Esta pesquisa trata dos percursos de aprendizagem de músicos multi-instrumentistas. No âmbito deste trabalho, compreende-se como músico multi-instrumentista quem toca vários instrumentos musicais, simultaneamente ou não. A pesquisa contou com a colaboração de quatro músicos multi-instrumentistas e as questões de interesse foram: que instrumentos musicais os músicos tocam, quais os objetivos, interesses e expectativas do aprendizado de vários instrumentos, quais circunstâncias e situações levaram à escolha de cada instrumento musical, como ocorre a estruturação e organização dos estudos com mais instrumentos, como a aprendizagem de um instrumento se correlaciona com a aprendizagem de outros e como se desenvolve a atuação profissional destes músicos. Para buscar as respostas, foi realizada uma investigação com abordagem qualitativa (MINAYO e SANCHES, 1993; CHIZZOTTI, 2005). A história oral foi adotada como metodologia (MEIHY e HOLANDA, 2015; ALBERTI, 2013). O material empírico foi coletado através de entrevistas temáticas semiestruturadas. Esta pesquisa alinha-se com a sociologia da educação musical e tem como referenciais teóricos a socialização (SETTON, 2008, 2009, 2011), a aprendizagem de instrumentos musicais, compreendendo a relação dos músicos com seus instrumentos (NOHR, 1997), a autoaprendizagem (GOHN, 2003; CORRÊA, 2000, 2008), a hierarquização social dos instrumentos musicais (BOZON, 2000) e a profissionalização em música (KELLER, 1996; TRAVASSOS, 1999). Os resultados revelaram que o músico multi-instrumentista realiza um processo de hierarquização dos instrumentos musicais, na qual a hierarquização duradoura reconhece os instrumentos principais como aqueles com os quais é efetivada uma relação de maior tempo de convívio ao longo da trajetória, e a hierarquização momentânea como processo que contribui para a determinação da frequência, intensidade e regularidade da relação músico/instrumento em determinados períodos que configuram os percursos de aprendizagem do músico. Os músicos chegam a “novos” e “outros” instrumentos musicais por intermédio de situações relacionadas ao mercado de trabalho e atuação. Essas, além da apresentação de novas possibilidades, atuam como reguladoras dos processos de estudo, estabelecendo a divisão de atenção entre os instrumentos e contribuindo na elaboração de estratégias para um aprendizado múltiplo. A proximidade entre os instrumentos quanto à família, estrutura física e forma de tocar é revelada como aspecto decisivo à incorporação de novos instrumentos facilitando o aprendizado. A adaptação às necessidades que oportunizam o aprendizado de mais e diferentes instrumentos musicais promovem versatilidade ao multi-instrumentista, expandindo sua atuação a múltiplas frentes divididas na utilização de diferentes instrumentos musicais em diferentes projetos e diferentes instrumentos em um mesmo projeto. O trabalho contribui para o entendimento do ser multi-instrumentista como o músico que realiza um percurso de aprendizagem configurado pelo desafio, pelo novo, por arranjos instrumentais inusitados, imprevisíveis e momentâneos. Um músico que não pretende dar caráter magnífico ou extraordinário à sua prática, distinguindo-se como autoridade, mas validar e significar sua atuação através de uma proposta diferente. / This research is about multi-instrumentalist musicians learning pathways. In the scope of this work, it is understood as multi-instrumentalist musician who plays several instruments at the same time or not. The research had four multi-instrumentalist musicians collaboration and the issues of interest were: the musical instruments that are played by the musicians, the aims, interests and expectatives on several instruments learning, the circunstances and situations influenced in the choice of each musical instrument, how happens the study structure and organization with more instruments, how the