0:00 Italian punctuality 1:52 Presentation of the article, the coming back of an old theory 4:55 How the video will proceed 7:00 Beethoven's problematic metronome marks 10:00 The average tempi of modern performances as a possible solution? 13:05 Beethoven not able to use his metronome properly? 14:35 Modern performances cannot be considered representative of Beethoven's intentions 16:40 Why Beethoven couldn't have misused his metronome unless he was...not so smart 19:38 Beethoven was in direct contact with the inventor of the metronome 21:41 Beethoven's metronome marks were never considered problematic in the 19th century 24:02 Beethoven's 9th symphony: a proof that he was confused? 27:00 Academic circular reasoning: what first was an assumption, now is a fact 31:10 Beethoven inexperienced with the metronome? 31:29 No, he was meticulous and expected the same from performers of his music 34:23 "Problematic" metronome marks are not Beethoven's trademark only 36:05 The importance of context! 40:30 Common bias towards the metronome 41:17 A missing overview of past researches. Also WBMP completely ignored. 45:13 Recent studies consider Beethoven's MM accurate. It should have been mentioned at least why the authors don't think that's true. 46:38 Beethoven pointed out mistakes to his editors all the time 47:50 Even the fastest performances struggle to reach Beethoven's MM 48:58 But music critics of the 19th century reported an increase in tempo 54:36 Why is every solution that slows the music down considered impossible? 55:55 The importance of taking period instruments into account of such research 58:13 The world seems not yet ready for a musical reconstruction of Beethoven's intentions 58:25 We are open to discussion
2) What these guys have done is to analyze tempo bias a function of tempo itself for several different metronome mechanical deviations (mass, friction, misalignment, inclination) by computer simulations.
3) When comparing all these deviations to the common perception of how these works are played by many musicians and directors, this “common bias” does not adjust well to the calculated biases from metronome defects
4) However the “perception bias” adjusts well to a shift in the tempo which, for the markings analyzed, could be explained by Beethoven reading from the bottom edge of the metronome slide
5) Your “Beethoven wouldn’t be so stupid” can be applied the same to your theory of Beethoven counting 2 beats to mark a tempo. However, what sounds stupid is the tempi you use when playing Beethoven. Your theory doesn’t make sense unless Beethoven wanted to deliberately ruin all his work (hint: he was not that stupid). And so many excellent musicians and directors cannot be wrong as you imply in many of your videos to make your pet theory right.
Dear Wim and Alberto. For part of my life I have been employed as a medical researcher. Music is the greatest of art forms, the worst of vocations, but the greatest education. I have spoken with many outstanding medical doctors (some I met at the New York Academy of Science, when I was invited to attend a lecture) who have written excellent medical papers with breakthrough and even revolutionary discoveries in the area of Cancer research and Stem Cell research and treatment. Their works never got past the the editorial peer review panels, ergo the research never saw the light of day. One medical doctor spent 5 years in submitting papers and and even letters to the editor, still...("crickets"). And yet I see rather poorly written papers in Toxicology with experiments to prove a point rather than experiments, the results, and a possible conclusion, the former which is published, accepted, and then cited, while latter does receive a passing reference. I recall one paper, in which the fish species studied for injury was exposed to a toxin levels never found in nature, in a sewage outflow, but only in an aquarium at levels so enormously high that the artificiality should have disqualified the work and the journal publication rejected. However, it was accepted as the prevalent viewpoint accepted the conclusion in favor among the discipline at that time which continues to this day. (I read the paper, did the math, and having a hobby of keeping freshwater fish, and knowledge of what was present in this species habitat down to the chemical composition of the water, the adjacent foliage in and out of the water, It took less than 5 minutes to find a major flaw and refute the study for a client. And what does this have to do with Whole Beat Theory? I see a parallel with Musicology community in the acceptance of new ideas that challenge accepted "belief systems." And that includes the "Cult of Single Beat" and the promulgation of these apologists' purported belief that Music was initially faster in the early 19th century and then slowed down over time. However, to your research has any mid to late 19th century contemporary quotes discoveries of composers, musicians, pedagogues stuck out like a sore thumb, such as "pianists, they don't make them like they used to, they can't play as fast as before" or music critics bewail that musicians (professionals) can't measure up to their predecessors? Submissions to musicological journals or defending a doctoral dissertations tn the University level deal with similar concerns as physician medical researchers: bias, lethargy towards new ideas and concepts, and any challenges of conventional "wisdom." In essence musical conservatism which maintains the status quo. Authors of new ideas often come against emulation of older scholarship dating backwards from the 1950's, formed on ideas all the way to the latter part of the 19th Century or early 20th Century. Composer biographies suffer from this. If I meet a certain announcer by the initials Jim Svejda who continues that W F Bach was an alcoholic (his source a fictional novel), although I am a pacifist, if he repeats that bogus claim in my presence, I swear I will punch him in the nose. But that was the belief back in the 1970s. This presents a perpetuation of outdated values and preoccupations (or should I write obsessions), and the establishment of a "cut and dry," "poured in cement," "chiseled in stone" belief"systems, rather than critical challenges back and forth in dialogue when incongruity however large is presented after the advent of a theory's general acceptance. In other words, when flaws become apparent with single beat become raised in discourse, the mainstream schools offer patently ridiculous excuses to support their condemnation of the idea of Whole Beat Theory, rather than a valid refutation. What I can't understand is why a discipline that checks water marks on manuscript paper, does chemical analysis of ink, that uses computers to analyze compositions discovered as being valid new discoveries, or mis-attribution, etc., doesn't invoke scientific method and critical thinking skills, to test whole beat and single beat. However, for to many individuals, single beat is a religion and woe upon those who dare blaspheme against it. Good luck in your Heresy in the future.
Upon re-reading my reply, I forgot, Handwriting analysis. Please pardon the omission under "...why a discipline that checks water marks on manuscript paper..."
I haven't watched the whole video and don't know if it's mentioned in it, but Beethoven wrote a canon An Mälzel Op 156, where the text is "ta ta ta ta ta...". In Single Beat every SECOND beat matches a "ta". In Double Beat, the singer sings exactly to the metronomes ticking. This is a good proof that Beethoven used the Double Beat counting!
There's a spanish youtuber, Jamie Altozano, very famous amongst the spanish and latin communities. He just uploaded a video regarding this theory. He mentions AuthenticSound along the way, which I think it's a good thing, but he makes it sound like it's just another theory, no real depth in it. And this is the same for the entire spanish speaking community, they're amazed about this theory just because of the numbers put into it. I've seen this thing shared so many times, and I'll keep seeing it. If only they could spare the time to see your research. Even if they do, some are very skeptical about it. When I talk about your research and your channel with some of my closest friends and colleagues, they seem to accept it, but most of them will not apply, or they're not really interested in understanding.
