Re: "Instrument" vs "Effect"

["Miko Biffle" <biffoz@arczip.com>]

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.
>
>
>
>
>