Walter Boot Legge

An Interview with Morton Feldman
by Jan Williams
This interview first appeared in the September 1983 issue
of Percussive Notes (pp4-14). It originally included
musical illustrations omitted here plus a photo of Jan
Williams with Feldman. Jan Williams writes (July
199: "The interview took place in Morton's apartment
on West Ferry Street in Buffalo on 22nd April 1983.
Bunita Marcus took the photo. At that time I was on the
editorial board for the Research Edition of Percussive
Notes and was performing The King of Denmark a
lot. I thought that percussionists would be interested in an
interview with Morton about the piece. The King was not
performed very often back then... now it's done all the
time."
JAN WILLIAMS: Morton, since The King of
Denmark is undeniably one of the most important
pieces for solo percussion, a repertoire piece if
you will, how about leading us up to 1964, the
date of composition.
MORTON FELDMAN: Well, let's say that
everything before 1950 was essentially student
pieces and even in those student pieces I didn't
hear percussion. I don't remember one of those
pieces that used percussion. The first time I used
percussion was in one of the first orchestral graph
pieces called Marginal Intersection, which I wrote in
1951. But here I used the percussion as categories
- in a big battery of instruments - those categories
were divided into metal, glass, and wooden
sounds. It wasn't clear then, and it's not clear
now, what really categorized the make-up of all
this. I don't think I wanted conventional
instruments. Now that I'm reflecting on it after all
these years, I'm sure I didn't want conventional
instruments. I wanted instruments for those
categories that sounded like metal and sounded
like glass and wood to the ear. Later on, for
example, in The King, I would naturally bring in a
solo instrument even though it would still be
involved with categories. I would use "skin"
sounds, but I was using conventional skin
instruments in The King. I remember bringing in,
for the first concert of Marginal Intersection at
Cooper Union, plastic dishes and those old heavy
aluminum pots and pans that I borrowed from
my mother. My models for percussion at that
time were from the Gamelon Orchestra, John
Cage's early forties pieces, and Varèse's work,
where the instruments were used en masse, not
soloistically. I used that aspect as a model in
Marginal Intersection, except I remember wanting
the percussion to sound more like noise. I used
"found objects" for sound sources. The King was a
very special situation. I actually remember writing
The King - on the beach on the south shore of
Long Island and I wrote it in a few hours, just
sitting comfortably on the beach. I wrote the
whole piece on the beach. And I can actually
conjure up the memory of doing it - that kind of
muffled sound of kids in the distance and
transistor radios and drifts of conversation from
other pockets of inhabitants on blankets, and I
remember that it did come into the piece. By that
I mean these kinds of wisps. I was very impressed
with the wisp, that things don't last, and that
became an image of the piece: what was
happening around me. To fortify that, I got the
idea of using the fingers and the arms and doing
away with all mallets, where sounds are only
fleetingly there and disappear and don't last very
long. Everybody always asks me about the title,
The King of Denmark, and the title really came after
the piece. There was something about the
wistfulness of things not lasting, of
impermanence, and of being absolutely quiet.
How it lead to the metaphor, The King of Denmark,
which is on a much more serious level, I don't
know. The King of Denmark, if one will
remember, went out into the streets of
Copenhagen wearing the star of Israel that the
Jews had to wear around their arm and it was a
silent protest. He just walked around and didn't
say anything. How I made the leap from the
beach to this other thing I don't know, but there
was a very strong connection in my mind at that
time.
JW: I met you for the first time, I think, at a
concert at Town Hall where Max Neuhaus played
The King of Denmark. I remember distinctly when I
actually met you. It was at the intermission of that
concert. Could that have been the first
performance? Do you remember?
MF: I don't remember, Jan. I don't remember the
first performance. I do remember one or two
performances. I remember standing with Lucas
Foss in a crowded small hall but I don't know
who was playing the percussion. It could very well
have been Max. It was around that period. I was
standing with Lukas at the back of the hall and, in
that I knew the piece, I could hear it. Lukas
couldn't hear it. He said it looked very elegant and
occasionally he would hear something, but he
couldn't hear it. And then I was very concerned
about this because, you know, it was considered at
the time as an "Emperor's new clothes" piece - do
you hear it or don't you hear it? And I asked three
friends of mine who were sitting up close at the
same concert if they heard the piece, and what
was very curious was that the youngest person
heard everything. The next one in line, in terms of
age, heard just a little bit, and the oldest didn't
hear anything. So, there might be a kind of age
thing either in concentration or such. People seem
to hear it now. The most glamorous performance
that was ever given (I don't know if it was Michael
Ranta or Max Neuhaus) was at a concert in
Venice. Ezra Pound was in the audience and
someone told me that they took Ezra Pound and
put him on a seat right next to the performer and
he heard it and liked the piece very much. I love
that idea of bringing in this famous poet almost
on his deathbed to listen to The King of Denmark.
