Beethoven's "Broken" Metronome: Solving the Hammerklavier's Mysterious 138

The most complicated fairy tales can easily be found on Beethoven's so-called 'broken' metronome. In all the discussions you’ll find on Beethoven’s metronome, one general agreement among all layers of musical society is easily agreed upon: By definition it is Beethoven who was wrong. Not we.
Stay tuned for what I believe is an extremely important element in the interpretation of Beethoven’s music. I might even give you a few bars of my...yes... Hammerklavier sonata.
--
🙋If you want to support what we do: ▶ / authenticsound
--
💿 NEW Pre-sale of Pachelbel's Hexachordum Apollinis (Vinyl, CD, Flac) here: bit.ly/Pachelbe...
--
📩One weekly mail in your mailbox? 👉bit.ly/as-maili...
--
👩‍🎓 Check out my course on Keyboard Technique: 👉bit.ly/Keyb-Tech
--
💿 150 years of clavichord music on 3 CD's: www.authentics...
--
🎯 Subscribe for more videos 👉bit.ly/authsoun...
--
📱 Website: ▶www.authenticso...

[@AuthenticSound]

Because there are so many interesting questions in the comments, I had a live stream on 7.30 PM CEST, Thursday (5.31.2018) answering some of them. Here is the video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3vJpGOOotWthpo 🙋If you want to support what we do: ▶www.patreon.com/authenticsound

[@garyguillermo8322]

I realize I am pretty randomly asking but do anybody know a good place to stream new movies online ?

[@user-xd9xn1ep5o]

He used the bottom part of the signal in the metronome instead of the top. Mystery closed. Early adopter problems.

[@JC050980]

Admittedly, I hardly knew this piece, but what Schnabel does sounds like a caricature. On the other hand, the version using 'authentic' metronome usage gives way to so many beautiful details it's absolutely baffling that musicians keep playing so fast.

[@picksalot1]

Had a good laugh at your dry humor and sarcasm. I think it's safe to say Beethoven knew what he was doing. 😊 Thanks for keeping us entertained in so many ways.

[@kuribas]

Why do I get the feeling these videos are just there so Wim doesn't have to practice the faster tempi? You never hear him doing the fast tempi, which make these videos sound like excuses for not having to practice or develop the required technique. It's safe to assume that Chopin, Beethoven, Liszt, etc.. were all top of the line virtuoso pianists who could play really fast tempi if they wanted to. There is also not much interesting information here, like good historical anecdotes, tips for phrasing or technique, deep musical insights. Let's get also rid of the ridiculous idea that they played there pieces from the beginning to the end in exactly the same tempo! If anything, the historical evidence suggests the opposite. A student of Chopin remarked that he played the mazurka with so much rubato, that 3 became 4! Liszt also laughed with the idea that a musical score should have all the information, because it would be ridiculously full of markings!

[@AuthenticSound]

haha, had a great laugh with this, just think how I got both degrees in organ & piano in Amsterdam, one of the most known conservatories for piano... yes, I'm lazy...boy, what an argument

[@mantictac]

Didn't I hear you play a fragment of Waldstein at single beat? Am I remembering things wrong? Oh, I found it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKrHaH-Nnpmqq9U

[@kuribas]

degrees... Do you really think Beethoven, Chopin, or Liszt would have cared about a degree? Beethoven of all people who would compose in his pajapas, or stand naked in front of a window, who didn't think it was important to be polite when he didn't agree with someone. Who's only purpose in life was to create the highest form art. Or Chopin, who's lessons could take multiple hours, and who could spend most of the time on a single phrase, often having students leave in tears. Do you think they would congratulate you on playing in the right tempo? These were all great virtuoso's, who's technique and musicality probably has no match with any pianist today. Can anyone safely say that they really know how they played? That's being deluded at best. Let's be humble when speaking about those icons. If there is any evidence, it suggests that they never played pieces in the same way. Chopin said (paraphrased from memory) "my students want to play as I do, but how can that be possible, since I never play in the same way". Attentive audience members would remark that he often took different dynamics or tempo than those that were written down on the score. All this stuff is just self-gratification. Saying that you play the exact way that Beethoven did, based on some texts. There is no way of knowing that, all we can do is play with the greatest spirit, musicality and technique we can achieve. And if you compare with the great masters like cortot, friedman, it's a level that few of us can ever achieve. And that's ok. Just stop pretending to know it all, or that reading a book will get you to the level of the great composers. Bring interesting content, but be humble about it.

[@nicb4589]

Kristof Bastiaensen Well university degrees (especially conservatories) usually do demand of the students a good amount of virtuosity. And he’s not pretending to know it all, he’s trying to show the audience a different perspective that’s not exactly common in academia today. He’s not scolding us for goodness sake.

[@AuthenticSound]

I'll do a live stream today at 7.30PM CEST (Thursday) to answer your comments and questions and have some dialogue on the topic, so stay tuned (hit the bell icon to get notified when it starts). 🙋If you want to support what we do: ▶www.patreon.com/authenticsound

[@victorgrauer5834]

Thanks for a fascinating lecture. I'm really pleased that you've been looking into this important issue. My own take may sound rather old-fashioned, but as it seems to me Beethoven had been so totally deaf for such a long time that he simply lost all perspective on how his music would actually sound at any given tempo. It wasn't the metronome Maazel had given him, but his own inner metronome that was "broken."

[@fredhoupt4078]

After listening to Schiff's lecture for maybe the 5'th time, I never tire of it, I am impressed with the realization that the Hammerklavier is probably the most symphonic of Beethoven's entire piano sonata output and it ranks with the Missa Solemnis, the Ninth Symphony and his last string quartets. Surely they are a Mount Everest of Western musical expression, where Beethoven has entirely left the solar system, leaving Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Handel all behind him. He has elevated the art to unheard of dimensions and they are mostly considered his crowning achievements. Unless you are a student of Beethoven, I would imagine that the average listener can tolerate maybe one entire listening experience of the Hammerklavier. It is somewhat taxing and mentally exhausting, it being conceived on such a gigantic canvas, that most people cannot visit it again except for years of space. That is a pity because in my view, the sonata has never lost its ability to teach, excite and greatly confound our musical ideas. After having said all that, I look forward to Wim's metrical ideas as he tackles the great musical mountain. I threw down the gauntlet of Schiff's ideas because in my view he is the greatest living teaching performer of Beethoven's sonatas. We have much to learn from his scholarship. What I find so exciting about Wim's approach is his intense highlight on metrical markings. Schiff says in his lecture that the Hammerklavier is the only sonata where Beethoven left precise metronome markings. Alas, he also says, we no longer possess the original manuscript; it has been lost.

