another interpretation of the 'Post article on the subway violin...

[acroyear]

Wax Banks: Prodigy at the Metro station; when an elitist calls you elitist, you're in trouble.:

But it could've been rewritten more interestingly as an examination of the diminishment of classical music as cultural capital, or more straightforwardly about the stupid irrelevance of conducting such an experiment at the one place and time in the city (a subway station at rush hour) where people are guaranteed not to have spare time. A second piece could easily be put together lambasting the WaPo's writer, Gene Weingarten, for his overwrought style (the prose has been cooked several hours too long, and half the article is weepy praise for the violinist) and tone of bourgeois disgust - the article's (actually offensive) title is 'Pearls Before Breakfast,' ha ha ha.

The outcome of the 'experiment' is never really in doubt, though for purposes of structure and drama the writer withholds the violinist's afternoon take until the end of the piece: $32.17. (Plus one fan, who recognised him, tossed in a twenty.) Since the violinist commands up to $1,000 per minute for his concerts, we're to infer that this is an affront. 'Yes, some people gave pennies.' That goes not to aesthetic judgment but a broader cultural assumption: street musicians by and large wouldn't be street musicians if they had a choice.

And that, to my mind, is a stronger indictment of America's musical/public culture than the fact that people didn't recognise concert-level violin playing.

[...]

But something tells me Gene Weingarten didn't mean this article as a celebration of street musicians - who really are heroic in their devotion. Whether or not their skills are to be celebrated, their gifts to the listener are priceless. The commuters at the D.C. Metro station blowing by their concert violinist pal, they should be excoriated perhaps only for that: for not honoring the contributions of those who remind them what they're rushing to work for.

But then I don't always give street musicians money either. Not even most of the time. I wonder whether I'd have left a dollar in Bell's violin case. You know what? I don't think I would've. Not at rush hour, not in a hurry.

But.

I'm trying to live my life so that I'm never in that position again if I can help it.

So just as much as you think most musicians would rather hit the stage and have that 4th wall erected to the point where interaction with the real world is a non-starter, you would rather your own life, your own commute, be such that you don't have to deal with the real world either?

It's bad enough that art can only enter this world within the horrid limitations of the priorities and values of the commercial marketplace.  You shouldn't tell us you prefer it that way.

Comments

[ladyaelfwynn.livejournal.com]

I've given money to street musicians for as long as I can remember. Whether I give or not depends on how well they are playing, how often I see them, and more often than not whether I have the right type of money in my pocket at the time and how close to the musician I pass.

I usually give street musicians a dollar. Seeing that I may only hear that musician for a minute or less, I think that's more than fair; no matter how much they may earn in a concert. I wouldn't pay more than $60 for a ticket to a concert (which usually last more than an hour), so why should I pay more for a minute's worth of music.

There was a time when I probably spent about $10-15/month on street musicians in DC. The Federal Triangle stop almost always had at least one musician and if I had a buck or decent change, I'd toss it their way. (Sometimes, if it was an ensemble and they were really good, I'd leave a buck for each musician). I'd make certain I had the money readily accessible in a pocket, rather than have to dig in my purse for it.

These days, I don't give as much because my metro stops don't attract as many musicians.