Did Chopin Really Play THAT Fast?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лип 2024
- Today we see the music of Chopin as a technical pinnacle of piano playing, with tempo indications that in many cases are even in our post-Rachmaninov era still out of reach for even the most accomplished virtuosos. But how did contemporaries describe Chopin’s playing? Did they also emphasize the technical skills of Chopin in the way we do today? Let’s have a look at one of the most illustrious descriptions of all, that of Carl Mikuli, and see what we can learn.
--
🙋If you want to support what we do: ▶ / authenticsound
--
💿 NEWPachelbel's Hexachordum Apollinis (Vinyl, CD, Flac) here: bit.ly/Pachelbel_Hexachordum
--
📩One weekly mail in your mailbox? 👉bit.ly/as-mailinglist
--
👩🎓 Check out my course on Keyboard Technique: 👉bit.ly/Keyb-Tech
--
📱 Website: ▶www.authenticsound.org
Dear Mr. Winter, my father played the 'revolutionary' slightly slower tan Pollini, a more detached sound. He played Chopin as his mother, my grand-mother, who studied with Thibaut. He, himself, had as teacher a disciple of Isaac Albeniz (who's name I don't recall now). He always said that every note had to be heard, even if you played fast. He was very aware of the use of the pedals; which he said was the most important and difficult issue in playing romantic authors.
Richter played the chopin etude at that tempo roughly, and I'm sure that most concert pianists can do it as well, maybe not as musically. The piano nowadays is much more sensitive to touch and has more variety of sound so most professional pianists choose to play at slower tempos in order to effectively play certain pieces. Chopin and Liszt could certainly play their own compositions I'm sure, at fast tempos; they were very smart people.
No he doesn't. He starts fast, but slows down to half 66
Also do you really think Liszt was able to play the original version of his Paganini etude no. 4? It's literally humanly impossible.
I think the key observation by Mikuli is "The tones melted one into the other with the liquid effect of beautiful song." I think special care must be made when playing at the slower "binary unity" tempos indicated by Chopin so that the "liquid effect" is achieved. When played at "modern tempos" all the notes automatically run into each. Perhaps above all, I love the lyrical connections from one note to the next in the extraordinarily creative compositions of Chopin.
As one comment mentioned Richter played it at Chopin’s tempo. Listen to recordings by Chopin’s students (and students of students). They are all at “warp speed” tempos. This half time hypothesis does not make sense. Why would ALL of Chopin’s students be playing his tempos twice as fast as intended.
Bravo Wim! I completely agree, and the way I come to this agreement is to think of what my piano teacher always told me, "Listen to what you are playing and make sure it is always musical." For me, too fast a tempo renders this piece something trite. Your tempo allows for a much more musical interpretation. As you know, playing 16th note passages clearly make them appear to be played faster than they actually are.
I believe, that faster, modern, upbeat music, has had a dramatic effect on musical tempo; rhythm.
Great stuff. I am a Jazz pianist with a theory/comp degree. I play classical music at home, rarely perform any. The tempos have always seemed insane to me. I've always doubted that Beethoven and others had the time to practice such fast tempos.
If he writes fast it means he played it fast.
8:26 Me taking notes in Math class be like...
Following my almost 50 years of research into Chopin's compositions, autograph mss, original editions, drafts, annotated scores, etc., I am not aware of many metronome markings applied to his Grandes Etudes written in Chopin's hand.
that...is pretty obvious, no need to research 50 years
great!
I'd like to believe the the sped up version was what Chopin intended, the slower version doesn't capture the anguish one feels when their country is being invaded. Sounds like dumb reasoning but still this is what I'd LIKE to believe xD
@Sashh I agree
another example I can’t imagine playing in half tempo
m.ua-cam.com/video/U4XgnQ_sjSo/v-deo.html
op.28 no.16 prélude, presto con fuoco on an 1848 Pleyel. I think it speaks for itself. It’s entirely possible in this tempo, on a period instrument, and this piece requires this tempo imo.
This channel is fantastic!! I have a similar one and you are so inspiring to me! I totally agree with your words about the tempo written by Chopin!
Awesome! Thank you!
I am interested in your keyboard course, will check it out soon!
Your work in the area of tempo research is so important. When I am able I plan to increase my patronage. Love you and your work!
The sped up version doesn't sound impossible to me. Ever heard of Shawn Lane? Maybe Chopin was the Shawn Lane of his day on piano.
Take your metronome and be surprised. And no Chopin was by far not the greatest "virtuoso" of his time, best player perhaps yes
@@AuthenticSound I'm not saying I could play it. I don't play piano. I play guitar. I understand music quite well but I don't physically have the long fingers you really need to excel at piano. I don't know enough about the tempo debates to say one way or another. I made a statement that the version you played that was sped up 25% seems achievable to me IF you had the huge hands of a Rachmaninoff or Horowitz or all these piano greats. My fingers wouldn't cut it. I'm sure people listening to Shawn Lane would have said no way someone can play that fast and stay melodic. Well, go have a listen. thx!
I respect your thoughts, but ask yourself why stick to assuming something you actually can't try for yourself? The world today is biased towards technique and with it many music lovers without knowing. Travel back to horse driven times!
@@AuthenticSound Well, I think my previous comments were pretty clear so I don't have anything to add. I did NOT SAY that Chopin DID PLAY at those speeds. I said I do not think it is IMPOSSIBLE to play at the speed you demonstrated in your 25% faster clip. But perhaps the complexity of some pieces would preclude a speed like that. I have no real clue if Chopin played these things at his metronome indications or not. thank ya for the vid!!!
While the sped up version might not sound "impossible" by today's warp speed gibberish standards, it does sound like, shit. Chopin would never comprise his art for speed.
Thanks for sharing 😘
Thanks for posting.
I'd like to hear your response to Ervin Nyiregyhazy playing Chopin. Sometimes he'd rip through an Etude, yet other times he had a glacial approach to tempi and, as always, accompanied by explosive dynamics and gossamer lightness.
Chopin etudes- in DB= "Harp", in SB="Dueling Banjos", in DB= "the Ocean" in SB= "the Raging Tsunami"
Love how you have a Schirmer edition of the etudes. That’s what I use and some people don’t like it
On every historical edition there is something to remark on. Mikuli has made an edition that was to him truthful to Chopin. But it is no urtext, and even there, every edition -also an urtext- must compromise. The end result must be a ... score
Why don't people like the Schirmer edition?
I JUST DONT KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE ANYMORE.
