[...] what I consider important in my work as a composer is speaking a personal language, in which I, to remain clearly understandable, remain true to traditional principles and customs of tonality. Nonetheless I do not hesitate to deviate from the rule in some exceptions, when my inner necessity deems it justified. ...when composing, I feel as if under command, subject to a power stronger than myself, and my reason (which wishes to see as clearly as my temperament wishes to express itself spontaneously), sees only to the “external”, while the work develops. [...] What I find just as important as clarity of form and tonality is rhythmical continuity.

[...] Why are there composers who constantly change tempo? Should this perhaps be more expressive? Or is this the lyricism of the future? Or is this to mean there is variety in unity? [...] it is the inner sincerity that counts more than anything. It doesn’t matter if the work is rhythmical, lyrical, religious, passionate or brimming with high spirits! As long as this work is only the reflection of the composer’s spiritual condition in the moment of its creation. What does it matter whether a composer composes quickly and corrects over a long period of time, as I do, or whether he does the opposite, as long as the work contains only the breath of life.