http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html
Thanks! That was much better than the article I'd read, which made sure
to hilight the price tag on the instrument, but made no mention of the
pieces he'd chosen.
On another list, we had a short discussion last year on the art of
busking. Someone pointed out that the set of things that impress
jugglers, and the set of things that impress a tipping crowd, are nearly
disjoint[0]. A friend of his had discovered that he ate far better by
intentionally "messing up" once he had a crowd, letting them vicariously
get into the effort, and then finally "accomplishing" the "tricky move"[1]
-- he didn't just demonstrate a skill, but he also told a story, and it
was reflected in his tip jar.
I think Bell's experiment ran afoul of this dichotomy. His
multiple-voices-on-a-single-instrument choices may be very technically
difficult (and to be able to focus on the expression[2] rather than the
technique even when the going gets rough is pretty much the definition of
virtuousity, right?), but it seems reasonable that anyone who hasn't
played a monophonic instrument and has lived in a culture that boasts not
only guitars and pianos but also multi-track recorded muzak wouldn't give
props for it[3,4].
-Dave
:: :: ::
[0] I used to tutor someone who had been in a _Sports Illustrated_ for
juggling, and very occasionally juggled with another guy from the
article. Passers-by would tend to walk up when he was practicing and say
"how many is that? 7? can you do 8?". (or whatever n and n+1 were --
being far more than my amateur capability, they might as well have been
infinite)
[1] the control necessary to crescendo, messing up and succeeding at will,
shows that he was capable of juggling many more objects easily -- in some
ways showmanship is its own virtuousity.
[2] "I don't play accurately -- anyone can play accurately"
[3] hunter events at US horse shows are the equivalent for me -- I can
aesthetically appreciate a nice horse going nicely, and intellectually
appreciate that even should one have the finesse to take a fence perfectly
95% of the time, a round of a dozen will only be perfectly smooth a little
more than half the time, but yet I agree with the father who found the
discipline, *especially* at the better levels, "about as exciting as
watching paint dry".
[4] dilettantism is, I believe, somewhat pejorative, but I argue that it
is good for one to learn a little bit about many things, even when mastery
of any is unlikely -- is it better for one to approve of something because
some external arbiter has declared that one ought, or because one's own
experiences and taste lead one to appreciate it directly?