TY I GUESS
Me neither :))
It's not a matter of believe, but of facts... start here: ua-cam.com/video/2yd7LWi4wus/v-deo.html
Haha, I know how you feel, when I first watched the tempo research stuff, I was like Oh Man, that makes sense. It really turned my musical world upside down for awhile, but now it is settling back to normal.
Im just getting back to piano and music study, I have a long way ahead. So im not really sure about how should I focus on study, concretly on the tempo. I started a few weks ago reading the fantasie impromptu.
It is a quite fast piece but it still aviable to anyone who spend a couple of hours per day, as any piano piece. Or, at least, I thought so, until I discovered your channel.
It is very hard to think no one realized of so many contradictions in tempo indications before (or I just dont know about them, tell me if im wrong pls I would like to learn about this as much as is it possible).
Of course, we can't fight those *facts* . but im still confused.
(I struggle with my tiny english vocabulary ererytime I try to express something, so I aplogize if I spoke a little weird)
Ty for your time
Haha I know right
Hi Wims! Thank you so much for your valuable insight! Indeed something to consider, and your arguments make complete sense. However, I can't help but wonder, whether the composers you mention chose these metronome markings with market target in mind. As we know, composers made a living by selling music to amateur musicians, and i can't help but wonder whether these metronomic references were aimed at them and not to the virtuoso pianists, that were then the exception rather than the rule. To me this 'half tempo' idea seems a bit on the slow side, whereas indeed the literal reading (by todays understanding) does sound extreme, even if it were possible. But nevertheless it does take a big load off. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Nicolas!
Thank you for sharing your question Nicolas! In general, and certainly also for Chopin, the MM's are accurate tempo indications, as far as I know there is no documented evidence of such marketed MM's. Though many pianists today will find these etudes at whole/double beat still very challenging, it is true that we do incorporate a 150 years of extra pianistic development in these when reflecting on the difficulties.
6:52 You know - i actually LOVE this "digitally increased" speed - that is for me, personally, EXACTLY the right speed to play this at (I cannot play it myself at that speed ... just to say). Any performance I heard so far always left me unsatisfied because the melody in the right hand does not really hold together, does not really express vivid energy which seems for me to be so much in this piece - so for me it always has been: this must be played faster than what they do.
So even if you intended the opposite - thank you for showing me the right speed. Exactly as Chopin said - 25% faster than what Pollini does. It gets a lightness and airiness and at the same time a energic thrust in the right hand which you can simply not do at lower speeds. The left hand must be very very light and airy but the right hand with sudden and energic thrust.
And THAT's for me liveliness and what Chopin would have wanted.
Certainly it was easier to do on pianos of Chopin's time compared to the extremely heavy action of a modern Steinway.
So no contradiction there for me.
so basically you like something that humanly is impossible? On its own there is nothing wrong with that in a digital age, only thing is we should remember it is light years from what Chopin possibly (literally) had in mind.
I feel like someone who would try to play it at that tempo would either crash and burn horribly halfway through and miss notes everywhere and/or lose all articulation in the left hand. The sped-up recording did add more flame and aggressiveness to the piece, I agree with that.
Chopin was a demi- god. After 170 years still no one can get even close to him as a composer. Why is it impossible that he was superhuman in playing, too?
Just because some people think we know everything better, because we’re so advanced now? That’s just what modern, arrogant people like to think.
@@AuthenticSound may be humanly impossible for you.
but that's because you have down syndrome
It's perfectly possible for pianists
if you keep saying it's impossible, check out Alexei sultanov's performance. It's far beyond 160.
I can confidently say that It's possible for every pianist.
It's not that hard you deformed child.
I see how this makes sense. However what about the numerous pianists of the 20th century who carried a pedagogical lineage dating back to the pianists of Chopin's and Beethoven's time? Such as Arthur Rubinstein, who studied with a pupil of Czerny's. Rubinstein played at our "modern" tempi and not with the "double beat" tempi you describe. Surely Rubinstein would have inherited the double beat method of counting tempi??
Let's not forget all those Liszt and Clara Schumann pupils who recorded.
First of all, I have huge admiration towards your work. This is a very interesting theory, I only heard about it a few days ago and lots of it makes sense for me. One thing that appeals to me most, is that Liszt was allegedly able to sight read Chopin's etudes at required tempo, which is really hard to believe when you think about the single beat tempo. I have a question though. On recordings by Alfred Cortot, we can hear he plays the "mainstream" tempo. He was taught by the last Chopin's student. So, by a guy who certanily heard himself at what tempo Chopin played, or required his students to play. We should therefore assume Cortot was aware of Chopin's tempo. What do you think about this?
These videos are really interesting. Can you make one about Franz Liszt's commentary on Chopin's playing? At the end of chapter 3 of Liszt's book 'Life of Chopin,' he seems to contradict Mikuli about absolute tempo when speaking of Chopin's use of rubato.
this is such a reach... referring to these quotes about chopin’s musicianship (not his speed) are not only irrelevant, but cherry picked. EVEN IF chopin himself couldn’t play his etudes at the speed played today, he certainly didn’t see a virtuosic interpretation as problematic; in fact, he is known to have been jealous of Liszt’s virtuoso ability to play his etudes. I have personally studied and performed several of Chopin’s etudes, and a slow tempo does not make much sense musically or technically. The etudes are designed to build finger dexterity, reach, and quickness on the keys. To play them at such a slow tempo, like you, actually LIMITS technical advancement, and quite frankly, the pieces become a lifeless and unengaging performance of what should otherwise be an expression of feverish emotion. So I am ultimately confused as to what your purpose is, and why you seem to have a problem with a lively tempo. In order to reach the highest level of virtuosity, we, as pianists, must challenge ourselves with increasingly demanding studies. Chopin’s etudes played at a quick tempo expands technique and requires lots of practice, while playing them slowly is entirely defeats the purpose of the etudes. I notice you play the etudes with music as opposed to memorizing them- are you opposed to committing the time to practice the etudes to performance level? I can’t help but wonder if this is an elaborate excuse to get out of playing virtuosically. I would be very interested to see you perform an etude at typical performance tempo versus the tempo you describe in this video, then compare your own playing quickly and slowly side by side.
I agree with the fact that etudes should be challenging one's technique, which doesn't happen at this tempo in this modern time. However, the world record of the marathon around 1900 was almost 1 hour slower than the current world record, and it wouldn't be sensible to say that humans developed on most physical capabilities, except piano technique, which would have devolved if what you say is true. As for the sheet music, some small unfamous pianist by the name of Sviatoslav Richter (please note my sarcasm) used to play with sheet music, there are many performances of him doing so on UA-cam and in his documentary he said that he stays closer to the composer that way. So using sheet music while performing is not something to criticise a musician on.
