@@dorette-hi4j ok so who is following all of beethoven's markings in single beat? the fact that some are playable is not an argument against whole beat (it could be that beethoven's tempo is slow enough to be doubled at places), but the fact that some aren't is definitely an argument for it
If two methods had existed at the same time composers and publishers would have known this and surely clarified on their publications which method they were using. What composer or publisher ever did this? Even if a composer thought it was understood which system he always used there would be some kind of correspondence between composers and publishers or composers and others documenting this.
Regarding the footnote shown at 17:12 in the video where Jue says how to construct a string/ball pendulum if you don't have a metronome : it also mentions that to regulate the pendulum and relate it to the Maelzel metronome, you should refer to page 179 of his book (volume) "d'Harmonie". That sounds like that reference should likely say whether the complete back and forth swing of the pendulum is equal to one or two "clicks" of the metronome. I would be curious to see what that reference says. Is the referenced book/volume available anywhere ?
@@dorette-hi4j Thanks, I wasn't aware of that definition. That really seems to say it all! If the number represents the duration of "the note near which it is placed" and the number corresponds to how many ticks are heard per minute that's single beat! I dont see that there can be any doubt about it.
@@dorette-hi4j They so desperately want to believe it that they don't bother to analyze the alleged documentation of whole beat to see if that's what the source actually says. So far I haven't seen even one such source.
Jue asks you to beat subdivisions (down-up on every quarter) in order to keep time and because he needs these subdivisions to explain the eight notes later in the book (Chapitre 5). The interesting part is the explanation of the ternary structures, where he asks you to subdivide in three (so down, right, up), and specifically states to use a metronome or its equivalent because ternary is more difficult (also something everybody with a bit of teaching experience will agree with). However, the AS-method of using a metronome in ternary rythm conflicts with Jue. Jue wants you to subdivide in three, while for the double-beaters ternary beats are cut in two by the returning motion of the rod. So this can hardly be helpful for beginners, who need help to sustain the second and third subdivision.
@@dorette-hi4j My translation: 'it is mainly here that is is useful to consult the metronome or its equivalent, since this unit is very hard to sustain for its full value, because of the absence of articulations two and three'. He gives you instructions to beat in three (down, right, up) or count in three. To have the metronome beat duplets would simply make things more confusing for a beginner. Jue explicitly advises you to keep counting subdivision to extablish a strong sense of time.
For me, there’s one argument that completely undermines the whole concept of Whole Beat Theory (WBT). Consider this: In the present day, we undoubtedly use single beat, meaning the metronome marking indicates the number of metronome ticks per minute. Let’s hypothesize that there were “good old times” when the whole beat was the most widely used standard, implying that we would count twice the number of ticks per minute than what’s indicated in the metronome marking. This suggests that there must have been some kind of “transition” - a period when both methods were regularly and more or less equally used and it would not be clear if a musician who reads a score is a "single beater" or a "whole beater". Now, if there were two fundamentally different methods of using a metronome in circulation and you were a composer during that time, you would have to provide clear instructions on how to interpret your metronome marking for your new work. Otherwise, you would risk having your piece played at either double speed or half speed, which no respectable composer (except perhaps John Cage) would want. Similarly, publishers aware of the two ways of interpreting the metronome would provide clear instructions on how to use the metronome when publishing new editions of older works. They would explicitly state how the metronome should _not_ be used when playing their scores. To my knowledge, none of these instructions (which should be widespread if such a transition occurred) have been found. If these instructions are absent, then it’s absolutely impossible that such a significant shift in the interpretation of the metronome ever happened - meaning that WBT was never a thing in the first place.
In that text, Jue is only referring to the pendulum as having a binary unit formed by two oscillations, not the metronome. There are different ways to relate the pendulum to the metronome and he doesn't clarify this. He says with each hit "we will articulate a sound" until "the next strike" not a sound with each hit and each rise. Is this an indirect reference to the metronome? Also, in that footnote beginning, "In the absence of a metronome...", (again speaking of a pendulum) he says the pendulum's "first oscillation is the hit and the second is the rise". He is specifically not refering to the metronome because he then says, "See p. 179 of Vol. d'Harmonie, on the means of graduating the chronometer, and of setting it in connection with the Mæltzel metronome." This is a reference to another of his works ,L'HARMONIE APPRISE SANS MAITRE, which is mentioned on the title page of this book. This would probably be a specific correlation of the pendulum to the metronome which should clarify whether he is referring to whole beat. I was not to able find this book online. If anyone could find it this reference would probably clarify the issue.
