Music Rant: Classical Music Is Just Entertainment

[@Sonorgie]

Word choice and phrasing are everything. I make a distinction between entertainment and art. I’m entertained by “That’s Entertainment!“ Something more happens with King Lear, Celan, Blind Lemon Jefferson or Per Nørgard’s symphonies. Call it “instruction,” an expanded sense of truth, an access to levels of mentality daily life obscures. “Art should be the axe to break up the frozen seas within us,” as Kafka said. So I don’t think “entertainment” covers that, though of course “it must give pleasure,” as Stevens reminded us. I also often feel that entertainment distracts us from life while art helps us to see into it more deeply. Entertainment helps us forget for a while, art helps us remember or discover. I think that both things are necessary at times. Also, in this sense, anything - a symphony, a poem, a painting, a movie, a song - anything could be art or entertainment. Cheers, Dave, for being the bringer of ever-growing superior entertainment in this KZbinland and beyond.

[@Gjoa1906]

Refreshing! And seeing many folks seemingly shaken to the core about this - that’s entertainment in itself..

[@joosroets5533]

Classical music can also have another function, e.g. to channel grief (the decease of a loved one) or to inspire awe for the metaphysical aspects of life - and many (or dare I say most) composers were aware of that function (and not just by writing requiems). Of course, this holds true for other music as well, but classical music has the longest history (and greatest experience) in attuning itself (and its forms) to the therapeutic aspect of music. In that respect, the second mvmt of the 7th of Beethoven, or Bach's passions, are not mere entertainment.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

OK, but what they are (or do) for you is irrelevant to the question of what they are in actuality.

[@thename305]

I may be late here as this was posted 2 years ago, but I cannot thank you enough for this video. Perfectly expressing my feelings on a topic that has bothered me for a while. Intellectual engagement, communication of emotions, soothing the soul - these are all forms of entertainment, by the very definition of entertainment. That doesn't mean music can't be "spiritual", whatever that word means for you - profundity may come from within, including ideas which we entertain. Denying that, claiming it's something other and greater, is frankly more self-indulgent and elitist than any overt contempt for others' tastes could ever be.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

You're very welcome. Thanks for watching!

[@wildflute]

Viewing this art as entertainment centres the audience as opposed to the performer or the work... this is how we get to stay relevant and accessible.

[@chrislittle7665]

I say (unironically) amen! It is wonderfully entertaining to hear truth told in such a lively way. My interest is routinely captured and held by your reviews (longtime ClassicsToday reader), musical chats, and topical videos. Deep, profound emotions are also stirred - sometimes when I disagree with your critical judgements! - but entertainment it is and will always remain.

[@doctorzingo]

This talk is spot on. Even when I was young I was confused by the "Arts & Entertainment" moniker ("it's the same thing, but not"). I would contend that any form of expression has historically flourished the most when it was seen, and more importantly saw itself, as entertainment - sometimes for a small group of benefactors, sometimes for a larger paying audience. Classical music's loss of cultural relevance here in Europe coincides with both composers and orchestras starting to get the majority of their funding from the government. Sure, the majority of listeners actively disliked the new, almost universally serial, music being broadcast on state radio from the fifties and sixties onwards, but that fact had no bearing on the income of the performers. When you see claims of "art" it usually means someone feels they are fighting a losing battle for funding and attention. Look at jazz, which in basically one century went from street music to mainstream popular music to art in need of public funding. But it seems many have trouble with the word entertainment (or, even worse, its French equivalent "divertissement") in itself. To me it's adjacent to "performance" and "communication".

[@justinpickens1216]

I think the phrase "just entertainment" is an oxymoron. Individuals whose lives are entirely devoid of entertainment, or societes which try to rigidly control entertainment, don't tend to do well.

[@Craig_Wheeler]

This is so spot on! Handel wasn't worried about changing lives with a metaphysical experience; he was worried about putting butts in seats at the theatre. Things that entertain get - hopefully - repeated. Also, If you have a life changing experience during some fabulous modulation during the slow movement of Tchaikovsky 5, that's great for you. Tchaikovsky's letters will tell you that he was mostly concerned with how the work was received by the audience. We, as an audience, are responsible for our own emotions. You are either "entertained" or you are not; about the worst thing is to leave a performance remembering nothing. Better to be loathed than to inspire apathy in the admission paying public. ...just my 2 cents. 🙂

[@anthonycook6213]

And yet he changed Haydn's soul.

[@Craig_Wheeler]

@@anthonycook6213 ...as Haydn changed Mozart's, or so Mozart said. Music can move us in so many ways, but I do feel that most composers hope that others are pleased and entertained by their music, in the broadest sense. Many people who set out with spiritual intentions -in any of the fine arts - ended up being profoundly profane; And vice versa. 😉 I often feel that when one creates music, without any expectations of moving the audience, but to simply write from the heart or mind, an audience can read all sorts of hidden depths or meanings into something that initially was just a product of loving to compose music. I hope that made sense. 🙂

[@joshuaweiner6378]

I agree with you as I usually do. If we want this music we all love to survive, it must be seen as entertaining to a broad group of people. People who are willing to purchase recordings and tickets, to throw change in a street player’s violin case and to encourage their congresspeople to support arts funding. People are bringing up modern/avant Garde music as a counterfactual. But the modern composers whose work has lasted and sold records and tickets are all entertaining to people: Glass, Reich, Cage, Ligeti, Rautavaara, Aho, Saariaho, Pärt, Gorecki, Feldman, Adams. Cage, for example, is radical, but people saw many of his works as fun: he staged happenings, appeared on What’s My Line, etc. Ligeti reached huge audiences via Kubrick’s movies. Modern composers who write grim and featureless pedantry don’t accumulate fans and don’t last.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Yep!

[@adrianoseresi3525]

I read somewhere in these comments a point that says: ‘art is entertainment that lasts.’ Now that’s something of a major revelation! Wow

[@Jeff-wb3hh]

I agree, it is entertainment, but like you said the importance of classical music entertainment is different for each person. For me, classical music got me through some very rough times emotionally. And it has sustained my mind, emotions and spirit for the past 50 years. If baseball is another person's entertainment, then that's fine for that person, but not for me.

