THE CONSUMPTION OF MUSIC: INTEGRATING AESTHETICS AND ECONOMICS*

James L. Shanahan

In recent years many micro-economists have become interested in the application of their analytical tools to topics of study that previously had been the domain of other disciplines. Illustratively, the economist has used neo-dassical micro-theory to rationalize crime, discrimination, school drop-outs, etc., and has analyzed the pricing and allocation of labor and housing services. And now, we economists have paid a visit to cultural studies, the arts in particular.

The application of (neo-elassical) economic principles to the arts is more than a little forced. The fitting of cultural activities into market structures with attendant discussions of demand and supply does not come as easily as it does for detergents or automobiles. It does not come easy, ~a t is, if we are serious about contributing to the empirical, scientific study of efficiency and equity in the provision and distribution of art within a market-oriented economic system. To properly study the markets for artistic goods, it is necessary to deal with the aesthetic nature of art.

The intent of this short paper is to begin the integration of some of the basic concepts of the music and art into the basic neoclassical market structure. This paper is attempted with the conviction that the latter, that is the extra-aesthetic environment in which art activities are pursued and enjoyed, is most powerful, and that rico-classical market analysis provides a much needed organizational (analytical) framework for studying these forces.

The specific objectives are threefold: First, it is important to identify for the economist some of the basic ideas related to music, and to follow the progression of philosophic thought on the aesthetic role of music which lead to more descriptive definitions of the artistic good and the aesthetic experience. Second, the basic market structure of musical commodities is explored. Finally, the consumption experience for various forms of music is discussed for the purpose of identifying further the key descriptive reasons for consuming .music which can account for the market separation among various musical foru~ and commodity types. What is Music?

The physical basis for the production of music lies in the production of

13

sound. But, not all sound is music. Musical sound is differentiated from all sound by a concensus among artists and patrons (arrived at and changed intergenerationally) that certain patterns of sound axe musical in nature. Further, musical sounds, or tones, axe usually distinguished by their levels of pitch, loudness, timbre and the rhymic traits of time and density. A musical composition, then, is comprised of a chosen or selected pattern of such sounds.

While music is communicated primarily by means of sound production, a musical composition can be communicated without the production of sound, or even the ability on the part of the artists to discriminate among different sounds. [1] Music theory provides a symbolic language which can be used to characterize the basic composition according to the use of rhythm, harmony,

balance, form, etc. Obviously, the analysis of musical materials is influenced by the culture

and subculture in which they developed. Oriental and Western musical forms do not share a common language, yet all musical composition within the western world has a common language but many distinct paradigmatic cases: classical, jazz, popular, country-western, rock, etc. These models can supply

the needed operationalized definition of music without resorting to qualitative or evaluative criteria toward identifying 'good' and 'bad' music.

Musical composition often is combined with lyrics to form a composite

musical form one in which, hopefully, both modes of expression axe

complementary--cohesive and congruent. Music with lyrics, often simply referred to as song, has the potential to impact the consumer not only with its melody line, but with its poetry as well. Both modes of expression utilize the conceptual notions of rhythm, harmony, balance, form, etc.

Music As Art: The Aesthetic Expression

Music as sound is not considered by definition to be art or to be capable of providing an aesthetic experience for the listener. For music to be art, it must be embodied with artistic symbols. But, from the point of view of consumption theory, it is the potential for an enjoyable experience with music and, therefore, the potential to provide an aesthetic experience to the listener that defines value of music as a consumer good. Music will be raised to the status of art if it is capable of providing listeners with an experience that is aesthetic in nature. This is just as well because, in the Humanities, there is more agreement as to the aesthetic purpose of art, than there is regarding the traits of art objects. At best, the distinction between artistic and other symbols is argumentative. So it is the aesthetic experience that needs to

14

be clarified here. Aesthetic experience and free art have traditionally been linked together.

'Popular' music may be considered art because it is structurally similar to 'serious' music but if it is simply amusing it is not really capable of providing an aesthetic experience. Going one step further, human aesthetic experiences have often been considered neither learned nor observable responses, but were experiences that could be experienced only by an elitist group. Given elitism, the aesthetic experience defied any scientific description or detection.

