ExcerptsfromMajorArticles

Being More Open-minded, More Realistic and Less

Eager for Self-Proclaimed Schools:A Speech at the

2008 China Opera Forum

Iput forward three sentences to encourage the work of the newly founded China Opera Society. First is to be more open-minded. Chinese opera has transformed from the ″Unitary Era″ to the ″Pluralistic Era″ since the opening up and reforms. Since the name of our organization is called ″China″ Opera Society, thus the society should belong to the whole nation, and should be a non-governmental academic organization for the sake of all the Chinese opera artists. It is therefore necessary to recognize in this present age of pluralism the pluralistic orientation of opera concepts, opera thoughts, opera tastes, opera styles and opera forms, with more open-minded outlook covering all the opera workers with various ideas and opinions, so as to truly unite them all and bring their enthusiasm and originality into full play. Such a society would become a home for everyone, where one would work under its direction. Otherwise, a less open-minded society would only unite few artists.

Second is to be more realistic, i.e., to do those more important things that the society is capable of doing. What should we do then? Today＇s forum is one example. Its purpose is to discuss in very serious manners what achievements have been made for Chinese operas, what other issues we should deal with, what their origins are, and how to deal with them, etc. This is what we call ″being realistic″. Such academic discussions should never be despised as they are of great value to the development of opera art.

Under the current difficult situation for Chinese opera where many of the opera houses are turning into enterprises, various issues arise, such as how to transform the opera theatres, what benefits such transformation would bring to the growth of opera production. In my opinion, the aim of such reforms is nothing but as follows: 1) to produce more operas of higher level. Once the reforms succeed, I＇m sure there will be more good productions. 2) to bring up more opera talents through reforms, such as outstanding playwrights, composers, actors and directors; 3) to improve the living and working conditions of opera workers. The success of the reforms depends wholly on these three elements. If after the reforms the workers＇ salary is reduced, no good productions are created, or good talents are leaving because of less interest in opera, then such a reform is by no means successful.

The third sentence is to be less eager for self-proclaimed schools. In the process of preparing for the 2008 China Opera Forum, I heard that someone wanted to write an ″Opera Proclamation″ and proposed the idea of ″Chinese opera school″, to which I expressed my disagreement then.

Do we need the so-called ″Chinese opera school″? I said yes, but not now. Chinese opera artists should have such an ambition, but it is still too early to proclaim it as the condition is not yet ripe for claiming such a school or trend whether in terms of the objective condition that restricts the opera development in China or the subjective condition that is related to opera artists themselves.

We can not proclaim ourselves the ″Chinese opera school″, but rather, it should be an honour offered to you by others or later generations for your achievements as it is supposed to be a scientific conclusion or recognition of any contribution by the Chinese opera art in the history of world opera. Only when we have produced outstanding operatic works of high artistic level with truly Chinese geographic and ethnic characteristics and with representation of the modern times, and when our works are not only welcomed by Chinese audience, but also enjoyed and admired by our foreign counterparts and audience in all different countries, can we say that our ″Chinese opera school″ matures and can be referred to as such by our foreign colleagues, just like the Russian school of music.

A Music Critic Should Be a Good Finder of

Better Music

The first point is, in my view, that a music critic must have a correct criterion of value assessment for such a music form as symphony. Here lies the issue of how to define symphony. In the first place, I think the concept of ″symphony″ should be divided into two aspects： the ″broad″ sense and the ″narrow″ sense of symphony. In the broad sense, all the music performed bya orchestra or symphony orchestra can be called symphony. Just as what we can hear in some of our symphony promotion events, Johann Strauss＇s works such as his waltzes occupy an important position in the genre. And to me, the authentic works of great importance in the field of symphony should be those ″symphonic″ music pieces of great importance, just like symphonies of Beethoven, Shostakovich or Mahler, rather than those small pieces or light music pieces performed by orchestra bands.

The second point is that a music critic must have a high level of professionalism. Criticism on symphony composition differs from media promotions or deliberate sensationalization. It ought to be true words of the professionals with high-level expertise and serious research. Any criticism by laymen may mislead the readers, and therefore would never hold water.

As known to all, symphony composing requires extremely high-level expertise, and it is still developing further with the change of the times. Critics, and, in particular, young scholars dedicated to music criticism, must keep learning professional knowledge before being able to deal with those technically new compositions. Without sufficient knowledge of the new stuff, your writings would fail to get to the point. As composition techniques can be infinite, one should never blame those seemingly strange new techniques as a kind of show-off. It is certainly wrong to show off one＇s techniques as it is commonly seen in some of the modern music works which are often regarded as rubbish stuff, but even in some of the traditional music pieces or those composed in the traditional ways, one may find the same kind of rubbish works in large quantity with much emptiness. Among the traditional music pieces, only a few can remain as classics over the ages. Modern techniques are emerging with the change of the times. However, any exploration into new styles and new techniques is bound to be experimental or even risky, usually aimed at new content and means of expression, and therefore should not be denied at easy disposal. Technique is innocent, and thus should not be blamed. It is definitely deemed to develop as the times go.

The third point is that, if popularization of symphonic music is our great ideal, criticism is then the very bridge linking the profound and beautiful symphony with the general public. For many lovers of symphony, it is only after having read wonderful comments that their interest in symphony is aroused and that, under the guidance of the criticism, they enter the concert halls to enjoy the symphonic music. Taking Beethoven as an example, many people learn about Beethoven and his music from books or talks by critics before they go to listen to his music. In this sense, persuasive criticism on symphony may produce great influence on the public. Symphony critics should play an important role in the divine work of popularizing symphony among the public. Here I want to stress that for criticism, professionalism and popularization are two aspects complementary to each other. Criticism for the purpose of popularization should no doubt be easily accessible to the public, but it must be based on accurate academic orientation, or in other words, it should be both professionally profound and easily accessible to the reader. On the other hand, if it lacks academic ″profoundness″, criticism aimed only at simple understanding and popularization may sometimes be misleading as a result.