I'm avoiding unnecessary rows with the commenters on my reviews, so I'll save for here my response to a comment on Igor Lipinski's piano magic show as described in my latest.
The commenter wrote, "Classical music needs more of this kind of showmanship if it wants to attract an American audience under 60." Bah. You know, I'm American and I'm still under 60, so I expect to be listened to when I say that I don't want that kind of showmanship except as an occasional lark, which is how I took this. Even then, it derives its amusement value largely from the contrast of knowing what the same music sounds like when taken seriously. I would much prefer a regular diet of the other pianists at the concert, even though much of their repertoire was not my favorite.
(And I also disagree with the following commenter who writes that Lipinski's set, though different from all the others, still worked in a sequence of four with different styles. But my point had been that the difference in the other three's styles was minuscule compared to Lipinski's from all of them.)
The first commenter surely doesn't intend this, but he's indicting every American under 60 as an ignorant buffoon incapable of appreciating serious music. (And that would apply, by the way, just as much to things like art rock without fancy stage shows as it would to classical, or jazz, or ...) I don't think they're that stupid, and I further think that dumbing it down is not the way to win an audience for something that's inherently not dumb in the first place.