twenty-eight masterpieces of the UNESCO’s “Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity 2003” and been included on the “National List” and “Transmitters” of the PRC, we may want to ask what factors influenced the decision for the qin to be labelled as “intangible heri tage” and what this means for players in China, Hong Kong, and Tai- wan as well as in the global community.12 With reference to “intangible heritage” in the Article 2-Definitions of the general provisions included in the Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible Cul- tural Heritage, UNESCO suggests:

The intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. (UNESCO 2003:2)

Clearly, the qin’s music and its practice corresponds to the vari-

11. Chinese National Academy of Art webpage (http://www.zgysyjy.org.cn/ newart/lanmuye.jsp?class_id=15; accessed May 1, 2009). 12. The processes involved in UNESCO’s cultural policy making (the oral and intangible heritage of humanity) have been reported by Keith Howard (2006:16–20). 108 Tsai Tsan-huang ous classifications with UNESCO’s framework,13 and it is certainly well qualified to meet the definition of the “intangible cultural heri tage” mentioned above. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the “material aspect” of such practice has been completely omitted and that the emphasis has been placed on the “intangible” abstracted form, which is differentiated from other “tangible” (cultural) heritages under UNESCO’s classification. I would argue that any abstracted form of socio-cultural practice, however, cannot solely fit into the category of “intangible” if we consider the methods of cultural transmission and cultural identity. Qin practice is transmitted from generation to generation not only through oral transmission but also through the playing and maintaining of old instruments, and by interpreting the historical sources such as written literatures and ancient notations. The instrument per se has a vital role to play in all aspects of its existence, and this should not be omitted in this context. Furthermore, qin practise does not yet have a singular or defini- tive “sense of identity and continuity,” but rather includes a series of internal debates which are based on material objects and ways of interpreting these sources. These debates have revealed different emphases and issues of identity and continuity, and at least two clearly opposing attitudes dominate the current practice. A distinction has been created among qin players between the “scholarly school” and the “institutional school” and the difference is reinforced by the internal debates with reference to the terms and meanings associated with the qin, the material nature of the qin, and the notational system, in contrast to the historical context of performance.14 These internal debates can focus on the following major

13. Under the category of the “intangible cultural heritage” the following areas are included: (a) Oral tradition and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; (b) Performing arts; (c) Social practices, rituals and festive events; (d) Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; (e) Traditional craftsmanship. 14. According to the previous debate on promoting the qin to general public, two camps or “schools” of players with different attitudes can be identified–“scholarly” (an alternative description could be “elite” style) “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 109 questions: (a) Whether the qin should be regarded as a daoqi, “sacred instrument” or simply as a yueqi 樂器, musical instrument”? (b) Whether the notation jianzi pu 減字譜 is the best to be used in a learning/teaching context or whether a more “advanced” notation, such as Western staff and the jianzi combination notation should be adopted?15 These different debates are associated with different ideas of “tradition” held by qin players, and these debates are further linked with the interpretations based on material objects related to the qin. In contrast to Latham’s “traditionalizing” (people referred their practices to the tradition differently at different occasions), I would argue that for players of the qin there are “fixed” traditional elements and different layers of tradition (people would make direct reference to), which are maintained both within the qin practice and its music as well as within historical handbooks. Based on these material sources, the modern understanding of a musical performance has been influenced by either Western or global influences (such as UNESCO’s

and “institutional”(or “conservatory” style), although some players occupy a grey area between these schools. The dichotomy is useful to show different vision for the future direction of this cultural/musical practices. Furthermore, the dichotomy is not my conceptual terminology; rather, the dichotomy is used by, and often talked about amongst, players themselves. In his study on the art of Chinese qin, Liu Chenghua 劉承華 pointed out that the difference between scholarly and artistic ori- entations or emphases had already begun in Western Zhou dynasty since the Spring and Autumn Period (772–481 BCE) (2002:47). 15. Besides the material aspects of the qin, there are other internal debates on a more abstract level of discussion which I am not able to include in this paper. These are questions relating to whether a yaji 雅集 (the elegant gathering) of qin players should be treated as a musical or social gathering, whether the qindao 琴道 (the lore of the qin) is a musical or philosophical achievement, and whether the amount of new composi- tions should be increased. Elsewhere I also referred to the debates on whether the qin should be taught in the music conservatoire or in other settings (Tsai 2006). 110 Tsai Tsan-huang

