Donald Satz wrote:

>The "Titanic" soundtrack was categorized as classical although it was no
>such thing.  This categorization did not result in greater record sales;
>it merely moved income from non-classcial to classical.  This process will
>not result in any increased sales or recordings of the core repertoire.
>In other words, it won't do list members any good.

I am reminded of a recent discussion on the subject of Film Music.  A
friend of mine was visiting with the editor of Film Score Monthly.  In
addition to his magazine, he started his own label and presses about 3,000
copies of things.  He believes there is a finite market for film scores in
general.  Titanic and the like are exceptions.  When asked if he felt that
the sales of Titanic might bring more listeners to film music he replied
with a strong no. I have similar thoughts about the sales of the 3 tenors
or similar activities.

I do wonder about calling film scores classical music.  While I would
guess that most of us on this list think of Grieg's Peer Gynt as classical
music, many would not lump film music in with classical music.  I would
have problem doing that with much of what I have heard, but what if we
thought of things like Korngold's Incidental Music for the film...vs.
Grieg's Incidental Music for the play...

For me, much of what is labeled "classical music" isn't.  No, I don't mean
to bring up that discussion again, but...perhaps a different context might
help.  My wife likes Country and Western Music.  She said that much of
what is marketed today as Country and Western Music, isn't C & W from her
perspective.  Is it marketing, or the evolution of the form of expression
or, what I believe, coming from my perspective, an evolution born out of
desire to capture market share.

Other perspectives out there?

Karl