# What is a Musical Instrument?



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

This is inspired by some of the comments in the 'Is the Saw a Musical Instrument' thread. Most people agree that a saw is, or at least can be, but some do not, and I thought a more general discussion of the topic might be interesting. So--

The first point is so simple that it might almost be forgotten: _nothing_ is musical by itself; all musical instruments must be played in some manner. Otherwise, they are merely more or less interesting visual objects. The context is important; we can imagine an alien from a water-living species encountering a French Horn, say, and having not the faintest idea what to do with it.

Assuming the appropriate contemporary context, though, still doesn't answer the question, since there is an evolutionary process by which all instruments have come into being, such that certain things now universally, or at least widely, accepted as musical instruments would not have been recognized as such at some earlier point in human history (a theremin, for example, would be meaningless in a culture with no knowledge of electricity). So the definitional context itself changes over time.

Nor, it seems to me, does piling up lists of characteristics do much, since there would appear to be no characteristic which applies to all objects generally accepted as musical instruments. Not all instruments produce definite pitches (hollow logs, most drums, bells, and many other percussion instruments, for example-- yet these have been used in the making of music since before the beginning or recorded history, so far as we can tell). Not all instruments are equally effective as rhythmic tools (a serpent simply cannot give the sharpness of attack of a trumpet, say). Not all instruments are used, or even accepted, by all composers, even within a given era (Gounod's famously condemned Cesar Franck for daring to use an English Horn in his symphony, and Wagner dismissed the saxophone as sounding like the German portmanteau word "Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge").

By process of elimination, then, it would appear that there is only one useful definition of a musical instrument: those things which are used by composers and performers in the creation of music. We may, if we wish, modify the term with additional words or phrases ('unusual,' 'seldom-called-for,' 'rarely heard,' or 'downright annoying'  ), but the fact is that the only test for defining a musical instrument is that of musical use.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Well, my take is that anything can be used as a musical instrument if it is employed or "played" in a musical context.

A good example is the tone poem Hekla by Icelandic composer Jon Leifs. In it, to evoke the horrifc sounds of an erupting volcano, he employs heavy ship chains, guns, rocks, wooden stumps, hammers, etc. Now, is a rock or a stump TRADITIONALLY an instrument? No. But, the are being used here in a musical context which does, in a way, tunr them into a "playable" instrument within the context of the work.


----------



## Edmond-Dantes (Mar 20, 2009)

Wow LvB. LOL You really opened up a can of worms with this one.  Still though, without the limitation of staying with one instrument, this will make to be an interesting discussion.

I very much so agree with your definition of musical instrument LvB. I also agree with the definition on wikipedia.org. (Which, honestly is about as good as any, due to musics subjective nature.)

_A musical instrument is an object constructed or used for the purpose of making music. In principle, anything that produces sound can serve as a musical instrument._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_instrument

It's an interesting article.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

I think anything that was constructed with the primary purpose in mind of being used for the performance and execution of music, is to be considered a Musical Instrument.

But then of course any object can be used in a musical context but that wouldn't necessarily make it a musical instrument.
Like in the case of the Saw, if this is a regular working saw used for carpentary and it is used in a piece for some sort of musical affect then no I wouldn't consider it a musical instrument.

But if the Saw is constructed with the purpose of musical performance, then yes.

Build for performance, yes.

Non musical purpose, no.( But it could be used for some musical _effect_ of any length)


----------



## b-sharp (May 1, 2009)

I agree with JoeGreen. Any object can be used for a purpose which it wasn't really intended for, but it doesn't actually change the nature of the object. If my daughter uses my bed as a tramopoline, it doesn't actually mean my bed has _become_ a trampoline. On the other hand, if I use my clarinet as a deadly ninja weapon, it is, in fact still a clarinet.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

^^ excellent analogies.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Killing Me Softly With His Clarinet Concerto!
What a good name for a song.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

I think this has the cleanest tone I've heard and a certain fluidity....


----------



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

b-sharp said:


> Any object can be used for a purpose which it wasn't really intended for, but it doesn't actually change the nature of the object. If my daughter uses my bed as a trampoline, it doesn't actually mean my bed has _become_ a trampoline. On the other hand, if I use my clarinet as a deadly ninja weapon, it is, in fact still a clarinet.


There is a semantic confusion lurking at the heart of this discussion, one very relevant to the question of definition, which your comment points out well. Must a 'musical instrument' be something designed purely to be used in the production of music? If so, then the human voice (which was not 'designed' for anything, but in any case did not evolve for the purpose of music) is not a musical instrument.

There is a related point here: it is also arguable that your daughter's use of bed as trampoline indicates that a bed can serve as a trampoline substitute, but that the failure lies in the fact that a bed does not perform the function of a trampoline as well as a true trampoline, whereas a composer may need a very specific sound which is best, or only, produced by a particular object, allowing us to understand that the object at hand has two natures (a major and a minor one, if you will). In fact, it is possible to imagine some object with a non-musical use which turns out to produce a unique and beautiful sound when struck, and which over time comes to be no longer used for its original purpose but instead becomes primarily a musical instrument. Its 'nature' thus changes. Things can have more than one function ('nature'); the question is whether they fulfill that function as well as some other thing. In the case of musical instruments, the question attaches specifically to the sound produced by the object.


