Wim Winters, 'double beat' tempo and the Moonlight Sonata
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- The is an unscripted and extempore discussion of some points raised by Wim Winters' UA-cam channel 'Authentic Sound', in particular his video entitled 'Even Valentina Lisitsa unable to fix Beethoven's Moonlight "mistake"?' Apologies that it is a bit long and rambling, and also that, being recorded in my garden summer house-cum-studio, there is some extraneous sound at points. I was in doubt whether to post this video, but here it is.
Here is the Win Winters video on Beethoven's 'Moonlight' sonata that I refer to:
• Even Valentina Lisitsa...
Here are the 1816 'Directions for using Maezel's metronome' that I refer to. This is a UA-cam version; the actual full document was on the internet in the past, but now appears no longer to be (except it is reproduced on Winters' site on authenticsound.org). • Video
Here is the recording I refer to of Francis Planté (1839-1934) playing Chopin's Etude Op. 10 No. 4 in C sharp minor:
• Francis Planté (1839-1...
There is a useful article on this subject in the Musical Times Vol. 154 No. 1925, by Marten Noorduin:
www.jstor.org/...
As you say, students of Czerny etc.. went on the record as single beat interpreters of romantic piano repertoire. Completely impossible such historic shift remained unnoticed.
Yes, also the recordings of Francis Laplanté ended the debate for me. A frech Pianist who heard Chopin himself play, and played etudes in the "standard" nowadays tempo.
There was no switch from whole to single beat. The change was from in tempo to ad lib tempi. Winters is not asking for people to slow down but to respect the tempo markings. If your taste precludes that then accept that you prefer arrangements to the originals.
@@PabloMelendez1969 That statement makes things even worse.
The much more important thing about the Lisitska performance is that there are also documented performances of her not slowing the part down, underlining that this is done by choice, not by inability to do so, as Wim argues.
It is also based on a really romantic premise that the composer brilliantly envisions his composition perfectly without fault. But when looking at modern composers the process seems to be way more of an interaction with the players and the audience. The composer is not a godlike dictator, it is trial and error like everything in life. You write something and then you see how it works in practice. You ask the players if it makes sense, they might give you ideas, you go back and repeat. Then when performing you check the reaction of the audience and you might make more adjustments. I have had songs that ended up 10-20bpm faster after performing it for a couple of years.
It is like the argument whether Bach would’ve played the piano if he lived today. As if Bach played the harpsichord because it was what he perfectly envisioned in his perfect genius mind, directly inspired by God himself, and not just because that was what was available to him at that time.
Indeed some performers play the piece better than written!
Wim Winters: "If you can't play it quickly... invent an excuse to play it s l o w l y !"
His entire theory is based on his own personal incredulity, plus a touch of "trust me bro."
And you forgot something else he also says: "play it slowly, and play those great works because these great artists wrote them for you! It doesn't matter whether you can play them quickly or not. Just play them!
@@germanmoreno9609 I often do play them slowly (mind I'm not a pianist), but I don't pretend that's the correct way to do it!
Well, that’s the important thing: that people play those masterpieces. And that’s something Winters repeats several times. That’s why I say you forgot to mention that he says it. I can understand that one might disagree with his assertion that the correct tempo is in whole beats, but it should be understood that this is his theoretical proposal as a musicologist. He is convinced of this and provides arguments in support of his theory. Many of us might think he should at least leave room for doubt. But I also believe that those of us who think the correct tempo is in single beats should leave that same room for doubt. Shouldn’t we? A brief quote regarding my stance on the issue: Adolf Bernhard Marx, Guide to the Performance of Beethoven's Piano Works, Page 69, "Beethoven initially declared in favor of the use of the metronome and marked a few compositions with it. ... In the latter case (the Ninth Symphony), however, it happened that the master unexpectedly gave two significantly different metronome markings on two occasions. And finally, he declared: 'No metronome at all! Whoever has the right feeling doesn't need it; and whoever doesn't have it, it won't help him anyway!'"
Let's work on interpreting these pieces well, trying to understand the content that needs to be expressed, and without prioritizing the speed at which we move our fingers.
@@germanmoreno9609 But doesn't tempo also express the content? Does playing the Hammerklavier first movement at 69 half-notes a minute have the same expressive effect as playing it at, for instance, 116 half-notes a minute? What would Beethoven have thought the "right feeling" was, for an Allegro first movement in cut time? Slow and soothing, or exciting and dangerously fast?
No, David. Not one pianist I’ve listened to has ever maintained the exactitude of continuity of rapid metronomic beats throughout a piece and it would be unmusical to do such a thing. Imagine keeping up with the continuous metronomic beats. No, no no! It would not be musical.
Does he say so?
Thank you David for these healthy words!
Very strong! Regarding "relaxed life in the past": Johann Joachim Quantz proposes some extremely fast tempi in his "Versuch einer Anweisung die Flute traversiere" zu spielen. This essay is about 275 years old.
I wonder why it is (hardly?) never mentioned in the course of this controversy.
Sorry for my inadequate English.
Children are a strong confirmation that something is wrong with the double beat theory. Here on UA-cam we find several hundreds of videos with children playing Chopin, Burgmüller, Liszt and Czerny faster than the double beat tempo. Several of the children are younger than 10 uears, and a few is only 6,7 and 8 years old, and they play faster than the virtuosos! Completely illogical!
Thank you! Down with Wim and Down with Double Beat Nonsense!
A source concerning the premiere of Mozart’s Mitridate said to have lasted just over 3 hours. If we apply the double beat theory this is just simply impossible. Double beat theory fades the lines between tempo markings...Allegro moments are played so slow to the point there is practically no difference between an Adagio tempi. It’s a bit silly.
Well done! Very clear and intelligent video! 👏🏻
As a matter of fact this double beat theory (by Talsma) was debunked already a few decades ago. What Wim, convinced by Herr Gadient, proposes is to apply the double beat also to slow pieces. Talsma was using it only on fast tempi.
So, very simply Wim’s channel tries to sell to less than optimally cultivated music lovers this “new discovery”, based on a completely debunked theory.
Many of us have shown an immense amount of irrefutable proofs of the inconsistency of this old/new theory. Even those presented by Wim are unequivocally single beat.
What he does is simply banning everyone who proves him wrong in his channel. So people think that his “research” is well founded, revolutionary and irrefutable. Quite disconcerting...
Vito Lattarulo Thanks. There’s a conflict in deciding whether to respond to a thing like this. On the one had it hardly seems worthy of response, and you don’t want to give it extra publicity. On the other hand, these fringe, unscientific theories can spread through UA-cam in a dangerous manner if uncontradicted: consider the huge problems created by anti-vaccine or COVID conspiracy theories, or the fact that a large percentage of US citizens believe their country never sent men to the Moon. OK, this is only music, it’s not a health threat whatever you do, but you never know the long-term consequences of misinformation. There’s now another popular channel spreading some confused variation of the Winters/Gadient/Talsma theory - BachScholar, so it seems important that there should be other channels contradicting. I’m aware of the good work debunking this also done by PianoPat and Simon Danell.
David Arditti I totally get your point. I have the same feeling.
And also agree with you on the fact that this is just one of the many conspiracy theories out there.
On one hand the access to information has hugely grown but on the other people are spreading lots of ignorance and arrogance to the world.
What before was just some guy at the bar talking some nonsense now it’s become a _theory_
@@DavidArdittiComposer It seems Cory actually got convince by Wim that the 1816 instructions are double beat. It is a really twisted interpretation that renders the warning against incorrect usage pointless (q=40 is not an allegro)
I play classical guitar as recreation, therefore not as erudite as university graduate of music. I've heard Wim Winter's performances and his young apprentice and their interpretations seem unnatural. Thanks for the correct nomenclature to explain why it so.
I've often read plenty of comments in their videos about people who were not acquainted with some piece or another and to them or sounded perfectly natural. Because they were not spoiled by some recording tradition before.
This is brilliant, especially in its emphasis on the mutability of the composer’s interpretation, and the debunking of Winters’ premises.
Winters bases his theory on a false equivalence between the Physics concept of a period (return to the original state) with the musical concept of a beat. There is no justification for this asserting this equivalence.
What about when the original metronome instructions say "each tick, or single beat, forms a PART of the intended time."?
@@qwerty20000000003 I am not aware of any such assertion. If you can show me the original source in the original language I can evaluate it. On the face of it, there are several problems with this statement.
1) The approach you reference would be absolutely stupid in compound meter. Beethoven marks the Allegro in the first movement of his seventh symphony at dotted quarter note = 104. If you presume two clicks per beat, you are actually denoting a binary subdivision of a beat that divides in triplets. Essentially the metronome would be beating 12/16 instead of 6/8. This is just stupid. I do not believe any competent musician would assert such lunacy.
2) the metronome was invented ~1815. Francis Plante was born in 1839 and was performing professionally by 1846. When did he double his tempos? He knew Chopin and performed with Liszt. His recordings are primary evidence of customary tempos form that time period.
3) Therefore, the assertion is that metronome speeds doubled sometime between 1815 and 1846. Liszt was born in 1813, Chopin lived 1810=1849. When did Chopin start playing twice as fast in his life? And no one noticed?
I acknowledge that many, perhaps the vast majority of metronome markings are insane. Many composers have acknowledged this in one way or another. But if they are insane as written, they are more insane at half speed.
The only valid choice for tempo is one that presents and clarifies the musical action in the piece. If that eludes the performer, he/she should indeed play as fast as possible in order to lessen the tedium of the experience. In the end the only thing a race horse leaves behind i horse manure.
on the other hand, there is no salvation for the incompetent in half tempo. enjoy yourself at home. don't burden others by wasting twice as much of their time.
@@inotmark The phrase "each SINGLE tick or beat forms a part of the intended time" comes from an article in the London Morning Chronicle of 16 July 1816 which printed the Directions for the Use of Maelzel's Metronome. The 'double-beat' interpretation depends on asserting that 'time' means the note value specified in the metronome indication, so that e.g. half-note = 84 MM means that 'a part' of the half note is a quarter note, so each tick indicates a quarter-note, and the real tempo for the half-note is 42 MM (i.e. 42 per minute).
Of course 'time' cannot possibly have this meaning. It means 'tempo', the speed at which the half-notes are to be played. A single note has no speed - you need at least two! So in this case the half-note is 'a part of the intended tempo' and the tempo is 84 half-notes per minute.