More recently, there are aestheticians concerned with broadening and operationalizing of the definitions of the aesthetic. Haig Khatchadourian [2] suggests that an object can be considered art-for descriptive purposes-if it was the creator's aim to embody the object with the capability to provide the consumer with an aesthetic experience, described as an intimate and private experience with the object. In further elaboration, Arnold Befleant writes:

Art can intensify the rest of human experience, and this experience can...enhance the significance of art. It is the whole man that experiences art, and art influences the whole man. [3]

Still, the characteristic of art forms which separates them from other objects is their intrinsic value to the customer; art objects are embodied with aesthetic purpose (i.e., art for art's sake) and as such should not be constrained to complement any extra-aesthetic purpose.

Aesthetic purpose can-and has been-interpreted in many ways. Aesthetic values impute intrinsic values into art objects such the listening to music for its own sake is stimulating; we need not cognitively or freely associate it with other events, or combine it with other medium (such as fdm) to be stimulated by it.

If the center of attention moves toward the extraneous associations such as particular places or people, the experience becomes extra-aesthetic. [4]

Nor must it have any purpose beyond the possible stimulation of intellect, imagination, and certainly, at least the stimulation of feeling. The aesthetic qualifies of musical experience are considered singularly important in the consumption of that art. The experience takes precedence at least momentarily, and yet it cannot be summoned by either the artist or the COnsUlTler.

Befleant[5] defines aesthetic experience by identifying a set of traits which are intended to be verifiable empirically. To him, aesthetic experiences

15

are a part of all human experience, an experience in which aesthetic elements are present. It is notmystical or mythical, but real traceable aspects of human experience. The presence of aesthetic elements in an experience means that the experience is: Active-receptive-the listener must play a role in experiencing a work of art by opening the perceptual channel of reception by focusing one's attention, via stimulus-response, on the music. Qualitative and sensuous, the event must be sensuous through direct involvement, uninhibited and non-cognitive, using as many senses as possible. Immediate and Intuitive-objective time is replaced by psychological time and the experiential moments that are aesthetic are immediate or spontaneous; the aesthetic is not the project of cognitive mental processes although these may enlarge the experience to embrace the affective responses. Unique, intrinsic, and integral--each aesthetic experience can be differentiated from another, and the intrinsic experiences are considered separable, perceptually, from the total experience.

Berleant's work falls short of fully operationalized definitions of these traits of an aesthetic experience with music but it and Khatchadourian's efforts provide the conceptual base for identifying the musical commodities and markets in which the aesthetic in music is likely to play a major role. Both writers stress the importance of the intent to provide (on the part of the artist) and to have (on the part of the listener) an intense musical experience.

Descriptively, in an aesthetic experience the listener becomes captivated by the music-at least momentarily, becomes drawn into the music with near total involvement. No doubt, the aesthetic will generate an affective response-an intense stimulation of one's feelings, emotional expressions being the most obvious of one's feelings. Also, we cannot train the listener to use cognitive skills to 'produce' an aesthetic experience. For some it can happen while concentrating on the proficiency of the musician or the creative orchestration; for others it may occur as the listener is simply enjoying the melodic flow. Whatever the direction of thoughts initiated by the listener, one thing seems clear; the listener is cognitive of an aesthetic experience but has no control of the direction or form it takes. The description does not identify the nature of an aesthetic response but it does suggest the necessary conditions for an aesthetic experience. There is one other avenue of discussion worth pursuing, one which gauges the vitalness of music to the individual. Musical experience for many is vital to their very existence-at least in the sense of stabilizing or satisfying the inner self. Music achieves its aesthetic purpose (i.e., has intrinsic value to individuals) if it is vital...if it is

16

not easily substituted by non-art forms which are capable of satisfying the same extra-aesthetic n. eeds of the consumer. Smooth and regular indifference curves from economic theory, suggest that, if the relative prices of albums and tennis shoes were 'right,' we could be induced to nearly give up album coIlections...and be just as well off. But, if there is something intrinsic and unique-aesthetic-about the role that music plays in our lives, there must be a point beyond which we cannot continue to substitute non-art goods for music and feel equally satisfied-no matter the considered rate of substitution.

This discussion can be more effectively pursued if we establish the transformation of the concept of music into its marketable commodity forms.

