Even Valentina Lisitsa unable to fix Beethoven’s Moonlight “Mistake”?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2020
- Valentina Lisitsa, in her recent interpretation of Beethoven's famous Moonlight Sonata, (which is a remarkable achievement in its own that needs no comment from me nor anyone else!), starts the presto agitato, the third movement, in about the double tempo compared to my version of the same work. It might very well be one of the fastest and from technical perspective certainly one of the most impressive versions ever recorded. But in one particular place of the same movement, her tempo - as of all other pianists- is similar to mine. But I didn't slow down... as Beethoven is not giving 'permission' to slow down either...so what happened? So who's "wrong" here? Beethoven? Or today's view on this piece? Let's look at a fascinating 8 bars in this Beethoven sonata that very well could redefine the entire musical world on their own!
Never heard of the WBMP before? Start here: • How Fast did Beethoven...
--
🙋We need YOU to continue in (full) speed!▶ / authenticsound
--
📩One weekly mail in your mailbox? 👉bit.ly/as-mailinglist
--
📱 Website: ▶www.authenticsound.org
Scott Joplin often complained that ragtime was played too fast. The people play it fast anyway!
I was really surprised how “slow” Joplin’s performance of the maple leaf rag was. It made me realize how fast we tend to play it.
Good point about Joplin. I guess it depends on the interpretation. AuthenticSound is so musical, no matter what speed he played stuff at, it would make sense. But I tend to think he is wrong in his idea of this half speed thing. I don't believe speeds were so slow in the early 19th century.
Christian Segura
Absolutely right about Joplin’s performance. It almost makes you want to shout, “You’re playing it wrong!”
Because it's all about the groove. Not playing fast.
I had a CD of Jopins pionalo recordings. Always found the tempi insanely fast... Except on Mapple leaf rag, which is slower than what I would play. But what do you think of the Entertainer?
I’m never wrong...
Omg is that really you!
OK, Ludwig, you heard the guy, now what are your considerations?
You the man Beets!
Your music sounds "very rehearsed".
@@rafaelveggi I suppose you mean "you reads his lips" ;)
Ludwig was deaf.
I like the faster version. It conveys something the slower version can't.
And that's ok I think! Taste in music should not be discussed, and if you prefer the faster version, listen to it! That's the beauty of music, there's something for everyone. But I think the point of this guy is not to say that one interpretation is "better" than another in the artistic sense, but just to try to explain some illogism in some historical markings, and that slower than what we are used to tempi still make for listenable music.
Why can't you have both? Why can't you have the strengths of both fast and slow version in one interpretation? What if there was far more tempo manipulation historically than there is in either the modern conventional performances or the way Winters plays his WBMP perfromances? What if the WBMP was the starting, slowest tempo of the piece, but performers would routinely speed up throughout a section or passage, speeding up even to the speeds that most modern performers today would play at?
I like the slower version. It conveys something the faster version can't.
@@jonathanlamarre3579 I agree that it's perfectly fine to have different musical tastes, but this channel is constantly telling us that we've been playing everything incorrectly (TWICE as fast as intended, no less), and that he knows what Beethoven and other composers really meant for it to sound like. He states these things as fact. He also ignores any evidence that would discredit his stance and only looks for confirmation. It seems to me that he is completely uninterested in any sort of historical truth and instead has fixated on this bizarre tempo notion for the sake of having an audience.
@@freakytea2815 It is because the metronome numbers make impossible to play and un musical pieces. The slower version give a lot more opportunity for phrasing which unfortunately is not taken. Watch earlier videos where this stuff is explained.
Didn't know that mr. Cruise is a music expert.
yah, pretty much Cruise later in life.
Ha! Good one... it took me a moment to catch on🍸
Denian Arcoleo Tom cruise is already 57
I’m sure Ethan Hunt’s had to learn everything Beethoven overnight sometime in his life
Denian Arcoleo They’re the same age lol
Someone needs to go and talk to Glenn Gould's chair. It knows everything.
that would be a cool video!
Funny thing is Gould played the third movement of this sonata even faster than the fast interpretations of this piece
Glenn Gould; "the chairman"
sounds like a mission: impossible
It needs to be played in swing time, I'm sure that's correct, or in be-bob scat.
If it’s written like that play like that.
HAHA! Now are you familiar with the Op. 111 piano sonata? There is a notorious section in the theme and variations that is in something very much like swing time! It's fantastic!
"Mehh.... Just play it however" - Ludwig van Beethoven
He was a contradiction. He'd write nasty letters to his publisher if they missed a tie, but at the same time, he'd also write things in his music that are literally impossible to execute.
@@Discrimination_is_not_a_right I doubt that, since he did many testing of the stuff he wrote before actual publishing.
@@Discrimination_is_not_a_right I can play anything he wrote, so that's hardly 'literally impossible', don't you think.. 😏
@@NevilDouglas Please do play one note crescendos on piano. Please do
@@janne7263 I was about say that. And four note pianissimo chords on the violin.
Not all arguments are fully considered in this video:
- There are many different recordings of Valentina playing the same piece, and on a lot of them she doesn't pull back nearly as much in the same section
- Beethoven's use of 32nd notes is hard to attribute to a desire for an increase in tempo, it is more likely that he wanted to give more specific direction on how to arpeggiate the chords written
- Just as there is no indication for the tempo to slow down at this point, there is equally no indication for an increase in tempo at this point (which is what AS does in his recording)
- There are two fermatas in this section, with a sudden return to full tempo and a different musical line being played immediately afterwards. Fermatas typically indicate a change in tempo when they are used, and a rit. is often used with them even when written in the score. A notable example of this is in AS' recording of this very sonata, where at the end of the first movement he uses a rituando even though none is written in the original score. For him to criticise others for altering the tempo at this point is highly hypocritical, because not only does he commit the same 'crime' in a different way in the same place, but he does the exact same thing which he calls inaccurate in other places.
Is not the tempo that increases, is the speed what increases. That's what the score indicates, faster notes not tempo.
Yes, Valentina has done other recordings of the Moonlight but this is her most recent one which is also part of her Beethoven project. It's the closest you get to her "official" performance.
When Wim says that the 32nds indicate a higher tempo, he does not mean absolute tempo. Rather, he means that our brains interpret it as faster because there are more notes every second because of the smaller note values. The pulse does not change between the 16th note section and the 32nd note section in Wim's recording while it does that in Lisitsa's. Wim keeps strictly in tempo which, imo, gives the passage an unmatched fury.
It's not a little rit. that Wim is talking about. Wim is talking about suddenly lowering the pulse by almost half in the middle of a piece. Imagine doing that in Beethoven's 5th or the Hammerklavier sonata! Rits. are universally accepted at the end of pieces and AS often uses rubato and dramatic pauses in their playing. But never a sudden halving of the tempo.
