What's the point/value of musical imitation?

Juji and I got in a wonderful, lively discussion on this topic today. Here

What

It's difficult to assess whether, in the creative process, the artist creates anything that is truly 'new'. Within the contextual surroundings of the period, one is often confined to pertaining to a paradigm, or reacting to it (reaction often implying just as much involvement with the paradigm, just in the opposite direction). True, with enough artistic integrity, and enough thought, something truly new can occur, but often this occurence is outside of the control of the artist. Therefore, it is perhaps the only path for the artist to utilise and combine extant forms. One cannot create a truly new form on the spur of the moment. Pure imitation then, in the blandest sense, is the easiest way to get to grips with technique, and to begin to understand how you, personally, interpret established forms. If one has knowledge of this understanding, one's compositional constructions are more valid, more lucid, and perhaps better aesthetically. In striving for the new, the composer must learn the best way to recombine the old, and apply their personality in the best way, and imitation as a student is the best way to approach this goal.

L.

Trying to make your style completely unique is impossible. There is so much that has already happened that you are bound to copy some composers style. I think of the eras of music to be different mindsets regarding music (that is, after all, why they are split up into different eras). For example, Barouqe music is very technical and graceful, but lacks great depth. The early classical era is very playful and emotive while staying in the structural bounds. The late classical era (consisting of beethoven only) is very deep and majestic, while still constrained under previous musical ides. The romantic era is very broad and emotional, with the late romantic starting to break free from structure. etc... etc... there has been so much progress in our western classical music that all you have to do is pick one! It all depends on your state of mind though...

I hope I answered the question correctly...

Ah, so you made it a thread after all :) That's better, as people can actually see what we've been talking about. Now, here are a few replies to the comments so far:

To learn. If you learn something from copying, that's all that matters. Who the hell cares about "artistic merit" of music? Inferior expression?

Yes, I never said you shouldn't do it. I myself have written compositions in the style of other composers to learn, to learn about counterpoint, to learn about fugues, to learn about orchestration, but always to learn. And this is what Schoenberg mentions in his book "Fundamentals of Composition"; he says that the amateur composer recognises this tendency to learn and considers his output "academic" rather than "artistic".

Trying to make your style completely unique is impossible.

Give me one composer that sounds like Varese and give me one composer that sounds like Stockhausen. Although there is little space for total originality these days (you *are* using notes, like people have been using for hundreds of years anyway, and even if you want to be more original than that, it was done by microtonal composers (who went up to 1/8th of a tone), then by composers such as Stockhausen (who explored all the possible frequencies generated by a synthesizer within a specific bandwidth), then not-writing music was done by Cage, and inventing new scales and new instruments was done by Harry Partch, then mixing of styles was done by Schnittke, so there isn't much to do, is there? :P), it doesn't mean it's impossible.

For example, Baroque music is very technical and graceful, but lacks great depth.

In my opinion this is a very superficial comment and I'll explain below. Have you listened to any of Vivaldi's choral works? Or even works before the Baroque era, works of the Renaissance, by Orlando di Lasso or Monteverdi? They have great depth in terms of emotion, if that's what you mean. Classical era is not playful, not if you listen to pieces such as Mozart's fantasias for piano, his 2nd movement from the 23rd piano concerto or his Requiem, among other works. Or Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, among a LOT of Beethoven works that are not "playful and emotive". The late classical era also consisted of Schubert, and other composers, and not all of their output is deep and majestic. It is true that the romantic era is much more "sentimental" than the other eras, just in that the composers were trying to convey emotion through their music, as a reaction to the industrial age and the "non-emotionality" that it resembled (that's true for all other Arts, not just music).

A more proper comment would be that in the Baroque and Renaissance music the harmony was created through the individual lines that were written (so the harmony was vertically implied by horizontal writing), while in the classical era harmony was mostly hozirontal (chords) and voice leading in terms of chord progressions (so it is characterised by its more homophonic writing than its hetero/poly-phonic, whihc is what mainly characterises the Baroque era - that is NOT to say that there weren't any fugues or canons written during the classical era, or that no pieces with apparent vertical harmonies were written in the Baroque era - I don't know about canons, I've never actually seen a canon in the classical era :huh: ). The romantic era is characterised by more chromaticism in the harmonies, thus creating more thick textures, with larger orchestras/ensembles and thus it looks "heavier" or "deeper" than classical music, and then the early 20th century can be described by a deviation from the usual forms and structures, as well as harmony (e.g. Debussy) and re-inventing the wheel in a different way (e.g. Schoenberg), and later 20th century at attempting to re-write the wheel (e.g. Boulez and Stockhausen) or uninvent the wheel (e.g. experimental composers). If that makes sense >_>

there has been so much progress in our western classical music that all you have to do is pick one!

