Quote:
Originally Posted by gianluca
Sorry to be a bit of a party pooper, but I personally don't see the point of writing a piece in such a derivative Mahlerian idiom. Why would one want to go back to a musical aesthetic of the past? What's the point of doing again what Mahler has already done (and done better) more than a century ago? Isn't it a more natural thing for a composer to express himself according to the coordinates of his time and try to search for an original musical language?
Don't get me wrong, Bmiranda, I'm not bashing you as a composer. The musical writing is definitely skillfully done and you have succeeded in getting very close to Mahler's musical aesthetic. But I just don't understand why someone would want to imitate the language of Mahler in the first place (or, for that matter, the language of any other composer), except for the sake of stylistic exercise.
|
Why not? If Mahler is the paradigm of Bmiranba's musical tastes and thus compositional expression, why shouldn't he "copy" Mahler's style? Most composers try to find their own voice by imitating others and often blending other styles to make their own. For example, my style is a cup of Tchaikovsky, with a chunk of Mahler, a dash of Holst, and perhaps a splash of Strauss. Sprinke with Stravinsky and Rimsky-Korsakov, bake for 58 years = Justin Tokke's style.
Composing is not inventing, it is taking what came before and making anew. I will quote the ever impudent Stravinsky: "A good composer does not imitate; he steals."