Sorry AuthenticSound, your Beethoven Tempi are NOT Historical

[@Jwm367t]

another thing thats actually hysterical about Wim Winters is that he has a performance of Pathetique that takes 25 min when standard time is 20 min. he himself isnt playing in double beat and its already crazily slow

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

@Jwm367, I’m sorry for my inadequate English. Wim Winters’ 24 minute version was recorded before his Lorenz Gadient period started, and that version is not hysterical in my opinion. But now Wim Winters support Alberto Sanna’s recording of Patetique that last for 42 minutes! That - that is hysterical!

[@adeemuff]

"crazily slow" it might be, but I actually enjoyed it a lot.

[@pokerandphilosophy8328]

As a recent convert to the four beat theory, I think Sanna's recording of the Pathetique is much too fast!

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

😂

[@Pablo-gl9dj]

​@@pokerandphilosophy8328that would require a bathroom break and his playing would lose all its forward momentum

[@Robert…Schrey]

Here is a hint for you: in Beethoven‘s sixth symphony you can hear a cuckoo singing. And you have the metronome indication. You compare the nature and the metronome marking, and you know how Beethoven wanted his metronome marks to be understood.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Are you referring to the end of the 2nd movement of that symphony, yeah totally

[@Robert…Schrey]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer yes, end of 2nd movement.

[@Robert…Schrey]

Cuculus Canorus. The tempo marking by Beethoven from 1817 is 50 per dotted quarter note. So the quaver (eighth) is 150. now compare this to the bird song in nature and you‘ll find out that it is surprisingly exactly that tempo. And not the half tempo others suggest. Please seek a video called Wim the Cuckoo here on KZbin.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@Robert…Schrey That’s awesome

[@edMusic-ve7wn]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Taking a more mathematical approach, Taking: MM of Dotted Quarter = 50 per minute ; Dotted Quarter = 3 eighth notes; 3 eighth notes per Dotted Quarter X 50 per minute = 150 eighth notes/minute ; To play 150 eighth notes in 60 seconds requires playing each eighth note at 0.4 per second (60 seconds/150 notes = 0.4 seconds/note); 3 eighth notes (Dotted Quarter) at 0.4 seconds per eighth note = 1.2 seconds/Dotted Quarter note. The 2nd Movement is in 12/8 time. There are 12 beats per measure, each eighth note is one beat. In bars 1-4 there are 12 eighth notes/bar in 4 groups of 3 eighth notes. Therefore, there are the equivalent of 4 dotted quarter notes/bar. Each dotted quarter note should be measured in 1.2 seconds of time to maintain tempo of 50 dotted quarter notes/minute. (50 dotted quarter notes x 1.2 seconds = 60 seconds) There are 4 dotted quarter note equivalents in bars 1- 4. Each bar should be played in ~ 5 seconds (1.2 seconds/Dotted Quarter x 4 Dotted Quarters = 4.8 seconds/bar). Thus, bars 1-4 should be played in ~20 seconds to arrive at tempo 50 dotted quarter notes/150 eighth notes per minute; which is the tempo played here, kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5C5hWuvpJKLb68

[@RollaArtis]

After watching a few Wim Winters videos I realized that he is rather strange. Despite the obvious, he really really believes his whole beat theory in a fundamentalistic and religious way. So he seems not to understand the criticism when people get upset with him. At some point one of his videos displayed symptoms of a mental break down, so I have my sympathy and think its best not to to encourage him.

[@karllegrand]

Two beats, or not two beats ? That is the question...

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Haha, good one

[@reamartin6458]

Haha 😂

[@mathyys]

I've just found about this controversy recently; and the single most convincing argument against double theory

[@mathyys]

Is the magical transition from double beat to single beat by students of Czerny and groups of professional musicians around that time without anyone noticing. Completely impossible.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Yup, Wim keeps connecting it to the industrial revolution but it’s not like the human body changed because of that

[@mathyys]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Even if something like that had happened, what is impossible is that it remained unnoticed and unstudied.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@mathyys Exactly

[@phoenixshade3]

William Winters is kind of insane. The timing of the (in)famous 22 Dec 1808 concert where the 5th and 6th were premiered give the lie to his "historical" tempi. We know the works that were performed and the total length of the concert, which was about 4 hours. It included an intermission and a restart of the Choral Fantasy. Using Winters' tempi, the concert would have had to last well over five hours, and that is WITHOUT an intermission and WITHOUT a restart of the Choral Fantasy. Using typical performance times and allowing for a 30 minute intermission, plus a few extra minutes for the restart, the times add up to a little less than 4 hours. There we have a contemporary disproof of Winters' theory.

[@Boccaccio1811]

There are many other works / concerts where the time length is documented during the 1800s and they're all pretty similar to what we hear today

[@AllThisOverASliceOfGabagool]

I personally think that Wim Winters is a fraud. I know that may seem harsh, but he's probably got a lot of patreons giving him money when his research has been refuted in this ten minute video. Sanna's version of the Pathetique sonata absolutely sucks!

[@JoEbY-X]

I listened to this video at 2x speed in your honor.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Haha

[@alanbarnett6993]

Other convincing arguments against WW's tempi: 1) To my ears, no music played at WW's tempi, even though it is described as fast (presto, geschwind) by the composer, sound fast. Not only do they not sound fast, but they sound boring. 2) Music played at WW's tempi are not technically difficult. It makes no sense that composers wouldn't write music that utilizes the full technical abilities of the players. And contemporary descriptions of piano virtuosos include expressions of amazement at how fast they can play. For example, Ignaz von Seyfried, a Viennese conductor, about 1797 delcared that Joseph Woelffl was able to "play passages of doubled note in these intervals (tenths) with the rapidity of lightning", and that Beethoven's "playing tore along like a widely foaming cataract". These hardly sound like descriptions of music played at WW's slow tempi.

[@chwu04-ne2df]

Lmao facts in one of his videos he mentioned how using single beat with 19th century metronome markings would require playing 15+ notes per second consecutively at times which he claims is physically impossible. No, it is not at all impossible for even an amateur like me, he’s just mad coping with his skill issue and wants attention.

[@Itemtotem]

Someone (else) had to say it: I've been telling people they play Beethoven too slowly for generations

[@angreagach]

I knew some recordings of the Coriolan overture seemed absurdly slow. Glad to see I was right!

[@romanleonG]

Authentic Sound is a frustrated musician,that’s the very reason

[@reamartin6458]

Yeah it’s sad

[@reamartin6458]

So he can’t change music history on a wim after all 😂

[@oliverbostridge8370]

Great video - although I'm sure the double beat hydra will sprout a few more improbable heads in response to these criticisms... Also it's so wonderful to find another Medtner lover!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thanks, nice to see people appreciating Medtner

[@Manx123]

Literally nobody honestly believes this except him.

[@gojewla]

Also, if you listen to historical recordings, people at the turn of the century tended to choose faster tempos than people do nowadays. It’s a matter of taste and fashion, and people are trying to justify it by explaining away what we already know. These are beats PER MINUTE.