Why pick one and not just do anything you want, without any restrictions whatsoever (which is basically what contemporary music is all about)? Why do you have to write in a style/genre that has existed already, instead of trying and explore the realm of music on your own, maybe influenced by other musicians, by other Arts, by sciences, by particular pieces, or by nothing at all (like John Cage's 4'33''). Music (and the other Arts as well) is irrelevant if you take it out of context, and that's as true for previous eras/genres/periods as it is for experimental, avant-garde, or more contemporary music.

I hope I answered the question correctly...

there are no correct or wrong answers to this subject =P

To LDunn's answer: Yes, we are all products of our influences and our past. This is what John Cage realised and tried to get away from his psychology, his unconscious, and his influences by leaving various indeterminate aspects in his compositions which were to be determined by the performers or by chance (using chance operations to determine the form of a piece). The avant-garde composers of the same era (50-60's) were trying to do the same, but in the completely opposite way: instead of not determinig some elements of the music, they tried to control every single element of their music so none of the elements was a product of their influences/past experiences etc. This lead to Stockhausen and Boulez and their idea of total serialism, to the point where Boulez, at the age of 23, said that "any musician who has not experienced

Originally Posted by jujimufu

Can the output of that computer be considered Art? If not, then what if a human wrote a piece in the style of Bach exactly as the computer had written it? Which one would or wouldn't be Art and why would there be a difference?

If a human wrote a piece in the style of Bach exactly as the computer had, that is, if he looked at all of Bach's pieces and treated each note as seperate event and then created a statistical table showing the probability of a certain note following another certain note and then being followed be a different note, then put all of these seperate events together according to preset rules and observed harmonies then no, it would not be art. It would be a algorithmic reproduction of a set of given information. Just like the computer's piece would not be art.

However, no human would ever do this. A human would listen to the pieces of Bach and note their texture and flow. There is no way for the human to exactly reproduce the Bach style because he does not have the exact data set that that requires. It is a much more qualitative kind of imitation. And thats what makes it artistic, that what makes it an expression of his self; the fact that no matter how much a composer tries to imitate another, there will always, ALWAYS be a fraction of himself in that composition.

To a large degree, I agree with jujimufu and Schoenberg (I have the book, too); almost everything is already tried. There is enough material to deduce what 'works' and what doesn't 'work' so well, but some people continue to insist, while others are ready to call music everything they see or hear... Which is another topic I'd like to not fall into. As for Boulez's statement, considering the fact that I could write software which generates serial music, then who is useless becomes questionable. Baroque music lacks depth? It depends on what you mean. I would say it has great intellectual depth.

Now, let me share what I think:

There are tons of different materials in nature, in their pure forms, and we shape them in order to create something that serves certain purposes, using planning, thinking, logic to fulfill our intentions. This "something" is in the imagination first. We experiment and explore what things and how have been created - you can see imitation everywhere, for example, in engineering. So with music. The thinking process involves understanding, so we need to better understand music and its inner connections in order to fulfill our intentions better and organize the process - we study harmony, counterpoint, form, orchestration and analyze. This process inevitably involves meeting with what was written in the past and the already known forms and conventions; that is, even if we don't want to consciously imitate the style of certain time or a composer, when we get to work, learn and explore, we kinda catch something from him. For example: "Hmm, I want to convey this or that in my music, I remember X does it in this way, so I can try to use it".

In the past, the harmonic system and working of music to a large degree have been intuited over time. Studying them leads to theories and seeing all this in action is when they are analyzed and applied to master the control over them. This is beneficial because one doesn't need to re-invent and re-research but can continue (faster) from the point which others have reached - evolution; one would have ready resources that can use for expression.

Of course, I think this doesn't mean that if you haven't imitated strictly certain composer in your writing (which could be boring sometimes), then you will be worse composer of lower quality and that you will be unable to compose your own ideas well. After all, you have your own ideas and whether you know the style of composer X or no, your ideas remain your ideas, unless they are very heavily influenced by composer X, which is... umm... little sad. If they aren't, then imitation is good.

