Sorry, for not being more explicit. FYI: I was trying to keep it light and over-generalized. I'm thinking in terms of real-time triggers (e.g. Sax, Trumpet, piano keyboard, guitars, etc...), when I define a musical instrument. If someone wants to twist/turn a knob and or utilize an alphabetic keyboard to make a relative comparison- that's their call.Sascha Franck wrote: Ok, but then every instrument would only be a tool as well.
Quite a philosophical thing...
Pertaining to the basics of harmony/melody, I was including any recognition whatsoever for putting together something musical. For some, it's materialiustic theory; for others, it's a feeling; etc... I certainly wouldn't limit one's ability to create music to their understanding of music based on what the dominant (i.e. materilaistic) schools teach. After all, it's all about the notes you play and the way you play them. Who cares what their handle is? However, if one is a 2nd trumpet player, it would certainly behoove them to understand how to read music and know how arrangements work, whereas a certain guitar player might not know any of that (theory) stuff and still be able to play off his band members just as cohesively.Sascha Franck wrote: Anyways, I don't think you need to grasp the basics of harmony and melody first. I'm pretty good at all that theory shit, yet I know about a lot of people with a way higher creative (musical) output than me, knowing almost nothing.
And sometimes their very interesting output seems to be related to their lack of knowledge. They can just use an Emaj as a dominant for Amin whereas with my glorious theoretical knowledge I'd never even try (unless I'd be treating it as some sort of modulation).
