When I was first taking piano lessons my teacher, who was a classically trained pianist, wanted me to learn Bachs 1st invention in C major. So on my following lesson I brought my Czerny book and he looked at it and said something like, "Uggh I guess this will have to do." I'm not a musician, so I never really understood why he had a problem with it until now.
The purity of Bach’s music translates to any tempo/instrument. When played fast, I hear the melody in the slower moving bass and the flourish of right hand notes sounds as chordal accompaniment. When played slow, I enjoy the sweetness of the melodic content and let the bass provide a steady harmonic foundation. Because Bach’s music transcends the physical, we are liberated from the bodily limitations of the metronome which is a machine and creation of man. I like my interpretations to breathe and quicken when they will and slow to emphasize a particularly beautiful phrase. The absence of tempo and dynamic markings liberate us to express his music, and ourselves, with utmost artistic devotion-something I find lacking in many virtuosic performances that seem to only increase in tempo from previous recordings in a vain attempt to improve upon them. Bach would sooner smile upon the prudent student than the indulgent virtuoso.
YES! Finally a video discussing Czerny's edition of Bach's works! I only requested the courante from suite n.2 but man, you've gone much much further! Thanks for the amazing content you keep posting.
@@morganmartinez8420 I am pleased that youngsters like you have brains and use them to play music to its utmost. Music is a science - I think the science of the gods - and then it has a human quality that allows us to dream, emote, and wonder. I'm happy you're on Wim's channel; he's one of the great ones - history will verify it!
Yes, I also reckon he meant crochet = 138. That's sensible and most of the greats listed agree (roughly). Much more likely than q=138, which isn't even musical. Czerny wasn't a bozo...
Most of the comments here seem to address the question of "correct tempo", which is not the point of this video. The question Mr. Winters raises is, "How do we correctly interpret metronome marks from the early 19th century, at the time the metronome was first introduced?" Mr. Winters conclusions are absolutely revelatory, and I am going back to my music right now to apply his ideas to some of the pieces I've learned. I'm very curious to hear the result. If others are doing the same, please post about your experiences.
@Delphinium Flower this is relatively easy to do with LilyPond and all the music that is programmed in its language for free online! Just add the tempo to the MIDI code block, recompile, and enjoy!
I am new to this idea, so my question may have been asked and answered. If composers were giving MM= values as Mr Winters suggests, I would assume that the performers at that time were playing the pieces using the same interpretation. Somewhere along the line, the performers changed their interpretations to the modern practice, creating the issues Mr Winters is addressing. However, if you look at modern pieces, the MM= values, in the modern practice, are what the composer intended. So, when did the composers change over to the modern practice, and when they did, were there still performers applying the "old" standard to the new interpretation? As you go back to your music and apply Mr Winters' ideas, are there pieces that obviously don't work with the "old" interpretations?
Being no expert but a Fan, I prefer the slow Tempo. Gould invariably brings tears to my eyes. I may applaud Listiza fast-playing, But the slow tempos move my spirit, to depths unreachable at a fast pace, where I may admire the skill, but lose the aesthetic message.
As a violist this fits so well that it has to be correct. Also I seem to have in the back of my mind that I have read it elsewhere in a discussion of Beethoven's somewhat sarcastic reactions to the introduction of the metronome. To put it together in a video like this is illuminating.
... just play it at the tempo you prefer and let go of other people’s calculations; you like it slow, go slow; you like it fast, you go fast. This music sounds fabulous on any instrument and at any speed. Enjoy.
Ah, I understand, and in a sense you are right. But that's not his point actually, I even think he would agree with you. The point is that when you want to recreate historically accurate music by following some authors, how you interpret the indications given by these authors is contentious. If a beat was given, what was it really representing ? It's not a matter of taste, which is of course subjective, but a matter of understanding the minds of great composers.
Jonathan Lamarre ... “understanding the minds of great composers” is like understanding the mind of my dog; it can not be done, although I love both of them all-the-same. 🙏
Music is art, not archaeology. On the other side, contemporary academic compositions are mostly pretentious cr*p, so I understand the necrophiliac tendencies of today's melomania.
Excellent video!! I don't even see how someone could argue. I've seen Lisitza's version before, even before I started watching you and was thinking I don't even like the way that sounds. I think she's amazing, but some of her music is just played way too fast! But yes, this was a great video!!
To be fair to Lisitza however, she mentions that she recorded the inventions with the intended goal to stretch her ability (as exercices) and not to attain musicality. So she litteraly played them as fast as she could, not trying to achieve beauty.
Yes, like I said, I think she's amazing. But I think it helps prove Wim's whole beat theory since she was playing it as fast as she could. But yes, I'm not trying to slam her. I love watching her. 😊
She was mentioned in the video. I was agreeing that the invention used for demonstration here sounds too fast, and it wasn't even played in single beat tempo.
Thanks. The same logic needs to be applied to Reger's markings (i.e.organ) as they too would require a tempo probably and logically double what is possible.
T W Huning We have acoustic recordings by Camille Saint-Saens, who was born in 1835 and evidently loved to play fast. Some of Beethoven's own markings seem utopian, which is not surprising considering his deafness at the time. But cutting them in half by counting subdivisions would render his pieces intolerably boring. Lots of composers suggest tempi which border on the absurd, but who needs to double the length of every piece in the repertoire? I think we should take into account the full tempo and then do what sounds good, rather than adhering slavishly to a theory. We can't even keep God's laws successfully, so why must we unconditionally obey the composer, especially when he is absent or dead?
Czerny in one of his J S Bach editions that the Allegro of J S Bach's were slower than (then contemporary) use of Allegro. The two part inventions (originally called Praeambulum) to produce a cantabile (singing) style, quite contrary to the concept of excessive speed.
Thanks for this, I have some older transcriptions that the metronome notation is WAY beyond what I could ever play, and I don't know if even world class soloists would be able to keep up with. Makes me feel better after watching this. Oh, and its not like the recordings of these pieces are up at the insane tempo noted, they are where would be expected.
I ran into this exact problem today and I completely agree with you. I'm learning the c minor prelude BWV 871 and Czerny marks it 1/4=132 which sounds like double speed if interpreted in the modern way. And Czerny says in the introduction to the edition 'for those without the Maelzel metronome, keep in mind that allegro is to be taken more slowly than in modern works'! which would imply that the average pianist would play the piece FASTER than 1/4=132 if they just went by the allegro indication! I can't believe that, and not even Gould's recording approaches 132.
Even assuming that Czerny (1791-1857) applied the whole note approach as you suggest in his edition of Bach's easier keyboard works (which admittedly would provide a good explanation for what would otherwise be a crazily fast tempo), why does it follow that Beethoven (1770-1827) had applied that approach years earlier when he marked the tempi i his Hammerklavier sonata in 1818? Also, to be sure of your theory about Czerny's approach in his edition of Bach, you would need to check all of his tempo markings, not just this one tempo making for the c major fugue from WTC1. If that is the only instance where Czerny's marking, if taken literally, seems twice as fast as the nature of the composition calls for, iSn't the far simpler explanation simply that the crotchet =138 tempo marking is a misprint, and he instead meant minim = 138? It is far from unusual for even good editions of keyboard works to betray misprints, even today, even in famous works. Accidentally colouring in a minim in a tempo making seems to me precisely the kind of human error that could creep in and go unnoticed. Also curious to know how you reason when it comes to whole note theory and tempi marked in dotted crotchets or dotted minims - why would any composer or editor choose to notate a tempo in a way that results in the number metronome beats identified in the notation creating a cross-rhythm that conflicts with time signature and duration of bars?
If we allow 'tempo' to serve 'phrasing', the slower tempi become ineluctable. Music then rises up from what was once an almost meaningless rush of sound. That is to say, musicality should not be sacrificed on the racetrack of speed.
I agree. I've watched a few videos of different drummers-one of which is the highly revered and idolized Buddy Rich. Sure, he was a good drummer-BUT I really wasn't moved by any solos of his as they were mainly an exposition of speed/physicality and not very musical. The slow playing blues guitarist for example that can bend a single note beyond what seems possible is every bit as satisfying as a so called 'shredder'. It's all in what satisfies the listener. IMHO Dvorak's 'Slavonic Dances' showcase tasteful speed and tempo changes within the realm of satisfying musicality.
@@tomservo5347 Indeed. I have a very old LP of Shostakovich playing several of his 24 Preludes and Fugues, featuring No. 4 in e minor and No. 16 in B flat minor. His tempi in his own works is so much slower and so much more expressive than the metronome markings in the Freundlich edition I picked up many, many years ago. In his renditions of his most thoughtful fugues, Shostakovich is totally concerned with his phrasing and the balances among his subjects and countersubjects. He is the antithesis of, say, Roger Woodward, who races through this wonderful set of keyboard pieces in such a way that one would never "get" their beauty and profundity.
The praxis of modern concert performances of the inventions are guided not by metronome numbers but by the wish to personalize the rendering, and to stay well inside the practical possible. The discussion of the older metronome markings are weird and to my knowledge irrelevant, however, Wim does a very good analysis of the dilemma. But one must not suppose that metronome markings are error-free or made with a metronome at hand. One must not suppose that one error in the Inventions is caused by same mistakes that cause the errors of the Hammerklavier marking or other Beethoven markings. It is well known that Beethoven after his deafness made too fast metronome markings, because he could only ***think*** music.
Really interesting. Thank you. I would like to hear many more examples with whole-beat. The Hammerklavier on whole-beat sounds uncomfortably slow to me though.
I totally agree with your theory and add mine to Wynona Fudd's comment here below. Playing Bach's (many) compositions on harpsichord as well as on piano, one couldn't but agree to this theory and Czerny's editions. Thanks for another well prepared and presented upload.
Bach is a forever Source of interest. I think it is clear that slower tempos are appropriate, and one may choose what one prefers. I very much appreciate this scholarship, and I would very much also appreciate some investigation into the music of Haydn and boccherini, Each of whom I adore.
Your logic is impeccable and I have to agree with you about historical metronome markings and tempi: the whole beat theory is the only one that makes sense. But what about historical metronomes themselves? I have just found that Maelzel's original patent is available on line, and his description of how his metronome works and what it does is rather difficult to reconcile with the whole-beat theory. Not impossible, but difficult, and it rather depends on what you think he meant by the word "vibration." Is a "vibration," for him, a full cycle of the pendulum or is it only a half-cycle, the motion between two clicks? When he describes mechanism of the metronome, it seems as though he counts two clicks as a "vibration," or the full left-right cycle of the pendulum. But if for him a "vibration" is a full cycle, then why did he mark the scale for setting the weight in half-cycles, counting all the clicks? That would mean that if you used one of his metronomes you would have to cut in half the actual numerical settings to arrive at realistic tempi, and that Czerny et al. neglected to do that; and I don't see why Maelzel marked his scale in a way that makes that necessary. But it certainly looks as though that's exactly what he did. I'd love to see what you make of this. books.google.com.mx/books?id=dO80AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA7&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thank you for the compliment! The patent describes the working of the metronome, so yes, so many ticks per minute. The 1816 instructions are more important. Here is an extensive video on that text: ua-cam.com/video/7tizWwFiaKc/v-deo.html
@@AuthenticSound Thank you for this; I missed that video. My first language is English and I have to say the English of the 1816 instructions is not very clear. It probably suffers from being, as you say, a word-for-word translation of the German, which I assume was Maelzel's first language. I don't know enough German to read the German text with any depth of understanding so I can't evaluate it. Nevertheless, as you say, the English text can be read the way you read it, and I am convinced that is the way it was intended; but it is also much easier for a native English speaker to read it as contradicting the whole beat theory. For many people, that reading, being easier, will remain the more convincing of the two. So we end by having to either accept the whole beat idea, awkward language and all, or to assume that early 19th century composers and editors habitually indicated unplayable and unlistenable tempi. To me, that is the convincing point.
