Single Beat Test (Ep. 5) Vivien Harvey Slater - Carl Czerny Opus 299
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- In this episode we compare Vivien Harvey Slater's version of Carl Czerny's Etudes opus 299 with Czerny's own Metronome Marks for this work.
Check out the entire series: bit.ly/SingleBe...
--
🙋We need YOU to continue on (full) speed! THANK YOU for even considering becoming a patreon!▶ / authenticsound
Series Disclaimer:
It is easy to say or write that historical metronome marks point to super fast, oftentimes impossible tempi. It is much hard - impossible often - to really show it. In this series we take performances of well and lesser known musicians and simply compare their tempi with the authentic, original metronome marks. Not to criticize the tempo decisions those musicians made, simply to see if those claims hold any water.
Vivien Harvey Slater (1917-2011) was besides a fantastic pianist, also a 4th generation Czerny student. She studied with Severin Eisenberger, a student of Theodor Leschetizky who was... a pupil of Czerny.
You all know my view on what these century long chains of teacher/student relation ships are worth in terms of keeping the tradition alive (if not click here: • My "Immoral Tempo Alle... ), but since the recording of Vivien Harvey Slater is keep popping up on my channel as the 'proof' Czerny's insanely fast metronome marks are very well possible in the modern Single Beat Reading, I decided to fact check and see what we can learn. As always when one dives into the details... a lot!
Start your tempo journey here: • How Fast did Beethoven...
---
📩One weekly mail in your mailbox? 👉bit.ly/as-maili...
--
📱 Website: ▶www.authenticso...
Op. 299 ACCORDING TO CARL CZERNY: 'BEGINNERS' AND 'VELOCITY' (pt. 2: Op 299 SOURCES CONSULTED; other sources to be listed separately owing to length)
Die Schule der Geläufigkeit: in 40 Uibungsstücken für das Pianoforte: 1.-4. Heft zusammen in einem Band (Wien: Diabelli, [1835]).
Three supplementary books of studies for the pianoforte. Book 1, 24 Additional exercises to his 101 elementary studies with notes by Mr. Hamilton. Op. 261. Book 2, two new exercises in the compass of two octaves. Op. 499. Book 3, 10 Additional studies to his Étude de la velocité, with notes by Mr. Hamilton. Op. 299. (London, [1838]).
Etude de la vélocité pour le piano, ou, 30 exercices calculés pour devélopper légalité des doigts: op. 299 (London: Wessel & Co., [c. 1840]).
Étude de la velocité, or 30 exercises, preceded by nine new introductory studies for the pianoforte, calculated to develope and equalize the fingers and to ensure the utmost brilliancy and rapidity of execution, composed by Charles Czerny. Tenth edition with notes by J. A. Hamilton ... Op. 299. (London: Cocks & Co, [1842?]).
Note: The added introductory studies are short, in repeated 1, 2, or 3-bar segments, each segment ‘to be played at least 6 times over without the slightest intermission.’ Hamilton prefaces each etudes with a short explanation of the main aim.
Etude, de la velocite, or 30 Exercises, preceded by nine new introductory Studies... Calculated to develope and equalize the fingers, and to ensure the utmost Brilliancy and Rapidity of Execution, 16th edition with notes by J. A. Hamilton… Op. 299. (London: Cocks & Co., [1854]).
Schule der Geläufigkeit. School of Velocity. ... Op. 299. Neue Ausgabe mit Vorübungen, Phrasierungs- und Fingersatzergänzungen von U. Seiffert. Anhang: 10 Oktaven-Etüden aus Op. 821 von C. Czerny. Edited by H. W. Nicholl. (Hannover: Steingräber, 1888).
EDITIONS IDENTIFIED BUT NOT SEEN YET
L'etude de la vélocité = Die Schule der Geläufigkeit auf dem Piano-Forte, oder, 30 Übungsstücke, um die Schnelligkeit der Finger zu entwickeln, op. 299. 1 Heft (Braunschweig: im Musikalischen Magazine von J.P. Spehr, [between 1833 and 1839?]).
Étude de la vélocité: ou 40 exercices, calculées a développer l'agilité des doigts: op. 299 (La Haye: Weygand et Beuster, [1840s]).
Great points. I know that when Musical Heritage Society asked Vivien Slater to record these works, the records were intended for students who were learning these pieces. Vivien aimed to show how to play beautifully, how to phrase, etc. If Czerny's tempo indications were used, these wouldn't be records most of us would really want to listen to. I had the privilege of studying many of these pieces with Mrs. Slater many years ago, and I do recall her encouraging me to play at tempi somewhat faster than those in the recording, but only after I could play the piece at a moderate tempo. Mrs. Slater was the kindest, most generous person one could meet. There are quite a few recordings of hers on UA-cam. Anyone interested in reading more about her Czerny recordings should visit the “Vivien Harvey Slater” website, where you can listen to more of her recordings and read her entertaining liner notes, which shed light on much of the discussion here.
sites.google.com/site/vivienharveyslater/vivien-h-slater-recordings
thank you for sharing this with us!
This is very valuable first-hand testimony, which helps us to understand Slater's recordings and her teaching practice in their relatively recent historical context.
This is one of your best videos yet! I really enjoyed hearing your evidence, and seeing the whiteboard. Doing more comparisons like this when necessary would be great!
I think this is one of the most convincing because of its simplicity and because the scope is small; it's a specific situation. It's very difficult to apply something generally across generations because of complexity.
