Talk:Gongche notation

Should be Gongche

More careful research confirms that the correct pronunciation of "工尺" should be gōngchě, e.g. [1]. Therefore I request a move from "Gongchi Notation" to "Gongche Notation". -- Felix Wan 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah gōngchě is definitely correct. LDHan 20:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to find any 工尺譜 books for sale. I play many Traditional Chinese Instruments with no scores to play from. A good examle is 任劍輝 白雪仙 再世紅梅記 in 工尺譜.

It takes many thousands of years to accumulate knowledge, but only one generation to forget. Obsessions28 (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Sadly, yes, most publications convert tunes to 簡譜 or Western notation. I've only seen some Taiwanese websites use 工尺譜, for teaching to children. Perhaps you can convert some jianpu back to gongchepu? You can find many books through Worldcat in jianpu, and some in gongchepu.

Yes, the cultural cringe has created many colonized minds. People still 崇洋, taking the view that Gongchepu is inferior to Western notation because, as this very wiki article sniffs, it is not as "accurate" and there are regional variations. (Of course there are variations! It's meant to adapt to conditions of specific traditions. This is a feature, not a bug.) What's lost is not only the oral tradition, but also the freer relationship to the text. The 一期一會 fluidity of Chinese music, especially in opera or Daoist/Buddhist ritual, demands a versatility from notation that Western notations can not provide. They are too strict. I use gongchepu for this very reason. In addition, though I can read jianpu, Western staff notation is still beyond my ability to read. It's just too... bizarre... counterintuitive and maladaptive in design. Chinese music played using Western notationn, as most professional musicans now sadly do, often becomes stilted, robotic, cold and unfeeling. It does not accord with conditions, so does no good for our hearts to accord with Heaven and Earth. This, I believe, is a traditional view which others share. Thus I find the final section rather problematic, POV/neutrality wise, and hope it can be ammended.

I hope there is renewed interest in gongchepu, and that new publications will be forthcoming. For many of us who aren't trained musicians, gongchepu and jianpu are certainly superior as a door to learning music. --WuShufei (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Question about Gongche notation and Chinese music and the standard notation and western music.

How is it that the "scale" of Gongche or Chinese music and the Standard or western music exactly match? Do they both originate from the same source? and What is this "source"?

Does it mean why people say that music is an universal language is actually true? That human's perception of sound waves simply "strike the same chord", way back when both Chinese and Western music evolved?

Just puzzling for me.

Cartonlao (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a musically trained person, nor a musicologist. But my sister has done extensive research in gongchepu, Chinese music, and Daoist ritual music. I recall her dissertation stating that much of the modern Chinese scales arrived in China with the Jurchen and Yuan invasions. Each dynasty changes the official scales, using the Lu reed pipe as a basis, thus trying to bring the music of the realm into greater correspondence with Heaven. In the Yuan more pan-Eurasian scales were imported. There were also many musical influences during the Tang dynasty which had already brought Iranian, Tocharian, and Indian influences. According to her, the idea that Chinese music is pentatonic derives from the archaicizing Ming dynasty, which looked back to the native Han dynasty to remove their septatonic accumulations.

I can say from personal knowledge that the Five Sounds, which accord with the Five Phases, have never been given up interest in China, and probably do point to an originally pentatonic nature for all Chinese music in most ancient days. You can get a sense of this historical evolution by comparing the very conservative Confucian ritual music and ancient court music with Tang music, then again compare Tang style musics with Post-Song music. Again, I'm no musicologist, but I hear distinct differences. In Daoism, the music of later sects such as Quanzhen have very melodious, Buddhist-sounding ritual music, while our pre-Song originated sects such as Zhengyi, and Qingwei, use music that often originates in very ancient folk melodies.

For all that, evidently these influences only blended with the native aspects of the music. I recall my sister's dissertation also providing that even latter-day Chinese music of any strain should not allign completely with Western scales, if it is played properly. (She had a nice chart showing some vastly different frequencies between notes of Chinese and Western scales.) Traditionally, Chinese music is spontaneous in measure and natural in scale. What we are hearing from most CD's and performances today is a product of the Westernized conservatories started in the 1920's. These professional, Western educated musicians often changed tunings, scales, keys, and even redesigned instruments in order to convert Chinese music into a beast that sounds nothing like what is played in traditional settings. The enthusiasm for A440, artificial 12 tones, and other so-called "scientifically accurate" music has deeply skewed our understanding of traditional Chinese music; most young people today in China likely don't even know the difference, and have Western-tuned ears. I fear it's turned Chinese music into a caricature of itself, outside of some isolated locales. As one who depends on natural, spontaneous tunings and scales for religious use, I find this deeply troubling.

Music is like language itself. I don't think it's one universal system, but includes many languages. The mathematical fashion of much Western music has its place. But it ought not to be judged as the gold standard of all other traditions.--WuShufei (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Section 1.3 Pronunciation

The article says that the words sung in regional operas are "pronounced in an approximation of Modern Standard Chinese pronunciation" which appears rather dubious to me. They appear more likely to be approximations of earlier non-standard Mandarin, since practically no one was educated in Modern Standard Chinese for the great length of the traditions the article is talking about. These appear more likely to be literary readings of the characters. Please verify the claim in the article. Thanks! -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In Cantonese opera, bureaucrat characters tend to approximate Southern versions of Mandarin. E.g. 講 is not rendered 'jiang' (Wade-Giles chiang), but instead 'giang' (Wade-Giles kiang). 60.228.15.158 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)