Laurence Sherwood asks of Robert Simpson's String Quartet No. 9:

>...  Is there any musical significance to writing in palindromes? My tin
>ears certainly could not identify that any one of Simpson's variations in
>his ninth quartet are palindromes, let alone the entire quartet, which runs
>nearly an hour.  Is writing in palindromes simply a curious challenge that
>Simpson made for himself? Why should a composer set such a constraint upon
>himself:  simply for the intellectual challege of writing a palindrome that
>sounds, well, musical? Why should a listener care if it's a palindrome? Is
>anyone's appreciation of the music enhanced by the fact that music is a
>palindrome? I find it all very puzzling, but nonetheless intriguing.

In my opinion, yes and no.  Writing a musical palindrome is no big deal.
Writing a musical palindrome that works effectively as music, however,
shows at least immense craft.  Should the composer care whether what he
writes is a palindrome? No more than he should care whether it's sonata
form -- whatever gets him going.  Should a listener care whether he hears
it? It's not necessary, but it's nice.  Is it necessary to hear a sonata
movement as sonata form? No, but it's nice to be able to do so.  Music is,
after all, an art as well as a medium of expression.  Who knows? Trying to
hear the palindromes may be a way of getting to know the music better.

Steve Schwartz