What's the point/value of musical imitation?

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.

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...

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".

Originally Posted by Kamen

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?

Originally Posted by jujimufu

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. I wrote an article about it last year i think...its on here somewhere . But yes, SSC's right