Re: GG Radio documentaries a failure?

[Elmer Elevator <bobmer@javanet.com>]

Dear f_minorites,

Hmmm ... I don't think it's at all a man/woman thang. Boys and men may go
through special kinds of training -- sports, military, shop class -- that
emphasize this kind of one-thing focus. But both genders have equal potentials
to audibly "multi-task." We evolved that way; sometimes we need to listen for
the sabre-tooth tiger's growl AND the baby's cry at the same time. For mostly
bad reasons, most of my editor colleagues cranking out deadline newspapers were
men, and that is The Mother of All Divided-Attention Jobs. So lemme have the
citation on that "well-known fact" thang.

This thread reminds me of how revolutionary "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent
Ambersons" were considered for daring to have multiple simultaneous
conversations going. And they were. But of course, as Anne M. said, audiences
responded because that's just the way real audible life is, and they were
excited to see and hear their own experience reflected on the screen. Sound
movies aren't an inherently superior form of art to stage plays ("walking on"
another actor's line is a serious breach of etiquette), but great directors know
how to use the tricks of sound montage -- just as Gould did in Solitude. I
wonder what Gould might have had to say about Welles, and vice-versa.

Bob Merkin
Elmer Elevator's Discount Prep:
http://www.javanet.com/~bobmer/

"Rosebud was his sled."
    -- Lucy, as Linus starts to watch "Citizen Kane" for the first time

"St-Louis,Robert [NCR]" wrote:

> > Here's a thought.  When I was studying psychology in high school, the
> > textbook made a point that when we are, say, at a party with many
> > conversations going on simultaneously, that we are actually hearing all
> of
> > them.  We just choose to attend or focus on the one where the people
> closest
> > to us physically are speaking, but we are actually hearing all of them in
> > the entire room.
>
> Anne wrote:
> I'm reply to your post while listening to the radio. If this were the
> weekend, I would also have the TV on. A lot of people would see this and
> refuse to accept that it's possible. (Once, my brother made me switch off
> one radio because he couldn't believe that I was listening to two radios at
> the same time -- while reading.)
>
> My Response:
> I think it's a well known fact that by their nature, women can divide their
> attention and concentration more easily between different stimulii (eg.
> radio, tv, reading, etc.).  Men typically will more easily focus on one (or
> a few) such stimulii.  I am not sure what the reason is for this difference
> - I speculate that perhaps it stems from the evolutionary maternal need to
> tend for the babies/children, while also being on the lookout for external
> dangers/risks.  My wife used to be able to keep an eye on the children while
> reading a book, watching TV, and having the radio on in the background;  or,
> talking on the phone while also watching TV and flipping through a magazine.
> I was always amazed at that ability, and wondered why I couldn't do the
> same, until I found out about this innate biological difference.  Anyways,
> this is way off course in a Glenn Gould discussion forum, but perhaps
> Glenn's psychological and personality makeup allowed him, like a lot of
> women, to divide his attention easily between different voices, different
> stimulli, etc.  Would such an ability allow him to more easily play certain
> Bach pieces where several voices are intermingling together?  Perhaps women
> respond better to his radio documentaries with the overlapping voices than
> men do, generally speaking?