去年秋天「与琴」音乐会在北京音乐厅演出之后，曾有古筝的爱乐者好奇，问我，为什么会拿杜甫诗歌的题目，来当音乐的题目？作为作曲家，我想介绍几句，当作音乐之余的补白。

我的《旅夜书怀》是因为想念朋友而写的。

杜甫的视角，是他独坐在夜舟中抬头看，看飞翔在天地间那只沙鸥。邱霁弹这曲的时候和杜甫不同。音乐的视角是在天上的，是飞行中的沙鸥，高天上，或者，大雁的视角。

鸟儿去旅行，去看望远方的朋友。《旅夜书怀》是它的亲身体验。因此音乐第一曲就是《流云》。筝的乐句，像一朵朵云浪，舒展，形状万千，流过大雁的身下，又绕过它身边，升腾上去。云朵颜色，明暗一直在渐渐变化。

接连着第二曲《和风》。筝演奏的和音，与第一段有点像，但有窸窸窣窣，草木摇动的感觉。那是雁从高天望去大地，和风拂过山丘，林梢起伏。段落结尾，音乐从深谷升起，像一串问号，也像望见铺展在海上的黎明。

第三曲是《孤屿》。我想象，雁已经飞行至海上，看见远处海涛中，全黑的石崖，一座孤岛耸峙。浪拍断崖声如钟磬。传说，百尺危崖下的渊潭中，就有冥界的入口。

第三曲《孤屿》是很沉重的。筝的强音，一声声，仿佛巨浪击崖震荡。间歇中，在筝的左翼轻扣，仿佛海那边传来佛寺的钟声。

我写第三曲时，突然听到我的一个钢琴家朋友在法国去世的噩耗。筝上轻抚琴弦的声音，就像轻轻的抽泣一样。

第四曲《曲水》和之前对比，就十分轻盈优雅了。仿佛大雁从天空望到海的尽头，又一片新的绿洲，绿洲上弯弯的河流闪着光。这首《曲水》有异域感，有吉他的味道，有一条妙曼的歌，飘在六弦琴的琶音伴奏上。

第五曲《落雁》，情绪又不同，非常空灵的。这组曲子中我最先想到的就是《落雁》——平沙落雁：全部用各种极为美的泛音，仿佛透过水和沙的浅滩升腾向空中的水气，摇曳中，远处大雁落下的身影也变得透明，轻盈。

雪泥鸿爪。你们记得苏东坡的诗吗？“人生到处知何似”，人应该像什么，人生应该像什么？东坡说，人应该像大雁，人生应该像大雁的爪印留在沙地上，雪地上，然后水流风吹日晒，消失不见。

东坡酷爱读杜甫，他当然应该读过旅夜书怀，懂得那颗无处寄托的诗人之心。东坡干脆说，就当逝去。

人生应该像什么，你们怎么想？

旅夜书怀的最后一曲是《归心》。这曲几乎相当于前面五曲总的长度。

最后一曲的情绪是怎样的？我很难说。贯穿《归心》的，真的是一个不息的节奏。伴随有滔天的浪，有刀戈斫击，有疾风，烈火，有醉酒蹈歌，也有一股一往无前的洒脱。《归心》是我的回答。纵然旅行在夜里，人生到处，应真情真意，依心而行。

以上的话，我还没有和邱霁讲过。可能在音乐家之间，用曲谱和演奏来交谈最直接，最直达心意。我没有用语言形容，好的演奏家就自然从音乐内在的情境中有反映了。

最后，我想说说，我同时也作为一个爱乐者，想去听一个好演奏家一生中持续的变化，其中我特别感兴趣的方面。

各位懂筝的爱乐者们，如果你们之前已经听过一众筝乐高手的演奏，当然你们已经了解，对高手来说，从青年时期开始，速度、清晰、情绪与音质等等都不在话下。

那再往更高境界呢？演奏家的成熟时期，演奏家展露鲜明的个人风格阶段，我们又能听到和之前哪些不一样的方面？

演奏的更高境界，关键还在于创造。这方面，画画和演奏像，和作曲不像。因为画画和演奏一样，是动作行为中造就创造。郭若虚评价范宽的画，“抢笔俱均，人屋皆质”。人们说范宽笔法劲健匀整、质朴厚重。还说，看范宽的皴，貌似芝麻雨点散布，其实变化万千毫无程式，对景造意，不取繁饰。到如此地步最吃笔力劲道。

