Henle Asks The Right Question! How do YOU respond? 

Hi Wim! Thanks for making a video based on my comment and doctoral dissertation. If you go to page 271, it lasts actually less that 5 min. To be precise, it lasts 4 min. 23 secs. in single beat. Yet still he marks clearly 10 min.! Here is a transcript from my PhD pages 270 to 273. The 1936 autograph manuscript, the 1937 first edition, the reprinting of 1965, and the 1979 edition with Stadlen’s commentaries all share in common the same metronome marks: dotted eighth note = ca. 40 (first movement), quarter note = ca. 160 (second movement), and half note = ca. 80 (third movement). These metronome marks are particularly controversial as Webern indicates at the end of the score that the total duration of the piece should be 10 minutes. However, the durations that can be derived from a modern reading of the metronome numbers is far less than 10 minutes, namely: 4 min. 23 sec. (see calculations below). It seems hard to defend that the discrepancy between 4 min. 23 sec. and 10 min. could be produced by the several instances of ritardando. The latter might account for raising the piece’s duration by a quarter or even by a third, but it is very unlikely that these ritardandi can explain why Webern indicated a duration that is 228.17 % longer than the one derived from a modern reading of his original metronome numbers. Duration of Op. 27 according to MM: FIRST MOVEMENT Dotted eighth note at MM 40 (Dotted eighth note as measure note value) 54 measures Calculation: 60 * 54 / 40 Duration: 1 min. 21 sec. SECOND MOVEMENT Quarter note at MM 160 (Half note as measure note value)44.5 measures Calculation: 60 * 2 * 44.5 / 160 Duration: 34 sec. THIRD MOVEMENT Half note at MM 80 (Dotted whole note as measure note value) 66 measures Calculation: 60 * 3 * 66 / 80 Duration: 2 min. 29 sec. Total duration: 4 min. 23 sec. Webern’s metrical problem is very singular. It seems rather naïve to believe that Webern accidentally miscalculated the duration of his only piano piece-especially if one takes into account Webern’s perfectionistic personality. Peter Stadlen, who premiered the piece wrote in the forward to his 1979 annotated edition: "Webern’s metronome marks were never discussed, they seem to me considerably faster than the tempi he wanted: first movement 96, not ca 120 (dotted eighth note = 40); second movement 142, not ca 160 (although here much may depend on the pianist’s dexterity); third movement 69, not ca 80" (Stadlen, 1979, p. V) [...] Another hypothesis for justifying the indication of 10 minutes could be based on a double reading of the metronome. This would suggest that Webern might have indicated the subdivision of the note values with the bpm numbers, instead of pointing to one click per note value. In this hypothetical context, the total sounding duration would amount to 8 min. 46 sec. with silences of 37 sec. between movements. SOURCE: Syroyid Syroyid, B. (2022). Analysis of Silences in Music. Theoretical Perspectives, Analytical Examples from Twentieth Century Music, and In-Depth Case Study of Webern’s Op. 27/iii [PhD Dissertation, University of Leuven]. Available on ResearchGate and Academia.

Weber's concern over Metronome Marks being misinterpreted, is evidenced by explicitly indicating the duration of the piece is 10 minutes.

seeing username "Zelenka" reminded me how much I wish to hear Zelenka's Miserere in whole beat

Many years ago, I had read that in his letters, Webern would give durations for his compositions that were much longer than they would take to perform if his metronome marks were interpreted as single beat.

Its incredible how people can have no answers nor evidence to explain single beat, and yet they avert their gaze and brand the WBMP as 'Pseudo-science'. Once again, great video as always!

Crystal clear! Absurde that people do not want to see.

22:38 to 22:50 not only that. We have already seen the quote from Czerny about destroying the piece if you deviate from the tempo given by the composer. That completely obliterates Dismas comment because even Dismas has to admit that the opening sentence of that RU-vid comment is just nonsensical.

6:55. I admit I got the maths wrong on op.25, no. 1, for which the MS timing is 1 minute. I wrote, on the basis of the MM marks, "My calculation, single beat, *without taking rits into account,* is 41.8 seconds. In WB that would be just under 1'40". I found a YT video which lasts 1'4". I should have written that in WB that would be just under 1 minute 24 seconds. Of course, that is without taking the frequent indicated rits. into account. With rits it would be longer (hard to calculate how much longer, that would depend on the performer). The YT video that I found lasted 1 minute 4 seconds, which is very close to the MS timing. So yes, the timings for Op.27 are puzzling if one doesn't believe in 'wholebeat', and I am honest enough to admit it. My question for you is, if Webern was giving wholebeat MMs in Op.27, and 'single beat' MMs elsewhere (as you admit is possible) how would anybody have known which was which?

I am happy to ship this beautiful cd box.

People over 80 enjoy your channel. It is good to be taken out of the box.

