I just stumbled upon this video and cannot but appreciate your clarity and calmness in exposing your thoughts. Bravo for that! Being myself a professional conductor (as well as pianist), I feel a little clarification is needed on the topic. We differentiate active movements from passive ones. The active movements should be the ones giving information to the orchestra. In the case of the brilliant Maestro Jansons, we can see that he actually makes single, upward swinging movements for every bar. The gesture corresponds to the uplifting nature of the piece. Every active movement has a natural rebound in the opposite direction and, in the case of a 2/4 (or 6/8), the conductor would make two active movements. Two "metronome ticks" if you want. In a quick 3/4 tempo, the active movement is only one. The double beat theory claims to have its roots in the renaissance practice of tactus. For pieces in ternary meter, the so-called _tactus inaequalis_ was applied: 2 + 1. The double beat application in music in ternary meter is nothing else than the _proportio sesquialtera_ (3:2). So, by direct experience, I can confidently say that the conductor does not make two active movements in a waltz-like piece, and the metronome cannot perform any _tactus inaequalis_ (i.e., the first beat two times longer than the second one). As a final note, a piece in ternary meter does not always mean only three notes per bar, for which the _proportio sesquialtera_ (3:2) could be quite applicable. Take Beethoven's 8th Symphony for instance. In the first movement, the orchestra would get crazy if the conductor would make two active movements per bar. Try it yourself!
Dear Vito Lattarulo, thank you very much for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate your explaining of conducting practices in more detail and me too, I appreciate your calmness in this matter! In terms of the so-called double-beat-theory, I was never that convinced of the connection between metronome practice in the 19th century and the renaissance practice of tactus. In my eyes, this is first too far away in terms of time, second it is a very "scholar" approach and does not enough justice to simple practical aspects. In my experience, once the ticking is gone, it is much more natural to count a double beat and to do exactly what you describe as one active movement for the "whole" beat. That's kind of the analogy that makes sense to me. In view of the fact that Beethoven most likely didn't hear the ticks anymore when he indicated his metronome markings, this is - theoretically speaking - still a likely scenario, in my opinion. The problems with Beethoven are more on the level of tradition. The simple question remains: if he used double-beat, why did no one notice and describe that? But still, the option is there. And therefore we are entitled to try new tempo approaches and keep on searching for the "right" tempo - which might be a life-long quest. Is there anymore wonderful than the certainty to always keep searching? Looking forward to hearing from you again, also via e-mail if you prefer? Bernhard
@@bernhardruchti Thank you for your reply. I didn't fully understand the following sentence: _[...] once the ticking is gone, it is much more natural to count a double beat and to do exactly what you describe as one active movement for the "whole" beat._ I thought _double beat_ means _two active beats_ , but then you talk about only one for the whole bar. Sorry, I am a little confused 🙂 Beating twice per bar might be ok if the piece has only, say, three equal note values per bar. It gets though much more complicated, and frankly impossible to follow for the orchestra players, as soon as all kinds of subdivisions come into play. In my first comment, I gave as an example the first movement of Beethoven's 8th symphony. I would love to read your thoughts on that, i.e. beating two in triple meter with several subdivisions. I personally think that the option of a double beat interpretation is there as much as any other one (quadruple, septuple, etc.), as long as it makes sense to the performer and his/her audience. The historical foundation of all that can be open for discussion, but it can definitely be fun. In this sense I totally agree with you: let's all remain curious and keep on searching!
A no minor objection to this hypothesis of the two clicks of the metronome per assigned time value, is in the fact that when the bell was introduced (an addition patented by Maezel himself around 1830), the options were every 2, 3, 4 or 6 ticks. If this hypothesis were true, to ring with the beginning of each measure, the bell adjustment options should have been every 4, 6, 8 and 12 beats.
That is a very beautiful silent metronome. Some people did mention the idea that following the movements to both sides of the swing is tiring, I guess this is true for me as well but it is not impossible. But it feels much more logical to only take one of the sides in view and count only that.
