That evil demon, the free market

[zHANg, TD 351.25:]
> yep,... "The Free Market does not make for Free Minds. The Market
> always dictates." The inherent cultural conservatism of "the
> Mainstream" is fueled by "marketing" & "hype."

[Bill Alves, TD 353.24:]
> Part of the answer, of course, lies in the sad state of arts education
> in this country, and part of it lies in the ever-encroaching hegemony
> of market-driven culture in our society.

> The fact is that record companies limit all of our choices every time
> they record yet another performance of the Four Seasons.

If a store has four acres of the Four Seasons, and another four acres
containing thousands of other titles, is that a problem?

This bashing of the free market is complete nonsense. While I can
sympathize, and even agree with, frustration over the difficulty of
writing something daring and having it find commercial acceptance, the
selection of available music, from every genre of mainstream down to the
wild and exotic, is a hundred times better today than it was a couple of
generations ago or at any time in the more distant past. It is the free
market that provides this abundance! Before you scapegoat it, try to
imagine music under the control of a "Ministry of Culture", no matter
who picked the "experts" who resided there!

Remember the story of Shostokovitch and his harassment by the Powers
that Were in the Soviet Union? I'm sure he'd get a big laugh out of
complaints about the "tyranny" of the free market.

Be frustrated, if you will, that your own music, or that of someone you
admire, has not achieved commercial success. But don't blame the
free market!

JdL

John A. deLaubenfels wrote:
> It is the free
> market that provides this abundance! Before you scapegoat it, try to
> imagine music under the control of a "Ministry of Culture", no matter
> who picked the "experts" who resided there!
[snip]
> Be frustrated, if you will, that your own music, or that of someone you
> admire, has not achieved commercial success. But don't blame the
> free market!

A free market, as any economy student will tell you, only operates
effectively if there's a good dissemination of information. So that
consumers know about the different prices and quality of goods. But
culture is inherently different from washing machines.
In the Netherlands we have a Ministry of Culture that wants there to
be a flourishing musical life and works to make all kinds of music
performances accessible to people from all layers in society and I
think that's good. Of course this costs money. Without it, a lot of
things, like concerts with Partch's music, are impossible. It would
make the broad choice there is here a lot narrower.
Composers from the past also needed their support from kings, etc.

Manuel Op de Coul coul@ezh.nl

>From: "John A. deLaubenfels" <jadl@idcomm.com>
>
>This bashing of the free market is complete nonsense. While I can
>sympathize, and even agree with, frustration over the difficulty of
>writing something daring and having it find commercial acceptance, the
>selection of available music, from every genre of mainstream down to the
>wild and exotic, is a hundred times better today than it was a couple of
>generations ago or at any time in the more distant past. It is the free
>market that provides this abundance! Before you scapegoat it, try to
>imagine music under the control of a "Ministry of Culture", no matter
>who picked the "experts" who resided there!

I apologize in advance to those who consider this off-topic, but I think it
is an important issue to respond to, and one with ramifications for
microtonal music.

First, we certainly do not have to make a binary choice between free market
and totalitarianism! For all the advantages and power of the free market,
and it has brought us a lot of good things, it has serious shortcomings
that I don't think we should be blind to, especially in regards to a
preservation and development of art and culture:

o The free market by its (or human) nature judges value over a short
time period, whereas much art fully appreciates its value only over a
period of decades, even centuries. If Mozart had been forced to find
investors in order to compose his works, he would have been more
poverty-stricken than he was, and yet, if those investors existed,
they (or their heirs) would have made more money than Paul McCartney
by now. But no one's going to invest capital in something that makes
money only after you're dead.

o The free market also tends to devote 100% of its effort towards what
90% of the consumers want, especially in a field with limited resources,
such as the media or retail shelf space. Consumers with a minority
taste are left in the cold. While it's true that this is happily not as
bad as it used to be, at least for CD recordings (though perhaps not
print books), I would certainly not credit free market economics at all
(which hasn't gotten freer in this period), but rather technology for
offering more bandwidth, resources, and reducing the costs of publi-
cations.

o The free market values advertising hype over education, because the
former is more reliable in selling a product, regardless of quality.
I am sickened by the local Disney radio station, which spends much of
its time trying to convince my *5-year-old* son that, to be accepted in
his peer group, he needs to be listening to whatever 13-year-old hip
hop singer they're marketing this month.

o As dismissive as some fundamentalist free-marketeers are of the idea
of value that cannot be measured in monetary terms, I don't think we
should be teaching our children that everything has a price, and, that
if it cannot sell enough right now to break even, it's worthless.

