The time when Joshua Bell went busking in the subway, and no-one noticed (2022)
classicfm.com
classicfm.com
First of all, it relies on the incorrect assumption that 'the same people' would pay a lot of money to see him play at a concert hall. I'm not sure this is right. About one in 1000 people did stop and recognize him, and I feel this fraction is not too different from the actual percentage of people who have heard of him and would pay to see him, so this isn't surprising. He is famous, but not that famous.
Second, there is a fundamental misunderstanding on what it means to go to a concert. The whole point of the concert is to take time specifically to listen to music in an attentive and dedicated way. It's not like an improved version of listening to music in my headphones during my commute, it's a wholly different experience with a different purpose. Moreover, it's a collective ritual. We don't go to the concert hall just because of the music and because of Joshua Bell, we also go because it's nice to treat yourself to an evening out, to dress nicely, and to enjoy the fancy atmosphere of the theatre with its, say, baroque frescoes or modern architectural design. Joshua Bell in that context is literally not the same as Joshua Bell in a subway, otherwise why would he dress nicely for the concert? And you know what, there is nothing wrong with that. Theatre and music have always been this way.
In the lousy acoustics of a subway, there's going to be no difference between Joshua Bell and any other reasonably talented busker. Bell brings a specific kind of skill, a highly refined sound and sensibility that is unique to him, but not going to be readily apparent to a casual listener.
If anything, the regular buskers might put on a better performance. That's their job. They'll select the right music for the venue and crowd. Performing is a show, not just playing the instrument, and they'll put on the show that's appropriate there and then.
It would be a bit like watching Michael Jordan shooting free-throws in the neighborhood court. I'm sure he'd do it better than the others... but not anything you'd pay attention to. Lots of people can put balls in the basket.
As a performer myself, it's always a little irritating watching people drift to the famous ones just because they're famous -- people who would otherwise attract little attention if their fame weren't called out. It's not that they're not talented; of course they are. It's just that there are many other equally talented people who never got attention. Movies feature the same A-list stars over and over, even though they could have many equally talented actors for a thousandth the price. But people wouldn't go... because they're not A-list stars.
That's no shade on Bell, though I do think that the humorist who set up the stunt missed the point. I admire Bell for going out to entertain.
I believe Penn and Teller did an experiment on bottled water to see if anyone at a fancy restaurant could taste how much better artisanal bottled water was. All the customers commented on how much more refreshing the water was when in actuality it was all hose water filled in from the back.
There was this other experiment, I can't recall from where, where they tested if audiophiles could here the difference between an MP3 and regular uncompressed sound. None of them could tell the difference even though they all claimed before hand that they could.
>Moreover, it's a collective ritual. We don't go to the concert hall just because of the music and because of Joshua Bell, we also go because it's nice to treat yourself to an evening out, to dress nicely, and to enjoy the fancy atmosphere of the theatre with its, say, baroque frescoes or modern architectural design. Joshua Bell in that context is literally not the same as Joshua Bell in a subway, otherwise why would he dress nicely for the concert? And you know what, there is nothing wrong with that. Theatre and music have always been this way.
You illustrate my point perfectly and you partially admit my point. You say: It's not JUST about the music which makes sense. But I say, it's more than that. It's actually NOT about the music AT ALL, because the music is much more clear when listened to digitally in a private space with no distractions. People can likely get that for free with a pair of good headphones. When people buy a concert ticket they pay for the "night out" not the music.
Just replace the music with some other snobbish artsy activity and they'd still go because it's never really about the activity itself. I shouldn't just focus on rich people snobbery it happens with any type of concert or music festival or whatever. It's never about the music in actuality it's only about the music in appearance. Everyone lies to themselves about why they go.
But I bet you that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between actual instrumentation and high quality speakers and subs if they were BOTH in a concert hall.
Everything has always been this way
2. After winning the Pulitzer, a librarian sent the author a page from a 1930 newspaper that featured a similar prank in Chicago
3. The violinist from that story-- Jacques Gordon-- performed the prank using the same Stradivarius violin that Joshua Bell used from 1991 to 2001. (Unfortunately, Bell's prank happened in 2007-- if it had been six years earlier we would have had both pranks on the same violin!)
4. Author wrote another story about 1-3:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/0...
**
It's obvious what needs to happen next:
5. Find out who owns that Strad now, run the same prank with the same story, write a follow up about discovering Bell and Gordon's pranks, and finally, write a follow-up to the follow-up about discovering Weingarten's follow-up.
This experiment in reverse: what happens if you take a career busker and put them on stage at the BBC Proms?
(Fire emoji)
> The Chaconne is one of the most wonderful, incomprehensible pieces of music. On a single staff, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and the most powerful feelings. If I were to imagine how I might have made, conceived the piece, I know for certain that the overwhelming excitement and awe would have driven me mad.
That's some challenge right there. "Getting" this piece is worth the effort. But I don't blame people passing by just ignoring it if they heard 10 seconds in passing.