But now, everybody plays it - some people play it
in a capsule version.
JW: How do you mean, capsule?
MF: Like a pocket King of Denmark.
JW: In terms of instruments?
MF: Yes, in terms of instruments.
JW: That's the way I do it.
MF: Yes. I once saw a performance in Berlin - I
don't know who played it - but he got hold of
every instrument imaginable.
JW: I think over the years people have
traditionally done it with large setups. Actually, I
didn't do the piece for years and years because of
the many terrific performances of the piece by
other people, but when I did decide to do it, I
decided to do this capsule version - in one sense,
as a kind of reaction to the "big band" version.
MF: I once saw someone who cheated a little bit:
had some kind of metal things on his finger tips.
JW: It's certainly not necessary. The grid, Morton.
You were one of the first to work with that
particular type of notation. Would you care to talk
a little about how that evolved? After all, you're
very important in terms of that type of notation.
MF: I still use a grid. But now the grid
encompasses conventional notation. But the
initial concept of the grid - Oh, it's like one of
those things that you don't know is going to have
significance afterwards. I have no idea how it
came about. Actually, I was living in the same
building as John Cage and he invited me to
dinner. And it wasn't ready yet. John was making
wild rice the way most people don't know how it
should be made. That is, just waiting for boiling
water and then putting new boiling water into the
rice and then having another pot boiling and then
draining the rice, etc., etc., so we were waiting a
long time for the wild rice to be ready. It was
while waiting for the wild rice that I just sat down
at his desk and picked up a piece of note paper
and started to doodle. And what I doodled was a
freely drawn page of graph paper - and what
emerged were high, middle and low categories. It
was just automatic - I never had any conversation
about it heretofore, you know - never discussed it.
JW: What was actually the first graph piece?
MF: The first piece was Projection I for Solo Cello,
which I wrote for the marvelous cellist Seymour
Barab. I brought it over and showed him this very
primitive notation. It was just again categories of
pizzicato sounds, harmonics, and arco and aspects
of arco-like ponticello. And then I gave high,
middle and low and each box corresponded to a
metronome beat. At that time it was 72 which was
very slow then. It was endless, the ictus being 72.
And then I started to write these pieces. John
Cage got very excited, but aesthetically they
looked very primitive, as you can see. What John
did was to actually sit down for about a week and
recopy two scores - two piano Intersections and the
Projection for Violin and Piano. If you look at these
scores of mine, you will recognise John Cage's
handwriting and the pen he used at that time. And
that was how it came about. Actually I didn't have
any kind of theory and I had no idea what was
going to emerge, but if I wasn't waiting for that
wild rice, I wouldn't have had those wild ideas.
JW: So, you still use the grid but it is not overt in
its presence.

MF: It's still there. One of the problems I had
with the early grid is that there was a tendency for
it to be too design-oriented. It was very easy to
make wonderful designs on the page, which I did.
But, it was wonderful for percussion. The
percussion just made the balance between being
specific and, at the same time, to some degree,
general. But I'd like to talk a little bit about
percussion instruments themselves. I would say
that out of all the instruments, it's perhaps the
group of instruments that I have to think about
most - and I think that many composers might
agree with me on this. In other words, there's a
relation to one's ideas and a relation to style -
however you want to phrase it - composers, you
know, know how they want to use the
woodwinds, how they want to use strings, but
essentially how to use percussion becomes a big
problem - there are not that many examples for
an elegant - really elegant - use of percussion in an
integrated way. In other words, it's not like... it
doesn't help a young composer picking up, say,
Berio or Boulez, looking at how they use
percussion because percussion, in a sense, is so
idiomatic to their style. It's not like taking a look
at a Schoenberg string quartet, at a marvelous
page that shows how he uses harmonics, which
could be independent of one's style. But it's a kind
of skill of the instrument that could be employed
for another kind of music. So, that is what usually
happens with instruments per se of other
composers. You take a look at how Stravinsky
would use it and you know it could make a
metamorphosis. With percussion, it seems to be
stuck exactly just in that instrument and how to
use it. I recently heard a concert of Ionisation and
the quintuplet on the various drums was just so
Varèsian - the use of the quintuplet on those
drums was just so clean and right that I just can't
see them being employed for that particular
rhythm and those particular instruments in any
other piece except Ionisation. It establishes its
signature in relation to the composer too quickly,
too readily. I mean, you don't need Varèse. The
timpani lick in the Ninth is so characteristic of the
timpani and of the Beethoven style, you see, that
no matter what kind of pitches you want to use,
the minute you would have the timpani interject
those kinds of periodic moments, it's Beethoven.
