While I was trying cellos at Hammond Ashley, there was a cellist in the next booth over ripping one of the Bach Suites in HALF. He or she was pretty awesome: a couple of times I stopped what I was doing to listen. At which point TBF would prod me to quit comparing myself and get back to playing (he’s so Tiger Mom sometimes)
It was hard not to get a little discouraged while playing Happy Farmer and bits of Brandenburg, contemplating upping my budget for a cello that’s potential will probably be under realized for years if I take it home with me now.
It was a humbling reminder that no matter what cello I pick, I have a long way to go before I’m playing the music instead of just figuring out the instrument.
I had a frightful thought – am I good enough cellist for this cello? How much of my perceived passion for the Zuber is about the instrument as it sounds being played by a more accomplished cellist? If I can’t get that kind of sound – conceivably for years – is this a good investment, or a waste of money?
After all, there’s nothing wrong with buying, say, the Eastman. It’s a great cello, with a nice sound. I’m not surprised they’re popular. It would accomplish the goal of giving me a major step up from my current cello. I’m not as passionate about playing it, but I’m also still in Suzuki 1. Do I even know what there is to be passionate about? A couple of years with the Eastman, I become a better cellist and then start looking at a Zuber caliber upgrade. Nothing wrong with baby steps.
However there’s also something to be said for having plenty of room to grow into the skills. It’s why trainers often put inexperienced dressage riders on upper level horses – the well trained horse can be just as much of a teacher as the instructor.
But a cello isn’t a horse. Also had an emotional response to the Zuber and it was not shock at the price tag. I Heard it (capital H) in a way that I didn’t respond to the other cellos I tried. If sound is the subjective here factor here, what does that mean?
Or am I just rationalizing?