Beethoven was Played TWICE AS FAST in 1863!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Use the code "FirstShipping" to get 20% discount on everything our website offers. Limited time valid!
www.authentics...
--
Did pianists play Beethoven twice the speed of pianists today? It appears to be so. At least as we read what A.B.Marx writes about the keyboard works by Beethoven and we take a Single Beat Metronome reading.
--
🙋Join our Patreon community and help us create more content▶ / authenticsound
--
Videos mentioned:
*The Real SECRET of Liszt's UNIQUE Technique Revealed : • The Real SECRET of Lis...
*Bernstein's SECRET to INSTANT SUCCESS on Stage: Best Music Lesson Ever!: • Bernstein's SECRET to ...
*Even Valentina Lisitsa unable to fix Beethoven’s Moonlight “Mistake”? • Even Valentina Lisitsa...
17:38 "What you hear there in 1930 recording is the 1930 tradition..." 2 thumbs up.
From what I could understand from some articles by Professor Clive Brown, a real cut occurred at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the extensive research presented on this channel by Wim Winters. Some articles are available on the University of Huddersfield website.
"It may be argued, however, that in their forthright rejection of what were seen as outmoded practices, newer generations 'threw out the baby with the bath water', encouraging change for their own sake on the basis of questionable physiological grounds. Modern ways of playing the violin seem to have been achieved at a high price, for few players today seem to escape physical problems that are often acute, but I have as yet found no reference to such problems in 19th-century documentary evidence." - Clive Brown, "Physical parameters of 19th and early 20th-century violin playing"
I am lucky to be able to play anything at all let alone worry about these unreachable speeds.
Indeed! You may even be blessed to be relieved from the trouble. Playing beautifully, in a way that moves your audience, or brings enjoyment to yourself, is the goal. Bring your intelligence, communication skills, creativity, insights, and spontaneity to create the emotion or tell your story. You don't have to play Chopin as if it were Death Race 2000, and it's better if you don't. Every phrase can tell a story if you look for it.
If Beethoven's music could only be played by virtuosos and the number of virtuosos is small. How did Beethoven's music become renowned all over Europe?
Why did he even bother to publish his work if no one could play it apart from the greatest of pianists to ever have lived? And why did the publishers buy the rights to his work if the public couldn't play them?
beethoven didnt care at all lol. if you cant reach the tempo, just play it slower. + Beethoven was known more than for just some hard piano pieces. This point doesnt make sense at all
Actually it's not only about Beethoven...
@@letsbrawl945 I think the point makes perfect sense.
@@dlcurtis69 think what you want but i can tell you youre wrong. I can tell you that hammerklavier was literally known in beet's time for being so difficult. Y'all are saying that a composer who wrote difficult piano stuff couldnt get famous? lol??
Also, Czerny talks about how a woman he was with struggled for weeks just to play the opening jump of hammerklavier.
It's not as hard to acquire the technique to play Beethoven as people think. You make 100x faster and better progress starting at the bottom and working your way up. Nobody should complain they can't play the third movement of op. 27 no. 2 who hasn't already studied dozens of the easier Beethoven movements. Find the easiest movements and do them first. Also, start playing Bach because with Bach you'll always be a mediocre musician who can't handle counterpoint of multiple voices. Again start at the very bottom and work your way up. If you do that, you won't have to play with Wim's absurd tempos and you can just feel the music in a natural way.
Rudolph Serkin's rendition of the Pathétique is so fast that much of its meaning is lost.
One time I practically facepalm w/ students is when the chromatic scale at the end of the Grave section is suddenly played too fast and it's obvious the pianist stopped counting or feeling the beat. So many recordings do this too. Andras Schiff gets it right.
Yeah, those old metronome marks are the word of God. Or everyone was on speed in those days.