More support for your theory, eventually the evidence should overcome those who refuse to accept that you are right but I think those who oppose your theory are really operating on the level of emotion, not reason or logic or even reading evidence to mean what it means. You have enriched my experience of the music you cover, especially Mozart who I think is generally misrepresented in the old interpretations of him. I always wondered why it was only the "slow" movements of his music that felt right to me and now I know.
@@Pablo-gl9djWell there’s 19th Century quotes as the performances were increasing in yet music academia claim that the performers were slowing down to the contrary. Medical injuries were unknown 19th century, except possibly for woodwinds in medical journals, in regards to piano players. Ergo, there’s dilemma of no proof that all fast works were played in single beat (or being humanly possible played at that speed, or mechanically possible on the instruments of the day) and slowing in speed as the Ivory Towers maintain vs the literature of the time complained of the increased in performance speed. Is there emotion involved. Absolutely, as the single beat enthusiasts maintain that every mm mark is possible, when the virtuoso of today play in between the two unless the score becomes impossible, and when the going gets tough (impossible) the tough slow down, omit notes on modern pianos which have faster actions for repeated single notes than in the 19th century. Fact vs Dogma, Reality vs Emotion. If You grew up listening to works played faster than whole beat, played in single beat (slower works) and that’s your subjective opinion, I’d support and defend your right. However since among works of Chopin which cannot be played in single beat through out the performances, and Czerny for some examples exceed the human nervous to distinguish individual notes let alone being possible, when both composers were popular, published, purchased, and played by the general public, and critics of the day made no reference to the impossibility of these works, then a dichotomy exists. One doesn’t have to enjoy that the works were played slower, any more than I enjoy H J Lim plays J S Bach’s Well Tempered Clavier too fast, or Andras Schiff cannot play a J S Bach Allemande Slow as there alternative to listen to artists who follow Historical Performance Practice. And the Whole Beat interpretation of the Metronome, would likewise is in the area of Performance Practice. To give an analogy, when the Sistine Chapel was restored to its original form with the removal of over painting centuries of soot from candle smoke, an unveiled, the general public was aghast, shocked, horrified at the work of art was “ruined”. In time the public appreciated what occurred. Not everyone, as some emotionally preferred what they ad always known and accustomed with.
@@dorette-hi4j Oh, my, heaven forbid someone having an emotional reaction to music! It's more complex than that, it's based on more than half a century of being a working, teaching musician. The speed-reading of Mozart always left me puzzled as to why Haydn said he was the finest composer he was aware of because the results sound too trivial to sustain that judgment by such an eminent musician.
@@dorette-hi4j That's a different matter, you judge the intentions of a composer based on whatever written or verbal or credibly reported information they left to indicate how fast they wanted a piece played. That's certainly related but, as with the authenticated MM's of Beethoven or on those who heard Mozart's performance of his music or, somewhat less credibly, got their idea of the tempo second hand from someone who knew the composer, or the general understanding of notation, in many cases there is more to go on than just how the music feels to the performer or hearer. Where those instructions are as plain as the metronome speeds that someone like Beethoven puts on their own music, that's as significant as any other written instruction in a score, such as the pitches and note values. That performers chose to ignore those and, when their reading of MM's were impossible, to do the work Wim Winters and his colleagues have done, is scandalous and their performances of many movements is as distorted as it would be if they changed notes and harmonies, note values and rhythms. You can develop a taste for that distortion but it's still a distortion and violation of the intentions of the composer.
