解读“史料”不等于编造“史实”——评杨善武的《史料史实与“同均三宫”》兼及“两种音阶观念”

发布时间：2018-01-17 00:05

  本文关键词：解读“史料”不等于编造“史实”——评杨善武的《史料史实与“同均三宫”》兼及“两种音阶观念”　出处：《南京艺术学院学报(音乐与表演)》2017年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

  更多相关文章： 杨善武 史料史实 同均三宫 京房律 笛上三调 一元音阶观

【摘要】：杨善武"通过史料史实的辨析",认为"京房律的宫商徵、荀勖笛上三调都不是‘同均三宫’,《南诏奉圣乐》中本没有‘同均三宫’,白石道人歌曲也不能证实‘同均三宫’。作为‘同均三宫’理论‘源头’、‘立论依据’、音乐‘实证’的几个重要而关键的史料史实,全都不能成立"。但是,通过分析和论证表明,杨善武对古代文献及宫调理论的解读,以及对"同均三宫"的否定,有悖"史料"本义,并非"史实"。
[Abstract]:Yang Shanwu "through the historical facts of the differentiation", said that "the law of the palace, Xun Xu on the three tones are not 'the same three houses," "Nanzhao consecrated music" is not in the original' three houses with the same'. The Baishi Taoist songs also can not confirm the 'same mean three houses'. As the source of the theory of 'the same three houses', there are several important and key historical facts of the music 'empirical'. However, through analysis and argumentation, it is shown that Yang Shanwu's interpretation of the ancient literature and the theory of the palace tune, as well as the negation of the "Tongyou San Gong", are contrary to the original meaning of "historical data" and are not "historical facts".
【作者单位】： 扬州大学音乐学院;
【基金】：扬州大学音乐学教学团队资助
【分类号】：J613.6
【正文快照】： 自上世纪90年代开始,杨善武便正式将“同均三宫”列为重点研究的课题,并为此制定了详尽的研究计划,试图“从史学依据、乐学逻辑、乐调实际三个方面加以研究”,并准备“以八篇论文分三个阶段来完成,……尝试解决中国音阶理论问题。”[1]杨善武近期发表的《史料史实与“同均三宫，

本文编号：1435407