I would distinguish between art and craft, which is to say, between these aspects of the same creation. Craft requires tools, art requires intent. A great chef can use complex tools to great effect, but at the same time can make something almost from nothing (well, perhaps a stone).

The most indispensible tool in the kitchen, I am told, is an excellent knife. I would hazard a guess that something analogous is true across disciplines, that is, that many professions somehow depend in the first instance on a sharp blade, whether it be for literal or figurative cutting.

At the very least, it would be interesting to try and make a general grouping of professions according to the sort of abstract tool they consider most important: something which cuts, something which carries, something which destroys, something which builds...

I wonder to what extent our tools are merely extensions of our own physical capabilities. For example, to a blind man isn't his cane just an extension of his arm? Aren't our glasses just extensions of our eyes? Our clothes skin? When we employ tools to our advantage don't they become part of our bodies and self?  I think you were right in comparing this with Leah's post about objects Chris because it begs the question what is possession? Does the definition of possess whereby a host embodies the spirit of a human carry weight in this discussion? When we use a tool does it leave behind the material world and become alive through our hands? 

With the abstract tools you mention Solveig I think we can approach some sort of universality common to all trades. Something which cuts, carries, destroys, builds? Well, I can do all of those things with only the tools I was born with. The tool is that which allows us to improve our own innate capabilities. But the abstract action is always the same. If I tear something with my teeth as opposed to scissors, it doesn't matter, the object is still torn all the same. Tools are only ever employed because of the efficiency by which they achieve the end result. 

Are there any differences by which an animal uses a tool and the ways we do? For example, is an otter who uses a rock to break open a clam any different than a human who boils the clams so the shell opens? Both have the same goal, both are more efficient than the alternative. Is one more efficient than the other?

I guess my main question asks whether or not we should distinguish the tool from the whole? It's not as if we say my arm tossed the ball, we say I tossed the ball. Should the same be taken into account when we employ a tool to toss the ball, a lacrosse stick for an example?

Hi Chris,

Reading your question reminded me of a phrase Krystian Zimerman used to repeat a lot when I studied with him about not wanting to change anything in my playing, just helping me acquire the tools. It was the first time for me that anyone used that word with connection to playing and I believe it is essential to understand its full meaning and application possibilities. I’ve been hard at work on my tools, and even more after he made it a conscious need, confronting me with the question of what material do I need to work on in order to achieve my musical aspirations.

In music one can talk about three sets of tools, which are all greatly connected:

1. The instrument
2. Your way of touching the instrument, or technique.
3. Understanding the piece.

On point (2), it is important to note that a brilliant technique is based on the variety of touch and the ability to create a great diversity of sounds and expressions that can be used in a way that makes sense. In other words, a way that serves the musical idea of the piece.

Point (3) can be done without an instrument and without the technical tools, simply in one’s mind as Schumann says:  “There is something magical about this secret enjoyment of music unheard”. This imagination is essential for the performer and helps him in the quest of tool’s acquirement. One must understand the piece’s need in terms of structure and musical expression to go hunting for the tools that will realize it.

Being faced with point (1), an instrument’s advantages and disadvantages puts one’s realization into a new perspective and requires a different set of technical tools to work with.

To give an example, two different sound’s approaches are called for when playing Chopin on a new Concert Steinway or on a Pleyel from Chopin’s time. Also regarding the technique of attacking the notes, one would need to use different ways and tools, due to the fact that the old Pleyel mechanic is not based on the double-escape mechanism.

To answer your last question, Chris, about a good instrument being mandatory for a great performance, I certainly believe that a very good musician who has acquired all the tools and knows how to adapt them to the circumstances, can give an excellent performance in any condition. For the performance to be “great”, one needs that extra something -inspiration, which happens when one is simply happy to play now and there, on this instrument, and objectively speaking, the instrument’s quality matters little, it is enough that the person who touches it sees its beauty.