I can't thank you enough for the work you've done on this subject and for staying the course despite hateful people. I was once one of them, but realized at some point in my study that my dogma was getting in the way of reason. Ive been playing the beethoven cello sonatas at these tempi and it opens up a whole new realm of beauty and interpretational potential
@@robertklein-oo9nm They are on the way! Hoping to have them out before the summer. I don't want to rush them out considering the scrutiny they'll receive just for their tempi
Almost all metronome marks by Chopin for his Nocturnes are played today closer to WB than to SB. According to Ferdinand Hiller a Nocturne played by Chopin himself lasted one minute longer.
This morning I came across the following set of instructions on how to use a pendulum as a metronome. They're in George Petrie's _The Petrie Collection of the Ancient Music of Ireland: Arranged for the Piano-Forte,_ which was published in Dublin in 1855. It is unambiguously single-beat: "The Time of each Air in this Volume is marked at the head by reference to the stroke of a Pendulum of a certain length. Persons not provided with a Metronome may easily ascertain for themselves the true time in which any Air is to be played, by the following simple rule. Take a cord of the length in inches assigned to the Pendulum at the head of the tune. To one end of the cord attach a small weight, and, holding it by the other extremity, let the weighted cord, thus converted into a temporary Pendulum, swing gently backwards and forwards. The oscillations of a Pendulum of a given length are always constant, and measure exactly equal portions of time ; and thus each beat of the Pendulum of the length required - the motion from right to left constituting one beat ; that from left to right another - marks the time during which the crotchet, dotted crotchet, quaver, or other note used to measure the time, is to be sounded. A proportionate time is to be given to every other note according to its musical value. A little practice will very soon enable any one to perceive, almost involuntarily, the accordance in time between the beats of a Pendulum and the proper duration of the notes of an Air." The book is available on the Internet Archive.
Thank you! I've never liked hearing (most) Chopin pieces, even though they seem so popular with pianists, because the tempo always seems to be jerking around to my ear.
I love that key, it fits my hands like a glove. The fragment of the Nr 1 of Bartok playing that has had an enormous influence on me. Also, as I recall Chopin's advice on how to play rubato is nearly identical to Leopold Mozart's description, that the left hand plays in strict rhythm while the right hand plays rubato, so that, overall the tempo would be held.
@@dorette-hi4j First, you need to consider what each composer might have said about such things, unless the composer cites another one in agreement. I don't really see the difference between what you quote Spohr saying and what L. Mozart did, he was a famous violin virtuoso, after all.
I remember that, when I first used a metronome long ago, I wondered whether I should count the full oscillations, for example every swing to the left, or if I should count the single ticks. 😄
I've heard audience members complain that tempi were too fast to hear and feel everything, but it's rare that I've heard that a tempo played was too slow from an audience member.
There is a fascinating video on the Early Music Sources Channel called "Tactus and Proportions around 1600.” It is all about Tempo, and the many different views about it at the time. It is as if nothing has changed, except that Metronomes have added a new bone of contention in recent times. Wim's comments were Pinned on that video, and are worth reading.
Do you think Chopin would ever have imagined that in 180 years pianists would be arguing about his intended tempos although he gave specific metronome marks? Personally, I'm undecided about it. The best argument for whole beat is simply the impossibility of true single beat (no virtuosos actually use it). The best argument for single beat is the lack of historical documentation that a change in the meaning of the metronome designation had occured.
@@dorette-hi4jBut why would so many modern-day pianists choose double beat tempos when playing Chopin's nocturnes or Schumann's Traumerei? Because they have an inherent musicality that tells them that's the right tempo. Of course you COULD play the Traumerei in single-beat, but it would be musically incoherent. So by conclusion, single beat is not always a question of playability but also one of musicality.
@@AuthenticSound Some of Rachmaninoff's earliest works published in the late 19th century include metronome indications. Do you think he intended whole or single beat?
My favorite piece by Chopin! Theme and variations have never sounded better! … And also Pollini’s “at tempo” thing on this piece is another smoking gun that something is wrong!
Don’t want to say that it’s entirely his fault, though 😞 (it’s “the system’s”). Although I suspect that many therein have been suspecting of the susurrations of some seekers; and, in under those soles, the soil is so rich, that the sake of such a research, so shunned and overlooked must not be. Then, many of “those” souls must have already smeared their sapience in those summations, but have not recanted self to their “terrible”reality. That relation reeks of a rallying, rotten rationale.
He writes "The recording was made using a physically modelled Pleyel (1835) by Pianoteq" so he used a digital piano for that. Probably recorded at a slower tempo and then adjusted the tempo close to single beat.
@@krabcanon yes, just listened to his Czerny 0p 299, he writes he recorded the whole set in one take (while being faster than Lang Lang). I can do the same on my clavinova with a 150% speed boost.
@@DohcHama "fiddled with like a Prom date's Bra strap!" That is the second time in this one video where you have used a crass and disrespectful metaphor in a comment. What is wrong with you?
