Yeah, Winter's "theory" is amazing in the sense that apparently many people actually believe it! As others have said, if I use the Whole Beat theory, I transform from an amateur pianist with my tech limit as the Beethoven Sonata 8 and turn into oner capable of playing the Op 57 with no trouble. The concept of whole beat is absurd.
I found Wim Winter’s theory interesting the first time I heard it, but I soon decided it must be wrong, for this simple reason: If tempo is slowed down by factor two, suddenly I, an amateur who never practiced enough and even was without a piano for ten years, can effortlessly play really hard pieces. I refuse to believe that I am able to do the same as famous virtuosos from the past, who practised day and night from a very young age, and were thought to be magicians and doing the impossible.
@@jeromewesselman4653 Of course not. Both music and humour are artforms that are difficult to master. Apparently, I fail at both.😄 Sorry about that. Have a wonderful life.
@@jeromewesselman4653 Actually I'm interested in your comment because the ability to play things incredibly quickly IS a major part of virtuoso technique. If that has no place in a virtuoso technique then maybe you can tell us exactly what does? Also can you then confirm that playing things half as slow (as WW advocates) IS part of a virtuoso technique? If you say it is then I assume we can take that further and say if you can play a very quick difficult allegro at andante pace as long as it's 'musical' then that is technically virtuosic? I wish Beethoven could speak now - he'd laugh his socks off at Winters. So this really comes under your definition of what virtuosic actually is ?
tillatidtryte, you are absoluely right, that’s a good point in what you write. I have begun to argue with a variation of your thoughts: We find those on UA-cam, children, 9-12 years old, playing several of Chopin’s etudes much faster than Wim Winters’ «Real Historical Tempo.» By doing as you do, reflecting and observing, it should be an eye-opener for Wim Winters’ supporters as well.
Hi Pianopat, great to hear from you again. It is a very good and very important video - similar to your musicological debunking of Wim's claims. Limited as his audience may be, I would not underestimate his potential influence on people with passion, but not enough knowledge about the classical (in a broader sense) music. I was under his impression for a short time - but if I hadn't found your critique od his views back then, I'm not sure I would have found a way out on my own.
Great video. A little while ago I saw some decent criticism posted on Wim's channel, and I wanted to re-read just to be sure I read it right, then it was gone... really quickly. At first I was just annoyed about not finding the comment anymore because I really wanted to reread it, then I realised Wim must have had removed it, and there were only 'nice' comments left without anything interesting in it.
It's truly depressing seeing how gullible everyone in that comments section are. and it's more damaging than piano pat puts forward as Wim encourages teachers to promote his ideas. potentially doing permanent damage to some students with extremely promising potential. One can only hope those theoretical students manage to have a better grasp on reality than their teachers.
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 I've checked the profile of some piano teachers who follow him, and double-beat or not, students with promising potential should look elsewhere. I would say that most double-beat fanatics are frustrated amateurs, who finally can accept a long frustration. The amount of musical illiteracy of some of his followers is truly mind-blowing.
@@benjaminachron1493 Indeed, I will admit I am nowhere near the level needed to perform the pieces properly, but I acknowledge my own shortcomings. These pieces are not for amateurs, especially the Chopin etude 10-2, that was laughable. Especially since the people in the comments didn't have anything substantial to say about it. There was even a comment asking "wait does anyone else here dislike it" which got very hostile before the comment was deleted.
My comments were also deleted. Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020, and signed by Emile Zola. It begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
A couple of Spanish musicologist have recently put forth a compelling theory that explains the logic behind the unusual high metronome markings provided by Beethoven , which is one of Win’s arguments to defend his double beat theory. They found Beethoven was consistently misreading his metronome by taking as a reference the lower side of the trapezoidal weight when he should have used the upper side. They even found a handwritten annotation in the manuscript of the 9th symphony in which Beethoven, realizing his previous mistakes, clarifies that the two markings can be used: the one provided by the upper side and the lower side of the trapezium. This theory debunks once and for all the double beat nonsense
Thank you for coming back. I was contemplating starting to make videos myself of trying to show the futility of certain pieces. (I may still but I would much rather let a more skilled pianist do so)I have been attempting to comment under his videos for some time. He banned my account of course, so I switched to another one. which was swiftly banned as well, despite that I never attempted to say "here I am I'm the guy you banned before" as such it is difinitive to say he is banning people because of their views and threats towards his ideas. The last comment I attempted to post was on his video released today (17th April) where I commented on how Mozarts 12 variations on "twinkle twinkle little star (I know not the official name) And how various folk songs we know today in beethovens music are still in place and singable. I also tried to reply to a comment Wim had when one viewer said correctly that we have recordings of Grieg and his pieces. Wim attempted to say that they are unreliable because the reconstruction effort would have doubled the speed. So I essentially went on a rant about how his attitude to commenting and reply was appalling. Obviously it cannot be seen however. I would be happy to send any Audio recordings of pieces I might be able to play. I have also transcribed a few pieces to my computer on which double beat sounds ridiculous. (the grave of pathetique springs to mind)
Let's do Mahler's Adagietto at half speed! I'm sure Wim can prove that we've been playing it twice too fast all these years. Or Pelléas and Mélisande! I guarantee you that no orchestra or cast of singers would do it in double beat. No audience would remain conscious more than 20 minutes. The riots would make the Sacre riots seem like an episode of Mr. Rogers.
Hi Patrick, good to see you're back. Great video as always and very perceptive comments. Maybe you remember that big document on historical timings that I sent you a while back. If you are still planning to do a video on it, then I just want to let you know that I'm updating it, and I hope to finish it soon (I've added new sources and corrected some mistakes), so just wait a little till I send you the updated version. Wish you the best.
I do very well remember it, and I did say in this video that I had more up my sleeve. So I will wait to hear from you with the updated version then. Keep well.
Liszt was Czerny's student who was Beethoven's pupil. Given how influential Liszt was (he was close to Chopin, Brahms, Schumann and Wagner married Liszt's daughter) and how Liszt lived until 1886 it is highly unlikely to have direct line of knowledge to be lost.
Thank you for this. I think you trace the course of Wim Winters' thinking and UA-cam channel fairly and well. While I won't comment here on the psychological aspects, I concur in regretting that the discussion of tempo questions which - though constrained by the limitations of UA-cam comments - was formerly entertained there, was abruptly curtailed in 2019 by a new 'code of conduct' which, coinciding with the appointment of a 'moderator', which amounted to rejection of all debate, let alone of dissent. Over a couple of months last spring, having previously been only intermittently engaged, I sought systematically to present a body of (essentially single-beat) evidence, drawing on documents, performance timings, etc.. Initially this was argued with, occasionally with positive results; then it stated gradually to vanish after being uploaded (sometimes this was blamed on technical problems or a UA-cam algorithm); and finally it was disregarded, mostly never having been addressed, when the iron curtain of censorship descended. Any potential which might have remained in the channel was then snuffed out. I've also been concerned about the way in which, to listeners not familiar with historical instruments, an illusory association of them with ultra-slow tempi has been promulgated. The new Fritz piano replica, for example, is apparently excellent and potentially useful in investigating performance practice, but in its novelty it has been presented misleadingly.
I might add that my attempt to post a constructive question about a new Grieg synthesised manifestation yesterday disappeared within seconds of being posted, so it seems that the intolerance of anything other than adulation persists. I queried this with the moderator, whose short answer attributed the phenomenon to UA-cam.
@@lewisjones2666 That is what they always say, I do believe that the moderators do show some responsibility to block comments. so potentially they are sheltering Wim's ego? if they are blocking his view to the true effect of what people are saying it makes sense.
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 Thank you. Yes I have plenty of experience of my factual submissions and comments, all of them polite and constructive, being obliterated.
@@lewisjones2666 Same here, on two UA-cam accounts. Please see my recent post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020, and signed by Emile Zola. It begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
@@jmb4969 Thank you. I'm not sure why you and several others communicate anonymously or pseudonymously. The 'chat' during a recent synthesised double-beat 'premiere' rendition of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture (1880) was remarkable. It was observed by one contributor that the 19th-cent Russian tradition was still 'early romantic' (implying that double-beat performance would, it was assumed, be appropriate). A question raised about double-beat performance of Le sacre du printemps (1912-13) received a worryingly positive initial response from the host, while another commentator opined that Stravinsky would (owing to the 'early romantic' Russian tradition) have been double-beat until he went to Paris. We might conjure in our minds an exchange between Debussy and the composer before they played through the four-hand in June 1912. Meanwhile, another devotee had been experimenting with double-beat Poulenc...
I listened to the Musica Aeterna recording of the fifth and had goosebumps. Thank you for recommending it. Merci d'avoir pris le temps de préparer toutes ces vidéos. J'ai brièvement succombé au charme de Wim après avoir écouté quelques vidéos (il est très convaincant), mais la musique reste plus convaincante. Son interpretation de la pathétique sur le clavicorde avait un certain charme et j'ai beaucoup aimé. Ensuite j'ai écouté la 5ème de Beethoven ainsi que l'Hammerklavier, et en mon for intérieur j'ai tout de suite su que ça ne tenait pas la route. Donc, je suis tombé sur vos vidéos.
Pas de quoi. Je suis parfaitement d'accord, sa Pathétique ne manquait certainement pas d'interet, mais c'était la préhistoire d'authentic sound, quand il jouait avec son intuition de musicien. Les interpretations etaient tres personnelles, mais cohérentes, j'aimais assez. Musica Aeterna peut faire des choses incroyables. Hier j'ai écouté leur Shostakovich 14, et j'aurais pu tomber de ma chaise tellement c'était stupéfiant.
@@pianopat Merci je vais écouter ça. Avez-vous des suggestions pour les concertos pour piano de Mozart, ainsi que les sonates? J'essaie de trouver quelque chose d'un peu différent, mais je suis difficile avec Mozart.
@@plantbasedsecrets Hum... Différent de quoi? J'avoue que rien ne me vient en tête. Quand j'étais plus jeune, j'écoutai beaucoup Haskil, mais je voudrais peut-être quelque chose de différent maintenant. J'adore les Mozart d'Edwin Fischer, mais en fait, j'adore Edwin Fischer, toujours. Il a été une grande influence pour moi. Un grand pianiste très peu connu avec qui j'ai travaillé un peu, Eric Heidsieck, a fait des concertos de Mozart exceptionnels, malheureusement, c'est presque introuvable aujourd'hui. Sinon, dans un autre genre, Bilson Gardiner font des choses extraordinaires...
@@pianopat Merci! J'aime beaucoup Bilson Gardiner. Différent dans le sens que souvent ces concertos sont joués en suivant la partition de très près. J'aime un peu plus d'ornementation et des cadenzas composées intéressantes.
My observations of Wim's musicianship and its deterioration over time are in complete agreement with yours. That is what finally convinced me of his increasing psychological problem. His exposing of his young female children on the internet shocked me. Better that Wim's channel remains, and is widely acknowledged, as a weird cult than as anything that might include mainstream discussion. I am grateful to those, such as yourself pianopat, who are able to counter the basis of Wim's nonsense. There also exists on social media a strong faction who see his channel as a fertile source of ridicule. But the internet is very extensive and Alberto Sanna is one tragic example of how musicians can fall into this abyss despite the warnings.
The latest videos on Authentic Sound really confirm how much of a cultguru Wim really has become (or wants to be), him now even reading his own fan mail in which he has no reserve in claiming himself to be a sort of Messiah. The discourse is rapidly becoming more and more infested with conspiracy-like nonsense about conservatories, musicologists and the musical stage in general. I find it fascinating and disturbing at the same time.
@Jeremy Ralph Sure, but will flixzone include masterful documentaries on the debunking of the musicological establishment by Wim Winters? I wonder... Only then will I consider. I need 24/7 Wim Winters Whole Beat! Or should that be 48/14?
Definitely quite sad to see what he has become. I liked his earlier interpretations on the clavichord, but I tried to listen to his Beethoven variations on the piano, and it was a tedious chore. His increasingly hostile attitude toward his critics basically made it clear that he should no longer be taken seriously.
@pianopat Thank you very for this video! It surely helped with my anxiety I had got from commenting on his recent UA-cam video, where Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture was played according to the double-beat theory. (You can go check the short "conversation" I had with him in the comment section of that video.) The reason for my anxiety was that I was afraid that more people would get lured into this absurd false understandment of music. I'm truly at ease to know that there are fewer people who believe him than I had thought. Thank you so much! For if you hadn't made this video, I might have had to go through the trouble of making one myself. (Although mine couldn't have been nearly as good as yours, of course. The comparison of this conspiracy theory to a virus was excellent in its relevance!) Edit: I noticed you had made a lot of videos on this subject prior to this, which is great!
Bravo, Sauli Niemi. Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020. It is signed Emile Zola and begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
He made up a whole theory to justify his inability to play fast. "No, it's not that there are many pianists with better technique than me, it's that everyone else is stupid and wrong!"
You are wrong. Wim Winter can actuelly play really fast. Thats not the reason he believes in this theory. There are actuelly some old recordings where you can hear him play fast
@Loco Vil I do not agree. Of corse he is a real pianist. There are people who improvise, interpret or try to play the piano in a historic way. I see that there is no such thing as doublebeat Theory - but i dont think just because someone plays slower then intended he is bad at what he is doing. I also havent seen Wim claim to be better then Liszt. But i havent watched too many videos anyways
@@danielwaitzman2118 Take a look at his rendition of Bruhns' Praeludium in e minor, or Sweelinck's (?) Variations on "Engelse Fortuijn" , both right here on UA-cam.
Truly brilliant! Thank you. Please indulge me. The following is a copy of my post on your 'My Musicological Answer...' video because I think this comment should be read by as many people as possible. Thank you for this excellent refutation of the Wim Winters 'historical' tempo controversy. In addition to confirming many of the comments here, I want to add another consideration that can be replicated countless times, and that is the passing down of musical training from generation to generation. I will give an actual personal example. My violin teacher was Raphael Bronstein, 1896-1988. His teacher was Leopold Auer, 1845-1930. And his teachers included Josef Helmesberger, 1828-1893, and Jakob Dont, 1815-1888. So in just three degrees of separation I am connected directly to Beethoven himself. This is an indisputable line of musical heritage. These great teachers played concerti, chamber music, and operas that we play today. I can tell you without fear of contradiction that there was no great change of tempi over the last two centuries; if there had been, we would have heard about it. There is no doubt that Mozart and Beethoven were virtuosi of the highest order. There is no doubt that they composed energetic, fast, and demanding works that remain beyond the technical grasp of most people to this day. And there is no doubt that there were and are ranges of tempi which all artists are free to explore to express themselves. But there is absolutely no evidence that the innovation of 19th century metronome can be used to prove that our tempi today are materially faster than the tempi used two or three centuries ago. I have added several comments below. (My comments on various videos on Wim Winters' channel have been deleted and banned by him. They were posted under another UA-cam account of mine. I was not kind to him).
Dear Patrick, You can assume that Wim Winters does not pose a danger to the music world, not now, and not in the future. He is less important than you think. You say by yourself that his group of followers is small. It will remain small, perhaps even smaller in the future. Indeed, he is a master of handling the benefits of youtube. He can do that much better than his inspirer Lorenz Gadient, from whom he got his ideas through his book "Takt und Pendelschlag". His own videos will tie him up. His supporters will see that those videos are too extreme. So don't be afraid. Wim Winters' ideas will blow over. Still, it's good that you occasionally act against him. I'm sure he sees your videos. For the time being they will strengthen him in his conviction. But for how long?
I believe he is more dangerous than you realise. The attitude of supposed teachers on his views suggests they are preaching his ideas elsewhere outside of his sphere of influence. Potentially damaging future young pianists, unless of course they come to their own judgment.
yes, I was very taken with Wim at first, but after going through a lot of his videos, unfortunately I find most of this body of great music unlistenable at Wim’s halved tempi. All of our beautiful exciting repertoire sounds like an exercise at those slow tempi. So, common sense and musical intuition has to come into play here. So, I’m with you on this.
Very eloquently put ! I first started watching mr. Winters' videos some years back mostly because I was interested in the sound of his clavichord. His views at the time on the metronome marks of Beethoven and Czerny seemed to raise a good point in that, in some cases, they seemed improbably fast and double beat seemed as good an explanation as any to me and more plausible than unlikely broken metronome theories and such. After all, the metronome was so new that the usage may not yet have been standardized. So, I was open minded about it but not wholly convinced. Over time though, he applied the double beat theory to later and later composers (Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, and even Grieg !) where not only did the slow tempos result in nonsense (Anitra's Dance marked "tempo de Mazurka" played almost dirge-like and thoroughly undanceable ??!!!!) but were in obvious collision course with recordings made by the composers' students or even the composers themselves. His latest video implies that double beat practice may have survived up to 1932 or even 1948 !!! He may have had an interesting theory with regards to the very early use of the metronome (first few years after its invention) but I think he has lost all academic method at this point, ignores obvious facts if they are in opposition to his theory and and twists vague textual references out of shape in order to try and "prove" his theory. Sad. By the way ... at 19 minutes into this video a mention is made of a new recording of Beethoven's work made as per Beethoven's indicated tempi but I unfortunately could not make out the name of the performers or where the recording is available. Would you please be so kind as to provide details of this recording ? I would be most interested ..
It is also important to remember that Authentic Sound shadow-blocks all comments that refute the double-beat theory. Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020. It is signed Emile Zola and begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
One effect of this video was to cause me to look at Wim’s channel again, after having ignored it for a year or more. It has indeed got stranger in the interim, with Wim coming across now as fixated on his spurious message, against all logic or musical sense. He extends it to ever more absurd lengths, now claiming Tchaikovsky as a double-beat composer! I tried to listen to some of the half-speed Beethoven renditions, though I could not stand them for long. And the video presentation, with the slow metronome periodically superposed over Alberto to demonstrate how is is indeed playing all the time in this ‘authentic tempo’, is positively sinister. It’s hard to predict where it might go next. Cults usually close in on themselves when they decide the rest of the world is against them, but the nature of this internet phenomenon means it has to be continually in public view: I presume Wim gets some income from his channel since there is continual interruption by adverts. It is good you have produced your series of calmly-presented, clear, factual videos to reference for anyone who starts to get taken in.
Sort of a comical thing is, if Wim just wanted to play this music slow because this just was his chosen interpretation, I would be mostly on board with it. I may not have liked all his interpretations, but I'd respect the fact that he makes an interpretative choice. By adding an silly flat-earth theory and making himself Kent Hovind of classical music world, unfortunately, Wim instantly loses the respect.
I also ask myself, if Wims theory was right, then why did composers like Rachmaninoff or Skrjabin or students of Liszt play like we do today? They all had teachers from the 19th century, in fact they were born in the 19th century. Shouldn’t they play twice as slowly? This alone debunks the theory since one wrong thing about a theory debunks the whole of it even if they are good arguments. It’s call falsification i think.
Wim is never short of ad hoc hypothesis, however implausible, to get himslef out of tight corners. In this case, we have piano roll which say absolutely nothing about tempo, all the students of Clara Schumann, Liszt and so on not interested in keeping the tradition, apart from the few people who play a little more slowly, who are the ones who still kept some link to the past. He is covered.
Hi Pianopat, very good and interesting video. 100% spot on, on Wim's evolution and issues. I have lost interests in Authentic Sound channel when it started to change as you mention. It was a point of time where no discussion was possible anymore and where civilised debates were replaced by aggressive answers. I rarely watch his videos anymore and only do it occasionally as even though i unsubscribed , youtube algorithm sometimes recommend videos. I recently watched the premiere of the 5th, and I have to say that Wim’s playing has seriously deteriorated and he has become a musical caricature of himself, with systematic and unnecessary rubato and uniform way of playing any composer with the same approach as you explain. Psychologically , it is a playground for psychologists, as it good depiction of the evolution from negativism to conspiracy , in other words the development of a sect , and the inevitable transformation of the initial instigator (Wim W) into a complete mythomaniac believing in his own lies. In term of audience, it is minimalist as you say, and his followers crowd kernel is about 20 members, no more , the rest being one-off visitors. It would be a good idea to make a video on that particular crowd as their motives are different and on their own they are a very special kind and definitely intriguing from a psychological standpoint. Obviously , all of that is only interesting from a social and psychological view, as musically, it presents virtually no interest at all and the quality has degraded to a point where it is more a farce than anything else.
Wim W has 33.000 followers, not 20. You can refute his theories without lies; you have a lot of real arguments to refute him, but if starting with lies no one will take seriously. Or do you try convince me that 33.000 subscribers are for ‘take a fast look sometimes in those videos’?
