# Joshua Bell ignored while playing at a subway



## Lunatique (Feb 12, 2008)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01721.html)

Personally, I think no one should be surprised at the result. Classical music is not something the average person can understand well enough to tell a great composition from merely a catchy one that pleases the crowd, and the average person is only impressed by an instrumentalist if he's playing something very fast that appears to take a lot of virtuoso agility. The only thing the exercise really proves is that classical music is quite esoteric and requires education and intelligence to really understand. And of course, people are damn busy on the morning commute. Unless there's been a horrible accident or aliens have invaded, they probably wouldn't stop for anything.

If they had put a pretty girl with a beautiful voice strumming a guitar and belting out songs about heartbreak and unrequited love, they'd probably have gotten more people to stop and pay attention.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 12, 2008)

Lunatique @ Tue 12 Feb said:


> The only thing the exercise really proves is that classical music is quite esoteric and requires education and intelligence to really understand.


"Really"? Really "really"??  

Do you "really" think that that experiment "really" proves your statement above? What are the reasons you are backing your statement with?

To me, it was a stupid experiment based on many false premises:
1) That the Metro is the right place to play music, any music.
2) That people are obligated in any way to listen to musicians in a place like that.
3) That those who happen to listen are obligated to make the difference among musical genres.
4) That those who happen listen are obligated to notice and/or rank musicianship.
5) That musical genres do have any importance when isolated from their respective audiences.
6) That anyone passing through a Metro station have to know who Joshua Bell is (or what the Joshua Tree looks like and where the park is located...  )
7) That "education and intelligence" has anything to do with caring about certain musical repertoires, certain genres, certain instruments, certain instrumentalists. 
8 ) That "esoteric" has anything to do with anything. o 
9) That "educated and intelligent" (whatever those might mean) people "really understand" music.
10) That "uneducated and unintelligent" (whatever those might mean) people don't "really understand" music.

As a 'happening' event on 'candid camera', it was fun to watch - while knowing that the guy didn't play for the money (as the passing people were taking for granted), and that he probably was paid an UNSUSPECTEDLY HIGH amount of money for that gig. :D BTW, thanks for sharing the fun!
But as an experiment, I "really" can't see it proving anything. Or, in the extreme, it only proves, to me, how silly the people who set it up "really" are, if they think their experiment proves anything. What were those guys 'conclusions, again?


----------



## Lunatique (Feb 12, 2008)

Well, maybe it doesn't prove anything, but I do think that if it was a different genre of music being played (blues, rock, pop), it would've been more accessible to the average person. When a non-musician hears a hot blues lick or a searing guitar solo, they are more likely to "recognize" it as something impressive. When they listen to a violin solo, no matter how difficult it is to play, unless the piece is fast, the average person probably won't recognize how hard it is to play the piece. 

Also, contemporary music has melody lines that are more immediate and accessible--people can relate to them (or be moved by them) more readily. With classical, some compositions have melodic concepts that unless you're a classical musician, probably sounds like meandering phrases strung together (people usually react to jazz in the same way). This is why Mozart is name the average person can relate to--because the melodies are catchy and more similar to contemporary mainstream music. 

As far as intelligence goes, I think it's reasonable to think that any genre of music that is considered more sophisticated/complex would require some cerebral involvement on the part of the listener to fully appreciate beyond the visceral reaction. I think if you took a poll among fans of jazz, progressive rock, classical, avant-garde, IDM...etc and ask if fans of those genres feel they have more intelligent taste than the average top 40's listeners, you'll get majority of them saying yes.


----------



## tgfoo (Feb 12, 2008)

I remember reading this article around the time it came out (I'm in the D.C. area). I didn't really look to much into. There are ALWAYS people playing in or around high volume metro stations here. To be honest, I think you could take pretty much anybody and most people wouldn't even notice that they were there. You pretty much train yourself to tune most things out.

I think you could put a world famous musician (don't really matter which instrument) and put them there and 99% of people would ignore them, unless some one happen to recognize them if they happened to take a quick glance over.

And it isn't just classical music. Most of the musicians playing at metro stops play jazz/pop stuff on saxes or trumpets. Hell, I've even seen a few guys with electric guitars and portable amps playing. And for the most part all of them were completely ignore as well.


----------



## tgfoo (Feb 12, 2008)

On more thing, if they would have done this on a Saturday when people weren't in a hurry because they were late for work more people probably would stopped and listened.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 12, 2008)

Lunatique @ Tue 12 Feb said:


> Well, maybe it doesn't prove anything, but I do think that if it was a different genre of music being played (blues, rock, pop), it would've been more accessible to the average person. When a non-musician hears a hot blues lick or a searing guitar solo, they are more likely to "recognize" it as something impressive. When they listen to a violin solo, no matter how difficult it is to play, unless the piece is fast, the average person probably won't recognize how hard it is to play the piece.
> 
> Also, contemporary music has melody lines that are more immediate and accessible--people can relate to them (or be moved by them) more readily. With classical, some compositions have melodic concepts that unless you're a classical musician, probably sounds like meandering phrases strung together (people usually react to jazz in the same way). This is why Mozart is name the average person can relate to--because the melodies are catchy and more similar to contemporary mainstream music.
> 
> As far as intelligence goes, I think it's reasonable to think that any genre of music that is considered more sophisticated/complex would require some cerebral involvement on the part of the listener to fully appreciate beyond the visceral reaction. I think if you took a poll among fans of jazz, progressive rock, classical, avant-garde, IDM...etc and ask if fans of those genres feel they have more intelligent taste than the average top 40's listeners, you'll get majority of them saying yes.


