Lindsay Orcutt wrote in response to my initial post:

>I don't mean to provoke, Don, but I'm wondering why you're being so
>vague.

I was not trying to be vague, but I'll now try to be direct and
coherent:

1.  Classical divisions of major record companies are expected to make
sufficient monies to justify their existence.

2.  The leaders running these divisions are fully aware of the severe
limitations of the traditional classical market; they are nobody's fool.

3.  To achieve success, these leaders know that the only way they can
increase the classical audience is to "expand" what constitutes
classical music.

4.  My belief, for which I have no proof, is that the heads of major
classical divisions, in conjunction with their marketing folks, have
developed the strategy of "attaching" classical music to other types to
arrive at a long-term solution to their dilemma.

5.  In other words, "eclecticism is the vision", to render classical
music, to the fullest extent possible, inherently eclectic.


Lindsey Orcutt wrote in response to me:

>> I keep reading that classical music of the 21st century will take
>> on a new face of eclecticism and fusion with other musical
>> categories as classical melds with Asian, Middle East,.....
>
>Where are you reading this?  Can you cite examples?

It would be mighty difficult at this point to cite specific references, and
this is no term paper.  The conclusions I came to were based on interviews
I read of classical division heads, marketing gurus, and the reading of
classical recording periodicals and magazines.

Speaking of the magazines, I think that Classic CD, although loaded with
deficiences, excellently reflects the strategies of the major record
companies.  Of course, this magazine is becoming increasingly eclectic
in its coverage; it's a good barometer of what's around the corner.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]