Christopher Webber writes:

>Rather, is it not the Ignorant Mass itself - as patronized by its tribunes
>the Press, including the so-called "quality" end of the market - which
>thinks music has this morally superior effect, and despises it accordingly.

I don't believe it is the fault of the ignorant mass.  I think some
divisiveness comes from the danger involved with the human pursuit of
ideals.  The love of ideals is frequently magnificent, and striving for
perfection moves us ahead, but....

My first exposure to Mahler was Solti's Decca recording of the 2nd.  I
was blown away; I felt as though I experienced an ideal moment.  There's
no need to tell you that in the presence of an ideal our heart leaps and
we feel that we're in the presence of something that makes our humanity
more valuable.  Mahlerians were quick to point out--more often than not
indelicately--that there are vastly superior performances.  True perhaps,
but as a human, the incidental bulldozing over the blazing enthusiasm of
*my* novice experience with Solti was much more memorable in its sting,
than the consoling recommendations of alternative performances!

While loving or own ideals, we can be blinded to the loveability of
what someone else currently desires.  Shouldn't the Mahlerian, first and
foremost, be thrilled above all else that one more person has become
hooked?

Which brings us back to Bocelli:

I'll quote from the Bible (though I hope I don't start bleeding from the
eyes): "he, (Aaron), shall be for you a mouth, and you, (Moses), you shall
be for him a God." An amazingly pragmatic admission that gods don't make
the best recruiters, and recruiters don't make the best gods.  As is the
case with musicians: For every Quasthoff sweating in the kitchen, there
has to be a Bocelli at the door.  If we continue to bash the butler, who
will lead the masses to the dining room?

John Smyth
Sacramento, Ca