@@dorette-hi4j A single note can indeed have a speed defined by its duration from attack to release.
The quote above from 1816 is not a rigorous definition of anythiing.
We have recordings of performers schooled in the first half of the 1800's (e.g. Plante) and their students. They do not support the hypothesis that all music from the period should be played at half tempo, quite the contrary.
In the face of this last fact, no amount of verbiage has any relationship to the reality of musical practice.
In fact if we listen to pianists from the 19th century we hear an unbroken tradition which has a much greater variety of rhythmic freedom than the notes on the page can communicate. For example Lamond's performance of Liszt's Liebestraum no. 3 has an exceptionally expressive characteristic of alternating the sextuplets in the accompaniment between two groups of 3 and 3 groups of two. Brahms recording of his own music shows a freedom of interpretation of the melody so much as to almost rewrite the rhythms entirely by anticipating bass notes and delaying the melody almost to the point of syncopation. etc.
There is nothing to defend in Winters' interpretation and in the end there is not even anything to contest.
@@inotmark I agree. The relationship between the tempo indicated by the metronome and actual performance practice is not one-to-one. This was well understood in the nineteenth century.
However, metronome marks are evidence for tempi in nineteenth-century music, so it can be helpful for performers at least to take them into account.
Just to be pedantic, duration is not the same as speed. Something has to happen after the note is released for a speed, and a rhythm, to be established.
there is still another very important point which gives a more perfect solution to this question which has not been mentioned here. I have read that on an article which was published but unfortunately I do not remember where. when they read several original metronome instructions published ,it appears that they some times enfasized the point of playing one tik per beat, which means that there were actually some people who were using the metronome in a different way namely two tiks as in this double beat theory. thus it remains the possibility that in some cases it was actually meant as a double tik per bit. thus some good common sense and musical taste and experience must always come first before any theoretical authenticity . And any metronome markings are only a (sometimes thus even misleadin )guide for inexperienced beginners.
As far as I've seen the evidence holds up. Whether that conforms with current taste is another story
Interesting, and I'm sure you're right about the 'cadenza' character of the demisemiquavers. Anyway there are pianists who start them roughly in time (slowing down perhaps) - Wim W. seems to have chosen that performance to prove his point. I hadn't heard this double beat argument. But if the concert with the first performance of the 5th and 6th Symphonies 4th Piano Concerto, etc, etc in 1808 had been done at today's tempi (assuming 10 mins for Beethoven's improvisation) that would have been about 3 hours plus some moving of musicians plus interval. The concert was 'more than 4 hours'. At half speed it would have been about 6 hours plus interval, etc. Wim Winters' 5th Symphony performance of over an hour's length, while interesting, is not something I could get through, at least at the moment. And anyway surely 'crotchet = 60' means 60 crotchets to the minute, why would it mean 60 crotchets to 2 minutes??
Why it should mean that is not a terrifically clear argument on Wim's channel, but the claim seems to be that it is connected to a mediaeval system called 'tactus', which may have involved keeping time using a pendulum, with each swing, left to right and back, counting as one beat. However, there is no evidence the metronome was ever used in this way, nor even that Maelzel, Beethoven etc. knew anything about this history.
The subject of how long performances are recorded as having taken in the 18-19C has been covered in a video by Pianopat, comprehensively refuting Wim's claims. ua-cam.com/video/rqkvAyMoJ04/v-deo.html
@@DavidArdittiComposer I've always tried saying to Wim (before I was banned) that Beethoven using Tactus is as likely as modern soldier using a bayonet rifle. it was a concept 200 years before Beethoven and was largely outdated.
Yeah, his tendency to delete comments that present evidence, coupled with his disingenuous "invitation" to debate in his comment section, tells you all you need to know.
Wim's goal is to pretend that the largely one-sided comments he allows to stand represent some kind of widespread acceptance of his bizarre theories.
Honestly, I think he's simply bringing attention to himself by being absurdly contentious for the purpose of financial gain.
Long on speculation, short on documentation.
What speculation are you actually criticising?
Brilliant. Thank you David.
Etudes Op. 10, No. 1: Etude in C Major "Waterfall" (Historical Tempo)
Tiago Mileu
Thank you for your video! I am conducting Die Entführung aus dem Serail without cuts and the performance lasts with one break 3hours 20 minutes and we don't do the whole spoken texts. If we would play this opera after Wim Winter's theory, with two breaks (there are three Acts) like in Mozart's time, Die Entführung would last more than 7 hours, maybe 8! Does he really think, singers and audience were 8 hours at the performance? If you read the posters from the time, the performances usually starte at 19:00. And would it end at 3:00 morning?
100% right. Debunked in about 6 minutes. at 30:40 i agree 100% Im a composer myself and my pieces have a metronome mark but i don't want them to completely abide by it.
It doesn't necessarily have to be immovably at the tempo indicated; you can make fluctuations, but the indicated tempo should be clearly perceived as the tempo at which you are interpreting the piece.
Wim cracks me up, what an inept fraud. 😂🤣
Winter is a musical flat earther.
LMFAO, I was looking for an insult that was in the same intensity as this! Thank you! @Eudyptes
@@Chiiyaam insults are always so effective in an argument.
@@uhoh007 Maybe you are right. But WW is just so annoying and he himself twists the truth all the time. Many arguments against his hypthesis have been found and he ignores them. So arguments just don't seem helpful anymore.
The most important point of this brilliant video is not just debunking Wim's (Vim's) notions which are pyschological and derive from his limitations as a musicain...the most important part is Mr. Arditti pointing out that people lived and worked 'fast' in the 18th century, etc., because they had to ...life was short. As I talk very fast I myself would loved to have lived then! But that's a sidebar.
So Mr. Arditti has done us a double favor. Debunked Wim who is arrogant and a bit sick and more importantly pointed out that LIFE in the 18th century didn't move at the pace that children perceive classical music at age 6 (when most of them hate it) - at a stately, snail's pace!
Sick is really a right word for Wim.
While I appreciate the work of those who use logical/historical/documentary arguments to refute Winter's theory, I don't think they're necessary. The double-beat hypothesis makes the music sound like SHIT!!!! I'm not saying that there's no point to slow practice, or that one can't hear new things in the music at slow tempos. Just that the end product has to make some kind of sense. If I heard someone playing - let's say, Beethoven's "Pathetique" sonata at half-tempo, my response would be that however much scholarship they may have done to justify it, they haven't used their ears to realize that it sounds like SHIT. In other words, they may have "musical competence", but they lack "musicality".
Zeno
North, I disagree with you. Videoes like this is more important then ever! But the double beat-supporters need to know them! I write many critical comments to W. Winters’ videoes. But my inadequate English don’t create much believe or respect. Therefore is it so important that you who write proper English, write critical comments to the double beat - believers. Make them curious, tell them about «our» videoes. Never insult anybody! Please, that is so important, NEVER INSULT ANYBODY! Insults only create a wall between us, a thick wall that no one are able to penetrate! Bernhard Ruchti produce double beat - videoes of high quality. Therefore it’s sounds more convincing to many people. Whatch your language! Mr. Ruchti is a real gentleman, I think he is open for logical argumentations.
In my opinion, 6:15 - 8:30 in this video should be more known by the doube beat - supporters. All the wonderful music composed by so many great composers need and deserve our fight!
People might not have read the user manual of their metronome for the same reason they don’t read that of a spoon: it’s “clear enough” what it does. What is “clear”, though, might have differed from composer to composer
The issue of the beats, the ticks we hear, doesn't have any inconvenience. We hear each tick of the metronome when it's set to the tempo desired by the composer, for example Quarter Note=112; we mark each tick by raising and lowering our hand or forearm, and we do it at the same speed as the metronome's needle. We hear the beats, we respect them, and we mark 112 movements per minute. The discussion lies in whether we consider a "Beat" when the hand returns to its original position or if we consider a "Beat" as half of each complete movement. That means, whether we mark with the arm moving AT THE SAME SPEED as the metronome's needle, or if we move it AT DOUBLE THE SPEED. If we moved the arm at the same speed as the metronome's needle, the number of beats in a minute that our hand would make on the table, piano, leg, or whatever, would be 56. If we moved it at double the speed to hit our hand on the table, piano, leg, or whatever, 112 times per minute, we would be marking 112 beats per minute but precisely moving our arm at double the speed. Try playing a waltz without any tempo indication, intuitively, and then play the waltz in Czerny's example from op. 500 at Dotted Half Note=88. Or try playing the first movement of Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata by moving your arm AT DOUBLE THE SPEED of the metronome's needle to beat 138 times, and then tell me about your experience. Especially in measures 17-25, for example. Thank you.
Who ever said you had to raise and lower your hand with each tick of the metronome? This is a crazy idea. You hear a tick, you play a note. If the MM is quarter = 112, you play a quarter (or its equivalent in smaller or larger notes) at every tick, and that will mean the tempo is 112 quarters a minute. And if you have no metronome, but you have a seconds watch, you can estimate the speed by tapping your hand on a table (or your foot on the floor) so that there are a bit under 2 taps per second.
Lots of waltzes, and other 3/4 movements, can be played easily at 88 the dotted half-note, and sound fine. It just means you feel one beat in the bar, not three, which is how Viennese waltzes were danced.
As for 138, seriously, set a metronome to 138 and tap on the table for each tick. Do you find that impossible? In fact you can quite easily tap twice for each tick. Three times becomes tricky.
What a waste of tempo! Anyway, no one has said that you need to move your hand up and down with the metronome needle. That is precisely the discussion: if someone had clearly said that, there would be no such discussion. The problem is that, for example, in Beethoven's Hammerklavier, if we mark each tick we hear on the metronome at 138 by moving our hand up and down at double the speed of the needle, we get a tempo for playing the sonata that makes it impossible to perform. And there are countless similar examples. That is exactly why the debate exists. I did not ask if it is possible to play waltzes in general at the tempo indicated by Czerny in his op. 500, but rather I suggested playing a waltz intuitively and then that specific waltz from Czerny's op. 500 at the indicated tempo and understanding the marking as you do. I also did not say that it is impossible to mark 138 beats per minute by moving the arm up and down 276 times, or 138 up and 138 down. I proposed that the gentleman in this video, having marked the tempo that way, try to play Beethoven's Hammerklavier and share his experience with me. More specifically, I would like him to demonstrate it, especially in the measures I mentioned. If we don't know how to correctly interpret what is written, it is difficult to engage in a debate. What I want to know is whether it is truly possible to respect the tempo markings of these great composers in numerous cases using the metronome, as you claim was evidently done. Those who think so, please demonstrate by playing the pieces.
