Steve Schwartz on Vainberg and Shostakovich:

>I think they sound alike as well, as do various works of Haydn, Mozart,
>and Beethoven, or of Schumann, Brahms, and Mendelssohn, or of Elgar,
>Parry, and Vaughan Williams, or of Ravel and Debussy.  And I defy someone
>to tell, work unheard, certain works by Piston from those of Diamond.
>However, Vaughan Williams once said that the job of the artist is *not*
>to say the thing that's never been said, but to say the right thing at
>the right time.

Sure, but it is a matter of degree.  A late Haydn symphony is not to be
mistaken with any one else, ditto for Beethoven.  Opus 18 might sound
like late Haydn, I suppose, but opus 127?  Forget it.  Parry could not
have written Elgar's First Symphony.  Neither composer could have written
VW's Fourth, and so it goes.  Ravel and Debussy make a challenging case,
but when you get to the piano music they part company.  The V-S comparision
is always there.

>The reason why most of us are so worried about a composer sounding like
>someone else is because one composer usually seems quite anemic compared
>to the original.  That is, if you're going to "do" Stravinsky, chances
>are that you will wind up sounding superfluous compared to the original.
>But consider the case of two really good composers who share the same
>idiom.  As I have sometimes remarked, I don't mind having twenty more
>really good Shostakovich symphonies, even if they're not by Shostakovich.

Hang in there Steve, the software package to produce as many Shostakovich
symphonies as you wish will likely hit the stores by next Christmas.
Look for SHOSTAFAKE at your neighborhood computer store.

>Of course, the question comes down to whether the music convinces *you*,
>as opposed to me.  I'm convinced.

Well, as Don Satz has pointed out, V may be a kinder, gentler S. Is
the world ready for that?

Bernard Chasan