78轉唱片廣東音樂《柳搖金》（陶融儒樂社）

這張78轉唱片廣東音樂《柳搖金》（陶融儒樂社）是歌林唱片公司出版，唱片編号：C. 561；模版編號：GHC.558；唱片另一面是《小揚州》，唱片編號：C.562；模版編號：GHC.559。大約於1940年末-1950年初錄音。
這首樂曲是由陶融儒樂社合奏，充份表現出潮州音樂的風格。
據悉：“1940年5月14日的南洋商報刊登了陶融儒樂社灌音20餘齣的報道（多為潮州外江戲）。新加坡香港街的陶融儒樂社為一業餘的戲劇團體，最近本坡士津洋行，特聘其灌音於高亭唱片，共收20餘齣，已於昨天（1940年5月13日）畢事，預計4-5月後，當有該社唱片上市.
新加坡陶融儒樂社成立於1932年11月1日，總理為黃萬松。”
“潮州音樂被雅稱為儒樂或國樂。這種稱呼體現了潮州音樂與儒家文化之間的緊密聯繫，尤其是在清光宣之際，潮州（府）境內，這種音樂形式隨處可聞，尤其受到文人貴族、士儒的喜愛和嗜好。這種雅稱不僅反映了潮州音樂的文化價值，也體現了它在社會中的地位和影響。”
在此非常感謝檳城網友LEE YEE YEN先生日前寄給我這首樂曲音頻、唱片圖及資料；並懇請HM Chan 兄將此音頻作專業修復。LEE YEE YEN先生 及HM Chan 兄是粵樂界廣東音樂、時代曲、民間音樂等古舊的唱片錄音復原於世的偉大功臣。
《柳搖金》作曲者：古曲
演奏者: 陶融儒樂社合奏

[@dbadagna]

Record company based in Hong Kong

[@thauyong]

感謝您放了我們的老唱片上網。但有個小糾正。A調的外江樂不屬於潮樂的一部分。以F調奏外江旋律的潮樂是汉調。早期，是潮州人請外江团來新加坡，早期的儒樂社都是潮州人開的，而且清朝末期，有讀書的潮汕人都聽與奏外江樂。但據了解當時的外江的老師與演員主要是客家人。現在中國已把這種樂種歸類給客家梅州了。

[@georgelee1158]

@@thauyong 謝謝觀賞！🙏

[@dbadagna]

Key: halfway between G diao and A-flat diao

[@thauyong]

Master Yeo How Jiang said the music is A diao last time.

[@dbadagna]

@@thauyong Here they're playing in G diao.
v=dPvGzJDesfM

[@dbadagna]

According to Ms. Javier Yong-En Lee, this recording was made before World War II by Singapore's Thau Yong Amateur Musical Association (陶融儒乐社), which played Waijiang (外江) music, a special form of ensemble music played by Teochew people that is nearly identical to Hakka Han music (客家汉乐), and which is generally played a step higher than Teochew xianshi owing to the fact that the Waijiang touxian (外江头弦), the leading huqin used in Waijiang music, has a shorter neck than that of the standard Teochew touxian.

[@thauyong]

Waijiang Music is not a form of Teochew Music and is currently reclassified as Guangdong Hanyue belonging to the Hakkas in Meizhou. I am unfamiliar with shifan Music so I cannot say they are similar. The leading instrument is called touxian. I am uncertain if it is a form of huqin. It is shorter than the teochew erxian which the lead player is referred to as the touxian and serves as the strings conductor.

[@thauyong]

The teochew Music subset that plays waijiang melodies in F diao is referred as Han Diao.

[@dbadagna]

@@thauyong It seems that, in the early 20th century, Hakka shifan music was very popular in the Chaoshan region, and many fine musicians from Meizhou settled in Shantou. As a result, some of the flourishing music societies in Shantou at that time, such as the Shantou Gongyi Guoyueshe (汕头公益国乐社, est. between 1909 and 1911), had members of both Teochew and Hakka ethnicity. Over time, this borrowed Hakka musical tradition became absorbed by the Teochew people, then transplanted by Teochew immigrants to Southeast Asia.
Similarly, many American musical forms from the same period, such as ragtime, blues, and Dixieland jazz, were developed by African Americans, but quickly and eagerly adopted and performed by white Americans.

[@dbadagna]

Is it correct to call Teochew music "Cantonese music" (廣東音樂) just because the Chaoshan region is geographically located within Guangdong province? I don't think so.

[@georgelee1158]

@@dbadagna I would say Chaozhou music is a kind of regional and traditional music in the Guangdong Province and that the songs 《柳搖金》，《鳳求凰》…etc. maybe cataloged as Cantonese music but playing in a different style of Chaozhou music.

[@dbadagna]

@@georgelee1158 It shouldn't be called "Guangdong yinyue" (廣東音樂) in Chinese or "Cantonese music" in English because that term refers to music originating from the Cantonese-speaking Pearl River Delta.

[@georgelee1158]

@@dbadagna In that case then many other songs like 《昭君怨》、《打掃街》、《漢宮秋月》、《彩雲追月》、《桃花江》、《叮嚀》、《王老五》…..etc. ?

[@dbadagna]

@@georgelee1158 Looking only at the title is simplistic. We need to listen to the instrumentation and playing style to know if it's Cantonese music or Teochew music. They're very distinct, even though both cultures originate in Guangdong province.

[@dbadagna]

@@georgelee1158 "Cai Yun Zhui Yue" is not a Cantonese nor Teochew piece; it was created in Shanghai. The opening paragraph of the current version of the Baidu Baike article about this piece, which claims that it is a Cantonese piece, is very wrong, foolish, and unsupported by any historical data.