How Fast did Mozart and Beethoven Really Play?

[@DanRussellPSU]

As a professor of acoustics (Ph.D. in Acoustics, 1995 and B.Mus. piano performance, 1988) this actually makes a lot of sense to me. A similar confusion of a "doubling" or "halving" of frequency shows up in a lot of old acoustics texts as well. The modern unit for frequency (the number of complete oscillations in one second) is the Hertz (Hz). An oscillation or vibration of 1 Hz means that there is one complete oscillation (one complete back and forth round trip) occurring within in a time of one second. The frequency corresponding to middle C on a modern piano is about 261.62 Hz (based on a 440 Hz tuning for "concert A") which means that the middle C string undergoes a complete vibration (back and forth, round trip) 261.63 times per second. However, long before the 1960's when the modern unit of Hertz (Hz) was adopted as the standard unit of frequency there was quite a bit of variation in the units used to describe frequency. In the 19th century, the French tradition referred to frequency as a "vibration single" (v.s.) a method of counting based on a seconds pendulum which ticks once going forward and once returning -- two ticks per second. This is just like a metronome that makes two ticks -- one tick as the bob moves to the right and a second tick as the bob returns to the left. However, the French also used the term "vibration double" (v.d.) -- similar to the counting method use by German and English scientists -- which only counted one tick per second so that 1 v.d. is twice as long as 1 v.s. This shows up on the tuning forks manufactured by Rudolph Koenig in the late 1880's. Koenig's forks were labeled with the "v.s." system, so that his tuning fork for "middle c" was marked 512 v.s. which is the same as 256 v.d. or 256 Hz. So, if you picked up a Koenig tuning fork marked 512, it actually represents a frequency half that value. According to what you discussing your video, it would appear that Beethoven and Czerny were using a similar "vibration single" method of counting that included one tick as the metronome moves right and a second tick as the metronome moves back left -- two ticks for one complete cycle. So, the confusion of interpretation is determining whether a metronome marking of one half note = 108 means (a) one half note for each "tick" of the metronome set to 108, interpreting the number as a "vibration double" (one tick per complete cycle) -- which should be ridiculously fast, or (b) one half note for every two ticks of the metronome set to 108, interpreting the number as a "vibration single" (two ticks per complete cycle) which is much more manageable.

[@shobarsch]

That's a very interesting insight, thank you

[@koshersalaami]

I was also thinking of it in terms of Hz, whether the notation was per click or per round trip. I’m in the commercial sound business and when I explain Hz I explain it as round trips per second (which it is, measured from 90 degrees to 450 degrees, which is the length of a cycle, just measured from one extreme rather than the middle). So I tell people that if you live half an hour from work, your commute frequency is 1/3600 Hz. But here’s my problem: How did a transition from interpreting metronome markings as round trips to as individual clicks happen without anyone making a note of it? We’re not looking at ancient music that disappeared for a period, we’re looking at a teaching and performing continuum since that time. Follow our teachers back to their teachers, etc., and we get to the composers we’re writing about. That’s how we learned to use a metronome. I have a second more minor problem: How did they play anything fast with a three beat feel? Wouldn’t they get stuck at some point trying to use a metronome two against three?

[@malcolmabram2957]

You make a quality elaborate point. However, I think it is not so much about science (I am a PhD scientist), but natural rhythm governed by our heart beat. I suspect the natural medium beat will be about 1.2 Hz. Faster music will have a higher Hz, slower music a lower Hz.

[@fernandoserico77]

So there are two options: - considering the traditional way of using the metronome, and playing ‘ridiculously fast’, as you said, in some cases - considering this other way, but then playing ridiculously slow in many other cases (can you imagine the 3rd movement of the Hammerklavier played 92 every half crotchet?) BUT - all pianists from tradition, pupils of Liszt and of Chopin’s pupils, from which we have recordings, are wrong? Impossible - what you call ‘ridiculously fast’ is difficult technically, but if you don’t think to it, and you play the piece 4 hands so it is easier, it is perfectly musical. On the contrary, the absurdity of half-speeded slow movements is a musical absurdity, not a technical one. - e.g. Beethoven says his Hammerklavier Sonata would have be a problem for pianists in the following 50 years (and it still is btw); with the speed intended as you mean, it becomes a piece that would create no problems at all - the basis of perceiving time is our heart beat, that surely not changed its frequency in 150 years. What is considered slow now was considered the same two century ago, humanity doesn’t evolve its perception of reality in 4-5 generations.

[@lsbrother]

Not convinced that comparing metronomes and tuning forks is valid: one is for measuring pitch the other tempo - two very different things. It might well be a matter of definition whether the pitch of A is 440c/s or 880 c/s but surely specifying e.g, the number of crotchets per minute is unambiguous. To my mind, 'Maezel, Crotchet = 100', can have only one meaning.

[@AudioLemon]

This is about the most European thing i can imagine. Two middle aged educated gentleman, wearing jumpers, sitting in front of a clavichord talking in different languages about tempo markings in 17th century score. It was great 👍

[@Vextrove]

Didn't you know? This is due to deflation, the government has manually been producing additional seconds, essentially doubling the amount of seconds currently in circulation!

[@Vextrove]

Jokes aside, tempo is a pretty simple thing, you don't have to be a musical genius to choose a suitable tempo for a piece.

[@AuthenticSound]

Point is to reconstruct what the old masters had in mind, all the rest is personal choice

[@RH-xs8gz]

So that’s why the price of gas has been rising so much!

[@akanecortich8197]

The problem as Mozart noted regarding performers...they ignored the tempo and played faster, sometimes much faster, for display/showoff purposes. He criticized performers lack of skill in site reading, as pretty mush all pieces were site read in those days, their site reading skills in interpretation. Mozart said the performers should play the music as if they were the composer. This he noted in a letter concerning K246 that he heard performed not long after it was published.

[@keithtinkler4073]

Alma D plays K246 at just the right temp to my mind!

[@francescoteopini6290]

Where can this letter be found? It is very interesting to me, thanks 🙏

[@JacobRobot321]

sight*

[@grahamcclark1]

Well he also said Clementi was a fraud because he wrote "presto" and played allegro

[@joepalooka2145]

I am not an expert on the technical points of music, but I do know that if a piece of music is played too fast, or too slow, I can feel it. The correct tempo for me is the one that lets the music breathe. It's no different than speaking or singing---- the correct tempo allows the emotional content to be released. This is the same for Bach, Beethoven, or the Beatles.

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts, Joe, much apprecitated!

[@crewelocoman5b161]

Joe Palooka: Thank you for injecting a dose of practical common MUSICAL sense into this arcane numbingly stupefying discussion.

[@luigipati3815]

Joe Palooka, not to be mean, but to cultured musicians you sound like a complete simpleton. Things are way more complicated than you believe. This is not for the layman; is too much even for me, a cultured musician. This is stuff for musicologists, they spend decades on music history. There is a study in psychology that describes how people who do not know anything about a subject, think they 'get' it. That is, the majority of the population. Everybody's an expert....right? Ha ha. Beatles and Bach? It is like saying Michelangelo and Marvel Comics :) Nothing wrong with Beatles, but I know the difference. It is gigantic, and you would have to sit in there for days to even start to understand it. And that would only scratch the surface. The details are very important, it is not our fault if you or other people (the majority) don't 'get' it. Us musicians are trying to figure out mysteries that you do not see or understand, such as why Beethoven's tempos are "crazy". Someone says his metronome was broken. Yet other musicians of the time wrote similar tempos, very fast tempos that make NO sense. Ironically, exactly the opposite of what YOU mentioned, e.g. music that feels natural. Beethoven's music, according to his tempos, does NOT feel natural. Why did he wrote these tempos? THIS is what Wim Winters and people like him try to find out.....just ignoring things gives no answers, since no questions are asked. It is as if Stephen Hawking gave a bunch of data and then died, and the living scientists cannot understand it. Why? That is musicology. It is not stuff for the casual listener. Want to listen to The Beatles? Great. But don't mix The Beatles with Bach, it is like mixing Newton with a bright kid who is going to school learning basic multiplication. Bach was a GENIUS. The Beatles were good songwriters of popular music. Completely different worlds, my friend.