Hell, even if one CAN play these works at the speeds of these historical MM markings, why would one want to? Finesse, style, breathing, nuance, articulation, emotion, humor - all of it goes out the window at those speed. These magnificent works become simply a series of notes and walking bass lines, demonstrations of technical facility as an end in themselves. Impressive, but emotionally and musically dull. And the perversion applies not to a handful of errant markings easily ignored for being outliers, but to a seeming decades-long tradition of defining anything faster Andante as essentially "at the limit of human endurance". Together it makes no sense.
What is so amusing about this video is that, if you read Marx's whole chapter on Tempo and Meter, you will find that Marx thinks that the metronome is useless, and is following Schindler in this belief. Schindler says in his Life of Beethoven "... the best advice that can be given to the piano-forte practitioner is -- Shun all metronomic directions, be they given by whom they may* -- turn from them as you would from the misleading lights of ignes-fatui -- set to work with the right spirit and the preliminary knowledge for the task, and apply to all the works of Beethoven the composer’s words “No metronome etc.”. (The footnote of Moscheles at * simply reads "Beethoven himself?")
And if one could draw the conclusion you make (which in case of Beethoven is definitely not correct)- what does it change to the fact that the single beat perspective is impossible? Exactly. Nothing. So back to point 1 - like a dog baiting his tale
@@AuthenticSound The only conclusion I draw is that when Marx writes "twice as fast as is meet" he is unlikely to be taking Czerny's metronome indications as the 'correct' speed.
Let's not forget Beethoven said that metronome marks were a guide for the first bar, and after that the heart takes over. And later I think he said that metronome markings were pointless, because musical people didn't need them, and unmusical people weren't helped by them. However I'm sure you are right that tempos were slower in the 19th century. That's a very interesting quote you have that "increased mechanism in pianoforte playing would banish all truth of perception".
Thanks for your comment! Allow me to contextualize your thoughts a bit: - Beethoven never rejected the metronome - even months before he died he wrote to his publisher to wait for his metronome marks (for the Missa) because the world could not do without them (quoting freely) - he even said the premiere of the 9th had such success because of his metronomisation. The issue of the MM just valid for the first bars (not first bar) he said in the context of a song with many tempo changes - and also Moscheles, the other reference people is out of context - he says one should not play metronomically, like a machine. If you just think about it - in many instances the speed problem is already there from the very beginning. We do not play a Czerny etude, or a Beethoven sonata for that matter, in a complete different (much slower) tempo from bar 5 onwards, right?
The context of the one piece Beethoven spoke of in reference, was to my recollection, an unpublished song. The heart taking over had as much to do with the words' meanings as well as the languae's diction involved.
Similarly, the Beethoven quote, "According to Maezel" quote is by some taken as evidence as a low opinion by Beethoven against the Metronome by some. To draw a comparision, I built a house "According To Hoyle", Hoyle being the authority on the rules of card games, such be understood as in accord with the highest authority. Without knowledge of the inferred usage, and unfamiliar individual with this intended context and a litlle knowledge of Hoyle and card games, could misinterprete the phrase as I built a house according to Hoyle as a "House of Cards,'' an insubstantial or insecure situation plan in as a structure built out of playing cards precariously balanced together which falls down at the slightest disturbance.
@@Renshen1957 The song is "So oder So", referred to often as "Nord oder Sud", WoO 148. First published 1817. You can find it in IMSLP, and there is at least one YT video, with score (sung by Peter Schreier slower than "100 nach Maelzel"). The letter quoted by Marx (on p.69 of the German edition, 74 of the English) in Artaria's possession is lost - did it ever exist?
