When does a simple tool become an Instrument?

BassPlyr Randy

BassPlyr Randy

Long Winded SOB
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
9
Thomas From Another Thread said:
Golem... every track by a solo bassist is going to be him and the bass!

It Kanye as a soloist. His instrument is the classic Roland-808 (used for a lot of early Gangsta' rap) and synth!

It's worth giving a listen to.
Click to expand...

Not wanting to risk taking another thread off topic, I created a new one.

The Question for this thread is this... When does a simple tool, a Rythym Box in this example, become an instrument?

I don't care about Kanye or his new album. I am open minded and if I get a chance to give it a listen for free, I would, but I'm not about to pay for it. Anyway, that's not the point of this thread. Sorry Thomas for stealing your quote from the other thread but the topic of this thread comes from the second sentance of your quote...

The thought of calling a rythym box an instrument initially took me off gaurd and made me think. Initially, my first thought was .. that's no instrument.. it's basically just a tool of sorts, like any effects processor. I wouldn't call a wha-wha pedal an intrument even tho it takes a certain amount of skill and talent to make it sound good and produce something that would be considered musical. The 808 is just a tool used for creating simple rythym tracks isin't it? So, would we call a sampler an instrument? But after some reflection, I think I agree that yes, the Roland 808 can be an instrument in the proper hands and used in the proper way. Just like a mixing console is the instrument a sound engineer uses to create his art. Ahh, but is it art? The sound engineer doesn't really create anything, he just mixes it together. But the mix itself is the art. Like the picture a painter paints is the art, not the paint that he uses. The paint brush is his instrument, so I have to agree, the tools the artist uses is his instrument. So yes, in that context, the Roland 808 could very well be considered an instrument. But where is the line drawn from just being a tool, to actually being considered an instruemnt? I think it has to be in it's application and how it's used.
 
Like you said, the paintbrush is the instrument that the painter use to create art. The sampler is an instrument that the guy use to create his music, call it a tool or an instrument is not really important, a bass is a tool that we use to express our art and feelings.

Now using a hammer and a nail on a wood piece is easier thant using a violin to play paganini 24th caprice, but it take a lots of notes to play a song and it take a lots of nails to build a cathedral.

The roland thing you are talking about can make it easier to build a shed, but take a real artist to build a cathedral, whatever it is a bass, violin, sampler or a hammer, and this is valid for any tools in any type of art IMHO

As a listener, we have to hear and feel the music, and dont think about how its made but how its sound. If a guy using a sampler manage to put some feelings in is track, this guy is really a great artist but if the feeling of the song is caused by other human playing instrument (bass, piano, vocal etc...) thats another story.

That was my opinion.

I hope i didnt make too much mistakes with my english.

Take care
 
If you listen to some of Bjørks songs, many of them contains just beats and sampled static from loose a jack-cable.

So about anything that makes a sound, something you can control to your own liking, may become an instrument, I think.
 
I used to be really anti-sample, anti-synth, etc... but I've really opened my mind to it all. So much so that I now own a Moog, an MPC (drum machine/sampler) and various other bits and bobs.

I love the idea of taking other sounds, messing around with them etc to create something new. To me, a sampler/drum machine is just as much an instrument as a bass, keyboard or whatever... as long as it's used to make 'music'. :)
 
I think you said it Charmand....CONTROL is the key....My Thumb BO 5 string is a clumsy, clunky tool in my hands. But if Lex or any other skilled forumer here picked it up, it would be an instrument of creativity.

Like Andre 'Dice' Clay once said about his 'member':

Its not the size of the bit, but the power of the drill, OH!

I saw a guy in NY perform the most amazing drum solo pieces on an overturned industrial sized plastic paint can. I mean amazing drum solos...on a paint can. He made that can a musical instrument because he made music with it. If it were me with that can, all I would make is a mess!

:wink:

-edit- just saw your post Lex, and you said it too! If you use it to make music...its an instrument in my book!
 
Avram said:
I think you said it Charmond....CONTROL is the key....My Thumb BO 5 string is a clumsy, clunky tool in my hands. But if Lex or any other skilled forumer here picked it up, it would be an instrument of creativity.

Like Andre 'Dice' Clay once said about his 'member':

Its not the size of the bit, but the power of the drill, OH!

I saw a guy in NY perform the most amazing drum solo pieces on an overturned industrial sized plastic paint can. I mean amazing drum solos...on a paint can. He made that can a musical instrument because he made music with it. If it were me with that can, all I would make is a mess!

:wink:

-edit- just saw your post Lex, and you said it too! If you use it to make music...its an instrument in my book!
Click to expand...


Thanks for the compliment matey... I think I have seen that drummer you speak of... playing ridiculously good drum'n'bass breaks on the top of buckets!
 
yeah probably the same guy...late twenties, early thirties, tall and large-ish....Last I spoke with him he was getting ready to move to LA. My brother, a jazz musician (sax mostly) invited the guy to look him up when he got there, I don't think he's heard from him yet though....but yeah, amazing drummer!
 
Lex said:
I used to be really anti-sample, anti-synth, etc...
but I've really opened my mind to it all. So much
so that I now own a Moog, an MPC (drum machine/
sampler) and various other bits and bobs.

I love the idea of taking other sounds, messing
around with them etc to create something new. To
me, a sampler/drum machine is just as much an
instrument as a bass, keyboard or whatever... as
long as it's used to make 'music'. :)
Click to expand...
`

Seems like what we're doing is trying to define, or
set limits on, the definition of an "An Instrument".

"Anything that makes a sound" can't be it, cuz you
hafta control it or you're not using it.

