Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-hole
Did you really just equate Keith Urban to Joshua Bell?
|
As a matter of fact, I am.
However, if you're uncomfortable with that comparison, then feel free to insert the name of any guitar virtuoso from contemporary music that you might find suitable . . . . and the point is still made.
I was watching the American Music Awards last night and couldn't believe what an offence to the ears Jay-Z is, stunned to disbelief that he could sell even a single disc with that racket . . . . . yet he's an amazingly successful guy, an industry unto himself and an industry icon.
The Bell experiment begins with an assumption that Bell is a virtuoso . . . . . but clearly, as with Jay-Z, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and, if the Washington Post can prejudice it's experiment with such an initial assumption, then so can I with the counter-attack.
Again, the guy may be a virtuoso in a very narrow field, but he's still playing music deliberately and successfully used to discourage teenagers from hanging out at convenience stores.
In that light, why are we surprised that only about 5% of those passing him appeared to take an interest . . . . . and that 95% didn't? Were the authors at the Washington Post really so snooty as to be surprised there were no traffic problems or riots resulting from this?
If the Washington Post wanted to engage in a real experiment then they might have made it a competition, planting virtuoso's from various fields to see who drew the biggest amount of cash. Why not make it a disguised Winston Marsalis vs Joshua Bell . . . . . or yes, a disguised Keith Urban (or your choice) vs Bell.
Snobs!!!
Cowperson