The results are a little surprising, but I would like to see something like this done at some other time that rush hour on the way in to work. Perhaps, on the commute home after work on Friday?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I thought this was interesting.
quote:The poet Billy Collins once laughingly observed that all babies are born with a knowledge of poetry, because the lub-dub of the mother's heart is in iambic meter. Then, Collins said, life slowly starts to choke the poetry out of us. It may be true with music, too.
There was no ethnic or demographic pattern to distinguish the people who stayed to watch Bell, or the ones who gave money, from that vast majority who hurried on past, unheeding. Whites, blacks and Asians, young and old, men and women, were represented in all three groups. But the behavior of one demographic remained absolutely consistent. Every single time a child walked past, he or she tried to stop and watch. And every single time, a parent scooted the kid away.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The average person, in my mind, doesn't recognize great anything.
If they did, then the world wouldn't be filled with so much schlock that the average person seeks out like a moth to a flame.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The average person, in my experience, doesn't have time to stop and listen to anything at 7:51 a.m. while they're on their way to work, even if they want to.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
A good point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah, I doubt I would have stopped at that time in the morning, either. In the evening, definitely.
In answer to the opening post: Sure they do! Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The average person, in my experience, doesn't have time to stop and listen to anything at 7:51 a.m. while they're on their way to work, even if they want to.
You mean they are on their way to work, if they know what's good for them.
Interesting bit about the children, though. Amazing and wonderous thing, children are.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm skeptical about the children thing. Aren't kids generally drawn to novel stuff? Who is to say that it's the quality of the music and not the novelty of it that was causing them to stop?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
You're almost certainly right Noemon. I thought the same thing. I'm betting the children would've stopped for any performer playing any music. Children are just inquisitive. So in that sense, I don't think it was the quality of the music drawing their attention. But if we wanna talk about that fact in regards to adults and their priorities and being bogged down by life to the point where we lose that childhood sense of wonder and curiousity, then I think it's a good point.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Kids will sing "Baby Beluga" non-stop for hours.
When I read that story, I was just sad that it never happened where I was going to work. I absolutely would have stopped to listen. Getting a talking to for coming in half an hour late is a small price to pay to listen to Joshua Bell from 10 feet away.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I would have stopped and listened for ages... Even if I had to rush to work. Dang, it would have been cool to see that guy! I'd ask him to let me look at his violin.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Darn it kat, you beat me to it. Although, being most definitely NOT a Guns and Roses fan, I was going to use it to support the opposing view Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: But if we wanna talk about that fact in regards to adults and their priorities and being bogged down by life to the point where we lose that childhood sense of wonder and curiousity, then I think it's a good point.
Absolutely.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:For many of us, the explosion in technology has perversely limited, not expanded, our exposure to new experiences. Increasingly, we get our news from sources that think as we already do. And with iPods, we hear what we already know; we program our own playlists.
I think this is having a big impact on education too. To say that we don't seek out experiences that we aren't familiar with, is much the same as to say that we don't want to learn anything new. Students increasingly don't want their horizons expanded.
quote: The song that Calvin Myint was listening to was "Just Like Heaven," by the British rock band The Cure. It's a terrific song, actually. The meaning is a little opaque, and the Web is filled with earnest efforts to deconstruct it. Many are far-fetched, but some are right on point: It's about a tragic emotional disconnect. A man has found the woman of his dreams but can't express the depth of his feeling for her until she's gone. It's about failing to see the beauty of what's plainly in front of your eyes.
I once read a paper about how people perceive food. The gist of it was that poor people just want to stop being hungry. Middle-class people want food that tastes good. Rich people want food to be presented well, or to have status associated with it.
In this case the music was both nutritious and delicious, but nobody expected to gain any status by listening to it. It needed a designer label.
I'd be curious to see that same experiment carried out during rush hour in a blue collar area, instead of a metro station where the commuters are:
quote: mostly mid-level bureaucrats with those indeterminate, oddly fungible titles: policy analyst, project manager, budget officer, specialist, facilitator, consultant.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I think what we can learn from this is that music is a luxury, and whereas people want to listen to it when they can relax, they won't go out of their way for it when they want to be somewhere else. Children aren't thinking about schedules so they are more easily lured. But we probably already knew all that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Once I get a chance to read the article in full, I'll post a decent response and maybe get into the discussion.
I'll say two things that strike me right away, positive or negative.
1. The Chaconne is more like 11 minutes (tempos vary), not anywhere near 14 (that's what the author gets for checking wikipedia). If you're talking a guitar arrangement, it's still less than 14. The other myriad arrangements might also be longer than the original... it's a hard piece for any instrument.
2. This article is a puff peace written by a non music person (I am guessing) and I hate that with a white hot passion. It was probably the string of 9 stupid cliché adjectives that turned me sour against the article. Please, people, music is music, you can stop talking about "soaring" and "sobbing." If the article had any credibility as a musicological effort, it wouldn't include such fluff- because the author would do a lot better than pulling out a thesaurus.
3.I've got an idea! Let's ambush the hoity toity classical music "expert" and ask him if his so called "Great Music" would be recognized by the general public in a context designed to negate the possibility that it will be recognized by any non-musician who passes by. In so doing we will insult either the "great music" gurus or the general public which is too stupid to realize that Joshua Bell might be the one playing the violin in an echoey and busy metro station in Washington.
4. The idea that we are still asking the question: "does the layman recognize 'great music?'" Is painful to me. The answer is no. Recognizing great music (like anything else, be it great engineering or great writing ability) takes training and practice. Music is not great in a vacuum, it's great in context of style and taste. This experiment is bogus and it makes me angry.
quote: "No, Mr. Slatkin, there was never a crowd, not even for a second."
This tears it for me. First of all, Bell made 32 dollars in 10 minutes playing the violin in a metro station... I would think that's GOOD! Second, the thumbing of your nose at the kind person who was willing to sit in an interview with you and be ambushed and laughed at is intolerable. I lose all respect for this author right there.
quote: "The people scurry by in comical little hops and starts, cups of coffee in their hands, cellphones at their ears, ID tags slapping at their bellies, a grim danse macabre to indifference, inertia and the dingy, gray rush of modernity."
If the author is a student of the "modern" and modernity, then he is a poor or disingenuous one. The idea that you can draw conclusions about society based on your interaction with a spot YOU CHOSE as an unlikely place for people to stop and have the faintest inkling of what you're exposing them to.... GAH!!! This thing is making me really upset.
Ps. I've had it with the snarky, would be profound tone this blowhard is employing. People, this guy is a schlub.
edit: Reading further into the article, I understand that he is being *slightly* ironic. But please, the whole thing is stupid, his tone is stupid, etc.
Kurmugeon Out.. for now.
[ April 14, 2007, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you haven't read the whole article, you are really oerstepping. Read the article. Read the chat he did about the article. Your assumptions about him, his motivations, and his conclusions are not supported by the article.
For example, Bell actually played for 43 minutes.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
How can we collectively recognize greatness in music?
Maybe we could use C S Lewis's idea for recognizing greatness in literature. The literary are people who value books, consider them important, and read them again and again, and a good book is one that people like that want. We could say that great music is music people value, focus on, and want over and over. But would a literary person take his great book to a soccer match and read it between plays? I don't think so. A true music lover wouldn't want to try to hear a masterpiece over traffic noise while running to catch a train. Maybe true music lovers would be *less* likely to stop and have something they consider important ruined by circumstance.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I stop and listen to street musicians when I'm on vacation. Put Joshua Bell on a street corner in the French Quarter (pre-Katrina; I don't know what it's like now, as I haven't been back) and he'll draw crowds, even though he'd be playing the wrong type of music for that particular location.