Christian J Next time try being less agressive in your statement. I feel that when those people appears there you will be waiting them with some kind of hummer, or bow and arrow. Look, I disagree with the Wim W theories or conspiratories theories , but get more worried with the level of aggressiveness I can read or watched that question makes grow up. If Wim showed aggressiveness too (I didn’t watch all his videos) this is for him too.
@@codonauta Who are you to give me lessons ? Listen, none of my comments on Wim's channel have been aggressive. They were respectful and polite and were just about bringing counter evidence. At some stage Wim's channel changed , his replies became sarcastic and every user who was trying to bring some evidence opposite to double beat was categorised as a troll. Sad reality but that was the time I left and unsubscribed.
Yes, it’s because his fanatical following dislikes all the comments which seriously debate Wim’s ideology. They’re simply a bunch of moronic clowns who propagate a foolish theory to either justify their inability to play adequately or to gain attention. I’m pretty sure Wim is cognizant of the fact that he spews bullsh*t 24/7.
I would not take the "double beat theory" THAT serious. It's just a crazy idea of some guy who thought "what if metronome markings are meant to be half as fast". The question is so absurd. Just because it is possible to play a special piece extremely fast or extremely slow and it still sounds ok. This fixation on the metronome numbers is so funny to me. And it's the same with Wim Winters as it is with all pianists who try to play the Hammerklavier Sonata with the given MM number in the normal way. Just play the music as it makes the most sense and forget that there are any metronome numbers.
"are meant to be half as fast." It's for sure much more than that. Better spoken, it's the notion that many metronome markings seem way too fast for historical instruments and sometimes our modern performances lose musicality. To an extent, it's a response to modern pianists swinging too far to the side it's on now. There are examples where pianists do play too fast. Such as michelangeli's Debussy images. Which is really fun at that speed I must say. However, there are a couple recent recordings I really have an issue with from Winters. Specifically, " Ed. Grieg, Peer Gynt Suite No. 1, Op. 46" and "Schubert: 4 Impromptus Opus 90 D899." The Schubert was... Well, I would have gone back to the drawing board with that one.
@@MegaMech For my taste, most of todays recordings are too fast. But they are NOT double as fast - only about 30% too fast. And often they are way too rigid in tempo variation. Tempo is not what the metronome pretends to be. Classical music is not Jazz with a drum beat!
@@kpunkt.klaviermusik Yes I agree. In my paper that I wrote about half tempo. I realized that for a lot of cases someone can easily argue for a slower tempo and still be within the world of reason. However, half-tempo is a bit of a stretch at least if someone is arguing that an instrument is incapable of the speeds, because they are capable.
@@MegaMech To be fair though, Mr. Winters does not imply that pieces 19th century pieces should be played at half the speed that is common now but at half the speed relative to the way the metronome marks in question are generally interpreted now. As many pieces are normally played well below the indicated tempi today, playing to the metronome markings in "double beat" results in a significantly slower tempo than is common today, but not half the speed.
The problem is that Winters takes the double beat theory DEADLY seriously. His hoax has libeled Beethoven, and I dare say that Beethoven would sue him were he alive today; at the very least a duel would have been proffered. Please see my post at the top, posted July 26, 2020. It begins with the words 'J'Accuse!!!' and is signed by Emile Zola.
hello Pianopat could you please assist me in investigation on whether a UA-cam can change their like-dislike ratio. I was aware on Wim's video of his sixth Beethoven sonata which premieres tomorrow that the amount of likes and dislikes was even until I just checked. where it now has 17 likes to one dislike compared to what it Was, at 17 likes to 12 dislikes. There even comments about it which I implore you quickly check just to make sure I am not going crazy. If so how does this change your perception? and I ask you as you would be more aware of channel functions like this than myself as I have no videos
Hello, I just stumbled on your comment on this excellent video, with which I wholeheartedly agree, by the way. Wim is a creep, but that is besides the point for now. I just wanted to say that I noticed exactly the same thing as you: the dislikes somehow 'resetting' all of a sudden. I saw this a number of times before on Premiers, even left a comment on that which of course disappeared (before I was shadow banned altogether). So no, you are not going crazy. Wim and his fanboys are just being Wim and his fanboys.
@@bigt082 Thanks. I'm currently attempting to upload a video on my channel where I go into a musical detail on why double beat does not work melodically. I would appreciate it if you gave it a quick view when it's up :)
Hello there. I had no idea what you were talking about until I went and checked myself. And yes, it is extraordinary. I have no idea how this could be made to happen. If Wim has a way to control the like and dislike button of youtube, then we underestimated him. I certainly didn't know it was possible, and I do not understand how it could be. Unless he deleted and reuploaded the video, which would be the only way I can think of. If he has, which is probable, he is both clever and shameless at the same time. It is so pathetic.
Well, since another commenter seems to have noticed it as well, even Thomas "First :-D" Hughes commented that earlier there were more dislikes on that particular video, so it is probably not a question of deleting and reuploading the video. But, of course, that comment chain will probably disappear soon... Just like the number of comments on the Grieg video suddenly has dropped by some twenty comments (which was about the same amount of replies to a critical remark...)
@@pianopat Its shameless. And also very dangerous as it shows how he wants to protect his image more than produce true content. It's also infuriating as I was somewhat pleased that people were keeping the like/dislike ratio balanced as it showed there was a silent selection of people who could not comment but were still angry enough to dislike the video
That was a brilliant presentation. There is a certain narcissism coupled with the realization that he will never be able to compete with real performers. In his videos I can sense a level of disregard and disdain for current performers who are depicted as charlatans or as circus freaks lacking of musicality. Consequently he has ignited a kind of social revolution to equalize professional performers and amateur players. The problem is that instead of raising the equality bar high he is raising it low. At the beginning of XIX there was a radical shift in the audience and patrons of classical chamber music. It stopped being the commission of aristocrats to turn into a publishing business for consumption by a middle and upper bourgeois class of amateur players. Compositions had to make sense both for a professional player, probably using faster tempos, and the amateurs. In that sense I view the MM as a gold standard, something to aim at gradually. Win is commanding the revolution of amateur players and wannabe professionals who think they can also take the stage.
Or you're just used to the circus clown tempos. Poor musicianship! A good musician can play at any tempo, but it seems there's a bias toward the runaway train, no?
I'm a newcomer to Wim and upon hearing him talk about his theories, almost instaneously, various common-sense objections appeared to mind. Most obviously, that serious academics and musicologists weren't rallying behind him. A nano-second later my mind hit upon the same point you've stated. The guy isn't mechanically able - by a long shot, to play at the levels required of professional concert pianists, etc., etc. Bluntly - he's not good enough. I don't really see that there's anything beyond this. It begins and ends with this limitation. 'Dude' is a good amateur musician who resents top professionals and has contrived a theory to close the gap. What's really frightening is that in a way, it's part and parcel of the age - build a youtube conspiracy and people will give it a fair hearing - at least for a short period - that they should not.
@@jeromewesselman4653 bum Jerome why don't you just say that you're one of the believers in Vim's false theories instead of being so passive aggressive?
@@Allan-et5ig Thats just silly. I rarely even listen to music, and care nothing whatsoever about the new recordings. My suggestion, forget about tempo for a while, then revisit your commentary in three or more years. Neither double nor single beat solves every issue, and with both systems of interpretation many issues remain indeed. Wim is onto something, and you're triggered. I've seen entire Establishments triggered in other, unrelated areas of study, and the recent nonsense from Harvard bears all the same telltale hallmarks of misdirection, obfuscation, and rationalization. With one ironic difference. In historical tempo study, academic arrogance presumes ancient hyper-competence rather than hyper-stupidity. Can you explain virtuosity without resorting to tempo? I can. To quote one of my early mentors, "A musician can play any piece at any tempo." My fourteen-year-old self was shocked to hear such nonsense! Now I'm much closer to understanding how true it is. For good measure here's another of his shocking quotes for you: "Conducting is the epitome of musicianship." Is it? Indeed it is, quite irrespective of tempo. As before, can you discuss such mastery setting aside tempo? I can. Can Wim do so? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I don't know. And I don't care.
Hi Pianopat! I hope you are doing well and have gotten through the difficult time that you speak of. If you would like to read the paper that I told you I was going to write. I finally finished writing it. I can send it to you. It's not a perfect paper, however there may be some interesting information that you may learn. Do you have an email address I could send it to? I am curious as to your response to my paper. In my perspective, the WBMP or half-tempo concepts (as I call it) is not a conspiracy theory or a cult. It's a differing interpretation or perspective of historical materials. It's perfectly fine to say they are wrong. Politicizing an academic argument is an unhealthy approach and creates greater divisions rather than helping people gather back towards the accepted practices/knowledge/solutions. Many of Winters questions are legitimate, it's just his solutions to things can be very unconvincing at times. One place Winters is very correct about, is that baroque music was likely slower than what we play today. However, before the invention of the metronome, we can only conjecture what speeds people play. The application of WBMP to the baroque era, is at least, slightly disturbing. 10:20 "The illusion that there has been a dramatic shift." But in normal practice we believe this shift too, just that it went in the opposite direction. Music between 1900 and around 1930 maybe even 1950 was thought to be much slower than it was supposed to be compared with the metronome markings. Perhaps an actual answer to this was that there were very few virtuoso musicians and amateurs played at the speeds they could. So then you see top musicians of early 1900s playing slow? I dunno. But I still think it's not a "cult" that someone may investigate the contrary perspective. 13:20 "Were slow, and very inauthentic." And so prove to me that you yourself are not ideologically driven by proving that his recordings are inauthentic. What I mean by this, is that any one of us is capable of this allegedly bad research. The truth is that you cannot prove it. Because no evidence exists that you can prove beyond a doubt the speed that Baroque musicians played at. A conservative tempo is more likely than a virtuosic one, that's what my evidence tells me. It certainly is not black and white or simple. Especially since each country had its own style and practices. 17:30 "They've already been discredited" Not really. I mean, if you count a reddit post by some random person who says "Oh this again..." sure? But that's not the same as a full-fledged academic article. The only academic article that exists disproving half-tempo concepts is in German and a short two page review of that article in English. And then there's my paper and that's about it. I can't read German, but apparently that article thoroughly disproved half-tempo. And then to claim he can't ever come back on this theories? This doesn't make any sense because don't you want him to come back to the "normal world?" I can understand however, that it may be very difficult for him to walk back his ideology. Also, part of the more extreme views that you see, may be related more to clickbait or trying to get on the right side of the youtube algorithm more than anything. I'm going to go so far as to claim that *most* pianists have never studied history of the piano like Winters has. I'm more talking like conservatory RCM/Canadian Conservatory pianists. Who are good but not like university great. Even some PhD pianists have only ever just played the notes and never actually studied the historical documents and came to their own conclusions. No wonder why half-tempo concepts exists. Most people likely couldn't even name a few sources that explain musical style, and I mean beyond the couple popular ones like CPE Bach's art of keyboard book. Very few realize that Baroque music is just a blueprint; if you play everything exactly as written, you're playing Baroque music incorrectly. So we could easily flip the argument around and show that pianists often are not educated very well. They may know music history, but they don't know the history of their instrument.
Thank you for your comment, my temper is often getting the better of me when i get into these discussions. Its refreshing to see a comment like yours, where the issue is treated at face value. I have some thoughts on the 3 time stamps you quoted: The dramatic shift in tempo is sometimes described as unlikely, when in fact, shifts in tempo occur in popular music all the time. The practice of doubling the speed of popular pieces is so common, its its own genre - it is much less convincing to me, that we somehow feel music exactly as fast (or just a little slower) than 200 years ago, while music of the viennese classic would differ so much from the baroque, just 50 years after bachs death. I say "just" while being conviced that it might just take two generations of musicians to overthrow a courtly, antiquitated practice, expecially after the advent of the public concert, social revolution and industrial development. The discreditment i feel like is the whole point of this research: there could never be academic acceptance of this theory until the facts are so water proof that noone could make a case against it. So pretending Wim Winters, with just around 30.000 subscribers poses a danger to musical society is kind of ridiculous. I know Lorenz Gadient is seen by some like a stupid, religious clown juggling words and reading old manuscripts in his free time. But the way he describes his correspondance with Klaus Miehling is kind of eye opening to me: there is simply nothing at stake for the popular view on metronome numbers, one could just ignore the whole issue and nothing would be lost. And that is what Miehling does when faced with facts like the metrical second. And just because someone calls that idea "grotesque", does not mean its not a real thing. In the end, only Wim is carrying the risk of discreditment. Noone supporting single beat needs to defend their views against an angry mob, only against their own doubts.
You might want to correct "JC Bach's art of keyboard book", I think you mean the volumes of CPE Bach. Otherwise, I agree with much of your comment, particularly a surprising lack of knowledge of older keyboards, many of which cannot be played so fast (at least not in any musical way). sometimes I read claims that the lighter touch enabled faster playing, despite lack of double escapement, which is often just wrong. I do assume speeds increased during the 19th century along with developments in piano construction. We now that piano playing was becoming increasingly competitive. It is also evident on the few recordings we have of pianists who were active in the second half of the 19th century that some were very proficient. We have some of Liszt's pupils, we have Saint-Saens, so we have a fair idea of tempi by the end of the century. What is less plausible is that playing speeds slowed down over the 19th century. This raise questions that someone needs to research properly (however Wim Winters seems to have disqualified himself).
@@martinbennett2228 I find the lighter touch argument to be complete bs. However, pianos manufactured between around 1816-1822 had pretty good actions. So even Winters pianoforte is probably capable of full-speed all the music that was composed between 1816-1826. Double-escapement was like 1822-26 so at that point there's no argument to be had that pianos weren't capable of speeds like in Chopin's etude 4. Especially since Richter managed a much faster tempo than the metronome marking. The only thing to consider is that it probably took about ten years for the latest piano to actually get put in all the places. As for Beethoven's sonatas composed before the metronome was developed (around 1816). You can basically make any argument for a certain tempo and you have a decent chance of being right. Consider the piano Beethoven used. And there's not much more to consider.
W.W. is an example for "would like but can not". He is like the fox of Aesop, (or later La Fontaine) who try to convince us that he does not like the grapes, because they are sour. And we also should not eat this grapes. The truth is, the grapes are delicious, but they are hanging too high for him to reach them. His pride is to play slower than Valentina Lisitsa, and to not have her skills. Pathetic and boring.
Excellent... Except for all the libel involved. Please see my comment at the top, posted July 26, 2020. It begins with 'J'Accuse!!!' and is signed by Emile Zola.
With some pieces I can hear it in double beat and be like “yeah this could work” but others are just terrible. Peer Gynt in double beat is just ridiculous. I am no scholar but I know what sounds right. The first piece is about the morning, you are supposed to hear birds in the flutes. At double beat that effect is gone and it just sounds terrible. It can not be possible.
LesterBrunt, quote: «I am no scholar but I know what sounds right.» This argument is worthless. Why? Because it is exactly the same thing that whole beat supporters are also claiming: «I know what sounds right.»
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 So it is at least as valid as their argument. Funnily enough I’m almost a scholar now so I can have a somewhat informed opinion, and to me it doesn’t matter, anybody can claim how they think a piece should be played but nobody can stop me from playing the piece any way I want.
I dont know he didnt ban me after posting a number of links to czernys metronome description under his comments, he simply told me a video would adress the topic in the future. Maybe try it with less angsty and insulting rederick?
I was also shadow banned on Winters' UA-cam channel. The claims of Wim Winters you are refering to concerning Gardiner and Norrington are even worse: he pretends that the single beat was already applied in London by the english conductor Sir George Smart - so during Beethoven's live time! - pretending that a viennese witness hearing Smart performing Beethoven's symphonies the latter was too fast. As I explained many times, all the choral music of the 18th and 19th centuries - including Beethoven's Mass in C, Symphony n°9, Missa Solemnis, Choral Fantasia would be simply IMPOSSIBLE to sing according to the double-beat concept. These are elementary knowledges that Wim Winters seems not to have. Moreover and worse, he admitted that the timings of the english Conductor George Thomas Smart for Beethoven's symphonies were authentic, and they correspond to Norrington's, Chailly's, Gardiner's durations... The document about works durations made by Fafner is absolutely excellent and definitively proves that Wim Winters' double beat theory is just, as you said, a fantasy.
One interesting thing about Winters' Mozart Alla Turca recording, to me (who knows nothing about Turkish music) it does sound more Turkish than other recordings. However, I have a good friend who is Russian but grew up in Turkey and disagrees that the sound is "more Turkish." Although he likely is not an expert either. It doesn't matter if a performance pianist chooses to perform this piece one way or the other. If it did, then we should throw out every Glenn Gould recording just because they're different. Also, many who are not associated with half-tempo concepts likely prefer Winters' way of playing this piece because they find the evidence more convincing towards this way than the other. This has nothing to do with a cult or conspiracy, it's just another opinion or interpretation. This is normal in the field of history wherein professionals disagree with each other over minor viewpoints.
Generally speaking you are correct. Two points: 1. re: Bach and Glenn Gould. Bach is in a class by itself. There are no precise tempo markings. Bach's music is alone in that it can be played in just about any tempo and orchestrated for any instrument; it is pure genius. 2. re: double-beat theory and classical music. Wim Winters is perpetrating a libelous hoax to declare that Beethoven, and others, performed their music roughly twice as slow as their single beat MMs indicate. If Beethoven were alive, I am certain that he would sue Mr. Winters, and rightfully so. Please see my comment at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020. It begins with the words 'J'Accuse!!!' and is signed, fittingly, Emile Zola.
@@jmb4969 it is not a hoax. It is an interpretation. No musicologist would call it a conspiracy. You can disagree with it all you want but winters has done more research than most pianists.
While I do agree with you that Wim's behavior lately is disturbing and slightly obsessive (which made me unsubscribe to his channel) I suggest you consider that it's also a matter of taste. You've mentioned Anima Eterna - and I liked Wim's version much more. If we put exact metronome numbers aside for a minute and focus on the music, we'll see that every piece has a range of tempi in which it delivers the correct energy, while also making all the harmonic and melodic details clear to the listener. It's a range, not a single number. I believe most modern performers exceed that range from above, while Wim's performances are on the lower acceptable margin. I believe that what's bothering Wim the most - is that the listeners lose many of the details in the music when it's played so fast.
But that is one of the problems with Winter's outlook, there is no "range", and he has replied to my own comments calling the metronome number "sacred". He has said that the music can vary but must average over the entire piece to the metronome number. What Great Authority informed him of this, I don't know.
I too unsubscribed from Wim Winters for much the same reasons. I think he has some points to make but has become unbalanced. realising that a well researched comment that I had made was restricted only to myself. I realised that he was not interested in genuine inquiry. I had admired and still admire his Bach on the clavichord, but I switched off when musicality took second place. This is ironic because his genuine questions about Czerny's tempi (particularly for Bach) rest on their disturbing lack of musicality.
@@martinbennett2228 There is absolutely no basis for an 'authentic' metronome marking for the music of JS Bach; it transcends tempo; in fact it invites endless re-interpretation. As for Beethoven, and others, Wim Winters is simply completely wrong. Please see my post at the top of these comments, posted July 26, 2020. it begins with the words 'J'Accuse!!!' and is signed, fittingly, by Emile Zola.
@@pianopat can you give me an email so I can send you a recording of myself playing Bach's F minor Sinfonia? I'm not trying to wast your time, but I know that any word of advice would be invaluable,I really want to improve my piano playing... specially Bach.
@@lorenzoaguilar1988 You are welcome to send me a recording of course. pianopat85@gmail.com is my address. And it is the most beautiful of the Sinfonias.
Pianopat, I am sorry to hear of your difficult times and hope they are primarily related to this awful pandemic, as it will eventually subside. Anyway, I wonder what you think of Bernhard Ruchti's explorations of historical tempi, which sometimes result in a whole beat approach. I find his playing, like yours, to be very musical and his experiments with tempi to be open and not dogmatic. Would love to hear your detailed thoughts in this.
Well, I know of Ruchti's channel. All I can say is that the so-called variable use of the metronome has no basis in historical texts. It is an attempt to deal with a problem, but nothing can justify it and the videos with Sonnleiter are for me a clear example of bad research where you start with an idea and try to find things which will confirm your idea. I personally happen to dislike the musical results of things played at half speed, which is not to say that Ruchti is not a good pianist. It is simply that the result of the experiments usually do not engage me. For me, only Richter can play at half speed and grip me, but he doesn't do it because he has an ideology, simply because he feels that way.
