"ok, if it is situational by plebicite, clearly then the video shows us how the whole car is not bopping, but there is a distance relationship; those in the back are also not so amused as to press forward or even look."

Not sure how you get that read on it, this seems typical from both directions once they get going. People are definitely looking and wanting to taste a bit of what's up, if not storming the stage. But that's asking a little much for a subway, don't you think?

"Could it be a psychological peer-pressure effect where the direct eye-contact triggers a guilt response in those who do not comply? Ergo, the man with his back to the performance is immune to the pressure, whereas the woman face-to-face with the one singer has very little choice but to try and mimic his nonsensical vocalization chant?"

Could be he has a bad back or he was mugged yesterday on the same train, as I said, we cannot know. But he's making a concerted effort not to engage, for sure. And the woman woman has every choice in the world, it might be awkward to look away, but there's absolutely no pressure to mimic - that's spontaneous and felt, IMO.

"Souced. Blotters. He burst into a rousing rendition...Clearly there, the plebicite was against the show, yet it did not matter to him, he was in it until his stop came up and he bid us all a wonderful adieu and made his exit to a roaring round of silence."

Yes, but the drunk in your story is related (peripherally, because he's smashed) to the singers here, not Mr. Detached. So whether he's right or wrong, fulfilled or empty, is moot. The question I'm asking is why did you respond and others not (falling drunk into women will rarely elicit anything other than disgust whether you sing like Tom Jones or not).

"Was Stravinsky a genius, or, considering the riots his Rites caused, was he a sociopath? Its a fine line."

He was an artist, but again the question to ask is about those who didn't riot that night, and why not?

"The situation there is not so much an issue of the courage to step across a threshold to enjoy life as it is to illustrate, as the sutras say, things are most often not what they seem, nor are they otherwise"

Obviously I don't agree (and I do - no fair invoking nondual sutras) But there's another possible reason for Mr. D (wait, you're only defending him because you're Mr. G aren't you...?) and that brings us to #5. But I have to write that one tomorrow...

ok, if it is situational by plebicite, clearly then the video shows us how the whole car is not bopping, but there is a distance relationship; those in the back are also not so amused as to press forward or even look.

So then, as with wars and other tarantellas, perhaps the pressure to adopt the group consensus is not equally felt. Could it be a psychological peer-pressure effect where the direct eye-contact triggers a guilt response in those who do not comply? Ergo, the man with his back to the performance is immune to the pressure, whereas the woman face-to-face with the one singer has very little choice but to try and mimic his nonsensical vocalization chant? What if they were performing Stockhausen, or Xiu Xiu, or even Zen ceremonial temple music? I'd be hip to that, but would everyone? Not likely.

But back to the field pressure, there is a reason stage hypnotists remove candidates from the stage as their act progresses: Everyone's threshold for compliance is different.

As for the ear-buds, as I stated in the youtube comments there, I do not believe the squawkiness is the issue, but I do believe the live here-and-now is at work. You could bring in the finest sound system in the world and the crowd would almost completely vote to ignore it, and at that volume, many would elect to complain. You could even be simulcasting in hi-fi that performance over into a car into another train, and people would not start dancing and singing -- unless you happened upon a troupe of broadway-show performers, which actually happened once at Kelsey's, the waitress asked, "would you care for some coffee?" and one of them leapt to his feet and said, broadly, "Did you say COFFEE?" sparking the group to do a song and dance on Java-Jive. The restaurant did not spontaneously break into a mass musical jazz-dance, but they did applaud at the end.

Once many years ago, on an old 'red rocket' streetcar in Toronto, very very late at night on the Queen-West run, there boarded a short stout british man with buttons and beercan-fragments sewn into his clothes, and he was drunk. Souced. Blotters. He burst into a rousing rendition of an old tune from dance-hall days and he was excellent, tho, in the streetcar, highly unstable. He swayed and swung from pole to pole giving us all this song, occassionally crashing into the riders or slamming into the seat next to a pretty girl for some key line of his vaudeville, and he was, without doubt, able and skilled at such songs, he was brill, as they say, and beaming with joy for life. Not one of the riders would even acknowledge his presence save for myself and my companion (who only gave him our attention) and the sneers of contempt from those women he singled out. Clearly there, the plebicite was against the show, yet it did not matter to him, he was in it until his stop came up and he bid us all a wonderful adieu and made his exit to a roaring round of silence.

Was he then the only one with courage to not hold back? Or was he a (chemically assisted) sociopath? I think a lot of artists wrestle with that question. Was Stravinsky a genius, or, considering the riots his Rites caused, was he a sociopath? Its a fine line.

But my point here is that the subway incident, which was in France where music is far more likely a street phenomenon than here in staid Ontario where it is largely illegal to sing unlicensed in public spaces (and that tells you something too) is perhaps a bad example for your point for your book. The situation there is not so much an issue of the courage to step across a threshold to enjoy life as it is to illustrate, as the sutras say, things are most often not what they seem, nor are they otherwise :)

Your point is well taken. It seems to me that, moral transgressions and Situationistes notwithstanding, the group decides what is welcome and what goes too far. The operating room staff would eject these guys, and rightly so. This particular subway car clearly voted in favour.

I think the iPod comparison in the YouTube comments is weak – the auditory and energetic experience of a live vocal performance is a Chateau Lafite-Rothschild compared to the Baby Duck of a cranked pair earbuds. There's also the minor quibble of how a squealing, pitching, flourescent white cold subway car constitutes a sanctuary :-)