Mountain-molehill much?

Isn't context a much more convincing reason for difference in (non-)audience interest? I know that, when I'm walking through L'Enfant, I'm not looking for a concert. Similarly, when I'm at a concert, I'm not looking to get out as soon as possible. It has nothing to do with implicit valuation of "worth-listening-to" and everything to do with my current objective. Thus, context.

In the context of a concert people will have gone to it BECAUSE they enjoy the type of music Bell plays even if they are not personal fans of Bell himself. The type of music Bell plays here is hardly the most popular kind of music at the moment, it's not even the sort of "light" classical stuff we are used to hearing as incidental music (for instance in adverts, or as hold music).

I wouldn't be especially surprised if most of the people walking past are simply uninterested in this kind of music. I know that I only stop-and-listen-and-give-money to buskers playing music I actively enjoy rather than selecting those demonstrating skill in arts that I'm not a fan of.

I was a classmate of Josh Bell's when I was a traditional undergraduate and he was a child prodigy. One thing you can't see in the video is the extent to which he was groomed and socialized as the Next Big Concert Violinist from a very early age. (Which is not to denigrate his considerable talent, but it was still strange to see grownups swoon over a 13-year-old kid.)

I suspect that there are other concert violinists who followed a different career trajectory than Josh who might've handled this situation differently.

I have to agree with Jake - most people on their way through the metro are focused on getting somewhere - to work, to dinner, to get errands done. I know that I often do enjoy the music I hear in the subway, but it isn't why I'm there, and I often don't have the time to stop and listen. Most music is valued not for the 10-15 seconds worth you hear as you rush past in the subway, but rather for the whole of the piece. In this case, the music is merely a background to the actual event they are participating in rather than being the event itself.

What I really wonder is what other musicians were there, and which ones made more money than him that day?

In a big concert hall he wouldn't be loudly tuning between every song.

You make it sound like you don't think people actually appreciate what they're listening to at the big concerts. I think they appreciate the music for what it is, even though they needed to be validated by the gate keepers. Because when they pay high prices at a great venue they know they should tune in and attempt to notice whats good about it. So they aren't just blindly obeying the gatekeepers. If people go to a show that's been validated by the music elites, and they can't figure out what is good about the music, then are they still going to pretend it was good?

"no one cares"? Hey that's not true. I am Deaf... and I cannot judge music and decide if music is good or bad. but I still respect musicians because I am a playwright and artist-- I respect other artists of different fields. I always drop coins in a musician's hat or guitar case when I walk through the London Underground. I also do the same when I see street mimes.

I like Kelly's comment. There is something nice and magical about seeing a musician playing music when you're rushing through the tunnel to catch a train. Even if it's just "background" noise.

@Richard and Ollie:
DC buskers aren't as prevalent as, say, NYC buskers. Because of perceived fire hazards in those narrow corridors, they need to get permission to set up (and some have elaborate set-ups), and then there's never more than one per station at a time. If there's even more than one per day in a station, that's unusual.

I also agree with Jake and Kelly. There are actually a number of very talented musicians who play in various parts of the DC metro system. I don't get to stop and listen to them much, sadly, because

a.) I'm usually going to work or meeting with someone if I'm on the metro, and don't have the time to stop.
and
b.) Stations like L'Enfant are extremely busy and overcrowded for most of the day, and stopping for any reason makes you a foot-traffic hazard.
and
c.) Young women stopping to stand around in the metro seems to invite all sorts of unwanted attention and street harassment, both from people walking by and even from the musicians themselves.

I've learned it's safer and easier to just enjoy the sound for however long it takes me to walk past it and out of earshot.

There are different levels to listening to music. For most listeners (ie. those who do not have a functional understanding of the musical creation process and music theory), music is much more environmental, contextual: "I like this song because it was playing during my first kiss" or "Man, my friends and I used to party hard to this album".

I find that when people then hear one of these songs later in life, it triggers a nostalgic moment of sorts, a moment where they can vicariously return to a pleasant time via the song. I've seen this evident in some of my friends who are former addicts and will listen to the same music over and over and over. Listening to that Zeppelin song is a way for them to get high. At this point, the actual song is irrelevant, it's the feelings, emotions and events attached to the music that's important.

