What's the point/value of musical imitation?

Originally Posted by N.S. Canzano

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!

Originally Posted by Sleepiful

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 trouvé or readymade, like Marcel Duchamps "Fountain".

The problem comes with pieces that were created merely for practical purposes, without any artistic ambition, but which we consider art today anyways. That means that, as many others have already said, it's extremely hard to give any universal and convincing definition of what art is. That's of course also a great thing about it, as the abeyance of some works on the "borders of what is considered art" makes it truly interesting. (And I'm not primarily speaking of obvious cases like John Cage or Duchamp here, but also more subtle or more vague "transgressions".) If we knew what art is, we'd lose the chance to redefine it with every piece we write.

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.

Originally Posted by Dan Gilbert

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.

. 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.

A statement, that really means very little. Define expressive. And also, are you aware that expression is different with every person? Your expression seems to be stuck in the extra musical.

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).

Originally Posted by jujimufu

...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.