# Help me listen to Morton Feldman's Second String Quartet!



## Albert7

I am working on listening to Morton Feldman's Second String Quartet and find it very difficult listening. The Flux Quartet is incredible but sustaining my short-term attention span makes this challenging.

Any tips on listening to this wonderful masterwork?


----------



## Whistler Fred

It may go against the general rules, but why not listen to it a section at a time, like you would read a chapter or two of a long book without needing to finish it all in one sitting. Feldman would acknowledge during the concerts for his late works that an audience may not have the ability to stay for a 2 1/2 hour piece and didn't object to people leaving during the music as long as they didn't disturb the other listeners (this is documented in his book "Give my Regards to Eighth Street").


----------



## Blake

I usually go about it an hour at a time. Feldman is my man, but six hours straight of anything may cause cancer. He requires a different kind of listening. More of an open embrace than a pointed focus.


----------



## Mandryka

Does anyone know why Feldman wrote such a quartet, which on the surface seems like a really self indulgent stream of consciousnesss? Does he think that the expreience of listening to it is transformative, like a long Zen medition? At the end of the six hours are we supposed to be closer to enlightenment? 

Is there a plan? Or is the idea that there's no plan? I wonder how he decided that the music was over? 

I just let myself wallow in bits of the music, half an hour at a time max. Six hours is a long time even for a Buddhist meditiation - you've got to limber up, maybe you'll never make it.


----------



## arpeggio

albertfallickwang said:


> I am working on listening to Morton Feldman's Second String Quartet and find it very difficult listening. The Flux Quartet is incredible but sustaining my short-term attention span makes this challenging.
> 
> Any tips on listening to this wonderful masterwork?


This is an issue that keeps coming up all the time in these forums.

The bottom line is that other than repeated hearings there is nothing that anyone can say that will make you like a piece of music. I did not get Schoenberg until I was in my fifties. Why? I don't know. I still do not get Stockhausen. Or Verdi.

If after a few hearings if you don't get it just move on. No matter how great a piece is there is no guarantee that you are going to like it. I have run in people around here who do not get Mozart. Why? Your guess is as good as mine.

Maybe a few years from now you will pull the recording off the shelve and eureka you will get it.


----------



## GioCar

Vesuvius said:


> I usually go about it an hour at a time. Feldman is my man, but six hours straight of anything may cause cancer. *He requires a different kind of listening. More of an open embrace than a pointed focus*.


I second this, although it should not be confused with a sort of background listening. "Open embrace" gives the right idea if you pair it with a deep concentration on the music flow. 
You should not look for musical structures or correlate differents parts of the work, just concentrate on the music (I'd say on the "sounds") as if it every musical instant has a per se reason of being, without a past or a future. And, as already said, no reason to listen to it till the end, just take some parts when you feel to.
Feldman's music has no beginning and no end (and this is also why he made it so long...).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

The longest piece I listened to by Feldman was "For Philip Guston" which is I think over four and a half hours long. I took two breaks for about half an hour each. Prior to this piece I warmed up to his style (especially his later works) by listening to his relatively shorter works which last for around an hour to and hour and a half. This may be a good approach.


----------



## Guest

I listened to the entire LICHT cycle (29 hours) in 4 days a couple weeks ago, and I broke it all up into acts and scenes. Makes sense to me, objections be damned


----------



## Mandryka

arpeggio said:


> This is an issue that keeps coming up all the time in these forums.
> 
> The bottom line is that other than repeated hearings there is nothing that anyone can say that will make you like a piece of music. I did not get Schoenberg until I was in my fifties. Why? I don't know. I still do not get Stockhausen. Or Verdi.
> 
> If after a few hearings if you don't get it just move on. No matter how great a piece is there is no guarantee that you are going to like it. I have run in people around here who do not get Mozart. Why? Your guess is as good as mine.
> 
> Maybe a few years from now you will pull the recording off the shelve and eureka you will get it.


