I still find it difficult to accept this way of music making: 1. Schubert's D960's 1st movement, Molto Moderato, would take 40 minutes; 2. Erlkonig's horse, rather sprinting away in fear, becomes a jog, totally devoid from the panic of Goethe's text; 3. Don Giovanni would take 6 hours; the drama and excitement disappears; recitatives in sung Italian would become completely different to the speed at which is Italian is spoken; 4. As a violin player, there were no chin nor shoulder rests; you can't do vibrato properly due to lack of grip; so you have to draw your bow fast/lightly to avoid a boring sound; so it's really hard to play notes longer than a few seconds to avoid a terrible tone, esp. as bows in 18th century were actually shorter; 5. Musical markings don't make sense e.g. Andante (unless our forebears walked at 1/2 speed), Presto would no longer have urgency... Langsam becomes Schalfen...
one advice: start looking in to the MM's and when those are "en masse" not possible there is only one conclusion. You still can play as you wish though. Plus: whole beat is not half as fast as played today, we very rarely hear single beat
He is talking specifically about Czerny's metronome marks and not that of other composers or editors of compositions. As for Beethoven, a great friend of Czerny, some his metronome marks are impossible and maybe this is explained by this video.
If you think the embelishments are to be played in exact tempo, consider section 6 from chapter VII in op.500. In Czerny's own words: "s6. In this application of the Metronome, we must carefully remark that we cannot employ the style of execution which consists in the introduction of the Ritardando and Accelerando; because the Metronome always continues to beat on with unwavering regularity and precision. When therefore Embellishments occur, we cannot contrive to play in the prescribed time, we must either pass hastily over them, or omit attending to the beats of the Metronome so long as they last. Such passages can only be practised with advantage when we have laid the Metronome aside. " You take from it what you will.
well you certainly do that well...! Czerny writes at the same time never to use rubato before being able to play the piece completely exactly in tempo. People just read whar they want to see. Sadly enough...
@@AuthenticSound You haven't addressed the point: embellishments cannot be played nor practised with the metronome, which is a perfectly reasonable and nuanced position on Cerny's part.
Even when played slower, these pieces except for the simplest ones, aren't easy. Combine the tricky nature plus the length and they can become quite a lot to work on. Except for my old teacher, my other teachers scoffed at the Czerny etudes and pushed them off to the side in favor of Schmitt finger independence exercises with scales and arpeggios only. I don't know about you, Wim but my hands feel really good after playing Czerny's etudes first thing as if the fingers and hands did a few jumping-jacks and some stretching before playing. Even to this day, I don't play anything else for at least the first 20 to 30 minutes before working on my project pieces.
I think this is the most convincing post yet !! I enjoyed the extensive quotes from Czerny. One thing struck me though. When demonstrating Czerny's remark that each (single) crotchet should be played so that it corresponds to the audible beats (plural) of the metronome, Mr. Winters plays 2 ticks to the crotchet, each tick representing a subdivision of the crotchet (in effect, 1 tick per quaver). This is a logical assumption … but still only an assumption as to how many audible ticks should sound for each crotchet (e.g. why not 4 ?). If this logic is carried to its conclusion then if the tempo marking is given for a triple value (e.g. dotted crotchet) would the required tempo not be 3 ticks per dotted crotchet (again, one per quaver) ? I'm not sure how this would sound in practice with real tempo markings from the time, but at least the quandary about having students needing to think "2 against 3" (and worse) when setting tempo by metronome would be eliminated. Perhaps the issue is not single vs double beat. It may be single vs double or triple depending on the meter ?
This explanation of the metronome markings by Czerny (and his contemporaries) gives me quite a new perspective on the instructional works by the composer. I've always wondered why my right hand started to cramp up whenever I tried to play the first etude of Czerny's Op. 849, 30 kleine Etüden für den Mechanismus, at about 80 minims per minute, still 20% below what I thought was the indicated time. However, at 100 beats per minute and 2 beats per minim, it's perfectly manageable and I can properly focus on getting the fingering right, and actually enjoy the music too! Thank you for giving this insight.
Here's my take on it: Czerny is giving everyone a hard time just because he can! (Can't imagine what the poor guy went through in Beethoven's lessons) Great video, as always!
Who needs Czerny? Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Couperin, Handel et al ALL did pretty well without him. I personally think that he was a "failed" comoser so he was compelled to make his mark somehow so he chose to be a pedagogue.
@@baxter5431 it's how I was trained as a child, develop technique based on lots of scales, and etudes (mostly Czerny). I can't argue if that's the absolute best way to do it, because I'm not any kind of pedagogue. But that's how I was taught, it appears to have worked, and there is no point in changing that routine when I'm 50 years old.. ;)
@@markrcca5329 I think to each his own. Yes, Czerny & Hanon help with building up strength in the fingers & hands, no doubt, but it still doesn't apply, much, to playing Louis Couperin or Froberger et al.
Also if we take it in double beat and think that czerny actually meant his repetitions to be performed and without any interruption, czerny op 365 no 1 is more than 1 hour of scales at 6.6 notes per sec!
Even for me playing half of the "single beat" tempo of Czerny op 299 is hard and can still be called "School of Velocity", so I believe playing it half the "Single Beat tempo" (Whole Beat) is correct, then I watched this video and I'm happy I was right!
A general problem in European education is that people do not have the gene for questioning authority in general, and less so among students (if they had it maybe the history of the 20th century would have been different). Plus innovation, cross-fertilization with other areas, etc. is sneered upon in favor of the most rancid conservatism, blind obedience to the teacher, etc.
I love how its impossible to even begin discussing musicality when trying to make sense of single beat metronome numbers. Those high tweets in the c major etude! hilarious
This is most convincing proof, as well as in all your other uploads. I think that your question "Why musicians and teachers seem to have forgotten..." (14:16 etc.) is most important now and its answer has to involve psychological and social historical acceleration-processes (together, by the way, with the increasing tension of the tuning and life in general). Your most important uploads give us the chance to go back to human sanity and true musicality. Thank you a lot for that.
The metronome markings you are pointing out fit within the Italian phrasing very well. The whole point of the metronome was to become more precise within the current framework. Not create a contradiction in the work. And then there's the argument about playability. In fact there's the whole Occam's Razor element about this. Why would someone write so much unplayable music? As someone who's played jazz and rock for over 30 years I've been learning piano properly for the last year. I've noticed that when you hear a piece and then you look at the score the intention of the music is often lost with modern interpretations. I've written my own music for years. Everything has an emotion and meaning, even the happy accidental notes that you leave in.
I really enjoy your videos and appreciate your research. However, I must point out that your interpretation of Czerny’s statement: “spielt jede Viertelnote genau nach den hörbaren Schlägen des Metronoms” [play every crotchet exactly with the audible beats of the Metronome] is apparently mistaken. In that section of Opus 500, Czerny subsequently gives 8 examples. Regarding Example (d), 3/4, M.M. dotted minim = 88, he writes, “the time marked is dotted minim = 88; consequently, a whole bar lasts only during one beat of the Metronome.” Regarding Example (f), 4/4, Adagio, M.M. quaver = 92, he writes, “each bar contains 8 beats of the Metronome.” Regarding Example (g), 6/8, Presto, M.M. dotted crotchet = 152, he writes, “three quavers go to each beat.” Regarding Example (h), 6/8, Prestissimo, M.M. dotted minim = 116, he writes, “all the 6 quavers go to one beat of the Metronome.” From these descriptions, it is completely clear that for Czerny, the duration of the note in the M.M. is worth one beat of the metronome, and not two. Note also that if Czerny had meant what you think he meant, then the expression “THE audible beats of the Metronome”, with the definite article, would make little sense; it would have made more sense to write something like “play every crotchet with TWO beats of the Metronome”. It seems clear that the expression “the audible beats of the Metronome” refers to the sequence of audible beats produced by the metronome as a whole. I agree that Czerny’s M.M. numbers often appear to be double the appropriate numbers, but it’s simply wrong to take a sentence out of its context and misrepresent it.
@@AuthenticSound I understand the singular/plural distinction, and that is not what I am discussing. Czerny's text clearly shows that your interpretation is incorrect. You are not at all addressing the points I made above.
Still, all your examples could be interpreted as "metronome beat = full cicle". Just to be clear, I'm not saying he's right, just pointing out that there's no contradiction if "audible beats" and just "beats" have different meanings for Czerny.
Little by little we will share these discoveries with the world. The whole beat interpretation brings such relief and comfort to anxious students, teachers, and musicians of all kinds.
I doubt Czerny would knowingly give metronome marks that would attract ridicule. The most obvious reason for providing metronome marks is the same as that for providing fingering, that is for practical help. Whether I like Czerny's fingering or not is not to the point: I can see that there is a consistency and logic. Had Czerny dotted his studies with deliberately difficult fingering, we might understand that he was aiming for impossibility, but he did not do that and it is clear that his studies had a practical intent. Incidentally, I have a few old editions of some Czerny studies that I picked up second hand (prewar or even older), but all have omitted any metronome numbers. Editors have not been able to understand the metronome marks, so have simply left them out.
Oh, he did. He got plenty of ridicule from his contemporaries. The AMZ reviews (the satyrical "Neue Kreisleriana" included) of op.337 in 1835 and op.365 in 1838 were extremely vitriolic towards his insane metronome numbers. This seems to indicate that at the time of Czerny, single beat was the norm and (apparently) the tradition. If double beat were still practised, it is reasonable to presume that the allergic reaction of his peers would've been less intense. Also, Czerny himself would've drawn attention to it, which he did not. Au contraire, he clearly gives a single-beat instruction which, if you don't believe me, you can see with your own eyes in the english edition of op.500, book 3, section C, chapter VII, pages 66-68).
@@oliviu-dorianconstantinesc288 Thanks for that, I shall look to see if IMSLP has an online copy. Czerny's metronome marks are the strongest of Wim's arguments (particularly his Bach editions), however I no longer pass comments since it became evident that Wim was censoring counter evidence (relating to how to play Schubert). At least your comment got through. p.s.I had a look. On the face of it 'a beat' seems to mean one tick. There is something odd though a dotted minim = 88 is described as "the true time of the Waltz"; this would make each crotchet as 264, which is not possible, so I do think there is something odd.
@@martinbennett2228 That's because Czerny's talking about the viennese waltz, which is up to 4 times faster than the regular, slow waltz. If you look at the motif structure, it spans 4 bars, 2 cells of 2 bars each. It is written like 6/8, but in 3/4 on a 2 bar structure.