So - does that experiment prove any of your statements above? If yes, in which way? If no, what is the connection that you try to make? Connection between what and what? Also, presuming that you want to make a connection, how that connection does work? What's backing it? How does that experiment back it? (if you think it does)

edit -
I don't want to sound rude. I have my own theory that says that scientific experiments don't say anything about music. Which, if true, would suggest that scientists and scientific minds should keep their mouth shut if they don't want to make pseudo-scientific affirmations about music. When approaching music scientifically, it's so easy to fall in pseudo-scientific... Again, no offense intended to anyone. It's just a theory, and I'm not trying to prove it. It's just that that experiment does not unprove my theory, I think...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 12, 2008)

Great stunt.


----------



## Moonchilde (Feb 12, 2008)

aeneas @ February 12th 2008 said:


> I have my own theory that says that scientific experiments don't say anything about music. Which, if true, would suggest that scientists and scientific minds should keep their mouth shut if they don't want to make pseudo-scientific affirmations about music. When approaching music scientifically, it's so easy to fall in pseudo-scientific... Again, no offense intended to anyone. It's just a theory, and I'm not trying to prove it. It's just that that experiment does not unprove my theory, I think...



I'm going to pick on this a little. I think you misunderstand what a theory is.

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Unfortunately, you're guessing, which would not fall under theory. Generally, theories are universally considered true in the scientific community until proven otherwise. Like the theories of gravity and evolution.

Your guess really doesn't fall into the theory category.


----------



## almacg (Feb 12, 2008)

Well I agree, I don't think the experiment proves anything. Even myself, a person who is fairly well versed in classical music might not have bothered to stop or pay the musician that much attention.

I do think that to an extent, musical preference and intelligence are related, but not for the reasons we think they are. If intelligence was directly related to musical ability, surely our greatest minds would always potentially be brilliant composers. 
Generally speaking, the middle-classes are better educated (not necassarily more intelligent) than the lower classes, and do tend to listen to more classical music. The reason they do so, is because it has always been part of the middle-classes (and upper-classes) existence. If I had a penny for every person I knew who had been forced to take music lessons by their fussy, middle-class mother I would be rich! It has nothing to do with the fact that middle-classes are objectively more intelligent, but to do with the fact that they usually get introduced to classical music at a young age.
So basically, the ability to appreciate classical music has to do with the environment, not with our intelligence. If you took a genius who had never heard classical music would they necassarily be able to immediately appreciate it? Similarly if you took a complete idiot, and forced them to listen to nothing but classical music, would they never develop an affinity for it!?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 12, 2008)

Moonchilde @ Tue 12 Feb said:


> I think you misunderstand what a theory is.
> 
> "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
> 
> ...


Your definition is incomplete. Here:
*theory* (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
_n., pl. -ries._
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. (http://www.answers.com/theory?cat=technology)
My statement surely does not fit into #1 (the one that you posted). It doesn't fit into #2 and #3 either. But it fits quite well into #4, #5, and #6. 

If we will admit that my statement is 
A - "A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment", and/or
A' - "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture", 
also, if we will admit that 
B - both A and A' are definitions of theory,
then, we will have to admit that
C - my statement is a theory.
Is that syllogism correct to you? If it is, the do you maintain that "unfortunately," I am "guessing, which would not fall under theory"? IMHO, half-truths are worse than lies, for they have more misleading potential. 



> Generally, theories are universally considered true in the scientific community until proven otherwise. Like the theories of gravity and evolution.


There are also a big bulk of 'theories of literature' and of 'theories of art'. I think the problem might be that you seem to admit here only 'scientific theories'. Is that right? Then, you may want to consider that there are many theories outside the scientific field. Science doesn't encompass everything, does it? Which sounds like another (broader) way to express my little theory: that science can't encompass music, for instance. Or, in this particular experiment, it can't address 'music' and 'reactions to music'. Or, at least, that experiment would say about science that 'science' does address 'music' and 'reactions to music' in an inappropriate way. IMHO, that specific experiment was completely outside any scientific standards. Do you think it was scientifically appropriate? 

Did that experiment prove anything about those people passing by? IMO, no - except maybe that they were in a hurry and/or that they didn't seem to care much about a dude playing in a Metro station. 
Did that experiment prove anything about the quality of the music played (interpretation included)? IMO, no again - because its 'quality' was taken for granted. ("Johann Bach", "Joshua Bell", etc. :roll
Did that experiment prove anything about anything? Yes, it proved NOT to be an experiment at all, but a happening act on candid camera, an example of 'performance art', at the most. IMO.

If I understood correctly, the guys who set that 'experiment' up were trying to prove the hypotheses that 
- people taking a Metro are a scientifically/statistically accurate sample of PEOPLE,
- PEOPLE don't make the distinction between good musicians and bad musicians,
- PEOPLE don't make distinctions about 'high art' and 'low art'. (what the hell are these two, BTW?! :? )
So, in order to prove that, they have put a top violinist to play Bach in a Metro station. I mean - com' on, yougottabekiddinme! That was a joke, right? - in more than one sense of the expression. :wink: That clearly was NOT a scientific experiment. You think it was? What do dictionaries tell about "experiment"? 0oD 

Finally, about my theory so harshly abused  - "scientific community" or whatever community, my theory still stands, "until proven otherwise". Fair enough to ya?