 The thing about the second quartet is that, because of its length, it may not be possible, humanly possible, to hear it in one sitting, hearing it in multiple sittings may well compromise any coherence. Unlike Licht or History of Photography in Sound or For Philip Guston, it's not broken up into sections as far as I know.


----------



## Albert7

Mandryka said:


> The thing about the second quartet is that, because of its length, it may not be possible, humanly possible, to hear it in one sitting, hearing it in multiple sittings may well compromise any coherence. Unlike Licht or History of Photography in Sound or For Philip Guston, it's not broken up into sections as far as I know.


Considering that the Flux Quartet performed it in one take without any breaks, I think that I will attempt to listen to this in one shot. I will take a weekend off just to meditate on this


----------



## Mandryka

But what's the point? You're going to enter into this magical world of Feldman for six hours and then . . . Are you going to come out any closer to enlightenment? 

Smacks of California cults to me.


----------



## Blake

albertfallickwang said:


> Considering that the Flux Quartet performed it in one take without any breaks, I think that I will attempt to listen to this in one shot. I will take a weekend off just to meditate on this


You're an oak if you do. I did it in a few hours at a time about a week ago. I really adore the music, and if you have the time to get the whole thing at once, then go for it.

Not to sound cliche', but Feldman's music has taken me to levels of listening that I wasn't aware of before. You get lost and lose track of time. And at the end you think, "Wow, what was that?"


----------



## Blake

Mandryka said:


> But what's the point? You're going to enter into this magical world of Feldman for six hours and then . . . Are you going to come out any closer to enlightenment?
> 
> Smacks of California cults to me.


You see, don't form a double-standard here. What's the point of anything else you do? You're tracking on these ridiculous concepts of "enlightenment". It's just a wildly different way of experiencing music.


----------



## ptr

Put the kids to bed, send the spouse to girls night, do Your loo needs, fill aa glass of a slow drink, light a candle sit down in a comfy chair, close Your eys and play the whole six hours in one sitting, it is quite rewarding. The whole thing about listening to a piece of music for its complete duration and especially if its long, will force You in to a mindset that "hopefully" let You transcend the boundaries of experiencing this music. The thing is, the first half hour is the most difficult (persevere), after that the following hours is easy to get through!

/ptr


----------



## Triplets

albertfallickwang said:


> I am working on listening to Morton Feldman's Second String Quartet and find it very difficult listening. The Flux Quartet is incredible but sustaining my short-term attention span makes this challenging.
> 
> Any tips on listening to this wonderful masterwork?


Book a Hotel room for a weekend, unplug the TV, take about 6 Qualudes, and emerge Monday and let us know how it went.


----------



## Mandryka

Can I try another way into this thread? I notice that the Flux recording is divided into 27 tracks. What do the Feldman fans think are the best tracks? A sort of highlights selection of the the second quartet.


----------



## Albert7

Mandryka said:


> Can I try another way into this thread? I notice that the Flux recording is divided into 27 tracks. What do the Feldman fans think are the best tracks? A sort of highlights selection of the the second quartet.


I have to present this quartet at a music group next year so I am unsure how to approach this.


----------



## Mandryka

One track I really like is pages 20-24, and another (very different one) is 59-63

Has anyone tried the other recording, the Ives Ensemble? One way into the music may be to compare.

One thing I feel is that it's not really a string quartet. You know, when you listen you don't think about how the cello and the violins are responding to each other, that sort of thing. It's just a sort of continuous unstructured string-sound stream.


----------



## Albert7

I have made a final decision to listen to this string quartet later on this weekend on my iPod classic and headphones so that I can do one take without changing CD's. I had to re-rip the CD's into Apple Lossless files for maximal quality.


----------



## Mandryka

Vesuvius said:


> You see, don't form a double-standard here. What's the point of anything else you do? You're tracking on these ridiculous concepts of "enlightenment". It's just a wildly different way of experiencing music.