Kevin Hooijschuur I can’t agree with such analogy, because sports records have more to do with physical fitness greatly affected by modern chemistry and medicine.
Chopin tempo markings seem a bit unrealistic to me to say the least, that’s true.
But I also don’t like the idea that pianists at that time were like cave men incapable of doing anything technically demanding. There are no recording from Chopin era. But for example you can find some Scriabin performances, and they are pretty damn impressive as for me. I can’t say that they are super-fast, but technically they are good and musically they are almost better than any modern interpretations because how lively they sound.
@@thingiezz 100% agree.Excellent.
@Hannah H I agree what’s his whole thing with only caring about tempo. I’ve never once seen him play anything quickly I think it’s because he can’t.
@@midnightmusic1087 watch him play Bach's invention #1. He plays it extremely fast.
Yo siempre he tenido la corazonada que la musica de Chopin debe tocarse más lento
Gracias por tu canal y hacernos re pensar a los pianistas nuestras interpretaciones.
Exactly right! Totally agree. Chopin and his contemporaries had idea of speed based on completely different set of parameters. They lived in a world where fast was a horse not an airplane. They did not emphasize pulverizing the piano in a competition trying to outdo others. They focused on MUSIC. That's what's missing these days. For example in countries like China they don't even care about feeling in your playing. They only pay attention to how fast you play. If you play slowly they automatically assume you are either a beginner or no good. The example of the Revolutionary Etude at the end of this video is the right speed. It-s supposed to "sound" quick by the virtue of the music...not by the virtue of the actual speed. When played too fast you can't even hear the harmony or the melody as it all begins to blend into a caucaphonic noise. Once you do this, you are no longer playing music. You are playing dead sound. If people can't be moved by the music, the "music" becomes just sound. And sound is no longer Art.
Very interesting subject.
No way Chopin played faster than Liszt
@Cptn
Different men, different music.
Wow this was a great video
Thank you
You haven’t mentioned the faster action of earlier pianos, how does it add to the discussion?
A faster action does not necessitate faster playing, it's the other way around; the faster playing necessitates a faster action.
It was a complete coincidence you see, the piano of the time had a shallower key depth than our modern Steinway, and so the keys surfaced quickly, however without the double action of the modern steinway, a key would need to rise up fully before being struck again to produce sound. So even though the pianos had faster "single escape" than the modern piano if it didn't have double escape, it would still be impossible to play the repeated notes in ex. the valse brillante at the tempo readings of today.
Precisely, Franz Liszt worked a lot with Erard to create the double escape mechanism because older pianos couldn't be played as fast as Liszt could (and wanted to).
Emmanuel Florac, that is very interesting! But as far as I know, the piano of Chopins time did have a much lighter action than the grands for example pollini played on, so it seems very realistic to me that Chopin would have been able to realize these tempi.
My second thought is, that composers like Mozart and Beethoven really did play with breakneck speeds when for example playing cadenzas, or other occasions of technical show-off. It was probably not very tasteful to give a nonstop display of technical brilliance, but especially Mozart was a showman who would have played as fast as he wished and his instrument allowed for.
On a side note, the left hand Tremolo after the first run in 10/12 is clearly meant as one, but doesn’t work at a slow tempo
What I want to say is: there IS evidence of people playing very, very fast on a keyboard: why would the composer considered to be the most accomplished pianist of all time give the tempo marking „allegro con fuoco“, if it ended up sounding more inflected and March-like?
Didn’t chopin not have the repetition mechanism on his practice piano though?
Played on a Pleyel. Very different action and feel as I understand it. Much lighter, keys closer, less travel. Certainly these would affect velocity.
Wanting to play the 'right' tempo has always hindered me from making beautiful music, and in a way still does. Since I'm not a musician with a master's degree, I always envied those that did have the technical ability to play fast. This video explains a lot! I would definitely be able to play the Revolutionary etude at this tempo; I might even try later today. ;)
However, now that I'm investigating improvisation and wondering why classical musicians don't improvise anymore, things have changed even more. It's extremely hard to improvise beautiful music at tempi that are too high, yet back in the day, many musicians did improvise, not only the technically very gifted ones like Liszt, Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart. Now how would that have been possible...
On the opposite side, in Chopin's etude Op. 10 No. 6, most modern performances are SLOWER than intended. In the original edition, the tempo was "Dotted quarter = 69", surpassing even the thirds etude in difficulty! Am I reading the metronomic indications correctly, hope so.
Indeed it is, but there are some recordings closer to the original tempo, for example here open.spotify.com/track/6ixvPoBvef67V2yK3QVWgW?si=MKz3kEGcQgqb5HUpRcVqjQ (Amir Katz), Perrahia also plays it at around 55.
Katz seems to be playing them all in Chopin tempos, haven't checked all, but he doesn't play slow ones painfully slow at least.
serwer1374796.home.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/etudes_commentaries.pdf - here you can read some notes about tempos/performance. (chopin-nationaledition.com/)
Subscribed!
Take in account that Chopin his hands must have had a special flexible structure. He often wrote accords with five notes which are not easy (or impossible) to play if you have not this kind of hands (e.g. prelude 28 no 7, bar 12). If you have then a composition with fast tempo, many pianists will play the accord with a note less.
Pianos of that time was much easier to play. Incredibly light touch and much narrower keys would make it much possible to play at that speed.
That is only said by people who never played those pianos. Pianists would be crying when first touch a Vienese or Pleyel. If only to discover their 'repeated notes' wouldn't work any longer. Fastest recordings btw today are made on a Steinway.
Well that was Revolutionary indeed!
I think you are quite correct.
I think we must also take into consideration the pianos that were built during his time. The actions were much lighter, keys were smaller and shallower which obviously will allow players who were very skilled at that time to play faster with much more ease and less fatigue too. Compared to modern day concert grand pianos where the actions are still if not more responsive than an 1830's playel for example, also have much heavier touch, bigger key diameters which drop lower into the keyboard when pressed. The instrument itself should always be put into consideration during these theories, because they will always show the capabilities and limitations of the composer or performer.
Actually the contrary is true, the Steinways are the real speed monster. imagine having no aftertouch... ua-cam.com/video/SH_n-fOcw2Y/v-deo.html
@ Great Falafel you are absolutely right, these period instruments like the Pleyel are much lighter to the touch and can be played much quicker, and with ease! I think only quick repetitions are more problematic on them compared to contemporary pianos.