Note to all: Be careful of “Jonathan P. “ He trolls all UA-cam channels dealing with the so-called “double-beat theory,” including my own. He is ignorant, abusive, and contradictory; and even Wim Winters has banned him. I feel sorry for him, and have tried to offer him some friendly advice; but I am irritated beyond endurance by his persistent personal insults-which is, no doubt, what he seeks. By the way, I repeat my appreciation of Patrick Hemmerlé’s fine and reasoned discussion of the Winters phenomenon.
@@jonathanp935 See below, where you called me a charlatan for agreeing with Pianopat. You have ranged across UA-cam maligning my professional qualifications and my integrity. By your own admission, you are a teenager who boasts of your ability to tell where a development section begins. You are a rock aficionado with poor language skills and a profound ignorance of music and of scholarly deportment. Others besides myself have criticized your presence here. I am tired of this, and you should be too-if you have any decency at all.
@@danielwaitzman2118 it's you who result in a long winded, ad hominem rant to actually get to your point. You have no decency. You might have good compositions, but stay out of an academic debate where you make into a broadway show.
@@danielwaitzman2118 I'm not proving ur point! i'm mainly pointing out what I dislike from this side, which is the personal attacks. the jokes u attempt to make, the whole "unmusical" crap that you, and all your little friends get behind. you're not the only one, ive called out benjamin too.
Hello! I noticed this video in my UA-cam recommended. Earlier today I tried to post a reply to Authentic Sounds "1932 Lexicon" video, since I think Wim is making the wrong conclusion. My comment won't show up however, and now I read here that he routinely bans opposition! That is unacceptable, frankly. Since you, and some commenters here, also mention the 1932 Lexicon video, I will post my comment to Authentic Sound here as well, perhaps some may find it interesting! "Hello Wim! Interesting video, I've been following your research for some time now. I noticed that one of the editors of your Lexicon is Sam Dresden. I have his "Algemene Muziekleer" on my bookshelf, which was first published in 1931 and is a reworking of "Algemene Muziekleer" by Worp-van Millingen, who was born in 1821. So, one of the same guys who worked on your lexicon and the same period. However, on the short chapter Metronoom (page 43) he has this to say: "De aanwijzing van het tempo met behulp van de metronoom geschiedt, door achter de tel-eenheid het verlangde cijfer van de cijferschaal te plaatsen. Kwartnoot = 60 betekent bijv. 60 slagen van de metronoom slinger per minuut. Elke kwart duurt dan een seconde." For our English friends: "The direction for tempo with help from the metronoom happens as follows, by adding behind the note value the desired number of the scale. Quarter note = 60 means for example 60 beats of the metronome rod per minute. Every quarter note lasts a second." He also adds that a tempo is never constant throughout a piece, and that a metronome is only applicable to give a rough indication of the main tempo. So, Sam Dresden - again, one of the editors of your lexicon - clearly understands the metronome as single-beat in another publication, and the original nineteenth century work by Worp-van Millingen probably does this as well. There is no mention of a different system. I would therefore be inclined to think that your lexicon indeed has a printing error. The note symbol also looks hand drawn in, so it is very well probable that an editor in later stages of printing made the mistake. I would be happy to hear your take on this! All the best from the Netherlands!"
Je ne connais le "phénomène" W. Winters et sa "théorie" que depuis peu, mais troller ses partisans dans les commentaires est devenu mon passe-temps favori en ces temps de confinement. Comme vous l'avez dit, au début, innocent, je me permettais quelques réserves assez modérées, surtout quant à l'intérêt artistique des enregistrements deux fois plus lents (en particulier ceux de M. Cobra que j'ai écouté par curiosité. Sa milice privée m'est aussitôt tombée dessus, depuis je n'essaie plus d'argumenter, je pense que c'est inutile, j'en viens à troller pour m'amuser de la situation. En tant que modeste musicien amateur et mélomane, tout ceci est un peu triste, mais autant profiter de la stupidité de ses suiveurs pour s'amuser un peu...
Mais ca ne va pas marcher très longtemps. Le shadow banning n'est jamais bien loin avec Wim Winters. C'est d'ailleurs la raison pour laquelle seuls ses partisans laissent des commentaires, ou presque...
J'utilise mon autre compte depuis, comme vous pouvez le constater, dans tous les cas, merci d'être la voix de nombreux musiciens et passionnés qui refusent le nivellement par le bas proposé par Mr. winters. (omission volontaire de majuscule) Merci pour votre travail Mr Patrick. Je suis un piètre musicien mais j'aime la musique, et je trouve extrêmement dommage qu'un des derniers domaines plus ou moins préservé de ces théories au mieux farfelues, soit pollué par le néo-obscurantisme d'Internet. Je me souviens avoir un jour fait l'achat d'un magazine conspirationniste pour m'amuser de la fantaisie de certaines théories, avec beaucoup de naïveté, je pensais y trouver du contenu autour des ovnis, pyramides, etc... J'ai vite déchanté en lisant un article consternant sur les bombardements atomiques de Hiroshima et Nagasaki, à la limite du négationnisme, et évidemment stupide à un niveau que je croyais benoitement révolu d'un point de vue scientifique. En éternel optimiste, le côté sombre et extrêmement dangereux, en particulier pour la jeunesse, de ces publications, m'avait échappé. Désormais, l'intelligence et la connaissance sont bafouées et quasiment sans défense contre le pouvoir de séduction de ces théories et des personnes qui se présentent comme découvreurs de vérité, la bêtise humaine est en train de faire son retour, plus puissante que jamais, et avec des moyens à sa mesure. Le combat ne fait que commencer, nous savons ici qu'il n'est question que de musique, mais dans une certaine mesure, elle fait partie d'un tout, d'un héritage commun des plus merveilleux produits de l'intelligence humaine désormais menacé. Merci à vous pour le combat que vous menez à votre niveau et dans lequel vous êtes compétent. Nous espérons que ce petit message de soutien vous encouragera à poursuivre les débats. Pierre-Louis
Merci beaucoup pour le temps que vous prenez pour répondre au sujet de cette "chose" qui devient jour après jour une des plus belles impostures actuelles sur le UA-cam des musiciens. Je me pose la question de l'utilité de créer une chaîne pour "répliquer" avec les armes qu'emploie le gourou... c'est-à-dire le sarcasme et la mauvaise foi, mais avec une dose d'humour en plus.
@@pianopat Pardon, je n'ai pas été compris... je ne parlais évidemment pas de vous, mais du gourou et de son authentic son... Je vous trouve au contraire très droit et franc dans le propos tenu! Bravo.
I agree, but I think you give too much credit and length to an obsession. It makes no sense to play all the compositions from 19th century and before half tempo anyway. It would be ridiculous even for amateurs. It might be interesting to study metronom marks in depth, free time and curiosity given, but it does not deserve such depth of discussion, since when they do not make sense musically, nobody is harmed not playing them. So what?
@@pianopat I wanted to say that tempo must make sense. For example, Schumann Kinderszenen 1: Clara Schumann changed the metronom indication of her husband Robert, others did as well. The tempo indicated by Robert Schumann does not sound nice, even though it is really playable. But when even Clara changed it, that also means that metronom marks were not meant to be double beat -- supporting your case.
@Loco Vil Google research I did! But I am not creating any thesis or theory. I just do not believe that there is a general rule, and certainly not such rule applying double beat to everything in Romantic time. The essence to me is that the player shall play it well in the tempo he/she mastered and feels to be right, take metronom marks as an indication, but if a piece is not playable in the marked tempo then ignore the marks. As a listener I am not interested in acrobatics, but the music and the deeper sense of the presentation.
@@RolandHuettmann You are right, Roland, except for the fact that Winters has libeled Beethoven, among others. If Beethoven were here to listen to Wim's claptrap he would sue him or at least challenge him to a duel. Of this there is no doubt.
I don’t like the double beat theory by the reason that it is not just a simple mistake because of naivety. It is a tool used like chemicals in the modern agriculture. You spray round up your double beat or other similar theories, and you try to kill virtuosity and unconventional or enthusiastic performances, like you kill bugs, butterflies or poppy flowers. You try to eliminate every competition. Then you let grow and propagate your own stupid boring and insipid performances like genetic designed soybeans, all the same clones, you put a label of some historical instruments on them, and you sale your cheap produced creations for the best price and most clicks you get. This ist the strategy behind double beat and other similar theories. This is a kind of charlatanerie, and I hate charlatanerie. I’ve put this comment (the same text twice) on 2 UA-cam channels, so I created a quadruple beat.
Excellent: double beat theory is the best way to disinfect bathroom and kitchen surfaces. Just scrub twice as slow, twice as long. Perfect way to wile away the hours during the pandemic. This could make a great ad for Mr. Clean.
Thank you for taking the time to consistently unmask this bizarre half-tempo cult! One must be worried of Wim‘s health and I sincerely hope he will calm down and be fine. For a time, the strange phenomenon was „interesting“ to observe, despite (or probably because of) the increasingly hysteric rhetoric. But who ever needs to listen to the destruction of, for example, the Waldstein Sonata in full (double) length? Surely, most of his misleaded followers will sooner or later (re)discover to appreciate the spirit, the power and the overwhelming beauty of Beethoven’s works and romantic piano virtuoso music played at more „lively“ and „energetic“ (do I need to say „natural“, or „passionate“?) tempi. So, we can finally leave this episode of shrill pseudo-musicological activism drifting in the vast cabinett of UA-cam curiosities...
I think what you are saying about Wim Winters is absolutly ridiculous. I have my doubts about the Whole Beat theory but you are going way too far with your conclusions. Seeing the comments under this video shows me how toxic this whole anti double-beat movement is. There is no need to personally attack people in this way
Look at Wim's comments under anyone who expresses doubts on his channel. if you can find any he hasn't banned, you'll find replies of "go do more homework" or "go and try this" when he 1:doesn't address any of the issues raised. 2: will blatantly ignore proof he is wrong, EG pianothshavak's recordings of Czerny at tempo. 3: blast people with "I have a degree from Amsterdam" despite that having no relevancy to the current conversation.
Ignore Winters. Don't waste your time on this man. I would like to meet the singers who can apply this nonsense in f.e.Mozart Operas. Collective hyperventilation is a given.
I have long since moved on. He on the other hand will die a believer, and good luck to the angel on the other side who will have to tell him he had been wrong all the time.
@@pianopat Haha, yes but there are good and fallen angels. Btw I enjoyed greatly your "debunking" videos. Very professional. To entertain myself , I wrote an essay on Wim's fantasies: " THE INSANE METRONOME & DOUBLE BEAT THEORY: A JOURNEY IN UTTER LUNACY." All the best to you.
You "should" tag Valentina Lisitsa to get more views, as he shamely did in a pathetic review he did on her rendition of the 3rd mvmt of the Moonlight.... What a prick he is becoming!
@@btat16 Nonsense. There is no honor among con-men. Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020. It is signed by Emile Zola and begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
Calling double beat theory a conspiracy is an abuse of language. It merely remains a theory. You have simply decided to weaponise the term, in order to publicly shame and ridicule, for whatever expedient reason, some flop who has an alternate perception. Why are you parroting Morgan Bear's Quora's post on the matter. Ridiculing conspiracy theories and relegating them to aberations of human behaviour to the point of mental illness, is far more dangerous than fantasies with alternate metronome markings.
Double-beat is indeed a conspiracy, undertaken with Lorenz Gadient and others. There is no “perception” to Winter’s ravings, “alternate” or otherwise. He ignores facts and musical perception entirely, to the point of insanity.
Hello pianopat, it is me again. I assume you have seen Wim's video and I already have an answer, at least to the second source the 1883 encyclopaedia says. having written down what was on screen it says this "Graad van slinger, brengt dezen Beweging en rekent vervolgens bij het uitvoeren van het stuk op elke slingering" in reference to the metronome. Wim then says it means that a performer then calculates and uses it to assist the performer in every vibration. However y own translation is "Degree of brings this movement and then counts every swing when performing the piece. Infering that each swing from one side to the other is one pulse, or one tick is the start of one swing, the second is the start of the counter swing. At least that is my translation. feel freee to double check that for me, and hopefully I've saved you a little bit of work. Edit: it seems to me that "Slingering" which Wim claims means (vibration Oscilation or beat) seems to be the least clear term there. A quick google translate tells me that vibration is (Trilling) and Oscilation is (oscilente) and i am pretty sure that those terms would have been used instead of swing if it was indeed a double beat source. as for the 1932 source? I cannot check as obviously my library is shut at the moment but it may be possible that the note value was just wrong, and instead of it being corrected under "metronome" it may have been under "note values" instead, just my thoughts.
The 1880's source is clearly single-beat, since it says the minimum is 50 SLINGERINGEN per minute, the maximum 160 SLINGERINGEN per minute. So Wims statement that this could be either way in rubbish. By the way: he doesn't read or translate this, but he's not the only person on this planet speaking Dutch... The later source from around 1930 has clearly a misprint, otherwise the Netherlands would have gone from single to double-beat around 1900... instead of the other way. The note values were put in later than the body of the text so an error can easily occur. And a source from around 1930 that speaks ONLY about double-beat, without mentioning single-beat and without mentioning this as an 'historical' practice??? Please. Here is Mengelberg conducting the Concertgebouw Orchestra in 1931... ua-cam.com/video/XJvZie_E2dE/v-deo.html
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 yes, well there are worse thinks in life. It shows that Wim (in spite of his claims) is not interested in convincing serious musicians or researchers, but he's just selling doubt to people who like to believe his hocus-pocus. A deplorable waste of talent but it pays his bills.
@@benjaminachron1493 Especially since those people are all gullible and only vest interest into his ideas so they can claim they play the pieces in correct fashion when in actuality they cannot. I was given this extensive PDF which goes into detail on why double beat doesn't work drive.google.com/file/d/1OOQO6f031yENH1uUpbl9C87MfJ8KJLfP/view I'm not sure how widespread it is. But it goes without any doubt that double beat is false. It goes into timings and sources on the metronome, letters from other composers and even letter detailing the length or Oratorios and masses, which Wim cannot use "metrical time" nonsense as that was for the church. It is the final nail in the coffin on his theory, now it only needs to be spread around.
Oh, give me a break. Pulling out the accusation that Wim Winters is creating a "conspiracy theory" is ridiculous, he has done no such thing and if you were honest you wouldn't claim he had.
Look at the research he has supposedly done. He intentionally twists evidence, bans people who are critical of his ideas and ignores contradictory evidence. It is very much like flat earth. it is nonsense.
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 That is nonsense. He fully documents what he presents, anyone can look up what he cites because he cites it and tells you where to find it, often in editions that are available from 3rd party sites online. He also has presented objective 3rd party research such as the possibility of playing repeated notes on historical and modern pianos, violins, etc. He put up with a lot before he started banning people for abusing people, he didn't want to host a troll pie fight on his channel and that's his right as it is the right of anyone to monitor the comments on their site.
@@anthonymccarthy4164 The sources he Cite's are either misinterpreted or straight up wrong. One example is the recent lexicon video. The word "slingering" refers to one swing specifically. and according to another commenter who speaks dutch, the paragraph above specifically says "when you set the metronome to 60 there will be 60 quarter notes in a minute. not half beat, not vibration not oscillation or anything like that. and I myself have been banned. and I would happily stand in court with my comments to see how they could be troll like or rude.
@@anthonymccarthy4164 With all my respect , you are either naive or dishonest . I would give you the benefit of the doubt and opt for the first possibility. Twisting the evidence doesn't mean that you don't present sources, but that you either cherry pick citations or anecdotes or interpret texts in a way which is very questionable for someone who pretends to be a musicologist. This is what mr Winters has been doing for a few years now.Moreover, the majority of people who have been banned from mr Winters channel have been blocked not for personal attacks on the host but for bringing serious counter evidence on his channel. If you don't accept that fact, then I am afraid, we are moving from naivety to dishonesty. Secondly, a youtube channel is meant to be public not private and from the moment one accepts to go public, one has to accept to face criticism or adverse opinion. ( not talking about ad hominem attacks here) UA-cam doesn't belong to mr Winters. If he is not happy to get criticisms or counter-proof on a social media then he can post his videos on his own website. He has faced the same issue on most musical channels related to historical performance on facebook and the reaction was even more radical and he kind of excluded himself. He has also tried to use twitter but this has been a complete disaster . He stopped posting a year and a half ago and managed to get the astronomic number of 254 followers.
Former double-beater here. Although I liked a small number of the wbmp recordings (still do), I never could find the “musical paradise” promised by Winters. My musical sense told me something wasn’t right. Ultimately, though, the historical timings are what changed my mind.
the problem is, that i usually see only people attacking the WBT, but not addressing and contradicting the presented evidence in a satisfying way. so the WBT is far from debunked and falsified, as you claim. and there truly are some interesting arguments there. so, honestly, i think Wim is doing a better job at this than his opponents. you are wrong where you liken Wim's arguments to those of flat-earthers.. the latter being easily proven wrong by proper science. for example, i did like the Maelzel metronome articles presented here, that support the single-beat use of the metronome. on the other hand, Wim has a couple that clearly talk about ticks = subdivisions. so, where does that leave us? no idea. seems like a stalemate. i'd like to see the peculiarities Wim is pointing out being properly addressed and contradicted, in an objective manner, with an honesty in trying to find the truth, and without unnecessary ridicule and condescension.. i'm truly not interested in anyone's biases caused by their vested interests, or personal preference. they are only obstacles in the process of discovery.
The reason Wim is treated with ridicule and condescension is because he acts in a way that requires it. we are unable to talk to him face to face about this as he side steps every issue Brough up before him his recent video "Roasted by Valentina Lisitsa" shows this where he just spends 10 minutes complaining about the fact she commented then spends the next 10 trying to make a sob story on her behalf. I can guarantee you, she won't like that. and he doesn't even address the point she rose. that being the timing of the 1808 concert. also Wim's "articles" are either misinterpreted, mistranslated, or misrepresented to make his argument stronger. each one has been debunked numerous times.
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 whether we entertain the idea of WBT or not, i think there are many interesting questions that Wim raises and inconsistencies he's pointing out, that have not been satisfactorily answered and resolved, and that perhaps deserve an honest inquiry. so let's not dismiss everything just because it comes from a certain source. but you say "each one has been debunked numerous times".. that's the thing. where? where are these concise debunkings? i've only found sarcasm, attacks, scoffing, ridicule, etc. so far, without compelling counter-argument. where is the debunking of the matter of the ridiculous Czerny etudes tempi that he talks about? of the fact, that with many works practically no performer adheres to the MM numbers prescribed by the composers themselves, or their close associates / contemporaries? where is the satisfactory debunking of the mentronome's direction for use.. because we obviously have clear texts stating contrary information.. etc. etc. i agree about the Roasted video, btw..
His ideas have been debunked innumerable times, first on the hip group on facebook, where you have people with a much wider musicological knowledge than mine. His behaviour on the group was absolutely obnoxious and it reached a point where they completely gave up on him. He never answered a single question which embarrassed him, and there were many, instead firing another question. Those were answered multiple times, which he also ignored, and simply went on. He asked for Czerny Etudes to be played in single beat, this has been done, he simply asked for more etudes. Also you cannot see a quarter of what has been going on the comment section of his channel because he has shadow banned all the people who offered counter arguments, and as a consequence, most of the old discussions have now gone, the only thing left you can see are the people telling him how wonderful he is. Do you really think someone who stand on firm ground would do this?
@@3r7s I have a video on my channel going through one of Wim's videos about Czerny addressing the claims Wim makes and debunking them in turn. many of the ridiculous tempi Wim claims are possible, just exceptionally difficult. however they have been done. for instance Igor Levit recorded the hammerklavier sonata in nearly all MM's Beethoven wrote, as compared to a version Claudio arrau played that was digitally sped up. that's my favourite recent example.
@@3r7s All of the debunkers have been shadow-banned! If you want a concise debunking, just consider the fact that no performance of Fidelio or Don Giovanni ever lasted 5 or 6 hours. Wim's whole theory is a bust.
We have spent the last 3 years hearing people use the accusation of conspiracy theory . It is the most anti intellectual condesending means of arguing an opposing point of view. These people deserve nothing but our distain. Bravo Wim, continue your passionate erudite envestigations. ...
But Winters’ behavior violates the boundaries of professional scholarly behavior and of musical decency. He is no scholar, nor is he anything more than a mediocre pianist. He lies, distorts, and maligns his betters. He himself suggests that the musical “establishment” is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress his ideas. Meanwhile, it is he who exercises the most rigid censorship on his channel. His behavior is unscholarly, unmusical, and irrational. “Pianopat” is absolutely correct.
