the speeds have been brought down by 30% by the editor, probably because the MM is in single beat. Its not because they had to adjust for modern instruments, the older ones were, despite their lighter action, unable to repeat at a rate faster than 8 notes a second. That threshhold is broken in the first bar of i.e. etude Nr 16, where the quintuplets have to to be played at a rate of 15,3 per second, repeated 16 times. If you think czerny was not serious about his or Beethovens markings, read his treatsies. If you think his metronome was broken, compare different Metronome numbers all over europe, and imagine Mälzel selling time measurment instruments that did not measure time correctly. If the weight had been damaged, that would only have an influence after the metronome ticked for a long while. So you can really only use the whole beat reading, or neglect all these numbers as dubious, or simply not care
@@123Joack First it is human, just sped up. At least thats what most of us believe. Because if it was midi he could easily improve the sound quality in 1 or 2 minutes, but all those recordings always sound like that. Second you can hear by the kind of "accordion piano sound" that its probably sped up, I'm no specialist but I've never seen a piano (or soundfont in case it was midi) that sounds like that. Third you can hear expression in many of his recordings, to make midis like that would take a lot of time, years perhaps. And fourth he said himself "its not midi" and said its a "classical upright piano", I have no reason to doubt him there. I imagine he probably goes at somewhere around sight read speed or lower then speeds it up.
@@123Joack And second, the way you say about the speed of 15 notes a second does remind me of what Kullak said :) "in my individual opinion, pianoforte passages, even in the most fiery tempo, must yield some (un pochino) of that former "quickfingeredness", which so easily *degenetared into inexpressive trifling* "
I have this edition and always thought some of the tempo markings are absolutely ludicrous. I mean example, No. 21 is presto - Half note at 72 but No.5 is Allegro half note 80? Last time I checked Presto markings was always faster than an allegro marking but idk, I guess the goal is to play it at whatever speed you can possibly lol
Whole beat metronome practice (WBMP). Each click =the subdivssion of the note printed: ♩ =60 means each click=eighth notes ♪ =60 means each click=sixteenth notes etc.
Now I'm preparing opus 355, it's for sure more musical and interesting than opus 337, but I'm finding many "obstacles"... for some points of view it's very tricky and tough... recording proceeds very very slowly
Unfortunately I cannot upload op.692... I searched the score everywhere without success... have you the score? You uploaded some etudes with score from opus 692. Other numbers are in my plans
No. 38 is the second theme from the 1st movement of the Waldstein Sonate!
Would rather hear these performed by a human than by midi.
It's human performance, not midi
nope. its not a human because you cant pay a virtuoso enough for the degrading work to get to 15 notes a second.
the speeds have been brought down by 30% by the editor, probably because the MM is in single beat. Its not because they had to adjust for modern instruments, the older ones were, despite their lighter action, unable to repeat at a rate faster than 8 notes a second. That threshhold is broken in the first bar of i.e. etude Nr 16, where the quintuplets have to to be played at a rate of 15,3 per second, repeated 16 times. If you think czerny was not serious about his or Beethovens markings, read his treatsies. If you think his metronome was broken, compare different Metronome numbers all over europe, and imagine Mälzel selling time measurment instruments that did not measure time correctly. If the weight had been damaged, that would only have an influence after the metronome ticked for a long while. So you can really only use the whole beat reading, or neglect all these numbers as dubious, or simply not care
@@123Joack First it is human, just sped up. At least thats what most of us believe. Because if it was midi he could easily improve the sound quality in 1 or 2 minutes, but all those recordings always sound like that. Second you can hear by the kind of "accordion piano sound" that its probably sped up, I'm no specialist but I've never seen a piano (or soundfont in case it was midi) that sounds like that. Third you can hear expression in many of his recordings, to make midis like that would take a lot of time, years perhaps. And fourth he said himself "its not midi" and said its a "classical upright piano", I have no reason to doubt him there.
I imagine he probably goes at somewhere around sight read speed or lower then speeds it up.
@@123Joack And second, the way you say about the speed of 15 notes a second does remind me of what Kullak said :) "in my individual opinion, pianoforte passages, even in the most fiery tempo, must yield some (un pochino) of that former "quickfingeredness", which so easily *degenetared into inexpressive trifling* "
Each repeat 10 to 20 times, so it would take 5-10 hours to play all this Opus at tempo with enough repetitions X)
(26min*15 for the average)
Music students back then had that time, and demanding teachers that might have required that stuff out of their students.
Czerny Op 337 no 37 so beautiful
Great!!!
I think thats funny how you say finger drills like this are "Great!"🤣
I have this edition and always thought some of the tempo markings are absolutely ludicrous. I mean example, No. 21 is presto - Half note at 72 but No.5 is Allegro half note 80? Last time I checked Presto markings was always faster than an allegro marking but idk, I guess the goal is to play it at whatever speed you can possibly lol
The tempo marking should be halved. Look up single beat vs. double beat metronome practice.
Whole beat metronome practice (WBMP). Each click =the subdivssion of the note printed:
♩ =60 means each click=eighth notes
♪ =60 means each click=sixteenth notes
etc.
@@Griffologeeplease stop with the whole heat bullshit. It has already been debunked many times
@@backtoschool1611no, whole beat thing doesn’t exist. It’s a made up bullshit.
@@pianisthenics Try the single beat version then and enjoy (especially the 20-30 repetitions)!
No.20 was Impossible tempo?
Half=104 would be not human... for sure it is a typing mistake
@@cleador2806 Liszt would be like "Half=140? Hold my beer" ;)
Do you have the midi for this? I can't find it anywhere.
woa youre here
@@Liszthesis I'm everywhere lol. Us pianists gotta stick together.
0:46
1:00
I like this song is
Czerny 337 2
Czerny 337 3
Czerny 337 4
Czerny 337 5
Czerny 337 7
Czerny 337 8
Czerny 337 9
Czerny 337 10
Czerny 337 11
Czerny 337 12
Czerny 337 13
Czerny 337 14
Czerny 337 15
Czerny 337 16
Czerny 337 18
Czerny 337 19
Czerny 337 20
Czerny 337 21
Czerny 337 22
Czerny 337 24
Czerny 337 25
Czerny 337 26
Czerny 337 27
Czerny 337 28
Czerny 337 29
Czerny 337 30
Czerny 337 31
Czerny 337 33
Czerny 337 34
Czerny 337 35
Czerny 337 36
Czerny 337 37
Czerny 337 38
Czerny 337 39
Czerny 337 40
Etude 32 is more hard than Chopin Op.25 etude 11
But Chopin's op.25 n.11 is definitely more musical... opus 337 is pretty technical for many of the numbers, expecially the first ones
Now I'm preparing opus 355, it's for sure more musical and interesting than opus 337, but I'm finding many "obstacles"... for some points of view it's very tricky and tough... recording proceeds very very slowly
@@cleador2806please after Op.355, record 399 and 400 or 692
@@cleador2806 Chopin has no way of competing with the more musical of Czerny etudes like 692, 756, 754, 755, 399, 818, 819, 822 and 837
Unfortunately I cannot upload op.692... I searched the score everywhere without success... have you the score? You uploaded some etudes with score from opus 692.
Other numbers are in my plans
INJOUABLE.