Beethoven, to B. Schott's Sons, December, 1826: "...The metronome marks will follow soon: do not fail to wait for them. In our century things of this kind are certainly needed. Also I learn from letters written by friends in Berlin that the first performance of the symphony (No. 9) received enthusiastic applause, which I ascribe mainly to the use of metronome. It is almost impossible now to preserve the tempi ordinari; instead, the performers must now obey the ideas of unfettered genius."
Long-but-curious video, but best I can tell so far, you’re suggesting that Beethoven intended everything to be played at about half the speed we currently read from the metronome? If so, that seems very unlikely given contemporary accounts of how long various works took to perform, which are roughly appropriate for the metronome markings as we currently interpret them. For example, there’s a quote of a contemporary music critic, from _Lexicon of Musical Invective_ (despite its scholarly title, is a funny book!): _There is much to admire in Beethoven’s ‘Eroica’ symphony, but it is difficult to maintain this level of admiration over the course of three long quarters of an hour. If this work is not somehow abridged, it will soon fall into disuse_ . Obviously, that sentiment is waaaay wrong (more or less the concept behind the _Lexicon_), but the timing described is roughly correct.
Concerning concert durations, the answer is also in this video - only late 19th. century full pieces were played and before that, not only movements were left out but musicians and conductors did cut severely in pieces without mentioning anything, it was simply the overall practice. See also G. Smart (our book will deal with this issue in-depth). And of course the audience didn't know these pieces like we do. Thing about durations is that you very rarely know exactly what is played - and there are not few of those that point clearly into whole beat territory (7th 5 quarters - hammerklavier about an hour, Berlioz adagio of the 9th, etc. etc.) - an indepth analysis here on the channel I did in regards of Beethoven's 1808 concert. You might want to see that video, it contains lots of sources etc. Let me know your thoughts when you arrive over there !
Fascinating! Like we say in ZA: 'Yo yo yo, ê ê ê, eish'. Meaning 'something relating to trouble' :D. You're upsetting the apple cart a bit; however, you make many valid points. Honesty, I(we all) grew up with the neo-tempo and I appreciate the skill to perform it; However for me as a majority Chopin listener, some sections sound a bit rushed, even in the best of performers' hands. Thank you for your research! Keep it up! I'd love to listen to some of Chopin's Nocturnes in the alternative tempo. Is there somewhere I can listen to/find some? PS: @47:30+ I almost thought you were going to ask me to accept Beethoven into my heart :)
Classical music performance is just a skills contest. It's not about the music( if it were about the music...you would digitally adjust the tempo 2x, 3x, 5x....and enjoy it...) listeners want to be astonished by how fast the performer ( human ) plays. Computers can easily play a score in single beat. Mission accomplished......Oh wait? You want your heroes to play this fast? The computer just gave you the MUSIC at the tempo you desire. Enjoy it.
@@Pablo-gl9djI listen to this kind music to feel closer to God, as was the intention of the greatest composers of this tradition. You listen to this kind of music to make a god out of the performers you idolize, you pathetic idolater who worships the flesh.
Shame you didn’t get into specifics about durations. I agree that durations of entire concerts are rarely useful for tempo reconstruction given the many questions marks often surrounding length of intermissions, repeats, cuts etc. We both know however that there are much better data out there with respect to durations. The likes of Berlioz, Cherubini and Lefébure-Wély gave timings for multiple of their own metronomised works, many no longer than a few minutes, all of which suggest they used single-beat. Needless to say, when a timing is given to a single short piece, questions about cuts etc don’t arise.
The question of whether repeats are taken or not also come are not indicated in timed concerts and whether a movement excerpt was played. Let’s use a modern example of performance in concert, J S Bach’s Goldberg variations. Glenn Gould. 39 minutes or 51 minute? Complete at 1:16, 1:22, or 1:32 (pianists tend to rush the work harpsichordist tend to linger more except a few exceptions).
@@Renshen1957 Yes, that's a good example of why timings of larger works or entire concerts are not very reliable. On the other hand, if you look at Cherubini's timings of his vocal works, it is a different situation. His "Ave Maria" takes 5 minutes to perform according to the timing left in the manuscript (available on IMSLP) while the metronomically calculated timing (in single-beat) is 4.5 minutes. Similarly, "O salutaris hostia no. 2 in G major" takes 4 minutes according to the manuscript, while the metronomically calculated timing is also 4 minutes. Note that these pieces do not have any repeat signs in them. As a whole, Cherubini's timings quite reliably suggests he used single-beat. The same can be said about timings left by Berlioz, Lefébure-Wély and, recently discovered, Neukomm.
@@dorette-hi4j Yes, I would say so. An even better indication though is the good evidence that Maelzel himself intended his device for single-beat use, and he is the one who personally introduced Beethoven to the metronome and showed him how to use it. Maelzel personally presented the metronome for several important composers, maybe also Cherubini.
Hi Win. I'm not a musician nor a bird expert. I do, however, have an idea that may make sense. Several musicians used birdsong in their compositions. In the pastoral symphony, Beethoven used the songs of cuckoos and the yoke of nightingales. I don't think birds sing at different tempos. Did someone compared the tempo of the real cuckoos' songs to that used by Beethoven. In other words, does cuckoos sing in the double beat tempo used by Beethoven?
I'm also not a bird expert but from what I've read the cuckoo is spot on - in single beat. The other birds are close as well. I doubt that Beethoven would write bird imitations in half speed.
I am not an ornithologist, however, “Song Variation Each bird species exhibits a more or less characteristic song, but the song varies by age, sex, geographic location, and time of year. Populations of the same species of birds having different songs are song races; each variation in a song is a dialect. Geographic variation in song is very common. But within different populations of the same species, the song is more stereotyped (less variable) when there are other species present with similar songs. But when no other species with similar songs are present, there is more variation in the song within a population of one species. More variation is not only allowed, but it helps the recognition of single individuals.” Many years ago, I came across a library book on the Common Cuckoo which in its pages dispelled the myth that the bird sang only the interval of a minor third one musically associates the song of the celebrated in song. Twitchers in the UK comment on variance of an augmented 4th. Cecil Forsyth referred to the Cuckoo as a “military bird” as its orchestral call (toy instrument) was perennially pitched in Bb. Louie-Claude Daquin Le Coucou which opens his Troisieme Suite is marked Vif and well known to student pianists and played quite quickly. Of course I am referring to Cuculus canorus, the European bird known to inhabitants of the countryside after their arrival from wintering in central Africa. Whether musicians or composers are bird experts is another matter. However, 12/8 dotted quarter = 50Andante (walking as andante is from andare to walk) molto moto in the 1826 1st publication (much motion or very quickly) has its interpretation as between 11:29 to 14:08 from a brief survey of 2nd movement on IMSLP for Scene am Bach. Beethoven was about 5 foot 4 inches tall 1.62 meters, so how long were the legs of this musical giant walking in the woods as Cuckoos do not nest near human habitations?
