Piano vs. Significant Other

[Torp]

If you were spending your life with someone whom you believed to be important and that person said, “You know I don’t really like the piano in the living room.”  AND, there isn’t any other available location for it in the house would you,

A) Get rid of the piano?
B) Get rid of the spouse/significant other?

Purely hypothetical of course, nothing like this has happened to me recently so I have no idea why this sort of question might be on my mind…

[m1469]

Well, there is no question in my heart.  The SO(B) would go.

[pianistimo]

i like the idea of a piano in every room.  if i were president, it would be so.  probably some kind of electronic keyboard in the bathroom. 

this question sounds very difficult - being that we all love piano.  phrasing it another way:

if the piano were drowning and your mate were drowning, who would you save first?  would you grab the leg of the piano and sink to the bottom, or grab your hubby or wife's bottom and rise to the top?  i say love conquors all.  forget the piano - go for sex.  i mean, my husband doesn't play piano, isn't all that interested in piano, but he's great in bed.

ps he can remember tunes better than me.  i always end up asking him (for symphonies) 'who composed that?'  he always knows and is generally right.  also, we go to concerts together, and he's recently been more willing to go to piano concerts.

[gorbee natcase]

lets put it this way, if I answered truthfully anywhere else but here I would get booed

[Torp]

go for sex.

If that were my motivation I wouldn't have gotten married in the first place

I am with you though on the piano, or at least music, in every room.

Well, there is no question in my heart.  The SO(B) would go.

Ah yes, matters of the heart are so easily answered by it.  Then the mind comes in and all sorts of confusion results.

[prometheus]

If a person if forcing me to do something I don't want I am not sure I would consider that person a friend.

I would gladly give up music altogether for love; pure platonic love. Though it would be a very major loss.

[bernhard]

If a person if forcing me to do something I don't want I am not sure I would consider that person a friend.

I would gladly give up music altogether for love; pure platonic love. Though it would be a very major loss.

This assumes that what you want is in your best interests.

But consider the hypothetical situation that you are drug addict and all you want is to get into a stupor. I woudl say that a person who does not let you do what you want in this case is a true friend. (And onf course there are many otehr examples: you may want to rob a bank, you may want to murder someone, you may want to play a prank whose consequences may mark you for life).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Ah yes, matters of the heart are so easily answered by it.  Then the mind comes in and all sorts of confusion results.

Or maybe it is the other way round

[prometheus]

Well, we are talking about hobby's here. I didn't see any need for nuances.

I agree with Bernard about Torp's comment. It is the other way around.

[Torp]

Or maybe it is the other way round

Care to expand?  I feel I have a tendency to over-analyze things; so from my perspective it is my head that gets in the way of my heart and not the other way around.

[m1469]

Ah yes, matters of the heart are so easily answered by it.  Then the mind comes in and all sorts of confusion results. :-

Or maybe it is the other way round

Either way, I know I wouldn't give up the piano because I would be a (more) ridiculous person without it (if I knew I had the choice to play it) and probably a useless mate. However, the other part to this is that I have taken significant measures to assure that I am not in a relationship where my pianisitic desires are not "coped with".  Not that this means things are perfect... (but what is ?)


Okay, now that I feel passionately in love with my beloved piano, I am going to go make some music with it 


m1469

[bernhard]

Care to expand?  I feel I have a tendency to over-analyze things; so from my perspective it is my head that gets in the way of my heart and not the other way around.

In the East there is a theory that three forces guide our lives: the intellect, which is forever making comparisons, the body with all of its sensual feelings and motion co-ordinations and the emotions which are basically irrational likes and dislikes.

It is also said that in a normal individual such forces are highly unbalanced.

You have the intellectual person who rationalises and compares everything and decides his action on that basis. An intellectual person will gladly do something he dislikes or that goes agaisnt his body sensations, perceptions and co-ordinations if it is intellectually attractive (the idea that the earth is round and moves around the sun is basically an intellectual one: our body sensations and perceptions tells us otherwise).

You have the body person who delights in moving about and is driven by sense perception.

And you have the emotional person, who will do whatever it likes and avoid whatever it dislikes no matter what the consequences.

Within the same theory an analogy is made: the Emotions are a mad elephant doing whatever it wants and destroyuing everything on its path. However, it is a strong elephant if we could at least putit to some good use. And the only way to control a mad elephant is to keep it harnessed to two tamed elephants. By keeping the mad elephant in the middle we can use its great strength. The tame elephants are of course the body and the intellect.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[prometheus]

It's a matter of interpretation which gets in the way of who. But since the emotions just do what they do and don't know why or when and the intellect just knows the puzzle isn't a very hard one to solve.