@@10.6.12. Clicking on your logo reveals that you joined UA-cam two months ago, that you have posted no content on this social medium other than the above, and that, in all probability, you know nothing about Music. You have learned to use the expression "ad hominem", which you cannot even spell, and which has become the favorite catchphrase of the Wim Winters cult. You don't know who "Pianopat" is, nor are you in any position to appreciate his qualifications as a musician and a scholar, and the wisdom of his critique of Wim Winters' rantings.. You don't know who I am either, and what my musical and scholarly qualifications are. You are merely an embarrassment and a disgrace; you have nothing to contribute here. You are, however, representative of the type of intellectual lummox who swallows Wim Winters' scam. You will have more to say, I'm sure--but you really shouldn't. Please--spare us!
jonathanp. Day - night. Because light and darkness are so different, we had to have words for both of them to avoidmisunderstandings in conversation. Whole beat - single beat, just the same, we have to give them their own word to avoid misunderstandings in conversation. But whole/single beat are modern concepts created in our own time. My understanding is that there is no term for whole/single beat 200 years ago. So how, then, could they discuss the problem without words?
9 days ago I Think I’ve got this figured out. You have to understand that in the 18th and 19th century an awful lot of people played the piano or other keyboard instruments they didn’t have record players computers or video games a keyboard instrument was common place in every middle-class home and probably a lot of poor ones as well you had tons of amateurs and that is howAnd those amateurs purchased things like Beethoven sonatas Bach fugue’s etc. on a scale we cannot imagine today I think the tempos were set the way they were double beat of course so as to not to scare the amateurs away
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of “double-beat” before the last 30 years or so. Historical “double-beat” is a fiction and a lie; you can argue about the attributes of a fiction, if you like; but that does not make it real. The advocates for “double-beat” are doing the equivalent of arguing about the color of a unicorn’s horn-but their arguments presuppose the existence of unicorns, which existence they fail to prove. The totalitarians of the last century perfected this form of argumentation; it is disappointing to see it rearing its ugly head in our own time in so elevated a field as musicology, and in so sacred a discipline as Music.
I love how discussions devolve into ad hominem attacks. Nevertheless, it is exciting that there is at least some discussion about his theory. It seems to have rattled a lot of people. Keep attacking the theory and not the man.
Is it ad hominem to call a liar a liar? Wim's theory is a lie, it is false, it is pretentious faux professorial babble. None of that is ad hominem. It doesn't attack the man, it attacks his deceit.
@@jonathanp935 I took the immortal words of Emile Zola and applied them to Wim Winters' hoax. Are you saying that Zola's accusation of criminality against those who knowingly and falsely accused and convicted Dreyfus of a crime he did not commit was ad hominem? Think again! Winters has knowingly and falsely tried and convicted Beethoven of the crime of lying about his own tempi. Winters deserves ad hominem, but he won't get it from me except in the form of accurate characterization, such as 'Winters is a moron', which he is, just as it is accurate to say that those who framed Dreyfus were criminals. Neither is ad hominem.
You are a great demagogue. But instead of showing us how wrong Wim is, despite him taking his ideas to absurd extremes, you could perhaps acknowledge that he sometimes may have a point (for example with the Czerny edition of Bach's inventions, or with Don Giovanni). He also later admitted that he favours the long appoggiatura more
It depends what you mean by his having a point. If you mean that he is right to wonder at some of the metronome marks left by composers, then yes, of course. But is he right in the answer he gives to this problem, I don't think so. There are very questionable metronome marks in the 20th century as well. Shostakovich first piano Sonata is unplayable at the speed he asks. Should we think he was double beat? Of course not, he simply misjudged. That can happen to everyone, and many composers seem prone to it, as Reger freely admitted. I don't mind his questioning, I mind his answer.
I do not think that the word “demagogue” can be used to describe Pianopat. It is certainly a just description of Mr. Winters, who ignores the truth, in favor of power over his small but vocal clique. In contrast, Pianopat is scrupulously honest, and, by the way, has attained a mastery over the piano, as well as music in general, which puts WW’s Liberacian mannerisms to shame.
Which point do you see exactly in Don Giovanni? We have different playbills from 1788 (Prague and Leipzig) that give a duration of 2h30. These important documents give beginning and ending hour, so not even the famous 'metrical second' (which never existed in the first place) can save Wim Winters here. Wim was shown these documents repeatedly, and never even tried to explain. Now you can fantasise about tempi all you want, but if your daydreams are contradicted by clear historical documents, you might have a problem... Idem for Alkan: when Wolfgang Weller was shown Alkans own timings he just said they were 'stupid'. Ok, fair enough, but then please stop the 'historical research' charade.
@@benjaminachron1493 You are obviously not a singer. There is only a finite amount of consonants, consonant clusters and vowels one can sing in a given time. This suggests that 2h30 for Don Giovanni is unlikely to have been an accurate measurement.
@@petertyrrell3391 in that case two opera directors made independently an inaccurate measurement, and the later playbills give three hours, which would also be impossible in double-beat. All the evidence that doesn't fit your 'opinion' is simply discarded, even Maelzels own calculations. Yet you do admit not knowing basic signs of musical notation, or understanding how to calculate the length of a piece based upon MM....
Wow! A 20-minutes of mostly ad hominem attacks to some guy who interprets the use of the metronome differently from the standard use, plus indirect attacks to the followers of his channel who may prefer e.g. some Beethoven piano sonatas at a slower pace (the ultimate heresy, apparently). Whatever the metronome marks mean for early XIX century compositions, I have zero effs to give: play at the speed you like for the piece, then change career and play only for pleasure if your audience isn't large enough at your preferred speed. But a discussion based primarily on empirical evidence disproving Winters' claims (I do not doubt that there is plenty of it) would have been enlightening. Yet, what do I get as a viewer? 20+ minutes full of personal attacks to some dude you disagree with. I don't know what's between the two of you, but the world needs more empirical discussions and less of these quarrels.
Linda Sergerious: You are mistaken; and if you were an accomplished musician, your ears would tell you that you are mistaken. Music is not like sports; opinions derive from solid foundations; and if you lack professional training and experience, you do not have the right to express an opinion, any more than a layman does to debate with an astrophysicist.
@@danielwaitzman2118 Well, it depends. Does the astrophysicist build his arguments based on empirical evidence or on ad-hominems? I really, really hope you are seeing the irony built within your comment.
By the way, everybody can play the (slightly autoritarian) game you just played. Watch me do it: "Daniel Waitzman, you are mistaken; and if you knew how to assess the value of empirical evidence, you would know you are mistaken. If you lack professional training and experience in evaluating empirical evidence scientifically, you do not have the right to express an opinion in any matters where evidence is at play"
See what I just did there? Of course, you could come back to me showing your credentials as a scientist. But you automatically assumed I do not have credentials as a musician, didn't you?
One last thing: Sviatoslav Richter starts Schubert's D960 40% slower than Klára Würtz (depending on how you do the math, and the difference lowers later on in the movement). Not to mention the tempo of innumerable Glenn Gould recordings vs those of other interpreters (Brahms concerto, Appassionatta to cite just two). Or Claudio Arrau's tempo on the theme and variations of Beethoven's 30th sonata vs. Wilhelm Kempff's. Either the "solid foundations" of music that you appeal to allow for a great deal of subjectivity and own taste when it comes to tempo (my initial argument, if you bothered to read it without prejudice), or you'll have to tell me which of these legendary pianists isn't really an accomplished musician. This, by the way, is called "falsation" in Philosophy of Science.
Pianopat, by definition, Conspiracy theory "a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon.'' My first question, since your claim doesn't meet the definition, are you a licensed medical practioner (psychiatrist-a medical doctor), or a licensed psychologist (Doctorate in Psychology and passed the prerequisite state EPPP (Examination for Proffesional Practice in Psychology) if in based in the USA)? If not, in a court of law, you testimony as described for this video, a savy attorney would have you declared an "incompetant witness." This is UA-cam, and although I support your holding a different opinion, I take umbrage with your inferred insult. I do not belong to any secret organization, powerful or not, not a "flat-earther" an inferrence I might resent as a personal affront. Or should I more accurately write, I would be insulted, however, such things only carry weight when an insult originates from people you respect. Wim Winters does not hide any of his examples, is in the process of writing a book on the subject, with citations and examples. Where is your tome on the pyshcological mindset of piano players? (I will not presume it would find publication in a Peer Review edited journal. My interest began in the 1970's with Alfred Music's 1970s publication of Kinderszenen by Schumann, editor brought up the incongruity of the revised 1st edition (Robert Schumann) with MM numbers, and the MM numbers of Clara Schuman 4 decades later, and the performances by a select list of famous pianists, and the tempi they played, for those Leicthe Stuecke, (Trauemerei is invariably played in Whole Beat, while other selections are all over the map tempi wise, suffice to say the works that Robert wrote to Clara "forget you are a virtuoso...". All can be played in Single Beat or faster, by virtuosos, but it was easy pieces for early pianists. This neither makes a case for Single Beat, however Piano traditions being what they are, why the half speed for Trauemerei? This was decades before the world wide web began, when theories of conspiracies of who was involved in President JFK's assination, and the death of a prominent lady investigational journalist who had said she wouldn't rest (and had the information) she undercovered who was involved with the Assassin. Or what happened at Roswell, New Mexico in the late 1940's, or the Israel military attack on the U.S.S Liberty and US coverup. These involved not a so secret influential organization, the US Govt. Did you forget the quotes from AuthenticSound channel from promminent 19th pianists, composers, pedagogues, as to the music being played faster than previously. Most claims of single beat performances are only percentages (you might want to watch the AuthenticSound channel on Czerny's MM for J S Bach's inventions) or similar works intended for earlier levels of piano skill), or the apologist comments about Beethoven's, Schuberts, et al inability to use a metronome, read a metronome, or possessed damaged metronomes? However, I am not here to debate your or defend the investigation. I only came across this old video by accident, and was curious as to your credentials to comment on psychology, and your inappropriate choice of words in your video's title and description.
Dear Renshen1957, I will be brief in my reply. The hallmarks of conspiracy theories are the elaboration of an alternative reality based on the distortion and the cherry-picking of the available evidence, together with a strong feeling of being persecuted by the mainstream, who is generally regarded as unwilling to face with the claims of the conspiracy theorists because it would be too damaging for the conservative establishment. Wim Winters and his double beat theory bears all the marks of this. The theory has been debunked numerous times, on youtube, on facebook before youtube, in the historical research group of which he used to belong. He has been factually proven wrong countless times, and never bother to listen, but just go blundering on. So at this stage, when I made this video, I wasn't inclined to be polite about, because he is actively deceiving people, and I think it is wrong. Having said which I have long moved on from this topic which no longer interests me, though it has given me an interest for historic metronome marks, so in that sense it wasn't a waste of my time.
I’m not certain you understand why musicians qualify Wim Winters’ theory as conspirationniste . It is not because Wim Winters is attempting a plot or anything like that but because he believes the academic music system, the conservatories and other institutions have misinterpreted( at best) or falsified ( many examples given) facts to establish single beat. You have to understand that a conspiracy theory foundation is established to make potential adepts believe that they are victims of a plot . The most recent example is probably the anti vax conspiracy theory which promotes the idea that government bodies and chemical firms have elaborated a strategy to make money by scaring people . I give you a clear example where Wim Winters is acting as a conspiracy theory promoter: when he says that early 1900 piano rolls have been accelerated, he is clearly accusing the academics to falsify information to promote their system . This is complete non sense but that’s the reality of Wim Winters ‘ world .
@beethoven_singlebeatplease Actually, I believe Wim Winters said that Piano Rolls (Welt-Mignon) were punched and sometimes edited afterwards, which is correct for the Welt (I have seen vintage pictures illustrating this process), and that the speeds weren't specific to each roll, but almost always the same speed given for the roll on some systems, regardless to the original recording speed. "Unlike Duo-Art, Welte did not perforate music rolls in real time, but instead made ink or carbon traces on an original roll as the notes were played, and these were subsequently punched out by hand. It is likely that the paper for these originals was white, and that it was pre-printed with 100 continuous lines, in the positions where each pitch was located. A number of similar master rolls recorded for the Welte Philharmonic Organ have survived, and one can still see the pencil and recorded ink traces, which provided a roll editor with a clear indication of where to punch out each note." The master roll was the checked and corrected as necessary. The Vorsettzers (robot players) had adjustable speed controls. Unlike a wax cylinder which you can determine the speed by knowing the pitch for a in the country it was recorded in, and then adjust a tape recording to match that pitch a=???, you do not have that option with Reproducing Pianos. And there was a variety of competitors. You might find this fascinating www.pianola.org/reproducing/reproducing_welte.cfm as well as the rest of the systems listed. Also the following quote, "Welte-Mignon Speed Control Lever, from a 1922 Steinway Piano So, if you do suspect the speed of a performance, how do you tell if it is an eccentric old-fashioned interpretation playing at the correct speed, or a more conventional approach at the wrong one? Regrettably, there are no easy answers, but sometimes there are alternative sources to which one can refer to check on particular examples, and also some faults which are peculiar to particular player or reproducing makes. In this article, I will look into a few of the more obvious difficulties in judging roll speeds." www.pianola.org/journal/journal_vol21-22.cfm
but, Man, what you doing is narcissistic competition. You just devaluated Win for his narcissism. I have a bad news, you also narrcissistic.You just jealous that Win is more grandiose than you.
If you don't believe pianopat, try out recordings by Richter, Gilels, Parahia, Serkin, and so on. They agree with pianopat with respect to the double beat hoax.
Mondoux! Un épouvantail après l'autre... Vous exagérez un peu, beaucoup, à la folie. Une théorie du complot? Ahahaha! Eh oui, les métronomistes gardent leurs secrets dans d'habiles confréries ;-) Bien sûr que les compositeurs modernes, les logiciels, les styles modernes --- jazz , rock, musique pop --- utilisent le métronome comme un tac (pas deux) mais ils n'ont jamais connu le pendule. Les historiens des sciences et les philosophes connaissent l'histoire du pendule avant que des chronomètres précis soient inventés. L'usage moderne du métronome, divorcée de la disparition du pendule est incontestable. Wim Winters s'intéresse à la période de transition entre pendule et métronome. C'est tout. Live and let live. Votre vitriol montre plusieurs choses incertaines : (1) vous considérez la musique comme sacrée. Vous sonnez comme ces vieux inquisiteurs face à l'hérésie. "Au bûcher... Ce Wim et toutes ces vidéos." ??? SVP, relisez Candide. Que la tolérance voltairienne soit avec vous. Votre biblisme, ça aussi c'est toute une conspiration. (2) L'esthétique régnante. Faut aller voir Grampp _Pricing the Priceless: Art, Artists and Economics_ (Basic Books) ou les ouvrages de Norman Lebrecht _When the Music Stops_ ou _The Maestro Myth_... afin de constater que l'esthétique n'est pas toujours ce qui gouverne la musique des salles de concert. Il y a du capitalisme éhonté dans tout ça. (3) Il y a l'autre côté de la médaille : Wim joue trop lentement selon vous? Pourtant vous ne dites rien de ceux qui jouent trop vite :-) (4) Et l'obstacle épistémologique de votre propre formation, cet émotionalisme... On sent vos souvenirs d'enfance face à la musique. Faut relire Bachelard _La formation de l'esprit scientifique_ pour constater qu'il y a chez vous bien des préjugés. (5) On ne sait pas. On a des témoignages littéraires. Des thèse contre des thèse... Aujourd'hui, il y a des pièces de bebop [noire = 300], et Conlon Nancarrow avec des pianos mécaniques qui éructent à toute vitesse, l'ordi qui permet d'accélérer des rythmes au delà de nos seuils auditifs, la synthèse FM... Tant de nouveautés qui montrent que la grande musique, si belle soit-elle est toujours une hypothèse, un essai, un "revival", de la muséologie. Laissez ce pauvre Wim tranquille. Il a droit à ses opinions qui choquent surtout ceux qui n'ont jamais imaginé ce genre de chose (v. Northrop Frye, _The Educated Imagination_). UA-cam, c'est un peu la réinvention de l'enregistrement à la porté de tous. Pierre Schaeffer en serait-il heureux? Faut relire son _Traité des objets musicaux_ et ses autres ouvrages. Et être serein, autant que Boulez ou John Cage. Ne soyez pas le chien qui aboie. Soyez la caravane qui passe... Et bonne chance.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 The video is silly because the commenter relies on gratuitous assertions. And a gratuitous assertion only requires a gratuitous reply. So, calling it a "silly video" is really all that is required. But since you asked for more: There is no "conspiracy theory" concerning whole beat theory. There is no claim that a group of ne'er do well villains "conspired" to suppress whole beat. The commenter on the video is very thin in his arguments and doesn't seem to realize that his whole commentary can be turned against him. His slavish adherence to the group identity of the modern zeitgeist and his hostility to anyone who doesn't adhere to the current standards. Even when they are absurd logically. It's essentially and ignorant screed. He's also calling things a "conspiracy theory" when what he actually describes actually a form of "gnosticism." (And frankly the term "conspiracy theory" is inaccurate since what it does describe in its derogatory form is actually better labeled a "conspiracy hypothesis." ) And then there's the question of whether he's applying it correctly or simply creating a Straw Man fallacy to argue against. From the video it can clearly be established that he engages in the latter. Then we can discuss what is "normal" in music as the commenter blithely and vaguely describes it. He also seems to conflate "virtuosity" with "speed". So, it's apparant he doesn't even understand the terms he uses himself. Is that good enough for you or should I keep going?
Gerry30. Thank you, I wish that everybody could follow this example. I am satisfied with your answer. Much better than only two words - «too fast» «too slow» etc.
Yeah, Winter's "theory" is amazing in the sense that apparently many people actually believe it! As others have said, if I use the Whole Beat theory, I transform from an amateur pianist with my tech limit as the Beethoven Sonata 8 and turn into oner capable of playing the Op 57 with no trouble. The concept of whole beat is absurd.
I found Wim Winter’s theory interesting the first time I heard it, but I soon decided it must be wrong, for this simple reason: If tempo is slowed down by factor two, suddenly I, an amateur who never practiced enough and even was without a piano for ten years, can effortlessly play really hard pieces. I refuse to believe that I am able to do the same as famous virtuosos from the past, who practised day and night from a very young age, and were thought to be magicians and doing the impossible.
So it's speed alone that defines virtuoso technique?
@@jeromewesselman4653 Of course not. Both music and humour are artforms that are difficult to master. Apparently, I fail at both.😄 Sorry about that. Have a wonderful life.
@@jeromewesselman4653 Actually I'm interested in your comment because the ability to play things incredibly quickly IS a major part of virtuoso technique. If that has no place in a virtuoso technique then maybe you can tell us exactly what does? Also can you then confirm that playing things half as slow (as WW advocates) IS part of a virtuoso technique? If you say it is then I assume we can take that further and say if you can play a very quick difficult allegro at andante pace as long as it's 'musical' then that is technically virtuosic? I wish Beethoven could speak now - he'd laugh his socks off at Winters. So this really comes under your definition of what virtuosic actually is ?
tillatidtryte, you are absoluely right, that’s a good point in what you write. I have begun to argue with a variation of your thoughts: We find those on UA-cam, children, 9-12 years old, playing several of Chopin’s etudes much faster than Wim Winters’ «Real Historical Tempo.» By doing as you do, reflecting and observing, it should be an eye-opener for Wim Winters’ supporters as well.
Thank you for another superb exposition of the sad phenomenon of Wim Winters and for resuming your critique of this musical charlatan.
Wim isn't a charlatan, you are.
@@jonathanp935 Meetchya outside.
@@danielwaitzman2118 go ahead old timer, find your musicology certificate while you're at it.
@@jonathanp935 I'll see your musicology certificate and meet you outside.
@@jmb4969 find yours too
Hi Pianopat, great to hear from you again. It is a very good and very important video - similar to your musicological debunking of Wim's claims. Limited as his audience may be, I would not underestimate his potential influence on people with passion, but not enough knowledge about the classical (in a broader sense) music. I was under his impression for a short time - but if I hadn't found your critique od his views back then, I'm not sure I would have found a way out on my own.
Great video. A little while ago I saw some decent criticism posted on Wim's channel, and I wanted to re-read just to be sure I read it right, then it was gone... really quickly. At first I was just annoyed about not finding the comment anymore because I really wanted to reread it, then I realised Wim must have had removed it, and there were only 'nice' comments left without anything interesting in it.
