8/3/2019 Gagne 1982 A

1/8

Feldman Interview from Soundpieces:

by Cole Gagne and Tracy Caras

The following interview was originallypublished in Soundpieces: Interviews

with American Composers by ColeGagne and Tracy Caras (Metuchen,New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press Inc,1982) pp 164-177.

Morton Feldman was born on January12, 1926, in New York City. He studiedpiano with Madame Maurina-Press,and went on to study composition withWallingford Riegger and Stefan Wolpe.He currently is Edgard VarseProfessor at the State University of

New York at Buffalo.

Interacting with New York's abstractexpressionist painters, as well as suchcomposers as John Cage, Earle Brown,and Christian Wolff, Feldman beganwriting music that would, in his words,"project sounds into time, free from acompositional rhetoric." In the early1950s, he achieved these resultsthrough his invention of graphicnotation, which permitted theperformer freedoms in pitch and

rhythm. From this method he went onto a more conventional form ofnotation, wherein pitch wasdetermined but time values were onlybroadly fixed. Throughout his career,Feldman has also written traditionallynotated scores. These pieces belongto the same sound world as his otherworks: They avoid systematiccompositional methods and employsoft dynamics and subtle, undramaticgestures. Since the early 1970s, hehas worked exclusively inconventional notation.

The authors interviewed MortonFeldman at his home in Buffalo onAugust 17, 1980. They were bothsomewhat apprehensive due to hisinitial reservations about granting aninterview. However, their fears wereinstantly dispelled by his warmth andgenerosity. His good will andexpansiveness informed everythinghe did: his conversation, his patience,

his lack of reserve, and his cooking.

Q: We've read that earlier pieces ofyours, such as Extensions 1 for violinand piano, employ the completeserialization of pitch, rhythm,dynamics, and even the succession of

metronomic tempi. Is this accurate?

FELDMAN: That's wrong. It's the onlypiece where I ever used a kind ofmetronome modulation. I must admitthat it was the only work I ever wrotewhere an idea from somebody elsereally influenced me. It was MiltonBabbitt; the idea of the metronomechanges came from his Compositionfor Four Instruments - which waswritten in the late forties, I believe. Iuse it now sometimes as a teachingsuggestion for my students when theirwork is rhythmically somewhat boring,and they don't have the expertise foractually changing the rhythmiclanguage of the piece - it looks funnyto them if the piece immediatelychanges rhythmically.

Maybe the style of the piecesuggested total serialization becauseit was out of the Webern atmosphere;very much so. But the piece didn't use

any system at all.

Q: You've described your dislike of thesound of electronic music, likening itto "neon lights" and "plastic paint,"saying that it's "too identifiable." Didyou feel this way before or after thecomposition of your Intersection formagnetic tape in 1951? Would youcharacterize that piece as soundinglike that?

FELDMAN: Have you ever tried to geta hold of that particular composition? Ihave a copy, but I've never wanted itrealized by others. I'm sure they'llmake it sound more interesting thanthe piece should sound.

I don't want to be political about it,but I loathe the sound of electronicmusic. I think it's perfectly fine as ateaching vehicle, if you don't have anymoney around for live performance.You know how certain pieces of

Beethoven's are now played only on

8/3/2019 Gagne 1982 A

2/8

"Pops"? Well, electronic music startedin universities; now it's in the highschools; pretty soon it'll be a device inkindergarten. You could spend a lot oftime in a studio putting it all together.

And you're very fortunate for havingsomething to do. I really think you'revery lucky to find something to do foran afternoon.

Q: Did you approach that piece as anobligation to investigate a newmedium, or were you more excitedabout electronic music then than youare now?

FELDMAN: Let's put it this way: One of

the best definitions of experimentalmusic was given by John Cage. Johnsays that experimental music is wherethe outcome cannot be foreseen. Veryinteresting observation. After my firstadventure in electronic music, itsoutcome was foreseen.

Q: It's been suggested that works ofyours that involve the decay of soundswere influenced by electronic works atthat time, because of their emphasison the decay of sound.

FELDMAN: Absolutely no connection.

Q: In the Columbia recording of yourPiece for Four Pianos, you participatedin the performance. Do you rememberif you listened to the other threepianists? Or did you try not to thinkabout what they were doing?