@@teodorlontos3294 That part is clearly a cadenza, and it musically asks for an alteration of tempo. This is self-evident, Beethoven didn’t need to write it down. This is called good performing, especially in solo performances, if you never alter the tempo, it will sound robotic, this is also self-evident. Furthermore, his irrational assumption that Lisitza slowed the tempo because she couldn’t play that fast is ridiculous, these are just arppegiated chords. Furthermore, his version clearly does not sound Presto Agitato
@@johannpetersen3637 Halving the tempo is not "altering the tempo". That's altering the entire piece. Of course there is room for small tempo alterations, but they can't change the content of the music itself. I think Wim's interpretation is a great Presto Agitato, no need to be faster.
Does anyone else see a resemblance to Tom Cruise? The more I look at him speak, the more I see Tom Cruise's face
HAHAHAHA, YEAH!
Agreed, add some darker thicker hair, could be twin..
I think you mean the villain from Rogue Nation😂
its there
Have you considered new glasses?
Everyone: *Faster is better*
Me: _If yOU cAn plAy It slOwly..._
@ICan’tPlayPiano INNteresting!!!
Sacreligious
Ling Ling practice 40 hours a day, he can play it perfectly.
Harry Xiang lang lang
dominik3bb Ohhhh you got no idea
Its simple people... we just need to invent a time machine, travel back to meet up with the BIg B himself and ask him... duh
We have that machine, it's called a metronome!
Big B: Sorry I can't hear you.
@@da96103 LOL
@@AuthenticSound And if you take that into account your tempo is half the speed from the tempo notation on the score
"The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible"
Legend has it he’s still playing the “Grave” passage of the Pathetiquè
ahahahhaahahahahah genius!!! I wonder how long it would take this guy to finish the first movement of the moonlight sonata as well :)))
seen the andrew schiff documentary about the moonlight grave being played much faster than recited today ? i mean this guys fallen down the wrong rabbit hole clearly
Let's not even think about Op. 111 2nd movement....
@@Alexagrigorieff jeeeez noooo ahahhaahh
I came to your channel via this video and now I'm really hooked, I like very much your way of telling things, you make very much sense to me, thou I like the interpretations of Lisitsa, a mere aficionado pianist like myself can never opt to reach those heights...
You gave me a new energy towards difficult classical pieces, now I fell capable of tacking them.
Welcome aboard!
Thx for keeping the debate alive, Wim! Interesting video.
My problem is Lisitsa slowing down at the critical point in your example. Others don't slow down to that extent. Schnabel doesn't.Arrau, only slightly. Serkin doesn't. While I acknowledge your thoughtfulness I don't think half tempo will work for repeated listening. The drive is essentially created in the fast "heart" beating staccato quarter notes. the rising broken chords are not melodic but harmonic.
Yeah IIRC even Lisitsa herself didn't slow down nearly as much in her earlier and most famous recording of this piece (altho it still it's slower than following a strict tempo)
i like Arrau he plays it a little slower, the whole movement . one thing we must remember these pieces were written for students to build technique. we must play them at a speed that we are comfortable. some pianist cannot play this and other pieces at the editors tempo markings. we don't just play notes we play passages with expression. if just playing notes we could just let the computer play the piece. the slow down for 8 bars i think its good expression whether right or wrong let the pianist decide with expression.
@@roaschmo You may not like but it is what Beethoven intended
This is a really very interesting take. I think it's like the Well Tempered I Prelude and Fugue in C minor.
Everyone starts the prelude too fast, then they get to the "Presto" section and play it in the same tempo as the beginning.
This video does a great job of illustrating one of the challenges of playing classical music. Great work.
Thank you very much!
@AuthenticSound interesting point, I love playing the moonlight sonata also, I enjoy playing the 1st and 2nd movements if the Moonlight Sonata learning the 3rd movement, can I ask please I also enjoy playing the sonata pathetique 3 movements, in the 1st movement I play a allegro pace but not too fast, would you say that is right please? also could you please give Me some tips with pedaling in the sonata pathetique, if able to reply that will be great, greetings from wales uk 😀
"go sit down on the piano and try the passage for yourself"
Bold of you to assume I can play even the first chord, or that I even have a piano at all
I love listening to informed opinions like this! Great video which is something really interesting to think about and discuss with other musicians.
Glad you enjoyed!
Love the way you play it ,more musical and the piece really sounds way different !!
Thank you, I had a gut feeling that many of beethovens sonatas are really sublime at slower speeds that are within the scope of my technical proficiency. I play only for myself so you give me the lovely idea that this may be nearer the great man's intent
Ditto!
^..^~~
Thank you for this, it really heals a wound in my heart.
Starts by saying „I don‘t want to say who’s right and who’s wrong“ some minutes later: „Lisitsa and others are wrong, I am right“ lol
Well he is if you like it at that tempo then that's fine but her tempo is wrong in terms of pure metronome speaking this is a fact
skyler mccloud first of all I‘m not sure, wether I understood your comment right, it is a strange sentence. But I also think, that „pure metronome speaking“ is not the basis to say someone is wrong. There are many more important things to consider, when you criticize someone than the question: did he play it exactly at the speed Beethoven wanted it. In his times the instruments sounded completely different. I think it is interesting to examine, how they played it back then, but to do so, jus to say: You are all wrong? That has nothing to do with music.
There is only one problem: the score says “Presto Agitato”.
why is that a problem?
AuthenticSound Your version doesn’t sound Presto Agitato.
@@AuthenticSound it is hard to argue that your version is 'fast and restless'
@@AuthenticSound I know, right? I've studied Italian, and I know "presto agitato" means "dull and lifeless". Just use Google Translate and you'll see I'm right!
@@FernieCanto presto agitato means rápido y agitado or in english fast and agitated.
I would like to hear the fast version with the correct tempo even if it has to be played by a computer
The single beat "problem" exists throughout the whole piece, not just that particular passage, although it is the most significant one.
You'll not find a single interpretation at H=92 during the development part, where the melody is shifted to the left hand (bars 75-86). The reason is obvious. This melodic line in the bass does not work at that speed. So everyone will go to H=76 or something like that and it's just fine. But I don't think anyone will agree that you can just take 20-25% off your tempo during the development section of the piece for that matter. Same thing happens again in bars 167-176 and for the same reason.
Make no mistake, though, Valentina's interpretation, however non-historical it may be, is just epic.
Epic, but mistaken. Still the double beat interpretation is proven correct, for not only humans, but the fortepianos themselves would not be able to cope, and nor would the ears of the listeners. In single beat, it would just sound like a total mess at the point where it goes to demisemiquavers, even if all the notes could be played correctly at such a ridiculous pace. The war is as good as won for the double beat metronome practice. The single beaters have been made to look proper fools.
Epic but it's just become music for the sake of fame and virtuosity, two things that true music shouldn't aspire to.
