Comment by rembicilious | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rembicilious | Hacker News Reader

The linked article is not really about the instrument. It’s about the inventors of the instrument trying to use copyright laws (or any legal means) to stop the automated manufacturing of the “handpan”. Their artistic conviction seems to be that every “handpan” should be hand crafted. Mass production and automation churn out near identical instruments.. soulless copies.

They aren’t wrong; taking the artisan out of fabrication leaves the musician as the sole artistic variable in instrument’s sonic output.

Mass produced wooden instruments still retain unique properties of the trees they were grown from. No two acoustic guitars are the same, even though they came off the assembly line within minutes of each other. Instruments made exclusively from metals and plastics aren’t as likely to have the sonic variations found in wood. This is one of the reasons cymbal companies like Zildjian offer “hand hammered” products.

edit: When I say “They’re not wrong” I don’t mean that I agree with their actions, just that the ideals they hold in regards to artisanship are not without merit. It’s great that nearly any musician can purchase a “handpan” thanks to mass production. Even a very low quality instrument can sound great in the hands of a skilled musician.

Not everyone has enough money to have a $4999 Gibson. Should music, art and culture be reserved for the affluent? A crummy $99 mass-produced guitar is the only instrument many can afford.

Obviously people who’ve never actually -been- poor are quite insistent that you can always afford something if it’s really important to you

> They aren’t wrong; taking the artisan out of fabrication leaves the musician as the sole artistic variable in instrument’s sonic output.

So? What if the artist wants to produce music where they are "the sole artistic variable in instrument’s sonic output"?

Seems perfectly legitimate to me. Sure, many artists may be known for their use of some particular instrument, but I bet a vanishingly small percentage (or rather, promilleage, or PPM-age) goes to a concert to listen to "the combination of Famooze Artizte and his Particular Instrument" -- almost everyone is there for mr Artizte, period. Hardly anyone gives a fuck about the manufacturers of van Goghs paints and brushes either; the claim is as ridiculous as those demanding artistic recognition for his works.

And I betcha absolutely nobody drags friends and family to a school recital to listen to "the combination of my child and whatever particular instrument they're playing". Sometimes -- i.e, in the absolutely overwhelming majority of cases -- it really is all about the artist.

[EDIT:] And then I read the rest of your comment, which seems to mostly agree with what I'm saying. :-) But I'll let the above stand, because I still think even the little credit you gave them in my quote is misplaced. (And judging from the article, these people seem to be at most half "artisans", but mostly pretentious wankers.) [/EDIT]

I've seen some musicians playing these in the park and they sound great and their players have developed great styles and compositions for playing on these instruments.

But I don't get the argument for banning mass-production. If that makes the quality less then so be it. All instruments are of varying quality anyway. Stradivarius? All violins can't be Stradivariuses.

It seems to me the argument is really that it’s meant to be varied — as in, their goal was really to be playing with the awkwardness of poorly constructed tooling that can only haphazardously be declared an “instrument”. Akin to the “hacker” spirit — doing enough with whatever at hand, by understanding those objects beyond their construction’s intended purpose.

More specifically, I think their issue is like taking an arduino and spare parts and slapping together some gizmo, versus simply buying that gizmo outright. The gizmo alone really wasn’t the point, and if a whole culture builds around variating and expanding on that concept, then the manufacturing and sale of a prepackaged gizmo both violates that goal, and also threatens that community’s continued public existence (because you’ll now get newcomers who don’t “get” it, and thus begins eternal September).

So from that perspective I can empathize, though I don’t actually know anything about this community, and I don’t really care for use of lawsuits as a means of defending their goal (isn’t burning man supposed to have a whole anarchy thing overlaying it? Lawsuits seem contradictory…)

burning man is the opposite of anarchy, you don't buy a ticket to anarchy!

Lol! This is the most concise statement of BM hypocrisy I’ve ever read. Well done!

You can actually buy a ticket to anarchy here[1]

[1] https://www.bandsintown.com/a/15312697-anarchy

I didn't know you need a ticket to attend. Who gets the money? I guess you could call it "commercial anarchism".

I'm not an expert on anarchism but I would think that in anarchism you are free to sell things for money too. It's just that you can also grab those things without paying for them too.

Not very unlike from the GNU license which says you can get it for free but you can also sell it.

I imagine part of the rapid copycat spree is that it's practically just two steel-pan drums welded together. Those have been made for over 100 years.

Making a better resonance, and removing the need for a stand, is a fairly significant improvement. They do deserve recognition and reward for that imo. But there's no way they didn't see this coming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com