As we pick at the details closely under the microscope, and nearly start a food fight over it, we seem to forget that the performance practices changed over the years. It's that simple, but in our modern way of doing things, we have to dig out, not the standard lab microscope, but instead we get one of those atomic machines, and then put everything through the giant Cray computer to analyze it all in detail. Even after the results, we still pick and debate ad infinite um, attacking each other personally and never gaining an inch on either side. The question is why did things change? In reality people did it because they could. In the Romantic period, just like for the Modernist period in the early 20th century, it was out with the old and in with the new. The use of the metronome changed as well because a younf generation of better pianists could play faster on better pianos with much better technique than those in the past. These great show-offs were like kids riding their bicycles down hill without holding their handlebars yelling. "Hey ma look no hands!" Show-offs, by the way, are in the early 19th-century sense, and much was said in the writings back then about them. The public loved this and the piano companies loved it as it helped promote music and pianos alike as I've mentioned in the past. This change had to happen, more or less, because musicians had to survive. Those somewhat cushy jobs gotten through connections to a prince of some princedom were no longer. This happened as Beethoven was coming on the scene musically. He and another composer Vanhal, were very successful businessmen who promoted their works, got their names out there in such a way that they became beloved names in every musically-inclined household. Beethoven, being Beethoven one upped Vanhal and became famous enough for writers to make stuff up about him, and this only put him up there high enough and famous enough that later generations somehow couldn't match him. Yes... There are notes and writings by Schubert, who admired Beethoven so much, that he felt he just couldn't publish his works. Brahms wouldn't write a symphony for a very long time, and others too, if I remember Robert Schumann too saying something about this, but I might be mistaken here. Thus, the 19th century was the advent of the concert pianist as we know them today versus the composer and his circle of patrons giving concerts and being hired by a prince of some princedom. With this big crowded field, we had a crowd out for fame, fortune, and glory. We also had a bunch of rebels, such as Mendelssohn for example, who said metronome be damned, and allegro, andante, moderato who cares what they mean because I'm going to do things my way. What's interesting too is there was a bit of retrospection going as well with Mendelssohn and others rediscovering Bach, Scarlatti, Handel, and others, as well as the rediscovery of older keyboard instruments. This pretty much set the road to what we have today. It didn't help the cause that there were also publishers pushing "piano schools" to the public with the marketing prose in there saying things that appear as if these schools make everyone including the clueless kid forced to take piano lessons into a concert pianist. These publications also generalized the terminology to make it easy for the all-consuming new middle-class who were buying pianos for their households. Allegro became fast, andante became walking pace, grave very, very slow, and so slow that the grave next to a tombstone, and so on. This of course got promoted and propagated throughout the actual schools and onward because piano teachers don't die young. What Wim and other have said is: Hey wait a minute. What's going on here? Something changed, and the metronome played a big part of that so let's look back and see what happened. In the process of doing this, they have ruffled feathers of those that are afraid that hey they might be right about things. The thing is he and the others have poked some holes in this 19th century development, and let's face it, it's 150-plus years of ingrained methods, teaching, and traditions that don't die easily. It doesn't help that there are still generations of students who studied with students of some of these famous names in the golden age including my first teacher, now 99 years old, who studied with Isidor Phillip, Beveridge Webster, Leonard Shure, and others. Now to keep things in perspective, I'm not saying this as one of Wim's supporters which I am, I'm saying this as someone who has studied music officially since I was 7 years old. Like everyone here, I too sought that unreachable end of the rainbow we can never get to. Over the years, I rediscovered a lot of music not by banging through as quickly as possible, but taking the same pieces at a more reasonable pace. In that process, I found I had time to pay attention to the details that are rarely captured in a much too fast performance that's meant for show, fame, and fortune and do a disfavor to the composer and the intention of the music being performed.
John , this could well be a plausible story line, the problem here is how to deal with continuity . In another post, I have referred to the conservatoire de Paris as an example. It was created in 1795 , never closed including during the 3 wars , and is one of the biggest archive centre when it comes to classical music history. Why don't we have any trace of such a change of practice ? It seems highly implausible to me , that such an institution would have changed radically his method of teaching without formal notice , documents or updated practice book. So again , we are back to the transition issue: did we have at some stage , a mix of classes where some teachers would be single beat and others double beat ? Not sure ,it is plausible. Was it a radical change ? Even more unlikely. Moreover this institution still uses today, theoretical books such as the 'Theorie de la musique' of Adolphe Leopold Daunhauser that contains specific information about tempo and how to use the metronome in a very crystal clear way .
@@ChristianJoannes I recommend researching a bit deeper. There's a possibility there is information here, but not found if, as you say there, is a vast amount of information at the conservatory on music performance practice. It maybe that Wim and his fellow writers are in fact aware of these sources, but given the amount of time needed to produce the videos, and all the practicing needed to be done, these sources haven't been mentioned here. If anything I recommend contacting Wim directly via his website as he has better knowledge of this than I do.
In this case, we know that the tempo marking was intended as an exact value, and we know that being exact about tempo markings *was* common at the time. If anything we need to conclude and accept that there have been lots of historic mistakes about performance practice. If you are playing at e.g. 50% higher speed than indicated, it's not a performance of the piece according to the score. You could just as well change some of the notes to your liking. The "problem" is that people pretend that this super fast speed is how the pieces were intended to sound.
1. Thank you very much for your interesting statement! But actually your conclusion is incorrect. I have studied a lot about the so-called half-time theory, and can only say: The concert programmes at Beethoven's lifetime were so extended (22 December 1808 f.e.), that a performance at half speed would have taken 6.5 hours of performance time! And I have once listened to a performance of Opus 53, where the Brio Beethoven asked for is completely lost! Furthermore, as you state yourself, nobody plays along with the metronome. So a little bit of divergence must be there, since there is a lot of declamatory phrasing and rubato (Beethoven writes "espressivo" quite often). It is not legitimate just to divide the performance time by the number of note-values. By listening carefully, you will find that most of the first movement in this recording is being played at MM=132, most of the fugue is being played at MM=144. 2. In addition, unfortunately the video version of my recording (otherwise masterfully done BTW) you are quoting contains a technical mistake: For some reason I don't know most of the introduction to the fugue is repeated. The 4th part lasts 2'14'', not 3:20, the fuge 8'43'', not 9:44. The entire duration of my performance, as given on the CD, is 37'42'', not 39'58''. 3. I am deeply convinced that Beethoven was very clear about what he did when he was writing down his metronome marks. Very often he spent hours locked in with his nephew and experimenting to find out "the right tempo" which was so important to him. 4. As for the repetitions in the Scherzo, I can tell you that they are even easier to execute on a period instrument, which I have done myself in a more recent recording on an 1830 Bösendorfer.
Dear Mr. Moeller, again thank you for your time on this channel, it is an honor, really. Divergence to tempi given, yes, of course, but in both directions! As Hans von Bülow writes (will be in next week's video), he lowers the tempo of the 138 to give room for necessary accelerani. When people defend the single beat practice and insert the tempo rubato aspect, they only would apply this as to lower the tempo, never to accelerate. But moreover, where this can apply to a certain degree for 'deep' music like this, it does certainly not apply for etudes which are far more problematic than this Hammerklavier Sonata. As said in a reply to your earlier comment, just tryo the entire opus 299 or the Daily excercices of Czerny. And they even are not the extreme examples. I'm happy to read you take the stand point that Beethoven carefully noted his tempo intentions down. You, only by this statement, stand out to many who claim those MM are just 'targets'. I personally believe - as one can read often so it is hardly a 'believe' that all composers of that time were serious about their MM. And so, logically, you must agree that, when the single beat practice applies to one piece or one composer, it applies to all. And I know many will raise finger and say "I can do it easily", but we know that isn't the case. Take etudes of Alkan, Kalkbrenner, Herz, or simply return to Czerny's Bach edition. Just play some of the inventions in his MM (be sure to play from the original MM's, for instance nr.1: q=138). Of that 1808 program I have seen dozens of reconstructions now, all with large extremes pointing one time to single beat, the other to whole beat. Durations of programs are a difficult matter, for both sides. What to say about the Eroica's statement that it would have lasted one hour? It is right in the middle between sb and wb? The liszt Duration of the Hammerklavier (1 hour) is fairly accurate I'd say, but also there, it is just a written notice, made for a contemporary, not for us. The repetition on a Vienese pianoforte, of which I have two, is totally impossible. Read the article by Tom Beghin I'd say, he is a strong Single Beat defender. Speaking about repetitions, at best, in isolated cases, the Vien. pf gives you 8 repeats per second. With contemporary fingering 4321 and over longer period you will not come further than 6.5. That means that all Czerny etudes (to start with) emplying repeated notes become impossible to play (by far) on the pianos he used. In the 299 for instance, you'll have to repeat at speeds from 12 to 15 notes a second. So what's the conclusion there? And note that when there is no solution for this problem only within the single beat perspective, that argument alone would take that option off the table. All said, again it is not about right or wrong, it is about trying to find a possible historical truth. I would be more than happy to exchange thoughts with you in a more constructive way than through a comment box on RUclips. You can always reach out if you'd like to talk through mail info(AT)authenticsound.org.