“intangible cultural heritage”) which have helped to generate the current understanding and practices of qin music and also its past. Concepts of tradition are subject to various interpretations by individuals, groups, or institutions with specific reference to the material aspects of the qin, which vary according to different times and spaces, and even, in contemporary society, can vary within the same time and space. This suggestion that there are different layers of interpretation between different individuals, different qin associations/schools (as well as diverse branches of individual styles), or even different Chinese societies, is actually based on debates about the qin practices and its material culture, all of which tend to differ- entiate the concept of its tradition. In proposing to use material perspectives and the related interpretations of the musical performances, I hope to provide an alternative approach to the idea of “traditionalizing” that was proposed by Latham (as mentioned earlier). The material aspects of objects are useful as reference points for people to discuss, interpret and debate abstract concepts such as what we mean by “tradition/traditional.” The results of my research show a strong connection between the concept of tradition, internal debates and the material aspects of the qin, and so we may legitimately ask what the role of tradition actually is or how the concept of tradition really works in conjunction with qin performance today. Signifi- cantly, these questions also require us to consider future directions.

Tradition in Time: The Concept of Tradition in Relation to the Past, Present, and Future

In ethnomusicology, most scholars tend to focus on ethnographic or historical perspectives in order to understand past and present musical contexts. The concept of tradition employed here not only provides a more realistic working framework and a more narrative storyline, but also crosses a conceptual boundary between the past and present, or even the future (as the future of musical development should not be avoided in ethnomusicological study). Even at a more practical level, it can be hard to disconnect our current daily life from the past and the future. We are indeed living with the leg- “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 111 acy of the past and heading straight towards the future, and consider- ation of both is inevitable particularly when we are faced with dramatic change or challenges. Instead of categorising the concept of time into “static,” “cyclic,” or “durational/non-durational” units commonly discussed in anthropological literature, in this article I refer it to the “linear” pattern of the past, present, and future which musicians would often associate themselves to, both physically and conceptually.16 In the next section I will demonstrate how the internal debates and the concept of tradition are linked across different conceptualisa- tions of time and the relationships between them, namely the past, present and the future. In modern society when considering the relationship between the past and the present, qin players use “tradition” and its internal debates, as a type of strategic metaphor to express continuously evolving understandings and interpretations which are based on the written and oral sources, and on the instrument itself. Although this is one way in which players make sense of their current performance in relation to the past, we may ask to what extent has the past been transmitted in an alternative form into the present world? And, perhaps more significantly, how do players link their performance with the reality of an uncertain future?17 The concept of “tradition” is a very widely spread and powerful idea within the practice and community of East Asian musical cultures, where historical lineage is remarkably important, and this is especially true in societies where oral and written sources are used to construct performances. In addition to the musical sound, players from the “scholarly school” tend to take more information or sources

16. The concept of time has been explored widely in anthropological writings, especially its relation to the society. For example, see Gill (1992) and Munn (1992). The linear pattern is used to emphases different understanding of time from cyclical pattern. 17. These questions are more directly addressing the current existence and future directions, and again thus differ from studies with a historical focus. In other words, the concept of tradition is a way of embedding the past and future in the present. 112 Tsai Tsan-huang from the past to meet their main agenda in order to continue qin performance in a modern world. The “institutional school” players tend to focus on more recent events or sources to emphasise their views on how qin performance should be, while some ideas are adopted in the cross-cultural context, and thus show signs of having been influenced by the Western concept of performing arts.18 According to my own observations, two potential methods of transmission can be found in contemporary qin practices, in the process of direct transmission of “tradition(s)” from the past to the present and also from the present to the future. Firstly, there is material maintenance, which includes the concept of “tradition” as adopted from classical literature, historical qin handbooks, the qin object itself, archaeological evidence, and other iconographical repre- sentations (including old Chinese paintings), in which the history of the qin (or perhaps interpretations of its histories) is treated as knowledge which is transmitted directly and indirectly to players from the related material culture. Secondly, there is the similarity of thought among players, either with respect to players within the same qin schools, and/or players who joined the same qin gather- ings, where the idea of “tradition” is passed from the last generation to the current generation via oral transmission and this is itself partly based on the material aspect of the qin, such as the instrument itself and its repertory. Both material maintenance and oral transmission are used as necessary processes to ensure the continuity of this performance.19 There are many more issues which are relevant to the qin’s tradition with respect to the past and the present from the material aspect. For example, ways in which the invention of the qin, sym- bolic meanings and terms have been attached to the instrument and