[@enrico200165]

"Things are way more complicated than you believe" ... has it ever crossed your cultured :-) mind the idea that things that for you are complicated for somebody else might be simple ? Maybe it's not Palooka the simpleton :-)

[@crewelocoman5b161]

Enrico Viali: Spot on.

[@andreasvandieaarde]

This is seriously some of the most intriguing and compelling music content on KZbin, let alone about classical/ancient music. Seriously fantastic, this is starting to shift my entire perspective on performing classical music as I watch your content! I am currently studying classical Piano at university, in second year, and last year we absolutely had to choose a study to play for one of our assessments. I played Czerny's opus 299 no 1 + 2, and I was expected to play it significantly faster than what you played in this video at what you figured out to be not only the likely historically accurate tempo, but one that is significantly more practical to approach when you look at the raw numbers. Thank you for this content, you are an inspiration to me! I hope to introduce these concepts into my institution if I can help it, and inspire younger students to challenge modern interpretations if they wish!

[@dantrizz]

this is a very nice comment to read

[@parkerfilms1]

"theologian" was the English word you were seeking in his introduction. Wonderful work you are doing here! Thank you.

[@incaroads001]

I once heard Beethoven's 9th performed at the indicated tempos. It was a bit faster and sounded more joyful and less ponderous than it normally sounds. ;)

[@the_pudding_boy8834]

there are two annotations in the original manuscript 108 or 120..maybe he being one of the first users of the metronome as we know it he was confused about which number was the correct one and that’s that..sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one..either way there’s no way to corroborate it beyond that

[@johnb6723]

The right way to perform the Beethoven 9th symphony is the Cobra way. A perfect reconstruction. It's on KZbin too. All of 114 minutes, the same way as it was performed on May 7th 1824 in Vienna, not like the 79 minutes in the London performance a year later, which was a performance described by Beethoven as being rushed. We have George Smart to blame for that overly quick London performance.

[@johnb6723]

@@chessematics It will seem too long to most people these days, but in 1824 it was the correct timing.

[@rand503]

Thank you for this video! It provides great insight. One of my own intuitive thoughts is that there are times when composers did NOT write out a MM marking. Rarely do we see that with Mozart, for instance. And often, when I play a sonata, such as the great C major, I am never satisfied. It is marked Allegro for the first movement. If I pick one tempo for the opening four measures, it doesn't sound quite right for the next four. In fact, ,the first movement has great chances in character about every four measures. If you pick one tempo for any particular section, its sounds a bit too fast or too slow for another. So I have come to the conclusion that it is okay to tailor your tempo to the mood of any particular section. That doesn't mean you end up with a herky-jerky tempii; Rather, you have a subtle change in mood. I find that this works often with Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart and others of this time period. (It doesn't work with the shorter pieces of baroque, though). But I think this is the correct way -- it highlight the beauty of each section, which I think is what they were after.

[@musicomaniac62]

Whether we agree or not, it should raise everyone's mind of what a potential problem it could be. And to dare talk about that is not an easy task when the music education is rather elitist and stubborn about divergent points of view.

[@dickersonforever]

Luckily for the HWBPM gang, playing slow the master's work it's much more difficult. A breakthrough is coming.

[@angadbhargav906]

HOW FAST WAS THIS TITLE WRITTEN? Reread the title if you don't understand what I'm trying to say

[@AuthenticSound]

I know... in fact, the interview and edit was really time consuming, days of work, and the title, so important on KZbin, was changed a few times, reason why... Although I'm not native English, I'm aware or the mistake. But since KZbin decided to push really hard for it, it's impossible to correct, at least, I could correct the title, but the video would be indexed as new, loosing much if not all of the tracking history... So deepest apologies here!

[@angadbhargav906]

I should be the one apologizing. You put in a lot of work into this video and I'm joking about one small mistake made in the title.

[@luigipati3815]

Angad, yes. Small minds sit around and criticize people over minor and trivial things, greater minds learn and teach something that has weight, as is the case here, which is music history, a specialist subject. What a difference. But at least you saw the difference.

[@Vextrove]

Luigi Pati - He apologized, everything was gucci, but then you had to make that comment?

[@salairunsuilian3388]

AuthenticSound po

[@manuelm.8364]

Hello. I read a (german) book about the topic: "Prestißißimo - Die Wiederentdeckung der Langsamkeit in der Musik" from Grete Wehmeyer and she explains very detailed how fast the musicians must have been played in the last centuries. She also writes that the tempo has doubled and she has many arguments and explainations for this.

[@AuthenticSound]

Fantastic, Manuel! I heard Grete W. play in Amsterdam in the 90ties

[@csmatteson]

I do not pretend to make a detailed historical textual argument about tempo. But I have been playing the piano for 50 years and I studied music theory at the University of Michigan School of Music for seven years (plus a year at Michigan State right out of high school). I have read a lot of things over the decades about music and tempo. And what it finally comes down to, I believe, is what you as a musician believe and think is correct. No matter what YOU choose some folks will hate you for it. And, if you play beautifully, others will be convinced. The reality is that no matter what people say they do, in performance things change. The best performers are not chronometers. While they keep the pulse, they do not play with perfect strictness, which becomes death. You can tell music done with a click track (as much movie music and pop music is) because it feels like death. Stravinsky, for example, made a huge deal about his markings and declaring that his way of performing his works was the only correct way. The problem is that he changed them on any given night, not by a lot, but not he was not the set in stone performer he pretended to be. I can't find it right now, but in my high school days, I read an account of a Beethoven performance described by, I believe it was Czerny, who declared that Beethoven changed tempo 32 times. What do you do with that? And the tempo of the opening of the Hammerklavier is ridiculous in the metronome marking. Even if someone can play it at that tempo (I have heard claims but never a real performance that achieved that tempo) it sounds more like dolphin clicks than music. It is a magic trick, not music. And legalistically finding a reason to halve the tempo is still wrong. That sounds too slow. Way too slow. So, as the old American saying goes, "You pays your money and you takes your chances." Just be sincere and artistic in your choices. Legalism might help you convince yourself, but your audience won't hear your reasoning, they will hear what you play and that will either convince them or not.

