One of the Most MYSTERIOUS Metronome Marks Explained - The Moscheles q=138 for the Hammerklavier

One of the most intruiging metronome marks ever certainly is the quarter = 138 Ignaz Moscheles gave for Beethoven's first movement of his Sonata Opus 106, the so-called Hammerklavier Sonata. Beethoven gives half = 138 so double that tempo of Moscheles. Why did Moscheles who, after all knew Beethoven personally and was and is seen as an authority of Beethoven's music, change the Tempo Indication as given by Beethoven?
Let's find out!
We'll have a look as well on the proposed solution by Johann Sonleitner in the preface of the Wiener Urtext edition of the Opus 106.
--
Start your tempo journey here: • How Fast did Beethoven...
--
🙋Join our awesome patreon community here ▶ / authenticsound
--
💿 Buy Pachelbel's Hexachordum Apollinis on Vinyl, CD or Flac) here: bit.ly/Pachelbel_Hexachordum
--
📩One weekly mail in your mailbox? 👉bit.ly/as-mailinglist
--
👩‍🎓 Check out my course on Keyboard Technique: 👉bit.ly/Keyb-Tech
--
📱 Website: ▶www.authenticsound.org

[@musicalintentions]

Thank you for carefully presenting your case. It's so important for all of us to think carefully about our tempo choices.

[@gerardocardenas6591]

It´s so interesting for me to hear who Beethoven´s spirit remains in spite of such changes of tempi. Thx, Win for transmit us your tireless musical curiosity and fresh erudition.

[@jakegearhart]

In order to solve this tempo thing, shouldn't we be looking towards pieces that we know were considered nearly unplayable in the days they were composed? Like Paganini's caprices for example. At half their tempo, they wouldn't be considered impossible by any means.

[@sebastian-benedictflore]

When did Paganini write metronome markings?

[@jakegearhart]

@@sebastian-benedictflore He did not write them directly, but publishers did.

[@sebastian-benedictflore]

@@geiryvindeskeland7208 err, no, he is qualified enough because some stuff is just straight up unplayable with single beat metronome practice. See Czerny's school of velocity or Isidor Philipp's left hand exercises and etudes. Both expressed that they were playable at the metronome Mark's and expected their students to do so. These exercises require the pianist to reach speeds of up to 23 notes per second, among other ridiculous feats, in single beat. It is, factually, impossible. No human can or has ever been able to do so. Yes, hammerklavier, the Chopin etudes, one or two or even more etudes from Czerny's Op.299 might only just be playable by the most gifted pianists but is any of it musical at those speeds, and does that really account for the mountain of unplayable music? The solution is simple.

[@sebastian-benedictflore]

Wim has made videos on a wide range of cases now. Dig deep and you'll probably find whatever you're looking for. I don't know if that was the case two years ago though.

[@GianfrancoCavallaro]

I follow your videos with interest. In this last video I don't understand the difference between 138 half and 138 quarter ... shouldn't it be exactly half or twice the speed? But in your interpretations it is not so! This disorients my understanding. Can you explain me? Thank you for dedicating yourself to such a delicate subject.

[@renatoviniciusdinizdecarva7110]

I agree - he played the SAME way!!!

[@he1ar1]

The slowest version lasts 1 minute 30. The fastest version just under1 minute. it is not exactly twice as fast because of the 2 ritardando. With the faster tempo you can slow down more without the music grinding to a halt. The slowest tempo is slow enough already.

[@NovicebutPassionate]

Great video, thank you! The "mystery" deepens when considering that this was "... Beethoven's only metronome markings in any of his piano works - that is, those in each movement of his 'Hammerklavier' Sonata." Beethoven On Beethoven, Playing His Piano Music His Way, by William S. Newman, 1988, p. 25. Also, while we're on this topic: "Deciding how literal we want to be, depends on two closely related considerations. One of them is the viability of a performance solution. Is it practical? Is it effective? Most important, is it convincing as musical art? Beethoven treated his music as an art far more than as a science. But he was a practical artist, not a visionary. We can assume, then, that however the performer resolves a performance question, the resolution has to make musical sense to that performer. In other words, before a valid performance can occur there must be not only an ability to carry it out, but a sympathetic insight into the music itself. To state the point more emphatically, while the performance needs to occur in full cognizance of Beethoven's intentions, it can be a valid performance only to the extent that those intentions can be realized musically." same source, p. 29.

