anyone claiming Gould lacked "the technique" to perform anything is really rather foolish. He had an apparently limitless reserve of technical ability. He played how he wanted to play it.
Gould wrote (and spoke) frequently and consistently that he was interested in showing new facets of the works he performed, by emphasizing unexpected aspects of the works. He often hose unexpected tempi, often in contradiction of the apparent intentions of the composers. Famous examples are his recordings of the Mozart A Major sonata, the Beethoven, opus 57, the Mozart a minor sonata, the Brahms d minor concerto. There are many other examples. You seem to be suggesting, in much of your video, that Gould was trying to do what Beethocen wanted. He made it very clear that he gave no special attention to what any composer wanted, treating each work as a formal organization to be interpreted variously. All of this is widely known to even a casual reader of Gould's writing. I am puzzled as to why you begin by suggesting that Gould is paying any attention at all to Beethoven's metronome marking. On the other hand, you have a much stronger argument to make. If the slower tempo is actually one that brings out essential qualities of the work, the fact that Gould discovered this independently suggests that Beethoven's intention are latent in the work itself, not dependent on what many feel is an arbitrary and inappropriate metronome marking.
No, he says nothing of the kind. In fact, quite the opposite @ 7:58: "every performer on this list - except Gould, perhaps - will confirm that his or her recording is as close as possible to Beethoven's intent" and at 10:50 too.
@@stewiegreen That's even worse. He's suggesting that Gould accidentality played the right tempo by disregarding the metronome. Ergo, he is saying "I am smarter than Gould". Sure you are, buddy.
He played it slower because he was something of a contrarian, liked both to provoke (sometimes in a good way) and give new perspectives on whatever he played. I can appreciate his performance while believing it's very far from what Beethoven intended. With his metronome marking Beethoven was throwing down the gauntlet to pianists as he was with the whole work, an extreme, excessive challenge because this is an extreme, excessive work and should be played that way.
I doubt that. Beethoven could run the music through his mind during his old age at a fast clip, and that is what he gave us on those quirky metronome markings. He was no longer thinking about the audience and their perceptions.
I wonder how Erwin Nyiregyhazi would have played Beethoven’s “Hammerklavier” Sonata, op. 106? He played a lot of works by Liszt at extremely slow, perhaps cautious tempos. Nevertheless, I found some really beautiful moments in several of his interpretations of the works by Liszt.
Glenn Gould was an *absolute hack* of a pianist and was only promoted by the Western media to combat the Eastern European hegemony of concert pianists. His technique is horrible by concert standards and he has zero musical sense. I usually find that people who support and promote him share a similar brand of narcissistic delusion to his own. Really a garbage pianist whose reputation is only maintained by a cult of mediocres.
Speed and thus clarity should be governed by size of hall and acoustics; a compromise between reaching the ears on the front row and those at the very back.
Thank you for this intriguing video. Did you have the occasion to read the liner notes in the disc of Gould/Hammerklavier? Gould was really "afraid" of the recording of this sonata (recorded in 1970 for the 200th anniversay of Beethoven) and it wasn't published until 1993 (11 years after Glenn's death) with a note: first authorised release. He clearly wasn't happy with the result, as he told his producer: "[...] There are some moments that work, I think, and some that don't - which, come to think of it, was more or less Beethoven's score too - but at least I I've tried it once and won't have to bother my head about it again until 2027* [...]" Thank you again. *200th anniversary of Beethoven's death.
You can tell just by looking at the score. The repeating forte chords in themselves aren't conducive to the unnatural jackhammer speed most play it at. Possible? Yes. But what was possible by the 20th century performer was not likely in the early 1800s. Very doubtful it was even intended.
Well, the first performance of the Hammerklavier took already place a few weeks after completion, by Carl Czerny. He himself played the entire piece in order to metronomize it for Ferdinand Ries. So the idea of music not meant to be played is not an option!
It's amazing that the Gould joke continues to this day and people still don't understand it. Gould had just about the most lopsided technique of any international pianist in living memory. His finger technique and ability to play multiple more or less independent lines was quite remarkable. The poor quality of the rest of his technique was equally remarkable. Give him a chance to play counterpoint or show off fluid passagework and he's all over it. Ask him to make chord leaps or widely separated hands and he'll halve the tempo before you know it. Of course in his own inimitable style he would sell it as part of being an eccentric artist, but this happened for ALL those types of pieces. Take his Brahms 1st piano concerto with Bernstein, who was clearly bemused but decided to play along; this was barely half the speed that a good concert pianist would play it, and it was plainly obvious that it didn't work at that tempo. Similarly for his other Beethoven sonata offerings. He once let the cat out of the bag in a letter to a producer where he complained of the "horrendous difficulty" of the Hammerklavier. And of course he's right - it is horrendously difficult in parts - but this is completely at odds with the publicly projected image of the effortless genius who could play anything at any speed without ever needing to practice. It's a mythology and plenty of people still buy into it; indeed, I fully expect many hostile responses to this comment from some of them. But the facts (recordings) speak for themselves.
Glenn Gould was so taken with himself he would not have taken his tempo from Beethoven directly! He likely wanted to play it in the way which sounded most musical to him, especially if that is also provocative or unorthodox.
When reviewing the 19th Century instructions in English and German published after the introduction of the Maelzel's Metronome, doesn't the instructions for an Allegro State for the half note number and then play the number for the quarter note? (Rhethorical question, this has been addressed in more than a few videos with Aunthentic Sound). The Hammerklavier sontate fits exactly the description for setting up the metronome (Allegro, Half Note = X, then play the quarter notes as X) The first printing of this work lists "Maelzel's Metronome" 138 = 1/2 note ergo, 1/4 played 138 which translates to the half being 69 bpm, for an Allegro.
No, Maelzel never says the metronome should beat quarternotes when the m.m is a halfnote. Mr W misinterprets the text by ignoring the phrases 'generally speaking' ( chosing the notevalue in the m.m based on the tempo) and 'as often as the case may admit of so doing' ( the metronome beating integral parts of the bar) Those two are not meant to be used at the same time. In reality, Mr W is mixing two different tempi (quarternote for Andante and halfnote for Allegro) It's a pretty cheap trick.
@@olofstroander7745 I have to disagree, both the English (rough translation from another language) and the later published German instruction (which are quite specific) give the example of Allegro with 1/2 note and the quarter note receiving the value. However, for the sake of argument we will assume that each click is one beat. Does this change anything as concerns Beethoven, Cherubini, Clementi, Cramer, Mehul, et al? In the Intelligenz-blatt zur Allgemeienen Musikalishchen Zeitung published in Leipzig, September 1821, there contains an article by J. N Maezel which according to the translation by Bernard Ruehthi referenced in an article by Diane Kolin,Maezel claimed "Beethoven, Cherubini, Clementi, Cramer, Mehul, and others used the Metronome incorrectly. However, in the first edition of the Hammerclaver Sonata, Clementi lists 138 to the 1/4 vs Beethoven's 138 to half (but the 1815 English, and the circa 1817 German translations not withstanding) so according to Maelzel both Beethoven and Clementi are wrong? Clementi published circa 1820 ("In a letter to his pupil Ferdinand Ries (16 April 1819) Beethoven indicated that minim = 138 should be used for the first movement..." yet Clementi uses a Crochet, was). Was the claim that Clementi incorrectly used the MM from prior works. Maelzel was in Vienna as his home, off and on between 1818-1825 before leaving for America two years before Beethoven's death, you would have thought he had taken the opportunitiy to correct Beethoven. Or did Clementi somehow all the way over in London and change the minim to a crochet after receiving a copy from Leipzig? So if Maelzel said Beethoven used it incorrectly (aka Double Beat), the man who produced ear-trumpets and a device to fit on the soundboard of a fortepiano to focus the sound at Beethoven' face, one would think he'd pop in and say, "Hey Ludwig, you got this all wrong..." Music Publishers in the 1860's Leipzig omit the MM indication, Han von Bulow lists 112=the half note, but has a footnote in which is 138 in the original. Czerny's Piano School Op. 500 likewise list 138.
@Chlorinda I didn't require the translation, (German was my required Second Languague), however, you conveniently did include the entire translation. You might want to peruse the replie to Olof Ströander I just sent below. Maezel claimed that Beethoven, Cherubini, Clementi, Cramer, Mehul, et al (I cannot find the original article) used the Metronom(e) incorrectly...Until I can find an copy of the original, (I haven't time to peruse the internet archive), I will let my comment stand, or have you not watched either of Wim's videos on the English and the German translation? Intelligenz-blatt zur Allgemeienen Musikalishchen Zeitung published in Leipzig, September 1821
@@Renshen1957 Have you actually read Maelzel’s article from 1821? Allow me to quote a part of it: "I take the number 80 as the middle point, because in this number the three basic movements unite, depending on whether one wants to designate an eighth note, a quarter note or a half note with the same [number]. Eighty eighth notes in a minute is slow, eighty quarter notes is moderate, and eighty half notes is fast." I find the English and German Metronome directions to be rather clear, but this text leaves no room for interpretation; Maelzel intended the metronome for single beat use.
@@johnericsson5286 Which means that the problem was with Beethoven's markings. They are clearly wrong by any standard. If Maelzel claims that Beethoven used his metronome incorrectly, that tells us enough...forget them.
69 is half of 138, close to Gould's 80. and even that sounds too fast. This piece has big chords and a breathing melody. People don't play music, they play pianos and scores.
The first time I ever heard or even heard "OF" Glen Gould was in a documentary about Voyageur 1. His playing style with that incredible clarity stuck in my head INSTANTLY and has never left.
too many players are driven by the influences of "historically informed" performances, but the thing is, that the phenomenon of playing music from 200 years ago is a new thing, nobody was playing Frescobaldi in Wien at the time of Beethoven in concerts. Considering that, it would be healthy to avoid the fake controversy on the "true tempo", and, as Gould did, playing with absolute freedom. Gould was really driven to do the exact opposite of what was the trend is his time when he was recording music. It's music, we are not tightening with a million dollar wrench a bolt of a rocket to a specific torque force. In fact, today, the more I'm shocked by the different approach of someones interpretation the better, for a start. There is music hidden in the music waiting to be discovered.
There is no right or wrong finite tempo for any piece. There's only the tempo you prefer. That's the entire point Gould wanted to make, which you so incomprehensibly miss. Trying to make such a convoluted argument for something which essentially lies at the base of all music is a very shallow and pedantic bluster.
I'm afraid you missed the entire point - what we do is try to understand the original meaning of the metronome marks (tempo indications) composers like Beethoven left. The current view is unattainable. What musicians do with that information, is up to them. The point with GG is that when musicians leave the desire to technically shine on stage behind, they instinctively come very close to the whole beat interpretation of these authentic tempi. And btw, one can think today that tempo choice is the individual's privelegde, but that doesn't mean Beethoven and co did feel the same about it. They didn't. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Hope this solves your issues with our 'pedantic bluster'
Thank you for doing this video! I have been so hoping you would do a video on Gould's Hammerklavier sonata. I have always loved his recording of this work precisely because he plays the first movement slower than most. And the music shines through! In fact, Gould’s recording of this movement has become the only one I want to listen to these days. Schnabel’s recording of this movement sounds like a complete mess to me now! Thank you again!