My first teacher, Millicent Reese (older than dirt, she would have laughed at that description), taught me to count in the manner she was taught as you girl before the turn of the 20th century, 4/4 time, on the quarter, 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 1 and 2 and 3 and 4…at the earliest lessons I had to say this aloud in unison, “Like a Metronome…1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and…” I was 12 and she taught me as an adult beginner
That method of counting is not in any way contradictory with single beat way of using the metronome. You simply put all the "ands" (subdivisions) in between the actual beats (marked by ticks).
@@dorette-hi4j Leopold Mozart was an excellent organist, one of his jobs was to teach organ. His daughter was considered the premiere harpsichordist until Viennese Custom insisted marrying her off at 21 as the only proper thing for a woman of her station. Leopold was disinherited by his father for marrying the Mozart childrens' mother. Leopold Mozart would have known Tempo Ordinario, but would have been dead about 29 years before the invention of the metronome. If you are trying to infer that Czerny taught single beat interpretation of the metronome, try it on the C major invention (don't omit the ornaments), I doubt you will do better much better than 82% or 86% of Czerny's indication that intermediate beginners piece. Or the A major invention (except for Gould who omitted or simplified ornaments used a modified action Steinway) the same, single beat wasn't met by (or wasn't even considered artistic) by artists surveyed at the faster speeds, certainly not met by intermediate beginners piece, so I repeat myself, you alive to hear Spohr, Czerny or Hummel play? (Rhetorical question). One thing my teacher taught, to question, to research, and to make one's own way, even when I could perform Mendelssohn's Rondo Capricioso flawlessly at the same speed as the Welte Mignon Piano roll, was this what Mendelssohn intended (it was Josef Hoffman at the piano)? His conclusison of the imitative Rondo was dramatically fast, similar to breakers (waves) crashing on shore during a storm. But was the roll speed correct? Before the internet, who had access to the Reproducing Piano Rolls? (Or the recommendation of the speed range printed on the rolls). My late friend, a Chevalier in France for his books on French Literature (Satre', Post Modernism) had one comment about Joseph Hoffmann, the pianist had very small hands. And how does this relate to Aldo Rerberto Pessolano's failed attempt to play in single beat for Op 27, No. 2? Chopin had the Metronome at the piano, and also let his students play his grand piano(s) while he played an upright during the lesson. Unlike other French teachers, Chopin gave Domenico Scarlatti pieces, at a time when Scarlatti's Sonatas were held in very low opinion. Chopin predicted (or prophecy) said these works would becom part of the concert repetoire. I must close, I am sure to receive a reply, (of course I have read the methods, and have written in condemation that Hummel change the trill from beginning on the auxillary to begining on the principal note).
This story of having to count for an old instructor, "1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and..." has nothing to do with whether the metronome clicks once for a beat, or if it clicks twice for a beat.
@user-tv8vu1hi4j Why would L. Mozart reference Tempo Ordinario (from now on T.O.) when it was universally known? Or CPE bother to give T.O. a mention? Actually, Johann Joachim Quantz (1697-1773) in his book Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen (On Playing the Flute) references T.O. He does so (if not by name) for pieces without Italian tempo indications “Principle categories of tempo” for duple meters (Quantz, p. 284-285) (and a similar category for Triple Meters). In duple meter there is common time (tempo minore) indicated with C and alla breve time (tempo maggiore) indicated with a semicircle containing a line through it (here on referred to by me as “barred-C”). Alla breve is twice as fast as common time but the notes values used in alla breve are twice as long." Note that Quantz refers to these a "Duple", 2. music (of time or music) having two beats in a bar...Collins English Dictionary. (Sorry I couldn't resist the temptations...). Possibly based on two strong beats C (1st and 3rd) or he refers to Even number of beats vs. Triple or Compound time. You will find this in the Music of Bach's students where in some manuscripts you see barred-C or Cut C, and the same piece in other manuscripts with C (Common time), his student-later Son in Law copied the Early version of WTC part II with some pieces with Cut C and the later (Bach never left anything alone and revised-WTC PT 1 is again revised in the 1740's), changed to C and vice versa). Quantz makes a distinction "The Two Principles Categories of Tempo for Duple" Duple If it marked with the common time signature… it is in the slower category (Common Time or tempo minore) If it marked with the barred-C signature… it is in the faster category (Alla Breve or tempo maggiore). However, since the values become equal, are the same when adjusted for barred-C and C(ommon time) C, where does the concenpt that barred-C becomes "Cut Time" twice as fast? For J S Bach, what appears to be a redundant title, the words Alla Breve (with the barred-C time signature) indicates when it is to be played twice as fast as Common time (which one finds in Bach's organ music). J S Bach does have in the WTC Pt 1 the words tempo giusto for one piece (if memory serves me), the C minor prelude has