[@antoniavignera2339]

Ascoltando la dettagliata spiegazione ho rivisto l’edizione tecnico-interpretativa di Artur Shinabel che mette scrupolosamente .”The metronome mark at the beginning of each of the four movements and the introduction to the Finale are by Beethoven.” Complimenti per la sua dedizione a questa bellissima arte.

[@dpbmss]

This is the first one of your programs that I have listened to. I was just curious to see what you were getting at. I don't know how much Beethoven could hear at this point. I have to presume, since I can do it too to some extent, that he was hearing more in his head at this time. The instrument you played it on would certainly be of a kind familiar to the players and audiences of his time. But what I take from this are the differences in resonance and decay of the faster to the slower, these resonances actually tie the music together and I have little doubt that Beethoven was actually anticipating the modern piano, the piano since 1853 anyway. In some other program on Beethoven's Eroica, the point was made that certain phrases were begun in one instrument and concluded by another, with the preferences given to where each instrument could play it better. Beethoven was counting on the ears of his listeners to get the continuance of phrase without being particularly aware of how it was done or which instruments were playing it. I sense Beethoven's awareness of the possibilities of a piano with far more sustain and slower decay plus greater power afforded by the crowned soundboard of modern pianos. Anyway, I like the gravitas of slow, especially for practicing this piece. Too fast and you miss most of the grandeur. Thanks and best

[@petertyrrell3391]

Or Beethoven was thinking orchestrally.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

This is a good laying out of the problem, I can't say I've decided which is most convincing, I'd have to really think about it. I am tempted to keep answering the PP clique, now that they're back in force. But I don't think that's what Mr. Winters wants. I'll go back to ignoring their presence and concentrate on the constructive disagreements and other content in the comments.

[@klop4228]

The fast one feels like most people's performances, tbh. About Barenboim's tempo, I believe, though he speeds up every now and then.

[@jpdj2715]

IIRC, the metronome was introduced around 1815. Precise clocks with gravity or acceleration fluctuation compensation are still in development in the sense that almost nobody has one or can afford one. In those days, a couple people may have had a Breguet watch that might be precise enough to be considered chronograph. Or, even if we know the correct number and can be sure about which note the number informs, then still the question is how this relates to absolute time. So my question is then, relative to what had Van Beethoven's metronome been time-tuned? It seems his metronome is still "with us" but the weight [his weight] that was on the tic-toc-stick is missing and its weight would determine its speed.

[@gabithemagyar]

Interesting to hear the 3 different tempi side by side - it reminds me Goldilocks and the three bears (porridge too hot … too cold … just right) :-) For completeness, I would have been curious to hear the tempi in single beat interpretation too for comparison to see how they fit with Moscheles' comments. Or … at least the half note = 116 version for reference.

[@johnericsson5286]

4:31 Reminds me of another theory...

[@adamabele785]

The fast version sounds very natural to me. The middle Version sounds not as impressive, not bad, but not something extraordinary. Beethoven somehow sought for the extremes in music. The slow version has some weird "gaps" that can not hold the tension long enough, so it shatters the piece sometimes. The hammerklavier is made for lots of small and fast notes, not for keeping impressive long and heavy notes. It has rather some qualities of the harpsichord.

[@chopincookies]

on the frontmatters of my Wiener urtext of the Hammerklavier; Herr Johann Sonnleitner also writes a note ‘zu Beethovens Tempi und Metronomzahlen’.

[@thomashughes4859]

I really cannae wait for you to play this piece on the Fritz!!! O plEEEEEEEAse hurrry and record it!!!

[@bobbyatopk]

I was wondering how this approach handles triple meters. If you look at the D major No.3 invention in Czernys edition, reading it the way you suggest would give a 2/3 polyrhythm with the metronome? Having said that, the other way or understanding would suggest you play 8 notes per second, and double that for the trills?

[@AuthenticSound]

That's called the tactus inaequalis: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mmWulmikq8unkMk and kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHnUYX6grMunnrc

[@bobbyatopk]

@@AuthenticSound thank you! I will check this out now.

[@elitefitrea]

I like the fast one best, followed by the slow one. The middle one is too nice.