[@martinbennett2228]

It is on record exactly how fast Liszt played the Hmmerklavier Sonata. His American pupil William Mason reports the following anecdote: "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 (minim) = 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." www.gutenberg.org/files/35520/35520-h/35520-h.htm#page_103 William Mason writes that Liszt played the first movement at the 'correct' tempo and later specifies that the 'correct' tempo is minim = 100 (or thereabouts). It is not in the least plausible that Liszt played the work at minim = 50 and then complained that someone else played to far too slowly. I have put this information elsewhere, but not on Winters channels because I discovered that he suppresses questioning of his speculations.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

I remember coming across this piece of info from a comment, thanks for sharing

[@jorgeflorespiano]

What a great video !!! I can’t wait to see more

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thank you very much

[@calebhu6383]

Your quote at 1:50 is from the editorial remarks of Hans von Bulow. Von Bulow was born in 1830 and a direct descendant of Beethoven in terms of piano lineage: Beethoven > Czerny > Liszt > von Bulow. So the fact that he thinks Beethoven's tempi are too fast means that either: A: Liszt never taught von Bulow how to use the metronome in whole beat. It seems ridiculous to think that Liszt just let his students play the markings twice as fast as Liszt himself interpreted them. B: Czerny never taught Liszt how to use the metronome in whole beat. You've literally proven that Czerny used "single beat", i.e. the correct way that Maelzel prescribed for his invention. But for the sake of the argument, let's say that Czerny used whole beat but just....never taught it to any of his students? Again, it seems ridiculous to think that Czerny just let his students play his markings twice as fast as Czerny himself interpreted them. C: Whole beat was never in use by Beethoven, Czerny, Liszt, or anyone else because it's an absolutely absurd and arbitrary interpretation of how Maelzel wanted his invention to be used in the first place. Whole beat leads to problems like hemiola in triple meter and all sorts of counterintuitive nonsense. I'm going with option C.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Option C is definitely the way to go

[@johnb6723]

Did you not know that Franz Liszt took approximately one full hour to play the Hammerklavier Sonata. When working out the duration in single beat it comes to approximately a half hour. #SingleBeatDebunked

[@DanielSilva-gc4xz]

​@@johnb6723Beethoven's 3rd takes 1 hour to perform today and in its premier it was criticized for being almost one hour long which was too long.

[@jbrahms586]

@@johnb6723 It is so entertaining to see with how much energy and despair "whole-beaters" stick to their single argument, the Hammerklavier-Sonata. There is an obvious problem with the tempo indications in this sonata which was already discussed by the generation following Beethoven. If the "whole-beat-theory" was correct there wouldn't have been any problem and nothing would have been discussed.

[@jbrahms586]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/enuzl6x7or1mfLM

[@jbrahms586]

I always wonder why Quantz's "Versuch einer Anweisung die Flute traversiere zu spielen" doesn't come in when people discuss this controversy. Of course it was written just before the classical period, but he was around the same age as Leopold Mozart who had gigantic influence on W.A. Mozarts compositional output. He unmistakebly defines the "heartbeat" as 80 beats per minute (which makes lot of sense) and uses it as a basis for proposing tempi for different musical characters - some of them extremely fast!

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

@jbrahms586. Well, may I quote Mr. Winters for you? He says: «Quantz is a perfect example of whole beat, there is even no discussion about that, and then suddenly his tempi became slower». From his video: W.A. Mozart - Don Giovanni Ouverture - Historical Tempo Reconstrucion.

[@jbrahms586]

@@geiryvindeskeland7208 I really wonder how he gets to this conclusion. Has he read "Versuch einer Anweisung..."? A heart beat is generally considered a single beat (maybe it's a double beat, biologically spoken, I don't know. But then it would be irregular which doesn't make any sense for music) and it is equalled to note values. I don't see any possibilities for different interpretations of his tempo indications.

[@patrickvalentino600]

The double beat metronome theory crosses the line from audacity to pedantry. If true, it's ramifications would not only affect Beethoven but the entire history of Western music, presupposing that everyone is performing everything wrong, and or that every composer doesn't know how to mark their own music, all standing on a thesis that is extremely shaky. I would add to this video though, is never underestimate Russian performers abilities to play at extreme tempos. I would highly suggest there are performers out there that have recorded the shostakovich and taniev at the printed speeds.

[@PensieroMetamofista]

Respect, my man.

[@mihawkdrakule3869]

Basically Wim Winters is just an attention seeker...

[@Assalariado762]

Despite the arguments presented on the 'Authentic Sound' channel, the conclusions are not reasonable. Beethoven could not have been so out of touch with the sense of timing used by Haydn and Mozart. Imagine how long Mozart's operas would be if we followed the metronome interpretation suggested on 'Authentic Sound'. Nowadays, 12-year-old children can play at the speed of adult professionals, so it's also unreasonable to think that the best virtuosos of the Classical period were less skilled. Beethoven often expressed dissatisfaction with the orchestra's performance during rehearsals; if we take the tempos indicated on 'Authentic Sound' as a reference, then the musicians of that events must have been the worst in Vienna.

[@JG_1998]

Wim is a fraudster. his main job is to sell copes to people who don't want to practice enough to play difficult pieces, they want some justification to just play them at half speed so they can sightread the entire repertoire, even the most difficult pieces . I can't play many pieces and I accept it, these people can't handle that fact. Reasonable people can make endless arguments debunking him easily, but he won't stop because he's doing it for the money. I don't even mind if people play things slower, but to try and say that it was the composer's intentions is absurd.

[@ChristianJiang]

This video should have so many more views!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thanks man

[@Michaelhendersonnovelist1]

Interesting video and I agree with you. You should, however, try to refrain from banging against the mic as you speak. It's very annoying, particularly with headphones on.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah I noticed that so I avoided that in the Beethoven analysis video essay I did after this video.

[@lalahohoable]

Wim's tempi are not historical..but hysterical!!!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Lol, nice one

[@benjaminachron1493]

thank you, the more the better I would say.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Yup, especially since Winters does a lot of shadow banning

[@benjaminachron1493]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer trust me, I know everything about that :).

[@PetStuBa]

me too hahaha ... that's actually a compliment guys if you (Wim) were right ... then there was no need at all to shadow ban us a person who's right and who has the truth on his or her side, doesn't act like that, period... he lives in his own world people ... some people are like that, if they find out that the truth which has been living for all these years in their head and is not the truth outside them it's very confronting ... and that's what's happening ...

[@laragarner7920]

Thank you for doing this research for us all! Someone has to be the voice of common sense in the world of madness that has been created by one musicologist.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

You’re welcome

[@jonathanp935]

Although, John Eliot Gardiner and Francis Xavier Roth hold the title of the fastest 9th recorded. Gardiner’s recording lasts exactly 59 minutes and 32 seconds while Roth’s clocks in at 58 minutes.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Oh nice, I haven't heard of Francis Xavier Roth, I'll check him out. In the video I was approximating that's why I said the 9th symphony lasts 60-80 minutes today, haha

[@Alix777.]

François Xavier Roth. I dont like fast Beethoven, Furtwangler and old German masters still the best.

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

Alix, your personal taste about tempo is not interesting at all. Here we discuss what was the historical tempo.

[@jackisinforthewin]

Amazing video

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thanks for watching

[@jcord0013]

We are still left puzzled over the inhumanly quick metronome markings of Czerny's etudes. We also know the predilections of his student Liszt to showy displays of extreme virtuosity, which served his professional interests in the commercial sense. While double beat may be on the lower end of the acceptable performance tempo, it is still very likely that Czerny and Liszt influenced pianists in the 19th to tempi in the upper extremes for those very same reasons.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

That would make sense if double beat was true, but that’s not what the evidence shown in this video points to; Malzel’s own instructions as well as Czerny’s instructions. For Czerny, if you check the a few pages where I stopped in the video he gives an example of using the metronome in triple meter, who would result in tempo inequali with double beat, but Czerny’s description doesn’t demonstrate that at all, instead it also points to the way we use the metronome today

[@mktsound8240]

Imagine 100 years from now , amateurs trying to play étude 39 no 1 from Rachmaninov at tempo , and a charlatan stating that is was meant to be played in double beat . ´This was just an étude and it was music written for YOU’. We are facing the same revisionist view , with people not admitting that some materials are written by exceptional pianist . Btw Czerny wrote in Op 500 that tempi indicated for études are the maximum one can achieve , recommends slow practice in order to raise the speed week after week . Sounds absolutely legit to me and no different than today . Now Wim winters wants to play it at max tempo , day one , sight reading as he doesn’t memorise music and with little practice as he consumes music like fast food . Frankly , he is a joke .

