Jazz and Philosophy
爵士樂(lè)與哲學(xué)
文/道格拉斯·格魯秀斯
譯/王強(qiáng)
By Douglas Groothuis*
Philosophy warms to[1] jazz, but not as much, perhaps, to rock or blues. We can talk through the night about rock and blues, and it may be fun. But just how philosophical can we get about rock and blues—even with the help of a few smart friends and a few adult beverages? Rock is the rambunctious and electrified child that came out of the blues, and the blues are a way to make pain bearable and even enjoyable, once the music does its magic on us. But jazz seems to be more amenable to reflection. It swings[2]; it improvises; it mystifies even as it mesmerizes; its initiates[3] are few, but militant; it is vibrant, but sometimes elusive. It seems that the best rock drummers draw heavily on jazz: Ginger Baker (Cream) and Mitch Mitchell (Jimi Hendrix), making their time keeping[4] more fascinating. (Let’s not bring up John Bonham.)
哲學(xué)對(duì)爵士樂(lè)頗有好感，而對(duì)搖滾和藍(lán)調(diào)恐怕就有所不同了。搖滾和藍(lán)調(diào)能讓我們津津有味地聊個(gè)通宵，可是，即便邀得幾位機(jī)敏過(guò)人的朋友，再來(lái)上幾杯酒助興，又能從搖滾和藍(lán)調(diào)中找出多少哲學(xué)內(nèi)涵？搖滾源自藍(lán)調(diào)，是藍(lán)調(diào)桀驁不馴、激情澎湃的孩子。藍(lán)調(diào)則如魔法，一旦起效，可以慰藉苦痛，甚至轉(zhuǎn)苦為樂(lè)。然而，更能發(fā)人深思的似乎還是爵士樂(lè)。它節(jié)律翩然，即興而發(fā)，令人如癡如醉，而又倍感神秘；它曲高和寡，內(nèi)行寥寥，卻個(gè)個(gè)斗志昂揚(yáng)；它節(jié)奏強(qiáng)勁，樂(lè)聲洪亮，卻又時(shí)而低回婉轉(zhuǎn)，隱約難辨。那些最出色的搖滾鼓手，包括奶油樂(lè)隊(duì)的金杰·貝克，吉米·亨德里克斯體驗(yàn)樂(lè)隊(duì)的米奇·米切爾，似乎全都大量借鑒了爵士樂(lè)（至于約翰·博納姆，我們就不用再提了吧），以使其鼓點(diǎn)節(jié)奏更加引人入勝。
[1] warm to 喜歡；感興趣。
[2] swing 搖擺。爵士樂(lè)的重要概念與特征。
[3] initiate 內(nèi)行。
[4] 對(duì)節(jié)奏或節(jié)拍的把握和控制。
Philosophy is the discipline of finding meaning and truth through reasoning. It aspires to find the essence in the messes of things and to thrust that essence in our face saying, “So what?”—as did Miles Davis on Kind of Blue. “What is justice?” asked Socrates, when everyone knew—but no one really knew—the answer. “What is jazz?” is much the same: we all know, but do we know? The great philosophers lived and died without swinging (as far as we know). Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine[5], may have written about music, but not jazz music. That would have to wait for centuries. Jazz had a centuries long gestation.
哲學(xué)是通過(guò)推理來(lái)探究意義、尋求真理的學(xué)問(wèn)，旨在從雜亂無(wú)章的事物中發(fā)現(xiàn)本質(zhì)，然后把它拋在我們面前，大聲質(zhì)問(wèn)：“那又如何？”邁爾斯·戴維斯在他的專輯《若憂若藍(lán)》（又譯《泛藍(lán)調(diào)調(diào)》）中正是這樣做的?！罢x到底是什么？”蘇格拉底曾如此問(wèn)道。答案人人知曉，卻又無(wú)人真正知曉。“爵士樂(lè)到底是什么？”的問(wèn)題與之大同小異：人人都知道，又未必真知道。就我們所知，偉大哲學(xué)家的一生從未有過(guò)爵士樂(lè)之搖擺。蘇格拉底、柏拉圖、亞里士多德、圣奧古斯丁等哲學(xué)家或許有過(guò)關(guān)于音樂(lè)的著述，但并未談及爵士樂(lè)。那尚須幾個(gè)世紀(jì)的等待。爵士樂(lè)的誕生也同樣歷經(jīng)了幾個(gè)世紀(jì)的孕育。
[5] （354—430），古羅馬帝國(guó)時(shí)期天主教思想家，歐洲中世紀(jì)基督教神學(xué)、教父哲學(xué)的重要代表人物。
Like many things, we may come to jazz without articulated intellectual questions. We are not usually in the classroom, but at the club, or auditorium, or sitting in front of our sound system. We listen and are moved. Or not. That is, we feel an immediate response, whatever that may be. Pat Metheny’s response was love at first listen[6]. He did not have to work his way into jazz. It found him. In my late teens, I was drawn to jazz-rock fusion, but still only picked up the crumbs from the dinner plates of jazz. It boggles my mind to[7] think that I had a vinyl album of A Love Supreme, in my senior year of high school—along with my Deep Purple, Yes, and Jimi Hendrix. But I seldom played it. It was beyond me at the time, but not beneath me. It had to wait for me to catch up—and I did.
