William Copper wrote:

>In the recent Tempo magazine there was an article about composer George
>Rochberg.  I seem to have read virtually the same article every 6-8 years,
>and it postulates that GR is the trend-setting composer of the latter 20th
>century.

In many ways his Third Quartet was seen as a major departure for a composer
who had moved from tonal to serialism and then to collage.  I have a vague
recollection that when Rochberg lost a son, he found that many of the more
modernist gestures did not suit his expressive needs.

>It is astounding to me that anyone could make such a claim; there may be
>some Rochberg students mouldering under other rocks than mine, but as far
>as I know, no serious composer has followed Rochberg's path in imitating
>the classics, one of the worst new directions in musical history.

While I can't say that anyone was following Rochberg's change of
vocabulary, there are many composers who did much the same...Penderecki,
Blackwood, Del Tredici, etc.

>The only grain of truth in the article was that Rochberg was the first
>[academically credentialled and tenured] composer to take that barren path.
>
>The "logic" (?) of the author of the article goes like this:
>
>A.   Old music had harmony

I assume the writer meant common practice harmony?

>B.   GR copied old music
>C.   Therefore composers who use harmony are copying GR

I believe many took a similar path...

>As someone engaged in an homage to Bach and Shostakovich now, I feel very
>sensitive to the mis-interpretation that I am writing in an attempt to
>revive any older style.

Guess I don't know your point, but composers do revive older styles.  I
can think of so many works that have titles like...In the old style, in
modo antiqua, etc.  Look at works like Bloch's Concerto Grosso No.1.  As
I recall, he wrote that piece to show his students that one could use the
older forms and still be relevant.

Karl