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]