Sorry AuthenticSound, your Beethoven Tempi are NOT Historical 

@Jwm367, I’m sorry for my inadequate English. Wim Winters’ 24 minute version was recorded before his Lorenz Gadient period started, and that version is not hysterical in my opinion. But now Wim Winters support Alberto Sanna’s recording of Patetique that last for 42 minutes! That - that is hysterical!

"crazily slow" it might be, but I actually enjoyed it a lot.

As a recent convert to the four beat theory, I think Sanna's recording of the Pathetique is much too fast!

😂

​@@pokerandphilosophy8328that would require a bathroom break and his playing would lose all its forward momentum

Are you referring to the end of the 2nd movement of that symphony, yeah totally

@@ThePianoFortePlayer yes, end of 2nd movement.

Cuculus Canorus. The tempo marking by Beethoven from 1817 is 50 per dotted quarter note. So the quaver (eighth) is 150. now compare this to the bird song in nature and you‘ll find out that it is surprisingly exactly that tempo. And not the half tempo others suggest. Please seek a video called Wim the Cuckoo here on RU-vid.

@@Robert…Schrey That’s awesome

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Taking a more mathematical approach, Taking: MM of Dotted Quarter = 50 per minute ; Dotted Quarter = 3 eighth notes; 3 eighth notes per Dotted Quarter X 50 per minute = 150 eighth notes/minute ; To play 150 eighth notes in 60 seconds requires playing each eighth note at 0.4 per second (60 seconds/150 notes = 0.4 seconds/note); 3 eighth notes (Dotted Quarter) at 0.4 seconds per eighth note = 1.2 seconds/Dotted Quarter note. The 2nd Movement is in 12/8 time. There are 12 beats per measure, each eighth note is one beat. In bars 1-4 there are 12 eighth notes/bar in 4 groups of 3 eighth notes. Therefore, there are the equivalent of 4 dotted quarter notes/bar. Each dotted quarter note should be measured in 1.2 seconds of time to maintain tempo of 50 dotted quarter notes/minute. (50 dotted quarter notes x 1.2 seconds = 60 seconds) There are 4 dotted quarter note equivalents in bars 1- 4. Each bar should be played in ~ 5 seconds (1.2 seconds/Dotted Quarter x 4 Dotted Quarters = 4.8 seconds/bar). Thus, bars 1-4 should be played in ~20 seconds to arrive at tempo 50 dotted quarter notes/150 eighth notes per minute; which is the tempo played here, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-I_VT8yo-X9M.html

There are many other works / concerts where the time length is documented during the 1800s and they're all pretty similar to what we hear today

I personally think that Wim Winters is a fraud. I know that may seem harsh, but he's probably got a lot of patreons giving him money when his research has been refuted in this ten minute video. Sanna's version of the Pathetique sonata absolutely sucks!

Is the magical transition from double beat to single beat by students of Czerny and groups of professional musicians around that time without anyone noticing. Completely impossible.

Yup, Wim keeps connecting it to the industrial revolution but it’s not like the human body changed because of that

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Even if something like that had happened, what is impossible is that it remained unnoticed and unstudied.

@@mathyys Exactly

Haha, good one

Haha 😂

Yeah it’s sad

Thank you very much

Thanks, nice to see people appreciating Medtner

Literally nobody honestly believes this except him.

Haha

@jbrahms586. Well, may I quote Mr. Winters for you? He says: «Quantz is a perfect example of whole beat, there is even no discussion about that, and then suddenly his tempi became slower». From his video: W.A. Mozart - Don Giovanni Ouverture - Historical Tempo Reconstrucion.

Thanks man

You’re welcome

You’re welcome!

You’re welcome

Yup, especially since Winters does a lot of shadow banning

@@ThePianoFortePlayer trust me, I know everything about that :).

me too hahaha ... that's actually a compliment guys if you (Wim) were right ... then there was no need at all to shadow ban us a person who's right and who has the truth on his or her side, doesn't act like that, period... he lives in his own world people ... some people are like that, if they find out that the truth which has been living for all these years in their head and is not the truth outside them it's very confronting ... and that's what's happening ...