Over-analysing? Seems like trying to find the way to analyse something so it will agree with your already made up idea suggested by the heart.

[Torp]

Seems like trying to find the way to analyse something so it will agree with your already made up idea suggested by the heart.

Hardly.  My head would sell the piano because it's the rational thing to do.  Using Bernhard's analogy, my emotional elephant has been so subdued by the intellectual one that it rarely ever factors into the decision.

What I attempted to say earlier is that I believe you can't answer an emotional question via intellect or vice versa.  Whether you allow your life to be dictated by emotion or intellect is, to me, a different discussion.

On that note, if your heart and head don't agree, how do know which one to follow?  Should intellect always win?

[m1469]

Oh my gosh !! 

I think all my elephants have become mad now and I am floating off into some unknown dimension.



*feels scared and tangled*

[bernhard]

Hardly.  My head would sell the piano because it's the rational thing to do.  Using Bernhard's analogy, my emotional elephant has been so subdued by the intellectual one that it rarely ever factors into the decision.

What I attempted to say earlier is that I believe you can't answer an emotional question via intellect or vice versa.  Whether you allow your life to be dictated by emotion or intellect is, to me, a different discussion.

On that note, if your heart and head don't agree, how do know which one to follow?  Should intellect always win?

If we go back to the theory that there are these three forces (which we could probably and more accurately call three tools), we may make yet another analogy.

Imagine we are back in the 18th century when all land transport was made by horse pulled carriages.

It so happens that we have this most beautiful carriage, golden gilded and all. We also have this most beautiful horse, powerful and majestic. We have a trustworthy coachman, who knows the ways of the horse, the mechanics of the carriage, the geography of the place. We can if we wish, go anywhere. Most of all we want to go home.

However the situation is not good. The coachman is in the pub drinking beer and slightly inebriated has completely forgotten his duties and his job. The horse, has been left to roam free in the nearby meadow and is now galloping wildly here and there and resisting all attempts to catch him and harness him to the carriage.

The carriage itself has been left in the rain, without proper care, so the paint is coming out, the wheel shaft is rusty, the wheels are starting to fall apart and so on.

The owner of the carriage is actually inside, deep, deep asleep.

Now in this analogy the horse represents the emotions. The carriage the body, and the coachman the intellect. Our true self, our essence if you so wish sleeps away impervious to what is going on.

So you see, the question is not what the emotions want, or what the intellect wants, or what the body wants. Their job is not to want anything but to do the bidding of their master.

But before any of that can take place someone has to reorganise the mess. The horse must be brought from the fields and harnessed to the carriage, for truly only the horse can move the carriage (motivation comes from motion). The carriage on the other hand must be in  a fit state to travel, otherwise it may fall apart when the horse starts pulling. And of course the coachman must be fetched from the pub, and get sober for the travel ahead. But only the master asleep inside can direct the whole enterprise. While he is asleep all that can take place is strife between the horse, the coachman and the carriage.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[leahcim]

If you were spending your life with someone whom you believed to be important and that person said, “You know I don’t really like the piano in the living room.”  AND, there isn’t any other available location for it in the house would you,

I'd want to know why they don't like the piano in the living room.

I was told the other day that our house isn't big enough for a piano - that is absurd taken literally, but I knew what they really meant because I know the person who said it.

But there are lots of potential reasons - including literal ones like they'd prefer it to be a Steinway or because it's in the living room - which you seem to have suggested by the idea of moving it elsewhere. I'd want to know more.

As for the choices presented they seem limited.

An aside : We used to live next to a haulage firm / garage, it's been there over 50 years, it did no harm at all - the number of new arrivals to the area who bought houses and then took out petitions against their lorries made me laugh for the audacity and stupidity. [The irony was that the lorries were ordered to take a specific journey, one that went past the large expensive houses where the complaints came from rather than the path they took before ]

In a similar way - if someone has been playing the piano for years, has a piano, or even has a piano in their living room and you know the person well to the point of deciding to spend your whole life with them, it would seem, frankly, dumb to complain that they have a piano or to put them in a "me or it" position. Unless it's the kind of surprise that people who meet on holiday romances and similar false situations have - ok, everyone who moves in finds some surprises, but I doubt someone being a pianist is one. So, in that scenario It either doesn't sound like they know much about each other to talk about spending lives together - or at least if they do know they should have thought it through a bit more rather than getting to ultimate choices. What else is on their list of things to change - get that detail before signing next time

OTOH, it could be different. Perhaps in the middle of a relationship somone came home from work one day and there was a piano in the living room and talk of talking lessons and starting to play - and it was never discussed - in which case you might sympathise more with the SO.