As far as I know, Feldman explains very little about his music, about what the point of it is. I know that he said that the music for Philip Guston is partly autobiographical, with references to events in his life coded in. But that's about all I can find.

Part of the reason I was focusing on enlightenment is that Cage was interested in that type of idea. Some of the abstract expressionist painters too -- Rothko for example. Rothko thought that the Seagram murals were an aid to moving into an altered "higher" state of mind. I guess at the back of my mind is the hypothesis that Feldman had similar aspirations for his extreme long form music.


----------



## Blake

Mandryka said:


> As far as I know, Feldman explains very little about his music, about what the point of it is. I know that he said that the music for Philip Guston is partly autobiographical, with references to events in his life coded in. But that's about all I can find.
> 
> Part of the reason I was focusing on enlightenment is that Cage was interested in that type of idea. Some of the abstract expressionist painters too -- Rothko for example. Rothko thought that the Seagram murals were an aid to moving into an altered "higher" state of mind. I guess at the back of my mind is the hypothesis that Feldman had similar aspirations for his extreme long form music.


From what I've understood about Feldman, he seems to have been very matter-of-fact. Although his music can come off as being abstract, he didn't appear to be engaged in mystical philosophies. Nothing wrong with the journey of "enlightenment," but I wouldn't use that as a precursor for judging music. Then again, it can be seen as a sort of "awakening" to new expressions of music.

When I think of mystical composers, Scelsi would be a prime example. But I've never heard Feldman express these ideas as catalyst for his music. His ideas seemed driven by the ideology - sounds are beautiful, and I want to explore them.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Vesuvius said:


> From what I've understood about Feldman, he seems to have been very matter-of-fact. Although his music can come off as being abstract, he didn't appear to be engaged in mystical philosophies. Nothing wrong with the journey of "enlightenment," but I wouldn't use that as a precursor for judging music. Then again, it can be seen as a sort of "awakening" to new expressions of music.


Hey Vesuvius: you have often hinted at an interest in Buddhism/meditation/spirituality in your posts. I just have a little question for you on a different piece of music. What do you think of Ives's Unanswered Question? The great Zen koan: "Does a dog have a Buddha nature?" has the answer "mu" meaning negation of the question. Do you think that Ives was hinting at that, and do you think he succeeded musically or missed the mark? Have you become comfortable yourself in your practice with being at ease with just being with the question, and not with the answer?


----------



## Blake

SeptimalTritone said:


> Hey Vesuvius: you have often hinted at an interest in Buddhism/meditation/spirituality in your posts. I just have a little question for you on a different piece of music. What do you think of Ives's Unanswered Question? The great Zen koan: "Does a dog have a Buddha nature?" has the answer "mu" meaning negation of the question. Do you think that Ives was hinting at that, and do you think he succeeded musically or missed the mark? Have you become comfortable yourself in your practice with being at ease with just being with the question, and not with the answer?


Shamefully, I haven't heard the piece. Thanks for mentioning it, as I certainly will.

I'm often intrigued by ancient eastern philosophies. I find the unknown to be infinitely more exciting than the known... as the known is only a limitation in the unknown. Once I feel I truly know something, it's pretty much nonexistent to me. Because the question and the answer have merged and cancelled each other out. To me, life is one big question. And once you make your very existence the question... so comes the answer, canceling each other out and leading you to oblivion.

Look at this, getting all mystical and confusing myself now.


----------



## Mandryka

This article by Alex Ross on Feldman touches on the intentions of the composer -- quite an interesting if enigmatic article I think

http://www.therestisnoise.com/2006/06/morton_feldman_.html


----------



## Manxfeeder

Vesuvius said:


> I'm often intrigued by ancient eastern philosophies. I find the unknown to be infinitely more exciting than the known... as the known is only a limitation in the unknown.


I've just started on a similar path. I've always studied Christianity as a quest for truth, but I've just discovered the apophatic, the parts of God that can't be spoken of. Maybe that's why I'm attracted to Morton Feldman; it's more about being than becoming.


