----- Original Message ----- On Mon, 09 Apr 2007, Stephen Black wrote: > It's a long article but provocative, and I think it merits a full reading > from start to finish. There are three short videos interspersed within > the text. I suggest you watch the first two of them (not the third) > before moving on to the text, so you can get an idea of your own reaction > before you find out what's going on. The headlines at the start are > admittedly difficult to avoid, though.
I'm not sure what the point is that Stephen is trying to make, though I could probably come up with at least a half dozen or so but I'm at a lost as to which Stephen intended. I may be wrong but I'm guessing that Stephen is surprised that a street musician, even a "certified" great one might not get an audience, especially in a subway station. Perhaps Stephen needed to do a little more scholarly research on the issue. If he had, he may have come across the observations of that great CANADIAN songwriter Jodi Mitchell who in 1970 released the song "For Free" on her album "Ladies of the Canyon" (I'm open to correction on the reference). Quoting from her writing; I slept last night in a good hotel I went shopping today for jewels The wind rushed around in the dirty town And the children let out from the schools I was standing on a noisy corner Waiting for the walking green Across the street he stood And he played real good On his clarinet, for free Now me I play for fortunes And those velvet curtain calls Ive got a black limousine And two gentlemen Escorting me to the halls And I play if you have the money Or if youre a friend to me But the one man band By the quick lunch stand He was playing real good, for free Nobody stopped to hear him Though he played so sweet and high They knew he had never Been on their t.v. So they passed his music by I meant to go over and ask for a song Maybe put on a harmony... I heard his refrain As the signal changed He was playing real good, for free (see Wikipedia for more on Ms. Mitchell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Mitchell ) Now, as a New Yorker, I've heard a variety of musicians play on the street, in the parks, and in the subway (some musicians have been "legitimized" by the MTA and are given specific location and signage indicating that they are part of the "music underground" program -- others play the "outlaw" route setting up "unofficially" in a station or going from one subway car to another while performing in each) and sometimes I've stopped to listen, sometimes I've ignored them. If I want to listen to live music, I prefer to do so in an appropriate setting where I can focus all of my attention on the performance instead of listening with half an ear while multitasking the process of getting through the subway system (by the way, the complex process of appropriately using a subway system deserves to be studied in its own right, with and without the presence of distractions like known/unknown musicians). So, if I'm heard Joni Mitchell's song "For Free", I'm not surprised by the article (again, look as the old literature!). As a New Yorker I'm not surprised. Frankly, if Placideo Domingo is singing in the subway, I'm not going to linger long especially if I'm travelling to get to a class that I'm teaching on time. My reaction is that it's great that he's giving a performance here but I can't spare the time. I'll go and see him in concert or in an opera or on DVD/Video when I can focus on his performance. Doing so in a subway station can make one an easy mark for pickpockets or for others with nefarious intent. > I use the term "experiment" not in the sense in which it's usually taught > in psychology, as a study involving randomized assignment of subjects to > groups, but in the more general sense of a systematic investigation of a > particular issue. Such as the Stanford prison experiment, or Milgram's > obedience experiment. I think that perhaps its safe to say that this is more like a naturalistic observation than an experiment. I which case Ms. Mitchell's observations might also be considered such. > http://tinyurl.com/2273gm > > And I thank my googly daughter for drawing this one to my attention. > > [Googly: noun. A bowled ball that swerves in one direction and breaks in > the other.] Again, I'm a little confused. My first interpretation of "googly daughter" was that "she is a daughter who likes to use Google a lot". But the follow-up definition suggests that maybe Stephen is making a comment on her bowling skills. If he is describing her car driving behavior, I hope that he and she have plenty of insurance. ;-) -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
