Thanks! I came up with the idea when I bought my first museum membership--to the Art Institute of Chicago, and suddenly no longer felt obligated to stay there for hours and hours. I thought, What if people could pay, say, $2.50 to visit a room with a few interesting works on their way to the museum cafe? It would be a great introduction!
Sir Henry Wood had ideas about popularising classical music too - his idea was to play in a public park where people could just promenade around, hence "The Proms". I think it was his collaborators who also introduced concerts in halls where you could bring in your own food and drink (and smoke) to attract a wider audience., as well as selling tickets more cheaply than the usual rates.
A while back the BBC had a service where when you watched the Proms on TV, you could turn on an alternative subtitle-like view where it explained background information about the music and the composer - in a much more chatty than stuffy way - and I really enjoyed watching that.
Thank you so much for this comment! I didn’t know any of this! The irony is that the Proms is actually much more like what classical music performances were like historically. People just really didn’t pay much attention but treated the music like background and occasionally dipped in to listen to the good bits. And I love the idea of subtitles with interesting info during a broadcast performance!
John McWhorter has talked about this, but one thing they could do for Shakespeare is to translate many of the words into modern English. A lot of the reason these plays are hard to understand do not come from him using words in a poetic/unusual way. Rather, a lot of words are used in their standard way, but the meaning has drifted sense (e.g. curiosity meaning precision, faculties meaning authority, character meaning writing, science meaning knowledge, etc.)
This is controversial, for some reason, but no one would object to this for Beowful, for instance. We understand that there's been so much change since Old English that we can't be expected to understand the original. Do we think a modern Greek speaker should be able to understand ancient Greek? A modern Spanish speaker could read the original Aeneid? Of course not, language changes.
This is an excellent point. Shakespeare wrote in what is technically modern English, but much of it is really difficult for modern readers or audience members to follow. At some point we have to decide: Do we want people to continue to enjoy what used to be very popular entertainment, or do we want to lock it away for only a select few? I’m with you and McWhorter (whom I greatly admire). Language evolves. This is a good thing!
I think this could go a long way. Although personally I feel like something wonderful, borderline hygienic, happens in your brain when you do work your way through Shakespeare's English.
As always, I love your ideas -- this week, about how to make museums and music performances more accessible or fun. Love it.
Definitely the ads, the food (and sometimes the halftime) are the best parts of the Super Bowl.
But Mari -- I really REALLY thought it was required of EVERY American living abroad, whenever football is mentioned, to sigh and say in a voice full of ennui, “oh you mean AMERICAN football--soccer is the real football.”
I didn’t realize you could opt out of that little exercise.
Ha! I maintain that the REAL football is our kind! Besides, soccer suffers from some of the same problems as the fine arts in my opinion--no breaks, and more complicated action to follow on the field. But the rivalries are much stronger than ours in the US, and perform a similar cultural service.
Football, not American Football, is the real football. For one thing, which game actually has all the players using their feet to move the ball? I actually find American Football harder to follow and watch because they keep stopping the action - which also causes the game to take three very long hours to complete. Football is a much faster and exciting game to watch. I think the huge number of fans around the world shows that football is not a complicated game to understand. :)
These are all great points! As a huge basketball fan, I agree that a faster game with constant movement can also be easy to follow, especially if the announcers and camera operators help out.
1) The problem with paying NCAA athletes really comes from who gets paid because most sports don't produce revenue. Football players should be, for sure, but I still think we need to think bigger and just remove college football from its connection to colleges.
2) Want to protect your youth from football? Don't let them play it! Think this is nuts? Super Bowl starting left tackle Jordan Mailata never played football until he was drafted. Making the sport Adults Only would not just be safer but also level the playing field for non-Americans.
3) The ultimate way to make football safer is to end the dumb unlimited substitutions rule. Plus, the game would be far more exciting. Tom Brady, the Greatest of All Time? Please. Real QBs also play defense and kick.
4) Perhaps the best thing about Texas is their general understanding that people should be able to drink anywhere there's something else to do (in wet counties). Just let people drink in museums.
5) Your poll is completely unfair. The Patriots, Cowboys, and Saints are all loathsome, but the Packers are sweet and lovable! I couldn't vote All of the Above but I want it on record that I wish I could've voted for all three of those teams.
1. For the reason you cite, I think that only NCAA Division 1 football and basketball should be paid. And you’re probably right that they should just be treated like triple-A baseball--as a professional minor league.
2. Totally agree. As Woody Allen once said, “My brain? That’s my second-favorite organ!”
3. I am intrigued by this suggestion!
4. The funny thing is that in most of the US, we allow people to snack, like, literally everywhere and at every moment. This isn’t good for us! And then we get weirdly uptight about drinking, not just in concerts and museums but out on the street. Texas has the right idea.
The museum taster pass is a brilliant idea!