One more thing: For example, if you compose for someone and he come to you and say: "I want it to sound like this", showing you Wagner's music, then you will have to listen more and more to Wagner and analyze his music deeper because you will have to imitate him, to imitate the way he created this emotion and message that your employer likes. If you've already done this, you can do your job faster (and probably better). I think Vangelis is one of those composers who like to (re)explore by themselves and simply follow the inspiration. As you can see, it costs more time.

Abstractions are leaky. As we discussed with a friend of mine (pianist), you study, study, study to see that actually everything is possible and allowed, so then you ask yourself, why you studied at all, but here is the answer: Because you will know what, how and why works, which makes a huge difference! And in the end, what really matters and is the root of all, is the very being of sound, it's properties and the way human beings hear and interpret them, for the sake of expression and communication. This is what I want to know and understand; this is what studying techniques and imitation can help you to know and understand; this is the ultimate goal.

To Fermion: you are talking about the compositional process that the computer undertakes to write a piece in the style of Bach. I am talking about the end product. Irrelevantly of how the other human person wrote that piece in the style of Bach, if he/she produced a piece which was identical to what the computer had written (via the same or other process, but we're not interested in that), would it be Art? What about the program itself? A program that can do that, isn't it Art itself? And the program basically does what a human person would do: it analyses the pieces, then it identifies the elements in the pieces that are common, and it reproduces them. That's exactly what a human would do, it's just that all those "statistical" and mechanical terms you've used are being performed in our minds, either unconsciously or we don't call them that. A person would do exactly the same, identify the "musical DNA" of a composer, then try to reproduce it. The process of doing so is quite irrelevant, as each person would probably do it in a similar (just like the program) but not identical way. And what if I did it in a statistical and very mathematical way like the computer, but I just told you I did it very intuitively? Would it be Art?

To Kamen: yes, to learn. But are those products of our learning period artistic? Even if they are (which can be claimed, to some degree), then they are not as artistic as the originals, or their artistry is only located in the elements in the music that are not imitative. Furthermore, what if someone is in that imitative period but does not acknowledge that, and he thinks he is composing real music while in fact he is only reproducing a composer's style or an era (or at least, attempting to reproduce that composer's style/era, as if this is due to his ignorance, he won't do it consciously and thus it won't be as close to the real thing as possible, which is what the "learning" kind of imitation is about)? Can his output be considered artistic?

Musical imitation: fat for the the fire.

My thoughts: The intent plays a big part. If the piece is intended as an exercise in nostalgia, so be it. If it's intended to be heard as a piece of art in and of itself, so be it. There's no problem with using tools of the past to create something new - it can still be creative and original.

When does something become an anachronism? Does using the same brush-strokes as Michaelangelo render a painting inartistic? How about a photographer using film? Sometimes, the techniques used can themselves be artistic. Why not with music as well? Baroque orchestras are alive and well - modern performances can't not be modern. The sound is still here...the music hasn't been completely relinquished to museums yet.

If I write a bebop head, is that inauthentic? Where do you draw the line at anachronistic music? Bach? Beethoven? Webern? Jelly Roll? Bird? Elvis? Lennon? Cobain? It's all a continuing lineage, one that has never stopped. I think that any and all stylistic elements can be present or omitted, and still produce creative and artistic results.

To: Jujimufu

The process in which a piece is made is not irrelevant. In fact, given that the end product is exactly the same, the process is the only thing that distinguishes the human product from the computer composition, and therefore is the only subjuct to debate.

A human cannot exactly duplicate a style because he does not have the exact "musical DNA" like the computer does. That's the difference; it's not EXACT. Because he does not have the exact "musical DNA" he has to "fill in the gaps" with his own "musical DNA". A musical Jurassic Park of sorts.;)

Since the composer has left a piece of himself in the composition, it is an expression of himself, and therefore a piece of art.

The computer was simply rearranging previous data according to preset rules, and therefore did not create a piece of art despite how similar it may be to the human's composition.

Originally posted by Jujimufu

What about the program itself? A program that can do that, isn't it Art itself?

I don't know, honestly. Although computer programs are not generally considered artistic, it is possible that the program itself is artistic because it was created by a human. But I would say it's unlikely. Anyway, it's late and I'm not willing to delve into a philisophical debate about the artistic aspects of computer programming. Not to mention it is widely off-topic.:P

Back on topic: Musical imitation is important to compostition because it gives the composer tools to express himself with. Even in the imitative learning stages of composition, the pieces created should be considered artistic for the reasons stated above. They always carry a piece of the composer in them blah blah blah....