@@dorette-hi4j There is varition in tempo among cuckoos, (if not great) however, where did you get the idea that there's 4 beats to a bar? Scene am Bach (2nd movement) is in 12/8 the entire time. The one might perceive this as 4/4 time with triplet 1/8 note figures, however that would change the beat accents in most cases. The metronome has indication in the first publication has dotted quarter = 50. The subdivisions would My reference to Beethoven's stature was an oblique jest in that Andante (walking, even a brisk walk) would be perceived by conductors differently if they had longer legs as my Norwegian ancestors had likewise I inherited than say Beethoven as to a quick walk by a Brook or Stream if this was what was being alluded to, or was the flow of the watercourse's current what was being illustrated in Springtime? That form of beating was addressed for dotted notes in the video.
@@dorette-hi4j Interesting and informative performance practice information. However as to Hummel and fast 6/4, isn’t there two beats to the measure as 6/4 is just compound 3/2? And is Hummel’s the only solution, being as Hummel has a reputation of going against tradition, he’s the individual who started the tend to begin trills on the principle note, instead of the auxiliary as was from time immemorial, in his 1828 piano school. Almost all the instructional editions available or collections such as Hans von Buelow’s Handel 12 Easy Pieces or Busoni’s edition of the Well Tempered Clavier have the trills alla Hummel beginning on the principle note within 66 years and remained as such through the first 1/2 of the 20th century.
@@dorette-hi4j Any meter with duple, triple, or quadruple, (2/3/4) is considered to be in simple time, a number larger than quadruple is considered compound time. As 6>4 QED 6/4 is compound time whereas 3/2, 3/4, 3/8, 3/16 are also 3/1 or 3/3 are simple time in triple meter. The trill in 1828 comment, Stein settled in Ausburg in what is now Southern Germany 1750 and began building fortepianos (possibly a student of G. Silbermann as almost every other GS student went off to foreign lands to begin building pianos, in fact in France in the 18th century, Silbermann was considered the inventor of the Fortepiano) and other experimental instruments, besides being an organist) and had developed the Viennese action circa early 1770's. Mozart paid Stein a visit in 1777, the rest is history, and somewhat related to Mozart by way of being a studen. Hummel was born in 1778. The fortepiano being a relatively new instrument when compared to the organ, clavidchord or harpsichord, but in terms of G. Silbermann's development with sales in German speaking lands 1740's (88 years) or Stein's abandondment of the Silbermann clone of Cristofori's mechanism (Silbermann's who Stein most likely apprenticed prior to his move to Ausberg) as 1770 (58 years). Stein made combination Harpsichord Fortepiano instruments (Piano at one end harpsichord at the other in a large rectangular form, at least one instrument survives with three manuals at the harpsichord end to play also the piano, the instrument from 1777 has a 16' stop, two 8' stops and a 4') and when Hummell was about two or three years old demonstrated these in Vienna, which drew a great deal of attention and some sales. These are the only Stein harpsichords to according Raymond Russel to have survivied, the piano had hand stops for the treble and base dampers, similar to the forte pianos influenced by Silbermann's students that went to the France and/or England). Walter would incorporate the knee levels from Viennese harpsichords used to add the harp stops to both 8' strings of the Viennese harpsichords made in the 1770's and 1780's, to make the damper stop no longer dependent to being added or removed by hand, which Mozart would purchase. As at the time of trill change, and really zero reason for it, Muzio Clementi was still alive for another 4 years, and had been writing trills on the auxillary in his piano method, as did J. B. Cramer's Instructions for the Pianoforte (c.1810): "The Shake (as the trill was still) called in the English language begins with the note above and ends on the principal note..." and A. B. Fürstenau's explanation of trills in his Flöten-Schule, Op.42, of 1826 is essentially the same as Dressler's. So is the description of trills by E. Walckiers in his Méthode de Flûte, Op. 30, of 1829. However, Hummel opened a can of worms, as for instruments this wasn't an issue such as the Flute, Thomas Lindsay, in his The Elements of Flute-Playing, Part II (1830) says "Theorists are not agreed whether the Shake (trill) should begin with the main or upper note; it is, consequently, as often performed one way as the other..." it doesn't matter for a flute. J. N. Hummel in 1828, the year after Beethoven's death in his Ausführliche Theoretisch Practische Anweisung zum Pianofortespiel states that he wishes to break with previous practice and henceforth start all trills with the main-note, in part simply because that's often easier on the piano. Note, often (easier) not always, which caught on. Subsequently, L. Spohr in his Violinschule of 1832 says "Every shake generally begins ... with the principle note ...". A footnote states "This rule J. N. Hummel first advanced in his Piano-forte School...". A. B. Fürstenau, in his Die Kunst des Flötenspiels, Op.138, of 1844 agrees with the main-note-start rule and acknowledges the treatises of Hummel and Spohr (who cites Hummel) and Kalkbrenner, 1831 by name. Fürstenau's 1844 method subsequently omits the list of alternative starts (auxillary note) that his 1826 Flöten-schule gave. Hummel's reasoning..."With regard to the shake, we have hitherto followed the practice of the ancient masters, and begun it always with the subsidiary note above, a custom to all appearance founded upon the earliest roles laid down for the voice in singing, and which were subsequently adopted for instruments. But as each instrument has its peculiarities as to touch and position of the hand, so Ukewise has the pianoforte, and no reason exists that the same rules which were given for the management of the voice, must also serve for the pianoforte, without admitting of alteration and improvement. Two principal reasons determinfi me to lay down the rule, that, in general, every shake should begin with the note itself, over which it stands, and not with the subsidiary note above, unless the contrary be expressly indicated. "A.-Because the note shaken, after which a close (or full cadence) generally follows, ought to be more strongly impressed upon the ear than the subsidiary note, and the stress should naturally fall upon the accented of the two sounds namely, on the note to be shaken. " B.-Because, on the pianoforte, the succession of notes (keys black and white) differs in some respects from that usual on other instruments ; and on account of the position of the hands, and the consequent arrangement of the fingers, it generally is more convenient for the player to begin with the principal note itself than with the subsidiary note; for to commence the shake from above he will often be obliged to lift up the hand or to substitute another finger on the same key." Although the acknowledged by the general public as the greatest virtuoso in the German speaking lands we now call Germany, Hummel's argument is for technical laziness and expediency (whereas 18th century books on playing the harpsichord mentioned these the practices as part of keyboard technique) which then becomes misapplied backwards to Beethoven, Mozart, et al even to the Renaissance and beyond. It took early performance practice scholars to acquaint, Brahms and Chrysander in their edition of Couperin for example stated otherwise, while Oestrele followed Hummel, A. Longo put a tied grace note to principle note for the majority of trills except trills preceded by the note a step above (the auxillary) after Hummel's practice. So what does this have to do with historical tempo? Well look what happened with Hummel, a previous, and in this case centuries old practice disappears beginning in the mid-19th century. Sceene am Bach Andante molto moto becomes Andante molto mosso by 1938 (not Beethoven's tempo). Many of Beethoven's work which had Metronome marks disappear from scores or the marks are buried somewhere in one or in one of several appendix. The 1950's Ricordi Urtext edition omitted the dot on the supposed to be dotted 1/4 note metronome indication, and being Beethoven, this is sacred ground.