And none of this is bad, per se. I mean, everyone can benefit from a better musical education but it's part of what makes music one of if not the most important human inventions.

Oh, this video.

I'm with Jake here - the context is of utmost importance. I would imagine many don't have time to stop and listen if they're trying to catch a train or something, regardless of their talent.

Besides, maybe some people just aren't interested in violin music. Why is that such a problem?

Another question is how do we appreciate complicated music? What mental state is needed to hear it or to recognize it?

For me, musical context is an important part of hearing complex music--the more I know about what the music is doing, the more I know about what the genre is trying to achieve, the more I know about the role of the individual performer, then the more I can hear and enjoy. This is why I get more out of weird squeaky experimental jazz--about which I know a lot, and which I've heard a lot of--than I do out of, say, 18th century chamber music, even though both are complex. I don't think this is a weird thing, given that there are classical music appreciation classes and programs. And I might walk past a fancy performer in the subway if they were playing a genre that I wasn't educated enough to "hear".

It seems a bit like poetry--there is accessible poetry that's really good, and there's difficult poetry that's really good, but poetry novices or people who only sorta-kinda like poetry are more likely to enjoy the accessible stuff.

This study often seems to be characterized as about the "failure" of ordinary people--if ordinary people weren't such schlubs, they'd recognize the great art in front of them! If only they weren't so status-mad, they'd recognize the genius at their doorstep! But isn't there a strong status-presumption already attached to violin music and to classical music? It's always-already "for them"--rich people, educated people, leisured people. Maybe even white people, I don't know... If something is bracketed as "not for me" in your head, you probably aren't going to stop in your busy day and listen to it. This isn't a problem of common people; this is a problem of class and access.

I mean, it would certainly be possible to design a study--maybe play two recordings of a piece, one played by an amateur and one by a certified genius--and see which gets ranked higher by hearers. George Orwell wrote an essay about a study like this done with poetry, in which the results were all over the place, and the most popular stuff was sentimental religious doggerel with easy rhymes rather than art poetry.

But even if people really are walking past the genius because they're too dumb to stop, that's still an access and education problem, not a personal problem. The richer you are, the more likely you are to have the time and opportunity to learn to enjoy a wide range of arts and activities. This isn't because you're better, it's because you're well-situated within capitalism.

It would be interesting to try the experiment three times: once with Bell playing anonymously, once with him playing with a big sign explaining who he is, and once with a typical Metro violinist. That would make it easier to untangle the effects of talent and gatekeeping.

I think it's worth noting that there aren't a whole lot of trained musicians working the streets in DC -- most (though certainly not all) musical performers on the street here are Peruvian flute bands, teenagers using upturned containers to pound out go-go rhythms, or panhandlers with drinking problems attempting to play beaten-up brass instruments.

I think this leads many commuters in the area assume all street musicians fall in the last category -- and until a few years ago, Metro did as well; performers were chased away, regardless of the quality of their playing. It's not like Boston, where there are a ton of good music schools and talented performers can be found on streetcorners and subway platforms.

I have to say, as someone who lives in an urban area, studies like this rub me the wrong way. People standing in a public place deserve one thing--safety, which should be provided by the police and, when possible, by other people in public (and vice versa). That's it. Singing on a street corner doesn't mean you deserve attention. Catcalls don't mean you deserve attention. Asking for people to donate to charity doesn't mean you deserve attention. When you live in a city, you get used to ignoring everything around you because of how common harassment is. The most beautiful child in the world could be giving out free medicine and most people would still bustle by. People often wear headphones with or without music in them specifically to send the message, "If you choose to talk to me, I choose not to listen, so please don't try."

If someone is attacked in a crowded sidewalk and no one does anything, THAT may say something about our culture. But please don't extrapolate that urban people not validating some musician's talent while they're rushing to work as meaning anything about our culture as a whole. They weren't there to listen to him, so it didn't matter how talented he was. And it's irksome that someone would expect a certain degree of attention from strangers simply because they happen to be using the subway when he's there.