The whole beat theory is now out there and it won´t go away.Talsma had the problem that he had to publish in an academic sphere where his findings could be easily shoot down without closer expection,furthermore there were flaws in his theory and he used polemic catchwords like "de-mechanisation of music",which invited resistance.
Now thankfully we have the internet so the information is broadly available for free,so musicians,amateurs and professionals,can test this theory in the real world on their own piano.
I think people will be amazed how useful these overlooked M.M-marks really are.
@@addictbach4509 In an ideal world yes,or if you research something nobody cares about like material science(my field),not in an emotionally charged field like tempi for well known classical pieces.
@@addictbach4509 As far as i am concerned you can play however you like.The only thing i want is that people know the correct way to read these historical MM markings.Again i don´t care how anybody plays and i never in my life critised the performance of another artist.
Do you have any reason to assert that Talsma's work was criticised without due and careful assessment of the merits of his case? Reviewing a selection of the literature, it seems to me that evidence was carefully considered.
@@lewisjones2666 Yes.My piano a metronom,a copy of Beethovensonatas and Czerny´s MM markings.After 1/2 hour of playing i realised(or was shocked) that he whole-beat theory accuratly describes reality.
@@rowanwilliams3303 I agree utterly. Seno had stated that Talsma had been shot down without close [inspection]. It seems to me that his work had already been carefully considered in the 80s and 90s.
Czerny etudes vs Chopin etudes .... A few comments:
There are a few comments /threads about whether School of Velocity is for beginners or not and I thought I would post a few thoughts for the community
Czerny etudes are not concert materials but traditional practice etudes written to isolate a particular technical difficulty. It should be learned at slow tempo and speed can be increased when the student is making progress.
The tempo is not a goal in itself but rather an indication of how fast Czerny could play it himself. The same applies to Isidor Philips or Cramers's ones. Isidor P in one his book gave clear indication about practising the exercises giving various ranges of MM markings and recommending slow practise
To that extent , any beginner ( I would rather say intermediate) could start practising School of Velocity' in order to work on various technical aspects. The fact that indicated max speed is high because Czerny was a virtuose is absolutely not a show stopper.
Chopin's etudes are a different kind of beast , as the technical aspect is not limited to didactic purposes, and is a vehicle to express a large range of emotions therefore elevating the status of practise material to concert piece of art, creating a new musical genre called 'the concert etude' . We shouldn't approach Czerny etudes as Chopin's ones because they shouldn't be practised in the same way,.Chopin's etudes must be played at speed , as there is musical goal.
The funny thing is when I hear Lang Lang stating on a youtube video that Czerny etudes are for intermediate pianists , he actually means with a a smile on his face that they are easy pieces of cake for him ;) The fact is that if you listen to his renditions of Liszt's etudes , you understand why. I am not his biggest fan , but for sure he can play fast !
To expand on another comment, In Czerny's time, things were changing rapidly in the piano realm. The pianos did not have, what we take for granted today, the double-escapement until after 1822, and that was only found in Sebastien Erard's pianos initially since that's who and when it was invented. The Viennese pianos too had a totally different action than the French action, which is closer to the modern action. Yes the action was lighter and quicker moving in these pianos, but less precise especially in these Viennese pianos. I'm not talking about Replica instruments made with laser-cut parts. I'm talking about instruments where the action was handmade for each and every instrument individually.
The greatest differences here are to consider that in the Viennese pianos, the action is attached directly to each key. There is no rail as there is in a modern piano. The advantage here is less mechanical parts since the hammer and key are almost one and the same except for a few springs and levers in between, and their much lighter hammers. The problem, however, is these pianos including the Frenzel that Wim plays, do not have a double-escapement. This means that the finger has to rise up off the key, or close to it, in order to play that same note again. The weight of the hammers too, as someone mentioned in another post somewhere here, varies between the keys, and still does today. On a modern piano, aka French action piano, this is less of a deal because of the separation from the keys, but with the hammer attached to the keys, lower notes become markedly heavier compared to the much lighter treble hammers that are so much smaller. The thin sound we hear in these pianos in particular is due to these smaller, tinier hammers, pounding against the short strings. For someone used to a modern piano, these earlier instruments will feel like they're running away from the fingers, but once the pianist gets used to the piano, he/she will find the instrument to require a bit more work to produce a singing tone as well as the balance between the heavier and louder bass in comparison to the treble. Combine all these anomalies with handmade parts, and it was quite difficult to play as fast as they did in the middle to latter part of the 19th century, and where Czerny was aiming his studies for.
As I said, things were changing. The aforementioned double-escapement found its way into many pianos, and companies such as Steinway, Chickering, Mason & Hamlin, to name a few, capitalized on these improvements. Competition breeds innovation as they say. Chickering had their own action, Mason and Hamlin had theirs, Steinway their own, and each is different. A Chickering piano to me feels crunchy compared to a smooth and silky Mason and Hamlin or Steinway. As time went on, the action was no longer made by the piano manufacturer himself, and instead whole operations were setup to make the actions for these companies. Mason and Hamlin, for example, used and still uses Nickel & Hyde for there actions, whereas Steinway has their own supplier. Unlike back then, Renner didn't exist so there was no such thing as Renner Blue hammers and other action parts.