和諸多事物一樣，我們?cè)谧呓羰繕?lè)的時(shí)候，未必能口齒流利、思維連貫地提出理性而深刻的問(wèn)題。接觸爵士樂(lè)通常也不是在教室，而是在俱樂(lè)部、音樂(lè)廳，或者坐在自家的音響系統(tǒng)前。我們傾聽(tīng)，我們感動(dòng)，抑或無(wú)動(dòng)于衷。也就是說(shuō)，我們感受的是對(duì)音樂(lè)一瞬間的反應(yīng)，不管那反應(yīng)究竟如何。帕特·梅思尼的反應(yīng)是一“聽(tīng)”鐘情。他不必刻意尋找通往爵士樂(lè)之路。爵士樂(lè)找到了他。我十八九歲的時(shí)候就已癡迷爵士樂(lè)與搖滾樂(lè)的融合形式——爵士搖滾，但依然只是享用了爵士樂(lè)一盤盤美味佳肴中的一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)碎屑而已。一想到我居然在高中畢業(yè)前一年就擁有了《無(wú)上之愛(ài)》的黑膠唱片，和我收藏的深紫樂(lè)隊(duì)、吉米·亨德里克斯體驗(yàn)樂(lè)隊(duì)（當(dāng)然少不了它）的作品放在一起，我的頭都是蒙的，實(shí)在難以想象。但那時(shí)我很少把它拿出來(lái)播放。不是它不夠好，而是它超出了我當(dāng)時(shí)的水平。它得等著我，等著我迎頭趕上——我趕上了。
[6] 第一次聽(tīng)就深深喜歡。love at first sight（一見(jiàn)鐘情）的擬作。
[7] sth boggle the mind 使人無(wú)法想象；使人難以接受。
Since then this philosopher[8] has come to savor this music, a distinctively American art form (but not limited to America). But what is philosophical about jazz? Yes, some jazz men are philosophical: John Coltrane supremely so. But that is not all I mean.
從那時(shí)起，我這個(gè)研究哲學(xué)的人就開始細(xì)細(xì)品味起爵士樂(lè)這種風(fēng)靡世界但最具美國(guó)風(fēng)情的音樂(lè)。說(shuō)來(lái)說(shuō)去，爵士樂(lè)的哲學(xué)性到底指什么？沒(méi)錯(cuò)，有些爵士樂(lè)演奏家本身就深邃睿智、通理明哲：約翰·克特蘭就是個(gè)極好的例子。但我要說(shuō)的還不只于此。
[8] 作者自指。鑒于作者為神學(xué)院哲學(xué)教授，譯為“我這個(gè)哲學(xué)家”并無(wú)大礙。但考慮到中國(guó)讀者的接受習(xí)慣，轉(zhuǎn)譯為“我這個(gè)研究哲學(xué)的人”，以避“自吹自擂”之嫌。
Like philosophy, jazz summons us to attend carefully to itself. Just as you shouldn’t read philosophy in a hurry, you shouldn’t listen to jazz casually—that is, if you want to find the center and get immersed in the vibe. It draws you in and keeps you there. Is the singer a little behind the beat? Did Charlie Haden play the same note through several choruses[9] on the recording, Last Dance with Keith Jarrett? It seemed odd, but fit perfectly. Of course it did. It was Charlie Haden.
