I thought this was common knowledge. I went to a catholic school in Salzburg and I remember learning about this relatively early on. Our teacher even told us stories about how Mozart used to complain about his pieces being played too fast. This resistance at the academic level is very surprising to me.
Don’t be surprised, academics (not only musicologists) very often are highly educated idiots. Or intellectuals yet idiots as Nassim Taleb calls them. They have all the credentials & are supposedly the SMART people yet they would fail at the task of finding a coconut on the coconut island. Academia is full of very sophisticated bullshit produced by very sophisticated and educated cretins. Only exceptions are physics, math etc.
They're all practising 24 hours a day perfecting their technique so they can play Beethoven at "right" tempo, and after all that work I guess they don't want to accept the fact that the tempo they were killing themselves for is actually twice as fast as it should be.
I will invoke Ockham's Razor. If the tempi Metronome indications cannot be played in single beat for Beethoven (Czerny or Clementi) either physically (humanly possible) or mechanically (on the action of the contemporary piano's available to the composer), then another system was in use. Additionally, if there is written evidence from the time that states speeds among pianists had increased (contrary to modern hypothesis), and no one can play faster than the prior single beat performances, then another system was in use. Ockham's Razor also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. This principle, that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.” The modern arguments for single beat for Beethoven, et al. falls apart when no one can perform certain single pieces either physically or mechanically in single beat, coupled with Moscheles lament, plus other comments which echo the tempi increase, and no one can play faster than single beat digitally adjusted tempi, on modern instruments with double escapement, accelerated actions, etc., then there's a non sequitur large enough to drive an 18 wheel tractor trailer rig through. Here could be one possible explanation of the non-supported theory (without citation from contemporaries through to the modern day): Musicologists cannot explain rationally the dichotomy of impossible speed requirements of Beethoven, Czerny, et al, from the earlier part of the 19th Century, with the later 20th Century insistence on single beat. The solution, although disingenuous, is to claim that tempi has become slower through the 19th century to and ignore historical instruments and the reproductions which cannot play these fast tempi, and as well current pianos of which have actions that play faster than the fastest modern pianist. ua-cam.com/video/k2NMrdcEHvc/v-deo.html Guinness World Record for piano strike in this video 12.75. ua-cam.com/video/k2NMrdcEHvc/v-deo.html It's just a single note on a Boesendorfer. Here's a fast performance of Czifra's transcription of Flight of the Bumble Bee. ua-cam.com/video/8alxBofd_eQ/v-deo.html
It's ridiculous. They got a dumb idea in their head and they ran with it with no common sense. Who even wants to listen to music played that fast except as a novelty. All the emotion is stripped out.
@Kitsune actually it depends, if you go to fast you will just be playing a test of endurance with yourself, if it is to slow your attention spam will not keep up and you will enter in auto pilot during long notes, but if you are on the extreme reasonable of fast (maybe a Martha Argerich speed in most pieces, not like kissin that usually plays everything faster) you will think of bars and parts more as phrases and sections and that can help a lot putting the right feeling in most sections
Thank you very much! You make a lot of sense, and this distortion makes complete sense when linked to the all other distortion made in history, science, traditions etc...
Thanks to Wim, I started investigating Czerny’s other studies .... like most students, I was only familiar with op 299 and op740. I found that Czerny produced studies, etudes etc. that related to every stage of piano study ..... from the first day a student places their hands on a keyboard right up the lofty heights of the greatest virtuoso’s of his time. I also noticed many studies had no metronome markings. I believe that op299 and 740 are advanced studies for pupils that are both talented
Due to the general reduction of music as an active participation by the general citizens, possibly due to the increase in virtuosi, technology in musical instruments and passive devices like the phonograph, radio, magnetic media, through to MP3/MP4s, and the decline of piano sales through the twentieth century, we can see how the industrialization of entertainment has removed many from the simple joy of playing an instrument for its own sake. Too many times I've heard people, particularly family members say once they reached a level of playing in which to enjoy the favorite 18, 19 or 20th century composers, that it is not worth the time because they cannot play and sound like Arturo Rubinstein, David Oistrakh or Sviatoslav Richter. What a shame to leave behind the joy of playing music because you can't sound like the greats. Who can other tan they themselves? I mention this simply to say the reconstruction of tempi for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin returns music to the hands of regular musicians to enjoy personally. This to my mind is another important function of this invaluable research.
Interesting comment. I said something similar on another video. The music was published for everyone to play and for the composer to make money on sales and royalties, although, the royalty thing is a more modern invention. The music was not written for an exclusive club of performers, there were subscribers to composers who bought music that way, but it was still for sale. There are pieces up on IMSLP (www.imslp.org) that have subscriber lists in addition to a sale price on the cover. If we think about it, this 'exclusive club' would be quite small and the sales very few. The other thing today, which you also elude to, and has been discussed very much by the folks at the Frederick Collection, is the fact that everything today is bigger, louder, faster, and absolutely perfect. This strive for perfection has ruined the careers of many pianists because of a slip, or worse, RSI injuries including the most dreadful neurological one focal Dystonia. This is brought about by the public yearning to hear the same perfect performances as they hear on their recordings. Little do they realize that most recordings, except those done at a live performance, are all a cut and paste affair with bits and pieces assembled and mistakes replaced by cutting in parts from other places. There are lots of parts to this puzzle, but for sure part of the speed curve was driven by the younger generations in the 19th century because they could, and yes better action improvements in pianos helped as well that lead to improved reliability and faster speeds. Steinway and Chickering, and later Mason and Hamlin and others improved upon the double-escapement invented by Erard in the 1820s. Steinway developed an extra level of escapement where the pianist can play very quickly and lightly and very quickly by allowing the hammers to remain very shallow compared to that in other pianos.
Absolutely agree. I just now practice and play to enjoy it. When I can play at a bar or an open piano for others or my kids and grandkids or my family it's completely worth it.
The insight to this video and subsequent others he’s done on tempo and classical music is nice to listen to. I think we can learn to play exactly as the greats did back in the day if you practice “their” actual tempo, unlike today where the system of tempo is different based on the research the OP has done. Anything is achievable if you put the time and effort into it. They were human back then just as we are now and all had beginnings to have achieved their status we regard them in today. Don’t lose sight or give up what’s important to you.
Ling Ling can watch all AS videos while playing along with every recording in his video. Even the digitally sped-up ones, even the 20 notes a second ones
That's not true, we all know Guan Yu used to wield a 60kg version of a weapon invented a millenium after his death and Achilles could fight against 200 men at the same time. It's all in the books!
@@ganjamozart1435 Yes they have but the the question is always why they have improved. Take the fastest man alive 130 years ago. Let him train as much and dedicated as we do no and also give him modern shoes and more importantly the start thingy and the same track as we have now adn they difference would not be nearly as big. Playing for example the traverso is just as hard now as it was during the baroque and a person who trained their entire life since childhood can play just as fast a a person born today can with the same practise. Piano is perhaps the difference since I'd arguee from my own experiense that the modern grand piano is harder to play as fast as the piano forte. Both with scales as repeated notes.
bvsiness musical authenticity doesn’t matter that much. Yes there will be some performers that stick to the way everything was written, but others will play how they would like.
@@scintilical9442 Of course! Thats the difference between professional and amateur!!! 100 years of research of authenticity since the Sing- und Spielbewegung, 60 y since Antoine Geoffroy-de-Chaumes and many are still hearing painful interpretations of Bach or Chopin on modern piano. Why not burn the CDs of Harnoncourt or Reinhard Goebel, transform the Schola Cantorum Basiliensis in a big parking, Basel needs that rather, haha. All do what they want, I know that. But any music sounds ever convinciglier in historic informed manner. At least for people who tried it. For many, historically wrong interpretation is just a nogo. This reaches meanwhile also to methods of teaching.
@@scintilical9442 "musical authenticity doesn’t matter that much." Sure, but if the "edgy" and flashy interpretations became the mainstream, we lose all sense of context. For illustration, I "got" Chopin when I've heard a jazz record with his tunes. Now I think the main reason I could connect with this interpretation, was because the musicians kept the groove going, which right next to nobody is doing nowadays when they play the classical pieces. Chopin had the metronome ticking on his piano at all times. He was groovy as eff. He improvised too, so in a weird twist of events, the jazz musicians playing his music were closer to the spirit of his creation than the mainstream pianists of today. In this context, I have to disagree with your statement. We need to at least know the proper context for modern performances. If people really enjoy this flashy, nonsensical, arythmical torrent of notes thrown in their general direction, then more power to them. But even then, in order to properly appreciate those ideas, we should know how the originals were supposed to sound.
I can see that, same as today, the check this out "how fast I can he play that lick" competition remains.. (hey lead guitar players) How ever, the faster you play, the harder it is to maintain DYNAMICS, hence the rubato trick. Surely, any performer, even now and certainly then would use his - I can do it faster, let me impress you - skills in order to set his mark. Not to mention the chance to "lure the lady's" After all they where the Rock Stars of their time.
I don't understand why anyone should be so concerned about musical tempo. I'm sure the composers who gave numerical indications as opposed to general indications, whether on purpose or by custom, often regretted it. They would have played their works at a range of tempos within their ability. Choosing the tempo is part of the art of musical performance and within reason is best left to the performer.
That is what they make you think, but the opposite is true. The easiest to 'proof' is how serious composers were in giving their tempi. Beethoven's first question was when someone heard his music at a concert: how were the tempi. When one of his symphonies had success in Berlin he wrote it is because of the tempi. There you have it.
@@AuthenticSound l understand the argument and respect your knowledge and ability but I just think a religious attention to tempo is to frustrate the interpretor.
@@p1anosteve this is just a cheap excuse sold by teachers to dismiss tempi of people like Czerny (who too noted them as actual playing speeds), many of which are unplayable as said in this video. The sole fact, that so many tempi given by multiple composers are unplayable should be a big red flag to everyone trying to understand them in a single beat manner.
@@p1anosteve Yes, it may be. But if it is the case, just try to play Beethoven's Hammerklavier in double beat at a competition. Commissions will never let you pass. Today nobody, professional or amateur, is allowed to play "slowly". This is a fact, a sad one, but a fact. Nobody has the freedom to choose his tempi, we all are forced to face an urgent, restraining academical truth about musical tempi. I personally believe that Wim's struggle against this contemporary taste has a lot of worth, and I hope we will soon see its outcomes in our every day musical practice.