I might or might not have stopped, even if I weren't in a hurry. I probably would've stopped for a great jazz clarinet, or someone playing a guitar and singing (again, assuming quality). As I get older, I'm getting less defensive about my tastes. Solo violin usually isn't it. (Although I loved the playing in The Red Violin, so who knows.)
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
This writer sees the violin music as something sacred and holy, that everyone should bow down to and worship, and if they don't, they're godless heathens who can't see the beauty in anything.
But what if classical music is just not the kind of music that you like? For me, classical music has never really gotten inside me and moved me, no matter how good it is. That's not a sin. "Beauty" is not determined by how intricate the music is, or how much money you can pay for a seat to listen to it. Beauty depends on what moves you and amazes you, and for me, that's not violin music. Therefore, I probably wouldn't stop to listen. If my favorite rock band were playing at the metro station, of course I would stop and listen. But that's just my taste.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Kids will sing "Baby Beluga" non-stop for hours.
Hey, that's a great song! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This writer sees the violin music as something sacred and holy, that everyone should bow down to and worship, and if they don't, they're godless heathens who can't see the beauty in anything.
He's specifically not saying that. The article is not about "look at the hicks who don't know good music."
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:This writer sees the violin music as something sacred and holy, that everyone should bow down to and worship, and if they don't, they're godless heathens who can't see the beauty in anything.
He's specifically not saying that. The article is not about "look at the hicks who don't know good music."
It's not? I must have misread it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
There is one thing that I think we can NOT conclude from this experiment:
Firstly, I don't think we can conclude that the average person recognizes great music any less successfully than the classical music buff would. After all, many people pass by the metro station in the course of 43 minutes - some of them had to be people who listen to classical music. I suspect at least a few were music majors in college or students of music who'd have a well-above-average interest in music. These people didn't stop. It should be noted that the people that did stop and listen were average people. Hence, my suspicion would be that people in general, whether average or classical music fans, did not recognize great music when dressed up as a street player. There is no indication here that even the most trained expert in classical music would have stopped.
Instead, what I think this experiment shows is that we have difficulty recognizing greatness if it isn't "dressed up" as greatness. It is like having the best employee in the world show up for a job interview wearing jeans and a T-shirt - often they won't get hired because they don't look like greatness. I don't think it is that people don't recognize greatness, but rather that they don't trust themselves to recognize greatness when all more obvious signs point to the opposite. You might think "That street musician is great!" but my guess is then you'd also think to yourself "Yeah, but I must be imagining things - he is obviously just a street musician, so there's no need to stop and listen." This applies to writing too - if OSC posted an Ender's Game fan-fiction story online, under a fake name, I bet most EG fans would not recognize anything special in it.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I've stated this on another forum: if Bruce Springsteen and his entire East Street Band was playing on the Metrorail/Tri-Rail platform, on my way to work, every morning I probably wouldn't notice him either. All I'm thinking about then is "must get to train... must get to work... train... work..."
If anything, I'd think to myself "hey, that guy's doing a great Bruce Springsteen impersonation! Oh, yeah... train... work..."
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Interesting points, all.
Orincoro, I understand your general distrust of non-musicians when they look at our field. There is certainly a great deal of ignorance out there that, even with good intentions, can cause a great amount of harm. Nevertheless, I think that this author isn't trying to make so much of a point about music and the general appreciation thereof, but rather, that American culture has a skewed sense of priorities. He points out that we have become so self-absorbed in our own daily tasks, that we rarely notice things out of our own 'sphere of interest', and that if we do, we don't care enough to pay attention to it. Recall one of those individuals who was interviewed, and he said that he didn't even remember that there was any musician there at all. THAT strikes me as astounding. I might come to a different conclusion than to assume that this is uniquely an American issue. It would be interesting to see what would happen in different areas of the world, and even different areas of the U.S.
Also, you (and others) argue that great music is not a universality (to use my own -- possibly made up -- word). Rather, it may simply be that the classical music did not pique the interest of those insufficiently trained or groomed to like such music, be it great or no. Does this invalidate the entire point of the article? I would argue that the article is also asking whether the average person recognizes a great performer, as well. It is certainly easy for a layman to recognize BAD playing, particularly when the badness is exaggerated. It is more difficult for the layman to distiguish between adequate and phenomenal playing, but the author and his colleagues wanted to see to what extent.
Xaposert, you make a great point. Setting and appearance does play a significant role in an individual's perception.
Personally, I'd like to think that as a musician myself, I would have recognized the great skill of that musician. I certainly would have thought it odd for a street musician to be playing Bach, etc. And I am pretty sure I would have stopped to listen, barring a VERY important engagement.
In my case, the article merely prompted some questions in my mind, even if I take it with a healthy serving of salt. Remember that when a journalist writes these kind of 'interest' stories, they almost always are NOT professionals in that field, so I don't get upset that the article was written. I merely find the inaccuracies and weigh them into my overall thoughts on the topic.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
All though it irritates me to read articles describing how backward and horrible other people can be, this article describes exactly what I don't like about this country.
I think it all comes straight from the idea of the American dream. There was the whole idea that anyone in this country can become rich, if they work hard enough. In modern life, that translats into everyone being dedicated to (or obsessed with) their job, always trying to get promotions, work harder, please everyone, and ultimately, make more money, so they can buy their big house in the country and drive their SUVs around and impress everyone. And then their kids go into school (into a rich private college prepatory school) and they have to get all A's and play sports and musical instraments and get good SAT scores, so they can get into an Ivy League college and get a good job and earn money and start the whole cycle again. ...Cause that's what success and happiness is.
I think it accounts for the high levels of depression in America, as well as caffeine addictions.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'll just pop in and second what Tara just said. America has an obsession with wealth.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Check out interviews with Nuttin' But Stringz. Two brothers, fantastic violinists in their teens, grew up playing a blend of violin and I'd say hip hop. They played in New York subways, blue collar stations until eventually getting a record deal.
It's an amazing blend of classical and more recent stuff. Frankly, I greatly dislike hiphop, and I thought it was an amazing way to bring me to like a genre I usually dislike (which is ironic, usually you have to pair Classical to something else to get people to like Classical and not the other way around).
It's an interesting article, I almost skipped it entirely until I saw "Bell" in there and assumed it was Joshua Bell, which picqued my interest. Frankly I would assume that people just didn't have time to stop. They picked an insanely busy time and location to do this, and personally, if I had to get to work with no time to spare, I'd kick myself but I wouldn't have time to listen.
There's an interesting discussion there about what's good and what isn't, like taking a famous painting and putting it in a restaurant. The problem with the newer stuff, art I mean, is that much of it looks like something a six year old could do. Makes it hard for a layman to recognize talent. I've seen Koyanisquatsi before, my English teacher showed it to our class in AP English in high school. When they sped up the video, that's exactly what it felt like, just with better music (no offense to Glass, I only like bits and pieces of his music).
I think, with the little kids, it was just the novelty. I doubt the kids inherently appreciated the fantastic skill the music was being played with, I suspect they would have reacted the same if I had been standing out there with my sax or my bagpipe chanter (though maybe covering their ears for the second one).
I'd like to see this repeated two more times, once in a blue collar neighborhood, and once at a high traffic place at a time of day when people aren't in a rush to get to work, say, 6pm in Times Square.
