Talk:Outsider music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Outsider music article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Outsider musicians

"Outsider musicians frequently have no formal training and/or significant compromising behavioral or psychological conditions" means that outsider musicials have no formal training and no significant compromising conditions. Does the author mean that they have no formal training but do have a compromising condition? If so, then the sentence needs to be fixed. Kingturtle 07:53 May 5, 2003 (UTC)~

Does Harry Partch really belong here? His music is strange, true, but he was a trained musician and his rejection of conventional Western tuning was a conscious decision and carefully researched. He knew what he was doing; he just happened to be doing something really weird. — Gwalla | Talk 22:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is that people use the term "outsider music" to mean such different things. If you take it to mean "people making music in a naive, 'unaware' way" then for sure Partch does not belong (neither does, say, Tiny Tim for that matter); if you take it to mean "people making music outside of the normal musical conventions and institutions" (be they classical, popular, whatever) then Partch certainly belongs (and Tiny Tim might); while if you take it to mean "musicians who are social outisders" then Partch probably belongs (and Tim I'm not sure about). All of these definitions are used in various places by various people, I think, but none of them is the definition of what "outsider music" is, which makes the whole subject rather tricky to write about. Personally, I hate the term, and the less I have to do with the article, the better ;) Good luck--Camembert

Not sure. The term "outsider music" is just so tricky. I would like to (and maybe this is something you can help me with) find a surefire definition of the term that includes all artists labelled as such, from people like Partch who make music in strange ways to gags like Moondog to "psychological outsiders" like Barrett. Maybe even "musicians creating music outside the usual conventions" would work but that would describe Bob Dylan or Nirvana at some points in their career and I wouldn't call them outsiders. Anyway, if you would prefer to remove Partch, I would have no problem with that. - Rorschach567 | Talk 07:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nirvana would count as "outsider music" not only based on "music created outside the usual conventions" but also "compromising behavioral or psychological conditions". Prairie Dog 22:08, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure a surefire definition can be found. "Musicians creating music outside the usual conventions" is far too broad, as it encompasses the entire avant garde, and I don't think anybody would call Schoenberg or Penderecki "outsider music". To my mind, it's a lack of conventional competence combined with a lack of awareness of that incompetence. The problem is describing it in terms that aren't necessarily derogatory, which is hard even for people who enjoy it. — Gwalla | Talk 00:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Did Schoenberg and Penderecki have compromising psychological conditions to the same level as Kurt Cobain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.160.169.164 (talk • contribs) .

Please. First of all, Kurt Cobain didn’t “create music outside the usual conventions" in any fashion that hadn’t been done before him by other contemporary pop musicians, which is what he was. He wrote in a convention structure in a conventional way (having a unique style isn’t a qualifier here). And while wonderful at it and certainly an important contributor to popular music’s progression, you just can’t make him out to be anything more just because he was very talented and important. Second of all, you’re unfairly romanticizing his “compromising psychological conditions” to be something more than they were, which is some mental instability, drug use, clinical depression and a host of other ailments typical with many other musicians you aren’t campaigning for. All of which are just as well documented. Sorry, the man is a legend, but he isn’t The Shaggs, even if he claimed to like them (and that certainly isn’t a dig). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.146.231 (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest Sexton Ming be removed, he doesn't really fit the criteria in any way. 144.87.143.3 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody here intelligent enough to question the DEFINITION, rather than those who do or do not belong in it? The first paragraph is absolutely rediculous and could have been written by someone similar to Adolf Hitler for its downputting of minorities and people who choose to reject the mainstream, not out of ignorance, but out of the complete opposite: wisdom. and there is nothing whatsoever that implies people not in the mainstream are any worse than the mainstream-infact, in my 14 year long experience of composition, it is VERY much the opposite. keep it simple. outsider music is just that: non-mainstream. The term is not formal, and probably doesnt warrant an encyclopedic definition. so. In wikipedian, "This article needs a cleanup". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ps. Kurt Cobain wasn't in the least bit experimental. He was the very definition of mainstream. How anybody can call one of the seven most commercial bands in history "outsiders" blows my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outsider 'movement'

Continuing from the discussion above, I was told - can't remember when or whom by - that the Outsider Art movement was itself a direct reaction to the autocracy of the Art Establishment; an establishment which recognised only originality within defined "schools", and whose training and mindset are anathema to true outsider art. In other words a trained artish cannot be a true artist because the training itself would have locked out a vital part of their creative faculty. In this sense, the pop movement was itself an outsider art movement. But as each genre becomes established, and books are written about "established" outsider artists, then a new door is opened for new artists to emerge. Perhaps there should be a new category of outsider music, to distinguish between outside-in and outside-out. A professional musician, who turned outsider, could then be termed "inside-out". Matt Stan 14:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)