Structure and Performance Timing in Bach's C Major Prelude (WTCI): An Empirical Study
Structure and Performance Timing in Bach's C Major Prelude (WTCI): An Empirical Study
复制标题
巴赫 C 大调前奏曲 (WTCI) 的结构和演奏时间：实证研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1987
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Nicholas Cook
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nicholas Cook
大多数音乐分析师都会同意的事情并不多。但其中之一是音乐分析与其演奏之间应该有密切的关系。爱德华·T·科恩（Edward T. Cone）（1962：36）关于这个主题的陈述也许是最常被引用的：“分析”，他说，“是表演的方向”。但是，扭转 Cone 的表述并说表演是分析的方向也同样有意义。事实上，当科恩继续说道，谈到作品中事件之间的关系时，他自己也暗示了这一点，“分析的工作是明确地揭示它们，但它们在每一次优秀的表演中都被隐含地揭示出来”。问题在于，我们几乎没有严格的方法论来从表演中推断出其中所体现的分析判断或误判，即使在节奏的情况下（特别是在键盘音乐中）演奏者制作或毁坏一首作品的能力也达到了顶峰。大约二十五年前，彼得·韦斯特加德（Peter Westergaard，1972：229）对节奏理论的常见失败进行了分类，并继续提出，这些失败“可以通过对节奏细节的研究来补救，这种研究不是假设印刷页的小节线，而是检查已注释的作曲元素与表演者用来投射重音位置的未注释手段的相互作用”。 。 。 。关于表演者在较低水平上所做的事情的确切信息可以为作曲家在较高水平上所做的事情提供有价值的线索。本文是对韦斯特加德建议的迟来的回应。 WTC I 的 C 大调前奏曲成为此类作品的焦点有几个原因。它是 Schenker (1969) 最著名的研究之一的主题，也是强制语域的经典例证；但更重要的是，它在前景层面几乎完全缺乏节奏分化。打印的页面显示出一系列稳定、不间断的攻击；因此，表演者可能引入的任何持续时间的系统变化都必须源自更高层次的作曲结构，除此之外别无他处。因此，C 大调前奏曲使得研究高级结构对节奏细微差别的影响成为可能，而不会陷入表演者如何投射前景的复杂性中
There are not many things about which most music analysts will agree; but one of them is that there should be a close relationship between the analysis of music and its performance. Edward T. Cone's (1962:36) statement on this subject is perhaps the most frequently quoted: 'an analysis', he said, 'is a direction for a performance'. But it makes equally good sense to reverse Cone's formulation and say that a performance is a direction for an analysis; indeed Cone himself implies as much when he goes on to say, speaking of the relationships between events in a composition, that 'the job of analysis is to uncover them explicitly, but they are implicitly revealed in every good performance'. The trouble is that we have little in the way of a rigorous methodology for extrapolating from a performance the analytical judgments, or misjudgments, that are embodied in it even in the case of rhythm, where (particularly in keyboard music) the performer's power to make or mar a piece is at its height. Nearly twenty-five years ago Peter Westergaard (1972:229) catalogued the customary failures of rhythmic theory, and went on to suggest that these failuies 'might be remedied by a study of rhythmic detail which, instead of assuming the bar lines of the printed page, examines the interplay of notated compositional elements with the unnotated means the performer uses to project accent placement . . . . Exact information about just what the performer does at lower levels could provide valuable clues to what the composer does on higher levels.' This essay is a belated response to Westergaard's suggestion. There are several reasons why the C major Prelude from WTC I makes a good focus for such work. It is the subject of one of Schenker's (1969) best-known studies and the classic illustration of obligatory register; but even more to the point is its virtually complete lack of rhythmic differentiation at foreground level. The printed page shows a steady and uninterrupted series of attacks; any systematic variation in durations which the performer may introduce must therefore derive from higher-level compositional structure there is nowhere else it can come from. In consequence, the C major Prelude makes it possible to study the effect of higher-level structure upon rhythmic nuance without getting bogged down in the complexities of how performers project foreground