William Copper wrote: >In the recent Tempo magazine there was an article about composer George >Rochberg. I seem to have read virtually the same article every 6-8 years, >and it postulates that GR is the trend-setting composer of the latter 20th >century. In many ways his Third Quartet was seen as a major departure for a composer who had moved from tonal to serialism and then to collage. I have a vague recollection that when Rochberg lost a son, he found that many of the more modernist gestures did not suit his expressive needs. >It is astounding to me that anyone could make such a claim; there may be >some Rochberg students mouldering under other rocks than mine, but as far >as I know, no serious composer has followed Rochberg's path in imitating >the classics, one of the worst new directions in musical history. While I can't say that anyone was following Rochberg's change of vocabulary, there are many composers who did much the same...Penderecki, Blackwood, Del Tredici, etc. >The only grain of truth in the article was that Rochberg was the first >[academically credentialled and tenured] composer to take that barren path. > >The "logic" (?) of the author of the article goes like this: > >A. Old music had harmony I assume the writer meant common practice harmony? >B. GR copied old music >C. Therefore composers who use harmony are copying GR I believe many took a similar path... >As someone engaged in an homage to Bach and Shostakovich now, I feel very >sensitive to the mis-interpretation that I am writing in an attempt to >revive any older style. Guess I don't know your point, but composers do revive older styles. I can think of so many works that have titles like...In the old style, in modo antiqua, etc. Look at works like Bloch's Concerto Grosso No.1. As I recall, he wrote that piece to show his students that one could use the older forms and still be relevant. Karl