I remember coming across this piece of info from a comment, thanks for sharing

Option C is definitely the way to go

Did you not know that Franz Liszt took approximately one full hour to play the Hammerklavier Sonata. When working out the duration in single beat it comes to approximately a half hour. #SingleBeatDebunked

​@@johnb6723Beethoven's 3rd takes 1 hour to perform today and in its premier it was criticized for being almost one hour long which was too long.

You’re welcome

Thank you for watching

Lol, nice one

Thank you very much, Mr Waitzman. I've enjoyed watching your video on the same topic.

Thanks for watching

You are mixing up the subjects here. It is true that some composers were known to play they own piece at various tempo, depending on the venue, their mood and the moment. There are indeed many anecdotes relating that about Beethoven. I believe Moscheles mentions it as well. Wagner admitted he would never play twice at the same speed etc.. BUT (and this is a big BUT ;) ) this has nothing to do with the interpretation on how to use the metronome. This is not the case of them changing the method about the use the tool, but them performing their own work , depending on their feeling at that time. The big issue with Wim Winters is that the resulting speed of his playing is not because of a personal choice but because of his personal and completely biased way of using Maelzel metronome. When Gould plays Brahms 20% slower than the indicated MM , he still reads the score in single beat and just reduces the tempo. When W.Winters plays, he determines the speed not because of any feeling, or any emotional driver, he just follows a plain false misunderstanding of how to read MM's. Finally , I am in complete disagreement regarding the evolution of performance speed. Performance speed has actually decreased between the 19th century and the 20th century . Many facts and early recordings tend to support that rather than the opposite.

Apuleios2, quote: «As the world speeds up, our way of performing music also speed up». No! No, Apuleios2, that’s not true, it is just a hoax that Wim Winters employs to bolster its untrue borrowed theory! Most people listen to pop and rock in our time, only a minority listen mostly to classical and baroque. Note that most lassical tempo repertoire is faster than most pop and rock music. In other words, we realize that a fast pace in our lives does not affect the choice of tempi in music, because in that case pop and rock should have been performed in fast tempi. Why baroque and the classical repertoire are played faster these days is due to the fact that more and more people find it interesting to return the old music in tempi closer to the information from old written sources. Wim Winters is well versed in «tempo ordinario» and «tempo quisto». The practice of using heartbeat as an inaccurate metronome had been practiced for centuries. But that knowlegde was uninteresting or unknown to conductors and musicians 100-70 years ago. Therefore, old music is performed faster now than then, because interst in a historical approach is stronger than it was 50 years ago. Man has always enjoyed competing. The Olympic Games are a tradition close to 3000 years old! Don’t think that man’s desire to compete disappeard just when Beethoven, Czerny, Chopin and Liszt were alive, oh no! But they didn’t compete on the grass for who ran th fastest. So where did they compete? They competed on the keyboard! The keyboard was their sports arena! In the early 1800s, many people complained about the pianists’ penchant for the virtuoo. Remember the story of the pianist who boasted that he could play Chopin’s opus 10 no 12 with octaves in his left hand? What does that tell us? Sure, they loved to compete! So don’t be fooled by Wim Winters’ hoax that a faster society automatically creates faster music, that is not true! Such a hoax is suitable only for people who are unable to think for themselves. So when it comes to Wim Winters - always think for yourself!

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah I noticed that so I avoided that in the Beethoven analysis video essay I did after this video.

Oh nice, I haven't heard of Francis Xavier Roth, I'll check him out. In the video I was approximating that's why I said the 9th symphony lasts 60-80 minutes today, haha

François Xavier Roth. I dont like fast Beethoven, Furtwangler and old German masters still the best.

Alix, your personal taste about tempo is not interesting at all. Here we discuss what was the historical tempo.

