GG creator

["Antoine Mathys" <salon.jaune@qui.qc.ca>]

	I must admit, when posting my little opinion note, I wasn't expecting any
response. By the way, it is very true I could have been less enigmatic:
sorry, english is not my mother tongue.

>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?

	Transparent here means, as paradoxal as it may seem in the case of GG, not
to interpose oneself beetween the sonic transposition of the score and an
eventual listener.  This I believe is the basis to what GG called a +zero
to one; relation from artist to audience (unachievable, I realize...).  By
the way I wrote +most transparent;.
	Also, another word for viewpoint would be tradition. Tradition, however
important it may be in the definition of culture, exists in a certain way
to be violated.  Of course, in the case of GG, I am referring to our habits
as listeners of always having some preconceived notion of +style; or
+manner; of the music we are about to listen to.  Something, you will
agree, very reassuring in our effort to grasp the world as a unite entity. 
Which is not.  In that respect, please tell me why do we still even stop
one second to consider GG's exentricities in his interpretations of Mozart
or Brahms instead of listening and growing from them.

>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 Schvnbergs.

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.

	Sorry for the stylistic fault: it is french way of speaking (...les Haydn,
Beethoven ou Schvnberg...) meaning people of their stature... I understand
your reluctance to accept any kind of hierarchy in art, and I quite frankly
sympathise with you on that, but this I believe is a simple reflexion of
our refusal to acknowlegde the reality of life in society, in witch art is
one the most cohesive factor: it all has to do with our idea of utopia, a
fantasy world free of cruelty and injustice, that we project into art. 
This is a tragic mistake: if art is life (or life art), moral issues have
all rights in art as well as in the conduct of our lives (this, one can
learn directly from GG...).  And yes, the concept of hierarchy (as bad as
it may sound) has its place in the art world... no, it is not a question of
taste!!
	As I said earlier on, art in its principle, is a social phenomenon.  The
notion of alterity is essential here.  Art can be seen as a mean to fill
the immense gap simple communication leaves open between human beings.  If
an +artist; doesn't interact with the rest of the species, tell me please
how he can participate in art.  To my mind, an artist can only be
recognised as such: one doesn't declares oneself an artist, one becomes an
artist through social interaction, exactly as I recognize in someone I
speak with an intelligent being, although I am perfectly aware their are
millions of intelligent beings out there, but...

Thanks for your well founded criticism, Catherine Bennett.  I hope I
responded to your liking.

Yours truly,
Antoine Mathys