Another think just crossed my mind: you rightly point out that ternary measures are often conducted in one and use this as an argument for double-beat. However, applying double-beat to the MM from this period makes it impossible to conduct them in one. Let me use your sensitive playing of Beethovens op 2 nr 1 as an exemple: it is clearly impossible to conduct the 'tempo di minuetto' as you played it in one beat per bar. No ensemble could cope with that, and no experienced conductor would attempt it. Also if we look at Czerny's indications for Haydn's symphonies, the minuets are around 72 per bar. When applying double-beat to this, a one-per-bar becomes impossible. So, unless you can show us some MM that could be taken in one beat when considered double-beat I'm afraid your argument is somewhat self-defeating.
Dear Bernhard, isn't the simple solution for the conductors you mentioned that they conducted the fast ternary pieces in one beat? Since obviously every ONE goes down it has to be followed by an up (or the conductor would end up en the basement). When watching Janssons carefully you see that he gives a clear rebound at the bottom (the first beat) but not on top (which would be the 2.5th beat). Obviously the metronome cannot do that. This kind of conducting is not unhistorical, and it is explicitly demanded by Liszt in his First Mephisto Waltz. Sometimes the numbers Liszt gave to assist the conductor are given in the piano version as well, giving us a clear minimum tempo (no conductor could apply one beat to a bar when the tempo is too slow, or the ensemble would suffer seriously). When the musical structure becomes more dense obviously the orchestra needs more info about the position of beats two and three, so Janssons starts subdividing. Later composers like Korngold indicated bar per bar how to conduct, in one or three, giving subtle changes in the feeling of a waltz. There is even a description of an 'in-between' solution practiced by Brahms in the first movement of his first piano concerto (a notoriously difficult piece to conduct). According to Stanford: "Brahms beat it in an uneven four, which entirely did away with undue dragging or hurrying...". Best.
Dear Benjamin, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with this? You're describing common conducting practice, and so am I - therefore it appears that you just repeat what I said? Am I missing something?
@@bernhardruchti probably not, I should have been clearer. Let me try. A metronome gives an audible click on any side. The machine was built to do so on purpose, right? So, it gives two beats in one bar, whether one chooses to obey them or not. This obsessive beating is the main reason why a lot of 19th century musicians kept a preference for pendulums or soundless metronomes, as you demonstrated. The conducting practice we both described gives one beat per bar. There is no second beat, the up movement is just there because of the physical necessity to prepare the next downbeat, there is no musical relevance to this, and therefore it is not defined. So therefore linking this single-beat to a double-beat use of the metronome seems rather farfetched to me. Especially since often during one piece conductors will have to switch from one beat to three. Also, the same remark could be made about binary measures (although less frequently): we know that Bülow conducted the first movement of Beethovens fifth in one beat to a bar (grouped in fours), so why just apply this to ternary measures? Related to this I believe there is also another argument against a widespread double-beat use: when the bell metronome (or third metrnome as it was called) was introduced in 1833 the Harmonicon published a letter about this. I think we can all agree that the bell metronome rules out double-beat. However, when comparing this model to the earlier versions no mention is made of a change of system. If double-beat were widely used before the bell metronome, wouldn't someone have remarked that the bell struck two times too fast? This brings me to the conclusion that single-beat has always been the normal and universally accepted use of the metronome.