----------



## Albert7

Due to unforeseen delays, I plan to listen to this on Tuesday when I can have all day to focus on the string quartet without distraction.


----------



## Blake

Manxfeeder said:


> I've just started on a similar path. I've always studied Christianity as a quest for truth, but I've just discovered the apophatic, the parts of God that can't be spoken of. Maybe that's why I'm attracted to Morton Feldman; it's more about being than becoming.


Reminds me of a great Sufi story I read recently:

A king was having his yearly banquet, and all his servants had everything ready with a seat reserved just for the king. A raggedly looking sufi mystic walks over and sits in the king's chair. The chief minister runs over to the sufi...

Chief Minister - How dare you sit in that chair reserved for the king. Are you an important minister?
Sufi - No, I am not an important minister, I am more than that.
Chief Minister - Are you a king?
Sufi - No, I am not a king. I am more than that.
Chief Minister - Are you the prophet?
Sufi: No, I am not the prophet. I am more than that.
Chief Minister - Are you God?
Sufi - No, I am not God. I am more than that.
Chief Minister (horrified) - How can you say that? There is nothing more than God.
Sufi - I am that "Nothing".


----------



## Mandryka

One thing that didn't come up in this discussion is whether the Flux recording is a good one. I've just got the other one, from the Ives Ensemble, and already one difference is obvious - the Ives take only four CDs. The tempos are considerably more lively than the Flux. It could just be that the OP's difficulty getting to grips with the music (and mine) come from the sluggish way the Flux play it.

There's another thing - the Flux sound is more conventionally beautiful. Remember the way Cage criticised Feldman for writing beautiful music. That could be a real problem with Flux - 6 hours of sweet beauty sounds a bit tiresome.

Generally I have a theory that Feldman performances are tending to get slower, with more emphasis on beauty of sound and smoothness. Not just here in the second quartet but also - well just listen to how Roger Woodward played Triadic Memories compared with Sabine Liebner's recent recording. Anyway I thought I'd sound this theory out to see if people think there's anything in it.


----------



## Blake

Mandryka said:


> One thing that didn't come up in this discussion is whether the Flux recording is a good one. I've just got the other one, from the Ives Ensemble, and already one difference is obvious - the Ives take only four CDs. The tempos are considerably more lively than the Flux. It could just be that the OP's difficulty getting to grips with the music (and mine) come from the sluggish way the Flux play it.
> 
> There's another thing - the Flux sound is more conventionally beautiful. Remember the way Cage criticised Feldman for writing beautiful music. That could be a real problem with Flux - 6 hours of sweet beauty sounds a bit tiresome.
> 
> Generally I have a theory that Feldman performances are tending to get slower, with more emphasis on beauty of sound and smoothness. Not just here in the second quartet but also - well just listen to how Roger Woodward played Triadic Memories compared with Sabine Liebner's recent recording. Anyway I thought I'd sound this theory out to see if people think there's anything in it.


See, with Feldman, the utmost delicacy goes to sound. Which is why his music comes across both intimate and titanic. As the big guy said, "don't push the sounds around." It's also said that he got pretty pissed off during one of the performances of his work, saying "it's too damn fast, and too damn loud!" I think the FLUX do a superb job in keeping his ideology in mind.

I haven't heard the Ive's, but if the tempos are considerably faster and louder... I don't know if that would work for me.


----------



## Albert7

Right now I am at the public library listening to the whole thing in one shot in Apple Lossless on an old iPhone 3GS. So far it is fascinating! Plus I have most of the day to listen to this hidden masterpiece.


----------



## Blake

albertfallickwang said:


> Right now I am at the public library listening to the whole thing in one shot in Apple Lossless on an old iPhone 3GS. So far it is fascinating! Plus I have most of the day to listen to this hidden masterpiece.


Enjoy. It'll challenge your perspective, but hold on. Ride the wave.


----------



## Albert7

Right now on disc 3.


