Ignaz Moscheles' doubts about Beethoven's metronome markings

When it comes to Beethoven's tempo indications, already his contemporaries had their doubts. Are these indications accurate? Let's listen to a friend of Beethoven and expert on his work: Ignaz Moscheles (1794-1870).
This is an excerpt from Bernhard Ruchti's introduction to Beethoven's Hammerklavier-Sonata op. 106.
Watch Bernhard's recording of the Hammerklavier Sonata: • Ludwig van Beethoven: ...
Watch the entire introduction: • THE A TEMPO PROJECT: B...
Deutsche Einführung in die Hammerklavier-Sonate: • Beethovens grosse Hamm...
The entire A TEMPO PROJECT: • First Things First: MU...
www.bernhardru...
VOL VIII: SCHUBERT A TEMPO: Piano Sonata in C minor D958.
• Franz Schubert: Piano ...
VOL VII: BEETHOVEN A TEMPO III: Three Piano Sonatas.
• Beethoven: Three Piano...
VOL VI: BEETHOVEN A TEMPO II: Hammerklavier-Sonata Opus 106. • Ludwig van Beethoven: ...
VOL V: LISZT A TEMPO II: • Franz Liszt: Années de...
VOL. IV: CHOPIN A TEMPO: • Chopin - Etudes Opus 10
VOL. III: SCHUMANN A TEMPO: • Bernhard Ruchti - Schu...
VOL. II: LISZT A TEMPO I: • Franz Liszt - The A Te...
VOL. I: BEETHOVEN A TEMPO I: • Beethoven A Tempo
www.bernhardru...

[@martinbennett2228]

The American pianist and composer William Mason recounts an episode in his autobiography 'A Musical Life' while he was studying with Liszt in the 1850s. "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." 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." Since "half note = 100 or thereabouts" is described as "correct" and Liszt 'played in the "correct tempo", we have good evidence for the tempo Liszt played the sonata.

[@minirausch]

Looking forward to watching your full introduction video soon. I think these questions of tempo and interpretation in 19th-century music are fascinating, though I remain largely unconvinced by the various arguments for slower tempi-but I must say, your musicianship in these excerpts and some of the others I’ve heard on your channel of Chopin et al. are as strong an argument as I’ve heard.

[@bernhardruchti]

I must say that I particularly enjoy that kind of comment. It shows that there is a way to think differently about certain aspects and still connect in the shared love for music. Thank you!

[@ddgyt50]

Again, thank you for such an in-depth discussion of this topic. Yes, this video and the longer one will be shared on FB and email. I think it has been pointed out before that the top of the weight set to 138 reads 116 at the bottom of the weight.

[@paulmorris1227]

A refreshing change compared to another channel dealing with tempo ‘research’ ! Clearly explained, &, more importantly, demonstrated showing objectively an interesting problem with regard to Beethoven,& others, use of the metronome. Deserves many more views for anyone interested in this topic.

[@bernhardruchti]

Thank you so much! Feel free to help spreading this video - I highly appreciate it!

[@petertyrrell3391]

The other channel you are probably referring to is extremely well based on research. Your view sounds more like a prejudice.

[@unequally-tempered]

The slow version sings. I'm sure that's right!

[@bernhardruchti]

I agree that the singing qualities come forward much more in a slower tempo.

[@Iain0408]

Thank you for your well-produced videos, very interesting. Where did you get the beautiful metronome?

[@bernhardruchti]

Thank you, I appreciate it! As for the metronome, I was able to purchase it a few years ago.

[@willemceuleers3789]

have you tried on a Viennese pianoforte like Beethoven would have known?

[@bernhardruchti]

Yes, sure. Why?

[@willemceuleers3789]

@@bernhardruchti because it makes a difference.

[@bernhardruchti]

@@willemceuleers3789 you mean it would even more sound like "too fearful a prestissimo" on a Viennese pianoforte? That could be true, yes.

[@petertyrrell3391]

A 4/4 time signature instead of an original Alla breve happens very often, for examples in editions by Czerny and Hummel. Rather than assuming these are misprints, surely it is better to accept that a real difference between these time signatures belongs to a later era, or where there is a real Alla breve texture..

[@jorislejeune]

Why would this belong to a later era? Czerny's pianoschool is very clear (p. 63): 'Das Zeichen des Ganzes Takts wird bisweilen mit einem Querstriche versehen. Dan heisst er Allabreve, und bedeutet, das mann das ganze Tonstück noch einmal zo schnell spielen soll als sonnst beim gewönlichen ganzen Takte geschehen müsste.' Also in the discussion of Beethovens works, his insisting on playing the cut time movements fast enough (in a completely different tempo category) is so obsessive that it becomes almost funny. And he makes no distinction between pieces with different textures or characters (for exemple in op. 30 nr. 2 he insists on the high speed and the allabreve in both the second and the fourth movement...). So for Czerny, cut times means a lot faster than common time.

[@petertyrrell3391]

@@jorislejeune There is an intermediate type of speed between the pure Alla breve and the tempo ordinario 4/4, with semiquavers. Hotteterre says it can be beaten in 4 or 2. Heinichen says much the same, and talks about a piece "wearing the clothes of an Alla breve", a pseudo Alla breve. In practice, Czerny in his editions or writing changes Alla breve into 4/4 in several cases, which could reflect real performance practice. Hummel's piano arrangement of the 1st movement of Mozart's 40th is in 4/4, which might well reflect how it actually sounded in contemporary performances.