[@AuthenticSound]

Your very right: it is about what we take from it. Had just written an answer to another viewer, that might give you some extra feedback and thoughts. i'll copy it below. Thanks for the input and feeback! The Hammerklavier at half 69 (= bach Alla Breve), I'm waiting for so long to try that on my new pianoforte, still a few months ! Wim The performance can be great at whatever speed one wants to play. Glenn Gould often played at rocket speeds yet very understandable, and if one would have asked him to play extremely slow (which he sometimes did as well), he for sure could have turned the music in to magic as well; So probably the performance you referred to was not interesting being the main problem, probably not the tempo. Today, nobody is playing according to the MM markings (me neither). And with nobody I mean 99.75 percent. 0.25 percent would try some movements (not everything is impossible in today's reading system, but they would take that as to "proof" there is nothing wrong or mysterious about the MM. Which is not correct. An overwhelming majority of musicians (also in HIP) just play what they feel and often, that is somwhere -40-20 % of the today's reading of the MM. But it is either half or whole... no inbetween regarding the research. There are way too many MM and way too many musicians with all similar MM to say that they ALL were face, or ALL metronomes were out of function or ALL were not meant like that. That is a problem, an issue we must try to take serious. And at the end, it is our decision, performers, what to do with that information, but at least we would not ignore the facts, or worse, transform them to fit our taste and habits. Hope this make sense !

[@Vevada]

AuthenticSound What is the name of the machine that makes the sound of the pop? I hope you understand me

[@Vevada]

Mega Upstairs Thank you very much 😙

[@AlaskanGlitch]

I am in complete agreement. Furthermore, the style of music will have an effect on tempo. Romantic works tend to be more fluid, where tempo is used as means of expression. Chopin and Liszt in particular use tempo in this manner. Speeding up or slowing down phrases to express an emotion. Baroque, by comparison, has a more static or fixed tempo, with less flexibility.

[@jerryli821]

Music is a historical rendering and it's also an individual interpretation. There's no ONE right way. There are many wrong ways. When I sit down to play it depends upon my mood and what I've thought about the piece before I sit down to play. If I'm happy with the result, the tempo will have been true to that moment.

[@GamingRevenant]

It’s great to see the channel taking off in the right direction. As you said, will it stay? I know for a fact that it will continue and just grow even more as long as you keep doing what you do now 😉 Congratulations!

[@AuthenticSound]

Thank you so much for the encouraging words. If it came so far, it's because partly because of viewers like you, being for so long here to support!

[@anderszapac]

Without having read all comments, I'd like to add a far more recent example when Gustav Holst conducted a recording of his own Planets suite in the early 20th century. In particular the first movement Mars is remarkably faster than any subsequent conductor has done it, whether it was for technical reasons (wax recordings only capable of a certain capacity) or if he intended or preferred higher tempi. Without his recording, people might dismiss a fast tempo notation as a mistake as well.

[@RicardoMarlowFlamenco]

I am really into rhythm and I can’t actually understand what the conclusion is here? Comments imply many pianists play too fast. Good example is Gould, only because, in general, many interpretations of something I try to learn on guitar I compare and notice the other pianos are much slower than Gould, or, let me say, not grooving. So, my instinct that I developed over many years is that a guy like Gould grooving along at a tempo that is not easy for people, well, depending on the actual note sequences, ends up feeling more correct to ME with a slight room for play up or down. Take that black and white C minor partita video compared to his a bit slower studio recording…I mean that fast part obviously. So yes a hair slower than he was practicing it in the video is fine, but the ball park is correct on those rhythmic sequences. So if people are saying the slower tempo is more correct somehow, this to me is really WRONG. There is a description of Bach by some observer you can read where he describes Bach conducting a group and he is pounding his feet and it all sounds frustrating as today it would be a group that was dragging the tempo and he was really having to pull everybody along. I think he would have preferred mr Gould to ANY of the others, and can imagine similar opinions of other composers.

[@rjones2209]

So i've been playing all these things at the authentic speed all along and it was those famous professionals who have all been wrong.

[@voltgene9055]

... *

[@EwicoCylinder]

A piece that really makes me hard find if it also is played way to fast is the Bach toccata and fugue in D minor. Especially for me as a musician for the organ and i asked myself often if they way other people play this piece in the incredible fast tempo should be played that way, or maybe it should played also slower. I by myself play it much slower and it sounds in my opinion way better and I started thinking if also Bach himself was playing this piece in a slower tempo, than nowadays people do.

[@RWZiggy]

I always wondered about that when studying as child, how and why did they specify the crazily fast metronome speeds.

[@AuthenticSound]

And in fact it is ... so simple after all! (well, the history and theory is something else, but practically it is)

[@josephfatur1747]

Consider Glenn Gould's two recordings of the Goldberg Variations' Aria. The slow tempo of the late recording might be thought unorthodox, but to my ear it is the more beautiful. I doubt that Bach, himself, would object.

[@ytteman]

This is good news for me! I am trying to learn Chopin's "Fantasie - Impromptu" and the noted 84 for a half note is a crazy tempo. Professional pianists do it, but it more shows their technical ability than the beauty of the music.

[@AuthenticSound]

Fantastic! Those pieces were not written for the Lang Langs of that time (they did not exist), so enjoy really the liberation of this, since the more I study on the matter, also together with Lorenz, the more evident this theory becomes. What to think of Czerny's opus 299: in metrical sense those etudes are fantastic pieces to practice (even daily)

[@anastasialudwika]

You are a scientist and a musician combined together in one person! Real treasure of our century!!! 💐

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks Anastasia!

[@keisaboru1155]

When you so swag you don't need sub titles for both languages

[@photohounds]

It's almost "heavy metal" - and indeed a very interesting lesson.

[@AuthenticSound]

Great!

[@robertocaesar]

The sound of your harpsichord is just lovely

[@joshuarosen6242]

It's a clavichord, not a harpsichord.

[@ruperttmls7985]

Its a muselaar!... ok, no 😆

[@ShaunNgKF]

Many thanks for this. I've felt the same as you about French courantes, but admit that I don't dare play it too slow in performance. But in truth the music requires it, especially if you play something as unwieldy as a bass gamba or theorbo.

[@AuthenticSound]

Great feedback, thanks !

[@scottweaverphotovideo]

I'm very interested in your videos but I'd really like to hear the music being performed at the various tempos.

[@classicalemotion]

It's so so interesting. Unfortunately a video does not resume a book, but we have a glimpse. This was a huge discussion trough many years. Rudolf Kolisch (beginning of 20th century) wrote that we have to take seriously metronome markings in Beethoven, but... Yeah, some tempos was so slow or so fast. Then the conclussion in that moment was: well, maybe the Beethoven's pendulum was broken, which to me does not make any sense. So, thanks for sharing this !!!

[@craigresnianky6909]

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the famous/infamous Hammerklavier Sonata metronome marking.

[@AuthenticSound]

That's high on my list of to do's, might do that even before the pianoforte arrives (still a few months) but certainly after - and play that sonata

[@craigresnianky6909]

Awesome. Thanks.

[@sakalees1439]

I have been performing Beethoven’s Op. 106 since 2005, precisely along this line: 138 to the quarter-note and not the half-note. Likewise, the Fugue is 144 to the eighth and not the quarter. Every passage is not only lyrically expressive and expansive; but everything “breathes” and diverse articulations and even ornamentation organically becomes possible. Not only does this great work take on entirely new orchestral possibilities; but “choral” textures become so evident. Ironically, the “hammerklavier” takes on a much closer relationship to, say, his “Missa Solemnis” than some type of Olympic sport or breakneck spectacle.

