Re: "Instrument" vs "Effect"

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

I wish I could participate here and bring this back to looping, but my day 
job is killing me....I come up for air next week. But I can say one thing 
that relates it to looping units and effects used while looping:

Definitions of a musical instrument:

"any of various devices or contrivances that can be used to produce 
musical 
tones or sounds"
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"A musical instrument is a device that has been constructed or modified 
with 
the purpose of making music. In principle, anything that produces sound, 
and 
can somehow be controlled by a musician, can serve as a musical 
instrument; 
but the expression is reserved generally to items that have that specific 
purpose."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_instrument

So, is my looper or effect device a instrument? 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.

Just more food for thought....

Kris out....

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "a k butler" <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: "Instrument" vs "Effect"


>
> Krispen asks
>>>So, how does one define "instrument" in this forum?
>
> and some time later Stefan chips in
>>Anything you use to transform your emotion into music and you couldn't 
>do 
>>it without "...fill in whatever, VST's, strings, amps..." is part of 
>your 
>>instrument, you're not playing guitar, your playing an amplified 
>>VST-guitar.
>>The effect on its own won't be an instrument for most people (as for a 
>lot 
>>electric guitarist the guitar alone wouldn't be their instrument either).
>
> which is rather hard on the guys who try and show off their technique,
> as you don't allow they have an instrument :-)
>
>
>>Astonishingly a philosophical point of view didn't arrive yet:
>
> or any thoughts bringing the thread back to looping, which was what I 
>had 
> hoped
>
>>Does an instrument exist without musician?
>>Does the wood exist without observer...?
>
> the unobserved cupboard door I banged my head on surely existed,
> ...felt like it anyway
>
>
>>Back to the word effect: An effect is usually not only related to 
>>electronic devices, its something which makes an effect. A lot of 
>effects 
>>have been used in music history.
>
> but does the instrument itself have a musical function?
>
> "There seem to be two main attitudes to the instrument among 
>improvisors. 
> One is that the instrument is man's best friend, both as a tool and a 
> helper; a collaborator. The other attitude is that the instrument is 
> unnecessary, at worst a liability, intruding between the player and his 
> music."
> ...Derek Bailey in "Improvisation, It's Nature and Practise in Music".
>
> does the functionality of the looping device in some way participate in 
> the creation of music?
>
> andy butler
>
>