[@AuthenticSound]

Utmost respect for Schiff, but he recorded the Hammerkl much slower (which is fine, but shows the complexity even for him). The Hammerklavier is immense in its time, but let's turn our back to the 19th c. romantic pictures of those composers like Gods... they were humans with ten fingers without Rachmaninov pianoconcerti...

[@fredhoupt4078]

Much slower? Much slower than the metronome markings, I think you mean? The opening bars he plays like a house on fire. Then he scales it back to a more moderate tempo. He explains his thinking in the first few minutes of his lecture, about metronomes. BTW, he did mention that on a trip to Vienna he had the great honour of actually holding one of Beethoven's metronomes and to continue the joke further, he assures us that it worked just fine. I found Schiff's interpretation of this particular piece somewhat reverential. He has already told us that this is for him the greatest keyboard work in Beethoven's output. And, he might be right about that. It is as I said, written on such a huge scale that it was a paradigm shattering piece, both tonally, structurally and by the scope of its mass. There was nothing in classical music before it that comes close to its weight, except for some of his previous late works. I have never found that Schiff idolized or treated any composer as they did in the 19'th century. His critical eye, ever focussed on the urtext and the composers written correspondences and the tempo markings,, help create a very sensible interpretive talent. Of course we can turn to any other great Beethovian like Brendel, Stephen Kovacavich, Radu Lupu, Barenboim, and more.....and they will all differ.

[@classicalemotion]

Of course the hammerklavier sonata's beginning is more interesting at Schnabel's tempo than that slow half tempo way.

[@antoniosilva7083]

Wim, my dear genius! I heard for the first time your interpretation of the Hammerklavier. Heaven for me! I begin now to accept your ideas.

[@sasropakis]

According to your theory the tempo markings of Beethoven (and Czerny) should be read so that the tempo is only half of that what is generally accepted, i.e. 138 should actually be 69 in the first movement of Hammerklavier and the movement should be played significantly slower than we are accustomed to. This doesn’t quite fit Czerny’s comment about the Hammerklavier in his work ”The Proper Performance of Beethoven’s Works”. I checked the German edition found in IMSLP (page 66) where Czerny gives the tempo 138 and comments: ”Die Hauptschwierigkeit liegt in dem, vom Autor selber Vorgezeichneten ungemein Schnellen und feurigen Tempo…” So Czerny, who was Beethoven’s student and who should have known the ”right” way of reading the tempo, says that the tempo given by the composer (138) is unusually fast and fiery (if I’ve translated correctly). But if the tempo should be read as 69 (which Czerny should have known if it was the case) the movement is actually rather slow (and could indeed be played much faster if wanted) so the comment doesn’t make sense at all. On the other hand if we accept the traditional reading of tempo markings and the tempo is really 138, the comment makes perfectly sense as 138 is unusually fast. So if your theory is correct, even Czerny didn’t know the proper way of reading Beethoven’s tempo markings, or then the tempo 138 as it is normally read is indeed correct. Then we can theorize if Beethoven’s metronome was broken, if he made an error when giving the tempo, or if he really thought that the tempo should ideally be 138 although it’s quite difficult to play it.

[@AuthenticSound]

Czerny comments on the metrical reading of the MM, which still is very fast! I would take also a slower pace at eg quarter 116-126 rather than quarter 138. But regarding 'proof' Czerny's quote gives no direction to either single or double beat understanding. Just one thing must make you think: you'll find no historical source speaking on the impossibility to play the Hammerklavier in half 138, think on that, it's important to set the context right

[@sasropakis]

Of course one quote from Czerny can't disprove your theory but I wouldn't call your realization of the tempo marking "very fast". I'm not a Beethoven expert (I prefer earlier music) but your tempo of the Hammerklavier sample is by far the slowest I've heard. If we assume that your interpretation of the tempo is correct, I don't see why Czerny would have written that the main difficulty is the tempo which is unusually fast and fiery as almost all pianists (who can play the Hammerklavier) can play the movement much faster. On the contrary he should have warned the pianists not to play it too fast. Of course you can always make an argument that "unusually fast" was understood differently in the early 19th century but one can't assume that the pianists of the time couldn't play as fast as pianists play today. Hammerklavier is probably not the best example here as it's technically very challenging to play at any tempo but if your theory would be correct there should be plenty of very fast virtuoso "showpiece" movements which would be completely unplayable at the given metronome markings according to the normal reading of them (e.g. if the given tempo for Hammerklavier would be 276 no one could play it and everyone would agree that it should be read 138 instead). I have listened many of your videos and it's interesting to hear Beethoven played on clavichord at slower tempi and I like your playing quite a lot but at the end I have to disagree your theory.

[@alexanderrice1654]

AuthenticSound Do you think that it may have been more possible to play half-note=138 back in Czerny's day partly because the standards of technical perfection were lower? I don't know about keyboard playing, but for example, in cello technique, you will find comments about standards of intonation among the 19th century virtuosi being lower than in the present era (say, post Casals). So perhaps Czerny or someone else from that era would consider themselves able to perform op. 106 at tempo even if it were not a note-perfect performance. I suspect that many of the pianists who play today at tempos under 138 could give a good performance at 138 if they were willing to take a risk and tolerate some flubbed notes.

[@alexanderrice1654]

Lauri, I agree that Czerny's subjective descriptions are hard to reconcile with the double-beat tempos in general, even if that is a subjective judgment. But also Czerny wrote about how to use the metronome, and he makes no explicit mention of two ticks per beat. He just says to practice along with the metronome so if it is beating the quarter notes, to play each quarter note with the audible beats of the metronome. If someone learned how to use the metronome from his descriptions, there is (in my opinion) no way they would arrive at the double-beat usage.

[@Kounios]

Furthermore, Schnabel's recording of the complete Hammerklavier Sonata is over 40 minutes long. If this is doubled, then the whole sonata would be over 80 minutes long -- even longer than the 9th Symphony is usually played. An 80-minute piano sonata? I find this difficult to accept.