@@germanmoreno9609 Your whole comment was about "we mark each tick by raising and lowering our hand or forearm, and we do it at the same speed as the metronome's needle". Sorry if I misunderstood you. That is something you might do while learning to sing in time, feeling the subdivisions of the beat. (More than one singing instruction manual prescribes this.) But that has nothing to do with using the metronome to indicate tempo.
Whether Op.106 is impossible to perform at Beethoven's metronome indication, or just very difficult, is a longstanding matter of debate. The question of how strictly the metronome indications are to be interpreted is also something to be discussed. It is not a black and white matter.
If I were a virtuoso pianist at the height of my powers, I might be able to demonstrate how the virtuosic piano works of the earlier nineteenth century could be performed. Sadly, I am not!
@@germanmoreno9609 About the waltz, if your uninformed preconception is that a waltz is always danced with 3 distinct steps, yes, you would probably 'instinctively' play it at half Czerny's tempo. But then you might try to find out about how waltzes were actually danced in the nineteenth century and change your mind.
Perhaps I was the one who didn't understand you well, then. I thought you had asked me about the source that states that it's like I described, how the metronome was used. And to that, the answer has been that no one, as far as I know. Obviously, I have said it. The rest I don't understand. Indeed, Danel does not say that this is how the metronome is used. That's why I said that no one says it, as far as I know. But he does say that a beat occurs after moving the hand in a double motion from top to bottom. And that fact is the basis of Winters' theory: that each beat is counted with a complete pendulum movement, in the case of the metronome, having made a movement to one side and then to the other. That is, one beat = two ticks. But again, I respond that nowhere, as far as I know, is this clearly stated. That's why there is this debate. On the other hand, what I meant when I said that what I had written was not well understood was not about this, but rather that it seemed impossible to me to move a hand or an arm 276 times per second. Now I would say that a bit of intellectual honesty would improve the debate.
Regarding the impossibility of performing pieces at such fast tempos, I used Beethoven as an example, but I also mentioned there are countless cases. In some cases, if it's not accepted that the Hammerklavier is impossible at that speed, it is indisputably impossible to respect tempo indications. As for the waltz, I asked for an experiment to be conducted. Does it mean that for some reason not only I, but many people, intuitively play a waltz at that speed? Perhaps the reason is that we do it because we hear it that way in many examples of professionals playing and dancing waltzes. But it is also understood that this is a debate from the fact that even Czerny himself had to try to clarify at what tempo a waltz should be played.
Good taste and musicianship over anything “authentic”
David Arditti, I have just read a comment written by Claudia Batcke, quote: Big parts of the 19th century are a «transition period» - you will find evidence of single beat and whole beat existing side by side. You can even find metronomes which are marked for both single and whole beat use». As a single beat supporter myself, who use my real name, I want to be taken serious despite my poor English. So why do I never hear anything about this metronomes from the single beat experts?
I have been shown no convincing documentary evidence of single and double-beat usage of the metronome existing side by side at any stage of the 19th century. As for metronomes, the only thing like that that I have seen is in a video by Berhard Ruchti, where he shows a brass device that he claims is a metronome marked for single and double beat. I doubt this has anything to do with playing music in a double-beat reading. For a start, it dates from the 20th century, when there was definitely no double-beat playing going on (intentionally). I think it's a kind of cut-price metronome where the maker has tried to show a wider range of tempi on it than it will really give, by doubling up the scale and telling the user to 'interpret'. Metronomes themselves are never going to give clear evidence on this one way or the other. One has to look at other evidence of how fast music was played in the past. This all points to the conclusion that speeds haven't changed much. I repeat the point that music can be played at any speed the player wishes. I just dispute the claim that this wrong reading of metronome marks is in any way historically correct.
Your historic documentation is pale proof in comparison with exhaustive documentation as concerns metronome value presented by WW. Two ticks per beat on the metronome makes many pieces totally impossible for a human to play in some cases 32 notes per second . There is also lots of contemporary co entary by musicians, ie. Franz Liszt criticizing acrobatic playing .... An single you tube video by Wim Winters contains more documentation against your musings than your whole video of vague generalizations.
The stupidity of double beaters is superb ! So 32 notes per second proves double beat true ? Ha ha but your scam guru says in another video that maximum number of notes was 10 notes / per second was the limit …. So if my maths are right 32/2 = 16 notes / sec ? Agree ? If you agree then WW is wrong , Beethoven was clearly quadruple beat not double beat 😂
This doesn't make sense.
If Liszt criticized acrobatic playing, doesn't that prove that it existed? Nobody could describe the speeds at which Wim Winters and Alberto Sanna perform as acrobatic.
Also ‘quasi una fantasia’ does NOT mean “play with fantasy”. “fantsia” is a form, or rather, a lack of form. A fantasy is something similar to a sonata, but less adhering to the form. So Beethoven is essentially saying: I’m publishing this as a sonata, but I am aware that it is not sticking to the form.
Yes and no. I think writing that at the beginning, though it is as you say a statement about the form (or lack of it), it is also giving the performer a hint about style of execution.
@@DavidArdittiComposer But I do not think that this really was Beethoven’s intention there. The C♯ minor sonata is quite romantised already in the first place. I think there is even a Wim thing where he claims that in the notated tempo the 1st movement looses it’s character, and fails to understand that this character is an unauthentical romanticised interpretation that has little to do with the original idea.
Since the "Fantasias", "Toccatas"...have a certain improvisatioal character in form and content (scale runs, arpeggios...) it makes a lot of sense to also play these pieces in a kind of improvisatioal manner, "with fantasy".
@@jbrahms586 But a fantasia is not an improvisatorial form...
@@TheVoitel I didn't say that. It is in the manner of an improvisation.
Good talk. I think Mr. Winters REALLY lost me when he recently opined on the Chopin Competition, and how, in his view, the judging criteria should focus on how slavishly players EXACTLY follow Chopin's tempi (however interpreted), pedal, even fingering. Which, to my mind, far from creating some sort of ultra-pristine Chopin experience, would create autonomation-like performances, essentially indistinguishable, the one from the other.
I think leaving Wim Winters’s fake world is a very good decision . Independently of tempo matters , rigidity is somehow incompatible with creativity . The most irritating thing about thing about Wim Winters is when he says , that in absence of pedal indication , pedal shouldn’t be used , but when there is no specific accentuation in the score he feels free to add its own claiming that it was implicit . His logic deserves a Nobel prize !! (NOT)
I hadn't seen Wim's comments on the Chopin Competition as I don't follow him much any more. If that is his view, then it confirms how he seems to entirely have forgotten what the actual purpose of music is: to be effective, to entertain and to move. I've made some comments on the Chopin Competition elsewhere (www.classicalmusicdaily.com/2021/10/newsletter.htm from 43 minutes in). I think one can make some other valid criticisms of it, especially, why is it all played on modern pianos, so far from the sound Chopin would have heard?
@@DavidArdittiComposer hello David , the Chopin institute runs in parallel to the modern piano competition a Chopin’ s competition on period pianoforte . Now , your point is valid , but then what it leads to logically is that no musical classic from the 19th century can’t be played on modern Steinway ? Should I bin all my Beethoven records to the bin ; )
@@mktsound8240 Thanks for the information. I hadn’t heard about that competition. Yes, I think we should hear a variety of performances on both period and modern instruments.
@@DavidArdittiComposer You are welcome and I agree with you .
Nice video, David.
some food for thought:
there was a historical practice of using pendulums to set tempo for music. In fact, metronome comes from that tradition - so much so that Maezel goes great lengths to insist on counting single ticks for a beat like a watch fully aware of this tradition of counting a full swing for each beat.
Beethoven was pretty much very deaf by the time metronome was gifted to him. Do you think he listened to the ticks or just watched a full swing as he was used to? Other musicians were not deaf, but were just as used to tradition as Beethoven.
The unit intended by Maezel for those numbers doesn't matter. If you set quarter note to 120 or 60 the value is irrelevant: all that matters is that you that you sound a quarter note either in a tick or a full swing.
There was never a precise moment for a change, child prodigy kids that Beethoven hated just kept rushing over the keyboard and eventually came up with the brilliant style of play. Kids like Mendelssohn, that Wagner hated for many reasons, among them because Mendelssohn rushed tempi to allow for more concerts (and thus more profit). George Smart, another English conductor also seemed to rush tempi and Beethoven seemed to be fully aware of this so when he asked Beethoven how much time the 9th should take, Beethoven claimed it took 45 minutes in a concert in Germany, probably laughing inside.
kids kept practicing and rushing and interpreting music to ticks that were never supposed to be the unit. And old men from past traditions were just perplexed to the new times but forced to either comply or retire...
anyway, I've seen plenty of pros and cons to this theory, including actual historical timings (that in previous times could well be measured in metric time, as scientific as those XVIII people used to be).
All I know what I hear myself: Mozart finally sounds like a mature composer of extremely dramatic and lyrical music instead of a circus brat maker of cheap cartoon music. Phrasings just sound better when you let the notes breathe...
I agree, food for thought. As I have said elsewhere, I am quite happy that some people might enjoy these pieces more at slower tempi, and I can agree there is often a case for slower tempi as revealing types of beauty in the music that is not heard when taking them at what appears to be the intended tempo. As for Mozart, we have no idea what his tempi might have been, we only have tradition and our own ears to guide us.
Among your specific points, yes there was a *much* older practice of counting the full swing of a pendulum (like two metronome ticks) as a beat: connected to the Mediaeval theory of Tactus. Lorenz Gadient and Wim Winters try to connect this to composers of the Classical period, but there's no direct evidence I've seen that Beethoven et. al. knew anything about this practice. It is true that Maelzel does write a sentence guarding against similar full-swing use of his metronome. But he doesn't go to 'great lengths', it's just one mention, and I don't think we can say whether he really had the old pendulum practice in mind, or whether he was just exhaustively guarding against all possible misinterpretations of his instructions.
I still maintain that the kind of change that is suggested, from double to single counting of metronome ticks, is the kind of change in measurement standards that cannot happen by accident. There's no example in history to parallel such a claim. This is the kind of change that has to happen publicly, by legislation or definite decision. I just don't see how, in reality, one practice could have just faded out and been forgotten, and a new practice brought in. This is exactly what I did think was possible when I first started watching Wim's videos. But the more I looked into the publishing history of music in the 19th century and contemporary writings on music, the more I realised it is almost inconceivable it could have happened with no-one commenting on it in print. Again, I don't say it is impossible, just very unlikely. It's an 'extraordinary claim' that requires 'extraordinary evidence'.