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 12, 2008)

Here's the problem with your hypothesis...


It assumes intelligence based on "classic" stylings of art excluding all others. Sorry to blow this idea flat on its ass but there are intelligent folks in just about every art medium there is, creating shape and form we may not readily recognize as brilliant. 

*Btw-- Your "serious literature" comment was the obvious clue...

IQ is not the barometer used to measure arts' worth. Yet, if it were, this would make Pi the most beautiful piece of art in this world. Case closed. The End. 

Problem is, most of us aren't capable of seeing Pi in our minds. Therefore we cannot conceptualize it's "worth". Thus, you and I will never know what "they" know... 

...And what sort of mind is capable of visualizing this "absolute"? Right, a mind deficient in many other respects. Therefore an imperfect mind to know the perfect art. I see...


Btw -- I don't subscribe to the idea that only humans create art. Our ideas are derived from a place we don't fully understand. Maybe someday we'll understand our own brains. But until then... we don't even know why art exists.


KID


----------



## Moonchilde (Feb 12, 2008)

in reply to aeneas:

Son, you were talking about science and pseudo-science, and what this experiment falls under. A theory in science is considered fact until proven otherwise or updated to include new information. You have no fact to base your guess. At most, it could be a start of a hypothesis to later be proven with fact and called theory. Yet, it isn't tested and cant' be theory by scientific definition. Definition 1 is what is used in the scientific community. Definition 1 is within context of your post.

We could nitpick the definition yes, based on the other meanings the word could be used for. If so, then we might as well say all theory is guessing without fact since 4, 5, and 6 take the usage of the word out of scientific context and require no repeatable outcomes and testing to be theory.

A guess is a guess, and with no experimentation and repeatable outcome based on such, your usage was incorrect in scientific terms and certainly not a theory. However, feel free to continue using it as a glorified term for the word guess.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 12, 2008)

Moonchilde @ Wed 13 Feb said:


> Son, you
> ...


Grandson, you 
...

[edited out] 

Never mind. 

:D


----------



## Moonchilde (Feb 13, 2008)

Dawg, this is my last reply to ya in this topic, and I'll point out why you're incorrect.



aeneas @ February 13th 2008 said:


> Grandson,
> You seem to be old enough to see what I mean, especially when I say it explicitly: science DOES NOT encompass everything. For example, it does not encompass music and reactions to music - which is precisely the present case. Try to focus a bit, willya?



Quite a lot of science goes into music. Ever look into the recording part of music? Thats all science at work. Music itself has scientific measures, for example note values, so there is some science in music as well. Setting up concert halls is scientific as much work goes into making a pleasant acoustic experience for the listener.

You can also scientifically measure a person's reactions to music they hear by their brain activity and what emotions are being triggered as they listen. Thats science, homey!

Why do you fail to realize this?



aeneas @ February 13th 2008 said:


> See above. Picking a narrow definition of the term 'theory' and applying it to a theory that by definition has nothing to do with science, that truly doesn't hold. Ignoring THREE definitions into which my statement clearly falls, that is blindness. My statement really is a theory, and it is by at least these three definitions:
> _"4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
> 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
> 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."_
> You can of course chose to ignore those three definitions, but that would only speak about yourself, and not about my theory.



You're the one who drew up the pseudo-science and science talk. 

Please see your first post in this topic about how the experiment wasn't scientific enough since it didn't prove anything or even quality for an experiment in the first place. No, you did not specifically write scientific, but your implications about the experiment was that it was a total failure and did not live up to method. Please see your second post in which you make the same affirmation and then ramble on about pseudo-science and science. Surprisingly, you fell right into the pseudo-science category with your guess, a false premise concocted from unprovable personal observations which you labeled as a theory.



aeneas @ February 13th 2008 said:


> No - 4, 5, and 6 do not take 'anything' out of 'anything' - that was an obvious logical fallacy. Also, you are painting with a broad brush, when you talk of 'requirements', my dear little Einstein.



Lets take a look.