@@dorette-hi4j You couldn't know their case if you think it's that limited, it is overwhelming, especially considering the impossibility of playing and singing according to the composers' written intentions at "single-beat" speeds, something which Wim Winters has proved is seldom even approached at the highest alleged intended speeds. As Winters and Sanna's performances of whole-beat readings, show, their conclusions are backed up by the music. I've never heard a more convincing transition from the third and fourth movements of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony than the one in their performance of Czerny's 4-hand transcription nor such things as the Waldstein Sonata gaining a coherent second movement. I've played through some of the Beethoven and Mozart sonatas in Beethoven's whole-beat MMs and with those given to Mozart by later musicians who knew him and I have become entirely convinced that for the works of composers during the period under discussion, they work superbly well.
This comment is not really relevant to the video, but I still want to point something out, Wim. I sincerely ask you to cover anything from the document ''Historical Tempi'', by the anonymous author Fafner. In your video about it, it seemed like you only criticized the author instead of talking about anything in the document and you didn't even reply to the author in the comments. The reality, Wim, is that it doesn't matter who put the sources in the document. A literal ape could've put them in there and it wouldn't have mattered. It's about the historical sources in the document, and if I'm gonna be honest, I think you or any whole beater can hardly defend themselves from these 80 pages of proof.
Really? I even proposed a public debate with him which he refused. What 'durations' at best (meaning where the data are relevant, in most cases it is not) is that the performing musician of the 19th c. didn't take MMs into account. That's it. And that is something that we knew already based on sources. Tempi sped up drastically, that's simply a fact, there is not even a debate possible around that topic. And so yes, many musicians - on stage, played faster (way faster sometimes) compared to the original tempi. When read in Whole Beat. I can make a zillion videos about that topic and people will immediately deviate from what I'm talking about and go to another "detail" that I "obviously" missed. The book will have a complete and extensive chapter about durations.
You seem to be specifically talking about 19th century musicians, but this isn't what the entire document is about. The document has a ton of evidence against whole beat from before the 19th century. Even for often discussed pieces like Beet's 9th.
I would like to view a video where you explain this theory but not in “conflict”. By creating a conflict you give people a choice to argument. I would love to hear an explanation from interest of history/science way. It’s so hard to show this videos to anybody because you give people that aren’t so knowledgeable in history the idea of doubt. And lots of people are not interested in conflict ether. We want to create. Love what you do.
There in fact is no apparent conflict in this - pointing to the current accepted perspective is not a conflict (some people make it to this level for whatever reason) - it is an academic approach in fact to point to a current situation or paradigm and solve the anomalies that occur because of this view. Hope this helps!
I so totally agree with you.... teachers and schools push the tempos in the name of progress when in fact they are destroying works of art, and players also do it and change works of art into sport events
This is the sort of evidence that is way more subtle in its strength than most people would realise. If everything about tempo in the 19th century were the single beat method, whether it be metronomes, pendulums, counting 1, 2, 3, etc. so that is to say every text you find is single swinging notions all the way down no matter where or what you research, terms like "binary unity" shouldn't even exist in the literature. That is 100% completely inexplicable if the double counting method had no existence whatsoever. Now, just because this establishes it exists doesn't necessarily tell you where and in what scenarios it exists, that is still up for debate. But off the back of this text alone, to say that this 2 fold counting for tempi, directly relating the up down of counting to the left right of a pendulum, doesn't exist is so cloth-eared and moronic, I don't know what you could say to those people. Like genuinely I think they're beyond convincing.
@@dorette-hi4j omg please can you stop harrassing me with your ad-hoc post-rationalised excuses, you are offending my right as a free liberal individual to be free from such disgusting behaiviour due to you being a narcissistic stalker.
@@dantrizz don’t bother when people part from a standpoint that is either below or beyond reasoning, and when they lack a standard for seriousness to really stand for their words from the hiding that anonymity provides.