Thanks! I came up with the idea when I bought my first museum membership--to the Art Institute of Chicago, and suddenly no longer felt obligated to stay there for hours and hours. I thought, What if people could pay, say, $2.50 to visit a room with a few interesting works on their way to the museum cafe? It would be a great introduction!
Sir Henry Wood had ideas about popularising classical music too - his idea was to play in a public park where people could just promenade around, hence "The Proms". I think it was his collaborators who also introduced concerts in halls where you could bring in your own food and drink (and smoke) to attract a wider audience., as well as selling tickets more cheaply than the usual rates.
A while back the BBC had a service where when you watched the Proms on TV, you could turn on an alternative subtitle-like view where it explained background information about the music and the composer - in a much more chatty than stuffy way - and I really enjoyed watching that.
Thank you so much for this comment! I didn’t know any of this! The irony is that the Proms is actually much more like what classical music performances were like historically. People just really didn’t pay much attention but treated the music like background and occasionally dipped in to listen to the good bits. And I love the idea of subtitles with interesting info during a broadcast performance!
I vote Mari for president.
Oh dear! I would be so terrible at that job, but I appreciate the vote of confidence!
John McWhorter has talked about this, but one thing they could do for Shakespeare is to translate many of the words into modern English. A lot of the reason these plays are hard to understand do not come from him using words in a poetic/unusual way. Rather, a lot of words are used in their standard way, but the meaning has drifted sense (e.g. curiosity meaning precision, faculties meaning authority, character meaning writing, science meaning knowledge, etc.)
This is controversial, for some reason, but no one would object to this for Beowful, for instance. We understand that there's been so much change since Old English that we can't be expected to understand the original. Do we think a modern Greek speaker should be able to understand ancient Greek? A modern Spanish speaker could read the original Aeneid? Of course not, language changes.
This is an excellent point. Shakespeare wrote in what is technically modern English, but much of it is really difficult for modern readers or audience members to follow. At some point we have to decide: Do we want people to continue to enjoy what used to be very popular entertainment, or do we want to lock it away for only a select few? I’m with you and McWhorter (whom I greatly admire). Language evolves. This is a good thing!
I think this could go a long way. Although personally I feel like something wonderful, borderline hygienic, happens in your brain when you do work your way through Shakespeare's English.
As always, I love your ideas -- this week, about how to make museums and music performances more accessible or fun. Love it.
Definitely the ads, the food (and sometimes the halftime) are the best parts of the Super Bowl.
But Mari -- I really REALLY thought it was required of EVERY American living abroad, whenever football is mentioned, to sigh and say in a voice full of ennui, “oh you mean AMERICAN football--soccer is the real football.”
I didn’t realize you could opt out of that little exercise.
That Budweiser commercial is adorable.
Ha! I maintain that the REAL football is our kind! Besides, soccer suffers from some of the same problems as the fine arts in my opinion--no breaks, and more complicated action to follow on the field. But the rivalries are much stronger than ours in the US, and perform a similar cultural service.
Thanks for the kind words!
Football, not American Football, is the real football. For one thing, which game actually has all the players using their feet to move the ball? I actually find American Football harder to follow and watch because they keep stopping the action - which also causes the game to take three very long hours to complete. Football is a much faster and exciting game to watch. I think the huge number of fans around the world shows that football is not a complicated game to understand. :)
These are all great points! As a huge basketball fan, I agree that a faster game with constant movement can also be easy to follow, especially if the announcers and camera operators help out.
1) The problem with paying NCAA athletes really comes from who gets paid because most sports don't produce revenue. Football players should be, for sure, but I still think we need to think bigger and just remove college football from its connection to colleges.
2) Want to protect your youth from football? Don't let them play it! Think this is nuts? Super Bowl starting left tackle Jordan Mailata never played football until he was drafted. Making the sport Adults Only would not just be safer but also level the playing field for non-Americans.
3) The ultimate way to make football safer is to end the dumb unlimited substitutions rule. Plus, the game would be far more exciting. Tom Brady, the Greatest of All Time? Please. Real QBs also play defense and kick.
4) Perhaps the best thing about Texas is their general understanding that people should be able to drink anywhere there's something else to do (in wet counties). Just let people drink in museums.
5) Your poll is completely unfair. The Patriots, Cowboys, and Saints are all loathsome, but the Packers are sweet and lovable! I couldn't vote All of the Above but I want it on record that I wish I could've voted for all three of those teams.
Great points in this comment!
1. For the reason you cite, I think that only NCAA Division 1 football and basketball should be paid. And you’re probably right that they should just be treated like triple-A baseball--as a professional minor league.
2. Totally agree. As Woody Allen once said, “My brain? That’s my second-favorite organ!”
3. I am intrigued by this suggestion!
4. The funny thing is that in most of the US, we allow people to snack, like, literally everywhere and at every moment. This isn’t good for us! And then we get weirdly uptight about drinking, not just in concerts and museums but out on the street. Texas has the right idea.
5. So noted!