爵士樂(lè)像哲學(xué)一樣，要求我們專注于其自身。讀哲學(xué)書不能浮光掠影，同理，聽(tīng)爵士樂(lè)也不能散漫隨意——我是說(shuō)，尤其當(dāng)你想得其要義，沉浸其中，并與之產(chǎn)生共鳴的話。它深深吸引著你，使你難以自拔。歌手是不是沒(méi)有跟上節(jié)拍？查利·黑登在專輯《最后一支舞》中為基思·賈勒特伴奏的時(shí)候，是不是在多個(gè)樂(lè)段中使用了同一個(gè)樂(lè)調(diào)？乍一聽(tīng)似乎很奇怪，其實(shí)完全沒(méi)問(wèn)題。當(dāng)然沒(méi)問(wèn)題，因?yàn)槟钦遣槔ず诘堑娘L(fēng)格。
[9] chorus 在爵士樂(lè)中指樂(lè)段，由多個(gè)小節(jié)構(gòu)成，在演奏中可多次重復(fù)。重復(fù)時(shí)一般會(huì)即興發(fā)揮，以避免完全重復(fù)。又稱副歌等。
Further, Aristotle wrote that “Philosophy begins in wonder.” I wonder over and ponder the relation of the mind and the body, the relation of God to the world, the relation of unity and diversity (to be more abstract). When I introduced Pat Martino at Dazzle[10] recently, I quoted Aristotle and added, “Many of us wonder how Pat can play like that.” Pat tells me that his playing is “pure emotion” and comes from a higher source. On the same note[11], many of us wonder over the emotion and aspirations flaming out of John Coltrane’s music—particularly A Love Supreme. Music comes from musicians and their instruments. But is that all there is to it? Does the structure of music exist apart from its performance? Eric Dolphy was recorded as saying that the music flies off into space and is[12] no more. Was he right, or is that music retained in some sacred vault beyond our memories or recordings?
此外，亞里士多德曾寫道：“哲學(xué)始于困惑?！蔽覍?duì)意識(shí)與身體、上帝與世界，以及更為抽象的統(tǒng)一性與多樣性之間的關(guān)系深感好奇，時(shí)常陷入沉思。我最近在丹佛的戴茲爾俱樂(lè)部向大家介紹帕特·馬蒂諾的時(shí)候引述了亞里士多德的話，并且說(shuō)：“我們很多人都很好奇，帕特何以能如此演奏?！迸撂馗嬖V我，他的演奏是一種“純粹而強(qiáng)烈的情感”，源自更高的層次。與此類似，我們很多人同樣不明白為什么約翰·克特蘭的音樂(lè)——尤其是他的專輯《無(wú)上之愛(ài)》——能迸發(fā)出熊熊燃燒的強(qiáng)烈情感與渴望。音樂(lè)來(lái)自音樂(lè)家以及他們的樂(lè)器。但是否僅此而已？音樂(lè)的架構(gòu)能否獨(dú)立于演奏而存在？據(jù)記載，埃里克·杜菲曾說(shuō)過(guò)，音樂(lè)一旦飛入空間，便從此消散，不復(fù)存在。但還有一種說(shuō)法：音樂(lè)依然存在——既不在我們的記憶中，也不在唱片里，而是不朽于某種神圣的密室。究竟哪種說(shuō)法對(duì)？
[10] 爵士樂(lè)與藍(lán)調(diào)音樂(lè)俱樂(lè)部，位于美國(guó)科羅拉多州丹佛市。
[11] on the same note 同理。本義為“以同樣的曲調(diào)”，基于隱喻衍生出“更多；類比；推理；并列”等義。
[12] =exist 存在。
Like any philosopher, I could go on, but this is an essay (a short solo), not a book. Perhaps that book needs to be written. However, I will go on listening philosophically to this philosophical music: jazz. Please join me in this performance.
像其他研究哲學(xué)的人一樣，我可以繼續(xù)談下去，但這畢竟只是一篇文章，或者說(shuō)“一段小小的獨(dú)奏”，并不是一本書。這樣的書將來(lái)或許有必要寫。但現(xiàn)在，我要繼續(xù)以哲學(xué)的耳朵來(lái)欣賞這飽含哲理的音樂(lè)——爵士樂(lè)了。請(qǐng)和我一起來(lái)聆聽(tīng)吧。
*（1957— ），美國(guó)丹佛神學(xué)院哲學(xué)教授。
（譯者單位：華北水利水電大學(xué)外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院；譯者曾獲第八屆“《英語(yǔ)世界》杯”翻譯大賽英譯漢優(yōu)秀獎(jiǎng)）
聯(lián)系客服