@ It really depends. There's no really correct or incorrect way concerning music, only taste.
@@jonathanlamarre3579 Well, yes, but surely the composer's intention as to tempo has great weight here, don't you think?
@@gfweis Oh of course! I'm not trying to dismiss the validity of the research of the composer intention, and the quality of thoughts needed to do so, and the attention a musical lover must give to it. But in doing so, one must be careful of not dismissing others, more different interpretations, in the fear of not sticking to the composer intention. And that's what my initial reply meant.
Understanding the initial parameters given by the composer is important because it allows one to understand the intention of the interpreter that voluntarily stray away from them.
Very dangerous to say that one interpretation is "right". I think a good musician is a good story teller. A person that is the brigde between the ideas of the composer and the listener. And I think there are different ways of telling the story, and this is the most interesting part of music. Actualy, that is the reason musicians exists, otherwise we could just listen to the "right" version always perfect on a recording.
yeah, i think saying sth like "historically accurate" would be way better than just calling one version "right"
In the past, I tried my hand at composing piano pieces which turned out too difficult for me to play so I used a digital audio workstation along with composition software to render and produce my pieces.
Completely amateur thoughts from a non-pianist... take them for what it's worth.
The Moonlight Sonata comes from Beethoven's early period when he was still very active as a concert pianist, and it remained his most popular piece throughout his performing career. Perhaps most concert pianists are obeying a performance tradition that goes back to Beethoven's performances themselves, much as Chopin interpreters play according to performance traditions not explicitly notated in the scores.
Secondly, the Moonlight seems to me to parallel his late string quartet Op. 131... also in C# minor, as it happens. Both start with slow meditative slow movements, and delay the customary sonata-allegro movements to the very end, where they provide a stormy contrast to the first movements. Perhaps the best indication for how to perform this piece can be gleaned from the expressive effects he used throughout his body of work.
Or, we can also count on something way more reliable and precise such the metronome numbers left by him or Czerny, his best student, that give us an exact idea of the tempi the composer might have chosen when playing his works
So, what you say is that you actually don't care what it is written on the music sheet. Or do I understand that wrongly?
This piece was not in Beethoven's early life though, in fact it is nearly centered in his 2nd stylistic period and by this time he had extreme peril in his life and career which is shown in this composition as well as the Tempest Sonata.
@@albertosanna4539 Yes, but this guy's crackpot theory is that the metronome marking applies to a longer note than what is marked in the score. He's taking Beethoven's marking and reinterpreting it.
@@Tod_oMal You don't understand. AuthenticSound is taking the metronome marking and cutting it in half by a sort of sleight of hand, claiming that the BEAT is different from what is clearly printed.
That's actually really compelling! I'm with you
Thank you
So many pianists play so fast, they hide the beautiful melodies. I'm not certain that's what the composers wanted.
I've seen a lot of your videos, and while I certainly appreciate your dedication and passion, I generally disagree with your, what I consider to be, very dry, mathematical take on tempo markings, especially in Beethoven. At the tempo you suggest the final movement not only doubles in performance time, but puts the emphasis on the articulation of every isolated note, when, at least to me, it seems fairly straight forward that Beethoven is writing harmony by harmony, as he often does. To your point, I *have* always wondered why he wrote thirty seconds notes in those bars rather than rolled chords, which (even at your tempo) they sound more like to my ears. While there are places in the literature that seem ambiguous because of moments like the one you point out here with the thirty-seconds, I wouldn't personally choose to alter the entire work so drastically over those four measures--which, personally, I don't find any more convincing with the rest of the movement slowed to an Allegretto. It *does* say "Presto," (regardless of academic arguments about how fast composers may have considered "presto" and other tempi to really be at the time they conceived their work--I guess nobody ever played anything fast back then. . .) and the nature of the writing is inherently virtuosic. To me, the strongest and most musically compelling aspect of the composition is not the individual notes of the relentless Alberti bass, two-note oscillations in the LH, or hammering out of broken chord inversions the way every pianist and student warms up with at the beginning of their daily practice regimen. I also wonder how many audience members would walk out after waiting patiently through two lovely, slower movements for that exciting third movement, and then not getting it. I also really don't agree with the idea of withholding the possibility that Beethoven could have backed himself into a corner in which there wasn't an ideal solution (at least in terms of notation). He wasn't God. I also have a problem with reducing another person's entire performance to mere technical show. I wonder how Valentina feels about her work being used in this way. . .. To me all of this boils down to building an interpretation in the spirit of the law vs. by the letter of the law. While I do make the same considerations you made here when forming an interpretation, it seems that I (and virtually every other pianist who has ever studied the work) was led to a different conclusion.
Your interpretation sounds right and good, and it also makes complete sense. In the world of public performance and recording, there is an insidious incentive for performers to dazzle and stand out, which, in most cases, means they simply play some pieces much too fast. That's not playing any longer; it's gymnastic pyrotechnics but not music. And just as important is the fact that, played at an extreme tempo. the 3rd movement jarringly unbalances the entire sonata. That's really why you are right 😉
I find this fascinating, that we are thinking today about the interpretation of what someone was thinking in 1801 and that there are so many facets to this wonderful music that make it even more interesting to me.
Two Cherries Instruments q
Did you check the original manuscript ? Is there any indication for something like a "recitativo" which would explain the ritardando - because you dont seem to see that pianists who play at the fast tempo (Schnabel, Kempff, Horowitz...) dont make a "mistake", as you say, but decide to play it as a recitativo, or maybe as a weird (but beautiful) kadenza. It is a musical decision, and maybe the freedom of the interpretation in the early XIXth century allowed that. More broadly, saying that your playing is "right" and others "wrong" (even with respect) seems to miss what an interpretation is.
The "presto agitato" expresses Beethoven's desire of the tempo... For me, that contradicts the slow beat theory
He was romantic, and understanding the meaning of the music is to go beyond the formality and bureaucracy... The forte many times became piano so that the fortissimo ahead explodes, for example
Interpretation has a lot of weight in his work...
The way you worded your retort suggests a sort of smug musical nihilism. If the intent of the composer is not considered in the interpretation, it's more of a remix. He was far more polite than you, and far less hypocritical in his beliefs, in my opinion.
"Freedom of interpretation" is valid when the written score does not provide enough evidence for what the composer wants - even contemporary pieces that use extraordinarily wide dynamic ranges (Crumb's Makrokosmos Vol. II ranges from pppppp to ffff) have some flexibility in terms of how loud or how soft these extremes are played. However, if a composer writes an "accel.", you can't just "interpret" it as a ritenuto - this is just lack of maturity, and an extremely egocentric approach to music performance, where the performer needs to assert their "right to interpretation" to ridiculous lengths. Chopin's Ballade op. 23, for instance, ends with an accelerando, but the vast majority of pianists nowadays slow down the final passage in octaves (the very last line of the piece), just because they have been imitating recordings in which the pianist plays it that way.
