《音乐艺术》1988年第3期发表了林友仁《评“掣拍说”——兼谈古谱解读》一文(下称《林文》),对笔者发表于同刊同年第1、第2期连载的《敦煌乐谱新解》一文(下称《新解》)中用于解译P.3808敦煌乐谱节拍节奏的“掣拍说”给以“非难”。现提出几点质疑,作为对《林文》的回答。一、他人之说可否擅自修改?《林文》时《新解》作了多处修改。略举如下:(1)《林文》凡引《新解》所标的曲名《降黄龙花十六》时,都一律改成“《降黄龙》花十六”。其理由是“‘花十六’不是曲名部分,而是‘花拍十六’之意”。张炎原文说:“法曲之拍,与大曲相类,每片不同。其声 “Music Art” 1988 the third issue of Lin Youren “comment” button shot that “- and on the interpretation of ancient times,” a text (hereinafter referred to as “Lin Wen”), the author published in the same issue the first two years The serial of “Dunhuang music score new solution” (hereinafter referred to as “new solution”) used to interpret the rhythm of the P.3808 Dunhuang score beats “pat off” to give “non-difficult.” Now raised a few questions, as the “Lin Wen” answer. First, others say that unauthorized changes? “Lin Wen” when “new solution” made a number of changes. A few examples are as follows: (1) When “Lin Wen” refers to the song titled “Lower Huanglong Sixteen” marked by “New Solution,” all of them are renamed “Lower Sixth Flowers of Huanglong.” The reason is that “’Sixteen Flowers’ is not part of the title, but rather the meaning of ’Flower Sixteen’. Zhang Yan said the original text: ”False beat, and Daqu similar, each piece is different