Thanks for posting this. And if you do check out Nuttin But Strings, which I highly recommend, their single for the last like two years has been "Thunder," which is really good.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Huh. I should become a street musician. I don't think Bell got much more money than any halfway decent musician would get, and 40 bucks an hour is pretty damn good. That's about what I get playing in a band, and that's only once every few weeks when we get a show.
It's sad. I spent the day in a recording studio with an amazing musician who is friends with Randy George, one of the best bass players around, and he says the George has to work a full time job. People who sit in a cubicle all day get paid more than these people who create beauty that did not exist in the world before they made it.
Then again, why should someone get paid more to do something they would do anyway, as opposed to someone who does something he hates? Meh.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:People who sit in a cubicle all day get paid more than these people who create beauty that did not exist in the world before they made it.
I think that may be a fair trade-off. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
There used to be a guy who played violin in the lab where I used to work, on his lunch hour. I would hear it from my lab, and at first I assumed that he was playing a stereo. He was really good. I specifically remember him playing Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" and Scheherazade.
When I discovered that it was him playing, I had to go in and watch him. Not just listen, watching is very important to me with respect to live music.
The thing that gets me with the Joshua Bell thing, is that he was standing right there, playing. It would be one thing to have the same music blaring over a loudspeaker in the subway station. That might annoy me. But to walk right past him, see the fingers flying, watch his body movements and facial expressions; I just can't imagine not taking notice.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that it was a great article, although I am not sure about it's conclusions. I LOVE music, and given the chance I would LOVE to see Joshua Bell play....but if I was late for work I would probably not stop for long. I would probably also regret not being able to stop for the rest of the day, and would have listened to him for as long as it was audible....as I went about my business.
I have stopped for street musicians before, because I know music, and I can recognize talent when I hear it most of the time. But I don't assume I know anything about the people who don't because I don't know them.
I do, however, think it is a shame.
I also don't think this writer was mocking anyone....they agreed with him, to the point of discussing crowd control issues! But they were surprised by the results.
I think it was a great article, and raises a lot of good points.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Once I get a chance to read the article in full, I'll post a decent response and maybe get into the discussion.
I'll say two things that strike me right away, positive or negative.
1. The Chaconne is more like 11 minutes (tempos vary), not anywhere near 14 (that's what the author gets for checking wikipedia). If you're talking a guitar arrangement, it's still less than 14. The other myriad arrangements might also be longer than the original... it's a hard piece for any instrument.
..................................
Kurmugeon Out.. for now.
I have 4 recordings of it on my computer right now.
All of them, on violin of course, are over 14 min long. Perhaps he didn't use a wikki, but talked to Joshua Bell...who should know better than us.
Honestly, every recording I can find as about 14 min long. Not one of them was UNDER the 14 min mark. I guess they knew what they were talking about after all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: You might think "That street musician is great!" but my guess is then you'd also think to yourself "Yeah, but I must be imagining things - he is obviously just a street musician, so there's no need to stop and listen."
Piffle. I have heard some absolutely WONDERFUL street musicians. I am well aware, and I think many other people are also, that becoming a "famous musician" depends on many things, and talent is only one of them.
It was rush hour. People were hurrying to work. Trying to read more into it is, IMO, grasping at straws.
The one thing in common that every excellent street musician I have heard had? The timing to be somewhere when I was NOT rushing past. Otherwise, I wouldn't remember them as being excellent -- I wouldn't remember them at all!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have seen some that amazed me, but I just didn't have the time to stop.
Most of them are fair at best (and a lot aren't even that), but you never know when they might knock your socks off.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
There's no such thing as great music. There's only great music for me, or great music for you. Music, like all art, is completely subjective. One person's classic is another person's crud.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Also, you (and others) argue that great music is not a universality (to use my own -- possibly made up -- word). Rather, it may simply be that the classical music did not pique the interest of those insufficiently trained or groomed to like such music, be it great or no. Does this invalidate the entire point of the article? I would argue that the article is also asking whether the average person recognizes a great performer, as well. It is certainly easy for a layman to recognize BAD playing, particularly when the badness is exaggerated. It is more difficult for the layman to distiguish between adequate and phenomenal playing, but the author and his colleagues wanted to see to what extent.
Well, I think the answer to your question, "does this invalidate the entire point of the article?" is yes.
The article is not an acceptable critique of our society because it details an "experiment" specifically set up to have a particular result. I've read the article now, as well as his "chat" from a few days later, and it's evident to me that his claim that he was seeking no particular result is bologna. If this experiment had resulted in a moderately sized crowd forming, there would likely have been no substantive article, and even if there had been, it would not have been noticed.
The author's snarky comments and affected overly-written style are off-putting at the very least, but to me they reveal a more serious problem with his thinking. He is trying not only to write but to be "important," and it feels the whole way through like an article co-authored by our dear friend Pelegius. The problem with the article, for me, is that it begins with such a loaded idea. The author even admits that the idea was something he wanted to do for a long time, which tells me that it was too sensational and, frankly, ridiculous to do without spending some time convincing others it would be good idea.
If he had any notion of how art appreciation really worked, he would have known from the beginning that the experiment would give no useful result. It is set up to include too many factors to quantify, So that he can draw whatever conclusion he likes. If a crowd had formed, he could have concluded that Bell's celebrity factor was to blame, or that Bell had a presence apart from his music that was appealing.
He picked music that did not even interest HIM! He admits a poor knowledge of one of the greatest works of western baroque music (the Chaconne), and expects other to be able to recognize the piece as great. He clearly has very little experience with even the style of J.S. Bach, and does not appear to be a long time fan of Bell, yet he asserts the "greatness" of the music and of the performer based on, GASP, what someone else has told him. He then experiments to see if others can recognize the greatness in music and a performer he has no experience with. That he doesn't immediately, as in before the experiment begins, realize that the foundation of his hypothesis is flawed, is shocking to me. It's appalling that he would attempt this experiment with such, as I see them, poor intentioned motives.
It would be very interesting to me to see this experiment performed, but the fact that it was attempted in such a way, for the benefit of a poorly written, grandstanding puff piece is really quite aggravating. I've complained so, so often about the comoditization of classical music as an abstract concept- and this is just another example of one person coming to the shocking realization that what he doesn't know, others also don't know.
Classical music is about learning, it is about intellect and history, it is about exploration and teaching, about expression, art and style. What it is not is absolute, god-given, miraculous, or unintelligible magic. Why do people have act like this?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I tend to agree with you, Lisa, but then I tend not to. 99.9% of all music is subjectively good, bad, or somewhere in between. But then there are those certain pieces by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Yes that are simply beyond judgment.
Just kidding about Yes. The greatness of Gates of Delirium is certainly a matter of opinion, but I find my opinion of it to be the right one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
All of them, on violin of course, are over 14 min long. Perhaps he didn't use a wikki, but talked to Joshua Bell...who should know better than us.
Honestly, every recording I can find as about 14 min long. Not one of them was UNDER the 14 min mark. I guess they knew what they were talking about after all.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
I also have several recordings. I should be more clear: a couple of my recordings are as long as 15 minutes, but these are played incredibly slow. There is a bit of variation in playing speeds, in general (and not always) the great violinists tend to play it moderately faster than others. My Perlman recording IS 11 minutes, and judging from the video, it is around the tempo that Bell is using. Of course in Bach's Partitas there are no hard and fast tempi, but generally speaking, and as a matter of opinion to some extent, 11 minutes is idea for the Chaconne, 14 minutes is very slow.