Marx certainly thought that Beethoven did not think highly of the metronome, and he himself thought tempo should be judged non-metronomically. (I quote the German text)
"Man sieht daraus, dass Beethoven den Werth des Metronomen nicht überschätze. Mag das Instrument immerhin dem Komponisten werthvoll sein zur Sicherstellung des von ihm gewünschten Haupt-tempos -- absolute Bestimmung des Zeitmaasses ist dem Geiste der Kunst gar nicht entsprechend. ... Mann muss also zu den alten Bezeichnungen zurückgreifen, die wenigstens ungeführe Bestimmung geben und dem subjektiven Gefühl wie der Foderung des Moments künsterlich-günstigen Spielraum neben genügendem Anhalt gewähren. (p.62)
"From this we can see that Beethoven did not overestimate the value of the metronome. The instrument may be valuable to the composer for ensuring the main tempo he desires -- absolute determination of the time measure is not at all in keeping with the spirit of art. ... One must therefore fall back on the old designations, which at least provide a rough definition and allow the subjective feeling and the demands of the moment artistically favorable scope as well as sufficient support." (Google translate)
In other words, the spirit of art calls for the performer to decide the right tempo, returning to the "approximate determinations" of the tempo words allegro, andante, etc., even if that means overriding the composer's exact metronome indication. (This is what Marx thinks - one may take a different view, of course.)
@@DismasZelenka Thank you for your reply, and to your question, Did it ever exist, you might question if the reference was from Schindler's biography, but questioning the existence in "Artaria's possesion" (quick cut and paste), "During his lifetime, Artaria was Mozart's principal publisher, although after his death this passed to the German house of Breitkopf & Härtel. Starting in 1793, Artaria published several early works of Ludwig van Beethoven, until a bitter dispute over the publishing rights of Beethoven's String Quintet Op. 29 which culminated in a court case from 1803 until 1805. Yet, Artaria also published Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata in 1819..." seems to settle the question of whether it existed. The off and on relationship between LvB and the company gives credence.
Thank you for the translation, however, I do still read the German language, although out of practice in conservational speech. As to Google translations, the software uses the current definitions of words, and not the ones in use at the time period...languages and word meanings change, as in the words used for bowing a violin string would be mistranslated as grinding or scraping the violin strings. In English, an extreme example is the term by and by which used to meaning immediately, and came to mean an unknown eventuality.
As to the according to Maezel, etc., in context if Beethoven, so distained the Metronome...then why was he so adamant to insist on the value of these marks for all his Symphonies for proper performance towards the end of his life, especially those written before the Metronome's invention.
A song is not a Symphony, nor a Pianoforte piece. I agree to approximate interpretations as "playing the room" and personal expression comes into play, but for those impossible MM indications, did Beethoven really believe these as "approximate interpretation" starting points...and to quote Marx being played twice as fast by virtuosos, and faster than the contemporary Pianos (in some cases modern Steinways) of the time which had heavier actions than the pianos Beethoven knew.
@@Renshen1957 It is Marx who argues that Beethoven didn't set much store by the metronome. The starting point of this video is what Marx says about Beethoven. As far as I understand, Wim Winters is asserting that Marx is taking Czerny's metronome marks as 'correct' for Beethoven's sonatas, and, since doubling Czerny's tempi leads to absurd speeds (as it does), Marx must have interpreted Czerny's metronome marks in 'wholebeat'. My understanding is that Marx is saying that metronome marks are irrelevant, and each individual has the freedom to decide on the right tempo for him or herself - always of course based on a profound understanding of Beethoven's musical thought, which for Marx is achieved by careful analysis of the score.
Marx frequently warns against taking fast tempi. It is likely that his 'appropriate' tempi might be considerably slower than the metronomic indications of Czerny or Moscheles - or Beethoven himself -- and could therefore be taken twice faster (?a figure of speech for 'very much faster') than they should be (etwa noch einmal so geschwind zu spielen, als sich gebührt).
Quite a hammer mechanism and action required in those times.
If you read a book on the performance of Beethoven's sonatas by Chales Rosen, it's quite obvious that Beethoven composed most of his sonatas for women amateurs (as upper-middle-class women were the biggest customers of his printed piano music). Beethoven music was meant to be enjoyed and played by much-less-talented players than the virtuoso artists.
The target audience (demographics) for Viennese Salons...gatherings of of individuals at the home of well to do (and talented amateurs if not virtuosos.