[@wcorban]

Dieses Video ist mein Favorit des Jahres 2018. Hier habe ich endlich eine plausible und einfache Erklärung dieses „Geheimnis“ gefunden. Viel Glück zum Silvester!

[@nicb4589]

The performance near the end was really convincing! I wouldn’t expect Beethoven to write a sonata so impossibly fast in the first place anyways

[@pianistsdream]

Hi Wim, Kelvin here, good video. After our meeting the other day, this was the work I selected for my test case. It has never made sense to me, at the incredible fast tempo marked, it just sounds, rushed and irritating. at the slower speed It suddenly becomes the grand masterpiece it was surely intended to be. By the way I'm investigating the Schubert we discussed and am planning a recital next year.

[@Clavichordist]

I missed the meeting due to early hours and a meeting with someone shortly later. This is great to hear, but wouldn't you want to start with something a bit smaller for a test case? The Hammerklavier is a "big" piece in so many ways both musically, technically and length. Indeed this is a symphony for the piano. I'm not sure you can do it, but hopefully you know what I mean. :-) What Schubert are you looking at? He's one of my favorite composers as well and I have worked on a few of his sonatas and other works. They're all gemstones with some needing more polish than others.

[@pianistsdream]

I have in my time played all the Beethoven sonatas, so for me this was the only choice.

[@Clavichordist]

Awesome. I've been on a Beethoven sonata journey since I was very young. It's been a lifetime goal, which had many things get in the way of. Now that I'm retired I can start that journey again.

[@AuthenticSound]

Will work on this soon also, Kelvin, we stay in touch!

[@SiteReader]

Wonderful, Wim! That one minute-plus, starting at 7:37 is transporting. Not too slow at all--it even begins to sound fast at about 8:10. I hope that I speak for all of your listeners who share with me in having inherited the "slow gene" in hoping for the early arrival of your new pianoforte. And then, after you have had the proper time for preparation, that we may enjoy a performance of the whole Hammerklavier at this snail's pace. Let it take 90 minutes, or two hours. Who cares? Time flies when you're having fun. But it moves ever so slowly when the mind is confused and thrown into a tempest by a flying jumble of notes that once meant something but are reduced to cacophony when presented too fast.

[@AuthenticSound]

Great to read Larry!

[@Kounios]

I don't think that Beethoven meant for the listener to hear every note. Like some later composers (Strauss & Mahler), he sometimes intended to create excitement through complex textures.

[@classicgameplay10]

Seeing your videos on the subject have been a journey to me.

[@AuthenticSound]

That's really great to read, thank you

[@christopherstube9473]

I was reading Martin Geck's book on Johann Sebastian Bach where he asserts that Beethoven Op 106 and Op 110 were conversational responses to Bach's Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue BWV 903 on page 490.

[@RollaArtis]

I always wondered about these tempo markings. Maybe Beethoven's metronome had not been cleaned or oiled for some time - metronomes have a frictional rest escapement which will slow the pendulum quite dramatically if the oil has turned to glue. Same will also happen if the driving spring is too strong. Either possibility is rather Beethoven-esque.

[@allanmarchand864]

Wim. Do you think both metrical approaches were used at the time of Beethoven? Single beat for the slower movements, and double beat for the fast ones? Because if taken as double beat, the slow movements become really really slow. Thanks.

[@monticarlo8064]

...and where would be the transition from single to double beat? - a really interesting question...

[@surgeeo1406]

I think we, at this time, aren't as comfortable with pause, suspension, and silence in our music, as those in the classical period. They're really rare in pop music... I think, if we choose to trust in Beethoven's marks, we should also trust in the fact that he would have made it clear if he was using two ways to read them.

[@denisgeerts4970]

Maybe this is because all he says is bullshit?

[@AuthenticSound]

the metronome is described both as time-keeper (the way we use it still in practice) and device to indicate the Takt, even the Takttheilen, which is the forgotten metrical use. The slow movements too.. which also for me took a very long time to see. We'll talk more on that

[@alexanderrice1654]

Monti Carlo There is a video with Lorenz Gadient where he speculates that the bell metronome (which works like a lot of electronic metronomes, "ding-tick-tick-tick") may have had a hand in introducing the single-beat usage. He shows an example from Marx discussing the bell metronome, where Marx says that the bell metronome, unlike the version without the bell, allows distinguishing between Taktmass and Zeitmass. I myself would assume that Marx only means duration between beats and the placement of beats in the measure, which doesn't imply anything about double-beat at all, but you can see what Lorenz Gadient says if you just search "bell metronome" on Wim's channel and form your own thoughts.

[@hermoglyph2255]

I keep trying to listen to Wim, but he does go on. Maelzel's metronome is a clock, with a very precariously balanced pendulum (weighted at each end) which has to be very carefully levelled (according to its own adjustment) to tick evenly. Like a clock, it 'ticks' with every release of the escape wheel, ie with each oscillation of the pendulum to left or right. Maelzel, we're asked to believe, when he designed his printed scale, which indicated how many ticks per minute you would get, meant them to be understood as half ticks; when reading my printed scale, imagine I've printed the scale with all the numbers halved . I mean doubled. No, I mean halved. I'm not sure why I didn't print it like that. I've missed something.

[@Lightcurvefilmstube]

Thanks! Very interesting. My question is, when, or during what time period, as these things take time, did the speed indications and metronome technology change from what is was when Beethoven was composing to what we know now? How did the interpretations of the speed-indications get lost in time?

[@AuthenticSound]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaLcmX-IjrqLacU

[@luonation01]

I was reading about this earlier today, what a coincidence! I believe your reason on authentic tempi interpretation

[@channelelectronique]

I bet even Beethoven would have been amused by his broken metronome being run over by a horse only to be thrown back through his window whereupon he was given a black eye. Yes of course! That explains it. He was deaf and could see only out of one eye. Love your videos! Thank you.

[@reedtetzloff8312]

Fascinating and compelling!! I've frequently come across a story that Beethoven may have originally conceived the opening idea to be sung, "Vivat, vivat Rudolphus!" It could be another interesting bit of evidence for the double beat reading, since the thought of singing that theme at 138 in single beat is kind of ridiculous...Thanks so much for the video!!