We can't presume that Bell told him how long the piece was- he might have looked it up on wiki or on itunes, where results will vary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm thinking he timed it from the video. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If that's so, I'll retract my point. But I honestly think this performance is shorter than 14.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I tend to agree with you, Lisa, but then I tend not to. 99.9% of all music is subjectively good, bad, or somewhere in between. But then there are those certain pieces by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Yes that are simply beyond judgment.
No piece is beyond judgement, imo. As soon as you decided that a piece was untouchable or perfect, you might as well stop talking about it. In the Kantian sense, a judgment of perfection in the piece of art necessitates a belief in our own perfect understanding and moral prerogative to judge the work. Thus, works that are mysterious or incompletely understood by modern listeners are those studied and admired long afterward.
As an example of this thinking, imagine that I asked you to write a chorale which was 16 measures long, tonicized the dominant, and ended on a PAC. You could, using those limitations, construct a "perfect" chorale where the voice leading and harmonies were all dutifully executed according to "the rules" from Bach's chorales. The piece could be flawless, and not be a good piece. On the other hand, I could ask you to construct a highly adventurous piece in the same parameters, and you could deliver a product that was vastly more complicated and difficult to interpret- it might be the product of a much greater attention to detail and innovative thinking. In running the risk of creating a flawed, unfamiliar piece that might defy contemporary analysis (pretty much exactly what Mozart and Beethoven did), you may have created something greater than "perfection."
As the ultimate example, anyone who's ever performed Beethoven's 9th symphony recognizes the very significant flaws in that piece, especially in the final movement- and yet the piece is regarded as among the best, if not the very best, ever written.
edit: And I hasten to add that I am not suggesting that someone else could have written the 9th "better," but simply that Beethoven's work is naturally flawed. Who can say that as great as that piece is, another composer with more competence in choral writing could have improved it somehow? Very likely, another composer would have taken something from it by perfecting it. The flaws remain distinctive and fascinating.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
quote: Originally posted by Orincoro: Of course in Bach's Partitas there are no hard and fast tempi, but generally speaking, and as a matter of opinion to some extent, 11 minutes is idea for the Chaconne, 14 minutes is very slow.
There are 5 movements in all in Bach's Partita in D Minor for Solo Violin
The Ciaccona (commonly known as Chaconne in English), the concluding movement of the partita, lasts some 12 to 14 minutes, surpassing the duration of the previous movements combined. So yes, it is long and can vary in duration based on tempo.
quote: Classical music is about learning, it is about intellect and history, it is about exploration and teaching, about expression, art and style.
Funny, all this time I thought Classical music was something to be heard and enjoyed. I never knew I was supposed to be learning from it, especially history and exploration! Sorry, I couldn't resist that one, but seriously, as a musician who grew up with a music teacher for a mother and an opera singer for a Grandmother I can honestly say that many people can recognize great music -as long as they are not tone deaf anyway. They may not particularly like the genre of music, and they may not have time to stop and actively listen, they may even listen to their own music on their IPods. That doesn't mean that they can't recognize great music. I personally can not stand solo violin. Sometimes I can tolerate it, but it is too high pitched an instrument for me. I dearly love cello music and can listen to it for hours, but if I had been there and heard him playing, I doubt that I would have done much more than giving him a large donation because I am able to recognize great music and kept right on going before my ears started to bleed! I mean no offense to violin lovers or players, my ears just cannot tolerate the higher tones of that particular instrument.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I wonder how many people would stop if Dave Mathews was in disguise playing his own music, or some other super pop star? Probably not many, they would think he was just someone trying to make a buck. But if you put Dave out so people could recognize him I would be willing to bet by the end of 43 mins there would be a huge crowd regardless of how late they were for work.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I didn't read the article to evaluate whether the research was valid. Rather, I was already operating on the assumption that it was not. But obviously, the article does bring up many questions. What is the nature of music? Is there any composition that is subjectively great? What about our society, and its approach to dealing with novelty? Are we too preoccupied with the daily grind to take note of things of interest?
Yes, I'll agree that the premise (and also the forum title) are not accurate. The question should not have been "can the average person recognize great music" because, as many of have argued, it's all subjective. But the other questions are, IMHO, worthwhile discussion topics. Even if some of them generate somewhat obvious responses.
Orincoro, I AGREE with you that the author doesn't know what he's talking about when he waxes eloquent about music. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a discussion about, say, what DOES attract the attention of the so-called average person.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by JenniK:
quote: Originally posted by Orincoro: Of course in Bach's Partitas there are no hard and fast tempi, but generally speaking, and as a matter of opinion to some extent, 11 minutes is idea for the Chaconne, 14 minutes is very slow.
There are 5 movements in all in Bach's Partita in D Minor for Solo Violin
The Ciaccona (commonly known as Chaconne in English), the concluding movement of the partita, lasts some 12 to 14 minutes, surpassing the duration of the previous movements combined. So yes, it is long and can vary in duration based on tempo.
I'm finishing my combined BA in musicology and theory/composition in the next few months... I know. I only say this to point out that my post does not admit an ignorance of any such thing- I just chose not to mention the piece in context of the suite, especially given that the article didn't present it in that way either... and honestly how many time have you heard the WHOLE suite played? The chaconne is the main attraction.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Bando, I know you're trying to have that discussion- I just didn't like the validation that this article got from this thread and from the public response the author chose to reflect in his "chat" session. It's grandstanding and interminably stupid.
That being said, I like what you have to say, and I think we could easily have this discussion without using the shaky ground of this article as a jumping off point. I was just responding to that- it's not a valid place to begin a discussion, imho.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh brother.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's shocking. Not only is it not a very good article, but it's also been the subject of derision among all musicians I know who've read it.
Really. This article just doesn't "get it."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I thought it was a good article. It wasn't meant to be about music per se, but about the strange conversation Joshua Bell was having with a bunch of people in the subway station that morning. I thought it brought that out very well. Just the whole fact that the reporter was able to set up the whole thing with Joshua Bell and get such interesting reactions from passersby on video and on the phone--plus getting Bell's own thoughts about the experience. I thought it was fascinating reading, most of it.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: That's shocking. Not only is it not a very good article, but it's also been the subject of derision among all musicians I know who've read it.
Really. This article just doesn't "get it."
I suppose this answers the next question: Does the average musician recognize great writing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Really. This article just doesn't "get it."
It's about a different "it" than you think it is.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The article undoubtedly would not have won a Pulitzer if the passersby had all stopped, recognized greatness, and given Bell the adulation he deserved for the full 43 minutes. That would have taken away all its kick. The fact that the "experiment" turned out poorly for Bell and for great music in general is what makes this article work so well. In a sense, the dissonance of the situation created music of its own, which the article then captured. This wasn't supposed to be an article written about a failed scientific study, nor a commentary on great music. It was a capture of a unique event and the lives and feelings that surrounded it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This wasn't supposed to be an article written about a failed scientific study, nor a commentary on great music. It was a capture of a unique event and the lives and feelings that surrounded it.
Exactly.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
What frustrates me about the article is that it DIDN'T actually say anything in the end. There's plenty of dialogue about the nature of art and observer, but because the "experiment" is so flawed (see last page), there aren't any points I can garner from it. The top of the stairs at the exit from my subway stop ISN'T where I want to hear classical music. It's where I want to make sure I don't impede traffic so I can get to a place where I CAN listen to wonderful music. Pulitzer? meh.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
As a scholarly work discussing the nature of so-called great music (as if such a thing were objective) or as a scientific experiment, this article surely failed miserably.