Seeing an accelerando and slowing down is flat out wrong - there's no excuse for "interpretation" in a case like this. As I've said, it's virtually impossible for composers to convey every single detail of how they want their pieces to be performed (even in Contemporary music, in which composers have been able to write instructions in much greater detail), and interpretation comes to fill these gaps left by limitations of notation. Using this word (interpretation) to justify one's lack of attention to the instructions given by the composer is just stupid and stubborn. If you look at Chopin's Prelude op. 28 no. 16, for instance, he doesn't put the tempo indication on the first measure (as one would expect), but rather on the second measure. As there's no clear clue on how to play these measures, one could think that 1. the tempo indication was just mistakenly placed at the second measure, and therefore the "presto con fuoco" applies to the first measure; or 2. the tempo for the first measure should actually be taken from the previous prelude (no. 15), which is marked "Sostenuto" (if you recall, it's a rather slow prelude). This is where notation leaves a gap, and neither interpretation can be considered wrong - I myself prefer, in this case, taking the tempo from prelude no. 15 and apply it to the first measure of no. 16, but again, just my opinion - I can't come here and say that you would be wrong if you wanted to play this measure in the "presto con fuoco" tempo.
Back to Beethoven, in case you're wondering, neither the original manuscript nor the first editions have an indication for a "recitative" or something like that - this is a public document which you can readily access in about a minute of research. Beethoven knew about the existence of the word "recitativo", and he knew how to apply it (check op. 2 no. 3, op. 31 no. 2, op. 110, and the last movement of Symphony no. 9, for just a few examples), therefore there's no excuse to play this specific passage in a recitativo style if the composer himself didn't use this word (and the context surrounding it does not imply a recitativo writing either). Anyway, interpretation doesn't excuse recomposing a passage for one's own ego or because one can't play it the way it's written.
The fact that the 32nd note bars contain "too many beats" suggests they are to be taken freely, "recitativo" as you mention. The 32nds indicate that those arpeggios are simply not to sound like the 16th arpeggios from before, more like a cadenza or fantasia. He's over thinking this way too much and becoming pedantic.
There’s a fermata there, which you don’t honor.
your arguments sound logical, but if your version is the true one and it is a presto, is there a single piece in Beethovens era and beyond with very fast tempi at all? I mean did they all live in slow motion back then or composers were too lame so they never wanted to express furor or emotional states that are best expressed with rather extreme tempi? What is the fastest piece you know (with your tempo interpretation applied) ?
I also agree with your logic. But I would be curious to know your answer to this question also.
Yes, the understanding of time was much more slowed down than today, and you don't seem to really grasp this concept at all
If you miss a note from your sheet it is pardonable. But what is not pardonable is if you miss passion in your notes.live and let live.
Opinion of speed has changed over the centuries. The "double whole note" is still called by its original Latin name in some languages: "brevis" or "breve", which means "short".
I speculate there is a learning effect carried over the generations to deal with faster and faster: in sports, in travel and traffic, in movies.
That doesn't mean however anything relative to Van Beethoven's required tempo here.
Note: (a) if there are no tempo changes indicated then we have to make sure to read the tempo from the fastest part. Conductor Zander would say, play this here slower or else you get into problems later. Schiff would ask you to play as Van Beethoven wrote "it already has been composed."
(b) Now we can go back to reports from Ludwig's days about the length of a concert. (c) I am not sure when in the history of measuring time, we started having fixed hours - every city had its local time and day and night were always divided into 12 hours each. I guess mechanical clocks used to determine location in ocean n sailing have standardized that. With metronomes, the discussion for some is what 1 means: 1 click or 2 - compare the up and down in a sine wave that give 1 Hertz.
(d) or a measured time of way back in hours or minutes may be meaningless today. My grandparents still referenced the hours (50 degrees latitude) going slow in the summer. At least as long as you don't know date, latitude, time of day.
Safest is the "let's work from the fastest section" approach. Easiest to defend.
If you ever hated playing Czerny or Diabelli study pieces, you can play those technically perfect and very fast. But they can be phrased in a way that makes it "music". My prejudice of the Russian school is technical and fast and as little emotion as possible, then there is a race to be the fastest amongst the scantily clad female pianists internationally, making it worse. And some of them cannot play without their fingers stumbling over each other.
To me, the analysis and proposed phrasing here make a lot of sense.
If Franz Liszt had something about this, I could trust that but Rachmaninoff interpreted everything as if having recomposed it.
@@simonedeiana2696 this is a bold statement for having no evidences at all.
I think you are right. It makes me wonder how many other pieces we got wrong.
This is a very interesting point.At one time I use to wonder about the same thing how all of a sudden the note values just doubled which means of course a greater speed and tension.We must keep in mind that Beethoven was always exact in what he did and wrote.I sincerely believe that there should be a balance in speed at the beginning of the 'Presto Agitato' and the controversial section.I also think that some performers take it a bit too fast at the beginning.The key to the drama at the beginning in my humble opinion is how the performer can successfully make the left hand rumble in a terrifying and dramatic way without loosing appeal due to speed.Of course this has to be balanced by the well space d semiquavers in the right hand at the same time.If it is taken to fast the whole terrifying rumbling effect could be lost and may sound just technically brilliant.I believe Beethoven could have wanted something more from the piano.When an earthquake strikes the rumble and tremors are not extremely fast but it still feels terrrifying,demonic and freightening.Speed does not necessarily means more drama.Listen to George Bolet's interpretation of Liszt's Transcendental Studies and you'll see and hear for yourself how powerful his interpretation is but yet they are not as fast as Kissin's!This is something to really think about but I would rather look for a speed which can epitomise the dramatic realism of an earthquake rumble on the piano.An excessive speed will prevent that from unfolding.I had a dream or vision once where Beethoven(dressed in a black overcoat) was standing behind me and telling me how to interpret the first movement.He placed emphasis on expression and feeling-not speed entirely.At the end of it all,interpretation and feeling was of paramount importance.Excessive speeds can hinder this badly and cause the true effect to be lost.All that would remain is just a brilliant sounding performance and nothing more.
dear wim!
i actually worked on this sonata this week, BEFORE this video, and I swear, when I reached for the first time these bars I thought: “here it is, another prove that this “theory”/reality! not only works, IT’s RIGHT!!
thanx so much!
Wonderful!
What's strange is that after many, many years, I too have looked at this work again. I know it is well known and coincidence is not exceptional for this masterpiece, but for me to be drawn back to this work these days is interesting. Paul Lewis performed it yesterday at the Wigmore Hall lunchtime broadcast. So I guess this piece is in the air these days.
For me and my friends we're all agree with the idea of double time, because it has more momentum to enjoy every single note, and at the end the music it's about to hear a message not to get a bunch of notes in the less time possible.