Oh come on, that’s a known issue with Beethoven markings - some of them are all over the place, which makes some hypothesize that it’s due to early metronomes being unreliable. Most pianists play it closer to “original” tempo which makes it sound like a cartoon. Gould and Barenboim play music.
you talk about the problem i have faced many times in a last few years during my music education. giving your own interpretation among the hundreds of identical performances that are mostly killing the music with tempo is still considered as something incorrect and unwanted. and i feel that it is so wrong. I had so many discussions with my teachers about my "incorrect" and "pretentious" interpretations of for instance Chopin Polonaise op 44 (which i played "too heavy") or Etude op 10 no 3 (that i played "with too much rubato"). i still think that music has too few Goulds and Pogorelishes, the tradition is always more important than the experience of the sound itself
very well said- among the greatest pianists, it is frequently impossible to differentiate as the performances remain orthodox. With Gould that is not the case. He was wrong sometimes and right sometimes but when he was right, he was greater than everyone and found something in the music or the performance that in many cases augmented the masterpiece
Is impossible to play a piece with great poise touch and projection if you play too fast. You will inevitably play more percussively if you play faster. That's "fine" for boogie woogie but for music with more varied energy it sounds like a blacksmiths shop.
All those who criticize Gould are similar to those scientists who are glued to a paradigm for many reasons (many prosaic ones) and their way to life is via that paradigm. He was a genius and as on the partituras there is not any strict way to signal a tempo but by words, you can use the words to transmit the realm of that music to the public to feel it. Did not have the technique? Yeah sure, listen to some of its recordings. Who decides the Authentic Sound? You can join the bunch of "musicians" that criticize him but the side where we are, those who love how he plays, is growing and growing, and simply making the other side look very bad.
You miss the point of the video, and Glenn Gould was just a door opener (clickbait if you want). Even with his modified Steinway, Glenn Gould played many pieces differently than the mainstream as what could he bring to the table, some too fast (a minor Invention by Bach), some faster than accepted practice, the Contrapuntus from Art of Fugue played live in Moscow 1957 for a variety of pieces. Was Gould a loose canon or a eccentric pianist? No he played not because he like the tempo, but rather from the point of view he had nothing to prove (technique wise) but what he felt as an artist with umpteen recordings of old warhorse compositions, that would shed new light on facets overlooked by playing what the audience and conservatories expected. Some of the most profound writings and lectures on J S Bach’s Fugues and one Cantata were in Gould’s TV broadcasts which shed light on overlooked or unmentioned aspects to these works. Gould in his programs and recordings played outside of the concert staples, Sweelink, Renaissance English Virginal pieces, recorded all of the Liszt’s transcriptions Beethoven Symphonies for solo piano, he premiered a previously unknown Piano work by Richard Wagner. Gould played The Art of Fugue on the Organ, how many other virtuoso pianists would leave their comfort zone. You diminish Gould as an artist with your flippant comment. Of course that wasn’t your intention, it was just your summary dismissal of wholebeat theory.
@@Renshen1957 that's exactly what I was thinking. He likes it that way, while showing new angles of the work. Just saying that there is no final tempo for nothing. Btw i am a big g fan of celibidache, so let's just let everyone to play as they like it.
@@NARCISALISPAHIC Art is a personal expression, and both Dance and Music is a living art which has to be recreated a new (versus re-painting a portrait every time or carving a statue from stone). In that context, there is no final tempo. That being said, more than a few music conservatories, college or university, and artists claim, Ex cathedra (as though Divinely Inpired without the possiblity or error) that Metronomes were always counted as single beat, ergo these tempi in single beat interpretation are the only way Beethoven, Cesar Franck, Chopin, Czerny (Etudes and J S Bach edition), et al, for examples were intended, contradicts the "no final tempo for everything (or nothing). At various times, PianoPat, BachScholar, et al, make counter claims that single, but unlike Wim Winters do not give examples (performances at the MM in single beat), or in their performance videos played in Single Beat. Pianopat and BachScholar have moved on, others have not. Pontications by Ivory Towers of music (for a collective term) and concert pianists, conductors, etc, seem to forget that music has an academic discipline as well as an art form encompasses music history as well as musicology (if you will, a detective agency). Musicology provides insights on Performance Practice, Tempi (Tempo Ordinario 1600-into the 2nd decade of the 19th century when Beethoven declared Tempo Ordinario dead) from Treatises, Music Dictionaries (Walter's Lexicon) and even to the mid-19th Century editions of Czerny of J S Bach's complete keyboard (excluding Organ although Czerny does mention playing the Well Tempered Clavier on the organ) works. As to Czerny, he states in his prefaces that the Allegro of Bach's time is slower than at present, and lists MM marks in the Inventions for some works that are unplayable for an age appropriate (level of playing skill) that are faster than played, except for few exceptions by Gould, a minor invention, which for the most part can't played in single beat. Not that Sir Andras Schiff gives a damn about proper tempi in J S Bach, he plays the French Suites Allemandes in a modern allegro (contrary to J G Walter 1738 and 1731 editions if the Lexicon lists the allemande as the one of the slower/slowest dance in the suite) and plays all the Courantes as though they are Italian Corrente (fast virtuoso Italian pieces played presto in 3/8), when the French Courtane usually notated in Triple measure and had a slower tempo of all French court dances (3/2 or 3/4), described by Mattheson, Quantz and Rousseau as grave and majestic. However, as much as I admire Andras Schiff's tone he can draw from a Steinway Piano; his Chopin, which I heard at the home of Karl Geiringer's widow (in Santa Barbara, CA) was to die for, and he was from suffering jet lag at the time, I prefer Robert Levin playing J S Bach on the piano, he treats each voice equally (in importance and volume) in general and his scorecard isn't significantly different from Schiff as to tempi. The usual excluse is by the time wrote Bach wrote his Suites, the works had become stylized (ironic as both the English and French Suites, in that order had already been composed, before Walter compiled his dictionary). What is ignored is that J S Bach knew first hand French Music from religious refugee musicians and the German speaking nobility in the many Dukedoms, Principalities and Kingdoms were ardent Francophiles in dress, in culinary dishes, music, the French language, as one contempory writer wrote they copied French vices and French diseases... Wim Winters isn't the first, he may not be the last, to demonstrate the incongruity of MM marks that are nearly impossible and definitely unplayable for many marks. He has received a great deal of Pushback for attacking Academia's Sacred Cow (or such I type "Cop-Out") of that from Beethoven onward music became slower (ergo virtuosos less capable) when the 19th century contains many quotes as to the music being played faster (and ruined) or as Liszt said to a young Widor who asked to listen to him practice (a work of J S Bach) in essence, this is how it was played, this is how it can be played with the improvements on the piano (a bit faster), and this how everyone plays, faster as a Charlatan. Widor was my college organ teacher (in his 80's) teacher, still going strong as the Church Organist at St. Paul's Episcopal Church. I will repeat myself, Widor of his Toccata to the 5th Organ Symphony wrote (and he recorded a performance), it was piece to show of one's prowess of articulation, not speed, and nearly every Organist ignores this plays Prestissimo. It is an Allegro MM 118=1/4, but I didn't have a metronome (or had a score handy) to check the speed when he played the work from memory as to whether this was in single beat metronome or wholebeat. However, by publication in 1879, that's later by 20 years for the MM of Czerny's marks.
I think when you get used to Gould’s tempo of the first movement, it begins to make more musical sense than those recordings on the faster end. It did to me anyway. I don’t enjoy those now.
For me your considerations about the correct metronome tempo are a little too theoretical. When it´s not exactly known what Beethoven had in mind, why bother? I´d say that for most times there is an inherent tempo to musical pieces which is derived from the movement of the human body (and as such may vary from one person to another). In most cases, our music is a variation of either a dance or a march, which requires a tempo in which a dance or march could be performed. Exaggerating it in unnatural ways would sound strange and uncomfortable, no matter what the composer noted on top of the page.
Don't accept this for one minute. The movement is marked Allegro, Gould plays it Andante, i.e. walking pace. It's a travesty that comes down to a credible feel which Gould misses in all his perversity entirely; and Gould's holy, anal Bach piano philosophy has always been challenged and increasingly so now. There is no natural equivalence between a harpsichord sound (or clavichord etc,) with his uptight, sprung Bach playing. There's this weird post-Romantic idea that polyphonic music has to be played drily so as to isolate all the voices. Listen to a Byrd or Thomas Tallis mass sung in a cathedral and get some awareness. I could conduct Beethoven's 9th, final movement, at 60 bpm and bring something new out - that I am a monster who shouldn't be in charge of a baton.
Yes, but you can really hear the music at the slower tempo! It makes much more sense at the the slower tempo! I just heard another very well played rendition that was even slower, perhaps! The usual overly fast tempos sound insane, and they are incoherent. It was probably a momentary conceptual idea of Beethoven’s, that he were alive today, he might even agree that it was an insane marking!
You mention Moscheles’ name several times in your other videos about Gould, why not in this one? He had a very interesting comment about this particular metronome mark, saying it turns the piece into a “prestissimo so fearful, Beethoven could never have intended”. The cherrypicking makes it obvious that you’re conducting propaganda and not research. You should also stop using Gould’s name for clicks. He was not a supporter of your theory.
ua-cam.com/video/1kev-oFDoFU/v-deo.html There you go. This source has already been discussed years ago by your favorite cherry picker. Sometimes asking questions rather than accusing people of dishonesty would spare you the situation in which you look like a total fool. Also learning to understand what you read would spare you some other embarassing situations. Can you point in the text that you quote in which sentence moscheles is saying that the “prestissimo so fearful, Beethoven could never have intended” because of its technical impossibility? Indeed, nowhere, it's just your conclusion based on assumption that needs to be proven. if you would have read the rest of the sentence (or not cherrypicked), you would have understood what moscheles is saying: “the minim increases it to a prestissimo so fearful, Beethoven could never have intended, since he desired the assai, originally prefixed to the allegro, to be omitted". What Moscheles is saying is that the tempo marking raises the speed of the piece to the point that its character becomes the one of a prestissimo instead of an allegro. And indeed he is talking about a problem of character, not technical impossibility. On the contrary, if you avoid cherrypicking and not isolate this source from the one where czerny talks about this tempo marking, things become even clearer. you would see that he confirms that this movement is playable with some "attentive practice". Single beat, as shown by the study in this video, has failed for more than a century. In whole beat it is possible with no problem. What's your solution to implement that metronome number otherwise?
Alberto, if you're going to lecture others about reading properly, maybe you shouldn't misread things so blatantly yourself. Where did I say Moscheles' comment was with respect to technical impossibility? What Wim does in this specific video is definitely cherrypicking. He asks the question "Is Beethoven's marking correct?" and then chooses to leave out the opinion of as significant a figure as Moscheles, despite the latter having given a very striking answer to the question asked by Wim. This is clearly an attempt to make it seem as though the metronome marking was not perceived as problematic back then, and it is only today the issues (not necessarily technical) arises due to our "modern" reading of the metronome. Moscheles comment was indeed with respect to the character and I think it accurately describes the feeling of modern performers. I'm fairly certain that for the majority of the pianists on the list shown in the video, the tempo choice does not represent the very upper limit of their technical ability but rather their musical interpretation of the score. Also, given that Schnabel in an admittedly messy performance reaches about 95% of the metronome marking, I would be careful about calling it "impossible". It is entirely possible that Czerny performed it at about the same tempo as Schnabel, if not a tad faster.