What the author apparently set out to do is to capture the attention of a certain demographic of readers (a large one) and foster a particular conversation regarding, as advice for robots stated, this particular event and some specific people who were involved. It clearly succeeded in this. And though I, too, ridiculed aspects of it that patronize or misunderstand my profession and my colleagues, I found it to be compelling reading, nonetheless.
My job as a music teacher is largely about picking apart musical performances, diagnosing the issues, and prescribing solutions. But often, I attend concerts and have to force myself to stop critiquing and analyzing to the point of not being able to enjoy myself. I have to sit back and remember to enjoy the music, even if it is not flawlessly executed. This is how a regard the article in question: it is to be read for entertainment and enjoyment, not serious academic study.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I work at a gas station, and I'm allowed to listen to whatever I want to on my CD player. So, for the past ten months, I've been conducting a similar experiment. I view it more as "see what people like," but anyway...
I receive the most compliments on my musical taste when I am playing either The Beatles or Johnny Cash.
People sing along to Rufus Wainwright's cover of Hallelujah more than any other song, to the point that I don't play it anymore because it sort of annoys me when customers do that. Every Rose Has It's Thorn, by Poison, gets second place in the "Songs everyone loves to sing" category.
I have only gotten negative comments on one song: Bob Dylan - Romance in Durango. I find this very odd. Probably because I like the song. I've had at least 6 people tell me that it's a bad song. I play a lot of music at work, and no one has ever said anything bad about the music before, ever, and then people decide to pour on the hate for Bob Dylan. Very strange... I mean, he's not even using the harmonica in this one.
Trying to determine if the average person recognizes great music is a bit like trying to determine if the average person recognizes great cooking. It's all about taste, and taste varies a great deal. It's much easier to just say "No, peasants can't possibly recognize great music," so elitist snobs can continue to feel like they're better than everyone else and the rest of us can get back to listening to The Cure on our ipods.
Edit: I don't really think the article conveys a sense of "elitist snobbery," although part of me wishes it did. Okay, well, I guess the title is "Pearls Before Breakfast," and I don't really like how it's hinting toward "Pearls Before Swine," but whatever... I thought it was an acceptable read, but I didn't fancy it enough to show it to anyone else, or even talk about it after reading it the first time. I also find the thread title misleading...
[ April 07, 2008, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: DevilDreamt ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The article wasn't about "Can the average person recognize great music." The whole thing is about the incongruous context. Weingarten has said over and over again - the latest time on NPR just this afternoon - that it's not about people not recognizing great music. It's first about context, and second about how our lives have forced this particular context on us to a greater extent.
One other thing to remember: this Pulitzer was for feature writing. It's not a news story. It's a narrative about an original anecdotal experiment - one that John Bell loved, by the way.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I've been reading GW in the PostMag since I was in early high school, maybe even middle school. He was one of my favorites.
--j_k
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: One other thing to remember: this Pulitzer was for feature writing. It's not a news story. It's a narrative about an original anecdotal experiment - one that John Bell loved, by the way.
Who is this John Bell you speak of? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Really. This article just doesn't "get it."
It's about a different "it" than you think it is.
You don't know what I think it is.
I wrote a year ago that the "experiment" tested and proved nothing useful. I thought then that it was a vehicle for grandstanding and a blank slate on which the author could inscribe any conclusion he cared to make, and that's exactly what he did- and hey, he got a Pulitzer for it. That doesn't change my feeling about it.
It does vindicate those who would care to continue living in a fairy tale world where someone who doesn't know anything about or care anything particularly for classical music can be rewarded for making sweeping observations about society's relationship with "great art" and "great artists," based on a single hour long "experiment" in which he apparently learned nothing he did not already know or suspect.
Why not follow along as a gifted musician spent a week making money as a street busker? Why not present someone with great talent, who is not known so well by the public as a classical music celebrity? Why not go around the city and observe the city's relationship with musicians or any piece of art, and write about that? Why not do any manner of footwork at all? Why not listen to music yourself, and then go around trying to decide how YOU feel about the art you are exposed to in your busy life? But none of that was done. And the observations of the experts that were asked their reactions were not absorbed into the author's thinking- at least they did not seem to be.
So I think it's lazy, crude, facile, and more than anything, annoying. Really, I read thing, and it could have been about gardening, and I would have thought it was too in love with itself.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The article wasn't about "Can the average person recognize great music." The whole thing is about the incongruous context. Weingarten has said over and over again - the latest time on NPR just this afternoon - that it's not about people not recognizing great music. It's first about context, and second about how our lives have forced this particular context on us to a greater extent.
One other thing to remember: this Pulitzer was for feature writing. It's not a news story. It's a narrative about an original anecdotal experiment - one that John Bell loved, by the way.
It's Joshua Bell, and he is not a God to me, his opinion is his own. The article also appeals to his ego– everything I've heard about him seems to indicate that he's a nice guy, and he's not going to go around saying the article or the experiment were stupid- especially since the idea praises him so much.
To your first point, I don't see that what Weingarten says is true. I have a hard time, when reading the article, understanding how any useful observations can be made in this particular case. He simply didn't do the footwork, mental or physical, to give his article a context I could appreciate. It didn't speak to me. It didn't appear to know what it was about. And if all it was, was a template for a commentary on our way of living, then it makes a point that has been made so often as to be an ugly kind of cliché.
Edit: Just look at the title: "Pearls Before Breakfast." The wordplay suggests at the very beginning that the article is going to be about the lack of appreciation among the masses for "great art." Why would he use that title if that isn't what he's trying to do? To answer my own question, because he's clever, and he wants to remind us throughout the article that he's very clever. But in doing that, he muddles every point he tries to make- I find it interesting that he has spent time on the radio and other media explaining the article, as you say, "over and over again." Maybe it isn't very clear, maybe he didn't know, at least in writing it, what he thought it meant.
[ April 08, 2008, 02:34 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:This wasn't supposed to be an article written about a failed scientific study, nor a commentary on great music. It was a capture of a unique event and the lives and feelings that surrounded it.
Exactly.
And it fails at that.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
What Orincoro said. That's what I meant before.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wrote a year ago that the "experiment" tested and proved nothing useful.
And that would be a criticism only the article's goal was to test something or prove something "useful." It wasn't. Therefore, I can conclude that either (1)you are simply saying things that you don't think actually apply to the article, or (2) you have missed the point of the article.
I have concrete proof that number 2 is what happened because of this:
quote:It does vindicate those who would care to continue living in a fairy tale world where someone who doesn't know anything about or care anything particularly for classical music can be rewarded for making sweeping observations about society's relationship with "great art" and "great artists," based on a single hour long "experiment" in which he apparently learned nothing he did not already know or suspect.
This, of course, is your regular M.O. when speaking about anything related to music: to challenge the credentials of anyone speaking about it while reading into their statements stuff they didn't actually say.
quote:To your first point, I don't see that what Weingarten says is true. I have a hard time, when reading the article, understanding how any useful observations can be made in this particular case. He simply didn't do the footwork, mental or physical, to give his article a context I could appreciate. It didn't speak to me. It didn't appear to know what it was about. And if all it was, was a template for a commentary on our way of living, then it makes a point that has been made so often as to be an ugly kind of cliché.