We can very clearly see that they did not “regret” it at all! Your first mistake is viewing the precise information written by many composers from the perspective of today’s performance-focused culture. Perhaps it is convenient for a performer to interpret Beethovens instructions however they like, but at that point just add your notes however you like, it should be convenient for the performer after all? Excuse my language but thats bullshit, and if you follow each note on the score precisely then you should appreciate the rest of the instructions with equal seriousness because the notes and arrangement alone do not make up the piece. A score includes all of the original information, all of it is part of the original musical idea. You cannot compromise any individual indications or instructions because that is simply cherry picking which parts you wish to play correctly and which parts you wish to “interpret” yourself. I can tell you exactly which instructions found on musical scores are “approximate” or “for reference”. Italian tempo indicators like “presto” are vague and include entire ranges of bpm’s. So if the composer has already informed you that you should play the piece “presto” or “grave”, dont you think it would be very silly for them to follow up with oddly specific metronome numbers? If they just wanted the performer to figure out their own tempo, composers would never have bothered indicating such precise numbers. Your perspective is flawed because (I believe) you think that classical composers wrote their scores with the performer in mind. It seems obvious that they would write them specifically with performers in mind. Not true, they wrote the music to send a message to ANYONE who could read the score. Do you think they only wanted pianists or violinists to understand the message? The message has to be very structured and precise so that there is no confusion for the OVERALL audience which happens to be anyone who can read music. I mean, music was often commissioned by nobles who knew nothing about performance or instrumentation. How to send them a message? Consistency. If the music is CONSISTENT and STRUCTURED then it is digestible over time, you can chew it! How will Count Hartford or Princess Giulia be able to digest the meaning of the piece if every court musician they hire performs it differently? Think about that, how hard would it be to absorb the music as a NON-musician if you hear it performed at a different speed every single time.
Though I appreciate what is being done on this channel to bring an alternative view to the issue of tempo markings and historical approach to performance the theories presented often to not stand up to scrutiny. The vast majority of tempos indications in printed music are well withing normal performing range, on period instruments as well, and often slower tempo markings are neglected in these discussions as they do not validate preconceived ideas. Let's not forget the "historical" approach taken in the rendition of the Beethoven 5 where, even if there were no tempo indications, the marking Allegro con brio gives ample indication for interpretation of tempo with historically informed interpretation. This is now becoming a desperate attempt to keep returning to the examples of Czerny and the reliance of those tempo markings to back his claims. There are other theories besides his own that do not attempt to reconfigure all tempo markings in order to address a very small number of tempo indications which at first glance appear puzzling. I would respect a theory that has a substantial weight to its claims, but once held up in practice these assertions have been shown to fail in a multitude of cases. There are other, more practical, theories which address this issue though he has disregarded the work of his unnamed musicologists as insufficient.
But this channel is not about "the vast majority" of tempo markings, as you put it; it's about the anomalies--the significant number of markings that don't give "ample indication". He keeps "returning to Czerny" because his indications are part of this issue. Beethoven himself certainly didn't agree with you that the descriptive terms were ample indication. He embraced the metronome as a wonderful advancement.
@AuthenticSound Very interesting. For mechanicians, its clear that more power allows less velocity. I had a dispute with my organ teacher about Transport de joie, from Olivier Messiaen (l'ascension). He wanted me to play the final toccata slowlier (mechanical organ), because one had to hear each note. I argued that in the recording of Messiaen himself in the Trinité (after electrification), he plays the fast tempo I was also taking, letting hear not distinct notes but a cloud of sound, that after a while descends. Which correspond rather to the mysticism of the piece and of Messiaen himself (I also abandonned the piano because I couldnt play Chopin 1st ballade's final at my tempo choice, now with recordings on a Chopin Pleyel, I understand where the problem was: the modern piano). This brings me to the related topic of tempi in the church music. In the early lutheranism its spoken of one second per Syllab in chorals. Did the tempi increased till the classic? Or was a longer opposition (of tempi) between "world" and church?
We have pianos from their time, it’s not like pianist suddenly play a lot faster on them. Speed isn’t about velocity of the keys, that only affects volume
And a correction...The et vitam venturi fugue 3/4 into the Credo is the very fast section I meant to refer to. The 1953 recording is on U-Tube for listening reference .
The preface to Hanon clearly states that beginning pianists should spend a minimum of several hours a day doing piano exercises… So pianists in those days did indeed put in many hours at the keyboard if they expected to be able performers.
I was just thinking, if our best pianists nowadays don't quite reach the supposed 'intended' speed, but play more like 75-85%. Then to find the historical speed really intended by the composer it would not be correct to put modern recordings on 50%. But also maybe around 75-85%. And when you do some of these pieces (for example Moscheles Etudes) immediately spring to life. Oh..., so this is how it was meant.
@@miguelangelromeu8178 I agree with you. I was stating that musicians must be encouraged to play for themselves guided by their sense, not any authority. Of course, authority is there on pupils. Yes, indeed.
Ok ok ok, sorry for other comments earlier I did not understand your point until your example, the 39% example makes it clear. 2:58 So with that example, the one you sped up to supposed indicated tempo (too fast in general opinion, though not mine as guitar shredder lol, 24th notes at 150 is standard shred, Mclaughlin’s hits 170) your argument is THAT sped up version should be exactly half that speed? Well you can do that simply by click the 50% option of UA-cam function…and THAT music we can debate about because it is OBVIOUSLY TOO SLOW!!! So someone mentioned Occam Razor… the way I must apply it is that the calibration of the marking device was incorrect ….surely NOT that two click are meant to be heard. (Half of the modern interpretation of the metronome marking).
Such a pity I cannot put a thumb up more than once! I keep watching these videos over and over. Thank you very much Mr. Winters. When are we able to lay our hands on the most precious book you are working on?
"It's a big club, and you ain't part of it" this is certainly true. Although, "It's a small club, and you ain't part of it" is more accurate. New musicology began around the 1990's which was supposed to have solved much of their bias issues. I also think many researchers don't really care about music history anymore and prefer modern topics. Most musicologists would publish a vast range of topics. For sure you could submit an article that agrees with main-stream beliefs about a different topic. As long as the writing quality and evidence was there it's likely a journal would accept it. I am unsure what journals would think about WBMP. Perhaps atleast a few would publish it to start the conversation as long as it was written properly. Now-adays musicologists shouldn't be under such an idolized perspective.
And who put in about 5 years of study , practicing more than several hours a-day. Certainly not what I did when learning piano. To my mind, Cherny did expect that with the lighter action instuments, of his day, their metronome speeds in 200 and 740
The great crime in all of this is simply this. The first time you hear and fall in love with a piece, invariably imprints itself on us, like a duckling that thinks a swan is it's mother. After this we are frustrated for the rest if our lives, always saying this is too fast or this is too slow. How many pieces have been ruined for so many people. I literally have to connect my computer to my piano to hear what my memory demands of these works. It is a wonderful to be able to do this at least.
Why be sad? Just because you can't achieve a great master? If your interpretation is good to you that's good enough. The music should sound good, when I play bachs compositions even much slower it still sounds good(but not the intended feel). Also if everyone played the 100% intended way, why not save your trouble and play a recording because its gonna be the same. That's my perspective, take it as you will, I do not know your mindset in your piano journey so I have probably missed the point of your distress
@@Sunkem1Not6Hacks It is simply that we will usually be quite partial to the first interpretation we hear. If it is very different from all the other ones we will hear in the future, we may feel a little put off. The first one we loved may be impossible to find. No more than that. The world is big enough for all expressions of art, and the more diverse the better. When I buy a Bach fugue though, not exactly wanting it to make me feel the desire to dance the tango. Though I am very sure I can find a tango based on a Bach fugue and probably even have one or two if I looked through my library. Most of the time however, just give me some good straight up musical math on a good old Silbermann Organ. I can't be alone in liking some of that.
Love your arguement and presentation. You are right, music needs more science and less opinion in regards to analysis of culture and composition. What books would you recommend I read on composers our musicians of the Napoleonic era?
@AuthenticSound Okay upon reviewing, my first problem is that 12 notes per second is achievable by anyone (9 sets the bar too low). 10 Notes per second is semiquavers at 150bpm, which is within graded syllabi around the world. And I think everyone would agree that while playing (here we go) Flight of the Bumblebee at 180bpm is not impressive (and 12 notes per second) but played at 200 or more and it starts to become impressive, 225bpm and you're playing 15 notes per second (or triplet semiquavers at 150bpm, demisemiquavers at 112.5bpm), sustained. Therefore the decline would only be around 3 notes per second, if at all. Secondly, metronomes are notoriously bad, (at least they were) which is why some metronome manufacturers are more renowned than others coughwittnercough, and musicians usually only checked for accuracy at 60bpm. Even if 60bpm was accurate, it doesn't mean the scale was. I doubt Beethoven regularly tested 60, 120, and 180bpm. Thirdly, Beethoven was - in part - responsible for the creation of the metronome, he was excited that he could finally communicate his "proper" tempos, so I think his excitement may have won out over accuracy. Finally, while I agree that technique should be focused on the efficiency of the body's movements, I believe this focus should be to prevent injury to the student/performer and not to maximise the bpm of a piece. I think that measuring musicians based on tempo is contradictory to musicality, it undermines the way we all feel about music. Alas, if music is to be measured, then pitch would be the X axis and rhythm would be the Y axis, and tempo would be the scale of the rhythm, and Beethoven would be an anomaly. So in (almost) the words of Beethoven himself “What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven.” I did however, enjoy the video (Y)
Doesn't an andante becoming an adagio and an andante losing its 'con moto' also indicate a slowing down? This Moscheles quote is rather confusing to me. Is he saying that the playing is getting more extreme in both directions (faster in fast movements and slower in slow ones?)
Fascinating as always but the background piano music was very disconcerting and made it hard to focus on what you were saying - particularly your interesting quotes from Moscheles journal.
HA..Was totally thinking the same thing (at least for regular followers of the channel), but finished very pleased with new insights...AGAIN! Thanks, Wim!
I beg you to talk once about tempo in Bach’s solo violin works, like sonaten und partiten. There is a very big confusion on this subject, larger than the one that appears for keyboard instruments.
Sea If you practise the violin, you will already know the different instructions in different editions of the Sonaten und Partiten, on rhythm as well as intonation!!
@@kyriakospapadopoulos6289 Well those are obviously not to be taken seriously. There were no metronomic marking in Bach's time. Lately there's also some pretentious idea that sarabandes were faster and courantes were slower than we play them now. Even though there's no historical basis whatsoever and it's a blind disregard for all the unique structural difference in Bach's movements compared to his Baroque peers.
@@s.l5787 My latest, and most beloved, violin teacher (from the Russian school...) taught me to play Bach's sonaten und partiten without any rhythm indication, almost like a cadenza. Chaconne, for example -one of the most famous violin works of Bach- is divided into different sections, that are rhythmically independent from each other; there should be a philosophy though, on how to connect them in one integrated piece, and I have not understood it yet! Listening to Gidon Kremer, I see a slow(er) tempo, and intonations that are following a strict rhythm. If you listen to the Russian violinist in Gergiev's concert, in Palmyra (here in youtube), he takes the piece way too fast: it is a nice performance, but can you still call it Bach? I think that Wim is one of the few people in the world who could offer some principles in these matters. Harnoncourt develops a philosophy in his book on Monteverdi/Bach/Mozart, but it is too general to understand how it would fit into violin.
I am not a musician, but I do like music. I have but one brain to absorb the various notes as they come in. Frankly I'm not interested in how fast a piece is played, but what it means to me. Horowitz is claimed to have said he played fast "because I can". I am not impressed. Technique is one thing, but expression is what comes on top of that. Would a Macbeth soliloquy be better spoken at twice the speed ? Jeez is the audience in so much of a hurry to get home, that they demand faster tempi ? Oh no ! Wagner will make sure you sit in your seat for 4 hours ! What's the hurry, you won't miss the bus, it's not even running !
