Regarding "Is Jazz Secretly Commercial," I would like to address a common and misguided activity among serious fans of music and film: the vilification of record and film-production companies, particularly large ones.  This whole issue strikes me as particularly relevant in light of the recent Seagram's/PolyGram downsizing. The prevalent attitude seems to be that companies with integrity should support not what's popular, but what's good.  Well, if record and movie companies could turn a profit (or just survive) solely on stuff that's good, they surely would!  (Can you imagine?  I mean, even a third-rate copy-cat rehash of My Dinner With Andre would be worlds better than most of the films that see theatrical release every year!) The fact of the matter is, these companies can't turn a profit on "the good stuff."  And since -- like every single person and company, small or large, that I know of, bar none -- record and film companies are interested in (and exist for the purpose of) making (that is, generating, creating) a profit (i.e. money or resources where previously there had been none), I find it strange that the blame for the excess of bad art usually falls on the companies and never on the brainless, tasteless people that allow an Adam Sandler movie to be profitable enough for Sandler to be worth $20 million a shot.  (Then again, in a culture where most people see profit by anyone other than themselves as something evil, maybe this misplaced ire isn't so surprising. Have a fresh listen to Pink Floyd's "Money.") Ultimately, it's not the movie companies who judge Sandler "good enough" for that kind of salary -- it's audiences, the general public -- "us." We, collectively, with our hard-earned dollars, say so.  And in 1999 it's considered un-PC (to say nothing of bad business!) to announce to the world that most people like, and regularly consume, crap because they aren't bright enough, sensitive enough, educated enough, or sufficiently "cultured" to enjoy music, film, or literature of any real substance. Yeah, there's media conditioning; yeah, certain media conglomerates could use their sway to bring some better content to the fore.  But make no mistake about it: the shit-generating companies are generating it because it sells; most people like it and the rest of us have to live with it.  It's a simple fact, and once more of us accept this, we can start putting our energies where they ought to be: in educating our peers, celebrating what we believe to be good and making sure to say, loudly and clearly, "...AND HERE'S WHY." And if the public tide turns, if more people decide they like Kind of Blue and set out after more music in that vein instead of staying tuned to the CD changer when Kenny G. pops on after Miles, we'll see not only more talented, groundbreaking artists getting signed and promote/d and being able to live their lives for their music, but we'll also see more people in our midst striving to break new artistic ground because there's half a chance of making a living at it...rather than those same talents turning to the fluff that does sell and heading off in that direction. A company (sole-proprietor or otherwise) has integrity when it makes money without resorting to the use of force or deception in its practices.  Period.  People starting companies have choice in the kind of companies they start, and it seems to me that forming a company to bring music to the ears of people who will pay money to listen to it is a noble and worthy and, yes, profitable endeavor. What people decide they want to hear is up to them -- not the record companies, which will lose money and subsequently have to fold (unless the unions say they can't!) if they try to dictate what people should listen to.  Say what you will about radio and pay-to-play.  When Garth Brooks is in the Billboard Top 10 and Hothouse Flowers' Born isn't even charting, something's at work that's bigger than what any scheming, nasty record-company moguls could muster.