Do you have to play an instrument?

[progfusion74]

I do agree that when it comes to loops, a traditional instrument is not necessary. That's a completely different beast.

getting sidetracked if we go down this route ... yeah live uses loops (though doesnt HAVE to) but its the concept of then using the PC running live as the instrument playing and MANIPULATING those loops thats important here i think ... compare this scenario to playing a korg triton or some other sample based keyboard ...

And if you can get feel out of a mouse you're a better person than I .. I'd miss the aftertouch

heehee

slainte rob

I think I said this 200 posts ago . for me a PC is like a rack with a number of modules in it (for the playing part) .. that's how I use it.

[Rabid]

Rabid quoth
Ahhh, but I never said knowledge had to be traditional western composition.

It was kind of implied though, when you talked about 'musical geniuses of the past 500 years' though.

There have been musical geniuses all over the world.

It does not even mean the ability to read music. If a painter never takes the time to learn how to mix colors then that painter will be stuck using only colors that can be easily purchased.

Not true. Mixable colours is an innate property of the medium, whether or not one has learned a system or methodology of doing so.

Many people buy green rather than mix blue and yellow.

If a musician has never been exposed to alternate tunings, then that musician’s music will be limited to diatonic and close variants.

Not necessarily. If one has never been exposed to any tunings, then one would not expect that diatonic tunings were their first choice, unless something else forced that upon them.

And that scale is forced upon them by 98 percent of the music software available for computer and probably 98 percent of the loop libraries that are not percussion based.

If you have never made a sax growl or held a guitar in your hand while controlling feedback then you will never know what you are missing when sitting at a computer clicking notes onto a piano roll.

And? If you have never controlled multiple parallel granular feedback delays using a joystick controller, then you will never know what you are missing widdling strings on your guitar or huffing and puffing into your sax.

There is nothing intriniscally 'superior' to any of them, though.

So I take it you understand my point on this one.

Of course you can always use audio loops created by someone else to add life to the music.

Are you implying that that is an inherent property of all music created by musicians who choose not to pursue any traditional musical knowledge or methodologies? That musical 'life' cannot be innately discovered? If so, where did it actually come from?

I don't think that is what I said at all. But many people who take the "I don't want training because I want to discover" attitude are quick to use loops and patterns created by someone else. What are they discovering? Other people's work? It's like the kid who gets a Korg Karma and proudly displays their one note wonders as musical creation.

What I am saying is that music evolves. It is easier to push evolution when you are starting closer to the top. Otherwise you may just be repeating a part of history.

Robert

[mystahr]

It was untill I touched the Juno60 that I felt to be playing an instrument.

[george]

I was thinking about this... Can you really make decent music without being an instrumentalist? If you make music, isn't a fundamental aspect to have practical and theoretical knowledge?

I think it's a critic point if you want to understand how music is really made. It helps a lot if you already know how to play guitar or keyboard... unless you want to compose that glitch *prrt* *squirt* *bzzz* *fart* kind of music

[Hink]

so as the thread goes on here's my question. My Alesis QSR, rackmount synth, is it an instrument? Yes it produces the tones, but so doesn't the strings on my guitar. I would be hard pressed to call strings an instrument, nor the pick-ups, nor the amp...fun thread but I still stand behind my original words...being able to play an instrument is important to me, but others it's up to their way of seeing things, I doubt there is a right or wrong...

[pHz]

so as the thread goes on here's my question. My Alesis QSR, rackmount synth, is it an instrument? Yes it produces the tones, but so doesn't the strings on my guitar. I would be hard pressed to call strings an instrument, nor the pick-ups, nor the amp...

this is what i was trying to get at when i was talking about controllers ... they and the PC are merely elements in a larger instrument (like your strings ... pickups ... amp ... etc ... ) ... the debate im interested in is whether or not that controller that allows you to play your PC instrument (which could be anything from a mouse to that wierd chessboard type thing to a kaoss pad to whatever ... ) NEEDS to bear any relation to a traditional instrument (ie - keyboard controller / MIDI guitar / wind controller) in order for the whole rig to be taken seriously as an instrument - at the minute it seems that some folks have a hard time seeing this ...

fun thread but I still stand behind my original words...being able to play an instrument is important to me, but others it's up to their way of seeing things, I doubt there is a right or wrong...

as ever ... it would be nice for everyone to understand both PoVs but that isnt quite happening yet and as you say never really does ...

slainte rob

[aMUSEd]

slainte rob

If you keep doing that the blood will all run to your head.

[whyterabbyt]

Rabid quoth
There have been musical geniuses all over the world.

Undoubtedly true. Some of them probably had no musical training whatsoever.

Many people buy green rather than mix blue and yellow.

Also true. Know why?

And that scale is forced upon them by 98 percent of the music software available for computer and probably 98 percent of the loop libraries that are not percussion based.

What about 98% of pianos, and saxophones and guitars?

So I take it you understand my point on this one.

Nope. I just know that saying 'unless you've experienced X, then you havent experienced X' is pointless tautology.

I don't think that is what I said at all.

Well it seemed very close.

But many people who take the "I don't want training because I want to discover" attitude are quick to use loops and patterns created by someone else.

And that kind of reinforces it.

And please quantify that 'many' otherwise it appears to be nothing more than a spurious and unsubstantiated claim.

What are they discovering? Other people's work?

Possibly they're discovering a lot of things. What does a child taught to play piano by rote 'discover'?

It's like the kid who gets a Korg Karma and proudly displays their one note wonders as musical creation.

Nope. There's a difference between naivety and intent to develop a process of one's own for a start.