@@Renshen1957 Czerny does not agree with that assumption. Quote: 'Beethoven's works, with the exception of a few trifles, are written for good and well-cultivated pianists; that is, for those who, by the study of many other good works have already perfectly acquired all that relates to mechanical facility and good performance in general. [...] as they not only call for mental, but also physical power [...] We are of the opinion that those who study his works should possoss talent and have arrived at that mature age [...] and also that they should have acquired that degree of facility that results from a good School and from the study of the best works of Clementi, Mozart, Dussek, Cramer, Hummel and even of the modern composers'.
Of course, it was not forbidden for amateur pianists to try these pieces (and probably make a mess of them), but this was clearly not the target audience.
Czerny writes further: 'In so far as bravura comprehends great certainty and power in the performance of skips, quick runs, complicated passages &c, this is certainly in constant requirement in his works, and Beethoven will always rank with the most difficult composers'.
@@jorislejeune Difficult as in proper performance, not in technical demands unless you believe that Beethoven only published for virtuosos and not the general public who purchased his music and played in their salons. Did you listen to the complete video? Speaking of Czerny who in single beat for his Etudes exceeds 22 notes per second and faster (faster than anyone can play, not even Lang Lang), or the metronome mark for J S Bach Czerny edition of the Inventions No 1 which Valentina Lisistsa at her own omission is playing at the top of her ability couldn't reach beyond 81%, pieces that are Royal College grade six material. A few are possible 3 or 4 out the 12 surveyed by virtuosos, and none of the speeds match Tempo Ordinario as J S Bach intended (Kirnberger, J S Bach student lists heart rate 60 bpm as does Praetorius 177 earlier, for Common Time.
Clementi (Beethoven's Father of the Piano) is among the "questionable" Metronome marks category, including Beethoven pieces, in some cases faster than the mechanisms of the English Action single escapement fortepianos that bear his name. Czerny as student and long time friend, and Moscheles acquaintence of Beethoven likewise in the questionable MM, Schumann-Robert and Clara, and Chopin in his more challenging works, notes omitted, passages bogged down to Whole Beat, yet everyone of the Single Beat mentality say, Yes! It's possible, when Chopin's student all recall he had the metronome ticking and the left hand kept time, and the right hand was free of the bonds of the beat, similar to a singer...something C P E Bach mentioned in his Essay which was still in print in 1863.
Does Czerny's metronome indications for the Inventions develop a Cantabile (singing style) in single beat? How do you account that pianists played twice as fast as the Metronome marks (in single beat) as mentioned in the video decrying the "technicians" (C P E Bach name for these or Mechanics which Mozart used) for Beethoven when most Concert Pianists can't play single beat in at speed for each and every work.
Or the dicotomy that 19th century literature as recorded at that time that performers were speeding up, while after the mid 20th century maintain the performers were slowing down. Most likely apologists in the Music Academies, Conservatories, and Universities who have to make excuses for their pupils not being able to play in single beat.
Metronome Marks are ignored, even in Schumann's Kinderszenen, Leichte (easy) pieces. Robert 1/4=100 (revised 1st edition, the original had no MM) Clara 2nd edition 1/4=80, yet Howowitz, and others play at Whole Beat.
If you believe everyone can play Invention No 1 by J S Bach in singlebeat at 1/4=138, by all means iif you are a pianist by all means put up a video), however 1/4=69 is just about a lively speed in Bach's Tempo Ordinario (1.15%) while the 1/16th notes values would indicate a speed slightly slow than 60 bpm, it is within the ballpark. However, the last of the three versions have superinscriptions changing the four 1/16th notes into six 1/16th notes as two sets of triplelets...try that at 138 (in some cases 6 against 4, but most likely the four 16th notes in Baroque Performance practice would be realized as an 1/8 and 1/16 as triplets in sync with the the triplets.
Too much incongruity found in Single Beat ueber alles explanations, which Whole Beat answers, and single beat can't answer that every metronome mark is possible/playable in single beat with Czerny, Chopin, and yes Beethoven.
