Goldilocks' problem.

As I read the articles assigned this week and pondered the role of race in the avant garde, I noticed a lot of trends throughout both articles that bring up an issue.

Do we over analyze or under analyze avant garde works? and how does this analysis affect the role of race in the music or art form?
In Whitesell's article I noticed he spoke much more to the general themes of avant garde, but also contained a lot of examples drawn from the minimalist sub-genre (which was fantastic for me, because it is something I can relate to and expand upon based on my preexisting knowledge).

Whitesell presents the idea of getting back to "zero", wiping the slate clean and removing what centuries of Western music had covered up. Cage was a large proponent of this, but the author even cites the Beatles as assistants in this task (unnamed album, 1968). This idea is largely evidenced and supported by real statements from composers and artists, but I couldn't help but think that looking at these works from this angle only could potentially under analyze their true statement and/or value.

Then all of a sudden the shift is back to minimalism, and discussing different aspects of it. First Reich's early tape and phasing pieces, "It's Gonna Rain" and "Come Out", most emphasizing the role of race in their composition and foundation. Then there is another tangent about the complexity of Reich's music, citing "Music for Pieces of Wood" as a broken down, analyzed example. Whitesell does an eloquent job of explaining how the music undergoes processes and reaches temporal climaxes and points in the piece that are clearly non-traditional, but anchor the listener (and likely the performer!). I am pretty fond of this term actually, and appreciated the analysis.
However, I took a step back: How did we get to this very intrinsically sought out point in a specific example of Reich's music? This seems like examining tiny carpet fibers, versus looking at the entire room if we were considering the Zero concept.

So what is the moral here? There's Too much, Too little and "just right". Maybe Goldilocks was a cunning little thief, but she knew just how much she wanted. I don't know if a mean type analysis is available or how practical its application would be, but these seem like two extremes, present in an article that isn't all that long or exhaustive.