Thanks

That would make sense if double beat was true, but that’s not what the evidence shown in this video points to; Malzel’s own instructions as well as Czerny’s instructions. For Czerny, if you check the a few pages where I stopped in the video he gives an example of using the metronome in triple meter, who would result in tempo inequali with double beat, but Czerny’s description doesn’t demonstrate that at all, instead it also points to the way we use the metronome today

Imagine 100 years from now , amateurs trying to play étude 39 no 1 from Rachmaninov at tempo , and a charlatan stating that is was meant to be played in double beat . ´This was just an étude and it was music written for YOU’. We are facing the same revisionist view , with people not admitting that some materials are written by exceptional pianist . Btw Czerny wrote in Op 500 that tempi indicated for études are the maximum one can achieve , recommends slow practice in order to raise the speed week after week . Sounds absolutely legit to me and no different than today . Now Wim winters wants to play it at max tempo , day one , sight reading as he doesn’t memorise music and with little practice as he consumes music like fast food . Frankly , he is a joke .

OK Clara Schumann

Thank you very much for the kind response

Oh wow that’s interesting to hear

Thanks

@@ThePianoFortePlayer i wonder if Wim replied to you

@@CostasCourtComposer Nope, maybe sometime in the future

@@ThePianoFortePlayer well. What he could say? You are 100% correct. Well done.

@@CostasCourtComposer I hope so, I did my best to learn about the subject

I think so, well at least at the moment they wrote those metronome marks, since composers can change their mind about tempos. For example if you’re performing a piece in a dry hall vs a hall with a lot of echo, you will probably come up with different tempos (faster tempo in the dry hall, slower for the hall with echo) I recommend using metronome marks as a guideline

@@ThePianoFortePlayer thanks

@@nikosnikos5082 You’re welcome

Yeah, making a video like this is definitely time consuming for me as well, but I'm interested in making music analysis videos and more video essay type videos in the future, so the time spent was worth it

Throwing away the metronome is not what Beethoven said. Those indications are valid to play that composer's works. And this video proves nothing. All details are just skipped and not well considered

@David Alvares, no one here is saying that Beethoven's metronome marks are not valid. The point that Medtner is making is that a pianist (or any musician for that matter) should try to achieve the best possible interpretation with the resources they have: acoustics, the instrument, and one's physical capabilities. For example, pianos in Beethoven's time decayed a lot quicker than today's pianos, so clever pedal manipulation might be required in today's pianos to achieve effective phrasing and dynamic differences, think about the opening of Beethoven's pathetique sonata

Thank you for watching Armand

@@ThePianoFortePlayer you're most welcome, I really liked your video!

Thank you

absolutely

Thanks

Assuming you're talking about Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata, I agree

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Yep

Thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed it

You’re welcome

haha, yeah I've been told to slow down with the talking speed with these videos. I'll keep that in mind for the future

Stravinsky and I think Furtwangler, I don't know the others

The event was a reception honoring Josef Hofmann, given by Frederic Steinway (who's also in the picture), on 11 January 1925, at old Steinway Hall, NYC. From a photo caption on the Alexander Borovsky blogspot site: "In the first and second rows may be seen, among others: Walter Damrosch, Albert Coates....Nikolai Medtner, Wilhelm Furtwangler, Frederic T. Steinway, Fritz Kreisler, Rachmaninoff, Hofmann, Rubin Goldmark, Frederick Lamond, Frank Damrosch, Howard Barlow, Harold Bauer, and Sam Franko" Alexander Borovsky is also in the photo (2 rows behind Stravinsky). Behind Furtwangler, are David Saperton(?), Siloti, and Mischa Levitski. According to another source, Pierre Monteux is also in the photo.

I'm glad you thought this video was engaging. I tried my best to do that, haha.

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Hey, I'm just curious how you solve the single beat problem of Beethoven's "semper senza sordini" instruction at the beginning of the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata.

@@babygottbach2679 Assuming the problem you are referring to muddiness of the sound resulting from keeping the pedal on; the pianos in Beethoven's day didn't sustain as long as today's modern grand pianos, like a Steinway. In other words the decay in pianos in Beethoven's time would allow maintaining the sustain pedal activated with less muddiness in sound. I hope that answers your question

​@@ThePianoFortePlayer There would be muddiness even if you played on an early 1800/late 1700s fortepiano at single beat speeds! Let me show you. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LJuNgjb2HcY.html This is a video of a man playing on a 1795 fortepiano. The man follows Beethoven's doubly iterated instructions to always play without dampers, and you can hear the results at single beat speeds. The man visibly struggles with the dissonance produced and has to take awkward pauses just to lessen some of the built up dissonances. Compare this to Wim Winter's playing the first movement on an 1825 piano: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7srk51hibs4.html A steady tempo. One can clearly hear the cut time pulse.

