Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others. It is the best way to achieve prosperity (meaning security, not just riches) for the largest possible number of people. Marx understood and admired the dynamic nature of capitalism, but also saw that unregulated, it would dig traps for itself. (Credit default swap, anyone?) So my father was not much interested in classical music, but was pleased that I was, saying something like "That's the kind of music that doesn't go out of style": his generation paid that kind of lip service to "high-brow" art. But the baby boom was already generating unheard-of prosperity, so that we could incidentally have a "Hi-Fi Golden Age", while capitalism perfected the art of separating children from their pocket money, and bought perfectly good radio stations and ruined them, and now we have a whole generation of boomers who don't pay lip service to anything worthwhile. That's how markets work. Too bad Marx turned out to be a screwball.

Donald Clarke

On Jul 3, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Tom Fine wrote:

Hi Karl:

Having higher-brow or just non-mainstream tastes is not elitist, it is a matter of personal interest,education and fulfillment. Imposing those tastes on those who do not share them via subsidized or government-owned broadcasting IS elitist. If enough people share the high-brow tastes, then there is a market for them and therefore a broadcasting outlet will emerge. Back in the 50s during the "Hi-Fi Golden Age," public taste among adults skewed toward or at least tolerated classical music, so there were many broadcasting and recording ventures centered around it. Tastes have changed since then, so we have many broadcasting and recording ventured centered around rap/hip-hop, what is called "country" today (Nashville Pop to some of us) and what is called "R&B" today (nothing like classic Aretha or Bobby Blue Bland). These are not my cup of tea, but I do not feel at all compelled to "educate" those fans or impose my own tastes on them. To do that would be elitist! I do feel free to advocate for my favorite artists and to argue about music, vehemently but in a civilized manner, at any opportunity.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Radio


> ________________________________
> From: Dennis Rooney <dennis
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dennis Rooney <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Radio
>
>
> The rapidity of the demise of all media as servants of the public good has
> been one of the most disheartening spectacles of my later life.
>
>
> ************************
>
> I guess it depends on how you define, "the public good." If a station, or any product is popular, it would seem to be serving the public good, in so far as it is popular. When it comes to music, for many, the measure of "success" of a pop tune is that it is popular. Coca Cola serves the public good (at least on one level) because their product is popular.
>
> Conversely...or so it seems to me...when you broadcast something that might be "good" for society, you open yourself to being called "elitist." Same with suggesting that higher education is "elitist."
>
> Karl
>