It wasn't a commentary on our way of living. It was a narrative account about one aspect of our way of living.
quote:Why not follow along as a gifted musician spent a week making money as a street busker? Why not present someone with great talent, who is not known so well by the public as a classical music celebrity? Why not go around the city and observe the city's relationship with musicians or any piece of art, and write about that? Why not do any manner of footwork at all? Why not listen to music yourself, and then go around trying to decide how YOU feel about the art you are exposed to in your busy life? But none of that was done. And the observations of the experts that were asked their reactions were not absorbed into the author's thinking- at least they did not seem to be.
Because that would be an article that's different than the one he's writing. All your criticism comes down to "Doing X would have been a better way to accomplish Y." He didn't want to accomplish Y. He wanted to accomplish something that, at its core, is only peripherally about music. It's not about Bell. It's about the people on the subway. And it's not about their ability to recognize music. The music is a single way to get at something else.
quote:Just look at the title: "Pearls Before Breakfast." The wordplay suggests at the very beginning that the article is going to be about the lack of appreciation among the masses for "great art." Why would he use that title if that isn't what he's trying to do? To answer my own question, because he's clever, and he wants to remind us throughout the article that he's very clever. But in doing that, he muddles every point he tries to make- I find it interesting that he has spent time on the radio and other media explaining the article, as you say, "over and over again." Maybe it isn't very clear, maybe he didn't know, at least in writing it, what he thought it meant.
Are you aware that most writers don't provide the title for their pieces in the Post magazine?
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:This wasn't supposed to be an article written about a failed scientific study, nor a commentary on great music. It was a capture of a unique event and the lives and feelings that surrounded it.
Exactly.
And it fails at that.
No, it doesn't.
Quite simply, you never got past this assessment of the article, which you made before you bothered to read the whole thing:
quote:This article is a puff peace written by a non music person (I am guessing) and I hate that with a white hot passion.
[ April 08, 2008, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This, of course, is your regular M.O. when speaking about anything related to music: to challenge the credentials of anyone speaking about it ...
Man, isn't that the brutal truth Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And that would be a criticism only the article's goal was to test something or prove something "useful." It wasn't.
I don't think we should go that far. It definitely wasn't a scientific experiment, but it did demonstrate something useful. Inherent in the article is the underlying idea that we should open our eyes and appreciate the things we see on an every day basis, because they might be greater than how they appear at a casual glance. That is more of a piece of life advice than a thesis on sociology and music, but it is definitely a piece of useful advice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I suppose this answers the next question: Does the average musician recognize great writing?
This was HILARIOUS.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
I'd like to toss in that as a person who has done a fair bit of street performing, the Metro during rush hour is NOT the place to go if you want to get an audience or make money. The fact that he made so much is an indication to me that people did appreciate his music far more than they do the average musician.
Selecting a time and place to perform is a subtle and difficult thing to do, and many cities schedule and license performers for time slots in primo locations. You pick an area where there are a lot of people, but not a metro station, because people just want to get in and out. You pick a place where people might be shopping or wandering or going on dates, places and times when people are more willing to stop and relax. Because children are more susceptible, you look for places parents and children will be together.
The comment the author made about a picture without a frame is a good one. Most people just don't care about good music when they're in a hurry.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As someone who takes that metro to and from work every day, I think he would have gotten a greater response if it took place on the way home rather than the way to work.
Most federal employees must sign in and out of work, and the clock resets every eight minutes. Eight minutes late, and you need to stay fifteen minutes later. Stopping to listen to music is a big deal under those circumstances.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:And that would be a criticism only the article's goal was to test something or prove something "useful." It wasn't.
I don't think we should go that far. It definitely wasn't a scientific experiment, but it did demonstrate something useful. Inherent in the article is the underlying idea that we should open our eyes and appreciate the things we see on an every day basis, because they might be greater than how they appear at a casual glance. That is more of a piece of life advice than a thesis on sociology and music, but it is definitely a piece of useful advice.
Agreed. And I think it is a piece of life advice that all of us, professional musicians or not, can apply at least a little bit.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Dagonee, my level of respect for your intelligence, debate skills, clarity of thought, and ability to phrase your ideas coherently and succinctly has one again been raised a notch. I hope that, if ever I need a lawyer, he's got a mind like yours.
(Of course, it doesn't hurt that I agree with you in this subject!)
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:It wasn't a commentary on our way of living. It was a narrative account about one aspect of our way of living.
This is where I'm confused. What WAS the piece trying to say? What was it trying to present? What aspect of our way of living?
If this is what the article was trying to say:
quote:Inherent in the article is the underlying idea that we should open our eyes and appreciate the things we see on an every day basis, because they might be greater than how they appear at a casual glance.
then the "experiment" does not support this conclusion--there's too many flaws. That's the disconnect that has me confused.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I'm not sure what these lines from the article would mean:
quote: His performance was arranged by The Washington Post as an experiment in context, perception and priorities -- as well as an unblinking assessment of public taste: In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?
I think the reporter is saying that it was an experiment to see if the public would appreciate beauty?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I'm not sure what these lines from the article would mean:
quote: His performance was arranged by The Washington Post as an experiment in context, perception and priorities -- as well as an unblinking assessment of public taste: In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?
I think the reporter is saying that it was an experiment to see if the public would appreciate beauty?
Not just "would they appreciate beauty," but "would they appreciate beauty in this context."
--j_k
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I think the thesis statement would be closer to "Will this particular perception of beauty (classical violin music as interpreted by a famous contemporary artist) be appreciated by the average big city commuter, despite their high probability of having little knowledge or experience with this art form, and their high probability of having much better things to do with their time?"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This, of course, is your regular M.O. when speaking about anything related to music: to challenge the credentials of anyone speaking about it ...
Man, isn't that the brutal truth
And this response is Dag's M.O.
Despite the fact that the accusation, especially this time, is wrong. I don't challenge his credentials, I point out that HE HIMSELF (the author) has said he has none. I also point out that he has little interest in the would-be subject of his piece, which has to do, despite Dag's claims, with music.
I am just going to keep asking until you actually address this point Dag, but how is the article valid as an observation of anything if the author doesn't actually know what he is observing? I am just going to continue wondering on that forever- how he arrived at the idea for this article, and didn't think to himself that it was just a tad stupid.
I think I know what your answer is going to be, that he DID know what he was observing, and I think that's wrong.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Maybe he just wanted to see what happened?
Just because it's not a scientific experiment replete with controlled variables doesn't make it invalid as a *human interest* story.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: I think the thesis statement would be closer to "Will this particular perception of beauty (classical violin music as interpreted by a famous contemporary artist) be appreciated by the average big city commuter, despite their high probability of having little knowledge or experience with this art form, and their high probability of having much better things to do with their time?"
No, that is the thesis put forward on this forum, it is not the one presented in the article. I don't think you, or the author, get to go back months later and re-contextualize it to make the whole thing less of a pile of crap
quote: His performance was arranged by The Washington Post as an experiment in context, perception and priorities -- as well as an unblinking assessment of public taste: In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?
There you are. I'm simply not satisfied with the work put in on this article. I don't think the author came out of it having learned anything. I don't think it tells us anything useful. And yet I see fodder for interesting discussion among the many avenues that were not taken.
So finally, Dag, I'm not going to argue about this with you any more. I'm just not going to.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Maybe he just wanted to see what happened?
Just because it's not a scientific experiment replete with controlled variables doesn't make it invalid as a *human interest* story.
I'm over the fact that it isn't any kind of scientific experiment. That's fine.
I think he did just want to see what happened, and I think he thought he might get a pulitzer.
