Andrys replies to me:

>>If the cover showed Rembrandt's "Bathsheba" instead, would that cheapen as
>>well? If not, why not? No fair invoking the signature at the bottom of the
>>canvas.
>
>I see it's a woman again.  I would just wonder why they chose that painting
>and how it related to the work on the album.

Fair enough.  But why do you wonder about the talent of an artist when
confronted by a suggestive pose from one?

>>The problem is that I'm at a disadvantage.  I'm not attracted sexually
>>to males, so I don't have a clue as to what's enticing.
>
>Women are not usually sexually attracted to women and they certainly know
>what's intended to be sexually 'enticing' as you put it.  It's not merely
>a photo of the person as you seem to think when men's names are involved,
>merely being 'handsome' -- that's not equivalent.  See below.

What I'm trying to do is take myself out of that discussion on the grounds
of general cluelessness.

>>Why? You keep saying that you don't know anyone who believes that
>>attractive people can't be talented and then apparently suspect those very
>>people of little talent.
>
>I said one would wonder "how secure the -marketers- were about the talent."

On the other hand, you don't wonder about the quality of the performance
when marketers use a Rembrandt "Bathsheba" portrait.  You wonder about
something else entirely.

>There's a difference there.  It's not at all because a person is attractive
>(since most of them are), it's because some marketers rely on what they
>consider the sexual allure.  I ask you to think about using men that way on
>covers so you can see what might be operating there if they did use this
>approach with male artists.  And why don't they?

Not a marketer, I have no idea.  I could speculate - more heterosexual
males and gay women buy classical music (sounds flimsy even as I write it)?
But what light would I shed?

>I left in this entire q & a because you managed to avoid the very questions
>I was asking re stressing sexual attractiveness of a male over the natural
>attractiveness and about how you would react if you saw a new CD with a
>male artist on the cover in this way.  I ask these for a reason.  What's
>operating there when they don't feel they need to do it for the male
>artists?

I have no idea, do you? I assume you find something dark in all this, but
I have no idea what.  Is it merely women vs.  men? Do you think women are
being exploited by evil marketers? Actually, if there's a social bias here,
I'd suggest the possibility of bias against gay males.  In short, there's
probably a taboo against male beefcake.  Look at the figure of fun Favio
has become.

>>Why wonder? I'd be very much surprised if it hasn't been done already.
>>"Out Classics?" "Dance Mix?" Dance Mix was one of my favorite classical
>>albums of the 90s.  Zinman and the Baltimore, both terrific.
>
>Steve, these were not pictures of the male solo artist performing.

But they could easily have been.  If you were to tell me that you would be
disinclined to take the artist seriously who posed in an equivalent fashion
or that marketers believe you would, then we're back to my original point
that people, male or female, aren't taken seriously mainly because of how
good they look.  This is simply Puritanism.  We also come to the point that
there is a heavier penalty against males than females for posing in this
way.  If it's questionable for women, it's apparently out of the question
entirely for men.

Who's the loser?  The male artist?  The female artist?  Our own sorry
selves?  As my dear grandmother used to say, "Bubele, it's just sex."

Steve Schwartz