I have no problem with super-hyped mega-marketed pop groups selling as many
CDs and concert tickets as they want, but I think it will be a tragic day
for our culture when that's all there is.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>From: alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu (Bill Alves)
>
>o The free market by its (or human) nature judges value over a short
> time period, whereas much art fully appreciates its value only over a
> period of decades, even centuries.

Almost all the "great" composers were either famous or at least supported
and employed by the powers-that-were (church or court). They got to do their
thing, which to an artist is the number one priority, assuming one at least
can eat and has a roof over ones head.

If Mozart had been forced to find
> investors in order to compose his works, he would have been more
> poverty-stricken than he was, and yet, if those investors existed,
> they (or their heirs) would have made more money than Paul McCartney
> by now. But no one's going to invest capital in something that makes
> money only after you're dead.

He did, in a way, have to find investors: he had to "court" the "court".
Nowadays you have to "court" the NEA or a university or a record label >if
you want to get some serious cash for your music<. (I believe Mozart was
poverty stricken due to a gambling addiction.)

>
>o The free market also tends to devote 100% of its effort towards what
> 90% of the consumers want, especially in a field with limited resources,
> such as the media or retail shelf space. Consumers with a minority
> taste are left in the cold. While it's true that this is happily not as
> bad as it used to be, at least for CD recordings (though perhaps not
> print books), I would certainly not credit free market economics at all
> (which hasn't gotten freer in this period), but rather technology for
> offering more bandwidth, resources, and reducing the costs of publi-
> cations.

And where do you think the technology came from, but the "free market"?! I
don't understand what this boogy man "the free market" is if its not the
people who buy what they want and the people who sell them what they want,
and people free to invent and create whatever they want with the promise
that if society finds it of value, they will be compensated.. If everyone
wanted to listen to microtonal music you can bet there would be lots of it
being made marketed and bought, but thats simply not the case. You can
lament the musical level of the "philistines" but thats just sour grapes.
Sure, I sometimes wonder why a lawyer with a few years of schooling and only
a talent for twisting language and truth gets $250/hour and I can barely pay
my rent teaching guitar lessons with 20 years of experience. I'd still
rather be a broke musician than a lawyer. If I wanted to be a "rich"
musician, I am totally free to play guitar or bass in a commercially viable
rock band. The only problem with freedom is theres no one to blame for your
own situation.

>
>o The free market values advertising hype over education, because the
> former is more reliable in selling a product, regardless of quality.
> I am sickened by the local Disney radio station, which spends much of
> its time trying to convince my *5-year-old* son that, to be accepted in
> his peer group, he needs to be listening to whatever 13-year-old hip
> hop singer they're marketing this month.

Just like porn on the internet and all similar issues its the responsibility
of the parent to monitor and/or control the childs experience. You cant
expect the world to conform to what you want your five year old to see and
hear. Change the station or turn the radio off. On the other hand, why not
let the younger generation have whatever kind of music they want? Thanks to
the technology comming out of the free market there is less and less
limitations in what is available, so people have less and less excuse for
not making their own choices.

>
>o As dismissive as some fundamentalist free-marketeers are of the idea
> of value that cannot be measured in monetary terms, I don't think we
> should be teaching our children that everything has a price, and, that
> if it cannot sell enough right now to break even, it's worthless.

So don't teach your children that. If you don't like what they're seeing on
the tv, turn it off or throw it out. If you don't like what they're being
taught in school, homeschool them. Go out and use the free market to make
enough money to hire them a private tutor that has the same worldview as
you.

>
>I have no problem with super-hyped mega-marketed pop groups selling as many
>CDs and concert tickets as they want, but I think it will be a tragic day
>for our culture when that's all there is.

And why would that ever happen? Geeze, Bill, both you and I have on our
websites soundfiles of our music that anyone in the world can listen to 24
hours a day! This is so totally unprecedented in musical history that I'm
almost swooning as I think about it! Don't you see that it was in the past
that there was no freedom- you could only hear what was played live, the
composer had to please the patron, most people were living on a survival
level and had no time for art...etc.