Again, on 'metric time', there's loads of writings in the 19th century on the measurement of time, and no mention of 'metric time'. Again, I think, not impossible, but another bizarre claim to try to 'square a circle' of an unlikely theory.
Anyway, thanks for your comments.
What I find fascinating is that Wim Winters has managed to propagate this concept of 'metric time' . This is a pure fantasy , it simply never existed, you can search for it on the internet , you will find nothing about it except Wim few videos on the subject. Way to measure time has been more and more precise over time , but in the 18th Century the notion of a second was well established and was the same that the one we know today. Mersenne himself says clearly in his treaty that there are 24 hours a day, and 3600 s per hour. The reason behind this false information is naturally obvious. Wim knows that the concert durations, all the opera playbills and official announcement of performances are all proving 'double beat' is a myth , so that is the only way for him to protect his lie which is after all his source of revenue.
This is the way rumours appears and stay engrained in people's mind and that is the main issue I have with the authentic sound channel. Playing at half speed is harmless but disseminating false ideas and concepts is simply not acceptable.
Who told you that there was a "tradition of counting a full swing for each beat" on pendulums? What historical sources do you rely on?
There are some insurmountable problems with double beat.
Like the records of historic concert times.
Also 2 ticks in a triplet division makes no sense. A polyrhythm is not suitable for something that is supposed to neutrally represent a tempo. It would be heavily distracting in passages that don’t have a 2 against 3 feel.
Or the devaluation of notes which drastically alters the balance rhythm. Composers carefully fill out the subdivisions to create rich textures, if the fastest passage has 32nd notes they are turned into 16th notes at half value. Then if the lowest note value is something like 2 bars then that is changed into 4 bars and might not be conceivable anymore. Then you removed an entire layer of rhythm since the lowest note values have become inconceivable.
It's funny how in this tempo debate, no body cares about how the melody works or sounds at diferent speeds.
I think people do care, but they may have different opinions.
@@DavidArdittiComposer no they don't they NEVER talk about it. I mean ever. Sure you don't see that topic ever.
@@dickersonforever So what’s your take?
@@DavidArdittiComposer My thing is the Melody. I mean as the piece doesnt loose the chararter the Melody needs to be heard clearly and firmly, and that my friend is something in the oblivion now days, do your search and find out whom no body cares the most important thing in music the Melody.
@@dickersonforever Sorry, I don’t quite know what you are on about. Melody is always being discussed, but that’s not the same thing as fixing the tempo. People have different opinions about what the correct tempi for various melodies might be. That’s the whole point.
Yes. Maybe Winters is wrong and I can assure that I take very cautiously all the examples that have no metronome marks like the Bach or the Mozart works. But on the other hand there are things like Scumann´s Traumerei that has a metronome mark of 100 a quarter note and everybody plays at double beat because of the tradition. And has anybody played the etude nr 3 op. 10 by chopin at the speed that chopin marked? The answer is no. And why?
Because we happen to disagree with what the composer's intentions were. As simple as that. No need to play the entirety of classical music twice as slow.
Actually, no-one plays Traumerei at 'double-beat'. Almost everybody plays it much slower than quarter = 100, and some perhaps even twice as slow, but that is not the same thing. On Chopin Op.10 no.3, there is a YT video by Greg Niemczuk using Chopin's tempo marking that you might find interesting.
Could you show us how you play the first movement of the Hammerklavier Sonata at a tempo of half note=138? And also the third movement of Sonata quasi una fantasia op. 27, No. 2 at a tempo of half note=92? It doesn't matter if you don't adhere to the same tempo in measures 163-166, and even though Beethoven didn't write the words Cadenza, or Ad libitum, or anything similar, you play those measures at whatever tempo you feel like. Thank you.
Could you show us a historical source that says counting 1 beat as 2 ticks is the standard way of using the metronome? Could you explain to me how to do an octave glissando in whole beat? Thank you.
L. Danel's Méthode Simplifiée pour l'enseignement populaire de la musique vocale. The second question I don't understand.
@@germanmoreno9609 nowhere in the document is said that a beat needs to be counted every 2 ticks of the metronome. You only showed me this because Wim showed it on his channel, giving HIS interpretation of the document.And even if this document was in favor of whole beat, its not nearly enough to justify all the single beat sources.
Do you not know what an octave glissando is?
Sorry, I interpreted that you were seriously looking for a source. Now I realize that you don't believe the metronome was used in any other way. I also thought you wanted to know if there was any source about the way of counting that I described in another message of mine to this video. This one: "The issue of the beats, the ticks we hear, doesn't have any inconvenience. We hear each tick of the metronome when it's set to the tempo desired by the composer, for example Quarter Note=112; we mark each tick by raising and lowering our hand or forearm, and we do it at the same speed as the metronome's needle. We hear the beats, we respect them, and we mark 112 movements per minute. The discussion lies in whether we consider a "Beat" when the hand returns to its original position or if we consider a "Beat" as half of each complete movement. That means, whether we mark with the arm moving AT THE SAME SPEED as the metronome's needle, or if we move it AT DOUBLE THE SPEED. If we moved the arm at the same speed as the metronome's needle, the number of beats in a minute that our hand would make on the table, piano, leg, or whatever, would be 56. If we moved it at double the speed to hit our hand on the table, piano, leg, or whatever, 112 times per minute, we would be marking 112 beats per minute but precisely moving our arm at double the speed." Danel's book does explain, and there's nothing to interpret, that this is how the beats are counted. "Measure. Music, and especially music where several people perform at the same time, requires a great regularity of movement so that each sound arrives at the intended moment and stops in the same way. Without this, there would be the same disorder as in a regiment whose soldiers march at an uneven pace. To achieve this indispensable regularity, make small beats with your hand, moving from top to bottom, equal in speed like the beats of a clock's pendulum. And so that I can hear and judge if you are operating together, strike these beats with your right hand on your left hand, as I show you. Avoid using your arm and forearm in these movements. It would cause unnecessary fatigue and hinder you in singing. The elbows should remain close to the body, and only the right hand should act, from the wrist joint. These beats (equal in speed like the beats of a clock's pendulum, which sound when the right hand strikes the left hand after completing the up and down movement) are called beats. (This is called a beat)." But beyond sources, is it possible to play not only Beethoven's Hammerklavier but also a vast amount of literature by Czerny, Liszt, etc., up to Chopin, etc., respecting the metronomic indications and understanding them as you do? If it's not possible, at least we have to admit that there is a problem. A solution, the simplest and without weaknesses, is to understand that by moving the hand up and down to mark the beats, and doing it at the same speed as the metronome's pendulum when we set it to the indicated speed, we will get the beats at which we should play the pieces each time we hear the tick on the left hand. This solves all the problems and makes it possible to respect the scores left to us by these great composers much more. I think I know what an octave glissando is; what I don't know is what an octave glissando has to do with the tempo at which a piece is played. And do you know what an idiot is?
@@germanmoreno9609 So, because this random guy that no one knows used to count according to double beat, and has, to my knowledge, no connections with other signifcant composers, this somehow proves that every musician ever used double beat? Are you really that arrogant that you're gonna ignore all the sources that prove single beat, including sources from your beloved Czerny, who according to y'all is proof that whole beat was a thing? A change in metronome counting is not to be unnoticed. If there actually occurred a shift in metronome counting, there would be an absurd amount of historical sources that talk about it. Yet you have to look for the most random person ever, just to come with one SINGLE sources that maybe talks about it. In fact, i think this person happens to count every beat as 2 ticks, and that it's just an exception from literally everybody else. That's the only explenation for this, because of the amount of sources that suggest single beat was the real thing, and the LACK of sources that say there occurred a change in metronome counting.
Let me get this straight: You think that the best solution to the 0.01% ''impossible'' pieces, is to reduce the tempo of the entirety of classical music to half the speed? Sorry, but if you believe that, then i don't even know if it's worth arguing with you. The music becomes so painfully slow that any amateur pianist can play it. It makes me wonder what ''virtuosity'' meant back then. I'll ask you now, do you know what an idiot is?
It's pretty sad that you can't see the connection between an octave glissando and the tempo of a piece - it's impossible to slowly play an octave glissando. How do you not understand that.
The only thing I get from whole beaters is that they're extremely arrogant, refuse to look or talk about any sources that prove single beat, mindlessly follow everything Wim Winters says and his interpretations and don't do any research themselves. You have proven this all once again in this conversation.
...or any other pianist on the planet who plays the Hammerklavier at the tempo indicated by Beethoven. Your video at 9:16! That tempo is set by Beethoven, not by some editor or someone who didn't know what they were doing.
I used to rate Wim’s recordings quite highly in the early days but to my mind he has now somewhat lost the plot. Yes some of his slow recordings reveal more of the depth and character of the music but many are painfully and unbearably slow. I used to play a harpsichord where it is not possible to vary the intensity of the sound as the strings are plucked. To compensate for this I would tweak the duration of the notes a bit which worked quite well. Thus tempo became flexible to a degree and this habit still persists even though I play a clavichord and could stick to a rigid timing. When we speak we naturally speed up and slow down to emphasise a point so it seems perfectly logical to do thee same in music. Everyone will interpret a piece differently and that is how it should be. The simple truth is that nobody can perform a piece exactly as Mozart or Beethoven did as we have no recordings of them to mimic. We can speculate about tempo, pitch and temperament until the cows come home but ultimately it is down to our personal preference, what our instruments are best at doing and our ability as a player. For me that is a replica 1796 clavichord, a=415 as that gives it the best sound and stability, an unequal temperament as I like the sound of it, and slowish playing as that is the best I can do with arthritic hands. We should all be free to play however we like or listen to the recordings we like but shouldn’t try to convert everyone based on what is at best flimsy evidence.
Exactly. I think the problem with Wim is that his mythology of ‘authentic tempo’ has now become a business for him that he almost has no choice but to continue with, like the people who keep writing books about how aliens built the pyramids or something.