During the 1850s to present, companies such as Steinway had their bevy of technicians and their concert artists promoting the new improvements. Among the things that Steinway did was to add an extra level to the double-escapement. This improvement allows the pianist to play really, really quickly, and something that was unheard of in the earlier part of the 19th century. Other changes were made as well such as adjustments in the geometry of the action. We need to keep in mind that a lot of things go on in a piano with its 20,000 parts. Adjusting the weight and even the position of the weight of the keys can make a piano lighter or heavier. Keep in mind that with this precise relationship of the levers, springs, weights, and other parts, throwing something out of spec can take a beautifully playing expensive piano and turn that into a piece of furniture. I witnessed this with a beautiful Steingraeber concert grand that someone hand monkeyed around with. The piano was unplayable in its current state at the time. I could have purchased it for about $50K instead of $200K plus because of that. (Kicks self)
But getting back to the point, the concert artists learned to use the new double-double-escapement in Steinway pianos to their advantage and in some cases other improvements such as key weighting and position. If you listen carefully to Vivian's performance, you'll notice how light her playing is. Isidor Philippe does this, Horowitz, Rubenstein, and so many others. What they are doing, in addition to using the pedal, is they are playing on the surface of the keys and hardly moving their fingers. This is all physics, folks. Yes that thing in science we hated because it talked about theorems, mechanical properties, and other stuff that made our eyes glaze over. :-) It's pure physics.... It's all about shorter movements, springs, levers, leverage, weight, and all leads to less time moving the parts. Think about it. Instead of lifting the fingers up off the key, or nearly off the key, the concert pianist here is barely moving his or her fingers as if to drum on a table. It's not as easy as it sounds and it takes years and years of practice to accomplish this, but what we hear is the end result. It takes a lot longer to lift the finger up and down in a full movement than it does to drum on the surface. This was something that couldn't be done prior to the 1830s without the double-escapement, or other improvements that followed.
It's interesting to note here, that Horowitz, and many other artists had modified pianos to allow for faster playing. Horwitz's piano, I was told by Stephen Porter, who is the current touring artist using that piano, that the action is extremely light. He said to me that it is scary, scary light compared to a standard Model D concert grand. Combine this with the double-double-escapement, and this explains his quick playing.
But I will say something here, which is aimed at many pointing out the speed realm. Speed isn't the end to all. Things can be played quickly for sure, and sometimes have to be, but they need to be played well. Anyone can play a scale quickly, or any passage for that matter with practice, however, what sets these concert pianists apart from someone on UA-cam smashing a scale out on the piano is the concert pianist here uses thought and expression to produce not only a consistently clear and controlled tone, but also the quick tempo as well. Does it matter if Vivian isn't at the exact metronome marking that Czerny put down? I sure don't think so. The tempo she plays with such beauty goes beyond that pure speed that we're so concerned about.
Thank you for your insights. Trade secrets are indeed a part of every trade, and I was unaware of those specific ones.
"standard Model D concert Grand"
I'd like to point out that there isn't really a standard when it comes to key weight. My college got a brand new Steinway that had an amazing action. My university has a new Steinway and I hate the action cause it's so heavy you basically need a hammer to press the keys down. It seems every model D Steinway makes has a different weight.
@@MegaMech Point well taken. Steinway was always like that from what I remember. Their instruments were customized for each and every artist. With that as you've noted there are some really awful instruments, and there are some really, really nice ones. The thing is, Steinway leaves the preparation (Prepping as they call it) up to the technician rather than the factory unlike Schimmel, Mason and Hamlin, Bösendorfer, and others. Steinway assembles the piano, does a quick test to ensure nothing's broke, then lets the piano sit there until an artist "discovers its raw potential", as quoted from a documentary I saw so many years ago on this.
I've played on an 1866 (going from memory) instrument that was ruined in 1922 then restored to playing condition. It's not a Model D as we call it today, but it's the same. Then there were those from the 1960s to 1970s with their Teflon action where you need a jack hammer to more the keys. I studied a lot on those, all different sizes, and I hated them back then. And finally, I played on a fairly new instrument at NEC not too long ago, and it was a sweet instrument that I fell in love with.
But the thing is Steinway and Chickering and later Mason & Hamlin and others were using outside firms and standardizing on parts in their pianos much like we do with cars, computers, and other things we take for granted. This was't the case prior to the 1850s or a bit before where the builder, or apprentice assembled the action and made the parts in his shop with parts cut by hand and glued and fitted by hand. Steinway and others much later had companies making the hammers consistently, and creating "kits" of action parts and actions just as Renner does today. This is a much, much different process.
@@Clavichordist I've also played on a hundred year old Steinway. had heavy action. very brittle now
@@MegaMech That's what happens when instruments get out of regulation and the hammers wear down.
My old teacher has an M&H from 1905. The hammers make the instrument very harsh, and the action makes some notes very hard to play while others are too easy.
I don't remember hearing about her as my teachers were from the Toronto, Ont./Western New York area and very connected. Anne Moot and Frina Arshanskaya Boldt never mentioned her. Hm ...
I think if you're going to play historically, ultimately, you have to make a choice. You have to consider the MM, at least. If you're not interested, then you're not really looking into the truth of what we have from history. If you are going historical, then you have to decide whole beat or half beat. Until I can figure another quirky way to interpret the MM, we're stuck with what we have.
I was looking for a teacher in this area because I knew there was something more, and they say when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. Thanks, Wim, for your teaching. I am learning more than I had ever hoped.
Godspeed!
Vivien Slater has remarkable facility. However no beginner can do that or get anywhere close. Frankly most teachers can't either. If Czerny was writing for the benefit of beginners, he didn't just miss the boat, he missed the ocean.
the question always will remain: why does anyone has to play SO fast? What is the point of playing so fast?