I do wonder though if to someone trained in the arts the variance in tempi was much closer than by today's account. I've met some cantankerous old buzzard conductors who make such emphatic statements about such slight differences to their "trained" ears. I quite clearly remember playing a recording of Bernstein's magnificent late quartets by Beethoven, with the string sections doubled or quadrupled. A certain music director who was quite ridiculous and mean walked in for a social gathering and asked what was playing. When told "Beethoven", he laughed and said "no no, that's not Beethoven!"... what to do? I just said, "ok, maybe it's not". No use in arguing... but this does illustrate a point that some people hear much more "sensitively" and make these bold statements. I can imagine most hearing music too fast or slow not really noticing, but to a seasoned ear, it will stand out more, and to a musician, it may be as bold and obvious as slightly different shades of grey to an artist. But I was sitting here listening to you and also thought to myself, there must be some set standard of tempi "in the mind". For example, when we sing "ring around the rosie", we cannot find too much variation in speed from one person to the next. In fact, folk songs may provide an excellent way to think of this. You can find many recording or folk songs from over 100 years ago that are sung by common people and the tempi are the same. No stylistic difference. Why is this?? Play twinkle twinkle little star in wbt... does it "sound right"? I'm very curious... I don't want to offend, because I appreciate you're channel, content and recordings very much. In fact, many of your earlier recordings on clavichord feel more like Beethoven and Mozart to me than those played by the "top names". I wonder if you might consider that there is some "inner guide" to certain melodies that we can use to guide us. Why do some things sounds "right" and others "wrong"? I also want to make a statement that may be bit bizarre, but looking at painting today, their are few, if any, contenders to van dyck, Rembrandt, Vermeer, etc. Artists were in many ways technically better than today...faster, more skilled. Look at the lines of Durer's pen, their rapidity, flow. It's all gone today. These men often lived only 30 or 40 years, and look at the bounty they left.... they must have been working constantly. You'll never see such skill today, in almost any art. So I can believe that composers of the past could have been much more refined than today, and faster. Looking at baroque art, you see these rapid moving lines and everything is moving to a heavenly vortex.... speed is always implied... and today, we have Soviet lego blocks passing as "great building". Beethoven wasn't just a composer, he was a performer. Where are the composers today?? An artist can not be copied... in so many forms it doesn't work. So I believe that no one could play Beethoven as well as he could, because he wrote the thing. These are just so thoughts I had and I would appreciate any thing you might add to help elucidate. Thanks!
I have a hard time understanding your actual point, because I am not sure where you are using sarcasm and where you are serious. It doesn't make sense that musical diction would have appreciably "slowed down" over a century. I think you are saying that the metronome markings of much of the classical music we have now are "'wrong". I think they are wrong. For instance, Schumann metronome markings in "Fantasy Pieces" are simply absurdly fast. Allegro is a character, not a speed marking, after all. I'll watch some other of you videos, but if I am understanding you, absent any irony, I can safely ignore absurdly fast metronome markings in some of my editions of piano literature.
Of course, he's right, people haven't changed. we're supposed to believe they were all Super Pianists back then and we're all chums today? there's no way music was double fast 200 years ago, they didn't even have good instruments to play compared to today's. Academics like to 'discover things' and sometimes even make stuff up. lol
While not everyone was a super pianist then this problem seems mostly to be a piano one. I've yet to come across a metronome mark for a flute piece which metronome mark could not be exxecuted one period instruments. What we often forget is that they had just as good instruments then as we have now. Then baroque and classical violin is even faster than modern violin with some things! Modern flutes are faster than baroque traversos in hard keyes. But the music was not written in hard keyes but in ways that suited the instrument. Intsruments now aren't better now. They are different and can do somethings better but other things even worse than the old instruments!
I discovered while studying that the high point of academia is almost never the pursuit of 'truth' but the pursuit of 'originality' (i.e. discovering things)
Beethoven had so many famous students, who went on to be teachers of other famous students, etc.... How would such a drastic change in interpretation have taken place in such a short period of time?
Due to the well documented rise of technical virtuosity in concert practice. As music became more democratized in the 1800s, a demand for technical virtuosity began to arise. The courtly traditions and practices of older music were neglected, ignored, or put under romantic light. Since much of the music of ,for example, JS Bach has only been properly distributed in the public during that time, a traditional reading of his music did not have a lot of time to develop. 200 years lie Between beethoven and us, and since then dozens of new pupil-teacher connections have formed, all influenced by romantic ideas and expectations.
@@123Joack What you say makes sense. Also, lets not discount the actual music itself. Romanticism demanded a style of writing that employed a higher degree of "virtuosity," not necessarily for the good of the music but nevertheless extant. The implication, is, however, that if Beethoven's Sonatas were being played faster and faster, then we have not only an audience, but performers and teachers who were musically illiterate and insensitive.
LazlosPlane I think that’s where the problems start! Because no one likes to admit to their inabilities. Why should for example Bernstein, who I adore, have no musical taste? He does! But he tastes something different Than the people in Beethoven’s time, still genius
@@123Joack True, but, I think the question of "taste," is a different than that is being presented here, but it must figure into it. Taste, in the end, determines everything. We hold onto what is "tasteful" to us then find reasons to justify it. I had a professor in college, a world-reknowned musicologist, (he would be about 120 years old today) who thought one should NEVER take a "ritard" at the end of any piece by Bach. It would really upset and anger him. But I have yet to hear a performance of Bach that DOES NOT take a ritard at the end!!
metronome markings in music may not justify the character of the piece anyway. Perhaps it's better just therefore to have a written indication of the speed in the appropriate language and leave the metronome marking out. I just observe the Italian tempo marking (or German )and that's it.
Somehow I would prefer a written essay with sources instead of this. Claiming that a majority of music theory in a big area is wrong and also peer review guys are wrong is not something you can only do in a UA-cam Video. For example there is no source that supports the claim that peer review guys tear down anyone who thinks a metronome was used differently back then. Also source missing for what „music scientist these days claim“ in many cases. How can you claim a scientific context without creating a format suited for science?
That was meant as a rhetorical question, because you can’t. You need to create a framework that allows your rather interesting ideas to be taken seriously. That can be a UA-cam Video for example including a Pdf Document with sources combined with timestamps in the description would be great. Just makes your words more powerful. Also a a beginner I had difficulty following the video, it would have be good to in further videos explain in the beginning just briefly how in your opinion a metronome was used back then. Because in the end you want to target beginners with these videos, since they suffer from high tempo expectations.
Is it posible that because of the pianos of the 19th century had smaller keys and smaller sound they could work easily on a faster tempo compared to the huge pianos we have today? I believe that having that huge sound to fil the inmense concert halls of today makes the piano mechanism a lot slower 🤔
Well, learning the piece you should play at a tempo you can control. That is really slow and concentrated practice. Also up to half the indicated performance tempo. Forget about olympics.
What about the accuracy of the early metronomes? From what I understand, there was little accuracy of them, and varied greatly from one metronome to another. I my self can't play with some such as Seiko which I find to acellerate almost imperceptibly, which I don't find playing with other metronomes. So this striving to find an authentic tempo for past composers is not something we can scientifically achieve yet.?
Watches and clocks existed back then. Proper speed was not a huge challenge. Antique metronome dealers regularly advertise the accuracy of an item for sale. Most are within a few points of their indicated speed. Keep in mind that these puzzling tempi are "off" by 100%. That's far outside the normal error margin of early timepieces.
Beethoven was a funny chap because his attitude to the use of the metronome I have taken to believe if contemporary accounts are correct was hypocritical and surely we shouldn't judge a musician's merit on the use of the metronome alone. If one requires the metronome for security in playing then fine (an accurate one) but often
Thank you for this informative talk . Toscanini was routinely criticized for his fast tempos which he postulated were correct. If any of you have or heard his recording of the Missa Solemnis, Toscanini takes the Gloria at such a fast tempo, the choristers can hardly get all the notes in. Toscanini evidently knew what he was doing.
Playing 15 notes a second gets you in the world book of records. See the BBC video of a person called Ben Lee who claims he can play Flight of the bumble bee. And as a matter of fact: he couldn't do it. Maybe he could play 15 notes per seconds but they were not all notes of Flight of the Bumble bee, if you know what I mean. I saw this on TwoSet violin.
... and that is not the official record. The real record is almost 14 notes/second and the violinist is david garrett m.ua-cam.com/video/2Q0WGQbJbso/v-deo.html
The Moscheles quote at 14:25 appears to be a two way criticism of the tempi chosen by the new generation of pianists i.e. that fast pieces were being played too fast but also slow pieces were being played too slowly (andantes being played as if marked Adagio, andante con moto pieces being played with no "moto"). I can see that his criticism of people playing too fast would support the whole beat performance practice in relation to his own metronome markings since single beat interpretation would often times require superhuman abilities. I'm not sure how his criticism of the slow pieces being played too slowly relates to his metronome markings though. It seems inconsistent in that it would imply the changes in tempi were not just a sudden increase in tempi but went both ways (fast movements faster, slow movements slower). This obviously is not explainable as a result of musicians switching to single beat interpretation of the markings. Were musicians at the time Moscheles wrote this simply ignoring metronome markings and following their own whims ? Complicated question because "too fast" can be objectively monitored vs human limitations on playing the piano but … how slow is too slow ? I think to determine that, one would have to examine metronome markings on vocal music or perhaps flute music where the limits of breath (lung capacity) play a part ? Perhaps Mr. Winters could shed some light on this "fast too fast, slow too slow" tempo discrepancy referred to my Moscheles ?
Why assume a tempo indication is absolutely required according to the composer? It is very plausible that the tempo indication is merely an ideal speed that the piece should be executed at by the most perfect pianist. There is no reason to conclude that a slower tempo, that is more easily executed by an average pianist is unacceptable. The tempo that Beethoven's Hammerklavier would be realized under this persons theory, is positively ridiculous. With Beethoven's piano - at such a tempo, there would be a near total decay of sound from note to note - and this is what he expects us to believe? He has much more to account for by way of explanation under his theory than my above proposal as an explanation. We should always look for the most simple explanation in support of a theory - in science as well as other domains.
"Why assume a tempo indication is absolutely required according to the composer? " Because the composers themselves say that Metronome Marks are indications meant to be followed by all pianists. As for the decay of older pianos, many recordings on this channel have proved you are wrong. As for your 'simple' explanation, it would lead to many pieces that are simply... impossible to play. Not so simple, after all.