Music As A Commodity It is imperative to recognize the difference between the creation of music

and the process of producing and distributing music commodities as final products or services. The production (creation) of a musical composition passes through several stages o f artistic production with each stage an art form. First, the musical piece exists the moment it forms on the surface of the composer's mind; at this point, the composition may be little more than a melody line and perhaps a lyric or two ff the composer is also a lyricist. Once the basis of the composition (and sometimes lyrics) is complete, the piece of music fully exists even though no one except the composer may have heard it . [6] The second stage in the development of the musical commodity either for listening or performing is the fleshing-out of the musical piece to a full-blown arrangement. At this stage, the musical piece takes specific form. Minimally, this means that the composition is complete enough to be identified in relation to alternative paradigm cases, and maximally, the arrangement w~l specify complete orchestration, that is separate musical scores for all instruments to be played, and the sequencing of bridges and interludes is prepared.

While both of these stages may be the product o f the original composer, over time, numerous rearrangements of a piece of music may be written. Many of these will be slight variations of the original, but occasionally an arranger re2[ change the composition so much that the paradigm into which the piece fits changes. So, from the original composition, numerous variations in theme can be created, and technically can be considered different pieces of music.

At this point the transformation of the piece of music into commodity form occurs. Music can be distributed in various commodity forms to a

17

variety of users. Musical commodities are provided for both the listener and the performer. As well, instructive commodities are provided to the listener or performer who strive to be a 'better' consumer or producer of music. Also, music is combined with other performing modes to create a composite good: ballet, opera, and musical theatre are examples.

These commodities axe provided as printed music for the performer or student of music and are performed for the listener. Performances, obviously, can be consumed either live or recorded. The live performance and the listeners can be brought together by transporting the listeners to the location of the live performance or by transmitting the performance to the locations of the listeners over the media. All of these, it will be argued, are somewhat different product forms and all are provided in separate, but interdependent, markets.

In the performance of a musical piece, creative interpretation is still possible even with a fully orchestrated score and, where applicable, with all vocal parts defined. Variation of loudness and tempo and the setting of the overall volume in the performance of a musical piece, at least, are at the discretion of the performers. So, in performance, the leadership and creativity of directors and producers, as well as the interpretative skRls of the musicians and singers play a significant role in determining the exact nature and success of the performance.

To summarize, the marketed forms of music for consumption only are several in number and differ in several ways. First, the music can be consumed as a live performance or a recorded performance. Second, live performances can be consumed either at the site of the performance or over the media as the performance takes place, and/or subsequently and perhaps repeatedly (re) experience that performance via a recording. In contrast, studio recorded music has different recording qualities from ~live' recordings. And, third, recordings can be "purchased' from the media or from one's own private collection. Also, the production process of music goes through several stages before being transformed into a particular commodity form and the product does not take final form until it has been performed for either live or recorded listening, or both.

Two Important Characteristics of Markets for Music Commodities

The key market characteristics of musical consumption commodities are: One, many of the commodity forms are marketed as collective but not public goods; and two, some of the commodity forms cannot be provided en masse in homogenous units.

18

The Consumption of Musical Performance: A Collective Good

Performances, whether by the Cleveland Orchestra or by the rock group Chicago, can be consumed simultaneously by an audience of individual listeners. The product (performance) is indivisible in the sense that it can be wholly consumed by one person without diminishing materially the supply of performance available to other consumers. As such, each unit of commodity, say a single performance, can be consumed en masse. ~ is not unique to performance, of course; it is true of any consumption process which is intangible in nature.

While a music, a/ performance delivered before an audience of consumers can be characterized as a collective commodity, the indivisibility is not perfect. At least the senses of sight and hearing are involved in the act of consumption; therefore, proximity to the performance does not impair the quality of performance available for others, your presence does.

Even when the performance is transmitted to the dispersed locations of potential listeners, there is some weakening of the signal as the distance between transmitter and listeners increases and as the density of actual listeners increases at the more proximate locations.

• The Three Commodity Markets

The individual units of music offered in commodity form may fail to be homogenous in several ways: Perceptually, recordings of the same music by the same performers can differ from the live performance, and the transmittal of a live performance can differ from live performance; literally, each individual live performance of the same music even by the same performers can be unique; consumers may impute a considerable amount of importance to the performers identities or to the particular arrangement in gauging their own demand for a musical piece.

A live performance differs from a recorded or transmitted performance, a point not hard to accept even without accepting the harsh view that listening to a recording is analogous to "kissing one's sweetheart over the telephone." Live performances permit the music to be heard as the performer(s) do, not arbitrarily altered by transmission or intentionally changed in the recording. True, studio recordings can provide near flawless performances plus an almost infinite variety of tonal quality. Tones can be equalized, fattened, thinned, etc. throughout the musical piece and among all performers. Also, the richness of the tones can be enhanced over what they would be at live performances under conditions of poor acoustics. Yes, high fidelity technology can do many things but it cannot perfectly replicate the sound as

19

performed under acceptable acoustics. Finally, live performances utilize the senses of sight, smell and maybe touch as well as hearing, and permits sensual interaction with others in the audience.