I feel that those who resist wbmp the most stridently are doing it not because they have a problem with the concept intellectually, but because of some sort of perverse elitism…especially if they worked to reach a certain level and can’t accept another’s playing as valid if it does not live up to popular expectations of tempo. I also loved what you said about the metronome not being something to hate that is a taskmaster, but rather, it is a tool…thank you Wim. I look forward to the book! 🙂🙏🏼🌺⭐❤
@@dorette-hi4j thank you for your thoughts, personally, I feel that music should be played and enjoyed. It is such a special gift. And no I don’t have any facts or figures, but I do believe with all my heart that music should sort of pour out naturally….certainty there are things we have to strive for and have technique for but just as in singing, there needs to be breath. When tempos are too fast you lose all the nuance of for example dotted 1/8 1/16….it just is lost. And as far as the elitism, I feel that there are so many who criticize what Authentic Sound is saying without ever acknowledging the wonderful music that they play…seriously excellent musicians, and I feel that they encourage lesser musicians such as myself to be unburdened by thought of how fast they can play, and just making music. Finally, I once read in an old singing book that we need more amateur singers…I believe we need more amateur pianists as well. Gone are the days when everyone had a piano, the arts can only flourish with a strong audience and a strong audience is definitely built on amateur enthusiasts. Let’s build rather than tear down.
8:23 "They’re trying. And they’re pushing students, and they go for it, go for it, go for it. It’s *so 19th century* by the way: more, more, more" Wim Winters debunks himself.
gewoon een tijdje spelen in whole beat en dan kan je niet meer terug. De muziek niet "uitproberen" om "de waarheid" te vinden, maar op voorhand je vizier in te stellen en dan een tijdje gewoon te spelen. De muziek komt dan vanzelf!
love how the introductions get more and more impassioned. I have to say that I am a convert to wbmp
Thanks for the feedback - after +1000 videos still searching for "my" voice :-)
Yes, tempting isn't it? Everything suddenly becomes so much easier to play!
@@rogerg4916 easier, humanly possible, whichever you prefer...
@@dorette-hi4j ok so who is following all of beethoven's markings in single beat? the fact that some are playable is not an argument against whole beat (it could be that beethoven's tempo is slow enough to be doubled at places), but the fact that some aren't is definitely an argument for it
If two methods had existed at the same time composers and publishers would have known this and surely clarified on their publications which method they were using. What composer or publisher ever did this? Even if a composer thought it was understood which system he always used there would be some kind of correspondence between composers and publishers or composers and others documenting this.
inhale - exhale - 2 movements - one breath - the word 'beat' is in the word 'breath'
Great insight!
Regarding the footnote shown at 17:12 in the video where Jue says how to construct a string/ball pendulum if you don't have a metronome : it also mentions that to regulate the pendulum and relate it to the Maelzel metronome, you should refer to page 179 of his book (volume) "d'Harmonie". That sounds like that reference should likely say whether the complete back and forth swing of the pendulum is equal to one or two "clicks" of the metronome. I would be curious to see what that reference says. Is the referenced book/volume available anywhere ?
See my recent comment.
@@dorette-hi4j Thanks, I wasn't aware of that definition. That really seems to say it all! If the number represents the duration of "the note near which it is placed" and the number corresponds to how many ticks are heard per minute that's single beat! I dont see that there can be any doubt about it.
@@dorette-hi4j They so desperately want to believe it that they don't bother to analyze the alleged documentation of whole beat to see if that's what the source actually says. So far I haven't seen even one such source.
Jue asks you to beat subdivisions (down-up on every quarter) in order to keep time and because he needs these subdivisions to explain the eight notes later in the book (Chapitre 5).
The interesting part is the explanation of the ternary structures, where he asks you to subdivide in three (so down, right, up), and specifically states to use a metronome or its equivalent because ternary is more difficult (also something everybody with a bit of teaching experience will agree with). However, the AS-method of using a metronome in ternary rythm conflicts with Jue. Jue wants you to subdivide in three, while for the double-beaters ternary beats are cut in two by the returning motion of the rod. So this can hardly be helpful for beginners, who need help to sustain the second and third subdivision.
@@dorette-hi4j My translation: 'it is mainly here that is is useful to consult the metronome or its equivalent, since this unit is very hard to sustain for its full value, because of the absence of articulations two and three'.
He gives you instructions to beat in three (down, right, up) or count in three. To have the metronome beat duplets would simply make things more confusing for a beginner. Jue explicitly advises you to keep counting subdivision to extablish a strong sense of time.
