Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Perfectly valid point, Mike, provided you alter the definition of "instrument" that we started with. I hate to say it, but we are all just deducing conclutions on what is and is not an instrument based on our own custom definitions of the term "instrument"...which I find extremely pleasing. It confirms my observation and experiences of years of debating that most disagreements and differences of opinion are semantic and not related to any substantial facts. We are all forwading valid arguments here on what is or is not an instrument, valid meaning that our comments are following logically from our initial definitions or intuitive understanding of an instrument or effect. In short, everything is unfolding as I had expected. Next topic! :-) Kris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Miko Biffle" <biffoz@arczip.com> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 9:04 AM Subject: Re: "Instrument" vs "Effect" > The semantics of this discussion are getting freaky! > > My belief is that if the effect is integral to the sound and important >to > my > technique--meaning that I really don't feel inspired to play that part > without the 'treatment', then it's a part of the instrument. eg. My >pickup > is part of how I get my signal to my amp, so that's not an effect, it's > part > of the instrument--yet my acoustic guitar does just fine without it. >(Even > though the soundboard and box are very similar to your stated 'sound > shaping' effect below). > > There are many sounds I use, that allow otherwise improbable playing > styles > when used, and I would simply play a different way if left without them. > Granted, if it's just a simple verb or very subtle phase shift I would > pretty much say I was playing nearly dry, or unaffected. > > Miko Biffle -- "Running scared from all the usual distractions..." > C'mon over to MySpace! www.myspace.com/biffozz > Now playing 'Rough' www.cdbaby.com/biffoz > The Chain Tape Collective! www.ct-collective.com/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Krispen Hartung" <khartung@cableone.net> > To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:52 PM > Subject: 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. >> >> >> >> >> > > >