What's the point/value of musical imitation?

. 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.

If you didn't know (as a fictitious example) that say, I wrote a symphony based exactly on Mahler's style (and for argument sake, was just as good), would it still me expressive? You don't know that I copied the style? What's stopping you from appreciating it? Only if you know that I copied, thus it is extramusical.

Re-inventing the wheel isindeed pointless, but there have been many advancments in the wheel to date. Copying the 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!

Yeah, but how about a company today that made cars which used medieval, wooden wheels? They would most certainly be considered cars, and they'd be able to move, but what would other people think of it? Some of them would think it's the best idea ever, but most will just think "hey, that would be cool 600 years ago (assuming there were cars then), but now we've got more enduring, lighter, stronger and more effective (and of course, the technique of making these wheels has been developed, become more individualised, and is probably more complex than making a wooden wheel).

So there would be little point in making wooden wheels for mass productions/professional cars. You may as well build anything you want for yourself, but as soon as you show it to the rest of the world, you are immediately compared to the status of the contemporary world.

Lastly, there is a difference between improving the wheel (or making your own wheel) and re-inventing the wheel. You can make your own wheel without re-inventing it, and vica-versa (an example of doing both could be Arvo Part, leaning more towards re-inventing the wheel, or Judith Weir, leaning more towards making her own wheel).

But then is the other thing - is art defined by the artist, or is it defined by those people who have studied history of art, the art itself and have looked into the depths of art widely aroudn the world (across a lot of cultures and eras) and have a very good understanding of Art so far that can say if something can really be considered as Art or not?

Because if it's this way, then it doesn't matter if the majority doesn't know Stockhausen or not, to say that he is considered a good or bad composer, but it's just those few people (compared to the majority) who have this amount of knowledge that understand and acknowledge his works and consider him a good or bad composer.

And the artist himself should strive to learn as much as he can about the history of his art and his art in general, before attempting to create works of art. Otherwise it's like someone who hasn't read many books trying to write a book. it is possible to write books/poems that have artistic value and are stylistically speaking individual and original (and by that I don't mean "original" in the sense of something completely new that has never been done before, but "original" as in "authentic", something of his own), but it's just that it is very rare, and the proper way to go is by learning all these things (i.e. reading all the development on the wheel so far), so that you know very well the tools of the trade and how to use them or how to invent your own (so you won't have to re-invent the wheel, but merely make your own wheel and continue developing it, or abandoning it or whatever).

...is art defined by the artist, or is it defined by those people who have studied history of art, the art itself and have looked into the depths of art widely aroudn the world and have a very good understanding of Art so far that can say if something can really be considered as Art or not?

Art can only be defined as Art by the observer. If it's not art to YOU, then it ain't art.

If you are defining your artistic endeavour as "imitation" then that immediately puts a certain limit on its value as "art", IMHO.

Imitation is a wonderful learning tool.

A "real" artist, however, is never satisfied to simply imitate someone else.

Hmmm....while we're on the subject, I think all styles and tonalities have a certain feel to them, certain characteristics. Why do we always like to stick to one?

I think we should use as many techniques as are available to us. Why would a painter limit himself to only a few colors, for example? Composers shouldn't do the same....

Oh, and I agree with Nico, for the most part...

I think we should use as many techniques as are available to us.

I agree, with the rather large condition that one filter out all the techniques (or whatever) that one doesn't like. If one just used every technique, one would not have much of an identity. Speaking for myself, I will absorb any new technique that I like, and feel is useful, but I will deliberately NOT use a technique that doesn't please me -- otherwise I wouldn't be writing my music.

I like contemporary music as much as the next guy and I think its all very interesting and it is certainly an art form, but really only because it is declared so by the artist/composer. There comes a certain point in the "freedom" that you can have in music, in my humble opinion, that it all sounds the same - strange and sometimes random. You can look at the sheet music and point out the genius of what you did in your "Concerto for Tape Recorder, Three-Legged Stool and Clavichord in Y# Majinor", but in the end, to most listeners, it sounds random and, frankly, disturbing. Again, this isn't MY opinion on most contemporary music to MY ear, but thats simply because I know better. The simple truth is, and somebody should really take a poll for this, more people can relate to Mozart and Beethoven and Strauss with their emotion and accessibility. It's easier for the audience to walk away humming those composers than it is for the Concerto in Y# ;). Sure, sure, artists will say "well, thats too bad I'm not doing it for the audience, I enjoy it and it is artistic to my ear and some others" blah blah blah and thats fine and dandy, but very few people want to listen to somebody throwing a stool on the ground, plucking the strings inside of the piano and playing a violin under its bridge for more than 10 seconds. Cool idea, I'm sure you could find people who would not only acknowledge but appreciate the brilliance behind some of the pieces, but...most won't. Also not to say all contemporary music is like this, but I've come to find that almost all of it is harder to follow for the common ear, and THAT, IMHO, has been the reason for the death of classical music in the past century.