Thank you for your research Wim a lot of people appreciate.
Best regards to you.
no agitato no chocolato
OMG! Finally someone put the rest my argument with my piano instructor years ago. I argued that the 3rd movement shouldn't be that fast for the reason if that 8 bars.
That 8 bars are playable even if you follow the metronome ... pianists slow them down because of interpretation, 1st movement has a lot of rubato and rit that aren’t on the sheet as well... Beethoven was in the middle of classicism and romanticism therefore you have freedom of changing tempo or dynamics to give it more “feeling”
You can’t do that with baroque or classical music tho
I've just learnt the Moonlights 1st and it's my first " big piece " or piece thats more than two pages . My research in the theory took me to understanding the stylistics involved , I.e comparing the " incorrect " romantic style and the more correct " fantasy style " , ultimately though the fantasy dynamic requires a more regimental approach and gives a more minimalistic feel , to the complex areas of the piece . Whare as if i make it more romantic the use of pedal becomes more complex while the complex areas seem more smooth yet still complex . My little " two sence here " is that surely if the pedal usage that is facilitated in modern pianos unavailable to Bethooven , can facilitate greater dynamic speeds why not use them . Bethoovens piano was operatd by knee pedals ! , as soon as you lower that to the floor , you are resting on your healls rather than toes , if that means we are lazy in applying the same dynamics/speeds or incorrect by changing those dynamics from his intentions , I just couldn't say . But a great insight , thanks very much from a begginers perspective .
Thank you for this!
I finally found someone who agrees with this!
I remember when I started to learn this piece and I never understood why those 32nd notes were slowed down when there was no clear indication of change in tempo. I was more surprised that my teacher just told me to "listen to other interpretations" and note how even the greatest pianist slow down there..
It got me mad that I struggled in figuring out how to write complex rhythms and what I wanted to write down was in fact eight, sixteenth, etc. and now we take beethovens 32nd notes and treat them as quarter notes or half notes (considering we will be playing sixteenth notes that fast)
Maybe I'm just too old school hahaha. but don't get me started on Debussys Claire de Lune, measure 33 and how everyone decides to speed up that small passage because I see no accelarando...
I dislike the extrem slow down of many interpretation. That said, you are simply wrong when you say there is no indication for change in tempo. It's not a clear marking, but it's tradition to slow down before a fermate. Just like you play double dotted instead of single dotted in a french overture. Some things used to be common practice and don't need explicit explanationa
When all is said and done, Valentina's playing is alive and gives a sober listener something to think about and savor. Your "interpretation" is dry and dull. Throughout. You have the right to call your "interpretation" right and Valentina's "wrong", but your "correct" interpretation will be long forgotten while Valentina's "wrong" interpretation will continue to be studied and listened to by those of us who love music, Beethoven, and those universal ideals that define Life.
There's no right or wrong concerning taste, I think. I like both of them, they both give a different vibe, the one I would prefer listening would depend of my mood. Saying one is "alive" and the other "dry" is only really a question of what are _your_ tastes, and have little to no universal value, I would think ?
However, knowing what is the "correct" historical interpretation is interesting by itself, academically speaking, and can give some insights on what was the mind of the composer, and maybe also gives new, unexplored ways for a modern interpreter to explore pieces that were played to death.
he is not trying to please you or anybody, he's just trying to be authentic, and he explains it very well, without criticising or bashing any interpretation.
Questo confronto è molto importante nel vedere ed applicare con costanza il tempo metranomico. Grazie per la chiarificazione inerente alla bella sonata Beethoveniana.
I'm glad you care enough to make this study. There has been a great deal of research regarding B's tempos, so I won't burden my comments with much of that. Definitive conclusions are difficult to come by, anyway. We have only Czerny and Moscheles (who differ) for reference in the piano sonatas (except Op. 106), the provenance and meaning of which have remained unclear. This has led to considerable confusion. On what are their numbers based, anyway? On Beethoven's performances, which according to contemporary accounts varied considerably? Though B. set out to mark his works retroactively, he gave up finally, leaving the last 6 string quartets and the last 3 piano sonatas unmarked, giving rise to the speculation that he gave up on the usefulness of the metronome. This, I know, is not really your point. In my performances, I take more seriously the composers written instructions regarding a work's desired affect. In this case Presto agitato is the main clue. Your choice of tempo achieves neither. (No offense.) Also, your comment regarding Lisitsa's performance is not accurate. Like it or not, she (and others) made an artistic choice, not a technical one. The passage you cite is playable in her first tempo, rather easily, in fact. Lisitsa plays many things faster than necessary or even desirable just because she can, I suppose. I would describe her tempo as Prestissimo, also not in keeping with the composer's wishes.
There were never as much pianos on the world as at this moment. And with so many pianists, you have to take in account that we are living in a zeitgeist to show highly technical improvements. A specific example of this is Lang Lang. He plays a lot of piano pieces against a tempo which is almost impossible to copy by other pianists. For example, he plays the Turkish March from Mozart or OP 53 Heroïc Polonaise from Chopin against an unbelievable fast tempo. Some musicians say that he rapes the music pieces, other find them divine. Nevertheless, it creates sounds in these pieces which I never would discover when played against normal speed.
As you said, we all would like to hear the componists playing their own composition. But I think you have to take also the zeitgeist from that moment in account for a deep understanding,
Well, my 10 year old Roland HP305 can play Turkish March way faster than Lang Lang could on the greatest day of his life. And to me, it sounds like complete noise. So I'm not so impressed by that stuff anymore.
Beethoven was black ✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿
That was too long for me to read but I'm going to assume that it was great and I'll like it
Well I wouldn’t take someone’s opinion that uses rape as an adjective. So I think it’s good.
However incredible talented Lang Lang is, His interpretations stink in my opinion. His intonation is way off all the time.. But, as there is no style police. Whatever he is getting out of the big German composers, is alright, though it is not with any respect to heritage
Don't take it too literally; Beethoven also put crescendos over single whole note piano chords and notated pianissimo four-string chords for the violin. Because he was that way, apparently.
And yet really good pianists make the impossible possible. Those one note crescendos might not be possible but can be shown with body language
@@janne7263 So we are to regard Beethoven's hairpins as theatrical directions rather than musical directions? That's not really any crazier than backstage choirs or offstage horn players, both of which are common enough to be memes.
@@janne7263 Well, if you're a deaf composer, impossible crescendos are quite possible when you have to imagine the chords in your head and are not bound by the limitations of your incapable instruments of your era.
@@mal2ksc Im not saying we should do anything. Im saying the best pianists do it. Somehow, using their body, they convey a sense of crescendo when the instrument cant.