[@SiteReader]

That's fascinating, Reed. It certainly works nicely to sing "Vi-vat, vi-vat Ru-u-dol-phus!" to the first two phrases. Then there is new meaning to Wim's idea of cantabile.

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks Reed, I just saw your Hammerklavier instagram post, which was great. If you have questions or would like to have some contact on the issue, feel free to sent me a mail anytime: wwinters(AT)telenet.be

[@johnerskine8367]

Can't wait to hear you play the whole sonata!

[@robertsmith5744]

I believe there is a piece in which Beethoven Mocked the metronome, playing with the sound and then also the movement of the arm, which continues to move after the click . . .

[@AuthenticSound]

In his 8th symphony, it is a great piece to demonstrate double beat!

[@dougr.2398]

My “like” was the Mysterious 138!!!! Yay!!

[@kaybrown4010]

Yeah, I got angry at my metronome too, and after it “flew”, Beethoven and I can agree on tempi!

[@historicaltemperaments3566]

I had two thoughts, may be both are interesting for you Wim and you all, too. 1. We do not know if the weight on Beethoven's metronome was properly oriented, and we do not know what side (or may be the middle?) did he read. There is a wide possibility to err with a proper metronome; just make a search on google, and you will easily find many photos where the weight is upside down, _even_ on pages explicitelly about Beethoven metronome issues. e.g. www.cbcmusic.ca/posts/19865/beethovens-metronome-marks-eybler-quartet-op-18 Double beat reading of the tempi are very slow to most of us, not because of what we heard before, but also because what does not happen in too slow tempi! (Do not forget that the Christmas concert lasted for 4 hours, in absolute coincidence with the tempi which are in common practice today, and contradict that of either Czerny or beethoven single beat, and so them in double beat!; so the metronome issue does not mean severe tempo issues!) But if the tempi were read from a bad set up and/or following the wrong way, there are 4 to 6 possibilities to try to fasten up the tempo, and the result will be comfortable of one side, and it will be double beat on the other side. 2. When Beethoven was presented a metronome, he was _very deaf_, likely he could not hear the sound of the metronome at all! If you do not hear the metronome, but _only see it_, the double beat interpretation is very, very straightforward, and it is the most natural one I can ever imagine! (This aspect has not adressed as I recall, but may be it is a quite strong argument for the double beat at least of Beethoven's own markings.) But I still think the weight was in wrong orientation or was misread. :)

[@AuthenticSound]

doesn't make a big difference, I've tried this and still the tempi are insanely fast. But my opinion is that the most logical solution might be the best, and just accepting Beethoven knew how to use the device. He got it from Maelzel directly...

[@luigipati3815]

The theory that his metronome was broken (and that of Schumann, Czerny, Chopin, etc.....one really big, bad batch of metronomes in Austria and Germany?) is really quite stupid. If anything, a broken metronome would SLOW DOWN, or stop working. It was a MECHANICAL DEVICE. Why would it go FASTER when BROKEN? It is like saying that your car breaks down and now all of a sudden it goes faster! VROOOM, VROOOM! ,goes your old Citroen 2CV. If that happened for real, why people would bother to fix their car? Thanks for the enlightening explanations, Wim! It shows how dumb we are.

[@luigipati3815]

And the observation that after a Schnabel works his butt off to reach 138 and not be able to anyways, is particularly telling. How is it possible? We have better instruments, more piano teachers and music colleges, gazillions of methods, supposedly advanced technique, and we STILL cannot match the playing of someone who played piano 200 years ago, no matter what a great musician he was.

[@johndeckers8383]

Fantastic video!

[@cinimod621]

Thank you very much Mr. Winters for this Viedo. It is alway great to have a new Video, made by you! But I am not sure if you can convince me at the Hammerklavier Sonata. Schiff has greatly influenced my understanding of the Beethoven Sonatas. I always found the explanation of Schiff comprehensible. Surely you know the video where he talks about the Hammerklavier Sonata. He argues that the music is not ponderous and heavy handed but "revolutionary" and "explosive". But Schiff also says that "Metronome marks do not make music". However, the speed of the music is essential for the character of the piece. And I like the character that Mr. Schiff propagates clearly better. On the other hand, knowing that you, like Schiff, are also an expert in this field, I am looking forward to your recording of the Hammerklavier Sonata on your new Hammerklavier. I am very curious how it will be. Thanks Wim.

[@AuthenticSound]

Utmost respect for Schiff- he has two clavichords from Potvlieghe btw - but why is he advocating for half 138 while recording the Hammerklavier at 116? This video may give some direction:kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKrHaH-Nnpmqq9U&list=PLackZ_5a6IWVP1Nb_Zxr-RfFHX62Nz9iQ&index=2

[@SpaghettiToaster]

I still don't understand what makes you so sure that all these works you showcase are indeed meant to be played at the single-beat marking. For me, the biggest issue is that the slow tempi in no way correspond to the supplied Italian tempo words. Your first movement simply isn't allegro. It doesnt sound lively. And we have andante as a relatively objective baseline: Andante is supposed to be a walking speed. Interpreting the classical metronome markings as all single-beat, is there even a single andante movement that actually fits this description? What about slow movements? If all movements were to be taken at slightly-above-half speed, this sonata would be far over an hour. How does that make any sense?

[@pianistsdream]

Is that your walking speed, or mine?

[@SpaghettiToaster]

pianistsdream Everybody walks at a comparable speed, that is step frequency. Your actual movement speed depends on your size, but pretty much everyone in the world would agree on the frequency that corresponds to a relaxed gait, which is exactly what andante means.

[@SpaghettiToaster]

Marquis De Sade Ruskin's pontificating on the abstract notion of pace is not supposed to mean that people 200 years ago literally walked half as fast as we do today. That's completely ridiculous. We are physically built to walk comfortably at a certain pace and this hasn't changed in over 100.000 years. In fact, back then there was none of that evil life-accelerating technology you mention, but I'm pretty sure if you had walked at half your optimal speed back then, you would've been abandoned by your group, starved and eaten by a tiger.

[@reflechant]

Monsieur, allegro means joyful, not fast.

[@surgeeo1406]

Allegro may be a great example of how much personal meaning we put behind the words we use. For a hiper-active teenager, allegro is a rave party. But three or four decades later, he may only find happiness in peace and quiet. This unreliability was what pushed people to use more exact measures. I invite you to question all the meaning you place behind the words you use.