For me, there’s one argument that completely undermines the whole concept of Whole Beat Theory (WBT). Consider this:
In the present day, we undoubtedly use single beat, meaning the metronome marking indicates the number of metronome ticks per minute. Let’s hypothesize that there were “good old times” when the whole beat was the most widely used standard, implying that we would count twice the number of ticks per minute than what’s indicated in the metronome marking. This suggests that there must have been some kind of “transition” - a period when both methods were regularly and more or less equally used and it would not be clear if a musician who reads a score is a "single beater" or a "whole beater".
Now, if there were two fundamentally different methods of using a metronome in circulation and you were a composer during that time, you would have to provide clear instructions on how to interpret your metronome marking for your new work. Otherwise, you would risk having your piece played at either double speed or half speed, which no respectable composer (except perhaps John Cage) would want. Similarly, publishers aware of the two ways of interpreting the metronome would provide clear instructions on how to use the metronome when publishing new editions of older works. They would explicitly state how the metronome should _not_ be used when playing their scores.
To my knowledge, none of these instructions (which should be widespread if such a transition occurred) have been found. If these instructions are absent, then it’s absolutely impossible that such a significant shift in the interpretation of the metronome ever happened - meaning that WBT was never a thing in the first place.
In that text, Jue is only referring to the pendulum as having a binary unit formed by two oscillations, not the metronome. There are different ways to relate the pendulum to the metronome and he doesn't clarify this. He says with each hit "we will articulate a sound" until "the next strike" not a sound with each hit and each rise. Is this an indirect reference to the metronome?
Also, in that footnote beginning, "In the absence of a metronome...", (again speaking of a pendulum) he says the pendulum's "first oscillation is the hit and the second is the rise". He is specifically not refering to the metronome because he then says,
"See p. 179 of Vol. d'Harmonie, on the means of graduating the chronometer, and of setting it in connection with the Mæltzel metronome."
This is a reference to another of his works ,L'HARMONIE APPRISE SANS MAITRE, which is mentioned on the title page of this book. This would probably be a specific correlation of the pendulum to the metronome which should clarify whether he is referring to whole beat.
I was not to able find this book online. If anyone could find it this reference would probably clarify the issue.
A very interesting source indeed, probably one of the clearest there is from the 19th century.
More support for your theory, eventually the evidence should overcome those who refuse to accept that you are right but I think those who oppose your theory are really operating on the level of emotion, not reason or logic or even reading evidence to mean what it means. You have enriched my experience of the music you cover, especially Mozart who I think is generally misrepresented in the old interpretations of him. I always wondered why it was only the "slow" movements of his music that felt right to me and now I know.
@@Pablo-gl9djWell there’s 19th Century quotes as the performances were increasing in yet music academia claim that the performers were slowing down to the contrary. Medical injuries were unknown 19th century, except possibly for woodwinds in medical journals, in regards to piano players.
Ergo, there’s dilemma of no proof that all fast works were played in single beat (or being humanly possible played at that speed, or mechanically possible on the instruments of the day) and slowing in speed as the Ivory Towers maintain vs the literature of the time complained of the increased in performance speed. Is there emotion involved. Absolutely, as the single beat enthusiasts maintain that every mm mark is possible, when the virtuoso of today play in between the two unless the score becomes impossible, and when the going gets tough (impossible) the tough slow down, omit notes on modern pianos which have faster actions for repeated single notes than in the 19th century. Fact vs Dogma, Reality vs Emotion.
If You grew up listening to works played faster than whole beat, played in single beat (slower works) and that’s your subjective opinion, I’d support and defend your right. However since among works of Chopin which cannot be played in single beat through out the performances, and Czerny for some examples exceed the human nervous to distinguish individual notes let alone being possible, when both composers were popular, published, purchased, and played by the general public, and critics of the day made no reference to the impossibility of these works, then a dichotomy exists.
One doesn’t have to enjoy that the works were played slower, any more than I enjoy H J Lim plays J S Bach’s Well Tempered Clavier too fast, or Andras Schiff cannot play a J S Bach Allemande Slow as there alternative to listen to artists who follow Historical Performance Practice.