Or something else entirely.

[m1469]

If we go back to the theory that there are these three forces (which we could probably and more accurately call three tools), we may make yet another analogy.

Imagine we are back in the 18th century when all land transport was made by horse pulled carriages.

It so happens that we have this most beautiful carriage, golden gilded and all. We also have this most beautiful horse, powerful and majestic. We have a trustworthy coachman, who knows the ways of the horse, the mechanics of the carriage, the geography of the place. We can if we wish, go anywhere. Most of all we want to go home.

However the situation is not good. The coachman is in the pub drinking beer and slightly inebriated has completely forgotten his duties and his job. The horse, has been left to roam free in the nearby meadow and is now galloping wildly here and there and resisting all attempts to catch him and harness him to the carriage.

The carriage itself has been left in the rain, without proper care, so the paint is coming out, the wheel shaft is rusty, the wheels are starting to fall apart and so on.

The owner of the carriage is actually inside, deep, deep asleep.

Now in this analogy the horse represents the emotions. The carriage the body, and the coachman the intellect. Our true self, our essence if you so wish sleeps away impervious to what is going on.

So you see, the question is not what the emotions want, or what the intellect wants, or what the body wants. Their job is not to want anything but to do the bidding of their master.

But before any of that can take place someone has to reorganise the mess. The horse must be brought from the fields and harnessed to the carriage, for truly only the horse can move the carriage (motivation comes from motion). The carriage on the other hand must be in  a fit state to travel, otherwise it may fall apart when the horse starts pulling. And of course the coachman must be fetched from the pub, and get sober for the travel ahead. But only the master asleep inside can direct the whole enterprise. While he is asleep all that can take place is strife between the horse, the coachman and the carriage.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

OMG    Wake up !! Wake up you bloody master !!  Get your life together !!  How can he possibly sleep with all of this ruckous going on around him ?



*eats a bite of popcorn and sips some tea*

*bangs on a pan to try to wake the master*

[ted]

I don't find any particular difficulty. My marriage is of a higher moral order for me than my music , therefore I must put its needs first by rights. Now in practice this seldom involves the sort of drama and crisis implied by these popular moral puzzles. Compromise and common sense are all that are usually required.

In rare cases where a compromise cannot apply it is not a matter of what I want to do but a case of where my duty lies.

[arensky]

If you were spending your life with someone whom you believed to be important and that person said, “You know I don’t really like the piano in the living room.”  AND, there isn’t any other available location for it in the house would you,

A) Get rid of the piano?
B) Get rid of the spouse/significant other?

Purely hypothetical of course, nothing like this has happened to me recently so I have no idea why this sort of question might be on my mind…

C) Buy a house with a soundproof practice room/studio!

[leahcim]

Now in practice this seldom involves the sort of drama and crisis implied by these popular moral puzzles. Compromise and common sense are all that are usually required.

Well yes, that's the idea of hypothetical situations and the reason why they are better used to attempt to force someone in an debate/argument to agree with your point, rather than to teach us anything. "Ok, if a, b, c and d and e, i.e all your objections couldn't be done then you would do x, wouldn't you?" "Err, yeah, but that's not..." "Aha! So you would do it - I told you"

Although this doesn't seem to be a moral puzzle afaict - owning a piano or locating it in the living room isn't immoral is it?

Ok, one of the hypothetical choices is implying someone is deciding to end a long term relationship. If that is supposedly immoral it seems at least equally, if not more, the choice of the other party to end it - they are just throwing the ball in your court, by making the moral decision appear to be yours.

You could throw it back - leave the piano where it has always been and then the other, presuming they have the same moral values, will have to accept the situation.

If they don't, then they show, at least from your moral viewpoint, that they put the marriage / relationship second. So you'd at least see that you were once married to someone who didn't have the same high moral values you might have demonstrated by selling a piano

[rc]

Hardly.  My head would sell the piano because it's the rational thing to do.  Using Bernhard's analogy, my emotional elephant has been so subdued by the intellectual one that it rarely ever factors into the decision.