[@ahartify]

Just entertainment? If you want to follow that line, you could agree that it is a distraction, perhaps a distraction from reality itself. Sure, music can't be boring and one can 'entertain' an idea. It is 'play,' certainly. But I can't quite buy into your argument. Sometimes music is entertaining but sometimes it seems more than that. It can even have a religious or ritualistic basis. In that sense it has a, dare I say it, 'cultural significance. I do not really feel 'entertained' when I listen to Mahler or Bruckner, for example. I feel uplifted, inspired, I might even have religious emotions, I might even feel amorous. The term doesn't quite fit every case for me. When I think of entertainment I immediately think of street juggling. But we may be at cross purposes here. I've had arguments about this before and they've never been resolved. I feel that your approach is (forgive me) particularly American, seeing music as merely one 'consumer commodity.' But the argument could go on for eternity.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I don't forgive you. To say that my perspective is particularly American is a stupid and ignorant comment based on your refusal to entertain the core of the argument. Get over it.

[@composingpenguin]

I have been more deeply moved by some street performances than by many a classical music concert. Calling music entertainment is *not* the same as calling it a “consumer commodity,” and saying so reveals more about your biases than about this matter.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

@@composingpenguin Bingo!

[@composingpenguin]

@@lorenzoimperialeurbinati4626 Lovely negative stereotyping, with a nice helping of a lack of self-awareness.

[@composingpenguin]

@@lorenzoimperialeurbinati4626 Yes, I had gathered that.

[@chriswrenn6732]

Yeah. A lot of times it is, and sometimes for me that's enough. And sometimes for me it's a necessary emotional outlet. I guess for me art in general is like fire in a fireplace. Sometimes I just need the comfort of a warm fireplace when coming home from a crazy world. And other times I need to put my head up close & experience the colors of the fire, the sound of the burning, the intense heat that reflects all my emotions of the day, and to not look away until I feel better. But that's me--I know not everyone feels that way.

[@ppfuchs]

I think I remember from your trajectory that you specialized in Germanic culture in grad school, and in addition you seem brilliantly well-informed about German musical culture specifically. So...you certainly must be aware that that same German culture had a conception of music's nature and meaning almost diametrically opposed the one you are offering. Even more, there are even many intersections between the highest reaches of German Idealism philosophy and the German conception of music. Hence, the very culture that produced much of the great music you are discussing in these videos, had a view very different from the one you give about its true nature. It is no exaggeration, I think, to say that music's nature was a deep part of Bildung, so critical to German notions of development. But, having said all that, I think you may be correct in some very empirical sense. Of course there is no baldly empirical difference between great music and professional wrestling, in the sense that it is all, empirically, stuff that helps us pass the time. But that seems to be a kind of hothouse definition in that it leaves out most of the collateral sense of music itself. So, put simply , I think you are partially right only. I will never be convinced that K.467 is on the same level as rap. (And I remember that you scoffed at people who use Kochel numbers-- take that! )

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Sigh. You missed my point completely. The issue is not the comparison to rap or anything else. Like so many others here, you mistakenly equate entertainment with "lowbrow" activity. You are wrong. So very wrong. And you ignore completely the fact that whether we accept this definition of "entertainment" as encompassing classical music or not, we treat it and use it as we do all other forms or entertainment or leisure activity, so NOT to accept it as such is simple hypocrisy.

[@ppfuchs]

Can I just add a personal note here, based on a re-reading of your comment. I do NOT treat music as I do other forms of leisure activity, as you aver all do. It is part of my spiritual life. So this is not hypocrisy for me. The fact that I like it sometimes also in the evening with some other "spirits" ( mostly white wine in my case) does not lessen its spiritual meaning for me. Cheers!

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

@@ppfuchs Your spiritual life is just another leisure activity. You think of it as "different," but it really isn't. You can invent as many categories as you like, but in the end it's all the same.

[@ppfuchs]

@@DavesClassicalGuide LOL!!! Good reply, Dave. You have a point, but then again, you really don't. And for me reading or existing between those lines is where true spirituality exists. In addition that is sort of space where great creativity exists also. Of course one can always look at great music as an evolution fo musical forms alone. But that does not answer why some people do it so much better than others. The truth of the music history is that an almost vanishingly small percentage of the general musicians could ever do what Bach did. And Bach certainly did NOT write his Cantatas because he thought that church parishioners expected a "pay off" for sitting through the sermon, as you aver. That was total howler. . But that is definitely why they serve Doughnuts after many Church tedious church services today.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

@@ppfuchs No, Bach wrote his cantatas because he got paid to do it, and had that not been the case he never would have written them at all. They were a purely mercenary activity.

[@rubeng9092]

I prefer the term recreation to entertainment. Recreation renews, and opens up possibilities within the larger picture of life. It's both healthy, delightful and necessary, but it should point to things beyond itself.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Same difference.

[@RichardGreen422]

My wife and I go regularly to the LA Phil and Dodger games. Whether we are at either, I think at least once about the great bargain that is an LA Phil concert. With the Dodgers, we pay to watch 50 remarkably accomplished people in the company of 50,000 others. With the LA Phil, we pay less to listen to 100 remarkably accomplished people in the company of 2,000 others.

[@glennportnoy1305]

Great video, David! It took me back to the early days of Riccardo Muti's tenure in Philadelphia. He, in no uncertain terms, spoke of his disdain for including classical music concert listings in the "Entertainment" section of the newspapers. He also derided how Americans pronounced the name of singer Madonna. If that weren't enough, he stopped the performance of the Tchaikovsky 6th to lecture the audience for applauding after the 3rd Movement. I know, I was there. I bet that helped bring people back into the Hall! Actually there was a drop in subscription sales during his time here. I wonder why?!

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Yes, he was a jerk. He also liked to start playing while the audience was still applauding.

[@glennportnoy1305]

@@DavesClassicalGuide I remember those Muti moments as well as his purposeful rejection of the "Philadelphia Sound". Friends of mine referred to his appointment as "Ormandy's Revenge!" I also would add that Ormandy had no qualms about entertaining us. He also took pleasure in sending us off with great tunes or dances equally as much as the sounds of a great Brahms symphony. He was the consummate entertainer in the truest sense of the word.

[@steveschwartz8944]

I heartily agree with Dave's idea that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." I've never seen why art must be cheap. In cruel economic terms, it depends on how important art is to you. As a poor student, all my (meagre) discretionary income went to books and recordings. They kept me entertained and interested.

