On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 07:17 AM, Roman Turovsky wrote: >> I don't like the word "imitation." I had a teacher once who told me, >> "imitation is the compliment mediocrity pays to genius." > Giorgio Vasari would disagree, and he did, describing repeatedly how > one > genius imitated another. It worked very well in Arts in the days of > yore, > and a phrase "he imitated me well" was much prized on letters of > recommendation...
Certainly, "imitation," as another saying goes, "is the sincerest form of flattery"; hence, I am the master, and "he imitated me well." But I wonder how highly -prized was the phrase, "I imitated him well." >> I think of it as "emulating" an ideal rather than "imitating" a sound. > What's the difference? Good question, Roman. What I was thinking was: we can come as close as our understanding will bring us, to sensing from afar a centuries-old style of playing, but it's impossible to copy something we've never actually heard. So we end up re-creating something which ultimately resides in our minds. At least, that's how I see my own process of renaissance music making. Regards, David Rastall