And the Whole Beat interpretation of the Metronome, would likewise is in the area of Performance Practice.
To give an analogy, when the Sistine Chapel was restored to its original form with the removal of over painting centuries of soot from candle smoke, an unveiled, the general public was aghast, shocked, horrified at the work of art was “ruined”. In time the public appreciated what occurred. Not everyone, as some emotionally preferred what they ad always known and accustomed with.
@@dorette-hi4j Oh, my, heaven forbid someone having an emotional reaction to music! It's more complex than that, it's based on more than half a century of being a working, teaching musician. The speed-reading of Mozart always left me puzzled as to why Haydn said he was the finest composer he was aware of because the results sound too trivial to sustain that judgment by such an eminent musician.
@@dorette-hi4j How are you supposed to judge music on some basis other than how it sounds? Do you even listen to yourself?
@@dorette-hi4j That's a different matter, you judge the intentions of a composer based on whatever written or verbal or credibly reported information they left to indicate how fast they wanted a piece played. That's certainly related but, as with the authenticated MM's of Beethoven or on those who heard Mozart's performance of his music or, somewhat less credibly, got their idea of the tempo second hand from someone who knew the composer, or the general understanding of notation, in many cases there is more to go on than just how the music feels to the performer or hearer. Where those instructions are as plain as the metronome speeds that someone like Beethoven puts on their own music, that's as significant as any other written instruction in a score, such as the pitches and note values. That performers chose to ignore those and, when their reading of MM's were impossible, to do the work Wim Winters and his colleagues have done, is scandalous and their performances of many movements is as distorted as it would be if they changed notes and harmonies, note values and rhythms. You can develop a taste for that distortion but it's still a distortion and violation of the intentions of the composer.
@@dorette-hi4j You couldn't know their case if you think it's that limited, it is overwhelming, especially considering the impossibility of playing and singing according to the composers' written intentions at "single-beat" speeds, something which Wim Winters has proved is seldom even approached at the highest alleged intended speeds. As Winters and Sanna's performances of whole-beat readings, show, their conclusions are backed up by the music. I've never heard a more convincing transition from the third and fourth movements of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony than the one in their performance of Czerny's 4-hand transcription nor such things as the Waldstein Sonata gaining a coherent second movement. I've played through some of the Beethoven and Mozart sonatas in Beethoven's whole-beat MMs and with those given to Mozart by later musicians who knew him and I have become entirely convinced that for the works of composers during the period under discussion, they work superbly well.
This comment is not really relevant to the video, but I still want to point something out, Wim. I sincerely ask you to cover anything from the document ''Historical Tempi'', by the anonymous author Fafner. In your video about it, it seemed like you only criticized the author instead of talking about anything in the document and you didn't even reply to the author in the comments. The reality, Wim, is that it doesn't matter who put the sources in the document. A literal ape could've put them in there and it wouldn't have mattered. It's about the historical sources in the document, and if I'm gonna be honest, I think you or any whole beater can hardly defend themselves from these 80 pages of proof.
Really? I even proposed a public debate with him which he refused. What 'durations' at best (meaning where the data are relevant, in most cases it is not) is that the performing musician of the 19th c. didn't take MMs into account. That's it. And that is something that we knew already based on sources. Tempi sped up drastically, that's simply a fact, there is not even a debate possible around that topic. And so yes, many musicians - on stage, played faster (way faster sometimes) compared to the original tempi. When read in Whole Beat. I can make a zillion videos about that topic and people will immediately deviate from what I'm talking about and go to another "detail" that I "obviously" missed. The book will have a complete and extensive chapter about durations.
You seem to be specifically talking about 19th century musicians, but this isn't what the entire document is about. The document has a ton of evidence against whole beat from before the 19th century. Even for often discussed pieces like Beet's 9th.
Also, how can 20th century composers be whole beat if that's when our modern playing speed developed?
I would like to view a video where you explain this theory but not in “conflict”. By creating a conflict you give people a choice to argument.
I would love to hear an explanation from interest of history/science way.
