Also if the metronome numbers were only a distant goal to aspire to but never to reach, it wouldn't make sense to write them down and copy so accurately (most cases up to the 1's column of digits!), and combined with the very intricate system of describing tempo feel (allegro assai vs allegro and so on) makes the claim even more absurd.
Excellent analysis. The natural evolution- progression of the arts, science and society makes it clear that in the later half of the nineteenth century musical artists were exploring and preforming faster tempos to enhance the experience and status . However with this in mind it doesn't mean that the newer interpretation of tempo is the correct one in regards to earlier composers.
This is speculation, but I wonder how much early recordings affected performing practices, rather than reflected them. The early cylinder records had extremely limited space and even early flat records had only a few minutes worth of space. The records were also hard and expensive to make, as you can't copy a copy for long before the sound deteriorates and you need another recording. So maybe, just maybe, performers were to speed up even further in order to fit Revolutionary etude on one disc for example?
Good thoughts! The other issue too is the recording and playback devices were mechanical too and were subject to faster speeds. This will affect the tempo and in some cases too the pitch. In some ways we're lucky today with near perfect recording and playback, but in other cases we lose the human aspect of music as well with our perfect and sterile recordings..
Excellent point. This thought occurred to me too, and I believe that I read somewhere that this actually was the case, even after the advent of the long-playing record in the late 1940s.
@@PieterHanszoonBruin1973 But no one suggested single beat tempi becoming a thing because of records. People most definitely played fast before them. But maybe they did indeed increase the speed slightly in the early days of recording to fit that few minutes of space? By the time 78 rpm came out, recording itself had been evolving for decades, and that format was a huge improvement in record length.
@@PieterHanszoonBruin1973 Why you keep arguing while we're in agreement? As above stated. "No one suggested single beat tempi becoming a thing because of records. People most definitely played fast before them."
Look at any sports or human activity. Current pianists are much much more skilled that those of centuries ago. The piano rolls confirm this. This doesn't answer the tempo debate. But clearly pianists back in the days of Beethoven, Chopin, and Liszt were far inferior to what musical schools produce today.
There is one link to early 19th century tempo: Brahms playing Brahms in 1889 on an Edison cylinder. Brahms was born in the early 1830s, so he got his musical embossing in the time of late Chopin, young and medium Liszt and so on. So, he wasn't just a student of a student of a student of an early 19th century composter, he was an early 19th composer himself (at least as far as tempo is concerned).
There’s a big problem with historical recordings though. For example there are early recordings of Sarasate performing his own pieces on violin and they are far too even fast by today standards. The reason being that they could only record x amount of time and they had to rush and cut parts to make the pieces fit. Not sure about Brahms though.
Fascinating question this Wim and many thanks! Small correction regarding St Clothilde: the organ was enlarged in 1933 under Tournemire but its adapted original console (now in Antwerp) and key action remained in place (with the addition of a Barker machine to the Récit) until the rebuilding of 1962, also by Beuchet under the direction of Langlais. Then it was electrified and the console replaced. The general illustration of Tournemire's role in the changing Franck's organ is, nonetheless, entirely valid!
I admire your conviction. I followed the link you sent me to this video. You make a lot of sense. It's complicated. I'm not sure what to believe anymore. However, I do believe that the answer isn't straightforward. There might be a bit of truth to everyone's opinion. What I struggle with is that such a major change in music has little to none undisputed evidence. Scraps here and there, but nothing that outright states this to be fact, whereas we have facts concerning far more insignificant matters. That said it's impossible for me to believe that composers such as Beethoven, Schumann and Chopin, extremely intelligent people couldn't use a metronome. Absurd. The difficult thing is that we might never really know. Keep up the work though. I'm still intrigued.
What about the recordings of Isidore Phillips on youtube, all of which sound much closer to SBT than WBMP? Wasn't Phillip one of the pianists you cited as proof of the WBMP practice in his time? Are we to believe that he, a major academic figure in piano playing, conveninently "switched" from WBMP to SBT before those recordings were made??
Good point. I also find it very strange that he takes Phillipe as evidence for a general speeding up, though in his own recordings he clearly takes the metronome numbers in single beat.
One of my favourite occasional excursions into musical history is to listen to recordings made by my fellow Australian, Nellie Melba, in the very early 20th century. The style of singing, and the style of orchestral playing by the world's best orchestras of that time are almost unrecognisable today. They might be on another planet! Yet they have two striking features. The first is showmanship. They were performing artists who could captivate a popular audience. The second is artistry. To listen to Melba singing a simple song like 'Home Sweet Home' or 'Auld Land Syne', even with the primitive recordings available, is a spine-chilling experience. The voice seems to penetrate deep into the soul. Here is great beauty, of kind we rarely experience today.
I think it is. If someone appeared today in the 19th century and start dancing something like kpop or eletronic beats, it would not only be wrong, but also would be scandalous.
Hi Wim , thank you for sharing your oppinion about the comparison between the tempo indicications of the 19th. century composers and the performances of the early 20th. century. What do you think, how will they play the music of our time in the future?.
What about the Brahms recording of him playing? Hard to imagine Brahms would abandon double beat if indeed it was common practice in mid 1800s considering his influence and circle of colleagues. Also, what about the recordings we have of Liszts students performing? We are only one step removed from Liszt himself - certainly having an audio recording of Brahms sitting next to recordings of Liszt students should be enough to at least complicate your ideas on double beat.
Hi! And what about those recordings not being played at the speed intended? What about recording media being of limited space so that performers had to play them super fast, and then the recordings would have to played slower to compensate?
@@epicduckrex994 You should be weary of how little skepticism you applied to Alberto's straw grasp. Brahms talks in the beginning of that recording. In a normal speaking tempo. He plays the piece very close to it's normal key, but if it were sped up to double the tempo maliciously (this is already a conspiracy theory at this point) the pitch would have absolutely been effected. They did not have the technology to pitch down those recordings. Oh well, one more nail in this dead on arrival theory's coffin.
The time between Chopin and the early 20th century recordings is about the same time as between Bartok and Helene Grimaud's recordings of Bartok. She is a student of a student of Bartok, but her interpretation of Bartok (lovely as it is), is quite different from Bartok's own recordings.
I recall hearing a story (perhaps apocryphal) of Brahms hearing another pianist playing his 1st piano concerto. The pianist had played it much faster than Brahms did and was highly apologetic to Brahms when he came backstage to meet the performer. Brahms reply was, "So, it can be played that way, too."
@@davidferencz9640 exactly. Composers didnt intend for players to play it exact. Thats why beethoven didnt put metronome marks on his later works. He even personally knew the person whom invented it
'What you say is immoral just because I disagree with it!', is called an 'ad hominem' attack. Every common person does it. Most people are incapable of attacking an argument with a logical argument, since that requires a certain degree of intellect, which has never been too common, so they attack the person instead.
Hi, Wim Winters: a tip for you. The Hertz :-) 1 oscillation/second, as a response to your worry of too many notes per second. Most pianists haven't thought out that A 440 Hz if brought down octaves, goes to 220 Hz, 110 Hz, 55 Hz, and to the lowest A on a piano: 27,5 Hz. Playing more than 27 notes per seconds would produce bass tones :-) We almost hear this on your digitally accelerated videos. Push them even faster, and tones will be produced. There are many examples of these warp-speed effects.
Musicians of the late 19th Century were not interested in preserving tradition. Gustav Mahler famously said that tradition is sloppiness. Each generation was expected to rethink the classics anew. We cannot expect that these people would have transmitted what they learned from their teachers. Great artists are always expected to be innovators who see things in new ways. This can certainly be expected from people who lived after the Industrial Revolution had spread to most of Europe. The newer modes of travel by steamboat, by train, by automobile, by airplane, and now by rocket have profoundly altered people's sense of time. We now live in a time when sprinting records are measured in hundredths of a second. Measuring anything in hundredths of a second 300 years ago would have been inconceivable for the average person.
@@AuthenticSound Here is the quote about that Mahler's saying books.google.cl/books?id=jUmBd7pwnQkC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Gustav+Mahler+famously+said+that+tradition+is+sloppiness&source=bl&ots=Gb9MkEPnIQ&sig=ACfU3U095A1I9cSI1WCYwocsBuyE8PCwNw&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGwYnb56ngAhXUGbkGHa_2BKIQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Gustav%20Mahler%20famously%20said%20that%20tradition%20is%20sloppiness&f=false
He meant the way that ''tradition'' was understood or translated under specific circumstances(that was about a debate actually).And also Mahler I think that sayd something very interesting like ''Tradition is preserving the fire not the ashes''.
I think Mr. Winters has a valid point about performance practice changing over time even when there is a direct link between a performer and his students. This is even true in the context of village music and art which is handed down through generations "person to person" using traditional "oral" transmission methods. Thus, if you listen to Transylvanian village music recorded by Bartók in the early 20th century, by Lajtha in the 1940's and by The Hungarian Academy of Sciences and others in the 1970's and beyond there is clearly significant stylistic development at play even in the most remote villages where one would think that traditional playing practices would be handed down in "pure" oral traditional form since outside contact with other musicians was extremely limited. Imagine then the transformation of performance practice that was likely for sophisticated urban "classical" musicians who were exposed to a veritable flood of ideas and examples from fabulous musicians from which to draw !! To me, it is entirely probable that we, as modern listeners, would be shocked if we could somehow hear the music of past eras before recordings were available as it was truly played. Of course, at this point, the best we can get to is an educated guess based on scores, literary references and analysis of period instruments. Whether or not these educated guesses are truly representative of past historical performance practices, they are nevertheless valuable windows into artistic possibilities.
you forgot something whivh had an enornous impact on the very recordings you are presenting as point of reference -or at least as a reliable evidance for the wsy they where avctually playong. but it is not the case: recording sessions- until 1924~, were done with the 3-5 min, which was the duration of playing 78 rpm record before one need to flipp it. this is one reason for the "flowerishing" of "virtuosity" : there was a pressing,,(..) need to squeeze rschmaninof "polka de w.r" to 3:21( ny simon barer) or to some of josef hofmanns early frantic recordings ( which are divine) of many works( inc. those of chopin 1+2 pianoconcertos- ehich is my favorit recordings of them, an its a rare example where the "interpretator," creates an amazing stracture that doesnt exists in the manuscript and (i have no doubts) that chopin would have add hofmann as co-composer, had he got the opportunity to listen to this marvelous.
There is one Pachmann recording of the black key etude,where in the beginning he says something like"Godowsky plays it like this" and than he starts playing as we would play it today.This is interessant because there is a recording of Pachmann of the first etude of Chopin in C major which he plays pretty close to a double beat reading.
Well... De Pachmann really played it in 2 minutes and something. Wim takes 4 minutes and a little more. What I find very interesting and inspiring is the liquid sound he produces, also the bel canto quality he achieves.
@hurbii, not too fast here, there are way more recordings in double beat than you might think! Just start your research with the Chopin nocturnes... even Bartok plays them in double beat. That's the problem in tempo research: too many people believe they really can add to the discussion but, it requires more than 5 minutes internet research!
@@AuthenticSound But, Wim, with all respect, playing very slow not necessarily means that a particular piece is played in double beat, take for instance his own compositions, Allegro Barbaro, for example, in the original edition de metronome marking is: 76-84, but he played this piece in 96-104 (according to László Somfai in the Henle Edition), way faster. In RUclips I just found the Nocturne Op. 27 N°1 (Lento Sostenuto) played by him, so I think is hard to say he played all the nocturnes that way. What do you think? Or could it be that for his own music que used single beat and for a particular composer double? I hope not to disturbing you. Sorry if that's the case.