[@steveschwartz8944]

@@EnriqueHernandez-zk7qc *I* certainly would consider it so and leave it alone, but what that means is that I don't want it that much, that it's not essential to *me*. On the other hand, I've known collectors (usually opera enthusiasts) who have paid (or overpaid) hundreds for some rare recording. I'm hard pressed to think of a recording I'd pay so much for (not counting big boxes). I remember when the big Sony Stravinsky box came out for over $100. I agonized over whether to get it, and by the time I was through agonizing, it had gone. Fortunately, it returned at a lower price years later. Same thing with the Arthur Sullivan box on EMI.

[@joncheskin]

I agree that all music is entertainment, and definitely appreciate the notion that classical music needs to be engaging, "entertaining". Music has other purposes, however, and not just classical music. It can be a collective experience, a means of mutual understanding. It can be an intellectual experience, a means of challenging the mind and imagination. It can be an emotioanal experience, a means of catharsis or other emotional connectedness. I can be a spiritual experience, a means of approaching the divine. All of these types of experience can be achieved without high-brow snobbery, and achieved very well by forms of music other than classical. My point is simply that to say music is "just entertainment" is an overstatement, it is often more.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

No, all of those other things are entertainment too. It's only an overstatement if you have a severely restricted view of what that word means.

[@xavierotazu5805]

Inspiring video. Dave, you changed my concept of entertainment and Art. Before seeing your video I thought they were different things ... but not. I think many people here consider that entertainment changes to another (better?) thing when it includes something extra, something with an "added value" (call it philosophy, emotions, whaterever ... ). But it is not. Entertainment is a concept that includes all this things, including Art. Art is not anything different to entertainment, it's a part of it with some properties different to other kinds of entertainment that could even help us to progress in other areas. Entertainment is a superset much bigger than we think, that includes the set we call "Art". Could the concept "pleasure" or "likeness" be what defines entertainment? Then, any kind of Art is entertainment because if generates some kind of pleasure (physical, emotional, intellectual ...) on us.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Thank you for keeping an open mind about it, and for understanding what I was trying to say.

[@steveevans6241]

I think Dave is basically along the right lines here. I went to a concert a few nights ago, 3 pieces in the program. A modern piece by a well known senior composer. Complete crap, I hated it. And no, I didn't misunderstand it, it was just crap. No entertainment value there for me. Followed by a dark song song cycle, which was deeply disturbing. I loved it! Then a well known 20th century symphonic masterpiece, which had the overall desired effect of entertaining me hugely. As a kid, I was raised on all sorts of music & picked out all the different stuff I loved & played it again & again, which entertained me for hours. In my 20's/30's I also DJ'd dance music & organised parties. That was very entertaining indeed. The stuff that endures is the stuff that entertains & gets to those deep spots inside us that are just waiting to be stimulated. It's immensely satisfying & long may we all continue to be entertained by whatever tickles our fancy....With just a few helpful tips from Dave along the way....

[@bbailey7818]

Verdi said the box office is the proper measure of success. Of course classical or art music is entertainment. Pagliacci or Parsifal, both entertainment. Different experiences but both are diverting. When they were being written, the songs that make up the Great American Songbook were regarded as pop music and not much else. Today they are considered not only classics but Classical by most people. Serious fun like a Handel aria or a Schubert lied. Entertaining. Handel did say he hoped Messiah would "make them (listeners) better" but he did it through the medium of something entertaining. "Serious" composers who say "who cares if you listen" to quote a famous mid-20th century High Fidelity article, find their output as forgotten as any trendy,exploitative but ephemeral top 40 number.

[@DennyL99]

I thought is it striking that you dispatched the notion that classical music is ‘culture‘ with no trouble at all, and I agree that this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word culture, but, unless I missed it, you didn’t address whether it is ‘art’. A previous poster it in the side put it very well when they said ‘entertainment distracts us from life and art helps us to see more deeply into it.‘ My way of putting it is that entertainment is a product delivered to us for our pleasure that we consume passively, while art engages us intellectually and emotionally, with the possibility of engendering emotions other than pleasure. According to both these notions music is sometimes entertainment and sometimes art; it doesn’t all have to be one thing!

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

That's why I didn't get into the "art" business. There is no definition that most will agree on. I disagree with yours. So I'll stick to "entertainment."

[@DennyL99]

@@EnriqueHernandez-zk7qc Of course we need the concept of ‘art‘. Is music art? If classical music is not art them no music is! Who would say to that mythical Martian visiting Earth say ‘Oh, Leo Tolstoy, Béla Bartók, Johann Sebastian Bach, Elvis Presley, Tommy Steele, they were entertainers’? Is that painting by Picasso, Guernica, entertainment? Art is something we engage with, and that means we might need to work at it. Then we grow and become a better person. Entertainment is something presented for our pleasure and to make money, that we consume passively, like a chocolate bar. Most artists are not in the business of making money, they want to express themselves and communicate. We engage with them and hopefully understand.

[@gertyup]

If this is the case, then what do we do about public funding of the arts or is that an entirely separate discussion? Please forgive me if it is a naive question but I'm particularly thinking of professional orchestras that receive state support in order to sustain themselves. If we are saying that the one and only mission of any state orchestra, along with every other sector of the performing or visual arts , is to entertain people, and if people aren't showing up do we just allow the free market to decide their fate?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

That is indeed a separate discussion, but these are all valid questions. A short answer is that we subsidize entertainment with public funds because we have made a collective decision that certain things matter or are so important that we want them to be available whether they make money or not. There's no difference in this respect between the arts and giving a sports team owner a huge tax subsidy to build a new stadium. Some of these things are simply public priorities.

[@leonardogondim6062]

That’s it!!! Pure entertainment & Eargasm 🎼🎵🎶

[@Tungusqa]

Handel already said it. His task was to create entertainment for the upper social classes for whom he worked.

[@guimapg10]

Thank you, Dave.

[@jonathanfinney7821]

Could not agree more, beginning simply with the title. The worst is when a moral quality is attached by the listener to themselves by themselves because they enjoy classical music. Music is the opiate, not religion. And I LOVE classical music. There is no ethical education bestowed by any art. Most people don't miss it and are none the worst or better for that fact. The appreciation of classical music or literature did not help the Germans 1933-1945 avoid there errors.

[@MrKitrid]

Everything we call art or entertainment is part art and entertainment. After all, if it wasn't art in the slightest, it wouldn't be man-made, and if it wasn't entertainment in the slightest, it wouldn't be able to attract anyone's attention at all.

