Mozi was wrong about music, but his question about it still stings

I play cello in a chamber ensemble in Seoul and teach children. I recently read the Mohist chapter "Against Music" and I can't stop arguing with it in my head.

Mozi's argument, as I understand it: ordinary people have three great worries, being hungry, being cold and being exhausted. Grand music does nothing for any of them. It takes resources to build the instruments, takes workers away from farming and weaving to perform, and takes rulers' attention away from government. So the benevolent person should condemn it. He's not deaf; he admits music is pleasant. He just says pleasure that consumes so much and produces nothing doesn't pass the test of benefit to all.

Xunzi answered in his "Discourse on Music" that music shapes people's dispositions and harmonises a community, so its benefit is real, just not countable in grain.

I agree with Xunzi. But Mozi's question stings anyway. Our city has just cut the budget for music in schools, using an argument Mozi would recognise: in a hard year, children need food and maths, not cello. And I'm not sure I can answer the people who say it without sounding like someone defending her own job.

How would you answer Mozi today, in a way that doesn't simply assume what he denies?