Hey Wim, Could you perhaps do a video about how Beethoven, Mozart and/or contemporaries studied the piano. What techniques did they practice and how.. etc. I think this would also give a big insight in this 'system'
@@surgeeo1406 Hi Sergio, Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn Johann Jacob Fux (Viennese contemporary of J S Bach), Gradus Ad Parnassum (Beethoven kept a notebook reduction with him which he referred to), and C P E Bach Essay on the True Art of Keyboard Playing. Beethoven first teacher after his father, Neefe, J S Bach WTC as well as works by C P E Bach, Haydn. Mozart: Leopold Mozart, C P E Bach, J C Bach (he met when touring as child who had a profound influnce,..Mozart was introduced to J S Bach by van Swieten in Vienna much later in life). I am not as up on Haydn, however, I do know from another writer that Haydn possessed a copy of the J S Bach's WTC, and for the most part was self taught. Everything that Mozart knew, was taught to him by his father from foreign languages on down as WAM never went to school.
All the comments saying "Hah, at this speed this piece is sight readable!" Makes me think that a lot of classical and early romantic music probably should be sight readable!!
@@christianstark2381 I bought the Dover edition of Chopin's latter. In one of his letters he talks of a (a think public) quartet that does concerts every night. He says that none of them know what they will play each night. They sight read something new every time. He also talks about how well they played a Beethoven quartet. Countless of other examples of how people needed to sight read everything. (Not everything of course, but there was a lot of sight reading)
Classical pieces are actually mostly sight readable since everyone who knew how to play the piano would buy the newest works of Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and played them at home for their own amusement. I suppose with today's "single beat" theory no one is very amused when trying to sight-read for example Appassionata in "full" speed😂 I was just trying to sight read Alla Turca in double beat today and it actually worked!
The first movement of the fifth symphony has 1/2=108.The smallest note value is an eight-note. In single beat reading we have to discuss whether it is on the edge of playability or not or if it makes musical sense.But if you look up the M.M marks for i.e the first movement of the "Pathetique" which also has smallest note value eight note-you will find that Czerny gives 1/2=152(!).(for the allegro con brio part) So what is going on there?
In the 5th, the structure is based the quaver, and too fast, the first bars sound as if triplets. In the Pathetique, the structure of the theme is based on the crotchets and the minims. The piece is 40% faster in Czeny's MM, but the notes are halved. That, in essence, makes the "con brio" 29% slower structurally. The quavers do move faster, of course, they are relegated to runs/arpeggios to keep the piece "moving" at the allegro. 5th is 54 measures per minute (MPM) with the quavers at 3.6 notes per second (nps); the Op. 13 is 38 MPM, and the quavers are 5 nps (here's the "molto" compared to the 5th's simple allegro). The time signatures change, the note values change, but played "side by side" the "molto" will sound faster than the allegro. That's the trick.
I agree, and long before I was old enough to know anything about the metronome, I never found any other conductor who so often nailed the tempo so well, to allow the inner life of the music to show through rather than the one dimensional excitement of virtuosic speeding. For example the Peasants Dance from the Pastoral Symphony. When Walter Legge [record producer] complained, Klemperer commented that he would get used to it. To the orchestra he said that this was a dance from the village: "They dance in boots, not dancing shoes." Klemperer so understood this music. And this left room for the storm to be truly terrifying afterwards ... Also the very opening of the Fifth, where the opening motto notes really are the knocks of the angel of death [our shared doom in Fate] rather than some superficial flourish, before the storm of the first movement. Beethoven was being serious here, and not just furious .... Maybe one day we shall witness the future Gardiners and Norringtons of this world adopt similar tempi. After all Klemperer does not sound remotely slow until you have listened to the whip-crack performances of Toscanini and Karajan for the older period, let alone countless less famous conductors since. The increasingly fast tempi in music-making has marred so many performances over the years, but an honourable exception for me is Gustav Leonhardt's DHM recording of Bach's Saint Matthew Passion, where letting the music breath allows for the full dramatic force to emerge in each contrasted part. It becomes a really compelling and lively recreation which contrasts with so many other over-driven Historically Informed Music Practice recordings over the last three decades ... I have had discussions about tempi with some rather well qualified [Musical Doctorate level] musicians, ... and even refused to play the double bass in Bach's Third Brandenburg Concerto for one Cathedral Organist, because there was no way that the bass in the Finale could possibly make the line clear, focussed and articulate [let alone phrased] to match what the violins could because of the hectic tempo taken at rehearsal. He said to me that the bass only had to be "there" as the theme had already been given in the violins. This is of course somewhat true, but I countered that at the second half of the finale [after the double bar where the first half should repeat] the theme development is first given by the bass [ie. cells and bass]. Pause for thought. "just do the best you can ..." No way! It was an amateur performance, and I resigned on the spot. No pleasure in wrecking Bach's music for amateur social reasons in a second rate performance, and I said so. Later on I was lucky to be in a chamber sized group of ex-pro [retired] string players who numbered between thirteen and nineteen depending on the repertoire as the only double bass. This was after I finished playing professionally. We rehearsed this music for our inaugural concert for some hours over several sessions. Fortunately the leader violin and I got on famously and after the first [rather speedy] rehearsal we thrashed out the tempi between us - just the two of us. Fortunately a recording was made and so I was able to compare our realistic tempi with commercially made recordings. Though I had not found Klemperer's estimable EMI recording of the Brandenburgs at that time, we had arrived at an almost identical tempo for the two movements that Klemperer had adopted so many years earlier. Klemperer is never ponderous, but light, focussed and phrased with unforced clear articulation. Likewise we made [between the two of us] the tempi choices for much other music, including the wonderful Holberg Suite of Greig, which allowed for many subtleties to emerge [also recorded] which pass by the trend for very fast performances these days. I have never understood why people equate velocity with excitement. The only excitement is the depiction of a white knuckle ride, and that is not music. It is simply showing that you can play that fast without falling apart in ensemble while playing the actual notes. If this virtuosic approach was the intention of the composer then the correct tempo marking should to have been - as fast as you can ... Best wishes from George
Thanks to Wim I can now state in public that Klemperer’s Eroica, which I grew up with, has always been The Eroica for me. This would be considered heresy in most musical circles.
The only pianist who could sight read it at that tempo would be John Ogdon. I love Katsiaris as he’s one of my most favorite pianists of all time but the tempo always felt off, after hearing Weller’s version it made sense. Weller’s tempo sounded just right for my ears. The only thing that worries me is the performance time which lasts upto 52 minutes. Is there any written documentation about the length of the performance? Thanks for explaining it and posting Weller’s performance as well.
People who can't make music allways think "play slow it's easy" but I really think the slow movements itselfs are very hard to make it musical, even an "slow" allegro it's very hard to sound allegro and musical.
