It was a pleasure to watch this video Wim, thank you very much for the effort put in! I can confirm that the best idea is to simply try it out and see what happens to the music of Beethoven / Chopin or many other, maybe not as famous, composers of their time.
It is great how accessible this music becomes in whole beat. The problem changes from never being able to play that fast, to never being able to learn all the music. I like how one is free to use this information to suit their needs. If one wants to follow the m.m. from the composers that is an option, one also has room to speed up depending on their taste or audience.
Simple math. Can someone explain? Famous concert of Beethoven occurred on December 22, 1808. It is known that it lasted 4 hours by multiple accounts. Taking modern live performance times, this was the program: Symphony #5 - 35 minutes Symphony #6 - 45 minutes Ah! perfido - 13 minuets Sanctus from Mass in C - 3 minutes Gloria from Mass in C - 3 minutes Piano Concerto #4 - 35 minutes Choral Fantasy - 22 minutes Extemporized fantasia for solo piano (Unnknown) This adds up to about 2.75 hours. That is 2.75 hours of straight music, not accounting for any kind of intermission, change of stage/performers, tuning, etc... just minutes of music. It's also known that the Choral Fantasy had to be restarted, so that adds more time. If the theory proposed in this video is true, the minutes of music would add to about 5.5 hours. Again, this does not include all the normal time-consuming occurrences that are standard for any concerts, nor does it include applauding. Where does 1.5 hours of music go plus conservatively another 30 minutes for all the necessary pauses involved in a performance? Who can explain this to me?
Thank you, Wim. I am glad you mentioned the tact influences the flow. My experience has been sometimes being a slave to the metronome for each beat of a measure can produce mechanical playing. Intuitively, I always knew music as an art most probably was not performed slavishly, but with breath and phrasing, as based upon humanity's first instrument, the voice.
Thinking about it, the oldest instrument known to man surely has to be drums of some form. Either made out of wood, or rock, or leather. And in percussion the only thing that matters is the hand moving down and hitting the drum. It's the same if you're trying to clap the tempo. You're not counting the ups and downs, you're just counting the downs. So yeah... it makes sense.
@dghi Good point. But... i don't know... I would imagine primitive humans mastered sticks and beating things with them before they mastered controlled speech. And unless you consider screams and bellows as singing... i dunno.
@dghi an instrument is defined as something external to the body, to aid a person. 1) a tool or implement, especially one for precision work. 2) a measuring device used to gauge the level, position, speed, etc. of something, especially a motor vehicle or aircraft.
@dghi We don't have any evidence on this, so we cannot determine who is right. But i still stick to my assumption that humans learnt to hit sticks against rocks long before they learnt how to chant.
@@pixibelle3282 1) a tool or implement, especially one for delicate or scientific work. 2) a measuring device used to gauge the level, position, speed, etc. of something, especially a motor vehicle or aircraft. 3) an object or device for producing musical sounds. 4) a formal document, especially a legal one. Definitions "3" seems to cover the voice to me. But a quick google will show that this is a long debate with strong opinions. Composers certainly use it as if it were a musical instrument. Likewise, can I be said to be making percussive music if I clap? I am not using something external. What if I 'click' with my mouth and tongue as well as clap? Does the use of voice change as an 'instrument' if it does or does not contain words? If I do 'overtone' singing, where the note created is not the one 'sung,' is the voice then an instrument? I think one of the things central to this talk is the 'what is music?" question and questions of 'time perception.' Fun to think about.
If you want another example of the pendulum effect, in Army basic training, went the sergeant yells halt!, we all just can't suddenly stop. The unit has to take a full step and then stop. So it's "halt"- full step - stop. A lot like your conducting example.
That's a nice example! Walking is never with 1 foot, always 2 feet... well unless you're hopping on one foot, but then it's not really walking anymore haha :)
@@gaspard7052 Hi, there is big difference between trained musician ear and all other listener. Few year before current performance of classical music was just mushed sound for me.
Nice story, but hard to believe: * too many combinations of verbal tempo instructions (andante, allegro etc) and metronome markings would not make sense anymore. Especially andante: there is just so much variation of speed that would still fit the notion of "walking pace" * what would be the sequence of events that caused one interpretation of metronome markings to change into another which differs by the factor of 2? It is hard to imagine how that should have happened, especially without ever getting mentioned in the literature
I am a classical guitarist. I will be looking for instances where this approach applies to 19th century guitar music. Extremely informative. Thank you!
I played twenty out of the 32 Beethoven Sonatas. I checked the Czerny metronome numbers. I don’t see the problem. They fit perfectly with the exception of a couple which you nicely cherrypicked. I am thinking why in the world would Opus 2 No 1 be Allegro if you play it at half speed? Please explain. Appreciated
To believe in this, one has to completely ignore the fact that there are many recordings of the students of Chopins pupils, and recordings of some composers themselves (like Rachmaninoff).
Actually not. Those recordings show what was common practice back then. We don't play anymore like those, and yet we assume they played according to what was going on 80 years earlier (without every having heard it). Plus, they play all 'in between' the tempi, slower than the metronome marks in single beat, faster than the MMs in whole beat.
@@AuthenticSound That would mean that either 1) All Chopins pupils played half the tempo written (as you say Chopin did), and all students of all of Chopins pupils doubled that tempo, without no comment in any written source, or 2) Chopin allowed all of his pupils to play double the tempo he meant. Again, with no mention in any written source of this doubling in tempo. Remember that there are recordings of the students of Chopins pupils, there are written sources of how they played while young, written sources from the times they studied with their teachers, written sources going back from their teachers (i.e. Chopins pupils), and documentation going back from there. There exists older notation systems where the pulse is as you describe (documented), but where is the documentation of the sudden doubling in tempo, which must have occurred in a very short period of time (like at most 40 years, since Chopin died in 1849 and Cortot was born in 1877, and we know that there were no doubling in tempo during Cortots lifetime)?
I find this to be your the best of all your summaries of the subject. Starting with the Renaissance and the relationship of tempi to the human heartbeat is helpful, at least to my way of thinking. Thank you.
So since we have recordings of pianists like Rachmaninoff playing their own pieces, we know that when recording first started, the metronome marking meant what it does today. Assuming that there was a switch at some point from the "schlag" interpretation to the modern interpretation, was there also a corresponding increase in the skills of pianists? Assuming your Beethoven interpretation is historically accurate, why and more importantly when did pianists decide to start playing faster?