@@oliviu-dorianconstantinesc288 Czerny gives 4 bars but it I cannot see an equivalence to 6/8. You might just about squeeze the first two bars in to that, but not the next two. I do not think I have even heard Chopin's minute waltz that fast, not even to try to fit it into a minute. On the other hand Czerny has a few bars of an adagio, that is more andante at his marking, but certainly would not go twice as slow. Then there is a mark for a presto that is fairly brisk at half tempo but would not make much sense at the marked tempo. It is an interesting topic, but it needs to be investigated in a dispassionate and academic manner, rather than as a religious cult.
Are there still people question your observations? You are correct! Even if famous artists of our time disagree, let them. Your work will live beyond your critic's. You are right!
Thank you very much for your posting. You provide a wonderful explanation and to me this makes perfect sense and is the answer to Czerny’s metronome markings!!
Wim, with the best will in the world, I'm not persuaded. It seems to me the writer of those instructions (you assume he knows exactly what he's talking about) is describing a borderline case - an Allegro at crotchet 80 would be rather leisurely, and a conductor might want to speed it up a bit and conduct in 2 rather than 4. Ie, to put it crudely, indicate minim beats rather than crotchets. If he were regulating his tempo by a metronome (very unlikely!) he could adjust the machine to tick faster, but still make them crotchet ticks; or make it tick minims to correspond with his tactus. BUT (something that I haven't seen explored in your very interesting videos) a mechanical metronome becomes erratic and unreliable at very slow speeds (eg in this imaginary case minim 50 ), so he'd choose to do the former, and end up with your double - tick theory. And even then the mystery isn't solved. Provisionally at least I can only suppose the early metronomes were wrongly calibrated and copied each other - but it would take a bit of evidence to make that a tenable theory.
no problem, but look again, the instructions are written by Czerny, so to stop the often used fake argument that his tempi are only targets. They weren't
@Chlorinda Hi. Are you saying the same as I did, or contradicting it?! To be honest I've forgotten what Wim was on about, and though an excellent chap he's so prolix I can't be bothered to revisit his argument. As far as I'm concerned (to cut a Gordian knot) old metronome marks are really not very interesting. Well, quite interesting to know how fast Beethoven played his own music, if it could actually be established, but that needn't, and shouldn't, be any more than a very dispensible guide for contemporary performers.
@Chlorinda Me too! I'd only say: some early metronome marks are clearly bonkers; mechanical metronomes are inaccurate and VERY inaccurate at low speeds; play your Beethoven piano sonatas at any speed you like. Beethoven himself would say 'Gosh! That's given me a new insight into my own work!'.
You have me really confused around the 11 minute mark. It's literally says there that "If the indication were 1/8= 112 then each 1/8 would have the same duration", in that same document, only two pages down, he even goes out of his way explaining with examples how the markings in his book should be read: "Thus, for example, at d, the time marked is 3/1=88; consequently a whole bar last only during one beat of the Metronome; and this is at the present day the true time of the Waltz." What he refers to as "d" is a few bars of a simple waltz, explaining very clearly that one beat from the metronome equals one whole bar. He continues on with a few other examples rendering it beyond a reasonable doubt that if Czerny wrote 3/1=88 he meant 3/1=88 and not 3/2=88 or anything else. Anyway, what's the point of studies if one can just immediately sight-read whatever's written with hardly any struggle?
First part very nice. The number of notes per second for single beat on Czerny is one of the strongest, if not the strongest argument for double/whole beat. But I don't agree with what you argue to be a "pretty clear" statement of Czerny's op. 500 metronome description. Actually, in my opinion, it is as ambiguous as it can be in this single/double beat question, since it is interpretable in both ways, as you also explain yourself. Only I wouldn't add the attribute of a "secondary interpretation". In the same way you argue that Czerny could have written if he meant single beat: "Each crotchet must be played exactly with each audible beat", one can argue that if he meant double beat, he would have written: "Each crotchet must be played exactly with two audible beats/clicks". He should have very explicitly defined the proportion of the note value to the number of metronome clicks, and that would have solved this single/double beat issue forever.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 Not really, the ambiguity remains in the sentence. If Cherny wanted to associate the note value with two ticks, he would have written as I said above "each crochet must be played with two audible ticks". If he wanted to have single beat he would have said "each crochet must be played with each audible tick". But he wrote the vague expression "with the audible beats", hence the source is pretty useless.
Czerny viewed the beat not as a point in time but as a duration itself. First tick marks the beginning of that duration, second tick is not the end, you have to count the same duration after that 2d tick. A baby has also not the age 0 years all the way up to his first anniversary.
Good morning, beg your pardon, who's this scholar and musician alarmingly intelligent and knowledgeable ? I have my hat in my hands. May God bless him and may him give musicians his thoughts and mind / ear opening findings for many many years to come. Lots of love. From Monza, Italy. His foomagallian paolity
I find it fascinating that people are quicker to agree with WBMP in regards to Czerny. Could it be that the inhuman bpms and less public recognition of his works adds to this? When you give factual arguments to apply the WBMP to Beethoven, I see individuals become much more confrontational, how could all of our adored virtuosos from so many generations have been interpreting it wrong this whole time! Just my humble ramblings :)
Mabye yes, truth is that so few people really seem to realize how many of these 'insane' tempi we have from that time, where composers as Beethoven and Chopin are in fact even 'moderate'
DISCLAIMER: This is a long comment, and "they" have admonished me previously (and you know how a certain cartoon character "Stan" refers to "they"). OK - you've chosen to read on ... enjoy! 8:09 - BINGO! Authority ... I have failed as a teacher as well! ... ... until it hit me like a brick!: I became a physics teacher, and I used to toss "intuitive questions" out on Facebook for my students. One of my old science teachers answered one of them, but he was incorrect ... WHAT?!? How can a professor who has an entire wing of his former school and awards named for his many years of service have made such a silly error? Although I had received well-meaning but horrific advice from trusted friends and relatives in the past, it finally struck me that my teachers should have been challenged. I had always had that door open to my students, but I hadn't realised how dogmatic these "old people" were. Having explained the concept, all this "teacher" could do was hold up his "credentials" and "his wisdom since he was now quite old". I pitied him. He was DEAD WRONG, and he still couldn't come to accept the truth, a scientific PROOF! I have since made LOTS of modifications in my life. Wim - right on! 8:21 - "... but let's continue ..." WOW!!! If that weren't enough, it can never be enough. Bravo, Wim, bravo! An hypothesis: I am unfamiliar - explicit or non - that Czerny ever indicated that one must play "with" the Metronome. I present this hypothesis because in Gottfried Weber's book (1840-ish), he discusses his "homemade" pendulum to be used in the Metronome's stead. It is not practical to play to a swinging pendulum (try it yourselves); therefore, I conclude that this was not the practise then as now. Why is this important? Because until the "bell" was introduced, the Metronome was to be used to get the "initial" tempo (meaning for the entire piece; however, misinterpreted to mean "just for the first few bars" then "do whatever"). Like a pane of stained glass, each fragment of coloured glass cannot tell the entire story. One piece of evidence from history "tells it all"; however, when other documents corroborate (or detract, depending on case) a practise, then it becomes ever more probable of its authenticity. Wim does this exceptionally well by his using multiple sources. As am amateur horologist (I am not a jeweller by any means though I design and build clocks of different types), I can tell you that your Grandfather Clocks that use a "seconds pendulum" are geared to a TWO-SECOND period. Each two ticks (or the "tick-tock") release only ONE tooth of the escapement wheel. Were any clock to be designed as the half-beat interpretation states, our clock would shew 48 hours in a day ... it would run twice too fast. So that you know, the mechanical clock's regulator makes this impossible anyway. There are TWO pallets, and there is no way to make it fewer or the clock would "run out" ... ouch, trust me, ouch! Wim, I won't steal your thunder on the "broken Metronome" ... HAHA!!! I cannae wait for that video! Great video to study and ponder for "hours" (or "half hours" for our friends who believe otherwise ;) )! Tom
The only difference between an "expert" and the rest of us is an "expert" (note the quotes) has a very narrow field of study and is very good at hiding his/her mistakes. You pointed to an expert the he did in fact make a mistake and he is truly infallible. Oops! There is a human behind that curtain!
@@emperorjimmu9941 Sure, Jimmy. He erroneously equated the velocity of sound through a solid and sound through a fluid. I had asked if sound travels faster through warm air or cold air. He incorrectly concluded that colder air being "denser" - like a denser solid - must allow sound to travel faster. Oops! The fact is that as air warms, the molecules in that air mass are able to travel faster (that is why the temperature increased assuming the volume and pressure remain constant). Since the air molecules travel faster, they can "bump into each other" faster. This idea is why adiabatic lapse rates are so interesting, and cause thunderstorms, etc. I wasn't being "dogmatic"; he refused the proof that I had sent him. To tie this back into music, specifically the Metronome, the correct way to read the Metronome is exactly the same way that you read a pendulum (because they are one and the same). The pendulum requires a distance of 2 Pi in order to find the time period. Ignoring isochronism (please, I don't want to discuss the brachistochrome issue), the pendulum of 0.24849 - ish meters will give you the time period of exactly-ish one second-ish; however, setting your metronome to "60" believing that it's a second causes you to play your music twice as fast. Conclusion: the whole beat interpretaton does not cause you to play 1/2 times too slow; the half beat interpretation causes you to play music 2X too fast. :D I hope that helped. - Tom
Buddy I love your videos and some of the compositions really sound surprisingly good and even better than superfast versions of today but you are wrong about the metronome. One "schlag" is just one click or one sound of the metronome and you should play a note everytime you hear it. It is simple as that
I might get crucified for saying this but I think Czerny suggested these impossible to reach tempo to artificially make his etudes harder for self-inflation purposes (To make his skill seem greater than it really is.)
Never mind pianos from Czerny's time weren't at all able to be played that fast :) And all of his metronomes were utterly broken for some reason, poor Czerny :)
Metronomes before this day may have been different in the sense that one unit beat is less in time. I may be wrong though; I haven’t studied it in depth.
I think that the construction of piano to the time of Czerny was different enabling the velocity in more easy way then on modern piano...These tempi are not even from Argerich to achieve...The period instruments have more responsible mechanism...That is why I do not think it is important to strive these tempi by practice on modern piano...The same is for Chopen etude No.1 opus 10...If you don't own Pleyel piano or comparable period instruments,you must not torture your body and soul in order to produce music...It has nothing to do with the music...
You are correct that the construction the piano of the time Czerny was different, but you're are wrong in your assumption. It was more difficult to play at speed than the modern piano, in fact the pianos of Vienna were harder to play than those of Érard Piano's in France with its double Escapement (key didn't have to return completely to re-strike the note) Patent issued in 1821, and these are too slow an action for single beat Beethoven or Czerny. Érard pianos of that time are slower than today's piano. I have played on antiques off and on as opportunity presented itself for over 50 years.