If an instrument is "Anything that makes a sound,
providing that there's a way to control it" .... then
a sampler, audio recorder, etc is an instrument.
And we all know that these devices are in wide
use in the "music biz".

Personally, I wanna add something to the above.
I wanna add "in real time". So the definition grows
to be "Anything that makes a sound, providing that
there's a way to control it in real time". Think of it
as the difference between a leaky steam fitting and
a keyboard player at a steam calliope. Make sense ?

------------------

In Golem's World, "controling it" means, at the very
least, that you are in real time control of pitch and
timing. IOW, if an instrument is useful for playing
music, and music hasta be on pitch and on time ....
well there you have it.


YMMV.

`
 
Makes sense.


I've seen some amazing live electronica performances that utilize samplers and sequencers being triggered and manipulated in real time.

Roisin Murphy is an artist who makes good use of this (well, her band does).

It's worth checking out Moloko's DVD "10,000 Clicks". Awesome stuff and another good example.
 
I really like samples and synths and stuff.

So much that my current musical ideas a more electronic, with a Korg electribe rhythm synth, a nintendo DS with a korg DS-10, and overly effects driven bass. I'm having a lot of fun messing with it all. Just need a decent loop station now :)

Its cool seeing different approaches to making music! But sometimes i can go the whole pretentious way with people just doing stuff because they can, and imo thats just stupid. But there are great examples where its done tastefully and very successfully!
 
you mean LARRY WRIGHT ?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cXxQ5kQVO0[/ame]
 
i really dont mind how the music is created and how hard/easy the process was. as long as you create a sound that expresses what you are trying to say.

thats my opinion.

the only thing i would be opposed to is speeding something up for the purpose of making you look like a faster player, and that kind of ego based thing.
 
This is very cool reading everyones take on this. It seems that for the most part, everyone agrees that just about anything can be considered an instrument. It basically boils down to the context in which it's used. I don't know about the rest of you, but I seriously never thought about it before Thomas's initial reference.

I was a little lost by the Pink Floyd Money example. Only to the extent as to what are we calling the instrument in that instance; the cash register, the recorder used to capture that sound, or the device used to trigger the cash register sound, and/or of coarse, all the above. If I think about it using Golem's requirement that it has to be controlled in real time just about every item both meets and then doesn't meet the criteria. The cash register sound can clearly be controlled in real time initially, however, once it is recorded the artist loses all control except for the ability to trigger the loop off and on, volume control, and possibly speed control.

I picked on Pink Floyd for this on purpose. Unlike today, with the power and versatility of various synths, sequencers, samplers, ect.. back in the old days, bands like Pink Floyd did all these types of effects as tape loops. In fact, Pink Floyd's shows were so elaborate they were literally tied to the tape machines via time code and click tracks. A team of A/V people run the show and the band has no control except for the various traditional instruments, all analog, they are playing. So in this example, wouldn't it be fair to say that the actual musicians cease to be the artist, but mearly instruments that the A/V team are using to put together the final overall musical and visual art work?

To me, when I think of classic Pink Floyd, Atom Heart Mother is the first album that comes to my mind. Alan's Phycadellic Breakfast is so cool. Everyone can relate to the sounds of breakfast being prepared from bacon sizzling in a pan to milk being poured on dry cereal. Close your eyes and really listen to the music, you can visualize the scene in your mindseye and can almost smell the bacon cooking. The band very effectively created an atmosphere and then use thier music to take you through their artistic journey. Very cool.

So in conclusion, as I reflect on this, it takes me back to what I have always known. Music is art and everyone that makes music is an artist. Instrument is just a term we give to the tool or tools that we use to make our music. So I guess anything can be considered an instrument. Does it really have to be controllable in real time? I guess that would depend on your definition of control and the amount of controlability you're talking about. But as I think about it, yes, control is a must. Initially that means total control, however in real time, only minimal control is necessary.
 
im not really agree about the "real time"

It dont have to be real time,cause at the end, when you hear the record you cant tell if it was realtime or not.
 
Spot said:
im not really agree about the "real time"

It dont have to be real time,cause at the end,
when you hear the record you cant tell if
it was realtime or not.
Click to expand...
`

*Golem Pounces*

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone
expressed that .... since it permeates the music scene.
Permeates like a skunk permeates a neighbothood.

So please don't take this as a personal attack. I knew
someone would bring it up, and you just happened to
be the one to step forward first.

Plus, everyone's got your back. Nearly everyone will
disagree with me. Am I playing the martyr/prophet card
here ? Anywayz, here's a 'The Deal According to Golem':


at the end, when you hear the record
you cant tell if it was realtime or not

Thaz what you said, and it's quite true that you can't tell.
But "the record" is NOT MUSIC. It is a document. Look it
up if you hafta. Look up "document" and "record".

You might wanna also look up "reproduction" and
"facsimile". There is a reason that what you just
refered to as "a record" is actually called a "record".

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah I know this sounds like some silly totally rhetorical
point. Tell you what. I'll refrain from writing a big huge
long post here that tries to accurately say what it is that
I want to share ..... and in return, just try to get beyond
the "Rhetorical BS" reaction, look up the words I ask that
you look up, and apply it all to my initial position. Nobody
hasta agree with my position, but you'll experience a new
perspective if you wear my hat for a few minutes. OK ?

Just look up 4 words, and bring some intuition along, and
I'll not write you all a numbingly epic post. Coolth ??


`
 
i agree about the record is a document, but it was only to say that if you just hear the music you cant say if it was real time, if you hear the song "live" but you are blind...

Annyway, i dont have much respect for this kind automated music, but its just an opinion, someone else may like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top