演奏也一样。比如，从寂静中来，极致的均匀。均匀容易，求极致就难，从静中来又比夹混在闹中更难数倍。只有心思纯净才能练出恒定持久。

又比如，左手的揉弦，一般高手，也常沿习流派和情绪的程式。如再下者，更受时代风气流转的影响而不自觉。如果把左手按揉之间，对筝音的音高、音质改变，升华到毫微须臾完全依心自然的地步。那么，从按压改变第一根弦的音高开始，过渡到另一根弦不同音高音色，之间完全没有痕迹，再到下一组琴弦，闭目听全不知何时换过去，完全自如的流转。如此一来，《流云》才是真的流云。但“没有痕迹”四字，放在一个落针可闻的环境里，这可吃劲了。

比如，《曲水》里，和声是有节奏的，旋律是完全的散板，看似随意地和节奏型在一起，两个部分像即兴中的爵士歌手和吉他，邱霁一筝分饰二角。左右互搏可以使劲，曲水使不得劲，使劲即拙。《孤屿》中，惊涛拍岸声，梵钟声，泣声，远-近，物-我，邱霁的筝要代表一个立体的世界。《归心》中，一台筝更仿佛一个乐队在奏鸣。

但还有作曲家，有心灵和乐谱不能去的世界。邱霁在我谱曲之后，用她自己的理解给旅夜书怀开创更丰富和美的演奏空间。那是演奏家的创造。纵有再详尽的乐谱，也提示不了《落雁》每个音，目送秋鸿去，渐渐杳然的美。

听邱霁弹筝，我听到了音乐艺术向更高境界的追求。我听到好演奏家的个性和创造，因此非常地开心。

2026.05.27

沈葉 SHEN Ye, August 23, 2026, 14: 00 – 17: 30

摘要 Abstract

这次演讲应上海音乐学院美学研习班邀请而准备。准备期间，沈葉向音乐理论家韩锺恩先生及其同事和学生征集问题，共得到12组。这些问题都关心韩教授所说的音乐作品的工艺结构，即作品中的理性组织及其内部关系。

沈葉从这些问题延展到更大的音乐与哲学领域。核心的关切是人的存在，特别是存在状态的生发和变化。本演讲不试图进入某一哲学体系内部，而是以作曲中的经验、感受、理性、组织与存在状态为参照，回应若干哲学问题。通过观察创造性的工作过程和结果，本演讲质疑结构是预定的或先验的这一观念，也质疑工具理性、目的论，以及对偶然与流变的绝对化。在创造性工作中，一个个有着细微差异的个体可以自觉地相互联结，同时保持彼此的差异，而不是被新的无意识所主宰，或被困在共同认同的幻象中，而其实质是原子化的孤立。由此，在人对存在的思考中，音乐艺术可以带来一种语言或理论推理所不能提供的澄明性。

This lecture was prepared at the invitation of the Aesthetics Seminar at the Shanghai Conservatory of Music. In preparing it, Ye Shen invited questions from music theorist Zhong’en Han and his colleagues and students. They contributed twelve sets of questions. All concern what is referred to here as the technological structure of a musical work: its rational organization and internal relationships.

From this starting point, Ye Shen moves into broader questions of music and philosophy. The discussion centers on human existence, particularly on how its various states emerge and change. The lecture does not seek to work within any particular philosophical system. Instead, it addresses several philosophical questions by drawing on experience, feeling, reason, organization, and states of existence as encountered in the act of composing. Examining both the process and the results of creative work calls into question the idea that structure is predetermined or a priori, as well as instrumental rationality and teleology. It also challenges attempts to treat contingency and flux as absolute. In creative work, people can consciously form genuine, reciprocal connections without losing the subtle differences that distinguish them. They need not be governed by new patterns of unconscious thought and action, or trapped in the illusion of a shared identity that amounts, in reality, to atomized isolation. Music can thus offer a form of clarity about existence unavailable through language or theoretical reasoning.

十二组问题 Twelve Sets of Questions

第一部分 人如何去听？ Part I: How Do We Listen?

问题1 Question 1

（王心来）Xinlai Wang

理论是在“发现”作品结构，还是在“建构”作品结构？
Does theory “discover” the structure of a work, or does it “construct” it?