I think your linguistic argument is not valid. The plural of "Schlag": "Schläge" is compatible with the single-beat reading as well as with the double-beat reading. Since the metronome beats more than once in each piece of music, it has to be the plural: "Schläge". "nach dem Schlag des Metronoms" sounds strange or wrong, "nach dem Schlagen des Metronoms" (with the beating of the metronom) would still work. If he wanted to be explicit, he should have written "nach den einzelnen Schlägen" or "nach den Doppelschlägen": with each (single) beat" / with each double beat". Of course, this does not change all the other interesting arguments and points of view. Many thanks for this insightful presentation!
I did wonder what could be learnt from Beethoven's published tempi markings, presumably (imo) if they were good friends they would have used the same system for marking it. It turns out that a Marten A Noorduin wrote a thesis 'Beethoven's Tempo Indications' in 2016 which is available on Manchester University's website. From a first glance it looks pretty well researched and has excerpts from a letter in which LVB gives Czerny a bit of a telling off for apparently playing his work at the wrong pace, Czerny responds with an apology. Unfortunately at 300+ pages I don't have time to delve deeper at present or attempt to draw any conclusion but it looks like it might be an interesting read. Would be interested to hear if anyone else has considered from this angle and their thoughts?
Your explanatiions for metronome indications in quater notes, half notes, and whole notes are very clear. However, one of my favorite czerny etudes from op. 740 is number 2. This is a study in the passing under of the thumb. The metronome indication is a dotted half note = 60. I am completely unsure of how to divide the metronome beats to arrive at the proper tempo in this piece. If I take each tick of the metronome as a quarter note, the piece is too slow for the "Allegro vivace" indication. If I take each tick of the metronome as a dotted quater note, the tempo is more realistic, but almost impossible to count (at least for my feeble mind). Could you clarify what to do with the metronome for tempos that are indicated by dotted notes. Maybe I missed the video where this was discussed. If that is the case, please let me know where to listen to find the answer. I do appreciate your channel, and will probably be adding a patreon subscription before the end of 2019. Thank you again for this extremely valuable information based on evidence and not on our modern misinterpretation of tradition.
That's called tactus inaequalis, you'll find a bit more info in this video ruclips.net/video/NHq0KjwfthU/видео.html or here ruclips.net/video/d4Ke5nvftZg/видео.html
After you finish the school of velocity in the original tempo according to your theory, could you do his op 365 studies? There’s a computer rendition on RUclips at the modern tempo, and there is just no way that that tempo is correct
very good points...also many music forms were born out of dances, through the centuries. Who would dance so fast? A giant dilemma. And also, as both a guitarist and a pianist, I wonder how fast or slow the guitar was played by someone like Mauro Giuliani or Legnani. I can tell with no shadow of doubt that at the piano is easier to play fast than on guitar, because the latter is just a more awkward instrument to play, although of course the piano can have more complex textures, and more numerous. At the piano you have to lower a finger to play a note, on guitar you have to do that plus plucking a string. Giuliani was a guitar virtuoso who performed with Moscheles....they were all contemporaries of Czerny. What would someone like Giuliani think when he heard someone supposedly performing at the speeds Czerny supposedly indicated? He must have felt like a turtle with Down's syndrome, which seems strange to say the least...
Maybe he is just wondering what it would sound like at that very tempo because they can never know back then. They may believe that we nowadays’s people could solve that out somehow.
Does the room not have a perceptible effect on the tempo? Being an organist, I feel the room more than I feel any other factor when it comes to tempo. A big, reverberating room requires a slower tempo in order to be clear. Something that was printed in a book 100 years ago is irrelevant to me in that circumstance
Also an organist (harpsichordist, too), yes "you play the room" but the tone's duration after the initial strike fades fairly quickly, and does not affect the perception of speed.
What a stupid comparison. If I bang my forearms on the keyboard I can easily play like 100 notes a second. According to the logic of this video now we speed up LangLangs performance of op.299/1 by 7 and the result is ridiculous. Notice the error you made? It's just a scale he is playing, not chords! The second example shown contained runs unisono in BOTH hands. What does that mean for the speed each individual hand has to reach? Yes, it's HALF the number notes per second to be played. One cannot take piece A and compared it with piece B by just looking at the parameter "notes per second". It's like with chili: hey, this sauce has 500.000 scoville! Wow that must be crazy hot!! Oh, well, no because I put a microgram of it on your food. 10.000 scoville can be much hotter if you put lots of it on the food. -> correlating parameters
Brilliant, thank you so much. Others Guys, you missed the end of the explanation or what? One crochet is 2 MM-beats, or for our today's understanding, its all half-tempo. Or crochet (noire en francais) = 80 means for us today quaver = 80. Or better, set MM at indicated tempo and play half of the notes per single beat. BTW authenticSound how does this work with ternary compass? MM playing duolets all the time?
the MKS unit of time period "the minute" was most probably not comprised of 60 quotidian seconds as we know the duration of seconds today. Maybe it was more like 70 of our 21st century seconds per minute in the 19th Century.
The Metres-Kilo-Second is now "SI" (Sistema Internacional - Spanish - equivalent to the French). Since Galileo's famous "Time Period is Proportional to the Square Root of the Quantity of the Length divided by Gravity", the second has been well-known, and it has not changed. The Metronome was invented in 1816 (patent), and in the mid-18th century, John Harrison was busy perfecting his time pieces using siderial days (watching a particular star over a roof top to check his clocks). The "second part of the hour" of time then is equal to today's by using the period of a pendulum whose length is roughly 0.24849 m. The frequency of that pendulum is also one second. It has two vibrations at 120 beats per minute. I hope this helps.
@@stevenreed5786 Quite right, Steve. the clocks - as often as they had cloudless skies - were set by the "noon mark". They were not interested in seconds at all, and most clocks were void of the minute hand. If you wish, get a cheapo clock, and pull the seconds and minutes, and you can "reckon" the time - with some practice - quite nicely with just the hour hand. The equation of time had to be reckoned with as well, so being pinpoint accurate was not a practice till very recent times. I have an 1891 "Mantle Clock" without seconds. It has a "recoil" escapement (not particularly accurate), and it stays within seconds per day compared to my quartz clock.
Czerny's words surely can't bear the weight placed upon them here. As they stand, they're pretty well meaningless. If he'd said 'each crotchet to coincide with each beat of the pendulum' OR (as is suggested he meant) 'with each vibration of the pendulum' we'd know where we were - though if he meant the latter, it would seem that his idea of how the metronome was to be used was different from Maelzel's!
May it be translation error after all? Do you remember those American book on natural philosophy for schools which leaves no doubt that already in 1830s in US beats were understood as nowadays (single ticks, parts of full swing)? Did it shift over time? Did translators misinterpret German "schlag"? Interesting to look at Moscheles writings as he knew both languages.
I've seen PianothShavek's renditions of Czerny 299 nos 1-3, at (single-beat) tempo. But... I'd be amazed to see someone play this at single-beat tempo: ruclips.net/video/iBCq3RPciR4/видео.html Czerny op 365 no 32. Triplets at a speed of about 14 keypresses per second -- repeated on the same note! Still, I don't know what the original metronome mark for this piece was.
To go off on a bit of a tangent - although this is an interesting topic and well worth exploring, it's not of any ARTISTIC interest, in my view. Great works of art are for all time, not just their own. Czerny was it? is quite wrong in stating that it's essential to know the exact speed at which a composer wanted his music played. Composers aren't the best interpreters of their own music. We're lucky enough to have recordings of many composers playing or conducting their own music, but they're certainly not regarded by practical musicians as the last word, definitive, to be slavishly imitated. For instance, I don't like, and nobody as far as I know imitates, the pedestrian plunky way Scott Joplin plays his own music (perhaps not a good example, but the principle holds).
Scott Joplin indicated on his later printed scores, that ragtime is not to be played fast. His school of Ragtime admonishes that the effect of Rag Time is lost by playing too fast. By 1905 he put the words Slow March Tempo 1/4=72 beats per minute (Top speed for Andante moderato) His indications were initially Tempo di Marcia (March Tempo) not Cut Time (double quick time march) (March Tempo equals 3.4 miles per hour or a 17.64-minute mile. Double Time is essentially a jog that uses a cadence of 180 steps per minute. That equals 5.1 miles per hour or a 11.76-minute mile. Most people play as they are attempting to break the 3:43.13 record for the mile or 17 1.3 miles per hours.) Although there is artistic license, interpretation, but completely ignore the score's indications and you dishonor the composer. Would you repaint Da Vinci's Last Supper in Fluorescent Poster Paints on a crushed black velvet "canvass" and exhibit it under a black light. If Great works of art are for all time, would you put a handlebar mustache on the Mona Lisa? As to composer "aren't the best interpreters of their own music," that's horse manure. However, how many concerts of John Williams Movie Scores exceed the Composer at the baton?Rhetorical question. Or why performances by composers of their works in any genre are given such prominence in recording? According to their contemporaries J S Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and Liszt for example were unequaled in their interpretations of their own works.
@@Renshen1957 Drawing analogies between the arts is always risky, and doesn't work here, because a painting, or a novel, is fixed, whereas a piece of music is created anew every time it's performed. One way in which it DOES work is that any work of art, once published, passes out of the ownership of the creator (except perhaps in a purely legal sense). He or she has given it to the public, or to humanity, to use as it wishes. You don't expect a novelist to say 'You've GOT to like my character X! She's supposed to be NICE!' And I don't believe an artist fully understands his or her own creation (if that means anything). For instance, I really believe I could sit down at the piano (this is supposing I were a competent pianist!) and play Beethoven one of his piano sonatas, and when I'd finished, he'd say 'Hm. I liked that. It's not quite how I thought of it, and it's not how I play it myself, but you've shown me things in my music I hadn't realised were there.' As for composers as interpreters of their own music - just do an experiment. There are plenty of recordings of Rachmaninov playing his own music. Ask six concert pianists whether, when performing his music, they try to imitate him. When they all say ' No'', ask them why not.
