Bernard Chasan writes:

>I don't understand this Vainberg business.  I have listened to a fair
>amount of his music because the cd buyer at the Brookline Public Library
>is clearly a Vainberg fan. If I did know any better (and I am not sure
>that I do) I might think that Vainberg is a nom de Plume for Shostakovich.
>Are there any other situations in classical music where two composers
>sounded so alike in their mature careers?  Or do I just need my ears
>cleaned?

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.

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.

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

Steve Schwartz