It's truly depressing seeing how gullible everyone in that comments section are. and it's more damaging than piano pat puts forward as Wim encourages teachers to promote his ideas. potentially doing permanent damage to some students with extremely promising potential. One can only hope those theoretical students manage to have a better grasp on reality than their teachers.
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 I've checked the profile of some piano teachers who follow him, and double-beat or not, students with promising potential should look elsewhere.
I would say that most double-beat fanatics are frustrated amateurs, who finally can accept a long frustration. The amount of musical illiteracy of some of his followers is truly mind-blowing.
@@benjaminachron1493 Indeed, I will admit I am nowhere near the level needed to perform the pieces properly, but I acknowledge my own shortcomings. These pieces are not for amateurs, especially the Chopin etude 10-2, that was laughable. Especially since the people in the comments didn't have anything substantial to say about it. There was even a comment asking "wait does anyone else here dislike it" which got very hostile before the comment was deleted.
My comments were also deleted. Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020, and signed by Emile Zola. It begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
A couple of Spanish musicologist have recently put forth a compelling theory that explains the logic behind the unusual high metronome markings provided by Beethoven , which is one of Win’s arguments to defend his double beat theory. They found Beethoven was consistently misreading his metronome by taking as a reference the lower side of the trapezoidal weight when he should have used the upper side. They even found a handwritten annotation in the manuscript of the 9th symphony in which Beethoven, realizing his previous mistakes, clarifies that the two markings can be used: the one provided by the upper side and the lower side of the trapezium. This theory debunks once and for all the double beat nonsense
That sounds very likely
Could you link to the paper?
Can you link your source? Much appreciated.
Thank you for coming back. I was contemplating starting to make videos myself of trying to show the futility of certain pieces. (I may still but I would much rather let a more skilled pianist do so)I have been attempting to comment under his videos for some time. He banned my account of course, so I switched to another one. which was swiftly banned as well, despite that I never attempted to say "here I am I'm the guy you banned before" as such it is difinitive to say he is banning people because of their views and threats towards his ideas.
The last comment I attempted to post was on his video released today (17th April) where I commented on how Mozarts 12 variations on "twinkle twinkle little star (I know not the official name) And how various folk songs we know today in beethovens music are still in place and singable. I also tried to reply to a comment Wim had when one viewer said correctly that we have recordings of Grieg and his pieces. Wim attempted to say that they are unreliable because the reconstruction effort would have doubled the speed. So I essentially went on a rant about how his attitude to commenting and reply was appalling. Obviously it cannot be seen however.
I would be happy to send any Audio recordings of pieces I might be able to play. I have also transcribed a few pieces to my computer on which double beat sounds ridiculous. (the grave of pathetique springs to mind)
Let's do Mahler's Adagietto at half speed! I'm sure Wim can prove that we've been playing it twice too fast all these years. Or Pelléas and Mélisande! I guarantee you that no orchestra or cast of singers would do it in double beat. No audience would remain conscious more than 20 minutes. The riots would make the Sacre riots seem like an episode of Mr. Rogers.
A weird effect of double beat is that we must play a 3 against 2 rhythm when there are 8th note triplets in the score.🤔
That was one of my first thoughts as well!
Hi Patrick, good to see you're back. Great video as always and very perceptive comments. Maybe you remember that big document on historical timings that I sent you a while back. If you are still planning to do a video on it, then I just want to let you know that I'm updating it, and I hope to finish it soon (I've added new sources and corrected some mistakes), so just wait a little till I send you the updated version. Wish you the best.
I do very well remember it, and I did say in this video that I had more up my sleeve. So I will wait to hear from you with the updated version then. Keep well.
Liszt was Czerny's student who was Beethoven's pupil. Given how influential Liszt was (he was close to Chopin, Brahms, Schumann and Wagner married Liszt's daughter) and how Liszt lived until 1886 it is highly unlikely to have direct line of knowledge to be lost.
Thank you for this. I think you trace the course of Wim Winters' thinking and UA-cam channel fairly and well. While I won't comment here on the psychological aspects, I concur in regretting that the discussion of tempo questions which - though constrained by the limitations of UA-cam comments - was formerly entertained there, was abruptly curtailed in 2019 by a new 'code of conduct' which, coinciding with the appointment of a 'moderator', which amounted to rejection of all debate, let alone of dissent.
Over a couple of months last spring, having previously been only intermittently engaged, I sought systematically to present a body of (essentially single-beat) evidence, drawing on documents, performance timings, etc..
Initially this was argued with, occasionally with positive results; then it stated gradually to vanish after being uploaded (sometimes this was blamed on technical problems or a UA-cam algorithm); and finally it was disregarded, mostly never having been addressed, when the iron curtain of censorship descended.
Any potential which might have remained in the channel was then snuffed out.
I've also been concerned about the way in which, to listeners not familiar with historical instruments, an illusory association of them with ultra-slow tempi has been promulgated. The new Fritz piano replica, for example, is apparently excellent and potentially useful in investigating performance practice, but in its novelty it has been presented misleadingly.
I might add that my attempt to post a constructive question about a new Grieg synthesised manifestation yesterday disappeared within seconds of being posted, so it seems that the intolerance of anything other than adulation persists. I queried this with the moderator, whose short answer attributed the phenomenon to UA-cam.
@@lewisjones2666 That is what they always say, I do believe that the moderators do show some responsibility to block comments. so potentially they are sheltering Wim's ego? if they are blocking his view to the true effect of what people are saying it makes sense.
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 Thank you. Yes I have plenty of experience of my factual submissions and comments, all of them polite and constructive, being obliterated.
@@lewisjones2666 Same here, on two UA-cam accounts. Please see my recent post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020, and signed by Emile Zola. It begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
@@jmb4969 Thank you. I'm not sure why you and several others communicate anonymously or pseudonymously.
The 'chat' during a recent synthesised double-beat 'premiere' rendition of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture (1880) was remarkable.
It was observed by one contributor that the 19th-cent Russian tradition was still 'early romantic' (implying that double-beat performance would, it was assumed, be appropriate).
A question raised about double-beat performance of Le sacre du printemps (1912-13) received a worryingly positive initial response from the host, while another commentator opined that Stravinsky would (owing to the 'early romantic' Russian tradition) have been double-beat until he went to Paris. We might conjure in our minds an exchange between Debussy and the composer before they played through the four-hand in June 1912.
Meanwhile, another devotee had been experimenting with double-beat Poulenc...
Thank you, glad it's not just me... You have been sorely missed!
I listened to the Musica Aeterna recording of the fifth and had goosebumps. Thank you for recommending it. Merci d'avoir pris le temps de préparer toutes ces vidéos. J'ai brièvement succombé au charme de Wim après avoir écouté quelques vidéos (il est très convaincant), mais la musique reste plus convaincante. Son interpretation de la pathétique sur le clavicorde avait un certain charme et j'ai beaucoup aimé. Ensuite j'ai écouté la 5ème de Beethoven ainsi que l'Hammerklavier, et en mon for intérieur j'ai tout de suite su que ça ne tenait pas la route. Donc, je suis tombé sur vos vidéos.
Pas de quoi. Je suis parfaitement d'accord, sa Pathétique ne manquait certainement pas d'interet, mais c'était la préhistoire d'authentic sound, quand il jouait avec son intuition de musicien. Les interpretations etaient tres personnelles, mais cohérentes, j'aimais assez. Musica Aeterna peut faire des choses incroyables. Hier j'ai écouté leur Shostakovich 14, et j'aurais pu tomber de ma chaise tellement c'était stupéfiant.
@@pianopat Merci je vais écouter ça. Avez-vous des suggestions pour les concertos pour piano de Mozart, ainsi que les sonates? J'essaie de trouver quelque chose d'un peu différent, mais je suis difficile avec Mozart.
@@plantbasedsecrets Hum... Différent de quoi? J'avoue que rien ne me vient en tête. Quand j'étais plus jeune, j'écoutai beaucoup Haskil, mais je voudrais peut-être quelque chose de différent maintenant. J'adore les Mozart d'Edwin Fischer, mais en fait, j'adore Edwin Fischer, toujours. Il a été une grande influence pour moi. Un grand pianiste très peu connu avec qui j'ai travaillé un peu, Eric Heidsieck, a fait des concertos de Mozart exceptionnels, malheureusement, c'est presque introuvable aujourd'hui. Sinon, dans un autre genre, Bilson Gardiner font des choses extraordinaires...
@@pianopat Merci! J'aime beaucoup Bilson Gardiner. Différent dans le sens que souvent ces concertos sont joués en suivant la partition de très près. J'aime un peu plus d'ornementation et des cadenzas composées intéressantes.
My observations of Wim's musicianship and its deterioration over time are in complete agreement with yours. That is what finally convinced me of his increasing psychological problem.
His exposing of his young female children on the internet shocked me.
Better that Wim's channel remains, and is widely acknowledged, as a weird cult than as anything that might include mainstream discussion.
I am grateful to those, such as yourself pianopat, who are able to counter the basis of Wim's nonsense.
There also exists on social media a strong faction who see his channel as a fertile source of ridicule. But the internet is very extensive and Alberto Sanna is one tragic example of how musicians can fall into this abyss despite the warnings.
Excuse me, but what's wrong with showing your cute little child for 10 seconds on your video?
@@tunahankaratay1523 If you don't know the answer to that, perhaps you need a therapist. Or a prison sentence.
Timely and welcome. Thank you.
Many thanks for taking the time to make this clear analysis of a rather distressing situation.
The latest videos on Authentic Sound really confirm how much of a cultguru Wim really has become (or wants to be), him now even reading his own fan mail in which he has no reserve in claiming himself to be a sort of Messiah. The discourse is rapidly becoming more and more infested with conspiracy-like nonsense about conservatories, musicologists and the musical stage in general. I find it fascinating and disturbing at the same time.
@Jeremy Ralph Sure, but will flixzone include masterful documentaries on the debunking of the musicological establishment by Wim Winters? I wonder... Only then will I consider. I need 24/7 Wim Winters Whole Beat! Or should that be 48/14?
Definitely quite sad to see what he has become. I liked his earlier interpretations on the clavichord, but I tried to listen to his Beethoven variations on the piano, and it was a tedious chore. His increasingly hostile attitude toward his critics basically made it clear that he should no longer be taken seriously.
@pianopat Thank you very for this video! It surely helped with my anxiety I had got from commenting on his recent UA-cam video, where Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture was played according to the double-beat theory. (You can go check the short "conversation" I had with him in the comment section of that video.)
The reason for my anxiety was that I was afraid that more people would get lured into this absurd false understandment of music. I'm truly at ease to know that there are fewer people who believe him than I had thought.
Thank you so much! For if you hadn't made this video, I might have had to go through the trouble of making one myself. (Although mine couldn't have been nearly as good as yours, of course. The comparison of this conspiracy theory to a virus was excellent in its relevance!) Edit: I noticed you had made a lot of videos on this subject prior to this, which is great!
Bravo, Sauli Niemi. Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020. It is signed Emile Zola and begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
He made up a whole theory to justify his inability to play fast. "No, it's not that there are many pianists with better technique than me, it's that everyone else is stupid and wrong!"
You are wrong. Wim Winter can actuelly play really fast. Thats not the reason he believes in this theory. There are actuelly some old recordings where you can hear him play fast
MyAnno Really? Where are they?
@Loco Vil I do not agree. Of corse he is a real pianist. There are people who improvise, interpret or try to play the piano in a historic way. I see that there is no such thing as doublebeat Theory - but i dont think just because someone plays slower then intended he is bad at what he is doing. I also havent seen Wim claim to be better then Liszt. But i havent watched too many videos anyways
@@danielwaitzman2118 Take a look at his rendition of Bruhns' Praeludium in e minor, or Sweelinck's (?) Variations on "Engelse Fortuijn" , both right here on UA-cam.
Truly brilliant! Thank you. Please indulge me. The following is a copy of my post on your 'My Musicological Answer...' video because I think this comment should be read by as many people as possible.
Thank you for this excellent refutation of the Wim Winters 'historical' tempo controversy. In addition to confirming many of the comments here, I want to add another consideration that can be replicated countless times, and that is the passing down of musical training from generation to generation. I will give an actual personal example. My violin teacher was Raphael Bronstein, 1896-1988. His teacher was Leopold Auer, 1845-1930. And his teachers included Josef Helmesberger, 1828-1893, and Jakob Dont, 1815-1888. So in just three degrees of separation I am connected directly to Beethoven himself. This is an indisputable line of musical heritage. These great teachers played concerti, chamber music, and operas that we play today. I can tell you without fear of contradiction that there was no great change of tempi over the last two centuries; if there had been, we would have heard about it. There is no doubt that Mozart and Beethoven were virtuosi of the highest order. There is no doubt that they composed energetic, fast, and demanding works that remain beyond the technical grasp of most people to this day. And there is no doubt that there were and are ranges of tempi which all artists are free to explore to express themselves. But there is absolutely no evidence that the innovation of 19th century metronome can be used to prove that our tempi today are materially faster than the tempi used two or three centuries ago. I have added several comments below. (My comments on various videos on Wim Winters' channel have been deleted and banned by him. They were posted under another UA-cam account of mine. I was not kind to him).
I found WW channel quite interesting in many regards but his double-beat theory confuses me and not the least because its so horribly unmusical.
Dear Patrick, You can assume that Wim Winters does not pose a danger to the music world, not now, and not in the future. He is less important than you think. You say by yourself that his group of followers is small. It will remain small, perhaps even smaller in the future. Indeed, he is a master of handling the benefits of youtube. He can do that much better than his inspirer Lorenz Gadient, from whom he got his ideas through his book "Takt und Pendelschlag". His own videos will tie him up. His supporters will see that those videos are too extreme. So don't be afraid. Wim Winters' ideas will blow over. Still, it's good that you occasionally act against him. I'm sure he sees your videos. For the time being they will strengthen him in his conviction. But for how long?
I believe he is more dangerous than you realise. The attitude of supposed teachers on his views suggests they are preaching his ideas elsewhere outside of his sphere of influence. Potentially damaging future young pianists, unless of course they come to their own judgment.
Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020, signed by Emile Zola. It begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
yes, I was very taken with Wim at first, but after going through a lot of his videos, unfortunately I find most of this body of great music unlistenable at Wim’s halved tempi. All of our beautiful exciting repertoire sounds like an exercise at those slow tempi. So, common sense and musical intuition has to come into play here. So, I’m with you on this.
laragarner, I wish that many more people will make the same conclusion, thank you!
Very eloquently put ! I first started watching mr. Winters' videos some years back mostly because I was interested in the sound of his clavichord. His views at the time on the metronome marks of Beethoven and Czerny seemed to raise a good point in that, in some cases, they seemed improbably fast and double beat seemed as good an explanation as any to me and more plausible than unlikely broken metronome theories and such. After all, the metronome was so new that the usage may not yet have been standardized. So, I was open minded about it but not wholly convinced. Over time though, he applied the double beat theory to later and later composers (Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, and even Grieg !) where not only did the slow tempos result in nonsense (Anitra's Dance marked "tempo de Mazurka" played almost dirge-like and thoroughly undanceable ??!!!!) but were in obvious collision course with recordings made by the composers' students or even the composers themselves. His latest video implies that double beat practice may have survived up to 1932 or even 1948 !!! He may have had an interesting theory with regards to the very early use of the metronome (first few years after its invention) but I think he has lost all academic method at this point, ignores obvious facts if they are in opposition to his theory and and twists vague textual references out of shape in order to try and "prove" his theory. Sad.
By the way ... at 19 minutes into this video a mention is made of a new recording of Beethoven's work made as per Beethoven's indicated tempi but I unfortunately could not make out the name of the performers or where the recording is available. Would you please be so kind as to provide details of this recording ? I would be most interested ..
Yes, of course. I am talking about Teodor Currentzis and his orchestra musicAeterna. The recording is on youtube.
@@pianopat Thank you :-)
It is also important to remember that Authentic Sound shadow-blocks all comments that refute the double-beat theory. Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020. It is signed Emile Zola and begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
One effect of this video was to cause me to look at Wim’s channel again, after having ignored it for a year or more. It has indeed got stranger in the interim, with Wim coming across now as fixated on his spurious message, against all logic or musical sense. He extends it to ever more absurd lengths, now claiming Tchaikovsky as a double-beat composer! I tried to listen to some of the half-speed Beethoven renditions, though I could not stand them for long. And the video presentation, with the slow metronome periodically superposed over Alberto to demonstrate how is is indeed playing all the time in this ‘authentic tempo’, is positively sinister.
It’s hard to predict where it might go next. Cults usually close in on themselves when they decide the rest of the world is against them, but the nature of this internet phenomenon means it has to be continually in public view: I presume Wim gets some income from his channel since there is continual interruption by adverts. It is good you have produced your series of calmly-presented, clear, factual videos to reference for anyone who starts to get taken in.
Sort of a comical thing is, if Wim just wanted to play this music slow because this just was his chosen interpretation, I would be mostly on board with it. I may not have liked all his interpretations, but I'd respect the fact that he makes an interpretative choice. By adding an silly flat-earth theory and making himself Kent Hovind of classical music world, unfortunately, Wim instantly loses the respect.
Keep up the good work.
Best wishes for your personal life.
“It doesn’t take long to get shadow-banned if you criticise his ideas, which makes the comment section mindblowingly dull”!
14:30 EXACTLY what i immediately noticed when listened to a beethoven sonata in double beat.. cheap psychological trick!
I also ask myself, if Wims theory was right, then why did composers like Rachmaninoff or Skrjabin or students of Liszt play like we do today? They all had teachers from the 19th century, in fact they were born in the 19th century. Shouldn’t they play twice as slowly? This alone debunks the theory since one wrong thing about a theory debunks the whole of it even if they are good arguments. It’s call falsification i think.
Wim is never short of ad hoc hypothesis, however implausible, to get himslef out of tight corners. In this case, we have piano roll which say absolutely nothing about tempo, all the students of Clara Schumann, Liszt and so on not interested in keeping the tradition, apart from the few people who play a little more slowly, who are the ones who still kept some link to the past. He is covered.
Hi Pianopat, very good and interesting video. 100% spot on, on Wim's evolution and issues.
I have lost interests in Authentic Sound channel when it started to change as you mention. It was a point of time where no discussion was possible anymore and where civilised debates were replaced by aggressive answers.
I rarely watch his videos anymore and only do it occasionally as even though i unsubscribed , youtube algorithm sometimes recommend videos.
I recently watched the premiere of the 5th, and I have to say that Wim’s playing has seriously deteriorated and he has become a musical caricature of himself, with systematic and unnecessary rubato and uniform way of playing any composer with the same approach as you explain.
Psychologically , it is a playground for psychologists, as it good depiction of the evolution from negativism to conspiracy , in other words the development of a sect , and the inevitable transformation of the initial instigator (Wim W) into a complete mythomaniac believing in his own lies.
In term of audience, it is minimalist as you say, and his followers crowd kernel is about 20 members, no more , the rest being one-off visitors. It would be a good idea to make a video on that particular crowd as their motives are different and on their own they are a very special kind and definitely intriguing from a psychological standpoint.
Obviously , all of that is only interesting from a social and psychological view, as musically, it presents virtually no interest at all and the quality has degraded to a point where it is more a farce than anything else.
Next time the algorithm recommends one of his videos, you can click on the more options button and have youtube stop recommending the channel.
Wim W has 33.000 followers, not 20. You can refute his theories without lies; you have a lot of real arguments to refute him, but if starting with lies no one will take seriously. Or do you try convince me that 33.000 subscribers are for ‘take a fast look sometimes in those videos’?
Christian J Next time try being less agressive in your statement. I feel that when those people appears there you will be waiting them with some kind of hummer, or bow and arrow. Look, I disagree with the Wim W theories or conspiratories theories , but get more worried with the level of aggressiveness I can read or watched that question makes grow up. If Wim showed aggressiveness too (I didn’t watch all his videos) this is for him too.
@@codonauta Who are you to give me lessons ? Listen, none of my comments on Wim's channel have been aggressive. They were respectful and polite and were just about bringing counter evidence. At some stage Wim's channel changed , his replies became sarcastic and every user who was trying to bring some evidence opposite to double beat was categorised as a troll. Sad reality but that was the time I left and unsubscribed.
@@ChristianJoannes Ok, it is explained.
Just another thing, any critical comments on the videos are always found at the bottom. No idea why but that is where you'll find them
Yes, it’s because his fanatical following dislikes all the comments which seriously debate Wim’s ideology. They’re simply a bunch of moronic clowns who propagate a foolish theory to either justify their inability to play adequately or to gain attention. I’m pretty sure Wim is cognizant of the fact that he spews bullsh*t 24/7.
