Born in Hong Kong, Richard Tsang graduated from the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1976 with First Honors in music and proceeded on a full scholarship to study composition and conducting at the University of Hull, England, where he obtained his Master of Music degree in 1978. Upon return to Hong Kong, Tsang has been active as composer, broadcaster, conductor, critic and promoter of contemporary music. He has taught as lecturer in music at the Chinese University of Hong Kong during 1984-6, and since 1986 has been Head of Radio 4 of Radio Television Hong Kong, responsible for planning and executing the only classical music radio station in the Territory.
He is respected in the international music scene by holding such positions as Vice-President of the International Society for Contemporary Music (ISCM) since 1990, Vice-Chairman and Secretary-General of the Asian Composers League (ACL). He was Chariman of the International Jury for the ISCM World Music Days in Mexico City in 1993 and has been invited to give lectures at the Young Composers' Course in Poland in 1991.
Locally, Tsang has served as the Founding Chairman of the Hong Kong Composers' Guild for the past 10 years. He presently chairs the Hong Kong Cultural Sector Joint Conference, representing the Hong Kong arts community in lobbying work with the Government. He is a member of the Working Group for the establishment of the Hong Kong Arts Development Council, a Director of the performing rights society - The Composers' & Authors' Society of Hong Kong (CASH), Music Committee member of the Hong Kong Council for Performing Arts, as well as advisor to the cultural presentations of the Urban Council, the Hong Kong Chinese Orchestra, and the Asian Pacific Contemporary Music Festival in Sendai, Japan.
Mr. Tsang's musical output is diversified, ranging from choral music to chamber and orchestral works, to experimental music and music for children and modern dancers. He has been commissioned to write music by many local and overseas organizations, including the Hong Kong Philharmonic Orchestra, the HK Chinese Orchestra, Taipei Municipal Chinese Orchestra, Japan Folklore Foundation, etc. Tsang has also received many awards, in music and otherwise, including the Outstanding Young Person Award in 1988, the Anglo-Hong Kong Trust Artist Award and Composer of the Year Award in 1990, as well as the Asian Cultural Council Arstist Award in 1993. In 1989, his "Prelude for Orchestra" was premiered by the Boston Symphony Orchestra in the USA. This work was later performed by the BSO in Hong Kong as well as by the Hiroshima Symphony Orchestra in Japan and the Seoul Philharmonic Orchestra in Korea. His other compositions are also frequently performed in many countries.
Mr. Tsang has been involved in the promotion of contemporary music both at home and abroad. In 1986, he founded the First Contemporary Chinese Composers' Festival in Hong Kong which provided for the first time a platform for exchange and performance among Chinese composers from all over the world including mainland China. In 1988 he led the HK Composers' Guild in the organization of the 1988 ISCM-ACL World Music Days Festival which successfully brought together for the first time the two major international compoers' organizations at one event for fruitful exchange. Since 1992, he founded and chaired the annual MUSICARAMA Contemporary music festival in Hong Kong which continues to provide an excellent platform for exchange and exposure of contemporary music in the Territory.
As a musician, Tsang has served as Founding Music Director of the Hong Kong Sinfonietta (1990-3), guest conducted many local performing groups including the HK Philharmonic, the HK Chinese Orchestra, and the HK Ballet.
I'm really honored and pleased to be here today. Although this symposium is entitled Music of Japan Today (I am from Hong Kong and a Chinese), I think I have a close affiliation with the Japanese culture, since we share the same roots and we are all from Asia. I think sharing my composing experience with you will perhaps show light on composers working in Asia nowadays, and their various concerns, observations, and problems. When we talk about a global village, about East-West exchange, interchange or whatever, we talk about the future of music, whether Western music or culture as it stands is coming to a dead end, or whether we are looking to the East for inspiration and revival, or whether the East has been imitating the West long enough to do something of their own. So, I plan in the next half hour to not really talk in depth about my music, but, rather, to share with you some observations regarding composition, regarding myself as a composer facing the world today, and maybe give you some examples of how I tried out various aspects in my composition.
