What's the difference between Art and Entertainment?

I think there’s also a fair bit of aural habituation going on there too (not that the same argument isn’t applicable frequently re “canonical” rep in classical).

Haha tru the instumental sects are still always the best.

To some extent yeah.

But, are you familiar with Rick Beato’s ‘what makes this song great’ series?

It’s amazing.

You get deep insight into music that you might not necessarily like but may start to see why others like it, and how it earns it’s place and isn’t just a field of talentless hacks.

No, not listened to it (yet). Thing is, I suspect my intellectual response isn’t that different between pop (in various genres) and classical in that there is some pop which I would absolutely never listen to but I do think is actually quite skilfully written (eg ABBA, even some Stock Aitken and Waterman, which is total anathema to me). Cf my opinion of Bach :wink:

Jesus I’ve even heard some trance where I suspect the writer has a basic knowledge of counterpoint :open_mouth:

Have a look down the list of episodes, there’s 45 or so now, see artists you might like and how he analyzes their song and recording.

You’ll discover interesting things like uses of modes, unusual harmony, etc. All in popular music.

It’s often these quirks he points out of non-formulaicness that makes the best popular tunes.

I actually sort of did that myself already, in that there’s stuff I hadn’t listened to in at least 15 years and I relistened from an analytical perspective. It was quite interesting and eg I now know (as opposed to just feeling) why I think early Gn’R is so much better than Bon Jovi. I’m not about to write an essay on it though!

Also I can’t go on YT right now, using it for catchup on the snooker :smiling_imp:

Essays can be dull, Beato’s videos are dare I say…entertaining :whale:

He has access to isolated tracks of the studio masters and stuff like that, it’s amazing hearing the stuff dissected

Ahhhh this is decisively art. Is Ronnie playing?

Yeah and he’s both art and entertainment :smiley:

1 Like

Damn I’ll have to look in to this too during the week.

NOOOOOOOOO!!! :-1:

1 Like

Art is the act of expressing ideas that reflect and inform ones humanity and entertainment is the solely about holding ones attention - a necessary component of art if you ask me, especially in performing arts. Great art balances these but if you cast that to the side you can get plenty of enjoyment from skilled entertainers. I think in US especially bringing entertainment to ahigh level is viewed as an art, which I get.

Perhaps the greatest pianists are those
who make great art even when they entertain

and…

who entertain even when they make great art :sunglasses:

I thought about that as well, but in that case I propose that the greatest pianist in history should be Horowitz - who I’d firmly place in the entertainment category of pianists but whose playing was also extremely artistic. But DASDC’s own mighty poll put Richter ahead of him, whose playing I definitely don’t think sought to be entertaining, and I feel this is the general consensus as well (that SR is held in higher regard than VH by a majority of people).

The entertainment class of pianists is one I feel has largely vanished in our century incidentally. I might be forgetting someone… but the closest I come in trying to think of one is Wang, but even with her it doesn’t feel quite right. Schiff has an element of entertainment in his playing as well I think, but there too it’s not in the same explicit way you had with Horowitz, Hofmann, Cherkassky, Hambourg, etc. The mainstream trend has been very “serious” for many decades now - it’s about responsibly portraying the works and bring out the music which is in them, not to “do” something with them to make them entertaining and enjoyable to listen to. I think the trend is changing in younger pianists however, possibly thanks to Pletnev’s etc influence, but towards artistic goals as opposed to purely musical ones.

Hm, I disagree somewhat.
Fine piano playing is definitely an art, but it also contains elements of entertainment, you can’t really separate these two elements. A lot also depends on the repertoire a pianist is playing.
Richter could be entertaining in an encore piece or in a Tchaikovsky salon-character-piece or in a Grieg Lyric Piece.
Hofmann (who never ever smiled on stage btw) could be dead serious in a Beethoven Sonata, 100% busy with “responsibly portraying the works and bring out the music which is in them” as you write. Some famous pianists didn’t even want to touch Op. 111 anymore after they heard it by Hofmann. That some people, 80+ years later, may think that what he did in this music was “entertaining” rather than “artistic” is an entirely different matter.

Quickly, but you’re in fact agreeing with me - this is precisely what I’ve been arguing for since post #2 in this thread.

And indeed I’m generalizing - you can’t say that a pianist “always” sought to entertain with everything he played etc.

1 Like

Well x - I have to disagree with your categorization but I hear where you’re coming from.

Great pianists who entertain do so incidentally because their style of pianism is more about colour and immediacy.

Those are features that entertain an audience - it’s not the deepest real of artistic expression in itself, but it is a part of art.

Are you questioning their artistic sincerity? That they’re changing their playing to appeal to a crowd?

That would be entertainment. But I think it’s sincere - so it’s just art that also happens to entertain.

There’s a bit of an intellectual v visceral dichotomy at work here.

It’s funny: in general I’d say I was on the intellectual side, but when it comes to music, definitely the visceral. :zif:

I’ve enjoyed this article here, makes some good points.