Very often, good players are complete idiots

From what I've read, I understood that according to Asimov, it is not difficult to play an instrument if one has a free mind. It is our mind, overwhelmed by the millions of thoughts that assail us at any moment even when we don't want them to, that prevents us from giving 100%. Only an idiot, having a clear mind when in front of the instrument, manages instead to give their best...

Dino, are you telling me there is an even deeper meaning??

If one removes the interpretation, what remains?

Can an Idiot have an aesthetics of interpretation? One thing is clear... another is empty

No?

Clearly Isaac Asimov is not a musician... everyone can say (I don't know if claim) what they want

Eh yes, his thought expressed this way is debatable... perhaps he meant something else

I interpret it this way:

all human activities can be done in two ways:

- only technically, which usually leads to a repetition (albeit a correct one) of what we are engaged in: that is, what Asimov's "skeleton" can do as a set of driving levers (a technically perfect musician)

- technically but also interpreting (or trying to interpret) from multiple points of view what is being done; for example, in the case of the pianist, interpreting the composer but also the feeling that piece has evoked in us through spiritual harmony with the author.

Being a neurologist, my interpretation can also be given this way:

the brain areas involved in musical activity are multiple (functional MRI) and involve various levels:

. the simplest, mechanical level is the motor cortex which, through muscles and the "skeleton," executes mechanically

. the subcortex and among these the famous amygdala, but also "instinctual" memory areas not yet defined because too complex and variable from individual to individual, with which the musician also gives "soul" to the self that interprets and to the soul of the composer who has evoked this "correspondence" with him (and there are many more people who "play his pieces," the more the author is "universal" and survives through time until the end of the world): this is not part of learned and perfect interpretations, but of the most sublime part of man. This is why a played piece is completely different (given the same notes) depending on who plays it (and at what moment they play it) and depending on who listens to it (and at what moment they listen to it), but a piece should never be played only with "the skeleton"!!! In this case, they are just "idiots," although I do not feel like being so negative toward those who can do nothing else because their brain is not endowed with the other characteristics that differentiate a genius from a passive repeater!!!

I appreciate the effort Assia, truly but...

Assia wrote:

This is why a piece played is completely different (given the same notes) depending on who plays it (and at what moment they play it) and depending on who listens to it (and at what moment they listen to it), but a piece should never be played using only "the skeleton"!!!

Exactly, an idiot is precisely the one who uses only the skeleton (only technique) ...

... for this reason, even though you were very good, I didn't understand...

Assia wrote:

In this case they are just "idiots," although I don't feel like giving such a negative tone to those who can do nothing else because their brain is not endowed with the other characteristics that differentiate a genius from a passive repeater!!!

?

dear Dino, in my opinion one cannot give a negative connotation to a bicycle because it cannot fly like an airplane because it was not born with those characteristics, but one also cannot prohibit it from using, for example, tenacity (which many geniuses often lack...) to dream of being an airplane..

perhaps Asimov wanted to refer to the lack of humility and self-criticism of the pianist who was the object of his wrath, but I assure you that living with a genius in daily life has always given society a hard time because they are strongly "different": for example, Socrates for poor Xanthippe, Mozart, about whom you can find heavy psychiatric references, Caravaggio etc etc. in short, genius is often enjoyed by subsequent generations but not by contemporaries!!! and so why persist against a pedantic skeleton: assuming that Asimov was able to give an objective and competent judgment, he should wait for the famous adage "to posterity the arduous judgment""}

Assia's bicycle analogy is very beautiful. Personally, I believe that in music as in life, it is truly difficult to express an opinion, whatever the subject may be, without having lived through a particular situation. To draw a low-quality parallel, I put myself in the position of someone who judges with condescension a man for having made a decision in his life. In that person's head, a thought has evolved that can stem from multiple reasons, from a life path different from one's own. Judging is always wrong, especially if we haven't lived through the same things as that person or at least similar/analogous situations. As I have already said in other posts, I do not like to take these extremist phrases as gospel; extremism is something I have been able to observe, it never works... Some phrases are thrown out more for the impact they can have on readers about to read them than for their content. Some of these are said to make people talk about oneself, others for self-promotion, others still to cause pure and simple sensation. Rather than looking at the directness of a phrase, we should focus on the form, pretending that the author of that phrase was not Isaac Asimov. Probably if some random person had said it, we wouldn't even be here talking about it. This is where the idea of the myth comes in, namely that of someone who, holding a certain importance in a cultural field, only emanates pearls of wisdom. I am convinced that even Einstein must have said some bullshit back in his day...

...I completely agree, dear Simone!!! Let's say that Asimov, being a polymath popularizer, perhaps used "provocation" as a method to bring out the instinctive reactions of those facing him and to get to know them better: sometimes it can be quick but brutal! It remains therefore an "adagio" that should be contextualized... if you ever deserve it!

Assia wrote:

It therefore remains an "adagio" that should be contextualized... if you even deserve it!

Of course it must be contextualized, also because it is not certain that it truly reflects Asimov's thought! And it is a sentence spoken by one of his characters (Ebling Mis, for the record): that is why it is so simplistic. Perhaps Asimov had quite different ideas regarding...