RE: Loop approach: Loop as effect

[Kim Flint <kflint@loopers-delight.com>]

At 01:04 PM 7/24/2002, Liebig, Steuart A. wrote:
>(musical instrument = device physically and interactively
>manipulated in order to perform music; sound effect = device that 
>passively
>and non-interactively processes sound according to some set rules.)

remember, that is my operating definition, based on how I see the words 
used around me. (not based on what I decided I wanted to be true.) I 
arrived at that by spending many years thinking about instrument design, 
observing people playing instruments, and discussing the subject with 
them. 
 From my perception of things, these are the way the words get used, even 
though people don't necessarily clarify the meaning.


>** it seems that the gray area can be intent or manifestation.

I think that is correct.

>however, i think (imho, etc.) an instrument must be able to make an 
>"original" musical (another can of worms, i'm sure) sound, not just the 
>manipulation of that sound.

first off, re-read the definition I gave. I didn't say an instrument is a 
"manipulation of the sound" at all. I said it is a thing a musician 
physically manipulates in order to create music. In other words, something 
you stick your fingers, hands, lips, feet, or other body parts on and 
physically control in order to make music come out of you.

Second, your idea that an instrument must make an "original musical sound" 
is definitely a "can of worms". In fact, so much so that I find it just 
doesn't work as a definition of "instrument". You can break it without 
much 
effort. It is very easy to give examples of items that people perceive 
easily as "instruments" yet which don't make any musical sound themselves. 
For example, any midi controller. It produces midi control bytes, not 
sounds. The midi data may cause sounds to be generated, but are they 
"original sounds"? Maybe not, maybe they are samples of something else. 
Maybe the midi data is being recorded into a sequencer without any sound 
at 
all. Yet, if you put a group of people in a room and had them watch 
somebody playing a midi keyboard, they would all refer to the device as an 
"instrument".

With your definition, you have to jump through all sorts of complex hoops 
to resolve it with this particular situation. (you can do the opposite 
case 
too, conceiving of devices that produce "original musical sounds" but 
which 
nobody would normally consider an instrument.) For me, if it is getting 
that complicated, the definition ain't working because nobody is going 
through the world sorting out this many things before they speak. On the 
other hand, "musician puts his hands on object, actively controls it, 
music 
results in relation to what he does. therefore object= musical 
instrument." 
is really simple and for me seems to easily cover the situations I 
encounter in the world.


>that's why i think that some looping devices are more aptly termed 
>"compositional tools" - - they only put out what you put into them, but 
>can do all sorts of great things with that sound by creating form, etc.

Maybe for you that is true. But that is definitely not how everybody is 
approaching looping. When I watch a variety of people using loopers as I 
did at the loopfest, it is really hard for me to not see some people using 
them as "instruments".


>also, let's face it, by your definition, some people are going to use 
>looping devices as "effects" . . .

yes, exactly. I said that before. If you just record a loop and let it 
play 
away without any further interaction from you, then for you loopers are 
not 
instruments by my understanding of "instrument". Maybe they are "effects", 
maybe they are "recorders", maybe they are "compositional tools", maybe 
they are "glorified karaoke machines", or maybe they are something else.

kim


______________________________________________________________________
Kim Flint                     | Looper's Delight
kflint@loopers-delight.com    | http://www.loopers-delight.com