I was watching a performance by a young student Tiffany Koo of Beethoven's 2nd piano concerto part 1. I wondered how it would sound played by a concert pianist. Koo played it in 15.5 minutes, beautiful! A Russian pianist who's name I won't recall played the piece in 13 minutes; he must have had to catch the late train to St. Petersburg, he definitely won the race to incomprehensibility but completely lost the musicality of this beautiful piece. I can't recall anything but speed of his playing which I just can't imagine was Beethoven's intention. In all of the examples you used of the Bach prelude, it became a little less beautiful as speed increased until it became grotesque at the peak. The standard for deciding on tempo has to be what will present the music to the audience in its profundity, in my opinion, stressing less the marks and their interpretations.
Interesting video and I love those shelfs full of sheet music behind you - have you ever donne a shelf tour video, if not would you be interested in doing that ? Edit - I looked through your video list and found videos where you are sharing you old scores - thanks.
I love his old sheet music tours. After seeing those, I get into trouble looking for some of them on IMSLP. I've been lucky with some of the composers, but not all.
I think what would make most sense is that it's not "this is the precise tempo that you should be playing" but rather "this is the rhythm that you should be playing against"; what you should set your metronome to, but not necessarily playing the notated beat as
sorry everyone I'm joking.... if I was 107 I would have been born in 1912. Even if my grandfather were a full 70 years older than me, that would make him born in 1842. Beethoven lived 1770-1827. not trying to troll, just wanted to see if people would figure out it wasn't possible
Well I wish my great great grandma would live in Europe my dad met her , he was probably 10 when died. I counted the years from her birth and she was born in the 1820 /1830 I am sure that there is people who have this fortune in Europe like my self To me is just amazing to know that my Dad and many of his bothers their great grandma who live 120 yrs and my dad is almost 78 I am 41 yrs old And yes , I know people who met a person from the time of Mozart ,(1820) Chopin , Bethooven , praise God. I know that there are many possibilities of people who's great great grandfather met this gs in person and they met. My gramps , and many of his sons who are a live know they met this Lady in person. Yeah up !
Your math does not take into account that you claim it along the male line rather than female. Men can create progeny long after the age of 35 (a great number of women as well, but not as long as men), so conceivably if it had been your father's father and each had produced their son in their 70s, which is conceivable (pun intended), then it's actually not only possible, but he could have been approximately the same age. But, hey, if you want to lie to people just to see if they will believe your lie, who am I to stop your fun..
@@juliafox52 two 70 year old fathers in a row is one in a million, especially when life expectancy is much lower in the 19th century. as for calling a totally harmless joke a "lie," I clarified that it was a joke and had no bad intentions, after a single reply.
Îm french and take care with czerny cause you shall divide by two. It’s an old Way to count Time very fashionable in czerny Time. It gose like this un puis deux puis trois. So czerny shall be divisés by two. And sometimes we shall do the same with chopin.
@@AuthenticSound Yes. Acording to my old theatcher this was used to 'show up' virtuoso in Salon Parisien. An other explanation was this a way to force your student (by fearing them) to work what you want instead of trying to play other thing that doesn't fit their leve. More reasonable, this a way to count in french traditional music. It"s to guide the dancer in village party but marked as a quater note. The french noblesse dance either with peasant and prince so this was usual in all the cathegorie on population other wise you 'll have to dance a walk at speed of 130, a bit fast to be shawn in versaille"s gallerie des glaces. So here's this french exeption that in not one cause you can find it in Padre Soler in Spain with fandango played to fast today.
Extremely interesting. I have been convinced of the truth of the half beat metronome marking since encountering Weber’s own markings to Der Freischütz. They are nonsensical unless taken as indicative of the half beat.
Thanks Joel. To clarify: Half beat means modern practice. The "beat" (German= Schlag' was a full swing in early times, hence the 'whole beat' practice, where the two ticks combined form one unity
I would if I could but those books are like of a library value, old, vulnarable, and not fitting the scanner anyways! We'll provide the information on the new to built website. 2020 will be the year!
5 років тому+7
@@AuthenticSound If you take a high resolution photo of each page, I'll clean it up and compile the PDF for IMSLP. That should be quite safe to do, and require minimal equipment: a tripod, some lights and a camera.
What do you thinking about connection between fast playing Bach's pieces and the desire to hide the falsity of thirds in a equal temperament. May be the same reason in use stocatto everywhere in Gould's technic? And the same in use vibrato everywhere in music of the twentieth century?
@@Fafner888 If the mm are impossible I don't think anyone would like them, not just Wim. I mean if you like something that's impossible to play then that's on you. But the problem is however that those guys played it. And none of them referred to them as impossible to play. Thats the problem. Not even mentioning that some of them meant the work for kids.
@@Fafner888 There are sources that give Allegro as 1/4=60, and prestissimo as 1/4=120, from this time. Thomas Young also states that Quantz's fastest tempo is to be understood as 1/4=160 with quavers as fastest note value, which in turn would mean that his tempi given in his chart are to be understood as 1/2 as slow. He also states that Baroque music was taken much slower than modern Allegro, which matches what Czerny said in his introduction to the WTC about Baroque Allegros, "that they are to be taken, as a rule, much more slowly and tranquilly than modern Allegros" Czerny's Bach editions are generally slower than his solo works & etudes, what leads you to believe that these tempi were not intended to be reached? He mostly matches Quantz & Young by not going much faster than 80 for Allegros/ Presto. But some Allegrettos have 32nds at 1/8=108, and some fast runs at 1/8=114 & 120 w/32nds. Also, there are sources given by Wim that give the fastest possible speeds, and 1/4=152 is the limit at the end of the 19th century. Czerny tempi in the inventions are right up to, at or faster than this limit, i.e. invention 8 1/4=152 & invention 14 1/4=108 w/ 32nds, keep in mind these pieces are for beginner/ intermediate players. This is not a one off problem but a systematic use of high m.m., I don't think that the arguments that these m.m. weren't meant to be reached, or that these musicians couldn't play their pieces in their given tempi , holds any water.
@@Fafner888 That “stuff” about Quantz and Young has everything to do with the metronome! Direct unambiguous evidence of what kind of tempi was used in the past, and it is much slower than the status quo of modern musicology. These m.m. are consistent from this period across different composers, so the argument that we don’t know how Czerny actually played just doesn’t make sense to me, this is not an isolated occurrence, but a systematic problem. The m.m. are the problem and premise of this whole debate, if you don’t agree than we live on different planets.
I like Czerny's tempi for Bach. Beethoven tempo for the 106 also. Richter plays fast the WTC, that's very enjoyable. Also, for Bach, those tempi are much easier on organ and harpsichord than hammerklavier. I would love to hear Bach pieces at tempo on harpsichord.
@@micheldemazieres4656 I didn't write "Johann Sebastian "anywhere, did i, his children (most of them anyway),and his students were more than enough to teach correct Bach 's music.
Irrespective of tempi, Czerny's fingerings given in the WTC unparalleled. They are so natural and greatly facilitate the learning of each work; so many other editions are the opposite of this (I'm thinking especially of the atrocious Associated Board edition that is regrettably ubiquitous in the UK). I agree that many (though by no means all) of C.C's tempi seem far fetched - C# minor fugue in book II being perhaps the most extreme example. Love the work you do, Wim! Regards, G
I hear you on the fingering. I have various editions of the WTC, digital as well as in print, including Czerny's and these are the fingerings that not only work, but seem to stick as well. The others, supposedly to help with articulation, are confusing.
This is a wonderful video. I wonder if this leads into the topic of the reliability of metronome markings in the 19th century? Beethoven’s markings were notoriously fast, and it’s been shown that many metronomes from that time were inaccurate and in fact were slow (sometimes up to 30% slower than the marked time)
Czerny was a brilliant genius....at the age of 10 he had mastered everything Beethoven had published, and in so doing he made a deep impression on Beethoven, who offered him free lessons. The great B's respect for Czerny never decreased through his life. How can anyone in their right mind deny the genius level musicianship of Czerny....his Etude no. 50 op 740 will give a run for the money to any Chopin Etudes (or anybody else's). He would teach 10 hours a day, go back home, write down a composition he would not even CHECK at the piano, and take it to the publisher the next morning, who would accept it on trust. He composed everything, not just studies, but symphonies, a mountain of sonatas, pieces for 6 hands....just insane. He intentionally did not care about being an itinerant virtuoso because, as he wrote, he 'did not have the required dose of charlatanism'. I would not trade a Czerny for ALL of today's 'virtuosos', put together. Some people badmouthed him, but generally they did so in a mindless way, and probably referred to only a very small set of studies for children, which probably Czerny composed in his sleep. A magnificent artist of the piano, and a total master of music. The Prestissimo from his Sonata no.1 op 7 never fails to blow my mind. Personally I love his studies op 821, and in my opinion they make the best piano system ever written, it will take one from late intermediate to hero level.
@@calebhu6383 , sorry, but your observation is nonsense. Czerny was a classical pianist in the 'bravura style'. That's what he was. Basically, classical era piano with a virtuosic element. That's what he did. No more, no less. That you prefer other styles takes nothing from his musical mastery. 'Perhaps' he was a brilliant musician? Are you serious? With all due respect, my friend, 95 per cent of all concert pianists today, and of the last 100 years, to me, are just human cd players compared to Czerny. I highly respect the Richters and the Goulds, or Lisitsa, but even them are like children compared to Czerny. Are you seriously telling me that if you hear pieces like his Etude no 50 op740 or the Prestissimo from the sonata I mentioned, you would judge such music as being 'poor taste' ? And what are these supposed 'standards' of today that you are talking about? Again, the best thing you hear from pianists today is how they play someone else's music. There are a very few exceptions, like Stephen Hough. But the rest is just musical reproduction, and when I realize 85 per cent of concert pianists play Chopin, I see a huge, huge difference between them and Czerny. One spends 20 years practicing to play this or that passage perfectly, that always belongs to some master. Sure, there is great value in learning Bach fugues. And someone has to play them, someone has to do that important work, and few can even play it, but it seems to me that it is mostly because that's all that can be done. Czerny could do a lot, a lot more than that. And please, do away with the 'perhaps', even Stravinsky admired Czerny as a musician, and ultimately, Beethoven. It's as if you told me that 'perhaps' Bruce Lee could fight, or 'perhaps' Niki Lauda could drive. I say all this to you with the highest respect. If you want to argue about Czerny's brilliance, you have to do a lot better than telling me about 'poor taste for today's standards' and such fuzzy arguments The fact is, Czerny would run circles around any pianists today. It is puzzling that most of them think of Czerny as some kind of bygone pianist that was a master only in his time, and nothing more than that. And really, don't you think it's like stabbing someone in the back? He basically taught almost all the best pianists of his era and beyond, through his pedagogical works, which is not 'exercises', but music. I don't understand why a Bach 2 part invention is not seen as a worthless exercise, but the best studies from op 740, is. Or why a Chopin Etude op 10 is seen as a work of art (which I do not deny is) but the no 50 op 740 by Czerny is seen as little more than an exercise. On a musical level, the latter has NOTHING less than the former, yet everybody seems to think so. What you said about Czerny could be said of Liszt too, or Paganini, or Louis Moreau Gottschalk. And in the past, some people HAS said that about these three. But out of them, today only Czerny gets the badmouthing. Why? So, they didn't write like Bach. So what? I remember reading when Arnold Schoenberg said to someone that he really liked Gershwin's music, and someone remarked: 'But it's not serious music'. And Schoenberg explained that the fact that it's serious or not, takes nothing from Gershwin's talents. I personally think you say what you say because you have been influenced by other people's opinions....this stuff about how Czerny had 'poor taste' has been long ongoing, mainly by people who never paid any real attention to the man, his music, and his philosophy about it. 'Perhaps' what, my friend. My prediction is that in the next few decades, Czerny will be given the space he justly deserves, and this is already happening....I just heard the Op 822 No 46 from the Nouveau Gradus Ad Parnassum, played by Pedro Martins and I was completely mesmerized by how this music is brilliant, soulful, masterful, and exciting. I never compare a musician like Bach with one like Czerny, therefore the argument about 'taste' to me is like pseudoscience, i.e. it's based not on facts, but personal preferences. If you had told me: 'I don't like it because there's too many scales' or something, I would have respected the argument. Me, I like it a lot. As CPE Bach wrote in his famous essay, 'there's something good in all good music'. Regards.