13 years ago the Joshua Bell experiment was repeated in Romania by a local virtuoso using a Strad as well. He got more attention than Joshua. Funny thing, they interviewed people and one said - "I didn't recognise him but I knew something shady was going on". People knew great violin even if they couldn't explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLCTvA4kq5s
Another funny story, I once saw the same violinist (Alexandru Tomescu) in concert and my f&$^ng phone rang at the last seconds. And I had it closed, but it was a helpful phone and woke up. Then had the guts to go for an autograph after the concert.
I really wish silent mode means silent like a brick mode, not just filtering some noises.
Just to be clear: Epic Sax Guy (of Eurovision fame) is not Leo Pellegrino.
Epic Sax Guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Stepanov_(musician)
Guy in the video: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Pellegrino
Leo seems to prefer a bari sax, whereas Epic Sax Guy prefers a regular one (I don't know if there's a proper term - the one between bari and alto)
Subcultures become so niche and cliquey that content hardly matters compared to branding.
The thing that really drives me nuts about the whole thing is that people not only embrace it, but seek it out.
Of course they're not supposed to recognize him! They're supposed to recognize the much-higher-quality of his musical performance, even in a subway station, since a supposed master of the art is playing this time rather than mere buskers! That's what the naive, mainstream view would hold.
But -- oops -- in a surprise to absolutely no one who's heard of The Emperor's New Clothes, and to everyone who completely missed the point of that fable... they didn't, except a few who were working off other cues.
Imagine your comment in another context: "the problem is that most people don't have experience in evaluating fashions in clothing, and they wouldn't recognize when their emperor is wearing unusually good raiments". Uh, no. There's a simpler explanation. You just need to give up a cherished worldview to see it.
Yes, humans get duped by social proof. It's just not usually this obvious.
For one thing, if he was busking in NYC he would earn an order of magnitude more money. Because NYC has more people who are attuned to music and use the subway.
For another, you’re failing about a performance in a subway. The acoustics aren’t great at all.
Finally, a classical performance isn’t ideal to attract subway listeners. You have a couple of seconds to draw their attention because most of them are on their way to catch a train, catch a connection, or reach their destination. So all this says is that the best musicians cannot draw the attention of people by a few seconds of performance.
He's easily one of the top three violinists the US has ever produced, top two if you exclude Perlman (who immigrated as a teen). Anyone who actually listens to classical music probably has at least a CD or two of his.
I imagine many more who walked past would fancy themselves as concert-goers, but wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between him and a talented conservatoire student.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/pearls-bef...
Anyway, my personal reaction to a good busker is "well, they're still making noise in public, but at least they don't suck".
However, my exposure to classical music is so little that I have no way of telling if someone is just good or truly spectacular.
Reckon the same applies to the average person - most have very little exposure to classical music and can’t tell how good a violinist really is.
Would be interesting to see this experiment repeated with a more popular instrument and genre - say, an electric guitar and rock.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/video/2013/oct/14/b...
[1] https://away.mta.info/articles/music-under-new-york-nyc-subw...
I think the permit system helps cut down on “nuisance” musicians that are offensive or just plain bad.
It also saves on busking drama about turf wars on prime locations.
https://www.ttc.ca/doing-business-with-the-ttc/Subway-Musici...
There are some fantastic musicians who are busking, especially string instruments - classical guitar, violin, and for many years there was an elderly Chinese guy playing the erhu at the Park Street station or above ground at Harvard Square.
I'm sure almost everyone was going to work. It's not like they'd have time to stop and listen to a random guy playing a violin.
It might have been slightly different on a Friday evening.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/pearls-bef...
These experiments sum up how being talented - or having a good product - doesn't guarantee you'll get noticed or achieve financial success. If Jeff Bezos were born today - long after the dot-com boom - and to a less affluent family, would he still be as financially successful? I think luck plays a bigger role than most are willing to admit.
Which is a really good amount, isn't it?
but then writing is something that’s much more discernible to the common eye. a good author is good, a fantastic (pop) author is addictive. unless you have a very attuned ear, the same is not true for violinists
It seems to me these people seriously overestimate the impact of classical music and musicians on the music scene today and the wider public in general.
But I think that's beside the point, because I don't think the premise is that people "should" have recognized Bell as a celebrity. The naive hope is rather that people can recognize great art when they encounter it.
The reaction after (presumably) hearing some of the video . . . shows that they're not going to.
Regardless of celebrity, a classically-trained violinist and a busker are two very different things. (Buskers have more charisma!)
How about they heard of the composers that he played the music of (Bach, Massenet, Schubert and Ponce), but not of the guy that played?
When I go and buy a Big Mac, I care that it's a Big Mac, not whether the cook that re-heated it today was Bob or Joe.
You're just in the 0.01% that would have stopped and listened, just like you're in the 0.01% that would buy his album or go to his concert.
My point is that classical music soloist is a niche hobby, just like my playing cards collection is a niche hobby, and that to expect that more than 0.01% of the world would stop on their way to work to look at my playing cards collection is simply laughable. This whole article is a joke.
No wonder why no one stopped!
So he was noticed.