We shall see when Praelude 6 by Chopin aires. I wonder if any half-beaters took the challenge. I mean if they consistent, I can respect that; if they aren't, then they're not worth wasting text-time on because their slippery logic will always suit them even if maths and physics thinks otherwise. By the way, that praelude is very hard especially w/o the pedal for most of it. YIKES!
Thanks for the video. How can I apply these lessons to a piece where I don't know the historically marked tempo? For instance, I'm looking at Chopin op 28. no 4. imslp.org/wiki/Preludes,_Op.28_(Chopin,_Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric) and CPE Bach Solfeggio imslp.org/wiki/Solfeggio_in_C_minor,_H.220_(Bach,_Carl_Philipp_Emanuel) .
im unable to find the recording of the interpretation of mr. katsaris's liszt's transcription of beethoven's 5th symphony. could you please help me for where to find his recording, perhaps a link to a youtube video, or a link to somewhere to buy a dvd of the recording you are talking about?
@@kaybrown4010 I was amazed that even a "sound byte" of half beat, once reduced made event he mainstream tempo sound much slower. HAHA! I understand why folks are put off their tea initially; however, remaining and learning like we have begins to have a renewed love of this artform.
Thomas Hughes Yes! Imagine being able to have an evening of music, getting together with friends to sight read some Mozart or Beethoven. Good times. Followed by beer!
Great. I've taken a liking to this idea that seems to be backed up with evidence. The only thing is that I think we pianists playing on Steinways and Faziolis etc. can afford to play a little faster than the metronome markings because we're playing on instruments that are able to sound good at these tempi. In fact, I think playing with single beat or anything close on a fortepiano or a Graph, Pleyel or Erard would sound terrible, whereas playing whole beat would sound off and a little boring on a Steinway or Bosendorfer. I agree that for older music, especially pre-recording era, we can all learn to slow down a little. I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm sure you aren't disagreeing with me. Just a note from a comment musician. Keep making these videos, please.
I have watched several of your videos and I grant that there are several compelling points to support the whole beat theory. I found the discrepancy in the demiquavers passage in the 3rd movement of moonlight sonata to be particularly intriguing. But I have my doubts, especially considering how the musical teaching tradition was passed, for example, from Liszt to several pupils not so long ago, and that there are recordings of Liszt students that were made with the tempo that we are used to hearing today. Sure, they could choose to play faster and I think there is indeed that tendency, of pushing the boundaries of technique and speed with faster performances over time. I am still not convinced about the whole beat, but I can give much more credit to your theory nowadays. Ultimately, I think we as musicians (and student, in my case, I wouldn't call myself a musician yet) should use the tempo that makes sense musically. You showed that the MM for several works are completely ridiculous when considering the single beat approach. But in some cases being close to that tempo works just fine, even though it might not have been the composer intent. Listening to Chopin's etudes at the insane speeds that are used today is quite spectacular, and the fact that we got used to those performances makes it very hard to accept the whole beat approach in those cases. Nevertheless, you should keep bringing these discussions and striving to increase the musical community awareness regarding this topic. But don't claim Katsaris can't play at the original MM unless you heard that from him directly. He is a true virtuoso, I believe he could do it if he wanted.
I was somewhat convinced for a while but as I studied more about the subject I found pretty strong evidence contradicting with the whole beat theory and my attitude was changed... for now at least :P
It's basically moronic to think that these pieces were meant to be played at warp speed tempo even with all of the evidence Wim repeatedly presents as the music is garbled and unintelligible played so fast. It's a goddamn shame for classical music and even worse that the tempo fallacy isn't admitted, embraced and corrected. Well done as always, Wim!
I do believe that the vast majority admits in silence. I can imagine most serious performers doing their own study on this, and figuring out how to break away from their audience's expectation of speed. Not an easy task.
It is a real shame that the classical music world is like this. The warp speed tempo is why it is so goddamn unpopular. Nowadays, the main concern of most musicians is the difficulty of the music, rather than the actual music. In my opinion, any musician with a decent taste and logic should automatically accept WBMP.
The classical music world as a business has seen a dramatic donwturn as a business. Wim is capturing the younger base, and if that base believes that it can be truly unchained, classical music will see a revival because the "other" music of the day is perty much garbage. Time will tell.
If you played Beethoven's Eroica with that theory, the symphony would last 2 hours. However, there are historical accounts of it lasting the 1 hour it still lasts today, even on its premier.
AuthenticSound Why would you want to listen to it that slow tho. I really do see the sense in your points, but I can’t get past the fact that the eroica is meant to be a summons and represent a battle in the first movement, with the whole beat it was almost boring.
So I need exactly 1:22:32 for the Eroica. By the way: single-beat is the theory after which 150 years have been played. Fortunately, the old practice of whole-beat was rediscovered a few decades ago. Of course, many defend their old listening habits. I understand that and have no problem with it.
@@AuthenticSound Is that in jest or do you really have an argument for that duration? Your pet theory suggests doubling the length of every piece so how do you account for inconsistencies like the one Bruno Vicente brought up? Even a 1 hour 20 minute long Eroica would still be closer to a normal tempo than your double beat proposed tempo, so I don't know if you are disregarding the issue with a jest or whether there is an actual explanation as to why the Eroica shouldn't be 2 hours long if your double beat theory is correct.
I would also agree that sometimes slower tempo sounds better. Nevertheless, very often metronom marks are just right and I cannot see the argument of double beat proven as a general or even universal argument. The action of more modern pianos is also different compared to historical instruments which can be played faster. For a thesis, I miss the falsification part -- essential for an unbiased and valid argument. For example: Katsaris playing Chopin Fantaisie Impromptu is "at tempo" of 164 bpm as indicated by Chopin. Many more such examples can be given. There are many counter arguments that could indicate your thesis not to be generally applicable. Unfortunately, missing counter arguments discredits the thesis. It does not mean that I do not honor the effort to bring up such thesis. But it should not become an obsession. And I am not convinced that your thesis covers over 90% of pieces where metronom marks make sense -- contrary to your selective list. In the end, pianists want to produce music they themselves and the audiance enjoys, being a medium of the composer. The composition is a blue print, not more, not less. Nobody can play what the composer had in mind 100%, and I doubt not even the composer him- or herself (listen to Debussy playing his own pieces recorded as piano rolls). What should prevail is the essence of musical expression, the togetherness in this universal language at the time of performance. Slower or faster depends on the moment. All else is lifeless. Music is not a science, but an art, encompassing the freedom of subjectivity. Otherwise, we end up with highly sophisticated robots playing perfectly -- but producing empty nonsense.