@Chlorinda A few quotes for you: "“(Tempo) is a question of the composer’s, not the conductor’s feelings." Berlioz “The metronome markings will be sent to you very soon. Do wait for them. In our century, such indications are certainly necessary. Moreover, I have received letters from Berlin informing me that the first performance of the (choral) symphony was received with enthusiastic applause, which I ascribe largely to the metronome markings.” Beethoven "Any musical piece produces its proper effect only when it is played in the exact degree of movement prescribed by its Author, and any even inconsiderable deviation from that time, whether as to quickness, or slowness, will often totally destroy the sense, the beauty, and the intelligibility of the piece. " Czerny "herr Beethoven ergreift diese Erfindung (the metronome) als ein willkommenes Mittel, seinen genialen Compositionen aller Orten die Ausführung in dem ihnen zugedachten Zeitmass, das er so häufig verfehlt, bedauert, zu verschaffen" Wiener Vaterländische Blätter, Oct. 1813 "chon längst wird daher das Bedürfnis gefühlt und anerkannt, einen Masstab zu besitzen mittels dessen jeder Tonsezer mit Bestimmtheit anzeigen könne, wie geschwind oder langsam er die Takttheile seines Tonstückes ausgeführt haben will" Weber " “...bitte ich die, (...) um ein recht genaues Einüben und strenge Befolgung der vorgeschriebenen Nüancen (...), so wie der durch den Metronom bezeichneten Tempi, weil es nur dann die beabsichtige Wirkung machen kann.” Spohr "Le métronome de Maelzel est donc d’une utilité incontestable, car il apprend au juste à l’exécutant ou à celui qui dirige, le mouvement que le compositeur a voulu donner à son ouvrage. " and "Le Métronome est une des choses les plus utiles à la musique qui aient été inventées dans les derniers temps. (…) Il présente au compositeur un très grand avantage, en lui assurant que ses ouvrages seront joués partout exactement dans le mouvement qu’il a voulu leur donner (…) Les artistes et les amateurs apprennent par le métronome le vrai mouvement que l’auteur a indiqué" Hummel
I was listening to Art Tatum earlier today and I had the same thought when I was listening to this. There’s a George Gershwin song “The Man I Love”, when Billy Holiday sings it kind of holds time still., where as Art Tatum plays the notes so rapidly they sound like a Ferrari running a stick along a metal fence. ua-cam.com/video/494Pr7iyZt8/v-deo.html
Roope Huhtanen Martha Argerich is considered to be the greatest pianist of our time. She’s up there with Horowitz, Rubenstein, and Richter. World renown that’s for sure. And Yuja wang? Wanna talk speed check out the last 40 or so seconds of J. Strauss II/ Cziffra - Tritsch-Tratsch Polka.
It seems in every realm of life, people want to change history and discard the truth of what actually happened and/or the way things were. Reminds me of the book, 1984, by George Orwell.
It's not that insidious, what happens is that a younger generation, desiring to create something new and distinguish themselves, invent a new style which then over time obscures what went before (or people just forget). Usually there's historical records that make the evolution clear, but music has always had a strong oral tradition which makes it easy to lose track of the origin. Which isn't necessarily a problem, we don't _have_ to play composers exactly as they intended, of course if people with to play Beethoven faster they're free to do so. Of course the fact that it makes tempi impossible to play is ridiculous.
As I get older, I wish to return to scratchy records, ticking clocks, and good ol'-fashioned paper and pencil, not to mention a Mozart or Beethoven piece played in historic WBMP, Susan. You nailed it.
@@DanMcLaughlin My neighbor and I were discussing this - he's an organist, harpsichordist, and pianist. :-) He said that the younger generation do this because they can.
You're right in every word but my grandfather and his father taught me how to play like beethoven and even faster I tried to double the speed of beethovens moonlight sonata and I succeeded in playing it double speed of the original.. And a tip for the people who have been practicing for ages without progress is increasing the metronome every 2 days by just 1 bpm until you are comfortable playing with very high speed and then used finger techniques like finger swapping which is considered as breaking the rules of the hand and try improvising on the piece you are playing... Try to have what if going in your head because it opens new doors for you also changing the key of the piece is a performance booster trust me if you play the c minor symphony on the d minor will definitely open doors for your performance to become more developed... With all respect to everything said in the video but as long as you are passionate about music, then you can break the limits.. Maybe one day someone could overcome beethoven and become the greatest player in history who knows.. Just have faith in yourself and you will do the impossible
It's simple really, if it sounds good at a certain tempo that's where it's supposed to be. Take any, and I mean any modern music and change the tempo. There will be a narrow range where it sounds best. You're argument cuts both ways, I'd imagine there are some slow compositions that would be way too slow with your theory.
I wonder if a perfomer/composer like Beethoven, Chopin etc. deliberately gave misleading metronome markings so as to ensure that their own public performance is always distinct from everyone else.
The modern classical guitar is going through the changes we hear about in his diaries too. Gone is the "clarity" and come has the "Loud bashing of chords". Which is even more hilarious given the nature of my instrument to favour in the strongest terms sweet, subtle and extremely quiet presentation.
Haha, disagree. I think Beethoven will be impressed by Yuja’s technique. I strongly believe pianistic skills got better and better, and this is indeed the age to witness the best technique.
Dear Wim, a very interesting and convincing argument. However, please forgive some comments from me: * It sound as if the current paradigm is very strong. You make a very good point in your argument but if you wish to break the current paradigm you will need support from a critical mass of musicologists and musicians. Have you thought about creating a conference with invited speakers to build the argument and make it a ground breaking event? * Mocheles's argument is one based on the aesthetics (funny as I mentioned this as well in a previous comment). Perhaps you could find similar arguments in others on that era? * It sounds surprising that Mocheles describes higher tempi towards the end of his life and that this change was sudden. My instinct says that perhaps this has to do with a technological advance in pianos of that era that changed the possibilities and abilities of pianists? I am totally guessing here, and I may be wrong, but perhaps one can research 'piano technology' and possible changes in around 1860. Final point: I envy you for your 1stedition books! best regards B.
2:10 sounds mechanical, the 2:58 15/sec notes example THE SAME... Tempo is not an excuse, if you don't play with fire it's bad, yes tempo is super important, but an understanding of the right expression is more important. Another boring excersice played like a boring excercise, terrible way to ruin a musician. I understand that there is a minority in this classical world that like the "naive style", people who uselessly try to contain the huge power and passion of our so much loved music in a vessel, they don't understand anything of the performance of the great romantic music, and music in general, they can't even play the actual naive style, called roccocó, properly because they don't even understand the naive expression of our children, the happiness of a kid, that spontaneity, no!!!! their goal is to fully become machines or I maybe they are just boring adults. Do you guys think that there weren't "rock" feelings in the XIX century? fire of passion in the previous centuries? the need to be free from materialism? that's basically romanticism. If you think that Romanticism or Beethoven are hard to perform adequately, imagine Bach, almost nobody can't play it properly, you only hear machines everywhere without any superior feelings. Why do we remember Bach so much over others?, because it represents the highest grade of the baroque, but why? Because he had put the most passionate expression in his compositions, despite the old style you can notice it, you can see that there is a HUGE young fire of passion, it's hard to find so much passion an dlife in most composers, passion and life very similar to Beethoven, Mozart and other great masters. His music is the most expressive from the baroque period, give it try! try to play it with passion and not like a "elegant aristocrat" or something terrenal like that who tries to contain the infinite nuclear power of Bach in a soda can. What happens when you play Bach without understanding the romanticism in it? You get a bad performance of Bach. Music was his real religion, feel the fire in it! his music is even divinal, try to imagine the heaven, the cosmos, the angels, superior thigns when playing it, or even "the hell" of his dark music, people should play the music with the proper fire!
I thought Slater's performance was quite nice. Not every single piece of music needs to be "with fire", and the way passion is presented through music is allowed to differ between players, pieces, styles, and time periods. I hear many interpretations of Bach quite frequently, and I've never felt any lacking passion or emotion, even if they weren't "romantic" in the sense of music written centuries after his death.
That's not the 'true' reason why Bach is admired but only part of it. Two Baroque composers that fit that description better in my opinion are Domenico Scarletti and Handel. The reason why Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are considered the 'best' is due to the intellectual and possibly elegant aspects their music contains. From there the scholars tell us that they are the high standard and the public follow.
2:49 I'm pretty sure that someone sAcRiLiGiOuS has already done that.
on the 5 string electric violin-viola thing
Yasss TWOSET IS HERERRR
Yes!!! TwoSet lives.
@@salvat3735 don't forget the 24 carat gold NASA chip
Remember that kid who played FoTB at 325 bpm? That's 21.6 notes a second! Even a kid can play well over 15 notes a second
I thought this was common knowledge. I went to a catholic school in Salzburg and I remember learning about this relatively early on. Our teacher even told us stories about how Mozart used to complain about his pieces being played too fast. This resistance at the academic level is very surprising to me.
Don’t be surprised, academics (not only musicologists) very often are highly educated idiots. Or intellectuals yet idiots as Nassim Taleb calls them. They have all the credentials & are supposedly the SMART people yet they would fail at the task of finding a coconut on the coconut island. Academia is full of very sophisticated bullshit produced by very sophisticated and educated cretins. Only exceptions are physics, math etc.
I'd love to read on this. Can you guide me to any book/ article please?
They're all practising 24 hours a day perfecting their technique so they can play Beethoven at "right" tempo, and after all that work I guess they don't want to accept the fact that the tempo they were killing themselves for is actually twice as fast as it should be.
We are, sadly, addicted to extremes. Moschelles’ observations are priceless in the light of logic. Thank you for sharing!
I will invoke Ockham's Razor. If the tempi Metronome indications cannot be played in single beat for Beethoven (Czerny or Clementi) either physically (humanly possible) or mechanically (on the action of the contemporary piano's available to the composer), then another system was in use. Additionally, if there is written evidence from the time that states speeds among pianists had increased (contrary to modern hypothesis), and no one can play faster than the prior single beat performances, then another system was in use.
Ockham's Razor also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred.
This principle, that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”
The modern arguments for single beat for Beethoven, et al. falls apart when no one can perform certain single pieces either physically or mechanically in single beat, coupled with Moscheles lament, plus other comments which echo the tempi increase, and no one can play faster than single beat digitally adjusted tempi, on modern instruments with double escapement, accelerated actions, etc., then there's a non sequitur large enough to drive an 18 wheel tractor trailer rig through.
Here could be one possible explanation of the non-supported theory (without citation from contemporaries through to the modern day): Musicologists cannot explain rationally the dichotomy of impossible speed requirements of Beethoven, Czerny, et al, from the earlier part of the 19th Century, with the later 20th Century insistence on single beat. The solution, although disingenuous, is to claim that tempi has become slower through the 19th century to and ignore historical instruments and the reproductions which cannot play these fast tempi, and as well current pianos of which have actions that play faster than the fastest modern pianist. ua-cam.com/video/k2NMrdcEHvc/v-deo.html Guinness World Record for piano strike in this video 12.75. ua-cam.com/video/k2NMrdcEHvc/v-deo.html It's just a single note on a Boesendorfer. Here's a fast performance of Czifra's transcription of Flight of the Bumble Bee. ua-cam.com/video/8alxBofd_eQ/v-deo.html
It's ridiculous. They got a dumb idea in their head and they ran with it with no common sense. Who even wants to listen to music played that fast except as a novelty. All the emotion is stripped out.
varasano wrong, faster is better
Enjoy your moonlight sonata at a disco pace
varasano 🙂 that’s exactly what I wanted
@Kitsune actually it depends, if you go to fast you will just be playing a test of endurance with yourself, if it is to slow your attention spam will not keep up and you will enter in auto pilot during long notes, but if you are on the extreme reasonable of fast (maybe a Martha Argerich speed in most pieces, not like kissin that usually plays everything faster) you will think of bars and parts more as phrases and sections and that can help a lot putting the right feeling in most sections
Thank you very much! You make a lot of sense, and this distortion makes complete sense when linked to the all other distortion made in history, science, traditions etc...
