Bert Bailey asks:

>Just what's the connection between the much less widespread access for all
>of CM *out there* and TV now being a key determinant of what becomes part
>of the public attention?

Commercial television is driven by a single value - commercial
demographics; i.e., how can a program deliver to a sponsor the largest
audience with that sponsor's ideal demographics.  Even "public" television
caters to its own demographics (i.e., people willing to make
contributions).

TV doesn't determine what becomes part of the public attention, it responds
to what the public wants to pay attention to.  There's no cabal of "taste
makers" plotting to dictate to the masses what they'll follow like sheep.
The herd is quite capable of setting its own direction.  In the end, it
doesn't matter what people say they want to watch; what matters is what
they actually watch, and TV programmers give people what they actually
watch.  A new show may receive great reviews from critics and "ordinary
viewers" alike, but if its "share" ratings aren't competitive, it's gone.

I've said this before and I'll say it again; the fraction of people in
the population who are predisposed to appreciate classical music remains
relatively constant, and low.  These people will find the music regardless
of what goes on around them.  More "exposure" may help them find it sooner,
but it will not likely alter the overall representation of classical music
lovers in the population any more than serving sushi in school cafeterias
will significantly increase the overall proportion of sushi lovers.

len.