Also, since you seem a bit upset about me accusing Wim of dishonesty, I will happily give you another example from his videos. In the one about Gould's Appassionata, he claims that Lisitsa's recording of the first movement is the fastest one out there. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Samuil Feinberg, Rudolf Kerer, Alexei Sultanov, Frederic Lamond, Harold Bauer and Friedrich Gulda, to name few, have all recorded the movement in less time than Lisitsa. Gulda's average of 140 dotted quarters a minute, is a tad faster than Moschels metronome mark of 138, which Wim calls "impossible" in the video (there may be a question mark about the pitch in Gulda's recording, the recording however is from 1967 and should not suffer from any noteworthy tempo alteration).
Sorry we want to see your solution to the metronome problem at the piano. You can bring your personal assumptions and interpretation of sources for the eternity but as a matter of facts, we have thousands of metronome numbers from 19th century meant as precise tempo indications to be followed and unless you are able to play up to 30 notes seconds, we humans as a musical society have only one solution to implement those metronomes in our playing. If you think that the hammerklavier is an exception, you will have in the book a small selection of 200 pieces metronomized by 50 different composers of that period that I can promise you can only play in your wet dreams. What's your solution? Please sit at the piano, take your phone, take your metronome, start with Czerny op.299 and show us.
Of course, my solution is to play one note of the indicated value for every three ticks of the metronome. This isn’t described in any historic texts about the metronome nor does it agree with timings left by numerous composers, but I’ve been told that doesn’t matter. As long as it makes everything 100% playable :)
Glenn Gould plays a lot of Beethoven sonatas absurdly fast as well…. His tempo choices are arbitrary and on a whim- you can hear him play many pieces at Totally different tempos, for example the e major Fugue from book I. Using him to back up your theories of tempo is only a matter of coincidence here… I don’t believe Gould believed in what you espouse- there are plenty of Gould recordings that would behold that he is very much not in agreement with you. You obviously go to great lengths to defend your claims with historical research, but I remain unconvinced. If we have recordings by people such as Alfred Cortot, Saint Saens, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Friedman, et Al, who had ties directly to 19th century- often their teachers themselves studied with the great composer in the case of Cortot- so I cannot buy for a second your idea that all these masters are playing everything twice as fast. If anything the tempos got slow over the course of the century- just listen to historical recordings and see how briskly Friedman plays the third Ballade or the etude op. 10 7…. Anyway- I think from a common sense point of view, your theories don’t make any sense and do not reflect the feeling of the music.
Very clear and well-said argument. Thanks for this upload which raises the important of tempo-consideration while performing as close as possible to the composer's intentions.
Let me preface this comment by stating that I didn't watch the entire 15:32 of the video, yet did skim through most of it. I am also roughly familiar with the views on the double beat theory espoused in this channel, which is why I want to comment on this (have wanted to for a long time, actually). If any counters to the following were addressed in the video, I do apologize in advance. As much as I enjoy many (even most) of Gould's interpretations, using this performance of the Hammerklavier's first movement to back the double beat theory is... weak. Very, if you ask me. I am sure you can find other examples within Gould's output where he goes out of his way to play the music much faster than indicated (be it with a mere tempo indication or an outright metronome marking). Nothing suggests to me he'd be going for presumed faithfulness to the source material in one case and complete heterodoxy in the next. And what about other aspects in his performances? I mean, what about the absence of repeats in Gould's performances throughout most of his Bach and much of his Beethoven? How is that indicative of faithful intentions? Speaking from memory, this even affects this very same recording of the Hammerklavier... Rather, it seems he was constantly in search for re-composing works and finding new (but musically "coherent") ways of shining light on the music we already know and love. Whatever one's stance is on this (personally, I appreciate it): rather than being an argument for the double beat theory, his could be an example of a musically "coherent" yet alternative take on the music. As far as Beethoven's somewhat brisky metronome markings are concerned, a little thought experiment: if I told random people on the street to experiment with a pendulum and to compare its measured period with the theoretical prediction, how many would use the correct length? I reckon not many. People are familiar with the concept of a pendulum but arguably not so much with apparently irrelevant details that can become important quickly. Very much in this line, a team of scientists suggested that the fast tempi are a case of an ageing man not quite keeping up with new technology. This isn't exactly unheard of and all of you may have seen people experience this in your personal lives. Heck, the metronome was NEW then! I'm not even sure it came with instructions for use. If you aren't acquainted with metronomes, even today there are arguably two ways you can read off the tempi on a metronome. There is a very good argument to be made that Beethoven was reading them off the wrong way: if one rescales his indicated tempi with the corrections appropriate to the size of his device, one (in fact not so) roughly obtains the average tempi at which his music is performed... by educated musicians... who study this stuff... and have presumably inherited somewhat sensible performance practices through the years. It gets even better though - we don't need the whole statistical study. We have a rough idea of whether and how much Beethoven's markings were off because he expressed *his own doubts* on the metronome marking *read off by himself* in - if memory serves me well - the manuscript of his 9th symphony. I may be off here; the specific score was mentioned in the scientific article, anyway... This should seal it. The theory of his failure in reading off the markings is much more natural and convincing to me than any weird theories on our perception of tempi or performance practices having so drastically changed in such a short (yes!) time. Also, if one is going to defend that point of view, one also better come up with a sound mechanism of how that would happen socially and psychologically. Not to speak of the severe problems that arise from strings, winds or voices performing some music at full half speed (!!!). Did we have bigger lungs? Were bows built longer or out of ***very*** different materials? How come we didn't notice any of that? Or is choral and symphonic music somehow exempt from all of this? Do of course play the music any way you like. If you find a new and musically "coherent" way (whatever that means) to play a piece, or if it just sounds better to you that way - all power to you! I concede this is easy for me to express as a non-musician whose livelihood doesn't depend on the approval of the musical intelligentsia - but there should be no need for cloning existing performances. Anyhow, cherry-picking performances to support a theory is weak and in this case does a huge disservice to Gould's original take on the music.
As far as the Hammerklavier itself is concerned: there is a recording by Beveridge Webster which is perhaps not up to the infamous and arguably incorrect 138 but certainly around Schnabel's mark minus all the mistakes. Weird it wasn't included in the study mentioned in the video... or in the video itself.
@alwaurora8069 Frderich Gulda always played this piece at around the intended tempo, a few of his recordings were a bit rushed but in particular the one from the Beethovenfest 1970 was really well executed at the right speed
I enjoy your posts so much, especially on the subject of Glenn Gould; I don’t agree that it was solely on instinct that he used the tempi he did-he was an unusually scholarly pianist, and very well-informed about everything. He continues to be controversial, which I take to be a sign that, like him or not, he always raised important issues. Personally, I prefer his Hammerklavier to many of the speed driven versions., Just as I prefer his second recording of the Goldberg variations to his original speed driven version. it’s laughable that people think he didn’t have the technique to play it at any speed whatsoever.
I really dislike the use of the word "integrity" here. Integrity implies moral goodness, and honesty. In reality, this is fairly unique to this kind of music. How the beautiful and diverse the interpretations of Bob Dylan's songs, or of Carole King's. Who listens to Adele performing "Make You Feel My Love" and complains that her interpretation lacked integrity or is somehow dishonest? I don't dispute that historical precision is an interesting pursuit, and one that's important - but ascribing special ethical value this approach seems antithetical to how art works.
The Schnabel is practically unlistenable, though moments of poetry do seep through when he takes significant rits! Maybe he is trying to tell himself something!
OK. But what about Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Ravel, and other speedster pianists? Are those metronomes off too? Actually, we have Rachmaninoff recordings to prove his speech. I'm no fan of Gould. I think he was not only eccentric but narcissistic. Many seem to adore his performances, and that's fine. I just don't trust his judgments, eg, his criticisms of Mozart's terrible composing. Really?
Thanks for the nice video. I like Gould's version and I also love many of your recordings. Still one problem remains. Moscheles in his edition wrote that this 138 for a half note is too fast, and put quarter note = 138. On the other hand, his metronome marks for all other sonatas agree more or less with those of Czerny. So what does it mean? If Moscheles was a double beater he wanted the sonata to be played at half of Alberto's tempo?
Moscheles wrote that neither quarter nor half is ideal, and suggested half=116 "I have, in my edition of this Sonata, marked the time of the first movement 138 of Maelzel's Metronome, because Beethoven himself had fixed that number. He, according to "Wegeler's Norizen," gives it with a minim-I with a crotchet; but neither of these can, to my mind, be made to suit the character of the movement. [...] although I have, in my edition, allowed Beethoven's numbers to remain, in deference to the great man, yet I would advise the player to hold a middle course, according to the following mark: half=116" Link in other comment in case that one gets hidden to not affect this, but it's in volume 2 of his book "Life of Beethoven", on page 252
@@wilh3lmmusic Thanks! So, still if Moscheles was a double beater, in Wim's interpretation we should use quarter=116, yet slower than Alberto's quarter = 138.
Fascinating! Now I do have a follow up question though: If we take this theory and apply consistently, then all of Beethoven's pieces have been performed way too fast from the recordings we have heard, correct? For example, the 1st mvmd of Sym No.6 is half note = 66. If this theory holds true, then even Klemperer's recording needs to be put on prozac. LOL! Hmm, interesting.. Let me take this one step further: how would we then interpret dotted notes marking? The 2nd mvmt of Sym. 6 for example is dotted eighth = 50. How would that be performed then?
It's totally cool to endeavour to make a musical performance at whatever tempo you think you can make work, and I think the result is fascinating to listen to (at least for the faster movements). It's also very possible that some of Beethoven's markings were erroneous here and there (not surprising given the metronome was in its infancy and Beethoven's life was chaotic), which may explain the Hammerklavier 1st movement 138 bpm. But I don't think it's really possible that metronome markings across the board were historically interpreted at half the speed they conventionally are now. That would have many consequences that are at variance to historical facts. For example, the famous concert of 22 December 1808, which featured the premier of the 5th and 6th symphonies, the Choral Fantasy and five other works, is known from contemporaneous evidence to have lasted 4 hours. But if you add up the length of the pieces played using their indicated metronome markings with conventional "single-beat" interpretation, it comes to around 3 hours. That is 3 hours of actual music in a 4 hour concert. Now it would just about be possible to squeeze 3 hours of programming into a 4 hour concert that had two intervals (and a restart of the Choral Fantasy) if the intervals were short and the applause and set-up time between pieces were very short. But it's clearly not possible to squeeze 6 hours of programming (approximate whole beat total music time) plus all these extras into such a 4 hour concert. Thus it's just not possible that metronome marks were historically interpreted in the way you suggest.