I remember when Penn and Teller covertly served restaurant patrons shitty, microwave, rest-stop food while dressing it up as the finest in modern cuisine. Nobody caught on.

I think it all has to do with obedience to authority. If someone who identifies as a "music connoisseur" or a "wine critic" tells us that this particular musician or wine is the creme de la creme, we are more likely to adjust our own beliefs and preferences (sometimes unconsciously) to reflect their social superiority to us.

I'm not saying fans of Joshua Bell are inherently lying to themselves, but I think the gradation of quality (from the worst to the finest) is a much more compressed gradient than we, as a society, believe it to be. A $100 bottle of wine is likely to be better than a $10 bottle of wine, but everything between a $100 and a $1,000 bottle is really down to personal taste. There should be no absolutes when it comes to (educated) taste. Joshua Bell may be an amazing talent, but if I prefer Apocalyptica that doesn't make me, or my taste, inherently inferior.

I think that this statement is a little naive: "Concert-goers do not necessarily know whether or why Bell is any good. They rely on the arbiters to determine who is worth listening to."

It is pretty obvious when you see someone like Bell play that he is an incredible performer. A concert-goer knows Bell is good because they know how a given piece has been written and how it sounds, and because they have experience with a variety of performances, good and bad. Is he the best? That depends on your taste. But there is no question that, in the scheme of things, his talent is rare. If people don't notice that, then I would say it points more to a lack of experience in listening to that kind of music, not to some conspiracy by elitist arbiters of taste.

“Concert-goers do not necessarily know whether or why Bell is any good. They rely on the arbiters to determine who is worth listening to. And listening to who it is that is worth listening to provides them with expensive, and therefore scarce, cultural cred. They have seen Bell in concert (“oh and it was glorious!”); have you?”

A bit extreme and simplistic, eh?

Yes, perhaps some concert-goers might not know the intricate details necessary to explain how or why Bell is “good”. Yes, perhaps some concert-goers might rely on arbiters to provide “scarce cultural cred”. But do all concert-goers fall into your categorization? Do they all lack any music knowledge? I highly doubt it.

Furthermore, these statements suggest to me that we are all just automatons subject to the opinions, tastes and whims of cultural “experts” and marketing specialists. Really? I think this blog generally suggests otherwise, so why such blanket statements?

I'm one of those people who stops and listens, and at the bare minimum gives a dollar, to any performers who are incredibly good. Then again, I live in the San Francisco Bay area, and you usually see only one per station (which makes me think they regulate it). There was a three-piece bluegrass ensemble at the Montgomery stop that I would always stop and clap for.
I think it helps a lot that I usually arrive to work a good 15-20 minutes early, and have the time for such dabbling. So I'm not the standard subway rider in that sense.

I've seen similar experiments done in DC, I'd like to see them done elsewhere. It seems like the DC commuters are especially focused on getting where they go. I know in Chicago there is a guy who plays drums on the river to the Metra station, and I bet he makes a killing. (He also plays really up beat stuff that can really make every body's day on a snowy Chicago evening.)

I also disagree that the average listener can't hear what makes Bell a good violinist. Perhaps it is only that the average listener hasn't heard a bad violinist because all the music they hear is recorded. But his skill is obvious to me, and I am by no means a connoisseur of concert violinists.

I'd just like to point out that this was done over three years ago, and I have seen it posted in lots of places, like the Washington Post, when it first came out. It was filmed on a Friday at 7:51 a.m. and he played for 43 minutes. My reaction to this is always the same - I can just see myself telling my boss "hey, sorry I'm late, but I had to stop to listen to this fantastic violinist in the subway." Bye-bye job, eh? How many people do you know who have the option to stop and listen to music on the way to work? Most people don't even stop to eat breakfast. I have always thought this was a ridiculous way to judge the average person's appreciation for music. As somebody above said, try it in Central Park on a warm Saturday afternoon and I bet you will see a huge difference.