Just a small comment. At around 0:40 in the video you state that Berlioz said that Liszt followed all the tempo indications by which I assume you imply that he followed the metronome markings. The text you display, however, does not actually say precisely this, saying rather that Liszt did not introduce any variation to the tempi that was not indicated in the text (score). In other words, Liszt stuck to only the accelerando and ritard markings and the like as indicated in the score and did not add any relative tempo variations of his own (slowing down, speeding up, rubato etc.) into the performance. It is not clear if he played according to the metronome mark (in either single or double beat). In any case, Berlioz would not have been able to ascertain if Liszt followed the metronome markings unless he brought a metronome to the performance the use of which would have annoyed his neighbours in the audience rather like someone using a cell phone today would be annoying :-) Not a criticism of your thesis, just an observation that, in this case, I think you may have interpreted Berlioz's statement through a mental lens predisposed to see things in terms of double beat and jumped to a conclusion not really indisputably supported by the text. :-)
Honestly I cannot agree with the idea that every bar has to be played at the exact same speed with no room for any kind of pauses or rubato, that just takes away from the actual music itself if we're worrying about the fact that someone played a movement in 2.05 minutes rather than 2 on the dot
The most troubling thing in the conventional view of Beethoven's alleged "craziness" in his tempo indications is that in every other way he was such a careful indicator of his intentions in his scores. That and the fact that he was not only an experienced performer of music, he was noted as being a great performer of music. A practical performer would not create music which is meant purely as an unheard exercise a kind of "mental music". I haven't researched the history of that concept but I really would like to know when it was first purposed that any composer of note wrote such music unintended for performance and the context in which such a silly idea came about.
It's the Romantic-period writers picking up on Beethoven's eccentric nature as was detailed badly by his young student Ferdinand Ries. They took this from Ries' biography on Beethoven and combined that with a lot of flourish to place Beethoven on the mantle with the other great composers. We have to remember that even into the late 19th-century Beethoven's reputation was still quite high and he was revered as a demiGod, and still is today.
I seem to recall that Robert Schumann felt the same way about his Carnaval op 9. Both he and Clara felt the solo piano works were too difficult to be played well and accepted publicly. Liszt played a truncated version of Carnaval in 1840, but it wasn't until after his death that performers started playing his repertoire in earnest.
Ernest Newman, a music critic in the early 20th century, discussed the idea of "mental music" in his regular newspaper columns. He made the half-serious argument that he would like to see a composer write a piece of music purely to be read from the score, not to be performed, as he felt that sometimes the necessities of performance hampered the potential of musical expression. Also, there was an old belief that certain music - like Bach's "Art of the Fugue" - was intended to be only "mental music" because there were no clear instrumental indications, and the music appeared to be for pedagogical purposes in the instruction of counterpoint. I have never heard anyone advance the idea that Beethoven, Czerny, Kalkbrenner, Liszt, etc., were publishing music that they did not seriously think could be performed by human beings.
Of course, Milton Babbitt shocked the world in 1958 with his thought piece, " Who Cares If You Listen? or the Composer as Specialist". And in the post-war period there were actually many composers who didn't much care whether anybody heard their music because, like Babbitt, they considered themselves to be doing such basic sound research that it would fall to future generations to realize their "experiments". Beethoven was under great personal stress, what with his deteriorating health and the custody battle for his nephew, during the years he composed Opus 106. I have always thought that, like some of the Pierre Boulezes and Milton Babbitts of mid-century, Beethoven at that time was in a long, difficult labor, transforming from the composer for virtuoso derring-do to an inner-directed spinner of highly personal soundscapes. The Hammerklavier catches him in the darkest night of his soul, before the beautiful new dawn of Opus 109.
@@aeg225 I agreed with Milton Babbitt in that article. I think the less well known but very fine American composer Arthur Berger was right when he pointed out that no music, no matter how great appeals to a universal audience and that people who like music have every right in the world to like it and composers who compose such music have the right to write it. It's not as if Beethoven is universally loved. There are even classical musicians who aren't great fans of him, Satie, for example. I, in turn, am not a great fan of Satie's music - a result of having played through a huge amount of it as practice in sight-reading while young. But if someone loves it, that's their right.
To all that are nit-picking and attacking each other over this. Let's sit back and think a bit before we post. Keep things civil, please and no personal attacks.
Alfred Brendel said that "even the devil" couldn´t play the Hammerklavier with Beethoven´s MM marks.When you research further you will soon realizes that Beethoven marks are completly normal for his time.The only thing left to do is to count 2+2 together.(And not getting 5,because one can´t produce a letter where it states it is 4.)
It is convincing enough for me. Great job, Wim! As for Franz Liszt, the giant of Romantic period, we have to take rubato, which is much more than modern pianists do, into account. The tempi could fluctuate more than 5-10 percents as marked.
Modern technology enables us to experiment with tempo rather easily. Slowing down or speeding up recordings is one method. Another is the use of music notation programs (e.g. Sibelius and Finale). After the notes are entered the computer can play back the score in whatever tempo you choose. I have tried this with Finale. Music sounds very different at quarter note = 300!!! It is just a blur of sound rather than music. A musically pleasing performance is the ultimate goal. I have found your whole beat performances to be truly meaningful and beautiful. While I still enjoy single beat performances there is something about whole beat performances that speaks to me. Maybe it is the ability to hear every detail the composer put in the music. It has certainly opened up a world of possibilities in musical performances.
in addition to my previous posts and to illustrate how the 138 mm apply to the first bars one, you can find a piano roll ( search for Hammerklavier Sonata 1St Mvt) played by Wilhem Backhaus , student of Eugen D'Albert who was one of the most famous student of Liszt ) . You can also find piano rolls of D'Albert. These audio documents are priceless
I'm watching almost all the videos of your channel (and there are really a lot) and I'm starting to realize how well documented and supported by evidences your claims are. You are approaching these concepts in the most scientific and researched way. Thanks for all your researches and great contents, it really makes perfectly much more sense now. :-)
I don't really understand what the fuss is all about! If a giant like Beethoven indicated that, in the first movement, the metronome marking is minim = 138, he must have heard in his gigantic musical mind the piece played (overall) at 138 minims per minute! Now, I agree this is difficult of course, but Schnabel tried it with some success (as his first movement lasts for about 8min 50, with some garbled notes), and nowadays Levit plays it impeccably in 9 mn 46 seconds. Whatever Liszt did in 1836, if the sonata really lasted about one hour, as he says 40 years later, it must have been boring to death, for me at least. Beethoven was very serious about his metronome marks. Here is what he says in a letter addressed to B. Schott and sons in December 1826:” The metronome marks will shortly follow; do wait for them. In our age such things are certainly necessary; also I hear from Berlin that the first performance of the Symphony(the Ninth) went off with enthusiasm, which I ascribe in great part to the metronome marking. We can scarcely have any more tempi ordinari , for one must follow the ideas of unfettered genius.” So, please, let us respect the wishes of the genius who wrote these masterpieces!
These videos are great and explain in great detail the double beat but, more than that, they focus back the attention to the music, the phrasing and the correct articulation and away from the extreme display of virtuosity. Certainly, Czerny, Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt would have written slower tempi in their editions because they were directed to amateurs and good pianists (who paid the subscription to the editions) but NOT for their musical rivals to perfom in concert. Maybe, many of these works, were played in a faster tempo than marked or, perhaps, harder versions. I think, and this is just a conjecture, that, for example, Beethoven could have played faster some of his pieces but, for his editions, he kept a slightly slower tempo to make them more "accesible" to the subscriptors. I agree that many works are played, nowadays, too fast sacrificing expression and ARTICULATION for technical virtuosity. I love these videos, thank you for your research!!!
i see where you're coming from and the tempo is clearly too quick to play, but if someone asked me to hum the hammerklavier opening it tends to end up in the 130s and I think it's possible it occurred to b. like that
So, which amateur pianist wants to demonstrate for us how they sightread this obviously EASY Beethoven work in whole beat? GO! Half beat regulars, I'm talking to you! (with love, of course ... you have taught me lots of stuff) ...
@@hanshartmann8205 If you can do it again, then it's no longer sight-reading and becomes just reading. Sight-reading is playing from a score never seen before in one's life. With that said, now that you are reading the music, you should be putting in full dynamics, expression, and all the other details that are expected in your playing. An old teacher told me this many years ago as I played something for her from the score. She knew I wasn't sight-reading even though I said I was...
@@hanshartmann8205 That's outstanding. A little backstory: Wim uploaded some Chopin Etudes in whole beat about a year ago, and it was the contention that whole beat was for amateurs, and that any one of them could sightread through the Chopin Etude, specifically, Op 10 No 1 in half beat. I then grabbed some amateur piansts whom I know from a local university here, and they simply could not. That really let the air out of their sails. I guess not too many people call others on "proof", so that's why I quipped this. This piece at any intelligible speed would not be sightreadable by an amateur, if I understand the definition, which has been alluded to by many trying to denigrate Wim and a very real possibility via common sense, maths, and tradition for the whole beat practise. I have tried to grab onto the piece in the past, and I am quite distracted by other pieces I would rather learn first. Thank you for sharing, Hans. :D
@@thomashughes4859 Yeah I've found that out too. The "hard" pieces are are still hard no matter if they're played slower. In fact somethings are more difficult because they're more obvious now.
FWIW, I offer some anecdotal evidence as a collaborative pianist and a composer. Whenever I accompany singers in a no-rehearsal situation (like auditions or their first lesson on an aria or art song), almost invariably they give me a tempo that is faster than they intend. This is so consistent that I've learned to take their suggestions with a grain of salt, start the piece a couple of "ticks" slower, and I've never had a complaint that I was playing too slow. Now here's the kicker: even with this knowledge, I have STILL made the same mistake as a composer. I start committing something to "paper" (notation software), add the metronome marking that I think I'm hearing in my head, and then when I go to play and/or sing it I realize it's too fast (never too slow). My theory is that when we remove the "dragging" effects of tactile perception from the equation, if we're not careful our aural/mental perception of the tempo we hear in our minds will be distorted. It's not just the Hammerklavier--I've run across pieces by Schumann, Shostakovich, and others for which the metronome marking seemed unreasonably fast. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. 😉
The Staatliches Institut für Musikforschung has the most comprehensive look at the durations in the Hammerklavier opening movement, and there are several valuable quotes contained therein: simpk.de/en/5_autograph_tempo_in_beethoven%92s_%93hammerklavier_sonata%94_1321.html The first quote that comes out is by Czerny himself, from the "Kunst des Vortrags der älteren und neueren Klavierkompositionen" in his Op. 500: "The principle difficulty comes from the tremendously fast and fiery tempo given by the author himself, and then in the performance of the melodic but polyphonic passages to be performed strictly Legato, in the clean performance of the passages, tensions and leaps and finally in the endurance that all of this requires. All of the individual difficulties require attentive practice, and the conception of the grand, whole first movement, kept more in the symphony style develops after repeated performance then after it has been learned, accorded the proper amount of time"
5 лет назад+9
"Either Beethoven was crazy or we massively are fooling ourselves." Why not both? :-D I mean, Beethoven was quite crazy, he was a rather deranged fellow, an alcoholic, too. But there is no doubt left in my mind that his tempo indications make much more sense in the double beat interpretation.