[@genustinca5565]

I like the approach to your videos, but could you also cover other topics besides tempi? I mean, how long do you have to drag on about this one single topic? So many other interesting themes to delve into historically when it comes to classical music.

[@AuthenticSound]

I definitely will, but keep in mind this channel is basically a one man show. The support through Patreon allows me to spend the time I do in making these videos but even at the level we are now, this channel easily could take up 2 to 3 days of my time, the practicing for music videos (of course) not in calculated. These tempo videos are important, whoever is interested or convinced will find elements that are usable in his own practice or conversations. But they serve as ambassadors for the our tempo cause as well, since youtube sends new viewers all the time and they will go through these videos and learn for the first time about this fascinating topic. But expanding to a level of explicit application of music based on this tempo stance is absolutely where we are going. Building the platform right now. You'll soon see changes you want!

[@genustinca5565]

@@AuthenticSound Thank you! I look forward to that!

[@ppmartorella1]

Hi, Wim, I believe it should be the quarter note at c.138. no metronome marking could ever be exact because fluctuations are inevitable in interpretations. Interestingly, listen to the orchestration by Felix Weingartner of Beethoven’s Hammerklavier, Op. 106. (Some idiot put the first page of the manuscript of Op. 109 instead of the first manuscript page of Beethoven’s Hammerklavier on KZbin with this recording of Weingartner’s orchestration of the Hammerklavier). Anyway, this recording of Weingartner’s arrangement of Beethoven’s hammerklavier circumnavigates the half note at 92 interestingly. I know Beethoven would have created a different arrangement with a different orchestration which I believe would actually be better than Weingartner’s arrangement but that’s my opinion based on the other symphonies that were exquisitely composed with wonderful orchestrations by Beethoven himself. But the Weingartner orchestration at least could reveal what was possible on those instruments on a technical level and could almost be represented by the piano score as if the notes were played by different instruments and, therefore, The mastery of the execution of the notes should be approximated in whatever instruments that would play the notes in a “playable” tempo with respect to other facets of interpretation. Half note at 138 Is entirely too fast and it would make the performance unmusical for one to maintain that tempo throughout the first movement.

[@robertfielder115]

I would like to hear your reading of Cramer Etudes 1-21 metromically.

[@pseudotonal]

I never notice the tempo markings. The notes themselves and the character of the piece tell me the tempo. There is usually one best interpretation that is obvious to someone who understands the music. When I hear someone play a piece slow or fast I can tell that he doesn't understand the music. Maybe he likes the music but he doesn't really feel it deeply enough to be performing it. He doesn't grasp the significance of that twist of harmony or that special rise or fall of the melody or that mini-climax.

[@petertyrrell3391]

Can this movement really be considered an Alla Breve piece? Even in the section from bar 4 onwards there is mostly one harmonic change for each quarter note and elsewhere quarter notes are often articulated.

[@jpiccone1]

I've never played this sonata and have no strong feelings about it, but it seems totally evident to me that the fast version is correct. There are always things that sound intriguing when you play it in a different tempo, but that doesn't mean it's meant to be that way. I've noticed that the fashion lately seems to go with the faster tempo - I've never really liked this sonata, but I just listened to a few versions of it and it's exciting at the "right" tempo - maybe in the past I found it dull.

[@miyamotom24]

I have found and interesting remark in Hans von Bülow's (1830-1894) edition of this sonata that seems to disprove your theory : "With the metronomisation, in so far as it principally affects the character of the principal motive, the Editor finds himself considerably at variance with the statement of Carl Czerny(Art of Delirery, Part IV of the Pianoforte - school, Op.500), who, in his quality of first and comtemporaneous interpreter of the later pianoforte works of Beethoven deserves to be consulted authority; of course, not altogether an infallible one. Czerny's tempo that so little agrees with the ponderous energy of the theme, and seems to be taken too quickly even for the sections of his movement which admit of a greater acceleration, perhaps finds the lack of sonority of the Viennese pianofortes of the time a kind of justification. On a modern concert-grand of the first quality (and such a one, in a certain sense a substitute for the orchestra, is required for the due rendering of this Sonata) Czerny's tempo would have a bewildering and blurring effect." Bülow studied under Liszt and so I believe his remarks to be authentic.