Perhaps it is possible to play these works on single beat. However, Czerny states on his Preface for the Well-tempered Clavier "Those who have no Maelzel's metronome at hands are reminded, that the Allegro in these old compositions is to be taken, as a rule, much more tranquilly and slowly than in modern works" . Do we have to think that Allegro in the XIX century was even faster than the ridiculously hasted M. M. markings on the Bach edition? Is it even possible?
Excellent post, Sebastian! If, in the early 19th century, Czerny is speaking of "old compositions" and "as a rule", and we have near the end of the 19th century Saint Saenz speaking of "our Allegros were the masters' [of Mozart, precisely] Moderatos", then it's a shoo-in for whole beat. As an aside, Weber criticised the Metronome because of its cost and offered a simple pendulum to do the work just as correctly, and "cheaply". :D Thank you for the quoted information because - though not "proof" of whole beat - the preponderance of the evidence continues to reach the level of a "civil proceeding" were I the judge in the case. Great work, ¡Sebastian!
@@thomashughes4859 There is not only evidence of slower tempi on Metric related articles. We must also look the detailed evidence on articulation and expression marks. A great example is Czerny's chapter on Staccato an Legato playing, where he makes a difference between mezzo staccato (3/4 of Q.N) , staccato (half of Q.N) and staccatissimo or martellato (the fastest staccato and to be used only in bravura style). That level of detail in articulation is hard to achieve in fast tempi. Perfect example is WTC prelude in d minor, which indicates Non Legato (3/4 of the bass note's lenght) in Czerny edition for Q.N =80. Absolute nonsense from the technical point of view.
@@micheldemazieres4656 Nice try. I think Sebastian and I are quite reasonable. Playng anything in "our league" is not the right tack for this video. It is not about "US"; it's about "Czerny" and "his" tempi. You have two choices: You may choose Czerny's tempo at tick-tocks per note value or per the time it takes (2 pi) for that note value to occur. Period (pun intended). That is the crux of this video. P.S. You are now commenting on another's comment section, which is "his and his alone". The use of "you" and "your" in your sentence: "... but if playing that left hand non legato at quarter 80 is beyond you, the WTK is way out of your league" is "ad hominem" as if it mattered what "we" can or cannae do, which it does not. Please keep to the discussion at hand without retorts to our individual technique and/or practises.
Wanda Landowska to Pablo Casals ... 'You play Bach your way; I'll play him HIS way'. For all of her undisputed greatness, it's understandable that Ralph Kirkpatrick didn't exactly idolise her! Long live differences in interpretation to give us freedom of choice.
Quite simply my opinion, as a very longtime fan of J.S. Bach is this; The excellent & delicious interplay of his 2 & 3 part pieces or inventions have a wonderful sense of grace, dignity, atmosphere, elegance, nobility ,even majesty and definitely beauty, played at slower, approx half speed (ie; 68-70 ) or even less,. All this is completely destroyed at breakneck mechanical speed, (which is illogical & irrational ! ) which I personally very much doubt was Bach's intention. The other possibility is that there could be a misunderstanding of what 138 actually means?. Does one like to hear Artistry, Grace and Beauty; Yes or No, but at Czerny's Maezel metronome indications it is a NO !!? So, simply maybe Czerny meant them to be 'practice tempi' - to develop dexterity, & so on, and not meant to be used in actual Concert room performance, which for me, Glen Gould's Genius brings out all the aforesaid Beauty (omitting his humming !).
My argument against your whole beat hypothesis, that the tempo marking in the C major invention being meant to be MM=138 to the eighth note, is that Czerny also added the indication "Allegro vivace" to the score, hence suggesting a very fast tempo. Playing it at half speed at MM=69 surely does not sound very "allegro vivace", at least to our modern sensibilities. This more or less confirms the idea that Bach's music was often reduced to nothing but a technical exercise in 19th century performance practice.
thank you for sharing your thoughts. This might be a too narrow platform to base a complete 'structure' upon though. Allegro was considered to be 'moderately' fast + you'll have to give an answer to speeds up to 28 notes a second ua-cam.com/video/W9-AjeeBfaU/v-deo.html
We're so used to the music of the 19th century great composers that its easy to forget that they really were a minority. I have a small collection of sheet music from the 1840s by various composers, including material by Czerny, and its difficult to communicate just how bad some of it is. Czerny comes out in the middle of the pack -- he's no Beethoven but the material seems to be well constructed if a bit on the bombastic side. His material is obviously designed to sell and seen in that context a lot of what he did makes complete sense -- it's not about great art, just moving as much printed paper into as many European middle class drawing rooms as possible.
Yep and supposedly the amateurs in those middle class homes were capable of playing faster than any professional alive today! Chopin sold music for the same reason and his MM numbers are as high as Czerny's.
@@raulperez2308 Here's just a handful of songs....there's also instrumental music, duets and so on.... "She Never Told Her Lover" -- Dr. Hendyn "Sally in our Alley" -- E. Fawcett "My Heart's on the Rhine" -- Speyer "Polly Won't You Try Me, Oh!" -- Mrs. Barney Williams "We are Spirits Blythe and Free" -- G.A. MacFarren "My Barque is Bounding Near" -- M.W. Balfe "Come Dance with Me" -- Alexander Lee Most of it is mediocre but "Polly" is......well, I should get it out on the 'net and you could judge for yourself. Obviously tastes change, but someone thought it good enough to spend a not inconsiderable sum of money on it (sheet music wasn't cheap, it was a significant fraction of a person's weekly wages back then).
It doesn't convince me. Take Czerny's edition of Beethoven's Sonata op.13 for example. According to your theory, you would have to play the Grave beginning of the first movement at 29 beats per quaver, which makes it falling apart completely. Also the Sonata op. 26, first movement Andante at 40 beats per quaver! Impossible. I would be very curious to hear you perform these following your theory...
If you would allow me to post in order to convince you, I played this piece for a concert in 1984, and sadly at a very rapid tempo (close to Czerny's "modernised" tempo at 58=quaver). What was the problem? Don't get me wrong, "everybody 'luuved'" the piece; however; the Grave, I played so fast that the 128th-note "nontuplet" in measure four was not possible for me "in time" (at Czerny's "modernised" tempo would be 17.4 notes per second) I could only muster a clear 11 to 12 notes per second sustained. So, I guessed at the timing like most do ... remember, Grave? Furthermore, just one measure later from the "p" to the "FF" sounded silly to me as well quasi out of place ... it never made sense. And then comes the "dreaded" measure 10! Ouch ... I have not heard anyone play that except "ad lib.". We know it has a certain amount of notes, and as long as I can get them "schmushed" in during the time allotted, I guess we were good ... Hm ... Those last chromatics go by at just under 15 1/2 notes per second, and again, it was a "guessy" run like most stuff at "über-veloz". If you wish, I will record it now (after what 35 years), and e-mail it to you so that you can hear it. Maybe that might get you at least thinking of the option of whole beat where, in my mind and opinion, it sounds really cool! Regarding the "Andante", "walking", yes? I was in the United States Coast Guard Marching Band (E-5) playing the Glockenspeil, of course ... and our marches (Souza's) "Alla Marcia" were "left foot" at 54! That was "modernised" 108 MM practice. The Marine Band plays closer to "left foot" on 60, but that's seated. Check for yourself. The "pace" is every "left" foot. At 80 in the Czerny Andante, each left foot hits at 40 (each tick per foot step - set your MM at 160 per foot step, and let me know if that's a nice Andante, or almost a jog). According to the "solemness" of the piece, it seems appropriate to me at left foot per 40. By the by, Souza did not put MM marks on any of his scores. No need because the "March" of the US Soldier/Sailor is by "Roman" tradition to walk a certain amount of time per day. :D Anyway, ThePianoenergy, I appreciate the time, and if this post is not appropriate, please refer to the Admnistrator for my "taking it down", and I'll be happy to. I wrote this in "bona fide" that you may not be convinced ... yet, but with some additional information, you might do your own research and reconsider. Thanks again. Tom
@@thomashughes4859 No, I am still not convinced at all, I am sorry. If you can't play the Grave of op.13 at Czerny's metronome markings, play it a bit slower, far more important to get the expression in a way that listeners today can experience the "Grave" in 4/4. Beethoven wants us to experience 4/4, not 16/16! And you don't have to play like an accountant, music doesn't come out of a metronome, it has to breathe. Play the 1 st movement of op. 27 No2 (so called "Moonlight Sonata") at 30/crotchet and you will experience, how ridiculous this sounds. Nothing left of Beethoven's alla breve to say the least... Performing traditions develop over time, the same as language and any form of life for that matter, but they do that smoothly. That of course also applies to traditions in tempo and expression of music. It is simply not possible that we suddenly get all the metronome markings fundamentally wrong. We all come out of a tradition, we haven't lived on an island, or do you really think that at some point between Czerny's time and our time, people suddenly started to play double the tempo, or how would you imagine that huge misunderstanding of all metronome markings came into existance and on what terms?