FELDMAN: It works better if you don'tlisten. I noticed that a lot of people

would listen and feel that they couldcome in at a more effective time. Butthe spirit of the piece is not to make itjust something effective. You're just tolisten to the sounds and play it asnaturally and as beautifully as you canwithin your own references. If you'relistening to the other performers, thenthe piece tends also to becomerhythmically conventional.

Q: What do musicians find mostproblematic about your music?

FELDMAN: When you play aninstrument, you're not only playingthe instrument; the instrument isplaying you. There's a role to play.And the problem I have with the

performer is that my sense of theinstrument is not that role-playingaspect. By role-playing I mean thebaggage one brings to performing bydemonstrating how good theinstrumentalist is. They're notinterpreting music; they'reinterpreting the instrument, and thenthe music. When Heifetz playedMozart, he was doing Mozart a favor.It was the violin he was playing, andthen Mozart.

Q: Of the three types of notationyou've used - graph, free duration,and precise notation - have you foundthat one invariably receives thepoorest performance?

FELDMAN: I think that my earlier,more unconventional notation drewperformers who were attracted to theperformance freedom inherent to themusic. However, with my precisemusic, the performers are now more

involved with me, which seems toannoy them to death.

Q: Then performance problems foryou have multiplied over the years?

FELDMAN: Recently, I went to a BBCstudio recording of two major works ofmine. Luckily for the Americanconductor, a lot of the performers forthe BBC have continually played mymusic under other conductors through

the years. This conductor evidentlylooked at the score and thought that itwas so simple, that he came totallyunprepared.

I don't even know if that's a seriousproblem now. The question you askwould be legitimate for most, but notfor me. There's nothing wrong withyour question. But half of my life wasspent being upset and concerned withthis problem. And now I think that ifMilton Babbitt could say, "Who cares if

8/3/2019 Gagne 1982 A

3/8

they listen," my feeling is, "Who caresif they play it."

Everything that I'm going to say in thisinterview is not something that just

came off the top of my head; it'ssomething that I've been thinkingabout and living with for years andyears and years. The problem now isthat all these things are evasivesubterfuges from sitting down andwriting that piece of music. I don'tthink it's now a time for performance,anyway. I think it's now a time forwork and reflection. I think it's time fora lot of young composers and a lot ofnot too young composers to perhapsalso stop composing.

For me, a bad artist is an insane artist.And I think there are too many loonieswriting music. And by loonies, I don'tmean "kinky avant-garde." I meanpeople who work comfortably, don'tworry, have no pressure. You know,they used to say that John Cage was adangerous influence; and although henever at all said, "Anything goes," Iwould say that there is an intellectualatmosphere around in which

considerably less "extreme" mindsthan John Cage feel that anythinggoes. And it shows in the music. It'sbad music because it's delusionary.

Q: Are you implying that certaincompositional styles are morepernicious than others?

FELDMAN: No. No, it's not a questionof styles. What's compositional style?That's a dangerous subject to begin

with altogether. The only style acomposer is allowed is his own. If hedoesn't have one, he should get out ofmusic.

I don't even think that this is an elitistpoint of view. If somebody's causing alot of trouble and confusion in hismental state as he's walking down thestreet, are you an elitist if perhapsyou suggest to the family that thisperson should be put away? Youknow, there was a fad some years ago

- it touched here, but it was very big

in England - a very classy character:Laing. Familiar with Laing? "Threecheers for schizophrenia! They're thenormal ones, and what is normal?"What's normal. I'll tell you what's

normal. Perhaps twenty-four peopleare going to be interviewed in yourbook, right? What's normal would be ifseventeen of them would stop writingmusic tomorrow. That's normal.

Q: Ten years ago, you declined ateaching position, saying that youridea of teaching wasn't what washappening in music departments. IsBuffalo a unique environment, or hasthere been a real change in academicattitudes toward music?

FELDMAN: I think it's almost acceptedat major universities that when theybring in major people, those peopleare to teach the way they feel it's bestto teach. And they establish a certainpolicy. But there is a problem inteaching composition. It reminds meof somebody I knew who was adamned good sculptor. At the time hedidn't have too much money and hetook a job teaching young people

sculpture. He spent all his time in justteaching them how to hold a torchand how to take care of theirmaterials.

The ideal student is the student whodoesn't have to be taught. All you cando is be sort of an instrumental coachwith important insights andsuggestions. The problem that I findwith teaching (and I would say thatthis probably holds true with anycreative field) is that when a youngcomposer has very little equipment,there is a fantastic vested interest inholding on to the little that he or shehas. They learn two steps, and theirconcerns are in doing an exhibitiondance with two steps.