[@martinwilde2578]

I know you said you planned to record Beethoven on your Fritz when it arrives, but would you consider a clavichord performance of the Moonlight sonata?

[@AuthenticSound]

That's really pianomusic, it doesn't work well on the clav

[@ProfAmesBC]

Since Beethoven was deaf when he saw his first metronome, he could easily have misunderstood and thought that the audible "tick" occurred once per complete cycle (say, when the metronome arm was at the far left) instead of ticking both left and right. This would cause his tempo markings to indicate exactly twice his intended speed.

[@AuthenticSound]

Then we would see some musicians like Moscheles, Czerny, Liszt and Bulow giving metronome numbers that are exactly half of what Beethoven intended in the works where he left his own MMs such Hammerklavier or the Symphonies. But, they did not, nor they wrote anything about the "Beethoven's mistake"...almost as it was not! Also because Beethoven is not the only composer who would give metronome numbers that are so fast to be unplayable, there are also Czerny, Moscheles, Chopin, Ries, Thalberg, Hummel, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Clara Schumann, Brahms, Bulow and you name it. And they were not deaf! Alberto

[@siegmundfollmer9016]

Danke, wieder einmal eine neue, herrliche Welt enthüllt!!!!

[@enzocypriani5055]

you always surprise me! Great, great video!

[@AuthenticSound]

thanks

[@rubinsteinway]

So Hammerklavier 138 means his metronome was broken. OK, then if it was broken, why does Symph #3 adagio assai 80, (80 for the triplet) as well as Symph #7 allegretto 76 (76 for the triplet) both sound so natural to us? Your implication is that we should "correct" other metronome markings by Beethoven on the basis of one work? IMO we should accept Hammerklavier 138 as exactly what B intended. If pianists can't play it at that speed, then it's their problem. I wouldn't be so quick to say that Beethoven's metronome was broken or that he was incomprehensible. Perhaps he was impractical.

[@AuthenticSound]

Liszt could: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYHaoHmlj7mHfrc

[@fredhoupt4078]

Well, we are now in the deep waters. The Hammerklavier is about as pristine and transcendental a piece that Beethoven conjured. I would strongly suggest a good listen to part One of Andras Schiff's famous public lecture about the H sonata and listen in particular to the points that Wim brings up right at the beginning. Here is the link and I encourage everyone to listen to this.

[@janrod3974]

I wonder what the approach has been of great pianists like Alfred Brendel who was very thorough in his research. Is known what Brendel (for instance) based his tempi on? It is faster than the double beat... Once again very enjoyable and informative video, thanks!

[@AuthenticSound]

Answered your question in this livestream: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3vJpGOOotWthpo

[@janrod3974]

AuthenticSound so I"ve noticed. Thank you!

[@ruramikael]

Hummel used single-beat! Check out his piano concerti. Quarternote=138 in the first movements of the 2nd and 4th concerto, respectively.

[@estevanfringuello1756]

Berlioz too. In Les Troyens, almost every scene has at least one metronome number. (For exemple, the scene where the Marche troyenne can be heard (Allegro non troppo e pomposo) is to be played at quarternote=138. This is the tempo Berlioz indicated us and the tempo we use today.) And Berlioz said somewhere in the score that this opera would last around 4 hours and 30 minutes if the tempi were respected and this is very close to the duration of our modern recordings of this piece. For his earlier pieces (like the Symphonie fantastique) I don't think he used the double beat but I have yet to find such solid proofs.

[@estevanfringuello1756]

Of course ! I really like this theory, it changes the way these pieces are percieved. It could be interesting to know what can motivate the choice of the single or the double beat (And I was wondering if composers who lived long enough through the 19th century would switch from double to single beat at one point)

[@ruramikael]

True, I am quite convinced that both conventions existed simultaneously. As I wrote somewhere else Berlioz did use double-beat in an early ouverture (Roi Lear?). But it seems that Hummel and Liszt (and Berlioz most of the time) used single-beat, wherease Beethoven and Czerny used double-beat.

[@alexanderrice1654]

Could you please give more detail about you know for sure whether Hummel used single or double-beat markings? Does he give durations to check the movement against?

[@ruramikael]

You can all check it up at IMSLP. Berlioz indicates whole-note=80 in the fast section of Franc-Juges, is that reasonable?

[@bwacuff169]

Unfortunately, Beethoven's tempos can't be trusted and it has nothing to do with his metronome. His metronome is, in effect, a red herring. It's mostly irrelevant. The issues with his tempos - such as they are - are the result of his hearing. When writing music in your head you aren't engaging all of the pathways used in the brain to interpret music heard through the ears. Have you ever noticed how unsatisfying thinking about your favorite song is compared to hearing it? And think of how unsatisfying it is to dance to a piece of music you're playing in your head as opposed to hearing it. That's an issue composers deal with only it's not as bad because we're hearing our own "inner voice" as opposed to someone else's. But the problem still exists for composers just like non-composers: you're cutting corners on the emotive dialogue of the piece. When I'm writing something in my head I don't need to frame the story to get from point A to point B effectively nor is the correct tempo important. I know exactly what emotion is being expressed at whichever point in the piece. But my audience doesn't. So I can't present the short cut version of the piece I heard in my head. The "correct" tempo, every ritard, crescendo and everything else I may have skipped while trying to put together an orchestra work or difficult piano piece with my "mind's ear", needs to be in place otherwise I'll fail to communicate effectively. The best way to double-check that I'm telling the story effectively is to hear it through the ears where the ruinous shortcuts I was taking in my head become clear. Sitting at a piano and playing what I was thinking about usually fixes the tempo and removes the shortcuts I was using. I'm sure Beethoven - being deaf and unable to "double check" his minds ear against his actual ear - had this problem and undoubtedly knew it. It probably has a lot to do with why he went to such lengths to try and hear what he was doing (like holding a stick between his teeth while resting the other end on the piano in the hopes of hearing the sound waves through his bone instead of through the ear canal.) When it comes to performing Beethoven, if the tempo indicated seems at odds with the tempo the emotive story feels most effective at, choose feeling every time. At the end of the day, music isn't about what's "correct" it's about the composer leading the listener into a shared emotional state and we live in a different time, with different instruments, music venue acoustics, different delivery avenues and a wildly different collective experience in our understanding of the language. A piece of music may be every bit as effective as it was 200 years ago but often only if it's presented differently: with the "accent" we have today and not with the accent from back then. Like Shakespeare: his plays have stood the test of time but the more "period correct" you attempt to make a production - with the correct accents and acting styles - of Hamlet, the less accessible the production will be. The smaller the appreciative audience becomes. And I'm not even getting into the differences of the performers who most certainly aren't cookie cut. You can give a piece to two equally talented musicians and end up with two equally effective performances using two different tempos. Even something you'd think would be easier to control, like orchestras - because individualism should be lost "in the crowd" have to use different tempos. One reason being size: a large orchestra should play slower than a small orchestra because the inherent power of the larger ensemble - the power the audience loves to soak up - is almost always wasted at faster tempos. There are a hundred variables to every advanced piece of music. Worry less about the "correct tempo" and more about the correct emotive dialogue. Nail the latter and the former will align itself to the performance.