@@ThePianoenergy Sorry you couldn't be convinced. I appreciate the response nonetheless. I can play the Grave at both the modern tempo and Czerny's tempo. As a "root" word, Grave is the slowest of our tempo words, and it's roughly half of the Adagio. In 1800, according to documents, Adagios were played in common time some 5 to 7 measures per minute (set the pendulum or Metronome accordingly); therefore, the Graves were played at 2.5 to 3.5 measures per minute. Yes, at its slowest, some 24 seconds to the bar or 6 seconds per crotchet. That puts the quaver at 3 seconds each. Set your Metronome to 20 beats per minute for each quaver. Czerny's 58 to the quaver in whole beat is remarkably 29, was it? That seems to be 9 clicks faster than the lower Grave tempo. Performing traditions have changed, and this channel is dedicated to a performance practice not seen in over 150 + years. If you want to speak modern Spanish, it developed over the last 500-600 years; however, if you want to learn Latin, then you go back to the documents and grammar, etc. then for Latin. Everything develops, and Authentic Sound is not for the modern practitioner, why make it such? Performers did not suddenly play double time or standard time; they played in time. They simply interpreted the Metronome differently after a period. The Gershwin Allegro (20th c) I have shows the crotchet at 100 - certainly half beat. We know because Gershwin has his own redordings. That's 6.66 notes per second (semiquaver). The Waldstein I play at 92 to 100 is exactly there; however, the MM mark is at 168. In fact, since tempi have increased, a Waldstein at 84 doesn't seem to be too far-fetched. That would be 5.9 notes per second (semiquavers). Considering Beethoven didn't indicate a severe slowing Italian word in the slow section, that sounds goofy at 168, try it yourself (I often laugh because at that tempo, it sounds like the old Tonight Show Theme from NBC years ago with "Johnny Carson". What I know is that the pendulum was always read by its period (T). To get beats, you must divide the period by two (essentially dividing the T into 120), thus doubling the speed of the tempo. Keep in mind that in 1800, folks didn't play half as slow; the moderns "try" to play twice too fast (but never seem to quite get there but in spurts). Of course, it's a matter of taste, and I offer you the last word as it's your comment box. Thanks for the cordiality. You are a person of class, and that's even more important than solving the world's problems after all. :D
Harpsichordists like me tend to claim that metronome markings - however interpreted - are irrelevant. But many harpsichordists still play faster than is compatible with sensitive phrasing and expression (assuming you think that's relevant). I've written about this for International Piano (a pretty short article, and see my site). I think it's vital when playing Bach to remember how imbued he and his family were with dance rhythms, which would have suggested certain parameters of tempo for certain types of music beyond actual dance. For example, for something like a prelude in 4/4 with a predominant semiquaver movement, an allemande might have been suggested as a rough guide to tempo. In other words, +/- crotchet = 60. Linear music might go a little more slowly, and arpeggiation a little faster. For pianists, for whom this is all rather alien because of the extra centuries of music-making that they draw on, I think your consideration of the likely re-interpretation of metronomne marking must be very valuable. Thanks!
The replacement of harpsichord by (forte-) /piano/ (forte) made the need for very high speed public playing redundant in order to create enough sound especially as the continuo instrument even in the small ensemble e.g. playing the Bach Brandenburg. These had to be practised , I presume, daily to preserve the even fluidity and flexibility in public until such time that the piano (we have dropped the forte as that is not that novel anymore?) took over... and playing piano with that many notes became the new problem! Andras Schiff said the clavichord with its very low volume was Bach favourite instrument at home (organ the most used by him in public)! This private arrangement gave him the most delicate nuances, resonance and harmonics even at high speed especially with the very accessible personal tuning relatively speaking, compared to the organ that resulted in the watershed of defining how major and minor keys comprehensively explored. Whereas the modern piano becomes the elephant in the room that makes pianissimo speed playing of keys with the lightest of touch only possible by glissando?! Breathing well helps ?!
@@Zimzamzoom95 True but he probably would not have marked it with actual numbers considering he only occasionally marked the tempo even though tempo words existed.
Very well argued - I congratulate you particularly on the meticulous data . My view is that Czerny' s tempos were seriously meant but perhaps an exaggeration of what is possible. His tempo's for his own studies (e.g 'School of velocity') are borderline possible. What Bach intended is anyone's guess! Personally I rather like the faster tempo's - and having heard one the slower versions do seem rather ponderous!
Critical editions of music are always a reflection of the tastes and prevailing schools of thought at the time they were written. One day people will look back at this man who awarded himself the title "authentic" and consider his dry ramblings old-fashioned or obsolete.
I have always believed that many aspects of classical music performance (for piano) are arbitrary, in fact, almost all are arbitrary. The fingerings, the left hand/right hand assignments, the phrasings, the tempi, the metronome marks et al... There is a reason why during my time (70s), most piano professors and pedagogues discouraged the students from using Schirmer editions as score reference or resource for learning Bach, Mozart, etc...because it tends to dumb down the student by depending and relying so much on the editor's markings/suggestions and less of one's own analytical abilities. Instead, we were often encouraged to use Kalmus edition which is also a student's nightmare because it is so devoid of "editor's suggestions", phrase marks (like punctuation marks in the written word), suggested fingerings etc etc. Literally, you only see staves and notes. It was everyone's opinion that the professors want the students to dig deep into the written (notated) music, to imagine what the notes and the themes tell us about the music or how the composer might have played it. In short, to decipher the notations and present our own understandings of what we read. This is a wonderful method in that it makes every individual pianist an INDIVIDUAL PIANIST. However (wait for it), there is still the ubiquitous "mentor presence" in one's playing or delivery, call it "influence", in that a mentor's role indeed is to "guide" us to a more profound understanding of what we're playing, and towards a "better" and "more effective" delivery (via techniques passed on thru generations of classical performances by iconic pianists of every culture, but mainly European/Russian). It is often said, "there is no short cut to success". And that means doing a lot of hard work thru music analysis employing logical and rational methods to one's playing. This includes making sense out of the metronome numbers and tempi marks which would often times, as you have pointed out, be illogical in the least. Less dogmatism and more common sense saves the day, well, perhaps not for Glenn Gould whose recording of the complete Bach Preludes and Fugues Vols 1& 2, find me either catching my breath or running out of it. In fact my brain gets exhausted listening to it and digesting the performance experience. Arbitrary is classical music performance, we can play them on any piano instrument - Pleyel, Bosendorfer, Harpsichord, any upright or what have you (synths?), or even wind and stringed instruments, and they will still sound good at the hands of any true artist. Sorry for this lengthy story, thanks for bearing with me. Thanks for this wonderful and intellectually satisfying video.
I still don't get why there isn't more edited versions of famous classics all over (edited for fingerings and tempi) . Even for advanced pianists, for advanced level pieces, it is always eye opening to see the take of each individual famous pianist on a given piece. It doesn't mean performers should take them for golden sources. It's like a recording but written. As much as I can own 20 recordings of Rach 3, I'll be more than happy to buy 20 sheet music versions of it, and get inspiration from all 20.
It’s like speaking English with a variety of accents; some are easier to understand, some are inherently more entertaining, some (including ones with a thick accent) have their own peculiar charm, and some that only pigeons might understand. There is no such a thing as a universally accepted standard English accent; same with music. Unless there are recordings of a piece played by the composer him/herself that promotes/sets a certain intended tone; music in general is subject to interpretation; and frankly, that’s part of its evolving beauty.
Chopin's own metronome markings for his own works also seem significantly faster than on contemporary recordings. Perhaps it is tastes that have changed?
A really nice example! 9:56 In my opinion (as I have stated elsewhere), the ticks don't indicate the subdivision of the metronome mark. They don't indicate anything, according to Mälzel in his _Directions:_ They are the »two beats produced by the motion from one side to the other«. The whole (»single«, i.e. two movements counted as a single one) beat alone indicates the tempo. It does so also in odd meters, where the half-beats can't indicate the subdivision. (I'm sorry if I've written this too often! I promise this is the last time ^^)
7:50. Somehow I like both the 52 bpm and 90 bpm. Both seem natural. In between seems rushed, i.e. don't know whether it is too fast or too slow. Funny feeling. Of course I'm hearing this at the end of a long day of work. Vous prononcez bien le français.
When I was first taking piano lessons my teacher, who was a classically trained pianist, wanted me to learn Bachs 1st invention in C major. So on my following lesson I brought my Czerny book and he looked at it and said something like, "Uggh I guess this will have to do." I'm not a musician, so I never really understood why he had a problem with it until now.
The purity of Bach’s music translates to any tempo/instrument. When played fast, I hear the melody in the slower moving bass and the flourish of right hand notes sounds as chordal accompaniment. When played slow, I enjoy the sweetness of the melodic content and let the bass provide a steady harmonic foundation.
Because Bach’s music transcends the physical, we are liberated from the bodily limitations of the metronome which is a machine and creation of man. I like my interpretations to breathe and quicken when they will and slow to emphasize a particularly beautiful phrase. The absence of tempo and dynamic markings liberate us to express his music, and ourselves, with utmost artistic devotion-something I find lacking in many virtuosic performances that seem to only increase in tempo from previous recordings in a vain attempt to improve upon them. Bach would sooner smile upon the prudent student than the indulgent virtuoso.
YES! Finally a video discussing Czerny's edition of Bach's works! I only requested the courante from suite n.2 but man, you've gone much much further! Thanks for the amazing content you keep posting.
Morgan, I played it at a whopping 53.333 measures per minute, and I failed! HAHA!!!
@@thomashughes4859 ahahaahhaha, or the allemande at a mind blowing 92 for the beat, making trills and ornaments completely impossibile
@@morganmartinez8420 I am pleased that youngsters like you have brains and use them to play music to its utmost. Music is a science - I think the science of the gods - and then it has a human quality that allows us to dream, emote, and wonder. I'm happy you're on Wim's channel; he's one of the great ones - history will verify it!
Excellent and informative presentation. I had never heard of the "whole beat" interpretation of metronome markings. Make perfect sense.
So, in this example, either Czerny thought in whole beat, or he was insane.
xD
He was just stoned.
Yes, I also reckon he meant crochet = 138. That's sensible and most of the greats listed agree (roughly). Much more likely than q=138, which isn't even musical. Czerny wasn't a bozo...
Most of the comments here seem to address the question of "correct tempo", which is not the point of this video. The question Mr. Winters raises is, "How do we correctly interpret metronome marks from the early 19th century, at the time the metronome was first introduced?" Mr. Winters conclusions are absolutely revelatory, and I am going back to my music right now to apply his ideas to some of the pieces I've learned. I'm very curious to hear the result. If others are doing the same, please post about your experiences.
You should check out, "How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony: And Why You Should Care."
I found it to be absolutely fascinating.
@Delphinium Flower this is relatively easy to do with LilyPond and all the music that is programmed in its language for free online!
Just add the tempo to the MIDI code block, recompile, and enjoy!
I am new to this idea, so my question may have been asked and answered. If composers were giving MM= values as Mr Winters suggests, I would assume that the performers at that time were playing the pieces using the same interpretation. Somewhere along the line, the performers changed their interpretations to the modern practice, creating the issues Mr Winters is addressing. However, if you look at modern pieces, the MM= values, in the modern practice, are what the composer intended. So, when did the composers change over to the modern practice, and when they did, were there still performers applying the "old" standard to the new interpretation? As you go back to your music and apply Mr Winters' ideas, are there pieces that obviously don't work with the "old" interpretations?
The Czerny is as important as the destination.
lol
Another very well argued and well presented video, Wim! Your videos are priceless!
Thank you
Being no expert but a Fan, I prefer the slow Tempo.
Gould invariably brings tears to my eyes.
I may applaud Listiza fast-playing,
But the slow tempos move my spirit,
to depths unreachable at a fast pace,
where I may admire the skill,
but lose the aesthetic message.
Well put, I agree.
Except that Gould is playing it on the wrong instrument, at least the sound of modern piano forte is different to what Bach had in mind
@@rezashia3135 Music is no more about the "right" instrument than it is about the right tempo. Preference is subjective.