I first heard this story years ago, and it still makes me very annoyed. Not because of what happens. But because of the implications most people recounting it give; the implication is more often than not that either people in general are classless idiots, or worse, that poor people who take public transportation are classless idiots. The fact of the matter is, no one doubts that Bell is a talented violinist. Anyone who sees him in concert knows this, and even if you just pass him in the subway, you would probably notice that 'yes, this guy can competently play his instrument,' even if you don't know who he is or anything about what makes a good violinist. The difference is ONLY the venue. People clap and cheer at a concert because they are at a concert and that's what their presence is for. But people don't hang around the subway for shits and giggles. The subway serves a specific purpose: a mode of transportation. Sorry, I don't care if it IS Joshua Bell in the subway, if I have to go to work or school or to meet a friend, I'm not holding up my day to grovel at his feet. People can't just be late for where they're going, no matter how many trite phrases we hear about 'stopping to appreciate life.' High schoolers won't appreciate life sitting in detention for being late. Workers won't appreciate life when they're fired for being late. Day-trippers won't appreciate life when their friend is pissed off because they were rude enough to leave them waiting. I've seen some damn talented singers, rappers, drummers, and guitarists on the CTA. And yet, I can't stop my life just because a talented person crosses my path. They want my money and applause? There is a place and time they can and will get it, but when I'm running to catch a train is not it.

Hmm. I've stopped to listen to street musicians and given them money before. But when I do, it's because I enjoy their playing and can recognize it as good.

The stuff he's playing? I've never heard it before. If I didn't know otherwise, I'd assume he was just kinda noodling around.

Whereas the guy outside the store playing Irish dance tunes, and doing it well, is going to make me smile, and possibly give a dollar.

I wonder how people's reactions would have changed if he'd played more familiar music.

I hear a great many talented musicians in the NYC subway stations, and I generally slow down to enjoy them for as long as I can, but I don't stop, because as so many people have said, I have somewhere to be on a schedule. On my way home I'm a bit more likely to linger but even then, I'm often running for a train.

I'd also bring up the difficulty of tipping musicians (where tipping stands for a recognition of talent). I'm female; most of my business clothing has no pockets (a whole other rant). That means if I want to give a dollar to a musician in the subway, I have to stop, open my purse, get out my wallet, and pull out money -- assuming I *have* any small bills. This not only takes time, it's a security issue -- we're taught early not to show where you keep your cash in crowds.

When I see the same busker a couple times in a station, I'll often try to have something easily at-hand to drop in the hat the next time I pass through, but it's not something that's easy to do spur-of-the-moment.

I really don't think Lisa is trying to make a statement about audiences, per se, or about the value of one style of music over another, but about the interaction between audience, performer, place, expectation, and context.

Playing music in public involves both musicianship and performance. These are unrelated, independent skills, and both are dependent on social context and cultural expectations. A brilliant performer who nonetheless has not mastered the performative norms of the concert hall is just as likely to get a cold reception in that setting as the concert artist performing in a subway station.

How you perform, and the extent to which you need to put yourself across to an audience, is different if you're in a concert hall, or a night club, or a street-corner. I know this is true, because I've done all three. (And I don't care if I never see the inside of another concert hall. Uggh!)

Since he was a child, Josh has always played for audiences in formal settings in which he has been presented as something special. He's never had to compete anonymously for anyone's attention. (And just to reiterate for his fans, he is something special.) But busking is a completely different performative skill set, and the experiment says as much about Josh as it does about subway-goers.

(It would be interesting to retry the experiment with another old classmate of mine from back in the day, Edgar Meyer. Edgar's every bit the classical musician that Josh is, but he also knows what it's like to play on the streets.)

PS. IANA sociologist, but I do think that the sociology is the key to understanding how music works, much more so than music theory or neuroscience. But apart from Howard Becker, I don't know who's really following that up for general audiences. And Becker doesn't blog. :(

To be fair, the guy should have played better violin.