You see?
JW: Yes, I do - what an interesting idea.
MF: But at the same time, if you really think
about Beethoven in relation to any other kind of
striking imagery, it's hard to really say this is the
way to use the violin, or this is the way he uses
the flute. So, percussion, in a sense because of
these factors, becomes the most derivative aspect
of a composer's instrumental usage - one that you
really have to watch out for. And then there is
another very important fact; when I mentioned
the early models of the Gamelon, Varèse, and
Cage, they were never used cosmetically and they
were never used soloistically. They were used as a
complete entity or incorporated as an entity with
other instruments as Varèse does, say, in Integrales.
So, how do you use percussion instruments so
they don't become cliché? A very important
problem.
JW: Certainly many composers do have that
problem.
MF: Very good composers. There is another
problem. Let's not call these problems. Let's just
say it seems to be self-evident that percussion
instruments are supposed to be used ostensibly
for very serious situations but in themselves are
not expensively made, you know, like a good
violin, or a good piano. Instruments that are made
as almost a disposable. I mean, any professional
composer knows how difficult it is even in the
most professional situations, say, to find a good
celeste in a major orchestra. The first notes, the C,
D - the first three notes usually don't sound,
they're usually broken. They're never kept in tune,
they're not considered important to be kept in
tune. The percussionists themselves seem not to
be that finicky, although I'm sure there are a lot of
percussionists who are.
JW: There are a lot who are extremely finicky. But
the sheer number of instruments involved
sometimes causes a problem in terms of
maintenance and development. Also, many of the
instruments come from a folk idiom where the
instruments themselves are rather primitive to
start with.
MF: And that's part of their sound and charm.
JW: Exactly.
MF: You wouldn't want that overperfection - it
wouldn't make them sound real.
JW: Right.
MF: However, I know that in the work of mine I
wrote some years ago for oboe and orchestra in
which there are just three percussionists - one's
playing a high and one's playing a middle and
another is playing a low cymbal, and it is just three
cymbals going all the time - the spray. I just know
that they did use their best cymbals, they matched
them and they discussed them and, when I went
to the concert during one of the Holland festivals,
I wasn't disappointed. They were just beautiful
cymbals. So, percussionists are, by and large,
conscientious, but it's very difficult for a
performer to understand the style and kind of
mallet that sometimes we find, so it's usually just
inexperience with a certain type of contemporary
music. So, how do you handle instruments that
just have inherent problems of not sounding
expensive? And that whole business of sounding
expensive is part of the image of professional
music as we know it. The expensive violin - the
expensive bow, you see. Well, my approach to an
instrument is finding instruments where terms like
"perfection" and "imperfection" of construction
are not important. The whole idea of going in
tune and out of tune with more precise acoustical
instruments is taken into consideration. It was
actually with my interest in nomadic oriental rugs
that really made me start to use "imperfect"
percussion with considerably more security. I'll
tell you how. In older oriental rugs the dyes are
made in small amounts and so what happens is
that there is an imperfection throughout the rug
of changing colors of these dyes. Most people feel
that they are imperfections. Actually it is the
refraction of the light on these small dye batches
that makes the rugs wonderful. I interpreted this
as going in and out of tune. There is a name for
that in rugs - it's called abrash - a change of colors
that leads us into pieces like Instruments III which
was the beginning of my rug idea. I wouldn't say I
actually made a literal juxtaposition between rugs
and the use of instruments in Instruments III, but it
made me not worry about it. I like the
imperfection and it added to the color. It enriched
the color, this out of tune quality. Just like I like
my piano out of tune a little bit. It's warmer. So
that was very interesting. It reached its height in
Why Patterns? where I didn't have to be ashamed
to make a "lady," so to speak, out of the
glockenspiel. It's the only piece I know of that
treats the glockenspiel as a very serious
instrument. It was a big psychological decision - it
wasn't a choice of a novelty.