Didn't someone say "The American system is the worst, except for all the
other ones"? Its only what we make it. As Carl said, if someone wrote tons
of mindblowing microtonal music that was utterly unique, not only would it
"open up the canon", but it would get out there in bulk AND the composer
would have a nice bank account. The free market would see to it. We just
have to face the fact that none of us have written tons of mind blowing
music yet. Were the Spice Girls and their music mind blowing? Maybe not to
you and me, but if you look at the crowds of kids at their shows, somebody
was getting their mind blown and loving it. Is it for us to judge other
peoples ecstacy? I think not.

dante

Rosati's post was excellent. Bill Alves also made an excellent point:

>First, we certainly do not have to make a binary choice between free market
>and totalitarianism!

In a very important way, it's always a free market. If there is an
opressive "Ministry of Culture", it has done something to survive -- large
publishing companies such as Columbia/Sony (or whoever sat on Delusion for
so many years) are acting as "Ministries of Culture" here. Digital storage
will soon take away their bread and butter, and we will see if they come up
with something else to survive on. As for the Ministries of Culture in
Europe, more power to them -- I understand they've done great things to
earn their keep!

-C.

>From: "Rosati" <dante@pop.interport.net>
>Almost all the "great" composers were either famous or at least supported
>and employed by the powers-that-were (church or court)....

Dante seems to agree with this point, that patrons, rather than the market,
ensured the survival of much art, so I'll leave that.

>>o The free market also tends to devote 100% of its effort towards what
>> 90% of the consumers want, especially in a field with limited resources,
>> such as the media or retail shelf space. Consumers with a minority
>> taste are left in the cold. While it's true that this is happily not as
>> bad as it used to be, at least for CD recordings (though perhaps not
>> print books), I would certainly not credit free market economics at all
>> (which hasn't gotten freer in this period), but rather technology for
>> offering more bandwidth, resources, and reducing the costs of publi-
>> cations.
>
>And where do you think the technology came from, but the "free market"?!

Did it? The CD was developed by Philips, with help from the Dutch
government, and Sony, which has been basically a subsidiary of Japan Inc.
The Internet was developed not by consumer demand in a market but by tax
dollars funding DARPA. Today government manipulation of the technology
market continues with subsidies for research, internet infrastructure, and
controls of technology imports/exports.

I'm not saying that these are bad (they seem to have produced very
successful results in fact), just that, contrary to what Frederick Hayek
seems to claim, I would say that no market is completely "free."
Governments and money interests have always and will continue to manipulate
markets for different reasons, including (hopefully) the overall good of
society. Thus we have complicated tax laws that give breaks for things like
research, charitable contributions, saving money, buying a house, and on
and on and on.

If we recognize that not every ill of society can be solved through pure
market forces and that it is a legitimate and on-going government role to
help encourage the market in socially positive directions, then why not
support for arts and culture which are valuable but not otherwise
commercially viable?

To my complaint that Radio Disney was trying to hype products to my
five-year-old, Dante sensitively replied:

>Just like porn on the internet and all similar issues its the responsibility
>of the parent to monitor and/or control the childs experience. You cant
>expect the world to conform to what you want your five year old to see and
>hear. Change the station or turn the radio off.
>So don't teach your children that. If you don't like what they're seeing on
>the tv, turn it off or throw it out. If you don't like what they're being
>taught in school, homeschool them. Go out and use the free market to make
>enough money to hire them a private tutor that has the same worldview as
>you.

Are you saying that I have a (once again) binary choice between accepting
the most sickening implications of rampant commercialism or completely
insulating my child from my culture? Commercialism: love it or leave it?
For your information, I do keep the radio off that channel when I can. I do
control what he watches on TV. I do try to instill in him values that I
think are important.

But should I have to remove him from all the positive attributes of public
education and go live in the woods if I disagree with you? Should I have to
make sure that he doesn't talk to anyone? Should I have to create my own
country because I don't like some aspects of this culture? Should I have to
refrain from expressing my alarm about ill effects I perceive in
commercialism because it's the Law of the Land? It's my turn to say Geez,
Dante, at how you could expect to say to everyone who doesn't like
something that "You cant expect the world to conform to what you want..."

I can't insulate my child from his culture, nor would I want to, but I do
what I can in a small way towards a better society. I vote, I sometimes
write letters to politicians, I let others know my arguments through
articles and conversations, I am active in schools, I do what I can to
support non-commercial arts, I teach, and I am trying to bring up my
children with values that I believe are important, though thanks so much
for your own advice on how to raise my children.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^