PDA

View Full Version : A Violinist in the Metro


Michael
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:05 AM
I read this a few months ago. It annoyed the hell out of me back then.

Now someone has seen fit to email it to me as one of those 'thoughts of the day' kind of things that some people like to share via email.

A Violinist in the Metro

A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousands of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.

Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule.

A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk.

A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.

The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tugged him along, hurried but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.

In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written,with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.

Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston and the seats average $100.

This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?

One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be:

If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?

Here's an "alternative" conclusion...

It is all a matter of perspective.

Maybe the idiots who paid $100 at the Concert Hall were just showing off their wealth and trying to 'fit in' with society that arbitrarily assigns wealth status to Concert Hall going socialites who have too much money and are willing to waste it on status events.

Other people of course ignored the pest in the subway station because that is precisely what it was. Paying attention (or money) to a subway musician is a 'low-status' activity. People seek status, not some arbitrary (or elite-defined standard) assertion of beauty (as much as that annoys classical music fans and elite newspaper editors).

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and for me, nobody playing a violin can ever be anything but an annoyance. But then again, I don't have the need to seek wealth-social status enough to pretend that classical music is even remotely entertaining.

As far as I'm concerned, the musician in the subway received precisely what his labor was worth. It requires a whole lot of propaganda, advertising, marketing and a spectacle event to turn that into $100 per ticket where people can dress up 'to be seen' by their peers.

All a matter of perspective. I hate elitist spewing newspaper editors playing games like this.

Capitalism is never beautiful. It is a way to make a living - that's all it is. The average people refuse to kowtow to the tastes of the elites and that annoys the elites no end - and you get pieces like this published in newspapers because of it.

I ask you, is this pathetic attempt to sell tickets to a concert series (clever promotional plan it is) more important than news about genocide in Sudan or war in Afghanistan? Those are the real news stories that get bumped to run this kind of drivel.

/end rant

SMadsen
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:17 AM
Heh .. except for the last few paragraphs, I'm with you on this one. For most parts, I think street music is sound polution. It doesn't matter if it's people who play for drugs, food, rent, or, as in this case, for nothing at all (not even a proper story).

partofme
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:38 AM
I think it's most likely that people in a station like that are just in a hurray and are not paying attention. I think if you asked them to listen to him and compare it to the average street musician most would be able to tell a difference.

Dominick
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:53 AM
He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written
That's the key here.

But a side note first. This is probably not true even if the piece is not identified. Bach didn't write the most intricate pieces ever for violin. Paganini would be a much more appropriate suggestion and then there are those that wrote violin concerto's with the same motivation as Yngwie Malmsteen does for guitar.

But anyway, Bach sure is intricate to some level. And one needs two things to appreciate it : undivided attention and good accoustics. Maybe it's elitist but a heated concert hall with specifically designed accoustics appears to me to be a better setting than a metro station on a cold morning during rush hour.

Bottom line is that it probably sounded like crap in those circumstances even if it was Bach and Bell (pun intended only for elitist classical music lovers) and that no one had the time to pay attention as the passers-by were mandatorily urged to be present at the roll call of their capitalist exploiters.

The whole thing is drawing conclusions from nothing.

Equally far-fetched is the claim that classical music is elitist. In any music store I've ever been (Belgium, UK, France and Holland) the cheapest available music is classical music. I can buy any of the masterpieces of the usual suspects for 1 (one) Euro. That's about 16-17 times less than the newest CD of any pop (from : popular) artist.

There's a reason this music has literally withstood the centuries and it's not the pseudo-aristocrats that frequent the 100$ stalls in the concert halls but the intrinsic quality and yes, beauty, of it. And that appreciation is as democratic as it comes. Just play Ode and die Freude in front of any audience and you'll see what I mean.

Michael
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:57 AM
Equally far-fetched is the claim that classical music is elitist. In any music store I've ever been (Belgium, UK, France and Holland) the cheapest available music is classical music. I can buy any of the masterpieces of the usual suspects for 1 (one) Euro. That's about 16-17 times less than the newest CD of any pop (from : popular) artist.
Classical music is cheap as recorded music for two reasons:

A) All symphonies and orchestras are government subsidized. Recordings serve as 'fundraising' tools, not the primary business revenue model.

B) Very little actual market demand.

Taken together that means "high supply" and "low demand" and that equals "almost free" as a market price.

Classical music is 100% elitism by definition. Without elite donations and government funding, the industry wouldn't exist. The popular market has no real interest in this product.

neorealist
Jan 22nd 2009, 09:50 PM
I have never paid for a high price orchestra ticket...although I would. I used to play the upright Bass in the orchestra and truly love classical music. I used to ride the DC metro to and from work everyday last summer and remember once in a while (maybe ever other week) there would be a guitarist or violinist. I would almost always stop and throw a couple of bucks....then walk outside the gate and have a smoke to the music. I always brightened up my morning or soothed my day.

I would pay the 100USD for a concert b/c I really love the music that much...I could wear a pair of jeans and sit in the back by myself and not talk to anyone either. But Michael is right...beauty is all relative. Virtually all my friends would walk right passed the classical musicians, but would hang out when freestyle rappers were...doing whatever it is they do:shrug:

-just thought I post an alternative opinion

Michael
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:43 PM
I have never paid for a high price orchestra ticket...although I would. I used to play the upright Bass in the orchestra and truly love classical music. I used to ride the DC metro to and from work everyday last summer and remember once in a while (maybe ever other week) there would be a guitarist or violinist. I would almost always stop and throw a couple of bucks....then walk outside the gate and have a smoke to the music. I always brightened up my morning or soothed my day.