It 's hard to understand why people in this domain jump on something that doesn't make any sense at all, and reject for whatever reason the most simple and logic explanation that immediately make ALL 'problems' dissapear
@@AuthenticSoundy, I disagree. I learn about your theory way before the one from the spanish investigators and at the time I really checked a lot of your videos and follow your approach and performances. I need to say that I always felt that neither Beethoven's supposed one-bit tempo or your doble-bit approach was musically ok. Both approach doesn't sound right to me (I'm not by any means a musician, but I studied several years of music, besides played piano and flute). But I recently was exposed to the spanish theory and it really blew my mind, because IT MAKE SENSE. And here I need to say that the arguments they give are scientific and you really need to understand math to fellow the conclusions. I recommend you check that before calling an investigation "bullshit" or questioning if the publicación was peer-reviewd. That was not only disrespectfull, but actually show ignorance, because you couldn't understand (actually you didn't care to understand it also, as I saw in this video) the maths that are supporting the theory. It is difficult to convince anybody of your theory with that lack of humildity.
@@quothalasnmms, no viste el video verdad? xd. Justo da argumento tras argumento por lo cual es totalmente implausible que Beethoven no supiera usar el metronomo, principalmente porque podía consultar al inventor en cualquier momento, y que el inventor se tomó la molestia de explicarle TODO y aclarar todas sus dudas. Ahora bien, eso de las matemáticas... Me parece que estas cayendo en un tipo de falacia de autoridad, del tipo: "si hay un modelo matemático detrás significa que es verdad"
Sorry to divert from topic but it is incredible to me that can express your arguments on such a complex topic so eloquently in a non native language. Fluent in English, German, Italian and Music👍
How could Beethoven not know the Metronome and its usage. He knew Maezel, Maezel worked with Beethoven to compose a piece of Music. In 1813 Maelzel and Beethoven were on familiar terms. Maelzel conceived and musically sketched Wellington's Victory, or The Battle of Vitoria for which Beethoven composed the music to be played on Maelzel's 'mechanical orchestra', the panharmonicon; they also gave several concerts, at which Beethoven's symphonies were interspersed with the performances of Maelzel's automatons. In 1814, Beethoven wrote a deposition claiming that Maelzel had defrauded him, claiming ownership of this music, and illegally staging performances of it from an inaccurate transcription. Beethoven described Maelzel in this deposition as "a rude, churlish man, entirely devoid of education or cultivation". In 1816 Maezel was in Paris setting up a Metronome Factory. By 1817, Beethoven and Maelzel appear to have reconciled. Beethoven wrote glowingly of Maelzel's metronome and declared''...I have long purposed giving up those inconsistent terms allegro, andante, adagio, and presto; and Maelzel's metronome furnishes us with the best opportunity of doing so...." (Beethoven in a letter to Hofrath von Mosel)..."I here pledge myself no longer to make use of them in any of my new compositions...In our country, where music has become a national requirement, and where the use of the metronome must be enjoined on every village schoolmaster, the best plan would be for Maelzel to endeavour to sell a certain number of metronomes by subscription, at the present higher prices, and as soon as the number covers his expenses, he can sell the metronomes demanded by the national requirements at so cheap a rate, that we may certainly anticipate their universal use and circulation. Of course some persons must take the lead in giving an impetus to the undertaking. You may safely rely on my doing what is in my power, and I shall be glad to hear what post you mean to assign to me in the affair. " (That didn't last long) / In 1817 Maelzel left Paris for Munich, and then again took up his abode in Vienna. I believe there's was plenty opportunity to be instructed by Maezel. Wim has referenced the joke canon: Ta ta ta, lieber Mälzel (dear Maelzel ) ta ta ta, lebet wohl, sehr wohl (farewell as well) ta ta ta, Banner der Zeit (standard time) ta ta ta, großer Metronom (a great metronome) ta ta ta ta ta. This insignificant tune become part of the second movement of the Eighth Symphony in which Beethoven was working at that time. The melody has a rhythmic accompaniment suggestive of chronometer.
Beethoven visited Mälzel's workshop frequently and their friendship was strengthened when the inventor made a trumpet for the already partially deaf composer.
Unfortunately I think this article is gonna stick for a while. I read it because many pianists in my social media shared as "the solution to Beethoven's metronome indications". :( Thank you both for taking the time to do this video!
It's rather funny how people are perfectly willing to ascribe superhuman qualities to Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, etc. except when it comes to knowing how to use a metronome in the correct manner or giving an appropriate tempo to their compositions.
@@JérémyPresle And the nut is not wide enough to accound for more than a 21% deviation in this case shewn; besides, the moderns will to play some 50% higher than WBMP or lower than SBT anyway, so this doesn't quite cut it.
Very dubious me too. I read the article (well, half of it, then I could not stand any more of it!) and it was rather surprising: - the "mathematical model" is quite superfluous (just look at the thing!), - the complex and "state-of-the-art" (cit.) software implementation supposed to detect the tempo is totally superfluous (and overkill: just take the movement time length - which is usually already written on the CD - and divide by the number of beats, which is easily derived from the number of measures!). - the distinction between HI / "HI inspired" (!) / "Romantic" (!!) performances is subjective and anyway not used in calculations; so, why? So, the whole suspiciously looks like an attempt to "épater le bourgeios", more than a reliable research. Finally, that the average of modern performances is the "reference truth" is an assumption ungrounded and unproven. @Thomas Hughes : the number at the nut lower edge is obscured in many models, but not in all and possibly not in (some of? many of?) the earliest models where the nut was triangular. Still, as you correctly point out, a proposal should not only account for the average case, it should primarily account for the extremes! Also, this idea not only assumes the Beethoven was too stupid to correctly use a metronome, but also too stupid were Czerny, Mosheles, Chopin, Fink, and all (well, no, not all, only the majority!) of their contemporaries, who had nothing to except to those metronome indications, as well as their publishers, who kept printing and reprinting them in their editions... The only bright minds are some today pianists and conductors: very gratifying...
You know, the manuscript piece they showed says "108" and "120"; however, there is no note value listed, no = sign, and the "Maelzel" is not completely legible. Looking very closely, one might make out 12.0 inches or zoll ... in fact, Rhen. zoll ... ? 108 beats per minute is exactly 12 inches (12.07 USCS inches or 11.75 Rhen. inches) ... hm ... other editions are 1/4 = 88, so WTH?!? Fascinating!
Sadly in today’s publish-or-perish research world, quantity is more important than quality, so you have to take research articles with a pinch of salt - especially those in low impact factor, open access journals. Also, researchers tend to avoid controversial topics and rather go for hot topics to increase chances of getting published, and ultimately getting funding. The fact that whole beat does not appear in research articles might not necessarily mean that musicologists consider it BS, but rather that they don’t want to jeopardise their academic career. That’s why this channel is so important, because once whole beat exists as a practice, the academic world cannot ignore it any more.