Oh my God ! It sounds accurate. Therefore I ask : Should E. Murphy remaster its “Fifth of Beethoven” ? Should the European Union slower its building up ?
I understand your remark but most often people say this because they think it, not tried. Professional singers can hold notes for 30 seconds and longer.
I've been following Wims videos for a time. I must confess I enjoy his interpretations but I do not agree with his statements, mostly because Liszt, Chopin, etc. were supposed to be virtuosos, and at the speeds Wim proposes, there is not virtuosity at all. That said, anyone who had a metronome in his hands knows about the sliding stick on the side which makes a bell sound every 2, 3 or 4 ticks. In a rapid google search, I found this part was already standard in 1830. So, for instance, if you want to play a waltz, you set it in 3, so you get a bell every 3 tiks. This bell, already in use in Chopin 20s, ends all the discussion.
This is just a cope for people with a bad piano technique. Why don't violin players play this slow? I hate tempos that are too fast and I prefer A 432 Hz. That said, this is too damned slow to be music. Wim kills music. Use your heads people, mankind was capable of measuring time in seconds and had the brains to to indicate metronome markings. You do have some freedom in tempo e.g. playing the 3rd movement of "moonlight" sonata op 27 no at 176 MM is a little too hard for me and I can control things just fine at around 160 MM the music doesn't suffer. Still plenty fast. At those higher speeds the secret is NOT to articulate every note like it's Mozart. Anyone can attain sufficient speed and it's just a matter of practice something people don't seem to want to do these days.
Thank you. An interesting insight that I would study more through your other videos. A slightly off topic question but related to the question of singers finding it difficult sing at a slower tempo in the 9th. Would not the fact that singers now have to sing in a slightly higher range cause at least a problem, since earlier performances were, I believe, played/sung at a slightly lower pitch - A was not the 440 cycles that it is now, but a lower figure. (I realise that this goes against the "fact" that a tuning fork that belonged to Ludwig van Beethoven around 1800, now in the British Library, is pitched at A = 455.4 Hz, well over a half-tone higher - a date much earlier than the 9th - which I believe would really put a strain on many singer´s voices). A supplementary question if I may. What pitch is the piano that you are using for the recordings please?
WBMP arguments: Written facts (Maelzel metronome instructions), quotes of the early XIX century, unplayable metronome indications... Single Beat arguments: Too fast, broken metronomes (everywhere...). Anyway, WBMP is more scientific and objetive. The only "argument" single beat defenders use is the time that works last. I do not know the answer to that question, but also they do not have an answer regarding WBMP arguments.
Wim presented some options about the durations in his videos. Cuts being taken, only some movements being played, mixing movements from different pieces, and, perhaps most commonly, the performers played too fast back then, also (Wim showed some quotes of people complaining how the performances were too fast).
There are plenty of written facts suggesting single-beat was the main metronome system in the 19th century; allow me to give you an example: The 1816 Maelzel metronome directions in English you refer to have not been confirmed as written by Maelzel, although he most likely approved of the content. The article I am about to quote is however definitely authored by Maelzel himself: "I take the number 80 as the middle point, because in this number the three basic movements unite, depending on whether one wants to designate an eighth note, a quarter note or a half note with the same [number]. Eighty eighth notes in a minute is slow, eighty quarter notes is moderate, and eighty half notes is fast." He then goes on to say that choosing number 80 on the metronome for the half note, you will get 40 bars in a minute in a 4/4 movement. In other words, a textbook definintion of single-beat.
@@johnericsson5286 thank you for your answer. Do you know what is the name of the article? But I have the question about the impossibility of playing most metronome markings of early XIX century. I am just questioning that, because I want to know both single/double arguments. Thank you! God bless you
@@raulflyeryt9856 My pleasure! Since links are not allowed in comments I can't share the article with you directly but if you go to the video "Sorry, Wim, but Maelzel was talking about single beat, after all" you can find it in the description. The section I quoted is entitled "Tabelle 1." All the best!
Willard A. Palmer in his instructional edition of Schumann’s Kinderszenen published in 1972 by Alfred Editions raised the red flag of MM indications 51 years ago.
Beethoven owned two count them two metronomes and he was a friend (off and on) with Maezel who also modified a piano to direct more sound to his ears. Maezel made ear horns.
Thank you for your contributions to tempo issues in music. Your FAQ was to the point. Now I'm looking forward to your book.👍 At the same time I remember the book "A Geography of Time" by Robert Levine. There, Levine shows that our culture and our environment determine the pace of our lives. The bigger a city is, the faster you walk and talk and the faster you get a stamp at a post office. Couldn't it be that under these circumstances you have to play faster to reach the ears and hearts of the listeners? Note: I don't doubt WBMP. I think you are right. However there are not only the composers, their compositions and their listeners long time ago. There is also us and our speed of life and life style. If the postman sits on a high-wheel bike, the letter may not reach the Ferrari driver.