Thanks to Wim, I started investigating Czerny’s other studies .... like most students, I was only familiar with op 299 and op740. I found that Czerny produced studies, etudes etc. that related to every stage of piano study ..... from the first day a student places their hands on a keyboard right up the lofty heights of the greatest virtuoso’s of his time. I also noticed many studies had no metronome markings. I believe that op299 and 740 are advanced studies for pupils that are both talented
seems reasonable. and the 39% faster version sounded very musical while the actual recording didnt.
Academia being disconnected from reality... so unusual. :) Thanks for this channel, especially for the performances.
Due to the general reduction of music as an active participation by the general citizens, possibly due to the increase in virtuosi, technology in musical instruments and passive devices like the phonograph, radio, magnetic media, through to MP3/MP4s, and the decline of piano sales through the twentieth century, we can see how the industrialization of entertainment has removed many from the simple joy of playing an instrument for its own sake. Too many times I've heard people, particularly family members say once they reached a level of playing in which to enjoy the favorite 18, 19 or 20th century composers, that it is not worth the time because they cannot play and sound like Arturo Rubinstein, David Oistrakh or Sviatoslav Richter. What a shame to leave behind the joy of playing music because you can't sound like the greats. Who can other tan they themselves? I mention this simply to say the reconstruction of tempi for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin returns music to the hands of regular musicians to enjoy personally. This to my mind is another important function of this invaluable research.
Interesting comment. I said something similar on another video. The music was published for everyone to play and for the composer to make money on sales and royalties, although, the royalty thing is a more modern invention. The music was not written for an exclusive club of performers, there were subscribers to composers who bought music that way, but it was still for sale. There are pieces up on IMSLP (www.imslp.org) that have subscriber lists in addition to a sale price on the cover. If we think about it, this 'exclusive club' would be quite small and the sales very few.
The other thing today, which you also elude to, and has been discussed very much by the folks at the Frederick Collection, is the fact that everything today is bigger, louder, faster, and absolutely perfect. This strive for perfection has ruined the careers of many pianists because of a slip, or worse, RSI injuries including the most dreadful neurological one focal Dystonia. This is brought about by the public yearning to hear the same perfect performances as they hear on their recordings. Little do they realize that most recordings, except those done at a live performance, are all a cut and paste affair with bits and pieces assembled and mistakes replaced by cutting in parts from other places.
There are lots of parts to this puzzle, but for sure part of the speed curve was driven by the younger generations in the 19th century because they could, and yes better action improvements in pianos helped as well that lead to improved reliability and faster speeds. Steinway and Chickering, and later Mason and Hamlin and others improved upon the double-escapement invented by Erard in the 1820s. Steinway developed an extra level of escapement where the pianist can play very quickly and lightly and very quickly by allowing the hammers to remain very shallow compared to that in other pianos.
Well put.
@@Clavichordist Also well put.
Absolutely agree. I just now practice and play to enjoy it. When I can play at a bar or an open piano for others or my kids and grandkids or my family it's completely worth it.
Hey there is always the Beatles... 9o% of today's musicians play for recreational reasons
The insight to this video and subsequent others he’s done on tempo and classical music is nice to listen to. I think we can learn to play exactly as the greats did back in the day if you practice “their” actual tempo, unlike today where the system of tempo is different based on the research the OP has done. Anything is achievable if you put the time and effort into it. They were human back then just as we are now and all had beginnings to have achieved their status we regard them in today. Don’t lose sight or give up what’s important to you.
i watched 5 mins of this and now i can only fit 39 hrs 55 mins of practice today. why did i waste my time
plus 35 seconds to write this comment. Time management is a thing dude!
@@AuthenticSound ling ling is laughing at us all
Ling Ling can watch all AS videos while playing along with every recording in his video. Even the digitally sped-up ones, even the 20 notes a second ones
Was the action of the keyboard, on pianos from that period, not more enabling of fast play than today's pianos are?
Somehow all human speed/endurance capabilities improved over the past century by a notable margin (except for piano playing).
That's not true, we all know Guan Yu used to wield a 60kg version of a weapon invented a millenium after his death and Achilles could fight against 200 men at the same time. It's all in the books!
@@Sk0lzky Fair point on Guan Yu but Achilles was a demigod tbf 😂
Yep
@@ganjamozart1435 Yes they have but the the question is always why they have improved. Take the fastest man alive 130 years ago. Let him train as much and dedicated as we do no and also give him modern shoes and more importantly the start thingy and the same track as we have now adn they difference would not be nearly as big. Playing for example the traverso is just as hard now as it was during the baroque and a person who trained their entire life since childhood can play just as fast a a person born today can with the same practise. Piano is perhaps the difference since I'd arguee from my own experiense that the modern grand piano is harder to play as fast as the piano forte. Both with scales as repeated notes.
This is my new favorite channel
Great to read!
thank you, it’s a question left for us.
I play the music any damn way I want, I have nothing to prove to anyone or thing.
Because you are not interested in playing music authentically. Pahe turn.
bvsiness musical authenticity doesn’t matter that much. Yes there will be some performers that stick to the way everything was written, but others will play how they would like.
@@scintilical9442 Of course! Thats the difference between professional and amateur!!! 100 years of research of authenticity since the Sing- und Spielbewegung, 60 y since Antoine Geoffroy-de-Chaumes and many are still hearing painful interpretations of Bach or Chopin on modern piano. Why not burn the CDs of Harnoncourt or Reinhard Goebel, transform the Schola Cantorum Basiliensis in a big parking, Basel needs that rather, haha. All do what they want, I know that. But any music sounds ever convinciglier in historic informed manner. At least for people who tried it. For many, historically wrong interpretation is just a nogo. This reaches meanwhile also to methods of teaching.
@@scintilical9442 "musical authenticity doesn’t matter that much."
Sure, but if the "edgy" and flashy interpretations became the mainstream, we lose all sense of context.
For illustration, I "got" Chopin when I've heard a jazz record with his tunes. Now I think the main reason I could connect with this interpretation, was because the musicians kept the groove going, which right next to nobody is doing nowadays when they play the classical pieces.
Chopin had the metronome ticking on his piano at all times. He was groovy as eff. He improvised too, so in a weird twist of events, the jazz musicians playing his music were closer to the spirit of his creation than the mainstream pianists of today.
In this context, I have to disagree with your statement. We need to at least know the proper context for modern performances. If people really enjoy this flashy, nonsensical, arythmical torrent of notes thrown in their general direction, then more power to them. But even then, in order to properly appreciate those ideas, we should know how the originals were supposed to sound.
Mukundanghri As long as no one is paying to hear you, no one cares.
I can see that, same as today, the check this out "how fast I can he play that lick" competition remains.. (hey lead guitar players) How ever, the faster you play, the harder it is to maintain DYNAMICS, hence the rubato trick. Surely, any performer, even now and certainly then would use his - I can do it faster, let me impress you - skills in order to set his mark. Not to mention the chance to "lure the lady's" After all they where the Rock Stars of their time.
I don't understand why anyone should be so concerned about musical tempo. I'm sure the composers who gave numerical indications as opposed to general indications, whether on purpose or by custom, often regretted it. They would have played their works at a range of tempos within their ability. Choosing the tempo is part of the art of musical performance and within reason is best left to the performer.
That is what they make you think, but the opposite is true. The easiest to 'proof' is how serious composers were in giving their tempi. Beethoven's first question was when someone heard his music at a concert: how were the tempi. When one of his symphonies had success in Berlin he wrote it is because of the tempi. There you have it.
@@AuthenticSound l understand the argument and respect your knowledge and ability but I just think a religious attention to tempo is to frustrate the interpretor.
@@p1anosteve this is just a cheap excuse sold by teachers to dismiss tempi of people like Czerny (who too noted them as actual playing speeds), many of which are unplayable as said in this video. The sole fact, that so many tempi given by multiple composers are unplayable should be a big red flag to everyone trying to understand them in a single beat manner.
@@p1anosteve Yes, it may be.
But if it is the case, just try to play Beethoven's Hammerklavier in double beat at a competition. Commissions will never let you pass.
Today nobody, professional or amateur, is allowed to play "slowly". This is a fact, a sad one, but a fact. Nobody has the freedom to choose his tempi, we all are forced to face an urgent, restraining academical truth about musical tempi.
I personally believe that Wim's struggle against this contemporary taste has a lot of worth, and I hope we will soon see its outcomes in our every day musical practice.
We can very clearly see that they did not “regret” it at all! Your first mistake is viewing the precise information written by many composers from the perspective of today’s performance-focused culture. Perhaps it is convenient for a performer to interpret Beethovens instructions however they like, but at that point just add your notes however you like, it should be convenient for the performer after all? Excuse my language but thats bullshit, and if you follow each note on the score precisely then you should appreciate the rest of the instructions with equal seriousness because the notes and arrangement alone do not make up the piece. A score includes all of the original information, all of it is part of the original musical idea. You cannot compromise any individual indications or instructions because that is simply cherry picking which parts you wish to play correctly and which parts you wish to “interpret” yourself. I can tell you exactly which instructions found on musical scores are “approximate” or “for reference”. Italian tempo indicators like “presto” are vague and include entire ranges of bpm’s. So if the composer has already informed you that you should play the piece “presto” or “grave”, dont you think it would be very silly for them to follow up with oddly specific metronome numbers? If they just wanted the performer to figure out their own tempo, composers would never have bothered indicating such precise numbers. Your perspective is flawed because (I believe) you think that classical composers wrote their scores with the performer in mind. It seems obvious that they would write them specifically with performers in mind. Not true, they wrote the music to send a message to ANYONE who could read the score. Do you think they only wanted pianists or violinists to understand the message? The message has to be very structured and precise so that there is no confusion for the OVERALL audience which happens to be anyone who can read music. I mean, music was often commissioned by nobles who knew nothing about performance or instrumentation. How to send them a message? Consistency. If the music is CONSISTENT and STRUCTURED then it is digestible over time, you can chew it! How will Count Hartford or Princess Giulia be able to digest the meaning of the piece if every court musician they hire performs it differently? Think about that, how hard would it be to absorb the music as a NON-musician if you hear it performed at a different speed every single time.
Though I appreciate what is being done on this channel to bring an alternative view to the issue of tempo markings and historical approach to performance the theories presented often to not stand up to scrutiny. The vast majority of tempos indications in printed music are well withing normal performing range, on period instruments as well, and often slower tempo markings are neglected in these discussions as they do not validate preconceived ideas. Let's not forget the "historical" approach taken in the rendition of the Beethoven 5 where, even if there were no tempo indications, the marking Allegro con brio gives ample indication for interpretation of tempo with historically informed interpretation. This is now becoming a desperate attempt to keep returning to the examples of Czerny and the reliance of those tempo markings to back his claims. There are other theories besides his own that do not attempt to reconfigure all tempo markings in order to address a very small number of tempo indications which at first glance appear puzzling. I would respect a theory that has a substantial weight to its claims, but once held up in practice these assertions have been shown to fail in a multitude of cases. There are other, more practical, theories which address this issue though he has disregarded the work of his unnamed musicologists as insufficient.