One thing that I'm surprised hasn't already been explicitly noted in any comments (although April, at 5:29, did address this; if I missed any others that did, my apologies for the omission), but that might be pertinent:
IIRC, Mr Bell is playing a Vivaldi concerto -- but one in which the violin "solo" seems awfully lost w/o the accompanying ensemble. That's hardly going to show his virtuosity, or even his artistry, in the most recognizable or accessible way.
A different choice of material might have made a significant difference in the responses (or lack thereof).
Then again, perhaps not -- because it is, after all, a subway station.
The conclusion claimed in the original study ("Concert-goers... rely on the arbiters to determine who is worth listening to") has been well and thoroughly debunked by many of the commenters here; I feel no need to keep beating that horse-corpse. That said, however, I do feel compelled to share my experience of one concrete counterexample to the assertions made:
When I was but a tater-tot in NYC, there was one particular violinist who would play regularly on 5th Ave in the 40s-50s (hi-rent district, Rockefeller Ctr, St Pat's, Trump, etcetc). He was apparently a Juilliard student (don't remember whether he played for survival $, tuition $, sheer joy, or what), and he played brilliantly. Very, very talented; excellent technique; whole nine... And he did very, very well in doing so. He was raking in $ at much higher rates than any other street musicians I've seen before or since -- including in the very same spots.
Clearly, there are at least some audiences that don't rely on architectural cues for their assessments of musical talent (or lack thereof) -- at least in New York City.

Let's read part of this post again, with one small change:

In a concert hall full of seats paid for with large bills, Andre Rieu’s talent is authenticated by the arbiters of taste who are the gatekeepers of the venue. Concert-goers do not necessarily know whether or why Rieu is any good. They rely on the arbiters to determine who is worth listening to. And listening to who it is that is worth listening to provides them with expensive, and therefore scarce, cultural cred. They have seen Rieu in concert (“oh and it was glorious!”); have you?

Now what do we conclude about audiences and violinists?

Really interesting conversation and nothing pertinent to add.

... but did anyone else notice the (presumably) white, balding guy in black jacket and khakis that kept coming in and out of the entrance, waiting by the wall and then apparently exchanging something (drugs?) with other commuters?
Particularly obvious at about the 1 minute mark??

This argument, which heavily implies that appreciation of high culture is entirely defined by status value, doesn't entirely follow. When I have time to see a concert, I stop and listen. When I'm hurrying on my way to a meeting, I'm hurrying.

Also, when I go to a concert, I have chosen the performer I want to see out of however many the city is offering in the year.(Sure, there's a process that preselects the players for me, but I'm not against that). Here, it might be someone amazing, but it's not the amazing person that *I* have decided to listen to.

Of course status affects our appreciation massively - I know nothing about music so I personally would probably think Bell in concert is 'great' and Bell in the metro is not interesting. But in the end I have a lot more trust in art and a lot more trust in the personal wishes and artistic needs of the listener, than this write-up really allows for.

I don't think I'm terribly atypical, but living in Chicago, I see a lot of street performers - some of them are laughable, but some of them are really good. Of course, whether I stop and listen is dependent upon if I have time to do so, but also dependent on if I have money to put in their case. If I don't have any cash, I often feel embarrassed, and will move on quickly. If I do have a couple of bucks, I feel better about stopping and listening.

I've never understood people trying to make money playing in Metro stations in the morning. That is the worst possible time. People are talking on the phone, listening to an MP3 player and/or thinking "What time is it? I hope the Red Line doesn't have some inexplicable problem today. Did I forget my lunch? Oh, someone's playing the violin, how nice. I really hope I can get to kickboxing tonight. Is there a rock in my shoe?"

There used to be a guy who sang and played guitar in front of the K Street entrance to Farragut North or at Metro Center about a year and a half ago along with a recorded accompaniment. I would stand there, listening to this guy for ten minutes at a time in the afternoons on my way home sometimes. he had this incredible voice and I always wondered "Why is this guy not famous?" Sometimes I'd just drop the money into this case while he was playing and keep going. Sometimes I'd just drop money into his case and keep going. Other times I'd wait until he fininshed a song and talk to him after I paid. Everything was going fine until he asked me out. I politely declined and he was cool about it. I can't say that it was presumptuous on his part to have asked. I was coming around talking to him at least once a week for about a month. It wasn't unreasonable for him to think I might have been interested in him.

