From Violent Rejection to Adoration | Öde Nerdrum Shares his Whole Beat Experience with Wim Winters
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лип 2024
- Öde Nerdrum sits down with Wim Winters to talk about Whole Beat, sharing the story of how he discovered the UA-cam channel @AuthenticSound and the life-changing effects it had on him as a musician and human being.
But is whole beat a bullet proof concept? Nerdrum puts it up to the test by challenging Winters with the main counter-arguments.
▶️ Watch Jan-Ove Tuv's interview with Wim Winters on Cave of Apelles:
• Single or Whole Beat? ...
👍✨ Support our show and get access to more than 180 exclusive posts:
/ caveofapelles
Chapter markers:
00:00 Accepting whole beat is like breaking up a relationship
04:58 You have to drop your expectations
08:14 Give yourself permission to like Whole Beat
14:21 You actually hear the music and it feels faster
19:15 Are pianists loyal to recordings rather than notes?
25:12 Only two ways of reading the metronome
34:06 Giving music back to the amateurs
43:30 Counter-argument 1: Fafner's text on concert durations
54:33 Playing faster is always easier
57:28 Counter-argument 2: People feel it is too slow
1:09:11 Counter-argument 3: Just play how we feel
1:15:31 Counter-argument 4: A text on Mälzel's metronome
1:22:34 Counter-argument 5: The missing link
1:30:16 Whole beat is the organic way of counting
1:33:38 If Liszt came back he would not believe it
This episode featured Wim Winters & Öde Nerdrum and was filmed and edited by Bork Nerdrum.
The centerpiece was a 19th century reproduction of G. F. Watts' Hope.
SHOUTOUT to our TOP SPONSORS!
Fergus Ryan
Matthias Proy
Børge Moe
Eivind Josten
Would you like to get premium access? Become a patron:
/ caveofapelles
Subscribe to our newsletter. It is the only way to make sure that you receive content from us on a regular basis:
bit.ly/2L8qCNn
Check out our other channels:
/ schoolofapelles
/ culturewarsnow
Podcast available on SoundCloud, iTunes, and Spotify:
/ caveofapelles
spoti.fi/2AVDkcT
apple.co/2QAcXD6
Visit our facebook page:
/ caveofapelles
Rumble:
rumble.com/user/CaveOfApelles
For inquiries - talk@caveofapelles.com
whole beat = reclaiming wholeness of the beat - and the word 'beat' is within the word 'breath' - breathe in, breathe out = one whole breath
"Can you give me a source in the nineteenth century of composers complaining about their music being played too slow?" - Wim, I'm pretty sure that you know Czerny's op.500 very well. There he writes: "If we take a piece which, according to the idea of the composer, should not at most last longer than 10 minutes; and if this piece should be executed by the player one half slower, it will of course last for 15 minutes, and by this means become much too slow. This alas! but too often takes place even in compositions performed in public, which when executed in this manner, though otherwise well enough played, fail altogether in producing their proper effect." or: "The effect of the finest composition will be disturbed, nay even wholly destroyed; if we either hurry it too much; or, what is still worse, play it too slow and dragging." And there are other sources like this mentioned in the comments. Czerny also confirms that musicians back then were the same as they are today, they often did things which are contrary to the stated intentions of the composer, so the fact that many of the sources that I cite in the document don't exactly align with a strict single beat tempo doesn't show in any way that the metronome was used in some other way. The simple explanation is that musicians are often free in their interpretation (meaning they do whatever they feel like), and Czerny confirms that this was the case in Beethoven's time too.
Hello! Sorry, but in this comment, your train of logic is disturbing.
Whole beat changed my life too, it made it worse! Where is my episode on Cave of the apples?
1:19:22 This is the section Wim refers to as contradictory: "Generally speaking, it will be found, that in adagios it is most convenient to mark the time on the Metronome by quavers, in andantes by crotchets, in allegros by minims, and in prestos by whole bars. As often, however, as the case may admit of so doing, it is desirable that the pendulum should be made to strike the integral parts of a bar, just as a master would beat or count the time, i e. In 4/4, 3/4, and 2/4 time the rod should, whenever possible, beat 1/4, or one crotchet."
There is no paradox here yet Wim keeps insisting on there being one and has been doing so for years. The text clearly says that GENERALLY you will mark an Allegro with a minim, but WHENEVER POSSIBLE it is desirable to mark it with a quarter note (in /4 movements) and thus let the metronome tick quarter notes. The text does not in any way imply that these two things should be true at the same time. The fact that Wim keeps repeating this point despite being so obviously wrong forces me to assume that he is either stupid beyond saving or astonishingly dishonest.
Yeah it also causes a contradiction in 6/8
Yup. Tempo is everything. As a recovering speed addict, anything slow was abhorrent! Had to be played crazy fast or nothing! I was such a moron. LOL!
On a serious note, it is utterly pointless to have someone who wholeheartedly agrees with Wim try to challenge him on his theory. The counter-arguments brought up are very weak, some laughably so ("play how we feel" etc), and I believe Wim has already discussed all of these on his channel. I agree that timings of entire concerts are not very helpful when trying to infer the tempo, however that is hardly the most compelling data found in the fafner88 document. The most compelling data are the timings in manuscripts or on concert pograms of shorter pieces where questions about cuts or repeats don't even arise. This was done by composers such as Alkan, Berlioz, Cherubini and Léfebure-Wély. In all of these cases, the timings confirm the "single beat" use of the metronome. The second most interesting part of the document is the appendix, in which a few metronome use descriptions from the 19th century are listed. These are often unambiguous and all much clearer than the sources Wim usually cites as "double beat" proof. When Wim complains about single beat always being the default position in serious research, he simply has to understand that it is because of how clearly the entire 19th century literature on metronome use favours the single beat use.
These are some of the arguments I would have loved to hear Wim respond to.
I DON"T care if Wim is wrong or right. I prefer a slower tempo. There is ZERO chance you can convince me otherwise. Next, you'll try to convince me of my favorite color? LOL!
Can’t tell if you’re being serious, but it’s completely fine that you prefer slower tempi and I have no interest in changing your mind. As a matter of fact, I support artists taking whatever tempo they like. What bothers me however, is false claims about authenticity, which I think might even reduce the acceptance towards slower tempi.
@@johnericsson749 100% serious. I don't know about his authenticity claims, but I do know Wim has given me the gift of music and I will be eternally grateful for it. ( Hopefully many in this comments section will realize that? ) Decades of flat-out hating Mozart, I now LOVE Mozart!
Good for you, but I don’t really understand why you would need Wim for that given that there are already tons of recordings out there of Mozart’s music in slower tempi. Only thing Wim does is asserting that these were the exact tempi used in the 18th and early 19th century. Personally, I can enjoy Mozart’s (and others’) music in a wide range of different tempi; different artists are able to reveal different qualities of the composition. Going from hating to loving Mozart only by halving the tempo seems like a very extreme experience and hardly a universal one.
This is however just a subjective matter and completely irrelevant in the discussion about tempi used in early 19th century. With respect to that discussion, Wim’s claims are poorly evidenced and contradicted by countless sources.
1:26:30 Very suprised to hear Wim mention this article by Edward Hodges published in 1827, as it is an excellent piece of counter-evidence against double beat. There is nothing in it that supports Wim's theory. The author of the article actually references the Metronome directions from 1816 (which they discuss at 1:15:31) and in doing so, he proves that these were interpreted as single beat, contrary to Wim's belief. Furthermore, he doesn't "criticize" the way metronomising had been done up until then, however he suggests that one might as well use a stop-watch instead, while keeping the principle of metronomic notation. He then explains that if you measure 60 crotchets in a minute, you'll mark that as crotchet - 60 and then he gives examples of times that the metronome could not give, like 89 minims in three minutes. It is after this remark he says that one might as well mark the duration of the whole piece, especially in vocal music:
"Had this been done a few ages back we should not have been now, so frequently as we are, under the painful necessity of witnessing the cruel and barbarous execution of some of the noblest works of our most classical writers. Were a chorus, or a song, marked by the composer to occupy twelve minutes, none other than a fool would think of dispatching it in six."
He is talking about composers of "a few ages" back, when the metronome did not even exist; this has self-evidently nothing to do with confusion as how to use the metronome! Nothing in the text indicates that there were two different ways of using it. It is also very funny that Wim uses the verb "play" when the quote is clearly about vocal music.
If this is the level of reasoning Wim will use in his book, it will be absolutely torn to shreds by anyone remotely knowledgeable in the area.
"it will be absolutely torn to shreds by anyone remotely knowledgeable in the area". Can't wait for that, that will be amusing. It will of course have no effect on Wim and his followers since this is exactly what they want: it will prove that they are onto something magical that has been hidden for all of us poor music lovers and that "anyone remotely knowledgeable" is only a gatekeeper for modern speed freaks half beat industrial performing monkeys. Anyone tearing his book to shreds will only prove his latest obsession with the paradigm shift: he is someone from outside the academic bubble on the verge of revealing something astonishing that will alter all discourse forever. He has convinced himself that any criticism he will get will prove he is the Chosen One. He more or less says so in this interview; anyone who disagrees with him is only in denial, shocked by the evident truth that Wim has revealed for which there is no alternative. Criticizing him is only a spastic reaction by people who have been deeply shaken by the Double Beat Truth and cannot handle it. Or whatever.
@@chlorinda4479 Thank you for adding the details of the publication. I tried to share the link to the article, but it seems like that comment is being held for review, as is often the case with comments containing links. Interestingly, this article refers to an article published six years prior, in 1821, about which Wim made a video entitled "1821: Beethoven's ART CANCELLED by a 'Rage for Rapidity'. Still cancelled today?". It is very curious that the quest for speed seems to have been present right from the birth of the metronome. Perhaps it shouldn't come as a suprise that some of the earlier metronome marks are faster than what we are accustomed to.
Since you have now given Wim two lengthy interviews, won't you, in the interest of fairness, offer to interview Patrick Hemmerlé on your Channel?
What really seems to be bothering people is his use of the word authentic in his username, and this, is very funny.
Do you really believe that virtuosity is a fairly recent phenomenon? Have you no knowledge of the musical duels between J. S. Bach and Marchand, and Handel and Scarlatti? Are you unaware of poetical references to competitions between pipers in the Ars Antiqua? Are you insensible of the natural competitiveness amongst professional musicians from ancient times onward? Are you unfamiliar with the sterling agility of old instruments, most especially the Viennese fortepiano? Do you really believe that Liszt and Czerny were technically inferior to their modern descendants? And above all, can you really stomach “whole-beat” performances? If you are serious about your beliefs, why then don’t you give a series of "whole-beat" concerts in major venues throughout Europe and America to confound your invited critics and dazzle your audiences? Of what benefit is the search for “historical authenticity” if it takes us further from the numinous power of the music that its proponents pretend to revive? And, Mr. Nerdrum: it would seem that your field of endeavor is painting. How does this qualify you to engage in this discussion in the first place?
First is it 100% true that early metronomes were based on a bpm scale? Not inaccurate or broken, just different like Celsius vs Fahrenheit...?
Everything is an illusion. Time is an illusion. Music tempo is an illusion. Right or wrong is an illusion. Creations of the mind. We play something one day and it seems fast, the next day it is already feeling too slow.. at the same speed.. the day itself doesn’t seem to end, whereas yesterday disappeared so quickly.. I had confirmation from a friend the other day, who told me on playing Rachmaninoff preludes: ‘the more I play them the more they slow down, without me slowing down the tempo’..
I am a big fan of Wim Winters, since before his historical tempo research days. When he came out with the Chopin Etude in double-beat I had an instant ‘it cannot be!’ reaction.. well, another illusion, the ‘ego’ refusing automatically something that threatened its identity, that had been embedded into the system via strong emotions.
Thankfully, a string in my heart vibrated with that ‘different’ Chopin and my rational part said: ‘hmm.. the guy is a very skilled musician and a very intelligent man, I shall look into this without pre-conceived ideas..’. Result: there is no way back!
I admit it, I, myself (another illusion..), play music as I feel it and as I can, the main purpose being that of finding a connection with ‘something else’ other than our physical dimension. I do love my records of Rubinstein, Horowitz, Richter etc.. still listen to them often, what beautiful artistry there! But I am still to come across another research that is so extensive, complete and consistent as Mr Winters’ in the subject of music tempo, so to make one RATIONALLY think without a doubt that it takes us at least closer to another dimension in time which so far away.. or is it perhaps not? Just another illusion, maybe it is right here now.
The only truth is that which is eternal. Reason may not show us the truth but might help us to leave a door open for us to be shown it. It all depends then on what is our relationship with our own ‘reason’, or shall we call it ‘mind’?
Thanks to this interview I have discovered and subscribed to the channel. On a quick look there is very interesting content here. Looking forward to exploring it 👍
theclavierist, sorry for my inadequate English. I can give you a number of examples showing that whole beat theory the way Wim Winters teach you never could had happend
Whole beat is an illusion
The weakness in Wim's theory is actually pieces that become clearly unmusically slow at double beat (for example, Pathetique mov. 2). There is another theory out there that only considers double beat on fast tempos. That theory is weak in a different way in that it's not clear when to use double or single beat, but at least it does not lead to clearly unmusical playing.
maxxiong, quote: «The weakness in Wim’s theory…» It says something about Wim Winters as a person that he never corrects that mistake when people write it. It is not Wim Winters’ theory, but he support a theory put forward by others. But you are absolutely right, the slow movements re getting too slow. But the problem is bigger than just slow movements, also the fast movements lose their value as musical expressions. For whole beat to be believable, people need to be raised to believe that no music was played in fast tempi 200 years ago. It’s disrespectful to trick people into believing such things.