JW: Right. I remember you wrestling with that
problem - the instrumentation.

MF: Yes, and it's beautiful. It's finding the right
kind of language. It's just that you need a lot of
imagination, a lot of thought. For example, a very
beautiful piece by Bunita Marcus, called Music for
Japan, in which she uses the xylophone in a very
original way, where most composers would have
models, you see. Maybe what I'm really talking
about in this interview is that we're more
dependent on percussion for models than we are
on other instruments and that's why so much
percussion music is in the realm of cliché. Her
piece sounds startling because you don't hear the
marimba solo, you don't hear the vibraphone
solo, you hear an extended xylophone solo with
material that could only be for the xylophone, but
there is no model for it, you see. Jo Kondo is
another example; he fell madly in love with the
cowbells, and uses them very hauntingly and very
rightly in his piece which gives the music a lot of
distinction. I have no rapport with a cowbell so
it's very, very interesting. This leads us back to
1951 and Marginal Intersection, though I'm now
much more specific for my battery of percussion.
But I'm back to using, say, a lot of gongs when I
use a gong, a lot of triangles and three glocks.
One glock in an orchestra is cosmetic. Three
glocks is orchestral. Where a few triangles is
nothing, but 15!
JW: I remember a stunning performance in
Saarbrücken of Flute and Orchestra which used a
large group of percussion.
MF: It is now very difficult in an orchestral piece
for me to have one cymbal, or just one gong - or
even chimes. I find myself using three sets of
chimes and it's a very interesting thing. As you use
more of these instruments, you begin to see the
illusion some people have about percussion
speaking in a hall or even in a recording session. I
remember somebody in a recording session,
putting a mike right in front of a celeste.
JW: For a piece of yours?
MF: Yes. And I said "Why are you doing that?"
And he said, "Well, you know it's a soft
instrument." We played it back and he heard it's
not a soft instrument. On the other hand, three
chimes, three sets of chimes playing clusters from
that left-handed backstage area still doesn't have
the acoustical presence of, say, one flute playing
very softly from the woodwinds on the right. It
doesn't. So, there's this kind of illusion that
because you're striking something, you're going to
hear it.
JW: I'm sure everybody would be interested in
knowing whether there is another solo percussion
piece from Morton Feldman anywhere in the
realm of possibility.
MF: I'm glad you asked that question.
JW: And, if so, what kind of piece could it be?
MF: I don't know what a new solo piece could be
- I'm very surprised, for example, when in writing
a piece like Flute and Orchestra I start hearing a few
dozen triangles which I never heard before. I'm
glad you mentioned it and I'm going to think
about it. I think the reason I didn't write one was
I was just too busy making a metamorphosis of
how percussion is used in a chamber orchestra
and then how it's used in an orchestra. I think I'm
a very open person, and I would like to get to a
point artistically and psychologically where I think
I could write a serious piece for triangle and string
quartet. That sounds a bit far out, but why not?
Rather than having a thing like Tubby the Tuba,
which I enjoy and Kleinsinger is a very nice man,
there is still this whole idea of Tubby the Tuba as
opposed to Ludwig the Tuba. Yes, why not a
piece for triangle and string quartet? But I'm not
at that artistic or psychological freedom yet. I
think you have to be open. I'm very convinced
now after Why Patterns?, which is one of my
favorite pieces...
JW: Which is scored for piano, glockenspiel, and
the flute family.
MF: Yes, the flute family - one player. It is one of
my favorite pieces and I never dreamt to write
one of my most important pieces with that
combination. John Cage was with me last month
at a festival when he heard it and he really liked it.
Harrison Birtwistle and I had a concert together
in Toronto where it was played and Harry was
just very surprised that the glock could sound like
that and sound serious. That's what they are
surprised about, you see. But at the same time -
here I'm making the complaint that the
instrument is not perfected enough, but again, if it
was perfected, it wouldn't have that kind of sad
blending - that kind of sad elegant blending and
little bit out of tune, going in to tune and out of
tune with the rest of the instruments is again very
beautiful.
