Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At the risk of keeping this conversation from going further out (which would be much better: OT = out), a few corrections to my writing to clarify the image I thought was in my head: Being out is great, but getting there, while subverting peoples' perceptions of specific form (and even meaning) and undermining their points of reference, is twice the fun! Of course, hyperspace jumping to other things is just as great. (But for the jump to have meaning, the former must have been experienced, and, in so lingering, affects the latter--the shift is still experienced, reconsituted, retrospectively, even if after the piece. The transition is contructed after the fact, the meaning transpl . . . hey, what is this bullshit?!? Jazz, for me, is all about the improvisational aspects of that music against a backdrop or history of some form (what was once blues, although now any notion will do: improvize over "Music for Sub Atomic Particles"), and so, in that it is improvisational, always goes out, no matter how dusty the can from which it springs. Regarding composed music, yes, of course every piece is heard and written in a context, which is what I meant by the "illusion that each piece is original." Schoenburg understood that, once a music becomes a genre, it can be said to adhere generally to a certain set of rules. He wrote a music theory book codifying the Baroque. He wrote the rules to his own type of music to be intentionally different from other music (and then, for the sake of making it musical, broke them). I think we're in agreement. So, now that I've drawn up the contract to our agreement, you can send two cents remuneration to Escaping Da Loop, 2001 Navel Gazer Blvd., Berkeley, CA 94704. :) Neal P.S., if S had become a janitor, he may, over the course of his lifetime, had been better able to expose more young minds to his music. Or don't American high schools have music piped into their bathrooms? On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Liebig, Steuart A. wrote: > 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.)