Dear Benjamin, I'm still not entirely sure how your comments are related to this video? The issue of the ticks being loud has been addressed by me in various videos and also in this one. All I'm saying is that the familiarity of people with conducting movements MIGHT have been stronger than the ticks, so to speak, and I elaborate that thought in view of Beethoven in particular. I can't quite follow your argument in terms of conducting a single-beat. As you rightly say, there is a down-movement and an up-movement. So that's a full beat. That's just the definition of it. Why would you call that a "single-beat"? My hypothesis is that people might have translated precisely that full movement of the conducting hand (up and down) to the movement of a pendulum. Then, I talk about ternary bars here because that's the subject of the video. Of course this does not mean that this is the only example. As of the metronome itself, I have always pointed out that it was designed according to single-beat-counting, exactly as you say. I therefore can't quite see the reason to bring that up? Finally I don't promote an overall use of double-beat. I promote the OPTION because I see it in the historical context, but I have always said that this has to be estimated for each individual case. Please be reassured that I appreciate you commenting here, but in this case I honestly can't quite grasp your point. Best wishes, Bernhard
@@bernhardruchti fair enough. I completely agree with the fact that you have always been nuanced and carefull. This cannot be stressed enough. The point I was trying to make (and still believe) is that on one side there is a double movement in which there is a strong beat and a (weaker) subdivision. This we call a double or full beat. On the other hand there are the conductors you filmed who give essentially one movement followed by a rebound. This rebound is not articulated and has no musical significance. I would hesitate to call this a double beat. Let's compare this to Liszts instruction of how to conduct his Mephisto Waltz: in four, each beat representing a bar. I think we can agree that this is single beat. But the result for the orchestra is just the same as Janssons (except that Liszts solution would stress more the four-bar phrases): they get one impulse per bar. But maybe UA-cam is not sophisticated enough for this kind of nuance... I actually think the point I made later is stronger, and I would really like to hear your thoughts about this: as far as I could see applying the double-beat to the MM we have does NOT lead to tempi where one needs to start conducting in one. I have taken a small test for myself (no conductor :)): beating a ternary bar in one becomes easy when you are faster than 80 per bar. When you approach 72 it becomes more difficult as you get slower, you create ensemble problems, I myself felt the need to start subdividing to keep my imagined orchestra together. Below 60: forget it. These speeds are single-beat, so that means that if a composer wants to write a one-per-bar tempi in double-beat he has to give a minimum of 120 per bar, right? Well, I see no indications of this kind in Beethovens MM. That is why I referred to your playing of op. 2 nr. 1: applying double-beat rules out the possibility of one-per-bar... taking it at one-per-bar rules out double-beat. But maybe I'm missing something. Looking forward to your reply...
@@benjaminachron1493 In this context it doesn't matter whether the upbeat is only a rebound. As a movement, it is a double-movement and as such it is translatable to the movements of a pendulum. I agree that your second point is more weighty, in a way. It is indeed a problem which the double-beat-approach faces on a general level: some of the tempi become too slow, very much like with a pure single-beat-understanding, some tempi become too fast. However I can't quite see why you would establish 60 as some sort of limit. Skilled conductors go below that all the time. In the Voices of Spring Waltz featured in this video, the beginning starts at around 50. In the following example even at around 40: ua-cam.com/video/5bkLMYzvMzk/v-deo.html (starting at 2:30). Obviously the conductor in this example indicates the second single beat of the ternary bar, but overall it's full-beat conducting. Most of Beethoven's Symphonies are within that range. There are only a few metronome markings that go significantly below 40 (40 being single beat, if the metronome marking is read as double-beat). The first movement of the Eroica is such a marking: dotted minim = 60. However, this is actually a good example as the beginning of that movement is so easy rhythmically. I don't think that it would be a problem to execute that in double-beat. As for Op. 2 No. 1, I have no problem to play it along to a metronome beating double-beat. But then, that's only me :) Of course the question, whether or not something is "too slow" is in a way similar to the question whether or not something is "too fast". There is a great deal of subjectivity to it. It might be hard to establish firm criteria that everyone could agree on... It's therefore important to always keep the pros and cons in mind.
Is there any real evidence from earlier treatises that pieces in 3/4 were ever considered to be one-in-a bar or that 4/4 pieces were ever considered to be two-in-a bar? Or this this a late 19th or 20th C conceit?
This is clearly described in Hummels piano school, footnote on page 52: my translation: In a fast 3-4 or 3-8, like the Scherzi of Beethoven, it is best to beat only the first beat as heavy. He then gives two musical exemples and gives the gesture with only one down-movement per bar. So yes, this practice existed and was linked explicitly to Beethoven.
And Czerny in his composition school writes that the Minuet of Mozart was already faster than the dance itself, and Beethoven increased it even more, sometimes even to a prestissimo in his scherzi.