Yes ! Our modern crusade for authentic is such a post-modern thing. Even if we take Beethoven: did he regret about harpsichord/clavichord era? Did he regret for old Stein pianoforte when he got Broadwood? I don't think so. Yet I think that studying historical context and circumstances of previous eras is important since we have the notion of "classical music" - something unheard of in previous centuries - you were supposed to learn from great music from great masters but in those times great music was written 30 years ago and great masters were still alive. It's a revelation when you see this graph - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_composers_by_era - and realize that there is a single uninterrupted sequence of great composers from Renaissance to Rachmaninoff, many of which knew each other, studied from each other. And despite all this progress Beethoven's music, or anyone else' music belongs to it's author. Maybe Beethoven would approve the level of technique of modern pianists, Steinway and Yamaha, but his music is his and it was written for the instruments of his time and public of his time and historical context of his time and tempi of his time. It's great music and can stand a lot of interpretation and has some universal value but I think that it makes sense most in historical context. And it's our tragedy in some sense (IMHO) that this era of les arts florissants finished and we have to dig back in time and play for decades and decades music which was played originally for about several years only. Schubert was a genius, he died young, what a pity, RIP, but then there were Mendelssohn and Chopin and Alkan and Liszt. What we (in general) do now is sometimes like a child licking candy wrapper after there is no more candy (it's more about mainstream classical music performers and listeners because if we include Renaissance and Baroque eras there is enough music to enjoy for several lives). And it's a hard work for listener too. Modern person cannot in general case understand or like classical music - it's the cause of decline of it's popularity - our context has moved too far and you need to learn, to work to even start to understand it and to like it.
I need to listen to this a second time.... but on first pass, thank you for the information about César Franck & thé rebuilding of the organ he performed on by his student. I will e-mail Anja about What distracted me from listening carefully at the first pass and hope you will get to read it as well.
Keyboard instruments, due to their longevity it seems, are rebuilt all the time with both good and bad results. The French harpsichord builders took some very sought after Ruckers instruments, and put them through what they called "a ravelment", meaning renovation. During the rebuilding process, they increased the scale to the customary 5-octave range, added in additional stops, and modified the action to engage or disengage the second manual. The double-manual instruments prior to this time were only a transposition keyboard and not for playing at the same time. What's interesting is adding the extra keys meant making the keys narrower than they were, and that narrower keyboard was used on all instruments going forward. Not all harpsichords remained as harpsichords either. The Frederick Collection www.frederickcollection.org has a fortepiano from ca. 1790 that was rebuilt from a harpsichord in 1790! The rebuilder kept the fancy woodwork and case, but extended the scale and put in the fortepiano action. The instrument, unlike other fortepianos I've heard, has an extremely light sound almost like a clavichord. :-) Unfortunately not all rebuilding has been for the good as modern materials, methods, and assumptions are made about older instruments. During the rediscovery of early instruments, many of these instruments were destroyed or altered so far that they are no longer playable. The rebuilder, perhaps due to making assumptions and ignorance, replaced hammers with modern equivalents, causing the action to become heavy due to the hammers being much larger than the earlier ones. In some cases, the action was again altered to compensate by adding in extra key weights, and this indiscretion has made many instruments unplayable as it has thrown the geometry out of whack on the pianos, causing the action to become heavy and inconsistent. In other cases, the old instruments are old on the outside and are nothing more than that with a modern action inside. During this process, the instruments lose their character as the cases are covered in plastic resin, and the so-called rebuilder has taken it upon himself to redesign scales, modify the soundboard ribbing, which is fully replaced anyway, and increased the string tension. What made the older instrument unique is totally lost in the rebuilding process. Each builder at the time, had unique designs, which lead to the unique sounds of their instruments, and all this is lost when rebuilt.
John Citron a long time ago, I was a subscriber to and attended of performances on restored instruments at the Yale Collection of Musical Instruments, located on Hillhouse Avenue in New Haven, CT. As well as restored instruments and performances several times a year, they had a museum of historic instruments of all kinds
@@dougr.2398 The Yale collection is quite nice. I have heard concerts (on the radio) recorded from there off and on. Unfortunately some of the Yale instruments, like those at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, have been through some "repairs" (note the quotes), and over time hopefully these repairs can be undone. The sad part is the sound we hear in these instruments is not what was intended. During the repair process, the earlier instruments became soulless, whispering giants as support structurers were put in and horrible gluing methods were used to repair bridges and ribs. I was told about this, much to my horror, by Michael Frederick who apprenticed with the late Frank Hubbard. What's interesting this whispery sound we hear on modern harpsichords was what came out of the rebuilding process, and made famous by Hubbard, Dowd, Herz, Zuckermann, and others in the Boston Harpsichord school. The European school has a much different sound, which is not accepted in the US unfortunately. The Fredericks are lucky to own a modern Harpsichord by a contemporary builder (Jeff - something? The name just left my brain!), from whom they commissioned an instrument just before he moved to Antwerp where he's much more successful. I attend concerts at the Frederick collection up in Ashburnham, MA which is only 1 hour from my house. Their collection is open to the public too and every piano is playable by the visitor. (It's like opening up one of those chocolate samplers. :-) )
John Citron I was a member at YCOMI sometime in the 1980s..... circa 1984 most likely, as best I recall. I never heard a performance there I didn’t like. I attended one performance with my father (who made fun of the instruments antiquity, calling them « collapsichords eithout sufficient reason) and probably another with my. Andlady at the time, famous pointillist artist and developer of the Williamsburg Art Historical Center in Brooklyn, Yuko Nii, When I lived in Riverhead, NY at her summer home. I also recall one memorable trip across the Long Island Sound from Port Jefferson to Bridgeport (by ferry of course) at which, on arrival, the local NPR station, WSHU from Sacred Heart University in Fairfield happened to be broadcasting the famous chorus from Nabucco (by Verdi) and I recall listening to it and playing it as loudly as possible on a car radio. These are just some memories and have little to do with instrument restoration, good or bad. I’m glad we had some overlap though in experiences. The trip across the sound and Nabucco may have been circa 1978 when I still owned a Borgward Isabella , maybe not. (I was #57 in the owners club in the USA).
@@dougr.2398 That was quite an experience to treasure. :-) I was studying at Phillips Academy Andover, and a junior in high school at the time, and enjoying their free chamber music concerts. In 1978 I also built a King of Sweden Zuckermann clavichord, badly I may add, which was at my start in the early music. I had some harpsichord lessons at the academy but my parents would not let me get a harpsichord. My mom hated it and there wasn't much room anyway so I convinced them I would build a clavichord, which I did. I paid all of $295 at the time! I will say there's nothing unlike these concerts even on these restored instruments that we enjoy and even the modern reproductions lend to some beautiful music. I will say your dad might have been right though in this case. After my years of enjoying music in high school and a bit afterwards I thought of becoming a music major, but unfortunately I had unsupportive family for any kind of education, whether in music or not, and I ended up going to night school on my own and became an electronics technician instead. I could go on about this, but it'll be way off topic! Sheesh. A Borgward… Wow I wonder how much that would be worth today! :-)
I think if you feel that tempo, as an artist, you must use that tempo to share your feelings and create new feelings in the listeners. It's just my opinion. PS: Sorry if my english is bad.
SOMEHOW - you are absolutely correct! each of us perceives the world differently, therefore we each play in the way that feels correct to us. This is the basis of personal interpretation of music. If the interpretation "resonates" with listeners they say they like it. It is only the "correct" interpretation if it resonates with them. That is why we have so many great performers - they each had a style that resonated with a particular audience. Here is an example based on two beloved organists of the 2nd half of the 20th century: Virgil Fox and E. Power Biggs. Both were immensely popular and produced many recordings. They had very different approaches to interpreting Bach's music.I would say that each method was valid for each performer because they had developed their styles based on their own understanding of their instruments and each composer. In my experience of their recordings, one was austere, majestic and exacting while the other was approachable, majestic and emotional. Other listeners would have different opinions based on how the music resonated with or aggravated their personal perceptions. I suggest we all listen to as many different performers as possible. With the internet we can sample the whole world's performers. Find what resonates with you and love it, BUT NEVER CONDEMN SOMEONE ELSE'S PREFERENCES. Let music be enjoyed for its huge range of interpretation - whether accurate to the composer's intent or not.
Glenn H Rollinglenn Tiedemann I was privileged to hear Carlo Curley perform on a marvelous electronic instrument at SUSB for its inaugural performance, circa 1978-9. Sadly, that and many other valuable instruments in the Fine Arts building were destroyed in a flood that I could have helped prevent, had I been consulted (I was friends with the Acting Director, who foolishly consented to have the building temperature lowered substantially in one winter, leading to burst pipes and over 100,000 $ in damages (probably approaching $ 200,000) which had occurred only a year or two before in the Graduate Physics building)...and that was after the actual theft & disappearance of one organ en route and the similar (?) failure of a second one to appear as well. Dr. Thomas Neumiller (deceased) was Acting Chairman at the time. Very few people attended this magnificent performance, and I had a superb view of Mr. Curley’s hands & feet thanks to the thin ranks. Most of the attendees (half, at least) appeared to be of clerical profession, by their garb. Mr. Curley (deceased 2012) was a protège of Virgil Fox.
Doug R. I attended one of Fox‘s last performances. It was in Ocean Grove,NJ USA on the Robert Hope Jones Organ. Normally Fox would only play his famous touring electronic instrument, but in this case he agreed to play the „house“ organ. His performance sadly showed signs of his unfamiliarity with this giant of an organ. He sometimes seemed to search for particular stops. I believe he was having trouble seeing. Otherwise his performance was strong. He was well received that night. During my college days I had been granted a week of afternoons to practice on that instrument. I barely got to know it, but quickly appreciated its capabilities.
FYI, Piet Kee considered the Cavaille-Coll organ of San Sebastian, Spain, the ideal instrument for his recording (Chandos) of Franck's work, and he had the choice of ... anywhere. In my youth, I thought that Franck's and Bach's music was epitomised by Demessieux and later, Cochereau. But as I grew older and, hopefully, wiser, I realised that there were many different ways of making cheese. Piet Kee became, and still is, to a degree, the norm by which I "judge" other performances, but praise be, there are younger organists appearing like Gert van Hoef and Balint Karosi to add their own unique touch to interpretation and registration. And so, the cycle of life continues! Col (72) NZ
Good talk, Wim. I am surprised that you didn't give mention of a famous set of recordings that my favourite guy did. I refer to Gould's infamous recordings of some Mozart sonatas. When they came out there was almost universal shock and total rejection. Gould used speeds that had NEVER been used before. So, was Gould disrespectful to Mozart, was he making fun of Mozart, was he unaware of the general traditions for how fast to play Mozart, given that Mozart did not apply metronome numbers? I think that a guy like Gould was subject to moments of eccentricity and you could argue that it was because he was a bit nutty. Ok. Some thought so. He also knew exactly how to play Mozart in the traditional way. I've seen him fool around and play it normally and then laugh and say no, that won't do. So, were his performance speeds just insane and crazy and should be laughed at? Maybe. Same thing for his performance of one of Chopin's sonatas(?). Again, he played it like he was smashing all the idiomatic Chopin phrasing and rolling into a flat pancake. People were aghast at his performance and again wondered if he had lost his mind. HOWEVER, when he showed up in Moscow and played the Goldberg's, the audience went crazy and he became an overnight idol, a Bach superstar. He hit his biggest home run, in Russia, where there had never been an outstanding Bach interpreter of his calibre. Gould was all over the map in his career.
So what did Gould know that we do not? Did he find a lost time describing word for word how Mozart wanted his sonatas played? Or more likely, was it simply a man giving interpretation, like richter did with the Schubert sonata. Granted I highly enjoy how richter approached the Schubert sonata in “half tempo” because was just that much of a genius.
@@mcrettable Gould has a video on "How Mozart became a Bad Composer." Gould played works either fast or slow to be different from anyone else and has said so. He broke with playing only 19th Romantic Composer when that was stock in trade for mid-20th century. Although extremely knowledgeable about the music of J S Bach, Mozart, championed Beethoven's works, 20th Century Expressionists, Sweelinck and Renaissance composers, he made effort at historically informed practices, especially playing slow works fast and vice versa.