But this channel is not about "the vast majority" of tempo markings, as you put it; it's about the anomalies--the significant number of markings that don't give "ample indication". He keeps "returning to Czerny" because his indications are part of this issue. Beethoven himself certainly didn't agree with you that the descriptive terms were ample indication. He embraced the metronome as a wonderful advancement.
What about very slow pieces? There are a lot of very slow pieces and symphonies. Some of these would go to intensely slow speeds...
@AuthenticSound Very interesting. For mechanicians, its clear that more power allows less velocity. I had a dispute with my organ teacher about Transport de joie, from Olivier Messiaen (l'ascension). He wanted me to play the final toccata slowlier (mechanical organ), because one had to hear each note. I argued that in the recording of Messiaen himself in the Trinité (after electrification), he plays the fast tempo I was also taking, letting hear not distinct notes but a cloud of sound, that after a while descends. Which correspond rather to the mysticism of the piece and of Messiaen himself (I also abandonned the piano because I couldnt play Chopin 1st ballade's final at my tempo choice, now with recordings on a Chopin Pleyel, I understand where the problem was: the modern piano). This brings me to the related topic of tempi in the church music. In the early lutheranism its spoken of one second per Syllab in chorals. Did the tempi increased till the classic? Or was a longer opposition (of tempi) between "world" and church?
We have pianos from their time, it’s not like pianist suddenly play a lot faster on them. Speed isn’t about velocity of the keys, that only affects volume
And a correction...The et vitam venturi fugue 3/4 into the Credo is the very fast section I meant to refer to. The 1953 recording is on U-Tube for listening reference .
The preface to Hanon clearly states that beginning pianists should spend a minimum of several hours a day doing piano exercises… So pianists in those days did indeed put in many hours at the keyboard if they expected to be able performers.
Today's professionals definitely do that.
College music student here. Definitely spends several hours a day practicing.
Very interesting!!!
Moscheles? didn't know about him but sounds wonderful. I guess I'll have to play his compositions now cause his music is haunting me.
I was just thinking, if our best pianists nowadays don't quite reach the supposed 'intended' speed, but play more like 75-85%. Then to find the historical speed really intended by the composer it would not be correct to put modern recordings on 50%. But also maybe around 75-85%. And when you do some of these pieces (for example Moscheles Etudes) immediately spring to life. Oh..., so this is how it was meant.
Music's performance is about sense
not authority. Cf. Richard Taruskin, Text & Act.
Listen pupils of liszt recordings.
@@miguelangelromeu8178 I agree with you. I was stating that musicians must be encouraged to play for themselves guided by their sense, not any authority. Of course, authority is there on pupils. Yes, indeed.
Ok ok ok, sorry for other comments earlier I did not understand your point until your example, the 39% example makes it clear. 2:58 So with that example, the one you sped up to supposed indicated tempo (too fast in general opinion, though not mine as guitar shredder lol, 24th notes at 150 is standard shred, Mclaughlin’s hits 170) your argument is THAT sped up version should be exactly half that speed? Well you can do that simply by click the 50% option of UA-cam function…and THAT music we can debate about because it is OBVIOUSLY TOO SLOW!!! So someone mentioned Occam Razor… the way I must apply it is that the calibration of the marking device was incorrect ….surely NOT that two click are meant to be heard. (Half of the modern interpretation of the metronome marking).
on the point. Wims interpretation gives way too slow tempos.
Such a pity I cannot put a thumb up more than once! I keep watching these videos over and over. Thank you very much Mr. Winters. When are we able to lay our hands on the most precious book you are working on?
working on it really hard!
"It's a big club, and you ain't part of it" this is certainly true. Although, "It's a small club, and you ain't part of it" is more accurate. New musicology began around the 1990's which was supposed to have solved much of their bias issues. I also think many researchers don't really care about music history anymore and prefer modern topics. Most musicologists would publish a vast range of topics. For sure you could submit an article that agrees with main-stream beliefs about a different topic. As long as the writing quality and evidence was there it's likely a journal would accept it. I am unsure what journals would think about WBMP. Perhaps atleast a few would publish it to start the conversation as long as it was written properly. Now-adays musicologists shouldn't be under such an idolized perspective.
And who put in about 5 years of study , practicing more than several hours a-day. Certainly not what I did when learning piano. To my mind, Cherny did expect that with the lighter action instuments, of his day, their metronome speeds in 200 and 740
i love how you look like tom cruise as a professor
The great crime in all of this is simply this. The first time you hear and fall in love with a piece, invariably imprints itself on us, like a duckling that thinks a swan is it's mother. After this we are frustrated for the rest if our lives, always saying this is too fast or this is too slow. How many pieces have been ruined for so many people. I literally have to connect my computer to my piano to hear what my memory demands of these works. It is a wonderful to be able to do this at least.
Why be sad? Just because you can't achieve a great master? If your interpretation is good to you that's good enough. The music should sound good, when I play bachs compositions even much slower it still sounds good(but not the intended feel).
Also if everyone played the 100% intended way, why not save your trouble and play a recording because its gonna be the same. That's my perspective, take it as you will, I do not know your mindset in your piano journey so I have probably missed the point of your distress
@@Sunkem1Not6Hacks It is simply that we will usually be quite partial to the first interpretation we hear. If it is very different from all the other ones we will hear in the future, we may feel a little put off. The first one we loved may be impossible to find. No more than that. The world is big enough for all expressions of art, and the more diverse the better. When I buy a Bach fugue though, not exactly wanting it to make me feel the desire to dance the tango. Though I am very sure I can find a tango based on a Bach fugue and probably even have one or two if I looked through my library. Most of the time however, just give me some good straight up musical math on a good old Silbermann Organ. I can't be alone in liking some of that.
Love your arguement and presentation. You are right, music needs more science and less opinion in regards to analysis of culture and composition. What books would you recommend I read on composers our musicians of the Napoleonic era?
Start with Moscheles diaries!
@@AuthenticSound thanks, I'll try to find it.
Dear Wim, many thanks for this brillant lesson for our responsive audience!
hello ii have some questions about some pieces on the intruments i play, can you help me?
@AuthenticSound
Okay upon reviewing, my first problem is that 12 notes per second is achievable by anyone (9 sets the bar too low). 10 Notes per second is semiquavers at 150bpm, which is within graded syllabi around the world. And I think everyone would agree that while playing (here we go) Flight of the Bumblebee at 180bpm is not impressive (and 12 notes per second) but played at 200 or more and it starts to become impressive, 225bpm and you're playing 15 notes per second (or triplet semiquavers at 150bpm, demisemiquavers at 112.5bpm), sustained. Therefore the decline would only be around 3 notes per second, if at all.
Secondly, metronomes are notoriously bad, (at least they were) which is why some metronome manufacturers are more renowned than others coughwittnercough, and musicians usually only checked for accuracy at 60bpm. Even if 60bpm was accurate, it doesn't mean the scale was. I doubt Beethoven regularly tested 60, 120, and 180bpm.
Thirdly, Beethoven was - in part - responsible for the creation of the metronome, he was excited that he could finally communicate his "proper" tempos, so I think his excitement may have won out over accuracy.
Finally, while I agree that technique should be focused on the efficiency of the body's movements, I believe this focus should be to prevent injury to the student/performer and not to maximise the bpm of a piece. I think that measuring musicians based on tempo is contradictory to musicality, it undermines the way we all feel about music.
Alas, if music is to be measured, then pitch would be the X axis and rhythm would be the Y axis, and tempo would be the scale of the rhythm, and Beethoven would be an anomaly.
So in (almost) the words of Beethoven himself “What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven.”
I did however, enjoy the video (Y)
Doesn't an andante becoming an adagio and an andante losing its 'con moto' also indicate a slowing down? This Moscheles quote is rather confusing to me. Is he saying that the playing is getting more extreme in both directions (faster in fast movements and slower in slow ones?)
Fascinating as always but the background piano music was very disconcerting and made it hard to focus on what you were saying - particularly your interesting quotes from Moscheles journal.
and way too loud!
I increased your video speed by 39% and it's way more enjoyable
Perhaps the crystal in Wim's camera is broken. :-)
Before watching: haven't you said enough about this...
After watching: "NO!" Thanks again Wim.
HA..Was totally thinking the same thing (at least for regular followers of the channel), but finished very pleased with new insights...AGAIN! Thanks, Wim!
Brillant ! Thx.
Czerney was known to have 7 cats. I suspect they knocked his metronome over far to many times; thus the preposterous tempi.
I beg you to talk once about tempo in Bach’s solo violin works, like sonaten und partiten. There is a very big confusion on this subject, larger than the one that appears for keyboard instruments.
What confusion?
Sea If you practise the violin, you will already know the different instructions in different editions of the Sonaten und Partiten, on rhythm as well as intonation!!
@@kyriakospapadopoulos6289 Well those are obviously not to be taken seriously. There were no metronomic marking in Bach's time. Lately there's also some pretentious idea that sarabandes were faster and courantes were slower than we play them now. Even though there's no historical basis whatsoever and it's a blind disregard for all the unique structural difference in Bach's movements compared to his Baroque peers.
@@s.l5787 My latest, and most beloved, violin teacher (from the Russian school...) taught me to play Bach's sonaten und partiten without any rhythm indication, almost like a cadenza. Chaconne, for example -one of the most famous violin works of Bach- is divided into different sections, that are rhythmically independent from each other; there should be a philosophy though, on how to connect them in one integrated piece, and I have not understood it yet! Listening to Gidon Kremer, I see a slow(er) tempo, and intonations that are following a strict rhythm. If you listen to the Russian violinist in Gergiev's concert, in Palmyra (here in youtube), he takes the piece way too fast: it is a nice performance, but can you still call it Bach? I think that Wim is one of the few people in the world who could offer some principles in these matters. Harnoncourt develops a philosophy in his book on Monteverdi/Bach/Mozart, but it is too general to understand how it would fit into violin.
You are a brilliant lecturer, Wim!
What's the title of the background music at 12:57?
I am not a musician, but I do like music. I have but one brain to absorb the various notes as they come in. Frankly I'm not interested in how fast a piece is played, but what it means to me. Horowitz is claimed to have said he played fast "because I can". I am not impressed. Technique is one thing, but expression is what comes on top of that. Would a Macbeth soliloquy be better spoken at twice the speed ? Jeez is the audience in so much of a hurry to get home, that they demand faster tempi ? Oh no ! Wagner will make sure you sit in your seat for 4 hours ! What's the hurry, you won't miss the bus, it's not even running !
Sorry about the multiple postings due to finger slips.
We don't have a composer that can match Beethoven... why should we have a pianist?
4:30 Welcome to Thomas Kuhn.
please i need a tempo list for vivaldi recorder conertos 441
Name/composer of the piece starting around 10:25?