Just because it's a human interest story, does not mean that any kind of paltry observation should be used to draw whatever conclusions or make whatever observations one likes. It isn't fair to the reader, that this little "experiment," or since everyone here seems to hate that word (even though it's in the article), this "outing," was designed to fail as an observation of anything. It is one single hour in one single place, in the busy life of a single city. I guess no other observations of anything seemed at all necessary or interesting. That's what bothers me. That's what makes the piece a fake.
And some will say, "but that's the point! It's one hour in one place in one city, it's meaningful!"
In fiction maybe. But in real life, I don't know that you can learn much from less than an hour, and while observing something you yourself claim to know almost nothing about.
Why don't I write a long article on our relationship with sports by going down to the park for twenty minutes to watch some kids play basketball.
Oh wait, I spent years playing basketball as a kid. I should find something else to write about. I'm obviously overqualified.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Any writing done by a journalist is going to be at least somewhat patronizing to anyone who actually works in the field being written about. Most journalists are experts in writing and little else. To expect journalists to write about their subject matter with the same proficiency and depth of understanding as professionals in the field is unrealistic and unreasonable, in my opinion. Surely the journalist in question did more research and investigation than "one single hour in one single place". While he doesn't have the same qualifications as an actual musician, he did what was expected of workers in *his* field, and, by the judgement of his peers in the field, earned recognition for a job well done.
And if you start out knowing next to nothing, I think it's very much possible to learn a great deal from observing it for an hour.
I think the world would be a better place if more people took the effort more often to observe things they didn't know about.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Why don't I write a long article on our relationship with sports by going down to the park for twenty minutes to watch some kids play basketball.
Oh wait, I spent years playing basketball as a kid. I should find something else to write about. I'm obviously overqualified.
I hope you're being deliberately ironic.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes I am.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: I think the world would be a better place if more people took the effort more often to observe things they didn't know about.
Amen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: And if you start out knowing next to nothing, I think it's very much possible to learn a great deal from observing it for an hour.
I think the world would be a better place if more people took the effort more often to observe things they didn't know about.
I agree with your points in general here. I'm being deliberately harsh. But I think that it's a shame that the article centers around a particular set of observations that are so impenetrably complicated and unfavorable for analysis. I think that this should have been recognized, and because of this, the article strikes me as facile and self-indulgent.
I am ALL for things *like* this, but to hold this particular instance up as an example of good feature writing is insulting to the many features I've read in my life that didn't win awards. I'm just reiterating myself here, so I hope you'll forgive that, but I really don't feel that the experiment in question merited the article that was written. I feel that the conclusions are, or the lack thereof, is marred by the lack of footwork, the lack of interest in other perspectives (which are only paid lip service), and the lack of a point. The article concludes nothing interesting, raises no question that interests me, and misses a range of opportunities available to it. And now, if I or anyone else should explore those avenues, we would be doing so as if in imitation of this inferior work.
The whole piece reminds me of a great Onion Article about "This American Life," in which Ira Glass completes the documentation of all things upper-middle class, concluding:
quote: "When we finished, I have to tell you, I felt something I never expected: a profound sense of contentment—maybe even relief," Glass said. "Afterwards, the other producers and I sat around for a long while, remarking on how interesting and strange it was to finally complete the study, and how perhaps it is, in some way, symbolic of life in general."
That "This American Life" is really consistently good at getting past such affectations makes the article even funnier, because all involved realize that it's a harmless gag. Nevertheless, Glass is the first to admit, as he has on the show, that criticism like this makes him very aware of the downfalls of his medium.
I do believe it is facile and cynical of mainstream media sources to be continually "opening a dialog," and "promoting awareness," of things they do not seem to be particularly interested in at other times. It is my area of interest, it will be my profession, but I will spend my life encountering people who subscribe to artistic philosophies whose impacts they don't understand or want to understand.
Think of a coal miner or a school teacher. Suppose the feature had been based on an hour in a coal mine, an hour in a classroom- and it had won a Pulitzer. Somehow I imagine there would be quite a few people who do manual labor, quite a few people who go to school or teach in school who would have a hard time buying into the conclusions that could be drawn from an hour. I don't care that it's ostensibly about my pet subject, I want to point out that like these others, like most or all subjects, it bears an incredible amount of scrutiny that was not applied.
And to counter the popular assumption here. NO, I do NOT think now that this article should have been written by a musician- that isn't the perspective it is going for, and that's fine. But I think that no matter who wrote it, anyone could have found something in this world of art and music that was more rewarding to write about.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yes I am.
Then I have to ask: what was the point of your continued participation in this thread when, by your own admission, you're completely disqualified from judging whether or not the article was worthy of a Pulitzer?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:The comment the author made about a picture without a frame is a good one. Most people just don't care about good music when they're in a hurry.
I care, I just don't have time to stop. I can use my ears while walking and I do make full use of them. This experiment reads no minds of the people in the station, many who may have been thinking "Man, that guy is pretty darn good."
This article winning a Pulitzer makes me wonder where all the good stuff that should exist is. It's an okay article, sure, but not a brilliant one.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Erso, should nobody participate in this thread because none of us are qualified to judge for the pulitzer?
I'd like to point out that Orincoro also has a degree in English.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Plenty of footwork was done for the article, unless convincing a world-renowned virtuoso violinist to dress in his grubbies and play for 43 thankless minutes in a D.C. subway station doesn't constitute footwork. And interviewing a bunch of people who passed through the lobby, which meant tracking them down one by one later on. And doing a fair amount of additional background research, which the author obviously did do. Not to mention writing it in a way that made it interesting to read and think about.
People love to put themselves in that kind of situation and imagine what they'd do if they were there. I hope I would have stopped and listened, to hell with my morning schedule.
The author, despite the title, presented the passersby not scornfully but rather generously as human beings with lots going on in their lives, lots on their minds, and a variety of perfectly sane reasons to react how they did--and thus managed to get us all wondering who we were most like and how we like to think we would have reacted ourselves. He also gave some fascinating insight into the mind of Joshua Bell that portrayed him as human just like the rest of us, forced into an unsure situation just like all the passersby. It's not really about the arts, not really about psychology, either. I think the whole article just came at the right time, and everyone relished the fresh introspection it provoked.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Erso, should nobody participate in this thread because none of us are qualified to judge for the pulitzer?
No, you missed the point.
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I'd like to point out that Orincoro also has a degree in English.
Irrelevant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yes I am.
Then I have to ask: what was the point of your continued participation in this thread when, by your own admission, you're completely disqualified from judging whether or not the article was worthy of a Pulitzer?
I don't follow you. I think we've spun one too many loops in this argument. I'm dizzy, I should sit down.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Plenty of footwork was done for the article, unless convincing a world-renowned virtuoso violinist to dress in his grubbies and play for 43 thankless minutes in a D.C. subway station doesn't constitute footwork.
As I seem to recall, though I should review the article to be sure, this was not a very tall order, he had been waiting on this idea for years, he just happened to have the chance to ask Bell.
quote: I think the whole article just came at the right time, and everyone relished the fresh introspection it provoked.
Hah.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Awesome article.
quote: That's shocking. Not only is it not a very good article, but it's also been the subject of derision among all musicians I know who've read it.
Really. This article just doesn't "get it."
I'm kind of confused on why so many folks don't like it. I'm a semi-pro classical vocalist myself and found it facinating.