[@richardsibbes5446]

OK Clara Schumann

[@RechtmanDon]

A BIG factor y'all are neglecting is the linguistic component of musical languages. I would suggest a perspective that you both are right! Is it not possible that a composer (a Beethoven for example) might have used both methods for different compositions? More importantly, it MM markings are taken as suggestions rather than absolutes, and the plausible linguistic intents of the composer (and then the performer) are taken into consideration, then it is more likely that an "optimal" tempo for the piece can be established.

[@dorette-hi4j]

I'm sorry, but it is not possible that Beethoven used both methods. That is because no convention existed (or exists) of distinguishing between two methods when the metronome mark is given on a printed piece of music. It is always given in the form note = x M.M., e.g. quarter = 60 M.M. (later when Maelzel's metronome was universally known just quarter = 60). How would anybody know which method to use, unless they could contact the composer and ask - and in those days phone and email were unknown, and the postal service was quite slow. Can you imagine anyone buying a new piano sonata, sitting down at the piano, seeing a metronome mark, and saying to themselves "I wonder if that is wholebeat or single beat. Perhaps I should write to the composer or the publisher to find out before I try to play it." Of course there was only one method, 'single tick per note value'. I agree that in actual performance the tempo would vary to some extent (not by 50%) from the metronome mark, and that composers would have understood and expected this.

[@RechtmanDon]

@@dorette-hi4j You said "Of course there was only one method..." An important point of the video is the disclosure that there are possibly two methods. I got it: you are in the "single tick per note value" camp, but it may be useful to recognize and acknowledge that there are many competent scholars who are open to different possibilities...

[@dorette-hi4j]

@@RechtmanDon If there were two methods, how could you tell them apart? I am not in a 'camp' (any more than denying the scientific validity of flat earth theory puts me into a 'globe earth' camp). Competent scholars have discussed the question of how to approach metronome marks, but no competent scholar believes the 'wholebeat' interpretation. Rather, they consider historical factors (like the development of the piano, and the growth of large concert halls and larger orchestras), and some question the usefulness of strict adherence to a metronome mark in actual performance. A really good example of the latter is Adolf Bernhard Marx's Allgemeine Musiklehre (1839), which went through many editions in the 19th century and was translated into English as The Universal School of Music. You can find it on IMSLP. There is an Appendix on The Pendulum and Metronome, which puts the situation in a nutshell. According to Marx, both the pendulum and the metronome indicated the tempo in single beat (i.e. quarter = 60 MM meant 60 quarters a minute; using a pendulum length of 38 Rhenish inches gives the same tempo with a single swing of the pendulum); he does not give a 'whole beat' alternative; his final paragraphs say, in effect, that trying to fix the speed metronomically is pointless and unmusical. I recommend reading it. Here is his final sentence: "It is therefore only necessary that the student should become familiar with the _average_ degree of movement which the different technical terms for the indication of time [e.g. andante, allegro etc.] are _generally understood to express; the nicer distinctions and modifications may, and must be, confided to the proper artistic understanding of the performer, and to the state of his feelings at the time of performance." On the former, historical factors, Th. Kullak's long note. in his edition of Chopin's Etudes, on op.10 no.8, is essential reading. You can find it on IMSLP. (Kullak was a very influential piano teacher, and himself was a student of Carl Czerny.) Sorry for the long reply. I got interested in all this partly through Wim Winters' earlier videos, and at first, like many people, I thought he had come across something interesting. But the more I looked at the sources, the more I realized it was all smoke and mirrors.

[@guidoalici]

Bravo! Nothing personal against maestro Winters (I myself favourably commented on his early clavichord recordings), but your discrete, sober yet unmistakeable considerations are worthy of praise and attention.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thank you very much for the kind response

[@TheGloryofMusic]

Even supposing for a moment that the textual evidence is equivocal on the double-beat theory, there is a problem. It is not a coincidence that a 'moderato' tempo corresponds to about 60 beats per minute, which is also about the rate of the human heartbeat, and theorists have recognized this in relation to the notion of the 'tactus'. 'Allegro' sounds fast, not because it is “absolutely” fast, but because it is fast in relation to a moderate, or comfortable, tempo. And the same consideration applies to 'adagio'. Which is to say that these tempo qualities are not arbitrary or a matter of convention, but of human physiology. Winters' tempos sound absurdly slow because they really are too slow. That is, unless Winters wants to argue that people in the nineteenth-century were biologically different from us.

[@thomasallenmusic]

Thank you so much for the time you took to put this together!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

You’re welcome

[@itchy2345]

I didn't even read all these thread and skipped the video (sorry) as this might lead to another consipiracy theory. I'm surprised that this is suddenly in debating topic in recent years. From my study time there was even a book about it (German) and our class at that time thought it was rubbish and I still think it's rubbish!! Enjoyable clip btw.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Oh wow that’s interesting to hear

[@tylerstoner7051]

maybe beethoven's tempi sound too fast cause he was one of the greatest pianists to ever live? In other words skill issue.

[@subplantant]

Oh I'm so glad to see all these excellent debunkings. I started making a video about a year ago but couldn't find the time to do it as thoroughly as I wanted so I just unsubscribed from that smug, arrogant fraud for my own sanity. Thought I'd see if he was still going and am so happy about the pushback!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Yeah, making a video like this is definitely time consuming for me as well, but I'm interested in making music analysis videos and more video essay type videos in the future, so the time spent was worth it

[@Apuleios2]

The discussion on metronome markings are at the same time useful as obselete. With regard to Shostakovich, Rachmaninov and other composers, we have an idea on how some of their works sounded in their head as some recorded or filmed performances survive. Years ago, I watched a documentary on Shostakovich playing his second piano concerto. It was way faster than I played it. The same is valid for Rachmaninov. With regard to Beethoven and other contemporary composers, we simply do not know how their works sounded. There is indeed, as you indicated, some literature available in AMZ and other journals or observations of that time, but how it sounded, how it was done remains a great enigma. We can only suppose that it was performed such way or such way. I do not fully agree with Winter, but I can imagine that for some people their theories must sound heaven. More than 40 years ago, I bought a record by the pianist, Robert Godard, playing the etudes by Chopin. He took/takes the tempi much slower than they are taken nowadays. A world opened upon me as it seemed to be a tempo which I would be ample to master and which allowed me to play some of the etudes after much studying. I do not fully deny Winters claim on the speeding things up. There is indeed a tendancy speed things up. Everything has to go quicker and quicker. Slow has become a luxuory word. As the world speeds up, our way of performing music also speeds up. Not so long ago, I saw somebody here on KZbin (was it Kissin? I forgot) playing some of the Chopins etudes at an incredible speed. I stand in awe for people who can play like that, but at the same time, I wonder whether it is at all necessary. My 'advice' in the all discussion: play the music as you think it should be played or as you like it to be played. At least you are sure that it sounds the way you want it to sound and is not that the greatest of satisfactions for yourself?

