One possibility is that Czerny did not have a good grasp of Bach and was an indifferent interpreter. It is as though he regarded Bach's keyboard works as sets of studies and not as some of the most important contributions to the keyboard literature. It was the following generation, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt etc., who really revered Bach (as we continue to do so today).
While it is certainly true that a lot of Czerny's Bach MM are (too) fast, let's not forget that many are quite reasonable (like in the WTK or Art of Fugue) and some are downright slow. One exemple: even WW plays the gigue from the first partita much faster (on clavichord) than Czerny's MM (in single-beat). My personal impression is that most of the 'too fast' MM can be found in the didactical pieces (inventions, little preludes), probably no coincidence. Also Czerny's MM for Bach were criticized at that time by Griepenkerl, who defended the 'Bach tradition' something Czerny never claimed to do.
Czerny clearly considered works like the Inventions to be finger exercises or etudes. Many of the tempos in WTC are moderate even in single beat, and impossibly slow in double. Several fugues in common time are marked with 92-108 to the eighth note.
Thanks for answering my question and thank you for your very nuanced approach to this fascinating discussion. I enjoy this new version even more than the old one. Indeed it seems that Mr. Winters cannot take any of the hundreds of sources that support the “single-beat” practice at face-value. The most obvious meaning of very simple words is never the right interpretation in his mind: - “beats” must be referring to several beats per note value in Czerny’s words; - Herz and Moscheles were using the “metrical minute” in their pretty obvious and clear descriptions of the use of the metronome; - Brahms’ and Saint-Saens’ piano playing, of which we have recordings that show no signs of adhering to “double-beat” tempi, must have been sped up; - Several recordings we have from students of Clara Schumann, Brahms and Liszt that also show no signs of a double beat practice are “not representative of 19th century piano playing because these pianists were not interested in keeping their masters’ traditions”. But at the same time Czerny, who was born 40 years after Bach’s death, is supposed to be an absolute authority in Bach’s tempi... This is a fascinating topic and there’s no doubt that simply accepting the “broken metronome” theory for every impossible metronome indication is not good enough. But simply claiming double-beat solves all impossible tempi and then call it a day while ignoring all the evidence that contradict such a practice is even worse.
Regarding Czerny's relationship to Bach, it must have been closer than ours. Didn't Neefe, who may well have been more in touch with early 18th C practice, introduce Beethoven to the music of Bach? And Czerny was a long-term pupil of Beethoven...
@@petertyrrell3391 You're missing the point. You can't claim that Clara's/Brahms'/Liszt's students were not interested in keeping tradition and at the same time claim Czerny was indeed very much interested in keeping Bach's tradition (eventhough they were born so far apart) just because in one case it fits your narrative and in the other case it doesn't.
@@MasmorraAoE I was trying to say that Czerny might have been more in touch with the Bach tradition than we might think. There is a problem with the term "tradition" - there is good and bad tradition, and well-kept and badly-kept tradition. For example pausing on the high note in "Nessun dorma", which is on a weak syllable and a 1/16th note, whereas the following note is more important. Puccini may have sanctioned it or at least not have objected to it to keep a singer happy, but this pause makes musical nonsense.
@@MasmorraAoE Your narrative is that SB is the only possibility even though it produces "musical box effects" or speeds at which it is too fast to play the notes or enunciate the syllables in vocal music. "Tradition" does not only mean speed, but can mean style and a host of other things. Please read what I said more carefully and think about your own narrative.
Thank you for bringing up the Marx encyclopedia entry-if I remember correctly, the very word _Takttheil_ is what allows Gadient and Winters to interpret Mälzel's instructions as evidence of "double beat," but Marx's use of that word seems fairly unambiguous. Also refreshing to hear on this subject a willingness to accept ambiguities and contradictions. One should be skeptical of anyone who claims to have all the answers.
If you look at the tempo of Etudes book op 849 no 25 . It is an allegro en Galop , quarter note = 138. Allegro en Galop refers to a german dance: The Galop ( Hopser in German) was a quite fast dance in 2/4 , very popular in Germany and France around 1820's still danced nowadays in some Germany villages. Tempo is usually between 110-140 Video example of Hopser Dance : watch?v=X45J2ysbO98 Tempo in the video is crotchet = 129 , so Czerny MM makes perfect sense in single beat.
It seems that there is no evidence for the double-beat theory... But interpreting music is mainly an applied (practical) and not theoretical problem. And very often, strange things happen, when interpreting metronome markings accordingly to the single-beat theory. Strange things happen regarding both the aesthetic and the technical substance of the pieces. So, we have two options for the extremely fast tempi that occur quite often when interpreting the metronome indications accordingly to the single-beat theory: 1) Try to reach the insanely fast speeds, but most of the time fail. In this case, we actually ignore the metronome indications, since we play "as fast as possible". The most important problem is that very often music makes no sense... 2) Interpret the metronome indications accordingly to the double-beat theory. In this case, the speed is not a problem. But the most important part is that music makes sense!
Regarding your 2nd point, speed, or specifically the lack there of, is very much a problem if you apply the double beat practice. Try playing the 2nd movement of the Tempest sonata (according to czerny’s metronome) in double beat and tell me if you can make any sense of what’s happening with the music. Or try playing the Hammerklavier in double beat, which then becomes an almost 90 minute long piece of music. Or try listening to Wim’s rendition of the Erlkönig in double-beat and then listen to a normal rendition of the work and tell me which version sounds more like a panicked father riding back home on a horse, desperately trying to save his dying child. Music doesn’t become more “musical” just because you play it slower. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
@@MasmorraAoE It seems that you are referring to the double-beat theory as presented by Wim Winters. I am referring to the double-beat theory as presented by Berhard Ruchti. So: 1) The 2nd movement of the Tempest sonata seems to have the metronome indication of eight note = 88. Since the time signature is 3/4, the metric unit of the piece is bigger than the unit of the metronome indication. So, accordingly to the double beat theory as presented by Berhard Ruchti, this should be interpreted as eight note = 88 and not 44 (if this is what you mean). 2) Even if the double-beat theory when applied to the Hammerklavier Sonata results in a 90 minutes performance, or even if Erlkönig becomes really slow, this does not mean that the double-beat theory is ALWAYS problematic. It means that sometimes the theory fails. All theories have some problematic parts. 3) When comparing the validity of two theories, the crucial part is which one works well for most cases. In my opinion, the double-beat theory works better than the single-beat theory for many works of the 19th century (especially for the 1st half). 4) It might be matter of personal taste, but I don't prefer fast tempi anymore, although I used to, when I was younger... It seems that my criteria of what is "musical" have changed!
Regarding your second point (2) , I beg to differ, speed becomes a problem with double beat for very slow movements. For instance 1) There are many instances where you are not able anymore to play and sustain a note on a long single violin bow. Many examples in concertos and symphonies and quartets. 2) When long piano notes have to be sustained over one bar or more , without pedal , because the short decay of the notes, especially on period fortepianos cannot sustain the note long enough. 3) the 2 above examples are actually quantifiable as notes on a single bow start degrading significantly after 15-20s and decay on a fortepiano is much less than on a modern instrument. Winckel in his acoustic studies in the 60's concluded that this very short natural decay coupled with sound decay resulting from concert venues was forcing the performers to play fast.
I really appreciate your philosophical approach here: recognizing that there are arguments on both sides, that there is naturally ambiguity about an ephemeral phenomenon of centuries past; but still weighing the evidence and taking a fair stance. As is often the case when there is a debate between experts, I cannot really assess all the details - at least not without doing my own research. I then often base my (tentative) assessment on the "reasonableness" and the internal logic of the arguments presented. You present a very strong case.
Hi Bernhard Ruchti. Please watch this video: «Wim Winters - Refutation of Whole Beat Theory». 12:00-14:00. My question: In this two minues, do we find a logical explanation for Czerny’s fast speed?
To some people who follow this topic: Some comments seem to be ongoing only among the followers. Based on your polite and well-mannered comments with courteous expression in this “sophisticated” public area, you are researchers in music, or good piano teachers, aren’t you? If you strongly want to criticize and state your academic opinion for Mr. Wim Winters as subscribers of “authenticsound,” why don’t you ask him directly to discuss with? Or why don’t you write an academic paper on SB/BB of Mr. Win Winters? Who is the main author? The UA-cam comment area is “public” with basic social manners.
Many have tried-Mr. Winters seems to be less and less interested in discussion, or in addressing any of the contradictions inherent in his theory. His work is based mostly on the writings and study of Lorenz Gadient, who has published a book and a few articles which have been disputed by several musicologists and experts in the field. Winters to my knowledge hasn't published any peer-reviewed academic papers. If I can make assumptions, it seems that most of the commenters disputing "double beat" on UA-cam are pianists who happen to be interested in performance practice, not musicologists.
@@minirausch If you think that he is not interested in discussion, why don’t you ask him directly in his channel, not here? Same people always appear in both sides.
@@hiroko_naga I comment regularly on his channel. On the rare occasions when Wim does respond, he does so with a patronizing answer with sarcastic emojis about "doing my homework" or telling me this or that piece is impossible, and deflecting on the substance of the question.
