# Daniel Barenboim on The Beatles and Pop Music.



## PresenTense (May 7, 2016)

_Source: http://climbingupthesounds.tumblr.com_


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I wonder what kind of questions The Beatles asked about Beethoven?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I wonder what kind of questions The Beatles asked about Beethoven?


What kinds of drugs he took? Whether he had groupies?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I wonder what kind of questions The Beatles asked about Beethoven?


Now, that's what I like to know too.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Don't tread on the Beatles!

"Because" is based on the Moonlight Sonata - interview with John Lennon here: http://www.classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/guides/beatles-because-beethoven-moonlight-sonata/


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

well, I dislike his speech, his playing, his conducting and the shadow he makes on the floor. The rest is fine. 
By the way, why always I read "PresenTense" it is in a thread about something related to pop culture *inside* the classical music sub-forum?
Nothing personal, I'm really just curious since there is the "Non-Classical Music" sub-forum.
Best


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

KenOC said:


> What kinds of drugs he took? Whether he had groupies?


Alcohol was Beethoven's drug of choice. A bottle with every meal towards the end and a (rumoured) expression of disappointment when on his death bed that he was too ill to swill a crate of good claret that had recently been delivered. He lost any groupies he may have had through being ill mannered, arrogant and rude and on account of his appalling lack of personal hygiene.

Ken, maybe B. could have learnt something from the Beatles. What do you think?


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I wonder what kind of questions The Beatles asked about Beethoven?


I wonder the same thing what Barenboim asked the Beatles. What would happen if Barenboim and McCartney meet today?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> What kinds of drugs he took? Whether he had groupies?


And where did he get the great clothes and hair?



KRoad said:


> Alcohol was Beethoven's drug of choice. A bottle with every meal towards the end and a (rumoured) expression of disappointment when on his death bed that he was too ill to swill a crate of good claret that had recently been delivered. He lost any groupies he may have had through being ill mannered, arrogant and rude and on account of his appalling lack of personal hygiene.


As far as I could gather, he kept his person cleaner than most, but his apartment was a pigsty. One cannot complain about his manners - he had none. 

He likely died partly of alcoholism, would be my guess.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Beethoven died of Plumbism--lead poisoning. The surviving lock of his hair had an unbelievably high lead concentration, and the accounts of his last months are consistent with advanced lead poisoning. Why he had so much lead is another question, but he was given expensive vases as gifts that he would store his wine in and that were made with amounts of lead that are not allowed today.
The alcohol consumption probably added to the problem but wasn't the main cause.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Barenboim's statement that one needs to listen to classical music, but only to hear pop music, can be approached from the perspective that the average pop song is 3 or 4 minutes in duration, while a standard bit of classical is ten times longer. It's the usual apples/oranges pairing. One cannot counter with the argument that if one took 3 to 4 minute snippets of classical music, they would invariably sound richer than pop, because we can all rapidly come up with any sort of examples that suit our argument. But in the totality of classical music, there are infinities of 3 to 4 minute-long segments where less is going on to engage the mind than in pop music. Apples/oranges. Chalk/cheese. Hawks/handsaws. Cabbages/kings.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I wonder what kind of questions The Beatles asked about Beethoven?


Perhaps the _first_ of the thousand questions was this: "Who's Beethoven?"

What the others were I cannot even conjecture.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Barenboim's statement that one needs to listen to classical music, but only to hear pop music, can be approached from the perspective that the average pop song is 3 or 4 minutes in duration, while a standard bit of classical is ten times longer. It's the usual apples/oranges pairing. One cannot counter with the argument that if one took 3 to 4 minute snippets of classical music, they would invariably sound richer than pop, because we can all rapidly come up with any sort of examples that suit our argument. But in the totality of classical music, there are infinities of 3 to 4 minute-long segments where less is going on to engage the mind than in pop music. Apples/oranges. Chalk/cheese. Hawks/handsaws. Cabbages/kings.


Perhaps one might say, more understandably, that one must _read_ philosophy but only read J.K. Rowling, and let that italics be the key to comprehending the remark.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barenboim is only generalizing. Nothing wrong with that. As generalizing goes, I'd say he's correct. Much of the classical music that doesn't require closer listening or exercise the mind probably falls into the "light classical" - popular music of an earlier era - category.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SONNET CLV said:


> Perhaps one might say, more understandably, that one must _read_ philosophy but only read J.K. Rowling, and let that italics be the key to comprehending the remark.


.