There’s also a few examples in Beethoven where this is spelled out explicitly in the score-like the “ritmo di tre / quattro battuti” of the 9th symphony scherzo (i.e., three or four bars of 3/4 grouped as if each notated bar were one beat of a larger measure), or the quasi prestissimo in the scherzo of the quartet op. 74 (“si ha s’immaginar la battuta di 6/8”).
@@minirausch Interesting! Reminds me of the 4th Chopin Scherzo where he seems to apply the same technique: most people hearing the beginning for the first time will think it's written in 4/4.
@@MasmorraAoE exactly, but some ardent double-beaters consider this a problem, since they claim it 'doesn't fit the notation' and 'I can't feel the three beats'. Of course Hummels quote implies that this is not a historical argument. Of Chopins Scherzi, only the first has a MM (dotted halve = 120), this is very fast and is sometimes reduced in 19th century editions, like Köhler. The trio gives quarter 108, applying double-beat here would make it extremely slow.
In fact trying to make an analogy between conducting (gestures) and metronome mouvements (ticks) leads to a physical impossibility. Let us bear in mind that in 18 and 19th Century the standard practice for conducting is based on Frapper_Lever (hand gestures = down /up) and in ternary the up movement of the hand (lever) must be twice slower than the down movement (frapper) . This is obviously impossible to reproduce with a metronome given the exact same duration of each movements of the pendulum. In other words, the metronome was meant and should be used for what it was designed for , i.e an instrument solely designed to give a regular duration between 2 ticks. Therefore building the double beat theory using this analogy is fundamentally flawed as the starting assumption is demonstrably false.
Thank you for your comment. I recommend my general Introduction to Historical Metronome Markings and Tempo: ua-cam.com/play/PLmyAMFyZ8tYlj8cXOLa7-nbJ-_BBG3EXN.html You will see that I fully agree that the metronome was designed to define a duration between two ticks. However, I still see the option for double-beat against the background of music history, both for practical and musical reasons. Best wishes, Bernhard Ruchti
Very useful in Czerny
I just stumbled upon this video and cannot but appreciate your clarity and calmness in exposing your thoughts. Bravo for that!
Being myself a professional conductor (as well as pianist), I feel a little clarification is needed on the topic.
We differentiate active movements from passive ones. The active movements should be the ones giving information to the orchestra.
In the case of the brilliant Maestro Jansons, we can see that he actually makes single, upward swinging movements for every bar. The gesture corresponds to the uplifting nature of the piece.
Every active movement has a natural rebound in the opposite direction and, in the case of a 2/4 (or 6/8), the conductor would make two active movements. Two "metronome ticks" if you want.
In a quick 3/4 tempo, the active movement is only one.
The double beat theory claims to have its roots in the renaissance practice of tactus.
For pieces in ternary meter, the so-called _tactus inaequalis_ was applied: 2 + 1.
The double beat application in music in ternary meter is nothing else than the _proportio sesquialtera_ (3:2).
So, by direct experience, I can confidently say that the conductor does not make two active movements in a waltz-like piece, and the metronome cannot perform any _tactus inaequalis_ (i.e., the first beat two times longer than the second one).
As a final note, a piece in ternary meter does not always mean only three notes per bar, for which the _proportio sesquialtera_ (3:2) could be quite applicable. Take Beethoven's 8th Symphony for instance. In the first movement, the orchestra would get crazy if the conductor would make two active movements per bar. Try it yourself!
Dear Vito Lattarulo, thank you very much for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate your explaining of conducting practices in more detail and me too, I appreciate your calmness in this matter!
In terms of the so-called double-beat-theory, I was never that convinced of the connection between metronome practice in the 19th century and the renaissance practice of tactus. In my eyes, this is first too far away in terms of time, second it is a very "scholar" approach and does not enough justice to simple practical aspects.
In my experience, once the ticking is gone, it is much more natural to count a double beat and to do exactly what you describe as one active movement for the "whole" beat. That's kind of the analogy that makes sense to me. In view of the fact that Beethoven most likely didn't hear the ticks anymore when he indicated his metronome markings, this is - theoretically speaking - still a likely scenario, in my opinion.