@@qkrotor Agreed. Bach almost transcends instrument, and it's really more about player than instrument.
i just don t get all that gould thingy, every time i hear him i feel it flat and empty, i so much prefer jacques loussier ^^
Very well done and very convincing, Wim.
I have to congratulate Winters for these last few videos. There is a feeling of "lessons learned" about them, much better arguments now.
Thank you
As a violist this fits so well that it has to be correct. Also I seem to have in the back of my mind that I have read it elsewhere in a discussion of Beethoven's somewhat sarcastic reactions to the introduction of the metronome. To put it together in a video like this is illuminating.
Beethoven was the first composer to use metronome
Wonderful video thank you for your videos on Bach! Please write more!
Thank you so much Bronk!
You have presented strong evidence for whole beat, thanks to our old friend, Czerny. It’s the only tempo solution that makes sense.
Great piece of tempo research and wholly convincing, logically as well as aesthetically. Thank You.
Incredibly well done, and rock solid. Look forward to more!
I'm very happy I found this channel. I learned a lot. Thank you.
the way schiff plays those trills slower than everyon else is so amazing sounds so good
They're not trills. He's playing one of many alternate versions of Bach. The triplets are written in, not ornaments.
@@georgecurtis3322 although technically speaking you are correct it sounds very much like an ornament thats undeniable
One great video Wim, this is some thorough research!
thanks!
I could never poorly judge someone who wrote a viola concerto. Very intriguing video.
What is a viola?
@@G.B.P. a violin but worse
... just play it at the tempo you prefer and let go of other people’s calculations; you like it slow, go slow; you like it fast, you go fast.
This music sounds fabulous on any instrument and at any speed.
Enjoy.
Ah, I understand, and in a sense you are right. But that's not his point actually, I even think he would agree with you. The point is that when you want to recreate historically accurate music by following some authors, how you interpret the indications given by these authors is contentious. If a beat was given, what was it really representing ? It's not a matter of taste, which is of course subjective, but a matter of understanding the minds of great composers.
Jonathan Lamarre
... “understanding the minds of great composers” is like understanding the mind of my dog; it can not be done, although I love both of them all-the-same.
🙏
@@mark-j-adderley You just don't want to actually pay attention to what he's teaching here.
Mark Adderley Your dog expresses himself through the written word, does he?
Music is art, not archaeology. On the other side, contemporary academic compositions are mostly pretentious cr*p, so I understand the necrophiliac tendencies of today's melomania.
As a Cellist, I had no idea of this topic. Excellent presentation and study, thank you very much! Yeow, 144!
Great to know you're a cellist Jim!
Excellent video!! I don't even see how someone could argue. I've seen Lisitza's version before, even before I started watching you and was thinking I don't even like the way that sounds. I think she's amazing, but some of her music is just played way too fast! But yes, this was a great video!!
Thanks Susan!
To be fair to Lisitza however, she mentions that she recorded the inventions with the intended goal to stretch her ability (as exercices) and not to attain musicality. So she litteraly played them as fast as she could, not trying to achieve beauty.
Yes, like I said, I think she's amazing. But I think it helps prove Wim's whole beat theory since she was playing it as fast as she could. But yes, I'm not trying to slam her. I love watching her. 😊
@@susankinney5193 Yes, I agree. I was just precising :-)
She was mentioned in the video. I was agreeing that the invention used for demonstration here sounds too fast, and it wasn't even played in single beat tempo.
Thanks. The same logic needs to be applied to Reger's markings (i.e.organ) as they too would require a tempo probably and logically double what is possible.
Brilliant revelation for me, THANK YOU, Mr. Winters! ♥♥♥
We will never know because the composers are not here to play for us.
T W Huning
We have acoustic recordings by Camille Saint-Saens, who was born in 1835 and evidently loved to play fast. Some of Beethoven's own markings seem utopian, which is not surprising considering his deafness at the time. But cutting them in half by counting subdivisions would render his pieces intolerably boring. Lots of composers suggest tempi which border on the absurd, but who needs to double the length of every piece in the repertoire? I think we should take into account the full tempo and then do what sounds good, rather than adhering slavishly to a theory.
We can't even keep God's laws successfully, so why must we unconditionally obey the composer, especially when he is absent or dead?
Czerny in one of his J S Bach editions that the Allegro of J S Bach's were slower than (then contemporary) use of Allegro. The two part inventions (originally called Praeambulum) to produce a cantabile (singing) style, quite contrary to the concept of excessive speed.
Of course. We should always look back to the original Italian meaning of musical terms, and allegro means lively, not fast.
All of this information is well presented. Thank you for advancing the cause.
Czerny probably got tired of compiling all that music. He added those fast tempi to get done with the edition as quickly as possible.
Yeah, sure, that's the ticket!
good one
@Delphinium Flower hahaha that was good
@Tob Lin Fire and Ice? Now, you're bringing Pat Benatar into the mix? : )
@Tob Lin I was joking about Benatar.
Thanks for this, I have some older transcriptions that the metronome notation is WAY beyond what I could ever play, and I don't know if even world class soloists would be able to keep up with. Makes me feel better after watching this. Oh, and its not like the recordings of these pieces are up at the insane tempo noted, they are where would be expected.
Bach didn't write those tempo markings. Why following markings of an editor religiously?
Well, your half-smiling pulled a face at 13:31 reveals what your choice is! Lol And I fully agree. Thx for sharing these fascinating videos!
Thanks for another interesting piece of evidence. And now we wait for the book...
I ran into this exact problem today and I completely agree with you. I'm learning the c minor prelude BWV 871 and Czerny marks it 1/4=132 which sounds like double speed if interpreted in the modern way. And Czerny says in the introduction to the edition 'for those without the Maelzel metronome, keep in mind that allegro is to be taken more slowly than in modern works'! which would imply that the average pianist would play the piece FASTER than 1/4=132 if they just went by the allegro indication! I can't believe that, and not even Gould's recording approaches 132.
Even assuming that Czerny (1791-1857) applied the whole note approach as you suggest in his edition of Bach's easier keyboard works (which admittedly would provide a good explanation for what would otherwise be a crazily fast tempo), why does it follow that Beethoven (1770-1827) had applied that approach years earlier when he marked the tempi i his Hammerklavier sonata in 1818? Also, to be sure of your theory about Czerny's approach in his edition of Bach, you would need to check all of his tempo markings, not just this one tempo making for the c major fugue from WTC1. If that is the only instance where Czerny's marking, if taken literally, seems twice as fast as the nature of the composition calls for, iSn't the far simpler explanation simply that the crotchet =138 tempo marking is a misprint, and he instead meant minim = 138? It is far from unusual for even good editions of keyboard works to betray misprints, even today, even in famous works. Accidentally colouring in a minim in a tempo making seems to me precisely the kind of human error that could creep in and go unnoticed. Also curious to know how you reason when it comes to whole note theory and tempi marked in dotted crotchets or dotted minims - why would any composer or editor choose to notate a tempo in a way that results in the number metronome beats identified in the notation creating a cross-rhythm that conflicts with time signature and duration of bars?
Great video Wim!
Thank you for this! Much food for thought!!
I think you are right as I deem Czerny intended 69 and instead marked 138 according to the metronome practice in use at his time
For the 138 mark Czerny must have been thinking about the 8th rather than the quarter. In that case it's pretty close to the recordings.
Pretty interesting arguments. I am, personnally, convinced by them.
If we allow 'tempo' to serve 'phrasing', the slower tempi become ineluctable. Music then rises up from what was once an almost meaningless rush of sound. That is to say, musicality should not be sacrificed on the racetrack of speed.
I agree. I've watched a few videos of different drummers-one of which is the highly revered and idolized Buddy Rich. Sure, he was a good drummer-BUT I really wasn't moved by any solos of his as they were mainly an exposition of speed/physicality and not very musical. The slow playing blues guitarist for example that can bend a single note beyond what seems possible is every bit as satisfying as a so called 'shredder'. It's all in what satisfies the listener. IMHO Dvorak's 'Slavonic Dances' showcase tasteful speed and tempo changes within the realm of satisfying musicality.
@@tomservo5347 Indeed. I have a very old LP of Shostakovich playing several of his 24 Preludes and Fugues, featuring No. 4 in e minor and No. 16 in B flat minor. His tempi in his own works is so much slower and so much more expressive than the metronome markings in the Freundlich edition I picked up many, many years ago. In his renditions of his most thoughtful fugues, Shostakovich is totally concerned with his phrasing and the balances among his subjects and countersubjects. He is the antithesis of, say, Roger Woodward, who races through this wonderful set of keyboard pieces in such a way that one would never "get" their beauty and profundity.
@@tomservo5347 Dissatisfied with a drummer because they don't sound like a guitarist, lol.
Lee Johnson Exactemente.
Fascinating. Thank you so much.
The praxis of modern concert performances of the inventions are guided not by metronome numbers but by the wish to personalize the rendering, and to stay well inside the practical possible. The discussion of the older metronome markings are weird and to my knowledge irrelevant, however, Wim does a very good analysis of the dilemma. But one must not suppose that metronome markings are error-free or made with a metronome at hand. One must not suppose that one error in the Inventions is caused by same mistakes that cause the errors of the Hammerklavier marking or other Beethoven markings. It is well known that Beethoven after his deafness made too fast metronome markings, because he could only ***think*** music.
Really interesting. Thank you. I would like to hear many more examples with whole-beat. The Hammerklavier on whole-beat sounds uncomfortably slow to me though.
one needs a little time ti adjust. after that...no way back!
AuthenticSound ok. I’ll give it a try. :)
This is a VERY good vidéo. (Sorry for writing at 6am from a smartphone. You have done a great job !)
I totally agree with your theory and add mine to Wynona Fudd's comment here below. Playing Bach's (many) compositions on harpsichord as well as on piano, one couldn't but agree to this theory and Czerny's editions. Thanks for another well prepared and presented upload.
If you were in a court of justice, the jury would be with you for sure! Great work. Turek not by chance sounds so right, the closest to 100%.
I love your scholarship and knowledge. Even though I am no pianist its amazing to discover so much through your expert eyes. Thanks
Bach is a forever Source of interest.
I think it is clear that slower tempos are appropriate, and one may choose what one prefers.
I very much appreciate this scholarship, and I would very much also appreciate some investigation into the music of Haydn and boccherini, Each of whom I adore.
Catching up. This video is enlightening. I like the slower tempi.
Your logic is impeccable and I have to agree with you about historical metronome markings and tempi: the whole beat theory is the only one that makes sense. But what about historical metronomes themselves? I have just found that Maelzel's original patent is available on line, and his description of how his metronome works and what it does is rather difficult to reconcile with the whole-beat theory. Not impossible, but difficult, and it rather depends on what you think he meant by the word "vibration." Is a "vibration," for him, a full cycle of the pendulum or is it only a half-cycle, the motion between two clicks? When he describes mechanism of the metronome, it seems as though he counts two clicks as a "vibration," or the full left-right cycle of the pendulum. But if for him a "vibration" is a full cycle, then why did he mark the scale for setting the weight in half-cycles, counting all the clicks? That would mean that if you used one of his metronomes you would have to cut in half the actual numerical settings to arrive at realistic tempi, and that Czerny et al. neglected to do that; and I don't see why Maelzel marked his scale in a way that makes that necessary. But it certainly looks as though that's exactly what he did. I'd love to see what you make of this. books.google.com.mx/books?id=dO80AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA7&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thank you for the compliment! The patent describes the working of the metronome, so yes, so many ticks per minute. The 1816 instructions are more important. Here is an extensive video on that text: ua-cam.com/video/7tizWwFiaKc/v-deo.html
@@AuthenticSound Thank you for this; I missed that video. My first language is English and I have to say the English of the 1816 instructions is not very clear. It probably suffers from being, as you say, a word-for-word translation of the German, which I assume was Maelzel's first language. I don't know enough German to read the German text with any depth of understanding so I can't evaluate it. Nevertheless, as you say, the English text can be read the way you read it, and I am convinced that is the way it was intended; but it is also much easier for a native English speaker to read it as contradicting the whole beat theory. For many people, that reading, being easier, will remain the more convincing of the two. So we end by having to either accept the whole beat idea, awkward language and all, or to assume that early 19th century composers and editors habitually indicated unplayable and unlistenable tempi. To me, that is the convincing point.
I was watching a performance by a young student Tiffany Koo of Beethoven's 2nd piano concerto part 1. I wondered how it would sound played by a concert pianist. Koo played it in 15.5 minutes, beautiful! A Russian pianist who's name I won't recall played the piece in 13 minutes; he must have had to catch the late train to St. Petersburg, he definitely won the race to incomprehensibility but completely lost the musicality of this beautiful piece. I can't recall anything but speed of his playing which I just can't imagine was Beethoven's intention.
In all of the examples you used of the Bach prelude, it became a little less beautiful as speed increased until it became grotesque at the peak. The standard for deciding on tempo has to be what will present the music to the audience in its profundity, in my opinion, stressing less the marks and their interpretations.
Interesting video and I love those shelfs full of sheet music behind you - have you ever donne a shelf tour video, if not would you be interested in doing that ?
Edit - I looked through your video list and found videos where you are sharing you old scores - thanks.
I love his old sheet music tours. After seeing those, I get into trouble looking for some of them on IMSLP. I've been lucky with some of the composers, but not all.
I think what would make most sense is that it's not "this is the precise tempo that you should be playing" but rather "this is the rhythm that you should be playing against"; what you should set your metronome to, but not necessarily playing the notated beat as
I very much enjoyed this, thanks!
I have Schirmer's Library edition for Czerny/Bach WTC. How's that?
I turned 107 last month, and my grandfather told me all his life of the time he heard Beethoven in person.
That’s amazing! I would love to hear the story.
sorry everyone I'm joking.... if I was 107 I would have been born in 1912. Even if my grandfather were a full 70 years older than me, that would make him born in 1842. Beethoven lived 1770-1827. not trying to troll, just wanted to see if people would figure out it wasn't possible
Well I wish my great great grandma would live in Europe my dad met her , he was probably 10 when died.
I counted the years from her birth and she was born in the 1820 /1830
I am sure that there is people who have this fortune in Europe like my self
To me is just amazing to know that my Dad and many of his bothers their great grandma who live 120 yrs and my dad is almost 78
I am 41 yrs old
And yes , I know people who met a person from the time of Mozart ,(1820) Chopin , Bethooven , praise God.
I know that there are many possibilities of people who's great great grandfather met this gs in person and they met.
My gramps , and many of his sons who are a live know they met this Lady in person.
Yeah up !
Your math does not take into account that you claim it along the male line rather than female. Men can create progeny long after the age of 35 (a great number of women as well, but not as long as men), so conceivably if it had been your father's father and each had produced their son in their 70s, which is conceivable (pun intended), then it's actually not only possible, but he could have been approximately the same age.
But, hey, if you want to lie to people just to see if they will believe your lie, who am I to stop your fun..
@@juliafox52 two 70 year old fathers in a row is one in a million, especially when life expectancy is much lower in the 19th century. as for calling a totally harmless joke a "lie," I clarified that it was a joke and had no bad intentions, after a single reply.
Îm french and take care with czerny cause you shall divide by two. It’s an old Way to count Time very fashionable in czerny Time. It gose like this un puis deux puis trois. So czerny shall be divisés by two. And sometimes we shall do the same with chopin.
That is interesting! And very similar to this 1860 French source: ua-cam.com/video/0oh5v8hhs3Y/v-deo.html
Doers thsi mean that the speed intended should be around 70?
@@AuthenticSound Yes. Acording to my old theatcher this was used to 'show up' virtuoso in Salon Parisien. An other explanation was this a way to force your student (by fearing them) to work what you want instead of trying to play other thing that doesn't fit their leve. More reasonable, this a way to count in french traditional music. It"s to guide the dancer in village party but marked as a quater note. The french noblesse dance either with peasant and prince so this was usual in all the cathegorie on population other wise you 'll have to dance a walk at speed of 130, a bit fast to be shawn in versaille"s gallerie des glaces. So here's this french exeption that in not one cause you can find it in Padre Soler in Spain with fandango played to fast today.
@@shaalis Yes this shall be cut in two
Extremely interesting. I have been convinced of the truth of the half beat metronome marking since encountering Weber’s own markings to Der Freischütz. They are nonsensical unless taken as indicative of the half beat.
Thanks Joel. To clarify: Half beat means modern practice. The "beat" (German= Schlag' was a full swing in early times, hence the 'whole beat' practice, where the two ticks combined form one unity
How accurate were the 19th Century metronomes? I have heard doubt shed on Maelzel's skill as a clockmaker.
Even the early ones are almost digitally accurate: ua-cam.com/video/0l3x-7iCb4k/v-deo.html
Did you check czerny's edition of the goldberg variations? The 25th variation is pratically played in double beat by EVERYBODY.
will do that, thanks!
Great video.
You should make a scan of your copy of Czerny's edition and upload it to IMSLP.
I would if I could but those books are like of a library value, old, vulnarable, and not fitting the scanner anyways! We'll provide the information on the new to built website. 2020 will be the year!
@@AuthenticSound If you take a high resolution photo of each page, I'll clean it up and compile the PDF for IMSLP. That should be quite safe to do, and require minimal equipment: a tripod, some lights and a camera.
@@AuthenticSound What is the opus of the book?
What do you thinking about connection between fast playing Bach's pieces and the desire to hide the falsity of thirds in a equal temperament. May be the same reason in use stocatto everywhere in Gould's technic? And the same in use vibrato everywhere in music of the twentieth century?
I love to hear you play organ! Please..... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
It seems to me that Carl Czerny is one of the best arguments for double beat tempos.
@@Fafner888 If the mm are impossible I don't think anyone would like them, not just Wim. I mean if you like something that's impossible to play then that's on you. But the problem is however that those guys played it. And none of them referred to them as impossible to play. Thats the problem. Not even mentioning that some of them meant the work for kids.
@@Fafner888 I think you are a few videos behind. Try and see all them related to Czerni from the last couple of months.
P.s. He did wanted people to reach the mm
@@Fafner888 There are sources that give Allegro as 1/4=60, and prestissimo as 1/4=120, from this time. Thomas Young also states that Quantz's fastest tempo is to be understood as 1/4=160 with quavers as fastest note value, which in turn would mean that his tempi given in his chart are to be understood as 1/2 as slow. He also states that Baroque music was taken much slower than modern Allegro, which matches what Czerny said in his introduction to the WTC about Baroque Allegros, "that they are to be taken, as a rule, much more slowly and tranquilly than modern Allegros"
Czerny's Bach editions are generally slower than his solo works & etudes, what leads you to believe that these tempi were not intended to be reached? He mostly matches Quantz & Young by not going much faster than 80 for Allegros/ Presto. But some Allegrettos have 32nds at 1/8=108, and some fast runs at 1/8=114 & 120 w/32nds.
Also, there are sources given by Wim that give the fastest possible speeds, and 1/4=152 is the limit at the end of the 19th century. Czerny tempi in the inventions are right up to, at or faster than this limit, i.e. invention 8 1/4=152 & invention 14 1/4=108 w/ 32nds, keep in mind these pieces are for beginner/ intermediate players. This is not a one off problem but a systematic use of high m.m., I don't think that the arguments that these m.m. weren't meant to be reached, or that these musicians couldn't play their pieces in their given tempi , holds any water.
@@Fafner888 That “stuff” about Quantz and Young has everything to do with the metronome! Direct unambiguous evidence of what kind of tempi was used in the past, and it is much slower than the status quo of modern musicology. These m.m. are consistent from this period across different composers, so the argument that we don’t know how Czerny actually played just doesn’t make sense to me, this is not an isolated occurrence, but a systematic problem. The m.m. are the problem and premise of this whole debate, if you don’t agree than we live on different planets.
I like Czerny's tempi for Bach. Beethoven tempo for the 106 also. Richter plays fast the WTC, that's very enjoyable. Also, for Bach, those tempi are much easier on organ and harpsichord than hammerklavier. I would love to hear Bach pieces at tempo on harpsichord.
Ty UA-cam for spilling the tea on centuries old tempo marking drama
Gould was so good it's hard to listen to any other interpretation of Bach
Beethoven 's first teacher belonged to Bach Inner circle. I would absolutely trusted Beethoven students to teach correct Bach 's music.
@@micheldemazieres4656 I didn't write "Johann Sebastian "anywhere, did i, his children (most of them anyway),and his students were more than enough to teach correct Bach 's music.
Czerny was an insane genius, a maverick and a total madman.
Only you would know.
Irrespective of tempi, Czerny's fingerings given in the WTC unparalleled. They are so natural and greatly facilitate the learning of each work; so many other editions are the opposite of this (I'm thinking especially of the atrocious Associated Board edition that is regrettably ubiquitous in the UK). I agree that many (though by no means all) of C.C's tempi seem far fetched - C# minor fugue in book II being perhaps the most extreme example.
Love the work you do, Wim!
Regards,
G
I hear you on the fingering. I have various editions of the WTC, digital as well as in print, including Czerny's and these are the fingerings that not only work, but seem to stick as well. The others, supposedly to help with articulation, are confusing.
Czerny edition WTC notations can facilitate student performance study in that fingerings under notes denote LH, above they are played with RH.
Czerny knew what he was doing. His beginner book is the best ive tried and ive tried a lot
What book ? School of pianoforte ?
The irony of judging Czerny from this century of information overload. As Goethe said: Common sense is the genius of mankind.
Someone in the comments suggested that 138 tempo is about the 8ths. Then the tempo makes sense and no need for the whole beat theory
interesting video.
This is a wonderful video. I wonder if this leads into the topic of the reliability of metronome markings in the 19th century? Beethoven’s markings were notoriously fast, and it’s been shown that many metronomes from that time were inaccurate and in fact were slow (sometimes up to 30% slower than the marked time)
Where has it been shown? state your sources.
Carl Czerny is a hero of mine of sorts as i play his studies on my guitar. and Bach too.
Czerny was a brilliant genius....at the age of 10 he had mastered everything Beethoven had published, and in so doing he made a deep impression on Beethoven, who offered him free lessons. The great B's respect for Czerny never decreased through his life. How can anyone in their right mind deny the genius level musicianship of Czerny....his Etude no. 50 op 740 will give a run for the money to any Chopin Etudes (or anybody else's). He would teach 10 hours a day, go back home, write down a composition he would not even CHECK at the piano, and take it to the publisher the next morning, who would accept it on trust. He composed everything, not just studies, but symphonies, a mountain of sonatas, pieces for 6 hands....just insane. He intentionally did not care about being an itinerant virtuoso because, as he wrote, he 'did not have the required dose of charlatanism'. I would not trade a Czerny for ALL of today's 'virtuosos', put together. Some people badmouthed him, but generally they did so in a mindless way, and probably referred to only a very small set of studies for children, which probably Czerny composed in his sleep. A magnificent artist of the piano, and a total master of music. The Prestissimo from his Sonata no.1 op 7 never fails to blow my mind. Personally I love his studies op 821, and in my opinion they make the best piano system ever written, it will take one from late intermediate to hero level.
