Bernard Chasan writes:

>The "composer" is simply impersonating a great composer.  The hard creative
>work, the lifetime of learning, development, setbacks, tragedy and triumph
>was the heritage of another.  Now some montebank comes and tries to share
>the unearned glory.  The results cannot be authentic.  A composer who
>starts off by intending to write in the style of a long dead master cannot
>be considered, IMHO, a serious composer.

An interesting point but ... does a composer really "own" their style?
This seems to fly in the face of the concept of a etude, say Chopin,
where he was attempting to teach his style to others.  The artists in the
impressionist movement used the same style, so did the cubists.  Is music
any different? I would think that composers would be flattered that they
were able to teach others how to write music.  We all learn from each other
or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further than you [Robert
Hooke] and Descartes, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants".

For me (and my composing software) writing a great sonata, that may sound
like Beethoven, is little different than writing variations on someone
else's theme, which comes much closer to stealing, begging the question,
"Why don't you compose your own theme and write variations on that?".

As I have said before (on this list, I think) The only question concerning
a piece of music is "did you enjoy hearing it, and would you like to hear
it again sometime".  What else matters?

Reasonable men may differ,
Bill Pirkle