Q: You've said that you use whichevernotational style that a particular workcalls for. But over the last ten years,your scores have been fully notated.

8/3/2019 Gagne 1982 A

4/8

FELDMAN: I have to interrupt youhere. A lot of people feel that they'renot notated enough. I read a review ofa score the other day: "Except for afew tenuto marks, not enough

information is given for performance."

Q: Doyou think you've been writingfully notated scores in recent years?

FELDMAN: Very few composers havethe gift to write a notation where thepiece really plays itself. Mahler had it.Maybe the expression helped. But ifyou're doing Haydn or Mozart: "Am Idoing this too dry? Am I doing that alittle too bright?" There are problems.

Q: Do musicians become indignantbecause they have to effacethemselves in order to play yourmusic?

FELDMAN: Everybody gets a little bitannoyed when they're involved withproblem solving, especially when theydon't know what the problem really isand they don't know if they've solvedit.

Q: Have you just defined yoursituation as a composer? Trying tosolve a problem without being surewhat the problem is?

FELDMAN: You're absolutely right. I'mmaking a parallel to how I work. I'minvolved with "problem solving," but Idon't know what the problem is. Inother words, a piece starts to develop,and problems arise. I don't begin withproblems; if you begin with a

problem , you'll solve it.

The piece is like an operation.Everything is going along OK, you're agood surgeon, and then problemshappen. Pneumonia sets in, or yousew up the trumpet in the belly of thepiece. All kinds of problems develop.

Q: In light of the range of problemsthat can arise, do you still feel thatyou'll use whichever notational style

that might be necessary?

FELDMAN: No. Notation is an aspect ofstyle. And I find that if you use acertain type of notation, it cannot helpbut develop into a certain style. Andthe style of my graph music was super

for the time it was written. At the timeI wrote it, I didn't know that it wasgoing to be style. Now the question is,should I continually work in that area,that notational style, and perfect itand bring it into high style? Which, ina sense, was what the post-aleatoricperiod did with aleatoric music; theybrought it into high style.

You have to understand that nomatter what you're going to do, italways leads to style. But precisenotation slows it down a little bit. Justenough. Like doing 55 on thehighway. It slows it down. And I likethat slowing down aspect. It's involvedmore with thought than ideas.

Q: Has this slowing down gone hand inhand with the increasing length ofyour pieces?

FELDMAN: I would say that the onewho best answered something like

this was Hemingway when he talkedabout the difference between typingand writing. I would say that the"chance" era was typing. Journalistic.Headlines. If you don't like the word"journalistic," then I would say prose.

I was talking to you about rugs before.What's interesting about a rug is thatthe whole rug culture was derivedfrom the technical limitation of whatkind of knots were being used. Or take

a look at that Jackson Pollock drawing;it's absolutely elegant. And I'm notsaying that there is anything wrongwith it when I say that part of itselegance is part of the technique ofhow it was made. He splattered theink on the page in the way that onlyhe could do, and no one since coulddo with such an eye and with suchelegance. But the technique of how hedid it developed the look or the styleof his work. That is what notation is tocomposition. How you notate

determines more about the piece than

8/3/2019 Gagne 1982 A

5/8

any kind of system using this or that.Of course, if you're into a certain typeof system, a certain type of traditionof how best to notate that systemdoes develop; that's true enough.

All I'm really saying, in a long-windedway, is that notation, at least for me,determines the style of the piece.

Q: Did the time you spent away fromprecise notation affect your use of itwhen you returned to it?

FELDMAN: I wouldn't say that what Iwas doing was not precise. It was asprecise as Pollock.

I never really "returned" to traditionalnotation. If you ever look at my list ofworks, I always alternated betweenone and the other.

Q: So you wouldn't think of the graphor free duration pieces as a hiatus?

FELDMAN: I saw it very, verydifferently. I saw it like somebodydoes a sculpture and then does a

painting. For me it was very clear-cutthat it was really another idiom withits own problems and its ownsolutions. One also didn't feed theother, or help the other.

But I did find things that I neverexpected. For example, I found thatmy most far-out notation repeatedhistorical cliches in performance morethan my precise notation. Precisenotation is myhandwriting. Myimprecise notation was a kind of

roving camera that caught up veryfamiliar images like a historical mirror.I don't want the mirror of history in mywork. I want it in my education, but Idon't want it in my work.