2 great pianists recorded this work. Both probably never care about mm indications. Gould duration is 5 minutes ( no respect of the repetion sign ).Ritcher 9.05 mijutes. It is very disturbing to see the liberty that the INTERPRETS are taking with the COMPOSERS indications. But we live in a free world !

And as regard to Eduard Steuermann, I revere his recorded work and the legacy in both interviews other texts but he was a strong enough personality that he disagreed with even Schoenberg on the issue of using the pedal to perform Schoenberg, and I doubt there could be anyone more expert in what Schoenberg's ideal performance practice was. This is going to send me back listening to the recordings of Schoenberg and Webern conducting and those who performed under their coaching. Webern's conducting of Berg is especially interesting because of the lore surrounding his intensely precise rehearsals.

I seem to recall reading an interview with Rudolf Kolisch whose quartet Webern wrote for. I seem to recall him saying that when Webern was coaching his quartet in how to play his compositions he would sometimes spend a quarter of an hour going over something like an eighth note rest. He's like Beethoven on the intense precision with which he notated his music so that the performer and the performance would know what as exactly as possible how it was to sound.

"Wbmp is knocking at the door." :-) . :-) Très juste ET très drôle.

The second manuscript at IMSLP shows times at the end of each movement #1-3 1/2 mn #2 1mn--the third has none. The first listed manuscript has no times. It is my understanding of early modernism that a hallmark is the attempt of the composer to control the performance more than during earlier times, Scoring with great accuracy to give the interpreter less freedom. Probably a reaction towards performance practice of earlier eras. Stravinsky's famous comment that he didnt want his works "interpreted" merely "transmitted" also indicates the aesthetic of the time.

Wim, I enjoy listening to your commentaries, but I gotta say the sibilance from your microphone is quite pronounced (between 6kHz-8kHz). You might want to consider taming it a bit with an equalizer or de-esser. Just a thought.

@syroyid's comment on Weber's Op. 27 with composer _himself_ stating that the duration should be 10mins and then metronome _clearly_ gives that time in Whole beat is pretty devastating.

Webern came to musical maturity when whole beat Reger was one of the leading Germanic composers. We also know he looked back to earlier eras, not only to Schubert but as far back as Heinrich Isaac.

Love your Wednesday videos!

"Almost 30 years ago I visited Hauer's pupil Dr Nikolaus Fheodoroff, and he told me that he had played Hauer a recording of the Schweyda Quartet's Zwölftonspiel for string quartet, published by Fortissimo (now Doblinger) in January 1957. At the time, Hauer enthusiastically stated that this was exactly how a twelve-tone piece should be interpreted. Even 30 years ago, I noticed the considerable discrepancy between the tempo of that recording and the usual Hauer metronome (80). Recently, since I own a radio recording of that recording (), I measured the metronome and came up with a value between crotchet = 40 to 50 (fluctuating a little). When I recently met Dr Fheodoroff and he again mentioned Hauer's enthusiasm for the Schweyda Quartet recording, I asked him about the correct Hauer tempo. He replied: Hauer didn't use a metronome, but he pointed to his pendulum clock and said that this was the right tempo and that the pendulum swung at 80. In my school days (forties and fifties) I learnt that a' had 440 double oscillations or 880 single oscillations, there was no mention of Hertz. I remembered this and asked Dr Fheodoroff specifically whether Hauer had meant 80 single or double vibrations in his pendulum clock tempo indication, and we established that Hauer could only have meant single vibrations because of the ideal tempo in the quartet recording mentioned. This means that for many twelve-tone pieces - contrary to the printed metronome markings - the correct tempo should be: quaver = 80 or crotchet = 40!"

Interesting re Peter Stadlen. In fact, he had to stop playing in 1950s because of problems with his hands. So his research into Beethoven tempi was motivated by his failure to play the prescribed tempi in single beat. So hardly an objective perspective. Maybe he was actually a bit crazy after all?

When a musician plays alone, one could argue about rubato, but what about orchestras? For example, last movement of Beethoven Symphony 8 can't be explained by interpretation, performance practice, or anything of that sort. It reduces the solution space to metronome's correctness and how musicians used the metronome, SB, DB or like a cuckoo-clock, like Maelzel suggested.

20:11 Mikuli's Preface to his edition of Chopin Etudes op.10 (1895) begins: "According to a tradition -- and be it said, an erroneous one -- Chopin's playing was like that of one dreaming rather than awake -- scarcely audible in its continual pianissimos and una cordas, with *feebly developed technique* and *quite lacking in confidence,* or at least indistinct and *distorted out of all rhythmic form* by an incessant tempo rubato!" Then, in the next five paragraphs, Mikuli demolishes this image. ... "Chopin had *a highly developed technique,* giving him complete mastery over the instrument." ... "A *lofty virile energy* lent imposing effect to suitable passages" ... Finally, coming to the "distorted out of all rhythmic form" idea, *"In keeping time Chopin was inflexible,* and many will be surprised to learn that the metronome never left his piano. Even in his oft-decried tempo rubato one hand -- that having the accompaniment -- always played in strict time, while the other, singing the melody, either hesitating as if undecided, or, with increased animation, anticipating with a kind of impatient vehemence as if in passionate utterances, maintained the freedom of musical expression from the fetters of strict regularity." Since Mikuli goes on to talk at length about Chopin's teaching, it is probable that the metronome was indeed there to make sure his pupils played in strict time (which does not necessarily mean at an exact metronome indication). It is misleading to use the phrase "the metronome never left his piano" out of context to 'prove' that Chopin insisted on keeping exactly to metronome marks. After about the mid-1830s Chopin stopped putting MMs on his works. This suggests to me that he did not regard metronomic marks as sacrosanct, and that other factors were more important in determining the right sort of tempo.