@@musicmasterplayer4532 It's what the composer Johann Friedrich Reichardt was recording as saying ("from half past six until half past pen") as he was griping the concert was far too long and far too cold. Human nature would suggest that someone complaining like that may if anything be inclined to exaggerate the duration to make his point, but the whole-beat theory would require that the duration was in fact more like eight(!) hours, which is absurd. In March 2020, just before the pandemic, there was a concert given by the Philharmonia under Esa-Pekka Salonen in London's Royal Festival Hall where they mimicked the famous 1808 Beethoven concert. Their running time was 4 hours and 15 minutes, and that (I assume) was far less chaotic than in 1808 and didn't include a restart of the Choral Fantasy. It's hard even to get down as low as 4 hours at conventional speeds, never mind if you try to do it at half speed.
@@rdbom4252 Maybe no repeats in 1808? Also, those old metronome markings on Beethoven's scores are not really playable today....there must be some midway alternative. Perhaps Beethoven did not give careful thought to those markings for metronomes. Nobody uses them.
@@musicmasterplayer4532 I don't honestly know whether repeats were played in 1808 (or in the replica concert in 2020), and I agree this could make some difference, but I don't think it would get close to a factor of two or more overall as required by whole beat theory. I agree some of Beethoven's metronome markings are out of whack - maybe not surprising since metronomes were in their infancy then - and some of his tempi feel too fast - to my ear anyway - but a wholesale slowing down by a factor of two is huge and I don't think this theory is supported as something that was done at the time.
@@rdbom4252 I am sorry to have to say this, but I feel that Beethoven's own metronome markings should not be taken too seriously as a guide to performance. Anyone who tries to do that soon gives up, the music cannot be played that fast, it becomes a jumble of sounds without shape or point. Those tempi made sense to an old Beethoven who knew the music in his mind, he was no longer concerned with preparing a performance to make the music comprehensible to an audience. Beethoven knew the music well and could run it through his mind quickly, and this is how he came up with these metronome choices. In the end each pianist has to choose his own tempi which make it possible for him/her to make their musical points. We cannot rely on old Beethoven to help us. I certainly did not, I would give Gould a listen before preparing my own performances, and then work my own way through them.
I find this thesis about the proper understanding of metronome indications highly convincing. Based on the statistics presented here and setting as the average beat of those interpretations roughly a 100, then we can conclude that Beethoven would have played his sonata about two thirds as slow as the average of modern pianists. Moreover, Mr. Winter somewhere else also said that the general tempi accelerated about 10% towards the end of the 18th century. Based on these findings, my question would be how fast, in general terms, was the general tempo J. S. Bach considered appropriate?
Let's face it. Beethoven wasn't perfect. He wasn't a god, but a human being, just as us. His metronome markings are too fast, when he wrote down those MM numbers, he wasn't able to play anymore, and his hearing was almost gone. To think that "allegro" meant something so slow, we must assume that the virtuosos of the time were completely incompetent at the keyboard. Also, what kind of music would use the quarter note = 40 mark?
He wrote this piece of music, give him some respect, he wasn't just some senile old man with no hearing who didn't know a crotchet from a quaver - there is intent behind his markings just like there was behind the piece itself
69 is half of 138, close to Gould's 80. and even that sounds too fast. This piece has big chords and a breathing melody. I wouldn't be suprised its meant to be slow. Slow!
That's why it's denoted 'Allegro'... This level of music isn't supposed to be so slow you can process each individual note - playing at half the tempo leaves the music as a long boring piece of individual notes, whereas a complete performance (tempo and clarity, among other things) makes use of the piano's range to convey a sea of sound, much like an orchestra, everything comes together and creates a magnificent piece of music
As someone who holds 2 degrees in physics, I am duly impressed and honored that you use the term “cycle” for one “count” of the metronome, rather than counting each “tick” of a clock and omitting or over-looking its “tick” as completing one “period” of time. It may be that in our discussions, I introduced the term “cycle” to the discussion. However, cycle can apply to space as well as time, but “period” or τ (Greek letter “tau”) applies only to time
@@chlorinda4479 my teachers teachers teacher was Josef Lehvinne. Interdisciplinary communications are important, are you overly specialized and overly compartmentalized? Can you think « out of the box »? Or are you imprisoned by your arrogance over a degree?
I am not a musician but a deep admirer of Beethoven's music. I found this interesting and, perhaps it was mentioned and I missed it, but can you please explain, then, if Gould actually played it more closely to the metronome tempo of the time, why have most pianists played it faster? Just their interpretation? They no doubt are aware of the different metronome tempo, no?
Because Wim Winters alleges that people played it at half speed at the time, which is completely false (see "historical evidence of tempi in the 18th and 19th centuries" by Fafner)
I honestly don't and never saw what was interesting about hammerclavier at that speed. It sounds dull. It's incompreensible to me why a sensitive musician would want to play that and why ppl listen to it. Cult of personality is of course one of the main reasons why this keeps this way.
We begin to stray into the “morality” of the arts. How should musical expression be or to what should it transcendentally aspire for? The stereotypes of the smug classical personage of a musician is in great part because this cult of “wrong” aesthetic/character aspects, to my opinion.
Hay mejores sonatas, sigan peleando por una obra que no me atrevería a tocar, hay musica que prefiero y a esa le daré atención! Prefiero invertir ese tiempo en la Op.145 de Czerny y alguna sonata de Clementi
The beauty of Beethoven is the large range of interpretations that works. Gould's 5th piano concerto with Stokowski one of my favorite the tempo of the last movement makes you want to danse.
the metronome marks are part of the monumental quality of this work - he is asking the pianist to go beyond him/her-self, and just as the notes ask the impossible from the pianist, the metronome marks are a concept, not necessarily to be taken literally… it’s something to strive for, but never to ultimately reach as an average. There also is considerable room for flexibility in this movement- the exposition has lots of ritardandos and places where the tempo can be slightly slower than the opening…. I think it is misleading to go by average tempo rankings because of these many ritardandos in the first movement.
Furthermore on todays pianos, with slower action and better sound, it is worth shaving the edge off the tempo in order to produce a better sound - that might mean playing at 125-130bpm, but not 60 like these cultish freaks
Gould at times made some outlandish remarks such as, “Mozart was not a good composer”. I think that Gould, who played some works by Mozart, was deliberately seeking “attention” about such a ridiculous opinion and most likely sought to provoke those who obviously thought that Mozart was a great composer. Probably just to get a rise from those who obviously thought differently. I really cannot believe that Gould said that about Mozart. Yet, he did express his opinion which seems absurd. Anyway, even his choice of tempos whether it was Bach, Beethoven, Mozart or Brahms, seemed to be extreme for better or for worse.
lol if you cant play it at the correct tempo AS WRITTEN- Then just say that. Beethoven has such a tight knit structure that only is understandable at the higher tempi. This was supposed to be his most revolutionary, impossible to play piece. And at the “half” tempo it becomes very tame and nothing to remark on. I will die on this hill. Music this extraordinary deserves to be played/heard correctly
I rather like the tempo that Glen Gould played. Gould certainly had technique. His recordings of Bach’s works prove it. Especially the Goldberg Variations.
Nyiregyhazi recorded the second movement of Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto no. 2 (piano solo version) at a very slow tempo. Hmm. Rachmaninoff performed it with orchestra obviously with much more movement.
All one has to do is listen to Gould's Goldbergs or Well-Tempered Klavier to see that he had the ability to play the Hammerkalvier much faster. He simply chose not to.
sarcasm/ Nah! The ONLY reason not to play any piece as fast as possible is because you can't. If anyone can play it faster than you, your technique is lacking. That's all. No such thing as impossible or pointless speed - only pianists with weak technique. All the people in that list are inferior to Gieseking! /sarcasm
Wim, a suggestion: please listen to Erwin Nyiregyhazi’s recordings of the works by Liszt if you will and please tell me if you believe that he thought about the conceptualization of “whole beat” while performing the works by Liszt. This is very interesting indeed.
Interestingly, the editor of my oldest Beethoven Sonata collection, insists vehemently that he DOES NOT agree with Czerny about the 138 tempo, but that such an exaggerated tempo marking produces only a flurry of sound. As I listen to Gould's "slower" interpretation, I find I actually like it, enjoying his particular way of highlighting counterpoint with his articulate sense of dynamics.
Was für ein Schwachsinn, Gould spielte Stücke so wie sie ihm am besten gefallen haben, siehe Goldberg Variationen. Das er alles auch anders spielen könnte ist doch wohl klar.
Beethoven 138 seems far too fast - beyond what pianists can reasonably play. But 69 would seem far too slow! Maybe Beethovens metronome was inaccurate?
That's why some people suggest that Beethoven was reading the metronome wrong. Instead of reading at the top, he may have been reading at the bottom. When the bottom is at 139, the top (the actual tempo) is around 100 to 110.
anyone claiming Gould lacked "the technique" to perform anything is really rather foolish. He had an apparently limitless reserve of technical ability. He played how he wanted to play it.
Gould wrote (and spoke) frequently and consistently that he was interested in showing new facets of the works he performed, by emphasizing unexpected aspects of the works. He often hose unexpected tempi, often in contradiction of the apparent intentions of the composers. Famous examples are his recordings of the Mozart A Major sonata, the Beethoven, opus 57, the Mozart a minor sonata, the Brahms d minor concerto. There are many other examples. You seem to be suggesting, in much of your video, that Gould was trying to do what Beethocen wanted. He made it very clear that he gave no special attention to what any composer wanted, treating each work as a formal organization to be interpreted variously. All of this is widely known to even a casual reader of Gould's writing. I am puzzled as to why you begin by suggesting that Gould is paying any attention at all to Beethoven's metronome marking. On the other hand, you have a much stronger argument to make. If the slower tempo is actually one that brings out essential qualities of the work, the fact that Gould discovered this independently suggests that Beethoven's intention are latent in the work itself, not dependent on what many feel is an arbitrary and inappropriate metronome marking.
No, he says nothing of the kind. In fact, quite the opposite @ 7:58: "every performer on this list - except Gould, perhaps - will confirm that his or her recording is as close as possible to Beethoven's intent" and at 10:50 too.
@@stewiegreen That's even worse. He's suggesting that Gould accidentality played the right tempo by disregarding the metronome. Ergo, he is saying "I am smarter than Gould". Sure you are, buddy.
He played it slower because he was something of a contrarian, liked both to provoke (sometimes in a good way) and give new perspectives on whatever he played. I can appreciate his performance while believing it's very far from what Beethoven intended. With his metronome marking Beethoven was throwing down the gauntlet to pianists as he was with the whole work, an extreme, excessive challenge because this is an extreme, excessive work and should be played that way.
I doubt that. Beethoven could run the music through his mind during his old age at a fast clip, and that is what he gave us on those quirky metronome markings. He was no longer thinking about the audience and their perceptions.
I wonder how Erwin Nyiregyhazi would have played Beethoven’s “Hammerklavier” Sonata, op. 106?
He played a lot of works by Liszt at extremely slow, perhaps cautious tempos. Nevertheless, I found some really beautiful moments in several of his interpretations of the works by Liszt.