18. Nevertheless, both above-mentioned schools might misunderstand or misinterpret historical data from time to time. 19. It is rather common in Chinese teaching/learning practice that a beginner starts with oral transmission processes through one’s teacher, but in order to become a great player one must study by him/herself. “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 113 various qin notations. Here I will use the example of the antique qin to emphasise my point. For qin players of the “scholarly school,” the acquisition of one of the antique instruments is thought to be an important point in their life, and more generally the collecting or use of antique instruments is thought to be part of the qin’s tradition itself.20 The importance attached to acquiring an antique qin is not only due to the quality of its sound, but also its life history, lacquer cracks, and carved inscriptions. An antique instrument that has survived often has many structural problems, and it may not even be possible to repair these completely. Despite this, in comparison with more recently-made instruments, it is generally considered that the sound quality of an antique instrument is different and perhaps better than that of a newer instrument. Players describe the old and fine sound of an antique qin as being jinshi sheng 金石聲, which literally means “metal-stone sound.”21 The life story of a particular qin is not only known through oral culture, and many cases of the qin have been well-documented in the historical qin handbooks or in modern collectors’ catalogues. There are various lacquer patterns, which appear in different historical periods of the life of a qin, including types of snake belly cracks (both large and small), as well as water cracks (both thick and thin), cow hair cracks, ice cracks, and plum blossom cracks. These are often used by players to estimate the age of the qin.22 On the surface of the qin, poems, carved inscriptions, and signatures can sometimes be found, providing another way in which a qin can be identified, and which may make an instrument

20. I have also reported that the antique qin is very important part of the performance practice or even the life of players. The stories of qin collection somehow also reflect the life experiences of the collector (see Tsai 2004). 21. According to players, other analogies, such as chang (matured) and tou (depth) are also used to demonstrate the quality of antique instruments. 22. From the viewpoint of collecting and identifying antique qin, Ji Xiping 紀溪坪 point out, wood type, lacquer source, lacquer cracks, sound qual ities, appearance styles can be used as references (2007). 114 Tsai Tsan-huang more valuable.23 It is important to include the antique instrument in the present context of qin practice.24 At the very first level, to be traditional implies the use of historical object, and therefore the connection between the past and present is obvious.25 Although it might sound a bit unusual for anthropologists or ethnomusicologists to be concerned about the future when focusing upon the subject of “history,” nevertheless, it will not be possible to fully understand the concept of qin “tradition” without turning the discussion towards the future. Here, I am not proposing that every- one imagines what the future of qin performance will be, but rather that it is necessary for us to be aware of the contemporary perspective of the future as currently held by players while we are dealing with the issue of so-called “traditional” music. A tendency to imagine what the future might look like has certainly been a concern of qin players, as a consequence of holding a very strong concept of what “tradition/traditional” means in their current practice.26 Some players seem to take cautious steps whilst others may have more progressive visions. The concept of tradition and its surrounding debates not only link the past and the present (as discussed earlier), but also form the relationship between the present and the future as well. Indeed, the tendency and capacity to think ahead will not only shift present prac-

23. Using their carved inscriptions, and signatures of seven survived antique instruments, Zheng Minzhong 鄭珉中 identifies some important exit- ing examples which may once owned or repaired by Tang Kai, who is unknown to historians (2008). 24. The qin also becomes one of the desirable item to collect. See Yu liping 庾莉萍 (2009). 25. For example Qian Jiuru 錢九如 has mentioned that the antique qin collection of China’s Forbidden City covered several fine examples from the Tang dynasty to the last dynasty Qing (2006). 26. It is also important to cultural policy makers. For example, in UNESCO’s preservation programme (mentioned above), sections are included on “risk of disappearance” and “action plan.” See also: http://www.unesco. org/culture/intangible-heritage/masterpiece.php?lg=en&id=65(accessed May 10, 2007). “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 115 tice, but will potentially also construct an ideal future that is based upon present practice. Every qin player realises that in a modern society with an uncertain or unpredictable future, changes in both the social environment and musical practices are inevitable. How- ever, the continuity of qin tradition(s) is of serious concern for players, and this attitude has become more obvious when addressing the question of contemporary qin educational practice. When debating the history of the earliest qin makers, most teachers doubt the reality of these makers from mythological China as described in the qin handbooks. Nevertheless, some teachers tell students about these myths that are part of qin tradition, although very few of the teachers can actually correctly identify the particular makers who are mentioned in specific literatures and contexts. A similar situation can be noticed when considering the terminologies relating to the construction and different parts of a qin, as these terminologies vary and have different names according to different historical periods. Many qin teachers believe that it is inevitable that such knowledge will be passed on to their students, although most teachers may not have a clear view of how different terms have actually been applied during each historical period.27 Some players trained in conservatoires may even reject this part of the heritage and deliberately exclude it from their teaching. It seems to be less important for the newer generation of qin players to learn this aspect of the performance. It is likely that this aspect of tradition (or traditional knowledge) will gradually lose importance in the future. To own one of the antique instruments is a source of great pleasure for many players, who enjoy the superior sound quality, the artistic carving, and its connection with antiquity. Indeed, owning an antique qin from the Tang or Song dynasty is especially desirable (regardless ancient Chinese emperors or contemporary players). Like- wise, the repair of an old instrument is also a serious business in which alterations should be kept to a minimum, because the old

