[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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.

I think the assumption of yours that I'm disagreeing with is that any kind of popularity confers some kind of genius talent on the popular. Bell himself was quoted as saying in the article that the word "genius" is way overused these days and is used to describe anyone with any kind of remarkable talent. If your bar for geniushood is that low, than I can admit that Jay-Z and Keith Urban are geniuses.

In practice, though, the kinds of skills that Keith and Jay have are very different than the kinds of skills that Joshua Bell has. I'm not saying one is more valuable than another, because I'd be hard-pressed to win that argument on any grounds other than some kind of snobby objectivist value argument. It's clear that Keith and Jay are much more popular and worth much more money.

But Joshua Bell has more musical talent than both put together. Here, I can only support my claim anecdotally, as someone who has studied classical music since I was 5 and don't have the chops to hold Bell's violin case. The dedication and talent it takes to get to that point playing such complex music is way, WAY beyond the level of most people who even listen to and enjoy classical music, much less most people walking through the subway.

Does that make classical music good? No. If you like it, you like it, if you don't, no amount of pontificating on geniushood will make it any more listenable. But you just can't say Jay-Z or Keith Urban have the same kind of talent that Bell does.

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.

Here again I see your assumption that palatability is some kind of measure of value. Honestly in an aesthetic sense that is as unsupportable as the assumption that aesthetic beauty is something that only be evaluated by experts. Teenagers aren't a good demographic by which to evaluate the aesthetic value of anything, frankly.

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?

I think they were mistaken in underestimating just how little the average person cares about classical music. And just to be clear, I don't think people should. It doesn't appeal to many people.

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

No doubt this would be an interesting experiment; I think Marsalis would outdraw Bell substantially, but neither one would stand up to Keith Urban. But again I don't think this reveals anything about their talent. Only their marketability.