----------



## Albert7

All done just a few minutes ago. Only two bathroom breaks! What an experience!


----------



## Blake

Hey, great, you made it! Pretty sweet, eh?


----------



## Albert7

Vesuvius said:


> Hey, great, you made it! Pretty sweet, eh?


Yeah total silence tonight as I really need a break from listening to music.


----------



## Mandryka

albertfallickwang said:


> All done just a few minutes ago. Only two bathroom breaks! What an experience!


What were the best bits?


----------



## Albert7

Mandryka said:


> What were the best bits?


Discs 3 and 5 were the highlights for me. You could hear the labored breathing of the players as they were involved in the piece heavily. The finality was very moving as the piece trailed off.


----------



## Whistler Fred

Vesuvius said:


> See, with Feldman, the utmost delicacy goes to sound. Which is why his music comes across both intimate and titanic. As the big guy said, "don't push the sounds around." It's also said that he got pretty pissed off during one of the performances of his work, saying "it's too damn fast, and too damn loud!" I think the FLUX do a superb job in keeping his ideology in mind.
> 
> I haven't heard the Ive's, but if the tempos are considerably faster and louder... I don't know if that would work for me.


I've heard both. My initial impression was that the Flux Quartet was more gentle and expressive, the Ives more cerebral and otherworldly. I'll have to spend more time - incrementally - with both before deciding which works best for me.


----------



## Albert7

Unfortunately the Ives Quartet version is hard to find and no downloading from iTunes... so why is their version almost an hour shorter than that of the Flux Quartet?


----------



## Mandryka

albertfallickwang said:


> Unfortunately the Ives Quartet version is hard to find and no downloading from iTunes... so why is their version almost an hour shorter than that of the Flux Quartet?


I'll put the Ives Ensemble recording on symphonyshare if that's any use to you - let me know.


----------



## Albert7

Mandryka said:


> I'll put the Ives Ensemble recording on symphonyshare if that's any use to you - let me know.


I just joined the group so please post the recording up there. Thanks!


----------



## Albert7

Mandryka said:


> I'll put the Ives Ensemble recording on symphonyshare if that's any use to you - let me know.


Got the files but the fourth part is corrupted and ends at 11 seconds. Could you re-upload it? Thanks.


----------



## GioCar

albertfallickwang said:


> Unfortunately the Ives Quartet version is hard to find and no downloading from iTunes... so *why is their version almost an hour shorter than that of the Flux Quartet*?


Because they took less repeats than the Flux (repeats are anyway _ad libitum,_ as in most of Feldman's work). 
Moreover, the metronome indication is a bit vague.
Feldman himself specifies on the score that the duration of the performance should be roughly between 3.5 and 6 hours.


----------



## Mandryka

I wonder what considerations a musician brings to bear when deciding whether to take a repeat in this quartet?. I wonder whether the Flux make the repeats interesting, different. Or whether they just . . . play it again. Same old same old. 

I play Ives more than Flux, but for no good reason that I can articulate yet.


----------



## Blake

GioCar said:


> Feldman himself specifies on the score that the duration of the performance should be roughly between 3.5 and 6 hours.


Haha. So when should this piece end, Mo? Ah, somewhere between now and christmas... give or take.

But yea, I think he was accounting for the spontaneity of the moment.


----------



## differencetone

He is my favorite composer. I suggest you go on a hike with earbuds on. That will get you through it. It was hilarious in the radio conversations between Morton Feldman and John Cage, Cage was remarking on how music pieces are getting longer. He (John Cage) said " And now we can sit through a 6 hour concert easily." Ha! Maybe Cage and Feldman could do that, not I.


----------



## Albert7

Now I will have to work on getting to listening to Feldman's String Quartet 1.


----------



## millionrainbows

I used to have the multi-disc set (found it used, cheap), and then I ordered the DVD, which is hi-rez and uninterrupted.