@@DavidArdittiComposer Wim has become such an evangelist for his cause that I fear he will become a martyr to it as well. A small sect of devotees will undoubtedly follow him to the end but without some hitherto unknown groundbreaking evidence coming to light he will be forgotten in time which is a terrible shame as he could have made some fantastic clavichord recordings and maybe helped to popularise this wonderful expressive instrument. Let us hope that all is not lost and good musical sense prevails - we all have errors of judgment sometimes.
@@DavidArdittiComposer, how do you solve the "semper senza sordini" instruction that Beethoven wrote in the beginning of the first movement, when you play the movement even on a period instrument? The only way a single beat performance could make the first movement anything but a dissonant mess would be to use dampeners for every change in harmony and thus explicitly violate Beethoven's instruction to ALWAYS play without the dampeners.
Wim's recording of the 1st movement on an 1825 pianoforte is quite convincing: ua-cam.com/video/7srk51hibs4/v-deo.html
@@babygottbach2679 Let's be clear what we are talking about. Beethoven left no metronome markings on the Moonlight Sonata. We are talking about those published by Czerny from 1828, i.e. after Beethoven's death, but which he claimed reflected Beethoven's practice. Already by this time the instruments had changed from those Beethoven wrote for earlier in his career, and we have no idea how Czerny actually used the pedal in this movement. But assuming Czerny's 60 to the crotchet is correct (and it is in the range of tempi you hear nowadays, and seems reasonable to me), I'm not convinced that a performance on an 1820s instrument, with much less sustain than a modern piano, keeping the dampers up all the time, would be such a dissonant mess. But it's an experiment I'd like to try.
@@DavidArdittiComposer I sent you a recording of Wim's performance of the first movement of the Moonlight on an 1825 pianoforte. Wim follows the "semper senza sordini" instruction and keeps the dampers up for the entire movement. But even with the smaller sonority of the 1825 movement, you can just imagine what dissonance would result if one were to perform the movement at twice the speed that Wim did on that instrument.
Also, performing the first movement at single beat would completely ruin any articulation that Beethoven put. The entire movement would just be legato, one long slur, yet Beethoven is quite specific in his use of the slur. In some measures, he'll slur the entire measure under one slur, but in others, he'll use slurs for each group of triplets.
At the time this video was made, I don't know what evidence Winters had presented. While I don't believe his theory, there are some oddities he's presented in the last few years that I've seen that bears some explanation. First, some early metronomes he has shown have two scales, one being half the value of the other (which he claims is the whole-beat side). First off, why aren't people capable of dividing by 2 in their heads. In some cases if the tempo was really slow and you couldn't beat slow enough with one click per beat approach then you could do two clicks per beat. Also, the original maelzel metronome scale had adagio at 120 which seems ridiculous. Third, he recently presented some commentary about how some music critic way back when was complaining that people were playing certain pieces (that today in single-beat are already fast) at twice the composer's marked tempo. My piano (playing or engineering) skills aren't good enough to say definitively that these tempos are physically impossible but at least musically 2x the speed would also be ridiculous. The preponderance of the evidence is clearly single-beat but questions like these remain.
The metronomes with two scales are late, not early, and unusual. Maelzel's original metronome had no Italian tempo words on it, because the way the metronome is supposed to be used makes them meaningless. The video about pieces supposedly played twice as fast as the composer's marked tempo makes several wrong assumptions about what the author thought the 'right' tempo was. And so on with all of Winters arguments. You are right not to believe his theory, and you should not take on trust what he tells you as fact in his videos. He is a persuasive talker and a skilled youtuber, and he has blocked comments (some, not all) that present serious counter-arguments.
David this is great video. Thank you for debunking Wim Winters.
I'm going to share a small sample of parts of a dialogue with a user who advocates for using a metronome in single beat. If anyone's interested in reading it, you're more than welcome. And if you look for my messages in this video, you'll find the full conversation, except for any messages that this user may have deleted.
Me: I understand defending the idea that the metronome should be used as it was intended when reading the descriptions by Mälzel, Czerny, Moscheles, etc. That is rational and understandable, and discussing that would be productive. However, if to defend one stance on this issue, someone has to claim that Beethoven’s Op. 106 obviously must be played at that tempo and that there’s no problem with it, then to me, that’s incomprehensible, uncomfortable, and not an interesting topic for debate.
That’s why I’ve been trying to say in all my comments, from the first one I made here, that we should at least acknowledge that as musicians we encounter many problems when using the metronome as it has always been used. If people come out and say there’s no problem, I’ll challenge them to prove that there’s no problem-not just by playing the problematic pieces, but also by answering difficult questions, like: why Prestissimo when it should be Allegro? This is the first movement of a monumental sonata. It wasn’t customary to start a sonata by playing as fast as the fastest player in the West. A work with this length, structural complexity, depth of content, shifting moods almost every ten seconds, etc., etc. Beyond all the technical problems, a theoretical issue, so to speak, is the question of why this work, with all its characteristics, should now start as fast as possible. And for 99% of pianists, including professionals, as fast as they can play is not enough to match Beethoven’s indicated tempo.
I hope my position is finally understood, and that the responses are less emotional.
The user in single beat: "I don't understand your position. Why is it rational "to defend the idea that the metronome should be used as it was intended when reading the descriptions by Mälzel, Czerny, Moscheles, etc.", but not rational to say that, since Beethoven (teacher of Czerny, collaborator with Maelzel, friend of Moscheles) intended it to be used in that way, a performance of the work should do its best to convey his intention as regards tempo as well as all other aspects?
If your position is that Beethoven's metronome marks are useless, you share that belief with A.B. Marx and with many other musicians. It is defendable, but I think it is unhelpful.
If your position is that performers are free to make interpretative choices, tempo included, I agree, within limits. (Glenn Gould here is beyond the limits, as he often is. Ever heard his Mozart?)
If your position is that Beethoven used the metronome in 'wholebeat', then I am afraid you are deeply mistaken and simply do not have enough knowledge of musicology.
Me: Perhaps the fundamental issue here is that you don't fully understand what others are expressing. This may be because you intentionally overlook much of what people have said to you, or because you add things that weren't said. For example, "However, if to defend one stance on this issue, someone has to claim that Beethoven’s Op. 106 obviously must be played at that tempo and that there’s no problem with it, then to me, that’s incomprehensible, uncomfortable, and not an interesting topic for debate."
You didn’t pay attention to the phrase "and that there’s no problem with it," and you claimed that I said this attitude would be irrational. What I actually said was "then to me, that’s incomprehensible, uncomfortable, and not an interesting topic for debate."
What I meant was that I understand if someone questions the theory that the metronome was used differently, based on what can be inferred from descriptions of its use. (In fact, I’ve done this for a long time.) But if, in the debate about this matter, the person advocating for using it in single beat denies all the problems that arise as a result, then the debate is pointless. (And I’ve never done that-denied that there are tempo issues due to the extreme speed required when using the metronome in that way.) In other words, I didn’t say that it’s rational to defend the use of the metronome in single beat and irrational to defend that the works in question should be played accordingly. That would be foolish-who in their right mind would defend one and not the other?
What I actually said, and what you didn’t understand because you omitted part of what I said and added other things I didn’t say, is that if in the debate someone denies that using the metronome this way makes playing all the works in question problematic, then there’s no point in debating. And this is what many people here do-they deny that using the metronome in the way they advocate leads to problems. What I find incomprehensible is the denial that problems arise when using it this way, many of which are insurmountable if one insists on defending the single beat interpretation.
Just take one example. Show me that Exercise No. 10 from Czerny’s Op. 299 can be played, and that it makes sense as an exercise for intermediate-level students. That an intermediate student’s left hand can play all the 32nd notes at a dotted quarter note = 66 in single beat without problems, even when knowing that the dynamic level needs to increase to fortissimo by the end. The same goes for Exercise No. 13, though perhaps that one is less challenging to execute, but still makes little sense for an intermediate student.
Show me that Exercise No. 14 from the same Op. 299 can be played and makes sense as an exercise for students. I’ll stop at this Exercise No. 14 to say that I believe it’s impossible to play those 32nd notes at quarter note = 116 in single beat (If not, prove it yourself or show someone who can make it possible.) Whereas at quarter note = 116 in whole beat, it’s an excellent exercise and makes sense as a student exercise. Don’t you agree? That’s all I’m saying: One thing is debatable-the interpretation of how they intended us to use the metronome. But it can’t be that, in this discussion, someone claims that in single beat, the examples I’ve just given are not problematic.
The user in single beat: "Yes, there are some metronome marks that are problematic - that create huge problems in execution. I agree. I don't think anybody who knows anything about it denies this. There have been long-standing debates among musicians about the problems of fast metronome indications, particularly in regard to Beethoven and Czerny. So what is the answer - pretend that the problems can all be solved if you just play everything at half speed? Ignore contemporary evidence (a French reviewer in the 1830s thought Czerny's Op.299 was an abuse, asking for more than 800 notes a minute)? Tell yourself that Glenn Gould's Hammerklavier, first movement, is "a fearful prestissimo" and "unusually fast and fiery"? Come on!"
Me: Tell me, what's your answer to the problem caused by the single beat? Come on!
If I were your student and after teaching me how to use the metronome, you gave me Czerny's Exercise No. 14 from Op. 299, and I asked you, "This is impossible to play at that speed, right?" What would you say to me? Would you still insist that we must respect Czerny's metronome marking and interpret it as single beat? And what would you do if your student then asked, "Can you show me that it’s actually possible to do what you're saying without contradiction? Can you interpret Czerny's metronome marking for Exercise 14 of Op. 299 in single beat and play it at that speed for me? Or do you just want ME to try to play it at that speed, even though you know it's impossible to reach? Or are you going to tell me that obviously the metronome should be used in single beat, but we shouldn’t interpret these pieces that way because it’s impossible to reach that speed-“just play as fast as you can, that’s possible”? That would be foolish, isn’t it? Who in their right mind would defend one and not the other thing?
What would you say to your student if they asked you something like that?
The markings on Beethoven 5th first movement seem to be barely playable by modern orchestras. .
Barely playable ? no
Pleasant to hear at original speed 108 ? not sure , too fast
Just for the record
- 103 BMP: Glenn Gould
- 105 BMP: Arturo Toscanini conducting the NBC Symphony Orchestra
Faster than original
-109 BMP: John Eliot Gardiner with the Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique
and also
- some musicians from Brooklyn Philamarmonic players have also played it much faster than 108 bpm just to prove it was possible
The 5th was written prior to the existence of the metronome and Beethoven was already deaf by the time metronome marks were put. On top if that it it said that this marks were added a posteriori just playing the 5th on a piano.