[@allthisuselessbeauty-kr7]

I don't have any problem with the concept of classical music as entertainment or being entertaining...it is and should be! Just because the word 'entertainment' has gained a set of spurious conotations as representing something slight or inconsequential doesn't make it so (it's not the first time a word has been misinterpreted). It not a denigration to call it thus, or takes away how important it is to me personally (I've always thought of entertainment as something that engages you, and there's no hope for you if you're filling your time with something that doesn't do that, whether it be sport, music, film, etc). Another thought is that sometimes we might listen to something that doesn't initially entertain but with further exposure takes on profound meaning (for example my initial reaction to Miles Davis' Kind of Blue was what's the fuss all about? Now I get it and realise it sometimes takes work to be 'entertained'). My final thought is I have to say the porn analogy is an interesting one; however I'm not sure porn is entertainment as it relates entirely to helping induce biological functions to sate certain primal urges (although I concede it has to be engaging in the most basic sense). I mean nobody watches 'Debbie Does Dallas' for the final soliloquy Debbie delivers before 'engaging' with a cable repair man and a large proportion of a collegiate football team...ahem.... or so I have been told not having seen it myself!

[@dennischiapello3879]

Composers themselves can get confused. I read that Alban Berg was terribly distressed by the immediate success and popularity of "Wozzeck," because that must have meant it wasn't elevated enough to be shamefully unappreciated and neglected. That was quite a perverted outlook.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

You're right. Of course composers bring their own baggage. Holst disliked the fact that the Planets became so popular. Sorabji hated everyone. There is music deliberately written not to be popular, but that doesn't means that it's not entertaining for those who like it.

[@youtuber5305]

- If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art. (Arnold Schoenberg)

[@bobleroe3859]

Sacred Music is admittedly entertaining, but it has a higher function--to worship and glorify God, as indicated in Psalm 150, and to convey spiritual truth in a creative, engaging way. Some theologians say that God sang the world into existence. Also music can be therapeutic, something I found while serving as a hospital chaplain, playing my guitar on the wards.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

In other words, entertainment. It has no "higher function." That is a myth. I do not regard worship and glorifying God as a higher purpose than entertainment. I think it's a waste of time (and of sometimes great music). Your assignment of value to these "additional functions" is purely relative and subjective. There are many kinds of entertainment dedicated to specific purposes. The fact that Psalm 150 recognizes the utility of musical entertainment as an aid to worship hardly makes its use for that purpose "higher" than any other purpose, or no purpose at all.

[@gavingriffiths2633]

That's why I love Rossini - he saw that music was, above all, fun and enjoyable - even if he was producing a 'tragic' opera - and never pretended anything else! Listening now to an Opera Rara boxed set of Ermione (and two other operas). And it makes me so happy!

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Ermione is a stunning, great work.

[@murraylow4523]

Yes it is

[@adrianoseresi3525]

The little solemn mass is another excellent example.

[@smurashige]

Perhaps what triggers folks with the word "entertainment" is the word's common association with money: when we hear the word "entertainment", what often comes to mind is "cheap" entertainment, "mere" entertainment, and from the point of view of classical music snobbery - "popular" entertainment. Classical music, like the "fine" arts, must be something more, much more - it's deeper, richer, leads to Truth, etc. The heritage claimed by Classical music ("Classical" - think Renaissance, think ancient Greece and Rome), including plainchant, etc., abounds in lofty associations - the Church, the sacred, divinity, aristocratic Rococo culture, royal patronage, the literary arts, wealthy bourgeois culture, etc. Whereas "popular" culture's heritage is supposed to be peasant farming songs, folk songs, "national" musics, etc. (Even classical music that was too easy or "popular", like Dvorak or Tchaikovsky, would rank lower on the scale of "serious" music.) To call Classical music "entertainment", seems to demean its lofty heritage and associations, or its aspirations, and perhaps we're too stuck on the demeaning associations the word "entertainment" has. I think we can, as you did, go back to the meaning of the word "entertainment" to think not so much about what music is, but what it can be, or what it can do as entertainment. I heard Erich Leinsdorf in Chicago echo your words, that music was "entertainment." He then said, using the French, it was "entre" "tenir" - "to hold between." For him, that meant something that held the musicians and the audience together, that it was this kind of communion, or communication. Forms of entertainment do bind people together, at least temporarily and for good or ill. Sports has a way of getting total strangers to chat with each other on the L train in Chicago. Your KZbin channel does the same thing: it brings people together. If music is a form of communication, it's this kind of communication. But as I said, this can be good or bad. It's bad when it reinforces divisions between "the in group" and "outsiders." What I enjoy about your KZbin channel is that it works to break down the walls that separate insiders from outsiders. Your channel is more about music as a source of enjoyment through sharing - true entertainment, something that we can all hold between us. And this is what I take away from your belief that music is entertainment, that it is something to be enjoyed and that it ought to be shared, not with a few, but with everyone. Now that's entertainment!

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Thank you. I think that's very well said. Just one point: recorded classical music certainly is "cheap entertainment" from a purely economic point of view!

[@smurashige]

@@DavesClassicalGuide yes, isn’t that true! It’s sure cheaper than professional sports, and free if you have access to a classical radio station.

[@keithhansen4891]

I've made the same argument regarding rock music- to no avail.

[@davidbo8400]

Rock fans, especially heavy metal fans, are such snobs! No wonder 2 or 3 basic chords pop shite is taking over the world - there at least there is no other pretention than making boatloads of money by entertaining the biggest audience possible. + It's the most democratic kind of music: anybody can write some after a couple of days, if not within minutes.

[@brentmarquez4157]

I love the contrarian and thought provoking nature of this opinion (technical fact?). It plays off of provocative connotations that come along with stating a technical semantic truth, which is highly....entertaining to me.

