Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
On 25 aug 2006, at 18.36, Krispen Hartung wrote: > I let the effect do its thing to my guitar, but the whole time I > was in control of my guitar and providing 100% of the raw input to > be mangled by the effects. In that case, I do not consider the > effects as an instrument. I was not touching or manipulating > anything on my notebook. I was not using the effects, as in hands > on manipulation to produce new sounds, which is what we typically > do with instruments, right? Rather, the effects were window > dressing around my initial guitar tone. Maybe some would call > pressing a button to switch from one VST to another, using the > laptop as an instrument. I dont'. That's just button pushing for > the sake of colorizing my guitar. > 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< > Call me a traditionalist, but I still hold (based on feeling) the > traditional instrument and chops in high regard. That example > above, where I could play one note and then let the effects and my > parameter tweaking do the rest. That is interesting and impressive > to me, but it does not gain my respect as an artist, nor does add > to my own integrity as an artist. That's just my opinion. Voilą! Yet another interesting topic :-)) I can see where Kris is going with that opinion and I'd like to add my take on what it actually is that makes the difference. The crucial point IMHO is whether "something" is being used to make music or not. If it is, then it indeed is an instrument. Ok that's fine, but having said that much you will also have to define "music". As I experience "music" it is about "telling a story"; there has to be a Direction, an Intention and a Presence. Ok, now... having gone this far I have to say that there is also an antithesis to this - which in my opinion is also "music" - and that is when none of these three characteristics is met, however absent in a clearly intentional way. Like in "ambient music" or "random music". But here we're sliding into conceptual art territory which may be quite another trip. In praxis, if you get to know "effects" so well that you are able to use them intentionally you have transformed these effects into "your instrument". But will I become "an effect" myself, if I should learn to play totally unintentionally? My belief is that it would not be possible to "play unintentionally". You can reach that zone of "no subject nor object" by random based composing techniques (ex: Xenakis) but by playing? I don't thinks so. But if you try, it may still result in something interesting... This sends an association to the classic album Remain In Light, but Talking Heads. Musicians were called in to put down overdubs without being allowed to hear all other overdubs, already on tape. Then the music was mixed by combining musicians that had never actually played there parts together. If they have been allowed to hear each other when playing they may never have been able to play with that certain attitude you hear on the record. So this leads to a third way of relating to "effects", as "Rebellious Catalysts". For the listener, not for the musician, because the musician is not aware of the full picture here. Pretty interesting stuff, isn't it! Greetings from Sweden Per Boysen www.boysen.se (Swedish) www.looproom.com (international) http://tinyurl.com/fauvm (podcast) http://www.myspace.com/looproom