THE ONLY SOLUTION

Once again, I dismiss the risible fiction that classical music has become marginalized in modern society because people today are simply too stupid to enjoy such fine art. In such reasoning, no account is given as to why or how the human race has degenerated to such a degree that people can't enjoy the same music their ancestors did. Not so long ago, every community had a municipal band, and each summer thousands would congregate in parks to hear the bands play the overtures of Carl Maria von Weber. Now, suddenly, there is no interest in such entertainment. How can this be?

My experience working in a music store has led me to conclude that more people would enjoy classical music and support it, easily more than the 2% of the market that today purchases classical CDs, if only they were exposed to it. You have read my rants at this site in which I've repeatedly observed that people of average intelligence and above who are over the ancient age of 40 no longer want to hear songs of teen rebellion and lust. Some of these people may cultivate a taste for their parent's Frank Sinatra records, and some mature people are content to listen to Kenny Rogers. But a certain percentage—far more than 2% of the market—will enjoy the music to which intelligent people have always listened.

Classical music has not declined in popularity simply because it is old. The music of Vivaldi was already old 200 years ago, yet it steadily gained in popularity during those 200 years. The problem with classical music, say I, lies solely within the music industry. Because no one earns any royalties from compositions in the public domain, the industry has taken steps to banish classical music from the "public" airwaves. If it don't make them no profit, they've decided you don't want to hear it.

Evidence of this can be found in the July 12, 2004 issue of The New Yorker magazine, in which their financial writer has an instructive column on how the music industry works. One of the top stars in pop music today is Avril Pudendum... er, Avril Lavigne, and she has a new album that must be promoted. The article details how, on May 23, 2004 station WQZQ played Ms. Lavigne's new single, "Don't Tell Me," three times an hour, every hour.

Did it do this because Ms. Lavigne's young fans were wild about the new song and couldn't get enough of it? No, quite the opposite. The record promoter hired by Ms. Lavigne's record company had paid WQZQ to broadcast that song over and over, because doing so had earned the song a place on Billboard magazine's list of the ten most frequently played songs. This, in turn, generated still more airplay and more royalties for the copyright holders. That, and only that, is why you are forced to endure a regimen of teen music every time you turn on the radio.

The article is frustrating in that it seems ambivalent to this bribery —once called "payola." It admits to the fact that in 2000, tens of millions of dollars were paid to ensure that you got to hear only what the industry decided you should hear, but the article says, if I can state it fairly, that with 700-800 new CDs being issued each week, how else can station directors know what the hits are unless someone believes in the song enough to pay a million dollars to get it played? Zero, of course, is the amount being spent on promoting classical music, so is it any wonder it's not being played? And if no one, not even mature people, is ever exposed to classical music, little wonder it's going extinct.

Can anything be done to reverse this trend? There's certainly no point in bewailing how bad things have become—unless, of course, you are an old person who relishes complaining about modern life. Instead, I offer this modest proposal.

It is important to the music industry to control the airwaves and have only their selected tunes played again and again because each time a song is broadcast, the copyright owner is paid a small sum of money. If the song is played a million times over a year, the copyright owner collects a handsome sum. But when Mozart (or any other music in the public domain) is played, no profit is made by the music industry. It is thus an obvious choice between profit and no profit. What if... what if classical music, instead of being profitless, became highly profitable—more profitable than pop music?

The solution is obvious. Whatever pop music is paying—5¢ per play, or whatever it is—for each broadcast performance, classical music should pay double. The only way to do this would be to amend the copyright laws to eliminate the public domain entirely. That's the direction we're now headed in anyway, as Disney, Inc. will never allow its copyright on Mickey Mouse to lapse. The rights to Mozart and Bach should be awarded to Geffen Records or BMG or Vivendi Universal or EMI, and the law would stipulate that the copyright holder would be entitled to collect a performance fee that is more lucrative than any from pop music.

This would, of course, require the Classical Archives to charge more than a token membership fee, because each time a music file was played the copyright holder would be entitled to its fee. But once the industry giants discover that classical music can be more lucrative than to painstakingly develop the career of some idiot girl, you'll be hearing all classics, all the time. Every time you turn on a radio or television, you'll be greeted with the profitable sounds of Mozart.