@@hiroko_naga The pianist Patrick Hemmerlé (his youtube channel is pianopat) already tried to invite Wim to a public discussion of his views, but Wim declined (they only talked in private). It's a recurring pattern with Wim in being extremely selective with the kinds of criticism that he chooses to engage. He only responds to arguments that he can easily deflect, while ignoring critics that make the strongest case against his theory (Patrick, whom I mentioned, made numerous very well researched and argued videos that all got completely ignored, while Wim made a long video about some inconsequential comment by Listsa on his channel). This example (and I can give more) strongly suggests to me that Wim has no interest in subjecting his views to a public scrutiny by people who did some research and know the historical sources, because I believe that he knows deep down that he is going to lose the argument.
I agree with everything you said from beginning till the end !! I'm not an expert, I've read a lot about this topic, but I'm not a professor in this field. I'm also not saying this is THE explanation, but it's possible. I suggest the following. Sorry for the long text and for my bad english. In the beginning there were very large pendulums (2 meter and even larger). The point is that they recognized it's too large from a consumer's perspective. So they made the pendulums much smaller. Now comes the confusion... there is a mathematical formula for this, for this ratio... when you make a pendulum 4 times smaller it needs a DOUBLE swing for one HALF swing at the very large pendulum. And as matter of fact... we can read a LOTTTT of authentic texts which proofs that a lot of people were not aware of that. We can read that authentic journals need to explain this to create awareness among people back then. But here is the confusion ... a double swing at the SMALL device is AS FAST AS a half swing at the LARGE device !!! It looks representing a different velocity at the first side, but it's the EXACT same tempo. With other words it's possible chronologically this happened during musical history: 1) people need to use a HALF swing at the LARGE pendulum 2) then people need to use a DOUBLE swing at the SMALL pendulum (journals were there to create awareness) 3) the confusion started when Mälzel came with a device as SMALL as mentioned in 2) BUT working with a complete different swinging system (also here awareness was needed !!! ... and that's exactly what we can read when Mälzel explained he saw a lot of people not using his metronome in a correct way... so if single beat was very clear... then why he said that a lot of people didn't use his metronome correctly? ) 4) But Czerny is a mystery... I have noooo idea !!! Some MM markings of him for Bach are totally fine and some are problematic.
Hi Bernhard I really enjoyed this video. it was refreshing to hear a different approach to Czerny's tempo instructions that doesn't rely on ad hominem attacks on Mr Winter's character. I personally am convinced by Wim's research, but I'm very open to other ideas. I think It would be in everyones (who is interested in historical metronome marks) interest if you would continue to give some more time to exploring Whole-beat. Wim has conducted quite a bit more research since you published this video. Perhaps you could reach out to him and have an interview or Q&A of sorts with him. I'm positive he would be open to discussion.
There is no evidence, either musical or historical, to support so-called "double-beat counting." The descriptions of metronome usage from the earliest days support only the modern "single-beat. Above all, "double-beat" performances sound ghastly; they contradict the Italian tempo rubrics; and they entail the utter destruction of the fast movement as a distinct and essential genre. Quite a few musicians, including myself, have dilated on this subject ad nauseam; but the myth of "double-beat" persists like long covid--and it constitutes an impediment to musical education.
Dear Mr. Waitzman. We have discussed this to quite some extent in the past. As I am sure you realize, I don't plead for an overall application of double-beat counting. I see the option in the historical context since it is mentioned explicitly in an important and widely-spread document from 1816 and is - generally speaking - a quite natural option but I've always been transparent regarding the fact that its likelihood clearly has its limits. Obviously I don't agree with you that moderate tempi destroy fast movements - to me it's quite the contrary. But that's up to everyone's personal taste. Thank you though for your ongoing interest in my work. All the best, Bernhard Ruchti
@@bernhardruchti hello Bernhard , I beg to disagree with your statement about an existing source referring explicitly to double beat . Let me elaborate : First of all one single document wouldn’t be sufficient to validate the existence of this practice . If this practice had enough weight in the circle of renowned composers of the period ,we should have plethora of articles with specific tempo explanations about this particular practice , in the most popular piano methods of the 19th century. I have done extensive research on the matter , and have never came across it . The fact that someone has found ONE article is actually a counter proof and tends to prove the contrary as we should be able to easily find MANY sources of this nature as opposed to one. Secondly , the definition of ´explicit’ remains to be explored , as there are a few sources talking about double time which has nothing to do with double beat as suggested by Talsma but about subdivision of metronome beats as recommended by Maetzel and many others for certain type of tempos in order to increase precision . Do you mind sharing the link of the source you refer to ?
@@bernhardruchti You are a gentleman, dear Mr. Ruchti! But this does not change the fact that double-beat is completely spurious, and lacking in both historical and musical foundation. To claim that it existed as a valid alternative to single-beat is tantamount to claiming that the earth is neither flat nor round, but hemispherical. I, for one, am curious as to why you should even bother. Wim Winters is a nut case who derives his ideas from an amateur musicologist-priest, who needs to have a serious talk with his bishop. People don’t seem to realize that amateur musicians and scholars are not competent to rule on such matters any more than amateur students of religion are competent to hold forth on transubstantiation. If you like slow tempi, fine; and be prepared to be judged for it as a musician: but do not EVER claim historical and musical justification for your predilection. They do not exist, in any way, shape, or form so as to be credible to those with a sufficient understanding of music or musicology to judge such matters. That’s just the way it is. Ask any university-trained musicologist, or virtuoso pianist-and do not tell me that the musical world conspires to suppress double-beat practice as a good and true practice. The universe conspires against all of us, ultimately: but not about THAT!
@@danielwaitzman2118 @periodinstruments8651 Thank you for your comments which give me an opportunity to make certain topics more clear. Since the questions you raise are important, I will do so in another Q&A video and ask you for some patience! All the best, Bernhard Ruchti
Actually Wim did a video on this a few years ago and there he mentioned that the example he gave for a Waltz was about double the speed of what was legal at the time. Do you believe it is possible that Czerny only meant that each quarter note must land on an audible beat, without specifying whether it should be every one beat or two beats? That would give room for your theory.
I think in wim winters's video on mersenne he sad from a source that one schlag it combine of 2 mouvments like in pendulum 1seconde +1seconde=1sconde so czerny op. 500 he mens by the beat = 2 mouvments so it is wb reading. Plaese correct for me if i was wrong at something ❤️ And i have an other question with just your conclusion there is any chance to say that czerny use wb? Because i dont think he was just a stupid man how metronomized a lot of works that the italien pianoforte cannot play it.
Thank you for your comment. 1. If Czerny indeed had a "double second" in mind, he would have declared that clearly and not have left it to the obvious confusion of his readers. 2. If you observe a metronome, you will discover that the numbers on the scale represent the number of audible single ticks during one (modern) minute. As you rightly say, the fact remains that Czerny indicated metronome markings that are questionable in their speed. This is a phenomenon that was addressed already in the 19th century. However, this does not allow to re-interpret Czerny's introduction to the metronome. Other explanations must be found.
@Bernhard Ruchti. Thank you for your comment. Actually i found a channel that it is againts double beat and it really interesting that he plays op. 299no. 1, 2 and 3 in exactly in single beat and he says that he can play all the op. 299 in tempo. This is the link of the video:ua-cam.com/video/VY0JqJsSmtg/v-deo.html I hope you will see it❤️
saif -senpai (1 more information) That a paul bruno bartholoma a master dance sayed that waltzes in 19th century was preformed 48-50 bars in 1 minute and czerny in his opus 500 give to the waltz (88 half note) and when we read in double beat it is 44 bars in 1 minute. The case of czerny's use of the metrenome is so confusing.
@@saif-senpai7746 actually whoever wrote that about tempi of waltzes is incorrect . Originally in Vienna the tempo was quite rapid , it slowed down over time . Just read any serious article on dances tempi , you will be convinced .
Also you could argue about the numbers on the metronome representinf a whole wave, not just a half one. Which puts the words double & single in a different perspective… Single would mean a whole wave, thus two beats, a double beat on a single wave, single ‘schlag’ (falsely translated to beat but meaning wave).
Unfortunately this explanation doesn’t work for many reasons . The first implementation of a pendulum was French not German ( loulie 1684) then you have Despreaux metronome adopted by the conservatoire de Paris 2,years before maetzel and finally the most important one is that the metronome first place in Europe where Maetzel commercialised his invention was France . It was released to U.K. market 6 later , The first patent and user instructions were written in French with no ambiguity about the wording . The main reason for the choice of France and UK as first places to introduce the metronome is because time devices specialists and clock makers were based in these two countries at that period. You can find an excellent video made by period instruments UA-cam user on the topic . All the rest is pure fantasy and not supported by factual documents .