@@vardaanshah7167 Speeding up a piece was a common fauxpas even in Mozarts time. He himself noted, that often players increase tempi because they cant "carry the weight" of a slower composition, or simply could not figure it out from notation alone. The metronome allowed composers to fix the tempo to a precise number but that does not mean that the numbers were always, if even most of the time, followed. Thats shown in many complaints of famous composers on their music being performed too quickly. With the rise of public concerts and with it public expectations, the showmanship and velocity before only found in folk music was now employed to play pieces by famous composers, since modern performers did not compose their own music anymore, and had to stand out to make a living. When the knowledge of the whole-beat reading got lost is hard to tell. The metronome harshly fell out of favour with composers over the course of th 19th century, becoming a symbol of unmusicality, and used primarily for "keeping time" when practicing. Since confusion about too fast metronome numbers rose after the world wars (an era of very difficult music), it is plausible that around this time the single-beat reading which had always existed, prominently in the anglo-american sphere, took over, also because after Ravel, Rachmaninov and Prokofieff, these speeds were more realistic than 100 years before. Hope i could explain some things! cheers
In fact, the first ever piano recordings are from 1888, by composers and pianists born in the 1830s and 40s. Beethoven died in 1827, leaving literally no gap for an event of such caliber as the one described in this video. It would take decades or even centuries for the whole mankind to forget the original conception of tempi and to gradually adopt faster and faster speeds. But there is zero evidence of this apart from some cherrypicked "interpreted" quotes. In fact, the biggest problem of this man's theory is that we have many documents stating the opposite of what he claims. We even preserve Mozart concert programs that state the beginning and the ending time of those concerts. And the duration of those concerts fit perfectly with the tempo that we use. The author of this video never addresses such programs.
J Rodríguez I wonder also about music not for piano, I know for flute specifically if fast pieces were played at half tempo the phrases would be impossible to do on one breath. However, an extremely valid counter to that would be we mainly play from modern editions edited by modern editors.
If Maelzel was thinking in whole pendulum swings, why didn’t he call 108 instead 54? The number refers to absolute beats per minute. And what about compound time signatures? Indications that refer to a dotted quarter note or a dotted half note would make the metronome click out of tempo, two against three.
great stuff. i have a question for you. wouldn't it make sense then for metronomes to sound only on one end of the pendulum? that way we can see and feel the binary division of the unit but hear only the downbeat of it.
Even this guy's presentation of information is at half of the correct speed. This video should be 7 minutes max. The biggest problem with this idea is that in many cases, contemporary accounts of both concert programs and performance lengths for those programs survive, and it is impossible for these suggested half-tempos to have been correct, particularly in the case of Beethoven. I do not discount the value of slowing down to find nuance in inner voices and such, but that is done to inform play at the correct tempo. Pretending that speed is "correct" is completely unfounded revisionism. EDIT: The end is the hallmark of bad research: tell your audience not to think too hard about the "research." You'll do the thinking for us.
If the "duration's" data proof one thing, it is exactly a single beat reading to be historically not correct. Yes, you should do your own thinking. But that starts by actually thinking for yourself. Your own words show you didn't. So my advice: activate some brain cells and most preferably with a metronome at a piano. And then we speak again.
@@AuthenticSound The duration reported in contemporary concerts is impossibly too short for the works to have been performed at your suggested tempi. Simple math. If a concert should take three hours at your tempi, but contemporary accouts indicate it endured one and three-quarter hours, your tempi are obviously wrong. Unless you propose that clocks ran at half speed too, and a full day and night were 12 hours. Let me propose a question. If the "correct" tempo is at half of what metronome markings are interpreted to mean, why was the double escapement invented? Why, after its introduction, did virtuoso playing _immediately_ take a leap forward, taking advantage of the action's ability to repeat a note before the hammer has had time to fully reset? Its invention makes no sense unless virtuosic playing was reaching the limits of the single-escapement mechanism, and nor does the immediate appearance of performers like Liszt. "Thinking for yourself" doesn't mean taking translations of idiomatic phrases used to basically say thay an eighth note is half of a quarter note and to pretend they in any way apply to a metronome. Go look at some books from the same era on the game of chess and you will see the same kind of idiomatic language. It isn't literal, and if you deeply studied the languages as they were written in the era, this conversation wouldn't even be necessary. My advice: Drop the ad hominem and debate instead the substance of my objections. Divest yourself from your personal attachment to your own theory and examine contrary evidence. That's how research is done and how new ideas gain acceptance.
so here is some thinking since you bring up double escapent: All etudes written for pianos with no double escapement containing repeated notes do not work on the piano's they are written for. This is the first question you should answer. Btw, there is no ad hominem in my response. I simply answered a comment that clearly had such element. I can predict (since i know the numbers) this little experiment ends the discussion. Already. And we're not even started. See people do need to think for themselves. Assuming doesnt solve anything
@@AuthenticSound Beethoven's concert of 22 December 1808 makes your tempi impossible. The program at modern metronomic interpretation contains 2 hours and 44 minutes of continuous, uninterrupted music. Additionally, there was an intermission between the halves. Then we must include contemporary accounts that the Chorale was restarted from the beginning at the repeat of the 2nd variation, because the chorus and orchestra had different understanding of whether to skip the repeat. Conservatively, these considerations would add 45 minutes to the concert, so 3 hours and 30 minutes. (Your tempi would require well over 5 and a half hours, including the intermission and restart of one piece.) The concert lasted from 6:30 to 10:30 according to most contemporary accounts, and at least two accounts say it started late. It did not extend beyond midnight, as your proposal would require. Therefore, your tempi are impossible. QED. No amount of whinging can cram your tempi into a 4 hour concert. And there are numerous other examples of concerts whose programs and durations are known which preclude your metronome interpretation. Also, citation needed for pre-1821 etudes with metronome markings in the original manuscript (not added by later editors) that cannot be played with a single escapement.
Funnily enough, I always found Chopin Etudes tempi to be crazy and I tried many years ago playing them half the time and all of a sudden they made a lot more sense from a musical stand point at least for me, but who dares to play them in class or a concert like that… Great video by the way
Using the latest micro/macro technology together with advice and advanced data analysis from the Institute for Advanced Study, MIT and NASA it has been finally determined that Beethoven could achieve a forward velocity of 77 miles per hour slightly behind Chopin at 81 miles per hour - Mozart was too busy to compete.
