Originally in Iran, like other West Asian countries, oral tradition has been chiefly used for musical transmission. However, with the introduction of Western music from the middle of the 19th century, in Iran today, staff notation has been completely established as the only musical notation even though oral tradition, or a semblance of it, is partly used in music classes. Through observing the activity of Iranian musicians reading or writing musical scores, this paper aims to clarify a certain universal principle, which supports such activity. Finally, I illustrate that this principle functions in the background to all musical activities. In the process of adopting the musical score, avaz (rhythm without a clear beat) was not clearly notated in the musical score. Nevertheless from such a score, a reader can reproduce music compensating for the lack of rhythm notation by using alternative suitable information. This is possible because he understands, through bodily sensations, the rhythm of Persian classic poetry which is sung with the music. If one understands the rhythm of the Persian classic poetry through bodily sensations, it becomes possible to read the melody and obtain a feeling of termination in the musical score by catching the combination of a short note and a prolonged note as one. This is because the core rhythm pattern of Persian classic poetry is iambic. Such recognition in the musical score is supported by the experience of avaz through the voice, so that avaz also means a style of vocal music too. In this recognition, all the signs in a score are naturally regarded as representations of the nuance and feeling of the words actually sung. And this also means that the score for a certain musical instrument will not necessarily resound only as a sound for that musical instrument. That is, beyond the actual resounding of the music, an image of the “resounding vocal avaz” can also be felt. For example, while the musical instrument is specified externally, many Iranian music scores are, in fact, read and performed exceeding the framework of the musical instrument. This is because Iranian musicians evoke not only the sound of the musical instrument but also vocal avaz, as a universal element in the music score. From this recognition, it turns out that various activities in Iranian music making, such as writing music, or conversely interpreting a musical score, and instrumental performance, is an attempt to approach the image of vocal avaz. That is, all musical activities are performed on the basis of an image of vocal avaz.
Today there are significant differences in the performance styles of the three no flut traditions, Isso, Fujita, and Morita schools. These differences first become apparent in documents from the late Muromachi and Edo periods. This is the era in which players of various schools began to record their techniques through notations called shoga-tsuke. It was in this crucial stage that a style of no flute music similar to its modern equivalent evolved. In the first half of the seventeenth century, Okura Toraakira (1597-1662), for practical purposes the third leader of Okura school of Kyogen tradition, compiled Kikigaki Narabini Fue-shu Tsuketari Shoga. This source is unique in that it incorporate Kikigaki (an oral account), Fue-shu (notes concerning no flute technique), and shoga-tsuke (no flute score), while other sources from the period often contain one or two. It is also interesting that this source names the mode (such as hyojo, kamimu ) to the left of the shoga (glyph), and that some pieces in this score correction appear to be quite different from their present versions. There have been two studies of this source: the first by Yonekura Toshiaki (1973), and another by Takemoto Mikio (1988). Yonekura concluded that Toraakira had recorded no later than 1647 in Kikigaki things that he had heard from other no performers, and that his Fue-shu was derived from the Isso school. As for shoga-tsuke, it has not been analyzed yet in detail. This study attempts to answer questions of Kikigaki Narabini Fue-shu Tsuketari shoga's composition and the musical lineage of its flute music through the analysis of shoga-tsuke of this source. In this paper, I chose to compare the shoga-tsuke in these days of the Isso school to that of Kikigaki Narabini Fue-shu Tsuketari shoga as a starting point to solving these questions. However, it appears that a comprehensive comparison of all the major flute traditions will be necessary to provide absolute certainty. The reasons for the use of Isso scores for this comparison are as follows: first, the fue-shu section is assumed to be Isso flute. Second, Toraakira remarks in his Warambegusa that his family had inherited Isso school sources. Lastly, Sagi (piece No. 65 in the shoga-tsuke of Kikigaki Narabini Fue-shu Tsuketari shoga) has a footnote remarking “nowadays this piece is not played by the Isso school.” The review of comparative shoga-tsuke are as follows: 1.Isso-ryu Fue Hidensho The colophon states that it was compiled in 1596. It is thought to be the oldest of Isso flute scores. 2.Isso-ryu Fue shoga-tsuke There are two versions in this shoga-tsuke; one is 1660 Version of Isso Hachiroemon (1624-1703), the third leader of Isso school, and the other is 1705 Version of Isso Matarokuro (?-1716), the fifth leader of Isso school. The first section of this paper addresses the notation's system of the sources. This determined that there are few differences in the notations used. For example, the Kana symbol “chi” appears only the shoga-tsuke of Kikigaki Narabini Fue-shu Tsuketari Shoga.
