Re: GG: Cultism, Banality, etc., etc.

[Michael Arnowitt <arnowitt@sover.net>]

At 01:14 AM 10/28/1999 -0500, John Hill wrote:
>Anne M. Marble wrote:
>>  
>> Some of us post about those subjects because we don't know enought
>> about music or recording technology or related topics to make sensible
>> posts in those areas. I leave those discussion to the list members who
>> know the field. That's probably for the best. Otherwise, I'd be
>> sending out posts that said something like, "Well, his music, like,
>> gets really slow about two minutes into the piece, and, uh, then it,
>> like, speeds up again."
>
>One of the things I've always liked about this list is the variety of folks
>on it.  Everybody brings something a little different to the table and that
>keeps things both fresh and diverse.  There's also a lot of good information
>here.
>
>> I don't agree with everything GG did, said, played, thought, or
>> whatever. I don't like every recording he ever made -- few people on
>> this list do. But I still reserve the right to make posts about what
>> other people might consider to be "banal" things. While everybody on
>> this list likes GG, in their own way, not everybody on this list likes
>> to discuss the same things about GG.
>
>True.  And I think most of the folks who contribute to any extent are
>pretty well-informed about things Gouldian.  That means being familiar with
>(and hopefully appreciating) things like the Kazdin book as well as some of
>the more glowing, tribute-offering commentaries.  Does anybody here really
>view GG as a saint?  Or think that every interpretation of his was flawless?
>I doubt it.  The discussion here is pretty balanced and multi-dimensional.

I agree with John, and furthermore, while it is possible to understand
Glenn's approach to society without a great knowledge of his music-making,
the reverse isn't so -- you really can't understand his musical
eccentricities and contradictions in isolation without exploring his
personality and philosophies.

Michael