Leaving aside that fact that CM and pop are as different as the chalk/cheese pairing mentioned previously, there are--and do I shock to state this?--universes of classical symphonies, concertos, whatever, of such soul-deadening vacuity that one would never willingly audit them again, and that make one wonder what the point of the whole exercise was, as one awaits some spark, some glimmer of--not genius--but even a reason to keep listening. Adhering to my principle of maintaining a studied silence on specifically naming music that does not engage me (I have deviated from this on a handful of occasions), I will provide no details. But am I alone here?  I think not.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> .
> 
> Leaving aside that fact that CM and pop are as different as the chalk/cheese pairing mentioned previously, there are--and do I shock to state this?--universes of classical symphonies, concertos, whatever, of such soul-deadening vacuity that one would never willingly audit them again, and that make one wonder what the point of the whole exercise was, as one awaits some spark, some glimmer of--not genius--but even a reason to keep listening. Adhering to my principle of maintaining a studied silence on specifically naming music that does not engage me (I have deviated from this on a handful of occasions), I will provide no details. But am I alone here? I think not.


The point is complexity, not quality. A bad symphony still generally requires more attention than a fine folk song or pop tune if we want to hear what's in it, even if we then decide that we don't. In large part, that _is_ the difference between chalk and cheese.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The point is complexity, not quality. A bad symphony still generally requires more attention than a fine folk song or pop tune if we want to hear what's in it, even if we then decide that we don't. In large part, that _is_ the difference between chalk and cheese.


To the extent that complexity can be ascribed to the sheer number of instruments at play, you may have a point. When we boil down the forces to quartet, trio, duo, solo; sonatas, etc., that advantage can be lost as well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> To the extent that complexity can be ascribed to the sheer number of instruments at play, you may have a point. When we boil down the forces to quartet, trio, duo, solo; sonatas, etc., that advantage can be lost as well.


I mean complexity of form. To hear a fugue, sonata or symphony properly you have to remember what came before and, to some extent, anticipate what comes next, thus forming a sense of the whole. These skills are not much called upon in listening to non-classical genres, not even jazz, which may be complex in texture but doesn't depend on a clear linear narrative for its effect.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> But in the totality of classical music, there are infinities of 3 to 4 minute-long segments where less is going on to engage the mind than in pop music. Apples/oranges. Chalk/cheese. Hawks/handsaws. Cabbages/kings.


This is absolutely true, and I think that you've put your finger on a key difference between classical and pop music. Classical works, particularly those written during the 18th century, frequently contain nonthematic transitional sections. These sections are often based upon conventional passagework and cadential formulas. Pop music seems to be more consistently melodic throughout.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bettina said:


> This is absolutely true, and I think that you've put your finger on a key difference between classical and pop music. Classical works, particularly those written during the 18th century, frequently contain nonthematic transitional sections. These sections are often based upon conventional passagework and cadential formulas. Pop music seems to be more consistently melodic throughout.


Ah, but the best music of that century makes those "transitional sections" consistent in quality with the rest - makes them, in fact, seem not to be "transitional" at all. At that point your distinction breaks down. In listening to Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven, I am not aware of "transitional sections."


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Ah, but the best music of that century makes those "transitional sections" consistent in quality with the rest - makes them, in fact, seem not to be "transitional" at all. At that point your distinction breaks down. In listening to Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven, I am not aware of "transitional sections."


At the risk of derailing this thread, I'd like to mention a few examples of conventional passagework in Beethoven's transitional phrases. (This is by no means a criticism of Beethoven's music--in fact, I believe that these boring passages are musically effective, because they serve as a foil for the interesting thematic material in the preceding and following sections.)

For example: in the finale of the Waldstein Sonata, bars 23-30, there's a phrase consisting of sequential figuration for the right hand alone, devoid of harmonic and thematic development. In this video, it lasts from 0:24-0:30 (bars 23-30)




Along similar lines, there's a cadenza-like transitional passage, again for right hand alone, in the first movement of Op. 31 No. 3, bars 53-56. It's virtuosic but not thematically compelling. I'ts from 1:18-1:23 in this video:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bettina said:


> At the risk of derailing this thread, I'd like to mention a few examples of conventional passagework in Beethoven's transitional phrases...


Sir George Grove noted some of this passagework in the first movement of Beethoven's 2nd Symphony, calling it "padding." He claimed that such passages were rare or nonexistent in Beethoven's later symphonies.

They're not objectionable, to me at least, but add little to the musical value of the goings-on.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bettina said:


> At the risk of derailing this thread, I'd like to mention a few examples of conventional passagework in Beethoven's transitional phrases. (This is by no means a criticism of Beethoven's music--in fact, I believe that these boring passages are musically effective, because they serve as a foil for the interesting thematic material in the preceding and following sections.)
> 
> For example: in the finale of the Waldstein Sonata, bars 23-30, there's a phrase consisting of sequential figuration for the right hand alone, devoid of harmonic and thematic development. In this video, it lasts from 0:24-0:30 (bars 23-30)
> 
> ...