They do it because it looks cool and the crowds love it. :-)
Well , because it allows a bigger range of contrasts between slow and fast movements . A very good example would be the beautiful ‘ variations sérieuses ‘ of Mendelssohn which have an impressive range of contrasts in dynamics and tempi ( from very slow adagio with ritardando to fast presto ) this piece is actually virtually impossible to play in double beat for two reasons 1) you kill the contrasts 2) you simply can’t play variation 14 in double beat
I would be much likelier to come to the same conclusions as you if, as composers became more familiar with the metronome, they got better at using it. But this is not the case.
Modern scores have ten times the detail of scores from the 19th century, in terms of dynamics, articulation, rhythm, etc - yet it is still OFTEN the case that metronome markings are way too fast or unrealistically slow.
My humble conclusion is that there is something psychologically very difficult about assigning a metronome mark to a piece of music, and the mere existence of unreasonably or impossibly fast metronome markings is not a proof in itself that the pieces are intended to be played twice as slow.
By the way, as always, my comments are consistent with either single- or double-beat interpretation of metronome markings.
Oh sorry, apparently I deleted it. I'll try to re post it
I'll rewrite it then.
Basically the Metronome is a simple device. You said that there is psychological complication with it's use. Maybe because it was new at the time. The problem is that you have to assume that many other composers had the exact complications. The thing is that every time there is similarities between mm numbers the probability of them not knowing what to do goes down. Because it wasn't just this guy but all of these too.
I said a few other things but they were basically it was that.
So all of the composer we're writing mm numbers that our top virtuoso cant play. And then criticise how the youth playing everything faster than they wanted it.
Or did they know what they were doing. Composed slower than we play it today. And through generations, the music became so we'll known that people started to play it faster. And now we live in a post Liszt Rachmaninoff era. Where all of us want to become the best pianist. Playing the most difficult works flawlessly at an insanely fast tempo.
El Fogon Del Buen Gusto speak for yourself!
interesting topic, thanks for sharing your observations!
This information is amazing. 👍🏻
Not really a source, but a great (german) read:
musikmagieundmedizin.de/Musikartikel/respiro.html
"(...) No pianist is able to execute a Czerny Etude from the School of Velocity after his metronome numbers, no orchestra has the superhuman abilities required to perform a Beethoven symphony as fast as Beethovens numbers suggest"
Wim , here are my comments .
1) Vivian Slater although good pianist was not playing in the same league than stars like the Horowitz, Richter, Pollini and others. To be honest, she is mostly unknown, I gave you the pointer to her recordings when I was looking for Czerny recordings that you can find online. Unfortunately , top stars pianists seem to have little interest in recording Czerny 's etudes but believe me if they did, you would change your mind about how achievable the tempo is. For instance, Martha Algarich speed in playing octaves exceeds by a long stretch any work of Czerny in that matter
2) Czerny MM's are for pianoforte which can be played 10-20% faster than a modern grand
3) Czerny was considered as one of the fastest pianists of his time. If double beat theory was true, the maximum speed achieved by players in this period would have been ridiculously slow.
4) All the recordings that you can find of pianists who have been taught by Czerny ( piano rolls) or regular recordings by pianists who learned directly from Czerny's students are all extremely fast .
5) At last one anecdote for the fun ....
You must have heard of Ravel and Debussy ? ( just kidding)
I am sure you would agree that they are both single beat Composers & Players
(A) Ravel ( 1875-1937) studied piano with Emile Descombes who was the last pupil of Frederic Chopin !
(B) Debussy (1862-1918) received award in 1874 for his performance of the 2nd concerto of Chopin
So is we assume that for situation (A) & (B) they were double beat player , how on earth did they both became single beat players later on , with not a single document, critic review, music magazine mentioning it ?????
I think Christian's comments here are completely sound.
Forgive me mentioning Hummel's op. 74 Septet (1815) again (see under the 22 May Danel video, my Example 1, to Thomas Hughes), but the light dsq ornaments and figures (notably the descending, on-beat 321, and 4321), see for example:
ua-cam.com/video/6nq4NYg0ZGE/v-deo.html (the performance is not quite up to Hummel's tempo)
can be executed very rapidly on the Viennese instrument, especially in the upper treble, where the hammers are tiny. A couple of 1820s London reviews comment with admiration on the feat of playing the most demanding Viennese repertoire on the English pianoforte. One describes the English action as 'stiffer'; while I don't think this is technically correct, the force needed is greater, so the player of the English instrument in comparison with the Viennese needs greater strength in combination with no less rapidity of movement.
One thing which is repeatedly mentioned is the purportedly slow repetition of the Viennese piano. I don't think this is entirely warranted. When the action is well regulated and a player is thoroughly acquainted with the depth in the key travel at which the note repeats, impressive rates of repetition can be attained, especially in the treble, though not QUITE as fast, in my limited experience, as the c. 12 nps of Czerny's op 299, no 22 (a repetition exercise) at the published MM mark. I think this is why one finds so much of the 1818 or 8181 pattern, alternating octaves, or of the 1181 pattern found in the 'La Ricordanza' variations, op 33:
e.g. Horowitz: ua-cam.com/video/JgWWAGzB6lQ/v-deo.html
or
Li: ua-cam.com/video/kS-W_HysKqA/v-deo.html
(up to 14+ nps in the penultimate variation).
We might also recall that on one occasion, at least, Chopin preferred to play in England on a square piano, apparently on account of lightness of touch, rather than a heavier English grand.
@@lewisjones2666 Impressive Lewis !
