RE: GG: Cultism, Banality, etc., etc.

[Thayer A <A.Thayer@rhbnc.ac.uk>]

> 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."
> 
Yeah, sure I certainly don't advocate banning all e-mails apart from in
depth analytical ones and I think the list should be well rounded. I do feel
that there is a lot of silly discussion though. The subject of humming was
probably one of the most discussed things to appear on the list, a while
back. Sorry, but it can't be such a big issue. I do feel that while some
less than serious issues can be interesting, the list could benefit from
more serious debate. It seems to be the most serious items which raise the
least discussion. This an aspect of the 'cultism' which I find a little
worrying in a sense. 

> 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.
> 
	I find this an interesting point, but I'm not sure if I agree. I
wouldn't dispute that knowledge of a composer's life can help appreciation,
but surely if it comes to the point where knowledge of a pianist's life is
required to appreciate his recordings' it is going too far? I do find that
my appreciation is heightened by knowing about Gould's life, but we can
easily start to look for things which are not there. I think truly great
playing, even if unusual, should stand out as being good without the
listener needing to know who is playing or what their life was like. Many of
Gould's recordings do fit this category very well, but do we sometimes find
ourselves wanting to appreciate his unusual recordings simply because it is
Gould?