Mark writes:

>Personally Bill I think you are tad unfair on the existance of
>such an occupation, citing some hackneyed fact like 'oh they are unknowing
>biggots who despise everything and most of all, the talent of the composer
>... why can I not have such talent'.  This is an unfair stereotype.

I don't think I said that, although my question may have implied that.  I
view everything with three guiding principles in mind:

1) Adam's Smith's "invisible hand of Capitalism" moves in mysterious and
self-serving ways

2) George Orwell's keen insight into the manipulation of the meanings of
words for self-serving purposes

3) Burke's statement "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
for good men to do nothing"

This is often how institutions are born.  One rich paper looks for
an angle and decides to have a music critic write about music.  Their
competitor, in order to keep up, must do the same.  Then, since "everybody"
is doing it, everybody must have one.  Soon they are an institution, who
themselves must compete with spicy columns.  Since everybody has them, so
goes the logic, they must be necessary (and important) else the forces of
the market place would eliminate them.  So from time to time, one must ask
of all institutions, how did they get here, do they represent themselves
for what they are, and are they useful.

Bill Pirkle