@@babygottbach2679 Yes that's why I wrote "less muddiness in sound" and not that there would be no muddiness. The example you linked sounds fine to me and I think it captures what Beethoven had in mind when wrote to leave the dampers open. Now if you think it still sounds too muddy then keep in mind that the recording you sent me was recorded in a wood hall without any furniture other than the other pianos, which increases the reverb. In a private house with furniture and all, there would be less reverb so less muddy. Thanks for sharing the link

Thus making it Whole beat for those who missed that part.

In the original: "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"_ Let us quote accurately, at least, only use capitals for the word the author put into capitals, and not omit the phrase "to be counted as such". One tick is counted as part of the intended time; the intended time in this case was minim (half=note) = 84 MM, 84 ticks a minute; a minim is to be counted as 1/84th of a minute. Your logic is strange: something is part of the time; twice something is not part of the time; therefore twice something is the time. One tail is part of a dog; a double--tail is not part of a dog; therefore a double-tail is a dog? It would also be interesting to know what you think 'intended time' actually means, and why!

Yeah I can see that, I know I sometimes end up doing that with my compositions, not purposely though. Then again for me that might be because I’m using a notation software on the computer to compose

You you assume you make an ass out of U and Me. Is that why Schumann only wrote wrote MM numbers in his first edition? Why then is the Trauemerei played at 1/2 speed by almost everyone?

@@Renshen1957 Assumptions are required to come up with any conclusion. For example, you made the assumption that if a certain piece (in this example, Schumann's Trauemerei) is commonly played at half the written metronome mark, then that would potentially mean that the metronome mark was read as 2 ticks per beat. I would challenge your assumption though, since we also have pieces from the same time period and location (for example, Schumann's Curious Story, Opus 15 no 2, from the same set as Trauemerei), that are commonly played at the metronome mark, as is normally read, which using your same assumption, would lead to single beat. So you should maybe investigate this with different assumptions to avoid conclusions that contradict each other

@@ThePianoFortePlayer You made an assumption, my point Virtuosos ignore metronome numbers. Robert Schuman in his first edition of Kinderszenen 1839, and reprinted 1845 afterwards omits Italian Tempo indications. Clara Schumann's 2nd edition comes later 1885 minus MM markings and tempi indications on IMSLP (one has to find this information from the Alfred Edition by Willard Palmer, who as editor in 1970 noted the discrepency of MM and performance by concert pianists). As to mid 20th Century performances, the virtusos Clara Haskil, V. Horowitz, Benno Moisewitsch, Guiomar Novaes, and Alexis Weissenberg do not adhere to single beat either, and rarely with consensus, in essence all over the map. For example no. 6 Perfect Happiness of the list all the pianists listed above play faster than single beat, Weissenberg nearly 1 2/3's time faster (1.636363636363636) and number 9 Ritter vom Steckenpferd, almost 1 1/3 (1.3)_ times faster, and the final piece, instead of 1/4=112 MM she takes the work at 1/4=46. Robert Schumann in a letter to his wife prior to publication, "They will amuze you, but of course you must forget you are a virtuoso. They all explaine themselves, and what's more, they are as easy pieces as possible." After all the title is Kinderszenen, Leicthe (easy) Stuecke. For easy pieces one can expect single beat metronome performances, I purchased my copy to sight read in the 1970's. Czerny's school of velocity is another matter, however.

@@Renshen1957 Exactly!