Czerny’s Metronome marks for the inventions are for the most part are unplayable, not even Lisitsa, couldn reach 84% on the invention #1. In Double Beat his tempi follows Temp Ordinario. Czerny also wrote in his entire Bach edition that the Allegros in JSB’s time were slower than currently Maezel wrote in a supplement to Intelligenz-blatt zur Allegemeienen Musickalischen Zeitung September 1821 that “Beethoven, Cherubini, Cramer, Mehul, et al used the Metronome incorrectly. Beethoven Hammerklavier Sonata lists 1/2= 138 the Ries-Clementi edition lists 1/4=138. Ries and Clementi were friends with Beethoven, Clementi was a music publisher as well. Back to Czerny, and Wim Winters, the 1816 Maezel intructions give an example of how to play an Allegro, set the the speed as 1/2 note equals the number, in a 4/4 time signature the metronome ticks each quarter note. However the same instructions list that in Presto time signatures the beat of the metronome equals the measure. Wim Winters also points out that the later studies require of Czerny require as high as 22 notes per second in single beat. From my Physics class the ear cannot distinguish individual notes above 18.5 beats per second. Willard Palmer questioned the MM marks in 1972 of the First revised edition of Kinderszenen and how recorded virtuosos played these Easy Pieces as translated from the German Editions, and he also included Clara Schumann’s MM marks from her 2nd edition. Quarter note single, with the beats plural. And not every 1/4 note with each single beat. Op 500. You might check what Lang Lang’s adjusted speed in single beat sounds like Single Beat Test (Ep .6) Lang Lang - Czerny Opus 299 /1 UA-cam By all means beard the Lion in his den. Especially the repeated notes at 15 notes per second.
Renshen1957. Wim Winters’ series on Bach’s inventions and Czerny’s metronome number is unscientific because it is manipulative. Wim Winters says it himself in the first video 8:10, quote: «I’m not claiming that players of the caliber listed here could not play or could not have played this invention faster if they wanted to…» This is crucially important! None of the pianists knew they were going to play Czerny’s tempo. Wim chose the nine pianists because the average gave him the tempo he wanted, namely a tempo close to the double beat. If I had the money, I can do exactly the same as Wim Winters. I can hire nine virtuoso pianists, and everyone would be able to play Czerny’s tempi when they knew that’s what they were supposed to. Then the average tempo is pure single beat, and the result would of course have been useless for Wim Winters.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 Wim Winters illustruationof Ms Lisistsa proves a point, she only made at 100% or better playing at her limits. Glenn Gould perform in single beat the a minor invention, however did anyone play number one in single beat. How about the digitally adjusted speed for single beat? Does that sound possible for an 11 year old W F Bach? However, I believe you are missing the forest for the trees, geiryvindeskeland7208, which can be asnwered in this question, were all Czerny's metronome indications in single beat appropriate for all of the inventions rated at RCM grade 7 or 8 level on the piano? Czerny who had taught students 8 hours+ every day for decades would know better. The same Czerny who in his preface to the J S Bach edition which mentioned that the Allegro in Bach's time were slowly than then presently accepted (1840's were he gave up teaching for composition and the release of instructional editions of composers music). As to scientific, are the all digitally corrected versions speeds reachable by every grade 7-8 piano students? (Or Henle 3-4 grading system?) Since the musicologist performers (Leonhardt, et al) use Tempo Ordinario as the basis for establishing a tempo, since Beethoven was no stranger to the term, and since Czerny's MM markings fit in Whole Beat for Tempo Ordinario, your premise that the survey by Wim Winters is manipulative, ergo unscientific, doesn't exactly hold water. Just use Lisistas performance, she isn't exactly untalented and quite capable from her various performances available on on UA-cam. Something you might consider, the Inventions (and the Sinfonias, too) contain Bach's ornaments in their 3 separate manuscript sources, which even with the abbreviated excecutions for speed mentioned in CPE Bach's Essay for execution, can't be played in Single Beat MM or Czerny. For the sake of argument, if Yuja Wang could play all of the Inventions at Czerny's MM in Single Beat, what does that prove...to repeat, the Inventions weren't meant as virtuoso pieces, the Inventions and Sinfonias as intended in the second collection preface (the first collection was W F Bach Clavier Booklet as 15 Preambulum and 14 Fantasias), "Forthright instruction, wherewith lovers of the clavier, especially those desirous of learning, are shown in a clear way not only 1) to learn to play two voices clearly, but also after further progress 2) to deal correctly and well with three obbligato parts, moreover at the same time to obtain not only good ideas, but also to carry them out well, but most of all to achieve a cantabile style of playing, and thereby to acquire a strong foretaste of composition." One cannot perceive that a singing (cantabile) style would be possible at single beat, which Czerny would have been well aware of...
Renshen 1957, I can only repeat, none of the pianists knew they were going to be part of Wim Winters’ experiment. That’s why he says it himself: «I’m not claiming that players of the caliber listed here could not play or could not have played this invention faster if they wanted to…» Towards the end of the same video, he says: (12:48) 13:00 «…are an extremely strong case for proving the whole beat metronome practice historically correct». No, it doesn’t work. Of course, when we don’t know how much faster they could have played, the average is no evidence of double beat practice. The average only tells which tempi the nine pianists chose at the time. Why do you mention poor 11 years old W F Bach? He died in 1784, knowling nothing of Carl Czerny’s ambitious metronome number. Renshen, have you been playing keyboard instruments for 45-50 years? Then you do like me, then you listen to Lisitsa’s performances of Chopin’s etudes. And then you should also understand that Lisitsa can perform the invention in Czerny’s tempi, if she want. F you don’t see the point, you are indirectly saying that: Lisitsa believes that Bach’s invention is technically more difficult than Chopin’s etudes. Do you really mean that?
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 "I can only repeat, none of the pianists (did you intend omit the harpsichordists) knew they were going to be part of Wim Winters’ experiment..."What an nearsighted observation. The majority of the artists, Leonhardt (2012), Gould (1982), Nikolayeva (1993), Turek (2003), Gieseking (1956), and Frisken (1967) would require a necromancer and a seance for one attempt to ask and receive permission. If you meant Schiff, Allard, or Lisistsa who aren't dead and I sincerely doubt any of the living artists would have considered taking part, of an experiment..."Wim Winters, who???" The video series wasn't a speed test who could play fastest, but rather to survey what were the choices between musicologist-scholar-pedagogue-performers, concert artists, a pianist who claims authenticity and historic performance practice (who plays a J S Bach Allemande completely opposite from J. Walter's 1728 and 1730 Lexicon definition of the tempo) since a wide sampling of artists easily found on UA-cam or online to discover if anyone played Czerny's instructional edition's metronome indications in single beat interpretation or at least approaching these speeds. With a few exceptions, the majority of samples weren't anywhere near the speed (with a digitally enhanced version to illustrate 100% when necessary). With a very good reason to mention W F Bach, the original form of Preambulums (Inventions) wasn't intended as a concert stage works or virtuoso pieces, tatum ergo sum why would Czerny indicate metronome marks for such pieces for young aspiring keyboard players at such a breakneck speed? For a twofold purpose work. (Did you know the F major Invention's Motiv is taken from a Vivaldi Concerto in G minor, which similar to the G major Brandenburg Concerto is only in two movements. J S Bach followed the centuries old practice of Tempo Ordinario, and Czerny being a student of Beethoven who referenced Tempo Ordinario (interestingly enough to LvB stated with the Metronome Tempo Ordinario was dead) Czerny would have known of the practice, even if the Italian terms for tempi indications had became universally popular (except in France) at that time. By the way, Beethoven is only three teachers away from J S Bach. In the Whole Beat interpretation Czerny is exactly in the Tempo Ordinario intepretation. (W F Bach was not so poor, he was generally considered the finest organist and improvisor second to none in Germany after his father's passing, WFB held appointments at prestigious church organ positions (Dresden) had the patronage of the Count von Voss for a time, gave lessons to Forkel as how his father played the clavichord, which Forkel taugth Grienpenkerl, who put the method to paper, and also taught Sarah Levy, the Great Aunt of Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (the suffix added when this branch of the family became Lutherans) who arrange for Felix and Fanny to receive lessons from the son collector of J S Bach manuscripts (as did Sarah Levy, and Felix's father), corresponded as to his father's music with Forkel. WFB had the misfortune of being a transition period of music, with the corresponding ups and downs of one taught in the previous generations forms, however, he wasn't an alcoholic as a play stated (and Jim Sveda over KUSC repeated ad nauseum for 46 years any time a work by WFB was on) he made a rather poor choice on quiting a position before securing another, yes he died in poverty, but so did his youngest half brother who had worked for the King of England, Johann Christian Bach, when his employee embezzled all of his money, (the queen of England looked after the widow). The descendents of WFB as recently as several decades lived about 25 miles from me, but I doubt they even know their genealogy. You might be interested that J S Bach's Bible was found in the US. ua-cam.com/video/P2Wh6roVAlc/v-deo.html So W F Bach may not known of the Metronome, but the works he and others studied composed by his father did receive Metronome Marks by Czerny, and the majority of the artists in the tests did not know of the Whole Beat/Single Beat Metronome controversy, nor did any of the above be required. And in single beat, no one plays these works at this tempo. So was Czerny an idiot? He edited a complete edition of J S Bach's Harpsichord, and Keyboard (Clavier) works. The comment as to Lisista comes from her video, its her comparison as to playing the work as an Etude as fast as she could to challenge herself (you didn't attempt to view the original before writing your reply to me?). Actually, I've studied the piano 55 years. I began the piano in 1969, we did not have one in the home prior, until the younger of my two older sisters required a level of proficiency (not much as I remembered my Kindergarten Teachers prowess was a Tonic Dominant Tonic chord progression to gather our attention for "Clean Up Time!") musical instrument to become a teacher, ironically to be a teacher in special education for Deaf Mutes. See convinced the school with two or three chords in the cowboy position on the guitar. I was 12 on my birthday mid school year, by my second year I was playing Chopin Waltz. I made quick progess, however I threw over the Romantic Period for the Baroque, I am in my 55th year of studying keyboard instruments, piano, harpsichord until more recently several moves left the instrument behind (it was suffering from "distortion," I leave you to figure that one out, if you can't message me), organ (I played as one of several organists at a church until my work schedule made this impossible). I would the Chromatic Fantasia (from memory) and the Fugue on senior goof off day just before graduation, but had already began Electronic Composition (I began composing since 13 starting with Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum (Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven worked out the lessons, Beethoven kept a reduction of the work on his person or at his piano) and other music courses in my fresman year of college which was simultaneously my Senior Year of High School. I found ways to practice six hours per day (prior summer holiday vacation I played almost non-stop for 8 hours per day, with interuprtions for meals. However, music is the highest of art forms, but it is the most wretched of professions in the US, unless you want to be a music teacher in some Midwest Junior College, giving lessons on the side, leading a choir or playing the organ/piano for a choir (that's a 60 to 80 hour per week workload. I made my daily bread in Health (Alternative, not conventional medicine, which over the years killed my Grandmother, Father, and Mother and the doctors sign the death certificate, Iatrogenic Deaths from proper use or procedures kills 250,000 Americans annually, but the CDC studies less than half so "100,000" shows up on the statistics) and in Medical Research (Orphan diseases, non-toxic chemotherapeutic agents for cancer, but the small molecule medicine, toxic as it is, still has the lion share of research), and I am at the age of retirement. Yes I really am that old, my Organ Teacher in College was a student of Widor (the same Widor who had the discussion with Liszt), he was in his 80's and said that I had all the natural talents for composition and musicology, I surprised him when he gave a piece of music in which the heavily ornamented and elaborate Soprano line was in the C clef and I sightread the entire piece at full speed (he would play tricks on us, mostly me, such as the first time I played upon his church's pipe organ on a class field trip, he had quiet stops out, just before I attacked the first full chords and pedal, he hit the sforzando pedal, I must have jumped off of the bench at least a foot, to my chagrin). My next teacher was a student of Louis Vierne and Marcel Dupre'. Unfortunately the Religious take vows of poverty, but they make their organists live these vows for them. Unless you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth or marry a multi-millionaire wife to support your pipe organ habit, there's not much of a future for classical musicians in the US. Although I grew up through Beatlemania, The Summer of Love (Big Brother and the Holding Company, Doors, Jimi Hendrix, and so forth, I had no desire to join a Rock Band in 1975. Music, I compose for myself, and for many hours I played in my teens music has became an avocation rather than a vocation. I was invited to attend the Music Acadmey of the West's Summer Program, I went to work instead, as making money honestly beats the prospect of starving in a garret.
Renshen 1957. I’ve seen this video yet again. I’ve also read through our comments, and I’m happy with what I’ve written. Therefore, I see no reason to continue the discussion. Several commentaries say that the English translation has an inaccuracy that gives the WBMP disciplines an altenative interpretation. But the French (the original) and German translations do not allow for an alternative interpretation. Logic also tells me that WBMP as Wim Winters presents it never existed in reality. Bernhard Ruchti in another video, quote: «In the end, the question how likely it is that double-beat counting was applied, is not that difficult to answer. The option for double-beat shows in the historical context, but its likelihood is limited, mainly due to the fact that no one ever raised such a question in the 19th century».
It is not just the situation that just Czerny's MMs were fast, but also those of Moscheles, Chopin, Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt and various editors were also fast... Then you have the problem of MMs in the Anglo-Saxon world often coming out half those of similar pieces in German or Austrian editions, though Novello seems to keep MMs from Mendelssohn and Spohr at the supposed double-beat value. Then there is Carr's observation that prestissimo was roughly 1/4 = 120, allegretto 1/4 = 60, etc. Czerny was not trying to make a case for either SB or DB, he was simply very briefly describing what was done at his time and in his place.
I agree with your argument, czerny in my eyes was WB, so was beethoven. The MM czerny gives for bach is WAY too fast, the 138 in the hammerklavier is almost unbearable to listen to, and why is it that the MM for the turkish march in the first edition of B9 is half of what modern editions give? that MM sounds like a march.
For Louis Spohr (1784-1859), I have had listened to his pieces by harp for quite a long time. That was only one time that I could listen to his pieces by harp. The rendition with deep insight of interpretation was one of unforgettable concerts for me. That is to say, a harpist, who lives in Netherland, she played his pieces at "comfortable tempo." So, they have still remained in my memory.
Problem is how you solve the slow movements. There are actually probably more impossibilities with double beat applied to slow tempo than you can find in czerny etudes in single beat. For instance , playing 5th concerto Beethoven 2nd movement is impossible for the violin , long notes of these movement have to be played in one bow and this is beyond what can be achieved technically without degrading the sound. You will find tons of impossibilities of string and wind instruments. Focus in most double beat boards is on piano, and as a matter of fact , you can play one note every minute if you want on a piano, this is technically achievable on a piano, even if it doesn't make sense musically , but the sound of a slow bow on a violin starts to degrade after roughly 20 s. This is one of the reasons, Talsma was advocating a variable reading (double beat if fast, single beat if slow) , which as interesting as it could be as a concept is not credible and was trashed by all scholars in the 80's. And also you have avoided to answer how to deal with the slow tempi of Czerny as mentioned above
I am afraid , but there are a lot of misconceptions here. The spectrum of tempi of these composers vary from very slow to very fast. A double beat theory is convenient as it makes people believe they can master the fastest difficult parts but we are left with a major issue with the slow movements, it simply doesn't work. Secondly, there is no legitimate reason to validate your view about the Anglo Saxon world having a different reading of the metronome with not a single article on the subject. Finally , you cannot be serious when you say prestissimo 1/4 = 120 ? Why would the metronomes be graduated to 200+ ? Any grade 8 student can perform parallel scales with 4 notes/ beat with mm=160 and you can play the scales even faster on a fortepiano because of the lighter action and the smaller keys so 120 is way to slow for a prestissimo. Remember , Czerny describes prestissimo in op 500 Fortepiano school as ' as fast as possible' Talking about the Anglo Saxon world , William Crotch , who was a well know composer in London , published an essay on Pendulum markings and tempo published by Oxford University as he was a professor there on This was done in 1807 so 10 years before Maetzel commercialised the metronome. The conclusion of analysis of this essay are as follow: (1) Crotch's tempos for slow and medium fast {allegro) movements are near to ours. (2) His very fast movements seem a bit faster than our average performances: Haydn, Symphony no. 63 (Roxelane) - vivace = quarter note at MM 168. (3) Middle tempos seem to run a bit faster than ours: Haydn, Symphony no. 85 (La reine) - Romanze = half note at MM 66.Haydn, Symphony no. 82 (L'ours) -allegretto= quarter note at MM 88. (4) Some minuets are very fast: Haydn, Symphony no. 74 - Minuet = dotted half at MM 66. Source: Specimens of various styles of music referred to in a course of lectures read at Oxford and London and adapted to keyed instruments by William Crotch, Mus. Doc. Professor of Music in the University of Oxford. London: Robert Birchall for the author, ca. 1807
Jonathan P, we know that Beethoven’s symphony no 9 lasted one hour in 1837, the conductor Georg Smart notated each movemet as following: 14, 12, 11 and 23,5 minutes, all together 60, 5 minutes. In other words - SB.
a note of sugestion taken from nature and human fisiology Beat like heart beat denotes a tempo (depends on age) depends in nature if the animal is small ( high quantities of beats) such as big animals which have slower quantities of beats , and on the other side the depending of age is when a person is young the heart have more strong emotions so is in high level of emotions so the heart beats faster in love than when the person is not so young or older. I think Nature and emotions could explain such diferences and more adaptable interpretation on the metronome. And in the past music was more slow (in the church) people live in a quieteness not now a days ... (Chinese people is smaller than Europeans so they as the heart is faster take that chance jeje )
One possibility is that Czerny did not have a good grasp of Bach and was an indifferent interpreter. It is as though he regarded Bach's keyboard works as sets of studies and not as some of the most important contributions to the keyboard literature. It was the following generation, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt etc., who really revered Bach (as we continue to do so today).
