# Feldman String Quartet No. 2- Thoughts?



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

One movement. Six hours. I'm listening to it right now (four minutes in), and I'm wondering if anyone who has heard the piece could help me understand it more or tell me about it. Right now I actually find the music intriguing and almost beautiful. 

But, in general, I just want to know TC's thoughts on this piece.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Great music to listen to while watching that new caulk around your bathtub cure.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Great music to listen to while watching that new caulk around your bathtub cure.


Haha, well, there's one downvote. :lol:


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

But honestly, by the 13th minute I am quite liking. There actually some interesting ideas. I don't know why, but it's magical, almost, kind of drawing me in. Kind of like back when I listened to Young's The Well-Tuned Piano. I sat for hours, entranced by the ultra-minimalism.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

I don't know if I've heard Feldman's 2nd String Quartet, I've certainly heard some really long pieces of him, it may have been that one. All I can say is that I really enjoyed it and the time passed by pretty quickly. I appreciate Feldman's music a lot, even if I maybe don't totally understand it.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I was discussing Feldman over the weekend in the context of meditation techniques - not String Quartet 2, but the Piano and String Quartet. For me, listening to it is the closest I get to a meditative state, where I am focused on the present moment. I haven’t even found another Feldman piece that has the same effect - but I have not listened to that quartet.

And for the record, on a good day I can stay focused for a half hour. So I may never hear the entire six hours of the quartet.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Big fan of Feldman here. I'd not call his music minimalist, at least as that relates to the usual suspects (Glass, et. al.). His music can actually be pretty dense. The 2nd quartet is a very unusual piece, even for him. Personally, I like it very much. It's possible that you must approach Feldman with new ears; in other words, don't listen to Feldman the same way you'd listen to Bruckner, for example. The patient listener will be rewarded with multiple moments of rare beauty.

-09


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> But honestly, by the 13th minute I am quite liking. There actually some interesting ideas. I don't know why, but it's magical, almost, kind of drawing me in. Kind of like back when I listened to Young's The Well-Tuned Piano. I sat for hours, entranced by the ultra-minimalism.


The question really is not whether you like it after 13 minutes, but after 4 hours, and why it's the length it is. That's to say, what's the idea behind the music that made Feldman need such lengths.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> The question really is not whether you like it after 13 minutes, but after 4 hours, and why it's the length it is. That's to say, what's the idea behind the music that made Feldman need such lengths.


Why do certain painters use specific sizes of canvas?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Omicron9 said:


> Why do certain painters use specific sizes of canvas?


What's your point?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I actually find the music intriguing and almost beautiful.


It certainly is, on both counts. I've not actually listened to it all the way through yet, but in one/two-hour chunks; I'll get around to it one day, because I find Feldman's music very rewarding. One piece which I have listened to in one sitting, and several times at that, is _For Philip Guston_ which, although 2 hours shorter than SQ2, is still four hours long. I find it incredibly beautiful.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Omicron9 said:


> Why do certain painters use specific sizes of canvas?


I suppose the artsy answer would be: 'So there's enough room to accommodate the ideas.

I think perhaps it might also be more about large works gaining more attention.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> What's your point?


My point is that questioning the length of a composition is like questioning why a painter would use a canvas of a certain size. The artist uses the framework he/she chooses to fit the composition. No larger, no smaller.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> I suppose the artsy answer would be: 'So there's enough room to accommodate the ideas.
> 
> I think perhaps it might also be more about large works gaining more attention.


With all respect, I think I'd disagree with the large works gaining more attention aspect. E.g., this very Feldman piece under discussion. It seems that some have dismissed it without hearing it, due to it being four hours in length. I'd say just the opposite: a long piece has more opposition against it than shorter pieces.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Sorry, can't get through it. I like minimal ambient and drone music when it provides a non intrusive, interesting or soothing sonic background atmosphere. I suppose I'm expecting something from this music that isn't there, but without those qualities this kind of music just gets annoying to me.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Thank you, everybody, for the comments on this piece. Many of them were very helpful in understanding Feldman and this quartet specifically. I simply don't have the time to listen for six straight hours, so I am now roughly three hours and fifteen minutes in. I'll admit I am a bit bored by the piece currently, but the music is by no means bad or annoying.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I consider myself a Feldman fan, but I've never gone longer than the Guston Piece. I should seek out the quartet, but, my gosh, six hours, I can't sit down and do hardly anything for six hours straight.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I've never heard it. I have the first quartet which on my recording weighs in at over an hour and a quarter and I always found it an intriguing work but one which, for this listener at least, requires intense concentration - a virtue which sadly I don't always possess. If the second quartet is sparsely-textured in a similar fashion to the first then at six hours I can appreciate it being something of a transcendental experience for those who are not shackled by the prospect of how long it lasts - in my case I think it would challenge the will far too much.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

elgars ghost said:


