It seems kind of ironic.... (or something)
... that in classical music, the first person to do something often and at a high level get the credit. Those who do the same later are just copying. For example, if someone writes a symphony in the style of Mozart, it's probably automatically garbage. It's just copying... why not go listen to the real thing instead? (Although I do wonder why someone doesn't write a symphony in x style on the same level as the original composer, and if they wrote it well enough, if it would be considered good. Then again, if it's repeating the style, there might not be financial support for it, enough to let them develop as a composer and create more works, finer works.)
The ironic thing -- Repetition of style in composition is rejected. (Right?) But on the performance side, we're all trying to create the exact same thing over and over most of the time. (Right?) You want Beethoven? Yes, but you want it just like Beethoven meant it to be, as pure as possible, as much... like Beethoven as possible. Yes, you can add your own self into it somewhat, but it's still mostly Beethoven. If you write a piece of music like Beethoven, it's crap. If you can perform Beethoven like he meant it to be, it can be great. I suppose it's bringing to life the actual music, but... It's probably already been done before many times and captured in recordings. There is the live music argument I guess.
Topic: What's on your mind now?