Q: Your work Rothko Chapel seems adefinite break with what you've earlierdescribed as your compositional aimof creating a minimum of contrast.

FELDMAN: It was a piece written for

an occasion, and I think it's one of

those pieces which I'll never writeagain. I felt that I had to writesomething that I thought wasappropriate. I enjoyed doing it.

There was a period - the RothkoChapel, The Viola in My Life, a fewother pieces - when I was thinking ofBob Rauschenberg's photo montages.At that time, I would use a tune justthe way Bob would put a photo on acanvas. But I now feel that in music itdoesn't work the same way.

Q: Throughout the '70s, your pieceshave been getting longer and longer.Had you wanted to write lengthy

pieces as far back as the '50s, butrefrained from doing so because youthought you wouldn't be able to getthem performed?

FELDMAN: No. There are two types oflong pieces that annoy me: the epic -the padded, portentious piece - andthe long process piece. I think mytendency now toward longer andlonger pieces is actually a tendencyaway from a piece geared forperformance. Psychologically it's not

geared for performance. I also feelthat my plunge into the longer andlonger pieces had a lot to do with thechange in my lifestyle.

The fact that I have more time tocompose now means that I'm askingmyself different questions. Also, whatdoes any artist do when he doesn'thave any problems? He looks for newones. What began to interest me waswhat might happen in a very, very

long piece in one movement.Stravinsky is the last greatmovement-form composer. Somethings do become outmoded, forwhatever reason; and I feel themovement form is outmoded.

So, as I go into that long piece, I comeup against very interesting problems.And the problems are not necessarilythe search for compositional solutionsor devices for continuity. When you'reworking on a very long piece, you

8/3/2019 Gagne 1982 A

6/8

eventually have to ask the question:"Are there new forms?"

You also have to develop your ownparaphernalia to hold it together,

rather than maintain the conventionalidea that what develops might hold apiece together. That's what I meantearlier by problem solving: To getthrough a big piece, you don't comewith any kind of prearranged schema;you just find ways to survive in thisbig piece. And the most importantsurvival kit is concentration.

Q: You mean your ability toconcentrate on the materials you're

working on?

FELDMAN: Just concentrate on notmaking the lazy move. For example,most composers are involved with thepotential of the materials, and theymilk it; and they milk it ingeniously.I'm involved in keeping the thinggoing, but not necessarily via itsimplications. So, if you're not going tobe involved with the implication ofyour material, how do you keep itgoing?

Q: Do you see a piece like your recentString Quartetas a challenge to othercomposers to write pieces that runlonger than one side of a record andstill sustain interest and maintainmusical invention?

FELDMAN: I can only attempt toanswer that question indirectly.Someone like Elliott Carter, forexample, would feel that the moment

is not important; it's the overallconstruction of the piece. I agree withhim on the overall construction of thepiece - I wouldn't agree with him onwhat he would think makes for thisoverall construction of the piece - but Ifeel that the moment, the rightness ofthe moment, even though it might notmake sense in terms of its cause andeffect, is very important. There's aremark of Giacometti: He said hewants to make his sculpture so that ifthe tiniest fragment was found, it

would be complete in itself in such a

way that one almost might be able toreconstruct it.

The piece that I'm writing now is apiece that is involved with fragments

of material; just the presentation offragments of material. There's noimplication of the material. But that'sanother story. I'm not interested inthe aspect of completing, or satisfyinga need to make what we think is thatterrific, integrated piece of music. Iagree with Kafka: We already knoweverything. So there's no need for meto finish the piece in terms ofanyone's expectations, which includemy own.

Q: You mean that there's no reasonfor you to put something in an archform because we know about archesalready?

FELDMAN: Most concepts of form thatone can articulate about appear to beinvolved with a series of chronologicalinsights that succeed in only arelatively short work. Most musicalforms are really only "short stories"which begin, develop, and end.

With the violin concerto I wroterecently (it's only an hour and a half),I wrote a "row for the moment." Ispent seven hours working on atwelve-tone row that I use only forthree measures of the piece. And thenthe piece goes on, and about tenpages later, I felt that what I wantedwas to have a little frame, and insidethe frame I wanted some beautifulsymmetry. Symmetry isn't my bag,

but I needed some beautifulsymmetry at that moment. I thenquote a row of Webern that is aprototype of perfect symmetry. (It's afamous row.) I just quote it, likesomeone will quote a tune; but I onlyquoted it for its symmetry. I also usedit as a kind of quasi-cadenza for thesoloist. And then I just went on withthe piece.