You can check out my recording of Beethoven's 3rd piano sonata, opus 2 no 3. I referenced metronome marks from the time of Beethoven when practicing it (mostly from Czerny). Tell me what you think

You want evidence ? Well on top of Yousef's excellent video on the matter , I suggest you what this youtube video ( watch?v=2Td7J7AnDeA ) which contains an exhaustive list of the most major historical documents on metronome and it is usage and include as well the original instructions for the first patent obtained in Paris for the Maetzel metronome . The list of sources is actually impressive and completely demolishes Winters' fake theory. If after that you still believe in it, lest us know ;)

That seems like a common thought but here is 2 problems with it. 1. Beethoven isn't the only composer that had fast tempos, so it's unlikely that only Beethoven used the bottom of the pendulum but his contemporaries didn't, since tempo markings from that period are similar. 2. At 1:05 I talked about how the composer Anton Reicha (born the same year as Beethoven) put a length of a pendulum in addition to a metronome mark (used properly, with the top of the weight), which happens to more or less match in tempo

There is one easy test you can make yourself if you manage to get hold of an old metronome, try to position the bottom of the weight with the slowest indication of tempo (50) of the metronome and you will see that you cannot as the upper part of the weight will start to disengage from the support.

In the video I showed an example from Shostakovich, so it’s not only the 19th century. I sometimes when composing will put a certain metronome mark, but when I try to play it I end up going slower. For me it might be because I want to be able to think of the piece outside of time, like an object, so that probably causes me to put a faster metronome mark than is practical

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Then in a way you are changing the question. WBMP has focused on 19th century practices, not 20th century. And it is not asking the question what is the right way to perform (although, in his zeal, WW implies that too often), but rather what did the composers intend with those markings in the early and mid-19th century. That does not a preclude a range of tempos in the ensuing decades. To your points, Beethoven provided his markings in most cases long after he had composed the work, plenty of time to settle on his preferred tempo, or close to it. There is nothing in any of the utterances of Beethoven, for example, or Shosty for that matter, to suggest they wanted to put a faster mark than is practical, or place it out of time. That might be YOUR approach, but your approach is not germane to the investigation.

When you talk about 'crazy MM markings', and ask "why are these tempos so fast" you echo what some critics in the 1820s and 1830s thought about the school of brilliant virtuoso composer/pianists - e.g. Czerny, Kalkbrenner, Herz. It is not that they are impossible; it is that they are faster than people of good musical taste approved. But there was certainly an audience for dazzlingly virtuosic music, and that (along with the lighter action and lower sonority of early pianos) explains these extremely fast markings. Of course it is only a few pieces from that period that have MMs verging on the impossible, and many as you would expect are in Etudes. Lots of them, the vast majority, are playable at the tempi given by the composers and editors, and if you look you will find many recorded and live performances at around those speeds, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. In fact, a more interesting question is why so often andantes and adagios have been played slower than the MM mark, where technical difficulties of speed do not arise.

@@dorette-hi4j "Lots of them, the vast majority, are playable at the tempi given by the composers and editors" So you keep saying, but no one is proving. And why no faster? Can things only be slower than or as fast as, but never faster?

@mikesmovingimages. Relax, there is nothing inexplicable about the wast majority of «impossible» MM-numbers from the 1800s. But if you just stick to Wim Winters, you will never get a satisfactory answer, so I will help you to a life closer to reality. Wim Winters, quote: «The best argument FOR the WBMP are the thousands of metronome marks that nobody every will be able to play and we simply ignore». Pancreas: «Lang Lang….what a joke». Wim Winters: «Hmm….wish I had his technique though…» Because he wants Lang Lang’s technique, it means that WW recognize that his own technical level of play is lower. Therefore, of course, it is LL and not WW that knows what is possible to play. And LL is not the only one with a brilliant technique, there are many around the world who have a playing technique far above Wim Winters’ level. Therefore, Wim’s «best argument» is without any information value in the debate. But what was the point of the many «impossible» MM-numbers? You get a hint when I quote from the book Beethoven written by Maynard Solomon: «Beethoven was concerned to maintain his preeminent position and regarded any accomplished pianist as a potential rival. In mid-1794 he wrote to Eleonore von Breuning of his ‘desire to embarrass’ and ‘revenge myself on’ the Viennese pianists, some of whom are my sworn enemies». The book also tells us that Beethoven was invited several times to private homes to compete against other pianists. There are several old written sources that tell of the same thing - the pianists competed! They were top athletes on the keyboard, the keys were their sports arena! It was about impressing other pianists, music critics and audiences. If we use logic, it becomes even more difficult to believe in the double beat theory. mikesmovingimages, do you know Wim Winters’ versions of Chopin’s etudes? If not, listen to his performances here on RU-vid before you reading on. Else, we can continue. Here on RU-vid we find a number of videos with children, 7-12 years old, playing the etudes much faster than WW’s double beat tempi. 1834. Chopin, Liszt and several of the other big boys, have just played a number of Chopin’s etudes. Now they are all sitting with their noses in the cloud and discussing thechnical details. Suddenly, a line of children enters the room, they are 7-12 years old, and one by one they play the same etudes much faster than the big boys have just done! Is it credible? Is it logical?