Those are some loaded words, kid. The reason to write for garbage truck (my favorite example!) and dog whistle comes from, hopefully, the need to use these things as tools to express something that otherwise doesn't work. Of course, going in the realm of conceptual music is always a gamble, but one I'm totally for.

The key is un-learning the junk that prevents you from thinking that every sound has musical possibilities. The painter example is a good one, but a better one would be with an artist who not only paints but does interactive art, or multimedia. I'm totally for a composer being not just someone who writes music, but someone who can present stuff on a stage which may as well include lots of other things such as paintings, acting, etc etc. Of course, the more complicated your act gets, the less likely it's going to be that interesting to have just "the sound" of it, but well, that's something else.

Anyways, the thing with the audience, I addressed somewhere else but I'm going to repeat some key things. First, is that audience preference is guided by exposure, so that the younger people are exposed to all types of music, the more they'll be "in the ear" later on. So, really, it's a vicious circle of "I like mozart because it sounds nice" this preference gets carried into the children, and then of course have that preference because it's what is taught on a subconscious and not-so-subconscious level, and the thing repeats itself on and on.

The thing with the children is a totally different point anyways, but never the less important. I for one, even if I am a huge fan of Bach (my favorite piece EVER being by him), for example, would favor Ligeti or Schnittke over him any day when it comes to a live concert. Why? It's VERY easy to find Bach's music regardless of where you are, and so is the case for all these old composers who are well established in the canon. But when it comes to newer things, most people don't even know them and because they don't know them they can't even begin to understand them.

You can't thrust someone who is used to I-IV-V-I cadences into a Penderecki (Threnody, De Natura Sonoris, ETC) concert and expect there to be a smooth transition. It all has to start much earlier, and hopefully without any of the "No, X composer/era/!? is better." or the ever-popular "Western Harmony is the highest point of human civilization everything else doesn't compare to it!" Though I'm exaggerating a little, I have heard such things plenty of times now.

But sadly that's asking for a whole lot. It's not about disqualifying anything, it's about giving equal chance to everything. There's no real reason why anyone should say Palestrina, C.P.E Bach, Buxtehude or Grieg are any better or worse than Messiaen, Nono, Reich or Cage. It's not better or worse, it's just different.

Just like a concert for dog whistle and garbage truck is different from a vienna classic string quartet, both can really inspire and mean something to someone, and that should never be underestimated. Furthermore, because of precisely that, it's entirely understandable to want to write for either (and in any style) with no prejudice. They're both valid, and even if maybe people don't hum tunes after a concert it can still make an impact on someone.

Let's not forget that a lot has to do with how the listener puts things in context. If someone enters a concert thinking they'll hear only noise, that's all they'll hear. Regardless if it's Bach or Mahler, etc. Statements such as the above quote, and what I've been reading in this forum for a while about such attitudes against "non traditional" music, really don't help matters. Plus, if the audience is educated in such way that they aren't going to have spasms of terror when they hear a dissonance or something unorthodox, the composers can only benefit from it.

Then again, I'm the one thinking about writing something for dog whistle and garbage truck.

The common ear these days is not that complex and is not able to see the worth most of the time of a piece for...garbage truck and dog whistle (dear God I hope you're not serious).

WHY NOT? Don't you go stealing my ideas y'hear! I think this piece would be cool because the sound itself is very easy to imagine and familiar. It's a garbage truck, and you can't hear the whistle. Maybe the regular joe isn't going to appreciate the super-fantastic art and sound possibilities of a garbage truck, but you know what? What if that isn't even the point?

What if the point is to just have that garbage truck on the STAGE, and some guy playing a dog whistle for a bunch of minutes, and so on. That's going to still cause something. Not to go the Stockhausen way (with his helicopters and such), but well why not?

And I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the vulgus' lack of "ear for the artistic" and such other junk. Everything can happen, given time.