Liszt and Mendelssohn and Schumann have argued against slower versions as many orchestras considered it rushed. This, in itself, tends to prove that the original tempo was not double beat as it would not make sense otherwise.
Don't know about playable, but I remember years ago putting a 33 rpm LP (vinyl) of a Beethoven symphony at 45 rpm by mistake, and thinking it sounded almost better - though higher-pitched of course.
@@gerardvila4685 That's quite interesting as an anecdote actually . When you think about it
the ratio between Gardiner's fast version and Berstein's slow version is about 0.8 ( 31/38) which is more less similar to the ratio 33/45 ! So it could well be that you were listening to the real thing should the original be in the slow region. I am sure you should like Gardiner's version . To be able to listen to Wim Winters 'historical demolition' you would need to play it on a 78 rpm :)
One big problem - how was it that the first public performance of the Hammerklavier Sonata in 1836 took a full hour? Liszt was playing btw, and remember, he knew Beethoven. In the single beat method, it would have taken half an hour. Single beat method debunked. Period.
He took his own decisions on the tempi he thought best? We know that he asked Chopin for a much slower tempo than he had marked for his Etude Op. 10 no. 3, as he thought it better, and most performers since have tended to agree with him. A single example does not settle this one way or another. But an extensive survey of historical documented times of performance can give strong evidence. This has been covered by Pianopat and others, and the evidence from such surveys comes out against double-beat theory. They show basically that there's no evidence tempi have changed much over time. ua-cam.com/video/rqkvAyMoJ04/v-deo.html
Performance at tempo is close to 4o mn . In double beat it would be 1h 20 mn
There are a lot of ritartendos in this piece and you cannot calculate mathematically the duration of each movement if you want to play them musically .The comment about the Liszt performance was made by Berlioz himself and it is easy to prove that Berlioz lecture of the metronome was single beat which proves the opposite of what Wim Winter wanted to demonstrate.
“Presque une heure” is a lot more ambiguous than “a full hour.” Recounting a performance many years after the fact, would you say 45-50min would fall into the range of “almost an hour”? And-Liszt knew Beethoven? Come on. They met once when Liszt was a child, if the story is even true.
@@minirausch The simple fact that Wim Winters has to use anecdotes of this caliber to support his affirmation is the strongest sign that he is rewriting history based on biased facts. On the one hand you have a man who refuses categorically to consider all historical timings ( from Smart and others ) that fafner88 has collected , on the other hand he values an anecdote, which if even true ( as you point out) proves absolutely nothing and gives more support to single beat given the anecdote is supposedly coming from Berlioz.
This is the saddest debunking ever
So many pianists are acrobats, not poets or artists. No one can play at 276 beats per quarter note.
You are saying that no one can play 276 quarter notes a minute? That would be 4.6 notes a second - say 5. Sit down at a piano with a metronome ticking at 60, and see how 'impossible' it is. If there are eighth notes, you need to play just over 9 a second. Harder, but a reasonably well-trained piano student would manage it easily.
Etudes Op. 10, No. 1: Etude in C Major "Waterfall" (Historical Tempo)
Tiago Mileu
A good practice speed, but why all the hesitations? Why does he pause at the beginning of almost every other bar? And why doesn't he realize that the right hand is an accompaniment to the left hand? The melody is in the long notes in the bass, and the tempo has to be fast for it to be appreciated. Listen to Vladimir Ashkenazy, live (Chopin's tempo).
If it is a good speed for practicing, show us that you, Mister dismasZ or whoever you are, can play it faster and that Tiago Mileu is wrong in thinking that this is the tempo Chopin indicates for the piece.
And fundamentally, please show us that it is possible, without any problem, to play all the pieces by Beethoven, Czerny, Chopin, etc., with metronome markings that, understood in single beat, result in tempos that are either extremely fast, ridiculously fast, or impossible. This way, perhaps we will stop thinking that there is something odd about those metronome markings.
@germanmoreno9609.
I will start with a list that presents pianists who play Chopin’s op 10 no 1 faster than single beat tempo. The list is not complete.
Chopin op 10/1
Double beat tempo 3:35
Single beat tempo 1:47,5
D. Kharitonov 1:38
G. Cziffra 1:40
D. H. Lim 1:40
M. Kiyone. 1:42
Fialkowska. 1:43
G. Ohlson. 1:44
M. Argerich 1:45
Sehun Kim 1:45
Wim Winters is good at convincing people. Unfortunately, he also sometimes resorts to manipulation and censorship. Neither manipulations and censorship are accepted at a scientific level. But because the double beat theory is not correct, he loses against logic. Several sources + - 200 years old tell of a competitive mentality among pianists. It was about being able to play the «impossible» to impress other pianists, music critics and audiences.
In an enviroment amongprofessionals, no one would be impressed by Chopin’s etudes in double beat tempo.
It is from children and drunk people that we hear the truth. Now we are not going to drink, but listen to det children instead. I have gone through hundreds of videos of kids here on UA-cam. I find children 7-12 years old, who play op 10 and 25 much faster than Wim Winters and the double beat theory. Chopin was about 20 years old when he composed op 10. He thus had 8-13 more years to reach a virtuoso level. And Wim Winters wants you to believe that Chopin played much slower than the kids. Totally illogical!
Here is an incomplete list of children who perform some of Chopin’s etudes. Also when it comes to Czerny op 299 (740) Liszt’s op 6 (S 136) and Burgmüller op 100, we find a number of hildren who play faster than double beat tempo.
Maxim Golubev op 10/1
Umi Garrett op10/4 version 2:17.
Luca Newman op 10/4
Haochen Zhang op 10 complete, 11 years old!
Eva Gevorgyan op 10 complete, 12 years old!
Ryota Yamazaki op 25/11
ZaiZai op 25/12
Aimi Kobayashi op 25/2
Xinran Shi op 25/6
Magnus MusicDoLove op 25/6
Blake Frank op 10/5 at 3:25
George Li op 10/5
Annie Zhou op 10/5
Annie Zhou op 10/9
Michael Haeringer op 10/2 several recordings
Biyan Jiao op 10/5
Ben Lepetit op 25/12
Sarina Li op 25/1
@@germanmoreno9609 I trust that the list just provided by geiryvindeskeland7208 will go some way to answering you. I don't know why you think that everything written by the major classical composers should be possible to play "without any problem". Of course it takes a great deal of hard work, skill, long practice, and basic talent. Do you want everything in life to be easy?
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 Thank you. I wish your list were enough to convince devoted believers in wholebeat, but I fear it will not!
Actually, I am a little bit ambivalent about these arguments. On the one hand, I would agree that Wim is too dogmatic about the unconditional validity of the metronome values (which certainly applies to some of the supporters of the single beat theory, as well).
On the other hand, until well into the 19th century, European societies were predominantly agrarian. So, Wim's argument that time was slower back then seems to me entirely plausible.
Besides, in my view, it would not have been necessary to hold an international conference in order to change the use of the metronome: For example, the practice to start a trill with the upper note changed some time in Beethoven's time without being announced by a committee (I dont know whether this change was reflected in any contemporary sources).
Wouldn't it be possible that different ways to use the metronome existed simultaneously for a certain time until the current method gradually gained acceptance?
That's a very interesting point about the change in convention over the trill. I've not heard that comparison made before. It seems to me to be a bit different, as a trill has to begin either on the upper note or the lower, and it always did seem to be at the discretion of the performer which he or she preferred, though it appears some composers expected one more as the standard, and some the other, and it was always contextual, so always a bit of a blurred convention. On the other hand, metronome marks were never considered contextual. Whereas trills, like all ornaments, have always been a somewhat free, personal expression thing, metronome marks are the reverse, an attempt to pin the music down precisely. Also the trill rule is a fine detail of the music, whereas doubling or halving the tempo is a major thing. Also, metronome marks are connected to a particular piece of technology invented at a definite point in time, whereas the trill is an effect that has existed in music from time immemorial. So I'm not persuaded there's much parallel, though there's food for thought there: how do we know how trills were executed in the past? Some composers left explanations, but most did not.
Are agrarian societies actually slow? I'm not an agrarian, but I can imagine being one and having to get the harvest in in a narrow time window. Maybe not always so slow. People always worked, walked, marched, danced and sang at similar speeds, surely, and aren't these the fundamental bases of musical tempo?
@@DavidArdittiComposer How to do trills is definitely not a dogma, you are right. Still, I think there was a certain preference for starting with the upper note in baroque and early classic times. Anyway, my point in comparing trills to metronome marks is the - possible - gradual process of adaptation which would make a formal decision unnecessary, a least in my view. I could have also mentioned changes in language here which occur wthout an explicite consent by the speakers of that language.
As for agrarian societies: These may not have changed very much in themselves, but if we look at the modern predominantly urban, highly industrialized civilization there is definitely an acceleration in relation to the former agrarian one. Therefore, I find Wim's argument quite convincing, in that respect. If I remember correctly, he explains that "mainstream" musicologists even claim a reduction of speed from classics and early romantics to modern times. This would indeed contradict to the general development of society, even if not to the technical progress in the development of the piano, as you ave pointed out.
@@monticarlo8064 You are right that some changes in standards do occur by gradual adaptation and gradual adoption. However, there are no cases where, for example, some people have decided there should be 24 inches to a foot, while others have continued to use 12 inches to the foot, and nobody ever noticed there was any disagreement or issue about it. That seems to me to be just about an accurate analogy to the double-beat version of music history. The biggest argument to me is that there is a continuous record of publication of pieces with MM numbers on them, by a huge number of composers and arrangers, throughout Europe all through the 19th century, and nobody ever mentioned there was any issue over what the numbers meant. This does not argue to me it is impossible that some composers read metronomes in double-beat, but just that it is rather unlikely. The claim that lots of leading composers did this is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, which is not forthcoming.
I don't think the statement that '
@@DavidArdittiComposer I see your point. And I agree with you that it is a great weakness of Wim's argument that no one thought theoretically about the alleged change in assessment of metronome numbers. Actually, I am not convinced by his theory, either, I only try to understand his reasoning. Apart from that, I could imagine that nowadays a lot of pieces are actually played faster than let's say 200 years ago, but that's just my assumption.
@@DavidArdittiComposer Excellent point!