@@AuthenticSound Well, look at Kinderszenen 1 from Robert Schumann. Clara Schumann changed his indication. Why would she do that if there was no understanding of the metronom as we see it today? He indicated a too fast tempo for such piece. His marks are all playable, but do not sound nice here. But half tempo also does not sound well. I am not sure if all this leads to a dead end of discussion. To make a generally applicable rule there are too many examples suggesting something else -- in my unprofessional humble opinion. Nevertheless, I am playing myself all kinds of pieces from that area, later and before. I could not image playing them half tempo. To take edge cases, ok... But generally said, metronom marks are not all wrong even with our usual understanding.
As far as I can tell, the first movement is the easy one, and Katsaris plays it close to the specified single beat tempo. Other movements are more challenging, and Katsaris plays them much slower than specified. Are we supposed to believe these tempi is his artistic choice? Or is it more probable that he is constrained by his technical ability? And his technical ability is undeniably on the verge of the humanly possible.
Brisk tempos for Beethoven are something I would agree with. It's on liszts shoulders that he put those impractical demands on the pianist. As is often the case moving it to piano solo as with bach to piano results in a adaptation. I never thought critically about Katsaris in terms of tempo, his recordings of these symphonies are nothing short of biblical. I listened to nr2 a month ago and was stunned beyond belief. I'm reluctant to admit that I perhaps agree with the video and maybe the channel as a whole although I'll be bold enough to state this : I think it's a slightly perverse endeavor. Music should be played in such a way as to be convincing. However despite that, as I said I favor Beethoven in bold tempos. Nothing like the way I would digest bruckner, and there are some contemporary conductors who push the envelope on fast tempos in those (also perverse). That said I appreciate the musicology of this effort and even though I may agree I still stand by the statement :make it convincing. From the point of being informed about the fact that liszt documents Beethoven's original tempo, that I am grateful for, I would not have guessed. I'm much more intent on finding tempos that agree with the musical spirit of the work, much in the mentality of Mahler stating that if a conductor feels the need to make changes to his symphonies he must do so. I'll always be happy to disagree with a composer, in this case it's an odd coincidence that I agree with Beethoven but generally not with the tendency of this channel to number crunch. Thank you for the knowledge. Long live Katsaris, only to be matched by Ogdon
Liszt was known to play 'serious' repertoire quite slow. The only thing is he didn't want his students to go back to 1810, but left them in the competing time spirit of the late 19th c.
Fantastic video. I appreciate that people that want to discredit whole beat come and have discussions in the comments. I just wonder why, for all their arrogance, special pleading, and strawman arguments ("you can't play everything half as fast") missing the point, they don't simply provide an explanation for INHUMANLY fast metronome marks from the era and even directly from the composer?
Let's remember that there's no evidence that Listz would have expected Beethoven's metronome markings (whether single or double beat), or even typical orchestral tempi in general to be applied to his transcriptions: there is no evidence or Liszt or Mendelssohn or Wagner taking Beethoven's metronome marks seriously. So making assumptions about the playability of Liszt transcriptions should take into account the "aesthetic transcription" idea: Liszt may have arranged these works in a completely different manner if Beethoven was there watching over his shoulder...
@@AuthenticSound Again, if one looks at the historical evidence, it seems clear (and this includes countless recordings) that performers of the past routinely ignored metronome marks they didn't like; the same with dynamics and even articulation! Today, many would regard ignoring a composer's indications as a sacrilege, but as countless recordings reveal, that simply wasn't the case historically. Liszt surely prepared his transcriptions using the full scores of the symphonies, and included authentic performance information (tempi, dynamics, etc.) deriving from Beethoven. This shows that Listz took his role as a transcriber of these works seriously, and shows his respect for Beethoven. However, descriptions of how Liszt played "the classics" show that he wasn't the type to be bound by another composer's instructions. So, did Liszt favour the creation of an orchestra sonority over the practical ability to play at Beethoven's metronomic tempi? It's quite possible. He could say, "I've created a fantasy orchestra out of the piano, but for your information, here are the authentic metronome marks."
@@ProfDrislane You are right!!! I'm not sure if Liszt ever tested Beethoven's metronome marks. In the manuscript for his transcription of the Eroica, the Presto coda of the Finale, he wrote the metronome mark that was printed in (probably all) copies of that day: 8=116. It's generally agreed upon that Beethoven intended 4=116. Because of the way it is transcribed, there is no way Liszt conceived it in a tempo as slow as 8=116. As for the Fifth Symphony transcription, here's how the metronome marks were brought up in Liszt. Sources first: 1. Liszt autograph for first version 2. Stichvorlage or proof sheets, implied due to the major differences between 1 and 3 3. Two print editions c.1840 by Richault and B&H (S463a; I have never seen the Richault print) 4. Printed edition of first version containing Liszt's corrections for the second version c.1863 5. Print edition by B&H c.1865 (S464/5) 2 and 4 are sources that are either lost or I am unaware of. The first score of the Fifth Symphony containing metronome marks (c.1826 B&H) gets all four marks correct. How they appear in sources 1, 3, and 5 are as follows: I: Allegro con brio 2=108 in all II: no marking in 1; Andante con moto 16=92 in 3 and 5 (but 8=92 is correct) III: no marking in 1; Allegro 2=96 (!) in 3; Allegro 2.=96 in 4 IV: Allegro 2=84 in all
Ho presente l’esecuzione di Bernstein riguardo Allegro.Ma con il il pianoforte mantenere il tempo e ben altro.Ancora grazie per la chiarezza e complimenti.
Yet another video supposing that the only alternative to your theory is that every single metronome mark can only be taken entirely at face value? This contributes nothing to anybody's understanding, sorry. Have you learned nothing from the sources in which beethoven said the metronome mark is only for the opening bars? The whole video is arguing against a strawman position. Without even going back hundreds of years, the ABRSM today almost without fail gives metronome marks that are unplayable for youngsters at that level. Yet we have to assume every Beethoven marking must either be taken literally or halved? These arguments are built on top of an intrinsically flawed assumption. Perhaps the correct way to interpret all the abrsm marks is to halve them too? No. It's to recognise the nature of approximate recommendation.
@@christianstark2381 yes, it's really interesting that the Abrsm gives such weird metronome marks, that all of Wim's arguments could be just as applicable to. Except for the fact that we know beyond any measure of doubt that they mean single beat. I don't know why he persists with arguing against a position of literalism, that no intelligent musical analyst has ever actually been making.
What about in compositions that already start with ridiculous speeds in the opening bars? For example, in many etudes, especially from Czerny. Also, in fugues, and in other pieces in the “strict style”; they are meant to be played in strict time throughout. What about them?
