Re: Re: Attitudes to instruments/loopers (Derek Bailey)

[a k butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>]

andy's version of what Derek Bailey seemed to say:-
>>The instrument is a set of unrealised possibilities,
>>just waiting to be unlocked by a creative person.

Which is how some people approach their instruments some of the time.


Kris wrote
>Yeah, it got me going. :)  An instrument is a possibility? Or a set? 
>How is that possible? (no pun intended). I consider it an object, 
>nor more or no less.  I mean, let's get literal and clear here: if I 
>break my guitar up into bits, I find pieces of wood, metal, glue, 
>and eventually I can put it under a microscope and find organic 
>molecules, etc...but, low and behold, I can find no possibilities! 
>They appear to be eluding the lens of the microscope.  Those clever 
>possibilities, hiding inside the guitar somewhere....damn them to hell.

Well yes, if you break it into molecules you won't be able to play at all 
:-)
...and there won't be a guitar there anymore.
So your "refutation" doesn't add up.

On the other hand, if you leave your guitar intact you'll be able to 
get new sounds out of it that you never heard before. All those bits 
of wood, metal & glue add up to an instrument that is capable of 
producing  not only those sounds you already know it can make, but 
also quite a few others. Can you find those other sounds?

andybutler
www.andybutler.com