[@alwa6954]

Perhaps we need more than one word for "entertainment." It's not bad to exult certain activities over others and no one should be afraid of being called a snob or elitist for saying that. There's no shame in saying Shakespeare is a more worthwhile entertainment than watching porn. Both are entertaining but I hope it's not controversial or snobbish (though I don't care if it is) to say that Shakespeare has more of value to offer, more to be gained for thought and learning and wisdom and personal growth. If we are really at a point where listening closely to Beethoven must be considered of equal value and worth as picking one's nose (which can be entertaining in its own right, I'm sure) then we have ceased to use our brains and are just calling things equal for the sake of being egalitarian.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

We don't need different words to understand that not everything is equal (and I never said that it was, you will note). If we are too stupid or insensitive to make those very basic and obvious distinctions, then shame on us. Anyway, that's why God invented adjectives such as "light," "heavy," "sophisticated, " "moronic," and so forth. I suggest that we use them while recognizing that entertainment is what it is, because beyond that basic issue, there is also the equally important question of how entertainment gets consumed, and in this respect there really is no difference between watching Shakespeare and watching porn. Both are leisure-time activities to which we need to allocate a chunk of free time, and if we pretend that classical music (to return to the topic at hand) deserves more of that time as something separate and apart from our general entertainment budget of time and money just because, well, just because, then we aren't being honest with our audience and they, who know better as a practical matter, aren't going to be persuaded that it's worth their time.

[@alwa6954]

@@DavesClassicalGuide Listening to classical music is part of your work so does that make it more than entertainment to you? I don't consider it strictly entertainment to me either. It's like part of my work though I don't get paid for it. Is academics entertainment? Is it entertainment if we're not getting paid for it but something else if we are getting paid? If I am in an English literature class I may have to read Thomas Hardy. Is that entertainment or something else? If I am reading it because I am required to write an essay on it is it entertainment or something else? Is it only entertainment if I enjoy it and am not getting anything else out of it? At what point does it cease to be entertainment and becomes something else and what do we have to get out of it before we can consider it more than just entertainment? I consider things that have an academic basis to be both entertainment and more than entertainment even if one is not required to do it for work or school. Classical music falls into that category for me.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

@@alwa6954 You've just answered your own questions.

[@HankDrake]

Entertainment derives from the Greek word "entrata" which means "to hold." If something is holding an audience's attention, that's not insignificant. Classical music is also a niche market within another market, which too many stuffed shirt types (like that British gossip blogger) forget.

[@richardwilliams473]

Thanks ,David for your elevation of Classical Music as an Entertainment value of the highest order. I have played in Orchestras for over 54 years now and find the audience always dressed up in formal attire which matches the type of music being performed.

[@mancal5829]

I find your videos very entertaining 😁. In my book they give classical music a run for their money.

[@kavansl8602]

The cheapest NYP seats were 91. Have they gone up in price? I saw some San Francisco Symphony seats for 35. But solo performance seats are 90 the cheapest.

[@AdiMaco]

Excellent rant!

[@Sulsfort]

Besides the question of elitist vs popular or a supposed importance of cultural products (music, baseball etc.) there is the idea, that they have a meaning, that they make a statement. And not only, what you make up for yourself, but for humanity. I know, that music doesn't make people better people. The Nazis liked Beethoven's 9th. But yet I still can't give up the idea, that cultural products (especially music) can make a difference in the world.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

All of that may be so, but it only serves to promote the value of certain kinds of entertainment.

[@MisterPathetique]

Reminds me of that Pogorelich documentary made in the 80s by Dan Featherstone. In the course of a conversation with the interviewer, Pogorelich said something like "music today is part of the entertainment industry, but what I'm doing isn't entertainment because you have to use your brain to go to my concerts". I don't have the exact words in mind, I'm paraphrasing, but I always thought he completely missed the mark here. Good entertainment is still entertainment. I think you made this video specifically to address this.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Yep.

[@chriskei7851]

He may have meant that some artists and promoters focus more on the visual aspects of performance rather than the actual musical content. In the end I see classical music will always be a smaller niche - kind of acquired taste perhaps within which there are even finer tastes to be discovered - and nothing wrong with this as it is the nature of the beast. I do agree that is is healthy to view classical music as entertainment so long as we are not prejudice by the connotations of this. What is disturbing is the actual establishment that tries to control classical music and it's empirical and colonialist background. At least in USA they have moved on a bit from here but in Europe and UK it is still largely institutions for white with some Asian people. Take London for example there is an orchestra for black people but all the big orchestras have failed to integrate London's huge African/Indian/Jamaican population into these institutions. The snoberry of classical music starts at the educational level in schools and lack of performances workshops in urban communities.

[@flexusmaximus4701]

As Duke Ellington said if it sounds good. It is good. I also like sir Thomas Beecham , music is sound , you either like it or not.

[@timothykeenan3743]

Self evident I think (after a little thought, rather than conditioned reflex). All cultural products are literally pastimes, entertainment, filling the hours after our basic needs have been satisfied. There are different degrees of entertainment to be sure, from clickbait to the St Matthew Passion, as you say. Did Beethoven write his last quartets to demonstrate his intellectual capacities or did he hope that people would enjoy listening to them? It's only in my later years that I realise how ideologically brainwashed I had become after decades of reading music criticism that promoted the superiority (overtly or covertly) of Western classical music. Beethoven's late quartets may be intellectual entertainment (or spiritual whatever that means), but entertainment is still entertainment. My personal experience changes nothing.

[@zionfortuna]

I think most of the resistence towards the thesis that "classical music is just entertainment" seen in the comments can be traced back to the following question: if classical music is just entertainment, what's the difference between it and the newest hit pop songs? Or the newest super-hero movie blockbuster that comes out every month or so? And if there is none, why should we even bother in perserving and performing it anyway?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Easy question. We should do so because we like it and value it for whatever qualities we perceive it to have, which is the only valid reason. We need to further justification.

In German school I was taught that there is "E-Musik" (serious music) and "U-Musik" (entertainment music). I always found this to be bullshit. To me there is the right music for the moment (audience, location, time) and wrong music. The right music can entertain, unite, challenge, excite, lead into trance, euphoria, catharsis - it can fulfil many roles, from pure utility (which is valuable) to completely capturing everybody and taking them somewhere else. Sometimes classical music is the right music.

[@estel5335]

Don't take it all too serious, guys.

[@jgesselberty]

Entertainment? Completely agree. But, there is entertainment that amuses and passes the time and there is entertainment that enriches or enlightens and leaves something in the mind. I doubt that, even an avid sports enthusiast, would collect videos of all the games they saw and return to them time and again for further entertainment. But, music, literature, art, architecture, etc. are initially and delightfully entertaining, but, if they leave the appropriate impression, we return to them time after time. And, yes, for entertainment.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Actually, sports fans do exactly that for the games they love, just as we do with the music we love, and for the same reason--to be enriched and enlightened. There is no difference whatsoever, and I never said that there were not different kinds of entertainment--just that music must compete for our time and attention and money AS entertainment. Just what kind it is and how important it is depends on the individual, and I argue that in order to make the best case we have to call it what it is and show how it can compete with other forms of entertainment. The mistake lies in the assumption that classical music is a "higher," better, or more enlightened form. It may be in some respects, but we have no right to assume that people who don't know it agree with that proposition, and that therefore we have no need to make the case and are justified in talking down to them and treating them like fools for not accepting our viewpoint.

