The Joshua Bell experiment again

After giving it some thought (and calculations), I've decided that the Joshua Bell experiment by the Washington Post wasn't so bad after all. Earning $40 an hour is actually a lot: that's $320 for eight hours of work a day. If one plays only every weekday, that would amount to $1600 a week or (52 weeks x $1600) = $83,200 annually. Whoa! Even getting half the rate per hour isn't so bad either.

And I also now realize that having just a handful of people stop to listen is understandable given the circumstances. These people after all were rushing to work. (Although like I said, I'd still stop to stay and listen owing to how much I miss going to classical performances here and because I'd know that it was Joshua Bell playing.) If Joshua had chosen a less busy location instead, say, a street corner or even a spot in the station where people would be waiting for their trains, there would be more listeners and more people tossing in coins I suppose.

Another thing though that came out of the experiment that I did like was that it was an eye-opener for the Avery Fisher Prize awardee for he says:

I was quite nervous and it was a strange experience, being ignored. Obviously I am spoiled by getting up on stage and having people clap and pay money to see me, and it changed my perspective on things. ... I expected that, but it was still almost hurtful sometimes when somebody just walked by when I really did try to play my best. It was difficult to see. ... Maybe once is enough for me for this kind of experiment. But I myself will certainly be paying more attention to street musicians when I walk by.

That said, here's an interesting take on the experiment.