[ April 09, 2008, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Argonis (Member # 11569) on :
My take on this experiement would be that before a morning coffee most adults don't have the focus of a gnat. Kids get up at 5am to watch Pokemon and bounce around like maniacs hours before their parents. The young are more attentice during the early day, adults at night. Put this concert on during a lunch break at a food court, or on their way home and get back to me.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:what was the point of your continued participation in this thread when you're completely disqualified from judging whether or not the article was worthy of a Pulitzer?
quote: Erso, should nobody participate in this thread because none of us are qualified to judge for the pulitzer?
quote:No, you missed the point.
Please elaborate on what I'm missing. You asked why he should participate in the thread even though he isn't a pulitzer judge. It's kind of a silly question, considering none of us are pulitzer judges.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I think Eros thought he had tricked me into contradicting myself by saying I was being deliberately ironic... but I don't see as how my admitting that disqualified me from judging a piece of writing. I judge pieces of writing all the time- granted not for Pulitzer consideration, but I read and think on my own.
Incidentally the Pulitzer in music went to a composer named David Lang, best known probably for co-founding "Bang on a Can." Having been to I think two of their concerts and heard a couple of his pieces, though not this one yet, I'm amazed at how similarly I feel about Lang and Weingarten. Interesting.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
People who read are qualified to judge the quality piece of writing, like people who listen to music are qualified to judge the quality of music. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean their judgement is going to be accurate - especially, apparently, if they make the judgement while getting off the subway in the morning. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think I know what your answer is going to be, that he DID know what he was observing, and I think that's wrong.
Because he wasn't observing music. He was observing people reacting to music.
quote:And yet I see fodder for interesting discussion among the many avenues that were not taken.
There have probably been hundreds of interesting discussions because of this article. I've witnessed dozens myself. Of course, listening to someone start by complaining about before even bothering to read it completely and then making repeated assertions about the author's intent that directly contradict the author's stated intent does suck the interest right out.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The real question is, "Dies the average person find that either the musician or his choice of music to be all that great?" And the answer was "NO!"
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
That article is [garbage] and I stand by what I said last year in this thread. Why do people love to read about how horrible other people are?
[Edited out profanity. Please stop it. --PJ]
[ April 09, 2008, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The article isn't about how horrible other people are.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
aspectre: that was neither the real question or the real answer.
At the very least it must be "Does the average person hurrying from public transportation along their way to work find the music by that particular musician compelling enough when briefly heard amongst a lot of crowd noise to stop and listen for a bit?"
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
i've read the article and comments many times, and started many responses. I think people who don't like the article and it's premise are more turned off by the way it is written which is described by the author as his style. "Ludicrous over-writing is a weakness of mine". He does sound that way to me and that is what I find most irritating about it. His references to skin mags and lotto tickets, quotes about children being born knowing poetry and many other examples can give the impression of a bit of smugness. Of course in the comments he knows he would have stopped because he appreciates beauty. I would bet that he would have walked on by if had a place to be...just like the majority of us would have
Posted by Clandestineguitarplayer (Member # 11571) on :
There is obviously a huge lack in people with good taste in music because rap music is still thriving. That may just be my own personal onion, but it seems that the more a person listens to rap, in my community at least, the dumber the person actually gets. Now whether or not that is the case in the "big world" I am uncertain, but if great taste in music meanse music that takes thought, then I am certain that there is a lack....
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Truth be known, evaluation of any art is largely subjective, and not quantifiable. The idea of "good" or "great" music rests merely with the listener, and only reflects their tastes. We can talk about sophisticated technique all day, but in the end of that day, I will come to the same conclusion that it's all just a matter of personal taste.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Of course, listening to someone start by complaining about before even bothering to read it completely and then making repeated assertions about the author's intent that directly contradict the author's stated intent does suck the interest right out.
Yeah, so does reading your filth. Geez, it's too bad. When will we ever learn?
:Pirouette:
I think I'll go dig up some things you wrote over a year ago to talk about as if they correspond exactly with your present stance... Oh wait. I don't do that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think I'll go dig up some things you wrote over a year ago to talk about as if they correspond exactly with your present stance.
Of course, I haven't done that. The repeated assertion I'm talking about was made this very week.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clandestineguitarplayer: That may just be my own personal onion,
I personally prefer pet rocks.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
But have you ever left an onion in your fridge for too long, and it started to really sprout? Coooool... Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Cool indeed, but I don't think you ever get baby onions from an onion sprouted that way.
On topic. The "experiment" in the article clearly fails at scientific rigor. That doesn't invalidate everything. I think it's a little silly to go drawing grand conclusions from it, but it's still interesting (if unsurprising) to note that a world renowned musician playing a technically elegant and highly regarded piece of music would be ignored so thoroughly.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I have no idea whether the article is worthy of a Pulitzer, but I do know that I enjoyed reading the article. What I enjoyed had little to do with any conclusions the author may or may not have come to but more with my own introspection. What I appreciated wasn’t necessarily the observations that the writer made about the people during that event. Rather, I appreciated that it made me think about myself, how I view art and greatness, and how I may have reacted if in a similar situation. The article didn’t make some grand generalization about people or society, but it did identify some different people, attitudes, and conditions that I feel I can relate to. The article wasn’t trying to tell me something about myself, it was trying to get me to ask questions about myself. How do I perceive and determine greatness, and how much of it is determined by context? How observant am I to my surroundings? Granted, everyone measures greatness differently, but if something that I value is right there in front of me, would I necessarily recognize it, or would I miss it completely? I think the goal of the author was not so much to try to convince me of something but to get me to think about something. And the article was highly successful at that.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Well said, camus.
I haven't recently re-read the article, but I think the author did attempt sweeping generalizations, but I likely ignored them in favor of, as you say, introspection.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:
quote: I think the whole article just came at the right time, and everyone relished the fresh introspection it provoked.
Hah.
No, I really do think the timing was important to the success of the article. It was a fresh idea and provoked a new angle in which to evaluate oneself. It hit a nail that hadn't been hit for a while. It portrayed an odd but very believable situation people hadn't considered themselves in before. And since everyone has an opinion about music, and everyone likes to tell others what they would do in such a situation, the article created a lot of buzz.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Well said, camus.
I haven't recently re-read the article, but I think the author did attempt sweeping generalizations, but I likely ignored them in favor of, as you say, introspection.
Eh. It's like the Time "person of the year" of a few years ago, or was it last year... "you," with a mirror on the front page. If this article prompted introspection in spite of itself, then fine, but it's ham handed at best.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: And since everyone has an opinion about music, and everyone likes to tell others what they would do in such a situation, the article created a lot of buzz.
I believe that part. But I think the "timing" aspect is a little thin. Unless you simply mean to say that it was a slow news week, or that the article was mentioned in the right blogs at the right times, or that there was just some invisible tipping point of public interest that got the thing moving quickly for a thousand different reasons. Nevertheless, I've read better writing this year, heard better ideas, and so I'm at a net negative with this. What people are saying about it opening up conversations, that's true. But it opens up conversations in such a way that I would almost rather not have them. There's something about the writing, the attitude, that screams: "I'm stupid! And so can you!"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
Sorry, I couldn't resist that one, but seriously, as a musician who grew up with a music teacher for a mother and an opera singer for a Grandmother I can honestly say that many people can recognize great music -as long as they are not tone deaf anyway. They may not particularly like the genre of music, and they may not have time to stop and actively listen, they may even listen to their own music on their IPods. That doesn't mean that they can't recognize great music.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
I mean no offense to violin lovers or players, my ears just cannot tolerate the higher tones of that particular instrument.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)