The problems with Beethoven are more on the level of tradition. The simple question remains: if he used double-beat, why did no one notice and describe that?
But still, the option is there. And therefore we are entitled to try new tempo approaches and keep on searching for the "right" tempo - which might be a life-long quest. Is there anymore wonderful than the certainty to always keep searching?
Looking forward to hearing from you again, also via e-mail if you prefer?
Bernhard
@@bernhardruchti
Thank you for your reply.
I didn't fully understand the following sentence:
_[...] once the ticking is gone, it is much more natural to count a double beat and to do exactly what you describe as one active movement for the "whole" beat._
I thought _double beat_ means _two active beats_ , but then you talk about only one for the whole bar. Sorry, I am a little confused 🙂
Beating twice per bar might be ok if the piece has only, say, three equal note values per bar. It gets though much more complicated, and frankly impossible to follow for the orchestra players, as soon as all kinds of subdivisions come into play. In my first comment, I gave as an example the first movement of Beethoven's 8th symphony.
I would love to read your thoughts on that, i.e. beating two in triple meter with several subdivisions.
I personally think that the option of a double beat interpretation is there as much as any other one (quadruple, septuple, etc.), as long as it makes sense to the performer and his/her audience. The historical foundation of all that can be open for discussion, but it can definitely be fun.
In this sense I totally agree with you: let's all remain curious and keep on searching!
A no minor objection to this hypothesis of the two clicks of the metronome per assigned time value, is in the fact that when the bell was introduced (an addition patented by Maezel himself around 1830), the options were every 2, 3, 4 or 6 ticks.
If this hypothesis were true, to ring with the beginning of each measure, the bell adjustment options should have been every 4, 6, 8 and 12 beats.
That is a very beautiful silent metronome. Some people did mention the idea that following the movements to both sides of the swing is tiring, I guess this is true for me as well but it is not impossible. But it feels much more logical to only take one of the sides in view and count only that.
Another think just crossed my mind: you rightly point out that ternary measures are often conducted in one and use this as an argument for double-beat. However, applying double-beat to the MM from this period makes it impossible to conduct them in one.
Let me use your sensitive playing of Beethovens op 2 nr 1 as an exemple: it is clearly impossible to conduct the 'tempo di minuetto' as you played it in one beat per bar. No ensemble could cope with that, and no experienced conductor would attempt it.
Also if we look at Czerny's indications for Haydn's symphonies, the minuets are around 72 per bar. When applying double-beat to this, a one-per-bar becomes impossible.
So, unless you can show us some MM that could be taken in one beat when considered double-beat I'm afraid your argument is somewhat self-defeating.
Dear Bernhard, isn't the simple solution for the conductors you mentioned that they conducted the fast ternary pieces in one beat? Since obviously every ONE goes down it has to be followed by an up (or the conductor would end up en the basement).
When watching Janssons carefully you see that he gives a clear rebound at the bottom (the first beat) but not on top (which would be the 2.5th beat). Obviously the metronome cannot do that.
This kind of conducting is not unhistorical, and it is explicitly demanded by Liszt in his First Mephisto Waltz. Sometimes the numbers Liszt gave to assist the conductor are given in the piano version as well, giving us a clear minimum tempo (no conductor could apply one beat to a bar when the tempo is too slow, or the ensemble would suffer seriously).
When the musical structure becomes more dense obviously the orchestra needs more info about the position of beats two and three, so Janssons starts subdividing.
Later composers like Korngold indicated bar per bar how to conduct, in one or three, giving subtle changes in the feeling of a waltz.
There is even a description of an 'in-between' solution practiced by Brahms in the first movement of his first piano concerto (a notoriously difficult piece to conduct). According to Stanford: "Brahms beat it in an uneven four, which entirely did away with undue dragging or hurrying...".
Best.
Dear Benjamin, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with this? You're describing common conducting practice, and so am I - therefore it appears that you just repeat what I said? Am I missing something?
@@bernhardruchti probably not, I should have been clearer. Let me try.