Mobs overturn gravestones in cemeteries, and it is strongly criticized because it shows a lack of respect for the dead. But to reduce the virtuosos of the old days to average musicians is also to overturn tombstones!
Are we to assume that amateurs in drawing rooms across Europe were playing at a very similar level to the top international musicians of the day? If not, what happened to all the difficult music these virtuosi played to the astonishment of audiences across the world? It was never written down? Was there just no such thing as fast music?
Isn’t it possible that amateurs played this music at their own level, as well as they could? Perhaps they couldn’t score a ticket to a Beethoven Akademie, but they could try out a symphony or a sonata at home, and imagine what such a performance could sound like?
Search for: «Chopin’s etudes played by children». They are 9-12 years old, and play the etudes much faster than Wim Witers’ «real historical tempo». Is it still hard to understand that whole beat theory can’t possibly be correct?
The answer to the double-beat riddle is simple: There is no such thing, as double-beat because it sounds like Hell and vitiates musical communication, and because there is not one whit of historical or other evidence for it--indeed, its existence is explicitly contradicted by the evidence. Why then does it attract a following?--for the same reasons that people fall under the spell of other cults and of demagogues, indulge in food fads, and believe in astrology, flying saucers, Gaia, witchcraft, ouija boards, séances, and flat earth. In an anomic society, in which people search for something in which to believe and something to justify their mediocrity, or, if you prefer, their limitations, Wim Winters offers a kind of bastard succor. The Enlightenment is very tenuous for a great many persons; and we are all more or less irrational beings. I've had numerous UA-cam arguments with double-beat adherents; and in virtually all cases, these adherents (or rather, victims) take "ad hominem" as their watchword and prove utterly impervious to factual evidence on the one hand, and to the musical proof of aesthetic sensibility on the other. And yet again, some allegedly scientific-modded individuals demand a species of geometric proof that contravenes the whole idea of Art in general and Music in particular. Perhaps modern secular rationalism is ultimately unstable, especially when it overreaches itself by intruding into musical aesthetics, in the form of historical research gone berserk. Wim Winters is simply the most egregious example of "early-music" culture at its maniacal worst: he not only worships historical "evidence", but fabricates his own.
@Chlorinda Dear Comrade-in-arms: For me, aesthetic sensibility is all-important. I take it as axiomatic that if something strikes us as musically absurd, then it is of no use to us as performers. The constant of the human psyche overrides all else. The whole point of "historically informed performance" is to bring us closer to the fullest appreciation and experience of the music of the past. If it takes us further away, either our historical data are incorrect, or our understanding of our historical data is incorrect--or, as a third and most important "either", the old masters themselves were mistaken and their errors need to be corrected so that their music can live, perhaps for the first time. I am aware that styles of performance have changed within living memory, and probably since the days the old masters; but I see more common ground than differences; and I suspect that the old performances would not in fact sound strange to our ears. I believe that when we perform a musical work, we so immerse ourselves in the logic of the music and its style that we become authentic performers of this music; and I am prepared to accept some hypothetical anachronisms in performance, as long as we remain true to the ethos of the music, while being equally true to our own musical personalities. I view one's subjective musical personality as an essential component of any musically valid performance. Personally, I do not see contemporary musical culture as a threat to MUSICALLY authentic performance: and I confess that I myself reject most contemporary music and its aesthetic implications as inferior (to me, at least) to that of the older repertoire. But okay, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Wim Winters were to present incontrovertible proof of his so-called theories. Well, no: I would not give up listening to or performing older music: rather, I would go my own way and play it "inauthentically", as I see fit. This, by the way, I consider the most important lesson to be learned from Winterism: historical research must NEVER substitute for interpretation. Vlad Vexler makes this point most elegantly in his video on Wim Winters, by the way. Would I practice what I preach? I already do! I reject the use of the one-keyed flute for its repertoire, on account of the gross defects of that instrument, which were recognized even by its exponents (I am thinking of Quantz) and by composers of the day. I reject the use of two-keyed oboes in cases where the more modern oboes can play better in tune; I see no virtue in out-of-tune trills. I reject the non-use of breath vibrato on flutes and recorders: Quantz and others advocate its use; but I don't even care about that; I use it because it sounds better and expresses the meaning of the music better (and, by the way, no one knows how to play a recorder with in-tune trills and fine tone anymore). I reject the prissy short-winded performance-styles of many old music groups as entirely foreign to the old repertoire: such prissiness is a modern accretion; it represents the view of powdered wigs as cunningly exotic, rather than as contemporary means of louse control. The real evil of Wim Winters is not so much his historical mendacity, but his very appeal to historical evidence as his final arbiter in the first place. His philosophical untruth is greater than his historical fabrications.