@@Renshen1957 I gave you a historical quote by Czerny, who specifically tells you that Beethoven did NOT write for the general audience, but for very well trained pianists, even from a bravura point of view. Please re-read the last part of my post.
If you have any historical sources that tell you that Beethoven wrote for amateurs (letters to publishers, reviews, ...) please share them.
But I'm afraid neiter Praetorius nor Bachs ornamented version of his first invention are relevant in this discussion.
You don't need to be a virtuoso to play most of Beethoven. You just need to be able to play at a really solid confident level. The five last sonatas are too hard for amateurs but the rest of it is more or less within reach.
Man, you are wrong. They didn't play twice as fast. They just counted with Maxima beats! Did you know, that when Beethoven's 9th symphony premiered, it took 16 hours itself? People had to go home, because they had to sleep! Mind blowing! Beethoven did earn enough sponsors afterwards though
One more comment on Marx, metronomes, and Czerny.
Marx in his Allgemeine Musiklehrer (1839) indubitably described 'single-beat' metronome use in his Appendix 'Der Chronometer' (pp.99f. in the 1856 edition) to his chapter on Tempo.
Here is part of a long footnote in his chapter 'Auffassung und Vortrag bestimmter Werke" (Interpretation and Performance of Certain Works' : "... a meaningful, even polyphonic movement, in which one would like to feel every turn, the course of every voice, is shattered by a tempo that is too fast, which may be just appropriate for a brilliant bravura piece. And the author [i.e. Marx] must on this occasion expressly protest against many tempo markings which have been given in the otherwise excellent and highly praiseworthy and recommendable edition of Bach's complete works (published by Peters in Leipzig) by C. Czerny - admittedly with reference to Beethoven, but probably more under the influence of his own excellent virtuoso playing." (p.399)
In the original German: "... ein sinniger, wohl gar polyphoner Satz, in dem man jede Wendung, den Gang jeder Stimme fühlen möchte, wird zerrüttet durch zu schnelles, vielleicht für ein glänzendes Bravourstück eben angemessenes Tempo; und der Verfasser muss bei dieser Gelegenheit ausdrücklich gegen viele Tempobezeichnungen protestiren, die in der sonst vortrefflichen und höchst rühmens und empfehlenswerthen Ausgabe von Bach's sämmtlicben Werken (bei Peters in Leipzig ) von C. Czerny - freilich mit Berufung auf Beetboven, wahrscheinlich aber mehr unter dem Einfluss seines eignen ausgezeichneten Virtuosenspiels - gegeben worden sind."
The obvious conclusion is that he regards Czerny as a virtuoso, he does not trust Czerny's metronome indications, and he is not taking them as the 'correct' tempo for Beethoven's piano sonatas.
Great video Wim, always enjoy your videos on historical sources.
Coincidentally while i was reading a text today by E.T.A. Hoffman, i found an interesting quote relating to playing difficultys of Beethovens Pianoworks. "Wenn von bloßer Fingerfertigkeit die Rede ist, haben die Flügel-Komposition des Meister gar keine besondere Schwierigkeiten, da die wenigen Läufe und Triolenfiguren u.g.m. wohl jeder geübte Spieler in der Hand haben muß." So basically "When it comes to pure finger-dexterity, Beethovens piano-compositions arent realy difficult, because every figuration should already be in the hand of every trained player."
Love your research, cant wait for the book.
What an inspiration. I will work through the Beethoven sonatas with a fresh ear.
A.B.Marx's words are insightful, prophetic, and thoughtful. I find the Single Beat method makes almost all music sound ridiculous, and can be easily dismissed by the inability of the greatest contemporary virtuosos to only rarely to approach such tempos.
Personally, I often find Whole Beat Tempos to be about 30% slower than my preferences. I tremendously value all of Wim's work and efforts so we can hear what the music would have sounded like with the Metronome Marks given by the Composer at the time. Sometimes I really do find the original Whole Beat Tempos so much better than speeding them up at all, particularly in complex and harmonically rich compositions. Being properly and accurately informed by the Past, makes it possible for musicians to both honor the Past, and embrace the Present, in an intelligent and musical way. Thanks Wim!
