I write:

>>When college students show up to a sex education class, which covers
>>theory, psychology, physiology, etc.; they probably have already made
>>the pursuit their own, and know that the aesthetic enjoyment of sex is
>>wholly independent of intellectual capability.

Denis writes:

>Sex is, thank God, a natural drive (though thereon may be erected, ahem, a
>fancy superstructure).  Classical music is an acquired taste.

But reacting to sound is a basic drive is it not? And on a most base level,
CM should be enjoyed as sound, organized or not.

My original question was *why* do people believe that CM requires an
intelligent listener.  (I believe a few doors down in the "What if...."
thread, Jocelyn suggests this.) In my past posts I suggested that for the
unversed music student, the trope wags the dog.  (Unlike the student who
enters a sex ed class already having a "grip" on his libidinous side,
double ahem.)

But enough about the unversed and the unintelligent.  Only the intelligent
listen to CM right?

In an article in the NYT on Sunday, ("Public Radio's Private Guru"), David
Giovannoni, an analyst of public radio's listening audience tells us that,
(with a few exceptions), NPR's core listeners, want more news and less CM.
Giovannoni describes these listeners are middle-aged and college educated.
I thought these were the only people that actually *listened* to CM.

Granted, cars and offices--where radios most likely deliver the CM--don't
provide the most propitious environments for meaningful listening.  But
it's another example supporting my point that intelligence is probably
the only thing *not* at work when someone decides they love or hate CM.

John