27. The same problem also applies to the correlated thoughts about qin measurements and strings that exist in qin handbooks. 116 Tsai Tsan-huang instruments and the quality of sound should be enjoyed by future generations as well. Many players told me that keeping an antique qin in playing condition is not easy, and emphasised how much extra care was needed in order to preserve an antique instrument from the past for current and future generations. In the case of the qin known as Yunqing 韻磬 (Rhymed Chime) as well as several fine qin collected in the Forbidden City, the names of its owners have been documented since the Tang dynasty, and each of the owners can be considered a keeper in the lineage chart.28 Although it is almost impossi- ble to identify these owners today, the case of the Yunqing does illus- trate how this particular instrument and its story became an import ant part of qin history, and how the use and preservation of antique instruments came to be considered as being part of its “tradition.” However, players who emphasise the importance of performance skills would refute such statements, and they would usually consider the musical sound to be the principal element of the qin which should be passed down to succeeding generations, rather than its cultural aspect. They may argue that having an antique instrument to play is a valuable experience, but that the sound quality and manufac- ture of the instrument should be the key concern. Since the invention of the jianzi notation,29 several varieties of qin notation have been developed for different purposes, some of which are influenced by Western musical concepts and systems. In recent decades, increasing numbers of players have become aware of the problems of using such so-called “improved” notation, which is itself a combination of both the jianzi notation and the Western staff or number notation and was invented during the first half of the twentieth century. Today, more players actually suggest that the orig

28. The qin is currently owned by Shum Hing-shun and he has written a full story of the Yunqing (2000). 29. An old form of qin’s notations most commonly used in old handbooks. Fore more information, see Grove Music Online: http://www.grovemusic. com/shared/views/article.html?from=search&session_search_id=11556769 66&hitnum=1§ion=music.47071(accessed April 7, 2007). “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 117 inal jianzi notation is in fact the ideal notational system for qin performance due to the improvisational nature of qin music. In the modern setting of the music conservatoire, the combination of Western staff notation and the jianzi notation is very commonly used for teaching materials. An ability to rapidly read the staff notation is considered to be a key part of the training in the conservatoire, even if some believe it to be an “irrational” invention. However, there is no consensus yet as to whether or not players should abandon the use of the jianzi notation.30 Again, these concerns all relate to future considerations of qin practice. In general, players believe that the qin and its music will not be widely appreciated by ordinary members of the public; it was not widely appreciated in the past or today, and therefore the same will almost certainly be true in the future. Despite this, players also believe that the fact that qin performance has not attracted great popular interest does not imply that it will inevitably disappear from human history, as this was not the case in the past, it is not the case now, and it is unlikely to be the case in the future. The attitude of players towards the future does seem very cautious, in that most qin players today consider its dramatic “development” or even “evolu- tion” to be unlikely. Contemporary qin players do not search for one authentic model of the past, but rather, within the boundary of “tradition/traditional,” accept variations and interpretations, notwithstand- ing ongoing debates between players. The future of qin performance is believed to lie in building upon the current interpretation and negotiation of tradition, with this concept appearing to be a reference point for both current and future practices. Yesterday’s great history is becoming today’s great tradition, and today’s great tradition will similarly become tomorrow’s reference point for interpretations, because present practice will eventually turn into the “tradition” in

30. For example, a new notation based on the Western staff notation but with fewer illustrations of finger techniques was invented by Gong Yi 龔一 but is not generally accepted either by qin players within the setting of the modern conservatoire or by long-established private teachers (1999). 118 Tsai Tsan-huang the future (see Figure 1). As the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Koichiro Matsuura 松浦晃一郎, stated:

