What our world has become.
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, June 29, 2026 21:34
VIEWED: 23018
PAGE 15 of 20
Agent,
The more I considered the article, and the more people posted, the more interesting it got.
The article, if I read it correctly, wavers between several potential directions. One is that encountering a street musician is a moral choice as to what to do next; and/ or that people have a classical music appreciation deficiency; and/or a surfeit of busy-ness; and/ or that people don't recognize art without a frame.
HKC posted something that took my ideas in a different direction - it's not the choice per se, it's the reasons for that choice that are interesting. On reconsideration, all the reasons come down to - that's just not what we do in this society. We're too busy, too preoccupied, too inured, too scheduled, too tamed, and so, it's just something we don't do.
But on even further consideration, what I found interesting is that people didn't even glance. As I posted above, we are a highly visually oriented society. We look for the source of sound. And a glance is certainly not time-consuming. So what is the disincentive to, without breaking stride, turning around to look ?
And the reason people pretend not to see - why they override their instinct to glance - is that something makes them uncomfortable. The same way people drive past the homeless without turning to look, or walk past pan-handlers without turning to look, people will walk past a violinist 3 feet away without an instinctive, natural glance.
So I propose that all the 'reasons' - too busy, too scheduled etc - the reason why it's just not something we do in this society - come down to personal discomfort and the moral dilemma proposed above. And what does that personal discomfort hinge on? It's the apparent lack of money. Rather than value the skill, artistry, passion of the violinist he (or she) is judged on one single parameter - an apparent lack of money. And that makes us uncomfortable.
So, I don't know if I addressed your questions here, but these are my current musings on this topic.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The article, if I read it correctly, wavers between several potential directions. One is that encountering a street musician is a moral choice as to what to do next; and/ or that people have a classical music appreciation deficiency; and/or a surfeit of busy-ness; and/ or that people don't recognize art without a frame.
All of which are reasonable answers, NONE of which can be remotely proven. Given the experiment I don't see any way to draw a meaningful conclusion out of it, which is what people keep trying to do on this thread.
Quote:
On reconsideration, all the reasons come down to - that's just not what we do in this society. We're too busy, too preoccupied, too inured, too scheduled, too tamed, and so, it's just something we don't do.
But once again this implies that there is some reason why we should be paying attention to street musicians, an assertion that no one has backed up so far.
Quote:
So what is the disincentive to, without breaking stride, turning around to look ?
How about this: I don't want to walk into that guy in front of me? You can't be sure that the people in front of you will keep going the same speed and I would rather not bump into random people on the street if I don't have to, that's a recipe for unpleasantness.
Quote:
And the reason people pretend not to see - why they override their instinct to glance - is that something makes them uncomfortable.
Can you back this up? I mean the part about a street musician making people uncomfortable? They don't really affect me at all unless they are interesting in some way.
Quote:
people will walk past a violinist 3 feet away without an instinctive, natural glance.
I would contend that that is an instinct that would be suppressed in cities because the desire to not run into people, step in something, step off of a curb etc. would train people to keep their eyes forward as much as possible.
Quote:
So I propose that all the 'reasons' - too busy, too scheduled etc - the reason why it's just not something we do in this society - come down to personal discomfort and the moral dilemma proposed above.
Disagree, unless you can prove to me that there is a moral dilemma or discomfort (neither of which you have proved IMO).
Quote:
And what does that personal discomfort hinge on? It's the apparent lack of money.
BS, I can't judge someones monetary situation without glancing at them and even then it's easy to be wrong. Most people in cities will interact with people of all monetary situations constantly so implying that someone without money makes us uncomfortable doesn't make much sense.
I'll agree that people ignore the homeless in a manner like that which you are applying here, but as Finn said most people are homeless for a reason and I for one try to stay out of other people problems when I'm not likely to be able to actually help. I'll toss a little change to a homeless guy now and then and if I'm in a good mood I'll buy them a little food (better than giving them money) but for the most part I just ignore them because as tragic as their situation may be it's still probably something that only they can fix.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sigh ...
I'm sorry but all this reads as so much blah blah Blah blah blah, blah blah.
"But once again this implies that there is some reason why we should be paying attention to street musicians, an assertion that no one has backed up so far." No one has even implied it except to say that it's instinctive to turn to look at the source of a sound. Don't believe me? Make a loud noise at work and see how many people look over.
"How about this: I don't want to walk into that guy in front of me?" So you never look at a poster on the wall? The sign on the tram? The hottie off to the left? Your suitpants to see if they got wet? I mean really, your comment is just ridiculous.
"They don't really affect me at all unless they are interesting in some way." They are a source of sound. The article talks about 6 minutes before a person, without breaking stride, GLANCING in the direction of ... not stopping, not turning, not even slowing down, just glancing over. Walling yourself off that way in an urban area is common in the US, it invovles an active suppression of an instinct to look in the direction of a sound.
"I would contend that that is an instinct that would be suppressed in cities because the desire to not run into people, step in something, step off of a curb etc." Again with the bogus argument. Give it a rest, already. It's like saying people are too inept to walk and chew gum at the same time. How about you go to a large Canadian city - say Toronto - and see how many people manage to walk and look around.
"unless you can prove to me that there is a moral dilemma or discomfort" What is the disincentive to glancing in someone's direction? You tell me.
"I can't judge someones monetary situation without glancing at them" Then you are dumber than the average mugger.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue -
The thing I disagree with is the instinct argument you make.