@@calebhu6383 , sorry, but your observation is nonsense. Czerny was a classical pianist in the 'bravura style'. That's what he was. Basically, classical era piano with a virtuosic element. That's what he did. No more, no less. That you prefer other styles takes nothing from his musical mastery. 'Perhaps' he was a brilliant musician? Are you serious? With all due respect, my friend, 95 per cent of all concert pianists today, and of the last 100 years, to me, are just human cd players compared to Czerny. I highly respect the Richters and the Goulds, or Lisitsa, but even them are like children compared to Czerny. Are you seriously telling me that if you hear pieces like his Etude no 50 op740 or the Prestissimo from the sonata I mentioned, you would judge such music as being 'poor taste' ? And what are these supposed 'standards' of today that you are talking about? Again, the best thing you hear from pianists today is how they play someone else's music. There are a very few exceptions, like Stephen Hough. But the rest is just musical reproduction, and when I realize 85 per cent of concert pianists play Chopin, I see a huge, huge difference between them and Czerny. One spends 20 years practicing to play this or that passage perfectly, that always belongs to some master. Sure, there is great value in learning Bach fugues. And someone has to play them, someone has to do that important work, and few can even play it, but it seems to me that it is mostly because that's all that can be done. Czerny could do a lot, a lot more than that. And please, do away with the 'perhaps', even Stravinsky admired Czerny as a musician, and ultimately, Beethoven. It's as if you told me that 'perhaps' Bruce Lee could fight, or 'perhaps' Niki Lauda could drive. I say all this to you with the highest respect. If you want to argue about Czerny's brilliance, you have to do a lot better than telling me about 'poor taste for today's standards' and such fuzzy arguments The fact is, Czerny would run circles around any pianists today. It is puzzling that most of them think of Czerny as some kind of bygone pianist that was a master only in his time, and nothing more than that. And really, don't you think it's like stabbing someone in the back? He basically taught almost all the best pianists of his era and beyond, through his pedagogical works, which is not 'exercises', but music. I don't understand why a Bach 2 part invention is not seen as a worthless exercise, but the best studies from op 740, is. Or why a Chopin Etude op 10 is seen as a work of art (which I do not deny is) but the no 50 op 740 by Czerny is seen as little more than an exercise. On a musical level, the latter has NOTHING less than the former, yet everybody seems to think so. What you said about Czerny could be said of Liszt too, or Paganini, or Louis Moreau Gottschalk. And in the past, some people HAS said that about these three. But out of them, today only Czerny gets the badmouthing. Why? So, they didn't write like Bach. So what? I remember reading when Arnold Schoenberg said to someone that he really liked Gershwin's music, and someone remarked: 'But it's not serious music'. And Schoenberg explained that the fact that it's serious or not, takes nothing from Gershwin's talents. I personally think you say what you say because you have been influenced by other people's opinions....this stuff about how Czerny had 'poor taste' has been long ongoing, mainly by people who never paid any real attention to the man, his music, and his philosophy about it. 'Perhaps' what, my friend. My prediction is that in the next few decades, Czerny will be given the space he justly deserves, and this is already happening....I just heard the Op 822 No 46 from the Nouveau Gradus Ad Parnassum, played by Pedro Martins and I was completely mesmerized by how this music is brilliant, soulful, masterful, and exciting. I never compare a musician like Bach with one like Czerny, therefore the argument about 'taste' to me is like pseudoscience, i.e. it's based not on facts, but personal preferences. If you had told me: 'I don't like it because there's too many scales' or something, I would have respected the argument. Me, I like it a lot. As CPE Bach wrote in his famous essay, 'there's something good in all good music'. Regards.
Perhaps it is possible to play these works on single beat. However, Czerny states on his Preface for the Well-tempered Clavier "Those who have no Maelzel's metronome at hands are reminded, that the Allegro in these old compositions is to be taken, as a rule, much more tranquilly and slowly than in modern works" .
Do we have to think that Allegro in the XIX century was even faster than the ridiculously hasted M. M. markings on the Bach edition? Is it even possible?
A bit confusing.
Excellent post, Sebastian! If, in the early 19th century, Czerny is speaking of "old compositions" and "as a rule", and we have near the end of the 19th century Saint Saenz speaking of "our Allegros were the masters' [of Mozart, precisely] Moderatos", then it's a shoo-in for whole beat.
As an aside, Weber criticised the Metronome because of its cost and offered a simple pendulum to do the work just as correctly, and "cheaply". :D
Thank you for the quoted information because - though not "proof" of whole beat - the preponderance of the evidence continues to reach the level of a "civil proceeding" were I the judge in the case.
Great work, ¡Sebastian!
@@thomashughes4859 There is not only evidence of slower tempi on Metric related articles. We must also look the detailed evidence on articulation and expression marks. A great example is Czerny's chapter on Staccato an Legato playing, where he makes a difference between mezzo staccato (3/4 of Q.N) , staccato (half of Q.N) and staccatissimo or martellato (the fastest staccato and to be used only in bravura style). That level of detail in articulation is hard to achieve in fast tempi. Perfect example is WTC prelude in d minor, which indicates Non Legato (3/4 of the bass note's lenght) in Czerny edition for Q.N =80. Absolute nonsense from the technical point of view.
@@sebastianluna1984 Excellent. Thank you. You have piqued my interest. I believe I played that P/F some 35 years ago in university. :D
@@micheldemazieres4656 Nice try. I think Sebastian and I are quite reasonable. Playng anything in "our league" is not the right tack for this video. It is not about "US"; it's about "Czerny" and "his" tempi.
You have two choices: You may choose Czerny's tempo at tick-tocks per note value or per the time it takes (2 pi) for that note value to occur. Period (pun intended). That is the crux of this video.
P.S. You are now commenting on another's comment section, which is "his and his alone". The use of "you" and "your" in your sentence: "... but if playing that left hand non legato at quarter 80 is beyond you, the WTK is way out of your league" is "ad hominem" as if it mattered what "we" can or cannae do, which it does not. Please keep to the discussion at hand without retorts to our individual technique and/or practises.
Great video, Wim
Wanda Landowska to Pablo Casals ... 'You play Bach your way; I'll play him HIS way'. For all of her undisputed greatness, it's understandable that Ralph Kirkpatrick didn't exactly idolise her! Long live differences in interpretation to give us freedom of choice.
How interesting!
Quite simply my opinion, as a very longtime fan of J.S. Bach is this; The excellent & delicious interplay of his 2 & 3 part pieces or inventions have a wonderful sense of grace, dignity, atmosphere, elegance, nobility ,even majesty and definitely beauty, played at slower, approx half speed (ie; 68-70 ) or even less,.
All this is completely destroyed at breakneck mechanical speed, (which is illogical & irrational ! ) which I personally very much doubt was Bach's intention.
The other possibility is that there could be a misunderstanding of what 138 actually means?.
Does one like to hear Artistry, Grace and Beauty; Yes or No, but at Czerny's Maezel metronome indications it is a NO !!?
So, simply maybe Czerny meant them to be 'practice tempi' - to develop dexterity, & so on, and not meant to be used in actual Concert room performance, which for me, Glen Gould's Genius brings out all the aforesaid Beauty (omitting his humming !).
A good opinion If you read something fast, nobody understands. It's that simple
One of your most convincing cases yet for whole beat.
My argument against your whole beat hypothesis, that the tempo marking in the C major invention being meant to be MM=138 to the eighth note, is that Czerny also added the indication "Allegro vivace" to the score, hence suggesting a very fast tempo. Playing it at half speed at MM=69 surely does not sound very "allegro vivace", at least to our modern sensibilities. This more or less confirms the idea that Bach's music was often reduced to nothing but a technical exercise in 19th century performance practice.
thank you for sharing your thoughts. This might be a too narrow platform to base a complete 'structure' upon though. Allegro was considered to be 'moderately' fast + you'll have to give an answer to speeds up to 28 notes a second ua-cam.com/video/W9-AjeeBfaU/v-deo.html
perfect! and yes, Czerny was insane. I have no admiration of a man who tries to teach piano and can't play Chopin's works, like Op. 10 no. 1.
We're so used to the music of the 19th century great composers that its easy to forget that they really were a minority. I have a small collection of sheet music from the 1840s by various composers, including material by Czerny, and its difficult to communicate just how bad some of it is. Czerny comes out in the middle of the pack -- he's no Beethoven but the material seems to be well constructed if a bit on the bombastic side. His material is obviously designed to sell and seen in that context a lot of what he did makes complete sense -- it's not about great art, just moving as much printed paper into as many European middle class drawing rooms as possible.
Yep and supposedly the amateurs in those middle class homes were capable of playing faster than any professional alive today! Chopin sold music for the same reason and his MM numbers are as high as Czerny's.
@@charliej6063 Without TV or internet for pastimes I imagine they got in a bit more practice than the average amateur today.
may we get some names of those you consider awful? i'm pretty curious about it
@@raulperez2308 Here's just a handful of songs....there's also instrumental music, duets and so on....
"She Never Told Her Lover" -- Dr. Hendyn
"Sally in our Alley" -- E. Fawcett
"My Heart's on the Rhine" -- Speyer
"Polly Won't You Try Me, Oh!" -- Mrs. Barney Williams
"We are Spirits Blythe and Free" -- G.A. MacFarren
"My Barque is Bounding Near" -- M.W. Balfe
"Come Dance with Me" -- Alexander Lee
Most of it is mediocre but "Polly" is......well, I should get it out on the 'net and you could judge for yourself. Obviously tastes change, but someone thought it good enough to spend a not inconsiderable sum of money on it (sheet music wasn't cheap, it was a significant fraction of a person's weekly wages back then).
It doesn't convince me. Take Czerny's edition of Beethoven's Sonata op.13 for example. According to your theory, you would have to play the Grave beginning of the first movement at 29 beats per quaver, which makes it falling apart completely. Also the Sonata op. 26, first movement Andante at 40 beats per quaver! Impossible. I would be very curious to hear you perform these following your theory...
whenever he was presented with such conclusive refutations of his theory he simply ignored it.
If you would allow me to post in order to convince you, I played this piece for a concert in 1984, and sadly at a very rapid tempo (close to Czerny's "modernised" tempo at 58=quaver). What was the problem? Don't get me wrong, "everybody 'luuved'" the piece; however; the Grave, I played so fast that the 128th-note "nontuplet" in measure four was not possible for me "in time" (at Czerny's "modernised" tempo would be 17.4 notes per second) I could only muster a clear 11 to 12 notes per second sustained. So, I guessed at the timing like most do ... remember, Grave? Furthermore, just one measure later from the "p" to the "FF" sounded silly to me as well quasi out of place ... it never made sense. And then comes the "dreaded" measure 10! Ouch ... I have not heard anyone play that except "ad lib.". We know it has a certain amount of notes, and as long as I can get them "schmushed" in during the time allotted, I guess we were good ... Hm ... Those last chromatics go by at just under 15 1/2 notes per second, and again, it was a "guessy" run like most stuff at "über-veloz". If you wish, I will record it now (after what 35 years), and e-mail it to you so that you can hear it. Maybe that might get you at least thinking of the option of whole beat where, in my mind and opinion, it sounds really cool!