@@findelka1810 Not only can be played, but in many cases must be played if melodies are to be sustained and made to sound lyrical on a percussion instrument with quick decay. Anievas, BTW has an interesting performance where the fast notes are at close to the printed tempo but rubato stretches out the slower notes. ua-cam.com/video/pFDwbaNHhrk/v-deo.html
@RModillo yes, I completely agree! The sound of those period pianos were more like a guitar’s sound than of a current piano, thus the constant stressing of the legato playing by Chopin. The sound couldn’t be sustained for as long, so it can actually prove the necessity of faster tempi. The reviews of Chopin’s concerts often write about his playing which resembled pearls, and also the English ladies who said about his playing ‘like water’ (which annoyed him 😂 ). Great link as well, thanks!
Well, actually there are pianists who play even faster than Chopin tempo. Check Berezovky’s version of the first Etude, he is faster than 176 per beat. I think the difference between now and then stays in the over-professional attention that most “professional” musicians pay to details. Chopin himself played sometimes different than what he wrote, check Marmontel description of Chopin’s playing of the Barcarolle in a concert. You know, the way you play (including speed) depends on your mood, on your health and much more things. Chopin indicated those speed just approximately, maybe he played them slower or maybe not, I think he didn’t care that much and they are not to be intended as “this is the only one and right speed that you must follow perfectly”. Moreover, I am not convinced that the pianists work consists in recreating the “original” version of pieces; there should be complete freedom of express artistry; if you play like Pogorelich you are not committing a crime, maybe if Chopin could hear your version he would be disappointed, that’s all. More freedom and open mind!
Thank you M.wim. This make perfect sense that i dont find a reason to not consume it
Link below is to an interesting discussion with pianist Garrick Ohlsson about Chopin's relationship with the piano technology of his time and speculates about what he might think about modern pianos. Ohlsson is regarded as one of the world's leading performers of the music of Frédéric Chopin. (Starts soon after minute nine )
ua-cam.com/video/zI1XWrPNaAM/v-deo.html
I am not a musician, i dont play any instruments but my son (who is 13) plays the piano and the flute and we like listening to classical music. I must say i have always had an issue with pianists who are trying to show how good they are by playing pieces as fast as possible. Although i admit this shows incredible dexterity i always found the 'fast pieces' lacking something important. Your recording of the revolutionary etude somehow brings back that 'missing piece'. For me this is what makes this historical tempo theory more compelling. It is an argument in itself in my lay-person's eyes (or ears actually). Thank you for the videos, both me and my son find them very very interesting.
Thanks, great to read also that young people are actively involved!
A great point - for even non-musicians can discern ''show-off'' - who serve themselves and not the music.
is it possible that the Playell piano that Chopin used is easier to play fast? I have never played a Playell piano but there are many around, does someone here know? thanks
Lighter action makes it more difficult to play fast and powerful
I do not know, but I know that I can play any piece on my Viennese 1911 piano 1,25 times the speed I can play on my teacher’s contemporary concert grand. Its lighter touch actually gives me more speed and I don’t have to force anything while I struggle and have to thump on his new piano.
@@findelka1810 yeah that makes sense. less force required = more speed
Was klingt besser aus? The slower interpretation of the tempo markings usually sounds better to me because it conveys more feeling of the music and not just a flurry of notes played as quickly as possible.
Alguien me puede ilustrar en aquella epoca como eran los relojes? Se median segundos o minutos, ? En tal caso si median segundo o minutos como es posible que no se hiciera un listado con el tiempo de ejecución de las obras tocadas por Chopin o diversos musicos?
Complimenti maestro....
Thank you so much Antonia
Wim, this is a little off-topic, but I haven't seen you mention this source yet so I thought I would ask here. Another poster, pianopat, brought up Moscheles's op. 98, "Méthode des Méthodes" in the comments on your previous Chopin video. Moscheles gives what is a pretty unambiguous single-beat description of MM indications on page V [PS: Wim pointed out that the text was primarily written by Fétis, although Moscheles is credited as a co-author and reviewer for the work]. What do you think of that? Do you think this is a clear single-beat description, or do you think "minute" and "second" are "metrical time units" like Lorenz proposed in the past (I believe in the Baillot video)?
"Ces indications [the Italian tempo indications discussed immediately preceding], plus ou moins vagues, sont remplacés avec avantage par celles du MÉTRONOME, instrument dont les vibrations du balancier, plus ou moins rapides, correspondantes à la durée d'une valeur de note quelconque, prise pour unité de temps, font connaître exactement le mouvement des morceaux. Ainsi, lorsque le compositeur marque croche=60 du métronome, cela indique un mouvement où il n'y a que 60 croches dans une minute, ou une croche par seconde, c'est-à-dire le mouvement le plus lent possible; et lorsqu'il marque blanche=120, on doit exécuter deux blanches par seconde, ce qui correspond à un mouvement fort animeé."
imslp.org/wiki/M%C3%A9thode_des_m%C3%A9thodes%2C_Op.98_(Moscheles%2C_Ignaz)
English translation via Google Translate:
"These indications, more or less vague, are advantageously replaced by those of the Metronome, an instrument whose vibrations of the pendulum, more or less rapid, corresponding to the duration of any note value, taken for a unit of time, make known exactly the movement of the pieces. Thus, when the composer marks eighth-note=60 of the metronome, this indicates a movement where there are only 60 eighth notes in a minute, or an eight note per second, that is to say the slowest movement possible; and when half-note=120, one must execute two half notes per second, which corresponds to a strongly animated movement."
I wouldn't assume that Wim is ignoring Moscheles's op. 98. I would guess that he is unaware of it, since he has never mentioned it in his previous videos even though Moscheles and Czerny are his most cited sources for metronome numbers. You posted about it in the comments two videos back. Wim is probably not following the comments on that video very closely anymore, and you also posted it down well into a thread rather than as a top-level comment, so he may not even of gotten a notification. That's why I posted the quotation here. Wim is very diligent about responding to comments, and I expect he will reply here. I have previously posted comments on videos several months old and Wim has replied to me.
@pianopat: that's unfair, I've always replied to your questions.
