Mellotronists

--- In Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com, Don Tillman <don@...> wrote:
>
 
> 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?

Chiming in a bit late on this, but I've been playing catch-up.

Anyway, yes Don, the cornflakes are not a musical instrument in-and-of 
themselves; they are what would be termed, in the electro-acoustic 
realm a "sound source". If their sonic characteristics are altered by 
some method, then that method could be considered the "instrument".

A Mellotron could, and indeed does in some cases, contain many of 
such "sound sources". The mechanism by which they are reproduced would 
be the instrument.

These may seem to be somewhat contradictory, but in the first case the 
sound could be passed through anything from a simple filter to a 
complex computer algorithm, which would then be the instrument. In the 
latter case it's the act of playing. Another way of saying this is that 
the strings of a piano aren't musical instruments, but the mechanism is.

I don't know if this makes things easier for anyone, but it's the way I 
understand it.

As someone who often plays found objects, the term "instrument" can be 
rather vague. I prefer to say that something which I've modified (by, 
say, the addition of guitar strings or whatever) is an "instrument", 
and things played as-is (such as an old heat-sink - or even a kitchen 
sink, both of which I *have* played) I call "implements".

While I am fascinated by the 'tron, I don't own one because it doesn't 
really work for the way I play.

Jim Bailey