[@AuthenticSound]

Beethoven being deaf... yeah, a hell of an argument, congratulations!! If it were true (of the complete deafness), what was the poor man doing months before his death checking metronome marks? And what a bunch of amateurs in the 19th century, starting with Carl Czerny and Moscheles, who repeated the poor man's mistake... with no complains about his tempi. But of course: beethoven was wrong. And we are right. And yes, let nobody claim we don't care about the master's intention; Since, sir, do we care a lot (as long as his taste matches exactly ours).

[@mortonbaychestnut4072]

Sure, Mr. Beethoven was deaf and meant to be challenging... but 138 is impossible. Yet 1/2 the speed is so hard to get to used to... Even if I don't always agree , I respect Wim's point of view and enthusiasm.

[@AuthenticSound]

2 centuries of layers to peel off. Best is to start playing in those tempi, you'll adjust in no time

[@blakesimpson5323]

Getting tiresome liking video after video...great fun, thanks. I wonder if you have any thoughts on Mendelssohn third symphony mm marks?

[@AuthenticSound]

Great!

[@Clavichordist]

This tempo is again comfortable for the listener. I too have heard performances so fast that the repeated chords become like a machine gun and lose their musical shape. On one recording I have, the pianist makes a horrible mess of the Fugue, which is difficult as it is. That movement becomes a smear of noise and anything but musical, which I don't think was the intention when it was written. I don't think Beethoven, like his contemporaries, wrote music to be a challenge just because. He wrote music that was from his soul usually as part of an obligation to a publisher because he was one of the early composers, like Mozart and Riese who were under the gun to make a living as freelance musicians rather than as hired musicians on the staff at the court. Things were definitely changing in this period and Beethoven was leading the way in so many ways, but at the same time he had to stay within the norms at the same time, otherwise, he would have ended up broke and on the street.

[@alexanderrice1654]

Beethoven was not writing show-off music, but he was writing music for the sake of the music so neither did he limit himself to others' technical limits. Here's a comment from Czerny's op. 500 Piano School (which Wim has referenced in other videos). "At the epoch when Beethoven wrote this, his greatest Sonata, he paid little attention to the peculiarities of pianoforte composition, but used every effort in order to produce the effects which he had in view. Hence his latter pianoforte works are so much the more difficult, as we frequently have to employ an uncommon mode of fingering, of position and of touch, and as the difficulties must be accomplished in as neat, free and natural a manner, as in other compositions. Consequently, those who would study these latter works, must be already well acquainted with the former compositions of this great master; for the present Sonata is the mature fruit of the former blossoms."

[@Wazoox]

Maeltzel explanations, as the inventor and first builder of metronomes, should really put these discussions to an end :)

[@AuthenticSound]

The 1816 English - 1817 German (Leipzig, Vienna) instructions do (might be Maelzel, it is not signed), the 1815 patent basically only describes how the machine works, but the instructions are only from the double beat perspective possible to read without assuming a misprint or error. An episode on that is coming soon (and should have been done long time...) Also interesting are the pieces from Weber in the AMZ 1813/1814. Though do not expect to find an answer on OUR questions, you'll have to read those text from two perspectives; what if they just had metrical readings, and what if they don't and then see where the conflicts are.

[@dantrizz]

I think the broken metronome argument might be the stupidest of them all for a couple of key reasons. Firstly, any 18th century educated musician like beethoven would know the tempo ordinario off by heart. So a metronome not ticking 60 would be obvious even without using a clock or a pendulum to check. Secondly, if early metronomes were faulty they've have to be broken in the same way for everybody given that the marks between different composers coincide with each other. Thirdly, we know that beethoven thought the device was accurate cos he wrote an article in 1817 (i think) praising maezel for his brilliant invention. Fourthly, I'm sure you've said somewhere on the channel that talking to guys who restore old 19th century metronomes, the most it'll deviate before the spring completely goes is 10%. So the most you can reduce the tempo marks by is 10% which is nowhere near enough based on how fast they are. And finally (and i think this is a really key point), let's take the argument made that's along the lines of "well the metronomes back then, they knew they weren't too accurate but it was the best they had so they put up with it." This is obviously false. Decades of calling for accurate time keeping meant they knew what they wanted, it was just whether a device could deliver that. Pendulums before did give accurate timings but they were quite impractical to have and to setup. So there was a standard already understood by composers and if that wasnt met they would just reject it. And that is exactly what happened with the chronometer. Beethoven thought it was a good idea but said it wasn't accurate enough, as seemingly did every other composer who didn't have one. So just the fact that the metronome boomed in popularity shows that it was accurate in its job. Cos if it wasn't it would've followed the same fate.

[@BeethovenIsGrumpyCat]

Try playing all the other piano sonatas at half the speed and see how that works out.

[@AuthenticSound]

That's what the Beethoven project is gonna be about! Overall it works great, there are some challenges too with some of the slow movements (though some slow movements would be really challenging if even possible in single beat), so it's a positive story for me, connecting Beethoven so much to the language of the 18th century!