Then I had another idea. All right, I'mnot interested in symmetry, so I quote

Webern. I'm also not at all interested

8/3/2019 Gagne 1982 A

7/8

in intervallic relationships. But I feltthe piece needed some "intervalliclogic." So I quote another row ofWebern's. Actually, without thatmomentof symmetry, without that

other momentof lucid intervallicrelationships, the piece would havelost a lot. In other words, in writing along piece, I would make curiousmoves but only for the moment.Decisions that I would never think of,say, in composing a twenty-minutecomposition. You want a piece to belogical. Well, you're not going to sitdown and have a ten-course meal oflogic; you're satisfied with just an horsd'oeuvre, a little logical hors d'oeuvreserved to you by a famous waiter! You

want a piece to be beautiful. OK, givethem a moment of beauty - how muchmore do you need? So what happensin a long piece is that sooner or lateryou go through the whole parameterof possibilities, and everybody's goingto get something out of it, I'm sure.The form of a long piece is more like anovel - there's plenty of time foreverything.

In Rothko Chapel, I felt the piece

needed a tune, so instead of writing atune, I took a tune I wrote when I was15. That's the photograph aspect. Andeven Webern is a photograph: an old,torn photograph of intervalrelationships; an old, brown, dirtyphotograph of symmetry!

Q: All we've been able to read aboutyour studies with Stefan Wolpe wasthat the two of you argued all thetime.

FELDMAN: I'm very sorry about that;Stefan was hurt when he read that.We talked a lot - that's about all Ireally meant.

Wolpe got a very bad deal. I would saythat Wolpe's bad deal was very muchlike the relationship of Lger to theCubists. They would say, "What thehell is he? Is he a Cubist, isn't he aCubist?" And yet Lger was a fantasticpainter, and since there are many

more fantastic painters than there are

composers, he had his day in courtand he won his case. But if we had awhole bunch of intelligent peoplearound, they would realize, "Oh, yeah,Wolpe, yeah, Lger, yeah! He has this

special flavor, yeah, he doesn't haveto be like ..." Understand?

His string quartet's a very beautifulpiece. He had this genius for writingbeautiful music that wasn't beautiful -very hard to do. Like Lger.

Q: You've complained that in the lasttwenty-five years, there have been nocomposers who have really shook upanyone. Do you think that the music

of Steve Reich or Philip Glassrepresents a new trend? Is it toopopular with audiences to really shakethem up?

FELDMAN: In some ways the messageis a little shocking in the Reichphenomenon. And that's what makesit interesting. That's what I'minterested in; very strong alternatives.I'm already in my mid-fifties, I'msupposed to have a developedlanguage, and if you think I can sit

down and write a piece and not beworried about Steve Reich, John Cage,Pierre Boulez, and Xenakis, you'renuts. I worry about these people. Iworry about strong alternatives. Andsometimes, some people havesomething to worry about. Brahmshad something to worry about withWagner. It is a contest. And I don'tknow if most of your readers knowthis - I don't even know if the musiclovers at large know it - but Wagnerwon; Brahms lost. Of course, he didn'tlose if you're lying on a blanket inTanglewood and you hear the openingof his D Major Symphony. But he lost.He lost like Ted Kennedy lost, witheverybody cheering.

Q: A not uncommon critical reaction toyour music is, "It's a beautiful musicthat shows us no future." Does thatcomment mean anything to you? Areyou concerned with the future ofmusic in general, or of your music in

particular? Do you believe that other

8/3/2019 Gagne 1982 A

8/8

composers will learn from you andthat you'll thereby win, just as Wagnerwon?

FELDMAN: For any music's future, you

don't go to the devices, you don't goto the procedures, you go to theattitude. And you do not find your ownattitude; that's what you inherit. I'mnot my own man. I'm a compilation ofall the important people in my life. Ionce had a seven-hour conversationwith Boulez; unknown to him, itaffected my life. I admire his attitude.Varse's attitude. Wolpe's attitude.Cage's attitude. I spent one afternoonwith Beckett; it will be with meforever. Not his work; not hiscommitment; not his marvelous face,but his attitude.

Copyright 1982 Cole Gagne & TracyCaras