Bernard Chasan wrote (in precis):

>... every great composer has a very characteristic sound, To write works
>in their styles is not only to counterfeit, it is to impersonate.  And
>that activity is not art.

I tend to agree with this.

Kevin Sutton replied:

>Humm, I don't know if I quite agree with professor Chasan.  Didn't Strauss
>write a piece in the style of Corelli or some other Baroque composer?
>What about Stavinsky's interpolation of Pergolesi? Prokofiev's Classical
>Symphony is in a style after Haydn.  I don't see that paying homage to the
>great work of the past is either derivative or invalid as art.  At the very
>least it is an interesting excercise, as no matter how hard they thy, most
>composers sound like themselves no matter who they are imitating.

It's not a big deal to me, but like I said regarding Carl Orff, I wish
Prokofiev had spend his time on something more of his.

But It all depends on the work.  Rachmaninov's variations and Brahms'
Haydn Variations are two very popular works.  Based on original themes but
incorporating considerable new original material.  Perhaps the 'Variations'
genre is the most acceptable of paying homage.  Tippett's Corelli
variations is a fine work.

I used to rate Respighi but as I came to realised just how much of his
output is based on original themes from the past I have begun to tire of
him.

What I find most annoying is when composers pay hommage by quoting.
Dvorak's Ninth final movement has a quote from Beethoven's Ninth second
movement which I wish wasn't there.

Schostakovich goes mad on it everywhere. EG his piano concertos. He's
trying to be humorous I guess.

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]