[@BeethovenIsGrumpyCat]

​@@AuthenticSound I doubt it. Symphony No. 2, No. 3, and No. 5 would sound absolutely dull if played "like opera" because they are not like the operatic Italian music in vogue at the time. Beethoven symphonies sound very powerful and dynamic when played at the "proper" speed, especially on period instruments. - They end up sounding like dynamite or a volcanic eruption, which as Beethoven as you can get on a fast movement. - They allow the woodwinds and brass to add more color and nuance without worrying about drowning out the strings, because modern instruments sound less different from each other and are less balanced in an orchestra. Modern orchestras do not play Beethoven at the "right" tempo for many reasons: partly because they puss out on Beethoven, partly because a modern orchestra was designed for Romantic sensibilities and so can't handle the more breezy and sudden music of the 18th century with as much grace, partly because conductors over the past generations played Classical music as if it was Romantic music, with slower speeds and larger orchestra. It's a good example of how bigger and louder doesn't mean better.

[@AuthenticSound]

some mvts of the fifth in double beat are on my channel as back groudn music, check the videos of the last week, one that talks about my Frenzel pf, it's very powerful, problem is that people never try it out seriously, they just keep talking on how impossible it is

[@joelmacinnes2391]

Look forward to the 50 minute Waldstein :/

[@enzocypriani5055]

I am looking forward to the fortepiano, you don't have idea wim!

[@AuthenticSound]

great!

[@johnsavard7583]

Oh, I see that you have seen this theory advocated in the Smithsonian article I turned up in searching on this topic. I should not be surprised.

[@ChristianJoannes]

Even though the speed of 138 per beat is hard to achieve is has been done by many so called mainstream virtuoso Richter, Pollini and others. Andras Schiff also demonstrates in his lecture that he can play it that fast. If we adhere to the theory of the double beat, It should also apply to slow markings from Adagio to Largo, in a linear fashion because at the end of day what really matters is the ratio between the various tempos ,fast and slow which must be preserved. I have tried with Op 27 , no 2 the famous moonlight , if you play the 3rd movement twice slower, then the intro becomes virtually a disaster at 38 bpm. So to cut a long story short this theory seems very questionable as it leads to reducing fast tempos but not slow ones in the same proportion which is changing the contrast between the various movements.

[@AuthenticSound]

You may always have believed they play in 138, but they are not. Even Schiff is not, and certainly not in his recording.

[@ChristianJoannes]

Thks for your reply . I will check the speed with online tool . Still that doesn’t address the problem of ratio between fast and slow movements of the piece . If we agree on a musically acceptable tempo for the first movement , then 138 per beat is certainly an aspiration even though incredibly hard to achieve . It is well known that Beethoven was not playing anymore when he composed this sonata , and it’s also factual to say that mistake

[@ChristianJoannes]

Sorry I hit return too fast as I was writing single beat on my iPhone ;). I wanted to add that It is also well known that Liszt was one of the first musicians able to play the sonata , 15 years after it was written . That certainly tells us something about the difficulty of the piece , as at half tempo , this is much easier to say the least . Why don’t we also launch a theory about Rachmaninoff piano keys’ size . Given most pianists struggle with the span needed to hit correctly the 2 nd chord of concerto no 2 . Surely the only valid explanation is that the keys on his piano were not standard ;). Having said that nothing wrong with playing a sonata slower even when Andreas Schiff is more radical and call that ´disgusting ´ with his dry sense of humour .

[@joelmacinnes2391]

@@ChristianJoannes If you listen to Peter Serkin, his first movement is almost a rigid 138 beats per minute

[@ChristianJoannes]

@@joelmacinnes2391 I never listened to his performance of op 106 but I will as I like his playing . 👍

[@mabel8179]

Fascinating!

[@fluffygirl1356]

It was very hard for me to get when you were being sarcastic and when you were being honest.

[@AuthenticSound]

Sorry, thought that was obvious

[@gristlevonraben]

I can hear where Mozart got his style from now. Awesome!

[@etiennedelaunois1737]

I think it is more the other way around.

[@gristlevonraben]

@@etiennedelaunois1737 I will check it out, thanks!

[@rexcowan9209]

Piano needs a tune. Great video. Cheers.

[@ackamack101]

It’s funny. Now Schnabel’s Hammerklavier first movement sounds to me like a complete mess lol. 😂

[@AuthenticSound]

which...it is

[@Kounios]

@@AuthenticSound Yes, but Schnabel was clearly having an off-day. His virtuosity was superb in his superfast Waldstein. He almost pulled off the 1st movement of the Hammerklavier at that speed, and if one can ignore the finger slips, it sounds thrilling.

[@michaelschefold3299]

Such a nonsense! Beethoven was not stupid, his friend Mälzel built the Metronome and Beethoven knew exactly how to use it! Liszt played exactly this tempo at the premiere. Berlioz watched with the score! Some really fantastic interpretations, like Busoni's and Yuja Wang''s are a bit slower, but that's her interpretations and not because they aren't able to do it faster! For many other pianists it's quite unplayable and there they need some "reasons" to play it way too slow....like Sokolov, who made a boring "Länder" of the "Scherzo"..... Beethoven IS fast and modern!

[@AuthenticSound]

yes, sure. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYHaoHmlj7mHfrc , kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYfTpoqYoruredU

[@vimotriciimpressae]

Why, then, Beethoven's tempi seem to be creating much more troubles than that of any other composers? Unlike I usually get confused because of such a vague descriptions which lacks any historical infos, I so often get lost here due to how I perceive the music itself in the tempi and vast sources from which all the informations come. By the way surprised to hear one of the most violent performance of hammerklavier I heard by far, at 5:15

[@AuthenticSound]

Because he's probably the only composer that we today care a little bit about his MM. If we did constantly for all composers of that time, the problems would become gigantic.

[@vimotriciimpressae]

Thank you for your kind reply! I need to confess that I'm not certain about the subject yet. For example Bernstein would say all composers at his days would have intended their pieces to be played in tempi of "under the shade of", let's say, 1/2=60. I think he had clear idea about the matter. Even, if that were the case, why even bother to give precise MM instructions after all? Still, I do think there is possibility that those were not meant to be so precise and there is another way of interpreting the MM's. Needless to say the idea of keeping the MM's in the modern way for the sake of "following the great master's own instruction as intended and written" is absurd. double beat tempi interpretation is somewhat like activity completely different from those. confuses me again. I just need to study harder and harder.

