> From: Roman Turovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:07:07 -0400 > To: David Rastall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: lute list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Newbie to the lute > >>>> 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." > Equally so. > >>>> 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. > Indeed, but IMITATION puts one in an aesthetic framework that helps elude > ugliness. The ideal in never reachable, but at least our lutes look good. > RT Given a decent ideal, of course... RT
