I wrote that the notion of an excellent trio sonata written by a
contemporary musician in the style of Bach:

>seemed highly uncreative to me - more of a counterfeiting than a
>creation ...

Len Fehskens replied:

>It would be "counterfeit" only if falsely attributed to Bach.  But is the
>"goodness" of the piece determined by its attribution? If not written by
>Bach, and honestly attributed to its true author, it would be dismissed
>as "derivative", but if the exact same notes had been written by Bach, it
>would not be "derivative", it would be "characteristic" I have a problem
>with this, but I'm not sure exactly what, yet.

I am not sure about the whole business as well.  But suppose I put it in
a painting context, where counterfeits are more familiar.  Suppose that
a skilled artist painted something in the style of Van Gogh, but did not
claim authenticity.  I do not think that such a work would be taken
seriously, nor should it.

It is hard to get hold of this.  But I think that every great composer has
a very characteristic sound, beyond the arrangement of notes.  Bach sounds
like Bach - his music leaves, switching metaphors, a Bach footprint.  So do
Sibelius, Elgar, Janacek, Schubert, etc., etc, leave very characteristic
footprints, at least in their mature work.  The footprint is theirs- it is
the world that they have created.  To write works in their styles is not
only to counterfeit, it is to impersonate.  And that activity is not art.

Professor Bernard Chasan
Physics Department, Boston University