I would not take the "double beat theory" THAT serious. It's just a crazy idea of some guy who thought "what if metronome markings are meant to be half as fast".
The question is so absurd. Just because it is possible to play a special piece extremely fast or extremely slow and it still sounds ok.
This fixation on the metronome numbers is so funny to me. And it's the same with Wim Winters as it is with all pianists who try to play the Hammerklavier Sonata with the given MM number in the normal way.
Just play the music as it makes the most sense and forget that there are any metronome numbers.
"are meant to be half as fast." It's for sure much more than that. Better spoken, it's the notion that many metronome markings seem way too fast for historical instruments and sometimes our modern performances lose musicality. To an extent, it's a response to modern pianists swinging too far to the side it's on now. There are examples where pianists do play too fast. Such as michelangeli's Debussy images. Which is really fun at that speed I must say.
However, there are a couple recent recordings I really have an issue with from Winters. Specifically, "
Ed. Grieg, Peer Gynt Suite No. 1, Op. 46" and "Schubert: 4 Impromptus Opus 90 D899." The Schubert was... Well, I would have gone back to the drawing board with that one.
@@MegaMech For my taste, most of todays recordings are too fast. But they are NOT double as fast - only about 30% too fast. And often they are way too rigid in tempo variation. Tempo is not what the metronome pretends to be. Classical music is not Jazz with a drum beat!
@@kpunkt.klaviermusik Yes I agree. In my paper that I wrote about half tempo. I realized that for a lot of cases someone can easily argue for a slower tempo and still be within the world of reason. However, half-tempo is a bit of a stretch at least if someone is arguing that an instrument is incapable of the speeds, because they are capable.
@@MegaMech To be fair though, Mr. Winters does not imply that pieces 19th century pieces should be played at half the speed that is common now but at half the speed relative to the way the metronome marks in question are generally interpreted now. As many pieces are normally played well below the indicated tempi today, playing to the metronome markings in "double beat" results in a significantly slower tempo than is common today, but not half the speed.
The problem is that Winters takes the double beat theory DEADLY seriously. His hoax has libeled Beethoven, and I dare say that Beethoven would sue him were he alive today; at the very least a duel would have been proffered. Please see my post at the top, posted July 26, 2020. It begins with the words 'J'Accuse!!!' and is signed by Emile Zola.
hello Pianopat could you please assist me in investigation on whether a UA-cam can change their like-dislike ratio. I was aware on Wim's video of his sixth Beethoven sonata which premieres tomorrow that the amount of likes and dislikes was even until I just checked. where it now has 17 likes to one dislike compared to what it Was, at 17 likes to 12 dislikes. There even comments about it which I implore you quickly check just to make sure I am not going crazy. If so how does this change your perception? and I ask you as you would be more aware of channel functions like this than myself as I have no videos
Hello, I just stumbled on your comment on this excellent video, with which I wholeheartedly agree, by the way. Wim is a creep, but that is besides the point for now.
I just wanted to say that I noticed exactly the same thing as you: the dislikes somehow 'resetting' all of a sudden. I saw this a number of times before on Premiers, even left a comment on that which of course disappeared (before I was shadow banned altogether). So no, you are not going crazy. Wim and his fanboys are just being Wim and his fanboys.
@@bigt082 Thanks. I'm currently attempting to upload a video on my channel where I go into a musical detail on why double beat does not work melodically. I would appreciate it if you gave it a quick view when it's up :)
Hello there. I had no idea what you were talking about until I went and checked myself. And yes, it is extraordinary. I have no idea how this could be made to happen. If Wim has a way to control the like and dislike button of youtube, then we underestimated him. I certainly didn't know it was possible, and I do not understand how it could be. Unless he deleted and reuploaded the video, which would be the only way I can think of. If he has, which is probable, he is both clever and shameless at the same time. It is so pathetic.
Well, since another commenter seems to have noticed it as well, even Thomas "First :-D" Hughes commented that earlier there were more dislikes on that particular video, so it is probably not a question of deleting and reuploading the video. But, of course, that comment chain will probably disappear soon... Just like the number of comments on the Grieg video suddenly has dropped by some twenty comments (which was about the same amount of replies to a critical remark...)
@@pianopat Its shameless. And also very dangerous as it shows how he wants to protect his image more than produce true content. It's also infuriating as I was somewhat pleased that people were keeping the like/dislike ratio balanced as it showed there was a silent selection of people who could not comment but were still angry enough to dislike the video
That was a brilliant presentation. There is a certain narcissism coupled with the realization that he will never be able to compete with real performers. In his videos I can sense a level of disregard and disdain for current performers who are depicted as charlatans or as circus freaks lacking of musicality. Consequently he has ignited a kind of social revolution to equalize professional performers and amateur players. The problem is that instead of raising the equality bar high he is raising it low. At the beginning of XIX there was a radical shift in the audience and patrons of classical chamber music. It stopped being the commission of aristocrats to turn into a publishing business for consumption by a middle and upper bourgeois class of amateur players. Compositions had to make sense both for a professional player, probably using faster tempos, and the amateurs. In that sense I view the MM as a gold standard, something to aim at gradually. Win is commanding the revolution of amateur players and wannabe professionals who think they can also take the stage.
Exactly!! Not to mention he's building a market for his unbearably slow yet curiously inelegant and unimaginative recordings.
Or you're just used to the circus clown tempos. Poor musicianship! A good musician can play at any tempo, but it seems there's a bias toward the runaway train, no?
I'm a newcomer to Wim and upon hearing him talk about his theories, almost instaneously, various common-sense objections appeared to mind. Most obviously, that serious academics and musicologists weren't rallying behind him. A nano-second later my mind hit upon the same point you've stated. The guy isn't mechanically able - by a long shot, to play at the levels required of professional concert pianists, etc., etc. Bluntly - he's not good enough. I don't really see that there's anything beyond this. It begins and ends with this limitation. 'Dude' is a good amateur musician who resents top professionals and has contrived a theory to close the gap.
What's really frightening is that in a way, it's part and parcel of the age - build a youtube conspiracy and people will give it a fair hearing - at least for a short period - that they should not.
@@jeromewesselman4653 bum Jerome why don't you just say that you're one of the believers in Vim's false theories instead of being so passive aggressive?
@@Allan-et5ig Thats just silly. I rarely even listen to music, and care nothing whatsoever about the new recordings. My suggestion, forget about tempo for a while, then revisit your commentary in three or more years. Neither double nor single beat solves every issue, and with both systems of interpretation many issues remain indeed. Wim is onto something, and you're triggered. I've seen entire Establishments triggered in other, unrelated areas of study, and the recent nonsense from Harvard bears all the same telltale hallmarks of misdirection, obfuscation, and rationalization. With one ironic difference. In historical tempo study, academic arrogance presumes ancient hyper-competence rather than hyper-stupidity.
Can you explain virtuosity without resorting to tempo? I can. To quote one of my early mentors, "A musician can play any piece at any tempo." My fourteen-year-old self was shocked to hear such nonsense! Now I'm much closer to understanding how true it is. For good measure here's another of his shocking quotes for you: "Conducting is the epitome of musicianship." Is it? Indeed it is, quite irrespective of tempo. As before, can you discuss such mastery setting aside tempo? I can. Can Wim do so? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I don't know. And I don't care.
This is a truly brilliant, insightful presentation.
Hi Pianopat! I hope you are doing well and have gotten through the difficult time that you speak of.
If you would like to read the paper that I told you I was going to write. I finally finished writing it. I can send it to you. It's not a perfect paper, however there may be some interesting information that you may learn. Do you have an email address I could send it to? I am curious as to your response to my paper.
In my perspective, the WBMP or half-tempo concepts (as I call it) is not a conspiracy theory or a cult. It's a differing interpretation or perspective of historical materials. It's perfectly fine to say they are wrong. Politicizing an academic argument is an unhealthy approach and creates greater divisions rather than helping people gather back towards the accepted practices/knowledge/solutions. Many of Winters questions are legitimate, it's just his solutions to things can be very unconvincing at times. One place Winters is very correct about, is that baroque music was likely slower than what we play today. However, before the invention of the metronome, we can only conjecture what speeds people play. The application of WBMP to the baroque era, is at least, slightly disturbing.
10:20 "The illusion that there has been a dramatic shift." But in normal practice we believe this shift too, just that it went in the opposite direction. Music between 1900 and around 1930 maybe even 1950 was thought to be much slower than it was supposed to be compared with the metronome markings. Perhaps an actual answer to this was that there were very few virtuoso musicians and amateurs played at the speeds they could. So then you see top musicians of early 1900s playing slow? I dunno. But I still think it's not a "cult" that someone may investigate the contrary perspective.
13:20 "Were slow, and very inauthentic." And so prove to me that you yourself are not ideologically driven by proving that his recordings are inauthentic. What I mean by this, is that any one of us is capable of this allegedly bad research. The truth is that you cannot prove it. Because no evidence exists that you can prove beyond a doubt the speed that Baroque musicians played at. A conservative tempo is more likely than a virtuosic one, that's what my evidence tells me. It certainly is not black and white or simple. Especially since each country had its own style and practices.
17:30 "They've already been discredited" Not really. I mean, if you count a reddit post by some random person who says "Oh this again..." sure? But that's not the same as a full-fledged academic article. The only academic article that exists disproving half-tempo concepts is in German and a short two page review of that article in English. And then there's my paper and that's about it. I can't read German, but apparently that article thoroughly disproved half-tempo.
And then to claim he can't ever come back on this theories? This doesn't make any sense because don't you want him to come back to the "normal world?" I can understand however, that it may be very difficult for him to walk back his ideology. Also, part of the more extreme views that you see, may be related more to clickbait or trying to get on the right side of the youtube algorithm more than anything.
I'm going to go so far as to claim that *most* pianists have never studied history of the piano like Winters has. I'm more talking like conservatory RCM/Canadian Conservatory pianists. Who are good but not like university great. Even some PhD pianists have only ever just played the notes and never actually studied the historical documents and came to their own conclusions. No wonder why half-tempo concepts exists. Most people likely couldn't even name a few sources that explain musical style, and I mean beyond the couple popular ones like CPE Bach's art of keyboard book. Very few realize that Baroque music is just a blueprint; if you play everything exactly as written, you're playing Baroque music incorrectly. So we could easily flip the argument around and show that pianists often are not educated very well. They may know music history, but they don't know the history of their instrument.
Thank you for your comment, my temper is often getting the better of me when i get into these discussions. Its refreshing to see a comment like yours, where the issue is treated at face value. I have some thoughts on the 3 time stamps you quoted:
The dramatic shift in tempo is sometimes described as unlikely, when in fact, shifts in tempo occur in popular music all the time. The practice of doubling the speed of popular pieces is so common, its its own genre - it is much less convincing to me, that we somehow feel music exactly as fast (or just a little slower) than 200 years ago, while music of the viennese classic would differ so much from the baroque, just 50 years after bachs death. I say "just" while being conviced that it might just take two generations of musicians to overthrow a courtly, antiquitated practice, expecially after the advent of the public concert, social revolution and industrial development.
The discreditment i feel like is the whole point of this research: there could never be academic acceptance of this theory until the facts are so water proof that noone could make a case against it. So pretending Wim Winters, with just around 30.000 subscribers poses a danger to musical society is kind of ridiculous. I know Lorenz Gadient is seen by some like a stupid, religious clown juggling words and reading old manuscripts in his free time. But the way he describes his correspondance with Klaus Miehling is kind of eye opening to me: there is simply nothing at stake for the popular view on metronome numbers, one could just ignore the whole issue and nothing would be lost. And that is what Miehling does when faced with facts like the metrical second. And just because someone calls that idea "grotesque", does not mean its not a real thing.
In the end, only Wim is carrying the risk of discreditment. Noone supporting single beat needs to defend their views against an angry mob, only against their own doubts.
@@123Joack Thought provoking discussion for sure. Commenting on your final statement theres lots in single beat to argue about too.
You might want to correct "JC Bach's art of keyboard book", I think you mean the volumes of CPE Bach. Otherwise, I agree with much of your comment, particularly a surprising lack of knowledge of older keyboards, many of which cannot be played so fast (at least not in any musical way). sometimes I read claims that the lighter touch enabled faster playing, despite lack of double escapement, which is often just wrong.
I do assume speeds increased during the 19th century along with developments in piano construction. We now that piano playing was becoming increasingly competitive. It is also evident on the few recordings we have of pianists who were active in the second half of the 19th century that some were very proficient. We have some of Liszt's pupils, we have Saint-Saens, so we have a fair idea of tempi by the end of the century. What is less plausible is that playing speeds slowed down over the 19th century. This raise questions that someone needs to research properly (however Wim Winters seems to have disqualified himself).
@@martinbennett2228 whoops
@@martinbennett2228 I find the lighter touch argument to be complete bs. However, pianos manufactured between around 1816-1822 had pretty good actions. So even Winters pianoforte is probably capable of full-speed all the music that was composed between 1816-1826.
Double-escapement was like 1822-26 so at that point there's no argument to be had that pianos weren't capable of speeds like in Chopin's etude 4. Especially since Richter managed a much faster tempo than the metronome marking.
The only thing to consider is that it probably took about ten years for the latest piano to actually get put in all the places.
As for Beethoven's sonatas composed before the metronome was developed (around 1816). You can basically make any argument for a certain tempo and you have a decent chance of being right. Consider the piano Beethoven used. And there's not much more to consider.
Brilliant analysis of his agogic mannerisms!
EDIT: Brilliant altogether haha thank you
W.W. is an example for "would like but can not". He is like the fox of Aesop, (or later La Fontaine) who try to convince us that he does not like the grapes, because they are sour. And we also should not eat this grapes.
The truth is, the grapes are delicious, but they are hanging too high for him to reach them. His pride is to play slower than Valentina Lisitsa, and to not have her skills. Pathetic and boring.
Excellent... Except for all the libel involved. Please see my comment at the top, posted July 26, 2020. It begins with 'J'Accuse!!!' and is signed by Emile Zola.
With some pieces I can hear it in double beat and be like “yeah this could work” but others are just terrible. Peer Gynt in double beat is just ridiculous. I am no scholar but I know what sounds right. The first piece is about the morning, you are supposed to hear birds in the flutes. At double beat that effect is gone and it just sounds terrible. It can not be possible.
LesterBrunt, quote: «I am no scholar but I know what sounds right.» This argument is worthless. Why? Because it is exactly the same thing that whole beat supporters are also claiming: «I know what sounds right.»
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 So it is at least as valid as their argument. Funnily enough I’m almost a scholar now so I can have a somewhat informed opinion, and to me it doesn’t matter, anybody can claim how they think a piece should be played but nobody can stop me from playing the piece any way I want.
Are you interested in a collaboration on the psychological implications of the channel “pianopat”?
That would be most interesting. An objective way of measuring would be the amount of people he has banned.
@@benjaminachron1493 Thats obnjective reasoning for single beaters, i guess
I dont know he didnt ban me after posting a number of links to czernys metronome description under his comments, he simply told me a video would adress the topic in the future. Maybe try it with less angsty and insulting rederick?
@@123Joack I see your comments, so he didn't ban you. Some questions are quite simple to answer :).
Benjamin Achron Yes... that’s what I said
Wim's theory creates an amusing and popular UA-cam Channel, but not much else
Except that he is getting away with fraudulent alternative 'facts'. The world has enough of that already. Con jobs are fundamentally evil.
@@jmb4969 i wouldn't say he's getting away with it ; )
I was also shadow banned on Winters' UA-cam channel. The claims of Wim Winters you are refering to concerning Gardiner and Norrington are even worse: he pretends that the single beat was already applied in London by the english conductor Sir George Smart - so during Beethoven's live time! - pretending that a viennese witness hearing Smart performing Beethoven's symphonies the latter was too fast.
As I explained many times, all the choral music of the 18th and 19th centuries - including Beethoven's Mass in C, Symphony n°9, Missa Solemnis, Choral Fantasia would be simply IMPOSSIBLE to sing according to the double-beat concept. These are elementary knowledges that Wim Winters seems not to have. Moreover and worse, he admitted that the timings of the english Conductor George Thomas Smart for Beethoven's symphonies were authentic, and they correspond to Norrington's, Chailly's, Gardiner's durations...
The document about works durations made by Fafner is absolutely excellent and definitively proves that Wim Winters' double beat theory is just, as you said, a fantasy.
Very good! I actually feel sorry for Wim now. I agree that his older recordings sounded much better.
One interesting thing about Winters' Mozart Alla Turca recording, to me (who knows nothing about Turkish music) it does sound more Turkish than other recordings. However, I have a good friend who is Russian but grew up in Turkey and disagrees that the sound is "more Turkish." Although he likely is not an expert either. It doesn't matter if a performance pianist chooses to perform this piece one way or the other. If it did, then we should throw out every Glenn Gould recording just because they're different. Also, many who are not associated with half-tempo concepts likely prefer Winters' way of playing this piece because they find the evidence more convincing towards this way than the other. This has nothing to do with a cult or conspiracy, it's just another opinion or interpretation. This is normal in the field of history wherein professionals disagree with each other over minor viewpoints.
Generally speaking you are correct. Two points: 1. re: Bach and Glenn Gould. Bach is in a class by itself. There are no precise tempo markings. Bach's music is alone in that it can be played in just about any tempo and orchestrated for any instrument; it is pure genius. 2. re: double-beat theory and classical music. Wim Winters is perpetrating a libelous hoax to declare that Beethoven, and others, performed their music roughly twice as slow as their single beat MMs indicate. If Beethoven were alive, I am certain that he would sue Mr. Winters, and rightfully so. Please see my comment at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020. It begins with the words 'J'Accuse!!!' and is signed, fittingly, Emile Zola.
@@jmb4969 it is not a hoax. It is an interpretation. No musicologist would call it a conspiracy. You can disagree with it all you want but winters has done more research than most pianists.
@@MegaMech Wim Winter’s distortions do not constitute “interpretations” in any sense of the term. And “research” is no substitute for musicianship.
While I do agree with you that Wim's behavior lately is disturbing and slightly obsessive (which made me unsubscribe to his channel) I suggest you consider that it's also a matter of taste. You've mentioned Anima Eterna - and I liked Wim's version much more. If we put exact metronome numbers aside for a minute and focus on the music, we'll see that every piece has a range of tempi in which it delivers the correct energy, while also making all the harmonic and melodic details clear to the listener. It's a range, not a single number. I believe most modern performers exceed that range from above, while Wim's performances are on the lower acceptable margin. I believe that what's bothering Wim the most - is that the listeners lose many of the details in the music when it's played so fast.
But that is one of the problems with Winter's outlook, there is no "range", and he has replied to my own comments calling the metronome number "sacred". He has said that the music can vary but must average over the entire piece to the metronome number. What Great Authority informed him of this, I don't know.
I too unsubscribed from Wim Winters for much the same reasons. I think he has some points to make but has become unbalanced. realising that a well researched comment that I had made was restricted only to myself. I realised that he was not interested in genuine inquiry. I had admired and still admire his Bach on the clavichord, but I switched off when musicality took second place. This is ironic because his genuine questions about Czerny's tempi (particularly for Bach) rest on their disturbing lack of musicality.
@@martinbennett2228 There is absolutely no basis for an 'authentic' metronome marking for the music of JS Bach; it transcends tempo; in fact it invites endless re-interpretation. As for Beethoven, and others, Wim Winters is simply completely wrong. Please see my post at the top of these comments, posted July 26, 2020. it begins with the words 'J'Accuse!!!' and is signed, fittingly, by Emile Zola.
Thanks for the videos! Do you give piano lessons?
My pleasure. I do, though all has gone online for the present, as you can imagine.
@@pianopat can you give me an email so I can send you a recording of myself playing Bach's F minor Sinfonia? I'm not trying to wast your time, but I know that any word of advice would be invaluable,I really want to improve my piano playing... specially Bach.
@@lorenzoaguilar1988 You are welcome to send me a recording of course. pianopat85@gmail.com is my address. And it is the most beautiful of the Sinfonias.
Pianopat, I am sorry to hear of your difficult times and hope they are primarily related to this awful pandemic, as it will eventually subside. Anyway, I wonder what you think of Bernhard Ruchti's explorations of historical tempi, which sometimes result in a whole beat approach. I find his playing, like yours, to be very musical and his experiments with tempi to be open and not dogmatic. Would love to hear your detailed thoughts in this.