The common ear these days is not that complex and is not able to see the worth most of the time of a piece for...garbage truck and dog whistle (dear God I hope you're not serious). Look at the music most people listen to: it's all based off of the same groups of chords and is very very simple and formulaic. I just don't think a large group of people are ever going to follow classical music as it is written today as much as it was back then.

I'm not sure whether people even "followed contemporary classical music" more before the 20th century than today. Most average people in Bach's time didn't have a clue Bach even existed, and even "stars" like Beethoven had an audience that was much smaller than Beethoven's audience today. While most people may listen to "simple and formulaic" stuff, this was quite as much the case in the 19th century, and in contrast to then, thanks to sound recording and broadcasting techniques, a significant number of "ordinary people" have had contact with rather complex classical masterpieces. A couple of months ago, Hans Werner Henze's opera "Phaedra" was premiered, in sold out opera houses. While Henze may be more "moderate" than many of his contemporaries, his work is still dodecaphonic and atonal. While that may still be much less successful as Beethoven symphonies today, it's as successful as Beethoven symphonies in his time. And a lot more successful than, say, Beethoven's late string quartets in his time.

Personally I think that the "common ear these days" is a lot more universally experienced and versatile than it used to be.

I think Qccowboy's answer was very concise and said something very important that none of us has mentioned before: "A "real" artist, however, is never satisfied to simply imitate someone else."

And Nico, I think your first comment was a bit extreme. Let me elaborate a bit on that. To begin with:

"The simple truth is, and somebody should really take a poll for this, more people can relate to Mozart and Beethoven and Strauss with their emotion and accessibility."

Look at the music most people listen to: it's all based off of the same groups of chords and is very very simple and formulaic. I just don't think a large group of people are ever going to follow classical music as it is written today as much as it was back then.

Both of the above quotes are logical fallacies, called "Ad populum". Saying that, for conversation's sake let's say, "tonal" music is better, more expressive, or the "right way to go" just because most people think/believe/do that, is not a valid argument in a conversation like that. Even if we were to accept such an argument, someone could easily say that since most composers compose in a "contemporary" style (if there is one), then the way composers should composer would be in that "contemporary style". However, that's not the way people composer in the way they composer today, and that's not a valid argument for convincing someone that "tonal" music is the way to go.

Honestly, how much exposure have you had to non-tonal music than you have to tonal music? My bet is that you've been listening to tonal music since you were born (through the radio, tv, films, ads, etc) while you've only been listening (very selectively and not too often) contemporary music for the past one or two years, and possibly predetermined not to like it, and you're not willing to try and like/understand it either. It's like disliking a certain kind of food because you smelled it and you didn't like the smell.

Sure, sure, artists will say "well, thats too bad I'm not doing it for the audience, I enjoy it and it is artistic to my ear and some others

I haven't met anyone so far who makes art for herself/himself. I think this is a common belief, that "people who make art which is not comprehensible by the rest of the people, must be making this art mainly for themselves and then for everyone else", but I don't think it's true.

"You can look at the sheet music and point out the genius of what you did in your "Concerto for Tape Recorder, Three-Legged Stool and Clavichord in Y# Majinor", but in the end, to most listeners, it sounds random and, frankly, disturbing."

It's funny :P I was just listening today to a sample from one of nikolas' teachers at the Royal Holloway University of London, Brian Lock, and it's called "Concerto for Clarinet, Percussion, Birds and Computers", and honestly, it sounds very beautiful and not random at all (you can find this and other excerpts here: BRIAN LOCK MUSIC - Listen ). I've listened to quite a few composers whose music is not random, and definitely not disturbing (how can you call Takemitsu's or Feldman's music "random" and "disturbing"?). And, of course, there is random music, starting with John Cage and the experimental composers of the US at that time (who introduced indeterminacy in the music which can be considered a bit "random"), and then by people like Xenakis (who used probability theories and games to gain material for his music) and others.

but very few people want to listen to somebody throwing a stool on the ground, plucking the strings inside of the piano and playing a violin under its bridge for more than 10 seconds.