[@edgarcozzio9152]

I am not sure what all these distinctions should be about and what they are really saying. Music might be entertainment for some but work for others - work as in the means of earning a living. Also, it’s not interesting enough to argue about ‘low’ to ‘high’ of anything. Music - of any kind - is language and it is a language with near universal power of communication. And the music that has the power to communicate to us the most, is and always will be the music that endures throughout time. All the best art is pure communication. In everything we do as humans that is not purely functional, we express ourselves to others and music is a means to this expression. Many other means exist. Music is just one of them.

[@nb2816]

A big part of the problem is that contemporary popular culture has given the concept of "entertainment" a bad rap, since it has both descended to such an unbelievably juvenile level and has become so all pervasive.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I disagree. I don't see anything wrong at all with "popular culture." I don't understand why people feel that way about it.

[@nb2816]

@@DavesClassicalGuide It's gone down the toilet. Just in the realm of popular music, compare someone like Streisand or Ronstadt with the likes of Britney Spears. There is no comparison. During our lifetimes (we are roughly the same age) we've seen pop culture in general descend from an infinitely more intelligent adult level to an imbecilic adolescent-worshipping pile of crap.

[@nb2816]

Here's another thought indirectly related to the topic at hand, inasmuch as the widespread worship of the musical score as holy writ encourages the reluctance of many performers and listeners of classical music to view it as something alive and "entertaining", as well as making the music sound better. I see no reason why pre-19th century music shouldn't be reorchestrated or "reinstrumented" to accommodate and/or take advantage of instrumental developments, such as valves in brass instruments, chromatic timpani, or the emergence of the infinitely more resonant modern piano. There are countless instances in classical orchestral music where the limitations of natural brass instruments causes the orchestration to be unbalanced; why not take advantage of modern valved brass and correct this problem? My memory of Eugene Ormandy's recording of Beethoven 5 is that he basically rewrites the brass parts in the finale, and to thrilling effect. And why is Mahler the only one to restore the opening of Schumann 1 to the original pitch, a third lower, which takes advantage of valved brass, and makes more musical sense as well? I believe this tendency to treat musical works as holy relics not to be tampered with contributes to the reluctance to view classical music as "entertainment" in your meaning of the term.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I agree.

[@williamswan1894]

Personally I don’t think we should be pulling classical music back down to earth. I do find it frustrating when people accept and spread mistruths…but…it is a bit uneasy when I think about bums on seats, financing of classical music, the ‘business’ of it all…

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Well, you can live in a dreamland if you like, but it's still necessary to understand the reality if we ever hope to make the case for classical music more generally.

[@williamswan1894]

@@DavesClassicalGuide I agree with your argument to the extent that we should lift the veil for the average consumers of classical music. I have no plans in living in a dreamland but I can see a purpose in having it.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

@@williamswan1894 So can I. I agree with you there.

[@ChrisWalker-fq7kf]

No one wants to be called an elitist or a snob. But I'd risk that if the alternative is to embrace the idea that art is never any more than mere entertainment. Governments (in Europe) and corporations (in the US) subsidise classical orchestral music making. It couldn't continue otherwise. We'd have to accept it was just a terribly inefficient way of producing musical "entertainment" and let it die. But we don't, we keep it alive because we think it has some intrinsic value out of proportion to the small number of people who want to go and listen to it. Because it is art and art is more than just entertainment (though it is usually at least somewhat entertaining too).

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

You are so, so so wrong. First of all, lose the "mere." There is nothing "mere" in something being entertaining. Second, "art" is a subset of "entertainment," not the other way around. The two are not disconnected or incompatible. Third, to the extent that entertainment must be paid for, it is all "subsidized." If it has a perceived value, it will be supported. The precise mechanism of that support is irrelevant. I could go on, but I hope you see where this is going. The saddest thing about this is that people actually believe that "entertainment" and "art" are different things, and that the latter is inherently or somehow "more" than the former. That is just delusional.

[@mickeytheviewmoo]

Should entertainment treated as some sort of charity? The arts cannot survive without donations. What makes me crazy is the national lottery has a great amount of money going to the arts and the mass population that buy a ticket do not give two hoots about the arts. The question is also asked why London have so many orchestras and who the hell is supporting them all.

[@AlexMadorsky]

I don’t know why the word “entertainment” is pejorative in the mind of some - the word need not mean vapid and moronic. Indeed, as you point out, that isn’t the original definition of the word. Bruckner’s 8th is an entertainment, the “Tough Symphonists” you have reviewed composed entertainments, etc. To be sure, they are entertainments which do not please everyone, but no such animal exists as an all-pleasing entertainment. Many people who enjoy classical music entertainments may not enjoy hip-hop, or vice versa. But these things are still of the same category, musical entertainment. I listen to classical music somewhat obsessively, but also obsessively to jazz, and enjoy a lot of the folk rock and Americana my wife listens to as well. She does not share my enthusiasm for classical. Does that mean my tastes are somehow intellectually superior to hers? Of course not, and any argument to the contrary is sheer snobbery. The idea that classical music is “high culture,” “thinking man’s music,” and the like should be consigned to the dustbin of history. It does no favors to those of us who enjoy classical music.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Thank you!

[@steveschwartz8944]

Shakespeare is also entertainment. But it isn't only entertainment, not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. The problem for me comes when numbers become the main criterion for judgment, a tangential issue which nevertheless often takes over.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Yes, it is "only" entertainment, and you're right, there's nothing wrong with that.

[@steveschwartz8944]

As a very old man, long retired, a way to fill my days in ways that interest me becomes increasingly important, so I'm not one to disparage entertainment as "mere." However, I'm a Victorian in much of my aesthetic thinking, particularly when it comes to literature. In addition to entertainment,, it shows you how to live well or badly. Of course, you can always refer to the definition of "entertainment as "holding something in the mind," but then much of the force of the term dissipates. Music, I suppose, is harder to make of as offering more than entertainment (pleasurable occupation) because it's usually so abstract, particularly orchestral music. But even here, we might (if interested) contemplate musical objects as, in your phrase, the products of a culture or as, I suppose, intellectual objects of certain architecture which give us insight into how a composer goes about planning and construction. Oh, well.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

@@steveschwartz8944 Yes, oh well. My point is this: Why do people keep insisting that any of these theoretically "higher" purposes must be incompatible with entertainment simply bring itself? That I do not understand. I suppose it's the problem with Victorian thinking. It makes you miserable.