Beethoven from what I've read in various biographies including Anton Schindler's Life of Beethoven, I've come to the conclusion that he was more frustrated with life and others around him due to his deafness. This caused him to rage out at people, I think, more than anything. But it probably, however, didn't help that he drank and took some nice medicinal concoctions that contained arsenic, lead, and possibly mercury. It was also common in those days to add lead to cheap wine to sweeten it! Lovely times they were!
Where can I find an explanation (for beginners) of the two different views on the metronome marks (w.b. versus s.b. (single beat?))? It's very hard to follow this video without that background.
The general premise is that in the original use of the metronome, two clicks really counted for one beat. The entire back-and-forth motion of the pendulum represented one beat, and the two clicks of this entire pendulum motion represent the first subdivision of that beat. This, despite the fact that Maelzel, who designed and patented the first "modern" metronome designed it to click at both ends of the swing when he could have just as easily designed it to click only on the beat. This, despite the fact that the BPM numbers are right on his design (the need to halve what they actually indicate renders them essentially arbitrary). This, because of the unplayability of this piece and several exercises and etudes at the given MM. I don't know what Maelzel was thinking when he designed the metronome this way; he could have saved us all a lot of confusion by making it just click once and halving the numbers he inscribed on the device. Alas, we will never know.
Hi Wim, could create response video to "In conversation with Sir András Schiff - 2020"? Some interesting thoughts on Hammerklavier Sonata and its tempi...
This whole channel is a joke. Literally every video just about how everything needs to be so slow that we fall asleep in the pause between the first two notes.
@@anonymesockenpuppe1589 Disagree. He is explaining the metronome mark that nobody plays in a way that makes sense. The only explanation that makes sense, that I've found so far. I tried playing hammerklavier in this way and it works beautifully. None of that rushed nonsense. It is a BIG difference, and whether he's right or not, I'm of the opinion that THAT is the way this piece (and many others) should be performed, regardless.
Beethoven was a crazy and mad man. Just try to ask any conductors who is willing to try to convince an orchestra to play at those tempo makings. Why are we so troubled when it comes to following a mad man’s orders or following our own hearts? This shows how little confidence we have in ourselves. Get a life!
I'll share some notes later, and today's video was well-researched, common-sense driven, and utterly supported by The Calculus. You put the "secant" on your board, so I'll talk about that in a bit. Lots to absorb. Lots to ponder. Thanks for sharing, Wim. You are changing the world of "Classical" music!
I am sympathetic to Wim's thesis, but also sceptical, however to summarise his argument, using the Hammerklavier as an example: 1. there are no recorded examples of anyone playing at or close to Beethoven's (single click) metronome values (and certainly not according to Liszt's estimate for the sonata); 2. there are repeated notes in the sonata that were incapable of being executed on pianos of the period at these metronome values. There is very little in response to this; the suggestion that the metronome was wrong in some way seems to be ignorant of the physics involved; it is the position of the weight that matters not so much how heavy the weight was; besides, I have read that Beethoven's metronome has been checked, though I think it is the case that the original weight is missing, moreover this thesis would also propose that very many other metronomes would have to have been equally inaccurate. Double beat has its own problems; if the allegro is 69 rather than 138, it is troublingly slow for professional public performance and inclined to drag. In fact, for a professional, a 25% faster tempo is easier to manage and communicate with an audience, though whether Beethoven ever envisaged performances in these circumstances is rather doubtful.
Proof of Whole Beat setting of the Metronome (“MM”): Sorry, but a conundrum exists. Maybe you can help … :D Say I have a piece in 2/2 time, and it’s 30 measures long. The piece takes exactly one minute to complete. Questions: 1) How many measures per minute is the piece? 2) That was easy; so how many seconds per measure? 3) That was also easy; so how many seconds is each half note (minim)? 4) What must I set my Metronome so that I can give the proper time to the half note? Answers: 1) 30; 2) 2 seconds; 3) 1 second; 4). ??? this is our “conundrum”. Who thinks 60? Who thinks 120? Problem (“conundrum”): About 1600-ish, Galileo saw a chandelier swaying in a church, and eventually figured that Tα√(L/g) or “The time period in seconds is proportional to the sq. rt. of the length of the pendulum divided by the acceleration due to gravity”. To make an “equation” (=) from a “proportion” (∝), we need a “constant” (k). Pause for some Algebra … OK, got it: The constant is (2π). So, the new equation we found is T=2π√(L/g) or “The time period in seconds is equal to two times Pi times the sq. rt. of the length divided by the acceleration due to gravity. Don’t quit on my yet, I promise my point is worth it. So, let’s find the length of a simple pendulum upon which the Metronome (“double-weighted physical pendulum”) is entirely based, shall we? A little bit of Algebra later …, and we have the following formula: L=(T^2 g)/(4π^2 ) or “The length (in metres) of a simple pendulum is equal to the time period (in seconds) squared times the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 metres per second per second) divided by four times Pi (3.14) squared. Question 3)’s answer was one second of time for each half note, right? So let’s find the beat rate (beats per minute) of a second of time. We will use 1 for T, and we will use 9.8 for gravity, and we can round Pi to 3.14. The units will all cancel and give us our answer of the length in metres. Are we in agreement with these numbers? I hope so because these are the numbers that we know. Plugging them into the formula: L=(1^2 (9.8))/〖4(3.14)〗^2 gives us a length of 0.2485 metres or converting to centimetres gives us 24 cm 8.5 mm in length. That would be 9 25/32nds inches for the Americans who aren’t hip to the metric system. What is the beat rate (beats per minute) of a simple pendulum with the length given? You can grab a nut out of your tool box, tie a piece of kite string or yarn or thread to it, measure to the given length, and give it a push and check it against your Metronome (mechanical or software) or you can trust me that the answer is: ONE HUNDRED TWENTY!
I must be missing something :-) Time period for a pendulum is by definition one complete back and forth swing of the pendulum (double beat if you like). What is the definition of "beat rate" that you are using when comparing it against the metronome mark ? One hundred and twenty beats (audible sound on the metronome) gives 2 beats every second. In single beat interpretation of 2/2 there would be 2 beats per measure i.e. each measure takes 1 second so the 30 measures would take 30 seconds, not a minute. An audible beat of 60 on the metronome would give 2 seconds per measure and a total time of 1 minute for the 30 measure piece. The 120 beats on the metronome would only give a 1 minute duration if you interpret it in double beat which would make your whole point a circular argument i.e if you treat the metronome in the same way as a string pendulum (by back and forth swing - double beat) as opposed to taking the audible click as the beat (single beat) you get 120. What am I missing ?
@@gabithemagyar You're not missing a thing. Go back through my proof step by step, and you will find that you must set the half note at whole beat to 120. This is the conundrum that the people who subscribe to the half beat interpretation have. The minim is set to the period of time it takes for the pendulum to do a complete 2 pi. If you have a specific line in the proof, go ahead and we can discuss it thusly. Let me know, please. I made no errors that I am aware of. I'm pleased that somebody went through it. :D Hint: each crotchet is equal to each beat at 120 ... start there.
Problem here is that you are not looking at the fastest performance by a long shot . V. Lisitsa and Moller as I indicated in a previous thread are fast, but there is much faster around. Moller is 39.38 mn Valentina Lisitsa nearly about the same 39.35 mn But if you look at Friedrich Gulda live performance in 1970 , he plays it live in * 36 mn 32 s * ( you have to remove 23 s before he sits and start playing, and the applause at the end) Search for 'LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN - GROSSE SONATE FÜR DAS HAMMERKLAVIER OPUS 106 - FRIEDRICH GULDA' on RUclips. Given it's a live performance , I would be curious to know how fast he can play in the comfort of his home And I am pretty sure you can even find faster if you spend time on youtube.
@@fogonpr That's not the point i am making. Wim introduces Moller's performance as the fastest performance on the planet and that is what i am refuting with evidence. When it comes to Liszt , given most of the performances are around 40-45 mn minutes , respecting Beethoven indications to play only the first bars at 138 and given he played an intro to that piece has discussed in a previous video, we get probably very close to the hour. But that is just speculation. in all cases, the Liszt Hammerklavier event doesn't constitute a solid evidence , neither for one theory nor for the other. I would rather look at Smarts recordings , scores with durations, concerts events with durations that are strong proof materials
@@ChristianJoannes His interpretation could be faster, but still the question would be who was wrong? Was Berlioz wrong on the tempo. Or was liszt wrong on the time it took him to play it. And why is Liszt not a valid point may I ask? Berlioz said that he played on tempo. Liszt later said that it took him an hour to play. If he was playing slow enough to play for an hour, Berlioz could have said something. And just let me say that if the piece is really half an hour long, 15-20 minutes longer is quite obvious to notice.