It is written by Fétis, not by Moscheles. Moscheles provided the music in this method, against his normal practice, without MM. Fétis was a modernizer, more research needed, but he indeed might have been on the side of single beat, as Novello already was in 1820 (friend from Moscheles btw): ua-cam.com/video/HqTPWO9bh-w/v-deo.html&list=PLackZ_5a6IWU1zXuo_Qx-YrCCtaJcBiPO&index=16
@Valentin: you SHOW me it's funny :-). Easy to SAY
AuthenticSound, You're correct that Fétis was the primary author, and Moscheles probably did not directly author that section. I jumped hastily into the text and didn't examine the cover page. Thank you for pointing that out. That said, Moscheles is still listed as a co-author under F. J. Fétis on the title page. There is a separate list of composers that contributed music, where Moscheles's name is given a second time. Also, in the preface (which I'll transcribe below), Fétis describes how Moscheles reviewed his work and made corrections. It seems from the circumstances that Moscheles would have at least read the section on metronome use, and it's hard to believe that Moscheles would not have objected that the metronome usage described would yield tempos twice as fast as intended for the works of all the contributing composers. It's also hard to believe that Fétis would not have known that the usage described (interpreted single-beat) would result in doubly-fast tempos for the works of the major composers, and would not have mentioned anything about a difference between single-beat and double-beat usage here of all places.
And there are metronome marks included for at least some of the compositions in the book. I haven't looked through the whole text (trying to spare IMSLP some bandwidth), but I did look at the "Etudes de Perfectionement" and 5 of them do have MM markings, including the two by Moscheles (also Heller, Benedict and Méreaux).
French Preface:
"Après avoir terminé mon travail, j'ai desiré le soumettre à l'examen d'un grand artiste qui fut en même temps professeur expérimenté, et le nom de M. Moscheles s'est immédiatement présenté à mon esprit. L'amitié dont il m'honore me faisait espérer de lui un langage sincère sur les qualités et les défauts de mon ouvrage. Ses éloges ont surpassé mon attente: sa critique m'a éclairé sur plusieurs points, et je lui dois d'heureuses corrections. De plus il a compris la nécessité d'ajouter à ce que j'avais fait des leçons élémentaires pour les élèves commençans, et de grandes études pour ceux qui ont acquis de l'habilité. Il a bien voulu se charger de cette partie de l'ouvrage, et en a ainsi relevé la valeur.
"Ne voulant rien négliger de ce qui pouvait ajouter à l'intérêt de cette méthode, mon éditeur a acquis de quelques uns des plus célèbres pianistes de notre époque des études spécialement composées pour cet ouvrage: il suffit de citer avec Moscheles, Chopin, Mendelsohn, Thalberg, etc. pour faire comprendre quelle variété de style doit se rencontrer dans cette collection, qui complète la MÉTHODE DE MÉTHODES DE PIANO."
English (Google Translate):
"After finishing my work, I wanted to submit it to the examination of a great artist who was at the same time an experienced teacher, and the name of Mr. Moscheles immediately came to my mind. The friendship with which he honored me made me hope for him a sincere language on the qualities and defects of my work. His praise has surpassed my expectations: his criticism has enlightened me on several points, and I owe him happy corrections. Moreover he understood the need to add to what I had done elementary lessons for beginning students, and great studies for those who gained skill. He was good enough to take charge of this part of the work, and thus noted its value.
"Not wishing to neglect anything that might add to the interest of this method, my publisher has acquired from some of the most famous pianists of our time studies specially composed for this work: it is sufficient to quote with Moscheles, Chopin, Mendelsohn, Thalberg, etc. to understand what variety of style must come together in this collection, which complements the METHOD OF PIANO METHODS."
Maybe the truth is that Chopin never played it in 160, but this is how he wanted it to be played. He composed it for someone who will play it at the right tempo in the future. He composed the music in such a way that at 160, the right hand perfectly reflects the tempo of the compositions.
citation needed!
I guess the lightness of period grand piano gave the possibility for much faster tempo. Imagine Czerny played on fortepiano which has ca. 5mm key depth and roughly 30 gramm key weight....
It is still difficult to embrace the half note = 80mm means quarter = 80mm....
The Viennese piano's will not save you. The Steinway (or Erard) was developped to handle the impact
from the faster /louder playing. A Viennese would be destroyed (well... kind
of) after one etude by Pollini, action with parts of 1 mm thickness...
AuthenticSound thank you for reminding me of the characters of Wiener Mechanik. Most Professor teach the way we perceive the tempo as the fastest we personally can achieve. But your thesis is very new
Rachmaninoff is recorded playing chopin, he was born 20 years after chopin died, liszt was still around when rachmaninoff started composing. I dont think they just decided to change tempos.
I love your videos.I'm using them in my piano classes.Thanks.
Technological advances also make it easier to play fast. Newer pianos (comparing them even to 100 year old ones) are a pleasure to play, trills and stuff come out like magic. Better I guess with high quality, expensive modern grand pianos (which I hadn't the pleasure to try). Guess you took that into consideration.
BTW I experienced the same effect with better quality guitars, effects and amps, back in my heavy metal guitar player days. Technology always makes it easier and better. It's the intended effect after all.
Dankeschön Herr Winters!
Hi Wim ..just got back ...thats so interesting ..perhaps the metronome speeds were slower in Chopins time ..as a theory ??
Hi Mike! No, there were very strict at the time in their MM. It's easy to find dozens of quotes on that.
Thank you
The pianos of Chopins time had a much lighter touch and faster action. Also, the sped up version sounds quite remarkable, it conveys a level of energy you just don’t hear played very slowly..
The Viennese piano's will not save you. The Steinway (or Erard) was developped to handle the impact from the faster /louder playing. A Viennese would be destroyed (well... kind of) after one etude by Pollini, action with parts of 1 mm thickness...
I hope you’ll play the 3rd movement from Beethoven's Tempest. I cannot find someone who plays it staccato like it's written. I heard soooo many recordings and the only one that seems a little bit accurate to the partition is from Artur Schnabel in the 30’s. I know you would probably be able to perform THE most accurate version of this sonata!
It's coming
kovacevich does a bangup job on all of op31, simply terrific (his early take, from the early 1970s) --- not sure it will be satisfactory to you, but seek it out
Vou have case, Wim !
thanks!
I would love to play the revolutionary etude at blistering tempos, but my technic is not yet refined to reach God-like speeds. Even if the true bpm was indeed slow, I would still strive to go faster because that is what I feel.
There is a BBC Beethoven documentary, and Beethoven plays the 3rd movement of moonlight sonata at an insane speed for his student. I showed this clip to my piano teacher, and she said, "that poor girl will never be able to play that fast!" I suppose some people are just gods at the piano, and we mortals cannot comprehend what is possible.
And of course, speed alone isn't good, it must be coupled with a good sense of musicality!
How about the pianos played back in Chopin's time compared to the pianos today? I was taught that the older piano keys were much lighter. If that is true, then the instrument would part explain it.