@ElFogonDelBuenGusto My point in my previous post is that it is not unreasonable to conclude: "Composer X gave impossible tempo indications.". In the 20th and 21st centuries, we have countless scores written with the utmost care to detail, yet the metronome markings are often unplayable or nonsensical.
I have a hard time accepting that in the 19th century, when the metronome was just invented, composers were spot-on-the-nose in their use of it, and now we are much more sloppy. Quite the opposite is true in any other dimension of composition. In fact, quite the opposite is true when looking at how society has reacted to any invention.
In double-beat, every metronome marking becomes playable. That in itself is highly suspicious, given that generations of composers who tried very hard to give accurate single-beat markings failed quite often.
The only metronome markings that are usually correct are the ones we set ourselves for practice. And, usually, we find that we have to slow the metronome down from where we initially think we are ready to play.
So, if the argument is that Czerny gave double-beat metronome indications as a STARTING POINT for practice, with the intention to increase the tempo from there, I can buy that argument!
The idea that every single metronome marking from the 19th century correctly captures how a composer player or intended their piece to be played is, to me, an unreasonable idea.
On the other hand, the idea that a metronome marking is a notation, a reflection of an idea, a sound, a spirit, an emotion, that we as interpretive artists have to find meaning in... well that I can get on board with.
Hmm.... I guess tempo markings don't always show the composers intent. Nor the notes themselves when you realize that it was common to improvise and add decorations to music.
I found some interesting 19c. books on pendulum/metronome in English. Some of them are for schools. They say for example "to beat seconds it's length must be about 39 inches" which gives us a _period_ of 2 seconds, so such a pendulum goes from leftmost position to rightmost position in 1 second.
Roman G.
Over the past few weeks I've quoted from and discussed here several music-related English sources, spanning the period from the 1740s (Tans'ur) to the 1860s which concur with your finding and which, more or less explicitly, confirm that the pendulum and, from 1815, the metronome were used in the single-beat way. (They are distributed across several videos, so difficult to locate, but I could make a list of the main ones, if helpful.) So also do all the continental European sources of which I am aware; and when published pendulum lengths were sometimes, in the early 19th century, modernised into MM marks, it is clear that single-beat was the norm with both devices. That scientists, clockmakers, etc. discussed the whole period is not in doubt, but I've yet to find unequivocal evidence -- except when a very short pendulum was used explicitly as an alternative to a long one (e.g. in Mason, London, [1819]) -- that the whole period was used to establish musical pulse, as the 'double-beat' conjecture requires.
@@lewisjones2666 but the word vibration or oscillation definitely means bidirectional movement (to and from). And I met a weird phrase: "THe metronome is so constructed that it's vibrations are made to beat the time of a quick or slow tune". It's so opaque and can be understood in multiple ways.
Therefore and considering Wim's explanation of 1816 Maelzel metronome instruction (www.authenticsound.org/yes-we-do-play-too-fast-the-1816-maelzel-metronome-directions-explained/) the term "double-beat" looks much more appropriate
@@reflechant I suspect that, as in my exchange with Thomas Hughes (see under the 22 May Danel video, etc.), words are getting in the way of understanding here. Musicians use words to mean what they intend them to mean, not necessarily precisely as scientists do; and in regard to the meaning of the motion of a pendulum, that meaning in the 18th and 19th centuries is abundantly clear. Although the author of your quoted sentence ("The metronome is so constructed [...] that its vibrations are made to beat the time of a quick or slow tune") apparently wasn't an expert, we know enough to understand the gist of what (s)he was meaning to convey. It looks like an explanation intended for children but it could in any case be clearer.
@@lewisjones2666 You probably don't know how to interpret English correctly. It's not the same language.
It's interesting to ask a neurologist if there is a limit in terms of neural impulses from brain to fingers
It really is more about quick twitch muscle strength and agility in the fingers.
Op 299 is definitely NOT for beginners.
Doesn't the action of piano in Czerny's time have something to do with tempi? The action, back then, was less complicated, and would have been easier to play at a faster tempo.
Good question David.
The pianos of Czerny's time were in fact lighter than we have today, however, they weren't as mechanically precise. The action was also going through changes at the time and many improvements were in the works to allow for faster playing such as Erard's double-escapement, which showed up in 1822. Up to 1822, pianos such as Wim's Frenzel required (and still require) the pianist to lift up his finger off the key or nearly off the surface to all for the action to return. The newer pianos from the 1830s onward allowed for much faster playing, and further improvements in reliability and other things made playing even faster. There are also big differences between the Viennese action, such as is in the Frenzel and Fritz, and the French and English pianos of the time, which have a more modern action. In fact the modern piano action is the improved French/English action.
@@Clavichordist I'm curious about your suggestion that early 19th-cent pianos being less 'mechanically precise' has a bearing on tempo. Might you perhaps expand on that? Are you thinking just of repetition, in which case the development of the double esacapement in the 20s made a difference, or are you thinking of a more general effect on tempo? Thank you for considering this.
@@lewisjones2666 There are multiple things to take into consideration here, and yes it does affect the tempo. The Viennese action had its hammers attached to the key directly unlike the French action, which is the early version of our piano action where the action sits in a frame and is activated through the keys pushing up against levers. The action is quite light, but this causes an uneven touch, which the pianist has to adjust to depending upon the register he or she is playing in due to the bigger hammers in the bass and smaller ones in the treble. When playing on an uneven touch, one tends to play slower because the precision isn't there. This is why Wim's Frenzel has a louder bass and very thin treble. The early Viennese did not have the double-escapement either, as witnessed in Wim's 1820s Frenzel, meaning the pianist has to lift his finger up completely, or nearly so in order to repeat the same note.
