Perception

[Five-hole]

Did you really just equate Keith Urban to Joshua Bell?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

When you think of a guy playing an instrument in the metro station, what do you assume? Generally a bum looking for his beer money that day.

Whaaat? I know a number of guys who are buskers, and talk to a few regulars here in Toronto. Unless they're playing drums on some cardboard boxes I've never thought of them as bums at first glance or listen. Is that what you really think of them?

Listening to what he's playing in the video, I don't know how someone could fail to notice that as being pretty tough to play, regardless of any knowledge of classical or "art" music.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

This.

Yngwie Malmsteen, Joe Satriani, Buckethead etc. etc. etc. are completely unlistenable dreck, despite being ridiculously intense and difficult musically. The problem is, people like this forget what makes music listenable.

Not everything Joe Satriani puts out is unlistenable. Coldplay liked "If I Could Fly" so much that they rolled back the distortion and put lyrics to it so they could call it "Viva La Vida."

[Cowperson]

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

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

32 dollars in 45 minutes. These bums make more money than I do.

Tax free.

[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.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

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.

I did say disguise the contestants, to remove the marketability factor.

Regarding Urban, this sentence below from a USA Today story . . . I'm not talking about letting him use his voice or his looks in our theoretical contest.

Urban had a reputation in Nashville as a dazzling guitarist before anybody thought of him as a heartthrob . . . .

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/n...-renewal_N.htm

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.

See . . . . . here's the problem, the same problem with the writers at the Washington Post setting up this experiment. You have a pre-disposition, because of your background, to appreciate Bell more than the others. I don't have a problem with that but we must acknowledge it exists.

I would wonder if a trained Jazz musician would agree with you that Bell has more musical talent than Marsalis . . . . . or would that person, in claiming that fact, simply be doing what you're doing, expressing an appreciation for a talent they have some training/appreciation in.

I would probably have no problem finding all sorts of trained professionals thinking Urban is a guitar impressario . . . . . just as they have for, using another obscure example in country music, Vince Gill, long known well beyond country music as something of a "dazzling guitarist" as well.

Disguises.

Nothing but instruments.

Give them half an hour in a train station.

Who raises the most money? Who gets the most people to stop?

Does it prove anything about talent? Or does it merely make a statement about popular trends, the pre-conditioning we all have? Bell, as an example, might do better in Eastern Europe than New York.

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.

Snob!!!

Cowperson

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Classical music to me is like 'fine' art. I don't get it. One person slaps some paint into some odd forms and it won't sell for $10. Someone else does it and it's worth $3.5 mil, yet I can't tell the difference between the two.

That sounds more like pop music to me - someone throws some lyrics on a few chords, and whether or not anyone buys it depends on who does it. Classical music is more like the complicated painting with every detail precisely drawn, perspective measured to the millimetre, etc., where some artists focus purely on the technical details and others focus more on the "art".

[octothorp]

Part of it, culturally, is that there's a disconnect in classical music between the performer and the piece of music. Even with pop music where the performer did not write their music, they'll still always be linked to it. Keith Urban IS every song that he's ever recorded. Jay Z IS every song that he's ever recorded. Every piece of music that Bell has recorded has also been recorded by dozens if not hundreds of other performers. Even jazz, which is based on standards, has a heavy improvisational element that allows a skilled performer to let their own 'sound' come through, so that an informed listener will immediately be able to differentiate between Wynton Marsalis or Dizzy Gillespie. Even an informed but casual fan of classical music is going to have difficulty if asked to listen to recordings of a particular standard and identify what virtuoso is playing each version.

And despite the fact that you can't really emphasize the individual performer, it would be hard to get pedestrians to stop based on the piece of music alone. If you select something popular (say, a typical Bartok or Bach or Beethoven piece), then you're playing exactly what every other classical violin busker is playing. But if you play something obscure and difficult, then few people will recognize what you're playing and they won't be interested.

I know that if I was going through the subway and I heard someone playing the Bach piece that Bell was playing, I probably wouldn't stop to listen because it's not a style of classical music that I love, and while I could identify the music as difficult, I wouldn't be able to identify the actual piece. But if someone were playing something like an Arvo Part fratre or something else contemporary and eastern-european, or a Piazzolla tango, I definitely would stop and listen, even if the caliber of musician was more music student than virtuoso.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I did say disguise the contestants, to remove the marketability factor.

Regarding Urban, this sentence below from a USA Today story . . . I'm not talking about letting him use his voice or his looks in our theoretical contest.

Doesn't matter. More people in America listen to music with guitar as the predominant instrument than violin or trumpet put together. Further, jangly country (I'm assuming that's what Urban would play if he were going solo guitar) is more appealing than solo jazz trumpet or solo classical violin on the same populist grounds.

See . . . . . here's the problem, the same problem with the writers at the Washington Post setting up this experiment. You have a pre-disposition, because of your background, to appreciate Bell more than the others. I don't have a problem with that but we must acknowledge it exists.

I listen to Marsalis more than I do Bell. I like jazz more. My argument is not that I appreciate Bell more. I'm arguing that having had enough training to know how much training it would actually take to be as good as Bell (or Marsalis, see below) is, I can say confidently that it is a rarer and more developed talent to get where Bell is than where Urban is objectively.

Urban's talents, which I am not saying don't exist, are not on the same lines as Bell's. Songwriting, entertaining, being a pop personality, whatever. Those are certainly talents. No doubt he is a much better songwriter than Bell is. But on the grounds of sheer musical ability, it's not a contest. It just isn't. Call me a snob if you want.

It would be like arguing that a sweet $15 bottle of Martini Asti brut is better than a $350 bottle of Dom because more people drink it, or that it makes the company more money. The language is confusing the issue.