@@DmM843 Eh, probably didnt have anything to do with him being deaf (its debated if he ever did go fully deaf and if he did it was during his very last years) and has more to do with him being lazy/making a mistake. He knew a piano cant do a crescendo on one note, and it has nothing to do with "the pianos of his time". A piano involves a hammer hitting a string, that can never do a crescendo
I've certainly heard the fast version more often, but your case is certainly interesting. Given that this is art, that it is subjective by nature, there might just be no "right" answer. I've certainly heard many "original" compositions played by the composer, that were considerably improved (in my opinion) by a subsequent reinterpreted cover done by a later artist. Having said that, I maintain that most of this is simply "beauty in the eye of the beholder" and therefore, it should be as the interpreter wants it to be. This probably explains why I have a dozen versions of this piece - all different. I love them!
Thanks for the thought-provoking video! I think an important piece to this puzzle is Beethoven's marking for the entire sonata-"quasi una fantasia"-so we know, at the very least, that he didn't want this played "metronomically". It's also interesting to read accounts of Beethoven's own playing, which was notably inconsistent with respect to tempo.
In fact the 'une fantasia', means it is not a strict sonata form, that's all
@@AuthenticSound I think you'll find a large number of musicologists who disagree with that. To say it means it's not in "strict sonata form" is, in my opinion, anachronistic: most theories of sonata form came after Beethoven and were often based largely on his music (e.g. A.B. Marx). Either way, a lot of ink has been spilled over those three words, so whatever their meaning, I don't think it's as simple as saying "it means x, y, or z; now let's move on."
Solution: Play the first movement very fast, then it all fits nicely together.
Bars 163-166 are an example of a measured cadenza, where the note values are all written out to be played in tempo. Bar 187 is an example of an unmeasured cadenza (27 beamed eighth notes, followed by 3 quarter notes) where the performer can play in a freer "ad libitum" style.
In this presto?
I saw (and heard of course) Valentina Lisitsa play with the Las Vegas Philharmonic. She played Chopin’s Piano Concerto No. 2.
Never realized that these 8 bars are actually twice as fast than the rest of the piece; no one plays it that way on the contrary, they slow down. Your explanation totally makes sense to me.
Great to read Vicente
Presto agitato demands a brave character which you can not achieve with a such slow tempo you play. The controversial fragment that you comments is a little concerto's Cadenza with a free tempo (certainly not written by Beethoven, but It is logically suposed).
Exactly, this is self evident
"Mr Beethoven, Sir, we have a misprint here at the very beginning of the 3rd movement. We used a half note for the metronome number instead of a quarter note."
"Aaaah, nevermind. Nobody would ever try to play it at double speed."
Actually, Moscheles says some numbers from Beethoven are mistakes.
🤣🤣🤣
In Carl Heinemann's orchestral arrangement of this sonata, which is composed in 1859, he gives the following metronome marks:
1: Adagio (in common time) QUARTER NOTE = 60
2: Allegretto (in 3/4 time) DOTTED HALF NOTE = 76
3: Presto agitato (in common time) WHOLE NOTE = 92
Simply brilliant
Presto Agitato
Which version seems to fit this direction better?
You'd be amazed what people considered "fast" prior to the industrial revolution.
One question sprang into my mind: So, according to this theory and as a parallel, all the chroal works - Bach (e.g. his Passions) and for example Beethoven's 9th symhony's last movement, should be sang twice as slower?
I'm just curious how that would be explained and fit into this whole-beat theory.
By the way: I often listen to RadioLab podcasts and lately they had a podcast "Speedy Beet" in which they discussed Beethoven's metronome and different theories about it. If I remember correctly their bet was on a certain psychology-centered theory of why such tempo-markings. I was actually interested if they'd talk about this whole-beat theory, too, but unfortunately this was not mentioned (perhaps it's not that well known, yet).
This is no problem at all. Most Bach's works, have no tempo mark at all. Some were titled as dance music, then these works should be play as a dancable tempo.
To Beethoven, i don't remember he written any metronome mark, but regular tempo marks. The metronome marks were written by Carl Czerny, as the most famous pupil of Beethoven.
And he made the marks more chaos because he did this twice, and most of them very differently. And some of them are totally not playable, in the meanwhile some still playable. May be back to that age, musicians don't take sheet music as seriously as we do now. Ornaments are very common.
@@mohongzhi Beethoven left metronome numbers for all his symphonies, the Hammerklavier and some of his string quartets. And they were meant as precise speed indication, as well as those that Czerny has left
@@albertosanna4539 Oh, yes, you reminded me. I researched Beethoven symphonies score long before I started to take these marks seriously. I totally forgot he did this.
But, I am teaching my girls piano, and I cannot avoid myself to see the marks on Czerny's etudes, and even worse, i have Carl Czerny's version of Bach's Well-tempered. I will say lots of Czerny's mark is unplayable.
Maestro Maximianno Cobra has recorded both Mozart's requiem and Beethoven's 9th in whole beat. Check them out!
@@mohongzhi Look at B's metronome mark for Hammerklavier Sonata as well as his symphonies.
where is lisitsa's comment
I like both performances ,, which is irrelevant to anyone else other than me , you want to be right about your tempo choices . No mistakes from either performers ...different performers different audiences . Lighten up maestro 🙏
I don't want to be 'right', just imagine we'd have a Beethoven concert by Beethoven, it is that context we try to reconstruct, no more than that!
The arpeggios are just a sense of cadenza. And I believe it is already kind of a ramantic piece.
*The thing is* first of all most pianists see this passage as some kind of cadenza-like figure, similar to a Mozart fantasy, which might be a reason for the slowing down (in the Lisitsa example you can hear she already slows down a little earlier for that dramatic effect, a little too slow for my taste though to be honest). Second of all, something which is more significant in the context of the Video, playing these 32nd note arpeggios at the faster tempo is perfectly possible. Try playing the first and last note of each arpeggio (only the F double sharps and C sharps for the first one), those are eigth notes. Fitting the other 3 notes in between is literally as simple as arpeggiating a chord...
It is a cadenza - which should have been very easy for a pianist to recognize as such..
This was the best video you did
We need this video to blow up fast
I listened to "Andras Schiff explains Beethoven sonatas" and he mentioned he went to the museum and actually try to use the metronome which used by Beethoven himself, and as Schiff described it sounds extremely uneven of the left and right knock, as Ti.Ta....Ti.Ta....Ti.Ta...., just as doted notes or even double doted notes plays.
And i am having my daughters under my piano teacher's class, he starts to use the metronome as a quaver when they started to play quarter note (entire a full round of left and right click as a quarter note ). Plus we can say Czerny's Etudes metronome marks are all unplayable.
Also, just like some part of Mozart Requiem, we play the dotted notes as double dotted notes. And we must play Handel Messiah #21 'Surely' as doted notes against what's written on the score. I asked all our concert conducts why we do not perform just as written, they just replied to me the same: it's unwritten rules, trust me, we must play as what's unwritten.'