Well, from childhood I knew that Beethoven was deaf but only now - thanks to this article - I came to know about his blindness (not being able to read the MM)... We have in my country a funny song about a man who is sitting and reading in the newspaper about himself many (false) things, but - (in the refrain) "he didn't even know that he was like that"... poor Beethoven... It is the performers, the conductors and the audience to decide who he really was... As for the publishing of this article: One of my university's lecturers (many years ago) in musicology, told us: "I don't care if you choose as a subject of research to investigate the tip of a table, as long as you're doing your research properly, according to serious research's rules". This article should not be published in a serious magazine - you are absolutely right, Wim - maybe only in a specific genre in fantasy literature (and I'm not sure about it either). However, I'm not blaming the writers, but the lack (or insufficient) of scientific and logical thinking in the educational systems in some countries.
Ok, I agree the paper lacks a better literature review and that connecting the notes on a score to the proof that he was confused was a long shot. But after taking a look at your WBMP theroy, honestly, I find it easier to believe that Beethoven noted the lower mark of the weight (by mistake or some sort of conviction) than the conclusions of your research. If your theory is correct than accounts of Beethoven's concert of 22 December 1808 are all wrong. The concert would have lasted 7 or 8 hours. It just doesn't add up. And maybe Paganini wrote music for me to play, he was a nice guy and didn't mind playing that fast. I could go on, but ok, I stop with shallow arguments. You also criticised the fact the authors didn't mention your work. Well, as far as I could check you two don't have a lot of academic publication (correct me if Im wrong). As a musician and academic looking at both methods and conclusions, I find it easier to buy the "Beethoven's mistake" (although I agree the paper has many problems already pointed by you and academic colleagues in the comments), than your WBMP theory, that when faced with some trivial facts just falls apart like a house of cards would. Not because I believe in their conclusions, but because I found yours a lot less robust. And I think this paper in the end is a very good thing for you as well, as it may attract more adapts to your theory. As for me, I'm just an outside that was recently exposed to this discussion. I listened to what the authors had to say and listened to what you had to say. After doing so, I will keep on with my business, listening happily to the "mainstream" interpretations out there.
@@JérémyPresle true, I agree that Beethoven would have realized the right way of using the metronome for multiple reasons. My point is that the paper's conclusion is bad, but that WBMP is worse. I took a quick look at the video about the 1808 concert, looked at the tables and then read the first comment of the video. That simple comment alone is enough to make the house of cards fall there. Lots of work to try to fit a flawed theory. "AS for paganini, do you think that if it is played slower, it would be easy?" Yes, I do think so (not easy, easier, I assume it was a typo of yours).
Don't worry man, I already deleted the comment and appologized there. In fact no need to keep discussing, this is not my thing, I won't be commenting here anymore. Just got surprised with all this wpmb world. But hey, we are all free to believe in what we want. And I honestly wish you all the best and hopefully I can come across smt on wbmp that will convince me in the future. But that's not the case for the moment. So I can just wish us all a happy musical journey, in whichever tempo we choose to play/listen to :) cheers
Dear L.L., first the WBMP is not a 'theory', it is a practical conversion of metronome marks. In other words: it is one of the two possibilities a metronome has. SIngle Beat lacks that quality however, since a huge amount of MMs remain impossible and in that regard it is SB that is a theoretical concept more than a practical one. The 1808 concert would not last 8 hours in WBMP, it lasts just about 4 hours as mentioned. In SB however, the concert would lack two entire symphonies of the size of the 6th. Here is a 30 minute documentary I made on the famous concert: ruclips.net/video/gsntpykv1jQ/видео.html. Hope that helps (P.S. I cannot help of reading your YT name as Lang Lang :-) )
Dear @@AuthenticSound, yes I looked at your 1808 video. Also looked at the first comment, which pretty much puts in check your whole argument. You should reply that one. And for this WBMP theory (yes, a theory), I would suggest adding to your research the reading of the metronome patent itself, in which Maelzel says: "... which I denominate a metronome or musical time-keeper, is for the purpose of counting or beating the time of music, or in other words, for dividing the time of music, or marking equal portions of intervals of time. These equal intervals of time are measured by the vibrations (remember this concept) of a particular kind of pendulum, whereof each viabration is indicated in an audible manner to the performer, by a tick or drop of an escapement. (the pendulum is just the means to achieve the goal: the tick). And he continues by saying that: "By this means the performance of music will be improved, because the intervals of time will be always referred to the same standard, viz . the number of vibrations (=tick) in a minute; and the equality of the said intervals will be more perfectly attained by this means, than by the ordinary mode of counting or beating equal intervals of time by the hand or foot." So you can see that a vibration for Maelzel equals a tick (audible), and that it intends to substitute the hand or the foot beating in practice. Therefore, would the people without a metronome in Beethoven's time practice with two foot-steps for every quarter? And now the argument comes back to you: if Beethoven was smart enough to ask Maelzel about which marking to write down, maybe he could also get some advice on interpreting the output signals of the device. After all, Maelzel was pretty clear about that in the patent.
How can I reply to a comment that simply puts the facts aside? It does NOT appear the concert was played in a tempo somewhere in between, quite on the contrary. if I were to remake that video today, I would leave out the break even between the parts, since academia concerts were not organized in that way. Without a break, the entire concerts fits perfectly in the WB tempi. That simply is a fact, and it won't go away with slogans or generalisations. In all conversations about this issue, it goes always like this: once I ask someone to deal with facts and details, all is ok to deviate. Well, it doesn't work like that. idealy, we would be on a stage or in a room, with a piano, 200 scores and a metronome. And the audience would have a great time.
I think the authors' point isn't that the conductors are trying to find Beethoven's tempo, but that they are naturally, perhaps unconsciously, trying to find the "ideal tempo" of the music. But there are other reasons the observation (is it strongly tested enough to call it a "law"?) about taking an average of people's best estimates doesn't apply here, or is being applied in a completely non-scientific way. From the summary of the article in this video, it sounds like the authors of the paper try to address this, but there is no ground truth to the tempo of a piece of music. They may have a hypothesis that people perceive an ideal tempo, but I cannot believe this is scientifically established. Secondly, it is an assumption that Beethoven's chosen tempo would be that supposedly "ideal tempo". I guess one could argue that for the average of a large enough sample of music that composers' chosen tempo should correlate well with the "ideal tempo", but this is now thin-air speculation on stop of thin-air speculation. It's interesting speculation, but it's in no way scientific. I'm not specifically knocking the authors' of this paper, rather I'm knocking whole fields of study and the way their research is presented. It's the norm that research is given the guise of science through applying a few scientific methods or invoking some scientific principle while overall the whole thing is very unscientific.
41:17 I skipped to that time directly (I can't stand their English pronunciation). So, when I heard the "authors" (as they call them, because what's the use of a carrear when they can call you "author" diminishing your education) should have refuted all previous arguments I was like: "What the hell? Why ANYONE in their right mind should keep removing and resurrecting dead hypothesis over and over and over and over and over and over and over again instead of going forward?" Also, I'd love to know which carrear do these guys have to compare.