Thanks. I will check out your Hammerklavier video when it’s out

I agree, this video is excellent!

@@therealrealludwigvanbeethoven Good to know that Beethoven approves of this video

I think his affinity to slower tempos has to do with his organ playing background. When playing the organ I'd imagine the music getting muddy very quickly when playing in higher speeds, and so that prompts slower playing. But it is wrong to apply that to the other main keyboard instruments, I think Wim has mentioned in his recent Q&A with Ilya, how he would try to apply what he learned in organ playing to piano music (clavichord, harpsichord, pianoforte, etc...)

Haha

Truth, truth is all we desire.

Yeah, I figured that out after I made this and fixed my technique for an analysis video I made a few months after this one.

Lol, but yeah, this is even more true back then because pianos sustained less than today’s grand pianos

I don't read or speak German, I used google translate for the 1821 article by Maelzel where he expands on his metronome instructions, if I was fluent in German I would have used original sources. I'm guessing you know German, so could you tell me what aspect of Gadient's explanation I missed. As for playing the works as opposed to talking about them, I do have Beethoven's piano sonata opus 2 no 3 recorded on my channel, I used metronome marks by contemporaries of Beethoven as reference for those, check them out and let me know if they satisfy you.

Why would our speaking German have to do with this? I mean, what would be enough is just to just talk about terminology and etymology; the thing is that one has to find the sources. Wim and Lorenz contemplate that. Thanks for the suggestion, which I will listen to, but we have to agree that one would also have to play Chopin’s etudes, for example, or Czerny’s at tempo in half beat on a period instrument, to be more compelling. And don’t forget Mersenne! Thanks.

And also don’t forget all other evidence, be it in English or in other languages, music theoretical dissertations, etc., especially the one that points not only to the existence of WBMP, but to the coexistence of both WBMP and “Half Beat Metronome Practice”!

@@AlbertoSegovia. I can't say I have read every single thing about the topic, there's so many other things I want to read about as well as music that I want to play that wasn't written in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, not to mention things not related to music. Here's the thing, if I do record a Chopin etude around the single beat tempo (I am currently working on his Opus 10 no 7) then you will say "why just that one, record all of them, that will be more convincing" and so on. I'm not at the level of someone like Trifonov who can learn all the Opus 25 Chopin etudes at high level in a period 2-3 months, I have to be a lot more selective in what I work on. So be more reasonable in what you expect from others. There's only so much one can show in an 11 minute video, the evidence I showed here were more than enough for me personally to disregard the double beat theory as false and something that never existed, when it came to using the metronome. You mention a dissertation that point to the coexistence of both methods, can you send me a link or at least the title and author, have you read it yourself, did you read it critically, or did you just watch a video of Wim talking about it?

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Neither claim I or Wim, for that matter. About your playing or not playing of pieces: I could say: Well, that is your job, for I am convinced; disprove Wim’s work to me, please. If you are not able, well, it’s time to build momentum with others. I get that you talk about Wim. What about Cobra, Weller, Pugno, Punt, Reger? Are they wrong too? Why? (And by trying to respond to that, we would reach the conclusion that at least for every point raised bu Winters, for example, we would need a counter argument) Indeed, with what I have seen, I am being critical. Exactly that is why I write here.

