Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: "Instrument" vs "Effect"



----- 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.