None of today's musicologist give this idea the time of day. The timekeeping practices of medieval and Renaissance musicians do not apply to 19th century musicians in the way you claim. That's a fact. There are a host of other reasons this is false, but important refutations include the musicians who were directly taught by some of the 19th century's most important composers, performers, and teachers. And we don't need to read about it, this idea is instantly refuted by a survey of recordings we have (and they're all over RU-vid) of musicians who studied with giants of the 19th century. You can listen to Johann Joachim, who studied with Mendelssohn, play the violin (Mendelssohn was already a prolific composer during the time Beethoven was composing his greatest works). You can listen to the students of Brahms and Clara Schumann such as Carl Friedberg, Ilona Eibenschütz, Adelina de Lara, Fanny Davies, and the list goes on. There are many incredible recordings of Raul Koczalski, who studied with Chopin's own teaching assistant, Karol Mikuli. Listen to the tempis chosen by these great musicians. Not one of them chooses tempi as you do. My friend, the idea that metronome markings are "too fast" and that they should be taken at half speed is a mere reflection of your own idiosyncratic preference. It's ok to have your very unusual personal preference, but it's a disservice to disseminate this false information as fact to the masses and to the less-educated who don't know any better.
More space to color and articulate and phrase!!?? This is the most freeing and inspiring video for me so far on youtube!! Thank you for the history lessons. :)
The more I think about your videos the more things come to my mind that just don't make sense. On this one: You try to explain the way Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin etc. played, especially focusing on tempo, by talking about a tempo-theory from the renaissance. But don't you think, that the thinking about Music changed over the years? Also, once again, you don't quote correctly. I actually read in the "Versuch einer geordneten Theorie der Tonsetzkunst" by Gottfried Weber, first published 1817-21. He tells us how to use the metronome on pp.73ff. He says if there is some sign to tell you about the tempo like half notes = 45 it means they "are performed as rapidly as the strokes [!] of the machine occur, when it is graduated to No. 45;". He doesn't speak of full periods a pendulum would make analogue to the metronome. When he finally mentions as pendulum he does so in order to show another possibilty how to measure the tempo (pp 75 ff.): He gives the length, a pendulum has to have so it does a full swing, i.e. period, in the same tempo as the metronome strikes. So if the pendulum has the length of roughly one meter it does 60 periods in one minute. (That's just physics => en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_(mathematics)) So Weber actually thinks of one period as one Brevis, but he doesn't apply that to the metronome. He actually gives a table showing the signatures on Mälzel's and there equivalent pendulum lengths. Why don't you ever quote your sources, which are actually very interesting, correctly?
Let's make it short: make a Gaussian curve of the tempos in SB and in WB. The curve with the least dispersion is the mathematically correct version. I did it and the answer is extremely clear
This is great. I'd like to see a video on the kbd books & kbd technique of the 1700's and how that relates to the speeds attainable in those days.
4 года назад
What about Czerny? "M.M. crotchet = 112, [...] we must play every crotchet exactly with the audible beats of the Metronome." (C. Czerny Pianoforte School, Book 3, pp. 66, English edition from 1839) and a more practical and less complex understanding of the description in Mälzel's Metronome Directions? "[...] that the pendulum should be made to strike integral parts of a bar [...] In 4/4, 3/4 and 2/4 time, the rod should, whenever possible, beat 1/4, or one crotchet. [...] it being well understood, that in this, as in every other case, each SINGLE beat or tick forms a part of the intended time, and is to be counted as such; but not the two beats produced by the motion from one side to the other." (from 1816) There are more comments in replies to this comment. Please, read all of them.
4 года назад
And yes, I know about this video: www.authenticsound.org/yes-we-do-play-too-fast-the-1816-maelzel-metronome-directions-explained/
4 года назад
We have to keep in mind that the scale on the metronome has a certain range. You talk there about a problem for single-beat believers. But the text seems pretty straightforward for me. It simply means that when you, as a composer, assign a metronome number in a certain value (let's say minims = 80), then I, as a player, should convert this to crotchets = 80*2 = 160 if possible (if I have this number on the scale). Because you could easily run into a situation in which your scale wouldn’t have values for a particular tempo described by particular note values. Not everything could be described by tempo in crotchets.
4 года назад
And what about this situation? Adagio q = 80 3/4 bar. Applying your methods precisely to this very opposite situation would result in a double tempo instead. Since it is 3/4, each tick should be a crotchet, which according to your understanding of the Directions would be 80 (for a single tick), therefore you will have two quavers per tick, each being at 160 MM. And for your performance of Beethoven’s first sonata: don’t forget to notice that the 1st movement is marked Alla breve (at least in Czerny). And, therefore there’s no point for halving the tempo (not even according to your theory). And, please, reply to my comments under this video. I’m very curious. All the best! Adam
@ Thank you for your interest in our research. It's great that you are so informed on these aspects regarding the tempo and the metronome. Here you find two videos that concerns the reading of the metronome and the Cut time vs Common time issue. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7tizWwFiaKc.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-of7e_Nm7ErM.html For what concerns the Czerny's quote you bring, it is easily explainable on from a grammar standpoint. "every crotchet" (singular) must be played " with the audible beats" (plural). If you read it again now, you should be able to see that this is totally a Whole Beat description. One crotchet indeed should match multiple beats. That is indeed what WB is about: the ticks subdivide the note value indicated in the metronome equation. The beauty of music is that it is about putting into practice every theory. You can test yourself which of the two readings of the metronome makes more sense. I have seen you are a professional musician, so if you believe that the half reading is the historical one, you can bring your point to people's attention on your channel by recording all the pieces that have been metronomized. Here is a simple one to start with, since it was written for beginners/medium level pianist: Czerny's school of velocity op.299. As he says in his preface "The following pieces are especially tended to unfold this branch of performance, to augment and to preserv it. The only condition is, that, after you have well exercised them, you play them every day, prior to others, in the marked Tempo, observing besides the other rules of nicety and elegancy". Waiting for you to share your result!
Arrau has a straight learning lineage who can be tracked to the very own Beethoven. He has much more in him to tell if the time played is right one or not. This make sense only within your very own opinions.
Um, I still don’t get what you are saying. [Edit finally get it, from the other video you have 39% example] One thing to point out, the very old music was for singing, so we see half notes in the hymn books unmetered (long short, no rhythm feeling really) for example that later if you look at a Bach chorale for example, become metered quarter notes (pick up notes, felt in 4). Of course he did not mean to speed up the singing double. It becomes convenient for instrumentalists who can play faster than most singers can sing notes in church (lol) to see barre lines and divisions that feel good and look good on paper. So if they say quarter = or half note = tempo X, they don’t mean the click sound is double that, they mean the pulse feeling is repeat X times per minute, and whatever note they want you to see on paper. And yes Bach was tapping his foot as some historical observation recorded, because people were too slow. He might even think Gould slows down (he does 😂 ) this is a musical mistake. I don’t think Bach would like even those pendulum metronomes cuz they also slow down, only digital is good, or his own foot.
