Re: Re: Attitudes to instruments/loopers (Derek Bailey)

["Krispen Hartung" <khartung@cableone.net>]

 Kris wrote
>>Yeah, it got me going. :)  An instrument is a possibility? Or a set? How 
>>is that possible? (no pun intended). I consider it an object, nor more 
>or 
>>no less.  I mean, let's get literal and clear here: if I break my guitar 
>>up into bits, I find pieces of wood, metal, glue, and eventually I can 
>put 
>>it under a microscope and find organic molecules, etc...but, low and 
>>behold, I can find no possibilities! They appear to be eluding the lens 
>of 
>>the microscope.  Those clever possibilities, hiding inside the guitar 
>>somewhere....damn them to hell.
>
> Well yes, if you break it into molecules you won't be able to play at 
>all 
> :-)
> ...and there won't be a guitar there anymore. > So your "refutation" 
> doesn't add up.

Well, it wasn't really a refutation, but poking fun and literally 
interpreting your statement that a guitar "is" a set of possibilities. I'm 
saying that is impossible and absurd, but I know what you mean and agree 
with you. The possibilities come from our minds, and guitar can inspire 
them 
and obviously be an critical part in actualizing them because of it's 
diverse functionality. But you don't find possibilities, literally, 
"inside" 
the guitar as a physical object, anymore than you would beauty "in" the 
eye 
of the beholder. These are subtle inefficiencies of the English language 
that get us into trouble sometimes.  The language is metaphoric, but taken 
literally can imply all sorts of ludicrous absurdities.

K


>
> On the other hand, if you leave your guitar intact you'll be able to get 
> new sounds out of it that you never heard before. All those bits of 
>wood, 
> metal & glue add up to an instrument that is capable of producing  not 
> only those sounds you already know it can make, but also quite a few 
> others. Can you find those other sounds?
>
> andybutler
> www.andybutler.com
>
>