15 notes a second?! **flashbacks** AGH **flight of the bumblebee** AHHHH
Cziffra - hold my beer
I heard 15 notes per second...
I n t e r e s t i n g
Yeah😂
s a c r i l e g i o u s
I do wonder though if to someone trained in the arts the variance in tempi was much closer than by today's account. I've met some cantankerous old buzzard conductors who make such emphatic statements about such slight differences to their "trained" ears. I quite clearly remember playing a recording of Bernstein's magnificent late quartets by Beethoven, with the string sections doubled or quadrupled. A certain music director who was quite ridiculous and mean walked in for a social gathering and asked what was playing. When told "Beethoven", he laughed and said "no no, that's not Beethoven!"... what to do? I just said, "ok, maybe it's not". No use in arguing... but this does illustrate a point that some people hear much more "sensitively" and make these bold statements. I can imagine most hearing music too fast or slow not really noticing, but to a seasoned ear, it will stand out more, and to a musician, it may be as bold and obvious as slightly different shades of grey to an artist. But I was sitting here listening to you and also thought to myself, there must be some set standard of tempi "in the mind". For example, when we sing "ring around the rosie", we cannot find too much variation in speed from one person to the next. In fact, folk songs may provide an excellent way to think of this. You can find many recording or folk songs from over 100 years ago that are sung by common people and the tempi are the same. No stylistic difference. Why is this?? Play twinkle twinkle little star in wbt... does it "sound right"? I'm very curious... I don't want to offend, because I appreciate you're channel, content and recordings very much. In fact, many of your earlier recordings on clavichord feel more like Beethoven and Mozart to me than those played by the "top names". I wonder if you might consider that there is some "inner guide" to certain melodies that we can use to guide us. Why do some things sounds "right" and others "wrong"? I also want to make a statement that may be bit bizarre, but looking at painting today, their are few, if any, contenders to van dyck, Rembrandt, Vermeer, etc. Artists were in many ways technically better than today...faster, more skilled. Look at the lines of Durer's pen, their rapidity, flow. It's all gone today. These men often lived only 30 or 40 years, and look at the bounty they left.... they must have been working constantly. You'll never see such skill today, in almost any art. So I can believe that composers of the past could have been much more refined than today, and faster. Looking at baroque art, you see these rapid moving lines and everything is moving to a heavenly vortex.... speed is always implied... and today, we have Soviet lego blocks passing as "great building". Beethoven wasn't just a composer, he was a performer. Where are the composers today?? An artist can not be copied... in so many forms it doesn't work. So I believe that no one could play Beethoven as well as he could, because he wrote the thing. These are just so thoughts I had and I would appreciate any thing you might add to help elucidate. Thanks!
This dude is totally right.
nah... sounds like a broken record. I'm not impressed by his examples.
I have a hard time understanding your actual point, because I am not sure where you are using sarcasm and where you are serious. It doesn't make sense that musical diction would have appreciably "slowed down" over a century. I think you are saying that the metronome markings of much of the classical music we have now are "'wrong". I think they are wrong. For instance, Schumann metronome markings in "Fantasy Pieces" are simply absurdly fast. Allegro is a character, not a speed marking, after all.
I'll watch some other of you videos, but if I am understanding you, absent any irony, I can safely ignore absurdly fast metronome markings in some of my editions of piano literature.
Of course, he's right, people haven't changed. we're supposed to believe they were all Super Pianists back then and we're all chums today? there's no way music was double fast 200 years ago, they didn't even have good instruments to play compared to today's. Academics like to 'discover things' and sometimes even make stuff up. lol
While not everyone was a super pianist then this problem seems mostly to be a piano one. I've yet to come across a metronome mark for a flute piece which metronome mark could not be exxecuted one period instruments. What we often forget is that they had just as good instruments then as we have now. Then baroque and classical violin is even faster than modern violin with some things! Modern flutes are faster than baroque traversos in hard keyes. But the music was not written in hard keyes but in ways that suited the instrument. Intsruments now aren't better now. They are different and can do somethings better but other things even worse than the old instruments!
I discovered while studying that the high point of academia is almost never the pursuit of 'truth' but the pursuit of 'originality' (i.e. discovering things)
How do you know that once they played a lot faster ? How much we must practice to get their level?
They played much slower in the past, the title is ironic: ua-cam.com/video/6EgMPh_l1BI/v-deo.html
Beethoven had so many famous students, who went on to be teachers of other famous students, etc.... How would such a drastic change in interpretation have taken place in such a short period of time?
Due to the well documented rise of technical virtuosity in concert practice. As music became more democratized in the 1800s, a demand for technical virtuosity began to arise. The courtly traditions and practices of older music were neglected, ignored, or put under romantic light. Since much of the music of ,for example, JS Bach has only been properly distributed in the public during that time, a traditional reading of his music did not have a lot of time to develop. 200 years lie Between beethoven and us, and since then dozens of new pupil-teacher connections have formed, all influenced by romantic ideas and expectations.
@@123Joack What you say makes sense. Also, lets not discount the actual music itself. Romanticism demanded a style of writing that employed a higher degree of "virtuosity," not necessarily for the good of the music but nevertheless extant. The implication, is, however, that if Beethoven's Sonatas were being played faster and faster, then we have not only an audience, but performers and teachers who were musically illiterate and insensitive.
LazlosPlane I think that’s where the problems start! Because no one likes to admit to their inabilities. Why should for example Bernstein, who I adore, have no musical taste? He does! But he tastes something different Than the people in Beethoven’s time, still genius
@@123Joack True, but, I think the question of "taste," is a different than that is being presented here, but it must figure into it. Taste, in the end, determines everything. We hold onto what is "tasteful" to us then find reasons to justify it. I had a professor in college, a world-reknowned musicologist, (he would be about 120 years old today) who thought one should NEVER take a "ritard" at the end of any piece by Bach. It would really upset and anger him. But I have yet to hear a performance of Bach that DOES NOT take a ritard at the end!!
LazlosPlane I’ll send you a recording!
metronome markings in music may not justify the character of the piece anyway. Perhaps it's better just therefore to have a written indication of the speed in the appropriate language and leave the metronome marking out. I just observe the Italian tempo marking (or German )and that's it.
You mean the other way around :-)?
Somehow I would prefer a written essay with sources instead of this. Claiming that a majority of music theory in a big area is wrong and also peer review guys are wrong is not something you can only do in a UA-cam Video. For example there is no source that supports the claim that peer review guys tear down anyone who thinks a metronome was used differently back then. Also source missing for what „music scientist these days claim“ in many cases. How can you claim a scientific context without creating a format suited for science?
you tell me
That was meant as a rhetorical question, because you can’t. You need to create a framework that allows your rather interesting ideas to be taken seriously. That can be a UA-cam Video for example including a Pdf Document with sources combined with timestamps in the description would be great. Just makes your words more powerful.
Also a a beginner I had difficulty following the video, it would have be good to in further videos explain in the beginning just briefly how in your opinion a metronome was used back then. Because in the end you want to target beginners with these videos, since they suffer from high tempo expectations.
Is it posible that because of the pianos of the 19th century had smaller keys and smaller sound they could work easily on a faster tempo compared to the huge pianos we have today? I believe that having that huge sound to fil the inmense concert halls of today makes the piano mechanism a lot slower 🤔
Actually the opposite, the aftertouch wasn't invented to make pianos slower...!
Well, learning the piece you should play at a tempo you can control. That is really slow and concentrated practice. Also up to half the indicated performance tempo. Forget about olympics.
What about the accuracy of the early metronomes? From what I understand, there was little accuracy of them, and varied greatly from one metronome to another. I my self can't play with some such as Seiko which I find to acellerate almost imperceptibly, which I don't find playing with other metronomes. So this striving to find an authentic tempo for past composers is not something we can scientifically achieve yet.?
Watches and clocks existed back then. Proper speed was not a huge challenge. Antique metronome dealers regularly advertise the accuracy of an item for sale. Most are within a few points of their indicated speed. Keep in mind that these puzzling tempi are "off" by 100%. That's far outside the normal error margin of early timepieces.
Best channel about music's facts
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Beethoven was a funny chap because his attitude to the use of the metronome I have taken to believe if contemporary accounts are correct was hypocritical and surely we shouldn't judge a musician's merit on the use of the metronome alone. If one requires the metronome for security in playing then fine (an accurate one) but often
Thank you for this informative talk . Toscanini was routinely criticized for his fast tempos which he postulated were correct. If any of you have or heard his recording of the Missa Solemnis, Toscanini takes the Gloria at such a fast tempo, the choristers can hardly get all the notes in. Toscanini evidently knew what he was doing.
Playing 15 notes a second gets you in the world book of records. See the BBC video of a person called Ben Lee who claims he can play Flight of the bumble bee. And as a matter of fact: he couldn't do it. Maybe he could play 15 notes per seconds but they were not all notes of Flight of the Bumble bee, if you know what I mean.
I saw this on TwoSet violin.
... and that is not the official record. The real record is almost 14 notes/second and the violinist is david garrett m.ua-cam.com/video/2Q0WGQbJbso/v-deo.html
I know i know, ben lee cheats playing the chromatic scales 😂😂😂
Here is a similar example by TwoSet Violin with a child playing it at 325BPM. Their comments are priceless.
Sacraligios
I think we should show them the link to this channel. I would like to know their perspective on this. It would be extremely helpful and interesting.
Step outa the museum geez 20th century
The Moscheles quote at 14:25 appears to be a two way criticism of the tempi chosen by the new generation of pianists i.e. that fast pieces were being played too fast but also slow pieces were being played too slowly (andantes being played as if marked Adagio, andante con moto pieces being played with no "moto"). I can see that his criticism of people playing too fast would support the whole beat performance practice in relation to his own metronome markings since single beat interpretation would often times require superhuman abilities. I'm not sure how his criticism of the slow pieces being played too slowly relates to his metronome markings though. It seems inconsistent in that it would imply the changes in tempi were not just a sudden increase in tempi but went both ways (fast movements faster, slow movements slower). This obviously is not explainable as a result of musicians switching to single beat interpretation of the markings. Were musicians at the time Moscheles wrote this simply ignoring metronome markings and following their own whims ? Complicated question because "too fast" can be objectively monitored vs human limitations on playing the piano but … how slow is too slow ? I think to determine that, one would have to examine metronome markings on vocal music or perhaps flute music where the limits of breath (lung capacity) play a part ? Perhaps Mr. Winters could shed some light on this "fast too fast, slow too slow" tempo discrepancy referred to my Moscheles ?
I’ve seen several of these videos, and your argument is interesting. What happens with pieces in 3/4 time?
Tactus inaequalis, I'll make some videos on it again, but you can just search the channel for it!
Why assume a tempo indication is absolutely required according to the composer? It is very plausible that the tempo indication is merely an ideal speed that the piece should be executed at by the most perfect pianist. There is no reason to conclude that a slower tempo, that is more easily executed by an average pianist is unacceptable. The tempo that Beethoven's Hammerklavier would be realized under this persons theory, is positively ridiculous. With Beethoven's piano - at such a tempo, there would be a near total decay of sound from note to note - and this is what he expects us to believe? He has much more to account for by way of explanation under his theory than my above proposal as an explanation. We should always look for the most simple explanation in support of a theory - in science as well as other domains.