Is it really instinctual to turn toward a sound that is not unfamiliar? We don't glance up at all birdsong we encounter. We don't glance at all traffic noise. We don't glance in the direction of every conversation we overhear.
I think that music, even life and a few feet away, is not unfamiliar enough to draw an instinctual glance. And even beautiful music is common enough to make people indifferent toward it as a phenomenon. It can and does become background noise unless we are sufficiently stimulated/choose to focus on it. You assume that there must be a reason NOT to look, but there is no reason TO look, either.
We are visual creatures, yes, but more so with actual visual stimuli. We can't always choose what draws our eye when it enters our field of vision, but we usually can choose to shift our field of vision toward something that stimulates us in another way. Or choose not to.
So.. there doesn't have to be some kind of moral dilemma or discomfort at play. It's not shame that has people not looking. It's indifference bred of familiarity and the option our brain gives us to categorize/prioritize input.
Not looking is no more a conscious decision than looking is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"But once again this implies that there is some reason why we should be paying attention to street musicians, an assertion that no one has backed up so far." No one has even implied it except to say that it's instinctive to turn to look at the source of a sound. Don't believe me? Make a loud noise at work and see how many people look over.
Right, because where I work we don't make loud noises, on the street musicians and other loud noises are the rule not the exception.
Quote:
"How about this: I don't want to walk into that guy in front of me?" So you never look at a poster on the wall? The sign on the tram? The hottie off to the left? Your suitpants to see if they got wet? I mean really, your comment is just ridiculous.
Like I keep saying there's nothing interesting or abnormal about a street musician, like agent said there's no incentive to look. Do I look at every poster? Every sign? No. Only the ones that catch my eye, the rest of the time I'm paying attention to where I'm going.
Quote:
"They don't really affect me at all unless they are interesting in some way." They are a source of sound. The article talks about 6 minutes before a person, without breaking stride, GLANCING in the direction of ... not stopping, not turning, not even slowing down, just glancing over. Walling yourself off that way in an urban area is common in the US, it invovles an active suppression of an instinct to look in the direction of a sound.
Go into a big city, try to look at every source of sound at once, you can't do it. Try to look at every source of sound constantly and you'll only give yourself whiplash, we are trained to notice important sounds (tires screeching, sirens going off), but ordinary unimportant sounds are usually ignored. It's the only way to function in a city.
Quote:
"I would contend that that is an instinct that would be suppressed in cities because the desire to not run into people, step in something, step off of a curb etc." Again with the bogus argument. Give it a rest, already. It's like saying people are too inept to walk and chew gum at the same time. How about you go to a large Canadian city - say Toronto - and see how many people manage to walk and look around.
Again Agent answers for me, there is no incentive to look at any given street musician. Yes I can probably navigate an entire city safely with only a glance ahead of me every few seconds, but there is no reason for me to ignore what's ahead of me for every street musician I pass.
Quote:
"unless you can prove to me that there is a moral dilemma or discomfort" What is the disincentive to glancing in someone's direction? You tell me.
There is little incentive to look so a disincentive isn't really necessary, and you still haven't backed up your "moral dilemma" or "discomfort" arguments.
Quote:
"I can't judge someones monetary situation without glancing at them" Then you are dumber than the average mugger.
First off, fuck you. Second, any mugger who chooses his target with a single glance is either extremely good, or isn't likely to be a mugger for to terribly long.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I way off topic here. Well, not way off, but far enough off to hesitate posting.
You've been debating various aspects of urban life, music appreciation, and I don't know, time? It all gets blurry after 100+ posts. These people are effectively on their employers' and schools' time. They're in work mode or trying to get in the work mode. Minds are overclocking. It's fair to say, I think, even if our society was more relaxed, morning rush hour is still morning rush hour. On your way to work is the worst time to try to alter your outlook on life.
I think a better example of what our society has become is a fight Wednesday night at the Boston Pops. A perfectly nice evening of music, presumedly with music fans, brought to a halt. Why do people think it's okay to brawl in public, heck, at all? People are carrying way too much stress. Does our society condone this type of behavior?
---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How does one know a baby is deaf? When they don't LOOK to the source of a sound. It's THAT instinctive.
How does one know a toddler is autistic? When they don't LOOK at the people around them. It's THAT instinctive.
How does one know people don't accommodate to city noises? When their blood pressure goes up and stays up due to background noise. It's THAT intrusive. (Sensory habituation, which Agent alluded to, happens to ongoing sensations, not day to day ones.)
Suppression of the urge to look at new sounds or to look at people is a LEARNED response which doesn't happen in every city. Canadians, in general, stand out from Americans because they walk head up, looking around. So no, I don't buy it that somehow USers have different biologies.
FredG
And I hope you have a good fuck yourself too.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Every sound is new to babies. Most sounds are new to toddlers. The comparison is not valid because I am talking about exactly that learned response of ignoring familiar sounds.
No one argues that city noise isn't stress, so whether blood pressure goes up or not is largely irrelevant.
Is there some kind of evidence that backs up how Canadians react in a completely different way to their surroundings and sounds they commonly hear to how Americans do? Did they run the Bell experiment there to different results? If not, why not, if this is an apparent phenomenon, as you claim?
... is this now about what America should be like because, apparently, Canadians already do it right? I'm not either, mind you, but.. that would be a helpful thing to know in order to keep discussing this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@Agent
This is about a bunch of people trying to take a highly specific experiment that was not designed to produce any meaningful information, valid in only one extremely specific situation and use it to make a commentary on our entire culture.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME