> From: tron@...
> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:50:28 GMT
>
> > Don:
> > 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.
>
> It isn't? How do you know what the composer's wishes are? If the
> composer wants to make music by recording the sound of him eating
> cornflakes, it's music. If he wills it to be music, then that is
> what it is. Whether you -like- it or not is down to you.
Um, yeah, that's exactly what I said. (Oh, I get it, it's the
Argument Clinic!)
Sure, whatever the composer wants is completely fine for a musical
work.
I just think it's very strange to suddenly start calling conflakes a
musical instrument just because they were used in a composition. Do
you disagree?
> > 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.
>
> That really is the most frightful baloney, Don! What you are
> saying that only ∗rubbish∗ or ∗lo-fi∗ samplers can be classified
> as musical instruments! Better throw away your Fairlight, Norm;
> you've just wasted your money.
I said "musical process", not "rubbish" or "lo-fi". I absolutely do
not see how you get from one to the other.
-- Don
--
Don Tillman
Palo Alto, California
don@...http://www.till.com