Wim is wonderful at clavichord. But as musicologist......mmmhhh....he and his fellows say that in Beethoven's period people were more relaxed and less "fast"; but in this period everything happened! They cut the head to a King , Bonaparte tried to conquer Europe, he was defeated, another social class the bourgeoisie achieved the power, Italy began the Risorgimento........Things went very fast in that time!!
andreagriseri. It’s fine to chop off a king’s head at a double beat tempo, but of course it takes twice as long. No, I am so rude to imagine that I have a better explanation for why there is no correlation between a slow lifestyle and tempo in the music. In our time, most people listen to pop and rock, not classical. Therefore, in our stressed lifestyle, most pop and rock music would be performed in fast tempi, but that’s not the case. Most pop and rock is played in fairly moderate tempi. There is therefore no correlation between a slow lifestyle and the tempo of music. Why it was played very quickly also + - 200 years ago was due to the same phenomenon as today, man’s urge to compete. Just then and now - it was important to impress other musicians, music journalists and the audience. But music performed at double beat tempo did not impress anyone in a professional music community.
Music is contemplative, not competitive. With or without metronome tyranny, today's musical practice is epileptogenic
Was the modern arppegio notation a thing back then? Then people theorized that the 32rd notes was meant to be that.
I mean mozart did the same thing in alla turca
Yes, Beethoven uses the arpeggio wavy line at the start of the ‘Tempest’ sonata, for example. But then at the end of the exposition he notates a similar arpeggio in semiquaver grace-notes, like he’s a bit undecided on the best notation. Or maybe the implication of the grace-note is that it’s a slower arpeggio. You see similar in different drafts of Chopin’s works, where he changes his mind about notating arpeggios as wavy lines or little notes.
perfect explanation. This video should become the answer to many doubts. Certainly modern players are faster than Chopin and Beethoven. Let's take the cascade study n.1 by Chopin, metronome at 176 is too fast even for modern pianists, so considering that Chpin was not as fast as modern pianists, the only explanation is that 176 was a mistake number made by Chopin or by editors. If there is one thing to take with a pinch of salt is the metronome markings.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards The evidence is that technique increased among players especially after Chopin's death. And this early Pachmann recording is not strong evidence but is revealing. Pachmann and Gide seem to be in agreement on the tempo for this piece
ua-cam.com/video/Uwx_HaZOm80/v-deo.html
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards Speed has got a lot to do with accuracy. There is not strong evidence, but use rationality. It depends a lot on the single piece. Just to give you an idea, try to play the Chopin etude n.1 on a lighter keyboard (like a synth or a fortepiano), it will be impossible, only modern pianos allow you that speed and accuracy. On the other hand if you play the fantaisie-impromptu, the same speed can be achieved on modern pianos and fortepianos.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards You are missing the point, it depends on the piece. Playing the cascade etude on a Pleyel is actually more difficult, as soon as you hit a wrong note, even slightly, it will be heard very loudly. If you hit slightly a wrong note on a modern piano, chances are you won't hear it, because it won't produce any sound.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards You sound a bit infantile to continue any serious conversation.
myuncle2, quote: «Martin Baldwin Edwards You sound a bit infantile to continue any serious conversation». Myuncle2, if you’re only familiar with Wim Winters’ videos, you’re not qualified to engage in a serious discussion. Sometimes he manipulates, censors, and provide inaccurate information.
Wim reads Maelzel's instructions as proving his case. ua-cam.com/video/7tizWwFiaKc/v-deo.html
He does, it's just perverse. In the end you have to examine all the evidence in the round and make a judgment. His defies common sense.
The argues have some kind of sense, but man, the slow versions of win show'us an universe of things in the music that have passed away of our perception due to speed.... The music in itself have more soul now, more beauty, more live, more musical enphasis than tecnical enphasis....
They are better now, and this is that matters....🤷
Not sure about that . Paradoxically , Winters always choose fast movements that he plays at half speed ,he actually rarely picks up adagios or lento movements. Why ? This is paradoxal for someone who is found of slow music . Very simple , slow movements become excruciatingly boring and without any musical sense in double beat and he is avoiding them like the plague !
Wim is unmusical and uninspired. Ungifted. No matter the tempi(s).
@@mktsound8240 i have to discord about it, there are some musics that realy make sense, but for an exemple, I realy see much more sense in his "Moonlight Sonata slow tempo", this dont make it boring (for me at least) it become much more alive!!!
Wim has so many folks in a tither, and has triggered them to an embarrassing degree. He may be deluded but he has careful videos about each point made above. This is yet another partially baked refutation. Every science has it's promoters of extreme views, and some are proved correct. Music history is not close to a science, so why folks are so insulted by Wim's views as to infer his motives and liken him to a conspiracy theorist speaks more to their insecurity than Winter. This presenter is at least civil, more or less. He is not aware of Wim's counter arguments, or does not care to voice them. Hence this video is yet another free promotion of Winter. Right or wrong he has to love the exposure. Don Quixote was not "right", but he was a great hero anyway :)
Le's be clear, Wim's approach cannot be called scientific at all. Any scientific methodology take all facts into consideration, whether these facts tend to prove or not the assumptions. Wim is known to manipulate facts, extracts text out of context, ignore counter proof and bans any UA-camr who comes up with counter evidence. This is 'conspiracy' at its best : manipulate historical facts for a purpose.
Folks in a tither? And the alternative is what? To ignore Wim. That's perfectly possible of course. It's a dilemma, in all such fields of weirdness, be it flat earthism, science denial of various kinds, fake medicine, or fake musicology, whether or not to take on the arguments and show those who may be new to the field or less well-informed that there is a strong counter-view. It's always possible to argue that the debunkers are providing promotion for the fakery, but I've also seen people like me, who are taking Wim to task, criticised the opposite way, with people saying that we are trying to exploit Wim's fame in order to boost ourselves! You can't win!
You argue: 'He may be deluded but he has careful videos about each point made above.' Well, yes, in some senses of the word 'careful', that is true. I am in fact very much aware of all his arguments, and it would not be possible to address them all in half an hour. His videos are not 'careful' in the sense of taking care to balance all the arguments and be scrupulous with facts and contexts, they are 'careful' in the sense of being carefully-made to seed confusion and be unclear. On of his main techniques is to make the viewer think that they have somehow missed, through their own inattention or lack of dedication to watching all his videos, some critical point that provides the key evidence and makes his case hang together. It is a very clever technique, because it keeps viewers fascinated, and keeps them watching more videos to try to find the 'killer evidence' of which he keeps hinting. In fact the good evidence is, of course, lacking, but he doesn't need that, he just needs people to keep watching to rack up the view counts, as this has become his career.
In the end I have nothing to gain and nothing to loose from arguing or not with the 'double beat' promoters. I could ignore them, but I just don't like to see musical nonsense go unchallenged.
I think Wim comes not from theoretical contemplation but is trying to resolve a very practical issue of many tempo marking being impossible to execute. I think it is beautiful that while the world is on fire with global warming, microplastics, Gaza and Kharkiv, we still debate how fast of slow to play some pieces written by a deaf guy 200 years ago.
There are many things not written down. Even today about daily lives like crossing the street or the water temperature we get from the tap. We just live it, we don't write about it. At the turn of the nineteenth century Europe looked very different, how many people could read music or have an instrument at home? It was an elite sport. Soon pianos were built by hundreds of thousands and theatre and opera became popular culture. I'd risk saying that the adoption rate was logarithmic. There have been a lot of changes in every aspect of life and the speed with which music was played (and the scene on which it was performed) could have dramatically changed just like the speed of travel or spread of information. It could have started with a wave of "new" generation of musicians who simply have not heard the old elite playing certain pieces at their designated tempos, and within just a couple of years suddenly people everywhere were playing faster, and especially the professional performers were expected to play fast.
Mind that there was no great conference hat agreed that Tylor Swift is the greatest musician of all time and 50 years ago there was completely different music. Nobody coordinates this. Of course now we have recordings and we can trace it down in the smallest details, but imagine Europe between the invention of railways, Europe, in which Bach playing in Arnstadt had to rewrite his pieces when he was playing in Leipzig because they didn't sound right (instruments were not mass produced and tunings were very off), pieces that were church music so supposedly known to wide audience. Only in 19th century there emerged a real need to establish common language of science, of time keeping (railway schedules!), sizes, weighs, dictionaries, encyclopedias, species, maps etc.
I don’t think so. In music there’s always been a continuous chain of performance practice passed from teachers to students. Any student of the piano today can tell you something like ‘My teacher X was taught by Y who was taught by Z who was taught by Liszt who was taught by Czerny who was taught by Beethoven who was taught by Haydn’. There’s no chance there was ever ‘a new generation of musicians who simply had not heard the old elite playing music at their designated tempos’.
@ihspan6892, quote: «There are many things not written down». Sure, but what about what has been written and that tells us about a reality + - 200 years ago? There was a strong competition among the pianists, they were sportsmen, on the keys. It was important to compose something that was technically so difficult to play hat they impressed other pianists, music critics and audiences. Wim Winters confirms this in some of his quotes. And that explains much of the many «impossible» MM numbers that Wim Winters, mistakenly, believes should be performed at half pace. When we are talking about technical difficulties, a funny example can be found in the channel «Hearts of the Keys» with pianist Annique Gottler. Watch the video «1Min, 10Min, 1Hour, Franz Liszt, Un Sospiro..» She is practicing it wrong. But she proves that the music works well anyway - as music. Bit Liszt’s plan was a series of quick crossings of the hands, making it mich harder to play. 14:25, here we see how it should be played. The same can be found in a number of compositions from that time, which made it technically more difficult to play than necessary.
Wim winters has a very slow brain process speed
all youre saying is that you are doubting beethovens ability to give exact indications - nothing of interest added to the discussion
Tell me you haven't watched the video without telling me you haven't watched the video.
@@letsbrawl945 I have probably watched every whole beat debunk video ever. I’m not proud of it
Winters is completely mad! What’s there to refute 😆😆
There's method in his madness.