A few comments Wim, as you know ,conducting music existed way before first metronomes were created. Mozart and Haydn used batons in well documented instances to perform. " Fri, 30 Sep 1791 in Vienna, Mozart's opera Die Zauberflöte (The Magic Flute) premiered at the Theater auf der Wieden, with Mozart himself conducting the orchestra, according to documents and publicity posters from that time. In 1798, Joseph Haydn conducted the premiere of Creation with his hands and a baton while "Kapellmeister Weigl [sat] at the fortepiano." Conducting technique hasn't changed since that time. 1st beat baton down, last beat baton up. The classic example with arm moving up and down corresponds to an 'ala breve' movement. 2/4 So conducting music is always aligned to the beat, I am afraid. Now a few considerations , more philosophical than technical: The single beat RUPTURE revolution. ----------------------------------------------------------- If we assume that double beat or whole beat was the norm , then they must have been a first time when a known performer has played in single beat . That should have produced for sure an electric shock to the audience and the number of articles written by art critics or witnesses would be have been numerous given that radical change of tempo. I have spent lot of time to find for any trace of that. Can't find it and have searched music library database, wikisource.org and others. NOTHING ! Think about it when Glenn Gould performed Brahms no1. 10-15% slower than the norm in some passages , the literature on the subject was overwhelming. So not to find any review on sonatas or concertos performed virtually 100% time faster means that the radical change in tempo simply didn't happen, specially if we bear in mind that at a period where internet didn't exist, the number of publications and critic written concert reviews were way more numerous than today. The elitist feeling of being able to play at fast speed if required by the composer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You also mention in another video that whole beat tempo satisfies you because maybe 50% of musician instead of 1% will be able to play difficult measures at speed. The number one purpose of the music is to please the audience. Satisfying the pianist because he can play it is a collateral effect not the primary goal. From a composer or performer point of view, classical music has always been elitist from day one. You had to be among the best , if not the best, to be selected as an official composer or performer for the court in Vienna. More over there is enough choice in the music repertoire to satisfy any pianist's capability. Apologies for the long post
Great post. Great questions. A little "devil's advocate" for you ... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aBXSm7UR1zs.html - in this, the conductor is conducting a march (2/2?) and he is definitely working hard to make an up and a down beat on each of the two half notes per bar. This is my opinion on his conducting - it is done. And there are majorettes in marching bands who do beat one up and one down. The idea here is that BOTH seem to be used. I was looking back on my marching days in the US Coast Guard, and I conducted as Wim's video suggests. I do not believe that they brought out the MM or the pendulum and had it ticking or swinging away for the audience during the performance, so I am unsure that the audiences over the 50-year time span as these tempi increased would have passed this on. During a performance of a piece (skips my mind, sorry), Gould and Bernstein were going to play it very much slower, and Bernstein wanted to warn the audience ahead of time. Bernstein also respected Gould and Gould's opinion even though he didn't believe Gould was correct. This is how master performers discuss these issues, and you, Christian, have acted equally classy. I thank you. Conclusion here for me is that as music progresses, it evolves. Think of music in the 60's through the 2000's, and while you lived through any of these decades, you probably didn't notice the mutations. I hadn't, but looking back (hindsight is 20/20 as my dad always said) the demarcations are noticeable. I don't think music stars of today and yesteryear were elitists ... their consumer bases would have been too limited, and they wouldn't have had "play" so to speak. Remember that Mozart was "hired" and the audiences were in the court. Bach did his stuff for the Masses and the masses (HAHA!). But Beethoven didn't "hire on"; he was solicited and so the music business till very recently were free lance, which means elitism gets the boot in my philosophical opinion. Now, are we satisfying an educated audience, or a "Miley Cyrus" audience? If it's the "Bang Bang" crowd, then by all means, be a monkey on stage, but instead of the cigar and tux on a unicycle, you have a piano - hey! whatever floats your boat; however, IF the audience is such as the one Wim played for during his American debut, then they would have - and looked like they DID - enjoy hear the MUSIC, not watching the "monkey", so to speak. On you last point, I don't care WHO you are, Miley Cyrus is NOT elitist, the Eagles or even the Beatles or any other group has a tux and wine crowd because TODAY as in the 1800's those who could afford the performance were "just regular folks" each in his own time. Example: my dad never wore shorts. His generation always wore long pants - nary jeans - and a collared shirt along with a TIE always at work; however, today folks go to work in flip-flops, especially in PHX AZ., so comparing apples to pendulums (get it? HAHA!!!), you MUST look to each generational "norm", then form the opinion from their time. On a controversial subject of that nature, Columbus was the reason we're all here in the New World; however, others hate him ... Why? Because they're not look at him through the eyes of where and when he was. It's unfair and intellectually DULL to see the man from the 21st century. Anyway, I hope these points were adequate. Believe it or not, in Mersenne's time - as I am reading - they "cycloid" gave folks headaches because they lacked the tools, viz Calculus to define them very well. Yes, in the 1600's people got MAD MAD MAD about cycloids, and you'd think they were educated ... HAHA!!! Great post again, Christian, and I hope I rebutted the points in the interests of the Devil's Advocate.
@@SimonDanellPiano I am not saying your are wrong, so please don't take this the wrong way - do you have a video or know a video that shows the examples where Wim's theory doesn't apply in a clear way? Wim is showing examples that make sense to me. If there are counterexamples I would like to see them too so I can come to a more informed conclusion.
@@nsl888 The trick isn't so much playing them whole beat, but now ask these fine young and talented musicians to play them half beat since they're so much in love with their hypothesis. I have been studying the Cortot edition from 1914 of the Chopin Etudes that my teacher gave me. Cortot gives the original MM numbers, AND his elapsed time it should take to play through them. Of course, he hems and haws about how "we have added our own suggestions" (oh the royal "we"), and that translates to "we cannae play them at those ridiculous MM numbers", and I have heard some of his very sloppy playing at even his "full clips", which are as much as TEN MEASURES PER MINUTE SLOWER, especially in the C# minor 10/4 Etude. Again, if the GREAT Cortot couldn't or wouldn't - depending upon your ability to be objective in hearing his sloppy playing ... makes me sad, really ... - play these Etudes at the original MM numbers, then have these half beaters explain WHY? We're ALL EARS! Mathcoffee, I am being very serious here when I say that the half beaters are using an informal logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance", which states that since Wim cannot prove his theory at present, THEIR theory MUST be true; however, as I have shewn, the great Cortot NEVER played Chopin's Etudes according to his own edition from 1914 at ANY of the MM listed in these editions (I have checked op 10 1 - 10 ... so he might have in the op 25 ... not sure yet) ... Concluding, force these guys to demonstrate how their hypothesis holds by PLAYING these pieces at speed ... surely they must be virtuosos in order to give Wim such a hard time and attack him personally. I have witnessed it. Thanks Mathcoffee.
