--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@...> wrote: > > I agree on a number of points here and am not sure about others. > Certainly classical violin is not for everyone. In addition, > sometimes the acoustics in certain environments become more > grating and annoying than they are pleasant. Echoey tiles in a > shower may be just the ticket to make a shower singer sound > great but those same tiles in a subway station coupled with > violin could be horrible.
Was wondering about that myself. Don't see how it could be anything but muddy, which would really ruin the precision sound of the violin. > I wonder if more people would stop for Mantovani tunes if we > are talking violins?! Eeeuuuuuww! > I also wonder what type of music would appeal to the most people, > make them pause in their hurried day? That's my other big beef with this. If you're trying to get to work on time, you're not likely to be willing to pause no matter how much the music appeals. Some of the people who didn't even so much as look at Bell might have been trying to shut him out so they wouldn't be tempted to stop. > Would it depend on > demographic or is there one universal sound that could appeal to > a majority of those passing through? I'd try something tuneful, bouncy, maybe syncopated, in a major key, on a woodwind. Or better still, two woodwinds, maybe a clarinet or oboe and a flute. Here's three possibilities I just quickly grabbed from YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRab8OwG_T4 The first of these Bach two-part inventions, by better players, and faster! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Ofa9cvwg4 Beethoven, flute duet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0OUunpDOVg Haydn flute duet I'm sure there are better ones, Mozart, perhaps. > The lack of interest may not lie in uncultured taste (because > it may come down to just this- taste and we know how relative > that is) but in the fact that solo classical violin music does > not hold some absolute value of appeal. Based on the result of > this "experiment" it obviously doesn't. True, at least to the extent that the appeal of getting to work on time trumps the appeal of the music! > I am still not sure if this little concert in a subway station > says more about music or more about humans. <grumble grumble> I think it says much more about humans, not the humans in the subway station but the humans who thought up the experiment and then wrote it up in such a snotty tone, plus the humans who read it and went Tsk, tsk, what a shame so few people can appreciate beauty these days. Sorry, but this whole thing has mightily irritated me ever since I first read about it. When Curtis first posted about it in 2007, there weren't any comments. I'm not sure I read the article then. When Barry did a post about it two years later, Curtis pointed out that the most brilliant musician playing the most beautiful music isn't likely to be successful at busking unless he or she knows how to grab people's attention and invite them to listen. So that's another piece of this. > The Flash Mob phenomena seems to engage lots more people to > the point where they participate beyond just watching. But > then there is a lot more energy in sheer numbers of > participants and use of space and audio volume. But we're > not talking classical or rarefied in the case of Flash Mobs. > But they are rather exhilarating. Does that count? Sure, I think so. Good point. A flash mob in a subway station at rush hour, however, might not be too well appreciated! People in malls or supermarkets or food courts or even big train stations, where flash mobs are typically done, aren't usually in such a hurry. Many flashmobs have done opera, or the Hallelujah Chorus. Here are two that did classical orchestral music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkuOhQrHlCE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrc2uXT9suc One more thing: Most people are familiar with *some* pieces of classical music, like the Nutcracker Suite or the Four Seasons or the William Tell Overture or Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. People are more likely to stop and listen if it's something they recognize. Put a trombone player in a subway station and have him blast out the Ride of the Valkyries, and people are going to stop and listen because they remember it from "Apocalypse Now." (Not the most authentic way to appreciate Wagner, but...) Well, I think I've got that all off my chest now, Ann, thank you! > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Barry, that's what happens when I don't see something > > > until 5 years after it occurred. > > > > On the other hand, there are folks on FFL now who weren't > > there for the previous discussion. > > > > I have a number of beefs with the whole experiment. One > > of them is the choice of instrument and music. It's almost > > as if the choices were made to ensure that as few people > > as possible would be arrested by the music as they hurried > > to work. The Bach Chaconne in particular is not a piece > > that most people would instantly recognize as "beautiful" > > unless they had had considerable exposure to classical > > music. I have had such exposure, and Bach is my favorite > > composer, but I didn't begin to appreciate the Chaconne > > until I'd heard it four or five times. > > > > Nor is solo violin the easiest to appreciate, depending > > on the piece. None of those listed in the article were all > > that likely to attract ears that weren't already familiar > > with classical music. > > > > For me, the *scandale* demonstrated by the experiment is > > that so few people get an education in or much exposure > > to classical music. > > > > Most people are not aesthetes; they don't automatically > > recognize beauty in whatever form it presents itself. > > There's a certain snobbery, it seems to me, in > > basically putting down folks who aren't instantly > > responsive to beauty in a form one is accustomed to > > experiencing and appreciating by virtue of one's own > > background. > > > > I've never gone to the trouble to expose myself to and > > learn about rap music, in which some people take great > > aesthetic satisfaction; I'd be highly unlikely to stop > > to listen to a rap group, even one featuring a major rap > > star, performing in a subway station during rush hour. > > Does that make me a grind and a dullard who lacks the > > capacity to appreciate beauty? Or 12-tone music, for > > that matter, which my sister enjoys. She'd stop to > > listen to a subway performer playing a Schoenberg piece; > > I wouldn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am thinking of Curtis also when I was reading the Washington > > > > > Post article with the link below. It is a good read. Check it > > > > > out, if you have a few minutes... > > > > > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html > > > > > > > > Ann, try not to take it personally if no one chimes in > > > > on this one. It's a fascinating story, but it is one > > > > that has come up here before, and it's been running > > > > around the Internet for almost five years now. So many > > > > may have "been there done that" with their reactions > > > > to Mr. Bell's concert and what it might mean. > > >