[@alangreene9423]

This issue of single or double clicks is like a code. It doesn't take 100 examples to crack the code. It only needs one example. Of the many I can think of, here is one: Chopin Prelude No.13. Chopin marked it as dotted-minum (half-note) 54. Obviously, that is way, way too fast. It's almost unplayable. Musically, the dynamic is out of control at that speed. None of the great pianists of 20th century played it anywhere near that fast. So why does nobody question that number? The number is there. we cannot ignore it: 54 dotted-minum (half-note). Most pianists play this piece at around 60% of that number. It's such a cop-out. The number is there. People need to put their musical indulgences with Chopin on-hold and confront that number; people have to give an explanation rather than continuing with the fallacy. Another example: Chopin Nocturne Op.27, No.2. Chopin marked it as dotted-crotchet (quarter-note) 50. Again: musically it does not make sense played as single-click 50. The dynamic is out of control at that speed. The 'con forza' passage towards the end is unplayable at that speed. Pianists always play this piece around 60-80% of the single-click tempo reading. Anyone playing above 60% always slow down to significantly for the 'con forza' section. Again, people should confront that number and give an explanation. It is blindingly obvious that these should be played as double-click readings.

[@wapolo1974]

That was a really fascinating conversation! Definitely looking forward to future installments on this very interesting subject.

[@AuthenticSound]

Great to know !

[@Kai_Pirinja]

Thank you so much for this video, which I only discovered today! It is like a revelation to me! I am a trained pianist and baritone making music for more than 40 years (and listening to it for even more years) and for decades I have been thinking that it does not seem right how fast some pianists play works by Bach and Mozart, but I thought that since I am only "a little light" and probably do not have the knowledge of those famous pianists they must be right and I must be wrong! What Lorenz Gadient says in this video about the use of the metronome, the Takt and the Pendelschlag makes absolutely sense to me, since these lower speeds are approximately the speeds I would play most of the pieces in naturally if there is no metronome speed indication given on the music sheet. I think we should use our common sense when we play Baroque or Classical music and it will tell us that Bach and Mozart cannot have intended their music to be played at the horrible "light speed" some pianists play it in. When you take a certain piece of Bach - let's say the Präludium in C-Dur of the "Wohltemperiertes Klavier" and listen to different recordings by different pianists, you can see that the tempo in which they play varies quite a bit. Vladimir Ashkenazy for example plays it quite slow in his 2005 Decca recording (it takes him 2:41 minutes), while Daniel Barenboim "finishes" the piece in 1:41 minutes (some play it faster still, which would be too fast for my taste), and many other pianists are "in between", so it seems they in fact they are playing the music in the speed which they feel or consider to be the right tempo. - Which is good, so the "consumer" of music can pick the recording he/she prefers/sounds "right" for him/her - and I am sure in most cases this will not be the "light speed versions"! So again: Thank you for this and your other videos and your honest concern for this wonderful music!

[@AuthenticSound]

Thank you for watching and sharing your thoughts, Tom!

[@TheSummoner]

The double beat interpretation of the first movement of the Waldstein brings out a martial character from the piece that’s actually quite fitting and makes it reminiscent of (or prefiguring) many other pieces like the Funeral March from Sonata No.12, Mozart’s Rondo alla Turca (with Gould’s tempo), Beethoven’s Turkish March and the last “movement” of Schubert’s Wanderer (they are in the same key too). It’s also impressive how it suddenly makes the usual single beat interpretation sound childishly fast.

[@johnb6723]

And Franz Liszt is known to have made a comment to a student about trying to play the Waldstein Sonata too quick, namely "Do not chop beefsteaks for us". Most pianists these days do play it far too quick, making it sound very much like chopping beefsteaks.

[@nash984954]

To borrow from your description: "To be continued!" AND Nailed it with "It is too interesting not to continue." Applies to all the wonderful stuff in your videos.

[@jamesha175]

oh it's you again? nicely done there brother man. frankly, this is what youtube is for.

[@AuthenticSound]

Great!

[@JonatasAdoM]

If you think about it the whole notion we have about pre recorded music could be wrong. Tastes and practices change over time.

[@nevermindthebollocks1171]

I know very little about music theory but I find this strangely captivating.

[@macrubit]

It actually makes a lot of sense to take the two beats as one, since it is difficult to have mechanical chronometers make equal going and returning motions. However, different pairs of beats will likely be much more similar.

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks Guillermo! Double counts are used often. Count bounces of a ball, birds wings, even conductors count every two often not knowing they apply the same principle.

[@joshuarosen6242]

This is a good point. I have a long case clock dating back to 1730. It keeps excellent time (less than 30 seconds out in 8 days). Adjusting its overall timekeeping (i.e. the length of tick + tock) is easy. Getting the tick and the tock the same length is much more difficult. Although it sounds right to me, my son (who is a much better musician than I am) can easily tell that the tick and the tock aren't quite the same.

[@paulfreeman4900]

When agonizing over Beethoven's metronome markings I always keep in mind the second movement from the 9th Symphony. Can you really imagine it anything less than one beat per bar, dotted minim equals AT LEAST 120?

[@AuthenticSound]

O yes!

[@ofthetree]

Paul Freeman -yes. Always keep in mind the second of the ninth :) With this half speed Beethoven so much dynamism just disappears, to my feeling a great point with Beethoven, and thus perhaps why he seemed to care about the tempo in such a degree. But. I am no schooled musician, just an opinion.

[@sirsamfay99]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this but the early electric recording of Beethoven's symphony No 1 with the RPO conducted by Sir George Henschel is known to have owned a copy of this score that belonged to Moscheles with Beethoven's hand written metronome markings.

[@gabithemagyar]

Very interesting and thought provoking !!! Just curiosity : any idea why, if the metronome markings are meant to represent a complete back and forth movement of the pendulum (2 clicks), the metronome mechanism itself makes the clicking sound going both ways ? As the musician listens to the clicks to keep in tempo (as opposed to watching the pendulum) one would think that they would have constructed the metronomes in such a way as to click only once per complete back and forth cycle - similar to your ping pong demonstration at the start of the video where you hear one sound per up/down cycle. It seems counter-intuitive to construct a rhythm keeping device where the sound produced does not equate directly to the tempo markings/notations.

[@AuthenticSound]

Because it gives the 'parts of the intended time' -Maelzel 1817 or the "Takttheilen" - Weber 1814, which is extremely convenient. So if the "time" is half note = 80, the MM gives parts of the intended time = the 4th notes. It's simple!

[@STAND-ALONE]

I swear that classical music was the heavy-metal music of its day.

[@andriandm]

I agree. The courts dancing music of that age gives us a solid prove to this idea because it just impossible to dance with double accelerated tempo. I believe that later on when that music became a music of concerts, the meaning of the tempo mark was converted (at first by stepping away from original tempo and then by reading it with different meaning) in order to impress public with brilliant technique of performers. But it certainly not a legitimate case for earlier composers and musicians. I think this research is not about legalism, but rather about what the original idea was laid into the music of that particular era. But of course performers are free to present their own vision of it.

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, 100% agree with a performer's freedom, it should never be about dogmatism!

[@qwertyuiop-ke7fs]

One thing I've noticed is that the expression at faster speeds seems to combine musical content and textural content in a way that is much closer to actual speech. It is very likely these composers wrote and thought in ways that were closer to natural speech than "music". Today I feel like their music is slowed down and emphasizes the harmonic content of the work. Whereas when I can listen to a performer that recreates the music at a fast enough speed, I find that the harmonic/melodic/textural components are merged and unified. I get this sense in listening to Elgar conducting his own works, as well as Mravinsky conducting Shostakovich's works. both perform at a much higher speed than most contemporary interpretations, and both of them strike me more as language than music.

