Is a Computer an Instrument?
 

in·stru·ment
   /ˈɪnstrəmənt/ Show Spelled[in-struh-muhnt] Show IPA
–noun
A contrivance or apparatus for producing musical sounds: a stringed instrument.

A friend of mine and myself got into an interesting conversation today, wondering if the computer could be considered an instrument. In the end, the debate came down to semantics, a squabble over words in deciding if it was the computer that played the music or if it was the software. When it boils down, however, and you look at the heart of the matter, we both agreed, to an extent, that the computer can be considered a musical instrument.

Now, I don't play any "real" instruments. However, I do have software that allows me to create my own, original music and make it sound like a lot of different instruments. If I were to ever publish any music, I would never claim myself a musician, nor would I bother pretending that I had any actual skill in the field.

It sounds funny to answer somebody who asks what instrument you play with: "My computer." But, the question lies with everyone. Would you consider the computer, an instrument?

Nope.

A computer is as much a musical instrument as a ream of paper is a novel. I'd say it's a great tool for writing & recording music but I think what identifies something like a guitar as an instrument is its intentional purpose of producing musical sounds.

But interesting argument.

For the sake of argument, I would say that I'm being very intentional in my use of the computer, to create music. Just because it's not its only use doesn't diminish its capabilities to create sound.

neat topic. hard question to tackle.

i make music that is solely created inside my computer. the point that most defines my computer as an instrument to me is that the music i create with it could not be made any other way.

it's the parameters that essentially define the outcome right? with a guitar, you get guitar music. but with a computer, you get computer music.

and as far as its intended use, A) you can buy custom computers that serve only to create and record music and B) I CHOOSE what to do with with my computer, just as much as someone could potentially use their guitar as a weapon.

i honestly can't tell if that was a totally ridiculous thing to say...

I would say it's more the software that's the instrument.

but then wouldn't it just be the strings on a guitar that are the instrument? which is to say that software is not much to work with if you don't have the computer.

I don't think you can establish an exact parallel between the two, but I would say the computer is more equivalent to an amplifier while the software is more of the equivalent of the instrument itself.

i really don't know what to say about all this. it's really baffling my brain in a weird way. is it convoluted? paradoxical?

what the hell...

There's probably a line most people would draw between what defines an instrument in its strictest of terms, and what could be used to facilitate an instrument. If we didn't, then we could call air an instrument because it facilitates the transmission of vibrations, on which the function of musical instruments rely.

I would go with Janszoon's statement about the software being the instrument. It seems more accurate than calling the computer itself an instrument. Or the power cable. Or the room it's sitting in...

i'd say it CAN be as much of an instrument as a synthesizer, but like Janszoon said, that's all due to software.

then again, different software patches = different sound options in a synth.

Hi there,

This indeed is a very interesting question.

After dwelling on this for well over 10 minutes, here's my take on it.

To me, the computer is an artificial brain and so we could also ask, " Are our brains musical instruments" ? The answer would be no, but without our brains there would be no music. I see the computer more as a storage device,(like our brains), and also a controller. It allows us to control the information stored in it's brain. Sometimes making music,other times might be drawing maps, whatever. It becomes a musical tool once a musician gets involved.

The main difference is this I think:

A computer has the potential to create music but without a musician, it is just a computer.

A guitar or saxophone is still a guitar or saxophone even without a musician present,... or is it ? ?

Very thought provoking, Gordon.:usehead:

Instrument (n)

1. A means by which something is done; an agency.
2. One used by another to accomplish a purpose; a dupe.
3. An implement used to facilitate work. See Synonyms at tool.
4. A device for recording, measuring, or controlling, especially such a device functioning as part of a control system.
5. Music A device for playing or producing music: a keyboard instrument.
6. A legal document, such as a deed, will, mortgage, or insurance policy.

Strictly speaking, yes it is.

What an object is is defined by our approach to it and its context, for sure, but really that could go on forever and go nowhere.

It is an instrument, and I'm sticking to my guns on that one.

I've been thinking again, that's twice already and it's still a.m.

Ok, following the logic of the above post, virtually anything could be classed as a musical instrument. It all depends on a musician to manipulate the computer, guitar, oil drum, watering can, hose pipe, telephone, saucepan, electric food mixer....on and on...

It takes a musician to turn any of these objects into a musical instrument. The difference being as I mentioned earlier, a saxophone is still a musical instrument and a guitar is still a guitar even without a musician present. We know that a guitar is really just wood and steel strings and a saxophone is just some curved pipe with keys and a reed but they are still musical instruments.