This paper aims to investigate and report on the current state of source materials for the Gakusho Yoroku (the Japnese reading of the chinese Yue shu yao lu, or “Selectios from Musical Books” in English). This important research hasn't been attempted for some 60 years. Gakusho Yoroku, a music theory book in ten volumes, was compiled by scholars on the order of Wu Zetian (ca. 624-705), the only Empress of Tang dynasty in China. Its influence on many theoretical writings on Gagaku and Shomyo (Japanese court and religious music) has rendered the Gakusho Yoroku important not only in China but also in Japan. Kibino Makibi, one of the Japanese students sent to Tang by the Japanese government, brought it from China to Japan in 735 (Tenpyo 7). As it passed through the generations several volumes were lost to memory. Today only three volumes survive in Japan, while all Chinese volumes have been lost. The surviving volumes are the 5th, the 6th and the 7th. In addition to these, a few quotations from the lost volumes are found in Japanese writings on Gagaku and Shomyo. Hazuka Keimei, a Japanese scholar, wrote the papers entitled “Gakusho Yoroku Kaisetsu (Commentary on Gakusho Yoroku)” and “Koi Gakusho Yoroku (Editing Gakusho Yoroku)” in 1940-42. In his papers he edited the critical text of this literature through checking various texts in the six manuscripts and the four printed source materials he obtained. I have tried to search for and identify his sources and succeeded in locating three of the manuscripts and the printed sources. I also found two manuscript sources that he did not see. In addition, ten facsimiles of the printed sources have since become available. There are five manuscript sources. Three were copied post-1700s in Edo Japan, but we don't know when the remaining two were copied. MS1 (Manuscript source 1) is in the possession of the Rare Books and Old Materials Room in the National Diet Library. It is the only scroll of all manuscripts. Hazuka K. used it as his standard reference. By whom or when it was copied is unknown. MS2 belongs to Kyoto University Library. It appears in a series of musical documents on the Hayashi family, the musicians of Shitennoji Temple. Oka Masana, a musician of Shitennoji Temple, copied it in 1706 (Hoei 3). MS3 belongs to the National Theater Library. Tanabe Hisao, a scholar of Japanese and Asian music, recopied it in 1910 (Meiji 43) based on Dr. Nakamura Seiji's manuscript that was copied in 1742 (Kanpo 2). After Tanabe died, his son gave it to the library. MS4 belongs to the Kano collection in Tohoku University Library. An unidentified person recopied it based on the manuscript copied by Oka Masana in 1700 (Genroku 13), owned by Hayashi Koyu* and his descendants, musicians of the Shitennoji Temple. MS5 belongs to the Saionji collection in Ritsumeikan University Library. The former owner of the books of this collection is Saionji Kinmochi, a member of a famous family of biwa performers (a kind of lute). It contains only the 6th volume. Like MS1 it is anonymous and lacks a date. There are three editions of the printed sources. The first edition is the Itsuzon (or Isson) Sosho edition by Hayashi Jussai in 1799 (Kansei 11). Hayashi Jussai, a Japanese scholar the Edo government, published a series of lost Chinese books surviving in Japan, naming it Itsuzon Sosho. The second is the Seikakuro* Sosho edition (in Japanese pronunciation). Li Hanzhang published this edition in 1881 (Guangxu 7) based on Hayashi's Itsuzon Sosho edition (published in China). This second edition is a variant of the first. The third is another Itsuzon Sosho edition by You Bingkui and his relatives in 1882 (Guangxu 8). Their text differs considerably from the original Itsuzon Sosho edition as they tried to revise Hayashi's text, changing several words and phrases. In conclusion, it is obvious that the first and original e