What I attempted to say earlier is that I believe you can't answer an emotional question via intellect or vice versa.  Whether you allow your life to be dictated by emotion or intellect is, to me, a different discussion.

On that note, if your heart and head don't agree, how do know which one to follow?  Should intellect always win?

How about an intellect that's educated in the purposes and drives of the powerful emotions. A kinder, more sympathetic intellect that will pay attention to what the body and emotional elephant are trying to say (since they have no words), and know when to supress the elephant, redirect its energy, or agree with the elephant and let it have its way. If the head knew how unhappy the self would be to lose the piano, it wouldn't seem so rational to sell it.

The body and emotions always have a point in some way, but I still prefer the let the intellect have the final word. In a disagreement between heart and head, I let head win. Heart makes up its mind immediately, head sometimes needs a few days to thoroughly consider all angles, and come to a better decision.

[ted]

leachim:

I don't doubt you're right but I'm not a very bright person, I'm useless at strategies and don't lie because I cannot remember who I've told what at the best of times. These regressions of bluff and double bluff seem such a sad waste of time. Making honest declarations is so much easier. One of the nice things about a marriage should surely be that we can say simply, "I do not like X", or "I do like Y". Then we can both sit down and work out a way of optimising both our preferences. Cases of an absolute contradiction with no way of forming a compromise have actually been surprisingly rare. That's where give and take come in.

Strategies of manipulation as a working method anywhere carry the terrible risk that even if they win a desired end, the victor may well seriously damage his moral standing to the point of alienation when the strategy is revealed as such later on; and most of them are revealed sooner or later. On the whole I have found it better to refuse to play games at all and put up with being abused and diddled every now and then.

I am not so naive I do not realise they are an integral part of the workplace and of daily life in general. It's just that in the particular case of a marriage they are often extremely destructive, and a partially satisfactory compromise or even an open, cards on the table concession is usually far preferable.

[Torp]

Wake up you bloody master !!

This would appear to be the key.  I wonder how that is done?

Bernhard, that second analogy struck a chord with me, thanks.

Without quoting everyone else who has responded here I would like to say thanks.  Your responses are appreciated and helpful.  You have raised questions that I have not provided enough data for you to answer.  I'm not sure I will either, not to be coy, but just because I'm not completely comfortable with sharing some of it.

[sonatainfsharp]

I put my wife before ANYTHING, but she lets me keep the piano in the living room--and she doesn't think I play it enough.

This "hypothetical situation" isn't about what before whom; it is about finding someone with whom you are truly compatible with.

[leahcim]

I don't doubt you're right but I'm not a very bright person,

Don't say that Your posts on the board demonstrate wisdom and I think your replies are spot on here too.

You have raised questions that I have not provided enough data for you to answer.  I'm not sure I will either, not to be coy, but just because I'm not completely comfortable with sharing some of it.

Sure. If I said "I'd want to know" I didn't mean that literally for you to post more details here if the situation is real. I think Ted hit upon it and I was trying in a long winded way to say in my first post the extra information / discussion etc is to avoid the mexican stand off - I wouldn't use the method in my 2nd post

[pianistimo]

assuming that this choice IS hypothetical - then torp is actually saying that the piano takes up a significant part of his life (livingroom=piano part).  he wants to share the livingroom because it is such a big part of his life.

i would say that if this significant other is not willing to share this now, maybe over time they will.  especially if you use the approach that ted and i do (our mates don't play piano - at least i know mine doesn't and i don't think ted's does).  yet, we have become an influence on them to at least try TRY to appreciate it.  my husband would much rather watch a ballgame - so i think that it's something we don't share the same level of appreciation for.  yet, i like having my own space to do something just for me and not really have him around when i'm practicing anyway.  it doesn't matter to me.  from my perspective i'd rather have the 'good in bed' part.  of course, if you keep each other satisfied that way - they are probably more willing to share and expand their horizons.  and, after a few years (even if literally they still don't want the piano in the livingroom) you can put the piano, as someone said, in a sound proof room and shut the door when you are teaching or practicing). 

what struck me is the use of the word 'significant' other.  that, to me, means that you've already had a relationship (and possibly a child).  the mad elephant is that wild side of you that wants to keep on going though several hundred women until you find #1 a pianist  #2 lets you keep the piano int he livingroom #3 isn't probably as meaningful to you relationshipwise because you do not share a background, a child?, and other things besides piano.  that's why i think you should 'compromise' if you feel that the mad elephant can be tamed.  otherwise, the mad elephant  will do pretty much as it wants.  my children are highly affected by the relationship that my husband and i have with each other.  over the years, i've found the most endearing things to me are not #1 piano, but #1 family.  if your family is happy, then you can concentrate on matters at hand.  (not from a selfish viewpoint - just keeping them happy) you will probably not be disappointed by your choice 20-30 years from now.   