"4. Abstò*Ö\0\0\0op|*Ö\0\0\0op}*Ö\0\0\0op~*Ö\0\0\0op*Ö\0\0\0op€*Ö\0\0\0op*Ö\0\0\0op‚*Ö\0\0\0opƒ*Ö\0\0\0op„*Ö\0\0\0op…*Ö\0\0\0op†*Ö\0\0\0op‡*Ö\0\0\0opˆ*Ö\0\0\0op‰*Ö\0\0\0opŠ*Ø\0\0\0op£*Ø\0\0\0op¤*Ø\0\0\0op¥*Ø\0\0\0op¦*Ø\0\0\0op§*Ø\0\0\0op¨*Ø\0\0\0op©*Ø\0\0\0opª*Ø\0\0\0op«*Ø\0\0\0op¬*Ø\0\0\0op­*Ø\0\0\0op®*Ø\0\0\0op¯*Ø\0\0\0op°*Ø\0\0\0op±*Ø\0\0\0op²*Ø\0\0\0op³*Ø\0\0\0op´*Ø\0\0\0opµ*Ø\0\0\0op¶*Ø\0\0\0op·*Ø\0\0\0op¸*Ø\0\0\0op¹*Ø\0\0\0opº*Ø\0\0\0op»*Ø\0\0\0op¼*Ø\0\0\0op½*Ø\0\0\0op¾*Ø\0\0\0op¿*Ø\0\0\0opÀ*Ø\0\0\0opÁ*Ø\0\0\0opÂ*Ø\0\0\0opÃ*Ø\0\0\0opÄ*Ø\0\0\0opÅ*Ø\0\0\0opÆ*Ø\0\0\0opÇ*Ø\0\0\0opÈ*Ø\0\0\0opÉ*Ø\0\0\0opÊ*Ø\0\0\0opË*Ø\0\0\0opÌ*Ø\0\0\0opÍ*Ø\0\0\0opÎ*Ø\0\0\0opÏ*Ø\0\0\0opÐ*Ø\0\0\0opÑ*Ø\0\0\0opÒ*Ø\0\0\0opÓ*Ø\0\0\0opÔ*Ø\0\0\0opÕ*Ø\0\0\0opÖ*Ø\0\0\0op×*Ø\0\0\0opØ*Ø\0\0\0opÙ*Ø\0\0\0opÚ*Ø\0\0\0opÛ*Ø\0\0\0opÜ*Ø\0\0\0opÝ*Ø\0\0\0opÞ*Ø\0\0\0opß*Ø\0\0\0opà*Ø\0\0\0opá*Ø\0\0\0opâ*Ø\0\0\0opã*Ø\0\0\0opä*Ø\0\0\0opå*Ø\0\0\0opæ*Ø\0\0\0opç*Ø\0\0\0opè*Ø\0\0\0opé*Ø\0\0\0opê*Ø\0\0\0opë*Ø\0\0\0opì*Ø\0\0\0opí*Ø\0\0\0opî*Ø\0\0\0opï*Ø\0\0\0opð*Ø\0\0\0opñ*Ø\0\0\0opò*Ø\0\0\0opó*Ø\0\0\0opô*Ø\0\0\0opõ*Ø\0\0\0opö*Ø\0\0\0op÷*Ø\0\0\0opø*Ø\0\0\0opù*Ø\0\0\0opú*Ø\0\0\0opû*Ø\0\0\0opü*Ø\0\0\0opý*Ø\0\0\0opþ*Ø\0\0\0opÿ*Ø\0\0\0oq\0*Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oq\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0ò*Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oq	*Ø\0\0\0oq
*Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oq *Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oq*Ø\0\0\0oqu*Ø\0\0\0oqv*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq*Ù\0\0\0oq *Ù\0\0\0oq!*Ù\0\0\0oq"*Ù\0\0\0oq#*Ù\0\0\0oq$*Ù\0\0\0oq%*Ù\0\0\0oq&*Ù\0\0\0oq'*Ù\0\0\0oq(*Ù\0\0\0oq)*Ù\0\0\0oq**Ù\0\0\0oq+*Ù\0\0\0oq,*Ù\0\0\0oq-*Ù\0\0\0oq.*Ù\0\0\0oq/*Ù\0\0\0oq0*Ù\0\0\0oq1*Ù\0\0\0oq2*Ù\0\0\0oq3*Ù\0\0\0oq4*Ù\0\0\0oq5*Ù\0\0\0oq6*Ù\0\0\0oq7*Ù\0\0\0oq8*Ù\0\0\0oq9*Ù\0\0\0oq:*Ù\0\0\0oq;*Ù\0\0\0oq<*Ù\0\0\0oq=*Ù\0\0\0oq>*Ù\0\0\0oq?*Ù\0\0\[email protected]*Ù\0\0\0oqA*Ù\0\0\0oqB*Ù\0\0\0oqC*Ù\0\0\0oqD*Ù\0\0\0oqE*Ù\0\0\0oqF*Ù\0\0\0oqG*Ù\0\0\0oqH*Ù\0\0\0oqI*Ù\0\0\0oqJ*Ù\0\0\0oqK*Ù\0\0\0oqL*Ù\0\0\0oqM*Ù\0\0\0oqN*Ù\0\0\0oqO*Ù\0\0\0oqP*Ù\0\0\0oqQ*Ù\0\0\0oqR*Ù\0\0\0oqS*Ù\0\0\0oqT*Ù\0\0\0oqU*Ù\0\0\0oqV*Ù\0\0\0oqW*Ù\0\0\0oqX*Ù\0\0\0oqY*Ù\0\0\0oqZ*Ù\0\0\0oq[*Ù\0\0\0oq\*Ù\0\0\0oq]*Ù\0\0\0oq^*Ù\0\0\0oq_*Ù\0\0\0oq`*Ù\0\0\0oqa*Ù\0\0\0oqb*Ù\0\0\0oqc*Ù\0\0\0oqd*Ù\0\0\0oqe*Ù\0\0\0oqf*Ù\0\0\0oqg*Ù\0\0\0oqh*Ù\0\0\0oqi*Ù\0\0\0oqj*Ù\0\0\0oqk*Ù\0\0\0oql*Ù\0\0\0oqm*Ù\0\0\0oqn*Ù\0\0\0oqo*Ù\0\0\0oqp*Ù\0\0\0oqq*Ù\0\0\0oqr\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0ò*Ù\0\0\0oqt*Ú\0\0\0oqw*Ú\0\0\0oqx*Ú