While it is certainly true that a lot of Czerny's Bach MM are (too) fast, let's not forget that many are quite reasonable (like in the WTK or Art of Fugue) and some are downright slow. One exemple: even WW plays the gigue from the first partita much faster (on clavichord) than Czerny's MM (in single-beat).
My personal impression is that most of the 'too fast' MM can be found in the didactical pieces (inventions, little preludes), probably no coincidence.
Also Czerny's MM for Bach were criticized at that time by Griepenkerl, who defended the 'Bach tradition' something Czerny never claimed to do.
Czerny clearly considered works like the Inventions to be finger exercises or etudes. Many of the tempos in WTC are moderate even in single beat, and impossibly slow in double. Several fugues in common time are marked with 92-108 to the eighth note.
Thank you for re-uploading... it would be a pity if the voice of reason were lost.
@@JérémyPresle Do you want to comment substantively on any of the other threads here? Or are you just here to troll?
Thanks for answering my question and thank you for your very nuanced approach to this fascinating discussion. I enjoy this new version even more than the old one.
Indeed it seems that Mr. Winters cannot take any of the hundreds of sources that support the “single-beat” practice at face-value.
The most obvious meaning of very simple words is never the right interpretation in his mind:
- “beats” must be referring to several beats per note value in Czerny’s words;
- Herz and Moscheles were using the “metrical minute” in their pretty obvious and clear descriptions of the use of the metronome;
- Brahms’ and Saint-Saens’ piano playing, of which we have recordings that show no signs of adhering to “double-beat” tempi, must have been sped up;
- Several recordings we have from students of Clara Schumann, Brahms and Liszt that also show no signs of a double beat practice are “not representative of 19th century piano playing because these pianists were not interested in keeping their masters’ traditions”.
But at the same time Czerny, who was born 40 years after Bach’s death, is supposed to be an absolute authority in Bach’s tempi...
This is a fascinating topic and there’s no doubt that simply accepting the “broken metronome” theory for every impossible metronome indication is not good enough.
But simply claiming double-beat solves all impossible tempi and then call it a day while ignoring all the evidence that contradict such a practice is even worse.
Regarding Czerny's relationship to Bach, it must have been closer than ours. Didn't Neefe, who may well have been more in touch with early 18th C practice, introduce Beethoven to the music of Bach? And Czerny was a long-term pupil of Beethoven...
@@petertyrrell3391 You're missing the point.
You can't claim that Clara's/Brahms'/Liszt's students were not interested in keeping tradition and at the same time claim Czerny was indeed very much interested in keeping Bach's tradition (eventhough they were born so far apart) just because in one case it fits your narrative and in the other case it doesn't.
@@MasmorraAoE I was trying to say that Czerny might have been more in touch with the Bach tradition than we might think. There is a problem with the term "tradition" - there is good and bad tradition, and well-kept and badly-kept tradition. For example pausing on the high note in "Nessun dorma", which is on a weak syllable and a 1/16th note, whereas the following note is more important. Puccini may have sanctioned it or at least not have objected to it to keep a singer happy, but this pause makes musical nonsense.
@@MasmorraAoE Your narrative is that SB is the only possibility even though it produces "musical box effects" or speeds at which it is too fast to play the notes or enunciate the syllables in vocal music. "Tradition" does not only mean speed, but can mean style and a host of other things. Please read what I said more carefully and think about your own narrative.
oop, liszt was a student of czerny, sorry typo.
Thank you for bringing up the Marx encyclopedia entry-if I remember correctly, the very word _Takttheil_ is what allows Gadient and Winters to interpret Mälzel's instructions as evidence of "double beat," but Marx's use of that word seems fairly unambiguous.
Also refreshing to hear on this subject a willingness to accept ambiguities and contradictions. One should be skeptical of anyone who claims to have all the answers.
If you look at the tempo of Etudes book op 849 no 25 . It is an allegro en Galop , quarter note = 138.
Allegro en Galop refers to a german dance:
The Galop ( Hopser in German) was a quite fast dance in 2/4 , very popular in Germany and France around 1820's still danced nowadays in some Germany villages.
Tempo is usually between 110-140
Video example of Hopser Dance : watch?v=X45J2ysbO98
Tempo in the video is crotchet = 129 , so Czerny MM makes perfect sense in single beat.
It seems that there is no evidence for the double-beat theory...
But interpreting music is mainly an applied (practical) and not theoretical problem. And very often, strange things happen, when interpreting metronome markings accordingly to the single-beat theory. Strange things happen regarding both the aesthetic and the technical substance of the pieces.
So, we have two options for the extremely fast tempi that occur quite often when interpreting the metronome indications accordingly to the single-beat theory:
1) Try to reach the insanely fast speeds, but most of the time fail. In this case, we actually ignore the metronome indications, since we play "as fast as possible". The most important problem is that very often music makes no sense...
2) Interpret the metronome indications accordingly to the double-beat theory. In this case, the speed is not a problem. But the most important part is that music makes sense!
Regarding your 2nd point, speed, or specifically the lack there of, is very much a problem if you apply the double beat practice.
Try playing the 2nd movement of the Tempest sonata (according to czerny’s metronome) in double beat and tell me if you can make any sense of what’s happening with the music.
Or try playing the Hammerklavier in double beat, which then becomes an almost 90 minute long piece of music.
Or try listening to Wim’s rendition of the Erlkönig in double-beat and then listen to a normal rendition of the work and tell me which version sounds more like a panicked father riding back home on a horse, desperately trying to save his dying child.
Music doesn’t become more “musical” just because you play it slower. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
@@MasmorraAoE It seems that you are referring to the double-beat theory as presented by Wim Winters. I am referring to the double-beat theory as presented by Berhard Ruchti.
So:
1) The 2nd movement of the Tempest sonata seems to have the metronome indication of eight note = 88. Since the time signature is 3/4, the metric unit of the piece is bigger than the unit of the metronome indication. So, accordingly to the double beat theory as presented by Berhard Ruchti, this should be interpreted as eight note = 88 and not 44 (if this is what you mean).
2) Even if the double-beat theory when applied to the Hammerklavier Sonata results in a 90 minutes performance, or even if Erlkönig becomes really slow, this does not mean that the double-beat theory is ALWAYS problematic. It means that sometimes the theory fails. All theories have some problematic parts.
3) When comparing the validity of two theories, the crucial part is which one works well for most cases. In my opinion, the double-beat theory works better than the single-beat theory for many works of the 19th century (especially for the 1st half).
4) It might be matter of personal taste, but I don't prefer fast tempi anymore, although I used to, when I was younger... It seems that my criteria of what is "musical" have changed!
@@MasmorraAoE from the pieces ive heard in double beat, it makes sense musically.
Regarding your second point (2) , I beg to differ, speed becomes a problem with double beat for very slow movements. For instance
1) There are many instances where you are not able anymore to play and sustain a note on a long single violin bow. Many examples in concertos and symphonies and quartets.
2) When long piano notes have to be sustained over one bar or more , without pedal , because the short decay of the notes, especially on period fortepianos cannot sustain the note long enough.
3) the 2 above examples are actually quantifiable as notes on a single bow start degrading significantly after 15-20s and decay on a fortepiano is much less than on a modern instrument. Winckel in his acoustic studies in the 60's concluded that this very short natural decay coupled with sound decay resulting from concert venues was forcing the performers to play fast.
I really appreciate your philosophical approach here: recognizing that there are arguments on both sides, that there is naturally ambiguity about an ephemeral phenomenon of centuries past; but still weighing the evidence and taking a fair stance. As is often the case when there is a debate between experts, I cannot really assess all the details - at least not without doing my own research. I then often base my (tentative) assessment on the "reasonableness" and the internal logic of the arguments presented. You present a very strong case.
I am happy to read this - thank you for your comment!
Hi Bernhard Ruchti. Please watch this video: «Wim Winters - Refutation of Whole Beat Theory». 12:00-14:00. My question: In this two minues, do we find a logical explanation for Czerny’s fast speed?
To some people who follow this topic:
Some comments seem to be ongoing only among the followers. Based on your polite and well-mannered comments with courteous expression in this “sophisticated” public area, you are researchers in music, or good piano teachers, aren’t you? If you strongly want to criticize and state your academic opinion for Mr. Wim Winters as subscribers of “authenticsound,” why don’t you ask him directly to discuss with? Or why don’t you write an academic paper on SB/BB of Mr. Win Winters? Who is the main author? The UA-cam comment area is “public” with basic social manners.
Many have tried-Mr. Winters seems to be less and less interested in discussion, or in addressing any of the contradictions inherent in his theory. His work is based mostly on the writings and study of Lorenz Gadient, who has published a book and a few articles which have been disputed by several musicologists and experts in the field. Winters to my knowledge hasn't published any peer-reviewed academic papers.
If I can make assumptions, it seems that most of the commenters disputing "double beat" on UA-cam are pianists who happen to be interested in performance practice, not musicologists.
@@minirausch If you think that he is not interested in discussion, why don’t you ask him directly in his channel, not here?
Same people always appear in both sides.
@@hiroko_naga I comment regularly on his channel. On the rare occasions when Wim does respond, he does so with a patronizing answer with sarcastic emojis about "doing my homework" or telling me this or that piece is impossible, and deflecting on the substance of the question.