JW: Was not - and correct me if I'm wrong - Why
Patterns? one of the first pieces of your current
output of rather lengthy pieces?
MF: Not really. I think it's a little over thirty
minutes - that's all. No, not Why Patterns?
JW: The recent works are, however, much more
extended.
MF: I would say the average length is an hour
and a half now.
JW: Your recent Three Voices is...
MF: An hour and a half. And I'm having a string
quartet performed next season on the Toronto
New Music series, String Quartet No. 2, which I
think is about two hours and twenty minutes -
easy. I'm giving the maximum on that. It's just an
educated guess. Definitely two hours, but it might
be longer. I have a whole repeat structure there
and because of it, the repeats could add up to
about twenty minutes more.
JW: But the overall frame is established early - the
overall scope and size of the piece.
MF: Well, I think it's going to be... actually it's a
very interesting type of preparation - you know,
it's not like planning a trip across the Atlantic and
I know I have to take certain types of supplies
and the boat has to be seaworthy. It's not a
perilous journey; the journey just depends on my
own stamina. That's the only thing I have to bring
to a long piece. And also psychological - and it is
more psychological than anything else - the
psychological conditioning to keep it going as
long as I feel it must go, but also to stop when I
feel it's time. In other words, I need just as much
guts to stop at twenty-five minutes as I do to keep
it going for two hours and twenty-five minutes.
So, I'm open to the possibility of stopping where
I might have miscalculated. I don't know how
much percussion I could hear for two hours and
twenty-five minutes, but I wonder what the
perception of percussion would be hearing it for a
longer period of time than we are used to.
JW: Good question.
MF: A question like that is really answered to
some degree with composers like Alvin Lucier -
you know that piece of his, I think, for the very
similar timpani? I think they are timpani or bass
drums.
JW: Bass drums with ping pong balls bouncing
against the heads?
MF: Yes.
JW: Activated by very low modulated audio
frequencies.
MF: Yes, in a piece like that it is actually very
interesting - I was fascinated in terms of
perception. It was very, very interesting for me.
JW: My orientation as a performer has always
been towards repertoire building. Having been
encouraged by my teacher, Paul Price, that's been
my kind of involvement ever since college. The
encouragement - active encouragement of
composers to produce pieces for solo percussion
or percussion in the chamber music setting.
There's been a tremendous amount of activity in
the past nineteen years, since The King of Denmark,
and I'm wondering as a performer to what degree
this kind of attitude is still necessary, to what
degree percussionists should continue giving the
benefit of the doubt to the composer - the young
composer, particularly. I'm wondering if we might
not perhaps be at a point now where we should
be more selective and a bit tougher on
composers. You're an active teacher. How to you
react to this dilemma of the percussionistperformer?
MF: Well, let's talk about what's available, and
then, out of what's available, what seems to be
happening. I think that since Varèse we have
developed various schools of percussion usage.
There's the Varèse-Cage school - we could lump
them somewhat together - which seems to walk a
very precarious tightrope between sound and
noise. There's the European school that has a
very big parameter, using Zyklus as a model - a
kind of hard edge to a kind of Boulezian soft
edge. And then I feel that the Japanese school of
percussion - I don't think they ever knew they had
a school of percussion - has something to do with
(especially in the case of Takemitsu) nature and
how percussion instruments were very useful
metaphors of nature. If not nature, Jo Kondo's
evocative cowbells, then just as an image as he
does so beautifully in Under the Umbrella, which I
think is going to be another kind of classic as the
years go by. Now, if you go to a concert of, say,
the various percussion groups, they would seem
to juxtapose all these groups just in an
improvisational way.

JW: In terms of the way they put programs
together?
MF: Yes, in those terms.
JW: That certainly is the case very many times.
MF: It's interesting that the famous pieces of
Varèse, or other prototypes - there are not that
many of them, whether it's Ionisation or The King of
Denmark or Cage's Construction in Metal - are oneof-
a-kind pieces. Really, how many times are you
going to write a piece with just cowbells? How
many times am I going to write another Why
Patterns? with glockenspiel? So, maybe the clue to
future percussion repertoire is a whole series of
one-of-a-kind pieces. There's nothing wrong with
it. I'm not that nuts about Elliott Carter's pieces
that he wrote for you - the timpani pieces - but
they're landmark ideas of actually listening to the
timpani, of constructing it and structuring it over
a period of time into a piece. In a sense, that's its
importance. But a composer like Carter who is
essentially not dramatic - you know the whole
idea that he could have done that was a very
interesting idea, being that the timpani have so
many dramatic connotations.