@Christian, I always appreciate your contributions, but fail to read your point you want to bring up here. So, because you had to be part of the 'elite' to become someone on that time on a certain level (so that's the reason Mozart and Beethoven had such an easy time finding a decent job?), but anyway, we shouldn't be surprised many of the MM are unreachable? Well, there is nothing to answer to assumptions, let alone circular reasoning (which we fall all in from time to time). If we don't agree on the fact that MM are accurate and exact tempo indications, than our conversations misses the essential point to debate. As for the 3 sets of etudes series I sent you a few weeks ago on your request to prove everything was playable. If they don't work out as you expected, there is no blame for you at all, and I would be the last one to make fun of that, but it could show you the direction and insight. If that direction doesn't appeal to you, be careful to reject the historical context purely based on personal experience and taste. I don't know what influence you might have as a teacher and performer, but it all comes with a responsibility. If not for THE truth, than to the legacy of those great composers. All said with respect and hand shake: I simply hate things becoming personal, we're all here for a short time on this planet.
There must have been a kind of metronom which didn´t audibly tick also.Hummel mentioned in his piano school that one has to buy a metronom "von der besseren,der lautschlagenden Art" (meaning a better,loud clicking kind).I think this also connects the pendulum with the metronom.
Orchestral music has been recorded in whole beat by maestro Maximianno Cobra. Here is some example: Beethoven's 9th: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zOqpVdSlX4w.html Mozart's Requiem: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0gP7FUQ30us.html Mozart's 25th: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s_RNFOGUD4g.html We have held a bow when I was a child, since i started with violin before going to piano. It did not change a lot my relationship with facts though. And here are some facts: -FACT: we have hundreds of Metronome numbers that represent real speed indications from composers and contemporaries in the 19th century. One can argue on the reading that we apply to this metronome indications, but it should be always supported by a practical demonstration as we do. -FACT : these interpretation are not at half tempo since many of these pieces are not even today played by following these MM in single beat, since they become unplayable even for the most technically gifted pianist or orchestra (not an opinion). -FACT: there are several pieces that pianists play at the same speed of MM read in double beat...see the recording of Bartok of chopin Nocturne op.27 n1 and the n.2 played by Valentina Lisitsa, Chopin - Nocturne op.15 n2 played by Raoul Pugno, or Glenn Gould's Appassionata, or any pianist who plays the Arietta of op.111 with Czerny's MM (in this last case many times played even slower then Czerny read in double beat) , or even traumerei by Schumann is often played spot on or even slower then Whole Beat (see Daniel Trifonov). FACT: if the application of these Metronome numbers puts on discussion today's performance practice and makes some people have abdominal pain, it is totally unrelated and irrelevant to the previous facts.
@@albertosanna4539 In the past I adored the one (most famous) part of this choral finale, but found much of the rest of it a jumbled mess. In this slower version I'm hearing the beauty of the whole thing for the first time. There are so many glorious parts to this that I have never before been able to fathom! Thank-you for pointing out this beautiful performance!
@@albertosanna4539 these are the sort of responses I like. Plus those recordings of beethoven and mozart's requiem made me cry, they were everything I always wanted from those pieces and never got else where
According to an article in Smithsonian Magazine, 66 of the 135 tempo markings that occur on Beethoven's original sheet music are described as "absurdly fast and thus possibly wrong". This led to a theory that perhaps Beethoven's metronome was broken. When I saw this, at first I thought it pointed in exactly the opposite direction from what you are advancing, but, in fact, if you set the metronome to the same number, but treat tick-tock as one beat, you are playing half as fast, so it is in agreement.
Why, when creating the metronome, was the number of "clicks" prioritized over the pendular movement when setting the numerical value we see on metronomes, considering that time was also measured taking into account the complete pendular movement? This choice would have avoided confusion and would have been more coherent with measuring time according to the pendular movement. Thank you very much. Sincerely,
@@chlorinda4479 "I don't know what it means that Wikipedia is my friend. I have friends, and none of them are anything like Wikipedia. Nevertheless, allow me to add the other comments from this discussion for more clarity. Me: Why, when creating the metronome, was the number of "clicks" prioritized over the pendular movement when setting the numerical value we see on metronomes... You: Because in music, it wasn't the complete pendular movement (the period) that was measured, but the half-movement (a single swing). The metronome simply continued the established practice, adding a clockwork mechanism for continuity, a click to make the tempo audible, and a scale for easy selection of a range of different tempi. Me: Does this mean that when Czerny writes that if the composer wants the quarter note to be at 112, each click of the metronome set to 112 indicates the duration of the quarter note? / "For example, if the indication reads: M.M. Quarter Note=112, you move the triangle attached to the front notched rod of the metronome precisely to the notch aligned with the backward-facing number 112, release the rod, and play each quarter note exactly to the audible beats of the metronome." I think it's clear that musicians in that era measured the complete pendular movement; that was the measurement they took into account. That's why I don't understand why Mälzel put the number of beats per minute on the metronomes instead of each complete pendular movement per minute. If one plays Czerny's example of the Waltz at dotted half note = 88, taking each beat to determine the tempo, one realizes that it doesn't make sense, that it's not a Waltz. However, considering the complete pendular movement, the dotted quarter note (meaning each whole measure) at 88 complete pendular movements, that's the correct Waltz tempo and the tempo that has been used for Waltz dancing up to our days. This means that we shouldn't understand the word "Schlag" that Czerny uses as beat but as a complete pendular period. (...exactly to the audible beats of the metronome. Czerny op. 500) And this lack of clarity in the meaning of the terms also makes confusion possible. You: Musicians measured the duration of the beat with a single swing of the pendulum... I still don't know if you think that if Beethoven indicated Quarter Note=112, we should play 112 quarter notes in a minute because you haven't answered my question. I suppose the answer is yes if I don't misunderstand what you're saying about the metronome. The issue of the beats, the ticks we hear, doesn't have any inconvenience. We hear each tick of the metronome when it's set to the tempo desired by the composer; we mark each tick by raising and lowering our hand or forearm, and we do it at the same speed as the metronome's needle. We hear the beats, we respect them, and we mark 112 movements per minute. The discussion lies in whether we consider a "Schlag" when the hand returns to its original position or if we consider a "Schlag" as half of each complete movement. That means, whether we mark with the arm moving at the same speed as the metronome's needle, or if we move it at double the speed. If we moved the arm at the same speed as the metronome's needle, the number of beats in a minute that our hand would make on the table, piano, leg, or whatever, would be 56. If we moved it at double the speed to hit our hand on the table, piano, leg, or whatever, 112 times per minute, we would be marking 112 beats per minute but precisely moving our arm at double the speed. Try playing a waltz without any tempo indication, intuitively, and then play the waltz in Czerny's example at Dotted Half Note=88. Or try playing the first movement of Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata by moving your arm at double the speed of the metronome's needle to beat 138 times, and then tell me about your experience. Especially in measures 17-25, for example."