I'm sorry, but this seems to have the same "agenda" as many other quick fixes, that of keeping metronome research vague and inconclusive. Because, the last thing we want is to have Beethoven say that everyone is doing it wrong, and play how he wanted to be heard...
I thought the article made a pretty good point actually. One thing that bothers be about the whole sing vs double beat debate is that if there was a change, when was it? Wouldn't it be well documented if it was such a huge convention shift? And wouldn't there be early and late adaptors? I don't know if you've ever made a video on this. At the end of the day I always play things at the pace I prefer to, that's why I like Bach. Nobody to tell me I'm too slow or too fast.
Ok, i have a question regarding the period right before the invention of the metronome. We have treaties like Turks regarding music and tempo. But how do those people presented tempo in terms of bpm too. But how exactly did they measire the bpm when they were not using metronome nor pendulum ? Were those indications precise ?
If you look for "tempo ordinario" in this channel, you should find several videos talking about tempo in Baroque and Classical music. Those can be a good introduction - you can also ask @Wim whether he has time to make a playlist in this direction. I would also follow the next challenge where a piece by Haydn is played and the musicians have to argue for their choice of tempo. :-)
@@claudiabatcke1312 Nono, I understand the theoric concept. I just don't know how exactly they did to measure and count the tempo. I understand that is possible for you to count measures in one minute with a clock. But that doesnt seem very precise. Or there was other ways to do it ?
From 10 minutes. The average of 34 "incorrect' tempi is still wrong over the years is still wrong, and two "right tempi" wouldn't fix the average. You can argue minimum (slowest speed), median (denoting or relating to a value or quantity lying at the midpoint of a frequency distribution of observed values or quantities, such that there is an equal probability of falling above or below it), mean (average), standard deviation ( a measure of the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of values. A low standard deviation indicates that the values tend to be close to the mean (also called the expected value) of the set, while a high standard deviation indicates that the values are spread out over a wider range.), and maximum (fastest tempo), etc., how could statistical analysis give a definite answer as to the composers mindset.
beethovens music never had any tempo. His compositions are eternal, and so they cant have a tempo, because they would come to an end. checkmate tempo-ists
This is hilarious! As a science journalist I spend time doing what you are doing here, namely detecting BS in peer reviewed papers. As a proponent of the intelligent design hypothesis, it's mostly biology papers defending evolution I read, but as a composer I have never imagined that this kind of BS could occur in the world of music. Maybe instead of peer review we should just call it pee review. Imagine that people are receiving a salary for producing that kind af crap, - but still, it's kind of entertaining to read.
1) Wind machine five times (the mechanism will not allow more windings thanks to a special gear); 2) Set the nut along the rod corresponding to the beat rate per minute that you are looking for; 3) Set the rod in motion. 4) If the machine should stop, see step one, and repeat. Beethoven, why couldn't you figure this out when a not so especially intelligent 3 year-old I personally knew could operate an iphone? I was actually impressed watching her move through the screens, yet she couldn't yet spell her own name or even read. P.S., The Maelzel's Metronome machine's scale (the one Maelzel was able to patent, e.g.: 40, 42, 44, ..., 80, 84, 88, ..., etc.) is set to _BEATS_ per minute (bpm), not _REVOLUTIONS_ per minute (rpm) like every other machine we use on planet earth (such as clocks, engines, etc. Caveat: some use frequency, which is Hz, and that is still "cycles" or "revolutions" per second). SBT is bpm, and WBMP is rpm. At one time, I thought that WBMP was a period measurment; however, having found where bpm and T meet (at "2 radical* 30" if you're interested), I found that 2 radical 30 beats per minute is equal to 2 radical 30 T (or the period in seconds), the WBMP would be "radical 30" rpm. For example, if you set the Metronome at 80 (bpm), it revolves only 40 times per minute, and T = 3/2 seconds. Obviously 40 is not equal to 3/2 seconds; however, If you multiply, 3/2 by 40, you will get your 60-second minute. Of course, in WBMP, the pendulum swings imitate the arm beating time (or the conductor's baton). A full cycle of the conductor's baton is not complete till it returns from wence it started. For those with 3/4 time signature questions, etc., it is _EASY PEASY_ to beat in triple time with the arm or baton. Watch Wim's video on the subject and even Mr. Rotem had a very visual explanation of how that works. So, good luck on your journey! * "radical" means square root.
One more fun fact: you may not build a metronome (double-weighted pendulum) that can beat slower than 2 radical 30 beats per minute and still remain "upright". Because of a concept in physics known as the centre of gravity, the metronome set at few than 2 radical 30 beats per minute or 2 radical 30 seconds will be lopsided. It cannot regain a point of upright equilibrium. TADA! Interesting how that works. Maybe I'll explain it one day if you're interested.
@@thomashughes4859 Of course there must a point where the raising of the upper weight moves the centre of gravity of the rod above the swivel point making the rod unbalanced; I'll trust your calculations that this happens at 2 * √30 bpm. Then, 2 * √30 ≃ 11 bmp which is pretty slow (both under SBT and under WBMP), so that this does not look like a significant limitation. Thanks for bringing up this interesting observation, though!
always the mediocre Dodo birds of academia want to bring down the few truly great eagles of humanity to a level beneath them in order to pass judgment - when in truth they are not fit or worthy to even gaze in the direction of such greatness, let alone make any assessments of it
I always believe that the only correct "metronome" is the ear ! ones own interpretation. How can anyone suggest Beethoven wasn't smart enough to use a Metronome, how ridiculous.
So imagine you've used your ear to come up with an ideal tempo. Now, a fellow musician asks you what tempo you came up with? How do you answer their question?
0:00 Italian punctuality
1:52 Presentation of the article, the coming back of an old theory
4:55 How the video will proceed
7:00 Beethoven's problematic metronome marks
10:00 The average tempi of modern performances as a possible solution?
13:05 Beethoven not able to use his metronome properly?
14:35 Modern performances cannot be considered representative of Beethoven's intentions
16:40 Why Beethoven couldn't have misused his metronome unless he was...not so smart
19:38 Beethoven was in direct contact with the inventor of the metronome
21:41 Beethoven's metronome marks were never considered problematic in the 19th century
24:02 Beethoven's 9th symphony: a proof that he was confused?
27:00 Academic circular reasoning: what first was an assumption, now is a fact
31:10 Beethoven inexperienced with the metronome?
31:29 No, he was meticulous and expected the same from performers of his music
34:23 "Problematic" metronome marks are not Beethoven's trademark only
36:05 The importance of context!
40:30 Common bias towards the metronome
41:17 A missing overview of past researches. Also WBMP completely ignored.
45:13 Recent studies consider Beethoven's MM accurate. It should have been mentioned at least why the authors don't think that's true.