An oil drum is a potential musical instrument but first and foremost, it is a drum for holding oil. Same with a saucepan and a hose pipe.They are all 'potential musical instruments' .They become musical instruments when in the hands of a musician.... same with a computer.

Just my two thoughts for the day, gonna have to take it easy now.. Gordon.

A saxophone isn't a musical instrument, its a hunk of brass and pipes and valves and stuff.

The CONTEXT makes it a musical instrument. That context doesn't mean a musician, it means expectations. Look up Marcel DuChamps 'readymades' - Items that are only art in context. Elsewhere they're mundane items, but given space in a gallery, they acquire new meanings.

Same with a saxophone. Its only a bunch of brass until someone uses it to make music and CREATES THAT ASSOCIATION IN OUR MINDS. Same as an upturned bin isn't a drum until you see a street musician playing a bunch of them. They're not bins anymore. They ARE drums. What they WERE isn't important, they've now become a drumset and nothing you can say changes that, even if the drummer gets up and walks away for a shady pint, you still see a drumset in front of you.

Hi again, I'm ok now, had a quick snooze at my desk.

Sounds like you are agreeing with me there.

Like I said, a computer is a computer until a musician comes along and decides to use it's musical potential. And, as I said, almost anything can be a potential musical instrument. I do disagree with the saxophone thing though. You are correct, it is just a mass of metal bent into a particular shape that has keys attached which I already said. But, it is bent that way solely to produce musical sounds ...unlike the oil drum which is designed first to hold oil but can be turned into a drum when a musician decides to drum on it.

I have changed my mind slightly: The way I'm thinking now is that a computer solely designed to produce music, a sequencer for example, is a musical instrument. I would see a regular pc/mac as a more general tool which can be used to produce music with the help of the right software and a musician pressing the right buttons...

By the way, I remember studying all that Duchamp stuff when I was art college back in the 70's... He displayed a bike wheel as a 'ready made' piece of art. The bike wheel though was still designed first to be part of a bike like the saxophone was designed specifically to play music, that was the whole point. The computer however, is designed to be a multi tasking tool which has the potential to be a musical instrument if used that way by a musician.

Interesting. Gordon.

I disagree. DuChamps was trying to make the point that nothing is ANYTHING until it is given CONTEXT.

A bike wheel to a caveman is not a bike wheel, its an interesting metal and rubber object. To an alien its a primitive mode of transport used by a species who haven't yet mastered antigravity propulsion.

the CONTEXT is key. What the object actually IS is largely irrelevant, the thing that makes a bike wheel a bike wheel is that its on a bike. It could just as easily be used as a mechanical pulley, by simply taking off the tire. It could even be used as a 'sports model' or the old victorian hoop and stick. The fact that YOU see it as a bike wheel is based solely on the fact you know its NORMAL context is on a bike.

Same with the saxophone. Its not a musical instrument by default, because there IS no default. Its a musical instrument by CONTEXT.

Surely (digital) synths are just computers?

Quote:

"I disagree. DuChamps was trying to make the point that nothing is ANYTHING until it is given CONTEXT".

I remember taking part in a long, long discussion about this very subject. What had sparked that off was a visit to the Tate Gallery in London to see the famous pile of bricks which the artist had sold to the gallery for about 60,000.00 pounds I think at the time. The artist's angle that he quoted at the time was that he was trying to bring attention to the beauty that surrounds us in everyday life. He was saying that art is all around us and we should not have to go into a gallery to see it.

Others thought that the actual 'art' involved was the fact that he had persuaded the gallery to part with all that dosh for a pile of building bricks. A pile of bricks on a building site ,maybe worth $10.00. A similar pile of bricks in the Tate Gallery, thousands of dollars.

I think Duchamp was trying to make folks notice that 'art' was not only in galleries but all around us if we were just prepared to open our eyes and minds to it and it was not necessary to be an artist to produce art.

I believe that everything is something by the way. Whether we attach labels to it or not......


Anyway, more back to the subject: My own belief is that there are two categories here.

1) The musical instrument which is something designed specifically to play musical sounds.
2) The potential musical instrument which could be anything that is capable of producing musical sounds but not specifically designed to do so.

Where the computer falls is up to you I guess.

All the best, Gordon.

The computer is a musical instrument because it is the means to produce music, that's what an instrument does; it provides a way to express ourselves and the computer makes that easier.