I wonder if he would have succeeded to strike at least one single b flat.
During the 253 minutes of his performance.
*his happening.
Keep going, Wim! Can’t wait for the book!
I feel like the first movement (and the second) are incidental to the main course of the Hammerklavier, which is the Adagio sostenuto
I love everything you produce. Particularly, everything Glenn Gould!
I can support this comment
Glenn Gould was an *absolute hack* of a pianist and was only promoted by the Western media to combat the Eastern European hegemony of concert pianists. His technique is horrible by concert standards and he has zero musical sense. I usually find that people who support and promote him share a similar brand of narcissistic delusion to his own. Really a garbage pianist whose reputation is only maintained by a cult of mediocres.
Brilliant!. Thank You Wim!
Speed and thus clarity should be governed by size of hall and acoustics; a compromise between reaching the ears on the front row and those at the very back.
Thank you for this intriguing video.
Did you have the occasion to read the liner notes in the disc of Gould/Hammerklavier? Gould was really "afraid" of the recording of this sonata (recorded in 1970 for the 200th anniversay of Beethoven) and it wasn't published until 1993 (11 years after Glenn's death) with a note: first authorised release.
He clearly wasn't happy with the result, as he told his producer: "[...] There are some moments that work, I think, and some that don't - which, come to think of it, was more or less Beethoven's score too - but at least I I've tried it once and won't have to bother my head about it again until 2027* [...]"
Thank you again.
*200th anniversary of Beethoven's death.
No pianist is ever completely happy with the results.
Your writing is improving. This may be clearer for new viewers than previous attempts.
PS: I will delete and repost this if bothered by hecklers.
You can tell just by looking at the score. The repeating forte chords in themselves aren't conducive to the unnatural jackhammer speed most play it at. Possible? Yes. But what was possible by the 20th century performer was not likely in the early 1800s. Very doubtful it was even intended.
I read somewhere that Beethoven's metronome was a bit wonky. There are a lot of Beethoven works that have an unusual tempo because it had a fault
Yeah it wasn't, it kept tempo fine but it would beat in a 1,2... 1,2...1,2 rhythym
Perhaps Beethoven's intention was that no one would really play it. Perhaps it was just to be a monument to behold in the mind.
Well, the first performance of the Hammerklavier took already place a few weeks after completion, by Carl Czerny. He himself played the entire piece in order to metronomize it for Ferdinand Ries. So the idea of music not meant to be played is not an option!
It's amazing that the Gould joke continues to this day and people still don't understand it. Gould had just about the most lopsided technique of any international pianist in living memory. His finger technique and ability to play multiple more or less independent lines was quite remarkable. The poor quality of the rest of his technique was equally remarkable. Give him a chance to play counterpoint or show off fluid passagework and he's all over it. Ask him to make chord leaps or widely separated hands and he'll halve the tempo before you know it. Of course in his own inimitable style he would sell it as part of being an eccentric artist, but this happened for ALL those types of pieces. Take his Brahms 1st piano concerto with Bernstein, who was clearly bemused but decided to play along; this was barely half the speed that a good concert pianist would play it, and it was plainly obvious that it didn't work at that tempo. Similarly for his other Beethoven sonata offerings. He once let the cat out of the bag in a letter to a producer where he complained of the "horrendous difficulty" of the Hammerklavier. And of course he's right - it is horrendously difficult in parts - but this is completely at odds with the publicly projected image of the effortless genius who could play anything at any speed without ever needing to practice. It's a mythology and plenty of people still buy into it; indeed, I fully expect many hostile responses to this comment from some of them. But the facts (recordings) speak for themselves.
That's actually really interesting. I hadn't considered that!
Makes a lot of sense to me!
Running away with Hammerklavier sounds horrible. I prefer Gould’s version.
Glenn Gould was so taken with himself he would not have taken his tempo from Beethoven directly! He likely wanted to play it in the way which sounded most musical to him, especially if that is also provocative or unorthodox.
When reviewing the 19th Century instructions in English and German published after the introduction of the Maelzel's Metronome, doesn't the instructions for an Allegro State for the half note number and then play the number for the quarter note? (Rhethorical question, this has been addressed in more than a few videos with Aunthentic Sound). The Hammerklavier sontate fits exactly the description for setting up the metronome (Allegro, Half Note = X, then play the quarter notes as X) The first printing of this work lists "Maelzel's Metronome" 138 = 1/2 note ergo, 1/4 played 138 which translates to the half being 69 bpm, for an Allegro.
No, Maelzel never says the metronome should beat quarternotes when the m.m is a halfnote.
Mr W misinterprets the text by ignoring the phrases 'generally speaking' ( chosing the notevalue in the m.m based on the tempo) and 'as often as the case may admit of so doing' ( the metronome beating integral parts of the bar)
Those two are not meant to be used at the same time.
In reality, Mr W is mixing two different tempi (quarternote for Andante and halfnote for Allegro)
It's a pretty cheap trick.
@@olofstroander7745 I have to disagree, both the English (rough translation from another language) and the later published German instruction (which are quite specific) give the example of Allegro with 1/2 note and the quarter note receiving the value. However, for the sake of argument we will assume that each click is one beat. Does this change anything as concerns Beethoven, Cherubini, Clementi, Cramer, Mehul, et al?
In the Intelligenz-blatt zur Allgemeienen Musikalishchen Zeitung published in Leipzig, September 1821, there contains an article by J. N Maezel which according to the translation by Bernard Ruehthi referenced in an article by Diane Kolin,Maezel claimed "Beethoven, Cherubini, Clementi, Cramer, Mehul, and others used the Metronome incorrectly. However, in the first edition of the Hammerclaver Sonata, Clementi lists 138 to the 1/4 vs Beethoven's 138 to half (but the 1815 English, and the circa 1817 German translations not withstanding) so according to Maelzel both Beethoven and Clementi are wrong? Clementi published circa 1820 ("In a letter to his pupil Ferdinand Ries (16 April 1819) Beethoven indicated that minim = 138 should be used for the first movement..." yet Clementi uses a Crochet, was). Was the claim that Clementi incorrectly used the MM from prior works. Maelzel was in Vienna as his home, off and on between 1818-1825 before leaving for America two years before Beethoven's death, you would have thought he had taken the opportunitiy to correct Beethoven. Or did Clementi somehow all the way over in London and change the minim to a crochet after receiving a copy from Leipzig?
So if Maelzel said Beethoven used it incorrectly (aka Double Beat), the man who produced ear-trumpets and a device to fit on the soundboard of a fortepiano to focus the sound at Beethoven' face, one would think he'd pop in and say, "Hey Ludwig, you got this all wrong..." Music Publishers in the 1860's Leipzig omit the MM indication, Han von Bulow lists 112=the half note, but has a footnote in which is 138 in the original. Czerny's Piano School Op. 500 likewise list 138.
@Chlorinda I didn't require the translation, (German was my required Second Languague), however, you conveniently did include the entire translation. You might want to peruse the replie to Olof Ströander I just sent below. Maezel claimed that Beethoven, Cherubini, Clementi, Cramer, Mehul, et al (I cannot find the original article) used the Metronom(e) incorrectly...Until I can find an copy of the original, (I haven't time to peruse the internet archive), I will let my comment stand, or have you not watched either of Wim's videos on the English and the German translation? Intelligenz-blatt zur Allgemeienen Musikalishchen Zeitung published in Leipzig, September 1821
@@Renshen1957 Have you actually read Maelzel’s article from 1821? Allow me to quote a part of it:
"I take the number 80 as the middle point, because in this number the three basic movements unite, depending on whether one wants to designate an eighth note, a quarter note or a half note with the same [number]. Eighty eighth notes in a minute is slow, eighty quarter notes is moderate, and eighty half notes is fast."
I find the English and German Metronome directions to be rather clear, but this text leaves no room for interpretation; Maelzel intended the metronome for single beat use.
@@johnericsson5286 Which means that the problem was with Beethoven's markings. They are clearly wrong by any standard. If Maelzel claims that Beethoven used his metronome incorrectly, that tells us enough...forget them.
Well done wim.
Gould was the only one who played like he wasn't late for his flight...
69 is half of 138, close to Gould's 80. and even that sounds too fast. This piece has big chords and a breathing melody. People don't play music, they play pianos and scores.
It's nice to hear all the notes.
The first time I ever heard or even heard "OF" Glen Gould was in a documentary about Voyageur 1. His playing style with that incredible clarity stuck in my head INSTANTLY and has never left.
It's not called Coitus Interruptus, no need to run away.
too many players are driven by the influences of "historically informed" performances, but the thing is, that the phenomenon of playing music from 200 years ago is a new thing, nobody was playing Frescobaldi in Wien at the time of Beethoven in concerts. Considering that, it would be healthy to avoid the fake controversy on the "true tempo", and, as Gould did, playing with absolute freedom. Gould was really driven to do the exact opposite of what was the trend is his time when he was recording music. It's music, we are not tightening with a million dollar wrench a bolt of a rocket to a specific torque force. In fact, today, the more I'm shocked by the different approach of someones interpretation the better, for a start. There is music hidden in the music waiting to be discovered.
It’s one thing to play according to given number but another thing to play it so that it is musically interesting or coherent.
Thanks for a very excellent video. It is a surprise , I am not an idiot after all!
There is no right or wrong finite tempo for any piece. There's only the tempo you prefer. That's the entire point Gould wanted to make, which you so incomprehensibly miss. Trying to make such a convoluted argument for something which essentially lies at the base of all music is a very shallow and pedantic bluster.
I'm afraid you missed the entire point - what we do is try to understand the original meaning of the metronome marks (tempo indications) composers like Beethoven left. The current view is unattainable. What musicians do with that information, is up to them. The point with GG is that when musicians leave the desire to technically shine on stage behind, they instinctively come very close to the whole beat interpretation of these authentic tempi. And btw, one can think today that tempo choice is the individual's privelegde, but that doesn't mean Beethoven and co did feel the same about it. They didn't. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Hope this solves your issues with our 'pedantic bluster'
Thank you for doing this video! I have been so hoping you would do a video on Gould's Hammerklavier sonata. I have always loved his recording of this work precisely because he plays the first movement slower than most. And the music shines through! In fact, Gould’s recording of this movement has become the only one I want to listen to these days. Schnabel’s recording of this movement sounds like a complete mess to me now! Thank you again!
Oh come on, that’s a known issue with Beethoven markings - some of them are all over the place, which makes some hypothesize that it’s due to early metronomes being unreliable. Most pianists play it closer to “original” tempo which makes it sound like a cartoon. Gould and Barenboim play music.
you talk about the problem i have faced many times in a last few years during my music education. giving your own interpretation among the hundreds of identical performances that are mostly killing the music with tempo is still considered as something incorrect and unwanted. and i feel that it is so wrong. I had so many discussions with my teachers about my "incorrect" and "pretentious" interpretations of for instance Chopin Polonaise op 44 (which i played "too heavy") or Etude op 10 no 3 (that i played "with too much rubato"). i still think that music has too few Goulds and Pogorelishes, the tradition is always more important than the experience of the sound itself
very well said- among the greatest pianists, it is frequently impossible to differentiate as the performances remain orthodox. With Gould that is not the case. He was wrong sometimes and right sometimes but when he was right, he was greater than everyone and found something in the music or the performance that in many cases augmented the masterpiece
Did Beethoven request all audience to bring a metronome with to the orchestra hall?
