Re: Re: Attitudes to instruments/loopers (Derek Bailey)

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

Yeah, it got me going. :)  An instrument is a possibility? Or a set? How 
is 
that possible? (no pun intended). I consider it an object, nor more or no 
less.  I mean, let's get literal and clear here: if I break my guitar up 
into bits, I find pieces of wood, metal, glue, and eventually I can put it 
under a microscope and find organic molecules, etc...but, low and behold, 
I 
can find no possibilities! They appear to be eluding the lens of the 
microscope.  Those clever possibilities, hiding inside the guitar 
somewhere....damn them to hell.

I suspect the realm of possibilities is in the mind. The instrument is 
subservient to the mind in my opinion.  I think saying an instrument is a 
set of possiblities is a semantic oxymoron. Maybe the guitar itself as an 
instrument can inspire possibiliies in the mind of the looper....I'll buy 
that. But it's still an object, vs. the life of the mind (recall what 
movie 
that is from?)

Kris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "a k butler" <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>

> Kris wrote:
>>This is because I consider improvisation not just something inextricably 
>>tied to music, but a way of life and approaching the world, both 
>>physically and intellectually.  I'd rather have the improv music be 
>>defined by my own creativity and mind rather than the instrument.
>
> The instrument is a set of unrealised possibilities,
> just waiting to be unlocked by a creative person.
>
> Whether the instrument is a guitar, a hand-drum, a looping device or 
>just 
> the stuff in your head.
>
> ( ah... that'll get him going :-)
>
> andybutler
>
>