Quantz used the Heartbeat although his was based on a heartbeat after lunch 80 bpm, (food in the stomach pressed against the heart can affect the rate) whereas Michael Praetorius circa 1610 and Kirnberger (J S Bach’s student) both used 60 beats per second (based on heart rate) for Common time signature for Allegro for Tempo Ordinario.
@@Renshen1957 Exactly, based on the maximum speed of double tonguing on the instrument. I think Wim Winters accepts this value and cites it in his video about maximum speeds. So if Quantz’s Allegro assai (with sixteenth notes) was quarter = 160, why would early metronomized works from the 19th century be so much slower? Did tempos slow down in this period? Because the sources I’ve read suggest the opposite.
@@zulice4341 The other speed limitation of the Flute of Quantz's time was fingering, something I can relate to (I played the alto recorder, quick a trick in distant keys even with alternate fingering), which the progression of additional keys helped somewhat, changes in construction as well. I can't give you much more than this as my eldest daughter played a Boehm flute (all that we could afford),. As to speed and other aspects of Quantz, just short of two decades after his death, circa 1792, his contributions were already under criticism (basically misunderstood, as Quantz was a master of the earlier Baroque Flutes of his youth, he had switched from the Oboe early in his career) and were being defended. There was a lecture on this around the term of the tercenary celebration of his birth...check out The Flutes of Quantz: Their Construction and Performing Practice Mary Oleskiewicz The Galpin Society Journal Vol. 53 (Apr., 2000), pp. 201-220. In essence with a discussion of Quantz, King Frederick the Second of Prussia court shouldn't be taken as generic yardstick for the various Royal Courts, large financial center Cities, Church musicians (read comments about the lack of capable students at St. Thomas or Church musicians, which he supplement from the U. of Leipzig (an institution that turned out a great deal of lawyers as well as musicians) or how C P E Bach was treated as an accompanyist rather than a celebrated court composer (he held no such title) and left to take over his Godfather's position in Hamburg (his godparent being Georg Philip Telemann, were the P in C P E comes from). Which then begs the question, even if the late classic era and the Romantic era have advancements in instruments and can play faster, does this change the metronome speeds that do not make sense throughout many Viennese Composers, French Composers, etc. I can play the works of Mozart much faster on a Harpsichord (and with less effort) than on a modern Steinway. Liszt (later in life) references in his discussion with Widor how the pianofortes had become faster than those he knew earlier and with the improvements could be played faster than originally intended, and of course there were the concert artists that played even faster (like charlatans) with the inference that it was the speed and not the artistry that the audience was enamoured. What do the music schools preach? Music was faster (Beethoven was god of great capability and better than modern musicians) and performance became slower (less virtuosic) with time as apologist comments why metronome speeds can't work in single beat. The whole concept of the metronome was for the exact time reference (Beethoven, as a way to preserve a composer's tempi for posterity) of the beginning tempo, and yet through the 19th century, and Wim has provided 19th century commentary in which critics decry the increase speed of performances.
@@zulice4341 In Tempo Ordinario of which J S Bach used (no tempo indication other than time signature), Common Time C was quarter=60. Although Cut C (2/2) was sometimes called Alla breve, in J S Bach the quarter remained quarter=60 bpm (Altnickol who copied the early and later versions of WTC pt 2 used C and Cut C interchangibly) and only had the the double time (twice as fast) implication when the words Alla Breve were present. Handel in the Messiah actually uses the the term Tempo Ordinario written out for one momvent in Common time to distinguish it from the Italian use of Allegro. This was understood that national styles had different interpretation of written tempi In the Neue Sing-Schule from 1804, Johann Friedrich Schubert wrote, "The correct tempo or degree of speed cannot be determined by any heading (Italian tempo indication) and can only be gathered from the inner characteristics of a composition itself. He continues, "An Allegro in a church style or oratorio must have a slower tempo than an Allegro in a theater or chamber style. To which he adds, "Differences in compositional style or manner and national taste also necessitate a faster or slower tempo..." It is challenging for today’s performers and listeners to comprehend how tempos were chosen during the eighteenth century and into the 19th century. Nationalist styles became understood already becoming understood (witness the prevalence of Italian composers in Opera in the UK's London, Vienna, Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, etc. “Haydn liked his finales faster than Mozart,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 13, no. 44 (Leipzig: J. Rieter-Biedermann, 1811), 737. Mozart and Haydn were no longer living to argue the point, but this is a percpetion in a musical center in Saxony (Germany as a State wouldn't exist for another 60 years). Perciptions from a local viewpoint of Viennese allegros were quicker than northern-German ones. (The same could have been said about Italian Allegros vs lands in which German was the common tongue, both Handel and Johann "John" Christian Bach went to Italy soaked up the local color for a while and came to the UK (German Kings after all) to produce Italian Opera. Or comments which extolled the weight and majesty of German voices versus the frivolity and lightness of Italian ones with some no doubt Teutonic bias thrown in with good measure. Quantz divided items into categories, however here is his tempi "Tempos in order of slow to fast, according to Quantz include: slow (Grave, Largo, Larghetto, Adagio, Lento); moderate (Andantino, Tempo di Minuetto, Andante, Moderato, Allegretto); and fast (Allegro Moderato, Allegro, Vivace, Alla breve, Presto, Vif, Prestissimo) the indication Alla breve would apply but how would one interpret Presto, Vif, Prestissimo? Would these fit the description but without a Time signature, and note values, it's somewhat hard to place the 160 beats in context.
Beethoven, to B. Schott's Sons, December, 1826: "...The metronome marks will follow soon: do not fail to wait for them. In our century things of this kind are certainly needed. Also I learn from letters written by friends in Berlin that the first performance of the symphony (No. 9) received enthusiastic applause, which I ascribe mainly to the use of metronome. It is almost impossible now to preserve the tempi ordinari; instead, the performers must now obey the ideas of unfettered genius."
Wim, bless you. You will make Beethoven human again in my lifetime.
Long-but-curious video, but best I can tell so far, you’re suggesting that Beethoven intended everything to be played at about half the speed we currently read from the metronome?
If so, that seems very unlikely given contemporary accounts of how long various works took to perform, which are roughly appropriate for the metronome markings as we currently interpret them.
For example, there’s a quote of a contemporary music critic, from _Lexicon of Musical Invective_ (despite its scholarly title, is a funny book!):
_There is much to admire in Beethoven’s ‘Eroica’ symphony, but it is difficult to maintain this level of admiration over the course of three long quarters of an hour. If this work is not somehow abridged, it will soon fall into disuse_ .