Historically informed recordings have brought a lot of interesting perspectives with respect to tempo to the table. To argue these are completely authentic perhaps goes too far, but that's not the point. It's about envisioning the music beyond what is obvious from the score. Approaching music with new pieces of historical evidence sometimes yields amazing outcomes. It's a shame some commenters can not appreciate this and will get into fights defending the tempo's of their preferred recordings. It happens all the time, and it's OK as long as it's just a discussion on which recording one fancies. But arguing 'Karajan is obviously more correct because he reaches a higher plane of metaphysical understanding of the music' or shitposting 'too fast' on other recordings isn't any form of responsible criticism. Thanks Wim, for taking the time to do the research and for sharing your craft. It's a shame you have to suffer from all this negativity.
@@mcrettable Well, I agree with you. Faster tempi indeed open up interesting nuances. For example the effect of syncopating motifs often get lost when you play them very slowly. Moreover, I personally really like the end result of baroque played fast, especially in recordings such as Musica Antiqua Koln's or those of Diego Fasolis'. As for the historical evidence: of course it works both ways and you should consider a per case approach. I feel the evidence in general doesn't necessarily point towards that music should be played slower. It's sometimes quite the contrary and can present itself in a really practical way. Historical dance manuals can give us insight into what tempi would be considered compatible to dance suites. For example it doesn't make sense for a pas assemblé to take longer than 2 seconds, as a dancer simply can't remain airborne for such a long time. Yet when you increase the tempo, the music actually works well with the accompanying choreography. If you approach music while taking in mind it ought to be danced to in a certain way, you immediately open up interesting nuances. It is not necessarily the correctness of the interpretation, rather the novel insight and musical experience that I find interesting, which is why I really like historically informed perfomances.
The argument goes both ways. Look for example at dancing. Minuets and courantes are very gracious forms of dance that show how society was stuck in very strict social norms. If someone from today get into a time machine and go back there and start dancing like a kpoper, with very fast body and uncontrolled body movements, people back there not only would disaprove but would also consider scandalous. I bet people would even say you are possessed by a demon or something. I have the impression that if they saw a modern performance of music, they would say such things.
The Minuett J S Bach's day was an allegretto. There's argument as to the minuet being fast in Beethoven Symphonies, based on single beat interpretation. The minuet later becomes a stately dance at least in context of 20th century interpretation. On the other end of the scale, Adagio was the slowest tempo (Baroque period into the time of Beethoven) but later switch with Largo, on the Metronome after mid-century.
We do have recordings from the pupil of the pupil of Chopin, Raoul Koczalski pupil of Moscheles IIRC, and I cant' recall his tempis right now but I can tell he plays in a definitely very "weird" way by today standards. It'd be an interesting review to make about his tempi and what not (rubato, phrasing, etc)
Aside from the music-historical arguments, there is also a simple technical problem when assessing the authenticity of early recordings: at least as far as gramophone records are concerned, many record companies had not yet set the standard speed of 78 rpm before 1910. Up to this point, the recordings were, in extreme cases, taken at a speed of between 50 and sometimes over 100 rpm. Since we often don't know which concert pitch the recorded instruments were tuned to, adjusting the speed to the original key only provides an approximation of the musicians' actual tempo. In case of doubt, the only option is to adjust the speed according to personal taste and listening impression. Incidentally, the problem applies to a similar extent to phonograph cylinders, as recording speeds of between 120 and 160 rpm were common here too. Furthermore, we should not forget that with a playing time of between 2 and 4 minutes, depending on the recording medium, the musicians often had no choice but to increase the tempo or shorten the pieces.
thank you for sharing this info! If you have any sources/articles,... on this, I would really appreciate it if you could share them! info(AT)authenticsound.org. Thanks!, Wim
@@AuthenticSound With pleasure! The information is based on my experiences as a shellac record collector. But there are certainly specialist articles on the topic. At the moment I don't remember where I might have read something about it, but if I come across a citable source, I'll get in touch 🙂
It Is really interesting. For example, do you think that Scott Joplin would use double beat instead of single beat like today? I ask this because he wrote "It is never right to play ragtime fast". And there is a Waltz (Bink's Waltz) that the tempo indication is Andante with quarter note=144. The notation are mainly eighth notes. What do you think about that? Thank you and have a nice day!
As far Scott Joplin is concerned, he wrote a short paper on how to play his rags. The 6 examples he gave all used a march to base the rag on. If you think a march should go at 120 steps per min, then the metronome should be set @ 60 so the eighth note bass line would be 120. Much slower than most people play them.
The Franck example is very striking, and thought-provoking, but you might also think of the evolution of the music to which we apply the label 'jazz'. Duke Ellington ended up making recordings with John Coltrane, without any real feeling of incongruity. Yet compare Ellington's early records with Coltrane's late ones, made only 40 years later: a world of difference.
It is hard for people who want to defend the traditional (modern) interpretation of metronome indications to find an answer to many of Wim's points. If an indication is literally unplayable on instruments of the time, there is obviously a problem. However, Wim's thesis raises other questions too. It is almost as if the past is jealously guarding its secrets. Key figures such as Mendelssohn (pupil of a pupil of CPE Bach) and Liszt (pupil of Czerny) refused to give metronome marks. Both were known for rapid finger work and if Wim is right may well have contributed to generally faster speeds during the 19th century along with improvements in piano action mechanisms. Another key figure could be Saint-Saens because we do have a few recordings of his playing, but again I do not think his playing can be matched with metronome indications. ruclips.net/video/Cdqcwm_NYcw/видео.html
@@vito-lattarulo Indeed, there are insoluble problems on both sides. Your general point about singers and other instruments is well made and cannot be ignored, however on your specific examples, Mozart did not leave metronome marks (obviously) so we only have his tempo descriptions and Beethoven did not specify glissando in the Waldstein only that the octaves be played with the thumb and little finger, which is what Horowitz and Cziffra managed with brilliant effect without a glissando.
Oh yes, the old "their technique wasn't as good as ours, that was centuries ago, after all" argument... Technical mastery of an instrument is not inherited, it's acquired, and everyone starts at 0, regardless of whether they're born in 1750, 1850 or 1950! So it's simply silly to argue their technique was worse, only because they lived a long time ago!
@@AuthenticSound Short answer: yes and no, but that is besides the point, since your question broaches an entirely different subject - if you insist however I will be happy to elaborate. The real question is: Was Rachmaninov, from a technical standpoint, better equipped to play Beethoven than Beethoven himself? I see no reason to assume as much. On the contrary, one might argue that not being distracted with having to learn the techniques required by Rachmaninov, Beethoven had more time to concentrate and thus master the techniques required by his own pieces. Strike that, I am sure he would not have written pieces that demanded techniques he didn't feel completely comfortable with.
A couple of things I found out and knew about: First, my "idol" growing up was none other than Artur Rubenstein. My teacher in Amherst, NY, Anne W. Moot, knew him and said that "he smoked and drank like a sailor". She did recount to me his failed technique, which he eventually improved; however, since, Ravel and Saint Saenz knew him and liked his playing, I would imagine that Rubenstein at one point might have played slower (conjecture on my part based upon what I have read about both Ravel and Saint Saenz). Of course, a New York, NY audience - some of THE fastest talkers and life styles in the world (still today) - wouldn't put up with as much art as they would have speed. Even in my native Buffalo, New York, "on time" was "five minutes late". Second, I wound up finding an incredible essay written by a non musician (name unmentioned for now - just wait and see) who lived almost date to date with Beethoven. He had taken up the "old" pendulum issue, and remarked that placing a "bars per minute" would have been perfect solution. It's interesting though that those pendulums were - as I conclude - equal to not the vibrations of the pendulum, but it's period (back and forth). Finally, Wim is correct when we never dispute the NUMBER of the MM, simply it's potential interpretation and the ability to achieve that number in some way - yet to be seen, but I am always sniffing around for the Rosetta stone ... of course, even if I were able to conjure a "pillar of fire", I would be forgot within a scant two generations. So, on it goes. I am very pleased to get some great mileage out of my pieces past and present with my "newfound" historical playing. My daughter, a guitarist, has fallen in love with this idea, and I am getting some adherents from a number of her peers. Great news, new tide, new world! Thanks, Wim!!! PS - "morality" - HAHAHAHAHAAAA! On a humorous note, one of my daughters teachers is fond of saying, "Bach is God, and God is seated at the right hand of Bach", and then you might be able to squeeze a "moral" discussion out of this hole shebang! All in good cheer! Rock on, Double-Beaters!
Friedheim would play a piece and say it was how he recalled Liszt played it, complete with a cadenza, etc. This, of course, was how Liszt played it in the 1880s, and not how he may have played in the 1830s. I wonder what tempi Liszt would have played his first etudes, as in the original edition, and not the firewagon subsequent renditions? Are there any clues?
I 100% agree with you. Mostly because I own a 1909 Gaveau parlor grand piano. I got it because it's surprisingly close mechanically to a modern piano, which makes it easy to work on and find replacement parts. All this being said, to say that this 1909 piano represents the 19th century tradition is way far off. Technology and art made a huge jump from 1850 to 1900.
There is nothing wrong in playing music slower than it is usually played or slower than the composer marked, if one simply states that this is what one is doing. There are ample justifications for this already (due to the level of sustain of modern pianos for example). But I now think that completely reinterpreting what metronome marks mean goes a step too far, as there is too much countervailing evidence from the last two centuries of music history.
@@petertyrrell3391 (1) Written durations of performances of Beethoven from early c19th that would have been impossibly short if works were actually performed in double beat; (2) Written evidence from students of Czerny that his metronome markings were "incredibly fast"; (3) many instances of works that are impossibly slow when played double beat (check out pianopat's channel for play-throughs of these); (4) Double beat makes a nonsense of many Presto markings; (5) Many of the so-called "unplayable" MMs in single beat are in fact playable - one just needs a good facility and more time working on them; (6) There are recordings in existence of pianists who had in their youth heard Chopin play or who had been taught by his pupils. They all play at or only slightly below today's tempos - no one plays anywhere double beat. This is all been gone into throughly on this channel by others better qualified than me - check out ruclips.net/user/pianopatvideos
There's another period in classical (in the broad sense) music history that might be relevant to the discussion: the mid-20th century. The first post-war decades saw a fashion for slowing down (Klemperer is a prime example, but he was not alone). Compared to recordings from the 1930s and before, a typocal 1960s recording is significantly slowed down. With the late Romantic repertoire, it's still slowed down today. I suspect it was a reaction to this recent fashion that motivated the pioneers of the historically-informed performance movement to assume historical tempi were faster.
Klemperer in fact was also on the way up, only, not as fast as the solists. With Bach it's different, there "original" tempi (echo's) were heard much longer, it's only now that HIP starts to treat the 18th c music similar to what musicians started around 1840 to do with the classical works
And equally go the arguments over original instruments vs modern day (and even digital) instruments... I can enjoy one interpretation or the other. But why are there such fussy people criticizing the OP here? I don't know why. I just learn more.
Outre la suggestion métronomique, Chopin a mis « Allegro » comme tempo de l'étude no. 1 de l'opus 10. Si c'est noire = 176 [éd. Peters] // [noire = 88; W.W], que serait « presto »? :-) Impossible? Le « presto » de Chopin à l'étude 4 est moins rapide ?!? (blanche = 80 [éd. Peters] // [noire = 80; W.W.]. Bizarre que Chopin suggère une valeur plus lente au métronome pour presto que pour allegro. C'est peut-être l'édition Peters qui a modifié les valeurs? Merci beaucoup pour vos commentaires, stimulant et intéressant.
Regarding that subject of 'pupil of....' perhaps demonstrating a hint of tempo and manner of performance of their master: I was associated with the James Ching. music school. He had a small recording studio there. I know he was friends with an elderly lady (cannot recall her name) who was the last remaining pupil of Clara Schumann. I know she made some private recordings for him of Schumann pieces. Mr Ching died some years back but his 'James Ching Professional Service' is carried on by his family, and I know they have copies of those recordings. It occurs to me you might be interested in hearing those recordings as a part of your research. Of course, you may have copies already, so I apologize for telling you the obvious..