Perhaps your most convincing video, at least among the ones I have seen so far. Thanks !
Yes it is subjective up to a point and should follow the "general feel" of the music, but to play for example the Hammerklavier sonata as was done by AS is most definitely way out of context and contend of the musict, general-feel, good manners and good musicianship.
pitty - intereseting topic, but far to much talking - I want to listen to examples, maybe a bit of explanation in between
Try to listen to some of wims recordings aswell as these videos and then you get both :)
We know the program of the concert, in which the 9th symphony was first performed. If you're right, the concert would have lasted (including the intermission) about 4 hours and 30 minutes.
In the concert in which the 5th symphony was first performed, also the 6th symphony was performed, moreover the Choral Fantasy, the 4th piano concerto, parts of the mass in C-Major and the aria "Ah, perfido". When you're right, the concert would have lasted about 6 hours.
Extremely interesting...I hope those who relish abusing you and whole beat will take eight rests before reigniting their fury.
Crystal clear. Thank you Wim
How many videos can be made on tempos? I Don't think it's that important. Usually composers write too fast tempos and people can play too slow.. Do what's reasonable and what you feel about the piece.
Thats fine, but this is a research like any other and is about really knowing what the composers had in mind
Yes, but the point is to start from where? If one takes the score to completely personolize it, fine. But at this point of time, generally we have no clue of how the composer intended his composition. And since tempo is the most important decision a musician needs to make, we cannot put enough emphasis on that aspect. It is the start, not the end.
Well when Celibidache was conducting (RIP), then everything was played twice as fast in 1863! Guaranteed :D
Would a profound statement seem twice as profound if spoken twice as fast?
Saves time
@@charlytaylor1748😂
.
Speeding up recordings to twice Czerny's metronome indications is very amusing, but has nothing whatsoever to do with what Marx is talking about in his chapter on Tempo and Meter.
Thank you once again. After hearing the sped up stuff…why is this even a goal? It sounds like @#$& 🙂
Great composers: let's sit down and contemplate time
Virtuoso pianists: Sonic the Hedgehog
What a load of bullshit
Ad hominem…
It doesn't take long to verify Marx's take on the metronome. On IMSLP you will find his book entitled "Allgemeine Musiklehre" (universal school of music), first published in 1839, in which a chapter is dedicated to the metronome. I quote :
"What is the duration of each sound in every movement ? This can only be precisely determined by applying an absolute astronomical measure of time, minutes, seconds etc... If, therefore, an absolute measure be required, we must decide that a crotchet or a minim must have a duration equal to certain portions of a minute or a second. Of the many contrivances devised for this purpose, an instrument invented by Mälzel has met with by far the greatest approval. This instrument is called the METRONOME; it consists of an inverted pendulum, which is put in motion by means of a spring and wheel-work, and has a moveable weight attached to it, which regulates its vibrations. Behind the pendulum there is a table, divided into 110 degree (from 50-160). It the regulator of the pendulum be placed opposite to either of these divisions, the pendulum will vibrate so many times in a minute as the number indicates, or from 50 to 160 times, according to the position of the weight. By means of this instrument, any definite portion of time may be allotted to a note. We have only to determine how many sounds of a certain rhythmical value, say crotchets, are to fill up the space of a minute, place the regulator against the number decided upon, and allow the pendulum to vibrate, when each of its vibrations will give the exact measure of the sound. If the mouvement be too slow to allow of its being indicated on the graduated scale for one kind of note, another of less rhythmical value may be substituted. Thus, for instance, if the time were required to be so slow that only 30 crotchets should occur in a minute, then the metronome would not enable us to count crotchet beats, as the smallest number of vibrations which the pendulum performs is 60 in a minute. But by substituting a quaver for a crotchet in the indication of the movement, and doubling the number of the scale (M.M quaver = 60) we obtain the desired measure of time; for if 60 quavers last a minute, 30 crotchets must fill up the same space of time. The only difference is that two vibrations of the pendulum, instead of one, are to be allowed for every crotchet."