Music doesn't have its own terms. Interpretation is so subjective that implying there is a single correct way of playing a given piece of music goes against the nature of music playing itself. You like sluggish moonlight sonata? Good for you, enjoy it! But don't tell others how "it is supposed to be played". To me, many of the sonatas at the time suggested by Wim just lose musicality, the musical ideas get partially lost, but that's me. I think Wim is terribly wrong, but not on the fact that his suggested tempos are too slow, but due to his insistence to claim that his research is revealing to everyone the "correct" tempi

@@jules78003 Am I going to trust your "musicality" above a metronome marking by the composer? No. Gadient has found a way where all metronome markings from that period can be read consistently and practicably. It's up to you to accept that you find them ugly and that you find arrangements of Beethoven preferable over what his audience was more likely to have heard.

Thanks for commenting. Wim is exaggerating when he says that most metronome marks from that period are unplayable, the reality is only a small number might be unplayable for most skilled pianists. I have recorded Beethoven's opus 2 no 3 piano sonata around the same time I made this video, in which I used metronome marks by contemporaries of Beethoven as reference, let me know what you think (by the way there is a document by Marten Noorduin titled "Beethoven's Tempo Indications" which has all the contemporary metronome marks). As for your statement about people being upset that those composers weren't composing for us, that can work both ways; a lot of people today will find following those marks to be too fast for their taste, so that argument doesn't really lead anywhere. Also, recorded historical duration's point away from Wim's performances not closer to them.

@@PabloMelendez1969 So using your logic or Gadient's logic , why not propose quadruple beat ? Unfortunately , using the rules setup by Gadient and Wim Winters which mandate that you play all bars at tempo, you must be able to play concerto 2 of Chopin which contains trills at 28 notes per second and also Wim Winters has pointed out etudes from Isidor Philips at the same speed. In both cases if you follow the rules about following strictly tempo indications you cannot use double beat as the same duo ( Gadient/WInters) are adamant that musicians at that time couldn't play faster than 10 notes per second. In both cases above you have to achive 14 notes/ sec in double beat. Let us be serious, if one wants to find historical truth , one has to look at facts not at suppositions. All facts, concert timings, opera durations, playbills, piano methods, are consistent and prove that double beat is a scam. Wim Winters also consistently avoid the topic of operas, as he knows that it leads to physical impossibilities , as in most cases it would have been to perform most operas in an evening (some of them take more than 10 hours to perform with the whole beat :) ) Its perfectly acceptable to play slower and lot of people prefer slow music, but there is no need to invent a false theory to justify it. It would be much more appropriate and much more respectable to call it interpreter decision, rather than invoking a biased and completely erroneous historical reconstruction.

@@joaoterceira9671 Gadient and Winters do exactly the opposite of what you project on them. They propose (and prove) that if metronome markings are to be consistently applied that a whole beat reading is the only one that makes sense. They took arbitrariness out of the picture. Want arbitrary tempi? Go back to your record collection. And, please, this piling up of deliberate misconstructions and misrepresentations is just a dirty political ploy. You think it makes your arguments sound true, but it simply shows that you cannot argue in good faith.

Hey you're the first double beater to comment on this, nice. I'm curious, what kind of source would disprove the double beat theory for you? - Metronome instructions by Maelzel didn't work - Czerny's metronome instruction didn't work - Historical durations being closer to single beat didn't work

@@ThePianoFortePlayer ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gsntpykv1jQ.html

@@davidalvarez297 This video is even up yet, how do you expect me to respond to that?

Can you provide any details to what was skipped or are you just trolling?

Yeah he seems to be just trolling, either that or he blindly follows what Wim says without any critical thinking on his own, since he put a link to a video of Wim that isn't even up yet as a way of responding.

On the other hand, leading people down a false theory is a super nice thing to do right?

To what?

What

@@WEEBLLOM GUILLOM... this Person just talked bs ignore it 😊

@@j.rohmann3199 lol

Wauw, je zit niet alleen fout, je wist er ook nog racisme in te stoppen.