I have heard the Story Clothilde organ in the building. it is now just another bland Euro organ. Cochereau was allowed to ruin the Notre Dame organ too.
If Czerny didn't use a double beat, than he was a very consistently crazy person. Which would be nonsense, considering his reputation as a pianist and as an editor. So if you assume that Liszt never heard about that, under any allegations he might have done, which could have being now misinterpreted, because he's not saying the metronome is x/2, you are making your point in a very unstable ground. But maybe Czeny inherited Beethoven's madness, or the broken metronome, whatever we want to believe.
Regarding your opening comments. I think I'd put it like this. When you adapt a novel for TV or Film, there are changes the adaptor need to make for the difference in the medium, the most obvious being you cant put the characters thoughts on screen. There are then changes the adaptor considers necessary to convey critical themes (lets say) in a way that a modern audience understands, which may not be possible with a purely historical adaption. Then there are changes adaptors add for their own creative interpretation. It seems to me with Music that the starting point is the way the writer intended the music to be played and the way that the initial performances were made. We don't have recordings, but we do have written music. If the way tempo was recorded then is different from now, simply assuming the current way is correct is wrong. It may well be that the current understanding provides more interesting piece of work than the original conception, but trying to claim that its right and the original conception is wrong must be a false premise. So if research shows that tempos were slower than we currently understand them, this would be the correct baseline performance for us.
O yes, SS said in his Mozart edition exactly what is true: what for Mozart was a presto was for his time only an allegro, tempi almost doubled over a century
@@AuthenticSound thanks for answering and pointing that interesting information, what about Francis planté recordings of Chopin etudes ( recorded when he was over 90!) ruclips.net/video/dYrJXXN_8hk/видео.html
I don't agree, of course one has a responsability towards the composer in the end, and not only to the public (one has to educate the public, not only please them). Most of the early 20th recordings are much closer to single beat than to half of that. Paderewski was a charming man but not a great technique pianist (particularly at age), but when listening to Raoul Koczalski, Moritz Rosenthal or Ignaz Friedman you can't say that early 20th century pianist were technically inferior to the pianist of today. The point is however, that IF there was a doubling of tempi between 1850 and 1920, there would be a lot of evidence of this in books, magazines, concert critiques etc. witten by musicians, musicologists and music lovers either complaining about, or cheering at but in any cause noticing this revolution in performing practise. Where are those accounts?
Let me quote you: "Most of the early 20th recordings are much closer to single beat than to half of that. " you say that, but that is not a fact unless we would have all recordings listed with MM. And on a deeper level, this sentence alone debunkes the complete supposed half/single beat practice. Since if it indeed would have been something that existed, we would match a 100% of the historic speeds (and go faster even as we are not running the 100 meter sprint any more in the 1896 results). As someone ironically commented on Alberto's Waldstein: now we know for sure how Albert learned this piece when in Colburn University, since he just left the school and recorded the piece right now. You see... count a 100 years and tradition... even if it was a thing... just vanished. There might be echos left, but not more than that. Do we play Bach still like Straube did?
Take care dear colleague, you seem to be somehow touched with the discussion around your argumentation. Dont let them get you down! Its your beliefs, your study, your sources, and you are very convincing. They are just jealous because you denounce their charlatanism. We make music! About Franck's organ, we have still Poligny, same year built, original.
I think it's incredibly fascinating to listen to the recording of Debussy playing his own Clair de Lune. ruclips.net/video/Yri2JNhyG4k/видео.html He plays it so much faster, almost double speed, compared pianists do today. If we know tempi can slow down by such a large factor over the course of less than a century, then it's not crazy for tempi to have speed up so dramatically over the course of multiple centuries.
JakeTheGearHeart The piano roll recordings are compromised because when winded, the spool tension exponentially increases, which effects the tempi and has grave repercussions to tempi authenticity.
The author writes the notes. They are the 'noun'. The performer brings the music to life over lost time: time is the purvey of the performer. The performer is the 'verb'. Complete sentences convey complete ideas.
What about the recording of Beethoven’s Romance in F major made in 1889 played by Herr Krahmer and Herr Schmalfuß (whom have met Beethoven) which shows them playing at modern tempo?
A word about early recording: Perfection was not possible, as editing was impossible. To today's ears, it is quite a shock to hear so many missed notes and fluffed passages by almost all pianists of any stature, including the very young Horowitz. Wouldn't it have been prudent to not have released such flawed performances rather than denigrate the artist with a substandard effort? Just wondering....
I do buy your argument that historic recordings may be quite misleading. At the same time, I do not agree with your tempos. But... music performance is an act of interpretation and a performer has the right of choice which he does not have to explain or justify in any way.
I think the fact that pianists can provide interpretations makes your argument regarding consistency invalid. However the majority of recordings reflect a faster tempo do they not? Are all these renowned pianists simply disregarding g the composers wishes 100% of the time? In the end none of us can be entirely certain I guess huh? lol 😂
'Are all these renowned pianists simply disregarding the composers wishes?'. What do they know about the composers wishes, when the composer in question has died some 100 years ago? During the last 3 centuries life has become much faster. During Bach's time the fastest thing on earth where horses. J. v. Goethe on his second journey to Italy bemoans the 'inhumane' speed of his coach. I believe our intuitive sense of time has changed of the last centuries.
On second thought, we are talking about music in the 'Galant Style', Bach and sons, Mozart, Clementi. The Galant Style doesn't allow fast movement, so I understand.
You are addressing several fascinating topics in one setting which, as you mention yourself, would benefit from individual exploration. Paderewski was a great patriot and teacher - his little known student Henryk Sztompka recorded a terrific intégrale of Chopin's Mazurki in 1959 - but also the most famous pianist of his time with the worst techique there ever was. Which raises the general topic of personal appeal versus musicianship which has become so acute again in our days. - Landowska did the same for the harpsichord that Tournemire did for Franck's organ (at least, Landowska did not destroy anything), that is acoustically enhance her instrument. Unlike Tournemire, Landowska had the excuse of wanting her instrument to be heard in a large hall (there is a wonderful photo of her playing in the Galérie des glaces at Versailles at the end of WWI). Of course, this trend of wanting instruments to be louder and carry further began much earlier with the replacement of gut strings and the first steel frames of the modern piano. Industrialization, urbanization, and larger audiences all contributed to these developments. In turn, it is interesting to contrast this development with the reverse effect of the introduction of the first piano-fortes in the 1720s, which acoustically speaking, produced a sweeter and more subdued sound than a nice two manual Ruckers. 1720s through about the 1770s: a marked desire for greater intimacy of music, a trend away from sound pollution. Johann Gottfried Müthel, living in Riga at the time, reduced his concert performances to the snow months, so his listeners (and he himself) would not be distracted by the clattering of carriage wheels over cobblestone roads outside. - All of this certainly makes for an interesting history of the changes in the perception of sound during the early years of industrialisation: on the one hand resentment of and retreat from sound pollution (Müthel and probably Mozart), on the other the desire to expand the capacity of instruments, as Beethoven with his piano (though he would not have heard the difference anymore). - Finally an off-the-cuff suggestion: you have sufficiently proven the correct understanding of metronome markings during the age of Czerny, Moscheles, Chopin, Schumann and friends. I would be curious to know: when were the metronome markings begun to be understood incorrectly? Speeding things up certainly was a by-product of faster times, but tendencies alone do not change a player's attitude to a mathematical value, and the snake oil of the „broken metronome” theory wasn't sold (literally so) till the latter 20th Century (and, unfortunately, is still sold today). Much earlier, there must have been one publication or one person that/who turned 160 = quarter from the intended two eights to a quarter note. A musical Jack-the-Ripper of sorts. One could line up the usual suspects, transitional figures who wrote pedagocial treatises, such as Bülow (with his Cramer edition; the Haslinger prints - I may remember wrong - had no metronome markings), Cortot, Philipp and others. Czerny, of course, is „out” as a suspect. Then who done it? Where does „post quem” meet „ante quem”? - At any rate: you touched upon several fascinating topics, each one deserving of elaboration.
thank you for sharing these interesting thoughts! It never really changed, that's the whole point. Wbmp and sb coexisted, but for the 19th c the majority of mms were in wb. I'll make some videos over the summer hopefully also explaining thid
@@AuthenticSound That wbmp and sb ran parallel to eachother, at least for a while, of course must be true. Perhaps I am looking for the needle in the haystack, and something that may have been limited to oral tradition. On the other hand, it was an asteroid that killed off most dinosaurs, and behind the appearance of slowly progressing change there may hide one root incident that codified the misreading of metronome markings. It is similar to searching for the first person who was no longer able to recognize the full contents, including the symbolism, inherent in a painting by Pieter de Hooch. Show one hundred people - without comment - de Hooch's intérieur of a mother delousing her child, and half of the viewers will say the mother is petting her daughter on the head. „Das Mittelmaß ist im Vormarsch” goes a German saying, and glancing over some of the not just stupid, but extensively stupid antagonism that your „theory” has received, it is apparent that the „Mittelmaß” has already arrived, and is bent on staying. Having worked in the field of historic cryptology, and having actually solved, not just described ciphers and codes, the most amazing antagonistic reactions fall into two categories: a) people who insist that 2 + 2 = 4, BUT 2 +2 = 5 is a valid alternative; b) people who are simply „dom”, and have fossilized that way. However, since musicology (as well cryptology) by default has to be a labour of love, I know that I can look forward to more of your presentations!
I think it is clear that tempo is not as critical a matter in the execution of a musical work as we might think, despite what you imply here around 5 minutes into this video. Proof? Well, just consider what your own opinion of contemporary performances was some years before you began to espouse this double beat theory. I doubt you would have objected, with respect to many works, on musical grounds, to a performance, say, 15 or 20 percent slower (or faster) than the tempo realized on a single beat theory. What this tells me, is that composers were not as "hung up" on tempo as you claim. Taking Beethoven's piano sonatas as proof: Only 1 sonata was assigned a tempo indication. What is your explanation for that? On this supposition, the inability of some or all pianists not being able to reach the assigned tempi - goes no distance to discredit the single beat theory. We can easily imagine, that a composer, not taking tempo as seriously as you do, may well set a metronome speed, for some ideal vision that the composer has for a given work, with a top-notch virtuoso. As I mention in another post, it is very plausible, also, that one such as Beethoven, for example, wanted a piece to be performed as fast as possible - to get an extreme exertion out of the pianist - and hence, he set the tempo a bit out of reach. I see this as being quite plausible. Or perhaps, he set tempos for only the beginning of the work - expecting it to drop some time into the performance. Let's leave it there for now.
Also if the metronome numbers were only a distant goal to aspire to but never to reach, it wouldn't make sense to write them down and copy so accurately (most cases up to the 1's column of digits!), and combined with the very intricate system of describing tempo feel (allegro assai vs allegro and so on) makes the claim even more absurd.
and it wouldn't make sense to even write 108 one etude, 104 for the next, 98 for another one
Excellent analysis. The natural evolution- progression of the arts, science and society makes it clear that in the later half of the nineteenth century musical artists were exploring and preforming faster tempos to enhance the experience and status . However with this in mind it doesn't mean that the newer interpretation of tempo is the correct one in regards to earlier composers.
This is speculation, but I wonder how much early recordings affected performing practices, rather than reflected them. The early cylinder records had extremely limited space and even early flat records had only a few minutes worth of space. The records were also hard and expensive to make, as you can't copy a copy for long before the sound deteriorates and you need another recording. So maybe, just maybe, performers were to speed up even further in order to fit Revolutionary etude on one disc for example?
Good thoughts! The other issue too is the recording and playback devices were mechanical too and were subject to faster speeds. This will affect the tempo and in some cases too the pitch.
In some ways we're lucky today with near perfect recording and playback, but in other cases we lose the human aspect of music as well with our perfect and sterile recordings..
Excellent point. This thought occurred to me too, and I believe that I read somewhere that this actually was the case, even after the advent of the long-playing record in the late 1940s.