> beethoven said the metronome mark is only for the opening bar OK, when I sing to myself the opening bars, I choose exactly the tempo Wolfgang took, because at this tempo the motif has weight. i'd prefer a faster tempo for the development, but not two times faster. > the ABRSM today almost without fail gives metronome marks that are unplayable for youngsters at that level Because ABRSM operates under the false assumption that composers of the past put ridiculous unplayable metronome marks on their pieces too (but they didn't). > the nature of approximate recommendation. Metronome marks is literally the most precise instruction that can be added to a score! It's a number, for God's sake! It's like if dynamics were nominated in decibells.
@@artemasgray Agreed. Why would the composers and the editors (e.g. Czerny) bother to give precise numbers for their metronome marks, if they weren't meant to be reached. If a piece was just meant to be ridiculously fast, they may as well just give any ridiculously fast metronome mark to mean 'as fast as possible'.
Rachmaninoff never played his own music in single beat. he played with rubato with a lot of tempo flexibility and generally much faster than it is played today without it sounding fast
Did Wim address the problem that reported historical concert durations are in general way too short to have had all that music played in double-beat tempo in some video?
Durations at best (so in case all contextual influences can be reduced to an absolute minimum) give insight in the extreme diverse landscape of performance practice, they rarely, if ever give us insight int he tempo indications of the composers. Liszt reported once to have three versions of a piece: 1) how the music historically would have meant to be played, 2) the music played within boundaries of the composer's intention but adapted to the possibilities new instruments offered and 3) the way the audience wanted him to play often: as a kind of stage monkey
@@AuthenticSound Yes! And just because the MM's are there doesn't mean that all musicians will necessarily follow them. Same thing goes for the students of Liszt etc. Even if they teach according to double beat, they can't force the student to play in double beat tempo in the end.
@@AuthenticSound? So you have to either take metronome marks completely literally or at half what they suggest. But you think composers did just about anything they felt like in performance, including speeds that clearly come closer to a single beat interpretation? How can you believe these two clearly contradictory premises without severe cognitive dissonance? This curious argument smacks of simply trying to go to any lengths to construct a way to dismiss inconvenient truths, no matter how improbable the explanation (nor whether it matches your absolute insistence on literalism elsewhere). And how do composers working with an orchestra improvise their way to double speed performances? They just conduct twice as fast on a whim, for a premiere of a piece? Mozart forces the singers through his opera twice as fast as he really intended (based on assumptions that the audience *might* have egged him on to do so?), but others must do it twice as slow as his real durations to match your idea of correctness? These severe holes in the argument are a reminder that even if we felt single beat literalism could be eliminated as a possibility, it doesn't leave us with double beat literalism as a meaningfully credible alternative. You don't take two options and eliminate your way to the truth. Especially not when neither works as a literalist explanation.
''Correct'' tempo is like pre ragtime music;-)).I see gunfight and ''ladies'' in crinoline waiting at the firts floor in separate rooms.So , you must be familiar with Celibidache's practice , that was known by everyboy to slow down the tempi.I saw a very interesting interview with him about why and how music is more evident like this.Also you must know his reluctance to recordings.On the other side , I would say that the tempi that you suggest as beeing accurate , from te perspective of a certain analyse that has its clear points, might be completely out of the modern sensiblity range.From various reasons.And I would say that is also a factor to be considered.However , it is clear that the virtouso exposure took place to the actual musical meaning of a work.And playing at certain speeds makes things , at least for me, unbearable to be listened to and completely lacking musical value as a consequnce.It's more piano acrobatics or how Dan Grigore(romanian virtuoso and great musician as well) put it''keyboard tourism'',that was in an interesting conversation about virtuosity something like 30 years ago.
I think people are too concerned with the playability of certain pieces in single beat and not the musical sense it makes. Like, even if this piece (and many others) are playable in single beat, why do modern pianists not reach those speeds? Simply because they make no musical sense. I also noticed another thing which may be in support of your theory. In my Urtext edition of Chopin Nocturnes, Op 9. No.3, in 6/8, has a metronome marking of QUARTER note = 66. This would make no sense for the metronome to indicate quarter notes in 6/8, but if it indicates the EIGHTH notes, it would make a lot more sense. Provided that it isn't a misprint, which I don't think it is since the tempo fits really well, I think this is good evidence that Chopin was double beat.
@@etiennedelaunois1737 Possibly. Now that I think about it, the tempo at quarter=66 in WBMP is ridiculously slow for an allegretto. Maybe mine does have a mistake...ARGHHH
What's silly about it? Katsaris cannot play a sightreadable Liszt transcription in 'tempo', at least in single beat metronome reading. It is silly in itself, I know, but ... a fact. He would be able to do that in whole beat... and that's the point.
Flawless demonstration
The slower versions are more dignified and relaxing.
The book "Purity in music" from Thibaut reflects on all those dilemns.
7:40 .That was insane.Congratulations Wim.
Hey Wim, Could you perhaps do a video about how Beethoven, Mozart and/or contemporaries studied the piano. What techniques did they practice and how.. etc. I think this would also give a big insight in this 'system'
Yes! And the theory they studied.
@@surgeeo1406 Hi Sergio, Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn Johann Jacob Fux (Viennese contemporary of J S Bach), Gradus Ad Parnassum (Beethoven kept a notebook reduction with him which he referred to), and C P E Bach Essay on the True Art of Keyboard Playing. Beethoven first teacher after his father, Neefe, J S Bach WTC as well as works by C P E Bach, Haydn. Mozart: Leopold Mozart, C P E Bach, J C Bach (he met when touring as child who had a profound influnce,..Mozart was introduced to J S Bach by van Swieten in Vienna much later in life). I am not as up on Haydn, however, I do know from another writer that Haydn possessed a copy of the J S Bach's WTC, and for the most part was self taught.
Everything that Mozart knew, was taught to him by his father from foreign languages on down as WAM never went to school.
@@Renshen1957 Thanks :)
BEETHOVEN:
THE MAN AND THE ARTIST,
AS REVEALED IN HIS OWN WORDS
www.gutenberg.org/files/3528/3528-h/3528-h.htm
All the comments saying "Hah, at this speed this piece is sight readable!" Makes me think that a lot of classical and early romantic music probably should be sight readable!!
Yeah. Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin didn't have time to practice one of their own pieces for weeks as pianists do today.
@@christianstark2381 I bought the Dover edition of Chopin's latter. In one of his letters he talks of a (a think public) quartet that does concerts every night. He says that none of them know what they will play each night. They sight read something new every time. He also talks about how well they played a Beethoven quartet.
Countless of other examples of how people needed to sight read everything. (Not everything of course, but there was a lot of sight reading)
Classical pieces are actually mostly sight readable since everyone who knew how to play the piano would buy the newest works of Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and played them at home for their own amusement. I suppose with today's "single beat" theory no one is very amused when trying to sight-read for example Appassionata in "full" speed😂 I was just trying to sight read Alla Turca in double beat today and it actually worked!