@@fogonpr again, as i said, it depends how you consider what is the correct way of playing the Klammerklavier and how long was the additional intro. If you consider that only the first bars should be played at that speed as many Beethoven experts say then they were both right.
on the contrary: Schiff is on the 'slow' side. His hammerklavier for instance is 'only' 104 (not my calculation). he rarely is even close to the sbt side
@@AuthenticSound are you kidding me? Have you actually listened to his recording. He's not even close to the 'slow side'. In fact he's faster than most other pianists
@@AuthenticSound additionally I suggest that you listen to his lecture recital if you haven't already. Schiff literally explains the correct tempo and then plays an excerpt of the exposition.
It's too bad that the people who are more interested in nastiness instead of evidence are back. To cite old and recent recordings played on modern pianos does nothing to cancel the evidence that Wim Winters has brought to this NOR THE PRACTICAL FACT THAT THE PIANOS OF BEETHOVEN'S PERIOD WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THE RAPID REPETITIONS OF NOTES THEIR CONTENTIONS WOULD REQUIRE. That is not a point that pointing to a modern piano performance, even by the student in the line of Beethoven students can get past. You may as well argue that Beethoven would have used quarter tones and effects available on modern synthesizers. You can't trash talk and psych-out this issue like you can in sports, evidence is everything and the evidence that counts is the evidence left by Beethoven and what people who heard him said. The metronome numbers are absolute evidence, even if people want to make up stories about Beethoven's metronome being defective (I've had one of those, you don't use one, you throw it away if it can't be fixed or it will drive you nuts) are ridiculous no matter who used them as an excuse to ignore the most absolute tempo indications he left.
Correct. The MM was as valuable as a clock, and they really were "clocks without hands". If ANY part of the mechanism fails, the entire machine fails. Every scenario that can be supposed by the "broken Metronome" results in utter malfunction. Great catch!
What's the point in trying to pull down Liszt's image of a legendary performer? If we can believe anything from what's written down, liszt in his prime had a fenomenal technique, which even contemporary virtuoso's looked at with envy. Some quotes: www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/why-not/Florilegium.html These were not merely fanboys, Chopin, Saint-Saens and Rubinstein considered the foremost virtuosi in their times. But being a great performer is much more than how fast you can play, or which tempi you choose. It's about how to enchant an audience, deep understanding of the ideas behind the music, ability to phrase, create beautiful sounds. A great technique is necessary to be able to accomplish this, not only to play fast and loud., but it's not the end of it. So this whole video is based on the duration of his performance, and from this we can conclude that Liszt wasn't such a great virtuoso after all, that he played everything at half the tempo? I cannot imagine the amount of confusion that could lead to such conclusions. It just means that he took fluid tempi, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, and it added up to an hour. Really not more could be inferred from that, and the rest is just total fantasy. I fail to see how pulling down Liszt from his Sockets elevates you as an artist. I think you should treat them with respect and try to learn from them, (or at least their students, as there are many audio records of Liszts students), not pull them down.
I fail to see how quoting Liszt himself as taking about an hour to get through the Hammerklavier, even though a literal reading of the metronome markings suggests that it wouldn't take nearly that long, is tantamount to tearing down Liszt as a performer.
Don't get it: it is 'very very close' but 'except the slow mov'. So it is not close, right? And the beginning might sound like 138, with all the wrong notes he slows down considerably.
@@AuthenticSound Who’s waffling here? If it “sounds like 138,” then it’s 138. Yes, Schnabel shows what the piece sounds like in full tempo, as indicated by Beethoven, and it’s exhilarating. “Uncommonly fast and fiery” as Czerny himself related. Also, tempi do fluctuate a bit in performance, based on context. It’s not a mathematical calculation; it’s an artistic reality. A musical score is not the music itself, it’s a description: it takes a musician (and Schnabel was in many ways the ultimate musician) to realize its meaning.
Wim if you are wrong about this, it must be a real mystery how Liszt ever got a reputation for playing faster than most other pianists. By the way, your assertion that Berlioz said that Liszt followed the tempo indications is not really borne out by the quotation you provided, do you have a more explicit quotation? (I could not find a copy on line). However Berlioz is stating that Liszt was faithful to the text. In other words the allegro had the appropriate character as did the adagio sostenuto. Whether or not it is possible to play the adagio at double speed, it is not possible to play it at that speed and make it sound like an adagio.
Martin, where does it say (in the 19th c.) Liszt got the reputation of playing faster than most other pianists? The sources I know say quite the opposite (and he withdraw from stage for a reason)
@@AuthenticSound I have to admit that most information I have seen are secondary sources such as Alan walker's book Franz Liszt the virtuoso years. Some is inferred from comments of the period so you cold argue that the reaction ws for some other aspect, however the pieces he wrote in his recital years, such as the 1837 version of the études and his ability to exploit new developments in piano building (something you have referred to, I think) all point in the same direction. I have seen it suggested that later on younger challengers might have been increasing speeds even more, however it is entirely understandable that he did not want to continue the itinerant life style. But you seem to be arguing against yourself: it is implausible that despite developments in piano design, pianists started playing slower than in the previous generation.
Big Bang Theory: Shall we do a bit of thought experiment ( 'Gendenkenexperiment') ? Let's assume the theory of double beat is true. This theory stipulates that during the industrial revolution , there was an appetite to play faster and to show off. The theory assumes that the move to double beat to single beat is not progressive , but radical , i.e. the change is not the result of a slow evolution , having pianists playing gradually faster over time, 10% , 20% , 30% up to 100% faster but is the consequence of a radical change, due to a different interpretation of the metronome, resulting in a 100%, increase in one go. So... The likelihood to have 10 virtuosos over world , waking up a Monday morning and suddenly deciding to play the Waldstein sonata twice as fast is next to null. So , there must have been one pianist that played in single beat for the first time . The charisma and renown of this pianist must have been second to none, for ,he managed to convince the entire planet music, 100% of piano schools in the entire world , in a record time for such a radical transformation, all of that without internet and fast way of traveling. Question is : Who is he ????
The mental blockade you are having with this subject is remarkable.Why is it so hard to imagine that over a century between continents and wars and with little to no ability to record music among 1000 of pianists from all over the world a little bit of knowledge is lost.The knowledge how to read these old MM markings.
@@kefka34 I am not sure who is 'blocked' mentally here. As a start be polite , the rules of conduct apply to everyone, i believe . Live performance never stopped ; music literature and music articles didn't come to an halt either. So there must have been a first one, and it is not that long ago in the scale of history. Also famous school have provided continuity in the teaching , for instance the conversatoire of Paris ( open in 1795) was one of the most famous school with Vienna Conservatoire. it never closed even during the worst period. so maybe you can explain how suddenly music teaching had changed radically without any documents or archive on the subject .
@@ChristianJoannes Do you find the word "mentally blocked" insulting? I had horrible mental blocks in various subjects i was always glad someone helped me release them.I will in future stop replying to your comments.
a) because it makes no sense and b) all metronomes of that time must have been broken and broken in exactly the same way plus c) that is not proven by the surviving metronomes. Perhaps this is interesting for you as well: ruclips.net/video/0sgkls8XEt8/видео.html
How can you say that this is the fastest? Even if you compared all the existing recordings, you couldn't compare the live recordings! Years ago, for instance, I published a review of a Pollini performance inserting a little diagram with comparisons of some other Pollini's performances during a long period of live concerts www.ilcorrieremusicale.it/2014/03/26/pollini-e-i-tempi-beethoveniani/
To Hell with the damned metronome marking! Beethoven was stone deaf - he probably couldn’t even hear his metronome! It sounds terrible played at such an insanely fast tempo - it’s marked simply “allegro”. Not prestissimo - allegro! The character of the first movement is contrary to the insanely fast tempo. Especially on a modern piano. Best to ignore the metronome marking completely.
:-) Like the energy of your post! But it is a fairy tale Beethoven was that deaf and the more: constantly deaf. Even in 1823 we have witnesses being surprised of how well he heard by times. So... of course his tempi are correct, he was smarter than that don't you think?
AuthenticSound No. I disagree. The tempo marking is virtually unplayable on a modern piano, and it contradicts the “allegro” and the character of the music - it sounds awful at that tempo. I think the marking is simply wrong. Best to ignore it completely. Liszt be damned.
I have to repeat it always. Listen to the Beethoven recordings of HJ Lim in modern quality. In the 1930s Arthur Schnabel could only produce Schellack records. Schnabel is reborn in HJ Lim. This is the way Beethoven wanted it.
As we pick at the details closely under the microscope, and nearly start a food fight over it, we seem to forget that the performance practices changed over the years. It's that simple, but in our modern way of doing things, we have to dig out, not the standard lab microscope, but instead we get one of those atomic machines, and then put everything through the giant Cray computer to analyze it all in detail. Even after the results, we still pick and debate ad infinite um, attacking each other personally and never gaining an inch on either side.
The question is why did things change?
In reality people did it because they could. In the Romantic period, just like for the Modernist period in the early 20th century, it was out with the old and in with the new. The use of the metronome changed as well because a younf generation of better pianists could play faster on better pianos with much better technique than those in the past. These great show-offs were like kids riding their bicycles down hill without holding their handlebars yelling. "Hey ma look no hands!" Show-offs, by the way, are in the early 19th-century sense, and much was said in the writings back then about them. The public loved this and the piano companies loved it as it helped promote music and pianos alike as I've mentioned in the past.
This change had to happen, more or less, because musicians had to survive. Those somewhat cushy jobs gotten through connections to a prince of some princedom were no longer. This happened as Beethoven was coming on the scene musically. He and another composer Vanhal, were very successful businessmen who promoted their works, got their names out there in such a way that they became beloved names in every musically-inclined household. Beethoven, being Beethoven one upped Vanhal and became famous enough for writers to make stuff up about him, and this only put him up there high enough and famous enough that later generations somehow couldn't match him. Yes... There are notes and writings by Schubert, who admired Beethoven so much, that he felt he just couldn't publish his works. Brahms wouldn't write a symphony for a very long time, and others too, if I remember Robert Schumann too saying something about this, but I might be mistaken here.