learning of an instrument is correlated with learning of anothers and how it is developed the professional performance of these musicians. To find the answers it was done a study with qualitative approach. (MINAYO and SANCHES, 1993; CHIZZOTTI, 2005) The oral story was adopted as methodology (MEIHY and HOLANDA, 2015; ALBERTI, 2013). The empiric material was collected through semistructured thematic interviews. This research is according to the sociology of musical education and it has as theorical references the socialization (SETTON, 2008, 2009, 2011), the learning of musical instruments, it is understood the musicians relationship with their instruments (NOHR, 1997), the self – learning (GOHN, 2003; CORRÊA, 2000, 2008), the social hierarchy of musical instruments (BOZON, 2000) and the music professionalization (KELLER, 1996; TRAVASSOS, 1999). The results revealed that the multi-instrumentalist musician does a hierarchy process of musical instruments in which the lasting hierarchy identify the main instruments as those that it is effected a relationship with longer time together along the trajectory and the momentary hierarchy as a process that contribute the frequency determination, intensity, regularity in the relationship between musician and instrument in certain moments that configure the musician learning pathways. The musicians get closer to “new” and “other” instruments through situations related to the job market and professional performance. These besides the new possibilities presentation work as regulatories in the study processes, and they establish the division of attention among instruments and it contributes in the strategies elaboration for a multiple learning. The proximity among the instruments as for the family, physical structure and the way to play is revealed as a decisive aspect to the incorporation of new instruments through an easy learning. The adaptation to the necessities oportunize the learning of more than one and different musical instruments promote versality to multi-instrumentalist, it expands professional performance to multiples fronts shared in the use of different musical instruments in different projects and different instruments in the same project. The work contributes to the understanding of the being multi-instrumentalist as a musician who accomplishes the learning pathways configured by the challenge, by the new, by the inusitated instrumental arrangements, unforeseeable and momentaries. A musician who does not intend to give a magnificent or extraordinary character to his practice, distinguishing himself as an authority, but to validate and signify his performance through a different proposal.

In 1964, Benjamin Britten met the multi-instrumentalist twins Zoltán and Gábor Jeney while traveling in Budapest. At their behest, Britten composed Gemini Variations: Twelve Variations and Fugue on an Epigram by Kodály, a work which exploited the brothers' abilities on multiple instruments: Zoltán on flute and piano, and Gábor on violin and piano. In foreseeing the difficulties of programming this work, Britten simultaneously arranged a version for four players: flute, violin, and four-hand piano, eliminating the need for switching instruments. Despite this arrangement, as well as a very public and highly anticipated premiere at the Aldeburgh Festival in 1965, Gemini Variations has remained neglected by performers and scholars alike. This document serves to 1) promote a work that can justifiably be considered as part of the chamber music repertoire involving flute; 2) advocate for its musical merit and appropriateness for chamber music concerts made up of more traditional groups of players; 3) compare the two-player and four-player versions Britten wrote; and 4) explore the likely reasons why a piece by one of the most celebrated composers of the twentieth century has remained largely ignored for over fifty years.