I would pay the 100USD for a concert b/c I really love the music that much...I could wear a pair of jeans and sit in the back by myself and not talk to anyone either. But Michael is right...beauty is all relative. Virtually all my friends would walk right passed the classical musicians, but would hang out when freestyle rappers were...doing whatever it is they do:shrug:

-just thought I post an alternative opinion
Indeed, my point was not to critique classical music. If people like that kind of music, I have no problem with that. If they want to pay for it, great. Live and let live is always my motto with matters of subjectivity.

My point of critique is the inherent 'assumption' made by the author (and the authors of the study itself) that a famous violinist playing some famous composition is by definition, 'beautiful art' - and those who fail to appreciate that are held to be obviously not paying attention, or too wrapped up in their own lives to recognize it - or cultural barbarians.

The part about the instrument being worth millions of dollars is also an assumption-assertion that money buys the best quality (like the mention of the $100 tickets at the music hall).

The part about the small children liking the music says nothing - small children will watch the Lion King on video 73 times in a row. They also like bright shiny objects and things that make nice noises.

Thus, it is the elitism of the piece that I am critiquing. It praises a famously 'elitist art' as the highest art, and insists that subsidized capitalism is the most relevant measure of quality (in art no less) at the same time. Both of these notions I consider pompus and absurd.

Michael
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:50 PM
Equally far-fetched is the claim that classical music is elitist. In any music store I've ever been (Belgium, UK, France and Holland) the cheapest available music is classical music. I can buy any of the masterpieces of the usual suspects for 1 (one) Euro. That's about 16-17 times less than the newest CD of any pop (from : popular) artist.
As noted above - a product of government subsidies. Classical music and opera exist in the market by government, institutional and/or charitable subsidies (without them, they die).

There's a reason this music has literally withstood the centuries and it's not the pseudo-aristocrats that frequent the 100$ stalls in the concert halls but the intrinsic quality and yes, beauty, of it. And that appreciation is as democratic as it comes. Just play Ode and die Freude in front of any audience and you'll see what I mean.
Reduce the ticket price to $1 and you will see what I mean. True fans of the music will love it. Half the audience would evaporate (replaced by real music fans no doubt).

Certainly there are many fans of this type of music - no doubt.

But the fact that it lives on government subsidies and charity in every country makes it elitist. The music isn't necessarily elitist - the subsidies make it so. Elitism is a classification in society, not music per se.

Donkey
Jan 23rd 2009, 07:26 PM
I disagree with you, Michael, as to whether or not classical music is enjoyable, because I like listening to and playing it sometimes. I don't think all patrons are elites either. Sure you have your classical music snobs, but I think you get them in about every genre of music (they just sometimes incarnate themselves differently).

I do agree, however, that the email forward thing is entirely irritating.

Multiplum
Jan 23rd 2009, 10:13 PM
Street musicians here are usually gypsies. When they see you approaching, they quickly put out the cigarette and start playing the same tune as everyone else is playing. They notice you. You notice them noticing you.

I've stopped feeling guilty when I pass by while avoiding eye contact. Not falling for that one.

Get a job. Buy some soap.

Greendruid
Jan 24th 2009, 12:30 AM
Street musicians here are usually gypsies. When they see you approaching, they quickly put out the cigarette and start playing the same tune as everyone else is playing. They notice you. You notice them noticing you.

I've stopped feeling guilty when I pass by while avoiding eye contact. Not falling for that one.

Get a job. Buy some soap.

Wow! Way to classify an entire culture of people as unemployed, dirty, panhandlers!

We should probably glue down a few of the more expensive items in the White House now that Obama's in there too, huh?

neorealist
Jan 24th 2009, 01:16 AM
Indeed, my point was not to critique classical music. If people like that kind of music, I have no problem with that. If they want to pay for it, great. Live and let live is always my motto with matters of subjectivity.

My point of critique is the inherent 'assumption' made by the author (and the authors of the study itself) that a famous violinist playing some famous composition is by definition, 'beautiful art' - and those who fail to appreciate that are held to be obviously not paying attention, or too wrapped up in their own lives to recognize it - or cultural barbarians.

The part about the instrument being worth millions of dollars is also an assumption-assertion that money buys the best quality (like the mention of the $100 tickets at the music hall).

The part about the small children liking the music says nothing - small children will watch the Lion King on video 73 times in a row. They also like bright shiny objects and things that make nice noises.

Thus, it is the elitism of the piece that I am critiquing. It praises a famously 'elitist art' as the highest art, and insists that subsidized capitalism is the most relevant measure of quality (in art no less) at the same time. Both of these notions I consider pompus and absurd.

I got a good laugh out of that:rofl:

But you are right

Donkey
Jan 24th 2009, 02:47 AM
Wow! Way to classify an entire culture of people as unemployed, dirty, panhandlers!

We should probably glue down a few of the more expensive items in the White House now that Obama's in there too, huh?
In fairness he said that most of the musicians are gypsies, not that all the gypsies are musicians...