some Italian Tempo terms in the 2nd half half of the piece, the WTC Pt 2 contains Allegro b minor prelude, the Tempi changes in the Bb Prelude (an early manuscript at the chords is in J S Bach's handwriting "Adagio", but there's a performance practice dating back to Froberger where Adagio has a second meaning not related to tempo, essentially ad librum, (Fermata also gives the permission to improvise but that's another performance practice not related to tempi or T.O.) and Largo for the G minor prelude the words at the beginning, but the majority are without tempo terms aka T.O. the WTC Pt 2 published before Pt 1 in 1802 in the Hoffmeister edition (Simrock, and Naegeli also published editions in that years). T.O. one can presume was common knowledge. Kirnberger wrote on the subject on T.O. around the time of "Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik (The Art of Strict Composition in Music, 1774, 1779)" somewhere in the neihborhood of 1777. And then there's Beethoven's reference (about the demise of T.O. in reference to the Maezel Metronome) circa 1821. Sorry I am at work and can't give you the exact quote. Beethoven's teacher Neefe, who introduced Beethoven to J S Bach's WTC, is three teachers away from J S Bach. Haydn had a written out manuscript copy. Then there's Geography, The Viennese Court became progressively dominated by Italian Composers, you also see a change in J S Bach used of the French Terms for Harpsichord from earlier works (English Suites, French Suites) to his second wife use of both in her 1725 notebook, were the earlier pieces are use the French as well as for Clavier Uebung II, and Clavier Uebung Aria mit Variations (Goldberg Variations), but other later manuscripts not published one finds Cembalo in the manuscript copies. No reference to Fortepiano, sorry Sandra P. Rosenblum quoting Eva Badura-Skoda quoting an 1860 document by Eduard Francis Rimbault, in which five commonly referred to terms for harpsichord become piano forte. When the Harpsichords with knee levers and peau d' buffe (soft leather plectrum) were available the presence of dynamic terms was given as a reason for equating Clavecin (Harpsichords) A. L. Couperin wrote Quatars for this dynamically expressive instruments even as London, the Court of Frederick the Great (he owned 3 purchase after the G. Silberman Fortepianos, and Vienna (the Empress and Haydn) had ordered from Shudi and Broadwood expressive harpsichords with machine pedals (to rapidly change stops) and Venentian Swells; the swtich to Grand Pianos in London by the Aristocracy and wealthy doesn't occur until after 1792. However her appendix B has the MM marks for Simrock Cramer Hallberger (divered between Czerny for Simrock, the later two under Moscheles) Haslinger (two versions) included with the rest from Op 10 onward (thes MM indications are about twice the speed for Quantz and Tuerk). For what it is worth. I shouldn't throw out this information, just because of her earlier use of Eva Badura-Skoda confirmation bias (ignoring Matteson and Walters definitions on what these meant in J S Bach's time as to Harpsichord, or Intrument (Praetorius), CPE Bach using Fortepiano vs. Fluegel, the term for Grand form of the Harpsichord still in use in 1787 for his Concerto for the Two Instruments commission by Felix Mendelssohn's Great Aunt Sara Levi a student of W F Bach.
So academic - who cares? Play what sounds and feels dood - otherwise you may not be doing it for the right reason. I'm sure yuja's wardrobe is up for criticism next lol
And yet, here you are with your insightful opinion. Fact: Chopin's metronome markings are usually ignored, and that by huge margins (true for most composers from before 1850). When ignored, musicians invariably play slower, never faster. Question: Why? If you don't care, you are in the wrong place. And you are not superior to the discussion for being both ignorant and superficial.
It is easy to believe that performers of the past were faster players than today because they didnt waste their time watching antisocial media, they spent their time playing and practicing.
I don't agree. The movement was walking, running, horse back, horse carriage. There would be no need to not digest each musical phrase. The gradual speeding up (and raising of concert pitch) came decades after as a virtuoso technique. Playing quickly is like scoffing a beautifully prepared meal in 3 minutes instead of savouring the fare. Or premature ejaculation (used to be 6 strokes but big pharma moved the goal posts as drugs are now used). I suggest the people that dismiss WBP play at single beat IN REAL TIME and show us how one hand can play 48 notes in under two seconds.
@@DohcHama You are asking performers to complete a type of performance today, on todays instruments. I referred to performers of yesteryear, on their instruments of yesteryear. These are two different topics. The topic regarding "enjoy the piece better by playing it slow" is a huge fallacy and is off topic as well.
My guess is that the laws of physics were pretty much the same 200 years ago. Also, life was hard and you had to work long hours just to make a living and do your day to day things. Very few could actually have the luxury of free time to spend. No cars, no cell phones, no microwave, no Amazon,... Jumpers can enjoy jumping and 'practice' all the time. 'Pushing limits' is a thing people do, nothing wrong here. Still it's guaranteed there IS a limit and gravity will win, no matter the time you spent practicing. To be bold and ambitious may be a good thing but to fight desperately against basic common sense for no reason is just neurotic and foolish.