No, in fact, the lighter the action, the shallower the key depth, the more difficult to play fast/loud. Someone who claims that, has probably little experience with period instruments
It's amazing that there are people who either can't or won't comprehend that your research is correct. Another wonderful video. The more i listen to Chopin, Liszt, Beethoven etc. at the authentic tempos, -- listening to them at the modern tempos doesn't sound right.
Okay, I came back after like a year. This is a fascinating question, but with due respect I still don’t see your theory proven.
m.ua-cam.com/video/U4XgnQ_sjSo/v-deo.html
op.28 no.16 prélude, presto con fuoco on an 1848 Pleyel. I think it speaks for itself. It’s entirely possible in this tempo, and this piece requires this tempo imo, the emotional side is not expressable at half tempo.
Another line of thought which contradicts these slower tempi is the direct pupils of Chopin, especially Koczalski who was a pupil of Mikuli (Mikuli himself was Chopin’s own student and ped. assistant). Koczalski was considered the most authentic Chopin player of his time and we have his recordings. That sounds a pretty authentic source to me. It's unimaginable that Chopin's teaching tradition would have changed and omitted such important information like tempi within 40-45 years and one generation from Chopin's death. Koczalski, a child prodigy studied with Mikuli from 1893-95. His execution of the études are rather fast, but they display such vivid colours in playing, 1000s of emotions and such extreme suppleness that no modern pianist can match his musicality. Technique is not in the way of expressing music at all, however fast.
m.ua-cam.com/video/elTSwjBY8nQ/v-deo.html
He has recorded all the études, all available on yt - and some of his recordings are on Chopin’s own 1847 Pleyel.
I have to add however that not all of Chopin’s pieces would I play as fast as possible, like present-day pianists. I’m entirely against playing at crazy speeds when nothing requires it. I would never compromise sound quality for speed. But it’s entirely possible Chopin did play some of his works (esp. études and some préludes, etc.) very fast. All the while his aim was always music at its highest form, not just speed for speed’s sake, that is for sure.
This makes no sense. How does this account for Chopin's compound metered works? And what about Op. 9 no. 2, where he measures the time not in full beats, but rather the eighth note pulses? You would have to argue that he went back and forth between two systems of measuring tempo.
Additionally, this theory should purport that most or all composers of this time would use this system, which would render many vocal and wind instrument pieces unplayable with their limited supply of air. There is simply no way that every, or even half of the pieces of Chopin's time should be played at 50% the tempo.
You may find answers to your first questions here : ua-cam.com/video/6EgMPh_l1BI/v-deo.html
As for the vocal and wind pieces being unplayable in whole beat, this has been debunked since a long time, there are several videos on this channel that prove the exact opposite!
I somewhat agree with your statement that Chopin plays very fast, although Chopins biographer Camille Bourniquel states that Chopin never played a piece the same way twice and played very very lightly on the keys. I’ve also heard that these tempo markings that are really high are also used as how fast you should go or can go from what I heard. So I’m assuming yes Chopin could play at these super fast speeds but never preformed it like that along with very talented people that play Chopin. Nobody or at least me would want to hear Etude op 10 no 12 at very high speed, it misses out on rubato and other thing needed to give its angry or revolutionary sense.
I'm curious about op 10 no 1
That piece becomes an extrapolation of Bach's WTC famous prelude in C major!
All of this is said under the false premise that metronome marks were to be taken strictly. There's evidence that Chopin did NOT play metronomically, for example if you read his argument with Meyerbeer (who said Chopin played a 3/4 measure in a way that made it sound like 2/4)... And you might say that even though he did rubato, his tempo was stable (see the famous Liszt analogy of the tree and leaves) I still think that this "stability" was all relative. Chopin opposed the idea of mechanical work in music, and therefore I don't believe he took metronome marks as anything else than an "ideal" (in an almost platonic sense)...
Hi Matthieu, don't know where you base that info on. ALL metronome numbers were meant to be accurate exact speed indication. Do some homework, so easy today thanks to Google Book search! Facts instead of assumptions, and you'd be fascinated soon.
AuthenticSound Eigeldinger: Chopin as seen by his pupils
Chopin may have been ambidextrous
Bravo!... Maybe I'm silly, but think that in order to still inspiring new artist generations, artists try to reinterpret music and art in general in a "modern" way. Maybe in this days, an idea of Chopin based in an unreacheable faster technique is a way to maintain interest in him like in his time, but forgetting the original tradition and accurate historical knowledge. Now I want to listen more pieces :) in the right way...
"Tempo increased digitally" - exactly how (in this case)?
sony vegas
What makes you think our technique is better than that of people 200 years ago? Not only make heavy modern keyboards fast playing much more difficult, it's not like technical ability is a genetic trait to be inherited. Everyone learning an instrument has to start at 0, which limits their technical potential to that which can be acquired in a single lifetime, not to mention biological/anatomical factors. If what you say is true, and the slow tempi you advocate do indeed represent the pinnacle of their technical ability, the musicians of 200 years ago were unable to play anything remotely fast, which is an absurd notion if you consider how much music they made. At some point they were bound to become good enough to play at higher than moderate tempo.
Furthermore, what makes you think that in a perfect pianist, technique would be the single most outstanding thing? Even today, when we have dozens of recordings from people who've achieved technical mastery of the piano, people praise them and distinguish between them for their musical abilities, not their technical abilities. Sure, technique does come up, but it's hardly ever the most prominent point of discussion. I don't see why it should have been different 200 years ago. Why would they not have considered musicality, expressivity and creativity more noteworthy than technique?
Which early keyboards did you play?
@ gilgermesch Thank you, I totally agree and was trying to elaborate on this same line of thought.
Wim, after a day of thinking and listeting to recordings like Racmaninovv´s led me to the conclusion that Chopin did actually played rubato almost all the time, as you say it was 200 years before now, maybe the listeners like the musicians was too familiar with that and feel like they were playing at the tempo markings... Let me know what you think
Rachm. = a completely different world than Chopin, be careful to draw conclusions there
I play the revolutionary at 160bpm...
Reviewing these recordings springs to mind a certain recording of Prokofiev playing his toccata.
The recording uploaded to youtube (I cannot verify is actually the composer but no other recording claims to be of his) seems also incredibly slow compared to todays recordings, and of low quality - which lead to me the question: Perhaos everyone else is playing it too fast and missing the point - is it not better to emphasize the mechanical aspect of the piece by playing at a slower more rigid pace?