@@minirausch That is his way. Think by the psychological approach. You can realize his purpose.
@@hiroko_naga The pianist Patrick Hemmerlé (his youtube channel is pianopat) already tried to invite Wim to a public discussion of his views, but Wim declined (they only talked in private). It's a recurring pattern with Wim in being extremely selective with the kinds of criticism that he chooses to engage. He only responds to arguments that he can easily deflect, while ignoring critics that make the strongest case against his theory (Patrick, whom I mentioned, made numerous very well researched and argued videos that all got completely ignored, while Wim made a long video about some inconsequential comment by Listsa on his channel). This example (and I can give more) strongly suggests to me that Wim has no interest in subjecting his views to a public scrutiny by people who did some research and know the historical sources, because I believe that he knows deep down that he is going to lose the argument.
I agree with everything you said from beginning till the end !!
I'm not an expert, I've read a lot about this topic, but I'm not a professor in this field.
I'm also not saying this is THE explanation, but it's possible. I suggest the following.
Sorry for the long text and for my bad english.
In the beginning there were very large pendulums (2 meter and even larger).
The point is that they recognized it's too large from a consumer's perspective. So they made the pendulums much smaller. Now comes the confusion... there is a mathematical formula for this, for this ratio... when you make a pendulum 4 times smaller it needs a DOUBLE swing for one HALF swing at the very large pendulum. And as matter of fact... we can read a LOTTTT of authentic texts which proofs that a lot of people were not aware of that. We can read that authentic journals need to explain this to create awareness among people back then.
But here is the confusion ... a double swing at the SMALL device is AS FAST AS a half swing at the LARGE device !!! It looks representing a different velocity at the first side, but it's the EXACT same tempo.
With other words it's possible chronologically this happened during musical history:
1) people need to use a HALF swing at the LARGE pendulum
2) then people need to use a DOUBLE swing at the SMALL pendulum (journals were there to create awareness)
3) the confusion started when Mälzel came with a device as SMALL as mentioned in 2) BUT working with a complete different swinging system (also here awareness was needed !!! ... and that's exactly what we can read when Mälzel explained he saw a lot of people not using his metronome in a correct way... so if single beat was very clear... then why he said that a lot of people didn't use his metronome correctly? )
4) But Czerny is a mystery... I have noooo idea !!! Some MM markings of him for Bach are totally fine and some are problematic.
Hi Bernhard I really enjoyed this video. it was refreshing to hear a different approach to Czerny's tempo instructions that doesn't rely on ad hominem attacks on Mr Winter's character. I personally am convinced by Wim's research, but I'm very open to other ideas. I think It would be in everyones (who is interested in historical metronome marks) interest if you would continue to give some more time to exploring Whole-beat. Wim has conducted quite a bit more research since you published this video. Perhaps you could reach out to him and have an interview or Q&A of sorts with him. I'm positive he would be open to discussion.
There is no evidence, either musical or historical, to support so-called "double-beat counting." The descriptions of metronome usage from the earliest days support only the modern "single-beat. Above all, "double-beat" performances sound ghastly; they contradict the Italian tempo rubrics; and they entail the utter destruction of the fast movement as a distinct and essential genre. Quite a few musicians, including myself, have dilated on this subject ad nauseam; but the myth of "double-beat" persists like long covid--and it constitutes an impediment to musical education.
Dear Mr. Waitzman. We have discussed this to quite some extent in the past. As I am sure you realize, I don't plead for an overall application of double-beat counting. I see the option in the historical context since it is mentioned explicitly in an important and widely-spread document from 1816 and is - generally speaking - a quite natural option but I've always been transparent regarding the fact that its likelihood clearly has its limits.
Obviously I don't agree with you that moderate tempi destroy fast movements - to me it's quite the contrary. But that's up to everyone's personal taste.
Thank you though for your ongoing interest in my work.
All the best, Bernhard Ruchti
@@bernhardruchti hello Bernhard , I beg to disagree with your statement about an existing source referring explicitly to double beat . Let me elaborate :
First of all one single document wouldn’t be sufficient to validate the existence of this practice . If this practice had enough weight in the circle of renowned composers of the period ,we should have plethora of articles with specific tempo explanations about this particular practice , in the most popular piano methods of the 19th century. I have done extensive research on the matter , and have never came across it . The fact that someone has found ONE article is actually a counter proof and tends to prove the contrary as we should be able to easily find MANY sources of this nature as opposed to one.
Secondly , the definition of ´explicit’ remains to be explored , as there are a few sources talking about double time which has nothing to do with double beat as suggested by Talsma but about subdivision of metronome beats as recommended by Maetzel and many others for certain type of tempos in order to increase precision . Do you mind sharing the link of the source you refer to ?
@@bernhardruchti You are a gentleman, dear Mr. Ruchti! But this does not change the fact that double-beat is completely spurious, and lacking in both historical and musical foundation. To claim that it existed as a valid alternative to single-beat is tantamount to claiming that the earth is neither flat nor round, but hemispherical. I, for one, am curious as to why you should even bother. Wim Winters is a nut case who derives his ideas from an amateur musicologist-priest, who needs to have a serious talk with his bishop. People don’t seem to realize that amateur musicians and scholars are not competent to rule on such matters any more than amateur students of religion are competent to hold forth on transubstantiation. If you like slow tempi, fine; and be prepared to be judged for it as a musician: but do not EVER claim historical and musical justification for your predilection. They do not exist, in any way, shape, or form so as to be credible to those with a sufficient understanding of music or musicology to judge such matters. That’s just the way it is. Ask any university-trained musicologist, or virtuoso pianist-and do not tell me that the musical world conspires to suppress double-beat practice as a good and true practice. The universe conspires against all of us, ultimately: but not about THAT!
@@danielwaitzman2118
@periodinstruments8651
Thank you for your comments which give me an opportunity to make certain topics more clear. Since the questions you raise are important, I will do so in another Q&A video and ask you for some patience!
All the best, Bernhard Ruchti
@@bernhardruchti thank you . Looking forward to it .
Actually Wim did a video on this a few years ago and there he mentioned that the example he gave for a Waltz was about double the speed of what was legal at the time.
Do you believe it is possible that Czerny only meant that each quarter note must land on an audible beat, without specifying whether it should be every one beat or two beats? That would give room for your theory.
I think in wim winters's video on mersenne he sad from a source that one schlag it combine of 2 mouvments like in pendulum 1seconde +1seconde=1sconde so czerny op. 500 he mens by the beat = 2 mouvments so it is wb reading.
Plaese correct for me if i was wrong at something ❤️
And i have an other question with just your conclusion there is any chance to say that czerny use wb? Because i dont think he was just a stupid man how metronomized a lot of works that the italien pianoforte cannot play it.
Thank you for your comment.
1. If Czerny indeed had a "double second" in mind, he would have declared that clearly and not have left it to the obvious confusion of his readers.
2. If you observe a metronome, you will discover that the numbers on the scale represent the number of audible single ticks during one (modern) minute.
As you rightly say, the fact remains that Czerny indicated metronome markings that are questionable in their speed. This is a phenomenon that was addressed already in the 19th century. However, this does not allow to re-interpret Czerny's introduction to the metronome. Other explanations must be found.
@Bernhard Ruchti. Thank you for your comment. Actually i found a channel that it is againts double beat and it really interesting that he plays op. 299no. 1, 2 and 3 in exactly in single beat and he says that he can play all the op. 299 in tempo.
This is the link of the video:ua-cam.com/video/VY0JqJsSmtg/v-deo.html
I hope you will see it❤️
saif -senpai
(1 more information)
That a paul bruno bartholoma a master dance sayed that waltzes in 19th century was preformed 48-50 bars in 1 minute and czerny in his opus 500 give to the waltz (88 half note) and when we read in double beat it is 44 bars in 1 minute. The case of czerny's use of the metrenome is so confusing.
@@saif-senpai7746 actually whoever wrote that about tempi of waltzes is incorrect . Originally in Vienna the tempo was quite rapid , it slowed down over time . Just read any serious article on dances tempi , you will be convinced .
I would recommend you watch this youtube video watch?v=QEAVgRirex4&t=75s about Mersenne
Also you could argue about the numbers on the metronome representinf a whole wave, not just a half one. Which puts the words double & single in a different perspective…
Single would mean a whole wave, thus two beats, a double beat on a single wave, single ‘schlag’ (falsely translated to beat but meaning wave).
Unfortunately this explanation doesn’t work for many reasons . The first implementation of a pendulum was French not German ( loulie 1684) then you have Despreaux metronome adopted by the conservatoire de Paris 2,years before maetzel and finally the most important one is that the metronome first place in Europe where Maetzel commercialised his invention was France . It was released to U.K. market 6 later , The first patent and user instructions were written in French with no ambiguity about the wording . The main reason for the choice of France and UK as first places to introduce the metronome is because time devices specialists and clock makers were based in these two countries at that period.
You can find an excellent video made by period instruments UA-cam user on the topic . All the rest is pure fantasy and not supported by factual documents .