@@hermoglyph2255 Except in a parody, plagiarism or satire work, any work not in the public domain does not belong to humanity. Whether one likes or dislikes a work, is a subjective choice of a rational being. As to the six concert pianists, not one would dare to imitate Rachmaninov, as they would always pale in comparison, and Rachmaninov's Ghost (as recorded) would be the victor. To date (50 years and counting), not one virtuoso pianist has won the accolade of playing better than Rachmaninov, only different. Beethoven's quotation on the subject of performance, he wasn't so concerned with missed or flubbed notes, but rather if the pianist played with expression and emotion (which he learned from C P E Bach's Essay on Keyboard playing). Beethoven would only take pupils that met his high standards of performance and talent, Czerny became his pupil on his performance. From Czerny's biography: "At that time an old man named Krumpholz (brother of the inventor of the pedal harp) visited us nearly every morning. He was a violinist and as such had a position in the orchestra of the Court Theatre; yet at the same time he was a musical enthusiast whose passion for music was carried to the most extravagant lengths. Nature has endowed him with a just and delicate feeling for the beautiful in tonal art, and though he possessed no great fund of technical knowledge, he was able to criticize every composition with much acumen, and, so to say, anticipate the judgments of the musical world. "As soon as young Beethoven appeared for the first time, Krumpholz attached himself to him with a persistence and devotion which soon made him a familiar figure in his home, so that he practically spent nearly the hole day with him, and Beethoven, who ordinarily was most reticent with everyone regarding his musical projects, told Krumpholz about all his ideas, played every new composition for him time and again, and improvised for him every day. Although Beethoven often poked fun at the unfeigned ecstasies into which Krumpholz invariably fell, and never called him anything but his jester; yet he was touched by this attachment, which led him to affront the bitterest enmities in order to defend his cause against his adversaries, so numerous in those days. For at that time Beethoven's compositions were totally misunderstood by the general public, and all the followers of the old Mozart-Haydn school opposed them with the most intense animosity." "This was the man for whom, day by day, I had to play Beethoven's works, and although he knew nothing of piano playing, he was, quite naturally, able to tell me a great deal about their tempo, interpretation, effects, characteristics, etc., since he often heard them played by Beethoven himself, and in most cases had been present when they came into being. His enthusiasm soon infected me and before long I, in turn, was a Beethoven worshipper like himself, learned all that Beethoven had written by heart, and, considering my years, played it with skill and enthusiasm. Krumpholz also invariably told me about the new things Beethoven had "under pen," and would sing or play on his violin the themes he had heard in Beethoven's home during the forenoon. Owing to this circumstance I was always informed at a much earlier date than others with regard to what Beethoven had under way. Later this made it possible for me to realize how long, often for years at a time, Beethoven polished his compositions before they were published, and how in new works he used motives which had occurred to him many years before, because our friendly relations with Krumpholz were maintained over a long period of years up to his death, which took place in 1817." (Note Beethoven had high standards as to his compositions) "I was about ten years old when Krumpholz took me to see Beethoven. With what joy and terror I greeted the day on which I was to meet the admired master! Even now this moment is vividly present in my memory. It was a winter's day when my father, Krumpholz, and I took our way from Leopoldstadt (where we were still living0 to Vienna proper, to a street called der tiefe Graben (the Deep Ditch), and climbed endless flights to the fifth and sixth story, where a rather untidy looking servant announced us to Beethoven and then admitted us. The room presented a most disorderly appearance; papers and articles of clothing were scattered about everywhere, some trunks, bare walls, hardly a chair, save the wobbly one at the Walter fortepiano (then the best), and in this room was gathered a company of from six to eight persons, among them the two Wranitsky brothers, Süssmayr, Schuppanzigh and one of Beethoven's brothers. Beethoven himself wore a morning coat of some longhaired, dark gray material, and trousers to match, so that he at once recalled to me the picture in Campe's 'Robinson Crusoe,' which I was reading at the time. His coal black hair, cut a la Titus, bristled shaggily about his head. His beard-he had not been shaved for several days-made the lower part of his already brown face still darker. I also noticed with that visual quickness peculiar to children that he had cotton which seemed to have been steeped in a yellowish liquid, in his ears. At that time, however, he did not give the least evidence of deafness. I was at once told to play something, and since I did not dare begin with one of his own compositions, played Mozart's great C major Concerto, the one beginning with Chords. Beethoven soon gave me his attention, drew near my chair, and in those passages where I had only accompanying passages played the orchestral melody with me, using his left hand. His hands were overgrown with hair and his fingers, especially at the ends, were very broad. The satisfaction he expressed gave me the courage to play his Sonata Pathetique, which had just appeared, and finally his 'Adelaide,' which my father sang in his very passable tenor. When he had ended Beethoven turned to him and said: 'The boy has talent. I will teach him myself and accept him as my pupil. Send him to me several times a week. First of all, however, get him a copy of Emanuel Bach's book on the true art of piano playing, for he must bring it with him the next time he comes,' Then all those present congratulated my father on this favourable verdict, Krumpholz in particular being quite delighted, and my father at once hurried off to hunt up Bach's book.( C P E Bach's Essay on Keyboard playing)"" (Thayer: 226-28; [siehe auch: Cooper: 103] ). Czerny had been given insight as to how Beethoven played his pieces by Wenzel Krumpholz, and delighted that the 10 year old understood his works. Had he played the work differently, to show Beethoven (the master) something in his works (which he slaved over before publication), is beyond the imagination that Beethoven would have taken him as a student no matter how talented. Besides Czerny, George Augustus Polgreen Bridgetower Afro-European musician Violinist (Beethoven dedicated Violin Sonata No. 9 in A major (Op.47) to Bridgetower, with the goodheartedly mocking dedication Sonata per un mulattico lunatico), Teréz Brunszvik (most likely candidate for the title Immortal Beloved), Dorothea von Ertmann, and Ferdinand Ries. I won't give you a laundry list of J S Bach's students, but one who made a mistake in one of his compositions, Bach through his wig in frustration and said, "You had better have been a cobbler!" Compositions are like children to composers. Let's just say in my subjective opinion, I disagree with your assessment. I might add that Dance, an art form, must be recreated anew each time it's performed. Woe to the Ballerina that does not follow the choreography.
However, Chopin's autograph of Nocturne in D flat Op 27 2, Lento sostenuto, in which he stipulates dotted crotchet = 50 (ie very fast semi-quavers in L hand vs Lento), and Beethoven's Hammerklavier minim = 138 (nuts; have tried...) would may make more sense, especially the Chopin. So my opinion is that there were 2 counting systems, and you used common sense to work out which one to use...
My teacher made me play Czerny at 6 years old. I couldn't pronounce his name and mispronounced it as Crazy (much to the chagrin of my teacher). I think he's really crazy with all his suggested tempo markings.
Dogmatism and Legalism VS Art, Controversialism VS Sobriety and subtlety. In one corner of the past Pianistic world, a pianist claims to have the fastest octaves and in another, claims to have the fastest arpeggios and 32nd notes (S. Thalberg). Mendelssohn made a note once of his friend Henselt how that everytime he drops by Henselt's home for a visit he finds his friend busy exercising his finger spans and arpeggios of wide intervals on the piano. Don't you find these things tedious? Does it always have to be about superior finger skills and an Olympian piano prowess? There was an anecdote where that Chopin once said about a student who played one of his pieces (a polonaise I believe it was) in a rather brutally powerful way (a piano wrecker he must have been), that if he (Chopin) had the same physical strength he would have done more (?!). That however, I find very uncharacteristic of the composer who was once quoted allegedly as telling Liszt "please play my music as it is or not at all". All those remarks must have been either misconstrued or invented but at any rate, at the onslaught of the Romantic period, artists and composers enjoyed so much liberty at what they do. Beethoven was even quoted that he could do a better composition on the same theme that another composer created. But that would be plagiarism, wouldn't it? It was also contested among small circles as to who was a better pianist, Beethoven or Hummel, referencing the speed at which they play other people's works, such as Mozart's to my understanding since the both of them were either directly or indirectly mentored by the genius man himself. My point here is, when and where does testosterone end, and musicality and musical artistry begin? When it is about dogmatism, it is no longer about art. When it is about testosterone, Olympian prowess and controversialism, it is no longer about Music. I'd rather go for musical artistry, where techniques and bravura skills become just incidental to the performance - not the focus.
@@lemonemmi You are one of my favourite people, Ms. Emmi! You know, there isn't a Metronome setting far enough down the rod that would beat my enjoyment of this community and Wim's mentorship. It's virtual - sure - but I know you are real people, and you are wonderful people. God bless you.
@@thomashughes4859 Aww that is so sweet! I truly enjoy the community aspect of this channel too. It truly is a group of dear friends, gathered to learn and enjoy most beutiful music!
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
I still find it difficult to accept this way of music making:
1. Schubert's D960's 1st movement, Molto Moderato, would take 40 minutes;
2. Erlkonig's horse, rather sprinting away in fear, becomes a jog, totally devoid from the panic of Goethe's text;
3. Don Giovanni would take 6 hours; the drama and excitement disappears; recitatives in sung Italian would become completely different to the speed at which is Italian is spoken;
4. As a violin player, there were no chin nor shoulder rests; you can't do vibrato properly due to lack of grip; so you have to draw your bow fast/lightly to avoid a boring sound; so it's really hard to play notes longer than a few seconds to avoid a terrible tone, esp. as bows in 18th century were actually shorter;
5. Musical markings don't make sense e.g. Andante (unless our forebears walked at 1/2 speed), Presto would no longer have urgency... Langsam becomes Schalfen...
one advice: start looking in to the MM's and when those are "en masse" not possible there is only one conclusion. You still can play as you wish though. Plus: whole beat is not half as fast as played today, we very rarely hear single beat
He is talking specifically about Czerny's metronome marks and not that of other composers or editors of compositions. As for Beethoven, a great friend of Czerny, some his metronome marks are impossible and maybe this is explained by this video.
czerny : 20 notes per second
ben lee : hold my 5-string violin/viola thing
If you think the embelishments are to be played in exact tempo, consider section 6 from chapter VII in op.500.
In Czerny's own words:
"s6. In this application of the Metronome, we must carefully remark that we cannot employ the style of execution which consists in the introduction of the Ritardando and Accelerando; because the Metronome always continues to beat on with unwavering regularity and precision.
When therefore Embellishments occur, we cannot contrive to play in the prescribed time, we must either pass hastily over them, or omit attending to the beats of the Metronome so long as they last. Such passages can only be practised with advantage when we have laid the Metronome aside.
"
You take from it what you will.
well you certainly do that well...! Czerny writes at the same time never to use rubato before being able to play the piece completely exactly in tempo. People just read whar they want to see. Sadly enough...
@@AuthenticSound You haven't addressed the point: embellishments cannot be played nor practised with the metronome, which is a perfectly reasonable and nuanced position on Cerny's part.
Even when played slower, these pieces except for the simplest ones, aren't easy. Combine the tricky nature plus the length and they can become quite a lot to work on. Except for my old teacher, my other teachers scoffed at the Czerny etudes and pushed them off to the side in favor of Schmitt finger independence exercises with scales and arpeggios only. I don't know about you, Wim but my hands feel really good after playing Czerny's etudes first thing as if the fingers and hands did a few jumping-jacks and some stretching before playing. Even to this day, I don't play anything else for at least the first 20 to 30 minutes before working on my project pieces.
Preach it, John!!!
This video is a great reference for Czerny's view on his own works
I too love writing music that even I cannot play!