First of all, I would like to talk about how I compose and how I consider what is important in my compositions. I taught some students a while ago - I no longer teach now, but I always told my students the following when they asked about how I got on with composition - what sort of form, style do I write? They were often very concerned about whether they could justify their notes, or how to answer, when they write a section or when they write a piece, the teacher who has asked them how do you explain your work. I told some of the more talented composer students that they should forget about form, forget about justification, forget about structure, because those are the things that you learn. As a composer, if you really want to compose "real" music, so to speak, you have to forget about all these. Why?...because I think that anything has form - even this haphazard arrangement of glasses and papers on the table, and so on, has a certain form in itself. If you ask someone to analyse it, they can always come up with pretty good theories and relationships. That is what we studied - composers back a few decades have composed works, and we're studying them through the works of ethnomusicologists and musicologists. I'm not saying that we do not have to rely on forms for composing - what I'm saying is that everything, if it is expressed through a true self, has its own vitality...has its own form. So, in tackling a composition by a composer, I try to tell students to pour themselves out; use their skills, experience and language to write music which personally convinces them, and then the piece of music will sound convincing to other people (and those other people will appreciate you). If you try to imitate other forms, styles, techniques or languages for the sake of imitating or justifying your work, you are just justifying an imitation. I, personally, do not consider that as a very good approach to composing.
So, what I have been trying to work on, when using various techniques, is to write down and contemplate my ideas. I just work on the score - if it's right, I just let it grow and evolve into a piece of work, which, first of all, I must like. Of course you cannot be born as a composer - you must learn, imitate and try to mimic what others have done in order to enrich your skills. I think this is part of education, but, if we come to really composing, I think we ought to have a really firm objective in the future - to really try to free oneself from one's own things. Of course, I think the learning process is important. I consider that my output can be divided into two categories (not to say that this work belongs to one category, but I think my works can be divided into two levels of consciousness. One is a practical level: partnership or commissioned works I have to write for an ensemble, for a choir, for special occasions. I have these occasions and the audience in mind, so I use a certain type of language to suit the needs of the occasion - this is a more practical approach to my works. But at the same time, in each work, I've been trying to express something in a more personal way. Sometimes at this second level of consciousness, I feel that one has to reflect on really what to do about approaching a piece of work, because if you follow literally the idea to be true to oneself, you often will become a slave to your environment.
This is especially true in Hong Kong - since we have been a British colony, we have had a Western education system. We have our Chinese culture and heritage, but this heritage has not been emphasized, or made significant through the education system. So, if we are just talking about letting oneself grow, assimilate with outside experience, then reflect them through one's technique as a composer, one eventually becomes a kind of slave to the environment, to the extent that most of the young composers in Hong Kong, and if I may say, in Japan or other Asian countries, have been receiving a Western music education, and being true to oneself, they compose in Western style. So I think that there should be a balance - one should really take an active role in avoiding this phenomenon to the extent that one should actively seek some belief or objective, no matter if it is aesthetic, cultural, even social and so on, so that you can constantly guide your actions. You are not led by the education system or by whatever experience you've come across. In this process, I have been, of course, in contact with various composers in Asia - constantly thinking about this responsibility or my role as a composer in 20th century Asia, or as a Chinese composer.
For me, being an Asian composer has a kind of double responsibility to the extent that in the 20th century, we (the whole global civilization) have been influenced by the West, since the Renaissance (the past four to five hundred years). The way we dress, the way we speak - we use English everywhere - the whole perspective of looking at things has been deeply rooted in Western culture and civilization. However, most of the time we are not aware of it. Take composition, for example - composing a piece of work on paper, writing down symbols and notes, trying to treat this piece of paper as a living organism, is entirely, for me, a Western approach. If you consider what is art, can art be expressed and stored like a piece of painting, a piece of sculpture? Is this what we consider art? Or, is art as a living kind of interaction, experience amongst individuals within the society or community, as a fluid thing, also considered as part of the tradition of art? In my experience, at least in the West, coming up to after the Second World War, when we have total serialism (when we have all these rigid calculations), the forms of musical expression in the West have been very rigid in the sense that if you don't preserve it in a very structural way, then music is no longer considered as serious or worthy of adoration or admiration. Looking towards the East, we can see tradition evolving nor around notated music, not around structural music...but around very intimate interaction between performers, composers, and the audience - a very fluid relationship, something like jazz, etc. I have been trying to work out some experimentation with this aspect. When we talk about extemporization or improvisation, we always think of free interaction, performing for the audience, but sometimes I think that the audience can also perform along with the group.