I must say that your language is quite loaded: "conventional passagework," "boring passages," "a foil for the interesting material," "devoid of development," "not compelling"...

Both of the passages you cite are brief; they serve as punctuation and a taking of breath while yet preserving momentum, and freshen and strengthen the thematic material upon its return. Beethoven loves this sort of interruption of the obvious course of things. To call it conventional, boring, and a mere foil is to miss the function and character of it. Sure, it's different than what we find in pop music, but pop music is often anything but "melodic throughout." In fact, when I happen to catch a snatch of the pop music they're producing these days I wonder how anyone can call the tedious repetitions of a few notes "melody" in any but the strictest sense. For melodic interest I'll take one of Beethoven's transitional flourishes any day.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I believe Barenboim is referring to the Beatles art pop music from the late 60's, like Strawberry Fields, having spoken to them soon before they broke up. That song and a few others are collages of sound. Art pop music have elements that draw attention to themselves, and you only need to hear it. It is exhibitionistic, and you don't need to delve too much. Like Woodduck said with classical music, at least the traditional types, you have to listen and delve into the music, as there are workings and development you can't get by casual hearing.

Ps. I would also add that art pop music also makes certain impressions by juxtaposition of certain elements, as in I am the Walrus, and the Beach Boys' Heroes and Villians and Good vibrations, that you only need to hear to notice.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I must say that your language is quite loaded: "conventional passagework," "boring passages," "a foil for the interesting material," "devoid of development," "not compelling"...
> 
> Both of the passages you cite are brief; they serve as punctuation and a taking of breath while yet preserving momentum, and freshen and strengthen the thematic material upon its return. Beethoven loves this sort of interruption of the obvious course of things. To call it conventional, boring, and a mere foil is to miss the function and character of it. Sure, it's different than what we find in pop music, but pop music is often anything but "melodic throughout." In fact, when I happen to catch a snatch of the pop music they're producing these days I wonder how anyone can call the tedious repetitions of a few notes "melody" in any but the strictest sense. For melodic interest I'll take one of Beethoven's transitional flourishes any day.


Yes, I must admit that I indulged in some hyperbolic rhetoric!  When I called the transitional passages "boring," I was referring to their use of stock figures such as scales and arpeggios.

I agree with you that these brief passages generate momentum. But I would argue that this is a function of their banality. They create a sense of anticipation for the thematic entry that will soon arrive; the banality of the material heightens the desire for thematic content.

I'm not sure whether or not it's useful for us to continue debating this point (also, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to hijack this thread any more than we already have). As things stand right now, I hear the above-cited passages (and other similar passages) as banal, and you don't. Where do we go from here?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bettina said:


> Yes, I must admit that I indulged in some hyperbolic rhetoric!  When I called the transitional passages "boring," I was referring to their use of stock figures such as scales and arpeggios.
> 
> I agree with you that these brief passages generate momentum. But I would argue that this is a function of their banality. They create a sense of anticipation for the thematic entry that will soon arrive; the banality of the material heightens the desire for thematic content.
> 
> I'm not sure whether or not it's useful for us to continue debating this point (also, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to hijack this thread any more than we already have). As things stand right now, I hear the above-cited passages (and other similar passages) as banal, and you don't. Where do we go from here?


I'll only add that these little transitional flourishes may indeed be banal, taken by themselves. But the whole point here is that in classical music we don't take the individual elements by themselves, and that in order not to - in order to see how they function and why they're there - we have to listen in a way that we normally don't with other kinds of music. Perhaps we can agree on that!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Returning to Barenboim's statements in the OP, he speaks, really, in the broadest of generalities, leading to my apples/oranges, chalk/cheese remark. Once we starting speaking of "the best of", of Beethoven, etc., we are looking for reasons to somehow bring these two poles into some sort of artificial frame of an imposed shared esthetic. Just won't work. We are left with Barenboim's final and broad generalization that really doesn't illuminate the situation, in that our expectations of either sort of music can easily be dashed, but usually not for the reason that CM isn't pop, and vice versa. Each succeeds or fails upon its own virtues or vices, and these are discerned in the mind of the individual auditor.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I'll only add that these little transitional flourishes may indeed be banal, taken by themselves. But the whole point here is that in classical music we don't take the individual elements by themselves, and that in order not to - in order to see how they function and why they're there - we have to listen in a way that we normally don't with other kinds of music. Perhaps we can agree on that!