[@samgingher]

Hi Richter, did you consider that Bülow might have been thinking in single-beat, where as Czerny was thinking in whole-beat? Perhaps Bülow did not understand that Czerny's marking were indicating the whole-beat method of counting? Yes, Bülow studied with Liszt, but Liszt studied with Czerny (and thought very highly of his teacher)... and, Czerny studied with (and was a close friend of) Beethoven himself... so, I think I have to trust Czerny on this one :)

[@rubinsteinway]

At this website kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5zXc6uhqa1jaqM there is another discussion of the metronome controversy re Beethoven's "Moonlight." It relates to surmising a good tempo by using orchestral allegretto examples where B gave us metronome markings. Would love to know your thoughts on this.

[@jpdj2715]

From 50 @ 1/4 to 108 @ 1/8 is not doubling the speed, right? Because that is how you make it sound. I would equate 50 @ 1/4 as equal to 100 @ 1/8, so that 108 is 8% faster. It just means - I probably picked that up in this channel - that we have more precise division of the time and a better reference for the duration of the notes we have to play.

[@dantrizz]

I must say listening to the slowest version (1/4 note 138) it didn't sound like bad music at all, as I quite liked it in some sense. But I'm happy to admit that it wasn't necessarily the 'correct' pace for the music (in some sense)

[@kefka34]

As a comparision Liszt gave in his edition for the finale of Schubert´s G-major Sonata/Fantasy:1/4=160 (correction 168).Which is an alla-breve like the first movement of the Hammerklavier but marked "Allegretto".

[@kefka34]

@@invernobastardo2599 You are right it is 1/4=168.I will correct it.I searched the IMSLP page of Liszt under "as editor" and this Schubert sonata appears,There are also some corrective suggestions he make for the score.

[@kefka34]

@@invernobastardo2599 Most fascinating is that ,as Brendel mentioned,LIszt´s additions to the Wanderer Fantasy make the work easier(!) to play.

[@petertyrrell3391]

Why do you say that this allegretto is an alla breve? It could also be argued that the 1st movement of the Hammerklavier is not really an alla breve piece either.

[@kefka34]

@@petertyrrell3391 It is in cut time and the smallest note value is an 1/8-note.

[@petertyrrell3391]

@@kefka34 Yes, you are right there, but in many places 1/4 are very obvious, and the texture is not a typical alla breve texture (cf Bach's "dorian " fugue).

[@Rudel23]

Interesting video as well as all your videos, thank you. But it seems to me that you never tried the half (white) note =138. what I heard is eight note (quaver) = 138 (the slower version , turtle effect...)) and than quarter note =138 (what you call the fastest), and then you play quarter note =116, not half note =116...but never the real half =138...

[@klop4228]

Are you aware of the whole/double beat theory he's been explaining?

[@Rudel23]

@@klop4228 I thought to be aware, but it seems that I didn't get it properly :) But playing the EIGHTH note (turtle tempo) at =138 seemed to me that we could speak not about whole or double, but TRIPLE beat....

[@AuthenticSound]

Here"s an intro video in case that's needed: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHbKfoOelNFkeKs

[@matswessling6600]

I'm starting to think that wim has some sort of rythm disorder... How cannot you hear the extactic dancing rythm when played at 138?

[@reflechant]

This video actually contradicts whole-beat theory. (P.S. I should better say it contradicts Beethoven metronome marks theory, because whole beat is far beyond Beethoven) You showed that 1) Beethoven missed in his metronome indications and didn't express his intensions well (according to Moscheles) 2) Moscheles (and perhaps RIes) was in such awe of Beethoven they didn't change his metronome marks (Beethoven dixit it's 138 so be it) (maybe they didn't do it being afraid of public reaction which was idolizing Beethoven as well) 3) Recommended tempo (by Moscheles) is in this very "no man's land" you criticized Pollini and Lisitza for playing in. Maybe we should better forget Beethoven metronone marks and focus on notation and other reasons to choose tempo? I don't know. The arguments in this video are clear. As clear as Franz Liszt letter from previous video (he obviously played Hammerklavier in whole-beat).

[@AuthenticSound]

I don't see the point why it would contradict the WB practice, Roman, you'll see in next week's video that the tempo by Beethoven is lowered by some others too because of the similar reason Moscheles gave: the half=138 is taking the piece outside the character of the movement. None of them talked about the piece being too difficult to play, let alone unplayable. The latter reason will be given today as the reason to slow down from Beethoven's138. So to turn the perspective on your conclusion: if Pollini would play 116 half and claims the Moscheles MM to be single beat as well, he should be able to play the piece in 138 as well. Moscheles indeed respected the Beethoven choice too much to alter the 138 in his edition.