由於長期以來根深蒂固的誤解，馬克思的哲學往往被視為一種「經濟決定論」的主張--經濟決定了社會、文化與政治等一切其他領域；此一誤解之必然結果是：「馬克思的國家學說」也被當作國家理論中最典型的「工具主義」--國家是資產階級用來進行階級宰制的工具。為了釐清這點，本論文之作者嘗試性地自「歷史社會學」的角度切入，說明馬克思的研究進路 其實與當代一般歷史社會學學者的研究進路無異，都是自歷史傳承與社會脈絡等眾多複雜的面向來了解「國家自主是否自主」的多種可能性：國家既不是現代資產階級手中的簡單工具，也不是能夠完全獨立於社會之外的政治實體。其次，自馬克思國家學說本身的哲學基礎，即所謂「歷史唯物論」看來，政治與經濟之間的關係也非單向決定的因果關係，而是呈現著 多種不同面向的辯證互動關係，因此也造成了馬克思有關國家自主性的學說中之兩種不同論述：「寄生性國家」與「工具性國家」。本文從馬克思論國家的本質、起源及其與社會的關係開始說起，再逐步論及「寄生性國家」與「工具性國家」這兩種論述中的各種「國家」類型，包括「東方專制主義」、「專制君主制」、「波拿巴主義的國家」、「工具國家在英國 」以及「工具性的國家在法國」等，可以說完整地梳理出馬克思國家學說的發展脈絡，並充分說明它其實就是一種有關國家的歷史社會學。 目 錄 第一章 序言 第一節 研究動機…………………………………………002 一之一：國家研究的歷史發展………………………………………002 一之二：馬克思主義與國家研究……………………………………005 第二節 論題形成的脈絡…………………………………010 二之一：馬克思論「寄生性國家」與「工具性國家」………………011 二之二：馬克思的歷史唯物論與國家研究…………………………019 第三節 研究進路的問題…………………………………025 三之一：歷史社會學的研究進路與國家研究………………………026 三之二：馬克思與「以國家為中心」的國家研究進路………………035 第四節 論述架構與研究限制…………………………041 四之一：論述架構……………………………………………………040 四之二：研究限制……………………………………………………047 第二章 歷史唯物論與國家 第一節 馬克思的歷史唯物論…………………………058 一之一：歷史唯物論與「經濟決定論」………………………………058 一之二：歷史唯物論與整體性觀點…………………………………063 第二節 馬克思論述人類歷史的發展………………072 二之一：分工、所有制與歷史………………………………073 二之二：國家自主性與國家的形式…………………………………080 第三節 小結…………………………………………………085 第三章 寄生性國家 第一節 東方專制主義的社會經濟基礎……………089 一之一：東方專制主義與「亞細亞生產模式」的概念………………089 一之二：東方專制主義國家自主性的形成…………………………095 第二節 向資本主義社會過渡中的專制君主制…100 二之一：專制君主制的歷史背景……………………………………100 二之二：專制君主制中的階級關係與國家自主性…………………105 第三節 波拿巴主義與法國歷史………………………110 三之一：法國歷史中的國家傳統……………………………………110 三之二：波拿巴主義的階級、意識形態因素與國家自主性………116 第四節 小結…………………………………………………122 第四章 工具性國家 第一節 資產階級與工具性國家………………………127 一之一：資產階級的形成……………………………………………127 一之二：資產階級與工具性的現代國家……………………………132 第二節 工具性國家在英國與法國…………………138 二之一：英國資產階級工具性國家的形成…………………………138 二之二：法國資產階級工具性國家的形成…………………………143 第三節 小結…………………………………………………148 第五章 總結與評估 參考文獻…………………………………………………………154 人名索引…………………………………………………………163 主題索引…………………………………………………………170 / For many decades, Marxian philosophy was usually misunderstood as a doctrine that is primarily "economically determinstic", ie., economy determines the social, cultural, and political spheres. What is the corollary of this misunderstanding is that Marxian Doctrines on the State had become one of the most typical types of Instrumentalism among the theories of the state and that state is the instrument of class domination in the hands of the capitalists. In order to clarify this long-term misunderstanding, the author of this thesis try to find his revelation in contemporary Historical Sociology, and to demonstrate the Marxian approaches to the state is no different from the approaches of many Historical Sociologists. Historical Sociology has shown its constant attempts to understand the diverse possibilities of state autonomy from the perspectives of historical heritage and social context. According to this viewpoint, state is neither the simple instrument in the hands of the capitalists, nor a political entity that can be totally isolated from the society. Secondly, in the light of Marxian Historical Materialism, the relationship between politics and economy is not an one-way causation. As the ultimate foundation of the Marxian doctrines of the state, Historical Materialism makes it clear that politics and economy are mutually and dialectically interactive, and this vigorous interaction provides us the two possible doctrines of the state, that is, parasite state and instrumentalist state. This thesis started from the formulations of the nature, origin of the state and its relations to the society, then the author gradually focus upon a "typology" of the state which can be shown in the two Marxian state doctrines, these types including "Oriental Despotism", "Absolutism", "Bonapartism", "Instrumentalist State in England", and "Instrumentalist State in France". The author not only gave an overall exposition of the development of the Marxian doctrines of the state, he also sufficiently proved that the doctrines constitute in fact some kind of historical sociology of the state.