> I've never heard it. I have the first quartet which on my recording weighs in at over an hour and a quarter and I always found it an intriguing work but one which, for this listener at least, requires intense concentration - a virtue which sadly I don't always possess. If the second quartet is sparsely-textured in a similar fashion to the first then at six hours I can appreciate it being something of a transcendental experience for those who are not shackled by the prospect of how long it lasts - in my case I think it would challenge the will far too much.


A suggestion: when I listen to this piece, and I do, I don't block out X hours to hear it straight thru in its entirety. I take it a disk at a time, or even less than that. My listening is spread out over several days. Which also allows for mental/emotional digestion and space. So, perhaps you try something like this wherein you don't hear it all in one sitting.

Just a thought.

--09


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Omicron9 said:


> A suggestion: when I listen to this piece, and I do, I don't block out X hours to hear it straight thru in its entirety. I take it a disk at a time, or even less than that. My listening is spread out over several days. Which also allows for mental/emotional digestion and space. So, perhaps you try something like this wherein you don't hear it all in one sitting.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> --09


Fair enough - I had it in my head that Feldman intended for it to be heard all in one go!


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Love it but I can only take 1 hr at a time.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

elgars ghost said:


> Fair enough - I had it in my head that Feldman intended for it to be heard all in one go!


Pretty sure he did


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Thank you, everybody, for the comments on this piece. Many of them were very helpful in understanding Feldman and this quartet specifically. I simply don't have the time to listen for six straight hours, so I am now roughly three hours and fifteen minutes in. I'll admit I am a bit bored by the piece currently, but the music is by no means bad or annoying.


Jesus Christ you're much better than I am.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

mathisdermaler said:


> Pretty sure he did


So the question is what is gained by listening to the whole thing.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Maybe he did, but he probably won't find out that we're not doing that.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Interesting harmonies and moods. But I think could condensed since he repeats his ideas, and the ideas could be combined.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Interesting harmonies and moods. But I think could condensed since he repeats his ideas, and the ideas could be combined.


Again, it's about the size of the canvas required by that artist for that painting. It's not ours to decide if a canvas is too large or too small. Of course we can decide that it's too long/big/extended for us, or it goes over our head, or is beyond our current understanding or grasp, but we can't say to the artist that we've decided he used too many notes or too many colors.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Aside: Pretty cool that we're even discussing this piece! And that the thread is into its second page. Nice work, Feldmaniacs.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> So the question is what is gained by listening to the whole thing.


I don't know, I never will! :lol:


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

I assume most people posting in this thread are familiar with the website, but in case some aren't, there are some very good texts about SQ2 here:
http://www.cnvill.net/mftexts.htm

Specifically the interview with the FLUX Quartet is very illuminating:
http://www.cnvill.net/mfdohoney.pdf


----------



## Timothy (Jul 19, 2017)

It's a great piece to have in your life, absolutely perfect!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

With Feldman, I find that his music requires careful, focussed listening, at least to start with, because that's the nature of it. You hear one note, and think that it might be a tonal center. Then, the next note comes and changes that expectation. So you continue in this way, with expectations being established, then just as quickly vanishing. As Ken OC said, it is rather like watching paint dry, or some process which is constantly vanishing into thin air.

As to the length, I think Feldman chose to make it 6 hours long to demonstrate that this process really has no beginning or end. It is a process which takes place in "the now," which is always present. The idea of a prescribed length becomes irrelevant, and the piece's length realizes this idea in a most concrete way.

This reveals that Feldman, like Cage, was interested in consciousness itself, and an awareness of "now" and the present moment. Thus, the music is not so much an 'objective statement' of any sort, but rather a process which reveals to us the nature of 'being in the now' and listening with awareness.

