Hang

[Tony Hardie-Bick]

Hi James,

On 22/11/10 20:59, James R. Coplin wrote:
> OK, I'll bite and be the bad guy.  Am I the only one who questions the actual
> utility of this instrument?  I'll readily admit it has a wonderful tone.

Although I would actually argue "utility" with you, that is actually to miss the 
point ;)

The whole point is that sound (in any musical instrument) is not always about an 
end result, and this instrument is one example of a rare kind, where this idea 
has been taken as being the underlying reason for its existence.

> Those of you with the sample library, how is it?

Whatever samples you can get go ahead and use. Sound can be sampled, and if 
that's what you "need", then by all means satisfy your craving.

In Buddhism, this is known as satisfying the hungry ghost (which, because it 
cannot eat, will never cease to be hungry).

Cage was the best-known originator of dialogue between these worlds (others 
include LaMonte Young, Terry Riley and many others less well known), and the 
makers of the Hang - regardless of whether one agrees with their beliefs - are 
serious about this.

I'm not sure that control is the best way to go about this, but I'm not a 
Buddhist monk and you'd have to ask one, whether control of this kind - the 
setting of parameters - can indeed be a way of achieving a freedom of the spirit.

But that's what we're talking about here.

No. It's not multi-timbral ;) In fact, from a comparative point of view, you'd 
have to listen very carefully, to hear anything unusual at all. Like people, 
everyone is different.

Tony (HB)