I'm going to illustrate to you some pieces that I have kind of "composed," or experimented.... I don't consider myself a composer of these pieces, but rather an advocate of a certain idea, and for myself it is an experiment. I don't consider it as a work of great importance, but just a way to show you my views - how I'm going to resolve these kind of dynamics. So, I'm going to illustrate to you a work called "Spirits' Domain," which is a work for six performers of Chinese instruments. The six performers are seated back to back, actually facing the audience, but with no eye contact to each other. The idea is that each performer would, using his/her instrument, transform his/herself into the sound of that instrument, so there is no existence besides the sound of the instrument. For example, if you consider one passing away, and there is no body to oneself, and you are all consciousness, how do you interact with another consciousness? If you think of that through sound, you are making yourself exist by making some sound, and the music you are making with your instrument will become the total existence of yourself when you concentrate in that environment. When you hear some other sounds made by another player, that is another existence, and his characteristics will be judged by the sounds that he made. So this kind of interaction, this kind of approach is entirely different from jazz or the traditional (you mimic, or imitate, or whatever). You can imitate, you can do whatever you like - but the essence is to really transform your perception through the sound. In this work I call this "Spirits' Domain," simply because there is no othe form of existence besides the spiritual through the sound. This is a free improvisation for the musicians. To let the musicians grasp of what is happening, because, if there is nothing, they will not even perform, I have written certain musical materials on the score for each performer, so when they perform they can look at the musical materials and try to develop according to the spirit of the instructions I have given. But in essence, the piece does not require any score or anything at all. So, I'm going to play a short excerpt, and you can get an idea of the interaction between the players through this idea. This work was composed in the 80's, and this is the first work for chamber ensemble of Chinese instruments in which I've produced this kind of sound.
TAPE of Spirits' Domain
I'm glad to say that this work has been heard by many Chinese composers from mainland China, when they opened up after the Cultural Revolution, and some young composers were very impressed by the aural result of the work and congratulated me saying, "Oh, you really made a breathrough - how did you score it?" I said, "I'm sorry, I didn't score it. It's their work." Of course, you might laugh and say, okay, you're no good...you didn't compose, you're not a composer at all...you're not worthy at all. But I think I'm happy in a sense that through this experimentation, I have induced a certain kind of new apporach to produce music. What is music depends on one's perception. I'm happy to say that from then on in the 80's, a lot of compositions for Chinese traditional instruments really sounded pretty much like that...they are all meticulously notated, and so on. I'm not saying I justify what I've done, but this is to show that the kind of perception of why do you compose - what is really important in a piece of composition....is it really that you are the person responsible for it? Is that important, or is the music important?
To me, I think the music is more important than who did it, and that is exactly the kind of tradition in China, where most of traditional Chinese music is anonymous, just because the person who made this music was not concerned with how he made it or this is he who made it, but is concerned in passing this technique, this inspiration, this experience through the music to his disciples. Then his disciples will be free to extemporize and change ornaments and still call this piece the same title. So, you can have one piece of music with the same title, with completely different versions. Sometimes there are over a dozen versions of different schools of approaches in ancient pipa music, and so on. I consider extending this kind of approach in my composition.
Another piece of music I'd like to introduce is called "Images of Bells" for piano solo. This work is scored for ten fingers; not for solo pianist, but for ten different fingers, playing as if in chamber music. Each finger or line would be totally independent like in chamber music, and is an improvisation on two notes, a major second apart. It's no big deal; the major second (two notes) was announced in the beginning, and then there are various short movements contemplating on different sonorities and moods produced by these two notes. I'm going to show you a quieter section, followed by a fugal section involving rhythms. I'll show you some scores. This is the fourth movement. This is the third movement, a short one. The idea is pretty much sound for sound's sake - no development...just playing the major second all the way, with different changes in moods. If you try to analyze it, there is no harmony or counterpoint - well....various harmonies which are accidental, but the emphasis is on the sound by itself.