I would wonder if a trained Jazz musician would agree with you that Bell has more musical talent than Marsalis . . . . . or would that person, in claiming that fact, simply be doing what you're doing, expressing an appreciation for a talent they have some training/appreciation in.

You have me wrong in one respect; I said that Bell has more musical talent than Jay-Z and Keith Urban put together, not Urban and Marsalis. Marsalis is incredibly talented and plays classical as well. He's criticized occasionally of not being "creative" with his own sound, but most people agree (snobs, I'm sure) that he has one of the foremost talents on the trumpet. I don't think I'd attempt to argue that Bell or Marsalis is more talented than the other, both are supreme masters of their instrument.

I would probably have no problem finding all sorts of trained professionals thinking Urban is a guitar impressario . . . . . just as they have for, using another obscure example in country music, Vince Gill, long known well beyond country music as something of a "dazzling guitarist" as well.

Disguises.

Nothing but instruments.

Give them half an hour in a train station.

Who raises the most money? Who gets the most people to stop?

Does it prove anything about talent? Or does it merely make a statement about popular trends, the pre-conditioning we all have? Bell, as an example, might do better in Eastern Europe than New York.



Snob!!!

Cowperson

I won't argue this point because we both know who it would be. I'm arguing that Urban drawing greater crowds, even totally incognito, doesn't say anything about the kind of talent that I had an objection to you equating between Bell and Urban.

[mykalberta]

3.5 mil for a violin - seriously?

I will never complain about the price I paid for my condo again.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

3.5 mil for a violin - seriously?

I will never complain about the price I paid for my condo again.

On the topic of that violin, the article talks about how the lacquer finish is worn down to the wood in places, and then also talks about how the lacquer is unique to various luthiers and is believed to contribute significantly to the sound and personality of an instrument.

So my question is, if the lacquer is such an important element of the integrity of the instrument, why is such a valuable one used to the point of extreme wear, and in such an environmentally uncontrolled environment like a subway station.

Does anyone really believe a 3.5 million dollar instrument was showcased, unprotected, in a subway station? Do you think the insurer of said instrument would even permit something like that?

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

On the topic of that violin, the article talks about how the lacquer finish is worn down to the wood in places, and then also talks about how the lacquer is unique to various luthiers and is believed to contribute significantly to the sound and personality of an instrument.

So my question is, if the lacquer is such an important element of the integrity of the instrument, why is such a valuable one used to the point of extreme wear, and in such an environmentally uncontrolled environment like a subway station.

Does anyone really believe a 3.5 million dollar instrument was showcased, unprotected, in a subway station? Do you think the insurer of said instrument would even permit something like that?

What good is a 3.5 million dollar violin if nobody plays it?

As for why it's worn down, it's 300 years old.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

What good is a 3.5 million dollar violin if nobody plays it?

As for why it's worn down, it's 300 years old.

I realize its worn down because its 300 years old..what I'm getting at is that if this thing produces a 3.5 million dollar sound, maybe you want to limit wear and tear on it because obviously the tonal qualities on this particular violin are not easily reproduced, and if its damaged or worn out, its gone for good.

You know, bring it out just for special occasions or something.

[yads]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I realize its worn down because its 300 years old..what I'm getting at is that if this thing produces a 3.5 million dollar sound, maybe you want to limit wear and tear on it because obviously the tonal qualities on this particular violin are not easily reproduced, and if its damaged or worn out, its gone for good.

You know, bring it out just for special occasions or something.

Well it's his violin, so I'm guessing he can do with it whatever he wants.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I realize its worn down because its 300 years old..what I'm getting at is that if this thing produces a 3.5 million dollar sound, maybe you want to limit wear and tear on it because obviously the tonal qualities on this particular violin are not easily reproduced, and if its damaged or worn out, its gone for good.

You know, bring it out just for special occasions or something.

An instrument's sound grows in complexity and changes as it's played. The sound of this violin will not be exactly the same as it was 300 years ago, and the reason an instrument is so valuable is in part how it ages. That said, if you stop playing an instrument, the panels will become slightly more rigid over time, and the sound quality decreases. A luthier I was speaking to recently told me how he's always interested when an instrument is brought back for repairs to see how an instrument's sound has changed since he built it, and the more heavily used instruments almost always take on a better sound.

[flamestalker]

I won't argue this point because we both know who it would be. I'm arguing that Urban drawing greater crowds, even totally incognito, doesn't say anything about the kind of talent that I had an objection to you equating between Bell and Urban.

Definitely agree with this point.

Having studied classical music, you find out that most of the popular music today essentially sounds the same. The thing that differentiates the two are how the lyrics of it are expressed.

Popular music expresses their lyrics in the form of words, which most people are accustomed to by emphasizing certain words.

Classical music expresses their lyrics within the music, with the use of contrasting rhythms, chords, etc. to emphasize the same message.

It's the ease of understanding popular music that makes it more appealing to casual listeners. To understand classical music takes much more practice, learning, and evidently more skill.

IMO, over the years, art forms (music, tv, movies, etc) have diminished in quality to make it easier for people to understand so it will draw people in. This way big producers can make a quick buck. I'm not saying that's true for everything that's out there now, but for most that's the sad reality of it.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by octothorp

An instrument's sound grows in complexity and changes as it's played. The sound of this violin will not be exactly the same as it was 300 years ago, and the reason an instrument is so valuable is in part how it ages. That said, if you stop playing an instrument, the panels will become slightly more rigid over time, and the sound quality decreases. A luthier I was speaking to recently told me how he's always interested when an instrument is brought back for repairs to see how an instrument's sound has changed since he built it, and the more heavily used instruments almost always take on a better sound.

Cool, I didn't realize that...much better explanation that just "it's his violin he can do what he wants with it"