Let me be the millionth person to link to the Washington Post article about the busking virtuoso. Let me also agree with Kevin Drum about the reasons nobody listened:
Plus, of course, IT WAS A METRO STATION. People needed to get to work on time so their bosses wouldn't yell at them. Weingarten mentions this, with appropriately high-toned references to Kant and Hume, but somehow seems to think that, in the end, this really shouldn't matter much. There should have been throngs of culture lovers surrounding Bell anyway. It's as if he normally lives on Mars and dropped by Earth for a few minutes to do some research for a sixth-grade anthropology project.
A couple of additional comments about this: One is that I think there's a subtle element of economic class in Weingarten's piece. His disappointment that more people didn't stop to listen is probably at least partly due to an unspoken assumption that the people passing through the Metro station are, like him, salaried employees who aren't going to get in much trouble if their day slips a few minutes in one direction or another. In fact, a lot of those people are probably hourly staff, who really do get in a world of trouble if they clock in a few minutes late. It's easy to forget that there's a real divide there-- insert apropriate clips of John Edwards stump speeches here.
The other thing about this is that it would've been trivial to avoid this problem. Had they done the experiment during the evening rush hour, things would likely have been very different. People on their way home from work aren't under the same constraints as people on their way to work-- there are still constraints, but a few minutes one way or another aren't as big a deal, most of the time. I would guess that the chance of drawing a crowd, or at least getting people to slow down and listen, would be substantially better at 5 pm than 8 am.
This is, of course, a question that could probably be answered easily, if anybody knows of a blog by a subway busker...
- Log in to post comments
Exactly my thoughts - I was nodding in agreement yesterday when I was reading Kevin's take, and again now reading your take.
Weingarten did a chat afterward to answer questions, and you are absolutely wrong about any elements of class or him indicting Americans as being cultureless. All he is saying is that people don't often notice the beauty around them. He also mentioned that they consulted demographers who said that evening rush hour is no different. And many of the people who were actually there and did just rush by said that they were just lost in their thoughts and didn't even notice him at all. The only people who conceded to the fact that they didn't stop because they were crunched for time were ones who had noticed him, turned and look, and likely gave some money.
So the idea is just "Are we too rushed? Are we too unaware of the beauty around us?" And it's an open question, not a condemnation.
I agree with Stuart. You have to read the entire article, including the interviews with various commuters and the philosophical musings. You can see my musings at my blog.
Oh, and here is a blog by a busker: http://www.sawlady.com/blog/
If he'd have played Brown Eyed Girl he would have doubled his take!
The reader comments the other commenters have mentioned are here
I think, however, that Chad is pointing to a different "class" issue than what Stuart raised. Even in response to the commenters, Weingarten seems to suggest that it shouldn't be a big deal for people to be a few minutes late for work.
Also in his responses, Weingarten explains that they didn't do it during the evening rush hour because it would have been more difficult to interview commuters on the phone if they were at home than if they were at work (most of them gave Weingarten their work numbers), and he wanted to interview them within a few hours of their passing by Bell.
I used to walk to work by an excellent busker but as the tunnel was half a mile or so long, I could hear them for some time without having to stop (although I did sometimes give money, 'on the run' as in the story).
$32 in three quarters of an hour isn't too shabby.
Joker: "Ask me: 'What is the secret of Comedy?'"
Straightman: "What is the secret of --
Joker:..................................-- Timing!
Straightman: " -- Comedy?"
I think, however, that Chad is pointing to a different "class" issue than what Stuart raised. Even in response to the commenters, Weingarten seems to suggest that it shouldn't be a big deal for people to be a few minutes late for work.
That's exactly the problem I had with it. He talks about what a shame it is that more people don't take time to stop and appreciate the world around them in a way that implicitly assumes that people have that option-- that they're choosing to hustle and bustle when they really don't have to.
For a lot of the people passing through there, that might not be the case. A private LiveJournal that I read had a really good post a few weeks back about the contrast that exists between salaried and hourly employees even in a single company, and how people on the management side can routinely do things that would get a secretary fired.