Thus, the 19th century was the advent of the concert pianist as we know them today versus the composer and his circle of patrons giving concerts and being hired by a prince of some princedom. With this big crowded field, we had a crowd out for fame, fortune, and glory. We also had a bunch of rebels, such as Mendelssohn for example, who said metronome be damned, and allegro, andante, moderato who cares what they mean because I'm going to do things my way. What's interesting too is there was a bit of retrospection going as well with Mendelssohn and others rediscovering Bach, Scarlatti, Handel, and others, as well as the rediscovery of older keyboard instruments.
This pretty much set the road to what we have today. It didn't help the cause that there were also publishers pushing "piano schools" to the public with the marketing prose in there saying things that appear as if these schools make everyone including the clueless kid forced to take piano lessons into a concert pianist. These publications also generalized the terminology to make it easy for the all-consuming new middle-class who were buying pianos for their households. Allegro became fast, andante became walking pace, grave very, very slow, and so slow that the grave next to a tombstone, and so on. This of course got promoted and propagated throughout the actual schools and onward because piano teachers don't die young.
What Wim and other have said is: Hey wait a minute. What's going on here? Something changed, and the metronome played a big part of that so let's look back and see what happened. In the process of doing this, they have ruffled feathers of those that are afraid that hey they might be right about things. The thing is he and the others have poked some holes in this 19th century development, and let's face it, it's 150-plus years of ingrained methods, teaching, and traditions that don't die easily. It doesn't help that there are still generations of students who studied with students of some of these famous names in the golden age including my first teacher, now 99 years old, who studied with Isidor Phillip, Beveridge Webster, Leonard Shure, and others.
Now to keep things in perspective, I'm not saying this as one of Wim's supporters which I am, I'm saying this as someone who has studied music officially since I was 7 years old. Like everyone here, I too sought that unreachable end of the rainbow we can never get to. Over the years, I rediscovered a lot of music not by banging through as quickly as possible, but taking the same pieces at a more reasonable pace. In that process, I found I had time to pay attention to the details that are rarely captured in a much too fast performance that's meant for show, fame, and fortune and do a disfavor to the composer and the intention of the music being performed.
John , this could well be a plausible story line, the problem here is how to deal with continuity . In another post, I have referred to the conservatoire de Paris as an example. It was created in 1795 , never closed including during the 3 wars , and is one of the biggest archive centre when it comes to classical music history. Why don't we have any trace of such a change of practice ? It seems highly implausible to me , that such an institution would have changed radically his method of teaching without formal notice , documents or updated practice book. So again , we are back to the transition issue: did we have at some stage , a mix of classes where some teachers would be single beat and others double beat ? Not sure ,it is plausible. Was it a radical change ? Even more unlikely. Moreover this institution still uses today, theoretical books such as the 'Theorie de la musique' of Adolphe Leopold Daunhauser that contains specific information about tempo and how to use the metronome in a very crystal clear way .
@@ChristianJoannes I recommend researching a bit deeper. There's a possibility there is information here, but not found if, as you say there, is a vast amount of information at the conservatory on music performance practice. It maybe that Wim and his fellow writers are in fact aware of these sources, but given the amount of time needed to produce the videos, and all the practicing needed to be done, these sources haven't been mentioned here. If anything I recommend contacting Wim directly via his website as he has better knowledge of this than I do.
John Citron Thks for honest reply .
@@Manx123
So ludicrous a notion that I know of nobody proposing it. It is not seldom used as a straw man, though.
In this case, we know that the tempo marking was intended as an exact value, and we know that being exact about tempo markings *was* common at the time. If anything we need to conclude and accept that there have been lots of historic mistakes about performance practice. If you are playing at e.g. 50% higher speed than indicated, it's not a performance of the piece according to the score. You could just as well change some of the notes to your liking. The "problem" is that people pretend that this super fast speed is how the pieces were intended to sound.
1. Thank you very much for your interesting statement! But actually your conclusion is incorrect. I have studied a lot about the so-called half-time theory, and can only say: The concert programmes at Beethoven's lifetime were so extended (22 December 1808 f.e.), that a performance at half speed would have taken 6.5 hours of performance time! And I have once listened to a performance of Opus 53, where the Brio Beethoven asked for is completely lost! Furthermore, as you state yourself, nobody plays along with the metronome. So a little bit of divergence must be there, since there is a lot of declamatory phrasing and rubato (Beethoven writes "espressivo" quite often). It is not legitimate just to divide the performance time by the number of note-values. By listening carefully, you will find that most of the first movement in this recording is being played at MM=132, most of the fugue is being played at MM=144.
2. In addition, unfortunately the video version of my recording (otherwise masterfully done BTW) you are quoting contains a technical mistake: For some reason I don't know most of the introduction to the fugue is repeated. The 4th part lasts 2'14'', not 3:20, the fuge 8'43'', not 9:44. The entire duration of my performance, as given on the CD, is 37'42'', not 39'58''.
3. I am deeply convinced that Beethoven was very clear about what he did when he was writing down his metronome marks. Very often he spent hours locked in with his nephew and experimenting to find out "the right tempo" which was so important to him.
4. As for the repetitions in the Scherzo, I can tell you that they are even easier to execute on a period instrument, which I have done myself in a more recent recording on an 1830 Bösendorfer.
Dear Mr. Moeller, again thank you for your time on this channel, it is an honor, really. Divergence to tempi given, yes, of course, but in both directions! As Hans von Bülow writes (will be in next week's video), he lowers the tempo of the 138 to give room for necessary accelerani. When people defend the single beat practice and insert the tempo rubato aspect, they only would apply this as to lower the tempo, never to accelerate. But moreover, where this can apply to a certain degree for 'deep' music like this, it does certainly not apply for etudes which are far more problematic than this Hammerklavier Sonata. As said in a reply to your earlier comment, just tryo the entire opus 299 or the Daily excercices of Czerny. And they even are not the extreme examples.
I'm happy to read you take the stand point that Beethoven carefully noted his tempo intentions down. You, only by this statement, stand out to many who claim those MM are just 'targets'. I personally believe - as one can read often so it is hardly a 'believe' that all composers of that time were serious about their MM. And so, logically, you must agree that, when the single beat practice applies to one piece or one composer, it applies to all. And I know many will raise finger and say "I can do it easily", but we know that isn't the case. Take etudes of Alkan, Kalkbrenner, Herz, or simply return to Czerny's Bach edition. Just play some of the inventions in his MM (be sure to play from the original MM's, for instance nr.1: q=138).
Of that 1808 program I have seen dozens of reconstructions now, all with large extremes pointing one time to single beat, the other to whole beat. Durations of programs are a difficult matter, for both sides. What to say about the Eroica's statement that it would have lasted one hour? It is right in the middle between sb and wb? The liszt Duration of the Hammerklavier (1 hour) is fairly accurate I'd say, but also there, it is just a written notice, made for a contemporary, not for us.
The repetition on a Vienese pianoforte, of which I have two, is totally impossible. Read the article by Tom Beghin I'd say, he is a strong Single Beat defender. Speaking about repetitions, at best, in isolated cases, the Vien. pf gives you 8 repeats per second. With contemporary fingering 4321 and over longer period you will not come further than 6.5. That means that all Czerny etudes (to start with) emplying repeated notes become impossible to play (by far) on the pianos he used. In the 299 for instance, you'll have to repeat at speeds from 12 to 15 notes a second. So what's the conclusion there? And note that when there is no solution for this problem only within the single beat perspective, that argument alone would take that option off the table.
All said, again it is not about right or wrong, it is about trying to find a possible historical truth. I would be more than happy to exchange thoughts with you in a more constructive way than through a comment box on RUclips. You can always reach out if you'd like to talk through mail info(AT)authenticsound.org.
Just a small comment. At around 0:40 in the video you state that Berlioz said that Liszt followed all the tempo indications by which I assume you imply that he followed the metronome markings. The text you display, however, does not actually say precisely this, saying rather that Liszt did not introduce any variation to the tempi that was not indicated in the text (score). In other words, Liszt stuck to only the accelerando and ritard markings and the like as indicated in the score and did not add any relative tempo variations of his own (slowing down, speeding up, rubato etc.) into the performance. It is not clear if he played according to the metronome mark (in either single or double beat). In any case, Berlioz would not have been able to ascertain if Liszt followed the metronome markings unless he brought a metronome to the performance the use of which would have annoyed his neighbours in the audience rather like someone using a cell phone today would be annoying :-) Not a criticism of your thesis, just an observation that, in this case, I think you may have interpreted Berlioz's statement through a mental lens predisposed to see things in terms of double beat and jumped to a conclusion not really indisputably supported by the text. :-)
Honestly I cannot agree with the idea that every bar has to be played at the exact same speed with no room for any kind of pauses or rubato, that just takes away from the actual music itself if we're worrying about the fact that someone played a movement in 2.05 minutes rather than 2 on the dot
The most troubling thing in the conventional view of Beethoven's alleged "craziness" in his tempo indications is that in every other way he was such a careful indicator of his intentions in his scores. That and the fact that he was not only an experienced performer of music, he was noted as being a great performer of music. A practical performer would not create music which is meant purely as an unheard exercise a kind of "mental music". I haven't researched the history of that concept but I really would like to know when it was first purposed that any composer of note wrote such music unintended for performance and the context in which such a silly idea came about.