@@PieterHanszoonBruin1973 But no one suggested single beat tempi becoming a thing because of records. People most definitely played fast before them. But maybe they did indeed increase the speed slightly in the early days of recording to fit that few minutes of space? By the time 78 rpm came out, recording itself had been evolving for decades, and that format was a huge improvement in record length.
@@PieterHanszoonBruin1973 Why you keep arguing while we're in agreement? As above stated. "No one suggested single beat tempi becoming a thing because of records. People most definitely played fast before them."
Look at any sports or human activity. Current pianists are much much more skilled that those of centuries ago. The piano rolls confirm this. This doesn't answer the tempo debate. But clearly pianists back in the days of Beethoven, Chopin, and Liszt were far inferior to what musical schools produce today.
There is one link to early 19th century tempo: Brahms playing Brahms in 1889 on an Edison cylinder. Brahms was born in the early 1830s, so he got his musical embossing in the time of late Chopin, young and medium Liszt and so on. So, he wasn't just a student of a student of a student of an early 19th century composter, he was an early 19th composer himself (at least as far as tempo is concerned).
There’s a big problem with historical recordings though. For example there are early recordings of Sarasate performing his own pieces on violin and they are far too even fast by today standards. The reason being that they could only record x amount of time and they had to rush and cut parts to make the pieces fit. Not sure about Brahms though.
@@shulker0101 They didn't exist anymore.
Fascinating question this Wim and many thanks! Small correction regarding St Clothilde: the organ was enlarged in 1933 under Tournemire but its adapted original console (now in Antwerp) and key action remained in place (with the addition of a Barker machine to the Récit) until the rebuilding of 1962, also by Beuchet under the direction of Langlais. Then it was electrified and the console replaced. The general illustration of Tournemire's role in the changing Franck's organ is, nonetheless, entirely valid!
Thank you for adding this!
I admire your conviction. I followed the link you sent me to this video. You make a lot of sense.
It's complicated. I'm not sure what to believe anymore. However, I do believe that the answer isn't straightforward. There might be a bit of truth to everyone's opinion.
What I struggle with is that such a major change in music has little to none undisputed evidence. Scraps here and there, but nothing that outright states this to be fact, whereas we have facts concerning far more insignificant matters.
That said it's impossible for me to believe that composers such as Beethoven, Schumann and Chopin, extremely intelligent people couldn't use a metronome. Absurd.
The difficult thing is that we might never really know.
Keep up the work though. I'm still intrigued.
What about the recordings of Isidore Phillips on youtube, all of which sound much closer to SBT than WBMP? Wasn't Phillip one of the pianists you cited as proof of the WBMP practice in his time? Are we to believe that he, a major academic figure in piano playing, conveninently "switched" from WBMP to SBT before those recordings were made??
Good point. I also find it very strange that he takes Phillipe as evidence for a general speeding up, though in his own recordings he clearly takes the metronome numbers in single beat.
You always give me so much to think about.
One of my favourite occasional excursions into musical history is to listen to recordings made by my fellow Australian, Nellie Melba, in the very early 20th century. The style of singing, and the style of orchestral playing by the world's best orchestras of that time are almost unrecognisable today. They might be on another planet! Yet they have two striking features. The first is showmanship. They were performing artists who could captivate a popular audience. The second is artistry. To listen to Melba singing a simple song like 'Home Sweet Home' or 'Auld Land Syne', even with the primitive recordings available, is a spine-chilling experience. The voice seems to penetrate deep into the soul. Here is great beauty, of kind we rarely experience today.
You are right, Wim. Musical interpretation does not make a person good or bad, better or worse. It's not a moral issue.
AMEN!
I think it is. If someone appeared today in the 19th century and start dancing something like kpop or eletronic beats, it would not only be wrong, but also would be scandalous.
@@classicgameplay10 exaclty!! ^~^
the people that disagree with Wim often resort to personal attacks full of hate and vitriol, I really dont understand why, its just a disagreement
Hi Wim , thank you for sharing your oppinion about the comparison between the tempo indicications of the 19th. century composers and the performances of the early 20th. century. What do you think, how will they play the music of our time in the future?.
good question
Such a great video. Thanks Wim keep crushing
What about the Brahms recording of him playing? Hard to imagine Brahms would abandon double beat if indeed it was common practice in mid 1800s considering his influence and circle of colleagues. Also, what about the recordings we have of Liszts students performing? We are only one step removed from Liszt himself - certainly having an audio recording of Brahms sitting next to recordings of Liszt students should be enough to at least complicate your ideas on double beat.
Hi! And what about those recordings not being played at the speed intended? What about recording media being of limited space so that performers had to play them super fast, and then the recordings would have to played slower to compensate?
@@epicduckrex994 You should be weary of how little skepticism you applied to Alberto's straw grasp. Brahms talks in the beginning of that recording. In a normal speaking tempo. He plays the piece very close to it's normal key, but if it were sped up to double the tempo maliciously (this is already a conspiracy theory at this point) the pitch would have absolutely been effected. They did not have the technology to pitch down those recordings. Oh well, one more nail in this dead on arrival theory's coffin.
The time between Chopin and the early 20th century recordings is about the same time as between Bartok and Helene Grimaud's recordings of Bartok. She is a student of a student of Bartok, but her interpretation of Bartok (lovely as it is), is quite different from Bartok's own recordings.
I recall hearing a story (perhaps apocryphal) of Brahms hearing another pianist playing his 1st piano concerto. The pianist had played it much faster than Brahms did and was highly apologetic to Brahms when he came backstage to meet the performer. Brahms reply was, "So, it can be played that way, too."
@@davidferencz9640 exactly. Composers didnt intend for players to play it exact. Thats why beethoven didnt put metronome marks on his later works. He even personally knew the person whom invented it
Thanks for the video!
'What you say is immoral just because I disagree with it!', is called an 'ad hominem' attack. Every common person does it. Most people are incapable of attacking an argument with a logical argument, since that requires a certain degree of intellect, which has never been too common, so they attack the person instead.
What about the recordings of Debussy? They are really fast compared to today. But it makes sense how he plays it
Hi, Wim Winters: a tip for you. The Hertz :-) 1 oscillation/second, as a response to your worry of too many notes per second. Most pianists haven't thought out that A 440 Hz if brought down octaves, goes to 220 Hz, 110 Hz, 55 Hz, and to the lowest A on a piano: 27,5 Hz. Playing more than 27 notes per seconds would produce bass tones :-) We almost hear this on your digitally accelerated videos. Push them even faster, and tones will be produced. There are many examples of these warp-speed effects.
Musicians of the late 19th Century were not interested in preserving tradition. Gustav Mahler famously said that tradition is sloppiness. Each generation was expected to rethink the classics anew. We cannot expect that these people would have transmitted what they learned from their teachers. Great artists are always expected to be innovators who see things in new ways. This can certainly be expected from people who lived after the Industrial Revolution had spread to most of Europe. The newer modes of travel by steamboat, by train, by automobile, by airplane, and now by rocket have profoundly altered people's sense of time. We now live in a time when sprinting records are measured in hundredths of a second. Measuring anything in hundredths of a second 300 years ago would have been inconceivable for the average person.
interesting, thanks for sharing!
@@AuthenticSound Here is the quote about that Mahler's saying books.google.cl/books?id=jUmBd7pwnQkC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Gustav+Mahler+famously+said+that+tradition+is+sloppiness&source=bl&ots=Gb9MkEPnIQ&sig=ACfU3U095A1I9cSI1WCYwocsBuyE8PCwNw&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGwYnb56ngAhXUGbkGHa_2BKIQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Gustav%20Mahler%20famously%20said%20that%20tradition%20is%20sloppiness&f=false
He meant the way that ''tradition'' was understood or translated under specific circumstances(that was about a debate actually).And also Mahler I think that sayd something very interesting like ''Tradition is preserving the fire not the ashes''.
I think Mr. Winters has a valid point about performance practice changing over time even when there is a direct link between a performer and his students. This is even true in the context of village music and art which is handed down through generations "person to person" using traditional "oral" transmission methods. Thus, if you listen to Transylvanian village music recorded by Bartók in the early 20th century, by Lajtha in the 1940's and by The Hungarian Academy of Sciences and others in the 1970's and beyond there is clearly significant stylistic development at play even in the most remote villages where one would think that traditional playing practices would be handed down in "pure" oral traditional form since outside contact with other musicians was extremely limited. Imagine then the transformation of performance practice that was likely for sophisticated urban "classical" musicians who were exposed to a veritable flood of ideas and examples from fabulous musicians from which to draw !! To me, it is entirely probable that we, as modern listeners, would be shocked if we could somehow hear the music of past eras before recordings were available as it was truly played. Of course, at this point, the best we can get to is an educated guess based on scores, literary references and analysis of period instruments. Whether or not these educated guesses are truly representative of past historical performance practices, they are nevertheless valuable windows into artistic possibilities.
you forgot something whivh had an enornous impact on the very recordings you are presenting as point of reference -or at least as a reliable evidance for the wsy they where avctually playong.
but it is not the case:
recording sessions- until 1924~, were done with the 3-5 min, which was the duration of playing 78 rpm record before one need to flipp it.
this is one reason for the "flowerishing" of "virtuosity" : there was a pressing,,(..) need to squeeze rschmaninof "polka de w.r" to 3:21( ny simon barer) or to some of josef hofmanns early frantic recordings ( which are divine) of many works( inc. those of chopin 1+2 pianoconcertos- ehich is my favorit recordings of them, an its a rare example where the "interpretator," creates an amazing stracture that doesnt exists in the manuscript and (i have no doubts) that chopin would have add hofmann as co-composer, had he got the opportunity to listen to this marvelous.
well said, wim. great video.
There is one Pachmann recording of the black key etude,where in the beginning he says something like"Godowsky plays it like this" and than he starts playing as we would play it today.This is interessant because there is a recording of Pachmann of the first etude of Chopin in C major which he plays pretty close to a double beat reading.
Well... De Pachmann really played it in 2 minutes and something. Wim takes 4 minutes and a little more. What I find very interesting and inspiring is the liquid sound he produces, also the bel canto quality he achieves.
Pretty close doesn’t matter... there exists no true double beat recording of originally slow pieces.
@hurbii, not too fast here, there are way more recordings in double beat than you might think! Just start your research with the Chopin nocturnes... even Bartok plays them in double beat. That's the problem in tempo research: too many people believe they really can add to the discussion but, it requires more than 5 minutes internet research!
@@AuthenticSound But, Wim, with all respect, playing very slow not necessarily means that a particular piece is played in double beat, take for instance his own compositions, Allegro Barbaro, for example, in the original edition de metronome marking is: 76-84, but he played this piece in 96-104 (according to László Somfai in the Henle Edition), way faster. In RUclips I just found the Nocturne Op. 27 N°1 (Lento Sostenuto) played by him, so I think is hard to say he played all the nocturnes that way. What do you think? Or could it be that for his own music que used single beat and for a particular composer double? I hope not to disturbing you. Sorry if that's the case.
Yes ! Our modern crusade for authentic is such a post-modern thing.
Even if we take Beethoven: did he regret about harpsichord/clavichord era? Did he regret for old Stein pianoforte when he got Broadwood? I don't think so.
Yet I think that studying historical context and circumstances of previous eras is important since we have the notion of "classical music" - something unheard of in previous centuries - you were supposed to learn from great music from great masters but in those times great music was written 30 years ago and great masters were still alive. It's a revelation when you see this graph - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_composers_by_era - and realize that there is a single uninterrupted sequence of great composers from Renaissance to Rachmaninoff, many of which knew each other, studied from each other.
And despite all this progress Beethoven's music, or anyone else' music belongs to it's author. Maybe Beethoven would approve the level of technique of modern pianists, Steinway and Yamaha, but his music is his and it was written for the instruments of his time and public of his time and historical context of his time and tempi of his time. It's great music and can stand a lot of interpretation and has some universal value but I think that it makes sense most in historical context. And it's our tragedy in some sense (IMHO) that this era of les arts florissants finished and we have to dig back in time and play for decades and decades music which was played originally for about several years only. Schubert was a genius, he died young, what a pity, RIP, but then there were Mendelssohn and Chopin and Alkan and Liszt. What we (in general) do now is sometimes like a child licking candy wrapper after there is no more candy (it's more about mainstream classical music performers and listeners because if we include Renaissance and Baroque eras there is enough music to enjoy for several lives).