问题2 Question 2

（仇雪淳）Xuechun Qiu

当代音乐发展至今日，是否正在趋向于纯声音的挖掘？还是一种氛围感的追求？是否已经离美越来越远？如何界定当代音乐的美？当代音乐的发展空间或前景又该如何把握？
Has contemporary music come to focus increasingly on exploring sound itself, or on creating a sense of atmosphere? Has it moved ever farther away from beauty? How should beauty in contemporary music be defined? How should we understand the possibilities and prospects for its further development?

问题3 Question 3

（刘睿昕）Ruixin Liu

我的耳朵坏掉了吗？
Is there something wrong with my ears?

问题4 Question 4

（阚冬雯）Dongwen Kan

音乐作品的“工艺结构”究竟是依据声学原则，还是特定文化养成的听觉习惯？如果“工艺结构”的最高境界是让技术痕迹彻底隐退，让听者完全沉浸于纯粹的情感或声音幻象之中，那么拆解结构，逻辑分析是对这一工艺的深刻揭示？还是对艺术魅力的暴力肢解？
Is the “technological structure” of a musical work ultimately based on acoustic principles, or on listening habits formed within a particular culture? If the highest achievement of such a structure is to conceal all traces of technique and immerse the listener completely in pure emotion or an illusion of sound, does dismantling the structure through logical analysis profoundly reveal its craft, or violently dissect its artistic appeal?

第二部分 音乐作品的结构和工艺 Part II: The Structure and Craft of Musical Works

问题5 Question 5

（韩锺恩）Zhong’en Han

如何通过理论（无论是作曲技术理论，还是表演艺术理论，或者音乐学理论）去观测审视作品的工艺结构？
How can theory, whether a theory of compositional technique, performance, or musicology, be used to observe and examine the technological structure of a work?

问题6 Question 6

（黄易）Yi Huang

工艺结构出自作曲家之手，每个时代都将个性与进步奉为圭臬。那么，人工智能时代，什么是作曲家的不可替代性？怎样的工艺结构能被称之为进步？学院派一度抛弃可听性的所谓进步，会不会背离了音乐的元概念？
Technological structures are created by composers, while every age treats individuality and progress as guiding principles. In the age of artificial intelligence, what makes composers irreplaceable? What kind of technological structure can be considered progressive? Could the academy’s supposed progress, which at one time abandoned accessibility, have departed from the fundamental concept of music?

问题7 Question 7

（梁昊）Hao Liang

当代音乐创作的音响资源和工艺结构原则，基本上仍然停留在20世纪70年代左右。整体上呈现为，“量”上的持续扩张，“质”上尚未有明显的突破，并且逐渐出现了一种音响工艺的共性趋势，您如何看待这种现象？
The sonic resources and principles of technological structure in contemporary composition have largely remained at the level of the 1970s. Overall, they have continued to expand in quantity without any clear breakthrough in quality, while a shared tendency in sonic technique has gradually emerged. How do you view this phenomenon?

问题8 Question 8

（刘佳玲）Jialing Liu

当我们运用某种理论观照音乐作品的工艺结构时，如何判断自己是在借助理论发现作品自身的结构逻辑，而不是从作品中选择材料来印证既有理论？如果一种理论只能解释作品的部分现象，那么这种解释究竟为理解作品的独特性、听觉经验或创作机制增加了什么？评价一次理论分析是否有效，是否存在相应的标准？简而言之，我们是在用理论理解作品，还是在把作品变成理论的例证？
When we use a particular theory to examine the technological structure of a musical work, how can we tell whether theory is helping us discover the work’s own structural logic, rather than merely selecting material from it to confirm an existing theory? If a theory can explain only some aspects of a work, what does that explanation add to our understanding of the work’s uniqueness, listening experience, or creative mechanisms? Are there criteria for judging whether a theoretical analysis is valid? In short, are we using theory to understand the work, or turning the work into an example of the theory?

