Having finally obtained my late copy of Tempo and read the article
in question, it seems to me that William Copper is not providing a fair
summary of its contents by syllogizing '(a) old music had harmony, (b)
GR copied old music; (c) therefore composers who use harmony are copying
GR.' Nowhere do I find any accusations that composers are plagiarizing Mr.
Rochberg.  Instead what the author Robert R.  Reilly claims is that
'Rochberg's courage helped to free the next generation of composers from
the serial straightjacket to write music that was once again comprehensible
to audiences.' Reilly is obvious in his anti-serialism, but what he seems
to glorify in Rochberg is how angry the so-called establishment was that
he began to write tonal music.  In this regard, Rochberg relates a very
interesting anecdote that I had not heard before of critic Michael
Steinberg playing his 'Ricordanza' to a coterie of modernists at Darmstadt
and asking them to guess who wrote it.  They calmly tried to place it in
the late 19th century, but when Steinberg revealed it was written in 1972,
'the place exploded.  How dare that man do something like this!  This is a
traitorous act=85It is infamous.  It is a disgrace.'

Reilly claims that Rochberg is "the pivot point around which American music
took a decisive turn away from Arnold Schoenberg's systematized
dissonance ... and back toward tonality.  If it is now safe to return to
concert halls, it is largely because of him."  Such hyperbole serves only
to alienate discriminate readers.

The article concludes with a section where Rochberg quotes an apocryphal
statement from one his elder colleagues:  'Why does George want to write
beautiful music? W'eve done that already.' This prompts Reilly to quote
Schoenberg's remark that he was 'cured of the delusion that the aim of art
is beauty.' Rochberg responds that he has 're-embraced the art of beauty,
but with a vengeance.  =85 [By beauty] I mean that which is genuinely
expressive, even if it hurts ..  Great music is enunciatory, telling us
that there are places, things, regions beyond us.'

Now anyone who claims that the better modernist music is not 'genuinely
expressive,' at least to some, must have their head examined.  The same
goes for the better tonal music - even that written today.  Why must we
have this constant acrimony?

I have to say personally that in the 60s, when I was working on my
bachelors in music, the political correctness was indeed a straightjacket.
I was not allowed to write a thesis on Bruckner because he was viewed as an
obscure Wagner imitator of little relevance to the history of music.  It is
this know-it-allness by lockstep academic know-nothings that is the real
scourge, not piercing dissonances or, perish the thought, tonal cadences.

Fortunately, time heals all wounds.  Eventually, future listeners will
be able to enjoy Rochberg's Schumann pastiches for what they are, some
of the best 19th-century music written in the last 50 years of the 20th.
Eventually, when the music is so old that the dates are almost irrelevant,
they may even speak of Rochberg in the same breath as Bruch--who knows?

Jeff Dunn
Alameda, CA
[log in to unmask]