Do you actually read any of the previous posts in the threads you visit on your posting spree or are you just emptying yourself however way you see fit?

About Duchamp, I think he liked to use his status as an artist to trick people. What I mean is he could elevate ordinairy items like toilets or bricks to a higher level where people suddenly appreciate it as art. I don't think he necessarily thought of these things as worthy of that regard, but he did it because he wanted us to confront ourselves with questions like "what do I really think is art?" and I thought he liked the controversy .. and I think he got some satisfaction when he managed to use his power this way, "tricking" people into appreciating toilets and so on as high culture.

In other words, I believe what Guitarbizarre wrote is more correct. He wanted to confront us with the fact that art is up to context and trying to define it beyond that becomes almost meaningless. It makes more sense to me than him having so much love for ordinairy things like bricks. He was the dadaist after all and they made "art" out of all kinds of silly and surreal things and I don't think the beauty of the ordinairy was the essential theme there.


I agree that a computer is a musical instrument when used as such.

This is such a cool topic. I'm glad I asked, here :D

Hi there,

I know this stuff about Duchamp and dada is getting off subject but I just feel the need to clarify.................. Aah, that's better.

I think Duchamp was just attempting to draw attention to the fact that 'art' is everywhere. We don't have to go into a gallery to see it and works of 'art' are quite often made by ordinary folks, tradesman who are not considered artists. That's where the term 'readymade' came from.
He was using the art galleries just to emphasise that point I think. There again, all art whether it be sculpture, painting, poetry or music is all a very personal subject. At the end of the day, a computer is what it is and it does what it does, - whatever label any one of us may decide to stick on it. Same with an oil drum...

Have a great weekend.. Gordon.

A computer is what it is? Not quite.

Unplug a computer. Take it into the deep depths of the ocean and leave it there. Take a picture.

Is it a picture of a computer? Or is it a picture of a nonfunctioning object? Or a grey box? Or is it a play on the temporary nature of technology? Or is it a powerfully emotive statement on how humankind ruins natural landscapes with artifical intrusions?

Whatever it is, the context defines what it is. In this case, its not a computer, because it sure as **** isn't doing any computing.

Like I said before, a bike wheel isn't a 'bike' wheel any more or less than its a convenient round object or hoop or whatever. No matter what the INTENDED DESIGN, a thing isn't limited to being what it is in one context, in all contexts. Thats what art is about. Heiroglyphics are artistic, but they're a form of writing. Tapestry is as much a historical document as it is a piece of art.

You CANNOT define an object as being one fixed thing. It is what it is DEPENDING ON THE OBSERVER AND THE CONTEXTUAL MEANING.

I tend to think that depending on how something is defined, that may allow for it to be interpreted in a contextual way. Example, if you say an instrument is something you can use to create and play music on in realtime, then a computer is an instrument once it does that. So is a piece of grass if you can do that with it.

But I think the same way, some definitions are not so contextual. I would say a computer at the bottom of the ocean is a computer lying at the bottom of the ocean. Even if it's not doing any computing, it perhaps could if you were able to repair it and being able to refer to it as a computer gives information not only about the objects history but also it's potential in the future. It's useful and practical.

edit :

If your definition of a computer is something which is computing right now, then of course a turned off computer is not a computer .. But that's not a definition I use!

I disagree. To someone from the 1920's, a computer as we know it would be something completely different. To us a computer, even a basic one, is just a tool. To some of us who understand the way they operate, its something rather different than it is to someone who treats it like a magic comptuery box. To someone from the 1920s a comptuer from today would be way beyond that, it would be considered less a 'tool' in the traditional sense. They might even take it as some kind of undeniable proof of the glory of mankind.

Lets not forget worldwide philosophy ties into things too, modernism, postmodernism etc.

Simply put, I think ALL meaning is contextual. You may want to do some reading into semiotics and semiology in general if you want to make some inroads into how I think of this. Its essentially the science of meaning.

I think you're too concerned with words reflecting reality rather than facilitating communication. I made a thread here in the current events forum asking what a species is and so far, noone has been able to answer it including myself. Still, we have some kind of idea what it is and that's actually really helpful. If I say Rattus norvegicus to another biologist, he knows what I'm talking about well enough for us to be able to exchange a great amount of meaningful information about that particular species. Take away species as a word and doing basic conservation, agriculture and resource management would become a huge problem.

Language serves humanity, not reality. Words are still useful even if their definitions are not 100% set in stone.

edit :

I may have been "strawmanning" a bit here (the new term for arguing against made up arguments, I've recently learned) and if so, sorry and feel free to ignore. ;)

QUOTE:

"To us a computer, even a basic one, is just a tool".