Obviously, that sentiment is waaaay wrong (more or less the concept behind the _Lexicon_), but the timing described is roughly correct.
Concerning concert durations, the answer is also in this video - only late 19th. century full pieces were played and before that, not only movements were left out but musicians and conductors did cut severely in pieces without mentioning anything, it was simply the overall practice. See also G. Smart (our book will deal with this issue in-depth). And of course the audience didn't know these pieces like we do. Thing about durations is that you very rarely know exactly what is played - and there are not few of those that point clearly into whole beat territory (7th 5 quarters - hammerklavier about an hour, Berlioz adagio of the 9th, etc. etc.) - an indepth analysis here on the channel I did in regards of Beethoven's 1808 concert. You might want to see that video, it contains lots of sources etc. Let me know your thoughts when you arrive over there !
Fascinating!
Like we say in ZA: 'Yo yo yo, ê ê ê, eish'. Meaning 'something relating to trouble' :D. You're upsetting the apple cart a bit; however, you make many valid points. Honesty, I(we all) grew up with the neo-tempo and I appreciate the skill to perform it; However for me as a majority Chopin listener, some sections sound a bit rushed, even in the best of performers' hands.
Thank you for your research! Keep it up!
I'd love to listen to some of Chopin's Nocturnes in the alternative tempo. Is there somewhere I can listen to/find some?
PS: @47:30+ I almost thought you were going to ask me to accept Beethoven into my heart :)
Glad to know that Wim’s book will be appearing soon.
Classical music performance is just a skills contest. It's not about the music( if it were about the music...you would digitally adjust the tempo 2x, 3x, 5x....and enjoy it...) listeners want to be astonished by how fast the performer ( human ) plays. Computers can easily play a score in single beat. Mission accomplished......Oh wait? You want your heroes to play this fast? The computer just gave you the MUSIC at the tempo you desire. Enjoy it.
@@Pablo-gl9djhahahaha best response to this nonsense theory.
@@Pablo-gl9djI listen to this kind music to feel closer to God, as was the intention of the greatest composers of this tradition. You listen to this kind of music to make a god out of the performers you idolize, you pathetic idolater who worships the flesh.
Shame you didn’t get into specifics about durations. I agree that durations of entire concerts are rarely useful for tempo reconstruction given the many questions marks often surrounding length of intermissions, repeats, cuts etc. We both know however that there are much better data out there with respect to durations. The likes of Berlioz, Cherubini and Lefébure-Wély gave timings for multiple of their own metronomised works, many no longer than a few minutes, all of which suggest they used single-beat. Needless to say, when a timing is given to a single short piece, questions about cuts etc don’t arise.
The question of whether repeats are taken or not also come are not indicated in timed concerts and whether a movement excerpt was played. Let’s use a modern example of performance in concert, J S Bach’s Goldberg variations. Glenn Gould. 39 minutes or 51 minute? Complete at 1:16, 1:22, or 1:32 (pianists tend to rush the work harpsichordist tend to linger more except a few exceptions).
@@Renshen1957 Yes, that's a good example of why timings of larger works or entire concerts are not very reliable. On the other hand, if you look at Cherubini's timings of his vocal works, it is a different situation. His "Ave Maria" takes 5 minutes to perform according to the timing left in the manuscript (available on IMSLP) while the metronomically calculated timing (in single-beat) is 4.5 minutes. Similarly, "O salutaris hostia no. 2 in G major" takes 4 minutes according to the manuscript, while the metronomically calculated timing is also 4 minutes. Note that these pieces do not have any repeat signs in them. As a whole, Cherubini's timings quite reliably suggests he used single-beat. The same can be said about timings left by Berlioz, Lefébure-Wély and, recently discovered, Neukomm.
@@dorette-hi4j Yes, I would say so. An even better indication though is the good evidence that Maelzel himself intended his device for single-beat use, and he is the one who personally introduced Beethoven to the metronome and showed him how to use it. Maelzel personally presented the metronome for several important composers, maybe also Cherubini.
not too quick 😊: ua-cam.com/video/p7Tvc-b4Sq0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/gsntpykv1jQ/v-deo.html
Hi Win. I'm not a musician nor a bird expert. I do, however, have an idea that may make sense. Several musicians used birdsong in their compositions. In the pastoral symphony, Beethoven used the songs of cuckoos and the yoke of nightingales. I don't think birds sing at different tempos. Did someone compared the tempo of the real cuckoos' songs to that used by Beethoven. In other words, does cuckoos sing in the double beat tempo used by Beethoven?
I'm also not a bird expert but from what I've read the cuckoo is spot on - in single beat. The other birds are close as well.
I doubt that Beethoven would write bird imitations
in half speed.
I am not an ornithologist, however, “Song Variation
Each bird species exhibits a more or less characteristic song, but the song varies by age, sex, geographic location, and time of year.
Populations of the same species of birds having different songs are song races; each variation in a song is a dialect. Geographic variation in song is very common. But within different populations of the same species, the song is more stereotyped (less variable) when there are other species present with similar songs. But when no other species with similar songs are present, there is more variation in the song within a population of one species. More variation is not only allowed, but it helps the recognition of single individuals.”
Many years ago, I came across a library book on the Common Cuckoo which in its pages dispelled the myth that the bird sang only the interval of a minor third one musically associates the song of the celebrated in song. Twitchers in the UK comment on variance of an augmented 4th.
Cecil Forsyth referred to the Cuckoo as a “military bird” as its orchestral call (toy instrument) was perennially pitched in Bb.
Louie-Claude Daquin Le Coucou which opens his Troisieme Suite is marked Vif and well known to student pianists and played quite quickly. Of course I am referring to Cuculus canorus, the European bird known to inhabitants of the countryside after their arrival from wintering in central Africa.
Whether musicians or composers are bird experts is another matter. However, 12/8 dotted quarter = 50Andante (walking as andante is from andare to walk) molto moto in the 1826 1st publication (much motion or very quickly) has its interpretation as between 11:29 to 14:08 from a brief survey of 2nd movement on IMSLP for Scene am Bach.
Beethoven was about 5 foot 4 inches tall 1.62 meters, so how long were the legs of this musical giant walking in the woods as Cuckoos do not nest near human habitations?
