I have the impression that our constant emphasis on untoolness is a response to a certain understanding of tools as being not about conversation, but about getting something done efficiently. In a conversation, something is getting done, too, and this has certain conditions, but it is of a different order than just being instrumental.
On 24.07.2010, at 16:02, Kassen wrote:
> One word I'm missing in this discussion so far is "vocabulary".
>
> I might describe a certain synth as having a "large vocabulary" while describing it as a tool (listing the situations in which I use it, features and so on). While emphasising the differences between "tools" and "thoughts" we should not forget that tools, languages and thoughts might be one and the same. In the case of linguistic constructs like "in the long run it will save you money" or "If you don't vote for me there will be more terrorist attacks" I think the thoughts are tools, conveyed through language, which is also used as a tool.
>
> In fact, we might argue that a more complicated tool (like a car, synth OS or DAW) should be consistent in it's interface to be usable at all, and that this consistency might be a sort of grammar.
>
> Where I think so many systems for electronic music fail as real tools for live improvisation is how they demand to be addressed in such a inconsistent and verbose way, with so many exceptions, that their language becomes hard to speak. Looking at it like that we might speculate that there the "vocabulary" of the output relates to a feature-set (which manufacturers can sell) while every piece of the input vocabulary (knobs, buttons) adds cost, and that this mis-match leads to a overly complicated control grammar. Expressions that should ideally be like a word, sentence or gesture instead turn into the equivalent of a whole dialogue with a mentally challenged customs officer; you can go many places but getting there becomes a chore.
>
> Of course there are many exceptions, like some guitar pedals which can be tools or instruments without really becoming like a language, but I think there are also many things considered to be purely "tools" that could also be seen as unpleasant languages.
>
> So, as a alternative point of view I'd like to suggest looking at all such systems as languages *and* tools. My mixing desk here, could -for example- be seen as a very simple language with a dozens of simple words (that are fortunately easy to learn) and no real grammar to speak of. The Roland rack module next to it could be seen as a rather outdated and obscure language, with many exceptions, that requires a dictionary at every turn and which is only spoken by a small community in a secluded area with many religious taboos.
>
> Mostly serious,
> Kas.
Received on Sat Jul 24 2010 - 15:10:46 BST