I think this is the most convincing post yet !! I enjoyed the extensive quotes from Czerny. One thing struck me though. When demonstrating Czerny's remark that each (single) crotchet should be played so that it corresponds to the audible beats (plural) of the metronome, Mr. Winters plays 2 ticks to the crotchet, each tick representing a subdivision of the crotchet (in effect, 1 tick per quaver). This is a logical assumption … but still only an assumption as to how many audible ticks should sound for each crotchet (e.g. why not 4 ?). If this logic is carried to its conclusion then if the tempo marking is given for a triple value (e.g. dotted crotchet) would the required tempo not be 3 ticks per dotted crotchet (again, one per quaver) ? I'm not sure how this would sound in practice with real tempo markings from the time, but at least the quandary about having students needing to think "2 against 3" (and worse) when setting tempo by metronome would be eliminated. Perhaps the issue is not single vs double beat. It may be single vs double or triple depending on the meter ?
Czerny must have had incredible foresight into MIDI technology. He knew only a computer could realize this madness.
you didnt understand the video
2:17 16 notes a second? That's faster than that sacrilegious boi!
Another Two Set fan!! 😄
He was not so bad, at least he said you could play slowly 😉
If you can play Czerny slowly, you can play it quickly. It is nice to see Two Set fan here.
What a colliding of worlds this comment is.
Even the legendary Ling Ling, after practicing 40 hours per day, would not be able to push his Steinway to these speeds.
This explanation of the metronome markings by Czerny (and his contemporaries) gives me quite a new perspective on the instructional works by the composer.
I've always wondered why my right hand started to cramp up whenever I tried to play the first etude of Czerny's Op. 849, 30 kleine Etüden für den Mechanismus, at about 80 minims per minute, still 20% below what I thought was the indicated time. However, at 100 beats per minute and 2 beats per minim, it's perfectly manageable and I can properly focus on getting the fingering right, and actually enjoy the music too! Thank you for giving this insight.
Here's my take on it: Czerny is giving everyone a hard time just because he can! (Can't imagine what the poor guy went through in Beethoven's lessons) Great video, as always!
ah THAT'S why I pretty much been doing Czerny at "half the indicated speed"..
Who needs Czerny? Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Couperin, Handel et al ALL did pretty well without him. I personally think that he was a "failed" comoser so he was compelled to make his mark somehow so he chose to be a pedagogue.
@@baxter5431 it's how I was trained as a child, develop technique based on lots of scales, and etudes (mostly Czerny). I can't argue if that's the absolute best way to do it, because I'm not any kind of pedagogue. But that's how I was taught, it appears to have worked, and there is no point in changing that routine when I'm 50 years old.. ;)
@@markrcca5329 I think to each his own. Yes, Czerny & Hanon help with building up strength in the fingers & hands, no doubt, but it still doesn't apply, much, to playing Louis Couperin or Froberger et al.
@@baxter5431 I don't think he is a fail composer , He has some really good music. Also he was the best teacher in europe at that time.
@@wolfie8748 exactly. And usually it is really less frustrating to study the technique and repeating endlessly on lesser great music...
4:48 LMFAO did you really use a glissando etude as an example
If I see someone playing these Czerny exercises at the right speed, I'd call Area 51
Molto importante Maestro la sua dettagliata spiegazione sul l’uso del metronomo.Grazie.
Also if we take it in double beat and think that czerny actually meant his repetitions to be performed and without any interruption, czerny op 365 no 1 is more than 1 hour of scales at 6.6 notes per sec!
i know czerny etudes are the most well known, (I love czerny), his symphony no.1 is AWESOME
Toujours très intéressant. Excellent travail !
Even for me playing half of the "single beat" tempo of Czerny op 299 is hard and can still be called "School of Velocity", so I believe playing it half the "Single Beat tempo" (Whole Beat) is correct, then I watched this video and I'm happy I was right!
4:48 Op.365 no.31 is a glissando etude. Possible to play at in tempo, but hurtful for your fingernails.
🙄🙄😳
I'm not even a pianist, I don't know why I'm here
For the fun of it? :-) Enjoy the ride... Just kidding! This applies to all instruments and not just keyboard instruments.
Play this at x2 speed!
A general problem in European education is that people do not have the gene for questioning authority in general, and less so among students (if they had it maybe the history of the 20th century would have been different). Plus innovation, cross-fertilization with other areas, etc. is sneered upon in favor of the most rancid conservatism, blind obedience to the teacher, etc.
I love how its impossible to even begin discussing musicality when trying to make sense of single beat metronome numbers. Those high tweets in the c major etude! hilarious
Those teachers who demand the stupid tempi should themselves be made to demonstrate them. Let's see that!
Well. One of my teachers just did that with op 299 🤣
Thank you!
This is most convincing proof, as well as in all your other uploads. I think that your question "Why musicians and teachers seem to have forgotten..." (14:16 etc.) is most important now and its answer has to involve psychological and social historical acceleration-processes (together, by the way, with the increasing tension of the tuning and life in general). Your most important uploads give us the chance to go back to human sanity and true musicality. Thank you a lot for that.
The metronome markings you are pointing out fit within the Italian phrasing very well. The whole point of the metronome was to become more precise within the current framework. Not create a contradiction in the work.
And then there's the argument about playability. In fact there's the whole Occam's Razor element about this. Why would someone write so much unplayable music?
As someone who's played jazz and rock for over 30 years I've been learning piano properly for the last year. I've noticed that when you hear a piece and then you look at the score the intention of the music is often lost with modern interpretations. I've written my own music for years. Everything has an emotion and meaning, even the happy accidental notes that you leave in.
You should discuss playability from behind the keys of your piano, not those of your computer...
I really enjoy your videos and appreciate your research. However, I must point out that your interpretation of Czerny’s statement:
“spielt jede Viertelnote genau nach den hörbaren Schlägen des Metronoms”
[play every crotchet exactly with the audible beats of the Metronome]
is apparently mistaken. In that section of Opus 500, Czerny subsequently gives 8 examples.
Regarding Example (d), 3/4, M.M. dotted minim = 88, he writes, “the time marked is dotted minim = 88; consequently, a whole bar lasts only during one beat of the Metronome.”
Regarding Example (f), 4/4, Adagio, M.M. quaver = 92, he writes, “each bar contains 8 beats of the Metronome.”
Regarding Example (g), 6/8, Presto, M.M. dotted crotchet = 152, he writes, “three quavers go to each beat.”
Regarding Example (h), 6/8, Prestissimo, M.M. dotted minim = 116, he writes, “all the 6 quavers go to one beat of the Metronome.”
From these descriptions, it is completely clear that for Czerny, the duration of the note in the M.M. is worth one beat of the metronome, and not two.
Note also that if Czerny had meant what you think he meant, then the expression “THE audible beats of the Metronome”, with the definite article, would make little sense; it would have made more sense to write something like “play every crotchet with TWO beats of the Metronome”. It seems clear that the expression “the audible beats of the Metronome” refers to the sequence of audible beats produced by the metronome as a whole.
I agree that Czerny’s M.M. numbers often appear to be double the appropriate numbers, but it’s simply wrong to take a sentence out of its context and misrepresent it.
note how Viertelnote is singular and schlage is plural, so... quite literaly whole beat
@@AuthenticSound I understand the singular/plural distinction, and that is not what I am discussing. Czerny's text clearly shows that your interpretation is incorrect. You are not at all addressing the points I made above.
Still, all your examples could be interpreted as "metronome beat = full cicle". Just to be clear, I'm not saying he's right, just pointing out that there's no contradiction if "audible beats" and just "beats" have different meanings for Czerny.
Little by little we will share these discoveries with the world. The whole beat interpretation brings such relief and comfort to anxious students, teachers, and musicians of all kinds.
I do believe that relief and comfort were the whole point of music. I mean, life was grim enough, more than what it is today.
I agree. Playing music now feels to me like a refuge, a space of meditation and beauty.
I doubt Czerny would knowingly give metronome marks that would attract ridicule. The most obvious reason for providing metronome marks is the same as that for providing fingering, that is for practical help. Whether I like Czerny's fingering or not is not to the point: I can see that there is a consistency and logic. Had Czerny dotted his studies with deliberately difficult fingering, we might understand that he was aiming for impossibility, but he did not do that and it is clear that his studies had a practical intent.
Incidentally, I have a few old editions of some Czerny studies that I picked up second hand (prewar or even older), but all have omitted any metronome numbers. Editors have not been able to understand the metronome marks, so have simply left them out.
Oh, he did. He got plenty of ridicule from his contemporaries. The AMZ reviews (the satyrical "Neue Kreisleriana" included) of op.337 in 1835 and op.365 in 1838 were extremely vitriolic towards his insane metronome numbers. This seems to indicate that at the time of Czerny, single beat was the norm and (apparently) the tradition. If double beat were still practised, it is reasonable to presume that the allergic reaction of his peers would've been less intense. Also, Czerny himself would've drawn attention to it, which he did not. Au contraire, he clearly gives a single-beat instruction which, if you don't believe me, you can see with your own eyes in the english edition of op.500, book 3, section C, chapter VII, pages 66-68).
@@oliviu-dorianconstantinesc288 Thanks for that, I shall look to see if IMSLP has an online copy. Czerny's metronome marks are the strongest of Wim's arguments (particularly his Bach editions), however I no longer pass comments since it became evident that Wim was censoring counter evidence (relating to how to play Schubert). At least your comment got through.
p.s.I had a look. On the face of it 'a beat' seems to mean one tick. There is something odd though a dotted minim = 88 is described as "the true time of the Waltz"; this would make each crotchet as 264, which is not possible, so I do think there is something odd.
@@martinbennett2228 That's because Czerny's talking about the viennese waltz, which is up to 4 times faster than the regular, slow waltz. If you look at the motif structure, it spans 4 bars, 2 cells of 2 bars each. It is written like 6/8, but in 3/4 on a 2 bar structure.
@@oliviu-dorianconstantinesc288 Czerny gives 4 bars but it I cannot see an equivalence to 6/8. You might just about squeeze the first two bars in to that, but not the next two. I do not think I have even heard Chopin's minute waltz that fast, not even to try to fit it into a minute. On the other hand Czerny has a few bars of an adagio, that is more andante at his marking, but certainly would not go twice as slow. Then there is a mark for a presto that is fairly brisk at half tempo but would not make much sense at the marked tempo. It is an interesting topic, but it needs to be investigated in a dispassionate and academic manner, rather than as a religious cult.
@@martinbennett2228 If you count each crochet as a quaver and look at 2 bars as one, the structure becomes apparent.
Are there still people question your observations? You are correct! Even if famous artists of our time disagree, let them. Your work will live beyond your critic's. You are right!
Thank you very much for your posting. You provide a wonderful explanation and to me this makes perfect sense and is the answer to Czerny’s metronome markings!!
Glad it was helpful!
