Hummel describes in his “Art of Playing the Piano Forte” how mastering great technical difficulties alone “surprise the ear but do not delight it; they astonish the understanding without satisfying it.” While he seems to be making a point that technical displays without musical direction create superficial interpretations, a closer look at this quote reveals something even more interesting. I would actually argue that “astonishing the understanding without satisfying it” is exactly what music should do. Can music ever be completely satisfying? Should it be? The greatest performances I have seen left me in a state of wonder, curiosity, even “astonishment” - but not, I think, satisfied. This does not mean music should be dissatisfying, of course, only that if it were able to be completely understood, it would probably fail to astonish at all. Indeed, we should not forget that a complete “understanding” of any of the Beethoven sonatas (to use a completely random example…) is not possible for anyone, even the best musicians.
Also... I do like the idea of having daily lessons… I wish that was still commonly practiced today. I think it is much better for a teacher to meet with a few students frequently than to meet with many students for just one hour per week...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that if music makes you feel something, than it has been a success. I don't know if that always means you are satisfied. If we were hypothetically to become satisfied, what else would we have to strive for in listening to and playing music?
ReplyDeleteI have also never satisfied with my playing as I said in my writing. However, I have been satisfied other musician's playings. I think it is satisfied playing if the audience feel satisfied eventhough performer does not feel unsatisfied.
ReplyDelete