this thread is such a thought-provoking morning read, dang.
all things are ācapable of being understood by careful study or investigation,ā but whether or not they seem that way is a meatier topic. so, Iām curious how much of a particular instrumentās appearance of scrutability requires observable/obvious cause + effect. especially when it relies on widespread (cultural? social? academic?) understanding of the instrument.
building off the points made about cello:
letās say you have never seen a cello before. youāre alone with it and a bow in a room. someone else walks in who has extensive practice with a cello. they pick up the bow, run it across the strings at a certain location while placing their fingers on the celloās neck and applying pressure. the sound is pleasing to you.
q: how many observations of this combination of gestures does it take in order for you to feel like youāve āgot itā ā more than two or three times? probably not. the gestures have clear cause and effect, which emboldens your confidence.
so, you give it a whirl and you do perform your approximations of the gestures ā does it sound as āpleasingā as when the other person does it? if no, then perhaps this is the beginning of understanding āvirtuosityā on the instrument. either way, you walk away with a sense of what needs practiced (even if itās not entirely correct. but also, isnāt this experience a conceptual quantization?? idk, but itās my new favorite phrase).
does the number of observations necessary to understand gestural cause and effect change when the instrument is a synthesizer? what about a synthesizer without a keyboard interface?
is understanding that patch cables plug into patch points equivalent to understanding that a bow and finger placement are essential to the pleasing sound you heard from the cello? is there perhaps a specific ratio of observations:understanding cause and effect which pushes an instrument past oneās personal definition of scrutability?
is there simply a greater amount of personal, hands-on exploration (and internal decision-making gestures?) necessary for instruments that do not have such a straightforward operability/cause-and-effect before an individual is able to say āoh yeah, I get how it worksā? if so, how much does that color their non-hands-on experience? do they tune out, feel left out?
tl;dr: community helps close the gap between an instrument appearing scrutable or not. when we share our explorations and notes, we help each other understand the relationship between cause and effect for a particular tool. this eventually helps others understand the reasons why one would decide to use that tool in that way. this informs and emboldens exploration. lines does this particularly well. I am thankful for yāall.