A metronome gives an audible click on any side. The machine was built to do so on purpose, right? So, it gives two beats in one bar, whether one chooses to obey them or not. This obsessive beating is the main reason why a lot of 19th century musicians kept a preference for pendulums or soundless metronomes, as you demonstrated.
The conducting practice we both described gives one beat per bar. There is no second beat, the up movement is just there because of the physical necessity to prepare the next downbeat, there is no musical relevance to this, and therefore it is not defined.
So therefore linking this single-beat to a double-beat use of the metronome seems rather farfetched to me. Especially since often during one piece conductors will have to switch from one beat to three.
Also, the same remark could be made about binary measures (although less frequently): we know that Bülow conducted the first movement of Beethovens fifth in one beat to a bar (grouped in fours), so why just apply this to ternary measures?
Related to this I believe there is also another argument against a widespread double-beat use: when the bell metronome (or third metrnome as it was called) was introduced in 1833 the Harmonicon published a letter about this. I think we can all agree that the bell metronome rules out double-beat. However, when comparing this model to the earlier versions no mention is made of a change of system. If double-beat were widely used before the bell metronome, wouldn't someone have remarked that the bell struck two times too fast? This brings me to the conclusion that single-beat has always been the normal and universally accepted use of the metronome.
Dear Benjamin, I'm still not entirely sure how your comments are related to this video?
The issue of the ticks being loud has been addressed by me in various videos and also in this one. All I'm saying is that the familiarity of people with conducting movements MIGHT have been stronger than the ticks, so to speak, and I elaborate that thought in view of Beethoven in particular.
I can't quite follow your argument in terms of conducting a single-beat. As you rightly say, there is a down-movement and an up-movement. So that's a full beat. That's just the definition of it. Why would you call that a "single-beat"? My hypothesis is that people might have translated precisely that full movement of the conducting hand (up and down) to the movement of a pendulum.
Then, I talk about ternary bars here because that's the subject of the video. Of course this does not mean that this is the only example.
As of the metronome itself, I have always pointed out that it was designed according to single-beat-counting, exactly as you say. I therefore can't quite see the reason to bring that up?
Finally I don't promote an overall use of double-beat. I promote the OPTION because I see it in the historical context, but I have always said that this has to be estimated for each individual case.
Please be reassured that I appreciate you commenting here, but in this case I honestly can't quite grasp your point.
Best wishes, Bernhard
@@bernhardruchti fair enough. I completely agree with the fact that you have always been nuanced and carefull. This cannot be stressed enough.
The point I was trying to make (and still believe) is that on one side there is a double movement in which there is a strong beat and a (weaker) subdivision. This we call a double or full beat.
On the other hand there are the conductors you filmed who give essentially one movement followed by a rebound. This rebound is not articulated and has no musical significance. I would hesitate to call this a double beat.
Let's compare this to Liszts instruction of how to conduct his Mephisto Waltz: in four, each beat representing a bar. I think we can agree that this is single beat. But the result for the orchestra is just the same as Janssons (except that Liszts solution would stress more the four-bar phrases): they get one impulse per bar.
But maybe UA-cam is not sophisticated enough for this kind of nuance...
I actually think the point I made later is stronger, and I would really like to hear your thoughts about this: as far as I could see applying the double-beat to the MM we have does NOT lead to tempi where one needs to start conducting in one.
I have taken a small test for myself (no conductor :)): beating a ternary bar in one becomes easy when you are faster than 80 per bar. When you approach 72 it becomes more difficult as you get slower, you create ensemble problems, I myself felt the need to start subdividing to keep my imagined orchestra together. Below 60: forget it.
These speeds are single-beat, so that means that if a composer wants to write a one-per-bar tempi in double-beat he has to give a minimum of 120 per bar, right? Well, I see no indications of this kind in Beethovens MM.
That is why I referred to your playing of op. 2 nr. 1: applying double-beat rules out the possibility of one-per-bar... taking it at one-per-bar rules out double-beat.
But maybe I'm missing something. Looking forward to your reply...
@@benjaminachron1493 In this context it doesn't matter whether the upbeat is only a rebound. As a movement, it is a double-movement and as such it is translatable to the movements of a pendulum.
