I always feel like I'm doing research in some archives with Montefalco. I see someguy is posting here too and it's a fine opportunity to reconsider my own position, to revisit an old theme, to demand more precision from my own mind.
position no. 1: a good work of music is like a good book: the author is sharing her/his grey matter in a most intimate manner and, for that reason, "copycats" just won't have much of an impact. So, a good work, whatever the style, will involve dragging you in there intellectually and emotionally, becoming part of the mental process. If you're drawn, not by style, but by the artistic exercise, then the author has succeeded. If you resist, from the onset, because of preconceived ideas about "style" then you won't be drawn into the work, will you?
position no. 2: in every walk of life one finds all kinds of personalities, from the superficial self-actualizer to the isolated self-reflecting individual who is utterly oblivious to public reaction. Style does not guarantee depth, any style. Remain evaluative within a style, not of a whole style.
position no. 3: some things are best expressed in a given style. If you're conveying in music your response to/ impression or experience of millions of people being butchered then romanticism is not the best style. If you wish to express musically breathing northern lights in places very far removed from the great artistic capital of this world, you had bettere have experienced these northern lights from very close, not from Berlin, Vienna, or Rome conservatories! If you wish to express, as accurately as humanly possible, the unique bird songs of the Grand Canyon, oh no, don't rely on all the unnatural sounds generated to entertain the royalties of Europe!!!
position no. 4: the spiritual in music is very personal and to follow any conventional model can potentially defeat the personal expressio of spirituality. After all, it's a vision quest, isn't it, not a quest for public approval.