[@steveschwartz8944]

I agree with you fully there. I don't believe entertainment and ART *are* incompatible and you shouldn't have to justify pleasure.

[@GreenTeaViewer]

Not sure that "entertainment" is some truly real, valid category that we have to filter all human activity through to see whether X or Y is in fact entertainment...if you wanted to downplay the importance of almost anything, you could say it was entertainment. But what is the motivation behind such a downplaying?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Yes, it is a truly real, valid category--that's the point, but what you are missing is that it is not "downplaying" anything to call it what it is. That's the problem--the automatic association with entertainment as something "low" and classical music as something exalted, which it isn't. The motivation is to point out this delusional fiction the keeps classical music in its snobbish ghetto.

[@murraylow4523]

Dave I can’t help thinking you’re mixing up what seems normally meant by “entertainment “” and some generalised social evaluation of how people feel about what that refers to!! I know about the music theory baggage here (Adorno etc) and I can’t stand that. But it doesn’t mean we have to go the whole hog in the other direction and make everything about market preferences)otherwise it’s “snobbery “)? Maybe I’m misreading you of course

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

@@murraylow4523 You are!

[@murraylow4523]

@@DavesClassicalGuide well Dave, as I am fond of you, can you elaborate where I am going wrong? respect, Murray

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I'm fond of you too, but that's not a discussion to have here, honestly. This is just for entertainment! Hehe.

[@kirkpatticalma7911]

Great ideas. But how long does something have to last before it transcends this idea of "entertainment?"

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Why does it ever have to? That's the mistake everyone makes. It's just more effective entertainment.

[@magnuskrook39]

Totally agree on music being entertainment. And entertainment can be serious, gut-wrenching stuff, like Mahler 6, or something. It reminds me of the famous scene from the film Gladiator Maximus: "Are you not entertained? Is this not what you are here for?". In fact, these uploads from Dave are a doucebof entertainment gor me, since I'm entertained by discussions on music.

[@magnuskrook39]

What counts as entertainment is of course tied to time and place and mind set of the people concerned. However, fundamentally, people seem to crave entertainment, although one may object that some forms of entertainment are morally wrong, like freak shows.

[@whistlerfred6579]

Perhaps art can be more than entertaining. But it should never be anything less. Or, as Jules Renard puts it "Art is no excuse for boring people."

[@colinerswell7490]

I have to agree Dave,the classical music industry has for far too long been stuck in this old style elitist idea, but I do love the way that China and Japan encourage their youth to embrace classical music 🎶.

[@youtuber5305]

And Korea.

[@willcwhite]

I wish more contemporary composers would hold this view.

[@rdk1952]

Frankly, if the most we can aspire to, listening to Bach or Brahms, is to pass the time being entertained, what sad creatures we are.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Nonsense. That is a pathetic statement.

[@antmanbee100]

I get it that some classical enthusiasts can be stuffed shirts, too serious. However I think some distinctions can be made. Do you think Schoenberg's string quartets are as entertaining as Mozart's piano concertos? I guess we could get lost in semantics here.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Whatever is more entertaining is a personal choice, but that doesn't change what the thing IS. Who said entertainment has to be easy? I still don't understand the problem people have accepting this basic idea.

[@davidbo8400]

Frankly speaking, to me Schoenberg's string quartets are more entertaining than Mozart's piano concertos. The latter bore me to no end while the former challenge me, thus stimulate me. Mozart just doesen't do it for me most of the time. Haydn and C.P.E. Bach do though.

[@Scottlp2]

The atonalists and the people who write/program “nasty” music on symphony programs every year provide evidence otherwise.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Wrong. They just make bad entertainment (for some). Challenging entertainment for others. Not everyone is entertained by a Rubik's Cube either, but that doesn't make it any less entertainment.

[@miketackett4283]

@@DavesClassicalGuide So whether a composer's intent was to entertain you -- or not -- is totally irrelevant. If you are willing to go out of your way to listen to it, that's entertainment...?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

@@miketackett4283 What do you think?

[@miketackett4283]

​@@DavesClassicalGuide I think you have given me something to think about.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

@@miketackett4283 That's why God made me.

[@martinhaub2602]

Eugene Ormandy had the right idea: always end a concert with something the audience can hum on their way out. He had no problem programming and recordings lighter works, as that magnificent Sony box demonstrates. Too many performers today treat concerts as a solemn, almost religious experience and won't play down to the masses or play music that is just fun. Your idea of refunds is interesting: too bad record companies don't do it; I'd return a LOT of crap I've bought over the years.

[@sheep9132]

What about great novels? Are they just entertainment?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Again, why the "just?" They are entertainment. There is no such thing as "just" entertainment. That's your value judgment and it's wholly wrong and inappropriate.

[@woongcho7709]

I agree 100% with you. I see some people triggered by this statement. It's surprising it is still an issue as of 2022. I see that there are a lot of people out there who want to get to know and enjoy classical music. Yes. They are looking for a certain kind of entertainment, or what else? But upon stepping into the classical music world, they find they have to deal with a number of obstacles, including a slew of snobs and pedantics, and then back out. From my experience, classical music has huge potential to get much more popular. I got a friend who used to play the guitar in a rock band. I once had him try Shostakovich symphony 10, and then he was like "It's f***ing cool." When I was working for the US army stationed in Korea back in the 90s. one of my colleagues and I talked a lot about music. We were both rock fans, and also I was into Brahms then and he was a long time Chopin fan. He had wanted to become a rock keyboardist like Jon Lord or Rick Wakeman. I got to love Chopin piano music thanks to him, and he got to know Brahms music and really like his violin sonatas, in particular. I could go on and on. I am positive that classical music is something to enjoy and share together just like people do with pop music. So classical music has to be widely recognized as JUST entertainment so it can reach wider audience. Wouldn't it be what Beethoven would have wanted 200 years ago?? Writing this, I am watching R. Strauss Oboe Concerto by Francois Leleux and Aurora Orchestra at Prom. It's just damn good and seriously entertaining. I am sure Mr. Leleux definitely understands what entertainment means.