Regarding the "Andante", "walking", yes? I was in the United States Coast Guard Marching Band (E-5) playing the Glockenspeil, of course ... and our marches (Souza's) "Alla Marcia" were "left foot" at 54! That was "modernised" 108 MM practice. The Marine Band plays closer to "left foot" on 60, but that's seated. Check for yourself. The "pace" is every "left" foot. At 80 in the Czerny Andante, each left foot hits at 40 (each tick per foot step - set your MM at 160 per foot step, and let me know if that's a nice Andante, or almost a jog). According to the "solemness" of the piece, it seems appropriate to me at left foot per 40. By the by, Souza did not put MM marks on any of his scores. No need because the "March" of the US Soldier/Sailor is by "Roman" tradition to walk a certain amount of time per day. :D
Anyway, ThePianoenergy, I appreciate the time, and if this post is not appropriate, please refer to the Admnistrator for my "taking it down", and I'll be happy to. I wrote this in "bona fide" that you may not be convinced ... yet, but with some additional information, you might do your own research and reconsider. Thanks again. Tom
@@thomashughes4859 No, I am still not convinced at all, I am sorry. If you can't play the Grave of op.13 at Czerny's metronome markings, play it a bit slower, far more important to get the expression in a way that listeners today can experience the "Grave" in 4/4. Beethoven wants us to experience 4/4, not 16/16! And you don't have to play like an accountant, music doesn't come out of a metronome, it has to breathe. Play the 1 st movement of op. 27 No2 (so called "Moonlight Sonata") at 30/crotchet and you will experience, how ridiculous this sounds. Nothing left of Beethoven's alla breve to say the least...
Performing traditions develop over time, the same as language and any form of life for that matter, but they do that smoothly. That of course also applies to traditions in tempo and expression of music. It is simply not possible that we suddenly get all the metronome markings fundamentally wrong. We all come out of a tradition, we haven't lived on an island, or do you really think that at some point between Czerny's time and our time, people suddenly started to play double the tempo, or how would you imagine that huge misunderstanding of all metronome markings came into existance and on what terms?
@@sorim1967 Yes, my experience previously. A pity, but it seems to be difficult to answer.
@@ThePianoenergy Sorry you couldn't be convinced. I appreciate the response nonetheless. I can play the Grave at both the modern tempo and Czerny's tempo. As a "root" word, Grave is the slowest of our tempo words, and it's roughly half of the Adagio. In 1800, according to documents, Adagios were played in common time some 5 to 7 measures per minute (set the pendulum or Metronome accordingly); therefore, the Graves were played at 2.5 to 3.5 measures per minute. Yes, at its slowest, some 24 seconds to the bar or 6 seconds per crotchet. That puts the quaver at 3 seconds each. Set your Metronome to 20 beats per minute for each quaver. Czerny's 58 to the quaver in whole beat is remarkably 29, was it? That seems to be 9 clicks faster than the lower Grave tempo. Performing traditions have changed, and this channel is dedicated to a performance practice not seen in over 150 + years. If you want to speak modern Spanish, it developed over the last 500-600 years; however, if you want to learn Latin, then you go back to the documents and grammar, etc. then for Latin. Everything develops, and Authentic Sound is not for the modern practitioner, why make it such? Performers did not suddenly play double time or standard time; they played in time. They simply interpreted the Metronome differently after a period. The Gershwin Allegro (20th c) I have shows the crotchet at 100 - certainly half beat. We know because Gershwin has his own redordings. That's 6.66 notes per second (semiquaver). The Waldstein I play at 92 to 100 is exactly there; however, the MM mark is at 168. In fact, since tempi have increased, a Waldstein at 84 doesn't seem to be too far-fetched. That would be 5.9 notes per second (semiquavers). Considering Beethoven didn't indicate a severe slowing Italian word in the slow section, that sounds goofy at 168, try it yourself (I often laugh because at that tempo, it sounds like the old Tonight Show Theme from NBC years ago with "Johnny Carson". What I know is that the pendulum was always read by its period (T). To get beats, you must divide the period by two (essentially dividing the T into 120), thus doubling the speed of the tempo. Keep in mind that in 1800, folks didn't play half as slow; the moderns "try" to play twice too fast (but never seem to quite get there but in spurts). Of course, it's a matter of taste, and I offer you the last word as it's your comment box. Thanks for the cordiality. You are a person of class, and that's even more important than solving the world's problems after all. :D
Harpsichordists like me tend to claim that metronome markings - however interpreted - are irrelevant. But many harpsichordists still play faster than is compatible with sensitive phrasing and expression (assuming you think that's relevant). I've written about this for International Piano (a pretty short article, and see my site). I think it's vital when playing Bach to remember how imbued he and his family were with dance rhythms, which would have suggested certain parameters of tempo for certain types of music beyond actual dance. For example, for something like a prelude in 4/4 with a predominant semiquaver movement, an allemande might have been suggested as a rough guide to tempo. In other words, +/- crotchet = 60. Linear music might go a little more slowly, and arpeggiation a little faster. For pianists, for whom this is all rather alien because of the extra centuries of music-making that they draw on, I think your consideration of the likely re-interpretation of metronomne marking must be very valuable. Thanks!
It's great to discover others searching for similar goals!
The replacement of harpsichord by (forte-) /piano/ (forte) made the need for very high speed public playing redundant in order to create enough sound especially as the continuo instrument even in the small ensemble e.g. playing the Bach Brandenburg. These had to be practised , I presume, daily to preserve the even fluidity and flexibility in public until such time that the piano (we have dropped the forte as that is not that novel anymore?) took over... and playing piano with that many notes became the new problem! Andras Schiff said the clavichord with its very low volume was Bach favourite instrument at home (organ the most used by him in public)! This private arrangement gave him the most delicate nuances, resonance and harmonics even at high speed especially with the very accessible personal tuning relatively speaking, compared to the organ that resulted in the watershed of defining how major and minor keys comprehensively explored. Whereas the modern piano becomes the elephant in the room that makes pianissimo speed playing of keys with the lightest of touch only possible by glissando?! Breathing well helps ?!
please make a distinction between
Metronome-Markings vs. Tempo
for me personally, i just play it at a tempo that sounds good
Bach made no metronome markings because he assumed musicians were musical people not robots.
@@angryjalapeno no, because metronomes didn't exist back then
@@Zimzamzoom95 True but he probably would not have marked it with actual numbers considering he only occasionally marked the tempo even though tempo words existed.
Very well argued - I congratulate you particularly on the meticulous data . My view is that Czerny' s tempos were seriously meant but perhaps an exaggeration of what is possible. His tempo's for his own studies (e.g 'School of velocity') are borderline possible. What Bach intended is anyone's guess! Personally I rather like the faster tempo's - and having heard one the slower versions do seem rather ponderous!
Critical editions of music are always a reflection of the tastes and prevailing schools of thought at the time they were written. One day people will look back at this man who awarded himself the title "authentic" and consider his dry ramblings old-fashioned or obsolete.
Lol we already do.
I have always believed that many aspects of classical music performance (for piano) are arbitrary, in fact, almost all are arbitrary. The fingerings, the left hand/right hand assignments, the phrasings, the tempi, the metronome marks et al...
There is a reason why during my time (70s), most piano professors and pedagogues discouraged the students from using Schirmer editions as score reference or resource for learning Bach, Mozart, etc...because it tends to dumb down the student by depending and relying so much on the editor's markings/suggestions and less of one's own analytical abilities.
Instead, we were often encouraged to use Kalmus edition which is also a student's nightmare because it is so devoid of "editor's suggestions", phrase marks (like punctuation marks in the written word), suggested fingerings etc etc. Literally, you only see staves and notes. It was everyone's opinion that the professors want the students to dig deep into the written (notated) music, to imagine what the notes and the themes tell us about the music or how the composer might have played it. In short, to decipher the notations and present our own understandings of what we read. This is a wonderful method in that it makes every individual pianist an INDIVIDUAL PIANIST. However (wait for it), there is still the ubiquitous "mentor presence" in one's playing or delivery, call it "influence", in that a mentor's role indeed is to "guide" us to a more profound understanding of what we're playing, and towards a "better" and "more effective" delivery (via techniques passed on thru generations of classical performances by iconic pianists of every culture, but mainly European/Russian).
It is often said, "there is no short cut to success". And that means doing a lot of hard work thru music analysis employing logical and rational methods to one's playing. This includes making sense out of the metronome numbers and tempi marks which would often times, as you have pointed out, be illogical in the least. Less dogmatism and more common sense saves the day, well, perhaps not for Glenn Gould whose recording of the complete Bach Preludes and Fugues Vols 1& 2, find me either catching my breath or running out of it. In fact my brain gets exhausted listening to it and digesting the performance experience.
Arbitrary is classical music performance, we can play them on any piano instrument - Pleyel, Bosendorfer, Harpsichord, any upright or what have you (synths?), or even wind and stringed instruments, and they will still sound good at the hands of any true artist. Sorry for this lengthy story, thanks for bearing with me.
Thanks for this wonderful and intellectually satisfying video.
thank you.
I still don't get why there isn't more edited versions of famous classics all over (edited for fingerings and tempi) . Even for advanced pianists, for advanced level pieces, it is always eye opening to see the take of each individual famous pianist on a given piece. It doesn't mean performers should take them for golden sources. It's like a recording but written. As much as I can own 20 recordings of Rach 3, I'll be more than happy to buy 20 sheet music versions of it, and get inspiration from all 20.
It’s like speaking English with a variety of accents; some are easier to understand, some are inherently more entertaining, some (including ones with a thick accent) have their own peculiar charm, and some that only pigeons might understand. There is no such a thing as a universally accepted standard English accent; same with music. Unless there are recordings of a piece played by the composer him/herself that promotes/sets a certain intended tone; music in general is subject to interpretation; and frankly, that’s part of its evolving beauty.
Chopin's own metronome markings for his own works also seem significantly faster than on contemporary recordings. Perhaps it is tastes that have changed?
simonsmatthew most tempo markings back then were very fast.
It should be easy to programme a computer to play these notes at the suggested speeds and hear what they sound like. Has anybody tried this?
A really nice example!
9:56 In my opinion (as I have stated elsewhere), the ticks don't indicate the subdivision of the metronome mark. They don't indicate anything, according to Mälzel in his _Directions:_ They are the »two beats produced by the motion from one side to the other«. The whole (»single«, i.e. two movements counted as a single one) beat alone indicates the tempo. It does so also in odd meters, where the half-beats can't indicate the subdivision.
(I'm sorry if I've written this too often! I promise this is the last time ^^)
7:50. Somehow I like both the 52 bpm and 90 bpm. Both seem natural. In between seems rushed, i.e. don't know whether it is too fast or too slow. Funny feeling. Of course I'm hearing this at the end of a long day of work. Vous prononcez bien le français.
So appreciate this.
I believe we should make subtitles for Wim's videos in our languages.
that is possible comm. settings are open, thanks for even considering this!
Did they do the whole beat practice in the Baroque period?