Bernard Chasan:

>...  Suppose that a skilled artist painted something in the style of Van
>Gogh, but did not claim authenticity.  I do not think that such a work
>would be taken seriously, nor should it.

Why not? Simply because it wasn't painted by Van Gogh? Seems to me that the
picture should be judged for itself.  I admit, however, that it's highly
unlikely the work would better Van Gogh, but the possibility exists (I've
wanted for a long time to have the painting chops to produce a Van Gogh
"Dogs Playing Poker").

>It is hard to get hold of this.  But I think that every great composer has
>a very characteristic sound, beyond the arrangement of notes.  Bach sounds
>like Bach - his music leaves, switching metaphors, a Bach footprint.

Ever hear Wesley's motet "In exitu Israel?" Definitely influenced by Bach,
definitely in Bach's style, and definitely better than some Bach (though
it's a small number of pieces).  It's a wonderful, vigorous piece of music
which, in my opinion, shouldn't have to apologize for not actually having
been written by Bach.

>So do Sibelius, Elgar, Janacek, Schubert, etc., etc, leave very
>characteristic footprints, at least in their mature work.  The footprint
>is theirs- it is the world that they have created.  To write works in their
>styles is not only to counterfeit, it is to impersonate.  And that activity
>is not art.

It strikes me that this is really a Romantic and post-Romantic notion.
The artist creates out of himself, we are all unique, therefore the
artist's creation must be unique.  If you look at the great composers of
the Renaissance, for example, it's generally pretty hard to tell one from
another.  There's not a lot of stylistic difference between Gesualdo and
other Mannerist madrigalists, including Monteverdi in his Mannerist phase.
I find little difference among Josquin, Ockeghem, and Obrecht
stylistically, but I find they all wrote great work.

We happen to value originality at this time.  We didn't always.  I've got
nothing against originality myself, but on the other hand I've got nothing
against the use of convention either.  To me, it's a matter of better or
worse done in both cases.

You are, however, in good company.  I once replied to Andrew Porter,
who had written a scathing review of a George Lloyd symphony (not that I
particularly care for Lloyd) on the grounds that the music was a pillaging
of Tchaikovsky.  In short, the music was an "impersonation." Anyway, I
posed the following question: If Elliot Carter were to write a string
quartet in the style of Mozart (I was playing dirty, I admit it; Porter
was very high on Carter's music in general and the string quartets in
particular), would it be inferior to Mozart's own quartets, and if so, why?
Porter floored me by actually responding.  However, his response begged the
question: Carter probably wouldn't want to spend time doing that in the
first place.

Anyway, to me, one ought to judge a work by "internal" criteria, not by
measures ultimately irrelevant, like who the artist is.

Steve Schwartz