| ▲ | dofm a day ago |
| Yeah — I don't really see how it can work except on the bass strings (played open). This is a novel but slightly peculiar take on this problem. But there are lots of other things, right? Listing for others since I suspect you know: all of this scheming about live-manipulating the basic tuning of an electric guitar dates back to the Parsons-White stringbender (and arguably further, since that was a way to get pedal steel sounds), which has led to stuff like the Duesenberg Multibender, the really extraordinary MayTrem (which keeps all strings in relative tune as the pitch is bent), the amazing Hipshot Doubleshot which lets you tune a guitar or dobro in two separate open tunings and switch between them instantaneously with a lever, etc. Ed Gerhard added single-string frets to the bass side of his weissenborn (acoustic lap steel) that he can play with the fingers behind his slide or (incredibly) with his thumb. All of these things are sort of fiddling at the edge of the question of a musical instrument, which is: should you confound their constraints or work within them? It's a bit like the thing about whether a dulcimer should be diatonic, whether you should add just the frets you need, whether it should be chromatic, whether it should have removable frets, etc. etc. As a sort of hobbyist lap steel player I find all these things fascinating, but I think the ultimate question is — where do you draw the line? There are lots of things I can't play on a six-string lap steel, but should I change the instrument so I can, or should I accept the role the instrument plays, and play the things I can? Another way to look at it is: why is the Harpejji niche? Why isn't everyone playing the Linnstrument? Why don't all pianists play the ROLI Seaboard? |
|
| ▲ | cortesoft a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > All of these things are sort of fiddling at the edge of the question of a musical instrument, which is: should you confound their constraints or work within them? I feel like this is no different than asking “what style of music should I play?” The answer is whatever you are drawn to as an artist. What interests you more? I hope some people work within the constraints of an instrument, and some people change the instrument. I love that there are people who make music with household items, and I love people who faithfully play instruments unchanged in design for thousands of years. All of the options provide plenty of outlets for creativity, and I love that there are people who want to explore different ones, and share the results with the rest of us. Sometimes one of those modifications invents a new instrument that captures the heart of millions and will proliferate for decades, and sometimes someone finds a new way to play an old instrument that opens the eyes of everyone to the possibilities that were always there. |
| |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Sometimes one of those modifications invents a new instrument that captures the heart of millions Absolutely — the pedal steel is the obvious example. The entire notion of the upward country pedal steel guitar bend is actually a side-effect of the continuous behaviour of a pitch shifting mechanism that the original designer did not design it for, which has now evolved to create an entire genre. | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent [-] | | And as an addendum I guess some of these more strident modifications are a bit more in scope now with the relative ease of working with metal in CAD and the lower cost of tooling generally. I think as a musician one should maybe focus on playing instruments more than being dependent on products, but perhaps the balance is shifting more towards customisation than ever before. |
| |
| ▲ | shermantanktop a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Disagree. It's not a one-way trip, where the musician has inspiration, and the musical instrument is the vehicle. For most musicians, the musical instrument is itself a source of inspiration. That can be either expansive (look what this thing can do! wow!) or constraining (i guess i have only one option). This is one reason why some musicians (guitarists cough) collect multiple instruments. A telecaster makes you play differently than a les paul. | |
| ▲ | breezybottom a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] | | |
|
|
| ▲ | ksymph a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't see why you need to draw a line anywhere. Change your instruments however much or little as you want; do whatever gives you the greatest enjoyment / practicality / sound you're looking for, or whatever else your reasons for making music might be. Or skip the music making entirely and just play around with hardware if that's your thing. |
| |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent [-] | | Players do usually draw a line, individually. Because you have to develop technique and composition around these things and that has time/flexibility/practicality costs in various ways. For example it's not difficult to see with this thing how you can end up with arrangements that can only be played on this one modified instrument (which means as a gigging musician you probably need two of them!) But also you have to spend the time developing the technique to use this thing, which might have impacts on your technique elsewhere. The Duesenberg Multibender is a great example of this. It's a configurable bridge where separate levers can be configured to bend (usually bend up but with a hefty return spring they can be made to bend down) individual strings by differing amounts, which lets you can achieve voicings that sound like pedal steel instruments. (It's really cool.) So that is possibly good if you are a pedal steel player but you want a portable lap instrument that has some of those bends for the only couple of pieces where they are needed, or you are a guitarist who has to play a couple of pieces that have pedal-steel bends in them and you don't want to buy a pedal steel. But it has a cost: configuring the multibender takes time and the levers