It's the Romantic-period writers picking up on Beethoven's eccentric nature as was detailed badly by his young student Ferdinand Ries. They took this from Ries' biography on Beethoven and combined that with a lot of flourish to place Beethoven on the mantle with the other great composers. We have to remember that even into the late 19th-century Beethoven's reputation was still quite high and he was revered as a demiGod, and still is today.
I seem to recall that Robert Schumann felt the same way about his Carnaval op 9. Both he and Clara felt the solo piano works were too difficult to be played well and accepted publicly. Liszt played a truncated version of Carnaval in 1840, but it wasn't until after his death that performers started playing his repertoire in earnest.
Ernest Newman, a music critic in the early 20th century, discussed the idea of "mental music" in his regular newspaper columns. He made the half-serious argument that he would like to see a composer write a piece of music purely to be read from the score, not to be performed, as he felt that sometimes the necessities of performance hampered the potential of musical expression. Also, there was an old belief that certain music - like Bach's "Art of the Fugue" - was intended to be only "mental music" because there were no clear instrumental indications, and the music appeared to be for pedagogical purposes in the instruction of counterpoint.
I have never heard anyone advance the idea that Beethoven, Czerny, Kalkbrenner, Liszt, etc., were publishing music that they did not seriously think could be performed by human beings.
Of course, Milton Babbitt shocked the world in 1958 with his thought piece, "
Who Cares If You Listen? or the Composer as Specialist". And in the post-war period there were actually many composers who didn't much care whether anybody heard their music because, like Babbitt, they considered themselves to be doing such basic sound research that it would fall to future generations to realize their "experiments". Beethoven was under great personal stress, what with his deteriorating health and the custody battle for his nephew, during the years he composed Opus 106. I have always thought that, like some of the Pierre Boulezes and Milton Babbitts of mid-century, Beethoven at that time was in a long, difficult labor, transforming from the composer for virtuoso derring-do to an inner-directed spinner of highly personal soundscapes. The Hammerklavier catches him in the darkest night of his soul, before the beautiful new dawn of Opus 109.
@@aeg225 I agreed with Milton Babbitt in that article. I think the less well known but very fine American composer Arthur Berger was right when he pointed out that no music, no matter how great appeals to a universal audience and that people who like music have every right in the world to like it and composers who compose such music have the right to write it. It's not as if Beethoven is universally loved. There are even classical musicians who aren't great fans of him, Satie, for example. I, in turn, am not a great fan of Satie's music - a result of having played through a huge amount of it as practice in sight-reading while young. But if someone loves it, that's their right.
To all that are nit-picking and attacking each other over this. Let's sit back and think a bit before we post. Keep things civil, please and no personal attacks.
:D
Alfred Brendel said that "even the devil" couldn´t play the Hammerklavier with Beethoven´s MM marks.When you research further you will soon realizes that Beethoven marks are completly normal for his time.The only thing left to do is to count 2+2 together.(And not getting 5,because one can´t produce a letter where it states it is 4.)
I was awaiting so much for these videos about the hammerklavier
It is convincing enough for me. Great job, Wim! As for Franz Liszt, the giant of Romantic period, we have to take rubato, which is much more than modern pianists do, into account. The tempi could fluctuate more than 5-10 percents as marked.
Modern technology enables us to experiment with tempo rather easily. Slowing down or speeding up recordings is one method. Another is the use of music notation programs (e.g. Sibelius and Finale). After the notes are entered the computer can play back the score in whatever tempo you choose. I have tried this with Finale. Music sounds very different at quarter note = 300!!! It is just a blur of sound rather than music. A musically pleasing performance is the ultimate goal. I have found your whole beat performances to be truly meaningful and beautiful. While I still enjoy single beat performances there is something about whole beat performances that speaks to me. Maybe it is the ability to hear every detail the composer put in the music. It has certainly opened up a world of possibilities in musical performances.
in addition to my previous posts and to illustrate how the 138 mm apply to the first bars one, you can find a piano roll ( search for Hammerklavier Sonata 1St Mvt) played by Wilhem Backhaus , student of Eugen D'Albert who was one of the most famous student of Liszt ) . You can also find piano rolls of D'Albert. These audio documents are priceless
I'm watching almost all the videos of your channel (and there are really a lot) and I'm starting to realize how well documented and supported by evidences your claims are. You are approaching these concepts in the most scientific and researched way. Thanks for all your researches and great contents, it really makes perfectly much more sense now. :-)
@@donnnaelvira In that case, soon or later, his theories will be proven wrong despite appreciation or not. It'll be interesting anyway.
Thank you for this video, Wim!
I don't really understand what the fuss is all about! If a giant like Beethoven indicated that, in the first movement, the metronome marking is minim = 138, he must have heard in his gigantic musical mind the piece played (overall) at 138 minims per minute! Now, I agree this is difficult of course, but Schnabel tried it with some success (as his first movement lasts for about 8min 50, with some garbled notes), and nowadays Levit plays it impeccably in 9 mn 46 seconds. Whatever Liszt did in 1836, if the sonata really lasted about one hour, as he says 40 years later, it must have been boring to death, for me at least. Beethoven was very serious about his metronome marks. Here is what he says in a letter addressed to B. Schott and sons in December 1826:” The metronome marks will shortly follow; do wait for them. In our age such things are certainly necessary; also I hear from Berlin that the first performance of the Symphony(the Ninth) went off with enthusiasm, which I ascribe in great part to the metronome marking. We can scarcely have any more tempi ordinari , for one must follow the ideas of unfettered genius.” So, please, let us respect the wishes of the genius who wrote these masterpieces!
yes, let's do that. Finally 👌
These videos are great and explain in great detail the double beat but, more than that, they focus back the attention to the music, the phrasing and the correct articulation and away from the extreme display of virtuosity.
Certainly, Czerny, Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt would have written slower tempi in their editions because they were directed to amateurs and good pianists (who paid the subscription to the editions) but NOT for their musical rivals to perfom in concert. Maybe, many of these works, were played in a faster tempo than marked or, perhaps, harder versions. I think, and this is just a conjecture, that, for example, Beethoven could have played faster some of his pieces but, for his editions, he kept a slightly slower tempo to make them more "accesible" to the subscriptors. I agree that many works are played, nowadays, too fast sacrificing expression and ARTICULATION for technical virtuosity. I love these videos, thank you for your research!!!
That's exactly the point, thank you Joel!
That's the definition of "the composer's intention"
i see where you're coming from and the tempo is clearly too quick to play, but if someone asked me to hum the hammerklavier opening it tends to end up in the 130s and I think it's possible it occurred to b. like that
Sonata op.106 fu chiamata sonata gigante.In effetti ,tutto vi è immenso in queste masse sonore.Grazie per la bella spiegazione.
So, which amateur pianist wants to demonstrate for us how they sightread this obviously EASY Beethoven work in whole beat? GO!
Half beat regulars, I'm talking to you! (with love, of course ... you have taught me lots of stuff) ...
@@hanshartmann8205 If you can do it again, then it's no longer sight-reading and becomes just reading. Sight-reading is playing from a score never seen before in one's life.
With that said, now that you are reading the music, you should be putting in full dynamics, expression, and all the other details that are expected in your playing. An old teacher told me this many years ago as I played something for her from the score. She knew I wasn't sight-reading even though I said I was...
@@hanshartmann8205 That's outstanding. A little backstory: Wim uploaded some Chopin Etudes in whole beat about a year ago, and it was the contention that whole beat was for amateurs, and that any one of them could sightread through the Chopin Etude, specifically, Op 10 No 1 in half beat. I then grabbed some amateur piansts whom I know from a local university here, and they simply could not. That really let the air out of their sails. I guess not too many people call others on "proof", so that's why I quipped this. This piece at any intelligible speed would not be sightreadable by an amateur, if I understand the definition, which has been alluded to by many trying to denigrate Wim and a very real possibility via common sense, maths, and tradition for the whole beat practise. I have tried to grab onto the piece in the past, and I am quite distracted by other pieces I would rather learn first. Thank you for sharing, Hans. :D
@@thomashughes4859 Yeah I've found that out too. The "hard" pieces are are still hard no matter if they're played slower. In fact somethings are more difficult because they're more obvious now.
@@Clavichordist You bet! Worse even because you can't "cover it up" with speed. ;)
@@thomashughes4859 Definitely!
FWIW, I offer some anecdotal evidence as a collaborative pianist and a composer. Whenever I accompany singers in a no-rehearsal situation (like auditions or their first lesson on an aria or art song), almost invariably they give me a tempo that is faster than they intend. This is so consistent that I've learned to take their suggestions with a grain of salt, start the piece a couple of "ticks" slower, and I've never had a complaint that I was playing too slow.
Now here's the kicker: even with this knowledge, I have STILL made the same mistake as a composer. I start committing something to "paper" (notation software), add the metronome marking that I think I'm hearing in my head, and then when I go to play and/or sing it I realize it's too fast (never too slow). My theory is that when we remove the "dragging" effects of tactile perception from the equation, if we're not careful our aural/mental perception of the tempo we hear in our minds will be distorted.
It's not just the Hammerklavier--I've run across pieces by Schumann, Shostakovich, and others for which the metronome marking seemed unreasonably fast. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. 😉
I liked the smiley!
Fascinating. Thanks!
You don't have to keep the exact tempo the whole piece
you are amazing
The Staatliches Institut für Musikforschung has the most comprehensive look at the durations in the Hammerklavier opening movement, and there are several valuable quotes contained therein: simpk.de/en/5_autograph_tempo_in_beethoven%92s_%93hammerklavier_sonata%94_1321.html
The first quote that comes out is by Czerny himself, from the "Kunst des Vortrags der älteren und neueren Klavierkompositionen" in his Op. 500: "The principle difficulty comes from the tremendously fast and fiery tempo given by the author himself, and then in the performance of the melodic but polyphonic passages to be performed strictly Legato, in the clean performance of the passages, tensions and leaps and finally in the endurance that all of this requires. All of the individual difficulties require attentive practice, and the conception of the grand, whole first movement, kept more in the symphony style develops after repeated performance then after it has been learned, accorded the proper amount of time"
"Either Beethoven was crazy or we massively are fooling ourselves."
