posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!)
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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?"
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Just because it's not a scientific experiment replete with controlled variables doesn't make it invalid as a *human interest* story.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
