deep philosophical question

[Derek]

Should pianists have discussions about philosophical questions? 

[pianistimo]

as artsy type people it is much like bird watching.  pbs had a documentary on last night of some guy who managed macaw parrots in the city.  some had been pets and others were progeny that were actually wild.  he decided not to work and just take care of the birds.  (much as some musicians).  it is a peaceful life - but not unfraught with hostile questioners.  one questioner asked 'why only the parrots?  why not the bluebirds?'  the only thoughtful response was a good one from this guy.  complete silence.  communion with the bird he was feeding.

perhaps musicians have a sense of contemplativeness not unsimilar to mathematicians.  if this is so - then this must be so.  and so on.  for instance...speed related fingerings.  do we need fingerings for different speeds?  or does one fingering fit all?  i think speed and fingering go together.  cortot is good for fast fingerings.  but, debussy had other ideas.  namely allowing the idea for unregulated craziness at moderate tempos.  fifth fingers on black keys.  things like that.  bach was unregulated in his fingerings.  that is why things are slow and moderate tempos usually.  to allow for massive discourtesy.  i would have liked to see the third finger bend over the fifth and then thumb my nose at a 'fingering expert.'  as i see it - don't spend inordinate time with fingerings.  it all works out in the end.  in fact, perhaps have  drink before sitting down with a bach toccata or fugue.  just improvise.

[pianowolfi]

Those who wish yes

[m1469]

hmmmm.... well, it depends, I guess  .

I consider myself a 'person', first, who expresses my personal sense about life through music -- including piano playing.  Sometimes the next "problem" for me as an individual, and as a musician/pianist, is not so much about how to play something in particular, but rather how to think about the world and how to be, as strange as that may sound.  And, whatever a person would label it, I don't consider myself to be asking "philosophical" questions, but rather, I am just working out my next "problem."

It seems necessary for me to be aware of and take care of the needs of the 'greater,' and the rest will more or less fall into place.  So, when it comes to piano playing and piano technique, I think in terms of the entire body.  In my experience, beliefs and observations, however, our minds and the way we think are even greater -- or at the very least, extremely tied in.  What we think can affect everything we do in life, and of course, how we interpret music, but even how we hold ourselves in body-form.  Posture is very much psychological, and our psychological makeup is extremely tied to the world -- more than many people even care to know about right now. 

The rest of all that is pretty difficult for me to explain at this point in my life -- or maybe I am just feeling particularly lazy right now ... hee hee.

As with everything, there is a need for balance, of course, but that's up to each individual to discern what that is for themselves. 

[opus10no2]

Yes, but don't expect that it will get you anywhere.

What, on the surface, may appear a need for objective truth, results, after much thought, in a search for subjective belief.

[m1469]

Yes, but don't expect that it will get you anywhere.

What, on the surface, may appear a need for objective truth, results, after much thought, in a search for subjective belief.

hmmm... well, if subjective belief (vs. objective truth) is all there is to life, as is often suggested, then searching for and finding/refining what that is on an individual basis would actually get us everywhere there is to go, it seems; and, in this case, becomes the greatest and only argument toward considering "philosohpical" things, since objective truth, by definition, cannot be changed and a person's "philosophy" represents a trend in personal belief .

[opus10no2]

Well, I said don't 'expect'.

It does different things for different people, for you it might help your direction, but for others it may create doubt and less surety..

You may say that these people are doing it wrong  but remember many people are agnostic and this will reflect alot of their other beliefs and choices, and their surety/lack-of in them.

So for some, if the 'answer' is the only pursuit, it may end up fruitless.

[Bob]

Why not?  It's fun.

[elspeth]

I think it's necessary to consider the world around you and your place in it. Otherwise you might as well not be alive - what's the point if you don't consider and appreciate life?

[timothy42b]

Should pianists have discussions about philosophical questions? 

Probably not.

Think about it...............whoops, no don't.

There may be no way to construct this argument logically but I'll try.

There are people who like to think.  From an early age they derive some kind of pleasure from figuring things out, from thinking conceptually at higher levels, from wondering about the implications of what they see.

By and large these people do not become pianists.  They become scientists, researchers, engineers like me, sometimes academics or theologians. 

Then there are people who like to do things.  They become athletes, musicians, artists, etc. 

Overlapping with that category are people who like to feel emotions.  They also become artists, but also social workers, drama majors, sometimes medical workers, etc.  Sometimes drug addicts or criminals. 

This is based on what people like to do, not what they're good at.  A pianist is probably perfectly capable of thinking in some depth, but it's not something they routinely do, just like some people never play sports. 

Engineers tend to become competent amateur musicians but never great ones.  Great musicians rarely develop any scientific theories.  There are a few exceptions but by and large thinking and feeling interfere with each other.   Artists and musicians are greatly prone to superstitious thinking and behavior and get hostile quickly if you use logic with them.  Engineers are usually better technicians than interpreters. 

So no, don't let pianists talk about philosophy.  It's often a battle of wits with an unarmed man.   

[ramseytheii]

hmmm... well, if subjective belief (vs. objective truth) is all there is to life, as is often suggested, then searching for and finding/refining what that is on an individual basis would actually get us everywhere there is to go, it seems; and, in this case, becomes the greatest and only argument toward considering "philosohpical" things, since objective truth, by definition, cannot be changed and a person's "philosophy" represents a trend in personal belief .

If subjective belief is "all there is to life," I want out right now!

Walter Ramsey