散曲、戲曲「流派說」之溯源、建構與檢討

對於「散曲、戲曲流派說」，明人在「湯沈論爭」之前，是否已有前奏曲；而「湯沈論爭」的實際情況究竟如何？何以近現代學者熱衷於參與「流派說」，其現象如何？又何以論說紛紜而莫衷一是？「流派」到底為何物？「散曲」、「戲曲」又應如何建構流派？而詞曲系曲牌體戲曲劇種和詩讚系板腔體戲曲劇種之質性有何異同？何以前者建立流派之基準只能出諸「唱詞之詞與律」，而後者則何以出諸演員之「唱腔」？而以演員之「唱腔」為基準之詩讚系板腔體戲曲劇種，演員又如何以一己「唱腔」之特色為基準，在何種條件下逐漸建構完成屬於自己之「流派藝術」。而對於詞曲系曲牌體戲曲劇種，又可以採取何種「分類法」，以利學者之論述。凡此都是本文所要探討的問題。

關鍵字

散曲；戲曲流派；湯沈之爭；唱腔；流派藝術

並列摘要

As far as the theory of sanqu verse and operatic music as genres, before the ＂Tang- Shen debate,＂ did people of the Ming dynasty already have overtures, and what was the actual situation of the ＂Tang-Shen debate＂? Why do contemporary scholars so ardently participate in the ＂genre theory,＂ and what is this phenomenon? Again, why are the debates so diverse and confused, unable to reach a unified conclusion? What exactly is a ＂genre＂? and how should sanqu verse and operatic music be constructed as genres? Moreover, what are the qualitative similarities and differences between ciqu type of the qupai style of operatic theater, and shizan type of the banqiang style of operatic theater? How can the former be founded as a genre on the basis only of ＂the words and melodies for singing lyrics＂ while the latter is founded on the singing techniques of the performers? Too, taking the singing techniques of the performers as the basis of the shizan type of the banqiang style of operatic theater, how can the performers make the characteristic of their individual singing techniques into such a basis; under what kind of conditions can this gradually become constructed as a ＂generic art＂ completely belonging to oneself? Finally, with regard to the ciqu type of the qupai style of operatic theater, how can one utilize a classificatory method-and what kind of classificatory method-that can be of benefit for scholarly discourse? All of these questions are the problems that this essay is intended to explore.

並列關鍵字

sanqu ； xiqu genres ；＂Tang-Shen debate＂； arias and vocal music ； generic art

國際替代計量

散曲、戲曲「流派說」之溯源、建構與檢討

全文下載

主題瀏覽