The early piano actions were also all hand made for each piano and its reliability is not the same as that made later on as the manufacturing process got better. I wrote an extensive post that expanded on this. As time went on, the piano builders got better at the mechanics because of requests and feedback from the concert pianists playing on them. As the industry took off, the builders hired outside firms to make their action just as they do today. Today we have Renner and back then Mason and Hamlin used Nickel and Hyde, and Steinway had another firm to build their own. We call it using OEMs today.
The double-escapement, however, did change the world for faster playing because the pianist now uses less motion with his or her fingers. If you think about it, keeping your fingers close to the keys means you can play faster because there is less motion, i.e. less time spent moving the fingers up and down. Steinway went further with this, and developed a secondary level so the pianist can play even lighter and quicker. Combine this with different geometry. i.e. the relationship between the weighting of the keys and the mechanical adjustments on the action, can make the piano even faster. Believe it or not, heavier keys are actually quicker if the action is adjusted to go along with the extra weight, and a concert grand is lighter still because the length of the keys compared to the location of the action its self. This is all a matter of levers, springs, and weights.
All of this came about as improvements were made in the instrument as feedback came in from concert pianists. A great piano can be made even better if done properly, or ruined by putting something in the wrong place. I witnessed this at a piano shop where a gorgeous-looking really expensive Steingraeber concert grand was unplayable because some dork piano tuner "fixed" the action. In its ruined condition, it sold for $50K due to the work required to return it to fully playable condition.
I'm lucky that I live in an area where I can experience both modern pianos, and antiques. I've spent a good number of hours at the Frederick Collection talking with Mr. Frederick about this subject. At one point I looked into becoming a piano technician, and there's a great school in Boston dedicated to this still today.
www.frederickcollection.org
All of their pianos, which range from an early 1790s fortepiano to a 'modern' 1928 Erard, are all fully restored and playable, and playable by the visitors to the collection. There's nothing like playing on a modern, i.e. 1905 Blüthner and then playing on a ca. 1844 Streicher, or comparing the 1805-1810 Joseph Brodmann to its related ca. 1830 Bösendorfer signed by Ignaz himself. :-)
In fact there is one argument that I will bring soon and kills that argument forever: the speed of repeated notes. even the state of the art Vien. piano will give you at maximum 7 to 7.6 notes a second. That means that for Czerny alone dozens of etudes become factually impossible.
@@AuthenticSound
Comparison of music for the harp from the 2nd to 4th decades of the nineteenth century with that for the piano is revealing in regard to the bearing that the constraints imposed by the piano action had upon tempo. The range of MM markings in music for the harp, which was unconstrained by a mechanism, closely parallels that for the piano: continuous scalar and arpeggiated passagework is typically in the range 8-13 nps, with short ornaments and cadenza-like passages (which might not necessarily have been executed strictly in time) sometimes increasing to 14-16 nps. I am thinking here of the music of Dizi (Belgian) and Bochsa (French) who led successful international careers, and their contemporaries, Bochsa also serving as opera composer, oratorio conductor, and as one of the founding professors of the Royal Academy of Music (London). From their concerted music it is clear that single-beat MM practice obtained; I can find no exceptions which indicate single beat. Especially telling is the duet repertoire for pianoforte and harp, in which note repetition, ornamental figuration, etc. can immediately be compared between the two instruments.
So why doesn't Slater play in double beat? Wouldn't Eisenberger or Leschetizky have told her that Czerny intended the music to be played at single beat? What changed her and Czerny that made the tradition lost? Would Esenberger and Leschetizky have played in double beat?
That is the big mystery... Maybe one generation decided to ignore the metronome numbers, then the next generation forgot how to use the metronome like it was intended... Then the next generation wanted to follow the tempi again, but they were too fast now according to what became the normal way to use the metronome. All of this would leave no evidence, so we can only speculate. But the reason why she played really fast was because the crowd loved it, and that always matters in the end...
The 'double-beat' conjecture hinges upon there having been a great disjuncture -- or multiple disjunctures -- during the nineteenth century, a vast amnesia in which some of the most brilliant and capable musicians of all time left one temporal world and entered another, without one of them mentioning or leaving any record of it. Did they not even notice?
Did Czerny perhaps train the young Liszt to play just 6 or 7 notes per second? Or did he simply forget to tell his brilliant pupil about double-beat, so that when he arrived in Paris he was able to accept the MM markings of the avowedly single-beat Berlioz? Alternatively, according to one theory found on the wilder shores of musical inquiry, Berlioz gave his new friend so many drops of laudanum that he forgot his Viennese ways and, his fingers suddenly doubling in speed, accepted the Frenchman's MM marks without hesitation, promptly making this arrangement of the new Symphonie Fantastique (1830): ua-cam.com/video/td7UNhieQR0/v-deo.html
And what of Sir George Smart? Was the alpine air so rarefied or were the waves so rough as he returned from Vienna to London (his head if not his notebook full of Beethoven's advice) that he decided to put aside the lumpen German's tempi and precisely double them, rendering the 5th symphony in a zany 31 minutes rather than the intended 62? We must wonder why the composer, his vitality ebbing away, would, as one of his very last acts, have bothered to ensure that the tempi of his 9th were dispatched in the post to the speed-crazed, tempo-doubling Britons.