问题9 Question 9

（杨淇棋）Qiqi Yang

当代音乐创作中，序列、集合等数理体系搭建起音乐作品深层的工艺结构，但严谨的组织逻辑很难转化为听众可感知的音响结构。站在作曲创作的立场，文本理性结构和听觉感性体验的落差是否无法规避？在对当代音乐作品进行工艺结构的理论观照时，应该以何种路径弥合创作逻辑与听觉感知的断层？
In contemporary composition, mathematical systems involving series, sets, and related methods establish the deep technological structure of a musical work, yet their rigorous organizational logic is difficult to translate into a sonic structure perceptible to listeners. From the composer’s perspective, is the gap between the rational structure of the musical work and the sensory experience of listening unavoidable? When examining the technological structure of contemporary music through theory, what approach might bridge the divide between compositional logic and auditory perception?

第三部分 逐渐澄明的存在 Part III: Existence, Growing Clear

问题10 Question 10

（韩世纬）Shiwei Han

在您看来，音乐作品的工艺结构究竟是在哪一个环节，或是在哪一刻生成或确定下来？主要想探讨工艺结构的先验性问题以及与之相关的美的价值定位。因为音乐作品的工艺结构也许是在作曲家的创作过程当中逐步生成，而又在聆听者的聆听过程当中逐步被摧毁，然后重构。那我们现在对于音乐作品工艺结构的理论关照究竟是对于工艺结构的传递、重建还是创造？
In your view, at what stage, or at what moment, is the technological structure of a musical work generated or determined? This question is primarily concerned with whether technological structure is a priori, and with the related question of where the value of beauty lies. The technological structure of a musical work may gradually take shape during the composer’s creative process, only to be gradually dismantled and then reconstructed as the listener hears it. Is our present theoretical examination of a work’s technological structure therefore an act of transmission, reconstruction, or creation?

问题11 Question 11

（王之易）Zhiyi Wang

当下许多现当代音乐作品脱离传统曲式、和声的分析体系，结构偏向碎片化、开放性的状态，所以我想问：
Many modern and contemporary musical works fall outside traditional analytical systems of form and harmony, and their structures tend to be fragmentary and open. I would therefore like to ask:

1. 传统作曲技术理论对这类作品的工艺结构分析，是否仍具备观照价值？Do traditional theories of compositional technique still have analytical value for the technological structures of such works?
2. 我们应当如何更新自己的理论分析视角，去识别、解读这类新式作品的工艺结构？这类新结构又是依托何种逻辑、手段搭建而成？How should we update our theoretical perspectives to identify and interpret these new kinds of technological structure? Through what logic and means are such structures constructed?
3. 作为研究学习的学生，我们应该怎样把工艺结构分析与作品意义阐释有机结合，从而避免技术分析与人文解读脱节，而形成的“两张皮”状态？As students and researchers, how can we integrate the analysis of technological structure with the interpretation of a work’s meaning, avoiding a split between technical analysis and humanistic interpretation?

问题12 Question 12

（王佳骏）Jiajun Wang

在您的创作中，有没有某个具体的设想（比如某种美学观念、文化命题或哲学思考）曾经让您在工艺上做出了一个自己都意外的决定？这个决定可能不是计划内的，而是理论思考在某个瞬间启发了您对音色、织体或结构的新想象？
In your own creative work, has a particular idea, such as an aesthetic concept, cultural proposition, or philosophical reflection, ever led you to make a technical decision that surprised even you? The decision may not have been planned. Perhaps, at a particular moment, theoretical reflection opened up a new conception of timbre, texture, or structure.

假设“理论关照”与“工艺结构”这对概念本身，是否就已经是一种西方音乐学的二元预设？在作曲者自身语境下，在“体用”传统与当代创作之间，我们是否必须借用这套话语才能言说自身？您作为熟知并深度参与当代音乐创作的作曲家，在创作中是否体验过这套话语对您本身听觉经验的“翻译暴力”，即为了被理解，不得不将某些独特的声音逻辑强行纳入主客二分、能指所指的框架？您如何应对，或者，您是否认为这种张力本身正是“当代性”的起点？
Could the conceptual pair of “theoretical examination” and “technological structure” itself already constitute a dualistic premise of Western musicology? Within the composer’s own context, and between the tradition of essence and application and contemporary composition, must we borrow this discourse in order to articulate ourselves? As a composer deeply familiar with and involved in contemporary music, have you ever experienced the “violence of translation” that this discourse imposes on your own auditory experience: that, in order to be understood, you have had to force certain distinctive sonic logics into frameworks of subject and object, or signifier and signified? How do you respond to this? Or do you regard this tension itself as the starting point of contemporaneity?