And it's a hard work for listener too. Modern person cannot in general case understand or like classical music - it's the cause of decline of it's popularity - our context has moved too far and you need to learn, to work to even start to understand it and to like it.
I need to listen to this a second time.... but on first pass, thank you for the information about César Franck & thé rebuilding of the organ he performed on by his student. I will e-mail Anja about What distracted me from listening carefully at the first pass and hope you will get to read it as well.
Keyboard instruments, due to their longevity it seems, are rebuilt all the time with both good and bad results. The French harpsichord builders took some very sought after Ruckers instruments, and put them through what they called "a ravelment", meaning renovation. During the rebuilding process, they increased the scale to the customary 5-octave range, added in additional stops, and modified the action to engage or disengage the second manual. The double-manual instruments prior to this time were only a transposition keyboard and not for playing at the same time. What's interesting is adding the extra keys meant making the keys narrower than they were, and that narrower keyboard was used on all instruments going forward.
Not all harpsichords remained as harpsichords either. The Frederick Collection www.frederickcollection.org has a fortepiano from ca. 1790 that was rebuilt from a harpsichord in 1790! The rebuilder kept the fancy woodwork and case, but extended the scale and put in the fortepiano action. The instrument, unlike other fortepianos I've heard, has an extremely light sound almost like a clavichord. :-)
Unfortunately not all rebuilding has been for the good as modern materials, methods, and assumptions are made about older instruments. During the rediscovery of early instruments, many of these instruments were destroyed or altered so far that they are no longer playable. The rebuilder, perhaps due to making assumptions and ignorance, replaced hammers with modern equivalents, causing the action to become heavy due to the hammers being much larger than the earlier ones. In some cases, the action was again altered to compensate by adding in extra key weights, and this indiscretion has made many instruments unplayable as it has thrown the geometry out of whack on the pianos, causing the action to become heavy and inconsistent. In other cases, the old instruments are old on the outside and are nothing more than that with a modern action inside. During this process, the instruments lose their character as the cases are covered in plastic resin, and the so-called rebuilder has taken it upon himself to redesign scales, modify the soundboard ribbing, which is fully replaced anyway, and increased the string tension. What made the older instrument unique is totally lost in the rebuilding process. Each builder at the time, had unique designs, which lead to the unique sounds of their instruments, and all this is lost when rebuilt.
John Citron a long time ago, I was a subscriber to and attended of performances on restored instruments at the Yale Collection of Musical Instruments, located on Hillhouse Avenue in New Haven, CT. As well as restored instruments and performances several times a year, they had a museum of historic instruments of all kinds
@@dougr.2398 The Yale collection is quite nice. I have heard concerts (on the radio) recorded from there off and on. Unfortunately some of the Yale instruments, like those at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, have been through some "repairs" (note the quotes), and over time hopefully these repairs can be undone. The sad part is the sound we hear in these instruments is not what was intended. During the repair process, the earlier instruments became soulless, whispering giants as support structurers were put in and horrible gluing methods were used to repair bridges and ribs.
I was told about this, much to my horror, by Michael Frederick who apprenticed with the late Frank Hubbard. What's interesting this whispery sound we hear on modern harpsichords was what came out of the rebuilding process, and made famous by Hubbard, Dowd, Herz, Zuckermann, and others in the Boston Harpsichord school.
The European school has a much different sound, which is not accepted in the US unfortunately. The Fredericks are lucky to own a modern Harpsichord by a contemporary builder (Jeff - something? The name just left my brain!), from whom they commissioned an instrument just before he moved to Antwerp where he's much more successful.
I attend concerts at the Frederick collection up in Ashburnham, MA which is only 1 hour from my house. Their collection is open to the public too and every piano is playable by the visitor. (It's like opening up one of those chocolate samplers. :-) )
John Citron I was a member at YCOMI sometime in the 1980s..... circa 1984 most likely, as best I recall. I never heard a performance there I didn’t like. I attended one performance with my father (who made fun of the instruments antiquity, calling them « collapsichords eithout sufficient reason) and probably another with my. Andlady at the time, famous pointillist artist and developer of the Williamsburg Art Historical Center in Brooklyn, Yuko Nii, When I lived in Riverhead, NY at her summer home. I also recall one memorable trip across the Long Island Sound from Port Jefferson to Bridgeport (by ferry of course) at which, on arrival, the local NPR station, WSHU from Sacred Heart University in Fairfield happened to be broadcasting the famous chorus from Nabucco (by Verdi) and I recall listening to it and playing it as loudly as possible on a car radio. These are just some memories and have little to do with instrument restoration, good or bad. I’m glad we had some overlap though in experiences. The trip across the sound and Nabucco may have been circa 1978 when I still owned a Borgward Isabella , maybe not. (I was #57 in the owners club in the USA).
@@dougr.2398 That was quite an experience to treasure. :-) I was studying at Phillips Academy Andover, and a junior in high school at the time, and enjoying their free chamber music concerts. In 1978 I also built a King of Sweden Zuckermann clavichord, badly I may add, which was at my start in the early music. I had some harpsichord lessons at the academy but my parents would not let me get a harpsichord. My mom hated it and there wasn't much room anyway so I convinced them I would build a clavichord, which I did. I paid all of $295 at the time!
I will say there's nothing unlike these concerts even on these restored instruments that we enjoy and even the modern reproductions lend to some beautiful music. I will say your dad might have been right though in this case. After my years of enjoying music in high school and a bit afterwards I thought of becoming a music major, but unfortunately I had unsupportive family for any kind of education, whether in music or not, and I ended up going to night school on my own and became an electronics technician instead. I could go on about this, but it'll be way off topic! Sheesh.
A Borgward… Wow I wonder how much that would be worth today! :-)
I think if you feel that tempo, as an artist, you must use that tempo to share your feelings and create new feelings in the listeners.
It's just my opinion.
PS: Sorry if my english is bad.
SomeHow don’t worry, your English is without fault!
SOMEHOW - you are absolutely correct! each of us perceives the world differently, therefore we each play in the way that feels correct to us. This is the basis of personal interpretation of music. If the interpretation "resonates" with listeners they say they like it. It is only the "correct" interpretation if it resonates with them. That is why we have so many great performers - they each had a style that resonated with a particular audience.
Here is an example based on two beloved organists of the 2nd half of the 20th century: Virgil Fox and E. Power Biggs. Both were immensely popular and produced many recordings. They had very different approaches to interpreting Bach's music.I would say that each method was valid for each performer because they had developed their styles based on their own understanding of their instruments and each composer. In my experience of their recordings, one was austere, majestic and exacting while the other was approachable, majestic and emotional. Other listeners would have different opinions based on how the music resonated with or aggravated their personal perceptions.
I suggest we all listen to as many different performers as possible. With the internet we can sample the whole world's performers. Find what resonates with you and love it, BUT NEVER CONDEMN SOMEONE ELSE'S PREFERENCES. Let music be enjoyed for its huge range of interpretation - whether accurate to the composer's intent or not.
Glenn H Rollinglenn Tiedemann I was privileged to hear Carlo Curley perform on a marvelous electronic instrument at SUSB for its inaugural performance, circa 1978-9. Sadly, that and many other valuable instruments in the Fine Arts building were destroyed in a flood that I could have helped prevent, had I been consulted (I was friends with the Acting Director, who foolishly consented to have the building temperature lowered substantially in one winter, leading to burst pipes and over 100,000 $ in damages (probably approaching $ 200,000) which had occurred only a year or two before in the Graduate Physics building)...and that was after the actual theft & disappearance of one organ en route and the similar (?) failure of a second one to appear as well. Dr. Thomas Neumiller (deceased) was Acting Chairman at the time. Very few people attended this magnificent performance, and I had a superb view of Mr. Curley’s hands & feet thanks to the thin ranks. Most of the attendees (half, at least) appeared to be of clerical profession, by their garb. Mr. Curley (deceased 2012) was a protège of Virgil Fox.
Doug R. I attended one of Fox‘s last performances. It was in Ocean Grove,NJ USA on the Robert Hope Jones Organ. Normally Fox would only play his famous touring electronic instrument, but in this case he agreed to play the „house“ organ. His performance sadly showed signs of his unfamiliarity with this giant of an organ. He sometimes seemed to search for particular stops. I believe he was having trouble seeing. Otherwise his performance was strong. He was well received that night.
During my college days I had been granted a week of afternoons to practice on that instrument. I barely got to know it, but quickly appreciated its capabilities.
Thanks for another great video! 🙂🙂🙂
FYI, Piet Kee considered the Cavaille-Coll organ of San Sebastian, Spain, the ideal instrument for his recording (Chandos) of Franck's work, and he had the choice of ... anywhere.
In my youth, I thought that Franck's and Bach's music was epitomised by Demessieux and later, Cochereau. But as I grew older and, hopefully, wiser, I realised that there were many different ways of making cheese. Piet Kee became, and still is, to a degree, the norm by which I "judge" other performances, but praise be, there are younger organists appearing like Gert van Hoef and Balint Karosi to add their own unique touch to interpretation and registration. And so, the cycle of life continues! Col (72) NZ
Good talk, Wim. I am surprised that you didn't give mention of a famous set of recordings that my favourite guy did. I refer to Gould's infamous recordings of some Mozart sonatas. When they came out there was almost universal shock and total rejection. Gould used speeds that had NEVER been used before. So, was Gould disrespectful to Mozart, was he making fun of Mozart, was he unaware of the general traditions for how fast to play Mozart, given that Mozart did not apply metronome numbers? I think that a guy like Gould was subject to moments of eccentricity and you could argue that it was because he was a bit nutty. Ok. Some thought so. He also knew exactly how to play Mozart in the traditional way. I've seen him fool around and play it normally and then laugh and say no, that won't do. So, were his performance speeds just insane and crazy and should be laughed at? Maybe. Same thing for his performance of one of Chopin's sonatas(?). Again, he played it like he was smashing all the idiomatic Chopin phrasing and rolling into a flat pancake. People were aghast at his performance and again wondered if he had lost his mind. HOWEVER, when he showed up in Moscow and played the Goldberg's, the audience went crazy and he became an overnight idol, a Bach superstar. He hit his biggest home run, in Russia, where there had never been an outstanding Bach interpreter of his calibre. Gould was all over the map in his career.
So what did Gould know that we do not? Did he find a lost time describing word for word how Mozart wanted his sonatas played? Or more likely, was it simply a man giving interpretation, like richter did with the Schubert sonata. Granted I highly enjoy how richter approached the Schubert sonata in “half tempo” because was just that much of a genius.
@@mcrettable Gould has a video on "How Mozart became a Bad Composer." Gould played works either fast or slow to be different from anyone else and has said so. He broke with playing only 19th Romantic Composer when that was stock in trade for mid-20th century. Although extremely knowledgeable about the music of J S Bach, Mozart, championed Beethoven's works, 20th Century Expressionists, Sweelinck and Renaissance composers, he made effort at historically informed practices, especially playing slow works fast and vice versa.
Historically informed recordings have brought a lot of interesting perspectives with respect to tempo to the table. To argue these are completely authentic perhaps goes too far, but that's not the point. It's about envisioning the music beyond what is obvious from the score. Approaching music with new pieces of historical evidence sometimes yields amazing outcomes.
It's a shame some commenters can not appreciate this and will get into fights defending the tempo's of their preferred recordings. It happens all the time, and it's OK as long as it's just a discussion on which recording one fancies. But arguing 'Karajan is obviously more correct because he reaches a higher plane of metaphysical understanding of the music' or shitposting 'too fast' on other recordings isn't any form of responsible criticism.
Thanks Wim, for taking the time to do the research and for sharing your craft. It's a shame you have to suffer from all this negativity.