It's quite clear that the note value always correspond to every tik of the metronome in his mind, which is equal the number of beats per minute. Then you only subdivise the value when you need a number of beat per minute that cannot be obtained by the scale of the metronome (slower than 60 for example) but even then he writes quaver = 60 (corresponding to his goal of 30 crotchet a minute) and not crotchet = 60 (which in double beat means 30 crotchets in a minute).
Then he also gives and table with correspondance between Weber's pendulum and the metronome scale. A quick calculation will show that even the pendulum is used in single beat since a 55 inches pendulum vibrates 50 times a minute according to him. The full period of a 55 inches pendulum is ~2,37s, which is ~25,3 periods per minute, which correspond to ~50 half periods, ergo Marx counts half period and not full periods when he uses a pendulum.
His quotes about tempo are very interesting but it would have been also great to include his opinion about how to use a metronome and a pendulum to have a fuller view of the subject.
imslp.org/wiki/Allgemeine_Musiklehre_(Marx%2C_Adolf_Bernhard)
One should start in this text from the German edition, since much of the terms depend on the context. Two possibilities: Marx does speak of a whole beat practice or he does not. And before anyone claims this doesn't make any sense: you are reading a text of mid 19th. c, not of 2024. But even in the case his description would be more inclined towards a single beat reading, one still has to ask if he describes the way he ideally would see metronomes used (since single beat existed already since early 1820s - at least-) or not. But in all those cases only one fact remains: it doesn't change anything about the context of this story, it brings us back to this one question: to double the tempi of the movements he mentions, doubling compared to the required tempo - for which he mentions Czerny, which context can we reconstruct? In other words, as I say in the video: can you double Lisitsa's performance or mine? There is only one answer to that question. All the rest needs to be contextualized to this factual reality and not the other way around. Since if you don't do it this way, you restore the problem and we get into the situation in which a dog bites his own tail. Hope this helps
It is indeed strange that Marx should describe metronome use so explicitly and exclusively in 'single beat' terms in 1839, if by the time he wrote his book on Beethoven in the 1860s he had turned into a 'wholebeater' and believed Beethoven, Czerny and Moscheles were also 'wholebeaters'. The simplest explanation is that he always understood metronome use as 'single beat', but (as his writings show) disapproved both of the metronome and of the imposition on performers of precise tempi, and favoured slower speeds for the classical masters of earlier times.
If that is true and correct, everything sounds like the famous Circus Gallop by Hamelin... 😂
Maybe the ridiculously fast performances were just a fad of the time. People had heard those songs so many times by then that to stand out and be entertaining you had to come up with a gimmick like that. Sort of how people do stupid things on Tik Tok today just for the attention?
It was definitely a game for attention. We forget today that there were more pianists of high level other than Liszt and Thalberg.
Mr W. takes Marx too literally.
He is not saying that people actually played twice as fast, he is
exaggerating to make a point, and asks a rethorical question.
"IF (not when) you really play....... twice as fast, does it really become more brilliant?"
Its pretty clear…
even if he meant 1.1 or 1.3X faster, most of the examples shown and hammerklavier have never reached the metronome markings unless you divide by 2. GG did a wonderful job slowing it down(also Nr 23 for example), it is one of the most beautiful versions played (ofc totally in my opinion)
If we got to interpret sources that freely as you suggests this passage is to be read in, we would not even have to write a book any longer. Marx literally says in the context of the 101: Für einen tüchtigen Spieler ist es nicht unerreichbar, den Satz etwa noch einmal so geschwind zu spielen, asl sich gebürt. One can not be clearer than that. One paragraph later he makes his statement on the other movements. More concrete as this is not possible.
@@AuthenticSound Yes, but what does "als sich gebührt" mean? It does not mean "at Czerny's metronome indication". (It is also possible that 'etwa noch einmal so geschwind' is a way of saying "very much faster", not literally "twice as fast", but one would have to ask a native German speaker about idiomatic use of language.)