Besides this specific piece to other recordings by Prokofiev (and Bartok,and Rachmaninoff, and conducters of the late 19th century) I seem to get a feeling that a lot of pieces we play nowadays in a certain way were much different at their time of conception - more naturally flowing and free to improvisation and interpretation - no need for warp speeds that I hear in most accomplished performers today.
Surprisingly, your playing of Chopin, although more slow and natural, has a rigid sense of time that I had never associated with Chopin - I understand why you play in this way based on the historical texts,but it still feels different and not always pleasing.
I will go on to ponder all of these things as you upload more 'ear-opening' recordings!
Chopin played at these speeds does seem rigid, and for a good reason, because perhaps his music was never meant to be so loose as is often heard these days! He also resembles more his predecessors that way, Beethoven, Schubert, sometimes Bach and Mozart, you really start to hear how his own original passages relate to the works of the masters he studied so diligently in his youth.
Uri Tibon Also didn’t liszt mention that people during his time were playing too fast? additional point for double beat
Just thinking aloud here... it could be possible that the speeds were getting faster in the later half of the 19th century (like Wim has said), and that musicians in those time, Brahms (1833-1897), Wagner (1813-1883), Bruckner (1824-1896), were sort of an in between the 20th century performance practice & and the previous generations, closer to our modern tempi (probably slower overall), but not warp speed, aware of the old tradition but looking forward. Since Chopin died young he was not a part of that. Can you imagine what Chopin's compostition style would have seemed like at the time, completely new, with his harmonies and figures.
Maybe, Liszt played Beethoven sonatas in his own way, that was slightly faster than Beethoven or the previous generation, but still true to the character of the music, and not in warp speed, kind of a happy medium. Keyboard technique evolved, and so did the speed. Keyboardists used to not use the thumb, just introducing that digit was a big deal at the time. Cellists used to gliss on every shift.
Certain concepts make clear sense to us now, but maybe in the context of the time those concepts did not even exist. Like Wim said, it seems like there was more of a continuity from Bach to Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, with the speeds increasing always on a slight upward curve, and then getting much faster at the 2nd half of the 19th century, especially with the advent of the concert pianist who only plays other composers works. I am sure not having to compose opens up a lot of free time to practice technique and speed. Maybe with the invention of recording, musicians being able to hear themselves changed the perception of speed, and who knows, maybe some of those recordings were sped up slightly to amaze the public with the new technology.
When Chopin says he wishes he could play his etudes like Liszt, maybe Liszt could play faster than Chopin. If etude 12. Op. 10 is 80=quarter according to Chopin, maybe Liszt could play it faster, but well below 160=quarter. I personally don’t think this etude sounds good at 160=quarter, anyway. Chopin seems to be known for his lyrical style, not so much for speed, as we know it. But in the context of the times, Chopin's speeds are fast, especially considering how new his compositional style is.The recordings we hear from the early 20th century, could reflect what came before and how their teachers played, but getting even faster, it seems like speed was in vogue, which that quote of Liszt suggests. And somewhere, somehow along the way, the older double beat/ slower tempi were forgotten.
This is just a thought experiment. But looking at the evidence I have seen so far it seems very likely, and everything seems to line up.
Uri Tibon a
Playing "fast" is an illusion. It is really just a by-product of playing accurately enabling a compression of the time interval between notes.
Your reasoning seems to be plausible, even if the "revolutionary etude" at a slow tempo sounds a bit weird to me - but that may be a matter of habit...
It is, you might want to listen to it a few times and then go back to "regular" recordings to check what your reaction is then?
The names were given by the editors. Not by Chopin himself. There might not be any revolution involved at all in this piece ...
Sure, the more so as the Polish uprising ended in a total failure. So, wouldn't have Chopin composed a kind of funeral march, instead of a "heroic" piece, if he wanted directly refer to this dramatic event?
ua-cam.com/video/1SoeLPKzeNw/v-deo.html
Isn't this pretty close to the indicated tempo?
I have tried many pieces at half the tempo as suggested and they are just not right. Has anyone considered that Chopin's metronome may not have been accurate?
it still exists. But if it were not accurate, than all metronomes of 19th century composers were inaccurate and inaccurate in the same way: metronome marks are very comparable for similar movements
@@AuthenticSound You've started me thinking.. what music did Chopin write where we have a reference? The Mazurka! The ladies would often like to dance to "some" of them where intended so if too fast, we would know! Half tempo does seem about right. However, still on the borderline of being too slow. What if he was just indicating the minimum tempo you are allowed to play this piece at for his students?
Yes he DID play that fast and effortlessly judging from credible accounts of his playing.
I think it is a good idea to tell people of this theory and try to make it a fact by giving good arguments. But I don't think that playing it fast makes it the "wrong" tempo. We will never know 100% how Chopin wants his pieces to sound. Society is changing and was changing since these pieces were composed. Music always needs to send feelings and a message to the listener. I would rather play the wrong tempo but play it the way I and my audience enjoys it, rather than playing it at half speed just to play it the way, it was supposed to be played (if the theory is true). I don't say there are no people which like to listen to the slower renditions but I think there is a reason why the biggest part of today's pianists play it "twice as fast".
Truly there are recordings which are just too fast but I myself enjoy to listen to the tempo you consider to be "too fast". Even if you got all the proven facts, it don't think it will change my and the audience's preference today.
Hi Lucas, great points! We'll never be a 100% sure, that's correct, but we do know his MM were meant as accurate speed indications, that's a fact to start from. Of course, everyone is free to do what he/she wants!
There is no need for MM markings if the audience expects the speed to be as fast as possible (AFAP). When I was in conservatory AFAP was the only speed. No one questioned AFAP. I never questioned AFAP. But AFAP has no scholarly research behind it. AFAP was assumed correct, period. Of course after a century of AFAP recordings every listener is acclimated to it and assumes it is correct. Why I love what Wim is doing is he is researching whether or not AFAP was the practice of composers from 1600-1860 or so. Yes, it is absolutely a shock to hear a famous piece played at less than AFAP...takes a lot of getting used to. Is it right? Who knows. I only know some pieces really suffer under AFAP and make much more sense when played at the double beat speed.
When did musicians change the interpretation of quarter = 60 change from 30 quarters per minute (as you suggest) to 60 as we use today, and why did they change? Among other things, I’m interested in horology. I have found that very old metronomes do not click uniformly; they sound sort of like dotted notes. The overall tempo, the average click rate over time, can very stable, but the time between alternating clicks is rarely equal. That’s why I say they sound like some dotted rhythm. Some very old pendulum clocks sound like this as well. When I started piano lessons in the 1950s, the cheap mechanical metronomes everyone used had this annoying problem as well. I hated them. Beethoven and Chopin must have been annoyed by this, it seems to me. It seems logical that they focus on every other click. Does this make sense?