46:38 Beethoven pointed out mistakes to his editors all the time
47:50 Even the fastest performances struggle to reach Beethoven's MM
48:58 But music critics of the 19th century reported an increase in tempo
54:36 Why is every solution that slows the music down considered impossible?
55:55 The importance of taking period instruments into account of such research
58:13 The world seems not yet ready for a musical reconstruction of Beethoven's intentions
58:25 We are open to discussion
1) PLOS ONE is a peer-reviewed open source publication originally from San Francisco, CA
2) What these guys have done is to analyze tempo bias a function of tempo itself for several different metronome mechanical deviations (mass, friction, misalignment, inclination) by computer simulations.
3) When comparing all these deviations to the common perception of how these works are played by many musicians and directors, this “common bias” does not adjust well to the calculated biases from metronome defects
4) However the “perception bias” adjusts well to a shift in the tempo which, for the markings analyzed, could be explained by Beethoven reading from the bottom edge of the metronome slide
5) Your “Beethoven wouldn’t be so stupid” can be applied the same to your theory of Beethoven counting 2 beats to mark a tempo. However, what sounds stupid is the tempi you use when playing Beethoven. Your theory doesn’t make sense unless Beethoven wanted to deliberately ruin all his work (hint: he was not that stupid). And so many excellent musicians and directors cannot be wrong as you imply in many of your videos to make your pet theory right.
The Battle of the Accents.
I like a mechanical metronome versus a digital metronome or click-track.
The swinging arm visually provides a visual cue.
Dear Wim and Alberto. For part of my life I have been employed as a medical researcher. Music is the greatest of art forms, the worst of vocations, but the greatest education. I have spoken with many outstanding medical doctors (some I met at the New York Academy of Science, when I was invited to attend a lecture) who have written excellent medical papers with breakthrough and even revolutionary discoveries in the area of Cancer research and Stem Cell research and treatment. Their works never got past the the editorial peer review panels, ergo the research never saw the light of day. One medical doctor spent 5 years in submitting papers and and even letters to the editor, still...("crickets").
And yet I see rather poorly written papers in Toxicology with experiments to prove a point rather than experiments, the results, and a possible conclusion, the former which is published, accepted, and then cited, while latter does receive a passing reference. I recall one paper, in which the fish species studied for injury was exposed to a toxin levels never found in nature, in a sewage outflow, but only in an aquarium at levels so enormously high that the artificiality should have disqualified the work and the journal publication rejected. However, it was accepted as the prevalent viewpoint accepted the conclusion in favor among the discipline at that time which continues to this day. (I read the paper, did the math, and having a hobby of keeping freshwater fish, and knowledge of what was present in this species habitat down to the chemical composition of the water, the adjacent foliage in and out of the water, It took less than 5 minutes to find a major flaw and refute the study for a client.
And what does this have to do with Whole Beat Theory? I see a parallel with Musicology community in the acceptance of new ideas that challenge accepted "belief systems." And that includes the "Cult of Single Beat" and the promulgation of these apologists' purported belief that Music was initially faster in the early 19th century and then slowed down over time. However, to your research has any mid to late 19th century contemporary quotes discoveries of composers, musicians, pedagogues stuck out like a sore thumb, such as "pianists, they don't make them like they used to, they can't play as fast as before" or music critics bewail that musicians (professionals) can't measure up to their predecessors?
Submissions to musicological journals or defending a doctoral dissertations tn the University level deal with similar concerns as physician medical researchers: bias, lethargy towards new ideas and concepts, and any challenges of conventional "wisdom." In essence musical conservatism which maintains the status quo.
Authors of new ideas often come against emulation of older scholarship dating backwards from the 1950's, formed on ideas all the way to the latter part of the 19th Century or early 20th Century. Composer biographies suffer from this. If I meet a certain announcer by the initials Jim Svejda who continues that W F Bach was an alcoholic (his source a fictional novel), although I am a pacifist, if he repeats that bogus claim in my presence, I swear I will punch him in the nose. But that was the belief back in the 1970s.
This presents a perpetuation of outdated values and preoccupations (or should I write obsessions), and the establishment of a "cut and dry," "poured in cement," "chiseled in stone" belief"systems, rather than critical challenges back and forth in dialogue when incongruity however large is presented after the advent of a theory's general acceptance.
In other words, when flaws become apparent with single beat become raised in discourse, the mainstream schools offer patently ridiculous excuses to support their condemnation of the idea of Whole Beat Theory, rather than a valid refutation. What I can't understand is why a discipline that checks water marks on manuscript paper, does chemical analysis of ink, that uses computers to analyze compositions discovered as being valid new discoveries, or mis-attribution, etc., doesn't invoke scientific method and critical thinking skills, to test whole beat and single beat. However, for to many individuals, single beat is a religion and woe upon those who dare blaspheme against it. Good luck in your Heresy in the future.
Upon re-reading my reply, I forgot, Handwriting analysis. Please pardon the omission under "...why a discipline that checks water marks on manuscript paper..."
I haven't watched the whole video and don't know if it's mentioned in it, but Beethoven wrote a canon An Mälzel Op 156, where the text is "ta ta ta ta ta...". In Single Beat every SECOND beat matches a "ta". In Double Beat, the singer sings exactly to the metronomes ticking. This is a good proof that Beethoven used the Double Beat counting!
I'm still waiting for a tempo reconstruction of Beethoven's Violin Concerto, especially the second part.
@@JérémyPresle Oh, that's easy, Czerny gives quarter = 126.
There's a spanish youtuber, Jamie Altozano, very famous amongst the spanish and latin communities. He just uploaded a video regarding this theory. He mentions AuthenticSound along the way, which I think it's a good thing, but he makes it sound like it's just another theory, no real depth in it. And this is the same for the entire spanish speaking community, they're amazed about this theory just because of the numbers put into it. I've seen this thing shared so many times, and I'll keep seeing it. If only they could spare the time to see your research. Even if they do, some are very skeptical about it. When I talk about your research and your channel with some of my closest friends and colleagues, they seem to accept it, but most of them will not apply, or they're not really interested in understanding.
It 's hard to understand why people in this domain jump on something that doesn't make any sense at all, and reject for whatever reason the most simple and logic explanation that immediately make ALL 'problems' dissapear
@@AuthenticSoundy, I disagree. I learn about your theory way before the one from the spanish investigators and at the time I really checked a lot of your videos and follow your approach and performances. I need to say that I always felt that neither Beethoven's supposed one-bit tempo or your doble-bit approach was musically ok. Both approach doesn't sound right to me (I'm not by any means a musician, but I studied several years of music, besides played piano and flute).
But I recently was exposed to the spanish theory and it really blew my mind, because IT MAKE SENSE. And here I need to say that the arguments they give are scientific and you really need to understand math to fellow the conclusions. I recommend you check that before calling an investigation "bullshit" or questioning if the publicación was peer-reviewd. That was not only disrespectfull, but actually show ignorance, because you couldn't understand (actually you didn't care to understand it also, as I saw in this video) the maths that are supporting the theory.