Love your channel ❤️👏
Wim, with the best will in the world, I'm not persuaded. It seems to me the writer of those instructions (you assume he knows exactly what he's talking about) is describing a borderline case - an Allegro at crotchet 80 would be rather leisurely, and a conductor might want to speed it up a bit and conduct in 2 rather than 4. Ie, to put it crudely, indicate minim beats rather than crotchets. If he were regulating his tempo by a metronome (very unlikely!) he could adjust the machine to tick faster, but still make them crotchet ticks; or make it tick minims to correspond with his tactus. BUT (something that I haven't seen explored in your very interesting videos) a mechanical metronome becomes erratic and unreliable at very slow speeds (eg in this imaginary case minim 50 ), so he'd choose to do the former, and end up with your double - tick theory. And even then the mystery isn't solved. Provisionally at least I can only suppose the early metronomes were wrongly calibrated and copied each other - but it would take a bit of evidence to make that a tenable theory.
no problem, but look again, the instructions are written by Czerny, so to stop the often used fake argument that his tempi are only targets. They weren't
@@AuthenticSound I don't see an answer to my perplexities in what you say. From my point it doesn't matter who wrote the instructions.
@Chlorinda Hi. Are you saying the same as I did, or contradicting it?! To be honest I've forgotten what Wim was on about, and though an excellent chap he's so prolix I can't be bothered to revisit his argument. As far as I'm concerned (to cut a Gordian knot) old metronome marks are really not very interesting. Well, quite interesting to know how fast Beethoven played his own music, if it could actually be established, but that needn't, and shouldn't, be any more than a very dispensible guide for contemporary performers.
@Chlorinda Me too! I'd only say: some early metronome marks are clearly bonkers; mechanical metronomes are inaccurate and VERY inaccurate at low speeds; play your Beethoven piano sonatas at any speed you like. Beethoven himself would say 'Gosh! That's given me a new insight into my own work!'.
You have me really confused around the 11 minute mark. It's literally says there that "If the indication were 1/8= 112 then each 1/8 would have the same duration", in that same document, only two pages down, he even goes out of his way explaining with examples how the markings in his book should be read:
"Thus, for example, at d, the time marked is 3/1=88; consequently a whole bar last only during one beat of the Metronome; and this is at the present day the true time of the Waltz."
What he refers to as "d" is a few bars of a simple waltz, explaining very clearly that one beat from the metronome equals one whole bar.
He continues on with a few other examples rendering it beyond a reasonable doubt that if Czerny wrote 3/1=88 he meant 3/1=88 and not 3/2=88 or anything else. Anyway, what's the point of studies if one can just immediately sight-read whatever's written with hardly any struggle?
Thanks!
First part very nice. The number of notes per second for single beat on Czerny is one of the strongest, if not the strongest argument for double/whole beat. But I don't agree with what you argue to be a "pretty clear" statement of Czerny's op. 500 metronome description. Actually, in my opinion, it is as ambiguous as it can be in this single/double beat question, since it is interpretable in both ways, as you also explain yourself. Only I wouldn't add the attribute of a "secondary interpretation". In the same way you argue that Czerny could have written if he meant single beat: "Each crotchet must be played exactly with each audible beat", one can argue that if he meant double beat, he would have written: "Each crotchet must be played exactly with two audible beats/clicks". He should have very explicitly defined the proportion of the note value to the number of metronome clicks, and that would have solved this single/double beat issue forever.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 Not really, the ambiguity remains in the sentence. If Cherny wanted to associate the note value with two ticks, he would have written as I said above "each crochet must be played with two audible ticks". If he wanted to have single beat he would have said "each crochet must be played with each audible tick". But he wrote the vague expression "with the audible beats", hence the source is pretty useless.
Czerny viewed the beat not as a point in time but as a duration itself. First tick marks the beginning of that duration, second tick is not the end, you have to count the same duration after that 2d tick. A baby has also not the age 0 years all the way up to his first anniversary.
Good morning, beg your pardon, who's this scholar and musician alarmingly intelligent and knowledgeable ? I have my hat in my hands. May God bless him and may him give musicians his thoughts and mind / ear opening findings for many many years to come. Lots of love. From Monza, Italy. His foomagallian paolity
I find it fascinating that people are quicker to agree with WBMP in regards to Czerny. Could it be that the inhuman bpms and less public recognition of his works adds to this? When you give factual arguments to apply the WBMP to Beethoven, I see individuals become much more confrontational, how could all of our adored virtuosos from so many generations have been interpreting it wrong this whole time! Just my humble ramblings :)
Mabye yes, truth is that so few people really seem to realize how many of these 'insane' tempi we have from that time, where composers as Beethoven and Chopin are in fact even 'moderate'
A metronome goes ' tick--tock--tick--tock--tick--tock--tick--tock', not 'tick--tick--tick--tick--tick--tick--tick--tick'
I have to play Czerny-Gerner ex. number 3. It says 100 half notes per minute.
I went to musescore and write down the exercise. It was a joke.
DISCLAIMER: This is a long comment, and "they" have admonished me previously (and you know how a certain cartoon character "Stan" refers to "they").
OK - you've chosen to read on ... enjoy!
8:09 - BINGO! Authority ... I have failed as a teacher as well! ...
... until it hit me like a brick!:
I became a physics teacher, and I used to toss "intuitive questions" out on Facebook for my students. One of my old science teachers answered one of them, but he was incorrect ... WHAT?!? How can a professor who has an entire wing of his former school and awards named for his many years of service have made such a silly error? Although I had received well-meaning but horrific advice from trusted friends and relatives in the past, it finally struck me that my teachers should have been challenged. I had always had that door open to my students, but I hadn't realised how dogmatic these "old people" were. Having explained the concept, all this "teacher" could do was hold up his "credentials" and "his wisdom since he was now quite old". I pitied him. He was DEAD WRONG, and he still couldn't come to accept the truth, a scientific PROOF! I have since made LOTS of modifications in my life. Wim - right on!
8:21 - "... but let's continue ..." WOW!!! If that weren't enough, it can never be enough. Bravo, Wim, bravo!
An hypothesis: I am unfamiliar - explicit or non - that Czerny ever indicated that one must play "with" the Metronome. I present this hypothesis because in Gottfried Weber's book (1840-ish), he discusses his "homemade" pendulum to be used in the Metronome's stead. It is not practical to play to a swinging pendulum (try it yourselves); therefore, I conclude that this was not the practise then as now. Why is this important? Because until the "bell" was introduced, the Metronome was to be used to get the "initial" tempo (meaning for the entire piece; however, misinterpreted to mean "just for the first few bars" then "do whatever"). Like a pane of stained glass, each fragment of coloured glass cannot tell the entire story. One piece of evidence from history "tells it all"; however, when other documents corroborate (or detract, depending on case) a practise, then it becomes ever more probable of its authenticity. Wim does this exceptionally well by his using multiple sources.
As am amateur horologist (I am not a jeweller by any means though I design and build clocks of different types), I can tell you that your Grandfather Clocks that use a "seconds pendulum" are geared to a TWO-SECOND period. Each two ticks (or the "tick-tock") release only ONE tooth of the escapement wheel. Were any clock to be designed as the half-beat interpretation states, our clock would shew 48 hours in a day ... it would run twice too fast. So that you know, the mechanical clock's regulator makes this impossible anyway. There are TWO pallets, and there is no way to make it fewer or the clock would "run out" ... ouch, trust me, ouch!
Wim, I won't steal your thunder on the "broken Metronome" ... HAHA!!! I cannae wait for that video!
Great video to study and ponder for "hours" (or "half hours" for our friends who believe otherwise ;) )!
Tom
The only difference between an "expert" and the rest of us is an "expert" (note the quotes) has a very narrow field of study and is very good at hiding his/her mistakes. You pointed to an expert the he did in fact make a mistake and he is truly infallible. Oops! There is a human behind that curtain!
@@Clavichordist And behind ALL the curtains, Monty Hall (not dating myself), we have - you guessed it - human beings!!! :D
@@emperorjimmu9941 Sure, Jimmy. He erroneously equated the velocity of sound through a solid and sound through a fluid.
I had asked if sound travels faster through warm air or cold air. He incorrectly concluded that colder air being "denser" - like a denser solid - must allow sound to travel faster. Oops!
The fact is that as air warms, the molecules in that air mass are able to travel faster (that is why the temperature increased assuming the volume and pressure remain constant). Since the air molecules travel faster, they can "bump into each other" faster.
This idea is why adiabatic lapse rates are so interesting, and cause thunderstorms, etc.
I wasn't being "dogmatic"; he refused the proof that I had sent him.
To tie this back into music, specifically the Metronome, the correct way to read the Metronome is exactly the same way that you read a pendulum (because they are one and the same). The pendulum requires a distance of 2 Pi in order to find the time period. Ignoring isochronism (please, I don't want to discuss the brachistochrome issue), the pendulum of 0.24849 - ish meters will give you the time period of exactly-ish one second-ish; however, setting your metronome to "60" believing that it's a second causes you to play your music twice as fast.
Conclusion: the whole beat interpretaton does not cause you to play 1/2 times too slow; the half beat interpretation causes you to play music 2X too fast. :D
I hope that helped. - Tom
Republiccooper, you were "disclaimed". Thank you for playing hide an seek with me.
John Citron '
Buddy I love your videos and some of the compositions really sound surprisingly good and even better than superfast versions of today but you are wrong about the metronome. One "schlag" is just one click or one sound of the metronome and you should play a note everytime you hear it. It is simple as that
that...is so not true and so eeeeeasy to find out yourself....!
Thank you very much!!!
I might get crucified for saying this but I think Czerny suggested these impossible to reach tempo to artificially make his etudes harder for self-inflation purposes (To make his skill seem greater than it really is.)
Understand your point. But he didn't, it was a real tempo, as all the others are, for real normal students
Never mind pianos from Czerny's time weren't at all able to be played that fast :) And all of his metronomes were utterly broken for some reason, poor Czerny :)
:-)
Apparently Czerny needed to wind his watch.
Metronomes before this day may have been different in the sense that one unit beat is less in time. I may be wrong though; I haven’t studied it in depth.
i think czerny was tired or exhausted after writing hundreds of music, so he should've written 78 not 138,
I think that the construction of piano to the time of Czerny was different enabling the velocity in more easy way then on modern piano...These tempi are not even from Argerich to achieve...The period instruments have more responsible mechanism...That is why I do not think it is important to strive these tempi by practice on modern piano...The same is for Chopen etude No.1 opus 10...If you don't own Pleyel piano or comparable period instruments,you must not torture your body and soul in order to produce music...It has nothing to do with the music...