I like this video very much. I wished you have played opus 27,2 prestissimo too.
I did!
Isn't this getting tired already? Some people don't have the dexterity, technique to play moderately difficult works like Beethoven et al at tempo. Sometimes Czerny is a bit fast but you can slow down by 10-15%, not 100-150%!!! Czerny and Beethoven had lighter instruments which enabled faster and easier playing. Playing THAT SLOW is only good for practice. I sometimes play even slower things I can play MUCH FASTER. The secret to developing speed is not just memorizing your piece but REALLY DEEPLY MEMORIZING x2. You need to learn everything to point of complete and total control. Playing pianissimo is difficult on the mind, easier on your joints. Once you can play 10 or so pieces really fast, it's easier to play pieces at tempo right out of the gate. If you come across a brutal challenge like Chopin's op. 10 no. 1, then you can use the same method, never rushing, always practicing with attention and control. This is what Yuja Wang (and everyone else) does and it's boring but it works.
I loved the indication “Geschwind, doch nicht zu sehr“ in the SB × 2 version. Quite hilarious !
Yes, as player's technique and piano mechanism go, there is a geschwindigkeitsbeschraenkung (speed limit)
Great job!
It would have been so much fun to live in the 1800s and hear and watch people play at these 2x tempi on stage 😆
First!!!!
Nobody cares
Well I care. Hope you have a wonderful day ;)
I am nobody. I care. So, there.
Gotta love the interwebs, lol.
@@classicgameplay10 Indeed, the greatest advance in publication since the printing press, and distribution of information since Radio and that new fangled TeleVison...
I’m still here!! (22:34). I greatly appreciate your insights and hard work.
In 1863 I think people were too busy dodging bullets to notice
Academic Dogma on the subject seems intent on brainwashing the pianist, the string player, et al the premise that single beat was universal, that all works are possible in single beat, and that pianists became slower over time.
The first quote in reference of the last movement of Beethoven’s Opus 101, twice the speed of the Metronome mark in the work would be four times faster than whole beat. Last movement by Editor Hans von Buelow 69-76=1/4.
All the 18th and 19th Century composers and writers you refer to did not have today's proof of music being processed as language. Although Aristotle hypothesized music as language, and Debussy foretold the nature of neural processing of music when he observed "Music is what happens between the notes," it was not until 27 years ago that brain scans confirmed that familiar music is processed in the brain in an almost identical way familiar speech is processed, thus affirming that familiar music is indeed language. (I've invented a new definition of music based upon modern research: "Music is nonverbal sonic linguistic communication created directly or indirectly by humans.)
The observation that polyphonic elements are lost as a consequence of virtuosic display has its parallel in spoken English: if you adjust this UA-cam video to play twice as fast, it becomes impossible to clearly follow your conversation, and definitely fatiguing to attempt to follow. The brain is simply not designed to process an incessant rapid stream of information; the pauses (phrases) are essential for linguistic understanding, whether spoken or musical. (Note that quality perpetual motion works such as the Flight of the Bumblebee do work at virtuosic tempi, as their form of communication is created by contour shapes rather than by individual notes.)
The resources you cite understood this intuitively; today's modern science collaborates it solidly.
Merci!
You are the reason why people think classical music is boring.
Therefore we are packing 400 Beethoven boxes right now to ship to 35 countries :-)
Oh yeah, because the famous pianists who play everything fast are making classical music so popular! (Irony)
@@rafefleming Accurate is the word.
@@rafefleming Yuja Wang is pretty famous imo.
@@hadcrio6845 Yeah and most of the audience who watch her are either elderly people or pianists themselves. That doesn't show popularity in a real way. The truth is classical music is more like a museum now than a living art form. At least this channel is bringing something new that might improve the listening experience for the audience. Like this channel's performance of this chopin etude is one of my favourites. ua-cam.com/video/SBM-o12dmkM/v-deo.html