[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
OT: very: Re: "out" is out itself
just responding partially to:
spgoodman@earthlight.net writes:
>I don't think the term "out" that we're talking about has anything to do
>with "outsiders" in this sense. "Out" has to do with whether something
>is no longer being designated by (often self-appointed) critics as "hip",
>"cool", or otherwise interesting to them -
this is definitely *not* my understanding of the term 'out', at least
insofar
as its regular useage in the vernacular of the community in which i
participate.
my understanding of the term might loosely define it thusly:
'out'side the norm (eg, playing 'outside the ordained changes', from the
'jazz/post-jazz' community), as in the commonly used phrase:
'that shit was *out*!'
add'ly, my comprehension of the word also falls within a context more akin
to
whatall's been termed 'outsider art'.....
also:
are not *all* critics ---including you, me, et al--- self-appointed,
somehow?
>and since such people always
>have some claim to the pulse of the public, we should all bow down, admit
>how right they are, and follow their "hip" example/instructions.
>Bullocks!
> Bolshoi! (expletive debated but deleted)
i agree, sorta/kinda:
though i think it can be aesthetically 'enlightening', somehow, to allow
oneself to weigh *all* kindsa folks' opinions on things 'artistic', esp.
when
they don't agree w/one's own; hmmmm.....
i don't think it's necessary that such considerations oughta threaten
one's
personal 'artistic' directions, but, rather, that attitude may
enrich/broaden
one's perspective..... even when one's basic/initial reaction is severe,
as
in 'anger', 'bitterness', 'fear'.....
but, whatever.....
all digressions.....
all incorporated into music, into looping.....
best,
dt / S-C
just responding partially to:
spgoodman@earthlight.net writes:
>I don't think the term "out" that we're talking about has anything to do
>with "outsiders" in this sense. "Out" has to do with whether something
>is no longer being designated by (often self-appointed) critics as "hip",
>"cool", or otherwise interesting to them -
this is definitely *not* my understanding of the term 'out', at least
insofar
as its regular useage in the vernacular of the community in which i
participate.
my understanding of the term might loosely define it thusly:
'out'side the norm (eg, playing 'outside the ordained changes', from the
'jazz/post-jazz' community), as in the commonly used phrase:
'that shit was *out*!'
add'ly, my comprehension of the word also falls within a context more akin
to
whatall's been termed 'outsider art'.....
also:
are not *all* critics ---including you, me, et al--- self-appointed,
somehow?
>and since such people always
>have some claim to the pulse of the public, we should all bow down, admit
>how right they are, and follow their "hip" example/instructions.
>Bullocks!
> Bolshoi! (expletive debated but deleted)
i agree, sorta/kinda:
though i think it can be aesthetically 'enlightening', somehow, to allow
oneself to weigh *all* kindsa folks' opinions on things 'artistic', esp.
when
they don't agree w/one's own; hmmmm.....
i don't think it's necessary that such considerations oughta threaten
one's
personal 'artistic' directions, but, rather, that attitude may
enrich/broaden
one's perspective..... even when one's basic/initial reaction is severe,
as
in 'anger', 'bitterness', 'fear'.....
but, whatever.....
all digressions.....
all incorporated into music, into looping.....
best,
dt / S-C