Now, maybe he's making an even broader point, saying that it's a shame that our society is such that those people's bosses don't allow them the freedom to take a few extra minutes to listen to a violinist in a subway station, but that's not how it reads to me. Both the article and the chat read very much like it never even occurred to him that showing up a few minutes late for work would be a problem for anyone.
Another interpretation is that everyone chooses to time things so their travel time is as short as possible. An hourly employee has to be at work at 8:30. By not stopping, that person can get from home to work in 25 minutes. Will that person leave the house at 8:05, or 8:00? Is it worth the extra five minutes to notice things around us? Granted, most commuters have to deal with train schedules and daycare hours and the like.
The other point was that some people didn't notice the artistry, even if they didn't stop. It wasn't that they had to get to work, it's that people put blinders on while travelling to work, not noticing the flowers or the buskers.
I'm trying to think about how I would realistically act in this situation. I work on salary and with flexible hours. If I had passed this guy, I probably would have thought "hmm, that sounds nice" and maybe would have walked slower to stay in earshot as long as possible. It would be a tossup as to whether or not I gave money, primarily because I rarely go to work with much cash on hand, if any at all. It's my nature to be somewhat oblivious to the artistic side of the "beautiful" things in life.
My wife on the other hand is an hourly worker, and as the fates would have it a far keener observer of the arts than I, and a big fan of the violin as well. She would probably catch onto the fact in that situation that the performer was no ordinary violinist, and would be cursing the rigidity of her job for not allowing her to stop and listen as she passed. In fact, she'd probably be so mad about it that I would hear about it that evening. Especially if he wasn't there again for the evening commute. She to may or may not give money as well, depending on whether or not she had any on her.
Chad and others seem to be forgetting that not only did most people not stop, they didn't even turn to look at him or acknowledge the music in any real way. You could turn to look at him without costing yourself a second, and you could linger for five seconds without being late. Not every single person in the thing had to keep walking without looking in order to get to their job, and most of the could almost certainly have spared a few seconds to a minute without being late. The excuse "they would have been late if they had stopped" is pretty invalid and a cop-out, and doesn't acknowledge the main point, which is "Do we appreciate the beauty around us?" The other questions (like "Should we be so rushed?") are ancillary, you can be rushed and still take a few moments to appreciate ordinary or extraordinary beauty around us.
"...and doesn't acknowledge the main point, which is "Do we appreciate the beauty around us?" The other questions (like "Should we be so rushed?") are ancillary, you can be rushed and still take a few moments to appreciate ordinary or extraordinary beauty around us."
Doesn't this beg the question that Mr. Bell's performance is somehow objectively beautiful? If we gathered a few hundred of the people who went through that subway station while he played and had Mr. Bell perform for them in an auditorium, how many of them would affirm that the performance was in fact beautiful? Maybe most people would, but then again, maybe not, and it is an unstated assumption that (most) everyone should find it beautiful.
Weingarten opens with a description of the job titles that a huge fraction of L'Enfant Plaza workers have: deputy program managers, budget policy directors, and so forth. I think many of these people rushed by, without even turning their heads, because they need to believe that their jobs are important, as if they're the lynchpin of free society. If they could enjoy concerts like this every day, then perhaps the inconsequence of their work wouldn't be demoralizing, but as it is, it's the illusion of power and importance that keeps everyone going.
The world is partially ordered by beauty. Joshua Bell's concert was more beautiful than the sounds made by the Metro trains on the L'Enfant Plaza station platform. The musicians who had the fortune to pass by knew this. I was especially taken by the bit about George Tindley, the guitarist and busboy at Au Bon Pain. At work, in an hourly job, he did his best to listen, because he recognized that Bell "was feeling it. That man was moving. Moving into the sound."
I'll take your article on partially ordered sets under advisement, thm; in return, perhaps you'll find this article on the fundamental attribution error edifying.
Other than that, I'll say that going from "beautiful" to "more beautiful" weakens any claims one might make, and still leaves the tricky problem of how much more beautiful than the background aesthetic landscape something must be before we are negligent if we fail to appreciate it.
I messed up the URL somehow -- it looked good in the preview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
Drat.