Researchers told the participants of their experiment that they are going to play two variations of the same theme by two composers. They declared that musical critics say that the first variation is a masterpiece, while the second is its exaggerated imitation totally deficient in self-subsistence and beauty. They said that that the aim of the experiment is to see whether laymen agree with the experts. Afterward experimenters played the same record twice…
Interesting. Years ago I read a very similar story. It happened somewhere in Europe, probably in one of the Scandinavian countries. Probably in the first half of the 20th century. A very famous violinist played in the street and did not get much attention. Only a watchman from a musical school for kids stopped to listened and said to the violinist something like “you have some abilities, but you should work on your technique.”
So the Washington Post experiment is not original.
He noted it after he already got a Pulitzer Prize. Interestingly this Milton Fairman who did the trick before Weingarten did not get any prize. Anyway, most likely he also was not the first.
I remember hearing about that. I still fail to see the point, I’m on my way to work, not listen to music. I might stop for a few if I knew the person playing, but not because of WHAT they were playing.
The problem is that he was playing in a subway station during Friday morning rush hour. When I’m on my way to work (especially if I’m catching a train) I can’t just stop and listen to a street performer, and then end up being late for work regardless of how good he is. Recreate that experiment on a Friday night, or in a park and see how many more people stop to listen.
I wasn’t trying to say that the average person has a impeccable taste in music, merely that people are more likely to stop to observe any form of art or entertainment when they’re not trying to catch a train.
With the famous performer busking thing, I think it’s just a bit daft- busking is a whole different skill to performing in a setting where everyone is there ready to pay attention.
It’s nothing to do with the musical skills, it’s simply that they’ve never had to learn the same audience interaction skills that make for a good busker. It’s also totally the wrong style of music- the subtlety of a detailed performance is just not going to be there over the noise and bustle of rush hour; you want to play something loud and punchy. There’s a reason people are encouraged to shut up in a concert hall.
Very true. The article is headlined “Pearls before breakfast”, as if the choice was between a bowl of Special K and Bach. But it was actually a choice between “negatively impacting your job/transportation options” and Bach, and that’s not much of a choice at all.
And sorry Mr. violinist/article writer… one of the reasons why people have their electronics is so they can listen to the Chaconne without giving up their time. Just because I rushed past you doesn’t mean that I don’t know the piece you’re playing.
Lastly, if the guy made a daily gig of this in time he would start to have people grouping around him, listening, and he would be wiser as to what times of day work better at gathering groups.
I agree that this is an obvious defect of the Washington Post experiment. However the test I linked to in my previous message is free from this flaw. Thus you can find people with impeccable taste in music and ask them to take the test.
After the break-down of the Soviet Union Western Europe was flooded with Russian musicians, who had become unemployed as a result, busking in the streets. I’d say that they were generally looked upon as very good and people stopped to listen.
Well, I just took it when I’m half drunk and hours late for bed, and I got 83%. The one I got wrong was only one of two that I felt was even close. The rest were obvious within the first few seconds of hearing them both. I was familiar with only the first and last works.
I don’t know that I have impeccable taste in music, and I am far from the caliber and style presented in the test, but I am a musician. I do have a generally low opinion of critics, so I doubt being told one was critically acclaimed would have influenced me in a positive manner toward a work. Perhaps I just know what to listen for in a good performance, but if I were rushing to catch a train, I wouldn’t have spent the time waiting for anyone to play a song unless they were going to follow me.
What are either of these experiments supposed to prove? That we’re easily led? Or that we’re too busy for a concert while commuting? If it’s either of those, I don’t think that anyone would be surprised.
And many Russian musicians got prestigious positions in leading European orchestras and operas. What I am saying is that those who flooded the streets were unknown musicians. As you remember Weingarten wrote that one of 40 people whom they surveyed recognized Bell for “who he was” that is for a very good musician. I suspect that would you have surveyed 40 people who listened those unknown Russian musicians, one of them would have said the same thing.