[@AuthenticSound]

At the end of course it comes down to personal preferences, which is the great thing about the time in which we live. However, if you would try to reconstruct what could have been an original tempo, based on the 1000's of MM (which all are in the same line and of which those people were very serious), you'll face enormous difficulties immediately, as shows in the Czerny opus 299. However, it's not because that aspect fascinates me, that it should determine anyone's personal taste!

[@andreasvandieaarde]

I almost spat out my water after replaying that op 299 no 1 excerpt 🤣

[@backtoschool1611]

Mr. Winters, How can we purchase L. G.'s book Takt und Pendel Schage?

[@lyletaylor3728]

This is very interesting. Normally things change gradually, bit by bit. A change from interpreting metronome markings in this way is a very drastic change - that is, the numbers now mean double what they meant 200 years ago. When did our interpretation of them change? How did we make such a drastic change to how we interpret them without a clearer trail of when and how this happened?

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks for watching Lyle. That needs to be researched much more, but the interest for MM declined a lot towards the middle of the 19th c. The metronome also had two functions that we can read about in some sources, that of speed indicator (metrical) or time-keeper (single beat). Surprsingly even Reger must have used double beat MM, there is in fact no doubt he did, we had two -to me- really interesting interviews with Marcel Punt : kzbin.info/aero/PLackZ_5a6IWU0SavYWvpaZydrCOwL5AkF . here's a video on the double use of the metronome : kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYiYq6l_pLCDp7M

[@lukatarielashvili8771]

Gould plays the courante you mentioned quite fast, almost as fast as the 'double speed' example, and it never occurred to me, that it should have been any slower...

[@KlausMiehling]

O.K., I will say something to Freillon-Poncein here, because his description "à 3 temps fort lents" for the Courante seems to be crucial here: This in fact seems to contradict the pendulum tempi of 80 - 100. But he is the only one giving such a slow description. Muffat, who studied with Lully, says, that the beat has to be given "sehr frisch" - "very lively"! So the pendulum/chronometric instructions are the only sure way to learn about the baroque dance tempi. Moreover, there are descriptions in timings, that are totally independent from the question how to interprete pendulum markings. Pajot says, that the half note in a Courante has the duration of 44 tierces, i.e. 1/60 parts of a second, resulting in MM 79. In the video is not mentioned that Gadient postulates a "Doppelsekunde" which is called "second(e)", but lasts in fact two seconds, to account for this! Accordingly, there should be also "Doppelminuten" and "Doppelsekunden" to explain durations that contradict his theory. Now judge whether this is still science - or religion!

[@alexanderrice1654]

That's important to point out, since Wim doesn't talk about it much in most of his newer videos. Actually, Wim and Lorenz Gadient both seem to believe in the existence of "metrical" minutes (or "Doppelminuten") and hours as well. In one video, Lorenz explains written durations that point to normal "single-beat" usage by saying that the durations given are given in "metrical" units (so the given durations are to be understood as twice as long). Wim has even argued in a comment that 19th-century concert durations (which would be in hours) clearly point to single-beat tempi are actually metrical durations. This "metrical" time is the silliest part of this double-beat hypothesis, in my opinion. Even supposing that metrical seconds were in use by authors like Mersenne in the 17th century or in the 18th century (which I very much doubt), does it follow that this usage would have continued as late as the 19th century? And since metrical seconds are supposedly used when discussing pendulums, why would someone use metrical units about concert durations, when there is no mention of pendulums? And why would 19th century musicians use metrical time units when discussing the metronome, when Maelzel himself clearly uses ordinary time units (e.g. he says in his Metronomic Tutor instructions that the metronome set to 50 ticks 50 times in one minute)? And why would there have been a need for anyone to introduce metrical time units in the first place. The hour (hora) goes back to Ancient Rome and, to my knowledge, was never used to mean two hours back then or through the Middle Ages. So why, once scientists in the modern era start experimenting with pendulums, do they all of a sudden need to introduce a totally new definition of the hour that is double the duration of the common hour, and never make any explicit mention of this new definition. And none of these authors ever clarify that they have re-defined the hour, minute and second. The only purported evidence is passages that seem, read one way, to say that a (roughly) 3-foot pendulum completes two full swings in a second (which, read that way, could imply that the seconds must be double, although we could just as equally argue that the seconds are normal and the feet are implicitly 1/4 the length). So rather than asking whether these passages can possibly be understood in a different sense, the immediate conclusion is that the author is re-defining the millennia-old definition of the hour, case closed. And somehow this usage endured all the way into the 19th century, even though we can find 17th and 18th-century sources about pendulums where 1 second is 1 ordinary second and no mention is made of any other definition of the second, and somehow this was so much the obvious, implicitly-understood way to use pendulum devices like Maelzel's metronome in the 19th century, that one one bothered to put this alternative usage of "seconds" etc. down in writing? History is strange sometimes, but when you look at the big picture, how plausible is this hypothesis really?

[@dr.strangelove5622]

This reminds me of one of the experiments I performed as per the manual in my high school physics lab. It was to measure the acceleration due to gravity using a pendulum. Initially I was along with my group confused; whether to take a left and right as an oscillation, or take a complete left and right as an oscillation. Our instructor said that we should take a complete swing back to initial point as an oscillation... because otherwise we were getting crazy numbers for g.

This illustrates the thing about musicians that has always infuriated me: Most musicians when they see a marking that doesn't make sense (tempo indications are great examples), they say: "Oh this clearly doesn't make sense, so I can ignore it and do whatever I want." Very few musicians say: "Hmmm... this doesn't make sense. I wonder what the composer meant by that. There must be some kind of very simple mistake behind this, a simple solution that makes everything reasonable". Yes, old composers, and especially music publishers, did make mistakes - they did not know mathematics, so their metronome markings might be twice as fast than what they had in mind. This is such a great and simple explanation that solves apparent absurdities in the score. But in order to even think about such an elegant solution, one must first abandon the mindset: "I know better than the composer!" On the other hand, there is the Toscanini - Furtwängler divide, in which I tend to be on Furtwängler's side. The metronome should only be used as tool for practising playing correct notes (and for the simple reason because it forces the student to think quickly, not allowing the time to ponder on mistakes). Music should never be performed as if there was a metronome beating in the background.

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks for your input, Kresimir, always nice to read! Of course, the metronome served as an indicator of the tempo, seldom as a practicing tool, although Mikuli clearly mentions this in his preface of the Chopin edition, that Chopin had it often ticking... there just is so much to be reflected on, and as you say, we must do it with our minds open, and at the end make our decisions !

[@lastflowers2401]

Almost all performed music on recording is against a metronome. Sometimes, like in much baroque music, militant punctuality is necessary for the work to shine the way the composer intended. The score is where the rhythmic flow is determined.

[@marinarabini363]

it really makes sense. The speed at which some pieces are often played ( wrongly ) makes it impossible to enjoy the music and i just can not believe people didn't get it yet.

