Vlastimir Trajković (Belgrade, 1947), obtained his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the Faculty of Music in Belgrade (the class of professor Vasilije Mokranjac), and attended the class of Olivier Messiaen in Paris in 1977/78 with a grant from the French Government. Since 1980 he has taught a composition class at the Belgrade Faculty of Music, where he was for a number of years the head of the Department. He has had many undergraduate and graduate students, some of whom have assumed outstanding places in the musical life of the country; others are noted composers, and there are such among them whose works have become part of the most recent history of Serbian music.
The works of Vlastimir Trajković continually feature on the concert podium and radio, in Serbia and abroad, performed by renowned domestic and foreign musicians and ensembles. Some of his works have been printed: Serbian Composers Association published his Bells, Music for Piano Op. 5 (in Anthology of Serbian Piano Music), while his Five Poems by Stephane Mallarme for Voice, Flute and Piano Op. 28 are in print (in Anthology of Serbian Art Song). The Music Pedagogues Association published “For Beginners”, Two Studies for Piano Op. 9 and Pet Easy Pieces for Unaccompanied Harp Op. 22; foreign publishers of Vlastimir Trajković are Éditions Max Eschig, Paris (Duofor Piano and Orchestra Op. 4), Éditions Gérard Billaudot, Paris (Air and Dance for Alto Saxophone in Eb and Piano Op. 15); and Edizioni musicali Bèrben, Ancona, Italy (Ten Preludes fro Guitar Op. 10).
For his creative work he won the Stevan Hristić Award, 1971, for the best diploma work in the domain of composition (Tempora Retenta, a Study for Symphony Orchestra), Mokranjac Award (Concerto for Piano and Orchestra), 1995, and April Award of the City of Belgrade, 2006, for Five Songs by Stephane Mallarme for Voice and Orchestra.
In 2000 Vlastimir Trajković became a corresponding member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Concerto for Piano and Orchestra in B flat major, Op. 21 was created in 1990. Due to the dimensions of the work and the technical intricacies of the score, its premiere took place only in 1994. Technically complex work does not necessarily imply a complicated work, that is, a work that would involve undue efforts in its perception. The modern concept of the concerto for a solo instrument with orchestra – and likewise the modern concept of the World – does not point to an individual confronted with the society, nor Man opposed to nature, even if the traditional being of Western civilization, at least from the time when the focal point of that civilization moved from the renaissance South to the to the anti-renaissance North, may have had ambition to establish just that type of relations. The spirit of our time calls for a different type of relations. Today, it is the question of specific interaction as a field of a unitary stylistic flux. Therefore, the soloist is really a Soloist, but also part of the orchestra, whereas the orchestra is an Orchestra but also a soloist. And it is about there that the composer ought to check his attempts to interpret his own work – not because, while composing, he has not arrived at concepts marked by meanings – not because, while writing music, it has not occurred to him that the music might emanate something else apart from inherently musical ideas – but because music abides in the “mode of practice”, not abstract concepts, and in that mode “to wish” is not the same as “to do”; one thing is “to think” and another “to be able to”. Likewise, it is not the composer’s intention that an overly unidirectional or binding meaning be ascribed to the Greek idioms which designate each of the three concerto movements. Not because these labels are incidental or randomly chosen (nor, for that matter, is the Greek language) – but because Music – every music worthy of that name – does not radiate the spirituality of facts and things, but coexists with the World, being itself part of the world – being, therefore, both a “Fact” and “Thing”, not only spirit. Thus, the composer does not want to “explain” his titles, for “to explain them” is not possible. Suffice it to mention the (possible) translations into Serbian. The first movement is designated by a triad of concepts Stásis − Anohí − Hypóstasis. The „Stásis“ denotes “revolt”, “action”, the radiation of energy. „Anohí“ is the state of rest, the acrid and bitter decrepitude, nauseating boredom, whereas „Hypóstasis“ literally means “”embodiment” – in this instance the word indicates the “concretization” of energy, the realistic affirmation of that energy – the transition from the state of immanence to the state of eminence. The second movement is designated with a triad of concepts Ahthos – Epískepsis – Hisyhia (Pain – Deliberation – Silence), whereas the third one abides under the sign of the words Diaponímata and Apólysis ((„Diaponímata“: a logical inference in the mathematical proof of a theorem, equivalent to the Latin Q.D.E. – Quod demonstrandum erat; „Apólysis“: Resolution).