I thank you for the quotes you have sent me. Indeed, there is no doubt that they describe the use of the metronome, taking into account each half-pendulum movement to mark the duration of musical notes. Nevertheless, we still have some problematic Tempo indications in scores by Beethoven, Czerny, Chopin, Schumann, or Brahms, for example, as they make these works with such Tempo indications either impossible to perform (not only for someone not so trained in playing fast notes but even for musicians who have developed immense virtuosity. There is no recording, let alone live performance, of the first movement of the Hammerklavier Sonata at half note = 132, for example), or ridiculously fast. In many cases, one must choose not to adhere to certain articulations or dynamics, or to play some passages with subdivisions of the main beat without respecting the very fast tempo we have chosen for the rest of the notes, or play rhythms different from those indicated by the composer (Example: instead of three triplet sixteenth notes, play three sixteenth notes. Piano Sonata No. 1, 1st Movement, Beethoven. Although it is not a valid example since that Sonata does not have a Tempo indication directly from Beethoven, but from Czerny), etc. In the book you have quoted, it is explained that at the beginning of the 18th century, an Allegro in 4/4 without sixteenth notes was played with a maximum of 60 beats per measure, which is 120 for the half note. Indeed, one could think that Beethoven increased the speed of such an Allegro to 132 half notes per minute in his Hammerklavier. And if that is the case, we have a problem. The same goes for many studies in which we would have to play more than 20 notes per second. I still believe that something in the way those musicians measured Tempo is eluding us. I know how a conductor marks Tempo, and it necessarily involves two movements, one up and one down. The question is, as I mentioned earlier, whether we take the speed of the metronome to mark each beat, or if we mark each beat by moving the hand at twice the speed of the metronome's needles. The latter is how it is done, indeed, with one arm movement per beat, although the hand at each part of the measure moves at twice the speed of the metronome's needle. It is, in any case, a fascinating topic that, in my opinion, is not fully resolved. Or rather, the explanation in Moscheles is clear, but what is not resolved is which Tempo to choose when that way of understanding the Tempo indication is as problematic as, for example, in the first movement of the Hammerklavier Sonata.
I also tried to be sarcastic, although I probably didn't succeed. I'm glad to hear that you're among those who can't play Beethoven's op. 106 at that fast tempo if we measure that 132 half notes should fit into a minute. What I don't believe is that it's only amateur pianists who can't do it; in fact, I don't know anyone who has recorded it at that speed. And besides, it's not just exceptional cases, and that's the problem. The first thing we mustn't forget is that we often encounter works that we can't perform, that no one can perform, at the speed the composer has indicated. Well, another mystery.
Hello. 🙂 Would you say that moving an arm from left to right approximately 25 centimeters in one direction and the same 25 centimeters back, or perhaps even one or two centimeters further on the return, in 0.43 seconds, is moving the arm slowly? Furthermore, at each point, the starting point, the left endpoint, and the right endpoint, the hand must press correct keys, with the indicated intensity (in two cases the same, in one case different), with the correct articulation (in two cases the same, in one case different), etc. If we subtract the time required to press the keys with the hands at each point, we would find that the arm must perform these movements in less than 0.43 seconds. If that is considered moving the arm slowly, then I must be a turtle for whom everything seems "too fast." Perhaps Beethoven and other composers wanted people not to be able to play their works, and that only great virtuosos "could perform" them by accomplishing feats that require those same virtuosos to endure almost inhuman suffering to execute them. Beethoven wanted us all to suffer in order to play his works at the indicated tempo, as in the case of the Hammerklavier Sonata, from the last eighth note of measure 18 to the second eighth note of measure 19 and in all similar cases, by moving the arm and performing the correct notes with their dynamics and articulation in 0.21 seconds. Would you say that Beethoven indicated the speed at which we should play his Sonata as accurately as he could at that time, just to tell us approximately what speed we should play it at? Wouldn't it have been enough for him, as it had been until then, to simply indicate "Allegro"? And as told in the book you mentioned, an Allegro in 4/4 without sixteenth notes was played at between 30 and 60 whole measures per minute. In other words, if we were to understand that the half note in the Hammerklavier Sonata should be played 69 times in a minute (a complete pendulum swing=138), we would be playing 34.5 measures per minute for an Allegro in 4/4 without sixteenth notes. According to the practice of Beethoven's time, as described in the book you provided, this falls within the correct tempo range for an Allegro: between 30 and 60 full measures per minute. If we were to understand that we should play 138 half notes in a minute, which is 69 measures per minute, we would be playing an Allegro that was already 9 full measures faster than usual for that time. It's not impossible to assume that Beethoven wanted it this way, indeed. But in one case, we are within the norm, by no means too slow or too fast, and in the other case, we would be exceeding the tempo according to the available document, which stated that 60 whole measures were the maximum number of measures in a minute at that time. Now we need to try to explain that. I repeat, there is no problem, the answer is that Beethoven wanted it faster than was normally at that time. But on the other hand, there is the inconvenience that at that speed, it is impossible to play everything that Beethoven indicated in his score, not only playing the notes themselves but everything else as well. In conclusion, faced with this fact, the simplest answer is probably the most accurate one: 34.5 measures in a minute is by no means a lower number of measures per minute than was customary in Beethoven's time for an Allegro in 4/4 without sixteenth notes, and at that speed, everything can be played. I would even reach the compromise of saying that it is probable that Beethoven wanted it to be played at least at that tempo (34.5 measures per minute) and not slower. However, he probably had nothing against playing it faster, as long as everything else was respected, such as articulations, etc., and without the need to use the pedal where he had not indicated it, and so on. If someone, after breaking their soul practicing to play his sonata faster, could do it, I suppose Beethoven would not object to that. On the other hand, he would object to playing it at a slower tempo. And that brings us back to our problem. What is the tempo that Beethoven indicated? The possible tempo of 34.5 measures per minute, where we would be playing 276 eighth notes in a minute, and the tempo that falls within the Allegro range for that time? Or the tempo of 69 measures per minute, where we would be playing 552! eighth notes in a minute, at a speed that is not within the Allegro range for that time? Or go back to the first question and answer that Beethoven's very exact indication was actually an approximate indication. In other words: 1. Playing the Hammerklavier at half note=96-108, as most virtuosos do, or faster, is not wrong. (Or any other piece with problematic tempo with its corresponding count) 2. Playing it at half note=69, is not wrong either. An Allegro in 4/4 without sixteenth notes between 30 and 60 measures per minute is perfectly an Allegro. I don't know, but I think no one is discussing whether a police officer from the metronome ministry should stand behind each performer to ensure that they play the work at the metronome-indicated tempo, and if they fail to obey the metronome law, they should be subject to a few lashes on the back. I am only discussing what tempo we should choose to play the works, something that has always been done, with or without metronome indication. I almost forgot: 3. Playing the Hammerklavier at half note=132 is neither right nor wrong; it's impossible. Impossible in itself, but if someone achieved it, it would be impossible while still respecting all the other indications. And ridiculous. It remains a mystery to me.
