More thoughts on the (Joshua) Bell experiment

So a few days ago I linked to this piece on Joshua Bell's subway performance in L'Enfant Plaza.

Well, David Marchese, music critic at Salon, thought the whole piece was another salvo of elitist bullshit surrounding classical music. Since I linked to it first, I obviously think otherwise, so let me engage a few of his points.

1.) The apathy of the public comes as a surprise to Weingarten (the writer of the original piece). Not so to Marchese, who notes the obvious: "hello, they had jobs to get to." Still, if Jasper Johns was painting, or Wynton Marsalis was playing trumpet, I'm not sure it would've gotten people's attention either. I don't think the piece was as condescending as Marchese does, but then again, maybe I'm one of those elitist snobs of classical music that Marchese decries. Rather, I feel that the apathy of the public to great rough art (not necessarily classical) was the point. The note about the children (who, as Marchese notes, are as fascinated by eating their boogers as listening to Joshua Bell) needing to be dragged away by parents isn't just a re-hash of the old "kids are innocent, great engines of awesomeness!" argument. Instead, it's an indictment of our collective loss of curiosity. Wouldn't you at least give it a passing glance? A thought? "Who is that?" But we all just file past.

2.) Yes, the primary hurdle of classical music is its high-brow attitude. Skyrocketing ticket prices, a lack of interpretation for new listeners, and the prevalence of the Josh Grobans and Il Divos of the world have turned classical music into an ossified genre of tuxes and snores. Instead of reading this as a patronizing display of scoffing at lesser folks, the Joshua Bell experiment was an attempt to strip down classical music of its pomp and bring it free to people who wouldn't necessarily normally hear it. If anything, it shows how much classical music needs more shows like this, rather than less.

3.) I understand Marchese's contention that shaming people into paying close attention to street musicians won't actually help the ailing classical music industry, which is bucking itself up with those airy assholes I listed above. I'm not sure what will, and at least part of the blame belongs at the feet of a recording industry that demands megahits. I think people really do want to listen to classical music; it's just hard to access it in a non-pretentious way (or a non-schlocky way... the Fur Elise ringtone comes to mind...). For example, I think IU does a great job of spreading the appreciation of classical music: tons of free concerts, cheap opera tickets, etc. Yeah, I know IU's a special case, but as Charles Rosen said in his Patten Lecture dinner, classical music has plenty of audience, and terrible P.R. I'm inclined to agree. The reason for Bell's failure to garner attention was the lack of proper framing, as the article duly notes. I'm talking about getting booked at major eclectic music festivals, better marketing of public performances, lower ticket prices at major symphonies, etc.

Anyways, I agree that Weingarten does have his fair share of elitist snobbishness, as do I. But I don't think the "experiment" was an attempt to humiliate the passersby. Rather, it was a gauge of art's importance without context, and in a world drenched in context upon context, seeing Bach's unaccompanied violin sonatas stripped bare as the lowest of ignored arts was a valuable lesson. Or at least, a more valuable one than this one.