This is why pieces should be played on their original instruments.
The first movement of the fifth symphony has 1/2=108.The smallest note value is an eight-note.
In single beat reading we have to discuss whether it is on the edge of playability or not or if it makes musical sense.But if you look up the M.M marks for i.e the first movement of the "Pathetique" which also has smallest note value eight note-you will find that Czerny gives 1/2=152(!).(for the allegro con brio part)
So what is going on there?
In the 5th, the structure is based the quaver, and too fast, the first bars sound as if triplets. In the Pathetique, the structure of the theme is based on the crotchets and the minims. The piece is 40% faster in Czeny's MM, but the notes are halved. That, in essence, makes the "con brio" 29% slower structurally. The quavers do move faster, of course, they are relegated to runs/arpeggios to keep the piece "moving" at the allegro.
5th is 54 measures per minute (MPM) with the quavers at 3.6 notes per second (nps); the Op. 13 is 38 MPM, and the quavers are 5 nps (here's the "molto" compared to the 5th's simple allegro).
The time signatures change, the note values change, but played "side by side" the "molto" will sound faster than the allegro. That's the trick.
Could it be that Otto Klemperer was correct in tempi all along with his recordings???
I agree, and long before I was old enough to know anything about the metronome, I never found any other conductor who so often nailed the tempo so well, to allow the inner life of the music to show through rather than the one dimensional excitement of virtuosic speeding. For example the Peasants Dance from the Pastoral Symphony. When Walter Legge [record producer] complained, Klemperer commented that he would get used to it. To the orchestra he said that this was a dance from the village: "They dance in boots, not dancing shoes." Klemperer so understood this music. And this left room for the storm to be truly terrifying afterwards ...
Also the very opening of the Fifth, where the opening motto notes really are the knocks of the angel of death [our shared doom in Fate] rather than some superficial flourish, before the storm of the first movement. Beethoven was being serious here, and not just furious ....
Maybe one day we shall witness the future Gardiners and Norringtons of this world adopt similar tempi. After all Klemperer does not sound remotely slow until you have listened to the whip-crack performances of Toscanini and Karajan for the older period, let alone countless less famous conductors since.
The increasingly fast tempi in music-making has marred so many performances over the years, but an honourable exception for me is Gustav Leonhardt's DHM recording of Bach's Saint Matthew Passion, where letting the music breath allows for the full dramatic force to emerge in each contrasted part. It becomes a really compelling and lively recreation which contrasts with so many other over-driven Historically Informed Music Practice recordings over the last three decades ...
I have had discussions about tempi with some rather well qualified [Musical Doctorate level] musicians, ... and even refused to play the double bass in Bach's Third Brandenburg Concerto for one Cathedral Organist, because there was no way that the bass in the Finale could possibly make the line clear, focussed and articulate [let alone phrased] to match what the violins could because of the hectic tempo taken at rehearsal. He said to me that the bass only had to be "there" as the theme had already been given in the violins. This is of course somewhat true, but I countered that at the second half of the finale [after the double bar where the first half should repeat] the theme development is first given by the bass [ie. cells and bass]. Pause for thought. "just do the best you can ..." No way! It was an amateur performance, and I resigned on the spot. No pleasure in wrecking Bach's music for amateur social reasons in a second rate performance, and I said so.
Later on I was lucky to be in a chamber sized group of ex-pro [retired] string players who numbered between thirteen and nineteen depending on the repertoire as the only double bass. This was after I finished playing professionally. We rehearsed this music for our inaugural concert for some hours over several sessions. Fortunately the leader violin and I got on famously and after the first [rather speedy] rehearsal we thrashed out the tempi between us - just the two of us. Fortunately a recording was made and so I was able to compare our realistic tempi with commercially made recordings. Though I had not found Klemperer's estimable EMI recording of the Brandenburgs at that time, we had arrived at an almost identical tempo for the two movements that Klemperer had adopted so many years earlier. Klemperer is never ponderous, but light, focussed and phrased with unforced clear articulation.
Likewise we made [between the two of us] the tempi choices for much other music, including the wonderful Holberg Suite of Greig, which allowed for many subtleties to emerge [also recorded] which pass by the trend for very fast performances these days.
I have never understood why people equate velocity with excitement. The only excitement is the depiction of a white knuckle ride, and that is not music. It is simply showing that you can play that fast without falling apart in ensemble while playing the actual notes. If this virtuosic approach was the intention of the composer then the correct tempo marking should to have been - as fast as you can ...
Best wishes from George
I think the perfect Mahler 2nd lies somewhere between Bruno Walter and Klemperer...with the Urlicht closer to Klemperer's slower pace
Thanks to Wim I can now state in public that Klemperer’s
Eroica, which I grew up with, has always been The Eroica for me.
This would be considered heresy in most musical circles.
The only pianist who could sight read it at that tempo would be John Ogdon. I love Katsiaris as he’s one of my most favorite pianists of all time but the tempo always felt off, after hearing Weller’s version it made sense. Weller’s tempo sounded just right for my ears. The only thing that worries me is the performance time which lasts upto 52 minutes. Is there any written documentation about the length of the performance? Thanks for explaining it and posting Weller’s performance as well.
I think even Liszt also playing this arrangement slower than original tempo
That was a very interesting ride through tempi and our "ability to adapt" almost instantaneously to it. Really cool video!!!
I'm still awake! Go figure ... you're up early! :D
great video! very well explained thank you
Glad you enjoyed it!
People who can't make music allways think "play slow it's easy" but I really think the slow movements itselfs are very hard to make it musical, even an "slow" allegro it's very hard to sound allegro and musical.
Yes, I've been playing Beethoven sonatas, and I have the most trouble with the slow movements.
We shall see when Praelude 6 by Chopin aires. I wonder if any half-beaters took the challenge. I mean if they consistent, I can respect that; if they aren't, then they're not worth wasting text-time on because their slippery logic will always suit them even if maths and physics thinks otherwise. By the way, that praelude is very hard especially w/o the pedal for most of it. YIKES!
excellent explanation and demonstration
Thanks for the video. How can I apply these lessons to a piece where I don't know the historically marked tempo? For instance, I'm looking at Chopin op 28. no 4. imslp.org/wiki/Preludes,_Op.28_(Chopin,_Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric) and CPE Bach Solfeggio imslp.org/wiki/Solfeggio_in_C_minor,_H.220_(Bach,_Carl_Philipp_Emanuel) .
For Chopin a great source for tempi, also in whole beat, is Kullak, much to be found on IMSLP!
@@AuthenticSound Thank you, that sounds pretty good with this piece, so I'll keep referencing him in the future.