"Why assume a tempo indication is absolutely required according to the composer? " Because the composers themselves say that Metronome Marks are indications meant to be followed by all pianists. As for the decay of older pianos, many recordings on this channel have proved you are wrong. As for your 'simple' explanation, it would lead to many pieces that are simply... impossible to play. Not so simple, after all.
@Chlorinda A few quotes for you:
"“(Tempo) is a question of the composer’s, not the conductor’s feelings." Berlioz
“The metronome markings will be sent to you very soon. Do wait for them. In our century, such indications are certainly necessary. Moreover, I have received letters from Berlin informing me that the first performance of the (choral) symphony was received with enthusiastic applause, which I ascribe largely to the metronome markings.” Beethoven
"Any musical piece produces its proper effect only when it is played in the exact degree of movement prescribed by its Author, and any even inconsiderable deviation from that time, whether as to quickness, or slowness, will often totally destroy the sense, the beauty, and the intelligibility of the piece. " Czerny
"herr Beethoven ergreift diese Erfindung (the metronome) als ein willkommenes Mittel, seinen genialen Compositionen aller Orten die Ausführung in dem ihnen zugedachten Zeitmass, das er so häufig verfehlt, bedauert, zu verschaffen" Wiener Vaterländische Blätter, Oct. 1813
"chon längst wird daher das Bedürfnis gefühlt und anerkannt, einen Masstab zu besitzen mittels dessen jeder Tonsezer mit Bestimmtheit anzeigen könne, wie geschwind oder langsam er die Takttheile seines Tonstückes ausgeführt haben will" Weber
"
“...bitte ich die, (...) um ein recht genaues Einüben und strenge Befolgung der vorgeschriebenen Nüancen (...), so wie der durch den Metronom bezeichneten Tempi, weil es nur dann die beabsichtige Wirkung machen kann.” Spohr
"Le métronome de Maelzel est donc d’une utilité incontestable, car il apprend au juste à l’exécutant ou à celui qui dirige, le mouvement que le compositeur a voulu donner à son ouvrage. " and "Le Métronome est une des choses les plus utiles à la musique qui aient été inventées dans les derniers temps. (…) Il présente au compositeur un très grand avantage, en lui assurant que ses ouvrages seront joués partout exactement dans le mouvement qu’il a voulu leur donner (…) Les artistes et les amateurs apprennent par le métronome le vrai mouvement que l’auteur a indiqué" Hummel
Art Tatum and Oscar Peterson watching this video in their graves like 😒😒
I was listening to Art Tatum earlier today and I had the same thought when I was listening to this. There’s a George Gershwin song “The Man I Love”, when Billy Holiday sings it kind of holds time still., where as Art Tatum plays the notes so rapidly they sound like a Ferrari running a stick along a metal fence.
ua-cam.com/video/494Pr7iyZt8/v-deo.html
If we talk about the speed of playing, I would say Lang Lang has reached to an ultimate level in that
Yuja wang, Valentina Lisitsa, and Martha Argerich definitely have reached the ultimate level of speed.
@@MyPianoArchives maybe
@@MyPianoArchives from those I know only Valentina Lisitsa
Roope Huhtanen Martha Argerich is considered to be the greatest pianist of our time. She’s up there with Horowitz, Rubenstein, and Richter. World renown that’s for sure. And Yuja wang? Wanna talk speed check out the last 40 or so seconds of J. Strauss II/ Cziffra - Tritsch-Tratsch Polka.
Were doable ...... as you can find many UA-cam. Vids with these being performed at those speeds.
then I suggest you download an app and check.
The sped up version has an interestingly "old time" sound like Art Tatumish
Horowitz was an admirer of Tatum! One virtuoso admired the other!
@@josephmagil1149 so was Rachmaninoff. Many classical pianist were known to go to jazz clubs to hear Tatum.
Yeah we are playing music not a race car
...interesting...(also thinking he kinda looks like Tom Cruise...top half of his face...) Anybody?
It seems in every realm of life, people want to change history and discard the truth of what actually happened and/or the way things were. Reminds me of the book, 1984, by George Orwell.
It's not that insidious, what happens is that a younger generation, desiring to create something new and distinguish themselves, invent a new style which then over time obscures what went before (or people just forget). Usually there's historical records that make the evolution clear, but music has always had a strong oral tradition which makes it easy to lose track of the origin. Which isn't necessarily a problem, we don't _have_ to play composers exactly as they intended, of course if people with to play Beethoven faster they're free to do so. Of course the fact that it makes tempi impossible to play is ridiculous.
As I get older, I wish to return to scratchy records, ticking clocks, and good ol'-fashioned paper and pencil, not to mention a Mozart or Beethoven piece played in historic WBMP, Susan. You nailed it.
@@thomashughes4859 What does "WBMP" mean?
@@Tico4president Whole Beat Metronome Practice.
@@DanMcLaughlin My neighbor and I were discussing this - he's an organist, harpsichordist, and pianist. :-) He said that the younger generation do this because they can.
You're right in every word but my grandfather and his father taught me how to play like beethoven and even faster I tried to double the speed of beethovens moonlight sonata and I succeeded in playing it double speed of the original.. And a tip for the people who have been practicing for ages without progress is increasing the metronome every 2 days by just 1 bpm until you are comfortable playing with very high speed and then used finger techniques like finger swapping which is considered as breaking the rules of the hand and try improvising on the piece you are playing... Try to have what if going in your head because it opens new doors for you also changing the key of the piece is a performance booster trust me if you play the c minor symphony on the d minor will definitely open doors for your performance to become more developed... With all respect to everything said in the video but as long as you are passionate about music, then you can break the limits.. Maybe one day someone could overcome beethoven and become the greatest player in history who knows.. Just have faith in yourself and you will do the impossible
1:32 *Sacrilegious boi wants to know your location*
Belgium!
AuthenticSound LOL you taking the joke literally is InTeReStInG
you're welcome 🤖
That thumbnail says it all :)
It's simple really, if it sounds good at a certain tempo that's where it's supposed to be. Take any, and I mean any modern music and change the tempo. There will be a narrow range where it sounds best. You're argument cuts both ways, I'd imagine there are some slow compositions that would be way too slow with your theory.
Until now, all the recordings we make solve problems instead of creating, I would say certainly in the slow movements often, check them out!
I don't know, some people marvel at a slowly played moonlight sonatas third movement. And I think all the magic disappears when it is played slower.
Like ragtime, always played too fast. I find it easier to play quicker than slow and controlled with feeling
Nothing short of a séance will do for some people! I love your turning the metronome image sideways. Keep up the good fight!
I found most of Beethoven boring, until I heard Glenn Gould play Beethoven
I wonder if a perfomer/composer like Beethoven, Chopin etc. deliberately gave misleading metronome markings so as to ensure that their own public performance is always distinct from everyone else.
no (of course not I'd say)!
Is this entire channel dedicated exclusively to this tempo issue?
Easy to check by going through the +800 videos, might be a nice journey!
The modern classical guitar is going through the changes we hear about in his diaries too. Gone is the "clarity" and come has the "Loud bashing of chords". Which is even more hilarious given the nature of my instrument to favour in the strongest terms sweet, subtle and extremely quiet presentation.
Why does the bias exist? Who has interest in it?
Haha, disagree. I think Beethoven will be impressed by Yuja’s technique. I strongly believe pianistic skills got better and better, and this is indeed the age to witness the best technique.
Dear Wim, a very interesting and convincing argument. However, please forgive some comments from me:
* It sound as if the current paradigm is very strong. You make a very good point in your argument but if you wish to break the current paradigm you will need support from a critical mass of musicologists and musicians. Have you thought about creating a conference with invited speakers to build the argument and make it a ground breaking event?
* Mocheles's argument is one based on the aesthetics (funny as I mentioned this as well in a previous comment). Perhaps you could find similar arguments in others on that era?
* It sounds surprising that Mocheles describes higher tempi towards the end of his life and that this change was sudden. My instinct says that perhaps this has to do with a technological advance in pianos of that era that changed the possibilities and abilities of pianists? I am totally guessing here, and I may be wrong, but perhaps one can research 'piano technology' and possible changes in around 1860.
Final point: I envy you for your 1stedition books!
best regards
B.
Why is it so difficult to understand this video?
Cuz I got smol brain
His tempi in double beat fort the 2 part inventions, works quite well. Single bear make no sense.
musically speaking
Julliard piano students like wdf man
2:10 sounds mechanical, the 2:58 15/sec notes example THE SAME... Tempo is not an excuse, if you don't play with fire it's bad, yes tempo is super important, but an understanding of the right expression is more important. Another boring excersice played like a boring excercise, terrible way to ruin a musician. I understand that there is a minority in this classical world that like the "naive style", people who uselessly try to contain the huge power and passion of our so much loved music in a vessel, they don't understand anything of the performance of the great romantic music, and music in general, they can't even play the actual naive style, called roccocó, properly because they don't even understand the naive expression of our children, the happiness of a kid, that spontaneity, no!!!! their goal is to fully become machines or I maybe they are just boring adults. Do you guys think that there weren't "rock" feelings in the XIX century? fire of passion in the previous centuries? the need to be free from materialism? that's basically romanticism. If you think that Romanticism or Beethoven are hard to perform adequately, imagine Bach, almost nobody can't play it properly, you only hear machines everywhere without any superior feelings. Why do we remember Bach so much over others?, because it represents the highest grade of the baroque, but why? Because he had put the most passionate expression in his compositions, despite the old style you can notice it, you can see that there is a HUGE young fire of passion, it's hard to find so much passion an dlife in most composers, passion and life very similar to Beethoven, Mozart and other great masters. His music is the most expressive from the baroque period, give it try! try to play it with passion and not like a "elegant aristocrat" or something terrenal like that who tries to contain the infinite nuclear power of Bach in a soda can. What happens when you play Bach without understanding the romanticism in it? You get a bad performance of Bach. Music was his real religion, feel the fire in it! his music is even divinal, try to imagine the heaven, the cosmos, the angels, superior thigns when playing it, or even "the hell" of his dark music, people should play the music with the proper fire!
I thought Slater's performance was quite nice. Not every single piece of music needs to be "with fire", and the way passion is presented through music is allowed to differ between players, pieces, styles, and time periods. I hear many interpretations of Bach quite frequently, and I've never felt any lacking passion or emotion, even if they weren't "romantic" in the sense of music written centuries after his death.
That's not the 'true' reason why Bach is admired but only part of it. Two Baroque composers that fit that description better in my opinion are Domenico Scarletti and Handel. The reason why Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are considered the 'best' is due to the intellectual and possibly elegant aspects their music contains. From there the scholars tell us that they are the high standard and the public follow.
Beethoven always had his metronome set to 900 bpm quarter notes. Everyone knows this!
Yes but no...he couldn't hear it
@@notgoodenough6161 True.
This guy: How fast are you gonna play?
19century pianist: Yes!