Now, these pieces may not be what you would call "masterpieces", but that is simply a symptom of learning a new skill. The composer hopes that by imitating previous composers, he will be able to express himself and his new ideas as readily as they did. If he does not hope this, then he has missed the point of musical imitation and will probably be stuck within a single style and confined to that singular mode of expression. So, as SSC said it...

If that makes them happy sure, but it'd be much better to know what there is, and then pick things out of actual preference, rather than ignorance or lack of experience.

:horrified: Oh no! I contradicted my own logic. Ooh, Ow, it burns, make it stop...

Ok, let me explain my idiocy:

I implied that the pieces created in imitation of a composer are always artistic, given that they are created by a human. Upon further examination of the logic behind this statement, I find that this is untrue.

Here's the logic: We can group all of human endeavors into two groups, artistic and practical. That is, if something was made to aid someone, then it serves a practical purpose; if something was made to express something, then it serves a artistic purpose. Some fields of human endeavors fall easily into one category. Engineering, for instance, is rarely artistic. Others, however, are not so easily divided. For example, architecture is often both practical and artistic. Where then does musical imitation fall?

More often then not, a composer imitates a style in order to learn how to write in that style; a "academic" purpose, as Jujimufu put it. This is where the misstep in logic comes in. Since the composer was not attempting to express himself, it is not artistic. This is not to say that all imitation is unartistic, but whether or not it is depends on the intent of the composer. Which is something Robin said in the beginning of his post. Thank you for allowing to correct my stupidity. :toothygrin:

Well, you can't say that the composer isn't expressing himself at all, I mean, he is writing the music ;). A composer imitating another composer can't completely imitate the other because he is not the original composer; as long as it's an original piece of music, that is, not an exact copy, there is some expression.

I would argue that there is quite a bit expression. Why?

42, silly:closedeyes:...

Re-inventing the wheel isindeed pointless, but there have been many advancments in the wheel to date. Copying thte style exactly certainly has its purpose, but only in training and studying. But there is nothing wrong with being similar in style. Before Beethoven music evolved much slower and styles were more closely related. I believe there are many styles in the romantic and early 20C that have been ignored because they are similar to another composers. But there is nothing wrong with making the wheel better. Heck, the first ever wheel would have been a horrible wheel!

What if with my music I don't want to express anything, but my music is just.. music? Does this mean it's not Art? Or what if someone composer a piece using loads of mathematics, statistics, probabilities, distribution, groups of notes with similar characteristics and of extreme virtuosity, can you say then that Stockhausen's Klavierstucke, or that some of Xenakis' pieces are not artistic? How about John Cage, who used indeterminancy and chance operation (i.e. throwing dice etc) to determine various elements of his music? Or how about Morton Feldman, he didn't want his music to express anything, he just wanted his music to be music, "sounds for sounds' sake", as he says.

The listener cannot say whether the composer has written the composition to express something or just combined elements. For example, let's say someone has written the cliche I - vi - IV - V by thinking "Hmm, I'll just throw those popular chords and write melody over them, it always works". But he also could justified his choice for expressive purpose - for example, to represent something plain but beautiful and unforgettable in life. The listener cannot know this - he or she can know it only by talking to the composer. If we base judgement on this, the only person that can make it is the composer. Therefore, to the listener it is always art, in which people could find something expressed. Cage's music is art just as all other music. And, as Schoenberg says about Cage: "He is an inventor; of genius".

For example, let's say someone has written the cliche I - vi - IV - V by thinking "Hmm, I'll just throw those popular chords and write melody over them, it always works". But he also could justified his choice for expressive purpose - for example, to represent something plain but beautiful and unforgettable in life.

Or BOREDOM and lack of imagination! Hahahaha~

... Or irony...

*mystery*

And here is the big question: what defines Art, the artist or the audience/viewer/listener? Because, on the hypothetical example with the computer and human composing the same thing, what if the human died and the computer was destroyed? And we only had the two results and we only knew that one was created by a human and one by a computer? How would we be able to determine which one's art and which one isn't? And what if we just gave the piece to someone who didn't know who composed the pieces, would his answer be valid? I.e. is something only Art if we know the artist, or can a piece of Art be an individual thing and be Art without an Artist?