@@dorette-hi4j There is varition in tempo among cuckoos, (if not great) however, where did you get the idea that there's 4 beats to a bar? Scene am Bach (2nd movement) is in 12/8 the entire time. The one might perceive this as 4/4 time with triplet 1/8 note figures, however that would change the beat accents in most cases. The metronome has indication in the first publication has dotted quarter = 50. The subdivisions would My reference to Beethoven's stature was an oblique jest in that Andante (walking, even a brisk walk) would be perceived by conductors differently if they had longer legs as my Norwegian ancestors had likewise I inherited than say Beethoven as to a quick walk by a Brook or Stream if this was what was being alluded to, or was the flow of the watercourse's current what was being illustrated in Springtime? That form of beating was addressed for dotted notes in the video.
@@dorette-hi4j Interesting and informative performance practice information. However as to Hummel and fast 6/4, isn’t there two beats to the measure as 6/4 is just compound 3/2? And is Hummel’s the only solution, being as Hummel has a reputation of going against tradition, he’s the individual who started the tend to begin trills on the principle note, instead of the auxiliary as was from time immemorial, in his 1828 piano school. Almost all the instructional editions available or collections such as Hans von Buelow’s Handel 12 Easy Pieces or Busoni’s edition of the Well Tempered Clavier have the trills alla Hummel beginning on the principle note within 66 years and remained as such through the first 1/2 of the 20th century.
@@dorette-hi4j Any meter with duple, triple, or quadruple, (2/3/4) is considered to be in simple time, a number larger than quadruple is considered compound time. As 6>4 QED 6/4 is compound time whereas 3/2, 3/4, 3/8, 3/16 are also 3/1 or 3/3 are simple time in triple meter.
The trill in 1828 comment, Stein settled in Ausburg in what is now Southern Germany 1750 and began building fortepianos (possibly a student of G. Silbermann as almost every other GS student went off to foreign lands to begin building pianos, in fact in France in the 18th century, Silbermann was considered the inventor of the Fortepiano) and other experimental instruments, besides being an organist) and had developed the Viennese action circa early 1770's. Mozart paid Stein a visit in 1777, the rest is history, and somewhat related to Mozart by way of being a studen. Hummel was born in 1778. The fortepiano being a relatively new instrument when compared to the organ, clavidchord or harpsichord, but in terms of G. Silbermann's development with sales in German speaking lands 1740's (88 years) or Stein's abandondment of the Silbermann clone of Cristofori's mechanism (Silbermann's who Stein most likely apprenticed prior to his move to Ausberg) as 1770 (58 years).
Stein made combination Harpsichord Fortepiano instruments (Piano at one end harpsichord at the other in a large rectangular form, at least one instrument survives with three manuals at the harpsichord end to play also the piano, the instrument from 1777 has a 16' stop, two 8' stops and a 4') and when Hummell was about two or three years old demonstrated these in Vienna, which drew a great deal of attention and some sales. These are the only Stein harpsichords to according Raymond Russel to have survivied, the piano had hand stops for the treble and base dampers, similar to the forte pianos influenced by Silbermann's students that went to the France and/or England). Walter would incorporate the knee levels from Viennese harpsichords used to add the harp stops to both 8' strings of the Viennese harpsichords made in the 1770's and 1780's, to make the damper stop no longer dependent to being added or removed by hand, which Mozart would purchase.
As at the time of trill change, and really zero reason for it, Muzio Clementi was still alive for another 4 years, and had been writing trills on the auxillary in his piano method, as did J. B. Cramer's Instructions for the Pianoforte (c.1810): "The Shake (as the trill was still) called in the English language begins with the note above and ends on the principal note..." and A. B. Fürstenau's explanation of trills in his Flöten-Schule, Op.42, of 1826 is essentially the same as Dressler's. So is the description of trills by E. Walckiers in his Méthode de Flûte, Op. 30, of 1829.
However, Hummel opened a can of worms, as for instruments this wasn't an issue such as the Flute, Thomas Lindsay, in his The Elements of Flute-Playing, Part II (1830) says "Theorists are not agreed whether the Shake (trill) should begin with the main or upper note; it is, consequently, as often performed one way as the other..." it doesn't matter for a flute.
J. N. Hummel in 1828, the year after Beethoven's death in his Ausführliche Theoretisch Practische Anweisung zum Pianofortespiel states that he wishes to break with previous practice and henceforth start all trills with the main-note, in part simply because that's often easier on the piano. Note, often (easier) not always, which caught on.
Subsequently, L. Spohr in his Violinschule of 1832 says "Every shake generally begins ... with the principle note ...". A footnote states "This rule J. N. Hummel first advanced in his Piano-forte School...". A. B. Fürstenau, in his Die Kunst des Flötenspiels, Op.138, of 1844 agrees with the main-note-start rule and acknowledges the treatises of Hummel and Spohr (who cites Hummel) and Kalkbrenner, 1831 by name. Fürstenau's 1844 method subsequently omits the list of alternative starts (auxillary note) that his 1826 Flöten-schule gave.
Hummel's reasoning..."With regard to the shake, we have hitherto followed the practice of the ancient masters, and begun it always with the
subsidiary note above, a custom to all appearance founded upon the earliest roles laid down for the voice in singing, and
which were subsequently adopted for instruments. But as each instrument has its peculiarities as to touch and position of
the hand, so Ukewise has the pianoforte, and no reason exists that the same rules which were given for the management of
the voice, must also serve for the pianoforte, without admitting of alteration and improvement. Two principal reasons
determinfi me to lay down the rule, that, in general, every shake should begin with the note itself, over which it stands, and not
with the subsidiary note above, unless the contrary be expressly indicated.
"A.-Because the note shaken, after which a close (or full cadence) generally follows, ought to be more strongly
impressed upon the ear than the subsidiary note, and the stress should naturally fall upon the accented of the two sounds namely, on the note to be shaken.
" B.-Because, on the pianoforte, the succession of notes (keys black and white) differs in some respects from that usual on other instruments ; and on account of the position of the hands, and the consequent arrangement of the fingers, it generally is more convenient for the player to begin with the principal note itself than with the subsidiary note; for
to commence the shake from above he will often be obliged to lift up the hand or to substitute another finger on the same key."
Although the acknowledged by the general public as the greatest virtuoso in the German speaking lands we now call Germany, Hummel's argument is for technical laziness and expediency (whereas 18th century books on playing the harpsichord mentioned these the practices as part of keyboard technique) which then becomes misapplied backwards to Beethoven, Mozart, et al even to the Renaissance and beyond.