[@joaoterceira9671]

You are mixing up the subjects here. It is true that some composers were known to play they own piece at various tempo, depending on the venue, their mood and the moment. There are indeed many anecdotes relating that about Beethoven. I believe Moscheles mentions it as well. Wagner admitted he would never play twice at the same speed etc.. BUT (and this is a big BUT ;) ) this has nothing to do with the interpretation on how to use the metronome. This is not the case of them changing the method about the use the tool, but them performing their own work , depending on their feeling at that time. The big issue with Wim Winters is that the resulting speed of his playing is not because of a personal choice but because of his personal and completely biased way of using Maelzel metronome. When Gould plays Brahms 20% slower than the indicated MM , he still reads the score in single beat and just reduces the tempo. When W.Winters plays, he determines the speed not because of any feeling, or any emotional driver, he just follows a plain false misunderstanding of how to read MM's. Finally , I am in complete disagreement regarding the evolution of performance speed. Performance speed has actually decreased between the 19th century and the 20th century . Many facts and early recordings tend to support that rather than the opposite.

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

Apuleios2, quote: «As the world speeds up, our way of performing music also speed up». No! No, Apuleios2, that’s not true, it is just a hoax that Wim Winters employs to bolster its untrue borrowed theory! Most people listen to pop and rock in our time, only a minority listen mostly to classical and baroque. Note that most lassical tempo repertoire is faster than most pop and rock music. In other words, we realize that a fast pace in our lives does not affect the choice of tempi in music, because in that case pop and rock should have been performed in fast tempi. Why baroque and the classical repertoire are played faster these days is due to the fact that more and more people find it interesting to return the old music in tempi closer to the information from old written sources. Wim Winters is well versed in «tempo ordinario» and «tempo quisto». The practice of using heartbeat as an inaccurate metronome had been practiced for centuries. But that knowlegde was uninteresting or unknown to conductors and musicians 100-70 years ago. Therefore, old music is performed faster now than then, because interst in a historical approach is stronger than it was 50 years ago. Man has always enjoyed competing. The Olympic Games are a tradition close to 3000 years old! Don’t think that man’s desire to compete disappeard just when Beethoven, Czerny, Chopin and Liszt were alive, oh no! But they didn’t compete on the grass for who ran th fastest. So where did they compete? They competed on the keyboard! The keyboard was their sports arena! In the early 1800s, many people complained about the pianists’ penchant for the virtuoo. Remember the story of the pianist who boasted that he could play Chopin’s opus 10 no 12 with octaves in his left hand? What does that tell us? Sure, they loved to compete! So don’t be fooled by Wim Winters’ hoax that a faster society automatically creates faster music, that is not true! Such a hoax is suitable only for people who are unable to think for themselves. So when it comes to Wim Winters - always think for yourself!

[@nikosnikos5082]

so is it actually intended to be played faster? (thats what i was wondering)

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

I think so, well at least at the moment they wrote those metronome marks, since composers can change their mind about tempos. For example if you’re performing a piece in a dry hall vs a hall with a lot of echo, you will probably come up with different tempos (faster tempo in the dry hall, slower for the hall with echo) I recommend using metronome marks as a guideline

[@nikosnikos5082]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer thanks

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@nikosnikos5082 You’re welcome

[@Jamric-gr8gr]

Thank u so much

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thank you for watching

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

I believe in single beat, but I want you to speak in double beat, not everybody has English as their first language.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

haha, yeah I've been told to slow down with the talking speed with these videos. I'll keep that in mind for the future

[@elijaguy]

This is a copy of my comment to Vexler. Yes. Plus: There is more or less common rhythm to heart pulse, to breathing, to walking, to running, to speaking italian, to speaking german, to hand movements while talking, to body expressive motion in conversation. So if we begin with a masterwork such as, e.g. Erbarme Dich, or Voi que sapete, or Alle Menschen werden Brüder or Erlkonig, So one can begin by reciting these in a theatrical convincing way, without the music of the masters, and then go back to the piece, and then you do it as many times on as many pieces that you need in order to make yourself comfortable in the conventions of the respective composers and from there, to the general conventions of their times. Also, a singer, say, a soprano, needs to breath now and then. At Wim's tempos I wonder what accessories she will need to enable a slow bel canto aria, be it by Bach, Mozart, Donizetti, or Verdi. BTW I think Solomon did play the op 106 fast and making a lot of sense. I assume beethoven wasnt a worse pianis than solomon, and his pianos were easier to play. I never heard said by contemporaries, that great composers used to play slowly. They played fast for their listeners and the impression of velocity is part of the message. Yes, the IMPRESSION of speed, the PERCEIVED tempo.

[@danielwaitzman2118]

Bravo, Mr. Shadian!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thank you very much, Mr Waitzman. I've enjoyed watching your video on the same topic.

[@MicheleAngeliniTenor]

THANK YOU FOR THIS!!!!!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

You’re welcome!

[@jorgeflorespiano]

I couldn’t agree more with Medtner. Throw away your metronome, only when you learned how to respect it.

[@davidalvarez297]

Throwing away the metronome is not what Beethoven said. Those indications are valid to play that composer's works. And this video proves nothing. All details are just skipped and not well considered

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@David Alvares, no one here is saying that Beethoven's metronome marks are not valid. The point that Medtner is making is that a pianist (or any musician for that matter) should try to achieve the best possible interpretation with the resources they have: acoustics, the instrument, and one's physical capabilities. For example, pianos in Beethoven's time decayed a lot quicker than today's pianos, so clever pedal manipulation might be required in today's pianos to achieve effective phrasing and dynamic differences, think about the opening of Beethoven's pathetique sonata

[@RunarKjeldsberg]

Thank you for doing this.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

You’re welcome

[@CostasCourtComposer]

You are right!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thanks

[@CostasCourtComposer]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer i wonder if Wim replied to you

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@CostasCourtComposer Nope, maybe sometime in the future

[@CostasCourtComposer]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer well. What he could say? You are 100% correct. Well done.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@CostasCourtComposer I hope so, I did my best to learn about the subject

[@yondertz]

That image in 9:41 !!!!! Hofmann, Rachmaninoff, Godowsly, Medtner, .. who else?

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Stravinsky and I think Furtwangler, I don't know the others

[@emilgilels]

The event was a reception honoring Josef Hofmann, given by Frederic Steinway (who's also in the picture), on 11 January 1925, at old Steinway Hall, NYC. From a photo caption on the Alexander Borovsky blogspot site: "In the first and second rows may be seen, among others: Walter Damrosch, Albert Coates....Nikolai Medtner, Wilhelm Furtwangler, Frederic T. Steinway, Fritz Kreisler, Rachmaninoff, Hofmann, Rubin Goldmark, Frederick Lamond, Frank Damrosch, Howard Barlow, Harold Bauer, and Sam Franko" Alexander Borovsky is also in the photo (2 rows behind Stravinsky). Behind Furtwangler, are David Saperton(?), Siloti, and Mischa Levitski. According to another source, Pierre Monteux is also in the photo.

[@chipensemble]

Double Beat became the Flat earth of musicology- it has been well established that the historical tempos are correct because of estimates of length of the pieces in contemporary papers.

[@mikesmovingimages]

Debunking WBMP is not very difficult. But doing so is no endorsement of single-beat, either. It just leaves us with the original mystery: why are so many - hundreds - of MM markings from the early 19th century so fast? Extremely fast. So much so, that few people have ever played the music at those speeds throughout history. Musical taste never seems to call for speed even FASTER than those markings! None of them are "too slow". Why are those markings so fast, what was in the minds of such an array of composers and performers that they thought music played at the limit of human ability was what they wanted? Simply debunking WBMP does not prove the MM markings are really what the composers intended, nor explain why so many worshippers of the "intentions of the composer", over two hundred years, apparently, have ignored them. WBMP emerged from a search to explain why that era left behind such crazy MM markings across a wide range of music and decades. It clearly does not explain everything, but neither do broken metronomes nor rank stupidity. So if you feel intellectually buff for having dismissed WBMP, now what? Why are those tempos so fast, and why do so few perform at those speeds, and virtually no one exceed them?

