I am fascinated by your account of Pärt’s motivation to write in the 12-tone, total chromatic style at the beginning of his career (I’ve heard a couple of his early, serial orchestra pieces; they are nuts, in a good way). The mindset you discuss, that Pärt and his contemporaries used serialism to rebel against Soviet censorship, is contradictory to how many American composers viewed total chromaticism at the same time in history. At least according to Robert Beaser in a master class a couple years ago, many Americans (himself included) felt oppressed by serialism and saw the movement against it as a major revolution. Who knew non-musical circumstances could be so influential?

By the way, I love your account of the audience’s head-scratching enthusiasm. The same thing happened to me at a Chigaco Symphony Concert several years ago where they played Philip Glass’s “Concerto for Two Timpani”. I was definitely in the minority, too, but could not express myself as well as you have in this article. I definitely don’t think your opinion of Pärt’s music is wrong, and not just because I agree with you to some extent. You’ve articulated yourself far too well to be unfounded, though there are – clearly – many people who think differently than you do.

An interesting note about Pärt’s musical legacy: when asked who between Schoenberg and Cage was the greater composer, a professor of mine at Rice explained that he thought Schoenberg edged out Cage because of his mastery two enormously divergent styles. Can the same be said for Pärt? Obviously tintinabulation has not shifted the musical paradigm in the same way as Schoenberg’s total chromaticism and 12-tone technique. But, like Schoenberg, Pärt did show competence in the predominating style of his day before moving in the opposite direction.