Cd 2 van de negende uit de rode doos ligt klaar in de startblokken om na het eten te beluisteren. Kleenex staat klaar. Dank je Wim voor je uitgebreid werk.

If a composer puts an MM number it must be the speed intended at that time (say + - 10%). At another time the composer might feel a different speed would be better but I cannot believe by more than + - 30%. Maybe in the case of this work by Webern he put the performance times on because someone said the MM might be misinterpreted. My only problem with your whole beat is that I would have expected more explicit discussion of the years, it's a big difference.

Hey Wim, I was just thinking about something. WBMP seems to make sense musically in many cases, and SB often doesn't. That said, there must be some clear starting point-like a solid piece of evidence-where we can say, "Here it is, clearly mentioned." From there, we could start speculating if others used it too, right? Personally, the only crystal-clear example of WBMP I've come across is Schindler's canon from your channel. Everything else feels more like inference or deductive reasoning. If you, or anyone else, happen to know of any other clear-cut examples, I’d love to hear about them when you get the chance. I'd be really interested in exploring more solid evidence for WBMP! PS: I'm actually really curious, and not doubting the theory, or being sarcastic😅

Well, Wim, you've already presented us plenty of evidences about this old way to understand the metronome like an inverted pendulum leading to "read" it as a kind of "subdivided" tempo of what we have always been told to read in the metronome until now. This evidence though, and in full XXth century by a very well known composer who surely knew his business... well it's just so obvious anyone can deny it, if any of the previous evidences you've shown us can be denied at all. This one is the last nail in the coffin. The only thing which remains here to be explained, and to me at least more out of interest, a funny thing, an interesting story if you like, is trying to understand how a composer like Anton Webern well in the XXth century knew about this way of reading metronome marks and why he used it at a time when almost all other (I don't know of any other for sure) were already using MM as a single beat. How, when and why he knew about that could also be another line of investigation, just for the sake of answering questions of course more than anything else. TBH, what you always call just "your book", seems to be as the definitive Ph.D. Thesis on the historical tempi readings matter. What a job have you undertaken mate... kudos to you and your work. And thank you very much for sharing your journey with us

17:49-19:23. I am glad that you recognize I am genuinely seeking answers to various puzzles about tempo in classical music. I would like to know why, for instance, Schumann's Träumerei began to be played so much more slowly than his MM, and when that began to happen. Webern Op.27 is another such puzzle, rather more complicated than you admit. But you have put words into my mouth about "seeking a solution to the many impossible metronomics we have". I don't believe there are "many impossible metronomics". I believe there are some, if the MMs are taken literally as exact indications, but that these can be accounted for in terms other than 'wholebeat'; and I am sceptical about 'wholebeat' since I have never seen any direct evidence for it, or that it was ever a practice (until very recently, on your channel and one or two others). That said, I admit that your channel has become something of an addiction, and I will now try to cure myself of it. It is because you raise interesting questions that I have enjoyed following it, so thank you for the intellectual stimulation. And finally, my YT pseudonym DismasZelenka is a homage to the great Baroque Czech composer Jan Dismas Zelenka, who worked most of his life in the court at Dresden, and was greatly admired by, among others, J.S. Bach and Telemann. He did not write for the keyboard, but his Masses and sacred compositions, and his works for instrumental ensembles (especially wind), are among the glories of the age. If you have never heard of him, I strongly recommend you give him a listen. Try Spotify, or there are numerous YT videos.

If those composers were as free about metronome marks they would write it like this: “Quarter note 100-120” “Kinda sorta 130-ish” “150+, as fast as you can (troll emoji)” (that would be Czerny probably) But no, they say 134. Not 135 or 136. Not 132 and 133. This is roughly 1% precision! You need and you use such precision when you know exactly what you want

What if M.M. doesn’t mean Mälzels Metronom but mezza misurazione…?

agogics is pronounced just as you pronounced it 😁

Second!

third 🤣

The invention and use of the metronome in Western classical music was fundamentally very destructive. Rhythm and tempo were suddenly thought of as mechanical, machine-like and unbending.

What a fuss over what is, musically, a pretty minor work, even if it might claim to have historical significance. You can analyse it-big deal.

First!