Not only is live music not the same good as recorded music, but the quality of it can vary substantially from one performance to the next The intangibles involved in the act of performing and the potential for subtle interaction between audience and the performers a particularly sparkling performance upon occasion or an unfortunately dull and 'lifeless' one. And, as noted above, the 'right' piece of music in the 'wrong' perforrnem' hands may create an uneven performance. Listeners also have favorite performers and may perceive the performance as preferred because it is performed by their favorite artist(s).

The concept of a market assumes that the various units of commodity demanded and supplied are considered identical by the various economic actors, both buyers and sellers. Live and recorded music, then, constitute different markets. And, in regard to live performances of a piece of music, each and every performance potentially may be perceived as a significantly different commodity depending on the performers, the audience, and the actual performance involved, and as such are not in the same market. The alternative performances of the same music can be viewed as substitutable for each other, as far as the consumer is concerned. This willingness to substitute one performance for another can vary from near perfect to little, depending on the strength of the consumer's differentiations among these.

If many of these alternative performances of a piece of music are not really in the same market (but very close substitutes), how can the market for a single performance be expanded? The only way to provide homogenous units of a live performance to extremely large audiences is by means of transmission. But, this will not provide the same consumption experience as being at the site of the performance with the potential for visual contact with the performers and others in the audience and even the physical environment. In effect, a different product is defined where the physical separation of audience and performers and the depersonalization of the experience is introduced. For many listeners and in many instances, this commodity will be an inferior one for the reasons indicated earlier and for the reason that viewing and listening to music performed on say a 19 inch portable television, or another poor quality audio receiver, may provide diluted and limited stimuli.

Strictly speaking, then, the potential for producing identical units of

20

musical performance in large quantity-the conceptual notion of a market-is only possible through the production of recordings (tape, wax, videotape, etc.). In this case, a ~'-mgle performance, recorded live or in the studio, can be recreated almost indefinitely in identical forms. Each copy of a recording can provide a large number of separate performances of nearly identical form when played back.

In summary, at least three different markets for music exists which can be empirically identified strictly on the basis of commodity forms: live performance with audience at the performance site, live performance transmitted to audience via radio and television, and recorded performances - 'live' or studio performed. The market separations occur because of perceived difference in the potential consumption experience among these commodity forms. These perceived differences result from the creative and sometimes distortive effects that the performance, the transmission, and the recording contribute in the production of the commodities, music.

Inter-Relations of the Commodity Markets: Substitution and Complements The degree of substitution among the three major commodity forms is

sensitive to the nature of the consumption experience discussed above and to a rather pragmatic matter which requires the consumer to purchase an unspecified number of consumption events, not one at a time. The actual choices people must make from the three commodity forms typically embrace a period of time in which many consumption opportunities are possible. This is particularly true for recorded ~usic since the individual consumer must purchase the play-back or receiver equipment as well as the recording. There is a no market choice which pen'nits us to purchase one listening unit of a particular piece of music, not even via the media. Only the attending of alive performance can be made on an individual performance basis. With recordings and transmissions we must decide how much use we have for consumer recorded or transmitted music over the useable life of the technical complements.

Privately, collections of music held by individuals provide flexible scheduling and programming completely at the discretion of the individual listener-to the limits of his/her collection. Listening to recorded music over the media offers the consumer a virtually continuous source of music from widely varied selections. But, the individual listener has not direct control over programming or scheduling, as you do with a private collection. And, while the programming and scheduling are determined by supply (as it is for live performances), most media programming is not advertised prior to being

21

broadcasted. Listeners tune-in for the chance of hearing their preferred music. The notable exceptions to this are the FM radio stations that play classical music according to pre-announced schedules and, of course, the musical outputs of scheduled'television.

The market for live performance for the same music-by the same or different performers, at the same or different locations-more properly should be treated empirically as a collection of sub-markets, most of which would be highly inter-related became of the close but not perfect substitution. The key variables affecting the demand for a particular performance could be: the price of the performance, the place of the performance-acoustics, size and artistic elements itself; who is performing; and other factors that might contribute to the likelihood of a good or bad performance as well as alternative choices available and their prices.