[@reflechant]

@@AuthenticSound I should have better said this video undermines whole beat theory application to Beethoven

[@jonasnitz7678]

When you play Half=138 it's actually Q=138 in today's standard. And this is the one to play as it says allegro. Half =116 means Q=226, that is extreme presto prestissimo.

[@stefanstern7851]

I‘m not sure, the fast version is just fine

[@STEPHANM0ELLER]

This is "fake news": According to my metronome, in your first example ("Q=138") the quarter is actually fluctuating between 80 and 108. The second ("Half=138") is a little faster and fluctuates a little less: Q=126-144. The 3rd ("Half=116"): Q=112-126. NONE of them ever takes the half note serious, as Beethoven intended. All three are played in a very nice practice tempo, but certainly not Beethoven's idea for performance. Just the very fact that he first added an "assai" to the Allegro means that it should be played fast! In each of these three interpretations playing the entire sonata would take far more than one hour! And please think of the consequences for other sonatas, where Beethoven wrote fast first movements in cut time: Opus 2/1, 10/3, 13, 14, 31/2, 49/2, 81a. Let alone Symphonies No. 1 and 4. Try to apply your "theory" on all those pieces, and you will hear how unrealistic, not to say absurd, it is!

[@AuthenticSound]

Thank you for your time sharing your thoughts, Mr. Moeller, it is much appreciated! If you feel my tempi weren't accurate enough, I'd suggest try them out for yourself, it would be very interesting to see (hear?) your honest thoughts. Fake news? Hmm, I understand your reaction but it hardly counts as an argument. The cut time vs common time is something many musicians seem to have trouble with. I suggest if you're interested in learning more on the subject for instance R.M.Grant "Beating Time & Measuring Music in the early modern era" (Oxford University Press 2014), he basically confirms what I shared in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZealpKEopx4qK8. Concerning the first symphony, I just finished recording that and I wouldn't say it is totally absurd (but I understand your -kind of - emotional reaction, don't get me wrong): kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZLHgJ6GrN6qY8k. Lastly, I only can suggest you sit down at the piano and try things out for yourself. It's not about right or wrong here, it is about finding a possible historical truth. I would recommend taking Czerny's opus 299 and his Daily Excercises and try the MM's out. And yes, they are supposed to be played accurately, the prefaces of both etudes leaves no room for interpretation. It's further up to all of us (and to you) to decide what we tell ourselves to be true or not or to what standard of argument we can live with. Respectfully, w.

[@AuthenticSound]

Dear John, if you really knew what the daily exercises are about jn terms of speed you probably wouldn't't have written your comment. Even the most convinced single beaters, as for instance Dr. Marten Noorduin will admit they are impossible beyond imagination. And not even the most extreme examples. So I may very well suggest to Herr Moeller to try them since, as with almost all musicians, these MM's are not tried.

[@steinwey]

@AuthenticSound Why don't you explain the fact that you claim to have played H138 but didn't actually do so?

[@edMusic-ve7wn]

Of the three tempi, I preferred #3: H=116. The slowest tempo allowed me to appreciate every aspect of the music; it was not unenjoyable or a "sour" apple, so-to-speak, to me. The fastest of the tempi was not shocking or unenjoyable either, but I preferred the middle tempo, as it moved more than the slow tempo, yet still allowed the enjoyment of all aspects of the music, right and left hand alike. I recently listened to Lisitsa's performance and the extreme speed she played at made the music sound frantic and blurred the appreciation of interplay between the melody and harmony of the right and left hand. I found it to be disturbing and unenjoyable, and I did not listen to more than a couple of minutes of the performance.

[@tytuswoyciechowski7317]

Interesting, frantic and blurred is almost exactly how Bülow described Beethoven’s tempo marking, in his edition of 1871…

[@alfredoaffini9495]

Hi Wim. According to double beat theory, how should be interpreted a metronom indication in a ternary tempo, e. g. dotted crotchet = 138? Does it mean 138 quavers per minute, that is 46 dotted crotchets per minute? Thank you

[@AuthenticSound]

Tactus inaequalis, I will make a video about it, you'll find some videos on the channel (long ago)

[@zfm1097]

In this case, I don't find the minim=138 too fast.

