I think Feldman is an incredible conversationalist but he's not a good philosopher, let's say. The air of sophistication he exudes only goes so far. He hides what are essentially just opinions behind a dogmatic essentialism, e.g.: an American composer is x, a European composer is y etc., but he can't really articulate what that means beyond some vague notion of historical consciousness. It strikes me that his sense of things is simply what he would prefer to be true, rather than an attempt to get at let's say a real phenomenological view of music, composition, performance, listening etc. So when it comes to Bartók, who the hell knows? He's just saying he doesn't like Bartók that much but he won't say why because he'll have to admit that his criteria are founded more or less upon the same "style barriers" that he criticises others for not being able to overcome.

the usual moron is here again

so? what an idiotic remark

you may download this video in a sound format from many sites.

You are quite wrong, I think. He and Xenakis were is some sense both naives, their work sometimes dismissed by more academically trained composers who did not respect their extraordinary independence. Carter and Feldman, though stylistically opposite were both iconoclasts. Feldman always sounds like music. Carter and Xenakis rather push that boundary, in my opinion.

That's exactly how composers like Cage or Feldman were perceived during their lives - amateurs with zero ability to compose "proper, serious, academic music". The only strange thing here is that you still think the same way in 2021. In his book Morton touches upon this exact subject. He was never impressed with himself (a Kierkegaard believer), being just a very talkative person.