I may have a bad taste, but I like Gould's Beethoven interpretations.
c sharp minor sonata / third movement. Gould. Why don't you explain that?
Is impossible to play a piece with great poise touch and projection if you play too fast. You will inevitably play more percussively if you play faster. That's "fine" for boogie woogie but for music with more varied energy it sounds like a blacksmiths shop.
All those who criticize Gould are similar to those scientists who are glued to a paradigm for many reasons (many prosaic ones) and their way to life is via that paradigm. He was a genius and as on the partituras there is not any strict way to signal a tempo but by words, you can use the words to transmit the realm of that music to the public to feel it. Did not have the technique? Yeah sure, listen to some of its recordings. Who decides the Authentic Sound? You can join the bunch of "musicians" that criticize him but the side where we are, those who love how he plays, is growing and growing, and simply making the other side look very bad.
He takes this tempo because he likes it, thats all.
You miss the point of the video, and Glenn Gould was just a door opener (clickbait if you want). Even with his modified Steinway, Glenn Gould played many pieces differently than the mainstream as what could he bring to the table, some too fast (a minor Invention by Bach), some faster than accepted practice, the Contrapuntus from Art of Fugue played live in Moscow 1957 for a variety of pieces. Was Gould a loose canon or a eccentric pianist? No he played not because he like the tempo, but rather from the point of view he had nothing to prove (technique wise) but what he felt as an artist with umpteen recordings of old warhorse compositions, that would shed new light on facets overlooked by playing what the audience and conservatories expected.
Some of the most profound writings and lectures on J S Bach’s Fugues and one Cantata were in Gould’s TV broadcasts which shed light on overlooked or unmentioned aspects to these works. Gould in his programs and recordings played outside of the concert staples, Sweelink, Renaissance English Virginal pieces, recorded all of the Liszt’s transcriptions Beethoven Symphonies for solo piano, he premiered a previously unknown Piano work by Richard Wagner. Gould played The Art of Fugue on the Organ, how many other virtuoso pianists would leave their comfort zone. You diminish Gould as an artist with your flippant comment. Of course that wasn’t your intention, it was just your summary dismissal of wholebeat theory.
@@Renshen1957 that's exactly what I was thinking. He likes it that way, while showing new angles of the work. Just saying that there is no final tempo for nothing. Btw i am a big g fan of celibidache, so let's just let everyone to play as they like it.
@@NARCISALISPAHIC Art is a personal expression, and both Dance and Music is a living art which has to be recreated a new (versus re-painting a portrait every time or carving a statue from stone). In that context, there is no final tempo. That being said, more than a few music conservatories, college or university, and artists claim, Ex cathedra (as though Divinely Inpired without the possiblity or error) that Metronomes were always counted as single beat, ergo these tempi in single beat interpretation are the only way Beethoven, Cesar Franck, Chopin, Czerny (Etudes and J S Bach edition), et al, for examples were intended, contradicts the "no final tempo for everything (or nothing). At various times, PianoPat, BachScholar, et al, make counter claims that single, but unlike Wim Winters do not give examples (performances at the MM in single beat), or in their performance videos played in Single Beat. Pianopat and BachScholar have moved on, others have not.
Pontications by Ivory Towers of music (for a collective term) and concert pianists, conductors, etc, seem to forget that music has an academic discipline as well as an art form encompasses music history as well as musicology (if you will, a detective agency). Musicology provides insights on Performance Practice, Tempi (Tempo Ordinario 1600-into the 2nd decade of the 19th century when Beethoven declared Tempo Ordinario dead) from Treatises, Music Dictionaries (Walter's Lexicon) and even to the mid-19th Century editions of Czerny of J S Bach's complete keyboard (excluding Organ although Czerny does mention playing the Well Tempered Clavier on the organ) works. As to Czerny, he states in his prefaces that the Allegro of Bach's time is slower than at present, and lists MM marks in the Inventions for some works that are unplayable for an age appropriate (level of playing skill) that are faster than played, except for few exceptions by Gould, a minor invention, which for the most part can't played in single beat. Not that Sir Andras Schiff gives a damn about proper tempi in J S Bach, he plays the French Suites Allemandes in a modern allegro (contrary to J G Walter 1738 and 1731 editions if the Lexicon lists the allemande as the one of the slower/slowest dance in the suite) and plays all the Courantes as though they are Italian Corrente (fast virtuoso Italian pieces played presto in 3/8), when the French Courtane usually notated in Triple measure and had a slower tempo of all French court dances (3/2 or 3/4), described by Mattheson, Quantz and Rousseau as grave and majestic. However, as much as I admire Andras Schiff's tone he can draw from a Steinway Piano; his Chopin, which I heard at the home of Karl Geiringer's widow (in Santa Barbara, CA) was to die for, and he was from suffering jet lag at the time, I prefer Robert Levin playing J S Bach on the piano, he treats each voice equally (in importance and volume) in general and his scorecard isn't significantly different from Schiff as to tempi. The usual excluse is by the time wrote Bach wrote his Suites, the works had become stylized (ironic as both the English and French Suites, in that order had already been composed, before Walter compiled his dictionary). What is ignored is that J S Bach knew first hand French Music from religious refugee musicians and the German speaking nobility in the many Dukedoms, Principalities and Kingdoms were ardent Francophiles in dress, in culinary dishes, music, the French language, as one contempory writer wrote they copied French vices and French diseases...
Wim Winters isn't the first, he may not be the last, to demonstrate the incongruity of MM marks that are nearly impossible and definitely unplayable for many marks. He has received a great deal of Pushback for attacking Academia's Sacred Cow (or such I type "Cop-Out") of that from Beethoven onward music became slower (ergo virtuosos less capable) when the 19th century contains many quotes as to the music being played faster (and ruined) or as Liszt said to a young Widor who asked to listen to him practice (a work of J S Bach) in essence, this is how it was played, this is how it can be played with the improvements on the piano (a bit faster), and this how everyone plays, faster as a Charlatan. Widor was my college organ teacher (in his 80's) teacher, still going strong as the Church Organist at St. Paul's Episcopal Church. I will repeat myself, Widor of his Toccata to the 5th Organ Symphony wrote (and he recorded a performance), it was piece to show of one's prowess of articulation, not speed, and nearly every Organist ignores this plays Prestissimo. It is an Allegro MM 118=1/4, but I didn't have a metronome (or had a score handy) to check the speed when he played the work from memory as to whether this was in single beat metronome or wholebeat. However, by publication in 1879, that's later by 20 years for the MM of Czerny's marks.
Glenn Gould arrived at nothing capriciously.
I think when you get used to Gould’s tempo of the first movement, it begins to make more musical sense than those recordings on the faster end. It did to me anyway. I don’t enjoy those now.
For me your considerations about the correct metronome tempo are a little too theoretical. When it´s not exactly known what Beethoven had in mind, why bother? I´d say that for most times there is an inherent tempo to musical pieces which is derived from the movement of the human body (and as such may vary from one person to another). In most cases, our music is a variation of either a dance or a march, which requires a tempo in which a dance or march could be performed. Exaggerating it in unnatural ways would sound strange and uncomfortable, no matter what the composer noted on top of the page.
Don't accept this for one minute. The movement is marked Allegro, Gould plays it Andante, i.e. walking pace. It's a travesty that comes down to a credible feel which Gould misses in all his perversity entirely; and Gould's holy, anal Bach piano philosophy has always been challenged and increasingly so now. There is no natural equivalence between a harpsichord sound (or clavichord etc,) with his uptight, sprung Bach playing. There's this weird post-Romantic idea that polyphonic music has to be played drily so as to isolate all the voices. Listen to a Byrd or Thomas Tallis mass sung in a cathedral and get some awareness. I could conduct Beethoven's 9th, final movement, at 60 bpm and bring something new out - that I am a monster who shouldn't be in charge of a baton.
Yes, but you can really hear the music at the slower tempo! It makes much more sense at the the slower tempo! I just heard another very well played rendition that was even slower, perhaps! The usual overly fast tempos sound insane, and they are incoherent. It was probably a momentary conceptual idea of Beethoven’s, that he were alive today, he might even agree that it was an insane marking!
Gilels, Sokolov play it slowly. A bit of cherry picking in your selections?
You mention Moscheles’ name several times in your other videos about Gould, why not in this one? He had a very interesting comment about this particular metronome mark, saying it turns the piece into a “prestissimo so fearful, Beethoven could never have intended”.
The cherrypicking makes it obvious that you’re conducting propaganda and not research.
You should also stop using Gould’s name for clicks. He was not a supporter of your theory.
ua-cam.com/video/1kev-oFDoFU/v-deo.html
There you go. This source has already been discussed years ago by your favorite cherry picker. Sometimes asking questions rather than accusing people of dishonesty would spare you the situation in which you look like a total fool. Also learning to understand what you read would spare you some other embarassing situations. Can you point in the text that you quote in which sentence moscheles is saying that the “prestissimo so fearful, Beethoven could never have intended” because of its technical impossibility? Indeed, nowhere, it's just your conclusion based on assumption that needs to be proven. if you would have read the rest of the sentence (or not cherrypicked), you would have understood what moscheles is saying: “the minim increases it to a prestissimo so fearful, Beethoven could never have intended, since he desired the assai, originally prefixed to the allegro, to be omitted". What Moscheles is saying is that the tempo marking raises the speed of the piece to the point that its character becomes the one of a prestissimo instead of an allegro. And indeed he is talking about a problem of character, not technical impossibility. On the contrary, if you avoid cherrypicking and not isolate this source from the one where czerny talks about this tempo marking, things become even clearer. you would see that he confirms that this movement is playable with some "attentive practice". Single beat, as shown by the study in this video, has failed for more than a century. In whole beat it is possible with no problem. What's your solution to implement that metronome number otherwise?
Alberto, if you're going to lecture others about reading properly, maybe you shouldn't misread things so blatantly yourself. Where did I say Moscheles' comment was with respect to technical impossibility?
What Wim does in this specific video is definitely cherrypicking. He asks the question "Is Beethoven's marking correct?" and then chooses to leave out the opinion of as significant a figure as Moscheles, despite the latter having given a very striking answer to the question asked by Wim. This is clearly an attempt to make it seem as though the metronome marking was not perceived as problematic back then, and it is only today the issues (not necessarily technical) arises due to our "modern" reading of the metronome.
Moscheles comment was indeed with respect to the character and I think it accurately describes the feeling of modern performers. I'm fairly certain that for the majority of the pianists on the list shown in the video, the tempo choice does not represent the very upper limit of their technical ability but rather their musical interpretation of the score. Also, given that Schnabel in an admittedly messy performance reaches about 95% of the metronome marking, I would be careful about calling it "impossible". It is entirely possible that Czerny performed it at about the same tempo as Schnabel, if not a tad faster.