----------



## marval (Oct 29, 2007)

I agree with JoeGreen, if something is created with the sole purpose of making music then it is a musical instrument. Some ordinary objects get used to make music, but that was not what they were made for. This for instance is still a camping stool, despite what the guy does with it.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Why do we deny the mutiplicity of thing? Beer, shampoo? Umbrella, sunshade? Glass of water, Glass harmonica? Walt Whitman says 'So I disagree with myself, sobeit. I am complex so what of it? Same goes for my bass/bath-tub.


----------



## b-sharp (May 1, 2009)

LvB - You're right, this is a question of semantics! If we use the label of "musical instrument", then we should be referring to something which has been created with the purpose of making music. The English language gives us a very useful preposition - "as", which we can employ if we use an object for a purpose for which it wasn't intended. "I use my clarinet as a ninja weapon", for example.

I can't think of any examples of objects which have morphed into musical instruments over time because they sounded good when hit or blown - can anyone else?

Of course many objects have multiple functions, but if we refer to a table as a "step-ladder" because we stand on it to reach a light bulb, or we call a Tesco's bag "a sledge" because we sit on it and slide down hills in the snow, the world is going to become a very confusing place!

Anyway, here's an interesting link about the etymology of the word "instrument":
http://podictionary.com/?p=352


----------



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

b-sharp said:


> LvB - You're right, this is a question of semantics! If we use the label of "musical instrument", then we should be referring to something which has been created with the purpose of making music.


So are you saying that the human voice is not a musical instrument?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_instrument


----------



## b-sharp (May 1, 2009)

The human voice is perhaps an exception, but I'm not sure. It's an interesting point. The wikipedia link also uses the word "object" in its definition, but can we really say the human voice is a concrete object? I don't think so. 

If we are talking semantics, I think I would have to say, no, it isn't a musical instrument. We talk about vocal music and instrumental music. We make a clear distinction between the two. However, if it's not a musical instrument, then what is it? Wikipedia defines the voice as "part of human sound production", but obviously that description is lacking somewhat! We have a gap to fill, and the term "musical instrument" seems to work quite well in this respect, as a definition of what the human voice is, without being wholly accurate.


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

The organ is the one instrument to rule them all! and in the darkness bind them


----------



## Edmond-Dantes (Mar 20, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Go here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_instrument


LOL. It apears that we, yet again, agree on something. If you notice, I also pointed to that page in my first post.  Music will always be so subjective(there-in lies the beauty in it), that a great many people will disagree with the definition given by wikipedia...

Here is my reason for agreeing with the Wikipedia definition. If we just stick to things that are constructed to make music, then vocal cords will never fit into the definition. (Which is to say, you get rid of the worlds most popular instrument out of the category.) Beyond that, singing has been around for just about as long as man has. Whether you believe in evolution or in divine creation, you can see that vocal cord might of either evolved or might have been created for the duel-purpose of talking and making music. lol (after all, the Bible says "Make a joyful noise.")

PS: I'm not trying to start a religious debate here, so please try not to get side-tracked by this analogy.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

LvB said:


> There is a semantic confusion lurking at the heart of this discussion, one very relevant to the question of definition, which your comment points out well. Must a 'musical instrument' be something designed purely to be used in the production of music? If so, then the human voice (which was not 'designed' for anything, but in any case did not evolve for the purpose of music) is not a musical instrument.


Okay, great point LvB but then again there can always be exceptions.
or 
we could look at it this way, 
there are two types of voices we can produce; one is the everyday speaking voice and then there is the singing voice, be it popular/jazz or classical, one is used in a a non musical context but can be specified(which composers have) for use in a musical context without destroying it's original intent, everyday communication. The other, the singing voice, is "manufactured" or at least harnessed into use for a musical specific role.


----------



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

JoeGreen said:


> Okay, great point LvB but then again there can always be exceptions.
> or
> we could look at it this way,
> there are two types of voices we can produce; one is the everyday speaking voice and then there is the singing voice, be it popular/jazz or classical, one is used in a a non musical context but can be specified(which composers have) for use in a musical context without destroying it's original intent, everyday communication. The other, the singing voice, is "manufactured" or at least harnessed into use for a musical specific role.


Actually, if I may modify your point a bit, the question can, I think, be resolved into two categories: things _intended_ to be musical instruments, and things _used_ as musical instruments. The result is the same-- the production of music-- but this dichotomy allows for distinctions involving original purpose, which seem to be important to many people. This approach also avoids another potential problem-- the frequent obsolescence of things used as musical instruments at one point or another. The emphasis is thrown on the nature of the sounds desired by composers, rather than the devices used to produce those sounds, and thus avoids debates over the relative status of sound producing implements.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

Well there you go, end of disscussion. You can lock this one up mods.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2009)

I am surprised that this subject is still generating any interest as there are at least 3 other threads which deal with this question and nearly all of the posts on this thread are repeating that which has been said before


----------