Figure 1: The relationship between the concept of tradition and time, namely, the past, present and future. The figure shows how the current practice has researched and selected different materials of the past, and, incorporated these into the present understanding of tradition(s). The connection between the present and future practice may be conceptualised in a rather similar way. “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 119

The new era must, in the face of growing threats to the future of nature and of humanity, lead us to develop an ethic of respon si bility. This entails in particular the duty to ensure viable condi- tions for the existence, development and transmission of intangible cultures, if such is the choice of the individuals and actors concerned. The world of heritage is indeed fragile, perishable and vulnerable. We must rise to this pressing challenge and act because, as part of humanity, we bear responsibility for future generations. (UNESCO 2004:3)

Concluding Remarks

As a constantly renewing process and one that is often limited to a particular pace or speed of change, the concept of “tradition” has indeed played a very important role within contemporary qin practices and has provided a vision that projects toward the future. This concept of tradition is a useful tool and one that is similar to the long- standing anthropological interest in myth, as the mythological past is often embodied together with the ethnographic present, and can thus be used in understanding contemporary society itself. By using the case of the qin, I have shown how an abstract concept such as “tradition” can be useful for the understanding of performance itself in relation to the interpretation of the past and considerations for the future. When examining the past-present-future relationship Munn argued that:

[It] is intrinsic to all temporalizations irrespective of focus, inas- much as people operate in a present that is always infused, and which they are further infusing, with pasts and futures… ways of attending to the past also create modes of apprehending certain future or of reconstructing a particular sense of the past in the present that informs the treatment of “the future in the present.”

It is indeed necessary for us to analyse the term “tradition” in a more precise way and to establish cross-references with indigenous categories, to enable a full exploration of the relationship between the past, the present and the future. By studying the internal debates 120 Tsai Tsan-huang with special reference to the material aspects of the qin, we can obtain more concrete examples to make sense of how attitudes towards the performance held by those cultural practitioners may be determined by different understandings and interpretations of its the- ory and practice. I have shown how we can find that different groups of players have used the concept of tradition as a metaphor to bring the past and future together. The present action becomes a critical moment, or a “vivid present” (adopted from Schutz’s notion), wherein “the “present” of the subject (individual or group) is the reference point from which one looks backward to origins or “pasts” and for- ward to what might emerge from the present (making the subject into an originating source for a future growth) (ibid. 98-100).” As with many aspects of social life, the practice and interpretation of the qin is not singular but multiple. For some players, following the social needs and the historical weave of political/economical changes related to qin practice is inevitable. However, others choose to keep to the “tradition.” Even if some players of other genres, as Hesselink reports, view tradition as being “stable and static, impervi- ous to changing cultural trends or fads, and frozen in time and space like a museum display (2004:407),” I would argue that “tradition,” like cultural identity, varies according to different contexts, and is culturally and socially reconstructed in both local and global contexts. As the case of the qin shows, in an age of globalisation, the qin and its associated culture has gradually shifted from being an exclusively elite or scholarly practice, and has become a national/ international musical symbol and cultural representation. Consequently, understanding of its “tradition” and its emerging “internal debates” is likely to be re-interpreted over and over again. “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 121

List of Works Cited

Secondary sources Babiracki, Carol M. 1988. “Tribal Music in the Study of Great and Little Traditions of Indian Music.” In Comparative Musicology and Anthropology of Music. Edited by Bruno Nettl and Philip Bohlman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 69–90. Beckett, Jeremy. 1988. “The Past in the Present; the Present in the Past: Constructing a National Aboriginality.” In Past and Present: The Construction of Aboriginality. Edited by Jeremy Beckett. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 191–217. Bharati, Swami Agehananda. 1978. Great Traditions and Little Tradi tions: Indological Investigations in Cultural Anthropology. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. Chun, Allen. 2000. Unstructuring Chinese Society: The Fictions of Colonial Practice and the Changing Realities of “Land” in the New Territories of Hong Kong. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Gell, Alfred. 1992 The Anthropology of Time. Cultural Construction of Temporal Maps and Images. Oxford/Providence: Berg Gong Yi 龔一. 1999 Guqin yanzoufa 古琴演奏法 (The performing techniques for the guqin). Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe. Hesselink, Nathan. 2004. “SamulNori as Traditional: Preservation and Innovation in a South Korean Contemporary Percussion Genre.” Ethnomusicology 48(3): 405–39. Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howard, Keith. 2006. Preserving Korean Music: Intangible Cultural Properties as Icons of Identity. London: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Jain, Ravindra K., ed. 1977. Text and Context: The Social Anthropol ogy of Tradition. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Ji Xiping 紀溪坪. 2007. “Guqin wenhua yu shoucang” 古琴文化與收藏 (Guqin culture and collecting). Shoucang Jie 收藏界 66:102– 4. 122 Tsai Tsan-huang