Like Cage, Feldman has reversed the roles of "objective art object" vs. "subjective experience," and has chosen to concentrate and reveal the _subjective_ aspect of the musical listening experience, rather than the normal Western idea of listening to an external piece of music as being "objective;" with all the accompanying revelations this new approach brings.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

First let me make it clear that I've only heard the first half hour of this piece, as far as I remember. If I ever did listen to more then it's so long ago I've forgotten. I've never seen it performed.

The question I'd like to ask the Feldman experts here is whether there's a structure to the music. How are the musical events related to each other in short, medium and long terms?

In any performance there must a strong element of _circus_ - how will the four players manage this physical endurance test? It's a bit like watching weight lifting. The composer as torturer. This must have been part of what Feldman wanted to create I suppose.

Someone once said to me that Feldman's objectives were to explore time and the perception of time. However they were unable to make their point any clearer than that - I wonder if there's any truth in the idea.

Journalistic reviews of the first few performances of Feldnan's extreme long form pieces talked about how the listener's state of mind changed over the duration - that at the end they were having hallucinations like in an acid trip. I wonder whether there's any truth in this - but listening for so 
long will have an effect on your mind I'm sure, like an EST seminar maybe.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I not sure composers write music to make points, do they? I think it is more about creating an experience for an audience. So the answer to questions about the piece (and other long Feldman pieces) can only be answered by listening to it a few times and asking yourself what the experience was like. I haven't heard this quartet but have spent the four hours needed for "For Philip Guston" on a couple of occasions. The experience of _*length *_itself is similar to the experience of listening to (without watching) one of Wagner's Ring operas but, of course, you don't get the emotional roller coaster ride. Once into the piece it is not easy to stop because it is rather hypnotic and events, although sparsely distributed, do seem to mean something. What? Can one ever answer that question about a pure piece of music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

_For Philip Guston _ refers to an artist, like _For Samuel Beckett_ refers to a writer. In the latter case, I bet that there's a connection between the meaning of the music and the meaning of Samuel Beckett's works. What else could explain the emotions which Feldman chooses to evoke? In the former case, I'm less sure.

Feldman denied that he wanted his music to be expressive. I think it is often very expressive, at least the Persian Rug style.

String Quartet Number 2 has a less interesting title!

Who could deny that _Pianio Violin Viola Cello _has something to do with Feldman's perception of his own death? Even if we didn't know it was his last work.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> The experience of _*length *_itself is similar to the experience of listening to (without watching) one of Wagner's Ring operas but, of course, you don't get the emotional roller coaster ride.


 In Parsifal there are recurrences of major components -- the Grail scenes in Act 1 and Act 3, the extended Guernemanze narrative in Act 1 and Act 2 -- the opera is symmetrical.

Is there anything like this in the later Feldman? That's what I want to know.

In terms of elapsed time Wagner broke up his operas into acts, days etc. And


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I think it's rather unusual that there is an extensive discussion on a work where some posters have either not heard it or have heard only part of it. The dirty little secret may be that relatively few listen to the entire 5-6 hours. Actually, perfectly understandable.

I listened to a few minutes. It seems that some of the work is playing a given phrase over and over, varying the pitch and tempo each time. I have no idea what the attraction of a work like this would be. However, it occurs to me -and I'm being serious- that it perhaps could serve as a background for meditation.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> I think it's rather unusual that there is an extensive discussion on a work where some posters have either not heard it or have heard only part of it. The dirty little secret may be that relatively few listen to the entire 5-6 hours. Actually, perfectly understandable.


This is why I want to get clearer about form. If the piece has a long range structure, then there's a good reason to listen for longer. If not, it's not obvious that there is. The reason there is so much interest from me is a sense of complete bafflement about what Feldman was trying to achieve. And a sense also that what he does is rather beautiful, exciting and deep even.

I don't know if it's helpful to say it makes a good piece for meditation without saying what you mean by meditation. I used to practise tantra and I can assure you that Feldman is not much use there!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> This is why I want to get clearer about form. If the piece has a long range structure, then there's a good reason to listen for longer. If not, it's not obvious that there is. The reason there is so much interest from me is a sense of complete bafflement about what Feldman was trying to achieve. And a sense also that what he does is rather beautiful, exciting and deep even.
> 
> I don't know if it's helpful to say it makes a good piece for meditation without saying what you mean by meditation. I used to practise tantra and I can assure you that Feldman is not much use there!


