Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Kaiser" <loopersdelight@pfmentum.com> > what about open circuit players? If we go by the definitions that I cited, I'd say their bent circuits are instruments. They are used to create the music, rather than take music from an instrument, "effect" it, and then spit it out. > Also: what makes a guitar an instrument? The wood? The strings? The >frets? > Tuners? Again, if we use those definitions as a basis, then a guitar is an instrument because it physically produces the music. > They all add up to make an instrument....as do those little things we >call > "effects".......The instrument is what WE use to make music.... But according to the definition, I would say most effects are not instruments, rather they are "effectors" of instruments, or the sound that instruments produce. I like to draw analogies with art, so let me give one a try. Let's say we call a paintbrush and paint the collective instruments of the painter, meaning that they are the physical objects that touch the canvas and produce what we see as visual stimuli. It seems a bit awkward to say this, but bear with me. Then let's say that when the painter finishes his piece, he puts it on display and places a rose colored sheet of Plexiglas in front of the painting, so that the original visual sense data are then altered to appear different colors. We could call this the "effector" of the visual sense data, which in this case is the paint, which was applied by the brush. In the case of the definitions I was citing, I would consider an effect processor similar to that of the Plexiglas and the guitar similar to that of the paint and paintbrush....all awkwardness aside with the lack of a perfect parallelism. It's the like the window dressing I have referred to many times when describing effects vs. the original tone of the guitar. You peel all those effects away, the layers of colored Plexiglas, and what you get is the uneffected output of the instrument. Of course, if we change the definitions, then we change all these answer I've provided. I'm just playing the logician here...cranking out the deductions from the definitions. It's a rather safe and uninspiring approach, as it requires no commitment to any hard believe about what "is" or "is not" an instrument, rather what is or is not an instrument based on what definition we choose to start with. :) Language Games.....our friend Wittgenstein comes back to haunt us yet again! This is all just self-indulgent analytical-linguistic gymnastics bullshit, and I'm knee deep in it. Pick a definition, any definition... Kris > In my opinion, no, according to the above, unless they can be used to > produce music by themselves, otherwise I think they are musical "tools" > that take music and transform it. Would I consider Reaktor an instrument > in this case, meaning the "instruments" in Reaktor that don't require > audio input? I would. Seems like a pretty clear cut and simple >definition > to me. It either produces music or it doesn't. An effect processor > doesn't produce music per se in my book, it alters it...which is we call > them "effects"....they effect the audio input they received, even if > beyond recognition.