I don't know when the change in interpretation happened. It may have been over a period of time, but you are right about old metronomes. I have one made as late as the 1960s and you need to incline it to get the ticks even. It just seems illogical to me that markings should be interpreted in any other way than mathematically, i.e. quarter note = 60 means one quarter note per second! But they say their is evidence otherwise. I must say I'm sceptical.
Never, it existed alongside, see our video on Reger and Straube ua-cam.com/video/yttFpr9eLUQ/v-deo.html and on Novello ua-cam.com/video/HqTPWO9bh-w/v-deo.html&list=PLackZ_5a6IWU1zXuo_Qx-YrCCtaJcBiPO&index=16
Thank you I will study.
Ok, but Many Chopin's etudes are very hard to play slow as well!! :)
Yes, it is!
But does this mean that liszt's pieces are also meant to be played way slower and are therefore much easier? And what about his nocturnes? Wouldn't they become painfully slow?
I believe since Liszt was also in the same generation of Chopin they more or less weren't very far in technique from each other.
Even when Chopin was writing down envious commentaries of Liszt, he always spoke of the grandeur and the big sound that Liszt managed to extract from the piano, opposed to Chopin's own 'weaker' technique because of his terminal physical issues.
I would also love to know Wim's views about this!
Actually you are correct, they are. Wim and I discussed this one day at a lesson. Nocturne No. 5, Op. 15 No. 2 in F-sharp major, for example is marked at 40 on the mm. Playing this at 40 is too fast! Read with eighth-notes in mind, makes sense.
The Op. 9 no. 1 in b-flat minor, for example, is given an absurd tempo of Q=116, and marked as "Larghetto". Playing this at that absurd mm marking makes this sound awful and rush; playing at double-beat and it makes perfect sense.
yes, and no, they will show much more beauty. In slow movements, the pulse might shift to a lower note value
I thought Chopin didn't wrote any tempo mark for his etudes
Do a tiny little bit of homework, and you'll see for yourself!
Have you considered that of course piano MECHANICS has changed a lot , also the piano itself , it is extremely difficult to play at very speed beacouse of the heaviness of the keyboard, so maybe they were faster back 200 years ago. An answer would be appreciated
I did, am playing now an 1820 vien pf, it does not make that big of a diff. on the contr. it is a slow action comp to the Steinw
@ Marco Perugini these period instruments are indeed much lighter to the touch and can be played much quicker, and with ease! I think only quick repetitions are more problematic on them compared to contemporary pianos. But (surprise) Chopin doesn’t use many of them, possibly because of that technical limitation of the instrument.
I don’t get why a fairly arbitrary description of his tone production and technical feats in arpeggios proves Chopin could go that fast. I also don’t see why you think the burden of proof is on those who have no reason to believe that he could. A written note that doesn’t describe his speed on the instrument doesn’t really help anyone.
The fact that Chopin stopped using metronome indication in his mature works says it all
he never stopped using his metronome, why would you even think that is true?
AuthenticSound i think it is true because it actually is. Since op. 28 to the last works he never indicated again the metronome tactus at the beginning of the piece. Two nocturnes op. 27 are the last pieces having original mm indication. Facts
It is possible to play the Etùde at 160 speed
should be, 160 is a 'slow' allegro...
Maybe the metronome never left his piano because it was the only one that said he’s was playing as fast as it’s written?
AF-FECT-TA-TION
Yes he did there is roll recordings from Chopin playing at the speed they do they do now
Roll recordings of Chopin? Are you sure they were invented in his time? Are you sure you're not thinking of Rachmaninov?
That's still a reminder of an April joke in the '90ties, there is no roll of Chopin (but you should not feel embarrassed, since it was played really great at the time!)
The one thing you have not taken into account is the piano it self Piano today are more refined and lighter to the touch due to action improvements. Pianos in the days of Bach Beethoven and Chopin had much heaver action and had a slower response. I have Tuned and played on one of Chopin`s Pianos and it was heavy
A lot of piece transcriptions are not 100% accurate - mostly due to Chopin's messy writing (lol). I do not believe Chopin was all about speed though it depends on the piece. Chopin put full emotions while telling a story through his scores and the pieces should reflect this. His technical playing is magnificent but Chopin was a humble man in public though proud when it comes to perfecting his pieces. Hence, showing off with speed I don't believe was a style of Chopin.
Sviatoslav Richter plays it nearly that fast.I search a link.
ua-cam.com/video/tzEgKB3HFjA/v-deo.html
He starts fast, but slows down to half 66
You mean this FAST? ua-cam.com/video/-_0ERSO7gZA/v-deo.html haha. Speaking of "out of reach".
Well,
the Etude Revolutionaire was certamly NOT played in this slow Tempo. Absolutlely non sense.
You were there?
interesting...such interest in "metronomes" ....lol...whatever the indications mean...today...and TO the composers....in the end...as in ALL musical performance..it depends on a performer s capacity...and then IF capable...that person.s personal view of things...what matters in the end...is NOT ''correct metronome" ...(IT "IS important ...in the sense that it gives the GENERAL indication...but the interpretation is the performers...the individual s way.." AS HERBERT VON KARAJAN explained his supreme sense of TEMPO....")
WHAT CAN BE ''Musical sounding because played slow because research say so" CAN be just as UNmusical in the same mteronome...under different performers...or INTENT to make sound musical or unmusical....EVEN HANON can be made to sound musical ....but the MOST CORRECT tempo can make rachmaninoff/s 3rd concerto sound hollow...and just tiny sounds ....
what really IS the point to all these anyway?
Chopin was the fastest - very impressive considering much of his time was taken up inventing the steam engine - he also refused to play whole notes thus getting to the end quicker.
Behind us in technical developement? That is laughable seeing as Chopin & Liszt were among the very pioneers.& masters whose techniques pushed the piano to its limit. PIanists today will still practice Czerny, & Hanon for fundamentals, play the older repertoire & gain a reputation by performing works by masters like Bach, Beethoven or Mozart. Those people didnt have TV, cellphones or docial media to distract them, so they had nothing morr important to do than to master their craft. I dont know why agility would be an issue. It is silly to say they couldnt play faster than we fo know. Yet ive heard several pieces played by the composer which are played far faster than the interpretations of today. For an example. I found a recorfing of Debussy playing his ever popilar Claire De Lune. Je plays it nothing as it is interpreted today.
that what you describe as laughable are literal the words of Rosenthal... #whyopinionsnotreallymatter