I'm only familiar with basic TM. Perhaps a work like this could replace concentrating on a mantra. Just a thought, could be a stretch.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Feldman uses pitches in isolation, which is important. One note is perceived as a center. Then another note emerges and the perception of a center changes, depending on what note it is. We also remember pitches after they have gone, and these short-term rememberances become another influence.
It seems to me that Feldman's goal is to make a commentary on "being." He's playing with the same basic elements of perception that we all use when listening to music: memory, succession of events, change as it progresses in time.

I don't think it would make very good dance music; maybe you could do Tai Chi to it.

My guess is that there is no long-range structure to perceive; this is music for moment-to-moment listening. I don't think it was designed for meditation, at least not in that "TM" or Buddhistic sense. This is music for contemplation, which is different from meditation; I think Feldman expected us to listen with awareness, not "zone out." This music is more connected with Existentialism than with meditation. It's "thinking" music, in a way. The end result would be some sort of existential awareness of your own consciousness, not a transcendence of it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Feldman uses pitches in isolation, which is important. One note is perceived as a center. Then another note emerges and the perception of a center changes, depending on what note it is. We also remember pitches after they have gone, and these short-term rememberances become another influence.
> It seems to me that Feldman's goal is to make a commentary on "being." He's playing with the same basic elements of perception that we all use when listening to music: memory, succession of events, change as it progresses in time.
> 
> I don't think it would make very good dance music; maybe you could do Tai Chi to it.
> ...


Does a composer determine how or why his/her works are listened to? Anyway, I never suggested that Feldman intended this work for something like meditation. I'm not sure he intended it the way you describe. I'm not certain he had any intention at all.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Does a composer determine how or why his/her works are listened to? Anyway, I never suggested that Feldman intended this work for something like meditation. I'm not sure he intended it the way you describe. I'm not certain he had any intention at all.


I'll not make that claim; I respect Feldman as an artist of substance, and that means his music has an intention. Yes, I think that Feldman constructed his music with a very acute awareness of its effect on the listener.

His work should not be viewed as 'purposeless' or nihilistic, which is what your reply suggests. Are you pro or con, or just contradicting me? I can't tell.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I heard about a guy who listened to it on DVD, and they found him six hours later passed-out on his living room floor!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> I listened to a few minutes. It seems that some of the work is playing a given phrase over and over, varying the pitch and tempo each time. I have no idea what the attraction of a work like this would be.


Hmm...that sounds like a "con" to me. The YouTube link also provides plenty of negative comments from those unsympathetic to this Feldman work.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm...that sounds like a "con" to me. The YouTube link also provides plenty of negative comments from those unsympathetic to this Feldman work.


Yes, overall, it is in my 'con' column. I gave it a try because the concept of a 6 hour quartet was foreign to me. I must admit that if I hadn't known from the title, I wouldn't had been able to tell it was a quartet. My guess is that those who listen to something like this are looking for something far different than from any 'traditional' CM work, particularly if they are listening to it for hours. So, I was hypothesizing on the meditation (or something like it) angle as one possibility.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

There are other Feldman recordings available which better demonstrate the composer's appeal, for me, anyway. On MODE, these would be "Indeterminate Music," "The Graphic Scores," and "Composing by Numbers."

View attachment 125827


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Yes, overall, it is in my 'con' column. I gave it a try because the concept of a 6 hour quartet was foreign to me. I must admit that if I hadn't known from the title, I wouldn't had been able to tell it was a quartet. My guess is that those who listen to something like this are looking for something far different than from any 'traditional' CM work, particularly if they are listening to it for hours. So, I was hypothesizing on the meditation (or something like it) angle as one possibility.


It's a disorienting experience. In my view, Feldman and Young took the ethos of the early minimalists to its breaking point. It would be interesting to see whether Feldman meant for listeners to "endure" the whole seven hours. (The last time I heard the piece, I spread listening out over a week.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

This is not typical of Feldman's work. Most of his pieces are very short.



Portamento said:


> It's a disorienting experience. In my view, Feldman and Young took the ethos of the early minimalists to its breaking point. It would be interesting to see whether Feldman meant for listeners to "endure" the whole seven hours. (The last time I heard the piece, I spread listening out over a week.)


He expected the string quartet to play it, so why wouldn't he expect an audience to "endure" it (your words, not mine.) To the contrary, the more "disorienting" it makes you, Portamento, I say the better!

This thread, unlike most "composer guestbooks" are intended, is turning in to a subtle put-down of Morton Feldman by focussing on one of his more "notorious" works.