So, these are two examples of my kind of approach as an Asian composer to music nowadays. I'm not saying that I've done a great job - my other compositions on tomorrow night's concert are fairly regular, in a sense, and also employ extensive Western techniques. I cannot escape being a product of my environment, but at the same time, I've been trying very hard to break through with my works or discussions - interactions with you as European and American composers. We are actually looking for better ways to communicate. I'm not saying that Western aesthetics or Western practices are no good at all; they have their value and significance, but I don't know whether you feel the same way as myself. I feel that since the Second World War, we have this total serialism, avant-garde style of writing, and we have extreme complex intellectual music. After that, we have this post-modern era, where everything goes, and we're back to sentiment. I think the problem is that the whole Western music civilization has come round a complete circle from spontaneous expression to a very rigid intellectualism and is now coming through the John Cage type, and after that we're getting nowhere. The reason for getting nowhere is not that we haven't tried enough things; we've tried nearly everything. However, I think the basic approach to, and perception of music has not been changed - it has been basically the Renaissance idea, or even before that....the idea of music as a cultivated, hard-working creation of inspiration. We can share it as a score, or perform it to others, so music as an art has been detached from the human being. I think that may be a problem - I'm not sure. I can see that many cultures in Asia have provided many alternatives to the approach to music. These approaches will help, I believe, to inter-fertilize the future of music. I'm not saying that the future of music lies in Asia. I'm saying that the future of music lies in examining various alternatives to our basic conception of music as presented by various cultures.
Thank you very much.
I think that Asian music so often is being tied to nature, tied to the world, to earth...one thinks of the shakuhachi as rising out of the sound of nature through breath....wind of the universe. That is when we went through the wonderful association in most Asian music with more highly developed and fine senses of texture and timbre...more so than in European traditional cultures. The emphasis has been on texture and timbre and, secondarily on melody. The minimalization of the kind of things that are characteristics of Western music are prominent, like structure. To what extent do you see your own music - do you have a kind of philosophical basis in your own music from nature, or that which derives from the earth?
I'm ashamed to say, I'd like to. But in Hong Kong, there is so little nature. We are in an urban jungle, and my music has been derived from the urban jungle, so you don't find nature in my music. But I've been trying to contemplate on other alternatives, so you would find that many of my orchestral works are very sparkling and tense and dancing - really representing the kind of environment we're in. I agree with you entirely; the different approaches are very significant, and my philosophy of composition is that one just be true to oneself. If you say, and I agree with you, that close to nature is a very important substance....I live in Hong Kong, I love the life in - give the name of a very "nature" place - Kyoto? Say, for example, I love the ambience in Kyoto, but I'm not living in Kyoto...so I can't really imitate the kind of experience that I have, so while I love the ambience of Kyoto (close to nature), I myself (my philosophy) don't want to use shakuhachi type of wind writing, for example, in my composition if I don't really perceive it as part of myself. I won't really try very hard to incorporate these techniques, unless, I've been living there, my mind has been preoccupied, and naturally it flows out. In other words, in most of my music I just spontaneously write whatever I like and those that don't work or I have a hunch won't work, I scrap. If it works, then I feel satisfied. It turns out that most of them represent Hong Kong life, and I don't complain because I live there. I consider the way to artistic maturity, so to speak, not perfectionism (that is too big a word). It is really to be true to oneself, and try to enrich your experience and polish you techniques through doing lots of things and so on, and then you'll grow with the music.
I have a question about the first piece you played (Spirits' Domain). Is this a similar concept with John Cage's chamber music? Hamilton students have performed one of his graphic scores recently.
I think the difference, if I'm right, with John Cage, is it changes for the sake of change. His emphasis is on improvisation, on non-fixture, spontaneous evaporation, elements of things. His interest is with a graph, and you interact with each other and you play music and that's the philosophy. But in my piece, first the emphasis is on spiritual interaction - the sound is secondary, whether you improvise or not....whether you bore people to death or not is secondary - it is a group meditative activity, so to speak. So, I think the approach is different. It we talk about improvisation, we can say that everything is improvised music, but I think there are differences in emphasis and objectives.
[transcribed by Helen Lee; edited by E. Michael Richards]