\0\0\0oqy*Ú\0\0\0oqz*Ú\0\0\0oq{*Ú\0\0\0oq|*Ú\0\0\0oq}*Ú\0\0\0oq~*Ú\0\0\0oq*Ú\0\0\0oq€*Ú\0\0\0oq*Ú\0\0\0oq‚*Û\0\0\0oqƒ*Û\0\0\0oq„*Û\0\0\0oq…*Û\0\0\0oq†*Û\0\0\0oq‡*Û\0\0\0oqˆ*Û\0\0\0oq‰*Û\0\0\0oqŠ*Û\0\0\0oq‹*Û\0\0\0oqŒ*Û\0\0\0oq*Û\0\0\0oqŽ*Ü\0\0\0oq*Ü\0\0\0oq*Ü\0\0\0oq‘*Ü\0\0\0oq’*Ü\0\0\0oq“*Ü\0\0\0oq”*Ü\0\0\0oq•*Ü\0\0\0oq–*Ü\0\0\0oq—*Ü\0\0\0oq˜*Ü\0\0\0oq™*Ü\0\0\0oqš*Ü\0\0\0oq›*Ü\0\0\0oqœ*Ü\0\0\0oq*Ü\0\0\0oqž*Ý\0\0\0oq§*Ý\0\0\0oq¨*Ý\0\0\0oq©*Ý\0\0\0oqª*Ý\0\0\0oq«*Ý\0\0\0oq¬*Ý\0\0\0oq­*Ý\0\0\0oq®*Þ\0\0\0oq¯*Þ\0\0\0oq°*Þ\0\0\0oq±*Þ\0\0\0oq²*Þ\0\0\0oq³*Þ\0\0\0oq´*Þ\0\0\0oqµ*Þ\0\0\0oq¶*Þ\0\0\0oq·*Þ\0\0\0oq¸*Þ\0\0\0oq¹*Þ\0\0\0oqº*Þ\0\0\0oq»*Þ\0\0\0oq¼*Þ\0\0\0oq½*Þ\0\0\0oq¾*Þ\0\0\0oq¿*Þ\0\0\0oqÀ*Þ\0\0\0oqÁ*Þ\0\0\0oqÂ*Þ\0\0\0oqÃ*Þ\0\0\0oqÄ*Þ\0\0\0oqÅ*Þ\0\0\0oqÆ*Þ\0\0\0oqÇ*Þ\0\0\0oqÈ*Þ\0\0\0oqÉ*Þ\0\0\0oqÊ*Þ\0\0\0oqË*Þ\0\0\0oqÌ*Þ\0\0\0oqÍ*Þ\0\0\0oqÎ*Þ\0\0\0oqÏ*Þ\0\0\0oqÐ*Þ\0\0\0oqÑ*Þ\0\0\0oqÒ*Þ\0\0\0oqÓ*Þ\0\0\0oqÔ*Þ\0\0\0oqÕ*Þ\0\0\0oqÖ*Þ\0\0\0oq×*Þ\0\0\0oqØ*Þ\0\0\0oqÙ*Þ\0\0\0oqÚ*Þ\0\0\0oqÛ*Þ\0\0\0oqÜ*Þ\0\0\0oqÝ*Þ\0\0\0oqÞ*Þ\0\0\0oqß*Þ\0\0\0oqà*Þ\0\0\0oqá*Þ\0\0\0oqâ*Þ\0\0\0oqã*Þ\0\0\0oqä*Þ\0\0\0oqå*Þ\0\0\0oqæ*Þ\0\0\0oqç*Þ\0\0\0oqè*Þ\0\0\0oqé*Þ\0\0\0oqê*Þ\0\0\0oqë*Þ\0\0\0oqì*Þ\0\0\0oqí\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0ò*Þ\0\0\0oqï*Þ\0\0\0oqð*Þ\0\0\0oqñ*Þ\0\0\0oqò*Þ\0\0\0oqó*Þ\0\0\0oqô*Þ\0\0\0oqõ*Þ\0\0\0oqö*Þ\0\0\0oq÷*Þ\0\0\0oqø*Þ\0\0\0oqù*Þ\0\0\0oqú*Þ\0\0\0oqû*Þ\0\0\0oqü*Þ\0\0\0oqý*Þ\0\0\0oqþ*Þ\0\0\0oqÿ*Þ\0\0\0or\0*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or	*Þ\0\0\0or
*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or *Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or*Þ\0\0\0or *Þ\0\0\0or!*Þ\0\0\0or"*Þ\0\0\0or#*Þ\0\0\0or$*Þ\0\0\0or%*Þ\0\0\0or&*Þ\0\0\0or'*Þ\0\0\0or(*Þ\0\0\0or)*Þ\0\0\0or**Þ\0\0\0or+*Þ\0\0\0or,*Þ\0\0\0or-*Þ\0\0\0or.*Þ\0\0\0or/*Þ\0\0\0or0*Þ\0\0\0or1*Þ\0\0\0or2*Þ\0\0\0or3*Þ\0\0\0or4*Þ\0\0\0or5*Þ\0\0\0or6*Þ\0\0\0or7*Þ\0\0\0or8*Þ\0\0\0or9*Þ\0\0\0or:*Þ\0\0\0or;*Þ\0\0\0or<*Þ\0\0\0or=*Þ\0\0\0or>*Þ\0\0\0or?*Þ\0\0\[email protected]*Þ\0\0\0orA*Þ\0\0\0orB*Þ\0\0\0orC*Þ\0\0\0orD*Þ\0\0\0orE*Þ\0\0\0orF*Þ\0\0\0orG*Þ\0\0\0orH*Þ\0\0\0orI*Þ\0\0\0orJ*Þ\0\0\0orK*Þ\0\0\0orL*Þ\0\0\0orM*Þ\0\0\0orN*Þ\0\0\0orO*Þ\0\0\0orP*Þ\0\0\0orQ*Þ\0\0\0orR*Þ\0\0\0orS*Þ\0\0\0orT*Þ\0\0\0orU*Þ\0\0\0orV*Þ\0\0\0orW*Þ\0\0\0orX*Þ\0\0\0orY*Þ\0\0\0orZ*Þ\0\0\0or[*Þ\0\0\0or\*Þ\0\0\0or]*Þ\0\0\0or^\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0ussion at hand and your irritating its-not-good-enough post about the flaws of the experiment? What standard besides scientific is there for experiment? Look at the usage of your words in your first post.

