You write it down because finally, when it's written down you do get it out of your system somewhat.
Yes, well, I tell you, because once I have completed a work, I simply am interested only in what I may hear in the next work that's coming.
What it looks like on paper may be interesting enough, but what the listeners hears is ultimately what stays with him, that he is concerned with.
Well, no. I believe that it's not at all impossible that some of the performances that I've heard so far by some pianists may be superior to my own playing because those are two totally different acts altogether.
We can use techniques in modifying things, in controlling things, but the first impulse has to be something that you simply cannot make just out of technique, or else it becomes perfectly evident that it is nothing but technique that you're exercising.
To the person that deals in visualizations, I suppose there is something rather exciting about a whole set of people - they all going symmetrically, up or down, in a military sort of precision.
Now, what we are not talking about, what you're really coming to, is what compromises one makes so that the listener understands somewhat of what you're doing, what you're trying to express.
Now, there are sometimes making a connection between one section and another that sometimes you do want to see the pattern because it helps you to lead into the next thing - it's a rhetorical thing, where you just see how the pattern has to go into the next thing.
It doesn't necessarily mean at all that the composer plays his own works best.
Improvisation is terribly haphazard.
I'm interested in producing a work of art, and unless I hear the thing thoroughly, I would have no reason to put it down at all.
I know that there are some people who apparently operate with their eyes on the paper. They are more guided almost by the pattern.
I distrust anything that you don't hear.
I consider that my own personal life and anecdotes may be amusing enough and interesting enough, but they're in a different realm.
Hopefully, I have a certain amount of what you call musical talent.
By the way, the point between rationality and what we would call the irrational is a very difficult point to establish. There's no specific line, as you know.
By the visual pattern, but mostly I'm guided entirely by my ear, what I hear.
A person improvising is sometimes very fortunate that just at that second things coincide.
Every time I'm a bit surprised always, what the patterns look like and what the whole thing looks like because, of course, I primarily hear.
Today each composer is not only involved in aesthetics, but he's actually trying to create his own language.
When I was speaking about communicating, I meant that the listener - we have to reach the listener otherwise, of course, you're writing the piece, as I say, only for the satisfaction of seeing it on the paper for yourself, and then it ends right there.
There is a paradox because I think you've struck a chord there that we ought to simply pursue - it is true that music is a form of communication.
There are some people, by the way, that associate a certain amount of visualization with the performance of music. Those are people that really are not centrally concerned only with music, the traditional things.
No, I think that a person writes a poem because they have an inner urge of something that they want to express, and I think it's that inner urge that you want to express when you write a piece of music.
It doesn't matter how far I may have carried some of the things, but I always pull back at the point where it ceases any longer to really be music.