Also, since you seem a bit upset about me accusing Wim of dishonesty, I will happily give you another example from his videos. In the one about Gould's Appassionata, he claims that Lisitsa's recording of the first movement is the fastest one out there. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Samuil Feinberg, Rudolf Kerer, Alexei Sultanov, Frederic Lamond, Harold Bauer and Friedrich Gulda, to name few, have all recorded the movement in less time than Lisitsa. Gulda's average of 140 dotted quarters a minute, is a tad faster than Moschels metronome mark of 138, which Wim calls "impossible" in the video (there may be a question mark about the pitch in Gulda's recording, the recording however is from 1967 and should not suffer from any noteworthy tempo alteration).
Sorry we want to see your solution to the metronome problem at the piano. You can bring your personal assumptions and interpretation of sources for the eternity but as a matter of facts, we have thousands of metronome numbers from 19th century meant as precise tempo indications to be followed and unless you are able to play up to 30 notes seconds, we humans as a musical society have only one solution to implement those metronomes in our playing. If you think that the hammerklavier is an exception, you will have in the book a small selection of 200 pieces metronomized by 50 different composers of that period that I can promise you can only play in your wet dreams. What's your solution? Please sit at the piano, take your phone, take your metronome, start with Czerny op.299 and show us.
Of course, my solution is to play one note of the indicated value for every three ticks of the metronome. This isn’t described in any historic texts about the metronome nor does it agree with timings left by numerous composers, but I’ve been told that doesn’t matter. As long as it makes everything 100% playable :)
Glenn Gould plays a lot of Beethoven sonatas absurdly fast as well…. His tempo choices are arbitrary and on a whim- you can hear him play many pieces at Totally different tempos, for example the e major Fugue from book I.
Using him to back up your theories of tempo is only a matter of coincidence here… I don’t believe Gould believed in what you espouse- there are plenty of Gould recordings that would behold that he is very much not in agreement with you.
You obviously go to great lengths to defend your claims with historical research, but I remain unconvinced.
If we have recordings by people such as Alfred Cortot, Saint Saens, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Friedman, et Al, who had ties directly to 19th century- often their teachers themselves studied with the great composer in the case of Cortot- so I cannot buy for a second your idea that all these masters are playing everything twice as fast.
If anything the tempos got slow over the course of the century- just listen to historical recordings and see how briskly Friedman plays the third Ballade or the etude op. 10 7….
Anyway- I think from a common sense point of view, your theories don’t make any sense and do not reflect the feeling of the music.
I'm a Gould fanatic and I approve this comment👍
The human voice is the base for any choice of tempo. "How would I sing it?"
Very clear and well-said argument. Thanks for this upload which raises the important of tempo-consideration while performing as close as possible to the composer's intentions.
Now I've got to get hold of that Gould Hammerklavier. Thanks, Wim!
It is similar with Gould’s Brahms concerto interpretation
made a video on that performance too
Let me preface this comment by stating that I didn't watch the entire 15:32 of the video, yet did skim through most of it. I am also roughly familiar with the views on the double beat theory espoused in this channel, which is why I want to comment on this (have wanted to for a long time, actually). If any counters to the following were addressed in the video, I do apologize in advance.
As much as I enjoy many (even most) of Gould's interpretations, using this performance of the Hammerklavier's first movement to back the double beat theory is... weak. Very, if you ask me. I am sure you can find other examples within Gould's output where he goes out of his way to play the music much faster than indicated (be it with a mere tempo indication or an outright metronome marking). Nothing suggests to me he'd be going for presumed faithfulness to the source material in one case and complete heterodoxy in the next. And what about other aspects in his performances? I mean, what about the absence of repeats in Gould's performances throughout most of his Bach and much of his Beethoven? How is that indicative of faithful intentions? Speaking from memory, this even affects this very same recording of the Hammerklavier... Rather, it seems he was constantly in search for re-composing works and finding new (but musically "coherent") ways of shining light on the music we already know and love. Whatever one's stance is on this (personally, I appreciate it): rather than being an argument for the double beat theory, his could be an example of a musically "coherent" yet alternative take on the music.
As far as Beethoven's somewhat brisky metronome markings are concerned, a little thought experiment: if I told random people on the street to experiment with a pendulum and to compare its measured period with the theoretical prediction, how many would use the correct length? I reckon not many. People are familiar with the concept of a pendulum but arguably not so much with apparently irrelevant details that can become important quickly. Very much in this line, a team of scientists suggested that the fast tempi are a case of an ageing man not quite keeping up with new technology. This isn't exactly unheard of and all of you may have seen people experience this in your personal lives. Heck, the metronome was NEW then! I'm not even sure it came with instructions for use. If you aren't acquainted with metronomes, even today there are arguably two ways you can read off the tempi on a metronome. There is a very good argument to be made that Beethoven was reading them off the wrong way: if one rescales his indicated tempi with the corrections appropriate to the size of his device, one (in fact not so) roughly obtains the average tempi at which his music is performed... by educated musicians... who study this stuff... and have presumably inherited somewhat sensible performance practices through the years.
It gets even better though - we don't need the whole statistical study. We have a rough idea of whether and how much Beethoven's markings were off because he expressed *his own doubts* on the metronome marking *read off by himself* in - if memory serves me well - the manuscript of his 9th symphony. I may be off here; the specific score was mentioned in the scientific article, anyway... This should seal it.
The theory of his failure in reading off the markings is much more natural and convincing to me than any weird theories on our perception of tempi or performance practices having so drastically changed in such a short (yes!) time. Also, if one is going to defend that point of view, one also better come up with a sound mechanism of how that would happen socially and psychologically. Not to speak of the severe problems that arise from strings, winds or voices performing some music at full half speed (!!!). Did we have bigger lungs? Were bows built longer or out of ***very*** different materials? How come we didn't notice any of that? Or is choral and symphonic music somehow exempt from all of this?
Do of course play the music any way you like. If you find a new and musically "coherent" way (whatever that means) to play a piece, or if it just sounds better to you that way - all power to you! I concede this is easy for me to express as a non-musician whose livelihood doesn't depend on the approval of the musical intelligentsia - but there should be no need for cloning existing performances. Anyhow, cherry-picking performances to support a theory is weak and in this case does a huge disservice to Gould's original take on the music.
As far as the Hammerklavier itself is concerned: there is a recording by Beveridge Webster which is perhaps not up to the infamous and arguably incorrect 138 but certainly around Schnabel's mark minus all the mistakes. Weird it wasn't included in the study mentioned in the video... or in the video itself.
@alwaurora8069 Frderich Gulda always played this piece at around the intended tempo, a few of his recordings were a bit rushed but in particular the one from the Beethovenfest 1970 was really well executed at the right speed
I enjoy your posts so much, especially on the subject of Glenn Gould; I don’t agree that it was solely on instinct that he used the tempi he did-he was an unusually scholarly pianist, and very well-informed about everything. He continues to be controversial, which I take to be a sign that, like him or not, he always raised important issues. Personally, I prefer his Hammerklavier to many of the speed driven versions., Just as I prefer his second recording of the Goldberg variations to his original speed driven version. it’s laughable that people think he didn’t have the technique to play it at any speed whatsoever.
Very, very well put once again. Thank you for your wotk!
Thank you for another enlightening quality video. On a personal note, I found the background music tapestry a bit cheesy, though. Not necessary.
I really dislike the use of the word "integrity" here. Integrity implies moral goodness, and honesty. In reality, this is fairly unique to this kind of music. How the beautiful and diverse the interpretations of Bob Dylan's songs, or of Carole King's. Who listens to Adele performing "Make You Feel My Love" and complains that her interpretation lacked integrity or is somehow dishonest?
I don't dispute that historical precision is an interesting pursuit, and one that's important - but ascribing special ethical value this approach seems antithetical to how art works.
The Schnabel is practically unlistenable, though moments of poetry do seep through when he takes significant rits! Maybe he is trying to tell himself something!
Just what the world needs - four-hundred million performances of this masterpiece, all of which sound completely different from each other.
He does a wonderful job in the fugue
It is not “terribly” slowly. He found the inner spirit of the music. The speed at which Hammerklavier is played these days is ridiculously fast.
I think Igor Levit comes close to the 138
OK. But what about Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Ravel, and other speedster pianists? Are those metronomes off too? Actually, we have Rachmaninoff recordings to prove his speech. I'm no fan of Gould. I think he was not only eccentric but narcissistic. Many seem to adore his performances, and that's fine. I just don't trust his judgments, eg, his criticisms of Mozart's terrible composing. Really?
Thanks for the nice video. I like Gould's version and I also love many of your recordings. Still one problem remains. Moscheles in his edition wrote that this 138 for a half note is too fast, and put quarter note = 138. On the other hand, his metronome marks for all other sonatas agree more or less with those of Czerny. So what does it mean? If Moscheles was a double beater he wanted the sonata to be played at half of Alberto's tempo?
Moscheles wrote that neither quarter nor half is ideal, and suggested half=116
"I have, in my edition of this Sonata, marked the time of the first movement 138 of Maelzel's Metronome, because Beethoven himself had fixed that number. He, according to "Wegeler's Norizen," gives it with a minim-I with a crotchet; but neither of these can, to my mind, be made to suit the character of the movement. [...] although I have, in my edition, allowed Beethoven's numbers to remain, in deference to the great man, yet I would advise the player to hold a middle course, according to the following mark: half=116"
Link in other comment in case that one gets hidden to not affect this, but it's in volume 2 of his book "Life of Beethoven", on page 252
@@wilh3lmmusic Thanks! So, still if Moscheles was a double beater, in Wim's interpretation we should use quarter=116, yet slower than Alberto's quarter = 138.
Maybe an ironic view
Fascinating! Now I do have a follow up question though: If we take this theory and apply consistently, then all of Beethoven's pieces have been performed way too fast from the recordings we have heard, correct? For example, the 1st mvmd of Sym No.6 is half note = 66. If this theory holds true, then even Klemperer's recording needs to be put on prozac. LOL! Hmm, interesting.. Let me take this one step further: how would we then interpret dotted notes marking? The 2nd mvmt of Sym. 6 for example is dotted eighth = 50. How would that be performed then?
It's totally cool to endeavour to make a musical performance at whatever tempo you think you can make work, and I think the result is fascinating to listen to (at least for the faster movements). It's also very possible that some of Beethoven's markings were erroneous here and there (not surprising given the metronome was in its infancy and Beethoven's life was chaotic), which may explain the Hammerklavier 1st movement 138 bpm.
But I don't think it's really possible that metronome markings across the board were historically interpreted at half the speed they conventionally are now. That would have many consequences that are at variance to historical facts. For example, the famous concert of 22 December 1808, which featured the premier of the 5th and 6th symphonies, the Choral Fantasy and five other works, is known from contemporaneous evidence to have lasted 4 hours. But if you add up the length of the pieces played using their indicated metronome markings with conventional "single-beat" interpretation, it comes to around 3 hours. That is 3 hours of actual music in a 4 hour concert. Now it would just about be possible to squeeze 3 hours of programming into a 4 hour concert that had two intervals (and a restart of the Choral Fantasy) if the intervals were short and the applause and set-up time between pieces were very short. But it's clearly not possible to squeeze 6 hours of programming (approximate whole beat total music time) plus all these extras into such a 4 hour concert. Thus it's just not possible that metronome marks were historically interpreted in the way you suggest.