I'd love to hear you converse with Katsaris about this. Have you ever contacted him about this?
I haven't, but that would be a great moment
im unable to find the recording of the interpretation of mr. katsaris's liszt's transcription of beethoven's 5th symphony. could you please help me for where to find his recording, perhaps a link to a youtube video, or a link to somewhere to buy a dvd of the recording you are talking about?
Once again your insights are spot on! The truth of the authentic tempos is so evident to the ear.
Hearing is believing!
@@kaybrown4010 I was amazed that even a "sound byte" of half beat, once reduced made event he mainstream tempo sound much slower. HAHA! I understand why folks are put off their tea initially; however, remaining and learning like we have begins to have a renewed love of this artform.
Thomas Hughes Yes! Imagine being able to have an evening of music, getting together with friends to sight read some Mozart or Beethoven. Good times. Followed by beer!
The title of this video is very negative and only for views!
Do you find anything problematic about this?
Not clickbait when the video actually contained the content the title had promised, no misleading here!
1:15 - Luuuv the graphic! 🎾
Great. I've taken a liking to this idea that seems to be backed up with evidence. The only thing is that I think we pianists playing on Steinways and Faziolis etc. can afford to play a little faster than the metronome markings because we're playing on instruments that are able to sound good at these tempi. In fact, I think playing with single beat or anything close on a fortepiano or a Graph, Pleyel or Erard would sound terrible, whereas playing whole beat would sound off and a little boring on a Steinway or Bosendorfer. I agree that for older music, especially pre-recording era, we can all learn to slow down a little. I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm sure you aren't disagreeing with me. Just a note from a comment musician. Keep making these videos, please.
Give it up. Your "theory" is no less ridiculous than the moon is flat and the sun circles around it.
At least he is able to play according to the reading of the metronome he thinks true.
I have watched several of your videos and I grant that there are several compelling points to support the whole beat theory. I found the discrepancy in the demiquavers passage in the 3rd movement of moonlight sonata to be particularly intriguing. But I have my doubts, especially considering how the musical teaching tradition was passed, for example, from Liszt to several pupils not so long ago, and that there are recordings of Liszt students that were made with the tempo that we are used to hearing today. Sure, they could choose to play faster and I think there is indeed that tendency, of pushing the boundaries of technique and speed with faster performances over time.
I am still not convinced about the whole beat, but I can give much more credit to your theory nowadays. Ultimately, I think we as musicians (and student, in my case, I wouldn't call myself a musician yet) should use the tempo that makes sense musically. You showed that the MM for several works are completely ridiculous when considering the single beat approach. But in some cases being close to that tempo works just fine, even though it might not have been the composer intent. Listening to Chopin's etudes at the insane speeds that are used today is quite spectacular, and the fact that we got used to those performances makes it very hard to accept the whole beat approach in those cases. Nevertheless, you should keep bringing these discussions and striving to increase the musical community awareness regarding this topic. But don't claim Katsaris can't play at the original MM unless you heard that from him directly. He is a true virtuoso, I believe he could do it if he wanted.
I was somewhat convinced for a while but as I studied more about the subject I found pretty strong evidence contradicting with the whole beat theory and my attitude was changed... for now at least :P
Was Liszt teaching the early or late 19th century practice?
Marek M. Almost no one is able to play twice as fast (aka, the real mm numbers in single beat)
Marek M. This is the whole point of the video.
It's basically moronic to think that these pieces were meant to be played at warp speed tempo even with all of the evidence Wim repeatedly presents as the music is garbled and unintelligible played so fast. It's a goddamn shame for classical music and even worse that the tempo fallacy isn't admitted, embraced and corrected. Well done as always, Wim!
I do believe that the vast majority admits in silence. I can imagine most serious performers doing their own study on this, and figuring out how to break away from their audience's expectation of speed. Not an easy task.
It is a real shame that the classical music world is like this. The warp speed tempo is why it is so goddamn unpopular. Nowadays, the main concern of most musicians is the difficulty of the music, rather than the actual music. In my opinion, any musician with a decent taste and logic should automatically accept WBMP.
The classical music world as a business has seen a dramatic donwturn as a business. Wim is capturing the younger base, and if that base believes that it can be truly unchained, classical music will see a revival because the "other" music of the day is perty much garbage. Time will tell.
Thank you Michael!
Therefore they must be played at a tedious snail's pace. What wonderfully reductive working you make. Don't be fooled by this false binary.
Just one question, please . When it says più allegro, is it faster than allegro or slower ?
più allegro = more allegro --> faster
If you played Beethoven's Eroica with that theory, the symphony would last 2 hours. However, there are historical accounts of it lasting the 1 hour it still lasts today, even on its premier.
2 hours for the Eroica in whole beat... that is a tiny bit too long, 1 hour 20 should be enough :-)
AuthenticSound Why would you want to listen to it that slow tho. I really do see the sense in your points, but I can’t get past the fact that the eroica is meant to be a summons and represent a battle in the first movement, with the whole beat it was almost boring.
So I need exactly 1:22:32 for the Eroica. By the way: single-beat is the theory after which 150 years have been played. Fortunately, the old practice of whole-beat was rediscovered a few decades ago. Of course, many defend their old listening habits. I understand that and have no problem with it.
@@AuthenticSound Is that in jest or do you really have an argument for that duration? Your pet theory suggests doubling the length of every piece so how do you account for inconsistencies like the one Bruno Vicente brought up? Even a 1 hour 20 minute long Eroica would still be closer to a normal tempo than your double beat proposed tempo, so I don't know if you are disregarding the issue with a jest or whether there is an actual explanation as to why the Eroica shouldn't be 2 hours long if your double beat theory is correct.
Really enjoy your discussion here. I like the point about ‘head room’
Awesome, thank you!
I would also agree that sometimes slower tempo sounds better.
Nevertheless, very often metronom marks are just right and I cannot see the argument of double beat proven as a general or even universal argument.
The action of more modern pianos is also different compared to historical instruments which can be played faster.
For a thesis, I miss the falsification part -- essential for an unbiased and valid argument. For example: Katsaris playing Chopin Fantaisie Impromptu is "at tempo" of 164 bpm as indicated by Chopin. Many more such examples can be given. There are many counter arguments that could indicate your thesis not to be generally applicable. Unfortunately, missing counter arguments discredits the thesis. It does not mean that I do not honor the effort to bring up such thesis. But it should not become an obsession.
And I am not convinced that your thesis covers over 90% of pieces where metronom marks make sense -- contrary to your selective list.
In the end, pianists want to produce music they themselves and the audiance enjoys, being a medium of the composer. The composition is a blue print, not more, not less. Nobody can play what the composer had in mind 100%, and I doubt not even the composer him- or herself (listen to Debussy playing his own pieces recorded as piano rolls).