@@chlorinda4479 Of course, but only if that would be half of the indicated tempo. I still think that at half note=69, you have to move the arm very quickly, and while trying to play the legatos and all the other articulations, the sonata remains very challenging to play. I don't know how long you've been playing the piano or if you've played other Beethoven sonatas, but not even at "half" the tempo can you play it, precisely as Czerny mentions. What Czerny doesn't say is that it's impossible to play at those very fast tempos that Beethoven indicated. And I think that no piano virtuoso today, whether on modern or historical instruments, plays the sonata at half note=132.
At 0.32 we can see a small cross beam interrupting the left swing of the pendulum, introducing a sort of agogic accent to the left/right arcs, very clever, and also subtly dishonest.
I'm just beginning my musical journey into classical music, focusing on Bach at the moment. I too have wondered about the tempo that modern musicians use for his pieces. I marvel at their skill, which I could never hope to reach. But in my opinion a piece that is played too fast, while certainly demonstrating the performer's dexterity, will inevitably take away from the composer's acumen. The human ear and brain are tuned to hear harmonies that disappear when two notes are played in very rapid succession. Conversely, two notes that have enough time to consciously resonate in the listener will create a harmony that is lost at a too fast tempo.
a quick reply with two videos that might give some directions (we need to research that period way more!) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yttFpr9eLUQ.html and ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O4kMXYb2pZM.html
Thank you! I cringe when I hear pieces played too fast, but it seems that musicians today think they have to play as fast as possible to get any attention. To me, the music loses all it's meaning and emotion, and it just sounds like a stream of notes. It sounds rushed and there is no time to appreciate it fully. For example, i think Bach Well Tempered Clavier prelude in c minor should not go faster than 105. Handel's Halleluiah chorus is a coronation march and therefore must be done at regular marching tempo, no faster than 112. Mozart's Turkish march should not go faster than 120.
this subject is intersting, and i m sur that you are super serious and full of reliability to it; but something connected : why some ragtime pieces written "slow march tempo" and the metronome is written at 100 while it s in 2/4; I imagine that the editor put it after, and not the composer, because it's super fast for a "slow march". CLearly there s some bizzareries in this topic
For sur! I will catch your stream this evening of course, but the end of the last round of the Grenke chess 2019 is at the same time oups. btw i playd the lute during my musicology studies and ur channel make me want to come back to it, but i need to buy a few strings missing argh
I've been watching your videos with great interest and a lot of what you say makes sense. Some details that you point out can in fact only be explained by the double beat theory. I really like the detail in this video that shows how kids count the swing "beats" and if we consider the undisputed fact that the swinging pendulum preceded the metronome arm, then we have to consider yet another convincing argument that the first users of the new invention that we call a metronome could have intuitively counted the beats as you describe. I think what would greatly add to your research is if you could somehow find historic references of when people started switching to the single beat counts, and why. Did the double beat counts become too illogical? I would also like to know if you know of any pieces that require repetitions of notes that would have been completely impossible to play on the period instruments. It is not the same if one plays a sequence of keys at an insanely fast tempo, or if one is required to press the same key twice (or more) at that same insanely fast tempo. If you could find such piece that bears a metronome marking, that would be great.
I still hold that the physicists concept of a cycle, or count per unit time concept is useful here, and one cycle corresponds to two ticks, zero and 180° of the circle (or at pi and 2pi radians).....(really TWO counts defining a unit of Time)
That's in many case true, but even in the 19th century there are definitions of 'vibration', 'oscillation' that are explained as 'single swing', even in the 18th c, even the definition of the Académy Fr. states this, in their effort to streamline everything to one central idea, they were not succesful on their new definition of oscillation (which for someone like Miehling is THE proof oscilation is single swing, not (wanting?) to take into account the dozens of whole swing definitions before and after, but all to say that there are historical descriptions of half swing vibrations. The layer above this is actually the more and most important: to what this oscilation (be it full or half) refers to. And there plays the definition of Beat, Schlag, Parts of the Time (Tacttheilen) etc. One can have a half swing oscilation indicating the parts of the intended time. See for instance that important source of Eduard Jue!
AuthenticSound Two things, Wim (and thanks for your reply!). 1) I’m not sure what you mean or are referring to by “the layer above this is actually”....do you mean older historical definitions? 2) I just noticed that even in a single swing of a pendulum (and similarly for the tip of the metronome, there is a complete “down-up” vertical motion as the pendulum descends to its lowest point when it’s velocity (or kinetic energy) is the greatest and reaches a maximum and then attains zero velocity at the other side of the single swing, so that the motion of a pendulum does not exactly map into the motion of a turning circle..... I’m not familiar with any of the historical references about metronome or pendulum full or half-swing, and can read French (with a good dictionary for more advanced terms, though a historical dictionary may sometimes be needed for older terms & documents). I’ll be running for a German Dictionary soon, online to work on elementary terms!
The definition of a vibration or oscillation as single or half-swing is inaccurate, and symptomatically typical of careless speech and lack of technical accuracy, which is not surprising, Wim. Misconceptions abound in casual parlance!
