GG: the big question

[cbennett@axionet.com (Catherine Bennett)]

Hello all.

This is my first post to f-minor, and, sorry to say, it asks for more
information rather than giving any. Maybe I can balance this in future.
But . . .

>I believe
>GG is the most transparent musician their is.  A fact we often try to
>avoid, affraid of distabilizing our too well-grounded view points.

I'm curious. What do you mean by "transparent." And how does this
"destabilize our too well-grounded viewpoints"? Which "viewpoints" are
those?

>I believe no one can be called «artist»
>until one has shared ecstasy, whatever the times or means.  And GG is
>nothing less than one, to be put, not as one of music's server, but as an
>authentic creator on the same level as the Haydns, Beethovens or
>Schönbergs.

Hmmmmm. Well, I'd like to believe that GG is on the same level as the
Haydns, Beethovens or Schonbergs [didn't know there was more than one of
each :-)]. I *want* to believe this. Unfortunately, I can't quite convince
myself. I believe that interpretation *is* a creative art, just as
composition is, but I can't quite convince myself that they are on the same
level. And believe me, I'm  uncomfortable with the idea that there is a
heirarchy of art at all! Still, the doubt remains. What do other listers
think?

As for the idea that "no one can be called «artist» until one has shared
ecstasy," I'm not sure I agree with that either. Does the value of art
reside in the public's response to it? If this is the criterion, then a
good many artists (including GG) have no right to the title. Perhaps one
cannot be *called* «artist» until one has shared ecstasy, but I think one
can *be* an artist whether one has shared one's ecstasy or not.

I'd love to hear some input on all of the above.

Wrap up: I'm sure there are other "big questions concerning GG" out there.
I'd be interested in hearing what listers think these questions are.

Cheers!

Catherine