I was very fortunate to be at a wealthy institution. I do recognize the drawbacks and limitations of the academic world but it's basically the world I grew up in and there's no way in which I would have been able to survive in the so-called real world.

I didn't want my music to be seen as examples of an electronic culture; I just wanted them to be thought of as pieces of music.

I don't think of my music as being about something.

I had been creating music on tape that was to be listened to as a recording, rather than through performance.

I think of myself as experimenting with different ways of structuring pieces. A lot of it has to do with the computer, of course.

Even today, I notice that some of my pieces are explicitly tonal; there are actually tonics and dominants. And then there are pieces that are not tonal. I tend to think that there's a dichotomy that has to do with the way pitches are structured.

I can't say that there's a common practice that has to do with pitch language or with the way pieces are put together because today, anything is fair game. As far as I'm concerned, my own common practice is a piece that engages the attention of listeners from beginning to end, and doesn't rely on or expect the listener to zone out.