What should prevail is the essence of musical expression, the togetherness in this universal language at the time of performance. Slower or faster depends on the moment. All else is lifeless. Music is not a science, but an art, encompassing the freedom of subjectivity. Otherwise, we end up with highly sophisticated robots playing perfectly -- but producing empty nonsense.
'very often', 'many more'...just try and chech and you'll see for yourself
@@AuthenticSound Well, look at Kinderszenen 1 from Robert Schumann. Clara Schumann changed his indication. Why would she do that if there was no understanding of the metronom as we see it today? He indicated a too fast tempo for such piece. His marks are all playable, but do not sound nice here. But half tempo also does not sound well. I am not sure if all this leads to a dead end of discussion. To make a generally applicable rule there are too many examples suggesting something else -- in my unprofessional humble opinion. Nevertheless, I am playing myself all kinds of pieces from that area, later and before. I could not image playing them half tempo. To take edge cases, ok... But generally said, metronom marks are not all wrong even with our usual understanding.
As far as I can tell, the first movement is the easy one, and Katsaris plays it close to the specified single beat tempo. Other movements are more challenging, and Katsaris plays them much slower than specified. Are we supposed to believe these tempi is his artistic choice? Or is it more probable that he is constrained by his technical ability? And his technical ability is undeniably on the verge of the humanly possible.
He would have played the tempi if he could, and if he can't, well... there is something we don't see
Brisk tempos for Beethoven are something I would agree with. It's on liszts shoulders that he put those impractical demands on the pianist. As is often the case moving it to piano solo as with bach to piano results in a adaptation. I never thought critically about Katsaris in terms of tempo, his recordings of these symphonies are nothing short of biblical. I listened to nr2 a month ago and was stunned beyond belief. I'm reluctant to admit that I perhaps agree with the video and maybe the channel as a whole although I'll be bold enough to state this : I think it's a slightly perverse endeavor. Music should be played in such a way as to be convincing. However despite that, as I said I favor Beethoven in bold tempos. Nothing like the way I would digest bruckner, and there are some contemporary conductors who push the envelope on fast tempos in those (also perverse). That said I appreciate the musicology of this effort and even though I may agree I still stand by the statement :make it convincing. From the point of being informed about the fact that liszt documents Beethoven's original tempo, that I am grateful for, I would not have guessed. I'm much more intent on finding tempos that agree with the musical spirit of the work, much in the mentality of Mahler stating that if a conductor feels the need to make changes to his symphonies he must do so. I'll always be happy to disagree with a composer, in this case it's an odd coincidence that I agree with Beethoven but generally not with the tendency of this channel to number crunch. Thank you for the knowledge. Long live Katsaris, only to be matched by Ogdon
Liszt was known to play 'serious' repertoire quite slow. The only thing is he didn't want his students to go back to 1810, but left them in the competing time spirit of the late 19th c.
@@AuthenticSound good to know and nice hearing back from you
Fantastic video. I appreciate that people that want to discredit whole beat come and have discussions in the comments. I just wonder why, for all their arrogance, special pleading, and strawman arguments ("you can't play everything half as fast") missing the point, they don't simply provide an explanation for INHUMANLY fast metronome marks from the era and even directly from the composer?
Let's remember that there's no evidence that Listz would have expected Beethoven's metronome markings (whether single or double beat), or even typical orchestral tempi in general to be applied to his transcriptions: there is no evidence or Liszt or Mendelssohn or Wagner taking Beethoven's metronome marks seriously. So making assumptions about the playability of Liszt transcriptions should take into account the "aesthetic transcription" idea: Liszt may have arranged these works in a completely different manner if Beethoven was there watching over his shoulder...
In fact there is the stunning evidence of publishing Beethoven's metronome marks in his transcription... that... is enough I believe.
@@AuthenticSound Again, if one looks at the historical evidence, it seems clear (and this includes countless recordings) that performers of the past routinely ignored metronome marks they didn't like; the same with dynamics and even articulation! Today, many would regard ignoring a composer's indications as a sacrilege, but as countless recordings reveal, that simply wasn't the case historically. Liszt surely prepared his transcriptions using the full scores of the symphonies, and included authentic performance information (tempi, dynamics, etc.) deriving from Beethoven. This shows that Listz took his role as a transcriber of these works seriously, and shows his respect for Beethoven. However, descriptions of how Liszt played "the classics" show that he wasn't the type to be bound by another composer's instructions. So, did Liszt favour the creation of an orchestra sonority over the practical ability to play at Beethoven's metronomic tempi? It's quite possible. He could say, "I've created a fantasy orchestra out of the piano, but for your information, here are the authentic metronome marks."
@@ProfDrislane You are right!!! I'm not sure if Liszt ever tested Beethoven's metronome marks. In the manuscript for his transcription of the Eroica, the Presto coda of the Finale, he wrote the metronome mark that was printed in (probably all) copies of that day: 8=116. It's generally agreed upon that Beethoven intended 4=116. Because of the way it is transcribed, there is no way Liszt conceived it in a tempo as slow as 8=116.
As for the Fifth Symphony transcription, here's how the metronome marks were brought up in Liszt. Sources first:
1. Liszt autograph for first version
2. Stichvorlage or proof sheets, implied due to the major differences between 1 and 3
3. Two print editions c.1840 by Richault and B&H (S463a; I have never seen the Richault print)
4. Printed edition of first version containing Liszt's corrections for the second version c.1863
5. Print edition by B&H c.1865 (S464/5)
2 and 4 are sources that are either lost or I am unaware of. The first score of the Fifth Symphony containing metronome marks (c.1826 B&H) gets all four marks correct. How they appear in sources 1, 3, and 5 are as follows:
I: Allegro con brio 2=108 in all
II: no marking in 1; Andante con moto 16=92 in 3 and 5 (but 8=92 is correct)
III: no marking in 1; Allegro 2=96 (!) in 3; Allegro 2.=96 in 4
IV: Allegro 2=84 in all
Ho presente l’esecuzione di Bernstein riguardo Allegro.Ma con il il pianoforte mantenere il tempo e ben altro.Ancora grazie per la chiarezza e complimenti.
Yeah. Exactly. Just write Presto
Yet another video supposing that the only alternative to your theory is that every single metronome mark can only be taken entirely at face value? This contributes nothing to anybody's understanding, sorry. Have you learned nothing from the sources in which beethoven said the metronome mark is only for the opening bars? The whole video is arguing against a strawman position.
Without even going back hundreds of years, the ABRSM today almost without fail gives metronome marks that are unplayable for youngsters at that level. Yet we have to assume every Beethoven marking must either be taken literally or halved? These arguments are built on top of an intrinsically flawed assumption. Perhaps the correct way to interpret all the abrsm marks is to halve them too? No. It's to recognise the nature of approximate recommendation.
