iPad Now the Most Versatile Instrument. Ever.

[Digital_Damage]

I thought most of were discussing the ability or inability to make music with an Ipad that only transmitted 5 levels of velocity.

None of us know what the fuck you're on about.

No, I think only you don't know what I'm talking about.

That has been made painfuly clear to the rest.

[stringtapper]

Not my argument alone. See the New Grove definition. You're still stuck on this "produces wavelengths" issue. You're forcing that element into the definition, and in a pretty authoritarian way. I'm merely making the observation that not everyone agrees with your definition, and so your authority on the matter is questionable. And by "not everyone" I mean many in the professional musicological/music theoretical world.

And of course I could have side stepped your argument by mentioning the fact that the APC40 can in fact produce its own wavelengths. I just heard mine do it as I flicked the crossfader back and forth. Add some drum sticks and I'm sure many more would emerge. But I chose not to.

Oh come on, you are really going to take the easy way out? I thought we could actually have a meaningful debate in the spirit of the subject matter.
I was getting excited for a split second since conversations with others in here have been less than fruitful.

Easy way out? Which part was the easy way out? In my opinion you've been taking the easy way out from the beginning by not actually thinking about the questions I've raised such as whether vibration of the actual body of an object must be what constitutes its being defined as an "instrument." Your tone of complete surety on the matter indicates you have no will to explore concepts beyond what you may have already learned, or at least those that are presupposed within your own sphere of influence/experience.

[razorblade]

I'll wait here why you try to search for more buzzwords from wikipedia.

Buzzwords like Deap, Reguardless, Synonymous and Applitude, Einstein?

[razorblade]

Dum, is that you?

[razorblade]

If I hit you with a drum stick, and you make a sound, does that mean you are an instrument?

Or is it dependent on the velocity with which I hit you?

Are you not an instrument even if I vary the velocity that I hit you with?

[Digital_Damage]

Easy way out? Which part was the easy way out? In my opinion you've been taking the easy way out from the beginning by not actually thinking about the questions I've raised such as whether vibration of the actual body of an object must be what constitutes its being defined as an "instrument." Your tone of complete surety on the matter indicates you have no will to explore concepts beyond what you may have already learned, or at least those that are presupposed within your own sphere of influence/experience.

Taking the easy way out is if you “tap on an APC 40 with a stick does it become and instrument”.

Come on…

The very basis of most of this discussion has been based on synthesis as it relates to the virtual instrument scope. If that means the makeup of a waveform and the importance of velocity or the components required to produce synthesis.

[Digital_Damage]

If I hit you with a drum stick, and you make a sound, does that mean you are an instrument?

Or is it dependent on the velocity with which I hit you?

Are you not an instrument even if I vary the velocity that I hit you with?

LOL, now you are trying to ride someone else's coat tails...

You have been found wanting.

[razorblade]

Keep basking in your own glory dude...

[stringtapper]

Easy way out? Which part was the easy way out? In my opinion you've been taking the easy way out from the beginning by not actually thinking about the questions I've raised such as whether vibration of the actual body of an object must be what constitutes its being defined as an "instrument." Your tone of complete surety on the matter indicates you have no will to explore concepts beyond what you may have already learned, or at least those that are presupposed within your own sphere of influence/experience.

Taking the easy way out is if you “tap on an APC 40 with a stick does it become and instrument”.

Come on…

The very basis of most of this discussion has been based on synthesis as it relates to the virtual instrument scope. If that means the makeup of a waveform and the importance of velocity or the components required to produce synthesis.

Which I clearly said I wasn't invoking as a part of the argument, but rather as a sideline quip. Sorry that was lost on you.

[Digital_Damage]

Easy way out? Which part was the easy way out? In my opinion you've been taking the easy way out from the beginning by not actually thinking about the questions I've raised such as whether vibration of the actual body of an object must be what constitutes its being defined as an "instrument." Your tone of complete surety on the matter indicates you have no will to explore concepts beyond what you may have already learned, or at least those that are presupposed within your own sphere of influence/experience.

Taking the easy way out is if you “tap on an APC 40 with a stick does it become and instrument”.

Come on…

The very basis of most of this discussion has been based on synthesis as it relates to the virtual instrument scope. If that means the makeup of a waveform and the importance of velocity or the components required to produce synthesis.

Which I clearly said I wasn't invoking as a part of the argument, but rather as a sideline quip. Sorry that was lost on you.

If you removed that part from your response what is left is no counter argument to futher the discussion at hand. Simply a undefined theory that you interprit in a certain view that can be reduced to "anything is possible".

[stringtapper]

If you removed that part from your response what is left is no counter argument to futher the discussion at hand. Simply a undefined theory that you interprit in a certain view that can be reduced to "anything is possible".

Not my argument alone. See the New Grove definition. You're still stuck on this "produces wavelengths" issue. You're forcing that element into the definition, and in a pretty authoritarian way. I'm merely making the observation that not everyone agrees with your definition, and so your authority on the matter is questionable. And by "not everyone" I mean many in the professional musicological/music theoretical world.

You don't see the counterargument? I don't like engaging in insults, but this is a little tiresome. I already presented a defined theory based on a definition (from the New Grove) of an instrument as being that which can produce musical sound through electrical impulses. Now that brings the definition of the word "produce" into question. From Oxford:

2. cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.

Comparing these two definitions one could make a reasonable case that the APC40 is an instrument.

[LoopStationZebra]

No velocity sensitive keyboard.

Piece of junk.

Guess I was wrong; you exhausted wikipedia and have moved on to photobucket.

Your desperation is delicious.

dum, it's GOOD to have you back, broham. G D.

[LoopStationZebra]

I feel right and truly ashamed that I didn't catch this quicker.

Bah. Old age.

[stringtapper]

Well shit the bed.

I too should have caught that style of overwhelmingly astute debate strategy.

The sense of complete command of relevant facts.

The smell of potatoes. Mmmm.

[LoopStationZebra]

The angry baggage and agenda she brings to each dinner party we have.