Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
For me, I'd use it in the use context as reference to doing something not
within some imagined form, doing something other or beyond a set of
expectations.
** cool.
Going out would refer to a subtle bending or undermining of
the rules governing these expectations, e.g. chord changes, so that one
begins with something and takes it entirely elsewhere.
** why subtle? :-)
All jazz, to some
degree, goes out, further the more rules it breaks.
** actually i wouldn't agree with this. maybe all jazz was at one point "out" - - i.e., "revolutionary" - - (though this is open to debate), but after a certain point . . . what was once new becomes old and the status quo. there are a lot of people playing dixieland - - or doing the wynton marasalis jazz played on original instruments thing (for those aware of the baroque on origial instruments thing . . . they both seem like museum music at this point).
I haven't ever heard it applied to music composition, perhaps because of
the illusion that each written work is original.
** but all music is written in some sort of continuum - - nobody truly exists in a vacuum as far as i know. and . . . don't you think that things are only "out" when viewed in comparison to something else that is more accepted?
Schoenburg (both his composition and other writings) would be a prime
example of somebody codifying "music" by what I mean by "rules."
** actually, if you study a little about schoenberg, he was considered to be quite "out" in his time. he was in the unusual position of being someone who was both stretching and codifying HIS new rules at the same time. in a certain way, his development of a new harmonic theory could be considered to be quite a bit more subversive than some other "outside" folks. (as far as his "outness" richard strauss - - who himself was once an enfant terrible - - was reputedly so appalled by schoenberg's music that he told him he should be a janitor.)
stig