Right now, you're trying to say one thing, and then jumping to the other to protect your usage of the word. Glorified guess is what it is, because you want to fall into 4, 5, and 6, rather than into a more proper scientific 1 backed by fact and evident data. Your first post had one context which is what you turned the topic into, scientific, as far as you were concerned, and only now that it becomes an issue it isn't so scientific anymore because you want to "theorize" a personal conclusion.



aeneas @ February 13th 2008 said:


> Lighten up, Grandson. Open-up your mind. You won't get far by trying to impose selective definitions while denying other definitions of equal importance. Speaking in the name of 'science', that doesn't mean that you are right, or that you hold the monopoly of truth. A bit of flexibility would suit you better. Also, get down from your imaginary tribune, for you are walking on quick sands when you insist to argue on semantics, especially the way you do it - from a position of 'taken for granted' superiority.
> 
> BTW, what makes you think that you are in the position to weight which definitions are better than the others? I repeat - WHAT exactly is the thing that makes you think that?



Gangsta-Whiz, my mind is open to many things, however, you brought it on yourself to try to make a spectacle of something that wasn't in the first place. The context you established in your first post was scientific. Hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, and fact. Obviously, it didn't fulfill any of them for you. The position I am in to weight which definitions are suited to the topic is voluntary reader and context observer. 

In this case, you used it out of context, in which you were incorrect. You set up the context yourself, no fault of mine. :? 

Good enough for you?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 13, 2008)

Well, it seems I wasn't fast enough in editing out my previous post... 

I may appear "incorrect" to your eyes, but does that really mean anything? Do you think you have proved anything? I don't think so - and what I think does matter just as much as what you think. There is no competition going on here. It's just that you think your view is better than mine, and I think mine is better than yours. So what?  

Also, my theory, pardon, guess,  really does not deserve so much fuss, for it was very simple and straightforward: "Scientific experiments don't say anything about music. Also, when approaching music scientifically, it's so easy to fall in pseudo-scientific." I may call it a 'theory', you may call it a 'guess', but it really is more of an 'observation'. For example, I can't recall any valuable comment about music coming out of a scientific experiment. Instead, I have seen academic papers full of fallacious, pseudo-scientific approaches on music, resulted from flawed experiments. Also, the internet (wiki included) is full of pseudo-scientific takes on this slippery topic called music. I really don't need to prove the obvious. 

To me, the experiment posted here is a living example of my observation: "Scientific experiments don't say anything about music, and, when approaching music scientifically, it's so easy to fall in pseudo-scientific." I think I don't need to enter into details to explain why my observation is appropriate when applied to that experiment. Actually I have given detailed explanations for that.

Anyways... Our semantics debate is getting really very old, and obnoxiously OT, so I'd suggest - forget that observation of mine and let's just focus on that experiment. Was it scientific, in your opinion? How? Did it prove anything to you? What?

P.S. - Careful with the 'dawg' and 'homey' vocabulary, though - it really does speak about you and only about you. There's no gain in using it, really...


----------



## almacg (Feb 25, 2008)

Lunatique @ Wed 13 Feb said:


> almacg @ Tue Feb 12 said:
> 
> 
> > If you took a genius who had never heard classical music would they necassarily be able to immediately appreciate it? Similarly if you took a complete idiot, and forced them to listen to nothing but classical music, would they never develop an affinity for it!?
> ...



Intelligence and an ability to appreciate literature may be inexorably linked, but is intelligence related to musical creativity? I think it is, but only to an extent. If you read a challenging book you may be increasing your intelligence, but will this have an effect on your musical ability? In other words, if you read a book will you become more musical? And similary, if you listen to a symphony will you become better at understanding literature?
I think musical ability stems from genetics; no matter how intelligent a person is, it does not nessarily mean that they will be able to write music. If intelligence and musical ability were directly linked, then surely all the world's geniuses would speak of their ability to write orchestral music in their heads?
However like I said, I think that musical ability and intelligence are related somewhat. I have yet to hear of a stupid composer, and I have also yet to meet a stupid person who listens to classical music. However when I meet people who do listen to classical music, should I naturally assume they are intelligent?

I think I may have gotten way off topic, plus its very late over here. I should probably be spending my time on trying to get a good nights sleep.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Feb 26, 2008)

I was chatting to Richard Altenbach, he's played as first chair for Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer and many others.

