Richard Pennycuick wrote:

>Whether we like it or not, there is a perception - a wrong one, as
>most Listers will agree - that classical music is for the rich, the
>university-educated, the people who live in the "best" parts of town, we've
>heard the sort of thing over and over.  Some media quite happily perpetuate
>this perception.  To expand on this would be to venture into politics which
>is outside the scope of the list and inherently unwise!

It's a bit subtler than that. The Australian rock producer &
communicator (?... the best image i can come up with for non-Australians
would be a strange mixture of Howard Cosell & Spinal Tap) Ian Meldrum
shares Keating's taste for Mahler (he's even been used to promote
classical _greatest hits_ collections here); but noone has seriously
suggested that _Molly_ is an aloof intellectual. Diana Spencer shared
the same taste (what is it about Mahler & public figures?); & that was
usually (though not always) taken as a sign of a subtlety beneath the
public image.

The point is: the image usually sticks when the picture tends to fit;
as it did with Keating.  There's an old line which says that cliches only
become cliches when there's an element of truth in them; & the truth is:
the most visible CM audience - the people who sit in the front row of major
concert halls - often have high disposal incomes, live in the best part of
town & tend to be complacent as all hell about the people who happen to
coinhabit their world...  they also - & this is probably where the image
generates a certain degree of antipathy from people viewing from the
outside - tend to very public in calling for other taxpayers to subsidise
the music they generally pay for themselves.  Short of throwing Molotov
cocktails into the Sydney Opera House - a very tempting thought - it isn't
really to see what can be done with this image problem; but i doubt we'll
get anywhere by blaming the media for its creation.

All the best,

Robert Clements <[log in to unmask]>
<http://www.ausnet.net.au/~clemensr/welcome.htm>