[BoliverAllmon]

If you were spending your life with someone whom you believed to be important and that person said, “You know I don’t really like the piano in the living room.”  AND, there isn’t any other available location for it in the house would you,

A) Get rid of the piano?
B) Get rid of the spouse/significant other?

Purely hypothetical of course, nothing like this has happened to me recently so I have no idea why this sort of question might be on my mind…

I would just practice at the church. no problem on my part.

[Torp]

what struck me is the use of the word 'significant' other.

The word choice was completely driven by the idea of not limiting the responses to only married people.  I didn't want people who weren't married to feel like I didn't want their thoughts.

I have been married for 11 years and played piano for 35.  There was no surprise when we got married how important music was/is to me.  The piano was purchased as a joint decision.  It has only been recently that comments have begun about it being "too big" for the living room, "maybe it will fit in the spare bedroom," etc.

So, I suppose, the bigger question for me is not whether I have to choose between one or the other, but rather how to deal with a situation where someone, who is a significant part of my life, doesn't really "get" what music means to me.

[BoliverAllmon]

I think relationships are all about compromise. How bad would it be to put it in the spare bedroom? or how bad to get an electronic keyboard?

boliver

[pianistimo]

i understand what you mean about getting lots of opinions (and not just from married people).  people in general understand what you mean - and 'birds of a feather often do flock together.' 

when i first married i didn't really comprehend 'for better or for worse.'  i just though better was ok.  the worse, i would try to change.  but, some mates are stuck in their ways.  my husband was 40 when i married him.  we've changed each other significantly over the years, but it's never been from demanding or yelling.  it's always been when one or the other compromises and then the other meets halfway or 1/3 or 1/4 of the way.  being nice gets you farther than repeating this mistake, and then a litany of 20 past mistakes to prove that the other person is wrong wrong.

of course, there's some people that don't give up until they meet mr. perfect or ms. perfect - but in actuality - i don't think it really exists.  growing up in similar circumstances kinda helps some people, having similar hobbies helps others, and just being plain attracted physically to the person isn't terrible is it?  i mean, when my husband comes home - i'm not thinking - hmm what can we do at the piano.  ok.  in truth, i married him for his brain and his singing abilities - but, after we got married i found that he was all man and no man could possibly make me feel the way he does.  after 10-15 years sometimes there's a temptation to look - but it goes away quickly when you realize that you have 'the whole package' here - and that trust is very important.

having pics of your family (my husband has always done this) and stuff around where you work makes it harder for others to invade and look appealing.  i knew one person back in lancaster who always put his wife's pic on the screen of his computer when he wasn't working on it.  any of the ladies that helped him, or people that came into the office knew that he was't looking.  and, his wife was flattered that he cared about her enough to do that.  when you start doing little things for the other person and making them feel important to you (showing that you enjoy when they walk into the room, and eye contact makes guys/girls feel more important over the other people in the room).  also, women tend to like it if you allow them some time to get used to an idea.

instead of selling the piano, perhaps there is another place in the house she can suggest that would be ok.  or, try building an addition (piano room).  you'd probably enjoy having a private studio anyway.

[BoliverAllmon]

great post.

[Torp]

How bad would it be to put it in the spare bedroom? or how bad to get an electronic keyboard?

Aside from having to tear down the wall of the house to get it in the spare bedroom?  Not bad.  I already have an electronic keyboard.  That's what I've played for all the years I could not afford, or have space for, a grand piano.

instead of selling the piano, perhaps there is another place in the house she can suggest that would be ok. or, try building an addition (piano room). you'd probably enjoy having a private studio anyway.

She has suggested the dining room, which I personally think would look worse than the living room, but maybe that's what it will take.  Of course I'd love a private studio!!!  Anyone want to fund that project for me!!!

[bernhard]

Careful with compromise. Next to go will be the bike

[Torp]

Careful with compromise. Next to go will be the bike

Of course I'd be on it, so maybe that wouldn't be all bad.