> From: tron@...
> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:48:42 GMT
>
> I'm not sure what your problem with that definition is. Music is
> simply sound gathered together in some way; whether it has
> rhythm, harmony or melody is up to the composer. What makes it
> music is the composer's will. You might not like the sound it,
> but that is a matter of taste.
Sure, I have no problem with that. My complaint is with extending the
meaning of Musical Instrument to include anything that could make a
sound, thereby removing any signficance from the term.
> > Frank Zappa could make music out of absolutely anything; are the
> > stoner mumblings and "snorks" heard on "Lumpy Gravy" musical
> > instruments?
>
> Of course!
Well there ya go. Shouldn't musicians have the artistic freedom to
use things that aren't musical instruments in their compositions? But
as soon as they do, your automatically expanding defintion of musical
instrument instantly subsumes those things, immediately defeating the
composer's very wishes. That's not right.
Can't a painter use things that aren't paint on a canvas? Sure. But
as soon as they place, say, sand on the canvas do you immediately
expand the defintion of paint to include sand? Of course not.
> > You can play back an exact copy of a sound of a proper Musical
> > Instrument yet the exact copy is not a musical instrument.
>
> That is -breathtakingly- wrong. Aside from anything else, is that not
> the way a Mellotron works?
Nah, the Mellotron doesn't provide an exact copy of the sound of
another instrument, for that you'd get a digital sampler. The
Mellotron contributes its own musical process and its own musical
qualities, which is why we like it so much.
-- Don
--
Don Tillman
Palo Alto, California
don@...http://www.till.com