Considering the metronome back then cannot provide even left and right click, and all Czerny's Etudes seems double speeded; and we all know Chopin not consider his published sheet music should be that accurate (that lead to us have that many slight difference on different versions and we can not even say which one is the one). If we back to Palestrina's era, much much more unwritten rules.
So why we just consider the very prototype of unballanced clicked metronome back then, all musicians use a full round as a single click, not as what we use now a half round to represent a single click, and it was unwrtten rules, and it's so everyone known and never need to be writen down, and totally forgot now, that's very possible.
Otherwise, Czerny's etudes can only be playable by some of the best young pianist, not to mention none of they can play all Czerny's etudes as the metronome mark. We all know we play better then in their era. If we just understand the written metronome mark, lots of thing just gone wrong.
Totally agree with your video, as your understanding, solve all problems.
thank you
@@AuthenticSound Thank you for your understanding of these knowledge and speak it loudly. I like your performance op 13 on a clavichord by you. I studied around 5 Beethoven sonatas, and op 13 is one of them, i will try to play it on my roland and try to use clavichord. Let's see.
@@AuthenticSound And I especially agree your understanding of bar 163 of 3rd mov of Moonlight. Considering his tempest sonata, op31-2, the first 8 bars already have 5 tempo marks, it's not possible he will mark 'forgot' tempi change on bar 163 of 3rd of Moonlight.
"You can have breakfast and lunch and dinner and the poor pianist is still playing",
That's what I recall from Schiff :D
Kust because Ludwig threw his metronome about and broke it, this means all music must change? Every clock from that period was accurate, plenty of metronomes too.
Consider Rachmaninoff's op. 23 no. 2, with metronome marking quarter = 80. There is one bar of torrential sextuplet chords near the end which is physically impossible, and unmusical, to play at the same speed as the rest. No rallentando is indicated, but everyone slows down there and it sounds fine. This does *not* invalidate Rach's tempo marking, nor should the tempo of the rest be dragged down just to accommodate that bar. Tempo fluctuations are often reasonable even when a metronome marking is given.
I love this discussion. I stress the importance of examining first editions or original manuscripts with my students to ensure they are the composer's markings . It's also important to mention that the metronome was not invented until 1815. Specific bpm markings prior to this date would be purely a publisher's/editor's marking. Beethoven is noted as the first composer to use a metronome and indicated a specific bpm for his music starting in 1817. The question then become did he return to earlier music and republish it with the bpm metronome marking added.
Beethoven has very few pieces listed with metronome and the ones that do are either too fast or slow for modern tastes. Hence thecontroversy.
Fascinating
Interesting. I’ve always heard it the faster way my entire life. So what is the first recorded example of this piece, and is it played fast? Did this have something to do with the virtuoso pianist movement of the latter part of the 19th Century? Liszt and Chopin having a reverse influence on the works of previous composers?
that's a good point! underrated comment here
The first recordings would only give insight in how it was played then. Do we still play like in 1975, did they as in 1940, 1920, ... so did the first recording artists play like ... 100 years earlier?
@@AuthenticSound We don't hear with just our ears, but with the neural networks that that input is fed into.
On the first level there's psychoacoustics and hearing the God notes in Gregorian chant that aren't actually sung. But -especially with music- the way you experience sound is also determined by your previous experiences. How people talk with accents because they "hear" the foreign sounds in terms of their native tongue.
Or much like how you can talk about losing a parent and construct an empathic feeling based on what it must be like. But until you've lost your parent, it's just an approximation. And even then, your own experience colours it differently from anyone else's, because of the differences between previous experience.
Or musically put, your life is the voice leading that can make the key of G half# sound "off" or have it make the E that has come before suddenly not appear as bright anymore.
So when one does a historically informed performance, does one approach it as an audiophile - try to recreate the original auditory stimulus as closely as technically possible - knowing we can never recreate the same experience of the sound, or do we want to approach what the composers heard in their minds ears and tried to put to paper?
In my humble opinion, neither approach is wrong. I just enjoy the passion with which they are pursued.
Oh and I can draw on my experience of a stag party, when I say that a movement along 8 bars can have a profound effect on the way you feel that lasts beyond a night's sleep.
ua-cam.com/video/RV8yluxHXm4/v-deo.html
1930s recording of Schnabel playing the sonata: it's fast
On the Urtext G. Henle Verlag's sheet It clearly says _Presto agitato_. It has to be fast.
Related to a notation or to the ability of the player that today has Rach-technique?
@@PassionPno Yes
@@PassionPno But also no, because Grave isnt only a tempo marking
I play her video at 80% and it sounds quite exquisite
I understand your point of view, The same I noticed in the piano violin sonata in Cm,last mouvement.I heard it with Mutter and she is "permitted" to slow down wherever she likes!Is not even the end of a phrase that may look logical musically!Here in the Moonlight I find it more interesting to play it fast..There is the harmony to make sound ,which gives shape though..
I prefer the faster tempo for listening to, but I can actually play it at the slower tempo, so I'll go with the slow argument.
😂
Omg same!
Now i have a good excuse!😂
I personally think you can go to 96 or 100 and stay within Beethoven's or Czerny's musical sensibility. However 184 is Lisitsa's interpretation "based upon" Beethoven's music in the same way the Harry Potter movies are based upon the JK Rowling novels. An obvious resemblance but at the same time completely different.
You're right. It feels more natural to increase speed rather than slow down
Another very well known piece that it's usually doubled in speed it's the Charles Marie Widor Toccata from Symphony n.5, there's a wax cylinder record made by himself on the organ of st. Sulpice (the one where he composed it) that's half the tempo everybody usually plays it and it's someway amazing hearing some passages that usually aren't because of the speed.
I believe that a piece follows it's own evolution both when the composer is alive and when he's dead, so we must take into account the typical way to execute it, and like we are more used to hear the Night on bald mountain of Rimskyj-Korsakov rather than the original Mussorgsky one, we got quite used to hear the 3rd Moonlight sonata part with a very fast and nervous tempo.
So, unless there's a way to render it slower and still full of energy, what's the point to be so strict in reading the music? We are not going to be able to know how Beethoven played it anyway.
I'm italian, italian language is my mother language, and this makes me pretty lucky when I read a tempo suggestion. If you tell me "presto agitato" it litterally means quick with hurry, or quick and upset ... so, do you think that 92 matches this tempo indication?
I know that recording, it's worth a video
I wonder how this has no 15 notes a second jokes in the comment section. Actually quite refreshing. A music video not invaded by TwoSetters.
It’s too late. We’ve arrived
Did you practice today?
I say throw out the metronome and play it with heart and passion! Feel it!
