Re: Salon articles

["Anne M. Marble" <amarble@sff.net>]

From: Birgitte Jorgensen <bj@KEMMUNET.NET.MT>


> Anne M. M., thanks for your clear-headed assessment of the Salon article,
> and of Salon's recent slide down the slippery slope of sensationalism.

This was, after all, the magazine that published an article by a
"journalist" who wrote an article about trying to contaminate Gary Bauer's
campaign office with his flu! Not to mention that tawdry Orson Scott Card
interview where the interview acted nice-nice to Card, but interspersed the
interview with rude comments about what she really thought. (Her attitude
was "real perfessional.")

> By way of redemption, they did publish a nice appreciation of Gould to
mark the
> release of the recent boxed collection of Bach:
>
> http://www.salon.com/ent/music/review/2000/04/04/gould/index.html

Then there's hope for them yet.

I like this line: "It's a supremely crafted performance, yet also
elemental: Gould's occasional heavy breathing, mumbling and singing and the
clumps of his pedaling sound not like awkward intrusions but contributions
from distant wind and thunder."

I should send that URL to someone I know. She knew that I like Glenn
Gould -- she had even drawn a picture of GG as a favor for me. Recently,
she became interested again after drawing another picture. And then she
decided to see what Gould material her library has... Now, she and her
husband have both been caught by the bug. She has been drawing while
listening to the "32 Short Films..." soundtrack. I can't wait to hear her
reaction after she sees "Glenn Gould: A Portrait" or one of the "Glenn
Gould Plays Bach" videotapes.

> Like you, I found the article "Can Talking Kill You?" based on a quick
and
>casual piece of research from which sweeping generalizations were
>drawn, to be highly suspect.

Reading that article has persuaded me to go out and buy Dr. Dean Edell's
book, "Eat, Drink, and Be Merry."

> > The article talks about how computers alienating people.
> > In the Victorian era, people wrote passionate letters to
> > each other without ever meeting. During the days of
> > chivalry, knights wrote love poetry to women they would
> > never dare touch. How come you never hear theories that
> > those relationships led to heart trouble or alienation?
> > Maybe because it's easier to blame electronic gadgets?
>
> You've raised some interesting questions. I think the new
> mediums of the day are always misunderstood and subjected
> to suspicion.

This reminds me of a song from "The Music Man" -- the one about the pool
halls. :-> Or to keep this on topic, some of the comments that have made
about some of the reactions Glenn Gould received when he did things in a
(GASP) different way. Everything from splicing experimentation in the
recording studio to certain musicians who play in "unusual" positions.

Even Bill Evans got criticism for the "artificial" construction of
"Conversations with Myself." Well, yeah, he couldn't play that one live.
:-> But that doesn't mean it isn't a worthy album.

 > > Some people interact better by talking one-on-one. Others
> > interact better by writing letters, or by writing e-mail,
> > or by using the phone.
>
> And we've really not fully comprehended how much the Net is
>changing us and they way we interact. Only historical perspective
>can remove certain blind spots in the way we reflect on the culture we
live in.

I'm sure no one in Victorian times thought it was odd to sit in cemeteries
and write poetry about death...

We probably still have no comprehension of the changes wrought by the
accessibility of _cars._ And changes happen so quickly these days. So it
will take a long time before we get the changes wrought by the Net.

------
Anne M. Marble
amarble@sff.net
I report spam (thwack!)