[@jorislejeune]

Hotteterre and Beethoven? Heinichen? I repeat: Czerny did not make this distinction, for him Allabreve was twice as fast, pure and simple. Also for Koch (Lexikon). '... zwei halbe Taktnoten die aber eben so geschwinde vorgetragen werden als wenn es zwei Viertel wären.' And Hummel just describes it a bar in two, not four. No ambiguity here either. The rest is speculation and wishful thinking.

[@petertyrrell3391]

@@jorislejeune Your position is much too rigid and limited. You need to look at the actual music more closely and see if it is really has an Alla breve texture or is just in fact a fast 4/4. You haven't dealt with the point that Czerny quotes several of Beethoven's movements in 4/4 which the master wrote in barred C. Look at Hummel's piano arrangement of the 1st movement of Mozart's G minor, 4/4 not barred C. Perhaps Hummel had heard the work played several times and was reflecting contemporary practice?

[@minirausch]

@@minkyukim0204 Czerny also changed some Bach from barred C to 4/4, including fugues (C# minor and Bb minor from WTC I) which are so clearly alla breve, it baffles the mind that one would contrive to think otherwise. If anything, the relative interchangeability of the two time signatures means only that, given the difference in subdivisions, the proper execution would have been obvious. However, it’s nonsense to suggest without any reasonably relevant proof that Beethoven would have any awareness of, let alone use, the “mesure à quatre temps vite” which is one of a certain KZbinr’s favorite subjects…

[@janvermeer3931]

Beethoven was a visionary. Why not take him seriously. If you can't play it anywhere near this tempo, then you shouldn't.

[@bernhardruchti]

Thank you for your comment. I am not quite sure what your point is? Are you saying that Ignaz Moscheles shouldn't have played Beethoven's music?

[@rigel48]

Apparently Moscheles did use the metronome in single beat and not in double beat. Isn't this enough to definitively discredit the double beat theory?

[@petertyrrell3391]

What is your evidence for saying M used the metronome in SB? So he could play 15 -25 notes per second, which is the result of doing the maths for SB?

[@minirausch]

@@petertyrrell3391 I think the commenter’s point is that it strains credulity to think that Moscheles would have regarded the tempo, read at half speed, “so fearful a prestissimo.” Even harder to imagine that he would suggest 1/4 speed as a possibility (i.e., quaver = 138), or that he could have been confused about the metronome reading. It certainly would have been an excellent opportunity to explain ambiguities in metronome readings… Likewise the comments and complaints on this tempo from Czerny, Bülow, and many other 19th-century sources.

[@petertyrrell3391]

@@minirausch From timings from a pocket watch, Carr gave prestissimo 1/4 =120 and Tuerk gives 1/4 =120 as allegro assai. It is not straining incredulity to say 1/4 = 138 is a prestissimo. If you can only play the Hammerklavier 1st. movement with signs of great stress and difficulty, then it ceases to be an allegro movement in the terms of the early 19th C. The problem for Czerny, I gather, was not the speed but awkward hand positions, but I am not sure which movement he was referring to. The problem for SB is always playability - the maths tells you that you have to play at 15 -25 notes per second in fast passages and the speed at which repeated notes can be played regularly exceeds the maximum. Czerny's waltz tempo equates to 4.4 steps per second.

[@minirausch]

@@petertyrrell3391 Everything in your comment is either irrelevant or incorrect. Even if you could demonstrate that an instruction book for amateur pianists published in the USA has any relevance to Beethoven and Moscheles… Carr’s 120 was almost certainly referring to music with 16th-note subdivisions. If playing the Hammerklavier only with “great stress and difficulty” means it is no longer an allegro (citation needed), perhaps you are then in agreement with Moscheles, who called it a prestissimo! And need I remind you, every European treatise defines “prestissimo” with some variation of “as fast as you can.” It is a reasonable conclusion that Moscheles considered minim = 138, despite the marking of Allegro, to be “as fast as you can”-or faster even. So if Moscheles is to remain a double-beat practitioner, we must assume that either he misunderstood the meaning of the metronome mark (nearly impossible to fathom), or he, like presumably all the great virtuosi of Vienna and Paris, was so feeble a pianist that the Hammerklavier at half speed seemed to him unrealistic. This is where a more thorough musical background would be beneficial; perhaps you can imagine the poor pianists of the 19th century struggling with Chopin etudes, the Hammerklavier, Schumann, Liszt, Erlkönig, etc., at half speed. But for pianists who have studied much of this music, it simply doesn’t make sense. You cannot stake your claims solely on playability; when every metronome instruction we have supports a conventional reading, and not a single source has come to light on two separate ways to read the metronome, there have to be other explanations for “impossible” tempi. I digress from the topic of Moscheles here, but let me offer a couple. These “impossible” speeds are almost exclusively limited to the highly trivial music of the competitive virtuoso scene of the 1830s. In a world where the average music lover could not necessarily take a stage coach to Paris to hear Henri Herz, how remarkable would it be to pick up one of his scores at a shop, play the notes at home, and imagine his playing at the dazzling speeds marked? This was an arms race, where there were regularly live competitions between rival pianists, and the critics went on and on about who was the greatest. In the _very limited_ cases where composers who have entered the musical canon (the ones who transcended the vogue for speed) wrote music at such speeds, they are almost always brief moments or cadenzas explicable by the use of tempo flexibility (which, according to Czerny and others, was quite extensive at the time, vestiges of which you can hear in historical recordings). I find it much easier to find fault with Czerny and a few others for excessive tempo marks than to assume that an entire generation of musicians simply forgot-or conspired to hide-how their teachers used the metronome.

[@minirausch]

@@petertyrrell3391 By the way-from timings from a pocket watch (not a pendulum), Thomas Young wrote that in modern music (i.e., almost 20 years before the Hammerklavier) an allegro without semiquavers was often performed as fast as minim = 120.