[@harryk4840]

Me gustaria saber ingles

[@AuthenticSound]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYHaoHmlj7mHfrc

[@christianwouters6764]

I have the impression that all old metronome numbers are pair, so divisable by 2. This would be also a clear indication of the tactus approach. The Schnabel recording is absolutely horrible, it just gives the impression a really bad amateur is trying to play sth way beyond his capabilities 😀

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks for watching Christian, you might enjoy perhaps the new series on the Hammerklavier sonata: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYHaoHmlj7mHfrc

[@alexanderrice1654]

There is a story in William Mason's "Memories of a Musical Life" which might provide some insight into the tempo of this piece.

[@alexanderrice1654]

ON one occasion, however, I saw Liszt grow very much excited over what he considered an imposition. One evening he said to us: "Boys, there is a young man coming here to-morrow who says he can play Beethoven's 'Sonata in B Flat, Op. 106.' I want you all three to be here." We were there at the appointed hour. The pianist proved to be a Hungarian, whose name I have forgotten. He sat down and began to play in a conveniently slow tempo the bold chords with which the sonata opens. He had not progressed more than half a page when Liszt stopped him, and seating himself at the piano, played in the correct tempo, which was much faster, to show him how the work should be interpreted. "It's nonsense for you to go through this sonata in that fashion," said Liszt, as he rose from the piano and left the room. The pianist, of course, was very much disconcerted. Finally he said, as if to console himself: "Well, he can't play it through like that, and that's why he stopped after half a page."

[@alexanderrice1654]

This sonata is the only one which the composer himself metronomized, and his direction is M.M. half note = 138. A less rapid tempo, half note = 100 or thereabouts, would seem to be more nearly correct, but the pianist took it at a much slower rate than even this. When the young man left I went out with him, partly because I felt sorry for him, he had made such a fiasco, and partly because I wished to impress upon him the fact that Liszt could play the whole movement in the tempo in which he began it. As I was walking along with him, he said, "I'm out of money; won't you lend me three louis d'or?" A day or two later I told Liszt by the merest chance that the hero of the Op. 106 fiasco had tried to borrow money of me. "B-r-r-r! What?" exclaimed Liszt. Then he jumped up, walked across the room, seized a long pipe that hung from a nail on the wall, and brandishing it as if it were a stick, stamped up and down the room in almost childish indignation, exclaiming, "Drei louis d'or! Drei louis d'or!" The point is, however, that Liszt regarded the man as an artistic impostor. He had sent word to Liszt that he could play the great Beethoven sonata, not an inconsiderable feat in those days. He had been received on that basis. He had failed miserably. To this artistic imposition he had added the effrontery of endeavoring to borrow money from some one whom he had met under Liszt's roof.

[@alexanderrice1654]

That is the end of the excerpt, which can be found on Project Gutenberg. Wim has argued that Liszt also used double-beat markings, so there shouldn't be any question that Liszt was unaware of Beethoven's "metrical tempo" system. But, if Wim is right about the tempo, does it make sense that someone writing at the start of the 20th Century would have said that Wim's tempo is so fast, that we should naturally tend toward a tempo 72% of Wim's? Or that this "impostor" played it even at half the tempo that Wim argues for?

[@SiteReader]

What a horrible man Liszt is portrayed as in this excerpt. First, to treat a man like that because he didn't like his performance of a sonata. And then to contemplate beating him with a pipe, because the impoverished performer who has traveled from another country (Liszt's own country) had to ask for money! One can only hope that there is some distortion in the author's memory of the incident.

[@AuthenticSound]

The metrical use of the metronome is not so hard to read about, I'll have some videos soon, this might help as well: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKrHaH-Nnpmqq9U&list=PLackZ_5a6IWVP1Nb_Zxr-RfFHX62Nz9iQ&index=2

[@davidwright8432]

The ten minutes you took could far more usefully have been uded to give examples using an elenctonic keyboard and software; it would have been easy to play your own interpretation and then play at various other tempos, showing contrasts, then running as close to Beethoven's markings as you please. Or even faster! Agreed there are controversial readings - let's hear them!! Less rhetoric, more music! I look forward to it.Thaniks!

[@AuthenticSound]

thanks for your suggestion, David. There are different video formats on the channel, don't forget the 'material' side of it: a video in this format costs easily 10 hours of production and prep, when mixing the instruments real time, it's more. We'll come back with livestreams where the content is presented 'as it is', that'll be what you're looking for, I have many videos like this already, you'll find them easily when scrolling through the content (+600 videos now!)

[@DavidArdittiComposer]

Excellent entertaining channel, apart from the use of the inappropriate Americanism 'What's up everybody?' as a greeting.

[@loxpower]

Studying really hard for months? At that speed it's almost playable sight-reading. :) Besides wasn't Beethoven himself that wrote to his editor "Here’s a sonata that will challenge pianists and that one will be able to play in 50 years"? Doesn't seems the case here. :) anyway I think your theories are interesting, and I think it's legitimate to play this Sonata (or any music) the way we feel. I'm just not convinced by your performance. But I like Glenn Gould's one which is almost (almost!) as slow as yours. Who knows? Maybe you and him are right! :) kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6rddpWZnKl2qLM

[@AuthenticSound]

sight reading the Hammer at 138, wow, that impresses me! But just what makes you think Beethoven was talking on the technical challenges? Of course he wrote difficult stuff, but dive into history first (instead of hearsaying!) and you'll find no such thing as the impossibility of the hammerkl...and now what? Perhaps it was the 26 minute adagio he was talking about , a fast forward romantic motion in time... I believe that makes more sense, since that was really revolutionary, not the technique, they could play the piece easily, we don't, that says a big thing already. I'll come with a very surprising vid on the 106 soon

[@loxpower]

I wasn't talking about 138. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was replying about your statement that at *your* speed (the one you considered correct and you were advocating in this video i.e. 138 "half time") a pianist willing to study seriously for a few months can master the sonata. Techichally. Of course if you are talking about musical difficulties a few months aren't enough. Pianists like Perahia studied that sonata for decades before feeling comfortable enough to play it public. :) anyway I'm a subscriber of your channel, I really enjoyed your explanation about Schumann's Kinderzenen metronome marking and agree with that so it's not that I'm against your theories and thoughts by default. Anyway looking forward your 106 vid. Keep up the good work.

[@futureshock7425]

FASTER!

[@maurozanchetta648]

I love that little bit of "your" Hammerklavier! Not usual but LOVELY!!!

[@AuthenticSound]

Thank you!