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

In the video I showed an example from Shostakovich, so it’s not only the 19th century. I sometimes when composing will put a certain metronome mark, but when I try to play it I end up going slower. For me it might be because I want to be able to think of the piece outside of time, like an object, so that probably causes me to put a faster metronome mark than is practical

[@mikesmovingimages]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Then in a way you are changing the question. WBMP has focused on 19th century practices, not 20th century. And it is not asking the question what is the right way to perform (although, in his zeal, WW implies that too often), but rather what did the composers intend with those markings in the early and mid-19th century. That does not a preclude a range of tempos in the ensuing decades. To your points, Beethoven provided his markings in most cases long after he had composed the work, plenty of time to settle on his preferred tempo, or close to it. There is nothing in any of the utterances of Beethoven, for example, or Shosty for that matter, to suggest they wanted to put a faster mark than is practical, or place it out of time. That might be YOUR approach, but your approach is not germane to the investigation.

[@dorette-hi4j]

When you talk about 'crazy MM markings', and ask "why are these tempos so fast" you echo what some critics in the 1820s and 1830s thought about the school of brilliant virtuoso composer/pianists - e.g. Czerny, Kalkbrenner, Herz. It is not that they are impossible; it is that they are faster than people of good musical taste approved. But there was certainly an audience for dazzlingly virtuosic music, and that (along with the lighter action and lower sonority of early pianos) explains these extremely fast markings. Of course it is only a few pieces from that period that have MMs verging on the impossible, and many as you would expect are in Etudes. Lots of them, the vast majority, are playable at the tempi given by the composers and editors, and if you look you will find many recorded and live performances at around those speeds, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. In fact, a more interesting question is why so often andantes and adagios have been played slower than the MM mark, where technical difficulties of speed do not arise.

[@mikesmovingimages]

@@dorette-hi4j "Lots of them, the vast majority, are playable at the tempi given by the composers and editors" So you keep saying, but no one is proving. And why no faster? Can things only be slower than or as fast as, but never faster?

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

@mikesmovingimages. Relax, there is nothing inexplicable about the wast majority of «impossible» MM-numbers from the 1800s. But if you just stick to Wim Winters, you will never get a satisfactory answer, so I will help you to a life closer to reality. Wim Winters, quote: «The best argument FOR the WBMP are the thousands of metronome marks that nobody every will be able to play and we simply ignore». Pancreas: «Lang Lang….what a joke». Wim Winters: «Hmm….wish I had his technique though…» Because he wants Lang Lang’s technique, it means that WW recognize that his own technical level of play is lower. Therefore, of course, it is LL and not WW that knows what is possible to play. And LL is not the only one with a brilliant technique, there are many around the world who have a playing technique far above Wim Winters’ level. Therefore, Wim’s «best argument» is without any information value in the debate. But what was the point of the many «impossible» MM-numbers? You get a hint when I quote from the book Beethoven written by Maynard Solomon: «Beethoven was concerned to maintain his preeminent position and regarded any accomplished pianist as a potential rival. In mid-1794 he wrote to Eleonore von Breuning of his ‘desire to embarrass’ and ‘revenge myself on’ the Viennese pianists, some of whom are my sworn enemies». The book also tells us that Beethoven was invited several times to private homes to compete against other pianists. There are several old written sources that tell of the same thing - the pianists competed! They were top athletes on the keyboard, the keys were their sports arena! It was about impressing other pianists, music critics and audiences. If we use logic, it becomes even more difficult to believe in the double beat theory. mikesmovingimages, do you know Wim Winters’ versions of Chopin’s etudes? If not, listen to his performances here on KZbin before you reading on. Else, we can continue. Here on KZbin we find a number of videos with children, 7-12 years old, playing the etudes much faster than WW’s double beat tempi. 1834. Chopin, Liszt and several of the other big boys, have just played a number of Chopin’s etudes. Now they are all sitting with their noses in the cloud and discussing thechnical details. Suddenly, a line of children enters the room, they are 7-12 years old, and one by one they play the same etudes much faster than the big boys have just done! Is it credible? Is it logical?

[@Sam-lh4pw]

I couldn’t possibly imagine playing the 3rd movement or the largo intro in the 4th movement at half speed as well.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Assuming you're talking about Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata, I agree

[@Sam-lh4pw]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Yep

[@wiltzu81]

Good job! We need more these kind of videos. Not to change Wim's mind but to open the eyes and ears of his misguided followers.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thanks

[@bradleyscarffpiano2921]

Another channel going against Wim! very well done and engaging. I feel this video will propagate further than my own. simply because mine is a video of me talking. I'd definitely recommend anyone look at this video before believing WIm. though unfortunately I believe many of his followers live in a n echo chamber. I've done two movements of Beethovens piano concerto 3 in double beat on my channel. it's absurd but done as an exercise. as they sound stupid.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

I'm glad you thought this video was engaging. I tried my best to do that, haha.

[@babygottbach2679]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Hey, I'm just curious how you solve the single beat problem of Beethoven's "semper senza sordini" instruction at the beginning of the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@babygottbach2679 Assuming the problem you are referring to muddiness of the sound resulting from keeping the pedal on; the pianos in Beethoven's day didn't sustain as long as today's modern grand pianos, like a Steinway. In other words the decay in pianos in Beethoven's time would allow maintaining the sustain pedal activated with less muddiness in sound. I hope that answers your question

[@babygottbach2679]

​@@ThePianoFortePlayer There would be muddiness even if you played on an early 1800/late 1700s fortepiano at single beat speeds! Let me show you. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnvYf5qgl5d7mbs This is a video of a man playing on a 1795 fortepiano. The man follows Beethoven's doubly iterated instructions to always play without dampers, and you can hear the results at single beat speeds. The man visibly struggles with the dissonance produced and has to take awkward pauses just to lessen some of the built up dissonances. Compare this to Wim Winter's playing the first movement on an 1825 piano: kzbin.info/www/bejne/baTVnGhnnc6VqZY A steady tempo. One can clearly hear the cut time pulse.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@babygottbach2679 Yes that's why I wrote "less muddiness in sound" and not that there would be no muddiness. The example you linked sounds fine to me and I think it captures what Beethoven had in mind when wrote to leave the dampers open. Now if you think it still sounds too muddy then keep in mind that the recording you sent me was recorded in a wood hall without any furniture other than the other pianos, which increases the reverb. In a private house with furniture and all, there would be less reverb so less muddy. Thanks for sharing the link

[@lesgoe8908]

I hate to be "that guy", but your microphone technique was so annoying that I couldn't finish the video. The content of your video was compelling and well-argued, but you need to put your microphone on a stand and touch it or around it.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Yeah, I figured that out after I made this and fixed my technique for an analysis video I made a few months after this one.

[@karlakor]

Is there any evidence that in Beethoven's day the metronome numbers on the pendulum were aligned with the BOTTOM of the pendulum weight, rather than with the top of the weight? This would make sense of the insanely fast metronome numbers which Beethoven and other composers of the era assigned to their works, but I have never heard any discussion of this possibility.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

That seems like a common thought but here is 2 problems with it. 1. Beethoven isn't the only composer that had fast tempos, so it's unlikely that only Beethoven used the bottom of the pendulum but his contemporaries didn't, since tempo markings from that period are similar. 2. At 1:05 I talked about how the composer Anton Reicha (born the same year as Beethoven) put a length of a pendulum in addition to a metronome mark (used properly, with the top of the weight), which happens to more or less match in tempo

[@joaoterceira9671]

There is one easy test you can make yourself if you manage to get hold of an old metronome, try to position the bottom of the weight with the slowest indication of tempo (50) of the metronome and you will see that you cannot as the upper part of the weight will start to disengage from the support.

