>Really don't want to be combative but there seems to be a
>misconception on your part. Museums are not galleries.

No misconception - museums are not galleries if by "galleries" we are only talking about places where art is exhibited primarily for the point of purchase. But museums don't function purely as repositories for art that has been publicly vetted in some way as you suggested (not trying to be combative either, just reiterating for clarity):

>Museums typically buy things that already have significant value from >other collectors. Or, have the work donated. Either way, the (very >rich) public usually has their say first, about if a work is museum >worthy.

Museums are not merely end points for art that has gone through some vetting process, commercial or otherwise. Go to any contemporary art museum, or any museum that regularly features contemporary art, and you will see exhibitions of an artist's work that likely features (and sometimes centers upon) wholly new, previously unseen, or very minimally-shown work. What has been deemed "museum-worthy" is not a specific piece of art but the general work of a specific artist (and/or their relation to a group or theme, etc) - their new work is deemed worthy of inclusion by association, in a sense. Fire up the website of any city's Museum of Contemporary Art and browse the new exhibits --- showing new work is par for the course.

So when handle said:

>Why would any NEW music belong in a museum? Shouldn't you have
>people hear it and then decide if it's exhibit worthy?

And then howardlloyd asked:

> is that how any other art works?

The answer should at *least* be, "Not really." Because there are countless examples of contemporary visual/plastic/performance art *and* music (especially contemporary art) that has not been seen/heard before being exhibited in museums.

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~