We might wonder how those who, like Pauline Garcia (Viardot) (1821-1910), lived long creative lives, coped with such change(s). Pupil of Reicha and Liszt, duet partner of Chopin, she sang until 1869 (Brahms's Alto Rhapsody) and taught far into old age. What would she have made of it all?
@@surgeeo1406 I wonder why you think that such a profound change in musical practice 'would leave no evidence, so we can only speculate'(?) Would this conjectured shift not have been a huge step-change in the ratio 2:1?
Much more subtle quantifiable changes during the nineteenth century, such as the progression from several unequal temperaments to uniform 12-tone equal temperament, and the changes in pitch standards which led to the adoption, in 1939, of the a' = 440 Hz standard, left PLENTY of evidence, both documentary and material (in the form of musical instruments, pitch pipes, tuning forks, etc.). Why would the replacement of (hypothetical) double-beat by single-beat not have left evidence? And why, if double -beat was good, would it have been abandoned? I can see no reason to change.
@@lewisjones2666 I was speaking to Mr. Valles, not you :)
@@addictbach4509 If Mr. Valles wishes to speak further, we'll speak further. That is all. You don't own the topic, you're just meddlers.
Better change the name to: Carl Czerny, Op. 299 The School of Slowness...
What is slow?
I thought the proper translation of the German title should be "School of Fluency". Not "Velocity" as in speed.
Even so, slow and fast has no real definition. What was considered virtuosic to them could be considered slow for us. That's why metronome numbers are so important because it provides a definition to speed where none exist.
@@karlakor Hanon's "Virtuoso Pianist" is exactly 1/2 of Czerny's m.m. 1/4=60-108, then 1/4=120 for scales. So at least according to Hanon those speeds were considered virtuosic, those speeds also fit with Carr & Young, Prestissimo of 1/4=120. Riddle me why Hanon is 1/2 the speed of Czerny? If musicians played at Czerny speeds, then 1/4=120 for scales is barely an Allegretto. And keep in mind Op. 299 was intended for beginners!
@@addictbach4509 Pauer writes that Czerny op. 299 is for beginners. So according to you he is wrong, what evidence do you have for Pauer being wrong? What evidence do you have that Czerny op. 299 was written with the upper echelon virtuoso in mind?
Is there a reason why Czerny didn't use quarter notes for metronome indications in this ? I believe this has something to do with the speed and metronome limitations. I don't see why using half notes instead, and also there must be a reason why he used quarter note only on the fastest etude.
Thank you for pointing this out. I think this discussion so far has been hampered by concentration on one of Czerny's publications in isolation. This perhaps reflects the prominent survival of op. 299 in twentieth-century teaching practice at the expense of others of Czerny's numerous didactic works.
Some of the etudes in Czerny's publications of more elementary and preparatory pieces, those actually intended for the near beginner (please see my post "Op. 299 ACCORDING TO CARL CZERNY"), do indeed have quarter-note (crotchet) MM marks (see, for example, Op. 849). This helps to show a gradually escalating scheme of studies, in which op. 299 and the subsequent publications with equally fast MM marks are at the apogee. (In a recent search, mainly of the holdings of the British Library, I did not find any MM marks faster than those of op. 299, but they are equalled once.) Czerny's own short CONCLUSION to op. 299, which I reproduced in that earlier post, clearly shows that the op. 299 tempi represent a goal which, once attained (doubtless progressively and not immediately) is to be maintained by daily repetition.
While the student's progress towards the published MM-mark tempi could, of course, include playing the etudes at half the specified velocity, as Wim's elegant examples demonstrate, Czerny's MM marks generally, including those of his chamber and concerted works, which are broadly consistent with those of his contemporaries, make sense as a uniformly single-beat scheme. It is wholly improbable that Czerny intended the MM marks of op. 299 to stand in isolation, a uniquely double-beat collection.
Because of the intention to incorporate the metrical two-unity already in the MM, it in fact is that simple.
@@AuthenticSound
If that ("the 2-unity already in the MM") is an explanation in regard to op. 299, how do you account for Czerny's use of the quarter-note (crotchet) as the MM-mark unit in more elementary didactic pieces, where the range of notes per second is appreciably lower than in op. 299? (Please see my summary, presented recently here, titled "Op. 299 ACCORDING TO CARL CZERNY".) Would not the "2-unity" have been just as important for elementary students as for advanced ones?
@@addictbach4509
So, following Addict Bach's explanation, Czerny would have used the quarter-note as MM-mark unit in the elementary and preparatory studies because he could (given the extent of the scale of the metronome), and because it was appropriate to the slower pulse, not because op. 299 is double-beat music. It would make no sense for Czerny to have used the metronome in double-beat mode for studies designed to achieve the "utmost brilliancy and rapidity" and not (perhaps in the manner later conjectured by Talsma and von Gleich) in his other works.
@@addictbach4509 Yes I agree with Addict Bach that Czerny in op. 299 was using the metronome in a completely normal way, according to the available scale, as its designer intended.
I had intended in my previous comment to convey that there is nothing exceptional in this respect about op. 299 in relation to Czerny's other works -- other than that the rapidity of its shortest notes is 'off the scale'. (That Czerny chose to write some exceptionally brief notes in op. 299, and in a few later publications of didactic exercises, has no direct bearing on the intended tempo of other music of the period which, likewise, was notated according to the single-beat MM scale.)
