Joshua Bell in the metro
A few months ago, the Washington Post featured an article about Joshua Bell playing his violin (which happens to be a Stradivarius) in a Washington metro station. Contrary to their expectations, nobody stopped by to listen.
The article tries to find reasons for why this happened, digging into theories by a number of famous philosophers. While those are undoubtedly not far from the truth, let me dig up another theory:
Joshua Bell may be one of the best musicians in the world; that doesn't mean he's one of the best street musicians in the world.
You see, if you play your Stradivarius in a concert hall, you don't have to do much to get people's attention. If your name is Joshua Bell and you play in the New York Opera House, people pay good money to get a seat months in advance, they circle the date on their calendar, and they look forward to it for weeks. When the big day arrives, they dress up, they drive up to the opera house, they queue for the privilege of being allowed to show their tickets and being allowed in, they take their seats, and they wait in excitement and anticipation until the big moment arrives.
If your name is Joshua Bell and you play your Stradivarius in a concert hall, people will clap their hands you before you've even started. You'd better make it be good, or they'll demand their money back.
If, however, you play on the street, then that's a completely different matter.
You don't get to have people circle the date of your street concert months in advance. You have exactly one second to let them know you're playing. You don't get to have an audience that will clap their hands the very moment they see you turn the corner; instead, you'll see an audience that would rather you did not stand in the middle of the way like that, so that they would not have to look out for you. In short, you don't get their attention on a silver platter; instead, you have to earn it.
As someone who's done street music in the past, I can tell you that earning someone's attention isn't something you will do by playing the most difficult music that can be found. You should remember that you've got just a few seconds to catch someone's attention; from the moment they vaguely hear someone's playing, until that time when they're getting annoyed at the volume your, no doubt wonderful, instrument is making. If you want people to stop and listen, you need to do it in that very short timeframe.
A wild and fast virtuoso piece, while sure to get you a great reaction by an audience in an opera house, is only a very noisy thing if you just get a few seconds of it—even if those few seconds are by the best violin player alive.
The best way to get someone's attention is to give them something they recognize.
The article notes the reactions from a few passers-by. It did not surprise me that of the three or four people who actually stopped and listened, one recognized the violinist as Joshua Bell, and the other had been a violinist himself in a previous life.
Both had something they recognized, which made both stop for a few moments to check what they were seeing. That's what gave them more time to appreciate how truly beatifull this music was, and that's why they waited.
The real way to get people to stop, to get a crowd around you, and to have them to listen to you, is not to play what gets you the best results in an Opera House or other concert hall. Instead, you should play something that will catch people's attention. A brilliant piece that is unknown will not do that. A funny variation on "Oh When The Saints" will, because people recognize the music.
That's not to say that street musicians should only play stuff like "Oh When The Saints". Getting money from playing on the street has more to it than just the music you're playing; just as important is the place where you're playing, and the time when you're doing it:
- If you're playing in a busy hallway, then people will just hurry along. Stopping gets them angry other people walking in their back, so that doesn't happen. If, on the other hand, you play on a large market square or some such, then people are much more likely to stand and listen—people walk in all directions there at the same time, so you have to look out anyway.
- If you're playing in a closed metro station, you'd better not use an instrument that's too loud. If you do, that will make people move away from you, rather than towards you, because they'll notice they can not talk on their cell phones or some such. If they have to pass by where you're playing to get to where they're going, they'll increase their speed so that they're faster past you. Both options give you less time to catch their attention.
- If you're playing on a monday morning during rush hour, you're not going to be getting a load of success. Everyone is going to work, and you're just something in the background, not much more interesting than the guy who's changing the billboard. If, OTOH, you're playing in a busy shopping mall on a sunny saturday afternoon, you'll get a large crowd anyhow.
A good street musician knows these things, and applies them even without knowing. He'll instinctively know whether it's a good day to do street music, and he'll rather go to a bar and have a hot drink if it's not.
So why didn't Joshua Bell get a crowd around him? Easy: he isn't a very good street musician.
I agree with you on your statemnt that 'The best way to get someone's attention is to give them something they recognize.' and I think Mr. Bell made a very plausible choice : playing Bach's partita for violin solo, which should be easily recognizable for anyone who's had some taste of classical music, and I dare to say even from that clip in that washingtonpost story the violin sounds just amazing.
well, that's just my biased opinion, for I'm a Bach lover. :P
As I understood the article, they weren't trying to find out how much Joshua Bell could maximally earn as a street musician, but rather, how many people would realize that there was something special going on despite the averse conditions.
Repeating the experiment in a large European city, in a busy pedestrian zone on a Saturday afternoon with good weather, would certainly be interesting.
I expect the top earning rates to be around Christmas, though.
The fact that people didn't stop doesn't mean they didn't recognize good art. It only means they were in a hurry, dealing with their daily troubles and not in the mood/frame of mind to deal with art. (Credit for this thought goes to my favorite subway musician the 'Saw Lady' at Times Square ). I hate the fact that the WP blames the people for Bell's failure. Not only is he not a good street performer, but he was also set up from the get go by the WP to play at a spot no knowlegable street performer would choose to go to. The WP knew in advance what they wanted to show as the result of the experiment, and they manipulated the situation to it. I bet if this took place in the NYC subway - things would be different.
I particularly like your point about recognition being a key factor in grabbing a passer-by's attention. For most people, distinguishing great music from good or average music is a separate mode of mental operation from say, bustling to work while simultaneously dialing a cellphone, eating a bagel, and reading the Washington Post. Even someone with a deep appreciation for music is not likely to be drawn out of a cellphone conversation by background music in a subway station. We are not as great multi-taskers as we might imagine. When you are rushing to make an 8:30 appointment, you are not likely to make many discoveries along the way, musical or otherwise.
The street musician needs to grab their attention FIRST, only then can they hope to make an impression with their music.
There is/was a street musician here in Boston who played the most amazing slide guitar I have ever heard. He is also filthy, unkempt, rude, and generally angry at the commuters who he clearly feels owe him more of their attention.
It would be wrong to assume that his failure to draw crowds is due solely to the public's inability to appreciate music.