It took early performance practice scholars to acquaint, Brahms and Chrysander in their edition of Couperin for example stated otherwise, while Oestrele followed Hummel, A. Longo put a tied grace note to principle note for the majority of trills except trills preceded by the note a step above (the auxillary) after Hummel's practice.
So what does this have to do with historical tempo? Well look what happened with Hummel, a previous, and in this case centuries old practice disappears beginning in the mid-19th century. Sceene am Bach Andante molto moto becomes Andante molto mosso by 1938 (not Beethoven's tempo). Many of Beethoven's work which had Metronome marks disappear from scores or the marks are buried somewhere in one or in one of several appendix. The 1950's Ricordi Urtext edition omitted the dot on the supposed to be dotted 1/4 note metronome indication, and being Beethoven, this is sacred ground.
Oh my God ! It sounds accurate. Therefore I ask : Should E. Murphy remaster its “Fifth of Beethoven” ? Should the European Union slower its building up ?
It’s impossible for any tenor to sing Beethoven’s Adelaide at half tempo
What do you mean by half tempo? Is there a metronome mark for it?
I understand your remark but most often people say this because they think it, not tried. Professional singers can hold notes for 30 seconds and longer.
I've been following Wims videos for a time. I must confess I enjoy his interpretations but I do not agree with his statements, mostly because Liszt, Chopin, etc. were supposed to be virtuosos, and at the speeds Wim proposes, there is not virtuosity at all.
That said, anyone who had a metronome in his hands knows about the sliding stick on the side which makes a bell sound every 2, 3 or 4 ticks. In a rapid google search, I found this part was already standard in 1830. So, for instance, if you want to play a waltz, you set it in 3, so you get a bell every 3 tiks.
This bell, already in use in Chopin 20s, ends all the discussion.
ua-cam.com/video/3W5zvIoKPqQ/v-deo.html
This is just a cope for people with a bad piano technique. Why don't violin players play this slow? I hate tempos that are too fast and I prefer A 432 Hz. That said, this is too damned slow to be music. Wim kills music. Use your heads people, mankind was capable of measuring time in seconds and had the brains to to indicate metronome markings. You do have some freedom in tempo e.g. playing the 3rd movement of "moonlight" sonata op 27 no at 176 MM is a little too hard for me and I can control things just fine at around 160 MM the music doesn't suffer. Still plenty fast. At those higher speeds the secret is NOT to articulate every note like it's Mozart. Anyone can attain sufficient speed and it's just a matter of practice something people don't seem to want to do these days.
yes, let's use our heads 👏👏👏
Looking forward to Wim and Lorenz's book.
such a beautiful ending...
Ich habe Ihre Videos schon vermisst
Awesome
Thank you. An interesting insight that I would study more through your other videos. A slightly off topic question but related to the question of singers finding it difficult sing at a slower tempo in the 9th. Would not the fact that singers now have to sing in a slightly higher range cause at least a problem, since earlier performances were, I believe, played/sung at a slightly lower pitch - A was not the 440 cycles that it is now, but a lower figure. (I realise that this goes against the "fact" that a tuning fork that belonged to Ludwig van Beethoven around 1800, now in the British Library, is pitched at A = 455.4 Hz, well over a half-tone higher - a date much earlier than the 9th - which I believe would really put a strain on many singer´s voices). A supplementary question if I may. What pitch is the piano that you are using for the recordings please?
Dude, what the heck. Semifusa is 14th of a beat, where did you get the number 20. LOL
Nice little shout out for Crazy Metronome Marks @10:09
Thank you very much hahaha
WBMP arguments: Written facts (Maelzel metronome instructions), quotes of the early XIX century, unplayable metronome indications...
Single Beat arguments: Too fast, broken metronomes (everywhere...).
Anyway, WBMP is more scientific and objetive.
The only "argument" single beat defenders use is the time that works last. I do not know the answer to that question, but also they do not have an answer regarding WBMP arguments.
Wim presented some options about the durations in his videos. Cuts being taken, only some movements being played, mixing movements from different pieces, and, perhaps most commonly, the performers played too fast back then, also (Wim showed some quotes of people complaining how the performances were too fast).
There are plenty of written facts suggesting single-beat was the main metronome system in the 19th century; allow me to give you an example: The 1816 Maelzel metronome directions in English you refer to have not been confirmed as written by Maelzel, although he most likely approved of the content. The article I am about to quote is however definitely authored by Maelzel himself:
"I take the number 80 as the middle point, because in this number the three basic movements unite, depending on whether one wants to designate an eighth note, a quarter note or a half note with the same [number]. Eighty eighth notes in a minute is slow, eighty quarter notes is moderate, and eighty half notes is fast."
He then goes on to say that choosing number 80 on the metronome for the half note, you will get 40 bars in a minute in a 4/4 movement. In other words, a textbook definintion of single-beat.
@@johnericsson5286 thank you for your answer. Do you know what is the name of the article?
But I have the question about the impossibility of playing most metronome markings of early XIX century.
I am just questioning that, because I want to know both single/double arguments.
Thank you! God bless you
@@raulflyeryt9856 My pleasure! Since links are not allowed in comments I can't share the article with you directly but if you go to the video "Sorry, Wim, but Maelzel was talking about single beat, after all" you can find it in the description. The section I quoted is entitled "Tabelle 1."
All the best!
Comentario para que el algoritmo recomiende el vídeo!!!!
De nuevo, todo mi apoyo para este proyecto y para Wim
Have you heard Ben Zander’s Beethoven? Or his Mahler? I,m a Patreon sponsor.
Великолепный рецепт.Единственное, уменьшила количество сахара.Чудесная запеканка получилась Запекала один час.
Благодарю за рецепт!
Very inciteful with the questions and answers.
Thank you for explaining the tempo irrigularus (triple metre).
Cant wait for the metronome book!🙂
Brilliant explanation, Wim!
Willard A. Palmer in his instructional edition of Schumann’s Kinderszenen published in 1972 by Alfred Editions raised the red flag of MM indications 51 years ago.
Beethoven owned two count them two metronomes and he was a friend (off and on) with Maezel who also modified a piano to direct more sound to his ears. Maezel made ear horns.