Latham, Kevin. 1996. Cantonese Opera in Hong Kong: An Anthropol ogical Investigation of Cultural Practices of Appreciation and Performance in the early 1990s. PhD diss., School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Liang Ming-yueh 梁銘越 and Joseph S. C. Lam. 2001. “Qin.” In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (Second Edition) Vol. 20. Edited by Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 650–52. Liu Chenhua 劉承華. 2002. Guqin yishu lun 古琴藝術論 (The art of guqin). Nanjing: Jianshu wenyi chubanshe. Lowenthal, David. 1992. “The Death of the Future.” In Contemporary Futures: Perspectives from Social Anthropology. Edited by Sandra Wallman. London: Routledge, 23–35. Munn, Nancy D. 1992. “The Cultural Anthropology of Time: A Critical Essay.” Annual Review of Anthropology 21:93–123. Obeyesekere, Gananath. 1992. The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the Pacific. Princeton: Princeton Uni versity Press. Qian Jiuru 錢九如. 2006 “Gugong cang qin” 故宮藏琴 (Qin collection in the forbidden city). Zijincheng 紫禁城 5:24–31. Sahlins, Marshall. 1985. Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. . 1995. How “Natives” Think: About Captain Cook, For Example. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shum Hing-shun 沈新順. 2000. “Xianwai zalu” 弦外雜錄 (Beyond the strings). In Guqin jishi tulu 古琴記事圖錄 (Exhibition catalogue of a hundred ancient Qin from the Tang, Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties in the Taipei’s Guqin Art Festival 2000). Edited by Taipei Municipal Chinese Classical Orchestra, and Chang Foundation. Taipei: TMCCO, 266–69. Thrasher, Alan R. 2000. Chinese Musical Instruments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trevor-Roper, Hugh. 1983. “The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland.” In The Invention of Tradition. Edited by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. “Tradition,” Internal Debates, and Future Directions 123

Tsai Tsan-huang 蔡燦煌. 2004. “The Entangled Relationship between Life Stories and Musical Instruments: A Case-study of the Qin.” Min-su chü’ i 民俗曲藝 144:163–93 . 2006. “Music Education in Cultural Contexts: The Case of Chinese Seven-stringed Zither Qin” 文化意念下的音樂教育 (Wenhua yinan xia de yingyue jiaoyu). In Multicultural Music Education in the World. Xian: Shanxi Normal University, 178– 202. . 2007. Interpreting Histories, Debating Traditions: The Seven-Stringed Zither Qin in Modern Chinese Societies. DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intan gible Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO. . 2004. Second Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity. Paris: UNESCO. Weichart, Gabriele. 2000. “Art=Culture=Tradition: Central Australian Aborigines and the Quest for Identity.” Folk 42:137–68. Yu Liping 庾莉萍. 2009. “Guqin xianqi shoucang re” 古琴掀起收藏熱 (Guqin collecting phenomena). Yueqi 樂器 1:67– 69. Zheng Minzhong 鄭珉中. 2008 “Ji mizu zhengui de TangKai cangqin” 記彌足珍貴的唐凱藏琴 (Precious ancient zither collected by Tang Kai). Shoucang Jia 收藏家 12:73 –78. 124 Tsai Tsan-huang

七弦琴（古琴）實踐中的傳統與時間概念

蔡燦煌香港中文大學音樂系助理教授

摘要：以樂器的物質層面為主要焦點，本論文的主要目的在於探索「傳統」與「時間」在七弦琴（或古琴）實踐中的概念，及其與「內部爭議」、「非物質文化遺產」等議題之間的關係。本文首先由人類學的角度回顧「傳統」此概念在學術界的討論，以易於上述議題的論述。對於這種限制於某種特定變遷節奏和速度的更新過程，很顯然地，「傳統」此一概念在七弦琴當代實踐中扮演著相當重要的角色，同時也提供未來導向的視角。借鑒七弦琴的例子，本文更進一步提出：如「傳統」這般抽樣的概念，對於我們了解不論是文化展本身、及其如何詮釋過去和展望未來，都有著指標性作用。

關鍵詞：七弦琴（古琴），音樂與傳統，非物質文化遺產，內部爭議，音樂與時間。