When he discovered I was from Australia, he mentioned an Aussie friend who used to be an LA session musician at the same time as Richard.

He said this guy has moved back to Australia and busks on the streets :shock: 

I wonder if anyone notices his talent. I doubt it.


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 26, 2008)

I have been busking on the street several times during my study.

One episode was when I wanted to go to holidays with a buddy of mine for two weeks but damaged his car instead. So I needed 500 EUR. Played on the street for a couple of days and we changed our plans for a tent holiday.  

The other episode was that I was stuck in Vienna without money after a music workshop in greece. Played there on the street until the train ticked home was paid.

I think I learned a lot from busking. The lesson that it gave me was that _people listen,_ even if you would not think. When I had done my scales at home before playing on the street the hourly rate was double the high than when I skipped that. Muso's often think that their ears are so much better than those of laymen but I tell you, laymen have an instant realisation about quality. They can not define what is off if it is off, but they realize.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 26, 2008)

Scott Cairns @ Tue 26 Feb said:


> I was chatting to Richard Altenbach, he's played as first chair for Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer and many others.
> 
> When he discovered I was from Australia, he mentioned an Aussie friend who used to be an LA session musician at the same time as Richard.
> 
> ...


Then the problem is not his talent (or lack of), but the 'streets'. Streets are not the place one would expect to find talent. Most people who walk the streets are musically ignorant. However, if same people go to a concert, they assume that the players are talented - so people do open their ears, they do listen. When they hear a musician playing on the streets, or at the metro, what would they think of those bums? That they are 'talented' bums? If they were talented, would they have played on the streets, in the first place? 

If this Joshua experiment proves anything, it proves that people at the metro don't have time to listen to music. New news, huh?

A similar experiment - put Rembrandt's "Night Watch" up on the wall of a highway tunnel. How will the drivers react to it? What would their reaction say about that particular painting, and about that particular painter? What would that experiment prove about drivers, and about art? What would that experiment prove about ANYTHING?

Bottom line: 
It is one thing to hear, and another thing to listen. 
It is one thing to see, and another thing to watch.

Art requires a special kind of attention. Art requires an appropriate context. Don't hang Mona Lisa in a public toilet and don't play Bach's Cello Suites there. That would be degrading. Those scientists have some nerve to touch art and try to 'prove' things and all... :roll: Stupid pigs.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Feb 26, 2008)

I have seen a very similar situation play out. I think it reinforces some of the ideas presented here...that people perceive mainly what they think they're perceiving.

I was riding the train late to my hotel in midtown. A guy got on the train with an alto sax. He was disheveled.

He launched into a spiel, saying he was an alien life form, and the sounds he releases are deadly to humans, and the only antidote was to give him some money.

Then he started playing.

The woman next to me was disgusted with the entire thing, thought he was playing crap. He was indeed playing a wild flurry of notes and sounds. But...

He was actually playing Giant Steps, and he was tearing it up...as in world class, ridiculously laugh out loud good playing. He kept it up about five minutes, never got off the changes for even an instant. And if you're a jazz player, you know that Giant Steps will wear your ass out just keeping your fingers connected to your hands.

I shelled out some cash, and got bitched at by several people riding the train, essentially all the same theme--don't encourage him, he's just crazy. They had no idea that his command of the instrument was post-mastery, or that he'd just flown through one of the harder tunes to play well in the entire jazz repertiore, at breakneck speed. All they saw was a crazy guy with a saxophone.

It's interesting, the little artistic jag that discussion has taken on the site of late. I'm not sure why people are surprised that most of society doesn't care about art, or pay that much attention to it. This has always been true.

@Aeneas....it's interesting that you'd use The Night Watch as an example. It makes me guess you've seen it where it's normally hung. I agree that people who didn't know what it was would probably just walk right past it. But hung up there in the Rijksmuseum, it's almost shocking. You get past the walls and walls of "corporate portraits," with the stiff composition and rows of oddly realistic heads, then suddenly you come to a painting that looks like it sprung from the future, full of motion, ghost imagery, expression, context...

Few people besides artists, and artist-groupies, really give a shit about art. This is one of the first lessons an artist must learn, because it's the barrier an artist has to breach in order to find success. At least success as it is defined in a manner of something a person can enjoy while living. There's a very compelling argument that the audience should not matter, that indeed, you've stopped making art if you let that consideration affect your choices.

But I think you have to temper that ideal, or you get no audience. Or worse, you delude yourself into thinking you've created art, when in fact, you've just blown your load in your hand...

B.


----------



## Moonchilde (Feb 26, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ February 26th 2008 said:


> Or worse, you delude yourself into thinking you've created art, when in fact, you've just blown your load in your hand...



Sad thing is, if you were to take a photo of that, make it noir, and then give it a title, people would ooh and aah over it claiming how artistic it is. When, in fact, its just spunk in a hand.


----------



## Pando (Feb 26, 2008)

It reminds me of this test:

http://www.your3dsource.com/guess-the-artist.html


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 26, 2008)

That link made my day and sent me to Tower to find a Bell performance of the Bach Chaconne.

It's impossible for me to ignore music good or bad so I can't imagine I wouldn't have noticed at least the guys chops but I really couldn't say if I would have had full appreciation. I always do listen to street players (if just in passing) since they usually prove to be interesting and sometimes excellent musicians.

Bruce, great story!


