RE: Loop approach: Loop as effect

["Liebig, Steuart A." <Steuart.Liebig@maritz.com>]

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.

** still and all, your understanding comes from your perceptions and 
experiences and i have my own that flavor my concepts. 


first off, re-read the definition I gave. I didn't say an instrument is a 
"manipulation of the sound" at all. 

** i know, but my point is that is i believe that is what an edp does, i 
think that you alluded to that elsewhere. 

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.

** i don't really like doing this, as it isn't always helpful and 
dictionaries are written by lay persons rather than musicians, but one 
dict. has a definition that is somewhat closer to yours - -and one that is 
closer to mine . . . (and to be completely literal, it doesn't make the 
"music come out of you" - - but i understand your point). i think much of 
it comes down to does it create sound on its own . . . and this is where 
the proverbial "most" people might join me - - if we were to care about 
that. 

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". 

** sure, since so many of us use "non-instruments" to make music. 

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. 
** not always the best arbiter in my view. after all, many people use 
"its" and "it's" interchangeably - - doesn't mean it's correct. ("its" is 
the possessive of "it," "it's" is a contraction of "it is.")

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".

** i follow your logic until you subsitute "keyboard" for "controller" - - 
since they are very different things, i believe that this example does not 
work. a midi keyboard does create sound if it is amplified, the controller 
does not - - it only does that if it's hooked up to something that does 
create/produce a sound. the other thing is that getting the bytes into the 
sequencer is more akin to writing notes on a piece of paper than it is to 
playing sound in air. (still, both are musical activities - - well at 
least one hopes they are . . .  )

** i should have said that i consider a sample an "original sound" in this 
case . . . my mistake. and i don't mean "original" to mean "never heard 
before" . . . rather this is in relation to the idea of what a looping 
device, such as and edp, or an effects pedal does vis a vis the "original 
sound."

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.

** i think that most of the definitions here would require some hoops . . 
. even the one you are using. "music resulting," under this definition, 
could include someone writing on musical notes on paper with a pencil, 
which are conceivably only "potential music."


>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. 

**right, but what i've heard about andre lf's usage leads me to believe 
that this is what he is doing. it *is* situational . . . 

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".

** sure, i understand that, but this also gets into that gray area of 
perception  . . . sorta like what is and isn't music - - we had the 
definition wars over that about a year and a half ago - - and we've seen 
the dj is musician yes/no war a few times.


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". 

** i thought that dr. z had an interesting comment on this bit. 

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.

** sure. the bottom line (another over-used cliche!) is that people are 
using them to make music in really cool ways. the interesting thing about 
them is that they *are* changing the discussion on music and music 
production/creation. (and you and matthias have had no small part in this, 
no?)

stig


<font size="1">Confidentiality Warning:  This e-mail contains information 
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the 
reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or 
agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any 
dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly 
prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, 
disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while 
using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail.   If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return 
e-mail.  Thank you.