I agree with Wim: The romantic idea of a teacher solemnly passing on a tradition to their pupil without changing a single detail, is wishful thinking. It's much more likely that a figure such as Theodor Leschetizky wanted to pass on his own original technical innovations to his students with regards to the music of past masters; maybe even encouraging them to speed things up to ensure that audiences would be suitably impressed by their technical prowess.
In fact, while we're on the subject of that legendary Czerny pupil, it's interesting to note that, in his day, Leschetizky was not universally admired. For example, George Bernard Shaw said that he had done more to "dehumanise" piano playing than any other teacher in Europe. And that whenever he heard a pianist with "steel hammers" instead of fingers "murdering" the music of Beethoven by adding lots of accelerandos and crescendos, he knew he must be listening to a pupil of Leschetizky! (His pupils included among many others: Paderewski, Schnabel, Friedman, Moiseiwitsch, Horszowski... i.e. lots of the 'greats'.)
Of course, all of this neither proves or disproves anything, but it does suggest that things are not as simple as many critics of double-beat theory would like to believe!
From 2setviolin, we know that sacrilegious bois can play 15 notes per second...
And hit none of them correctly. :'D
Hey, fellow fan! :)
I saw that video, it is awesome (the whole channel is)!
If you can play Czerny slowly, you can play it quickly. 🤣
@@michaelkklam My new dream colab: 2set coming to Wim's studio, to shoot "How Keyboard Ornaments Were Invented"... On period outfits!
There are two UA-cam videos in which a single repeatedly struck exceeds for the Guinness Book of records are faster than 12.4 per second. ua-cam.com/video/vLgtqDkapQU/v-deo.html which in one minute reached 13.73 notes per second ( with a Yamaha, my favorite piano for action) and ua-cam.com/video/k2NMrdcEHvc/v-deo.html at 12.75 (Boesendorfer). The Piano actions are capable of speeds faster than 12.4 notes per second, however, to date, to my knowledge no has played real piano compositions at the top MM indications for Prestos at extreme speed single beat MM indications as you have stated in your videos. Using this video's numbers, and some math (inverse proportional relationship which dates back to my Junior High School Days, before it was called "Middle School") for Czerny Op 299, No. 6 performance at 100% speed (Single beat) would require a note per second as fast as Bence Peter's speed of 12.77 notes per second and No. 1 by calculation would require notes 12.87 per second. That does not mean that it is an impossibility, as there will always be exceptions to prove any rule. Anything humanity can dream will in time be realized.
Here is Chopin's Etude, Op. 25, nº8, played in 50 seconds by Antonio Domingos (the gentleman who played the record repeated speed single note in 13.73 above average) vs Valentina Lisitsa or Pollini at 60 seconds or Perahia at 63 seconds. Then there's Antonio Domingos ua-cam.com/video/7PiWgkJdxHQ/v-deo.html and his fastest Tchaikovsky Octaves ua-cam.com/video/0fGuM-VbP7I/v-deo.html in which he admittedly pushes himself to the maximum, but as with most every speed attempt, is it still art? Then, again, there's ua-cam.com/video/lRLXBPh64sM/v-deo.html
One or two exceptional speed demon player(s) does not invalidate whole beat/double-beat arguments presented or that single beat and double co-existed. I will state that Czerny being a teacher (and a teacher from his teens) and as an astute businessman would not have written exercises that would be impossible to play and frustate his target market, upper middle class and higher economic families with children piano students and their teachers. Just an opinion on my part.
In a recent discussion (2 days ago) Jason Niehoff cited the example of Herz's 1st Concerto, which has two conspicuous passages of note repetition, one explicitly fingered 43 21.
These, in relation to the the MM marks, require about 11 nps. (for more detail see my reply to Jason). It seems likely that Herz was seeking to demonstrate the competence of the new double-escapement action, close to the attainable frequency limit. That his 11 nps is close to these recent record-breaking examples may shed light on the tempo that would have been attainable by Czerny and contemporaries in, for example, Op. 299, no. 22.
@@lewisjones2666 Interesting, I will have to check out Herz's 1st Concerto. Thank you for the reply.
@@addictbach4509 Thank you for the reply, I am a great fan of Lipatti's recordings. Sadly a life that was too short.
@@addictbach4509 I don't know much about Herz's making activity at the time of the 1st concerto. I gather the firm mainly flourished later, from the late 30s and 40s. He's known also for the Dactylion (1835 patent), of course. When Herz exhibited instruments in the 1851 Great Exhibition he's likely to have encountered Berlioz and Smart there (two indisputably single-beat practitioners) who were involved in the judging.
Thank you @@addictbach4509. Warrants further investigation. Erard at that time was fiercely protective of patents; strictly speaking the double escapement (1821) was protected in the 1820s, but perhaps French makers found ways of circumventing the patent, as certainly happened with the double-action harp patent (Stumpff, Erat, etc.).
What about PianothShaveck and Piano Exercises Collection recordings? Haven't took the time to measure but they seem to be around 90% or more.
Also please don't delete this comment in case you're thinking this, I wanna hear some actual answers.
Do the check. But take only footage with video.
@@AuthenticSound Depends a bit on the method you use I guess? Well I checked how much time pianothshaveck took for each run(starting from the chord), seems pretty much around an exact second, he was pretty accurate there.
About Piano Exercises they seems pretty much on tempo too.
I'd say they are both good pianist examples of people who can play it. I also saw a short footage(advertising his piano book I guess) of Lang Lang playing it too, I'd say there is a very small delay of about 25-50 miliseconds on his runs. ua-cam.com/video/A9l0_HixQ78x/v-deo.html