Ok, you're mixing quite a few things here. Firstly, the kind of actions you try to refer to with "throwing a stool on the ground" are highly part of the experimental composers and their music of the 60's-70's, and mostly of those composers associated with the Fluxus movement. I don't think anyone writes this kind of music anymore (apart from Isto maybe (Piece 20 of his "Crusty Koala Songbook", called 'Atlas Marsupialis': Step 1: Insert a globe into the pouch of the marsupial of your choice. Step 2: Play the harmonica). Then, you refer to all the avant-garde composers who write with all the extended techniques, not because they believe that traditionally written music doesn't express them well, but extended techniques open doors to a whole new world. Composers such as Crumb or Lachenmann have been using extended techniques quite a lot in their pieces, but you can't say they are a representative sample of the global contemporary music scene. There are a lot of other composers, from Europe, Asia, America and Australia (which has a most interesting and incredible contemporary music scene) which have nothing to do with it, simply because what the 20th century is all about is individuality. There are very few "movements" or "tendencies" in contemporary music. There is no "trend" anymore. You will find that there are as many composers writing in a total chromatic way as there are composing in a mix of chromaticism and tonality. There are as many composers whose music is complex beyond understanding as composers who write very simple and straight-forward music. Plus, you seem to have forgotten the whole collection of minimalist composers, whose music is highly tonal and is very much liked by "the people" (John Adams is arguaby the most successful composer nowadays in terms of CD sales and popularity).

Also not to say all contemporary music is like this, but I've come to find that almost all of it is harder to follow for the common ear, and THAT, IMHO, has been the reason for the death of classical music in the past century.

Classical music hasn't died in the past century! More works were written in the last 100 years than were written in the 300 years before that! We've never had so many composers, so many genres of music, so much diversity, so much exploration and development, so many doors opened with the development of technology and electronic music. Music never died, it is as alive as ever. What's more, judging by the examples you mentioned above as representative examples of "contemporary music", I don't think you've heard enough. What's more, no matter how much you hear, composers tend to have so diverse styles, that you won't find it easy to describe a group of composers, not even people who were very closely related in terms of music (such as Birtwistle, Davies and Goehr) can be easily described as a group.

Lastly, there is the question of "why do you like the music that you like?"

The logical answer to that is "because we're used to listening to this kind of music". This is it's more difficult for someone who's grown up in a Western society to understand and enjoy Indian, Chinese or African music as much as he does Western classical music, and vica-versa :) So, maybe you should try and consciously get used to listening to other kinds of music, learning about them and digesting them (not literally - that could be disgusting..). I think it's kinda like religion. It would be very difficult (almost impossible) for a child growing up in a Christian society to believe in Taoism if he doesn't experience Taoism in his childhood, and it's not as if he has a choice either. That's why if someone wants to have an objective view in religion, or at least have the right to say that he chose the religion he believes in consciously and purposefully, then he must do some research and find out about most of the major religions that exist around the world, and experiencing them as she/he has experienced the religion of the country/area she/he was born in, in order to be able and say such a thing.

My purpose in writing this very big post is not to try and "convert" any of you into moving away from tonality and towards "contemporary" music, but to open your minds and see that there's more than meets the eye. And there's certainly many things you've misunderstood or you didn't bother listening to carefully, or things that you only smelled and never really tasted, yet you say you don't like that food.

Battery battery! I hate working on battery, so I have to finish this post....

Take care guys, sorry for closing this post so abruptly... :X

A "real" artist, however, is never satisfied to simply imitate someone else.

I'm allergic to these types of statements. An artist (real or imaginary) will do whatever is necessary to them.

I'm allergic to these types of statements. An artist (real or imaginary) will do whatever is necessary to them.

I'm allergic to nuts. AND I DON'T EAT THEM!

Simply stay away from such statements and you shall be fine.

;)

I'm allergic to nuts. AND I DON'T EAT THEM!

Simply stay away from such statements and you shall be fine.

;)

I do my best, but it's on the same page as my posts. :(

(how can you call Takemitsu's or Feldman's music "random" and "disturbing"?)

But Feldman was a pioneer of aleatoric music, even before Cage! And the sheer length of some of his music might well be called "disturbing". I still like it a lot though.

Both of these comments are true, although he didn't explore aleatoric music as much as Cage did, and about the length, I think you just have to listen to Feldman differently than you would listen to, say, Bach. It's got this tranquility and stillness that creates a kind of sonic object, which you observe from many different corners, much like a painting (and he was quite associated with lots of famous painters back then). Feldman's music is very beautiful, in my opinion, and very unique as well :D

Both of these comments are true, although he didn't explore aleatoric music as much as Cage did, and about the length, I think you just have to listen to Feldman differently than you would listen to, say, Bach. It's got this tranquility and stillness that creates a kind of sonic object, which you observe from many different corners, much like a painting (and he was quite associated with lots of famous painters back then). Feldman's music is very beautiful, in my opinion, and very unique as well :D

I agree with everything there.