can only be used with the intervals they were configured for — indeed, if you configure the levers to bend strings down, you are possibly stuck in a single tuning. It also changes the way musicians play; it's clear that compositions get written around the multibender. So it is, at that point, a somewhat different instrument to learn to really use, which takes time. There are other ways to approximate some of the bends these levers can do — you can bend the string behind the bar with your finger, you can combine that with sliding the bar up a fret for a shifted pair of notes that match the typical bends (albeit without easy access to unshifted strings), or you can slant the bar, which has its own classic tone. These also need learning, and they have their own limitations (there's kind of only one lap steel capo that can survive string bends and return to tuning) So for a player, the decision to use, or not use, these extra facilities is a meaningful decision in terms of how they want to sound, how much time they want to spend learning one technique over another, whether they want to compose around those facilities, etc. (FWIW I would love one and could build a lap steel around one, but I have deliberately chosen to focus my learning attention and playing style on other techniques first) It's pretty much the same with guitars — a lot of players decide early on that they are going to be fixed-bridge players or whammy bar players. They become quite different instrumentalists as a result. | | |
| ▲ | ksymph a day ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the further explanation, that makes more sense. From your original comment, it sounded like you were softly arguing against modifying instruments universally, to protect the sanctity of their instrumenthood or somesuch, but yes, there are plenty of reasons one might want to keep things 'vanilla' too. | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > it sounded like you were softly arguing against modifying instruments universally, Oh, no, not at all. I just feel that sometimes eliminating constraints is not the right choice; there's sort of a tension between freedom and focus/clarity etc. ETA: though on further thought, the question of their instrumenthood is in there at some level, I must concede. But it is quite a complex notion. e.g. is a fully chromatic mountain dulcimer still really a mountain dulcimer? To what extent is an instrument indivisible from its canon/repertoire? Certain classic pieces of folk music may never have evolved if the early instrument had more freedom to fret more notes, because an entire style of playing the dulcimer (the "noter" style where you fret with a small stick) really is rather interwoven with the diatonic layout. Like I say — there's no hard answer but I think this is a question musicians often grapple with as they develop their talent more deeply. In the same way that a lot of guitarists at the top of their ability abandon a lot of the anciliary kit (effects pedals, particular instruments) and strip back. In the AI era I spend quite a lot of time thinking about creativity and constraints, but it has always been fascinating to me. | |
| ▲ | breezybottom a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | giantg2 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have enough trouble trying to learn the regular bass guitar as an adult. That's my line. But all this other stuff is cool to hear about. |
|
| ▲ | ryukoposting a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > where do you draw the line? Isn't music better for the fact that every artist can draw their own line? > Why isn't everyone playing the Linnstrument? Counterargument: does someone play the Linnstrument? Do they make good music with it? |
| |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Isn't music better for the fact that every artist can draw their own line? I am not at all making the argument that it isn't. Rather I am trying to get at the idea that the "revolutionises the guitar" coverage framing that accompanies developments like this usually elides questions about musicality. > Counterargument: does someone play the Linnstrument? Do they make good music with it? I have never actually heard such a player myself. | | |
| ▲ | aidenn0 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think everybody agrees that news articles tend towards hyperbole, often to the point of being silly to anyone who knows topic well. See also: e.g. news coverage of every scientific paper ever. The inventor's site is much more reasonable (while still, IMO, marketing the product effectively): "A New Way to Play Guitar." |
| |
| ▲ | breezybottom a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, I can't see how. I'm very glad that Yuja Wang stuck to piano instead of creating some ridiculous new device. Techniques would never develop over time if every musician had to start completely from scratch on a brand new instrument. | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Instruments as the embodiments of conventions. | |
| ▲ | xgulfie 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But if The Presidents Of The United States of America didn't make their guitbass and the bassitar then we probably wouldn't have gotten Peaches or Lump |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ses1984 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Play what inspires you to play. Invent what you are inspired to invent. |
| |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent [-] | | Right. It's kind of a deeply personal thing. But that is exactly why the commonplace media/marketing framing about the way these things "revolutionise the guitar" is so often misplaced. |
|
|
| ▲ | salmonman4eva 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| any chance you would share a playlist of tracks that feature that sliding bending tone i associate with steel pedal guitar? i’m just starting to look for more and trying to get past the few country songs i heard on the radio… |
| |
|
| ▲ | recursive a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why do we all use QWERTY? |
| |