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 26, 2008)

Hehe, so much theory for just a little experiment which always goes wrong if you do something which doesn't fit in the right place 

Take talent x and play/perform it in place y which is not related to the talent, ... and you will always have people ignoring it or even bashing ...

Somehow I think it is relate to the words: Cloth make people ... but in another way.


I remember a litte story here too:
When I was a bit younger I was a voluntary fireman in our hometown (basically like 80% of the all the young guys) ... but one day or better, one early morning I went home very very drunk from a fire departments party, but was wearing my uniform.

People were very friendly, saying hi and smiling, no matter how curvy I was walking.

Then a few years later I was just a rocker with leather pants, long hair and the obligatory rock jacket with badgets and stuff.
Another party, another early morning, the same level of alcohol ... and people just ignored me 


If someone is at the wrong place at the wrong time with a certain talent/behaviour, people always ignore you, 


..... but coming back to topic. In this specific example of the thread starter it always looks like people would ignore wonderful talents.


----------



## midphase (Feb 26, 2008)

One of the things that I'm surprised nobody is bringing up (I'm equally surprised that this thread is still going given how old it is) is the context in which art is presented that has nothing to do with how good the art is and has everything to do with people's time.

Everyone on this thread is going on and on about how great artists are not appreciated by the masses unless there's pomp and circumstance around their performance....and I don't think this is the case here.

Allow me to explain....I'm sitting at home, just put on my pajamas, and am getting ready to snuggle up on the couch to watch my favorite show....all of a sudden Joshua Bell shows up and starts playing violin in the middle of my living room....I don't care who the fuck he is....I'm telling him to get the hell out of my house because he's not there at neither the appropriate time nor place and my mind is focused on other things. To use Bruce's example...I'm riding home on the subway from a long and crazy day at work and my only sanity is the ability to listen to my favorite music on my iPod, and all of a sudden this guy shows up and starts tearing up Giant Steps....guess what? I'd find that annoying....even though I would pay good money to see him at a time and a place where I would appreciate his talent.

Here's another one....there's not one movie that I'm more excited to see than Indy 4....so let's say I'm walking to a meeting, and all of a sudden I notice that they're projecting Indy 4 on the side of a building. Do I stop? Nope....I've got to get to my meeting, I prefer to not piss off the people who are expecting me to watch (or listen) something in less than ideal circumstances at a less than ideal time.

I think all that the experiment proves IMHO is that people have priorities. Contrary to what some around here want to believe....listening to great music by a great performer does not supersede priorities such as retaining one's job, picking up the kids from school, or just plainly want to mind my own fucking business because that's what I'm currently focused on.

I think Joshua Bell was there at the wrong place and at the wrong time, and there's a lot to be said about that. The one lesson to be taken out of this experiment is that being at the right place at the right time can make or break a deal for anyone....even Joshua Bell!


----------



## Scott Cairns (Feb 26, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> I'm not sure why people are surprised that most of society doesn't care about art, or pay that much attention to it. This has always been true.



Agreed. Here in Australia, we had a female conductor appointed to lead a European orchestra, she was the first female EVER to do so and this didnt crack local news. 

Of course, if one of our footballers, gets drunk, breaks up with his wife or quits his team to play another - its all over the news.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 26, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Tue 26 Feb said:


> @Aeneas....it's interesting that you'd use The Night Watch as an example. It makes me guess you've seen it where it's normally hung. I agree that people who didn't know what it was would probably just walk right past it. But hung up there in the Rijksmuseum, it's almost shocking. You get past the walls and walls of "corporate portraits," with the stiff composition and rows of oddly realistic heads, then suddenly you come to a painting that looks like it sprung from the future, full of motion, ghost imagery, expression, context...


No, unfortunately I didn't see it in the right context, but I find it a striking and magnificent painting nevertheless -







Now, the last word in the quote above says everything on the matter, at least to me - so let me write it again, in bold capitals this time: 

*CONTEXT*

8)


----------



## John DeBorde (Feb 26, 2008)

hehe, too lazy to read the whole thread, but this makes me feel less bad about everyone ignoring me when I used to play down town. Actually, it didn't make me feel that bad, but i made some interesting observations like "hmm, I can play the same 4 bars over and over, and since everyone keeps walking by, nobody will notice." and that the people who did give me money looked like the ones with the least amount to give. Those suits just swished on by... o/~


----------



## hv (Feb 27, 2008)

I think the problem was primarily the venue and not the genre. If you stood someone like James Taylor or Neil Young out there in the same spot, same time of day, just playing his guitar, you might get slightly better results from those few folks not late for work. If anyone recognized them.

My wife did something similar once, accepting a gig as a goof to play Scott Joplin during a lunch-hour in a McDonalds in NYC. But that's a step up from a subway station during the morning rush. First of all the audience will be there a while, perhaps as long as 45 minutes. Granted it was Classic Ragtime and not classical violin; when she played The Entertainer someone yelled out, "Una melodía animada, The Sting!" But even so, she was playing a grand piano atop the revolving entrance door (don't know if it's still there: Maiden Land & Broadway in NYC). So she pulled in a mere $12 in tips. Only the determined few wadded up bills and threw them up at her. But she did find a way to draw a crowd. Her ploy was to play to the cashiers and get them to stand there with their mouths hanging open while the lines backed up. Now if Joshua could have caught the ear of just one train engineer... 

Howard


----------

