Mark Landson replies to Charles Dalmas:

>> If someone created a new dish detergent, do you think it should be the
>> public's responsibility to "seek out" a better dish detergent than the one
>> they are happy with? No. That's why we have marketing.  New and Improved!
>> and all that.  Makes your dishes sparkle!  With the symphony, though, we
>> just expect people to pay 25 or 50 bucks to hear something that they may
>> hate, with little chance of escaping without embarrassment.  And that it's
>> their duty to the cause of art to do so.

and Steve Schwartz writes:

>I can't tell whether Mark is ironic here, so I'll weigh in.  To me, the
>analogy reveals far more than most people want to know.  Music has become
>a commodity, like dishwashing detergent, to a very large extent, and in
>a consumer culture, it would be odd if it were otherwise.  So why do we
>continue to talk about Art and the Vision of the Artist?

I don't know why anybody should be shocked about the fact that music
is a commodity.  You read about Handel, Beethoven, etc.  dealing with
publishers, sometimes selling the same music to two different publishers,
etc.  Something can clearly be a commodity AND be Art- the two are not
mutually exclusive.  There is, after all, a basic difference between
detergent and music.  The dishwashing stuff (or an equivalent) is something
most people must have, but music is clearly a different matter.  The only
reason to go to concerts and buy cds is that you find the experience
rewarding.  It is nobody's duty to do these things, and, contrary to Mark
Landson's assertion, I don't remember anybody claiming that it was.  It
would be good to see more people develop a taste for classical music and
go to concerts for that reason.  In other words, it would be desirable to
strengthen the commodity status of classical music.  Then the red ink might
stop flowing.

Bernard Chasan