[@chrchr3118]

Yousef , congratulations for a fabulous video . The logical flow of the argumentation is excellent and should convince anyone who has some sense of logic, except if he is not willing to accept the undeniable evidence.!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thank you

[@PetStuBa]

absolutely

[@jerbib9598]

eight eighth eighths 8 8th 8ths

[@bach-ingmad9772]

Bravo! Encore! I used to admire Wim’s earlier performances but I fear he has lost the plot these days. I agree that some music is played too fast but to halve the tempo is too extreme. I guess that he has pursued and promoted this theory so much he is now trapped by it. It would take a lot of courage and humility to go back to where he was a few years ago. The idea will always have a few followers but will never become mainstream, as it is for those believing the earth is flat. They too persist against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I am glad you commented on not using a metronome, I have never used one and believe that there should be a flexible approach to playing with consideration of the player’s ability, acoustics, the limitations of the instrument, the emotion the player is trying to evoke, etc. Using unequal temperaments as I do, the choice of key and nature of modulations also requires consideration.

[@beethovensg]

Wim wim wim, WTF bro Maestro?

[@danielwaitzman2118]

Bravo!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thanks

[@EpicPianoArrangements]

Glad that yet another user is debunking this idiotic 'Whole beat theory'. Wim Winters is just a sad player who can't muster up the skill or technical expertise to play the pieces at speed. Trying to justify a very slow speed is not an acceptable approach and completely dissolves the intricacy and emotional value of any piece.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

I think his affinity to slower tempos has to do with his organ playing background. When playing the organ I'd imagine the music getting muddy very quickly when playing in higher speeds, and so that prompts slower playing. But it is wrong to apply that to the other main keyboard instruments, I think Wim has mentioned in his recent Q&A with Ilya, how he would try to apply what he learned in organ playing to piano music (clavichord, harpsichord, pianoforte, etc...)

[@kyizin5160]

There's only one word I know of for Wim! He's "delusional"

[@matthewrippingsby5384]

What people won't accept with the metronome markings, is, the question is irrelevant! The wide variety of tempi and approach show, great music responds in many subtle ways and is full of exciting potential, including, decisions to make!

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

matthewrippingsby5384. If the music is 200 years old, anthe MM number was determined by a publisher 50 years ago, the MM number is worthless. If the msic is 200 years old, and the MM number is determined by the composer, it is to be regarded as an important part of our music history. We know that Beethoven was tired of the inaccurate Italian words for tempo, he was looking forward to the metronome being used - he right tempo was important to him. Czerny points out that i is important to decide on the right pace. Who knows best the right pace? If we are lucky enough to know the composer’s MM number, there is nothing to discuss. If we have the composer’s tempo, the difference between single and double beat pace is too big, both can not be correct. If we do not know th oser’s wishes, there are other sources that help us to set an approximate right speed. Irrelevant? It is irrelevant only for those who do not feel any connection between art and history.

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

Sorry, it is very difficult to type on my iPad at the moment.

[@matthewrippingsby5384]

@@geiryvindeskeland7208 on some days, the metronome was important to Beethoven. That's as much as we really know. He knew it had a job to do, guiding people, but, he did not assign metronome markings to his pieces, until asked. A composer dogmatically-assertive of only one interpretation on his pieces would be ridiculous. Finally, you have to remember, at the time, a metronome was achieving something never offered before. Metronomes are no indispensible accompaniment to music, even today. A symphony is as big as what can be expressed by it. A sonata is as big as every conceivable interpretation of the precise instruction given at composition. For the record, I agree with the 'double click' theory which gives a base for early players a chance to familiarise themselves with pieces, while keeping the demands reasonable amd acceptable to those of limited technical ability. However, a piece of classical music lives on because it bursts the banks of other interpretations of its formula, including its composer's. We also know the stubborn Beethoven made changes to the dynamics of one of his quartets because the players came up with their own ideas. This issue is irrelevant for those whose final engagement is with the present not the past. An historical dogmatist, looking to nail dead people to their version of frivolous ideas such as, what speed to play pieces so complex they can be played fruitfully almost anyhoo, will need to know exactly what the composer meant. Everyone else ia entitled to have fun, experiment, and, find their own meaning.

[@matthewrippingsby5384]

@@geiryvindeskeland7208 no need of apology, friend. Thank you for the debate!

[@AEPMUSlC]

I've never understood why some people go through lengths of mental gymnastics to "prove" this double beat theory, 95% of the music doesn't even sound good that way. Probably sounds even worse on a 1800s piano... Is it some kind of flat earth mentality? These people should stop polluting their surroundings with their practicing tempi and do something else with their lives lol

[@ajestiandan6218]

While we prefer faster tempi today, and question the “aesthitics” of his WB interpretations, Wim does address the “problem” exhaustively through historical publications and provides practical evidence on the keyboard. It’s time that the SB camp provide evidence - practical evidence, that it IS the correct way of interpreting Beethoven’s and Czerny’s metronome marks, and NOT simply throw them out the window (which always seems to be the solution for the modern musician interpreting classical and romantic works). The recorded “duration” argument I believe IS the crucial debate here and I wish both camps would discuss this further.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

You can check out my recording of Beethoven's 3rd piano sonata, opus 2 no 3. I referenced metronome marks from the time of Beethoven when practicing it (mostly from Czerny). Tell me what you think

[@joaoterceira9671]

You want evidence ? Well on top of Yousef's excellent video on the matter , I suggest you what this youtube video ( watch?v=2Td7J7AnDeA ) which contains an exhaustive list of the most major historical documents on metronome and it is usage and include as well the original instructions for the first patent obtained in Paris for the Maetzel metronome . The list of sources is actually impressive and completely demolishes Winters' fake theory. If after that you still believe in it, lest us know ;)

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

@ajestiandan6218, quote: «while we prefer faster tempi today….» No, no, no! I have to speak for myself. I do not ant faster tempi, but because I am interested in history, I want the tempi that were performed in a historical context. And we know that music was performed at fast tempos, and if you get the onformation you need, you understand it too. I want the fast tempi because they are closer to the history!

[@solesius]

Each single beat is PART OF the intended time. But NOT the two beats produced by the motion from one side to the other. That means if the motion from one side to the other is NOT …PART OF the intended time. It Is the intended time.

[@solesius]

Thus making it Whole beat for those who missed that part.

[@dorette-hi4j]

In the original: "in this, as in every other case, _each SINGLE beat or tick forms a part of the intended time, and is to be counted as such; but not the two beats produced by the motion from one side to the other"_ Let us quote accurately, at least, only use capitals for the word the author put into capitals, and not omit the phrase "to be counted as such". One tick is counted as part of the intended time; the intended time in this case was minim (half=note) = 84 MM, 84 ticks a minute; a minim is to be counted as 1/84th of a minute. Your logic is strange: something is part of the time; twice something is not part of the time; therefore twice something is the time. One tail is part of a dog; a double--tail is not part of a dog; therefore a double-tail is a dog? It would also be interesting to know what you think 'intended time' actually means, and why!

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

Solesius. I read an interesting explanation of why Maelzel wrote: «…but not the two beats produced by the motion from one side to the other». Before the metronome existed, musicians sometimes practiced what can be called double beat. Because a pendulum had to be built impractically large to reproduce the slowest tempi, two beats were counted instead of one, but only in slow movements. But this practice was also used by some with the metronome, and it was this misconception that Maelzel wanted to inform: The metronome is constructed so that is reproduces all known tempi, so you no longer have to think two beats instead of one. In other words, single beat in all tempi.