Why not both? :-D I mean, Beethoven was quite crazy, he was a rather deranged fellow, an alcoholic, too. But there is no doubt left in my mind that his tempo indications make much more sense in the double beat interpretation.
A deranged alcoholic? Wait that's me!
Beethoven from what I've read in various biographies including Anton Schindler's Life of Beethoven, I've come to the conclusion that he was more frustrated with life and others around him due to his deafness. This caused him to rage out at people, I think, more than anything.
But it probably, however, didn't help that he drank and took some nice medicinal concoctions that contained arsenic, lead, and possibly mercury. It was also common in those days to add lead to cheap wine to sweeten it! Lovely times they were!
Always admirable
Where can I find an explanation (for beginners) of the two different views on the metronome marks (w.b. versus s.b. (single beat?))? It's very hard to follow this video without that background.
The general premise is that in the original use of the metronome, two clicks really counted for one beat. The entire back-and-forth motion of the pendulum represented one beat, and the two clicks of this entire pendulum motion represent the first subdivision of that beat. This, despite the fact that Maelzel, who designed and patented the first "modern" metronome designed it to click at both ends of the swing when he could have just as easily designed it to click only on the beat. This, despite the fact that the BPM numbers are right on his design (the need to halve what they actually indicate renders them essentially arbitrary). This, because of the unplayability of this piece and several exercises and etudes at the given MM. I don't know what Maelzel was thinking when he designed the metronome this way; he could have saved us all a lot of confusion by making it just click once and halving the numbers he inscribed on the device. Alas, we will never know.
There are recordings of Franz liszt's students playing at conventional tempos
How many minutes it's suposed to last the complete sonata in beethoven's tempo?
Around an hour: ruclips.net/video/7PwoFoZTTHU/видео.html
Hi Wim, could create response video to "In conversation with Sir András Schiff - 2020"? Some interesting thoughts on Hammerklavier Sonata and its tempi...
I'm waiting for a video explaining why the Halberstadt performance of Cage's "ASLSP" is much too fast.
Well, technically it's possible to play it slower, so...
This whole channel is a joke. Literally every video just about how everything needs to be so slow that we fall asleep in the pause between the first two notes.
@@anonymesockenpuppe1589 Disagree. He is explaining the metronome mark that nobody plays in a way that makes sense. The only explanation that makes sense, that I've found so far. I tried playing hammerklavier in this way and it works beautifully. None of that rushed nonsense. It is a BIG difference, and whether he's right or not, I'm of the opinion that THAT is the way this piece (and many others) should be performed, regardless.
Beethoven was a crazy and mad man. Just try to ask any conductors who is willing to try to convince an orchestra to play at those tempo makings. Why are we so troubled when it comes to following a mad man’s orders or following our own hearts? This shows how little confidence we have in ourselves. Get a life!
I'll share some notes later, and today's video was well-researched, common-sense driven, and utterly supported by The Calculus. You put the "secant" on your board, so I'll talk about that in a bit. Lots to absorb. Lots to ponder. Thanks for sharing, Wim. You are changing the world of "Classical" music!
I am sympathetic to Wim's thesis, but also sceptical, however to summarise his argument, using the Hammerklavier as an example:
1. there are no recorded examples of anyone playing at or close to Beethoven's (single click) metronome values (and certainly not according to Liszt's estimate for the sonata);
2. there are repeated notes in the sonata that were incapable of being executed on pianos of the period at these metronome values.
There is very little in response to this; the suggestion that the metronome was wrong in some way seems to be ignorant of the physics involved; it is the position of the weight that matters not so much how heavy the weight was; besides, I have read that Beethoven's metronome has been checked, though I think it is the case that the original weight is missing, moreover this thesis would also propose that very many other metronomes would have to have been equally inaccurate.
Double beat has its own problems; if the allegro is 69 rather than 138, it is troublingly slow for professional public performance and inclined to drag. In fact, for a professional, a 25% faster tempo is easier to manage and communicate with an audience, though whether Beethoven ever envisaged performances in these circumstances is rather doubtful.
Proof of Whole Beat setting of the Metronome (“MM”):
Sorry, but a conundrum exists. Maybe you can help … :D Say I have a piece in 2/2 time, and it’s 30 measures long. The piece takes exactly one minute to complete.
Questions:
1) How many measures per minute is the piece?
2) That was easy; so how many seconds per measure?
3) That was also easy; so how many seconds is each half note (minim)?
4) What must I set my Metronome so that I can give the proper time to the half note?
Answers: 1) 30; 2) 2 seconds; 3) 1 second; 4). ??? this is our “conundrum”. Who thinks 60? Who thinks 120?
Problem (“conundrum”): About 1600-ish, Galileo saw a chandelier swaying in a church, and eventually figured that Tα√(L/g) or “The time period in seconds is proportional to the sq. rt. of the length of the pendulum divided by the acceleration due to gravity”.
To make an “equation” (=) from a “proportion” (∝), we need a “constant” (k). Pause for some Algebra … OK, got it: The constant is (2π). So, the new equation we found is T=2π√(L/g) or “The time period in seconds is equal to two times Pi times the sq. rt. of the length divided by the acceleration due to gravity. Don’t quit on my yet, I promise my point is worth it.
So, let’s find the length of a simple pendulum upon which the Metronome (“double-weighted physical pendulum”) is entirely based, shall we? A little bit of Algebra later …, and we have the following formula: L=(T^2 g)/(4π^2 ) or “The length (in metres) of a simple pendulum is equal to the time period (in seconds) squared times the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 metres per second per second) divided by four times Pi (3.14) squared.
Question 3)’s answer was one second of time for each half note, right? So let’s find the beat rate (beats per minute) of a second of time. We will use 1 for T, and we will use 9.8 for gravity, and we can round Pi to 3.14. The units will all cancel and give us our answer of the length in metres. Are we in agreement with these numbers? I hope so because these are the numbers that we know.
Plugging them into the formula: L=(1^2 (9.8))/〖4(3.14)〗^2 gives us a length of 0.2485 metres or converting to centimetres gives us 24 cm 8.5 mm in length. That would be 9 25/32nds inches for the Americans who aren’t hip to the metric system.
What is the beat rate (beats per minute) of a simple pendulum with the length given?
You can grab a nut out of your tool box, tie a piece of kite string or yarn or thread to it, measure to the given length, and give it a push and check it against your Metronome (mechanical or software) or you can trust me that the answer is:
ONE HUNDRED TWENTY!
QED
I must be missing something :-) Time period for a pendulum is by definition one complete back and forth swing of the pendulum (double beat if you like). What is the definition of "beat rate" that you are using when comparing it against the metronome mark ? One hundred and twenty beats (audible sound on the metronome) gives 2 beats every second. In single beat interpretation of 2/2 there would be 2 beats per measure i.e. each measure takes 1 second so the 30 measures would take 30 seconds, not a minute. An audible beat of 60 on the metronome would give 2 seconds per measure and a total time of 1 minute for the 30 measure piece. The 120 beats on the metronome would only give a 1 minute duration if you interpret it in double beat which would make your whole point a circular argument i.e if you treat the metronome in the same way as a string pendulum (by back and forth swing - double beat) as opposed to taking the audible click as the beat (single beat) you get 120. What am I missing ?
@@gabithemagyar You're not missing a thing. Go back through my proof step by step, and you will find that you must set the half note at whole beat to 120. This is the conundrum that the people who subscribe to the half beat interpretation have.
The minim is set to the period of time it takes for the pendulum to do a complete 2 pi.
If you have a specific line in the proof, go ahead and we can discuss it thusly. Let me know, please. I made no errors that I am aware of. I'm pleased that somebody went through it. :D
Hint: each crotchet is equal to each beat at 120 ... start there.
It's a shame Oscar Peterson or Art Tatum ain't with us no more to give us the works of fast, crystal clear playing.
Problem here is that you are not looking at the fastest performance by a long shot . V. Lisitsa and Moller as I indicated in a previous thread are fast, but there is much faster around.
Moller is 39.38 mn
Valentina Lisitsa nearly about the same 39.35 mn
But if you look at Friedrich Gulda live performance in 1970 , he plays it live in * 36 mn 32 s *
( you have to remove 23 s before he sits and start playing, and the applause at the end)
Search for 'LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN - GROSSE SONATE FÜR DAS HAMMERKLAVIER OPUS 106 - FRIEDRICH GULDA' on RUclips.
Given it's a live performance , I would be curious to know how fast he can play in the comfort of his home
And I am pretty sure you can even find faster if you spend time on youtube.
Then why did liszt said that it took around an hour? I mean, he could have said have an hour.
@@fogonpr That's not the point i am making. Wim introduces Moller's performance as the fastest performance on the planet and that is what i am refuting with evidence.
When it comes to Liszt , given most of the performances are around 40-45 mn minutes , respecting Beethoven indications to play only the first bars at 138 and given he played an intro to that piece has discussed in a previous video, we get probably very close to the hour. But that is just speculation. in all cases, the Liszt Hammerklavier event doesn't constitute a solid evidence , neither for one theory nor for the other. I would rather look at Smarts recordings , scores with durations, concerts events with durations that are strong proof materials
@@ChristianJoannes
His interpretation could be faster, but still the question would be who was wrong? Was Berlioz wrong on the tempo. Or was liszt wrong on the time it took him to play it.
And why is Liszt not a valid point may I ask?
Berlioz said that he played on tempo. Liszt later said that it took him an hour to play.