You are correct that the construction the piano of the time Czerny was different, but you're are wrong in your assumption. It was more difficult to play at speed than the modern piano, in fact the pianos of Vienna were harder to play than those of Érard Piano's in France with its double Escapement (key didn't have to return completely to re-strike the note) Patent issued in 1821, and these are too slow an action for single beat Beethoven or Czerny. Érard pianos of that time are slower than today's piano. I have played on antiques off and on as opportunity presented itself for over 50 years.
I think your linguistic argument is not valid. The plural of "Schlag": "Schläge" is compatible with the single-beat reading as well as with the double-beat reading. Since the metronome beats more than once in each piece of music, it has to be the plural: "Schläge". "nach dem Schlag des Metronoms" sounds strange or wrong, "nach dem Schlagen des Metronoms" (with the beating of the metronom) would still work. If he wanted to be explicit, he should have written "nach den einzelnen Schlägen" or "nach den Doppelschlägen": with each (single) beat" / with each double beat".
Of course, this does not change all the other interesting arguments and points of view. Many thanks for this insightful presentation!
I did wonder what could be learnt from Beethoven's published tempi markings, presumably (imo) if they were good friends they would have used the same system for marking it. It turns out that a Marten A Noorduin wrote a thesis 'Beethoven's Tempo Indications' in 2016 which is available on Manchester University's website. From a first glance it looks pretty well researched and has excerpts from a letter in which LVB gives Czerny a bit of a telling off for apparently playing his work at the wrong pace, Czerny responds with an apology. Unfortunately at 300+ pages I don't have time to delve deeper at present or attempt to draw any conclusion but it looks like it might be an interesting read. Would be interested to hear if anyone else has considered from this angle and their thoughts?
Your explanatiions for metronome indications in quater notes, half notes, and whole notes are very clear. However, one of my favorite czerny etudes from op. 740 is number 2. This is a study in the passing under of the thumb. The metronome indication is a dotted half note = 60. I am completely unsure of how to divide the metronome beats to arrive at the proper tempo in this piece. If I take each tick of the metronome as a quarter note, the piece is too slow for the "Allegro vivace" indication. If I take each tick of the metronome as a dotted quater note, the tempo is more realistic, but almost impossible to count (at least for my feeble mind). Could you clarify what to do with the metronome for tempos that are indicated by dotted notes. Maybe I missed the video where this was discussed. If that is the case, please let me know where to listen to find the answer. I do appreciate your channel, and will probably be adding a patreon subscription before the end of 2019. Thank you again for this extremely valuable information based on evidence and not on our modern misinterpretation of tradition.
ruclips.net/video/NHq0KjwfthU/видео.html
That's called tactus inaequalis, you'll find a bit more info in this video ruclips.net/video/NHq0KjwfthU/видео.html or here ruclips.net/video/d4Ke5nvftZg/видео.html
After you finish the school of velocity in the original tempo according to your theory, could you do his op 365 studies? There’s a computer rendition on RUclips at the modern tempo, and there is just no way that that tempo is correct
Are the original manuscripts still available? Has something wrong happened during publication?
that would have been the case than for thousands of MMs
very good points...also many music forms were born out of dances, through the centuries. Who would dance so fast? A giant dilemma. And also, as both a guitarist and a pianist, I wonder how fast or slow the guitar was played by someone like Mauro Giuliani or Legnani. I can tell with no shadow of doubt that at the piano is easier to play fast than on guitar, because the latter is just a more awkward instrument to play, although of course the piano can have more complex textures, and more numerous. At the piano you have to lower a finger to play a note, on guitar you have to do that plus plucking a string. Giuliani was a guitar virtuoso who performed with Moscheles....they were all contemporaries of Czerny. What would someone like Giuliani think when he heard someone supposedly performing at the speeds Czerny supposedly indicated? He must have felt like a turtle with Down's syndrome, which seems strange to say the least...
Maybe he is just wondering what it would sound like at that very tempo because they can never know back then. They may believe that we nowadays’s people could solve that out somehow.
MM are documented everywhere to be exact tempo indications. No problems for the 19th century musicians, only to ...us
Does the room not have a perceptible effect on the tempo? Being an organist, I feel the room more than I feel any other factor when it comes to tempo. A big, reverberating room requires a slower tempo in order to be clear. Something that was printed in a book 100 years ago is irrelevant to me in that circumstance
Also an organist (harpsichordist, too), yes "you play the room" but the tone's duration after the initial strike fades fairly quickly, and does not affect the perception of speed.
This is not serious. Lang Lang uses time technology to accelerate the tempo. He would never play at such a tempo in concert !
28 notes per second is still 14 notes per second in the whole beat interpretation.
yes, and only possible in short runs. You have a similar passage in a beethoven sonata - will come back to that one- 28 / s is impossible by default.
if you can play fast, you can play slowly
What a stupid comparison. If I bang my forearms on the keyboard I can easily play like 100 notes a second. According to the logic of this video now we speed up LangLangs performance of op.299/1 by 7 and the result is ridiculous.
Notice the error you made? It's just a scale he is playing, not chords! The second example shown contained runs unisono in BOTH hands. What does that mean for the speed each individual hand has to reach? Yes, it's HALF the number notes per second to be played. One cannot take piece A and compared it with piece B by just looking at the parameter "notes per second". It's like with chili: hey, this sauce has 500.000 scoville! Wow that must be crazy hot!!
Oh, well, no because I put a microgram of it on your food.
10.000 scoville can be much hotter if you put lots of it on the food. -> correlating parameters
Brilliant, thank you so much. Others Guys, you missed the end of the explanation or what? One crochet is 2 MM-beats, or for our today's understanding, its all half-tempo. Or crochet (noire en francais) = 80 means for us today quaver = 80. Or better, set MM at indicated tempo and play half of the notes per single beat. BTW authenticSound how does this work with ternary compass? MM playing duolets all the time?
the MKS unit of time period "the minute" was most probably not comprised of 60 quotidian seconds as we know the duration of seconds today. Maybe it was more like 70 of our 21st century seconds per minute in the 19th Century.
or yet, this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_pendulum
Didn't the clocks have 12 hours am & 12 hours pm? Weren't there 60 minutes per hour? Wasn't 12 noon set when the sun was @ it's peak?
The Metres-Kilo-Second is now "SI" (Sistema Internacional - Spanish - equivalent to the French). Since Galileo's famous "Time Period is Proportional to the Square Root of the Quantity of the Length divided by Gravity", the second has been well-known, and it has not changed. The Metronome was invented in 1816 (patent), and in the mid-18th century, John Harrison was busy perfecting his time pieces using siderial days (watching a particular star over a roof top to check his clocks). The "second part of the hour" of time then is equal to today's by using the period of a pendulum whose length is roughly 0.24849 m. The frequency of that pendulum is also one second. It has two vibrations at 120 beats per minute. I hope this helps.
@@stevenreed5786 Quite right, Steve. the clocks - as often as they had cloudless skies - were set by the "noon mark". They were not interested in seconds at all, and most clocks were void of the minute hand. If you wish, get a cheapo clock, and pull the seconds and minutes, and you can "reckon" the time - with some practice - quite nicely with just the hour hand. The equation of time had to be reckoned with as well, so being pinpoint accurate was not a practice till very recent times. I have an 1891 "Mantle Clock" without seconds. It has a "recoil" escapement (not particularly accurate), and it stays within seconds per day compared to my quartz clock.
Is there a specialized biography on Carl Czerny?
I laughed so much listening to the examples!!
The keyboard blessing that is WW! And I'm still spinning my wheels knowing that I like what I like, nothing more or less!
Czerny's words surely can't bear the weight placed upon them here. As they stand, they're pretty well meaningless. If he'd said 'each crotchet to coincide with each beat of the pendulum' OR (as is suggested he meant) 'with each vibration of the pendulum' we'd know where we were - though if he meant the latter, it would seem that his idea of how the metronome was to be used was different from Maelzel's!
It is perfectly in line with the Maelzel instructions: ruclips.net/video/7tizWwFiaKc/видео.html
There is something wrong here.
May it be translation error after all? Do you remember those American book on natural philosophy for schools which leaves no doubt that already in 1830s in US beats were understood as nowadays (single ticks, parts of full swing)? Did it shift over time? Did translators misinterpret German "schlag"? Interesting to look at Moscheles writings as he knew both languages.
So Czerny should be played at half of the written tempo? Back in his day, a quarter note was 2 metronome ticks? Am I understanding that correctly?
yes! ruclips.net/video/6EgMPh_l1BI/видео.html
Poor Lang Lang ;-)
Liked at around 5 minutes, this escalating absurdity is pure comedy :)
I'm just imagining someone coming back with something like "Only the arrogant quotes themselves" - Me.
Lang Lang can play it... He just chooses not to because that would sound horrible
that must be...a joke, right?
@@AuthenticSound yes, it was!
I've seen PianothShavek's renditions of Czerny 299 nos 1-3, at (single-beat) tempo. But... I'd be amazed to see someone play this at single-beat tempo: ruclips.net/video/iBCq3RPciR4/видео.html Czerny op 365 no 32. Triplets at a speed of about 14 keypresses per second -- repeated on the same note! Still, I don't know what the original metronome mark for this piece was.
only cziffra could play at that tempo
even not him
This musical data science becomes more and more indisputable with every video.
To go off on a bit of a tangent - although this is an interesting topic and well worth exploring, it's not of any ARTISTIC interest, in my view. Great works of art are for all time, not just their own. Czerny was it? is quite wrong in stating that it's essential to know the exact speed at which a composer wanted his music played. Composers aren't the best interpreters of their own music. We're lucky enough to have recordings of many composers playing or conducting their own music, but they're certainly not regarded by practical musicians as the last word, definitive, to be slavishly imitated. For instance, I don't like, and nobody as far as I know imitates, the pedestrian plunky way Scott Joplin plays his own music (perhaps not a good example, but the principle holds).
Scott Joplin indicated on his later printed scores, that ragtime is not to be played fast. His school of Ragtime admonishes that the effect of Rag Time is lost by playing too fast. By 1905 he put the words Slow March Tempo 1/4=72 beats per minute (Top speed for Andante moderato) His indications were initially Tempo di Marcia (March Tempo) not Cut Time (double quick time march) (March Tempo equals 3.4 miles per hour or a 17.64-minute mile. Double Time is essentially a jog that uses a cadence of 180 steps per minute. That equals 5.1 miles per hour or a 11.76-minute mile. Most people play as they are attempting to break the 3:43.13 record for the mile or 17 1.3 miles per hours.) Although there is artistic license, interpretation, but completely ignore the score's indications and you dishonor the composer. Would you repaint Da Vinci's Last Supper in Fluorescent Poster Paints on a crushed black velvet "canvass" and exhibit it under a black light. If Great works of art are for all time, would you put a handlebar mustache on the Mona Lisa? As to composer "aren't the best interpreters of their own music," that's horse manure. However, how many concerts of John Williams Movie Scores exceed the Composer at the baton?Rhetorical question. Or why performances by composers of their works in any genre are given such prominence in recording? According to their contemporaries J S Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and Liszt for example were unequaled in their interpretations of their own works.