What I am saying is that music evolves.

Only in the sense that it changes.

It is easier to push evolution when you are starting closer to the top.

Incorrect. Firstly you're making the false assumption that there is a top, and also that it is consistent with the terms of your argument. Neither of these are proven. There are other heavily flawed assumptions you are making, but basially this entire statement is grievously flawed.

Otherwise you may just be repeating a part of history.

There's no proof that this is the case, nor that 'starting closer' to your unspecified and unproven 'top' prevents this.

[Hink]

what happens when robotics explodes like the pc? The argument then will be really wild, is it essential to play an instrument when your robot will do it flawlessly?...

[blaster78]

your robot will do it flawlessly?...

put me down on the list for one of those...



cheers,

steve.

[Lucid]

The computer is an "instrument", is it not? It's like saying, do you have to be able to sing to play the drums? Not really, because you bang them with sticks.

I'm an old school guitarist and guitar takes me to a different place than pure computer, but I think they're both great and if someone feels like they are all about making music with technology and sampling, more power to them.

When I listen to music that other people make, I'm more interested in the sound and the sensation than the origin / process.

No one can say what is right or wrong for anyone else in the world of creative expression, just say no to creative fascism. Remember, there's always at least a little bit of "poser" in "composer".

[Rabid]

Ok. I'm tired. You win. You are correct. I'm wrong. Take your prize. Display it proudly.

My work day is done and I am going home to relax and play some instruments. Most likely I will start with drums to relieve some stress, then move to keyboard or guitar for a while and see if any new ideas pop into my head. After a meal I will settle into a nice, soft recliner with my laptop and throw some music together in Reason or Live.

Robert

Rabid quoth
There have been musical geniuses all over the world.

Undoubtedly true. Some of them probably had no musical training whatsoever.

Many people buy green rather than mix blue and yellow.

Also true. Know why?

And that scale is forced upon them by 98 percent of the music software available for computer and probably 98 percent of the loop libraries that are not percussion based.

What about 98% of pianos, and saxophones and guitars?

So I take it you understand my point on this one.

Nope. I just know that saying 'unless you've experienced X, then you havent experienced X' is pointless tautology.

I don't think that is what I said at all.

Well it seemed very close.

But many people who take the "I don't want training because I want to discover" attitude are quick to use loops and patterns created by someone else.

And that kind of reinforces it.

And please quantify that 'many' otherwise it appears to be nothing more than a spurious and unsubstantiated claim.

What are they discovering? Other people's work?

Possibly they're discovering a lot of things. What does a child taught to play piano by rote 'discover'?

It's like the kid who gets a Korg Karma and proudly displays their one note wonders as musical creation.

Nope. There's a difference between naivety and intent to develop a process of one's own for a start.

What I am saying is that music evolves.

Only in the sense that it changes.

It is easier to push evolution when you are starting closer to the top.

Incorrect. Firstly you're making the false assumption that there is a top, and also that it is consistent with the terms of your argument. Neither of these are proven. There are other heavily flawed assumptions you are making, but basially this entire statement is grievously flawed.

Otherwise you may just be repeating a part of history.

There's no proof that this is the case, nor that 'starting closer' to your unspecified and unproven 'top' prevents this.

[Sascha Franck]

Thing is: With a DAW can do musical things that you could NEVER EVER do with any "real instrument".
IMO that is what qualifies the DAW to being some sort of an instrument.
It's not about realtime or not realtime (that's up to each own and the interfaces used to enter events of whatever sorts), it's about whether you can do more or less unique things on the instrument of your choice. And with a DAW you defenitely can.
Just some lame examples (but you may perhaps see the point):

- You can play chords no single instrument would be able to play. In realtime. Without an orchestra or any other bunch of people that one would need to play these chords.

- You can play rhythms (again more or less in realtime) no drummer or whatever musician would be able to play.

- You can do soundmanglings in realtime, let's say a stutter/granularizing effect, that no human being would be able to do without a computer.

I could think of quite some more, but as said, these are the things you can ONLY do with a DAW.
These "effects" (or whatever you want to call them) need to be applied in a musical way => the computer becomes a musical instrument.

Whether you follow any sort of "rules", whether you do it great or not (if one could even say so), whether you have some further "real music knowledge" (whatever that might be) is totally beyond the point.
The sheer fact alone that you CAN do musical things with a DAW that you could NEVER do without it make it an instrument.
Yes, for some people it might not apply, as it might only serve as a replacement for other things (a multitrack recorder, an orchestra, in case sample libraries are your thing, a proper player, in case you can't perform well, whatever), but I think many people have allready seen the various musical options only a computer is offering, therefor using it as an instrument rather than only as a "tool".

Personally, sometimes when doing some "DAW only" things (such as for example having a vocal line drowning in tons of tape delay feedback or whatever) I just have the same satisfying feeling as when playing guitar live along with a great bunch of kickass musicians.
The realtime thing is less important for me as with my DAW I can just listen to what I've been doing seconds later (whereas it'll take at least until after the gig to listen to what I've been playing).

[pHz]

NICE post sasch ...

... thanks

slainte rob

[Rabid]

As with most things in life, I don't there is a "ONE" correct answer. The definition of an instrument will vary from person to person. As I said earlier, for me there was a time when a collection of plastic food containers was an instrument. But, those boxes fit MY definition of an instrument and gave me what I wanted, a conduit for energy and real time feedback. Other needs for other people with other opinions may vary. Of course, if I use drum sticks to play rhythms on my computer case then it qualifies as my definition of an instrument.

Robert