Ives Ensemble – String Quartet (II)

Endurance tests. There aren't many short ones. At least none of them currently spring to mind.

But Feldman? Even Nurse With Wound's Soliloquy for Lilith is easier to digest! Or Sorabji's marathon piano excursions. Yet it is oddly not specifically about length with Feldman. It has everything to do with expression. And space. Because, what does Feldman express? And in the space that it occupies? In general and in String Quartet (II) in particular.

Stravinsky said: "Music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all". i completely agree with his assessment, though most of you probably won't. The emotional meaning of music is nothing but a subjective projection by an individual person onto the music that is being listened to. In other words; emotions are not inherently imbedded into the notes being played. i'm sorry to say that those that think otherwise, are mystifying music to an unrealistic degree.

Which makes Feldman's music extremely problematic, since expression is it's most important tool. The music is notated in a (mostly) conventional manner, but that is where it's ties to anything recognisably traditional more or less ends. The music is quiet, reflective and meditative. It repeats (but is not minimalist), changes at the drop of a hat, but just as easily returns to something played before (or not), is rarely tonal (without being serial)... In short, Feldman doesn't fit anywhere. On paper he can look completely rational, but make no mistake: Feldman feels intuitive.

Next to expression, space (over length) seems to be the other guiding principle. It doesn't so much matter whether a work lasts 20 minutes (as with Bass Clarinet and Percussion) or 5 to 6 hours as here with String Quartet (II) (both works from his late period). Intent, design and effect are the same: the music is spacious, unhurried, could have started anywhere and could go on forever. The spaces between the notes (the silences) contribute as much to the success of the pieces as the notes themselves, as a device to shape the works.

Feldman once said he learned more from painters than from other composers and his work has often been likened to the abstract expressionists. Mark Rothko has of course often been mentioned in relation to Feldman and Rothko once said something very striking: "My paintings' surfaces are expansive and push outward in all directions, or their surfaces contract and rush inward in all directions. Between these two poles, you can find everything I want to say". Those that familiarise themselves with Rothko's work will learn to understand what this means and perhaps recognise this quality in Feldman's music too. Coupled with Feldman's desire for his work to be played at volumes on the threshold of audibility make for an intense listening experience.

i will not pretend to know exactly what Feldman is trying to say with his music or that his work is not an immense challenge, but i don't consider him to be some sort of musical charlatan or incompetent hack, because he was neither. But he certainly was an enigma.

If I wanted to (which for the sake of properness in a review, I won't), I'd review any of Feldman's work (the 2nd string quartet included) with one, very simple message.

"audibly snores"

I'll be honest: how people like his music is beyond me. Well, consciously that is. I can understand while asleep. But then again, that's obviously how most are enjoying it. Though even as hacks go - which I firmly believe he was - he was long outrun by the great John Cage. That maestro of maestros in the department of musical hacks. He held a virtual monopoly there, for the whole post-war period. Feldman didn't even try. It's not even ambient or a boundless scape of sound and timbre. It's just...nothing. A literal nothing.