Mellotronists

> 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