[@dorette-hi4j]

@@geiryvindeskeland7208 Perhaps you are referring to Jean-Etienne Despréaux, Nouveau chronomètre musical (1812)? He describes a quite complicated table (perpendicular) with scales marked on it from 0 to 80, in front of which you put a pendulum of just a fraction under one metre, which at full length beats a second with one vibration (a single movement in one direction). If you want to indicate a slower beat than one second to a minute, the simplest way is to indicate the beat with two vibrations instead of one (the more elaborate method is to have another pendulum four times the length beating at the same time as the one-meter pendulum, so that its single vibrations set at the lowest level are two seconds not one second!). You can also, if you want, use two or three pendulums together, the slower (longer) one marking the beats, the faster (shorter) ones marking the subdivisions of the beat. But Despréaux is clear that when you use just one pendulum, each vibration marks the beat, not the bar (le temps et non le mesure). So it may be Despréaux's chronometer description that the "each single beat or tick" is alluding to, especially since in the French Notice sur le Metronome (1815?) that sentence comes in a different place, in the general description of the instrument, not in the particular case of a 4/4 allegro marked in half-notes. (Both Despréaux and the Notice are on the BN Gallica website.) In the Notice sur le metronome, Despréaux's chronometer is mentioned as having been approved by the Paris conservatoire, but experience has shown that it was inadequate! This may be because the method of indicating the speed was excessively complicated (the scale having three levels, each divided into 20, and each 20th divided into 3, if I have understood it right). (Sorry to answer at such length; I've only just found out about this, so I'm quite excited.)

[@morrisingram7998]

Thank you sir! We need voices of reason.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

You’re welcome

[@ArmandHuangSaberi]

Very thoughtful, thank you!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thank you for watching Armand

[@ArmandHuangSaberi]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer you're most welcome, I really liked your video!

[@DanielFahimi]

Excellent Video! You bring a lot of good points here. Sadly Wim's cult is too blind to see how stupid the basis of Wim's beliefs really is. If you are interested, I made some anti-double beat videos. I've made 2 videos making fun of Wim, 1 video making fun of Alberto, and another one making fun of the Bach scholar. I made a double-beat rendition of Mozart's K. 457 (it's absurd lol). I'll soon make a video of why Hammerklavier is certainly single-beat. The structure of the video would basically be: I. Why Wim's sources are unreliable. II. Evidence that Hammerklavier is single-beat III. My Single-Beat performance of the Hammerklavier.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thanks. I will check out your Hammerklavier video when it’s out

[@therealrealludwigvanbeethoven]

I agree, this video is excellent!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@therealrealludwigvanbeethoven Good to know that Beethoven approves of this video

[@zenonorth1193]

The vast majority of instrumental music (no matter the instrument) written before 1900 was intended to allow the instrument in question to approximate something like the singing of the human voice. The double-beat hypothesis makes this impossible. On an instrument like the piano, you just end up with a series of notes - not phrases. It's utter crap and - much though I appreciate Mr. Shadian's refutation - you don't need to consult historical sources to prove it. You just have to use your ears and brain.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Lol, but yeah, this is even more true back then because pianos sustained less than today’s grand pianos

[@johnkiunke4508]

By the historical timings then it would seem that the pieces were actually played anywhere from 90-100 percent of the speed indicated by the metronome when rubato is accounted for. Probably the composers would just ere on the side of faster so that performers wouldn't go too slow, assuming they would naturally tend to slow down.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Yeah I can see that, I know I sometimes end up doing that with my compositions, not purposely though. Then again for me that might be because I’m using a notation software on the computer to compose

[@Renshen1957]

You you assume you make an ass out of U and Me. Is that why Schumann only wrote wrote MM numbers in his first edition? Why then is the Trauemerei played at 1/2 speed by almost everyone?

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@Renshen1957 Assumptions are required to come up with any conclusion. For example, you made the assumption that if a certain piece (in this example, Schumann's Trauemerei) is commonly played at half the written metronome mark, then that would potentially mean that the metronome mark was read as 2 ticks per beat. I would challenge your assumption though, since we also have pieces from the same time period and location (for example, Schumann's Curious Story, Opus 15 no 2, from the same set as Trauemerei), that are commonly played at the metronome mark, as is normally read, which using your same assumption, would lead to single beat. So you should maybe investigate this with different assumptions to avoid conclusions that contradict each other

[@Renshen1957]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer You made an assumption, my point Virtuosos ignore metronome numbers. Robert Schuman in his first edition of Kinderszenen 1839, and reprinted 1845 afterwards omits Italian Tempo indications. Clara Schumann's 2nd edition comes later 1885 minus MM markings and tempi indications on IMSLP (one has to find this information from the Alfred Edition by Willard Palmer, who as editor in 1970 noted the discrepency of MM and performance by concert pianists). As to mid 20th Century performances, the virtusos Clara Haskil, V. Horowitz, Benno Moisewitsch, Guiomar Novaes, and Alexis Weissenberg do not adhere to single beat either, and rarely with consensus, in essence all over the map. For example no. 6 Perfect Happiness of the list all the pianists listed above play faster than single beat, Weissenberg nearly 1 2/3's time faster (1.636363636363636) and number 9 Ritter vom Steckenpferd, almost 1 1/3 (1.3)_ times faster, and the final piece, instead of 1/4=112 MM she takes the work at 1/4=46. Robert Schumann in a letter to his wife prior to publication, "They will amuze you, but of course you must forget you are a virtuoso. They all explaine themselves, and what's more, they are as easy pieces as possible." After all the title is Kinderszenen, Leicthe (easy) Stuecke. For easy pieces one can expect single beat metronome performances, I purchased my copy to sight read in the 1970's. Czerny's school of velocity is another matter, however.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@Renshen1957 Exactly!

[@crobatchoppurple8728]

Ooooooh u r a trraitor :’)

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Haha

[@davidgonzalez-herrera2980]

Truth, truth is all we desire.

[@jacquestaulard3088]

Great work!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed it

[@AlbertoSegovia.]

Hello, although your effort to produce a chain of information is really commendable and appreciated, I ask you: why do you work with English translations, which obviously insert a degree of error in your interpretation? Why disregard language subjectivity to change (be it how German words change meaning and the translation to English), and thus disregard at face value Gadient’s explanation? That issue must be addressed. Side note: the simplest way to “debunk” WBMP is to play the works in the intended MM numbers and in a period instrument. And a suggestion: you should address Mersenne. Thank you for your work.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

I don't read or speak German, I used google translate for the 1821 article by Maelzel where he expands on his metronome instructions, if I was fluent in German I would have used original sources. I'm guessing you know German, so could you tell me what aspect of Gadient's explanation I missed. As for playing the works as opposed to talking about them, I do have Beethoven's piano sonata opus 2 no 3 recorded on my channel, I used metronome marks by contemporaries of Beethoven as reference for those, check them out and let me know if they satisfy you.

[@AlbertoSegovia.]

Why would our speaking German have to do with this? I mean, what would be enough is just to just talk about terminology and etymology; the thing is that one has to find the sources. Wim and Lorenz contemplate that. Thanks for the suggestion, which I will listen to, but we have to agree that one would also have to play Chopin’s etudes, for example, or Czerny’s at tempo in half beat on a period instrument, to be more compelling. And don’t forget Mersenne! Thanks.

[@AlbertoSegovia.]

And also don’t forget all other evidence, be it in English or in other languages, music theoretical dissertations, etc., especially the one that points not only to the existence of WBMP, but to the coexistence of both WBMP and “Half Beat Metronome Practice”!