Let's keep it light, keep it positive, and avoid posting while 'disoriented' or distracted. If I can 'keep it together' for six hours, why can't you? :lol:

_"Oh, dear! I seem to have lost my bearings! I'm so disoriented, and I can't find any long-term structure! What does it all mean? It's got to have some sort of meaning or I'll...I'll...I think I might faint!"

"Here, my dear, sniff these smelling salts. I'll put my hand on your breast to keep you warm. You know, delicate little flowers like you are not built for such modernist excursions!"_


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> This is not typical of Feldman's work. Most of his pieces are very short. He expected the string quartet to play it, so why wouldn't he expect an audience to "endure" it (your words, not mine.) To the contrary, the more "disorienting" it makes you, Portamento, I say the better!
> 
> This thread, unlike most "composer guestbooks" are intended, is turning in to a subtle put-down of Morton Feldman by focussing on one of his more "notorious" works.
> 
> Let's keep it light, keep it positive, and avoid posting while 'disoriented' or distracted. If I can 'keep it together' for six hours, why can't you? :lol:


Would you like us to send you our posts before we actually post them so you can vet them.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I cannot listen to it entirely actively because of its considerable length. I can enjoy it in the background while doing other things. There’s space in it and yet it’s not exactly what I would call meditative, but it does have an ambient quality that can be quite stimulating and refreshing. But sitting in a chair for six hours while doing nothing else—I don’t think so... It could be done if one had hours to devote and one wanted to but I am not suited that way and it does not represent the true state of meditation, in my opinion, which is based on silence, but is more of an in-between state that’s between being consciously awake and a meditative state which, again, would be represented by absolute silence. I believe it might have represented true meditation for Feldman.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> This is not typical of Feldman's work. Most of his pieces are very short.
> 
> He expected the string quartet to play it, so why wouldn't he expect an audience to "endure" it (your words, not mine.) To the contrary, the more "disorienting" it makes you, Portamento, I say the better!
> 
> ...


Many many Feldman pieces explore extreme long form.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> In Parsifal there are recurrences of major components -- the Grail scenes in Act 1 and Act 3, the extended Guernemanze narrative in Act 1 and Act 2 -- the opera is symmetrical.
> 
> Is there anything like this in the later Feldman? That's what I want to know.
> 
> In terms of elapsed time Wagner broke up his operas into acts, days etc. And


I've not discerned a structure in the long Feldman pieces that I have heard - doesn't mean they aren't there - and am not even sure if what I hear "develop" over time is in me or the music.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Feldman uses pitches in isolation, which is important. One note is perceived as a center. Then another note emerges and the perception of a center changes, depending on what note it is. We also remember pitches after they have gone, and these short-term rememberances become another influence.
> It seems to me that Feldman's goal is to make a commentary on "being." He's playing with the same basic elements of perception that we all use when listening to music: memory, succession of events, change as it progresses in time.
> 
> I don't think it would make very good dance music; maybe you could do Tai Chi to it.
> ...


Exactly my experience. To be honest, I am rarely able to hold focus through one of his 80+ minute works, sometimes not even 30 minutes, but even listening for that length of time (frequently through headphones, in a comfortable chair with my eyes closed), can create an intense relationship between me and the music, which differs from the experience I have with any other composer.

I would just add that I have this experiences with his later works. I have not listened very much to his earlier works, but when I have, my reaction was not the same.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Let's keep it light, keep it positive, and avoid posting while 'disoriented' or distracted. If I can 'keep it together' for six hours, why can't you? :lol:


My post was not a "subtle put-down" at all! I love many pieces that I call 'disorienting.' I'm not an opera listener, but six hours is still a lot to ask.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I am attracted to the work because of its extreme length. I listen to it with razor-sharp focus for six hours straight, sometimes consecutively.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Many many Feldman pieces explore extreme long form.


Yes, his later works after 1977. It's not typical of early Feldman, though.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Anyone listening to the performance of Cage's As Long As Possible, the one which lasts for 600 years?

https://universes.art/en/specials/john-cage-organ-project-halberstadt/video


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ast-639-years/2011/11/21/gIQAWrdXiN_blog.html

I'm waiting to buy the 59,568,800-CD set, with deluxe booklet. It will also be available on DVD and Blu-Ray as a 11, 913,760-disc set.


----------