Thx!
Czerny’s Metronome marks for the inventions are for the most part are unplayable, not even Lisitsa, couldn reach 84% on the invention #1. In Double Beat his tempi follows Temp Ordinario. Czerny also wrote in his entire Bach edition that the Allegros in JSB’s time were slower than currently
Maezel wrote in a supplement to Intelligenz-blatt zur Allegemeienen Musickalischen Zeitung September 1821 that “Beethoven, Cherubini, Cramer, Mehul, et al used the Metronome incorrectly.
Beethoven Hammerklavier Sonata lists 1/2= 138 the Ries-Clementi edition lists 1/4=138. Ries and Clementi were friends with Beethoven, Clementi was a music publisher as well.
Back to Czerny, and Wim Winters, the 1816 Maezel intructions give an example of how to play an Allegro, set the the speed as 1/2 note equals the number, in a 4/4 time signature the metronome ticks each quarter note. However the same instructions list that in Presto time signatures the beat of the metronome equals the measure.
Wim Winters also points out that the later studies require of Czerny require as high as 22 notes per second in single beat.
From my Physics class the ear cannot distinguish individual notes above 18.5 beats per second.
Willard Palmer questioned the MM marks in 1972 of the First revised edition of Kinderszenen and how recorded virtuosos played these Easy Pieces as translated from the German Editions, and he also included Clara Schumann’s MM marks from her 2nd edition.
Quarter note single, with the beats plural. And not every 1/4 note with each single beat. Op 500. You might check what Lang Lang’s adjusted speed in single beat sounds like Single Beat Test (Ep .6) Lang Lang - Czerny Opus 299 /1 UA-cam By all means beard the Lion in his den. Especially the repeated notes at 15 notes per second.
Renshen1957. Wim Winters’ series on Bach’s inventions and Czerny’s metronome number is unscientific because it is manipulative. Wim Winters says it himself in the first video 8:10, quote: «I’m not claiming that players of the caliber listed here could not play or could not have played this invention faster if they wanted to…»
This is crucially important! None of the pianists knew they were going to play Czerny’s tempo. Wim chose the nine pianists because the average gave him the tempo he wanted, namely a tempo close to the double beat. If I had the money, I can do exactly the same as Wim Winters. I can hire nine virtuoso pianists, and everyone would be able to play Czerny’s tempi when they knew that’s what they were supposed to. Then the average tempo is pure single beat, and the result would of course have been useless for Wim Winters.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 Wim Winters illustruationof Ms Lisistsa proves a point, she only made at 100% or better playing at her limits. Glenn Gould perform in single beat the a minor invention, however did anyone play number one in single beat. How about the digitally adjusted speed for single beat? Does that sound possible for an 11 year old W F Bach?
However, I believe you are missing the forest for the trees, geiryvindeskeland7208, which can be asnwered in this question, were all Czerny's metronome indications in single beat appropriate for all of the inventions rated at RCM grade 7 or 8 level on the piano?
Czerny who had taught students 8 hours+ every day for decades would know better. The same Czerny who in his preface to the J S Bach edition which mentioned that the Allegro in Bach's time were slowly than then presently accepted (1840's were he gave up teaching for composition and the release of instructional editions of composers music).
As to scientific, are the all digitally corrected versions speeds reachable by every grade 7-8 piano students? (Or Henle 3-4 grading system?)
Since the musicologist performers (Leonhardt, et al) use Tempo Ordinario as the basis for establishing a tempo, since Beethoven was no stranger to the term, and since Czerny's MM markings fit in Whole Beat for Tempo Ordinario, your premise that the survey by Wim Winters is manipulative, ergo unscientific, doesn't exactly hold water. Just use Lisistas performance, she isn't exactly untalented and quite capable from her various performances available on on UA-cam.
Something you might consider, the Inventions (and the Sinfonias, too) contain Bach's ornaments in their 3 separate manuscript sources, which even with the abbreviated excecutions for speed mentioned in CPE Bach's Essay for execution, can't be played in Single Beat MM or Czerny.
For the sake of argument, if Yuja Wang could play all of the Inventions at Czerny's MM in Single Beat, what does that prove...to repeat, the Inventions weren't meant as virtuoso pieces, the Inventions and Sinfonias as intended in the second collection preface (the first collection was W F Bach Clavier Booklet as 15 Preambulum and 14 Fantasias), "Forthright instruction, wherewith lovers of the clavier, especially those desirous of learning, are shown in a clear way not only 1) to learn to play two voices clearly, but also after further progress 2) to deal correctly and well with three obbligato parts, moreover at the same time to obtain not only good ideas, but also to carry them out well, but most of all to achieve a cantabile style of playing, and thereby to acquire a strong foretaste of composition." One cannot perceive that a singing (cantabile) style would be possible at single beat, which Czerny would have been well aware of...
Renshen 1957, I can only repeat, none of the pianists knew they were going to be part of Wim Winters’ experiment. That’s why he says it himself: «I’m not claiming that players of the caliber listed here could not play or could not have played this invention faster if they wanted to…» Towards the end of the same video, he says: (12:48) 13:00 «…are an extremely strong case for proving the whole beat metronome practice historically correct». No, it doesn’t work. Of course, when we don’t know how much faster they could have played, the average is no evidence of double beat practice. The average only tells which tempi the nine pianists chose at the time.
Why do you mention poor 11 years old W F Bach? He died in 1784, knowling nothing of Carl Czerny’s ambitious metronome number.
Renshen, have you been playing keyboard instruments for 45-50 years? Then you do like me, then you listen to Lisitsa’s performances of Chopin’s etudes. And then you should also understand that Lisitsa can perform the invention in Czerny’s tempi, if she want. F you don’t see the point, you are indirectly saying that: Lisitsa believes that Bach’s invention is technically more difficult than Chopin’s etudes. Do you really mean that?
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 "I can only repeat, none of the pianists (did you intend omit the harpsichordists) knew they were going to be part of Wim Winters’ experiment..."What an nearsighted observation. The majority of the artists, Leonhardt (2012), Gould (1982), Nikolayeva (1993), Turek (2003), Gieseking (1956), and Frisken (1967) would require a necromancer and a seance for one attempt to ask and receive permission. If you meant Schiff, Allard, or Lisistsa who aren't dead and I sincerely doubt any of the living artists would have considered taking part, of an experiment..."Wim Winters, who???"
The video series wasn't a speed test who could play fastest, but rather to survey what were the choices between musicologist-scholar-pedagogue-performers, concert artists, a pianist who claims authenticity and historic performance practice (who plays a J S Bach Allemande completely opposite from J. Walter's 1728 and 1730 Lexicon definition of the tempo) since a wide sampling of artists easily found on UA-cam or online to discover if anyone played Czerny's instructional edition's metronome indications in single beat interpretation or at least approaching these speeds. With a few exceptions, the majority of samples weren't anywhere near the speed (with a digitally enhanced version to illustrate 100% when necessary).
With a very good reason to mention W F Bach, the original form of Preambulums (Inventions) wasn't intended as a concert stage works or virtuoso pieces, tatum ergo sum why would Czerny indicate metronome marks for such pieces for young aspiring keyboard players at such a breakneck speed? For a twofold purpose work. (Did you know the F major Invention's Motiv is taken from a Vivaldi Concerto in G minor, which similar to the G major Brandenburg Concerto is only in two movements.
J S Bach followed the centuries old practice of Tempo Ordinario, and Czerny being a student of Beethoven who referenced Tempo Ordinario (interestingly enough to LvB stated with the Metronome Tempo Ordinario was dead) Czerny would have known of the practice, even if the Italian terms for tempi indications had became universally popular (except in France) at that time. By the way, Beethoven is only three teachers away from J S Bach. In the Whole Beat interpretation Czerny is exactly in the Tempo Ordinario intepretation.
(W F Bach was not so poor, he was generally considered the finest organist and improvisor second to none in Germany after his father's passing, WFB held appointments at prestigious church organ positions (Dresden) had the patronage of the Count von Voss for a time, gave lessons to Forkel as how his father played the clavichord, which Forkel taugth Grienpenkerl, who put the method to paper, and also taught Sarah Levy, the Great Aunt of Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (the suffix added when this branch of the family became Lutherans) who arrange for Felix and Fanny to receive lessons from the son collector of J S Bach manuscripts (as did Sarah Levy, and Felix's father), corresponded as to his father's music with Forkel. WFB had the misfortune of being a transition period of music, with the corresponding ups and downs of one taught in the previous generations forms, however, he wasn't an alcoholic as a play stated (and Jim Sveda over KUSC repeated ad nauseum for 46 years any time a work by WFB was on) he made a rather poor choice on quiting a position before securing another, yes he died in poverty, but so did his youngest half brother who had worked for the King of England, Johann Christian Bach, when his employee embezzled all of his money, (the queen of England looked after the widow). The descendents of WFB as recently as several decades lived about 25 miles from me, but I doubt they even know their genealogy. You might be interested that J S Bach's Bible was found in the US. ua-cam.com/video/P2Wh6roVAlc/v-deo.html
So W F Bach may not known of the Metronome, but the works he and others studied composed by his father did receive Metronome Marks by Czerny, and the majority of the artists in the tests did not know of the Whole Beat/Single Beat Metronome controversy, nor did any of the above be required. And in single beat, no one plays these works at this tempo. So was Czerny an idiot? He edited a complete edition of J S Bach's Harpsichord, and Keyboard (Clavier) works.
