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

[John Hill <jphill@home.com>]

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.

> Maybe we should develop a code. If the post is about GG's scrambled
> eggs or scarves instead of his music, we should put "GG Banal" into
> the subject line. ;->

I dunno.  I like the mix as is, although some folks do have a tendency to get
way too verbose at times about things like recording techniques.....  (8{0}

cheers,
jh