It is difficult to convince anybody of your theory with that lack of humildity.
@@quothalasnmms, no viste el video verdad? xd. Justo da argumento tras argumento por lo cual es totalmente implausible que Beethoven no supiera usar el metronomo, principalmente porque podía consultar al inventor en cualquier momento, y que el inventor se tomó la molestia de explicarle TODO y aclarar todas sus dudas. Ahora bien, eso de las matemáticas... Me parece que estas cayendo en un tipo de falacia de autoridad, del tipo: "si hay un modelo matemático detrás significa que es verdad"
Sorry to divert from topic but it is incredible to me that can express your arguments on such a complex topic so eloquently in a non native language. Fluent in English, German, Italian and Music👍
How could Beethoven not know the Metronome and its usage. He knew Maezel, Maezel worked with Beethoven to compose a piece of Music. In 1813 Maelzel and Beethoven were on familiar terms. Maelzel conceived and musically sketched Wellington's Victory, or The Battle of Vitoria for which Beethoven composed the music to be played on Maelzel's 'mechanical orchestra', the panharmonicon; they also gave several concerts, at which Beethoven's symphonies were interspersed with the performances of Maelzel's automatons. In 1814, Beethoven wrote a deposition claiming that Maelzel had defrauded him, claiming ownership of this music, and illegally staging performances of it from an inaccurate transcription. Beethoven described Maelzel in this deposition as "a rude, churlish man, entirely devoid of education or cultivation". In 1816 Maezel was in Paris setting up a Metronome Factory. By 1817, Beethoven and Maelzel appear to have reconciled. Beethoven wrote glowingly of Maelzel's metronome and declared''...I have long purposed giving up those inconsistent terms allegro, andante, adagio, and presto; and Maelzel's metronome furnishes us with the best opportunity of doing so...." (Beethoven in a letter to Hofrath von Mosel)..."I here pledge myself no longer to make use of them in any of my new compositions...In our country, where music has become a national requirement, and where the use of the metronome must be enjoined on every village schoolmaster, the best plan would be for Maelzel to endeavour to sell a certain number of metronomes by subscription, at the present higher prices, and as soon as the number covers his expenses, he can sell the metronomes demanded by the national requirements at so cheap a rate, that we may certainly anticipate their universal use and circulation. Of course some persons must take the lead in giving an impetus to the undertaking. You may safely rely on my doing what is in my power, and I shall be glad to hear what post you mean to assign to me in the affair. " (That didn't last long) / In 1817 Maelzel left Paris for Munich, and then again took up his abode in Vienna. I believe there's was plenty opportunity to be instructed by Maezel. Wim has referenced the joke canon:
Ta ta ta, lieber Mälzel (dear Maelzel )
ta ta ta, lebet wohl, sehr wohl (farewell as well)
ta ta ta, Banner der Zeit (standard time)
ta ta ta, großer Metronom (a great metronome)
ta ta ta ta ta.
This insignificant tune become part of the second movement of the Eighth Symphony in which Beethoven was working at that time. The melody has a rhythmic accompaniment suggestive of chronometer.
Beethoven visited Mälzel's workshop frequently and their friendship was strengthened when the inventor made a trumpet for the already partially deaf composer.
Unfortunately I think this article is gonna stick for a while. I read it because many pianists in my social media shared as "the solution to Beethoven's metronome indications". :(
Thank you both for taking the time to do this video!
Feel free to share this video with them 😉
@@albertosanna4539 Already done! ;)
Finalmente, um violonista assistindo o canal! E um brasileiro!
First, and dubious because the slowest 50 wouldn't be possible as the nut would have come off the top, yes? I am going by memory here.
It's rather funny how people are perfectly willing to ascribe superhuman qualities to Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, etc. except when it comes to knowing how to use a metronome in the correct manner or giving an appropriate tempo to their compositions.
@@herrdoktorjohan And that the number on the rod is obscured ... Who knew?
@@JérémyPresle And the nut is not wide enough to accound for more than a 21% deviation in this case shewn; besides, the moderns will to play some 50% higher than WBMP or lower than SBT anyway, so this doesn't quite cut it.
Very dubious me too. I read the article (well, half of it, then I could not stand any more of it!) and it was rather surprising:
- the "mathematical model" is quite superfluous (just look at the thing!),
- the complex and "state-of-the-art" (cit.) software implementation supposed to detect the tempo is totally superfluous (and overkill: just take the movement time length - which is usually already written on the CD - and divide by the number of beats, which is easily derived from the number of measures!).
- the distinction between HI / "HI inspired" (!) / "Romantic" (!!) performances is subjective and anyway not used in calculations; so, why?
So, the whole suspiciously looks like an attempt to "épater le bourgeios", more than a reliable research.
Finally, that the average of modern performances is the "reference truth" is an assumption ungrounded and unproven.
@Thomas Hughes : the number at the nut lower edge is obscured in many models, but not in all and possibly not in (some of? many of?) the earliest models where the nut was triangular. Still, as you correctly point out, a proposal should not only account for the average case, it should primarily account for the extremes!
Also, this idea not only assumes the Beethoven was too stupid to correctly use a metronome, but also too stupid were Czerny, Mosheles, Chopin, Fink, and all (well, no, not all, only the majority!) of their contemporaries, who had nothing to except to those metronome indications, as well as their publishers, who kept printing and reprinting them in their editions... The only bright minds are some today pianists and conductors: very gratifying...
You know, the manuscript piece they showed says "108" and "120"; however, there is no note value listed, no = sign, and the "Maelzel" is not completely legible. Looking very closely, one might make out 12.0 inches or zoll ... in fact, Rhen. zoll ... ? 108 beats per minute is exactly 12 inches (12.07 USCS inches or 11.75 Rhen. inches) ... hm ... other editions are 1/4 = 88, so WTH?!? Fascinating!
Sadly in today’s publish-or-perish research world, quantity is more important than quality, so you have to take research articles with a pinch of salt - especially those in low impact factor, open access journals. Also, researchers tend to avoid controversial topics and rather go for hot topics to increase chances of getting published, and ultimately getting funding. The fact that whole beat does not appear in research articles might not necessarily mean that musicologists consider it BS, but rather that they don’t want to jeopardise their academic career. That’s why this channel is so important, because once whole beat exists as a practice, the academic world cannot ignore it any more.
Well, from childhood I knew that Beethoven was deaf but only now - thanks to this article - I came to know about his blindness (not being able to read the MM)... We have in my country a funny song about a man who is sitting and reading in the newspaper about himself many (false) things, but - (in the refrain) "he didn't even know that he was like that"... poor Beethoven... It is the performers, the conductors and the audience to decide who he really was... As for the publishing of this article: One of my university's lecturers (many years ago) in musicology, told us: "I don't care if you choose as a subject of research to investigate the tip of a table, as long as you're doing your research properly, according to serious research's rules". This article should not be published in a serious magazine - you are absolutely right, Wim - maybe only in a specific genre in fantasy literature (and I'm not sure about it either). However, I'm not blaming the writers, but the lack (or insufficient) of scientific and logical thinking in the educational systems in some countries.