And here is the big question: what defines Art, the artist or the audience/viewer/listener? Because, on the hypothetical example with the computer and human composing the same thing, what if the human died and the computer was destroyed? And we only had the two results and we only knew that one was created by a human and one by a computer? How would we be able to determine which one's art and which one isn't? And what if we just gave the piece to someone who didn't know who composed the pieces, would his answer be valid? I.e. is something only Art if we know the artist, or can a piece of Art be an individual thing and be Art without an Artist?

I don't think Art can exist without an Artist, but I'm using the word 'Artist' fairly loosely. I would call a piece written by John Cage using results of chance Art, because he conciously chose to take these random results, convert them into another form, and show it to others. Similarly I would call music created by converting statistics about the Earth's orbit Art because someone had chosen to use the statistics that way, although, not being religious, I wouldn't call the Earth's orbit itself Art.

So I guess I would consider anything that has been deliberately created to be seen (although not used) by others as Art. Although possibly not good Art...

So, following on from this, I would see a piece of music written to imitate another style as Art in it's own right.

Not to rain on anyone's parade about art, but it's just a term used to define things which are of preference and not necessarily with practical nor objective sense.

It can be the garbage truck outside, birds, or the ocean. That's all art if you're going to call it art. As long as there's a person involved to call it art, it's art! Easy as pie.

Art is the most subjective thing on this earth I think.

Just one more reason it's fun to force your own opionions on other people! ;)

I don't think Art can exist without an Artist, but I'm using the word 'Artist' fairly loosely. I would call a piece written by John Cage using results of chance Art, because he conciously chose to take these random results, convert them into another form, and show it to others. Similarly I would call music created by converting statistics about the Earth's orbit Art because someone had chosen to use the statistics that way, although, not being religious, I wouldn't call the Earth's orbit itself Art.

So I guess I would consider anything that has been deliberately created to be seen (although not used) by others as Art. Although possibly not good Art...

So, following on from this, I would see a piece of music written to imitate another style as Art in it's own right.

I mostly agree with what you said, but to me it's mostly the "artistic intention" that decides whether something is art or not. I wouldn't call a piece of music imitating another style art if it only serves, say, as an exercise. The very same piece of music, written with the intention of creating art by imitation, would be art. But I don't even think it's necessary to actually create to make something art. You can also imbue an artistic value in something already existing.

Take your example of the Earth's orbit. I agree with you that in itself it is not art. However, I could "take" the Earth's orbit and simply declare it art, which would make it my art. As an objet trouv

I don't think that imitating a musical genre is reinventing the wheel, because I don't think that music is a kind of technology that needs to keep progressing in the forward direction.

The way I see it, baroque, romantic, contemporary, aren't just eras, they are flavors. People have different tastes in music; I prefer romantic / early 20th century music to contemporary music, therefore in my mind, forward thinking music is not always better. I think modern music that fits within the musical styles of the past is just as valuable as contemporary music.

The way I see it, baroque, romantic, contemporary, aren't just eras, they are flavors. People have different tastes in music; I prefer romantic / early 20th century music to contemporary music, therefore in my mind, forward thinking music is not always better. I think modern music that fits within the musical styles of the past is just as valuable as contemporary music.

I don't know why "valuable" comes into question. But the thing is that romantic, baroque and such "eras" pale in scope compared to the 20th century in terms of variety and difference. Someone like Stravinsky wrote so many different things, like Hindemith or even Schoenberg himself.

With absolute freedom, that's what you get. But what I'm getting at, is that generalizing over the 20th century doesn't work, much less over modern or contemporary music. There's way too much variation from piece to piece, composer to composer, that it becomes just a lazy analogy. You have to be a lot more specific or you're not saying anything.

To learn yes...but musical imitation should not be used too much

Since we're on our 3rd page of posts, perhaps a short recap of the major points discussed would be in order. I've gone through everone's posts so far and grouped the related ideas together, trying to pull out main points from each person's arguments. Please understand that my summaries are, of course, subjective (perhaps my poor restatements will help the speakers know how to refine and clarify their arguments), and taking time to quote each person exactly is a much more tedious task than I want to undertake!

I'll post my own views in more detail soon, but I hope this summary can help us see which ideas have surfaced on the original topic (musical "imitation") and on related topics that might deserve new threads of their own.