Well, I know of Ruchti's channel. All I can say is that the so-called variable use of the metronome has no basis in historical texts. It is an attempt to deal with a problem, but nothing can justify it and the videos with Sonnleiter are for me a clear example of bad research where you start with an idea and try to find things which will confirm your idea. I personally happen to dislike the musical results of things played at half speed, which is not to say that Ruchti is not a good pianist. It is simply that the result of the experiments usually do not engage me. For me, only Richter can play at half speed and grip me, but he doesn't do it because he has an ideology, simply because he feels that way.
I think we should stop calling it a theory but rahter hypothesis or hoax.
Please see my post at the top of this comment section, posted July 26, 2020, signed by Emile Zola. It begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
Note to all: Be careful of “Jonathan P. “ He trolls all UA-cam channels dealing with the so-called “double-beat theory,” including my own. He is ignorant, abusive, and contradictory; and even Wim Winters has banned him. I feel sorry for him, and have tried to offer him some friendly advice; but I am irritated beyond endurance by his persistent personal insults-which is, no doubt, what he seeks. By the way, I repeat my appreciation of Patrick Hemmerlé’s fine and reasoned discussion of the Winters phenomenon.
ABUSIVE?! im not abusive, I am however firm in my criticism of single beaters and double beaters getting personal in debates.
@@jonathanp935 See below, where you called me a charlatan for agreeing with Pianopat. You have ranged across UA-cam maligning my professional qualifications and my integrity. By your own admission, you are a teenager who boasts of your ability to tell where a development section begins. You are a rock aficionado with poor language skills and a profound ignorance of music and of scholarly deportment. Others besides myself have criticized your presence here. I am tired of this, and you should be too-if you have any decency at all.
@@danielwaitzman2118 it's you who result in a long winded, ad hominem rant to actually get to your point. You have no decency. You might have good compositions, but stay out of an academic debate where you make into a broadway show.
@@jonathanp935 As my wife is fond of saying, “Thank you for proving my point.”
@@danielwaitzman2118 I'm not proving ur point! i'm mainly pointing out what I dislike from this side, which is the personal attacks. the jokes u attempt to make, the whole "unmusical" crap that you, and all your little friends get behind. you're not the only one, ive called out benjamin too.
Hello! I noticed this video in my UA-cam recommended. Earlier today I tried to post a reply to Authentic Sounds "1932 Lexicon" video, since I think Wim is making the wrong conclusion. My comment won't show up however, and now I read here that he routinely bans opposition! That is unacceptable, frankly. Since you, and some commenters here, also mention the 1932 Lexicon video, I will post my comment to Authentic Sound here as well, perhaps some may find it interesting!
"Hello Wim! Interesting video, I've been following your research for some time now.
I noticed that one of the editors of your Lexicon is Sam Dresden. I have his "Algemene Muziekleer" on my bookshelf, which was first published in 1931 and is a reworking of "Algemene Muziekleer" by Worp-van Millingen, who was born in 1821. So, one of the same guys who worked on your lexicon and the same period. However, on the short chapter Metronoom (page 43) he has this to say:
"De aanwijzing van het tempo met behulp van de metronoom geschiedt, door achter de tel-eenheid het verlangde cijfer van de cijferschaal te plaatsen. Kwartnoot = 60 betekent bijv. 60 slagen van de metronoom slinger per minuut. Elke kwart duurt dan een seconde."
For our English friends: "The direction for tempo with help from the metronoom happens as follows, by adding behind the note value the desired number of the scale. Quarter note = 60 means for example 60 beats of the metronome rod per minute. Every quarter note lasts a second."
He also adds that a tempo is never constant throughout a piece, and that a metronome is only applicable to give a rough indication of the main tempo.
So, Sam Dresden - again, one of the editors of your lexicon - clearly understands the metronome as single-beat in another publication, and the original nineteenth century work by Worp-van Millingen probably does this as well. There is no mention of a different system. I would therefore be inclined to think that your lexicon indeed has a printing error. The note symbol also looks hand drawn in, so it is very well probable that an editor in later stages of printing made the mistake. I would be happy to hear your take on this!
All the best from the Netherlands!"
Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020, and signed by Emile Zola. It begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
Je ne connais le "phénomène" W. Winters et sa "théorie" que depuis peu, mais troller ses partisans dans les commentaires est devenu mon passe-temps favori en ces temps de confinement.
Comme vous l'avez dit, au début, innocent, je me permettais quelques réserves assez modérées, surtout quant à l'intérêt artistique des enregistrements deux fois plus lents (en particulier ceux de M. Cobra que j'ai écouté par curiosité. Sa milice privée m'est aussitôt tombée dessus, depuis je n'essaie plus d'argumenter, je pense que c'est inutile, j'en viens à troller pour m'amuser de la situation. En tant que modeste musicien amateur et mélomane, tout ceci est un peu triste, mais autant profiter de la stupidité de ses suiveurs pour s'amuser un peu...
Mais ca ne va pas marcher très longtemps. Le shadow banning n'est jamais bien loin avec Wim Winters. C'est d'ailleurs la raison pour laquelle seuls ses partisans laissent des commentaires, ou presque...
J'utilise mon autre compte depuis, comme vous pouvez le constater, dans tous les cas, merci d'être la voix de nombreux musiciens et passionnés qui refusent le nivellement par le bas proposé par Mr. winters. (omission volontaire de majuscule)
Merci pour votre travail Mr Patrick. Je suis un piètre musicien mais j'aime la musique, et je trouve extrêmement dommage qu'un des derniers domaines plus ou moins préservé de ces théories au mieux farfelues, soit pollué par le néo-obscurantisme d'Internet.
Je me souviens avoir un jour fait l'achat d'un magazine conspirationniste pour m'amuser de la fantaisie de certaines théories, avec beaucoup de naïveté, je pensais y trouver du contenu autour des ovnis, pyramides, etc...
J'ai vite déchanté en lisant un article consternant sur les bombardements atomiques de Hiroshima et Nagasaki, à la limite du négationnisme, et évidemment stupide à un niveau que je croyais benoitement révolu d'un point de vue scientifique.
En éternel optimiste, le côté sombre et extrêmement dangereux, en particulier pour la jeunesse, de ces publications, m'avait échappé.
Désormais, l'intelligence et la connaissance sont bafouées et quasiment sans défense contre le pouvoir de séduction de ces théories et des personnes qui se présentent comme découvreurs de vérité, la bêtise humaine est en train de faire son retour, plus puissante que jamais, et avec des moyens à sa mesure. Le combat ne fait que commencer, nous savons ici qu'il n'est question que de musique, mais dans une certaine mesure, elle fait partie d'un tout, d'un héritage commun des plus merveilleux produits de l'intelligence humaine désormais menacé. Merci à vous pour le combat que vous menez à votre niveau et dans lequel vous êtes compétent. Nous espérons que ce petit message de soutien vous encouragera à poursuivre les débats.
Pierre-Louis
Merci beaucoup pour le temps que vous prenez pour répondre au sujet de cette "chose" qui devient jour après jour une des plus belles impostures actuelles sur le UA-cam des musiciens. Je me pose la question de l'utilité de créer une chaîne pour "répliquer" avec les armes qu'emploie le gourou... c'est-à-dire le sarcasme et la mauvaise foi, mais avec une dose d'humour en plus.
Sarcastique, je plaide coupable. Mais je n'avais pas l'impression d'être de mauvaise foi...
@@pianopat Pardon, je n'ai pas été compris... je ne parlais évidemment pas de vous, mais du gourou et de son authentic son... Je vous trouve au contraire très droit et franc dans le propos tenu! Bravo.
@@pianopat Et bravo pour le magnifique concert d'il y a peu...!
I agree, but I think you give too much credit and length to an obsession. It makes no sense to play all the compositions from 19th century and before half tempo anyway. It would be ridiculous even for amateurs. It might be interesting to study metronom marks in depth, free time and curiosity given, but it does not deserve such depth of discussion, since when they do not make sense musically, nobody is harmed not playing them. So what?
Who says they make no sense musically?
@@pianopat I wanted to say that tempo must make sense. For example, Schumann Kinderszenen 1: Clara Schumann changed the metronom indication of her husband Robert, others did as well. The tempo indicated by Robert Schumann does not sound nice, even though it is really playable. But when even Clara changed it, that also means that metronom marks were not meant to be double beat -- supporting your case.
@Loco Vil Google research I did! But I am not creating any thesis or theory. I just do not believe that there is a general rule, and certainly not such rule applying double beat to everything in Romantic time. The essence to me is that the player shall play it well in the tempo he/she mastered and feels to be right, take metronom marks as an indication, but if a piece is not playable in the marked tempo then ignore the marks. As a listener I am not interested in acrobatics, but the music and the deeper sense of the presentation.
@@RolandHuettmann You are right, Roland, except for the fact that Winters has libeled Beethoven, among others. If Beethoven were here to listen to Wim's claptrap he would sue him or at least challenge him to a duel. Of this there is no doubt.
I don’t like the double beat theory by the reason that it is not just a simple mistake because of naivety. It is a tool used like chemicals in the modern agriculture. You spray round up your double beat or other similar theories, and you try to kill virtuosity and unconventional or enthusiastic performances, like you kill bugs, butterflies or poppy flowers. You try to eliminate every competition. Then you let grow and propagate your own stupid boring and insipid performances like genetic designed soybeans, all the same clones, you put a label of some historical instruments on them, and you sale your cheap produced creations for the best price and most clicks you get. This ist the strategy behind double beat and other similar theories. This is a kind of charlatanerie, and I hate charlatanerie. I’ve put this comment (the same text twice) on 2 UA-cam channels, so I created a quadruple beat.
Excellent: double beat theory is the best way to disinfect bathroom and kitchen surfaces. Just scrub twice as slow, twice as long. Perfect way to wile away the hours during the pandemic. This could make a great ad for Mr. Clean.
Thank you for taking the time to consistently unmask this bizarre half-tempo cult! One must be worried of Wim‘s health and I sincerely hope he will calm down and be fine. For a time, the strange phenomenon was „interesting“ to observe, despite (or probably because of) the increasingly hysteric rhetoric. But who ever needs to listen to the destruction of, for example, the Waldstein Sonata in full (double) length? Surely, most of his misleaded followers will sooner or later (re)discover to appreciate the spirit, the power and the overwhelming beauty of Beethoven’s works and romantic piano virtuoso music played at more „lively“ and „energetic“ (do I need to say „natural“, or „passionate“?) tempi. So, we can finally leave this episode of shrill pseudo-musicological activism drifting in the vast cabinett of UA-cam curiosities...
Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020. It is signed by Emile Zola and begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
I think what you are saying about Wim Winters is absolutly ridiculous. I have my doubts about the Whole Beat theory but you are going way too far with your conclusions. Seeing the comments under this video shows me how toxic this whole anti double-beat movement is. There is no need to personally attack people in this way
Look at Wim's comments under anyone who expresses doubts on his channel. if you can find any he hasn't banned, you'll find replies of "go do more homework" or "go and try this" when he
1:doesn't address any of the issues raised.
2: will blatantly ignore proof he is wrong, EG pianothshavak's recordings of Czerny at tempo.
3: blast people with "I have a degree from Amsterdam" despite that having no relevancy to the current conversation.
No, it is Wim Winters who is going too far with his conclusions. He has libeled Beethoven, and it is up to us to defend him.
The Tempo is Flat.
Ha ha - I probably just wasted some time having dialog with this guy under his preposterous performance of Beethovens Op 26.
Ignore Winters. Don't waste your time on this man. I would like to meet the singers who can apply this nonsense in f.e.Mozart Operas. Collective hyperventilation is a given.
I have long since moved on. He on the other hand will die a believer, and good luck to the angel on the other side who will have to tell him he had been wrong all the time.
@@pianopat Haha, yes but there are good and fallen angels. Btw I enjoyed greatly your "debunking" videos. Very professional. To entertain myself , I wrote an essay on Wim's fantasies: " THE INSANE METRONOME & DOUBLE BEAT THEORY: A JOURNEY IN UTTER LUNACY." All the best to you.
You "should" tag Valentina Lisitsa to get more views, as he shamely did in a pathetic review he did on her rendition of the 3rd mvmt of the Moonlight.... What a prick he is becoming!
Let's not fight fire with fire. This man is honourable. Let's not stoop so low.
@@btat16 You're right! That's why I used quote marks. ;)
@@btat16 Nonsense. There is no honor among con-men. Please see my post at the top of this comment section posted July 26, 2020. It is signed by Emile Zola and begins, fittingly, with 'J'Accuse!!!'
Wim became very boring since he only trys to fundament his theory.
Calling double beat theory a conspiracy is an abuse of language. It merely remains a theory. You have simply decided to weaponise the term, in order to publicly shame and ridicule, for whatever expedient reason, some flop who has an alternate perception. Why are you parroting Morgan Bear's Quora's post on the matter. Ridiculing conspiracy theories and relegating them to aberations of human behaviour to the point of mental illness, is far more dangerous than fantasies with alternate metronome markings.
Double-beat is indeed a conspiracy, undertaken with Lorenz Gadient and others. There is no “perception” to Winter’s ravings, “alternate” or otherwise. He ignores facts and musical perception entirely, to the point of insanity.
Listen to these waltzes - how can anyone possibly say the speed is different? ua-cam.com/video/w4d6m1iRWZE/v-deo.html
Hello pianopat, it is me again. I assume you have seen Wim's video and I already have an answer, at least to the second source the 1883 encyclopaedia says. having written down what was on screen it says this "Graad van slinger, brengt dezen Beweging en rekent vervolgens bij het uitvoeren van het stuk op elke slingering" in reference to the metronome. Wim then says it means that a performer then calculates and uses it to assist the performer in every vibration. However y own translation is "Degree of brings this movement and then counts every swing when performing the piece. Infering that each swing from one side to the other is one pulse, or one tick is the start of one swing, the second is the start of the counter swing. At least that is my translation. feel freee to double check that for me, and hopefully I've saved you a little bit of work.
Edit: it seems to me that "Slingering" which Wim claims means (vibration Oscilation or beat) seems to be the least clear term there. A quick google translate tells me that vibration is (Trilling) and Oscilation is (oscilente) and i am pretty sure that those terms would have been used instead of swing if it was indeed a double beat source. as for the 1932 source? I cannot check as obviously my library is shut at the moment but it may be possible that the note value was just wrong, and instead of it being corrected under "metronome" it may have been under "note values" instead, just my thoughts.
The 1880's source is clearly single-beat, since it says the minimum is 50 SLINGERINGEN per minute, the maximum 160 SLINGERINGEN per minute. So Wims statement that this could be either way in rubbish. By the way: he doesn't read or translate this, but he's not the only person on this planet speaking Dutch...
The later source from around 1930 has clearly a misprint, otherwise the Netherlands would have gone from single to double-beat around 1900... instead of the other way.
The note values were put in later than the body of the text so an error can easily occur.
And a source from around 1930 that speaks ONLY about double-beat, without mentioning single-beat and without mentioning this as an 'historical' practice??? Please. Here is Mengelberg conducting the Concertgebouw Orchestra in 1931...
ua-cam.com/video/XJvZie_E2dE/v-deo.html
@@benjaminachron1493 Thanks for that. It's obviously a shame that none of us can write that on Wim's channel.
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 yes, well there are worse thinks in life. It shows that Wim (in spite of his claims) is not interested in convincing serious musicians or researchers, but he's just selling doubt to people who like to believe his hocus-pocus.
A deplorable waste of talent but it pays his bills.
@@benjaminachron1493 Especially since those people are all gullible and only vest interest into his ideas so they can claim they play the pieces in correct fashion when in actuality they cannot.
I was given this extensive PDF which goes into detail on why double beat doesn't work
drive.google.com/file/d/1OOQO6f031yENH1uUpbl9C87MfJ8KJLfP/view
I'm not sure how widespread it is. But it goes without any doubt that double beat is false. It goes into timings and sources on the metronome, letters from other composers and even letter detailing the length or Oratorios and masses, which Wim cannot use "metrical time" nonsense as that was for the church. It is the final nail in the coffin on his theory, now it only needs to be spread around.
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 Thank you, I know it very well :).
Oh, give me a break. Pulling out the accusation that Wim Winters is creating a "conspiracy theory" is ridiculous, he has done no such thing and if you were honest you wouldn't claim he had.
Look at the research he has supposedly done. He intentionally twists evidence, bans people who are critical of his ideas and ignores contradictory evidence. It is very much like flat earth. it is nonsense.
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 That is nonsense. He fully documents what he presents, anyone can look up what he cites because he cites it and tells you where to find it, often in editions that are available from 3rd party sites online. He also has presented objective 3rd party research such as the possibility of playing repeated notes on historical and modern pianos, violins, etc. He put up with a lot before he started banning people for abusing people, he didn't want to host a troll pie fight on his channel and that's his right as it is the right of anyone to monitor the comments on their site.
@@anthonymccarthy4164 The sources he Cite's are either misinterpreted or straight up wrong. One example is the recent lexicon video. The word "slingering" refers to one swing specifically. and according to another commenter who speaks dutch, the paragraph above specifically says "when you set the metronome to 60 there will be 60 quarter notes in a minute. not half beat, not vibration not oscillation or anything like that. and I myself have been banned. and I would happily stand in court with my comments to see how they could be troll like or rude.
@@anthonymccarthy4164 With all my respect , you are either naive or dishonest . I would give you the benefit of the doubt and opt for the first possibility. Twisting the evidence doesn't mean that you don't present sources, but that you either cherry pick citations or anecdotes or interpret texts in a way which is very questionable for someone who pretends to be a musicologist. This is what mr Winters has been doing for a few years now.Moreover, the majority of people who have been banned from mr Winters channel have been blocked not for personal attacks on the host but for bringing serious counter evidence on his channel. If you don't accept that fact, then I am afraid, we are moving from naivety to dishonesty.
Secondly, a youtube channel is meant to be public not private and from the moment one accepts to go public, one has to accept to face criticism or adverse opinion. ( not talking about ad hominem attacks here) UA-cam doesn't belong to mr Winters. If he is not happy to get criticisms or counter-proof on a social media then he can post his videos on his own website. He has faced the same issue on most musical channels related to historical performance on facebook and the reaction was even more radical and he kind of excluded himself. He has also tried to use twitter but this has been a complete disaster . He stopped posting a year and a half ago and managed to get the astronomic number of 254 followers.
Former double-beater here. Although I liked a small number of the wbmp recordings (still do), I never could find the “musical paradise” promised by Winters. My musical sense told me something wasn’t right. Ultimately, though, the historical timings are what changed my mind.
I love a good internet drama. I am enjoying this a lot. Classical musicians spatting like bedroom feminists of past years.
the problem is, that i usually see only people attacking the WBT, but not addressing and contradicting the presented evidence in a satisfying way.
so the WBT is far from debunked and falsified, as you claim.
and there truly are some interesting arguments there. so, honestly, i think Wim is doing a better job at this than his opponents.
you are wrong where you liken Wim's arguments to those of flat-earthers.. the latter being easily proven wrong by proper science.
for example, i did like the Maelzel metronome articles presented here, that support the single-beat use of the metronome. on the other hand, Wim has a couple that clearly talk about ticks = subdivisions.
so, where does that leave us? no idea. seems like a stalemate.
i'd like to see the peculiarities Wim is pointing out being properly addressed and contradicted, in an objective manner, with an honesty in trying to find the truth, and without unnecessary ridicule and condescension..
i'm truly not interested in anyone's biases caused by their vested interests, or personal preference. they are only obstacles in the process of discovery.
The reason Wim is treated with ridicule and condescension is because he acts in a way that requires it. we are unable to talk to him face to face about this as he side steps every issue Brough up before him his recent video "Roasted by Valentina Lisitsa" shows this where he just spends 10 minutes complaining about the fact she commented then spends the next 10 trying to make a sob story on her behalf. I can guarantee you, she won't like that. and he doesn't even address the point she rose. that being the timing of the 1808 concert. also Wim's "articles" are either misinterpreted, mistranslated, or misrepresented to make his argument stronger. each one has been debunked numerous times.
@@bradleyscarffpiano2921 whether we entertain the idea of WBT or not, i think there are many interesting questions that Wim raises and inconsistencies he's pointing out, that have not been satisfactorily answered and resolved, and that perhaps deserve an honest inquiry. so let's not dismiss everything just because it comes from a certain source.
but you say "each one has been debunked numerous times".. that's the thing. where? where are these concise debunkings? i've only found sarcasm, attacks, scoffing, ridicule, etc. so far, without compelling counter-argument.
where is the debunking of the matter of the ridiculous Czerny etudes tempi that he talks about? of the fact, that with many works practically no performer adheres to the MM numbers prescribed by the composers themselves, or their close associates / contemporaries?
where is the satisfactory debunking of the mentronome's direction for use.. because we obviously have clear texts stating contrary information.. etc. etc.
i agree about the Roasted video, btw..