JW: Right, I'd never quite thought about those
pieces in that context.
MF: So, there it is - these are all one-of-a-kind
pieces. In other words, the professional
percussion composer has not written significant
percussion pieces. They've written very idiomatic
pieces. So, just as I'm loosely thinking and talking
about it with you, Jan, it seems to me that the
most important pieces are just the one-of-a-kind
pieces. And maybe that's the nature of the
"percussion" sound. I mean the sound itself of
percussion doesn't seem to lend itself to the
definitive prototype. In other words, if we use
this, if we use that, we can make it viable, you see.
Then, we have the whole problem of pitch
percussion against non-pitch percussion. Making
too much of a hierarchical situation out of either
one or the other. That's one of the problems that
I have about mixing, where I don't want my
percussion to become absolutely "background" if
it's non-pitched, and "foreground" if it is pitched.
It's one of the big problems that I have in getting
my instrumental balance of percussion
instruments together when I start a piece.
JW: Certainly Instruments III, with the combination
of glockenspiel, three cymbals and triangle
presents a pretty formidable problem, one which
you handled in a very elegant and beautiful way.
It's not technically easy.
MF: But, even there, the pitch identification in
the glockenspiel is not that clear. And to use that
as an idea was very important, to use the other
triangles, and even the cymbals, became a very
interesting problem of orchestrating all these
instruments together. And that's another aspect -
the word "orchestrating." To what degree can
percussion instruments be orchestrated? You see,
it's also a very different kind of special problem,
as opposed to, say, a piano piece.
JW: Yes, quite simply in terms of quantity of
instruments and timbres available, this is certainly
the case. But, the ambiguous nature of many of
the sounds and the unpredictable qualities which
vary so greatly from instrument to instrument
create special problems.
MF: It's an interesting philosophy - that is, that
maybe we should look for percussion's potential
in those areas we originally thought of as being
weak.
JW: Are you saying to look at those areas of
percussion which are not naturally strong or most
successful?
MF: Yes.
JW: Things like what: Legato?
MF: No, just certain instruments themselves. I
mean like Jo Kondo's cowbells, you see. Or, for
example, in The King - if you want to tie it up to
The King. What's interesting about The King is that
percussion was always used in the sense that what
was exciting about percussion was a kind of
fantastic availability of all these different kinds of
attacks - and here, I take out the aspect of attack.
What did I do by using the fingers in The King?
What happened? I took out what was considered
its strongest aspect. See what I mean?
JW: Yes, the tactile quality of the piece makes it
very special - the fact that there are no mallets
gives it a whole different feel - no pun intended.
After all, a Western trained percussionist in the
Sixties does not necessarily have this kind of
playing in his repertoire of techniques. That is,
playing with one's fingers. And then to take a
diverse mixture of instruments as in The King and
try to get that uniformity which you ask for.
MF: Yes, so just to re-articulate what we have
been talking about, to use these Western
instruments in the way that would have been
considered the least area for "success" was the
success of The King of Denmark. And when I am
thinking about percussion - in fact, you're making
me think about percussion and I'm glad we've had
this conversation - I hope that maybe I would
think about how paradoxically I could find a
historical weak spot which is also its strength.
That's what I really mean. You can't do that with
any other instrument. You have to rediscover.
You have to make different models for
percussion. Back to earlier things in the
conversation: I can't repeat it enough - to try to
get away from the model in percussion. I
remember when I was in your studio and I was
composing Instruments III and you were playing
certain things for me, and I noticed that just the
time element - I drifted for, say, two or three
minutes very naturally without any impatience,
where that time would be very, very long indeed if
it was just an instrumental drone going on. But
the whole sense of time was different. You don't
have the historical implication of harmonic
rhythm or atonal rhythm and you are in another
kind of time world there and that kind of time
world is very, very interesting for me, especially
now since I'm writing very long pieces. So maybe
I will write a piece that is very long using that
aspect. Or, just thinking in terms of time, and
what the instrument could do in the world of time
that acoustical instruments don't choose to do.
Well, we'll see about that. But I want to certainly
try and write an extended percussion piece.

Огромное спасибо!

На одном из «Форумов» «Короля» великолепно сыграл Митя Щёлкин!