I. How does imitation affect the composer?

1. Can imitation be helpful?

- It educates the composerabout past forms

Juji: Imitation can help someone learn about past composer's methods as they seek to create their own unique voice (cites Schoenberg's "Fundamentals of Composition").

- It prepares the composer for possible use of past forms

SSC: One should have a thorough knowledge of music history before settling on any style, "new" or obviously imitative, as his own.

- It plays a role in most "conscious" composition.

LDunn: Rarely can one consciously create a form that is not somehow influenced by the current forms of his day. Thus, one should strive to understand and react to the forms and create a better combination/application of them.

2. Does musical imitation ever inhibit expression?

- Yes, because: More imitation = less expression

Juji: Only the elements of a work that are not imitating a past composer are expressive.

YaganKiely: The goal of exact imitation is fine for study, but one must limit the level of imitation to retain expression.

- No, because: Imitation = tool/technique

Robin: Past styles can serve as the medium through which we express new ideas, not merely anachronistic (out-dated, unoriginal, Brooks thinks he means) in an otherwise expressive piece. No amount of imitation makes it impossible to be expressive, because a piece could itself be an "exercise in nostalgia."

- No, because: Composer's intent is the determining factor

Fermion: If the composer wrote the piece as an academic exercise, not as expression, it is not art; conscious imitation with the goal of expression makes the imitation expressive.

- No, because: Human uniqueness guarantees expression

Verdi: Because one composer cannot get in the mind of another, individual expression is unavoidable even in attempts at complete imitation of others

II. How should the composer use imitation?

1. Can/should imitation be avoided?

- Mael: Because music history has explored so many possibilities, what one might try as “new” has probably already been explored sometime before now. Mael suggests we pick a genre depending upon our “mood” and take advantage of its particular strengths.

- Kamen: “Almost everything is already tried.” Kamen also suggests that music history reveals “what ‘works’ and what doesn’t ‘work’ so well,” perhaps suggesting we let history guide or inform to some degree certain aspects of our composition.

- Juji: It’s better to break the bounds of the present than to return to the standards of the past, because “music…is irrelevant if you take it out of context,” even music of the recent 20th century.

2. How does imitation relate to one’s overall goal in composition?

- Juji, SCC: It is better to know as much as you can about what others have done before you and choose to imitate “out of actual preference,” rather than ignorantly/unconsciously.

- Juji: Though some composers have tried to divorce themselves from previous practices, starting with yourself (“how your music wants to sound”) provides a good fundamental step in honing a style.

- Kamen: Studying the past causes you to realize that though you can do anything in music, some things actually do work better due to (Brooks thinks this is Kamen’s belief) “sounds properties and the way human beings hear and interpret them.”

III. What more basic questions does imitation suggest? (These are possible new thread topics.)

1. Basic question #1: Is there a difference between human and computer imitation in music?

- Juji: Both the EMI computer and humans have successfully created imitative pieces. Furthermore, humans follow the same process of imitation that computers use: they analyze material, find the common elements, and apply them in a new context.

- Fermion: If a human produced the same piece as a computer by the same process there would be no difference. However, humans always contribute something of themselves because they cannot infinitely analyze and apply patterns in a composer’s music. The imperfection of their imitation makes their work unique and different.

2. Basic question #2: What is art?

- Juji: If, hypothetically, the computer in question #1 and a person created the same piece, even if using different methods, can one be called “art” and the other not?

- Sleepiful: Art is purposeful creation with the goal of communication (so even imitation can be art).

- SCC, Nico: Art is what you call it; the term (or perhaps, Brooks thinks that SCC means, the objects considered themselves) has no objective meaning.

- Gardener: A human choice to put forth something (that they make or simply see in nature) as art makes the thing art.

- Brooks (here I’m finally speaking): The word “art” has no inherent meaning just as the word “tree” has no inherent meaning. The question is not, therefore, “what does the word ‘art’ MEAN,” for we can supply any definition we choose; rather, we must ask, “are there things which exist/can be created which INHERENTLY are art?” If we answer “yes” to this question, we create the need for a universal standard for “artness,” or what makes something art. If we answer “no,” then art becomes an individual perception only. In that case, I might just as well say that my music is “tree-ish" (and I would be neither correct nor incorrect).

3. Basic question #3: What is music? (this could get nasty…)

- Juji: Can “sound for sound’s sake” (Juji is quoting a modern composer) with no intent to communicate any message be considered music?

- Kamen: We always read expression/intent to communicate into what people create, no matter what the composer intended.