I suppose that with what I am about to propose, not only will I fail to convince anyone, but perhaps some prejudices will cause me to lose all authority, if I have any. But I invite people to listen, as a randomly chosen example, to Keith Jarrett's concert in Cologne and play it at around the 11:53 minute mark. Try to set the tempo indication that seems appropriate, perhaps Allegro, and if so, try to identify the shortest duration being heard. Once the shortest duration being heard in this Allegro by Jarrett is identified, let's take it as an eighth note, which is the shortest duration in the sonata, to play Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata at that speed. Having done this, with the character of Allegro in the body from having listened to Jarrett at the 11:53 minute mark of the Cologne concert, we play the Hammerklavier. We would be playing more or less 30-32 measures per minute. My question: why wouldn't there be a discussion about designating Jarrett's tempo as Allegro (if this were the case) and the Hammerklavier at this speed is, for some, something mortally boring, extremely slow and in no way an Allegro? We could increase the speed a bit to reach Beethoven's indicated 34.5 measures per minute, and still, many would continue to find it mortally boringly slow and more like an adagio than an Allegro. Why don't they ask themselves if playing 69 measures per minute of the Hammerklavier is more like a prestissimo than an allegro? I don't understand.
Is it perhaps about prejudices caused by numbers that no longer allow us to hear and feel the music? Or maybe it's that many of those who think that way don't know how to play an instrument? Or it's simply what I assume: we're accustomed to hearing these works at those speeds, and in comparison, the others seem too slow to us. Since everything is slow or fast in relation to something else. That is to say, everything is slower or faster in comparison to something. ua-cam.com/video/skkiVoI7sBk/v-deo.html (I said it was a random example, because it is, but now that I've tried my experiment myself, I can even say that it's better to do it together with Jarrett playing the 112th measure of the Hammerklavier)
So play, if you can, the Sonata Op. 106 at half note = 138 as you understand it and live your life. I think I said that Beethoven, and maybe Czerny, sold their sheet music so that it could be played by people who hadn't attended a conservatory, because luckily for them, these didn't exist. And as you have confirmed to me, this is the case with Beethoven and Czerny. Do I really have to play 60 quarter notes per minute if that's what the tempo indication suggests? Can't I slow down a bit or speed up a bit? If yes, would I be playing 60 quarter notes in a minute? I'm not cherry-picking anything. I wanted an experiment to be done to sincerely see if what is heard from the time I marked is perceived as Allegro. If so, why not the Hammerklavier even playing it a little faster? I don't understand why the entire concert needs to be considered. There are slow moments, Allegro moments, and faster moments. The same is true in Beethoven's sonata and generally in all long pieces. My intention was the one I already stated. But now I'm tired. Play or don't play however you want.
Adolf (sorry) Bernhard Marx (sorry), Guide to the Performance of Beethoven's Piano Works: Page 73, "Another special aid is offered to those who are inclined, out of impetuosity, or a fondness for brilliant presentation, or driven by ambition (to show themselves as eminent players), to exaggerate the tempo. Reminding such players of the content and character of the compositions is often in vain; they are not willing to sacrifice their personal nature to it, they act unconsciously. One must also negotiate with players based on their own personal interests. 'If you really,' -one must ask them,-'play these finales of the sonatas Op. 26, 27 No. 2, 53, 57 once or twice as fast as it should be played: will these movements really be brilliant because of it? ... You spoil the work without achieving your goal.'" What is he referring to? Is it possible to play the third movement of Sonata Op. 27 No. 2 twice as fast as it should be? It is possible, and Marx (fortunately not the other Marx) criticizes those who do it solely to show off as virtuosic athletes. How do you explain that it is possible to play it twice as fast if for you Beethoven's indication, along with the metronome indications of everyone you can name, undoubtedly corresponds more to something like Buchbinder's performance, and in no way to something like Winters? Could the finale of Op. 27 No. 2 be played at double the speed that Buchbinder plays it? Page 69, "Beethoven initially declared in favor of the use of the metronome and marked a few compositions with it. ... In the latter case (the Ninth Symphony), however, it happened that the master unexpectedly gave two significantly different metronome markings on two occasions. And finally, he declared: 'No metronome at all! Whoever has the right feeling doesn't need it; and whoever doesn't have it, it won't help him anyway!' (This might be a useful piece of advice for you regarding finding sources to know at what metronome marking Beethoven should be played) "Therefore, one must revert to the old indications, which at least give an approximate determination... However, the old tempo indications themselves have changed their measures: nowadays, tempos are taken much more lively; Mozart's word on the 'mangling' of his compositions by exaggerating the tempo: 'They believe that this is supposed to make it fiery; yes, if the fire is not in the composition, it certainly won't be brought in by rushing,' - this true word could not withstand the haste of vanity and inner emptiness, which so easily feels itself. ... (And now a certain prophecy from Marx) Nevertheless, one must admit that the dispute over the tempo can never end, ..." I wonder, if even an indication like Allegro, already outdated in Marx's time, could have its speed changed to a much faster tempo (viel lebhafter), how could the Allegro of Beethoven's Op. 106 be played viel lebhafter compared to how Minkyu Kim plays it? Anyway, there are more quotes, and some very beautiful ones, but I'm tired now. Play however you want, because, as Beethoven himself told you, if you don't have the right feeling to play them, the metronome won't help you at all. Cheers!
opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/Vta2/bsb10599029/bsb:BV020313482?page=7
What I have cited has nothing to do with Czerny's tempo indications. Marx clearly states, distinguishing in which finales of which Beethoven sonatas, that some performers play at twice the speed they should. We are talking about sonatas without metronomic tempo indications, such as the finale of Op. 27 No. 2. And a few pages earlier, he quotes Beethoven himself, stating that obviously the tempo chosen for playing can, and should, vary greatly depending on the instrument, the location, the number of musicians in an orchestra, etc. That’s why Beethoven himself did not strictly adhere to his metronome markings and preferred indications such as Allegro, Adagio, or Presto. And in that context, Marx then says that some performers play those finales in question at twice the speed. And they do so only for personal interest and to show how well they can play the piano keys. Regarding the fact that it is stated there that the third movement, among others, of the sonata in question here, some played at twice the speed it should be, you say nothing. Farewell!
The purpose of the question is to know if Buchbinder's tempo, for example, is the correct tempo according to Marx. If it can be played twice as fast, then maybe it is correct; if not, it cannot be correct.
It is absolutely irrelevant which tempo we consider, whether it's the metronomic tempo, for example, among others, half note = 92, or the approximate tempo of presto agitato, to answer the question. I even ask you to tell me what tempo you think should be correct for the finale of Op. 27 No. 2, and we will consider that tempo for an experiment. The question is, if the correct tempo for Marx in approximately 1860 was doubled by some performers, what tempo for the sonata in question could be doubled? That is, let's take Czerny's, let's take von Bülow's, Moscheles's, Beethoven's, and play it at twice the speed. Is it possible? I don't know. Now let's take the tempo you consider correct, Buchbinder's? Lisitsa's? and let's ask ourselves if it's possible to double that tempo. And also if it is possible to decrease it twice to have the tempo that Marx says is the corresponding one. Another experiment I propose to you.
It's also good to read who Marx is addressing. To young people. And some quotes at the beginning of the book about freedom, freedom in general, and the freedom of the artist and the performer are very exciting to me. I hope we learn something.
(I am not W. Winters and I have nothing to say to him, except thank you for what he does.)
Because Marx wanted young people to learn to play Beethoven's sonatas. Young people with a certain level, indeed, but if one understands well what Marx asks for; it's a basic level. And he wished them a good teacher (not a music school or conservatory) who would serve as a guide and give them the freedom to understand the works they were playing and to develop on their own. (Liberalism 100%) He never speaks of preparing to play as fast as possible in an international or national competition... What a misfortune for him that another with his same surname would bleach it so much.
The goal we should have is to play those masterpieces. Learn from them. And they are monumental. Even playing them slower requires a lot of work and energy to interpret them in their entirety. And slower, they are not worse. I would say they are even better.
you really said nothing for 30 minutes
That's not true at all!
At least try and pronounce his name correctly. It's pronounced Vim.
That just funny all other than musical videos on AuthenticSound channel are about document evidence from the past, but for you there are non.
There is lots of documentary evidence. It very largely points in the opposite direction, suggesting tempi have no changed over time. A good example is the records of timed duration of historic performances, that have been covered on pianopat's channel and several others.
If he was correct, this simple mathematical mistake would be referenced directly many times in the literature. This is a historical discontinuity as important as the strata that mark the end of the dinosaurs - yet despite an unbroken chain of pupils and composers taking us into 100 years + of recording, no straightforward evidence exists of this simple misunderstanding. All of the 'documentary evidence' is subjective interpretation without any historical references at all making any direct remark upon what should be taken as the beat so as to avoid confusion. So all we have is his ridiculous tempi against the entire history of recorded performances as a start - including pupils of Liszt - but also against the entire consensus of performance practice. This is tinfoil hat stuff - but whatever its a following.
@@studiomilo Very well put.
@@DavidArdittiComposer I have lost patience for this ! There are people claiming that Mozart now sounds 'profound' and all kinds of nonsense. I don't know how he gets out of bed in the morning !
This is just a bunch of self justified palaver. If you want to credibly contradict Winters you have to refute him document by document. Winters shows you Moscheles an Czerny in direct quotes. Don't just talk at a camera. Give us visuals. Give us scholarship. This is dribble.
Do you mean 'drivel', i.e. nonsense? If so, perhaps you should explain why you think that. It is not my responsibility to provide what you call 'scholarship' to contradict Winter's partial and twisted quotation of these sources, it is his responsibility to prove his thesis. I provide many common-sense arguments why he is wrong. There are some other channels that have gone through documents in detail, and there are other channels now lampooning him with comedy. All fine by me.
@@edwardp.gannon9320 It would be so easy to supply a citation or two, a link or two. You don't, however. I wonder why.
@@PabloMelendez1969 he just explained. What he is saying or stating is what is known. For many decades and generations of scholars and profesional players. You can find it in any book or regarding music. Thus it is winters who has to prove his crazy Qanon metronome tempo.
I’m not sure you realise that Moscheles has co-written a famous book with Fetis , called ´the method of methods ‘ it is on Imslp , just read the chapter on metronome. Single best is explained on the most precise way . The simple fact that Winters has never talk about this book in his 1000’s of videos is a proof he is a scammer as this book was probably the bible for music theory in the 19th century. It will show you that Moscheles reading of metronome marks is the same as today . Given Moscheles marks are very very close and most if the rule identical to czerny mm for Beethoven’s work should make you think twice . Winters is the biggest scam we ever had in the musical world . Talisman was not logical and made a lot of mistakes but winters. Is illogical, stupid and dishonest . He only wants money through a conspiracy type channel .
Pablo, I am sorry for my inadequate English. As long as Wim Winters and other DBT-supporters can’t tell us how the musicians changed from double beat to single beat, there has never been any double beat period.