If he was playing slow enough to play for an hour, Berlioz could have said something. And just let me say that if the piece is really half an hour long, 15-20 minutes longer is quite obvious to notice.
@@fogonpr again, as i said, it depends how you consider what is the correct way of playing the Klammerklavier and how long was the additional intro. If you consider that only the first bars should be played at that speed as many Beethoven experts say then they were both right.
@@ChristianJoannes What's a "Beethoven expert"?
Have you considered Sir Andras Schiff? He plays each movement at tempo. Not 17% of it
on the contrary: Schiff is on the 'slow' side. His hammerklavier for instance is 'only' 104 (not my calculation). he rarely is even close to the sbt side
@@AuthenticSound are you kidding me? Have you actually listened to his recording. He's not even close to the 'slow side'. In fact he's faster than most other pianists
@@AuthenticSound additionally I suggest that you listen to his lecture recital if you haven't already. Schiff literally explains the correct tempo and then plays an excerpt of the exposition.
I so wish that Liszt lived to the recording age...
He did, but he never recorded anything :/
It's too bad that the people who are more interested in nastiness instead of evidence are back. To cite old and recent recordings played on modern pianos does nothing to cancel the evidence that Wim Winters has brought to this NOR THE PRACTICAL FACT THAT THE PIANOS OF BEETHOVEN'S PERIOD WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THE RAPID REPETITIONS OF NOTES THEIR CONTENTIONS WOULD REQUIRE. That is not a point that pointing to a modern piano performance, even by the student in the line of Beethoven students can get past. You may as well argue that Beethoven would have used quarter tones and effects available on modern synthesizers. You can't trash talk and psych-out this issue like you can in sports, evidence is everything and the evidence that counts is the evidence left by Beethoven and what people who heard him said. The metronome numbers are absolute evidence, even if people want to make up stories about Beethoven's metronome being defective (I've had one of those, you don't use one, you throw it away if it can't be fixed or it will drive you nuts) are ridiculous no matter who used them as an excuse to ignore the most absolute tempo indications he left.
Correct. The MM was as valuable as a clock, and they really were "clocks without hands". If ANY part of the mechanism fails, the entire machine fails. Every scenario that can be supposed by the "broken Metronome" results in utter malfunction. Great catch!
Liszt : the greatest pianist in history by fare !
:) far not FARE :)
@@cubanbach fair enough
What's the point in trying to pull down Liszt's image of a legendary performer? If we can believe anything from what's written down, liszt in his prime had a fenomenal technique, which even contemporary virtuoso's looked at with envy. Some quotes: www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/why-not/Florilegium.html These were not merely fanboys, Chopin, Saint-Saens and Rubinstein considered the foremost virtuosi in their times. But being a great performer is much more than how fast you can play, or which tempi you choose. It's about how to enchant an audience, deep understanding of the ideas behind the music, ability to phrase, create beautiful sounds. A great technique is necessary to be able to accomplish this, not only to play fast and loud., but it's not the end of it.
So this whole video is based on the duration of his performance, and from this we can conclude that Liszt wasn't such a great virtuoso after all, that he played everything at half the tempo? I cannot imagine the amount of confusion that could lead to such conclusions. It just means that he took fluid tempi, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, and it added up to an hour. Really not more could be inferred from that, and the rest is just total fantasy.
I fail to see how pulling down Liszt from his Sockets elevates you as an artist. I think you should treat them with respect and try to learn from them, (or at least their students, as there are many audio records of Liszts students), not pull them down.
It's because he has a such bad technique and can't play anything fast enough
I fail to see how quoting Liszt himself as taking about an hour to get through the Hammerklavier, even though a literal reading of the metronome markings suggests that it wouldn't take nearly that long, is tantamount to tearing down Liszt as a performer.
check out schanabel very very close to beethoven tempos except fr the slow mov..
Don't get it: it is 'very very close' but 'except the slow mov'. So it is not close, right? And the beginning might sound like 138, with all the wrong notes he slows down considerably.
yeah but just an idea what it might sound like at them tempos. I think the 1st mov. quite close im nt surprised he makes mistakes..
@@AuthenticSound Who’s waffling here? If it “sounds like 138,” then it’s 138. Yes, Schnabel shows what the piece sounds like in full tempo, as indicated by Beethoven, and it’s exhilarating. “Uncommonly fast and fiery” as Czerny himself related. Also, tempi do fluctuate a bit in performance, based on context. It’s not a mathematical calculation; it’s an artistic reality. A musical score is not the music itself, it’s a description: it takes a musician (and Schnabel was in many ways the ultimate musician) to realize its meaning.
Wim if you are wrong about this, it must be a real mystery how Liszt ever got a reputation for playing faster than most other pianists.
By the way, your assertion that Berlioz said that Liszt followed the tempo indications is not really borne out by the quotation you provided, do you have a more explicit quotation? (I could not find a copy on line). However Berlioz is stating that Liszt was faithful to the text. In other words the allegro had the appropriate character as did the adagio sostenuto. Whether or not it is possible to play the adagio at double speed, it is not possible to play it at that speed and make it sound like an adagio.
Martin, where does it say (in the 19th c.) Liszt got the reputation of playing faster than most other pianists? The sources I know say quite the opposite (and he withdraw from stage for a reason)
@@AuthenticSound I have to admit that most information I have seen are secondary sources such as Alan walker's book Franz Liszt the virtuoso years. Some is inferred from comments of the period so you cold argue that the reaction ws for some other aspect, however the pieces he wrote in his recital years, such as the 1837 version of the études and his ability to exploit new developments in piano building (something you have referred to, I think) all point in the same direction.
I have seen it suggested that later on younger challengers might have been increasing speeds even more, however it is entirely understandable that he did not want to continue the itinerant life style.
But you seem to be arguing against yourself: it is implausible that despite developments in piano design, pianists started playing slower than in the previous generation.
Big Bang Theory: Shall we do a bit of thought experiment ( 'Gendenkenexperiment') ?
Let's assume the theory of double beat is true. This theory stipulates that during the industrial revolution , there was an appetite to play faster and to show off.
The theory assumes that the move to double beat to single beat is not progressive , but radical , i.e. the change is not the result of a slow evolution , having pianists playing gradually faster over time, 10% , 20% , 30% up to 100% faster but is the consequence of a radical change, due to a different interpretation of the metronome, resulting in a 100%, increase in one go.
So...
The likelihood to have 10 virtuosos over world , waking up a Monday morning and suddenly deciding to play the Waldstein sonata twice as fast is next to null. So , there must have been one pianist that played in single beat for the first time . The charisma and renown of this pianist must have been second to none, for ,he managed to convince the entire planet music, 100% of piano schools in the entire world , in a record time for such a radical transformation, all of that without internet and fast way of traveling.
Question is : Who is he ????
The mental blockade you are having with this subject is remarkable.Why is it so hard to imagine that over a century between continents and wars and with little to no ability to record music among 1000 of pianists from all over the world a little bit of knowledge is lost.The knowledge how to read these old MM markings.
@@kefka34 I am not sure who is 'blocked' mentally here. As a start be polite , the rules of conduct apply to everyone, i believe . Live performance never stopped ; music literature and music articles didn't come to an halt either. So there must have been a first one, and it is not that long ago in the scale of history. Also famous school have provided continuity in the teaching , for instance the conversatoire of Paris ( open in 1795) was one of the most famous school with Vienna Conservatoire. it never closed even during the worst period. so maybe you can explain how suddenly music teaching had changed radically without any documents or archive on the subject .
@@ChristianJoannes Do you find the word "mentally blocked" insulting?
I had horrible mental blocks in various subjects i was always glad someone helped me release them.I will in future stop replying to your comments.
Seno I appreciate your help on that matter and will certainly consult a doctor that I would happy to recommend to you once I get cured
@@ChristianJoannes I just realized,maybe we have a language problem here.
What your primary language?
Why didn't you recognize or lip-service the obvious possibility that Beethoven's metronome was not properly calibrated to a second?
a) because it makes no sense and b) all metronomes of that time must have been broken and broken in exactly the same way plus c) that is not proven by the surviving metronomes. Perhaps this is interesting for you as well: ruclips.net/video/0sgkls8XEt8/видео.html
There are faster performances by Beveridge Webster, and Walter Gieseking.
No there are not, see the other videos in the series
How can you say that this is the fastest? Even if you compared all the existing recordings, you couldn't compare the live recordings! Years ago, for instance, I published a review of a Pollini performance inserting a little diagram with comparisons of some other Pollini's performances during a long period of live concerts
www.ilcorrieremusicale.it/2014/03/26/pollini-e-i-tempi-beethoveniani/
To Hell with the damned metronome marking! Beethoven was stone deaf - he probably couldn’t even hear his metronome! It sounds terrible played at such an insanely fast tempo - it’s marked simply “allegro”. Not prestissimo - allegro! The character of the first movement is contrary to the insanely fast tempo. Especially on a modern piano. Best to ignore the metronome marking completely.
:-) Like the energy of your post! But it is a fairy tale Beethoven was that deaf and the more: constantly deaf. Even in 1823 we have witnesses being surprised of how well he heard by times. So... of course his tempi are correct, he was smarter than that don't you think?
AuthenticSound No. I disagree. The tempo marking is virtually unplayable on a modern piano, and it contradicts the “allegro” and the character of the music - it sounds awful at that tempo. I think the marking is simply wrong. Best to ignore it completely. Liszt be damned.
I was there when Liszt played it, he does it in whole beat (jk I wasn't)
I have to repeat it always. Listen to the Beethoven recordings of HJ Lim in modern quality. In the 1930s Arthur Schnabel could only produce Schellack records.
Schnabel is reborn in HJ Lim. This is the way Beethoven wanted it.