Fantastic video! Covers all the points and explained in a way that is approachable for people new to this theory. Great editing as well!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Interesting analisis and I apreciate your considerations on accentuation and prhassing for tempo insight. I would ask what are then your thoughts on armonic tempo? seemengly corresponding more to the idea of a half note beating. And your aproach to an also common practice of the period of making ritardandos toward the fermatas, that are present in this passage. Wouldnt that represent form the composer a desire of a slow down, even if not expressed as a tempo change? Of course then the solution wouldnt be this sudden rittenutos we aoften hear, but a more gradual aproach to changing tempo after all.
In this passage it is without any discussion Beethoven wanted to double the tempo.
By the book by the composers intention. Valentina Lisitsa's "wrong" will forever be wrong, maybe this is why she's so loved and majority of people don't give a crap in whether she follows the score exactly, her interpretation is favoured by the majority driven by emotion and feeling, not always by markings.
I disagree with Lisitsa's interpretations way more than not. She tends to play way too fast in a lot of pieces and throws musical tension out the window. Her playing is all over the place. Technically she's brilliant, but I think she misses the soul of the music. Having said that however, I do think she really shines in Liszt. Her early video of the solo version of 'Totentanz" is one of the greatest interpretations I've heard.
I wish we could go back in time and hear Beethoven play his compositions how he wanted them to be played.
Interesting! Never thought about it because I could never play the 3rd movement, at tempo. Pity that I could only play the first 2 movements. Oh well, I've moved on to try (to master) other things.
Je hebt helemaal gelijk Wim. Het is gewoon zo dat steinwayacrobaten net zoals ze authentieke instrumenten afwijzen zich niets van de aanwijzingen van de componist aantrekken. Een arpeggio op de barokluit, bij Weiss b.v., zal vanuit de motoriek van de rechterhand eerder sneller dan langzamer zijn. Claude V. Palisca schrijft over de grote invloed van de Franse luitstijl op de (klavecimbel) muziek in Frankrijk van de 17de en 18de eeuw. Ik denk niet dat Couperin, Froberger etc. bij arpeggio's gaan vertragen.
This is my interpretation. The eight bars should be played at a speed as though they are all arpeggiated chords (chords with long wavy lines against them?). They would then be played much faster than in your examples and the rest of the piece should be played at the same tempo as the succession of these rapid broken chords. I think the only reason why Beethoven wrote out the arpeggiated chords as 1/32 notes is because he wanted the last chord to be arpeggioed at half speed and that was the only way to make this clear so that it’s not open to interpretation. That is how I would play it if I could.
My opinion: presto agitato expresses Beethoven's desire of a really fast tempo. That's why the great pianists interpret the movement fast (not only Lisitsa)
My theory is that he wrote the part with the fermate double time to be dramatic... To create contrast between the pauses at the fermate after the energetic arpeggiati
Like in many pieces, the interpretation doesn't follow the writing in Beethoven. Sometimes, his forte must become piano so that the fortissimo ahead explodes
Beethoven was the beginning phases of the romantic era during the 1800. This was also one of the first sonatas he published that was not really true sonata form. All of the movements were mixed a bit from slow, medium, and fast speeds. Romantic Is all about rubato. Of course, we are allowed to have our own opinions, but I at least enjoyed getting a different perspective of this repertoire. Thank you for your video.
I like both of them
Before he spoke, I thought this is a Tom Cruise spoof..........damn.
The orchestra complained to Toscanini that he was conducting the fourth movement too fast; no one had ever played Tchaikovsky's 4th like that. Toscanini's reply was quite simple: "Look at the metronome marking."
Regarding interpretation of Beethoven: Leonard Bernstein made two recordings of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony, one when he was young, and one as an elder. When you listen to his first recording, you don't hear Bernstein; you hear Beethoven. The brilliance of interpretation was lost in his late years: in his later recording, you don't hear Beethoven; you hear Bernstein. It is a good recording, but if you were intent on hearing Beethoven, you'd be disappointed.
What is the secret to singing patter songs, like "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General"? Is it singing fast? No, it is singing with a metronomic rhythm pattern, evenly spaced syllables, with precise consonant enunciation. The secret to Beethoven's slow movement of the 8th symphony? Performing molto marcato, keeping every pulsing sixteenth note exactly on the beat, which ensures the humor of the cadential runs of sixty-fourth notes.
What Bernstein failed to do in the later interpretation of the Third was to catch the humor of the first movement, which is created by the same trick used in the 8th. After the hemiola passage ends with an accented third beat there is a downbeat on the next measure's restating the theme that sounds a bit off when it follows without any rubato; the effect is totally lost when it is treated as a separate phrase from the hemiola. And again, after the three chords ending the exposition leading into the development (or the repeat of the exposition), any rubato loses the humor of the downbeat cadence. Bernstein understood this in the early recording, but somehow felt he was above this in the later one.
Regarding the Moonlight's third, it is a typical Beethoven "patter" song: play it at the slower tempo with the right rhythm and accents, and it becomes quite "fast" to the listener. Other examples of Beethoven's use of this pianistic technique are found in the Waldstein, the Pathetique, and others including the Bagatelles. (The excessive speed in Serkin's rendition of the first movement of the Pathetique pretty much neuters the musicality of the piece.)
These extremely subjective views are evidence that the entire planet doubled speeds without those living throughout the period and who at their time were responsible for the editing of metronome markings of giants saying a word or even noticing? What about Brahms editing Beethoven and perhaps Schubert (cant recall Schubert on metronome), Clara Schumann editing her husband - as well of their own music: did they not care to set the record straight? Does that sound remotely plausible to you?
Brilliant. Agreed on all points. One word that I would like to add "sport". There is somthing valid, which we call "sports". We like to see the max physical possibilities of what humans can do. And sure, you could observe such a "sport" in music. But one idea, when it comes to the tender heart, and the emotional expression of bach, mozart and bethoven, where subjects such as death, caring and faith (as well as love) are explored with a sincere intention, such a brutal approach of physical one-up-manship in the context of such sensitive music, could in the end be quite misplaced and some kind of lost mentality....
Thanks Tom!
Interpretation is personal, regardless of what is written on the page the performer can present their vision of the piece in the way they see fit
Yes, and in that it is a choice to come as close as possible to the composer's wish or not!
Nada mais impreciso às impressões humanas que o tempo; mas Beethoven indicou o tempo. Talvez se ninguém tivesse transgredido, estaríamos escutando diferenças próximas ao indicado. Contudo, se vai interpretar ultra rápido, que o faça conforme as divisões que foram escritas para a peça. Concordo com esse ponto de Authentic Sound.
I feel like I’m missing something. If the half note is 92bpm for this piece, that means a quarter would be 184. Which is around where Valentina and most other pianists play it. You’re playing it as though the ~quarter note~ is 92. So it’s half as fast as it should be. Right?
It's called whole beat, see for the intro video in the description!
surrealofficial - you're not mistaken, it's a bogus theory ...
Very interesting. Beethoven and all the composers would play as they felt at the time they played and would improvise as they played to convey the effect they wanted to
I want to hear what Beethoven had intended.