Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 01:04 PM 7/24/2002, Liebig, Steuart A. wrote: >(musical instrument = device physically and interactively >manipulated in order to perform music; sound effect = device that >passively >and non-interactively processes sound according to some set rules.) remember, that is my operating definition, based on how I see the words used around me. (not based on what I decided I wanted to be true.) I arrived at that by spending many years thinking about instrument design, observing people playing instruments, and discussing the subject with them. From my perception of things, these are the way the words get used, even though people don't necessarily clarify the meaning. >** it seems that the gray area can be intent or manifestation. I think that is correct. >however, i think (imho, etc.) an instrument must be able to make an >"original" musical (another can of worms, i'm sure) sound, not just the >manipulation of that sound. first off, re-read the definition I gave. I didn't say an instrument is a "manipulation of the sound" at all. I said it is a thing a musician physically manipulates in order to create music. In other words, something you stick your fingers, hands, lips, feet, or other body parts on and physically control in order to make music come out of you. Second, your idea that an instrument must make an "original musical sound" is definitely a "can of worms". In fact, so much so that I find it just doesn't work as a definition of "instrument". You can break it without much effort. It is very easy to give examples of items that people perceive easily as "instruments" yet which don't make any musical sound themselves. For example, any midi controller. It produces midi control bytes, not sounds. The midi data may cause sounds to be generated, but are they "original sounds"? Maybe not, maybe they are samples of something else. Maybe the midi data is being recorded into a sequencer without any sound at all. Yet, if you put a group of people in a room and had them watch somebody playing a midi keyboard, they would all refer to the device as an "instrument". With your definition, you have to jump through all sorts of complex hoops to resolve it with this particular situation. (you can do the opposite case too, conceiving of devices that produce "original musical sounds" but which nobody would normally consider an instrument.) For me, if it is getting that complicated, the definition ain't working because nobody is going through the world sorting out this many things before they speak. On the other hand, "musician puts his hands on object, actively controls it, music results in relation to what he does. therefore object= musical instrument." is really simple and for me seems to easily cover the situations I encounter in the world. >that's why i think that some looping devices are more aptly termed >"compositional tools" - - they only put out what you put into them, but >can do all sorts of great things with that sound by creating form, etc. Maybe for you that is true. But that is definitely not how everybody is approaching looping. When I watch a variety of people using loopers as I did at the loopfest, it is really hard for me to not see some people using them as "instruments". >also, let's face it, by your definition, some people are going to use >looping devices as "effects" . . . yes, exactly. I said that before. If you just record a loop and let it play away without any further interaction from you, then for you loopers are not instruments by my understanding of "instrument". Maybe they are "effects", maybe they are "recorders", maybe they are "compositional tools", maybe they are "glorified karaoke machines", or maybe they are something else. kim ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com