Is it hard to realize that many musical nuances get lost with a slower tempo in many pieces? Test it out for yourself
@@mcrettable Is it hard to realize that many musical nuances get lost with a faster tempo in many pieces? Test it out for yourself
@@mcrettable Well, I agree with you. Faster tempi indeed open up interesting nuances. For example the effect of syncopating motifs often get lost when you play them very slowly. Moreover, I personally really like the end result of baroque played fast, especially in recordings such as Musica Antiqua Koln's or those of Diego Fasolis'.
As for the historical evidence: of course it works both ways and you should consider a per case approach. I feel the evidence in general doesn't necessarily point towards that music should be played slower. It's sometimes quite the contrary and can present itself in a really practical way. Historical dance manuals can give us insight into what tempi would be considered compatible to dance suites. For example it doesn't make sense for a pas assemblé to take longer than 2 seconds, as a dancer simply can't remain airborne for such a long time. Yet when you increase the tempo, the music actually works well with the accompanying choreography. If you approach music while taking in mind it ought to be danced to in a certain way, you immediately open up interesting nuances.
It is not necessarily the correctness of the interpretation, rather the novel insight and musical experience that I find interesting, which is why I really like historically informed perfomances.
The argument goes both ways. Look for example at dancing. Minuets and courantes are very gracious forms of dance that show how society was stuck in very strict social norms. If someone from today get into a time machine and go back there and start dancing like a kpoper, with very fast body and uncontrolled body movements, people back there not only would disaprove but would also consider scandalous. I bet people would even say you are possessed by a demon or something. I have the impression that if they saw a modern performance of music, they would say such things.
The Minuett J S Bach's day was an allegretto. There's argument as to the minuet being fast in Beethoven Symphonies, based on single beat interpretation. The minuet later becomes a stately dance at least in context of 20th century interpretation. On the other end of the scale, Adagio was the slowest tempo (Baroque period into the time of Beethoven) but later switch with Largo, on the Metronome after mid-century.
We do have recordings from the pupil of the pupil of Chopin, Raoul Koczalski pupil of Moscheles IIRC, and I cant' recall his tempis right now but I can tell he plays in a definitely very "weird" way by today standards. It'd be an interesting review to make about his tempi and what not (rubato, phrasing, etc)
Aside from the music-historical arguments, there is also a simple technical problem when assessing the authenticity of early recordings: at least as far as gramophone records are concerned, many record companies had not yet set the standard speed of 78 rpm before 1910. Up to this point, the recordings were, in extreme cases, taken at a speed of between 50 and sometimes over 100 rpm. Since we often don't know which concert pitch the recorded instruments were tuned to, adjusting the speed to the original key only provides an approximation of the musicians' actual tempo. In case of doubt, the only option is to adjust the speed according to personal taste and listening impression. Incidentally, the problem applies to a similar extent to phonograph cylinders, as recording speeds of between 120 and 160 rpm were common here too. Furthermore, we should not forget that with a playing time of between 2 and 4 minutes, depending on the recording medium, the musicians often had no choice but to increase the tempo or shorten the pieces.
thank you for sharing this info! If you have any sources/articles,... on this, I would really appreciate it if you could share them! info(AT)authenticsound.org. Thanks!, Wim
@@AuthenticSound With pleasure! The information is based on my experiences as a shellac record collector. But there are certainly specialist articles on the topic. At the moment I don't remember where I might have read something about it, but if I come across a citable source, I'll get in touch 🙂
It Is really interesting. For example, do you think that Scott Joplin would use double beat instead of single beat like today? I ask this because he wrote "It is never right to play ragtime fast". And there is a Waltz (Bink's Waltz) that the tempo indication is Andante with quarter note=144. The notation are mainly eighth notes.
What do you think about that?
Thank you and have a nice day!
As far Scott Joplin is concerned, he wrote a short paper on how to play his rags. The 6 examples he gave all used a march to base the rag on. If you think a march should go at 120 steps per min, then the metronome should be set @ 60 so the eighth note bass line would be 120. Much slower than most people play them.
The Franck example is very striking, and thought-provoking, but you might also think of the evolution of the music to which we apply the label 'jazz'. Duke Ellington ended up making recordings with John Coltrane, without any real feeling of incongruity. Yet compare Ellington's early records with Coltrane's late ones, made only 40 years later: a world of difference.
It is hard for people who want to defend the traditional (modern) interpretation of metronome indications to find an answer to many of Wim's points. If an indication is literally unplayable on instruments of the time, there is obviously a problem. However, Wim's thesis raises other questions too. It is almost as if the past is jealously guarding its secrets. Key figures such as Mendelssohn (pupil of a pupil of CPE Bach) and Liszt (pupil of Czerny) refused to give metronome marks. Both were known for rapid finger work and if Wim is right may well have contributed to generally faster speeds during the 19th century along with improvements in piano action mechanisms.
Another key figure could be Saint-Saens because we do have a few recordings of his playing, but again I do not think his playing can be matched with metronome indications. ruclips.net/video/Cdqcwm_NYcw/видео.html
@@vito-lattarulo Indeed, there are insoluble problems on both sides. Your general point about singers and other instruments is well made and cannot be ignored, however on your specific examples, Mozart did not leave metronome marks (obviously) so we only have his tempo descriptions and Beethoven did not specify glissando in the Waldstein only that the octaves be played with the thumb and little finger, which is what Horowitz and Cziffra managed with brilliant effect without a glissando.
Oh yes, the old "their technique wasn't as good as ours, that was centuries ago, after all" argument... Technical mastery of an instrument is not inherited, it's acquired, and everyone starts at 0, regardless of whether they're born in 1750, 1850 or 1950! So it's simply silly to argue their technique was worse, only because they lived a long time ago!
So Beethoven could have played a Rach concerto in your opinion. Just asking
@@AuthenticSound Short answer: yes and no, but that is besides the point, since your question broaches an entirely different subject - if you insist however I will be happy to elaborate. The real question is: Was Rachmaninov, from a technical standpoint, better equipped to play Beethoven than Beethoven himself? I see no reason to assume as much. On the contrary, one might argue that not being distracted with having to learn the techniques required by Rachmaninov, Beethoven had more time to concentrate and thus master the techniques required by his own pieces. Strike that, I am sure he would not have written pieces that demanded techniques he didn't feel completely comfortable with.
"Immoral Tempo Allegations" LOL!
A couple of things I found out and knew about:
First, my "idol" growing up was none other than Artur Rubenstein. My teacher in Amherst, NY, Anne W. Moot, knew him and said that "he smoked and drank like a sailor". She did recount to me his failed technique, which he eventually improved; however, since, Ravel and Saint Saenz knew him and liked his playing, I would imagine that Rubenstein at one point might have played slower (conjecture on my part based upon what I have read about both Ravel and Saint Saenz). Of course, a New York, NY audience - some of THE fastest talkers and life styles in the world (still today) - wouldn't put up with as much art as they would have speed. Even in my native Buffalo, New York, "on time" was "five minutes late".
Second, I wound up finding an incredible essay written by a non musician (name unmentioned for now - just wait and see) who lived almost date to date with Beethoven. He had taken up the "old" pendulum issue, and remarked that placing a "bars per minute" would have been perfect solution. It's interesting though that those pendulums were - as I conclude - equal to not the vibrations of the pendulum, but it's period (back and forth).
Finally, Wim is correct when we never dispute the NUMBER of the MM, simply it's potential interpretation and the ability to achieve that number in some way - yet to be seen, but I am always sniffing around for the Rosetta stone ... of course, even if I were able to conjure a "pillar of fire", I would be forgot within a scant two generations.
So, on it goes. I am very pleased to get some great mileage out of my pieces past and present with my "newfound" historical playing. My daughter, a guitarist, has fallen in love with this idea, and I am getting some adherents from a number of her peers. Great news, new tide, new world!
Thanks, Wim!!!
PS - "morality" - HAHAHAHAHAAAA! On a humorous note, one of my daughters teachers is fond of saying, "Bach is God, and God is seated at the right hand of Bach", and then you might be able to squeeze a "moral" discussion out of this hole shebang! All in good cheer! Rock on, Double-Beaters!
Friedheim would play a piece and say it was how he recalled Liszt played it, complete with a cadenza, etc. This, of course, was how Liszt played it in the 1880s, and not how he may have played in the 1830s. I wonder what tempi Liszt would have played his first etudes, as in the original edition, and not the firewagon subsequent renditions? Are there any clues?
I agree with you, but I also agree with changing the titles to be a bit more... friendly towards newcomers.
I understand... but the title was not mine, it is what people write to me in the open!
I 100% agree with you. Mostly because I own a 1909 Gaveau parlor grand piano. I got it because it's surprisingly close mechanically to a modern piano, which makes it easy to work on and find replacement parts. All this being said, to say that this 1909 piano represents the 19th century tradition is way far off. Technology and art made a huge jump from 1850 to 1900.
There is nothing wrong in playing music slower than it is usually played or slower than the composer marked, if one simply states that this is what one is doing. There are ample justifications for this already (due to the level of sustain of modern pianos for example). But I now think that completely reinterpreting what metronome marks mean goes a step too far, as there is too much countervailing evidence from the last two centuries of music history.
Yeah, that's exactly what I feel, just said a lot better.
What is this countervailing evidence? Do tell us.
@@petertyrrell3391 (1) Written durations of performances of Beethoven from early c19th that would have been impossibly short if works were actually performed in double beat; (2) Written evidence from students of Czerny that his metronome markings were "incredibly fast"; (3) many instances of works that are impossibly slow when played double beat (check out pianopat's channel for play-throughs of these); (4) Double beat makes a nonsense of many Presto markings; (5) Many of the so-called "unplayable" MMs in single beat are in fact playable - one just needs a good facility and more time working on them; (6) There are recordings in existence of pianists who had in their youth heard Chopin play or who had been taught by his pupils. They all play at or only slightly below today's tempos - no one plays anywhere double beat. This is all been gone into throughly on this channel by others better qualified than me - check out ruclips.net/user/pianopatvideos
I like Wim's playing, even his slower-than-accepted playing - just not the Theory.
There's another period in classical (in the broad sense) music history that might be relevant to the discussion: the mid-20th century. The first post-war decades saw a fashion for slowing down (Klemperer is a prime example, but he was not alone). Compared to recordings from the 1930s and before, a typocal 1960s recording is significantly slowed down. With the late Romantic repertoire, it's still slowed down today. I suspect it was a reaction to this recent fashion that motivated the pioneers of the historically-informed performance movement to assume historical tempi were faster.
Klemperer in fact was also on the way up, only, not as fast as the solists. With Bach it's different, there "original" tempi (echo's) were heard much longer, it's only now that HIP starts to treat the 18th c music similar to what musicians started around 1840 to do with the classical works
And equally go the arguments over original instruments vs modern day (and even digital) instruments...
I can enjoy one interpretation or the other. But why are there such fussy people criticizing the OP here?
I don't know why. I just learn more.
Outre la suggestion métronomique, Chopin a mis « Allegro » comme tempo de l'étude no. 1 de l'opus 10. Si c'est noire = 176 [éd. Peters] // [noire = 88; W.W], que serait « presto »? :-) Impossible? Le « presto » de Chopin à l'étude 4 est moins rapide ?!? (blanche = 80 [éd. Peters] // [noire = 80; W.W.]. Bizarre que Chopin suggère une valeur plus lente au métronome pour presto que pour allegro. C'est peut-être l'édition Peters qui a modifié les valeurs? Merci beaucoup pour vos commentaires, stimulant et intéressant.
Regarding that subject of 'pupil of....' perhaps demonstrating a hint of tempo and manner of performance of their master: I was associated with the James Ching. music school. He had a small recording studio there. I know he was friends with an elderly lady (cannot recall her name) who was the last remaining pupil of Clara Schumann. I know she made some private recordings for him of Schumann pieces. Mr Ching died some years back but his 'James Ching Professional Service' is carried on by his family, and I know they have copies of those recordings. It occurs to me you might be interested in hearing those recordings as a part of your research. Of course, you may have copies already, so I apologize for telling you the obvious..