That is exactly the point I've been trying to get across. It is indeed a tool that can help a musician make music but without being an actual musical instrument.


I think we need to stand back a little here and maybe look at this in a common sense way.

Something like a saxophone or a guitar or a piano is an object which is designed first and foremost for a musician to use to make music. Ok, a saxophone could be placed in a gallery as a piece of metal tube sculpture, a piano can be used as a piece of furniture and quite often is but their main purpose is to play music.

An oil drum is also an object but this time designed first and foremost for the storage or transportation of oil. Of course, it can be hit by a musician and used as a musical instrument but it is still an oil drum. A piece of grass can be made to squeak and I guess that is a very basic reed instrument.

The difference here as I mentioned about ten posts ago, there are objects that are musical instruments and there are objects that have the potential to be used as musical instruments but are really not.

A computer, (just in my opinion), is something that can be used to produce music just like an oil drum or watering can or a piece of grass but is not a musical instrument in the same sense as a sax or guitar or even banjo...

Gordon.

If it is it's the easiest instrument out there.

When I track music in good old fasttracker 2, I play the keyboard like a piano and it makes real time sound even if that's not how I record it. If I play a piano tune on my computer keyboard, is my computer not an instrument? If not, could a synthesizer be regarded as an instrument? ;)

Well in that case it is, but I see it that many people would see the computer as an instrument in the form of music editing and that type of stuff. As for getting like a virtual keyboard or that type of thing, yeah, it is.

Easiest in terms of what?

Sorta makes your computer keyboard the "strings on the instrument" if you want to look at it that way, but in either context, the keyboard doesn't encompass the whole computer and all you're utilizing is keystroke functionality binded to MIDI notes that are sending input impulses to your synth, which is in turn generating the sound.
But you're basically correct... because everything that makes up a computer is still in effect and necessary for the operation of the virtual instrument.... except for your massive library of pr0n.

Come on, man .. Massive libraries of porn is so 2004.

*deletes browser history*

I was speaking a little to general there. I mean easy in terms of more people could use it. Like for music editing, being a DJ, playing a virtual keyboard vs. Playing guitar or drums.

:laughing:

Aw come on... you gotta stash them favorites. They don't stay online forever. :laughing:

One example of what I mean the Mac's Garageband program. An instrument makes music, a computer makes music. It's easier to pick a pre made guitar riff and drum beat than to actually play it.

That's a pretty extreme example though I think. People seriously making music via computer are most likely not just sitting around selecting pre-made riffs, they are generally composing their own stuff. Even in terms of people who make sample-based music, it's not like they typically grab ready-made loops from the Garageband library. They make their own loops, which is not as easy as a lot of people think.

Another thing with making music on a computer is it kind of ups the ante on what's expected of you as a musician. Whereas if you're a guitarist in a rock band your one and only job is to come up with the guitar parts, if you are an electronic musician you are responsible for coming up with the beat, the bass line, the melody, the whole nine yards.

*sigh*

You're completely missing the point. There is NO set definition of what a thing IS. It can be used AS something, or it can MEAN something given the correct framework, but its not set in stone what that thing means. There CAN be generally agreed upon meanings to an item, but the capability is always there for us to decide 'actually no, thats not what it is at all, its [x]'

Meaning is contextual. I suggest you read up on semiotics. At the moment all I'm doing is repeating myself because you clearly aren't understanding my point.

You're really dipping into existentialism here though, it's not like these are abstract ideas that need qualifying with some sort of philosophical justification.

Marcel Duchamp's material has little relevance to your argument; he was challenging the pre-existing traditional definition of "art", not of some simple concrete object like a musical instrument.

The way he did it has a lot of parallels to semiotics - How do we know something means what it means?

If I say 'Tree' to you, you think of a large leafy object. Or do you? If I say it with an irish inflection the same word means 'three'

There is a lot more to determining the meaning of an object or a word than simply the object itself. Much like modernism failed because it sought to elevate art outside of the world, attempting to nail down a definition or meaning to an object without an understanding of whats happening AROUND that object is pointless. Nothing happens without being affected by everything else that happens. The renaissance held ideals about grand narratives and so on, that simply don't apply to a post-industrial society. Without that understanding though, the renaissance period in music makes a considerable deal less SENSE. We don't understand why composers thought the way they did about their music without that context of what was popular thinking at the time.