[@htgazurex1212]

The "fastest" version seem to be still slower than the expected half = 138🤔

[@EPICSOUNDTRAX]

Dear Mister Wim I just found out about this article -very interesting Der Organist und Musiktheoretiker Willem Retze Talsma www.quart.at/bibliothek/alle_ausgaben/nr_8_06/doppelt_so_schnell_halb_so_gut

[@wetplutonium9787]

im just wondering that maybe he was in the mood for a sour apple...its for hammerklavier not piano..

[@ComeLeVent]

Beethoven's half = 138 is clearly the correct speed

[@AuthenticSound]

than...play it!

[@richardfinn5354]

dude Beethoven just didnt fill out the quarter note in his letter to make it black.....because it's obvious you mean quarter note

[@r.i.p.volodya]

I enjoy your videos and this tempo-debate is vital to realizing the composer's intentions - BUT - I'm disappointed you didn't demonstrate minim = 138. Just because YOU can't play it that fast does not NOT mean Beethoven didn't want it that fast. There ARE pianists that grasp the nettle with this: Schnabel, Schiff, Peter Serkin, Perahia. It's BLOODY hard but it looks like that's what Ludwig wanted. As he said himself: "this sonata will still be challenging pianists 50 years hence!". Liszt toured Europe with this piece and blew everyone away with his performance - want to bet on the tempo he took? 😉

[@AuthenticSound]

take your metronome and check before you make such claims! Schiff, to name just one, is 25% below the 138. And in case of Liszt, we know what tempo he took, he describes the op 138 as to last about 1 hour. ALl videos on the channel. Do some homework and be critical to what everyone else writes or claims

[@Graph1159]

If the opening movement of the Hammerklavier was meant to be that hard to play, why was it marked Allegro instead of Prestissimo? Also, as mentioned in the video, Beethoven originally wrote “allegro assai” but later crossed out “assai.” I don’t think this was meant to be played as fast as is humanly possible.

[@r.i.p.volodya]

Interesting that you pay such close attention to his "allegro" but ignore his metronome marking...

[@r.i.p.volodya]

No metronome marking is supposed to be a DICTAT! Schiff and Schnabel etc approach the SPIRIT of Beethoven's writing in a way that other pianists do not even try!

[@Graph1159]

⁠@@r.i.p.volodya I do not believe that metronome marks are “dictats.” Although I think Beethoven probably used his metronome in “whole beat,” 138 in whole beat is too slow. So naturally, proficient pianists who grasp the spirit of the piece will play it faster, and Beethoven would approve. But the pianists who play it at the upper limit of what is humanly possible are not grasping the spirit of the piece. Beethoven was concerned people would play it too fast, so he crossed out “assai.”

[@mortonbaychestnut4072]

1: 138 a la Moscheles is good for practising...

[@user-jc5lf7dg5k]

The "slowest" is harmonically correct, but you are playing it too fast, as if not fully understanding what the music is about, like pondering your own focus of attention with a stick. You should really try playing it while breathing with full lungs with a visionary image of a rising sun. The fullness of life!

[@robintranter8260]

Sorry, what you are saying makes no sense to me at all. What is being said seems quite clear to me. Personally speaking I find half note 138 a perfectly satisfactory speed for this most difficult of movements. At this speed there is a sense of struggle, perhaps what Beethoven wanted, after all he did say it would be a work people would still be playing in 50 yrs time.

[@thomashughes4859]

FIRST!!! And First to vew!!! WOW!

[@thomashughes4859]

*view ... and first to Like! Life's good in Mexico! :D

[@susankinney5193]

Lol he doesn't usually put videos up at this time... It's 11:00p.m. here.

[@thomashughes4859]

@@susankinney5193 I think the a.m./p.m. settings in YT goof things up! I'm at 10 here right now. I don't think YT has caught up with the rest of the world in using the 24-hour clock, which ALL of my clocks are set to ... except the ones I have slated to build.

[@thomashughes4859]

@@susankinney5193 I think he treated the New World to a little late evening entertainment! He's the MAN!

[@AuthenticSound]

indeed...A.M vs PM :)

[@KoenZyxYssel]

Slowest sounds best :)