Drop (& more)

[David Andersen]

RicB wrote:

>
>I think, Susan and Issac, that there is no real difference in the numbers
>of "magical realists" (to use your term)
That, actually, was my term....... :----()
>  in Europe compared to America.
>There are perhaps fundemental differences in the degree of conservatism or
>willingness to experiment between our two continents, but what you point
>to here, and what perhaps Issac and Andre' so well exemplify is really
>something quite different.
>
>On the one hand we have many who see only regulation specifications,
>mathematical models, scientifics this and thats, rational descriptions or
>explanations of piano acoustics and functions. The language they speak
>reflects their particular viewpoint, for not to say paradigm. For these it
>is nearly impossible to accept the existance, likelihood,  or possibility
>of any posit of truth unless it can be thus explained. Far too often this
>breed makes the mistake of assuming that if something can not be explained
>by such means or methods, then it is either somehow false or meaningless
>or otherwise not worth further inquiry.
>
>On the other hand you have many who approach our work from an entirely
>different perspective, one that rests far more purely on the exact same
>artistic experience that pianists themselves rely on. The "magical
>realism" they purvey is really nothing more then a wholly different set of
>concepts and terms to describe them... a different vocabulary so to speak.
>Curiously enough these same have just as serious a weekness as our more
>rationally bound sorts. For these, it is the acceptance that science and
>rational can actually show clearly errors in sensed perceptions that is
>impossible.
>
>Both sorts clearly have their strengths as well, and are founded in that
>same reality their perceptions of things allows for. For the sensualist,
>the acceptance of "facts" like  << sound and timbre being directly
>affected by hardness of the front felt punchings >> or that << the voice
>of the piano is sensed as easily at the fingers as at ears. >> is as
>natural and "of course-ish" as could possibly be. These are much more
>willing to think for example in terms of aged wood, or varnish qualities.
>For the rationalist of course one runs into difficulties very quickly
>thinking along these lines,  yet that same resistance to this kind of
>"knowledge" leads them to wonderous discovery and invention of their own.
>
>For my own part I dispute that either sort is in any way inherently better
>then others, or that their choice of perspectives are founded in any
>significant way by whether they had factory training or not, or whether
>they come from this place or not, or any of the rest of that. Nor is it in
>my experience that either of these are more or less represented as concert
>level technicians. In the end, what governs ones success thus is whether
>or not one is a master, in ones own fashion, of this trade. If there is a
>type of technician that fits that particular bill, I would think it would
>have to be a person who was able to transcend to some significant degree
>the tendancies towards prejudice that so easily dominant our own
>perceptions, and our own judgements. A person who can get past his / her
>own vocabulary and perceptions, a person who can succeed in seeing the
>truth in anothers form of expression, however radically different  then
>ones own.

A great, wise post.  We are all how we are; the challenge is accepting 
without fear and demonization those who approach things 
differently........Thanks, RicB......David A.