You create time according to your personal taste or your sensitivity. It is not important what is written in the score. It is a pure formality and wants to you suggest how you should face the score whoever composed the music piece. p.s. se conosci l'italiano puoi anche rispondermi in italiano.
(EDITED COMMENT): Hello. It's been a while since I watched your channel. It took me a while to locate your channel again b/c I lost several videos in my queue. I'm glad that when I found you again this was the particular video I landed on. I have a historical to ask you. I know you are always teasing the audience about wanting to hear classical masters the way they were (perhaps) supposed to be heard. Take a listen to this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TESkh3hX5oM.html. Listen to this for a few seconds. Well I would like to know if IN YOUR COUNTRY, if there are any old, wax cylinder, glass cylinder, wire spool, phonogram etchings, or any other digitized medium of experimental sounds from the 17th and 18th century? It would seem we have such recordings here in the United States and I was wondering if such recordings exist that you know of where you are? Thank you for considering my questions.
Also in math, a frequency is represented by the length of one full cycle. Like a standard sine wave for example, the motion of the wave starts in the middle, goes all the way up, all the way down and ends in the middle again.
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding: Crotchet=60 the 60 click is the divsion of the beat, the quaver?? minum=142 142 click = the crotchet?? What if the beat has three parts like a dotted crotchet??
Around WWI but there much more research needs to be done. See for instance Ravel's 1899 Pavane version for solo piano and his later orchestral version, or the Reger/Straube case: ru-vid.com/group/PLackZ_5a6IWU0SavYWvpaZydrCOwL5AkF
Nice video! I have a question regarding pendulum: Is tempo ordinario fixed to the whole cycle or each swing of the pendulum? Because if each swing lasts a second, the whole cycle would last two. Then I have the doubt about tempo ordinario. Is it a second for the whole cycle or for each swing? Thank you, God bless you and have a nice day!
@@chlorinda4479 but then I do not understand the correlation between the two movements of the arm (the pulse) and the second's pendulum. Mersenne says that the two swings of the pendulum equals one beat, but if each swing lasts 1 second: May we have to do a two movement cycle in each swing of the pendulum? I really want to know that, because I am very interested in WBMP, because I think it is the way that people in that century did. It is like solmisation: It was a common practice tool for reading music with guidonian hand and later in time, the new solffegio appeared. Thank you and have a great day.
Look a Chopin mazurka in a minor op.17 no.4, no one in there right mind would think to play that piece in the given tempo, the only choice I'm presented is to follow the double beat interpretation and play it like Chopin wanted. I don't claim to be an expert but you can't play lento at 152 quarter note. That one example followed by looking through his metronome markings on his etudes give me assurance that Wim isn't a crazy conspiracy theorist. Does anyone know of any good papers that address this issue?
I don't know, but would you imagine if someone played Chopin's piano concerto 1, the second movement in single beat. That would kill the entire movement.
But if based upon the up and down beat I wonder why metronome design did not evolve to indicate a different sound for each (louder or more distinct for down beat). While both systems for interpretation existed together this would have resolved any uncertainty. Truth is tempi in classical music is just as variable in performance as any music and tends to vary with fashion of the day.
It would be very interesting if we could search for records or articles of that time when a great concerto took place. If by any chance the start and ending times (or the whole duration of the event) were noted down we could throw more light on the 'historical Whole Beat Metronome practice'.
You seem to make the same point many times in your videos. Maybe you could edit it more. And I haven’t seen any “beyond” video yet. When are you going to discuss more “modern” music?
This argument was brought often against the fast Tempi of Beethovens Hammerklaviersonata, and Regers Choralfantasien. But it's wrong there - just try to listen to Hammerklaviersonata in half tempo, that's ridicolous. Interesting anyway.
@@AuthenticSound well, Schnabel (almost) and Korstick (a tiny bit slower) - but the fact that nobody tried (because of shady arguments or technical incompetence) is not a proof that Beethoven did not mean single-beat.
I agree, there are a lot of pianists who play pieces too fast in my opinion. But guys the music speaks! The tempo si not given us by the number of the metronome but by the music itself. Maybe it’s a little slower or a little faster but there will never be the right Bpm. Anyway I suggest you to understeand the meaning of all italian words used in the music….
then the metronome is used again in it's old function as a pendulum, tactus inaequalis. You take the tempo from the metronome by letting it tick, follow the movement with your hand, and focus on the down beat. You close the metronome and the tempo will be easily taken from the hand's movement.
Beethoven's metronome was faulty and we have now lost the counter weight so we can't know what pulse his metronome gave because weights were different.
@@antoinemitchell1373 I find it untenable to suggest that Beethoven would never discover, during his years of composing and working with other musicians, that his metronome alone was drastically slow compared with everyone else's. Especially as he had a personal friendship with the inventor of the metronome. Someone who only ever played for themselves, in isolation, could perhaps fail to discover such a discrepancy. Not Beethoven.
Can you give an example of a famous piece with the "correct" beat and how it is normally played today? If you have done so elsewhere, can you provide a link? Thank you. Also, are there accepted interpretations of common descriptions (ie. Allegro, Allegreto, Vivace, Moderato) in terms of the correct BPM? Thank you
@@AuthenticSound and then we have historic recordings with pupils of Clara Schumann play. That‘s the real deal. HEARING and witnessing the true essence of that music. Getting the flow. No metronome required at all. Important is only the whole-bar-tempo and whats flowing inbetween… If you play too slow you get lost in hearing the big structure and little notes become way too important- despite the fact that the notes on historic pianos sound shorter therefore you have to play faster to keep a line going.
Listen to Albert Schweitzer playing Bach and tempo is funereal cf. Ton Koopman et al. Is it possible that a musicologist like Schweitzer knew more about tempi interpretation than most others around him and since? When I was a kid at boarding school we used to be marched around in squads with the head prefect yelling out 'By the left, quick-march! Left! Left! Left-right-Left! (SWING YOUR ARMS GANTI!)", it being tacitly understood that the 'Left!' alone counted the steps taken, and that the 'right' was added purely for vocal rhythm.
Thank you. I came from a jazz background but attended a classical college. I always wondered why I’d learn a piece, then have to speed it up to a ridiculous tempo. (Also in the jazz ethic, one is moreso encouraged to freely interpret tempos, other elements of a piece). One question though-how do you address the slow movements, should they be half speed also?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Roger. Yes, the slow movements as well, you'll see if you look closely, they represent the same problems as the fast ones. We have a lot of recordings of entire sonatas, so you'll be able to check out also those movements!