Are you sure that it lasted EXACTLY four hours? Was that perhaps an estimate by an audience member who did not bring his stop-watch to the concert?
@@musicmasterplayer4532 It's what the composer Johann Friedrich Reichardt was recording as saying ("from half past six until half past pen") as he was griping the concert was far too long and far too cold. Human nature would suggest that someone complaining like that may if anything be inclined to exaggerate the duration to make his point, but the whole-beat theory would require that the duration was in fact more like eight(!) hours, which is absurd.
In March 2020, just before the pandemic, there was a concert given by the Philharmonia under Esa-Pekka Salonen in London's Royal Festival Hall where they mimicked the famous 1808 Beethoven concert. Their running time was 4 hours and 15 minutes, and that (I assume) was far less chaotic than in 1808 and didn't include a restart of the Choral Fantasy. It's hard even to get down as low as 4 hours at conventional speeds, never mind if you try to do it at half speed.
@@rdbom4252 Maybe no repeats in 1808? Also, those old metronome markings on Beethoven's scores are not really playable today....there must be some midway alternative. Perhaps Beethoven did not give careful thought to those markings for metronomes. Nobody uses them.
@@musicmasterplayer4532 I don't honestly know whether repeats were played in 1808 (or in the replica concert in 2020), and I agree this could make some difference, but I don't think it would get close to a factor of two or more overall as required by whole beat theory. I agree some of Beethoven's metronome markings are out of whack - maybe not surprising since metronomes were in their infancy then - and some of his tempi feel too fast - to my ear anyway - but a wholesale slowing down by a factor of two is huge and I don't think this theory is supported as something that was done at the time.
@@rdbom4252 I am sorry to have to say this, but I feel that Beethoven's own metronome markings should not be taken too seriously as a guide to performance. Anyone who tries to do that soon gives up, the music cannot be played that fast, it becomes a jumble of sounds without shape or point. Those tempi made sense to an old Beethoven who knew the music in his mind, he was no longer concerned with preparing a performance to make the music comprehensible to an audience. Beethoven knew the music well and could run it through his mind quickly, and this is how he came up with these metronome choices.
In the end each pianist has to choose his own tempi which make it possible for him/her to make their musical points. We cannot rely on old Beethoven to help us. I certainly did not, I would give Gould a listen before preparing my own performances, and then work my own way through them.
Beethoven also said something about "to play without passion is unforgivable"
And what is more passionate than an inflexible metronome,
The speed of the other pianist and overuse of pedals, sound ridiculously amateurish.
I find this thesis about the proper understanding of metronome indications highly convincing. Based on the statistics presented here and setting as the average beat of those interpretations roughly a 100, then we can conclude that Beethoven would have played his sonata about two thirds as slow as the average of modern pianists.
Moreover, Mr. Winter somewhere else also said that the general tempi accelerated about 10% towards the end of the 18th century.
Based on these findings, my question would be how fast, in general terms, was the general tempo J. S. Bach considered appropriate?
Gould used to pervert the tempi of everything. That was part of his genius (or perversity).
For the best Hammerklavier rendition, check out John O'Conor.
This guy is full of gibberish. Scholars know Beethoven's metronome was broken.
I still don't Like what He did to classical era composers especially Mozart and Beethoven.
I don't care what anyone says, I am certain Wim correctly called Glen Gould a "comedian" pianist.
Robert Taub plays a quick and excellent opening movement.
Let's face it. Beethoven wasn't perfect. He wasn't a god, but a human being, just as us. His metronome markings are too fast, when he wrote down those MM numbers, he wasn't able to play anymore, and his hearing was almost gone.
To think that "allegro" meant something so slow, we must assume that the virtuosos of the time were completely incompetent at the keyboard.
Also, what kind of music would use the quarter note = 40 mark?
He wrote this piece of music, give him some respect, he wasn't just some senile old man with no hearing who didn't know a crotchet from a quaver - there is intent behind his markings just like there was behind the piece itself
69 is half of 138, close to Gould's 80. and even that sounds too fast. This piece has big chords and a breathing melody. I wouldn't be suprised its meant to be slow. Slow!
That's why it's denoted 'Allegro'... This level of music isn't supposed to be so slow you can process each individual note - playing at half the tempo leaves the music as a long boring piece of individual notes, whereas a complete performance (tempo and clarity, among other things) makes use of the piano's range to convey a sea of sound, much like an orchestra, everything comes together and creates a magnificent piece of music
I like Gould interpretation. Its easier to enjoy every note.
As someone who holds 2 degrees in physics, I am duly impressed and honored that you use the term “cycle” for one “count” of the metronome, rather than counting each “tick” of a clock and omitting or over-looking its “tick” as completing one “period” of time. It may be that in our discussions, I introduced the term “cycle” to the discussion. However, cycle can apply to space as well as time, but “period” or τ (Greek letter “tau”) applies only to time
@@chlorinda4479 my teachers teachers teacher was Josef Lehvinne. Interdisciplinary communications are important, are you overly specialized and overly compartmentalized? Can you think « out of the box »? Or are you imprisoned by your arrogance over a degree?
Humility matters
@@chlorinda4479 several “touchés!” are due. I have obligations with a dog and her puppies right now.
@@chlorinda4479 pendula ;)
I’m all for new ways of interpreting classical but some performances are just bad.
such an insightful video
Excellent Master Class on Tempi!!
Gould’s version just sounds better.
I was sceptical of all this at first, but I think I'm a convert. Bring back musical playing and artistry!
Could you recommend some books so I can read about the "whole note practice" for myself, please?
I am not a musician but a deep admirer of Beethoven's music. I found this interesting and, perhaps it was mentioned and I missed it, but can you please explain, then, if Gould actually played it more closely to the metronome tempo of the time, why have most pianists played it faster? Just their interpretation? They no doubt are aware of the different metronome tempo, no?
Because Wim Winters alleges that people played it at half speed at the time, which is completely false (see "historical evidence of tempi in the 18th and 19th centuries" by Fafner)
I honestly don't and never saw what was interesting about hammerclavier at that speed. It sounds dull. It's incompreensible to me why a sensitive musician would want to play that and why ppl listen to it. Cult of personality is of course one of the main reasons why this keeps this way.
We begin to stray into the “morality” of the arts. How should musical expression be or to what should it transcendentally aspire for? The stereotypes of the smug classical personage of a musician is in great part because this cult of “wrong” aesthetic/character aspects, to my opinion.
The comedian pianist?
Hay mejores sonatas, sigan peleando por una obra que no me atrevería a tocar, hay musica que prefiero y a esa le daré atención! Prefiero invertir ese tiempo en la Op.145 de Czerny y alguna sonata de Clementi
Complimenti per aver affrontato questo argomento e grazie per i sottotitoli in italiano Il volume sarà in diversi lingue?
The beauty of Beethoven is the large range of interpretations that works. Gould's 5th piano concerto with Stokowski one of my favorite the tempo of the last movement makes you want to danse.
the metronome marks are part of the monumental quality of this work - he is asking the pianist to go beyond him/her-self, and just as the notes ask the impossible from the pianist, the metronome marks are a concept, not necessarily to be taken literally… it’s something to strive for, but never to ultimately reach as an average. There also is considerable room for flexibility in this movement- the exposition has lots of ritardandos and places where the tempo can be slightly slower than the opening….
I think it is misleading to go by average tempo rankings because of these many ritardandos in the first movement.
Furthermore on todays pianos, with slower action and better sound, it is worth shaving the edge off the tempo in order to produce a better sound - that might mean playing at 125-130bpm, but not 60 like these cultish freaks
Gould at times made some outlandish remarks such as, “Mozart was not a good composer”. I think that Gould, who played some works by Mozart, was deliberately seeking “attention” about such a ridiculous opinion and most likely sought to provoke those who obviously thought that Mozart was a great composer. Probably just to get a rise from those who obviously thought differently. I really cannot believe that Gould said that about Mozart. Yet, he did
express his opinion which seems absurd. Anyway, even his choice of tempos whether it was Bach, Beethoven, Mozart or Brahms, seemed to be extreme for better or for worse.
lol if you cant play it at the correct tempo AS WRITTEN- Then just say that. Beethoven has such a tight knit structure that only is understandable at the higher tempi. This was supposed to be his most revolutionary, impossible to play piece. And at the “half” tempo it becomes very tame and nothing to remark on. I will die on this hill. Music this extraordinary deserves to be played/heard correctly
I rather like the tempo that Glen Gould played. Gould certainly had technique. His recordings of Bach’s works prove it. Especially the Goldberg Variations.
Nyiregyhazi recorded the second movement of Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto no. 2 (piano solo version) at a very slow tempo. Hmm. Rachmaninoff performed it with orchestra obviously with much more movement.
All one has to do is listen to Gould's Goldbergs or Well-Tempered Klavier to see that he had the ability to play the Hammerkalvier much faster. He simply chose not to.
Which is exactly what Wim is saying.
La musique ce n’est pas une question de rapidité,il n’y a que pour les incultes que cela a de l’importance.
You can also listen to, or watch, him playing his own transcription of Ravel's La Valse.
sarcasm/ Nah! The ONLY reason not to play any piece as fast as possible is because you can't. If anyone can play it faster than you, your technique is lacking. That's all. No such thing as impossible or pointless speed - only pianists with weak technique. All the people in that list are inferior to Gieseking! /sarcasm
Wim, a suggestion: please listen to Erwin Nyiregyhazi’s recordings of the works by Liszt if you will and please tell me if you believe that he thought about the conceptualization of “whole beat” while performing the works by Liszt. This is very interesting indeed.
Is your theory applicable to any instrument in a given musical period? And for what musical era is your theory actually applicable?
While I have disagreed with the concept I have come to appreciate so much what you do. Thank you - a fun and informative video!
Very interesting video. Like always. Thank you.
A charming and rational approach to the problem. Most enjoyable.
Gould also takea a slower tempo for the Appassionata.
Interestingly, the editor of my oldest Beethoven Sonata collection, insists vehemently that he DOES NOT agree with Czerny about the 138 tempo, but that such an exaggerated tempo marking produces only a flurry of sound. As I listen to Gould's "slower" interpretation, I find I actually like it, enjoying his particular way of highlighting counterpoint with his articulate sense of dynamics.
Was für ein Schwachsinn, Gould spielte Stücke so wie sie ihm am besten gefallen haben, siehe Goldberg Variationen. Das er alles auch anders spielen könnte ist doch wohl klar.
Please analysis on goulds performance of Pathetique
Beethoven 138 seems far too fast - beyond what pianists can reasonably play. But 69 would seem far too slow!
Maybe Beethovens metronome was inaccurate?
That's why some people suggest that Beethoven was reading the metronome wrong. Instead of reading at the top, he may have been reading at the bottom. When the bottom is at 139, the top (the actual tempo) is around 100 to 110.