I agree with this. We must look at a particular section of any composition in context to how it works with the whole piece.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Returning to Barenboim's statements in the OP, he speaks, really, in the broadest of generalities, leading to my apples/oranges, chalk/cheese remark. Once we starting speaking of "the best of", of Beethoven, etc., we are looking for reasons to somehow bring these two poles into some sort of artificial frame of an imposed shared esthetic. Just won't work. We are left with Barenboim's final and broad generalization that really doesn't illuminate the situation, in that our expectations of either sort of music can easily be dashed, but usually not for the reason that CM isn't pop, and vice versa. Each succeeds or fails upon its own virtues or vices, and these are discerned in the mind of the individual auditor.


Well stated good sir!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Returning to Barenboim's statements in the OP, he speaks, really, in the broadest of generalities, leading to my apples/oranges, chalk/cheese remark. Once we starting speaking of "the best of", of Beethoven, etc., we are looking for reasons to somehow bring these two poles into some sort of artificial frame of an imposed shared esthetic. Just won't work. We are left with Barenboim's final and broad generalization that really doesn't illuminate the situation, in that our expectations of either sort of music can easily be dashed, but usually not for the reason that CM isn't pop, and vice versa. Each succeeds or fails upon its own virtues or vices, and these are discerned in the mind of the individual auditor.


Methinks thou dost protest too much, Magic, and art out in left field beside. I don't see anyone trying to impose a contrived "shared aesthetic" on different musical genres. I doubt Barenboim would disagree with your contention (and I certainly don't) that any genre of music has its own aesthetic and may be better or worse of its kind. That is precisely an acknowledgment that there are commonly perceived differences between kinds. We don't have to invoke the "best" of Western "classical" music to see that the elaboration of form has been a basic concern in most of it from Medieval times to the present, and thus to know that listening to it does it and ourselves the most justice if we are intentionally attentive to its form, and if its formal qualities are prominent in our musical perceptions (whether or not we then conceptualize those perceptions). That this is less the case in listening to other musical genres, and less important in extracting the maximum of pleasure from them, is, I would have thought, obvious. Acknowledging the rule doesn't deny the exceptions to it, or imply anything about the value of any music.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

At the risk of derailing even further, Charles Rosen has a very insightful discussion of these formulaic passages in classical music. Classical style is largely about the proportions of the whole, so there are times when eight measures of "blank" tonic major, or whatever, are exactly what you need to make the structure work. He explains it better than this of course.

I think an architectural analogy is helpful; an attractive building may include large blank surfaces, but the point is the entire structure.

(Baroque music, and Baroque architecture, are not like this.)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Methinks thou dost protest too much, Magic, and art out in left field beside. I don't see anyone trying to impose a contrived "shared aesthetic" on different musical genres. I doubt Barenboim would disagree with your contention (and I certainly don't) that any genre of music has its own aesthetic and may be better or worse of its kind. That is precisely an acknowledgment that there are commonly perceived differences between kinds. We don't have to invoke the "best" of Western "classical" music to see that the elaboration of form has been a basic concern in most of it from Medieval times to the present, and thus to know that listening to it does it and ourselves the most justice if we are intentionally attentive to its form, and if its formal qualities are prominent in our musical perceptions (whether or not we then conceptualize those perceptions). That this is less the case in listening to other musical genres, and less important in extracting the maximum of pleasure from them, is, I would have thought, obvious. Acknowledging the rule doesn't deny the exceptions to it, or imply anything about the value of any music.


Actually, I think we agree. My "problem", if it is a problem, with remarks such as Barenboim's, is that they will be seized up as _ex cathedra_ utterances by a musical Pope on the relative merits of classical music v. popular music, such that those sealed hermetically within their classical walls will say "Aha; here we have Barenboim to justify our isolation and sanctify our superiority!" Nobody here on TC would say that, but others are weak and might be tempted.......


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, I think we agree. My "problem", if it is a problem, with remarks such as Barenboim's, is that they will be seized up as _ex cathedra_ utterances by a musical Pope on the relative merits of classical music v. popular music, such that those sealed hermetically within their classical walls will say "Aha; here we have Barenboim to justify our isolation and sanctify our superiority!" Nobody here on TC would say that, but others are weak and might be tempted.......


And it really is very tempting! But we must resist that kind of thinking but at the same time, there is no problem taking pride in one's own personal taste for it is a reflection of you when it's genuine.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, I think we agree. My "problem", if it is a problem, with remarks such as Barenboim's, is that they will be seized up as _ex cathedra_ utterances by a musical Pope on the relative merits of classical music v. popular music, such that those sealed hermetically within their classical walls will say "Aha; here we have Barenboim to justify our isolation and sanctify our superiority!" Nobody here on TC would say that, but others are weak and might be tempted.......


In that case, I can sympathize with your defensive caution. I too detest that musical Pope! He should go back to his _cathedra,_ listen to Palestrina, and let Paul McCartney write all the corny oratorios he wants to.


----------