I have heard the Story Clothilde organ in the building. it is now just another bland Euro organ.
Cochereau was allowed to ruin the Notre Dame organ too.
Maybe one day we'll have Star Trek's transporter and be able to really tell the truth...in the mean time, I agree with you sir.
If one time we had the ability to travel back and get informed, we‘d also have the ability to travel back and inform you right now.
If Czerny didn't use a double beat, than he was a very consistently crazy person. Which would be nonsense, considering his reputation as a pianist and as an editor. So if you assume that Liszt never heard about that, under any allegations he might have done, which could have being now misinterpreted, because he's not saying the metronome is x/2, you are making your point in a very unstable ground. But maybe Czeny inherited Beethoven's madness, or the broken metronome, whatever we want to believe.
Regarding your opening comments. I think I'd put it like this. When you adapt a novel for TV or Film, there are changes the adaptor need to make for the difference in the medium, the most obvious being you cant put the characters thoughts on screen. There are then changes the adaptor considers necessary to convey critical themes (lets say) in a way that a modern audience understands, which may not be possible with a purely historical adaption. Then there are changes adaptors add for their own creative interpretation.
It seems to me with Music that the starting point is the way the writer intended the music to be played and the way that the initial performances were made. We don't have recordings, but we do have written music. If the way tempo was recorded then is different from now, simply assuming the current way is correct is wrong. It may well be that the current understanding provides more interesting piece of work than the original conception, but trying to claim that its right and the original conception is wrong must be a false premise. So if research shows that tempos were slower than we currently understand them, this would be the correct baseline performance for us.
Am-bi-GiU'-I-ty ♥ M. Winter
are you familer whith plante and saint sans recordings?
O yes, SS said in his Mozart edition exactly what is true: what for Mozart was a presto was for his time only an allegro, tempi almost doubled over a century
@@AuthenticSound thanks for answering and pointing that interesting information, what about Francis planté recordings of Chopin etudes ( recorded when he was over 90!)
ruclips.net/video/dYrJXXN_8hk/видео.html
I don't agree, of course one has a responsability towards the composer in the end, and not only to the public (one has to educate the public, not only please them).
Most of the early 20th recordings are much closer to single beat than to half of that. Paderewski was a charming man but not a great technique pianist (particularly at age), but when listening to Raoul Koczalski, Moritz Rosenthal or Ignaz Friedman you can't say that early 20th century pianist were technically inferior to the pianist of today.
The point is however, that IF there was a doubling of tempi between 1850 and 1920, there would be a lot of evidence of this in books, magazines, concert critiques etc. witten by musicians, musicologists and music lovers either complaining about, or cheering at but in any cause noticing this revolution in performing practise. Where are those accounts?
Let me quote you: "Most of the early 20th recordings are much closer to single beat than to half of that. " you say that, but that is not a fact unless we would have all recordings listed with MM. And on a deeper level, this sentence alone debunkes the complete supposed half/single beat practice. Since if it indeed would have been something that existed, we would match a 100% of the historic speeds (and go faster even as we are not running the 100 meter sprint any more in the 1896 results). As someone ironically commented on Alberto's Waldstein: now we know for sure how Albert learned this piece when in Colburn University, since he just left the school and recorded the piece right now. You see... count a 100 years and tradition... even if it was a thing... just vanished. There might be echos left, but not more than that. Do we play Bach still like Straube did?
Take care dear colleague, you seem to be somehow touched with the discussion around your argumentation. Dont let them get you down! Its your beliefs, your study, your sources, and you are very convincing. They are just jealous because you denounce their charlatanism. We make music! About Franck's organ, we have still Poligny, same year built, original.
thank you
I think it's incredibly fascinating to listen to the recording of Debussy playing his own Clair de Lune. ruclips.net/video/Yri2JNhyG4k/видео.html
He plays it so much faster, almost double speed, compared pianists do today. If we know tempi can slow down by such a large factor over the course of less than a century, then it's not crazy for tempi to have speed up so dramatically over the course of multiple centuries.
Oh how dares he play in 9/8 what he wrote in score not some crippled 3/4 ☺️
@@mairaleikarte43 Changing speed does not change time signature.
JakeTheGearHeart The piano roll recordings are compromised because when winded, the spool tension
exponentially increases, which effects the tempi and has grave repercussions to tempi authenticity.
The author writes the notes. They are the 'noun'.
The performer brings the music to life over lost time: time is the purvey of the performer. The performer is the 'verb'.
Complete sentences convey complete ideas.
have to admit I am siding with your understanding. If only there were 18th Century recordings.. lol
Organists are obsessed with gadgets, effects and stop lists. He actual music is of less importance
That is why real musicians laugh at us.
What about the recording of Beethoven’s Romance in F major made in 1889 played by Herr Krahmer and Herr Schmalfuß (whom have met Beethoven) which shows them playing at modern tempo?
here's a video on that topic, I'll dive deeper into this over the coming months: ruclips.net/video/O4kMXYb2pZM/видео.html
When you play the record twice as slow you can clearly here the satanic chanting. How immoral
A word about early recording: Perfection was not possible, as editing was impossible. To today's ears, it is quite a shock to hear so many missed notes and fluffed passages by almost all pianists of any stature, including the very young Horowitz. Wouldn't it have been prudent to not have released such flawed performances rather than denigrate the artist with a substandard effort? Just wondering....
I do buy your argument that historic recordings may be quite misleading. At the same time, I do not agree with your tempos. But... music performance is an act of interpretation and a performer has the right of choice which he does not have to explain or justify in any way.
That is absolutely right. Though the performer at the same time has the right to be interested in the original thoughts of the composer!
Give me a break. Plante not only studied with one of Chopin’s pupils, but actually heard Chopin play and not at the very slow tempos you suggest.
I think the fact that pianists can provide interpretations makes your argument regarding consistency invalid. However the majority of recordings reflect a faster tempo do they not? Are all these renowned pianists simply disregarding g the composers wishes 100% of the time? In the end none of us can be entirely certain I guess huh? lol 😂
'Are all these renowned pianists simply disregarding the composers wishes?'. What do they know about the composers wishes, when the composer in question has died some 100 years ago? During the last 3 centuries life has become much faster. During Bach's time the fastest thing on earth where horses. J. v. Goethe on his second journey to Italy bemoans the 'inhumane' speed of his coach. I believe our intuitive sense of time has changed of the last centuries.
yes you can check them and it is really easy: compare their tempi with the original mm and you're done.
On second thought, we are talking about music in the 'Galant Style', Bach and sons, Mozart, Clementi. The Galant Style doesn't allow fast movement, so I understand.
You are addressing several fascinating topics in one setting which, as you mention yourself, would benefit from individual exploration. Paderewski was a great patriot and teacher - his little known student Henryk Sztompka recorded a terrific intégrale of Chopin's Mazurki in 1959 - but also the most famous pianist of his time with the worst techique there ever was. Which raises the general topic of personal appeal versus musicianship which has become so acute again in our days. - Landowska did the same for the harpsichord that Tournemire did for Franck's organ (at least, Landowska did not destroy anything), that is acoustically enhance her instrument. Unlike Tournemire, Landowska had the excuse of wanting her instrument to be heard in a large hall (there is a wonderful photo of her playing in the Galérie des glaces at Versailles at the end of WWI). Of course, this trend of wanting instruments to be louder and carry further began much earlier with the replacement of gut strings and the first steel frames of the modern piano. Industrialization, urbanization, and larger audiences all contributed to these developments. In turn, it is interesting to contrast this development with the reverse effect of the introduction of the first piano-fortes in the 1720s, which acoustically speaking, produced a sweeter and more subdued sound than a nice two manual Ruckers. 1720s through about the 1770s: a marked desire for greater intimacy of music, a trend away from sound pollution. Johann Gottfried Müthel, living in Riga at the time, reduced his concert performances to the snow months, so his listeners (and he himself) would not be distracted by the clattering of carriage wheels over cobblestone roads outside. - All of this certainly makes for an interesting history of the changes in the perception of sound during the early years of industrialisation: on the one hand resentment of and retreat from sound pollution (Müthel and probably Mozart), on the other the desire to expand the capacity of instruments, as Beethoven with his piano (though he would not have heard the difference anymore). - Finally an off-the-cuff suggestion: you have sufficiently proven the correct understanding of metronome markings during the age of Czerny, Moscheles, Chopin, Schumann and friends. I would be curious to know: when were the metronome markings begun to be understood incorrectly? Speeding things up certainly was a by-product of faster times, but tendencies alone do not change a player's attitude to a mathematical value, and the snake oil of the „broken metronome” theory wasn't sold (literally so) till the latter 20th Century (and, unfortunately, is still sold today). Much earlier, there must have been one publication or one person that/who turned 160 = quarter from the intended two eights to a quarter note. A musical Jack-the-Ripper of sorts. One could line up the usual suspects, transitional figures who wrote pedagocial treatises, such as Bülow (with his Cramer edition; the Haslinger prints - I may remember wrong - had no metronome markings), Cortot, Philipp and others. Czerny, of course, is „out” as a suspect. Then who done it? Where does „post quem” meet „ante quem”? - At any rate: you touched upon several fascinating topics, each one deserving of elaboration.
thank you for sharing these interesting thoughts! It never really changed, that's the whole point. Wbmp and sb coexisted, but for the 19th c the majority of mms were in wb. I'll make some videos over the summer hopefully also explaining thid
@@AuthenticSound That wbmp and sb ran parallel to eachother, at least for a while, of course must be true. Perhaps I am looking for the needle in the haystack, and something that may have been limited to oral tradition. On the other hand, it was an asteroid that killed off most dinosaurs, and behind the appearance of slowly progressing change there may hide one root incident that codified the misreading of metronome markings. It is similar to searching for the first person who was no longer able to recognize the full contents, including the symbolism, inherent in a painting by Pieter de Hooch. Show one hundred people - without comment - de Hooch's intérieur of a mother delousing her child, and half of the viewers will say the mother is petting her daughter on the head. „Das Mittelmaß ist im Vormarsch” goes a German saying, and glancing over some of the not just stupid, but extensively stupid antagonism that your „theory” has received, it is apparent that the „Mittelmaß” has already arrived, and is bent on staying. Having worked in the field of historic cryptology, and having actually solved, not just described ciphers and codes, the most amazing antagonistic reactions fall into two categories: a) people who insist that 2 + 2 = 4, BUT 2 +2 = 5 is a valid alternative; b) people who are simply „dom”, and have fossilized that way. However, since musicology (as well cryptology) by default has to be a labour of love, I know that I can look forward to more of your presentations!
I think it is clear that tempo is not as critical a matter in the execution of a musical work as we might think, despite what you imply here around 5 minutes into this video. Proof? Well, just consider what your own opinion of contemporary performances was some years before you began to espouse this double beat theory. I doubt you would have objected, with respect to many works, on musical grounds, to a performance, say, 15 or 20 percent slower (or faster) than the tempo realized on a single beat theory. What this tells me, is that composers were not as "hung up" on tempo as you claim. Taking Beethoven's piano sonatas as proof: Only 1 sonata was assigned a tempo indication. What is your explanation for that? On this supposition, the inability of some or all pianists not being able to reach the assigned tempi - goes no distance to discredit the single beat theory. We can easily imagine, that a composer, not taking tempo as seriously as you do, may well set a metronome speed, for some ideal vision that the composer has for a given work, with a top-notch virtuoso. As I mention in another post, it is very plausible, also, that one such as Beethoven, for example, wanted a piece to be performed as fast as possible - to get an extreme exertion out of the pianist - and hence, he set the tempo a bit out of reach. I see this as being quite plausible. Or perhaps, he set tempos for only the beginning of the work - expecting it to drop some time into the performance. Let's leave it there for now.
Chaning tempo changes everything, that will be confirmed by every musician.
Talks a lot, doesn’t he?
and plays alot, almost 300 recordings on RUclips 🤔🤔🤔