The comment as to Lisista comes from her video, its her comparison as to playing the work as an Etude as fast as she could to challenge herself (you didn't attempt to view the original before writing your reply to me?).
Actually, I've studied the piano 55 years. I began the piano in 1969, we did not have one in the home prior, until the younger of my two older sisters required a level of proficiency (not much as I remembered my Kindergarten Teachers prowess was a Tonic Dominant Tonic chord progression to gather our attention for "Clean Up Time!") musical instrument to become a teacher, ironically to be a teacher in special education for Deaf Mutes. See convinced the school with two or three chords in the cowboy position on the guitar. I was 12 on my birthday mid school year, by my second year I was playing Chopin Waltz. I made quick progess, however I threw over the Romantic Period for the Baroque, I am in my 55th year of studying keyboard instruments, piano, harpsichord until more recently several moves left the instrument behind (it was suffering from "distortion," I leave you to figure that one out, if you can't message me), organ (I played as one of several organists at a church until my work schedule made this impossible). I would the Chromatic Fantasia (from memory) and the Fugue on senior goof off day just before graduation, but had already began Electronic Composition (I began composing since 13 starting with Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum (Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven worked out the lessons, Beethoven kept a reduction of the work on his person or at his piano) and other music courses in my fresman year of college which was simultaneously my Senior Year of High School. I found ways to practice six hours per day (prior summer holiday vacation I played almost non-stop for 8 hours per day, with interuprtions for meals.
However, music is the highest of art forms, but it is the most wretched of professions in the US, unless you want to be a music teacher in some Midwest Junior College, giving lessons on the side, leading a choir or playing the organ/piano for a choir (that's a 60 to 80 hour per week workload.
I made my daily bread in Health (Alternative, not conventional medicine, which over the years killed my Grandmother, Father, and Mother and the doctors sign the death certificate, Iatrogenic Deaths from proper use or procedures kills 250,000 Americans annually, but the CDC studies less than half so "100,000" shows up on the statistics) and in Medical Research (Orphan diseases, non-toxic chemotherapeutic agents for cancer, but the small molecule medicine, toxic as it is, still has the lion share of research), and I am at the age of retirement.
Yes I really am that old, my Organ Teacher in College was a student of Widor (the same Widor who had the discussion with Liszt), he was in his 80's and said that I had all the natural talents for composition and musicology, I surprised him when he gave a piece of music in which the heavily ornamented and elaborate Soprano line was in the C clef and I sightread the entire piece at full speed (he would play tricks on us, mostly me, such as the first time I played upon his church's pipe organ on a class field trip, he had quiet stops out, just before I attacked the first full chords and pedal, he hit the sforzando pedal, I must have jumped off of the bench at least a foot, to my chagrin). My next teacher was a student of Louis Vierne and Marcel Dupre'. Unfortunately the Religious take vows of poverty, but they make their organists live these vows for them. Unless you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth or marry a multi-millionaire wife to support your pipe organ habit, there's not much of a future for classical musicians in the US. Although I grew up through Beatlemania, The Summer of Love (Big Brother and the Holding Company, Doors, Jimi Hendrix, and so forth, I had no desire to join a Rock Band in 1975. Music, I compose for myself, and for many hours I played in my teens music has became an avocation rather than a vocation. I was invited to attend the Music Acadmey of the West's Summer Program, I went to work instead, as making money honestly beats the prospect of starving in a garret.
Renshen 1957. I’ve seen this video yet again. I’ve also read through our comments, and I’m happy with what I’ve written. Therefore, I see no reason to continue the discussion. Several commentaries say that the English translation has an inaccuracy that gives the WBMP disciplines an altenative interpretation. But the French (the original) and German translations do not allow for an alternative interpretation. Logic also tells me that WBMP as Wim Winters presents it never existed in reality. Bernhard Ruchti in another video, quote: «In the end, the question how likely it is that double-beat counting was applied, is not that difficult to answer. The option for double-beat shows in the historical context, but its likelihood is limited, mainly due to the fact that no one ever raised such a question in the 19th century».
It is not just the situation that just Czerny's MMs were fast, but also those of Moscheles, Chopin, Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt and various editors were also fast... Then you have the problem of MMs in the Anglo-Saxon world often coming out half those of similar pieces in German or Austrian editions, though Novello seems to keep MMs from Mendelssohn and Spohr at the supposed double-beat value. Then there is Carr's observation that prestissimo was roughly 1/4 = 120, allegretto 1/4 = 60, etc. Czerny was not trying to make a case for either SB or DB, he was simply very briefly describing what was done at his time and in his place.
I agree with your argument, czerny in my eyes was WB, so was beethoven. The MM czerny gives for bach is WAY too fast, the 138 in the hammerklavier is almost unbearable to listen to, and why is it that the MM for the turkish march in the first edition of B9 is half of what modern editions give? that MM sounds like a march.
For Louis Spohr (1784-1859), I have had listened to his pieces by harp for quite a long time. That was only one time that I could listen to his pieces by harp. The rendition with deep insight of interpretation was one of unforgettable concerts for me. That is to say, a harpist, who lives in Netherland, she played his pieces at "comfortable tempo." So, they have still remained in my memory.
Problem is how you solve the slow movements. There are actually probably more impossibilities with double beat applied to slow tempo than you can find in czerny etudes in single beat. For instance , playing 5th concerto Beethoven 2nd movement is impossible for the violin , long notes of these movement have to be played in one bow and this is beyond what can be achieved technically without degrading the sound. You will find tons of impossibilities of string and wind instruments. Focus in most double beat boards is on piano, and as a matter of fact , you can play one note every minute if you want on a piano, this is technically achievable on a piano, even if it doesn't make sense musically , but the sound of a slow bow on a violin starts to degrade after roughly 20 s. This is one of the reasons, Talsma was advocating a variable reading (double beat if fast, single beat if slow) , which as interesting as it could be as a concept is not credible and was trashed by all scholars in the 80's. And also you have avoided to answer how to deal with the slow tempi of Czerny as mentioned above
I am afraid , but there are a lot of misconceptions here. The spectrum of tempi of these composers vary from very slow to very fast. A double beat theory is convenient as it makes people believe they can master the fastest difficult parts but we are left with a major issue with the slow movements, it simply doesn't work.
Secondly, there is no legitimate reason to validate your view about the Anglo Saxon world having a different reading of the metronome with not a single article on the subject.
Finally , you cannot be serious when you say prestissimo 1/4 = 120 ? Why would the metronomes be graduated to 200+ ? Any grade 8 student can perform parallel scales with 4 notes/ beat with mm=160 and you can play the scales even faster on a fortepiano because of the lighter action and the smaller keys so 120 is way to slow for a prestissimo. Remember , Czerny describes prestissimo in op 500 Fortepiano school as ' as fast as possible'
Talking about the Anglo Saxon world , William Crotch , who was a well know composer in London , published an essay on Pendulum markings and tempo published by Oxford University as he was a professor there on
This was done in 1807 so 10 years before Maetzel commercialised the metronome.
The conclusion of analysis of this essay are as follow:
(1) Crotch's tempos for slow and medium fast {allegro) movements are near to ours.
(2) His very fast movements seem a bit faster than our average performances:
Haydn, Symphony no. 63 (Roxelane) - vivace = quarter note at MM 168.
(3) Middle tempos seem to run a bit faster than ours: Haydn, Symphony no. 85 (La reine) - Romanze = half note at MM 66.Haydn, Symphony no. 82 (L'ours) -allegretto= quarter note at MM 88.
(4) Some minuets are very fast: Haydn, Symphony no. 74 - Minuet = dotted half at MM 66.
Source:
Specimens of various styles of music referred to in a course of lectures read at Oxford and London and adapted to keyed instruments by William Crotch, Mus. Doc. Professor of Music in the University of Oxford. London: Robert Birchall for the author, ca. 1807
Jonathan
P, we know that Beethoven’s symphony no 9 lasted one hour in 1837, the conductor Georg Smart notated each movemet as following: 14, 12, 11 and 23,5 minutes, all together 60, 5 minutes. In other words - SB.
a note of sugestion taken from nature and human fisiology Beat like heart beat denotes a tempo (depends on age) depends in nature if the animal is small ( high quantities of beats) such as big animals which have slower quantities of beats , and on the other side the depending of age is when a person is young the heart have more strong emotions so is in high level of emotions so the heart beats faster in love than when the person is not so young or older. I think Nature and emotions could explain such diferences and more adaptable interpretation on the metronome. And in the past music was more slow (in the church) people live in a quieteness not now a days ... (Chinese people is smaller than Europeans so they as the heart is faster take that chance jeje )