Re: Effect as crutch

[Robert Switzer <rswitzer@721.com>]

At 03:11 AM 11/26/99 -0200, you wrote:

>>technology must always be a servant to music and creativity, not the 
>other
>>way around.
>>

How could it be otherwise?  Not being a smartass here.  Please explain.

>From reading the discourse on 'effects as crutch' it seems to me that 
>there
are (at least) two major takes on this. The first is that music is
something apart from sound -- sound is something you 'do to' music after
the fact.  Along with this, 'effects' are something apart from a musical
instrument, added after the fact. 

The second take -- and the one I support -- is that music and sound are all
of a piece, and everything you use to make sound/music constitutes a
musical instrument.  Many stompboxes, fx, software packages, or what have
you are strong and expressive musical instruments in their own right.  

Saying that an artist's use of effects constitutes a 'crutch' may just be
another way of saying that an artist has a sonic/concrete focus where
timbre and texture are dominant rather than pitch and duration. 

Not a thing wrong with that, IMHO -- in fact, adopting a sonic focus is a
choice that has only recently become available for the majority of
musicians, and offers considerably more unexplored territory to plumb.  

rob