從東西混血到包含日本的亞細亞：三木稔對「異音」與「跨文化創作」的反思實踐

本文以日本戰後作曲家三木稔（ 1930-2011）為中心，藉由三木在異音手法及跨文化寫作對象上的轉變，探討他如何透過異音來處理跨文化間同質性與異質性的關係，以及在面對現代化進程時，三木作品中試圖呈現的「新的日本特質」與亞洲認同。而這當中充滿了作曲家欲彰顯日本特質又同時改變日本傳統的矛盾。日本音樂界在六零年代迎來邦樂盛況，三木亦將其創作主軸置於邦樂器與西洋樂器相會的跨文化寫作上。但是三木不同於同年代的作曲家，他反對當時前衛音樂的寫作方式，執著於回歸日本的邦樂器上，為此他創立日本音樂集團並將日本箏進行改制，以異音與參差的作曲手法將東西方的音樂性結合，期望兩者能相互同化。不過，在這樣的嘗試中卻讓三木更加意識到日本與西方音樂的差異性，所以在八零年代末期，三木將他的作曲志向轉至「包含日本的亞細亞」，並且改以旋律上更加統一的異音手法來實踐跨民族樂器的共演，藉此增強亞洲與西方管弦樂團彼此抗衡的力道。本文認為無論是三木的作品亦或是晚期的轉向，當中都透露著作曲家對於「跨文化同化」以及建立「新亞洲」的渴望與想像，只是異音手法終究無法使跨文化音樂性自本質上完全地融合，而所謂「新的日本特質」也是取決於參照西方的產物。然而，三木對邦樂以及跨文化創作的嘗試依然在日本戰後世代中有著獨到的開創性。

關鍵字

三木稔；異音；跨文化；邦樂；日本特質；亞洲

並列摘要

This research focuses on the Japanese composer of post-war period, Minoru Miki (1930-2011) and his works by discussing how Miki dealt with the cross-cultural relationship between homogeneity and heterogeneity through heterophony. The thesis also elaborates the new “musical Japaneseness” as well as the Asian identity in Miki’s compositions, especially on how his pieces show the contradiction of the composer when he tried to highlight the Japanese characteristics yet transformed the Japanese traditions to some degree. During the 1960s, the Japanese music came to the prosperity of Hōgaku boom, which led to Miki placing his emphasis of compositions on the cross-cultural intersections between the Hōgaku instruments and Western instruments. Unlike other composers from the same period, however, Miki opposed the style of avant-garde music, sticking to the Japanese Hōgaku instruments instead. Based on such concern, he founded the Pro Musica Nipponia and even changed the formation of Japanese koto, seeking to assimilate the Western and Eastern musicality together through the composition methods of heterophony and “zure”. Such attempt, as it turned out, gave Miki a clearer realization of difference between Japanese and Western music. At the end of 1980s, he then changed his ambition to “Japan’s Asianess”. He switched to a more melodically unified heterophonic approach to put cross-ethnic instrumental music into practice, in order to strengthen the power of Asian and Western orchestras to counteract each other. In my discussion, I would suggest that both the works of Miki and his transformation in his later period reveal much of the composer’s longings and imaginations toward the idea of cross-cultural assimilation and on the idea of constructing a “new Asia”. Yet, the approach of heterophony, in the end, failed to assimilate cross-cultural musics together due to their difference on an essential level, while the new musical Japaneseness turned out to be the productions that takes much Western music for reference. Despite the points mentioned above, Miki’s attempt in composing both Hōgaku and cross-cultural music still has its innovative position for music in post-war Japan.