Predominately, the inter-relations among and within these three commodity markets for music is in response to the demand substitution of one commodity for the other. But, the arguments can be turned 180 degrees; the increased demand for one of the commodities can increase the demand for another. For example, the desire to expand one's recording collection, or to have (better) play-back equipment, may iesult from attending live performances of a new artist or of new pieces, or vice versa.

But, thus far, this analysis only addresses the market separation because of commodity form, not because of variable musical 'tastes' of various composite music such as dance, theatre, and movie, or of the role of the aesthetic experience in musical selection. Consumer Preferences and Musical Experience

Consumer economics relies on the individual's preference structure to dictate the nature of the needs and wants that can be satisfied with alternative consumption goods. Ordinarily, we expect that the same consumption purpose can be satisfied by more than one consumer commodity, and that the same commodity can satisfy more than one consumption purpose. What, then, are the needs and wants that are satisfied by the consumption of music? It is at this point that the idea of music as art becomes important for a better understanding of the choices made by the consumers of music.

As was discussed at length earlieL listening to music can be distinguishable from watching a bowling match as an experience in one main conceptual way: Music is considerably capable of compounding the consumption experience to be qualitatively aesthetic in nature, and bowling or watching

22

others bowl is not. Certainly not all music or all ways in which music is consumed is capable (or likely) to be a catlyst for an aesthetic experience; it is a highly qualitative set of conditions influenced by both the artist and commodity form, on the one hand, and by the consumer's reasons and intentions, on the other. Without debating the possibility that bowling could be artistic, clearly music is thought to be embodied with much more aesthetic elements than game activities.

Yet, music and bowling consumption experiences, in some situations and for some consumers, can be perceived as highly similar and, ergo, highly substitutable by the consumer,

Preference Structures for Musical Experience

While musical form can provide the stimulus for an aesthetic experience (whereas, presumably bowling cannot), it also can serve significant extra-aesthetic purposes for the listener, in fact the same purposes as served by bowling. Music can set-off associations such as past experiences which can produce enjoyment (even where the thoughts and music are essentially sad). Music can be recreational such as dance music; music can be educational such as using the tonal pattern and lyrical form to analyze the style of the composer or period. Music may be experienced in a moment of relaxation while driving from work; music may be experienced in period of recreation by the student who jams with friends; and music may be experienced as education by the listeners who desire to increase their appreciation of classical music-i.e., learn to enjoy it.

There are many ways in which the consumption of music can satisfy extra-aesthetic aims. These sources of enjoyment assume a set of essentially positive attitudes toward art, but, the consumption of music may be pursued for the status that ensues with the association. This can take many forms: The groupies of rock music; performers who enjoy their success more than their work; being identified as a patron on the arts by others in the

community, etc. In essence, then the purposes served in the consumption of music include

intrinsic as well as extrinsic qualifies. More important, the satisfying of needs and wants extends beyond the direct impact of music on the individual and the pursuit of aesthetic experience. In fact, these 'other' concerns may become primary in the determinations of demand. Music as art comes in direct competition with non-art forms for the consumer when the preference structure associates experiences with music as only one means of satisfying these non-aesthetic objectives. As a result, people may well view (or act as if

23

they view) aesthetic purposes and non-aesthetic purposes as readily substitutable. Most of us probably fall into this category, even for those among us for whom musical experience is vital. Market Separation For Music: The Factor of Consumer 'Tastes'

In application, it is meaningless to attempt an empirical market analysis of the demand for music (commodities), or even, the demand for live musical performances, where (theoretically) one equilibrium market price will prevail, at which all homogeneous units of product will be sold. Lengthy arguments in this paper defend and define the market separation among commodity forms. But, practically speaking, to deal squarely with the heteroseneous nature of musical commodities is impossible because of two problems: First, since the heterogeneous nature of, say, live performances is a matter of the consumers' perceptions that they yield different musical experiences, the researcher must, at best, speculate as to how market demand differentiates the performances. That is, the researcher must guess how the myriad of live performances should be aggregated into sub-markets where the theoretical assumption of homogeneous units of output can be more satisfied. Second, predetermining the market segmentation among the various live performances must utilize a methodology that can accurately reflect the consumers' substitution principles while presuming as small a number of submarkets as possible. The sources of product differentiations-on the supply side-which consumers may make are discussed in this paper: The commodity form (live performance, media presentation, private collection of recording), the performer(s) and arrangement, setting of performance, and (last but not least) the musical selection(s); on the demand side, there is the purpose to be satisfied (at least attempted) in the consumption experience, aesthetic and non-aesthetic ones.