Thank you for your contributions to tempo issues in music. Your FAQ was to the point. Now I'm looking forward to your book.👍 At the same time I remember the book "A Geography of Time" by Robert Levine. There, Levine shows that our culture and our environment determine the pace of our lives. The bigger a city is, the faster you walk and talk and the faster you get a stamp at a post office. Couldn't it be that under these circumstances you have to play faster to reach the ears and hearts of the listeners? Note: I don't doubt WBMP. I think you are right. However there are not only the composers, their compositions and their listeners long time ago. There is also us and our speed of life and life style. If the postman sits on a high-wheel bike, the letter may not reach the Ferrari driver.
The ending was eye opener, soul finder. Wow!... no words..
Great summary of information! I will certainly include this video in the ones I normally send out to people who show interest in WBMP 👍
Quantz used the Heartbeat although his was based on a heartbeat after lunch 80 bpm, (food in the stomach pressed against the heart can affect the rate) whereas Michael Praetorius circa 1610 and Kirnberger (J S Bach’s student) both used 60 beats per second (based on heart rate) for Common time signature for Allegro for Tempo Ordinario.
And by that measure Quantz said a fast allegro was one heartbeat per half note, i.e. quarter = 160…
@@zulice4341 However, Quantz also said there was a limit as to fast tempi based on the transverso flute…
@@Renshen1957 Exactly, based on the maximum speed of double tonguing on the instrument. I think Wim Winters accepts this value and cites it in his video about maximum speeds. So if Quantz’s Allegro assai (with sixteenth notes) was quarter = 160, why would early metronomized works from the 19th century be so much slower? Did tempos slow down in this period? Because the sources I’ve read suggest the opposite.
@@zulice4341 The other speed limitation of the Flute of Quantz's time was fingering, something I can relate to (I played the alto recorder, quick a trick in distant keys even with alternate fingering), which the progression of additional keys helped somewhat, changes in construction as well. I can't give you much more than this as my eldest daughter played a Boehm flute (all that we could afford),. As to speed and other aspects of Quantz, just short of two decades after his death, circa 1792, his contributions were already under criticism (basically misunderstood, as Quantz was a master of the earlier Baroque Flutes of his youth, he had switched from the Oboe early in his career) and were being defended.
There was a lecture on this around the term of the tercenary celebration of his birth...check out The Flutes of Quantz: Their Construction and Performing Practice Mary Oleskiewicz The Galpin Society Journal Vol. 53 (Apr., 2000), pp. 201-220. In essence with a discussion of Quantz, King Frederick the Second of Prussia court shouldn't be taken as generic yardstick for the various Royal Courts, large financial center Cities, Church musicians (read comments about the lack of capable students at St. Thomas or Church musicians, which he supplement from the U. of Leipzig (an institution that turned out a great deal of lawyers as well as musicians) or how C P E Bach was treated as an accompanyist rather than a celebrated court composer (he held no such title) and left to take over his Godfather's position in Hamburg (his godparent being Georg Philip Telemann, were the P in C P E comes from).
Which then begs the question, even if the late classic era and the Romantic era have advancements in instruments and can play faster, does this change the metronome speeds that do not make sense throughout many Viennese Composers, French Composers, etc. I can play the works of Mozart much faster on a Harpsichord (and with less effort) than on a modern Steinway. Liszt (later in life) references in his discussion with Widor how the pianofortes had become faster than those he knew earlier and with the improvements could be played faster than originally intended, and of course there were the concert artists that played even faster (like charlatans) with the inference that it was the speed and not the artistry that the audience was enamoured.
What do the music schools preach? Music was faster (Beethoven was god of great capability and better than modern musicians) and performance became slower (less virtuosic) with time as apologist comments why metronome speeds can't work in single beat.
The whole concept of the metronome was for the exact time reference (Beethoven, as a way to preserve a composer's tempi for posterity) of the beginning tempo, and yet through the 19th century, and Wim has provided 19th century commentary in which critics decry the increase speed of performances.
@@zulice4341 In Tempo Ordinario of which J S Bach used (no tempo indication other than time signature), Common Time C was quarter=60. Although Cut C (2/2) was sometimes called Alla breve, in J S Bach the quarter remained quarter=60 bpm (Altnickol who copied the early and later versions of WTC pt 2 used C and Cut C interchangibly) and only had the the double time (twice as fast) implication when the words Alla Breve were present. Handel in the Messiah actually uses the the term Tempo Ordinario written out for one momvent in Common time to distinguish it from the Italian use of Allegro. This was understood that national styles had different interpretation of written tempi
In the Neue Sing-Schule from 1804, Johann Friedrich Schubert wrote, "The correct tempo or degree of speed cannot be determined by any heading (Italian tempo indication) and can only be gathered from the inner characteristics of a composition itself. He continues, "An Allegro in a church style or oratorio must have a slower tempo than an Allegro in a theater or chamber style. To which he adds, "Differences in compositional style or manner and national taste also necessitate a faster or slower tempo..."
It is challenging for today’s performers and listeners to comprehend how tempos were chosen during the eighteenth century and into the 19th century. Nationalist styles became understood already becoming understood (witness the prevalence of Italian composers in Opera in the UK's London, Vienna, Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, etc. “Haydn liked his finales faster than Mozart,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 13, no. 44 (Leipzig: J. Rieter-Biedermann, 1811), 737. Mozart and Haydn were no longer living to argue the point, but this is a percpetion in a musical center in Saxony (Germany as a State wouldn't exist for another 60 years).
Perciptions from a local viewpoint of Viennese allegros were quicker than northern-German ones. (The same could have been said about Italian Allegros vs lands in which German was the common tongue, both Handel and Johann "John" Christian Bach went to Italy soaked up the local color for a while and came to the UK (German Kings after all) to produce Italian Opera. Or comments which extolled the weight and majesty of German voices versus the frivolity and lightness of Italian ones with some no doubt Teutonic bias thrown in with good measure.
Quantz divided items into categories, however here is his tempi "Tempos in order of slow to fast, according to Quantz include: slow (Grave, Largo, Larghetto, Adagio,
Lento); moderate (Andantino, Tempo di Minuetto, Andante, Moderato, Allegretto); and fast (Allegro Moderato, Allegro, Vivace, Alla breve, Presto, Vif, Prestissimo) the indication Alla breve would apply but how would one interpret Presto, Vif, Prestissimo? Would these fit the description but without a Time signature, and note values, it's somewhat hard to place the 160 beats in context.