His ideas have been debunked innumerable times, first on the hip group on facebook, where you have people with a much wider musicological knowledge than mine. His behaviour on the group was absolutely obnoxious and it reached a point where they completely gave up on him. He never answered a single question which embarrassed him, and there were many, instead firing another question. Those were answered multiple times, which he also ignored, and simply went on. He asked for Czerny Etudes to be played in single beat, this has been done, he simply asked for more etudes. Also you cannot see a quarter of what has been going on the comment section of his channel because he has shadow banned all the people who offered counter arguments, and as a consequence, most of the old discussions have now gone, the only thing left you can see are the people telling him how wonderful he is. Do you really think someone who stand on firm ground would do this?
@@3r7s I have a video on my channel going through one of Wim's videos about Czerny addressing the claims Wim makes and debunking them in turn. many of the ridiculous tempi Wim claims are possible, just exceptionally difficult. however they have been done. for instance Igor Levit recorded the hammerklavier sonata in nearly all MM's Beethoven wrote, as compared to a version Claudio arrau played that was digitally sped up. that's my favourite recent example.
@@3r7s All of the debunkers have been shadow-banned! If you want a concise debunking, just consider the fact that no performance of Fidelio or Don Giovanni ever lasted 5 or 6 hours. Wim's whole theory is a bust.
We have spent the last 3 years hearing people use the accusation of conspiracy theory . It is the most anti intellectual condesending means of arguing an opposing point of view. These people deserve nothing but our distain.
Bravo Wim, continue your passionate erudite envestigations. ...
But Winters’ behavior violates the boundaries of professional scholarly behavior and of musical decency. He is no scholar, nor is he anything more than a mediocre pianist. He lies, distorts, and maligns his betters. He himself suggests that the musical “establishment” is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress his ideas. Meanwhile, it is he who exercises the most rigid censorship on his channel. His behavior is unscholarly, unmusical, and irrational. “Pianopat” is absolutely correct.
@@danielwaitzman2118 adhominem attacks expose you for what you really are.
@@10.6.12. Clicking on your logo reveals that you joined UA-cam two months ago, that you have posted no content on this social medium other than the above, and that, in all probability, you know nothing about Music. You have learned to use the expression "ad hominem", which you cannot even spell, and which has become the favorite catchphrase of the Wim Winters cult. You don't know who "Pianopat" is, nor are you in any position to appreciate his qualifications as a musician and a scholar, and the wisdom of his critique of Wim Winters' rantings.. You don't know who I am either, and what my musical and scholarly qualifications are. You are merely an embarrassment and a disgrace; you have nothing to contribute here. You are, however, representative of the type of intellectual lummox who swallows Wim Winters' scam. You will have more to say, I'm sure--but you really shouldn't. Please--spare us!
Bitterness in Video form
@Liam Nicholson double beat is real!
@Liam Nicholson How old are you?
jonathanp. Day - night. Because light and darkness are so different, we had to have words for both of them to avoidmisunderstandings in conversation. Whole beat - single beat, just the same, we have to give them their own word to avoid misunderstandings in conversation. But whole/single beat are modern concepts created in our own time. My understanding is that there is no term for whole/single beat 200 years ago. So how, then, could they discuss the problem without words?
9 days ago
I Think I’ve got this figured out. You have to understand that in the 18th and 19th century an awful lot of people played the piano or other keyboard instruments they didn’t have record players computers or video games a keyboard instrument was common place in every middle-class home and probably a lot of poor ones as well you had tons of amateurs and that is howAnd those amateurs purchased things like Beethoven sonatas Bach fugue’s etc. on a scale we cannot imagine today I think the tempos were set the way they were double beat of course so as to not to scare the amateurs away
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of “double-beat” before the last 30 years or so. Historical “double-beat” is a fiction and a lie; you can argue about the attributes of a fiction, if you like; but that does not make it real. The advocates for “double-beat” are doing the equivalent of arguing about the color of a unicorn’s horn-but their arguments presuppose the existence of unicorns, which existence they fail to prove. The totalitarians of the last century perfected this form of argumentation; it is disappointing to see it rearing its ugly head in our own time in so elevated a field as musicology, and in so sacred a discipline as Music.
I love how discussions devolve into ad hominem attacks. Nevertheless, it is exciting that there is at least some discussion about his theory. It seems to have rattled a lot of people. Keep attacking the theory and not the man.
You cannot always separate the two-Wim IS “double-beat”.
Is it ad hominem to call a liar a liar? Wim's theory is a lie, it is false, it is pretentious faux professorial babble. None of that is ad hominem. It doesn't attack the man, it attacks his deceit.
@@jmb4969 not to mention he likes doing plenty of attacks towards professional musicians. look at his videos on Gardiner and others.
@@jmb4969 but your j'accuse soliloquy is ad hominem. so you are accused of ad hominem..
@@jonathanp935 I took the immortal words of Emile Zola and applied them to Wim Winters' hoax. Are you saying that Zola's accusation of criminality against those who knowingly and falsely accused and convicted Dreyfus of a crime he did not commit was ad hominem? Think again! Winters has knowingly and falsely tried and convicted Beethoven of the crime of lying about his own tempi. Winters deserves ad hominem, but he won't get it from me except in the form of accurate characterization, such as 'Winters is a moron', which he is, just as it is accurate to say that those who framed Dreyfus were criminals. Neither is ad hominem.
You are a great demagogue. But instead of showing us how wrong Wim is, despite him taking his ideas to absurd extremes, you could perhaps acknowledge that he sometimes may have a point (for example with the Czerny edition of Bach's inventions, or with Don Giovanni).
He also later admitted that he favours the long appoggiatura more
It depends what you mean by his having a point. If you mean that he is right to wonder at some of the metronome marks left by composers, then yes, of course. But is he right in the answer he gives to this problem, I don't think so. There are very questionable metronome marks in the 20th century as well. Shostakovich first piano Sonata is unplayable at the speed he asks. Should we think he was double beat? Of course not, he simply misjudged. That can happen to everyone, and many composers seem prone to it, as Reger freely admitted. I don't mind his questioning, I mind his answer.
I do not think that the word “demagogue” can be used to describe Pianopat. It is certainly a just description of Mr. Winters, who ignores the truth, in favor of power over his small but vocal clique. In contrast, Pianopat is scrupulously honest, and, by the way, has attained a mastery over the piano, as well as music in general, which puts WW’s Liberacian mannerisms to shame.
Which point do you see exactly in Don Giovanni? We have different playbills from 1788 (Prague and Leipzig) that give a duration of 2h30. These important documents give beginning and ending hour, so not even the famous 'metrical second' (which never existed in the first place) can save Wim Winters here. Wim was shown these documents repeatedly, and never even tried to explain.
Now you can fantasise about tempi all you want, but if your daydreams are contradicted by clear historical documents, you might have a problem...
Idem for Alkan: when Wolfgang Weller was shown Alkans own timings he just said they were 'stupid'. Ok, fair enough, but then please stop the 'historical research' charade.
@@benjaminachron1493 You are obviously not a singer. There is only a finite amount of consonants, consonant clusters and vowels one can sing in a given time. This suggests that 2h30 for Don Giovanni is unlikely to have been an accurate measurement.
@@petertyrrell3391 in that case two opera directors made independently an inaccurate measurement, and the later playbills give three hours, which would also be impossible in double-beat. All the evidence that doesn't fit your 'opinion' is simply discarded, even Maelzels own calculations. Yet you do admit not knowing basic signs of musical notation, or understanding how to calculate the length of a piece based upon MM....
*F*
Wow! A 20-minutes of mostly ad hominem attacks to some guy who interprets the use of the metronome differently from the standard use, plus indirect attacks to the followers of his channel who may prefer e.g. some Beethoven piano sonatas at a slower pace (the ultimate heresy, apparently). Whatever the metronome marks mean for early XIX century compositions, I have zero effs to give: play at the speed you like for the piece, then change career and play only for pleasure if your audience isn't large enough at your preferred speed. But a discussion based primarily on empirical evidence disproving Winters' claims (I do not doubt that there is plenty of it) would have been enlightening. Yet, what do I get as a viewer? 20+ minutes full of personal attacks to some dude you disagree with. I don't know what's between the two of you, but the world needs more empirical discussions and less of these quarrels.
Linda Sergerious: You are mistaken; and if you were an accomplished musician, your ears would tell you that you are mistaken. Music is not like sports; opinions derive from solid foundations; and if you lack professional training and experience, you do not have the right to express an opinion, any more than a layman does to debate with an astrophysicist.
@@danielwaitzman2118 Well, it depends. Does the astrophysicist build his arguments based on empirical evidence or on ad-hominems? I really, really hope you are seeing the irony built within your comment.
By the way, everybody can play the (slightly autoritarian) game you just played. Watch me do it:
"Daniel Waitzman, you are mistaken; and if you knew how to assess the value of empirical evidence, you would know you are mistaken.
If you lack professional training and experience in evaluating empirical evidence scientifically, you do not have the right to express an opinion in any matters where evidence is at play"
See what I just did there? Of course, you could come back to me showing your credentials as a scientist. But you automatically assumed I do not have credentials as a musician, didn't you?
One last thing: Sviatoslav Richter starts Schubert's D960 40% slower than Klára Würtz (depending on how you do the math, and the difference lowers later on in the movement).
Not to mention the tempo of innumerable Glenn Gould recordings vs those of other interpreters (Brahms concerto, Appassionatta to cite just two). Or Claudio Arrau's tempo on the theme and variations of Beethoven's 30th sonata vs. Wilhelm Kempff's. Either the "solid foundations" of music that you appeal to allow for a great deal of subjectivity and own taste when it comes to tempo (my initial argument, if you bothered to read it without prejudice), or you'll have to tell me which of these legendary pianists isn't really an accomplished musician. This, by the way, is called "falsation" in Philosophy of Science.
Pianopat, by definition, Conspiracy theory "a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon.'' My first question, since your claim doesn't meet the definition, are you a licensed medical practioner (psychiatrist-a medical doctor), or a licensed psychologist (Doctorate in Psychology and passed the prerequisite state EPPP (Examination for Proffesional Practice in Psychology) if in based in the USA)? If not, in a court of law, you testimony as described for this video, a savy attorney would have you declared an "incompetant witness." This is UA-cam, and although I support your holding a different opinion, I take umbrage with your inferred insult. I do not belong to any secret organization, powerful or not, not a "flat-earther" an inferrence I might resent as a personal affront. Or should I more accurately write, I would be insulted, however, such things only carry weight when an insult originates from people you respect.
Wim Winters does not hide any of his examples, is in the process of writing a book on the subject, with citations and examples. Where is your tome on the pyshcological mindset of piano players? (I will not presume it would find publication in a Peer Review edited journal.
My interest began in the 1970's with Alfred Music's 1970s publication of Kinderszenen by Schumann, editor brought up the incongruity of the revised 1st edition (Robert Schumann) with MM numbers, and the MM numbers of Clara Schuman 4 decades later, and the performances by a select list of famous pianists, and the tempi they played, for those Leicthe Stuecke, (Trauemerei is invariably played in Whole Beat, while other selections are all over the map tempi wise, suffice to say the works that Robert wrote to Clara "forget you are a virtuoso...". All can be played in Single Beat or faster, by virtuosos, but it was easy pieces for early pianists. This neither makes a case for Single Beat, however Piano traditions being what they are, why the half speed for Trauemerei? This was decades before the world wide web began, when theories of conspiracies of who was involved in President JFK's assination, and the death of a prominent lady investigational journalist who had said she wouldn't rest (and had the information) she undercovered who was involved with the Assassin. Or what happened at Roswell, New Mexico in the late 1940's, or the Israel military attack on the U.S.S Liberty and US coverup. These involved not a so secret influential organization, the US Govt.
Did you forget the quotes from AuthenticSound channel from promminent 19th pianists, composers, pedagogues, as to the music being played faster than previously. Most claims of single beat performances are only percentages (you might want to watch the AuthenticSound channel on Czerny's MM for J S Bach's inventions) or similar works intended for earlier levels of piano skill), or the apologist comments about Beethoven's, Schuberts, et al inability to use a metronome, read a metronome, or possessed damaged metronomes?
However, I am not here to debate your or defend the investigation. I only came across this old video by accident, and was curious as to your credentials to comment on psychology, and your inappropriate choice of words in your video's title and description.
Dear Renshen1957, I will be brief in my reply. The hallmarks of conspiracy theories are the elaboration of an alternative reality based on the distortion and the cherry-picking of the available evidence, together with a strong feeling of being persecuted by the mainstream, who is generally regarded as unwilling to face with the claims of the conspiracy theorists because it would be too damaging for the conservative establishment. Wim Winters and his double beat theory bears all the marks of this. The theory has been debunked numerous times, on youtube, on facebook before youtube, in the historical research group of which he used to belong. He has been factually proven wrong countless times, and never bother to listen, but just go blundering on. So at this stage, when I made this video, I wasn't inclined to be polite about, because he is actively deceiving people, and I think it is wrong. Having said which I have long moved on from this topic which no longer interests me, though it has given me an interest for historic metronome marks, so in that sense it wasn't a waste of my time.
I’m not certain you understand why musicians qualify Wim Winters’ theory as conspirationniste . It is not because Wim Winters is attempting a plot or anything like that but because he believes the academic music system, the conservatories and other institutions have misinterpreted( at best) or falsified ( many examples given) facts to establish single beat. You have to understand that a conspiracy theory foundation is established to make potential adepts believe that they are victims of a plot . The most recent example is probably the anti vax conspiracy theory which promotes the idea that government bodies and chemical firms have elaborated a strategy to make money by scaring people .
I give you a clear example where Wim Winters is acting as a conspiracy theory promoter: when he says that early 1900 piano rolls have been accelerated, he is clearly accusing the academics to falsify information to promote their system . This is complete non sense but that’s the reality of Wim Winters ‘ world .
@beethoven_singlebeatplease Actually, I believe Wim Winters said that Piano Rolls (Welt-Mignon) were punched and sometimes edited afterwards, which is correct for the Welt (I have seen vintage pictures illustrating this process), and that the speeds weren't specific to each roll, but almost always the same speed given for the roll on some systems, regardless to the original recording speed. "Unlike Duo-Art, Welte did not perforate music rolls in real time, but instead made ink or carbon traces on an original roll as the notes were played, and these were subsequently punched out by hand. It is likely that the paper for these originals was white, and that it was pre-printed with 100 continuous lines, in the positions where each pitch was located. A number of similar master rolls recorded for the Welte Philharmonic Organ have survived, and one can still see the pencil and recorded ink traces, which provided a roll editor with a clear indication of where to punch out each note." The master roll was the checked and corrected as necessary. The Vorsettzers (robot players) had adjustable speed controls. Unlike a wax cylinder which you can determine the speed by knowing the pitch for a in the country it was recorded in, and then adjust a tape recording to match that pitch a=???, you do not have that option with Reproducing Pianos. And there was a variety of competitors. You might find this fascinating www.pianola.org/reproducing/reproducing_welte.cfm as well as the rest of the systems listed. Also the following quote, "Welte-Mignon Speed Control Lever, from a 1922 Steinway Piano So, if you do suspect the speed of a performance, how do you tell if it is an eccentric old-fashioned interpretation playing at the correct speed, or a more conventional approach at the wrong one? Regrettably, there are no easy answers, but sometimes there are alternative sources to which one can refer to check on particular examples, and also some faults which are peculiar to particular player or reproducing makes. In this article, I will look into a few of the more obvious difficulties in judging roll speeds." www.pianola.org/journal/journal_vol21-22.cfm
but, Man, what you doing is narcissistic competition. You just devaluated Win for his narcissism. I have a bad news, you also narrcissistic.You just jealous that Win is more grandiose than you.
Explain? I'm genuinley curious how you think Pianopat is more narcissistic than Wim.
If you don't believe pianopat, try out recordings by Richter, Gilels, Parahia, Serkin, and so on. They agree with pianopat with respect to the double beat hoax.
Wim Winters is the epitome of narcissism.
Mondoux! Un épouvantail après l'autre... Vous exagérez un peu, beaucoup, à la folie. Une théorie du complot? Ahahaha! Eh oui, les métronomistes gardent leurs secrets dans d'habiles confréries ;-) Bien sûr que les compositeurs modernes, les logiciels, les styles modernes --- jazz , rock, musique pop --- utilisent le métronome comme un tac (pas deux) mais ils n'ont jamais connu le pendule. Les historiens des sciences et les philosophes connaissent l'histoire du pendule avant que des chronomètres précis soient inventés. L'usage moderne du métronome, divorcée de la disparition du pendule est incontestable. Wim Winters s'intéresse à la période de transition entre pendule et métronome. C'est tout. Live and let live. Votre vitriol montre plusieurs choses incertaines :
(1) vous considérez la musique comme sacrée. Vous sonnez comme ces vieux inquisiteurs face à l'hérésie. "Au bûcher... Ce Wim et toutes ces vidéos." ??? SVP, relisez Candide. Que la tolérance voltairienne soit avec vous. Votre biblisme, ça aussi c'est toute une conspiration.
(2) L'esthétique régnante. Faut aller voir Grampp _Pricing the Priceless: Art, Artists and Economics_ (Basic Books) ou les ouvrages de Norman Lebrecht _When the Music Stops_ ou _The Maestro Myth_... afin de constater que l'esthétique n'est pas toujours ce qui gouverne la musique des salles de concert. Il y a du capitalisme éhonté dans tout ça.
(3) Il y a l'autre côté de la médaille : Wim joue trop lentement selon vous? Pourtant vous ne dites rien de ceux qui jouent trop vite :-)
(4) Et l'obstacle épistémologique de votre propre formation, cet émotionalisme... On sent vos souvenirs d'enfance face à la musique. Faut relire Bachelard _La formation de l'esprit scientifique_ pour constater qu'il y a chez vous bien des préjugés.
(5) On ne sait pas. On a des témoignages littéraires. Des thèse contre des thèse...
Aujourd'hui, il y a des pièces de bebop [noire = 300], et Conlon Nancarrow avec des pianos mécaniques qui éructent à toute vitesse, l'ordi qui permet d'accélérer des rythmes au delà de nos seuils auditifs, la synthèse FM... Tant de nouveautés qui montrent que la grande musique, si belle soit-elle est toujours une hypothèse, un essai, un "revival", de la muséologie. Laissez ce pauvre Wim tranquille. Il a droit à ses opinions qui choquent surtout ceux qui n'ont jamais imaginé ce genre de chose (v. Northrop Frye, _The Educated Imagination_). UA-cam, c'est un peu la réinvention de l'enregistrement à la porté de tous. Pierre Schaeffer en serait-il heureux? Faut relire son _Traité des objets musicaux_ et ses autres ouvrages. Et être serein, autant que Boulez ou John Cage. Ne soyez pas le chien qui aboie. Soyez la caravane qui passe... Et bonne chance.
🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂
M. Jeaurond, if you were a musician, you would know that Wim Winters’ pathological ideas make as much sense as wearing one’s shoes back to front.
Silly video.
Without any explanation why this is a silly video, your two words is even more silly. Hi Gerry, you can do better, give us at least an argument!
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 The video is silly because the commenter relies on gratuitous assertions. And a gratuitous assertion only requires a gratuitous reply. So, calling it a "silly video" is really all that is required. But since you asked for more: There is no "conspiracy theory" concerning whole beat theory. There is no claim that a group of ne'er do well villains "conspired" to suppress whole beat. The commenter on the video is very thin in his arguments and doesn't seem to realize that his whole commentary can be turned against him. His slavish adherence to the group identity of the modern zeitgeist and his hostility to anyone who doesn't adhere to the current standards. Even when they are absurd logically. It's essentially and ignorant screed. He's also calling things a "conspiracy theory" when what he actually describes actually a form of "gnosticism." (And frankly the term "conspiracy theory" is inaccurate since what it does describe in its derogatory form is actually better labeled a "conspiracy hypothesis." ) And then there's the question of whether he's applying it correctly or simply creating a Straw Man fallacy to argue against. From the video it can clearly be established that he engages in the latter. Then we can discuss what is "normal" in music as the commenter blithely and vaguely describes it. He also seems to conflate "virtuosity" with "speed". So, it's apparant he doesn't even understand the terms he uses himself. Is that good enough for you or should I keep going?
Gerry30. Thank you, I wish that everybody could follow this example. I am satisfied with your answer. Much better than only two words - «too fast» «too slow» etc.