@@Renshen1957 Drawing analogies between the arts is always risky, and doesn't work here, because a painting, or a novel, is fixed, whereas a piece of music is created anew every time it's performed. One way in which it DOES work is that any work of art, once published, passes out of the ownership of the creator (except perhaps in a purely legal sense). He or she has given it to the public, or to humanity, to use as it wishes. You don't expect a novelist to say 'You've GOT to like my character X! She's supposed to be NICE!' And I don't believe an artist fully understands his or her own creation (if that means anything). For instance, I really believe I could sit down at the piano (this is supposing I were a competent pianist!) and play Beethoven one of his piano sonatas, and when I'd finished, he'd say 'Hm. I liked that. It's not quite how I thought of it, and it's not how I play it myself, but you've shown me things in my music I hadn't realised were there.' As for composers as interpreters of their own music - just do an experiment. There are plenty of recordings of Rachmaninov playing his own music. Ask six concert pianists whether, when performing his music, they try to imitate him. When they all say ' No'', ask them why not.
@@hermoglyph2255 Except in a parody, plagiarism or satire work, any work not in the public domain does not belong to humanity. Whether one likes or dislikes a work, is a subjective choice of a rational being. As to the six concert pianists, not one would dare to imitate Rachmaninov, as they would always pale in comparison, and Rachmaninov's Ghost (as recorded) would be the victor. To date (50 years and counting), not one virtuoso pianist has won the accolade of playing better than Rachmaninov, only different.
Beethoven's quotation on the subject of performance, he wasn't so concerned with missed or flubbed notes, but rather if the pianist played with expression and emotion (which he learned from C P E Bach's Essay on Keyboard playing). Beethoven would only take pupils that met his high standards of performance and talent, Czerny became his pupil on his performance. From Czerny's biography:
"At that time an old man named Krumpholz (brother of the inventor of the pedal harp) visited us nearly every morning. He was a violinist and as such had a position in the orchestra of the Court Theatre; yet at the same time he was a musical enthusiast whose passion for music was carried to the most extravagant lengths. Nature has endowed him with a just and delicate feeling for the beautiful in tonal art, and though he possessed no great fund of technical knowledge, he was able to criticize every composition with much acumen, and, so to say, anticipate the judgments of the musical world.
"As soon as young Beethoven appeared for the first time, Krumpholz attached himself to him with a persistence and devotion which soon made him a familiar figure in his home, so that he practically spent nearly the hole day with him, and Beethoven, who ordinarily was most reticent with everyone regarding his musical projects, told Krumpholz about all his ideas, played every new composition for him time and again, and improvised for him every day. Although Beethoven often poked fun at the unfeigned ecstasies into which Krumpholz invariably fell, and never called him anything but his jester; yet he was touched by this attachment, which led him to affront the bitterest enmities in order to defend his cause against his adversaries, so numerous in those days.
For at that time Beethoven's compositions were totally misunderstood by the general public, and all the followers of the old Mozart-Haydn school opposed them with the most intense animosity."
"This was the man for whom, day by day, I had to play Beethoven's works, and although he knew nothing of piano playing, he was, quite naturally, able to tell me a great deal about their tempo, interpretation, effects, characteristics, etc., since he often heard them played by Beethoven himself, and in most cases had been present when they came into being. His enthusiasm soon infected me and before long I, in turn, was a Beethoven worshipper like himself, learned all that Beethoven had written by heart, and, considering my years, played it with skill and enthusiasm. Krumpholz also invariably told me about the new things Beethoven had "under pen," and would sing or play on his violin the themes he had heard in Beethoven's home during the forenoon. Owing to this circumstance I was always informed at a much earlier date than others with regard to what Beethoven had under way. Later this made it possible for me to realize how long, often for years at a time, Beethoven polished his compositions before they were published, and how in new works he used motives which had occurred to him many years before, because our friendly relations with Krumpholz were maintained over a long period of years up to his death, which took place in 1817." (Note Beethoven had high standards as to his compositions)
"I was about ten years old when Krumpholz took me to see Beethoven. With what joy and terror I greeted the day on which I was to meet the admired master! Even now this moment is vividly present in my memory. It was a winter's day when my father, Krumpholz, and I took our way from Leopoldstadt (where we were still living0 to Vienna proper, to a street called der tiefe Graben (the Deep Ditch), and climbed endless flights to the fifth and sixth story, where a rather untidy looking servant announced us to Beethoven and then admitted us. The room presented a most disorderly appearance; papers and articles of clothing were scattered about everywhere, some trunks, bare walls, hardly a chair, save the wobbly one at the Walter fortepiano (then the best), and in this room was gathered a company of from six to eight persons, among them the two Wranitsky brothers, Süssmayr, Schuppanzigh and one of Beethoven's brothers.
Beethoven himself wore a morning coat of some longhaired, dark gray material, and trousers to match, so that he at once recalled to me the picture in Campe's 'Robinson Crusoe,' which I was reading at the time. His coal black hair, cut a la Titus, bristled shaggily about his head. His beard-he had not been shaved for several days-made the lower part of his already brown face still darker. I also noticed with that visual quickness peculiar to children that he had cotton which seemed to have been steeped in a yellowish liquid, in his ears.
At that time, however, he did not give the least evidence of deafness. I was at once told to play something, and since I did not dare begin with one of his own compositions, played Mozart's great C major Concerto, the one beginning with Chords. Beethoven soon gave me his attention, drew near my chair, and in those passages where I had only accompanying passages played the orchestral melody with me, using his left hand. His hands were overgrown with hair and his fingers, especially at the ends, were very broad. The satisfaction he expressed gave me the courage to play his Sonata Pathetique, which had just appeared, and finally his 'Adelaide,' which my father sang in his very passable tenor. When he had ended Beethoven turned to him and said: 'The boy has talent. I will teach him myself and accept him as my pupil. Send him to me several times a week. First of all, however, get him a copy of Emanuel Bach's book on the true art of piano playing, for he must bring it with him the next time he comes,' Then all those present congratulated my father on this favourable verdict, Krumpholz in particular being quite delighted, and my father at once hurried off to hunt up Bach's book.( C P E Bach's Essay on Keyboard playing)"" (Thayer: 226-28; [siehe auch: Cooper: 103] ).
Czerny had been given insight as to how Beethoven played his pieces by Wenzel Krumpholz, and delighted that the 10 year old understood his works. Had he played the work differently, to show Beethoven (the master) something in his works (which he slaved over before publication), is beyond the imagination that Beethoven would have taken him as a student no matter how talented. Besides Czerny, George Augustus Polgreen Bridgetower Afro-European musician Violinist (Beethoven dedicated Violin Sonata No. 9 in A major (Op.47) to Bridgetower, with the goodheartedly mocking dedication Sonata per un mulattico lunatico), Teréz Brunszvik (most likely candidate for the title Immortal Beloved), Dorothea von Ertmann, and Ferdinand Ries.
I won't give you a laundry list of J S Bach's students, but one who made a mistake in one of his compositions, Bach through his wig in frustration and said, "You had better have been a cobbler!"
Compositions are like children to composers.
Let's just say in my subjective opinion, I disagree with your assessment. I might add that Dance, an art form, must be recreated anew each time it's performed. Woe to the Ballerina that does not follow the choreography.
The solution are glissandi ;-)
However, Chopin's autograph of Nocturne in D flat Op 27 2, Lento sostenuto, in which he stipulates dotted crotchet = 50 (ie very fast semi-quavers in L hand vs Lento), and Beethoven's Hammerklavier minim = 138 (nuts; have tried...) would may make more sense, especially the Chopin. So my opinion is that there were 2 counting systems, and you used common sense to work out which one to use...
the chopin is quite impossible I'd say keeping strict time. Hammerklavier : ruclips.net/video/sVpuWbmVxCs/видео.html
My teacher made me play Czerny at 6 years old. I couldn't pronounce his name and mispronounced it as Crazy (much to the chagrin of my teacher). I think he's really crazy with all his suggested tempo markings.
What if we’re being sucked into a black hole and time is just getting faster 😳😳
:-) time must go slower than to give us the feeling that that early music is so fast
Sounds like glissandos lol
Dogmatism and Legalism VS Art, Controversialism VS Sobriety and subtlety.
In one corner of the past Pianistic world, a pianist claims to have the fastest octaves and in another, claims to have the fastest arpeggios and 32nd notes (S. Thalberg).
Mendelssohn made a note once of his friend Henselt how that everytime he drops by Henselt's home for a visit he finds his friend busy exercising his finger spans and arpeggios of wide intervals on the piano.
Don't you find these things tedious? Does it always have to be about superior finger skills and an Olympian piano prowess?
There was an anecdote where that Chopin once said about a student who played one of his pieces (a polonaise I believe it was) in a rather brutally powerful way (a piano wrecker he must have been), that if he (Chopin) had the same physical strength he would have done more (?!). That however, I find very uncharacteristic of the composer who was once quoted allegedly as telling Liszt "please play my music as it is or not at all". All those remarks must have been either misconstrued or invented but at any rate, at the onslaught of the Romantic period, artists and composers enjoyed so much liberty at what they do. Beethoven was even quoted that he could do a better composition on the same theme that another composer created. But that would be plagiarism, wouldn't it? It was also contested among small circles as to who was a better pianist, Beethoven or Hummel, referencing the speed at which they play other people's works, such as Mozart's to my understanding since the both of them were either directly or indirectly mentored by the genius man himself.
My point here is, when and where does testosterone end, and musicality and musical artistry begin?
When it is about dogmatism, it is no longer about art. When it is about testosterone, Olympian prowess and controversialism, it is no longer about Music.
I'd rather go for musical artistry, where techniques and bravura skills become just incidental to the performance - not the focus.
... great exposition! ... If it is new, your work on correct MM signatures interpretation seems a milestone in the classical music scenery!
Thank you!!
Could Czerny himself play at that speed ?
he shared our nerve and muscle system, so: no here is the intro to the 'solution': ruclips.net/video/6EgMPh_l1BI/видео.html
Czerny wss full of scheisse
First!!!
Whole beat in music, half beat in commenting! :D
@@lemonemmi You are one of my favourite people, Ms. Emmi! You know, there isn't a Metronome setting far enough down the rod that would beat my enjoyment of this community and Wim's mentorship. It's virtual - sure - but I know you are real people, and you are wonderful people. God bless you.
@@thomashughes4859 Aww that is so sweet! I truly enjoy the community aspect of this channel too. It truly is a group of dear friends, gathered to learn and enjoy most beutiful music!
@@lemonemmi