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@AlbertoSegovia. I can't say I have read every single thing about the topic, there's so many other things I want to read about as well as music that I want to play that wasn't written in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, not to mention things not related to music. Here's the thing, if I do record a Chopin etude around the single beat tempo (I am currently working on his Opus 10 no 7) then you will say "why just that one, record all of them, that will be more convincing" and so on. I'm not at the level of someone like Trifonov who can learn all the Opus 25 Chopin etudes at high level in a period 2-3 months, I have to be a lot more selective in what I work on. So be more reasonable in what you expect from others. There's only so much one can show in an 11 minute video, the evidence I showed here were more than enough for me personally to disregard the double beat theory as false and something that never existed, when it came to using the metronome. You mention a dissertation that point to the coexistence of both methods, can you send me a link or at least the title and author, have you read it yourself, did you read it critically, or did you just watch a video of Wim talking about it?

[@AlbertoSegovia.]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer Neither claim I or Wim, for that matter. About your playing or not playing of pieces: I could say: Well, that is your job, for I am convinced; disprove Wim’s work to me, please. If you are not able, well, it’s time to build momentum with others. I get that you talk about Wim. What about Cobra, Weller, Pugno, Punt, Reger? Are they wrong too? Why? (And by trying to respond to that, we would reach the conclusion that at least for every point raised bu Winters, for example, we would need a counter argument) Indeed, with what I have seen, I am being critical. Exactly that is why I write here.

[@dickersonforever]

I just start to love classical music by the Wim's chanel 'cause us the only chanel that doesnt play as fast as possible but un this video I discover that is a mistake, so I'm gonna quit to hear that music and all the classical because is ti fast and too shaky for me, I rather prefer pop and metal where the speed doesnt ruin the song.

[@joshuadellinger8279]

Honestly, I think the solution is this: play at half tempo if you think it sounds nice. Forget the convoluted explanation. If you like a certain tempo, even if much faster or slower, just play it. Some of these pieces are hundreds of years old, so put a fresh spin on it, especially when recordings make people play things almost the same.

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

@joshua…You are superficial. The value of experiencing history is worhless if the ingredients do not belong to history. Someone restored an old historic building. But they used a lot of the building materials and architectural details from our own time. Is there then a restoration? Old music should sound original, otherwise there is no restoration.

[@davidalvarez297]

This proves nothing. All details were skipped, not well and widely considered.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Hey you're the first double beater to comment on this, nice. I'm curious, what kind of source would disprove the double beat theory for you? - Metronome instructions by Maelzel didn't work - Czerny's metronome instruction didn't work - Historical durations being closer to single beat didn't work

[@davidalvarez297]

@@ThePianoFortePlayer kzbin.info/www/bejne/naTRpaOvoNtkoLM

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

@@davidalvarez297 This video is even up yet, how do you expect me to respond to that?

[@morrisingram7998]

Can you provide any details to what was skipped or are you just trolling?

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Yeah he seems to be just trolling, either that or he blindly follows what Wim says without any critical thinking on his own, since he put a link to a video of Wim that isn't even up yet as a way of responding.

[@PabloMelendez1969]

What I understand from Wim is that the metronome markings from the period are not just kind of on the fast side like you say, but altogether unreasonable if read on single-beat. If Maelzel can be interpreted on the side of reasonableness, I am going to go with that. I think people are upset to find out that the classical composers did not, in fact compose for us. They and their audience are dead, and it is easy to out-shout the dead. It's easy to steal from them. Speeding up their music simplifies it, and makes it more digestible and sellable. I for one, look very much forward to hearing this music on its own terms. Wim and company are getting us closer to it.

[@jules78003]

Music doesn't have its own terms. Interpretation is so subjective that implying there is a single correct way of playing a given piece of music goes against the nature of music playing itself. You like sluggish moonlight sonata? Good for you, enjoy it! But don't tell others how "it is supposed to be played". To me, many of the sonatas at the time suggested by Wim just lose musicality, the musical ideas get partially lost, but that's me. I think Wim is terribly wrong, but not on the fact that his suggested tempos are too slow, but due to his insistence to claim that his research is revealing to everyone the "correct" tempi

[@PabloMelendez1969]

@@jules78003 Am I going to trust your "musicality" above a metronome marking by the composer? No. Gadient has found a way where all metronome markings from that period can be read consistently and practicably. It's up to you to accept that you find them ugly and that you find arrangements of Beethoven preferable over what his audience was more likely to have heard.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

Thanks for commenting. Wim is exaggerating when he says that most metronome marks from that period are unplayable, the reality is only a small number might be unplayable for most skilled pianists. I have recorded Beethoven's opus 2 no 3 piano sonata around the same time I made this video, in which I used metronome marks by contemporaries of Beethoven as reference, let me know what you think (by the way there is a document by Marten Noorduin titled "Beethoven's Tempo Indications" which has all the contemporary metronome marks). As for your statement about people being upset that those composers weren't composing for us, that can work both ways; a lot of people today will find following those marks to be too fast for their taste, so that argument doesn't really lead anywhere. Also, recorded historical duration's point away from Wim's performances not closer to them.

[@joaoterceira9671]

@@PabloMelendez1969 So using your logic or Gadient's logic , why not propose quadruple beat ? Unfortunately , using the rules setup by Gadient and Wim Winters which mandate that you play all bars at tempo, you must be able to play concerto 2 of Chopin which contains trills at 28 notes per second and also Wim Winters has pointed out etudes from Isidor Philips at the same speed. In both cases if you follow the rules about following strictly tempo indications you cannot use double beat as the same duo ( Gadient/WInters) are adamant that musicians at that time couldn't play faster than 10 notes per second. In both cases above you have to achive 14 notes/ sec in double beat. Let us be serious, if one wants to find historical truth , one has to look at facts not at suppositions. All facts, concert timings, opera durations, playbills, piano methods, are consistent and prove that double beat is a scam. Wim Winters also consistently avoid the topic of operas, as he knows that it leads to physical impossibilities , as in most cases it would have been to perform most operas in an evening (some of them take more than 10 hours to perform with the whole beat :) ) Its perfectly acceptable to play slower and lot of people prefer slow music, but there is no need to invent a false theory to justify it. It would be much more appropriate and much more respectable to call it interpreter decision, rather than invoking a biased and completely erroneous historical reconstruction.

[@PabloMelendez1969]

@@joaoterceira9671 Gadient and Winters do exactly the opposite of what you project on them. They propose (and prove) that if metronome markings are to be consistently applied that a whole beat reading is the only one that makes sense. They took arbitrariness out of the picture. Want arbitrary tempi? Go back to your record collection. And, please, this piling up of deliberate misconstructions and misrepresentations is just a dirty political ploy. You think it makes your arguments sound true, but it simply shows that you cannot argue in good faith.

[@andreassummerer597]

You are not very nice.

[@ThePianoFortePlayer]

On the other hand, leading people down a false theory is a super nice thing to do right?

[@comtaar2245]

Haha, we gaan nou echt luisteren naar de een of andere dilettant uit een ander werelddeel die echt geen idee heeft van Westerse klassieke muziek. Ga maar lekker snel spelen, jongen, zo snel als je maar kunt. Tot je vingers bloeden. 😂😂😂

[@WEEBLLOM]

What

[@j.rohmann3199]

@@WEEBLLOM GUILLOM... this Person just talked bs ignore it 😊

[@WEEBLLOM]

@@j.rohmann3199 lol

[@pepijnstreng4643]

Wauw, je zit niet alleen fout, je wist er ook nog racisme in te stoppen.

[@henrykaspar3634]

This is irrelevant.

[@gonzoengineering4894]

To what?

[@Manx123]

This is like arguing against Flat Earth theory, lol