Ok, I agree the paper lacks a better literature review and that connecting the notes on a score to the proof that he was confused was a long shot. But after taking a look at your WBMP theroy, honestly, I find it easier to believe that Beethoven noted the lower mark of the weight (by mistake or some sort of conviction) than the conclusions of your research. If your theory is correct than accounts of Beethoven's concert of 22 December 1808 are all wrong. The concert would have lasted 7 or 8 hours. It just doesn't add up. And maybe Paganini wrote music for me to play, he was a nice guy and didn't mind playing that fast. I could go on, but ok, I stop with shallow arguments. You also criticised the fact the authors didn't mention your work. Well, as far as I could check you two don't have a lot of academic publication (correct me if Im wrong). As a musician and academic looking at both methods and conclusions, I find it easier to buy the "Beethoven's mistake" (although I agree the paper has many problems already pointed by you and academic colleagues in the comments), than your WBMP theory, that when faced with some trivial facts just falls apart like a house of cards would. Not because I believe in their conclusions, but because I found yours a lot less robust. And I think this paper in the end is a very good thing for you as well, as it may attract more adapts to your theory. As for me, I'm just an outside that was recently exposed to this discussion. I listened to what the authors had to say and listened to what you had to say. After doing so, I will keep on with my business, listening happily to the "mainstream" interpretations out there.
@@JérémyPresle true, I agree that Beethoven would have realized the right way of using the metronome for multiple reasons. My point is that the paper's conclusion is bad, but that WBMP is worse.
I took a quick look at the video about the 1808 concert, looked at the tables and then read the first comment of the video. That simple comment alone is enough to make the house of cards fall there. Lots of work to try to fit a flawed theory.
"AS for paganini, do you think that if it is played slower, it would be easy?" Yes, I do think so (not easy, easier, I assume it was a typo of yours).
Don't worry man, I already deleted the comment and appologized there. In fact no need to keep discussing, this is not my thing, I won't be commenting here anymore. Just got surprised with all this wpmb world. But hey, we are all free to believe in what we want. And I honestly wish you all the best and hopefully I can come across smt on wbmp that will convince me in the future. But that's not the case for the moment. So I can just wish us all a happy musical journey, in whichever tempo we choose to play/listen to :) cheers
Dear L.L., first the WBMP is not a 'theory', it is a practical conversion of metronome marks. In other words: it is one of the two possibilities a metronome has. SIngle Beat lacks that quality however, since a huge amount of MMs remain impossible and in that regard it is SB that is a theoretical concept more than a practical one. The 1808 concert would not last 8 hours in WBMP, it lasts just about 4 hours as mentioned. In SB however, the concert would lack two entire symphonies of the size of the 6th. Here is a 30 minute documentary I made on the famous concert: ruclips.net/video/gsntpykv1jQ/видео.html. Hope that helps (P.S. I cannot help of reading your YT name as Lang Lang :-) )
Dear @@AuthenticSound, yes I looked at your 1808 video. Also looked at the first comment, which pretty much puts in check your whole argument. You should reply that one.
And for this WBMP theory (yes, a theory), I would suggest adding to your research the reading of the metronome patent itself, in which Maelzel says: "... which I denominate a metronome or musical time-keeper, is for the purpose of counting or beating the time of music, or in other words, for dividing the time of music, or marking equal portions of intervals of time. These equal intervals of time are measured by the vibrations (remember this concept) of a particular kind of pendulum, whereof each viabration is indicated in an audible manner to the performer, by a tick or drop of an escapement. (the pendulum is just the means to achieve the goal: the tick). And he continues by saying that: "By this means the performance of music will be improved, because the intervals of time will be always referred to the same standard, viz . the number of vibrations (=tick) in a minute; and the equality of the said intervals will be more perfectly attained by this means, than by the ordinary mode of counting or beating equal intervals of time by the hand or foot."
So you can see that a vibration for Maelzel equals a tick (audible), and that it intends to substitute the hand or the foot beating in practice. Therefore, would the people without a metronome in Beethoven's time practice with two foot-steps for every quarter?
And now the argument comes back to you: if Beethoven was smart enough to ask Maelzel about which marking to write down, maybe he could also get some advice on interpreting the output signals of the device. After all, Maelzel was pretty clear about that in the patent.
How can I reply to a comment that simply puts the facts aside? It does NOT appear the concert was played in a tempo somewhere in between, quite on the contrary. if I were to remake that video today, I would leave out the break even between the parts, since academia concerts were not organized in that way. Without a break, the entire concerts fits perfectly in the WB tempi. That simply is a fact, and it won't go away with slogans or generalisations. In all conversations about this issue, it goes always like this: once I ask someone to deal with facts and details, all is ok to deviate. Well, it doesn't work like that. idealy, we would be on a stage or in a room, with a piano, 200 scores and a metronome. And the audience would have a great time.
Hi Wim, can you make an "off-topic" video about how to study a new piece? I am very curious to know your method.
Thank you, Antonio
Great suggestion!
@@AuthenticSound Thank you. Looking forward for your video!
I think the authors' point isn't that the conductors are trying to find Beethoven's tempo, but that they are naturally, perhaps unconsciously, trying to find the "ideal tempo" of the music. But there are other reasons the observation (is it strongly tested enough to call it a "law"?) about taking an average of people's best estimates doesn't apply here, or is being applied in a completely non-scientific way. From the summary of the article in this video, it sounds like the authors of the paper try to address this, but there is no ground truth to the tempo of a piece of music. They may have a hypothesis that people perceive an ideal tempo, but I cannot believe this is scientifically established. Secondly, it is an assumption that Beethoven's chosen tempo would be that supposedly "ideal tempo". I guess one could argue that for the average of a large enough sample of music that composers' chosen tempo should correlate well with the "ideal tempo", but this is now thin-air speculation on stop of thin-air speculation. It's interesting speculation, but it's in no way scientific. I'm not specifically knocking the authors' of this paper, rather I'm knocking whole fields of study and the way their research is presented. It's the norm that research is given the guise of science through applying a few scientific methods or invoking some scientific principle while overall the whole thing is very unscientific.
41:17 I skipped to that time directly (I can't stand their English pronunciation). So, when I heard the "authors" (as they call them, because what's the use of a carrear when they can call you "author" diminishing your education) should have refuted all previous arguments I was like: "What the hell? Why ANYONE in their right mind should keep removing and resurrecting dead hypothesis over and over and over and over and over and over and over again instead of going forward?" Also, I'd love to know which carrear do these guys have to compare.