In terms of supply, the qualitative form of marketed music can be assessed as more or less conducive to aesthetic experience. Certainly, most of AM radio music is intended as 'filler' or incidental to what the listener may be really concentrating on. In contrast, live performance of the Cleveland Orchestra or the rock group, Chicago, is significantly conducive to an experience touched with aesthetic traits.

Summary

Certainly, the discussion in this paper scratches only the surface as it stops short of any attempts to formally apply resource allocation modeling. But several points can be made. First, the urge to quantify (at least with nominal measure) artistic traits and aesthetic experience has gripped academicians

24

from many disciplines and practitioners as wen. Yet these attempts, thus far, have given direction-~toward but not produced operational definitions of art and artistic.

Second, these definitions are much needed. They are needed in order to effectively argue for and identify those consumption activities that are artistic and those that are not. After all, the aesthetic elements become the essential argument for subsidizing enterprises such as the creation and provision of music to this and future generations. It is the capability of music to provide the aesthetic experience for the listener and to stand as an art object which can be enjoyed and interpreted by future generations for the purpose of placing our civilizations into historical perspective, and which distinguishes music from bowling as essentially a playful activity, from "How to Appreciate Your Cost Accountant" as learning-mental development activity, and from Yoga exercises as a relaxing activity. The current practice of arbitrarily differentiating "serious" music from "occasional" music is essentially negative toward art. It emphasizes the exclusion of music that does not possess the surrogate traits of 'good' art which are based on intuitive reasoning at best, and on the attributes of musical form, at worst. As a result, many programs that do support or reward musical composers and performers tend to slight-if not ignore entirely-persons who are not interested in classical music.

Granted, there are many theoretical questions surrounding the consumption of art (and music as art) by persons other than the elite group. But it is foolish to assume that there is no difference among contemporary musical forms in their artistic content. It is erroneous, as well, to assume that music can be vital to the listener only if it is 'serious' music. Music can be a vital part of human (consumption) experience, regardless of musical form or the absence of an intent on the part of the listener to pursue an aesthetic experience.

The direction taken in this paper is to perceive the aesthetic and non-aesthetic purpose pursued by consumers in their enjoyment of music as the needed material operationalized for identifying the market separation, and the concommitant substitution effects, among the various musical forms, (e.g., classical) and composites (e.g., dance) and the various commodities in which it is provided (e.g., live performance or recorded, orchestra or band, choir or group), The quality of an aesthetic presence--even an intermittent or occasional one-in listening to AM 'pop' music is harder to achieve. For those wanting a more involved musical experience, AM radio may be a poor

25

substitute for musi_cal selections more embodied with musical challenge and delivered in a more conducive setting. Moreover, many consumers may use the aesthetic elements of musical experience--its stimulation of intellect, imagination or at least emotions-as means to relax, or to play, or to renew one self (the purposes of leisure). Economists are right to avoid the discussion of aesthetics in order to differentiate 'good' music from 'bad' music, or to identify music which serves a 'higher' purpose. But, the consumer economist must recognize that aesthetic purpose is a measurable force which manifests itself in many ways in the market place in the same, but stronger way than it does for housing market choices and prices in relation to environmental

design.

The University of Akron

Footnotes

1. Seashore, Carl, Psychology of Music, (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1967).

2. Khatchadourian, Haig, The Concept of Art, (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 4-5.

3. Bedeant, Arnold, "Surrogate Theories of Art," Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 30 (2) 1969, p. 180.

4. Seashore, Cad, In Search of Beauty of Music, (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1974), p. 185.

5. Berleant, Arnold, The Aesthetic Field, (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1970), pp. 91-158.

6. Of course, legally the property rights of the musical product do not safely exist until it has been copyrighted. At this time, a composition cannot be copyrighted unless it is written as sheet music which ordinarily would involve the selection of key and positioning of all parts.

* This paper owes a great deal to my colleague, Professor William S. Hendon. I first got the idea for this paper several years ago after reading Hendon's Art Institute Study - Special Considerations of Art Museum Report II, Center for Urban Studies at The University of Akron of July, 1973. And, our intermittent discussions for the subject have been immeasurable in value in completing this paper.

26