Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
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.
** still and all, your understanding comes from your perceptions and
experiences and i have my own that flavor my concepts.
first off, re-read the definition I gave. I didn't say an instrument is a
"manipulation of the sound" at all.
** i know, but my point is that is i believe that is what an edp does, i
think that you alluded to that elsewhere.
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.
** i don't really like doing this, as it isn't always helpful and
dictionaries are written by lay persons rather than musicians, but one
dict. has a definition that is somewhat closer to yours - -and one that is
closer to mine . . . (and to be completely literal, it doesn't make the
"music come out of you" - - but i understand your point). i think much of
it comes down to does it create sound on its own . . . and this is where
the proverbial "most" people might join me - - if we were to care about
that.
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".
** sure, since so many of us use "non-instruments" to make music.
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.
** not always the best arbiter in my view. after all, many people use
"its" and "it's" interchangeably - - doesn't mean it's correct. ("its" is
the possessive of "it," "it's" is a contraction of "it is.")
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".
** i follow your logic until you subsitute "keyboard" for "controller" - -
since they are very different things, i believe that this example does not
work. a midi keyboard does create sound if it is amplified, the controller
does not - - it only does that if it's hooked up to something that does
create/produce a sound. the other thing is that getting the bytes into the
sequencer is more akin to writing notes on a piece of paper than it is to
playing sound in air. (still, both are musical activities - - well at
least one hopes they are . . . )
** i should have said that i consider a sample an "original sound" in this
case . . . my mistake. and i don't mean "original" to mean "never heard
before" . . . rather this is in relation to the idea of what a looping
device, such as and edp, or an effects pedal does vis a vis the "original
sound."
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.
** i think that most of the definitions here would require some hoops . .
. even the one you are using. "music resulting," under this definition,
could include someone writing on musical notes on paper with a pencil,
which are conceivably only "potential music."
>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.
**right, but what i've heard about andre lf's usage leads me to believe
that this is what he is doing. it *is* situational . . .
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".
** sure, i understand that, but this also gets into that gray area of
perception . . . sorta like what is and isn't music - - we had the
definition wars over that about a year and a half ago - - and we've seen
the dj is musician yes/no war a few times.
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".
** i thought that dr. z had an interesting comment on this bit.
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.
** sure. the bottom line (another over-used cliche!) is that people are
using them to make music in really cool ways. the interesting thing about
them is that they *are* changing the discussion on music and music
production/creation. (and you and matthias have had no small part in this,
no?)
stig
<font size="1">Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any
dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss,
disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while
using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return
e-mail. Thank you.