But I've seen a few situations in which guys seem to be on the street playing music expressly because it gives them an excuse to stand there and harass women. I think some men think that women are too dumb to understand or appreciate music, so if you're a woman standing there in a way that suggests that you're interested in what's going on, it can't possibly be the music you're interested in. You must be an aspiring groupie or something.

I have to be honest the type of things implied by this piece always tend to annoy me. I think many posters have said it before that it usually in a subway or metro people are not there to admire the surroundings but instead to get to a destination. this discussion is like talking about people not seeing what is beautiful outside their car windows because they are busy driving. Ask travelers on the NY subway about the art that surrounds them in the tunnels and most will not have htought much about it. It is not because they don't know art it is because their minds are elsewhere.

Another interesting thing that seems to have been lost is the amount of crap (my subjective experience) that is considered worthy of listening to. I point to much of the autotuned singers (used loosely) on the radio. People will pay a pretty penny to see them live yet many agree their music is garbage. Perhaps the people walking buy simply thought his playing was mediocre yet I wonder if the idea that some don't "get it" that Josh Bell is playing is merely classist.

I just recollected something that seems relevant:

A friend who plays horn on the streets in DC once told me that when he's able to arrange to play with another musician (or a trio or whatever), they make WAY more than double the money.

Because a group of two or more people playing together are more likely to be identified as *musicians*, while a lone man with an instrument is more likely to be identified as a homeless person.

I would guess the same people who declare music "good" are the ones that declare a painting worth several million dollars. Why? and even it's worth something...why $14 million exactly. Who makes that decision?

Something should be good simply because it's pleasing to the eye, ear, etc. Putting a value on it (playing in a high class venue or charging a few mil for it) rather deminishes the overall affect. Are you pleased with it because it's good...or cause someone has told you it's good?

I generally find that stopping to listen to a busker by a doorway/entrance/exit of a busy public space is not a good idea and likely to cause obstruction and annoyance. Additionally, if entering through there, I'm unlikely to have heard the music -however beautiful- on my approach, then I'm in the door, and whoosh I'm through and past the busker. If I've not had time to listen and enjoy, I'm not going to pay the busker. I always regard takings as deserved earnings for improving someone's day through providing uplifting music; this is NOT begging.
To be honest, I don't know of too many buskers who would place themselves somewhere where people can't easily stop or at least slow down to enjoy, and then reward, their performance. This 'busker' so clearly wasn't! (a busker that is) - otherwise he'd have selected a better spec for his performance. I think his lack of success indicates little sociologically about music appreciation and more about his lack of busking expertise (different from being an expert musician), lack of street-wise decision making (poor choice of spot and positioning), and inability to engage the public.
My friend and I busked our way through college when in our youth; we knew how to match material to venue acoustics, as well as where to position ourselves so that we were neither imposing, nor denied people the space to stop and listen - and hopefully enjoy our music. Worked for us!

The charm and influence of music in life is no longer unfamiliar, it brings positive values. However, it is impossible to set such a context, it is impossible to judge those who have passed, everyone's lives have different concerns that make them hurry. I always want to create value for every nugoiwf, so together with my team created a free music website https://dzwonkinatelefon.pl/ so everyone can listen to it anywhere without any worries, just need a headset or someone calls

The charm and influence of music in life is no longer unfamiliar, it brings positive values. However, it is impossible to set such a context, it is impossible to judge those who have passed, everyone's lives have different concerns that make them hurry. I always want to create value for every nugoiwf, so together with my team created a free music website https://dzwonkinatelefon.pl/ so everyone can listen to it anywhere without any worries, just need a headset or someone calls

Your sharing is extremely helpful for learning more about my music

A ringtone or ring tone is the sound made by a telephone to indicate an incoming call or text message. Not literally a tone nor an actual ring anymore, the term is most often used today to refer to customizable sounds used on mobile phones.

I usually listen to music every evening. The best songs are bought by me to make phone ringtones.

That's actually upsetting because some street musicians are way more talented than many artists in the music industry. I know that many of them post their music on YouTube, and that's why I use Tubidy to listen to them on a daily basis. And I hope that over time, people will start learning more about them and actually appreciating the work that street musicians do because it's actually tiring and worth more attention