[@skylightmusicshowree]

Fascinating! I would apply a more lateral approach to all of this. At some point a composer performs his or her work publicly and then sells that music. Today, that would be a recording and/or sheet music. Before audio recordings, there was only sheet music. Any pianist at that time who would have heard Beethoven play, say, his Piano Sonata No 14 in C# Minor Opus 27 No 2 (and bought the sheet music for it) would probably set about learning that piece at the tempo it was performed. This information would then have been passed down through the generations by others that had the same experience. Upon hearing someone playing the first movement at double the speed, they could say "No, that's not what Beethoven played when I heard him...you've misunderstood the metronome marking" and, probably adding "good luck with the 3rd movement playing it at that speed!". Today, we can rely on recordings to be accurate, but even then, performers will alter the tempo of some pieces (sometimes quite dramatically) to suit their own interpretation. As musicians, we should know when a piece is being played at its optimum tempo, because it feels right; The other markings (presto, lento, etc) should also be a clue to this. Just my opinion, of course, but unless someone discovers time travel, we will always be guessing, albeit in an educated way! Once again, a fascinating video. Thanks :-)

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts here! To add one element to it, there is guessing at many ends, but not on that many as people who would not accept a theory like this. For instance the fact that notation served a composer internationally to make his intentions crystal clear. It's striking to see MM independently given, as for instance by Czerny and Moscheles, on works by Mozart and Beethoven, that are perfect in line with each other. And overall, through whole Europe, the MM given in those days are remarkably close to each other. That should not surprise us, since the basics of our musical notation system is not that hard. It starts from the tempo ordinario which is about a second for the given time signature. We today often project our confusion to that generation

[@hakonsoreide]

Interesting. I didn't actually know this was an issue, but it makes perfect sense that people may originally have thought of the pendulum movement as a full wave, and not as a half wave as the modern metronomes do, and then it also makes sense to denote it as beats per half note, and later as quarter note for half metronome clicks.

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Hakon. There is much theory that backs this up as well. Lorenz spent the last week here, rewriting completely from scratch Mersenne. If you'd like to dive deeper into this, here's a playlist with interviews I did with Lorenz: kzbin.info/aero/PLackZ_5a6IWVP1Nb_Zxr-RfFHX62Nz9iQ

[@marshalcraft]

think you have to just go on a variety of songs in general of that time, and consider how they sound fast/slow and make a determination, based off the ear.

[@robfriedrich2822]

My piano teacher played something slow and then faster, but I liked the slower version more, more pleasure to listen.

[@jbertucci]

That's the essence of the issue: aesthetics. Beauty is timeless (the "right" tempo), human cockiness and arrogance too (see how fast I can play!). Technical proficiency is essential, but no need to bring it to the stage just to show off, at the expense of getting a beautiful performance.

[@johnb6723]

That even seems to apply to the relatively modern music of Henk Badings of Holland, formerly of Indonesia. For example, the Rondo Popolare in single beat sounds absolutely awful, even if played on a computer from mouse input midi which is supposed to be a perfect render. In double beat, it sounds much more appropriate and reminds of the soldiers marching on the Isle of Ambon at the time of composition - the 8th notes representing the marching steps of the soldiers.

[@mikec6733]

Harpsichord is like a piano run through a distortion pedal. Medieval Rock Stars.

[@MartinGaskellMusic]

I was told by a colleague recently that Sir Isaac Newton in his discussion of the pendulum in Principia (the famous book that lays the foundations of physics) referred to the period as what we would now call half the period. I appreciate you putting these video discussions on KZbin.

[@AuthenticSound]

Hi Martin, thank you for sharing this thought, I'll have to ask Lorenz. I'll do and try to come back to you)!

[@achenpigeon]

(I hope you don't mind repost of a comment above) Mersenne actually understood period as one swing forwards! See this video by Wim: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJrHemaFpdRri7s I did the math in the comments.

[@classicgameplay10]

His Marsenne explanation kinda makes me think that this is the reason why a second is called a "second". I mean, we dont call it a "first" for a reason.

[@RolandKarlBryce]

Once it’s published! the performer can play ‘a piacere’. The harmonic pulse is largely the indicator of tempo. Some of the playing here is daft. Use your ear, not maths.

[@AuthenticSound]

no problem with that, of course, though our ears developed, which is why the MM's are so useful if we really want to look back to Beethoven's time

[@aptlyasked8249]

I'm going to ask an obvious question. Excuse me if this has been answered before. Why are you trying to use a metronome to measure the tempo of a piece of music that predates the device? Some quick googling indicates that the disruptively ticking, clockwork monstrosity called a metronome was patented in 1815. Are the tempo measurements more realistic when set on a contemporary time measuring device to the music like Loulié's Chronométre? It has a much longer pendulum and hence likely a slower oscillation period. The values in the music may have originally been the pendulum length, not bpm. Another option is taking the measure as set on the evil wind-up device, but only counting a full cycle of the pendulum. It ticks twice per cycle. That would reduce issues from a metronome that isn't level. As the full cycle remains the same, but the individual beat intervals vary (level: 0.5 osc +0.5 osc =1 osc, tilted 0.6 osc + 0.4 osc = 1 osc). It's useful to introduce a swing to the beat though..

[@AuthenticSound]

That's a great thought. First, the metronome as I see it, and more importantly, the MM of that time, rank the highest of all historical sources we have. Closer than this to the playing of Beethoven et comp. we'll never get; And yet, they are neglected "en masse', even in the so-called hist. perf. practice. So the device may be used as an annoying time keeper (which is annoying), but as a speed indicator, those 1000's of MM give incredible detailed information. Beethovens metronome WAS ticking on his piano when he played the Hammerklavier. There are (as I believe) several reasons why musicians gave speed indications for older works. 1) educational purposes (it was a great way for students who did not have access to good lessons) and b) since from 1830-1840 a new way of playing, more mechanical, faster, technical, louder, also started to play those older works faster and faster. There was a lot of protest from the older generation, that withdraw from stage (Moscheles, Liszt, even Chopin). And to safeguard the tradition (that in fact is documented rather well), they gave MM as in their opinion those works should be played. Mystery however (but solved with the metrical background) is that the numbers they gave in many cases are unplayable fast... The pendulum notations are perfectly in line with the metronome indications, there is no real difference. As also the Czerny Bach numbers for the comparable movements are in line with Quantz, etc. In other words: it was not an individual system based on taste (that's how we operate today), but based on a -simple- understanding of notation, affect, ...

[@seongtaek84]

Fantastic research, thank you so much. I am following your videos and your channel is one of few that's very useful and actually important for the music industry. Thank you again and cheers!!

[@AuthenticSound]

Great to hear!

[@seongtaek84]

AuthenticSound : but temp is personal choice. One cannot force to play faster or slow. It’s really the interpretation. Your research proves that the original tempo were alot slower than what’s played now. But some of today’s pianists like Sokolov brings back alot slower tempo on alot of Chopin like check his Op.28 No.15 played over 7min whilist lots of other professional pianists play in about 4 min. Sokolov plays op.28 no.11 slower than usual tempo as well. And check this recording of Ballade gminor in about 8 min which is faster than today’s average 9-9:30 min played by Koczalski who was a pupil of Mikhuli. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4XMZ5Zsl82Xiqc

[@rubinsteinway]

It seems to me that Czerny's tempo for the C-major etude - 80 - would be correct for a dotted quarter, not a dotted half. Perhaps he was not calculating it correctly, if I may be so bold. If one uses his written indication (dotted half = 80) the result is downright frenetic and probably not playable by anyone.

[@AuthenticSound]

That is exactly what he meant, but it wasn't a mistake it is how the metronome was used: the ticks indicated the subdivision of the MM note value, similar to the way we in music school defined our first quarter notes (hand up + down for each one, counting one AND two AND), kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHbKfoOelNFkeKs

[@rezashia3135]

Waldstein played on the harpsichord! If they play Bach on modern pianos why not reverse the trend and play piano pieces on the harpsichord!