So much misrepresentation on the way professional musicians perform today. Musicians "just wait until they feel the tempo is right", they "do whatever they want" concerning rubato. Apparently, apart from the happy few double beaters, all musicians are just brainless athletes waiting for divine inspiration to inform their performance practice.
Why not have a professional musician or musicologist challenge Wim on these topics instead of someone who - as the title suggests - now "Adores" the double beat theory? The so-called counterarguments are also filled with misrepresentations of the actual counterarguments, which Wim of course neatly avoids to address.
He seems to think that historic performance is the only right way to perform. But go bad a few decades and violinists are playing Bach with vibrato.
@@maxxiong It takes a lot of arrogance to demand that music is to be played the way you want it or else it is not “authentic”, as if an authentic performance even exists.
I am actually fairly intrigued by double beat, but I think Wim's approach to it is very problematic. Wim seems to only consider the upper limit of tempo from a mechanical standpoint, but ignores the lower limit of tempo from a perception and musical standpoint (For example Pathetique mov. 2 just doesn't work at double beat tempo). And in general he seems to reject any evidence that has any chance of being interpreted differently. Wim also seems to make the assumption that musicians have always tried to be faithful to the composers intentions which is debatable in itself (some say historic informed performance is fairly new).
Bernhard Ruchti has a different approach that does not run into the too slow tempo problem, and that may make more sense. He proposed a theory that some composers mistakenly used double beat for faster movements when the note is quarter or half note, but not when the note is eighth note. His theory actually works better for Liszt's just under 1 hour timing of Hammerklavier.
I'm afraid that "double-beat" is a complete fiction, unsupported by both historical and musical evidence. Give yourself a chance, and I think that you will hear how unsatisfyingly unmusical "double-beat" renditions really sound, when compared with the real thing. You can, of course, play at whatever tempo you please; but do so with the awareness that there is not one single shred of evidence for its existence as an historical procedure. And the idea of two co-existing systems of metronome use is beyond belief. Think about it for while!
There are lower limits from a mechanical and technical standpoint as well-bowing, resonance / sustaining power, breath, glissando, etc. All subjective views aside regarding the deathly slow tempos resulting from halving metronome marks-although perhaps not wholly subjective, because slow movements are completely robbed of any connection to rhetoric, speech or even meter-I’ve never heard Wim or anyone else seriously attempt to address these problems.
@@minirausch That's why I think the variable use theory is more plausible musically because it doesn't produce obviously unmusical results. Note that I'm not that convinced anyways and all this is just a factor in choosing tempo anyways.
This is all so ridiculous. There is no such thing as an “authentic” performance. This idea that the composition is a perfect manifestation of the composer’s thoughts is childish.
Oh you have to play Beethoven as intended, says who? I don’t hear Beethoven complaining. And what makes you the authority on the objective meaning behind a piece of art? That goes against any kind of serious thought about art, if there was an objective meaning to art then it wouldn’t be art, the whole
point of art is to fuse the subjective with the objective, a reminder that there exists a world outside our immediate subjective and sensuous experiences.
The moment you say “the meaning of this art is X, end of discussion” you have just murdered the art, you have turned into a authoritarian who demands absolute submission to the object.
You want to play half tempo who gaf? Nobody can stop you or tell you that your perspective is wrong. You can’t however claim your perspective is THE meaning behind a piece, that is not yours to determine for the rest of us. Nobody can claim the meaning behind a piece of art, not even the artist.
Unlike painting, sculpture or architecture, performance arts like music have to be reproduced, that's why tempo is important if you are interested in the music as intended by the composer. That's all.
It's true that there can be different interpretations of the Mona Lisa, still the painting is the same for everyone to see.
You can make an adaptation of the Mona Lisa in the style of Picasso if you wish, but it's not what Leonardo intended to do, even if the source material is the same.
Still, obviously everybody is free and there is no tempo police.
@@martingauthier7377 But it still had the implicit assumption that whatever ended up as the particular end result is a perfect deliberate action. Maybe Da Vinci used more of a particular color simply because he had some extra left over and didn’t feel like making a new batch.
Artists were just ordinary people, not demi gods who had perfect, absolute, vision and execution that needs to be replicated as accurate as possible.