[@composingpenguin]

In a similar vein, Oscar Wilde said “art is useless because it’s aim is to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct, or to influence action in any way.” I always want to trot this out when someone preaches about classical music as some higher entity (in a similar way some go on about “purity”), or some commissioning body wants a piece of art to somehow fix society, or when I have to read some academical modern composer’s biography and description of their work. Sacred and secular, Art and entertainment-they’re only differentiated because of politics/chauvinism and this strange compunction of ours to find delightful and entertaining things as inferior. Anywho, thank you for this video. I think you should have went further and titled it “Classical Music and Pornography-Not All That Different”.

[@vjekop932]

Looool love your title idea

[@samuelheddle]

To some extent I think the whole point of art is that it is useless. It's what we create for our own pleasure or our own aims that doesn't fulfill some utilitarian purpose.

[@Bachback]

Three points. 1. Many rock and roll aficionados are surprised that I find classical music entertaining. 2. The greatest classical music composers are aware that they are entertainers. Just look at Twentieth Century classical music. We listen to the composers who seek to entertain: Mahler, Strauss, Milhaud, Shostakovich, Britten, Bernstein, Williams, Glass, Adams, etc. 3. Art is entertainment that lasts.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Well said.

[@miketackett4283]

Shostakovich sought to entertain? I thought he sought to stay alive.

[@im2801ok]

Totally in the line of argument you drew, Dave, is Merriam-Webster's etymological explanation of "Entertainment": Middle English entertinen, from Middle French entretenir, from entre- inter- + tenir to hold. Another great eye-opener from the Hurwitz atelier :)

[@Fafner888]

The verbal question whether classical music deserves to be called 'entertainment' is not important (if the term is used inclusively enough then you can call it that). The substantive point that Dave is making (with which I agree) is that listening to classical music should not be a chore, like something you suffer through because it's good for you. This is not how true classical music lovers feel when listening and it's also a bad marketing strategy. I don't think that classical music is for everyone (the same way as "mass entertainment") but I agree that classical music is something that one ought to enjoy on a personal level and it should not become a sort of weird quasi-religious ritual that puts people through an ordeal in order to become "cultured". It's certainly wrong to tell people that they ought to listen to the music because it's "high culture" that should be revered rather than enjoyed. Instead they should be encouraged to seek pieces that they can enjoy and not feel guilty for not understanding difficult pieces.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Thank you!

[@davidbo8400]

If it's a chore after a couple of minutes I stop it. The other day I started playing Mahler's 4th (which I like) and it felt like a chore because I simply wasn't into it at that time. I put on Carl Stone's "Baroo" instead which was loads of exalted fun from the git-go to the very end. Great exalted fun is Magic. When I need a couple of minutes of it I put on Claudine Longet's "L' Amour est Bleu" or some H.M.S. Bounty. I want music to make me feel like it's f*****g great to be alive!!! Sometimes it's Ferneyhough that does it for me, sometimes Shostakovich, and sometimes it's "Brainwashed" by the Kinks. I'm no snob, but a discerning listener. When it's a chore, I put on something else. We're drowning in a sea of great options.

[@michelangelomulieri5134]

Fully agree!

[@james.t.herman]

Nihilism! Get off my lawn!

[@keithhansen4891]

You have great wisdom.

[@vincentspinelli9995]

I agree with you 1000%. Classical music fans should get off our high horses. It is absolutely entertainment. I don't go to a concert to be bored. I don't go to be "uplifted" either. If it happens, fine. If the music and the performer mean something to you, if it gives you pleasure, you will spend the money. George Szell was one of the supreme conductors of the 20th century. $200-$300 for 100+cds? Sounds good to me. We should also be grateful for the bargains available to us today and realize how fortunate we are. A few years back I bought the complete RCA Toscanini for relative peanuts. I was able to purchase the Karajan Ring Cycle on Eloquence for a little more than $30. The marvelous complete Shostakovich symphonies by Barshai and Petrenko are ridiculously inexpensive. So glad you made the point comparing classical concert prices to Broadway where the cost of seeing the most mediocre production requires taking out a bank loan. Bravo!

[@steveevans6241]

Entertainment value, pure & simple. Why do we applaud an operatic aria? And I expect all the artists you name above would agree with that, especially the great George Szell, who allegedly even rehearsed the inspiration!

[@ThreadBomb]

Arguably the only form of art which has any use beyond entertainment is literature, because it can (though usually doesn't) deliver facts and analysis which may influence the way we live our lives. As far as music goes, I'm always annoyed by proclamations that music or a performance is "profound" (in the sense of having great knowledge or insight). It may arouse _feelings_ of profundity, but music is not profound - it says nothing identifiable beyond whatever text might be attached to it.

[@davidblackburn3396]

"There is nothing more elitist than to deny that classical music is entertainment." BINGO!

[@gsaproposal]

At its core, stripping away all of the "meaning" inherent in classical music, Dave's correct: It's entertainment. Royalty who paid Haydn for his beloved symphonies did so because they wanted to be entertained. Thank heavens there was no TV then.

[@davidbo8400]

Good point!

[@orig_gee_man]

Of course classical music is entertainment. What else could it be? I didn't watch the whole video, but impressive that you can talk about it for 20 minutes.

[@flexusmaximus4701]

You can also blame the Germans, bringing in pseudo philosophy, or religion, and etc etc in to what music must mean, as opposed to just listening to entertaining music.

[@francoisjoubert6867]

That’s why Boulez is not music. I see zilch entertainment in it!

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

You can love to hate it. That's entertaining too. ;-)

[@dennischiapello3879]

@@DavesClassicalGuide I used to love to hate Richard Strauss, but now I'm content enjoying the Strauss I like and feeling superior to the Strauss I don't like. :-)

[@dennischiapello3879]

You might have prompted a moment of clarity for me. I don't enjoy most of Boulez's music--except for Le Marteau sans Maitre, which I greatly enjoy! Flute and bongos--what's not to love!? And the one time I was able to attend a live performance, watching the musicians provided another level of fascination. The same is true for his first Piano Sonata. I find its energy exciting, though my attention might wander listening to a recording. But there is a video on KZbin of a young pianist playing it in concert, and I find it thoroughly engaging.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

@@dennischiapello3879 Good for you!