[@SCM]

HOW FAST DID MOZART AND BEETHOVEN REALLY PLAY (without the "ed" in the end)

[@activistarts7722]

he probably speaks more than languages than both of us combined. Can we say and the same sentence without a translator? prob not.

[@SCM]

I speak 4. English the 4th that I learned. He is probably Swiss, Austrian or German, all countries with a good english education. Making errors is totally ok, but in a title it's a bit ugly. Personally I would be very happy if people pointed out my grammar mistakes in titles. Or anything written by me. Feel free to go ahead with this one :)

[@dennisbudimovic6764]

thanks it burns in my eyes too XD

[@jbertucci]

"English is the fourth one I learned" sounds better ;)

[@SCM]

:) yes!

[@marcosPRATA918]

The contextual division of work offers a parameter of reasonability, especially when the composer writes excerpts in "fuses". So the minimums and quarter notes must be slower, so that divisions in "fuses" make some sense. (consider flaws in the translation.) (original) A divisão contextual do trabalho oferece um parâmetro de razoabilidade, especialmente quando o compositor escreve trechos em "fusas". Então as mínimas e semínimas devem ser mais lentos, para que divisões em fusas façam algum sentido.

[@questionsrealanswers860]

Since your name is Winter, it would be interesting if you make a video from Chopin's "winter wind" etude..

[@ryanpeplinski1884]

Very interesting. Thank you for making this video.

[@AuthenticSound]

Thank you for watching, Ryan!

[@steed3902]

i really enjoyed the way that you presented this video! I am a novice and i can understand! a little bit :-)

[@achenpigeon]

3:30 - "Germansprache" ;)

[@achenpigeon]

Perhaps you should make a video featuring a formal debate between Miehling and Gadient. It's interesting to be able to understand both arguments, and as an American, we do love our debates. :)

[@AuthenticSound]

I would love to have a discussion, but Miehling seems to be so biased against this. Gadient had a 25 year long converstation with him, many years of intense mails, and if one is not willing to open minded look at facts together, but of all things wants his own thesises to be taken as point of departure, all discussion lead to nothing. We will find our own way to positive make a step forward the coming year. Notation will be an important factor for me, always have been, which rarely is talked about !

[@KlausMiehling]

Here is a quote that I found too late to include it in my book: „en fait de Pendules, on compte pur une vibration une allée, c'est-à-dire, l'arc entier qu'ils décrivent en un sens, & pur une seconde vibration le retour, c'est-à-dire, l'arc égal décrit en sens contraire“ (Histoire de l'Acvadémie des Sciences, Année M.DCCXIII, Paris 1739, p. 73f) „in pendulums one movement is counted as one vibration, i.e. the whole bow they describe in one direction, and as a second vibration the movement back, i.e. the equal bow in the opposite direction“ The alleged interpretation of „vibration“ as a double movement is crucial and was the starting point for the tempo halving theory! Pajot, one of the most important sources of baroque tempo, was a member of the Académie and published in the same decade. Wim, if you are really "open", this will put an end to the discussion.

[@pianistadanielseixas]

Há uma gravação no KZbin do Requiem de Mozart com marcações de Metrônomo feitas pelo padre José Maurício (compositor brasileiro da época do primeiro reinado) seguindo as instruções de S. Neukomm (aluno de Haydn), vale a pena conferir.

[@hastetwo2836]

This is an issue not just for pianists, but other instruments, as well. For example, Arban's arrangement of Carnival of Venice for cornet recommends a dotted quarter = 84 bpm. Almost no trumpet players can do it at that tempo. Even the great Wynton Marsalis only played it at about 70 bpm, and he even dropped it to about 67 bpm for the final variation.

[@einarabelc5]

So, are you saying that There Yngwie Malmsteen is slow?

[@yukisohma19]

He definitely plays faster and slower than this anyways so no, Yngwie's range is farther than this reaches in either case

[@ThePbird1]

Life is short: play fast

[@yoshi_drinks_tea]

Life is short: Play slowly and enjoy the music more

[@DanRad44]

The proportion of speed/tempo in a live interpretation should be taken according to the environment acoustics. Thus a room full of echo would demand a slower interpretation, and a dry space would demand a faster performance, strictly subjectively.

[@enquiriesgraphology755]

Beautiful, clear spoken English: better than a lot of people here in the UK. Remarkable command of English. Highly enlightening information on tempi of the period! Thank you.

[@AuthenticSound]

Thank you so much!

[@joebloggs396]

It is possible to praise somebody without trashing others you know. I'd guess a Guardian self-hater.

[@Akheloios]

Very cool, you look at the very technical and fast guitar music of today, this pace is common.

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks for watching Paul

[@Johannes_Brahms65]

Anybody heard Glenn Gould play the last part of the mondschein sonata?

[@joncaju]

Did Mozart and Beethoven play ping-pong?

[@AuthenticSound]

Don't know, but my guess would be that if they did, they must have been amazing, seen their reflexes as keyboard players :) btw I like the game VERY much :)

[@Calamaistr]

all the time, also some badminton but only when it was warm weather cause its really an outdoor sport.

[@joetodaro4183]

Wolfie kept winning and finally Beethoven lunged at him in frustration.

[@19.sciencetechnology30]

joncaju IF MOZART DID PLAY PINGPONG, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE MADE A SHORTER TABLE, OR AN ADJUSTABLE ONE BECAUSE I THINK HE WAS SHORT LIKE MAYBE THE HEIGHT OF A REGULAR PING PONG TABLE. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO WATCH MOZART PLAY PINGPONG AGAINST BEETHOVEN!

[@davidleitman]

Mozart played billiards

[@mowadvlogs1649]

What song was he playing on the sheet music

[@gracekim6352]

Beethoven's Sonata no. 21 in C major :))) first movement.

[@Derryhillagh]

Love the fluency of these two talented people using two languages English and German they obviously understand each other perfectly.

[@AuthenticSound]

Thanks!

[@johanlindeberg7304]

If I remember correctly, András Schiff mentions that he has studied Beethovens metronome and found it to have the correct number of beats per minute. This was mentioned in his lectures at Wigmore hall. wigmore-hall.org.uk/podcasts/andras-schiff-beethoven-lecture-recitals I also remember reading about the old dance tempi, and that the courante could either be played fast, or slow, depending on if it was written in the french or the italian style. If this is true, I don't know. But I remember that I had trouble finding more information about these dance tempi, and that they were out of fashon, as dances for the nobility, already at J.S. Bachs time.

[@AuthenticSound]

Schiff is a really great musician, and I've heard him talk on the correctness of the MM (in single beat). However, he's not applying that in his recordings, as is most often the case with the matter, since those MM literally make no sense, but most probably it would be impossible for Schiff, seen his status and reputation, to try something that is somewhat less 'virtuosic', I don't know. At the end we all make our personal decisions, but the metronome numbers as facts are too often denied their value as greatest information we can possible get from that time... Here's playlist with interviews with Lorenz, also touching on the dances; kzbin.info/aero/PLackZ_5a6IWU1zXuo_Qx-YrCCtaJcBiPO

[@andreassitompul7217]

This is gold

[@Bova13]

Very interesting. Hope to find more about this in english. Im starting following your channel.