With Feldman, I would not use the term "enlightenment," as I see no specific or "spiritual" Eastern influence; just influence from John Cage and being in New York. He knew painters like Rothko, so his aesthetic is more tied to literary elements, mainly Existentialism, Giocometti, Schopenhauer, and Samuel Beckett. Schopenhauer's philosophy was once described as a "depressed Buddhism." This music is of the mind; it cannot move beyond this realm; it is simply sound. We are probably going to try to find meaning in it. Is the meaning there, in the music, put there by Feldman? Or does the meaning get put there by us? Is there meaning?

I see the sheer length of the quartet as a statement in absurdity, nothing more. Just sit there and listen, search for themes, melodies, meanings, possible connections, root stations, sonorities, and see if you find any. You are waiting for meaning, for answers. Are there any answers? Maybe. I found some meaning. Did you?


----------



## Blake

Sometimes the best experiences are when you're not hunting for meaning. Just be in the experience.


----------



## Albert7

Blake said:


> Sometimes the best experiences are when you're not hunting for meaning. Just be in the experience.


I can second that as my Zen-like meditation when I got a chance to hear it in full at the public library.


----------



## PetrB

This recalls to me that rather odd thread, "Help me to like Mozart." LOL.

One of the better responses there was, basically, "No."

I.e, with something like the Feldman, if it appeals at all yet you have some difficulty in 'attending,' the piece (and you) will both take your (and its) own sweet time -- via repeated listenings -- for you to get a grasp on the whole.

These longer and 'non-developmental ala common practice style' works require a 'giving up of all that.' A very apt analogy is that you are getting familiar walking through a terrain the likes of which you have not really experienced before, and in order to get the lay of the land, numbers of ambles through that terrain are what achieve the familiarity, where you then know what is where, regardless of the direction of your path of approach.

Too, a longer work of this nature is often best gotten familiar with via a less than direct M.O. -- put it on, _don't worry so much about following it,_ and let it run while you do something else, like read a book, etc. It will imprint on your subconscious while it runs, and eventually, I believe you will then have less, if any, real difficulty in following it.

Consider how you would take in this Alexander Calder mobile, the elements 'the same' yet in slow motion, over time, its motions giving varying spatial relationships of the part... sometimes best noticed by not watching it or concentrating upon it directly -- and so it often goes better for those unfamiliar with it when a similar approach is taken listening to Feldman's later style works...





Feldman's later _Piano and String Quartet_ is gorgeous, lasts ca. one hour and twenty minutes, and for me, I was hooked and fully attentive upon its first hearing.




Ditto for his nearly five-hour long _For Philip Guston._





So, try listening less consciously, let it be 'the moving air in the room,' which you will breathe in and eventually become accustomed to. As already said, this is music of a more Zen tenet of 'being constantly in the now' vs. consciously seeking out any sort of development, development noticed because of what is in your musical memory. Feldman had a preoccupation with the listener's musical memory, but played with it very differently than the mode banked upon by earlier composers in the common practice period. His repeats are often anything but literal, and from one to the next there are subtle differences -- again, best noticed by "not thinking so much" while listening.

Oh dear, I offered suggestions vs. "Just saying NO." 

Feldman's works, from the early serial and all the way through this later style he developed, are also some of my favorite music, and I find a lot of it 'musical marvels.'


----------



## Mandryka

Blake said:


> See, with Feldman, the utmost delicacy goes to sound. Which is why his music comes across both intimate and titanic. As the big guy said, "don't push the sounds around." It's also said that he got pretty pissed off during one of the performances of his work, saying "it's too damn fast, and too damn loud!" I think the FLUX do a superb job in keeping his ideology in mind.


I prefer  Feldman played fast and loud. For example this performance of For Samual Beckett by Stephen Mosko






seems to me to be much more interesting than this one by Cambreling

https://play.spotify.com/track/6pnx...e&utm_source=open.spotify.com&utm_medium=open

I also rate highly Roger Woodward in Triadic Memories


----------