I'm sorry, but this seems to have the same "agenda" as many other quick fixes, that of keeping metronome research vague and inconclusive. Because, the last thing we want is to have Beethoven say that everyone is doing it wrong, and play how he wanted to be heard...
I thought the article made a pretty good point actually. One thing that bothers be about the whole sing vs double beat debate is that if there was a change, when was it? Wouldn't it be well documented if it was such a huge convention shift? And wouldn't there be early and late adaptors? I don't know if you've ever made a video on this. At the end of the day I always play things at the pace I prefer to, that's why I like Bach. Nobody to tell me I'm too slow or too fast.
55:00 Simple cause it's tempting and vainglorious.
What... Wait, couldn't he just ask the inventor? 🤭
Spoiler: Beethoven was one of the very first people to ever have a metronome. Would you be smart enough to not crash the very first car ever made?
👎bad argument
@@Ezekiel_Pianist proper argument, poor response
@@franzrogar not even gonna argue… your just wrong
@@Ezekiel_Pianist for not wanting to "argue" you just keep replying... The contradiction of humankind and a sore,,,,
Oooh, a nice long substantial looking one, I like those.
Ok, i have a question regarding the period right before the invention of the metronome. We have treaties like Turks regarding music and tempo. But how do those people presented tempo in terms of bpm too. But how exactly did they measire the bpm when they were not using metronome nor pendulum ? Were those indications precise ?
If you look for "tempo ordinario" in this channel, you should find several videos talking about tempo in Baroque and Classical music. Those can be a good introduction - you can also ask @Wim whether he has time to make a playlist in this direction. I would also follow the next challenge where a piece by Haydn is played and the musicians have to argue for their choice of tempo. :-)
@@claudiabatcke1312 Nono, I understand the theoric concept. I just don't know how exactly they did to measure and count the tempo. I understand that is possible for you to count measures in one minute with a clock. But that doesnt seem very precise. Or there was other ways to do it ?
From 10 minutes. The average of 34 "incorrect' tempi is still wrong over the years is still wrong, and two "right tempi" wouldn't fix the average. You can argue minimum (slowest speed), median (denoting or relating to a value or quantity lying at the midpoint of a frequency distribution of observed values or quantities, such that there is an equal probability of falling above or below it), mean (average), standard deviation ( a measure of the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of values. A low standard deviation indicates that the values tend to be close to the mean (also called the expected value) of the set, while a high standard deviation indicates that the values are spread out over a wider range.), and maximum (fastest tempo), etc., how could statistical analysis give a definite answer as to the composers mindset.
Interesting.
25:00 this actually sound like the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" Maybe I'm rushing but, in fact I guess all this article is it. Why on earth?
beethovens music never had any tempo. His compositions are eternal, and so they cant have a tempo, because they would come to an end. checkmate tempo-ists
So, why did he put cadences in them, not to mention codas?
@@anthonymccarthy4164 sorry was a joke
@@123Joack I have no sense of humour. Except while playing piano.
Lol.
This is hilarious! As a science journalist I spend time doing what you are doing here, namely detecting BS in peer reviewed papers. As a proponent of the intelligent design hypothesis, it's mostly biology papers defending evolution I read, but as a composer I have never imagined that this kind of BS could occur in the world of music. Maybe instead of peer review we should just call it pee review. Imagine that people are receiving a salary for producing that kind af crap, - but still, it's kind of entertaining to read.
0:29 • ಠ_ಠ
In fact, I think we Mexicans are even later still ... just keep the tortillas coming!!!
@@thomashughes4859Ahorita
1) Wind machine five times (the mechanism will not allow more windings thanks to a special gear);
2) Set the nut along the rod corresponding to the beat rate per minute that you are looking for;
3) Set the rod in motion.
4) If the machine should stop, see step one, and repeat.
Beethoven, why couldn't you figure this out when a not so especially intelligent 3 year-old I personally knew could operate an iphone? I was actually impressed watching her move through the screens, yet she couldn't yet spell her own name or even read.
P.S., The Maelzel's Metronome machine's scale (the one Maelzel was able to patent, e.g.: 40, 42, 44, ..., 80, 84, 88, ..., etc.) is set to _BEATS_ per minute (bpm), not _REVOLUTIONS_ per minute (rpm) like every other machine we use on planet earth (such as clocks, engines, etc. Caveat: some use frequency, which is Hz, and that is still "cycles" or "revolutions" per second). SBT is bpm, and WBMP is rpm. At one time, I thought that WBMP was a period measurment; however, having found where bpm and T meet (at "2 radical* 30" if you're interested), I found that 2 radical 30 beats per minute is equal to 2 radical 30 T (or the period in seconds), the WBMP would be "radical 30" rpm. For example, if you set the Metronome at 80 (bpm), it revolves only 40 times per minute, and T = 3/2 seconds. Obviously 40 is not equal to 3/2 seconds; however, If you multiply, 3/2 by 40, you will get your 60-second minute. Of course, in WBMP, the pendulum swings imitate the arm beating time (or the conductor's baton). A full cycle of the conductor's baton is not complete till it returns from wence it started. For those with 3/4 time signature questions, etc., it is _EASY PEASY_ to beat in triple time with the arm or baton. Watch Wim's video on the subject and even Mr. Rotem had a very visual explanation of how that works. So, good luck on your journey!
* "radical" means square root.
One more fun fact: you may not build a metronome (double-weighted pendulum) that can beat slower than 2 radical 30 beats per minute and still remain "upright". Because of a concept in physics known as the centre of gravity, the metronome set at few than 2 radical 30 beats per minute or 2 radical 30 seconds will be lopsided. It cannot regain a point of upright equilibrium. TADA! Interesting how that works. Maybe I'll explain it one day if you're interested.
@@thomashughes4859 Of course there must a point where the raising of the upper weight moves the centre of gravity of the rod above the swivel point making the rod unbalanced; I'll trust your calculations that this happens at 2 * √30 bpm.
Then, 2 * √30 ≃ 11 bmp which is pretty slow (both under SBT and under WBMP), so that this does not look like a significant limitation. Thanks for bringing up this interesting observation, though!
@@MaurizioMGavioli yeah just FYI. The pendulum would be about 30 metres long.
always the mediocre Dodo birds of academia want to bring down the few truly great eagles of humanity to a level beneath them in order to pass judgment - when in truth they are not fit or worthy to even gaze in the direction of such greatness, let alone make any assessments of it
That is why the authors didn't even bother to ask Wim or Alberto ... they would be blind currently trying to see the eagles against the sun.
I always believe that the only correct "metronome" is the ear ! ones own interpretation. How can anyone suggest Beethoven wasn't smart enough to use a Metronome, how ridiculous.
So imagine you've used your ear to come up with an ideal tempo. Now, a fellow musician asks you what tempo you came up with? How do you answer their question?
Excelent rebuttal.
:-O. Scandalous. Wim! (But memorable).