Feldman String Quartet No. 2- Thoughts?
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.
Timothy liked this post
Great music to listen to while watching that new caulk around your bathtub cure.
Triplets liked this post
Haha, well, there's one downvote.Originally Posted by KenOC
Last edited by Tchaikov6; Oct-17-2017 at 02:49.
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.
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.
“If that is a bassoon then I am a baboon!” - Camille Saint-Saëns on Stravinsky's Rite of Spring
Omicron9 liked this post
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.
Last edited by jegreenwood; Oct-17-2017 at 13:45.
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
"Signature line-free since 2016!"
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?
Last edited by Omicron9; Oct-17-2017 at 16:54.
"Signature line-free since 2016!"
What's your point?
Last edited by Mandryka; Oct-17-2017 at 16:59.
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.
Last edited by Reichstag aus LICHT; Oct-17-2017 at 17:00.
Omicron9 liked this post
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.
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.
Last edited by Omicron9; Oct-17-2017 at 18:34.
"Signature line-free since 2016!"
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.
Last edited by Omicron9; Oct-17-2017 at 19:51.
"Signature line-free since 2016!"
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.
Posting Permissions
Likes: 
Reply With Quote