Geoffrey Gaskell replies to me:

>>What's so simple about writing a string quartet?
>
>Or what's so complex? Would Occam's Razor be of any use?

Not really.  So many fairly good composers seem to have sweat blood
creating their examples, though I admit some have taken to it.  First
of all, there's the problem of writing well for strings - aside from any
structural problems of composition one has to solve - a task many great
composers of string quartets, including Beethoven and Brahms, have never
mastered.  At any rate, I don't think that writing a string quartet - or
any extended piece of music for that matter - is necessarily a simple task.
If it were so easy, we could all write one.

>>By the way, what about string quartets with the addition of voice or some
>>obbligato instrument? Are those theatrical gimmicks as well?
>
>Of course, indeed, yes, naturally, for how not?

I would quibble with the word "theatrical," myself.  It implies that the
composer has resorted to it out of a base motive merely to impress, rather
than the sincere expression of thought.  "Gimmick," of course, trivializes
the means.

>All rather interesting works.  I can't quite remember the source of the
>speculation or rumour or whatever that Stockhausen now considers himself
>to be an extraterrestrial ambassador (which fact I simply find rather
>amusing).

I heard it from Paul Moor, former member of this list.  However, some crazy
people have written very fine works indeed.  The point is that we look at
the individual work, not at the psychological state of the composer, to
either accept or dismiss.

Steve Schwartz