I agree that your second point is more weighty, in a way. It is indeed a problem which the double-beat-approach faces on a general level: some of the tempi become too slow, very much like with a pure single-beat-understanding, some tempi become too fast.
However I can't quite see why you would establish 60 as some sort of limit. Skilled conductors go below that all the time. In the Voices of Spring Waltz featured in this video, the beginning starts at around 50. In the following example even at around 40: ua-cam.com/video/5bkLMYzvMzk/v-deo.html (starting at 2:30). Obviously the conductor in this example indicates the second single beat of the ternary bar, but overall it's full-beat conducting.
Most of Beethoven's Symphonies are within that range. There are only a few metronome markings that go significantly below 40 (40 being single beat, if the metronome marking is read as double-beat). The first movement of the Eroica is such a marking: dotted minim = 60. However, this is actually a good example as the beginning of that movement is so easy rhythmically. I don't think that it would be a problem to execute that in double-beat.
As for Op. 2 No. 1, I have no problem to play it along to a metronome beating double-beat. But then, that's only me :)
Of course the question, whether or not something is "too slow" is in a way similar to the question whether or not something is "too fast". There is a great deal of subjectivity to it. It might be hard to establish firm criteria that everyone could agree on... It's therefore important to always keep the pros and cons in mind.
Is there any real evidence from earlier treatises that pieces in 3/4 were ever considered to be one-in-a bar or that 4/4 pieces were ever considered to be two-in-a bar? Or this this a late 19th or 20th C conceit?
This is clearly described in Hummels piano school, footnote on page 52: my translation: In a fast 3-4 or 3-8, like the Scherzi of Beethoven, it is best to beat only the first beat as heavy. He then gives two musical exemples and gives the gesture with only one down-movement per bar.
So yes, this practice existed and was linked explicitly to Beethoven.
And Czerny in his composition school writes that the Minuet of Mozart was already faster than the dance itself, and Beethoven increased it even more, sometimes even to a prestissimo in his scherzi.
There’s also a few examples in Beethoven where this is spelled out explicitly in the score-like the “ritmo di tre / quattro battuti” of the 9th symphony scherzo (i.e., three or four bars of 3/4 grouped as if each notated bar were one beat of a larger measure), or the quasi prestissimo in the scherzo of the quartet op. 74 (“si ha s’immaginar la battuta di 6/8”).
@@minirausch Interesting!
Reminds me of the 4th Chopin Scherzo where he seems to apply the same technique: most people hearing the beginning for the first time will think it's written in 4/4.
@@MasmorraAoE exactly, but some ardent double-beaters consider this a problem, since they claim it 'doesn't fit the notation' and 'I can't feel the three beats'.
Of course Hummels quote implies that this is not a historical argument.
Of Chopins Scherzi, only the first has a MM (dotted halve = 120), this is very fast and is sometimes reduced in 19th century editions, like Köhler. The trio gives quarter 108, applying double-beat here would make it extremely slow.
In fact trying to make an analogy between conducting (gestures) and metronome mouvements (ticks) leads to a physical impossibility. Let us bear in mind that in 18 and 19th Century the standard practice for conducting is based on Frapper_Lever (hand gestures = down /up) and in ternary the up movement of the hand (lever) must be twice slower than the down movement (frapper) . This is obviously impossible to reproduce with a metronome given the exact same duration of each movements of the pendulum. In other words, the metronome was meant and should be used for what it was designed for , i.e an instrument solely designed to give a regular duration between 2 ticks. Therefore building the double beat theory using this analogy is fundamentally flawed as the starting assumption is demonstrably false.
Thank you for your comment. I recommend my general Introduction to Historical Metronome Markings and Tempo: ua-cam.com/play/PLmyAMFyZ8tYlj8cXOLa7-nbJ-_BBG3EXN.html
You will see that I fully agree that the metronome was designed to define a duration between two ticks. However, I still see the option for double-beat against the background of music history, both for practical and musical reasons.
Best wishes, Bernhard Ruchti