@@christianstark2381 yes, it's really interesting that the Abrsm gives such weird metronome marks, that all of Wim's arguments could be just as applicable to. Except for the fact that we know beyond any measure of doubt that they mean single beat. I don't know why he persists with arguing against a position of literalism, that no intelligent musical analyst has ever actually been making.
What about in compositions that already start with ridiculous speeds in the opening bars? For example, in many etudes, especially from Czerny.
Also, in fugues, and in other pieces in the “strict style”; they are meant to be played in strict time throughout. What about them?
@@ppopoisaname2860 as I said, the abrsm continue with that to this day.
> beethoven said the metronome mark is only for the opening bar
OK, when I sing to myself the opening bars, I choose exactly the tempo Wolfgang took, because at this tempo the motif has weight. i'd prefer a faster tempo for the development, but not two times faster.
> the ABRSM today almost without fail gives metronome marks that are unplayable for youngsters at that level
Because ABRSM operates under the false assumption that composers of the past put ridiculous unplayable metronome marks on their pieces too (but they didn't).
> the nature of approximate recommendation.
Metronome marks is literally the most precise instruction that can be added to a score! It's a number, for God's sake! It's like if dynamics were nominated in decibells.
@@artemasgray Agreed. Why would the composers and the editors (e.g. Czerny) bother to give precise numbers for their metronome marks, if they weren't meant to be reached. If a piece was just meant to be ridiculously fast, they may as well just give any ridiculously fast metronome mark to mean 'as fast as possible'.
Does Liszt give Beethoven's MMs in his transcription?
yes!
So the single beat theory is false for every musical piece?
Of course not, most of it is during the nineteen century. When the metronome was invented.
@@roberacevedo8232 til when? He never answered this
Rachmaninoff never played his own music in single beat. he played with rubato with a lot of tempo flexibility and generally much faster than it is played today without it sounding fast
@@he1ar1 Yeah, a style of rubato unheard of during the 19 century.
The channel wasnt made yesterday. Did he never answered it, or is it that you haven't heard it?
Two much speech ! After 2:30 : "let us play a note" but after 4 mn, allways not a note ! I stopped there...
and than decided adding another 30 seconds to fill a comment box, you people 🙄🙄😇
Sorry, is this actually a channel debating the historically correct tempo to play music in?
yes
Very interesting. Thank you. 😊
Glad you enjoyed it!
Did Wim address the problem that reported historical concert durations are in general way too short to have had all that music played in double-beat tempo in some video?
Durations at best (so in case all contextual influences can be reduced to an absolute minimum) give insight in the extreme diverse landscape of performance practice, they rarely, if ever give us insight int he tempo indications of the composers. Liszt reported once to have three versions of a piece: 1) how the music historically would have meant to be played, 2) the music played within boundaries of the composer's intention but adapted to the possibilities new instruments offered and 3) the way the audience wanted him to play often: as a kind of stage monkey
@@AuthenticSound May be a good idea for a video...
@@AuthenticSound Yes! And just because the MM's are there doesn't mean that all musicians will necessarily follow them. Same thing goes for the students of Liszt etc. Even if they teach according to double beat, they can't force the student to play in double beat tempo in the end.
@@AuthenticSound? So you have to either take metronome marks completely literally or at half what they suggest. But you think composers did just about anything they felt like in performance, including speeds that clearly come closer to a single beat interpretation? How can you believe these two clearly contradictory premises without severe cognitive dissonance?
This curious argument smacks of simply trying to go to any lengths to construct a way to dismiss inconvenient truths, no matter how improbable the explanation (nor whether it matches your absolute insistence on literalism elsewhere). And how do composers working with an orchestra improvise their way to double speed performances? They just conduct twice as fast on a whim, for a premiere of a piece? Mozart forces the singers through his opera twice as fast as he really intended (based on assumptions that the audience *might* have egged him on to do so?), but others must do it twice as slow as his real durations to match your idea of correctness?
These severe holes in the argument are a reminder that even if we felt single beat literalism could be eliminated as a possibility, it doesn't leave us with double beat literalism as a meaningfully credible alternative. You don't take two options and eliminate your way to the truth. Especially not when neither works as a literalist explanation.
''Correct'' tempo is like pre ragtime music;-)).I see gunfight and ''ladies'' in crinoline waiting at the firts floor in separate rooms.So , you must be familiar with Celibidache's practice , that was known by everyboy to slow down the tempi.I saw a very interesting interview with him about why and how music is more evident like this.Also you must know his reluctance to recordings.On the other side , I would say that the tempi that you suggest as beeing accurate , from te perspective of a certain analyse that has its clear points, might be completely out of the modern sensiblity range.From various reasons.And I would say that is also a factor to be considered.However , it is clear that the virtouso exposure took place to the actual musical meaning of a work.And playing at certain speeds makes things , at least for me, unbearable to be listened to and completely lacking musical value as a consequnce.It's more piano acrobatics or how Dan Grigore(romanian virtuoso and great musician as well) put it''keyboard tourism'',that was in an interesting conversation about virtuosity something like 30 years ago.
I think people are too concerned with the playability of certain pieces in single beat and not the musical sense it makes. Like, even if this piece (and many others) are playable in single beat, why do modern pianists not reach those speeds? Simply because they make no musical sense.
I also noticed another thing which may be in support of your theory. In my Urtext edition of Chopin Nocturnes, Op 9. No.3, in 6/8, has a metronome marking of QUARTER note = 66. This would make no sense for the metronome to indicate quarter notes in 6/8, but if it indicates the EIGHTH notes, it would make a lot more sense. Provided that it isn't a misprint, which I don't think it is since the tempo fits really well, I think this is good evidence that Chopin was double beat.
Checking my Schirmer's Library No. 2056, it notated as dotted quarter note = 66
@@stevenreed5786 Interesting. That means either my Urtext or your Schirmer is wrong....
I checked on my Urtext Henle and Schimmer and it is a dotted quarter note... Could it be a mistake on yours?
@@etiennedelaunois1737 Possibly. Now that I think about it, the tempo at quarter=66 in WBMP is ridiculously slow for an allegretto. Maybe mine does have a mistake...ARGHHH
The way that nocturne sounds at one quaver per second is far better evidence that he wasn't a double beat composer.
For heaven's sake, remove those silly subtitles!
What's silly about it? Katsaris cannot play a sightreadable Liszt transcription in 'tempo', at least in single beat metronome reading. It is silly in itself, I know, but ... a fact. He would be able to do that in whole beat... and that's the point.
First!
Cmon.
@@classicgameplay10 WHERE?!? :D