[@AuthenticSound]

Great to read, Vlad and welcome here. I've two playlists on the subject (apart from other videos more practically at the keyboard): kzbin.info/aero/PLackZ_5a6IWU1zXuo_Qx-YrCCtaJcBiPO and kzbin.info/aero/PLackZ_5a6IWVP1Nb_Zxr-RfFHX62Nz9iQ

[@gersonmelendez8940]

Imagine playing beer pong with mozart and beethoven. Fuck yeah

[@AuthenticSound]

Since we're in Belgium we'll never run out of beer :)

[@musicalcolin]

Ok I have an objection. I was explaining this theory to my brother today and in the process it occurred to me that the theory is committed to Beethoven using a half note as a half note in the score and using a half note to mean a quarter note in the tempo marking. Obviously it's possible, but isn't it really counter intuitive that he would use the same symbol to mean two different things?

[@StefanWyattMusic]

musicalcolin not really. The half note in the tempo indications just means that the piece should have a more 2/2 feel as opposed to 4/4

[@musicalcolin]

@@StefanWyattMusic So just to make sure I understand. Your theory is committed to the position that a tempo marking that says half note = 144 means that quarter notes should be played at 144. Correct?

[@StefanWyattMusic]

musicalcolin No. I'm not convinced by either. I have a HIP Research degree but I couldn't yet find a definite answer. I do find these videos interesting but halving times is too simple to be true. All I said is that composers use minims in tempo marking when the music is fairly fast and feels more in two than four. I didn't mean that minims become crotchets. Just that it's alla breve.

[@musicalcolin]

@@StefanWyattMusic Oops I thought you were the dude who made the video for some reason. My bad.

[@AuthenticSound]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHbKfoOelNFkeKs

[@erniegross4780]

I would like some additional ideas taken into consideration: 1.Could the instruments made during the time an early piece is written be capable of actually playing fast?, 2. Since most early musicians were amateurs, how likely is it they would have the skill to play that fast? and 3. Since many instruments were owned by someone else, would the early musicians have enough access to the instruments or have enough time to spend practicing in order to play fast enough? I'm also not so sure about the metronome's accuracy. Even when starting two digital metronomes at the same time, they don't stay in unison! Then there are the pieces in which the metronome's marking don't really match the descriptive word designation. Maelzel's metronomes, invented in Beethoven's time, were individually made by hand so how is it possible for them to be that consistent and accurate?

[@AuthenticSound]

Thank you for your comment. 1) period instruments are slower, not faster (no double escapement for instance) 2) you had very good musicians back then, but what is impossible today for sure was impossible back then - this is not about enough practicing time, it is about our nerve and muscular system not being designed to reach such speeds 3) metronomes were surprisingly accurate, we're not talking about 1-2% deviations that can happen, but that won't make any difference

[@esparzaguitarra3211]

Hi! Mr.Winters I have a question. with all this information about doble beat,how paganinni's caprice #5 (for example) has to be played (i mean in TEMPO)? is really faster? paganinni was real faster like the violinists of nowdays? they are just some doubts which I have, thank you Mr.Winters. also what is ALLEGRO tempo in those days (Beethoven,Paganinni,etc...) :)

[@AuthenticSound]

Hi Carlos, the tempo for common time is around quarter note 60 (you find that often in fact), allegro is a bit faster, I would say for that etude, in the agitato part, they probably did not play that above a tempo of quarter 100 or something, perhaps even somewhat slower, certainly if a non legato performance was meant.

[@classicgameplay10]

is the book avaidable in english yet ?

[@AuthenticSound]

this year in a completely new format

[@rlsms9499]

A version of the Waldstein that actually causes physical harm to the listener, no wonder Beethoven's neighbors hated him.

[@achenpigeon]

Came back to consider this. I'm totally ignorant when it comes to tempo issues, but just empirically speaking, with the musical examples provided, Gadient wins (I think someone made the argument on FB that the Courante can be played at that speed - on a harpsichord perhaps, but it seems like on Clavichord you'll have touch issues.) But then, Miehlming's Pajot quote and other (allegedly) counterarguments, and also the question of "when the transition was made," should be addressed. I'm quite excited at the prospect of reading the book, too, even if I'm not entirely convinced. By the way, this is one of your best-made videos, especially in terms of clarity!

[@AuthenticSound]

Thank you for the feedback ! Point is, with Miehling, that there are in fact no counterarguments in his book. He either leaves out (often without (...) ) essential parts of quotes, or leaves out "contraversial" sources, mistranslates Latin phrases, or just misinterpret terminology. Those tempi are not possible on any instrument, I have asked Miehling to play some parts, but of course, the question still stands... the clavichord is a very fast instrument because of the nature of its action (or lack of). Von Bulow once made the suggestion that probably the vienese actions allowed people to play faster (him apperently not understanding the MM any more?), but he never tried it of course, but his quote lives on till today. I have played on all, and the modern Steinway wins for playing in high tempi, since in order to play fast, one needs mass + speed, not only speed.

[@DME1945]

Beethoven, particularly, is often played too slowly and ponderously, but that seems to be the popular taste. Many people, for example, would not care as much for the first movement of Beethoven's "Moonlight" Sonata if it were performed as Beethoven wrote it. The movement is almost always played in common time, whereas the manuscript clearly shows that Beethoven wrote it in cut time, which is literally twice as fast. Discussions I have had with concert pianists reveal that they are certainly aware of the cut time designation, but they think it sounds better in common time. I have heard it a few times in cut time, and I must say I prefer Beethoven's aesthetic to that of our pianists today. It's a totally different work when properly played. And to my ears, a better piece as well.

[@AuthenticSound]

On the contrary I would say, Beethoven is today played at incredible high speeds and, compared to MM's of his own hand or others, we are far from every being able to reach those speeds if read the way we do today. So you might want to reconsider... cut time/common time, a basic mistake many make, there is basically no difference in the end tempo. be aware of ignorance of today, even among some 'musicologists', whether they have fancy doctoral titles or not.

[@slappy8941]

This was fun to watch!

[@srdahl]

Old tempi were set before we ran through a gigantic black hole. Where do you hang out in Germamy?

[@ephraimkaravan]

I don't play the piano, and neither do I know anything about music. I don't even know why I watched this video

[@AuthenticSound]

haha, one can never know too much, right?

[@petergreen3049]

Ephraim Karavan knob

[@MrJonahWhaler]

At least you know you watched it.

[@luigipati3815]

Gilani, and just as badly, you do not even know why you wrote your meaningless sentence.

[@cii1072]

I don't either.

[@achenpigeon]

Very interesting - thanks for the video! Do you think that this is a solution to the Beethoven's Metronome controversy?

[@AuthenticSound]

I don't have the solutions... struggling really with the slow movements, that I do play one tick, one count, but to the fast movements, it makes so much sense, really. Tying Bach to Beethoven... suddenly they use similar tempi...

[@fredericellis4540]

where can we find this book? It looks really interesting and well researched! thanks for the video!

[@AuthenticSound]

Hi Frederic, it was published at Katzbichler, don't know if it is still around. Lorenz and myself are working on a complete new edition that will involve much practical music examples as well. If you would like to dive deeper, here's a playlist with interviews I did with him later on : kzbin.info/aero/PLackZ_5a6IWU1zXuo_Qx-YrCCtaJcBiPO

[@RicardoMarlowFlamenco]

One detail sir…you said count the BOUNCE. There were 10 bounces and 11 caidas or “falls”. So the answer has to be 10 only. I guess that gets at the heart of the problem….should a metronome be a “beat” as in how you tap a foot, or should it be something else. Most pros want or practice to a slower click as possible so one learns to keep the time via subdivisions FEELING.