It’s so hard to show this videos to anybody because you give people that aren’t so knowledgeable in history the idea of doubt.
And lots of people are not interested in conflict ether. We want to create.
Love what you do.
There in fact is no apparent conflict in this - pointing to the current accepted perspective is not a conflict (some people make it to this level for whatever reason) - it is an academic approach in fact to point to a current situation or paradigm and solve the anomalies that occur because of this view. Hope this helps!
I so totally agree with you.... teachers and schools push the tempos in the name of progress when in fact they are destroying works of art, and players also do it and change works of art into sport events
This is the sort of evidence that is way more subtle in its strength than most people would realise.
If everything about tempo in the 19th century were the single beat method, whether it be metronomes, pendulums, counting 1, 2, 3, etc. so that is to say every text you find is single swinging notions all the way down no matter where or what you research, terms like "binary unity" shouldn't even exist in the literature. That is 100% completely inexplicable if the double counting method had no existence whatsoever.
Now, just because this establishes it exists doesn't necessarily tell you where and in what scenarios it exists, that is still up for debate. But off the back of this text alone, to say that this 2 fold counting for tempi, directly relating the up down of counting to the left right of a pendulum, doesn't exist is so cloth-eared and moronic, I don't know what you could say to those people.
Like genuinely I think they're beyond convincing.
@@dorette-hi4j omg please can you stop harrassing me with your ad-hoc post-rationalised excuses, you are offending my right as a free liberal individual to be free from such disgusting behaiviour due to you being a narcissistic stalker.
@@dantrizzin other words, you are not really interested in the truth!
@@dorette-hi4jwow!!! i ACTUALLY cant believe you could reply with such an unhinged and offensive comment.
For shame
@@dantrizz don’t bother when people part from a standpoint that is either below or beyond reasoning, and when they lack a standard for seriousness to really stand for their words from the hiding that anonymity provides.
Excellent source indeed. Very clear. Thank you,
Great video you explained this source very well!
hey aus
Definitely clear!
I feel that those who resist wbmp the most stridently are doing it not because they have a problem with the concept intellectually, but because of some sort of perverse elitism…especially if they worked to reach a certain level and can’t accept another’s playing as valid if it does not live up to popular expectations of tempo. I also loved what you said about the metronome not being something to hate that is a taskmaster, but rather, it is a tool…thank you Wim. I look forward to the book!
🙂🙏🏼🌺⭐❤
@@dorette-hi4j thank you for your thoughts, personally, I feel that music should be played and enjoyed. It is such a special gift. And no I don’t have any facts or figures, but I do believe with all my heart that music should sort of pour out naturally….certainty there are things we have to strive for and have technique for but just as in singing, there needs to be breath. When tempos are too fast you lose all the nuance of for example dotted 1/8 1/16….it just is lost. And as far as the elitism, I feel that there are so many who criticize what Authentic Sound is saying without ever acknowledging the wonderful music that they play…seriously excellent musicians, and I feel that they encourage lesser musicians such as myself to be unburdened by thought of how fast they can play, and just making music. Finally, I once read in an old singing book that we need more amateur singers…I believe we need more amateur pianists as well. Gone are the days when everyone had a piano, the arts can only flourish with a strong audience and a strong audience is definitely built on amateur enthusiasts. Let’s build rather than tear down.
8:23 "They’re trying. And they’re pushing students, and they go for it, go for it, go for it. It’s *so 19th century* by the way: more, more, more"
Wim Winters debunks himself.
How?
Great video. Viewing a pendulum oscillating at each extreme will quickly hypnotise! Better to look to one side of the pendulum.
Wim, de muziek van Heller die etudes, hoe moeten zijn metronoom getallen gelezen worden. Ik vind het een grensgeval.
gewoon een tijdje spelen in whole beat en dan kan je niet meer terug. De muziek niet "uitproberen" om "de waarheid" te vinden, maar op voorhand je vizier in te stellen en dan een tijdje gewoon te spelen. De muziek komt dan vanzelf!
“Of time of the movement” was that the Dutch participating a little bit?
it participates more than you would think... !
Great work
Nice!